Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Christopher Smith, as we have introduced a resolution condemning the transport of…
Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Christopher Smith, as we have introduced a resolution condemning the transport of certain types of nuclear waste, commonly known as mixed oxide fuel, containing plutonium and uranium, through international waters. And we urge the countries that produce the waste to keep such nuclear waste within their borders.
Madam Speaker, last month two British-flagged vessels left France with 1.8 tons of plutonium bound for Japan. They are scheduled to arrive in port at some point this month. From what has been made public, the shipment is to travel via the Cape of Good Hope, across the southern Indian Ocean, then through the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand, and then through the southwest Pacific Ocean, and finally to Japan.
The plutonium itself is contained within what is commonly known as MOX fuel, a toxic mixture of plutonium and uranium oxide. The MOX will be used by Japanese electric utilities to power their nuclear energy plants.
Madam Speaker, mixed oxide fuel containing plutonium and uranium is legal. The release of even a small amount of it during transport over thousands of miles of open sea, whether as a result of accidents or malicious intent, would cause serious health and environmental harm to surrounding areas. That has always been made clear.
But MOX poses a far more ominous threat. With the right technology, it can be reprocessed into weapons-grade material. And according to reputable estimates, enough plutonium is contained in the MOX currently headed towards Japan to produce more than 200 nuclear bombs. Every Member of this Chamber, Madam Speaker, knows that al Qaeda and its networks would like nothing better than to get their hands on enough fissile material to build a nuclear explosive device or a radiological bomb, however crude, and to detonate it where it can do the most harm. We and our allies around the world have committed our best intelligence, military and civilian officials, to work around the clock to eliminate the possibility of that ever happening.
And yet by permitting the transport of MOX over open seas, obviously we are providing terrorists one more avenue of attack for getting access to the nuclear materials they have so long coveted.
Indeed, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency said that the risk of hijacking a ship carrying nuclear materials, while small, could not be ruled out.
Madam Speaker, piracy has become an obvious problem around the globe. So far this year just in the waters of Somalia alone, pirates have attacked 61 ships. More than a dozen of those vessels remain in the pirates' hands to this very day. One of them, a Ukrainian cargo ship, actually contained military equipment--33 battle tanks.
Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that everyone here remembers the recent hijacking of the Maersk Alabama off the Somali coast, and the heroic actions of Captain Richard Philips and his crew of 21 members. The ship was captured by four Somali pirates on April 8 last month. The captain surrendered himself to ensure the safety of his crew, only to end up in a lifeboat with the pirates for 4 days while the FBI attempted to negotiate his release.
Thankfully, Captain Richard Philips was rescued on April 12, but our Navy SEALs, justifiably, had to kill three of the hostage-takers. In the aftermath of that event, Somali pirates have issued threats to specifically target American interests in this region.
We know that it doesn't cost much to hire a band of Somali pirates and that they are not fussy about their clientele. While the ships in question may not sail over Somali waters, they will likely pass through the Straits of Malacca, the vital link between the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
But make no mistake, those straits are plied by their own bands of pirates. Indeed, according to the International Maritime Bureau, these and nearby waters have been ranked the world's most dangerous sea routes. In the year 2004, 40 percent of all pirate attacks in the world took place in the Straits of Malacca and nearby Indonesian waters.
Of course, terrorists need not hire pirates to do their dirty work. In the year 2002, al Qaeda operatives rammed a boat rigged with explosives into a French oil tanker off the coast of Yemen.
The two particular vessels transporting the MOX from France to Japan, the Pacific Pintail and the Pacific Heron, are not without protection. They are armed with five 30 millimeter Naval cannons. In addition, a group of armed police officers from the United Kingdom Office of Civil Nuclear Security is on board.
However, a study done by the U.S. Department of Energy concludes that due to the risk of attack on nuclear shipments, there is a need to provide ``continuous backup support for the vessel by military security assets.''
In 1992, a shipment of 1.7 tons of MOX nuclear material from France to Japan was escorted by a Japanese Coast Guard vessel. This time, the public does not know what sort of a dedicated Naval vessel or vessels are escorting the ships.
The Pentagon concluded in its own assessment of sea shipments of plutonium that ``even if the most careful precautions are observed, no one could guarantee the safety of the cargo from a security incident, such as an attack on the vessel by small, fast craft, especially armed with modern anti-ship missiles.''
Madam Speaker, thus the transport of this nuclear waste poses not only the environmental hazard we have long been concerned about, but also a nontrivial terrorist or even nuclear danger as well.
I ask my colleagues, is the practice of transporting these lethal nuclear waste materials across international waters worth the risk? I say absolutely not.
It's time for the countries of the world that produce nuclear waste to keep it within their own borders. That will be a first step.
Madam Speaker, make no mistake, transport of nuclear materials even within a country's borders poses serious risks. Nuclear fuel is dangerous stuff. According to the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, ``A person standing 3 feet from unshielded irradiated fuel would receive a lethal radiation dose in 10 seconds.'' Moreover, the shipping containers in which radioactive waste are transported over land typically are designed to withstand, at most, a 30-mile per hour crash into an immovable object.
I am certain that every Member of this Chamber studiously obeys the speed limits, but I am not aware of too many highways with a speed limit of 30 miles an hour. What I find particularly disconcerting is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not tested these shipping casks. Instead, the commission depends on the reliability of computer simulations.
A Nuclear Information and Resource Service fact sheet also states, ``The more severe an accident, the more likely that radioactive material would be released into the environment.'' A low-
speed accident could unseat a valve or damage a seal, releasing radioactive particulates into the environment. The same event could crack the brittle metal tubing around the fuel.''
In response to a 2001 Baltimore rail accident involving dangerous chemicals, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, ``Everyone needs to recognize that transporting dangerous materials is very difficult. The leaking hydrochloric acid in Baltimore is nothing compared to the high-level radioactive waste proposed for the Yucca Mountain site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. A speck the size of a pinpoint would kill a person. What we should do with nuclear waste is leave it where it is.''
Madam Speaker, even just within our own domestic borders, we have become a deeply divided nation concerning the storage of nuclear waste materials within our own country. Years ago in its so-called infinite wisdom, Congress decided to build a multibillion-dollar storage facility at Yucca Mountain in the State of Nevada. Were the people or the residents of Nevada ever given an opportunity to have a say in the process, despite strong objections from its congressional delegation and State government officials?
If I were a resident of Nevada, I would certainly object to the whole idea of other States shipping their nuclear waste and materials into my backyard. The question that comes to mind, Madam Speaker, what town, what city, what rural farm areas are going to be used or designated for shipments by truck, by train, by car, by airplanes? What guarantees are there that these shipments are not going to be subjected to terrorist attacks or even by accident?
Remember the oil spill of Valdez in Alaska, Madam Speaker? Everybody said it was absolutely safe to conduct such shipments of oil. Well, it happened, and the same thing can also be said if nuclear waste materials were shipped from other States to Yucca Mountain in the State of Nevada.
Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with our majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, expressing his concerns. I urge my colleagues to join me and Congressman Smith in calling for an end to this even more dangerous and in my opinion needless practice of shipping MOX nuclear waste materials over the open oceans. I ask my colleagues to support House Resolution 402.
