Siting Experience Documents Only
Country
Keywords
Two Citizen Task Forces and the Challenge of the Evolving Nuclear Waste Siting Process
Two Citizen Task Forces and the Challenge of the Evolving Nuclear Waste Siting Process
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.
Maps for MOV.19981204.0007
Maps for MOV.19981204.0007
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
Section 3.4 - Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future - Report to the Secretary of Energy
Section 3.4 - Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future - Report to the Secretary of Energy
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
Maps for MOV.19981204.0008
Maps for MOV.19981204.0008
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
Maps for MOV.19981204.0009
Maps for MOV.19981204.0009
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
Part 2 - Draft - Area Recommendation Report for the Crystalline Repository Project, Volume 1
Part 2 - Draft - Area Recommendation Report for the Crystalline Repository Project, Volume 1
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.
Part 3 - Draft - Area Recommendation Report for the Crystalline Repository Project, Volume 1
Part 3 - Draft - Area Recommendation Report for the Crystalline Repository Project, Volume 1
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.
Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future - Report to the Secretary of Energy
Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future - Report to the Secretary of Energy
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.
Section 6 - Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future - Report to the Secretary of Energy
Section 6 - Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future - Report to the Secretary of Energy
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
Maps for MOV.19981204.0006
Maps for MOV.19981204.0006
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
Maps for MOV.19981204.0005
Maps for MOV.19981204.0005
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
Maps for MOV.19981204.0004
Maps for MOV.19981204.0004
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
Relations between DOE Facilities and their Host Communities: A Pilot Review
Relations between DOE Facilities and their Host Communities: A Pilot Review
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.
Identification of Sites within the Palo Duro Basin: Volume 1--Palo Duro Location A
Identification of Sites within the Palo Duro Basin: Volume 1--Palo Duro Location A
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.
Identification of Sites within the Palo Duro Basin: Volume 3--Responses to Comments
Identification of Sites within the Palo Duro Basin: Volume 3--Responses to Comments
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.
Identification of Sites within the Palo Duro Basin: Volume 2--Palo Duro Location B
Identification of Sites within the Palo Duro Basin: Volume 2--Palo Duro Location B
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.
Illuminating the Decision Path: The Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation
Illuminating the Decision Path: The Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation
On February 14, 2002, U.S.
LEARNING AND ADAPTING TO SOCIETAL REQUIREMENTS
LEARNING AND ADAPTING TO SOCIETAL REQUIREMENTS
Reflections on Siting Approaches for Radioactive Waste Facilities: Synthesising Principles Based on International Learning
Comments to BRC Meeting
Comments to BRC Meeting
10-year Record of Learning Factual List of Activities and Investigated Topics, and of People Who Contributed to Them
The Partnership Approach to Siting and Developing Radioactive Waste Management Facilities
The Partnership Approach to Siting and Developing Radioactive Waste Management Facilities
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.
From Information and Consultation to Citizen Influence and Power: 10-year Evolution in Public Involvement in Radioactive Waste Management
Nuclear Waste - Funds Spent to Identify a Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility Site
Nuclear Waste - Funds Spent to Identify a Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility Site
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.