[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DOMENICI SPEECH: RADIATION
Can anyone document the following :
Please list which plants are being shut down due to lack of
nuclear aste storage space?
When was the last nuclear plant built and are there any plans
for new plants?
Thank you
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charp, Paul" <pac4@cdc.gov>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 7:37 AM
Subject: FW: DOMENICI SPEECH: RADIATION
> the following text was forwarded to me and I thought it might be of
interest
> to the group
>
> Paul A. Charp, Ph.D.
> Senior Health Physicist
> CDC/ATSDR
> 1600 Clifton Rd (E-56)
> Atlanta, GA 30333
> (404)639-6004 fax 6075
>
>
> Subject: DOMENICI SPEECH: RADIATION
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Pete V. Domenici
> United States Senator
> (Delivered by Dr. Peter Lyons for Domenici)
>
> Current Developments in Nuclear Energy and Radiation Policy
>
>
> Plenary Session Address
> Gordon Research Conference
> Nuclear Waste and Energy
>
> July 16, 2000
> Colby-Sawyer College
> New London, New Hampshire
>
> I appreciate the invitation to participate with you today as you
start
> this
> important conference. As you well know, the subjects that you are
exploring
> are
> very high on my list of personal interests. Unfortunately, the pace of
> actions
> in the Senate precludes my attendance.
>
> It's been an interesting year for nuclear energy. For that matter, it's
> been an
> interesting year to test our national energy policy - or more
specifically
> our
> absence of a national energy policy. As stark evidence of that fact,
> we've
> experienced tremendous swings in prices for oil-based products over the
> last 18
> months, gyrations that underscore our dependence on foreign sources
for
> this
> precious commodity and for energy resources in general. These
events
> have
> significantly raised the public's awareness of the importance of
> stable,
> predictable baseload sources of low cost electricity, which nuclear
> energy
> supplies.
>
> Nuclear energy has risen to the challenge of providing for our nation's
> energy
> needs with superb performance. Last year, it produced about 22 percent
of
> our
> nation's electricity. The average unit capability factor for the
nation,
> the
> factor that measures the percentage of maximum electricity generation
> that a
> plant is capable of supplying, rose to 88.7 percent in 1999. It
was
> 62.7
> percent in 1980.
>
> Safety of U.S. plants remains excellent, the number of unplanned
> automatic
> shutdowns, or scrams, was zero for the third year in a row. The
> industry's
> safety accident rate has dropped from 2.1 lost-time accidents per
> 200,000
> worker-hours in 1980 to 0.34 in 1999 -- compared to the rate for all
of
> U.S.
> private industry of 2.9 in 1998. Another impressive statistic is that
> 96% of
> the U.S. nuclear power plants were available more than 95 percent of the
> time.
>
> There's still more positive news for nuclear energy. We've now seen the
> first
> license renewals for nuclear power plants, an immensely important
milestone.
>
> It's important from many perspectives:
> ! it demonstrates a long term future for nuclear energy,
> ! it demonstrates that a rejuvenated NRC is responding to complex issues
> within a reasonable time frame, and
> ! it continues the environmental benefits of nuclear energy by avoiding
> replacement of aging plants with fossil fueled- plants.
>
> There's bad news too. We've had our share of disappointments in the
> legislative
> arena as the Administration again blocked all progress toward expedited
> nuclear
> waste disposition schedules. Their actions seriously undermine the
> optimism I
> have for the future of nuclear energy in the United States.
>
> On the one hand, Yucca Mountain work continues to advance the
> scientific
> understanding of this location. I am hearing somewhat higher confidence
> that it
> may be possible from a scientific perspective to certify that site as
a
> high
> level waste repository. But on the other hand, I've seen no hint
that
> the
> opposition in Nevada is going to be swayed by any amount of scientific
> evidence.
> Between Nevada opposition and scientific questions, I seriously doubt
> that we
> are going to see Yucca Mountain in operation by the advertised 2010 date.
>
> Even if Yucca Mountain is operating in 2010, many utilities are
desperate
> for
> storage now. Some plants are running out of storage space, and face
> premature
> closure of their facilities. Such closures would only force their
> replacement
> by other sources capable of generating such large amounts of base load
> power.
>
> That forces the utilities to use more fossil-fueled plants, which only
> increases
> environmental concerns and the risk of price fluctuations.
>
> We need solutions as soon as possible for nuclear waste, and Congress
did
> its
> best this year to provide leadership in this key area. Senate bill
> S.1287
> developed by Senator Frank Murkowski provided a solution by creating an
> "early
> receipt facility" near Yucca Mountain that could have begun to receive
> waste in
> 2007. But even after that bill passed both Houses by significant
> margins, it
> was vetoed by the President. A veto over-ride vote in the Senate failed
by
> one
> slim vote. Thus, the Administration succeeded for yet another year in
> stopping
> all progress toward earlier solutions.
