Nuclear power programs and policies in the United States have been subject to environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) since 1971. NEPA documentation prepared for programmatic policy decision-making within the nuclear fuel cycle and concurrent federal policy are examined as they relate to radioactive waste management in this paper.

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.

Engagement of local communities and actors in the decision-making processes is traditionally motivated by the fact they are impacted by the decision taken. This traditional rationale for engagement of local communities and actors is driven not only by ethical concerns, but also by the necessity for public authorities to comply with national or international legal frameworks which give to stakeholders, concerned by a decision having environmental impacts, the right to be informed and participate in the decision (e.g.

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.

DOE hereby amends the policies under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 for evaluating the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a site for development of a nuclear waste repository. TodayÕs final rule focuses on the criteria and methodology to be used for evaluating relevant geological and other related aspects of the Yucca Mountain site.

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-'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.

In the grant contract, DOE requested an<br/>Executive Summary that provides information<br/>in three major areas.

In an attempt to facilitate the resolution of contentious environmental problems, public agencies are increasingly using collaborative approaches wherein stakeholders participate in the decision-making process. A dilemma for the design of collaborative approaches is the technical complexity of many environmental problems. How can members of the public play a meaningful role in decisions that involve complicated scientific arguments?

Czech Waste Management Annual Report

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?

Plate NC-1A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Index Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-2A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Disqualified Areas Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-3A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Equally Weighted Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-4A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Phase A, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-5A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Phase B, Summary Composite Map, Crystalline Repository Project; Plate NC-6A, North Central Region, Minnesota, Transportation Network Map, Cr

The focus of this case study is the concerns of two communities affected, albeit in different ways, by radioactive waste management and the decommissioning of nuclear installations. These are communities affected by the decisions of nuclear operators, regulators and national policy makers. As such they interact with these organisations and quite naturally they are concerned about their long-term sustainability.

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.

TRANSMITTAL OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) &quot;TECHNICAL BASIS REPORT FOR SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS, PRECLOSURE HYDROLOGY, AND EROSION&quot; (SCPB: N/A)

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.

After more than 20 years of carefully planned and reviewed scientific field work by the<br/>U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and numerous other<br/>organizations, Secretary of Energy Abraham concluded in January that the Yucca<br/>Mountain site is suitable, within the meaning of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, for<br/>development as a permanent nuclear waste and spent fuel repository.

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).

This report is about how the Department of Energy (DOE) can improve its relationships with the<br/>communities in which its facilities are located. In March 2000, Secretary Richardson asked the<br/>Openness Advisory Panel (OAP) of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board to review and<br/>assess DOE’s relationships with the communities surrounding its laboratories and facilities and<br/>to provide an independent assessment of how DOE is perceived as a neighbor, what it is doing<br/>well, and what it could do better.