Category Archives: position statements

The Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report

Posted on February 6, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

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.

_____________________

Hopf

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 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, knowledge transfer, licensing, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, position statements, Radwaste Solutions, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

ANS statement on BRC’s final report

Posted on January 27, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future released its final report on Thursday, January 26. The report contains recommendations for a comprehensive U.S. strategy for managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Please click here for the American Nuclear Society‘s statement on the report.

__________________

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, News, position statements, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

ANS Publishes Position Statement on Small Modular Reactors

Posted on August 5, 2011 by dyurman| 2 Comments

Statement identifies advantages, makes recommendations

by: Dan Yurman

The American  Nuclear Society’s Position Statement on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) was issued on August 5, ANS President Eric Loewen announced.

“This statement recognizes the importance of SMRs  to the future of nuclear energy and provides some specific recommendations to make SMRs a near term reality,” Loewen said.

The Position Statement (No. 25) describes SMRs as nuclear reactors with power levels less than or equal to 300 MWe and notes that they use safe, proliferation-resistant technologies. In addition, they have the following advantages:

  • Use manufacturing capability currently available in the United States
  • Have lower capital cost with reduced debt profile
  • Require shorter construction time
  • Can be deployed in markets in the United States and abroad that cannot accommodate or afford large reactors
  • Meet some mission requirements for government and military applications; and
  • Provide electricity to remote populated areas such as in the northern latitudes.

Donald Eggett, past chairman of the Operations and Power Division of ANS, who was instrumental in the development of the statement, said, “ANS’s recommendations for actions by the United States government include expediting research and identifying and resolving generic licensing issues through interaction with all stakeholders and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If adopted, this technology will put us well on our way to implementing this beneficial nuclear energy technology to enhance our energy mix.”

Loewen added, “By taking a leadership role in addressing licensing issues for SMRs, the American Nuclear Society has helped set the stage for all the benefits associated with their deployment which include job creation, potential opportunities to export SMRs and supporting technologies and services, and opportunities to incorporate proliferation-resistant features into SMR designs and manufacturing.”

ANS Nuclear Cafe talked with Vince Gilbert, chief knowledge officer of Excel Services Corporation, who helped draft the position statement. Gilbert noted that the position statement is the result of the work of more than 60 nuclear professionals who participated in the ANS President’s Special Committee on Generic Licensing Issues for Small Modular Reactors.

“Our purposes are to engage public dialog and contribute to the interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Gilbert said.

LWR designs

Gilbert said that the current mindset at the NRC is on lightwater reactors. The agency has published a list of issues it needs to resolve with regard to licensing SMRs, but metal-cooled reactor designs are further down the list in terms of its priorities.

“The primary LWR reactor designs getting attention are those from B&W, NuScale, Westinghouse, and Holtec. Fast reactors present additional challenges and the NRC will have to work out how to address them,” Gilbert said.

One of the reasons that the ANS committee was formed is to help the United States safely export this technology. The nation will lose its global technology leadership potential if it lags in this regard and also lose the jobs that would be created by manufacturing SMRs in factory settings.

The SMR committee published an interim report, which is available on the ANS Web site. One of the issue papers that is still under development is on emergency planning. The events in Fukushima, Japan, in March raised new issues about emergency planning.

A key issue is that at Fukushima, multiple reactors were impacted by a single natural disaster. Since SMRs are, by design, intended to be multi-unit sites, the whole concept of emergency planning for them needs to be assessed in light of recent events. Gilbert said that as a result, the emergency planning white paper is still a work in progress.

Topical conference on SMRs

The American Nuclear Society will hold a topical conference on SMRs, embedded in its national meeting to take place in Washington, D.C., on October 30-November 3. Gilbert, who is a key figure in organizing the conference, said that the meeting is a must attend for anyone in the business.

“The meeting will allow participants to interact and learn about the new wave of SMRs from multiple points of view and will address technical issues, licensing approaches, university and national lab involvement, and plans for commercial realization. ANS recognizes SMRs as a key to maintaining U.S. national security and energy security through generation of clean electricity, as well as meeting the needs of a variety of industrial applications,” he said.

