Radioactive Waste Management
2022

Stakeholder Confidence inRadioactive Waste Management
An Annotated Glossaryof Key Terms – 2022 Update

NE A

Radioactive Waste Management

Stakeholder Confidence in Radioactive
Waste Management
An Annotated Glossary of Key Terms – 2022 Update© OECD 2022
NEA No. 7606
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTThe OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 38 democracies work together to address the
economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront ofefforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as
corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The
Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers tocommon problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, theCzech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United
Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering andresearch on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines andstandards agreed by its members.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed andarguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the member countries of the OECD or its
Nuclear Energy Agency.

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYThe OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membershipconsists of 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European
Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency also take part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:–

to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, throughinternational co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe,
environmentally sound and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes;–

to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues
as input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD analyses
in areas such as energy and the sustainable development of low-carbon economies.

Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities,
radioactive waste management and decommissioning, radiological protection, nuclear science,
economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public
information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services forparticipating countries.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of orsovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the nameof any territory, city or area.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found online at: www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm.
© OECD 2022
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications,
databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided
that suitable acknowledgement of the OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use
and translation rights should be submitted to neapub@oecd-nea.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of thismaterial for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com
or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) contact@cfcopies.com.
Cover photos: Rock Laboratory Mont Terry: Model of a canister with spent fuel rods in opalinus clay with bentonite backfill (SFOE);
Dr David Jaeggi, Project Manager Mont Terri project, explains how earthquakes are monitored in the rock laboratory (Nagra).

FOREWORD

Foreword

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) acts
as a centre for informed exchange of knowledge and experience regarding stakeholderinteraction and public participation in radioactive waste management. It promotes anopen discussion among members and stakeholders, across institutional boundaries,
and between technical and non-technical actors, in an atmosphere of trust andmutual respect. As such, the FSC is, first and foremost, a learning organisation. FSC
members seek to improve their own practice and institutions by uncovering practicalknowledge, validating it with those most concerned and with academic feedback,consolidating knowledge and transferring lessons learnt.
Since its foundation in 2000, the FSC has used and developed a set of terminology
and concepts. Fostering a Durable Relationship between a Waste Management Facility andits Host Community: Adding Value through Design and Process (NEA, 2007a) included a fivepage glossary of terms that appeared central to understanding the innovative
concepts put forward in that major report. Then, at the 11th Regular Meeting of the FSC
in 2010, it was determined that a new, extensive review of concepts and definitions
would be useful in order to inform new FSC members or to elaborate future texts on
decision making in radioactive waste management.
The annotated glossary was thus prepared by consultant Meritxell Martell on
the basis of a review of the full range of FSC publications across the past decade, anddiscussions with Claudio Pescatore and Claire Mays of the NEA Secretariat. Ms Mays
and Mr Pescatore revised the glossary entries in detail with help from the FSC Bureau.
The glossary was reviewed at the FSC-12 meeting (2011), where the FSC re-examined
its key concepts, reaffirming or refining past understanding. In each entry, the key
characteristics of the concept are explained and its symbolic dimension described.
In some cases, references to other literature are provided.
In 2018, the FSC membership decided to update the Glossary and include a newentry on added value. The concept of added value was first discussed in the report
Fostering a Durable Relationship between a Waste Management Facility and its Host
Community: Adding Value through Design and Process (NEA, 2015). It was recognisedthat although the concept has many facets and continues to evolve, a sharedunderstanding of this concept was necessary. Jo-Ann Facella (Nuclear Waste
Management Organization, Canada) and Daniele Marta (Societa Gestione Impianti
Nucleari, Italy) as well as the FSC Bureau contributed to this text. It is to be
expected that within the coming years and through continuing dialogue, theunderstanding of certain concepts will evolve further and other terms will cometo the fore. The FSC will continue to discuss and update its glossary to maintain it
as a living document.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents
Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2. Added value .................................................................................................... 11
Added value through design features ........................................................................ 11
Added value through planning, implementing and operating the facility ........... 12
The symbolic dimension of an added value approach ............................................ 12
Added value in practice ................................................................................................ 12
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 13
Chapter 3. Confidence and trust ..................................................................................... 15
Factors for confidence between stakeholders and in decisions ............................. 15
Attributes of confidence and trust .............................................................................. 16
Evolution of understanding ......................................................................................... 17
The symbolic dimension of confidence and trust .................................................... 17
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 17
Chapter 4. Dialogue ........................................................................................................... 19
Different tools and mechanisms for promoting stakeholder dialogue.................. 19
Evolution of understanding ......................................................................................... 19
Fairness and competence ............................................................................................ 20
The symbolic dimension of dialogue.......................................................................... 21
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 21
Chapter 5. Local community ........................................................................................... 23
Evolution of understanding ......................................................................................... 23
The symbolic dimension of local community ........................................................... 24
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 24
Chapter 6. Local partnership ........................................................................................... 25
Main components of the partnership approach ....................................................... 25
Advantages..................................................................................................................... 25
Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 26
Evolution of understanding in the last decade ......................................................... 26
Ladder of citizen participation .................................................................................... 27
The symbolic dimension of local partnerships ......................................................... 28
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 28
Chapter 7. Ownership of a societal project vs. acceptance ........................................ 29
Evolution of the understanding .................................................................................. 29
Three overarching principles of decision making .................................................... 30
The symbolic dimension of ownership ...................................................................... 30
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 31

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 8. Retrievability of waste .................................................................................. 33
Evolution of understanding in the last decade ......................................................... 33
Retrievability scale ........................................................................................................ 34
The symbolic dimension of retrievability .................................................................. 35
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 36
Chapter 9. Reversibility of decisions.............................................................................. 37
Evolution of the understanding .................................................................................. 37
Reversibility and the stepwise approach ................................................................... 38
The symbolic dimension of reversibility.................................................................... 39
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 39
Chapter 10. Safety and stakeholder confidence .......................................................... 41
Evolution of the understanding .................................................................................. 41
From a technical concept to a social construct ......................................................... 41
The safety case .............................................................................................................. 42
The symbolic dimension of safety .............................................................................. 43
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 43
Chapter 11. Siting .............................................................................................................. 45
Evolution of understanding ......................................................................................... 45
The symbolic dimension of siting ............................................................................... 47
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 47
Chapter 12. Stakeholder ................................................................................................... 49
Evolution of the understanding .................................................................................. 49
Stakeholder definition in legislation .......................................................................... 51
Should the regulator be regarded as a stakeholder? ................................................ 52
Stakeholder involvement ............................................................................................. 52
The symbolic dimension of stakeholder involvement............................................. 53
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 53
Chapter 13. Stepwise approach to decision making ................................................... 55
Evolution of the understanding .................................................................................. 55
Features of a stepwise approach ................................................................................. 56
Advantages of a stepwise approach ........................................................................... 56
Challenges of a stepwise approach............................................................................. 57
The symbolic dimension of stepwise decision making ........................................... 57
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 57
Chapter 14. Transparency ................................................................................................ 59
Evolution of the understanding .................................................................................. 59
Transparency as a feature of sustainable decision making .................................... 59
Recent interpretations of transparency ..................................................................... 60
Approaches to achieve transparency ......................................................................... 61
The symbolic dimension of transparency ................................................................. 61
Where we stand ............................................................................................................ 61
References .......................................................................................................................... 63

6

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of figures
1:
2:
3:

Arnstein’s eight-rung ladder of citizen participation ........................................ 28
Life cycle stages of the waste illustrating changing degree of
retrievability, passive vs. active controls, and costs of retrieval
in a deep geological repository ............................................................................. 35
Potential outcomes of options assessment, including reversal ....................... 38

List of tables
1:
2:
3:

Factors for confidence in decision making ......................................................... 16
Traditional and evolving roles and responsibilities of mainstakeholders in RWM ............................................................................................. 50
Transparency in the three aspects paramount to sustainable decision
making ..................................................................................................................... 60

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

7

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1. Introduction

The NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) has developed this annotatedglossary of key terms used since 2000 in the context of FSC publications: study reports,
topical sessions including case studies by FSC members or academic visitors,
syntheses of the national workshops and community visits, and backgrounddocuments. 1 Across two decades, the terms used by the FSC community and theirdefinitions have evolved. Therefore, it has become necessary to provide a harmonious
basis to make explicit the conceptualisation of certain terms and to facilitate andimprove dialogue and understanding among those who are involved in FSC activities.
This annotated glossary should serve as a synthesised reference guide for defining
concepts and principles in the area of radioactive waste management (RWM) and theevolution of their understanding over time.
The concepts included in this glossary are organised in alphabetical order asfollows: added value, confidence and trust; dialogue; local community; local partnership;ownership of a societal project vs. acceptance; retrievability of waste; reversibility of decisions;safety and stakeholder confidence; siting; stakeholder; stepwise approach to decision making;transparency. Other terms often present in FSC publications, like fairness and competenceor stakeholder involvement, have not been included as separate concepts but areconsidered in the text entries for the key terms. Attention should also be drawn to thefact that in some languages, a single word is used for the two English terms confidence
and trust. Even in English these words are sometimes used interchangeably.
During the development of this glossary, it was noted that some terms whichwere commonly used by radioactive waste managers or other stakeholders at thetime of the FSC’s foundation (e.g. public acceptance, compensation, incentive) are by now
rarely cited or have been replaced by others. In contrast, some new concepts havebecome common in the FSC vocabulary. For example, the FSC familiarised theconcept of added value in the 2007 report Fostering a Durable Relationship between a
Waste Management Facility and Its Host Community; Adding Value through Design andProcess (NEA, 2007a). In that study based in large part on stakeholder interviews, theFSC examined how the sustainability of a RWM solution may be improved bydesigning and implementing facilities in ways that provide not only economic
opportunity, but also added cultural and amenity value to the local community andbeyond. This added value brings direct gains in quality of life in both the short- andmid-terms, and can foster socio-economic gains by making a place more attractive
to visitors or future residents.

1.

All these publications can be found online at www.oecd-nea.org/fsc; they are referenced
within the glossary and listed in the bibliography.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

9

INTRODUCTION

Capturing such definitions has involved reviewing a wide range of information
developed by the FSC through case study experience or encounters in workshops andcommunity visits, where the process of creating and exchanging meanings is viewed
to be as important as the actual topical outcomes of this process. Undoubtedly, during
the development of this glossary, reflections on some concepts have arisen and evennew dimensions of understanding have emerged. This process of reflection isaddressed by the FSC in its work on the “symbolic dimension”. 2 Some concepts cannot
be defined in a top-down manner, but their multiple meanings should be clarified
through dialogue. In this regard, the “FSC has found […] that key concepts ofradioactive waste (e.g. safety, risk, reversibility, retrievability) carry different meanings
for the technical community and for non-technical stakeholders. It has also learnt thatsome highly value-laden socio-economic concepts (e.g. benefit packages, community,
landscape) are interpreted differently by different societal groups, and that opinions
and attitudes are not simply a faithful reflection of decision making, actual events andcommunicated messages. Perceptions and interpretations of events and objects also
play a role. Deep-seated values and norms, knowledge and beliefs, group
identification, cultural tradition and self-interest are some examples of factors thatshape perceptions and interpretations” (NEA, 2010a, p. 19). In a similar vein, the RWMC
Regulator’s Forum confirms that there is no common, technical definition for some of
the terms used in the field of waste disposal, like safety, risk, retrievability, monitoring,etc. The Regulator’s Forum agrees that “these terms are not universally definable andneed to be defined in regulations. The definitions by the regulator are meant for the
implementer, even if they are a social construct; they are fit-for-purpose and usefulfor arguing in a licensing procedure; the guidelines have nothing to do with thepolitical sphere” (NEA, 2011a, p. 7).
Each glossary entry is structured, to the extent possible, as follows:•

The term and its variants, if any, in FSC literature are identified.

•

The common FSC understanding of the concept and any guidance arecaptured, based upon a review of all FSC documents to date.

•

Any evolution of the concept observed over the decade of FSC work isanalysed.

•

The FSC interpretation of the symbolic dimension is explored.

•

The current status of outlook in the FSC, and intended activities according to
the current Programme of Work (2010 and beyond) are assessed.

Overall, although different persons and groups may assign different meanings towords, and although terminology will continue to evolve, this glossary is the FSC’s“state-of-the-art” guide to key terms in use. As such, it should prove to be a handy
reference for all those interested in the governance of radioactive waste management.

2.

Symbols bring an extra layer of meaning to concrete realities. Since the beginning of
human history, symbols are widely used in order to communicate information andfeelings, to immortalise knowledge, carry traditions and facilitate a feeling of group“belonging”. See NEA (2010a).

10 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

ADDED VALUE

Chapter 2. Added value

The concept of “added value” refers to an understanding that the societal benefit ofa radioactive waste management facility is in part determined by its features andbenefits beyond serving its core function, which is the safe management or disposalof used nuclear fuel or radioactive waste. Added value does not substitute forcompensation measures, but compensation measures may lead to added value.
Added value includes tangible and intangible elements that make theradioactive waste management facility an amenity that betters fits the landscapeand community. These features help build and assure a long-term sustainable
relationship with the host community or communities. They can best be identified
through meaningful engagement with stakeholders in the decision-making process.
Whether it is through design features or contribution to community processes,
added value helps the long-term sustainability of the project in the community.
Ongoing dialogue about creating added value is context-specific and helps to ensurea sustainable relationship between the facility and the community.
The concept was first discussed in the NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence(FSC) publication Fostering a Durable Relationship between a Waste Management Facility
and its Host Community. Adding Value through Design and Process published in 2007 andupdated in 2015. Since 2007, the concept has been implemented in various ways
through the implementation of various country programmes.

