DOE OSTI2013
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed in January 2010 to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, and to develop a new national strategy. Over two years, the BRC held dozens of meetings and heard from hundreds of Federal, State, Tribal, and local officials, as well as representatives of trade and labor organizations, technical groups, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders. The Commission's final report (issued January 26, 2012) offers a strategy to resolve longstanding challenges to responsible management of the United States' nuclear waste legacy. The Commission recommended Congressional action to rewrite parts of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA); however, a comprehensive legislative overhaul will likely take years to fully implement. The nature and characteristics of nuclear waste, the activities that generated it, and the past history of federal efforts to manage the waste make it virtually certain that finding workable solutions will be controversial and difficult. As the BRC report suggests, this difficulty can be made insurmountable if top-down, federally-mandated efforts are forced upon unwilling States, Tribes, and local communities. Decades of effort and billions of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars have been spent attempting to site and operate spent fuel storage and disposal facilities in this manner. The experience thus far indicates that voluntary consent and active partnership of States, Tribes, and local governments in siting, designing, and operating such facilities are critical. Some States, Tribes, and local communities have indicated that, given adequate scientific and technical information, along with appropriate incentives, assurances, and authority, they might be willing to consider hosting facilities for consolidated storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The authors propose a new regional approach to identifying and resolving issues related to the selection of a consolidated storage site. The approach would be characterized by informed discussion and deliberation, bringing together stakeholders from government, the non-governmental (NGO) community, industry, and other sectors. Because site selection would result in regional transportation impacts, the development of the transportation system (e.g., route identification, infrastructure improvements) would be integrated into the issue-resolution process. In addition to laying out the necessary steps and associated timeline, the authors address the challenges of building public trust and confidence in the new waste management program, as well as the difficulty of reaching and sustaining broad-based consensus on a decision to host a consolidated storage facility. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