Radioactive Waste Management
2015

Fostering a Durable Relationshipbetween a Waste Management
Facility and its Host Community
Adding Value through Design
and Process – 2015 Edition

NEA

Radioactive Waste Management

Fostering a Durable Relationshipbetween a Radioactive Waste Management Facility
and its Host Community
Adding Value through Design and Process
2015 Edition© OECD 2015
NEA No. 7264
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 34 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
to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international
policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Korea, 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 on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.
The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYThe OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA
membership consists of 31 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, the Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The
European Commission also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:•

to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international
co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe,
environmentally friendly 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 policy
analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development.

Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities,
radioactive waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technicalanalyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information.
The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating
countries. In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International
Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with otherinternational organisations in the nuclear field.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any
territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found online at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2015
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 acknowledgment of the OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use
and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material 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: Visitors in the Aspö Hard Rock Laboratory (HRL) tunnel in Oskarshamn (Curt-Robert Lindqvist, SKB), Sweden; Deepgeological repository site in Oskarshamn (SKB), Sweden.

FOREWORD

Foreword

The Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) was created under a mandate fromthe Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Radioactive Waste Management Committee(RWMC) to facilitate the sharing of international experience in addressing thesocietal dimension of radioactive waste management. It explores means of
ensuring an effective dialogue among all stakeholders and considers ways tostrengthen confidence in decision-making processes. The working definition given
to the term stakeholder 1 is: any actor – institution, group or individual – with aninterest or a role to play in the radioactive waste management process.
Traditionally, the benefits to be drawn locally from a radioactive waste
management facility have been discussed primarily in terms of hosting fees andsocio-economic development packages (for example, guaranteeing employment or
infrastructure). These benefits and land use compensations are meant to offset
real and perceived impacts, and they continue to be a major topic of discussion in
facility siting contexts today. The first edition of this report, Fostering a Durable
Relationship between a Waste Management Facility and its Host Community: Adding Value
through Design and Process (NEA, 2007a), broke new ground by investigating thefeatures of waste facilities and sites that could provide added value by focusing on
cultural and amenity value in both the short and long term, thus helping to build asustainable relationship with the host community and the region.
Sustainability and value added, in the sense of cultural, amenity and otherintangible values, are still a relatively unexplored topic in radioactive waste
management stakeholder discussions. Yet they have high symbolic and practicalvalue in bringing national and local actors together.
This 2015 update of Fostering a Durable Relationship between a Waste Management
Facility and its Host Community: Adding Value through Design and Process will bebeneficial in designing paths forward for local and regional communities, as well
as for national radioactive waste management programmes. New findings arecited in many areas, and particular attention is given to the importance ofunderstanding and memory. In the framework of the FSC, the term
“understandability” means that people understand the facility and its functions –or that they have the means to learn about them. It also describes a situation
whereby the installation can be linked to existing knowledge and potentially relate
to everyday life. Understandability is reinforced by achieving aesthetic quality andreinforcing memory – meaning that both physical and cultural markers identify
the site and tell its story – so that people are able to grasp and remember what isthere over very long timescales.

1.

Italicised words are defined in Annex 2 (Glossary of terms).

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements

The NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence Core Group and the FSC Chair oversaw
the 2015 update of the previous report with the assistance of the Institut Symlog.
Numerous stakeholders from inside and outside the FSC, including local
communities, provided input to the initial 2007 study, and Annex 1 acknowledges
the continued contribution of these stakeholders.

4

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents

List of abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................ 6
Executive summary ............................................................................................................ 7
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 9
2. Added value as a means to a sustainable relationship between afacility and the host community .............................................................................. 13
3. Value added by facility design features .................................................................. 17
3.1 Functional design features ................................................................................. 17
3.2 Cultural design features ..................................................................................... 24
3.3 Physical design features ..................................................................................... 36
4. Value added by the process of planning and implementing the facility .......... 41
4.1 Local utility ........................................................................................................... 41
4.2 Capacity building ................................................................................................. 43
4.3 Image refinement ................................................................................................ 47
5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 49
6. References .................................................................................................................... 51
Annex 1. Stakeholder acknowledgements .................................................................. 57
Annex 2. Glossary of terms ............................................................................................. 59

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

5

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

List of abbreviations and acronyms

AkEnd

Arbeitskreis Auswahlverfahren Endlagerstandorte/German
Independent Working Group on Site Selection Procedures for
Final Repositories (1999-2002)

Andra

Agence nationale pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs/
French National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management

COVRA

Central Organisation for Radioactive Waste

CSM

Centre de stockage de la Manche

FSC

Forum on Stakeholder Confidence

MONA

Mols Overleg Nucleair Afval Categorie A

NAPA

National Academy of Public Administration (United States)

