Got Nuclear Waste? We’ll Take It!

Over the past few weeks, the people of Carlsbad, N.M., have been busy making one thing known: they want the United States’ nuclear waste and they want it bad.

Their support is being driven by recommendations released last week from the Obama administration’s blue ribbon commission on how to fix the nation’s nuclear waste management program. Most noteworthy for the people of Carlsbad is the recommendation by the commission that the United States pursue a “consent-based approach,” where local communities are engaged in the project from the beginning so that they avoid a situation where politics later trump progress on a much-needed repository (*cough* Yucca Mountain *cough*). My colleague Mark Flanagan explained this approach and the reasoning behind it on the blog last week.

Carlsbad is unique from any other area of the country because it is home to salt beds, an ideal burial place for transuranic waste because of its self-sealing qualities, which is why the U.S. Department of Energy built its Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) there in the 1980s, a project that has garnered a lot of community support. Here’s what a DOE fact sheet has to say about the geologic conditions at the site:

Bedded salt is free of fresh flowing water, easily mined, impermeable and geologically stable—an ideal medium for permanently isolating long-lived radioactive wastes from the environment.

Throughout the 1960s, government scientists searched for an appropriate site for radioactive waste disposal, eventually testing a remote desert area of southeastern New Mexico where, 250 million years earlier, evaporation cycles of the ancient Permian Sea had created a 2,000-foot-thick salt bed.

Because of its unique geologic qualities and growing community support, Carlsbad and Eddy County officials this past Saturday joined together in offering New Mexico’s salt beds as a final destination for U.S. high-level radioactive waste.

"Eddy County has proven that involving local governments and citizens in the planning and oversight process leads to a successful mission. Community support and involvement in every step of the process, especially emergency services and transportation, is absolutely essential." said Roxanne Lara, Eddy County Commissioner and Energy Communities Alliance Secretary. "The BRC recognized the importance of this model. The bottom line is that Southeast New Mexico has the knowledge, the location and the desire to be a solution to this nation's nuclear waste problem. Let's get moving."

The blue ribbon commission, although not tasked with the responsibility of picking a site to hold the nation’s nuclear waste, echoed some of the positive aspects of the Carlsbad site in their report:

The crucial difference in the WIPP case [from Yucca Mountain] was the presence—also from the outset—of a supportive host community and of a state government that was willing to remain engaged. Starting in the early 1970s and continuing to the present, elected officials and other local leaders in and around the WIPP site, particularly in the Carlsbad business community, made it very clear that they approved of the development and use of the facility to dispose of defense TRU wastes. This unwavering local support helped to sustain the project during periods when federal and state agencies had to work through disagreements over issues such as the nature of the wastes to be disposed, the role of different entities in providing oversight, and the standards that the facility would be required to meet.

(They also provided an overview of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant on page 21.)

Not only does the Carlsbad community have the know-how and the right environment to support a nuclear waste repository, but they also view it as a way to boost the local economy, which is a major contributing factor to their overall support. A recent Forbes piece captures it perfectly:

This attitude—“Yes in my backyard,” if you will—has brought near permanent prosperity to this isolated spot that until recently had no endemic economic engine. Unemployment sits at 3.8%, versus 6.5% statewide and 8.5% nationally. And thanks to this project—euphemistically known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP—New Mexico has received more than $300 million in federal highway funds in the past decade, $100 million of which has gone into the roads around Carlsbad.

Before WIPP the area’s economy was mostly limited to potash mining, oil and gas drilling, and a passel of tourists stopping on the way to ­Carlsbad Caverns, an hour south. The Department of Energy’s $6 billion program created 1,300 permanent jobs, many of them high-paid engineering positions. Energy’s annual budget for WIPP is $215 million, much of which stays in the community as wages.

The surrounding communities are not only supportive about accepting the nation’s nuclear waste, Forbes said they have “doubled down” on the opportunity:

The leaders of neighboring Lea and Eddy counties have doubled down on the nuke biz, establishing a 1,000-acre atomic industrial park. ­Already uranium fuel maker Uren­co Group has built a $3 billion fabrication plant there, employing 300.

