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 Blue Ribbon Commission on America&#39;s Nuclear Future was formed by the Secretary of<br/>Energy at the direction of the President. The Commission was formed to conduct a<br/>comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including<br/>all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel,<br/>high–level waste, and materials derived from nuclear activities.

This paper is a response to a request from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for CoRWM’s advice on the 2011 review of options for accelerating the geological disposal programme carried out by the Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (RWMD) of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).

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.

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?

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.

This paper summarises the history of RWM in Hungary, with a special attention to changing decision making approaches, social conflicts, and socio-technical challenges. First the institutional background of RWM is outlined. Next, efforts to build facilities for the management of low- and intermediatelevel waste (L/ILRW) and high-level waste (HLW) are summarized. This is followed by the short description of remaining socio-technical challenges. Finally, changes in decision-making approaches and tools are analysed.

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).

A summary of the view of the Nuclear Energy Agency Forum on Stakeholder Confidence with regard to stepwise decision making in the context of long-term management of radioactive waste.