BRC Comments - September 2010
BRC Comments - September 2010
What are the essential elements of technically credible, workable, and publicly acceptable regulations for disposal (in geologic repositories)?
What are the essential elements of technically credible, workable, and publicly acceptable regulations for disposal (in geologic repositories)?
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
In the Savannah River Site’s (SRS’) Solid Waste Management Program, a key to success is the Public Involvement Program. The Solid Waste Division at SRS manages the site’s transuranic, low-level, mixed, and hazardous wastes.
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.
Presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Subcommittee on Disposal
This report puts forth a number of options and recommendations for how to engage stakeholders and other members of the public in the storage and management of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste in the United States. The options are generated from a scientific review of existing publications proposing criteria for assessing past efforts to engage publics and stakeholders in decision-making about risky technologies.
Although some observers have concluded that the technology required to assure safe disposal of nuclear wastes is currently available, others have expressed concern about the stability of the institutions that might be required to maintain the isolation of nuclear wastes. Questions about institutional stability and other factors associated with nuclear power and nuclear waste have been the subject of some study in public opinion research.
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 "state-of-the-art" workshop on the issue of how institutions establish, maintain, or recover trust and confidence among significant members of their task environments.
Survey research on nuclear power issues conducted in the late 1970s has determined that nuclear waste management is now considered to be one of the most important nuclear power issues both by the U.S. public and by key leadership groups. The purpose of this research was to determine the importance placed on specific issues associated with high-level waste disposal. In addition, policy option choices were asked regarding the siting of both low-level and high-level nuclear waste repositories.
This report analyzes public participation as a key component of this openness, one that provides a means of garnering acceptance of, or reducing public opposition to, DOE's radioactive waste management activities, including facility siting and transportation.
In order to gain a satisfactory understanding of public attitudes toward issues in nuclear waste management, it is important to recognize the context in which the public views those issues. Nuclear waste, in the minds of the public, is just one aspect of the nuclear power issue. Nuclear power, in turn, is just one means of avoiding energy shortage.
The generation of knowledge regarding public risk perception general, and perception of risks associated with nuclear power and radioactive waste management in particular, requires the development and use of appropriate survey methodologies. One of the fundamental limitations of many studies of public risk perception is the assumption on the part of the investigators of similarity between themselves and their respondents. In such studies respondents are required to deal with problems of interest to and structured by the investigators.
Presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Subcommittee on Disposal