Now they’re seeking to build a surface-level facility to store used nuclear fuel rods in 100-ton, 15-foot-tall steel-and-concrete casks.

Given that the community and local leaders support developing a nuclear waste repository, what’s the hold up? Forbes explains:

Even if the money’s there, and the will, there’s still a lingering question of how the salt would react when in contact with canisters of high-level waste, 600 degrees hot.

Trapped within the salt are microscopic pockets of 250-million-year-old seawater. Because heat increases the solubility of salt in water, the more heat, the more salt dissolved. One theory suggests that high heat will attract nearby water toward the waste canisters, potentially corroding them. Ned Elkins, Los Alamos lab’s chief salt repository scientist, who works at WIPP, says all current modeling indicates that neither the heat nor water should pose any significant problems, “but we have to let the science speak for itself, to erase all doubt.” The DOE has begun a $40 million study to prove it out, but conclusive results will take at least three years.

Letting science dictate policy sounds like a good idea to me, so I guess it’s a wait and see game to determine if the site is technically qualified. Either way, it is encouraging to see that there are American communities out there that are willing to accept the nation’s nuclear waste and stand determined to make their case known.

--

(For an interesting read, check out Spiegel Online to see how Sweden was able to build community support for its permanent nuclear waste repository and actually had to choose between two willing host communities. The blue ribbon commission visited Sweden during the course of its two-year evaluation and believes it to be a good example for how a country can sustain public trust and confidence to see a facility through to completion.)

Photo: Photograph taken by Chip Simons and featured in Forbes’ “Nuke Us!”

Reporting on the BRC Report

The NEI coverage of the Blue Ribbon Commission final report is below this post and gives a good summary of industry response. We’d thought we’d take a look at some of the coverage in the press and see how it is playing around the country. These are news stories, so we’re not gauging reaction, as we would with editorials, just the accuracy and usefulness of the reporting.

And some are better than others. The TriCity [Wash.] Herald, using the AP story as a base, sort of misses the boat with this lede:

The United States should immediately start looking for an alternative to replace the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, which cost an estimated $15 billion but was never completed, a presidential commission said Thursday.

It’s not wrong exactly, but the stress on Yucca Mountain suggests the commission had something to say about it. In fact, it had nothing specific to say about it and, if Yucca Mountain were determined to still be the best locale for a central used fuel repository, that would be consistent with the report.

Yucca Mountain was picked by a process established by law, but "now the Blue Ribbon Commission suggests we just ignore the law and start all over?" said Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, who is running for governor as a Republican, in a statement. "That recommendation could set our country back at least 25 years."

Well, he said it, but it isn’t really the case that Yucca has been eliminated from consideration. The report didn’t eliminate any location from consideration. President Barack Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, yes, blue ribbon commission, no.

Here’s what the report says. It’s pretty direct:

The Blue Ribbon Commission was not chartered as a siting commission. Accordingly we have not evaluated Yucca Mountain or any other location as a potential site for the storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, nor have we taken a position on the Administration’s request to withdraw the license application.

The New York Time’s Matt Wald gets closer to the gist and introduced in the lede the second element that picked up a lot of attention, the consent-based approach to siting a repository:

A commission appointed to find alternatives to a failed plan to store nuclear waste in the Nevada desert declared on Thursday that the United States would have to develop a "consent-based approach" for choosing a site because leaving the decision to Congress had failed.

By securing local consent, the panel said, the government might avoid the kind of conflicts that led to the cancellation of plans to create a repository at Yucca Mountain, a site 100 miles from Las Vegas, in 2010. It noted that local willingness had been crucial to decision-making on sites for nuclear waste depots in Finland, France, Spain and Sweden.

This is true, though it ignores that Yucca Mountain might well be open today if President Obama had not closed it – and neither Obama nor Secretary Chu have offered a definitive reason for closing it, so we not sure if “conflicts” led to its shuttering. One can infer a lot of things, but not really know them.

Here’s what the commission says about the consent-based approach:

By contrast [to a top-down, federal-led approach], the approach we recommend is explicitly adaptive, staged, and consent-based. Based on a review of successful siting processes in the United States and abroad—including most notably the siting of a disposal facility for transuranic radioactive waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, and recent positive outcomes in Finland, France, Spain and Sweden—we believe this type of approach can provide the flexibility and sustain the public trust and confidence needed to see controversial  facilities through to completion.

