Siting Experience Documents Only
Country
Keywords
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?
National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, No. 29, 2012
National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, No. 29, 2012
An Act to make provision in relation to the selection of a site for, and the establishment and operation of, a radioactive waste management facility, and for related purposes
Geological Problems in Radioactive Waste Isolation A WORLD WIDE REVIEW
Geological Problems in Radioactive Waste Isolation A WORLD WIDE REVIEW
The problem of isolating radioactive wastes from the biosphere presents specialists in the fields of earth sciences with some of the most complicated problems they have ever encountered. This is especially true for high level waste (HLW) which must be isolated in the underground and away from the biosphere for thousands of years.
LONG TERM GOVERNANCE FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNEX OF THE FINAL REPORT OF COWAM2 - WORK PACKAGE 4
LONG TERM GOVERNANCE FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNEX OF THE FINAL REPORT OF COWAM2 - WORK PACKAGE 4
The purpose of COWAM2 Work Package 4 (WP4) on "e;long term governance"e; was to identify, discuss and analyse the institutional, ethical, economic and legal considerations raised by long term radioactive waste storage or disposal on the three interrelated issues of: (i) responsibility and ownership of radioactive waste over long term, (ii) continuity of local dialogue between stakeholders and monitoring of radioactive waste management facilities, and (iii) compensation and sustainable development.
Long Term Governance for Radioactive Waste Management WP4
Long Term Governance for Radioactive Waste Management WP4
The purpose of COWAM2 Work Package 4 (WP4) on "e;long term governance"e; was to identify, discuss and analyse the institutional, ethical, economic and legal considerations raised by long term radioactive waste storage or disposal on the three interrelated issues of: (i) responsibility and ownership of radioactive waste over long term, (ii) continuity of local dialogue between stakeholders and monitoring of radioactive waste management facilities, and (iii) compensation and sustainable development.
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?
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.
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.
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
Finland Decision in Principle Concerning Posiva Oy's Application for the Construction of a Final Disposal Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel
Finland Decision in Principle Concerning Posiva Oy's Application for the Construction of a Final Disposal Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel
The decision in principle by the Government on 21 December 2000 concerning Posiva Oy's application for the construction of a final disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel produced in Finland.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Australian National Report, October 2005
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Australian National Report, October 2005
The responsibility for the governance of Australia is shared by the Australian government and the governments of the six states and two self governing territories. Responsibility for radiation health and safety in each State and Territory rests with the respective State/Territory government, unless the activity is carried out by an Australian government agency or a contractor to a Australian government agency; in those cases the activity is regulated by the Australian government.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Australian National Report, July 2003
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Australian National Report, July 2003
The responsibility for the governance of Australia is shared by Australia's federal government (also known as the Commonwealth government) and the governments of the six states and two self governing territories. Responsibility for radiation health and safety in each State and Territory rests with the respective State/Territory government, unless the activity is carried out by a Commonwealth agency or a contractor to a Commonwealth agency; in those cases the activity is regulated by the Federal government (Commonwealth government of Australia).
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, 2nd Finnish National Report as referred to in Article 32 of the Convention
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, 2nd Finnish National Report as referred to in Article 32 of the Convention
Finland signed the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management on 2 October 1997 and deposited the tools of acceptance on 10 February 2000. The Convention entered into force on 18 June 2001. The major generators of radioactive waste in Finland are the two nuclear power plants, the Loviisa and Olkiluoto plants. The Loviisa plant has two PWR units, operated by Fortum Power and Heat Oy, and the Olkiluoto plant two BWR units, operated by Teollisuuden Voima Oy.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, 4th Finnish National Report as referred to in Article 32 of the Convention
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, 4th Finnish National Report as referred to in Article 32 of the Convention
This is the Finnish National Report, in accordance with the provisions of the Article 32 of the Joint Convention, to the 4th Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties in May 2012. The aim of this report is to present the recent developments of waste management in Finland, to describe waste management facilities and practices in Finland and, for discussion and review among contracting parties, to describe how the obligations under the Convention are fulfilled in Finland.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, 3rd Finnish National Report as referred to in Article 32 of the Convention
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, 3rd Finnish National Report as referred to in Article 32 of the Convention
The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management was adopted on 29 September 1997 in the Vienna Diplomatic Conference. Finland signed the Convention on 2 October 1997 and deposited the tools of acceptance on 10 February 2000. The Convention entered into force on 18 June 2001. The fulfillment of the obligations of the Convention and the developments after the second Review Meeting are assessed in this report.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, National Report of the Commonwealth of Australia
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, National Report of the Commonwealth of Australia
This is the fourth National Report by Australia.1 The 2008 National Report and Australia’s presentation to the Third Review Meeting in 2009 highlighted the following major issues:
• progress on national uniformity;
• progress with development of a national waste classification scheme;
• radioactive waste management policy – achievements, consultation, strategy;
• spent fuel management and management of reprocessing waste;
• decommissioning;
• uranium mining waste management; and
• recruitment and skills management.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, National Report for Uruguay
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, National Report for Uruguay
There are no nuclear power stations and no nuclear fuel cycle activities in Uruguay. There are only disused radioactive sources from medical and industrial practices and there is a disused conditioned neutron Pu-239 source with 185 TBq, waiting for its reshipment to the United States. This material is stored in the building in which it was an old research reactor. The application of the Convention is limited to radioactive waste arising from the medical, industrial and research applications of radioisotopes.
Report on Implementation of the Obligations under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management–Second Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties
Report on Implementation of the Obligations under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management–Second Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties
The European Atomic Energy Community (“Euratom”) is a regional organisation, as referred to in Article 39(4) of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. It became a party to the Convention on 2 January 2006. This report is submitted in compliance with Articles 30 and 32 of the Convention for the Second Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties, to be held in Vienna from 15 to 26 May 2006.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, National Report from the Commonwealth of Australia, October 2008
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, National Report from the Commonwealth of Australia, October 2008
This is the third National Report by Australia1. The 2005 National Report and Australia’s presentation to the Second Review Meeting in 2006 highlighted issues as to how each of the nine Australian jurisdictions within Australia’s federal system are complying with the Joint Convention. A challenge identified for Australia in the Rapporteur’s Report for Country Group 3 was “ensuring a coherent approach to regulations and waste management practice in view of the complex nature of national and regional legislation”.
Other Countries Provide Lessons for US in Managing Used Nuclear Fuel
Other Countries Provide Lessons for US in Managing Used Nuclear Fuel
News item from NEI summarizing siting process for nuclear waste repositories in Sweden, Finland and France.
Joint Convention Responses to Questions Posted to Australia in 2009
Joint Convention Responses to Questions Posted to Australia in 2009
Joint Convention Responses to Questions Posted to Australia in 2009