<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:23408.wais]
THE NEXT GENERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 29, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-67
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-408 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia DIANE E. WATSON, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York TOM LANTOS, California
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
Dave Solan, Professional Staff Member
Lori Gavaghan, Clerk
Richard Butcher, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 29, 2005.................................... 1
Statement of:
Johnson, Robert Shane, Acting Director, Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy; David
Baldwin, senior vice president, General Atomics; Rowan
Rowntree, independent scientist, visiting scholar,
University of California-Berkeley; and David Lochbaum,
nuclear safety engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists..... 10
Baldwin, David........................................... 19
Johnson, Robert Shane.................................... 10
Lochbaum, David.......................................... 45
Rowntree, Rowan.......................................... 30
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Baldwin, David, senior vice president, General Atomics,
prepared statement of...................................... 23
Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 3
Johnson, Robert Shane, Acting Director, Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, prepared
statement of............................................... 14
Lochbaum, David, nuclear safety engineer, Union of Concerned
Scientists, prepared statement of.......................... 49
Rowntree, Rowan, independent scientist, visiting scholar,
University of California-Berkeley, prepared statement of... 33
Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 7
THE NEXT GENERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Watson, and Kucinich.
Staff present: Larry Brady, staff director; Lori Gavaghan,
legislative clerk; Dave Solan, Steve Cima, and Chase Huntley,
professional staff members; Richard Butcher, minority
professional staff member; and Cecelia Morton, minority office
manager.
Mr. Issa. Good afternoon. Jointly, Congresswoman Watson and
I would like to apologize for the entire Congress and
particularly our voting schedule. We were notified that we
would be voting so we went over only to discover that they
voiced it. So we should be uninterrupted going forward.
I am very excited today that we are going to be talking
about next generation nuclear power. Although, with the
distinguished panel we have here today, hopefully we will even
go beyond that and veer openly toward a lot of areas of the
hydrogen society, fusion, and other areas of sustainable
energy.
As we all know, nuclear energy is the subject of renewed
interest by the President, and Congress. Of course with it
comes concerns over security of energy supplies, fossil fuel
prices, the volatility of oil today, air quality, and our
ability to reach our national goals of developing a hydrogen
economy.
At present, there are 103 licensed reactors still operating
in 31 States. In 2004, nuclear generators produced a record 824
billion kilowatt hours of electricity, accounting for
approximately 20 percent of the Nation's electricity.
Anecdotally, we have been at about 20 percent of the Nation's
electricity coming from nuclear energy for a number of years.
So these increases in reliability have kept pace with our need
for power.
For more than four decades, the U.S. nuclear industry has
focused on improving existing reactor technology. America's
nuclear power plants have an excellent safety record and are
among the most efficient and reliable in the world. However,
there are obvious limits to continued expansion of existing
capacity. In the 21st century our Nation needs more safe,
clean, reliable electricity. The Department of Energy is
currently engaged in an effort to advance research and
development of next generation nuclear systems capable of
meeting this challenge.
The Generation IV program seeks to develop a much more
advanced generation of nuclear energy reactors to commercial
development by 2030. These reactors will have a dramatic
improvement in the areas of cost, safety, reliability and
sustainability. The Department of Energy is supporting research
in several reactor concepts, but priority has been placed on
the Very High Temperature Reactor. This technology is the
favored design in the United States due to its potential for
competitive cost use in secondary industrial activities such as
hydrogen production and desalinization. This reactor design
could also burn uranium, plutonium and other waste products
reprocessed from spent nuclear fuel or stockpiled warheads.
In 2004, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham launched the
Next Generation Nuclear Plant project to develop an advanced
nuclear energy system to produce both inexpensive electric
power and large quantities of cost-effective hydrogen that
could be used as an alternative to fossil fuels. The Department
of Energy has designated the Idaho National Laboratory to be
the focal point for advanced reactor and fuel cycle
development.
The NGNP is a key component of America's energy future and
the Federal Government must take a leadership role to ensure
that a Generation IV reactor is built in the United States. The
construction of a Generation IV reactor will ensure that the
United States regains its position as a world leader in nuclear
energy technology. Other nations are moving forward on
Generation IV technologies, and if we do nothing, we will miss
a unique opportunity.
The purpose of this hearing is to evaluate the progress of
the Department of Energy's Nuclear Generation IV program. We
also want to get a better overall sense of the administration's
commitment to move forward with the Next Generation Nuclear
Plant project.
We look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.002
Mr. Issa. Now I would like to recognize our distinguished
ranking member, Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for convening
today's hearing. As you have already said, this subcommittee is
systematically investigating each of the major energy issues
that our constituents are concerned about. Energy issues are of
critical importance, particularly to southern California, as
well as the rest of the Nation. So the subject for this
hearing, ``The Next Generation of Nuclear Power,'' is very
cogent and pertinent at this time.
In the United States, the rising costs of electricity
generation from natural gas and coal-fired power plants may
make nuclear power and renewable energy sources relatively more
competitive. No nuclear plants have been ordered in the United
States since 1978. And more than 100 reactors have been
canceled. Our aging Generation II power plants have been
working at tremendous power generation levels, over 90 percent
of capacity, to supply approximately 20 percent of the
electricity needed for the Nation.
The Federal Government would be wise to intensely research
the next generations of nuclear power reactors and plan
accordingly. It has been argued that expanded nuclear
generation could help substitute for some of the demand for
natural gas. A very significant aspect of reduced fossil fuel
consumption is the reduction in carbon dioxide emission.
Nuclear energy does not produce substantial air pollution.
However, it could help reduce air pollution problems such as
smog and particulate matter and particle matter and global
warming.
The United States is responsible for about one-fourth of
the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. America must do
better. Generation III Plus and Generation IV reactors may be
the answer.
On the other hand, current nuclear power generation has
several downsides. Nuclear power produces large quantities of
waste that remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. A
permanent, environmentally sensitive repository for high level
waste or a way to recycle nuclear waste is crucial to the
future of nuclear feasibility.
Moreover, the United States must commit the scientific
manpower and monetary resources necessary to educate the public
and provide the appropriate protection for the Nation's
environmental and physical health. The Idaho National
Laboratory, online since February 2005, is a commendable step
in the right direction. The 3,400 employees of the INL have a
core mission to develop advanced next generation nuclear
technologies, promote nuclear technology education, and apply
their technical skills to enhance the Nation's security.
Another thought provoking issue regarding uranium and
plutonium is domestic accidents and terrorist attacks. The
potentially catastrophic nature of an accident at a nuclear
power plant makes this a very serious concern. The last
accident in the United States was at Three Mile Island,
Pennsylvania, in 1979. The general feeling of improved safety
and acceptable standards in current operations is commendable.
However, in March 2002, leaking boric acid provided a large
hole in the nuclear reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse
nuclear plant in Ohio. The corrosion stopped a quarter of an
inch away from a potentially dangerous loss of reactor cooling
water.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must hold the nuclear
industry to the highest standards in order to prevent problems.
So Generation III Plus and Generation IV reactors must be safe
for the public and not just in theory.
Last, but not least, Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge
the current world political atmosphere. America presents a
prime terrorist target on a site that contains radioactive
materials. Now, all commercial nuclear power plants licensed by
the NRC have a series of physical barriers to accessing the
nuclear reactor area, and are required to maintain a trained
security force to protect them.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the NRC
began a review to improve defenses against terrorist attack.
