June 1, 2007

Washington, DC

Present:    Chair Line:  R. Eisenstein, M. Klein, D. Moore (via videoconference), E. Moniz
                   Members:   J. Browne, K. Budil, W. Dorland, R. Goldston, E. Heller, F. Hellman, R. Howes,
                   J. Leibowitz, G. Lewis, S. Mtingwa, M. Ross, J. Scofield, A. Sessoms, B. Tannenbaum, V. Thomas 

Absent:      G. Crabtree, H. Gao, C. Murray

Guests:      Tim Meyer, National Academy of Sciences
                    Brian Finlay, Henry L. Stimson Center

APS Staff:  K. Duncan, J. Franz, T. Johnson, M. Lubell, J. Russo, F. Slakey

Eisenstein called the meeting to order at 8:15 AM.

Welcome & Approval of Minutes

John Browne introduced himself, as this is his first POPA meeting.  Tawanda Johnson introduced herself as the new Press Secretary for the APS Washington office

Action: The motion to approve the minutes of the February 2nd, 2007 POPA meeting, with noted corrections, passed unanimously.

Updates on Completed Studies

Consolidated Interim Storage of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel

A brief summary of the Study's report indicates that there is no compelling technical benefit to early development of multiple interim storage sites.  There isn't a technical advantage to the Consolidation & Preparation proposal (CAP) that would require the Governor of nearly every state with an operating reactor to identify a location for storage of spent fuel.  There are, however, two potential programmatic benefits associated with consolidated storage.  They are:

(1) Consolidating would help to decommission sites that have no working reactor, but have waste
     (nine sites);

(2) Consolidating could possibly remove a potential obstacle to building new nuclear plants.

These two benefits may tip in favor of some smaller scale (in contrast to CAP), deliberate approach to developing a consolidated site.

Results:  Dr. John Ahearne made several trips to Washington and met with dozens of congressional staff and DOE & NRC officials.  He outlined the problems with the CAP proposal and directed discussion toward smaller scale alternatives.  As a result, the CAP proposal is now dead.

Challenges of Electricity Storage Technologies

The Electricity Storage report was reviewed by the Executive Board in April 2007 and it is now posted on the APS website.  This has generated some interest, within APS, and people are actively looking for the report.  Dr. Howes gave an invited paper at the April APS meeting on the report and was asked to repeat it at the Ohio section.  She considers the report a building block for the future, as this is one of the first scientific studies on the topic.

Commentary: Members questioned whether there was any hope that DOE would expand its limited focus on this topic.  Howes replied that it isn't likely.  Mtingwa discussed a recent DOE conference he attended and indicated the same.  There was a question regarding why the report doesn't discuss demand balancing.  Howes indicated that they narrowly focused their review on storage, and therefore the issue didn't have a place in this report.

The Role of the Reliable Replacement Warhead

The report indicates that there are insufficient plans for costing, scoping, and scheduling of the current RRW program to decide if it is really a plan worth pursuing.  The report was pre-briefed prior to public release to several staffers in Congress and the response was overwhelmingly positive.  When the report was released it had wide media coverage and the AAAS received supportive correspondence from the NNSA regarding the technical aspects the report raises.  Similar comments were delivered to the AAAS from the State Department.

Results:  The Armed Services Committees in both the House & Senate reduced funding for RRW by $20-$30 million.  Appropriators in the house "zeroed out" the program.  House and Senate reports both reference the AAAS study.  The House & Senate have indicated they will require either an independent, bi-partisan commission in the house or a new nuclear posture review from the next Administration to determine what the role of nuclear weapons is in the defense of the United States, before moving forward.

Action:  The State Department, DOE, the House & Senate Armed Services Committees, and several House offices have asked that APS & AAAS foster a dialogue about nuclear weapons in a post-9/11 world.  John Browne, in cooperation with Slakey and Tannenbaum, proposed to head this directive.

Status Reports on Studies in Progress

Nuclear Power Workforce Study

Members of the Working Group (WG) have been chosen and will meet in July for a Summer Workshop.  There will be ten members.  The Workshop will include several expert speakers.  Chair, Sekazi Mtingwa, reviewed the study's updated charge.  Changes were made to the three major scenarios the WG will research.  The scenarios will now include:

(1) Maintaining the status quo;

(2) The percentage of electricity produced by nuclear power remains constant domestically and;

(3) A three-fold expansion of current domestic and global nuclear generating capacity.

