Category of Content
Siting Experience Documents Only
Publication Date
Subject Matter
Country
Keywords
Managing Nuclear Waste - A Better Idea
Managing Nuclear Waste - A Better Idea
All activities which involve the use of radioactive material inevitably result in nuclear waste as a by-product of their operation. Most of the waste produced by such activities as medical diagnosis and therapy, field and laboratory research, and industrial processes is low-level radioactive waste—primarily small amounts of radioactivity in a large volume of matter.
Disposal Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission DRAFT
Disposal Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission DRAFT
The Disposal Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future has
commenced to address a set of issues, all of which bear directly on the central question: “How can the
United States go about establishing one or more disposal sites for high-level nuclear wastes in a manner
and within a timeframe that is technically, socially, economically, and politically acceptable?”
To answer this question and to develop specific recommendations and options for consideration by the
Letter to The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy - Blue Ribbon Commission request for approval to establish and populate the three subcommittees.
Letter to The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy - Blue Ribbon Commission request for approval to establish and populate the three subcommittees.
Dear Secretary Chu:
Thank you for your remarks to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future at our inaugural meeting on March 25, 2010. Your guidance was both enlightening and invaluable as we establish a plan to fulfill the Commission’s charter.
Evaluation of the Technical Basis for Extended Dry Storage and Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel – Executive Summary
Evaluation of the Technical Basis for Extended Dry Storage and Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel – Executive Summary
The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (Board) is tasked by the amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to independently evaluate U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) technical activities for managing and disposing of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This report was prepared to inform DOE and Congress about the current state of the technical basis for extended dry storage1 of used fuel and its transportation following storage.
Factors Affecting Public and Political Acceptance for the Implementation of Geological Disposal
Factors Affecting Public and Political Acceptance for the Implementation of Geological Disposal
The main objective of this report is to identify conditions which affect public concern (either
increase or decrease) and political acceptance for developing and implementing programmes
for geologic disposal of long-lived radioactive waste. It also looks how citizens and relevant
actors can be associated in the decision making process in such a way that their input is
enriching the outcome towards a more socially robust and sustainable solution. Finally, it
aims at learning from the interaction how to optimise risk management addressing needs and
Long-term Safety for KBS-3 Repositories at Forsmark and Laxemar—a First Evaluation: Main Report of the SR-Can project
Long-term Safety for KBS-3 Repositories at Forsmark and Laxemar—a First Evaluation: Main Report of the SR-Can project
This document is the main report from the safety assessment project SR-Can. The SR-Can project is a preparatory stage for the SR-Site assessment, the report that will be used in support of SKB’s application for a final repository. The purposes of the safety assessment SR-Can are the following:
1. To make a first assessment of the safety of potential KBS-3 repositories at Forsmark and Laxemar to dispose of canisters as specified in the application for the encapsulation plant.
A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
To advance nuclear energy to meet future energy needs, ten countries—Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have agreed on a framework for international cooperation in research for a future generation of nuclear energy systems, known as Generation IV. The figure below gives an overview of the generations of nuclear energy systems. The first generation was advanced in the 1950s and 60s in the early prototype reactors.
Attachment 2 - Annual Cost Profile (in Millions of 2007$), reply to Letter to Mr. Tim Frazier
Attachment 2 - Annual Cost Profile (in Millions of 2007$), reply to Letter to Mr. Tim Frazier
The table is based on historical costs through 2006, which are shaded, and projected costs in the 2008 TSLCC. To convert to 2010$, multiply by 1.0586. The 2008 TSLCC assumes a single repository system capable of accepting and disposing of SNF and HLW equivalent to 122,100 Metric Tons of Heavy Metal (MTHM). This estimate includes all defense wastes currently destined for disposal at Yucca Mountain and projected discharges of SNF from commercial utilities, including the 47 nuclear power reactors that had received license extensions from the NRC as of January 2007.
Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits, Fairly Across Generations
Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits, Fairly Across Generations
The key challenge of this National Academy of Public Administration project is captured in the subtitle of this report, Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits Fairly Across Generations.
Enhancing the Role of State and Local Governments in America’s Nuclear Future: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
Enhancing the Role of State and Local Governments in America’s Nuclear Future: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
This paper, prepared to aid the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future in its
deliberations, includes a discussion of the issues that would be faced in the siting, permitting and
licensing of storage and disposal facilities for the “back end” of the commercial nuclear fuel
cycle and for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) high–level radioactive waste. It discusses the
authority that could be employed by non–federal levels of government in supporting or opposing
Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Report To the Secretary of Energy
Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Report To the Secretary of Energy
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (the Commission) was chartered to recommend a new strategy for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The strategy in this report has eight key elements: 1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities. 2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed. 3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management. 4.