Summer 2012 MANAGING NUCLEAR WASTE

The BRIDGE LINKING ENGINEERING AND SOCIETY

Management of Radioactive Waste: A Socio-Technical Challenge Daniel Metlay, B. John Garrick, and Nigel Mote Recommendations by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future: A Plan for Managing Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Nuclear Waste Albert Carnesale Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Andrew C. Kadak Emerging Regulatory Challenges in the Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste James Rubenstone Industry’s Safety Record and the Blue Ribbon Recommendations: The Way Ahead for the Management of Used Nuclear Fuel Marvin S. Fertel Enhancing the Acceptability and Credibility of a Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Carol L. Silva, Kerry G. Herron, Sarah R. Trousset, and Rob P. Rechard

The mission of the National Academy of Engineering is to advance the well-being of the nation by promoting a vibrant engineering profession and by marshalling the expertise and insights of eminent engineers to provide independent advice to the federal government on matters involving engineering and technology. The BRIDGE

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING

Irwin M. Jacobs, Chair Charles M. Vest, President Maxine L. Savitz, Vice President Thomas F. Budinger, Home Secretary Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Foreign Secretary C.D. (Dan) Mote Jr., Treasurer

Editor in Chief: Ronald M. Latanision Managing Editor: Carol R. Arenberg Production Assistant: Penelope Gibbs The Bridge (ISSN 0737-6278) is published quarterly by the National Acad­ ­ emy of Engineering, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC

20418. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, DC. Vol. 42, No. 2, Summer 2012 Postmaster: Send address changes to The Bridge, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418. Papers are presented in The Bridge on the basis of general interest and time- liness. They reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily the position of the National Academy of Engineering. The Bridge is printed on recycled paper. C © 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

A complete copy of The Bridge is available in PDF format at http://www.nae.edu/TheBridge. Some of the articles in this issue are also available as HTML documents and may contain links to related sources of information, multimedia files, or other content. The Volume 42, Number 2 • Summer 2012 BRIDGE LINKING ENGINEERING AND SOCIETY

Editor’s Note 3 Managing Nuclear Waste: Part One of a Two-Part Series on Social Science in the Engineering Enterprise Ronald M. Latanision

Features 5 Management of Radioactive Waste: A Socio-Technical Challenge Daniel Metlay, B. John Garrick, and Nigel Mote The siting of a deep-mined geologic repository requires strong bonds of trust between implementers, regulators, and the host community. 15 Recommendations by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future: A Plan for Managing Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Nuclear Waste Albert Carnesale According to the president’s Blue Ribbon Commission, “We know what we have to do, we know we have to do it, and we even know how to do it.” 23 Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Andrew C. Kadak Regardless of how long spent fuel is stored, eventually it will have to be moved from reactor sites. 32 Emerging Regulatory Challenges in the Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste James Rubenstone The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must balance its preparations for policy changes with the safe, secure operation of existing facilities, the availability of resources, and the constraints of current law. 40 Industry’s Safety Record and the Blue Ribbon Recommendations: The Way Ahead for the Management of Used Nuclear Fuel Marvin S. Fertel The debate over managing high-level radioactive waste is really about extending proven technology and successful practices. 49 Enhancing the Acceptability and Credibility of a Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Carol L. Silva, Kerry G. Herron, Sarah R. Trousset, and Rob P. Rechard Lessons learned from prior experience and social science research can influence public attitudes toward nuclear management facilities.

(continued on next page)

The BRIDGE

NAE News and Notes 59 NAE Newsmakers 61 NAE Honors 2012 Prize Winners 61 Charles Stark Draper Prize 62 Acceptance Remarks by Wolfgang Helfrich 63 Bernard M. Gordon Prize 63 Acceptance Remarks by Clive L. Dym 64 Report of the Foreign Secretary 65 NAE Chair, Home Secretary, and Councillors Elected 66 2012 German-American Frontiers of Engineering Symposium Held in Potsdam, Germany 68 4th Indo-American Frontiers of Engineering Symposium Held in Arlington, Virginia 70 The Grainger Foundation Frontiers of Engineering Grants for the Advancement of Interdisciplinary Research 71 NAE Regional Meetings 71 Regional Meeting on Energy and Sustainability 72 Symposium on Government-University-Industry Partnerships in Regional Innovation and Entrepreneurship 74 “Making Value,” an NAE Workshop 74 2nd USA Science and Engineering Expo 75 Ambitious Fundraising Goals for NAE’s 50th Anniversary in 2014 76 New NAE Publications 78 Calendar of Events 78 In Memoriam

80 Publications of Interest

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self- The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National perpetuating society of distin­ guished­ scholars engaged in scientific Acade­my­ of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and appropriate pro­fes­sions in the examination of policy matters pertaining technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the author- to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility ­ity of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional char- has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal gov­ernment­ on ter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, The National Research Council was organized by the National under the charter of the Nation­ al­ Academy of Sciences, as a parallel Academy of Scienc­ ­es in 1916 to associate the broad community of organization of outstand­ ing­ engineers. It is autonomous in its adminis- science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of fur­ther­ing tration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National knowledge and advising the federal government. Func­tion­ing in Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal gov­- accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the ernment. The National Academy of En­gineer­ ing­ also sponsors engi- Council has become the principal operating agency of both the neering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages edu- National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engi- cation and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of neering in providing services to the government, the public, and the engineers. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy scientific and en­gi­neer­ing communities. The Council is administered of Engineering. jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Charles M. Vest are chair­ and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org FALL 2006 3 Editor’s Note

In 2009, the Obama Administration decided to pur- sue termination of the project. Nevertheless, the reality remains that we must take seriously our need as a nation to manage the wastes we produce, whether they be municipal wastes or wastes related to electric generation or manufacturing, with a view toward their potential impact on the environment. The need to protect our air and water from contamination should be a national imperative. In January 2010, the White House directed Secre- Ronald M. Latanision tary of Energy Steven Chu to establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (the BRC). Managing Nuclear Waste: In January 2012, the BRC, led by co-chairs Lee Ham- ilton and Brent Scowcroft, released its final report. Part One of a Two-Part Series on Since then, Secretary Chu has appointed a Working Social Science in the Engineering Group to provide advice to the U.S. Department of Energy on implementing the policy recommendations Enterprise in the report. The United States derives a significant fraction of its Most of our commercial NPP fleet has been relicensed electric power from nuclear power plants (NPPs). One by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for hundred four operating NPPs at 67 sites generate about 20 another 20 years of operation. To maintain a nuclear percent of this nation’s electricity. However, nuclear elec- electric capacity beyond that point, we will have to tric generation also produces wastes (used fuel and other consider building new capacity or relicensing existing kinds of waste). Although we have been operating NPPs plants, or both, to operate beyond the current extension. for more than 50 years, the management of those wastes In either case, nuclear wastes will continue to be gener- is still a vexing issue at the convergence of technology, ated, spent fuel pools will have reached their capacity, public policy, and social science. This issue of The Bridge and the nation will need a publicly acceptable approach addresses issues related to nuclear electric generation in to handling those wastes. general and nuclear waste management in particular. Daniel Metlay, B. John Garrick, and Nigel Mote lead The short-term approach to handling nuclear wastes off this issue with a concise history of global approaches has been to store them in spent fuel pools or in dry stor- to the handling of nuclear waste, in effect, a summary of age containers or casks at reactor sites, an approach that past and present efforts in this country and abroad that has been adopted throughout the world. In the longer have brought us to this point in terms of nuclear waste term, there appears to be universal agreement that the management. John is chairman of the U.S. Nuclear most appropriate method of managing commercial and Waste Technical Review Board, Nigel is the Board’s defense-related wastes is by emplacing them in a deep executive director, and Dan is a senior member of the geologic repository for up to one million years, thereby professional staff. protecting the public from the release of radionuclides In the next article, Al Carnesale, UCLA Chancellor that could have adverse effects on human health and Emeritus and a member of the BRC, discusses the BRC’s the environment. findings and recommendations for handling nuclear The United States was well along a path toward build- wastes going forward in the United States. Taken as ing such a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a a whole, the conclusions and recommendations of the state that has no NPPs within its borders. Over the BRC provide a sound policy platform. In my view, two years, opposition to the selection of the Yucca Moun- of the recommendations in particular stand out. First, tain site has grown, both on the part of the public and the BRC recommends that decisions about the siting of of their elected representatives. future nuclear waste facilities be consent-based, that is, The 4 BRIDGE that the affected public in proximity to a proposed site I find it difficult to envision how any technical solu- must agree to accept the presence of such a facility in tion to the management of nuclear waste can succeed its neighborhood. Second, the BRC recommends the without a supportive public. Indeed, international expe- development of short-term (or interim) storage facili- rience associated with locating repositories described in ties for nuclear waste as an intermediate step preceding this issue underscores the importance of public under- ultimate disposal in a geologic disposal facility. standing and trust. Note that “short-term storage” in this context might The evolution and shaping of public opinion per- mean hundred(s) of years. However, engineers don’t vade our social fabric from politics to education and typically think in terms of designing for a century or health care and from the infrastructure to nuclear waste more of service. In addition, changes in the stored fuel management. Unfortunately, shaping public opinion over a period of centuries, and the consequences of those often means propagating misinformation for political changes, are essentially unstudied. In the third article, gain, which has become all too familiar. In an ideal Andy Kadak, former CEO of Yankee Atomic Nuclear world, however, people can be encouraged to form Plant and a former member of the MIT Nuclear Science opinions based on the best and most meaningful infor- and Engineering faculty, focuses on issues associated mation available. with the continued storage of nuclear fuel, perhaps the In the next issue of The Bridge, we will provide a most immediate challenge in terms of managing nuclear broad-based discussion of the importance of social sci- wastes. Next, James Rubenstone of the Nuclear Regu- ence in the engineering enterprise. Contributors will latory Commission describes the regulatory challenges explore science-based and engineering-based approaches associated with overseeing the management of nuclear to solving public policy problems, the design of organiza- wastes in this changing policy environment. tions that must operate at a high degree of reliability, the The perspective of the Nuclear Energy Institute social amplification of risk from hazardous technologies, (NEI), the policy organization of the nuclear industry, sources of public opinion about risky technologies, and is presented by NEI President Marv Fertel. He pro- engineering ethics. vides a supply-side point of view on the path forward. Despite the industry’s record of safe and secure manage- The current issue of The Bridge and the companion ment of used nuclear fuel, he acknowledges that the issue that will follow in September are the first vol- public and policy makers still have serious concerns. umes published under my direction as Editor in Chief, Fertel identifies the federal government’s inaction in and I welcome feedback from our readers. Send your meeting its obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy comments directly to me at [email protected]. Act of 1982 as a source of the industry’s deep frustra- Perhaps at some point we will have a mechanism in tion in terms of the development of a sustainable solu- place for reader reaction. tion to spent fuel management. Finally, I wish to remember my predecessor, George Public attitudes are a crucial factor in the national Bugliarello, for his many years of service as “interim” conversation about nuclear power, particularly about editor and for his graceful sense of engineering states- the location of interim storage sites or a long-term geo- manship in guiding The Bridge. He has left us a wonder- logic repository. In the last article, Hank Jenkins-Smith ful legacy. and his colleagues from the Center for Risk and Cri- sis Management at the University of Oklahoma focus attention on public perceptions of risk and the factors that influence those perceptions. The siting of a deep-mined geologic repository requires strong bonds of trust between implementers, regulators, and the host community.

Management of Radioactive Waste A Socio-Technical Challenge

Daniel Metlay, B. John Garrick, and Nigel Mote1

Daniel Metlay B. John Garrick Nigel Mote

Few public policy issues rival the management of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in terms of the controversy it engenders and the demands it places on scientific research and engineering practice. High-activity waste,2 first produced during the Manhattan Project, still evokes in the general public in the United States and abroad strong negative images that persist, at least in part, because of the failure of repeated

Daniel Metlay is a member of the Senior Professional Staff, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB); B. John Garrick is chairman of the NWTRB and an NAE member; and Nigel Mote is executive director of the NWTRB staff.

1 The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) is an independent federal agency charged with evaluating the technical and scientific validity of efforts by the Secretary of Energy to implement the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended in 1987. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and are not necessarily the views of the NWTRB. 2 “High-activity waste” includes both HLW and SNF. The 6 BRIDGE

efforts to develop sustainable solutions that are defen- The Inventory sible technically and politically. In the United States, approximately 65,000 metric tonnes heavy metal (MTHM) of commercial SNF is Overview currently being stored at the 78 sites where 125 large High-activity waste is an inevitable by-product of power reactors are operating or have been shut down. the operation of nuclear reactors designed to generate Roughly 40,000 MTHM is kept in shielded concrete either electricity or plutonium used in the fabrication pools. The remainder is in dry storage casks, which are of nuclear weapons. Although the final composition of set on concrete pads located on or close to the reactor SNF depends on a number of factors, such as its initial sites. An additional 2,000 MTHM of commercial SNF enrichment level, reactor type, and burnup level, fuel is produced each year. rods 10-years removed from a reactor typically contain The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also owns a several hundred different isotopic constituents. Collec- variety of high-activity waste forms, mostly generated tively, these radionuclides fall into six categories and in as part of the nuclear weapons program. That mate- the following proportions: rial, located at four sites, includes nearly 2,500 MTHM • uranium—95.6 percent (by mass) of spent fuel and slightly more than 3,100 canisters of HLW. Finally, the federal inventory includes about 27 • plutonium—0.9 percent MTHM of SNF discharged from the reactors of nuclear- • minor actinides (e.g., neptunium, americium, etc.)— powered submarines and aircraft carriers. 0.1 percent Approaches to Long-Term Management • long-lived fission products (e.g., iodine, technetium, Although most of the radionuclides produced in a etc.)—0.2 percent reactor pose only minor risks because of their negligible • short-lived fission products (e.g., strontium, cesium, quantities, short half-lives, or insignificant biological etc.)—0.3 percent effects, high-activity waste, if not managed properly, can seriously threaten human health and the environment. • stable fission products (e.g., selenium, xenon, etc.)— Although complete consensus on the acceptable risk 2.9 percent has not been reached internationally, most countries have determined that long-term radiation risk to the public from exposure to high-activity waste should be About 65,000 metric tonnes limited to the level of risk from one or two chest x-rays a year. Most countries have also concluded that this level heavy metal of spent nuclear of protection will have to be sustained for hundreds of thousands of years (NWTRB, 2009). fuel are being stored at 78 Over the last half century, the technical community locations in the United States. has advanced a variety of approaches for the long-term management of high-activity waste (IRG, 1978): • shooting the waste into space HLW is first produced in liquid form when SNF is chemically processed to remove the preponderance of • disposing of the waste in the seabed uranium, plutonium, and minor actinides. HLW con- • burying the waste in the Antarctic ice sheet tains mostly stable and long- and short-lived fission products, although some actinides may also be present. • placing the waste in boreholes (several kilometers The liquid is then converted into a solid vitrified form deep) by mixing it in canisters with molten glass. In some • depositing the waste in deep-mined geologic reposi- countries, such as Sweden, only SNF is disposed. In tories 500 to 1,000 meters below the surface others, like France, only vitrified HLW is disposed. In still others, like the United States and Germany, both For the moment at least, there is a strong international SNF and vitrified HLW are disposed. consensus about management options: all countries that operate nuclear reactors have focused solely on SUMMER 2012 7

developing deep-mined geologic repositories.3 Reflect- ing this consensus, the Radioactive Waste Management Committee of the Organization for Economic Coopera- tion and Development held that constructing a reposi- tory is “technically feasible” and would provide “a unique level and duration of protection” (NEA, 2008). As will be discussed below, a variety of repository concepts have been proposed, but they all have some common features. The high-activity waste is packaged, either away from or at the repository site. The reposi- tory itself is built by excavating ramps or shafts that lead to locations in the geologic formation where the waste FIGURE 1 Schematic illustration of a repository for high-activity waste. Source: is to be emplaced. The waste packages are delivered in a PURAM. Available online at http://www.rhk.hu/en/photo-gallery. Accessed on shielded vehicle below ground and are either emplaced April 16, 2012. in vertical boreholes carved out of the host rock or are simply set on the drift (tunnel) floors. Once emplace- mend an alternative path forward. In its final report, ment operations are complete, the drifts are backfilled, published in January 2012, the BRC calls for, among and the ramps or shafts are sealed. Figure 1 shows a rep- other things, the “timely” development of a repository resentative layout of a deep-mined geologic repository. based on a “consent-based” process (BRC, 2012). At As yet, no country has put a deep-mined geologic the time of this writing, however, the fate of the recom- repository for high-activity waste into operation. More- mendations is unclear. The NRC licensing proceeding over, with the exception of Finland, every country that for the Yucca Mountain repository has been suspended has attempted to site such a facility has experienced pending the outcome of a court case and future con- one or more setbacks that have necessitated substantial gressional appropriations. organizational and policy changes. Finland, along with Sweden and France (both of which recovered relatively Repository Concepts rapidly after initial programmatic interruptions), has the In 1955, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) most advanced schedules for managing high-activity sponsored a study to evaluate options for isolating and waste. All three expect to commence disposition opera- containing high-activity waste until radioactive decay tions sometime between 2020 and 2025. had decreased the toxicity of the materials. Although In the United States, where efforts to develop a repos- the study committee noted that additional research was itory began more than four decades ago, the situation is still needed, it concluded that “radioactive waste could still unsettled. In 2002, Congress approved the siting of be disposed of safely in a variety of ways and in a number a deep-mined geologic repository at Yucca Mountain in of sites in the United States” and that “disposal in salt the Nevada desert. In 2008, DOE submitted an appli- [was] the most promising method for the near future” cation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NAS, 1957, pp. 16–17). (NRC) asking for approval to construct a facility. Subsequently, the Obama administration announced Repositories in Salt that the Yucca Mountain repository was “not a work- Salt is considered a particularly attractive host rock able option” and sought to withdraw the license appli- for a deep-mined geological repository because (1) its cation. At the same time, the Secretary of Energy presence implies the absence of flowing water, which is appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s the predominant vehicle for transporting to the envi- Nuclear Future (BRC or the Commission) to recom- ronment materials that are eventually released from high-activity waste, (2) fractures arising in a salt forma- tion are self-healing, and (3) the high thermal conduc- 3 Management of high-activity waste requires a tightly integrated system capable of transporting the material from the sites where it is gener- tivity of salt would permit the construction of a facility ated to, perhaps, plants where it is processed to extract residual fuel with a small footprint. In addition, for a repository materials from the SNF, then to, perhaps, facilities where it might be stored temporarily, and finally to a deep-mined geologic repository developed in a salt formation, the geology alone is suf- for permanent disposal. This article focuses on the final step in the ficient to isolate and contain high-activity waste. management process. The 8 BRIDGE

The NAS study was so influential that, during the 1960s and early 1970s, plans in the United States for disposing of high-activity waste were focused solely on developing a repository in salt. The German waste management program, also influenced by the study, has been focused on a salt repos- itory since the 1970s.

Repositories in Clay Deposits Many countries, however, do not have salt formations within their borders suitable for constructing a reposi­ tory.4 Therefore, some have FIGURE 2 Design concept for a deep-mined repository in crystalline rock. Source: SKB. Available online at http://www.skb. turned to indigenous clay se/Templates/Standard____24109.aspx. Accessed on April 16, 2012. deposits as an alternative. For example, boom clay in Belgium, argillite in France, crystalline host rocks, such as granite or gneiss, which and opalinus clay in Switzerland have been identified are pervasive in those countries. as suitable host rocks for a deep-mined geologic­ reposi- For a repository in crystalline host rock (Figure 2), tory. Clays can isolate and contain high-activity waste high-activity waste would first be loaded into a cylinder because (1) water moves extremely slowly through those fabricated from cast iron or a similar material, which is strata, (2) clays can have a high sorptive capacity for not intended to provide long-term protection against radionuclides, and (3) fissures or fracture planes in the corrosion. The package would then be lowered into an rocks close by themselves over time. Notably, like a elemental-copper canister. The repository itself would salt repository, a clay repository would rely almost com­ be located in crystalline formations where the electro- pletely on geology to isolate and contain high-activity chemical, pH, and solute properties of the circulating waste for millennia.5 groundwater would not challenge the structural integ- rity of the canister. The canisters would be emplaced Repositories in Crystalline Rock in oversized shallow boreholes in the floor of the drifts, A different approach has been taken by the Swedish which would then be filled with blocks of bentonite and Finnish waste-management programs, and pos- clay, which can slow the movement of groundwater and sibly by programs in Canada, Japan, and China. In capture high-activity waste that might migrate from their repository concept, waste isolation and contain- the canisters. ment would depend on both geology (natural barriers) and man-made structures (engineered barriers). Both A Repository in Tuff kinds of barriers would be necessary for repositories in A totally different concept evolved for Yucca Moun- tain, where the host rock is tuff (consolidated ash ejected from a volcano millions of years ago). Unlike 4 The established international principle is that each country should any other site under consideration, the repository dispose of its high-activity waste within its own borders. Over the horizon at Yucca Mountain is above the water table. years, the possibility of developing a multinational repository has been explored, but so far, the idea has not matured beyond the talking stage. Because of this, it was initially believed that the tun- 5 In both concepts, the packages holding the high-activity waste are nels would remain “dry,” making robust waste packages expected to isolate and contain the material for only several hundred years. superfluous. SUMMER 2012 9

As the project advanced, however, site investigations revealed that water could seep into the drifts. Thus in the oxidizing environ- ment that would surround the horizontally emplaced carbon-steel waste pack- ages, corrosion suddenly emerged as a serious poten- tial problem. To address this concern, a corrosion- resistant, nickel-based alloy was substituted for carbon steel as the material for the outer shell of the waste package, and drip shields made of titanium were introduced to deflect water that might seep into the drifts from above FIGURE 3 Design concept for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Source: DOE. Available online at http://esmeraldanvnuke. (Figure 3). com/yucca.html. Accessed April 16, 2012. In the Yucca Mountain repository concept, at least according to DOE, the “planning permission,” a decision that was later upheld engineered barriers are designed to be robust enough by Government. to isolate and contain the high-activity waste almost indefinitely. Any radionuclides that eventually escape Public Perceptions of Risk from the packages would move slowly, held up by natu- Cognitive psychologists and specialists in public ral barriers above and below the water table. opinion have produced a body of findings that provide insights into why the management of high-activity waste Attitudes and Beliefs has elicited such strong reactions. These scholars have The recent turbulence surrounding the proposed concluded that the general public perceives the risk of a repository at Yucca Mountain is only the latest instance technology or activity by evaluating—either consciously in which public and political opposition have forced or subconsciously—more than a dozen factors.6 Con- national waste-management programs to reassess their sider one of them, familiarity. All other things being approaches and goals. equal, the more an object or event is seen as unfamiliar, During the late 1980s and through the early 1990s, the greater the perceived risk (Slovic, 1987). programs in a number of other countries also encoun- One study compared public perceptions of the risk of tered formidable obstacles. In Canada, a proposed 30 technologies and activities and found, not surpris- repository was debated at a series of public hearings, ingly, that the risk of radioactive waste was perceived and Government ultimately concluded that the con- to be relatively high (Hinman et al., 1993). In fact, it cept had achieved technical, but not social, accep- evokes the strongest feelings (other than toward nucle- tance. In Sweden, attempts to investigate potential ar accidents and war) of uncontrollability, dread, and sites in several communities were stopped when citi- involuntariness. As one historian concluded, matters zens blockaded access roads. In France, efforts to evalu- ate potential sites not only enflamed local communities 6 The factors most often studied are: voluntary/involuntary; chronic/cata- but also triggered demonstrations nationally. In the strophic; calm/dread; certainly not fatal/certainly fatal; known to be United Kingdom, a proposal to construct a laboratory exposed/not known to be exposed; immediate/delayed; known to sci- ence/unknown to science; controllable/not controllable; and familiar/ to conduct research underground failed to receive local unfamiliar. The 10 BRIDGE nuclear strike an especially discordant bell for the public risk perceptions were not strongly influenced by politi- (Weart, 1988). cal philosophy. Of the people who identified with right- Importantly, the general findings about risk per- wing ideologies, 71 percent agreed with the statement. ceptions of radioactive waste in the United States Of those who identified with left-wing ideologies, are similar to perceptions in other countries. In the 77 percent agreed. comparative study just mentioned, radioactive waste Only one significant demographic difference was was found to produce almost exactly the same strong reported. Fewer individuals who were in favor of nuclear feelings of uncontrollability and dread in the Japanese energy production totally agreed with the statement than public. Research into perceptions of risk held by the those who opposed nuclear energy production (36 versus general public in Sweden, France, and the Netherlands 50 percent). However, when these numbers were added is also strongly consistent with the conclusions about to the percentages of respondents who tended to agree, the perceptions of Americans (e.g., Sjöberg, 2003, and the sums were comparable. Wiegman et al., 1995). The general public’s perceptions of risks associated Perhaps more revealing were the results of a research with radioactive waste (at least as imperfectly measured project carried out under the auspices of the European by opposition to the siting of a repository) may or may Commission (EC, 2008). More than 26,000 residents not change over time. In the case of the Waste Isola- of the 27 member states of the European Union were tion Pilot Plant (WIPP)7 located in New Mexico, atti- interviewed about their attitudes toward the manage- tudes became markedly more favorable as the public in ment of radioactive waste. As part of the survey, indi- that state gained experience with the facility’s opera- viduals were asked whether they agreed or disagreed tion. Opposition fell from nearly 60 percent in 1995 to with the following statement, “There is no safe way of 35 percent in 2000 (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2009). By getting rid of high-level radioactive waste.” Although contrast, for the last quarter century, public disapproval one might quibble with the wording, the unambiguous in Nevada of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain results cannot be explained away simply by advancing has never dropped below the 65 to 70 percent range. a methodological critique. Overall, 72 percent of the respondents either totally agreed or tended to agree with Technical Specialists’ Perceptions of Risk the statement. Only 14 percent disagreed. Risk perceptions of technical specialists typically dif- fer from the perceptions of the general public, although not in easily predictable ways (Bostrom, 1997). The few systematic studies that have been undertaken suggest In a 2008 survey of 26,000 that experts perceive the risks associated with managing EU citizens, 72 percent high-activity waste to be significantly lower than the general public does (Flynn et al., 1993). For example, agreed that “there is no safe whereas 60 percent of the general public in a national survey disagreed with the statement that “buried waste way of getting rid of high- will be contained in the waste site so that contami- level radioactive waste.” nation of underground water supplies will not occur,” only 14 percent of those surveyed at a meeting of the American Nuclear Society dissented. But even techni- A breakdown of the aggregate results of the study cal experts do not perceive the risks uniformly. The yields valuable insights. In Finland, France, and Swe- risks perceived by medical researchers, for example, den—the three countries with the most advanced repos- are 50 percent higher than by physicists (Barke and itory programs—82 percent of those surveyed concurred Jenkins-Smith, 1993). with the statement. Lithuanians, Hungarians, Latvians, From the perspective of those responsible for devel- and the Dutch were most inclined to disagree, although oping a system for managing high-activity waste, a majority in each of those countries did agree. In addition, risk perceptions did not vary by age, edu- cation level, or by the respondents’ level of information 7 WIPP is only authorized to accept transuranic-contaminated waste from the U.S. defense complex, not the high-activity waste that is the focus of about radioactive waste. And, contrary to expectations, this article. SUMMER 2012 11

information about risk perceptions may only be of aca- Technical Obstacles demic interest. However, attitudes about managing Sometimes the obstacles have been technical. For radioactive­ waste can be translated directly into pub- example, in the late 1960s, the U.S. Atomic Energy lic policy, at least in the United States and some Euro- Commission began investigating a salt site near Lyons, pean nations, when initiatives and referenda are voted Kansas. Although this study provoked intense political on. They can also be indirectly translated into public opposition at the state level, the project was ultimately policy if the issue becomes highly salient in political doomed by the investigators’ inability to account for the campaigns, as it did in Sweden and Germany. substantial amount of water that was routinely used to solution-mine the mineral. The Issue of Trust In the mid-1990s, the French implementing organiza- Research suggests that risk perceptions of the devel- tion, ANDRA, sought volunteer communities to host opment of a deep-mined geologic repository have more two underground research laboratories (URLs), one nuanced implications. Over the last 20 years, a signifi- situated in clay and the other in granite. Two commu- cant body of literature has emerged linking risk percep- nities stepped forward. However, when the Committee tions with trust in the institutions charged with managing of National Evaluation, the French technical oversight those risks (e.g., Cvetkovich and Löfstedt, 1999). body at the time, reviewed the geology of each site, it The dominant view is that trust affects beliefs, and concluded that the proposed granite site was too com- so the more trustworthy the institution (all other fac- plex to be adequately characterized. tors being equal), the more perceptions of risk will be diminished (Flynn et al., 1992). As a practical mat- ter then, if the implementer and regulator of national waste management programs can sustain a high level Risk perceptions are linked of trust, the chances of opposition being mobilized sim- to trust in the institutions ply because of a perceived high level of risk tend to be lower. The converse also holds true. charged with managing them. Alternatively, the direction of the causal arrow can be reversed, that is, risk perceptions can influence the level of public confidence in the managing institutions.8 The Political Obstacles implications of this reversal might be far-reaching. If More frequently, the obstacles to siting have been the risk of managing high-activity waste were perceived political. The controversies that adversely affected to be low, then the public would be more likely to trust programs for managing high-activity waste in Canada, the scientific and technical judgments of implement- Sweden, France, the United States, and the United 9 ers and regulators. The converse also holds true. We Kingdom have already been touched upon. The situ- return to this point below. ations in Germany and Japan, however, illustrate how intense public reactions can effectively paralyze a coun- Siting a Deep-Mined Geologic Repository try’s waste-management program for decades. Given deep-seated public concerns about the risks More than 30 years ago in Germany, a salt site was associated with managing high-activity waste, it is identified near the town of Gorleben in Lower Saxony hardly surprising that siting efforts worldwide have that might be suitable for development as a deep-mined generally been unsuccessful. Since the 1970s, roughly geologic repository. Experiments were conducted and two dozen initiatives have been launched to identify seemed to support the view that high-activity waste technically and politically suitable sites for deep-mined could be isolated and contained there for millennia. geologic repositories. As noted above, only three of Although investigations continued, opponents at the those efforts are still on track (NWTRB, 2011). national level maintained that the process for select- ing the site had been flawed. That opposition delayed any final decision about the suitability of the site for many years. 8 Most likely, perceptions and trust are reciprocally related. The formation of a governing coalition in 1998 9 This perspective is developed in Kunreuther and Easterling, 1995. between the Socialist and Green parties effectively The 12 BRIDGE derailed consideration of the site for almost another programs.10 Siting efforts now under way in Canada and 10 years. But with the return to power of the Christian the United Kingdom reflect these lessons, and the rec- Democratic Party in 2010, the way seemed paved for a ommendations by the BRC in the United States are in determination that the Gorleben site was suitable, and line with this “new” understanding: work on the project to develop a repository was resumed. • Potential host communities must at least acquiesce to site However, in the aftermath of the Sendai tsunami in investigations. Carlsbad, the closest town to WIPP, Japan that disabled the Fukushima-Daiichi reactors aggressively lobbied for the facility. The Meuse and in 2011, Germany is again revisiting its repository- Haute-Marne districts in France welcomed the con- siting strategy. struction of a URL, knowing that if the argillite there was suitable, a full-scale repository might be con- structed nearby. The town of Eurajoki in Finland and Years of interaction between the municipality of Osthammar in Sweden responded positively to invitations from the two national imple- implementers and potential menters, Posiva and SKB, respectively. host communities can create • Implementers must work intensively to engage potential host communities by establishing a strong, long-term local strong bonds of social trust. presence. DOE required that officials involved with the WIPP project and researchers from national labo- ratories move to Carlsbad, New Mexico. In France, a Even before the tsunami struck, the waste- Local Information and Oversight Committee has been management program in Japan was mired in con- established so that representatives of communities in troversy. In 2002, the implementing organization the Meuse and Haute-Marne districts can continu- adopted what appeared to be the “best-practice” ously interact with ANDRA. In Sweden and Finland, approach for selecting a repository site. Very general the potential repository host communities had already technical criteria were published specifying the geo- become familiar with the implementers, because they logic features that automatically disqualified a site from (or their consortium members) had operated nuclear consideration. reactors at those sites for a long time. In each case, Volunteer communities were sought; they only had however, interactions were intensified when the to agree to paper and desk studies to ascertain whether municipalities began to be considered as potential nearby formations might be suitable. In addition, sub- locations for deep-mined geologic repositories. stantial benefit packages were offered to communities • Potential host communities must have a realistic, practi- that agreed to the evaluations, and the communities cal way to withdraw from the siting process. The state could opt out of the process up until the time that of New Mexico was a full partner in negotiating the significant work underground had commenced. Still, terms of the Land Withdrawal Act that permitted only one mayor was prepared to volunteer. And then, WIPP to operate. In France, the districts in question almost immediately, prefecture governors objected, and willingly accepted the prospects of hosting a deep- the mayor was recalled. No other community leader has mined geologic repository when they volunteered to stepped forward since. host the research laboratory. In Finland, Eurajoki’s The situation is not entirely bleak, however, at least consent was required before the Parliament could in Europe. After years of patient interaction with local pass the “decision-in-principle” to site the proposed communities, implementers in Finland, France, and geologic repository. In Sweden, Osthammar must Sweden have selected potential sites for deep-mined agree to the granting of a license by Government. If geologic repositories, and leaders of the chosen districts the municipality should decide for some unexpected have embraced the prospect of hosting such facilities.