NEA

Nuclear Energy Agency

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

ONDRAF/NIRAS

Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile
Materials

SCK•CEN

Belgian Nuclear Research Centre

SKB

Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company

UNECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization

WIPP

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (United States)

6

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive summary

Any long-term radioactive waste management project is likely to take many years
to complete. It will require a physical site, first of all, and will have an impact on
the surrounding community over the entire period of the project. The societal
durability of an agreed solution – i.e. its sustainability over the long term of the
project – is essential to guarantee success, and thus short-term fixes to facilite theproject and the ultimate installation of the facility will be insufficient.
The sustainability of such a project cannot be ensured solely through financial
compensation and development opportunities. While these economic factors areimportant, radioactive waste management projects also offer opportunities toimprove well-being, consolidate knowledge, fulfil value ideals, further define
community identity and image, and build social relationships. Such opportunities
can be seized when planning and developing a facility. The ultimate goals should
be to define how a facility and its site can be better integrated into the community,
how it can be made attractive for the long term and how it can add value andimprove a community’s prospects for quality of life across generations.
Provisions for adding value to the local community may be relatively
inexpensive, as straightforward as adding a coat of paint (as was done at the
Vandellós site in Spain), or as complex and expensive as engaging community
processes to design an integrated radioactive waste management project (as in thelocal partnership approach created in Belgium). A number of basic, facility design
elements that could contribute to building a durable relationship between thefacility and its host community are identified in this report, based on an analysis
of input from stakeholders and of experiences from the Forum on Stakeholder
Confidence (FSC) experience. These design elements include functional, culturaland physical features.
Among the functional features, multifunctionality or polyvalence may besingled out, meaning that the facility and its site are conceived, from the very
beginning, to serve multiple uses. Other important functional features include
adaptability and flexibility, which allow the facility to evolve and to adapt to new,
yet unknown uses. Among the cultural features, distinctiveness would underline
the attractiveness or uniqueness of the facility, its potential to become a local
landmark, thereby providing a positive reputation to the community and attracting
visitors. Other cultural features include understandability, whereby the installation
can be tied to existing knowledge and related to everyday life, both through its
aesthetic quality and through its ability to reinforce memory, meaning that both
physical and cultural markers identify the site and tell its story so that people fully
grasp and remember what is there. Finally, physical design features include

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

integration, amenity and accessibility, which can help the facility and site
correspond to the local definition of a safe, unthreatening environment. Examples
of practical implementation are also provided in the report.
Finally, the very process of working out the desired features of a radioactive
waste management facility and site can by itself bring added value to thecommunity. This has been the conclusion of local stakeholders who have taken an
active role in site investigations, or who have participated, with implementers, informal partnerships. Social capital – consisting of networks, norms and trust – canbe constructed in this way, preparing the community to face other decisions andissues. Local stakeholders may also focus on community identity, image andprofile. Even when communities are not favourable to the idea of hosting aradioactive waste management facility, they can use the opportunity provided bysiting assessments to develop quality-of-life indicators and reflect on the direction
they want to take in coming years.
Another benefit that may be accrued by the host community is that ofenhancing the educational level of the population because of the influx of highly
skilled workers. Furthermore, when host communities demand training andparticipate in monitoring site developments and operations, they ultimately build
their capacity for vigilance and oversight. As a consequence, their understanding
and confidence in safety is enhanced. These added-value aspects of facility
planning and implementation can also be beneficial to the entire community.
Adding cultural and amenity value is specific to each context, and while it may
be possible to formulate general principles, no universal guidelines can beprovided. Each project must be adapted to the context of its national programme
and must fit into a community development plan, according to criteria that are
defined with the relevant stakeholders. Regional interests should also be taken
into account. The examples provided in this report show that, overall, it is possible
to add cultural and amenity value and to build facilities that favour a sustainable
relationship with the community.
Sustainability and value added, in the sense of cultural, amenity and otherintangible values, are still a relatively unexplored topic in radioactive waste
management stakeholder discussions. However, they have high symbolic andpractical value in bringing national and local actors together. This study, with
input from a wide range of contexts, will be beneficial in designing paths forward
for both local and regional communities, as well as for national radioactive waste
management programmes.

