Presented at the NEI Used Fuel Management Conference, St. Petersburg, FL, May 7-9, 2013
Presented at the NEI Used Fuel Management Conference, St. Petersburg, FL, May 7-9, 2013
This report highlights the findings and conclusions of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) and presents recommendations for consideration by the Administration and Congress, as well as interested state, tribal and local governments, other stakeholders, and the public.
It is increasingly apparent that the United States will require a large expansion of nuclear power
generation capacity to meet its future baseload electricity needs while reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As a result, Congress and the Administration must act to update U.S. nuclear fuel
cycle policy to address these realities. This will likely require a multifaceted approach involving
some combination of on-site/centralized dry cask interim storage, nuclear fuel recycling, and
emplacement of high-level wastes in long-term geological storage.
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) acts as a centre for informed exchange of knowledge and experience regarding stakeholder interaction and public participation in radioactive waste management. It promotes an open discussion among members and stakeholders, across institutional boundaries, and between technical and non-technical actors, in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. As such, the FSC is, first and foremost, a learning organisation.
Use of an on-site dry transfer system (DTS) allows utilities with limited crane capacities or other plant restrictions to take advantage of large efficient storage systems. By using this system, utilities can also transfer fuel from loaded storage casks to transport casks without returning to their fuel storage pool.
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
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
This book is the result of a collaboration that began over two years ago between researchers from the social sciences and Andra engineers and natural scientists. Contributions to the various chapters have been discussed and enhanced, especially during the workshop and the interdisciplinary conference both held by Andra in 2008 and 2009<br>respectively.
The activities of the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) were identified by WP2 stakeholders as of particular interest in the context of exploring the scope for local actors’ influence on a major national decision making process. Thus, they agreed to focus on this Committee as one of the case studies.
The purpose of the report, which is authored by the three project leaders, is to provide a constructive starting point for the political dialogue that is necessary to achieve environmental law reform. The report builds on many of the ideas discussed at the March 2008 conference, but it is not a synthesis of these ideas, and indeed conference participants may disagree with aspects of the report.
An Act to make provision in relation to the selection of a site for, and the establishment and operation of, a radioactive waste management facility, and for related purposes
The European project COWAM in Practice (CIP) was aimed to lead for three years (2007-2009) a process of monitoring, analyzing and evaluating the governance linked with radioactive waste management. This project, in cooperation with a research group and stakeholders, was conducted in parallel in 5 European countries (Spain, France, United Kingdom, Romania, Slovenia).
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.
This research brief presents the economic development associated with the laboratory for a deep geological repository for high activity radioactive waste situated in the municipality of Bure. It has been described in the framework of the first topic in the project COWAM In Practice (CIP), i.e. the sustainable territorial development associated with radioactive waste management.
This research brief is addressing the governance issues associated with the practical implementation of long-term environmental surveillance systems on the one hand, and the health impact assessment related to radioactive waste disposal installations on the other hand. Based on feedback experiences associated with the surveillance of nuclear installations, the analysis is focused on governance stakes (how to involve local stakeholders, which information is meaningful, how to transfer the surveillance system between generations...) according to the expectations of the local stakeholders.
The "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982" (NWPA) (42 USC Sections 10101-10226) requires the environmental assessment to include a detailed statement of the basis for nominating a site as suitable for characterization. This detailed statement is to be an evaluation of site suitability under the DOE siting guidelines; the evaluation will be the basis for the comparison of sites reported in Chapter 7.
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.
Searching for the location of risky or unpleasant objects is becoming increasingly difficult task. Slovenia is for the number of years now in the process of search for the location of the low and intermediate waste (LILW) repository. Social acceptability of this facility is currently the main problem in this search. Efforts in this direction are presented in all its diversity, with weaknesses and successes, addressing also the context of the whole process, but especially considering different aspects of public participation.
In February 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified the Davis Canyon site in Utah as one of the nine potentially acceptable sites for a mined geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. To determine their suitability, the Davis Canyon site and the eight other potentially acceptable sites have been evaluated in accordance with the DOE's General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for the Nuclear Waste Repositories.
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.
This appendix responds to the issues raised by Federal, State, and local governments, affected Indian Tribes, private citizens, and other organizations on the draft environmental assessment (EA) that was prepared pursuant to Section 112 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act). In addition to presenting the issues raised in the comments and the responses, it describes where changes were made in the final EA.
This appendix responds to the issues raised by Federal, State, and local<br/>governments, affected Indian Tribes, private citizens, and other organizations<br/>on the draft environmental assessment (EA) that was prepared pursuant to<br/>Section 112 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act). In addition to<br/>presenting the issues raised in the comments and the responses, it describes<br/>where changes were made in the final EA.