Lessons Learned 10 The Japanese experience is typically discounted and dismissed as Lessons from all of these siting experiences have not a deviant case, even though Japan’s federal structure makes it the most relevant example for informing future siting initiatives in the been lost on the directors of national waste-management United States. SUMMER 2012 13

reason to exercise its veto power, the veto could, in characterization must include assessments of interactions theory, be overridden by Government. As a pragmatic between the man-made and geologic components of the matter, however, national culture and historical prec- repository system. For a repository situated in a granitic edents would make such an override highly unlikely. formation, understanding some of those interactions may not be especially challenging. What, for example, One consequence of implementers engaging poten- is the permeability of the bentonite? However, other tial host communities in a sustained and serious way interactions may be harder to evaluate. For example, appears to be the formation of strong bonds of social will the groundwater suffusing the repository corrode the trust. The existence of those bonds is documented in copper canisters? both anecdotal evidence and systematic public opinion In a repository situated in tuff, like the proposed polls. For instance, from 2000 to 2005, mean social Yucca Mountain facility, understanding the interactions trust rose significantly among both men and women in between the two types of barriers is probably even more Osthammar (Sjöberg, 2004, 2006). At the same time, difficult. How much water will infiltrate the drifts? mean perceived risk associated with the management What will its chemical composition be? Will the drip of high-activity waste declined among women, even shields and nickel-alloy waste packages be vulnerable to though the risk perceived by men, already very low, did attack either by dripping water or deliquescent salts that not change. Attitudes toward a potential repository may form on the surface of the waste packages? What improved markedly among both men and women.11 will be the source term if the engineered barriers are 12 Site Characterization and compromised? Regulatory Compliance Regardless of the design concept, the implementers of national waste-management programs face similar Once the implementer has at least tentatively scientific and technical challenges in projecting the selected a site for a deep-mined geologic repository, behavior of repository systems for hundreds of thou- the characterization process accelerates. Considerable sands of years. Although laboratory experiments and information can be derived from experiments in a URL, in situ testing produce valuable data, the long-term per- such as those established in France and Sweden. But, formance of a deep-mined geologic repository can only at some point, site-specific data must be gathered. In be projected using complex, interdependent computer- some countries, including France and Sweden, as well as based models of various scenarios that could affect how at WIPP in the United States, only surface-based test- a repository might behave. ing is allowed until formal approval has been obtained from the authorities to break ground. In others, such as Finland and in the United States at Yucca Mountain, underground investigations were allowed to begin at an Significant unresolvable early stage. Designing a research strategy for verifying the suit- uncertainties are bound to be ability of a site and ultimately developing arguments about the long-term safety of a repository is always time present in any projection of consuming and may, in some cases, be simpler in theory repository performance. than in practice. For repositories where natural barriers will mostly isolate and contain the high-activity waste (e.g., salt and clay), the key parameters to be evalu- Depending on the regulatory philosophy in different ated are well understood. How, for instance, does salt countries, the models may be deterministic, probabilis- respond to heat? How permeable is the clay? tic, or a combination of the two. The assessment of For repositories where engineered barriers will con- the modeling by regulators, and, in some nations, by tribute importantly to long-term repository performance, Government, will determine whether the deep-mined geologic repository can be constructed and operated. 11 Although the Swedish study did not examine the causal connection between social trust and perceived risk, the findings are consistent with the American study, cited above, which did model the relation- 12 “Source term” refers to the rate of release and the composition of ship between the two variables. radioactive materials that eventually flow from the waste packages. The 14 BRIDGE

It is worth noting that trust and risk perceptions Hinman, G., E. Rosa, R. Kleinhesslink, and T. Lowinger. may affect how the regulatory process plays out. For 1993. Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and example, if perceptions of risk can be lowered, key the United States. Risk Analysis 13(4): 449–455. stakeholders may be more inclined to trust the scien- IRG (Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Man- tific and technical judgments of both implementers and agement). 1978. Subgroup Report on Alternative Tech- regulators. Such confidence may be a crucial ingredient nological Strategies for the Isolation of Nuclear Waste, in a challenging regulatory process, because significant Appendix A, TID-28818 (draft). Washington, D.C.: IRG. unresolvable uncertainties are bound to be present in Jenkins-Smith, H., C. Silva, M. Nowlin, and G. deLozier. any projection of repository performance. 2009. Reevaluating NIMBY: evolving public fear and acceptance in siting a nuclear waste facility. Paper present- Conclusion ed at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Few public policy issues rival the management of Meeting, Chicago, Illinois. high-activity radioactive waste in terms of demands Kunreuther, H., and D. Easterling. 1995. The Dilemma of Sit- on scientific research and engineering practice and the ing a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository. Boston: controversy they engender. After decades of dedicated Kluwer. work in more than a dozen nations, evidence is begin- NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1957. Disposal of ning to increase confidence that “solutions” can be Radioactive Waste on Land. Washington, D.C.: National found to this pressing environmental problem. More Academy Press. important, lessons are being learned about how to design NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency). 2008. Moving Forward social processes that lead to technically and politically with Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: An NEA defensible outcomes. Given this progress, and because RWMC Collective Statement. NEA-6433. Paris: Organi- the stakes are so high, it would be unfortunate if tempo- zation for Economic Cooperation and Development. rization displaced action. NWTRB (Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board). 2009. Survey of National Programs for Managing High-Level References Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel. Washington, Barke, R., and H. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Politics and scientif- D.C.: NWRTB. ic expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste NWTRB. 2011. Experience Gained from Programs to Man- policy. Risk Analysis 13(4): 425–439. age High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel Bostrom, A. 1997. Risk perceptions: “experts” vs. “lay peo- in the United States and Other Countries. Washington, ple.” Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 8(3): D.C.: NWTRB. 101–113. Sjöberg, L. 2003. Attitudes and risk perceptions of stake- BRC (Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear holders in a nuclear waste siting issue. Risk Analysis 23(4): Future). 2012. Report to the Secretary of Energy. Wash- 739–749. ington, D.C. Sjöberg, L. 2004. Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear Cvetkovich, G., and R. Löfstedt, eds. 1999. Social Trust and waste repository. Risk Analysis 24(3): 737–749. the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan. Sjöberg, L. 2006. Nuclear waste risk perceptions and atti- EC (European Commission). 2008. Special Eurobarometer tudes in siting a final repository for spent nuclear fuel. Pp. 297: Attitudes Towards Radioactive Waste. Brussels, Bel- 453–461 in Proceedings of the VALDOR 2006 Confer- gium: European Commission. ence, edited by K. Andersson, Stockholm, Sweden. Flynn, J., W. Burns, C. Mertz, and P. Slovic. 1992. Trust as a Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236(4799): determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste 280–285. repository: analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis Weart, S. 1988. Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. Cam- 12(3): 417–429. bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Flynn, J., P. Slovic, and C. Mertz. 1993. Decidedly different: Wiegman, O., J. Gutteling, and B. Cadet. 1995. Perceptions expert and public view of risks from a radioactive waste of nuclear energy and coal in France and the Netherlands. repository. Risk Analysis 13(6): 643–648. Risk Analysis 15(4): 513–521. According to the president’s Blue Ribbon Commission, “We know what we have to do, we know we have to do it, and we even know how to do it.” Recommendations by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future A Plan for Managing Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Nuclear Waste

Albert Carnesale

As a candidate for president in 2008, Barack Obama stated that “The nuclear waste disposal efforts at Yucca Mountain have been an expensive failure and should be abandoned” (Nature, 2008). Thus it should have come as no surprise when newly elected President Obama announced his decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository project and initiated the development of a new plan for managing spent nuclear fuel and Albert Carnesale is Chancellor high-level nuclear waste.1 Emeritus and professor at the On January 29, 2010, the White House released a memorandum from the University of California, Los president to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu directing him to establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (the Commission) Angeles, and an NAE member. and to appoint its members (White House, 2010): The Commission should conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alterna- tives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. This review should include an evalua- tion of advanced fuel cycle technologies that would optimize energy recov- ery, resource utilization, and the minimization of materials derived from nuclear activities in a manner consistent with U.S. nonproliferation goals.

1 The courts will ultimately decide whether or not the president has the authority to terminate the project. The 16 BRIDGE

In performing its functions, the Commission should con- Although this charge was broad in scope, it is impor- sider a broad range of technological and policy alterna- tant to note three tasks that were not included in the tives, and should analyze the scientific, environmental, Commission’s purview: (1) reviewing the administra- budgetary, economic, financial, and management issues, tion’s decision to withdraw the application for a license among others, surrounding each alternative it considers. for construction at Yucca Mountain; (2) identifying or Where appropriate, the Commission may also identify evaluating potential sites for nuclear waste management potential statutory changes. facilities; and (3) recommending appropriate levels of The President also specified that the Commission America’s future reliance on nuclear power. release an interim report for public comment within 18 months and provide a final report to the Secretary of The Current Situation Energy within 24 months. Clearly, past strategies for dealing with spent nuclear Coincidental with the release of the President’s mem- fuel and high-level waste have failed, and the United orandum, Secretary Chu announced the formation of States has been trying to figure out what to do with the Commission and its membership (DOE, 2010). The these materials for more than five decades. Although co-chairs—Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft—both 25 years have passed since the 1987 amendments to had distinguished records of public service, were known the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) were enacted, to be successful problem solvers and effective lead- the results have been largely controversy, litigation, ers, and were respected across the political spectrum. and delays. Although neither was an expert on the back end of the All this time, utility customers have been paying the nuclear fuel cycle, other members of the Commission federal government one mill (0.1 cent) per kilowatt- had technical expertise in relevant academic disci- hour of nuclear-generated electricity to finance the plines. In addition, the Commission included former government’s commitment to assume responsibility for elected and appointed officials and representatives of dealing with spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. industry, labor, and nongovernmental organizations. Unfortunately, this “solution” has not materialized, nor is it anywhere in sight. Instead, spent nuclear fuel continues to accumu- late in storage pools and dry casks at reactor sites, and The Commission concluded defense and commercial high-level waste have no place to go. Moreover, taxpayers face mounting liabilities that a new approach arising from the federal government’s failure to meet its could be adopted and commitments regarding commercial spent fuel. As a result, confidence in the government’s ability to meet implemented successfully. its legal obligation has all but disappeared. America’s failure to deal with the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle has been more than expensive. It Soon after Secretary Chu’s announcement, the has also undermined prospects for nuclear energy and Commission was formally established, and by January lessened our nation’s ability to lead on global issues of 2012, it had fulfilled its mission and delivered its final nuclear safety, nonproliferation, and security. In light report, Report to the Secretary of Energy (hereinafter of this situation, the Commission concluded that we referred to as the BRC report) (BRC, 2012).2 This urgently need a new strategy (BRC, 2012, p. vi). article is based largely on the author’s participation as Furthermore, the Commission maintained that a a member of the Commission and draws heavily on the new approach could be adopted and could be imple- language of the report. mented successfully (BRC, 2012, p. 4). This optimism The Commission’s overarching task was to recom- was based largely on two factors. First, proceeding mend a workable strategy for managing nuclear waste. down the current path would not only be increasingly time-consuming, costly, controversial, and divisive,

2 This is the Commission’s final report. Reports of BRC subcommittees but it would also offer little if any prospect for success. on reactor and fuel-cycle technology, transportation and storage, and Second, experience at home and abroad has provided disposal, as well as related materials are available on the Commission’s website at www.brc.gov. some concrete examples of progress in dealing with SUMMER 2012 17

nuclear waste (e.g., successful operation of the Waste A Consent-Based Approach to Siting Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP], a disposal facility for The first recommendation calls for the United States transuranic defense waste in New Mexico; the selec- to adopt a new consent-based approach to siting and tion of a site for storing spent fuel in Spain; and the developing facilities for the management and disposal selection of sites for permanent repositories in Finland of nuclear waste (BRC, 2012, p. xi).3 and Sweden). The Commission conducted an in-depth review of siting efforts, both successful and unsuccessful, in the A New U.S. Strategy United States (viz., the operating WIPP facility in New The strategy recommended by the Commission has Mexico, several failed attempts to site monitored retriev- eight key elements (BRC, 2012, p. vii): able storage facilities for commercial spent nuclear fuel, 1. A new, consent–based approach to siting future and the Yucca Mountain saga) and in Canada, Finland, nuclear waste management facilities. France, Japan, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and the United 2. A new organization dedicated solely to implement- Kingdom. On the basis of this review, the Commission ing the waste-management program and empow- concluded that siting processes are most likely to succeed ered with the authority and resources to succeed. if they have the following characteristics (BRC, 2012, 3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers pp. 47–48): are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management. 4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic dis- The Commission’s ideas are posal facilities. 5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated not new, but none of them storage facilities. 6. Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large- has been tried before. scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities 1. Consent-based—in the sense that affected com- when such facilities become available. munities have an opportunity to decide whether to 7. Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear accept facility siting decisions and retain significant energy technology and for workforce development. local control. 8. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts 2. Transparent—in the sense that all stakeholders to address safety, waste management, non- have an opportunity to understand key decisions proliferation, and security concerns. and engage in the process in a meaningful way. None of these elements will be new to those who 3. Phased—in the sense that key decisions are revis- have followed the U.S. nuclear waste program over the ited and modified as necessary along the way rather years. These ideas have been around for a long time than being pre-determined. but haven’t been tried, whereas the (equally) old ideas 4. Adaptive—in the sense that the process itself is that characterize the current program have been tried flexible and produces decisions that are responsive and have failed. to new information and new technical, social, or The eight elements in the new strategy are inter­ political developments. connected and, to a great extent, interdependent, and 5. Standards- and science-based decisions—in the no doubt, it will take years to implement them fully. sense that the public can have confidence that all However, in light of the urgent need to deal with facilities meet rigorous, objective, and consis­tently America’s nuclear waste, prompt action should be taken applied standards of safety and environmental whenever possible. Some actions can be taken inde- protection. pendently by the Executive Branch; others will require 6. Governed by partnership arrangements or legally legislative action to amend the NWPA and other rel- enforceable agreements between the implementing evant laws. Each element of the recommended strategy is discussed in more detail below. 3 The BRC differentiates between “storage” and “disposal” in the follow- ing way: “disposal” refers to permanent disposal; “storage” refers to storage for an interim period prior to disposal or other disposition. The 18 BRIDGE

organization and host states, tribes, and local a nuclear waste facility. Such incentives might take the communities. form of direct financial payments, local preferences in hiring and purchasing by the facility, infrastructure Yucca Mountain has been designated by the NWPA improvements, and so forth. and subsequent legislation as the site for a deep geo- As the final selection approaches, it would be desir- logical nuclear waste depository, subject to approval by able for the responsible organization and the host juris- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In addi- dictions to enter into partnership arrangements or other tion, Congress has specified that no more than 70,000 legally binding, court-enforceable agreements to ensure metric tons of spent nuclear fuel can be deposited in that all commitments concerning the development and Yucca Mountain before a second repository is in opera- subsequent operation of the facility are fully understood tion. However, because the U.S. commercial inventory by all parties and will be upheld (BRC, 2012, p. 56). of spent nuclear fuel already exceeds 65,000 metric tons, The Commission recognizes that implementation of regardless of the fate of the Yucca Mountain site, a sec- the recommended consent-based process would take ond depository will be needed. more time than a top-down process but believes that the flexibility of the new process and the public trust it would engender would increase the likelihood of suc- The Commission estimates it cess. The Commission estimates it would take on the order of 15 to 20 years for site identification, charac- would take 15 to 20 years terization, and licensing for a deep geologic depository and 5 to 10 years for the siting and development of a to identify, characterize, consolidated storage facility (BRC, 2012, p. 55).

and license a deep geologic Establishment of a Single-Purpose Organization depository and 5 to 10 The second central recommendation of the BRC calls for the establishment of a new, single-purpose, indepen- years to site and develop a dent organization dedicated solely to implementing the consolidated storage facility. nation’s nuclear waste management program. A new organization focused exclusively on the safe, secure management and ultimate disposal of high-level nuclear waste could concentrate on this objective in a The first requirement to be met in siting a facility is way that a large, multipurpose agency, such as the U.S. to affirm that public health and safety and the environ- Department of Energy (DOE), cannot. Also, given the ment will be adequately protected. In addition, experi- discouraging history of attempts by DOE and its pre- ence in the United States and elsewhere has shown that decessor agencies to deal with the nuclear waste prob- beyond meeting this basic criterion, successful siting lem, establishment of a new agency would signal a clear requires that “all affected units of government, includ- break with the past and would offer the best chance of ing the host state or tribe, regional and local authori- regaining the trust and confidence of the public and ties, and the host community are willing to support or major stakeholders. at least accept a facility” (BRC, 2012, p. viii). To succeed, the new organization must have a struc- After basic siting criteria have been developed, the ture and governance system suited to the task, as well organization responsible for site selection should seek as appropriate authorities and resources. The Com- expressions of interest from a number of communities mission recognizes that an appropriate structure could that might have suitable environments for the kind of take any of a number of forms, provided that it has the facility under discussion. As the process moves forward, attributes, independence, and resources to carry out all stakeholders—states, tribes, local communities, its mission. Of the possible forms, the Commission nongovernmental organizations, and citizens—must be is inclined to favor a federal corporation chartered by engaged meaningfully, and funds should be provided to Congress, because it would “(a) be less susceptible to enable such engagement. political micromanagement, (b) have more flexibil- In addition, incentives should be provided to encour- ity to respond to changes in external conditions, and age affected states, tribes, and local governments to host SUMMER 2012 19

(c) have a greater ability to manage costs and sched- For almost three decades, nuclear utilities have been ules” (BRC, 2012, pp. 61–62). paying a nuclear waste fee into the NWF, which is For example, the federal corporation might have a intended solely to cover the cost of disposing of com- board of directors consisting of 11 members: 10 appointed mercial nuclear waste. Cumulative receipts thus far by the president, with the advice and consent of the exceed $19 billion, and the amount is growing by about Senate, and a board-appointed CEO of the organiza- $750 million per year. With accumulated interest, the tion. The board would provide management and fidu- NWF balance is now about $27 billion. (In contrast, ciary oversight and operational direction. A separate the costs of disposing of defense nuclear wastes are paid advisory group, reflecting a wider range of perspectives, for by taxpayers through direct appropriations from the would provide advice to the corporation and the board. U.S. Treasury.) The new entity must be both independent and A series of decisions by the Executive Branch and accountable—always a delicate balancing act. Inde- congressional actions has made the annual fee rev- pendent regulatory agencies, such as NRC, the Envi- enues and the unspent balance in the NWF effectively ronmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department unavailable to the civilian nuclear waste program. of Transportation, and the Occupational Safety and Instead, contrary to the original intent of Congress, Health Administration, would apply the same safety, waste management needs have had to compete for lim- health, and environmental regulations to the new fed- ited discretionary funds with other DOE priorities in eral corporation as they would apply to a private orga- the appropriations process. The Commission concludes nization. To ensure that Congress and the American that (1) the nuclear waste funding mechanism must be people can be confident that the federal corporation is allowed to work as originally intended so that funding acting responsibly and using public resources wisely and for the waste program is no longer subject to unrelated appropriately, Congress would pass legislation defining federal budget constraints, and (2) the new waste man- the mission, structure, responsibilities, and powers of agement organization should be entrusted with greater the organization. autonomy and control of its budget over multiple-year Notable by its absence from the Commission’s con- periods (BRC, 2012, p. 74). siderations of safe, secure management and ultimate disposal of high-level nuclear waste is the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. This deliberate omission reflects the Commission’s view that “no currently available or Contrary to the original intent reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technol- of Congress, annual revenues ogy developments—including advances in reprocessing and recycling technologies—have the potential to fun- and the unspent balance of damentally alter the waste management challenges the nation confronts over at least the next several decades, the Nuclear Waste Fund are if not longer” (BRC, 2012, p. 101). Based on this view, not available to the civilian the Commission concluded that “it would be premature for the United States to commit, as a matter of policy, nuclear waste program. to ‘closing’ the nuclear fuel cycle given the large uncer- tainties that exist about the merits and commercial viability of different fuel cycle and technology options” Accordingly, the Commission recommends: (1) that (BRC, 2012, pp. xi–xii). the administration modify the nuclear waste fee collec- tion process so that utilities pay only an amount equal Ensuring Access to Funds to actual appropriations from the NWF each year, with The Commission’s third central recommendation is the remainder retained by the utilities in approved trust that the new organization should have access to “the funds to be available to meet future needs; (2) that the revenues generated by the nuclear waste fee and the bal- administration and Congress change the budgetary ance in the NWF [Nuclear Waste Fund]… when needed treatment of the fee receipts so they can directly offset and in the amounts needed to implement the program” appropriations for the waste program; and (3) that in (BRC, 2012, p. 70). the longer term, Congress transfer the unspent balance The 20 BRIDGE in the NWF to the new waste management organization permanent disposal almost surely will be necessary for (BRC, 2012, pp. 74–75). some portion of the commercial spent fuel inventory. Delay in implementing a U.S. nuclear waste manage- Based on its review, the Commission expresses ment program has also been very costly in other ways. confidence that many geologic formations and sites Because of the government’s failure to meet its obliga- in the United States would be technically suitable tion to remove spent fuel from reactor sites, affected for a repository. In addition, it recommends further utilities have incurred unanticipated costs for on-site research and development to help resolve some of the storage. They and DOE have been engaged since 1998 uncertainties associated with deep borehole disposal in litigation over how much the government (i.e., tax- (BRC, 2012, p. 30). payers) must pay in damages. Final judgments and set- tlements to date have cost about $2 billion; estimated Timely Development of Consolidated total damages through 2020 are about $20.8 billion; Storage Facilities and the estimated annual increase for each year beyond In the fifth central recommendation, the Commis- 2020 is on the order of $500 million (BRC, 2012, p. 80). sion calls: (a) for the United States to “establish a pro- gram that leads to the timely development of one or Timely Development of Geologic more consolidated storage facilities”; and (b) for “vigor- Disposal Facilities ous, ongoing efforts by industry and by the appropriate The fourth central recommendation is that the regulatory authorities to ensure that all near-term forms United States undertake an integrated nuclear waste of storage meet high standards of safety and security for management program that leads to the timely develop- the multiple-decade-long periods they are likely to be in ment of one or more permanent deep geological facili- use” (BRC, 2012, p. 32). ties for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level The horrific accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear waste (BRC, 2012, p. 27). nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011 (about midway through the BRC’s efforts) called America’s attention to the thousands of tons of spent fuel currently stored at reactor sites across the country and to the fact that we Safety, responsibility to do not have any place else to put it. future generations, and Storage of spent fuel for some period of time after it has been removed from the reactor is unavoidable. In cost all argue for prompt the early days of the nuclear enterprise, it was assumed that the storage period would last no longer than a development of one or more decade, or possibly two, after which the spent fuel would deep geologic repositories. be shipped off for reprocessing or disposal. Neither has happened. Spent fuel is, and will continue to be, stored at reactor sites in much larger quantities and for much Safety, responsibility to future generations, and cost longer periods of time than had been anticipated. all argue for prompt efforts to develop one or more About 75 percent of spent fuel is stored in pools, deep geologic repositories, which is the only known and 25 percent is stored in dry casks. Fortunately, responsible way of managing nuclear materials that are experience in the United States indicates that storage unlikely to be re-used, including many forms of spent either at or away from sites where the waste was gen- fuel and defense and commercial reprocessing wastes. erated can be implemented safely and cost effectively. This conclusion has been reached by every expert panel Nevertheless, ensuring safe and secure storage for the in the United States that has addressed the issue and decades-long periods now contemplated “will require by every other country pursuing a nuclear waste man- continued public and private efforts… to conduct rig- agement program. The reprocessing and recycling of orous research and oversight and continuously incorpo- commercial spent fuel would not alter this conclusion, rate lessons learned from new developments or events” because all reprocessing or recycling options generate (BRC, 2012, p. 34). waste streams that require permanent disposal. There- In the Commission’s view, we need consolidated fore, even if reprocessing and recycling were adopted, spent fuel storage facilities, which would: (1) facilitate SUMMER 2012 21

the removal of “stranded” spent fuel from the sites of State, tribal, and local officials should be extensively shutdown reactors; (2) enable the federal government to involved in these preparations and should be provided begin meeting its waste-acceptance obligations indepen- with the resources necessary to meet their responsibili- dent of the schedule for operating a permanent reposi­ ties in this area. tory; (3) provide flexibility in responding to lessons learned from Fukushima and other events; (4) provide the flexibility needed to support an adaptive, phased When consolidated storage approach to repository development; and (5) offer opportunities for cost-effective R&D on, and experi- facilities and disposal ence with, spent fuel handling and storage (BRC, 2012, pp. 35–39). For these reasons, and because progress in facilities become available, consolidated storage could be crucial to the success of a the increase in transport revitalized nuclear waste program, the Commission urges prompt efforts to develop consolidated storage facilities. demand is likely to

Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and heighten public concerns High-Level Waste about safety, security, and The Commission’s sixth recommendation calls for “prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale environmental impacts. transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available” (BRC, 2012, p. vii). Support for Innovation and Current standards and regulations governing the Workforce Development transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste The Commission’s seventh recommendation calls for have, in the view of the Commission, “functioned “support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy well,” and the safety record has been “excellent” (BRC, and for workforce development” (BRC, 2012, p. vii). 2012, p. 81). But the familiar caveat regarding finan- A forward-looking strategy for managing the back cial investment, that past performance is no guarantee end of the nuclear fuel cycle must look beyond current of future success, also applies to the future transport technologies. The Commission “puts a premium on of nuclear materials, especially because the number of creating and preserving options that could be employed shipments will increase markedly when consolidated by future generations to respond to the particular cir- storage facilities and disposal facilities become opera- cumstances they face. RD&D [research, development, tional. And these greater transport demands are likely and demonstration] is key to maximizing those options” to heighten public concerns about safety, security, and (BRC, 2012, p. 99). environmental impact. Based on its review of “the most authoritative avail- Although existing standards and regulations have able information on advanced reactor and fuel cycle served admirably, changes will be needed to address new technologies,” the Commission came to the following challenges. For example, the NRC has not yet granted a conclusion (BRC, 2012, pp.100, 101): license for the transport of the higher burnup fuels that We concluded that while new reactor and fuel cycle are now commonly discharged from reactors. In addi- technologies may hold promise for achieving substan- tion, spent fuel that may have degraded after extended tial benefits in terms of broadly held safety, economic, storage may present new obstacles to safe transport. environmental, and energy security goals and therefore Experience with transportation issues associated with merit continued public and private R&D investment, WIPP and other nuclear facilities shows that planning, no currently available or reasonably foreseeable reac- development, and production of specialized equipment, tor and fuel cycle technology developments—including training, and other preparations for nuclear transport advances in reprocessing and recycling technologies— involve many different parties and take a substantial have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste amount of time. Hence the Commission’s call for management challenge this nation confronts over at prompt efforts to prepare to meet future transport needs. least the next several decades, if not longer. The 22 BRIDGE and of multinational nuclear fuel cycle facilities under com- prehensive IAEA safeguards (BRC, 2012, p. 114). In As a group we concluded that it is premature at this point for the United States to commit irreversibly to any addition, the Commission encourages U.S. acceptance particular fuel cycle as a matter of government policy… of spent fuel from foreign commercial reactors in cases where the president chooses to authorize such action for Even if the United States chooses at some point to national security reasons (BRC, 2012, p. 115). close the nuclear fuel cycle, the need for consolidated The Commission recognizes that “the United States storage and deep geologic disposal will remain. cannot exercise effective leadership on issues related In the near term, RD&D could lead to improve- to the back end of the fuel cycle so long as its own ments in the safety and performance of light-water program is in disarray; effective domestic policies are reactors and associated fuel cycle activities. In the needed to support America’s international agenda” longer term, “game-changing” innovations (e.g., small (BRC, 2012, p. xiv). modular reactors, high-temperature reactors, and fast- spectrum reactors) might lead to very large benefits. In Conclusion conjunction with these RD&D activities, the Commis- Despite the dismal overall record of the U.S. nuclear sion supports expansion of the NRC’s efforts to develop waste program, the Commission believes that success a regulatory framework for advanced nuclear energy can be achieved. Experience in the United States and systems and to lower barriers to commercial investment abroad has shown that suitable sites for nuclear facilities (BRC, 2012, pp. 106–108). can be found and can be accepted by relevant stake- To ensure that an appropriately educated and trained holders and that the funds required for the development nuclear workforce is available in the future, the Com- and operation of an effective nuclear waste program mission recommends “expanded federal, joint labor- have been, are being, and will continue to be collected. management and university-based support for advanced The Commission sees reasons to believe that imple- science, technology, engineering, and mathematics mentation of its recommended strategy will lead to suc- training to develop the skilled workforce needed to sup- cess: “We know what we have to do, we know we have port an effective waste management program as well as a to do it, and we even know how to do it.” Whether that viable domestic nuclear industry” (BRC, 2012, p. 108). optimism is justified will be known only “if we start, which is what we urge the Administration and Congress Active International Leadership to do, without further delay” (BRC, 2012, p. xv). The Commission’s eighth key recommendation calls for “[A]ctive U.S. leadership in international efforts to References address safety, waste management, non-proliferation, BRC (Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear and security concerns” (BRC, 2012, p. vii). Future). 2012. Report to the Secretary of Energy. Avail- Nuclear safety is a global concern. A nuclear accident able online at http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ anywhere affects nuclear programs everywhere. Thus, brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf. our nation’s ability to maintain or expand its nuclear DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2010. Secretary Chu power enterprise will depend to a large extent on safety Announces Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s performance in other countries, some of which may need Nuclear Future. Press Release, January 29, 2010. Wash- help to achieve high safety standards. Consequently, ington, D.C.: DOE. Available online at http://www. the Commission recommends that “the United States ne.doe.gov/newsroom/2010PRs/nePR012910.html. work with the International Atomic Energy Agency Nature. 2008. U.S. election: questioning the candidates. (IAEA) and other interested nations to launch a major Nature 455: 446–449. Available online at http://www. international­ effort . . . to enable the safe application of nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/455446a.html. nuclear waste in all countries that pursue this technol- White House. 2010. Presidential Memorandum—Blue Rib- ogy” (BRC, 2012, p. 111). bon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Office of Minimizing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a the Press Secretary, The White House, January 29, 2010. longstanding, principal American goal. In support of Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- this goal, the Commission urges continued U.S. support office/presidential-memorandum-blue-ribbon-commission- for the IAEA’s work on physical security and safeguards americas-nuclear-future. technologies and, in the longer term, support for the use Regardless of how long spent fuel is stored, eventually it will have to be moved from reactor sites.

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Andrew C. Kadak

After nuclear fuel has been used for five to six years to furnish the power to produce electricity, the spent (or used) fuel, which is still highly radio­ active, must be stored on the reactor site until it can be moved to a geologi- cal disposal site. The disposal site selected in the United States was Yucca Mountain, located in a remote desert region of the Nevada Nuclear Weap- ons Test Site. However, after 20 years of study, a cost of $10 billion, and the Andrew C. Kadak is Principal, submission of a licensing application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis- Exponent Inc., Natick, Massa­ sion (NRC), which was nearing completion of its review, President Obama chusetts, and a member of the directed the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the responsible federal agency, to cancel the project. That decision is being appealed in the courts, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technology and the outcome is still not clear. Review Board.1 At the direction of the president, DOE then created the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (the BRC or the Commission) to study what to do next with regard to the disposal of nuclear waste, which is currently stored at nuclear power plant sites, either in spent fuel storage pools or in concrete-shielded canisters or dry casks. In January 2012, the Commission completed its review and delivered its final report, Report to the Secretary of Energy (BRC, 2012).

1 This paper does not necessarily represent the positions of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technology Review Board. The 24 BRIDGE

One of the BRC’s recommendations, in the absence reactors, to generate steam to power the turbines and of a waste disposal site, was the creation of one or more electric generators that produce electricity. Fuel rods centralized, “interim” (or consolidated), spent-fuel stor- comprise the “used fuel” that is stored at reactor sites age facilities, which would not have been necessary had in used-fuel storage pools and in dry storage systems. the Yucca Mountain Project been opened by 2017, as Figure 1 shows typical fuel-rod assemblies for pressurized planned. The Commission believes that some commu- and boiling-water-reactors. nities and states might be willing to accept the presence of interim storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel based Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel on a volunteer, consensus process. However, given that Spent nuclear fuel has the following characteristics: there is no plan for a permanent repository and that a • Small volume and mass. The energy released from consensus-based process for the siting of interim storage nuclear reactions is about one million times greater facilities was tried in the past and failed (Kadak and than from the burning of fossil fuels; consequently, Yost, 2010), the prospects for success are not high. only small quantities of spent nuclear fuel are Lawsuits brought by utilities for breach of contract generated. when DOE did not begin accepting spent fuel from nuclear plant sites in 1998, as required by law, have • Fuel value. Existing reactors recover slightly less than further complicated the issue. If DOE does not start 1 percent of the energy value of the initial mined ura- accepting spent fuel until 2020, the estimated liabil- nium. Advanced breeder reactors could recover most ity to U.S. taxpayers could be as high as $20.8 billion of the energy value of the uranium by appropriate recy- (BRC, 2012). To date, taxpayers have paid $2 billion cling of the spent fuel and the use of depleted urani- to nuclear utilities to compensate them for the costs um from the uranium enrichment process. Although of storing spent fuel. Thus, the overall cost, so far, for canceling the Yucca Mountain Project has been more than $12 billion, and it increases with every year of delay (BRC, 2012). For their part, nuclear utilities are anxious to have the spent fuel removed from their sites, especially in places where the reactors have been decommissioned, leaving only spent fuel storage pools or casks on the site. The purpose of this article is to describe the current status of spent fuel storage and the challenges associated with interim storage of unknown duration at existing nuclear plant sites.

What is Spent (Used) Fuel? In the course of generating electricity, nuclear plants create small amounts of highly radioactive waste in the form of spent nuclear fuel, which constitutes a signifi- cant hazard to human safety if not properly stored and disposed. Because of the radioactivity and extreme longevity of spent nuclear fuel, its management is a major policy challenge for virtually every country in the world that generates nuclear power. According to the National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council, 1990), the best way to dispose of nuclear waste is in a geologic repository. This is also the common FIGURE 1 Typical spent-fuel assemblies for (a) a pressurized water reactor conclusion of all nations with nuclear power plants. and (b) a boiling-water reactor. Source: (a) Courtesy Westinghouse and Two types of nuclear reactors are used in the United (b) http://gepower.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/downloads/ States, pressurized-water reactors and boiling-water gnf2_adv_poster.pdf. SUMMER 2012 25

FIGURE 2 Typical decay heat curve for spent fuel from a pressurized-water reactor. Source: Adapted from MIT 22.06 Course Material Open Courseware. FIGURE 3 Wet storage system—spent fuel pool. Source: NRC, 2012.

recycling spent fuel is not economical today, this may to a storage or reprocessing site. As a result, storage change in the future. pools were constructed with only a small storage capac- ity (typically enough for about one-and-one-third of the • Radioactive decay. As radioactive materials decay assemblies in a core). However, the ban on reprocess- to non-radioactive materials, they generate heat. ing spent fuel in the 1970s and the failure to build a Over time, both radioactivity and heat generation national repository by 1998 made storage in spent-fuel from spent fuel decrease. Therefore, the longer spent pools the de facto policy of the United States. fuel is stored on reactor sites, the less complex the In response, reactor operators were forced to retrofit design of a permanent (or interim) repository can their storage pools in an effort to increase their capac- be, because the heat load, which is a limiting design ity. By using more densely packed storage racks and constraint, will be much lower. Figure 2 shows the adding neutron absorbers, utilities were able to expand reduction in decay heat over time. their waste-storage potential. Ultimately, however, the Options for Spent Fuel Storage pools became filled to capacity even with more densely packed storage racks. To make room for more spent fuel Two options are available for storing spent fuel—wet and enable the plants to keep operations going, the stor- storage in pools of water and dry storage in canisters or age racks had to be moved to dry storage systems. casks. However, for the first five years after discharge Since 1986, more and more fuel storage pools have from a reactor, spent fuel assemblies generate too much approached their maximum holding capacity (Figure heat to be safely stored in dry canisters or casks. During 4). By 2017, all but one site (which was constructed those years, they require active cooling in storage pools with sufficient pool storage capacity to accommodate to prevent damage to the fuel. The two options are all of the spent fuel produced during the reactor’s life- briefly described below. time) will be at capacity, necessitating the greater use of dry storage. Wet Storage. Spent-fuel pools are 40-foot deep, water-filled, and typically lined with stainless steel. Dry Storage. By the end of 2011, the United States Submerged holding racks are capable of safely storing commercial nuclear waste inventory had reached spent-fuel assemblies after they have been removed from approximately 65,000 metric tons of heavy metal a reactor (Figure 3). The water and the concrete sides (MTHM). This represents about 224,000 fuel assem- and floor of the pool shield reactor workers from radia- blies. Roughly 50,000 MTHM are held in spent fuel tion from the spent fuel, and pumps actively remove pools. The remaining 15,000 MTHM have been placed decay heat generated from the fuel-rod assemblies. in casks that are collectively referred to as “dry storage.” When the current generation of reactors was being Roughly 2,200 MTHM are produced each year by exist- built, fuel storage pools were intended to provide only ing nuclear reactors. short-term cooling until the assemblies could be sent The 26 BRIDGE

vendors have even devel- oped “multiple-purpose containers” they hope will be suitable for storage, transport, and disposal. Storage-only casks, which are not suitable for transportation, require repackaging prior to ship- ment. The easiest way to do this is by first placing the casks back into spent fuel pools and transferring the spent fuel from the storage- only canister into a canister suitable for transportation. However, this is not always FIGURE 4 Status of filled spent fuel pools. Source: Energy Resources International and DOE/RW-0431 – Revision 1. possible, because some plants, including the spent In the early 1980s, in response to the overcrowd- fuel storage pools, have been decommissioned. There- ing of storage pools, the nuclear industry began to fore, either alternative dry transfer systems will have to explore other temporary storage techniques. Spent be developed or NRC will have to grant special exemp- fuel assemblies that have decayed sufficiently, thereby tions for spent fuel in storage-only canisters. emitting less heat, can be transferred to dry storage Dry-storage systems for spent fuel (i.e., ISFSIs) are systems consisting either of thick-walled metal casks licensed by NRC according to Title 10, Part 72 of the bolted closed with metallic seals or thin-walled can- Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 72) (Federal Reg- isters surrounded by a metal or concrete outer shell ister, 2009; NRC, 2008). Approximately 22 percent of for shielding. Both casks and canisters are passively domestic spent fuel is in dry storage at 44 plant sites. cooled by ambient air. To date, utilities have trans- Figure 8 shows existing and likely future locations for ferred 13,000 MTHM of spent fuel to above-ground storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel. dry storage systems. Dry cask storage of nuclear waste is considered safe. Spent fuel canisters are filled with inert helium gas NRC estimates that the per-cask risk of failure-induced to prevent degradation by oxidation. They are then fatalities is equal to 1.8 x 10-12 in the first year of opera- seal welded and placed in concrete cylinders fitted with tion and 3.2 x 10-14 per year for each subsequent year of inner metal liners (which provide radiation shielding) storage (NRC, 2007). or in separate metal enclosures. Under current regulations, NRC licenses commer- Canisters loaded with spent fuel are moved to dry- cial dry-storage systems initially for 20 years. However, storage facilities, referred to as independent spent fuel NRC recently authorized an exemption to the regula- storage installations (ISFSIs) on the utilities’ sites. tion and renewed the license for a dry-storage system ISFSIs are large, parking-lot-type concrete pads sur- at the Surry Nuclear Power Station in Virginia for an rounded by protective fencing and under continuous additional 40 years (a total of 60 years). On September security surveillance. 15, 2009, NRC proposed changing the initial licensing Typical storage casks can be stored in either vertical and license renewal periods from 20 to 40 years (Federal or horizontal systems (Figures 5, 6, and 7). Cask systems Register, 2009). are popular among reactor operators because of their inherent flexibility. For one thing, they allow for the Centralized Interim Storage modular expansion of storage capabilities. For another, The siting of a centralized regional interim storage licensed “dual-purpose” casks can be used for both stor- facility will be more difficult today than in the past, age and transportation of nuclear waste. Some cask because we have no clear exit strategy for the spent fuel SUMMER 2012 27

that is “temporarily” stored. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), as amended in 1987, Congress authorized volunteer efforts by a “nuclear waste nego- tiator” to site a monitored, retrievable, interim stor- age facility (NWPA, 1983, 1987). The effort failed, however, partly because of political opposition and partly because of congres- sional interference in the process once siting deci- sions were near. Despite the BRC’s opti- mism, there are no indi- cations of fundamental FIGURE 5 Dry cask storage system: vertical on left, horizontal on right. Source: NRC, 2012. changes in the politics of siting interim facilities or in the willingness of states and local communities to accept such a facility. Some have suggested that co-locating a reprocessing plant and an interim storage facility, which would provide jobs and an economic boost to the area, might be a differentiator. But that remains to be seen. The NWPA, as amended in 1987, forbids DOE from building an interim waste storage facility until Yucca Mountain obtains an operating license (NWPA, 1987). This legislative restriction will have to be removed to allow the construction of an interim facility indepen- FIGURE 6 Independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). Used with permis- dent of progress on a repository site. Of course, this sion of NAC International, Inc. would make the siting of an “interim” facility even more difficult. Efforts by private utilities to build a regional interim storage facility, such as the private fuel storage (PFS) project in Utah, which, after a 10-year licensing pro- cess, was granted an NRC license, have been stymied by national and state political opposition. Neverthe- less, because the PFS site already has an NRC license, it should be considered a near-term option. Even if another volunteer site could be found, the licensing process for that site could also last 10 years, plus 3 to 5 years for construction, before any spent fuel could be accepted by the facility. In addition, a trans- portation infrastructure would have to be constructed for shipping casks of spent fuel to the facility. The process could be expedited if construction and permits FIGURE 7 Independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) with horizontal dry could be pursued concurrently. cask storage. Source: Pacific Nuclear, Nucleartourist.com. The 28 BRIDGE

and even though DOE did not, as mandated by law and by contract, open the high- level waste repository by 1998, the taxpayer obliga- tion for utilities remains. By 2020, this obligation is esti- mated to total $20.8 billion. By that time, most utilities will have built their own ISFSIs, for which the gov- ernment will have to pay under court decisions. Thus, the total liability to the gov- ernment from the unspent, but unavailable, fund and payments to utilities for failing to remove spent fuel FIGURE 8 Commercial dry used-fuel storage facilities. Source: NRC, 2012. from reactor sites comes to $49.1 billion (BRC, 2012). Another option would be to site an interim facil- ity on land at an existing federal facility that already Decommissioned Nuclear Plant Sites has the requisite security and infrastructure. DOE, for (Orphaned Waste) example, operates many national laboratories, and the Currently, 104 commercial nuclear reactors are oper- military has many bases across the country that might ating in the United States, and 14 have been perma- meet these requirements. nently shut down. Of the 14 facilities that have been In December 2008, DOE issued a report to Congress shut down, 4 are located at sites with other operating on the regulatory issues associated with the creation of reactors. The other 10 decommissioned reactors are a large, independent site for centralized interim storage located at 9 sites that have no operating reactors; and and concluded that it would take six years to complete all 9 of them have stranded spent fuel stored on site. such a facility—three years for licensing and three years Figure 9 shows the Yankee Atomic Nuclear Plant site for construction (DOE, 2008). Thus, 2015 is the earli- with the reactor gone and the spent fuel in the back- est date that operations could begin. However, given ground. As more reactors are shut down in the future, that the PFS facility took more than 10 years to obtain the number of stranded storage sites will increase con- a license and fight its way through legal battles, DOE’s siderably, raising the cost, not only for utilities, but also estimates are considered optimistic. If an existing site ultimately for U.S. taxpayers. were used, operations might begin sooner, but significant The marginal cost of storing spent fuel on a site with political and regulatory issues would have to be resolved. ongoing nuclear operations is relatively low, because most of the operations and maintenance costs for stor- Taxpayer Obligation age can be integrated with existing site operations with To cover the costs utilities have incurred in build- little additional overhead. However, at sites with no ing their own dry cask storage facilities, nuclear utilities current nuclear operations, the cost of spent fuel storage have been paying 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour for electric- is about $8 million dollars per year per site (Kadak and ity generated by nuclear plants. By the end of 2010, $16 Yost, 2010). Thus, the high cost of maintaining spent billion had been collected (BRC, 2012). When interest fuel on sites with no ongoing reactor operations is a pri- is added and expenditures are subtracted, a balance of mary economic incentive for consolidating spent fuel at $27 billion remains to fund repository development. a central facility or on sites with working reactors. Even though this money does not really exist, because One option would be to co-locate decommissioned it has been used to help fund the federal government, spent fuel at an existing decommissioned plant ISFSI SUMMER 2012 29

in a community willing to host spent fuel from other plants. The chances of success would depend on the willingness of the com- munity and state to accept such a solution. In addi- tion, this might be a near- term test case for finding volunteer sites in commu- nities that understand the issues related to spent fuel storage and past nuclear operations.

Transportation Regardless of how long spent fuel is stored, it will FIGURE 9 Decommissioned Yankee Atomic Electric Company site with ISFSI. Source: Yankee Atomic Electric Company. eventually have to be moved from the reactor sites either to offsite interim stor- age facilities, to used fuel processing facilities for recy- cling, or to a waste disposal site. Transportation regula- tions are largely focused on the integrity of the casks that contain the used fuel. These casks are designed to withstand a series of accidents without releasing radioactive materials. Figure 10 shows a full- scale crash test conducted by Sandia National Labo- FIGURE 10 Spent fuel crash test performed in 1977. A locomotive traveling at approximately 80 miles per hour crashed ratories in 1977. In this broadside into a used fuel transportation cask. The cask and the dummy fuel inside it performed in accordance with regulatory test, a locomotive traveling requirements. Source: http://www.sandia.gov/recordsmgmt/ctb1.html. at approximately 80 miles per hour crashed broadside into a used fuel transporta- 2009). Annual operating costs during loading are esti- tion cask. As Figure 10 shows, the cask and the dummy mated at $290 million per year, including the costs of fuel inside it performed in accordance with regulatory dual-purpose canisters and storage overpacks, which requirements. will provide shielding for the canisters once they are placed on the interim storage pads. Economics It will take 20 years to fully load an ISFSI of this size, The most recent capital-cost estimate for a central- and a period of “unloading” and eventual decommis- ized ISFSI of 40,000 MTHM is about $560 million; sioning will be necessary after storage. The interim this includes design, licensing, and construction of the period of “caretaking” is estimated to cost about $4 mil- storage pad, cask-handling systems, and rail infrastruc- lion per year, about half the caretaking costs of a decom- ture (locomotive, rail cars, transport casks, etc.) (EPRI, missioned reactor (Kadak and Yost, 2010). The 30 BRIDGE

Technical Basis for Long-Term Storage continue for operating sites, however, until DOE The length of time an interim storage facility will removes all of the spent fuel, as obligated by con- be used cannot be known, because there is no firm tracts with utilities. plan to build a repository or reprocessing plant. How- References ever, some have suggested that it could be as long as 300 years. Given that it might be a very long time, BRC (Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technology Review Board Future). 2012. Report to the Secretary of Energy. Avail- (NWTRB) was asked to assess the technology basis able online at http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ for long-term storage. brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf. Based on its assessment, the study board concluded DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. Report to Con- that the technical basis for the spent fuel currently gress on the Demonstration of the Interim Storage of Spent being discharged (high utilization, burnup fuels) is not Nuclear Fuel from Decommissioned Nuclear Power Reac- well established and that the possibility of degradation tor Sites. Available online at http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ mechanisms, such as hydriding, will require more study. ML0834/ML083450160.pdf. The NWTRB recommended periodic examinations of EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2009. Cost Esti- representative amounts of spent fuel to ensure that deg- mate for an Away-From-Reactor Generic Interim Storage radation mechanisms are not in evidence and to con- Facility (GISF) for Spent Nuclear Fuel. Technical Update firm the presence of the helium cover gas (NWTRB, 1018722. May 2009. Palo Alto, Calif.: EPRI. 2010). The industry and DOE have embarked on a EPRI. 2010. Used Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste research program to address these issues (EPRI, 2010). Extended Storage Collaboration Program. November 2009 Workshop Proceedings. Palo Alto, Calif.: EPRI. Conclusions Federal Register. 2009. 10 CFR Part 72 License and Cer- As a result of political decisions, spent fuel in the tificate of Compliance Terms. 74FR47126. September 15, United States will have to be stored either at reactor 2009. sites or in regional interim storage facilities. Given the Kadak, A.C, and K. Yost. 2010. Key Issues Associated with political difficulties of finding a state and community Interim Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel. MIT-NFC-TR-123. willing to host either an interim storage facility or a December. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of waste repository, predictions of success or timing can- Technology. not be made. Here is what we do know: National Research Council. 1990. Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal: A Position Statement of the 1. Storage at reactor sites will be necessary for a mini- Board on Radioactive Waste Management. Washington, mum of 10 more years. D.C.: National Academy Press. 2. According to NRC, spent fuel can be safely stored NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. A Pilot in dry casks for at least 60 years, and evidence may Probabilistic Risk Assessment of a Dry Cask System at a show that it can be stored for even longer. Nuclear Power Plant. NUREG-1864. Available online 3. Building an interim storage facility is currently not at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/ permitted by law. Therefore, legislative action will sr1864/sr1864.pdf. be necessary before such a storage facility can be NRC. 2008. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 72, considered. Energy: Licensing Requirements for the Independent Stor- 4. Once an interim facility has been identified and age of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive licensed, transportation to the site will require con- Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste. siderable additional time and investment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 5. Until DOE removes the spent fuel from operating Office of Federal Register National Archives and Records and decommissioned sites, the cost to taxpayers for Administration, as amended June 9, 2008 (10 CFR 72). the government’s failure to build a repository will NRC. 2012. Locations of Independent Spent Fuel Storage continue to grow. Installations. Available online at http://www.nrc.gov/waste/ 6. The top priority for ending this costly financial spent-fuel-storage/locations.html. obligation completely is to remove spent fuel NWPA (Nuclear Waste Policy Act). 1983. Nuclear Waste from decommissioned sites. The obligation would Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101, P.L. 97-425; Nuclear SUMMER 2012 31

Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987. Available online NWTRB (Nuclear Waste Technology Review Board). 2010. at http://epw.senate.gov/nwpa82.pdf. Evaluation of the Technical Basis for Extended Dry NWPA (Nuclear Waste Policy Act as Amended) 1987. P.L. Storage and Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel. 100-203-December 22, 1987, Part E: Nuclear Waste Tech- December. Available online at http://www.nwtrb.gov/ nical Review Board. Available online at http://www.nwtrb. reports/eds_rpt.pdf. gov/mission/1987aa.pdf. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must balance its preparations for policy changes with the safe, secure operation of existing facilities, the availability of resources, and the constraints of current law.

Emerging Regulatory Challenges in the Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

James Rubenstone

Under the current structure for the management of commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF)1 in the United States, the licensee is responsible for its safe and secure storage and transportation. The U.S. Nuclear Regu- latory Commission (NRC) ensures safety and security through licensing and regulatory oversight. NRC also has regulatory authority over the dis- posal of SNF and other types of high-level radioactive waste (HLW)2 in a James Rubenstone is chief of the geologic repository. Science and Technology Branch, NRC’s authority to regulate SNF and HLW derives from federal law, Division of Spent Fuel Alternative including the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in 1987. NRC Strategies, Office of Nuclear Material implements its regulatory authority through regulation, guidance, inspec- Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear tion, orders, enforcement, and other oversight actions. Regulatory Commission. Because of recent policy decisions, the U.S. program for future man- agement of SNF and other HLW is undergoing a transition. Until a new national policy emerges, NRC is continuing to carry out its primary mission

1 NRC uses the term “spent nuclear fuel” (SNF) to refer to irradiated reactor fuel that has been removed from service and has not been chemically separated. Some other groups use the term “used fuel” when referring to the same material. 2 The term “high-level radioactive waste” (HLW), as used by NRC, covers a broader category than SNF. HLW includes highly radioactive material that results from spent fuel reprocessing, as well as other materials with enough long-lived radioactivity to require permanent isolation. Distinctions among the details and history of radioactive waste classification are not addressed in this article. SUMMER 2012 33

of ensuring the “safe use of radioactive materials for ben- inner canisters, under water in the spent fuel pool. eficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the Assemblies identified as damaged (a small fraction of environment.” At the same time, NRC staff is work- the total) are loaded in specially designed damaged-fuel ing to prepare itself to fulfill its role in the new national cans that provide additional containment. Canisters policy for managing SNF and other HLWs, specifically are subsequently dried, backfilled with inert gas, and in the areas of licensing and regulation of the back end sealed, either by welding or with bolted metal-seal lids. of the nuclear fuel cycle. Licensed designs include both integrated and modular systems with horizontal or vertical orientations. Current Regulatory Framework About 20 different dry storage system designs (includ- Most commercial SNF in the United States is owned ing variations) from three principal vendors have been by the utility that produced it and is stored—either certified by NRC and are in use in the United States underwater in spent fuel pools or in dry-cask systems— (NRC, 2011a). Dry storage systems are designed and on the sites of operating and decommissioned nuclear built by vendors following design criteria in 10 CFR power plants. NRC regulation of wet storage at nuclear Part 72 to perform specific safety functions, including power plant sites falls within the operating license for confinement of radioactive material, radiation shield- each reactor issued under the regulations in Title 10 of ing, control of criticality, removal of decay heat, and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50. maintenance of structural integrity. The design criteria Most reactor facilities were not designed to store the also address maintaining the retrievability capability full amount of SNF that the reactor generates over its of SNF in storage (10 CFR 72.122(l)). Staff guidance operational life. Therefore, as pools reach their storage describes retrievability as the ability to handle individ- capacity, the power plants generally move SNF into dry ual or canned4 spent fuel assemblies by normal means storage, usually on site. Dry storage facilities, on sites (NRC, 2010a). of active and decommissioned nuclear power plants, are referred to as independent spent fuel storage installa- tions (ISFSIs) and are licensed under 10 CFR Part 72. About 20 different dry Regulating Storage Systems storage system designs from The regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 apply to both facilities where SNF is stored and the certification of three principal vendors have the cask systems used for dry storage. Licenses and cer- been certified by NRC for use tificates are issued for fixed terms and can be renewed for additional fixed terms. Most existing ISFSIs were in the United States. licensed for an initial period of 20 years. NRC has recently revised 10 CFR Part 72 so that the initial and renewal licenses may now be issued for terms of up to Regulating Transport 40 years. NRC’s principal role in regulating transportation of The regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 do not limit the SNF and HLW is through certification of transporta- number of renewals of an ISFSI license or storage system tion packages, as provided in 10 CFR Part 71. Ship- certificates. Aging management3 for SNF must include ments of radioactive and other hazardous materials are potential degradation processes and other effects of also subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of aging, as well as maintenance, inspection, and moni- Transportation. toring, all of which are important factors in license- Criteria for SNF transportation casks include simi- renewal decisions. lar safety functions as for storage. Transportation casks Dry storage systems consist basically of stainless steel are further evaluated for performance under severe inner canisters with concrete and steel outer struc- accident conditions (such as impacts, fires, and full tures. Intact SNF assemblies are loaded directly into immersion in water). Both truck and rail casks for

3 “Aging management” refers to all actions that address the effects of 4 “Canned” assemblies are those that have been placed in damaged-fuel aging, including prevention, mitigation, and monitoring. cans prior to dry storage. The 34 BRIDGE transporting SNF have been certified by NRC, includ- dose standard, and a groundwater protection standard. ing some dual-certified storage-transportation designs. The regulations in Part 60 implement the EPA release NRC has published a number of technical reports and standard, in part through criteria for release by various public information documents on the safety of SNF subsystem components of the barrier system (e.g., waste transportation (e.g., NRC, 1977, 2003a, 2012a; Sprung package, groundwater path). NRC has not applied et al., 2000). 10 CFR Part 60 to any disposal facility, as national policy has focused on a single site for a repository. Security Requirements The regulations in 10 CFR Part 63 involve a more Security requirements for SNF storage and transpor- risk-informed, performance-based approach to evalu- tation include both physical protection (10 CFR Part ating a geologic repository. These regulations specify 73) and material control and accounting (10 CFR Part an explicit role for performance assessment models in 74). NRC is currently revising 10 CFR Part 73 require- demonstrating compliance and include requirements ments that pertain to storage of SNF (NRC, 2009). Any for such models. The regulations in Part 63 implement additional revisions to security regulations that may be EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 197 for post-closure per- needed to address extended storage and transportation formance, which address individual protection, human will be considered when the current rulemaking for intrusion, and groundwater protection, but do not 10 CFR Part 73 is complete, or as new needs for storage include a cumulative release standard for post-closure. and disposal are identified. NRC staff’s review plan for applying Part 63 (NRC, 2003b) provides further guidance on the regulatory Regulating Disposal requirements. NRC staff experience in using this reg- NRC has regulatory authority over the disposal ulation and guidance is captured in one volume of a of commercial SNF and HLW. Currently two sets of safety evaluation report for the Yucca Mountain license NRC regulations apply to this area. Disposal of SNF application (NRC, 2010b) and three technical evalua- and HLW in geologic repositories, in a generic sense, tion reports (NRC, 2011b,c,d). is governed by 10 CFR Part 60. Regulations specific In issuing 10 CFR Part 63, NRC acknowledged that to geologic disposal in a repository at Yucca Mountain, this more risk-informed, performance-based approach Nevada, are in 10 CFR Part 63. In each case, the NRC provides a better regulatory framework for geologic dis- regulation implements standards set by the Environ- posal of HLW and SNF than the approach in 10 CFR mental Protection Agency (EPA). Although these two Part 60. At that time, NRC stated that the “generic sets of NRC regulations and EPA standards have some Part 60 requirements will need updating if applied to common features, they also differ in several respects. sites other than Yucca Mountain” (NRC, 2001). NRC has not yet begun rulemaking to effect this update.

