[ RadSafe ] Outlook - Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing

Fri Aug 5 14:44:16 CDT 2005

-----Original Message-----
From: fyi at aip.org [mailto:fyi at aip.org] 
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 3:23 PM
To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)
Subject: FYI #118: Outlook - Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science
Policy News
Number 118: August 5, 2005

Hearings Demonstrate Little Enthusiasm for Nuclear
Fuel Reprocessing

"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/

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:
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
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."

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi at aip.org    http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 