Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DIALOGUE”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 343 records · Page 19
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2011

GET FiT Plus: De-risking clean energy business models in a developing country context

GET Fit was first conceived in January 2010 when the United Nations Secretary General's Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change (AGECC) invited Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors (DBCCA) to present new concepts to drive renewable energy investment in developing regions. DBCCA responded with the Global Energy Transfer Feed-in Tariffs Program (GET FiT), a proposal to support both renewable energy scale up and energy access through the creation of new international public-private partnerships. The concept was inspired by the theory that feed-in tariffs could serve as an effective policy structure for both public and private investment and knowledge transfer from the developed world. The original GET FiT concept was designed with input from over 160 individuals from the renewable energy, financial and international development communities. The original GET FiT report was issued in April 2010. This report reflects continued engagement of stakeholders around the world. GET FiT plus is an effort to capture the key outcomes of the GET FiT consultation process and use them to catalyze ongoing dialogue and debate about the future of international support for renewable energy in developing regions. These outcomes have been translated into key research priorities. These priorities, as well as some short issue briefs are part of this report.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Public Resistance is Waste-Based and What to Do About That - 13412

'Nuclear Communicators' connect a highly advanced sci-tech world with the world of everyday living. One challenge is helping stakeholders fit together three Big Ideas: (1) the valuable nuclear energy resource, (2) nuclear energy's invisible mortal dangers and potential bad-guy threats, and (3) critical scientific and engineering knowledge that is far over the heads of average (grade 8) USA reading levels. This article provides an overview of what does - and does not - work in our public communications. What does not work: 1. Going off topic. Address what concerns people most: how to manage nuclear wastes. 2. Underestimating public intelligence. What works: 1. Doing your homework on community history regarding nuclear materials. 2. Having discussion forums and public meetings with special guests from industry, government, and local leaders. 3. Regular cycles of communication with community groups to build a long-term dialogue. Solutions to some communication challenges require handling four gaps and one jungle: 1. Facts gap - Honest information about waste disposition. 2. Time gap - The timelines associated with waste management include 300 years, 10,000 years, and 703.8 million years. How do we talk about this? 3. Money gap - Who pays for new waste management challenges and technologies? 4. Confidence gap - Link local options to regional, national, and global knowledge. 5. Decision jungle - How can we make waste management rules and infrastructure more logical and transparent? Public communication needs to be grounded in facts for people who want to be credible actors in the new nuclear world. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

Early Regulatory Engagement for Successful Site Remediation: the UK Experience - 13173

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is an independent safety, security and transport regulator of the UK nuclear industry. ONR regulates all civil nuclear reactor power stations, fuel manufacture, enrichment, spent fuel reprocessing, most defence sites and installations that store and process legacy spent fuel and radioactive waste. The responsibility for funding and strategic direction of decommissioning and radioactive waste management of state owned legacy sites has rested solely with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) since 2005. A key component of NDA's mandate was to encourage new strategic approaches and innovation to dealing with the UK's waste legacy and which deliver value-for-money to the UK taxpayer. ONR, as an agency of the Health and Safety Executive, is entirely independent of NDA and regulates all prescribed activities on NDA's sites. NDA's competition of site management and closure contracts has attracted significant international interest and the formation of consortia comprised of major British, US, French and Swedish organizations bidding for those contracts. The prominence of US organizations in each of those consortia reflects the scale and breadth of existing waste management and D and D projects in the US. This paper will articulate, in broad terms, the challenges faced by international organizations seeking to employ 'off-the-shelf' technology and D and D techniques, successfully employed elsewhere, into the UK regulatory context. The predominantly 'goal-setting' regulatory framework in the UK does not generally prescribe a minimum standard to which a licensee must adhere. The legal onus on licensees in the UK is to demonstrate, whatever technology is selected, that in its applications, risks are reduced 'So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable' or 'SFAIRP'. By the nature of its role, ONR adopts a conservative approach to regulation; however ONR also recognises that in the decommissioning (and ultimately the site closure) domain, it is often necessary to consider and support novel approaches to achieve the nationally desired end-state. Crucial to successful and compliant operation in this regulatory environment is early and sustained engagement of the contractor with the regulator. There must be a 'no-surprises' culture to engender regulatory confidence early in a project. The paper considers some of the challenges facing international prime and lower tier contractors when undertaking D and D contracts in the UK, and emphasizes the importance of constructive and transparent dialogue with all regulators to sustain confidence at all stages of a major decommissioning project. The paper will also articulate ONR's strategy to increase collaboration with the US Department of Energy in light of increasing UK-US synergy in the area of waste management and to benchmark respective regulatory approaches. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