State of the U.S. Program Nearly one-third of spent Current U.S. inventories of commercial SNF are on fuel is in dry storage at 63 the order of 65,000 metric tons (heavy metal equiva- lent), and are increasing by ~2,000 metric tons per licensed sites, and almost all year from an operating fleet of 104 light-water reac- tors. Nearly one-third of this material is now in dry of it is owned by the utilities storage at 63 licensed sites (NRC, 2011a), and almost that produced it. all of it is owned by the power utilities that produced it. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires that the federal government, through the U.S. Department of The generic HLW disposal regulations in 10 CFR Part Energy (DOE), take possession and permanently dis- 60, first issued in 1983, implement EPA standards in pose of SNF used for commercial power generation in 40 CFR Part 191. These regulations and standards pro- the United States. vide for the evaluation of the long-term performance of a The United States does not currently have an active repository, after permanent closure of the facility, against program for reprocessing commercial SNF to produce a cumulative release standard, an individual protection new reactor fuel, although some interest has been SUMMER 2012 35

expressed in developing commercial reprocessing. DOE safe and secure operation of existing facilities, the avail- has possession of the HLW generated from prior U.S. ability of resources, and the constraints of current law. reprocessing of commercial fuel, in addition to a larger NRC recognized the possibility of extended storage inventory of HLW from its environmental management of SNF in the recent update of its Waste Confidence activities at defense sites. The proposed repository at Decision (NRC, 2010c). The term “waste confidence” Yucca Mountain was designated to dispose of 7,000 refers to NRC’s finding of “reasonable assurance” that metric tons (heavy metal equivalent) of DOE-owned sufficient disposal capacity will be available for com- HLW and spent fuel along with 63,000 metric tons of mercial SNF and HLW and that storage can be man- commercial SNF. aged safely and securely, under NRC regulation, in In 2009, President Obama announced that the pro- the interim. The current Waste Confidence Decision, posed repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was which includes five separate findings that support these “no longer considered a workable option” for disposal conclusions, is embodied in NRC regulation 10 CFR of SNF and HLW. The following year, DOE sought 51.23 as a generic determination that temporary stor- to withdraw from consideration its application to con- age of SNF after cessation of reactor operation has no struct a repository at Yucca Mountain, which had been significant environmental impact. The current update under review by the NRC since 2008. NRC suspended (2010) of the Waste Confidence Decision made this its review and licensing process in 2011, when no fur- determination for at least 60 years beyond the licensed ther funds were appropriated for this purpose. DOE life of reactor operation. and NRC actions on the Yucca Mountain proceedings have been challenged in federal court, but a decision is still pending. In 2010, the Secretary of Energy established an advi- The current regulatory sory body to DOE, the Blue Ribbon Commission on framework may need America’s Nuclear Future (BRC), to conduct a compre- hensive review of policies for managing the back end of revisions to accommodate the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States. In its final report, the BRC reaffirmed the need for geologic disposal extended periods of storage of HLW, while acknowledging that one outcome of cur- and transportation rent U.S. policy is the expectation that SNF will have to be stored for extended periods of time (BRC, 2012). of older spent fuel. Several of the BRC’s formal recommendations could directly affect NRC’s regulatory role. The next sec- tion focuses on how these recommendations align with NRC staff’s efforts related to the back end of the fuel NRC’s current activities and potential future plans. cycle are focused on extended storage and subsequent transportation of commercial SNF, geologic disposal The Changing Policy Environment alternatives, and assessment of potential environmen- NRC has directed its staff to prepare for potential tal impacts of an extended Waste Confidence Decision. changes in national policy on the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and the management of commercial Extended Storage and Transportation of SNF and HLW. It is important to note that, as an inde- Spent Nuclear Fuel pendent regulator, NRC does not develop national pol- NRC staff has been looking into the possibility that icy for the nuclear fuel cycle. That role clearly belongs the current regulatory framework will need revisions to Congress and the Executive Branch. to accommodate extended periods of SNF storage and Nevertheless, NRC can be prepared to respond to the subsequent transportation of older spent fuel. As policy changes by adjusting its regulatory framework, previously noted, current storage regulations allow for in keeping with its mission to ensure the safe use of multiple renewals of ISFSI licenses and cask certifi- radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes. cates. Such renewals include reviews of aging manage- Of course, NRC must also balance its preparation for ment plans, with a focus on the degradation of system timely response with competing priorities for continued components over time. Initial staff efforts have focused The 36 BRIDGE on identifying necessary technical information related decreases, these models may over-predict temperatures to degradation processes of various components of dry both inside and on the exterior of the storage canister. storage systems. The model bias noted above may be problematic, The NRC staff is considering both the existing because other degradation processes will potentially level of knowledge for degradation processes in storage come into effect at the lower temperatures expected applications and how degradation may affect the safety during extended storage. These processes include the of both storage and subsequent transport. This work susceptibility of stainless steel canisters to stress cor- draws on previous technical evaluations of extended rosion cracking in the presence of chloride salts and storage (EPRI, 2011; Hanson et al., 2012; NWTRB, atmospheric moisture and possible low-temperature 2010; Sindelar et al., 2011) and is informed by staff ductile-to-brittle transitions in fuel cladding. More experience with current licensing and understanding realistic thermal models could help determine the of risk (NRC, 2007). potential impacts of these processes. NRC has begun technical work on this and several other high-priority areas to provide bases for potential changes in stor- NRC staff is examining age and transportation regulations and guidance over extended periods of time. technical areas potentially NRC staff is also monitoring work by other groups, both in the United States and worldwide, that are relevant to alternative examining technical issues related to extended storage of SNF. For example, the Electric Power Research Insti- disposal options in mined tute has established the Extended Storage Collaboration geologic repositories. Program (ESCP), which coordinates work by different organizations in the United States (including DOE and industry) and other countries on technical issues related The NRC staff draft report (NRC, 2012b) prioritizes to extended storage (EPRI, 2011). the technical needs and identifies those that should be Among other topics, ESCP has been active in early addressed first. The highest priority areas include stress planning for a possible cask demonstration project, in corrosion cracking of stainless steel canister bodies and which pre-characterized spent fuel assemblies would be welds, degradation of cask bolts, and swelling or pres- stored for some period (10 to 15 or more years) in a well- surization of fuel pellets and rods over time. Areas of instrumented, monitored cask. Fuel assemblies would slightly lower priority include effects of aging on fuel then be removed for post-storage characterization to cladding, assembly hardware, and neutron absorbers; benchmark and verify models and expectations of fuel microbiologically influenced corrosion of canister and behavior over longer periods of time. There is particular seal materials; and degradation of concrete structures. interest in monitoring a cask containing high-burnup5 Depending on the initiation time and rate of progres- fuel as a complement to an earlier examination of dry- sion of degradation, many of these age-related processes stored, low-burnup fuel (e.g., Kimball and Billone, 2002). may not be significant until far into an extended stor- NRC activities related to extended storage are con- age period. sistent with conclusions and recommendations of the The NRC staff draft report also identified three high- BRC report on the likely need for SNF storage over a priority areas as cross-cutting topics that affect a number longer time as efforts proceed to site and develop facili- of components and safety functions: more realistic ther- ties for geologic disposal. The BRC report also recom- mal calculation models; the effects of residual moisture mends siting and establishment of consolidated storage after drying; and in-service methods of monitoring stor- facilities as an interim step. Current NRC regulations age systems and components. allow for the licensing of privately operated, away-from- Thermal evaluations for current SNF storage appli- reactor storage facilities for SNF from multiple power cations, for example, focus on the maximum tempera- ture the fuel cladding may reach, based on models with 5 conservative assumptions that provide upper tempera- The term “high-burnup fuel” generally applies to spent fuel that has been irradiated in a reactor to a power output of greater than ture bounds. During extended storage, as decay heat 45 gigawatt-days per metric ton of uranium. SUMMER 2012 37

FIGURE 1 Structure of the SOAR model. Source: Adapted from Markley et al., 2011. plants (for example, the Private Fuel Storage Facility design (GoldSim Technology Group, 2010). A full licensed in 2006). description of SOAR can be found in the User Guide for version 1.0 (Markley et al., 2011). Geologic Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and The general structure of the SOAR model includes High-Level Waste five principal component modules (Figure 1). The main NRC has not begun formal rulemaking proceedings components are Waste Form, Waste Package, Near for revising any regulations for geologic disposal of SNF Field environment (engineered and disturbed zones), and HLW. However, NRC staff is examining technical Far Field environment (natural system), and Biosphere. areas potentially relevant to alternative disposal options A secondary component, Disruptive Events, comple- in mined geologic repositories. To this end, the staff has ments the Waste Package component (which focuses developed a scoping-level assessment model to investi- mostly on failure caused by corrosion) for modeling gate how different aspects of the geologic environment other processes that could cause waste packages to fail and waste characteristics may affect potential repository (such as earthquakes). performance. SOAR provides insights into comparative risks for The model, referred to as SOAR (for Scoping of different potential repository systems. Even though Options and Analysis of Risks), is based on relatively its process models are relatively abstracted (i.e., neces- simple or generic representations of features, events, sarily simplified representations of complex processes), and processes (FEPS) for a conceptual repository system. these insights help to focus technical work on relevant In the model, FEPS are parameterized to consider the performance aspects of alternative repository designs characteristics of a variety of alternative waste forms; and waste inventories. Technical investigations are engineered barrier materials; and geologic, hydrologic, designed to lay the groundwork for potential revisions and geochemical settings. Uncertainties in parameters of regulations for geologic disposal, as may be required that could potentially affect radionuclide release and by future changes in national policy. receptor dose can be evaluated through the stochastic In the BRC report, the study commission explicitly sampling of parameter values. recommends that NRC begin revising 10 CFR Part 60 SOAR is implemented in a visual-based software and engage with EPA to develop a new disposal stan- environment that allows flexibility and modular model dard to support those revisions. As previously noted, The 38 BRIDGE

NRC is focusing on developing technical information approach to understanding the implications of future to support potential rulemaking but has not begun the directions in the fuel cycle. formal rulemaking process. The BRC report also recommends that work begin Conclusion on a regulatory framework for deep borehole disposal In preparation for possible changes in U.S. national (e.g., Arnold et al., 2011), which is beyond the scope policy affecting the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle of existing law and NRC regulations for HLW disposal in response to the BRC recommendations, NRC staff and would require the development of an appropriate is examining the regulatory basis for extended storage, technical basis and rulemaking. NRC staff has done subsequent transportation, and geologic disposal of SNF only limited work in this area thus far but is monitoring and HLW. Technical investigations by NRC staff and technical investigations by other groups on potential other groups will contribute to a basis for any neces- deep borehole disposal. sary revision to existing regulations, whether driven by new information or changes in national policy. NRC’s Potential Environmental Impacts of efforts are generally consistent with the recommenda- Future Fuel Cycle Scenarios tions of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s In conjunction with the most recent update of the Nuclear Future. Waste Confidence Decision and rule (NRC, 2010c), NRC directed its staff to conduct a comprehensive Acknowledgments analysis of potential future impacts on the environ- The author thanks T. McCartin, B. Hill, K. Comp- ment of extended storage and transportation in a formal ton, R. Einziger, C. Markley, C. Pineda, D. Dunn, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The staff was A. Mohseni, and L. Kokajko of the NRC staff for directed to assess the potential impacts of longer term thoughtful insights, discussion, and support. The views storage of SNF to inform a possible extension by NRC expressed herein are those of the author and do not con- of the time specified in the Waste Confidence rule. stitute a final judgment or determination of the matters To this end, NRC staff developed preliminary addressed or of the acceptability of any licensing action assumptions and proposed a scenario-based approach that may be under consideration by the U.S. Nuclear to assessing potential environmental impacts beyond Regulatory Commission. Use of commercial products the time period in the current Waste Confidence rule or trade names does not constitute endorsement by the (NRC, 2011e). The scenarios are designed to capture U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. credible variations in how the fuel cycle might develop and are not intended to endorse a particular position References or approach. The four proposed scenarios include Arnold, B.W., P.V. Brady, S.J. Bauer, S. Pye, C. Herrick, and extended storage at different locations (on site and at J. Finger. 2011. Reference Design and Operations for one or more consolidated sites), along with possible Deep Borehole Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste. commercial SNF reprocessing. Each scenario involves SAND2011-6749. Albuquerque, N.M.: Sandia National some transport of SNF and HLW as well as the hand­ Laboratories. ling and repackaging of SNF. All four scenarios end BRC (Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear with disposal in a geologic repository. NRC staff is now Future). 2012. Report to the Secretary of Energy. Wash- developing relatively high-level system models for the ington, D.C.: BRC. Available online at http://brc.gov/sites/ back end of the fuel cycle to help explore the impacts default/files/documents/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf. of the four scenarios in the EIS. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2011. Extended Although the BRC report does not specifically rec- Storage Collaboration Program (ESCP)—Progress Report ommend an environmental impact analysis, NRC staff and Review of Gap Analyses. Technical Report 1022914. efforts related to the EIS touch on several specific ele- Palo Alto, Calif.: EPRI. ments in the proposed BRC approach, including con- GoldSim Technology Group LLC. 2010. GoldSim Proba- solidated (interim) storage, preparations for large-scale bilistic Simulation Environment User’s Guide. Issaquah, transport, and potential reprocessing of SNF. Because Wash.: GoldSim Technology Group LLC. an EIS covers a broad range of environmental impacts, Hanson, B., H. Alsaed, C. Stockman, D. Enos, R. Meyer, and NRC staff considers its efforts part of a comprehensive K. Sorenson. 2012. Gap Analysis to Support Extended SUMMER 2012 39

Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel. PNNL–20509. Rev. 0. NRC. 2011a. Information Digest, NUREG-1350, Volume Richland, Wash.: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 23. Washington, D.C.: NRC. Kimball, C., and M. Billone. 2002. Dry Cask Storage Char- NRC. 2011b. Technical Evaluation Report on the Content acterization Project. EPRI Report 1002882. Palo Alto, of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Repos- California: EPRI. itory License Application, Postclosure Volume: Repository Markley, C., O. Pensado, J. Gwo, J. Winterle, T. Ahn, R. Safety After Permanent Closure, NUREG-2107. Washing- Benke, T. Cao, H. Gonzalez, A. Gray, X. He, R. Janetzke, ton, D.C.: NRC. H. Jung, G. Oberson, P. Shukla, T. Sippel, S. Stothoff, and NRC. 2011c. Technical Evaluation Report on the Content L. Tipton. 2011. SOAR: A Model for Scoping of Options of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Repos- and Analyzing Risk, Version 1.0. Washington, D.C.: U.S. itory License Application, Preclosure Volume: Repository Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Safety Before Permanent Closure, NUREG-2108. Wash- NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977. Final ington, D.C.: NRC. Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radio- NRC. 2011d. Technical Evaluation Report on the Content active Material by Air and Other Modes, NUREG-0170. of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Repos- Washington, D.C.: NRC. itory License Application, Administrative and Program- NRC. 2001. Statements of Consideration for 10 CFR Part matic Volume, NUREG-2109. Washington, D.C.: NRC. 63, Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste in a Pro- NRC. 2011e. Background and Preliminary Assumptions for posed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. an Environmental Impact Statement—Long-Term Waste Federal Register 66, 55732-55786, November 2, 2001. Confidence Update. Washington, D.C.: NRC. NRC. 2003a. Safety of Spent Fuel Transportation, NUREG/ NRC. 2012a. Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment: BR-0292. Washington, D.C.: NRC. Draft Report for Comment, NUREG-2125. Washington, NRC. 2003b. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, NUREG-1804, D.C.: NRC. rev.2. Washington, D.C.: NRC. NRC. 2012b. Identification and Prioritization of the Tech- NRC. 2007. A Pilot Probabilistic Risk Assessment of nical Information Needs Affecting Potential Regulation a Dry Cask Storage System at a Nuclear Power Plant, of Extended Storage and Transportation of Spent Nucle- NUREG-1864. Washington, D.C.: NRC. ar Fuel: Draft Report for Comment. Washington, D.C.: NRC. 2009. Draft Technical Basis for Rulemaking Revis- NRC. ing Security Requirements for Facilities Storing SNF and NWTRB (Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board). 2010. HLW; Notice of Availability and Solicitation of Public Evaluation of the Technical Basis for Extended Dry Stor- Comments. Federal Register 74, 66589, December 16, age and Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel. Arlington, 2009. Va.: NWTRB. NRC. 2010a. Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Stor- Sindelar, R.L., A.J. Duncan, M.E. Dupont, P.-S. Lam, M.R. age Systems at a General License Facility—Final Report, Louthan Jr., and T.E. Skidmore. 2011. Materials Aging NUREG-1536. Washington, D.C.: NRC. Issues and Aging Management for Extended Storage and NRC. 2010b. Safety Evaluation Report Related to Disposal Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel, NUREG/CR-7116. of High-level Radioactive Waste in a Geologic Repository Washington, D.C.: NRC. at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, NUREG-1949, Volume 1: Sprung, J.L, D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. General Information. Washington, D.C.: NRC. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills, K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Rad- NRC. 2010c. Consideration of Environmental Impacts of loff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Re-Exam- Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reac- ination of Spent Fuel Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672. tor Operation, and Waste Confidence Decision Update. Albuquerque, N.M.: Sandia National Laboratories. Federal Register 75, 81032-81076, December 23, 1010. The debate over managing high-level radioactive waste is really about extending proven technology and successful practices.

Industry’s Safety Record and the Blue Ribbon Recommendations The Way Ahead for the Management of Used Nuclear Fuel

Marvin S. Fertel

Nuclear power plants are valuable producers of electricity that do not cause harm to the environment by discharging greenhouse gases or other regulated air pollutants into the atmosphere. In addition, nuclear energy is unique among major sources of electricity in that its primary by-products— used uranium fuel rods—remain safely contained on the sites where they have been used in nuclear reactors. Marvin S. Fertel is president and Nevertheless, the question of how the nuclear industry manages its highly chief executive officer, Nuclear radioactive used fuel rods is perceived to be extremely difficult, a problem Energy Institute. yet to be solved. Despite the significant environmental benefits of nuclear electricity, public concerns about the management of high-level radioactive waste abound, based largely on a lack of information about the nature of these materials and the care with which they are managed. In January 2012, President Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Amer- ica’s Nuclear Future (BRC) completed nearly two years of deliberations on this very question. The commission’s recommendations provide a sound policy for moving forward (BRC, 2012), even though a policy is, in fact, already well established. The current policy includes proven technical solutions to the safe management of used fuel elements and the storage of used reactor fuel at plant sites. Strict licensing requirements and oversight of used fuel facilities by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provide another layer of protection for public safety and the environment. SUMMER 2012 41

Nevertheless, over the long term, consolidated storage, followed by ultimate disposal or advanced treatment of the fuel, would be preferable to the present policy.

The Nature of Used Nuclear Fuel When considering policy approaches to managing used nuclear fuel, it is important to understand the physical nature of the material. To generate electricity, nuclear energy facilities use small, ceramic, uranium- oxide pellets as fuel. These pellets (about the size of a fingertip) are loaded into long, thin metal fuel rods, which are then grouped into bundles called fuel assem- blies. A typical fuel assembly is about 12 feet long (Fig- ure 1). Inside the reactor, uranium atoms in the pellets split in a process known as fission. The heat generated from this process is used to produce steam, which drives the turbines that produce electricity. Over time, fissionable uranium in the fuel is con- sumed, and the radioactive by-products of the fission process accumulate inside the rods. Every 18 to 24 months, the reactor is shut down, and as much as one- FIGURE 1 Uranium fuel at nuclear energy facilities is made of small ceramic pellets third of the uranium fuel—the oldest fuel assemblies— sealed into long, vertical metal alloy tubes. These tubes, the first of many layers is removed and replaced (Figure 2). of protection against radiation release, are grouped together in fuel assemblies. The used fuel assemblies are highly radioactive and will remain that way for several thousand years while the natural process of radioactive decay takes place. Nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes contain elements that present a potential radiation haz- ard to the public and environment if not handled prop- erly. However, this hazard diminishes over time, often declining significantly in the first few hundred years and thereafter much more gradually. Throughout the decay process, the used fuel remains solid, compact, and relatively small in volume. All of the used fuel rods from 50 years of electricity production by America’s nuclear energy facilities could be stacked seven yards deep on one football field.

Safeguarding and Disposing of Used Nuclear Fuel The primary question for policy makers is determin- ing the best way for the federal government to safe- guard and dispose of used nuclear fuel. There are two parts to this question: (1) steps that must be taken by industry now to protect the environment from radio- active materials in the fuel and (2) steps that must be taken by future generations to safeguard the materials, FIGURE 2 During refueling operations at nuclear energy facilities, older fuel assem- which will remain highly radioactive for thousands blies are removed from the reactor and transferred underwater to a steel-lined of years. concrete pool for safe storage. The 42 BRIDGE

Answers to both parts of the question are well known. government would remove the cooler assemblies for Protection for the near term and foreseeable future is transportation either directly to a geologic repository for provided by storage pools and dry-container storage disposal or to a reprocessing or recycling facility where technology. Protection in the distant future will be the radioactive by-products would be separated from provided by a geologic repository. Over the past several reusable constituents prior to disposal. decades, much of the debate about used nuclear fuel has However, in the 1980s, it became apparent that the centered on the question of where a future repository U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) disposal pro- will be located, rather than on the viability and safety gram was well behind schedule and that this commit- of accepted storage and disposal methods. ment would not be met before the pools reached their maximum storage capacity. This was true even though Used Fuel Storage Systems companies had expanded capacity by modifying storage Storage Pools racks in the pools. There are three primary safety considerations for Dry Storage Container Systems managing used nuclear fuel: (1) radiation protection and containment; (2) ensuring that fuel assemblies do The challenge of providing more capacity was met not overheat; and (3) preventing an unintended nuclear through the development of dry storage container tech- chain reaction (a “criticality accident”). nology, which has extended safe storage capacity at When used fuel is first removed from a reactor, the commercial reactor sites beyond the estimated operat- used fuel assemblies are placed in steel-lined, concrete ing period of the reactors. The first dry-container stor- pools of water inside the power plant structures. The age systems were placed in service at the Surry Nuclear depth of the water is typically maintained at about Power Station in Virginia in 1986 (GTS, 2012). These 20 feet above the top of the fuel assemblies to provide above-ground systems—like the steel-lined pools— radiation shielding for people working directly above incorporate safety features to protect public health. the enclosed pool. The foremost safety feature is the extremely rugged This volume of water, in combination with heat containers, which are made of steel, steel-reinforced exchangers through which the water is circulated, also concrete, or steel-enclosed concrete 18 or more inches keeps the fuel cool, thus preventing damage to the fuel thick—all materials that have been proven to be effec- assemblies from overheating. Finally, the racks in which tive radiation shields. A typical container is about the fuel is placed at the bottom of the pools are specially 20 feet tall and 11 feet in diameter and weighs more engineered and configured to preclude the possibility of than 360,000 pounds when fully loaded. The mak- nuclear criticality. ers of dry-container systems design and test them to These steel-lined concrete pools are extremely robust and are designed to protect the fuel under even the most severe conditions—a design philosophy that proved itself in extraordinary fashion during the 2011 earth- quake and tsunami at Fukushima Daiichi, Japan. There were seven used fuel pools at the Daiichi site, contain- ing approximately 10,000 used fuel assemblies (TEPCO, 2010). All of the pools maintained their integrity and protected the fuel assemblies throughout the event, even though some of them were located in reactor buildings that suffered catastrophic damage from hydrogen explo- sions associated with the reactor accidents (Figure 3). The heat load associated with reactor fuel drops dra- matically over time. After about five years in storage, FIGURE 3 The robust construction of steel-lined concrete storage pools protected used fuel has cooled enough for it to be removed from used uranium fuel rods even though hydrogen explosions ripped through the sec- the pools. In the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. commercial ondary containment buildings at three reactors at Fukushima Daiichi. Source: reactors were designed with pools that had limited Tokyo Electric Power Company. Available online at http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/ storage capacity under the assumption that the federal news/library/movie-01e.html. SUMMER 2012 43

ensure that they prevent the release of radioactiv- ity even under extreme conditions—such as earth- quakes, tornadoes, hurri- canes, floods, and sabotage. At the Fukushima Dai- ichi site when the earth- quake and tsunami struck, there were nine loaded dry-cask systems, contain- ing approximately 400 used fuel assemblies. None of the containers was damaged (TEPCO, 2010). The containers and their FIGURE 4 As used fuel storage pools reach capacity, energy companies are moving used uranium fuel rods to dry container storage for long-term storage at reactor sites. enclosures, which involve no moving parts, dissipate heat given off by the used fuel NRC regulations were amended to provide for a assemblies through natural circulation cooling. The 40-year license, with an option for a 40-year renewal containers are sealed and tested for leakage to a high (NRC, 2011). standard to ensure that the used fuel assemblies are main- In 2010, NRC stated that used fuel generated at any tained in a benign inert-gas environment. The internal reactor “can be stored safely and without significant structures inside the containers are engineered with the environmental impacts for at least 60 years beyond the same precision as the racks in the pools to ensure that licensed life for operation.” Given that 70 percent of no unintended nuclear criticality can occur (Figure 4). U.S. reactors are already licensed for operation for up to Dry-storage containers can hold 24 to 87 used fuel 60 years, NRC has expressed confidence that it is safe to assemblies—depending on the specific fuel type and the store used nuclear fuel at reactor sites for as long as 120 container design. To date, more than 1,500 dry casks years—even though it is unlikely that fuel will remain have been loaded at 56 reactor sites in 30 states in the at a site for that long (NRC, 2010). United States. Of the approximately 237,000 fuel rod When dry-container storage systems were originally assemblies that have been discharged from commer- loaded, it was not intended that they would remain cial reactors during the U.S. industry’s 50-year history, at reactor sites indefinitely. In fact, 75 percent of the approximately 65,000 have been removed from pools containers in service today were specifically designed to and loaded into dry-container systems. About 6,500 be transportable, as are new systems that will be loaded assemblies are loaded into 150 containers each year. in the future. Storage systems that were not originally By 2020, more than 2,600 dry storage systems will have designed for transport would either have to be modi- been loaded at 75 locations in 33 states (GTS, 2012). fied to make them transportable or unloaded at reactor sites where the used fuel could be transferred to a trans- Industry’s Safety Record portable system. In the latter case, the inner canisters, The storage systems described above have a stellar which hold the fuel rods, would be removed from the safety record, and no harmful radioactivity has been storage package and transferred to transportation pack- released to the environment. The industry’s commit- ages designed to provide the same high level of protec- ment to safety has been recognized by NRC, which tion during shipment. oversees the operation of U.S. nuclear energy facilities. NRC’s regulations originally called for dry-container Transport for Interim Storage or Reprocessing storage systems to be licensed for 20 years, with an Although the specific location to which containers option for a 20-year renewal. Considering the exten- will be shipped is not yet known, the types of facilities sive experience that has been gained since the first that will be needed at the other end are well under- dry-container systems were put into service, in 2011 stood. A strong, long-standing international scientific The 44 BRIDGE consensus supports disposal of nuclear waste in a geo- are vital components of an integrated approach to logic repository as the ultimate, permanent solution. managing used nuclear fuel. However, it should be In addition, many experts believe there is a benefit to noted that the dry-container storage systems in use recycling used fuel to separate the radioactive by-prod- today will also be an important component of the per- ucts from reusable constituents prior to disposal; this is manent solution. already being done in the United Kingdom and France. Transporting used fuel away from reactor sites to con- Dual-Purpose and Transportation, Aging, solidated storage locations for longer term storage prior and Disposal Containers to disposal or recycling is under consideration in the In 2008, while DOE was studying a potential geologic United States. In fact, a U.S. Senate subcommittee repository at Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nevada, in April approved a fiscal year 2013 budget for DOE scientists developing the repository and industry design- that included language supporting consolidation of used ers of dry-container storage systems collaborated to nuclear fuel at one or more storage sites. develop a storage system design that could be both transported to and disposed of in the repository (DOE, 2008). This system—known as a transportation, aging, About 86 percent of and disposal (TAD) container—was under licensing review by NRC when the Yucca Mountain project was Americans believe that the terminated in 2010 for policy, not technical reasons. Although work on TAD containers was never com- nuclear energy industry pleted, the program demonstrated the utility of a sys- tem by which radioactive by-products in used fuel should develop recycling could be packaged, in reactor pools, in containers that technology to take advantage would never have to be reopened. At the same time, the industry sought to qualify dual-purpose systems that of the energy that remains in were already loaded for disposal in Yucca Mountain. Based on substantial technical analysis (EPRI, 2008), uranium fuel rods that have the nuclear energy industry filed contentions in the been removed from reactors. Yucca Mountain licensing process seeking to amend the repository license to allow for the disposal of fuel loaded in dual-purpose systems. According to a survey by Bisconti Research Inc./ Although the Yucca Mountain project was terminated GfK Roper in February 2012, 64 percent of Americans by the Obama administration before the potential of believe that storing used nuclear fuel at reactor sites is disposable dry-storage containers could be realized, it is safe, but three-quarters of U.S. adults surveyed agreed possible that the next effort to design a repository could that it would be preferable to store used nuclear fuel at capitalize on this potential. If direct disposal of dry- one or two consolidated storage facilities. The public container storage systems were pursued, it would mean was evenly split on whether the government’s nuclear that one element of the infrastructure for permanent fuel management program should be managed by a isolation of radioactive by-products of nuclear energy is corporate-style board of directors or a federal agency. already in use today. However, a strong majority—86 percent—believe that America’s nuclear energy industry should develop recy- Consolidated Storage cling technology to take advantage of the energy that Even though it is feasible for industry to safely store remains in uranium fuel rods after they are removed from used nuclear fuel at reactor sites for more than 100 a reactor (NEI, 2012a). years, this may not be the most practical approach. When the storage of used fuel is co-located with an An Integrated Plan for Managing Used operating reactor, the additional costs for storage are Nuclear Fuel not significant. However, when a reactor is shut down The remainder of this article focuses on consolidated and the used fuel must be maintained on the site in storage, potential recycling, and geologic disposal, which dry-cask systems as a stand-alone facility—as is the SUMMER 2012 45

