[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5078-5082]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             YUCCA MOUNTAIN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor for me to be here today 
with several colleagues to talk about and highlight a very serious 
environmental risk to our communities.
  For the last 58 years, this Nation has embraced nuclear power as an 
inexpensive, clean, and nearly inexhaustible power source for our 
growing society; yet, in all that time, we have not yet addressed a key 
problem caused by nuclear power, and that is how to safely dispose of 
spent nuclear fuel.
  We have gathered a good crew of folks here, Mr. Speaker, and it is an 
honor for me to yield to my good friend from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois' 
indulgence in allowing me to speak on this important subject this 
evening.
  Mr. Speaker, located in my central Washington district is the Hanford 
site, which has played a pivotal role in our Nation's security and 
defense for decades. As part of the Manhattan Project, the Hanford site 
produced plutonium for the bomb that eventually brought an end to World 
War II, and continued work at the site was critical during the cold 
war.
  However, this work also resulted in massive amounts of nuclear 
defense waste. Today, Hanford is the world's largest and most complex 
nuclear cleanup site, with over 56 million gallons of radioactive and 
chemical waste in 177 temporary underground storage tanks.
  The Federal Government has a legal and a moral obligation to clean up 
this waste. The importance of Yucca Mountain cannot be overstated. 
Hanford is

[[Page 5079]]

scheduled to send more nuclear defense waste to Yucca Mountain than 
anywhere else in the Nation.
  The high-level defense waste at Hanford will be treated at the waste 
treatment plant, which is currently being constructed, to turn this 
waste into glass that can then be sent to Yucca.
  The waste treatment plant is over 70 percent complete, and the glass 
produced will meet the geological specifications of Yucca Mountain; yet 
the Obama administration has moved the goalpost by illegally shutting 
down Yucca, which will take us back to square one and harm the already 
challenging Hanford cleanup.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has spent decades and billions of 
taxpayer dollars studying the right place for the repository. The 
conclusion was Yucca Mountain, the subject of one of the most thorough 
and extensive reviews of a major government project ever conducted.
  It is the lawful repository for nuclear waste, and Congress has 
reaffirmed this fact many times over. There is no scientific reason why 
Yucca cannot and should not move forward.
  Earlier this month, I visited Yucca Mountain and was impressed by the 
substantial work that has already been completed. The development of 
the site has taken decades and has come at great taxpayer expense, 
costing Americans over $15 billion.
  Because DOE has failed to begin accepting used nuclear fuel, as 
required by contracts signed with the electric utilities that own the 
reactors, liability and settlement estimates now range from $13 billion 
to $50 billion--a blow to taxpayers and ratepayers--all due to the 
failure of the President to move forward with the legal repository.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we do not have the time or the resources to 
just start over. Doing so would change Yucca from being the Nation's 
most secure national repository into a monument of government waste and 
all in violation of the law. After getting a firsthand look at Yucca, I 
can see why it was selected as the best place for our Nation's defense 
waste and commercial spent nuclear fuel.
  I am disappointed the administration has continued efforts to push 
ahead with its plan to circumvent Yucca, as well as the repeated 
affirmations by Congress that Yucca is the lawful repository. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues here in Congress--especially the 
members of the Nevada delegation--to ensure that the law is upheld and 
Yucca Mountain moves forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DOLD. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
  I just want to highlight, again, if I may, you mentioned a statistic 
just a moment ago that was talking about the fact that because the 
government hasn't moved forward with Yucca Mountain, the fact that we 
are actually paying to store this material all over the country to 
Exelon and other companies along those lines, it was anywhere between 
$15 and $50 billion.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Over the course of those contracts, that is correct.
  Mr. DOLD. That is astounding. I thank the gentleman from Washington 
for your leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Shimkus). He is the dean of the Illinois delegation and someone 
whose leadership, when it comes to Yucca Mountain, has been extensive.
  He is certainly someone who understands what we need to be doing in 
terms of making sure this material gets off the shores of the Great 
Lakes and from our neighborhoods all around the country and put into a 
safe location about 150 miles from any inhabitant in Yucca Mountain.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time and just 
for having this national debate. The State of Illinois is a large State 
with a lot of nuclear power.
  We are very fortunate to have that, not only to have the power 
generated, but to have the jobs, high-paying jobs, to be located around 
our State and paying a lot of taxes to our local communities, our local 
schools, and the like. It would even be better if the Federal 
Government would keep its promise.
  Part of the movement to promote nuclear power was a promise by the 
Federal Government. In fact, they enforced a fee on those States that 
have nuclear power to go into a fund, the nuclear waste fund, to fund 
long-term geological storage.