Several of the Generation IV reactor designs seemed to be prime
candidates for energy production without weapons grade side
effects. The over-arching issue of nuclear proliferation has
been around for decades. The United Nations and other world
organizations have been vigilant and aggressive in monitoring
non-civil applications of nuclear energy. The United States
must remain responsible and conscientious in this regard as
well.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today. I
look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.005
Mr. Issa. Thank you very much, Ms. Watson.
The rules of the committee require that all witnesses and
any person that is going to provide advice to witnesses be
sworn in. So could I ask you to please rise for the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Issa. Let the record show everyone answered in the
affirmative.
I would ask unanimous consent that all opening statements
beyond the ones already given be in the record. Additionally, I
would ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days in which to revise or extend remarks or include extraneous
material.
Additionally, I would ask that all of your statements be
placed into the record and any additional information you might
choose to supplement with. And again, 5 days would be
appreciated. If you need more time, let us know. But at this
point, that will be entered in as an order.
Having given you all those opening statements that were so
carefully written, I will say this. Those are already in the
record at this moment. We give a normal allotment of 10
minutes, less if possible, to say what you want to say and then
go into question and answer. Remember, you've already said
everything that's in front of you.
So feel free to give us additional information for the
record. Because as you know, in spite of the large audience
that is here today, the record is everything that's said and
everything that's written. I know some of you will read your
speech complete, but I would suggest that the more you give us,
the better.
With that, Mr. Johnson, you are first up. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF ROBERT SHANE JOHNSON, ACTING DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR
ENERGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY;
DAVID BALDWIN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL ATOMICS; ROWAN
ROWNTREE, INDEPENDENT SCIENTIST; VISITING SCHOLAR, UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY; AND DAVE LOCHBAUM, NUCLEAR SAFETY
ENGINEER, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SHANE JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Watson, I am
Shane Johnson, Acting Director of the Department of Energy's
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. I would like
to thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the
Department's advanced reactor programs.
I have submitted a statement for the record and I will
briefly summarize that statement.
The President's National Energy Policy recommends expanded
use of nuclear energy to reduce dependence on imported fuels
and reduce harmful air emissions. To help achieve this vision,
the Department launched two new nuclear programs: our Nuclear
Power 2010 program and our Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
Initiative.
The Department's Nuclear Power 2010 program is a
partnership between industry and Government aimed at removing
barriers to the licensing and the construction of new nuclear
plants. The nuclear reactor technology being pursued in the
Nuclear Power 2010 program, often referred to as Generation III
or Generation III Plus reactors, represents an evolution in the
basic reactor designs of the 103 designs in safe operation
today in the United States. The evolutionary changes provided
by Generation III reactors include the use of passive safety
systems and simplifications in the design and layout of the
various systems and components comprising the nuclear plan. We
are hopeful that our country will see plant orders for new
nuclear power plants in the next 2 to 3 years.
The Department's Generation IV nuclear energy systems
initiative is an international partnership aimed at the
development of next generation reactor and fuel cycle
technologies. These next generation technologies are expected
to be revolutionary changes to the basic reactor designs in
operation today. These Generation IV reactor systems are
envisioned to offer significant advances in proliferation
resistance, safety, sustainability, and reduced waste
generation over today's reactor technologies. It is expected
that these technologies could be available for possible
commercialization some time between the years 2020 and 2030.
These advanced systems are also expected to include energy
conversation capabilities that could produce commodities such
as hydrogen, desalinated water, and processed heat. In 2001,
the Department led the formation of the Generation IV
international forum, an international collective of 10 leading
nuclear nations and the European Union working together to
develop these advanced technologies.
In 2003, following a 2-year U.S.-led international effort
to develop a technology road map for Generation IV systems, the
member countries of the Generation IV International forum
selected six promising reactor concepts for future research and
development. These six concepts represent the reactor concepts
with the highest expectations for meeting the key objectives of
the Generation IV program.
To guide our Generation IV research activities and manage
the technology development and intellectual property issues
associated with international research collaboration, members
of the Generation IV international forum signed a legally
binding, intergovernmental framework agreement in February of
this year. This agreement will further the development of
advanced reactor technologies, enable the Department to access
the world's best expertise, and allow the United States to
carry out Generation IV research and development more
efficiently and effectively by leveraging resources and
capabilities.
Additionally, the Department also established a new central
laboratory in February, the Idaho National Laboratory, to lead
the Government's research and development on reactor and fuel
cycle technologies. The formation of the Idaho National
Laboratory is a key step forward for the nuclear energy
program, enabling the establishment of a dedicated research
site at which we can build the expertise needed to develop
these advanced technologies.
Today, working through the Idaho National Laboratory with
other national laboratories, universities, industry and the
international research community, the United States is
investing about $40 million annually on advanced research into
systems, materials and fuels that are needed to bring
Generation IV concepts to fruition. The Department is pursuing
research and development on a range of Generation IV
technologies, including the Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor, the Lead-
Cooled Fast Reactor, the Super-Critical Water Reactor, and the
Very High Temperature Reactor.
Our efforts on these technologies include the investigation
of technical and economic challenges and risks, including waste
products, developing core and fuel designs, and advanced
materials for these reactors. The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor is a
fast neutron spectrum reactor that has the potential to use
recycled fuel in order to maximize the value of our Nation's
uranium resources. The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor can also benefit
future repository space requirements by burning long-lived
spent fuel constituents.
The Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor is a fast neutron spectrum
reactor that operates similarly to the gas-cooled reactor.
Instead of using helium gas as the coolant, the Lead-Cooled
Fast Reactor uses a liquid lead-based coolant to remove reactor
heat. The Lead-Cooled Reactor can operate at atmospheric
pressure, simplifying the design of the primary reactor system.
Like the Gas-Cooled Reactor, a key benefit of the Lead-Cooled
Fast Reactor is to operate in a more fully closed fuel cycle.
It is geared toward maximizing the utilization of uranium
resources and minimizing nuclear waste.
The Super-Critical Water Reactor is a highly efficient,
water-cooled reactor that uses conventional, low-enriched
uranium fuel and operates at high pressures and temperatures
when compared to today's light-water reactors. This allows for
a far more efficient plant, capable of generating electricity
30 percent more efficient than today's light-water reactors. In
addition, it represents a simpler design that reduces the
number of systems and components that are required of
Generation III reactors, resulting in improved economics.
The Very High Temperature Reactor extends gas-cooled
reactor technologies that operate today between 650 and 850
degrees Celsius to operate at or near 950 degrees Celsius. The
Very High Temperature Reactor is expected to produce
electricity with 50 percent higher efficiency than light-water
reactors today. The Very High Temperature Reactor is also
expected to be capable of producing the heat necessary for
efficiently producing hydrogen gas, using water as the only
consumable resource. The Very High Temperature Reactor also
incorporates passive safety characteristics, and has enhanced
safeguard and security features.
In addition to producing electricity, all four of these
Generation IV concepts have the potential to provide hydrogen
generation. While we are monitoring the progress of the
international research community on the other two Generation IV
concepts, namely the Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor and the Molten-
Cooled Reactor, the United States is not presently investing to
any large extent in the development of these technologies.
The Department's Energy Information Administration
estimates the United States will need an additional 355,000
megawatts of electricity production capacity over the next two
decades to meet our Nation's growing demand for electricity.
Nuclear energy will be needed to help meet this demand.
Generation III or Generation III Plus reactor technologies can
meet near-term demand for new baseload electricity generation.
We are seeing signs from industry that these technologies will
be deployed in the United States in the very near future.
The United States and many other countries agree that
Generation IV reactor concepts must offer improved economics,
proliferation resistance, safety and sustainability over
today's reactor designs. In addition, these technologies need
to be designed, developed and demonstrated before 2030, in
order to support growing United States and global energy needs
and also to help achieve our environmental objectives.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.010
Mr. Issa. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
With that, we move to Dr. David Baldwin. Dr. Baldwin
received his Bachelor of Science and Ph.D. in plasma physics
from MIT. From 1962 to 1970, he held research and faculty
positions at Stanford University and Culham Laboratory in
England and Yale University. In 1988, he was named Professor of
Physics and Director of the Institute for Fusion Studies at the
University of Texas, Austin. Since 1995, he has been a senior
vice president of the Energy Group for General Atomics in San
Diego. General Atomic's Energy Group's activities include high
temperature gas reactor development for both electricity and
hydrogen products together with necessary supporting
technologies.
Thank you very much for being here, and we look forward to
your testimony, Dr. Baldwin.
STATEMENT OF DAVID E. BALDWIN
Mr. Baldwin. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee. I won't introduce myself, you've done a very
nice job, thank you.
But I do want to thank you for the opportunity to talk to
you about the Generation IV technology, the impact it could
have and the role the Government could play. The previous
speaker has just talked a lot about the Generation IV program,
so I will save some time and not enter into that. But I want to
focus in particular on what he called the Very High Temperature
Gas Reactor. It goes by other names, High Temperature Gas
Reactor or Modular-Helium Reactor, they are all essentially the
same thing.
Interestingly, this approach was inspired by a question
from Congress in the early 1980's. We were basically asked,
can't you make a reactor with all the virtues that are now
called Generation IV virtues? In many ways, the resulting
design was an answer to a maiden's prayer. It is the first
reactor that was designed from the bottom up first to be safe,
then to be economic, and then asked, what other applications
might it have. Safety was the first consideration.
One key to the safety is in the fuel. The reactor fuel is
an engineered fuel particle which is, the fissile part, only
about half a millimeter in diameter, wrapped in ceramic
coatings, three layers of ceramic coatings, which protect the
fuel under all conditions from both loss of fuel and loss of
the radiation products in both normal and off-normal operation.
In effect, the ceramic container is the containment vessel
for the little, tiny particle of fuel and a fully fueled
reactor would contain billions of these little particles.
The second key to this reactor's attribute is the
combination of the chemically inert and neutron inert coolant
gas, which is helium, and the graphite matrix into which this
fuel is embedded. The dimensions of the reactor is chosen so
that under any conditions, loss of coolant or whatever, the
core could cool by natural conduction and conduction. That is,
it does not require any form of external or active cooling
system.
The heat capacity of the graphite is such that the peak
temperature, in which there is some small temperature rise,
takes 2 or 3 days to reach, so there is time to react to the
situation. The graphite material is like diamond insofar as it
is a form of carbon that does not burn in the sense of
generating heat and excessive losses. If oxidation were to
start, for example, if air flow replaced the helium gas flow,
the result would actually be a slight cooling of the system.
The resulting reactor has many attributes. Its physical
characteristics of inherent safety of any kind mean that
conditions like prompt criticality and melt-down are simply not
possible. The entire nuclear envelope is below grade by design.
This was done for economic reasons, but since September 11th,
it is obviously important. The only thing above grade are
things like cranes, which are not nuclear in their character.
In operation, it burns 80 percent of its fuel load,
compared to around 5 percent for the light-water reactor. This
means much less high level waste for a given amount of
electricity. And the resulting spent fuel is in a form ideal
for geologic burial. The gas temperature, as has already been
mentioned, in the range of 900 to 950 degrees, is perfect for
applications like electricity production or thermo-chemical
hydrogen production.
And finally, looking at costs, once we have moved beyond
the startup costs of first-time engineering, the costs of these
reactors will compare very favorably, even with current
Generation III reactors.
But the point I want to make here today is that the reactor
is also very flexible with regards to the kind of fuel burned
in it. In fact, exactly the same reactor can be fueled by
several means. The conventional way is low-enriched uranium,
that is less than 20 percent. It will also burn a mix of
thorium and enriched uranium. It can burn weapons grade
plutonium for the destruction of the plutonium. Or it can burn
light-water reactor spent fuel for that destruction.
The combination of the graphite matrix and the coolant and
the fuel form enables these fuels to be burned safety, without
dilution in high burn-up, and then placed directly in geologic
storage. A preliminary test at Oak Ridge indicates that this
fuel will retain its integrity for a few million years, which
exceeds the lifetime of the contents.
The important part I want to leave with you is that this
capability for burning light-water reactor fuel opens a very
attractive alternative to today's once-through fuel cycles with
subsequent geologic disposal. In fact, it presents a totally
different way of thinking about spent fuel. Licensing Yucca
Mountain is certainly controversial today, and this issue must
be solved, as the Congresswoman said in her opening remarks.
At the current rate of generation of spent fuel, an
additional Yucca Mountain equivalent would be needed every 20
years or so. And any increases would only make the situation
worse.
As an alternative, by first removing the low-level unburned
uranium and short-lived decay products from spent fuel and then
forming the remaining plutonium and actonides into TRISO
particles, some 70 to 90 percent, it depends on the isotope, of
this spent fuel waste can be burned in one pass through a Very
High Temperature Reactor. Even more could be burned if you do a
second pass.
This process is known as deep burn. In steady state, one
reactor could support five light-water reactors.
The final discharge is most unsuitable for weapons usage,
because 90 percent of the plutonium isotope used in nuclear
weapons has been consumed and the volume and heat load have
been much reduced.
By burning the spent fuel from the light-water reactor
fleet in dedicated high temperature reactors, and gradually
changing over to those reactors as the light-water reactors
reach their end of life, the United States would need only one
Yucca Mountain or its equivalent to meet the spent fuel needs
for the next 75 to 100 years, even with a 2 to 3 percent per
year growth in nuclear power that some people see today. This
would be enough time to develop fusion energy as an ultimate
solution to the fuel problem. If fusion were unable to reach
its promise in that timeframe, and personally I believe it
will, then the limited number of Fast-Flux reactors could be
employed to process the quite modest discharge from the High
Temperature reactor fleet.
So with all this promise, why do we not see utilities
flocking to these reactors? There are several reasons. First,
of course, nothing has been moving in the nuclear arena for 30
years. At the end of the first nuclear era, GA had booked
orders for 12 earlier versions of gas reactors that totaled
over $11 billion. Those who say that the technology is not
ready often forget this fact.
Now that the tide may be changing, the first priority of
utilities has been Nuclear Power 2010 to restart LWR
construction. The utilities are also very aware of the spent
fuel issue, as witnessed by the urging of the Yucca Mountain
licensing. GA has several of them on its advisory board. We
receive a lot of advice and encouragement from them.
Finally, what is really needed for the utility commitment
and interest in investment is a successful operating
demonstration facility. Such a facility would play the same
role today that the many reactors built in the 1950's and
1960's played, as part of the nuclear navy program, played for
the light-water reactor program, and there is no such
equivalent today. The NGNP at Idaho has been under discussion
for 2 years now. Its purpose is to provide just that
demonstration function. It has received authorization support
and some appropriation funding, but I think it is fair to say
we as a Nation have not really yet committed to carrying that
out. Needless to say, I strongly endorse that commitment.