Investing in International Information Exchange Activities to Improve the Safety, Cost Effectiveness and Schedule of Cleanup - 13281

With decreasing budgets and increasing pressure on completing cleanup missions as quickly, safely and cost-effectively as possible, there is significant benefit to be gained from collaboration and joint efforts between organizations facing similar issues. With this in mind, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) have formally agreed to share information on lessons learned on the development and application of new technologies and approaches to improve the safety, cost effectiveness and schedule of the cleanup legacy wastes. To facilitate information exchange a range of tools and methodologies were established. These included tacit knowledge exchange through facilitated meetings, conference calls and Site visits as well as explicit knowledge exchange through document sharing and newsletters. A DOE web-based portal has been established to capture these exchanges and add to them via discussion boards. The information exchange is operating at the Government-to-Government strategic level as well as at the Site Contractor level to address both technical and managerial topic areas. This effort has resulted in opening a dialogue and building working relationships. In some areas joint programs of work have been initiated thus saving resource and enabling the parties to leverage off one another activities. The potential benefits of high quality information exchange are significant, ranging from cost avoidance through identification of an approach to a problem that has been proven elsewhere to cost sharing and joint development of a new technology to address a common problem. The benefits in outcomes significantly outweigh the costs of the process. The applicability of the tools and methods along with the lessons learned regarding some key issues is of use to any organization that wants to improve value for money. In the waste management marketplace, there are a multitude of challenges being addressed by multiple organizations and the effective pooling and exchange of knowledge and experience can only be of benefit to all participants to help complete the cleanup mission more quickly and more cost effectively. This paper examines in detail the tools and processes used to promote information exchange and the progress made to date. It also discusses the challenges and issues involved and proposes recommendations to others who are involved in similar activities. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Implementing Stakeholders' Access to Expertise: Experimenting on Nuclear Installations' Safety Cases - 12160

In 2009 and 2010, the Institute for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (IRSN) led two pilot actions dealing with nuclear installations' safety cases. One concerned the periodical review of the French 900 MWe nuclear reactors, the other concerned the decommissioning of a workshop located on the site of Areva's La Hague fuel-reprocessing plant site in Northwestern France. The purpose of both these programs was to test ways for IRSN and a small number of stakeholders (Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) members, local elected officials, etc.) to engage in technical discussions. The discussions were intended to enable the stakeholders to review future applications and provide valuable input. The test cases confirmed there is a definite challenge in successfully opening a meaningful dialogue to discuss technical issues, in particular the fact that most expertise reports were not public and the conflict that exists between the contrary demands of transparency and confidentiality of information. The test case also confirmed there are ways to further improvement of stakeholders' involvement. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2012

