Radioactive Waste Management
NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
March 2012www.oecd-nea.org

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities

Actual Implementationof a Spent Nuclear Fuel
Repository in Sweden: Seizing
Opportunities
Synthesis of the FSC National
Workshop and Community VisitÖsthammar, Sweden
4-6 May 2011

N U C L E A R

E N E R G Y

A G E N C Y

Unclassified

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

28-Mar-2012___________________________________________________________________________________________English - Or. English

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
Unclassified

Radioactive Waste Management Committee

ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF A SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL REPOSITORY IN SWEDEN:SEIZING OPPORTUNITIES
Synthesis of the FSC National Workshop and Community VisitÖsthammar, Sweden
4-6 May 2011

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository: Seizing Opportunities” was the subject of the Forumon Stakeholder Confidence’s 8th National Workshop and Community Visit (May 2011). The workshop was heldin Östhammar, the municipality that will host the planned Swedish geological repository. Representatives of
local, regional and national government, civil society organisations and environmental groups, as well as theregulator SSM and implementer SKB, illustrated the siting history and aspirations for the future. Discussed werethe experience and history of the Swedish programme, the Swedish funding system that supported stakeholder
involvement throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment process, and the Added Value programme that
benefits the two municipalities involved – Oskarshamn and Östhammar. This document provides a synthesis of
all the workshop presentations, accounts of round table discussions among the 90 participants representing 13
countries, and an International Perspective essay.

Please send any queries regarding this document to Claudio.pescatore@oecd.org

English - Or. English

JT03318731
Complete document available on OLIS in its original format
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation ofinternational frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

FOREWORD

The 8th Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) National Workshop and Community Visit washeld 4-6 May 2011 in Gimo (Östhammar), Sweden. The Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste,Östhammar municipality, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) and theSwedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) assisted the FSC in the organisation and logistics and provided
financial support for the event. The central theme of the workshop was “Actual Implementation of a Spent
Nuclear Fuel Repository: Seizing Opportunities”. The three day event took place in Gimo, a locality ofÖsthammar. There were 90 participants from 13 countries who included representatives of local, regionaland national government, civil society organisations and environmental groups, universities, waste
management agencies and regulatory authorities. In all, 63 persons participated from Sweden.
The workshop provided an overview of the different aspects involved in the Swedish nuclear
waste management programme from different viewpoints, mainly those of the implementer SKB, theregulator SSM, the two municipalities involved – Oskarshamn and Östhammar – and civil society
organisations. The visions for the future of the two municipalities were presented by local representatives
on the first evening. The second day, after a brief historical overview of waste management, the Swedish
funding system and how it contributes to the participation of local and regional stakeholders was addressed
as well as the role and perspective of different actors in the new licensing phase for the repository. After asession on the role of dialogue, information exchange and transparency throughout the process, participants
at eight round tables discussed the concept of transparency and how it could be affected in the repository
licensing phase. The third day, presentations and round table discussions addressed the specific aspects ofconsultation through the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and economic development through the
Added Value Programme. The workshop also included a tour of the area (which was traditionally a mining
region), an architectural presentation about the planned above ground buildings, and a dinner inÖsthammar municipality the second day.
This document provides a synthesis of all the workshop presentations and accounts of round tablediscussions by assigned delegates.

2

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD .................................................................................................................................................. 2
INTRODUCTION TO THE WORKSHOP .................................................................................................... 4
VISIONS OF OSKARSHAMN AND ÖSTHAMMAR MUNICIPALITIES ................................................ 5
THE SWEDISH NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME: LOOKING BACK, LOOKINGFORWARD .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Overview of the Swedish Nuclear Waste programme................................................................................. 6
The Swedish funding system and how it contributes to the participation of local and regional
stakeholders ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Questions and comments ............................................................................................................................. 7
Perspectives from key actors on entering the new licensing phase ............................................................. 8
DIALOGUE, INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND TRANSPARENCY IN THE NEW PHASE ............. 10
The role of dialogue, information exchange and transaprency in the Swedish NWM decision making
process ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
FSC short member survey on transparency ............................................................................................... 11
Reflections from different actors on dialogue, information and transparency .......................................... 11
Questions and comments ........................................................................................................................... 14
Communities of practice – the case of the Swedish planning and decision making process for final
disposal of spent nuclear fuel .................................................................................................................... 14
Round table discussions ............................................................................................................................ 14
COMMUNITY VISIT .................................................................................................................................. 17
ACHIEVING DEEP CONSULTATION THROUGH THE EIA ................................................................. 18
EIA as an “umbrella” process for Swedish consultation ........................................................................... 18
Reflections from local NGOs .................................................................................................................... 18
Round table discussions ............................................................................................................................ 19
THE ADDED VALUE PROGRAMME AND LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .......................... 21
The Swedish Added Value Programme .................................................................................................... 21
Questions and comments ........................................................................................................................... 22
A parallel experience from Beligum: The Local Fund .............................................................................. 23
Round table discussions ............................................................................................................................ 23
RAPPORTEUR’S OBSERVATIONS AND CLOSING .............................................................................. 25
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX 1. FSC WORKSHOP PROGRAMME..................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX 2. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................................. 34

3

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

INTRODUCTION TO THE WORKSHOPThe opening session of the workshop took place in the evening of Day 1 (May 4, 2011). Mrs.
Janet Kotra, the FSC Chair, thanked the assembly and pointed out key observations arising from theseven previous workshops:-

Technical soundness is a part of a well-meaning process but it is not enough. Procedural fairness isimportant.
Stakeholders need access to understandable information. Some tools and methods may be sitespecific, but in other cases, what works for one country might work for others and have universal
value.
Stakeholder confidence is never established once and for all. It needs continuous work and upkeep.

There is a need to improve the quality of interactions with stakeholders and provide better and more
opportunities for participation. Mrs. Kotra reviewed the concept of stakeholder provided by the FSC as“any actor—institution, group or individual—with an interest or with a role to play in the radioactive waste
management process”. She observed that the FSC interpretation of “stakeholder” is broad and inclusive,
although not everyone is comfortable with this term.
Mrs. Holmfridur Bjarnadottir, Administrative Director of the Swedish National Council for
Nuclear Waste, talked about the Workshop as an opportunity to present what has been done in the Swedish
context and reflect on the next steps in the licensing phase. The core issues in this Workshop and for the
Swedish programme have been dialogue, transparency and consultation. She briefly introduced theSwedish National Council for Nuclear Waste.
Mrs. Martine Huraut, Andra, talked about the experience of the last FSC Workshop in Bar-leDuc in France in 2009. In that workshop, local stakeholders understood that Andra’s commitment to a
consultation approach was real. Members of Local Information Commissions participated actively in thediscussions expressing their points of view on the disposal project in France.

4

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

VISIONS OF OSKARSHAMN AND ÖSTHAMMAR MUNICIPALITIESThe next session of the workshop, also in the evening of Day 1, allowed participants to gain
understanding of the involved municipalities’ view of the process to come and their objectives. (Amunicipality in Sweden is the local government entity. It is smaller than a county yet incorporates several
distinct communities in cities or villages. Östhammar municipality is part of Uppsala county and the 2010
census counted 21,389 residents. Oskarshamn municipality in Kalmar county in 2010 counted 26,235
residents. They are situated respectively in the central eastern and south eastern part of Sweden and coverrespectively 3,508 and 2,295 square kilometers. Each contains nuclear energy installations.)
Mr. Andreas Lytter, Östhammar municipality, presented the vision of the municipality for the
next 10 years as “the best local community in the world”. In the 1970s, the construction of a nuclear power
plant in Forsmark marked the beginning of a ten-year period in which the population increased by 15%.
Since then, the population has been growing slightly. Mr. Lytter recognised that Östhammar needs new
developments and they had to decide on a vision for the municipality. To develop this vision, themunicipality first focused on what they have internally and then invited everyone to participate anddevelop their own local vision. Every community unit had the possibility to develop its own local visionand incorporate it into the municipality vision. Local development groups, political parties, schools,
associations and individuals participated in the process to define the vision. In the end, there were manydifferent local visions from the local communities and even some of them were not compatible. During thisparticipatory process, the municipality realised that diversity is an opportunity and diversity of society is aprerequisite for any development. The 22 local visions that were received were all incorporated into themunicipality vision “the best local community in the world”.
Mr. Lennart Karlsson, Head of Industry and Business Development in Oskarshamn
municipality, presented the vision of Oskarshamn as “an international energy centre and a municipality
with growth and high quality of life”. To implement the vision, the Development Programme has fivepriority areas: infrastructure and communications; diversified trade and industry; establishing a world-classresearch and development and demonstration centre for energy; competence availability; andattractiveness.
The vision itself consists of three elements: an international energy centre; a municipality withgrowth and a high quality of life. To build the international energy centre, the municipality relies on theenergy industry, the NOVA platform studies – research and business incubator, UBC energy commission
and the Added value contract with the power industry. In addition, Oskarshamn has plans for a
Technology/Energy college, Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) arena for the nuclear
cycle, a student reactor, partnership with European Institute of Technology (a network between universities
and industry), a large resort based on sustainable technologies and even the possibility of a new nuclear
power plant. In addition, Oskarshamn is developing the tourism and service industry to broaden the labour
market, plans a Baltic ferry line and is working to improve local industry development.

5

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

THE SWEDISH NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME: LOOKING BACK,LOOKING FORWARD

Overview of the Swedish Nuclear Waste programme
Mrs. Ansi Gerhardsson, Deputy Director at the Chemicals Division in the Ministry of theEnvironment, spoke about the history of nuclear waste through different time periods. After the Second
World War, Sweden evolved into an industrial country and had high demand of electricity, which only
nuclear could provide. Building nuclear power plants was not at all a popular decision at that time and led
to demonstrations against nuclear. After Three Mile Island, an advisory referendum was held in Sweden
leading to the decision to phase out nuclear power in 2010. Nevertheless, a law was enacted that stipulated
that anyone using nuclear power to produce electricity had to manage and dispose of the waste. Thus, thenuclear industry in Sweden had to prove that they had a plan for the long-term management of radioactive
waste and established the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB). The company isowned by the nuclear power producers and is responsible for both the short and long term management of
the waste. At present, Sweden, together with Finland, are at the forefront of long-term solutions forradioactive waste.
In the period 1985-1992, the regulatory system was partially established in Sweden. The licenceholders had to define and develop their own solutions, and demonstrate the safety level achieved to theregulatory bodies. The interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, CLAB, was built near Oskarshamn.
The Äspo hard rock laboratory outside Oskarshamn allows SKB to conduct research in order to understandlong-term changes in a final repository at a depth of nearly 500 metres.
After having failed in the site investigations carried out in different regions across Sweden, from1992, the siting process was built on voluntariness. Out of the eight municipalities selected as suitable forin-depth studies, only two municipalities, Oskarshamn and Östhammar, voluntarily announced that they
were willing to host a repository provided the geological and safety requirements were met. Analysis andsite investigations resulted in the selection of Forsmark in Östhammar municipality in 2009. On 16 March
2011, SKB submitted applications to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) and to theEnvironmental Court to build the final repository in Forsmark. If the Government grants the permission,
SKB will start building the initial phase of the repository. Planning is also in progress for an encapsulation
plant adjacent to CLAB in Oskarshamn.
The Swedish system is based on two basic principles: the polluters pay principle and the principle that thegeneration that has benefitted from nuclear power should solve the waste problem. In order to operate under these two
principles, Sweden has a legal framework with a clear division of responsibilities between Government and power
suppliers. The Government develops laws for financing the waste management programs and is managing the funds
for the programs. The Government is also responsible for the audit and safety evaluations of the proposed plants,
which is in fact one of the strengths of the Swedish nuclear waste programme. Other key elements for a successfulprogramme include: legislation that sets targets, financing arrangements, a long-term strategy for the disposal of spent
fuel and radioactive waste and public consultation and influence in the decision-making process. Regarding the latter,
the Swedish model is based on transparency, participation and dialogue.