8

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction

The duration and complexity of radioactive waste management projects represent
a particular challenge to society. Planning, siting, constructing, operating and,
finally, decommissioning a radioactive waste management facility is not a simple
linear affair and may take decades to accomplish. It implies many different typesof assessments, evaluations and decisions, and involves different types of actors.
All these decisions cannot be taken at once. In the future, the type ofadministrative assessments that will be required, the level of technical knowledge
available and the political climate will evolve from decade to decade. There will bea renewal of actors as new ones, yet unborn, enter the scene. In such a context, thesocietal durability of an agreed solution and its sustainability over the long term
are key to success.
Many stakeholders 1 agree that any chosen radioactive waste management
solution must first deliver an agreed level of safety for the public and theenvironment, and then meet requirements for fairness (including fulfilling the“producer pays principle”). Finally, it must address other aspects of individual andsocial acceptability. 2 All these dimensions benefit from early study and planning ina participative manner, and the desired positive gains on each level reinforce eachother.
Traditionally, local benefits to be drawn from a radioactive waste management
facility have been discussed primarily in terms of hosting fees and socio-economic
development packages (guaranteeing employment, infrastructure, etc.) (NEA,
2010a; Kojo and Richardson, 2012; Kojo and Richardson, 2014; Bergmans, 2010).
These benefits and land-use compensations are meant to offset real and perceived
impacts and they continue to be a major topic of discussion in facility siting
contexts (Kojo and Richardson, 2013). There is also recognition that a radioactive
waste management facility might best be envisioned within a territorial
development plan (Réaud, Schieber and Schneider, 2013; NEA, 2011).
Sustainability and value added, in the sense of cultural, amenity and othertypes of intangible value, are still a relatively unexplored topic in radioactive waste
management stakeholder discussions. Yet it has high symbolic (NEA, 2010b) andpractical (NEA, 2010a) value in bringing national and local actors together.

1.

Italicised words are defined in Annex 2 (Glossary of terms).

2.

A similar hierarchy of concerns was expressed by stakeholders from Switzerland who
gave input to this study.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

9

INTRODUCTION

This report looks into features and approaches that may improve the ability ofa radioactive waste management facility to better fit into the personal sphere ofthose hosting it over the generations. A long-term relationship may be facilitatedby designing and implementing facilities in ways that provide added cultural andamenity value to the local community and beyond. Cultural and amenity value refers
to agreeable additions to the quality of life, through such features as distinctiveness,aesthetic quality, convenience and meaningfulness; through providing
opportunities for residents and visitors to meet, learn, relax, enjoy; and throughfostering community improvements in areas like education, image definition or
problem-solving capacity.
This report does not look into spin-off – thematically unrelated infrastructure
projects that may accompany the building of a radioactive waste management
facility – nor into incentives or compensation; 3 although its findings may be useful inthese areas. It is recognised that as decades pass, the importance of monetarycompensation may decrease, while the importance of good relations and durable
added value will likely increase.
It is also important to discuss design considerations from the start of aradioactive waste management installation project in order to maximise its value
added – that is, to maximise its contribution to potential sustainability and wellbeing in the community once safety considerations have been addressed. Relevant
design features relate to functional, cultural or physical aspects.
Added cultural and amenity value brings direct gains to the quality of life; it
can foster socio-economic gains by making the site location more attractive to
visitors or future residents. In the best case scenario, added cultural and amenity
value will trigger a virtuous circle, bringing benefits, encouraging an ongoing
relationship with the facility, strengthening the community, and ensuring that infuture years the installation can face challenges and continue to contribute tocommunity life.
The desired cultural and amenity added value when designing and negotiating
the construction of a radioactive waste management facility is a key aspect. It is
one of the conditions that will help assure safe management of radioactive waste
over the generations. Making a facility into an important, positive part of its
community may be vital for ensuring that the facility is understood andremembered over time by residents.

3.

10Compensation and incentives can be an area for innovation as well, as shown in Sweden.
Before the host site for a potential spent nuclear fuel repository was designated, anagreement was signed between the two competing candidate communities and thewaste management organisation. The agreement foresaw that the bulk of a healthy
investment programme would also benefit the community not chosen as the final
candidate in the siting process. In this way, both communities could look forward to theoutcome and obtain significant, durable compensation for their multi-year engagementin the siting effort.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