Expanding Outreach Efforts by Developing Community Advisory Councils - 12233

Nuclear energy generates significant reliable baseload electricity, yet many citizens in countries with nuclear power do not know the facts and benefits this clean energy source provides. For much of its history, the nuclear energy industry has been perceived as secretive and protective. Anti-nuclear activists use this general lack of public knowledge to sensationalise events, spread misinformation, and play on people's emotions. Yet, the nuclear energy industry has done little to combat these falsehoods imposed on the general public. Support for nuclear energy, or lack thereof, is even more pronounced after the extraordinary natural disasters and ensuing nuclear incident in Japan earlier this year, making proactive outreach to restore public trust even more important than before. The industry must inform and educate at all levels to dispel the falsehoods and enable clear, rational decision-making by government officials, business leaders and the general public, if it wants to grow and provide clean energy for the future. AREVA understands that this community outreach and education are just the first steps toward helping clean energy sources grow. We know that energy demand and security means we need to utilize every clean energy source available. We must start the education process from pre-school age to encourage children to enter science, technology, engineering and math curriculums. We must maintain regular community dialog and open discussions and operate in a safe manner, because in the long run, it is these community members who will help ensure energy security for the country. These stakeholders have a strong voice, a voice that can be heard locally, and if necessary, a voice that can impact the future of nuclear energy worldwide. As always, our industry is committed to the relentless pursuit of ever safer nuclear power. The nuclear industry as a whole must restore and win back trust. But the only way to restore this trust is by working together as an industry to engage in open discussion and dialogue. It is only by working together as an industry that we can ensure a safe, clean air future for generations to come, no matter where in the world we live. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Hanford Site Beryllium Program: Past, Present, and Future - 12428

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has a long history of beryllium use because of the element's broad application to many nuclear operations and processes. At the Hanford Site beryllium alloy was used to fabricate parts for reactors, including fuel rods for the N-Reactor during plutonium production. Because of continued confirmed cases of chronic beryllium disease (CBD), and data suggesting CBD occurs at exposures to low-level concentrations, the DOE decided to issue a rule to further protect federal and contractor workers from hazards associated with exposure to beryllium. When the beryllium rule was issued in 1999, each of the Hanford Site contractors developed a Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP) and initial site wide beryllium inventories. A new site-wide CBDPP, applicable to all Hanford contractors, was issued in May, 2009. In the spring of 2010 the DOE Headquarters Office of Health, Safety, and Security (HSS) conducted an independent inspection to evaluate the status of implementation of the Hanford Site Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP). The report identified four Findings and 12 cross-cutting Opportunities for Improvement (OFIs). A corrective action plan (CAP) was developed to address the Findings and crosscutting OFIs. The DOE directed affected site contractors to identify dedicated resources to participate in development of the CAP, along with involving stakeholders. The CAP included general and contractor-specific recommendations. Following initiation of actions to implement the approved CAP, it became apparent that additional definition of product deliverables was necessary to assure that expectations were adequately addressed and CAP actions could be closed. Consequently, a supplement to the original CAP was prepared and transmitted to DOE-HQ for approval. Development of the supplemental CAP was an eight month effort. From the onset a core group of CAP development members were identified to develop a mechanism for assuring that consensus was achieved on products developed as part of the CAP and the closure process. The original CAP was developed based on a large number of actions developed from the HSS report. This was essentially a 'bottoms up' approach. The revised CAP development team concluded that a more holistic, process-based approach was appropriate to assure that the resulting deliverable resulted in a best-in-class product. Consequently, issues and recommendations contained in the HSS report were grouped into 11 program areas, specific product deliverables were identified within each of the program areas, and a work breakdown structure (WBS) was logically applied to number the groupings. While the revised approach to product development utilizes a more holistic, 'top down' approach, the intent was still to incorporate specific recommendations and address specific issues contained in the HSS report. Through implementation of this new approach, a collaborative team has been established that works together using a consensus process for ensuring product completion. Benefits of the new approach include building a level of trust amongst all parties, quality of the products have improved, and acceptance by all parties of what action will truly meet the intent of the deficiency and make the beryllium program stronger. Open dialogue occurs amongst the core Be CAP team members, Hanford contractors, and DOE. It has been a learning process and will continue to be one, but everyone shares the common goal of reducing worker exposure to beryllium. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Mentoring Human Performance - 12480

