This is one of three CoRWM reports to Government in 2009. The reports are about: <br><br>_ interim storage of higher activity wastes (including waste conditioning, packaging and transport, and the management of materials that may be declared to be wastes) <br>_ the implementation of geological disposal of higher activity wastes (this report) <br>_ research and development for interim storage and geological disposal. <br><br>The reports cover the three strands of the Government_s Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme.

This paper is a response to a request from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for CoRWM’s advice on the 2011 review of options for accelerating the geological disposal programme carried out by the Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (RWMD) of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).

The following graphics were developed by NF Marin Constantin (INR) for presentation and discussion at the 2nd NSG meeting in Romania (January 2008). 1. DMP for LILW Repository in Romania - Main Phases 2. Romanian History of Nuclear Power - Main Facts and Decisions 3. Cernavoda Area DMP: Dialogue Planning Including CIP Actions 4. Hypothetical Nuclear Industry Formulation of the DMP Stakes and Issues 5. Hypothetical Public Formulation of the DMP Stakes and Issues 6. How to Improve the Public Contribution to the DMP? Proposal for NSG Discussion

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management was asked by Government in 2003 to make recommendations for the long-term management of the UK’s higher activity wastes that would both protect the public and the environment, and inspire public confidence. To do this, we have combined a technical assessment of options with ethical considerations, examination of overseas experience and a wide-ranging programme of engagement both with the public and with interested parties (stakeholders). I am happy to present our recommendations in the pages that follow.

CoRWM’s remit is to provide independent scrutiny and advice to Government on the long-term management, including storage and disposal, of radioactive wastes and materials that may be declared to be wastes. This is the first of three reports to be produced in 2009 that describes the results of the Committee’s scrutiny work in 2008 and the first part of 2009 and provides advice to Government.

This is the seventh CoRWM Annual Report. It summarises the outcomes of CoRWM’s scrutiny and advice work during the year. It also contains the Committee’s views on the current status of arrangements and plans for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive wastes in the UK. All the Committee Members have contributed to this Report and I am grateful to Marion Hill and the Secretariat for all their hard work in compiling it.

This is the eighth CoRWM Annual Report. It summarises CoRWM’s scrutiny and advice for the financial year ending on 31 March 2012. It also contains the Committee’s views on the status of arrangements and plans for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive wastes in the UK at June 2012.

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has carried out an assessment of the generic Disposal System Safety Case (gDSSC) published by the Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (RWMD) of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) in February 2011. The assessment covered the whole suite of gDSSC documents, and related RWMD reports on research and development (R&D) and site characterisation.

The purpose of this paper is to allow CoRWM to consider the range of issues concerning funding of a geological disposal facility (GDF) and of safe and secure interim storage, to note current developments and to identify issues that require further consideration or where CORWM should develop advice to Government.

Our basic position is that the outcomes of policy-making in radioactive waste management (RWM) should be driven by the will of the people through democratic processes. Achieving this inclusiveness requires good practices to increase local influence on what is essentially a national policy process. However inclusiveness poses significant practical problems; can society afford lengthy and costly consultation processes, often perceived as inefficient and ineffective?

The problem of isolating radioactive wastes from the biosphere presents specialists in the fields of earth sciences with some of the most complicated problems they have ever encountered. This is especially true for high level waste (HLW) which must be isolated in the underground and away from the biosphere for thousands of years.

The activities of the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) were identified by WP2 stakeholders as of particular interest in the context of exploring the scope for local actors’ influence on a major national decision making process. Thus, they agreed to focus on this Committee as one of the case studies.

The long term management of radioactive waste creates site specific issues associated with storage and disposal facilities and the transportation of radioactive material. The resolution of these, sometimes controversial, issues requires an appreciation and accommodation of community issues and an essential element of these activities is an approach to defining the extent and composition of communities affected by radioactive waste management. <br><br>A community perspective can provide an insight into the relationship between a facility and people living in its vicinity.

The European project COWAM in Practice (CIP) was aimed to lead for three years (2007-2009) a process of monitoring, analyzing and evaluating the governance linked with radioactive waste management. This project, in cooperation with a research group and stakeholders, was conducted in parallel in 5 European countries (Spain, France, United Kingdom, Romania, Slovenia).

This document does not present the views of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management nor can it be taken to present the views of its author. It is a draft paper to inform Committee deliberations and both the author and the whole Committee may adopt different views and draw entirely different conclusions after further consideration and debate

This document does not present the views of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management nor can it be taken to present the views of its author. It is a draft paper to inform Committee deliberations and both the author and the whole Committee may adopt different views and draw entirely different conclusions after further consideration and debate

The focus of this case study is the concerns of two communities affected, albeit in different ways, by radioactive waste management and the decommissioning of nuclear installations. These are communities affected by the decisions of nuclear operators, regulators and national policy makers. As such they interact with these organisations and quite naturally they are concerned about their long-term sustainability.

The purpose of COWAM2 Work Package 4 (WP4) on &quote;long term governance&quote; was to identify, discuss and analyse the institutional, ethical, economic and legal considerations raised by long term radioactive waste storage or disposal on the three interrelated issues of: (i) responsibility and ownership of radioactive waste over long term, (ii) continuity of local dialogue between stakeholders and monitoring of radioactive waste management facilities, and (iii) compensation and sustainable development.

The Brief introduces the concept of ‘Community Benefit and Support Packages’ following requests from a number of National Stakeholder Groups (NSGs) for more information on this issue. During the development of the Brief presentations were made to NSG meetings in Romania (June 2009), Slovenia (October 2009) and the UK (September 2008, September 2009). Some information specific to the UK from the Brief was also presented in Spain (November 2008).

The investigation consists of three parts and shall provide an input to the – empirical – PTA-2 study to be undertaken by SCK•CEN (called “lens”):<br>A. Compilation of – selected – existing PTA methods and procedures identifying requisites, practices, benefits, and challenges to answer the key questions in the context of WP1 about a PTA “toolbox”: “What can you apply, when can you apply, and what is needed to apply?” The multi-dimensional context of a possible “PTA situation” is analysed; suitable and nonsuitable methods, techniques and procedures are discussed.<br>B.