ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
House and senate appropriations subcommittees in separate hearings on Sept. 13 and 14 wrestled with what should be the federal government's role in supporting nuclear energy development in the U.S. and the world. The discussion centered on the Bush Administration's proposed $250 million Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), but the debate quickly spilled over to interim nuclear waste storage, the long-stalled Yucca Mountain waste repository in Nevada, the Department of Energy's skill in administering huge projects, and international proliferation of nuclear bomb material. Foremost, however, was America's thirst for energy.
The subcommittees' members pointed to nuclear energy's obvious pluses. It provides 20% of U.S. electricity, has proven to be efficient, and emits no greenhouse gases. However, the members also recognized its equally apparent minuses: After 30 years of production, the nation still has no place to put nuclear waste, many people fear nuclear energy, and the industry is unlikely to grow without more taxpayer aid.
The Appropriations subcommittee hearings had an immediate focus: How much taxpayer money should Congress appropriate for the Administration's ambitious plan to encourage worldwide nuclear energy development? But as the hearings came to a close, little unity emerged over details of how to rejuvenate nuclear power and move away from fossil energy, even when every Congress member on the dais and each witness at the table backed nuclear energy.
DOE's role, Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear energy, told both subcommittees, is to be a "catalyst" for a new generation of nuclear plants in the U.S. and the world. The U.S. nuclear industry, he added, has "atrophied."
"We must rebuild. For the first time in decades," Spurgeon continued, "U.S. utilities are putting together detailed plans to develop a new generation of nuclear power plants. Some 30 reactors are being contemplated for the next decade. We can expand nuclear power at home and pave the way for its greater use in the rest of the world."
The Administration's long-term plan, explained Spurgeon, is to develop and build a facility to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. He noted that France, Japan, Russia, and other countries "recycle" their spent fuel, extracting useful materials for reuse in commercial nuclear reactors. The U.S., however, treats spent fuel as waste to tie up plutonium generated by reactors. This practice would end under GNEP.
"GNEP," Spurgeon said, "addresses two major issues that have suppressed the use of nuclear power in the latter half of the 20th century: how to responsibly use sensitive technologies in a way that does not threaten global security and how to safely dispose of the waste."
Spurgeon explained that through GNEP, federal and industry researchers will develop new fuel extraction technologies while also building new facilities to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. DOE and industry will also develop and build an "advanced burner reactor" to consume usable reprocessing products and generate electricity.
He wants the reprocessing facility to be up and running by 2020, even though he acknowledged that the uranium extraction technology favored by DOE has not moved past benchtop scale.
His view is broad. Indeed, the technology to be developed, he believes, will be used throughout the world and will lead to a global expansion of nuclear power. The plan, he said, would result in less high-level radioactive waste going to a repository such as Yucca Mountain. He also argued that the extraction technology DOE wants to use will not provide a readily available source of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Both of these assertions were challenged, however, by even the pro-nuclear-energy witnesses at the hearings.
The Administration's plan won't come cheap. For 2007, DOE is seeking $250 million for GNEP. In all, DOE is seeking $560 million for 2007 for nuclear research as well as a host of incentive programs to encourage the nuclear industry to build new reactors. The Administration also wants another $545 million to keep construction of Yucca Mountain on track to accept waste in 2017. This date is nearly two decades after the originally scheduled opening date, a fact mentioned frequently during the hearings.
Further out, said Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, speaking earlier this year, GNEP's costs will hit $700 million in 2008 and $800 million to $900 million in 2009. If R&D turns out favorably, Congress can expect to appropriate as much as $40 billion over the first 10 years for nuclear reprocessing and advanced reactor programs, he said (C&EN, March 27, page 34).
DOE's plan was applauded on the Senate side by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee. The full Senate Appropriations Committee has cleared legislation providing $250 million for GNEP but reduced Yucca Mountain funding by $50 million. An appropriations bill for DOE has not been taken to the Senate floor, however.
Domenici said the nation is at a "crossroads" in energy policy. "I support GNEP as a responsible solution to addressing our spent-fuel needs," he said. "I also believe this strategy must be closely aligned with the development of Yucca Mountain."
Domenici supports interim storage of nuclear waste as well and has proposed using as many as 30 federal sites to hold this waste while waiting for reprocessing or some repository system to develop. He wants Yucca Mountain to move ahead, but as a repository for waste left after reprocessing.
