Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future Issues Final Recommendations to Secretary of Energy

On January 26, 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) released its final Report to the Secretary of Energy containing the BRC’s findings and conclusions for managing nuclear waste in the U.S.  After considering  a wide range of possible scenarios for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and reviewing public input, the Commission found that the existing nuclear waste management regime is at an impasse and a new strategy is needed to address an array of nuclear waste-related issues, including the siting of future nuclear waste management facilities, the transport and storage of spent fuel and high-level waste, options for waste disposal, institutional arrangements for managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level wastes, reactor and fuel cycle technologies, and international considerations.  The BRC offered eight key recommendations:

1. Apply a new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.
2. Establish a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program.
3. Provide access to the Nuclear Waste Fee funds currently paid by nuclear utility ratepayers.
4. Develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.
5. Develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.
6. Prepare for large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities.
7. Support innovation in nuclear energy technology and workforce development.
8. Promote active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, non-proliferation, and security concerns.

It is now up to Congress and the Administration to consider the BRC’s advice and decide whether and how to implement the proposed strategy.  There will be Congressional hearings on the Report in the near-term. 

Background

The BRC is a federal advisory committee appointed in March 2010 by Secretary Chu at the request of President Obama.  Commission members include experts from research facilities, academic and policy-centered institutions, industry, labor organizations, and environmental organizations.  The Commission is co-chaired by Rep. Lee H. Hamilton and Gen. Brent Scowcroft.  The BRC’s Charter directed the BRC to consider “all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and materials derived from nuclear activities.”  The Charter did not call for the Commission to serve as a siting body for a nuclear waste repository.  As a result, the Report does not provide recommendations on the suitability of any particular repository site, including Yucca Mountain, Nevada.  In addition, the Report does not address issues related to the appropriate role of nuclear power in the nation’s future energy supply mix.

The BRC and its subcommittees held numerous public hearings and private meetings to receive testimony from technical and policy experts, elected officials, community leaders, environmental organizations, and other interested parties.  The Commission submitted a draft report to the Secretary of Energy in July 2011.  Additional information about the BRC and the Report is available at the BRC website.

The Report to the Secretary of Energy

The BRC considered a broad range of technological and policy alternatives related to nuclear waste management, and analyzed the scientific, environmental, budgetary, economic, financial, and management issues relevant to those alternatives.  The key recommendations are described below.  A number of the recommendations require action by either the Congress or the Administration. 

Recommendation 1:  Consent-Based Siting

Recognizing facility siting as “the most consistent and most intractable challenge for the U.S. nuclear waste management program,” the BRC recommended the adoption of an adaptive and staged consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste management facilities.  Such an approach would involve negotiations between the federal government and potentially affected state, tribal, and local governments, and other entities and include a flexible and substantial incentive program aimed at encouraging communities to volunteer to host a new nuclear waste management facility.  The BRC concluded that this kind of approach is the only way to prevent the erosion of trust that has plagued previous attempts by the federal government to site nuclear waste facilities.  Because the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) currently provides only for the evaluation and licensing of a single repository site at Yucca Mountain, implementation of this recommendation would require amendment of the NWPA.

Recommendation 2:  Establish a New Organization

Under the NWPA, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for nuclear waste management.  The BRC recommends Congress enact legislation to establish a new organization that would be responsible for licensing, building, and operating facilities for the safe consolidated storage and final disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste.  The new organization would also arrange for the safe transport of waste and spent fuel to storage and disposal facilities, and pursue relevant applied research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) activities.  The BRC stressed that the new organization should be provided a substantial degree of implementing authority and assured access to the funds.  The organization should be subject to oversight from Congress and other appropriate government agencies. 

Recommendation 3:  Funding Access

Nuclear utilities in the U.S. operate pursuant to the “Standard Contract” with DOE under which nuclear utilities are assessed a fee on every kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity (currently $0.001 per kwh) to cover the federal government’s costs of disposing of the civilian spent nuclear fuel.  The fees are placed in a “Nuclear Waste Fund” (NWF).  Annual NWF fee collections are approximately $750 million.  Today, the NWF holds nearly $27 billion in fees and interest.  Unless appropriated by Congress, DOE cannot use the NWF for its intended purpose.  Under most Standard Contracts, the government was required to begin accepting commercial spent fuel by January 31, 1998.  The government, however, has not yet commenced accepting commercial spent fuel and is subject to numerous lawsuits for breach of the Standard Contract.  These lawsuits have already cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and are causing additional liability to taxpayers in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

To remedy the flaws in the existing funding mechanisms, the BRC recommended several changes to the nuclear waste management funding structure. 