6

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
The Swedish funding system and how it contributes to the participation of local and regional
stakeholders
Mr. Björn Hedberg, Head of Section Financial Control at the Radiation Safety Authority,
stressed some of the financial aspects associated with nuclear activities in Sweden. According to the
Financing Act, the owners/licensees of the nuclear power plants - through the jointly owned company SKB- make cost calculations regarding final management of spent fuel and nuclear waste (including
decommissioning). SKB also performs a risk analysis involving evaluation of uncertainties. SKB allocatesthe costs among the four licensees. SSM is the responsible body for assessing the cost calculation from
SKB. SSM then calculates the fees and guarantees and gives recommendations to the Government, who
decides on the fees that should be paid to the Nuclear Waste Fund and the guarantees, that are handled by
the Swedish National Debt Office. According to the Studsvik Act, the Parliament sets the fees after
recommendation from Government and SSM. Finally, SSM approves the reimbursement from the Fundand is also responsible for performing audits and control of the use of fund assets.
The Nuclear Waste Fund in Sweden is managed by a Government Board. At the end of 2010, theassets of the fund were slightly over 5 billion Euro approximately. Nuclear power plant (NPP) owners
build up funds for their future costs during their first 40 years of operation. The fund is similar to a pension
system for NPPs in which money is set aside today for financing future expenses. The costs to be coveredby the Fund include management and disposal of waste from nuclear activities, spent fuel management,
construction of new facilities (i.e. final repository for spent nuclear fuel, encapsulation plant, final
repository for long lived LLW and ILW), research and development, decommissioning and dismantling of
all nuclear facilities, waste management, management of legacy waste and regulatory supervisions. The
fund also covers costs for the involvement of local communities and non-governmental organisations(NGO) in the site selection process.
Questions and comments
In response to audience questions and comments, the workshop learned that:•

The Swedish government took the decision to set up a nuclear waste fund. There is a separate
authority responsible for administering the fund (This authority is named the Nuclear Waste
Fund). SSM is a governmental authority who calculates the fees based on the informationfrom SKB. SSM suggests the fee to the government, who decides on the fee.

•

National NGOs receive money to support their participation from the Nuclear Fund whilst
local NGOs receive it from the municipality. The prerequisite to receive money is toparticipate in the Environmental Impact Assessment process. The decision on a budgetary
request from an NGO – as well as for concerned municipalities – is taken by SSM.

•

The current “final disposal project” (including decommissioning) - and also the existing
financial system - considers the waste from existing NPPs. If new NPPs are constructed, thennew/revised legislation for final disposal as well as financing must be in place.

•Spent fuel is not considered waste until it is stored in the repository and sealed. At present,
the industry is responsible for the spent fuel but once the repository is sealed and closed, theresponsibility should go over to the State.

7

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
Perspectives from key actors on entering the new licensing phase
Mrs. Eva Simic, Project Manager at SSM, stated that SKB submitted two license applications to
SSM for the repository and the encapsulation plant and another one to the Environmental Court for thewhole repository system. Therefore, during the licensing phase two parallel processes are in place and need
to be coordinated. Both administrations will provide recommendations to government. SSM will stipulateconditions according to the Act of Nuclear Activities and Radiation Protection whilst the Environmental
Court will make recommendations according to the Environmental Code.
In order to manage the review task, SSM has organised a project consisting of the following subprojects: 1) post-closure repository safety; 2) operational repository safety; 3) encapsulation plant and 4)
repository system and environmental impact assessment. The so-called Safety Integration Review (SIR)
team takes strategic decisions on the review and deals with issues that cross cuts the sub-projects. The SIR
team consists of the project manager, the project director, and the four subproject managers. The overall
goal of SSM is to produce a defensible basis for a government decision on SKB’s license application. For
this, it is necessary to fulfil high demands on internal quality assurance. As such, the core values of thereview strategy by SSM are integrity, reliability and openness.
The review method is mainly based on document review and supporting activities, such as
independent modelling, dedicated review of SKB’s quality assurance programme, external reviews fromnational and international organisations. The work is carried out in a phased iterative manner, which
requires an extensive planning of resources. Other challenges involved in this review are the extensive
material to be reviewed, the high demands on internal quality assurance for transparency and traceability
and the need to arrive at definitive judgements on method and site.
Mr. Erik Setzman, Environment and Stakeholders Unit at SKB, spoke about the new role of
SKB in the licensing phase. The site Forsmark and the method KBS3 are selected in order to both optimise
safety and radiation protection and to avoid environmental impacts. SKB submitted the application for a
final disposal of spent fuel in Forsmark to the Environmental Court and to the regulator. The leadership has
now moved from the implementer to the regulator and the Environmental Court, who are now in charge ofthe process. The also necessary municipal land use plans (detailed construction plans) are already approved
Therefore, SKB needs approval from five organisations: the government (including the Parliament and theSwedish Council for Nuclear Waste), Environmental Court, SSM and the municipalities of Östhammar and
Oskarshamn.
Mr. Setzman spoke about the different tasks undertaken by SKB during the review period. The
Environmental Court and SSM announced that they need a year to complete the review. During this year,
SKB presents the application to the different stakeholders, answers questions and undertakes
complementary investigations. SKB has established an office close to the final storage for short-lived low
and intermediate level waste (SFR) in Forsmark and reopened an office in Östhammar. In addition, theSwedish Environmental Protection Agency will conduct a consultation with Baltic Sea countries regardingtransboundary environmental impacts. SSM is expected to send comments to the Environmental Court
after 2 or 2.5 years. The Environmental Court then holds negotiations. Consequently, decisions fromgovernment are not expected before 4 or 5 years after the submission of the application.
Since 1984 SKB has worked with many leading universities and organisations in Sweden andinternationally (like IAEA, NEA, the EU) and have cooperated with a number of countries. SKB has
financed 120 scientific reports and has invested 0,8 billion Euro in the research project. The focus of SKB
will change from R&D to construction, even if further research will be carried out, mainly focusing on
copper corrosion, buffer erosion, impact of climate change, KBS-3-H, records of knowledge and memory,

8

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
etc. Continued stakeholder involvement, dialogue and transparency are vital tasks for SKB. It is importantto keep up the confidence.
Mrs. Marie Berggren, Head of Unit of reviewing the repository license in the local municipalityof Östhammar, presented the municipality and described the conditions for a trustworthy process. The
paramount pre-condition is that the process is based on voluntary participation. In addition, she presented
four cornerstones for a trustworthy process: a clear legal framework, a financing system in place,knowledge and awareness and openness and transparency. During the siting phase, Östhammar
municipality reviewed its municipal organisation in order to increase information and hold a dialogue withthe public regarding the final repository and to increase awareness and knowledge amongst politicians. For
this reason the municipality established three different committees: the long-term safety committee, theenvironmental impact assessment committee and the consultative committee working party (which
includes a pending consultative committee).
The new licensing phase involves that the municipality will have to review the applicationconsidering long term safety, environmental impacts, health effects and socio-economic aspects. In
addition, the application for SFR and the R&D programme will also need review from the municipality
point of view. Consequently, the review of the application does not only focus on the final repository buton the whole system. It is important to maintain trust, as it can be easily ruined. It has to be considered thatas the formal process sharpens arguments, more and more experts come forward with their own arguments.
The public needs knowledge to understand the questions raised by the experts’ opinions. Within this newframework, the municipality has a difficult role to play and needs to find ways to inform and continue
dialogue with the public and take decisions based on informed knowledge.
Mr. Rolf Persson, Head of the Local Competence Building project (LKO) in Oskarshamn, spoke
about the role of the municipality of Oskarshamn in the new licensing phase. Oskarshamn municipality
focuses now on the application for the encapsulation plant. For this task, they have set up a strategy groupwhich coordinates all the work regarding nuclear issues, a review group focusing on safety andenvironmental issues of the encapsulation plant and a secretariat. The strategy group also focuses on social
planning, including development possibilities, spatial planning and infrastructure. The review group does
not only consider radioactive protection but also environmental issues like noise, transport emissions,regional aspects, surface water, etc.

9

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

DIALOGUE, INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND TRANSPARENCY IN THE NEW PHASE

The role of dialogue, information exchange and transaprency in the Swedish NWM decision making
process
Mr. Torsten Carlsson, former mayor of Oskarshamn and current chair of the Swedish National
Council of Nuclear Waste, spoke about the role of dialogue, information exchange and transparency in the
Swedish NWM decision making process or the so-called “Oskarshamn model”. In 1990, the Dialogue
Project was a new initiative launched by the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) towards a morecommunicative approach. The project simulated a licensing process and recommended to the governmentthat NGOs should be given financial support in order to empower them. This in fact was one of the core
issues to stimulate a good discussion between industry and local authorities.
Mr. Carlsson pointed out that in 1992 Oskarshamn was selected by SKB as a preferred site for an
encapsulation plant close to CLAB. The municipality informed the government and nuclear authorities thatthey intended to become a competent party in the nuclear waste discussion and therefore, needed financial
support. In January 1994, the government decided to provide 200,000 dollars per year over four years to
the municipality of Oskarshamn and this enabled the Local competence building project (LKO) to belaunched. The main aims of the LKO project was to increase competence among decision makers and the
public and to provide channels for dialogue. The mission of the working groups under the EIA Forum wereto discuss the nuclear waste issue with neighbouring municipalities and citizens. Each working group had
an experienced politician as a chairman with access to LKO experts. The working groups were composedof around 10-15 people representing local politicians, neighbouring municipalities, municipal civil
servants, neighbours, members of community organisations, etc.
In October 1994, the EIA Forum was initiated with representatives from nuclear authorities (SKB
and the regulatory authorities SKI and SSI), the County and the municipality. In May 1995, SKB requested
the feasilibility study in Oskarshamn and the municipality took a year to prepare the answer until it was
accepted in autumn 1996. In 2000, SKB requested the site investigation. Each working group under the
EIA Forum had to write a report to the council with its recommendations regarding the final decision on
the continuation of the site investigations in Oskarshamn. In March 2002, the municipality agreed to thesite investigation but put forward 13 conditions.
Mr. Carlsson pointed out the key factors that underlie the municipality’s successful strategy ofcompetent influence. Municipalities in Sweden have a veto right in the process of siting nuclear facilities.
They also have a strong position of independence in relation to central government. In addition, themunicipality of Oskarshman could get economic resources to participate in the decision making process
through the Nuclear Waste Fund. The municipality required all the information be made available before
taking a decision and this allowed them to influence the process. Oskarshamn also requested a formal
reporting, extensive review of the programme disposal concept and a foundation for site selection, which
was not considered in the Swedish legislation. The focus of the nuclear waste discussion moved from thecentral to the local level, where the radioactive waste was already located in CLAB. Nowadays, decision10

