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.
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
During the 1990s, nuclear waste programmes in nearly every concerned country met many difficulties. Nuclear waste management was seen as a technical issue, and the local communities were only involved in the last stage of the decision-making process when almost all components of the decision were already fixed. The management of high level radioactive waste is now recognised as a complex decision-making process entailing technical, ethical, social, political and economic dimensions where no solution can be reached solely on the basis of technical considerations.
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.
Public hearings were held in the Swedish municipalities of Östhammar, Tierp and Älvkarleby, Hultsfred and Oskarshamn and in Nyköping in February of 2001. The municipalities had taken part in feasibility studies, conducted by the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co. (SKB), in the previous years. The hearings were organised by the Swedish regulatory authorities, i.e. the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) and the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) and aimed at complementing the authorities’ reviews of SKB’s work and plans.
RD&D Programme 2010 presents SKB’s plans for research, development and demonstration during<br/>the period 2011–2016. SKB’s activities are divided into two main areas: the programme for low- and<br/>intermediate-level waste (the LILW Programme) and the Nuclear Fuel Programme.
The conceptual part of the sectoral plan for deep geological repositories defines the goals of the federal government in this area and the procedures and criteria to be applied in selecting sites for deep geological repositories for all categories of waste in Switzerland. The focus of the site selection process is on safetybased criteria, with land use and socio-economic aspects playing a secondary role.
Report prepared by ANDRA, the French National Radioactive Waste Management Agency, for preparing for public debate in 2013.
This report is part of the research project International Socio-Technical Challenges for Implementing Geological Disposal: InSOTEC (see www.insotec.eu), funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme.<br/>This report is a contribution to Work Package 1 of the project, which aims to identify the most significant socio-technical challenges related to geological disposal of radioactive waste. To achieve this objective, a comparative analysis of 14 national programmes will be performed.
Long-term radioactive waste management (RWM) involves large and long-term research and development programmes in essentially all countries with civil nuclear programmes. Such programmes develop through different phases from basic research to more focussed applied research and development (R&D) and finally to the design and siting of proposed solutions. Internationally basic principles for the conduct of these programmes, basic safety principles and guidance on how to comply with them have largely been agreed upon.
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.
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