                              {time}  1845

  Now, you might say: Why a long-term geological storage? Why a 
centralized location? Because the world community, the best scientists 
have determined that one repository, one location, is better than 104, 
not counting defense sites--one geological repository--in other words, 
someplace in the ground--is better than above ground--or in the case 
that you are particularly concerned about, next to Lake Michigan.
  That is not the only location that isn't what you would think would 
be some sensitive areas, whether it is large lakes, large rivers, flood 
plains, and the like. The world community, the scientists, have all 
said: let's get it all located in one place, and let's put it in long-
term geological storage location.
  The Federal Government passed a law in 1982 called the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act. It had 10 locations. The top pick in that location was 
Yucca Mountain; then they narrowed the list down to three. The top pick 
of the three was Yucca Mountain. Then the 1987 amendments to the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act said: that is where we are going to send it.
  Now, after that, 30 years, $15 billion, the greatest scientific minds 
in the world, this is the most studied piece of ground on the planet, 
has concluded, based upon a report by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission--an independent science commission of our government--said 
that, once Yucca Mountain is closed, it will be safe for 1 million 
years. That is a long time.
  That is really what has turned this debate again back into this 
country because it has always been a question of the science. Will the 
science prove it? We don't know. We have to do the studies; we have to 
do the research.
  Well, fortunately, we were able to finally get the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to render the safety evaluation report which said, once 
closed, this site will be safe for 1 million years.
  Now, as you mentioned, Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from Las Vegas. It 
is in the desert. It is a mountain in a desert. It is 1,000 feet below 
the crest of the mountain. It is 1,000 feet above the water table.
  The other story that is not told very well, until you go out and 
visit, is it is surrounded by the nuclear test site, the place where 
our government used to test nuclear weapons. There is an Air Force base 
there, so the adjoining land around Yucca Mountain is all Federal land.
  When people say, Well, you need to get local buy-in, local folks to 
decide, well, the Federal Government is the local folks in this case.
  I appreciate you highlighting not just Yucca Mountain, but the need 
for communities around this Nation to start having this debate again 
because the Federal Government has already invested.
  We have a site. It is time to move forward. It is time to get the 
spent nuclear fuel, in your case, or the defense waste, like 
Congressman Newhouse, it is time to get that in a single repository.
  Mr. DOLD. Can the gentleman shed a little light?
  Many people might be watching this and not know who actually owns the 
nuclear fuel. Many people don't realize that private entities can't own 
this. This is actually all owned by the government. Private entities 
can use it for power, but the actual nuclear fuel rods, the spent 
nuclear fuel rods, are owned by the government.
  Can you shed a little light on that? This is actually the 
government's problem here.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. It is the government's fuel; it is the government's 
waste. You highlighted this earlier. When we don't have a long-term 
repository to take

[[Page 5080]]

