al., 2005). The generic Deliberation Matrix structure, programmed since 2005 with the Open-Source DRUPAL CMS software, is presented in O'Connor (2006), referring back to the GOUVERNe and VIRTUALIS prototypes. Detailed methodological presentations were, at that time, provided in the institutional working papers by O'Connor, Bureau & Reichel (2007), and Reichel, Bureau, Legrand, O'Connor & Sunde (2007), available on-line.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>WHO</th><th>WHY</th><th>WHAT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>WHO</th><td>Stakeholders</td><td>"ETHICAL MATRIX"<br>Mepham (1996, 1999)<br>Kaiser & Forsberg (2001)<br>Schroeder & Palmer (2003)<br>Palmer (2003)</td><td>"EQUITY MATRIX"<br>De Marchi et al. (2000)<br>Munda (2008)</td></tr><tr><th>WHY</th><td></td><td>Issues</td><td>"IMPACT MATRIX"<br>Munda (2004, 2005, 2006)<br>De Marchi et al. (2000)</td></tr><tr><th>WHAT</th><td></td><td></td><td>Options<br>or Scenarios</td></tr></tbody></table>

## [B.2] Variants of the KerBabel Deliberation Matrix

In general terms, the KerBabel Deliberation Matrix permits a didactic presentation of the process and outcomes of judgements offered by each category of stakeholders, for each of the options or scenarios under evaluation, with reference to a spectrum of governance or quality-performance issues. The principle, is that that each stakeholder class should offer a judgement (e.g., satisfactory, poor, intolerable, etc.) of each option/scenario in relation to each of the key governance or decision issues.

One obtains in this way, for each stakeholder (or actor class), a rectangular array of cells, being a layer of the Matrix, within which each row represents (issue by issue) the evaluations furnished by the given class of stakeholders for successive options/scenarios. Or, looked at from another angle, one obtains the evaluations by each stakeholder, of a given option/scenario.

Since 2005, several KerDST variants are available for the composition of an Evaluation Exercise. The simplest procedure, which can be carried out on paper or on line, is that of "Colouring in the Cells" by single representatives of each stakeholder category (or by a single expert acting "on behalf" of all stakeholder categories) for a qualitative multi-stakeholder multi-criteria assessment of a situation or of options for action.

The "default option" suggested for colour codes is the "traffic light" convention of RED for bad, YELLOW for moderate, and GREEN for good; but KerDST users can define their own list of judgement categories and corresponding colours. For the more complicated variations of KerDST, this method of "scoring" or signalling by colour to build up a three-dimensional array of qualitative judgements is preserved, but with conventions for the "composition" of the cell-level signals. The simple procedure can thus be enriched,

* On the one hand, with variations where several participants within each stakeholder category contribute to provide a "composite" judgement per issue (that is, with several colour signals per cell); and,

* On the other hand, towards mechanisms for "deepening" the knowledge resources, where representatives of each stakeholder category (or experts acting "on behalf" of stakeholder categories) work to produce an evaluation supported by indicators, thus linking indicators to each nexus of stakeholder category and societal performance-quality issue.

In the case of an indicator-supported evaluation, it is necessary to compile a 'BASKET' OF INDICATORS that, in the eyes of the stakeholder, signal key attributes of the object (scenario/choice or
activity/site/territory) under scrutiny, relative to the performance issue. The judgement at the cell level in the Matrix is thus obtained not by a simple choice of colour for the cell, but as a weighted "amalgam" of the qualitative judgements assigned to each indicator in the "basket". Detailed illustrations of indicator-based evaluations using the on-line Deliberation Matrix are found in Maxim (2008) and Aydin (2017).

In the 2006 KerDST, it was permitted to choose UP TO 5 DISTINCT INDICATORS for each "basket" corresponding to a Cell. This was a deliberate restriction, whose purpose is to incite contributors to identify what are the "key" signals that, for each cell in their slice of the Matrix, they wish to bring to the attention of others.

For each indicator placed in a basket, the user must specify the JUDGEMENT [by choice of colour code] and also the relative WEIGHT compared with other indicators in that basket. The colour shown for each Matrix cell is then a function of the relative weights and normative significance attributed to each indicator in the corresponding basket. The convention since the 2006 on-line version of KerDST, has been that the cell itself takes the colour that has the highest percentage within in the "basket of indicators". This convention was adopted, after some experimentation during 2004-2006, for its didactic clarity. It tends to produce clear visual contrasts between cells and also, at the next level up, between rows or columns of cells in the Deliberation Matrix, or again, between entire layers (or "slices") of the Matrix.

