[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7836-7838]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         CONDEMNING SHIPMENTS OF NUCLEAR WASTE ACROSS THE SOUTH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2009, two ships named the 
Pacific Pintail and Pacific Heron left the port of Cherbourg in France 
bound for Japan. The total cargo onboard the purpose-built ships 
amounts to 1.8 tons, or 1,800 kilograms, of plutonium mixed-oxide 
nuclear fuel, which according to Greenpeace, is enough to produce 225 
nuclear bombs. Scheduled to arrive in May, the shipment is to travel 
via the Cape of Good Hope, the Southern Ocean, the Tasman Sea between 
Australia and New Zealand, and the southwest Pacific Ocean.
  The latest shipment of plutonium mixed-oxide nuclear fuel is part of 
an ongoing process involving several major countries in Europe and 
Japan, whereby Japan usually supplies spent fuel from commercial 
reactors in return for MOX nuclear fuel from Europe. Using a procedure 
known as reprocessing, plutonium and uranium are extracted from highly 
radioactive products contained in the spent fuel. Most of the extracted 
plutonium, along with the nuclear waste, will eventually be returned to 
the country of origin.
  Mr. Speaker, this latest shipment of MOX fuel complements earlier 
shipments of spent fuel, about 170, from Japan to Europe. As usual, 
plans for this latest shipment, the largest so far, were covered in 
shrouds of secrecy, without prior consultation or notification of en 
route states. Yet any action involving the ships or their cargo could 
have catastrophic consequences on the environment and the populations 
of en route states. Moreover, with the increasing threat of piracy, the 
transported plutonium MOX fuel could easily fall into the hands of 
terrorists.
  This unnecessary and unjustifiable shipment provides another example 
of the unacceptable risks and adverse impact the use of nuclear power 
and nuclear materials have on the environment and the lives of those 
involved. It demonstrates once again the best example of arrogance and 
imperialistic behavior of some major countries at the expense of 
others.
  In 1995, I accompanied Mr. Oscar Temaru, the current president of 
French Polynesia, on the Greenpeace Warrior, which took us to Moruroa 
to protest French nuclear testing. At the time, while the world turned 
a blind eye, the newly elected president of France, Jacques Chirac and 
the French government broke the world moratorium on nuclear testing and 
exploded eight more nuclear bombs at the Pacific atolls of Moruroa and 
Fangataufa in Tahiti. Adding insult to injury, President Chirac stated 
that nuclear explosions would have no effect on the ecological 
environment.
  Mr. Speaker, history shows that for some 30 years the French 
government detonated approximately 218 nuclear devices at Moruroa and 
Fangataufa atolls in French Polynesia. About 10,000 Tahitians are 
believed to have been severely exposed to nuclear radiation during 
French nuclear testing.
  Our own U.S. Government contributed to this grim history of nuclear 
testing in the South Pacific. Indeed, one may argue that it was the 
nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands that set the precedent 
for France to follow suit and use the Pacific Islands as testing 
grounds for nuclear bombs. Between 1946 and 1958, the United States 
detonated 67 nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands, including the first 
hydrogen bomb, or the Bravo shot, which was 1,300 times more powerful 
than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. Acknowledged as the 
greatest nuclear explosion ever detonated by the United States at the 
time, the Bravo shot decimated six islands and produced a mushroom 
cloud 25 miles in diameter. It has been said that if one were to 
calculate the net yield of the tests conducted by our government in the 
Marshall Islands, it would be equivalent to the detonation of 1.7 
Hiroshima nuclear bombs every day for 12 years.
  Mr. Speaker, such was the magnitude of the devastation that 
threatened the Marshall Islands. In addition to the annihilation of the 
surrounding environment and ecological system, the U.S. nuclear testing 
program exposed the people of the Marshall Islands to severe health 
issues and genetic irregularities for generations to come. It was so 
serious that we had to move our nuclear testing program, this time 
conducted underground in the deserts of Nevada. What happened was that 
this nuclear cloud that came from the Pacific Ocean went as far as 
Minnesota and Wisconsin, with contaminants later found in milk products 
coming out of Wisconsin as well as Minnesota.
  Mr. Speaker, something needs to be done about the shipment of this 
nuclear waste from Europe to Japan. I sincerely hope that my colleagues 
will help me develop legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2009, two ships named the Pacific Pintail 
and Pacific Heron, left the port of Cherbourg in France bound for 
Japan. The total cargo onboard the purpose-built ships amount to about 
1.8 tonnes (1800 kilograms) of plutonium mixed-oxide (MOX) nuclear 
fuel, which according to Greenpeace, enough to produce 225 nuclear 
bombs. Scheduled to arrive in May, the shipment is to travel via the 
Cape of Good Hope, the Southern Ocean, the Tasman Sea between Australia 
and New Zealand and the southwest Pacific Ocean.
  The latest shipment of plutonium mixed-oxide nuclear fuel is part of 
an ongoing process involving several major countries in Europe and 
Japan, whereby, Japan usually supplies spent fuel from commercial 
reactors in return for MOX nuclear fuel from Europe. Using a procedure 
known as ``reprocessing'', plutonium and uranium are extracted from 
highly radioactive products contained in the spent fuel. Most of the 
extracted plutonium along with the nuclear waste will eventually be 
returned to the country of origin.
  This latest shipment of MOX fuel complements earlier shipments of 
spent fuel, about 170, from Japan to Europe. As usual, plans for this 
latest shipment, the largest so far, was covered in shrouds of secrecy 
without prior consultation or notification of en-route states. Yet, any 
accident involving the ships or

