The Blue Ribbon Commission on Nuclear Waste says the U.S. needs to adopt a new approach to siting and developing nuclear waste management and disposal facilities in the future

2. OVERVIEW
Yucca Mountain on ice: DOE, NRC, and the
Courts – Yucca Mountain Mandamus Case
The Blue Ribbon Commission
Congressional Activity – DOE July Report
Waste Confidence -State of New York v. NRC
Stakeholder Collaboration – key to success
2

3. PROLOGUE
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA); 1987
Amendments
DOE license application docketed by NRC on September
8, 2008; DOE withdrawal of the license application in
Spring of 2010
NRC actions – CLI-11-07
The Yucca Mountain Mandamus Case, In Re: Aiken
County, SC, et al. Petitioners; NRC and Chairman
Jaczko, Respondents
3

4. COMMISSION’S HLW ORDER
CLI-11-07, September 9, 2011 – on review of the June 29, 2012 NRC
Licensing Board decision denying the DOE request to withdraw the
license application
On appeal to Commission, 2 to 2 deadlock, on whether to overturn or
uphold the Board decision – thus DOE license application still
technically alive
NRC staff stopped reviewing the DOE application in Fall 2010 at the
then-Chairman Jaczko’s direction; Commission directs the Board to
complete all case management activities; Board shuts down
Licensing Support Network and Las Vegas Hearing Facility due to
budgetary constraints
4

5. IN RE AIKEN COUNTY – D.C. CIRCUIT COURT
Mandamus action filed by the States of South
Carolina, Washington, and NARUC, Nye County, NV
seeking to compel NRC to act on the DOE Yucca
Mountain license application – filed on July
29, 2011, argued May 2, 2012
NRC argued that it does not have sufficient appropriations
to make significant progress on the DOE license
application – concedes that if it had sufficient
appropriated funds, it would need to act but use of the
$10 million remaining would accomplish little
5

6. IN RE AIKEN COUNTY – D.C. CIRCUIT COURT
Petitioners argue that that the NRC should use its available
money to complete and issue the Safety Evaluation
Report, among other actions
A probable outcome, based on the discussions at oral
argument, is an order by the Court for the NRC to use
the $10 million to make some progress on the license
application without specifying exactly what
6

7. THE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION (BRC)
Formed by the Secretary of Energy at the direction of
President Obama, January 10, 2010
To conduct a comprehensive review of policies for
managing the backend of the fuel cycle, including:
safe storage and permanent disposal;
options for decision making processes that are flexible,
adaptive, and responsive;
ensuring that decisions are open and transparent, with
broad participation
7

8. BRC RECOMMENDATIONS - STRATEGY
Consent-based approach to siting waste facilities
New organization to manage the program, with funding
Access to funds paid into by ratepayers
Prompt efforts on one or more geologic disposal facilities
Prompt efforts on consolidated storage facilities
Prompt efforts to prepare for transport to storage/disposal
Support for innovation in nuclear technology and workforce
Active U.S. leadership in international efforts on waste
8

9. BRC – IMPLEMENTATION
Legislative Changes:
Amend NWPA to establish a new consent-based process
for selecting, evaluating storage and disposal facilities
Amend NWPA to allow one or more consolidated interim
storage facilities
Amend NWPA to expand support given to jurisdictions
affected by transportation
Establish a new waste management organization
Ensure access to dedicated funding
9

10. BRC - IMPLEMENTATION
BRC Report concluded that progress towards a
consolidated storage facility can begin immediately
under existing NWPA provisions which authorize the
government to site and design a Monitored Retrieval
Storage (MRS) facility
DOE will respond to the BRC recommendations in a report
to Congress scheduled for July 26, 2012
10

11. BRC - IMPLEMENTATION
DOE - task forces have been established to develop the
report:
Governance
Consent-based siting
System design
Transportation
11

12. “GOVCORP”
BRC: “… a new, single-purpose organization is needed…a
congressionally chartered federal corporation offers the best
model”
Options:
Autonomous administration within DOE, e.g., Bonneville Power
Administration
Independent single-purpose agency headed by a single
administrator, e.g., NASA
Government Corporation, e.g., TVA, USEC
Government-chartered, mixed ownership corporation, e.g.,
COMSAT, Fannie Mae
12

13. “GOVCORP”
Issues:
Functional or stakeholder board of directors
Relationships with other federal agencies, Tribes
Technical support
Funding
13

14. CONSENT-BASED APPROACH
BRC: the U.S. needs to adopt a new approach to siting and
developing nuclear waste management and disposal
facilities in the future
Consent-based – affected communities have an
opportunity to decide whether to accept facility siting
decisions and retain significant local control
Transparent
Adaptive and staged facility siting process
14

15. CONSENT-BASED APPROACH
How to reconcile state and local community/tribal views
How to define consent – state-wide referendum?
willingness to enter into legally binding agreements with
the facility operator?
Opting out of the agreement
Congressional approval
Benefits and funding
15

16. CONGRESSIONAL ACTIVITY
DOE report on implementation of BRC recommendations –
July 26, 2012 – should form the basis for Congressional
action on implementing the BRC recommendations
In the interim, FY 2013 Energy and Water Appropriations
Bill authorizes DOE to begin a pilot program for a
“consent-based” approach to developing one or more
consolidated interim storage facilities with a priority for
decommissioned reactors (“stranded” fuel)
16