These KerBabel Indicator Kiosks (KIK for short) are, since 2004, composed and managed by a Content Management System (successive versions of the CMS Drupal), now integrated within the vaster 'ePLANETe' platform (Lanceleur 2019). The KIK functionality in KerDST (embedded since 2013 within the 'ePLANETe') provides for comprehensive profiling of an Indicator concept and of sources and uses of empirical data in empirical applications. But, the emphasis being on ease in the definition and mobilization of a system attribute deemed of descriptive and normative pertinence, only a very limited number of meta-information fields are obligatory for the creation of an "Indicator" profile in a KIK.

* The KerDST users are invited to signal the inclusion of **indicator concepts** within each Deliberation Matrix cell or "basket". That is, they are invited to signal the selection of "objects" from collections that are presented with succinct meta-information profiles (the Indicator's Identity Card, as it were) in catalogues that are available as satellites to the Deliberation Matrix itself.

* This means, importantly, that the KerDST user is not required immediately to search for data corresponding to an indicator, nor to verify/validate others' data. Rather, the contribution at cell level the KerDST evaluation process is made by mobilising objects described with **meta-data**.

Digital technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since the early KerDST prototypes. During 2023-2024, the KerBabel deliberation support tools have been entirely re-engineered, within the Drupal-10 CMS environment, without changing the basic concepts of deliberative evaluation structure, but introducing several complementary features made possible by the advances in ICT.

☐ Pre-classification of signals in the KRR.

☐ Generalisation of the galleries as sources of signals

☐ Experiments with the exploitation of 'AI' [Automated Imbecility] for (i) the selection of signals to be incorporated at the level of the individual "cells" of a Matrix, and (ii) the generation of propositions for the categories to be aligned along each of the axes constitutive of a deliberative evaluation problem.

The last of these innovations is ongoing, as it involves notably the incorporation of design solutions for the deliberate and explicit "interfacing" of human judgements about the pertinence and knowledge quality of the propositions generated by 'AI'.
# The Core of the KerBabel Deliberation Process

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
# APPENDIX C

## THE FIELDS OF PREOCCUPATION FOR THE ‘FOREBODINGS’ MATRIX

**Section §10** of the main text lists in succinct terms a typology of Objects of Evaluation Attention retained for ‘Matrix B’. The categories, obtained by the authors on the basis of discourse analysis, highlight the spectrum of “worries” and performance preoccupations expressed in society in relation to nuclear technology and (risk of) accidents. In more detail, the categories retained are:

* **Human Integrity**: Ce domaine d'action met en avant la question des menaces qui peuvent porter atteinte au corps physique des personnes (radiations subies, développement de maladies, de cancers,) et à la vie humaine (mortalité, effets héréditaires, reproduction, troubles psychologiques). Il s'agit également de question relevant de la dignité, du droit à une vie décente et de l'autonomie de la personne. Elle se mesure également en termes des mesures mise en place suite à une catastrophe.

* **Environmental Damages**: Les dommages environnementaux désignent des changements négatifs qualitatifs, quantitatifs, fonctionnels de l'environnement. Les divers compartiments de l'environnement (Biosphère, hydrosphère, atmosphère et lithosphère) sont à considérer ainsi que la diversité des services écosystémiques (Sources, Puits à déchets, Support de vie et Appréciations cognitives). Ces dommages environnementaux sont compris comme étant les pressions exercées par l'activité humaine sur les milieux naturels.

* **Risk Governance**: La gouvernance des risques renvoie à un système d'entités décisionnelles, mobilisant une diversité d'acteurs, dans le cas présent, institutions privées (secteur industriel nucléaire), des institutions publiques (de régulation et de gouvernement, de recherche...) mais peut également inclure des ONG et des représentants de la société civile (sous la forme de gouvernance inclusive), afin de diriger le domaine du nucléaire au niveau nationale et international. Elle repose notamment sur l'identification, l'évaluation et la hiérarchisation des risques ainsi que la mise en œuvre de processus politiques (système d'alerte, de mise en œuvre de stratégie de crise, surveillance du parc nucléaire, identification des responsabilités en cas d'accident ou de catastrophe...).

