Ladies and gentlemen, the Dove of Schlitz Brewing Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin presents the Halls of Ivy, starring Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Coleman. I was curious. I tasted it. Now I know why Schlitz is the largest selling beer in America. No wonder it's the beer that made Milwaukee famous. If you like good beer, you'll find it pays to be curious and learn about Schlitz for yourself. Now, the Halls of Ivy. We love the hall that surrounds us here today. Welcome again to Ivy. Ivy College, that is, in the town of Ivy, USA. As most of us know, teachers are intensely concerned with books. Many of them write books, too. Dr. William Todd Hunter Hall, the president of Ivy, is one of these. He finished writing a book early this spring and, with mounting anxiety, has been waiting to learn of its acceptance or rejection by his publisher. At the moment, Dr. Hall and his wife, the former Victoria Cromwell of the English stage, are in the living room of their home. It's shortly past noon. Dr. Hall says, What do you suppose is the matter with Carter? He promised to let me know definitely by the end of the week whether or not he'll publish my book. And here it is, Friday, and no word from him. There's no point fracking, Toddie. Friday isn't over yet. I suppose I should have known better than to rely on the promise of a man who has all his drinking glasses inscribed with the word whoops. Why the devil haven't I heard from him? My Aunt Violet always used to say, No news is good news. With all due respect to your Aunt Violet, whose conversation, if what you say is so, must have been exquisitely dreary. Well, all that may be Carter now. Good. I'll give him a few moments with Alice first. He deserves it, having kept me waiting so long. That'll teach him a sharp lesson. Oh, she's very fine, isn't she? Well, anyhow, we're just trying her out. She was the best I could do in the way of a housekeeper on such short notice. Oh, I'm not complaining. She's an excellent housekeeper, and she scares the life out of me. But I'm sure she must be unique in Carter's experience. I mean, there couldn't be two Alice's in the world, could there? Mmm, very doubtful. Took 20 years as a master sergeant's wife, and five years in the wax to produce evil wine. To produce Alice at all is a major miracle. It's the machine age. She wasn't born. She just came off an assembly line with two traps and a jeep.  And... at ease, darling. Yes, Alice, someone for the doctor, ma'am. Mr. Kantem? Well, I don't know, sir. When I answered, a man at the other end started to stutter. I couldn't make out what. I told him, pop to and sound off, mister. And he said he wanted to speak to Colonel Hall. I mean, Dr. Hall, fast. Excuse me, Victoria. I'll see who it is. Uh, he hung up. Hung up? Yes, sir. He said he had a message for you, and tried to pull right on me when I told him it has to go through channels. Well, I'd shoot him out a little for that. And he said, never mind, he'd be right over. Be right over? Well, then it couldn't have been Kantem. He's in New York. Well, chow will be ready in half an hour, ma'am. Chow will be ready in half an hour, ma'am. Oh, yes, good. Maybe a little more than half an hour. I never cook for less than a company full strength. It takes time to divide all my recipes by two hundred. Well, it's quite understandable, Alice. Well, it's all right. I'll bracket the roast and be on target at thirteen hundred hours. As you are. I'm frightened. Well, it's almost one o'clock. If Carter intended to publish my book, I'd surely have heard coming by now. Perhaps I should have worked on it another year or so. Oh, not, Miss Kantem. It's a beautiful book. It's one of the most exciting biographies I've ever read. Perhaps the subject's been found uninteresting.  You know, it's been claimed that the three most fascinating subjects for books are Abraham Lincoln, Doctors, and Dogs. And that the ideal title would probably be Lincoln's Doctors, Dogs. You know, perhaps I should have called mine Victoria's Husband's Hobbit. Let's wait another hour or so. Let me come take a look. Dr. Hall. Oh, Mr. Merriweather, come in. Come in. Good heavens, man. What is it? Congratulations. Thank you very much. What for? You mean you don't know? No, what? Oh, let me catch my breath. I ran all the way from the club. I tried to reach you by phone, but that female top kick of yours tried to rob me through the Pentagon building. Let's chair, sit down. No, no, we better make Dr. Hall sit down. Well, sit down, William. Why should I sit down? Because if you don't, this is likely to knock you down. I haven't been so happy about anything since my doctor told me to stop working. Oh, that means wonderful. Congratulations. Thank you again, but for what? Oh, it won't be this marvelous. He doesn't know. No, I won't. Well, I was in the club library reading my newspaper and listening with half a year to the radio when I heard the news. Wonderful news. Don't let me rush you into revealing it no matter whether or not. No, my husband stands always like this, digging his fingernails into his palms and holding back a scream. Well, ma'am, in the middle of this news broadcast I heard the name. Jonathan Gilley. Jonathan Gilley? Frankly, I wouldn't have known Jonathan Gilley from Ben Hogan's caddy except that you told me you'd been working on a biography at Gilley for several years now and it really had benefited both of you. We'll take a chance. Go ahead and bowl us over. Dr. Hogan, you won the Scofield Prize. What? What? Well, what's the Scofield Prize? Someone turn it up before I start climbing the wall. The annual prize for the best biographies submitted for publication during the past year. Twenty thousand dollars prize money, ma'am. Twenty thousand? And the best prize? I could kiss you.  I could stand quite still and let you. Oh, Jody, I'm so very proud of you. And just a few minutes ago I was filming at my publisher for not letting me know whether or not he was going to accept the book at all. Well, you'll publish it all right. It's likely to be selected for the Book of the Month pop. And if this Gilley, if this Gilley fella looks attractive and a low-cut gown, you're a cinch for the drugstore reprints. Well, I... I... I don't know what to say. Isn't it ridiculous? My little book, the Scofield Prize for the best. Well, well, well, the Scofield Prize, eh? That's what the man said. Isn't it wonderful? Just go, sir. Well, of course, we'll have a round there. And tonight, Mr. Maryweather, we've no time to send out invitations. Will you spread the word around? Invite everyone, but everyone, and tell Alice to call the market. That little delicatessen, you know. Tell her we want enough for several hundred. That's marvelous. Oh, tonight, we'll Mary, Mary, B. Oh, tonight, we'll Mary, Mary, B. Hi, you puppy dog.  