So far its mission has been couched in terms of electricity
and hydrogen. But I would urge that a demonstration of deep
burn be added to that mission. This could be done with no
alteration to the facility itself, and only require fabrication
of the appropriate fuel.
In these comments, I have not touched on some other
comments made in the written testimony which dealt with how the
NGNP affected the revitalization of the nuclear industry. For
purposes of time I can't cover them here. What I have covered,
described as a quite different vision of the future nuclear
power development of this country, particularly for addressing
the important issue of spent fuel distribution. It is one I
believe can meet the Nation's energy needs for the next several
decades by addressing and resolving all of the issues that
nuclear power has raised over the last decades.
Providing this legacy for our children is a vision worthy
of Government support, and I thank you for the opportunity to
present it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baldwin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.017
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Dr. Baldwin.
We now move to Dr. Rowan Rowntree, who has just concluded a
3-year appointment as a visiting scholar in the Department of
Environmental Science, Policy and Management at the University
of California-Berkeley. He taught courses in energy, technology
and society as an assistant and associate professor in the
Maxwell School of Public Policy at Syracuse University.
Three years ago, he retired from his position as National
Research Program Leader in the research division of the U.S.
Forest Service. His advanced degrees are in the earth sciences,
and were taken at the University of California-Berkeley.
Before I allow Dr. Rowntree to speak, I have to own up to
25 years of, at times, having the opportunity to debate him
about sustainable energy and other subjects, including the
earth in every possible sense. So it is with great pleasure
that he agreed to be here as the most independent scientist we
could possibly get, and you will see that demonstrated here
today. Please, Dr. Rowntree.
STATEMENT OF ROWAN ROWNTREE
Mr. Rowntree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the subcommittee, for your invitation. This is an important
discussion.
I would like to address the second question in your
briefing memorandum: How can Government further promote the
Generation IV nuclear power technology? I suggest there are six
things that Government can do. These suggestions address the
public's aversion to nuclear power, and they also address the
need to have energy policymaking and management become more
transparent. Unless we can achieve this, support for Generation
IV reactors will be difficult. So these suggestions really
focus on the interim 25 years until the Generation IV reactors
can come online.
First, we have to educate the Nation as to why the 100
orders for reactors were canceled, and why there have been no
new orders for reactors since about 1978 or 1980. This is the
first step in building public confidence that, with new and
advanced technology, the Nation can safely consider continuing
the nuclear component of our energy program.
The second thing I suggest is that we educate the Nation as
to how safe the current 103 reactors are, at what rate they
will be decommissioned, and what type of reactors will replace
them. To maintain the 20 percent nuclear contribution, we need
to tell the Nation whether it is better to extend the life of
the current fleet or replace a portion of that fleet with what
I assume will be called Generation III Plus reactors. Correct
me if I am wrong on the terminology.
If it is the Government's intention to increase the nuclear
contribution above 20 percent during the next 25 years, then we
must explain what kinds of reactors and fuel cycles will be
used and what the tradeoffs are between starting these reactors
up versus just waiting for Generation IV reactors to come
online.
The third suggestion is, we must solve two problems of
critical public safety: the disposal question and the posture
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On the first one, is it
better to move high-level waste to Yucca Mountain or improve
technology for onsite, above-ground or below-ground disposal?
Or should we get back into reprocessing, and if we do, can we
really manage the plutonium proliferation problem?
On the second point, we must answer the question, is the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission tilted toward public safety or
toward industry solvency?
My fourth suggestion is to provide the public with a plan
and a time line that takes us through the interim 25 years and
through the life span of Generation IV to fusion. Now, we read
this morning in the New York Times that France is going to get
the first fusion experimental reactor. We just need to have the
public understand what our plan is. A plan in itself builds
confidence, structures discussion, and invites good ideas.
For example, the fusion education program at General
Atomics, in partnership with DOE, begins at the elementary
school level. Education programs like this, when placed in the
context of a plan and a time line, take on added power and
meaning.
Fifth, make a concerted effort, that is a concerted effort,
to reduce fossil fuel consumption by strengthening corporate
average fuel efficiency standards and supporting citizens'
conservation efforts. This builds public participation, builds
citizen responsibility and public interest in energy decisions.
It also builds a sense of credibility about what Government is
doing.
This approach can convince the public the Government really
is making every effort to solve our energy dilemma. An example
is Congressman Issa's efforts to make car pool lanes available
to hybrid cars, which has been successful.
My last suggestion, and in my mind today, the most
important, is give careful consideration to renewables that can
come online in the next 5 years, or 10 years, to reduce the
large fossil fuel component, promote solar, and take a new look
at wind. I have just become more interested in wind last week,
and I will tell you why. Wind turbines currently contribute
about 1 percent of our electricity. But they require low front-
end investment, low operational costs and they use established
technology and have low environmental impacts.
But in terms of forging a national generation strategy that
included wind, we really had no hard data on the wind resource.
Then in this coming month's issue of the Journal of Geophysical
Research-Atmospheres, which is a publication of the American
Geophysical Union, there will appear a comprehensive peer-
reviewed research report that establishes a calculus for wind.
This study assesses the wind generation potential for all
regions of the world. The author is a tenured professor of
civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and
the study was funded by NASA. It is a solid study and the
citation appears at the end of my testimony.
The research that they did concludes that locations around
the world with sustainable Class III winds can produce about 72
terawatts of electricity. A terawatt is 1 trillion watts, the
power equivalent, I am led to believe, that is equivalent to
generation by more than about 500 nuclear reactors. The authors
point out that capturing 20 percent of the 72 terawatts would
meet the world's electricity needs, including a good portion
for hydrogen production.
The Great Lakes region in the United States is designated
in this study as one with many offshore sites for this type of
wind generation and the availability of fresh water at the site
makes it attractive for hydrogen production. I am concluding
today that with Government leadership and moderate subsidy we
could attract capital to bring additional wind generation
online quicker and possibly with fewer costs than by building
Generation III and III Plus reactors.
So to summarize, to successfully promote Generation IV
reactors, this requires convincing thought leaders, investors
and governments that, No. 1, Generation IV solves most of the
problems of Generations I, II and III, and the testimony I have
heard to this point convinces me that they are very attractive.
Second, that the current reactor fleet be managed in a way that
maximizes public safety.
Third, that Government is looking at all options in a
clear-eyed, cost beneficial manner. Four, that Government will
educate the people about the costs and benefits of each option
and then make intelligent decisions about how to get us out of
this dilemma.
Now, this subcommittee is taking the right step toward an
open and honest discussion. I commend the chairman and the
members. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowntree follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.029
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Dr. Rowntree.
We now move to Mr. David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer,
Union of Concerned Scientists.
Mr. Lochbaum received his bachelor of science in nuclear
engineering from the University of Tennessee. He has more than
17 years of experience in commercial nuclear power plant start-
up, testing, operations, licensing, software development,
training, and design engineering. Since 1996, he has been a
nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists,
UCS, not to be confused with USC. UCS is a non-profit
partnership for scientists and other interested citizens,
combining scientific analysis, policy development and citizen
advocacy to achieve environmental solutions.
Mr. Lochbaum has also been a member of the American Nuclear
Society since 1978 and has written numerous articles on nuclear
safety. We look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DAVID LOCHBAUM
Mr. Lochbaum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity to share the vies of UCS with the subcommittee.
