This book explores siting dilemmas - situations in which an "authority" (e.g., Congress, a consortium of utilities) deems it in the best interest of society to build a facility such as an incinerator, but opponents living near the proposed site thwart the plan. Facility developers typically attribute local opposition to selfishness or radically inaccurate views of the risks posed by the facility. We examine the validity of these conclusions by looking in depth at the psychological response that arises when residents are faced with the prospect of living near waste disposal facilities. The particular siting dilemma considered in this book is the problem of how to "dispose" of the high-level nuclear wastes accumulating at nuclear power plants in the United States. These wastes, in the form of "spent" fuel rods, will emit dangerous levels of radioactivity for thousands of years - anywhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years, depending on the margin of safety one adopts. The current proposal is to encase the spent fuel in corrosion-resistant canisters and then to bury these canisters deep underground in a geologic repository. The two of us became involved with the high-level waste issue in 1986 as part of an interdisciplinary research team hired by the State of Nevada. The charge of this team was to estimate the socioeconomic impacts that would accompany a repository if it were built at Yucca Mountain, approximately 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Focused attention by world leaders is needed to address the substantial challenges posed by disposal of spent nuclear fuel from reactors and high-level radioactive waste from processing such fuel. The biggest challenges in achieving safe and secure storage and permanent waste disposal are societal, although technical challenges remain. Disposition of radioactive wastes in a deep geological repository is a sound approach as long as it progresses through a stepwise decision-making process that takes advantage of technical advances, public participation, and international cooperation. Written for concerned citizens as well as policymakers, this book was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and waste management organizations in eight other countries.

During the next several years, decisions are expected to be made in several countries on the further development and implementation of the geological disposition option. The Board on Radioactive Waste Management (BRWM) of the U.S. National Academies believes that informed and reasoned discussion of relevant scientific, engineering and social issues can-and should-play a constructive role in the decision process by providing information to decision makers on relevant technical and policy issues. A BRWM-initiated project including a workshop at Irvine, California on November 4-5, 1999, and subsequent National Academies' report to be published in spring, 2000, are intended to provide such information to national policy makers both in the U.S. and abroad. To inform national policies, it is essential that experts from the physical, geological, and engineering sciences, and experts from the policy and social science communities work together. Some national programs have involved social science and policy experts from the beginning, while other programs have only recently recognized the importance of this collaboration. An important goal of the November workshop is to facilitate dialogue between these communities, as well as to encourage the sharing of experiences from many national programs. The workshop steering committee has prepared this discussion for participants at the workshop. It should elicit critical comments and help identify topics requiring in-depth discussion at the workshop. It is not intended as a statement of findings, conclusions, or recommendations. It is rather intended as a vehicle for stimulating dialogue among the workshop participants. Out of that dialogue will emerge the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the National Academies' report.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and its predecessor, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), have attempted since the 1970s to give greater uniformity to the policy and regulatory framework that addresses the disposition of slightly radioactive solid material. The issue remains unresolved and controversial. The USNRC has tried to issue policy statements and standards for the release of slightly radioactive solid material from regulatory control, while such material has been released and continues to be released under existing practices. In 1980 the USNRC proposed regulatory changes to deregulate contaminated metal alloys but withdrew them in 1986 and began work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop more broadly applicable federal guidance. In 1990 the USNRC issued a more sweeping policy, as directed by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLWPAA), declaring materials with low concentrations of radioactivity contamination "below regulatory concern" (BRC) and hence deregulated. Congress intervened to set aside the BRC policy in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, after the USNRC's own suspension of the policy. Subsequent attempts by USNRC staff to build consensus among stakeholder groups as a basis for future policy articulations were met by boycotts of stakeholder meetings, both in the immediate aftermath of the BRC policy and again in 1999 during public hearings on a new examination of the disposition of such materials. The only USNRC standard addressing the disposition of slightly radioactive solid material is a guidance document published in June 1974 by the AEC, whose regulatory authority over civilian nuclear facilities the USNRC assumed upon its creation a few months later in January 1975. In August 2000, with another examination of this issue under way, the USNRC requested that the National Research Council form a committee to provide advice in a written report. The National Research Council established the Committee on Alternatives for Controlling the Release of Solid Materials from Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Facilities to address this task. The committee's task involved evaluating and providing recommendations on the history of the technical bases and policies and precedents for managing slightly radioactive solid material from USNRC-licensed facilities; the sufficiency of technical bases needed to establish standards for release of solid materials from regulatory control ("clearance standards") and the adequacy of measurement technologies; the concerns of stakeholders and how the USNRC should incorporate them; and the efforts of international organizations on clearance standards. The committee was also asked to examine the current system for release of slightly radioactive solid material from regulatory control, to recommend whether the USNRC should continue to use this system and to recommend changes if appropriate. The committee's fact-finding process included two site visits to waste brokering facilities and nearly 40 invited presentations from the USNRC, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and EPA staff; stakeholder organizations; nuclear industry organizations; and other interested parties. In conducting its study, the committee first examined the current system of standards, guidance, and practices used by the USNRC and agreement states to determine whether to release slightly radioactive solid material from further regulatory control under the Atomic Energy Act. The committee found that the current, workable system allows licensees to release material according to pre-established criteria but contains inconsistencies such that nuclear reactor licensees can release materials only if there is no detectable radioactivity (above background levels), whereas materials licensees can do so if small detectable levels are found. The committee evaluated technical analyses of the estimated doses of the final disposition of slightly radioactive solid materials. These analyses were conducted by federal agencies and international organizations, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the European Commission, and other groups. The Disposition Dilemma:Controlling the Release of Solid Materials from Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Facilities explains the committee's findings and recommendations.

