Nuclear Waste Management Policy & Strategy

CRESP develops and demonstrates the appropriate use of methodologies for advancing and communicating comparative life-cycle risk, benefit to human health and ecological resources and cost assessment for risk-informed selection of different environmental restoration and nuclear waste management options. To do this, the Consortium:

  • Evaluates and provides comparative insights, analysis and best practices at former defense nuclear production sites;
  • Examines siting choices by analyzing existing or evolving technologies needed for each type of nuclear waste management facility; and
  • Assesses the evolving technical approaches to future fuel cycles, emphasizing the external technical, environmental, economic, social and policy considerations associated with implementation of nuclear waste facilities.

Lead Researchers

David Kosson, Vanderbilt University
Joanna Burger, Rutgers University
Michael Gochfeld, Rutgers University
Henry J. Mayer, Rutgers University
Jennifer Salisbury, Vanderbilt University
Jane B. Stewart, New York University
Richard B. Stewart, New York University

EM Sites Impacted

  • EM Complex-wide
  • Hanford
  • Oak Ridge Reservation
  • Energy Technology Engineering Center
  • Savannah River

Current Project Areas

Support for DOE-Environmental Management Regulatory Integration Initiatives

Objective 
To enhance EM’s ability to target limited resources by providing legal, regulatory, and policy research and analysis on identified policy and regulatory initiatives. DOE-Environmental Management’s (EM) cleanup work is governed by a complex set of federal and state environmental laws and their implementing regulations, policies, and guidance. Successfully performing this work in a timely and cost-effective manner is predicated on the predictable and consistent application of this legal framework.

Anticipated project activities include: (1) land use designations and risk assessment; (2) groundwater remediation; and (3) impacts of revisions to the classification basis for high level waste.

Recent Project Outcomes/Results

  • The Omnibus Report found significant obstacles to achieving more efficient, less costly, more risk-based use of limited DOE cleanup resources at EM legacy waste sites. See complete report http://www.cresp.org/reviews-reports/omnibus/
  • Greenberg, M, Apostolakis, G, Field, T, Goldstein, B, Kosson, D, Krahn, S, Matthews, R, Rispoli, J, Stewart, J & Stewart, R 2019, ‘Advancing Risk-Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis’, Risk Analysis, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 375-388. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13135

EM Sites Impacted

  • EM Complex-wide
  • Hanford
  • Oak Ridge Reservation
  • Energy Technology Engineering Center
  • Savannah River

All Publications: Nuclear Waste Management Policy & Strategy, 2006-2019 (pdf)

Highlighted Publications & Reports

CRESP Nuclear Waste Management Policy & Strategy

Mayer, H, Greenberg, M & Lowrie, K 2019, DOE-EM Mission, Metrics and Communications: Initial CRESP Report, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.

Greenberg, M, Apostolakis, G, Field, T, Goldstein, B, Kosson, D, Krahn, S, Matthews, R, Rispoli, J, Stewart, J & Stewart, R 2019, ‘Advancing Risk-Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis’, Risk Analysis, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 375-388. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13135

Burger, J, Kosson, D, Powers, C & Gochfeld, M 2018, ‘An Information Template for Evaluating the Relative Priority of Remediation Projects that Pose a Risk to Receptors – 18674’, WM’2018, WM Symposia, Phoenix, Arizona. http://toc.proceedings.com/40439webtoc.pdf

Greenberg, M & Schneider, D 2017, Urban Planning and Public Health, First edn, American Public Health Association. https://doi.org/10.2105/9780875532905

Greenberg, M, Mayer, H, Powers, C & D, K 2017, ‘Nuclear Waste Management and Nuclear Power: A Tale of Two Essential United States Department of Energy Sites in Idaho and New Mexico’, in Nuclear Portraits: Communities, the Environment, and Public Policy, First edn, University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, Toronto, Canada, pp. 217-237. https://www.springer.com/us/book/9781447142300

Greenberg, M, Coon, M, Campo, M & Whytlaw, J 2017, Finding Locations for Endurably Objectionable Energy-Related Facilities: The CLAMP Policy, Charter 15, in The Routledge Research Companion to Energy Geographies, vol. 6, Taylor and Francis, p. 386

Omnibus Risk Review Committee & Greenberg, M, Chair 2015, A Review of the Use of Risk-Informed Management in the Cleanup Program for Former Defense Nuclear Sites, prepared for US Snate Committee on Appropriations and the US HOuse of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Vanderbilt Unviersity, Nashville TN. http://www.cresp.org/reviews-reports/omnibus/

Gochfield, M, Burger, J, Powers, C & Kosson, D 2015, ‘Land-use Planning Scenarios for Contaminated Land: Comparing EPA, State, and Tribal Scenarios – 15642’, WM ‘2015, WM Symposia, Phoenix, Arizona. http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2015/papers/15642.pdf

Gochfeld, M, Burger, J, Powers, C & Kosson, D 2015, ‘Land use planning scenarios for contaminated land: Comparing EPA, State, Federal, and Tribal Approaches’, WM ‘2015, WM Symposia, Phoenix, Arizona. http://archive.wmsym.org/2015/papers/15642.pdf

Burger, J, Gochfeld, M, Powers, C, Brown, K & Clarke, J 2015, ‘Using Salmon as a Bioindicator of the Health of the Columbia River at Hanford – 15534’, WM ‘2015, WM Symposia, Phoenix, AZ. http://wmsym.org/archives/2015/papers/15534.pdf

  • News & Updates Categories
  • Monthly Archives
  • Projects

    -->