 We will get ourselves started. There's good positive energy in the room, and I wanted to let some of that burn through, and I want to say thank you to everyone for coming. My name is John Hamry. I'm the president here at CSIS. My role here today is ornamental, because fortunately we have real experts who are going to be leading this discussion, and I'm delighted to have them here. My very sincere thanks to Dick Mazzerve and to Brent Scowcroft for being here. They're members of the commission. Mike Wallace, everybody here knows Mike, but Mike was really instrumental in this entire project. It would not have occurred without Mike Wallace's leadership, both his strategic leadership and tactical leadership at every session, and it was a great privilege to be with you, Mike, and I want to say thank you. Let me just, first of all, I'd like to acknowledge and say thanks to some very important leaders in this industry who are here today. And so let me, first of all, Christine Spinecki, thank you. Delighted to have you here. It's really important that you'd be with us. Pete Lyons, one of my heroes. We'll work around. Pete, our paths have kind of gone like this for many years, and I'm delighted that Pete would be with us today. Really quite pleased. Vic Rees, Vic, same way. I mean, Vic is, he's an inside provocateur for things nuclear, which is quite important. Joyce Connery, who's very instrumental at every step along with this project. Joyce, of course, is the director of the nuclear energy policy inside the National Security Council staff, and we're really delighted she's here. Ed McGinnis, who's the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy Policy and Cooperation. I want to say thank you to Ed for coming. Dick Caputo, who is with the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. I don't know, where's Annie? Annie, you. I haven't met you before, so we'll talk. I'm looking forward to that. Thank you. Delighted you're here. John Welsh, who's here, who's with USEC. I want to say thank you for John for being here. I see Dick Thornburg here, who was, Dick, of course, was a governor in Pennsylvania some years back when we had an interesting nuclear experiment, which we all learned from. It's not euphemism. It was euphemism, but it showed at the time the importance of political leadership, and he gave political leadership to the country when we needed it. It was really, really very important. Great that he would be here with us today. Thank you. I'm really abusing my privilege here just as to be the host to say a few words, but I feel very strongly about this. We're teetering on the edge of walking away from an industry I think we can't abandon. And I think we really do have to take this seriously. And it's not because there's malevolence. It's not because I think we've overcome the paranoia of Three Mile Island. But it's because we have an industry that's having to compete against $3 gas. And boy, that's a headwind that you can't overcome, and it looks like we're going to have that for some time. So it caused us to step back and to say, what is this industry important and why is this industry important? And I think you're going to hear about this from my colleagues today. I personally think America's national security demands that we stay a leader, a global leader in nuclear energy. I'm going to let General Scowcroft, who can speak far more authoritatively than can I, on this role. It is crucial, but we have to think about it in this way. It cannot just simply be left to be an energy matter. I hate to say it. And so we'll talk a little bit about that. We're also very, very fortunate, Dick Mazzerve is where the Dick has been in, of course he was chaired the NRC. He understands the imperative of stewardship, stewardship to the public, stewardship to an industry, and that's just as important, and stewardship for the future. And so Dick will be speaking to that when he talks about it. And then Mike Wallace, Mike built the last operating nuclear power plant in America. He's committed his life to trying to say we can stay active in this leadership. And it's that sort of thing that's absolutely crucial. So it's important to have you here. We can set up a commission. We can organize ourselves. But without a sounding board, we're just strings plucked in the wind. We need this sounding board. This is the group that's going to start amplifying a message that America needs to hear. So with that, let me get out of the way. And I think, Mike, are you going to say a few words to Oregon or are you going to let general start right away? We're going to let, well, I could spend about a half hour introducing General Scowcroft to you, but that would be a waste of your time and certainly his as well. So would you all with your applause, please welcome General Brent Scowcroft. Thank you very much, John. After I say a few words, the experts will take over and run the discussion. But let me talk just a bit about the national security implications because there's several that go in all in the same direction. But when we started the nuclear business, we were Mr. Nuclear. We were the pioneers. We understood it better than anybody else. We could explain it. We were the ones who could set the rules, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NPT. All of these things were U.S. generated because we were involved in every aspect of it. And unfortunately, that's eroding. And as that erodes, so does our ability to control things. You know, we set out the rules for handling nuclear materials and so on. We set them out first in the NPT and then we figured out that the NPT really wasn't adequate enough because it basically said you can do anything you want in nuclear R&D and everything. As long as you don't intend to make nuclear weapons. Well, that's in geopolitics. That's not a very good way to do things. And so we are stuck right now with Iran, for example, saying, nuclear weapons, we just want nuclear power. And we're stuck trying to point out the things they're doing, which indicate they do want nuclear weapons. But it's an awkward situation. Now, in the past, we could have fixed that easily. It's not so easy now. And as we have developed, we have figured out that one of the things that have is that the long pole in the tent of having nuclear weapons is really the fissile material rather than the technology of bombs. Now, if you want a sophisticated weapon to fit on the front of a missile, that's one thing. But if you just want a nuclear explosion, then the key is to have the fissile material, which is either enriched uranium or reprocessed nuclear fuel. So you have to control that and you have to control that for all of the countries, whether they you think they might want nuclear weapons, or clearly simply want an avenue to nuclear power as an energy source. And that's the dilemma we're in now. So to deal with that, we set up the sort of 123 agreement system in order to get access to our technology, advice, and so on, if to sign the 123 agreement, which says you will not enrich uranium, which says you will not reprocess you, all of those kinds of things. It doesn't work for a while. It doesn't work very well anymore because countries are starting to say, why should we sign that kind of restrictive agreement? We can go to the French, we can go to the Japanese, we can go to the Russians. We don't need to sign your dog on agreement because the technology is amply available everywhere. And that is an increasing problem for us. And it's one which our absence from the nuclear power scene is going to make critically worse. And there's no real alternative to it. In addition, we heaved a great sigh of relief at the development of shale gas. From a national security perspective, what I see looming is at the end of our shale period, having put our head in the sand about energy, we will have a national security crisis that will make anything we're facing right now look minor. I think this is an almost cataclysmic situation and it is creeping up on us in a way which makes it hard for us to understand. And we look at all of these different pieces that I have described as if they were separate and distinct in and of themselves rather than as a pattern. We cannot maintain leadership in the nuclear industry and leadership in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons if we're not players because there are too many avenues now that countries can use to evade the kind of controls that we just took as a matter of course when we were dominant. And I'll stop right there and deal with any questions later you have and I'm going to turn the microphone over to Richard Mazzerve, the chairman of the Carnegie Institute and the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and my colleague on a blue ribbon panel to deal with nuclear waste, which I'll let him comment on not me. Thank you. I'm really pleased to have an opportunity to speak with you today. My role is to describe some of the recommendations that we reached in the course of this study. As all of you I hope picked up on the way in, the full report is available in the background and a lot of the factual information is laid out there. But I thought for this group which I know many of you and are very influential and involved in the policy areas it would probably be best to turn