Siting any nuclear waste facility is problematic in today's climate of distrust toward nuclear agencies and fear of nuclear waste. This study compares and contrasts the siting and public participation processes as two citizen task forces dealt with their difficult responsibilities. Though one dealt with a high level waste (Monitored Retrievable Storage - MRS) proposal in Tennessee in 1985-6 and the other with a proposed low level waste facility in Illinois (1988 and still ongoing), the needs of citizen decision makers were very similar.

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.

We, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are promulgating public health and safety standards for radioactive material stored or disposed of in the potential repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Section 801 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EnPA, Pub. L. 102Ð486) directs us to develop these standards. Section 801 of the EnPA also requires us to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study to provide findings and recommendations on reasonable standards for protection of the public health and safety.

This paper is a response to a request from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for CoRWM’s advice on the 2011 review of options for accelerating the geological disposal programme carried out by the Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (RWMD) of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).

First Meeting of National Research Council Committee for Yucca Mountain Peer Review: Surface Characteristics, Preclosure Hydrology, and Erosion

The following graphics were developed by NF Marin Constantin (INR) for presentation and discussion at the 2nd NSG meeting in Romania (January 2008). 1. DMP for LILW Repository in Romania - Main Phases 2. Romanian History of Nuclear Power - Main Facts and Decisions 3. Cernavoda Area DMP: Dialogue Planning Including CIP Actions 4. Hypothetical Nuclear Industry Formulation of the DMP Stakes and Issues 5. Hypothetical Public Formulation of the DMP Stakes and Issues 6. How to Improve the Public Contribution to the DMP? Proposal for NSG Discussion

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.

CoRWM’s remit is to provide independent scrutiny and advice to Government on the long-term management, including storage and disposal, of radioactive wastes and materials that may be declared to be wastes. This is the first of three reports to be produced in 2009 that describes the results of the Committee’s scrutiny work in 2008 and the first part of 2009 and provides advice to Government.

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.

The U.S.

We, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are proposing to revise certain of our public health and safety standards for radioactive material stored or disposed of in the potential repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Section 801(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EnPA, Pub. L. 102Ð 486) directed us to develop these standards. These standards (the 2001 standards) were originally promulgated on June 13, 2001 (66 FR 32074).

The purpose of this paper is to allow CoRWM to consider the range of issues concerning funding of a geological disposal facility (GDF) and of safe and secure interim storage, to note current developments and to identify issues that require further consideration or where CORWM should develop advice to Government.

In sum, we vacate 40 C.F.R. part 197 to the extent that it incorporates a 10,000-year compliance period because, contrary to EnPA section 801(a), that compliance period is not<br> &quot;based upon and consistent with &quot; the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. The remaining challenges to the EPA rule are without merit. We vacate the NRC rule insofar as it incorporates EPAÕs 10,000-year compliance period. In all other respects, we deny NevadaÕs petition for review challenging the NRC rule.

Utilities and ranking of the preclosure attributes of the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository are examined, in order to provide insights into the propriety of using this approach for this type of decision and an assessment of the adequacy of the analysis itself. The postclosure utilities obtained in the previous study were greater than 80% for all five sites considered, but showed a greater spread than those in the MUA. The preclosure multiattribute utilities also show a wider spread than in the MUA.

Our basic position is that the outcomes of policy-making in radioactive waste management (RWM) should be driven by the will of the people through democratic processes. Achieving this inclusiveness requires good practices to increase local influence on what is essentially a national policy process. However inclusiveness poses significant practical problems; can society afford lengthy and costly consultation processes, often perceived as inefficient and ineffective?

This paper is about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) &quot;Environmental Standards for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Wastes, &quot; 40 CFR 191. These standards regulate the disposal of radioactive wastes in geologic repositories.

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.

Plate NE-2B, Northeastern Region, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (Southeastern), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-3B, Northeastern Region, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (Southeastern), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-4B, Northeastern Region, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York (Southeastern), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NE-5B, Northeastern Region

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.

Enclosed is the State of Nevada s report on impacts of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program. This report is being provided pursuant to Section 114(a)(1)(H) and Section 116 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended.