Ed Markey

To think that we are dependent upon the Norwegians to do this research to make sure that now these aging plants do not endanger the public is a little bit frightening.

I am shocked that we do not have the indigenous capacity in the United States to do the testing of aging nuclear parts in a nuclear power plant.

You know, it should not be you. They should be the ones making the case for a 123 agreement, not you.

I think we have to know that. We are doing it for a private sector reason.

Right. Well, again, the Russians in Chernobyl did not have a containment dome. So they did not have safety requirements in Russia at that time. So in the United States, we have a huge Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety infrastructure in…

We have 100 nuclear power plants here in America, and we do not have a capacity here to test aging nuclear components?

Every time we do it, there should be a good reason for it. That is my view.

I think we do. So I do not understand why, again, we would move to our nonproliferation policy as a solution for a private sector problem that is, from the definition of what they are going to be doing with it, strictly contained within…

So the need for the joint research between the United States and Norway at Halden in Norway appears to be the main reason for a new 123 agreement.

So we are trying to encourage people, I would think, to not act in a way that is uneconomic, which is reprocessing, to also act in a way which can provide a safe alternative.

Providing an alternative to avoid the reprocessing option, which has proliferation implications, and offering other alternatives, it seems to me, should be explored as a way of solving Norway's problem without actually yet creating another…

My answer would be, of course, it makes it harder to discourage other countries, the deeper we get involved in the industry ourselves even indirectly, as you are saying here.

At the end of the day, we wind up being part of this with that wink and nod to this ultimately very dangerous technology that some day very well could come back to haunt the whole planet.

It always has been and it continues to be where we kind of preach temperance but from a bar stool, saying do not do it, but yet here, once again, we are going to allow Norway to take our materials and take it to France.

By saying that we give permission for Norway to take our nuclear materials to France, we are just sending a dual message that would be hard to miss by the French.

It is about a precedent that is set. It is about further momentum which is created towards a reprocessing world that ultimately increases the likelihood of these nuclear materials falling into the hands of those who would use them for…

I do not agree that this agreement in any way encourages Norway to pursue such technology.

What concerns me is that by allowing Norway to export our spent nuclear fuel to other countries for reprocessing, we are as a country promoting a technology that is bad for nonproliferation.

As you testified in March, reprocessing makes no financial sense, but it is not only economically unjustifiable, it is also dangerous.

As Senator Markey has already noted, it has one clause that is not in every 123 agreement but that is far from unprecedented.

If reprocessing is economically unjustifiable and militarily dangerous, why should any agreement we sign provide advance consent to engage in this activity?

Well, let me just stop you right there.

That is a very alarming statement in your testimony.

But it was in response to a policy that we put on the books. Is that correct?

They said they would do it.