Utilities and ranking of the preclosure attributes of the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository are examined, in order to provide insights into the propriety of using this approach for this type of decision and an assessment of the adequacy of the analysis itself. The postclosure utilities obtained in the previous study were greater than 80% for all five sites considered, but showed a greater spread than those in the MUA. The preclosure multiattribute utilities also show a wider spread than in the MUA.
Presented on September 2010 to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (Disposal Subcommittee)
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management was asked by Government in 2003 to make recommendations for the long-term management of the UK’s higher activity wastes that would both protect the public and the environment, and inspire public confidence. To do this, we have combined a technical assessment of options with ethical considerations, examination of overseas experience and a wide-ranging programme of engagement both with the public and with interested parties (stakeholders). I am happy to present our recommendations in the pages that follow.
CoRWM’s remit is to provide independent scrutiny and advice to Government on the long-term management, including storage and disposal, of radioactive wastes and materials that may be declared to be wastes. This is the first of three reports to be produced in 2009 that describes the results of the Committee’s scrutiny work in 2008 and the first part of 2009 and provides advice to Government.
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.
Eight years after the entry into force of the Law on the provisions created for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and the management of fuel irradiated in these plants (Law of 11 April 2003, as amended in 2007), the Belgian Minister for Climate and Energy wished to organize a round table on nuclear provisions aimed at examining the possibilities for improving this Law (see attached participant list), taking into account the experience gained and the assessments carried out, by ONDRAF/NIRAS among others within the scope of its _nuclear liabilities inventory_ mission.
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.
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.
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 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 "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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
