This report is part of the research project International Socio-Technical Challenges for Implementing Geological Disposal: InSOTEC (see www.insotec.eu), funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme.<br/>This report is a contribution to Work Package 1 of the project, which aims to identify the most significant socio-technical challenges related to geological disposal of radioactive waste. To achieve this objective, a comparative analysis of 14 national programmes will be performed.

1. Recognizing the importance of the safe management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the international community agreed upon the necessity of adopting a convention with the objective of achieving and maintaining a high level of safety worldwide in spent fuel and radioactive waste management: this was the origin of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (the “Joint Convention”), which was adopted on 5 September 1997 and entered into force on 18 June 2001. 2.

On 8 December 1997 Belgium signed the Joint Convention. The Belgian legislator has expressed its consent with the obligations resulting from the Convention by the Law of 2 August 2002. The ratification followed on 5 September 2002. The Convention became effective on 4 December 2002, i.e. 90 days following ratification. Belgium belongs to the group of Contracting Parties having at least one operational nuclear power plant on their territory.

This is the Norwegian report to the fourth review meeting to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (Joint Convention) to be held at IAEA in Vienna, 14–23 May 2012. Norway signed the Joint Convention on 29 September 1997, the day it was opened for signature. The Joint Convention was ratified and deposited on 12 January 1998.

Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing debate about the proposed Yucca Mountain geologic waste repository in Nevada, the storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF)—also referred to as “high-level nuclear waste”—will continue to be needed and the issue will continue to be debated. The need for SNF storage, even after the first repository is opened, will continue for a few reasons. <br/>• The Obama Administration terminated work on the only planned permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, which was intended to provide a destination for most of the stored SNF.

On 29 December 2009, the Spanish government launched a site selection process to host a centralised interim storage facility for spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It was an unprecedented call for voluntarism among Spanish municipalities to site a controversial facility. Two nuclear municipalities, amongst a total of thirteen municipalities from five different regions, presented their candidatures to host the facility in their territories. For two years the government did not make a decision.

France isn’t only a country known for its cheese… it’s also a country of nuclear power. With its 58 nuclear reactors (63,000 megawatts), producing 79% of the country’s electricity, France is arguably the world’s leader in the production of nuclear energy. It is estimated that the relative contribution of nuclear energy to power production in France will decline to 70% in 2020 - the main reason for this being governmental investments into renewable energies.

This report describes the history, recent developments and the current situation of the management of highly radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in the Czech Republic, with a particular focus on the development of geological disposal for this kind of waste. Special attention is given to the interplay of social and technical aspects of the process. The first chapter gives an overview of the state of affairs and sketches out the trajectories leading to it.

This paper summarises the history of RWM in Hungary, with a special attention to changing decision making approaches, social conflicts, and socio-technical challenges. First the institutional background of RWM is outlined. Next, efforts to build facilities for the management of low- and intermediatelevel waste (L/ILRW) and high-level waste (HLW) are summarized. This is followed by the short description of remaining socio-technical challenges. Finally, changes in decision-making approaches and tools are analysed.