Siting any nuclear waste facility is problematic in today's climate of distrust toward nuclear agencies and fear of nuclear waste. This study compares and contrasts the siting and public participation processes as two citizen task forces dealt with their difficult responsibilities. Though one dealt with a high level waste (Monitored Retrievable Storage - MRS) proposal in Tennessee in 1985-6 and the other with a proposed low level waste facility in Illinois (1988 and still ongoing), the needs of citizen decision makers were very similar.

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.

History shows that the search for sites for radioactive waste management facilities has been marred by conflicts and delays. Affected communities have often objected that their concerns and interests were not addressed. In response, institutions have progressively turned away from the traditional “decide, announce and defend” model, and are learning to “engage, interact and co-operate”. This shift has fostered the emergence of partnerships between the proponent of the facility and the potential host community, as shown in a recent NEA study.

This report focuses on public meetings as a vehicle for public participation in nuclear waste management. The nature of public meetings is reviewed and the functions served by meetings highlighted. The range of participants and their concerns are addressed, including a review of the participants from past nuclear waste management meetings. A sound understanding of the expected participants allows DOE to tailor elements of the meeting, such as notification, format, and agenda to accommodate the attendees.

The director of the Task Force on Civilian Radioactive Waste Management of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, United States Department of Energy, asked the National Academy of Public Administration, to convene a group of approximately one dozen individuals to attend a twoday &quot;state-of-the-art&quot; workshop on the issue of how institutions establish, maintain, or recover trust and confidence among significant members of their task environments.