INTRODUCTION

Different cultural and national contexts may have varying approaches to theseissues. This report is offered as an input into site- and community-specificdiscussions regarding the development of radioactive waste management facilities.
It provides examples of initiatives that communities may want to consider. Whatconstitutes added value will need to be discussed and agreed with the local
stakeholders in potential host communities and will reflect their particular
circumstances. A one-size-fits-all solution does not exist.
Partnering is an approach that can bring added value in a radioactive waste
management context. The 2010 Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) study on
partnering (NEA, 2010a) observes that a variety of partnering arrangements(e.g. non-governmental organisations, local government associations, units withinor around local and regional governments) have been or are being set up in an
increasing number of countries. Several examples cited in this report arise frompartnership arrangements. Involving local actors in designing the facility and thecommunity benefits is likely to result in solutions that will add value to the hostcommunity and region. In all cases, social capital is augmented as members of thecommunity develop new skills and increase their knowledge about their sharedinterests and ideals. Implementers and other institutional players also improvetheir skills as responsive actors in the governance of radioactive waste and as
responsible neighbours concerned with the well-being of the community.
Institutions that oversee these arrangements, such as the national or regional
governments, also gain from this approach because the national policies are
fulfilled in a constructive manner. An additional added value is that partnerships
provide a mechanism for addressing new issues in a non-adversarial manner as
they may arise; for instance, unforeseen national developments or changes inpolicy.
Alongside reading this report and setting up discussions, radioactive waste
management stakeholders are encouraged to investigate the experience of otherindustries in similar settings and with comparable challenges, as other examples
may provide specific solutions that have produced added value within a given
national and local framework.
In 2015, many stakeholders still understand added value as an “umbrella term”
covering different elements of institutional mitigation, compensation andincentives in the site selection process. Such important arrangements may be amajor topic of discussion between local and institutional stakeholders. Several
publications may be useful to those interested in community benefit approaches
which complement an approach centred on cultural and amenity value (NEA,
2010a; Kojo and Richardson, 2012; Kojo and Richardson, 2013; Kojo and Richardson,
2014; Bergmans, 2010).
Section 2 of this report summarises the value of developing a sustainable
relationship between a community and a radioactive waste management facility
through added cultural and amenity value. In Section 3, the report identifies
design considerations – functional, cultural and physical – that may help facilities
to fit into the community in a sustainable manner. Each design feature isillustrated with examples. Section 4 discusses the benefits that may be gained
from the very process of planning radioactive waste management projects whichtarget sustainability and quality of life. These benefits – capacity building and local

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 201511

INTRODUCTION

image refinement – should be understood as cultural added value in and ofthemselves.
Tables are drawn from FSC publications as recent as 2014 (as well as other NEA
publications), a literature review, specific interviews and stakeholder responses toa questionnaire.
Numerous members of the FSC and other stakeholders, including local
communities, provided input to the 2007 study (NEA, 2007a). They showed thatstakeholders can identify long-term cultural and amenity value which could be
added by a radioactive waste management facility, as well as the economic
opportunities to be seized in their contexts.
Annex 1 acknowledges the continued contribution of the many stakeholders
who gave detailed input to the 2007 version of this study; Annex 2 comprises a
glossary of terms and identifies publicly accessible references.

12

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

ADDED VALUE AS A MEANS TO A SUSTAINABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A FACILITY AND THE HOST COMMUNITY

2. Added value as a means to a sustainable relationshipbetween a facility and the host community

Because a radioactive waste management facility and site are present in a hostcommunity for a very long time, a fruitful and positive relationship must be
established with those residing there, in the beginning and over the long term. A
sustainable relationship improves both the ongoing quality of life in the hostcommunity and future societal capacity to contribute to memory and oversight of
the facility. This section defines what is meant by sustainability and by local
community. It shows how cultural and amenity value added by a radioactive waste
management facility may foster a sustainable relationship and tells why thisadded value should be considered early on.
Many countries have committed to the sustainability principle. Sustainable
development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs”. “[It is] not a fixed state of harmony,
but rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the directionof investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutionalchange are made consistent with future as well as present needs” (UN/WCED,1987). Because the physical environment is our primary resource base, the firstpillar of sustainable development is ecology: resources should not be harvested
faster than they can be regenerated, nor should waste be emitted without regard toits future fate.
The three other pillars of sustainable development are economic, social andethical. Altogether, sustainable development targets not only material (ecologicaland economic) needs but also social, spiritual and cultural needs.
How can radioactive waste management contribute to sustainability? In thefirst place, there is high sustainability value for society in containing and isolatingused nuclear fuel from people and the environment, especially throughapproaches which do not pass along obligations for institutional management tofuture generations. On a community level, to reply to this question, all four pillarsof sustainable development should be kept in view. In principle, radioactive waste
management should become a source of further development for a community,
through adding economic, social and/or ethical value.
Economic added value is a relatively familiar concept, and economic
development packages (as well as incentives and compensations) have been
already widely discussed (NEA, 2010a; Kojo and Richardson, 2012; Kotra, 2003; NEA,
2003; Bergmans, 2010). The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA,
1997) explains the, perhaps, more intangible social and ethical values: “EachFOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 201513