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
making uniquely involving the top level is not accepted and the goal is to take decisions on a solid basis,taking into account the local level.
FSC short member survey on transparency
Mrs. Jay Redgrove, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) in the United Kingdom,
presented the survey on transparency undertaken by the FSC in 2010. Responses were received from ten
countries and the findings showed that all of the participating organisations work actively withtransparency. Nonetheless, most organisations lack a definition of transparency and its meaning varies not
only across countries but also across organisations. In some cases, the concepts of openness andtransparency are not distinguished. The purposes of transparency also vary. Transparency was interpreted
as easy access to information, detailed technical publications, clarity of language, authenticity, a clear andopen process with clear roles and responsibilities, no hidden agendas, opportunity for all interested parties
to participate in the decision making process. As a consequence of the range of meanings, the ways toachieve transparency also vary from just publicising information to organizing extensive participation.
Mrs. Redgrove highlighted some of the definitions of transparency provided by different
organisations, like the European Nuclear Energy Forum Working Group on Information and Transparency,
the Swedish Council for Nuclear Waste, RAWRA, Posiva, ONDRAF/NIRAS, NAGRA or the NDA. In
summary, the concept of transparency appears to be widely used among FSC members but is seldom
defined in a rigorous manner. It is therefore important to be aware of the main driving force fortransparency in a specific organisation or area of activities.
Reflections from different actors on dialogue, information and transparency
Mrs. Josefin Päiviö Jonsson, Head of Section for Disposal of Radioactive Waste, and Mr. David
Persson, Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM), reflected on how the need for dialogue, informationexchange and transparent processes have changed during the past 30 years. SSM was formed in 2008 andis a merge of SKI and SSI that were the former responsible authorities for supervising radiation protection
and nuclear safety in Sweden.
After recalling the role of SKB during the siting process, Mrs. Päiviö Jonsson spoke of thechanges to SSM’s regulatory approach as a result of the siting process in general and the increased numberof stakeholders in particular. Prior to the site investigations, the authority’s focus was on supervision,
safety reviews and building of competence for the review of SKB’s future licence applications for an
encapsulation plant and a repository for spent nuclear fuel. At that time, communication and dialogue had arather low profile. In the beginning of the siting process, i.e. when the feasibility studies were undertaken
in Northern Sweden, the regulatory authority participated in information meetings. However, there were noprocedures in place for regular interaction with the municipalities. SKI and SSI were concerned whether it
was possible to take an active part in the siting process whilst maintaining the independence necessary forreviewing the future licence application. In the early 1990s, SKI initiated the Dialogue project. The resultsof the project showed that 1) regulators can and should participate in the early stages of a siting process
and this would be possible without losing credibility as an independent reviewer of a licence applicationand 2) actors with conflicting interests and views can reach agreement on the basis for decisions.
The second break point for the regulator to change its view on communication and active
participation occurred when an increasing number of municipalities became involved in the site selection
process. The EIA Forum designed and implemented by Oskarshamn municipality allowed the authorities
and municipalities to gain confidence in the process. Finally, the third break point for the regulator
11

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
stemmed from changes in the environmental legislation. The introduction of the Environmental Code in thelate 1990s made the EIA clearer and the regulatory authority had to adjust to the new demands regarding
participation.
From 2000, there was an increased interest in stakeholder involvement and new initiatives werelaunched, like Cowam, the FSC and RISCOM. SKI had a key role in developing the RISCOM model fortransparency and tried to use this model in the Swedish process. Funding available for NGOs was also
crucial as they could engage in the process and this had an impact on the work of the regulator.
In May 2011, SSM received the licence application and from that moment, there are a number ofchallenges ahead. In particular, during the review process, stakeholders will have expectations on theauthority to have an opinion and adopt a standpoint. Even if SSM has to be open, it is not possible to havean opinion on an isolated part of the review before having conducted a review of all the issues.
Furthermore, it will be difficult to keep the balance between openness and transparency whilst at the sametime allowing the experts to conduct their review in an “undisturbed” environment. Mrs. Päiviö Jonsson
stated that SSM has a mandate from government to conduct a critical and solid review of the licenceapplication and it is important to emphasise that SSM is independent of the nuclear industry,
environmental organisations and other stakeholders. Thus, it is important to undertake the review withgreat integrity. Even if the legislation does not provide opportunities for consultation during the review ofthe licence application, SSM will ensure that the public have opportunities for involvement in the process.
SSM is developing a communication plan specific to the review project which includes input from themunicipalities concerned and other stakeholders. In addition, Government requested an independent peer
review by international experts from NEA in order to further enhance the review process. SSM will publish
the results of the international peer review as well as all documents and supplementary information on thelicensing review. The primary channel for information will be the website but information meetings will beorganised when the review has passed specific milestones.
Mrs. Marie Berggren, from Östhammar municipality, spoke of the important milestones for themunicipality with regards to high level radioactive waste history. In 1995, the municipality accepted thepre-investigation and established a consultative group. They also applied to the Nuclear Waste Fund. The
second important milestone was in 2001 when the municipality accepted the site investigation. Östhammar
required all the reports developed by SKB to be understandable. The Environmental Act formalised
consultation meetings and opened up for municipalities to take an active part in the decision making
process. In the current phase, when the consultation procedure is finalised, it is important for themunicipality to find forums between authorities, SKB and the public to have an influence despite the factthat the application is being reviewed. Municipalities hold regular meetings but there are fewer participants
than in previous phases. Mrs. Berggren stated that authorities need to find a way to foster transparency
despite the review process and the municipality need to find a way to engage the young people. She raised
the question on whether the internet is the only way and which is the best way forward. Mrs. Berggren
concluded by listing the main conclusions and challenges ahead. Buiding trust takes time. For this reason,
it is important to communicate and participate with openness and transparency. The process is as importantas the content and it should be predictable, with a realistic timetable.
Mr. Johan Swahn, Director of the Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review (MKG) said
that MKG was created in 2004 by the largest Swedish environmental NGOs. The five organisations
incorporated into MKG were the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) in collaboration with
two regional branches of the society, an independent youth movement associated with the society and the
local association of Östhammar, Oss. MKG was specifically created to work with nuclear waste issues.
The reason for the creation of MKG was that the Nuclear Financial Act and the Nuclear Financial
regulation in 2004 allowed environmental organisations to seek funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The
regulation specified that a maximum of 3 million SEK (approximately 325,000€) could be made available
12

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
with one organisation being able to receive a maximum of 2,5 million SEK (270,000€). Since 2005, MKG
has received approximately 2 million SEK (218,000 €) per year from the fund. The funding is provided forparticipation in the consultation process and the application review process for a repository for spent
nuclear fuel, for building up knowledge and disseminating the information within the consultation process.
Without the funding, the input from NGOs would not have been of the same quality as it was. Whether
SKB has used this input to improve the final repository project, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)or the application can be questioned. MKG and SSNC have been critical of the way SKB has conducted
the consultation process, specially of the lack of quality and incompleteness of the documentation
produced.
Mr. Swahn commented that the funding system and the resulting activities were given a positive
review and the system was extended to allow funding in the initial part of the review process after theapplication for the permit for a final repository was submitted on 16 March 2011. Both the SSNC and
MKG will take an active part in the ongoing review process of the application. A review and judicial
project has been set up under the auspices of the SSNC. He stated that MKG has concerns regarding the
choice of method and site as well as the safety case of the KBS method. KBS relies on artificial barriers ofcopper and clay for isolation of the radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years.
Generally, NGOs are sceptical about receiving money for being involved in a consultation
process. However, the fact that NGOs in Sweden receive money for their involvement in the consultation
process on the repository for radioactive waste has been largely beneficial. Firstly, there are possibilities
for changing things that can be wrong. Secondly, the Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste
provided an arena for discussion within society from 2006 through 2010. Issues which were considered
important by some stakeholders were raised and discussed, such as the alternative method very deep
boreholes, copper corrosion and siting. The resources available for participation were crucial to build up
knowledge, undertake independent investigations and participate in meetings.
Mr. Erik Setzman, Environment and Stakeholders Unit at SKB, spoke about the lessons learned
during the 1980s when there were protests and demonstrations against SKB’s activities in some parts of
Sweden. Generally, during the 1980s and 1990s, public awareness on nuclear issues as well as the interestfor the environment increased, there was more transboundary cooperation and information exchange
became global. Consultation, involvement, participation and transparency became key aspects for avoiding
the reluctance and resistance towards certain industrial and nuclear power projects. In Sweden, past
failures in communication and acceptance in large projects indicated the need for the waste managementcompany to improve their communication strategies. In parallel, there was a demand for EIA and EIS to be
implemented and new sharpened legislation through the Environmental Code.
Mr. Setzman acknowledged that early and open information for all stakeholders is absolutely
necessary and time and patience are needed to build trust and confidence. It is not sufficient to hold a few
large consultation meetings. Municipalities and NGOs need to organise their own reference groups andreview teams and get financial support to participate in the process. SKB has established consultations andcontacts with various targets groups, from local to regional, national and international levels. Nowadays,
when looking into the future, a number of questions are raised:-Will roles and responsibilities be consistent?
Will the current legislation result in updated and partly new legislation?
How will climate change and environmental priorities affect future decisions?
Should reference groups be widened?
How should we keep stakeholders interested and informed in the long run?
How to balance the demand for open facilities for visitors with the demands for safety andsecurity?
13

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

Questions and comments
In response to audience questions and comments, the workshop learned that:-

The nuclear industry has the responsibility to present a solution and an application for the licenceof a repository for spent fuel. SSM is obliged to review any applications coming from the nuclear
industry. In case another company different from SKB might present a different method, thisindustry should convince SSM that their method is better than the KBS3 method. Transmutation
has not been considered as a solution for radioactive waste.
Given the fact that it is the first time that the application for a licence of such an environmental
facility is reviewed, the division of labour between the Environmental Court and SSM is notstraightforward.

-

Communities of practice – the case of the Swedish planning and decision making process for final
disposal of spent nuclear fuelMs. Antoienette Wärnbäck, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, summarised her
research project which will be presented as a doctoral thesis in the middle of 2012 and which is supervisedby Mrs. Tuija Hilding-Rydevik. Ms. Wärnbäck expressed her interest in learning and planning andparticularly in the EIA practice. Some of the questions arisen as part of her investigation include who sets
the planning agenda, when and how do people together change behaviour and thereby also the planning
process and what do people actually learn when interacting. In this context, the nuclear waste management
arena is interesting because the same type of actors have been involved in the planning process over thelast 30 years. Therefore, it can be assumed that communities of practice have emerged. According to thesocial theory of learning, a community of practice is formed when people learn when doing things together
and thereby create new knowledge. In Sweden, there have been different arenas and opportunities to learn
and interact, like the Dialogue project, KASAM1 seminars, experts meetings, regional consultations (EIA
Forum), etc. There have been a wide range of participants in the nuclear waste process, but thesecommunities of practice might lead to narrow knowledge production as some issues might never come up
on the agenda. The new phase of reviewing the application opens up questions such as whether SSM will
step out of the community of practice when acting as a reviewer of the application. The authority has toreview its own input in the nuclear waste process and there is a risk of not being too critical about a process
in which SSM has been part of.
Round table discussions
Following the methodology of FSC workshops, the participants then broke up into eight round tablegroups, mixing stakeholder roles and nationalities. They discussed the following general questions taking
into consideration the Swedish context and the experience of international delegates:
1.
2.
3.