The role of the Department of Energy, which has been a key
part of today's hearing, is an important one if there is to be
a future for Next Generation Nuclear Power in this country. To
complement that important role is that of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which plays not as an immediate role,
but is clearly a deeply important role if that next generation
is to be successful.
As the chairman pointed out in his opening remarks, there
hasn't been a serious accident at a U.S. nuclear power plant
since 1979, Three-Mile Island. There are several reasons for
that. If you look at the chance of failure versus time for
nuclear power plants, or cars or light bulbs or anything, it
pretty much follows a bathtub curve, named for its shape. The
highest risk is early in life, the break-in phase, and late in
life, the wear-out phase.
The experience with nuclear power in this country, is that
we have a lot of accidents during the wear-in phase, Three Mile
Island being the most serious of those accidents, but we also
have Browns Ferry, SL-1, the Fermi 1 reactor accident and so
on; accidents that all happened in the first year or two of its
lifetime. Once we got out of that phase, past the break-in
phase, where the chance of failure goes down, we are on in the
peak middle health period of that curve, heading toward the
wear-out phase of the curve.
So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the future faces
the two areas where the risk is the highest: from the existing
reactors as they enter or they head toward the wear-out phase,
or the risk of new reactors that by nature have to be put down
in the left hand part of the curve, which is the break-in part
of the curve where again the risk is higher. It doesn't
guarantee failure, but the risk is higher in this portion of
the curve.
We are concerned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
hasn't been reformed or its effectiveness hasn't reached a
point where it can really deal with both of those challenges
successfully. Dr. Rowntree commented that maybe the NRC has a
bias toward industry. My personal belief is they don't really
have a bias, they are asked to do an awful lot with limited
resources. So we have too many balls up in the air, and the
chances of dropping them are always greater. Our concern that
the focus has been on the DOE's role, at the sake of the NRC's
role, in making that agency effective in dealing with the
challenges it will face in the future.
Other evidence of the difficulty of meeting this challenge
we think are not quite as bad as accidents, but are equally
suggestive of the problem. Over its entire history, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has licensed a total of 132 nuclear power
reactors. Forty-four times one of the reactors has been shut
down for a year or more because of its safety levels. Those
were not accidents, but they were still break-downs, they cost
the country billions of dollars as ratepayers and stockholders
paid for those safety levels to be restored.
An effective regulator would have seen signs of trouble
sooner and intervened sooner and brought about changes that
allowed problems to be fixed before it took a year for them to
fix the problems. That resulted in lower safety levels and
higher costs than were necessary.
Over the last 20 years, there hasn't been a single moment,
where a reactor in the United States hasn't been shut down
fixing safety levels. We haven't had an accident in 25 years,
but we still have these money drains that are costing billions
of dollars. They are also precursors to more serious accidents
if we don't correct the performance that leads to these
problems.
Other compelling evidence of the need for change at the NRC
are surveys conducted by the NRC's own Inspector General. The
most recent of those surveys was released in 2002. That survey
reported that only slightly more than half the employees of the
NRC feel that it is safe to speak up in the NRC. That is simply
unacceptable. The agency that is in charge of safety cannot
silence its own employees.
There is a safety culture at the NRC that the agency is
aware of and is taking steps to address. I think they are very
sincere in trying to fix those problems. Our concern is that
they don't have the resources to bring about those changes fast
enough, while they are also dealing with the other issues that
they face. These facts should be troubling regardless of
whether somebody loves or hates nuclear power, whether you see
nuclear power as having a role in the future or not. The fact
is that nuclear power is here today and those problems that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission face need to be addressed to
ensure safety of the existing reactors and provide a real solid
foundation for the next generation.
Mr. Johnson in his remarks spoke of the need to demonstrate
the technologies for the Generation IV reactors. We heartily
endorse that concept. The consequence of not doing full testing
has been lower safety levels and higher costs.
If you look at the existing fleet of reactors, we have had
material surprises that have caused costs to be much higher
than they need be. Right now, the industry, which is a fairly
mature industry, is facing problems with alloy 600 materials,
that were supposed to last for the life of the plants but are
not. They are requiring steam generators and other complements
to be replaced at a higher cost and also representing a greater
risk until they are replaced. Better testing years ago before
these reactors were built and tested would have identified
these problems and allowed the materials being used today to
begin producing at a sooner time. Both safety and economics
would benefit.
Another example is a material called ENON, which is a
material used as a fire protection barrier, so that a fire does
not destroy the cables in the emergency equipment in the back-
ups. What we are finding out through the testing done at Sandia
earlier this year is that this material does not last, does not
perform, and does not function. The fire burns it up.
For some reason, the safety tests were not done until years
after the material was deployed in a large number of our U.S.
reactors. This is not good from either a safety or economic
standpoint. Testing is a way to ensure that the expectations
that were set up for the future in terms of safety and
economics are demonstrated rather than just proven in
cyberspace.
I would also like to address a point that Dr. Baldwin made,
safety of the reactors. We hear a lot of talk about the
improved safety and have no reason to doubt the sincerity of
this plan. At the same time, we see the nuclear industry asking
that Price Anderson liability protection be extended to nuclear
reactors. If you look at the efforts that have been underway
for many of the reactor designs, the attempt is to reduce the
likelihood that the design has an accident, which is a
commendable goal. But the second part of that, should an
accident occur in spite of all these nice efforts to reduce the
likelihood, will the public be protected? Will the containment
protect the public from release of radioactivity?
With Price Anderson in place, the second part of that
equation isn't as important, because you pay the same insurance
rates whether you have a good containment, no containment or
bad containment. If you disallowed, and didn't renew Price
Anderson on nuclear reactors, it would be an incentive for
vendors to come up with safe designs. Because those safe
designs would translate into lower insurance premiums over the
life of the plant. Whereas right now, there is no safety
incentive to come up with that great design that protects the
public.
Similar to cruise ships, the operators of cruise ships go
to great lengths to avoid wrecking those cruise ships. But
should something happen, there are also lifeboats and other
things to protect the passengers in the unlikely event that a
cruise ship accident occurs.
With Price Anderson, there is not the incentive to provide
lifeboats and other things that nuclear power plants can have
to protect the public. We are concerned that if Price Anderson
is continued, there is a huge disincentive to make safety
improvements. We should not provide barriers to safety in the
future.
Last, on the issue of the fuel cycles, we at UCS have long
been concerned about nuclear safety. We have also been
concerned about nuclear proliferation. One of our concerns with
many of the nuclear designs is the separation of plutonium does
increase the likelihood and potential for proliferation of the
technology, making it easier for rogue countries and terrorist
groups to get their hands on the material necessary to make a
nuclear weapon. So we have a concern about proliferation in the
processing. These are not necessarily showstoppers, but we are
concerned about how that is being done, what are the
protections necessary to ensure that the right material does
not fall into the wrong hands.
I appreciate the opportunity to share our views, and I
would be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lochbaum follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.034
Mr. Issa. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of the
witnesses for going well beyond their prepared statements. That
does us a lot of good and certainly makes the record more
complete.
It is my custom to yield first to the ranking member. I am
going to break with that tradition ever so slightly, because I
saw Dr. Baldwin's head moving very much in agreement on the
discussion of Price Anderson. I would like him to have an
opportunity to speak on that, and then will certainly yield to
the ranking member.
Mr. Baldwin. I was certainly agreeing with the point that
the disincentive for safety, the point we are making, provided
by Price Anderson is important. We would agree that over a
period of time these should be phased down. I think the first
demonstration probably has to be covered. It is going to be in
a Government installation anyway.