ADDED VALUE AS A MEANS TO A SUSTAINABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A FACILITY AND THE HOST COMMUNITY

generation creates and uses resources (over and above natural resources) that arevery future-oriented. The most important examples are the education system,
opportunities for contributions to social and economic needs, the capabilities forresearch and scientific investigation and literature that analyses and records ourunderstanding of our own acts. Each generation must use some of its current
resources to enrich these intellectual resources for the ultimate benefit of future
generations” (NAPA, 1997: 10). In this way, “sustainability is also an opportunity”(NAPA, 1997: 10). Furthermore, if a community seizes value from a radioactive
waste management facility, this value is like a capital whose benefits can accrue
over time. In this report, some examples are given of how communities havedrawn from radioactive waste management what is called cultural added value,
made up in particular of future-oriented resources as described by NAPA.
From a classical sustainability perspective, societal management of radioactive
waste should, in principle, not only avoid disrupting but also seek to contribute toimproving the sustainability of the host environment. Translated into community
terms, the waste management installation can contribute to opportunities toimprove well-being, consolidation of knowledge, fulfilment of value ideals,
elaborating community identity and image, and building desired social
relationships. Planning for a facility could include consideration of theseopportunities.
In this report, local community is a generic term for the group of personalactors potentially concerned by, or who may become involved in, deliberations
about radioactive waste management facility siting and operations. It is a socialgroup of any size whose members reside in a bounded territory, share agovernment, participate in various other common institutions and often have acommon cultural and historical heritage. A community does not need to be tiedfirmly to an administratively defined zone. It is understood to be defined on
several overlapping factors that make up community identity: these are spatial or
geographic, political, economic, cultural and emotional (Wylie, 2010). Frequently
today, extended local units, groupings of townships, or regions are brought toconsider the place of a radioactive waste management facility or site in theirterritorial identity.
The Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) recognises that there is no single
definition of community or of community well-being. The many dimensions ofcommunity identity all have implications. Moreover, community identity may
become more sharply defined or evolve in the process of radioactive waste
management facility development, or at least across the years involved in a siting
process and a facility life cycle. Communities who are invited to define their visionof a desired future may wish to include consideration of economic health,environment, safety and security, spiritual aspects, social conditions and newopportunities for community members. Without durable cultural and amenity
value, a facility will have less potential to survive over the generations, even in thepresence of socio-economic provisions and institutional controls. In contrast, as
one local stakeholder representative expressed it:With local community support for a facility from the outset of design and to
the end of construction, and the development of a lasting amenity for the
local and regional area for generations, I believe that the management of the
14

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

ADDED VALUE AS A MEANS TO A SUSTAINABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A FACILITY AND THE HOST COMMUNITY

facility is more likely to be continued through a number of generations. It isalso less likely to be seen as a burden to the local area or future generations,as there is a benefit derived for those future generations.
It is thus important to investigate features of waste facilities and sites that may
enhance quality of life in both the short and long term and thereby help build asustainable relationship between a community and a facility.
Integrative reflection on technical and socio-economic aspects, and on culturaland amenity value that could be added by a radioactive waste management facility,
is best started from the very first planning stages, even before final siting
agreement is reached. It takes time to work out new ideas, new possibilities, andwhere the communities’ own interests lie. The information, concepts and ideas
gained from this reflection might form a part of the basis on which a local partner
may agree to become a candidate community and, then, actively engage in the
final siting stages.
Generally, institutions cannot commit to the final form of a radioactive waste
management facility before a specific site is agreed. As well, the relationshipbetween a community and a facility or site will depend in part upon external
events (for instance, safety performance in the nuclear or radioactive waste
management realm; attitudes and statements by political actors, etc.). Still,
feasibility studies and social science investigations undertaken early in thedecision-making process can provide meaningful preparation. This approach is
supported for example, by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe(UNECE) Aarhus Convention.
Just as the environmental impact assessment (EIA) 1 has proved to be a goodumbrella process for discussing stakeholders’ concerns, the added cultural andamenity added value theme can be a driver for sustainability dialogues, facilitating
more productive exchanges on compensation as well as other long-term provisions.

1.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment, Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) L
175/40 (5 July 1985).

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 201515

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

3. Value added by facility design features

This part of the report reviews each design consideration that helps a radioactive
waste management installation to maximise the value added – that is, tomaximise its contribution to potential sustainability and well-being in thecommunity once safety considerations have been addressed. Relevant design
features relate to functional, cultural, or physical aspects. It is important to note
that, while, the design features can be separated out for discussion, in practice,they are often tightly linked.
Illustrations from stakeholder experience are given, including some fromindustries or areas outside radioactive waste management. Additional illustrations
can probably be found.
Below, Table 1 summarises the design features found by the Forum on
Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) that may help a facility and site to add durable value
to the community. These features tend to maximise the potential of a facility to be
adopted by the members of the host community, by fitting in, adapting to and,moreover, contributing directly to their preferred way of life.
Table 1. Design features that help to maximise the added value brought
to a community by a radioactive waste management facility
Functional aspects

