CoRWM’s remit is to provide independent scrutiny and advice to Government on the long-term management, including storage and disposal, of radioactive wastes and materials that may be declared to be wastes. This is the first of three reports to be produced in 2009 that describes the results of the Committee’s scrutiny work in 2008 and the first part of 2009 and provides advice to Government.

Plate NE-2B, Northeastern Region, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (Southeastern), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-3B, Northeastern Region, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (Southeastern), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-4B, Northeastern Region, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (Southeastern), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-5B, Northeastern Region

Plate SE-1B, Southeastern Region, Georgia, South Carolina, Index Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-2B, Southeastern Region, Georgia, South Carolina, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-3B, Southeastern Region, Georgia, South Carolina, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-4B, Southeastern Region, Georgia, South Carolina, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-5B, Southeastern Region, Georgia, South Carolina, Phase B, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-6B

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.

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.

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 strategy. It was cochaired<br>by Rep. Lee H. Hamilton and Gen. Brent Scowcroft. Other Commissioners are Mr.<br>Mark H. Ayers, the Hon. Vicky A. Bailey, Dr. Albert Carnesale, Sen. Pete Domenici, Ms. Susan<br>Eisenhower, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Mr. Jonathan Lash, Dr. Allison M. Macfarlane, Dr.

Plate NC-1B, North Central Region, Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Index Map-Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-2B, North Central Region, Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-3B, North Central Region, Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-4B, North Central Region, Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-5B, North Central Region, Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula of Michig

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed by the Secretary of Energy at the request of the President to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new strategy

Download Blue Ribbon Commission Report 2012

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed by the Secretary of Energy at the request of the President to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new strategy

Plate NE-1A, Northeastern Region, Maine, New Hampshire, New York (Northeastern), Vermont, Index Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-2A, Northeastern Region, Maine, New Hampshire, New York (Northeastern), Vermont, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project, Plate NE-3A, Northeastern Region, Maine, New Hampshire, New York (Northeastern), Vermont, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-4A, Northeastern Region, Maine, New Hampshire, New York (Northeastern), Vermont, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project, Plate NE-5

Plate SE-1A Southeastern Region, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Index Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-2A, Southeastern Region, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-3A, Southeastern Region, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-4A, Southeastern Region, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-5A, Southeastern Region, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Phase B, Summary Comp

Plate NC-1A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Index Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-2A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-3A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-4A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-5A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Phase B, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-6A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Transportation Network Map, Cr

This report is about how the Department of Energy (DOE) can improve its relationships with the<br/>communities in which its facilities are located. In March 2000, Secretary Richardson asked the<br/>Openness Advisory Panel (OAP) of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board to review and<br/>assess DOE’s relationships with the communities surrounding its laboratories and facilities and<br/>to provide an independent assessment of how DOE is perceived as a neighbor, what it is doing<br/>well, and what it could do better.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 three-volume document narrows to two sites for continued investigations for potential nuclear waste repository sites in the Palo Duro Basin of the Texas Panhandle. Volume 1 narrows a site previously identified in Deaf Smith County, Texas; Volume 2 narrows a site previously identified in Swisher County, Texas; and Volume 3 contains responses to comments received regarding the drafts of Volumes 1 and 2 (BMI/ONWI-531).<br/>These volumes discuss the methodology and logic used as well as the results that narrowed these sites.

This document responds to comments received by the U.S. Department<br/>of Energy (DOE) on the draft report entitled Identification of Sites Within the Palo Duro Basin: Volume I--Palo Duro Location A (in Deaf Smith County) and Volume II--Palo Duro Location B (in Swisher County), BMI/ONWI-531, February, 1984.

This three-volume document narrows to two sites for continued investigations for potential nuclear waste repository sites in the Palo Duro Basin of the Texas Panhandle. Volume 1 narrows a site previously identified in Deaf Smith County, Texas; Volume 2 narrows a site previously identified in Swisher County, Texas; and Volume 3 contains responses to comments received regarding the drafts of Volumes 1 and 2 (BMI/ONWI-531).<br/>These volumes discuss the methodology and logic used as well as the results that narrowed these sites.

On February 14, 2002, U.S.

This summary volume outlines results that are covered in more detail in the final report of the Spent-Fuel Test-Climax project. The project was conducted between 1978 and 1983 in the granite Climax stock at the Nevada Test Site. Results indicate that spent fuel can be safely stored for periods of years in this host medium and that nuclear waste so emplaced can be safely retrieved. We also evaluated the effects of heat and radiation (alone and in combination) on emplacement canisters and the surrounding rock mass.

The thick and regionally extensive sequence of shales and associated clastic sedimentary rocks of Late Devonian and Early Mississippian age has been considered among the “nonsalt geologies” for deep subsurface containment of high-level radioactive wastes.