And it’s right. This has worked to tamp down public opposition in those place – WIPP is almost a case study on how to do it - though it takes more time and effort to engage with local communities and any attempted process may come to nothing. That’s the risk.

Back to Wald:

The panel … also suggested that the government, which assumed responsibility for high-level waste 30 years ago, take the job of managing the waste out of the hands of the Energy Department and give it to a federally chartered corporation created for that purpose.

Such an agency would be more effective than the Department of Energy, which "must balance multiple agendas or policy priorities," it said.

The idea of the chartered corporation appears further down  in a number of stories, so a fair number of writers may have decided it’s a little more arcane a subject for general interest readers but still important.

Here’s the commission on the corporation:

[T]he Commission concludes that a new, single-purpose organization is needed to provide the stability, focus, and credibility that are essential to get the waste program back on track. We believe a congressionally chartered federal corporation offers the best model, but whatever the specific form of the new organization it must possess the attributes, independence, and resources to effectively carry out its mission.

The central task of the new organization would be to site, license, build, and operate facilities for the safe consolidated storage and final disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable timeframe. In most stories I’ve read, Yucca Mountain and consent based siting have been the biggest subjects.

Even as the third most covered aspect of the report in most stories I’ve read, it’s often buried. CNN has it at paragraph 11:

It [the report] said this congressionally chartered federal corporation should have substantial authority and access to funds to accomplish its mission. A board, nominated by the president and confirmed by Congress, would oversee the organization.

I missed much coverage of interim storage sites, another of the report’s recommendations – that seems germane to various communities – but maybe that will be thought most important to communities where they will be sited.

---

The story in the Las Vegas Sun, opposition central for Yucca Mountain in Nevada media, runs through the same subjects as the other stories we reviewed. What I liked was the headline:

Commission: Store nuclear waste where it’s wanted

Yeah, wise guys, where it’s wanted.

It’s a newsboy. I was a bicycle based suburban newsboy back when rather than a wuxtry-wuxtry urban type of newsboy. The former still have some currency – the latter, our boy in the picture, none at all. Count him as among the culturally lost.

US Panel Recommends New Strategies for Managing Used Nuclear Fuel

The following article was published yesterday by Nuclear Energy Overview, NEI's member-only publication.

Jan. 26, 2012—Enumerating shortcomings of the nation’s used fuel management program, a federal government panel this week recommended eight steps to improve it.

Among them, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future said in a report issued today, is that levies on nuclear energy that American consumers have been paying for years should be fully available to a new organization created to manage the federal government’s used nuclear fuel program.

The commission also recommended development of at least one consolidated storage facility for used nuclear fuel.

Congressional hearings on a new used fuel management organization should begin “as soon as possible,” the commission said.

The panel also addressed the fund created to manage the program.

Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the government has been assessing utilities—which have in turn assessed their rate payers—a fee to finance the government’s used fuel program. The fund, with a balance of $27 billion, has become inaccessible to the program.

Used fuel management “must compete for federal funding each year and is therefore subject to exactly the budget constraints and uncertainties that the fund was created to avoid. This situation must be remedied to allow the [used fuel] program to continue,” the commission said. It recommended administrative actions that can separate fund receipts from the overall federal budget.

In a statement, six organizations—the Nuclear Energy Institute, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, the American Public Power Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the Edison Electric Institute—said they welcome the report. The groups collectively represent nuclear energy producers and suppliers, state public utility commissions, and other public and private organizations interested in used nuclear fuel management.

“After two years of fact-finding and intense study, the commission has officially endorsed a number of strategic used fuel-management initiatives that our members and other experts have long supported and that will reform and re-energize the country’s high-level radioactive waste program,” the statement says.

