[en] This report discusses public acceptance of radioactive waste facilities and what seems to be increasingly militant stances against such facilities. The role of risk assessment in possibly enhancing public acceptance is investigated

[en] In spite of millions of dollars and countless human resources being expended on finding nuclear wastes sites, the search has proved extremely difficult for the nuclear industry. This may be due to the approach followed, rather than inadequacies in research or funding. A new approach to the problem, the reverse Dutch auction, is suggested. It retains some of the useful elements of the present system, but it also adds new ones

No abstract available

[en] The discussion of risk analysis is divided into three parts: (a) a brief discussion of the methodology which can be used, (b) a listing of some of the major assumptions, and (c) the results of a comparison of eleven energy systems. The energy systems considered here can be divided into two groups: conventional, i.e., those in fairly widespread use, like coal or nuclear, and non-conventional, i.e., all others, like solar and wind. In general, although some of these non-conventional systems have been described as risk-free, they are not. In fact, compared to some conventional systems like natural gas and nuclear, technologies like solar and windpower have relatively high risk. The reason is simple. Because of the dilute nature of the energy they handle, solar and wind systems, when compared on the quantity of their energy production, require a considerable amount of apparatus as compared to other systems. In turn, this apparatus requires a large amount of material and construction labor to build and install. Associated with each ton of material and hour of labor is a definite number of accidents, diseases and deaths, according to labor statistics. When the risk is summed up in this way, we find that non-conventional systems generally have high risk. In particular, to answer the question posed in the title of this talk, solar energy seems to have a higher risk than nuclear power, when the methodology outlined below is used

[en] Over the past decades, attempts to site new low-level and high-level radioactive wastes (LLRW and HLRW) have been almost universally frustrated. The twin goals of finding a volunteer site and, at the same time, retaining environmental and safety standards and specifications can be achieved by using a reverse Dutch auction (RDA). This apparently is the only extant system that allows these two aims to be achieved simultaneously. The RDA adds an economic dimension to the already existent risk factors. At the same time, it is not a bribe, since any payments made will be public. A bribe is performed in secret and to attain an illegal purpose. The RDA has neither feature. In a standard (or English) auction, the price rises, and these are multiple bids. In a Dutch auction, the price drops, and there is only one bid. Since an RDA deals with a facility generally regarded as undesirable, its price rises, but there is still only one bid. The RDA would work as follows. A list of environmental criteria would be circulated to all counties at the start of the process. In this discussion, it is assumed that a state is attempting to site LLRW, but the principle is also applicable to interstate compacts or HLRW. These criteria should remain fixed. Past siting proposals have often seen the alteration - or attempted alteration - of criteria in mid-stream, leading to loss of confidence in the system's scientific credibility. These alternatives have often had the purpose of excluding or including certain regions

[en] US Department of Energy (DOE) expenditures on radiological risks are much higher (by a factor of approximately5000) than expenditures on nonradiological risks, such as accidents. This paper explains the calculation. Other studies have discussed DOE-generated risks and expenditures. However, they were general and did not directly relate expenditures to total risks of a DOE site. To determine cost-effectiveness of risk reduction, an estimate of the total risks of a specific DOE site or sites is required. While there are hundreds of DOE documents dealing wholly or in part with risks, there apparently is no such study. This is the first such paper, dealing with the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The NTS was the scene of hundreds of nuclear weapons tests over four decades, both above- and underground

[en] A prime goal of this conference is to suggest future reactor types that would produce greater public acceptability. Presumably the wastes generated by these cycles would, because of lesser amounts or activities, engender fewer disputes over policy than in the past. However, the world-wide arguments over low-level wastes (LLW) suggest this intent is not likely to be achieved. While the activity of these wastes is a tiny fraction of high-level wastes (HLW), the controversies over the former, in Korea, the US and elsewhere, have been as great as for the latter. There is no linear relationship between activity and political desirability. What is needed is a new approach to disposing of and siting all nuclear wastes: LLW, mixed and HLW

No abstract available

No abstract available

[en] The risks associated with different energy systems are calculated and compared. It is found that when the entire cycle is considered energy systems such as solar or wind are calculated to have some risk. Of the eleven systems considered, coal and oil are shown to have the highest total risk, due to air pollution effects. Natural-gas-fired electricity and nuclear have the lowest. At least one form of energy conservation appears to have relatively high risk per unit of energy saved. (U.K.)