[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 106 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9533-S9534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FRENCH UTILIZATION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Mr. President, Senator Rod Grams and I traveled to 
France to develop a better understanding of policies underpinning the 
utilization of nuclear energy for about 80 percent of their 
electricity. We visited several key French facilities, and Senator Fred 
Thompson joined us after the site visit and participated in several of 
the high-level meetings with

[[Page S9534]]

elected and appointed Government officials.
  Observations from our trip provide some important perspectives for 
consideration in the United States:
  Nuclear energy has been implemented in France with strict attention 
to minimizing environmental consequences. Waste products are reduced at 
each step in their process.
  The French nuclear energy system enables them to achieve world-class 
standards for minimal environmental impact from power generation. They 
are justifiably proud of their record. Their carbon dioxide emissions 
per capita are about one-third those in the United States.
  French reliance on a ``closed fuel cycle'' has enabled recycle and 
recovery of the energy content of spent fuel while also dramatically 
reducing the volume and toxicity of waste products below those in the 
United States with our ``open fuel cycle.''
  Transportation and interim storage of spent fuel are done carefully 
in France, with virtually no negative impacts. Interim storage is 
essential in implementing their fuel cycle.
  At each site in France, attention to protection of the environment is 
outstanding. For example, while the United States left corrosive waste 
from uranium enrichment in tens of thousands of steel casks at places 
like Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio, the French have routinely 
extracted commercial products from the same waste and stored only inert 
products.
  The nuclear industry in France is structured around a closed fuel 
cycle, which recycles much of their spent fuel. This requires 
reprocessing of the fuel, a step that the U.S. banned in 1977. That 
decision by President Carter sought to avoid availability of separated 
plutonium with its proliferation concerns. The French, along with other 
countries, were equally concerned about proliferation; but they simply 
ensured careful safeguards on the plutonium and today are seeking to 
increase their reuse of plutonium to minimize plutonium reserves. 
Excellent security and international safeguards were obvious in their 
facilities.
  When the French reprocess spent fuel, they reuse plutonium in mixed 
oxide or MOX fuel, consisting of a mixture of plutonium and 
uranium oxides. Their reprocessing allows the plutonium and uranium to 
be reused and dramatically reduces the toxicity and volume of their 
waste below the U.S. open cycle. In contrast, we just plan to bury our 
spent fuel with no attempt to recycle the valuable energy content of 
the spent fuel or reduce its volume or toxicity. The resulting waste 
volume from 20 years of a family of four in France is about 2.5 cubic 
inches, about that of a pack of cards. And after 200 years, the 
radiotoxicity of their waste is only about 10% of the value of our 
spent fuel.
  The French have gone to great lengths to educate their public about 
nuclear issues, and extensive environmental monitoring information is 
routinely shared with the citizens from all the activities we saw.
  Transportation of spent fuel is required in the French system. But 
the French have never experienced a radioactive spill in any traffic 
accident. Simple interim storage is routinely used in France, without 
the political debates we face in the United States over this necessary 
step towards a credible fuel cycle.
  A 1991 French law prescribed a 15 year period to assess options for 
disposition of their final waste products, whereas we precluded our 
options and focused on a permanent repository with the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1982. Under this program, they are actively studying 
further reductions in the toxicity of their waste. We learned that they 
would welcome strong collaboration in this field with the U.S. The 
Accelerator Transmutation of Waste program, funded for the first time 
in the current Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, is one program 
they singled our for enhanced cooperation.
  The French do not justify their closed cycle with economic arguments, 
instead they point to its sensitivity to environmental issues and the 
minimal legacy left for future generations. In fact, with uranium 
prices currently extremely low, the closed cycle may be slightly more 
expensive than our open cycle, at least in the near term. Partly for 
that reason, partly because of the large investment required if the 
U.S. tried to now duplicate the French system, and partly because there 
are now alternative options to achieve a closed cycle, we do not 
recommend that the U.S. simply adopt the French closed cycle.
  New closed cycle options should be considered driven by technological 
advances in the decades since the French initiated their system. We 
believe that these new options deserve evaluation here to enable the 
U.S. to consider the benefits of a closed fuel cycle. Some of these 
newer options would provide benefits similar to the French system, plus 
some would avoid proliferation concerns by never separating plutonium. 
Some of the new nuclear initiatives funded for next year should explore 
these attractive options. Almost any of these options, however, require 
interim storage of spent fuel--our trip only adds to the strength of 
current arguments for prompt implementation of this simple and 
important step.
  In summary, there are important lessons from the French system for 
our use of nuclear energy. In the next session of Congress, we look 
forward to working with you to improve our system, drawing upon these 
lessons where appropriate.

                          ____________________