Socio-Technical Challenges in Radioactive Waste Policy-Making
Abstract
The problem of what to do with burnt fuel rods from nuclear power production has not been solved yet. In many countries, attempts to build underground repositories for disposing of the high-level nuclear waste have caused social conficts. Some countries, such as Switzerland, have reacted to this by reforming nuclear waste management towards nuclear waste governance, involving the interested public in decision-making processes to different degrees. Other countries, like Germany, have continued their muddling-through approach. In this article, we analyze nuclear waste governance in those two countries with a focus on modes of modern nuclear waste governance, but also problems governments face during such modernization processes. Finally, we discuss the applicability of our fndings to countries in transition.
Keywords
радиоактивные отходы,
управление обращением с радиоактивными отходами в Германии и в Швейцарии,
делиберативная политика,
участие общественности,
radioactive waste,
German nuclear waste management,
Swiss nuclear waste management,
nuclear waste repository,
deliberative politics,
public participation
About the Authors
Peter Hocke
Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sophie Kuppler
Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Elam M., Sundqvist G. Meddling in Swedish Success in Nuclear Waste Management // Environmental Politics. 2011. № 20 (2). - Р. 246 - 263.
2. Della Porta D., Diani M. Social Movements. An Introduction. - Maldern (MA): Wiley, 1999.
3. Tilly C. Social Movements, 1768 - 2004. - Boulder (CO): Paradigm Publishers, 2004.
4. Radkau J. Die ära der Ökologie. - Frankfurt аm M.: Campus. 2011.
5. Hocke P. and Renn O. Concerned public and the paralysis of decision-making: nuclear waste management policy in Germany // Journal of Risk Research. 2009. № 12/7. - P. 921 - 940.
6. Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites. Recommendations of the AkEnd (Commitee on a Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites). - Final Report for the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. - Cologne. December, 2002.
7. Lehtonen M. Deliberative decision-making on radioactive waste management in Finland, France and the UK: infuence of mixed forms of deliberation in the macro discursive context // Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences. 2010. № 7 (3). - P. 175 - 196.
8. Krütli P., Stauffacher M., Flüeler Th., Scholz R.W. Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories // Journal of Risk Research. 2010. № 13 (7). - P. 861 - 875.
9. Mackerron G, Berkhout F. Learning to listen: institutional change and legitimation in UK radioactive waste policy // Journal of Risk Research. 2009. № 12 (7 - 8). - P. 989 - 1008.
10. Mayntz R. Governance im modernen Staat // Governance - Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. - Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2004.
11. Lange S., Schimank U. Governance und gesellschaftliche Integration // Governance und gesellschaftliche Integration. - Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2004.
12. Haus M. Transformation des Regierens und Herausforderungen der Institutionenpolitik. -Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010.
13. Pierre J., Peters G. Governance, Politics and the State. - L. (UK): Macmillan Press Ltd., 2000.
14. Benz A., Lütz S., Schimank U., Simonis G. Einleitung // A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank and G. Simonis (eds.) Handbuch Governance. Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder. - Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2007.
15. Jann W., Wegrich K. Governance und Verwaltungspolitik // Governance - Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. - Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2004.
16. Haus M. Transformation des Regierens und Herausforderungen der Institutionenpolitik. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010.
17. Benz A., Lütz S., Schimank U., Simonis G. Einleitung. - P. 15.
18. Pierre J., Peters G. Governance, Politics and the State.
19. Benz A. Еnleitung: Governance - Modebegriff oder nützliches sozialwissenschaftliches Konzept? // Governance - Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. - Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2004.
20. Torfing J. Governance Networks and Their Democratic Anchorage // Melchior J. (ed.) New Spaces of European Governance. Proceedings of a Conference Organized by the Research Group «Governance in Transition» of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Vienna. - Vienna: Universität Wien, 2006. - P. 109 - 128 ( http://spl.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_politikwiss/Melchior/New_Spaces_of_European_Gov.pdf ).
21. Rucht D. Anti-Atomkraftbewegung // Roth R. and Ruch D. (eds.). Die sozialen Bewegungen in Deutschland seit 1945. Ein Handbuch. - Frankfurt / а. M.: Campus, 2008. -P. 245 - 266.
22. Kriesi H. AKW-Gegner in der Schweiz. - Diessenhofen, 1982; H. Flam (ed.). States and Anti-Nuclear Movements. - Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994.
23. Nowotny H. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge // Science and Public Policy. 2003. № 30. - P. 151 - 156.
24. Barth R., Brohmann B., Kallenbach-Herbert B., Schulze F., Sering M. Anforderungen an die Gestaltung der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung im Endlagerauswahlverfahren. Konzept zur Ausgestaltung der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung. Abschlussbericht Teil A. - Darmstadt: Öko-Institut, 2007.
25. Tiggemann A. Die «Achillesferse» der Kernenergie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Lauf an der Pegnitz: Europaforum-Verlag, 2004.
26. Flüeler Th. Decision making for complex socio-technical systems. Robustness from lessons learned in long-term radioactive waste governance. Dordrecht NL (Series Environment & Policy. Vol. 42). - Springer, 2006.
27. Горлебен: атомное кладбище в Германии. 23.05.2011. ( http://ttolk.ru/?p=4236 )
28. Rüdig W. Phasing Out Nuclear Energy in Germany // German Politics. 2000. № 9/3. - P. 43 - 79.
29. Konzeptionelle und Sicherheitstechnische Fragen der Endlagerung Radioaktiver Abfälle - Wirtsgesteine im Vergleich. Synthesebericht des Bundesamtes für Strahlenschutz. - Salzgitter: Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS), 2005.
30. Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites. Recommendations of the AkEnd (Commitee on a Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites). Final Report for the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. -Cologne, December, 2002.
31. Erkundungsarbeiten. http://www.gorlebendialog.de/erkundungsarbeiten/doc/42.php
32. Lindner W. Schweizerische Demokratie. Institutionen, Prozesse, Perspektiven. - Bern: Haupt Verlag, 2005. - S. 242.
33. Ibid. - S. 241.
34. Flüeler Th. Decision making for complex socio-technical systems.
35. Sectoral Plan for Deep Geological Repositories. Conceptual Part. -Bern: Swiss Federal Offce of Energy, 2008 ( http://www.bfe.admin.ch/radioaktiveabfaelle/01277/01306/index.html?lang=en&dossier_id=02151 )
36. Technischer Bericht 11-01. Sachplan geologische Tiefenlager Etappe 2. Vorschläge zur Platzierung der Standortareale für die Oberfächenanlage der geologischen Tiefenlager sowie zu deren Erschließung. Genereller Bericht. -Wettingen (Switzerland): Nagra (Nationale Genossenschaft für die Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle), 2011 // http://www.nagra.ch/display.cfm/id/101441
37. Sundqvist G. The Bedrock of Opinion. Science, Technology and Society in the Siting of High-Level Nuclear Waste. - Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
Review
For citations:
Hocke P., Kuppler S. Socio-Technical Challenges in Radioactive Waste Policy-Making. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2012;(3):119-130. (In Russ.)
Email this article 