Although recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission, there has been only limited discussion of the structure, characteristics, and funding of such a new organization. The committee identified two very different topics that should be addressed: i.) The structure or anatomy of the organization; ii.) The behavior or physiology of the organization. The second is seldom discussed, but the issues are critical to success (e.g., the values of such an organization; how it learns and how it interacts and communicates within its political and technical sphere and still maintains credible constructive interactions with the affected public). This was the subject of the meeting in September 2015.

Although the Blue Ribbon Commission and, recently, the DOE have referred to the need for a consent-based process, there is little discussion of what this means and how such a process might be designed. A consent-based process requires the blending of social and technical criteria in the selection, characterization and development of a geologic repository, but there has been no effort to design a technically based, legal process that is compatible with the needs of a community, tribes, the states and the federal government. Simple questions remain unanswered, such as: What constitutes consent? How does a community or state give informed consent? When and how can a community withdraw consent? Can a consent-based siting process succeed in the United States? This was the subject of a meeting on March 9 - 10, 2016. 

The value of a “total system analysis,” from the point of waste generation to its final disposal, is generally recognized. However, such an evaluation has not been carried out in terms of the analysis of risk, the development of incentives, or the development of a consistent regulatory framework. In fact, there are many disconnects in the U.S. approach. For example, the nuclear utilities can make locally rational decisions about the storage of their spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that have the effect of complicating its final disposal. This was the subject of a meeting on May 17-18, 2016.

The present regulatory framework for a geologic repository in the U.S., unlike other nations, requires the quantitative calculation of risk out to hundreds of thousands of years. Is such an approach necessary or even possible? Does such an approach instill public confidence or skepticism? What are the alternative approaches adopted abroad? The revision of the regulations and standards may open the way to a more straightforward siting process for nuclear facilities and generate greater public acceptance. These questions were the subject of a meeting on October 26-27, 2016.

It has been common to focus on very long-term risk, but the steering committee determined that in order to develop a compelling case for a new U.S. policy, it was necessary to understand the risks of continued delay of the U.S. waste program. Absent from present discussions is a clear understanding of the risks over the next several hundreds of years. These are the risks that are of greatest interest to the affected public.

Back to home page