National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Findings
Suggested Citation:"Recommendations." National Research Council. 1990. Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal: A Position Statement of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10293.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Recommendations." National Research Council. 1990. Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal: A Position Statement of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10293.
×
Page 36

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

RECOMMENDATIONS The Board's conclusions are explicit or implicit throughout this document, as are many of the actions it would recommend to the various players. These recommendations are summarized below. 1. Congress should reconsider the rigid, inflexible schedule embodied in NWPA and the 1987 amendments. It may be appropriate to delay the licensing application, or even the scheduled opening of the repository, until more of the uncertainties can be resolved. The Secretary of Energy's recent announcement of a more realistic schedule, with the repository opening in 2010 rather than 2003, is a welcome step. 2. The Environmental Protection Agency, during its revision of the remanded 40 CFR Part 191, should reconsider the detailed performance standards to be met by the repository, to determine how they affect the level of health risks that will be considered acceptable. In addition, EPA should reexamine the use of quantitative probabilistic release criteria in the standard and examine what will constitute a reasonable level of assurance (i.e., by what combination of methods and strategies can DOE demonstrate that those standards will be met?~. All other countries use only a dose requirement. In setting regulatory standards and licensing requirements, the EPA should consider using only dose requirements. 3. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, likewise, should recon- sider the detailed licensing requirements for the repository. For example: . What level of statistical or modeling evidence is really necessary, obtainable, or even feasible? To what extent is it necessary to prescribe engineering design, rather than allowing alternatives that accomplish the same goal? What can be done to accommodate design changes necessitated by surprises during construction? What new strategies (e.g., engineered features like copper contain- ers) might be allowed or encouraged as events dictate? 4. The Department of Energy, for its part, should continue and also expand its current efforts to become a more responsive player in these regulatory issues. The following activities should be included: · publicly negotiated prelicensing agreements with the USNRC on how to deal with the high levels of uncertainty arising from numerical predictions of repository performance; . 35

36 · publicly negotiated prelicensing agreements with the USNRC on improved strategies for performance assessment; · active negotiations with EPA and the USNRC on the real goals and precise definitions of their standards and requirements; · an extramural grant program, in cooperation with the National Sci- ence Foundation, for the development of improved modeling methodology, in combination with training programs and public education efforts; · expanded use of expert scientists from outside the program to review and critique detailed aspects and to provide additional professional judgment; · greatly expanded risk communication efforts, aimed at reaching appropriate and achievable goals acceptable to the U.S. public; · meaningful dialogue with state and local governments, Indian tribes, environmental public interest groups, and other interested organizations. 5. The Department of Energy should make greater use of conservative engineering design instead of using unproven engineering design based on scientific principles. 6. The Department of Energy should participate more actively in in- ternational studies and forums, such as those sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Energy Agency, and the Commission of European Communities, and should subject its plans and procedures to international scientific review, as Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have already done. 7. Although geologic disposal has been the national policy for many years, and the Board believes it to be feasible, contingency planning for other sites and options (for example Subseabed Disposal of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste) should be pursued. The nation, the Congress, the federal government, utilities, and the nuclear industry should recognize the importance of contingency planning in the event that some issue should make it impossible to license a geologic repository.

Next: Notes »
Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal: A Position Statement of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!