How do round table members (or your institutions) define transparency?
How will transparency be affected by entering the repository licensing phase?
How do we maintain transparency in the review and licensing phase?

Returning to a plenary session, each round table presented a summary of discussions.

1

The organization that was renamed as Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste.

14

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
How is transparency defined?
Overall it was found that transparency had different interpretations across organisations andcountries. One of the organisations which has defined transparency is the Swedish Council for Nuclear
Waste, stating that “by transparency we mean not only openness, but comprehensibility and accessibility.
In other words we strive to ensure that the arguments in the crucial issues in the nuclear waste field arecomprehensible and that the information is easily accessible”. It was found that transparency is often usedinterchangeably with openness. In this sense, transparency and openness involve providing information
which is understandable and comprehensible by all stakeholders before taking actions at every step in theprocess. It was also interpreted as getting opportunities for people to dialogue and to get answers to certain
questions that arise during the process. Some groups observed that the result of transparency is building
trust and confidence. In another group, some delegates interpreted transparency as seeing through whilst
openness meant not only seeing but also understanding.
In some round table groups it was suggested that specific definitions may not be that important,rather the behaviour of both the implementer and regulator in the process may demonstrate if they arewilling to be open and transparent. It is also important to be clear about the expectations from the different
stakeholders involved. This means having no hidden agendas and communicating in an understandable
way. One group spoke about active and passive transparency.
How will transparency be affected by entering the repository licensing phase?
The overall general impression was that the new licensing phase will involve changes fortransparency compared to the siting phase. However, there was not a general consensus on whether
transparency would increase, diminish or remain at the same level in Sweden. All three possibilities were
contemplated in the different round table groups. In some countries, transparency can be challenging
because the authorities may be forbidden by law to provide information during the ongoing licensing
process.
Round table groups agreed that the roles of the different organisations in Sweden has changed
with the new phase. Transparency is now in the hands of the Environmental Court and SSM, rather than
SKB. The Environmental Court does not have experience on this new licensing phase and may encounter
difficulties, even if by law it needs to be transparent. For SSM, it is a more reflective period, where internaldeliberations need to be made. On the other hand, there are expectations from Swedish stakeholders that
SSM will communicate and interact with the public during the review process. From the point of view of
the regulator, it is also important to get as much information as possible to achieve the best results. For
SKB, the challenge is how to remain receptive to new information because they may have to change theirapplication. During this new phase, SKB has the opportunity to explain the licence application. It washowever pointed out that it needed to be translated and this is a challenge for a 7,000 page report.
How do we maintain transparency in the review and licensing phase?
Information should be available and easily accessible for transparency to be maintained. All files
and details on the process should be accessible. If clear milestones are identified and reports are madepublic, this could help in maintaining transparency. In addition, social media could be used as a channel forincreasing transparency. One round table suggested that the public and NGOs could be involved with a“watchdog” function.
15

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

From the point of view of the local level, the committees were assumed to continue informing
citizens and therefore, transparency would be maintained. However, there are indications that the interest at
the local level has dropped (that persons no longer perceive any opportunity to be active in the process).
There seems to be a general expectation that the licence will come straight away.

16

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

COMMUNITY VISIT

Swedish and foreign participants were transported on a guided bus tour to Forsmark and then toÖsthammar town. During the bus tour, a guide explained the industrial heritage in the region. Iron was
produced in Uppland as early as the middle ages. The region was famous for the excellent quality of steel.
During the stop at Forsmark, Mr. Fredrik Lange from Lange Art, SKB’s team of architects,
explained how the facility will be designed. The design of an industrial site needs to consider threedifferent visual perspectives: 1) the building seen from a distance; 2) the building seen from nearby and 3)
the detailed impression once you enter the building. He mentioned some of the aspects taken into accountfor his proposed design. Firstly, the skyline should be integrated in the surrounding and not dominating. It
should respect the landscape. Secondly, the design should be functional and the buildings divided incomprehensible units. Transparency is important and one shall see what is going on inside the building.
Finally, it is important to take account local building traditions and use natural materials wherever possible.
Mr. Lange showed his overall design emphasizing flat roofs and using the basic materials of concrete and agrid of precast elements to stay within a strict budget. His presentation included various photomontages,
from the air and from SFR and various model views from the main entrance.
Some questions were raised by the delegates regarding the general design of the facility and inparticular the proximity of the repository facility to the sea, from which visitors could potentially enjoy aparticular view on an architectural monument. Mr. Pescatore opined on the importance of adding value tothe infrastructure through design and of building a sustainable relationship between the host community
and the site installation. He emphasised what FSC had learned about the role designers and architects canplay in producing a facility that becomes a part of the fabric of local life and even something of which thecommunity is proud. The FSC has investigated cultural, functional and physical design features that may
allow a facility to be better integrated and be made more attractive to the community and the region in boththe short and long term. In some cases, industrial facilities have become an icon, lending a positive
reputation and drawing visitors. In the case of the design shown by Mr. Lange, Mr. Pescatore stressed theimportance of careful consideration of the ways to provide added cultural and amenity values to the local
community and beyond. It was suggested in discussion that a resolution must be found between the desire
to avoid calling attention to a facility, and, the need to demonstrate that a facility is a safe addition to acommunity and a lasting asset.
The local visit ended with a dinner at a restaurant in Östhammar where Mrs. Anna-Lena
Söderblom, chairman of the Östhammar municipality reference committee, spoke about its responsibility
for information and dialogue with the municipal council and the public. The resident population ofÖsthammar is around 21,400. In summertime there are thousands of parttime residents who come to enjoy
the coast, stroll in the surrounding nature, swim in the sea, play golf or just relax.
Safety is a central issue for the municipality and a repository in Östhammar is of great
importance to the municipality in many ways. The task of the municipality now is to perform its
appropriate review of SKB’s application with help from universities and highly trained experts.

17

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

ACHIEVING DEEP CONSULTATION THROUGH THE EIA

EIA as an “umbrella” process for Swedish consultation
Mrs. Sofie Tunbrant, SKB, reviewed the EIA process since it started in 2001 with early
consultations for both facilities, the encapsulation plant and the repository. The main purpose of the EIA is
to give different actors an opportunity to influence the design and lay out of the facilities, regarding humanhealth and environment as well as to influence the scope and content of the EIS. Consultation should be
regarded as a forum of mutual exchange of ideas where different target groups are involved in different
ways. At the international level, governmental agencies were consulted in writing. National NGOs can bevery active because they receive resources from the waste fund. Neighbouring countries are involved
through the Environmental Protection Agency. At the local level, meetings in the two municipalities weremost important for dialogue. The official notes and proceedings of these meetings are documented and the
documents are available at SKB website. More than 3,000 questions, comments and remarks have been
dealt with during this process. Out of the 60 meetings held at the local level, 30 meetings were part of the
EIA Forum in Oskarshamn and EIA group in Östhammar. The other 30 meetings were with regionalorganisations;18 of these were also open for the public. The consultation report is enclosed with the EIS in
the application.
The Environmental Code changed the way organisations regarded information and consultation.
The question was not only how to consult but how to gain and keep confidence. Part of the answer rests intaking time (as it is a long term process), being open, transparent, adopting a stepwise voluntary approach,having presence at the local level and provide opportunities for stakeholder involvement and influence.
Furthermore, having personal meetings, being patient and establishing early contacts is also very
important. Therefore, before large meetings, SKB started a dialogue with individuals in order to understandtheir concerns. More than 50% of the individuals around Forsmark had personal meetings with SKB. In
addition, it is important to open the facilities for people to visit them, like CLAB and Äspo.
Mrs. Tunbrant highlighted that one of the main challenges during the consultation process is tomaintain the level of interest through such a long period. It is also important not to take confidence andtrust for granted as they can be lost very quickly.
Reflections from local NGOs
Mr. Kenneth Gunnarsson presented OSS, a local opinion group for safe final storage ofradioactive waste in Östhammar community. Mr. Gunnarsson is a photographer and a politician member of
the Green party. As a thoughtful background to his presentation he displayed a series of photographs ofcommunities in far Northern territories contaminated by the Chernobyl accident. OSS started in 1986 andaimed to keep a critical eye on radioactive waste. According to a study from the Society, Opinion andMedia Institute at the University of Göteborg, the public has quite a lot of confidence in environmentalorganisations, after scientists, when it comes to information about energy and nuclear power.

18

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
The fact that NGOs are indirectly subsidised by nuclear industry through the waste fund is
unique. It is a pragmatic approach to resolve the problem of radioactive waste. Mr. Gunnarsson pointed outthat during the consultation process, each actor has its own objective and pursues its own agenda.
Environmental organisations have no self interest in the process, the choice of method or the siting. Theiraim is to ensure that the process allows the best solution in the longer term with no danger to theenvironment. In contrast, the industry is focused on gaining approval of the project and getting a permit.
Whilst EIA consultations are controlled by SKB, political supervision is delegated to the municipality.
Thus, the project was discussed in two arenas: the formal EIA consultation at the local level, where thediscussion was focused on labour market opportunities, infrastructures, etc. and the arena at national level
where alternative methods and siting options are discussed. The former has no influence on the latter, andnone of these actors is eager to discuss problematic aspects. Mr. Gunnarsson stated that SKB has
effectively dictated outcomes of this consultation because it has not allowed critical voices to influence theprocess in and of itself.
Mrs. Charlotte Liliemark told of how she was invited to participate in a meeting of the working
group of the LKO project in Oskarshamn. She showed herself to be very critical to the project of arepository being built in the municipality and stated she could see no advantages of any kind in the project.
She was amazed when her opinion was not neglected; on the contrary she was asked to join the municipal
group and she has been involved for ten years. Mrs. Liliemark listed factors critical to the success of theconsultation process: the funding, the veto right and a transparent and predictable process. She thenhighlighted five issues of importance for organizing such a consultation process. Firstly, the working
groups must have access to independent experts not related to the implementer. Secondly, being informed
and being included are different matters; real public involvement should be pursued. Thirdly, the citizen
competence organisations should be adjustable depending on how the process evolves and the phase of the
programme. Fourthly, involvement processes should not divide between social and technical issues.
Fifthly, consensus is not the goal in the working groups, but real influence and participation. In this way
transparency allows trust to be gained. Finally, the knowledge from the people affected is important to theimplementer. This knowledge includes not only nuclear matters but also other concerns for future
generations.
Round table discussions
As in the first session, the workshop then broke up into the same eight mixed groups to consider thefollowing questions:
1. Who is responsible for the consultations in different countries and how does it affect the outcome?
2. Is there a point when the obligation to perform consultations with stakeholders can be considered
to be fulfilled?
3. What has been most successful for engaging civil society, local people and NGO representatives indeliberations?
The summary below reflects the plenary reports by the different round tables.
Who is responsible for the consultations in different countries and how does it affect the outcome?
There was a general agreement across the round tables that either the implementer or thegovernment have the responsibility for running the consultations. A distinction was raised between two
types of consultations: formal and informal. The former involves a legal procedure. For instance, in Japan,
19

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
the only point when consultation is possible is when a new law is set up. Following the EIA legal
procedure, the public should be informed and consulted on the project. The informal procedure involves aniterative dialogue. Participants mentioned that there is no obligation to organise consultations in all
countries. In some cases, like in the US, the form of consultation is mainly through hearings. In othercountries, communication has been developed at the local level.
There was no general agreement on the topic of how consultation affects the outcome.
Nevertheless, the general opinion was that consultations must be able to influence the outcome. In
Belgium, the local partnerships have affected the design of the project and have also influenced theprocess. In Sweden, the Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste has had an impact during the EIA
and they have organised hearings and open meetings to deal with critical questions.
Is there a point when the obligation to perform consultations with stakeholders can be considered to be
fulfilled?
There was no general agreement on the point when the obligation to perform consultations can beconsidered fulfilled. However, some suggestions were made on different possibilities: it could be stipulated
in legislation as when there is a change in law, when there is a good level of confidence in theimplementer, when other authorities need to be involved (like the safety authority), when funding forparticipation is finished, etc. For some participants, the obligation to perform consultations withstakeholders can be considered to be fulfilled when it is shown that the public has influenced the processwith their input.
It was also mentioned that after submitting the licence application, the form of consultation
changes and it becomes more oriented towards providing information and communicating. Nevertheless, if
the implementer is truly pursuing consultations in good faith, consultations will continue throughout thewhole process. Even if consultations are over for whatever reason, there are always issues to be discussed.
Therefore, consultation is a living process and never ends.
What has been most successful for engaging civil society, local people and NGO representatives indeliberations?
Most of the participants considered that funding enabled local people and NGO representatives tobe involved in a meaningful way in deliberations. Secondly, providing access to all information anddocuments and allowing enough time for deliberations are also important factors for success. According to
SKB, a central element in their approach has been to gain and give trust in a long-term process as well as
promoting individual meetings at the start of the process. One group highlighted the role of individual
leaders, the so-called “fire souls” (eldsjäl in Swedish), who help in making the process successful.