Added value through design features
Prior to the introduction of the concept in FSC material, discussion of value or
benefits had largely focused on hosting fees and socio-economic development
packages (i.e. guaranteeing employment or infrastructure) intended to compensate
for real and perceived impacts. The concept of added value replaces thistransactional and monetary approach with a focus on long-term relationshipbuilding, the cultural and amenity value of facilities, and other intangible aspects inboth the short and long term.
Added value helps to ensure the sustainability of the project and community
relationships over the long timescales required. Through planning and design,
projects might also aim to, for instance, improve well-being, consolidate knowledge,
fulfil locally identified values, further define community identity and image, andbuild social relationships.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

11

ADDED VALUE

Besides focusing on the main priority of ensuring the safety of the disposed waste,
design elements in the radioactive waste management facility may also include
functional, cultural and physical features. Cultural and amenity value refers toadditions to the quality of life through such features as distinctiveness, aesthetic
quality, convenience and meaningfulness; by providing opportunities for residents
and visitors to meet, learn, relax and enjoy; and by fostering community development
in areas like education, image definition or problem-solving capacity. Design elements
can, therefore, be adapted to the national context and be responsive to the community.

Added value through planning, implementing and operating the facility
The process of working out desired features of the facility can bring added value tothe community through the development of social capital such as skills, expertise andknowledge. Potential added value features are best identified through dialogue withthe community. During operations, a trusted community committee can beestablished aimed at fostering communication and information exchange between
the facility and the public, based on the values of honesty, openness, and transparency.

The symbolic dimension of an added value approach
What constitutes added value for a radioactive waste management facility is specificto the community and site. There may be intangible elements of a facility that havesymbolic value to the community. These elements can only be brought out throughdialogue.
Considering both tangible and non-tangible elements implies focusing on asymbolic dimension, to help explain why non-tangible elements are important. The
word “amenity” was defined (NEA, 2015: p. 36) as a key concept: after decades of poor
stakeholder involvement (Decide-Announce-Defend approaches), new decisionmaking approaches provide local communities with the opportunity to create a broad
range of activities around and sometimes inside the facility.
Another key objective in the added value approach is preserving the meaning
and memory of the facility across generations by building a relationship with thefacility that will be carried on through generations. By adding a symbolic dimension
to the facility, the memory and information about the facility will become part ofthe story of the area and retained and passed along in the same way as monuments,
buildings or natural features of the territory.

Added value in practice
Since 2007, the concept has been applied in various ways in the implementation ofcountry programmes. Relevant initiatives include:•

the possibility of using the repository as a “meeting point” to arrange
exhibitions and other cultural initiatives;•the development of activities aimed at deepening and sharing the knowledgeof the local territory from a cultural or an environmental perspective.

12 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

ADDED VALUE

Many initiatives include economic benefits to support long-term sustainable
development of the region that hosts the facility. This comprehensive approachencourages an open dialogue with local communities and with a wide range ofstakeholders. It is a pragmatic way to discuss possible amenities of importance tostakeholders, such as:•

reinforced environmental protection in the area where the site is located, asa consequence of the strict regulatory licensing conditions (e.g. institutional
surveillance, declaration of environmentally protected area, reinforced
measures against fire or flooding);•

direct and indirect employment opportunities;•

the development of infrastructure that will make the area more attractive;•

the opportunity to carry out research, development and training activities
that may make the site a centre of expertise at the national level, and asource of trusted information for the local communities that host it.

Where we standThe added value approach continues to evolve. Its adoption has different aspects indifferent countries and projects.
FSC practice has led to the following understandings:•

Radioactive waste management facilities are complex long-term projects. They
require the continued support of the community and the willingness andacceptance of the community to continue to host the facility over generations.

•

Successful implementation of such projects requires safety issues to beaddressed to the satisfaction of both regulators and communities. Added
value contributes to long-term sustainability of the project, and a continued
relationship between the community and the facility.

•

Added value can be delivered through functional, cultural and physicaldesign features of the facility.

•

Added value may encourage a process of participative decision-making in theplanning and implementation of the project which may also help community“capacity building”.

•

Added value opportunities are best identified through meaningful dialogue
with the community. A meaningful dialogue involves a wide range ofstakeholders from the beginning of the process (early involvement); a clear andunderstandable explanation of the elements on which the dialogue isfocused for stakeholders involved (clarity); and allowing for the influence andinput of local communities (empowerment).

•

Added value is also connected to the acknowledgement and gratitude thatthe whole country owes the host community.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

13

CONFIDENCE AND TRUST

Chapter 3. Confidence and trust

In FSC publications, the terms confidence (stakeholder confidence or public confidence)and trust (public trust or social trust) are often presented in the same context. In somelanguages, the same word is used for confidence and trust. Even in English thesewords are sometimes used interchangeably. 1
Confidence in the decision-making process and trust in institutions and theirrepresentatives are desirable assets for completing a complex multi-decade, sociotechnical endeavour (as radioactive waste management certainly is). If these
attitudes can be established among the institutional actors and other stakeholders,
they should furthermore be enhanced, preserved and maintained over time. The
FSC explored definitions of confidence and trust in the initial 2000 workshop.
Confidence is related to process dependability, based on evidence that can beprovided through transparency. Trust is related to the behaviour of individuals andorganisations; it has to be earned, and it is related to feelings of comfort and liking.
Trust can be also defined as the willingness to be or become vulnerable, in order tohave the possibility to benefit from some outcome that is not achievable otherwise. 2
Having trust signifies that an individual is willing to give up a certain measure ofcontrol to another person, an institution, or a set of institutions.

Factors for confidence between stakeholders and in decisions
The FSC identifies societal factors paramount to cultivating, enhancing andmaintaining confidence in the decision-making process around radioactive waste
management (and particularly local siting processes). These include national
programme process and structure, actual behaviour, and local RWM system
features. Sample factors are listed in separate columns in Table 1 (no row-itemcorrespondence is intended).

1.

While the primary working language of the FSC is English, most publications are translated
into French as the other official language of the OECD. Furthermore, the FSC produces many
two-page flyers, which are translated by members into other member country languages.

2.

This definition was raised at the NEA Workshop in Canada (2002) and it highlights theimportance of identifying what is the “benefit” that is being proposed or sought. The
production of radioactive wastes in large quantities is now a historical fact, and whatsociety seeks is to formulate a satisfactory way of living with the wastes (Fleming, 2003).

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

15

CONFIDENCE AND TRUST

Table 1: Factors for confidence in decision making
National
process

National programme
structure

Actual stakeholder
behaviour

Local RWM system
features

Stepwise approach.
Stakeholder
involvement andempowerment.
Significant public
participation in analysis
and deliberation
alongside experts.
Regional development.
Rebuild trust whencommunication isbroken down.

Clear framework
defining roles and rightsof players.
Clear financial
responsibility placed
primarily on those who
own/produce waste.
Local liaison groups
facilitating public
information,
consultation andeducation.
Empowered local
communities.

All stakeholders
assuming theirmandated
responsibilities.
Commitment tocontinued learning.
Embracing ethicalconcerns for future
generations.
Local players engaged to
improve community
well-being.
National regulatory
bodies that elicit trust.

Dialogue acrosscommunities throughfederated associations.
Dialogue between local
decision makers andnational managers.
Higher standard of livingin the host community.
Technical training tolocal stakeholders toparticipate inenvironmental
monitoring and memory
keeping.

Source: Various FSC publications including NEA (2000); elaborated from Pescatore (2011).

Attributes of confidence and trust
It is important not only that stakeholders be involved, but also that institutions
develop appropriate features to build confidence (NEA, 2000; NEA, 2004a). The FSC
classifies the attributes of institutions that are often seen to earn confidence andpublic trust into the areas of organisation, mission and behaviour, as follows. Mostof these attributes may be actively developed by organisations seeking to improve.
A few desirable features (e.g. non-profit status) cannot necessarily be decided by thesole organisation.
•

Organisational features include independence, clarity of role and ownership,
dedicated and sufficient funding, a non-profit status, commitment toretaining a highly devoted and motivated staff, structural learning capacity,
an internal culture of “scepticism” allowing practices and beliefs to bereviewed, high levels of skill and competence in relevant areas, including
stakeholder engagement, strong internal relations and cohesion and an
ethical charter or code of conduct.

•

Mission features include a clear mandate and well-defined goals, a specificmanagement plan, a well-founded and articulated identity, a good operatingrecord. Good integration of the entire back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle may
also be seen as instilling additional confidence in the stakeholders.

•Behavioural features include openness, transparency, honesty, consistency,
willingness to be tested, recognition of limits, coherence with organisational
goals, an active search for dialogue, an alert listening stance and caring
attitude, proactive practices, emphasis on stakeholder involvement, a policyof continuous improvement, use of third-party spokespersons, and a level ofcommitment to the organisation’s mandate that is as profound as that
displayed by civil society organisations.

16 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

CONFIDENCE AND TRUST

These features are pertinent for the whole range of institutional RWM actors(NEA, 2003c; 2012c; 2007c). In order to increase trust and confidence, first thesignificance of the various dimensions for the various stakeholders, and thepriorities they set, need to be understood (NEA, 2004a).

Evolution of understanding
Since its inception, the FSC has explored ways to strengthen trust and confidence indecision-making processes and among stakeholders and institutional actors. An
early focus of the FSC was to define the characteristics of an organisation capable ofachieving stakeholder confidence over long time periods based on three elements
identified in management studies: structure, process and behaviour. Most input
focused on the implementer, but recommendations and observations are valid forother actors as well, particularly regulators (NEA, 2003c). From the local point of view,the main pillars for local confidence and trust are: safety, participation and socioeconomic development (NEA, 2006).
Recent FSC debates around the concept of confidence are how to communicate
scientific findings and uncertainties and how to communicate confidence in the
results (NEA, 2008a). Building public confidence in the results of R&D may rest upona web of factors: training scientists to create a new repertoire of communication
skills, reinforcing interdisciplinary dialogue, and addressing dilemmas, opening up
the scientific process and improving transparency.

The symbolic dimension of confidence and trust
Increasing and maintaining confidence is founded, among other aspects, uponensuring and enhancing safety. A lack of confidence by a large part of the public
may be connected to a lack of confidence in the safety of nuclear power and a lackof public trust in the different players of the RWM arena. Clarity of the policy link
between safely managing the waste and the future of nuclear energy, and involving
the public in the relevant debates, are both important contributors to confidence indecisions regarding solutions for long-term RWM (NEA, 2004a).
Building relationships and building mutual understanding cannot be short cut.
They require time and discussion. Trying to build these relationships has a symbolic
value of its own, which may increase confidence.

Where we standConfidence and trust are not goals in and of themselves. Rather, stakeholder
confidence in both RWM systems and in the decision-making processes should be
improved, to anticipate and meet the challenges raised in current approaches ofcollaboration or partnership.
Current FSC work focuses on the tools and processes for helping to develop
stakeholder confidence, on how technical research, development and demonstration
may contribute to confidence, and on the roles and responsibilities of organisations incontributing to stakeholder confidence.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

17

DIALOGUE

Chapter 4. Dialogue

In FSC publications, dialogue is framed as societal dialogue, stakeholder dialogue or
effective dialogue.
Effective dialogue characterises an approach of collaboration or partnership
between the institutional actors and the affected communities essentially, involving
public participation in the decision-making process and mutual learning. Dialogue
is one of the conditions to enhance trust in and credibility in the decision-making
process.

Different tools and mechanisms for promoting stakeholder dialogue
The decision-making process for the long-term management of radioactive waste iscomplex partly because of the significant number of different players and themultiplicity of views. Different stakeholders have different perspectives,
perceptions, beliefs, interests and values. This complexity is best taken into accountby promoting stakeholder involvement. Considering the different inputs from avariety of stakeholders improves the information base for decisions. There are many
possible tools and techniques for stakeholder involvement, ranging from the simple
provision of information to consultation, active participation, and shared decisionauthority. An important FSC contribution is the Stakeholder Involvement Techniques:
Short Guide and Annotated Bibliography (2004c). 1

Evolution of understanding
In the past, policy-making and implementation was mostly delegated to expert
spheres. As projects have failed and trust and confidence in authorities and expertisehave diminished, a more open and participatory decision-making approach isrecognised as both more fruitful and better justified. The FSC recognises the shift fromthe traditional “decide, announce and defend” model, focused exclusively on technicalcontent, to one of “engage, interact and co-operate” characterised by a new dynamic of

1.

In some countries, the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements for stakeholder
involvement provide the opportunity to establish effective dialogue by addressing a wide
range of concerns from the different stakeholders. The Aarhus Convention grants rights
to the public affected by environmental decisions: access to information, participation,
and access to justice.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

19

DIALOGUE

dialogue and decision making. New or enhanced forms of dialogue among allconcerned parties are needed as part of the new decision-making context.
From the very beginning, the FSC has been working to share experience andlessons learnt in the area of stakeholder dialogue. At the FSC plenary meeting in
April 2002, regulators, implementers, scientists and policy-makers acknowledgedthat their roles had changed because stakeholder involvement and dialogue are now
part of the process. New skills are being developed to help them to communicate
with and involve stakeholders.
FSC members agree that all stakeholders should have access to a wellestablished process, recognised as fair and workable by the majority, whereby
stakeholders can interact effectively. The process should foster a dynamic dialogue
among stakeholders, each with a clear and recognised role. Dialogue may help tofind ways of creating constructive relationships among stakeholders and isnecessary to reveal divergent understandings and values, as well as to build up andcheck those understandings and values which are shared (NEA, 2010a).
Stakeholder dialogue about scientific and technical research, development anddemonstration provides an opportunity to share research ideas and results and tobuild bridges between different disciplines. Professor O’Connor (2006) highlighted
that “effective dialogue, based on reciprocal learning and capacity building willfurther the understanding of the tensions and different viewpoints and values, andreveal areas of uncertainty”.
The starting point for an effective dialogue is that all parties agree to address acertain issue and are willing to work together on this. (It must be recognised that for
strategic reasons, some stakeholder groups may refuse to participate in any
dialogue.) The procedure for dialogue and the selection of participants should beperceived as fair. The influence that dialogue will have upon decision making should
be clarified at the outset, and feedback should be provided to participants during the
public consultation process (NEA, 2004c; d). During interactions, it is important tolisten to and respect each other’s views and principles. Through effective dialogue
and appropriate action in regard to identified needs and demands, the societal
confidence in radioactive waste management arrangements may be strengthened.