* **Ethics**: La question éthique nous interroge sur les processus sociaux portant sur la valeur des pratiques et des conditions de ces pratiques ainsi que la moralité des actions. Elle porte, dans le cas présent, sur les questions de production et de diffusion des connaissances (fourniture par des entreprises de rapports falsifiés aux pouvoirs publics), sur les questions de santé (choix relatifs aux traitements différenciés selon la population, santé mentale des travailleurs du nucléaire (responsabilité, sentiment de culpabilité)), sur les questions de choix politiques (maintien de la technologie nucléaire, orientations dans les choix d'investissement, de compensation, méfiance envers les pouvoirs publiques et les entreprises...).

* **Nuisance/Inconvenience**: La question de inconvénients est comprise comme étant l'identification des changements négatifs, qualitatifs, quantitatifs et fonctionnels dans la société (destruction de zones d'habitation et d'activité économique, migrations de population, fourniture d'énergie...)

* **Technology Performance**: La performance technologique renvoie aux questions de sûreté et de sécurité que ce soit au niveau de la manipulation, au transport, au stockage de matières dangereuses (eaux contaminées) et des rejets d'éléments radioactifs pouvant impactés la santé humaine (irradiation) et l'environnement (contamination). Elle touche également aux solutions de traitement et de dépollution des sites accidentées et des solutions de substitution (pour produire de l'énergie par exemple).

* **Risks/dangers associated with Technology**: Les risques associés à la technologie sont ceux liés aux caractéristiques de la zone (immergeables, séismes...), l'accès aux ressources nécessaires pur le fonctionnement de l'entreprise ou du territoire (mines uranium...), à la dégradation de l'environnement (contaminations des chaînes alimentaires, niveau/normes) et des risques pour les humains (cohésion de la société, mouvements anti-nucléaires, alimentation...),

* **The Symbolic Dimension**: Le symbole revoie à la représentation subjective, au sein de la société des images, des écrits, des actions entreprises par des institutions publiques, des institutions privées, des ONG, des acteurs de la société... avant, pendant et à la suite d'une situation de crise nucléaire. Elle ne repose pas sur des faits scientifiques ou techniques mais sur des perceptions au sein de la société. Elles peuvent faire l'objet de jugements fallacieux (infox), de biais cognitifs...
# APPENDIX D

## RADIOACTIVITY STEWARDSHIP ETHICAL BOTTOM LINES

The question “What to do?” in a crisis or post-crisis situation is characterised by numerous “Known unknowns” and by dilemmas where the response to one urgency seems likely to worsen outcomes on some other point, each urgency seeming nonetheless an imperative from the relevant stakeholders’ points of view.

No proposed action will be “perfect”, and all propositions for action will be open to criticism from some points of view. The challenge, nevertheless, is to maintain social cohesion and solidarity – not only for the immediate needs of crisis response, but also as a precondition for the necessary reconstruction and future prosperity.

One important part of building up capacity and resiliency is to deepen our understanding of the nature of such dilemmas as characteristic of situations of risk governance. In this vein, we can envisage evaluation exercises where participants are invited to explore and to contribute in the formulation of justifications for – and against – specific actions and strategies in a post-accident situation. This is not in order to have the final word on public policy decisions, but in order to build the necessary capacity for engagement in multi-stakeholder deliberation and debate.

Many frameworks are available to make explicit the complex normative dimensions of risk governance actions. As we have discussed at length elsewhere (O’Connor & Douguet 2024), the ‘ethical’ dimension of risk governance consists not of a simple or unique criterion of what is good and right, but rather of **the articulation of the spectrum of normative principles** that, one way and another, stakeholders bring to bear in their cacophony of judgements about the “wicked problem” being addressed.

The typologies of vulnerabilities already set out in the main text, is one such framing. Another framework, shown in the table on the following page, adapted from O’Connor (2009), sets out a synthesis of considerations of performance and responsibility that have typically been suggested for radioactivity site stewardship.

We adopt a neologism and refer to the **ETHICAL BOTTOM LINES** for an appraisal of opportunities for action. The table proposes a compilation of ‘ethical bottom lines’ in the form of questions, with seven key precepts whose scope, in each case, is explained and illustrated by a second tier of “sub-principles”.

Any action proposed, either as a matter of precaution or as an ex post response after an accident, has the status de facto of a “candidate” put forward by project holders towards the rest of society, as an **ethically principled action** — that is, an action that is intended to satisfy or respond to particular criteria of good or sound practice that are suggested by at least some members of the society. But, just as “one man’s meat is another man’s poison”, we must allow that different ethical bottom lines enter in collision and cannot always be reconciled.

