Management of civilian radioactive waste has posed difficult issues for Congress since the beginning of the nuclear power industry in the 1950s. Federal policy is based on the premise that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely, but proposed storage and disposal facilities have frequently been challenged on safety, health, and environmental grounds.

Comments by John Greeves, Former Director, Division of Waste Management, NRC, presented to BRC Disposal Subcommittee

Presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Subcommittee on Disposal

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 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.