A Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future was appointed by President Obama to
look into future options for existing and future nuclear waste, following the ending
of work on the incomplete Yucca Mountain Repository.
At present there are 70 nuclear power plant sites where 65,000 tons of spent fuel is stored
in the USA.
Each year, more than 2,000 tons are added to this total.
Nine states have "explicit moratoria on new nuclear power until a storage solution emerges".
A deep geological repository seems to be the favored approach to storing nuclear waste.On
January 26, 2012, the Commission submitted its final report to Energy Secretary Steven
Chu.
The Commission put forth seven recommendations for developing a comprehensive strategy to
pursue.
A major recommendation was that "the United States should undertake an integrated nuclear
waste management program that leads to the timely development of one or more permanent
deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste".
== Background == In the United States, a blue-ribbon panel
(or blue ribbon commission) is a group of exceptional people appointed to investigate
or study or analyze a given issue.
Blue-ribbon panels generally have a degree of independence from political influence or
other authority, and such panels usually have no direct authority of their own.
Their value comes from their ability to use their expertise to issue findings or recommendations
which can then be used by those with decision-making power to act.
At present there are 70 nuclear power plant sites where 65,000 tons of spent fuel is stored
in the USA.
Each year, more than 2,000 tons are added to this total.
US nuclear waste management policy completely broke down with the ending of work on the
incomplete Yucca Mountain Repository.
Without a long-term solution to store nuclear waste, a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. remains
unlikely.
Nine states have "explicit moratoria on new nuclear power until a storage solution emerges".In
a Presidential Memorandum dated January 29, 2010, President Obama established the Blue
Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (the Commission).
The Commission, composed of fifteen members, conducted an extensive two-year study of nuclear
waste disposal, what is referred to as the "back end" of the nuclear energy process.
The Commission established three subcommittees: Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology, Transportation
and Storage, and Disposal.During their research the Commission visited Finland, France, Japan,
Russia, Sweden, and the UK, and in 2012, the Commission submitted its final report.
The Commission did not issue recommendations for a specific site but rather presented a
comprehensive recommendation for disposal strategies.Some nuclear power advocates argue
that the United States should develop factories and reactors that will recycle some spent
fuel.
However, the Obama administration has disallowed reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing nuclear
proliferation concerns.
The Blue Ribbon Commission said that "no existing technology was adequate for that purpose,
given cost considerations and the risk of nuclear proliferation".
A deep geological repository seems to be favored.
== Final report == On January 26, 2012, the Commission submitted
its final report to Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
In their final report the Commission put forth several recommendations for developing a comprehensive
strategy to pursue.
A major recommendation was that "the United States should undertake an integrated nuclear
waste management program that leads to the timely development of one or more permanent
deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste".
There is an "international consensus on the advisability of storing nuclear waste in deep
underground repositories", but no country in the world has yet opened such a site.In
their final report the Commission put forth seven recommendations for developing a comprehensive
strategy to pursue: Recommendation #1
The United States should undertake an integrated nuclear waste management program that leads
to the timely development of one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal
of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste.Recommendation #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.Recommendation
#3 Assured access to the balance in the Nuclear
Waste Fund (NWF) and to the revenues generated by annual nuclear waste fee payments from
utility ratepayers is absolutely essential and must be provided to the new nuclear waste
management organization.Recommendation #4 A new approach is needed to site and develop
nuclear waste facilities in the United States in the future.
We believe that these processes are most likely to succeed if they are:Adaptive—in the sense
that process itself is flexible and produces decisions that are responsive to new information
and new technical, social, or political developments.
Staged—in the sense that key decisions are revisited and modified as necessary along
the way rather than being pre-determined in advance.
Consent-based—in the sense that affected communities have an opportunity to decide
whether to accept facility siting decisions and retain significant local control.
Transparent—in the sense that all stakeholders have an opportunity to understand key decisions
and engage in the process in a meaningful way.
Standards- and science-based—in the sense that the public can have confidence that all
facilities meet rigorous, objective, and consistently-applied standards of safety and environmental protection.
Governed by partnership arrangements or legally-enforceable agreements with host states, tribes and local
communities.Recommendation #5 The current division of regulatory responsibilities
for long-term repository performance between the NRC and the EPA 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 the relevant constituencies.Recommendation
#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.
In addition to legally-binding agreements, as discussed in Recommendation #4, all affected
levels of government (local, state, tribal, etc.) must have, at a minimum, a meaningful
consultative role in all other 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.Recommendation #7
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) should be retained as a valuable source of
independent technical advice and review.
== Membership == Co-chairmen of the Commission were Lee H.
Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft, and members of the Commission included, Vicky Bailey,
Albert Carnesale, Pete Domenici, Susan Eisenhower, Chuck Hagel, Jonathan Lash, Allison M. Macfarlane,
Richard Meserve, Ernest Moniz, John Rowe, and Phil Sharp.
== See also ==
List of nuclear waste treatment technologies Into Eternity, a 2010 documentary about the
construction of a Finnish waste depository Journey to the Safest Place on Earth, a 2013
documentary about the urgent need for safe depositories
Nuclear safety in the United States