Recommendation Group 8
Recommendation Group 8
Recommendation Group 7 worked on expertise, the site selection process and compensation
Recommendation Group 7 worked on expertise, the site selection process and compensation
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
REFLECTIONS ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE LOCAL ACTORS ON THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
. On 25 March 1999 the Government of the Czech Republic approved the Joint Convention which came into effect in the Czech Republic on 18 June 2001. In agreement with the obligations resulting from its accession to the Joint Convention the Czech Republic has already drawn the second National Report for the purposes of Review Meetings of the Contracting Parties, which describes the system of spent fuel and radioactive waste management in the scope required by selected articles of the Joint Convention.
On 8 December 1997 Belgium has signed the Joint Convention. The Belgian legislator has expressed its consent with the obligations resulting from the Convention via the Law of 2 August 2002. The ratification was obtained on 5 September 2002. The Convention became effective on 4 December 2002, or 90 days after the Ratification Act had been deposited. Belgium belongs to the group of Contracting Parties having at least one operational nuclear generating unit on their territory.
The government of the Republic of Korea, as a contracting party to the Joint<br/>Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive<br/>Waste Management (hereinafter referred to as “Joint Convention”) which entered into<br/>force on June 18, 2001, and deposited the ratification of on September 16, 2002,<br/>described the state of implementing the contracting party’s obligations in the Third<br/>National Report, pursuant to Article 32 (Reporting) of the Joint Convention.<br/>This National Report was prepared in accordance wi
On 25 March 1999 the government of the Czech Republic approved the Joint Convention which came into effect in the Czech Republic on 18 June 2001. In agreement with the obligations resulting from its accession to the Joint Convention the Czech Republic has drawn already the fourth National Report for the purposes of review meetings of the contracting parties, which describes the system of spent fuel and radioactive waste management in the scope required by selected articles of the Joint Convention.
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.
Kingdom of Belgium, Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Second Review Meeting (May 2006), Answers to the Questions of Contracting Parties on the National Report submitted by Belgium
Questions and Answers to the National Report of the Czech Republic