skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Progress in siting nuclear waste facilities.

Abstract

Abstract not provided.

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Fuel Cycle Technologies (NE-5)
OSTI Identifier:
1163139
Report Number(s):
SAND2014-18223R
537845
DOE Contract Number:
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Price, Laura L., and Rechard, Robert P.. Progress in siting nuclear waste facilities.. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.2172/1163139.
Price, Laura L., & Rechard, Robert P.. Progress in siting nuclear waste facilities.. United States. doi:10.2172/1163139.
Price, Laura L., and Rechard, Robert P.. Mon . "Progress in siting nuclear waste facilities.". United States. doi:10.2172/1163139. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1163139.
@article{osti_1163139,
title = {Progress in siting nuclear waste facilities.},
author = {Price, Laura L. and Rechard, Robert P.},
abstractNote = {Abstract not provided.},
doi = {10.2172/1163139},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Mon Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • This report is the third in a series of periodic surveys of approaches and progress in other countries in dealing with the problems of obtaining local acceptance for siting of waste management facilities. The following 15 countries are covered: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. Volume II contains information on the principal new developments and is divided, as applicable, into the following sections: status of nation's nuclear power program, including current government's policies regarding nuclear power in general and waste management in particular; status and plansmore » regarding nation's waste management programs including activities of organizations responsible for management of nation's nuclear waste; status of nuclear waste management siting decisions; nonstatutory approaches used (informal system) to supplement the formal/legal system for obtaining approvals for siting of waste management facilities; and observations/conclusions.« less
  • This report is the fourth in a series of periodic surveys of approaches and progress in other countries in dealing with the problems of obtaining local acceptance for siting of waste management facilities. Of the countries visited (Belgium, FRG, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK) all have been engaged in recent years in the process of selecting and obtaining state and local acceptance of sites for new LLW repositories. Only Sweden has been successful thus far. Success has been understandably even more elusive in the siting of HLW repositories. Although there is also one country, FRG, that has gotten provisionalmore » site approval by the state and local governments for a HLW repository, the political process by which this was achieved does not appear to be one that could be duplicated elsewhere, and all other countries are still years away from making a site-specific selection or recommendation. Fortunately this need not create a serious safety, political or logistical problem. For those countries not having their spent fuel reprocessed, the spent fuel storage cask concept is available for safe storage of spent fuel at the point of origin for as long as needed until a HLW repository is available. For those countries which will be having to dispose of HLW resulting from reprocessing, air cooled and water cooled surface storage facilities are proven and acceptable options for interim long-term (decades) storage awaiting permanent disposal in repositories when available. One country has recently successfully sited a new reprocessing plant. After several years of rejection by state authorities, FRG now has two states willing and anxious to have a reprocessing plant. Construction is now underway at one of the sites.« less
  • This report is the fourth in a series of periodic surveys of approaches and progress in other countries in dealing with the problems of obtaining local acceptance for siting of waste management facilities. This volume contains the following sections: Nation's political/industrial structure for obtaining waste management siting decisions; and Nation's formal legal procedure for obtaining necessary approvals for siting nuclear waste management facilities. Two of the countries visited, Finland and Sweden, have had major changes in the past two years in their formal/legal procedures for obtaining waste management siting decisions. (LM)
  • This report is the third in a series of periodic surveys of approaches and progress in other countries in dealing with the problems of obtaining local acceptance for siting of waste management facilities. The following 15 countries are covered: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. Volume I contains the following sections: nation's political/industrial structure for obtaining waste management siting decisions; and nation's formal legal procedure for obtaining necessary approvals for siting nuclear waste management facilities.
  • US Ecology is the private contractor selected to develop and operate low-level waste disposal facilities in the Southwestern and the Central Interstate Compacts. These initiatives have been proceeding for almost a decade in somewhat different regulatory and political climates. This paper chronicles recent events in both projects. In both cases there is reason for continued optimism that low-level waste facilities to serve the needs of waste generators in these two compacts will soon be a reality. When the California Department of Health Services issued a license for the proposed Ward Valley LLRW disposal facility on September 16, 1993, it representedmore » a significant step in implementation of a new generation of regional LLRW disposal facilities. While limited scope land transfer hearings were on the horizon, project beneficiaries were confident that the disposal site would be operational by 1995. Since then, however, political initiatives championed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have clouded the federal land transfer process and left the commencement date of operations indeterminant. Since 1993, the biomedical community, waste generators most affected by delays, have been petitioning the current administration to emphasize the need for a timely solution. These efforts are aimed at Clinton administration officials responsible for current delays, who apparently have not recognized the importance of the Ward Valley facility to California`s economy, nor the national ramifications of their delaying actions. The current status of challenges to the Ward Valley license and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation is also provided. The presentation also discusses the recently completed National Academy of Science evaluation of reports critical of the Ward Valley development process.« less