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.
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.
In February 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified a reference repository location at the Hanford Site in Washington as one of the nine potentially acceptable sites for a mined geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The site is in the Columbia Plateau, which is one of five distinct geohydrologic settings considered for the first repository.
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
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.
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.
Presented in this report are the results of the site locality identification study for the Hanford Site using a screening process. To enable evaluation of the entire Hanford Site, the screening process was applied to a somewhat larger area; i.e., the Pasco Basin. The study consisted of a series of screening steps that progressively focused on smaller areas which are within the Hanford Site and which had a higher potential for containing suitable repository sites for nuclear waste than the areas not included for further study.
Presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Subcommittee on Disposal
