Siting Experience Documents Only
Country
Keywords
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.
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.
Recommendation Group 1
Recommendation Group 1
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.
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.
Recommendation Group 5
Recommendation Group 5
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.
Recommendation Group 2
Recommendation Group 2
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).
Robust and rational decision making processes in risk society
Robust and rational decision making processes in risk society
LEARNING AND ADAPTING TO SOCIETAL REQUIREMENTS
LEARNING AND ADAPTING TO SOCIETAL REQUIREMENTS
Reflections on Siting Approaches for Radioactive Waste Facilities: Synthesising Principles Based on International Learning
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.
Making the decision-making basis for nuclear waste management transparent Summary of a pre-study report
Making the decision-making basis for nuclear waste management transparent Summary of a pre-study report
From Information and Consultation to Citizen Influence and Power: 10-year Evolution in Public Involvement in Radioactive Waste Management
Recommendation Group 3
Recommendation Group 3
Recommendation Group 6
Recommendation Group 6
REFLECTIONS ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE LOCAL ACTORS ON THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Recommendation Group 4
Recommendation Group 4
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, Sweden National Report
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Sweden National Report
Spent fuel in Sweden emanates mainly from four commercial nuclear power plants. In addition there is one material testing reactor and one research reactor. The radioactive waste originates from the nuclear power industry as well as medical use, industry, research and consumer products.
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”.
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 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