>
> I remain puzzled and alarmed how an Administration that claims to be
> concerned
> with issues like greenhouse gas emissions and environmental pollution
> can so
> completely turn its back on solving the largest roadblock to
> effective
> utilization of nuclear power 96 a credible long-term solution for
> nuclear
> wastes.
>
> Senate bill 1287 had one entire title that I authored. Title III
> required an
> Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research to be set up within the
> Department of
> Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology. It required
> that we
> explore alternative advanced solutions for spent fuel, solutions that
> might
> enable future generations to decide that it is their best interests to
> utilize
> the tremendous residual energy in spent fuel or to minimize the toxicity
of
> the
> final waste form emplaced in a repository through reprocessing and
> transmutation. Title III, of course, died with the rest of S.1287 with
the
> President's veto.
>
> One of the key issues underlying all aspects of nuclear technologies
> involves
> the radiation standards that are utilized. I've been concerned for
> several
> years that we have an abysmally poor understanding of these effects, and
> that we
> may be using standards that are both very costly and very poorly
determined.
>
> I'm concerned that our poor understanding of these effects may be leading
us
> to
> use radiation protection standards that incorrectly represent risks and
> drive
> the costs unnecessarily high.
>
> As you all know, radiation standards are now determined
with
> the
> Linear-No-Threshold, or LNT, model. That model is based only on
> linear
> extrapolations from a small set of very high dose and dose rate
exposures,
> like
> those from atomic bomb victims. For a whole host of reasons, the
> American
> taxpayers deserve to know if that model is accurate. The
applications
> and
> implications of the LNT model, and the uncertainties inherent in it,
are
> just
> far too large for it to continue to be used without more complete
> understanding.
>
> If these standards overestimate risks, they force us to divert funds from
> other,
> potentially more worthy, national goals. Alternatively, if the
> standards
> underestimate risks, we need to invest still more in cleanup activities.
> Many
> companies' profits from these cleanup contracts are enhanced by the use
of
> the
> LNT model, which unfortunately tends to build a constituency with a
> vested
> interest in maintaining the LNT model.
>
> Many scientists seriously question whether the LNT model is valid. They
> suggest
> that data support a model wherein benefits are derived from moderate
> doses of
> radiation, perhaps by stimulating cellular repair mechanisms within the
> body.
>
> In this view, the constant exposure to natural backgrounds has required
the
> body
> to develop a suite of repair mechanisms.
>
> These concerns led me to start a program in the Department of Energy in
> 1999 to
> explore the cellular and molecular bases for radiation protection
standards.
> My
> goal was to better understand radiation effects at low doses and to
use
> this
> knowledge to lead to more credible radiation protection standards.
>
> I'm pleased that this program is now well into its second year, and is
> funding a
> wide range of projects that should provide improved confidence in
> future
> standards. Funding for this program remains a challenge, however.
>
> The Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the current year, provides
> $18.2
> million for this program. The Department's own program plan for next year
> calls
> for $22.5 million. But unfortunately, the Administration only suggested
> funding
> this program at $11.7 Million next year, a far cry both from the current
> level
> and from their needs. In a few minutes, I'll discuss how the Senate
Energy
> and
> Water Appropriations bill for the 2001 fiscal year treats this program.
>
> In fact, it is my commitments as chairman of the Senate subcommittee
> developing
> this bill that is one of the roadblocks to my attendance with you here
> today.
>
> My concerns on radiation standards led me to request that the General
> Accounting
> Office review a wide range of related issues. My request to the
> nation's
> Comptroller General, David Walker, went out on July 15, 1999. I'm
> pleased to
> report to you that the GAO has completed their study, which I released
to
> the
> public two days ago.
>
> In my request to the GAO, I asked them a series of questions:
>
> * How have radiation standards changed since 1994? Is a consensus
> being
> approached, and what has resulted from the recommendations in your
> previous
> report in 1994?
>
> * What were the bases for setting the radiation protection limits, and
> how is
> the linear-no-threshold hypothesis used in setting these limits?
>
> * If differences exist between agencies' standards, what is the
> impact of
> these differences?
>
> * Provide, from available data, information on the variance in
> background
> radiation among locations in the United States and around the
world.
> Are
> differences in cancer rates among these locations related to
> differences in
> background radiation levels?
>
> * What are the costs of complying with current radiation protection
> regulations, and how, if at all, would these costs be affected if
radiation
> standards were substantially relaxed?
>
> The title chosen by the GAO provides a good clue to its evaluations,
> Radiation
> Standards Scientific Basis Inconclusive and EPA and NRC Disagreement
> Continues.
