[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 11765]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor once again to reiterate 
Federal law, a law that was passed in 1982, called the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act, and the amendments offered in 1987, which said that Yucca 
Mountain would be the long-term geological repository for our nuclear 
waste in this country. It's unfortunate that I have to keep coming down 
on the floor to address this issue because of the administration's 
position to defund, derail, stop, and to actually break Federal law.
  To do that, not only do I just talk about the legal aspects of the 
Federal law, but I have been going around the country, identifying 
locations where we currently have high-level nuclear waste, and have 
been asking the basic question: Would you rather have it at location A 
or at location B?
  So, today, we return to Pennsylvania, to a power plant called 
Limerick. Limerick has 1,143 metric tons of uranium spent fuel on site. 
At Limerick, the waste is stored above the ground in pools and in 
casks. It is 20 feet above the groundwater, and it is on the Schuylkill 
River, which is 40 miles from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That is where 
we currently store high-level nuclear waste.
  Now, compare that to where we should by Federal law store high-level 
nuclear waste--in a place defined in law under the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act: Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. This tells you it's a government job. 
We've only been working on it for about 30 years, and we've only spent 
about $15 billion to study, research, and ascertain that Yucca Mountain 
is a suitable location.
  So, at Yucca Mountain, since we've spent approximately 30 years and 
$15 billion, how much nuclear waste do we have on site? Zero.
  If we had it, where would it be stored? It would be stored 1,000 feet 
underground. It would be stored 1,000 feet above the water table, and 
it would be over 100 miles from the Colorado River. There is no safer 
place in the country, and there is no more studied location than Yucca 
Mountain. It just makes sense.
  What is a better location: next to a major river that feeds into the 
major metropolitan area of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or underneath a 
mountain in a desert? I would submit to you that underneath a mountain 
in a desert is the proper location.
  So what is the holdup? Well, the holdup is the Senator from Nevada, 
Harry Reid. More compelling are the other Senators from his party who 
are allowing Senator Reid to block this, which is a detriment to their 
own States. We are going to talk about two in particular, but we're 
looking at four Senators from two States--Senator Casey, Senator 
Toomey, Senator Manchin, and Senator Rockefeller.
  Senator Toomey is already on record as supporting Yucca Mountain. In 
fact, I quote him here:
  The alternative is what we have now--highly radioactive waste located 
at 131 sites in 39 States, including nuclear power plants close to the 
Lehigh Valley. That cannot be as safe and secure as burying this stuff 
deep in Yucca Mountain.
  The other Senator is quoted, but has got question marks here because, 
in his being a Senator for 5\1/2\ years, we don't know his position of 
whether he thinks storing high-level nuclear waste at Limerick is a 
better plan than placing it underneath a mountain in a desert. He 
understands the concern and the need.
  He is quoted as saying:

       As a Senator from a State with nine commercial reactors--
     this being one--and 10 million people living within 50 miles 
     of those reactors, I can tell you that nuclear security is 
     extremely important to Pennsylvanians.

  So my question is, which is the question posed here: Will you state a 
position on whether you think Yucca Mountain is that location since 
it's in Federal law?
  Overall, why is this important? As I've been coming down to the floor 
for the past year and a half, we've done a tally sheet of where 
Senators stand based upon their votes or their public comments. We have 
55 Senators who say, yes, Yucca Mountain is the place we ought to go. 
Of course, if you follow closely in the parliamentary processes between 
the two Chambers, you really need 60 to move a bill in the Senate. It's 
over five short. We need Senator Casey to get on record in support of 
Yucca Mountain.

                          ____________________