 |
AGI Home | About AGI | Contact Us | Search |
 |
Summary of Hearings on Nuclear Energy and Waste Disposal Policy(12-08-2009)
Witnesses: Members Present: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to discuss the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009 (H.R. 3276), which passed the House on November 5, 2009. The goal of the bill is to promote domestic production of molybdenum-99 (Mo-99)—the parent isotope of technetium-99m (Tc-99m) used in medical diagnostic tests for various cancers and other procedures—and to condition and phase out the export of highly enriched uranium (HEU) associated with the production of medical isotopes. Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) was excited by the possibilities outlined in the January 2009 National Research Council report on Medical Isotope Production Without Highly Enriched Uranium, and wanted “to work on the needs of industry to make this transition [away from HEU] because ultimately it is the industry that will produce the isotopes we need.” Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was worried about the effect of shortages of Mo-99 on medical diagnostic procedures as aging reactors are being decommissioned or more frequently shut down for repairs. She pointed out that “we rely entirely upon foreign sources for these isotopes” and urged that medical isotopes be included in the committee’s discussions on energy independence and energy self-sufficiency. Even though the bill does not “provide a near-term solution to the shortage that we are experiencing today or the even greater shortage that we could experience next year,” Senator Murkowski thought it was “more important that we get the policy right rather than try to rush something into law.” Dr. Parrish Staples of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) claimed that the Mo-99 supply “interruptions put patients’ lives at risk.” He urged a focus on domestic supply, which is now “technically and economically feasible” without HEU. NNSA will be requesting funds to accelerate efforts by potential commercial producers of Mo-99 in order to diversify the supply and move away from a single technology. Dr. Kevin Crowley, chair of the National Research Council (NRC) committee, summarized their recommendations. The congressionally mandated report found the cost to convert from HEU to low-enriched uranium (LEU) production would result in “trivial increases in prices for typical medical isotope procedures,” especially when taking the reliability of supply into consideration. “Mo-99 supply disruptions are impacting the continuity of patient care in the United States and elsewhere,” explained Crowley, “supply reliability will continue to be a serious problem until new supply capacity is brought online.” Crowley thinks the bill provides sufficient incentives to increase domestic supplies, the temporary congressional funding the report recommended, and ample ways to sidestep the waste classification “roadblocks” the report warned against. Mr. Roy Brown of the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR) also felt H.R. 3276 is an “important step towards reliable supply for our patients.” He touted the benefits of medical isotopes to reducing healthcare cost by streamlining diagnostic tests, catching cancer sooner, and increasing quality of life. The three hindrances are the reactor licensing, regulatory constraints, and radioactive waste disposal costs. It is unclear how the medical isotope reactors will be classified and therefore licensed, as they do not easily fit in the current research or power reactor categories. Also, the Department of Energy (DOE) requirements might lead to redundant regulatory constraints already covered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and others. Brown suggested that the DOE process is fully vetted and transparent, and that radioactive waste disposal charges are commercially reasonable. Senator Murkowski asked Dr. Staples how demand will be met next year. Staples replied that it will be all about optimizing use. He showed a graph of the anticipated supply schedule for next year which was consistently well below the demand line. The U.S. will not be able to meet the demand if the Canadian reactor that recently shut down does not come back online. He explained that the shown operating schedule provides a steadily lowered supply the whole year, as preferred by medical professionals, instead of only meeting demand at the beginning of the year. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) commented on how vulnerable Staples’ chart makes us look. Burr then asked if the transition from HEU to LEU, and increase in domestic production necessary are achievable with H.R. 3276. Crowley replied to the affirmative, and that the bill corresponds with the NRC recommendations. Senator Murkowski asked about the time estimates for building a new reactor in the U.S., and when was the last time the U.S. built a research reactor. Crowley said most research reactors were built in the 1960s, but was not sure which one was most recent. He also clarified that the NRC projected 9 to 13 year timeline for reactor completion is probably a conservative estimate, as the Netherlands is just finalizing a new reactor design and plans to have it up and running by 2016. Murkowski then asked whether globally there are any privately financed medical isotope reactors. Staples answered that to his knowledge all facilities are subsidized in part by the sponsoring government. Chairman Bingaman asked what type of reactors are used for LEU production, and if accelerators could be used instead. Crowley responded that some DOE facilities, like Oakridge National Laboratory, and some universities have usable reactors. He did not recommend accelerators as they have insufficient flux capacity, so would require new accelerators to be built. Instead reactors