Siting a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) Facility

It can be said that the nuclear community neglected the issue of final storage of nuclear waste in the first era of nuclear power production, with many nations not looking at this topic until some years into its program. This is a matter that must not be neglected now during the ‘renaissance’ of nuclear if nuclear energy is to have a part on the stage of the play in world energy supplies. In 1982, the United States (U.S.) Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), which outlines the screening process for selecting a national site for used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste storage. This paper describes the U.S. nuclear waste policy dilemma and its impact on the selection and development of the nation's first long-term geologic repository for over 70,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In 1987, the U.S. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, which can be described as the "most studied real estate on the planet", as the repository site to be characterized. However, due to political pressures, the fate and realization of the Yucca Mountain repository is uncertain.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 authorized the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to evaluate monitored retrievable storage (MRS) as an option to manage spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In 1987, the DOE sought Congressional approval for construction of an MRS at a site identified in Tennessee, despite adamant opposition from the State. An amendment in late 1987 nullified DOE's proposal, and established the MRS Commission and the High-Level Nuclear Waste Negotiator, institutions created as a result of the DOE/Tennessee dispute. This article analyzes DOE's siting attempt in Tennessee, the actions of the Commission and Negotiator, and examines the prospects for implementation of nuclear waste policy.

On January 7, 1983, President Reagan signed into law the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. {section} 10101 et seq. As part of the Act, the Congress of the United States authorized construction of a permanent deep geologic repository in an effort to solve the nation's problem with disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Congress also directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to study the need for and feasibility of constructing a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility. Also in late April of 1985, the State of Tennessee was informed that three potential sites for the MRS had been selected in Tennessee. The locations included the site of the abandoned Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, a site on DOE's Oak Ridge Reservation, and the site of the abandoned Hartsville nuclear power plant. This report covers the legal aspects of the potential project completed during the period September 1, 1985--November 30, 1985.

ABSTRACTIn Japan, as outlined in the overall high-level radioactive waste (HLW) management program defined by the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, 1994), HLW from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel will be immobilized in a glass matrix and stored for a period of 30 to 50 years to allow cooling. It will then be disposed of in a deep geological formation. Pursuant to the overall HLW management program, an organization with responsibility for implementing HLW disposal will be established around the year 2000. This will be followed by site selection and characterization, demonstration of disposal technology, establishment of the necessary legal infrastructure, relevant licensing applications and repository construction, with the objective of starting repository operation by the 2030s and no later than the mid 2040s.The HLW disposal program is currently in the research and development (R&D) phase and the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC) has been assigned as the leading organization responsible for R&D activities. The aim of the R&D activities at the current stage is to provide a scientific and technical basis for the geological disposal of HLW in Japan and to promote understanding of the safety concept not only in the scientific and technical community but also by the general public. One of the features of the R&D program is that its progress is documented at appropriate intervals, with a view to clearly determining the level of achievement of the program and to promote understanding and acceptance of the geological disposal strategy by the general public. As a major milestone, the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC, now JNC) submitted a first progress report, referred to as H3 (PNC, 1992), in September 1992.

Effects of pH and temperature on the swelling pressure and hydraulic conductivity of compacted GMZ01 bentonite

Geologic repositories are designed to resolve the ever-growing problem of high-level nuclear waste, but these facilities invite intense local opposition due to the perceived severity of the risks and the possibility of stigma effects. This analysis examines whether the perceived fairness of the siting process affects local residents` support for hosting a repository. In particular, a survey of 1,001 Nevada residents is used to test the hypothesis that an individual`s willingness to accept a local repository will increase if he or she is convinced that this is the safest disposal option available. A logistic analysis indicates that beliefs regarding relative suitability have an independent effect on the acceptability of a local repository (i.e., Yucca Mountain). The article then considers the question of how to implement an optimizing strategy for siting facilities, comparing an idealized strategy against the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 and the Amendments Act of 1987. Although choosing the safest site seems as if it could enhance public acceptance of the repository program, there is currently little prospect of identifying the best option to the high-level waste problem and, as a results, little chance of gaining the public support that is necessary to promote amore » successful siting outcome. 81 refs., 1 fig., 5 tabs.« less

