Page 20 - Nuclear Plant Journal Digital Edition: January - February 2013
Basic HTML Version
20
Nuclear Plant Journal, January-February 2013
That’s certainly my feeling on the
matter. Of course, I’m one commissioner
in one agency that has to deal with this
issue. And the NRC is not even the agency
that is going to determine the policy. Our
job is to make sure that whatever path is
ultimately taken is carried out safely.
We can’t control what direction all
this will take, but my personal view is
that we ought to use our best technology–
our best scientific minds– to look at
this problem and see if there’s a way of
reducing the risk to future generations.
If our solution is simply to stick it in
the ground and think it’s just gone away
–I guess it’s a solution but is it the best
solution? I’d like to see us be a little bit
more concerned with the longer term
future: thinking not just about a hundred
years from now but also thinking about a
thousand years from now or ten thousand
or a hundred thousand. We don’t know
what the world will look like ten, twenty,
or thirty thousand years from now. It’s
very difficult to predict how things will
evolve. If there’s a way of reducing those
longer term risks, why not exercise that?
Why leave those materials for future
generations to deal with?
4.
Is fuel recycling a viable option for
the United States?
This is something that comes up quite
often. Obviously if you go back to 1950s,
there was an expectation from the very
beginning that the United States would
recycle light water reactor fuel using the
PUREX process. That plan remained in
place for decades, but essentially ended
in the 1970s. A lot of people blamed
the Carter Administration, but the truth
is that this approach collapsed on its
own. There were just too many issues,
too many technical problems, and so
much cost involved in reprocessing that
it was basically shown to be a very,
very complex, expensive, and difficult
undertaking. Even after the Regan
Administration reversed the Carter policy
regarding commercial reprocessing, no
one wanted to do it because it cost too
much. It’s complicated. It’s expensive.
And even today, it’s hard to see the
economic advantages of reprocessing
using current technology.
There are programs overseas that
appear to be successful – the French
program is the best example. But beyond
the economics, there are policy concerns
in the US about separating plutonium.
The real challenge for the future is: are
there new technologies that could provide
the benefits of the French program—such
as high-level waste volume reduction—
without the proliferation concerns? That
is, can we reduce volume, reduce toxicity,
and get plutonium out of the waste
without separating plutonium, creating
proliferation issues, and creating large
quantities of liquid high level waste? If
we can evolve the technology and find a
better solution, that’s something I think
we should explore.
Clearly if someone wants to come to
the NRC with an application to build a
current technology plant, the agency will
look at the application and evaluate it on
its safety merits. But my feeling is that
we probably need another technology to
be successful in the US, because I don’t
think there’s a lot of support in the US
for the current technology. Even in the
previous administration, there wasn’t a
lot of support for current technology and
I think there was interest in developing
something better. I’ve heard Secretary of
Energy Chu say on several occasions that
we should explore a better approach, and
I agree. If we can find a new technology
that solves all those problems, I think it’s
clearly something we should investigate.
We had programs to develop ad-
vanced recycling technology when I was
in DOE. Most of those projects were
stopped soon after I left the Department.
I don’t think there’s a focused program
on advanced recycling technology today
at DOE, but I do think that they’re look-
ing at different aspects of the problem,
including looking at the basic elements of
the technology, research that could point
the way to a future technology.
5.
Are other countries interested in
recycling?
The Russians are doing it. The
Chinese are planning to do it. It’s not
that uncommon. The British still do it,
Looking at the...
although they say they’re phasing it out.
The Japanese are going to start eventually,
I think. There are other countries that
are doing it. The US has looked at the
technology and is just not a big fan of that
technology.
6.
Concluding remarks.
One of the things that I’d like to
talk about is the continuing global
effort to develop new and better nuclear
technologies. For example, it’s a pleasure
to see a lot of people who were involved
in the Generation IV International Forum
(GIF) effort over the course of the years
and to hear more about what’s been
happening in recent years. One aspect of
the Gen IV effort that I think was very
important is the fact that we were looking
over the horizon. We were looking at the
long-term future. I think that’s something
that governments do very well when they
have the right incentive and the right
interest and the right leadership. Looking
over the horizon is something that’s easier
to do from the governmental stand point
and for governmental researchers rather
than industry. Government researchers
can look thirty or forty years down the
road and think about the technologies we
need for the long term future. I’m happy
to see that the GIF is still doing some of
that work. I think the United States needs
to do more things like that. I think that if
we lose sight of that long term future, it’s
not going to happen by itself. We have to
take those steps. If we’re going to solve a
lot of the problems we’ve discussed today
– making reactors even safer than they
already are and dealing with high level
waste, for example. These issues require
great effort, the answers won’t be found
by accident. The US has to start that
important work. I continue to encourage
the people to look over the horizon—to
ask those questions and to do the research.
I think it’s very important.
Contact: Patty Bubar, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Mail stop:
O16G4, Washington, D.C. 20555,
telephone: (301) 415-1895, email:
