Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future
After the Obama Administration abandoned the proposed deep geologic repository (DGR) at Yucca Mountain in 2009, it formed the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC). The BRC spent two years researching the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, considering storage, disposal, and transportation alternatives, and collecting testimony and comments from stakeholders, including the Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee (MRMTC). The BRC delivered eight recommendations to the administration in 2012, and by 2013, DOE had developed a preliminary strategy on how to accomplish these recommendations. After a strong initial implementation push, the BRC’s recommendations were largely pushed to the side in 2017 as the new Trump Administration focused on research and development (R&D) and restarting the Yucca Mountain DGR. In 2009, the Obama Administration decided to cancel work on the proposed national repository for SNF and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. One year later, on January 29, 2010, the 15-member BRC was formed, co-chaired by former U.S Representative Lee H. Hamilton and former U.S. National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. According to DOE, the commission was established “to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and materials derived from nuclear activities” (Matthews 2010). In order to address these various issues, the commission formed several subcommittees that focused on specific areas. Of the greatest interest to the MRMTC was the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee. The question facing the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee was whether the United States should change its approach to storing and transporting [SNF and HLW] while one or more permanent disposal facilities are established” (BRC 2011a, p. ii). The Subcommittee heard testimony from stakeholders across the country, held several meetings, and visited many SNF and HLW storage sites. Tim Runyon, MRMTC member and Section Manager at the Illinois Emergency Management Agency’s Division of Nuclear
and recommendations on the states’ shared priorities and expectations for shipments under the NWPA. 2 In addition, DOE, states, and Tribes advanced their understanding of route identification and reciprocal inspections specifically as they apply to rail shipments. DOE also achieved success with its compendium of information on shutdown sites (and, later, operating sites). The impressive, almost scholarly “Preliminary Evaluation of Removing Used Nuclear Fuel from Shutdown Sites” (Maheras et al. 2017) acts as an inventory of spent fuel and greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) waste, documentation of on- site and near-site infrastructure and site capabilities, and evaluation of the actions needed to move SNF and GTCC waste from the sites examined. The “shutdown sites” report is a rare example of a product that will (or should) be useful to future program staff when a storage site or repository is finally available and shipment planning begins in earnest. As such, the report belongs to a small group of must-read works (including the aforementioned SRG-produced documents) whose ideas and lessons will stand the test of time because they are valid regardless of whether the destination for SNF shipments is storage or disposal, operated by the federal government or the private sector, located at Yucca Mountain, Texas, or NewMexico. Other notable works on the must-read list include the “Transportation Institutional Plan” (OCRWM 1986), “Earning Public Trust and Confidence: Requisites for Managing RadioactiveWaste” (SEAB 1993), and“Why DOE’s Messages on Transportation Don’t Resonate with the Public (andWhat DOE Can Do to Fix the Problem)” (Janairo and Niles 2008). We believe our archive belongs in this select group, as well. 1 The original archive was not subject to DOE review prior to publication because such a requirement did not exist when we wrote the archive in 2010. As a result, CSG Midwest was permitted to include the original text in this document without subjecting it to review. The authors remain confident in the accuracy of our original work; however, we acknowledge that it also reflects our opinion 2 See “The States’ Expectations for Consultation and Cooperation in Developing and Operating a Transportation System to Move Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste” (CSG Midwest et al. 2013), “Principles of Agreement among States on Expectations Regarding Preparations for NWPA Shipments” (CSG Midwest et al. 2014), and “State Recommenda- tions on Section 180(c)” (IRT 2014).
9
Made with FlippingBook Annual report