>
> The conclusions of the report won't be very surprising to this audience.
As
> the
> title indicates, they found the scientific basis for current
> radiation
> regulations is inconclusive, with more work needed. They note strong
> scientific
> consensus supporting the low dose radiation effects studies that I
> initiated
> within the Department of Energy.
>
> The report discussed the assumptions on which the LNT model is based.
>
> Consistent with several recent conferences, they noted that there is
> simply no
> conclusive evidence for any radiation-induced effects on human health
> below
> 5,000 to 10,000 millirems. And they re-stated the extremely weak
> endorsement of
> the LNT model by groups like that National Academy of Science's fifth
> study of
> the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, or BEIR V, which noted
that
> the
> "linear model is not inconsistent with available research data."
>
> The report noted the continuing differences between the EPA and NRC
> approaches
> to radiation standards, after 8 years of trying to come to agreement.
> They
> noted that this dual regulation by the two entities:
>
> * Complicates cleanup and decommissioning processes,
> * Causes duplication of effort and regulatory delays,
> * Adds to facilities' compliance costs, and
> * Raises public questions about the safety of cleanup levels.
>
> They evaluated the two agencies' standards for Yucca Mountain, and
quoted
> many
> technical groups, including the National Academy of Sciences and the
NRC,
> who
> have stated that EPA has not provided a technical rationale for its
> approach,
> has not done analysis of benefits and costs, has not provided proposals
that
> are
> scientifically supported, and has proposed standards that provide little
> or no
> public health benefit.
>
> I've frequently noted that the nation should depend on the bipartisan,
> highly
> technically qualified experts of the NRC for guidance pertaining to
> radiation
> policy, and not on the politically driven agendas of the EPA. This GAO
> report
> certainly reinforces my views.
>
> The report did not fully quantify cost differentials between alternative
> cleanup
> standards, but provided examples of the large cost multipliers for
the
> few
> projects that have been evaluated for cleanup to various radiation dose
> levels.
>
> They noted, for example, up to a factor of 7 in costs between cleanup of
a
> site
> to 100 vs. 15 millirems. And they noted that the baselines on which
> these
> multipliers may be applied are gigantic, over $200 billion for the DOE
> complex
> and at least $40 billion for civilian nuclear power plants.
>
> The report reviewed 82 separate studies of cancer incidence for
> populations
> living in areas with different background levels. They could find little
> or no
> evidence of elevated cancer risks from high natural backgrounds, and
> concluded
> that cancer risks from exposures of a few hundred millirems annually
are
> very
> small or nonexistent. This supports one conclusion of the report that
both
> the
> NRC and the EPA regulatory levels are so low that the benefits to the
public
> may
> not be clearly demonstrated.
>
> It will be next year before Congress can fully assess this excellent GAO
> report
> and consider actions. The most obvious action may be to evaluate
> legislative
> approaches to either force EPA and NRC to define one standard or
give
> the
> responsibility to one agency.
>
> Let me turn from radiation standards to nuclear energy. My
> Appropriations
> subcommittee on Energy and Water Development completed its markup just
> three
> days ago, and the full Appropriations committee will consider actions
on
> this
> bill in two days. I am very proud of the progress in the Senate bill.
>
> Let me give you some examples of the content of this bill. The Nuclear
> Energy
> Research Initiative has been in existence for only two years, it's
> funded at
> $22.4 million in the current year. The Senate mark raised the funding
for
> next
> year to $41.5 million and included several new charges to the Initiative.
>
> One charge asked that they specifically study reactor-based
transmutation
> for
> nuclear waste within the expanded NERI program. Another charge set
aside
> $4.5
> million for a serious review of Gen IV reactors, with the goal of
> future
> commercial deployment. The bill defines a Gen IV reactor as one that
> will, to
> the extent possible, have the following characteristics: superior
> economics, no
> possibility of a core melt-down and/or no requirement for a public
> evacuation
> plan, substantially reduced production of high level waste, highly
> proliferation
> resistant fuel and waste, and substantially improved thermal efficiency.
>
> Three additional research areas are highlighted within NERI in this
bill.
> Each
> of these three is recommended for a $1 million investment. One
> involves a
> detailed assessment to analyze changes needed in existing Advanced Light
> Water
> Reactor, or ALWR, designs for them to be viable in the U.S. marketplace
> within
> the next 5 to 10 years.
>
> Another area will explore the opportunities to develop and exploit the
> modular
> helium reactor technology for commercial applications. This study is
> coupled
> with the continued funding of this reactor in the joint United
> States-Russia
> program exploring this reactor for plutonium disposition.
