[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16703-16704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, before my freshman colleagues get too 
concerned, I am only going to go a couple of minutes to talk about why 
I have been coming to the floor once each week for a whole debate on 
high-level nuclear waste and a national repository that is defined in 
law, a law passed in 1982 that that national repository would be at 
Yucca Mountain. So I have been going through a geography lesson about 
where we have nuclear waste in this country, comparing it to the site 
at Yucca Mountain, and then addressing the positions of our colleagues 
on the Senate side from those affected States.
  The House has spoken on Yucca Mountain again this year in a vote in 
which 297 of my colleagues joined me in ensuring that we had enough 
money to finish the scientific study to finally bring closure to Yucca 
Mountain and, if the science is sound, then start moving high-level 
nuclear waste from all over this country to a single repository. So 
today I come to the floor to highlight another location.
  This is Yucca Mountain. And I want to remind folks that Yucca 
Mountain has no nuclear waste onsite right now. The waste, once it gets 
to Yucca Mountain, will be stored 1,000 feet underground. The nuclear 
waste will be 1,000 feet above the groundwater. And Yucca Mountain is 
100 miles from the Colorado River. So it's pretty far. It's in a 
mountain. It's in a desert. It is pretty far from ever being close to 
major bodies of water. And what's been interesting is, as we go around 
geographically, we find that we have high-level nuclear waste right 
next to major rivers and major lakes throughout the country.
  This is one of the most compelling sites in our tour so far. This is 
a nuclear power plant in California called San Onofre. And if you look 
at this--yes, this is the ocean. Here is the nuclear power plant. And 
yes, these are waves that are coming up to the rocky shoreline and a 
concrete barrier that leads to the nuclear power plant.
  Now compare San Onofre with Yucca Mountain. There are 2,300 waste 
rods--that's nuclear waste rod material--onsite here right next to the 
Pacific Ocean. There's none at Yucca Mountain in the desert. The waste 
is stored above the ground and in pools here. The waste will be stored 
1,000 feet underground at Yucca Mountain. The waste here is adjacent to 
the Pacific Ocean. You can see the waves. Yucca Mountain is in a 
desert, and it's 100 miles from the Colorado River. San

[[Page 16704]]

Onofre is 45 miles from San Diego. Yucca Mountain is over 100 miles 
from Las Vegas, Nevada. So if you want to compare and contrast where we 
should have nuclear waste, would it be next to the Pacific Ocean? Or 
should it be in a desert underneath a mountain? I would think most 
Americans and my colleagues on the House floor agree, based upon our 
297-vote total, that it should be in a geological repository underneath 
a mountain in a desert.
  So let's look at the surrounding Senators and what are their current 
positions as far as we can determine. Senator Boxer says that if the 
Yucca project is constructed, there will be thousands of shipments of 
high-level nuclear waste transported through California. She voted 
``no'' on Yucca Mountain in 2002. Senator Feinstein, after Fukushima 
Daiichi, said, ``I had always thought we didn't need one. Yesterday''--
and that was the day after the damage done because of the tsunami in 
Japan--``yesterday candidly changed my mind.'' She voted ``no'' to 
Yucca in 2002. I think she might be reconsidering.
  Senator McCain voted ``yes'' in 2002. ``I was absolutely opposed to 
its closure,'' he said, referring to Yucca Mountain. ``It's absolutely 
ridiculous to not have Yucca Mountain after developing it over a 20-
year process.'' I would agree with Senator McCain. We've already spent 
$12.5 billion for Yucca Mountain. I think it's time that we finish the 
project. Senator Kyl is quoted--these are the two Senators from 
Arizona, next to California--and he used this example of just everyday 
residential waste. He says, ``It is a little like saying since every 
Wednesday morning, everybody in my area of Phoenix is going to put 
their garbage out, and because we keep producing garbage, we should not 
have a dump to where all that garbage is taken. If we produce more 
garbage and store it onsite, it is, in effect, storing it on the curb. 
That doesn't argue for the proposition that there should not be a 
central repository where that material is taken and disposed of in a 
proper way.''

                              {time}  1910

  So I come back down to the floor to highlight another location where 
you have high-level nuclear waste near a major body of water, the 
Pacific Ocean, not in the desert as defined by law we should.
  Other States and locations that I've talked about, I first went to 
Hanford which is high-level nuclear waste, 23 million gallons in tanks 
that are leaking a mile from the Columbia River. Then I went to Zion.
  Mr. DOLD. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DOLD. The gentleman raises a great point. In Zion, just a sheer 
couple of miles from my district, right along the coast of Lake 
Michigan, next to 95 percent of the fresh drinking water, surface fresh 
water in the United States, and we're storing just literally yards off 
the shore of Lake Michigan spent fuel rods. That is obviously not the 
place to be doing that; and it's my understanding, correct me if I'm 
wrong, at Yucca Mountain we're talking about 1,000 feet underground, 
1,000 feet above the water table, and at least 100 miles away from most 
of the individuals and inhabitants that are around. A perfect place. 
And we've spent $14 billion constructing it. It seems like common sense 
that we want this waste not around fresh water, not around some of the 
urban areas, but in a place specifically designed, as Yucca Mountain 
is.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, as my colleagues know, Senator Kirk 
is strongly in support of moving high-level nuclear waste to Yucca 
Mountain. Senator Durbin said the right things. We just want him now to 
lead on that issue for the importance of the State of Illinois.
  Another week I talked about the Savannah River site, nuclear waste 
right on the Savannah River, and highlighted the Senators there. And 
now I end up this week talking about California. This is not the only 
nuclear power plant that's on the Pacific Ocean. There's one in San 
Luis Obispo.
  I appreciate my colleagues allowing me this time to do my weekly 
process of talking about high-level nuclear waste. It's the law of the 
land, and we're going to continue to work hard until we get this done 
and we move and have a central repository for high-level nuclear waste 
in Las Vegas, in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________