Fairness and competence
A tension is sometimes found in decision-making processes between the need forcompetent participation (reflecting a particular specialisation) and the need for fair
representation (reflecting e.g. the demography or thematic concerns of an affected
community). At one extreme, all choices might be made by technical experts while, atthe other extreme, decisions might remain permanently open and responsive tochanges in values, priorities and attitudes by the national or local community as theseevolve, making it difficult to “bank” progress. (See the glossary entry on reversibility.)
Dialogue processes have been designed to accommodate simultaneously these twoneeds, and the insertion of these dialogues into the national programme should seek
to balance the decision outcomes so that the process can move forward.

20 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

DIALOGUE

The symbolic dimension of dialogue
Key concepts of RWM, such as safety, risk, reversibility or storage and disposal, may
carry a variety of meanings or symbolic connotations. It is important for radioactive
waste managers to recognise and understand these underlying meanings because
they may signal areas that need attention from societal and technical decision
makers.
In particular, understanding the predominantly negative symbolism thattraditionally has been associated with RWM may allow its root causes to beaddressed. Positive symbolism is developed through actions that empower people
in decision making and add value to RWM facility host regions.
While symbolic aspects are often hidden they can be brought out throughdialogue. This reveals what individuals understand by given words and concepts,
which can then be discussed, developed and synthesised into shared meanings.
Dialogue is shaped by more than just concrete realities. This recognition is
helpful for finding additional ways of creating non-confrontational and constructive
relationships among stakeholders.

Where we standKnowledge, values, understandings and priorities may evolve through the different
stages of the decision-making process. The RWM process runs for longer thanseveral generations of political representation, local stakeholders, or implementerand regulator employees. Thus, it is important to constantly use dialogue to renew
the basis of understanding among stakeholders. In this context, dialogue is a means
to assure transfer of knowledge and awareness.
In general, FSC practice since 2000 has led to the following convictions: 2

2.

•

Dialogue provides for the joint creation of knowledge about key themes. The
process of creating and exchanging meanings is as important as the actual
topical outcomes.

•

Certain central concepts and principles cannot be successfully defined in a
top-down manner; instead, their multiple meanings should be clarified
through dialogue.

•

Dialogue must be renewed at various decision points over the multi-year
cycle of RWM, because even when decisions have been “banked”, overintervening periods the societal views may very well shift and should bechecked in order to tune actual implementations.

Pescatore, C. and C. Mays (2010); based on a statement by the FSC Core Group to the NEA
Radioactive Waste Management Committee 43rd Meeting, March 2010.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

21

LOCAL COMMUNITY

Chapter 5. Local community

Local community is a societal group of any size whose members reside in a specificlocality, usually share a government and often have a common cultural and historical
heritage. Community is not tied firmly to a geographical or administrative area.

Evolution of understanding
The concept of local community has been subject to debate in different FSC
publications, national workshops and community visits. Different groups, countries
and regions may define community differently, responding to different sociopolitical realities. Hence, local community is a socio-economic concept, which isinterpreted differently by diverse societal groups. Local community representatives
are recognised as “stakeholders” 1 by the FSC members.
The conception of a local community involves the consideration of three
dimensions: place, common stakes and time, which are central in RWM facility
siting. Firstly, regarding place, drawing geographic boundaries is an artefact of thesiting process (or other political or administrative processes) and groups locatedoutside those spatial boundaries may see themselves as affected by the siting
activity and may want to be included in decision making. Secondly, groups andindividuals may have connections with the members of the siting community by
virtue of criteria that are not based on place. Instead, such stakes in a local
community may be grounded in economic, professional, religious, aesthetic or
ideological bases, among others. Finally, the size and composition of local
communities is dynamic over time due to mobility, mortality and new births, as well
as socio-economic factors (some changes may even result from the siting processitself). Overall, there will be ambiguity in how a local community is defined. Formal
efforts to define local community are likely to be contested and the contending
advocates will lobby for conclusions that are advantageous for their own positions(Jenkins-Smith, 2012). A flexible approach in early stages to defining community canallow definitions to become settled through deliberation, negotiation and mutual
learning, over the course of the RWM siting process.
The FSC community has reflected on how to build a relationship between the
RWM facility and the host community that may be sustained for years and forgenerations (NEA, 2007a; NEA, 2010a). The objective is to better integrate the facility
within the local community by providing added value beyond economic benefits(refer to Chapter 2) and land use compensations.

1.

See glossary entry stakeholder.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

23

LOCAL COMMUNITY

The symbolic dimension of local community
The FSC recognises that it is important to address what is of particular concern to a
local community. Socio-economic terms – like community, landscape, added value
or benefits – are interpreted differently by the technical experts and by nontechnical stakeholders and even by different societal groups (NEA, 2010a).
In the 1960s, the siting of nuclear facilities conferred upon host communities astrong positive sign of being part of the future but there was no active local role in thesiting process. The welcoming attitude linked to technological enthusiasm eroded in
the 1970s and siting became viewed as imposing a burden on an unwilling host. Now,
in several countries, the process has been turned around. Whether they volunteer or
are approached by implementers, whether they address a waste legacy or envision
integrating a new radioactive waste management activity, many communities aretaking an active role. They increasingly expect a projected facility to fit their conceptof safety and amenity, and are willing to work hard to achieve that. In this process,communities are looking not only to protect their community identity and image, but
to create a positive community brand or profile with the radioactive waste
management facility as a visible component. If the town or region must be identified
in the public mind with a RWM facility, this ought to be a true article of local pride.
Such an objective leads to creativity: communities imagine cultural elements that willdefine the project as an asset in an overall development vision” (NEA, 2007a: p. 36).
The image of a local community can be improved if there is an appreciation of
its economic and/or if there are added value activities which include symbolic
endeavours as well efforts to improve well-being, consolidate knowledge, fulfil value
ideals and elaborate community image are likely to encourage and justify positive
connotations.

Where we standThe term “community” includes different dimensions: administrative character,location, mode of government, history and shared economic and cultural practices
and values, among others. Each community member’s sense of belonging may belinked to a perception of the “spirit of the place”, and by identifying with the group
established there. Local community should also be understood as the extension ofeach member’s personal sphere. The community is a network of personal relations.
It is one space in which our lives take place, alongside other specialised spheres (forinstance, the sphere of our employment, or the spheres delivering services andgoods to us). By considering “local community” in a holistic manner, we may gain abetter understanding of what is needed for a RWM facility to fit in properly, bewelcomed, and be maintained there in a sustainable manner. The challenge is toestablish a deliberative relationship with the often largely silent population who
may react only when the hosting issue becomes close and tangible. Furthermore, inthe context of mutual learning, definitions may evolve and the understanding of“local community” might change as the siting process unfolds.

24 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

LOCAL PARTNERSHIP

Chapter 6. Local partnership

The partnership approach is a formal or informal arrangement between theradioactive waste management implementer and representatives of the local
community to work together to assess technical and socio-economic issues.
A formal agreement makes a partnership more sustainable. The regulator is usuallyaware of the partnership (if not part of it) and is asked to brief the partnership fromtime to time or to attend some of its initiatives.

Main components of the partnership approach
Key elements that characterise some, but not all, partnership approaches (NEA,
2010b) include:•“Voluntarism”: local government representatives of a community express aninterest in participating in a process to determine the suitability of siting aradioactive waste management facility within the boundaries of theircommunity. The ability for partnership members to come to the table asequal partners is also important.

•“Right of veto”: the community is allowed (formally or informally) towithdraw from consideration within a certain period.

•“Collaboration with affected communities in facility design andimplementation”: this may take a variety of administrative formats relying
on legally binding agreements or on less formal arrangements. The
composition of the relevant working bodies, tasks to be carried out, tools tobe applied, fact-finding and decision-making mechanisms may vary widely.

•“Provision of community benefits and added value”: social and economic
benefits are aimed at recognising that a host community is volunteering anessential service to the nation.

Advantages
Recent FSC activities and reports have emphasised that adopting a co-operative
approach and working in partnership with potential host communities enable local
communities to become empowered. Overall, the main advantages of participating
in a partnership are as follows:•

Communities have a mechanism to influence the institutional decisions that
could affect their area.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

25

LOCAL PARTNERSHIP•It enables the range of stakeholders to undertake joint resolution ofcommunity concerns.

•

It enables the achievement of a balance between:–

the sometimes competing requirements of fair representation andcompetent participation;–

a combination of a licensable site and a management concept with hostcommunity support and;–compensation, local control and development opportunities;•

It enables local stakeholders to contribute to the different phases of the waste
management programme: facility design, monitoring and other follow-up.

•

It builds social capital in an area as members of the community can develop
new skills through their participation as well as increase the knowledge baseabout their community, its aspirations and its environment.

Challenges
Some of the challenges of implementing the partnership approach are related tofacilitating the interactions between community stakeholders and technicalspecialists, who may have conflicting views on the same issue. A working
methodology is needed that enables the different participants to understand eachother and maintain this interaction over time. Meaningful and successful local
participation requires significant time, commitment, material and resources.
Implementers are required to open up, share some power, and also make available
the necessary mechanisms and resources. Local community members need to keep
in touch with and represent the diversity of local population’s views, deeply
immerse themselves (often on a volunteer basis) in the partnership dossiers toenable scrutiny, and challenge the institutional actors to adapt to community needs.
Finally, decision makers on higher levels should respect the work of the partnershipand take it into account in the decision-making process.

Evolution of understanding in the last decade
Initially, partnership approaches were conceptualised as mechanisms forparticipation promoted by governments and relevant institutions to build up thetrust of the local community in decision makers and implementers (NEA, 2004b).
This was needed after a historic period characterised by a top-down approach,where the division between technical radioactive waste managers and civil society
players was clear-cut (see Table 2 on the traditional and evolving roles andresponsibilities of stakeholders). Partnerships were a means to integrate the local
level or different stakeholders entering the scene at different phases within thesocio-technical programme for a repository.

26 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

LOCAL PARTNERSHIPThe practical mechanisms of early partnerships were essentially local
information and/or monitoring committees, and local liaison committees. Theirmain tasks included conveying information to the inhabitants, raising community
concerns and providing input to the decision-making process. In general, suchcommittees had little influence on the decisions regarding site, waste management
concept or facility design.
Various countries had examples of partnerships which were cited as helping toachieve a balance between the requirements of fair representation and competentparticipation. 1 The basic components of the partnership approach are outlined in
NEA (2010b), which reviews different types of partnerships and their evolution overtime in 13 countries. The report highlights the following changes:•

shift from information and consultation towards partnership;•

shift from a passive to an active role of local communities;•

development of a great variety of administrative formats for collaboration;•

recognition of the need for, and legitimacy of, community empowerment
measures and socio-economic benefits;•

emergence of new ideals and bases for collaboration including mutual
learning.

Ladder of citizen participation
The “ladder of citizen participation” proposed and elaborated by Arnstein in 1969
provides a relevant framework to compare approaches in public involvement. The
use of the ladder implies that there are different levels of participation, frommanipulation or therapy of citizens, through consultation, and to what we might
consider meaningful and genuine participation, i.e. partnership and citizen control(see Figure 1). While the lower rungs can be considered as “non-participation”,
further up the ladder, the levels of citizen involvement mean increasing degrees ofdecision-making power. According to NEA (2010b) the focus on partnership in the
2008-2009 FSC survey is two rungs higher on the participation ladder than the focus
on information and consultation reported in the 1999-2002 survey. This change
represents an important leap from “tokenism” towards “real participation”. At thecurrent rung of the ladder, power is reapportioned through negotiation between
citizens and decision makers.

1.

See glossary entry dialogue for references on fairness and competence.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

27

LOCAL PARTNERSHIP

Figure 1: Arnstein’s eight-rung ladder of citizen participation

Source: NEA (2010b).

The symbolic dimension of local partnerships
The term “local partnership” encompasses public involvement in decision-making
processes, a constructive two-way communication between individuals withdifferent knowledge, beliefs, values and worldviews and an integrated RWM project.
Local stakeholders review or help build up the proponent’s technical concept,
satisfying themselves as to the level of protection that fits their demand. In parallel,they work out expectations and requirements for RWM to function in the local
context. Stakeholders envision living with the facility during its active period andbeyond, considering simultaneous or end uses of the site. Hosting a facility may
provide development opportunities such as jobs, promoting economic activity,
infrastructure development, apart from added value focused on cultural andamenity attributes. Therefore, the integrated project focuses interdependently on
both technical and societal aspects of the facilities.