Oh, endow a home for old college president. Well, for one of them anyway. Get one of those new Scotch-clad dinner jackets. I wouldn't dare wear it, of course, but it'll enter dashing air to the coat closet. We'll take a trip to Europe. Buy a new car. May the end of jazzy. Yes, sir. Victoria, please. Not while we're celebrating. Hey, Colonel. Colonel Colbert. Oh, me. Oh, yes, yes. What is it, Alice? Mr. Harry Crane, Colin, says he's from the I.B. News, a reporter. Oh, haven't come in, Mr. Maryweather. Would it be good now to take care of him while we've got stairs and freshen up a bit? You're glad, too, man. Take your time. Come on, party. Dr. Hall? No, no. My name's Maryweather. I'm on the Board of Governors. The halls will be down just a moment. Well, I'm Crane of the News. How do you do? You hear about the Scofield Prize? Yeah, it's great, isn't it? Great for me, anyway. I'm the local AP man. I make a few bucks extra on it. Oh, that's fine. You used to enjoy your radio program, the A&P Gypsies, wasn't it? That's fine. Now, you're thinking of a grocery chain. I meant the Associated Press. But about this 20 grand, what's a kid his age going to do with all that folding money? Kid? Dr. Hall's not old, but he certainly isn't going to spend the money on marbles and lollipops. I'm not talking about Dr. Hall. I'm talking about that senior here. What's his name? Buckley, who won the Scofield Prize. What are you talking about, sir? Buckley, Buckley, Jared Buckley, the one who just caught the Scofield Prize with a biography of Jonathan Gilley. Oh, no. No, it couldn't be. Are you sure? Sure, I'm sure. It came in on a teletype just a few minutes ago. My instructions are all you can send on Buckley. I'm hoping to get a statement from Dr. Hall to sort of round off the story. What have I done? Set up a Christmas tree and decorated a Christmas tree? I thought the news broadcaster said that I must have misunderstood. I... Excuse me, please, Mr. Crain. I don't want to be here when they come down.  What's the matter, Eddie? Hardly. I really couldn't stand seeing the faces of you. Excuse me, please. Sure, sure. Take it easy. A lot of that virus-ex-making around, you know? Well, if anybody deserves it, I do. Mr. Crain, good afternoon. I am Dr. Hall. Afternoon, Doc. Victoria. May I introduce Mr. Crain of the news? You do. Good afternoon. Dr. Hall, I won't take up much of your time. I just would like a statement from you on this award of the Schofield Prize. I first heard of it through Mr. Merriweather here, who took... Oh, by the way, where is he? Well, he seemed a little upset. He just left. Just left? Oh, that's too bad. I thought he was going to... The excitement was probably too much for him. I think I want everyone to feel as happy as I do. Well, you really take this big, don't you? Well, naturally. I'm very gratified by the news. You might make that part of the statement. Oh, and please add that much of the credit is due to my wife. Your wife? Really? Yes, yes, indeed. As a matter of fact, I doubt very much if the book ever would have been written without her encouragement and tender solicitude. You don't say? Of course. No nonsense. I merely nagged and nagged until the book was finished and I wouldn't stop talking about it all hours of the day and night. All hours of the... You don't say? I promise you that as soon as he's finished, we'd go away together for a whole week. Well, didn't you have anything to say about that, Doc? Yes, of course. Yes, I told her. That's a good idea. You don't say? I think it was a good idea. Well, yeah, but you've got to draw the line someplace. This is only a week. You certainly are broad-minded. If it was my wife, I'd be problem at the mouth. Really? I may say so. It seems a very odd reaction. Not in my circle. And I thought you people had such quiet lives. Oh, well, who am I to point a finger? Well, thanks for the statement, Doc. You have all you want. Well, I got even more than I bargained for. The story will be about Buckley anyway. This is just sort of fill-in and fluff. Buckley? Who's Buckley? Are you kidding? Jared Buckley, the student who just capped the School Field Prize with his book about Jonathan Gilley. Oh, sorry. Buckley? He did a biography with Gilley? He did a biography with one of the prize? Well, yes. Didn't you know? What did you think I was talking about? I... I thought that... You see, I... My husband has a biography of Jonathan Gilley in his publisher's hands now, and we were under the impression... No, it's Buckley's book. Oh. Oh, I see. Well, you thought that I was getting a story from you. Oh, this is a rotten break, Doc. I'm sorry. Holy cow, what a story! No, no, no. Please, forget it. Please. Right. Thank you. Well, good afternoon, Doctor. I... Well... Good afternoon, Mrs. Howard. Good afternoon. Um, Victoria, do something for me, will you? Of course, dear. To phone my office and have them out Buckley to come together this afternoon. I'd like to see him.  Yes. I think there must be something good for you wrong someplace, with things I just can happen to people like you. Oh, thank you, my darling. I'm glad you think I should be immune to the buffeting of fortune. But speaking of buffets, shall we have lunch? I was curious. I tasted it. Now I know why Schlitz is the largest selling beer in America. No wonder it's the beer that made me no walkie-thing. There's a story behind those words. A story of something pleasant that could very easily happen to you. So before we return to the halls of Ivy, let's find out how a curious golf professional took a lesson from a group of beginners. When you golfers learn something from me, it's all in a day's work. But when I learn something from you golfers, well, that's like the man biting the dog. The man bites dog incident. I'm going to tell you about. It took place shortly after I became the golf pro at an exclusive club in Connecticut. One of my first jobs was to help some new members work on their game. Now these men were beginners who spent more time in the rough than they did on the fairway. But even so, they enjoyed golf a lot more than some experts have met. And their enjoyment didn't stop at the 18th hole. I'd see them in the clubhouse after the game, having as much fun as if they'd just broken a hundred. And I couldn't help noticing that Schlitz always seemed part of that happy picture. They always had a good time and they always drank Schlitz. So I began to wonder if this beer would give me as much pleasure as it gave them. There was only one way to find out by trying Schlitz. So I ordered a bottle and I took my first taste. The look that appeared on my face was second only to the look of satisfaction and I was there for photographers on those infrequent occasions when I went tournaments. That look said it plainly as if it had been printed on my face. No wonder Schlitz is the largest selling beer in America. No wonder it's the beer that made Milwaukee famous. Returning to the halls of Ivy we find a saddened doctor who's a little Jared Buckley. Is there anything I can do for you, Toddie? Thank you, no darling. I hope you don't think I'm crushed by the news because I'm not. It would have only been a bother to win the Scofield Prize anyway. Yeah, reporters interrupting your routine with requests for interviews. Yes, and having to make speeches at banquet. And radio and television programs. No, there's no doubt about it in my mind at all. No, it's just as well I didn't win it. Better in fact. Much better. What are you thinking about?  I think we're very evenly matched. We ever take a pound or two. It doesn't work, does it? I must confess I love having my routine interrupted. But you're being human if you didn't. I was going to surprise you with a first help. Surprise money, you know. Oh darling, you are sweet. What a lovely surprise. Thank you very much. I was going to exchange the fur coat for both of it. You were? Oh, thank you, Vicky. Thank you. I should have enjoyed that. How did it happen that Buckley should have written a book on the identical, very obscure subject you did? It was merely a coincidence, of course. Literature is dotted with cases where writers, widely separated in space, have written similar works almost simultaneously. Reaction to identical stimuli, I suppose. Yes, Alice, what is it? A telegram for you, Colonel. Thank you. I, um, hope lunch was all right, ma'am. You didn't eat much. Oh yes, it was great. Very good, Alice. The chocolate marquette was heavenly. It was giving me the recipe so I can park it under the other faculty wise. Oh, thank you. I learned the recipe at Cooks and Bakers School in the Army. Now you take 30 pounds of flour. 