The commission’s recommendations, which are generally consistent with the industry’s integrated used fuel management policies, are:

• creating an organization outside the Energy Department with a corporate-style board of directors to manage the country’s used fuel program
• making the used fuel levies on consumers fully available to the new organization
• developing one or more consolidated storage facilities
• making decisions on locations of nuclear fuel management facilities based on the consent of the state and local governments
• developing one or more underground disposal facilities
• preparing for the large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when they are available
• supporting continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and work force development
• leading international efforts to enhance safety, waste management, nonproliferation and security issues.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires the federal government to remove used fuel from commercial reactor sites. The process was to begin in 1998, but the government has yet to fulfill its obligation, and fuel rods continue to be stored safely and securely at the nation’s nuclear energy facilities, including at reactors that have been shut down. The law also requires the surcharge on consumers to pay for nuclear fuel disposal facilities.

The Department of Energy spent several decades studying and seeking permits to build an underground repository for reactor fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. In 2008, the department submitted a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the repository, but the Obama administration cancelled the project before NRC review of the license application was completed. The Obama administration created the 15-member commission to study nuclear fuel management in January 2010.

The commission noted that some of its recommendations will require congressional action but said that “prompt action can and should be taken in several areas, without waiting for legislative action, to get the waste management program back on track.” For example, the report says, the Energy Department can take early steps to develop a consolidated storage facility to hold decades-old reactor fuel, particularly fuel from reactors that have been closed.

In their statement, the six organizations agreed, adding that they “stand ready to work with the DOE, the administration and Congress to implement the [commission’s] recommendations to advance the nation’s economic, energy, environmental and national security imperatives by creating a sustainable integrated used nuclear fuel management program.”

The commission report also supports long-term recycling and advanced fuel-cycle technologies, which could reduce the amount of used fuel needing disposal while recovering valuable unused materials for re-use in new fuel. The panel noted, however, that there are “no currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technology developments [that] have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decades, if not longer.”

“Nuclear energy is a key component of America’s energy mix. The [commission] recognizes this with its recommendation for stable, long-term support for advanced reactor and fuel cycle technology development that can help address the energy challenges facing future generations,” the statement from the six organizations says.

BRC Releases Final Report; Japan Invites in IAEA

I’d give you a link to the final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future at its site at brc.gov, but that has been flooded and is not responsive. But NEI has you covered. Go here to get a copy of the report.

The BRC says the report hews pretty closely to the draft report released last summer – our coverage of that is here with some useful links. We’ll have lots more to say about the final report, I’m sure, but for now, reading glasses on.

---

The Japanese government has asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to stop by and double check the stress tests it has been conduction on its fleet. Specifically, the Japanese want the IAEA to visit Oi, its third largest nuclear facility. Why have the IAEA do this?

Seeking to assuage public misgivings about nuclear-plant safety, government and nuclear industry officials have sought to use "stress tests" that gauge resilience to natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis. The invitation to the IAEA is part of Japan's campaign to validate those tests.

And there’s this, too:

Oi's four reactors have become a focal point in Japan's debate over nuclear energy as the hot and humid summer, with its seasonal peak in electricity demand, draws nearer. Kansai Electric, which supplies power to Kyoto and Osaka in western Japan, relies on its three nuclear plants for more than 40% of the electricity it generates. Oi alone provides about 20%.

Those are actually two different things – getting the plants running to stave off blackouts and regaining public trust. How the government will know that it done the latter is not mentioned in the story, but I guess polling and the opinions of the elected leaders in the towns around Oi and other facilities will act as the gauges.

“The stress tests as currently designed don't seem to factor in the type of worst-case scenario we saw in Fukushima," Mr. [Ryozo] Tatami, the mayor of Maizuru said. "We need evidence Oi's reactors will be safe even if a [Fukushima-scale] tsunami strikes because vague assurances just raise too many doubts in our minds."

Maizuru is about 18 miles from Oi.

One can have an opinion about this approach – it sounds like one the Japanese put stock into, which is good – and about whether Japan should or shouldn’t reopen its facilities – simply, yes – but whether it does or not, whatever the consequences, is up to its people. There’s nothing for us to do but wait and see – and respect the outcome.

The Washington Post has an interesting article about the Japanese decision making approach and its impact on reopening its nuclear facilities here. Long story short: the Japanese really like a broad consensus. Worth a read for insight into how another culture deals with big issues.

