Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

3.44
A second issue involves the need for candor. Concern has been expressed that informa-
tion provided by the government and the nuclear industry concerning such events as the leaks
at the Hanford, Washington, site has not been timely or relevant. However, since the mid-
1950s there has been a large number of technical articles on nuclear power. Some take this
as evidence of candor, while others see the flood of articles as an attempt to confuse the
layman and increase reliance on the technical expert.
The President, in his February 12, 1980 message, noted that past governmental efforts
to manage radioactive wastes have neither been technically adequate, nor have they suffi-
ciently involved states, local governments and the public in policy and program decisions.
The message established a program with mechanisms for full participation of these groups and
continuous public review. The Department of Energy is fully committed to this program.
A third issue, public involvement, was a major topic at the Conference on Public Policy
Issues (NSF 1976). Panelists at this conference generally agreed with the position that any
person, group, or institution wanting to be involved in nuclear waste policy decisions has
that right. Conference participants also pointed out that public participation does not
guarantee sensible decisions nor an enhanced understanding of the issue. While general
agreement was that final decisions should rest with the Federal government, some urged very
strong public input on nuclear waste decisions via such mechanisms as state initiatives.
As stated above, the President's message has mandated full public participation in
waste management policy decisions. Prior to this message, the Department of Energy held
five public meetings in various regions of the country to seek public comment on the draft
of this Statement in addition to the usual written comments. As a result of this input,
this Final Statement has undergone extensive revision. Volume 3 of this Statement documents
the extent of this revision. Further, the Interagency Review Group (IRG) received extensive
public comment on their report dealing with nuclear waste management policy.
A fourth issue is that of uncertainty. Uncertainty pervades the technical and non-
technical discussion about nuclear waste. The major uncertainties relating to nuclear waste
involve: 1) effects of small doses of radiation received at low dose rates over a long
time, 2) uncertainty about the ability to isolate nuclear wastes from the biosphere, and
3) uncertainty about human fallibility and malevolence. Some react to the uncertainty with
caution and may urge a go-slow approach to waste isolation, while others feel that the
uncertainties are sufficiently low to proceed with a waste isolation and disposal program.
In its Statement of Position for the "Waste Confidence" Rulemaking (DOE-NE-0007) the
Department of Energy proposes a technically conservative approach to compensate for the
perceived uncertainties in the ability to predict natural phenomena over long periods of
time. The approach will utilize conservative design parameters, large margins for error,
and multiple engineered and natural barriers in a step-by-step approach to implementation
which will permit the capability of corrective action, should processes not operate as
expected.
A fifth issue is that of equity. Some feel that those who live near a waste repository
may be said to bear a greater risk in proportion to their benefit than do those remote from