**Sources:** O’Connor (2009). The initial ‘Ethical Bottom Lines’ checklist concept for radioactivity site stewardship was developed in O’Connor (2003), drawing on insights from Fleming (2003). Some preliminary considerations are set out in Faucheux & O’Connor (2005), and the full ‘checklist’ as it appears here was presented in a conference paper by Chamaret & O’Connor (2005); a slightly abridged version of the checklist is also found in Falck (ed., 2006, pp.48-49). A French translation, substantively similar to that given here, can be found in Faucheux & O’Connor (2015).
# RADIOACTIVITY STEWARDSHIP ETHICAL BOTTOM LINES

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

**PR.1 Have the responsibilities of existing parties been appropriately assigned? For example:**

* Application of a principle of national autonomy/responsibility ('take care of your own wastes' at national scale)?

* Application of the principle that 'the polluter pays'?

* Clear expression of, and respect for, local, national and international regulatory conditions?

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

**PR.2 Have responsibilities 'towards other parties' in the short term been adequately addressed? For example:**

* Health security to workers and the public on or close to the site?

* Security against attack in the face of external or internal sources of aggression?

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

**PR.3 Have responsibilities 'towards other parties' in the longer term been adequately addressed? For example:**

* A 'sustainability' principle of inter-generational responsibility (don't pass on problems to others that you cannot cope with yourself)?

* A thorough characterisation of risks/uncertainties/future contingencies (with reference to: the dangerous substances, the engineering works, the living environment, and future societal evolutions)?

* An application of some version of the principle of precaution?

* Is there likely long term stability of the necessary knowledge base (e.g., transmission of records, specialised know-how, local knowledge) for competent stewardship?

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

**PR.4 Has available technical knowhow and systems science been mobilised? For example:**

* Rigorous profiling (in technical, medical and sociological terms) of the exposure risks?

* Standards of best practice (technical reliability, simplicity...)?

* Monitoring procedures attentive to a full spectrum of identified risks/uncertainties/future contingencies?

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

**PR.5 Is the solution economically viable? For example:**

* Are the immediate costs of stewardship affordable with the available resources?

* Clear picture of the trade-offs and relationship between clean-up and stewardship?

* Are the solutions cost-effective for the identified risk reduction results?

* Are there major financial costs shifted into the future?

* Reasonable prospects of mobilising resources for the forecast stewardship costs in the longer term?

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

**PR.6 Does the solution enhance the prestige of the host communities and other stakeholder groups closely associated with the residual/waste site? For example:**

* Viable partnership between local and national stakeholders (e.g., agreed distribution of responsibilities; legal mandate for stewardship activity; agreement on bases for financing of different cost components, etc.)?

* Site specificities clearly in evidence?

* Local competencies clearly in evidence?

* Well defined framework for ongoing involvement of stakeholders in stewardship oversight and review?

* Links to educational and training activities at local and wider scales?
# APPENDIX E
## Les 'Fiches Marines de l'IRSN

L'objectif des **Fiches Marines** est de représenter, à l'aide des cartes, un ensemble d'actifs — économiques, sociétaux, environnementaux — pour des territoires considérés comme directement vulnérables dans le cas d'un accident majeur d'une installation nucléaire.

Pendant 2018-2019, un rapport à été établi sur la méthodologie pour la mise en place de Fiches (Rapport n°RT/PSE-ENV/2018-00063), synthétisant, pour une zone géographique donnée du domaine marin, les caractéristiques environnementales, sa sensibilité et les enjeux qu'elle présente.

* **IRSN (20178), Mise en place des fiches descriptives des caractéristiques et des enjeux dans le domaine marin des installations nucléaires françaises. Fiches marines – Méthodologie. Rapport n°RT/PSE-ENV/2018-00063, Pôle Santé et Environnement,** Service de recherche sur les transferts et les effets des radionucléides sur les écosystèmes, IRSN, 19pp.

Depuis 2019, cette méthodologie a été envisagée pour chaque zone du littoral français considérée comme pouvant être soumise à un aléa nucléaire : à savoir, les embouchures des fleuves ayant sur leurs rives des installations du cycle du combustible, les zones proches des centrales nucléaires côtières et les ports militaires.

Une première Fiche Marine a été produite pendant 2020 pour **La Rade de TOULON**.

* **Fiche Marine – Rade de Toulon,** IRSN, 13pp.

Le travail de l'IRSN, interrompu par les complications sanitaires pendant 2020, a été repris, avec une première version de la Fiche Marine pour **Le COTENTIN** en avril 2021.

* **LOUIS Louana, Céline DUFFA & Olivier RADAKOVTICH (2021), Fiche Marine COTENTIN (Cherbourg – La Hague – Flamanville)** document de travail, IRSN, 20pp.

