Risk and Decisions About Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Pages 1-12
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
DOE asked that the study explicitly address the following: · key elements of a risk-based approach; · criteria for risk assessment; · potential alternatives to geologic disposal for disposition of low hazard waste; · compatibility with current regulatory regimes; · knowledge and technology gaps for implementation; and · broader implications, if any, for disposition of other DOE wastes. Finally, the committee was asked to examine the application of recommended approaches to some DOE waste streams to assess the practical usefulness of these approaches.
|
From page 2... ...
Chapter 3 argues that the nation should continue to treat deep geologic disposal as the presumptive disposition method but should adopt a formal, well-structured process for deciding on disposal paths for special cases of HLW and TRU waste streams. Chapter 4 describes key elements and attributes of a risk-informed approach to decision making, including procedures and criteria for risk assessment.
|
From page 3... ...
Some of these wastes, then, may not warrant deep geologic disposal. Finding 3: The committee makes no recommendation whether specific wastes should be approved for alternative disposal, but it has identified three waste types that contain waste streams that merit consideration: (1)
|
From page 4... ...
The alternative to a reasoned, planned process is an ad hoc one, which could lead to inconsistent or poorly thought-out decisions that are not in the public interest. Finding 6: Human health risk is a good basis or starting point for considering whether a waste stream should be granted an exemption, but it is not a sufficient basis for deciding these questions.
|
From page 5... ...
risk analysis is a powerful, structured, well-developed way of considering human health effects, and its strengths and weaknesses are well established. This report focuses on human health risk because it is of concern for all of the waste streams and because it has traditionally been studied in risk analysis.
|
From page 6... ...
Finally, the committee notes that it is desirable, but not essential, for the sake of efficiency and consistent application, that the same agency be the exemption decision maker for both HLW and TRU waste. Recommendation 1: The nation should pursue a formal, wellstructured, risk-informed approach to decide which specific waste streams within the waste types enumerated in Finding 3, if any, should be disposed in some manner other than deep geologic disposal.
|
From page 7... ...
collect data and refine models; (4) prepare refined risk assessment; (5)
|
From page 8... ...
Finding 9: The biggest challenges to developing a meaningful riskinformed decision process, such as recommended herein, are minimizing disruption to existing laws, regulations, and agreements; creating buy-in to the approach; and enabling meaningful participation by participants who have few resources. Disrupting existing laws, regulations, and agreements (e.g., changing the rules to allow potentially unsafe practices to proceed without due process)
|
From page 9... ...
Finding 10: The DOE risk assessments and decision processes examined by the committee do not exhibit all of the characteristics of an effective and credible risk-informed decision-making process, listed in Finding 8. Other bodies have made similar recommendations on how DOE should incorporate risk into environmental decision making, and DOE has made progress, but institutional factors appear to have interfered and perhaps undermined attempts to implement these approaches.
|
From page 10... ...
It appears that institutional factors both inside and outside DOE have impeded attempts to implement risk-informed approaches. These factors include a tradition of internal rather than open decision making, incentive structures that favor distorting or ignoring risk, and a public wariness or mistrust of DOE's use of risk assessment to justify proposed actions.
|
From page 11... ...
Before implementing this recommendation, it would be useful to consider the extensive experience of a variety of federal agencies with outside advisory committees, including the committees' roles and effectiveness.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.