Cultural aspects

Physical aspects

Multifunctionality or polyvalence

DistinctivenessIntegration

Adaptability

Aesthetic quality

Amenity

Flexibility

Understandability

Accessibility

Memory3.1

Functional design features

Function concerns the uses to which the facility and site may be put. The
radioactive waste management facility must serve the primary purpose of assuring
safe and secure long-term management of radioactive waste. Although, radiation
protection and safety necessitate cautious engineering in order to isolate the waste,
careful functional design can add value, by allowing parallel uses of some areas of

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 201517

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

the site that are of direct interest to residents and visitors. Table 2 summarises
design features and characteristics found by the FSC that relate to facility function,
as well as the value that may be added to the community, and possible strategies
to achieve each feature.
Table 2. Functional design features that help to maximise the added value
brought to a community by a radioactive waste management facility
Design feature

Characteristics

Value added

Possible strategies toachieve the desired feature

Multifunctionality The installation serves
or polyvalence
several functions at thesame time: it fulfils its
mission of safely
managing radioactive
waste while supporting
other uses likeeducation or recreation.

The project provides
opportunities for a wider
range of persons to comeinto contact with the
installation and to bring it
into their lives, and it offers
opportunities for thecommunity to draw a
range of benefits(prosperity, amenity).

Designers and community
stakeholders explore
community needs for
additional functions, work
closely with regulators toreconcile demands for safety
and for parallel uses.

Adaptability

Foreseeable functions
can be accommodated
at an acceptable cost or
at no cost at all.

Near-term
multifunctionality of theinstallation is supported.

Designers choose appropriatematerials and structures toaccommodate foreseeable
uses and to make necessarytransformations easy.

Flexibility

New and unforeseenfunctions can beaccommodated at an
acceptable cost.

Longer-term
multifunctionality is
supported, including
complete transformation of
structure or use.

Designers anticipate that new
functions will be introduced by
future users; they ensure
robustness and avoid building
in features that narrowly
restrict potential uses.

For safety purposes, not every square metre of a radioactive waste
management facility can be put to multiple uses. The desirability ofmultifunctionality and the ways to achieve it should be decided in each context, by
the stakeholders involved.

18

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

Multifunctionality
Industrial facilities are often mono-functional, dedicated to serve their engineering
purpose only. In contrast, FSC workshops in national and local contexts 1 havehighlighted the desirability of integrating radioactive waste management facilities
into people’s way of life and vision for growth. Adding value throughmultifunctionality will make the facility more attractive because it would make amore positive contribution to the local quality of life.
Multifunctionality means that the radioactive waste management facility orsite can have multiple uses over the years. These functions can provide value tothe community immediately or in the future. They can provide economic benefit,
enjoyment, learning or socialising opportunities. In all these ways, the facility orsite provides added value.
There is a difference here with spin-off opportunities or unrelated
infrastructure that may be offered to a community as an incentive or
supplementary grant. Multifunctional facilities and sites (for example, scientific,
cultural and recreational facilities built within site confines) might be designed todeliver, in and of themselves, added cultural and amenity value closely tied to theradioactive waste management project itself. In this way, the added value helps tofit the radioactive waste management facility or site into community life over thegenerations.
Examples are provided of multifunctionality with added cultural and amenity
value, as well as traditional economic value.
Modern exhibit or theatre spaces can be transformed according to need (walls
and seats are modular and mobile).

Canada:The Port Hope End Use Advisory Committee developed a vision for
multifunctional use of the Long Term Low Level Radioactive Waste
Management Facility. The committee highlights design features that could
create durable cultural and amenity value. Options discussed for parallel usesof the site include an interpretative centre or museum. This would pass along
history on the nuclear industry and “how we got to be what we are” in Port
Hope. Another option is based on the assumption that green space will be theresource most lacking in 500 years, and one that certainly will be appreciated:the committee proposes a national heritage and passive recreation area(permanent flower gardens, walking paths and observation stations). Finally,
active recreation uses are being considered, addressing a more immediateneed in the community.

1.

www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/fsc/workshops/.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

19

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

France:Two waste storage facilities in France, the Centre de stockage de l’Aube (CSA)and Centre de stockage de la Manche (CSM), function as tourist destinations,providing revenue to the region. At CSA, a museum-like visitors’ centre informs
about local geology and archaeology, and the storage area can be toured. The
extendible hangar design has been noted and copied by visiting farmers. At
CSM, an additional source of attraction has been the creation of three herbariapresenting plants growing inside the repository site. “They will include a very
short description of the repository (ultra-summary record), thus being the firstmarker of the repository. One of them will be kept at the repository; the others
will be kept by scientific institutions together with historical herbaria” (NEA,
2015).
In Nord-Pas-de-Calais, a mining museum also contains a cultural centre, wherelectures and concerts can take place. One could extend such a concept to asurface building on a radioactive waste management site: community members
could use the building for their own agreed purposes, for cultural advancement
or enjoyment.

