[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    SENATE RESOLUTION 193--RELATIVE TO INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY 
                               STANDARDS

  Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, and 
Mr. Bryan) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                              S. Res. 193

       Whereas there are more than four hundred nuclear power 
     plants located in a total of thirty-three nations of the 
     world;
       Whereas there is a great disparity in the level of safety 
     of the nuclear power plants currently in operation;
       Whereas the accident in 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power 
     plant demonstrated that the risks of a serious accident at 
     nuclear power plants are not a remote or theoretical concern;
       Whereas the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant 
     demonstrated that an accident at a nuclear power plant in one 
     nation may cause damage to human health and the environment 
     in many other nations;
       Whereas the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant 
     demonstrated that the damages from a nuclear power plant 
     accident may include a loss of human and animal life and 
     serious long-term radiological contamination of the natural 
     environment;
       Whereas the construction of new nuclear power plants in 
     nations that do not possess the regulatory and technological 
     infrastructure to safely construct and operate nuclear power 
     plants may pose unreasonable risks to human health and the 
     environment in many nations;
       Whereas there is evidence that nations which have not 
     developed the technical capability to safely construct and 
     operate nuclear power plants may attempt to construct and 
     operate nuclear power plants;
       Whereas it is important to the citizens of all nations of 
     the world that all practicable measures should be taken to 
     avoid accidents and eliminate any unreasonable risks to the 
     human health and the environment that may be posed by 
     currently operating nuclear power plants;
       Whereas it is important to the citizens of all nations of 
     the world that new nuclear power plants should not be 
     constructed or allowed to operate if such plants will pose 
     any unreasonable risks to human health and the environment;
       Now, therefore, be it Resolved That,
       Sec. 1. The United States support the development of an 
     international convention on nuclear power plant safety;
       Sec. 2. The United States support the inclusion of 
     effective safety standards for the design, construction, and 
     operation of existing nuclear power plants and for the 
     design, construction, and operation of new nuclear power 
     plants in an international convention on nuclear power plant 
     safety;
       Sec. 3. The United States support an international 
     prohibition on the export of nuclear power plant technology 
     and equipment to any nation that has not agreed to abide by 
     the international convention on nuclear power plant safety; 
     and
       Sec. 4. The United States support the role of the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency in implementing the 
     international convention on nuclear power plant safety.
       Sec. 5. The United States support meetings of the potential 
     parties to the international convention on nuclear power 
     plant safety to discuss the terms of the convention so that 
     the convention would be open for signature and ratification 
     by April, 1996.

