Senator Patrick Leahy issued a statement regarding today's release of the Draft Report On Nuclear Waste Management of The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. The report follows President Obama's decision to give up on trying to site a single, high-level radioactive waste facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. The federal government is required to build and maintain such a site, but since guaranteeing to nuclear power companies for 50 years that such a site will be built, none has been. Yucca Mountain was the most recent proposal.
REPORT July 29, 2011
Leahy's statement: "In its draft of its final report today on nuclear waste management in the United States, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future has made constructive recommendations. If appropriately implemented, their conclusions can become an action plan to renew confidence in the nation’s nuclear waste management program. Forging the structure of a sensible and workable program is not an option, it is an imperative. We have gone too long without a plan, leaving waste piling up across the country and leaving many communities vulnerable to nuclear disasters.
"The Commission’s recommendation for an independent organization to run a national waste management program could well be the right way to move a program forward. The federal government has collected about $25 billion so far from nuclear utilities and ratepayers to finance a consolidated waste management program, but the funds remain largely inaccessible. Meanwhile, it is costing taxpayers billions of dollars as the government pays damages to utilities for not honoring its contractual commitment to accept this waste. It is time for the federal government to live up to its obligation to use these set-aside funds for the consolidated storage of the nation’s nuclear waste. But choosing appropriate storage sites should not be unilateral decisions without local input.
"Forcing communities to live long-term with nuclear waste has done nothing but generate frustration, animosity and distrust in today’s deeply flawed system. I could not agree more with the Commission’s recognition of the fact that host communities, states, and tribes need to have their interests adequately protected and their wellbeing improved if a storage facility is located nearby. The federal government, or a newly created waste management organization, needs to work closely with state, local, and tribal governments on siting interim and permanent waste facilities. This should be the cornerstone of a successful waste management program.
"Where legislative action is necessary, Congress should work promptly and thoughtfully to fulfill its obligation to create an effective waste management program. Citizens in our communities, like those in Vermont who live near one of the nation’s 104 reactors, deserve a national plan to move forward with the safe consolidation and storage of nuclear waste."
From the draft report itself The Blue Ribbon Commission concludes that the United States needs a new, integrated strategy for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including, in particular, a new approach to siting nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities. The strategy recommended has seven key elements:
1. An approach to siting and developing nuclear waste management and disposal facilities in the United States that is adaptive, staged, consent-based, transparent, and standards- and science-based.
2. A new, single-purpose organization to develop and implement a focused, integrated program for the transportation, storage, and disposal of nuclear waste in the United States.
3. Assured access by the nuclear waste management program to the balance in the Nuclear Waste
Fund and to the revenues generated by annual nuclear waste fee payments.
4. Prompt efforts to develop, as expeditiously as possible, one or more permanent deep geological
facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste.
5. Prompt efforts to develop, as expeditiously as possible, one or more consolidated interim storage
facilities as part of an integrated, comprehensive plan for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel
cycle.
6. Stable, long-term support for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) on advanced
reactor and fuel cycle technologies that have the potential to offer substantial benefits relative to
currently available technologies and for related workforce needs and skills development.
7. International leadership to address global non-proliferation concerns and improve the safety and
security of nuclear facilities and materials worldwide.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
â ¢ The current division of regulatory responsibilities for long-term repository performance between the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
appropriate and should continue. The two agencies should develop new, site-independent safety
standards in a formally coordinated joint process that actively engages and solicits input from all
relevant constituencies.
â ¢ The jurisdictions of safety and health agencies should be clarified and aligned. New siteindependent safety standards should be developed by the safety and health agencies responsible
for protecting nuclear workers through a coordinated joint process that actively engages and solicits
input from all relevant constituencies. Efforts to support uniform levels of safety and health in the
nuclear industry should be undertaken with federal, industry, and joint labor’management
leadership. Safety and health practices in the nuclear construction industry should provide a model
for other activities in the nuclear industry.
