The purpose of COWAM2 Work Package 4 (WP4) on &quote;long term governance&quote; 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.

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.

The Brief introduces the concept of ‘Community Benefit and Support Packages’ following requests from a number of National Stakeholder Groups (NSGs) for more information on this issue. During the development of the Brief presentations were made to NSG meetings in Romania (June 2009), Slovenia (October 2009) and the UK (September 2008, September 2009). Some information specific to the UK from the Brief was also presented in Spain (November 2008).

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.

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.

The purpose of COWAM2 Work Package 4 (WP4) on &quote;long term governance&quote; 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 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.

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.

This research on &quote;Guidance on the selection of PTA tools for stakeholders involved in radioactive waste governance&quote; was performed under the umbrella of COWAM2-&#39;Work Package 1&#39; (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.

CIP (Community Waste Management In Practice) is a research action gathering a wide spectrum of stakeholders from five European countries, interested in how society should manage the radioactive wastes that result from nuclear power production and/or from medical, military or industrial applications.

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?

Radioactive waste management constitutes the final step in the using of radioactive material as fuel for reactor research or as radioisotopes in research, medicine or industry. In compliance with the principal of protecting the public, the environment and to not impose undue burdens on future generation Morocco signed the joint convention in September 1997 and ratified it in May 1999 Morocco has a research nuclear centre (CENM) where we have our facilities to treat radioactive waste generated at national level.

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.

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.

The following graphics were developed by NF Marin Constantin (INR) for presentation and discussion at the 2nd NSG meeting in Romania (January 2008). 1. DMP for LILW Repository in Romania - Main Phases 2. Romanian History of Nuclear Power - Main Facts and Decisions 3. Cernavoda Area DMP: Dialogue Planning Including CIP Actions 4. Hypothetical Nuclear Industry Formulation of the DMP Stakes and Issues 5. Hypothetical Public Formulation of the DMP Stakes and Issues 6. How to Improve the Public Contribution to the DMP? Proposal for NSG Discussion

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?

The European project COWAM in Practice (CIP) was aimed to lead for three years (2007-2009) a process of monitoring, analyzing and evaluating the governance linked with radioactive waste management. This project, in cooperation with a research group and stakeholders, was conducted in parallel in 5 European countries (Spain, France, United Kingdom, Romania, Slovenia).

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.