[[Page 7837]]

their cargo could have catastrophic consequences on the environment and 
the population of en-route states. Moreover, with the increasing threat 
of piracy, the transported plutonium MOX fuel could easily fall in the 
hands of terrorists.
  This unnecessary and unjustifiable shipment provides another example 
of the unacceptable risks and adverse impact the use of nuclear power 
and nuclear materials have on the environment and the lives of those 
involved. It demonstrates once again the best example of arrogance 
imperialistic behavior of some major countries at the expense of 
others.
  In 1995, I accompanied Mr. Oscar Temaru, the current President of 
French Polynesia, on the Green Peace Warrior which took us to Moruroa 
to protest French nuclear testing. At the time, while the world turned 
a blind eye, the newly elected President of France, Jacques Chirac and 
the French government broke the world moratorium on nuclear testing and 
exploded 8 more nuclear bombs at the Pacific atolls of Moruroa and 
Fangataufa in Tahiti. Adding insult to injury, President Chirac stated 
that nuclear explosions would have no effect on the ecological 
environment.
  History shows that for some 30 years, the French Government detonated 
approximately 218 nuclear devices at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls in 
Tahiti. About 10,000 Tahitians are believed to have been severely 
exposed to nuclear radiation during French nuclear testing.
  Our own U.S. government also contributed to this grim history of 
nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Indeed, one may argue that it was 
the U.S. nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands that set the 
precedent for France to follow suit and use the Pacific Islands as 
testing grounds for nuclear weapons. Between 1946 and 1958, the United 
States detonated 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands including 
the first hydrogen bomb, or Bravo shot, which was 1,300 times more 
powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Acknowledged as the 
greatest nuclear explosion ever detonated by the U.S., the Bravo shot 
decimated 6 islands and produced a mushroom cloud 25 miles in diameter. 
It has been said that if one were to calculate the net yield of the 
tests conducted in the Marshall Islands, it would be equivalent to the 
detonation of 1.7 Hiroshima nuclear bombs every day for 12 years.
  Such was the magnitude of the devastation that threatened the 
Marshall Islands. In addition to the annihilation of the surrounding 
environment and ecological system, the U.S. nuclear testing program 
exposed the people of the Marshall Islands to severe health issues and 
genetic irregularities for generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, at this critical point in our history when the global 
community is confronted with tough decisions concerning energy 
resources for future generations, it is important to remind ourselves 
of the lessons of the past.
  I am inspired by President Obama's recent decision concerning the 
storage of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In cutting funding 
to the Yucca Mountain project, President Obama made good on a campaign 
promise. But more significantly, he reignites the debate on a 
controversial issue: how to move and store the Nation's radioactive 
wastes?
  To understand the President's recent decision, I am reminded that as 
a U.S. Senator in 2007, he then wrote in the Las Vegas Review- Journal 
that ``states should not be fairly burdened with waste from other 
states.'' Moreover, ``every state should be afforded the opportunity to 
chart a course that addresses its own interim waste storage in a manner 
that makes sense to that state.''
  From the above statement, one may infer that President Obama's 
decision to terminate funding to the Yucca Mountain project underlines 
the high risks and danger involve with the storage and transportation 
of nuclear wastes and nuclear materials.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe a similar framework should apply to the 
international treatment of nuclear waste and nuclear materials. Each 
nation should be responsible for its own interim waste storage and 
avoid shipments of nuclear waste and nuclear materials across oceans 
and territorial waters of other nations.
  I support a moratorium on all international shipments of nuclear fuel 
and nuclear waste until the international community has in place an 
agreement to ensure the protection of our oceans and the environment, 
economy and population of coastal and small island states. Such an 
agreement should include prior notification and consultation of en-
route states before shipment of all hazardous and radioactive 
materials, environmental impact assessments, a satisfactory liability 
mechanism and protection from terrorism attacks.
  Until such system is in place, Europe, Japan and all nuclear states, 
should keep their nuclear materials and waste in their own backyard, 
and not endanger the lives of others.

