[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 16 (Wednesday, February 23, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          THE LEGACY AND FUTURE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS PRODUCTION

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 23, 1993

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting my Washington report for 
Wednesday, February 9, 1994, into the Congressional Record:

          The Legacy and Future of Nuclear Weapons Production

       During the cold war the United States spent hundreds of 
     billions of dollars producing nuclear weapons. The end of 
     that era is bringing dramatic changes to nuclear weapons 
     production. Arms control agreements and independent national 
     security decisions under both the Bush and Clinton 
     administrations have begun substantial reductions in the 
     nuclear arsenal. With the nuclear threat from abroad sharply 
     diminished, the U.S. plans to dismantle thousands of nuclear 
     warheads this decade and is closing several production 
     facilities as the stockpile of weapons shrinks. Combined with 
     similar efforts in the former Soviet Union, this will make 
     the world a safer place. Unfortunately, nearly five decades 
     of production have left a dangerous, vast, and expensive 
     environmental legacy, in the form of nuclear waste. 
     Consequently, we will be paying the costs of nuclear weapons 
     production for years to come.
       The Nuclear Weapons Complex: The nuclear weapons production 
     complex, which is run by the Department of Energy (DOE), 
     consists of 17 major facilities for the design, construction, 
     and testing of nuclear warheads, and production of naval 
     reactor fuel. Major installations include the Hanford 
     reservation near Richland, WA, and the Pantex plant near 
     Amarillo, TX, which are run by contracted private 
     corporations. Another is the Fernald facility in Ohio, just 
     across the border from Indiana's 9th District. These 
     facilities encompass about 4,000 square miles in 13 states.
       As part of the reductions in military forces and spending, 
     the nuclear weapons complex is shrinking and changing. 
     Warhead production has ceased. Several facilities are 
     partially closed and others, such as Fernald, are shutting 
     down completely. The work being done at several of the 
     remaining facilities is now largely weapons disassembly. The 
     other shift is from the production of nuclear materials to 
     the environmental cleanup and storage of nuclear wastes.
       Although the exact number is classified, the United States 
     currently has roughly 20,000 nuclear weapons. The number has 
     been dropping as defense planning and arms control treaties 
     have reduced substantially the number of necessary warheads. 
     In 1993 the DOE was scheduled to dismantle about 1,400 
     weapons, but plans for the eventual size of the stockpile are 
     not public information.
       While warhead assembly has been stopped, future needs are 
     an open question. Billions of dollars could be spent to 
     modernize production facilities and construct new ones. Some 
     plants are no longer needed and will remain closed; others 
     might be required to maintain limited production of some 
     nuclear materials. Stockpiles of plutonium, including that 
     from warhead disassembly, eliminate the need for further 
     production. However, tritium, another key ingredient in 
     thermonuclear weapons, has a relatively short life span. 
     Nevertheless, a 1991 National Academy of Sciences study found 
     that if the stockpile were reduced to a few thousand 
     warheads, the current supply of tritium would last for 
     several decades. A new facility for tritium would be very 
     expensive for what looks like a very limited need.
       The Environmental Legacy: The scale of environmental 
     contamination at these facilities is staggering. 80 million 
     gallons of high-level waste, and millions of cubic meters of 
     lower level wastes, are stored or disposed of at several of 
     the facilities. Vast quantities of nonradioactive waste add 
     to the problem. The DOE estimates that 3,700 sites throughout 
     the nuclear weapons production complex have been contaminated 
     by radioactive waste and other hazardous materials, which in 
     several locations are escaping into the environment. These 
     facilities were not designed for the long term storage of 
     waste; in most cases the waste must be removed and prepared 
     for permanent storage. The main threat posed by the disposed 
     waste and deteriorating temporary storage facilities is to 
     water sources, particularly ground water.
       We are faced with two formidable environmental problems: 
     the clean-up of radioactive and other hazardous waste at the 
     production facilities and the longterm isolation and storage 
     of various types of radioactive materials. Neither problem is 
     simply one of time and money. Most of the several billion 
     dollars spent on DOE environmental restoration has been 
     exclusively for research into how to clean up and store 
     various types of waste; very little storage or cleanup has 
     actually occurred. The DOE now spends about one third of its 
     total budget on environmental restoration. Even such a large 
     sum is a small down payment on the eventual total cost of 
     cleaning up all the nuclear weapons facilities in the 
     country. Projected cleanup costs over the next 30 years range 
     from $100 to $300 billion.
       The long-term isolation and storage of radioactive 
     materials and waste is the second major problem. Plutonium, 
     one of the most expensive materials ever produced, may be the 
     hardest thing on earth to dispose of. It reaches background 
     levels of radioactivity in 240,000 years. Despite years and 
     billions of dollars of work on a solution, the best means for 
     the disposal of highly radioactive waste is still a matter of 
     dispute. Current plans center on vitrification (the 
     transformation of the waste into a glass-like solid) and 
     underground storage in the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada. 
     Work is proceeding amid concerns that even such elaborate 
     measures cannot guarantee safe isolation for the thousands of 
     years necessary. It is possible to recycle both highly-
     enriched uranium and plutonium for use in commercial 
     electricity production, but some of the technology is 
     untested, and nuclear power remains quite controversial in 
     this country. Furthermore, the commercial recycling of 
     weapons-grade materials, both here and especially in Russia, 
     raises the specter of nuclear proliferation should even small 
     quantities fall into the wrong hands.
       Conclusion: During the cold war, national security 
     priorities prevailed to such an extent that other concerns 
     frequently were neglected. We were reminded of this recently 
     with the disclosures about human radiation experiments. The 
     veil of secrecy that shrouded the nuclear weapons production 
     complex obscured vast environmental problems, the full extent 
     of which is still being discovered. While national security 
     remains a paramount concern, other matters demand our 
     attention, including the environment. We must confront this 
     nuclear legacy and deal with its consequences. Most pressing 
     is the need for a solution to the long term storage or 
     disposal of radioactive waste. We have to accelerate efforts 
     to find a safe, permanent method of disposal, including a 
     nuclear waste repository. And while we clean up the mess we 
     must ensure that any future production is absolutely 
     necessary and does not repeat the mistakes of the past.

                          ____________________