[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18502-18503]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            YUCCA MOUNTAIN: HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. It's always great to follow the highly respected 
minority whip, and he is highly respected.
  I would say that there are a lot of pressing problems in this 
country. There is one I'll speak about today, and that's the high-level 
nuclear waste storage throughout this country. I would also say to my 
friend that part of the jobs bill has been passed. We passed the free 
trade agreement; we passed the veterans benefit portion; we passed the 
3 percent withholding. So there has been movement in a bipartisan 
manner on some provisions in the bill.
  So now, Mr. Speaker, let me segue to an issue for which I've come to 
the floor now six times, that of going throughout the country and 
highlighting where high-level nuclear waste is stored throughout this 
country.
  Today, we'll travel to the State of Massachusetts, right on Cape Cod 
Bay where the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant sits. Again, it's right on 
Cape Cod Bay. At Pilgrim, there are over 2,918 spent-fuel assemblies on 
site. Yucca Mountain, which is the defined storage location, by law, in 
the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, currently has no nuclear waste on 
site. I like to keep highlighting the real distinct differences based 
upon the years of talking about this issue and highlighting some of the 
arguments against Yucca, comparing it to where we have nuclear waste 
today.
  So let's, again, continue to look at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. 
The waste is stored aboveground in pools, very similar to Fukushima-
Diachi in Japan. At Yucca the waste will be stored 1,000 feet 
underground--above the ground in pools, 1,000 feet underground. I think 
Yucca is a better location. At Pilgrim the waste is 20 feet from the 
water table. At Yucca it would be 1,000 feet above the water table. I 
think that's a better, safer and more secure location. You can see the 
Pilgrim plant is right on Cape Cod Bay, right next to the water. Yucca 
Mountain is situated 100 miles from, really, the nearest body of water, 
which would be the Colorado River.
  Now, for those who have been following my time in coming to the 
floor, this is my sixth time. I started at Hanford, a DOE facility in 
Washington State, and compared it to Yucca Mountain. I then went to 
Zion. I've got my friend from Chicago right here. Zion is right on Lake 
Michigan, which is a decommissioned nuclear power plant that still has 
waste stored on site; but Wisconsin has two nuclear power plants right 
on Lake Michigan.
  Then I went to Savannah, Georgia, to talk about the nuclear waste 
there. Of course, it has the Savannah River; so it's right next to the 
Savannah River. Then I went out to California to look at San Onofre, 
the nuclear power plant that's right on the Pacific Ocean. Then I went 
to Idaho and looked at the Idaho National Labs and the nuclear waste 
stored there. Today, we go to Massachusetts.
  The point being, there is high-level nuclear waste stored all over 
this country, and a single repository at Yucca Mountain makes sense for 
all of the right reasons: it's over 100 miles from the largest city; 
it's in the desert; it would be underneath a mountain. There is no more 
safe, secure location.
  Why are we not moving forward? Because this administration has 
decided not to spend the money needed to finish the final environmental 
study through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  So where are our Senators on this position? I've been bringing this 
down to the floor through all these States. We need 60 votes in the 
Senate to secure America's nuclear waste. Right now, through the 
States, based upon the States we've identified, there are 20 ``yeses.'' 
We've got about seven who are relatively new. We don't know their 
positions. Of course, we have established five who are ``noes.'' There 
are some in the New England States that I mentioned:

[[Page 18503]]

  Susan Collins voted for Yucca Mountain in 2002. Olympia Snowe voted 
for it in 2002. Senator Kerry voted against it. Now, Pilgrim is in the 
State of Massachusetts. Based upon his statement, I guess Senator Kerry 
feels that Pilgrim is a more safe and secure location than Yucca 
Mountain. Scott Brown has no position yet. Senator Ayotte has no 
position. Senator Shaheen has no position. Of course, the Independent 
from Vermont has voted ``no.''

                          ____________________