20

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

THE ADDED VALUE PROGRAMME AND LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTThe Swedish Added Value Programme
Mr. Jacob Spangenberg, Östhammar Municipality, gave the first presentation of the section
focusing on added value and local economic development. The two municipalities, Oskarshamn andÖsthammar, decided in 2007 that it should be clear that the municipal level had been involved in trying tosolve a national issue of great magnitude to industry and to the society. They formally started to discusswith the industry the need to acknowledge the effort put by the two municipalities into monitoring andevaluation of the industrial activities. An added value programme would support an enabling environment
for the municipalities in partnership with the industry and create synergies. All three parties entered into
negotiations for more than two years and finally in April 2009, they formally agreed to sign the programme
when SKB had not yet decided on the location.
The Added Value Programme stipulated that 75% of the additional value should be created forthe benefit of the municipality where the construction of the repository would not take place, whereas 25%of the value should benefit the municipality hosting the repository. The total value of the programme is 1,5
to 2 billion SEK (around 160 to 215 million Euro). It is important to emphasise, from an accounting pointof view, that value does not mean cost outlay for a project, but rather, resulting value. The programme
benefits the three parties: the industry and the municipalities.
Mr. Stig Björne, CEO SKB Business Development, compared the investments undertaken by theindustry in Östhammar and Oskarshamn. In Östhammar, the investments include the expansion of SFR, thenuclear waste repository and the added value projects, whilst in Oskarshamn they include the encapsulation
facility, the canister factory and the added value projects.
Mr. Björne said that SKB had no choice but to negotiate with the municipalities on the Added
Value Programme and to come to agreement. The agreement stipulates that SKB and SKB’s owners overtime shall create value for up to 2 billion SEK (around 218 million €) around in the municipalities in orderto get the authorisation to establish a nuclear waste repository and an encapsulation plant in themunicipalities. The Added Value Programme shall contribute to good long-term conditions for operating
business and industry in the municipalities. However, it was difficult to know what exactly they werenegotiating (roads, education, labour conditions, etc). The programme was divided into two periods: period
1, before an authorisation (2010-2015) and period 2 after the authorisation (2016 onwards). The agreement
stipulates that value will be created for 20% of the Added Value Programme (300 to 400 million SEK;
around 32,7 million – 43,5 million €) in period 1. The remainder (1.6 to 1.7 million SEK; 175000 –
185000€ approximately) will be created during period 2. Each year Oskarshamn and Östhammar
municipality receive 1.5 million SEK (around 163,500 €) to maintain an organisation that administers the
programme. This organisation is led by a steering committee of five members – Chairman of SKB, Vice
chairman of SKB, President of SKB and the mayors of the two municipalities - who take decisions on theinvestments and define the added value. Any decision in the organisation must be taken by at least 4 votes
to 1. The financing of the added value comes from SKB’s owners – Vattenfall, E.ON, Fortum and others.

21

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
Mr. Björne compared the Added Value Programme to the EU regional funds or Swedish regional
development programmes because it is a regional development programme which focuses on two
municipalities. It covers different areas like education, support for innovation, business development,
infrastructures, labour market, etc. In Östhammar the Added Value Programme is funding or supporting acollege of technology and energy, the business incubator in Uppsala, a pre study on a hotel and a pre study
on the business harbour. SKB Business Development guarantees bank loans and helps local companies
with business development. The programme has also helped to advance the building by the Swedish
Transport Administration of a road between Östhammar and Uppsala. In Oskarshamn, some of theoperations within the Added Value programme include support to the business incubator, the creation of
the nuclear engineering education (Nova), actions on the Äspö laboratory, etc.
Mr. Rolf Persson, Oskarhamn Municipality, said that Oskarshamn is very dependent on a few
companies and the Added Value Programme can be an incentive to diversify the labour market. However,there is a lack of educated labour force and hence, a need for competence building. Some of the activities
included in the Added Value Programme so far were listed:-

The agreement acknowledges the need to construct a new ferry terminal in the municipality; thiswill start in 2012.

-

Oskarshamn Creativity Centre encourages young people to become entrepreneurs.

-

Training of engineers will start in 2012 in cooperation with KTH.

-

A business incubator with spin off effects will provide opportunities for different sectors related to
the repository facility.

-

Interest in the areas of technology, energy and natural sciences should be increased in preschool
and compulsory school.

-

New research tunnels at Äspö laboratory will be drilled for SKB internal use and for othercountries to undertake research. (Note also that before the Added Value Programme, in 2006, anagreement was signed with SKB to create a research centre in order to use the opportunities fromthe laboratories in Osharshamn in other fields.)-

Train services will be reopened in Oskarshamn in December 2011 as part of the agreement.

Questions and comments
One participant commented that the concept of the Added Value Programme implied bribery.
However, the mayor of Östhammar explained that the Added Value Programme was a result of atransparent process of negotiations between SKB and the municipalities. It cannot be considered bribery
because it was not concocted behind closed doors. Mr. Persson added that both municipalities had a highlevel of acceptance of the repository and when the decision would be made on one of the municipalities,
there would be a disappointment in the other one. Therefore, both municipalities agreed that 75% of thevalue would be invested in the municipality not getting the repository. This proves that it cannot be a bribeas in that case, everybody would expect a 50-50 prior agreement.
It was also highlighted that the Added Value Programme differs from the Nuclear Waste Fund in thatthe latter is only focusing on activities related to the repository, whilst the Added Value Programme has awider scope and aims to create an enabling environment for the future in both municipalities.

22

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
A parallel experience from Beligum: The Local Fund
Mr. Hermann Sannen, STORA parternship, explained that in the 1970s the Minister of
Economic Affairs visited Dessel after the closure of Eurochimique. Dessel did not want to become the“nuclear cemetery” of Belgium and asked for maximum safety in the region, protection of theenvironment, people and workers, and promotion of research. Dessel was a candidate municipality for the
disposal of low-level and short-lived waste. An integrated (social and technical) repository proposal wasdeveloped by the STORA partnership (Study and Consultative group on low level waste), the predecessorof STOLA. The partnership worked from the basis that safety is first and the repository would enhancesafety compared to the previous situation. One of STORA’s major objectives is to involve the populationof Dessel in nuclear questions in an open and transparent communication. This transparent process led
STOLA to codesign an integrated repository project, the cAt project. The partnership has had a say in therepository design and this can be understood as an added value. The construction of the facility will also
involve job creation and the maintenance and development of nuclear know how in the region.
ONDRAF/NIRAS is working with the local partnerships on achieving realistic added value for the
inhabitants of the Dessel and Mol region. A fund has been set up to support sustainable local projects andactivities, create new jobs and realise spatial opportunities. These projects and activities may be of adiverse nature and may include social, economic or cultural projects. In addition, there will be
opportunities for spatial development within the Dessel municipality.
Round table discussions
The workshop then broke up into the same eight groups to consider the following questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

How to learn the Communities’ definition of added value?
Is added value for the community also an added value for the region?
Which economic arrangements are most likely to foster sustained added value for the community?
Which other arrangements, beyond economic ones, are necessary to ensure community well-being
over the longer term?

The key themes emerging under each question are outlined below.
1.

How to learn the Communities’ definition of added value?
In Sweden, the local community defines the concept of added value in a democratic way, whereas inother countries the definition arises from consultation or visioning exercises, like in the UK and
Canada respectively. Partipants recognised that elected representatives are entrusted to represent theviews of the community and therefore, it is their job to define added value.
It was recognised that the concept of added value is complex and long term. There are various terms
used to suggest added value such as compensation, benefits package, infrastructure support, etc.
However, these terms have different meanings and connotations for the different stakeholders. For
some participants, there could be a mismatch between the concept of added value and other factors likeeconomic evolution and they suggested to consider added value in a more holistic way, by examining
overall economic changes. Others prefer to talk about sustainability rather than added value.
Participants felt it was important to highlight that added value was not considered a bribe. There is no
direct money provided to the community, but it helps to develop processes to increase prosperity,social capital and well-being.

23

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
2.

Is added value for the community also an added value for the region?
Some groups recognised that communities might not have the same goals as the areas to which they
belong. The area and the municipality might have different perspectives on added value. Furthermore,some municipalities are very small compared to their neighbour municipalities and the values in one
small municipality differ from the values in bigger municipalities. In this context, it is important tocooperate and reconcile regional and local values in order to undertake projects that are mutually
beneficial. It was agreed that added value in the community can spread out to the entire region andeven to the country.

3.

Which economic arrangements are most likely to foster sustained added value for thecommunity?
Underlying economic arrangements there was a common understanding that other arrangements,
beyond the economic ones, do foster sustained added value for the community. If only economic
arrangements are considered, some important issues might be missing. For instance, some people
might decide not to live in an area where there is an important industry growth because it is notconsidered a healthy place. Therefore, other issues – culture, health, education, environmental
protection, etc - need to be taken into account.
The Nuclear Waste Fund in Sweden and the Local Fund in Belgium were considered effective
economic arrangements. In addition, the bank guarantees for starting up business are an importanteconomic push for the long term.

4.

Which other arrangements, beyond economic ones, are necessary to ensure community wellbeing over the longer term?
The types of arrangements necessary to ensure community well-being over the long-term differ
depending on the context, on the country and between municipalities. However, in most countries,
infrastructure improvements and better transport systems are seen as useful arrangements for thecommunity. Other arrangements refer to creating a community which is considered a safe place to livein with an attractive environment. This can be achieved through small actions like painting publicbuildings in nice and soft colours. Two further considerations were noteworthy. Firstly, monitoring
facilities which help people living in the area to feel safe and under control can be considered added
value and at the same time, become a means for openness and transparency. Secondly, the creation ofhigh tech facilities providing opportunities for research and development. Finally, improving thehealthcare system, providing good education and improving communication are essential to improvewell-being over the long term.

