Illuminating the Decision Path: The Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation
Illuminating the Decision Path: The Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation
On February 14, 2002, U.S.
On February 14, 2002, U.S.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 established the federal<br/>Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator for a 5-year period. The Nuclear<br/>Waste Negotiator, appointed by the President and confirmed by the<br/>Senate, was empowered to attempt to find a state or Indian tribe willing<br/>to host a repository or a monitored retrievable storage (MB) facility for the<br/>permanent or temporary storage of nuclear waste, respectively.
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future was formed by the Secretary of<br/>Energy at the direction of the President. The Commission was formed to conduct a<br/>comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including<br/>all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel,<br/>high–level waste, and materials derived from nuclear activities.
The U.S. government’s quest to store high-level nuclear waste has
had many interesting twists and turns. One set of developments stands
out as unique — efforts to site a temporary Monitored Retrievable
Storage (MRS) facility on lands belonging to Native Americans. We
describe the history and logic of the government’s process which led to
the involvement of Native Americans and the reactions of some tribes
to the MRS option. We also provide cross-cultural perspectives on issues
National radioactive waste management programmes are in various phases of siting facilities and rely on distinct technical approaches for different categories of waste. In all cases, it is necessary for institutional actors and the potential or actual host community to build a meaningful, workable relationship. Partnership approaches are effective in achieving a balance between the requirements of fair representation and competent participation.
The management of spent fuel from nuclear power
plants has become a major policy issue for virtually every
nuclear power program in the world. For the nuclear industry, finding sufficient capacity for storage and processing or
disposal of spent fuel is essential if nuclear power plants are
to be allowed to continue to operate. At the same time, the
options chosen for spent fuel management can have a substantial impact on the political controversies, proliferation
risks, environmental hazards, and economic costs of the
The structure of the Fourth National Report complies with the Guidelines Regarding the
Form and Structure of National Reports (INFCIRC/604/Rev.1).
Section A describes the scope of the nuclear activity developed in Argentina since 1950
as well as the legal and regulatory framework. It also makes reference to the Strategic
Plan for Radioactive Waste Management (Strategic Plan), which refers to the safety of
Spent Fuel Management and Radioactive Waste Management.
The effective termination of the Yucca Mountain program by the U.S. Administration in 2009 has further delayed the construction and operation of a permanent disposal facility for used fuel and high level radioactive waste (HLW) in the United States. In concert with this decision, the President directed the Energy Secretary to establish the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to review and provide recommendations on options for managing used fuel and HLW.
Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing debate about the proposed Yucca Mountain geologic waste repository in Nevada, the storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF)—also referred to as “high-level nuclear waste”—will continue to be needed and the issue will continue to be debated. The need for SNF storage, even after the first repository is opened, will continue for a few reasons. <br/>• The Obama Administration terminated work on the only planned permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, which was intended to provide a destination for most of the stored SNF.
This Implementation Plan provides the scope, schedule, and funding needed to develop and implement a method for early evaluation of site suitability. The following is the sequence of events which resulted in the preparation of this implementation plan:<br/>1. On December 24, 1990, John W. Bartlett, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), transmitted guidance to Carl P. Gertz, Associate Director of the Office of Geologic Disposal (OGD), to develop an OGD Plan for this effort. <br/>2.
The voluntary siting process for the Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (NWPAA) of 1987 provides a potential host community a unique opportunity to improve its present situation and to gain greater control over its future.
The effective termination of the Yucca Mountain program by the U.S. Administration in 2009 has left the U.S. program for management of used fuel and high level radioactive waste (HLW) in a state of uncertainty.
An acceptable long-term solution for used (spent) fuel from nuclear power reactors has evaded all countries engaged in the civilian
nuclear fuel cycle. Furthermore, many countries are trying to develop interim storage solutions that address the shortage of storage in
the spent fuel cooling pools at reactors. The United States has a particularly acute problem due to its adherence to an open fuel cycle
and its large number of reactors. Two main options are available to address the spent fuel problem: dry storage on-site at reactors and
This Safety Guide provides recommendations and guidance on the storage of spent nuclear fuel. It covers all types of storage facilities and all types of spent fuel from nuclear power plants and research reactors. It takes into consideration the longer storage periods that have become necessary owing to delays in the development of disposal facilities and the decrease in reprocessing activities. It also considers developments associated with nuclear fuel, such as higher enrichment, mixed oxide fuels and higher burnup.
With the continuing accumulation of spent fuel at reactor sites, the demand for additional storage of spent fuel at AFR (away from reactor) facilities is growing. It is an issue for most Member States generating nuclear power, including those countries pursuing reprocessing. There are a diversity of technical options and services available which offer competitive, reliable solutions to meet the storage requirements. In particular, dry storage technologies have been widely applied.
What are the essential elements of technically credible, workable, and publicly acceptable regulations for disposal (in geologic repositories)?
This Draft Area Recommendation Report for the Crystalline Repository Project identifies portions of crystalline rock bodies as proposed potentially acceptable sites for consideration in the second high-level radioactive waste repository program. <br>The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) evaluated available geologic and environmental data for 235 crystalline rock bodies in the North Central, Northeastern, and Southeastern Regions to identify preliminary candidate areas.
On the historic evidence, but also for the distinctive qualities of the challenge, nuclear waste siting conflicts are assuredly among the most refractory in the large variety of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) facility siting disputes. Since the president brought the Yucca Mountain process to a halt in 2010 (or, more accurately, issued its death certificate), the search for a permanent waste fuel repository is at the starting line again.
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America_s Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed by the Secretary<br>of Energy at the request of the President to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for<br>managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new strate
The purpose of this study is to assist decision makers in evaluating the centralized interim<br>storage option. We explore the economics of centralized interim storage under a wide variety of<br>circumstances. We look at how a commitment to move forward with centralized interim storage<br>today could evolve over time. And, we evaluate the costs of reversing a commitment toward<br>centralized storage if it turns out that such a decision is later considered a mistake.
The principal factors that affected the scope of scientific investigations at Yucca Mountain over the last 20 years included both regulatory and technical aspects. Examples of regulatory factors include the regulations themselves as well as the associated quality assurance requirements. Examples of technical factors include the repository and waste package designs, new information that affected the post-closure safety basis, and technical reviews from peers, stakeholders and the regulators.