Although the positive effects of implementing a human performance approach to operations can be hard to quantify, many organizations and industry areas are finding tangible benefits to such a program. Recently, a unique mentoring program was established and implemented focusing on improving the performance of managers, supervisors, and work crews, using the principles of Human Performance Improvement (HPI). The goal of this mentoring was to affect behaviors and habits that reliably implement the principles of HPI to ensure continuous improvement in implementation of an Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) within a Conduct of Operations framework. Mentors engaged with personnel in a one-on-one, or one-on-many dialogue, which focused on what behaviors were observed, what factors underlie the behaviors, and what changes in behavior could prevent errors or events, and improve performance. A senior management sponsor was essential to gain broad management support. A clear charter and management plan describing the goals, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes was established. Mentors were carefully selected with senior management endorsement. Mentors were assigned to projects and work teams based on the following three criteria: 1) knowledge of the work scope; 2) experience in similar project areas; and 3) perceived level of trust they would have with project management, supervision, and work teams. This program was restructured significantly when the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) and the associated funding came to an end. The program was restructured based on an understanding of the observations, attributed successes and identified shortfalls, and the consolidation of those lessons. Mentoring the application of proven methods for improving human performance was shown effective at increasing success in day-to-day activities and increasing confidence and level of skill of supervisors. While mentoring program effectiveness is difficult to measure, and return on investment is difficult to quantify, especially in complex and large organizations where the ability to directly correlate causal factors can be challenging, the evidence presented by Sydney Dekker, James Reason, and others who study the field of human factors does assert managing and reducing error is possible. Employment of key behaviors-HPI techniques and skills-can be shown to have a significant impact on error rates. Our mentoring program demonstrated reduced error rates and corresponding improvements in safety and production. Improved behaviors are the result, of providing a culture with consistent, clear expectations from leadership, and processes and methods applied consistently to error prevention. Mentoring, as envisioned and executed in this program, was effective in helping shift organizational culture and effectively improving safety and production. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Central Plateau Cleanup at DOE's Hanford Site - 12504

The discussion of Hanford's Central Plateau includes significant work in and around the center of the Hanford Site - located about 7 miles from the Columbia River. The Central Plateau is the area to which operations will be shrunk in 2015 when River Corridor cleanup is complete. This work includes retrieval and disposal of buried waste from miles of trenches; the cleanup and closure of massive processing canyons; the clean-out and demolition to 'slab on grade' of the high-hazard Plutonium Finishing Plant; installation of key groundwater treatment facilities to contain and shrink plumes of contaminated groundwater; demolition of all other unneeded facilities; and the completion of decisions about remaining Central Plateau waste sites. A stated goal of EM has been to shrink the footprint of active cleanup to less than 10 square miles by 2020. By the end of FY2011, Hanford will have reduced the active footprint of cleanup by 64 percent exceeding the goal of 49 percent. By 2015, Hanford will reduce the active footprint of cleanup by more than 90 percent. The remaining footprint reduction will occur between 2015 and 2020. The Central Plateau is a 75-square-mile region near the center of the Hanford Site including the area designated in the Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1999) and Record of Decision (64 FR 61615) as the Industrial-Exclusive Area, a rectangular area of about 20 square miles in the center of the Central Plateau. The Industrial-Exclusive Area contains the 200 East and 200 West Areas that have been used primarily for Hanford's nuclear fuel processing and waste management and disposal activities. The Central Plateau also encompasses the 200 Area CERCLA National Priorities List site. The Central Plateau has a large physical inventory of chemical processing and support facilities, tank systems, liquid and solid waste disposal and storage facilities, utility systems, administrative facilities, and groundwater monitoring wells. As a companion to the Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework document, DOE issued its draft Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy in September 2009 to provide an outline of DOE's vision for completion of cleanup activities across the Central Plateau. As major elements of the Hanford cleanup along the Columbia River Corridor near completion, DOE believed it appropriate to articulate the agency vision for the remainder of the cleanup mission. The Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy and the Hanford Site Cleanup Completion Framework were provided to the regulatory community, the Tribal Nations, political leaders, the public, and Hanford stakeholders to promote dialogue on Hanford's future. The Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy describes DOE's vision for completion of Central Plateau cleanup and outlines the decisions needed to achieve the vision. The Central Plateau strategy involves steps to: (1) contain and remediate contaminated groundwater, (2) implement a geographic cleanup approach that guides remedy selection from a plateau-wide perspective, (3) evaluate and deploy viable treatment methods for deep vadose contamination to provide long-term protection of the groundwater, and (4) conduct essential waste management operations in coordination with cleanup actions. The strategy will also help optimize Central Plateau readiness to use funding when it is available upon completion of River Corridor cleanup projects. One aspect of the Central Plateau strategy is to put in place the process to identify the final footprint for permanent waste management and containment of residual contamination within the 20-square-mile Industrial-Exclusive Area. The final footprint identified for permanent waste management and containment of residual contamination should be as small as practical and remain under federal ownership and control for as long as a potential hazard exists. Outside the final footprint, the remainder of the Central Plateau will be available for other uses consistent with the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (DOE 1999), while maintained under federal ownership and control. (author)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Does the Perfect Waste Package Exist? Development of a Decisional Tool Addressing this Challenge - 17053