directly to the recommendations and to describe and discuss them. By way of an overview, I think the recommendations are intended to serve two principal purposes. First there is the obligation, opportunity, the need to preserve nuclear energy for the usage in the United States. As General Skowcroft and John Hamery have indicated we have the luxury now of very cheap natural gas and as all of you know there's been a huge surge in the reliance on natural gas to provide electricity production. We've seen this picture before and that situation is likely to change and we are going to wish that we had a broader portfolio of energy supply that is available to us. We need to have stable base load power and we need to have power that is carbon free and you look at all of those alternatives and it is on my view and the view of the report that having a reliance on it within the portfolio maintaining a strong nuclear component is going to be important for our nation's energy security. But as General Skowcroft has indicated there is a second dimension to this issue which is not one that has received much attention before and that is the international dimension and the importance of a strong involvement with civilian nuclear power in order to achieve our international objectives in safeguards, safety and security and that if we're going to have influence abroad we need to be in the game not going to set the rules if we're not in the game. So there's a second element to the recommendations that deals particularly with those focus. We have a diverse set of recommendations this reflects the fact that there is no silver bullet that solves all the problems that there is a range of things that need to be done our recommendations obviously focus on things the government can do but there are parallel obligations for industry with help from the government to step to the plate and develop technologies that meet our needs that are saleable abroad and that fulfill the obligations to make sure that we maintain adequate safety and security. So what we envision and propose in this report is a multifaceted program that has many dimensions and I will sort of walk through the sort of various clusters of areas in which there are recommendations in the report. The first is the need to bolster US competitiveness in export markets. With low natural gas prices it's going to be very hard to build very many new nuclear plants in the United States. There are other countries that are building now there are many countries that have not involved in nuclear power that have expressed interest in pursuing nuclear power and there is an opportunity for maintaining US influence by making sure that we can export and be involved with them in their nuclear programs and thereby have influence with them. We recommend a series of recommendations in this area. One is the importance as General Scowcroft has indicated of the 1-2-3 agreements. Those are agreements that relate to Section 1-2-3 of the Atomic Energy Act that provide the cooperation agreements between the US and foreign governments and we recommend the case-by-case negotiation of those agreements. There has been discussion from time to time and some have pursued the idea of a so-called gold standard for 1-2-3 agreements where we would require anybody to go into cooperation with us that they commit that they will not forever will forgo enrichment and reprocessing. That's not any part of any international treaty they have reached and since we don't control the technology anymore if we demand that kind of agreement we're just taking ourselves out of the game with our capacity to influence them. So we urge that this is an area in which there should be sort of case-by-case adjustment and work out what you can to involve yourself with these countries so that we can influence the trajectory of their applications of nuclear technology. We also have a recommendation for revision of the 810 requirements. These are Part 810 of 10 CFR. These are the Department of Energy regulations that govern the export of technology. There is an effort that's underway to re-examine those regulations and try to make sure that, during adequate control of the technology they obviously don't impose a significant burden on exports, a needless burden on exports. And there's been a lot of discussion and interaction with the administration on the pursuit of developing appropriate 810 requirements. And then finally there is a role of generally of working as a country and sort of a Team America approach to support exports and to streamline the whole export approval process. Other countries with whom we compete for the sale of nuclear technologies have processes where in 15 to 90 days they can get all the clearance that are necessary and where we're taking over a year then we just take ourselves out of the game because of the timelines that we need that the timeline is involved with our decision process. Now this has to be done carefully. I don't deny that but if there's ways to streamline the process to make it more efficient that's obviously in our interest because of the national security role that I've described that we need to be involved with these countries and we need to move needless barriers in pursuing exports. The second set of recommendations has to do with expanding support for the technology. We focus on small modular reactors where there is an opportunity for the United States in both export markets and within the United States to have a role in what could be a very important market both within the world and within the United States. I think as many of you know there is a major DOE program that's underway with support of about $450 million to support the licensing of two different SMR contractors that's a cost-shared program. It's modeled on work that had been undertaken for the large reactors that resulted in things like the AP-1000 being licensed and that program is underway. There is now the next step to be taken in order to pursue the development and demonstration program to make that whole system real. So we recommend that there be some financial and financial and structuring incentives. It has to be one where appropriate load is carried both by the government and by the private sector. And there is an opportunity in particular within the Department of Defense and within DOE for its own needs to have a reliance on SMRs that having in particular in DOD there is an obvious and strategic interest in having off-grid capability with reactors at a scale that's appropriate for the demand for electricity and small modular reactors have the promise of achieving that. And there is an opportunity that with sufficient orders you can drive down the cost of the SMRs through factory production, through learning curve processes that you can make this technology, at least that's the hope. It needs to be proven, but there's a real promise and this is a technology in which the United States at the moment really has very strong capacities that there are some excellent companies that are involved in the pursuit of SMR technology. With regard to the longer term we encourage the pursuit of a government research development and demonstration programs for advanced nuclear technologies and reactors in the United States for a long time, some of the SMRs that have some advanced ideas that could be pursued as well. There's a whole bunch of technologies that we would like to have the option to pursue in the future. The third area where we have recommendations is to expand US participation in international nuclear cooperation. I may be prejudiced in my statement now, but I think that in my interactions internationally I can say that the NRC is viewed as providing basically an exemplar for the world on appropriate nuclear regulation. I was struck when I was the chairman of the NRC that I would, dealing with other countries is how frequently other countries would look to us to give them guidance as to how to proceed as best as to set the path for them for the steps they should take to ensure nuclear safety. The Institute for Nuclear Power Operations one of the more important outcomes from the Three Mile Island accident was a similarly sets a model for the world for industry self-policing of its activities and the pursuit of excellence in safety. So we really have a dimension of our government with which nearly every other country in the world sees as a model for them of what they would like to achieve and is an opportunity there for us to interact with them in productive ways that expands American influence but in areas that are significantly important to us. This becomes, I think very important right now because there's a whole series of countries as I mentioned earlier that do not currently rely on nuclear power but have indicated an intention to pursue nuclear power. There were many of these countries that came forward before the Fukushima accident. Some of them backed off or paused for a while but there's a large group of them that have decided to forge ahead now at high speed. There are reactors that are under construction in the United Arab Emirates. We have countries like Jordan that, Nigeria Malaysia Vietnam, Turkey, Poland There's a whole range of countries that don't currently have nuclear power plants that have indicated an intention to build them and