case at some U.S. locations (GTS, 2012)—the costs the disposal of used fuel and high-level radioactive are high. In addition, the land upon which this facil- waste underground in a specially designed repository. In ity sits remains unavailable for future use by nearby such a facility, a combination of engineered and natu- communities. Even where used fuel is co-located with ral features would isolate the radioactive by-products operating reactors, efficiencies—beginning with the deep beneath the earth’s surface for the thousands of development of a common monitoring, inspection, and years it will take for the level of radioactivity to decay security infrastructure—could be gained by moving the to the point at which it no longer presents a health or fuel to consolidated locations. environmental hazard. More than a dozen nations are For these reasons, BRC has recommended “prompt pursuing this approach. Finland (Figure 5), Sweden, efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage and France are expected to complete construction of facilities” (BRC, 2012). In a letter dated April 23, geologic repositories in 2020, 2023, and 2025, respec- 2012, to Senators Dianne Feinstein and Lamar Alexan- tively (NWTRB, 2011). der, BRC co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft In the United States, from 1982 to 2010, one of the wrote that proposed legislation in the U.S. Senate to most exhaustive scientific programs ever undertaken develop consolidated storage “incorporates several key was focused on a potential geologic repository site at recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This effort resulted in a America’s Nuclear Future and is a positive step toward comprehensive safety analysis that showed the pro- the goal of creating an integrated nuclear waste manage- posed repository would protect public health and safety ment system in the United States.” The nuclear energy for one million years, with radiation exposures from the industry supports the proposed legislation and has also repository expected to be equal to a fraction of natu- recommended to Congress and DOE that consolidated ral background radiation—well below regulatory limits storage be implemented in a timely manner. (DOE, 2008). This safety analysis was under review by There are international precedents for the success NRC when DOE terminated the Yucca Mountain proj- of consolidated storage. Sweden and Switzerland ect for policy reasons. operate independent facilities for dry-container stor- Nevertheless, the scientific work that was completed age (NWTRB, 2009), and Spain recently selected a on the Yucca Mountain project provides a powerful indi- site for a similar facility (Frayer, 2012; Reuters, 2011; cator of the safety benefits of geologic disposal. Similar WNN, 2012). safety analyses are under review by regulatory authorities In 2006, NRC granted a license to Private Fuel Stor- in Sweden and Finland (and will be initiated in the near age LLC for a commercial consolidated storage facility future in France). Each of these projects is moving for- in Utah that would be capable of storing approximately ward with strong support from local communities. two-thirds of all U.S. com- mercial used fuel (NRC, 2006). In the face of state opposition, the Utah facil- ity has yet to be developed, but other states and com- munities have expressed interest in hosting such a facility, in part because of the economic development that is expected to accrue to host communities.

Geologic Disposal for Permanent Isolation A long-standing consen- FIGURE 5 The Onkalo repository is a huge system of underground tunnels in Finland that is being hewn out of solid rock. The sus among scientific organi- facility is being designed to protect the environment for 100,000 years. Source: Posiva Oy. Available online at http://www. zations worldwide supports posiva.fi/en/databank/ image_gallery?gfid_1042=94&gpid_1042=1851#gallery_1042. The 46 BRIDGE

In fact, the concept of geologic disposal is already Recycling to Enhance Disposal and Energy Production being successfully demonstrated in Carlsbad, New There is broad agreement that disposal in a geologic Mexico, at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), an repository represents the ultimate solution to the per- operating repository for long-lived radioactive waste. manent isolation of long-lived radioactive by-products In 1999, WIPP began receiving shipments of radio- of nuclear fission. However, there are two schools of active by-products from U.S. Department of Defense thought about the form in which these by-products programs containing some of the same long-lived should be disposed. radioactive constituents found in used fuel. So far, The approach pursued in most countries, including the facility has received more than 9,000 shipments of the United States thus far, is the direct disposal of used radioactive waste for disposal in salt formations more fuel. This would permanently isolate radioactive by- than 2,000 feet below the earth’s surface (DOE, 2007, products but would not take advantage of the vast energy 2010, 2011). content remaining in the fuel. For this reason, several Billions of dollars have been spent worldwide study- countries, including the United Kingdom and France, ing and refining approaches to geologic repositories. recycle or reprocess used fuel to separate the radioactive In 2001, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences con- by-products for disposal and reuse the fissionable ura- cluded: “After four decades of study, geologic disposal nium and plutonium to make new fuel elements. remains the only scientifically and technically cred- Although the United States does not recycle reactor ible long-term solution available” (National Research fuel—and there are significant questions about whether Council, 2001). Similarly, in 2003, the International it is economical to do so—DOE is sponsoring ongoing Atomic Energy Agency concluded, “In a generic way, research to improve recycling methods that could make it can be stated with confidence that deep geological this option more attractive. Depending on future ura- disposal is technically feasible and does not present nium supplies and advances in recycling technologies, any particularly novel rock engineering issues. The the United States may turn to this course of action. existence of numerous potentially suitable repository Doing so would provide additional supplies of energy sites in a variety of host rocks is also well established” and make possible the development of tailored waste (IAEA, 2003). forms that would enable more efficient use of geologic repository capacity.

The Federal Government’s Obligation Since 1999, the Waste Despite industry’s outstanding safety and security Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in record and considerable progress around the world toward implementing geologic disposal, the public and Carlsbad, New Mexico, has policy makers in the United States continue to raise concerns about the management of used nuclear fuel. received more than 9,000 This is due, in part, to the federal government’s failure shipments of radioactive to develop sustainable spent fuel management solutions. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act codified the waste for disposal in salt federal government’s obligation to remove used nuclear fuel from reactor sites and dispose of its radioactive formations more than 2,000 by-products in a geologic repository. As required by this law, the government entered into contracts with feet below the surface. the owners of America’s commercial nuclear energy facilities to begin removing used fuel from reactor sites by 1998. Clearly, the relevant question about geologic disposal To date, the government remains unable to meet this facilities is not whether, but when and where they will legal requirement, and billions of dollars paid by the be developed. In the United States, until the time and industry into a Nuclear Waste Trust Fund have been place have been agreed upon, used fuel storage technol- diverted to help balance the federal budget. Inac- ogy will continue to protect public health and safety. tion also has undermined confidence in the overall SUMMER 2012 47

management of used nuclear fuel. Even though this WMO-TADCS-000001. DOE/RW-0585. Washington, lack of confidence does not reflect shortcomings in the D.C.: DOE. industry’s ongoing safe management of nuclear mate- DOE. 2010. WIPP Receives 9,000th Shipment. October 7. rials or NRC’s oversight of the program, it is vitally Available online at http://www.id.doe.gov/news/PressReleases/ important that action be taken to reform the federal PR101008.htm. program so a permanent solution can be developed. DOE. 2011. WIPP Receives First Remote-Handled Waste The President’s Blue Ribbon Commission has rec- Shipment from Sandia Labs. December 21. Available ommended reform of the DOE program, including the online at http://www.wipp.energy.gov/pr/2011/First_RH_ creation of an independent program management entity Shipment_SNL.pdf. with unrestricted access to the Nuclear Waste Fund. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2008. Occupa- The commission also recommended a new consent- tional Risk Consequences of the Department of Energy’s based process for selecting both a consolidated storage Approach to Repository Design, Performance Assessment site and a repository site. If implemented, these measures and Operation in the Yucca Mountain License Applica- would help resolve the impasse (BRC, 2012). The U.S. tion. EPRI Report # 1018058. August. Palo Alto, Calif.: industry strongly supports the BRC recommendations EPRI. Available online at http://www.brc.gov/sites/default/ and looks forward to prompt action by the president and files/documents/1018058.pdf. Congress to enact the necessary reforms (NEI, 2012b). Frayer, L. 2012. Spanish Town Cheers New Nuclear Waste Plant. Available online at http://www.npr.org/2012/01/16/ Conclusion 145309330/spanish-town-cheers-new-nuclear-waste-plant. The storage of used nuclear fuel is among the best GTS (Gutherman Technical Services). 2012. 2011 Used understood and most effectively managed responses to Fuel Data. January 14. Proprietary report to the Nuclear the environmental challenges associated with electric- Energy Institute. ity production. For several decades, the nuclear energy IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 2003. Sci- industry has successfully used dry-container storage entific and Technical Basis for the Geological Disposal of technology to ensure that public health and safety are Radioactive Wastes. IAEA Technical Reports Series No. protected—today and for the foreseeable future. The 413. New York: IAEA. debate over high-level radioactive waste is, in reality, National Research Council. 2001. Disposition of High-Level about how to extend proven technology and successful Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: The Continuing Societal practices so future generations will enjoy the same level and Technical Challenges. Washington, D.C.: National of protection, as well as the benefits of nuclear energy. Academy Press. Available online at http://www.nap.edu/ There are promising opportunities for the devel- catalog.php?record_id=10119. opment of a repository, perhaps complemented by NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2012a. U.S. Public Opinion advanced recycling technologies. The recent recom- About Nuclear Energy Stabilizes, February 2012. Available mendations of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commis- online at http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentli- sion provide an excellent policy platform for developing brary/safetyandsecurity/reports/us-public-opinion-about-nuclear- short- and long-term approaches to satisfy the federal energy-stabilizes-february-2012. government’s commitment to the nuclear energy indus- NEI. 2012b. NEI Commends House Subcommittee for try and consumers of electricity produced by America’s Approach to Nuclear Energy in Budget Bill. Available 104 reactors. online at http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/ nei-commends-house-subcommittee-for-approach-to-nuclear- References energy-in-budget-bill/. BRC (Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. NRC Issues Future). 2012. Report to the Secretary of Energy. Avail- License to Private Fuel Storage for Spent Nuclear Fuel able online at http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ Storage Facility in Utah. USNRC News No. 06-028, Feb- brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf. ruary 22. Washington, D.C.: NRC. DOE (Department of Energy). 2007. WIPP Chronology. NRC. 2010. Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Available online at www.wipp.energy.gov. February 5, 2007. Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel after Cessation of Reactor DOE. 2008. Transportation, Aging, and Disposal Canister Operation, USNRC Final Rule. 75 Federal Register 81032. System Performance Specification. Revision 1 / ICN 1. December 23, 2010. The 48 BRIDGE

NRC. 2011. Duration of license; renewal. 76 Federal Reg- Reuters. 2011. Spain names site for delayed nuclear waste dump. ister 8890, 10 CFR 72.42. USNRC Final Rule, February Available online at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/30/ 16, 2011. spain-nuclear-idUSL5E7KN2OW20111230. NWTRB (Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board). 2009. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company). 2010. Integrity Survey of National Programs for Managing High-Level Inspection of Dry Storage Casks and Spent Fuels at Fuku- Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Report to shima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Presentation by Congress and the Secretary of Energy. Washington, D.C.: Yumiko Kumano at ISSF 2010: Session 6, November 16, USNWTRB. 2010. Available online at http://criepi.denken.or.jp/result/ NWTRB. 2011, Experience Gained From Programs to Man- event/seminar/2010/issf/pdf/6-1_powerpoint.pdf. age High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel WNN (World Nuclear News). 2012. Spain selects site for waste in the United States and Other Countries: A Report to storage. Available online at http://www.world-nuclear-news. Congress and the Secretary of Energy. Washington, D.C.: org/WR_Spain_selects_site_for_waste_storage_0301121.html. USNWTRB. Lessons learned from prior experience and social science research can influence public attitudes toward nuclear management facilities. Enhancing the Acceptability and Credibility of a Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel

Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Carol L. Silva, Kerry G. Herron, Sarah R. Trousset, and Rob P. Rechard

Hank C. Jenkins-Smith Carol L. Silva Kerry G. Herron Sarah R. Trousset Rob P. Rechard

Public attitudes about the management of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level waste (HLW) are closely related to general attitudes about nuclear energy. Thus, understanding how perceptions and preferences about nuclear energy have evolved in recent years provides a necessary context for mak- ing sense of public beliefs, concerns, and preferences for managing SNF. This article describes some of the lessons learned about public acceptance of nuclear storage and disposal facilities in the United States over the past several decades.

Hank C. Jenkins-Smith is professor of political science, University of Oklahoma. Carol L. Silva is associate profes- sor of political science and director of the Center for Risk and Crisis Management, University of Oklahoma. Kerry G. Herron is a research scientist, and Sarah R. Trousset is a doctoral student and research assistant at the Center for Risk and Crisis Management, University of Oklahoma. Rob P. Rechard is a risk analyst at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. The 50 BRIDGE

relative. In the past few Benefits > 7 years, when the risks posed Risks by nuclear energy were put 6 into a comparative context,

5 4.57 4.5 4.54 they were seen as equiva- 4.47 4.35 4.35 Risks = lent to, or slightly lower Benefits 4 than the risks from fossil 3 fuels (Herron and Jenkins- Smith, 2010, p. 84). On 2 average, members of the Risks > 1 public would prefer a sub- Benefits 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 stantial increase in reliance on nuclear energy in the FIGURE 1 Americans’ assessments of the balance of risks and benefits of nuclear energy. Source: Herron et al., 2012. overall energy supply over the next 20 years. When Public Perceptions of Nuclear Energy respondents were informed about the current mix of 2 The level of public acceptance for nuclear facilities is U.S. energy supplies, most of them said they would like linked to people’s intuitive balancing of the perceived to see the fraction of U.S. energy from nuclear gen- risks and benefits associated with those facilities (e.g., eration increase, from 8 percent to 22 percent (a 275 Jenkins-Smith and Kunreuther, 2001; Slovic et al., percent increase), over the next two decades (Figure 2). 1991b). In the case of civilian nuclear energy, the U.S. When asked whether they favored construction of public perceives the balance to be generally positive. new reactors at existing plants or at new sites (on a scale The National Security and Nuclear Policies (NSNP)1 of one [strongly oppose] to seven [strongly support]), the project has been using surveys to track the overall bal- average level of support was higher for construction at ance of perceived risks and benefits of nuclear energy existing plants. In fact, the level of support has declined since 2006. Participants were first asked to consider a only slightly since 2006, even after the events at Fuku- number of specific risks (e.g., releases of radiation due shima. From 2006 to 2011, the average level of support to accidents at plants or during the transport of nuclear decreased approximately 7 percent for adding reactors fuel; terrorist attacks; diversion of materials from SNF at the sites of existing nuclear power plants and by 4 for nuclear weapons) and benefits (e.g., reliable produc- percent for building reactors at new sites (Figure 3). tion of base energy; reductions in reliance on energy Public acceptance of policy options for managing imports; reductions in greenhouse gas emissions) of used nuclear fuel and HLW must be measured in this nuclear energy. Representative samples of respondents context. Public acceptance of management options for were then asked to assess the overall balance of risks and SNF will be conditioned by the current environment benefits on a scale of one (risks greatly exceed benefits) of increasing support for reliance on nuclear energy, as to seven (benefits greatly exceed risks). well as sustained support for constructing new nuclear 3 Mean values for 2006 through 2011 are shown in energy reactors. Figure 1 (sampling error for each year is <3 percent). Public Perceptions of Spent Nuclear Fuel As the data show, Americans consistently view nuclear energy as having greater benefits than risks. In contrast to nuclear energy, in the United States The perceived risks of nuclear energy—like the risks and elsewhere, both SNF and HLW were considered associated with all energy sources—are necessarily

2 The proportions shown are averages from the Sandia National Security Survey for 6 years (2006 to 2011). The yearly averages have fluctu- 1 The NSNP project surveys are sponsored by Sandia National Labo- ated very little over time. ratories and the University of Oklahoma. The surveys are collected 3 The results of the NSNP project are consistent with the findings of annually, in May and June. Internet surveys are collected once a year. other, less comprehensive, measures of attitudes toward nuclear Companion telephone surveys are collected periodically to take into energy (Jones, 2009). The NSNP data also show that support for account the effect of the “mode of collection” on the responses. For nuclear energy is greater among males, people with higher incomes, an overview, see Herron and Jenkins-Smith (2010); Jenkins-Smith and and people with higher levels of education; this is also consistent with Herron (2009); and Jenkins-Smith et al. (2011). other findings. SUMMER 2012 51

“wastes” with dreaded risks 100 4 and few offsetting benefits. 85 In this climate, attempts to 80 provide inducements for 60 communities or states to 49 accept SNF can backfire if % 40 they are perceived as con- 29 firmation that the risks are 22 20 dire (Jenkins-Smith and 8 6 Kunreuther, 2005; Kun- 0 reuther and Easterling, Fossil Energy Nuclear Energy Renewable Energy 1998). Current Mix Preferred Mix in 2030 In addition to the per- ceived physical risks FIGURE 2. Preferred mix of total energy sources for 2030. Source: Herron et al., 2012. from such “wastes,” other research has suggested that Strongly 7 “perception-based impacts” Support may stigmatize and impose 6 social and economic losses Additional Reactors at Existing Sites 4.57 5 4.36 4.54 4.35 4.41 on host communities and 4.06 states (Easterling and Kun- 4 4.40 4.21 4.29 4.34 reuther, 1993; Gawande 4.05 3.89 3 Additional Reactors at New Sites and Jenkins-Smith, 2001). Sustained public and state- 2 level opposition to the sit- Strongly 1 Oppose ing of the Yucca Mountain 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 repository (Slovic et al., 1991c), coupled with the FIGURE 3 Preferences for the construction of new reactors at current or new sites. Source: Herron et al., 2012. U.S. Department of Ener- gy’s (DOE’s) decision to withdraw the license applica- SNF disposal (based on the NSNP program initiated tion and terminate the project in 2010, illustrates the in 1993), and experience with WIPP and the proposed difficulty of finding willing host communities for facili- Yucca Mountain repository, provide important lessons ties designed to manage and dispose of SNF and HLW. for future efforts to site nuclear materials facilities.5 However, recent successes in finding willing host communities for SNF disposal in Sweden and Finland Public Understanding of Spent Nuclear Fuel have stimulated new thinking about the possibilities of and Related Policies siting SNF management facilities (Elam and Sundqvist, Members of the public are capable of developing 2009). In the United States, the successful licensing reasoned policy preferences about complex issues (Her- and ongoing operations of the Waste Isolation Pilot ron and Jenkins-Smith, 2006; Lupia and McCubbins, Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, have also 1998), but public understanding of such issues tends to generated some optimism that the presence of disposal evolve from inchoate opinions toward stable judgment facilities for nuclear materials might be acceptable to only as policy debates mature (Yankelovich, 1991). some communities. Studies of public attitudes toward Evidence collected by the NSNP project indicates that public opinion on the SNF issue has not fully matured. For example, consider the widespread misunder- 4 See Slovic et al. (1991a) on nuclear waste. A powerful example standing of current SNF practices in the United States. of issue-framing in public debates has been widespread reference to spent (or used) nuclear fuel as “nuclear waste” and of repositories as “nuclear waste dumps.” Designation of a substance as a waste implies that it has no further use or purpose other than disposal, and hence 5 For the most recent published summary of the Sandia National Security poses only risks. Survey Project, see Herron et al. (2012). The 52 BRIDGE

Until very recently, a plurality (one-third) of survey 2006). The NSNP project has used this approach to respondents believed that SNF was already being track public assessments of current policies and to eval- shipped to Nevada for permanent disposal. Despite uate variations in public acceptance of SNF manage- ongoing news reports about the long-running debate ment options for alternative design characteristics for over the Yucca Mountain repository, many people nei- policies and facilities. ther sought nor monitored information on SNF man- agement practices.6 Public Evaluation of Current Nevertheless, there has been a modest trend toward Management Practices a more widespread public understanding that SNF is Evaluation of current SNF storage practices requires usually stored at or near civilian nuclear reactors. From that survey participants be apprised of the primary 2006 to 2011, the fraction of respondents who knew points of view of both proponents and opponents of that SNF is stored in special containers at nuclear continued on-site storage, in a way that does not privi- power plants throughout the United States increased lege one argument over the other.7 With that in mind, from 1 in 5 to 4 in 10 (40 percent in the 2011 iteration the following background information on current SNF of the survey, substantially more than the 23 percent policy was provided to NSNP participants: who still believe SNF is sent for deep geologic disposal Currently, US spent nuclear fuel is being temporarily in Nevada). stored at over 100 sites in 39 states. Most of it is stored However, when asked if SNF was stored at any site at nuclear power plants where it is placed in secure cool- in their own states, only 13 percent could answer cor- ing pools. In some cases, the spent fuel is transferred to rectly. Thus, although public understanding appears to specialized concrete casks stored above ground near the be improving modestly over time, there is some distance nuclear power plant. At each site, the cooling pools and to go before opinion evolves to support a clear and stable storage casks are protected at all times by security forces. aggregate public judgment about SNF policy. Some people think this is an acceptable solution for the foreseeable future, while others think such practices are risky and other options need to be adopted. When given basic The following arguments were then presented in ran- domized order: background information, Opponents argue that some nuclear power plants where many people express spent nuclear fuel is stored are near rivers, oceans, and large population centers. On rare occasions spent fuel differentiated, stable opinions has leaked radiation into the cooling pools. Moreover the cooling pools and containers are located at ground about complex issues. level, and therefore might be vulnerable to terrorists. They note that these storage practices do not provide a permanent solution for managing spent nuclear fuel. Given the current level of public understanding, it Supporters argue that transporting spent nuclear fuel by is all but impossible to measure preferences as a basis train or truck to consolidated storage facilities is risky, for analyzing the prospects for acceptance of SNF man- that storing spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power plants is agement facilities unless a basic level of background less expensive than consolidated storage, and that it buys information is provided to survey respondents. How- time for finding future solutions. Moreover, storage at ever, once such information is provided, members of the nuclear power plants has not caused any accidents that public are able to express differentiated, stable opinions, have exposed the public to radiation. even about complex issues of this kind, grounded in Survey respondents were then asked how they felt their broader belief systems (Herron and Jenkins-Smith, about the current practice of storing SNF at or near

6 For the pattern of news coverage since 2004, as well as the volume of internet search activity, for Yucca Mountain, use “Yucca Mountain” as 7 The objective in survey design of this kind is to provide, in brief and the search term at Google Trends™, accessible at http://www.google. accessible form, the range of arguments that the public is likely to com/trends. encounter in public debate on the issue. SUMMER 2012 53

nuclear power plants, based on a scale of one (strongly of SNF facility siting by presenting balanced arguments oppose) to seven (strongly support). Mean responses for and against.10 Respondents were then asked to indi- from 2006 to 2011 were consistently below mid-scale cate how they felt, on a scale of one (strongly oppose) to (3.4–3.7). In 2011, 46 percent of respondents opposed seven (strongly support), about the following options, indefinite on-site storage, 30 percent were undecided, presented in random order: and 24 percent favored continuing the current prac- Construct sites so that stored materials are monitored tice. These responses indicate that, although the pub- and could be retrieved for reprocessing or further treat- lic is decidedly uneasy about indefinite on-site storage, ment in the future. there remains significant latitude for continued policy development.8 Construct sites so that stored materials are permanently sealed away and cannot readily be retrieved in the future. Policy Design Options An analysis of results from the most recent 2011 NSNP survey, and of the policy debate concerning In Europe, retrievability has SNF in Europe, suggests that two related considerations underlie public acceptance of SNF management strate- become a central issue in gies: (1) whether SNF is designated a waste or a resource; and (2) whether society should be able to make changes public debates about SNF to improve the safety of the materials in the storage/ disposal siting. disposal facility. These considerations are directly related to “retrievability” in the design of SNF repositories. Overall, 60 percent of respondents supported the Retrievability retrievable design (with a mean response of 4.72), and Retrievability (i.e., the ability to remove SNF from 38 percent expressed support for the non-retrievable a storage facility) has become a central issue in pub- design (mean response 4.02). When asked to rank the lic debates about the acceptance of SNF disposal sit- two options, 69 percent preferred the retrievable option. ing in Europe (see e.g., OECD-NEA, 2001, 2009). In In sum, although neither option generated strong oppo- debates in Finland about facility siting, integrating sition, the inclusion of retrievability in the repository retrievability into the design of disposal facilities for design was preferred by a two-to-one margin. SNF was one of the few concrete results of very exten- sive public engagement on the issue (Hokkanen and Waste or Resource Kojo, 2003). Subsequently, Finland was the first state Available evidence suggests that broad public support to successfully site a permanent repository near a host for retrievability is based on two distinct considerations. community, Eurajoki. The first is whether SNF is understood by the public In the United States, the issue of retrievability of SNF to be a waste or a potential resource that can be repro- has received little public consideration, although discus- cessed in the future. Since we began measuring atti- sions by focus groups in the late 1990s suggested that tudes about reprocessing in 2008, responses have been future generations should have the option of removing consistent; a substantial majority has expressed support SNF from disposal facilities if new knowledge or changed circumstances warranted such action.9 The NSNP project queried the implications of 10 The wording was as follows: “Now we want you to consider the issue retrievability in repository design for public acceptance of whether stored radioactive materials should be managed in a way that allows authorized personnel to gain access to them and retrieve the materials in the future, or that seeks to permanently block access to them. One option is to build facilities where the stored materials are continuously monitored and can be retrieved for reprocessing, 8 Another indicator of latitude for continued policy development is that or possibly to make them less dangerous using future technological in 2011 only 16 percent of the responses fell on the scale endpoints developments. This option requires increased security and may mean (“strongly oppose” or “strongly support”). the facility is more vulnerable to attack or theft. Another option is 9 These focus groups were conducted in Nevada, New Mexico, and to attempt to seal off storage sites in such a way that people cannot Illinois as part of a research project undertaken by the University of readily gain access to the materials in the future. This option is more New Mexico’s Institute for Public Policy in 1998. The results were secure, but does not allow reprocessing or treatment by future techno- summarized in Bassett et al. (1998). logical advancements.” The 54 BRIDGE for the reprocessing option (ranging from 59 to 67 per- facility increased substantially, even among those who cent in favor). Fewer than 20 percent of respondents were initially opposed to siting the facility (see more have expressed opposition in any one year (e.g., fewer detailed discussion below). than 16 percent of all respondents in 2011). Given the public sensibilities about retrievability Note that these results were obtained despite remind- described above, how do specific repository design fac- ers that uranium and plutonium, when separated by tors shape public support for SNF management facilities? reprocessing, could be used to make nuclear weapons. Now that DOE has withdrawn its license application for The public thus broadly perceives SNF to be a poten- the repository at Yucca Mountain, it is possible to con- tial resource. sider a wide range of options. Primary policy design fea- tures that may have significant implications for public acceptance include: (1) the number of sites considered; Americans have expressed (2) the type of storage and storage depth for SNF at these sites; and (3) whether the repository function will optimism that future be combined with other activities at the facilities. In 2010 and 2011, NSNP investigated the implications of developments in science each of these features for public acceptance.

and engineering will lead The Number of Storage Sites to options that current Three options appear to be plausible: (1) continued, dispersed, on-site storage facilities, chiefly on sites of technologies do not support. operating nuclear reactors; (2) a number of regional facilities, perhaps designed to optimize SNF transport; and (3) one or two centralized facilities. The 2010 and Retaining Future Options 2011 NSNP questionnaires measured relative public The second basis for support for a retrievable SNF preferences for a characterization of each option. repository design is potential future improvements Respondents were first asked to consider the preferred in safety. In the European debate over SNF disposal, number of facilities,12 then to rate their preferences for a distinction is made between retrievability (physical each option on a scale of one (strongly oppose) to seven retrieval of SNF from a repository) and reversibility (the (support), and then to rank the options from most to option of changing the disposal policy if better options least preferred. become available) (OECD-NEA, 2001, p. 11). After spent nuclear fuel is removed from the cooling In the American context, findings based on focus pools, continue the current practice of temporarily stor- groups suggest substantial optimism that future devel- ing it above ground at designated nuclear power plants. opments in science and engineering will lead to options This option does not require additional transportation that current technologies do not now support. There- of radioactive materials by train or truck, and it presents fore, they reason, permanent closure of a repository few additional political or legal obstacles. would preclude taking advantage of those options (Bas- Construct six to eight regional storage sites that can be sett et al., 1998).11 more easily secured and can provide longer-term storage. More conclusive evidence of a public preference for This option requires transporting spent nuclear fuel by retaining the option to take advantage of future learn- ing is available from the NSNP project, which in 2010 and 2011, asked whether support for siting a repository 12 The wording was as follows: “While nuclear power plants will con- tinue to store some spent fuel in their cooling pools, much of the radio- would change if the repository was combined or co- active materials currently at temporary storage sites in 39 states might located with a research laboratory focused on finding be consolidated at a smaller number of regional or central facilities. Once it is consolidated, the spent nuclear fuel can more easily be ways to improve the safety and efficiency of managing secured and protected from attack. The fewer the number of regional SNF. When this option was included, support for the or central storage facilities, the less complex are the political and legal obstacles for finding communities willing and able to host the facilities. At the same time, a larger number of regional storage facilities would reduce the distances radioactive materials must be transported by train 11 One example is deep borehole disposal, which has become more or truck, and would also reduce the number of communities through promising over the last decade with advances in deep drilling. which the transport routes would pass.” SUMMER 2012 55

train or truck over moderate distances and is likely to constructed to allow materials to be retrieved, or they can generate political and legal opposition. be designed to permanently block access in the future. They are suitable for storage over thousands of years. Construct two large centralized storage sites (one in the west and one in the east) that can be most secure and Respondents indicated their support for each option provide permanent storage. This option requires trans- on a scale of one (strongly oppose) to seven (strongly porting spent nuclear fuel by train or truck over longer support). In 2011, support for a mine-like deep geo- distances and is likely to generate political and legal logic storage scored highest (4.80); support for the opposition. ground-level option was 3.84. Among the NSNP The average levels of support in 2011 on the scale of respondents, the mine-like geologic option is the clear one to seven for (1) continued on-site storage, (2) six preference for depth. to eight regional sites, or (3) two centralized reposi- However, because the characterizations of the tories were 4.02, 4.14, and 3.85, respectively. Mean options emphasized the implications of each choice for preferences for continued on-site storage and multiple retrievability and suitability for long-duration of stor- regional repositories were statistically indistinguish- age, respondents’ preference for the mine-like reposi- able, and both were preferred to the option of two cen- tory may reflect the characterization of that option as tralized repositories. affording both retrievability and the ability to seal the Several conclusions can be drawn from these results. materials for “thousands of years.” This is consistent Strong preferences for the number of repositories have with the more general preference for retrievability dis- yet to develop, suggesting that there is considerable lati- cussed above. tude for working toward an acceptable option. For each option considered, the modal response was the scale Combining a Storage/Disposal Site with Other Facilities mid-point (indicating uncertainty or lack of preference). As we have seen, design features of a repository may Strongly held positions (either in support or opposition) have important implications for the acceptance of a were near or below 20 percent for all three options. facility by prospective host communities. The Yucca At the same time, support for a larger number of Mountain repository was designed exclusively as a dis- sites—whether regional or continued at reactors—was posal facility to be permanently sealed after a monitoring greater than support for two centralized sites. This period. It was meant to have minimal long-term scien- suggests that the public would not rule out, at least in tific research activity on the site and was not designed theory, multiple storage/disposal facilities. to include non-disposal functions for nuclear waste man- Prospective difficulties with obtaining acceptance agement (e.g., a research or reprocessing capacity). from people living near those sites, the so-called not- in-my-backyard (NIMBY) reaction, are discussed below.

