Earning Public Trust and Confidence: Requisites for Managing Radioactive Wastes
This is the final report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Radioactive Waste Management, published in November 1993.
What We've Heard - A Staff Summary of Major Themes in Testimony and Comments Received by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to Date
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
Letter to The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy - Blue Ribbon Commission request for approval to establish and populate the three subcommittees.
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.
Underlying Yucca Mountain: The Interplay of Geology and Policy in Nuclear Waste Disposal
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
Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition (NUREG-75/087)
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.
Identifying remaining socio-technical challenges at the national level: The Netherlands
This report is part of the research project International Socio-Technical Challenges for Implementing Geological Disposal: InSOTEC (see www.insotec.eu), funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme. This report is a contribution to Work Package 1 of the project, which aims to identify the most significant socio-technical challenges related to geological disposal of radioactive waste. To achieve this objective, a comparative analysis of 14 national programmes will be performed.
Options for Developing Public and Stakeholder Engagement for the Storage and Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) and High Level Waste (HLW) in the United States
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.
POSITION PAPER ON PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
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
POSITION PAPER ON PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT for Discussion and Decision
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
