The 30 countries in the world that generate electricity from 435 nuclear power reactor units face the need to manage the radioactive wastes that are generated from these units as well as the waste generated by non- utility users of nuclear materials. The United States is a large generator of radioactive waste with its 104 nuclear power reactors and thousands of radioactive material licensees. These countries, including the United States, contribute to and are guided by advice from international organizations on approaches to manage radioactive materials. The principal international organizations are IAEA and NEA. For example, countries may voluntarily use IAEA standards to demonstrate implementation of the obligations set forth in the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, which the United States has signed. According to IAEA, the Joint Convention recognizes and reinforces the internationally held view that radioactive waste management is an issue of national concern, but that the development, implementation, and maintenance of national programs for radioactive waste management must be carried out with due regard to internationally-endorsed criteria and standards. Moreover, for contracting parties to various international safety conventions, IAEA standards provide a consistent, reliable means of ensuring the effective fulfillment of their obligations. One example of these criteria and standards is the IAEA Code of Conduct for the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources. This code, which the United States has agreed to work toward implementing, is intended to guide countries in developing and harmonizing policies, laws, and regulations pertaining to sealed radiological sources. The code states, among other things, that the nuclear regulatory authority in each country should establish a national registry of radioactive sources to track the possession of these sources. At a minimum, the code recommends that the nuclear regulatory authority in each country include sources in categories 1 and 2 of the five source categories defined by IAEA. These two categories contain sources with the highest level of radioactivity. However, the code suggests that the nuclear regulatory authorities also give appropriate attention to sources in the other three categories, as they would pose health and security risks when aggregated in harmful quantities. IAEA has also put forth suggested guidance on a general system for classifying radioactive waste to facilitate communication and information exchange among countries. In general, U.S. class A, B, and most of class C waste would fall into IAEA’s category of short-lived low- and intermediate- level radioactive waste (lower-activity waste), and the remaining 25 percent of class C waste and all of GTCC waste would be within IAEA’s long-lived low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste category (higher- activity waste). IAEA acknowledges that spent or disused sealed radiological sources are not considered waste in certain countries, such as the United States, but considers that the safe management of such sources is achieved by compliance with the requirements for managing radioactive waste. Table 1 provides a description of the suggested IAEA radioactive waste classification scheme. exempt waste, (2) very short-lived waste, (3) very low-level waste, (4) low- level waste, (5) intermediate-level waste, and (6) high-level waste. The very low-level waste category might be considered the lower spectrum of class A waste, and include materials with very limited radioactivity, such as contaminated soil and rubble from decommissioned power plants. Finally, IAEA issued a Safety Standard guide in 2005 regarding the management of waste from the use of radioactive material in medicine, industry, agriculture, research and education. IAEA stated that a national strategy for the management of radioactive waste should be developed in accordance with the safety objectives and principles. A strategy is necessary in order to define the infrastructure and the means to be adopted for the management of radioactive waste. IAEA stated that a key element in the strategy is the extent to which national and regional waste management facilities are developed rather than managing the waste at a number of locations where it arises. Most countries we surveyed use comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory databases to assist in the management of LLRW. Thirteen countries indicated that their inventory databases typically contained information on all waste types—10 of which specifically inventoried very low-level radioactive waste—the storage of waste at generator sites, including disused sealed radiological sources, and all waste generator types in their countries. In addition, 15 countries indicated that they take steps to increase the reliability of the information collected by ensuring its completeness, accuracy, and timeliness. Almost all countries use these databases to track the location and quantities of radioactive waste to forecast future disposal capacity needs. Most of the U.S. LLRW stakeholder group representatives who responded to this issue generally supported the usefulness of developing comprehensive national LLRW inventory databases. The NRC chaired task force also commented on the need to evaluate including more source categories in the national source tracking system. Thirteen of the 18 countries are considered to have comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory databases that typically contain information on a wide range of waste types, locations of stored waste, waste generators, and the possession of sealed radiological sources. Almost all countries (17/18) indicated that their inventory databases include short-lived low- and intermediate-level waste as well as long-lived intermediate-level waste. In addition, 10 countries indicated that their inventories also include very low-level radioactive waste, 13 include long- lived low-level waste, and 14 include high-level waste. All 17 countries that have national radioactive waste inventory databases indicated that they capture waste data from all generators in their countries, which could include academic, government, industrial, medical, and nuclear reactor sources of LLRW. In regard to tracking the location of waste, 14 countries indicated that their radioactive waste inventory databases capture waste in storage at generator sites. For example, France indicated that its national radioactive waste inventory database records the types of radioactive waste located at all waste generator sites, central storage, and disposal sites. The countries in our survey also maintain national registries of sealed radiological sources, including those in use, storage or disuse. Most countries indicated in their survey responses that their national radiological source registries go beyond the minimum of category 1 and 2 suggested in the IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources. Fourteen of 18 countries indicated that their national source registries include all category 1, 2, and 3 sources, and nine of these countries also include category 4 and 5 sources. The nine countries with comprehensive source registries were Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Slovak Republic, and Switzerland. While the survey did not seek information on the number of sources in a country, the countries with comprehensive source registries include those that may have a relatively small number of sources to track, such as Denmark, to those countries that have much larger numbers to track, such as France and Japan. Figure 1 summarizes the comprehensiveness of the national radioactive waste inventory databases in the countries we surveyed. The countries in our survey try to increase the reliability of their radioactive waste inventory databases by taking steps to ensure that the information collected is complete, accurate, and timely. Almost all countries (15/18) indicated that they have at least one control in place to verify the completeness and accuracy of information in their national radioactive waste inventories. These controls include periodic inspections of the waste at generator sites, checking generator waste inventory data submissions against past and projected waste from the generator, and periodic audits of the waste inventory records maintained by the generator. For example, in the United Kingdom, the information provided by LLRW waste generators is reviewed and checked for consistency with previous inventory information and against similar types of waste. Moreover, independent assessments are undertaken to provide upper- bound estimates of total radioactivity of the waste at generator sites. The waste generators are also required to obtain a letter of compliance to package their waste before final waste processing. At the time the letter of compliance is issued, the waste data is reviewed, and if found insufficient, the waste generator may be subject to a further audit. Although almost all countries (17/18) have a national authority or waste management organization responsible for maintaining their national radioactive waste inventory databases, countries varied in how information is transmitted to the entity managing the inventory and the frequency of information submission. Currently, only 2 of the 18 countries require the submission of waste data through a secure website. The most common methods for data submission were use of e-mail, standard mail, fax, and by phone. Most of the countries (12/18) indicated that their national radioactive waste inventory databases receive data from waste generators annually or more frequently. Survey results indicated that inventory updates every 6 months or less are obtained from waste generators in Denmark, Mexico, Norway, Slovak Republic, Spain, and Switzerland. Figure 2 summarizes the approaches used in the countries surveyed to manage their national radioactive waste inventory databases. Sixteen of the 18 countries in our survey indicated that they use their national radioactive waste inventory databases to forecast waste volumes, plan for disposal capacity, and track the location of disused sealed radiological sources. Thirteen countries indicated that they publicize information from their national radioactive waste inventory databases on what is stored and disposed of to gain community acceptance for siting these facilities. Sixteen of the countries indicated that they keep records of the location and status and use of sources in their national source registries. Figure 3 shows the responses for each country. Most representatives of domestic LLRW stakeholder groups who responded in interviews to this issue (19/25) supported the need to establish a more comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory database in the United States. Over half of these representatives commented that such an inventory would allow LLRW stakeholders to forecast waste volumes and to plan for future disposal capacity requirements. However, some representatives felt that a more comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory database would not be necessary. For example, one representative argued that the cost- effectiveness of adding more reporting requirements to include the storage of class B and C waste might not be justified given the small quantities of this waste that are generated each year.