The Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report

By Jim Hopf

Soon after declaring that it would end the Yucca Mountain repository project, the Obama administration created the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to reevaluate the nation’s nuclear waste program and policies. The commission was asked to recommend improvements to the waste program and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and to make general recommendations on the path forward. The commission was specifically instructed to not address the Yucca Mountain project, or any specific project or site. The commission’s final report was released this month.

Primary recommendations

The main recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) are as follows:

• A repository (or long-term storage facility) should be sited using a “consent-based” approach, as opposed to having the federal government select a site and then impose it on the state and/or local community. The government would offer incentives to a large number of communities, whose locations are potentially suitable as a repository site, and let communities (and states) come forward voluntarily. (In essence, this implies that Yucca Mountain should be abandoned and the process should start over.)

• Responsibility for siting, licensing, building, and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities should be shifted from the Department of Energy to a new, independent single-purpose organization (most likely a federal corporation). Most experts agree that such an organization would offer more focus, stability, and credibility than the DOE, which has lost credibility with many stakeholders.

• The waste program must have full access to the nuclear waste fund that has been paid for by the 0.1 cent/kW-hr fee levied on nuclear-generated electricity. In the short term, the administration should amend the DOE’s standard contract so that only the money appropriated (i.e., spent) that year is transferred from the waste fund to the federal government. Remaining funds would be placed in a trust account that is managed by an independent organization. Over the longer term, legislation should be passed that transfers the entire balance of the nuclear waste fund to the new waste management organization.

• A prompt effort to develop a geologic disposal facility is necessary. There is scientific consensus that deep geologic disposal is the best option for final disposal of nuclear waste, and that a geologic repository will be necessary for any type of fuel cycle. The BRC did recommend further research and development of advanced fuel cycles and reactor designs, but stated that committing to a specific fuel cycle option or technology at this point in time would be premature.

• There should be a prompt effort to develop one or more consolidated used fuel storage facilities. This would allow the government to meet its contractual obligation to take the used fuel from utilities much sooner than if it waited for a final repository to be developed. It may also reduce the (small) risks associated with fuel storage somewhat, by reducing the number of sites where fuel is stored. Removing the fuel from decommissioned nuclear sites would free those sites up for other uses.

• Preparations for the eventual shipment of large amounts of used fuel should begin soon. A large number of stakeholders should be involved in the planning of the waste transportation program.

• The government should support research and development into advanced reactors and fuel cycles, as well as nuclear workforce development programs. The BRC stated that the general direction of the DOE’s current R&D is appropriate.

• The United States should maintain its leadership role in the international community in the area of nuclear technology. It should provide aid, advice, and technical and regulatory assistance to other countries, particularly those who are starting new nuclear programs.

NWPA changes

The BRC’s recommended path forward involves specific changes to the NWPA:

• The NWPA currently specifies Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be evaluated as a repository. The law would have to be changed to allow other sites to be evaluated.

• The NWPA currently allows only one centralized used fuel storage facility with limited capacity, and this storage facility may only be developed after a repository is licensed. The NWPA would have to be amended to allow multiple centralized storage facilities, and to remove any linkage with repository licensing.

• The NWPA would be amended to broaden the number of jurisdictions that could receive funding and technical assistance in support of the fuel transportation campaign.

• The NWPA would have to be amended to create the independent waste management organization discussed earlier, and to shift the DOE’s current responsibilities (for siting, licensing, building and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities) to that organization.

• The NWPA would also have to be amended to remove the nuclear waste fund from the congressional appropriations process, and to allow the independent nuclear waste management organization to have full access to the fund.

• Some NWPA changes may be required in order to allow the United States to provide a broader range of support to other nations in the area of nuclear waste management.

ANS response

The American Nuclear Society has responded to the BRC’s final report. ANS concurs with the BRC’s recommendation to create a new, independent agency to manage the nation’s nuclear waste in the future. ANS also agrees with the recommendation to create one or more centralized used fuel storage facilities, to accommodate much of the nation’s used fuel until a final repository is finally sited, licensed, and constructed. ANS also supports the BRC’s call for continued R&D on advanced (closed) fuel cycles.

One area of disagreement between ANS and the BRC, however, concerns the Yucca Mountain repository. While ANS acknowledged that the BRC was explicitly instructed not to address Yucca Mountain, it reiterated its position that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should conclude the licensing process for the repository (at a minimum).

