Slides - Institiute of Nuclear Materials Management Annual Meeting (INMM), Atlanta GA, July 20-24, 2014
Slides - Institute of Nuclear Materials Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta GA, July 20-24, 2014
Slides - Institute of Nuclear Materials Management Annual Meeting (INMM), July 20-24 2014, Atlanta GA
The Standard Review Plan (SRP) is prepared for the guidance of staff reviewers in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in performing safety reviews of applications to construct or operate nuclear power plants. The principal purpose of the SRP is to assure the quality and uniformity of staff reviews, and to present a well-defined base from which to evaluate proposed changes in the scope and requirements of reviews.
Nuclear waste disposal in the USA is a difficult policy issue infused with
science, technology, and politics. This issue provides an example of the co-production
of scientific knowledge and politics through public policy. The proponents of a
repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, argue that their decision to go ahead
with the site is based on ‘sound science’, but the science they use to uphold their
decision is influenced by politics. In turn, the politics of site selection has been altered
The Commission is charged with submitting a
draft report to the Secretary of Energy before
the end of July 2011. To aid the Commissioners
in fulfilling that responsibility, the Commission
staff has prepared this report to summarize what
the Commission has heard up to this point in
the process. It does not attempt to recount every
comment or opinion submitted to the Commission
thus far; rather, the aim here is to summarize
major themes from the extensive testimony and
public comment the Commission has received to
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.
This is the final report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Radioactive Waste Management, published in November 1993.
Slides - Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, 55th Annual Meeting, July 20 – 24, 2014 Atlanta, Georgia
Slides - Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, 55th Annual Meeting, July 20 – 24, 2014 Atlanta, Georgia
Our basic position is that the outcomes of policy-making in radioactive waste management (RWM) should be driven by the will of the people through democratic processes. Achieving this inclusiveness requires good practices to increase local influence on what is essentially a national policy process. However inclusiveness poses significant practical problems; can society afford lengthy and costly consultation processes, often perceived as inefficient and ineffective?
This document does not present the views of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management nor can it be taken to present the views of its author. It is a draft paper to inform Committee deliberations and both the author and the whole Committee may adopt different views and draw entirely different conclusions after further consideration and debate
This document does not present the views of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management nor can it be taken to present the views of its author. It is a draft paper to inform Committee deliberations and both the author and the whole Committee may adopt different views and draw entirely different conclusions after further consideration and debate
This report examines the current policy, legal, and regulatory framework pertaining to used nuclear fuel and high level waste management in the United States. The goal is to identify potential changes that if made could add flexibility and possibly improve the chances of successfully implementing technical aspects of a nuclear waste policy. Experience suggests that the regulatory framework should be established prior to initiating future repository development.
In an attempt to facilitate the resolution of contentious environmental problems, public agencies are increasingly using collaborative approaches wherein stakeholders participate in the decision-making process. A dilemma for the design of collaborative approaches is the technical complexity of many environmental problems. How can members of the public play a meaningful role in decisions that involve complicated scientific arguments?
Andras goal of Sustainability
Press Release - DOE Seeks Public-Private Sector Expressions of Interest for Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Initiative
Over the past forty years, the development of the technology needed to isolate radioactive waste in underground rock systems has been found to be a formidable problem. This is especially the case in connection with high-level waste (HLW) after its removal from operations in nuclear power plants. There is also the additional problem of isolating low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW).
The report begins with a consideration of the factors which have led to a growth in the use of dialogue processes, a clarification of key concepts and a classification of dialogue processes. A description of recent and current activities in Europe and North America is followed by discussion of the relationship of processes and contexts. This then leads to an identification of the key aims and evaluation criteria which will be used in the design of dialogue processes to be conducted in subsequent phases of the project.
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.
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.
