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.

In sum, we vacate 40 C.F.R. part 197 to the extent that it incorporates a 10,000-year compliance period because, contrary to EnPA section 801(a), that compliance period is not<br> &quot;based upon and consistent with &quot; the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. The remaining challenges to the EPA rule are without merit. We vacate the NRC rule insofar as it incorporates EPAÕs 10,000-year compliance period. In all other respects, we deny NevadaÕs petition for review challenging the NRC rule.

Utilities and ranking of the preclosure attributes of the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository are examined, in order to provide insights into the propriety of using this approach for this type of decision and an assessment of the adequacy of the analysis itself. The postclosure utilities obtained in the previous study were greater than 80% for all five sites considered, but showed a greater spread than those in the MUA. The preclosure multiattribute utilities also show a wider spread than in the MUA.

Comments contained in this document were received by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on the Report of Early Site Suitability Evaluation (ESSE) of the Potential Repository Site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, (Younker et al., 1992, SAIC 91/8000). Comments were received from the U.S. Department of Interior, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the State of Nevada, and several local affected governments in Nevada. No comments were received from members of the public.

Enclosed is the State of Nevada s report on impacts of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program. This report is being provided pursuant to Section 114(a)(1)(H) and Section 116 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended.

Recommendation Group 7 worked on expertise, the site selection process and compensation

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?

This paper is about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) &quot;Environmental Standards for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Wastes, &quot; 40 CFR 191. These standards regulate the disposal of radioactive wastes in geologic repositories.

This book is the result of a collaboration that began over two years ago between researchers from the social sciences and Andra engineers and natural scientists. Contributions to the various chapters have been discussed and enhanced, especially during the workshop and the interdisciplinary conference both held by Andra in 2008 and 2009<br>respectively.

Plate NE-2B, Northeastern Region, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (Southeastern), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-3B, Northeastern Region, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (Southeastern), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-4B, Northeastern Region, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (Southeastern), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-5B, Northeastern Region

Comments contained in this document were received by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on the Report of Early Site Suitability Evaluation (ESSE) of the Potential Repository Site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, (Younker et al., 1992, SAIC 91/8000). Comments were received from the U.S. Department of Interior, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the State of Nevada, and several local affected governments in Nevada. No comments were received from members of the public.

EPA held a 90-day public comment period for the proposed radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain (August 27, 1999 through November 26, 1999). Sixty-nine (69) sets of written comments were submitted to EPAÕs Air Docket regarding the proposed standards, although some commenters submitted more than one set of written comments. In addition, the Agency received oral testimony on the proposed standards from 28 speakers during public hearings that were held in Washington, DC; Las Vegas, NV; Amargosa Valley, NV; and Kansas City, MO.

GNEP Presentation to 2008 ECA Annual Conference

This final rule incorporates compliance criteria applicable at different times for protection of individuals and in circumstances involving human intrusion into the repository. Compliance will be judged against a standard of 150 microsieverts per year (_Sv/yr) (15 millirem per year (mrem/yr)) committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) at times up to 10,000 years after disposal and against a standard of 1 millisievert per year (mSv/yr) (100 mrem/yr) CEDE at times after 10,000 years and up to 1 million years after disposal.

In RD&D-Programme 92, SKB presented a partially new strategy for its activities. The new strategy entailed a focusing and concentration on the implementation of deep disposal of a limited quantity (about 800 tonnes) of encapsulated spent nuclear fuel during the coming 20-year period. Following this initial deposition, the results of the work will be evaluated, and only then will a decision be taken as to how and when regular deposition of the main body of the fuel and other long-lived nuclear waste will take place.

This appendix responds to the issues raised by Federal, State, and local governments, affected Indian Tribes, private citizens, and other organizations on the draft environmental assessment (EA) that was prepared pursuant to Section 112 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act). In addition to presenting the issues raised in the comments and the responses, it describes where changes were made in the final EA.

These guidelines were developed in accordance with the requirements of Section 112(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 for use by the Secretary of Energy in evaluating the suitability of sites. The guidelines will be used for suitability evaluations and determinations made pursuant to Section 112(b). The guidelines set forth in this part are intended to complement the requirements set forth in the Act, 10 CFR part 60, and 40 CFR part 191. The DOE recognizes NRC jurisdiction for the resolution of differences between the guidelines and 10 CFR part 60.