Where we standNowadays, local partnership is a shared concept within the FSC community.
Partnering is a good basis for developing a durable relationship between the local
community and institutions (NEA, 2020a).The partnership approach evolved towards
building long-term sustainable relationships between community and technicalstakeholders to develop an integrated RWM project – including setting physical andsafety characteristics, socio-economic and cultural/amenity requirements (added
value). Moreover, there is increased understanding that a RWM facility project shouldbe embedded in a territorial development plan, which takes the sustainable well-beingof a community or region as its starting point. In this way, a local partnership may
indeed form a point of intersection between RWM and larger territorial planning.

28 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

OWNERSHIP OF A SOCIETAL PROJECT VS. ACCEPTANCE

Chapter 7. Ownership of a societal project vs. acceptance

Ownership in the area of radioactive waste management refers to a desirable
situation in which a community is not, and does not feel, dispossessed of plans andimplementation. Ownership may best be achieved if siting and constructing afacility is framed, by officials and by community members, as the development of a
viable, long-term societal project in which a facility is embedded, and which seeks
to add community value; such a project should focus on the sustainable well-beingof the host community and the region across generations. Ownership signifies thata community is empowered to define both problems and their solution (inappropriate partnership with other responsible actors). 1 It differs from the conceptof acceptance, which reflects a passive position, and where typically a problem may
be analysed and a solution proposed by others.

Evolution of the understanding
In the early days of the FSC, a key question within the RWM community was how toattain broad public acceptance for a safe site and concept. As De Petrer (2004) states:“there was a general conviction that the necessary research, development anddemonstration work would automatically lead to all the answers and arguments
needed to convince all stakeholders. […B]y striving to the best technical solution
and by trying to find the perfect site, people would be convinced and accept thesolution presented to them”. At the first inauguration workshop of the FSC in 2000,
aspects of both ownership and acceptance were invoked in the statement that“sharing of responsibility and control with affected stakeholders and providing
concrete compensation to the affected stakeholders are also confidence-building
actions which may make a waste facility more acceptable” (NEA, 2000).
Fairness, transparency of the decision-making process, openness, technicalcompetence and procedural equity were identified, among others, as key conditions
for public acceptance of RWM programmes. In addition, the NEA (2004b) report
Stepwise Approach to Decision Making for Long-term Radioactive Waste Management –Experience, Issues and Guiding Principles considers that the key factors of public
acceptance are the confidence in the waste management concept and programme,
as well as trust in the decision-making and implementing institutions.

1.

See the glossary entries local partnership, siting, and confidence and trust.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

29

OWNERSHIP OF A SOCIETAL PROJECT VS. ACCEPTANCE

Nowadays, the term public acceptance can sometimes entail negative
connotations associated with imposing a certain project on a local community. Society
used to rely on technical experts and elected representatives to initiate and control
the implementation of technological programmes. In this context, the term public
acceptance is linked to the more traditional “decide, announce and defend model”,
which has shifted to “engage, interact and co-operate”. There has been a shift fromconsidering the public and the local community as passive partners, towards anapproach based on collaboration and volunteering. Thus, the new model is based on
co-operation between the implementer and the local communities, involving dialogue
between experts and citizens, mutual learning and public involvement in the processof decision making, as supported by partnerships. In this context, the aim is topromote ownership of the policy and of a project, i.e. ownership of the problem andthe solution, by the host community and, to the extent possible, also by the region andsurrounding area. Ownership being an active feature, it seems more likely that it may
extend across generations. On the other hand, with respect to the region andsurrounding area, further from the facility, expectations may be lower and acceptancethe most one could reasonably expect.

Three overarching principles of decision making
Decision processes are expected to meet a number of competing requirements. It is
desirable that RWM processes be participatory, flexible, and at the same time,
accountable. In this regard, three overarching principles are identified as the essential
elements of any decision-making process seeking broad societal support (NEA, 2004a);these may also be considered as dimensions favouring ownership:•

Decision making should be performed through iterative processes, providing theflexibility to adapt to contextual changes, e.g. by implementing a stepwise
approach that provides sufficient time for developing a competent and fairdiscourse. Competence will grow notably through discussing and exchanging
on research and its independent assessment.

•

Social learning should be facilitated, e.g. by promoting interactions between
various stakeholders and specialists.

•

Public involvement in decision-making processes should be facilitated, e.g. bypromoting constructive and high-quality communication between individuals
with different knowledge, beliefs, interests, values, and worldviews.

The symbolic dimension of ownership
The important features of creating a long-term societal project include not only the
relationship formed among the stakeholders, but also the symbolic relationship thatthey will form with the site and the facility and with future generations. RWM
processes have been used to create added value for a community, creating a basis
for a positive relationship with the waste, which may be a basis for durable memory.
Building and maintaining such a relationship is promoted by designing and

30 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

OWNERSHIP OF A SOCIETAL PROJECT VS. ACCEPTANCE

implementing installations such that they reflect the values and interests of local
communities (NEA, 2007a). The kind of symbolism that will be evoked in the facility
design will be important for creating added value for the community, the sense ofownership and a basis for a positive relationship with the waste. Central among
desirable symbolic aspects may be those conveying the safe character of the site. 2

Where we stand
FSC members are convinced that the necessary goal of siting is continuous
ownership of the policy and the project. This implies creating conscious,
constructive and durable relationships between communities, the waste facility andthe waste itself. Ownership can only come about if people feel that the project issafe in the first place. To this effect, people must be confident that they have accessto and can cogently discuss the issues of safety with other actors, and be heard.

2.

See the glossary entry safety and stakeholder confidence.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

31

RETRIEVABILITY OF WASTE

Chapter 8. Retrievability of waste

In FSC publications, the concept of retrievability is connected with reversibility andstepwise decision making. 1
Retrievability is the ability in principle to recover waste or entire waste packages
once they have been emplaced in a repository; retrieval is the concrete action ofremoval of the waste. Retrievability implies making provisions in order to allow
retrieval should it be required (NEA, 2012a). Retrievability is a technical feature thatfacilitates the reversal of the decision to emplace waste in a repository; as such itsupports reversibility.

Evolution of understanding in the last decade
The concept of retrievability has been given increasing attention in recent years. The
need for reversibility and retrievability (R&R) has emerged out of the social sphere,
particularly in regard to requirements for stakeholder confidence. Civil society
stakeholders are interested to discuss reversibility and retrievability in the context
of ensuring safety and considering how society will deal with new technologies asthese develop. The R&R concepts have been elaborated in the wider context of anevolution towards more dialogue in decision making and as a part of developing thesocial licence required to implement new technologies and/or facilities.
In the national programmes that include retrievability as a declared feature in
implementing a final repository, the goal is not to make future retrieval easy or costfree; it is simply to ensure that waste retrieval is feasible, assuming a future societythat is both able to carry it out and willing to do so (e.g. having determined that
retrieval is financially viable). Programmes that include retrievability mention threemain reasons: (a) having an attitude of humility or open-mindedness towards the
future; (b) providing additional assurance of safety; and (c) heeding the desires ofthe public not to be locked into an “irreversible” situation” (NEA, 2012a: p. 11).
A brief summary of the status of reversibility and retrievability requirements in
NEA member countries is found in NEA (2011c). In some countries retrievability
during the operational life of the repository is required by law. In some othercountries retrievability is not required by law, but national policy calls for it during
implementation. Elsewhere, retrievability is not explicitly required either by law or1.

See also the glossary entries reversibility and stepwise approach to decision-making.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

33

RETRIEVABILITY OF WASTE

by the government, but it is built into the design by the implementer nonetheless
and would apply during both the operational and the post-operational phases. In
most other countries, even though reversibility and retrievability are not current
issues in the national debate, they are recognised as potentially important issues by
the institutional players (NEA, 2011c).
The FSC National Workshop and Community Visit in France in 2009 confirmedthat various stakeholders demand future controllability and retrievability of waste fora diversity of reasons (NEA, 2010c). Socio-technical implementation of a repository
should thus achieve a balance between passive safety and means for active control,in the way appropriate to the particular national or programme context. Although thelong-term safety case for a repository must be able to stand on its own without postoperational institutional oversight (i.e. must demonstrate passive safety), specificoversight provisions, such as monitoring and memory keeping, may nevertheless be
decided upon. If so, these may further contribute to decision making relative toretrieval post-operation, and to the freedom of choice provided to future generations(NEA, 2012a).
Participants at the 2009 FSC National Workshop (NEA, 2010) also pointed out thatR&R discussions and decisions ought to be considered from the start of the project. To
achieve this, flexibility should be highlighted as an informing principle in repository
implementation.

Retrievability scale
A generic retrievability scale has been developed within the NEA international
project “Reversibility and Retrievability in geological disposal of radioactive waste
management” 2 (see Figure 2). The retrievability scale is a communication tool toillustrate qualitatively the degree and type of effort needed to retrieve the waste
according to the stages of its life cycle before and after its emplacement in a
repository. The scale is widely applicable to most countries’ programmes and could
help support dialogue with stakeholders.
In Figure 2, the connection between retrievability and passive safety along thelife cycle of radioactive waste is represented graphically. Not all waste packages
would be equally retrievable at all stages of their life cycle. The ease of retrieval
becomes reduced as passive safety measures become more important.

2.

www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/rr.

34 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

RETRIEVABILITY OF WASTE

Figure 2: Life cycle stages of the waste illustrating changing degreeof retrievability, passive vs. active controls, and costsof retrieval in a deep geological repository

Source: NEA (2011b).

The symbolic dimension of retrievability
Ferch (2009) points out that according to some groups of stakeholders, a repositorythat is no longer under active control cannot be considered safe; this may be thebasis for repeated societal requests for retrievability of waste. Similarly, the term
“final disposal” has been changed to “deep geological repository” in some countries
so as not to be seen to preclude features such as retrievability (NEA, 2010a).
Several varying, sometimes contrasting symbolisms are found. Some RWM policymakers have judged, for instance, that offering the possibility to retrieve emplaced
waste may send a signal that there is low confidence in the future performance of arepository. In contrast, other programmes have provided measures for retrievability
because being able to “get in again and fix something” without needless obstacles is
simply considered good engineering practice, and aligns symbolically with positive
values of realism and foresight. Either or both of these two alternative symbolisms –lack of confidence, and reassurance – may be present in societal stakeholders’ minds
when they consider R&R (Mays and Pescatore, 2012).

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

35

RETRIEVABILITY OF WASTE

Where we standThe concepts of R&R are not always well-defined and different stakeholders havevarying rationales and expectations when referring to them. Furthermore, theconcepts, experiences and perceptions on retrievability differ across countries. Thereis a general recognition that it is important to clarify the meaning and role of R&R ineach country. Tools for this clarification were provided through the NEA R&R project.
At the closing conference of the R&R project, dialogue revealed that reversal andparticularly retrieval become more difficult and costly as time passes. Retrieval istime-consuming and thus may cause higher doses to those working to achieve it. If
retrievability is exercised, there furthermore must be an alternative storage or
disposal solution to handle the retrieved waste. In light of such facts, several
conference speakers emphasised that R&R should not be used as programmefeatures to divert the attention of civil society from the range of safety issues, nor tofalsely reassure potential local hosts that their own hosting decisions are of little
lasting consequence. Instead, R&R if present in a national programme should beviewed as instruments affording opportunities to identify and discuss trade-offs,
and to allow public discussion of the programme’s overall quality management.
Beyond the intrinsic safety benefits R&R may offer, they may also enhance theability to fine-tune the RWM process so that it may become more robust and worthyof societal confidence (Mays and Pescatore, 2012).

36 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

REVERSIBILITY OF DECISIONS

Chapter 9. Reversibility of decisions

In FSC reports, the concept of reversibility is closely connected to the concepts ofretrievability and stepwise decision making. 1
Reversibility describes the ability in principle to reverse decisions taken during the
progressive implementation of a disposal system; reversal is the actual action of goingback on (changing) a previous decision, either by changing direction, or perhaps evenby restoring the situation that existed prior to that decision (NEA, 2011b).
Reversibility of decisions is a conceptual and operational tool that enables
adaptability in decision making. It denotes the possibility of reconsideration of one
or a series of steps at various stages of a RWM programme. This implies a need forreview of earlier decisions, as well as a need for the means (technical, financial, etc.)
enabling the reversal of a given step.

Evolution of the understanding
Reversibility was defined in an early NEA report (NEA, 2001a) as a managerial
concept: “the possibility of reversing one or a series of steps in repository planningor development at any stage of the programme”. This definition is partially valid
nowadays, although it can be refined. Reversibility is not only a possibility but anapproach to decision making, a method of work to arrive to a decision that is wellfounded, both technically and societally, throughout the repository life cycle.
As raised in NEA (2004a), when adopting the reversibility framework in developinga waste disposal facility it must be kept in mind that not all options can be kept open
at all times. Not all steps or decisions can be fully reversible. Reversibility is thus a way
to close down options in a considered manner. Generally, reversibility is meant to help
a facility programme respond flexibly to:1•

new technical information regarding the site and design;•

new technological developments relevant to radioactive waste management;•changes in economic, social and political conditions and acceptance; and•changes in regulatory guidance and its interpretation or even, possibly, inbasic safety standards.

See glossary entries on retrievability and stepwise approach to decision making.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

37

REVERSIBILITY OF DECISIONS

Reversibility and the stepwise approach
Reversibility is one aspect of the stepwise decision-making process. It denotes thepossibility of reconsideration of one or a series of steps at various stages of aprogramme. Such a reversal must be the result of careful evaluation with theappropriate stakeholders. Reversibility also denotes that, when practicable, fall-backpositions may be incorporated both in the long-term waste management policy andin the actual technical programme (NEA, 2004a).
The flexibility provided by potentially reversible steps is an important andappreciated feature for improving stakeholder confidence in waste management
plans.
Figure 3 shows that intermediate decision-making milestones can be planned tocontrol the disposal progress. Each major authorisation in the repository
implementation can be seen as an assessment of whether the process can continue
as foreseen or whether one of the reversibility options should be exercised. Thus,
reversibility implies a willingness to question previous decisions and a culture thatencourages such a questioning attitude. It also implies some degree of retrievabilityof waste (NEA, 2011b).
Having a clearly defined stepwise process enables the opportunity forstakeholders to agree when and how to move to the next stage of the process. Thisis especially valuable for societal confidence if moving forward will effectively
decrease the number of available future options.