are in various stages of the process of the pursuit of nuclear power. They have a very grave challenge they confront that there are obligations that they have to satisfy in safety security and safeguards and if they fail they're going to impact nuclear power everywhere. And it is important I think to all those involved in the nuclear enterprise, not only in the United States but internationally to be fully involved with these countries to make sure they understand their responsibilities in the first place but secondly that we help them provide the capabilities so that they can fulfill those obligations and they need help and guidance in both those areas. There's an important role for the United States as part of this process working with others and in part through various international organizations to facilitate the capacity of these countries to meet their obligations successfully. Finally well not finally but another cluster of recommendations has to do with the Waste Challenge the report recommends the implementation of the various recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission which General Scowcroft was the very able co-chairman of that effort I had the good fortune to work with him as part of that process you know there are a cluster of recommendations that develop a consent based approach citing develop a new management organization to pursue the back end of the fuel cycle providing access to the Waste Fund to pay for the ongoing work rather than having to rely on congressional appropriations for everything every year prompt efforts to develop disposal facilities prompt efforts to develop storage facilities preparing for the transport of spent fuel and high level waste supporting innovation and workforce development which we cover in other of our recommendations and again this issue will be about taking leadership and international efforts my perspective is that these recommendations are one that are I can't claim that they necessarily all were new but they've been assembled by the Blue Ribbon Commission and I think and hope that they provide a productive foundation on which we can develop an approach for dealing with our waste issues in a way that we have failed in the past and obviously this is a thorn in the side of nuclear power which is one that has been too long and being fixed and the Blue Ribbon Commission is provided a path forward that seems to be generally acceptable and this report that you'll read strongly encourages that those recommendations be pursued we recommend as well that there be economic support for new US reactors you know as you know there are four of the new designs in South Carolina and Georgia to each in those states if there are going to be others there are as John Hammery indicated at the beginning there's a real challenge in building new nuclear plants at a time of such low natural gas prices that basically beats everything in terms of cost of power there's a benefit from a portfolio point of view from an environmental point of view when having nuclear power be maintained that's part of the mix that's going to be achieved we need to have policies in place to enable construction to occur among the recommendations are to lower the cost of borrowing an issue with which I know Mike Wallace has greater familiarity than he would like there are issues associated with dealing with foreign investment in new nuclear construction there is a atomic energy act that serves as a bar today and it's being very vigorously pursued to staff level with the NRC in ways that can inhibit investment there are opportunities to revise the tax code and the way of investment tax credits and accelerated appreciation and at some stage we need to find a way to include and monetize the benefits of nuclear power and the pricing somehow I mean that there are obviously benefits in terms of the environmental role and I'm talking particularly about climate change here that one way or another we need to recognize and so all of those things will help to make new nuclear construction more competitive within the United States how much is enough whether it's enough is something that is examined in the report it's a hard challenge to confront at a time where we have natural gas prices that are there's recommendations as well for improving internal government policy coordination there's a recommendation for a focus within the government within the administration for interagency coordination perhaps involving a cabinet secretary is taking the leadership on this earning monies would be a perfect selection for that process and this simultaneously is an opportunity for more focused oversight within the congress where the responsibility for oversight is scattered all over in various ways that can inhibit a coordinated approach to various policy matters that affect nuclear and then we have recommendations as well as the need to develop a future nuclear workforce we need to invest in education training and general workforce development these are skilled jobs high paying jobs there are opportunities here not only for domestic construction but if we can maintain export capacity there are opportunities here that are well worth pursuing and will be part of the overall objectives that we seek to achieve and there are opportunities as well to enhance this variety of different agencies to help on workforce development prominently involving the NRC and the DOE but others are engaged in this exercise as well so that's a really quick rush through a diverse range of recommendations that come out of the report the bottom line is that a wide variety of actions are necessary to maintain US leadership in nuclear energy and we ought to get moving on implementing them so with that let me turn this over to Mike Wallace and I'll give him the opportunity to correct any of my summary of the recommendations since he's been principally responsible for preparation of this report thanks Dick I wouldn't say principally I'd say just one of many people who have been involved in this effort frankly I look around the room and recognize a number of you as having been engaged with a number of the sessions we've held over the past two years so what I'd like to do in my remarks is you've heard a bit about the national security imperative from general scope across perspective we wanted to get quickly to the recommendations which Dick just ticked through and I'll now step back and set a little more context as to how we got here with this report I'll be a bit redundant in hitting through the challenges once again but then I'm also going to lay out the direction that CSIS and the nuclear energy program will be undertaking from here forward as many of you who know me know I've been in this business for as long as these guys have 40 years and I think it's fair to say this has never been an industry for the faint of heart whether it goes back to the events in Pennsylvania in 1979 or the 80s or the 90s or the subsequent activities following 9-11 it's always been a technology that has been challenging and that demanded great respect and it seems ironic in many ways that we find ourselves where we are today in that building on Dick's comments we have beyond a doubt the best operating nuclear plants in the world and people come from outside to understand how we do it safety reliability and economics in as much as that can be controlled that wasn't the case and there were times in the 90s when I well remember a number of countries in Europe being partners that I look to to find out how to do it and today the flip side around literally everybody comes to the US to learn how to operate second to Dick's point the nuclear regulatory commission is without doubt the number one recognized top regulator in the world for nuclear energy and they share their experiences and that's something that constitutes a basis for people having confidence in the US's nuclear energy program and the third leg born out of 3 Mile Island is IMPO which Dick mentioned the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations today that is well recognized as the self-regulating approach for an industry to take itself to very very high standards in the so called pursuit of excellence and other industries IMPO has been able to do what it did and it wasn't always that way in the 80s and 90s it was under challenge frankly by many of us in the industry maybe myself included as to what role they really had when we already had a rather significant independent regulator but today the coordinated roles of the operators the regulator and IMPO are well understood to constitute the 3 legs if you will of the stool that takes us to a level that is the envy of many others around the world and the model that many are seeking to follow the ultimate result shows up in the safety and the economics of our nuclear plants and the confidence that people have in our ability to do it do that so the irony is we find ourselves at the pinnacle of or some pinnacle in any event of excellence we also find ourselves on a road to decline I for one can tell you that when we started this project two years ago I never contemplated I'd be here today and having to recognize that instead of 104 operating nuclear units we have 100 nuclear units operating moreover below the surface there are a lot that are economically challenged