Cette fiche est suivie rapidement, en juin 2021, par une fiche analogue pour **La Rade de Brest**.

* **LOUIS Louana, Céline DUFFA & Olivier RADAKOVTICH (2021), Fiche Marine RADE DE BREST,** document de travail, IRSN, 24pp.

Une présentation synthétique de la méthodologie se trouve ensuite dans le rapport de stage par Louna LOUIS:

* **LOUIS, Louna (2021), Etude et Cartographie de la Vulnérabilité des Zones Côtières Françaises vis-à-vis de Contaminations Radioactives Accidentelles,** Rapport de Stage Master M1 SOAC-EE, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier & IRSN, Août 2021, 64pp.

Ce rapport de stage contient la Fiche Marine pour Brest comme son Annexe 3.

Ce même rapport de stage (sur sa page 10) affirme l'application de cette démarche également pour « les embouchures du Petit- et du Grand-Rhône, sorties du Rhône le long duquel fonctionnent les 4 centrales nucléaires de Bugey, Cruas, Saint-Alban et Tricastin ainsi que les installations de traitement de matière nucléaire du site de Marcoule ». Nous n'avons cependant pas pu consulter cette dernière Fiche Marine ; le traitement du cas des embouchures du Rhône dans le rapport de stage se limite essentiellement à l'analyse de vulnérabilité).

Les Fiches Marines sont donc des Cartes de Vulnérabilités qui inventorient les ressources et les activités physiques, économiques et écologiques sur chacune des 11 Zones Marines identifiées comme vulnérables.

### LES CATEGORIES D'ACTIFS REPERTORIES SONT :

* Les zones d'estuaires des fleuves comportant des installations nucléaires etc.

* Caractéristiques physiques – géologie, bathymétrie courants marins marée etc.

* Caractéristiques et enjeux économiques et sanitaires

* Zones plages baignade plongée

* Pêche et aquaculture prises d'eau industrie et thalasso

* Sel marin

* Ports de plaisance ou de commerce

* Caractéristiques et richesses écologiques (marines et côtières).

* Biocénoses Zones Protégés, etc.
# APPENDIX F

## MONETARY EVALUATIONS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AT RISK

**Source** : RAMIREZ, Felipe (2022), « Intégration des ressources forestières et aquatiques dans l'analyse des conséquences économiques d'un accident nucléaire ».

Présentation PPTx pour le Séminaire AMORAD-II, 21 mars 2022, IRSN.

### OBJECTIF : EVALUER LES PERTES DE VALEURS ECONOMIQUES

#### DIRECTEMENT ASSOCIEES A LA CONTAMINATION D'UN TERRITOIRE

* ☐ Valeur sur le marché de tous les biens et services produits sur le territoire (ex : valeur des denrées alimentaires, valeur des biens immobiliers, etc.)

* ☐ Tous les autres bénéfices pour la société qui n'ont pas un prix de marché (exemples : cueillette, qualité de l'air, etc.)

### Composantes de coût de l'accident nucléaire déjà modélisées dans ARPAGON

* ❖ Effets sanitaires

* ❖ Pertes valeurs marchandes (entreprises + immobilier)

* ❖ Pertes agricoles

* ❖ Coût de relogement

* ❖ Effets de la décontamination

### Composantes ajoutées par AMORAD-II dans ARPAGON

* ❖ Pertes bois brut

* ❖ Pertes pêche maritime

### Composantes complémentaires adressés par AMORAD-II hors ARPAGON

* ❖ Pertes de services écosystémiques associés à la chasse et la cueillette

* ❖ Pertes associées à des restrictions sur l'approvisionnement en eau potable

### EXEMPLE : COUTS POUR LE SECTEUR DE L'AGRICULTURE (BASSIN VERSANT DE LA LOIRE)

Valeur monétaire des pertes agricoles associées à la contamination des denrées produites sur les territoires contaminés.

#### Données d'entrée :

* Production (Agreste, Eurostat)

* Valeur de la production (INSEE, Agreste, Eurostat)

* Dépôts surfaciques après la fin d'accident (C3X)

* Facteurs de transfert de la contamination vers les denrées alimentaires (SYMBIOSE)

* Niveaux Maximums Admissibles (Euratom)

#### Pertes agricoles en Millions EUR actualisées sur 20 ans après l'accident :

* Avec remédiation de la contamination : 225,74 M€

* Sans remédiation de la contamination : 307,32 M€