Nuclear power in the Democratic and Republican party platforms—44 years ago

Both parties then (and now) wanted safe, reliable energy and a solution to the “nuclear waste disposal problem,” but had little other common ground when it came to nuclear power, with the Democrats pushing for renewable energy and the Republicans for coal and nuclear.

What has changed in 44 years? Recent bipartisan legislation suggests that both Democrats and Republicans today can agree with this statement:

We support accelerated use of nuclear energy through technologies that have been proven efficient and safe. The design and operation of these plants can be guaranteed without the present 10-to-12-year lead time now required to license and build them. We believe that the licensing process can and should be streamlined through consolidation of the present process and the use of standardized reactor designs.

In 1980, that was part of a plank in the Republican party platform.

Want to know more about what was said in 1980 about nuclear waste, energy, licensing, and reprocessing? Read for yourself in this news article republished in full from the August 1980 issue of NN. (As always, ANS members have free access to the magazine's full archives.)

_______________________________

Diverse nuclear platform planks

Republished from Nuclear News, August 1980, p. 35.

The nuclear energy planks in the Democratic and Republican platforms are not poles apart, because each, in varying degrees, supports the continuation of nuclear power. Nonetheless, the two planks are exceptionally diverse, since the Democrats give only a lukewarm endorsement to nuclear energy, while the Republicans are quite bullish on the subject.

The Democratic statement came about only after a long and acrimonious battle between the White House and the antinuclear lobby, which sought a full nuclear moratorium. In the end, the Carterites, who had easily won their points elsewhere in the platform statements, came away with what domestic affairs adviser Stuart Eizenstat called “the best language we could get.”

This best language promises to “retire nuclear plants in an orderly manner” as alternative sources of electricity are phased in.

The Republican plank writers were considerably more enthusiastic about the future of nuclear power, saying the party supports “accelerated use of nuclear energy through technologies that have been proven efficient and safe.”

The Democratic plank fight drew the most attention from the media, because it represented all the drama associated with the nuclear controversy.

As it drafted its energy statement—one that is filled with words of great appreciation for the giant strides taken by this Administration in its comprehensive energy planning and program execution—the Democratic energy committee became embroiled in a fight over nuclear power.

The first draft of the nuclear-energy statement came from a Carter delegate, Carrie Wasley, of Minnesota. It was also supported by other Carter delegates on the committee, and was hailed by the Kennedyites.

The Wasley proposal called for a moratorium on all new nuclear plants and an orderly phase-out of all existing plants. This position statement, reportedly, gave the White House numerous problems, and Eizenstat was dispatched to work out a compromise that would more closely support President Carter’s position that nuclear energy must, in the near term, generate a fair share of the nation's electricity.

The ensuing fight over nuclear energy brought to the fore a “citizens lobby,” which calls its efforts “Campaign for Safe Energy.” This group is stridently antinuclear.

Both the White House and Campaign for Safe Energy claimed themselves the winner when the compromise language was finally voted and announced, but the Washington Post conceded the victory to the antinuclear forces.

Here is what the Post said about the outcome: “The victory appeared to symbolize the growing strength of the antinuclear movement, one of only a few political causes that has attracted broad public support in recent years.”

Obversely, the Republican energy platform drew very little attention from the national media, which noted only that nuclear energy was strongly endorsed.

Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans appear to have drafted their energy plank with little or no internal controversy. This statement is highly critical of the Carter achievements in energy, using these words: “Never before in the history of American government has so much been done at such great expense with such dismal results.”

Endorsing reprocessing, the breeder reactor, and “sound plans for waste disposal”—for which “technical solutions exist”—the Republican statement has this to say about the Three Mile Island accident:

“The [TMI] incident suggests the need for certain reforms such as in the area of operator training, but [it] also illustrates that properly designed and operated nuclear plants do not endanger public health and safety.”

Here are the nuclear energy portions of the two platform statements:

Democratic (drafted June 23, 1980): “We must make conservation and renewable energy our nation’s energy priorities for the future. Through the federal government’s commitment to renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, and as alternative fuels become available in the future, we will retire nuclear plants in an orderly manner.

“We must give the highest priority to dealing with the nuclear waste disposal problem. Current efforts to develop a safe, environmentally sound nuclear waste disposal plan must be continued and intensified.

“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall issue no licenses or permits for new nuclear plants until the Kemeny Commission recommendations are fully implemented. Existing plants must be required to meet the safety recommendations of the Kemeny Commission. The Democratic Party supports prompt implementation of their recommendations. No plant unable to meet these standards can be allowed to operate.”

Republican (drafted July 10): “Coal and nuclear fission offer the best intermediate solutions to America's energy needs. We support accelerated use of nuclear energy through technologies that have been proven efficient and safe. The design and operation of these plants can be guaranteed without the present 10-to-12-year lead time now required to license and build them. We believe that the licensing process can and should be streamlined through consolidation of the present process and the use of standardized reactor designs.

“The Three Mile Island incident suggests the need for certain reforms, such as in the area of operator training, but also illustrates that properly designed and operated nuclear plants do not endanger public health and safety. We further encourage the research, development, and demonstration of the breeder reactor with its potential for safely contributing to our nation’s future energy supplies.

“Nuclear power development requires sound plans for nuclear waste disposal and storage and reprocessing of spent fuel. Technical solutions to these problems exist, and decisive federal action to choose and implement solutions is essential. The Democratic controlled Congress and Administration have failed to address the spent-fuel problem. A Republican Congress and Administration will immediately begin to implement plans for regional away-from-reactor storage of spent fuel with the goal of implementation of a program no later than 1984.

“Republicans are committed to the rapid development of permanent storage facilities for nuclear wastes. Since waste disposal is a national responsibility, no state should bear an unacceptable share of this responsibility.

“Republicans will also move toward reprocessing of spent fuel.”