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.

This paper explores the relationship between the national environmental movement and nuclear technology in relation to a local emergent group. The historical development of nuclear technology in this country has followed a path leading to continued fear and mistrust of waste management by a portion of the population. At the forefront of opposition to nuclear technology are people and groups endorsing environmental values.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Explanation of Radioactivity and Radioactive waste

Site suitability studies at LLL to date have considered repositories in bedded salt and shale.

This report provides - a detailed description of the Austrian policy and the usual practices concerning the management of spent fuel of the Austrian research reactors and the management of radioactive waste (see Section B); - a detailed description of the Austrian legal regime concerning the management of spent fuel of the Austrian research reactors and the management of radioactive waste (see Section E).

Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Answers to Questions Posted by the Contracting Parties on the Argentina Second National Report

. On 25 March 1999 the Government of the Czech Republic approved the Joint Convention which came into effect in the Czech Republic on 18 June 2001. In agreement with the obligations resulting from its accession to the Joint Convention the Czech Republic has already drawn the second National Report for the purposes of Review Meetings of the Contracting Parties, which describes the system of spent fuel and radioactive waste management in the scope required by selected articles of the Joint Convention.

The United States of America ratified the “Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management” (Joint Convention) on April 9, 2003. The Joint Convention establishes an international peer review process among Contracting Parties and provides incentives for nations to take appropriate steps to bring their nuclear activities into compliance with general safety standards and practices. This first Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties under the Joint Convention is scheduled to take place in November 2003 in Vienna, Austria.

Finland signed the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management on 2 October 1997 and deposited the tools of acceptance on 10 February 2000. The Convention entered into force on 18 June 2001. The major generators of radioactive waste in Finland are the two nuclear power plants, the Loviisa and Olkiluoto plants. The Loviisa plant has two PWR units, operated by Fortum Power and Heat Oy, and the Olkiluoto plant two BWR units, operated by Teollisuuden Voima Oy.

On 8 December 1997 Belgium has signed the Joint Convention. The Belgian legislator has expressed its consent with the obligations resulting from the Convention via the Law of 2 August 2002. The ratification was obtained on 5 September 2002. The Convention became effective on 4 December 2002, or 90 days after the Ratification Act had been deposited. Belgium belongs to the group of Contracting Parties having at least one operational nuclear generating unit on their territory.