Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future

1. Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future Draft Recommendations

2. Background • Formed by Secretary of Energy • Response to Yucca Mountain situation • Conduct comprehensive review of policies for managing back end of nuclear fuel cycle • Chaired by Lee Hamilton & Brent Scowcraft • Comprised of well-known stakeholders • Heard extensive testimony • Included consideration of Fukushima accident • Documents all available on line www.brc.gov

3. Spent vs. Used Fuel • “Spent fuel” is sometimes also referred to as “used fuel.” The difference in terminology in fact reflects a profound policy issue as to whether the material should be seen as a waste or a resource. We use the term “spent fuel” in this report, but, believe it is premature to resolve that policy debate.

4. Storage vs. Disposal Storage is an intermediate step in waste management. It is isolation that permits managed access to the waste after its emplacement, with active human control and maintenance to assure isolation. After a period in storage, waste is subject to disposal. Disposal is the final stage of waste management. It is isolation that relies in the long term only on the passive operation of natural environmental and man-made barriers, does not permit easy human access to the waste after final emplacement, and does not require continued human control and maintenance.

5. Issues Not Considered • Yucca Mountain • Storage/Disposal site recommendations • Recommendations about nuclear power • Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) • Opposed by nuclear industry • Defer to NRC rulemaking process

6. Strategy Elements for Success • Address scientific, technical, political, societal dimensions of risks from cradle to grave • Public/Occupational health and safety • Environmental protection and tradeoffs • Cost and governance effectiveness • Non-Proliferation and National Security • Fairness- Intergenerational Equity • Transparency & Informed participation

7. Seven Key Strategy Elements • New, consent-based approach to sitingwaste facilities. • New organization dedicated to waste management empowered with authority & resources to succeed. • Access to the Nuclear Waste Fund. • Prompt efforts to develop • geologic disposal facilities and • consolidated interim storage facilities. • Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development. • U.S. leadership in international efforts on safety, waste management, nonproliferation, and security concerns.

8. Proposed Legislative Changes • Amend Nuclear Waste Policy Act to • Adopt new consent-based siting process • Authorize more than one consolidated storage site • Establish new independent, government-charged waste management organization • Remove access to Nuclear Waste Fund from annual appropriations process • Promote international engagement to support foreign safe/secure waste management

9. Siting Process Details • Develop set of basic initial siting criteria • Develop generic standard and support regulatory requirements early in siting process • Encourage interest by large variety of communities with potentially suitable sites • Establish initial program milestones

10. Siting Process Elements • Consent-based—affected communities retain significant local control and can decide on accepting facility siting decisions • Transparent—all stakeholders have opportunity to understand key decisions and engage the process in a meaningful way. • Phased— key decisions are revisited and modified as necessary along the way rather than being pre-determined. • Adaptive—flexible process produces decisions responsive to new information & technical, social, or political developments. • Standards science-based—public confidence that all facilities meet rigorous, objective, and consistently-applied standards of safety and environmental protection.

11. Regulatory Issues • What should the basis be: • a desired level of protection or • what is reasonably achievable using today’s technology? • For how long must compliance be demonstrated? • Who is to be protected—individuals or populations? • What is the desired level of protection? • What is the measure of compliance (doses to individuals vs. releases to the environment)? • How should compliance be demonstrated—primarily by quantitative calculations or by broader analysis involving multiple lines of qualitative and quantitative considerations? • What level of confidence is required? • How should the potential for human intrusion be addressed? • How should retrievability be addressed? • Can compliance take credit for institutional controls and if so, for how long? • Should groundwater be separately protected? • Should there be performance requirements for sub-elements of a repository (e.g., the waste package or the geologic setting)?

12. Congressional Oversight • New, central role for Congress by defining • Policy framework and institutional form of new waste management organization • Funding mechanism and financial resources • Roles of state/local/tribal governments • Responsibility to promote social and economic well-being of communities affected by waste • Incentives to be provided during siting process • Congress also to increase oversight activities

13. Additional Findings • NRC/EPA roles should continue • Both should adopt new site-independent standards • Roles, responsibilities and authorities of other governmental entities wrt feds to be negotiated • Continue research on at reactor storage • NAS assess Fukushima waste storage impacts • Siting process to include substantial incentives • Early planning for waste transportation

14. Additional Findings (cont.) • Spent fuel at shutdown reactors first to move • Quickly resolve ongoing spent fuel litigation • Focus federal/private R&D on • improving current reactor safety and • Advancing “game changing” technology • Accelerate NRC research on regulations for novel, advanced nuclear energy systems