Per Peterson, chair of nuclear engineering at UC Berkeley, presents on the United States' nuclear waste policy and gives recommendations on future steps. The NuClean Kick-Off workshop was held on Nov. 7, 2013 at the Handlery Union Square Hotel in San Francisco, CA, co-located with the AIChE 2013 Annual Meeting. For more information on NuClean, visit: http://www.aiche.org/cei/conferences/nuclean-workshop/2013. For more information on AIChE's Center for Energy Initiatives (CEI), visit: http://www.aiche.org/cei.

1. Next Steps for U.S. Nuclear Waste Policy
Per F. Peterson
Professor
Department of Nuclear Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
November 7, 2013
UC Berkeley

2. Recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission
on America s Nuclear Future
UC Berkeley

3. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, January 27, 2011
UC Berkeley

4. Blue Ribbon Commission
• The Blue Ribbon Commission on America s Nuclear Future
established by the President s Memorandum for the Secretary of
Energy on January 29, 2010
• Charge to the Commission: Conduct a comprehensive review of
policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and
recommend a new strategy
• Delivered final report with recommendations to the Secretary of
Energy on January 29, 2012
UC Berkeley

5. Members
• Lee Hamilton, Co-Chair - Director of The Center on Congress at Indiana University, former
Member of Congress (D-IN)
• Brent Scowcroft, Co-Chair – President, The Scowcroft Group, and former National Security
Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush
• Mark Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
• Vicky Bailey, Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Former Indiana
PUC Commissioner; Former DOE Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs
• Albert Carnesale, Chancellor Emeritus and Professor, UCLA
• Pete V. Domenici, Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center; former U.S. Senator (R-NM)
• Susan Eisenhower, President, Eisenhower Group, Inc.
• Chuck Hagel, Distinguished Professor at Georgetown University, Former U.S. Senator (R-NE)
• Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute
• Allison Macfarlane, Assoc. Professor of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason Univ.
• Richard A. Meserve, President, Carnegie Institution for Science, and former Chairman, U.S. NRC
• Ernie Moniz, Professor of Physics and Cecil Ida Green Distinguished Professor, MIT
• Per Peterson, Professor and Chair, Dept. of Nuclear Engineering, Univ. of California – Berkeley
• John Rowe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Exelon Corporation
• Phil Sharp, President, Resources for the Future; former Member of Congress (D-IN)
UC Berkeley

6. Subcommittees
• Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology
– Formed to answer the question: Do technical alternatives to
today s once-through fuel cycle offer sufficient promise to warrant
serious consideration and RD investment, and do any of these
alternative technologies hold significant potential to influence the
way in which irradiated nuclear fuel is stored and disposed?
• Transportation and Storage
– Formed to answer the question: Should the US change the way in
which it is storing used/spent nuclear fuel and high level waste while
one or more geologic repositories are established?
• Disposal
– Formed to address the question How can the U.S. go about
establishing one or more disposal sites for high-level nuclear wastes
in a manner that is technically, politically and socially acceptable?
UC Berkeley

7. The Commission modeled the processes we recommended be
used in siting new facilities
• March 2011 – issued staff What We ve Heard report
– Summarizes major themes heard during initial public meetings and in
comments from the public and stakeholders in seven broad areas:
» Program Governance and Execution
» Nuclear Waste Fee and Fund
» Approach to Siting
» Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technologies
» Transport of Spent Fuel and HLW
» Storage of Spent Fuel and HLW
» Disposal System
– Available at www.brc.gov
UC Berkeley

8. Overview of 8 Key Recommendations
1. A new, consent-based
approach to siting and
development
2. A new organization
dedicated solely to
implementing the waste
management program
and empowered with the
authority and resources
to succeed
UC Berkeley

9. Overview of 8 Key Recommendations
3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are
providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management
4. Prompt efforts to develop one or
more geologic disposal facilities
5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more
consolidated storage facilities
UC Berkeley

10. Overview of 8 Key Recommendations
6. Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale
transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to
consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such
facilities become available
7. Support for continued U.S.
innovation in nuclear energy
technology and for workforce
development
8. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address
safety, waste management, non-proliferation, and security
concerns
UC Berkeley

11. Current Major Legal Actions
• DC Court of Appeals: Lawsuits against DOE seeking payments
for interim storage costs resulting from partial breach of
contract
– Lawsuits ongoing, $21 billion liability by 2020.
• DC Court of Appeals: Lawsuit against DOE seeking suspension
of the collection of the Nuclear Waste Fund Fee
– Oral arguments heard on Sept. 25, 2013; judges skeptical of logic
for continuing collection of the fee
• DC Court of Appeals: Lawsuit resulting in mandamus order to
NRC to restart of Yucca Mountain License Review
– Question is what NRC will do with its limited available funding,
NRC now seeking stakeholder input
– Many recommend publishing the YM Safety Evaluation Report
• NRC Nuclear Waste Confidence Rule
– NRC published draft rule in Sept., 2013 for public comment
UC Berkeley

12. DOE contracts with utilities
• DOE contracts with utilities provide a legally binding framework
that defines obligations of the federal government and utilities
– Current DOE partial breach of these contracts is resulting in
approximately $500 million per year in awards from the U.S.
Treasury judgment fund
– Utilities have no motivation to agree to modify these contracts,
unless the federal government can begin to perform (e.g., develop
capacity for consolidated storage and restart repository
development work)
– Everything becomes much more interesting after the federal
government develops capability to perform
UC Berkeley

13. President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request
• Proposes $5.6 billion in spending over 10 years
– Discretionary appropriations of $1.8 billion within existing funding caps, in
amounts up to $200 million per year
– Remaining $3.8 billion would be funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund’s
annual fees, use of balance of the NWF, and defense funds.
– Accepting used nuclear fuel from shutdown reactors triggers one-time fees
from utilities of approximately $2.5 billion.
– Results in a net “PAYGO” score of approximately $1.3 billion.
• Funds EPA review and update of a generic disposal standard
• Funds DOE work in many areas
–
–
–
–
–
Investigations into the extended storage and transport of used fuel
Research into alternative disposal environments, particularly salt
RD to further the understanding of deep borehole disposal.
System architectures of various used fuel management systems
Update transportation and storage system models, including analyses for
shutdown reactor sites, standardized canisters
– Outreach activities on transportation planning
Statement of Peter Lyons, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, April 11, 2013.
UC Berkeley

14. Senators Wyden, Murkowski, Alexander and Feinstein
have released a discussion-draft bill
• Similar to Senate Bill S3649 introduced by retired Senator
Bingaman on August 1, 2012
• This “Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013” would have:
– Creates a new Nuclear Waste Administration agency
» Administrator serves for a 6-year term and can be reappointed
» Oversight by a Nuclear Waste Oversight Board
– Authorizes the agency to enter into consent agreements with state,
local, and tribal governments, subject to ratification by Congress
– Creates an new Working Capital Fund to hold future Nuclear
Waste Fund receipts
– Directs the agency to initiate a consent based process to site new
consolidated storage and geologic disposal facilities
– Does not fund any additional work for Yucca Mountain (not an
appropriations bill), but also did not preclude any future decision by
Congress to restart the Yucca Mountain project
UC Berkeley

15. Why move now to pass legislation?
• Leaving spent fuel dispersed at shutdown reactor sites sets a bad
example
– Do we want a future world with old, cold spent fuel dispersed
around the world at shutdown plants with questionable security?
!
• Unless action is taken to restart an effective and vigorous U.S.
nuclear waste program, I doubt that a new NRC Nuclear Waste
Confidence ruling will survive court challenges
UC Berkeley

16. Thank you
UC Berkeley