1 / 10

Current Status and Challenges of Site Investigation Processes for LILW in Slovenia

This document presents the current processes and challenges of site investigation (SI) for low and intermediate level waste (LILW) in Slovenia. It discusses the legal framework, stakeholder involvement, and the socio-economic aspects of waste management. Initiated by ARAO, the SI process is designed to actively involve local communities, which hold veto power. The document highlights the need for transparent dialogue, the importance of a socio-technical approach, and the historical context of previous failures in site selection. It emphasizes the role of various stakeholders and the ongoing struggle between technocratic tendencies and community engagement.

morna
Télécharger la présentation

Current Status and Challenges of Site Investigation Processes for LILW in Slovenia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CARL WorkshopAntwerp Results of the Country Studies SLOVENIA

  2. Current process of SI • Object of SI in “SLOVENIA” • Kind of waste: LILW • Scope of SI: site selection and investigations, disposal options • Subject of dialogue: both technical and socio-economical aspects SLOVENIA

  3. Current Process of SI • Organization of SI in “SLOVENIA” • Who has initiated the process? ARAO on the base of relevant legislation (2002); in 2004 issue invitations for local communities to enter the search process • Is the SI process built on a legal basis? On the base of Environmental Protection Act, Spatial Planning Act, Aarchus convenction • Who are the pioneers, which groups/persons take a lead in the process? ARAO due to earlier failures recognized the need for SI process and stimulate it • Who ‘guards’ the process? ARAO • Who funds the process? State (NPP decomissioning fund) through ARAO • Has the SI real decision power? Due to the fact that main stakeholders are local communities with veto power, SI power is real SLOVENIA

  4. Current Process of SI • SI in SLOVENIA • ARAO lead first disscusions on national level – very general with all interested parties • SI are organized on the local level. The principal arena of SI is site selection. • PARTIES: Local communities, NGO, media, regulatory bodies and ARAO • Voluntarism (forced for local community if it apply for paricipation in search process, not so for others) • Only direct veto power have local communities, others can only influence public opinion (indirect power) SLOVENIA

  5. Stakeholder Identification • Stakeholders in SLOVENIA - 3 partnerships for the moment, 2 LC on waiting list - Beside official representatives of targeted local community and ARAO, other stakeholders are more or less invited on the base of their mere existence - Very lax structure, depending on location and interest - ROLE OF SI: Arena and facilitator for open dialogue: clarifying problems, negotiating , SLOVENIA

  6. Re-Framing process • Technocratic  [crisis]  Socio-technical - Failure of the first search for location in nineties (1990 - 1993) - Non-transparent procedure, local community was not involved; greater sensitivity to nuclear issues due to Chernobil and Green movements - In parts of the administration and nuclear lobby there are still preferences toward technocratic solutions. SLOVENIA

  7. Current Framing • Framing of current SI program • At the moment there is a dominant socio-technical frame, but technocratic inertia in administrative/technical structures on all levels is tearing it up especially due to the rather great public opposition toward repository in ones locality • Socio-technical solution is existing mainly due to the failure of other approaches as only guarantee of possible success • Socio-technical frame is perhaps the most evident in radwaste issue, but is present on other similar issues, so it has some generality SLOVENIA

  8. Overview Slovenia • Socio-technical approach as the only efficient way of dealing with this kinds of problems proved itself successfully • Tendencies toward technocratic solutions appearing periodically are sapping it • SI need a lot of facilitation from the side of the state, otherwise only different kinds of opposition groups could appear SLOVENIA

  9. Concluding Remarks • Definition of stakeholders and methods of SI • Partnership organisation SLOVENIA

  10. CARL WorkshopAntwerp Results of the Country Studies SLOVENIA

More Related