The case study presented in this document was carried out in the framework of the second work package (influence of local actors on national decision-making processes) of the European research project COWAM 2. The study aims at analysing the process of independent assessment of the research programme of the French National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (ANDRA), commissioned to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) by the Local Committee of Information and Monitoring (CLIS) associated to the underground research laboratory of Bure.

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.

Waste management operation began in France in 1969. Created in 1979 as an agency within the CEA, ANDRA was established by the December 1991 Waste Act as an independent public body in charge of the long-term management of all radioactive waste, under the supervision of the Ministries in charge of Energy, Ecology, and Research. Its 3 basic missions were extended and their funding secured through the 2006 Planning Act (www.andra.fr).

This case study was carried out in the framework of the second work package (influence of local actors on national decision-making processes) of the European research project COWAM 2. The study aims at identifying and analysing the strategies and influence mechanisms implemented by the local actors of Dunkirk in order to influence the process of elaboration of the 30th July Law on the prevention of natural and technological risks. This case study was carried out using, on the one hand, a desk study and, on the other hand, a participative methodology involving a working group.

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

In the year 2000, the geological disposal program for high-level radioactive waste in Japan moved from the phase of generic research and development (R&D) into the phase of implementation. Following legislation entitled the “Specified Radioactive Waste Final Disposal Act”, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO) was established as the implementing organization.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing technical criteria for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes (HLW] in geologic repositories, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The criteria address siting, design, and performance of a geologic repository, and the design and performance of the package which contains the waste within the geologic repository. Also included are criteria for monitoring and testing programs, performance confirmation, quality assurance, and personnel training and certification.

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.

This research brief presents the economic development associated with the laboratory for a deep geological repository for high activity radioactive waste situated in the municipality of Bure. It has been described in the framework of the first topic in the project COWAM In Practice (CIP), i.e. the sustainable territorial development associated with radioactive waste management.

A method is presented for determining the relative favorability<br/>of geologically complex areas for isolating high-level<br/>radioactive wastes. In applying the method to the northeastern region<br/>of the United States, seismieity and tectonic activity were the<br/>screening criteria used to divide the region into three areas of<br/>increasing seismotectonic risk. The following criteria, specified by<br/>the U.S.

Programs to manage and ultimately dispose of high-level radioactive wastes are unique from scientific and technological as well as socio-political aspects. From a scientific and technological perspective, high-level radioactive wastes remain potentially hazardous for geological time periods—many millennia—and scientific and technological programs must be put in place that result in a system that provides high confidence that the wastes will be isolated from the accessible environment for these many thousands of years.

This work was performed to suggest possible strategies for geoscientific classifications in the siting process of a high-level repository. To develop a feasible method for geoscientific classifications, a number of factors of a philosophical character, related to the purpose of the classifications, need to be accounted for. Many different approaches can be visualized, and this report was not intended to present a complete classification methodology.

Docket Number RW-RM-96-100, General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

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.

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.

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.

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.

This report examines the current policy, legal, and regulatory framework pertaining to used nuclear fuel and high level waste management in the United States. The goal is to identify potential changes that if made could add flexibility and possibly improve the chances of successfully implementing technical aspects of a nuclear waste policy. Experience suggests that the regulatory framework should be established prior to initiating future repository development.

On March 21, 2012, the Township of The North Shore expressed interest in learning more about the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) site selection process to find an informed and willing community to host a deep geological repository for Canada’s used nuclear fuel (NWMO, 2010). This report summarizes the findings of an initial screening, conducted by Geofirma Engineering Ltd., to evaluate the potential suitability of the Township of The North Shore against five screening criteria using readily-available information.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act), established a step-by-step process for the siting of the nation&#39;s first repository for high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel. The Act gave the Department of<br/>Energy (DOE) the primary responsibility for conducting this siting process.