"We are not going to put spent fuel rods in there," he told C&EN. "Maybe something else is going in there, but not fuel rods."
On the House side, fiscal 2007 appropriations legislation for DOE has cleared the full body, but the House cut GNEP support to $120 million. House Appropriations Committee Democrats and Republicans alike attributed the cuts to doubts arising from a lack of specifics about the Administration's plan to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
House members spoke favorably, however, about the concept of reprocessing spent fuel and its potential to reduce waste as well as offering an alternative to the long-delayed Yucca Mountain underground waste repository. The committee fully funded the Administration's $545 million request for Yucca Mountain and even set aside another $30 million for an interim waste storage facility, which had not been sought by the Administration.
Like Domenici, Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), chairman of the Energy & Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, strongly supports nuclear power. He has many doubts, however, about DOE's ability to pull off such an ambitious plan on time and within cost limits. "In my experience, 2020 in DOE terms means 2050 at the earliest and about 10 times the cost," Hobson said.
The witnesses at the House hearing included several representatives of nuclear-energy-related industries as well as Nils J. Diaz, the former head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); Patrick Moore, a cofounder of Greenpeace who now supports nuclear power; and Ernest J. Moniz, physics and engineering professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a former top DOE official and coauthor of an influential MIT report on nuclear energy.
Moniz warned that the Administration is unlikely to meet its goal of being able to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in the next two decades. He argued that today's system of once-through fuel use is cheaper and that there is no shortage of uranium to economically justify a push to reprocess spent fuel.
"We have a lot to learn about reprocessing in order to gain waste management advantages," he told the subcommittee.
He also asked: "What if the nuclear growth scenario is not realized? What if we more or less go along with 100 reactors currently operating in the U.S. or a slightly declining number? What then would be the advantage in launching into nuclear reprocessing? We have done virtually no work on advanced concepts for the past 20 years. I would rather establish the foundations before I rush into a particularly expensive demonstration project."
Hobson agreed: "This is one of the reasons I'd like to store things for 50 to 100 years while we study the problem rather than rushing to judgment."
Nuclear Energy Institute President and Chief Executive Officer Adm. Frank L. Bowman also said there was no technical or health and safety reason to change how waste is handled now. But he warned that there was a "big reason" to show the public that the nation is making progress on nuclear waste.
"We are showing ranges of 60 to 80% positive approval from the public on nuclear power," he said. "But it is a bit of a fickle love affair. If the public loses confidence in our ability to show stewardship over used fuel, it could be a crippling blow."
Diaz agreed that the there is a need to assure the public that there is a solution to handling spent fuel. He added, however, that there is "no need to rush to a solution."
Several times during the hearing, Hobson made clear that he too was concerned about maintaining public support for nuclear energy, specifically support sufficient to allow new nuclear power plants to be constructed without embarking on a long-range path that may waste taxpayer dollars and never bear fruit. At the close of the hearing, Hobson told C&EN that nothing in the hearing had convinced him that the additional money for GNEP was needed. Still, he remains a strong nuclear energy advocate.
"We are 30 years behind," Hobson said, echoing points made by Domenici. "My focus is the future of nuclear power. We've got to get away from fossil-fuel use. Our grandchildren need us to do this if we are going to have our way of life continue in the country. We have waited too long."
At the close of the House hearing, Hobson noted the many permutations GNEP had undergone since it was first introduced in February and gave DOE's Spurgeon what the chairman called a "homework assignment" to provide a detailed explanation of all allocations for GNEP. "This will be very important in appropriations negotiations with the Senate," he said.
Nevertheless, both Hobson and Domenici warned that House-Senate negotiations over GNEP funding may never occur. Instead, they pointed out, DOE's appropriation may wind up mixed into a large omnibus funding bill passed after the crush of November elections in order to keep the government running. There, GNEP would get lost among a host of other more visible programs.
Despite different views among members and hearing witnesses, all agreed a waste solution is needed, and most leaned to some form of interim storage as the scheduled opening date of Yucca Mountain continues to slip further into the future. The Administration is lukewarm, however, on an interim site, and interim storage lacks support from many in Congress who say it is a distraction from building a repository.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter