[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1002-1003]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about a piece 
of legislation that has been introduced by our colleague, Senator Jim 
Inhofe, of Oklahoma, S. 2551. It is entitled the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Amendments Act of 2008.
  The reason I do this is multiple in the issue of nuclear energy today 
and the management of the waste stream that flows from not only current 
nuclear reactors operating in our energy portfolio, but, of course, the 
growth of generating capability through nuclear reaction as it relates 
to all that is going on out there from the creation of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, the 30-plus reactors that are on the drawing boards 
today, and the opportunity to see new reactors built in our country to 
supplement and build our energy base, and the issue of how we handle 
the waste.
  As most Senators know, Yucca Mountain, a permanent deep geologic 
repository in Nevada, has become increasingly controversial over the 
years largely because of the delegation from Nevada and the antinuclear 
folks, but also the reality of reprocessing and still finding a 
permanent repository for nuclear waste. I strongly support Yucca 
Mountain. I believe we need a deep geologic repository, whether it is 
for the current waste that is in storage at most of our reactors or 
whether it is for the refined waste that would come from a reprocessing 
stream. So for a few moments today I thought I would share with fellow 
Senators a legacy that most don't realize but I find extremely 
important in this overall debate of a nuclear renaissance and Congress 
getting real and honest about how we handle a waste stream, instead of 
the political football that some would like it to be and, therefore, 
create the uncertainty that results from that.
  In my State of Idaho, I have a national laboratory. The State of 
Idaho hosts one of our Nation's premier energy laboratories, known as 
the INL, Idaho National Laboratory. It started in 1949. It started for 
the sole purpose of a national reactor testing site, where reactors 
would be built and tested before they went into commercial use or, at 
this time and place, mostly military use and for national security 
purposes. So a site that was started in 1949 actually saw by 1951 the 
lighting of the first light bulb ever lit in America by nuclear 
reaction. That site today is now a museum, so dedicated by President 
Lyndon Johnson. Many people have come to see the first reactor ever 
built to light the first light bulb ever lit by nuclear reaction in 
this country.
  Since that time, 52 test reactors have been built onsite at the Idaho 
National Laboratory. Idaho is also, therefore, the home of something 
else--the legacy of nuclear reactors. Three hundred metric tons of 
spent nuclear material and 4,000 metric tons of high-level waste are 
stored at this national laboratory. Most of this waste was generated 
from defense and from our Navy's nuclear program. In fact, one of the 
most successful programs ever in the history of the world has been our 
naval vessels powered by nuclear reaction. All of the waste from those 
reactors over the years has been stored at Idaho.
  Idaho was the premier training location for our men and women in the 
nuclear Navy to come and learn how to manage and operate nuclear 
reactors in our nuclear Navy. We also have waste from West Valley in 
New York, and other locations, because Idaho has been the recipient of 
that waste. But I must say that as a result of that, the Federal 
Government signed an agreement with Idaho some years ago that all of 
that waste would go to Yucca Mountain by 2035, or to a deep geologic 
repository other than the State of Idaho, where it is now stored in dry 
storage and in wet storage.
  There is no other disposable option for our Navy's high-level waste. 
Because of the configuration of the waste, of those reactor fuel rods, 
they cannot be reprocessed. So they, unlike the commercial reactor 
spent fuel rods, have to go into a permanent home and permanent waste. 
Idaho, South Carolina, and the State of Washington are all relying on 
Yucca Mountain for permanent disposal of this waste.
  So it is critical that this Senate, this Government, doesn't put 
aside the issue of Yucca Mountain, but that we deal with it in a 
forthright way, that we recognize there is truly a need for some 
geologic storage of our types of waste, especially our military waste 
that, in many instances, is stored in South Carolina, Washington, and 
my State of Idaho.
  As I said in my opening comments, since we passed the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005, and we began to streamline the process to bring a new 
design construction concept on line and grant guarantees for the 
construction of nuclear reactors for commercial electrical production, 
there has been what many call a renaissance as it relates to the 
possibility of pouring concrete to actually build new reactors.
  Certainly, the debate of climate change, the emission of greenhouse 
gases has caused us to recognize the need for what we call baseloading 
of our electrical system with large units of production that are 
nonemitting. And, of course, at this time, technology says the only one 
that is out there in that high-capacity way would be a nuclear reactor. 
That is also clearly what has fed the growth, the desire to develop, 
the licensing process that is underway, the design concepts, the 
attempt to locate new reactors at current sites and facilities.