Nuclear Forensics Study

Bill Dorland indicated that Mike May agreed to Chair the Committee.  Committee members have been chosen and include an international perspective (Reza Abedin-Zadeh, Technical Director of IAEA).  The audience will be Congressional Staff, Administration (DOE, Department of State, OMB), and the IAEA.  The first meeting has been scheduled for July 2007 in Stanford.  Second meeting will be in October or November 2007 in Washington, DC.  February 2008 is the intended date of completion.  The Committee had significant discussion before deciding that the final product would be unclassified. 

Commentary:  There were questions about whether this study would provide a resource for those who would use the information against us.  It was indicated that the study's leadership, and the committee members who were chosen, would be very careful about what was contained in the end product.

Energy Efficiency Study

Mike Lubell indicated that the Executive Board & Council approved the proposal for this study at the April 2007 meeting.  The expectation is that APS will raise funds, but the Council will provide up to $700K for the study regardless.  It was difficult to find a Chair for this project because a number of key people were unavailable.  Eventually, Burton Richter agreed to Chair the study with David Goldston as Vice-Chair.  These will be good anchors for both the technical & policy sides of the issue.  Two staffers will be hired for the study, as well; one with a technical background and one with a policy background.  Committee members are now being recruited.

The focus of the study will be on building (lighting, heating, appliances, etc.) & transportation efficiency.  There will also be a review of policy implementation, and possibly a review of the impact of transmission on utilities.  The working title was changed at the Executive Board & Council meeting to: "Leading the Way on Security and Climate Change: Energy Efficiency - A R&D Road Map".  The reaction of the POPA Committee was that the title was too long and cumbersome.

There will be four meetings of the full committee (summer 2007, fall 2007, February 2008, May 2008), with a briefing of the Council in April 2008 and delivery of a final report, to be sent out for external review, in June of 2008.  That will position the study well to influence the incoming Administration.

The charge is currently being reviewed by the Chair & Vice-Chair and will be re-written.

There are three other energy efficiency studies materializing, that we know about.

(1) The National Academies are embarking on a comprehensive study that will take approximately three years to complete, in phases.
(2) IIASA will meet in August of 2007 to begin looking at energy efficiency from a global perspective.  This study will also take about three years to complete.
(3) The U.N. Foundation will research energy efficiency and produce a report.

Commentary:  Conservation isn't mentioned in the charge.   Is this purposeful?  If so, then the report should clarify why conservation is excluded.  Perhaps the report should define the difference between efficiency & conservation.  The primary focus of the study should be on long-term solutions and the audience for the report must understand that the report will recommend investing in solutions that will not pay off in a year or two.  The study committee should carefully consider whether to use the phrase "high-risk research" since this has both positive and negative implications.  Several POPA members urged changing the title of the study.

Action:  POPA will be sent the re-written charge via e-mail.

Discussion of APS Nuclear Use Statement

APS Statement 06.1

APS member, Jorge Hirsch, wrote a letter to APS, which was forwarded to POPA by the Executive Board, urging that we follow up on Statement 06.1, which indicates there should be an "...informed public debate about the circumstances under which the United States might use or threaten to use nuclear weapons."  He contends that the debate is not taking place and that POPA should do something about this issue.  In his letter, he also asks POPA to recommend that APS adopt an official position against the use of nuclear weapons against countries that do not possess nuclear weapons.  He asks that we not only adopt this official position, but that we also lobby Congress to pass such "binding" legislation.

Commentary:  As a result of the RRW report, Slakey & Tannenbaum have been asked by Congressional staff and Members to foster a dialogue on what the role of nuclear weapons, post-9/11 and post Cold War, should be.  POPA members agreed that little public debate is occurring.  What discussions did occur after the Cold War focused on strategy for 10-15 years out.  Since then, there hasn't been additional discussion, yet 9/11 has changed the landscape.  Several POPA members suggested developing workshops to foster a discussion on nuclear policy.  Regarding Hirsch's second request, the majority of POPA members felt that APS should not promote binding legislation in Congress on nuclear use.

Actions:  (1) Eisenstein suggests that Browne, Tannenbaum, Slakey, & Moniz draft a proposal for 
                      activity that promotes a discussion of nuclear policy post 9/11.  POPA will not 
                      consider revising Statement 06.1 until after such an activity has transpired.  The 
                      proposal will be drafted over lunch and voted on in the afternoon.