it's a good news bad news story we are absolutely blessed with the shale gas benefits that's brought to our energy and should bring to our economy and so there's there's no nothing but praise and recognition of good things that goes with the low gas prices but it has produced an enormous economic challenge that in my 40 years is beyond anything we've seen previously so we started just over two years ago in a session and as I recall I know General Skullcroft was there and I think Dick was there as well about 30 thought leaders in and out of government came together to discuss two questions and I say two questions because the general was the person who narrowed it down after three hours to say we have two questions here we really need to seek to answer does nuclear energy in the United States matter don't put zealotness in front of what we're doing does it matter if it does does US leadership energy globally matter truly does it matter and those were the two questions we started out to answer two years ago in the intervening period of time we held 14 different venues combination of either commission meetings or sessions here at CSIS all of which were invitation only and Chatham house rule because we sought to get on the table the most direct candid input we could get about the situation surrounding nuclear energy in the US doesn't matter and if so why and does our leadership matter and then as we got on farther and so what do we do about that we formed the commission itself in September of 2011 about five months into the process you can see in the report who the members of the commission were and they followed the progress of our sessions and the drafting of the report which was based on the input that we received along the way and while I don't know the exact number I'm sure well over a hundred participants were part of our sessions along the way providing input and for many of the more notable contributors you'll see their names and you'll see their corporations identified at the end of the report we sought to get all stakeholder input from literally every angle to try and understand the subject in the best way that we could and in so doing the view that there was a national security imperative did not come out at all in the beginning it came out much more than three quarters of the way through as we were beginning to draw together why does it matter and some of the aspects of it that people like me in the commercial industry never really thought about started to come more and more to the table and both the more direct national security implications as well as some of the more subtle implications came to the table and I'll touch on a couple of those here and then we'll move on to the report so we are bringing the report forward now with its perspective on the national security basis for nuclear energy with if you will a summary of the challenges that nuclear energy faces and with a series of recommendations and there are no silver bullets or brass bullets and deal with this this is a very very multifaceted tough issue for us to deal with but that is what we do best in this country is the toughest problems seem to be when we come the most together and the creative thinking and the will of the American people and the congress and the administration frequently come together to move us in a direction that is for the good of the country and our effort here is intended to capture this moment and not let it go unaddressed so that we are putting forth the best approach whatever that is that can be considered in the steps that we might take let me touch a little more on the challenges and then I'm going to come to the way forward from a CSIS perspective as well the challenges fall into both the export markets and the domestic markets and we've broken them out that way in the report Dick addressed them from the point of view of the recommendations those recommendations were seeking to address situations that we found as we went through a review of domestic market and export market for the export market perhaps the single most important opportunity that US companies with products and services have is to be able to move into the global marketplace and participate in trade and compete around the globe while we have at the least a hiatus if not a decline going on in the nuclear industry in the United States to deal with that we have challenges with our nuclear trade agreements well recognized and for which there's been significant debate so that entities companies are able to conduct trade globally we have challenges with the competitiveness of our companies in many ways the competition is turning into companies versus countries and US companies have a very difficult time effectively competing with countries when countries have a extraordinarily close connection to their supply chain in many cases as you all know it's a part of the government entities and where it's not part of the government entities the economic support that's provided for companies in other countries who are competing can be rather extraordinary so the companies versus countries competition is a tough one for those who are trying to market US products and services we have challenges with the complex burdensome and somewhat time-consuming export controls the 110 part 110 issues with the nuclear regulatory commission the part 810 issues with the Department of Energy the regulations at the Department of Commerce but I think part of the recognized good news there is in the two years that our report has been unfolding just to give one example the part 810 requirements in the Department of Energy have been advancing forward to where we understand the new draft rule reflects much of the input that has been provided by industry along the way and we're hopeful that as that comes together it facilitates easier processing of requests through DOE where we also understand there are process reviews under way in order to create more expedited and transparent visibility to the process that's the sort of creative thinking that we need it's one area of many but it's a good example of where things are moving in a positive direction we have competition and technological competence and this is almost an upside down issue for me having been in the nuclear navy long long time ago when we were the ones who if you will had the technology for the world and we're providing the technology to the world we now find ourselves technologically disadvantaged in some cases because technology is developing so fast in so many other countries and so how we seed SWED technology competence within the US so that we have products and services to sell is a part of our challenge efforts are underway to help in that area but much much more needs to be done to unleash the creativity that the US marketplace in nuclear energy really can provide and besides the impact that all of that can have on trade opportunities the reality is if we are important as nuclear trade partners internationally then our ability to influence the standards and norms for safety, security, operations, emergency response and non-proliferation are strong leadership does matter was our conclusion and if our leadership wanes our ability to influence evaporates and that is most definitely going to prove contrary to the national security interests of the United States so that reality needs to be in the forefront of our objective in addressing the issues to facilitate greater US leadership internationally so what about the domestic scene we have a challenge here too that we need to address what I would say some of the domestic challenges can and should be addressed others frankly are a function of the free marketplace that is the epitome of the economic system that we operate in and there is no one that would suggest distortion to the free marketplace for the sake of nuclear energy frankly what we might suggest is a leveling of other distortions that some other technologies enjoy that work to the disadvantage of nuclear energy and importantly and this is a relatively new thought and Dick hit on it the consideration of the national interest benefits of nuclear energy need to be brought into the equation as the government considers what steps it might take to facilitate the viability of nuclear energy going forward particularly the viability to sustain the fleet that we have today and some of those national interests are really not so visible even to those of us who have been around for a long time the commercial industry has operated very independently of the defense side of the house and that means both naval propulsion as well as matters related to nuclear weapons well we are more recognizing that there are interrelationships subtle in some cases between the viability of our commercial nuclear energy and the viability of our naval propulsion and the expertise that we have in the weapons side as well and if we are to stay as prominent as we are in the world in naval propulsion and in our ability to set standards and norms for weapons we need infrastructure to support their missions and some of that infrastructure comes right back to the commercial sector as well in a sort of odd way commercial nuclear energy has been funding some of the infrastructure that has allowed naval propulsion and even our weapons establishment to go forward