3 gallons of water and 3 gallons of milk. Then add a snidgen of vanilla extract. Not more than a quart. Now, four dozen eggs. Two slices of sugar. Thank you, Alice. I'll get it from you, Lisa. Yes, ma'am. From Carter. Dear Hall, in view of Scofield Tries Award, we do not feel we can accept your manuscript for publication at this time. Sorry, sincerely, and so on. And that, my love, is that. Two years of research and a year of writing, right down the drain. Oh, cast the luck. Oh, I mean it. I think of all the hours and days when I was so snowed under with administrative details I couldn't work on a book at all. But for that, it might have been finished sooner. I could have given it more time, made it better.  That's what hindered me. Well, I'd like my name to have gone a little way down to prosperity. For the scholars in the future, take my book from the shelf and read it. To have extended the domain of knowledge just that much more. I know how he tried here to be disappointed so cruelly. But living is full of disappointment. Yet we managed to survive, and he didn't do very well. It is, I know. Each disappointment always seems the worst. What about the time when, when I was returning to America after my sabbatical and you were supposed to go with me and couldn't? Oh, yes. I started packing. You bought a ticket? We were already I remember. And then two weeks before sailing. Well, we were dancing a big club. Um, what was his name? You remember, the new one had just opened. Oh, they had a V&E officer. They must have grown up in Walt's son. What was the name of that? I think he was beautiful. So do you. Is there much Walt in America? No, not much. When I left everyone was doing something called the Big Apple. The old Vicky is marvelous. Two weeks more than Goodbye London. Five days later. Hello, America. You know, when the customs inspector asks me if I have anything to declare I shall say, only my love. How do you? Yes, Vicky. I suppose I couldn't come with you to America. Oh, then all sorts of dire things would take place. It would rain for 40 days and 40 nights. The ice caps at the poles would move toward the equator. Baseball would be banned. But why imagine such a nightmare? I mean, when you are coming to America with me. But I'm not. What? I'm not. I can't. Oh, Todd, please don't look at me like that. Well, you're not joking. I wish I were. Only I wouldn't make such a joke. Yes, but I don't understand. Well, the management have asked me to change my mind and extend the run of the show until business was closing it. Why? Well, if I don't, I'm showing almost 60 people out of work. I couldn't refuse them. Oh, but Vicky, I had plans for it. Oh, they were beautiful plans, darling. And there'll be time to carry through. But we'll have to wait a bit. I'll join you later. You see, they all tell me the show can't go on without me.  Party. It wasn't an easy decision to make. Oh, I know. Besides, just feel as though the wind had been knocked out of me, that's all. It's been a wonderful trip for you, though, isn't it? Oh, my dear. And it's been happy, isn't it? I mean, until now. Happier than I ever imagined possible. It's going to make all the days away from you seem very dreary. I shall feel the same. But don't let talk about it. We've another two weeks. Let's enjoy them. All right, darling. We'll raise the roof and paint the town red. Because we are two very special people. Special and irreplaceable. Eh? Colonel, Mr. Buckley's calling. Please, not now. I haven't the time. Who knows how long it'll be before we see each other again? Oh, dear. It's Jared Buckley calling. What are you saying for him, dear? Make no difference every moment with you. It's precious. Well, sir, you're so flattering. I'm sure. But what if I'm not saying it? But who, you, what? Oh, that's it. Oh, Jared Buckley. Oh, dear. Happy new coming, Alex. Yes, sir. You were daydreaming again. There was stars in your eyes. That was one in my arms as well. Mr. Buckley, sir. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm sorry it took me so long. Buckley, we're very proud of you. Congratulations on bringing the Scofield Prize to Ivy. Oh, thank you. I was coming to see you anyway, Mr. Horror. I wouldn't have had this honor if it hadn't been for you. For me? Yes. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have written the darn thing at all. You're responsible for it, you know. I am? Yes, sir. Remember that seminar you conducted three years ago? The one in American colonial history? Yes. Yes, I do. That's where I first heard of Jonathan Gilley. From you. I'll never forget how you talked about it. This convinces me that I talk too much. Oh, no, sir. It was wonderful. You discussed him with so much enthusiasm. So much fire. I thought I couldn't stop thinking about him. The fire must have spread more than I intended. When I started doing research, I couldn't find half the books I needed. Someone else must have been working on that period of American history. I wouldn't be at all surprised. Then last year, I decided to write the book. Did you ever write a book, doctor? That's a good question. As a matter of fact, yes, two or three. My best one was... is unpublished. Funny thing. Once I started, I got into a sweat to fear someone else would write a book about Gilley before I did. Silly, wasn't I? I mean, who'd be interested in doing a book about an obscure 18th century scientist? Oh, it might have occurred to someone else. It might have, at best. I guess I'm lucky it didn't. I don't know. I guess I'm lucky it didn't. Anyway... Well, this... This is the original manuscript. I'd be very happy if you'd accept it. There's a... sort of a souvenir to remember me by. Will you accept it? Thank you, Buckley. I accept it with pleasure, gratitude, and a touch of envy. It's very kind of you to say that. Is there anything else, sir? No, nothing else. Just congratulations and the wish that this may be only the beginning of a very successful career. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Well, Vicky, I'm glad it was Buckley. Nice boy. You're not the dad yourself, professor. But I'm in the wrong profession, I sometimes think. If I weren't a teacher, I wouldn't have conducted their seminar. And then I wouldn't have brought Gillie to anyone's attention. Bert Garreler's old hall had to open the gate to his own apple orchard. Teaching bar. How did... I think you ought to read this. Read what? What Buckley says about you. About me? Here. Here. It's the foreword to his book. Let's have a look. Hmm. The minister's goes search through the land for the wisest of my subjects, he who has the greatest knowledge and the highest ability to use it. And when he is found, bring him to me. And he shall be my advisor and sit at my right hand. And the minister's searched through the land and found him and brought him to the emperor and within came one other. And the emperor welcomed the wisest of his subjects and gave him great honor. The emperor. Who is this other one who comes with you? And the wisest of the emperor's subjects answered, this was my teacher. Yes. But go on. Read the rest. To William Todd Hunter Hall teacher this book is dedicated. You see, Todd? There's nothing better. What can compare with it? The teacher. Yes. Yes, thank God. I was curious. I tasted it. Now I know why Schlitz is the largest selling beer in America. No wonder it's the beer that made Milwaukee famous. Here's a note for your date book starting Wednesday May 10th. The Halls of Ivy will be heard on Wednesdays instead of Fridays. And here again are Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Coleman. Good night, everyone. Good night. The Halls of Ivy's will be seen next Friday at this time at the Halls of Ivy starring Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Coleman. Ken Carpenter speaking. Innovator Baby's parents appear on We the People next on most NBC stations.