Figure 3: Potential outcomes of options assessment, including reversal
Re-evaluate

Go back

Follow thereference path

Continue ona modified path

Source: NEA (2011b).

38 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

REVERSIBILITY OF DECISIONSThe symbolic dimension of reversibility
Reversibility is a concept which has generated heated debates within the RWM
community. Some interpret reversibility as a means for facilitating the correction ofpotential mistakes in the future, which could imply to address primarily uncertainty
regarding the long-term safety of waste management facilities. Others, however,argue that reversibility draws on the positive connotation of flexibility and freedomof choice provided for future generations. Here, reversibility would communicate acommitment to the values of intergenerational equity and democracy (Ferch, 2009).
In this regard, arguments in favour of reversibility are: possible future scientificadvances, future economic needs, observed risk or safety failure and the ethicalneed to leave options open (NEA, 2010c).
The programme feature of reversibility communicates modesty, foresight andopenness. In the technical realm, reversibility indicates the willingness to identify,
discuss and correct inadequate concepts or actions. In the societal realm, reversibility
indicates the willingness to adapt to societal preferences. Overall, reversibility does
not guarantee that decisions will systematically be overturned, but it does
communicate that a decision later found to be faulty can be adjusted. This is a sign ofrealism and maturity.
Discussions among stakeholders at the R&R conference (NEA, 2012b) about thedesirability of R&R as part of any national RWM programme used colloquial or
metaphoric language that points to a symbolic dimension. The view was expressedthat while R&R are meant to offer an “off-ramp” from an unwanted situation, theyshould not be presented to societal stakeholders as “idiot-proofing” against ill-taken
or immature decisions (for the objective should always be to take excellent decisions).
Nor should R&R be offered as “cookies” to sweeten a choice that societal stakeholders
might otherwise find bitter. Like other programme features, R&R must stand up to
stakeholders’ examination and show that they are appropriate (or not) to help address
RWM issues as these are framed in each context (Mays and Pescatore, 2012).

Where we standInterest in R&R has been increasing in a number of national contexts, althoughcurrent policies vary across countries. The R&R project of the NEA helped to clarify
the concepts but it is likely that different stakeholders have varying rationales andexpectations when referring to them.
Reversibility is as much about ensuring continued participatory decision making
as it is about reversal of technical decisions. Reversibility provides the possibility toreview a decision before going on to a next step, to correct the decision if appropriate,
and if necessary to change course. It encourages consideration of the multiplicity oftrade-offs that need to be made in any decision. Reversibility creates the opportunity
to involve a broad panel of stakeholders in assessing decisions and as such,contributes to ensuring that a “social licensing” process takes place.
Overall, the view of the FSC is that R&R are not design goals, but attributes of aprocess that can help facilitate the journey to the goal of safe, socially accepted
ultimate disposal.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

39

SAFETY AND STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE

Chapter 10. Safety and stakeholder confidence

Safety is a multi-dimensional concept that involves the condition of being protectedagainst failure, damage, error, accidents or harm. There is no standard definition ofsafety. While safety needs to be defined in regulations and specific responsibilities
for safety should be allocated to different organisations, effective safety is ultimately
the result of a process and a well-designed system.

Evolution of the understanding
The concept of safety has evolved greatly within and outside the FSC community.
Safety was firstly regarded as a technical and numerical concept. Despite thesignificant technical progress towards ensuring long-term safety in the handling ofradioactive waste, progress towards implementing identified solutions has beenslower than expected. The public does not necessarily recognise RWM as safe andmay not have confidence in RWM for a number of reasons, such as a lack of trust in
institutions or in a numerical approach proposed by the technical community, lackof confidence in the accuracy of long-term predictions or in the completeness of theprocesses considered.

From a technical concept to a social construct
The FSC community regards safety as more than just complying with technicalrequirements. Safety appears also to be tightly linked with societal and ethicalconcerns regarding decision-making processes and their outcomes (in terms ofprotection, fairness, etc.). Therefore, safety is not only a physical criterion but also asocial construct. As such, it has an emotional component as well. Technical safetyand “peace of mind” safety are both goals. The “feeling” of safety inspired (or not)by a set of technical arrangements is a legitimate criterion, among many others, forjudging those arrangements.
Moreover, safety is an evolving concept whose technical assessment appears toembrace a growing range of aspects. In the past, terrorist attacks were formally
excluded from technical safety analyses because their likelihood was consideredunquantifiable; today, they are a major item of societal concern. In a similar vein,
the Fukushima Daiichi events have led across the world to revisiting safety
performance (stress tests) as well as the consideration of new safety-threatening
events in the operation of nuclear power plants and of critical infrastructure in
general. It is difficult to predict the future demand for safety as both knowledge andliving conditions will evolve.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

41

SAFETY AND STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE

Decisions regarding safety are both societal and technical. Decisions based on
scientific analyses often depend on politically-correct timing. Such decisions must
be prepared and, to some extent, must pre-exist in the political context of the
moment. It is beneficial to both implementers and civil society stakeholders to be
co-operative and to mutually agree on paths forward, thereby increasing thepossibility of informed political decision making.
In a Topical Session (NEA, 2008c) the distinction between the concept of safety byexperts and by communities was highlighted in the case of geological repositories. Fora larger part of experts, passive safety is the goal, while communities tend to have a
different goal regarding safety. Namely, they may favour active safety and prolonged
stewardship including monitoring. The ensuing FSC discussion highlighted new
trends in regulatory culture, pointing to permanent oversight of a repository and an
emerging stewardship role for local communities. A trade-off was seen between thefocus on passive safety, no reliance on active institutional controls and no undue
burden on future generations versus a focus on active oversight in perpetuity, thepreservation of options and the responsible transfer of unavoidable burdens.
Regulators tend to recognise that the community is a vital partner in monitoring andassuring safety over the long term, with precise knowledge of the site at all phases
before, during and after facility development, and the high motivation to preservewell-being. In the view of the FSC, while responsibilities for long-term safety should
not be transferred from the national level to the local level, but it is in everyone’s
interest to adapt the RWM facility to the community and thereby improve its chancesof being remembered and monitored by succeeding local generations.
RWM projects today often push safety towards an implementation that issocially welcoming. FSC members consider that a facility that is carefully designed
and monitored for public safety is demystified if it offers parallel uses for thecommunity. In particular, if a site that is licensed to operate can be freely visited,
walked through, or enjoyed for other uses, it will be experienced as being safe (NEA,
2007a). Today’s overarching message is “Do not hide these facilities, do not keepthem apart (safety by exclusion), but make them a part of the community (safety byintegration)” (NEA, 2010a).

The safety case
Another question raised within FSC sessions (NEA, 2008a) is whether the public canbe seen as a resource for shaping the safety case. There are vast differences between
perceptions of risks by the general public and by technical experts developing thesafety case. Moreover, strictly numerical assessment of risks does not distinguishbetween voluntary and imposed risks, an issue of importance to many persons.
Consideration needs to be given to addressing ethical bases in the safety case for ageological repository. In doing so, the safety case should acknowledge andimplement the concepts of fairness (such as responsibility to present and future
generations), public confidence and transparency.

42 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

SAFETY AND STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE

The symbolic dimension of safety
Important components of safety are the degree of familiarity and control of the issue
at hand. By exploring the meanings further, we may find that the concept offamiliarity (rooted in “family”) brings the connotation of knowledge, predictability,
continuity and ties with the present and future. Control, on the other hand, draws
the connotation of knowledge, access to information, ability to intervene and being
in charge (Pescatore, 2008). Besides personal control, the existence of adequate
institutional control plays an important role in perceptions or civil society
assessments of safety. For instance, in a survey the single element that increased
people’s trust in nuclear plant management was that “an advisory board of local
citizens and environmentalists is established to monitor the plant and is given legal
authority to shut the plant down if they believe it to be unsafe” (Slovic, 1993, 2000;
cited in NEA, 2010a). The role of regulators and implementers leads them to havehigh control and familiarity regarding RWM issues while stakeholders need to gain
control and familiarity, in their own way. The partnership approach (NEA, 2010b)
can offer opportunities to develop enhanced control and familiarity, e.g. byparticipating in monitoring and through developing knowledge.

Where we standDemonstrating and communicating safety continue to be a high priority topic within
the FSC community. In this regard, the role of natural analogues to demonstrate safety
and the role of “social” analogues, and in particular, the topic of memory, are ofinterest. Further relevant topics include managing uncertainty, regulatory researchand review of safety cases and the effect upon stakeholder confidence. The safety casemust address those issues which provide to stakeholders and the public convincing
evidence of the level of understanding and control, and to ensure that no question
remains without a well-founded answer. In this context, remaining questions
regarding long-term safety include: What is “long-term passive safety”? How cantechnical and subjective elements be brought together? How to explain passive safety
to the lay public? What is the link between safety and several degrees (or gradualremovals) of controls? How do developments in one country influence safety caseperceptions/regulatory research/review of safety cases in another country? Whatsafety guarantees are requested/are possible in the context of facility siting?
In 2017 the FSC, the Integration Group of the Safety Case (IGSC) and the Working
Group on Public Communication (WGPC) held a Joint Workshop on Safety Case
Communication. The Workshop served as a platform to identify specific topics andworking approaches for future collaboration between the working groups. In 2019, asecond workshop took place with the title “Managing Uncertainty in Siting and
Implementation – Creating a Dialogue between Science and Society”. The following
questions were discussed in four groups: What does the term uncertainty mean toscientists, especially with regard to siting and implementation? What does the term
uncertainty mean to members of civil society, especially with regard to siting andimplementation? What uncertainties is society willing and able to accept and underwhich conditions? What are good examples of communicating uncertainty and why?
What can we learn from these for the disposal of radioactive waste? The general

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

43

SAFETY AND STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE

findings of the workshop will be reported in a flyer and further collaboration on the
topic with the involvement of additional stakeholders is planned. Another workshop
is planned in 2022 in Switzerland to elaborate on the topic further with local
stakeholders from Switzerland.

44 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

SITING

Chapter 11. Siting

Siting is the process of identifying and developing a site for a waste management
facility. It is far from being a primarily technical exercise, and the success of sitingis highly dependent on local and national acceptance of social and technical aspectsof the site, as well as of the procedure which gives rise to siting decisions.

Evolution of understanding
In the 1980s, technicians mainly understood siting as the process of screening theterritory to choose an adequate site for a waste management facility, considering
primarily geographic and geological data. Many national programmes encountered
severe failures in siting through such a limited approach. Siting became a major
focus of discussion and research, and lessons have been distilled over the years with
the input of practitioners, the involved stakeholders and social and political experts.
The FSC has many publications germane to the subject of siting and sustainabledecision-making. 1 These FSC studies suggest that the needed ingredients of a siting
approach are:

A goal of continued ownership
Acceptance of the facility at a single point in time is not good enough. Successful
disposal-facility siting implies creating the conditions for continued ownership ofthe facility over time. 2 Continued ownership implies the creation of conscious,
constructive and durable relationships between the most affected communities andthe waste management facility.

1.

The main publications are NEA (2004a, 2004b, 2007a, 2010b, 2012d) as well as FSC flyers
which are available on the FSC website www.oecd-nea.org/fsc. In addition, in March 2011,
the OECD/NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee approved a Collective
Statement titled “Geological Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: National Commitment, Local
and Regional Involvement”. This statement builds upon on the FSC learning and isaccessible at www.oecd-nea.org/rwm.

2.

See the glossary entry on ownership of a societal project vs. acceptance.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

45

SITING

Safety, familiarity, control
Being comfortable about the safety of the facility requires a degree of familiarity bypotential stakeholders as well as trust in the waste management system and its
actors and some control over the decision making. Communities and regions thatare familiar with nuclear power and have had a long, constructive relationship with
its actors require less time for acquiring familiarity and control and for achieving
trust, provided there is willingness to allow them continued forms of influence.
Furthermore, regulators are especially important players that need to be visible inthe community as the “people’s experts” (NEA, 2003c).

A stepwise process
The FSC recognises that the ideal site selection process is a stepwise process, where
the decisions should be taken through iterative stages, providing the flexibility tounderstand and adapt to contextual changes (NEA, 2004b). This approach allows
stakeholders to gain familiarity and control and assures sufficient time fordevelopment of a competent and fair discourse with the host community and otherstakeholders.

A voluntary siting process
Any proposed project has much better chances to move forward positively if thepotential host local and regional communities can participate in defining its contours,
both socio-economic and technical. A voluntary process, in which communities may
withdraw from consideration for hosting within a certain period or under certain
circumstances, after the process is initiated, improves the chances for community
willingness to participate and for a sustainable outcome. A siting strategy therefore
should, if the process allows, define the conditions of an effective veto power by hostcommunity or regional government, and build formal or informal veto into the process
as a legitimate decision option for the potential host.