The Oi nuclear facility. If you say it enough times, you sound like an annoyed Brit.

Dreaming About a Repository

Last week, I sat in on a House hearing about the Blue Ribbon Commission’s draft report. The hearing rapidly departed from the subject and veered to Yucca Mountain, which the commission was asked not to consider. None of the commission members were at the hearing – they want to wait until the release of the final report in January to talk about it.

But here’s the thing. The commission’s draft report suggests final disposition of used fuel in a deep geologic repository – just like it-that-will-not-be-named.

And interestingly, a kind of mirror image of the hearing occurred a few days later – again intended to be about the commission’s draft report but really about Yucca Mountain.

Many who spoke Friday urged the commission to fight for Yucca Mountain, a proposed long-term nuclear waste storage site in Nevada that is on the verge of being rejected by the federal government.

[State] Sen. John Howe said the commission – which took a neutral stance on Yucca Mountain in its report – should support the project. And Egan said he is concerned about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission studying longer-term on-site storage.

“Yucca Mountain should not be off the table,” he said.

Where is this? Minnesota.

Gathered in Minneapolis, legislators, city and tribal leaders, corporate representatives and others shared their reactions to a draft report from the president’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future outlining suggestions for nuclear waste management.

The story doesn’t say who called this meeting, but it had very broad representation among stakeholders near the Prairie Island facility (except perhaps Prairie Island’s owner Xcel, which is quoted separately in the story.) And most wanted a permanent fuel repository.

Surprisingly, very little of this (as reported) seemed to have to do with the used fuel casks at Prairie Island, but the issue of what was promised and not delivered.

On-site storage was supposed to be a temporary measure, but dry-cask storage has been in place at Prairie Island since the 1990s, he said. Johnson urged the commission to push for results this time.

“We are tired of hearing more promises that will just be broken,” he said.

The House members I listened to did not take this angle quite so directly, but it is a different matter when it comes to the states. Now, keeping used fuel on-site for an extended period of time is not dangerous – but it is also not what was promised – and it seems quite reasonable to discuss the implications of not keeping that promise.

---

And what about Yucca Mountain?

Well, there’s this:

Three Republican presidential candidates pleased the hometown crowd in Las Vegas earlier this month with their answer to a question about whether the federal government should open the long-planned nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry agreed it was a states’ rights issue and argued Nevada shouldn’t be compelled to accept nuclear waste from other states.

Which would seem to argue for on-site storage as an ongoing solution, which would require changing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and abrogating the directives of the blue ribbon commission (as we understand them from the draft report).

Here’s  Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.):

“I’d remind all the presidential candidates of the federal government’s promise to construct a long-term storage facility for the legacy weapons materials temporarily being stored in South Carolina,” Duncan said. “I suspect many South Carolina voters, including myself, will expect to hear the presidential candidates solution to this problem during their next visit to the Palmetto State.”

Duncan is referring to the Savannah River Site and he makes a salient point. If the candidates consider domestic nuclear fuel to be a state issue, what do they consider military used fuel? Yucca Mountain was meant to house both.

In other words, it’s a complex issue. Plenty of people will be happy to remind you of that if you underestimate it.

---

From the Lincoln (Neb.) Journal-Star:

The bodies of the final three victims were recovered Monday morning from a grain elevator that exploded Saturday, killing six people and injuring two others.

What happened?

The explosion was a harrowing reminder of the dangers inside elevators brimming with highly combustible grain dust at the end of harvest season. The blast fired an orange fireball into the night sky, shot off a chunk of the grain distribution building directly above the elevator and blew a large hole in the side of a concrete silo.

I would not dare compare this to Fukushima, though the picture at the link brings back memories. What struck me about this is how much risk is involved even in activities that one wouldn’t necessarily call industrial or consider particularly risky (well, from the outside – the silo workers were certainly aware of it.)

I’m sure risk assessment and mitigation are important topics among silo operators – but still, a fireball flew into the Kansas sky – and five workers (all in their early 20s) and a Kansas state grain inspector (father of three young children) are dead. It will be interesting to see how silo operators tighten their safety standards and perhaps install equipment to tamp down the dust.