Elyad, Chelsea yn y FFU, yng Nghymru Llywbeth mae'n ddweud arall. Ond yn ymgyrch a'n gwybod lle sefydlu arferu ffordd derbyn gan ymgyrch i gyd yn ymddag mlhwyddiant, gan ymgyrch i Gwydden Gwyddon Ffordd, yn ymgyrch i gyd yn yr olostau dylunio. Rhyw i gyd yn o'n leirio wrth hynny, ond mae Chelsea yn ymgyrch a'n gwybod llai ymgyrch. On wnaethu i'w ffordd. Rwy'n gwybod eich blendwch, rwy'n gwybod eu hwnnau am ychydig i gyd. a mynd i butwyngwch ar gweithio. A'u ddweud ond y methu yw y gwnaeth am gael gwahanol hwn? A'u gweithio caf yn y ddiwrnod a'n gweithio cymdeithasol? Mae'r cyfrannu gwahanol tîm yn gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio a'r cyfrannu mynd i'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio yun. Felly, mynd i'n gweithio'n gweithio i'n gweithio'n gweithio y tîm, a we've showed that playing against Stoke, playing against Carl Isle, taking it to extra time and coming out victorious. So we're very looking forward to this game, really looking forward to this game. I'll speak a bit about the character as well within the side, obviously we've seen this season, especially with the first team, a lot of being made about the character coming back from losing positions and stuff like that, but we've seen that in the youth team as well, haven't we, in the previous games in the youth cup, especially against Stoke in the last round and then even Carl Isle before that coming back and winning in the last minute of extra time. You all feel that as players you all get on well off the pitch and does that transcend on to the field, do you think? Yeah, definitely. Certainly this year, second year scholarship, so certainly this year I'll find with the team that we're doing a lot more things away from football as well and that just creates the team bond we have and the unity so to speak. And how much of an opportunity, you know, how much of an experience do you think this will be as well for players like yourselves, maybe not an experience that a lot of players playing cap three level will get to test themselves against a team like this on the stairs like this, so you see things like that coming into the briefing and things like that. Do we speak about that a lot? Do we concentrate on the experience you're going to get from this game? Yeah, definitely. Obviously it's a big occasion, one that the boys are looking forward to. Playing against the best teams is what we play football for as scholars, so for some it could be the biggest game of their lives, certainly is for me so far and I'm really looking forward to it. And how confident are we as well, obviously, we've seen in the last round like we've mentioned, that we can put ourselves up against Catwon opposition and take them all away and beat them and we're confident of being able to replicate that and do that again with the results that we've had this season, with players we've got in the side. Yeah, definitely. I mean, we're looking to go down there and get through to the next round. It's the FA Cup, anything can happen and obviously those boys are obviously up for it. It's a massive game and we want to go and beat Chelsea and certainly put up a fight.


In this section, we are going to talk about mark fields for various notes used in serial records. And notes are basically just pieces of information that don't fit into any other of the descriptive elements in your mark record. When you're recording notes, you don't need to go into a whole lot of detail. They should be fairly brief and to the point, but they are a good place to add some information that can be useful to your patrons. With serials, sometimes you'll record notes that apply to all of the issues. So that first example, the phrase International Poetry Quarterly, appears on all the issues, even though the actual title is bitter root. But sometimes with serials, you will want to add a note of something that only applies to certain issues, something could change across time. The second example is a note that reflects this that from 1995 on, they were issued by and then there would be the name of an organization that is presumably different than the one that issued it in the beginning. So if you are recording a note that doesn't apply to all issues, do specify which dates it does apply to. One type of note that you might use is the source of title note. And this is one that you should use when the title does not come from the title page. And this would happen probably more frequently with serials than with monographs, for example, because serials don't always have a title page that just has the title on it. You would probably use a cover title or something like that more often than you would for a book. A source of title note goes in a 500 field and both indicators are undefined and it goes in subfield A and is a period at the end. You'll also see description based on notes. This would be when you're not working with the first issue of a serial. You want to let people know what issue you were working with when you created this record. This goes in a 588 field, which also has two undefined indicators. And so you put the numbering and then the chronology if it has it in parentheses after that and a period at the end. If you have both of these type of notes, the sorts of title note and the description based on is generally best practice to combine them into one note rather than using a 500 field and a 588 field. Put them both in a 588 field and have description based on and the numbering or chronology and then a semicolon and then the source of title with a period at the end. You can also include a latest issue consulted note, which would mean that even though if you base your description on the earliest one that you have, you would still want to let people know what the latest one that you looked at so they know how much you've seen in terms of what the changes over time might have been for the serial. So you would put that also in another 588 field and then just say latest issue consulted and then whatever the numbering or chronology is on that. You might use a 500 note field, which is just a general note field. You can put basically anything in a 500 field for things like letting people know that some issues also have a distinctive theme title in addition to the title that applies overall to every issue of the serial. Or you might occasionally use it for things like if an editor changed. Generally you would do this only for an editor that was an editor for a long time, not somebody who did one year. You wouldn't bother putting their name in a record, but if somebody edited like in this example from whenever it started up to 1993 and then this guy started in 94 and is still doing it and that's been a significant amount of time, you might want to go ahead and include that in a 500 note. You can also use a 515 field to indicate numbering peculiarities. That's another funny thing about serials is sometimes people might lose track of the numbering or switch systems. So you can use it to say things like oh there were a few numbers that were omitted. They skipped from 31 to 37 for who knows what reason. It might be things like the publication started with just being numbered as an addition for every year and then they started calling it the annual report in 1960. So you want to let people know that as well that from the 11th year on they called it the annual report in addition to just calling it the 1960 edition. Or you can include something like the fact that some volumes lacked numbering. If there's just no indication on the item of what number it is, you can put that in your record as well. Just to kind of let people know that there are some peculiarities. Again with serial records we're trying to reflect the whole run of the publication rather than just one monograph. And lastly you could include a 550 field to include the name of an issuing body. So again if you have an organization that isn't technically the publisher but they are sort of responsible for making this item come out, you can put that in a 550 field and then as we talked about in the last video, it would be a good idea to include a 710 field for an access point for this organization. So those are some notes that would help you provide some more information in your serial record.


It's a pleasure to be here and it's a pleasure to combine the seminars from CSAC with the energy seminar from pre-court. I want to start by pointing out that we've just passed the 75th anniversary of the Chicago Pile 1 experiment where Enrico Fermi and his colleagues demonstrated it was possible to have a sustained chain reaction. This is a painting that depicts this historic event and this was really the culmination of all the exciting physics that took place early in the 20th century. It was a crude reactor but still large enough, some 45,000 carbon blocks for the moderator, some five metric tons of uranium and 45 metric tons of U02 as the fuel. This was just over 75 years ago and I put this up because I'm sure at this historic moment in physics no one said, well, what about the waste? There was so much excitement that this idea worked and of course this was quite an important development because this led then to the creation of the plutonium production reactors at Hanford and then at Savannah River. Harold did the beginning of the use of nuclear reactions for generating power and so this was a big moment but people weren't thinking about the waste. Now in fact there were waste, CP1 was disassembled and moved to a site not too far away from the present location of Argonne National Laboratory. It was decided that perhaps having such a nuclear reactor so close to downtown Chicago wasn't the most prudent approach so it was moved. Reassembled as CP2, there were series of reactors and in fact at this site A, plot M, the material from the reactor or at least part of the material from the reactor is buried. So this was in fact some of the waste and its ultimate fate going back 75 years ago. This was the subject of a clean-up, a modest clean-up which took several tens of millions of dollars. This is at Redgate Woods, I think it's called, just a five minute drive from the present Argonne National Laboratory. More interesting is building 51 of the Melanchrot chemical works which were located essentially in downtown St. Louis. It was in this building that the rich