I'm a product of that nuclear power in the navy submarines right out of the box from college with the thought that if I didn't want to stay in the navy there was this wide open field of nuclear power that was growing very very fast so I had an immediate option on the table and I might say probably all my colleagues who were in the nuclear navy at that point in time had the same perspective some stayed in and made the navy their careers many of us chose to not stay in and came out for the sake of being in commercial nuclear energy I wonder how that is going to be looked on by those who are just moving into the navy establishment as young ensigns today and looking at where our industry stands so there is more than a subtle connection that is going to start to show up domestic challenge nuclear waste management as I said about that the real experts are next to me I'm not going farther down that path that is a challenge we can and should address in the US and it would make a big difference for the viability sustainability of our current fleet the cost of new plants and the economics associated with both new plants and existing plants is a real challenge and we did opportunities to directly impact that we well recognize the financial environment that our government needs to operate within and there is certainly no silver bullet from a financial point of view but among the recommendations that Dick went through are some which are not so burdensome that could truly help in the area of economics and innovation I mentioned how we're so fortunate that the NRC has the regulatory reputation that it does and it's warranted but we need to recognize that to the extent we have regulatory uncertainty or instability that is particularly difficult at a time when commercial nuclear energy in the US needs to have a path forward further to the extent there are regulations that are burdensome without a commensurate benefit to safety they simply put further economic pressure on an industry that is already strained none of us in the industry will or would ever be against regulations that are actually in the interest of improving nuclear safety that's how we got to where we are with the regulations that are commensurate with the benefits that they produce and then finally public opinion I were fortunate that we have still strong public opinion in the US much stronger than many other countries around the world that have large nuclear fleets and I find it also ironic that that public opinion is augmented by environmental leaders who are more and more coming out publicly in favor of nuclear energy because of the clean air benefits that it produces to climate concerns so recognizing how the general public and even those who were at times were not so favorably exposed to our technology looked on us and capturing that view for the sake of policy makers and the decisions they need to make is going to be important so that's a little bit of the how we got here and the challenges over the past two years all captured in the report that you now have with you with the issuance of this report we at CSIS will now close if you will the US nuclear energy project which is what we started all this as two years ago and we are transitioning to the CSIS nuclear energy program so the work of CSIS will continue and move forward in ways where we can seek to continue to collaborate government and non-government entities to further address these challenges and move forward providing insights and policy recommendations in as objectively developed a manner as we can in the way that CSIS is well renowned for how it does business specifically as we go forward we are going to focus our efforts on advancing two broad objectives sustainability of the existing fleet and developing nuclear energy for the future that said there are four specific areas wherein we will be seeking to facilitate discussion and collaboration let me just say a bit about each of those four areas first area we are going to follow up the work that we have done and that is codified in this report this is not a report that goes on the shelf is done and we slam the cover shut and don't get into we consider it ripe with information we consider the recommendations poignant and we consider it hopefully a reasonable basis for education and discussion among many policy makers going forward as we try to identify the challenges today and the scenarios which stand to be all too likely in the 2030 and 2050 time frames it's out of consideration for what 2030 or 2050 could look like that we hope policy makers take most focus about the need to move today some of the areas in the present report that we did not have time to get into much detail on barely touch but which we find most significant we're going to be exploring in more detail for example the contribution of nuclear energy to the stability and the reliability of the electricity grid we touched on that we had experts who worked with us on that really in detail explore that issue we think that's quite important to be explored nuclear energy provides base load power as you all know 24-7 365 for 20% of our electricity what is the impact of that declining moreover what is the impact of that going away and what does it do to the electricity grid for stability and for reliability that's one of the areas from the present report that we'll take forward and presume that may lead to some policy recommendations down the road the second area of focus that we're going to have at CSIS going forward is on SMRs small modular reactors Dick talked just a little bit about that it was only late in our project that we started to get into the SMR focus we recognize it in the report as a recommendation based on it but we didn't if you will have the ability to deeply focus resources on how to advance it forward certainly the industry and the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are all taking steps to facilitate SMRs going forward we have actually already begun with involved stakeholders in that area to advance the understandings on how to think about small modular reactors they have the potential to meet domestic needs for clean air energy and think not only today but for electricity demand growth something that is not often put in high focus that if our electricity needs continue to grow even modestly in the environment we're otherwise talking about how are those going to be adequately addressed and then there are a number of issues with SMRs that stand to contribute to the reliability of the grid in the face of wide scale cyber disruptions or natural disasters I like to frequently remind people that in a nuclear power plant the fuel for the plant is in the vessel it's in there for about 18 months and some SMRs it may be in there for four years or more for a coal plant the fuel is on the coal pile usually 30 to 60 days for a gas plant beyond 24 or 36 hours it's still in the ground someplace and we don't even know where and it's the transportation system that is extraordinarily vulnerable in assuring that the fuel is delivered in order for the gas plants to operate so nuclear energy has an inherent stability that it can bring to the electricity grid and SMRs as a smaller size have many applications one of the lead applications that we're studying is going to be with the Department of Defense and federal facilities as a way to meet the needs to assure stability and availability of supply on our bases but doing it in a NRC licensed nuclear owner operator sort of arrangement with partnerships that come together we'll be advancing the dialogue on SMRs into the fall it's the most principal topic of the forum going into that we have right now that we'll be going into John Hamry referred to the nuclear ecosystem nuclear ecosystem is a term we've coined to describe the broad network that defines the nuclear energy sector and what it means to the American economy as well as to the defense establishment and all the links among the supply chain products services, universities all of the infrastructure that it takes for both the defense side to work and the commercial side to work we seek to better understand it's not currently mapped it's not well understood by anyone and our effort is going to be to work in close collaboration with stakeholders to develop that map in order to create a model that will help us see what the ripple effect stands to be of a significant decline in commercial nuclear energy in the U.S. moreover with the total decline of nuclear energy in the U.S. what stands to be the impact on the nuclear ecosystem and in consideration of the defense side and the weapons side if commercial nuclear energy goes away what are the alternative steps that they would have to take for stability of products and services and infrastructure to maintain their missions fourth area that we will be putting some effort into as well we refer to as the global global nuclear energy infrastructure and fundamentally we're recognizing there that 50 years ago there were only a few countries that had nuclear energy and they were fully vertically integrated that was done today 31 countries have nuclear energy about 30 more have expressed interest to adapt it for the first time and at least by the IAEA estimate 15 of those countries are likely to produce nuclear energy on their soil for the