24

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

RAPPORTEUR’S OBSERVATIONS AND CLOSING

Professor Erik van Hove, University of Antwerp (Belgium), was invited by NEA Secretariat toobserve the workshop and to offer feedback on what was heard. He described learning how an often
controversial industry, the nuclear sector, can be harmoniously inserted in a community, involving all
parties in the process. The local political structure focused throughout on the promotion of prosperity andwell-being for all. Transparency in the process extends to a policy of partnership in decision making andparticipation in all processes of planning. The community of Östhammar will serve the nation throughhosting the repository and will turn this into an asset for the region. The old saying “Not In My Back Yard”(NIMBY) has become “But In My Front Yard” (BIMFY).
Professor van Hove then raised the question of whether the same strategy of openness andtransparency would work in the licensing phase. A multitude of parties and very elaborate procedures wereshown during the workshop, which would mean obstruction and endless manouevrings in other countries.
In Sweden, however, the civic culture and the tradition of responsible governance ensures a successful
application. Nevertheless, a different level of transparency from the one applied up to now is needed. Mr.
van Hove cited the Fukushima catastrophe as an example of how fear of radiation may dominate
perception, distracting attention from other human needs (like those created by the tsunami andearthquake). He suggested making radiation itself “transparent”, the way this was achieved with gas bymaking it smelly. Technology is available to make radiation measurable by everyone at little cost. Giving
the citizens control could be the key to demystifying radiation if measuring it it can be made as trivial asmeasuring time or temperature.
The next question raised by Mr. van Hove was whether the framework of Environmental Impact
Assessment adds anything to what transparency achieves. Transparency goes much further as it establishes
an environment of trust and partnership. The EIA provides a legally binding set of rules on the information
flows that are part of the decision making process.
Reviewing the architectural project for the surface facilities of the repository, Mr. van Hoveacknowledged that bland buildings were arranged in an uninspired rectangle imposed on a varied coastline.
These plans provoked a great disappointment. He suggested reconsideration of the design of the buildings,
taking into account the tradition of the region that succeeded so well in developing industry in harmony
with man and nature.
Finally, Mr. van Hove concluded by reviewing the external elements added to the repository
project. The Added Value Programme, which is inspired by economic regional development programs,
considers adding functionality to the project itself. The programme contributes directly to employment
offer in the region, to improving the infrastructure and using local ancillary services. Equally important is
the contribution to the social fabric of the locality: cultural elements, attractive landscape and making
people proud of their community.
Closing statements were provided by Mrs. Anna-Lena Söderblom, Chairman of the Östhammar
municipality Reference committee and by Mrs. Janet Kotra, FSC Chair, who thanked the Swedish

25

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
stakeholders for speaking their views during the workshop and referred to the “fire souls” for a successful
new licensing phase. Mr. Claudio Pescatore of the NEA Secretariat highlighted again the diversity ofparticipation and closed with the promise that the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency would publish this
synthesis of the workshop.

26

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The workshop in Gimo (Östhammar) was the eighth National Workshop of the FSC. The
workshop proved very fruitful, involving the active participation of different Swedish stakeholders:
residents and elected people of the municipalities of Östhammar and Oskarshamn, the regulatory authority(SSM), the radioactive waste management organisation (SKB), the Ministry of the Environment, theUppsala regional council, the Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste and NGOs (MKG, Milkas and
OSS). The workshop was also very timely for Sweden, since the country has entered a new phase: after
many years of site investigations, SKB submitted applications to the national government for a license tobuild a final repository for spent nuclear fuel in Forsmark, in the Östhammar municipality, on 16 March
2011. The application was preceded by a site selection process that spanned three decades, in an early stage
for the period 1977-1985 and a later phase from 1992 onwards.
The licence applications are currently being reviewed, on behalf of the government, by theregulatory authorities, SSM, and the Environmental Court, as well as by the concerned municipalities.
Therefore, the workshop took place at a specific moment in time when different actors in the Swedish
nuclear waste management programme could reflect on: what are the elements of a successful process,how the information exchange and the transparent process built over the past thirty years would change inthe future phases of the programme, and what challenges may lie ahead.
Feedback after the workshop revealed that Swedish participants had pursued a common goal: toshare their experience with different international representatives and discuss the aspects that have allowed
Sweden to be one of the countries leading in the movement to implement a repository for spent nuclear
fuel. Mutual understanding and learning were also a common objective. Overall, Swedish stakeholders
agreed that the most important issues for reaching the implementation phase had been: a clear division of
responsibilities, a specific financing system and the high engagement of both the municipalities and NGOs
as key players in the decision-making process. Furthermore, transparency has also been crucial. According
to the Swedish participants, describing the whole system and the lengthy overall process for workshop
visitors proved challenging. Even if it was sometimes difficult to transmit all details, it could be replied toour hosts that the audience got a broad picture that was fully understandable, despite cultural, political,
economic and institutional differences with other countries.
The municipality of Östhammar viewed their participation during the workshop as essential fortwo main reasons, firstly, to provide their own perspective of the situation and, secondly, to learn fromother participants. Learning from different countries and backgrounds as well as from other national
programmes, which are at different stages in the process, and fostering dialogue, was a rewarding
experience. Evidently, other countries address problems in different ways and the local and regional
participants found it valuable to get supplementary perspectives and knowledge which can be applied whenreviewing the licence application. At present, the local council of Östhammar continues to be active inorganising various activities, such as seminars on safety issues, to maintain the level of engagement of thelocal community.

27

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
During the workshop, it was evident to visitors that local stakeholders trust the regulator. A large
number of meetings of various forms held with input from operator, regulatory authorities, and various
stakeholders has contributed to building trust in the authorities. The fact that the municipality has a vetoright and, therefore, the final say regarding the acceptance of the repository on its territory was also seen
to be reassuring from the local residents’ viewpoint.
The workshop pointed out many challenges and raised a number of questions regarding the newphase of implementation in the Swedish programme. Some of these questions are: who should be invited toreview the licence application? How can the different actors participate in the review of the licenceapplication whilst the regulator maintains its independence and undertakes the work in an efficientmanner? Who is the most appropriate actor for knowledge transfer at this stage? Would an internationalorganisation play this role? How to deal with the media and how much can they influence the process?
During this phase, while waiting for a decision on the license application, SKB is less visible tothe community. The implementer was highly present in the municipality of Östhammar over the course often years, undertaking site investigations and communicating permanently. Today, although SKB
personnel in Östhammar are now working on the short lived waste repository situated outside thecommunity centre, the FSC learned that the implementer’s presence is more limited and communication
should be more discrete. Trust and confidence that were built over the course of years need to be
maintained through the coming period. The Added Value Programme is one of the vehicles for continued
community engagement of SKB: the implementer has entered into a new relationship with bothÖsthammar and Oskarshamn through this programme and an office has been opened in town.
The role of the regulatory authority (SSM) during the formal review of the SKB licenceapplication is complex. Whilst they need to carry out their legally assigned task and perform as theindependent and fully accountable national authority, they also need to be transparent. They explained in
feedback to the FSC that they will continue involving the stakeholders, e.g., through national consultationon the SKB license application materials. In this regard, the core values of the organisation –trustworthiness, integrity and transparency – will form the foundation on which work is performed andconducted.
Non-governmental organisations appeared throughout the workshop as an important actor,
raising critical questions. NGOs and their independent experts received financial support from the Waste
Fund during the siting process, which enabled them to build up knowledge, review project documents andplans, and contribute actively to many meetings. This has given national and local NGOs a status rarely
found in other countries. At the same time, the elected personnel of the municipalities are clear that the
mandate of representation given to them by voters should predominate in decision making. It is they, too,
who wield veto power. During the FSC workshop in Gimo, NGOs viewed that the agenda developed by
the Swedish hosts allowed discussion of the decision-making process but no challenges to the actual
outcome. The absence of NGOs from other countries made it difficult for these participants, they said, tofeel on an equal footing with other delegates.
International organisations also play a role during the licence application. The Swedish
government requested that NEA organize a complementary, independent, international peer review of theparts of SKB’s applications covering long-term radiological safety as well as the selection of site andmethod. The peer review organised by NEA started in May 2011 and will take one year. It will supplement
the SSM review and serve as key input for the municipalities involved as well as other interested parties,
including NGOs.
The current phase of reviewing licence applications might take years. It could be a good period
for the different stakeholders involved in radioactive waste management in Sweden to focus on aspects
28

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
related to organisational memory and monitoring. An international NEA project has started to that effectand could provide relevant information. The Records, Knowledge and Memory (RK&M) project as wellas previous FSC literature observe, moreover, that one way to preserve awareness and memory over thecourse of a multi-generational process is to conceive of the spent fuel facility as being part of the local
heritage. The Östhammar community may be particularly sensitive to this aspect as they have guarded,
through changing circumstances over centuries, a cultural tradition of ironworking. From mining, to acollective way of life substantially organised around the iron economy, to the continued presence today ofsmaller ironworking shops, the technical activity has been sustained through evolutions, is visible incherished typical buildings, and forms a solid basis for a regional identity. Why not seize from the outset
the opportunity to integrate the spent nuclear fuel repository into a sustainable, proud heritage, rather than
wait for the facility to cease its operation before asking how cultural memory can be preserved?

29

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

APPENDIX 1. FSC WORKSHOP PROGRAMME

Wednesday 4 May – Day One
Session 1 – Opening
18.00

Welcome
NEA (FSC chair Janet Kotra)
Swedish hosts and sponsors (Holmfridur Bjarnadottir, Swedish National
Council for Nuclear Waste on their behalf)
Former workshop host (Martine Huraut, Andra) on the experience of the last FSC
workshop in France

Session 2 - Visions of Oskarshamn and Östhammar municipalities
Chair: Erik van Hove, U. Antwerp, Belgium (ret.)
18:20
The municipality of Östhammar 2020: perspectives on how the municipality withcooperation between the engaged population, successful enterprises and goodmunicipal services shall be “the best local society in the world”. (Andreas Lytter,Östhammar municipality)
18.40
Oskarshamn vision: Oskarshamn - an international energy center and a growthcommunity with high quality of life. (Lennart Karlsson, Oskarshamn
municipality)
19.00
Discussion and questions
19:30
Dinner at a local restaurant hosted by Oskarshamn municipality and Östhammar
municipality and welcome speeches by Jacob Spangenberg, Mayor of Östhammar
municipality, and Lars Blomberg, Deputy Mayor of Oskarshamn municipality. The
restaurant is within walking distance of the conference center.