                 (2) Motion made by Rob Goldston - POPA will respond to the Executive Board,
                      indicating that POPA recommends that APS not promote binding legislation in
                      Congress on nuclear use, at this time.

               Amendment - Slakey & Eisenstein will draft a response to Hirsch over lunch, which will 
               be presented to the committee for approval.

               Seconded by Sessoms.

               Motion approved by a vote of 18 to 1, with Leibowitz as only detractor.

NRC - Free Electron Laser Technology

Presentation by guest, Tim Meyer

Directed energy applications for weapons have been pursued for some time.  In particular, the Navy has been pursuing Free Electron Lasers with ONR overseeing the program.  Currently, $20 million a year is dedicated to this program (6.2 level program).

Technical Status & Developments:
- FEL designs for shipboard operations assume high beam currents.
- Stability is the big issue with FEL on ships, which are rolling, could be fired at, etc.
- J-Lab has achieved a 10-kilowatt laser.
- NRC has agreed to review the scientific capability of FELs, how the technology could evolve, and how 
   it could be suitable for naval applications.  There will be one or two written reports as a final product.  
   There will be a public report and, if necessary, there will be a classified annex.  However, they are
   shooting to keep it completely unclassified.

Meyer asked POPA for possible experts to serve on the NRC Study.

Suggestions from POPA:  Patrick O'Shea, Jay Marx, Robbie Vogt, Will Happer, Bob Springle, Carl Weinman, Bob Fugate, Jan Hall

Climate Change Statement

Eisenstein indicated that there were several documents provided to POPA members, prior to today's meeting, for them to review.  These included two previous statements on Energy Policy & U.S. Energy Problems from APS, the AAAS statement on climate change, an AGU statement, and the IPCC summary report for policy makers.

The Executive Board has asked that POPA review the two previous APS statements and make a recommendation on whether a new statement is warranted.

Commentary:  It was suggested that the Energy & Environment Subcommittee should work on this.  Bill Dorland indicated that, if we proceed this way, he wants the Nuclear Subcommittee to be involved as well.  Rob Goldston passed around a graph to discuss with everyone.  It led to considerable debate and discussion.  Members indicated that if we do make a statement, it should not be based on the graph.  There was discussion of the AAAS statement.  Many feel it went beyond the science and was overly emotional.  Currently, the perception is that APS has no position on climate change and consequently some members of the Executive Board feel strongly that APS needs to have a statement.  However, the statement shouldn't simply be a statement on the need for more R&D, as that would be regarded as unduly self-serving.  However it is written, the statement should be to the point, brief, and tight.

Action:  Motion made by Howes to appoint a Subcommittee that will prepare a draft statement that will be circulated before the next POPA meeting.

             Amendment - Scofield suggests that we appoint the standing Energy & Environment Subcommittee.  Howes accepts this amendment.

             Seconded by Hellman

             Motion approved unanimously.

BREAK FOR LUNCH

Commentary:  Over lunch, ideas of how to engage the public on a discussion of nuclear use were explored.  Members indicated that we should plan to have an event of some sort in early 2008 (January or February, latest), with group size and format to be determined.  Perhaps a briefing book for the incoming Administration could be produced.  Browne produced a brief outline for the project over lunch.  Also, a draft letter responding to Jorge Hirsch was discussed.

Actions:  (1) Motion made by Bill Dorland to appoint an Ad Hoc Working Group on Nuclear
                     Weapons Policy (to include Browne as Chair, and Slakey, Tannenbaum, Budil,
                     Sessoms, Eisenstein, and Moniz).  POPA charged the Working Group with
                     examining the following question: "What role do nuclear weapons play in our
                     defense strategy, and how many and what kind do we need to meet this 
                     requirement?"

              Seconded by Howes

              Motion passed unanimously.

               (2)  Motion made by Frances Hellman to accept the response to Jorge Hirsch's letter,
                     drafted by Slakey & Eisenstein, to be amended as Eisenstein sees fit, incorporating
                     committee's feedback & commentary.

              Amendment - Moniz wants committee to see final version prior to release.  Hellman
              accepts this amendment.

              Seconded by Ross.

              Motion passed unanimously.