Summary form only given, as follows. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (amended in 1987) directed the US Department of Energy to study Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for suitability as the nation's first deep geological repository for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste. The possible transport of these waste products from nuclear reactors and defense facilities to a repository is of vital concern to Nevada residents. In 1988, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, established a transportation research center with the support of the state. The goal was to develop a Nevada-based center for research and policy analysis in order to address nuclear waste transportation issues at the local, tribal, state, regional, and national levels. The author has examined the many complex management issues which have since evolved in the establishment, funding, staffing, and maintenance of this research center. The intricate complexities to center management oversight resulting from adversity between state and federal governments were addressed. >

As a kind of clean,efficient and relatively safe energy,nuclear energy has been widely used around the world.The high-level radioactive waste generated in the nuclear has also become a major risk,so the disposal safety of high-level radioactive waste will be especially important. The strategy for disposal of high-level radioactive waste in China is to enclose the spent nuclear fuel in sealed metal canisters which are embedded in bentonite clay hundreds meters down in the bed-rock.The choice of container material depends largely on the redox conditions and the aqueous environment of the repository.One of the choices for the fabrication of waste canisters is Cu,because it is thermodynamically stable under the saline,anoxic conditions over the large majority of the container lifetime.For this advantage,some other countries(Canada,Sweden) have selected Cu as the material of nuclear waste container.However,in the early aerobic phase of the geological disposal the corrosion of Cu could take place,and the corrosion behavior of Cu would be influenced by the complex chemical conditions of groundwater markedly.Pitting corrosion of Cu often take place in power plants or air-conditioning condensate water.The corrosion environment usually contains HCO_3~-,SO_4~(2-) and CI~- ions.In the early stage of geological disposal,if the aerobic water with HCO_3~-, SO_4~(2-)and Cl~- immersion repository,the pitting corrosion of Cu may occur.The content of HCO_3~- and SO_4~(2-) in the water chemistry environment,as well as the synergy between them,could affect the behavior of pitting seriously.In this work,the cycle polarization behavior and surface morphology of pitting has been investigated in HCO_3~- and SO_4~(2-) mixed solution,respectively by electrochemical cyclic polarization test and SEM.The results showed that the pitting corrosion behavior of Cu can be divided into the type of active dissolve and the type of film rupture;SO_4~(2-) could increase Cu pitting sensitivity in both of the two types pitting corrosion.Due to synergies with the SO_4~(2-),HCO_3~- could increase the pitting susceptibility first and then reduce the law.In passive film rupture pitting system, SO_4~(2-) could improve the ability of induce pitting;HCO_3~- could reduce the ability of induce pitting. There is no significant impact on pitting self-healing capacity by the two ions.

This comment argues for the importance of global institutions to regulate nuclear power. Nuclear power presents challenges across national borders irrespective of whether plants are maintained safely. There are international agreements in place on the disposal of nuclear waste, an issue of great concern in terms of environmental and health effects for any nuclear power policy. However, there remains a pressing need for an international agreement to ensure the safe maintenance of nuclear facilities. Safe nuclear power beyond waste disposal should receive more attention. Nuclear power policy is often a matter of pure state interest with national governments alone responsible for regulating the safe maintenance of nuclear facilities. It ought not be left to national governments alone to regulate the safe administration of nuclear power given the many threats to environmental safety and public health. This comment argues that global institutions may best address this problem. The comment concludes with recommendations on how nuclear power policy might be regulated.