But the point is the one I was agreeing with, if we move
into systems which are inherently safe, you don't need the
protection that provides.
Mr. Issa. Excellent. That helps clarify the issue for all
of us. With that, I would recognize the gentlelady from
California for her questions.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
raise some of the issues as I listened to the panel. Let me
direct my first question to Dr. Rowntree. I would like you to
talk very shortly about fossil fuel consumption and what are
the most critical environmental impacts of nuclear waste. I am
concerned about global change and weather change, global
warming and so on. Would you kind of tie in what impact the
nuclear waste might have on that effect?
Mr. Rowntree. May I ask for clarification? You asked about
fossil fuel burning and climate change?
Ms. Watson. Yes.
Mr. Rowntree. And also about nuclear?
Ms. Watson. Yes.
Mr. Rowntree. My problem is, you asked for a brief
discussion--[laughter]--with all due respect, you have two
professors here.
Ms. Watson. Why don't I talk about the origin of the
galaxy? [Laughter.]
Let's just confine it then to the nuclear, fossil fuel
versus nuclear power, and its impact on the environment.
Mr. Rowntree. Thank you. I left my cottage in Maine on a
lake this morning where the loons are being infected by
mercury. The mercury comes to us from the fossil fuel plants of
the Midwest and the East. These loons are amazing birds. They
came to their present morphology about 60 million years ago,
about the time that dinosaurs were saying goodbye.
But I am afraid if we continue with fossil fuel use, we
will not only be putting carbon dioxide and some methane into
the atmosphere, which if you took high school physics, you
would learn that when you change the chemical constituents of
the atmosphere through which radiation penetrates, you are
going to change the radiation balance. So I prefer not to talk
not about global warming as much as about climate change,
because the increased incidence of extreme events and things
like that.
My taxi driver in from Dulles was from Bangladesh. If we
drive our SUVs, we have to think about sea level rise and
storms that flood those people out. If we are going to be
citizens of the world, leaders of the world, this is part of
our metric.
At the same time, the people who live in Maine around me,
and I, were very, very happy to see the Maine Yankee nuclear
power plant closed down. Maine Yankee was an old plant. It
broke, it was too expensive to fix, it was then decommissioned
at great cost. But we are happy to say goodbye to that.
So you see the dilemma. Current fission is, I couldn't say
it better than Dave Lochbaum did about that curve, where we are
now moving into a very precarious phase of nuclear fission. If
I were king, I would bring Generation IV online, I would bring
wind online, I would bring anything but the current, now
outmoded, but certain used-car level of reactors, take them out
of production and somehow get another system in place.
In terms of nuclear waste, I think you mentioned nuclear
waste, I have a question about, as I said, whether you are
going to store it onsite, all around the country, at 103
places, or if you are going to combine it in Yucca Mountain. I
don't know the answer to that, but I am presuming that a lot of
good and smart people put a lot of effort into deciding on, and
then designing, Yucca Mountain. If we can overcome the
transportation problem, which is no small problem, maybe we
should subsidize the railroads so that they could be safer and
have fewer derailments, and get that stuff to Yucca Mountain.
I am not the person to say which is the better way to go,
but I think we have run down this road with Yucca Mountain, we
ought to complete that task. I understand it has about 63,000
metric tons technical capacity, with the increase that Dr.
Baldwin mentioned, how we are going to reduce that as we go to
Generation IV.
But nuclear waste is obviously a big, big problem right
now.
Ms. Watson. As you know, with us, you always have the
political overlay. We have discussed time and time again
whether we ought to bury it in one location or leave it where
it is and seal it. Of course, transporting it to Yucca, I think
it goes across 34 different States. You are going to have a
response from each one of those States.
See we have some serious problems. What I am probably
really getting to, I think for the future, it looks like any
kind of nuclear energy would be much better than the waste that
we have to deal with at the current time. This is all in your
province, in your domain, those of you sitting across the
table. Dr. Baldwin, I see Dr. Rowntree pointing to you. Dr.
Baldwin, you might want to respond.
We are just really having some difficult problems, both
scientifically, geographically, geologically, and politically
in trying to do away with the waste that we have now. I just
want to know what you see. Maybe you would comment on this for
the future.
Mr. Baldwin. I certainly don't have an answer to the
political problem.
Ms. Watson. Tell us what you know.
Mr. Baldwin. I understand. What we have tried to address is
how to not have the problem we have today escalate several
times over, which it could well do. To hold this in bounds, it
came out in the earlier remarks, I have been in the fusion
program most of my professional life. I believe that some day
there will be the answer. I don't believe it will be in the
very near future.
It will be on the order of 75 years before nuclear fusion
power could have an impact on the energy economy. We may have
demonstrations much earlier than that, I am not arguing that.
But to really have an impact in the several tens of percent
level, it is going to take a long time. So we need a bridge to
that point. I very much believe that fission and fusion have to
be looked at in combination, that the right kind of nuclear
power, I believe Generation IV provides that, provides a bridge
to fusion. Fusion is the ultimate solution to the spent fuel
problem. But we have to look at it in the whole, we have to
make use of other sources of energy, I agree with Dr. Rowntree
very much, wherever they make sense.
But we have to stop looking at this energy problem through
little straws. We look at it a piece at a time. We have to
think much more strategically, over the time scale of the order
of a century. That is not a political answer, I know, because
political answers are short-term.
Ms. Watson. Then that kind of is a nexus to a question I
have for Mr. Johnson. That is that scientists are saying that
Generation IV designs will be more effective in production and
waste management. Where are these plants to be constructed and
where would they be tested? What kind of input would you have
on that?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. One of the cornerstones of the
Generation IV program is enhancements in safety, proliferation
resistance and a reduction in the amount of waste generated
from the operation of these facilities. But let me say that the
Generation IV program is really in its infancy in terms of
research and development on some of the more critical issues
associated with fuel, associated with the materials necessary
for the design of these facilities.
So not to belabor the point, but it is a bit early to be
saying where we would expect these to be deployed for
commercial operation. We do see that the technologies do have
the potential for commercialization out into the future. One
could expect that they would be deployed in a manner not unlike
the commercial plants in operation today, that they would be
deployed in localities where the generation, the electrical
capacity is needed.
Ms. Watson. This is a very sensitive comment on my part,
because a couple of years ago, we were in Kwajalein. As you
know, after we did the testing, nuclear testing, I think it was
1947, the Government set up a situation where the people in the
surrounding islands could come together in, I guess it was
called, it was a gathering where they would look at the results
of their nuclear testing in subsequent generations. I think
there was $150 million that was allocated for the people of the
islands to come in and file for compensation as they are
witnessing, generation after generation, the effects of the
nuclear fallout.
When we flew over the various islands, we looked down and
we could see this clear water and the beautiful white sands and
the palm trees. We wondered why we were testing that area so
close to land. We do know there was a shift in the winds at the
time, and it did carry the fallout over. But location, and how
we are going to evaluate that these particular processes will
be effective and will work, that came to my mind, the situation
at Kwajalein came to my mind because of the effect it has had
on the land and the people. The 14 inches of topsoil was
completely destroyed, they call it hot soil. So they can't grow
anything on those islands, it completely destroyed islands,
some of them disappeared under water.
