Siting Experience Documents Only
Country
Keywords
Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning in Austria
Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning in Austria
WP 2 Appendix 10 Balance of Power: Principles and Good Practices for Local Stakeholders to Influence National Decision-making Processes
WP 2 Appendix 10 Balance of Power: Principles and Good Practices for Local Stakeholders to Influence National Decision-making Processes
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?
OECD/NEA: Austria
OECD/NEA: Austria
WP 5 Final Report: National Insights
WP 5 Final Report: National Insights
The objective of the National Insights was to develop as far as possible “a historical and strategic vision of the radioactive waste governance” for participants of a same country. While decision-making processes in radioactive waste management very often remain technically driven, there is a need to put forward and give substance to a more open and inclusive decision-making process. The notion of governance is often used to label this type of decision-making process.
WP 3 Quality of decision-making process Proposed Framework for Decision-making Processes
WP 3 Quality of decision-making process Proposed Framework for Decision-making Processes
The long-term governance of radioactive waste is complex socio-technical issue. The disposition of radioactive waste is decided on ethical grounds, having to take into account a variety of other dimensions (society, economy, ecology, politics, time, space, and technology). Thereto, a study of variants is required. Decision theory, in principle, takes diverse options as a starting point begin as the basis of a decision.
WP 2 Appendix 8 Mechanisms for Local Influence on National Decision Making Processes in Radioactive Waste Management
WP 2 Appendix 8 Mechanisms for Local Influence on National Decision Making Processes in Radioactive Waste Management
This document develops further the questions offered to stakeholders in the Berlin Meeting (see Appendix). It describes mechanisms that local stakeholders can use to influence national decision-making processes in radioactive waste management.
Guidance on the Selection of PTA Tools: For Stakeholders involved in Radioactive Waste Governance WP1
Guidance on the Selection of PTA Tools: For Stakeholders involved in Radioactive Waste Governance WP1
This research on "e;Guidance on the selection of PTA tools for stakeholders involved in radioactive waste governance"e; was performed under the umbrella of COWAM2-'Work Package 1' (WP1). Through a dialogue on enhancing involvement at a local level, WP1 allows local stakeholders to examine the issues they face in building a democratic local governance process. WP1 also tests how Participatory Technology Assessment (PTA) methods can offer a consensual framework and a platform for deliberative co-decision among scientific and societal actors at the local level.
WP 2 Appendix 9 Principles and Good Practices for Local Actors to Influence National Decision-Making Processes
WP 2 Appendix 9 Principles and Good Practices for Local Actors to Influence National Decision-Making Processes
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?
Tools for Local Stakeholders in Radioactive Waste Governance: Challenges and Benefits of Selected PTA Techniques WP1
Tools for Local Stakeholders in Radioactive Waste Governance: Challenges and Benefits of Selected PTA Techniques WP1
The investigation consists of three parts and shall provide an input to the – empirical – PTA-2 study to be undertaken by SCK•CEN (called “lens”):<br>A. Compilation of – selected – existing PTA methods and procedures identifying requisites, practices, benefits, and challenges to answer the key questions in the context of WP1 about a PTA “toolbox”: “What can you apply, when can you apply, and what is needed to apply?” The multi-dimensional context of a possible “PTA situation” is analysed; suitable and nonsuitable methods, techniques and procedures are discussed.<br>B.
Final Report: Influence of Local Actors on National Decision-making Processes WP2
Final Report: Influence of Local Actors on National Decision-making Processes WP2
Work Package 2 (WP2) focused on the ways in which local stakeholders can influence national decision-making processes on radioactive waste management (RWM). The participants in WP2 were particularly interested in examining how local stakeholders could contribute to national debates. Their interest stemmed from the fact that participants from France, Spain and the United Kingdom — who made up the majority of the WP2 group — were engaged, as stakeholders, in the decision-making processes that were under way in each of those countries.
WP 3 Quality of decision-making process Appendix: Synopsis of national decision-making processes
WP 3 Quality of decision-making process Appendix: Synopsis of national decision-making processes
Report on Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority's Activities in 2010
Report on Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority's Activities in 2010
In Hungary the use of atomic energy is governed by law (Act CXVI of 1996 on atomic energy, hereafter Atomic Act). In accordance with this Act, the control and supervision of the safety of applications is in the hand of the Government. The legal frame divides the basic regulatory tasks between the director-general of the Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority (HAEA) and the minister in charge of health.
Joint Convention Answers on Questions to Hungary in 2009
Joint Convention Answers on Questions to Hungary in 2009
Joint Convention Answers on Questions to Hungary in 2009
Joint Convention Questions Posted to Hungary 2006
Joint Convention Questions Posted to Hungary 2006
Joint Convention Questions Posted to Hungary in 2006
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Second Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties, 15 to 24 2006, Vienna, Austria, Summary Report
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Second Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties, 15 to 24 2006, Vienna, Austria, Summary Report
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 describing how such safe management could be achieved: 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.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Third Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties, 11 to 20 May 2009, Vienna, Austria, Summary Report
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Third Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties, 11 to 20 May 2009, Vienna, Austria, Summary Report
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.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Fourth Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties, 14 to 23 May 2012, Vienna, Austria, Final Summary Report
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Fourth Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties, 14 to 23 May 2012, Vienna, Austria, Final Summary Report
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.
LEARNING AND ADAPTING TO SOCIETAL REQUIREMENTS
LEARNING AND ADAPTING TO SOCIETAL REQUIREMENTS
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, First Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties 3 to 14 November 2003, Vienna, Austria, Summary Report
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, First Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties 3 to 14 November 2003, Vienna, Austria, Summary Report
1. The operation of nuclear reactors whether for the purposes of electricity production or research, generates spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Other activities also generate radioactive waste. The recognition by the international community of the importance of ensuring the safety of the management of spent fuel and the safety of the management of radioactive waste, led to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (Convention).
Reflections on Siting Approaches for Radioactive Waste Facilities: Synthesising Principles Based on International Learning
Geological Challenges in Radioactive Waste Isolation
Geological Challenges in Radioactive Waste Isolation
Over the past forty years, the development of the technology needed to isolate radioactive waste in underground rock systems has been found to be a formidable problem. This is especially the case in connection with high-level waste (HLW) after its removal from operations in nuclear power plants. There is also the additional problem of isolating low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW).
Geological Challenges in Radioactive Waste Isolation Third Worldwide Review
Geological Challenges in Radioactive Waste Isolation Third Worldwide Review
The first worldwide review of geological problems in radioactive waste isolation was published by the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) in 1991 (Witherspoon, 1991). This review was a compilation of reports that had been submitted to a workshop held in conjunction with the 28th International Geological Congress that took place July 9Ð19, 1989, in Washington, D.C.
10-year Record of Learning Factual List of Activities and Investigated Topics, and of People Who Contributed to Them
The Partnership Approach to Siting and Developing Radioactive Waste Management Facilities
The Partnership Approach to Siting and Developing Radioactive Waste Management Facilities
History shows that the search for sites for radioactive waste management facilities has been marred by conflicts and delays. Affected communities have often objected that their concerns and interests were not addressed. In response, institutions have progressively turned away from the traditional “decide, announce and defend” model, and are learning to “engage, interact and co-operate”. This shift has fostered the emergence of partnerships between the proponent of the facility and the potential host community, as shown in a recent NEA study.