  Something happened in my State of Idaho this past week that tells me 
and should tell the world there is still a great deal of uncertainty 
out there as it relates to siting a nuclear reactor. Part of that 
uncertainty is the unwillingness of this Congress to get on with the 
issue of siting a deep geologic repository, getting the licensing 
process over, dealing with reprocessing, and truly bringing our arms 
around the issue of the waste stream.
  Mid-America, a large utility in the Midwest that has recently 
acquired utilities in Idaho and adjoining States or at least utilities 
that feed part of Idaho's electricity, made the decision that they 
would attempt to build a nuclear reactor in my State of Idaho.

[[Page 1003]]

They looked all over the country and decided Idaho was the preferable 
location based on their needs and their need to load their service area 
and because they thought the climate was appropriate in Idaho. They 
studied it. They spent millions of dollars looking at that possibility. 
They determined this past week they would not move forward. Why? 
Because even under the most favorable conditions and in possibly the 
most favorable State, they found the uncertainty and the expense was 
still too great.
  Who is Mid-America? It is an asset of Berkshire Hathaway. It is an 
asset of Warren Buffett, probably one of the deepest pockets in the 
world. Yet they and their studies, with due diligence, determined they 
would not move forward after millions of dollars were spent.
  It was all based on cost and uncertainty, and part of that 
uncertainty rests right here in the Senate and with a Congress that 
will not in a clear, clean, decisive way say: We are going to deal with 
the issue of the waste stream as the rest of the component pieces that 
we put together to build a true nuclear renaissance in this country. It 
is critical we move forward. This legislation, S. 2551, speaks to that 
point. It speaks to that long-term importance.
  I cosponsored legislation this past year that Senator Domenici and I 
introduced that dealt with the kinds of issues that are dealt with in 
S. 2551. These two bills, the Domenici-Craig bill, now the Inhofe-
Craig-and-others bill, would allow Yucca Mountain to open on a 
predictable timeline, replacing, as I have said, the uncertainty. And 
it protects the citizens of Idaho, South Carolina, and 30 other States 
that are currently storing nuclear materials.
  Nuclear energy, nuclear power clearly remains our best and brightest 
option in the near term as it relates to a sustainable, nonemitting 
source of energy for our country. Clearly, this Congress should not, 
and to date has not, stood in the way of building that renaissance from 
the policies passed in 2005, to the guarantees we are offering, to the 
new licensing process the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now in the 
final stages of developing. The only piece left undone is the issue of 
waste stream, and it is critically important we deal with it. If we do 
not, if we were to put a blight on the potential growth of nuclear 
energy, here is what could happen. From 1995 to 2006, nuclear power 
helped us avoid emitting more than 8 million metric tons of carbon 
dioxide into the atmosphere. Many States have started to say no to coal 
and yes to nuclear power or other forms of clean energy. But other than 
nuclear power, they are limited, and clearly we should not be saying 
no.
  Our economy, our growth, future jobs for this country, the vitality 
of our economic leadership in the world is tied to available energy, 
abundant energy, and reasonable cost energy. We know today the one 
source of energy that answers all those charges is nuclear.
  Yucca Mountain remains a key piece of all of that picture. That is 
why Senator Inhofe has introduced the legislation, why I am a cosponsor 
of it. I certainly encourage all my colleagues to look through clear 
glasses at this issue because we have to deal with the waste stream in 
a responsible fashion. We need to do so in a way that is acceptable to 
the industry and acceptable to the American people.
  The efforts that have been put forth from day one in the examination 
of the geology, the development of the core tunnel at Yucca Mountain--
all those stages are there for the public to see. The licensing process 
is now underway, which is the next step. Let's don't arbitrarily and 
politically step into the middle of it and mess it up.
  I must tell you the frustration I have had listening to Presidential 
candidates out on the road. If you want the endorsement of a single 
State, you are against Yucca Mountain and that single State was Nevada. 
This is a national issue; it is not a local issue. This is Federal land 
properly handled, properly researched, and it can be properly developed 
in a safe way for all Americans and for our future. That is what this 
legislation speaks to.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor with Senator Inhofe. He introduced it 
in a timely fashion. Clearly, in the course of this year, it is 
something that needs to be debated; it is something with which we need 
to deal. This administration has moved forward as quickly and 
responsibly as they could, and the licensing process is certainly 
something that needs to be completed in the overall effort of the 
renaissance of nuclear power in our country and that form of generation 
as an important option in our mix of energy sources for this Nation for 
now and into the future.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________