have the necessary capacity and can be used for more than just medical isotope production. Senator Murkowski then said to Staples, “Now I also I understand though that domestic supply does not necessarily mean domestic supplier…How can we ensure that we have a domestic supply that is not from a domestic supplier?” Staples replied that a reliable and global supply, diverse technology, and improvements to aging infrastructure would be necessary. “The reliability issue of course is key,” Murkowski responded, but continued with an analogy to oil supply. “Today we may be getting oil from Venezuela and they may be our friends and providing to us, and tomorrow they may wake up on the other side of the bed and decide they don’t want to do that.” Staples explained that the NNSA is planning on developing “4 independent technologies [to produce Mo-99], each capable of supplying up to 50 percent of the U.S. demand.” So, in theory, the tables could turn and the U.S. could become the global supplier of Mo-99 in the future. A link to the witnesses’ testimony and a video archive of the hearing can be found here. -CCD
Witnesses Committee Members Present On June 17, 2009, the House Science and Technology committee held a hearing on “Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What Should Our Research, Development and Demonstration Strategy Be?” Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) acknowledged in his opening remarks the current reactors in the U.S. as “very reliable baseload power” and the need to consider reprocessing so U.S. nuclear power can expand to spent nuclear fuel as uranium resources become scarcer. He indicated he was most interested in learning if we should move forward with existing technologies to reprocess nuclear fuel or skip it for now and wait for new technologies to be developed before doing so. Congressman Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) said during his opening remarks that “finding some sort of a solution to how to handle our nuclear fuel is critical to the continued successful contribution of nuclear energy to our country’s electric generation.” Dr. Mark Peters representing Argonne National Laboratory testified to the need for effective nuclear waste management in the U.S. as demand for nuclear energy increases. He testified that “nuclear energy is already a reliable, abundant, and carbon-free source of electricity for the United States and the world” and could be “a critical resource for fueling the transportation sector.” Peters stated that while it is suitable for the U.S. to be using an open fuel cycle approach right now “it will be necessary to close the fuel cycle” in the future if we decide to expand nuclear power capabilities. He also called for “significant investments in a sustained nuclear energy research and development (R&D) program” to address implementing an advanced fuel cycle program in the U.S. Peters recommended that the U.S. develop a “Science and Technology Development Roadmap” to describe the technical readiness, risks, and potential benefits of any systems developed as a result of nuclear energy R&D, adding that “it is imperative to begin now” to build the R&D infrastructure needed to advance nuclear fuel-cycle technology in the U.S. Dr. Alan Hanson of Areva, Inc. testified to the benefits of recycling nuclear fuel, citing easier waste management, more strategic flexibility and confidence for long term handling of nuclear waste, conserving uranium resources, burning plutonium and overall reducing proliferation concerns. He added that the increasing costs for uranium make recycled fuel more valuable. Hanson acknowledged that while recycling fuel would decrease high-level waste by 75 percent it would increase low-level waste, but this has been projected by Areva to be only a 2.5 percent increase. He also testified that “we should not seek a proliferation proof policy” because it does not exist. Instead, we should develop advanced fuel cycle technology here in the U. S. and invest in more R&D so that other countries do not advance before us, citing “a nuclear renaissance is undeniably happening around the world” and “it is time for America to take the lead again.” Ms. Lisa Price testified on behalf of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy to the need for a “research, development, and demonstration” program to move the U.S. forward in addressing its nuclear energy needs in the coming decades. She recommended that research be done in recycling, advocating for “the most comprehensive solution for used nuclear fuel” research be funded to build development and demonstrations to look for solutions on closing the nuclear fuel cycle and to provide data that will support future “decisions made regarding future commercial activities.” She added that “the recycling approach is the best science-based solution, whereas reprocessing is only considered a temporary or intermediate solution.” Reprocessing places the plutonium from the used nuclear fuel into Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel for use in existing light water reactors, and places the fission products and “heat-heat-load transuranics” (also known as actinides) in a permanent repository. Recycling involves fueling a sodium-cooled reactor with the long half-life transuranics from used fuel, and places a smaller heat-generating load in a repository. Price highlighted the need for industry to work with our national labs and universities on development in licensing, manufacturing and design validation, and separation technology advancement. She concluded saying “the nation faces a choice today” regarding its approach to nuclear energy, and added “a choice to go down the path of recycling will provide a unique opportunity to regain the historical U.S. leadership position in nuclear science and technology. Dr. Charles Ferguson of the Council on Foreign Relations