The focus of this case study is the concerns of two communities affected, albeit in different ways, by radioactive waste management and the decommissioning of nuclear installations. These are communities affected by the decisions of nuclear operators, regulators and national policy makers. As such they interact with these organisations and quite naturally they are concerned about their long-term sustainability.
The purpose of COWAM2 Work Package 4 (WP4) on "e;long term governance"e; was to identify, discuss and analyse the institutional, ethical, economic and legal considerations raised by long term radioactive waste storage or disposal on the three interrelated issues of: (i) responsibility and ownership of radioactive waste over long term, (ii) continuity of local dialogue between stakeholders and monitoring of radioactive waste management facilities, and (iii) compensation and sustainable development.
TRANSMITTAL OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) "TECHNICAL BASIS REPORT FOR SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS, PRECLOSURE HYDROLOGY, AND EROSION" (SCPB: N/A)
Work Package 2 (WP2) focused on the ways in which local stakeholders can influence national decision-making processes on radioactive waste management (RWM). The participants in WP2 were particularly interested in examining how local stakeholders could contribute to national debates. Their interest stemmed from the fact that participants from France, Spain and the United Kingdom — who made up the majority of the WP2 group — were engaged, as stakeholders, in the decision-making processes that were under way in each of those countries.
After more than 20 years of carefully planned and reviewed scientific field work by the<br/>U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and numerous other<br/>organizations, Secretary of Energy Abraham concluded in January that the Yucca<br/>Mountain site is suitable, within the meaning of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, for<br/>development as a permanent nuclear waste and spent fuel repository.
The Brief introduces the concept of ‘Community Benefit and Support Packages’ following requests from a number of National Stakeholder Groups (NSGs) for more information on this issue. During the development of the Brief presentations were made to NSG meetings in Romania (June 2009), Slovenia (October 2009) and the UK (September 2008, September 2009). Some information specific to the UK from the Brief was also presented in Spain (November 2008).
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 investigation consists of three parts and shall provide an input to the – empirical – PTA-2 study to be undertaken by SCK•CEN (called “lens”):<br>A. Compilation of – selected – existing PTA methods and procedures identifying requisites, practices, benefits, and challenges to answer the key questions in the context of WP1 about a PTA “toolbox”: “What can you apply, when can you apply, and what is needed to apply?” The multi-dimensional context of a possible “PTA situation” is analysed; suitable and nonsuitable methods, techniques and procedures are discussed.<br>B.
In February 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified a<br/>location in Deaf Smith County, Texas, as one of nine potentially acceptable<br/>sites for a mined geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level<br/>radioactive waste. The potentially acceptable site was subsequently narrowed<br/>to an area of 9 square miles.
Presented in September 2010 - Nuclear Fuel System Credibility
Crystalline Repository Project Briefing
Andras goal of Sustainability
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), launched in February, 2006, proposes to introduce used nuclear fuel recycling in the United States (U.S.) with improved proliferation-resistance and a more effective waste management approach. This program is evaluating ways to close the fuel cycle in a manner that introduces the most advanced technologies of today and builds on recent breakthroughs in U.S. national laboratories while drawing on international and industry partnerships.
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.
Presented at the International Conference on Geologic Repositories, Denver, CO, November 1, 1999
The position of the Department of Energy (DOE) on the facility for monitored retrievable storage (MRS) can be summarized as follows: · ·<br/>• The DOE supports: the development of an MRS facility as an integral part of the waste-management system because an MRS facility would allow the DOE to better meet its strategic objectives of timely disposal, timely and adequate waste acceptance, schedule confidence, and system flexibility.
In the course of producing electrical power in light water reactors (LWRs), the uranium<br/>fuel accumulates fission products until the fission process is no longer efficient for power<br/>production. At that point the fuel is removed from the reactor and stored in water basins<br/>to allow radioactivity to partially decay before further disposition. This fuel is referred<br/>to as "spent fuel." Although spent fuel as it is discharged from a reactor is intensely<br/>radioactive, it has been stored safely in moderate quantities for decades.
