[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[House]
[Page H2031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FY14 BUDGET PROPOSAL ON NUCLEAR WASTE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Department of
Energy's budget proposal on nuclear waste. It's a joke--but as a
representative of nuclear electricity consumers and taxpayers, I don't
find it funny.
DOE Assistant Secretary Peter Lyons says we should ``cut our losses
and move on'' from Yucca Mountain. We've spent $15 billion on Yucca
Mountain, but this administration says we should just give up and go
try somewhere else, hoping some other State will be a willing host. The
DOE budget proposes spending $5.6 billion over the next 10 years to
start over and maybe, just maybe, have a permanent repository by 2048.
The details provided for this new plan are scant to say the least--14
pages. DOE proposes to abandon $15 billion and 30 years of work, start
over, create a new government entity to be responsible, and find
willing States to host two interim storage facilities and a
repository--all within 14 pages. I consider it brainstorming, not a
plan. It's certainly not something that justifies $5.6 billion. In
addition, DOE has repeatedly stated the need for Congress to pass
legislation, but has yet to propose any. That shows the administration
is not trying to solve this problem, just avoid it by pointing the
finger at Congress.
Nuclear electricity consumers pay for a permanent repository for
spent nuclear fuel. What would they get after spending another 10 years
and $5.6 billion? A pilot interim storage facility with limited
capacity.
{time} 1020
A pilot facility? Dry cask storage, the same technology that will be
used at the interim storage facility, is currently used at 65
locations. As for transportation, the U.S. nuclear industry has
completed 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel over 1.7 million miles
of roads and railroads. What's the purpose of having a pilot facility?
The only other pilot facility is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in
New Mexico. I've been there, and it's an impressive facility. But that
pilot project became a permanent facility with a 10,000-year
environmental standard. Given that backdrop, does DOE really think some
unsuspecting State will actually fall for the idea that a pilot interim
storage facility will truly be temporary?
But $5.6 billion doesn't begin to address the real costs hidden in
this proposal. Instead of merely paying for a repository, nuclear
electricity consumers will now have to write off the cost of abandoning
the Yucca Mountain site where we've spent $15 billion. DOE's previous
estimates for transportation were $19 billion; so if DOE is now going
to have to transport it twice, once to an interim storage and then
later to a repository, ratepayers will be on the hook for an extra $19
billion. All this, plus the $5.6 billion in the budget, equals $39.6
billion.
And that's just the bill for nuclear electricity consumers. Taxpayers
will continue to pay for the liability costs of DOE's failure to
provide disposal. That cost is $2.6 billion so far and projected to be
$20 billion by 2020. The Government Accountability Office tells us that
it's faster to finish Yucca Mountain than to start over with interim
storage. Yet this administration prefers to start over, disregarding
the cost to the taxpayer.
Electricity consumers and taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for
President Obama's campaign promise to Harry Reid, certainly not $39.6
billion worth. Mr. Speaker, DOE's proposal is a boondoggle at a time
when our citizens can least afford it. I, for one, am not laughing.
Mr. Speaker, as we remember the tragic events of yesterday, we are
reminded that there is sin and evil in the world. We pray for Boston,
our country, and the world, but the business of the Republic must go
on.
____________________