NuclearFuel JULY 18, 2005
Picking U.S. reprocessing technology in 2007 not feasible, experts say
The U.S. government would need years to make a sound
decision on the reprocessing technology on which it should
focus its development efforts, panelists at a House hearing
last week agreed.
The time frame for that decision is important because
language in the House-approved version of the fiscal 2006
Energy & Water Development Appropriations bill requires
DOE to "make a specific technology recommendation" by
the end of FY-07 on a technology that will "improve upon
the existing Purex process" (NF, 23 May, 8).
At the July 12 hearing of the House Science Committee's
energy subcommittee, Marvin Fertel of the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) questioned the "practicality" of starting up a
facility based on a new reprocessing technology "in the next
five or 10 years." Fertel, who is NEI's senior vice president
for nuclear generation and chief nuclear officer, said one
couldn't reasonably expect to have operating commercial
reprocessing facilities until about 2025.
In the near term, he said, the U.S. should develop a
"road map" for research and development on reprocessing.
By "the end of the decade," the U.S. government should
have an idea of "the kind of policies [it] would like to pursue," he said.
Nevertheless, Fertel said in an interview after the hearing,
the House appropriators took "the right action" by establishing
the 2007 deadline. He commended David Hobson (R-Ohio),
the chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee
that drafted the language, for "forcing [the issue] to the surface."
Hobson "wants to get [utility spent fuel] moved, and
that's good," Fertel said. He said work on reprocessing
should take place "in parallel" with efforts toward opening a
repository DOE wants to build at Yucca Mountain, Nev.
In spite of his caveats, Fertel appeared to be more generally
supportive of reprocessing than at least two of the other
three panelists, academics who co-authored recent detailed
analyses of nuclear power or reprocessing.
In testimony for the hearing, which focused on economic
aspects of reprocessing, Steve Fetter, dean of the
University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, said "traditional
reprocessing" was likely to add 3%-7% to the price of
nuclear-generated electricity and that "a full separation-and-transmutation
system would add still more." He added,
"This can only hurt nuclear power in the economic competition
with alternative methods of generating electricity, and
could make the difference between a revitalized industry
and continued stagnation and decline."
Richard Lester, a professor of nuclear science and engineering
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
director of the university's Industrial Performance Center,
said a "major expansion" of nuclear power was likely to be
needed in the U.S. but, because of the extra costs imposed
by reprocessing, "an attempt to introduce spent fuel reprocessing
here in the U.S. in the near term would not only not
help to ensure a greater role for nuclear power but would
actually make this outcome less likely."In light of current uranium prices, reprocessing costs
would have to drop by about 75% to be competitive, Lester
said. That figure does not "fall within the bounds of the
credible," he said. Such a reduction would be "particularly
implausible" with a 2007 deadline for choosing the technology,
he said. The short time frame would not allow development
of new technologies and therefore would "effectively
force" the adoption of the existing one, he continued. And
since Purex is a "relatively mature" technology, there is
"simply no possibility" of achieving cost reductions on the
needed scale, he said.In contrast, Donald Jones, the vice president of RCF
Economic & Financial Consulting, said the added cost of
reprocessing was relatively small. "If there are other motivations
[for pursuing reprocessing], you should not stumble over cost," Jones said.
Fertel did not provide cost projections for reprocessing
versus the once-through fuel cycle. But, like Lester, he cautioned
against burdening consumers of nuclear power with
the additional costs imposed by reprocessing. Nuclear power
has good price stability and low marginal costs, Fertel said,
and it would be better "not to raise the price if you don't have to."
In her opening statement, hearing chair Rep. Judy
Biggert (R-Ill.) listed benefits that reprocessing could provide
while acknowledging that "as long as uranium is cheap and
abundant, mining and enriching it will continue to cost less
than reprocessing and recycling spent fuel." But, she said,
"let's face it, the federal government does a lot that isn't economical-
often because doing so is in the best interest of
the nation for other reasons."
Fertel also said, "There's uranium out there, but that
doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at recycling techniques."
He said there were benefits to be gained from reprocessing,
such as a reduction in waste volume. The U.S. therefore
should pursue "proliferation-resistant" reprocessing technologies, he said.
Fetter argued, however, that proliferation resistance
should be measured against a once-through fuel cycle, rather
than against Purex reprocessing. He also said his strongest
reservation about proceeding with reprocessing was "the
example it would set for other countries."
He said he supported further research into-but not
development of-advanced reprocessing technologies. But,
in response to a question from Biggert, Fetter said there
would be no economic cost to delaying a decision on which technology to pursue.
The prepared statements from the hearing, as well as the
recent economic analyses, are available on the Science
Committee's Web site at http://www.house.gov/science/hear-ings/energy05/july%2012/index.htm .
Last month, the energy subcommittee held a hearing on non-economic aspects of
reprocessing (NF, 20 June, 12).
Fetter and former NRC chairman John Ahearne argued
strongly against reprocessing at a July 11 congressional staff
briefing sponsored by the Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation.
Assuming reprocessing costs of $1,000 per kilogram
of spent fuel, the price of uranium would have to rise
to $400/kg for mixed-oxide plutonium fuel just to "break
even" with low-enriched uranium fuel, Fetter said. However,
he added, that $400/kg price "won't be achieved this century
even with expanded nuclear power."Separating plutonium and transmuting other highly
radioactive actinides from all U.S. spent fuel using advanced
reprocessing technologies under development would add
about 10% to the price of nuclear-generated electricity, costing
ratepayers an additional $3- to $4-billion annually, Fetter said.
Neither Purex nor advanced reprocessing would eliminate
the need for a waste repository such as the one
planned for Yucca Mountain, both said, because reprocessing
wastes and irradiated MOX fuel would still require geologic disposal.
Ahearne said he has "never heard any utility executive
getting excited about reprocessing and transmutation."
-Daniel Horner and Steven Dolley, Washington

=====================================