What are the essential elements of technically credible, workable, and publicly acceptable regulations for disposal (in geologic repositories)?
The first worldwide review of geological problems in radioactive waste isolation was published by the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) in 1991 (Witherspoon, 1991). This review was a compilation of reports that had been submitted to a workshop held in conjunction with the 28th International Geological Congress that took place July 9Ð19, 1989, in Washington, D.C.
The primary task of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) is to provide independent scrutiny of the Government’s and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s proposal, plans and programmes to deliver geological disposal, together with robust interim storage, as the long-term<br/>management option for the UK’s higher activity wastes. In June 2007 the Scottish Executive announced a policy of near-surface, near-site long-term storage rather than geological disposal.
In mid-1997, a Wyoming-led group of companies announced plans to develop a private interim spent fuel storage project in Wyoming to be known as the Owl Creek Energy Project. The idea for the Wyoming project had been developed under the earlier 1990s Nuclear Waste Negotiator Program. During that earlier activity, the project would have been a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) project.
Fact Sheet - Big Rock Point
RD&D Programme 2007 presents SKB’s plans for research, development and demonstration during<br/>the period 2008–2013. The plans for the first three-year period are for natural reasons more detailed<br/>than those for the next one.
Presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Subcommittee on Disposal
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 first world wide review of the geological problems in radioactive waste isolation was published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 1991. This review was a compilation of reports that had been submitted to a workshop held in conjunction with the 28th International Geological Congress that took place July 9-19,1989 in Washington, D.C.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, established a statutory basis<br/>for managing the nation’s civilian (or commercially produced) spent nuclear<br/>fuel. The law established a process for siting, developing, licensing, and constructing<br/>an underground repository for the permanent disposal of that waste.<br/>Utilities were given the primary responsibility for storing spent fuel until it is<br/>accepted by the federal government for disposal at a repository, which originally<br/>was expected to begin operating in 1998.
The first world wide review of the geological problems in radioactive waste isolation was published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 1991. This review was a compilation of reports that had been submitted to a workshop held in conjunction with the 28th International Geological Congress that took place July 9-19,1989 in Washington, D.C.
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
Final 40 CFR 40 Ruling on Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel , High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive 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.
This report aims to clarify the dynamics of socio-technical challenges in the implementation of geological disposal (GD) for High Level Waste (HLW) and Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF). Drawing on the 14 country reports produced within InSOTEC’s WP1 the synthesis focuses on socio-technical challenges that appear across national contexts. The synthesis report elucidates issues made visible through bringing together the analyses of different national contexts.
On August 17, 2010, the Northern Village of Pinehouse, Saskatchewan and the Kineepik Métis Local expressed interest in learning more about the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) site selection process to find an informed and willing community to host a deep geological repository for Canada’s used nuclear fuel (NWMO 2010). This report summarizes the findings of an initial screening, conducted by Golder Associates Ltd., to evaluate the potential suitability of the Pinehouse area against five screening criteria using readily available information.
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.