first time by 2030 a lot of activity is going forward in those areas when they go forward they're not all vertically integrated rather they're getting part services advice people from an infrastructure that is global and we see concerns to assure that high standards are maintained in the global infrastructure in order to create the framework for those countries and their nuclear plants to be able to operate to high standards of safety, security operations, emergency response so we'll be seeking to work on that as a further phase of our efforts at CSIS we see an outgrowth of that as the opportunity to help host countries who are trying to think through their strategic policy considerations in order to facilitate nuclear energy moving forward so to wrap up with the issuance of this report we're really seeking to lay the foundation for more work that needs to be done we can't do everything at once we're going to take things in a stepwise fashion just as our colleagues at Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well need to do but we're going to try and focus on those issues matters, recommendations that can produce the most benefit in the shortest period of time both to sustain the fleet that we have today as well as to build if you will support for developing nuclear energy for the future so in obvious summary to the title on the report we believe it is necessary to restore U.S. leadership and nuclear energy and we believe it is a national security imperative and it's on that tenant that we're going to be moving forward so with that I'm going to close the formal part of our program if you will recognize we're well ahead of time which as a nuke it's always a good thing but we're going to transition into a comment and question period for a little bit and we'll give people in the audience an opportunity to express any views on what you've heard or what you know of our report or for that matter ask any questions of the three of us at this point in time so if you'd like to say something please identify yourself and your affiliation and the person to whom you may want to direct your comments or questions if there is one and I think I recognize Vince Reese, Vic Reese microphone coming around Vic Vic Reese I'm the internal provocateur at the department and I'd like to add one my compliments this is really a terrific job and hit about just all the important ways but let me add one more suggestion in terms of looking forward and that was brought up I think by General Scowcroft and his initial discussions and this goes back the whole idea of a few leasing and take back which I think if I go back to a very good op-ed was written by Scowcroft Perry I think it was Ash Carter and Arnie Cantor back on the New York Times and was followed up I think some years later by John Deutch Ernie Moniz again Arnie Cantor and Dan Poneman all of many of whom now are still in a position to actually do something about that and that's the relationship between interim storage which again the Blue Ribbon commission came up very strongly and the ability to do take back and then push forward a few leasing I think it's something that a CSIS can really add a lot to again it's a very difficult subject but I think it's a very important one because it isn't just a question of the U.S. retaining influence around the world which I think is fundamental to your approach but also was okay now that I have that influence what do I do with it as well as selling as well as selling and providing standards it's also I think to help the NPT move to a more to a game if you will set the rules of the game that are applicable you know to the future not just where we are now but essentially where the future is so let me suggest that that's something you put on your list of things to do in the future got a big thanks very much that was really good input general do you have any comment on that well as usual it was a great input and I would like to see us move in the direction of what I would call internationalizing the fuel cycle and that is for all the aspiring countries that want nuclear power there would be a central storage location for enriched uranium to replace it after it's burned they would return it and thus eliminate both the enrichment danger and the reprocessing dangers that we face in the world today and you know there are a lot of complications to it it needs some work but I don't see anything going forward on the notion now and I think it's a great idea that's it that's fine let me start by certainly complimenting the panel and based on the and see us who are you some folks may not know you Pete sorry Pete Lyons at the department of energy just wanted to start by complimenting the panel and if the tidbits of the report that you shared with us are any indication of what's in this document I'm going to be a very avid reader of this report starting tonight I very much appreciated the comments that recognize nuclear power as a truly unique source of power it's clean but that's not unique but you've emphasized perhaps in Mike's comments that it is unique from the standpoint of baseload power scalable highly highly reliable and then General Skullcroft in your comments emphasizing the vital national security and non-proliferation role which I couldn't agree with more I completely agree that the United States must have a seat at the international table where all the different aspects of nuclear technologies are discussed debated and refined and we must be recognized as a leader I think Mike you referred to it as a national security imperative I couldn't agree more I think Dick referred to or at least mentioned that in Dr. Moniz we have a most unique secretary of energy someone who truly for decades has been recognized as a world leader in many aspects of energy but specifically in nuclear energy as a person now who was before too he's very busy now as he's starting to find time to speak out though you're seeing nuclear energy and the issues that you've described figuring into a number of his comments and certainly on a personal note I couldn't be happier with the opportunity to look forward to working with him you pointed out the sobering challenge of natural gas there's certainly great aspects of it and there's certainly great challenges that natural gas provides the good news is we have five plants under construction that was emphasized the challenge is that with natural gas it's going to be hard to see a lot more I guess I just note that as within my own office and in an extraordinarily austere budget environment you mentioned SMRs we're certainly trying to push to encourage the SMRs I personally look forward to the studies that CSAS and Mike that you'll be leading on SMRs I don't see the SMRs as replacing the big plants but I do see them as offering a potentially completely new paradigm to how we think about nuclear power and to enabling nuclear power in many many areas in the United States and that was internationally where it would have been very hard to think about so within that austere budget we're certainly doing our best to support now one and we anticipate it will be two shortly designs moving forward for design certification and then I guess I just close my comments by showing my appreciation for the comments while Dick probably mentioned them more than the others and Mike on the importance of the back end of the fuel cycle the work that the Blue Ribbon Commission accomplished led by General Scowcroft with Dick's Able Assistance I think lays out a blueprint that is to me it's absolutely vital for the future of the country I started my public service 44 years ago at Los Alamos but working in the shadow of Yucca Mountain at the Nevada Test Site I spent a good fraction of my life trying to open Yucca Mountain to the point of recognizing that we have got to move ahead in this country and I appreciate that the Blue Ribbon Commission has laid out a blueprint that I think can allow us to move ahead the administration published a strategy in January that largely followed the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations for Senators and they encouraged input from Secretary Moniz have now come forth with a bill that is consistent with the administration strategy generally consistent with the Blue Ribbon Commission starting in the debate in the Congress I view that bill as the best chance we've had in decades to actually move ahead on the back end of the fuel cycle the importance of interim storage the importance of a consent based process are going to be absolutely vital if we can move ahead and without it I truly believe that we run the risk of strangling the country on its own waste and that would be a crisis of just incredible proportions so I appreciate your emphasis on moving on the back end of the fuel cycle I couldn't agree more we have to do it, we must do it if I think any of the other aspects in your report are going to come to pass so I'll be joining you and praying that Congress does see fit to move ahead and give us the legislative basis that we need but in general my compliments, I'll really be looking forward to your thoughts on the SMRs and we'll thank you very much thanks Pete other comments or questions in the back white shirt wait for a microphone please thanks very much excellent panel thank you my name is Con Nugent I run