It’s a blue ribbon, as in commission.

The Blue Ribbon Commission

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future was charged by President Barack Obama with recommending ways to move forward with used nuclear fuel in light of the closing of the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository project. Let’s leave aside the wisdom of closing Yucca Mountain – considering alternatives was what the commission was asked to do.

The Commission is being co-chaired by former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. They are both now elderly gentlemen – performing further public service – because they were asked to chair this committee. Would that we, at whatever age, were so devoted to the public good.

Note that the commission was not asked to find a site nor was it given guidance as to a preferred approach to processing used nuclear fuel – a permanent or interim repository, recycling, burying in salt – everything was one the table – except Yucca Mountain (which, after all, is a site. But the commission was rather pointedly directed – no Yucca Mountain.) 

The report is 192 pages. If you want to start reading, go over to the BRC site and you can download the pdf or read it online.

The language in it can be blunt:

Put simply, this nation’s failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly and it will be more damaging and more costly the longer it continues: damaging to prospects for maintaining a potentially important energy supply option for the future, damaging to state–federal relations and public confidence in the federal government’s competence, and damaging to America’s standing in the world—not only as a source of nuclear technology and policy expertise but as a leader on global issues of
nuclear safety, non-proliferation, and security.

That strikes me as exceptionally broad, but it’s hard to disagree with the sentiment. The Wall Street Journal offers a reasonable summary of the report’s contents:

The centerpiece: an independent federal entity, funded by existing fees on utility customers rather than the year-to-year congressional budgeting process, that would work to find a long-term dump. The panel also said that in the interim, nuclear waste should be moved to consolidated storage sites, a move that could save money and develop expertise in storing the waste. Any final disposal site, the panel said, should be chosen by developing standards and then finding a community that wants to accept it.

NEI offered more detail:

The industry is particularly gratified to see the recommendations calling for the establishment of one or more consolidated interim storage facilities for used nuclear fuel; development of a permanent underground repository for commercial used fuel and high-level radioactive waste from U.S. defense programs; creation of a new management organization that will assume the U.S. Department of Energy’s role in managing this material; and legislation providing full access to nuclear waste fee revenues and the federal Nuclear Waste Fund. These should be among the nation’s top energy policy priorities.

I was especially interested in the “new management organization.” Here’s why the BRC considers it necessary:

Clearly, multiple factors have worked against the timely implementation of the NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act] and responsibility for the difficulties of the past does not belong to DOE alone. Nevertheless, the record of the last several decades indicates that the current approach is not well suited to conducting a steady and focused long term effort, and to building and sustaining the degree of trust and stability necessary to establish one or more permanent disposal facilities and implement other essential elements of an integrated waste management strategy. These considerations lead the Commission to agree with a conclusion that has also been reached by many stakeholders and long-time participants in the nation’s nuclear waste management program: that moving responsibility to a single purpose organization—outside DOE—at this point offers the best chance for future success.

This seems more an issue of process than a systemic problem, but the BRC takes an exceptionally delicate tack here, so there it is. And it’s not a bad idea to create an NRC-type organization (in form if not in mission) to assume control of the used fuel issue. There are certainly enough tasks to keep it busy.

The Department of Energy tries a gracious welcome on its blog:

Today, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future issued a draft of its recommendations.

The Obama Administration continues to believe that nuclear energy has an important role to play as America moves to a clean energy future.  As part of our commitment to restarting the American nuclear industry and creating thousands of new jobs and export opportunities in the process, we are committed to finding a sustainable approach to assuring safe, secure long-term disposal of used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. 

Secretary Chu appreciates the hard work done by the members of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and thanks them for a very thoughtful report.  The interim report issued today is a strong step toward finding a workable solution to the challenges of the back end of the fuel cycle.

In other words, non-committal. To be honest, most of the major recommendations build on ideas that have been percolating throughout the industry and government for awhile, so the content of the report aggregates these ideas and argues hard for the aggregation.

I’m sure we’ll have a lot more to say about the report after a more thorough reading, but I wanted to be sure you knew it was out.

The Blue Ribbon Commission. Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft are second and third from left ((click for larger).

