|
|
Preparing the NRC for America’s Nuclear Futureby Moderator |
Last
month, the NRC’s five-member Commission heard from retired General
Brent Scrowcroft, and others, who briefed them on what the Blue Ribbon
Commission on America’s Nuclear Future might mean for the agency.
In January, the Blue Ribbon Commission, or BRC, co-chaired by General Scrowcroft and former Representative Lee Hamilton, issued comprehensive recommendations to Energy Secretary Steven Chu on how the nation could handle nuclear waste.
As
requested by the President, the BRC’s recommendations present a
long-term strategy for managing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive wastes. Many of these proposals will require
specific actions by the NRC.
At the April meeting at the NRC,
General Scrowcroft presented BRC’s key recommendations, highlighting
those where NRC has an important role to play. He emphasized the
essential need for “clearly independent, competent regulators,”
recommending that existing roles of NRC and the Environmental Protection
Agency be preserved and encouraging continued cooperation and
coordination between the two agencies.
The
BRC also concluded that deep geologic disposal remains the
scientifically preferred approach and recommended that EPA and NRC
develop new generic standards and supporting regulations for repository
disposal early in the siting process. BRC also recommended efforts to
develop one or more consolidated spent fuel storage facilities.
As
part of the NRC staff briefing that followed the BRC’s presentation,
Alicia Mullins of NRC’s Spent Fuel Alternative Strategy Division (SFAS)
explained that NRC staff members actively engaged with the BRC
throughout its deliberations. Mullins noted that NRC has experience in
licensing facilities that are owned by a range of public-to-private
entities, such as the new Waste Management Organization the BRC
suggested to focus on storage and disposal of spent fuel and high-level
waste. Such an organization would likely be a new NRC licensee and would
need to establish an institutional framework to maintain safety and
security throughout its operational lifetime.
Dr.
Brittain Hill, also from SFAS, noted that many of the BRC
recommendations have direct implications for NRC. For example, NRC
deferred revising generic regulations for geologic disposal when the
specific regulations for a repository at Yucca Mountain were developed
in the late 1990s. Having those regulations in place before selecting a
repository site will help build public consensus, the BRC said. A broad
range of information from Yucca Mountain and international repository
programs is available to help develop a risk-informed, performance-based
regulation that would be appropriately protective at any potential
site.
Earl
Easton, of NRC’s Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation
(SFST), discussed the BRC’s recommendations on transportation and the
need to begin preparations for large-scale shipping campaigns of spent
fuel to either an interim storage or geologic disposal facility. NRC’s
primary role in these transportation planning activities has been on
package certification and security arrangements for NRC-licensed
shipments.
According
to Easton, no significant changes to NRC’s regulatory programs are
expected to result from BRC’s recommendation to begin planning efforts
for potential large shipping campaigns. For many years, NRC has actively
participated in state regional groups that have been set up to
accomplish successful transportation planning. Easton explained that
NRC’s outreach activities would naturally increase if future large-scale
transportation campaigns are conducted by NRC licensees, instead of
DOE.
BRC
also recommended that NRC reassess its plans for the Package
Performance Study, a full-scale test of a cask designed to transport
spent fuel. For now, Easton said, the NRC staff prefers to wait until a
clear direction emerges on whether to use a standardized shipping system
before it commits to a full-scale test.
Janet Kotra
Senior Program Manager
Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards
No comments:
Post a Comment