the Heinz Center for Science Economics and the Environment I belong to that club or maybe faction is the better word of environmentalist who like nuclear power so my question therefore is a follow up from my own institutional and personal political position in your I think astute observation of the need to monetize some of the less easily calculated benefits of nuclear power and in your section of the report having to do with tax policy why can't you come out in favor of a carbon tax and make league with the enviros who care so deeply about it and act whereby you could transform you'll forgive me your old boy rather club-ish atmosphere go on the side of youth and energy and a concern for the future of the planet here's your big chance and in two pages of recommendations you avoid the carbon tax as if it were the bubonic plague tell me about it well I wish I could push that off to somebody else well the simple reality was in a few areas that being one as we came together with the recommendations for our report we have a diverse set of individuals represented on the commission everybody is not of a like mind that may not be a surprise to you but that's the reality of where we are so in some instances like revisions to the tax code we identify that as the obvious lever that can be used and did not take it more granularly to exactly define what ought to be done policy leaders that's not a new idea hardly it's well recognized as one of the options that could be used and our intent was to not over constrain the administration or the legislators in exactly how to move forward but rather identify the areas of lever where obviously they could move forward well as we go forward on last part of my response with our discussions among policy leaders within the administration and staff and the like we well have the opportunity to express much more detail about how some of those levers might be used but at this point in time that's why we stopped where we did I'd like just to add one thought to reinforce the statement you made I think we're at a my personal view is that we are time with one of the great challenges for our generation to confront climate change and there is a need for an alliance between those who want to deal with climate change and the environmental community to join forces with those who can help to address that problem and that includes the nuclear industry there has been a tradition in the past of opposition I think that if one looks at the risks associated with nuclear power associated compared to the risks from climate change there's no question in my mind as to where you put your money and I think that there is a real need for an alliance of interests across communities that have often found it difficult to work in the past and I'd like to emphasize and agree very strongly with that aspect of your comments so would I but I'm at CSIS so I go ahead a little differently Bill Jones from Executive Intelligence Review I'd like to allot you for your efforts today I think this is very important and also very timely I might even say it's about time because we are behind the curve on this and there are just a couple of things I'd like to add you mentioned the issue about the restrictions I think a lot of what has been done building a nuclear power plant of course is largely determined by the costs and the time and the costs and the time have become increasingly so with a lot of the regulations a lot of which has to do with the security but because it was in a climate where you had very strong anti-nuclear feelings when a lot of this stuff was put through a lot of it probably should be re-looked at to see if it actually does have something to do with the security and if not then as I think you mentioned in your comment Mr. Wallace that it should be it should be put aside to make things a lot easier to produce these things a couple things I'd just like to say if the United States the reason we nuclear energy is so important is that there is a renaissance at the present moment we are in the nuclear age with a population of 6 billion people and increasing nuclear is really going to be the only solution the solar plants and the windmills are all very good but they're not going to support a population that size nuclear can do the job and if the United States is going to become or remain a leader depending on you see it a lot of the new advances have got to also begin taking place in the United States and I'm thinking particularly about high temperature reactors I would even mention the issue of breeder reactors although I know that's pretty controversial but there is stuff going on in places like China and France for these the new generation that the United States also should be involved in and the second thing I'd like to mention is a concept Friends of Mine at Fusion magazine and 21st Century Science had 30 years ago about what was called a nuplex that is you have a nuclear power plant and you use the heat that's coming off of it for desalination that is you get a whole complex of things that are necessary that are beneficial and the nuclear plant becomes the center of that and I think that would be very important also to look back at this nuplex concept when you're working on developing a program that's okay thanks very much Bill other comments or questions yes Ken Meiercourt World Docs on page 14 of your report you say as shown of the blowchart uranium ore is widely distributed across the globe I haven't been able to find the chart so maybe you could just tell me where the uranium ore is located and is the source fuel for the reactors at all an issue the availability of the source fuel okay you got us I'm not quite sure the answer to that it may be that in the editing process somewhere in the end that chart was actually dropped out but thanks for pointing that out to us let's make sure we make that any identify yourself Camry mentioned me earlier my job has since changed that's a little dated I've been working back in the house energy and commerce committee since last March so a little over a year but any computer with house energy and commerce committee with all due respect to my friend Pete Lyons and members of the Blue River Commission I have to point out that 335 members this week twice voted in favor to continue the path forward with Yucca Mountain that's a pretty profound statement more democratic members voted in favor pursuing Yucca Mountain then voted against it that combined with the remand from the courts to the NRC of its ways confidence decision in the wake of the president's decision to cancel the program leaves us with a moratorium on licensing at the NRC that includes dry-cast storage or extended licenses for existing dry-cast storage facilities so this leaves us in quite a bind when we have courts who seem to view waste confidence as resting on disposal not storage being the crux to that issue and the fact that we are going from a license application that was mostly reviewed and scheduled at the last minute and interim storage which doesn't seem to meet the court's intent and a strategy out of DOE that suggests maybe we'll have a repository in 2048 and how would a theoretical progress toward a 2048 repository satisfy a court that chided the NRC for doing nothing more than hoping for a repository against to a certain extent I just have to ask how does the Blue Ribbon Commission report really address that position in the House? Well, let me say first of all with regard to Yucca Mountain the Blue Ribbon Commission was very careful to say that we were not a citing commission and we made recommendations about how to proceed without prejudice to any site that would come forward and it could be licensed under that approach particularly emphasizing the consent-based approach if Yucca Mountain were that site there was nothing in the report that said that that was inappropriate just had a certain process that we thought should be followed and was in our view essential to succeed and being able to complete the licensing process with regard to this report I think mentions the Waste Confidence Rule in passing I know the NRC has been has established a deadline within which it intends to have a new Waste Confidence Rule in place it's my understanding that if the NRC is able to comply with that deadline and I believe they were on track at the moment from what I've read recently that it will not adversely affect any licensing the timeliness of licensing actions and I obviously the NRC has been directed to consider the current situation with regard to the development of repository and I presume that the draft rule which will go out for comment will present the cases to why a Waste Confidence Rule is appropriate under the circumstances I'm not in a position to be able to argue the case one way or another without seeing how they address it but that obviously is something that the NRC is grappling with right now Ed Wait for a mic if you will Ed Ed Davis with the Pegasus Group the Charter going forward I wasn't quite sure you mentioned nuclear energy benefits to grid stability a question earlier mentioned nuclear energy's benefits to climate and certainly nuclear energy's benefits for national security it seems to be a cross cutting issue I'm wondering is that something that the CSIS its nuclear program is going to be looking