the spent nuclear fuel or the defense waste--mostly, the spent nuclear 
fuel--we have to pay the nuclear utilities to hold that spent fuel 
because we have an obligation by law to receive that.
  Even from a fiscal conservative position, we should be moving 
forward. We should get a return on the investment of 30 years and $15 
billion, especially since the NRC has said this location is safe; but 
then we should relieve ourselves from having to pay the additional cost 
to utilities for holding the waste that we should be holding.
  I appreciate your leading this Special Order and, of course, again 
talking about the local issues that are very important in your 
district, but they are important in districts all around this country.
  Someone has to lead the charge and make that statement for the 
Federal Government to start doing what it is legally obligated to do. I 
am just happy to join you, and I thank you.
  Mr. DOLD. Well, I certainly appreciate your leadership, and it is 
great to have you speak on such an important topic.
  This is an environmental issue; it is a safety issue; it is an 
economic issue--and one that we have to step up and solve.
  I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my 
good friend, who understands these issues and understands them very 
well.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Congressman Dold.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss an important matter that we have heard 
tonight and talk a little bit about it more, that impacts both my home 
State of Texas and, as we have heard already, the Nation.
  Nuclear power is a clean, efficient, and virtually inexhaustible fuel 
source. Many people rely on it. In fact, in Somerville County, Texas, 
Comanche Peak is a nuclear power plant that generates enough power to 
supply about 1.15 million homes in normal conditions and 460,000 homes 
in periods of peak demand.
  Nuclear waste, however, must be isolated for tens of thousands of 
years to safely degrade. Yucca Mountain--we have talked a lot about it 
tonight--is the official Federal nuclear waste repository and is the 
law of the land under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  The Department of Energy has concluded that the repository would have 
little to no adverse impact on future populations or the environment; 
yet President Obama and Harry Reid effectively have delayed the Yucca 
program in 2009 without proposing any kind of alternative energy or 
energy strategy.
  Now, like many other nuclear power plants across the United States, 
Comanche Peak in my district has been paying dues for storing waste, 
which some think could be as much as $30 billion which, of course, is 
simply passed on to its customers. That is what always happens.
  Nuclear waste in our communities poses an environmental risk, a 
terrorism risk, and prevents communities from redeveloping the 
property. The facility at Yucca Mountain represents our best option to 
dispose of spent nuclear fuel in a safe, environmentally friendly, and 
secure way for centuries to come.
  Now, if we fail to act, we will continue to spend billions of dollars 
storing nuclear waste in a way that ultimately leaves our communities 
vulnerable to environmental disaster or terrorism.
  We cannot punt this problem to future generations. We have a habit of 
doing that. We need to find a solution, and we need to find that 
solution today. I believe we need the Federal Government to quit 
breaking promises to the American people.
  Mr. DOLD. I thank my good friend from Texas, and I certainly 
appreciate your leadership on this.
  Again, highlighting the fact that this is also an economic issue is 
this land, all of a sudden, can't be redeveloped oftentimes; and, 
frankly, the property taxes for a lot of these communities can't be 
developed to its fullest extent.
  As jobs in the economy continue to be that constant drumbeat around 
the country and certainly in our communities, you know better than many 
in terms of what we need to do to create jobs, and this is one of the 
things that I think the government is falling short on.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, there is no question about it. It is about jobs, 
and it is about growth. We need Yucca Mountain to come online, so we 
can begin to develop these properties and also protect the safety of 
America and Americans.
  Mr. DOLD. I thank the gentleman for your leadership.
  As we continue to talk about this, again, it just highlights, Mr. 
Speaker, how many communities, how many sites we have around our 
country that are impacted by spent nuclear fuel, whether it could be 
defense or whether it be for civilian purposes.
  It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Wilson), my good friend.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you for yielding; and, 
Congressman Dold, thank you for your leadership on this issue.
  I am very grateful. I represent the Savannah River Site in Aiken and 
Barnwell Counties of South Carolina. I had the privilege of working 
with Congressman Jim Clyburn, very bipartisan. A portion of this site 
is located in Allendale County, South Carolina. We have worked together 
on the issues relative to the Savannah River Site, which should be 
noted is where the defense waste is currently being placed.
  It is a consequence of the cold war, but it also is a consequence of 
victory in the cold war. I know that the persons who worked in the 
Savannah River Site are very, very grateful for the opportunities that 
they have had to provide for the protection of the American people, and 
it has been successful.
  It is particularly meaningful to me because I am the only Member of 
Congress that actually worked at the Savannah River Site, so I know 
firsthand that it is really very professional, and it is also very 
environmentally sound.
  We were talking about why are we here. For me, it is due to the 
environment and jobs. The environment we know is in danger if we have 
different sites around the country that could be addressed.
  In the Department of Energy, I have another distinction. I was very 
grateful to be the deputy general counsel of the Department of Energy 
in 1981 and 1982. The defense waste bill came up through that time.
  It was determined that there should be a geologic formation to place 
the waste of our country, whether it be defense waste or whether it be 
commercial. It was determined--and I know that you will be going 
through this to explain--that, indeed, Yucca Mountain is ideal.
  None of us would ever want to put any community, any State at risk, 
but we know well that Yucca would not be of risk to the people of the 
West, but it would be very sound, and it would be very environmentally 
secure, and it would also, indeed, help create jobs.
  Our State has been so fortunate to have the Savannah River Site, but 
we also have another distinction. We are one of the most nuclear-
intensive States in the country. Nearly 60 percent of all the power 
that is produced in the State of South Carolina for almost 30 years has 
been nuclear.
  We know what the consequence of this is, and that is that we have 
reliable energy, we have green, clean energy, and we have a level of 
inexpensive energy, which has a consequence of promoting jobs.
  The jobs that have been created are quite self-evident in our State. 
We have a circumstance with the providing of low-cost energy. South 
Carolina now--particularly with the development of the BMW facility at 
Greer, South Carolina, of all things--is the leading exporter of cars 
in the United States, creating jobs in our State, our region, but then 
providing for extraordinary export around the world.
  Additionally, South Carolina is the leading manufacturer of tires. 
Right next to the Savannah River Site is the Bridgestone facility, and 
this is a Japanese investment, over $1 billion.
  Then right down I-20, not far in the district I represent, is the 
Michelin facility. There are two plants adjacent to

