Fortnightly just obtained a draft copy of the recommendations to be issued by the DOE’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future.
Although the recommendations don’t explicitly call for a federal corporation (fedcorp) to take responsibility for spent-fuel management (as Fortnightly Contributing Editor John Bewick discussed in the May issue cover story, “Spent-Fuel Fedcorp”), it does call for a “new, single-purpose” organization to be created — in effect, a fedcorp or something like it.
-Michael Burr
BRC Draft Recommendations
Disposal Subcommittee
#1. The United States should proceed expeditiously to develop one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
Permanent disposal is needed under all reasonably foreseeable scenarios.
Geologic disposal in a mined repository is the most promising and technically accepted option available for safely isolating high-level nuclear wastes for very long periods of time.
#2. A new, single-purpose organization is needed to develop and implement a focused, integrated program for the transportation, storage and disposal of nuclear waste in the United States.
- The new organization should have:
- a focused and well-defined mission,
- the financial and institutional means to deliver on its commitments, and
- sufficient independent authority-subject to appropriate financial, technical, and regulatory oversight-to provide institutional and programmatic stability over time.
- Congress would play a central role in ensuring the accountability of a new waste management organization.
#3. Assured access to the balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund and to the revenues generated by annual Nuclear Waste Fee payments from ratepayers and utilities is absolutely essential and must be provided to the new nuclear waste management organization.
#4. A new approach is needed to site and develop nuclear waste management and disposal facilities in the United States in the future. We believe siting processes for all such facilities are most likely to succeed if they are:
(1) consent-based
(2) transparent
(3) phased
(4) adaptive
(5) standards- and science-based
#5. The current division of regulatory responsibilities between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is appropriate and should continue.
In addition, we urge that new, site-independent safety standards be developed by the two agencies in a formally coordinated joint process that actively engages and solicits input from all the relevant constituencies.
#6. 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 (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.
#7. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board be retained as a valuable source of independent technical advice and review.
Members should represent a carefully considered mix of scientists and engineers with the relevant mix of expertise.
Reactor and Fuel Cycle Subcommittee
#1. No currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technologies including current or potential reprocess or recycle technologies have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decades.
Put another way — we do not believe that new technology developments in the next three to four decades will change the underlying need for an integrated strategy that combines safe, interim storage of spent nuclear fuel with expeditious progress toward siting and licensing a permanent disposal facility.
#2. The Subcommittee concurs with the recent findings of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technologies (PCAST), and recommends the need for better coordination of energy policies and programs across the federal government; for a substantial increase in federal support of energy-related research, development, demonstration, and deployment; and for efforts to explore new revenue options to provide this support.
#3. A portion of the federal nuclear energy RD&D resources should be directed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to accelerate development of regulatory frameworks and support 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.
#4. The United States should continue to take a leadership role in international efforts to address global non-proliferation concerns.
This could include: support for multinational, industrial-national, scale fuel cycle facilities, joint efforts with other countries to improve security and accountability technologies and protocols for nuclear materials and capabilities, and improvements in existing multilateral agreement frameworks.
Reactor and Fuel Cycle Subcommittee
#1. The U.S. government should provide stable, long-term RD&D (research, development, and demonstration) support for advanced reactor and fuel cycle technologies that have the potential to offer substantial benefits relative to currently available technologies in terms of safety, cost, resource utilization and sustainability, the promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and counter-terrorism goals, and waste storage and disposal needs.
#2. The Subcommittee concurs with the recent findings of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technologies (PCAST), and recommends the need for better coordination of energy policies and programs across the federal government; for a substantial increase in federal support of energy-related research, development, demonstration, and deployment; and for efforts to explore new revenue options to provide this support.
#3. A portion of the federal nuclear energy RD&D resources should be directed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to accelerate development of regulatory frameworks and support 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.
#4. The United States should continue to take a leadership role in international efforts to address global non-proliferation concerns. This could include: support for multinational, industrial-national, scale fuel cycle facilities, joint efforts with other countries to improve security and accountability technologies and protocols for nuclear materials and capabilities, and improvements in existing multilateral agreement frameworks.
-END-
Posted: May 19th, 2011 under Uncategorized.
Comments: none