uranium ore from the Belgian Congo was processed and generated some 40 metric tons of uranium for family's CP1. This processing facility continued to operate until 1957 and the residues from this processing actually moved around the local area of St. Louis. Some fraction were stored at the airport for a while and I'm not sure of the entire story but in fact some portion of this waste ended up in a landfill in North St. Louis County and that landfill is on fire, an underground fire and you can imagine there's some concern from the local community. In fact you don't need to imagine that concern. There's a very nice HBO documentary, Atomic Home Front, which traces the history of this landfill issue, radioactivity in the landfill and how the communities have struggled to deal with the clean-up. So I think for me what's very important to realize is that I went to the University of Chicago and participated in the celebration of CP1. At that time I didn't realize that some of the waste is still confounding the efforts of local communities in St. Louis and that people still struggle with this waste. Now that was the first step, CP1 was very small, it operated at less than a watt but we had an extensive weapons program with plutonium production reactors, reprocessing to reclaim that plutonium. In 1957, Shipping Port power plant came online, first commercial nuclear power plant and we began to, as a country, create, used or spent nuclear fuel as a waste product of the fuel cycle. So the scale of this experiment is small but what followed later was huge. I found it doesn't do much good to give you the numbers in curies or cubic meters or gallons or normal metrics but dollars perhaps are closer to your hearts when you're making comparisons. And we can consider, roughly speaking, that the Department of Energy's budget is about 30 billion dollars, most recently it's a little higher. In that 30 billion, if we set aside the 12 billion that goes to NNSA, essentially the weapons program, this leaves 18 billion dollars in the Department of Energy's budget left to do whatever a Department of Energy should do, that is look into alternative sources of energy, do the work, the research and the development and provide the support for developing alternative or new energy resources. So that's 18 billion dollars but when we look at the Department of Energy's budget you'll see 6 billion for environmental management. Environmental management is that part of DOE that's dealing with the legacy waste from our defense programs. So that's one third of let's say the usable budget for energy and that 6 billion dollars is more than the budget for the Office of Science. The Office of Science is the largest supporter of research for the physical sciences in the United States, larger than the NSF and yet we spend more money working on finding solutions for this defense waste. That says nothing about the waste generated by nuclear power plants. We'll come to that in a moment. Could you ask me questions at the end? I appreciate it. I'll look forward to your questions at the end. So with this in mind what I want to present to you today is the result of a series of meetings that occurred at Stanford and in one meeting at George Washington University where we tried to identify particular issues that were very important to getting the US nuclear waste management program back on track. The meetings occurred over a nearly two year period. We were very fortunate to have support from pre-court, also support from the Friedman Spogli Institute for International Studies and support from CSAC to conduct these meetings. And this allowed us to bring in experts from essentially all over the world and in this series of five meetings we had 75 presentations and lots of time for interaction and discussion. And there's let's say a longer description of the purpose for these meetings but the short description is we wanted to understand why the US program is not advanced and we wanted to try to avoid that in 20, 30, or 40 years we're still discussing the same issues. That is to identify the way forward. Now the US program is represented in my mind by this Gordy and Nott. The program is ever-tightening. We've arrived at this state due to major changes in the original law of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982. Slowly developing and changing regulatory framework, erratic funding, significant changes in policy with changing administrations, conflicting congressional and executive policies. And finally inadequate public engagement in decisions about fundamental strategies for the storage, transportation and disposal of the nuclear waste. Now there are many strands in this knot. One could focus on the implementer, the Department of Energy or on the regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or on the states which are either against receiving a repository or perhaps want to have a repository. But I want to emphasize really everyone in this field, including myself, has contributed to this knot. Now my main role has been in a researcher, let's say far removed as a researcher, far removed from the policy. But in fact as I look back I think that the researchers, including myself, have focused too much on what I call just the piecemeal science. We have a small contract, we measure the solubility of thorium in certain conditions. We haven't been following our data and our thoughts into the safety analysis. We haven't really contributed as much as we should have to thinking about the conceptual problems of nuclear waste management and disposal. Now why does the United States find itself in this current situation? There's a very long list but just some high points. First, managing the spent fuel in a high level waste wasn't a high priority. In the earliest days during the Cold War it was more important to produce weapons than to worry about the waste. And also there was real optimism associated with nuclear power and I would say a naive belief that it would be easy to dispose of the used fuel. Or that that used fuel would be reprocessed. In the earliest days reprocessing was part of the plan and reprocessing was considered to be a strategy which would reduce the waste problem. Also there was a technical fix, could be envisioned. The simplest technical fix in terms of the reprocessing associated with nuclear weapons was just to build enormous tanks and put the high level waste into the tanks and leave it. And if the tank leaked or if we needed more storage space build additional tanks. And that was the fix for a long time. In 19, well and then the Atomic Energy Commission did begin to worry about it. So they commissioned a study of the National Academy of Sciences which in 1957 endorsed the idea of geologic disposal. There's a very nice report criteria. It looks like something that can be done. And so this report added to the idea or the feeling that technical fixes were available. Now as time passed it turned out that the technical fix was not as easy as expected. The tanks leaked as an example. It's difficult to detect the tanks when they're leaking. Probably more important in 1969 there was a fire at Rocky Flats. And that fire caused the Atomic Energy Commission to think more seriously about what are our options? Where are we going to put the waste? Because a large amount of the waste from Rocky Flats was sent to Idaho with a promise to the governor of Idaho that 10 years later that waste would be sent to another location. And so one needed another location. That was in the early 70s and late 70s. There was an interagency group that very carefully considered what might be done. And this led to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 which was really a grand covenant. There was a lot of interaction, a lot of different ideas, a lot of give and take. And it plotted the path forward for the US program. The difficulty is that almost immediately some of these key bargains began to unravel. One of the most important elements of this bargain was that the site selection for a repository would be technically driven and involve the comparison of at least three possible sites. In the period between 1982 and 1987 this site selection process went from nine to five and finally to three sites that were placed under active investigation. But in 1987 Congress, let's say frustrated by the cost of characterizing three sites when you only need one, decided on Yucca Mountain as the site for further investigation. Another element of the difficulty is that yesterday's solutions have become today's problems. This is a quote from a DOE colleague who prefers to remain anonymous. But it's very interesting to consider how along the way things were done that looked like solutions. An example would be the removal of cesium and strontium from the waste in the Hanford tanks. So now we have several thousand pipes, capsules of cesium and strontium that were separated from the high level waste at Hanford. This was probably a good idea and I've always been impressed by the fact that it could be done and was done. But it creates a new waste stream and these capsules are in pools in storage at Hanford and represent yet another issue that has to be dealt with. Another type of solution, particularly in the late 80s and through the 90s, was to enter into agreements with states about the fate of the waste on their site. So most famous would be the 1989 agreement, the triparty agreement between the state of Washington, EPA and DOE which deals with what to do with the waste at Hanford. Well, at the moment this was signed in 1989, it looked like progress. But that schedule was very specific about what would be done and when and what penalties might accrue to DOE if they didn't finish the work on time. Another agreement in 1995, DOE agreed with the state of Idaho that in 40 years all of the spent fuel would be removed from the state of Idaho. Well, 1995 were pretty far along to the 2035 date when that's supposed to happen. And so the solutions became actually a web of agreements that in many ways tied DOE's hands as they tried to look forward to a new solution. And then finally, no geologic repository, central to all of this is a place to put the waste. In 2010, the Obama administration attempted to withdraw the license application unsuccessfully and that took some years in court to determine. But being