Thursday 5 May – Day Two
Session 3 –The Swedish Nuclear Waste Management Programme: Looking back,looking forward
Chair: Holmfridur Bjarnadottir (Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste)
8.30
Overview of the Swedish NWM programme (Ansi Gerhardsson, Ministry of theEnvironment)
09.00
The Swedish funding system and how it contributes to the participation of local andregional stakeholders (Björn Hedberg, SSM)
09.30
Questions and comments
09.50
Coffee30

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
10.20

Perspectives from key actors on entering the new licensing phase :• The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (Eva Simic, SSM)
• SKB (Erik Setzman)• Östhammar municipality (Marie Berggren)• Oskarshamn municipality (Rolf Persson)

Session 4 – Dialogue, information exchange and transparency in the new phase
Chair: Carl Reinhold Bråkenhielm (Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste)
As early as the 1990s Sweden identified “transparency” as a central concept in the NWM decision
making process. Entering the new phase of repository construction may affect how each actor is
working with transparency and communicates with other stakeholders.
11:20
The role of dialogue, information exchange and transparency in the Swedish NWM
decision making process (Torsten Carlsson, former Mayor of Oskarshamn
municipality and now chair of the Swedish National Council of Nuclear waste)
11.35
FSC short member survey on transparency – Current definitions (Jay Redgrove,
NDA)
11.45

12.45
13.45

14.30

15.30
16:00

Reflections from different actors in the Swedish NWM program on how the needfor dialogue, information exchange and transparent processes have changed during
the past 30 years, how this will change in the future phases of the program, whatrules or guidelines will be needed, and what challenges can be foreseen.
• Josefin Päiviö Jonsson and David Persson, SSM• Marie Berggren, Östhammar municipality• Johan Swahn, Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review (MKG)• Erik Setzman, SKB
Lunch
Research project: “Communities of practice – the case of the Swedish planning anddecision making process for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel”. (Antoienette
Wärnbäck and Tuija Hilding-Rydevik, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences)
Round table discussions
Participants (FSC members and guests, Swedish stakeholders) discuss and exchange
on a set of questions• How do round table members (or your institutions) define transparency?
• How will transparency be affected by entering the repository licensing phase?
• How do we maintain transparency in the review and licensing phase?
CoffeeFeedback from Round tables.

Community Visit
17.00

19.00

Guided bus tour around the Östhammar municipality. A stop will be made at
Forsmark with an opportunity to go up in the water tower to get a view of the area.
A presentation will also be given at Forsmark:• How municipality requirements on the above ground buildings will be met(Lange Art, SKB team of architects)
After the presentations the bus will take us to the Östhammar Town centre fordinner at a local restaurant.
Dinner hosted by SSM
During dinner Anna-Lena Söderblom (chairman of the Östhammar municipality
31

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
Reference committee) will present work of the Reference committee responsible forthe information and dialogue with the Municipal Council and the public.

Friday 6 May – Day Three
Session 5 – Achieving Deep Consultation through the EIA
Chair: Jo-Ann Facella (NWMO, Canada)
8.30
EIA as an “umbrella” process for Swedish consultation (Sofie Tunbrant, SKB)
9.00
Reflections from local NGOs (Lotta Liliemark, Oskarshamns municipality;
Kenneth Gunnarsson, OSS - a local opinion group for safe final storage ofradioactive waste in Östhammar community)
9.30
Coffee and Round table discussions
Participants (FSC members and guests, Swedish stakeholders) discuss and exchange
on a set of questions• Who is responsible for the consultations in different countries and how does it
affect the outcome?
• Is there a point when the obligation to perform consultations with stakeholders
can be considered to be fulfilled?
• What has been most successful for engaging civil society, local people andNGO representatives in deliberations?
10.30
Feedback from Round tables

Session 6 – The Added Value Program and Local Economic Development
Chair: Julia Kiss (PURAM, Hungary)
Background reading: the FSC survey and report on improving quality of life and increasing the valueof waste management facilities to local communities:
http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/fsc/docs/Towards-waste_management_EN_A4.pdf
11.00
The Swedish Added Value Program.
Presentations and viewpoints from:• Stig Björne, CeO SKB Business Development• Östhammar Municipality (Jacob Spangenberg)• Oskarshamn Municipality (Rolf Persson)
12.00
Lunch
13:00
“A parallel experience from Belgium: The Local Fund”
Herman Sannen, STORA“This Fund will support projects and activities that will improve quality of life forthe local residents and create sustainable opportunities for the region. These
projects and activities may be of a diverse nature and may include social, economic
or cultural projects. In essence, they provide added value which is more far
reaching than the added value created by the (integrated) cAt project (category A
waste surface disposal in Dessel) itself.” From the Master Plan: see
http://www.niras-cat.be/downloads/cAt_brochureENG.pdf .
13.15
Round table discussions
Participants (FSC members and guests, Swedish stakeholders) discuss and exchange
on a set of questions• How to learn the Communities' definition of added value?
• Is added value for the community also an added value for the region?
32

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

14:15• Which economic arrangements are most likely to foster sustained added
value for the community?
• Which other arrangements, beyond economic ones, are necessary to ensurecommunity well-being over the longer term?
Feedback from Round tables

Session IV – Rapporteur and Closing
14:45
15:05
15.20
15.30

A rapporteur’s feedback on the workshop and visit (Erik van Hove, U. Antwerp,
Belgium (ret.))Comments or replies
Closure by NEA and Swedish Hosts
End of day and workshop

33

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2

APPENDIX 2. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Beglium

CanadaJan-Willem BARBIER

University of Antwerp
Antwerpen

Karina DE BEULE

FANC
BrusselsSigrid EECKHOUTONDRAF/NIRASBrussels

Evelyn HOOFTNIRAS/ONDRAF
DesselErik VAN HOVE

University of Antwerp
Hoeselt

Ludo JADOULFANCBrusselsGeert LAUWEN

Stora
DesselWilly MELIS

Stora
DesselKarl OOMS

Stora
DesselHerman SANNEN

Stora
DesselJantine SCHRÖDER

University of Antwerp / SCK-CEN
Antwerp / Mol

Marcia BLANCHETTE

Natural Resources Canada
OttawaJo-Ann FACELLA

NWMOToronto34

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
Czech Republic

Ivo KAPLAN

Praha

Finland

Timo SEPPÄLÄ

Posiva Oy
EurajokFranceLudivine GILLI

IRSN
Fontenay-aux-Roses

Martine HURAUT

Andra
Bure

Stéphane MARTIN

CLIS
BURE

Claire MAYS

NEA
Issy

Claudio PESCATORE

NEA
Issy

Julia KISS

PURAM
Paks

Maria VARGA

West-Mecsek Information Association
Boda

Japan

Yoshiko AOYAMAJapan NUS Co. Ltd.
Tokyo

PolandLukasz AFELTOWICZ

Gdansk Science and Technology Park

Spain

Meritxell MARTELL

Merience Strategic Thinking

SwedenBertil ALMÖsthammars kommun

Barbro ANDERSSON ÖHRNÖsthammars kommun

Lange ART

SKB

Hungary35

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
SwedenInger ARVIDSSONÖsthammars kommun

Beatrice AULIN

Uppsala University

Anders BÄCKSTRÖMÖsthammars kommun

Ingrid BECKER

ICQED Public Radio

Sune BERGLUND

Östhammar

Anders BERGMAN

Östhammar kommun

Marie BERGGRENÖsthammars kommun

Holmfridur BJARNADOTTIR

Swedish National Council for Nuclear
Waste Management

Stig BJÖRNESKBElin BJÖRKMAN

Uppsala University

Lars BLOMBERG

Oskarshamns kommun

Carl Reinhold BRÅKENHIELM

Swedish National Nuclear Council
Stockholm

Karolina BROGAN

Swedish National Council for Nuclear
Waste
Stockholm

Torsten CARLSSON

Kärnavfallsrådet

Sanne ERIKSSON

Östhammar kommun

36NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
SwedenLinnea FREDRIKSSON

Uppsala University

Ann-Kristin FROMSKB

Ansi GERHARDSSONMinistry of the Environment
Stockholm

Miles GOLDSTICK

UppsalaKenneth GUNNARSSONÖsthammars kommun

Ingrid GUSTAFSSONÖsthammars kommun

Christina HAAGAÖsthammars kommun

Eva HALLSTRÖM

Sunne

Rolf HANSSONSÖDERHAMN

Björn HEDBERG

Swedish Radiation Safety Authority
Stockholm

Tuija HILDING-RYDEVIK

MKB-centrum
Uppsala

Linda JANSSONÖsthammars kommun

Hans JIVANDER

Östhammars kommun

Josefin Päiviö JONSSON

Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate(SKI)
Stockholm

Eva-Britt KARLSSON

Östhammars kommun

37NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
Sweden

Lennart KARLSSON

Oskarshamn Municipality

Lisa LANDBERGÖsthammars kommun

Noren LENNARTÖsthammars kommun

Charlotte LILIEMARK

Municipality of Oskarshamn

Eva LINDEROTH

MilkasUppsalaTed LINDQUISTOskarshamn Municipality

Andreas LYTTER

Oskarshamn kommun

Birgitta MÖLLER

June NILSSON

Östhammars kommun

Inger NORDHOLM

Svensk Kärnbränlsehantering AB
Forsmark, Sweden

Tanya NOVIKAVA

Milkas

Pär-Olov OLSSON

Östhammars kommun

Antonio PEREIRA

Oskarshamn

David PERSSON

Swedish Radiation Safety Authority
SE-171 16 Stockholm

Rolf PERSSON

Oskarhamn Municipality

38

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
SwedenKent PETTERSSON

Swedish Antinuclear Movement FMKK
Nyköping

Ingela PRONCHEV

Uppsala Regional councilSÄKERHETS GRUPPENÖsthammars
Emil SCHÖN

MilkasErik SETZMANSKBStockholm

Eva SIMIC

Swedish Radiation Protection Authority(SSM)
Stockholm

Anna-Lena SÖDERBLOMÖsthammars kommun

Johan SWAHN

MKG
Göteborg

Sofie TUNBRANTSKB
Stockholm

Gunnel WAHLGRENÖsthammars kommun

Antoienette WÄRNBÄCK

Swedish EIA Centre
Inst. för Stad och Land
UppsalaPer WESTERGÅRD

Wetenskapsjourlaisterna

Margareta WIDEN-BERGGRENÖsthammars kommun

Arno UNGEÖsthammars kommun

Kristina WOXDAL-PIHL

Östhammars kommun

39

NEA/RWM/R(2012)2
Switzerland

UnitedKingdom

United States

Stefan JORDI

Swiss Federal Office of Energy
BernMeinert RAHN

Swiss Nuclear Safety Inspectorate
Brugg

Philipp SENN

Nagra

David BRAZIER

Environment Agency
PenrithElizabeth Anne CHARD

Dounreay Stakeholder GroupThurso, Caithness

Lindsay GRAY

NDA
Egremont, Cumbria

Jay REDGROVE

NDA
Didcot, Oxfordshire

Marcus SWIFTMRWS Partnership
KendalJanet KOTRAUS NWTRB
Arlington VA

Daniel METLAY

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington

40Appendix 1. FSC Workshop Programme

Wednesday 4 May – Day One
Session 1 – Opening
18.00

Welcome
NEA (FSC chair Janet Kotra)
Swedish hosts and sponsors (Holmfridur Bjarnadottir, Swedish National Council
for Nuclear Waste on their behalf)
Former workshop host (Martine Huraut, Andra) on the experience of the last FSC
workshop in France

Session 2 - Visions of Oskarshamn and Östhammar municipalities
Chair: Erik van Hove, U. Antwerp, Belgium (ret.)
18:20

The municipality of Östhammar 2020: perspectives on how the municipality withcooperation between the engaged population, successful enterprises and goodmunicipal services shall be “the best local society in the world”. (Andreas Lytter,Östhammar municipality)

18.40

Oskarshamn vision: Oskarshamn - an international energy center and a growthcommunity with high quality of life. (Lennart Karlsson, Oskarshamn municipality)

19.00

Discussion and questions

19:30

Dinner at a local restaurant hosted by Oskarshamn municipality and Östhammar
municipality and welcome speeches by Jacob Spangenberg, Mayor of Östhammar
municipality, and Lars Blomberg, Deputy Mayor of Oskarshamn municipality. The
restaurant is within walking distance of the conference center.

