The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“IMPORTATION OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL FROM FOREIGN RESEARCH REACTORS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S9474-S9475 on June 29, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
IMPORTATION OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL FROM FOREIGN RESEARCH REACTORS
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to comment this morning on the Department of Energy's proposal to import spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors through commercial ports such as Tacoma, WA.
Before I begin, I would like to thank DOE, and in particular Mr. Charles Head, for the outstanding efforts put forward by DOE to ensure that the citizens of Tacoma have had adequate opportunities to review information and make comments on DOE's proposal. The additional public hearing held last week was well received and well attended and the extension of the public comment period until July 20th is appreciated. DOE's efforts have not gone unnoticed.
Mr. President, I fully appreciate the United States nuclear nonproliferation policies and objectives. I also understand the important role that removing spent nuclear fuel from the global marketplace plays in those policy objectives. Nonetheless, I would like to express my serious concerns regarding DOE's proposal. DOE's draft environmental impact statement on the handling of foreign spent nuclear fuel does not adequately assess the potential risks that alternative
#1, the importation and interim storage of foreign spent nuclear fuel in the United States, could pose to the citizens of the United States, particularly those who reside in the port communities suggested as points of entry in the DEIS and those near proposed waste storage facilities.
Along with my colleagues from the State of Washington, I recently sent a letter to Secretary O'Leary outlining the reasons behind our concerns. I ask that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record. In summary, we raised concerns over the evaluation of the potential exposure of the general public to radiation, the inadequate training and equipment possessed by Tacoma emergency response units to deal with a radiation emergency, the failure to address the potential for terrorist activities during the importation process, and the proposal to use the Hanford nuclear facility as an interim storage facility. Given these concerns, we asked DOE to no longer consider using commercial ports such as Tacoma, but to limit further consideration of alternative #1 to military ports.
It has recently come to my attention that alternative #2 in the DEIS, facilitating the management of the spent nuclear fuel overseas, may be a better choice. Although the DEIS presents a number of difficulties in implementing alternative #2, it may be more feasible than previously thought. There is a processing facility in Scotland that is apparently both able and willing to take the spent nuclear fuel and reprocess it into more stable, less threatening material. I want to encourage DOE to fully investigate this possibility. It could ensure that we meet our nuclear nonproliferation goals without threatening the health and safety of United States citizens.
I look forward to working with DOE and the administration to ensure that we meet our nuclear nonproliferation objectives while simultaneously protecting the citizens of the United States.
The letter follows:
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC, June 8, 1995.Hazel O'Leary,Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy,Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary O'Leary. We are writing to express our concerns over the alternatives proposed in the Department of Energy's (DOE) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the management of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from foreign research reactors. We are concerned about the proposed option of importing the foreign SNF through commercial ports such as Tacoma, WA.
While the desire to encourage other nation's research reactors to switch to low-enriched uranium (LEU) from highly-enriched uranium (HEU) is an integral component of the United States overall nuclear nonproliferation policy, importing foreign SNF through commercial ports may not be necessary. The DOE DEIS lists two military ports among the ten possible ports of entry for the SNF. We feel that DOE should limit further consideration of importing SNF to these or other appropriate military ports because of the considerable concern amount citizens and city officials about importing SNF through commercial ports.
First, there is significant apprehension about the threats to public health importing this SNF through commercial ports would create. Although DOE has stated that the threats to public health are not significant given the state of the material and the overly cautious design of the storage casks, we are not convinced that no public health threat exists. There is public concern that longshoremen, sailors, and average citizens could potentially become exposed to significant radiation levels. Whether this risk is real or only perceived is irrelevant. Importing foreign SNF through commercial ports would at best threaten public confidence and citizens' sense of security and at worst pose a significant threat to public health.
Second, the DEIS states: ``Primary responsibility for emergency response to a foreign research reactor SNF incident would reside with local authorities.''. Although the port and city of Tacoma have emergency response plans for hazardous materials, neither the Police and Fire Departments nor the Port workers are properly equipped or trained to contend with a significant radiation emergency. Properly equipping and training these people would add a significant and unnecessary cost to the overall proposal. In addition, it is not clear that Police Officers, Fire Fighters, and port workers would be willing to undergo such training, knowing that it opens them up to potential future radiation exposure. In fact, port workers in Tacoma may declare their unwillingness to handle the material during even routine transport procedures, let alone emergencies.
Third, importing foreign SNF through commercial ports runs contrary to the overall policy objective of reducing the world-wide availability of HEU and other nuclear waste. If lengthy, unnecessary and relatively low-security transportation of SNF occurs through commercial ports, the increased opportunities for theft, hijacks, and sabotage could result in greater accessibility to the SNF than desired. As current events have unfortunately revealed, the United States is not immune to terrorism, either foreign or domestic. Even if this material could not be used in the making of nuclear weapons, and some of it could, the very fact that it is radioactive makes it dangerous. Transporting this material through commercial ports would create an unnecessary threat to national security.
These concerns present a compelling case for DOE to preclude further consideration of commercial ports like Tacoma, WA for the importation of foreign SNF. While removing HEU and other nuclear waste from the global marketplace is an essential aspect of nuclear nonproliferation, importing this material through military ports may prove more reasonable given the increased protection that could be provided to public health and safety and national security.
We are also concerned about the proposal to store the foreign SNF at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. This idea is unacceptable given the current state of affairs at that facility. The current environmental problems associated with the storage of nuclear waste at the Hanford site have resulted in clean up costs near $50 billion. In addition, current budget pressures will make it difficult for DOE to meet its legally enforceable clean up schedule. Additional waste management responsibilities could further hamper the Department's efforts at the site.
In summary we would appreciate DOE limiting further consideration of this proposal to military ports and adequate storage facilities.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,Patty Murray.Jim McDermott.Norm Dicks.
____________________
