[ RadSafe ] Article: Movement on Reprocessing, and Energy (13 new plants?)

[John Jacobus]

>From another list server.

-----Original Message-----
From: fyi at aip.org [mailto:fyi at aip.org] 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:25 PM
To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) [E]
Subject: FYI #12: Movement on Nuclear Fuel
Reprocessing

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science
Policy News
Number 12: January 26, 2006

Movement on Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing

One of the more significant areas of initial
disagreement in the FY 2006 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill was the reprocessing
of spent nuclear fuel. House appropriators advanced a
plan for the Department of Energy to designate one or
more above-ground interim storage sites for domestic
spent fuel, and move ahead on the selection of a
reprocessing technology, an approach that Senate
appropriators did not take.  The final legislation
written by the appropriators provided $50 million to
"develop a spent nuclear fuel recycling plan" (see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/161.html.)

Today's edition of "The Washington Post" describes a
Bush Administration proposal to be sent to Congress in
coming weeks to increase nuclear power generation in
the United States and abroad, and to reprocess nuclear
fuel from other nations.  The "Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership" would provide funding for the development
of technologies to substantially reduce or eliminate
the possible diversion of nuclear materials.  The Post
quotes  Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), chairman of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee, and chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, that he will introduce a bill to
implement the Administration's plan, hold a hearing on
it, and move the legislation to the Senate floor this
spring.

Domenici discussed his position on nuclear power and
fuel recycling at the November meeting of the
U.S.-Japan Workshop on Nuclear Energy.  Selections
from his address follow:

"With the recent passage of the Energy Policy Act,
utilities are deciding that the time is right to build
nuclear power plants in America. In fact, as of last
week, eight utilities across the United States have
announced plans to take the first step in building 13
new nuclear power plants that, combined, will produce
at least 15 gigawatts of new power in the next 15
years.  These eight utilities are taking these first
steps by starting the licensing process for a new
plant.

"If all 13 plants are built, the construction and
operation of the plants would create approximately
18,000 construction jobs and 6,000 high-paying,
high-tech jobs.

"I believe Congress has shown vision and leadership in
making our nuclear renaissance a reality. To those who
say the government has not done enough to address
climate change, I would counter that the extraordinary
congressional commitment to new nuclear power has been
driven in large part by a deep and abiding concern for
our environment and our climate.

"However, a challenge remains. Our work to foster new
nuclear power has added new urgency to an old
question: what should the U.S. fuel cycle be to
support long-term, sustainable nuclear power?

"And while we tackle that challenge, what do we do
with our spent nuclear fuel?

"For years, Yucca Mountain was the answer. But Yucca
Mountain evolved from the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy
Act.  In 1982 the industry was in 'status quo.'  The
nuclear plants that existed at the time would run to
their projected lifetimes and be tecommissioned.  The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission became the nursemaid
that would watch over the industry until the last
plant turned off.

"Yucca Mountain was created to be the final resting
place of the spent nuclear fuel from these plants --
and frankly, the resting place of nuclear energy in
the United States.  The intent was to move fuel to the
mountain, fill the mountain and close it. At that
point, we would simply haggle over what kind of sign
to hang over the locked front door.

"But it's no longer 1982.  While some plants have shut
down, the vast majority of nuclear power plants in
this country still operate, providing clean and
reliable electricity that's cheaper than all other
sources except hydropower. Operating licenses and
plant lifetimes are being extended to extract the most
from these investments. And now, 13 new power plants
are being discussed. 
"In this new environment, the current U.S. policy
regarding Yucca Mountain should be that it will not do
enough by itself.  I believe we must look anew on our
policy on spent nuclear fuel and I think that
re-evaluation is under way.

"As a fan and believer in demonstrated technology
solutions, I urge continued research and development
of reprocessing technologies that deal with the
limitations of existing technology. We must conduct
engineering scale pilot demonstrations to prove the
technology can be scaled-up and is economically viable
before choosing a technology that will enable us to
squeeze every last bit of energy from those fuel
elements, leaving in its wake by-products that can be
safely and effectively managed. 

"I believe we must bring the scientific passion and
creativity to the fuel cycle that we have brought to
creating smaller, safer and more powerful nuclear
reactors. What we have done globally with advanced
nuclear reactors in the last 20 years amazes me. I
believe what we can do with the fuel cycle in the next
20 years can amaze the world.

"But that's me. I have always been a fan of what I
call Big Science -- science that improves modern life.
I am the man you expect to advocate a renewed
commitment to fuel technologies.

"But the interest in exploring solutions beyond Yucca
Mountain is coming from other quarters now. Let me
give you a few examples.

"We appropriated  $50 million for spent fuel recycling
in the current energy and water appropriations bill.
The recommendation for this funding came first from
the House, not my subcommittee.

"I note with interest a series of discussions within
the Administration on long term solutions to
reprocessing.

"Even the courts and regulatory agencies are weighing
in. The current legal and regulatory debate or
disposal standards has raised the question about
whether it drives to fuel treatment.

"These issues are complex.   I believe technology
provides more than one answer -- what we are beginning
to see is a dance between what is technically possible
and what is socially necessary and acceptable.  It
will be a long discussion, but we have decades."

###############
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##########



+++++++++++++++++++
"Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an email."  - Eliot Spitzer, New York state attorney general

-- 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