The West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) Partnership was set up
to consider the issues that would be involved in taking part in a search to see if there is
anywhere in the Allerdale and/or Copeland areas suitable for a repository for higher activity
radioactive waste.
Over the last three years we have looked at reports and literature, heard from experts in the
field, commissioned independent research and invited reviews by independent experts.
We have placed a high priority on public and stakeholder engagement (PSE), carrying out

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?

This document does not present the views of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management nor can it be taken to present the views of its author. It is a draft paper to inform Committee deliberations and both the author and the whole Committee may adopt different views and draw entirely different conclusions after further consideration and debate

This document does not present the views of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management nor can it be taken to present the views of its author. It is a draft paper to inform Committee deliberations and both the author and the whole Committee may adopt different views and draw entirely different conclusions after further consideration and debate

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.

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.

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).