unsuccessful in withdrawing the license application, funding for the NRC and the DOE to pursue work on Yucca Mountain was not available. And so these are just a few of the items that really blocked progress on nuclear waste management. Now for the reset process, let me say just and very quickly a few words about that. The entire process was driven by a steering committee, a steering committee of people who have extensive experience with nuclear waste management issues. It included people from national laboratories, I have to say, with the change in administration and also change in lab management, they finally had to step off, but they made a very important contribution to the discussions. Probably most important were the international members of the committee, representing Sweden, Canada, and France. We also had then people from academics and Sally Benson from Precord Institute. What I'd say, I added it up, this is over 300 years experience in the nuclear waste field. And so that's just one way to say we in our deliberations weren't limited to what we were told. We didn't enter the discussion as novices, but it guided the discussions and the design of the meetings. The steering committee set the agenda. And at the first meeting, we spend a lot of time trying to determine what are the critical issues. There are so many little issues. We don't want to waste time on those, although they might be very important. What are the most important issues to address? This is the list of important issues, the idea of a new waste management organization, the definition of a consent-based process. I should have said earlier, we benefited greatly from the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, right? So those first two issues come really from their deliberations and their report, which was issued in January of 2012, and thus far there's been no action on those reports. Other issues for the committee were to understand the nuclear waste, the back end of the fuel cycle in the United States, to review how regulations and risk methodology are folded into the concept of safety. And then also very important was the idea of, well, what if we do nothing? We found we didn't know much about the no action option for the U.S. program. And that's a very important starting point. And so we put it on our list, but the open circle means that we didn't get to this subject, and I'll come back to that later. What we did do is organize meetings around each of these items. And for each of the meetings, say in the new organization, I won't read through all of these or even give you time to finish reading them. We would have a series of questions, and then we would invite speakers most appropriate for addressing the questions. For the new organization, that had been, and you'll see in a moment, or I'll describe to you in a moment, it's a topic with a long history. And so we focused on areas that hadn't been covered so thoroughly before, such as what do we mean when we say that an organization should engender trust? What kind of behavior is that? Or if we say an organization doesn't have trust, what do we mean exactly? For the integration of the fuel cycle, we're most interested to understand whether the incentives at every stage were aligned in such a way that you would be led to geologic disposal. And as you'll see as I discuss this, in fact, in the U.S., they're not aligned. And we fragment the problem so that in the United States right now, there's a lot of discussion of extended interim storage. As if that's a solution, but that may be a solution that becomes tomorrow's problem. Public engagement, what does the consent-based process mean? Who gives consent? How do you enter into such an agreement? Most importantly, how do you get out of a consent agreement? How do you withdraw your consent? And what if things change in a big way? What if you have a repository? Everyone's been on board, but the implementer decides, well, I would like to use that repository for an entirely different type of way. This has happened at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. So a process of actually obtaining consent over a 20-year period is now negated by rather rapid changes in the purpose for the repository. That is, it's being changed. And then the critical issues of risk, regulations, and safety. Of course, this is what the public is most interested in. But how do we take risk calculations and convey them to the public and to ourselves in a way that they make sense and make a compelling case? And then, as I mentioned, this issue of the status quo, which we didn't get to, but I want to discuss in a moment. Right, I can discuss everything in a lot of detail, and I want to do that in a moment, but let me just give you what the recommendations are.  The first is to create a new nuclear waste management organization. And most importantly, a new funding scheme. I'll come to that in the later discussion. But what's new is the idea that this organization would be utility-owned. And in all of the long history of considering various types of organizations that might deal with the nuclear waste, what finally stood out to the committee is that if we look around the world, say in Canada, Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden, the nuclear waste organization, single-purpose organization, is owned by the utilities. And this has a very important effect because that means that you've aligned all of the decision-making steps within one organization, and they're oriented toward the goal of long-term disposal, that is, geologic repositories. The third conclusion is just the follow-on, that we have to find a way in the U.S. program to align all of the incentives. Right now, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act put into place what's called the Standard Contract, which is an agreement between the Department of Energy and the Utilities about how the fuel will be transferred to the department. But in the absence of a repository and the Department of Energy's failure to take ownership of that fuel and dispose of it in a repository, that leads the utilities to take actions with that fuel on site that may not be aligned with what needs to be done for geologic disposal. We would also recommend revising the regulatory approach, such that the quantitative probabilistic risk analysis is only one element in what we describe as a safety case approach, and this is a very important recommendation, but it'll take me some time to tease out the subtleties of it. And then the final observation is that our recommendation or admonition is that we have to realize with Nuclear Waste Management and Disposal, it's not just a technical issue. This is an issue, whether you like it or not, that also has a huge societal component. And whatever the solution is, it has to be something that communities, states, and the larger politic find acceptable. And I'll dwell on that a little more as we go. Okay, a few words on Nuclear Waste Management Organization. Well, the idea of a new Nuclear Waste Management Organization is not at all new. This is a quote from a very early book on radioactive waste, recommending a radioactive waste authority. Actually, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, established that the federal government would be responsible for the Nuclear Waste, a promulgated regulation by the AEC in 1970, put the federal government in charge of developing a geologic repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 tells the Secretary of Energy to look at alternative organizations. And so in 1983, the Secretary of Energy formed AMFM Alternative Management and Financing of the Management of Nuclear Waste. That commission worked for a time, looked at different organizations, FedCorp, private corporations, and so on. Finally, their report wasn't received very well by the Department of Energy, and it was decided well. Even if this is a good idea, let's wait until we're past the site recommendation stage, which we got to in 2002. And the Department of Energy never returned to this subject. The Blue Ribbon Commission went through the process again and decided that the best approach was a FedCorp, as they're called, a federally-chartered corporation wholly owned by the federal government. There's been no action on that in 2012. Actually, a bipartisan committee in Congress submitted legislation that would create a nuclear waste management organization, not a FedCorp, but an independent government agency, and so on. There was no action taken in 2015. It was submitted to Congress again, and again, no action. So it's just by way of saying there's a long history here. Now, what are we recommending? First, it's very important to realize it becomes clearer as we march through the recommendations. Central to the success of the program would be a new, independent, single-purpose national organization. The BRC, the Blue Ribbon Commission, recommended a FedCorp. So I've already said we think there's great value in looking carefully at the possibility of a utility-owned corporation that's responsible for the entire fuel cycle from the generation-spent fuel until its final disposal. There are a lot of elements that are required. Some are on everyone's list that discusses this matter. You must create trust. You have to realize that such a corporation operates over a long period of time. The active process of emplacing waste, that will take over 100 years. There has to be considerable public engagement and scrutiny, regular national and international reviews. What's most interesting for the U.S. case is to think about, well, what nuclear waste? The immediate idea was, well, this new corporation be in charge of everything. The defense waste, the commercially generated spent fuel. The problem with that is the defense waste, it's a huge problem. And the Department of Energy has already entered into a web, and I've described them briefly before, of agreements. And so it would be a horrible thing for a new organization to walk into that web. And so I think the preference of most members of the committee is to say, let the nuclear waste, the new nuclear waste management organization, only deal with commercially generated spent fuel. Because if they were successful with that, that would be a huge accomplishment. That would just be fantastic. And if they are