The Depth of a Storage Site The Yucca Mountain Another critical design factor is the depth at which repository was designed SNF is stored; this can plausibly range from ground level to miles below the surface. NSNP respondents in 2011 to have neither long-term were asked to consider their preferences for two possible designs: surface storage and storage/disposal in a deep scientific research nor a geologic mine repository. The two options were posed reprocessing capacity as follows, in random order: One option is to store spent nuclear fuel at or near the on the site. surface in hardened structures of concrete and steel. This allows monitoring and retrieval, but it is considered to provide a safe means to manage the material for only This combination of features (or lack of features), about a hundred years. influences the way observers understand the combi- nation of risks and benefits of the facility. Given the One option is to build mine-like storage facilities large number of permutations of possible facility design that are thousands of feet underground. These can be features, in 2011 the NSNP focused on the effects of The 56 BRIDGE two variations in design: combining two centralized, for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for reuse in generating mine-like repositories with either (1) a research labora- electricity? tory or (2) an SNF reprocessing facility. Note that both The effects of bundling (combining) a base reposi- alternatives stipulate that the repository would have tory with a hypothetical national research laboratory secure surface storage and would be in compliance with are shown in Table 1. Changes in support attributable regulatory safety requirements. to the addition of the laboratory are shown for those When more complete descriptions were provided, who initially supported, were neutral, or opposed the there was a moderate increase in support. The deep- base facility. geologic mine option received an average initial sup- The most striking changes were noted for those who port of 4.65 on the one (strongly oppose) to seven were initially opposed or neutral to siting the facility. (strongly support) scale. Fifty-seven percent of the Among those who were initially opposed, 42 percent respondents who were presented with this option said their support for the repository would increase expressed support, while 19 percent were opposed, and if it were combined with a national research labora- 24 percent were neutral. tory. Among those who were initially neutral, support Given these starting points, what happens to support increased to 60 percent. for the facility if the repository function is combined These findings are consistent with findings of earlier with a laboratory and/or a reprocessing facility? To studies showing that modifying facilities in a way that evaluate the effects of a combination of facilities, the addresses the initial risks—both reducing them directly following two questions were posed, in random order, and providing benefits germane to those risks—is the in 2011: most effective way to increase the level of acceptance of What would happen to your level of support if you a facility (Jenkins-Smith and Kunreuther, 2005). learned that each of the sites also would contain a In this case, co-locating an SNF repository with a national research laboratory for studying ways to more national research laboratory that would study “ways safely and efficiently manage and dispose of nuclear to more safely and efficiently manage and dispose of materials? nuclear materials” would both reduce the relevant What would happen to your level of support if you risks and provide high-prestige employment and other learned that each of the sites also would include facilities economic benefits. Based on the substantial increases in levels of support, such a TABLE 1 Changes in Support for Repositories with Co-located Research facility may be less suscep- Laboratories, 2011 tible to the stigmatizing images that often charac- Initial Preference Support (%) Neutral/Unsure (%) Oppose (%) terize descriptions of stand- 57 24 19 alone repositories. Support Increased 88 60 42 The effects of combining Support Unchanged 8 34 20 a repository with a repro- cessing facility are shown in Support Decreased 4 6 38 Table 2. Again, the changes Source: Herron et al., 2012. in support are shown for those who initially opposed, were neutral, or supported TABLE 2 Changes in Support for Repositories with Co-located each option. As with co- Reprocessing Facilities, 2011 location of a repository with Initial Preference Support (%) Neutral/Unsure (%) Oppose (%) a national research labora- 57 24 19 tory, co-location of a reposi- Support Increased 84 51 37 tory with a reprocessing facility also increased sup- Support Unchanged 10 38 18 port. Among those who Support Decreased 6 11 45 either initially opposed the Source: Herron et al., 2012. repository or were neutral, SUMMER 2012 57

nearly half said the addition of the reprocessing capabil- Elam, M., and G. Sundqvist. 2009. The Swedish KBS proj- ity would increase support for the repository. A smaller ect: a last word in nuclear fuel safety prepares to conquer percentage said the combination would decrease support. the world? Journal of Risk Research 12(7): 969–988. Given the consistent and generally supportive attitudes Flynn, J., P. Slovic. and C.K. Mertz. 1993. The Nevada Ini- of most Americans toward reprocessing (as discussed tiative: a risk communication fiasco. Risk Analysis 13(5): above), the increase in support for repositories co-located 497–502. with reprocessing facilities is not surprising and could be Gawande, K., and H. Jenkins-Smith. 2001. Nuclear waste helpful in informing policies. transport and residential property values: estimating the The implications are that public acceptance of an effects of perceived risks. Journal of Environmental Eco- SNF repository is sensitive to the overall design attri- nomics and Management 42: 207–233. butes of the facility. If it is exclusively for disposal, the Herron, K., and H. Jenkins-Smith. 2006. Critical Masses perceived risks and associated negative images tend to and Critical Choices: Evolving Public Opinion on Nuclear dominate perceptions (especially when SNF has been Weapons, Terrorism, and Security. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Uni- designated a “waste”). If the facility is more heteroge- versity of Pittsburgh Press. neous, that is, it includes design elements that address Herron, K., and H. Jenkins-Smith. 2010. Public Security offsetting risk/benefits (such as a laboratory or repro- Perspectives: American Views on Nuclear Weapons, Ter- cessing facility), thus attaching resource value to SNF, rorism, Energy and the Environment: 2009. Sandia Report prospects for public acceptance improve. SAND2009-8420. Albuquerque, N.M.: Sandia National Laboratories. Available online at http://crcm.ou.edu/projects/ Lessons Learned nuclear/. In this article, we have described a number of lessons Herron, K., H. Jenkins-Smith, and C. Silva. 2012. US Pub- learned from prior experience and social science research lic Perspectives on Security: Nuclear Weapons, Terror- on public acceptance of nuclear materials management ism, Energy and the Environment: 2011. Sandia Report facilities. Overall, we have learned that public attitudes SAND2012-0165. Albuquerque, N.M.: Sandia National can inform the policy debate in important ways. In addi- Laboratories. Available online at http://crcm.ou.edu/ tion, we believe that careful, time-series investigations projects/nuclear/. can continue to provide important guidance for policies Hokkanen, P., and M. Kojo. 2003. Ympäristövaikutusten and public acceptance of nuclear facility siting. arviointimenettelyn vaikutus päätöksentekoon (Influence of EIA on decision-making). Suomen ympäristö (Finnish Acknowledgments Environment) 612. Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of the Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program labo- Environment. ratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned Jenkins-Smith, H., and H. Kunreuther. 2001. Mitigation and subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Company, for the U.S. benefits measures as policy tools for siting potentially haz- Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security ardous facilities: determinants of effectiveness and appro- Administration, under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. priateness. Risk Analysis 21: 371–382. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the Jenkins-Smith, H., and H. Kunreuther. 2005. Mitigation authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or poli- and Benefits Measures as Policy Tools for Siting Potential- cies of DOE or Sandia. ly Hazardous Facilities: Determinants of Effectiveness and Appropriateness. In Facility Siting and the Management References of Legitimate Claims, edited by S. Lesbirel and D. Shaw. Bassett, G., H. Jenkins-Smith, R. O’Connor, and C. Silva. Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Press. 1998. What Have We Learned. Unpublished Research Jenkins-Smith, H., and K. Herron. 2009. American Secu- Summary. Available from the authors ([email protected]). rity Perspectives: Public Views on Energy, Environment, Easterling, D., and H. Kunreuther. 1993. The Vulnerability Nuclear Weapons and Terrorism: 2008. Sandia Report of the Convention Industry to the Siting of a High Level SAND2008-8027P. Albuquerque, N.M.: Sandia National Nuclear Waste Repository. Pp. 209–238 in Public Reac- Laboratories. Available online at http://crcm.ou.edu/ tions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ Views of Repository Sit- projects/nuclear/. ing, edited by R. Dunlop, M. Kraft and E. Rosa. Durham, Jenkins-Smith, H., K. Herron, and C. Silva. 2011. American N.C.: Duke University Press. Perspectives on Security: Energy, Environment, Nuclear The 58 BRIDGE

Weapons, and Terrorism: 2010. Sandia Report SAND2011- OECD-NEA. 2009. RWMC Reversibility and Retrievability 1686. Albuquerque, N.M.: Sandia National Laboratories. Project: Phase-2 report. NEA/RWM(2009)3/REV1. Paris: Available online at http://crcm.ou.edu/projects/nuclear/. OECD. 5 March 2009. Jones, J. 2009. Support for Nuclear Energy Inches to New Slovic, P., J. Flynn, and M. Layman. 1991a. Perceived High. Gallup, Inc. Available online at http://www.gallup. risk, trust and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254: com/poll/117025/Support-Nuclear-Energy-Inches-New-High. 1603–1607. aspx. Last accessed July 16, 2010. Slovic, P., N. Krause, H. Lappe, and M. Major. 1991b. Risk Kunreuther, H., and D. Easterling. 1998. The role of com- perception of prescription drugs: report on a survey in Can- pensation in hazardous facility siting. Journal of Policy ada. Canadian Journal of Public Health 82: S15–S20. Analysis and Management 15(4): 601–622. Slovic, P., M. Layman, and J. Flynn. 1991c. Risk percep- Lupia, A., and M. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilem- tion, trust and nuclear waste: lessons from Yucca Mountain. ma: Can Democratic Citizens Learn What They Need to Environment 33: 6–11, 28–30. Know? Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. Yankelovich, D. 1991. Coming to Public Judgment: Making OECD-NEA. 2001. Reversibility and Retrievability in Geo- Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse, N.Y.: logic Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Reflections at the Syracuse University Press. International Level. Paris: OECD. SUMMER 2012 59

NAE News and Notes NAE Newsmakers

Nadine Aubry, Raymond J. Lane life sciences industry in Northern (Section on Radiation Safety, Distinguished Professor and depart- California. Energy Development, and Environ- ment head, Mechanical Engineer- Shirley Ann Jackson, president, mental Protection). Dr. Meserve ing Department, Carnegie Mellon Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has engaged in extensive activities University, has been awarded the has been chosen by the American with the Russian Academy over distinction of fellow of the Ameri- Association for the Advancement the years on projects undertaken can Institute for Aeronautics of Science (AAAS) to receive the by the U.S. National Academies. and Astronautics (AIAA) for her prestigious 2011 Philip Hauge The Russian Academy has approxi- outstanding work in the field of Abelson Award. Dr. Jackson was mately 250 Foreign Members. aerospace, including pioneering selected for her extraordinary lead- James Monsees, senior vice presi- contributions to fluid dynamics. Dr. ership of and contributions to the dent, technical director, and princi- Aubry was inducted at the AIAA scientific community, government, pal professional associate, Parsons Aerospace Spotlight Awards Gala on universities, industries, and future Brinckerhoff Inc., has received a May 9 at the Ronald Reagan Build- generations of science and engineer- Lifetime Achievement Award from ing and International Trade Center ing professionals. The award was Tunnels & Tunnelling International in Washington, D.C. Being named a presented on February 15, 2012, at magazine. Dr. Monsees was hon- fellow of AIAA is among the highest the AAAS Annual Meeting in Van- ored for his extensive contributions honors that can be bestowed upon couver, British Columbia, Canada. to the tunneling industry, both in an aerospace professional. The winner of the 2012 Arthur technical accomplishment and as an From the invention of the DNA C. Clarke Lifetime Achievement inspiration to future tunnelers. sequencer during his days at Caltech Award is Vinton G. Cerf, Chief Malcolm R. O’Neill, Assistant to the introduction of the first auto- Internet Evangelist, Google Inc., Secretary of the Army (ALT), United mated DNA sequencer in 1986 and co-inventor of the architecture States Army, has won the 2012 and the realization of the Human and basic protocols of the Internet. Ronald Reagan Missile Defense Genome Mapping Project in 2003, Presented by the Arthur C. Clarke Award for his outstanding support Michael W. Hunkapiller, gen- Foundation, the award is given and leadership of the U.S. ballis- eral partner, Alloy Ventures Inc., to “an individual, a group or an tic missile defense program. Since has been a scientific and industry entity that exemplifies the values 2003, the Ronald Reagan Missile trailblazer. Under his leadership, and accomplishments of Sir Arthur’s Defense Award has been conferred industry pioneers Applied Bio­ life.” The 2012 Arthur C. Clarke annually on an individual or organi- systems, Celera, and Applera grew Innovator Award was presented to zation for outstanding support, inno- into global giants, contributing to Pradman Kaul, president and CEO, vation, and engineering or scientific the success of countless biotech Hughes Communications Inc. Mr. achievement associated with tech- companies and researchers expand- Kaul was recognized for sustained nologies designed to defend against ing the frontiers of genomics and leadership in advancing satellite ballistic missile attack. The award proteomics. For these reasons, Bay- communications. Both awards was presented to Dr. O’Neill by the Bio, the Northern California Life were presented at a ceremony on Missile Defense Agency. Science Association, honored Dr. April 12, 2012, at Intelsat Head- ACM, the Association for Com- Hunkapiller on November 3, 2011, quarters in Washington, D.C. puting Machinery, named Judea with its 2011 Lifetime Achieve- Richard A. Meserve, president, Pearl, professor, Computer Science ment DiNA Award. The award Carnegie Institution for Science, Department, University of Cali- is given in recognition of achieve- was elected a Foreign Member of fornia, Los Angeles, winner of the ment and honors excellence in the the Russian Academy of Sciences 2011 ACM A.M. Turing Award. The 60 BRIDGE

Dr. Pearl pioneered developments chemical engineering. The award chief executive officer, Battelle, in probabilistic and causal reasoning was presented to Dr. Prausnitz at have been elected foreign members and their application to a wide range the Chemical Engineering Divi- of the Chinese Academy of Engi- of problems and challenges. He also sion Banquet at the 2012 ASEE neering (CAE). CAE is an inde- created a computational foundation meeting in San Antonio, Texas, in pendent, national organization that for processing information under June 2012. honors members of the engineering uncertainty and developed graphi- Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, and technological sciences commu- cal methods and symbolic calculus professor of electrical engineering nity of China. that have enabled machines to rea- and computer sciences, University of The National Inventors Hall of son about actions and observations California, Berkeley, has been hon- Fame has inducted five NAE mem- and to assess cause-effect relation- ored by the European Design and bers: David Thompson, retired, ships from empirical findings. The Automation Association (EDAA) IBM Almaden Research Center, for Turing Award, widely considered with the prestigious EDAA Life- thin-film magnetic heads for data the “Nobel Prize in Computing,” time Achievement Award for out- storage systems; Barbara H. Liskov, includes a $250,000 prize. Financial standing contributions to state of Institute Professor, Massachusetts support is provided by Intel Corpo- the art electronic design, electronic Institute of Technology, for inno- ration and Google Inc. design automation, and testing of vation in the design of computer The Chemical Engineering Divi- electronic systems. EDAA, a non- programming languages and system sion of the American Society for profit association, works to benefit design; C. Kumar N. Patel, presi- Engineering Education (ASEE) international electronics design and dent and CEO, Pranalytica Inc., has awarded the 2012 Lifetime the design automation community. for the carbon dioxide laser; Gary Achievement Award in ChE Ped- The award was presented at the K. Starkweather, retired architect, agogical Scholarship to John M. plenary session of the 2012 EDAA Microsoft Corporation, for the laser Prausnitz, professor, Department of Conference, held on March 12–16 printer; and Alejandro Zaffaroni, Chemical and Biomolecular Engi- in Dresden, Germany. founder, Alexza Pharmaceuticals neering, University of California, Three NAE members, David B. Inc., for controlled drug delivery Berkeley. The award is given in Marshall, principal scientist, Tele- systems. The National Inventors recognition of a sustained career dyne Scientific Company; Frie- Hall of Fame Inc. is a not-for-prof- of pedagogical scholarship that has der Seible, dean, Jacobs School of it organization that honors men not only led to substantial, innova- Engineering, and Zable Professor and women whose technological tive change, but has also inspired and Reissner Professor, University advances make human, social, and younger educators to adopt new of California, San Diego; and Jef- economic progress possible. behaviors that benefit students in frey Wadsworth, president and SUMMER 2012 61

NAE Honors 2012 Prize Winners

Left to right: Dr. George H. Heilmeier, Dr. Martin Schadt, Dr. Wolfgang Helfrich, Mrs. Sarah Brody Webb (daughter of Dr. T. Peter Brody, who passed away in September 2011), J. Richard Phillips, M. Mack Gilkeson, and Clive L. Dym. Mrs. Brody Webb accepted the award for her father, Dr. T. Peter Brody.

Traditionally, NAE honors out- in Washington, D.C. The recipi- Irwin M. Jacobs at the podium. standing individuals for signifi- ents of the Charles Stark Draper Presenters at this year’s ceremony cant innovation, leadership, and Prize and Bernard M. Gordon Prize were James D. Shields, president advances in bioengineering. The accepted their awards before an and CEO, Charles Stark Draper 2012 award winners were honored audience of more than 250 guests, Laboratory Inc., and Bernard M. at a black-tie dinner on Febru- with NAE President Charles M. Gordon, chairman, NeuroLogica ary 21 at historic Union Station Vest and NAE Council Chair Corporation.

Charles Stark Draper Prize

George H. Heilmeier, Martin T. Peter Brody, George H. Heilmeier, Taking their cues from Heilmeier’s Schadt, Wolfgang Helfrich, and Wolfgang Helfrich, and Martin work, Wolfgang Helfrich and Mar- T. Peter Brody were awarded the Schadt each made substantial con- tin Schadt invented the twisted 2012 Charles Stark Draper Prize tributions to its development. nematic (TN) field effect of LCDs. “for the engineering development George H. Heilmeier discov- Unlike DSM, the TN field effect of the liquid crystal display (LCD) ered the dynamic scattering mode electrically controls the polariza- utilized in billions of consumer (DSM), which resulted in the first tion of transmitted light of LCDs. devices.” operational LCD. Liquid crystals TN requires virtually no power and The liquid crystal display (LCD) are materials with properties of small electric fields, yet the con- is used by virtually everyone in the both liquids and crystals, and DSM trast of light is very large, allowing modern world on a daily basis to get allows them to scatter light when for short switching from dark to information from a variety of every- voltage is applied. Shortly after bright and vice versa. Helfrich and day devices—including calculators, Heilmeier’s discovery, DSM LCDs Schadt’s discovery of TN led to the clocks, computer monitors, smart could be widely found in watches practical use of LCDs in nearly all phones, and television screens. and calculators. flat panel LCD devices. The 62 BRIDGE

T. Peter Brody created the of high-resolution motion pictures in television, such as color filters active matrix (AM) drive, which combined with fast response, the and brightness-enhancement films. enabled an array of new capabili- prerequisites for television. Brody’s ties for LCDs, such as the display AM LCD led to LCD advancements

Acceptance Remarks by Wolfgang Helfrich

to Heilmeier that he try twisted The complicated history of nematic, but it was probably too twisted-nematic liquid-crystal dis- late. His group was already disband- plays, from invention to patent and ing, and he was looking forward to market, has elements of a detec- being a White House Fellow. So, tive story. This history was first against my original intention, the treated in a review article by Hiro idea of twisted nematic traveled Kawamoto and more recently in a with me to Basle, Switzerland, book by David Dunmur and Tim where it was finally reduced to prac- Sluckin. The present ceremony tice by Martin Schadt. is a good occasion to thank these It clearly speaks in favor of this authors—Hiro Kawamoto is, in fact, country that you invited us Europe- here—for their painstaking scrutiny ans to share the prize with George in resolving many of the mysteries. Heilmeier and Peter Brody. All of There is also a young man among us the winners feel very much honored who just got his Ph.D. with a thesis to receive this prestigious award. In on the history of liquid crystals at Wolfgang Helfrich the first place, our thanks go to the RCA Laboratories. National Academy of Engineering As the winners of this year’s I am speaking to you today and to its president, Charles Vest. Draper Prize, we can be proud of because I am the oldest of the three We should not be shy, but thank our work. At the same time, we are personally present winners of the with joy our nominators and their aware of the enormous amount of Charles Stark Draper Prize, but I am supporters. We are grateful also to engineering it took to make liquid- not going to speak about the trou- everyone involved in the smooth crystal electro-optical displays the bles of old age. Instead, I go back in organization of today’s event. success they are today. Peter Brody time roughly 45 years to RCA Labo- The Academy generously allowed and Martin Schadt took part in this ratories, where I had the good luck us to invite family, colleagues, and engineering development. of being assigned to the liquid crys- friends. This makes the event a We all consider ourselves fortu- tal group led by George Heilmeier, great opportunity for reunions. Let nate to have been involved in the the man who introduced liquid crys- me also address a special word of beginnings of a technology that, tal electro-optical displays. thanks to my sons-in-law who are in our own lifetime, has become My charter back then was to taking care of the grandchildren in ubiquitous. look into the physics of the group’s Germany while our three daughters newly invented displays. I suggested are here in the audience. SUMMER 2012 63

Bernard M. Gordon Prize

The 2012 Bernard M. Gordon Engineering Program combines writing and presentations, has had a Prize was awarded to Clive L. Dym, hands-on, experience-based learn- profound influence on other institu- M. Mack Gilkeson, and J. Richard ing, exemplified by its innovative tions and curricula. The HMC cur- Phillips “for creating and dissemi- Engineering Clinic, with formal riculum also includes opportunities nating innovations in undergradu- design instruction. The goal is to for teaching K–12 students and a ate engineering design education to create engineering leaders. The leadership strategy course in which develop engineering leaders.” innovative Engineering Program, students meet and get to know The Harvey Mudd College (HMC) which also strongly emphasizes highly successful business people.