Eleven Bloggers Share Advice to the Blue Ribbon Commission on How to Manage Used Nuclear Fuel

The ANS Nuclear Cafe has put together short and sweet recommendations to the Blue Ribbon Commission from 11 pro-nuclear bloggers. One would think that there would be a consensus on a few issues but there are actually quite a diverse mix of opinions. Below are a few notable nuggets:

… We must think beyond just temporary storage and permanent disposal—recycling is an essential part of building a more sustainable fuel cycle. Interim storage facilities are only part of the solution. Without a complete strategy for managing the nation’s used fuel, we are only “kicking the can down the road.” - Jarret Adams http://us.arevablog.com/

… I am a lifelong procrastinator who lives by the motto, “Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow and never do at all what you can put off indefinitely.” I am thus happy to see that the BRC has apparently reached the conclusion that America does not have a nuclear waste crisis. Instead, we have a used nuclear fuel resource opportunity. - Rod Adams http://atomicinsights.com/

… In nuclear waste management, three C’s matter: credibility, consent, and consensus. Unfortunately, the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendation for interim storage fails on all counts. … waste management policy must represent a broad social consensus. The fragility of the current policy was evident in how easily it was derailed by political maneuvering. Interim storage simply punts on this issue, leaving it still unresolved. - Steve Skutnik http://neutroneconomy.blogspot.com/

There are many more excellent comments to read.

NEI Weekly Update on Fukushima Daiichi – 5/13/11

From NEI’s Japan launch page.

Plant Status

• Japan's nuclear safety agency has suggested that significant damage to fuel at Fukushima Daiichi 1 means that filling the reactor containment vessel with water may be meaningless. The agency’s Hidehiko Nishiyama said on Friday that melted fuel rods at the bottom of reactor 1 are being cooled by a small amount of water. He said he doubts that it is necessary to flood the containment vessel entirely, as workers have been trying to do. Tokyo Electric Power Co. said on Thursday that most of the fuel rods in the reactor are believed to be damaged and are at the bottom of the reactor's pressure vessel. Based on the temperature of the reactor vessel surface temperature, the company said the fuel apparently has cooled.
• TEPCO announced this week delays in its schedule to contain the reactors. The company noted that while its work to restore reactor 1 is in progress, it had not begun these measures at the other reactors at the sites. It said that high levels of radiation in the reactor 1 building could force a change in plans.
• TEPCO has accepted terms established by the Japanese government for state support to compensate those affected by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Under the framework, a new state-backed institution will be set up to facilitate quick payments to those affected by the Fukushima events. The body would receive financial contributions from electric power companies that own nuclear power plants in Japan. The government will inject public funds by allocating to the institution special bonds that can be cashed whenever necessary. The institution would strengthen TEPCO's capital base by making use of these funds to pay compensation claims and make business investments. The institution would annually return a certain amount of money from TEPCO to the treasury to offset the use of the bonds. The government must pass the necessary legislation in the Diet to establish this framework, which is expected to be difficult given that the amount of compensation needed is not yet known.
• TEPCO released a video this week of the reactor 3 spent fuel pool that shows debris and other material atop fuel racks in the pool. To see the video, click here for TEPCO’s Japanese-language website. A video of the reactor 4 spent fuel pool showed no debris.
• The Japanese government plans to advise schools near the Fukushima facility that burying soil contaminated by radiation reduces its radiation level. The government said that burying topsoil 20 inches underground reduced its radiation level by 90 percent.
• Chubu Electric Power Co. has agreed to the Japanese government’s request to shut down reactors at its Hamaoka nuclear power plant, about 200 miles southwest of Tokyo. The government had asked Chubu to implement safeguards against possible earthquakes and tsunamis. The company began shutdown of Hamaoka 4 on Friday.

Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues

• The nuclear energy industry is “going to be held accountable for learning the lessons from Fukushima and for applying them accordingly. I know that we can meet that standard,” NEI President and CEO Marvin Fertel said at NEI’s annual Nuclear Energy Assembly this week in Washington, D.C. At the same meeting, James Ellis Jr., president and CEO of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, called on the industry to seize the opportunity presented by the Fukushima accident and take a leadership position in ensuring safety enhancements are adopted at nuclear energy facilities worldwide.
• A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission task force studying lessons learned from Fukushima reported to the commission May 12 that it “has not identified any issues that we think undermine our confidence in the continued safety and emergency planning of U.S. plants.” The three-month review likely will result in recommendations to enhance safety and preparedness at nuclear energy facilities, the task force reported (pdf). “That said, we do expect we will have findings and recommendations that will further enhance safety,” said Charles Miller, who leads the post-Fukushima task force. A longer-term review is scheduled to begin by the time the short-term study is complete.
• The NRC has issued a bulletin to U.S. nuclear energy facility operators requesting information on how the plants are complying with requirements to manage the potential loss of large areas of the plant after extreme events. The agency wants to know how the plants ensure their strategies have remained effective over time. “The NRC continues to conclude these strategies can effectively cool down reactor cores and spent fuel pools even if a plant’s normal safety systems are damaged or unavailable,” the agency said in a press release. “The U.S. nuclear energy industry recognizes that we are accountable to independent oversight authorities and to the American people. We must demonstrate that our facilities are fully prepared to maintain safety, even in cases where we have made protective enhancements that go beyond the NRC’s regulatory requirements,” said Tony Pietrangelo, NEI’s chief nuclear officer and senior vice president. See NEI’s press release.
• The NRC issued a second temporary instruction (TI 2515/184) requiring the inspection of the availability and readiness of severe accident management guidelines. NRC resident inspectors at each U.S. nuclear energy facility will conduct the inspections over the next three weeks, with support from the agency’s regional offices.
• Japan will reconsider its energy policy following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, the prime minister said. Nuclear energy is considered important to Japan’s energy plans, but the government will take new looks at renewable sources and efficiency measures.
• A forum held by The Women's Council on Energy and the Environment and Women in Nuclear yesterday in Washington, D.C., addressed the future of nuclear power in the wake of events at Fukushima Daiichi. Panelists included NEI’s Leslie Kass, senior director of business and policy programs; Annie Caputo, professional staff member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; and Ed Lyman, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Media Highlights

• Events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan are not expected to “have a major impact on new nuclear plant licensing,” NEI President and CEO Marvin Fertel said May 10 at the Nuclear Energy Assembly in Washington, D.C. Fertel anticipates that four to eight new reactors will be built in the U.S. by 2020. Bloomberg covered the speech.
• James Ellis Jr., president and CEO of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, called for the creation of a rapid response team that would be dispatched to major nuclear accidents in the United States and other countries. The creation of such a team is one of the lessons of the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, said Ellis in a Platts report on Wednesday.
• The Associated Press published a report May 10 on Japan's long-term energy policy. Naoto Kan, Japan's prime minister, said the nation will need to "start from scratch," indicating the country will likely reassess a plan to obtain half the country's electricity from nuclear power and will instead promote renewable energy and conservation as a result of its ongoing nuclear crisis.
• Reuters reported May 12 that a leak confirmed at Fukushima Daiichi reactor 1 may be an indicator of failed or melted fuel in the reactor and will likely complicate the cleanup of the facility. The exact location of the leak at reactor 1 remains unclear.

New NEI Products

• NEI developed several videos this week with industry executives and energy thought leaders on steps that should be taken to enhance nuclear plant safety and finance new nuclear energy projects, as well as the outlook for nuclear energy after Fukushima. To see a list of the video clips, visit NEI's Web page for Nuclear Energy Assembly news coverage or NEI's YouTube channel.

The Week Ahead

• The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future begins its meeting today with updates on Fukushima from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Department. The co-chairs of the commission’s three subcommittees will present their draft recommendations. View the webcast here.
• Subcommittees of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology are conducting a joint hearing today on nuclear energy risk management in view of events at Fukushima Daiichi. Witnesses include Lake Barrett, principal with L. Barrett Consulting LLC; Brian Sherrod, director of the NRC Office of Regulatory Research; John Boice, scientific director of the International Epidemiology Institute; and David Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Nuclear Safety Project.

NEI will conduct a webinar on the aftermath of Fukushima for the National League of Cities on May 17.