A partnering approach
A partnering approach to RWM facility siting is generally best for developing the
project with a host community. A variety of partnership organisations (which may
incorporate units within or around local/regional governments, local civic
associations, and non-governmental organisations) have been or are being set up in
an increasing number of countries. Such organisations should have access toresources allowing them to build their own expertise and influence the implementer’swork. They collect, process and disseminate information on the facility and its
impacts, monitor other players’ performance and advise local governments. The
result of this collaboration builds social capital, which is good for the quality andsustainability of decisions. Ongoing dialogue about creating added value will also help
to ensure a sustainable relationship between the facility and the community.
Successful programmes build in different types of support, including empowerment
measures such as a financial “engagement package” that funds research anddeliberation in candidate communities during the siting process and development
packages/compensation measures, whose role is to foster economic sustainability ininvolved communities and regions.

46 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

SITING

Trust and confidence over time
The siting process takes time and may be seen as overly lengthy by some. Time ishowever necessary to the non-technical parties to understand their interests andbuild the relevant competences. Not rushing to a technical solution is also capitalfor ensuring a safe solution. During the whole process openness, transparency,
technical competence and procedural equity are key conditions for credible
discourse and for public acceptance of waste management programmes.

The symbolic dimension of siting
When putting in place a siting process, it is important for radioactive waste
managers to recognise and understand the variety of meanings or symbolic
connotations, because they may signal areas that need attention from societal andtechnical decision makers. These can be brought out by dialogue. Some of the key
concepts connected to the notion of “siting” that add symbolic connotations are, forexample, safety, landscape, storage and disposal or compensation (NEA, 2010a).
Integrating the facility into its local setting can be one of the mechanisms to achievesome degree of familiarity and control needed for ensuring safety. Furthermore,
integration of landscape issues within facility siting procedures may help to identify
different interests and to build win-win solutions. The landscape is not simply the“shape of the land” but a concept embracing the feelings of home, amenity, peace,
memory, family, accomplishment and protection. The evocation of these positive
feelings could be linked to or considered a kind of added value for the community.
Landscape is also linked to resources of water, food and shelter. Our landscape thus
symbolises both our survival and our quality of life. Protests against the siting of
RWM facilities may often be the response to perceived threats to the physical andmental landscape of everyday life.
The concept of “regional development schemes”, in which RWM facility siting
may be embedded, has a positive symbolism: it is forward looking, taking into
account the needs of the whole region both in the present and in the future, focusing
on ways to integrate the facility so that it adds value and contributes to long-termwell-being. Additionally, certain communities have worked to integrate a RWM
facility into their “brand image” and it is viewed as a scientific, modern high-techindustry, providing multiple solutions for today and also addressing needs of future
generations. Facilities can become a symbol of prosperity, modernity and safety inthe region and a positive feature of the local identity.

Where we standWaste repository siting brings up a range of issues that involve scientific knowledge,
technical capacity, ethical values, territorial planning, and community well-being,
among others. Siting demands a strong national commitment and a significant
regional and local involvement. Firstly, “successful siting is embedded in a larger
system of decision making that includes nation- and/or state-wide debates on
nuclear and waste management approaches, as well region-wide debates on the

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

47

SITINGtypes of facility, the tolerable negative impacts and the desirable positive impacts”(Pescatore, 2010). Secondly, siting efforts are normally accompanied with soundlocal and regional development schemes taking into account the views of theinvolved communities and with a view to the long-term prospects for quality of life,
beyond the endowment of immediate economic benefits (added value). It is thus
necessary to build a meaningful relationship between institutional actors and thepotential host communities to develop a site that can provide the necessary
technical and social stability for the management of the waste.
Components of recommended procedures for siting processes include: 1) a
facility should not be sited if it is not broadly understood to be necessary; 2) the hostcommunity (and other relevant stakeholders) must also share in the perception thatthe facility is acceptably safe; 3) the process by which the facility is sited must be
viewed as fair and trustworthy (NEA, 2012d).

48 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

STAKEHOLDER

Chapter 12. Stakeholder

The definition adopted in FSC discussions since the inception of this group was
inspired by the Aarhus Convention 1 definition of “the public concerned” 2 and takes“stakeholder” as any actor – institution, group or individual – with an interest or a role toplay in the radioactive waste management process.

Evolution of the understanding
Initially, an FSC working group (NEA, 2000) discussed the identity of the various
stakeholders in the RWM process. A list of possible stakeholders which have bothdifferent contributions and different consultation needs at different stages of thedecision-making process was generated. This list (in no particular order) includes:
the general public; demographic groups (like young people); residents,
representatives or elected officials of local communities; 3 national/regional
government ministries/departments; regulators; national/local non-governmentalorganisations, local pressure groups (that could be either for or against a given
project); trade unions; the media; the scientific research community;
implementing organisation; the nuclear industry; contractors; waste producers;international organisations. Thus, there are many different stakeholders but they
can be divided into groups and in different countries there might be similar ways
to integrate them into decision making (NEA, 2007b).
As dialogue and stakeholder involvement have become central to the waste
management process, stakeholder groups have changed their roles andresponsibilities, as shown in the table below (NEA, 2008d).

1

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Convention on Access toInformation, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice inEnvironmental Matters, adopted 24th June 1998 in Aarhus, Denmark.

2

The public concerned is defined in the Aarhus Convention as “the public affected or likely
to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making” and it
specifies that for the purposes of this definition “non-governmental organisations
promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law
shall be deemed to have interest”.

3

NB: the structures and roles of local government differ markedly from country to country.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

49

STAKEHOLDER

Table 2: Traditional and evolving roles and responsibilities
of main stakeholders in RWM
Stakeholders

Traditional expectations for roles andresponsibilities

Evolving expectations for roles andresponsibilities

Policy-makers

Defining policy options, investigating theirconsequences under different assumptions,making policy choices.

Informing and consulting stakeholders
about policy options, assumptions,anticipated consequences, values andpreferences.
Setting the “ground rules” for the decisionmaking processes.
Communicating the bases of policy
decisions.

Safetyauthorities

Defining regulatory requirements andguidance.
Defining a regulatory process, making
choices regarding regulatory options.
Reviewing the implementer’s safety options
and design and asking for possible
complements or modifications. Making
decision on the step forward.
Reviewing and validating operational rules.
Controlling the compliance of operation
with operational rules.
Communicating the bases of regulatory
decisions.

Maintaining open and impartial regulatory
processes.
Providing stakeholders with understandable
explanations of the mechanisms ofregulatory oversight and decision making,including explanations of the opportunities
available for stakeholder participation
therein.
Serving as a source of information andexpert views for local communities.

Scientificexperts,
consultants

Carrying out scientific/technicalinvestigations with integrity andindependence.
Advising institutional bodies such as safety
authorities and implementing agencies ontechnical issues in relation with safetyconcerns in view of providing balanced andqualified input for decision making.

Acting as technical intermediaries between
the general public and the decision makers
within the limits of the mandate that they
have received from the organization uponwhich they depend.
Providing balanced and qualified input for
all stakeholders and encouraging informed
and comparative judgement.

Implementing
agencies

Proposing safety options and designs forradioactive waste management solutions,investigating their consequences under
different assumptions.
Developing a chosen solution,
implementing the solution.

Co-operating with local communities inworking through proposed options anddesigns in order to find an acceptableproject for radioactive waste management.
Co-operating with local communities in
implementing the project.
Interacting with policy-makers andregulators.

Potential hostcommunities

Accepting or rejecting the proposed facility.

Negotiating with implementers to findlocally acceptable solutions for radioactive
waste management that help avoid or
minimise potentially negative impacts andprovide for local development, local control,
and partnership.
Interacting with policy-makers andregulators.

50 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

STAKEHOLDER

Table 2: Traditional and evolving roles and responsibilities
of main stakeholders in RWM (cont’d)
Stakeholders

Traditional expectations for roles andresponsibilities

Evolving expectations for roles andresponsibilities

Elected local orregional
representatives

Representing their constituencies in debates Mediating between several levels ofon radioactive waste management facilities. governments, institutions and local
communities in seeking mutuallyacceptable solutions.
Interacting with regulators andimplementers.

Waste
generators

Providing (partial or full) financing to
implement radioactive waste management
solutions.

Providing financing for developing andimplementing acceptable radioactive waste
management solutions under transparent
arrangements and demonstrating thistransparency.

Source: Adapted from NEA, 2008d.

Stakeholder definition in legislation
Since the inception workshop in 2000, the FSC community has referred to theenvironmental legislation as a mechanism to define stakeholders or in particular,
the public or the public concerned. The importance of the environment impact
assessment legislation was stressed. Later on, a Topical Session (NEA, 2008c) lookedat the issue of how law and policy may define which stakeholders must be consulted
or engaged and whether this is helpful. The Aarhus Convention, the strategic
environmental assessment or the environment impact assessment provide astandpoint to identify stakeholders.
In general, the number of stakeholders has become greater over the course ofdecision-making processes. Nevertheless, the type of stakeholders involved depends
on the stage in the process. A strategic environmental assessment affecting general“policies, plans and projects” will primarily involve national, regional or local levelgovernments as well as national non-governmental organisations and thus concerned
citizens as well. However, an environment impact assessment for a specific project
proposal will involve more local groups as the proposed project refers to a specific site.
Legal provisions defining stakeholders are helpful for a number of reasons:•

They provide a formal framework for stakeholder involvement and provide
opportunities for participation. In addition, for the recognised stakeholders
the possibility of appealing against decisions that do not comply with thelegal provisions is also guaranteed.

•

They give arguments in favour of stakeholder involvement when decision
makers resist involving certain groups or organisations in the decision-making
process.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

51

STAKEHOLDER

The need for involving stakeholders might be generated by a variety ofmotivations, for example, increasing confidence in the institutions, social support for
decisions, integration of local knowledge, etc. The legal identification of stakeholders
does not necessarily correspond to all of these motivations. Any rule that actually
restricts the participation of citizens has the potential to be counterproductive,
because in principle, in a complex world everybody can be a stakeholder, at least in
an indirect way (e.g. as a taxpayer). People or organisations should be entitled todecide if they want to participate, or to select their own representatives.

Should the regulator be regarded as a stakeholder?
The question of whether or not the regulator should be regarded as a stakeholder
was raised early within the FSC. In some countries, the suggestion of pursuing agiven agenda that is sometimes associated with the term “stakeholder” renders theterm unacceptable, because the regulator’s role is seen as neutrally applying rules
and standards. However, the majority view is that regulators have a role to play andtherefore, can be considered a stakeholder. For the FSC and the RWMC Regulators’
Forum, the regulator is a stakeholder.

Stakeholder involvement
Different stakeholders have different perspectives, perceptions, beliefs, interestsand values. This diversity is best taken into consideration by promoting stakeholder
involvement. 4 Stakeholders should be afforded opportunities to interact as early as
possible in the process of repository development. While laws and regulations may
show which stakeholders should or must be included in environmental decision
making, national RWM programmes will probably need to go into deeper detail to
specify the process by which adequate involvement is organised. Additional,
spontaneous and/or informal consultation and involvement processes have beensuccessful in addressing new dimensions of decisions as these emerge.
The FSC discussed how organisations can seek to understand at any phasewhich groups of stakeholders need to be involved first and which ones can be
involved later (NEA, 2007b). Both ethical and instrumental criteria are appropriate.
The long-term nature of the RWM process furthermore requires that different
stakeholders be involved at different times, both to address the different types ofdecisions at hand, and because stakeholders may become tired, or move on, or theirgeneration will be replaced. This necessary renewal implies that basic informationmust be supplied again at each stage or to each new grouping, and while alldecisions cannot be revised, some fundamental discussions will doubtless be
repeated as new stakeholders enter the scene (NEA, 2010c). In this evolving context
it is also important to define, communicate and tune the rules of the game on how
stakeholders act with each other.

4.

Tools and techniques to facilitate public participation are available, as addressed in the
FSC Stakeholder Involvement Techniques. Short Guide and Annotated Bibliography (NEA, 2004c).

52 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

STAKEHOLDER

Taking into account that different countries may define the concept of
stakeholder differently, the Topical Session Addressing Issues raised by Stakeholders:
Impacts on Process, Content and Behaviour in Waste Organisations (NEA, 2004d) focusedon how regulators and implementers structured their ways of responding tostakeholders’ concerns, issues and needs regarding radioactive waste management.
It was found that stakeholders’ views may influence not only specific (process orpolicy) decisions, but also the general decision-making practice and behaviour oforganisations (NEA, 2007c).

The symbolic dimension of stakeholder involvement
FSC members want their behaviour, decisions and writing to be highly coherent withthe societal values embodied in waste management endeavours. The FSC decided
to become better aware of “symbolic” meanings of actions (i.e. meanings beyond the“obvious” that may resonate for different groups). Awareness of additional
dimensions of meaning beyond dictionary definitions, and recognition that dialogue
is shaped by more than just concrete realities, may help to find ways of creating
non-confrontational and constructive relationships among stakeholders. For thesereasons, the FSC added “the symbolic dimension” as a new transversal theme to its
programme of work (NEA, 2010a). One of the first examples shared in discussions on
this theme concerned the non-verbal signal transmitted when in a public hearing orcommunity meeting, institutional stakeholders are seated on a raised podium,facing members of the public seated in rows. A clear message of “higher” and “lower”
positions in the RWM process is given; order and hierarchy appear to be favoured
over co-operation. FSC members recognised that dialogue among stakeholders mustbe supported by egalitarian values, which may be reinforced on the symbolic level.