So I think to test and to evaluate is a very crucial
consideration that we must have, and I do hope that the
thinking is going in where you would test and among whom you
would test and all the matters and concerns that we might have
affecting the populations in that area. So that's why I bring
it up. I know that you are new, but I would like you to think
about it.
With that, I will turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Ms. Watson.
I am going to start where the Congresswoman finished off. I
think it's fair to ask the question, we have done, the Chinese
have done, the Russians, the Soviets, and other countries have
done above-ground nuclear testing in which they have taken
relatively significant amounts of enriched fuels and created an
above-ground event of X magnitude with the accompanying fallout
radiation, and so on.
It has always been a question, and I couldn't be luckier
than to have this kind of a gathering of brain trust, when we
look at the unknown, what if we had another Three Mile Island
in which nobody died, but it was somehow different, or a
Chernobyl in which we had a nuclear power plant that was
nowhere close to the safety standards that the United States
would accept, and people did die? What would be those releases,
worst case, from a present generation facility here in the
United States or around the world, relative to what we did to
ourselves and the world with above-ground nuclear testing for
more than a decade?
Mr. Baldwin. I'll try to respond. There are several things
to say here that have occurred to me in the last couple of
comments. One, the word test means something different and is
being used very differently. In the weapons test we were trying
to design something that would blow up and do damage, and in
fact it did.
Mr. Issa. A lot of fallout, lot of heat, lot of radiation.
Mr. Baldwin. Lots of fallout and so on. What Mr. Johnson is
talking about is testing reactors. The test is supposed to,
things happen differently, I agree. What you are worried about
is, what happens if those tests fail and there is release. It
is a quantitative question. First of all, for the individual
design, you have to look at what is the credible kind of
release. It is not literally just taking everything there and
supposing it is thrown up into the air. You have to have some
kind of idea of the mechanism, of how it would work.
That is a little bit what I was trying to address in saying
that these high temperature gas cooled reactors are designing
machines which literally cannot melt down. That is a very
important difference.
But the quantitative question as you posed it is, how much
would a failed test, that is, some kind of release,
quantitatively compare to what we already did to ourselves. I
can't answer that question at this point.
Mr. Issa. I will take a liberty and say that I personally
believe and would hope that we can quantify it going down the
road, that we already know the worst case. Chernobyl is a worst
case. The above-ground nuclear testing was certainly worst
case, and the world did not turn upside down. Kwajalein, where
there was a series of above-ground explosions, designed to see
how much damage could be done, certainly is a worst case.
The strange thing that I find is that current generation
nuclear reactors are virtually impossible to have happen what
happened in Chernobyl, but even if it happened, and now I will
pose the other question, what are we doing to the loons? What
are we doing to our environment as we burn high volumes of
fossil fuels, particularly current coal--not just here, but in
Vietnam where they burn it just by taking high sulfur coal and
just burning it? They make bricks there by throwing coal into a
furnace and the black smoke puffs out.
What is the current damage versus, even if the worst case
happened again, what is the trade-off? I would pose to each of
you, aren't we better off even if the worst case happens,
compared to what is happening every day out of the smokestacks
around the world of high volumes of fossil fuels damaging our
ecosystem?
Dr. Rowntree, we promised this was going to be
controversial, didn't we?
Mr. Rowntree. I think you put it very well. I will comment
on perhaps my perception embedded in public perception of the
tradeoff. Fossil fuel impacts on the one hand, fossil fuels in
relation to nuclear are incremental, they are slow. Sea level
rises very slowly, mercury up the food chain very slowly.
On the other hand, nuclear: we have this impression that it
will be a Chernobyl, an event. This is probably mistaken in the
terms of the kind of question that you are asking.
[Inaudible.]
Mr. Issa. I was hoping for less bad. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rowntree. I'm a technology person. I would oppose any
quick fixes.
Mr. Issa. I appreciate that. Dr. Baldwin.
Mr. Baldwin. I would like to make a comment. I thought this
was where Dr. Rowntree was going, and it is a very important
point, and it may lay behind your question. It has to do almost
with human nature, psychology, what he called the fast event.
Human nature is more concerned about a small number of deaths
in a fast event than a large number of deaths over a very long
period of time. I think that is where he was going.
We don't have answers to those questions. They are
political, psychological and so on. But they are a little bit
what we are wrestling with, that there is a certainty that we
are doing damage to ourselves, to our people, to our
environment following our present path.
We have a risk of following other paths that something
might happen. We are trying very hard to minimize that risk,
but they manifest in human psychology very, very differently.
Mr. Issa. I appreciate that.
Moving to a subject closer to the administration, Mr.
Johnson, in this year's budget, well, first of all, the
President has been a champion for the hydrogen economy. Would
that be fair to say?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
As you heard here in testimony, and I think as we all know,
there are two major ways to get hydrogen. One is to have
another energy source, such as electricity, an abundance of
electricity. Perhaps there is some way to get there besides
nuclear. But for the most part, the vast majority uses the
fossil fuel.
The other one, which is more efficient, is what we do when
we crack petroleum, we tend to use natural gas, which fairly
easily gives us hydrogen, but of course we are talking about a
fuel that is primarily best for medicine, plastics, fertilizer,
but it could be turned for one of the lowest costs into
hydrogen. And that is what they do usually at oil refineries.
But from all that we have heard here today, the easiest, or
let's say, the most efficient and least expensive way to get
vast quantities of hydrogen will be Generation IV and beyond
reactors, which have shown a tremendous ability to produce that
hydrogen. I have to ask you, isn't there an inconsistency, in
that the administration has offered zero for Next Generation in
its budget?
How do we deal with that here in the Congress? The Senate
has already put $40 million into Next Generation. In
conference, I expect that most or all of that will be there.
How do we see that mixed message, or is it a mixed message?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I would answer that saying, it
may have the appearance of a mixed message, but it is not a
mixed message. The administration's budget has seen over the
last 5 years shows a steady increase in the funding request for
our Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative. It has
also seen increases in funding requests for our hydrogen
program.
The hydrogen program is being managed out of the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewables. The Office of Nuclear Energy
has a role in the program as well. It is actually operated as a
very well-integrated program. We are working in the Office of
Nuclear Energy consistent with the Department's hydrogen
posture plan, and our funding requests and our activities,
research activities, that we are conducting as part of our
nuclear hydrogen program are consistent with the funding
requests in the posture plan, consistent with the activities
that we have committed to.
With respect to the Generation IV, again, over the last 5
years we have seen our funding for the Generation IV program
increase by a factor of 10. I believe it was in 2002, funding
for the program was about $4 million. Our funding request is
part of the 2006 budget, I believe it was $45 million.
What you are possibly seeing as a lack of commitment on the
part of the administration to moving forward with Generation IV
is perhaps due to the absence of specific text in our budget
request on the Next Generation Nuclear Plan. Based on
conversations that we had with industry resulting from a
request for expressions of interest that the Department issued
late last spring, and also based on the results of an
independent technology review that was conducted last year.
Then upon further refinement of our R&D plans, as we were
developing our fiscal year 2006 Congressional budget request,
it was decided that we needed to increase our focus on the core
research and development activities necessary to see these
Generation IV technologies, whether the Very High Temperature
Reactor or the Lead-Fast or the others, to address the critical
issues associated with those particular reactor designs.
So what you see in the 2006 budget request reflects the
fact that we have seen that there are several critical issues
that need further development before committing to go forward
with any kind of procurement action for design and construction
services. So while our 2006 request lacks the words Next
Generation Nuclear Plan, it does include funding for all the
concepts, including the Very High Temperature Reactor, which
could be coupled to a hydrogen production capability.