>
> And the third research area will focus on the feasibility of small
> modular
> reactors that may be attractive for remote communities. Such a reactor
> would
> have to be inherently safe, cost effective, have design features to
> deter
> sabotage or efforts to divert nuclear materials, have infrequent
> re-fuel
> requirements, and be largely factory-constructed and deliverable to
> remote
> sites.
>
> The low dose radiation effects program that I highlighted earlier is
> funded at
> $20.1 million, far more than the $11.7 million proposed by the
> Administration. I
> was disappointed that the Administration's proposal was barely half
of
> the
> funding that the Department had identified to keep this vital program on
> track.
>
> In the materials disposition account, as I just noted, I've encouraged
> funding
> of the high temperature, helium gas-cooled reactor for possible use in
> disposition of weapons-grade plutonium. That funding is doubled for next
> year
> to $10 million. I understand that this program is attracting considerable
> interest within Russia and from other nations as well.
>
> In that same account, I included strong guidance to explore
thorium
> fuel
> assemblies. Such assemblies, when coupled to either plutonium or
uranium
> seed
> fuels, may offer an extremely attractive approach to not only
> plutonium
> disposition but also to civilian power. Both of these reactor types
should
> also
> be evaluated as part of the NERI Gen IV study, where I anticipate that
they
> may
> fare extremely well against the criteria I cited.
>
> Accelerator-driven transmutation of waste is another area in which
> I've
> encouraged research. This approach may enable dramatic changes in the
> toxicity
> of the final waste forms placed in a repository. There's
> significant
> international interest in this option, as well as in
> reactor-based
> transmutation. Last year, $4 million was used to create a technology
road
> map,
> and $9 million this year served to start progress on that road map.
>
>
> For next year, I've proposed that two key programs be combined, the
> Accelerator
> Transmutation of Waste and the Accelerator Production of Tritium,
into
> one
> Advanced Accelerator Applications, or AAA, program. Both these programs
> depend
> on high current accelerators, although obviously their end goals are
> different.
>
> By combining the programs within the Nuclear Energy office, but with
> partial
> funding from Defense Programs, we can realize efficiencies for the
> common
> elements, while enabling both programs to pursue the specialized
> technologies
> that they need for their separate missions. There are some
other
> very
> attractive ideas for use of an intense neutron source, which AAA will
> explore,
> in a wide range of advanced nuclear energy and material science
> applications.
>
> The total AAA program is funded at $60 million in the Senate mark, well
a
> bove
> the Administration's proposals, which were zero for ATW and $19 million
for
> APT
> 96 both of these Administration's proposals are incomprehensible in light
of
> the
> potential impact of these programs.
>
> Many other areas in this Senate bill impact aspects of your
conference.
> For
> example, I've repeatedly emphasized the need to make progress in both
> military
> and civilian areas of nuclear technologies. Nuclear energy can not
realize
> its
> potential unless the military clouds associated with nuclear issues
are
> well
> controlled. This forces careful consideration of nuclear
> non-proliferation
> issues.
>
> Several key non-proliferation programs are singled out for special
> consideration
> in the Energy and Water Development bill. The key program to
> prevent
> proliferation of materials, the Materials Protection Control and
> Accounting
> effort, is significantly enhanced, with an increase of $30 million
over
> last
> year. These new resources should allow the MPC&A program to address
> important
> new opportunities for better control of new and spent fuel at
Russian
> Navy
> sites.
>
> Programs to prevent "brain drain" of weapons scientists are also
boosted
> for
> next year. The Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention is funded at $2
> million
> above the budget request. And the Nuclear Cities Initiative received a
> major
> boost, from $7.5 million this year, and a $17.5 million Administration
> request,
> to $30 million for next year.
>
> In addition to this funding, I've worked to set the stage for a dramatic
new
> era
> of progress in the Nuclear Cities Initiative with new guidance in the
> Defense
> Authorization bill. This language couples increased funding for nuclear
> cities
> to a requirement that the Russians develop a plan for
downsizing
> and
> restructuring these cities that includes transparent, verifiable
milestones.
> We
> need to insure that the production capacity of these cities, as well as
> their
> large number of weapon scientists, do not drive future global
instabilities.
>
> I want to conclude tonight by challenging many of you who are
attending
> this
> Gordon Conference. Your technical leadership is essential if
> nuclear
> technologies are to realize their full potential to benefit mankind.
You
> have
> the expertise to develop new approaches to some of the roadblocks
> erected
> against nuclear technology. You will be some of the ones supporting
the
> new
> programs that I've outlined. And you have the technical
> credentials to
> challenge irrational or scientifically incorrect notions about
> nuclear
> technologies.
>
> My challenge is to continue to provide leadership on a national level
> toward
> realization of the full positive impacts of these technologies. With
your
> help
> on technical progress, I look forward to dramatic advances in the coming
> years.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html