testified on the proliferation risks of spent fuel reprocessing which he stated “poses a significant proliferation threat because of the separation of plutonium from highly radioactive fission products.” He recommended research of additional safeguards that could make reprocessing safer against proliferation and a cost benefit analysis to determine if further developments of recycling techniques have the capability “to help alleviate the nuclear waste management challenge.” He added that more research is needed to understand the safeguards challenges with regard to fast reactors and better estimates are needed on the remaining uranium reserves left in the world. Ferguson testified that our greatest risks of proliferation if recycling becomes implemented in other countries are from Korea and the United Arab Emirates. Gordon wanted to know if we should move forward with nuclear fuel recycling now or wait for the next generation of technologies, and if we have the storage capacity to wait to move forward. Peters responded, “We should not use current technologies” and recommended to “leapfrog” forward to future technologies. He added spent nuclear fuel is “safe and secure” as it sits right now, but this is not a permanent solution for the U.S. However Hanson advised “more research before we leapfrog,” warning that he has never seen a leapfrog in technologies succeed. Price answered that money used in building more infrastructure with current technologies might be “better spent on R&D.” The chairman also asked how long we can continue to store the waste we are producing now and how long before we could go commercial with new technologies. There was a general consensus among the panelists we could store spent nuclear fuel until the end of the century, and most likely be able to implement new technologies by mid-century. Ehlers asked Hanson if there has been opposition to transporting nuclear waste in the other countries that Areva operates. Hanson responded that in general there has not been opposition, with the recent exception of Germany due to environmentalists raising concerns. Areva engages in recycling fuel for other countries including Japan, Italy, Switzerland, and Belgium. Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) asked the panelists about the security of transporting nuclear waste. Ferguson said there is mainly danger from “insiders” who may want the fuel because even in “organizations with high security standards things can go wrong.” Peters said it is essentially a confidence and public trust issue, and therefore important with any nuclear power project to “make plans transparent.” Hanson added that while there has been a phobia about nuclear power for many years, “we need to get over it because we need” nuclear energy to move forward. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) stated that she “absolutely does not support nuclear energy” saying it is too susceptible to human error and it is “a good energy until it’s not.” She asked the panelists, “What are the arguments against building nuclear plants?” Ferguson responded economics are a factor, and added that most people who live near a nuclear plant like it because of the jobs they bring to the community. She also asked, “For the same investment, aren’t there safer ways?” Ferguson responded that nuclear energy is competitive with coal and its reliability and ability to produce a lot of electricity make it an attractive energy source. Hanson added that “it would be impossible” for a nuclear accident to occur in current nuclear facilities in the U.S. that would cause damage of the magnitude done at Hiroshima, Japan. Congresswoman Judy Biggert (R-IL) expressed that she is “frustrated we are not making enough progress” with nuclear energy especially given the likelihood of a cap and trade market being implemented in the U.S. in the near future. She asked the panelists if we are moving fast enough and Peters responded that we need to do continuous development of new technologies especially in waste management and advanced fuels. Hanson responded “no,” saying “it will already take 60 years to get rid of the waste inventory” already piling up. Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) said she was “a proponent of nuclear energy” and wanted to know the timetable for an R&D roadmap as discussed in the panelists’ testimony. Peters replied that a roadmap could be developed over the next few years with a few million dollars, and involve a group of people representing industry, universities, and national laboratories. Hanson added that fast reactors, which use a fission chain reaction sustained by fast neutrons and use relatively highly enriched uranium or plutonium, have not yet been proven as reliable, and “proof needs to happen before utilities will buy a fast reactor.” Ferguson responded that the federal government should put money into a federal demonstration project to show how these technologies might work. Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA) asked, “What is the carbon cost?” Hanson responded that the carbon footprint is very small and arises from mining activities and building the nuclear plants. He added that “nuclear energy is very, very carbon friendly.” Testimony from the chair and panelists, as well as a video of the hearing, can be found here. -SMP
Sources: Hearing testimony. Contributed by Government Affairs Program Staff; and Stephanie Praus, AGI/AIPG Summer 2009 Intern. Please send any comments or requests for information to AGI Government Affairs Program. Last updated on December 8, 2009. |
||
Printable Version
| Information Services | | Geoscience Education | | Public Policy | | Environmental Geoscience | | Publications | | Workforce | | AGI Events | ||
|
© 2010 All rights reserved. American Geological Institute,
4220 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22302-1502. | ||||||||