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 201241

Thursday 5 May – Day Two
Session 3 –The Swedish Nuclear Waste Management Programme: Looking back,looking forward
Chair: Holmfridur Bjarnadottir (Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste)
8.30

Overview of the Swedish NWM programme (Ansi Gerhardsson, Ministry of theEnvironment)

09.00

The Swedish funding system and how it contributes to the participation of local
and regional stakeholders (Björn Hedberg, SSM)

09.30

Questions and comments

09.50

Coffee

10.20

Perspectives from key actors on entering the new licensing phase :The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (Eva Simic, SSM)
SKB (Erik Setzman)Östhammar municipality (Marie Berggren)
Oskarshamn municipality (Rolf Persson)

Session 4 – Dialogue, information exchange and transparency in the new phase
Chair: Carl Reinhold Bråkenhielm (Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste)
As early as the 1990s Sweden identified “transparency” as a central concept in the NWM decision
making process. Entering the new phase of repository construction may affect how each actor is
working with transparency and communicates with other stakeholders.
11:20

The role of dialogue, information exchange and transparency in the Swedish NWM
decision making process (Torsten Carlsson, former Mayor of Oskarshamn
municipality and now chair of the Swedish National Council of Nuclear waste)

11.35

FSC short member survey on transparency – Current definitions (Jay Redgrove,
NDA)

11.45

Reflections from different actors in the Swedish NWM program on how the needfor dialogue, information exchange and transparent processes have changed
during the past 30 years, how this will change in the future phases of the program,what rules or guidelines will be needed, and what challenges can be foreseen.





42

Josefin Päiviö Jonsson and David Persson, SSM
Marie Berggren, Östhammar municipality
Johan Swahn, Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review (MKG)
Erik Setzman, SKB
Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 2012

12.45

Lunch

13.45

Research project: “Communities of practice – the case of the Swedish planning anddecision making process for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel”. (Antoienette
Wärnbäck and Tuija Hilding-Rydevik, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

14.30

Round table discussions
Participants (FSC members and guests, Swedish stakeholders) discuss andexchange on a set of questions

15.30

 How do round table members (or your institutions) define transparency?
 How will transparency be affected by entering the repository licensing phase?
 How do we maintain transparency in the review and licensing phase?
Coffee16:00

Feedback from Round tables.

Community Visit
17.00

Guided bus tour around the Östhammar municipality. A stop will be made at
Forsmark with an opportunity to go up in the water tower to get a view of thearea.
A presentation will also be given at Forsmark: How municipality requirements on the above ground buildings will be met(Lange Art, SKB team of architects)
After the presentations the bus will take us to the Östhammar Town centre fordinner at a local restaurant.

19.00

Dinner hosted by SSM
During dinner Anna-Lena Söderblom (chairman of the Östhammar municipality
Reference committee) will present work of the Reference committee responsible
for the information and dialogue with the Municipal Council and the public.

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 201243

Friday 6 May – Day Three
Session 5 – Achieving Deep Consultation through the EIA
Chair: Jo-Ann Facella (NWMO, Canada)
8.30

EIA as an “umbrella” process for Swedish consultation (Sofie Tunbrant, SKB)

9.00

Reflections from local NGOs (Lotta Liliemark, Oskarshamns municipality; Kenneth
Gunnarsson, OSS - a local opinion group for safe final storage of radioactive wastein Östhammar community)

9.30

Coffee and Round table discussions
Participants (FSC members and guests, Swedish stakeholders) discuss andexchange on a set of questions


10.30

Who is responsible for the consultations in different countries and how does it
affect the outcome?
 Is there a point when the obligation to perform consultations withstakeholders can be considered to be fulfilled?
 What has been most successful for engaging civil society, local people and NGO
representatives in deliberations?
Feedback from Round tables

Session 6 – The Added Value Program and Local Economic Development
Chair: Julia Kiss (PURAM, Hungary)
Background reading: the FSC survey and report on improving quality of life and increasing the valueof waste management facilities to local communities:
http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/fsc/docs/Towards-waste_management_EN_A4.pdf
11.00

The Swedish Added Value Program.
Presentations and viewpoints from:12.00

 Stig Björne, CeO SKB Business Development Östhammar Municipality (Jacob Spangenberg)
 Oskarshamn Municipality (Rolf Persson)
Lunch

13:00

“A parallel experience from Belgium: The Local Fund”
Herman Sannen, STORA

44

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 2012

“This Fund will support projects and activities that will improve quality of life for the local
residents and create sustainable opportunities for the region. These projects and activities
may be of a diverse nature and may include social, economic or cultural projects. In essence,
they provide added value which is more far reaching than the added value created by the(integrated) cAt project (category A waste surface disposal in Dessel) itself.” From the
Master Plan: see http://www.niras-cat.be/downloads/cAt_brochureENG.pdf .

13.15

Round table discussions
Participants (FSC members and guests, Swedish stakeholders) discuss andexchange on a set of questions




14:15

How to learn the Communities' definition of added value?
Is added value for the community also an added value for the region?

Which economic arrangements are most likely to foster sustained added
value for the community?
 Which other arrangements, beyond economic ones, are necessary toensure community well-being over the longer term?
Feedback from Round tables

Session IV – Rapporteur and Closing
14:45

A rapporteur’s feedback on the workshop and visit (Erik van Hove, U. Antwerp,
Belgium (ret.))15:05

Comments or replies

15.20

Closure by NEA and Swedish Hosts

15.30

End of day and workshop

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 201245

Appendix 2. List of Participants

Beglium

Jan-Willem BARBIER

University of Antwerp
Antwerpen

Karina DE BEULE

FANC
BrusselsSigrid EECKHOUTONDRAF/NIRASBrussels

Evelyn HOOFTNIRAS/ONDRAF
DesselErik VAN HOVE

University of Antwerp
Hoeselt

Ludo JADOULFANCBrusselsGeert LAUWEN

Stora
DesselWilly MELIS

Stora
DesselKarl OOMS

Stora
DesselHerman SANNEN

Stora
DesselJantine SCHRÖDER

University of Antwerp / SCK-CEN
Antwerp / Mol

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 201247

Marcia BLANCHETTE

Natural Resources Canada
OttawaJo-Ann FACELLA

NWMOTorontoCzech Republic

Ivo KAPLAN

Praha

Finland

Timo SEPPÄLÄ

Posiva Oy
EurajokFranceLudivine GILLI

IRSN
Fontenay-aux-Roses

Martine HURAUT

Andra
Bure

Stéphane MARTIN

CLIS
BURE

Claire MAYS

NEA
Issy

Claudio PESCATORE

NEA
Issy

Julia KISS

PURAM
Paks

Maria VARGA

West-Mecsek Information Association
Boda

Japan

Yoshiko AOYAMAJapan NUS Co. Ltd.
Tokyo

PolandLukasz AFELTOWICZ

Gdansk Science and Technology Park

Spain

Meritxell MARTELL

Merience Strategic Thinking

SwedenBertil ALMÖsthammars kommun

CanadaHungary48

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 2012

Sweden

Barbro ANDERSSON ÖHRNÖsthammars kommun

Lange ARTSKB

Inger ARVIDSSONÖsthammars kommun

Beatrice AULIN

Uppsala University

Anders BÄCKSTRÖMÖsthammars kommun

Ingrid BECKER

ICQED Public Radio

Sune BERGLUND

Östhammar

Anders BERGMAN

Östhammar kommun

Marie BERGGRENÖsthammars kommun

Holmfridur BJARNADOTTIR

Swedish National Council for Nuclear
Waste Management

Stig BJÖRNESKBElin BJÖRKMAN

Uppsala University

Lars BLOMBERG

Oskarshamns kommun

Carl Reinhold BRÅKENHIELM

Swedish National Nuclear Council
Stockholm

Karolina BROGAN

Swedish National Council for Nuclear
Waste
Stockholm

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 201249

Sweden

Torsten CARLSSON

Kärnavfallsrådet

Sanne ERIKSSON

Östhammar kommun

Linnea FREDRIKSSON

Uppsala University
SwedenAnn-Kristin FROMSKB

Ansi GERHARDSSONMinistry of the Environment
Stockholm

50

Miles GOLDSTICK

UppsalaKenneth GUNNARSSONÖsthammars kommun

Ingrid GUSTAFSSONÖsthammars kommun

Christina HAAGAÖsthammars kommun

Eva HALLSTRÖM

Sunne

Rolf HANSSONSÖDERHAMN

Björn HEDBERG

Swedish Radiation Safety Authority
Stockholm

Tuija HILDING-RYDEVIK

MKB-centrum
Uppsala

Linda JANSSONÖsthammars kommun

Hans JIVANDER

Östhammars kommun

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 2012

SwedenJosefin Päiviö JONSSON

Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate(SKI)
Stockholm

Eva-Britt KARLSSON

Östhammars kommun

Lennart KARLSSON

Oskarshamn Municipality

Lisa LANDBERGÖsthammars kommun

Noren LENNARTÖsthammars kommun

Charlotte LILIEMARK

Municipality of Oskarshamn

Eva LINDEROTH

MilkasUppsalaTed LINDQUISTOskarshamn Municipality

Andreas LYTTER

Oskarshamn kommun

Birgitta MÖLLER

June NILSSON

Östhammars kommun

Inger NORDHOLM

Svensk Kärnbränlsehantering AB
Forsmark, Sweden

Tanya NOVIKAVA

Milkas

Pär-Olov OLSSON

Östhammars kommun

Antonio PEREIRA

Oskarshamn

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 201251

SwedenDavid PERSSON

Swedish Radiation Safety Authority
SE-171 16 Stockholm

Rolf PERSSON

Oskarhamn Municipality

Kent PETTERSSON

Swedish Antinuclear Movement
FMKK
Nyköping

Ingela PRONCHEV

Uppsala Regional councilSÄKERHETS GRUPPENÖsthammars

52

Emil SCHÖN

MilkasErik SETZMANSKBStockholm

Eva SIMIC

Swedish Radiation Protection
Authority (SSM)
Stockholm

Anna-Lena SÖDERBLOMÖsthammars kommun

Johan SWAHN

MKG
Göteborg

Sofie TUNBRANTSKB
Stockholm

Gunnel WAHLGRENÖsthammars kommun

Antoienette WÄRNBÄCK

Swedish EIA Centre
Inst. för Stad och Land
UppsalaPer WESTERGÅRD

Wetenskapsjourlaisterna

Margareta WIDEN-BERGGRENÖsthammars kommun

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 2012

Sweden

Switzerland

UnitedKingdom

United States

Arno UNGEÖsthammars kommun

Kristina WOXDAL-PIHL

Östhammars kommun

Stefan JORDI

Swiss Federal Office of Energy
BernMeinert RAHN

Swiss Nuclear Safety Inspectorate
Brugg

Philipp SENN

Nagra

David BRAZIER

Environment Agency
PenrithElizabeth Anne CHARD

Dounreay Stakeholder GroupThurso, Caithness

Lindsay GRAY

NDA
Egremont, Cumbria

Jay REDGROVE

NDA
Didcot, Oxfordshire

Marcus SWIFTMRWS Partnership
KendalJanet KOTRAUS NWTRB
Arlington VA

Daniel METLAY

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington

Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden: Seizing Opportunities - © OECD/NEA 201253