[[Page 5081]]

each other. I was there recently with Ambassador Gerard Araud of France 
because we appreciate the French investment.
  In fact, the Michelin facility is the largest Michelin facility in 
the world, nearly 2 million square feet with nearly 2,000 employees. 
Again, this is because of the success that we have with nuclear power.
  Then further down I-20, we are very grateful of a German investment. 
Continental Tires has just announced that they just completed a half-
billion-dollar facility in South Carolina. Then we also welcome from 
Singapore the Giti Tire company, which has announced a quarter-of-a-
billion-dollar facility to be located in the upper part of South 
Carolina.
  Over and over again, it is because we have safe, secure, clean 
energy. In fact, I want to commend the Obama administration. They 
actually have provided for the licensing of three new nuclear reactors 
in our country.
  Two are located at the V.C. Summer facility at Jenkinsville, South 
Carolina, which is, again, adjacent to the district I represent in 
Fairfield County; and then directly across the Savannah River from the 
district that I represent is the Vogtle plant at Waynesboro, Georgia.
  We are very supportive of these. All of them will be so helpful to 
achieve the environmentally very important determination of a geologic 
formation.
  Then there is an economic side. Just as the people of Illinois, the 
people of South Carolina, and also the people of Pennsylvania have, 
through their rates, paid over $1 billion into the fund to build Yucca, 
so our people are invested.
  We have done it in good faith, and we need to follow the law. The law 
is that, indeed, this be the geologic formation, which is safe for the 
American people and creating the opportunity for jobs.

                              {time}  1900

  A final point. South Carolina has taken this so seriously. I want to 
commend our Governor, Nikki Haley. I also want to commend our Attorney 
General, Alan Wilson. They have actually filed a suit--and it was 
inspired largely by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and U.S. Senator Tim 
Scott--to enforce the law. The law needs to be enforced. It would be 
beneficial to the people of our State, and it would be beneficial to 
our region of South Carolina and Georgia, but it would also be 
beneficial to the American people.
  I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue so the American 
people understand how environmentally sound this is, how positive it 
is, the energy that is being produced because of this, and then the 
potential for jobs, not just in our region but across the United 
States.
  Mr. DOLD. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his insight. 
Certainly, he knows, in living close to and representing an area that 
is very close to the water there on the Savannah River, that it is very 
close to what my particular issue is with spent nuclear fuel being just 
a few hundred feet away from the greatest fresh surface water we have 
in the world. Ninety-five percent of the world's fresh surface water is 
in the Great Lakes. Storing that nuclear fuel so close, I think, is not 
only an environmental risk and a terrorist risk, but it is jeopardizing 
where 30 million Americans actually get their drinking water. It is 
really just a jewel of a natural resource and one that we need to 
protect, so I certainly appreciate your leadership.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you for your leadership.
  Mr. DOLD. Thank you, sir.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard today from different people from around 
our country about the need for us to move forward with Yucca Mountain. 
Again, just highlighting some of the points: Yucca Mountain is 100 
miles away from the Colorado River, further away from any inhabitants, 
sitting 1,000 feet above the water table, 1,000 feet below ground.
  Mr. Speaker, I came today wanting to share with you a story about my 
district and, more specifically, about a portion of my district in 
Zion, Illinois.
  Zion has 25,000 residents and sits on the shores of Lake Michigan. 
Yet, due to the obstruction of the administration, tons of spent 
nuclear fuel remain stored at Zion. It is stored on the shores of the 
Great Lakes, literally just a few hundred feet away from the shore 
where 30 million Americans receive their fresh drinking water.
  We need to make sure we do everything we can to protect what, I 
believe, is the jewel of our ecosystem in the Great Lakes, but so long 
as the fuel remains there, the city of Zion cannot use this site to 
bring in new businesses or new jobs on that site, and it continues to 
suffer from lost revenue from lost property taxes. The uranium that has 
been used in the nuclear reactors stays radioactive for tens of 
thousands of years. It stays radioactive after it has been removed from 
the reactor, and it must be isolated from the environment in order to 
allow it to safely degrade.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not done its part to take 
charge. As we talked about earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government 
is the one that actually owns the fuel, so it is sitting now in our 
communities as opposed to going to a site we have spent nearly $15 
billion researching and putting money into--Yucca Mountain.
  For the past three decades, the policy of the Federal Government has 
been to push forward with a long-term, deep geologic repository at 
Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Thirteen years ago, the Department of Energy 
determined that Yucca Mountain was the best and safest location in 
which to store America's nuclear waste. Indeed, it is the law of the 
land, as we have heard tonight, and we have spent billions of dollars 
to study the site and get it ready to be able to store our spent 
nuclear fuel.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the billions of dollars spent, nothing has been 
done on Yucca Mountain since this administration has taken office. The 
administration cut off funding for Yucca Mountain and ensured that 
nothing would be done to get this site ready--this despite the three 
decades spent studying the site and the over $15 billion spent. If we 
do not proceed, that money will be completely wasted. Further, the 
administration has failed to bring forward any kind of alternative, 
meaning that spent nuclear waste continues to sit in our communities 
where, I would argue, it should not be.
  America's nuclear power plants have produced over 71,000 metric tons 
of spent nuclear fuel over the past six decades, and while it has 
created jobs and clean energy, we do have an obligation to make sure 
that it is stored, and stored safely. We need to make sure that it is 
stored in a long-term facility. But, instead, spent nuclear fuel 
remains at plants at at least 75 nationwide sites, including at Zion.
  There is a solution to this problem which affects not only Zion but 
the entire country. We can fund the Yucca Mountain project and ensure 
that we will solve the problem once and for all. If we don't, the only 
alternative right now is to leave the waste where it is, stored in 
places like Zion, leaving both Zion and the drinking water for 30 
million Americans vulnerable to an environmental disaster or to a 
terrorist event, leaving the residents of Zion with a large plot of 
land in the heart of their community that, frankly, we can't use.
  The only responsible course of action is to tackle this problem 
today. We have seen the statistics out there, and as we look at what 
the facts are, the Department of Energy has determined that the deep 
geological disposal is the safest method to store spent nuclear fuel.
  If we just look at the difference here, in Zion, Illinois, on the 
shores of Lake Michigan, there are 65 casks containing 1,135 metric 
tons of nuclear waste--waste stored above the ground, about 5 feet 
above the water table and just a few hundred feet away from the shores 
of Lake Michigan.
  Yet Yucca Mountain, on the other hand--a place where we have spent 
$15 billion, where our experts have said is the safest place for us--is 
where we actually tested a nuclear weapon. It is near an Air Force 
base. So, when people talk about the neighbors, as Congressman Shimkus 
talked about earlier, the neighbor is the Federal Government. The 
Federal Government