_________________

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog on nuclear energy. He is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

 

→ 2 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Electricity generating capacity, News, position statements, Professional Divisions, reactor designs, Small modular reactors

ANS and Fukushima

Posted on April 4, 2011 by ansnuclearcafe| Comments Off

By Joe Colvin

In the days since Japan’s earthquake and tsunami combined to create the situation at Fukushima, nuclear professionals across the country have been united in our deep concern over the events in Japan and have contributed countless hours working to ensure that information provided to the public and media was based on fact and reason rather than hysteria and misinformation. I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the many ANS members who stepped forward to support the efforts of the Society in this time of great need.

The Society has played—and is continuing to play—a major role in addressing the scientific and technical aspects of the accident at Fukushima with the public, policy makers, and the media. ANS headquarters, the ANS corporate officers, and our media, social media, and federal consultants have worked diligently, with the support of many members, to improve the public understanding of the situation in Japan. Within several hours of the events at Fukushima, ANS initiated the Crisis Communications Team, which has met daily by conference call since the accident to coordinate the Society’s activities, including media outreach. Though ANS members could not be everywhere, we have had a significant and positive effect.

ANS members have participated in more than 150 interviews in venues such as The Today Show, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CBS Morning News and local affiliates, CNN, NPR, Good Morning America, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal—to name a few. Over one hundred members volunteered their services after Candace Davison, ANS Public Information Committee chair, explained the urgent need for media resources.

Thanks to your efforts, ANS members reached more than 81 million people through proactive media outreach. That’s over one in four U.S. households—a truly remarkable effort!

While some ANS members could not serve as media spokespersons due to company restrictions, they provided essential analysis of the ongoing technical events in Japan. That analysis helped to formulate documents such as the Japan Backgrounder and the ANS Talking Points. ANS Social Media Group members actively engaged in positive, proactive media outreach—something they have done so successfully in the past. They identified and shared media opportunities and formed the backbone of the early media efforts.

Those who could not speak helped those who could by lending information, analysis, and advice.

The ANS Nuclear Cafe blog site was repurposed as an information clearinghouse during the early morning hours of March 11. As ANS members shared links to factual, non-alarmist information provided on the blog, traffic to the site increased by a factor of 100.

The strength of the Society is rooted in our membership and catalyzed by effective and talented expertise. ANS Student Sections, Nuclear Engineering Departments, and Local Sections have engaged in efforts across the country to reach out via public forums, webinars, presentations, conversations with friends and colleagues, and social networks. ANS Professional Divisions have put together technical briefs and fact sheets, and our commercial publications, such as Nuclear News magazine, are focusing articles on the Fukushima events. You can also visit the ANS website to be inspired by the wealth of activities catalogued under ‘Featured Content.’

ANS members have engaged in the vital grassroots efforts that drive greater understanding—and thus greater acceptance—of nuclear science and technology.

In response to your overwhelming feedback, ANS established the ANS Japan Relief Fund to help our friends, colleagues, and their families in Japan who have been affected by the earthquake and tsunami. This fund symbolizes how the international nuclear community stands together to help one another.

ANS will continue to play a key role in placing the Fukushima incident into perspective, as well examining the factors that have contributed to the incident. We are in the process of outlining the important role that the Society can play in developing a greater understanding into the scientific and technical issues surrounding the accident at Fukushima. Nuclear professionals will continue to set the bar high for nuclear energy, which remains the safest source of electricity generation.

I look forward to working with you, the dedicated and passionate members of this Society, as we continue to promote the awareness and understanding of nuclear science and technology.

Colvin

Joe Colvin is the 56th president of the American Nuclear Society. He has been an ANS member since 2001 and has worked to obtain senior nuclear utility expertise on ANS committees and the Board of Directors. Colvin is President Emeritus of the Nuclear Energy Institute, and he serves on the boards of Cameco Corporation, the world’s largest uranium company, and US Ecology, a hazardous and radioactive waste disposal company. He also is on the boards of non-profit organizations such as the Foundation for Nuclear Studies, which was set up by NEI to help provide the U.S. House and Senate with information on nuclear technology.

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, ANS Student Sections, Fukushima, Local Sections, Nuclear Energy Narrative, position statements, Professional Divisions, Publications

External costs of energy technologies, part 3

Posted on December 30, 2010 by ansnuclearcafe| 2 Comments

by Art Wharton

Can renewables rescue us?

