Download Free The Decision To Recommend Yucca Mountain And The Next Steps Toward Licensed Repository Development Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Decision To Recommend Yucca Mountain And The Next Steps Toward Licensed Repository Development and write the review.

After more than 20 years of carefully planned and reviewed scientific field work by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and numerous other organizations, Secretary of Energy Abraham concluded in January that the Yucca Mountain site is suitable, within the meaning of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, for development as a permanent nuclear waste and spent fuel repository. In February, the Secretary recommended to the President that the site be developed for licensed disposal of these wastes, and the President transmitted this recommendation to Congress. This paper summarizes key technical and national interest considerations that provided the basis for the recommendation. It also discusses the program's near-term plans for repository development if Congress designates the site.
If Yucca Mountain, Nevada is designated as the site for development of a geologic repository for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, the Department of Energy (DOE) must obtain Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval first for repository construction, then for an operating license, and, eventually, for repository closure and decommissioning. The licensing criteria defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 63 (10 CFR Part 63) establish the basis for these NRC decisions. Submittal of a license application (LA) to the NRC for authorization to construct a repository at the Yucca Mountain site is, at this point, only a potential future action by the DOE. The policy process defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), as amended, for recommendation and designation of Yucca Mountain as a repository site makes it difficult to predict whether or when the site might be designated. The DOE may only submit a LA to the NRC if the site designation takes effect. In spite of this uncertainty, the DOE must take prudent and appropriate action now, and over the next several years, to prepare for development and timely submittal of a LA. This is particularly true given the need for the DOE to develop, load, and certify the operation of its electronic information system to provide access to its relevant records as part of the licensing support network (LSN) in compliance with NRC requirements six months prior to LA submittal. The DOE must also develop a LA, which is a substantially different document from those developed to support a Site Recommendation (SR) decision. The LA must satisfy NRC licensing criteria and content requirements, and address the acceptance criteria defined by the NRC in its forthcoming Yucca Mountain Review Plan (YMRP). The content of the LA must be adequate to facilitate NRC acceptance and docketing for review, and the LA and its supporting documents must provide the documented basis for the NR C findings required for a construction authorization. The LA must also support a licensing proceeding before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel prior to NRC action on any decision to authorize construction. The DOE has established a strategic basis for planning that is intended to provide the framework for development of an integrated plan for activities leading to preparation and submittal of a LA.
Volume 4 provides the DOE plan and cost estimate for the remaining work necessary to proceed from completing this VA to submitting an LA to NRC. This work includes preparing an EIS and evaluating the suitability of the site. Both items are necessary components of the documentation required to support a decision in 2001 by the Secretary of Energy on whether or not to recommend that the President approve the site for development as a repository. If the President recommends the site to Congress and the site designation becomes effective, then DOE will submit the LA to NRC in 2002 for authorization to construct the repository. The work described in Volume 4 constitutes the last step in the characterization of the Yucca Mountain site and the design and evaluation of the performance of a repository system in the geologic setting of this site. The plans in this volume for the next 4 years' work are based on the results of the previous 15 years' work, as reported in Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of this VA. Volume 1 summarizes what DOE has learned to date about the Yucca Mountain site. Volume 2 describes the current, reference repository design, several design options that might enhance the performance of the reference design, and several alternative designs that represent substantial departures from the reference design. Volume 2 also summarizes the results of tests of candidate materials for waste packages and for support of the tunnels into which waste would be emplaced. Volume 3 provides the results of the latest performance assessments undertaken to evaluate the performance of the design in the geologic setting of Yucca Mountain. The results described in Volumes 1, 2, and 3 provide the basis for identifying and prioritizing the work described in this volume. DOE believes that the planned work, together with the results of previous work, will be sufficient to support a site suitability evaluation for site recommendation and, if the site is recommended and designated, a defensible LA. Volume 4 is divided into seven sections. Section 2 presents a rationale and summary for the technical work to be done to develop the preclosure and postclosure safety cases that will support the compliance evaluations required for the evaluation of site suitability and for licensing. Section 2 also describes other necessary technical work, including that needed to support design decisions and development of the necessary design information. Section 3 presents a more detailed description of the technical work required to address the issues identified in Section 2. Section 3 also describes activities that will continue after submittal of the site recommendation and the LA. Examples include the drift scale heater test in the Exploratory Studies Facility (Section 3.1.4.3) and long-term waste package corrosion testing (Section 3.2.2.9). Section 4 discusses the statutory and regulatory framework for site recommendation and submittal of an LA, and describes the activities and documentation that must be completed to achieve these milestones, including the development of an EIS. Section 5 describes the numerous activities required to support program milestones, including support for completing the testing program, continuing tests as part of the performance confirmation program, and managing information and records to support regulatory and legal review. Sections 6 and 7 provide cost and schedule information for the activities planned.
This book challenges the role of scientists in policy making and the idea of deliberative democracy. The author argues that awareness must increase among both politicians and the citizens who elect them. We must revitalise the decision-making processes in representative democracy. The book proposes new institutional structures.