July 31, 1975
Page 26411
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the events of the last 2 years will force all of us in the Congress to make many difficult decisions about our Nation's energy future. One such decision faces us today: Shall we put off development of the breeder reactor or move ahead now to demonstrate its feasibility?
This decision is difficult because it involves the sincere concern of many people about the safety of nuclear energy. I share that concern about nuclear safety, and especially the safety of breeder technology. But I am also persuaded that we must continue breeder research and development to help fulfill the promise of the billions of dollars already invested in fission technology. If it works, the breeder reactor could provide a significant portion of our electricity by the 21st century, replacing our declining fossil fuels and conserving conventional uranium resources.
I am in favor of pursuing research and development on all of our major energy options including some that may turn out to be more attractive than this one, such as solar electric, solar thermal, fusion and geothermal power. We should also include a major effort in end-use conservation.
I am voting against the amendment offered by the junior Senator from California and for the continued development of the breeder because I think we must continue to answer these questions — will the breeder reactor work as planned, and will it work safely? They cannot be answered properly until a demonstration power plant is built.
Nuclear power presents may unanswered environmental questions which ought to slow the pace of commercial development. Questions have been raised about storage of radioactive waste, safeguards for plutonium and uranium, transportation of nuclear materials and reactor safety.
These questions give me great reservations about the present state of the nuclear art. These questions must be addressed and they must be answered favorably before a commitment to a great increase in nuclear power would be wise. Whether we continue with the breeder or not, these basic reservations about nuclear power will remain. However, the decision to continue research and development should be independent of the decision to deploy commercial power plants. The Clinch River breeder reactor is primarily a development project, an essential step towards learning the merits and demerits of this technology. We need this information to properly assess the potential of the breeder reactor.
I also have great reservations about the use of plutonium, an exceedingly dangerous material, but these must be answered whether the breeder is built or not, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is in the process of doing so in connection with plutonium recycling for conventional reactors.
ERDA has identified three so-called "inexhaustible" energy supplies to supply our needs in the 21st century and beyond: Breeder reactors, solar energy and fusion. The problem is that we do not know now which, if any, of these will be technically feasible as well as environmentally and economically acceptable. We must continue research and development on all three. A vote against the Clinch River plant would be a vote to go more slowly than prudence dictates in the search for an environmentally acceptable solution to our energy problems. In this sense, it would be irresponsible to prejudge Clinch River and by so doing to limit our environmental, as well as energy options.
Those in favor of this amendment warn us that this is our last chance to say no to the breeder. I do not accept this argument. I reserve the right to call a halt to the commercial development of the breeder at any time that it is shown to be in the public interest to do so.
We must continue to develop other promising energy sources, and S. 598, the ERDA authorization bill, certifies our commitment to this goal. And as these other resources are developed, we must answer the questions about the breeder reactor. Only then may we make an informed decision about its potential relative to our real options.