successful, then at a later stage, they could negotiate with the Department of Energy about DOE paying for their high level waste being disposed of in the repository, if that's appropriate. This would also have the curious advantage of giving the U.S. program two programs, one federal dealing with the defense waste, and the other, a utility owned corporation, essentially private, dealing with the commercially generated spent fuel. I'm going to have to move on. Let me just jump down to funding. Some of these points are important, but in some ways they're just words. The funding situation for nuclear waste in the United States is barely describable, okay? Initially, it made sense. There's a fee that the rate payer pays on electricity generated by nuclear power plants, one mil per kilowatt hour. And those fees from the rate payers go into a fund, the nuclear waste fund, from which we then are to develop a repository, transportation systems, and so on. And it's worked. The fund has accumulated well over $32, $35 billion worth of fees. And with interest now, it's at $40 billion, over $40 billion. The problem is, and I have to refer to my notes because in some ways it's just difficult to believe, the problem is in the 1980s, the Graham-Rodman Hollings Act, 1985, treated the waste, nuclear waste fund as income, and charged it against the national debt, okay? And so it's in the mandatory part of the budget, where there are mandatory expenditures. There were amendments to the Graham-Rodman Hollings Act, as well as the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, such that they all combine, mean that if you want to increase the budget, say for repository research, in order to maintain a balanced budget, then you have to reduce something else in the Department of Energy's budget. Even though the ratepayers have already put all the money in, okay? And so maybe you're in a construction phase and you want to really spend money, get it done. Well, then the Department of Energy would have to cut some other part of its budget in order to provide for that increase, okay? This essentially means that the funding is erratic, it's not sufficient. And it doesn't scale to what projects experience, that is maybe low levels of funding required early. But then when you start building something, you expect to have more funds available, okay? So the new organization, if it were entirely in utilities, of course, they could take that fee and put it into, as they do in Sweden, what they call a lockbox so that the money is still there. But also our recommendation is to transfer to the new organization over a period of 25 years the Nuclear Waste Fund. So that money which has been collected for waste disposal can be made available. Okay, integration of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, okay? This, in the 1970s, this is a recent diagram. This is what everyone expected to happen, okay? You would march around the nuclear fuel cycle. You would have your power plant, fuel would go into storage maybe for five years, high level waste from reprocessing, which the US no longer does, would accumulate. And the reason I like this is it illustrates part of the problem is there's no geologic repository. The geologic repository is part of the fuel cycle, but it's often been an afterthought as if we can create it and everything will just flow in on schedule. What's happened for the US, of course, is the used fuel from power plants, the high level waste from defense programs are accumulating at sites all over the country. And it has no place to go. This is the failure of integration. Now, what's the scale of the problem? Well, if all of the US right now has 99 nuclear power plants, they generate around 2,200 metric tons of used fuel per year. If all of the power plants that are scheduled for license extensions, if every power plant gets to its end of life, the total inventory will be close to 140,000 metric tons of fuel. Because the pools at the reactor sites where the fuel was initially stored are filling, this means then fuel has to go into dry cask storage. And over time as pools are shut down and the fuel goes in dry cask storage. Finally, at the end, we will have some 9,000 dry cask storage canisters around the country in approximately 70 different sites. Let me just go on, I just want to give you some examples of what happens if we don't integrate the fuel cycle. A technical example of some of the problems is that we have already 14 shut down sites where there's spent fuel on the site but no operating reactor. But of those 14 sites, eight have already decommissioned their fuel handling facilities. So the possibility of repackaging, putting things into smaller packages with frozen in time, the options, right? And that situation will only grow with time. The economic penalty we pay is because the Department of Energy was not able to take ownership of the fuel on January 31st, 1998. The utilities have sued the Department of Energy successfully and they now receive about a half a billion dollars a year to cover the cost of their having to hang on to the fuel. If nothing changes over the next 10 years, the extrapolation is that will go to something like 23, 25 billion dollars of expense. It comes out of the Judgment Fund, which has seemingly no limit. Social impact, all of the communities with the stranded fuel sites. There's an environmental impact, you can't do this forever. There's a curious regulatory impact. Previously, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had a waste confidence. And I want to use the word rule, but I think it's a determination, which was used to simply say the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is confident that there will be a repository. And this was part of moving forward with nuclear power plants. But this was challenged in court after repeated delays. How confident can you be? And so now there's a waste storage rule which essentially consists of a generic analysis that says in 60 years and 160 years and even beyond there's not much environmental impact. That may or may not be true, people argue about that. But what's certain is that type of ruling removes any incentive to go from storage to disposal. And so you see the US system kind of breaking into parts where each part will continue as is without getting to the final goal of disposal. For the nuclear industry, their implications as an example, let's say we're moving fuel. Originally people thought they would move the oldest fuel first. Now people say, well, let's move the hottest fuel or let's move the fuel at the stranded sites. That's the higher priority because it costs so much to secure those sites. From a geologic point of view, depending on the type of rock, actually none of those options may be what's desired. You may want some mixture of fuels to arrive at a certain temperature. All of this is by way of saying that if we make these decisions separately or separate from one another, then we'll always be less than we should. I'm just watching the clock a little bit. Okay, that's why I flipped through some things. Sorry, public engagement, consent-based siting. Over the last 50 years, there've been 24 efforts to cite a geologic repository. And five had succeeded. And this reference from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board describes the history of those efforts. And one of the conclusions is that actually to be successful, you need a site that's not only technically suitable, but you need one that's socially acceptable. And the dark areas refer to the time period as you get closer and closer to making a decision. So as you know more about the site, then these circles would decrease. But they've certainly got to overlap. Doesn't matter what you do first, looking at history. You can get a technically acceptable site first or you can take the other route as the Canadians are doing and look for something that's socially acceptable. Public engagement, the two points that have been missed in previous discussions are that the key words are trust and power. The implementer has to have trust and nothing builds trust more than redistributing the power so that everyone has a moment in which they can make their views felt and pass judgment on the acceptability of different strategies. And so what we've proposed is first to realize that consent-based siting is a process. In the US up until now, it's often described as a legally binding contract. Well, we have lots of those with the states and those are now part of the web that's holding everything in place. But in fact, looking at other countries that have been successful with the consent-based process, it's really a process. You have to have early engagement, you're at it all the time. Whether you have an agreement or not, doesn't matter so much. As you're able to communicate with the community, with the state, and change your plans, okay? That's been one of the difficulties in the US program is, we haven't been able to adjust. Now, how would this be done? Looking at other countries, it's not so complicated. It would mean that as an example, a community or a state might have a veto up until a certain point. Say the point where the license application is submitted. They would be an integral part of the site investigation. They would follow along to a certain point, and then their right to veto would disappear when the license operation begins, or the license application process begins. In some countries, the veto exists up until the work goes underground. In other countries, the veto could be at some point during the underground characterization of the repository. A very important point is there are many ways to do it, but this is something that has to be negotiated with the communities. That's an essential part of the process is to get everyone on the same page. And to agree as to how this might be done. Now, there can be a provision to overrule local objections. A typical way to imagine doing this is with a supermajority of both houses of Congress. But then of course you have to define exactly what you mean by supermajority. And in fact, this happened with the old Nuclear Waste Policy Act. When Congress overturned the veto by the state of Nevada for going forward with Yucca Mountain, okay? And if you look at the numbers, I'd forgotten them. I went back and looked last