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).

The creation of high-activity, long-lived radioactive waste is an inevitable consequence of generating electricity in nuclear power plants. It also is an inevitable consequence of engaging in a set of activities associated with national defense, ranging from propelling nuclear submarines to producing the fissionable materials needed to construct nuclear weapons. Early in the nuclear era, the very-longterm management and the ultimate disposition of those wastes was not a high priority.

Based on the review of experiences in SEA and EIA in the Czech Republic summarized in Deliverable No.3 and the testing of novel participatory and dialogue approaches summarized in Deliverables No.7, 11 and 12 in this report a model for the siting process specifically in the Czech Republic, that takes into account the need for transparency and interaction with the public, within the framework of legal requirements is outlined. Lessons learnt are summarised and a road map specified.

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 Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is responsible for implementing Adaptive Phased Management (APM), Canada’s plan for the long-term care of the used nuclear fuel produced by Canada’s nuclear reactors.

The Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (ENSI) is the regulatory authority for nuclear safety and security of the nuclear installations in Switzerland. ENSI issues guidelines either in its capacity as regulatory authority or based on a mandate in an ordinance. Guidelines are support documents that formalise the implementation of legal requirements and facilitate uniformity of implementation practices. They further concretise the state-of-the-art in science and technology.

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.

In 2001, as directed by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued public health and environmental radiation protection standards for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Several parties sued the Agency on a myriad of aspects of the rule. The Court ruled in EPA’s favor in all aspects of the case but one, and returned the standards to the Agency in 2004. In 2005, EPA proposed amendments to the standards. Following public hearings and a public review period, the final amendments were issued in September 2008.

Congress designated Yucca Mountain, NV, as the nation’s sole candidate site for a permanent high-level nuclear waste repository in 1987, following years of controversy over the site-selection process. Over the strenuous objections of the State of Nevada, the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository in June 2008 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

This paper is a first consideration of the MRWS White Paper on the framework for geological disposal. It is based primarily on discussions in Working Group D on July 21 2008 but also draws on CoRWM’s informal comments on the draft White Paper, on CoRWM’s recommendations as reported in 2006 and on an overview of the responses to the consultation that preceded the White Paper. There have been few opportunities, as yet, to discuss the White Paper through the CoRWM PSE process.