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am submitting along with 
Senators Biden, Lieberman, Bryan, and Jeffords, a resolution to 
encourage the United States to support the development of an 
international convention on nuclear power plant safety. The purpose of 
this convention would be to establish effective international safety 
standards for the design, construction, and operation of both existing 
and new nuclear power plants. Additionally, nations that agreed to 
abide by the standards of this convention would also agree not to 
provide commercial nuclear technology or assistance to nations that did 
not agree to abide by these standards.
  Mr. President, nuclear safety is an international issue. The accident 
at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine demonstrated that 
releases of radiation into the natural environment do not respect 
political boundaries. The West first learned of the Chernobyl accident 
when radiation alarms went off at a nuclear power plant in Sweden. The 
fallout from the accident affected milk, cheese, and other farm 
products in Poland and Germany; it contaminated reindeer in 
Scandinavia; and it caused the slaughter of sheep in England.
  This is not just a European problem. It is a problem for the United 
States as well. The United States could be affected by fallout from a 
European accident, or more severely affected by radiation released from 
an accident closer to our borders.
  The dangers that could be posed by an unsafe nuclear power plant near 
the United States were brought home by Cuba's recent attempts to 
construct two nuclear power plants. Fortunately, Cuba was forced to 
abandon the construction of these two units last year when the Russians 
stopped providing financial and technical assistance.
  During the construction of these plants, there were a number of 
allegations from Cuban defectors, and from Americans who studied the 
designs of these plants, that there were serious defects in the design 
and construction of these plants. Additionally, a number of American 
and international nuclear safety experts were concerned that Cuba did 
not possess the technical resources and infrastructure necessary to 
safely operate a nuclear power plant. The problems with the Cuban 
plants were well documented in a 1992 U.S. General Accounting Office 
[GAO] report on the safety of these plants. A country such as Cuba--
which does not have even enough technical equipment to harvest all of 
its sugarcane mechanically--cannot be able to construct, operate, and 
maintain the safe operation of a nuclear power plant.
  As part of the GAO's report on the safety of the Cuban plants, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] analyzed the 
potential pathways for radioactivity that might be released if there 
were an accident at a nuclear power plant located in Cuba. The NOAA 
analysis showed that all of Florida and portions of Gulf States as far 
west as Texas could be affected if the accident occurred in the 
summertime. Areas as far north as Virginia and Washington, DC, could be 
affected if the accident occurred in the wintertime. Hence, no nation--
including the United States--is immune from the dangers of an accident 
at a nuclear power plant in another nation.
  Even if the releases from an accident are small, the fear of 
radiation could cause devastating losses for agricultural and livestock 
industries downwind from the accident. Who would feed strontium-laced 
milk to a child? Who will eat meat that is inspected and found only to 
pose ``no undue risk'' to public health and safety? The Chernobyl 
accident caused serious economic losses in several European nations 
just as a result of fear of adverse health effects arising from low 
levels of radiation. This experience serves both as and example and a 
warning of the possible consequences of an accident at an unsafe 
nuclear powerplant.
  The concerns over the possible effects of an accident at a nuclear 
power plant are not hypothetical. They are real. We already have had 
one major accident. It is very possible that the world may have the 
misfortune to experience one or more additional accidents.
  There are many Chernobyl-style reactors still in operation. Other 
types of nuclear power plants with unsafe designs also are in 
operation. Furthermore, more unsafe reactors may come into operation in 
the future.
  There is a significant body of international expert opinion that many 
of the reactors that were designed in the former Soviet Union are 
unsafe and should be shut down as soon as possible. The United States 
Department of Energy and the United States Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission have studied the safety of Soviet-designed reactors. In June 
of last year the NRC and the DOE issued a joint report to the Congress 
on what the United States was doing to improve the safety of these 
reactors. In this report the NRC and the DOE concluded as follows:

       International concern over the operation of Soviet-designed 
     reactors remains substantial. These plants have significant 
     weaknesses in the areas of operational safety and design. The 
     designs of RBMKs (Chernobyl-type reactors) and VVER-440/230s 
     are particularly inconsistent with current Western safety 
     standards. They cannot practically be upgraded to meet 
     contemporary standards for safety and should not be operated 
     any longer than necessary * * * The likelihood of a serious 
     accident from their plants is considered too high.

  According to the DOE and NRC, the major deficiencies in the 
Chernobyl-style reactors included ``fundamentally unstable reactor 
design and poorly designed systems for shutdown of the reactor; a lack 
of separation and redundancy in critical safety systems, little or no 
fire protection, and no containment system.'' There are 13 of these 
reactors in operation.
  In addition to the Chernobyl-style RBMK's, Soviet-designed VVER440/
230's do not meet western safety standards. Ten of these reactors are 
in operation. The safety deficiencies with these reactors include a 
lack of separation and redundancy in critical safety systems, 
inadequate fire protection, insufficient safety systems to cope with 
leaks, and lack of an effective containment or confinement system.
  A recent ``60 Minutes'' program highlighted the safety problems with 
nuclear power plants in India. These plants have not been built 
according to accepted international principles of nuclear safety. They 
have a notoriously poor operating record. A severe fire at one of 
India's nuclear plants last year caused the shutdown of a number of 
these plants. The exact degree of danger to the people of India and the 
international community is unknown, since India does not permit 
international inspections of its plants.

  The problem of unsafe nuclear reactors is not confined to those 
reactors currently in existence. A number of lesser-developed countries 
currently are interested in developing or expanding their use of 
nuclear energy to generate electricity. The expansion of the use of 
nuclear energy in these nations may likely pose further serious risks 
to the public health and safety.
  For example, to alleviate its dire energy crisis, Armenia may try to 
reactivate the two units at Medzamar nuclear power plant that were shut 
down for safety reasons after the earthquake in Armenia in 1989. These 
units were not built to western seismic standards. They also lack other 
basic features that are considered essential to safety by western 
experts.
  There are reports that China may assist Iran in the construction of a 
nuclear power plant. Egypt is considering whether to use nuclear energy 
to generate electricity to deal with the increasing demand for and cost 
of electricity. India may expand its use of nuclear energy, even though 
its current reactors have significant safety problems. Indonesia also 
is interested in using nuclear energy to meet a rapidly growing demand 
for electricity.
  Many of the lesser developed countries that are interested in using 
nuclear energy do not yet have the technological infrastructure to 
design, construct, operate, and maintain safe nuclear power plants. To 
have an adequate technological infrastructure to support the safe use 
of nuclear energy, it is necessary to have the industrial capacity to 
manufacture the components for nuclear power plants; the capacity for 
sophisticated construction according to rigorous quality assurance 
requirements; institutions to educate and train people to design, 
construct, and operate nuclear power plants and to understand the 
properties of nuclear materials; public institutions and private 
organizations to understand and address the environmental and public 
health issues arising from the use of nuclear energy; and separate and 
independent governmental organizations to oversee and regulate the use 
of nuclear materials.
  Developing this type of infrastructure is no small task; on the 
contrary, it requires a long-term commitment of significant national 
resources. In order to have a safe nuclear energy program, many of the 
lesser developed countries that would like to use nuclear energy would 
have to rely upon other nations for assistance in one or more of these 
areas.
  Mr. President, at present there are no binding international nuclear 
safety standards. There is no internationally agreed-upon baseline to 
judge the safety of any of the existing nuclear power plants or any 
nuclear power plant that may be built in the future. To date, the 
International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] has established safety 
fundamentals, standards, guides, and practices, but these are not 
binding. They are general and advisory. IAEA members are not required 
to adhere to them.
  In November 1991, the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation--which I 
chaired at the time--held a hearing on whether there should be binding 
international nuclear safety standards. Just prior to this hearing, the 
members of the IAEA had agreed to develop a framework convention for 
the establishment of international nuclear safety standards.
  At this hearing I expressed my strong support for the development of 
binding standards. At the hearing, all the witnesses from the U.S. 
Government--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of 
Energy, and the Department of State--supported the goal of developing 
the framework convention for international standards. Also at the 
hearing, Morris Rosen, representing the IAEA, testified in favor of the 
development of binding international safety standards.
  At about the same time the General Accounting Office [GAO] also 
issued a report on international nuclear safety. The GAO recommended 
that the United States support the development of international safety 
standards.
  As I will describe in more detail later, some progress has been made 
towards implementing these recommendations, but much more still needs 
to be done.
  Mr. President, given the current situation--in which both safe and 
unsafe reactors are in operation--and the potential for proliferation 
of unsafe reactors, the United States should support the development of 
an international agreement to establish minimum safety standards for 
these plants. The development of these standards would provide a common 
baseline for judging the safety of nuclear power plants throughout the 
world. These standards also would provide a common indicator by which 
to judge the appropriateness of commercial nuclear assistance provided 
to other nations. These standards should make it easier to determine 
which of the existing plants should be shut down, which modifications 
are needed for others and which plants are acceptable.
  Following the IAEA's initial recommendation for an international 
nuclear safety convention, the United States and other members of the 
IAEA have been negotiating an international convention to improve 
nuclear safety. The convention may be ready for signature later this 
year. The convention that has been negotiated is only a first step 
toward improving international nuclear safety. Even if this agreement 
is signed and implemented, more will need to be done.
  The international convention that is under negotiation would not 
create binding international nuclear safety standards. It is oriented 
more toward ensuring that each country have a process for ensuring 
safety rather than towards establishing a baseline level of safety. It 
is designed to help establish a worldwide safety culture rather than 
world wide safety standards.
  The proposed convention would call for adherence to general safety 
principles, as opposed to specific technical standards. These general 
safety principles are very broad and provide only the most basic 
concepts for the safe regulation and operation of nuclear powerplants. 
For example, these general safety principles would call on each country 
to take such general measures as to establish an agency to regulate and 
license nuclear poserplants; to consider technical issues regarding 
plant safety over the lifetime of the plant; and to require that there 
be a safety management system for nuclear powerplants. A peer review 
process would be used to review each nation's adherence to these goals 
and principles.
  Under the peer review mechanism contemplated by this convention, the 
parties to the convention would meet periodically to receive reports on 
reactor safety prepared by the countries that had agreed to the 
convention. At these periodic meetings there would be a peer review of 
these reports by technical experts from the various other countries 
that had signed the convention.
  Mr. President, to improve international nuclear safety it is 
necessary to establish some minimum safety standards. Without the 
establishment of a minimum standard, there may not be sufficient 
improvement in international nuclear safety. Under the convention that 
is now being negotiated, each nation would be able to state that it has 
established a process for ensuring safety, and that therefore its 
rectors are safe.
  Clearly, this is not enough. How will the international community be 
able to judge the safety of reactors if there is not some minimum 
standard to apply? What will the peer review process seek to attain if 
not some minimum level of safety? The international community should 
seek stronger assurances that reactors are being safely operated. 
Certainly, adherence to international safety standards would provide 
more credible assurances of safe operation than peer review.
  A minimum standard of safety is especially important for reactors 
that may be built in the future. A set of minimum standards would serve 
notice as to what the international community considers acceptable and 
what the international community considers unacceptable in terms of 
creating risks to other countries.

