An Act to make provision in relation to the selection of a site for, and the establishment and operation of, a radioactive waste management facility, and for related purposes

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed by the Secretary of Energy at the request of the President to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new strategy

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).

Dealing with the problems posed by nuclear waste management is a major issue confronting continued use of the nuclear fuel cycle. Large amounts of radioactive wastes have already been generated as a result of past nuclear reactor operations, but these wastes are being temporarily kept in aboveground storage facilities awaiting a government policy decision on final disposition. Although research on various technologies to dispose of radioactive wastes is given high priority, a commercial waste disposal facility is not expected to be in operation before 1985.

The disposal and siting of hazardous and radioactive wastes has created numerous problems for decision-makers in the field of waste management. The social/political problems have proven to be some of the most difficult to solve. Public knowledge of the presence of hazardous and radioactive waste sites has grown considerably in recent years. Over the same period, the process of choosing new disposal sites has attracted a great deal of publicity.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing licensing criteria for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes in the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. As mandated by law, this final rule changes the CommissionÕs technical requirements and criteria, as necessary, to be consistent with final environmental standards for Yucca Mountain issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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.

Plate NE-1A, Northeastern Region, Maine, New Hampshire, New York (Northeastern), Vermont, Index Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-2A, Northeastern Region, Maine, New Hampshire, New York (Northeastern), Vermont, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project, Plate NE-3A, Northeastern Region, Maine, New Hampshire, New York (Northeastern), Vermont, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-4A, Northeastern Region, Maine, New Hampshire, New York (Northeastern), Vermont, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project, Plate NE-5

Explanation of Radioactivity and Radioactive waste

Summary of Comments for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future by Professor Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, University of Oklahoma

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 NC-1A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Index Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-2A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-3A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-4A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-5A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Phase B, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-6A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Transportation Network Map, Cr

The focus of this case study is the concerns of two communities affected, albeit in different ways, by radioactive waste management and the decommissioning of nuclear installations. These are communities affected by the decisions of nuclear operators, regulators and national policy makers. As such they interact with these organisations and quite naturally they are concerned about their long-term sustainability.