Where we standThe long processes involved in implementing long-term RWM approaches imply
that the role identity of stakeholders considered to be legitimate may evolve overtime, depending on the stage of decision making. Issues arising include: thedifferences between “professional” and “personal” stakeholders, and how eachshould be accommodated; how knowledge transfer could take place; how to define“affected community”; how to understand the role and interests of the “generalpublic” geographically located outside potential host communities; how is
stakeholder involvement financed?
Furthermore, this long time frame means that young people and coming
generations will be taking responsibility for radioactive waste management in the
future. For the sake of this intergenerational solidarity, it is logical and necessary to
pay special attention to young people in working out decision-making processes
lasting several decades. A Task Group on Youth Involvement was established in 2020
and a flyer with inspiring examples on “Intergenerational connections in radioactive
waste management: Involving children and youth across generations” waspublished in 2021 (NEA, 2021). This Task Group is currently examining theparticipation of young people from several countries in the Belgian National
Workshop, which will take place at the beginning of October 2022.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

53

STEPWISE APPROACH TO DECISION MAKING

Chapter 13. Stepwise approach to decision making

In FSC publications, a stepwise approach to decision making in RWM is also
conceptualised as adaptive, staged decision making or an iterative stepwise approach.
A stepwise approach to decision making involves a plan laying out policy
development and implementation by steps or stages that are, to some extent,
reversible and adjustable, within the limits of practicality. Within each stage, problem
definition and analysis, policy formulation, implementation and monitoring are
carried out in turn, in a cyclical process. Finally, in a stepwise decision-making
approach, main stakeholders are involved at each step and also in review of the resultsof decisions taken in previous steps.

Evolution of the understanding
Since its inception in 2000, the FSC has fostered the sharing of practice acrosscountries to consider how an ideal stepwise approach can be achieved. An
incremental, stepwise approach is useful for long-term radioactive waste
management (NEA, 2004a) but is handled differently depending on the country’s legal
and democratic frameworks. There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution, and even when
staged programmes are designed, they may not be acceptable to all stakeholders, orpartial failures to move forward may occur.
A stepwise decision-making process is a preferred choice in order to allow for
dialogue and awareness in participation. The stepwise approach provides
opportunities for various degrees of social and political review after identified steps
and for reversing earlier decisions or modifying them, within limits of practicability.
This is designed to provide reassurance that decisions can be reversed if experience
shows them to have adverse or unwanted effects. A stepwise approach to decision
making has thus come to the fore as being of value in advancing long-term RWM
solutions in a societally acceptable manner (NEA, 2004b). However, when designinga stepwise process, trade-offs between social sustainability of the process andefficiency should be considered, as with every increase in the number of steps or theintervals between them, the costs and duration of the process may also increase(NEA, 2003a). As recognised in NEA (2004b), financial, scientific and technical issues
typically associated with specific stepwise decision-making processes still need tobe addressed. Open questions remain and need to be further explored, such as
which are the advantages and disadvantages of taking smaller steps versus larger
steps, with respect to issues such as reversibility.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

55

STEPWISE APPROACH TO DECISION MAKING

In order to raise public confidence, each step has to be participatory and adaptable
as well. Constraining public involvement to certain steps of the process (for example,
excluding the public at early stages), or constraining the adaptation if needed offormer decisions (for example, excluding alternative methods from further
investigations during the environment impact assessment process) has sometimes
been found to be counterproductive (NEA, 2001b).

Features of a stepwise approach
Some ideal features of a stepwise decision-making approach are described by the
FSC as follows:•

A plan lays out policy development and implementation by steps or stages.
If necessary these may be revisited and adjusted, within the limits offeasibility.

•

Within each stage, problem definition and analysis, policy formulation,
implementation and monitoring are carried out in turn, in a cyclical process.

•Main stakeholders are involved at each step and also in review of the resultsof decisions taken in previous steps. Milestones are identified, forming
checkpoints at which these reviews should be made.

Advantages of a stepwise approach
Stepwise decision making has led to decisions that are viewed as legitimate and canbe more easily sustained. In this way, the stepwise approach – which implies andrelies on theoretical reversibility, of which retrievability is a practical element – may
actually diminish the need to reverse some decisions.
The identified advantages of a stepwise approach are the following:•

Research, policy-making and stakeholder input are linked in a cycle of sharedlearning. This allows involved actors to build more familiarity with andcontrol of the issue at hand.

•

Making choices by stages facilitates adaptation to inevitable changes in legal,
economic, social, technical or political conditions. This is useful in a lengthy
project.

•

The stepwise plan provides clarity to all stakeholders about the stages of the
programme, the roles of those involved, and their opportunities to influence
the outcomes.

56 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

STEPWISE APPROACH TO DECISION MAKING

Challenges of a stepwise approach
The main challenges in the formulation and implementation of a stepwise approachare:•

Agreement must be achieved on the desirability of the stepwise approachand on potential decision sequences. Clear roles and decision points must be
established and agreed at the beginning of the process.

•

Relevant stakeholders must be identified and interaction among them mustbe established. Room and time must be provided for non-institutional
stakeholders to learn new roles, build up knowledge, examine choices andcommunicate their constituencies.

•

Platforms must be built to support the participation of all actors and reinforce
their willingness to participate. This requires tools and research means andalso commitment to consider inputs if they meet quality criteria.

•

A “driver” must keep the process moving. The needed platforms andinstitutions must be protected and focus must be kept on the long-term goals
and the decisions at hand.

The symbolic dimension of stepwise decision making
Adopting a stepwise decision-making approach communicates pragmatism, rigour
and also tolerance for uncertainty. Such an approach breaks decision making down
into manageable units, and provides for adaptability under changing circumstances,whether these be technical (new scientific data or understanding) or societal (newvalue preferences or priorities). Opting for a phased process indicates recognition
that decisions about how to manage radioactive waste need careful construction
and deliberation. It communicates that time can be taken for involving those whoneed to collaborate in decisions, and that there should be no unfair and arbitrary
jumps from one state to another. It shows that the myriad sub-decisions can beaddressed in turn, that milestone decisions can benefit from review. These features
must certainly be confidence-building.

Where we standA stepwise approach to decision making is commonly adopted in NEA member
countries. This approach allows stakeholders to gain familiarity with and a degreeof control over RWM technologies and institutions. In particular, accepting technicaloptions or volunteering as a candidate host community are shown to be easier whencommunities can move through stages that allow them to become well informed
and progressively more committed upon an increasingly sound basis. Such a phased
approach is not limited to RWM, but is increasingly applied to policy development
and implementation for many issues, technical or societal, large or small.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

57

TRANSPARENCY

Chapter 14. Transparency

Transparency is an attribute of a process seeking to reveal, in a non-adversarial
manner, the information, values and assumptions present behind the arguments oractivities of each type of stakeholder.

Evolution of the understanding
At the inception workshop of the FSC (NEA, 2000), different interpretations were
provided for transparency and different manners to achieve it in the complex
RWM decision-making process were suggested. These included, for instance,
fostering and maintaining dialogues among experts, decision makers andstakeholders, or challenging organisations from different angles and raising
critical questions (“stretching”).
Later on, as part of the FSC survey on cultural and structural changes in RWM
organisations it was found that organisations provide information to the public in theinterest of increasing transparency (NEA, 2007c). Some organisations or individuals
regarded openness and transparency as interchangeable concepts. The former
concerns, however, a willingness to listen, to change and to adapt; transparency refers
to the process of making actions visible and enabling people to access and understandinformation. Thus, transparency includes not only allowing access to information(passive transparency) but also efforts to provide information to interested parties andto unveil the logic behind decisions and processes (active transparency).
Some feel that transparency should be a precondition for participation in RWM
decision making; for instance, only those organisations making clear whom they
represent should be allowed to participate. Roles, views and the rules of the gameshould be clear for everyone (NEA, 2008c). Finally, the concern for some organisationsof balancing transparency and security has also been raised (NEA, 2007b, 2007c).

Transparency as a feature of sustainable decision making
The FSC suggests that transparency is embedded in three elements that are
paramount to decision making, as shown in Table 3.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

59

TRANSPARENCY

Table 3: Transparency in the three aspects paramountto sustainable decision making
Process

The procedures and plans for making decisions can be devised to be both clear andobservable, for example in terms of the design of the process, its different stages andits implementation.

Institutional
Framework

Roles and responsibilities assigned to the different actors involved should be welldefined and their interdependencies should be made visible and observable.

Behaviour/values

Individuals and institutions that implement transparency can demonstrate corevalues such as openness to other views and inputs; personal and organisational
legitimacy throughout the process, and authenticity in their willingness to convey
information and to involve others.

Source: NEA, 2014.

From the above, the FSC position on transparency can be articulated as follows:•

Stakeholders must have access to understandable information about what ishappening and why.

•

Both technical soundness and procedural fairness are important for decisionmaking processes. Transparency assures that technical soundness andprocedural fairness are visible and verifiable.

•

Stakeholder confidence is never established “once and for all”. Transparency
allows confidence to be earned on a continuous basis.

The FSC community considers that transparency is an important way to achieve
confidence and trust.

Recent interpretations of transparency
In 2010, the FSC undertook a new questionnaire survey to clarify the concept oftransparency. While the concept of transparency appears to be widely used among
FSC member organisations, it is seldom defined in a rigorous manner. The meaning,
the purpose and the way to achieve transparency vary across countries andorganisations.
The interpretations of transparency identified by the survey indicate that there
are two main purposes of working with transparency: a governance-oriented
concept which aims at improving decision-making processes and a public-relations
oriented concept which aims at improving public trust in the decision-making
process (Pescatore and Mays, 2010).

60 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

TRANSPARENCY

Approaches to achieve transparency
Organisations tend to employ one of two main approaches, both of which are usefulto achieve transparency and are encouraged in accordance with applicable national
legislation and international obligations:•

A public communication-oriented approach, which aims at improving publicconfidence in the decision-making process by making it clear and observable.
The organisations using this approach highlight the need to make theiractions more amenable to scrutiny, and therefore endeavour to provide thepublic with information that is accessible and understandable. For theseorganisations “transparency” and “openness” are interchangeable concepts.

•

A governance-oriented approach, which aims at gaining public confidence
through a deeper involvement of stakeholders in shaping the decisionmaking process. Organisations in this group highlight the need to listen, tochange and to adapt. The FSC has underlined the importance of eachorganisation defining the meaning of transparency in relation to its own
activities – clarifying roles and responsibilities and the purpose of the work –and presenting the methods used to promote transparency.

The symbolic dimension of transparency
FSC members emphasise that taking decisions “behind closed doors”, even on thebasis of reliable and peer-accepted technical solutions, seems no longer possible andis not desirable either in the RWM field. Due to the complex and controversial natureof waste management decisions, and their symbolic weight, transparency of theprocesses should be assured, and information deemed relevant should be released.
Transparency may have been threatening to organisations or organisations may
have hesitated to become transparent because it seemed to conflict with their
mission to ensure all the right decisions at all times. Transparency might reveal not
only successful activities but also the organisation’s limits and mistakes. Todaytransparency and openness are very highly regarded. Claiming total knowledge isperceived as arrogant. An attitude of recognising some degree of uncertainty has
greater value. Questions that stakeholders may ask, reflecting the symbolic
dimension associated with transparency, include: “Are the values inside theorganisation coherent with those it tries to display? Is this a learning organisationand is it willing to consider new information?”

Where we stand
There is a diversity of views on the nature and value of transparency among
countries and even between RWM institutions within the same country. Besides,
there is a subtlety in the relationship between transparency and confidence whichneeds further clarification. The presence of societal confidence does not mean that
there is not a need for transparency, because there is still a need for checking and

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

61

TRANSPARENCY

verifying values and assumptions. As countries move into an implementation phase,
the FSC views that an issue to further investigate is the impact on stakeholder
confidence of relationships between different RWM organisations (e.g. when
personnel move between implementers and safety regulatory bodies), and how
these relationships can be made more transparent.
The Aarhus Convention, whose three pillars are access to information, toparticipation and to justice in the area of environmental decision making, isincreasingly recognised by societal stakeholders as an important guarantee; court
cases currently demonstrate that the notion of “access to information” is interpreted
differently by different actors. The European Waste Management Directive classes
both access to information and participation under the single heading oftransparency. 1 It stipulates (Article 12 §1.j) that national RWM programmes must
include a transparency policy or process. As many FSC member countries transpose
this requirement into national law, it is clear that the meaning of transparency, andits practical consequences, should continue to be elucidated.

1.

Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the
responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. Article 10 states:“1. Member States shall ensure that necessary information on the management of spent
fuel and radioactive waste be made available to workers and the general public. Thisobligation includes ensuring that the competent regulatory authority inform the public in
the fields of its competence. Information shall be made available to the public in
accordance with national legislation and international obligations, provided that this does
not jeopardise other interests such as, inter alia, security, recognised in national
legislation or international obligations. 2. Member States shall ensure that the public begiven the necessary opportunities to participate effectively in the decision-making process
regarding spent fuel and radioactive waste management in accordance with national
legislation and international obligations.”