Netherlands:
In the south-west, the waste treatment and interim storage facility operated by
the Dutch Central Organisation for Radioactive Waste (COVRA) provides aconservation service for fine art. Museums in the region have endured
shortage of storage capacity for the artefacts that are not on exhibit. This
represents generally some 90% of their collection. Looking for suitable storage
space, the museums and COVRA found each other. The conditioned COVRA
storage buildings for low- and intermediate-level waste have enough unused
space to store the museum artefacts. This space is available as a result of therobust construction of the storage building, and it cannot be used for theradioactive waste itself. The climate conditions are favourable because there
are only gradual temperature changes and humidity in the air is under 60%. In
2009, the storage space was offered free of charge to the museums in a 100year contract. Such a long-term contract is unique even for museums. The
National Museum of the Netherlands (the Rijksmuseum) for instance, where
works by Rembrandt can be seen, only has a 40-year contract with a storage
depot (Codée and Verhoef, 2015).
Added scientific value can also be generated through multiple uses ofpolyvalent radioactive waste management facilities. Including undergroundinstallations which offer unique opportunities to carry out research requiring an
exceptional environment. Zero-gravity experiments are carried out at Japan’s Tono
Mine underground laboratory, and the North America Deep Underground Scienceand Engineering Laboratory foresees a number of experiments unrelated to waste
management that may be carried out at the US Department of Energy’s Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The European Institute for Reference Materials andMeasurements (IRMM) operates a laboratory for ultra-sensitive radioactivity
measurements inside the 225-metre-deep HADES underground laboratory(Belgium).

20

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

France:In Saudron, a technological exhibition facility displays prototypes ofinnovative engineering equipment that was developed in order to further theradioactive waste management research at France’s underground laboratory.
This equipment can inspire other designers and be adapted to other contexts(NEA, 2010c).

Italy:
Similar plans are being drawn in Italy for the construction of a low-level waste
surface management facility for which a site search is being conducted.

Spain:
Laboratory facilities at El Cabril Centralised Low and Intermediate Level Waste
Disposal Facility and WIPP are available for use by universities andadministrations. This up-to-date infrastructure serves for research and forregional environmental analysis or monitoring.
The country is building a centralised storage facility, complemented by atechnological centre. Its main laboratory will be a research laboratory forspent fuel and high-level waste. It will also include a low-level wastelaboratory. (The previous basic design of these two nuclear laboratories isrevised for their integration in the centralised storage facility, to facilitateradioactive material transfer and to build and license a single nuclear facility).
Other laboratories foreseen in the technological centre will allow research on
materials behaviour, chemistry and environment, robotics and industrial pilot
plants.

United Kingdom:Elected officials in Sellafield have called attention to opportunities which could
be generated for the local community by the continued scientific research
associated with monitoring and retrievability at waste management sites.
The link between scientific culture and everyday culture can be made inmultipurpose, interactive facilities. This represents added value for the users ofthese facilities, and over time, it can help improve the educational capital ofsociety as a whole.

Belgium:
The HADES underground laboratory has an exhibition area for scientists andfor the public (at least 18 years of age). The exhibition offers well-organised
information about research and development activities dealing with thepossibility of disposing of radioactive waste in deep clay layers.
Isotopolis is a unique visitors’ centre about the management of radioactive
waste located at Belgoprocess (the subsidiary company of the Belgian Agency
for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials (ONDRAF/NIRAS)
operating the agency’s facilities for processing, conditioning and interim
storage) at the municipality of Dessel. The information centre provides clear,

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

21

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

easily understandable information for anyone interested in radioactive waste.
Isotopolis also has a strong scientific focus and is an excellent and visuallyattractive learning tool, especially for students between the ages of 15 and 18.
Next to the future surface repository in Dessel, ONDRAF/NIRAS plans to build a
new communications centre – that will replace Isotopolis. The centre should
become the local reference point par excellence for radioactive waste
management and its broader context. A theme park will provide appealing
information in an attractive setting, targeting a broad and diverse audience
including schools, families, clubs and companies. A visit to the centre can be
combined with a visit to the repository itself. Besides the tourist programme,
the communications centre will also house diverse functions for residents.
Multifunctional rooms, a theatre, event meadow, exposition space, etc. will be
used intensively by the local community. Moreover, all of this – the repository
and associated facilities – is surrounded by beautiful nature.

