Friday, March 5, 2004 | 9:24 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- Nuclear industry and government officials touted the benefits of nuclear power at a Senate panel meeting Thursday as they made their pitch for more government incentives to help expansions, but made no mention of how they plan to manage future nuclear waste.
The officials listed nuclear power's lack of emissions, price stability and other benefits to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is guiding the ongoing debate over the energy bill. The industry officials also asked Congress for the continuation of federally backed insurance that covers the industry in the event of an accident, tax incentives for power plants and a push for more plants.
There are 103 nuclear reactors across the country that generate about 20 percent of the electricity used annually, said Marvin Fertel, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer for the Nuclear Energy Institute. The plants have increased their operating levels and many will opt to renew their operating licenses for 20 more years. In the last year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed 13 reactor licenses and it has 33 extension applications before it currently, Fertel said.
Will Travers, executive director for operations at the commission, explained that the agency is reviewing the licenses and is ready to deal with the construction of a new plant. It has been about 20 years since a nuclear power plant has been built in the United States.
Only one of the five witnesses at Thursday's hearing -- James Asselstine, managing director of of Lehman Brothers -- said that spent fuel management needs to be addressed before the industry can advance.
"Public acceptance of new nuclear plant commitment will likely turn on two issues: public perceptions of the safety of nuclear power plants and confidence that we will achieve a workable solution for spent fuel disposal," Asselstine said. "Continued progress in developing, licensing, building, and ultimately, operating a waste repository will likely be the determining factor on the spent fuel disposal issue."
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires that the Energy Department take spent nuclear fuel from the commercial utilities and permanently store it in a geologic repository. The department was supposed to take the waste by 1998, but now intends to open a repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas in 2010. The state has opposed that idea for decades and is fighting it every step of the way.
After the hearing, Fertel said it is important that progress is made on spent fuel management, whether it is onsite at the nuclear power plants or eventually at Yucca. Plants now have to manage the waste since the department will take the waste at least 12 years later than required by law.
"It's not a technical or safety issue," Fertel said. "It's probably an economic issue, companies are going to build onsite storage and they are also going to continue to pay into the nuclear waste fund."
Nuclear ratepayers put money into an account earmarked specifically for Yucca, but Congress has authority over how the money is spent.
"2010, that's a date we'd like to see met given they are already 12 years late," Fertel said. "The industry would like to see the government fulfill its responsibility. ... If it was 2011, does that change anything? Not really. We believe 2010 is do-able, we want to see it and want to see it done right"
"Ultimately, you have a by-product that you have to dispose of safely. Our belief right now from the science done at Yucca is that it's clearly is ripe for going into licensing. To be completely honest, the thing that we and Nevada have very much in common is to see that it's done right. Wherever it goes whether its on our sites or in Nevada, we want this to be done safely."
Under the law, Yucca can hold only 77,000 tons of nuclear waste, but since additional storage space will be needed for future waste, the department has to go back to Congress in 2007 to explain what its next plan will be.
Fertel said it is still not clear what decision will be made then, since Congress could pursue studies on nuclear fuel cycles that could reduce the volume and toxicity of the waste.
Brendan Hoffman, an organizer for Public Citizen, called it "irresponsible" for the industry to talk about building new plants without even addressing the waste that would along with it.
"But that's they way it is set up," Hoffman said. "This issue should have been addressed before they built the first nuclear power plant, but it wasn't. They got their foot in the door and never looked back."
archive