• The Administration should amend the Standard Contract so that utilities remit only the portion of the annual fee that is appropriated for waste management each year.  The remainder should be placed in a trust account, held by a qualified third-party institution, to be available as required to carry out the nuclear waste program. 
• The budgetary treatment of annual fee receipts should be changed so that fee receipts can directly offset appropriations for the nuclear waste program. 
• Legislation should be enacted to transfer the unspent balance in the NWF to the new waste management organization.  This would enable the organization to implement its nuclear waste management obligations independent of annual appropriations by Congress.

Recommendation 4:  Develop One or More Geologic Disposal Facilities

The BRC concluded that deep geological disposal capacity is the scientifically preferred approach to manage the permanent disposal of nuclear waste.  The BRC found that no matter what happened at Yucca Mountain, U.S. inventory of spent nuclear fuel would exceed the current statutory amount allowed at Yucca Mountain.  Accordingly, under current law, a second disposal site in addition to Yucca Mountain would be needed.  The BRC also noted that all current options for recycling spent fuel would still generate waste streams that would require a permanent disposal solution. 

Recommendation 5:  Consolidated Interim Storage

The BRC recommended legislative action to eliminate existing restrictions in the NWPA that prevent the construction of a consolidated storage facility before a permanent repository has been licensed.  The recommended NWPA amendments would apply a consent-based process to site, license, and construct multiple storage facilities and would clarify that payments to the NWF can be used for this purpose.  According the BRC, the development of consolidated interim storage facilities would enable the transfer of spent fuel from reactor sites to safe and secure centralized facilities.  The BRC found this argument most compelling to deal with “stranded” spent fuel from shutdown nuclear power plants.  In fact, the BRC recommended that “stranded” fuel from shutdown nuclear power plants be accorded first-in-line priority to allow the shutdown reactor sites to be fully decommissioned and put to other uses.  In light of the events at the Fukushima Daiichi reactor site in Japan, the BRC also recommended that the National Academy of Sciences conduct a thorough assessment of the implications of the Fukushima incident for nuclear waste storage in the U.S. 

Recommendation 6:  Prepare for Large-Scale Transport

The BRC recommended that DOE begin to implement financial and technical assistance to state, tribal, and local officials, pursuant to Section 180 of the NWPA, to deal with the transportation of spent nuclear fuel.  Further, the BRC suggested that these activities should be paid for from the NWF, even before any potential storage or disposal site is identified.  The BRC recommended that initial routes and related programs should focus on removing spent fuel from shutdown reactor sites.  The BRC also recommended providing the proposed new waste management organization broad transportation authorities.     

Recommendation 7:  Support Innovation and Workforce Development

While the BRC found the general direction of current DOE RD&D appropriate, it strongly encouraged DOE to continue to refine its nuclear RD&D roadmap.  The BRC called for increased efforts and adequate federal funding to support the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s work to develop a regulatory framework for advanced nuclear energy systems.  The BRC also recommended more support from federal, joint labor-management, and universities for advanced science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to develop a strong nuclear workforce.  BRC also highlighted the need to ensure appropriate safety standards to protect nuclear workers.

Recommendation 8:  Active U.S. leadership to Address Safety, Non-Proliferation, and Security

In general, the BRC strongly suggested that the U.S. continue to strengthen its leadership role in terms of supporting international safety initiatives, multi-national fuel-cycle facilities, spent fuel “take-away” arrangements, and efforts to promote global best practices regarding nuclear security.  The BRC recommended that the U.S. continue to work through initiatives such as the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. 

Congressional Reaction

House and Senate hearings on the conclusions and recommendations presented in the Report are scheduled for the week of January 30, 2012.  Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) each issued statements indicating their desire for legislative action this year.  Sen. Feinstein stated that “the commission’s recommendation to use a consent-based approach to selecting waste storage facilities—which has worked in other countries—is our best chance to finally solve the challenge of long-term waste storage.”  Sen. Murkowski found that the Report “offer[s] some solid recommendations for improving U.S. policy, especially the call for the creation of a new organization that’s protected from political influence or annual funding bills to handle nuclear waste disposal.”  Sen. Alexander indicated that there was bipartisan support to start developing a nuclear waste plan within the year to best dispose of the country’s used nuclear fuel.