My perspective

I largely concur with ANS’s point of view on the BRC recommendations. Almost everyone believes that having an independent organization, as opposed to the DOE, manage the waste program would be helpful. Allowing full access to the nuclear waste fund (for its intended purpose) is absolutely essential, given the history of Congress in hijacking the waste funds for other uses or for political reasons. Right now, the fund is little more than a (punitive) 0.1 cent/kW-hr tax on nuclear electricity.

I also agree that R&D into advanced fuel cycles and reactors is important. The BRC stated that they do not believe that fuel cycle technology that would significantly alter the nuclear waste situation is anywhere on the horizon. ANS thought that this was overly pessimistic, and I’m inclined to agree. Fuel cycle technologies such as “UREX+” are a few decades away at most. Such fuel cycles have the potential to significantly reduce the bulk and heat generation level for the final waste stream, which should greatly reduce the number of final repositories required (to one, probably). This is enormously important.

I also agree with ANS on the subject of Yucca Mountain. It is imperative that the NRC complete the evaluation and licensing process, and formally rule on whether the Yucca Mountain repository would have been acceptable from a scientific and technical perspective. (Virtually all observers believe that NRC staff had concluded that the repository met the requirements.) This should be demanded as part of any “compromise”, in exchange for accepting the BRC’s recommendation that we start the repository siting, evaluation, and licensing process all over again (largely wasting the ~$15 billion that has been spent).

I believe that the single largest drawback of starting the repository program over, and delaying final resolution of the waste issue by decades, is that it will result in a large fraction of the public continuing to believe—falsely—that there is no technical solution to the nuclear waste problem. This in turn will measurably increase public resistance to nuclear power, which will result in greater fossil fuel use in the future. The public health risks and negative environmental impacts of this increased fossil fuel use will utterly dwarf any risks and/or impacts associated with any nuclear waste repository.

Although it wouldn’t be as good (or effective) as having an actual repository in place, having the NRC formally rule that the Yucca Mountain repository met all of the (impeccable) requirements would go a long way toward convincing the public that we do have acceptable scientific/technical solutions to the nuclear waste problem.

I would go on to insist that the government make sure that NRC’s ruling is highly publicized. The government should inform the public that an adequate technical solution to the waste problem has been found, but that we are electing to wait awhile to see if “even better” solutions can be found. Waiting is justifiable and prudent, given the very small risks and economic costs of storing nuclear waste. Those “better” solutions may include the use of advanced fuel cycles that result in a smaller, colder, or shorter-lived waste stream, or simply a final repository that has a greater level of political support from the surrounding state and local communities.



Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

5 thoughts on “The Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report

  1. Brucie Behr

    There should be staged or phased processing with the first stage being onsite or near onsite ‘limiting movement’ processing. I agree, each state and community determine how they would craft nuclear waste processing in their state. I think you can make spent fuel waste reprocessing financially viable with time to develop markets even with ‘robotic hot room’ processing.
    I would think nuke training/education translates to good paying permanent jobs for Americans.

    Americans need MORE REAL JOBS!!!

    I like the idea of R&D reprocessing:
    Kr, Xe gases can be processed in a snap.
    Sr90,Cs137,Te99,Se79,Zr93,CS135,I129 a little harder to do and some of the long lived Pu’s could be used rather than roll dice to see if underground Geo formations hold stable up to 24,000 yrs. Yucca Mt. Deep hole depot and processing of HLW can still be in play. U238,U235,U236,Pu239,Pu240,Pu241,Pu242 can either be Geo depot-ed or burned in fast reactor. I would opt to use nuclides for research or use in space propulsion nuclear space programs, peaceful nuclear explosion (PNE) research for (Near Earth Object) collision avoidance, medical isotope, food sterilization etc.
    Craft SMALL REACTOR (reduce spent fuel) specialized self-contained on-site SMR fuel industry for domestic or international use.
    The object is to store spent fuel nuclides as little as possible.

  2. Bill Eaton

    The BRC punted on the issue of Yucca Mountain because it was told to not address that aspect of the issue. Poor decision as to their mission…driven by politics. As for the other areas explored, I heartily endorse interim storage because it moves us one step closer to reprocessing, which will require development and demonstration of transportation strategies and policies. Additionally, if mutation of long lived materials is going to be done, the use of the spent fuel as a feed stock for the fast reactors will also require interim storage at probably more than one location. Going back a few years, some utility types proposed development of interim storage as a means of avoiding very costly expansions of dry cask storage facilities at the operating reactors. Many of the first dry storage installations are running out of room on the slabs, and the cost of expanding the facilities could be avoided with the proper use of the waste fund to develope interim storage. There are several federal installations that could take the casks today and provide secure interim storage. Those locations would also be good locations for next generation technologies including reprocessing facilities, fast burners, etc. Reprocessing is not economically competitive today in terms of fuel cost, but if the waste fund was dedicated to the support of the technology, then that money, already secured, would be put to good use in ultimately reducing the risk and cost of final disposal.
    The BRC touched upon certain aspects of the problem, namely how to restructure the underlying law and how to manage the politics of the location of a final repository. And, in my opinion, they endorsed the most important next step to the solution, which is interim storage, and all that it will entail.