Part 2 of this article, which appeared here on December 29, made the point (in part) that the nuclear power industry sequesters its nuclear “waste,” while other power producing industries do not. This capturing of waste products matters when calculating the external costs of energy technologies.

Photovoltaic cell

Photovoltaic (solar) cells produce wastes not accounted for in its conventional cost calculations due to its comparatively high demand for steel, glass, cement, and sometimes even aluminum. Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal contained in many solar cells, which presents health hazards to humans, as well.

ANS Position Statement 63 points out:

While some energy technologies may appear to have smaller environmental impacts than others, their external costs may be significant when the complete life cycle costs are taken into account. Particularly, an energy source that is inherently intermittent will require, for applications demanding reliable performance, either a backup energy supply or an energy storage facility, whose external costs are not negligible.

Since the sun doesn’t shine 24/7, and even if you wanted to cover a land mass equal to the size of West Virginia with solar panels to replace an estimated 768 billion kilowatt hours of annual nuclear energy output in the United States, you would incur external costs through load-following technologies such as methane-burning power plants, or energy storage facilities such as battery banks, flywheels, pumped hydro, compressed air, or even one large-scale storage solution that I recently became interested in that’s being developed with Charles Forsberg, an ANS Fellow from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Wind power is an intermittent source, too. Both solar and wind have unimpressive power densities compared with other sources of energy that speak to environmental impact.

We’re not asking to dominate, we’re asking for balance

Nuclear energy is the only source of energy that has been obligated to account for all the costs to ensure that it is safe and secure, including waste management and disposal, into the cost of electricity. Even with this stacked deck, nuclear energy has remained competitive and profitable, with a phenomenal safety record. The physical density of nuclear energy enables solutions to these questions: How do we ensure that our technology does not harm society? How do we ensure that we are providing the maximum benefit to society?

When I took the oath of the engineer and began my career, I pledged an obligation to serve humanity and make the best of Earth’s precious wealth through my skill and knowledge. Nuclear energy holds that potential to benefit society through its energy density. Not only are we able to contain our waste because the volume is controllable, but we can ensure that we do not contribute to pollution.

Nuclear energy is large-scale baseload energy. Nuclear energy is demonstrably safe, even though it utilizes potentially harmful material. Men and women have dedicated careers and lives to gaining knowledge and skill in how to safely implement nuclear technology to the benefit of society, and when national energy policy decisions are being made, credit is due to those who made it so. At the end of the day, there is no denying it: We need nuclear energy.

(Part 1 of this three-part article appeared on the ANS Nuclear Cafe on December 28 and is available here. Part 2 appeared on December 29 and is available here. )

***

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.

Wharton

Art Wharton is a senior project engineer at Westinghouse Electric Company LLC in the Nuclear Power Plants product line. He is a member of the ANS Planning committee, the Operations and Power Division Program committee,  is a Pittsburgh Local Section past chair, and is a guest contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, News, position statements

Two new ANS position statements promote nuclear sustainability

Posted on December 3, 2010 by ansnuclearcafe| Comments Off

At the American Nuclear Society’s 2010 Winter Conference & Technology Expo, its Board of Directors revised and approved two position statements that are now available online (click here):

A Declaration on Sustainable Development (Position Statement 37) emphasizes the Society’s commitment to the promotion of research and development, the publication of relevant technical information, and the conduct of meetings that emphasize the role of nuclear technology in sustainable development.

External Costs of Energy Technologies (Position Statement 63) observes that while some energy technologies may appear to have smaller environmental impacts than others, their external costs may be significant when the complete life cycle costs are taken into account. Practically all the costs to make nuclear power technology safe and secure, including the costs of waste management and disposal, are already incorporated into the cost of electricity generation. Appropriately accounting for external costs should be an essential element in energy policy so that the final product is compared consistently for all technologies, and the resulting mix of energy sources will more appropriately balance the competing economic, environmental, and social needs from energy production and consumption.

The American Nuclear Society provides statements that reflect the Society’s perspectives on issues of public interest that involve various aspects of nuclear science and technology. Position statements are prepared by key members whose relevant experience or publications inform the documents, and then the documents are reviewed by ANS committees and divisions. The final position statements are approved by the Board of Directors.

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, position statements