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 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.

Index of Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Hanford Site

In February 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified a reference repository location at the Hanford Site in Washington as one of the nine potentially acceptable sites for a mined geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The site is in the Columbia Plateau, which is one of five distinct geohydrologic settings considered for the first repository.

In February 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified a reference repository location at the Hanford Site in Washington as one of the nine potentially acceptable sites for a mined geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The site is in the Columbia Plateau, which is one of five distinct geohydrologic settings considered for the first repository.

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.

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

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.

Deep geologic repositories are being widely studied as the most favored method of disposal of nuclear waste. Scientists search for repository sites in salt, basalt, tuff and granite that are geologically and hydrologically suitable. The systematic evaluation of the safety and reliability of deep geologic disposal centers around the concept of interacting multiple barriers. The simplest element to describe of the geologic barrier is the physical isolation of the waste in a remote region at some depth within the rock unit.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has amended the policies under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 for evaluating the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a site for development of a nuclear waste repository. The final rule at Title 10, Part 963 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 963) focuses on the criteria and methodology to be used for evaluating relevant geological and other related aspects of the Yucca Mountain site.

Over the past forty years, the development of the technology needed to isolate radioactive waste in underground rock systems has been found to be a formidable problem. This is especially the case in connection with high-level waste (HLW) after its removal from operations in nuclear power plants. There is also the additional problem of isolating low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW).

Isolation in a geologic setting has been the generally favored solution to the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) problem since a scientific basis for nuclear waste management began to be formulated over half a century ago. Although general features of suitable settings have been enumerated, quantitative measures of the safety of geologic isolation of HLW are challenging to devise and to implement.