night. Actually, it was a supermajority. If you define supermajority as being 60% of each of the houses of Congress. Okay, I think I've said these things. So let me get on to the last topic, which is the regulations. Now, the regulations in this field are, it's a whole subject unto itself. This is a short list of the major activities, are major points along the way to developing a regulation. I'll simply point out that the NRC was established in 1974 when I got my PhD. Okay, we're down at the end. I'm still talking about nuclear waste. And so this whole process of establishing a regulatory framework has taken my whole career and it's not done yet, okay? That's probably not fast enough if we want to proceed. The other point is that there's some major steps along the way and probably the most important was an Academy report which sets the technical basis for what became the Yucca Mountain Standard. And what I'll simply tell you is the standard has evolved. The original Yucca Mountain Standard was site-specific just for Yucca Mountain. That's important, risk-based. And the compliance period goes out to a million years, okay? And so it's risk-based to a million years. What could that possibly mean, okay? Risk to whom a million years from now? Risk of what, okay? And yet for different reasons, and I think I understand the reasons, following different roads we've converged on pretty difficult requirements for understanding the concept of safety. In fact, the Yucca Mountain Standard remanded several times, and this was the EPA's last effort, and it's still probably subject to discussion in court, has a 50-milli-rem limit the first 10,000 years. But then that jumps to 100-milli-rem, the units don't matter, from 10,000 years to a million years. So go home and try to discuss with your spouse or your children what that might mean in terms of safety. That's one of the critical difficulties. And I'm gonna skip some of the details of explaining how this works for the US and simply say that the recommendation by the committee is to use what's called a safety case approach. Now, this is difficult to discuss because in the US, they picked up on the word safety case and it can mean something different. This is a definition from the IAEA and, sorry, the NEA. But essentially, a safety case approach is multiple lines of evidence, a compelling argument of which among those multiple lines of evidence are the probabilistic risk assessments. Now, why is this important? And I'm not sure I can explain it quickly or concisely enough. The safety case really is a compelling argument. To have a compelling argument, when you select a site, you have to know why you think the site is safe, right? That there's no volcanoes, stable tectonic regime, low movement of water, slow movement of water through the rock units. So the safety case by weaving this compelling argument is one that has to be consistent with, or should be consistent with, the site selection criteria. Also, the safety case approach means that as long as you have a compelling argument, you can reasonably say, well, our calculations out to 100,000 years, that's about as far as we would like to carry that line of argument. That's the limits of our abilities today. But in terms of very long term stability in Switzerland, they even go beyond one million years, we can make strong, qualitative, but compelling arguments for safety. And this has the important effect that it could be then that the regulation in terms of quantitative analysis should be for a relatively short period of time. Or the regulation might say for a relatively short periods of time, no release, right? And there could be a strong deterministic or probabilistic argument to support those statements. But then that would be part of a larger discussion, this compelling argument. Okay, so we're back, I've briefly touched on each of the recommendations. Now let me reflect on them and think about what to do with them. How do we move forward? Well, we could accept the recommendations. It would be a heavy lift, change now and start over for the US. Now that would mean the nuclear utilities would take ownership of the fuel and responsibility for its disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission would change the regulatory framework and on and on and on. It's really a heavy lift. But it's probably what's required as we look at other countries and how they have been successful. The heavy lift is probably what's required. But today I don't see Congress taking such deliberate or thoughtful action. The other alternative is, well, let's just do Yucca Mountain, right? The difficulty there is that will be a long and tortuous process. And no matter the outcome, in fact, the DOE's description of this as an unworkable solution, may be right. So we could spend a long time fighting over it. And even if Yucca Mountain became the repository, imposing that on a state, having so much disagreement over decades, somehow that looks like failure, right? That's not really the way one wants to succeed when we cite nuclear facilities. So again, I'm speaking for myself, not for the committee. But thinking about it, there might be another way forward. From our meetings, which I haven't described in any detail, what is very impressive to me is that there is common ground. We went out of our way to invite all of the disparate parties, everyone that I've seen argue with others over one point or another. But they behaved very well. They interacted very well, and we had useful discussions. So it can be that there's common ground. So my modest proposal is, while we're stuck with the inability to change everything at once or an option which may not lead us anywhere, one thing we could do is go back to the fifth recommendation or the fifth thing that the committee didn't get to do. And that is analyze the no option effect for the US program for the next 200 years. The reason this is important is the next 200 years, that's my grandchildren or great grandchildren. I can think about that. This analysis wouldn't be something we would ask the Department of Energy to do the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or any of the institutions, but rather should be funded by a neutral foundation. And it would be an analysis that involves not only the participation of experts and risk analysis, but the many communities that are facing this problem. This would be a collective effort to understand what happens if the US does not do anything for the next 200 years. Map it out. The interactions would be with the state of Nevada, with local communities, with the national laboratories, with university experts and so on. It would be a massive effort, it would take several years. But it would get everyone in the room talking about the same things and perhaps on the same page. And I think what is most important to aspire to for the US program is some common sense approaches to a very complicated program. That is, we have to get people together. We need practice in doing that. The whole system up until now has been adversarial, right? Some of my DOE colleagues and friends say, well, I'm an advocate for Yucca Mountain or I'm an advocate for one safer waste isolation pilot plan. Well, in this process, we don't need advocates. We need people thinking about the problem. And it would also be the opportunity to bring the next generation in to the process because it's clear I'll die before I've accomplished anything in this field. And we've suffered through a lot, I'd like to convey that to the next generation. And I like this photo, these are two students at the reset meeting. Meeting representatives from New Mexico and the state of Nevada just telling them no. And students came to me and said, they just said no, they didn't listen to us. I said, well, that's where we are, that's what's exciting about this field. Your job is not only to be an excellent scientist or engineer, but you have to figure out how to communicate with people who, for good reason in terms of how they've been treated previously, are not very receptive to new ideas. Okay, I've gone over a little bit, but thank you very much.


What's there to say, dear friend? Mine won't put any jewelry on me at all for fear that some part of me might become concealed from him. You know, whenever I read that passage, I always think that that's the kind of pride and confidence that we should all be feeling in our bodies. Unfortunately, however, most of us are so conscious of our own bodies, you know, of the imagined problems with our bodies, of the flap, the stretch marks, the unwaxed legs that forget letting your partner look at you in all of your glory. Even looking at our own cells without any clothes on stresses us out because we only ever notice the negative points and that in turn totally affects the way that we think of ourselves.   You know, the first step to self-love is to be able to look in that mirror and love what you see because only when you can love yourself can you actually expect the same kind of love from the rest of the world. And so, beginning today, you need to start to give yourself permission, permission to feel pleasure in your own body, permission to love yourself and most importantly, permission to feel beautiful because you know what? You are beautiful.


After Bemidji's Kmart closed its doors at the Paul Bunyan Mall in the fall of 2012, much of it has sat empty until now. Today, the remainder of the vacant mall space opened as coals. Coals management staff cut out giant ribbon before officially opening for business. Bemidji's Coal Store is unique in the fact that it's one of only a few Coal Stores that's attached to a mall. This morning, a line stretched down the mall sidewalk filled with anxious customers waiting to check out the new retailer. Now that the department store is open, the Coal staff is happy and ready to serve the area. We got to really meet the community, really in that process, even got to really get the impression from the community that they're very excited that Coals is coming, that we got an extra retailer that can definitely deliver great value for the customer up here. Coals will continue their grand opening celebration through tomorrow where the first 50 customers get free FitBits and the following 50 will get gift cards. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.