Area-wide geologic studies have been conducted in six states to identify sites for detailed site characterization studies, and ultimately the construction of the nation9s first high level nuclear waste disposal facility. Host rock types in the respective states under consideration include basalts in Washington state, tuffs in Nevada, bedded evaporites (salts) in Utah and Texas, and diapiric salt in Mississippi and Louisiana. An exploratory shaft facility (ESF) is an integral part of the detailed site characterization activities mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (U.S. Congress, 1983). One of the primary objectives of the exploratory shaft is to provide access to the target repository horizon so that detailed in situ testing can be performed to evaluate site suitability for repository construction, materials characterization, model validation, etc. In addition, the ESF will provide a means of evaluating construction conditions and applicable methods for the potential repository, and for characterizing the geologic and hydrologic conditions of the materials overlying the target horizon. Seven salt sites in four states have been considered for ESF preliminary designs (Parsons Brinckerhoff/PB-KBB, 1983). While salt has several advantages for waste isolation, such as its impermeability, thermal and visco-plastic properties, etc., it also presents some unusual design and construction problems. The solubility and visco-plastic nature of salt requires special lining designs and construction to isolate and control water inflow and to avoid excessive stress build-up due to the long term deformations (creep) of salt. Other major geotechnical factors involved in the design of the ESF, and of special interest to Texas are the protection of fresh water aquifers (particularly the Ogallala and Dockum formations in the Texas Panhandle), ground stabilization and ground-water control during shaft sinking (anticipated to require ground freezing methods through the upper 1,000 ft of overburden at the Texas sites), seismic stresses, in situ stresses, ground-water conditions in non-fresh water aquifers, etc. Exploratory borings will be drilled for each shaft at a salt site during ESF Final Design activities. The boring program will include comprehensive borehole and laboratory testing for the purpose of verifying or modifying design assumptions, as required.

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of

The Department of Energy`s Office Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has prepared this document to report plans for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, whose mission is to manage and dispose of the nation`s spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a manner that protects the health and safety of the public and of workers and the quality of the environment. The Congress established this program through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Specifically, the Congress directed us to isolate these wastes in geologic repositories constructed in suitable rock formations deep beneath the surface of the earth. In the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, the Congress mandated that only one repository was to be developed at present and that only the Yucca Mountain candidate site in Nevada was to be characterized at this time. The Amendments Act also authorized the construction of a facility for monitored retrievable storage (MRS) and established the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. After a reassessment in 1989, the Secretary of Energy restructured the program, focusing the repository effort scientific evaluations of the Yucca Mountain candidate site, deciding to proceed with the development of an MRS facility, and strengthening the management of the program. 48 refs., 32 figs.

Chapter 4 International practice in high-level nuclear waste management

The purpose of this article is to discuss Swedish nuclear waste management policy and assess whether a transparency programme has affected the policy discourse and contributed to legitimatising the forthcoming government decision on a final solution for spent nuclear fuel. The transparency programme implemented by the National Council for Nuclear Waste (NW Council) consisted of two main activities: dialogue meetings and public hearings for deliberating on different aspects of the waste issue. Lessons are drawn from an evaluation of the programme. The article concludes that the NW Council has implemented the government's legitimatisation policy by its existence and through the transparency programme, but achieving long lasting legitimacy is a complicated matter. Dialogue meetings and public hearings are reasonable measures; whether these measures are sufficient to legitimatise the final decision also depends on how the appropriate state agencies and the government justify their assessments and decisions regarding the long-term safety, security and sustainability of the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company's proposed final repository. The dialogue policy and transparency programme, however, has failed to influence the key decisions which remain in the control of the powerful interests, most notable Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) and the government.

Geological disposal is an essential component of the long-term management of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Implementation of a suitable deep repository may, however, be difficult or impossible in some (especially small) countries because of challenging geological conditions or restricted siting options, or because of the high costs involved. For these countries, shared regional or international storage and disposal facilities are a necessity. The European Parliament and the EC have both expressed support for concepts that could lead to regional shared facilities being implemented in the EU. The EC, therefore, funded two projects that form the first two steps of a staged process towards the implementation of shared regional or international storage and disposal facilities. In the period 2003 to 2005, the EC funded SAPIERR I, a project devoted to pilot studies on the feasibility of shared regional storage facilities and geological repositories, for use by European countries. The studies showed that shared regional repositories are feasible, but also that, if they are to be implemented, even some decades ahead, efforts must already be increased now. The first step would be to establish a structured framework for the work on regional repositories. This is the goal of SAPIERR II (2006–2008): to develop possible practical implementation strategies and organisational structures. These will enable a formalised, structured European Development Organisation (EDO) to be established in 2008 or afterwards for working on shared EU radioactive waste storage and disposal activities. The EDO can work in parallel with national waste programmes. Participating EU Member States will be able to use the structures developed as, when and if needed for the furtherance of their individual national policies.