Suchergebnisse

This volume examines the national plans that ten Euratom countries plus Switzerland and the United States are developing to address high-level radioactive waste storage and disposal. The chapters, which were written by 23 international experts, outline European and national regulations, technology choices, safety criteria, monitoring systems, compensation schemes, institutional structures, and approaches to public involvement. Key stakeholders, their values and interests are introduced, the responsibilities and authority of different actors considered, decision-making processes are analyzed as well as the factors influencing different national policy choices. The views and expectations of different communities regarding participatory decision making and compensation and the steps that have been or are being taken to promote dialogue and constructive problem-solving are also considered. Contents The International Dimension Countries with Geological Disposal after Reprocessing Nuclear Fuel Countries with Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel Countries with Long-Term Surface Storage for High Level Radioactive Waste Target Groups Energy (policy) experts; nuclear energy experts and practitioners, political and social scientists, economists, engineers; decision makers and consultants, civil society organizations The Editors Achim Brunnengräber, Maria Rosaria Di Nucci, Ana María Isidoro Losada, Lutz Mez and Miranda Schreurs; Environmental Policy Research Centre, Freie Universität Berlin and members of the project "Multi-level Governance Perspective on Nuclear Waste Disposal" within the research platform ENTRIA

It is well established in science and technology studies that participation and expert analysis should not be seen as contradictory. Key analytical questions include how both public and expert knowledge contribute to "closing down" and "opening up" appraisals and commitments, and how important these dynamics are in assessing the process and the conditions of democratizing technology. This article examines how the participatory turn has affected nuclear waste governance options in France and Canada. Through cross-case analysis, it describes how at each constitutive step of management programs, public and expert knowledge has followed a variety of pathways in (in)forming commitments, resulting in asymmetrical trade-offs. The term "closing up commitment" is introduced to refer to the way both national governments finally opted for closing the technological options at hand while introducing new conditions that might challenge future actions. We argue that paying attention to this mutation in nuclear governance allows for a more detailed analysis of power distributions in science and technology governance than a critical approach that rejects any closure because it can be (and often is) the result of an instrumental approach undertaken by the incumbent actors.

Introduction: The governance challenge of radioactive waste management -- Long-term radioactive waste management in the Netherlands: Seeking guidance for decision-making -- Nuclear Waste Governance in Italy: between participation rhetoric and regionalism -- Do you care about High-level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel? Opportunities for co-constructing an appropriate governance-ecosystem in Belgium -- The long road towards the soft nuclear repository state Nuclear waste governance in Germany -- The melancholic lock. High-Level Radioactive Waste Governance in Spain -- Who Decides What is Safe? Experiences from Radioactive Waste Governance in Switzerland -- UK nuclear waste policy: 50 wasted years -- The governance ecosystem of radioactive waste management in France: governing of and with mistrust -- Radioactive waste management in Sweden: Decision making in a context of scientific controversy -- The Finnish solution to final disposal of spent nuclear fuel -- European lessons for governance of long-term radioactive waste management.

A major challenge in building and securing a repository for high-level waste is the long-time spans needed for site selection, construction, storage, and closure. Depending on the type of site selection procedure and the chosen repository concept, this can take decades or even more than a century. Even today, this applies to many places in all countries that have or are operating nuclear power plants. These include the sites for interim or final storage or reprocessing. Over time, other places will also be affected during the site selection procedure and afterwards during construction and disposal. The processes will cause landscape transformations to a greater or lesser extent, to allow for activities including transportation and excavation. Nuclear waste governance is an extremely challenging and contested issue, starting with site selection, because nobody wants nuclear waste close by. Technologies and societies can change considerably over time. How this influences a repository may vary from place to place depending on context factors. Thus, we argue that realizing a nuclear waste governance that is oriented toward public welfare in the long term requires con-sideration of place. Based on empirical material collected in three regional workshops and nine qualitative interviews on the meaning of place and transformations caused by infrastructure projects, we discuss the relevance of those findings for a place-sensitive longterm governance framework.

NUCLEAR WASTE QUESTIONS AND PROPOSALS -- NUCLEAR WASTE QUESTIONS AND PROPOSALS -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 CLOSING YUCCA MOUNTAIN: LITIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH ATTEMPTS TO ABANDON THE PLANNED NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY -- SUMMARY -- INTRODUCTION -- ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY FOR HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE AND SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL -- YUCCA MOUNTAIN AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION -- The Obama Administration Budget -- DOE Reprogramming -- Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future -- Withdrawal of the Yucca Mountain Construction Authorization License

Intro -- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE: CRITICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND FUTURE NEEDS -- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE: CRITICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND FUTURE NEEDS -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON AMERICA'S NUCLEAR FUTURE: REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY -- PREAMBLE -- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- America's Nuclear Waste Management Program an Impasse -- 1. A New Consent-Based Approach to Siting -- 2. A New Organization to Implement the Waste Management Program -- 3. Access to Utility Waste Disposal Fees for Their Intended Purpose -- 4. Prompt Efforts to Develop a New Geologic Disposal Facility -- 5. Prompt Efforts to Develop One or More Consolidated Storage Facilities -- 6. Early Preparation for the Eventual Large-Scale Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste to Consolidated Storage and Disposal Facilities -- 7. Support for Advances in Nuclear Energy Technology and for Workforce Developme -- 8. Active U.S. Leadership in International Efforts to Address Safety, Non-Proliferation and Security Concerns -- Tying It Together -- LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS -- 1. INTRODUCTION -- 2. FOUNDATIONS OF A NEW STRATEGY -- 2.1. Elements of a Successful Strategy -- 2.2. Core Interests and Objectives for U.S. Waste Management Policy -- 2.2.1. Public and Occupational Health and Safety -- 2.2.2. Environmental Protection -- 2.2.3. Cost-Effectiveness -- 2.2.4. Non-Proliferation and National Security -- 2.3. Core Values and Principles for a Successful Waste Management Program -- 2.3.1. Ethical Responsibility -- 2.3.2. Fairness -- 2.3.3. Transparency -- 2.3.4. Values -- 2.3.5. Informed Participation -- 2.3.6. Governance and Leadership -- 3. TECHNICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND -- 3.1. Overview of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle -- 3.2. The Nature and Longevity of Hazard Posed by Different Types of Nuclear Waste.