Siting Experience Documents Only
Country
Keywords
European Union Contract Number: FP6-036413. Deliverable 23b. Towards Implementation of Transparency and Participation in Radioactive Waste Management Programmes, ARGONA Final Summary Report
European Union Contract Number: FP6-036413. Deliverable 23b. Towards Implementation of Transparency and Participation in Radioactive Waste Management Programmes, ARGONA Final Summary Report
The point of departure for the ARGONA project is that participation and transparency are key elements of effective risk governance and the acronym ARGONA stands for "Arenas for Risk Governance ". Given the overall objectives, ARGONA intended to demonstrate how participation and transparency link to the political and legal systems and how new approaches can be implemented in radioactive waste management programmes.
European Union Contract Number: FP6-036413. Deliverable 23a. Towards Implementation of Transparency and Participation in Radioactive Waste Management Programmes, ARGONA Final Report
European Union Contract Number: FP6-036413. Deliverable 23a. Towards Implementation of Transparency and Participation in Radioactive Waste Management Programmes, ARGONA Final Report
ARGONA is a project within the European Commission 6th framework programme. The overall objective was to support transparency of decision-making processes in the radioactive waste programmes of the participating countries, and also of the European Union, by means of a greater degree of public participation.
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
Recommendation Group 3
Recommendation Group 3
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.
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
Recommendation Group 1
Recommendation Group 1
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
Management of Uncertainty in Safety Cases and the Role of Risk - Workshop Proceedings
Management of Uncertainty in Safety Cases and the Role of Risk - Workshop Proceedings
The development of radioactive waste repositories involves consideration of how the waste and the
engineered barrier systems will evolve, as well as the interactions between these and, often relatively
complex, natural systems. The timescales that must be considered are much longer than the timescales
that can be studied in the laboratory or during site characterisation. These and other factors can lead to
various types of uncertainty (on scenarios, models and parameters) in the assessment of long-term,
Geological Challenges in Radioactive Waste Isolation
Geological Challenges in Radioactive Waste Isolation
Over the past forty years, the development of the technology needed to isolate radioactive waste in underground rock systems has been found to be a formidable problem. This is especially the case in connection with high-level waste (HLW) after its removal from operations in nuclear power plants. There is also the additional problem of isolating low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW).
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.