17. WASTE CONFIDENCE
State of New York et al. v. NRC, No. 11-1045, D.C. Cir. (June
8, 2012)
Review of the NRC’s Waste Confidence Decision and
rulemaking on the temporary storage and permanent
disposal of nuclear waste
Originally promulgated in 1984 in response to a successful
legal challenge to Commission reactor licensing
Updated by the Commission on December 23, 2010 (75
Fed. Reg. 81037)
17

18. WASTE CONFIDENCE
The update revised two of the five findings in the original
Waste Confidence Decision:
Finding 2 – a suitable repository will be available “when
necessary” (previously, “in the first quarter of the 21st
century”)
Finding 4 – spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely at
reactor sites for at least 60 years beyond the licensed
life of the reactor (previously 30 years)
18

19. WASTE CONFIDENCE
The Court:
The Waste Confidence Decision is a major federal action
requiring an EIS or a finding of no significant impact
The Commission’s analysis of the risks of spent nuclear fuel
is deficient in two ways:
It did not consider the environmental effects of permanent
disposal not being available when necessary
It did not consider the dangers – fires, leaks, - of storing
waste on the reactor site
19

20. WASTE CONFIDENCE
Vacated the Waste Confidence Decision update and remanded it
back to the Commission for further action
Note that the Court did not hold that the Commission was
required to analyze each reactor site individually in terms of
the risk of extended (60 years) temporary storage; rather, it
suggested that a generic analysis of the risks could be
sufficient to support the 60 year finding
In this regard, the required analysis could be part of the
Commission’s ongoing EIS on storage beyond 60 years
20

21. WASTE CONFIDENCE
In the aftermath of the decision, a group of advocacy
organizations from across the United States petitioned
the Commission to suspend final licensing decisions in
all pending NRC reactor licensing proceedings until
completion of the court-required environmental analysis
See Petition to Suspend Final Decisions in All Pending
Reactor Licensing Proceedings Pending Completion of
Remanded Waste Confidence Proceedings, June 18,
2012
21

22. WASTE CONFIDENCE
The Commission’s response to the petition stated that the
Commission has not yet decided how to respond to the
D.C. Circuit’s decision and will not make a final decision
on any combined operating license (new reactors) or
renewed operating license until then See NRC Staff
Answer, June 25, 2012
Petitioners can raise these concerns in individual licensing
proceedings under the Commission’s normal rules
22

23. WASTE CONFIDENCE
Commission options:
Fold the analysis into the ongoing EIS on storage beyond 60 years – or
at least on the permanent disposal “when necessary” aspect
Undertake a new effort to provide the required analysis, both on the
“when necessary” aspect and/or the 60 year storage aspect
Although the Commission’s Answer to the June 18, 2012 petition
stated that it would not issue any final reactor license decisions
until it decided how to respond to the Court decision, it could
eventually continue individual licensing decisions while any analysis
was being conducted – the Court did not foreclose this possibility –
and allow the environmental concerns to be litigated in each
proceeding
23

24. WASTE CONFIDENCE
Implications for the BRC recommendations:
Waste Confidence Decision does not directly apply to
consolidated interim storage
However, the environmental analysis on storage at reactor
sites prepared in response to the D.C. Circuit decision
could have implications for the licensing of the
consolidated interim storage facilities to the extent that
the same safety/technical issues are involved
24

25. STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
BRC :
The legislation to establish the new waste management organization should
include appropriate mechanisms to facilitate and support constructive
stakeholder participation
To provide an ongoing conduit for input from the full range of interests – utility
companies, public utility commissions, taxpayers, states, tribes, and local
communities, public interest groups, the nuclear industry, DOE, the U.S.
Navy, the academic community, nonproliferation and security community –
establish a stakeholder advisory committee and
A special subcommittee of the Advisory Committee to provide specific
guidance on the siting process as a conduit for stakeholder input
25

26. STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
Collaborative processes bring together affected and concerned
interests, i.e., stakeholders, for a dialogue, and hopefully,
consensus, on an issue
Inclusive of all interests, early in the decision-making process, in a
structured environment, assisted by a process-expert, i.e., a
facilitator
Has been used successfully on many controversial and complex issues,
including radioactive waste
Even where consensus is not reached, collaboration can reach positive
results in identifying important issues, narrowing the range of
disagreement, and identifying what outcomes might be acceptable
26

27. STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
Important for use in the waste disposal and storage area in
order to:
keep the momentum of the BRC moving
provide a direct forum for stakeholder action NOW
useful bipartisan solutions can be developed for
policymakers and legislators before decisions are made
embraces a message that deviates from what has been
perceived as dysfunctional unilateral action
27

28. STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
Challenging:
Complex and controversial
The issues of storage, permanent disposal, and
transportation are interconnected
The framework of relationship between state, local, and
tribal governments
28

29. STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
What issues?
The nature of the consent process – how to define; roles of
states, tribes, and communities
The NRC/EPA licensing standards for permanent disposal – a BRC emphasis
The siting criteria for storage and disposal
When?
Before Congressional action? After the GovCorp is established?
Under whose sponsorship?
DOE?
GovCorp?
Stakeholder initiated, “sua sponte”
29