â ¢ The roles, responsibilities, and authorities of local, state, and tribal governments (with respect to
facility siting and other aspects of nuclear waste disposal) must be an element of the negotiation
between the federal government and the other affected units of government in establishing a disposal facility. All affected levels of government (i.e., local, state, tribal, etc.) must have, at a
minimum, a meaningful consultative role in important decisions; additionally, states and tribes
should retain’or where appropriate, be delegated’direct authority over aspects of regulation,
permitting, and operations where oversight below the federal level can be exercised effectively and
in a way that is helpful in protecting the interests and gaining the confidence of affected communities
and citizens. At the same time, local, state, and tribal governments have responsibilities to work
productively with the federal government to help advance the national interest.
â ¢ Recognizing the substantial lead-times that may be required in opening one or more consolidated
storage facilities, dispersed interim storage of substantial quantities of spent fuel at existing reactor
sites can be expected to continue for some time. The Commission sees no unmanageable safety or
security risks associated with current methods of storage (dry or wet) at existing sites in the United
States. However, to ensure that all near-term forms of storage meet high standards of safety and
security for the multi-decade-long time periods that they are likely to be in use, active research
should continue on issues such as degradation phenomena, vulnerability to sabotage and terrorism,
full-scale cask testing, and other matters.
â ¢ The Commission recommends that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) be tasked with carrying
out an assessment of the lessons learned from Fukushima and their implications for conclusions
reached in earlier NAS studies on the safety and security of spent fuel and high-level waste storage
arrangements.
â ¢ Spent fuel currently being stored at shutdown reactor sites should be ‘first in line’ for transfer to
consolidated interim storage.
â ¢ Although regulatory standards for different types of facilities will differ, the new organization should
be responsible for developing consolidated interim storage and permanent disposal facilities and
should apply the same principles of decision making to all aspects of the waste management
program (i.e., science-based, consent-based, transparent, phased, and adaptive).
â ¢ Siting processes for future waste management facilities should include a flexible and substantial
incentive program.
â ¢ The current system of standards and regulations governing the transport of spent fuel and other
nuclear materials has functioned well, and the safety record for past shipments of these types of
materials is excellent. However, planning and coordination for the transport of spent fuel and
high-level waste is complex and should commence at the very start of a project to develop
consolidated storage capacity.
â ¢ The federal government should take steps to resolve ongoing litigation between the Department of
Energy and the utilities regarding fuel acceptance as expeditiously as possible.
â ¢ A well-designed federal RD&D program will enable the United States to retain a global leadership
position in nuclear technology innovation. Public and private RD&D efforts should focus on two
distinct areas of opportunity:
-- Near-term improvements in the safety and performance of existing light-water reactor
technology, as currently deployed in the United States and elsewhere as part of a once-through
fuel cycle, and in the technologies available for storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste.
-- Longer-term efforts to advance potential ‘game-changing’ nuclear technologies and systems that
could achieve very large benefits across multiple evaluation criteria compared to current
technologies and systems.
â ¢ A portion of federal nuclear energy RD&D resources should be directed to the NRC to accelerate a
regulatory framework and supporting anticipatory research for novel components of advanced
nuclear energy systems. An increased degree of confidence that new systems can be successfully
licensed is important for lowering barriers to commercial investment.
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed by the
Secretary of Energy at the request of the President to conduct a comprehensive review
of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new
plan. It is co-chaired by Rep. Lee H. Hamilton and Gen. Brent Scowcroft. Other
Commissioners are Mr. Mark H. Ayers, the Hon. Vicky A. Bailey, Dr. Albert Carnesale,
Sen. Pete Domenici, Ms. Susan Eisenhower, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Mr. Jonathan Lash, Dr.
Allison M. Macfarlane, Dr. Richard A. Meserve, Dr. Ernest J. Moniz, Dr. Per Peterson, Mr.
John Rowe, and Rep. Phil Sharp.
The Commission and its subcommittees met more than two dozen times between
March 2010 and July 2011 to hear testimony from experts and stakeholders, to visit
nuclear waste management facilities in the United States and abroad, and to discuss the
issues identified in its Charter. A wide variety of organizations, interest groups, and
individuals provided input to the Commission at these meetings and through the
submission of written materials. Copies of all of these submissions, along with records
and transcripts of past meetings, are available at the BRC website (www.brc.gov).
This draft report highlights the Commission’s findings and conclusions to date and
articulates a preliminary set of consensus recommendations for public review and input.