62 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

REFERENCES

References

AkEnd (2002), Selection Procedure for Repository Sites: Recommendations of the AkEnd,
Final report (Dec. 2002), www.akend.de.
Atherton, E. (2003), “Evaluation criteria for dialogue processes: Key findings fromRISCOM II”, in Public Information, Consultation and Involvement in Radioactive Waste
Management, OECD Publishing, Paris.
De Petrer (2004), “The Impact of the Local Partnership Methodology on the
Organisational Culture of the Radioactive Waste Management Agency”, in
Dealing with Interests, Values and Knowledge in Managing Risk, Proceedings of aWorkshop in Brussels, Belgium 18-21 November 2003, OECD Publishing, Paris,
pp. 103-106, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13888.
Ferch (2009), “Fundamental concepts used in national regulation: Is the terminology
sufficiently clear?” in NEA (2010), Towards Transparent, Proportionate andDeliverable Regulation for Geological Disposal, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/jcms/pl_14490/towards-transparent-proportionate-and-deliverableregulation-for-geological-disposal.
Fleming, P.A. (2003), “Stakeholder Confidence: Observations from the Viewpoint of
Ethics”, in Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian
Context, Workshop Proceedings, Ottawa, Canada, 14-18 October 2002, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13730/public-confidence-in-themanagement-of-radioactive-waste-the-canadian-context.
Ipsen, D. (2003), “Public participation and regional development at a nuclear waste
disposal site”, in Dealing with Interests, Values and Knowledge in Managing Risk,
Workshop Proceedings, Brussels, Belgium, 18-21 November 2003, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13888.
Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (2012), “Clarity, conflict and pragmatism: challenges in defininga ‘willing host community”, NEA/RWM/R(2012)4, Paper presented at the 12th
Session of the FSC, 13-15 September 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/jcms/pl_19162/clarity-conflict-and-pragmatism-challenges-indefining-a-willing-host-community.
Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (2012), “Reflections on Siting Approaches for Radioactive waste
facilities: Synthesizing Principles Based on International Learning”,
NEA/RWM/R(2012)5, Report prepared for the 12th Session of the FSC, 13-15
September 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_19164/
reflections-on-siting-approaches-for-radioactive-waste-facilities-synthesisingprinciples-based-on-international-learning.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

63

REFERENCES

Mays, C. and Pescatore, C. (2012), “Reversibility and Retrievability: A view and review
from the RWMC ‘Forum on Stakeholder Confidence’ (FSC)”, in Reversibility and
Retrievability in Planning for Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Proceedings of
the “R&R” International Conference and Dialogue, Reims, France, 14-17 December
2010, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14692/reversibility-andretrievability-in-planning-for-geological-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.
NEA (2001a), Reversibility and Retrievability in Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste –Reflections at the International Level, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/
jcms/pl_13558/reversibility-and-retrievability-in-geologic-disposal-ofradioactive-waste.
NEA (2001b), Stepwise Decision Making in Finland for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel,
Workshop Proceedings, Turku, Finland, 15-16 November 2001, OECD Publishing,Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13636/stepwise-decision-making-in-finlandfor-the-disposal-of-spent-nuclear-fuel.
NEA (2003a), Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian
Context, Workshop Proceedings, Ottawa, Canada, 14-18 October 2002, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13730/public-confidence-in-themanagement-of-radioactive-waste-the-canadian-context.
NEA (2003b), Public Information, Consultation and Involvement in Radioactive Waste
Management, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_17854/publicinformation-consultation-and-involvement-in-radioactive-wastemanagement-an-international-overview-of-approaches-and-experiences.
NEA (2003c), The Regulator’s Evolving Role and Image in Radioactive Waste Management,
OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13788/the-regulator-sevolving-role-and-image-in-radioactive-waste-management.
NEA (2004a), Learning and Adapting to Societal Requirements for Radioactive Waste
Management, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_18016/learningand-adapting-to-societal-requirements-for-long-term-radioactive-wastemanagement-the-key-findings-and-experience-from-phase-1-of-the-nea-forumon-stakeholder-confidence-2000-2003.
NEA (2004b), Stepwise Approach to Decision Making for Long-term Radioactive Waste
Management: Experience, Issues and Guiding Principles, OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_18106/stepwise-approach-to-decision-making-forlong-term-radioactive-waste-management-experience-issues-and-guidingprinciples.
NEA (2004c), Stakeholder Involvement Techniques: Short Guide and Annotated Bibliography,
OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13942/stakeholder-involve
ment-techniques.
NEA (2004d), Addressing Issues Raised by Stakeholders: Impacts on Process, Content andBehaviour in Waste Organisations – Proceedings of the Topical Session held during the
5th Meeting of the NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence in June 2004, OECD Publishing,Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_18108/topical-session-on-addressing-issuesraised-by-stakeholders-impacts-on-process-content-and-behaviour-in-wasteorganisations.
64 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

REFERENCES

NEA (2004e), Dealing with Interests, Values and Knowledge in Managing Risk, Workshop
Proceedings, Brussels, Belgium, 18-21 November 2003, OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13888/dealing-with-interests-values-andknowledge-in-managing-risk.
NEA (2006), The Link Between Research, Development and Demonstration and Stakeholder
Confidence, Proceedings of the FSC topical session held during the Sixth Meetingof the NEA Forum of Stakeholder Confidence in June 2005, OECD Publishing,Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_49205/link-between-research-developmentand-demonstration-rd-d-and-stakeholder-confidence-use-of-analogues-forconfidence-building.
NEA (2007a), Fostering a Durable Relationship between a Waste Management Facility and its
Host Community: Adding Value through Design and Process, OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_18420/fostering-a-durable-relationship-between-awaste-management-facility-and-its-host-community-adding-value-throughdesign-and-process.
NEA (2007b), Organisational Change: Cultural and Structural Aspects, Proceedings of a
Topical Session held during the 7th Session of the NEA Forum on Stakeholder
Confidence in June 2006, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/
pl_18458/organisational-changes-cultural-and-structural-aspects-proceedingsof-a-topical-session-held-during-the-7th-session-of-the-nea-forum-onstakeholder-confidence-7-9-june-2006.
NEA (2007c), Cultural and Structural Changes in Radioactive Waste Management
Organisations, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_18422/culturaland-structural-changes-in-radioactive-waste-management-organisationslessons-learnt-february-2007-revision.
NEA (2008a), Link between Research, Development and Demonstration and Stakeholder
Confidence: The Specific Aspect of Long-term Safety, Proceedings of a Topical Session
held during the 8th Session of the NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence in June
2007, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_18544/link-betweenresearch-development-and-demonstration-rd-d-and-stakeholder-confidencethe-specific-aspects-of-long-term-safety.
NEA (2008b), Tools and Processes for Handling of Transfer of Burdens, Knowledge andResponsibility: Preparing Future Generations and Empowering Local Communities,
Proceedings of a Topical Session held during the 8th Session of the NEA Forumon Stakeholder Confidence in June 2007, OECD Publishing, Paris.
NEA (2008c), Tools to Help Society in Decision making: Legal and Policy Trends, Proceedingsof a Topical Session held during the 9th Session of the NEA Forum on Stakeholder
Confidence in June 2008, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/
pl_18722/forum-on-stakeholder-confidence-tools-to-help-society-in-decisionmaking-legal-and-policy-trends-proceedings-of-a-topical-session-issy-lesmoulineaux-france-5-june-2008.
NEA (2008d), Moving Forward with Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: A Collective
Statement by the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee, OECD Publishing,Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14450/moving-forward-with-geologicaldisposal-of-radioactive-waste.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

65

REFERENCES

NEA (2010a), More Than Just Concrete Realities: The Symbolic Dimension of Radioactive
Waste Management, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14548/
more-than-just-concrete-realities-the-symbolic-dimension-of-radioactivewaste-management.
NEA (2010b), Partnering for Long-term Management of Radioactive Waste: Evolution andCurrent Practice in Thirteen Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/jcms/pl_14486/partnering-for-long-term-management-of-radioactivewaste.
NEA (2010c), Radioactive Waste Repositories and Host Regions: Envisaging the Future
Together, Synthesis of the FSC National Workshop and Community Visit, BarleDuc, 7-9 April 2009. OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14612/
radioactive-waste-repositories-and-host-regions-envisaging-the-futuretogether.
NEA (2011a), RWMC Regulators’ Forum, Draft proposed agenda of the 14th session of
the RWMC-RF, 22 March 2011, NEA, Issy les Moulineaux.
NEA (2011b), International Understanding of Reversibility of Decisions and Retrievability ofWaste in Geological Disposal, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/
pl_49088/international-understanding-of-reversibility-of-decisions-andretrievability-of-waste-in-geological-disposa.
NEA (2011c), Reversibility and Retrievability (R&R) for the Deep Disposal of High-level
Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel: Final Report of the NEA R&R Project, OECD Publishing,Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_19092/reversibility-and-retrievability-r-r-forthe-deep-disposal-of-high-level-radioactive-waste-and-spent-fuel-final-reportof-the-nea-r-r-project-2007-2011.
NEA (2012a), Reversibility of Decisions and Retrievability of Radioactive Waste –Considerations for National Geological Programmes, OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14800/reversibility-of-decisions-and-retrievabilityof-radioactive-waste.
NEA (2012b), Reversibility and Retrievability in Planning for Geological Disposal ofRadioactive Waste: Proceedings of the “R&R” International Conference and Dialogue,
Reims, France, 14-17 December 2010, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/jcms/pl_14692/reversibility-and-retrievability-in-planning-forgeological-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.
NEA (2012c), The Evolving Role and Image of the Regulator in Radioactive Waste
Management: Trends over Two Decades, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/jcms/pl_14796/the-evolving-role-and-image-of-the-regulator-inradioactive-waste-management.
NEA (2012d), Reflections on Siting Approaches for Radioactive Waste Facilities: Synthesizing
Principles Based on International Learning, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/jcms/pl_19164/reflections-on-siting-approaches-for-radioactive-wastefacilities-synthesising-principles-based-on-international-learning.

66 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

REFERENCES

NEA (2014), “Stakeholder confidence and transparency in radioactive waste
management”, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_27139/
stakeholder-confidence-and-transparency-english-a4-2014.
NEA (2015), Fostering a Durable Relationship Between a Waste Management Facility and its
Host Community, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14194/
fostering-a-durable-relationship-between-a-waste-management-facility-andits-host-community.
NEA (2000a), Stakeholder Confidence and Radioactive Waste Disposal, Inauguration, First
Workshop and Meeting of the NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence in the Area ofRadioactive Waste Management, Paris, France, 28-31 August 2000, OECD Publishing,Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12/nea2829.pdf.
NEA (2020b), “The Forum on Stakeholder Confidence Report on Dialogue in the LongTerm Management of Radioactive Waste”, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/jcms/pl_56330/the-forum-on-stakeholder-confidence-report-ondialogue-in-the-long-term-management-of-radioactive-waste.
NEA (2021), “Intergenerational connections in radioactive waste management:
Involving children and youth”, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/jcms/pl_61421/fsc-intergenerational-connections-in-radioactive-wastemanagement-involving-children-and-youth
O’Connor, M. (2006), “Role of, and relation to, science in today’s societies, as well theissue of confidence in researchers/institutions”, in NEA (2006), The Link Between
Research, Development and Demonstration and Stakeholder Confidence, Proceedings ofthe FSC topical session held during the Sixth Meeting of the NEA Forum of
Stakeholder Confidence in June 2005, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/jcms/pl_49205/link-between-research-development-anddemonstration-rd-d-and-stakeholder-confidence-use-of-analogues-forconfidence-building.
Pescatore, C. (2008), “Introduction to the Session on Symbolic Dimensions ofRadioactive Waste Management”, Paper presented at the 9th Meeting of the NEA
Forum on Stakeholder Confidence held in June 2008, OECD Publishing, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-01/rwm-fsc2008-5.pdf.
Pescatore, C. (2010), “The Blue Ribbon Commission and siting radioactive waste
disposal facilities”, NEA News 2010 – No. 28.2, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/nea-news/2010/28-2/NEA-News-28-2-9-newsbriefs.pdf.
Pescatore, C. (2011), “Public governance of technical projects and more: Ten-year
learning at the OECD, With illustrations from the field of Radioactive Waste
Management”, Presentation at Arctic Studies Master, University of Versailles, 2February 2011, Paris.
Pescatore. C. and C. Mays (2010), “Activities of the OECD/NEA in the field ofgovernance of RWM. The Forum on Stakeholder Confidence”, Presentation at
ENEF Working Group on Information and Transparency; Brussels, 20 November
2010.

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

67

REFERENCES

Sakuma, H. (2002), Session III report. Stakeholder Involvement, particularly in theEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA), in NEA (2001a), Reversibility and
Retrievability in Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste – Reflections at the International
Level, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_13558/reversibilityand-retrievability-in-geologic-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.
Slovic, P. (1993; 2000), “Perceived Risk, Trust and Democracy”, In Slovic, P. (2000), The
Perception of Risk, Earthscan, London, UK.

68 STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN ANNOTATED GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS – 2022 UPDATE, NEA No. 7606, © OECD 2022

NEA PUBLICATIONS AND INFORMATION

The full catalogue of publications is available online at www.oecd-nea.org/pub.
In addition to basic information on the Agency and its work programme, the NEA
website offers free downloads of hundreds of technical and policy-oriented reports.
The professional journal of the Agency, NEA News – featuring articles on the latest
nuclear energy issues – is available online at www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news.
An NEA monthly electronic bulletin is distributed free of charge to subscribers,
providing updates of new results, events and publications. Sign up at www.oecdnea.org/tools/mailinglist/register.
Visit us on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/company/oecd-nuclear-energy-agency orfollow us on Twitter @OECD_NEA.

OECD/NEA PUBLISHING, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16

Stakeholder Confidence in Radioactive
Waste Management: An Annotated
Glossary of Key Terms – 2022 Update

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC)
Annotated Glossary is a review of concepts central to societal decision making about
radioactive waste management. It records the evolution in understanding that has
taken place in the group as the FSC has worked with these concepts over time. Thisshould be a useful resource not only for new FSC participants but also for others: thelatest update of this annotated glossary forms a good reference handbook for futuretexts regarding societal aspects of radioactive waste management and its governance.

Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
46, quai Alphonse Le Gallo
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France
Tel.: +33 (0)1 73 21 28 19
nea@oecd-nea.org www.oecd-nea.org

NEA No. 7606