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.

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 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.

Despite in Romania nuclear research activities were started in early 50s, the nuclear power is very young. First NPP, Cernavoda Unit 1, about 600 MWe, was in operation since 1996. Next unit (Cernavoda Unit2) will be in operation at the end of 2007. Therefore, a relative low amount of high level waste was produced. However, some problems already exists in Romania, mainly related to historical radioactive wastes released by nuclear industry and research.

On 8 December 1997 Belgium signed the Joint Convention. The Belgian legislator has expressed its consent with the obligations resulting from the Convention by the Law of 2 August 2002. The ratification followed on 5 September 2002. The Convention became effective on 4 December 2002, i.e. 90 days following ratification. Belgium belongs to the group of Contracting Parties having at least one operational nuclear power plant on their territory.

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.

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.

On 10 March 1999, The Netherlands signed the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, which was subsequently formally ratified on 26 April 2000 and entered into force on 18 June 2001. The Joint Convention obliges each contracting party to apply widely recognized principles and tools in order to achieve and maintain high standards of safety during management of spent fuel and radioactive waste.

The report begins with a consideration of the factors which have led to a growth in the use of dialogue processes, a clarification of key concepts and a classification of dialogue processes. A description of recent and current activities in Europe and North America is followed by discussion of the relationship of processes and contexts. This then leads to an identification of the key aims and evaluation criteria which will be used in the design of dialogue processes to be conducted in subsequent phases of the project.

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

This report was prepared in the context of Work Package 3 of the InSOTEC project. The overall objective of this work package (WP) is to take a closer look at arenas where socio-technical combinations on radioactive waste management (RWM) are formed. The attempt is to illustrate the interconnections between the sources of different types of information and knowledge development with the various stakeholders having access to that information.

Worldwide activities related to the storage of spent (irradiated) nuclear power reactor fuel and highly-radioactive, long-lived wastes are summarized, with a review of the storage programs and plans of 26 nations. The focus of the report is on the application of dry storage techniques to spent fuel, although dry storage of long-lived wastes is also reviewed.

Work Package 3 (WP 3) set out to provide practical recommendations for the design and implementation of a “robust” decision-making process (DMP) in radioactive waste governance/governance of radioactive waste management (RWG).

During the 1990s, nuclear waste programmes in nearly every concerned country met many difficulties. Nuclear waste management was seen as a technical issue, and the local communities were only involved in the last stage of the decision-making process when almost all components of the decision were already fixed. The management of high level radioactive waste is now recognised as a complex decision-making process entailing technical, ethical, social, political and economic dimensions where no solution can be reached solely on the basis of technical considerations.