                    [From USA Today, Mar. 17, 2009]

         Responsibility? Yucca Choice Squanders $8B Investment

       We usually applaud politicians who keep their campaign 
     promises, but one we were hoping President Obama would forget 
     was his pledge to end the 22-year effort to build a nuclear 
     waste repository inside remote Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
       Like it or not, the nation needs nuclear power as a carbon-
     free bridge to a future in which wind, solar and other 
     options will power computers and TVs and charge plug-in 
     hybrid cars. It makes sense to dispose of spent nuclear fuel 
     in a single place instead of at more than 100 nuclear plants 
     around the country, where it is now. Yucca was the presumed 
     central location until the president's ``new era of 
     responsibility'' budget would eliminate virtually all 
     funding. Never mind that environmental objections to the 
     project have long seemed strained and the logic for going 
     forward strong.
       Now the government has to find some other way to fulfill 
     its contract with nuclear utilities to take the waste off 
     their hands. Since 1983, the government has levied a fee on 
     every kilowatt hour of nuclear-generated electricity--guess 
     who's been paying that, ratepayers--to finance a national 
     disposal site. The feds have collected about $30 billion and 
     spent almost $8 billion on the Yucca Mountain site. So much 
     for that investment.
       During the presidential campaign, candidate Obama said he 
     wanted no new nuclear plants until there was some place to 
     store the waste, a stance that seems ominous now that he's 
     killed off the only central disposal site. When we asked the 
     Energy Department if that means no new nuclear plants until 
     there's a successor to Yucca Mountain, we got a carefully 
     hedged non-answer: ``The president remains committed to 
     resolving key issues including nuclear waste, non-
     proliferation and plant security.''
       Yucca's demise shouldn't be an excuse to delay new nuclear 
     plants. Storing spent fuel at existing plant sites is a 
     second-best solution, but it's a safe enough stopgap until 
     the nation agrees on a permanent disposal site. Once spent 
     fuel has cooled enough to move, it's typically stored 
     outdoors in steel pods that weigh 100 tons or more, emitting 
     little radiation and virtually impossible to destroy or 
     steal.
       The president and the nuclear industry now want a group of 
     experts to convene to decide what do next. An idea to revisit 
     is reprocessing spent fuel, which President Carter banned out 
     of security concerns that seem much less compelling 30 years 
     later. Reprocessing allows fuel to be re-used and shrinks the 
     ultimate amount of spent fuel--but what's left still has to 
     go somewhere.
       One potential site is in New Mexico, which in the past 
     decade has quietly accepted more than 7,000 shipments of 
     radioactive material from the nation's nuclear weapons 
     facilities and buried them in a salt bed almost half a mile 
     below the desert in the southeastern part of the state. By 
     law, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant can't accept spent fuel 
     from nuclear power plants, but some state officials have 
     agitated for a second facility there as a backup for Yucca. 
     It might be an alternative worth pursuing.
       Killing Yucca is a big political win for Senate Majority 
     Leader Harry Reid and other Nevada lawmakers who've long 
     opposed the storage site. But that victory empowers not-in-
     my-backyard politicians in every state to dig in their heels. 
     And, whether it's waste dumps or wind farms or oil refineries 
     or air routes, they do--the national interest be damned.
       When Obama lifted the ban on stem cell research last week, 
     his press secretary said the president made it clear that 
     ``politics should not drive science.'' Unfortunately, that's 
     exactly what happened here.

                     Yucca Plan Poses `Grave' Risk

                    (By Harry Reid and John Ensign)

       We applaud President Obama's bold decision to scale back 
     the budget for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 
     dump. Permanently ending the project is right not just for 
     our state but for our entire country.
       The peril of storing 70,000 tons of the nation's toxic 
     trash just an hour's drive from Las Vegas rightly worries 
     Nevadans, and all Americans would face a grave threat from 
     this bad idea.
       The reasons for ending the taxpayer boon-doggle are 
     plentiful: supporting data that relies on flawed science; 
     estimated costs of nearly $100 billion; and the egregious 
     error of burying waste that could, with American innovation, 
     be less dangerous and even be turned into energy.
       The Department of Energy's plan to store deadly nuclear 
     waste at Yucca ignores even the most glaring facts, such as 
     the major earthquake fault lines running across the storage 
     site. Many Americans are unaware that DOE concedes that water 
     will flow through the dump, eventually carrying radiation 
     into Nevada's groundwater.
       Yucca Mountain, simply put, is bad policy that is wrong for 
     America.
       America still needs a scientifically sound and responsible 
     policy to deal with nuclear waste. More taxpayer money dumped 
     into the Yucca Mountain project is more money wasted that 
     could have been invested in securing waste on nuclear plant 
     sites in dry

[[Page 7838]]

     casks, while researching new technologies such as 
     reprocessing. There are solutions.
       That is why we are working together and with our colleagues 
     on bipartisan legislation to form a commission exploring 
     alternative approaches. The Obama administration and the 
     nuclear energy industry have expressed support for reviewing 
     our nation's approach to nuclear waste so we will no longer 
     be stuck with the current failed policy.
       Forming such a commission would be only a first step away 
     from Yucca Mountain. It's an important and necessary step, 
     though. The effort will require input not only from our 
     nation's foremost authorities on nuclear energy and nuclear 
     waste, but also from policymakers, environmental experts and 
     public health and safety advocates.
       The time is now to put Yucca Mountain to rest and work 
     together to deal with nuclear waste concerns while also 
     protecting the health, safety and security of all Americans. 
     We look forward to working with President Obama and all 
     stakeholders in resolving our country's nuclear waste issues.

     

                          ____________________