The definition of a safe, technically, economically and societally acceptable waste management strategy is highly dependent on the Waste Acceptance Criteria in each country and on the already available disposal routes. It is the reason why there is not a single solution but a combination of optimized solutions depending on the type of waste and on each country's considerations. In fact, when operating a nuclear plant or performing its decommissioning or legacy waste management, one has to consider a large waste diversity in term of natures, types, volumes and radioactivity spectra. All nuclear operators have to take-up the challenge of implementing solutions for conditioning its waste in packages suitable for transport short to long term interim storage and final disposal of it (or prepare for final disposal if the repository is not yet available). Operators have then to answer the following dilemma: either define a complete strategy packaging the waste for final disposal, or 'containerising' it temporarily, pending final disposal. The strategy is highly country dependent; in the first case, one has to take into account the available information and future orientations relative to acceptability of the packages in order to define a robust solution. The approach implemented in France requires a close dialogue between the Operators, the Safety Authority, the Administration and the stakeholders. Moreover it pushes forward whenever possible standardization, contributing to cost minimization. If the second approach has the advantage of leaving the options open, and reducing the initial investments, it inevitably requires future retrieval and re-packaging with potential evolutions/degradation of the initial waste form. It also induces the potential risk to produce additional secondary waste. As an additional drawback, it introduces uncertainties and unknowns related to the future waste management criteria and to the costs. The general idea is that, depending on context, a given route (i.e., treatment, conditioning, and transport), could be considered as efficient or not. Assessing a waste package is certainly highly context dependent. However it should be possible to recognize and to lead an evaluation based on a number of fixed criteria, whatever the context, to be addressed when assessing the development of a final waste package in connection to the overall management route. A waste package is always a combination of a waste container and a waste form and will have to be transported one day from the production site to the final repository or to off-site interim storage facilities. AREVA's approach consists in defining an evaluation grid based on a set of criteria which aim (i) to evaluate whether the different waste treatments, conditionings, transport and packages deserve to be considered within different national contexts, and (ii) to evaluate R and D actions to be performed for improving existing solutions or developing new ones. One of the key lessons to be drawn from AREVA's experience in developing waste packages is that the perfect waste doesn't exist even though the vitrified canister is probably the most efficient one. The performance of a package resulting from a compromise depends on context and is a strength combination between the waste container and the waste form. The approach is to evaluate a waste package development against different set of criteria and to draw optimization diagrams. In such diagram, a given waste package is assessed with respect to selected criteria such as waste form and waste container, stability, level of waste incorporation, integrity lifetime, secondary waste generation, transport, long term behavior, and economical effectiveness, etc. Addressing a waste form is a very key point. This evaluation grid and comparative approach will be presented through examples and comparison providing from AREVA feedback on waste package development related to complex waste management such as problematic waste or legacy waste. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

