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
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.
For those parts of the waste system that have already been taken into operation - transportation and handling systems, central interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel (CLAB) and final repository for reactor waste (SFR)- the research and development stage has already largely been passed. The programme presented here therefore pertains primarily to the treatment and final disposal of spent fuel and the decommissioning of nuclear power plants.
The Act on Nuclear Activities (SFS 1984:3) obligates the owners of the Swedish nuclear power plants to<br/>jointly prepare a comprehensive programme for the research and development work and other measures<br/>required for the safe management and disposal of the waste from nuclear power.<br/>For those parts of the waste system that have already been taken into operation or are under construction - transportation and handling systems, central interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel (CLAB) and final repository for reactor waste (SFR) - the research and development st
In RD&D-Programme 92, SKB presented a partially new strategy for its activities. The new strategy entailed a focusing and concentration on the implementation of deep disposal of a limited quantity (about 800 tonnes) of encapsulated spent nuclear fuel during the coming 20-year period. Following this initial deposition, the results of the work will be evaluated, and only then will a decision be taken as to how and when regular deposition of the main body of the fuel and other long-lived nuclear waste will take place.
SKB has selected Forsmark as the site for the final repository for spent nuclear fuel. The site selection<br/>is the end result of an extensive siting process that began in the early 1990s. The strategy and<br/>plan for the work was based on experience from investigations and development work over a period<br/>of more than ten years prior to then.<br/>This document describes the siting work and SKB’s choice of site for the final repository.
The foundation for work related to nuclear waste management is laid by laws and outlines e.g. the responsibilities of the reactor owners and the state, as represented by the authorities. The Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB), as well as Posiva Oy in Finland, were set up by the reactor owners in the respective countries in response to the responsibilities of planning, conducting research and to implement the physical structures leading to a safe management of nuclear wastes.
Presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Subcommittee on Disposal
The purpose of this report is a comparison of the structures for nuclear waste management in France, Sweden and UK. The source materials for this comparison are studies carried out in each of these countries by Syncho Ltd. over the past 5 years. The Swedish structural review was sponsored by SKI and SSI, and carried out as a pilot study during the years 1996 and 1997 (Espejo & Gill, 1998) as part of the RISCOM I project.