  3. K. K. S. Pillay

    I disagree with ANS position stated here. It was about two decades ago the Governor of Nevada arrived at the plenary session of an ANS meeting (uninvited) and demanded to be heard. He conveyed in simple English what the people of Nevada wanted and that was to take the nuclear waste repository somewhere else. Unfortunately, ANS has been deaf all these years.

    Most of the people at the meeting were surprised at the Governor’s dramatic appearance and his message. I personally had the message given to me the previous day during my cab trip from the airport to the hotel. Along the way, the cab driver asked me what the purpose of my visit was. I told him the truth. He immediately pulled the cab to the roadside, opened the trunk and removed my luggage and placed it on the roadside and asked me to get out of the cab because he did not want any nuclear society people in Nevada.

    Those who lived through the many years during the selection of geologic repository site(s) know fully well that Yucca Mountain was chosen because no one else wanted a repository for nuclear wastes in their State and Nevada did not have a strong representation in Washington. There were eight sites explored by the DOE before Nevada was selected as the only site. In fact, there were other suitable sites identified.

    Among the arguments made against Yucca Mountain site by the people of Nevada included the following. Nevada test site was used for over a thousand nuclear explosions and the geologic strata were terribly damaged. They argued that their state was abused by the Federal Government and don’t want part of another nuclear program.

    While most of the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon panel makes sense, I wish these were done two decades ago. One alternative missing in their suggestions is the recovery and recycling of fissile resources from spent fuel. Of course, this sensible alternative would not be politically correct. That should change the color of their “ribbon” in my opinion.

    Mr. Hopf finds the 0.1 cent /kWh tax “punitive.” Spent fuel disposal requires enormous resources and the ideal way to build that resource is through the present plan. The only problem with the current plan is that Congress decides on its allocation. This is definitely wrong and the panel’s recommendation to have an independent panel to mange these resources is urgent.

    My perspective is that the near term solution to spent fuel problem is to move most of the old fuel to long-term surface storage (in dry storage canisters) as is done at several of the reactor sites. At least two Indian tribes in Utah and New Mexico volunteered to host such sites a few years ago. If there is sufficient incentive, there could be others who will host surface storage sites. It is my considered opinion that Geologic Repository in the U.S. will be many decades away, if it ever happens. In the meantime, it is important to move out most of the spent fuels from reactor sites, especially after what we saw happened in Japan last year. Let us hope ANS will take the leadership in making this a reality soon.

  4. JimHopf


    I’m also not that convinced that any benefits from centralized storage would be worth the associated (political and economic) costs, but I doubt that it will result in much additional handling of spent fuel assemblies. Dry storage canisters yes, assemblies no.

    The centralized storage facility would take already-loaded dry storage canisters from plant sites, or take assemblies in the spent fuel pool that would otherwise have to be placed into on-site dry storage anyway. In both cases, the only difference is the location of the dry storage canister, i.e., at the centralized site as opposed to at the plant site. In either case, the dry storage canister was loaded once.

    Yes, there are additional canister handling operations, and potentially one additional shipment of each canister, but handling canisters (that contain 24-37 PWR assemblies or ~70 BWR assemblies) is a lot easier than handling the individual assemblies.

    I do understand that getting a repository opened earlier could have the effect of reducing the number of handlings (by reducing the need for dry storage in general).

  5. Dennis Mosebey

    I disagree with ANS position. First of all interim central facilities will never come to be. We cannot get one cited let alone many. This is naivete and wishful thinking. Second it means handling spent fuel twice. Any person who has ever dealt with fuel assemblies knows you handle them no more than necessary. The ANS should have opposed strongly ALL provisions of this so called Blue Ribbon Panel. Instead once again we try to walk the middle of the road because “that is what professional societies do.” No need to rock the boat, just a gentle nudge and things will straighten right out. When will ANS wise up? Dennis Mosebey.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>