The Importance and Impact of Public Engagement for the Nuclear Industry - 17602

The South West Nuclear Hub has joined with its industrial partners to engage with the public about the pros and cons of nuclear power, and open a balanced and evidence-based dialogue around common areas of concern, such as nuclear safety and nuclear waste. This programme of industrial engagement must continue into the future if we are to understand and effectively address those concerns, and make the UK's nuclear renaissance work for all. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Talking about radioactive waste management: feedback on France's experience and on the 2013 public debate on the Cigeo project - 15202

Following a brief presentation of the legal and historical framework in France, the article will take a retrospective look at the debate, from its preparation and the running of the debate process to the French national commission for public debate's publication of the report and the conclusions of this debate. Finally, it will describe the experience of information and dialogue from Andra's point of view and will explain Andra's follow-up to the debate, giving a first glimpse of the implementation of this follow-up. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Low and intermediate level short lived waste disposal in France: improving confidence - 15254

Thanks to the significant reduction of waste production and according to forecasts derived from the French National Inventory of Radioactive Materials and Waste issued by Andra, Centre de l'Aube disposal facility should be able to accommodate low and intermediate level short lived waste generated by all presently operated or decided nuclear facilities in France. The facility could then be operated till 2050-2060. Andra has to maintain the facility up to date and to adapt it to meet waste generators needs, in particular needs related to decommissioning works. Its safety is assessed by periodical safety review and confirmed by an environmental monitoring program. Safety also relies on an acceptance process that takes benefit from 20 years of experience and must now be adapted to the management of decommissioning waste. Confidence by local communities is maintained through a permanent dialogue. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Addressing an aging facility: improving reliability of the defense waste processing facility at the Savannah River Site - 15539

The High Level Waste program at the Savannah River Site significantly reduces environmental risks associated with the storage of radioactive waste from legacy efforts to separate fissionable nuclear material from irradiated targets and fuels. The Defense Waste Processing Facility treats and immobilizes High Level Waste into a durable borosilicate glass for safe, permanent storage. Construction of the facility began in 1983 and radioactive operations commenced in 1996. In an effort to support the disposition of radioactive waste and accelerate tank closure for the balance of the Savannah River Site mission, the Defense Waste Processing Facility recently underwent an extensive reliability review in 2013 to understand future needs as well as to address aging infrastructure. As a product of this review, a Performance Improvement Plan was developed to systematically address three major focus areas including, a) asset preservation, b) facility housekeeping, and 3) process improvements. Since issuance of the plan, significant progress has been made in each of these areas to improve the reliability and predictability of the Defense Waste Processing Facility. Providing consistent, constructive, and concise communications is vital in the face of a changing budgetary environment. The Savannah River Site case study provides an example of the U.S. Department of Energy - Savannah River (DOE-SR) and SRR partnering to inform stakeholders about cleanup progress at the site. DOE-SR and SRR periodically and consistently provide both annual written progress reports under the Federal Facility Agreement and quarterly written progress reports under the landfill permit to the government regulators. Through the Liquid Waste System Plans, DOE-SR and SRR constructively and concisely summarize both the significant progress made and explain how a changed budget can impact the goals moving forward. Furthermore, DOE-SR and SRR informs the community and general public about the Site's progress and future during Citizens Advisory Board meetings. In addition, through the new proposed model for complex-wide communications, stakeholders can better understand how budget constraints will affect them. The set-aside program would also encourage stakeholder participation and involvement in helping each state and site obtain extra funding through performance evaluations. Waste management organizations can benefit in a number of ways from an effective partnership approach to communicate with stakeholders about available funding. Keeping an open and honest dialogue with regulatory agencies can help preserve confidence, thus mitigating or completely avoiding costly and distracting fines and penalties. Informing the public not only promotes trust, but also spurs the public to exercise its right to demand more information and voice any concerns to elected or DOE officials. With this approach, DOE can receive better understanding and cooperation from stakeholders in a changing budgetary landscape. Furthermore, a set-aside competitive program would encourage efficiency and innovation that could lead to further cost savings for the government while providing extra funding for cleanup efforts. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2016