[[Page 5082]]

owns the spent nuclear fuel. The Federal Government owns the land 
around it. The Federal Government owns the site at Yucca Mountain--
Yucca Mountain, again, 100 miles away from the Colorado River.
  The storage that we are talking about would be 1,000 feet above the 
water table, because it is important that we protect our water, and 
1,000 feet below ground. This is the ideal spot. Yet we have come not 
on science; this hasn't been objected to by the scientific research. 
This has been objected to for political reasons. Frankly, I have to 
tell you, Mr. Speaker, the politics has to end because what it is doing 
is jeopardizing communities across our Nation. We should be 
transporting this spent nuclear fuel to the safest location possible to 
make sure that we are not putting our citizens at risk, that we are not 
damaging or potentially damaging the environment.
  The Department of Energy has concluded that the repository would have 
little or no adverse impact on future populations or the environment. 
These are key. So we are going to take a look at what the Department of 
Energy has to say and at the studies that have been done. Literally, 
Yucca Mountain is probably the most studied piece of real estate that 
we have in our Nation today. All of the studies that have come back say 
this is the spot at which we should be storing this spent nuclear fuel. 
Instead, it is staying all across the country at the cost to the 
taxpayers.
  The Federal Government owns the nuclear fuel, and when it refused, 
according to the law, to take that nuclear fuel back and deal with it, 
we had our companies out there that basically said, Well, what are we 
supposed to do with it? So they sued on breach of contract, literally 
costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. We heard my colleague from 
Washington say that it could be as much as $50 billion that the hard-
working taxpayers are going to pay to keep the spent nuclear fuel where 
we don't want it to stay.
  The government has an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to step up and do the 
right thing. I, for one, am delighted to be able to be here today to 
tell you about the story of Zion, Illinois, but we recognize that this 
is a situation that is impacting over 104 different sites. We cannot 
afford to wait any longer.
  There are some on the other side of the building, Mr. Speaker, who 
are specifically holding this process up. We need to move forward. We 
need to make sure Yucca Mountain is approved, open, and, again, able to 
store this for up to a million years. It is the right thing to do, and 
I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats--we have got those in 
the Illinois delegation to my south who rely on Lake Michigan. This is 
something that we should all be united behind.
  I am honored to be able to come up and talk about this, but I am also 
saddened that it has taken so long and that, if we do nothing, it will 
be potentially decades longer. This is unacceptable. The citizens of 
our country demand that the United States Government abide by the law 
and by its obligations to store the spent fuel at Yucca Mountain.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________