Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
June 8, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1628 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF DR. DALE KLEIN VICE CHANCELLOR FOR SPECIAL ENGINEERING
PROGRAMS UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEMS
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE ENERGY AND POWER SUBCOMMITTEE
BODY:
Chairman Barton and members of the
subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to present comments on National
Energy Policy: The Future of Nuclear and Coal Power in the United States. My
name is Dale Klein. I am currently a Professor of Mechanical Engineering
(Nuclear Program) at The University of Texas at Austin and Vice Chancellor of
Special Engineering - Programs at The University of Texas System. I have been a
faculty member at The University of Texas at Austin since 1977. While my
comments are from an academic perspective, they do not represent any official
position by either The University of Texas at Austin or The University of Texas
System. I have been involved in energy issues for over 25 years and welcome the
opportunity to comment on how we can continue to maintain one of the best
electrical generation systems in the world.
As you know, our current
base load electrical generation system consists of three (3) fossil fuel sources
(coal, natural gas, and oil) and two (2) non-fossil sources (hydroelectric and
nuclear). Renewable sources, primarily photovoltaics, geothermal, and wind, are
not currently major sources of electrical generation and are not likely to be
major sources for several decades unless there are some major technological
advances.
During 1999, the electrical generation for the U.S. consisted
of the following:
% (Percent) Coal 52 Nuclear 20 Natural gas 15 Oil 3
Hydro electric 8 Renewable 2
These numbers will not significantly change
for the next several years because of the time it takes to add incremental
supplies.
There are 5 (five) areas that I would like to address today:
importance of nuclear and coal electrical generation, regulatory reform, spent
nuclear fuel disposal, low level waste disposal, and the need to maintain a
nuclear power infrastructure.
Importance of Nuclear and Coal Generation
Nuclear and coal provide over 70% of our electrical generation. Both of
these sources are extremely important for our national security and economic
stability. It is not a question of which of the sources are needed for future
power plants - both are needed.
It does not take long for each of us to
realize the importance of electricity in our daily lives. I grew up on a farm in
Central Missouri and observed first hand the positive aspects that electricity
makes on the lives of farmers. We can all look at our use of electricity and see
that our dependence on electricity grows each year. Today it is difficult to
imagine life without electric lights, television, stereo's, washing machines,
dishwashers, microwaves, robotics and computers. The mere mention of " high
tech" implies the expanded utilization of electricity - from manufacturing, to
the use by individuals. Therefore, it is extremely important to our national
security and economic competitiveness that we have a safe, reliable, and
economic electrical generation and distribution system. It would be helpful if
the U.S. Department of Energy would develop a public education program, to
explain our current electrical generation methods and what the major sources
will be for the next decade. Others testifying today, will address the issues
related to electrical generation and the use of coal. My comments are primarily
directed towards actions we should take to enhance the safe, reliable electrical
generation by nuclear power.
Regulatory Reform
The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has made significant progress in moving to a "risk
informed'' regulatory process. I was part of a study, conducted by the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, entitled "Nuclear Regulatory
Processes." The study provided several specific recommendations where
enhancements to the regulatory process can be made, with no compromise on
safety, so that the consumer can benefit from these positive changes. The
electrical generation by nuclear power has several decades of experience and it
is appropriate to re-examine the regulatory process that was developed when the
industry was just beginning.
One specific action that Congress should
address is the current 100% cost recovery for the NRC. Currently, the nuclear
licensees pay for part of the NRC budget that is the responsibility of the
federal government
Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposal
When I speak to
various groups on nuclear power, the dominant question is "What is the solution
to the disposal of the spent nuclear fuel?" Many members of the general public
are not familiar with the spent nuclear fuel program in the U.S. Most of these
individuals are not concerned about the technical details of spent nuclear fuel
disposal, they simply want to know that there is a plan and that it is safe. In
1988-1989, I served on a Congressional Commission to examine the central storage
for spent nuclear fuel. This commission concluded that there was no single
discriminator for a central facility, but when considering all the factors, a
central storage facility was recommended. The advantages of a central storage
facility increased if the permanent repository was delayed and if some nuclear
plants were shut down early - both of which have occurred. The alternative to a
central storage facility was for each reactor site to develop additional "at
reactor dry storage." This results in the consumers of nuclear generated
electricity paying twice - once for the permanent disposal site and again for
additional facilities at the power plants. There is a need for continued, timely
progress the permanent site and for the development of a central storage
facility. Regardless of where the permanent disposal site is located, there will
need to be a central storage and processing facility. In addition, there is a
need to ensure that the funds paid by the consumers of nuclear generated
electricity be allocated to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
A
specific activity for this committee is to exercise oversight responsibility and
hold DOE accountable for the schedule to make a decision on Yucca
Mountain.
Low Level Waste
The 1980 Low Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Act has not been successful in achieving the goal of
adding new sites for low level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal. Most states
have been successful in joining a compact with other states or have established
procedures for licensing a LLW facility in their own state. However, no compact
or individual state has been successful in obtaining a license for a new LLW
facility. To further complicate this issue, the Barnwell, LLW facility in South
Carolina will likely reduce the ability for non- compact members disposal states
to use this facility. The uncertainty regarding availability and the high cost
of LLW disposal has had a negative impact on university researchers and medical
isotope users.
Nuclear Infrastructure
There is an overwhelming
majority among individuals in the scientific community, government officials,
and elected officials that believe the U.S. should maintain a nuclear power
option. In addition, there is a strong belief that the U.S. needs to have a
significant nuclear program in order to influence global nuclear policy. It is
difficult for the U.S. to promote nuclear policy issues globally, if the U. S.
is not a world leader in nuclear technology.
A major area of concern for
the national laboratories, government agencies and industry in the supply of
nuclear trained individuals. Many highly skilled nuclear workers are reaching
retirement age and there is not a coordinated plan to replace these individuals.
It is important that the United States retain core scientific, engineering, and
technical skills to maintain a viable nuclear power option. Several nuclear
programs at the university level have been closed as well as shutting down many
university nuclear research reactors. Since the early 1970's, about half the
nuclear programs have been terminated and half the university research reactors
have shut down. Students today are focusing on careers in computer
science/engineering and micro- electronics. A major program needs to be
developed to attract students to pursue careers in the nuclear services and
nuclear engineering.
The following are specific recommendations for
maintaining a viable nuclear power infrastructure. This includes consideration
for a new research reactor and an accelerator designed to meet the expected
long-term research needs. These two facilities should be designed to include the
production of research isotopes and medical isotopes.
1. Maintain the
existing nuclear research infrastructure at the national laboratories and
universities
2. Increase nuclear R&D to a yearly level of over
$200-300 million by 2005
3. Increase the nuclear
engineering educational research to $20 million per year and
university research reactor support to $20 million per year 4.
Increase the R&D program in research for both fundamental research and
isotope production using accelerators and nuclear research reactors
5.
Enhance graduate student support for advanced degrees in nuclear science and
engineering
Summary
The generation of electricity using nuclear
power is an option the United States should vigorously maintain and expand.
There are many specific actions can be taken by Congress to help maintain the
nuclear option without compromising safety. These include regulatory
improvements, positive action for the safe disposal of both HLW and LLW, and
maintaining a robust nuclear power infrastructure at the national laboratories
and at universities.
With these positive actions by Congress, future
generations will have a better life similar to the improvement we are seeing
today from past investments in nuclear technology.
Thank you for the
opportunity to present these comments.
END
LOAD-DATE: June 10, 2000 