An Analysis of Maximum Allowable Radiation Levels in Soil: Comparing Risk Models of International and National Agencies - 16306

Setting and complying with an appropriate soil radiation screening level presents a complex problem as there are a multitude of models available based on previous land uses and localities. An in depth analysis of the different maximum allowable concentrations provided by the diverse models has never been conducted before. This study is a comparison of concentrations of select radionuclides considered acceptable by several national and international agencies. The project focuses on two specific radionuclides of concern Radium 226 and Cesium 137. Each agency's concentrations were derived from its respective model using the residential land use scenario. The key objectives and benefits of this project include: 1. To facilitate better understanding of each agency's approach to tackling problems of land contamination due to radionuclides. 2. Identify thematic areas for cooperation. 3. Make recommendations on technical and practical issues to the agencies involved. 4. To enhance the dialogue between various international and domestic initiatives concerned with land contamination and regeneration/remediation. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2016

NWMO Canadian used nuclear fuel repository - 16314

A brief introduction to Canada's Used Fuel Repository Plan, including the status of site selection and the conceptual design. Canada's plan for the long-term care of used nuclear fuel is known as Adaptive Phased Management (APM). It emerged from dialogue with Canadians and experts and best meets the key priorities considered important by citizens. The Federal Government selected APM as Canada's plan in June 2007. The plan is consistent with the long-term management approach adopted by other countries with nuclear power programs, such as Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and France. Canada's plan is both a technical method and a management system. The project is designed to be implemented in phases over many decades. New learning and social priorities will be incorporated into Canada's plan for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel, driving refinement and adaptation of the plan throughout its implementation. The major phases for the APM project are described.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2016

Joint Regulatory Expectations for Land Quality Management at UK Nuclear Sites - 16596

Across the UK a variety of policies and legislation can apply to the management of land quality and several regulators are involved. The risk that such complexity could hamper or delay the delivery of decommissioning and clean-up at nuclear sites, has led to the UK regulators developing a suite of joint expectations for land quality management together with working-together arrangements to support the delivery of these. The UK regulators, in recognition of the complexity of the UK policy and legal framework applying to land contamination on nuclear sites, have collaborated to agree a set of 'joint expectations' for LQM. They address the prevention of contamination and the management of contaminated land and groundwater. They expectations are consistent with regulatory requirements, but provide a simple set of principles that can be applied to all sites and types of potential contamination. This has the advantage of supporting early dialogue with operators and land owners to allow priorities to be agreed and resourced. They also support wider communication with other stakeholders. The UK regulators have embarked on several follow up activities to build on the work in establishing the joint expectations and look for further areas where collaboration will be beneficial.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Beginner's Guide to Understanding Power System Model Results for Long-Term Resource Plans

This presentation summarizes a recently published beginner's guide for understanding power system model results for long-term resource plans. This guide is designed to improve decision-making in the electricity planning process by strengthening dialogue between system planners and relevant stakeholders. It focuses on interpreting scenario results generated by power system planning models. These results are often used to inform integrated resource plans, which are long-term plans for a utility to meet future electricity requirements. Whether you are a state utility commissioner, commission staff, part of a state energy office, an intervenor in the planning process, or another stakeholder, this guide is designed to help you better weigh in on the modeling methods or interpret the model results to improve decision-making. This guide can enhance your understanding to ask the right questions, which can enable better understanding of results and key assumptions, data, and methods.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