Acceptance Remarks by Clive L. Dym

1955. Shortly thereafter, HMC’s The real story developed because Engineering Department set out the Engineering Department is part on an innovative path in engineer- of a remarkable institution that ing education, creating a tradition also embraced the creative tension and ethos that survive and prosper between tradition and change, an as we speak. A new paradigm was institution of faculty and students, established that recognizes the value of staff and administration, through- of experiential learning, the impor- out Harvey Mudd College. tance of engagement with industry, You have already heard about the centrality of design, and the Mack and Rich and me. We also values of professional practice. The want to recognize and remember program started with a freshman two other innovative collaborators, projects course and continued with now deceased: Jack Alford was the our famed Engineering Clinic. Now, co-creator of Engineering Clinic, almost 60 years later, our students and Ted Woodson was our first for- have completed 1,000 Engineering mally titled Director of Engineer- Clive L. Dym Clinic projects and more than 150 ing Clinic. first-year design projects. The conferral of the Gordon Prize Good evening, Mr. Gordon, mem- But the real story is not just the on Mack, Rich, and me will encour- bers of the Gordon Prize committee, number of Clinics and first-year age our HMC engineering col- Dr. Vest, members of the National design projects, nor is it the Mudd leagues to continue our endeavors at Academy, ladies and gentlemen. Design Workshops that came much home while preaching our sermon First and foremost, on behalf of later. The real story is the institu- to an increasingly receptive choir. Mack Gilkeson and Rich Phillips tional commitment to a set of ideas Three of those colleagues are here and myself, thank you. The Ber- that have cast engineering education tonight, Zee Duron (HMC ’87), Pat nard M. Gordon Prize for innova- in a new light. Thus, while balanc- Little, and Liz Orwin (HMC ’95), as tion in engineering and technology ing a growing tradition against the is our president, Maria Klawe. is unique in the world in its focus need to embrace change in a rapidly Finally, to the Academy, to our and magnitude, and the honor you changing world, a small undergradu- colleagues, and to the families that confer on us is truly exceptional. ate institution has created a model have supported us over the years, Harvey Mudd College (HMC) engineering curriculum, and at the thank you. was founded as a “liberal arts col- same time, has graduated a (small) lege of science and engineering” in host of talented engineers. The 64 BRIDGE

Report of the Foreign Secretary

eign Associates and the membership As Foreign Secretary, I also work at large in building capacity in NAE closely on NRC activities with my to work on these global problems. counterparts in the NAS and IOM. An important program for One ongoing activity is an initiative establishing links between NAE funded by a grant from the Gates and engineers around the world Foundation to develop capacity has been the bilateral Frontiers of in African academies of science. I Engineering workshops, which the attended a board meeting of ASADI NAE Program Office has nurtured (African Science Academy Devel- for many years. I had the privilege opment Initiative) in Uganda in of attending three of those work- November 2011. This was my first shops in the past year, one with trip to Africa, and it was clear to Venky Narayanamurti the European Union (in Irvine, me from the ASADI meeting that As you may know, I assumed California, in November 2011), our African colleagues are eager to the post of NAE Foreign Secre- one with India (in Arlington, Vir- enhance the role of science, engi- tary in July 2011. In this post, I ginia, in February-March 2012) neering, and medicine in matters hope to continue to build on the and one with Germany (in Pots- of public policy in their emerging activities of my predecessors in an dam, also in March 2012). These economies. increasingly globalized world. The workshops bring together promis- I know many of you also par- emergence of new economic power- ing young researchers in a variety ticipate in ongoing activities in houses in Asia and Latin America of disciplines to address challenges the international arena. I would and the need to find solutions to that require multi-disciplinary solu- welcome hearing your suggestions global challenges (such as energy tions. The most recent meeting in for how NAE might increase its and water, climate change, engi- Potsdam, for example, highlighted reach and influence on the inter­ neering resilient systems, etc.) have work on microrobotics for hazard- national stage. made the importance of engineering ous environments, nano-materials in international cooperation very for environmental solutions, energy clear. I hope in the coming years I systems, and implantable electron- can engage more with both our For- ics for human health. Venky Narayanamurti SUMMER 2012 65

NAE Chair, Home Secretary, and Councillors Elected

Charles O. Holliday, Jr. Thomas F. Budinger Corale L. Brierley Arnold F. Stancell Anita K. Jones

Richard H. Truly Irwin M. Jacobs Robert F. Sproull G. Wayne Clough

This spring, NAE elected a new of Brierley Consultancy LLC, and maximum allowed under the NAE chair, reelected its home secretary, Arnold F. Stancell, retired vice bylaws. Robert F. Sproull, retired reelected two incumbent council- president of Mobil Oil and Turner vice president and director of Sun lors, and elected two new council- Professor of Chemical Engineering, Labs at Oracle, completed six con- lors. All terms begin July 1, 2012. Emeritus, at the Georgia Institute tinuous years of service as council- The new NAE chair, elected of Technology, were reelected to lor, the maximum allowed under the to a two-year term, is Charles O. three-year terms as councillors. NAE bylaws. G. Wayne Clough, Holliday, Jr., chairman of Bank of Two new councillors, also elected secretary of the Smithsonian Insti- America­ and retired chairman of to three-year terms, are Anita K. tution, completed four continuous the board and CEO of E.I. DuPont Jones, University Professor Emerita years of service as councillor; Dr. de Nemours and Co. Thomas F. at the University of Virginia, and Clough was ineligible for a continu- Budinger, professor of the graduate Richard H. Truly, retired vice ing three-year term because it would school at the University of Cali- admiral in the United States Navy have exceeded the maximum six fornia, Berkeley, and faculty senior and retired director of the National years of continuous service allowed scientist at the E.O. Lawrence Renewable Energy Laboratory. under NAE bylaws. Drs. Jacobs, Berkeley National Laboratory, was On June 30, 2012, Irwin M. Sproull, and Clough were recog- reelected to a four-year term as NAE Jacobs, director of Qualcomm nized in May for their distinguished home secretary. Incorporated, completed two service and other contibutions to Corale L. Brierley, principal terms of service as NAE chair, the the NAE. The 66 BRIDGE

2012 German-American Frontiers of Engineering Symposium Held in Potsdam, Germany

developing robust robotic systems; system design, mobile manipula- tion, and human-machine interac- tion in challenging environments; and autonomous robotic systems for Mars exploration. The organizers of the session on Nanomaterials and the Environ- ment brought together a panel to discuss the benefits and conse­ quences of nanomaterials in the environment. The first two talks focused on examples of the benefits of nanotechnology in engineered materials and devices. The third Poster session during the symposium. Photo courtesy of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. and fourth speakers described some of the unintended consequences of The 2012 German-American bring together emerging engineer- nanomaterials that are allowed to Frontiers of Engineering (GAFOE) ing leaders in a venue that facili- interact with the environment and Symposium was held on March tates interdisciplinary transfers of the challenges of assessing these 29–31 at the Steigenberger Hotel knowledge and methodologies from consequences. Specifically, the Sans Souci in Potsdam, Germany. a variety of areas of engineering. In speakers focused on using nano- GAFOE, the “oldest” bilateral Fron- bilateral symposia, there is an added enabled products to produce clean tiers of Engineering program, was dimension of building coopera- water; nanoparticle aerosols in initiated in 1998. NAE’s partner tive networks of younger engineers workplace environments; life-cycle in organizing GAFOE events is the across national boundaries. The analysis, exposure, release, and fate Alexander von Humboldt Founda- four topics at the GAFOE meeting of nanomaterials in aquatic environ- tion. The symposium organizing this year were robotics for hazardous ments; and issues of ecotoxicology committee was co-chaired by NAE environments, nanomaterials and that may arise when nanomateri- member Cynthia Barnhart, associ- the environment, energy storage, als and organisms interact, possibly ate dean for academic affairs, School and implantable electronics. causing unintended consequences of Engineering, and professor of In the introduction to the first ses- throughout the food chain. civil and environmental engineer- sion, Robotics for Hazardous Envi- Energy storage systems can de- ing at the Massachusetts Institute of ronments, the organizers provided couple the production and consump- Technology; and Peter Moser, head an overview of the current state-of- tion of thermal or electrical energy, of new technology R&D at RWE the-art in field robotics, identified thereby facilitating flexibility in the Power AG. short- and long-term scientific and supply and demand of energy and Modeled on the U.S. Fron- technological challenges, and out- making it possible to power mobile tiers of Engineering Symposium, lined a vision for the future in which applications. For example, as renew- the GAFOE Symposium brought robots will assist, or even replace able energy becomes more impor- together outstanding engineers, ages humans in hazardous environments. tant, the need for storing energy 30 to 45, working in German and Presentations covered robotic from intermittent sources such as U.S. companies, universities, and navigation; probabilistic reasoning wind power has renewed the focus government. Like its U.S. counter- methods paired with optimization on energy storage technologies. part, the goal of the meeting was to and machine learning techniques for This topic touches on a great many SUMMER 2012 67

areas of engineering, including grid closed-loop systems with integrated attendees presented their research integration, electrical vehicle range, sensors. The speakers provided an or technical work to each other. charging/storing efficiencies, and overview of state-of-the-art implant- The posters, which remained on issues related to life-cycle and deg- able electronics and insights into display throughout the symposium, radation. Speakers in this session anticipated developments. The first prompted many conversations that discussed the energy storage systems presentation focused on new materi- continued throughout the meet- necessary for a successful electric- als and fabrication technologies for ing. On the second afternoon, a ity grid, a methodology for assessing implantable neural electrode arrays. bus tour of Potsdam took attendees the potential value of different grid- The next speaker described advances to the city’s famous parks, palaces, based energy storage technologies, in implantable electronics for neu- and renovated villas, as well the energy storage for sustainable auto- ral stimulation and recording for notorious Glienecke Bridge over motive transportation, and ther- cochlear implants, deep brain stimu- the Havel River, the former border mal energy storage for dispatchable lation, and retinal prosthetics. The between U.S.-occupied West Ber- power generation with a focus on third speaker’s topic was the devel- lin and Soviet-occupied Potsdam, solar thermal power plants. opment of integrated, autonomous which was in East Germany during The organizers of the Implantable medical microsystems for monitor- the Cold War. Electronics session noted that, since ing and/or controlling physiological Funding for the meeting the implantation of the first cardiac parameters; these devices, which was provided by the Alexan- pacemakers in the 1960s, technical were originally intended for inter- der von Humboldt Foundation, progress in the field of microelec- facing with the nervous systems of The Grainger Foundation, and the tronics and micromachining has led moths, are now being translated for National Science Foundation. The to the widespread use of implant- human applications. The final talk next GAFOE Symposium will be able electronics in various biomedi- was on Argus®II, a 60-electrode neu- held in 2013 in the United States. cal applications. However, many ral interface implant that restores a Cynthia Barnhart and Peter Moser technical challenges remain, such as degree of vision to subjects with reti- will continue to serve as co-chairs. biocompatibility, the need for bat- nitis pigmentosa. For more information about teries that can store large amounts As is typical at bilateral FOE GAFOE, contact Janet Hunziker in of energy in small volumes, and meetings, a poster session was held the NAE Program Office at (202) extending implant functionality for on the first afternoon at which 334-1571 or [email protected]. The 68 BRIDGE

4th Indo-American Frontiers of Engineering Symposium Held in Arlington, Virginia

Participants in the fourth Indo-American Frontiers of Engineering Symposium. Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin.

The fourth Indo-American Fron- Like other bilateral FOE events, ments that can withstand natural tiers of Engineering (IAFOE) Sym- this meeting brought together hazards. In the last few decades, posium was held on March 1–3. approximately 60 engineers, ages 30 significant progress has been made This biennial symposium series— to 45, from U.S. and Indian univer- in hazard assessment and hazard- one of five joint FOE programs— sities, companies, and government resistant design, as well as in under- was inaugurated in 2006. The labs for a 2-1/2–day meeting during standing and assessing related risks. Indo-U.S. Science and Technology which leading-edge developments Presentations focused on determin- Forum (IUSSTF) is NAE’s partner in four engineering fields were dis- istic and probabilistic approaches in in this endeavor. cussed: engineering large infrastruc- modern hazard assessments, perfor- NAE member Lisa Alvarez- ture for natural hazards; engineering mance- and risk-based engineering Cohen, Fred and Claire Sauer at the interface with science; intel- approaches to seismic safety, the phi- Professor and chair of the Depart- ligent transportation systems; and losophy of risk and reliability engi- ment of Civil and Environmental technology enablers for advances neering, and issues specific to nuclear Engineering at the University of in aerospace materials. Each ses- power plant structures in India. California, Berkeley, served as U.S. sion included presentations by two The second session, Engineer- co-chair. Upadrasta Ramamurty, Indian and two U.S. participants. ing at the Interface with Science, professor of materials engineering The session on Engineering Large focused on how engineering and at the Indian Institute of Science Infrastructure for Natural Hazards science can be mutually enriched in Bangalore, was Indian co-chair. was inspired by recent events, such through interaction, especially the The event was hosted by Lockheed as the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and implications for technology. The Martin at the Hyatt Regency Crys- tsunami and other reminders of the design and manipulation of physical/ tal City in Arlington, Virginia. importance of building environ- chemical materials and biological SUMMER 2012 69

materials with desirable properties, for Advances in Aerospace Mate- Two factors, he said, are particularly as well as the emerging field of syn- rials. The leaders of this session important to becoming a leader in thetic biology, are examples of areas noted that, despite the importance innovation: effective allocation in engineering that interface with of materials technology to aero- of resources in the face of extreme biology, physics, and chemistry. space systems, the introduction of uncertainty and the creation of pro- The speakers covered soft modes new materials is becoming increas- cesses and cultures that encourage and related phenomena in materi- ingly infrequent because of the cost and support appropriate allocation als, engineering the microstructure and time involved in developing decisions. of semi-crystalline polymers, a new them and the inherent risk aver- Subra Suresh, director of the approach to delivering active forms sion of aerospace system designers. National Science Foundation of proteins to specific cells and Recently, the focus has shifted to (NSF), who spoke on the second organs in living organisms using the development of adjacent tech- night, described NSF’s mission, biodegradable nano-capsules, and nologies, such as joining, coatings, its tackling of global and national programming cellular behavior with life prediction, and computational challenges, and its new initiatives, RNA controllers. modeling and simulation to improve such as Partnerships for Enhanced The topic for the next session the performance of existing materi- Engagement in Research, Innova- was Intelligent Transportation als at significantly lower cost and in tion Corps, and the NSF Career Life Systems (ITS), systems that use a much shorter time. The speakers Initiative. information technology to create highlighted recent advances in adja- A poster session on the first effective transportation operations. cent technologies that are impact- afternoon provided an opportunity The major focus was on underlying ing modern aerospace materials. for all participants to talk about technological innovations and fun- Presentations focused on integrated their research or technical work. damental challenges confronting computational materials engineer- On the second afternoon, the ITS. The goal was to explore how ing, which enables the optimization group toured the Lockheed Mar- ITS is being used to improve surface of materials, manufacturing pro- tin Global Vision Center where transportation in a variety of urban cesses, and component design long docents explained exhibits in the environments and how wireless before components are fabricated by Energy Solutions Center, the Space communications can improve safety integrating computational processes Experience Center, and the Tacti- and efficiency. Talks in this session into a holistic system; the design cal Solutions Center. included an overview of the U.S. and deployment of nanostructural Primary support for the IAFOE Federal Highway Administration alloys; challenges in developing Symposium was provided by Lock- Connected Vehicles Program, spe- new coatings to improve the perfor- heed Martin and IUSSTF. The next cific infrastructure applications of mance of existing aerospace mate- symposium in the IAFOE series will wireless communications, how ITS rials; and the latest trends in the be held in March 2014 in India. is being used to model and control joining of aerospace materials. For more information about FOE traffic in Indian urban areas with There were two dinner speak- series or to nominate an outstand- heterogeneous conditions, and data ers during the conference. On the ing engineer for participation in collection and surveillance chal- first night, John Evans, corporate a future FOE meeting, contact lenges to providing advanced public vice president for technology and Janet Hunziker in the NAE Pro- transportation and traveler informa- innovation at Lockheed Martin, gram Office at (202) 334-1571 or tion systems in India. spoke about leadership in innova- [email protected]. The final session of the meet- tion, which he defined as “repeat- ing was on Technology Enablers edly generating economic surprise.” The 70 BRIDGE

The Grainger Foundation Frontiers of Engineering Grants for the Advancement of Interdisciplinary Research

Two Grainger Foundation Fron- was awarded to Michelle Povi- in various engineering fields and tiers of Engineering Grants of nelli (University of Southern industry sectors. The goal is to facil- $30,000 each have been awarded to California) and Roman Stocker itate interactions and exchanges participants in the NAE 2011 U.S. (Massachusetts Institute of Tech- of techniques and approaches and Frontiers of Engineering (USFOE) nology) for the development of to facilitate networking among Symposium. nanophotonic tools for measuring the next generation of engineering Ali Khademhosseini (Harvard the motile behavior of microorgan- leaders. The Grainger Foundation Medical School) and Aydogan isms in response to applied stress. Frontiers of Engineering Grants Ozcan (University of California, By examining the movement of provide seed funding for USFOE Los Angeles) will receive a Grainger microorganisms as they consume participants working at U.S.-based Grant to support the demonstration energy, this research will advance institutions to enable them to pur- of a computational lens-free imag- understanding of ocean ecosystem sue important new interdisciplinary ing platform for high-throughput dynamics, bacteria-borne diseases, research and projects stimulated by screening of cells. This platform will and other subjects of interest. USFOE symposia. enable real-time monitoring of cells Frontiers of Engineering is an The Grainger Foundation, an in an engineered environment and NAE program that brings together independent, private foundation provide a lower cost, more effective outstanding early-career engineers based in Lake Forest, Illinois, was mechanism for drug discovery and from industry, universities, and gov- established in 1949 by William biological science experiments. ernment to discuss pioneering tech- W. Grainger, founder of W.W. The second Grainger Grant nical work and leading-edge research Grainger, Inc. SUMMER 2012 71

NAE Regional Meetings

in technology are driving down the cost of solar energy. By 2020, he said, 98 percent of the world population will have PV, because approximately 78 countries will be at grid parity, which is accelerating worldwide as a result of the explo- sive economics driving down the price of cSi PV and, therefore, driv- ing up demand. The real revolution in PV electricity, he said, is in build- ing smaller and better cells, an area in which the manufacturers and dis- tributors of solar-powered systems have exceeded expectations. Steven DenBaars, professor of Charles Vest, NAE president, Umesh Mishra, NAE member and UCSB professor of electrical and computer engineer- materials and co-director of the ing, and NAE member David Auston, executive director, UCSB Institute for Energy Efficiency, converse during a Solid-State Lighting and Energy break at the symposium. Center (SSLEC) at UCSB, focused on LEDs in his talk, “Energy Sav- Regional Meeting on Energy laureate in chemistry and UCSB ings Potential of LEDs for Energy Efficiency and Sustainability professor of physics and materials, Efficient Lighting and Future The University of California, was given by Herbert Kroemer, Research Directions in LEDs.” Dr. Santa Barbara (UCSB) College Nobel laureate in physics and UCSB DenBaars noted that the efficiency of Engineering hosted the NAE professor of electrical and computer of LED bulbs could potentially low- regional meeting and symposium on engineering and of materials. Dr. er energy consumption from light- Energy Efficiency and Sustainabil- Kroemer described early work on ing by 46 percent or more by 2030. ity on March 22, 2012. The sym- the creation of an efficient light- In the next five years, he said, the posium featured six presentations by emitting device. His research on cost of an LED light bulb will drop renowned university and industry semiconductor heterostructures, he from about $40 to $3. Thus, LED researchers on advances in energy explained, provided the foundation technology is approaching the curve efficient technology and materials. for semiconductor lasers as well as of economic viability as its effi- UCSB Chancellor Henry Yang for high-speed and opto-electronics ciency improves. He also described gave the campus welcome and research. His work also influenced future trends in LED research, such introduced NAE President Charles research on LEDs and solar cells, as a new approach with a red/green/ M. Vest. In his opening remarks, technologies that were the subjects blue active layer and gallium nitride Dr. Vest expressed his hope that of the next two presentations. (GaN) laser diodes. GaN technol- the symposium would convey the In “Silicon Photovoltaics: Accel- ogy, he explained, could be used importance of research in energy erating to Grid Parity,” Mark Pinto, for many more applications than efficiency for companies and nations executive vice president at Applied lighting. “With gallium nitride, to continue to grow economically. Materials and general manager of we believe we can get down to very Energy and Environmental Solu- low wavelengths for UV, which Session I tions, described improvements to can be used to purify water and The first presentation, “Hetero- the crystalline silicon photovoltaic thus realize enormous energy sav- structures for (almost) Everything,” cell (cSi PV). He explained how ings.” Ultimately, LED technol- introduced by Alan Heeger, Nobel market forces and improvements ogy could save the United States The 72 BRIDGE

$250 billion a year in cumulative a chip through photonic integra- thinking and entrepreneurial action, energy costs. tion on silicon, then efficient chip- and research university communities to-chip communication can solve have the largest assembly of assets Session II the capacity and power limits in for innovation and entrepreneur- Jim Dehlsen, executive chairman data centers and super computers,” ship. On April 18, NAE held its first of the board of directors of Ecomerit­ he said. “We need lasers on silicon regional meeting in Greater Wash- Technologies LLC, opened the sec- chips that are efficient and use less ington, D.C., to explore the intrinsic ond session with “Emerging Marine than 1 picojoule per bit.” partnership of universities, industry, Hydrokinetic Technology,” a talk The final presentation, “High and government in innovation and on how business innovation con- Efficiency Power Conversion Using entrepreneurship. tributes to new energy technologies. Gallium Nitride: The Next Semi- The event began with welcoming Dr. Dehlsen traced the development conductor Revolution,” was given remarks by Wallace Loh, president, of the Aquantis C-Plane, an under- by Umesh Mishra, UCSB professor University of Maryland, Charles water turbine for harnessing hydro- of electrical and computer engineer- Vest, president, NAE, and C.D. kinetic power from ocean currents. ing, who described forthcoming solu- (Dan) Mote Jr., Regents Professor, To build the Aquantis, his team tions to the in­efficiency problems of University of Maryland. Each of the used techniques learned from the power conversion. “There is a ‘hid- two sessions that followed featured design of wind turbines, and thus den tax’ on electricity,” he said. “In a plenary speaker and a moderated developed a “mature” technology the United States, power conver- panel of experts from government, for ocean engineering. One poten- sion loss comes at an economic cost academia, and industry. The topic tially significant, still untapped area of $40 billion, the equivalent of of the first session was “Govern- for underwater turbines is the Gulf 318 coal power plants.” Dr. Mishra ment-University-Industry Partner- Stream off the Florida coast. By noted that the amount of energy ships in Regional Innovation and 2020, the potential contribution of that could be saved by eliminat- Entrepreneurship: What Works and marine kinetic energy is estimated ing the need to convert voltages What Doesn’t?” The focus of the to be about 15 to 20 percent of total for laptops and other devices is second session was on “Educating energy output. greater than all the energy gener- Next-Generation Innovators and John Bowers, director of the ated from wind and solar power in Entrepreneurs: Expanding beyond Institute for Energy Efficiency and the United States. One solution, Business, Science and Engineering.” UCSB professor of electrical and he said, was using GaN-based cir- The first plenary speaker, Kevin computer engineering, focused cuits to shrink circuits, and thereby Plank, founder, president, CEO, on how data centers can be made reduce energy waste. and chairman of Under Armour more efficient through photonics. Rod Alferness, Richard A. Auhll Inc., opened the session on partner- In “Energy Efficient Communica- Professor and dean of the UCSB ships. This was followed by a panel tion and Computing,” Dr. Bowers College of Engineering, delivered discussion. Panelists were Patrick illustrated how optical communica- closing remarks and thanked the Gallagher, under secretary of com- tions for microscale processors could members of NAE for attending. For merce for standards and technology be scaled up to the macroscale. In more information and photos from and director, National Institute of a data center, he said, photonics the symposium, visit http://www. Standards and Technology; Sudha- can add speed and power by offer- engineering.ucsb.edu/NAE2012/. kar Kesavan, chairman and CEO, ing low-power, fast optical switches ICF International; Robert Fischell, through CMOS technology. Bring- Symposium on chairman, Fischell Biomedical and ing the photonic interface closer Government-University- Angel Medical Systems; and Thomas to the processor chip, or even onto Industry Partnerships in Scholl, general partner, Novak Bid- the processor chip, he explained, Regional Innovation and dle Venture Partners. can reduce the input/output power Entrepreneurship The panel moderator, Allan requirement and increase input/out- Today’s knowledge economy Will, president, CEO, and chair- put capacity. “If we can succeed in depends on the translation of knowl- man, EBR Systems Inc., began the terabit per second connectivity on edge into value through innovative discussion with a question: “What SUMMER 2012 73

facilitates success in government- a culture of inaction; fear of making panelists agreed that educational university-industry partnerships for mistakes; allowing lawyers to make models for innovation and entre- venture creation?” The panelists business decisions; not removing preneurship must embrace not just agreed that people—great leader- obstacles to success promptly; being business students but students in all ship, taking the time to learn about subject to overly cautious regula- areas of study. In addition, because each other, and ensuring that the tory agencies; demanding perfec- program requirements leave little right people are in the right roles— tion rather than pursuing iterative room for new courses, the best way are fundamental to successful ven- successes; allowing bureaucracy to to reach students is to embed the tures. The factors that make for take over; creating licensing terms teaching of entrepreneurship into successful partnerships must include that stifle success (e.g., not appre- existing curricula. a common value proposition and ciating that different technologies/ Experiential learning, the pan- compelling goals; agreement on stages/company types require differ- elists agreed, is a key factor in roles, contributions, and expecta- ent licensing agreements). Finally, removing barriers and encourag- tions; agreement on the decision- complications ensue when partners ing learning and should be intro- making structure and process; and do not have a common measure duced whenever possible—in a willingness to be unconventional. of success. formal classes, “incubators,” and Successful operations require recog- informal settings. Experiential nizing the consequences of inac- The second session began learning inspires creativity and tion; being willing to compromise with a plenary address by Philip out-of-the-box, often unconven- to create “wins”; iterating continu- Weilerstein, executive director, tional approaches to problem solv- ally; having effective policies for National Collegiate Inventors and ing. The panelists also agreed that intellectual property; and address- Innovators Alliance (NCIIA). He vision and passion for problem ing competitive markets. Finally, described the creation of an eco- solving are mandatory for suc- success, they said, requires that system for innovation and entre- cess. To bring down the barriers broad impacts take precedence over preneurship that culminates in to pursuing innovation, standard- pure monetization. Success, they commercialization. The panelists ized “sign and innovate” intellec- concluded, should be celebrated included Holden Thorp, chancel- tual property agreements should and publicized enthusiastically. lor, University of North Carolina at be in place, and diversity among The panel then turned to the Chapel Hill; Thomas Miller, execu- entrepreneurs should be strongly converse question: “What impedes tive director, Entrepreneurship supported. Finally, failures should success in government-university- Initiative, North Carolina State be considered opportunities for industry partnerships for venture University; James Green, director, learning. “Failure teaches budding creation?” The same elements Entrepreneurship Education and entrepreneurs important lessons.” were again crucial: people, partner- Hinman CEOs Program, University ships, operations, and success can of Maryland; and David Baggett, The symposium website, http:// also lead to adverse effects. Poor founder and president, Arcode. www.eng.umd.edu/html/nae/index. and/or indecisive leadership, adver- Following the panelists’ remarks, html, includes links to the meeting sarial relationships, and mistrust are Dean Chang, director, Mtech Ven- summary, speaker biographies, and a significant deterrents to successful ture Programs, University of Mary- webcast of the entire event. ventures. Some of the most diffi- land, moderated a discussion on cult challenges to overcome may be teaching entrepreneurship. The The 74 BRIDGE

“Making Value,” an NAE Workshop

On June 11–12, NAE convened a neering practice at the University of The workshop was part of a new workshop on “Making Value: Inte- Michigan, Nicholas M. Donofrio, NAE initiative on the interface of grating Manufacturing, Design, and IBM Fellow Emeritus, and Jonathan manufacturing, design, and inno- Innovation to Thrive in the Chang- J. Rubinstein, former executive vation, directed by senior program ing Global Economy.” The one chairman and CEO of Palm Inc. officer Katie Whitefoot. The goal and one-half day meeting brought A principal theme throughout of the initiative, which will include together approximately 50 invited the workshop was that “making a portfolio of activities, such as experts to explore future direc- things” is only one component part workshops, symposia, and consen- tions in manufacturing, design, and of “making value.” Manufactur- sus studies, is to identify and analyze innovation and their implications ers are increasingly focusing on the exemplary business practices and for U.S. jobs and economic per- complete experiences of their cus- inform the national debate on man- formance. NAE members on the tomers—not only physical products, ufacturing and innovation policies. steering committee were Lawrence but also non-physical content (such D. Burns (chair), professor of engi- as software) and services.

2nd USA Science and Engineering Expo

NAE recently participated in develop a Grand Challenges mobile “Mixed Messages: Communicating the second USA Science and application passport concept for the Complexity in a Crisis.” During the Engineering Expo at the Walter E. Expo. The mobile app, available for presentation, the audience became Washington Convention Center in use with Apple or Android devices, witnesses and participants in a mock downtown Washington, D.C., the was designed to encourage exhibit- emergency situation that unfolded largest celebration of science and goers to learn about the Grand in a virtual world created by the engineering in the United States. Challenges. Passport participants University of Maryland Center for The event featured more than 3,000 collected digital stamps by scanning Advanced Transportation Technol- hands-on activities and 150 perfor- QR codes on Grand Challenge- ogy Laboratory. The presentation mances designed to appeal to visitors themed signs at exhibits. Users who included a discussion with WTOP of all ages and provide a wide vari- scanned at least 10 QR codes from Radio traffic reporter Bob Mar- ety of ways to explore how science different Grand Challenges tracks bourg, EPA environmental engi- and engineering influence our lives. were eligible for a prize drawing, neer Sharon Kenny, and University Exhibits were organized into tracks sponsored by IBM. There were four of Maryland fire protection engineer based on NAE’s Grand Challenges winners each day. People could also Peter Sunderland on the critical for Engineering: 14 Game-Changing participate using physical stamps, role of scientists and engineers in Goals for the 21st Century (www. and the passport concept was promi- communicating effectively with the engineeringchallenges.org). nently displayed on the Expo map. public during an emergency. NAE partnered with students at NAE also organized a stage the University of Texas at El Paso to presentation at the Expo called, SUMMER 2012 75

Ambitious Fundraising Goals for NAE’s 50th Anniversary in 2014

In 2014, NAE will celebrate its for engineering. Between now and 50 New Members of the 50th anniversary. Since 1964, NAE December 2014, NAE invites all of Heritage Society has not only advised government on its friends, and especially its mem- The Heritage Society recognizes matters of technology and engineer- bers, to help celebrate 50 years of members and friends who have ing, but has also expanded its purpose accomplishment and launch the thoughtfully included gifts to NAE to include spreading the message of next 50 years of NAE’s service to in their long-term financial plans. engineering to students, parents, the nation. educators, policy makers, and the In addition to ensuring long-term 50 Leadership Gifts general public to ensure continuing stability, NAE hopes this fundrais- We encourage members, friends, American progress and competitive- ing effort will be an opportunity for corporations, and foundations to ness. Past accomplishments spear- members to help NAE. This would consider making a Leadership Gift headed by NAE members include mean not only seeking financial of $50,000 to $1 million or more. influential projects and studies, such contributions, but also listening to as Rising Above the Gathering Storm, the ideas and concerns of members 50 New Members of the America’s Energy Future, and the and others who want to help NAE Einstein Society recent report, Macondo Well Deep- reach its 50th anniversary goals: The Einstein Society recognizes water Horizon Blowout. NAE members and friends whose 50 Percent Participation Rate With an eye to the future, NAE cumulative giving totals $100,000 among Members has launched Celebrating 50 Years or more. of Engineering Leadership and Ser- This goal, the cornerstone of our vice, a 50th anniversary fundraising 50th anniversary fundraising effort, If you are interested in becoming effort. By expanding funding, embodies the inclusive spirit of our involved in the 50th anniversary NAE can reach its 50th anni- philanthropic community. fundraising effort, please contact versary with resources that will Radka Nebesky, Senior Director of help the engineering community 50 New Members of the Development, at 202-334-3417 or address the Grand Challenges fac- Golden Bridge Society [email protected]. ing our society and our world, turn Our Golden Bridge Society recog- complex technological questions nizes NAE members and friends into opportunities for innovation whose cumulative giving totals and improvement, and maintain $20,000 to $99,999. NAE’s position as a national voice The 76 BRIDGE