at effectively monetize those benefits so they can be recognized to build a business case for going forward with nuclear power Yeah great question Ed so in the way that I outlined in just short order the topics were going to go after I called the first general topic follow up to this report and then I chose to give the example of the stability and reliability of the grid more work need to be done on that in fact there are a number of other similar issues that get at the benefits of commercial nuclear energy and the need to begin to put some monetary value to it for the sake of understanding the impact and we would expect to be doing that as time goes on to be perfectly candid with the whole group here the challenge we face is this report is a great foundation it opens up about 20 more studies that ought to be done and so our challenge is to try and be very focused so as to undertake activity that can make a difference in the soonest time frame that's reasonable so I just don't want to build up expectations because there is a practical approach to what we can do but that is recognized as among the activities that we can do following on to this report far side hi excellent discussion Andy Patterson with the Atlantic Council informally with DOE on the business case for nuclear power the study says that nuclear power is not economic on page 39 if I read your analysis basically there isn't enough return for investors is what you're saying even with the sensitivity analysis at the low capital cost and here we go with 90% of our US utilities are basically on the sidelines with cheap gas and no load growth so one wonders if the challenge isn't as much the utilities themselves that are on the sidelines and risk averse with thinly capitalized balance sheets compared to our international competitors as much as it is a federal government that is sequestered and gridlocked so if you get to the end of your analysis a year from now and basically you've got 90% of the utility sector still on the sidelines but let's just say the 10 COLs are placeholders there's no serious investment plan behind those 10 COLs that are on order where do we turn to then I'll only highlight a couple of the issues that are among the recommendations that we have in there and one the potential to expand foreign ownership in nuclear plants we think is something that ought to be more seriously considered with US entities still maintaining the operational control second the tax code there are opportunities within the tax code to do things that can be helpful as well third we talked about the externalities in some cases the problem is not just the cost but it's the ability to get confidence in the revenue and so to the extent that there are abilities to establish for example power purchase agreements through Department of Defense or federal facilities that's keenly important as an individual who as many of you know was very involved with the five years ago aspiration that we couldn't build these new plants fast enough when we had gas at 8 to 10 dollars a million BTU you know we well understand the economics and so what's now needed are gap closing gap closing measures that make sense in the context of a fiscally constrained government so creativity along the lines of the items that I put out and there are likely others as well that need to be further pursued going to take maybe just two more comments or questions yes Sam letter FEPC in the report you mentioned the importance of the industrial linkages between Japanese industry and the United States industry G Hitachi Toshiba Westinghouse how important is it for Japan to stay in the nuclear industry both on the technology side and the operator side for US interest, thank you that is not a subject that's dealt with in this report and I can give you a personal guess Japan has about had before the Fukushima accident about 30% of its power provided from nuclear in the plans were to try to grow to 50% and that reflected the reality that Japan has no indigenous supplies of energy and so part of their security was essentially dependent on nuclear power and they viewed it that way at the moment two nuclear power plants of the 50 remaining are operating I understand within the last week or so 10 plants have filed for restart but there is a process involving an entirely new regulator that was established in Japan that will have to evaluate those plants this obviously is a matter of the Japanese how to decide to how to proceed and how much reliance they should have on nuclear power I think we have to recognize however that Japan is an enormously important ally to the United States in that region is an enormously important region for our economic and national security if Japan has to continue to import expensive fossil fuels they are at a competitive disadvantage economically where we are paying four or five dollars for a million BTU for natural gas now and they are paying $14 or $15 that just folds into the factor costs for their production it's in our interest that Japan remains strong economically because an important ally of ours in that region and if they are not able to find a way to get some nuclear power plants operating where the economics are entirely different between fossil and nuclear there and the strategic elements of this play into that then from my personal view we have the perspective that we need to worry about Japan being able to maintain its significance and its role in the region so I think there are real stakes for the United States in trying to help the Japanese work their way through this problem it's their decision obviously about the extent to which they rely on nuclear power but it is in our interest to help them and my personal point of view we would like to find a way that they can get some of these plants started again and continue to their reliance on nuclear power it's important for us that's not a matter that's dealt with in this report but it is something I've spent time in Japan and have strong views on it I would just like to add that the initial reaction after Fukushima by the prime minister was we're going to close down our nuclear industry they've backed away from that now I think prudently okay last John give you the final word John Welch with USEC I greatly applaud the efforts that you're doing I think you're addressing here is again another person that's worked in the industry for 40 years care about it tremendously the there is a tremendous time urgency relative to the existing fleet in my view the fact we lost Kawani should be a real eye-opener one of the best operating plants that we have in the country they know how to do it and do it right and yet the market that they're playing in you know it was a prudent decision on Dominion's part to go do that I think there are more plants just like that I think the nuclear utilities are fighting for their lives from a cost standpoint on that and so some of this policy level decision making is important near-term or we're going to wake up four or five years from now and we'll be longing for a hundred operating nuclear power plants to be a much reduced number you're already seeing it in the lack of upgrades that are going on I'd reinforce for Dr. Lyons we're the best operators best maintainers and we need to solve the fuel problem but if we're going to be a leader in this long-term we have to be a leader in the technology you can't be you know that's where all the brains all the smarts comes from is the development and deployment of the technology so a robust nuclear energy investment program on technology is very important we need to figure out what should be more fundamental as opposed to commercial and then manage it accordingly but my biggest fear is that stuff's happening in real time and I think that you all become a very important forum for putting that sense of urgency into the process again I commend you for your work thanks John I think that was poignant the sense of urgency is why we are all here and why we establish if you will this report is the foundation upon which we now quickly move forward in those areas where we think we can make the most difference but that's not done by a small group working in isolation you all understand the CSIS process of collaboration of facilitation and getting good input to develop the materials to educate and the recommendations which are grounded on good fact-based analysis that's how we will seek to go forward and many of you in the room have helped us in the past two years to all of you and those not here who are part of the process I want to express my gratitude this report is the product of I don't know thousands of man hours worth of discussion and deliberation and input and analysis and it's appreciated I'd like to thank my colleagues here at the commission and General Skowcroft in particular for asking the two provocative questions two years ago that got us down this path I don't know that we fully answered in general but hopefully we've taken a big step in the direction and I'd like to thank all of you for taking the time to come and help us spread the word last note thank you just one more if you have the hard copies of the report it's also available online it's csis.org forward slash programs nuclear energy programs so feel free to push it out to all your colleagues thanks very much