"This is not the best picture that we are having painted for
us, and does cause a great amount of consternation." - Rep.
Al Green (D-TX)
None of the witnesses at two different hearings held by the House Science
Subcommittee on Energy had much enthusiasm about the federal government
implementing a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing system in the near future.
Concerns about the risks of nuclear proliferation and the high cost
of reprocessing were cited repeatedly as reasons for the federal government
to do further research before making any decision.
Nuclear fuel reprocessing has come to the forefront because of the
FY 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill that was passed
by the House in May. The report accompanying this bill included the
following language: "[T]he Committee directs the Department
to prepare an integrated spent fuel recycling plan for implementation
in fiscal year 2007, including selection of an advanced reprocessing
technology and a competitive process to select one or more sites to
develop integrated spent fuel recycling facilities (i.e., reprocessing,
preparation of mixed oxide fuel, vitrification of high level waste products,
and temporary process storage)" (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/082.html.)
The Senate version of this bill had more standard language on advanced
fuel cycle research (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/102.html.)
Eight expert witnesses testified at the two hearings on the status
of reprocessing technologies and likely economic, energy efficiency,
waste management, and weapons proliferation impacts. Chairing both hearings
was Judy Biggert (R-IL) who in opening remarks on June 16 said that
the current open fuel cycle was "just plain wasteful" and
did not make sense. She termed reprocessing "the first step to
better managing our waste." Biggert described an April trip with
House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman
David Hobson (R-OH) to inspect a reprocessing facility in France. Ranking
Member Michael Honda (D-CA) gave guarded support for reprocessing, citing
concerns about nuclear proliferation.
Somewhat unexpectedly, Hobson sat in for the opening of this first
hearing. "What we are trying to do is get the dialogue going and
get some real action," he said. Hobson called for a reexamination
of the U.S. decision against reprocessing since it was being done elsewhere
in the world. Hobson stated his support for the opening of the Yucca
Mountain site, and said that without reprocessing the repository would
be filled more quickly. He praised Biggert for her interest in this
issue. Later in the hearing, Hobson predicted that there will be a sizeable
clash with the Senate over reprocessing as the final FY 2006 funding
bill is written.
The first witness was Robert Shane Johnson, the Acting Director of
DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. He said the
Bush Administration was examining the House Appropriations Committee
Report language on reprocessing, and gave a standard "we look forward
to working closely with the Congress on what is a key issue" statement.
Matthew Bunn of Harvard University was unambiguous in his testimony,
saying that a near term decision on reprocessing "would be a serious
mistake." There is no reason to rush, he said, since dry cask storage
works. Furthermore, he warned, mandated reprocessing would hinder, not
encourage, the utilization of nuclear energy. Bunn called for a stronger
research program.
Roger Hagengruber of the University of New Mexico and the chair of
the Nuclear Energy Study Group of the American Physical Society, a Member
Society of the American Institute of Physics, also testified. The study
group released a 25-page report in May entitled "Nuclear Power
and Proliferation Resistance: Securing Benefits, Limiting Risks."
The report cited the expected 50% growth in global electricity demand
by 2025 and concluded that "Nuclear power is the primary carbon-free
energy source for meeting this extensive global energy expansion."
The study group outlined the risk that reprocessing poses for the theft
or covert use of "essential material for a nuclear explosive."
One of the reports' four general recommendations was to "Align
federal programs to reflect the fact that there is no urgent need to
initiate reprocessing or to develop additional spent fuel repositories
in the U.S." Hagengruber also told the subcommittee that APS "quite
strongly" supports the expansion of nuclear energy, but warned
that an immediate move to reprocessing would threaten the growth of
nuclear energy. The report can be accessed at http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/proliferation-resistance/index.cfm
Also testifying at this hearing was Phillip Finck of Argonne National
Laboratory who was more optimistic about the prospects for reprocessing.
His written testimony stated, "Moving forward in 2007 with an engineering-scale
demonstration of an integrated system of proliferation-resistant, advanced
separations and transmutation technologies would be an excellent first
step in demonstrating all of the necessary technologies for a sustainable
future for nuclear energy." The written testimony of the witnesses
can be found at: http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/energy05/june15/index.htm
As committee members questioned the witnesses it was clear that they
supported an expansion of nuclear energy in the United States. There
was a general consensus that current spent fuel rod storage methods
are working, and much more research was needed before reprocessing should
commence. An early decision to reprocess spent fuel would be both expensive
and controversial, and would work against building new nuclear energy
plants. It was also felt that there were sufficient reserves of uranium
ore for future expansion of nuclear generating plants. There was some
sentiment expressed for moving ahead with regional above ground, retrievable
storage facilities. Hagengruber described how reprocessing could increase
the opportunity for illicit nuclear weapons. As he stated, "from
a physicist's point of view, recycling makes sense. . . . On the other
hand, proliferation has been a persistent problem, an emotional problem;
it's one that gets into the deepest sense of fear that people have,
and it affects the political environment, the cycles of support and
non support for nuclear energy." This is not a physics problem,
Hagengruber said, but a political problem.
The July 12 hearing focused on the economic aspects of nuclear fuel
processing. Biggert also chaired this hearing, and in her prepared opening
remarks stated "There are many reasons why the United States should
embrace an advanced fuel cycle that uses reprocessing, recycling, and
transmutation . . . as a way to deal with our nuclear waste problem."
While acknowledging that reprocessing would be more expensive than current
techniques, she said, "But let's face it, the federal government
does a lot that isn't economical – often because doing so is in
the best interest of the nation for other reasons." Ranking Member
Honda was again guarded in his remarks, saying that it would be unwise
to proceed to a reprocessing decision without knowing the costs.
The four witnesses at this hearing were very cautious about the prospects
for reprocessing (see http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/energy05/july%2012/index.htm.)
Richard K. Lester of MIT testified that reprocessing would work against
the expansion of nuclear energy because of the higher cost that it would
impose. It would be "extremely unlikely" that within the next
few decades reprocessing and mining/enriching costs would be roughly
equal. Lester pointed to a MIT study that concluded reprocessing would
not be attractive for at least fifty years. Donald W. Jones of RCF Economic
and Financial Consulting, Inc. estimated that after the construction
of the first few power plants, nuclear energy could be competitive with
fossil fuels, particularly if carbon sequestration was required at fossil
fuel plants. Steve Fetter of the University of Maryland concluded that
it was extremely unlikely that the cost of uranium would be competitive
with reprocessing, and commercial operators of utility plants would
be unlikely to embrace it. Marvin Fertel of the Nuclear Energy Institute
called for an additional five to ten years of R&D, after which another
decade would be required to establish a reprocessing facility. Fertel
predicted that it would require "a couple of decades to honestly
deploy the facilities that you want, assuming that they are economic."
In the near-term, House and Senate appropriators are going to be making
a decision when they return from the congressional recess in September
regarding what action the Department of Energy should take concerning
reprocessing by FY 2007 . As Biggert said at the second hearing, "This
is something that is upon us."
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl