Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
March 9, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2067 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY March 09, 2000 GEORGE V. VOINOVICH SENATOR SENATE
environment & public works clean air, wetlands, private property, and
nuclear safety NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BODY:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH MARCH 9, 2000 Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to be here this morning for this hearing on the operation and program
management of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and I am pleased to welcome our
colleague, Senator Jeff Sessions. In addition we will be hearing from NRC
Chairman Richard A. Meserve, Commissioner Greta Joy Dicus, Commissioner Nils
Diaz, Commissioner Edward McGaffen, and Commissioner Jeff Merrifield. Rounding
out the witness panels, we have Ralph Beedle, of the Nuclear Energy Institute,
Gary Jones, from the General Accounting Of lice, David Adelman, of the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and William Kennedy of the Health Physics Society.
According to the mission statement on its web site, it is the principal
responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "to ensure adequate
protection of the public health and safety, the common defense and security, and
the environment in the use of nuclear materials in the United States. The NRC's
scope of responsibility includes regulation of commercial nuclear power
reactors; non-power research, test, and training reactors; fuel cycle
facilities; medical, academic, and industrial uses of nuclear materials; and the
transport, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials and waste." The very
nature of nuclear materials makes the job of the NRC one of utmost importance -
it is up to the NRC to make sure that our nation's nuclear facilities are
running at their safest possible level. Equally important is the safeguarding of
our nuclear materials from misuse. The NRC is probably one of the few agencies
in the entire country where the job requirement is 100% perfection. Failure to
maintain strict safety requirements could have a disastrous impact on millions.
It is also up to the NRC to make sure that the United States has enough
high-quality nuclear material for the purpose of maintaining an effective
nuclear weapons arsenal. One of the main processors of this high-quality nuclear
material is the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. As our
witnesses may be aware, I have had a long-standing interest in the future of the
Portsmouth plant. Since 1954 - the beginning of the Cold War - the Portsmouth
plant's main purpose has been to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons and
propulsion systems for naval vessels. Over the years, thousands of dedicated men
and women in the civilian workforce at Piketon helped keep our military fully
supplied and our nation fully prepared to meet any potential threat. Their
success is measured in part with the end of the Cold war and the collapse of the
Soviet Union. As the (commissioners and Chairman Meserve are aware, the United
States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), which operates the Piketon facility,
announced last month that it will reduce its workforce by 20% at the Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio and its sister plant, the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky. The NRC re-certified USEC's
operation of both plants in January of 1999, primarily based on USEC's
investment-grade corporate credit rating. However, on February 4th of this year,
Standard and Poor downgraded USEC's credit rating to below investment grade
level. The "Agreement on Post-Closing Conduct" that USEC entered into with the
Department of Treasury outlined "significant events" which would allow USEC to
close down one of the facilities prior to 2005. One of these "significant
events" is a downgraded credit rating. USEC's recent credit rating downgrade is
prompting the NRC to reevaluate its "finding of inimicality". Under the USEC
Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134), the NRC is authorized to review whether
USEC's license "would be inimical to the common defense and security of the
United States; or the maintenance of a reliable and economical domestic source
of enrichment services." I believe the NRC must carefully consider its options
with respect to USEC, because the most severe action the NRC could take -
revoking USEC's license - involves serious ramifications. USEC is our nation's
sole producer of enriched uranium, and, as the NRC knows, enriched uranium is a
necessary component of America's nuclear fuel cycle and strategic weapons
systems. Revocation of USEC's license would have an impact on our ability to
meet domestic, commercial nuclear power needs and could jeopardize our national
security. I have every confidence that the NRC will take these and all factors
into consideration before rendering a decision on the future of USEC's license.
In addition, I believe the NRC must consider the full impact of USEC's recent
announcements regarding layoffs at Piketon and Paducah. I am concerned that
layoffs at these plants also will have a negative impact on our nation's ability
to access our domestic sources to nuclear energy. Further, the NRC must weigh
the long-term national security effects as a result of our potential reliance on
alternative, foreign nuclear fuel sources. The NRC needs to ascertain whether
the announced layoffs will be "inimical" to our domestic nuclear fuel supply, as
outlined in the USEC Privatization Act. Another nuclear-related issue that I am
concerned about is the long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste. Without a
long- term solution to this problem, the Perry and Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Plants in Northeast Ohio will reach maximum capacity in 2007 and 2017
respectively. If a permanent storage solution is not reached, it could
jeopardize the viability of one or both of these plants. This is an important
issue to Ohioans, since approximately 12 percent of the electricity generated in
Ohio comes from nuclear plants. The American people have contributed some $15
billion to design and construct a permanent home for high-level nuclear waste.
More than $6 billion of that has already been spent. Since 1977, when the
Davis-Besse nuclear plant was built, Ohioans have paid more than $287 million
into this fund - $22 million just last year. It is unconscionable for the
federal government to continue to impose this tax without using the funds to
finish constructing the permanent site. Last month, like 63 of my colleagues, I
voted in favor of S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act, to get the
federal government "off the dime." I am pleased to read in Chairman Meserve's
testimony that the NRC continues to prepare for the Department of Energy's
application for a high-level repository at Yucca Mountain and
that the NRC has "proposed implementing regulations that...will serve to protect
public health, safety and the environment." Further, I am pleased that the NRC
has given comments to DoE on its "viability assessment, draft environmental
impact statement and draft siting guidelines for Yucca
Mountain." One final item I would like to bring up with the NRC is our
nation's lack of a coherent/cohesive energy policy. This is obviously an issue
that will need to be addressed, particularly in light of recent increases in
prices for home heating oil and gasoline as well as the future of nuclear energy
in our nation. Mr. Chairman, my schedule precludes me from staying for the
duration of this hearing, however, I will submit a series of questions to our
witnesses. I would like to thank them for coming here this morning and I would
like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing.
LOAD-DATE: March 15, 2000, Wednesday