New NAE Publications

Making Things: 21st Century Manu- engineering is continually changing. and widespread convenience. This facturing and Design: Summary of a To thrive in this environment, engi- report summarizes a joint workshop Forum. More than two decades ago, neers must be able to work on inter- on global navigation satellite systems a commission of 17 MIT scientists disciplinary teams. Cutting-edge (GNSS) held by the U.S. National and economists released Made in research is being conducted at the Academy of Engineering and the America, a report that opened with intersections of engineering disci- Chinese Academy of Engineering a memorable phrase, “To live well, plines, and successful researchers and on May 24–25, 2011, in Shanghai, a nation must produce well.” Is this practitioners must be aware of devel- China. NAE President Charles still true? Can the United States opments and challenges in areas that M. Vest opened the workshop with remain a preeminent nation while may not be familiar to them. At the these words: “We have one world, other countries make the products 2011 U.S. Frontiers of Engineering and only one set of global resources. that were once made in America? Symposium, 100 mid-career engi- It is important to work together on These questions were at the heart neers had an opportunity to learn satellite navigation. Competing and of the discussion during “Making from their peers about pioneering cooperation are like Yin and Yang. Things: 21st Century Manufactur- work in many areas of engineering. They need to be balanced.” ing and Design,” a forum held during This volume highlights the pre- This workshop report covers the 2011 NAE Annual Meeting. In sentations at the 2011 symposium, the objectives of the workshop: a wide-ranging conversation, seven which addressed four general topics: improving interoperability and leaders of business, government, and additive manufacturing, semantic interchangeability for all civil users; academia explored various aspects processing, engineering sustainable collaborative efforts to counter the of manufacturing and design and buildings, and neuro-prosthetics. global threat of inadvertent or illegal outlined the many opportunities, The summaries and papers in this interference to GNSS signals; and and responsibilities, for engineers in annual collection provide an over- new applications for GNSS with an manufacturing. This report provides view of the challenges and opportu- emphasis on productivity, safety, and a summary of the discussions during nities in these fields of inquiry and environmental protection. the forum, a forum agenda, and short communicate the excitement of dis- The overall goal of the workshop bibliographies of the participants. covery and interaction among the was to promote technical and policy- NAE members on the panel symposium participants. related cooperation between the were Craig R. Barrett, retired CEO NAE member Andrew M. Weiner, United States and China to ben- and chairman of the board, Intel Scifres Distinguished Professor, Pur- efit both countries and GNSS users Corporation; Rodney A. Brooks, due University, chaired the sympo- worldwide. The workshop presenta- Panasonic Professor of Robotics sium organizing committee. Paper, tions include relevant engineering/ (Emeritus), Massachusetts Institute $45.00. technical content; are of mutual of Technology; Lawrence D. Burns, interest to the peoples of both professor of engineering practice, Global Navigation Satellite Systems: countries; stress the need for GNSS University of Michigan, and retired Report of a Joint Workshop of the availability, accuracy, integrity, and vice president, R&D and Strategic National Academy of Engineering and continuity; and suggest topics for Planning, General Motors Corpora- the Chinese Academy of Engineering. further action and discussion. tion; and David M. Kelley, Donald The Global Positioning System NAE members Bradford W. Par- W. Whittier Professor of Mechani- (GPS), which has revolutionized the kinson, Edward C. Wells Professor cal Engineering, Stanford Univer- measurement of position, velocity, of Aeronautics and Astronautics, sity. Paper, $27.00. and time, has rapidly evolved into a Stanford University, and Per K. worldwide utility. Today, more than Enge, Department of Aeronautics Frontiers of Engineering 2011: Reports a billion receiver sets provide enor- and Astronautics, Stanford Univer- on Leading-Edge Engineering from the mous benefits to humanity, such as sity, were members of the workshop 2011 Symposium. The practice of improved safety, higher productivity, steering committee. Paper, $65.00. SUMMER 2012 77

Macondo Well-Deepwater Horizon oversight should combine strong and Turner Professor of Chemi- Blowout: Lessons for Offshore Drilling industry safety goals with mandatory cal Engineering Emeritus, Georgia Safety. The blowout of the Macondo oversight at critical points in drill- Institute of Technology; and Mark well on April 20, 2010, caused the ing operations. D. Zoback, Benjamin M. Page Pro- deaths of 11 workers on the Deep- The committee also discusses fessor of Geophysics, Stanford Uni- water Horizon drilling rig and seri- the ultimate responsibility and versity. Paper, $49.00. ously injured 16 others. There were accountability for well integrity and also serious consequences for the the safety of offshore equipment, Good Guys, Wiseguys and Putting up companies involved in the drill- formal system safety education and Buildings: A Life in Construction. Sam ing operations, the Gulf of Mexico training for personnel engaged in Florman, Chairman of Kreisler ecosystems, and the economy of offshore drilling, and guidelines to Borg Florman General Construc- the region and beyond. During ensure that well designs incorporate tion Company, has just published the three months it took to kill the protection against credible risks his seventh book, a charming, well, nearly five million barrels of associated with the drilling and adventurous memoir that begins oil spilled into the gulf. The pur- abandonment processes. with his experiences as a Navy pose of this report is to look into the NAE members on the study Seabee during WWII and follows causes of the blowout and provide committee were Donald C. Win- his career in the construction of recommendations for the oil and gas ter (chair), Former Secretary of New York public housing, hospi- industry and government regulators the Navy, U.S. Department of the tals, schools, and places of wor- for decreasing the likelihood and Navy; David E. Daniel, president, ship. In his new book, “Florman impact of future losses of well con- The University of Texas at Dallas; emphasizes (and embodies) the trol during offshore drilling. Roger L. McCarthy, consultant, interaction between technology The study committee for this McCarthy Engineering; Keith K. and the social fabric of the nation, joint report by NAE and the Millheim, president, Strategic and his descriptions of the politi- National Research Council, rec- Worldwide LLC; M. Elisabeth cians, technocrats, do-gooders, and ommends that companies involved Paté-Cornell, Burt and Deedee Mafiosi with whom he came in con- in offshore drilling adopt a “system McMurtry Professor Management tact will change the reader’s view of safety” approach to anticipating Science and Engineering, Stanford the construction industry.” Fortune and managing potential danger University; Robert F. Sawyer, Class Magazine says “Florman is the man at every level of operation—from of 1935 Professor of Energy Emeri- we’ve been looking for. Incredible ensuring the integrity of wells to tus, Department of Mechanical as the combination may appear, he designing blowout preventers that Engineering, University of Califor- is both a practicing engineer and can function under all foreseeable nia, Berkeley; Arnold F. Stancell, a truly gifted writer.” St. Martin’s conditions. In addition, regulatory retired vice president, Mobil Oil, Press, $25.99. The 78 BRIDGE

Calendar of Events

June 11–12 NAE Workshop on August 1–August 2 NAE Council Meeting September 19–20 National Engineering Forum Making Value: Integrating Woods Hole, Massachusetts New York, New York Manufacturing, Design, and August 30–31 CAETS Meeting September 28–29 NAE Council Meeting Innovation to Thrive in the Zurich, Switzerland Changing Global Economy September 29 NAE Peer Committee Meetings Venable Conference Center, September 13–15 U.S. Frontiers of Engineering September 30– NAE Annual Meeting Washington, D.C. Symposium October 1 Warren, Michigan July 11–12 Integrated STEM Committee Meeting

In Memoriam

FRANKLIN H. BLECHER, 82, ence and Metallurgy, University of 1975 “for contributions in noise retired executive director, Inte­ Cambridge, died on February 15, and vibration control of air, space, grated Circuit Design Division, 2012. Sir Cottrell was elected a for- and transportation vehicles and in AT&T Bell Laboratories, died on eign associate of NAE in 1976 “for delineating acceptable noise envi- January 12, 2012. Dr. Blecher was contributions to science and tech- ronment for people.” elected to NAE in 1979 “for con- nology of materials in engineering tributions to the development of structures and applications of engi- RICHARD G. FARMER, 83, solid-state circuits and leadership in neering science to major societal research professor, Department of the development of large telecom- problems.” Electrical Engineering, Arizona munication systems.” State University, died on March THOMAS M. COVER, 73, 26, 2012. Mr. Farmer was elected BERNARD L. COHEN, 87, Kwoh-Ting Li Professor of Engi- to NAE in 2006 “for the solution of Professor Emeritus of Physics and neering and professor of electrical problems in the dynamic operation Astronomy and Environmental engineering and statistics, Stan- of electric power systems, including and Occupational Health, Univer- ford University, died on March 26, subsynchronous resonance and sys- sity of Pennsylvania, died on March 2012. Dr. Cover was elected to tem stabilization.” 17, 2012. Dr. Cohen was elected NAE in 1995 “for contributions to to NAE in 2003 “for fundamental the theory and practice of pattern HAROLD K. FORSEN, 79, retired contributions to our understanding recognition, information theory, senior vice president, Bechtel Cor- of low-level radiation.” and communications.” poration, died on March 7, 2012. Dr. Forsen was elected to NAE in DALE R. CORSON, 97, President RUTH M. DAVIS, 83, president 1989 “for outstanding technical and Emeritus, Cornell University, died and CEO, Pymatuning Group, Inc., leadership contributions to fission, on March 31, 2012. Dr. Corson was died on March 28, 2012. Dr. Davis fusion, and energy technology in elected to NAE in 1981 for “lead- was elected to NAE in 1976 “for industry and academia.” ership in evaluation of engineer- contributions to computer science, ing enterprises vital to the national particularly information science ELMER L. GADEN, 88, Wills welfare, contributor to vital military technology.” Johnson Professor Emeritus, Depart- electronic developments, and lead- ment of Chemical Engineering, ership in engineering education.” KENNETH McK. ELDRED, 82, University of Virginia at Charlottes­ president, Ken Eldred Engineer- ville, died on March 10, 2012. Dr. ALAN COTTRELL, 92, research ing, died on January 30, 2012. Gaden was elected to NAE in 1974 fellow, Department of Materials Sci- Mr. Eldred was elected to NAE in “for contributions to fermentation SUMMER 2012 79

technology and leadership in the boundary layers, and leadership in to NAE in 1978 “for contributions field of bioengineering.” the industrial development of oxy- to design of structures, including hydrochlorination processes.” composite construction, earthquake DONALD G. ISELIN, 89, U.S. resistance, and load factor design Navy, retired, died on March 10, YASUO MORI, 89, Professor Emer- specifications.” 2012. Rear Adm. Iselin was elected itus, Tokyo Institute of Technology, to NAE in 1980 “for innovative died on March 20, 2012. Dr. Mori DAVID C. WHITE, 89, Ford Pro- leadership in planning and meeting was elected a foreign associate of fessor of Engineering, Emeritus, civil engineering challenges of great NAE in 1986 “for contributions to Massachusetts Institute of Technol- importance to the nation.” heat transfer and energy conversion ogy, died on January 11, 2012. Dr. research, and for contributions to White was elected to NAE in 1975 CLYDE E. KESLER, 89, Professor international scholarly exchanges.” “for contributions as an engineering Emeritus of Civil Engineering, and educator and leader in energy con- of Theoretical and Applied Mechan- THOMAS J. MURRIN, 82, West- version technology, energy systems ics, University of Illinois, died on inghouse Electric, retired, died on analysis, and energy planning.” December 30, 2011. Mr. Kesler was January 30, 2012. Mr. Murrin was elected to NAE in 1977 “for con- elected to NAE in 1984 “for his ROBERT V. WHITMAN, 84, Pro- tributions to the understanding of innovative and far-sighted contribu- fessor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, fatigue, fracture, creep, shrinkage, tions to both industry and govern- Massachusetts Institute of Technol- and relaxation of concrete.” ment in the fields of productivity ogy, died on February 25, 2012. Dr. and quality improvement.” Whitman was elected to NAE in SIDNEY METZGER, 94, retired 1975 “for pioneering research in soil vice president and chief scientist, PAUL E. QUENEAU, 101, Pro- dynamics, especially in predicting COMSAT Corporation, died on fessor Emeritus, Thayer School of and controlling earthquake effects December 22, 2011. Mr. Metzger Engineering, Dartmouth College, on constructed facilities.” was elected to NAE in 1976 “for died on March 31, 2012. Dr. Que- development of early radio relay neau was elected to NAE in 1981 HOLDEN W. WITHINGTON, systems and communication satel- “for innovative leadership in the 94, retired vice president, engineer- lite systems.” invention and commercial devel- ing, Boeing Commercial Airplane opment of efficient technology for Company, died on December 9, HAROLD S. MICKLEY, 93, extraction of nickel, copper, and 2011. Mr. Withington was elected retired vice chairman, Stauffer cobalt.” to NAE in 1980 “for contributions Chemical Company, died on to the advancement of both military December 3, 2011. Dr. Mickley IVAN M. VIEST, 89, president, and commercial airplane designs.” was elected to NAE in 1978 “for IMV Consulting, died on Febru­ research on transpired turbulent ary 11, 2012. Dr. Viest was elected The 80 BRIDGE Publications of Interest

The following reports have been NAE members on the study Improving Measures of Science, Tech- published recently by the National committee were W. Peter Cherry, nology, and Innovation: Interim Report. Academy of Engineering or the independent consultant, Ann The National Center for Science National Research Council. Unless Arbor, Michigan, and Elaine and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) otherwise noted, all publications are Weyuker, AT&T Fellow, AT&T at the National Science Foundation for sale (prepaid) from the National Labs Research. Paper, $35.00. is one of 14 major statistical agen- Academies Press (NAP), 500 Fifth cies in the federal government, at Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Wash- Predicting Outcomes from Invest- least five of which collect informa- ington, DC 20055. For more infor- ments in Maintenance and Repair for tion on science, technology, and mation or to place an order, contact Federal Facilities. The deteriorating innovation (STI) in the United NAP online at http://www.nap.edu condition of federal facilities poses States and abroad. In the America or by phone at (888) 624-8373. economic, safety, operational, and COMPETES Reauthorization Act (Note: Prices quoted are subject to environmental risks, interferes with of 2010, NCSES’s mandate was change without notice. Online orders federal agencies fulfilling their mis- expanded and codified to include receive a 20 percent discount. Please sions, and complicates the achieve- the collection, acquisition, analysis, add $4.50 for shipping and handling for ment of public policy goals. Primary as well as reporting and dissemina- the first book and $0.95 for each addi- factors underlying this deteriora- tion of data on trends in research tional book. Add applicable sales tax or tion are the age of federal facili- and development (R&D), U.S. GST if you live in CA, CT, DC, FL, ties—about half are at least 50 years competitiveness in science, technol- MD, NC, NY, VA, WI, or Canada.) old—and decades of inadequate ogy, and R&D, and the status and investment in maintenance and progress of U.S. science, technol- Industrial Methods for the Effective repair (M&R). Although these ogy, engineering, and mathematics Testing and Development of Defense issues are not new and there are no (STEM) education. The authoring Systems. In the last 15 years, the quick fixes, the current operating panel undertook a comprehensive National Research Council Com- environment provides an impetus review of STI indicators in Japan, mittee on National Statistics has and an opportunity for improvement. China, India, and several coun- published a number of studies, spon- The report committee identifies pro- tries in Europe, Latin America, and sored by the U.S. Department of cesses and practices for putting the Africa. Based on this review and a Defense, on using statistical methods current portfolio of federal facilities review of NCSES’ indicators, the to improve the testing and develop- on a sustainable economic, physical, panel recommends near-term action ment of defense systems. The cur- and environmental course. These on two levels: (1) the development rent report identifies engineering processes include new ways of pre- of new policy-relevant indicators practices, such as operational testing, dicting or quantifying expected out- based on NCSES survey data or on modeling and simulation, and so on, comes from a given level of M&R data collections at other statisti- that have been used by industry for investment in the facilities them- cal agencies; and (2) the explora- system development and testing and selves or in facilities’ systems. The tion of new data extraction and are likely to be useful in the defense committee also describes strategies, management tools for generating environment. The report includes measures, and data for determining statistics using automated methods discussions of both large issues and actual outcomes. of harvesting unstructured or scien- three specific topics: (1) finding NAE member Alfredo H-S. Ang, tometric data and data derived from failure modes earlier, (2) technol- research professor of civil engineer- administrative records. ogy maturity, and (3) using all rel- ing, University of California, Irvine, NAE member Katharine G. evant information for operational was a member of the study commit- Frase, vice president, Industries assessments. tee. Paper, $40.00. Research, International Business SUMMER 2012 81

Machines Corporation, was a mem- seniors and people with disabilities, changes, the procurement of large, ber of the study panel. Paper, $31.00. individuals and families with lim- complex technical systems, and ited incomes, and children (almost decisions that affected the careers Prepositioning Antibiotics for Anthrax. 100 million beneficiaries in all). and personal lives of a large portion If terrorists released Bacillus anthracis The agency’s core mission, which of the NWS workforce. This report over a large city, hundreds of thou- was established about 40 years ago, provides the first comprehensive sands of people could be at risk of was to ensure prompt payment of assessment of the execution of the contracting the disease. Although claims, which today total more MAR and its impact on weather plans for the rapid delivery of medi- than 1.2 billion annually. To meet services in the United States. The cal countermeasures (antibiotics) these demands, CMS must update review committee also identifies to a large number of people have and greatly improve its informa- lessons learned to support future been improved over the last decade, tion technology (IT) systems. This improvements in NWS capabilities. many public health authorities and report provides a review of CMS’ NAE member John A. Arm- policy experts fear that they could plans to expand its IT capabilities strong, retired vice president for sci- not respond quickly enough in the and recommends how the agency’s ence and technology, International event of a very large-scale anthrax business processes, practices, and Business Machines Corp., chaired attack. The U.S. Department of information systems can be devel- the study committee. Paper, $42.00. Health and Human Services Office oped to meet growing demands. of the Assistant Secretary for Pre- The recommendations and conclu- Information Sharing and Collaboration: paredness and Response commis- sions fit into four categories: (1) the Applications to Integrated Biosurveil- sioned the Institute of Medicine need for a comprehensive strategic lance: Workshop Summary. After (IOM) to look into the advantages technology plan; (2) the need for a the September 11, 2001, terror- and disadvantages of preposition- metamethodology to guide an itera- ist attacks and subsequent anthrax ing antibiotics, which would require tive, incremental, phased transition mailings, the U.S. government pri- storing them close to, or even dis- of business and information systems; oritized a biosurveillance strategy tributing them to people who would (3) the critical need for high-level for detecting, monitoring, and char- need rapid access to them. The strategic IT planning and adapta- acterizing health threats to human IOM study committee defined and tions in CMS’s internal organization and animal populations, food, water, evaluated three prepositioning and culture; and (4) the importance agriculture, and the environment. strategies that would complement of data and analyses to stakeholders However, some challenges to imple- existing, centralized stockpiling inside and outside CMS. menting this coordinated strategy strategies, such as the Strategic NAE member Laura M. Haas, must still be addressed. On Septem- National Stockpile maintained by IBM Fellow and director of computer­ ber 8–9, 2011, the Institute of Med- the Centers for Disease Control and science, IBM Almaden Research icine held a workshop to explore Prevention. Center, was a member of the study information-sharing and collabora- NAE members Stephen M. Pol- committee. Paper, $45.00. tion to overcome these challenges. lock, Herrick Emeritus Professor of This volume provides a summary Manufacturing, University of Mich- The National Weather Service Mod- of the workshop presentations and igan, and Louis Anthony (Tony) ernization and Associated Restruc- discussions. Cox Jr., president, Cox Associates turing: A Retrospective Assessment. NAE member Richard C. Lar- LLC, were members of the study The Modernization and Associ- son, Mitsui Professor, Massachusetts committee. Paper, $64.00. ated Restructuring (MAR) of the Institute of Technology, was a mem- National Weather Service (NWS), ber of the study committee. Paper, Strategies and Priorities for Information a complex re-engineering project, $37.00. Technology at the Centers for Medicare lasted a decade, cost an estimated and Medicaid Services. The Centers $4.5 billion, and required revolu- An Assessment of the Deep Under- for Medicare and Medicaid Services tionary, often difficult, changes, such ground Science and Engineering Labora- (CMS) is the agency responsible as the development of a framework tory. Deep underground science and for providing health coverage to for keeping up with technological engineering laboratories (DUSELs) The 82 BRIDGE may open the way to our under- (1) recent progress on converting Fusion Technology Institute, Uni- standing of the physics of the grand research reactors to protect HEU, versity of Wisconsin, Madison; Rob- unification of natural forces. Built with a focus on reactors of United ert L. Byer, William R. Kenan Jr. to shield extremely sensitive detec- States and Russian Federation ori- Professor of the School of Humani- tors from surrounding noise and gin; (2) overcoming challenges to ties and Sciences, and co-director, signals associated with cosmic rays, the conversion of reactors, using Stanford Photonics Research Cen- DUSELs have been established in research reactors more effectively, ter, Stanford University; Richard L. the last 30 years at a number of sites and enabling new reactor missions; Garwin, IBM Fellow Emeritus, IBM worldwide. To date, the United (3) plans, challenges, and opportu- Thomas J. Watson Research Center; States has built primarily small nities for converting research reac- and Lawrence T. Papay, CEO and underground laboratories, but the tors; and (4) actions by U.S. and principal, PQR LLC, and retired science community has advocated Russian organizations that would sector vice president for integrated for larger facilities on the scale of promote conversion. This volume solutions, Science Applications laboratories in other countries. This also includes the agenda for the International Corporation. Paper, report provides evaluations of the symposium, biographical sketches of $35.00. major questions and experiments in committee members, and the state- physics that could be explored and ment of task. A Framework for K–12 Science Educa- the potential impact of a DUSEL on NAE member Richard A. tion: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, education and public outreach. The Meserve, president, Carnegie and Core Ideas. To address the criti- study committee also discusses the Institution for Science, chaired cal issues of U.S. competitiveness importance of developing U.S. pro- the workshop steering committee. and educate students in science and grams similar to science programs in Paper, $43.00. engineering as preparation for enter- other parts of the world. ing the workforce, this report puts NAE member Charles Fairhurst, Interim Report—Status of the Study forward a proposal for K–12 science senior consulting engineer, Itasca “An Assessment of the Prospects education that would both capture Consulting Group Inc., and Profes- for Inertial Fusion Energy.” Despite students’ interest and provide them sor Emeritus, University of Min- substantial scientific and techno- with foundational scientific knowl- nesota, was a member of the study logical progress in inertial confine- edge. The report committee outlines committee. Paper, $42.00. ment fusion, many technologies expectations for students in grades necessary for an integrated inertial K–12 to inform the development Progress, Challenges, and Opportu- fusion energy system are still at an of new standards for science educa- nities for Converting U.S. and Rus- early stage of development. In addi- tion and, subsequently, revisions to sian Research Reactors: A Workshop. tion, critical scientific and engi- curricula, instruction, assessments, Highly enriched uranium (HEU) neering challenges remain for all and professional development for is used for two major civilian pur- approaches to inertial fusion energy. educators. The three core ideas and poses: as fuel for research reactors In this interim report, the Com- practices for K–12 science and engi- and as targets for medical isotope mittee on the Prospects for Inertial neering education are crosscutting production. However, because Confinement Fusion Energy Systems concepts with applications in both HEU can also potentially be used outlines its preliminary conclusions science and engineering; scientific to build nuclear explosive devices, about the feasibility of inertial fusion and engineering practices; and dis- ensuring that these materials are energy and its recommendations for ciplinary core ideas in the physical protected is essential to their con- moving ahead. The committee also sciences, life sciences, and earth and tinued use for civilian purposes. describes its next steps in prepara- space sciences and for engineering, The National Research Council tion for the final report. technology, and applications of sci- (NRC) of the National Academies NAE members on the study ence. The overarching goal is for all and the Russian Academy of Sci- committee were Gerald L. Kul- high school graduates to have suffi- ences (RAS) held a joint sympo- cinski (co-chair), associate dean cient knowledge to engage in public sium on June 8–10, 2011, to address for research, Grainger Professor of discussions of science-related issues, these issues. This summary covers Nuclear Engineering, and director, be knowledgeable consumers of SUMMER 2012 83

scientific and technical informa- and Patient Safety, and chief patient Beach, California, was a member of tion, and be able to pursue the safety and systems innovation offi- the study committee. Paper, $36.00. careers of their choice. This report cer, Department of Industrial and is the first step toward informing Operations Engineering, University The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban state-level decisions and develop- of Michigan, and Michael Lesk, Treaty: Technical Issues for the United ing a research-grounded basis for professor, Rutgers University. Paper, States. This review and update of improving science instruction. $36.00. the 2002 National Research Coun- NAE member Linda P.B. Katehi, cil report Technical Issues Related to chancellor, University of California, Technical Evaluation of the NASA Model the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Davis, was a member of the study for Cancer Risk to Astronauts Due to Treaty (CTBT), includes an assess- committee. Paper, $39.95. Space Radiation. Astronauts on mis- ment of plans to maintain the safety sions to the International Space and reliability of the U.S. nuclear Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Station or missions that involve stockpile (without test explosions); Safer Systems for Better Care. In To extended stays on the lunar surface, U.S. capability of detecting, locat- Err is Human, a landmark study by a near-Earth object, or Mars, must be ing, and identifying nuclear explo- the Institute of Medicine published protected from radiation risks from sions; commitments necessary to in 1999, it was estimated that 44,000 solar particle events, galactic cos- sustain the stockpile and U.S. and to 98,000 lives are lost every year as a mic rays, secondary radiation from international monitoring systems; result of medical errors. In that study, surface impacts, and even nuclear- and potential technical advances by the use of IT was suggested as a way isotope power sources transported other countries achieved through to improve the safety and effective- with them. Early and late radiation evasive or unconstrained test- ness of care (e.g., computerized pre- health effects from such exposures ing. The authoring committee of scriptions). Since then, the federal range from early signs of radiation the present report concludes that government has invested billions sickness to cancer, damage to the sustaining our technical capabili- of dollars in the development and central nervous system, cataracts, ties will require that the National use of health IT. However, unless cardiovascular damage, heritable Nuclear Security Administration, these systems are designed and used effects, impaired wound healing, with the support of others, develop appropriately, they can add a layer and infertility. As a result of recent a strong scientific and engineering of complexity to the already com- research, much of it sponsored base maintained through continu- plex delivery of health care, which by NASA, many aspects of space ing experiments in conjunction could lead to unsafe conditions, radiation environments are rela- with ongoing analysis, a vigorous serious injuries, and even death. tively well characterized, but there surveillance program, and an ade- Safe implementation of health IT are still uncertainties about bio- quate ratio of performance margins requires shared responsibility by logical effects. The present report to uncertainties. This report also vendors and health care organiza- includes an evaluation of NASA’s emphasizes the need for modernized tions. The authoring committee of proposed space radiation cancer production facilities and a compe- this report provides recommenda- risk assessment model (described tent and capable workforce with tions for developing a framework for in the 2011 NASA report, Space expertise in nuclear security. patient safety and health IT focused Radiation Cancer Risk Projections NAE member Richard L. Gar- on mitigating the risks of health and Uncertainties—2010), includ- win, IBM Fellow Emeritus, IBM IT-assisted care and identifies other ing model components, input data Thomas J. Watson Research Center, areas of concern. The committee for radiation types, estimated doses, was a member of the study commit- also identifies comprehensive and epidemiology, and associated uncer- tee. Paper, $45.00. specific options and opportunities tainties. The authoring commit- for public and private intervention tee also identifies gaps in NASA’s Application of Lightweighting Technol- to make health care safer. research strategy for reducing uncer- ogy to Military Vehicles, Vessels, and NAE members on the study com- tainties in the risks of cancer. Aircraft. “Lightweighting,” reduc- mittee were James P. Bagian, direc- NAE member B. John Garrick, ing the weight of all kinds of struc- tor, Center for Health Engineering independent consultant, Laguna tures—from laptops to bicycles to The 84 BRIDGE automobiles to airplanes to build- facturing technologies to facilitate approximately 40 percent of total ings—is a concept well known to lightweighting. U.S. energy consumption, is also structural designers and engineers. NAE members on the study expected to increase. The Com- The advantages of lighter weight committee were John E. Allison, mercial Buildings Energy Con- structures include higher energy professor, Department of Materials sumption Survey (CBECS) and efficiency, better designs, improved Science and Engineering, Univer- Residential Energy Consumption usability, and better coupling with sity of Michigan; David R. Clarke, Survey (RECS), major studies new, multifunctional features. professor of materials, School of conducted by the Energy Informa- Lightweighting for military vehicles Engineering and Applied Sciences, tion Administration, are the most is especially challenging because Harvard University; and Wesley relevant sources of data on energy of the stringent requirements for L. Harris, Charles Stark Draper consumption in these sectors. survivability, maneuverability, and Professor of Aeronautics and Astro- However, many design decisions transportability. This new report nautics and associate provost, Mas- and operational procedures for the assesses the current state of light- sachusetts Institute of Technology. CBECS and RECS, which were weighting for land, sea, and air Paper, $39.75. developed in the 1970s and 1980s, vehicles and recommends improve- have not been updated because of ments in both lightweight materials Effective Tracking of Building Energy resource limitations. This report and lightweight design; the avail- Use: Improving the Commercial Build- provides (1) recommendations for ability of suitable materials from ings and Residential Energy Consump- redesigning both surveys based on domestic manufacturers; and the tion Surveys. The United States a review of the changing needs performance of lightweight mate- uses nearly one-fifth of the world’s of data users and (2) an assess- rials and manufacturing technolo- energy, and that number is expect- ment of relevant developments in gies. The assessment also includes ed to increase by 0.7 percent a year survey methods. the “trade space,” that is, the effect as a result of population growth NAE member Maxine Savitz, of using lightweight materials or and associated growth in housing, retired general manager, Technology/ technologies on the performance commercial floor space, transporta- Partnerships, Honeywell Inc., was a and function of vehicle systems and tion, goods, and services. Energy member of the study committee. components and manufacturing used by the commercial and resi- Paper, $34.50. capabilities and affordable manu- dential sectors, which represents Did you know...

Bequests in your will are Rerement funds (IRAs and Insurance policies are simple, frequently used 401Ks) provide a tax-wise somemes forgoen assets vehicles for arranging legacy way to make a charitable that may no longer be gi s. gi . Income taxes have not needed to support your been applied to these family. You can name NAE Your bequest may be in a assets, so if your heirs are as the beneficiary of a dollar amount, a percentage named as beneficiaries, they policy, or you can transfer of the estate, or an exact must pay those taxes. When ownership of a fully-paid asset to be devised and a charity is named as a policy to NAE and receive a can be designated for an beneficiary, however, it charitable tax deducon. unrestricted or a specific receives the designated use. amount with no tax conse- quences. Simply call your plan administrator for a beneficiary form. The Periodicals BRIDGE Postage Paid (USPS 551-240)

National Academy of Engineering 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418