Mr. Issa. OK. In the future, I will try to look in multiple
line items in groups, and perhaps that is the best way to look
at it. Thank you for clarifying that.
Dr. Baldwin, your CEO, I happen to know, is a pilot. I am
also in a very, very limited way alleged to be a long-time
holder of a pilot's license. Whether it is airplane design or
it is automobile design, this bathtub safety curve that Mr.
Lochbaum talked about clearly exists. But isn't it true, or
isn't it fair to say that just when you went from the Wright
Brothers planes to the aircraft of today, and you go from Henry
Ford's cars to the automobiles of today, that it really is a
series of those dips, but each one being at a lower level?
The worst that could happen with the newest car of the
lowest, if you will, worst possible design today, isn't it a
lot better than a car of just 20 or 30 years ago at its best?
Aren't we in a sense, going to Generation IV, going to be going
to dramatically safer products?
Mr. Baldwin. That is just what I was trying to say, is that
we are talking about different kinds of curves. That is also a
learning curve, which is just what you are saying.
To assess the credible accident, you asked what is the
worst possible case, you have to ask what could happen. That
has to be assessed. So these more advanced designs have done a
better and better job of eliminating the most destructive, of
which Chernobyl was the worst example we know.
Another comment I will make, which is very much related to
this, and it occurred to me during Mr. Lochbaum's talking about
the NRC. In the early history of the light-water reactor
development, the basic concept was laid down by the nuclear
navy, as we know. There were a number of smaller demonstration
reactors built.
But then it was basically turned over to industry. Industry
did two things. It went off in different directions, there were
multiple, different approaches to power. In a sense, every
plant was designed as a boutique item, a specialty item.
Mr. Issa. I understand that is in the United States. In
France, they were organized.
Mr. Baldwin. Yes, exactly. I am speaking of the United
States. The second is, they scaled up very fast in size. So
they scaled up, which increased the need for active systems and
so on.
So the burden on NRC, I am not defending NRC or anything, I
am trying to explain. The burden on NRC was complicated by the
fact that there were many different types of designs, and that
they had been increased in the size of plants for economic
reasons, driven by the utility or commercial interests. Other
countries did it differently, you are absolutely right, have
different records, standardization earlier on. I believe if we
had done that in this country, it would have been much more
within the NRC's ability to handle it.
Mr. Lochbaum may want to comment.
Mr. Issa. Actually, I am going to make it even one better.
Ms. Watson would like to have another round of questioning. So
perhaps you can combine those.
Ms. Watson. I would like to direct my comments to Mr.
Lochbaum, a concerned scientist. We have concerns in common.
Then any of you can chime in.
But how do you think the NRC could be reformed in order to
ensure that it effectively regulates the reactors and can
promote the safety of the Generation IV reactors? Then how can
these Generation IV designs be more efficient in production and
waste management? Why should they be reevaluated and
reconsidered? Maybe you could throw all that in together.
Anyone who wants to respond, please just jump in.
Mr. Lochbaum. [inaudible.]
Ms. Watson. Let me just raise this with the Chair. We have
an oversight responsibility and I don't know how far we can
follow this, Mr. Chairman. But I think our subcommittee, as
long as you are the Chair, and he has prerogative, I would some
way, Mr. Johnson, like to see those reports come in and we can
kind of set a schedule for taking a look, not all of the
detailed policy issues. But what are we doing to satisfy the
public's concern? What are we doing in terms of safety
measures? How are we addressing our environmental waste and so
on?
So I would like to see an ongoing kind of oversight
function on the new generation advancements and technologies
and so on. If we can do that, I think we will really serve the
interests of the general public. How do we sell nuclear powered
energy to the public in general? When you say atomic or
nuclear, it all of a sudden puts blinders up to so many people.
I think the more we can, as Congress and as a subcommittee, get
the word out to people that advancements are being made with
protections and in terms of the fallout, in terms of the
processing and so on, I think we would see a more massive
acceptance of this type of energy, which we dearly need.
Mr. Issa. And if I can suggest, with Mr. Johnson's
cooperation, majority and minority staff would prepare a list
of those areas in which there may already be briefings or
materials. But if there wasn't, perhaps you could put something
together. We will get it to you within a week or so. We are
leaving for the 4th of July break. So I would say just after
that.
Then if you could respond either with existing programs or
literature, it would be very helpful and it would save us
holding you for a long time with those questions. Based on that
response, Ms. Watson and I would work together on seeing what
we would like to have continue and then submit that back to
you, if that is acceptable?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir, that sounds very good.
Mr. Issa. Excellent. Dr. Baldwin.
Mr. Baldwin. We in thinking about our candidate for NGNP
are constantly reviewing and concerned with the safety
questions as they come up. One vehicle that we have found, we
have not done this in the safety, but I would like to, that is
why I am suggesting it, we have done it in other areas, is
bring in advisory groups from interest groups. I mentioned that
we had utility advisory board of some 10 or so utilities who
over the years have steered us and advised us on our thinking
and from their perspective.
I am suggesting that if the NGNP really becomes a project,
a viable project, that it would valuably have an advisory board
made up of organizations like the Concerned Scientists, physics
groups, utility representatives and so on, to advise how does
this emerging Generation IV technology fit against the
standards which the various stakeholders would bring to this
technology.
Mr. Issa. Dr. Baldwin, I think that is an excellent
suggestion.
Mr. Baldwin. Rather than trying to develop it in isolation
then deal with it in hearings.
Mr. Issa. I will take the liberty of suggesting that to the
Senator from Idaho when we work together to renew the funding
that I personally, not in indifference to the administration,
but personally believe needs to be in the budget to move the
demonstration project a little further, a little faster, if it
becomes possible.
Ms. Johnson, as you know, we often authorize and/or
appropriate funds and then at the end of the year it goes back
into the President's discretionary slush fund of leftover
money. So it is not all bad if we give you the money and for
some reason we are mistaken and it can't be used. I know you
hate the word slush fund. But the truth is that there are many
of us here who believe that we need to make sure that
demonstration funds are available for fiscal year 2006, should
opportunities occur to move that program.
Ms. Watson, do you have additional questions?
Ms. Watson. I just want to say, I thank you, all of the
panel for coming and really educating us. As I have asked the
chairman, I do hope that we will stay on top of this as it
starts to develop, Mr. Johnson, and whichever way that we can
be helpful in getting the word out, not only through those of
us on the committee, but throughout Congress as to the
development. Because these are issues that we are going to be
faced with from now on. Energy and the environment, its impact
on the environment, our ecosystem and so on, we need to plan
for it, and we need to save this planet, Dr. Rowntree. Let's
get the galaxy. [Laughter.]
So I thank you for coming and sharing with us. I will hope
that we as a committee can stay on top of the information.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Ms. Watson.
And I would like to thank the majority and minority staff
who, as Ms. Watson and I know, made this all possible. I would
like to thank our witnesses.
I will mention that we did have Mr. Kucinich come in and
out, we actually had several calls from other Members. Every
single subcommittee and the full Committee of Government Reform
are meeting here today. We are a busy group, regardless of what
the newspapers say about us. Because of the volume of
information, the additional requests, and to be honest, our
hope that the record be complete, we will hold the record open
for 2 weeks from this date for additional submissions and
inclusions.
Again, I would like to thank the witnesses for being here.
With that, we conclude this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3408.041
<all>