"The book addresses a growing policy problem confronting all democratic nations. By exploring the lessons to be learned from international siting experiences, it will prove invaluable reading for academics, policymakers, government agencies, NGOs, and other societal interests involved in environmental and siting issues."--BOOK JACKET.

The origins of the current nuclear waste disposal crisis and directions for future policy

Experts from science, industry, and government discuss the unresolved scientific and technical issues surrounding the Yucca Mountain site as a geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste.

1 Facility Location Problems The location problem has been with humans for all of their history. In the past, many rulers had the decision of locating their capital. Reasons for selecting various locations included central location,transportation benefits to foster trade, and defensibility. The development of industry involved location problems for production facilities and trade outlets. Obvious th criteria for location ofbusiness facilities includedprofit impact. In the 19 century, there seemed to be a focus on the cost of transporting raw materials versus the cost of transporting goods to consumers. Location decisions were made considering all potential gains and expenses. Some judgment was required, because while most benefits and costs could be measured accurately, not all could be. Successful business practice depended on the soundjudgment of the decision-maker in solvinglocation problems. Each of these enterprises produced some wastes. Finding a location to dispose of these wastes was not a difficult task. In less-enlightened times, governments resorted to fiat and land-condemnationto take the sites needed th for disposal. In the 19 century, industry grew rapidly in Great Britain and elsewhere as mass production served expanding populations of consumers. The by-products of mass-production were often simply discarded in the most expeditious manner. There are still mountains in the United States Introduction 2 with artificial facades created from the excess material discarded from mining activity. We have developed the ability to create waste of lethal toxicity.

Democratic government is about making choices. Sometimes those choices involve the distribution of benefits. At other times they involve the imposition of some type of loss—a program cut, increased taxes, or new regulatory standards. Citizens will resist such impositions if they can, or will try to punish governments at election time. The dynamics of loss imposition are therefore a universal—if unpleasant—element of democratic governance. The Government Taketh Away examines the repercussions of unpopular government decisions in Canada and the United States, the two great democratic nations of North America. Pal, Weaver, and their contributors compare the capacities of the U.S. presidential system and the Canadian Westminster system to impose different types of losses: symbolic losses (gun control and abortion), geographically concentrated losses (military base closings and nuclear waste disposal), geographically dispersed losses (cuts to pensions and to health care), and losses imposed on business (telecommunications deregulation and tobacco control). Theory holds that Westminster-style systems should, all things being equal, have a comparative advantage in loss imposition because they concentrate power and authority, though this can make it easier to pin blame on politicians too. The empirical findings of the cases in this book paint a more complex picture. Westminster systems do appear to have some robust abilities to impose losses, and US institutions provide more opportunities for loss-avoiders to resist government policy in some sectors. But in most sectors, outcomes in the two countries are strikingly similar. The Government Taketh Away is essential for the scholar and students of public policy or comparative policy. It is also an important book for the average citizen who wants to know more about the complexities of living in a democratic society where the government can give-but how it can also, sometimes painfully, "taketh away."