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

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.

A letter of support from Eddy County,  NM to Secretary Moniz in regards to an interim storage facility

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.

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

Plate SE-1A Southeastern Region, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Index Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-2A, Southeastern Region, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-3A, Southeastern Region, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-4A, Southeastern Region, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-5A, Southeastern Region, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Phase B, Summary Comp

Plate SE-1B, Southeastern Region, Georgia, South Carolina, Index Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-2B, Southeastern Region, Georgia, South Carolina, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-3B, Southeastern Region, Georgia, South Carolina, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-4B, Southeastern Region, Georgia, South Carolina, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-5B, Southeastern Region, Georgia, South Carolina, Phase B, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate SE-6B

The destructive examination results of five light water reactor rods from the Turkey Point Unit 3 reactor are presented. The examinations included fission gas collection and analyses, burnup and hydrogen analyses, and a metallographic evaluation of the fuel, cladding, oxide, and hydrides. The rods exhibited a low fission gas release with all other results appearing representative for pressurized water reactor fuel rods with similar burnups (28 GWd/MTU) and operating histories.

This report describes the characterization plan, methods, and results for light water reactor (LWR) Materials Characterization Center (MCC) spent fuel Approved Testing Material (ATM)-101. ATM-101 is spent fuel from H. B. Robinson, Unit 2, Assembly B0-5, a moderate-burnup, pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel that released very small quantities of fission products and fission gas from the fuel during commercial operation.

This Draft Area Recommendation Report for the Crystalline Repository Project identifies portions of crystalline rock bodies as proposed potentially acceptable sites for consideration in the second high-level radioactive waste repository program. <br>The U.S.

This Draft Area Recommendation Report for the Crystalline Repository Project identifies portions of crystalline rock bodies as proposed potentially acceptable sites for consideration in the second high-level radioactive waste repository program. <br>The U.S.

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 Law of 30 December 1991 Loi n¯ 91-1381 du 30 dÇcembre 1991 relative aux recherches sur la gestion des dÇchets radioactifs. conferred on Andra the task of assessing the feasibility of a high-level, long-lived waste (HLLL waste) repository in a deep geological formation. This volume of the Dossier 2005 Argile reports on the results of the study from the standpoint of the architecture and management of such a repository. It is based on the characteristics of the clay formation studied in an underground research laboratory located in the Meuse and Haute-Marne departments.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America_s Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed by the Secretary<br>of Energy at the request of the President to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for<br>managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new strategy. It was cochaired<br>by Rep. Lee H. Hamilton and Gen. Brent Scowcroft. Other Commissioners are Mr.<br>Mark H. Ayers, the Hon. Vicky A. Bailey, Dr. Albert Carnesale, Sen. Pete Domenici, Ms. Susan<br>Eisenhower, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Mr. Jonathan Lash, Dr. Allison M. Macfarlane, Dr.