Czech Waste Management Annual Report
CIP (Community Waste Management In Practice) is a research action gathering a wide spectrum of stakeholders from five European countries, interested in how society should manage the radioactive wastes that result from nuclear power production and/or from medical, military or industrial applications.
The purpose of COWAM2 Work Package 4 (WP4) on "e;long term governance"e; 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.
Work Package 2 (WP2) focused on the ways in which local stakeholders can influence national decision-making processes on radioactive waste management (RWM). The participants in WP2 were particularly interested in examining how local stakeholders could contribute to national debates. Their interest stemmed from the fact that participants from France, Spain and the United Kingdom — who made up the majority of the WP2 group — were engaged, as stakeholders, in the decision-making processes that were under way in each of those countries.
After more than 20 years of carefully planned and reviewed scientific field work by the<br/>U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and numerous other<br/>organizations, Secretary of Energy Abraham concluded in January that the Yucca<br/>Mountain site is suitable, within the meaning of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, for<br/>development as a permanent nuclear waste and spent fuel repository.
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.
In February 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified a<br/>location in Deaf Smith County, Texas, as one of nine potentially acceptable<br/>sites for a mined geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level<br/>radioactive waste. The potentially acceptable site was subsequently narrowed<br/>to an area of 9 square miles.
OCRWM Bulletin (DOE/RW-0130) - DOE Sends Proposal to Congress for Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility in Tennessee
The Monitored Retrievable Storage Review Commission herewith submits its<br/>final report as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987,<br/>Public Law 100-203, as amended by Public Law 100-507.<br/>The Congress created the Commission to provide a report on the need for a<br/>Federal monitored retrievable storage facility (MRS) as part of the Nation's<br/>nuclear waste management system. In essence, Congress asked the Commission to<br/>review the U.S.
1. The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management was adopted on 5 September 1997 by a Diplomatic Conference convened by the International Atomic Energy Agency at its headquarters from 1 to 5 September 1997. The Joint Convention was opened for signature at Vienna on 29 September 1997 during the forty-first session of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency and will remain open for signature until its entry into force. 2.
Report to the President from the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management (IRG) established last March at the direction of the President. In October a draft report was offered for public review, and extensive comments were received. This final report presents the findings, policy considerations, and recommendations reached by the IRG as of this date.
This report reviews those facts and issues that affect the direct disposal of spent reactor fuels. It is intended as a resource document for those impacted by the current Department of Energy (DOE) guidance that calls for the cessation of fuel reprocessing. It is not intended as a study of the specific impacts (schedules and costs) to the Savannah River Site (SRS) alone. Commercial fuels, other low enriched fuels, highly enriched defense-production, research, and naval reactor fuels are included in this survey, except as prevented by rules on classification.
Despite in Romania nuclear research activities were started in early 50s, the nuclear power is very young. First NPP, Cernavoda Unit 1, about 600 MWe, was in operation since 1996. Next unit (Cernavoda Unit2) will be in operation at the end of 2007. Therefore, a relative low amount of high level waste was produced. However, some problems already exists in Romania, mainly related to historical radioactive wastes released by nuclear industry and research.
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).
The first worldwide review of geological problems in radioactive waste isolation was published by the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) in 1991 (Witherspoon, 1991). This review was a compilation of reports that had been submitted to a workshop held in conjunction with the 28th International Geological Congress that took place July 9Ð19, 1989, in Washington, D.C.
History shows that the search for sites for radioactive waste management facilities has been marred by conflicts and delays. Affected communities have often objected that their concerns and interests were not addressed. In response, institutions have progressively turned away from the traditional “decide, announce and defend” model, and are learning to “engage, interact and co-operate”. This shift has fostered the emergence of partnerships between the proponent of the facility and the potential host community, as shown in a recent NEA study.
This report was written within the EU-project InSOTEC (www.insotec.eu) which aims to generate a better understanding of the complex interplay between the technical and the social in radioactive waste management and, in particular, in the design and implementation of geological disposal. In a first step 13 countries have been analysed in order to identify prevailing socio-technical challenges.
