On the recordApril 16, 2013
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?…