  A system of international inspections would be necessary to determine 
compliance with these standards. Without any such inspections, we can 
only speculate on the safety of the plants in other countries. There is 
no substitute for a first-hand, independent on-site examination of a 
nuclear powerplant. Self-made reports have a tendency to be self-
serving. Independent examination is more reliable. An international 
safety agreement therefore should also provide for an agreement to 
allow international inspection to determine compliance with the 
standards.
  I want to make it clear that I do not advocate the creation of a 
worldwide, international equivalent of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. Nuclear safety must remain the responsibility of the 
powerplant operators and the national regulatory bodies. The 
international community should not have the authority to impose civil 
penalties or take other enforcement actions that are traditionally the 
responsibility of a national regulatory body. Rather, international 
standards should be enforced by sanctions that are uniquely 
international in nature.
  A strong incentive to comply with international safety standards 
would be to deny nuclear assistance for reactors under construction in 
countries that have not agreed to abide by these standards. For 
example, nations that agreed to the standards would also agree not to 
provide financial loans, guarantees, or grants to projects that did not 
comply with the international nuclear safety standards. Similarly, 
international lending institutions would be discouraged from providing 
such financial assistance. Additionally, signatory nations would agree 
to prohibit the export of commercial nuclear technology if the 
importing country did not agree to abide by at least the minimum 
international nuclear safety standards.
  At least with respect to new reactors, nations that do not intend to 
comply with international nuclear safety standards or that do not 
permit international inspections of their facilities should not be able 
to obtain commercial nuclear assistance from nations that are in 
compliance.
  This type of international enforcement mechanism would be similar to 
the system that has been established to prevent the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons technology. IAEA members have agreed that civilian 
nuclear technology or materials will not be provided to nations that do 
not agree to accept IAEA safeguards to prevent that technology or 
materials from being used for noncivilian purposes.
  There are a host of restrictions under United States and 
international law for the transfer of technology to nations that do not 
adhere to the international system of safeguards and inspections to 
prevent the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons technology and 
materials. Oddly enough, there are almost no restrictions on the 
transfer of technology that may be used for unsafe nuclear reactors. If 
the international community can restrict the export of nuclear 
technology that will pose an unacceptable risk of contributing to 
nuclear weapons proliferation, then the international community also 
should be able to restrict the export of nuclear technology that will 
pose an unacceptable risk of a nuclear accident. Restrictions on 
technological assistance would therefore be the primary method by which 
the international nuclear safety standards would be enforced.
  I have outlined a variety of tools that the United States should use 
or develop to improve international nuclear safety. We should encourage 
the creation of binding international nuclear safety standards. We 
should insist upon a system of international inspection for nuclear 
reactors. We should develop a regime to prevent the proliferation of 
unsafe nuclear technology. The resolution I am introducing today 
encourage the United States to support an international nuclear safety 
convention to accomplish these goals.
  International nuclear safety is not an obscure or remote issue only 
for people in far away places. It is an issue that could affect the 
health and welfare of many Americans. It is an important issue for us 
here at home. I hope that we will see more progress on this issue in 
the near future, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution.

                          ____________________