Sweden:The Association of Swedish Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities’ (KSO)
Secretariat gave ideas for cultural added value installations. In an
environmentally oriented biogeoscience centre or “experimenter facility”,
visitors could create things themselves with the help of computers, see rocksamples, play games with scientific content in physics, chemistry and biology,
and learn about up-to-date geologic knowledge, and even the history of thestone industry of the Oskarshamn area, or the iron-work industry of Forsmark.
The geoscientific centre could be complemented by a large outdoor stage (dugin the bedrock) for music and theatre performances in a true “mountain king”
concert hall. The outdoor stage area could have a geoscientific trail withstations explaining bedrock types, fossils, etc.
The Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company’s (SKB) ÄspöHard Rock Laboratory includes a demonstration component, providing
knowledge to scientists through research and to the public through a hands-on
museum experience.
Radiation protection and safety needs push engineering solutions towards
isolating the waste. Is it really possible to create a multifunctional facility while
preserving safety? In principle, the answer is yes: if this is taken into account fromthe beginning, architects and engineers can lay side-by-side the hardhat anddosimeter waste management area with the part welcoming visitors for otherpursuits. This is the case for the El Cabril and WIPP laboratories cited above, for thebusiness centre that is part of Spain’s centralised storage facility and for museums
and visitors’ centres at other repositories. In principle, the concept can beextended to any installation, and a wider variety of uses can be imagined.

Canada:The Port Hope community worked with the federal safety authority to checkthe feasibility of the public-use projects they would like to see within the lowlevel waste storage area.

22

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

Adaptability and flexibility
Adaptability and flexibility are necessary for achieving multifunctionality. Theymean that designers do not lock the facility or site into a single purpose. Instead,designers choose forms and materials that may allow a graceful transition toparallel or new, unforeseen uses.
On the scale of an entire construction, heat, waste and ventilation conducts
can be placed along the margins, so as to facilitate new organisation of the open
central space. As for radioactive waste management installations, such a concept
could be extended to the entire site, designing and placing protected areas in sucha way that they do not hinder a large array of expected or unexpected site uses.
A facility which is built to be adaptable is also more easily dismantled at theend of its lifetime. Indeed, when creating a new facility, it is necessary to foresee
the end of its useful life. If future needs are not anticipated, there is a risk that thefacility will become a liability for the community. Proper foresight – on the end useof the facility and site, or technical provisions for quick transitions to other types
of facilities – provides better assurance to the host community that there will be
flexibility in future planning capacity.

Belgium:
The architecture of the Belgian communications centre on radioactive waste
management was adapted to the ongoing process of participation.
ONDRAF/NIRAS develops the activity programme for this centre in close
co-operation with the local partnerships Stora and Mols Overleg Nucleair Afval
Categorie A (MONA). The architects opted for a flexible and adaptable designconcept, so that the construction could be adapted to the needs that emerge
during the process. Under a massive concrete table (which symbolises theparticipation process), smaller structures can be built to fill in the (changing)needs of the various stakeholders. While the plans for the structure
underneath the table evolve during the participation process, the overallarchitecture and look remain intact.

France:A tumulus formed of mining waste has been adapted into a ski slope. Thisrequired engineering foresight to provide the correct slant and accessarrangements.

United Kingdom:
At the Dounreay nuclear power plant in Scotland, setting decontamination
priorities and radiological target levels required a multi-year process.
Stakeholders worked to find agreement on which surface buildings should bemaintained, which areas should be accessible to visitors and which new uses
should be created. Because at the time of construction, and in the early yearsof operation, the future need for such decisions was not taken into account,clean-up and transformation of site elements represent a heavy and costly task.
A stakeholder proposed that the famous domed reactor building might bemade into a national monument, but the cost associated with its maintenanceunder that formal regime was found to be too high, as would be the cost of

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

23

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

transformation. Many local stakeholders with family employment ties are
sentimentally attached to the landmarks of the no-longer operating site, but
after the remains of the fast breeder reactor it houses are completely
dismantled and removed, the golf ball sphere is presently scheduled for
demolition in 2025.
An adaptable and flexible facility can provide enjoyment during its operation
and also allow the transition to a full community facility when its industrial use is
no longer needed. This preserves the potential for local culture to develop further
according to future needs. Cultural identity takes decades to centuries to form.
Radioactive waste management projects should be sensitive to present and also
evolving cultural identity. A flexible, multipurpose facility can contribute to thelatter, as it is likely to last for generations of social use and enjoyment.

3.2

Cultural design features

The cultural value is found in arrangements that reflect and strengthen a given
society’s knowledge, tastes, aspirations, ethical views, or beliefs. It lies in all that ismeant to help to transmit an honoured legacy, to communicate symbolic meaning,or to carry forward and realise ideals.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
has defined culture as “the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual andemotional features of society or a social group, encompassing, in addition to art
and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions andbeliefs”. 2 In this way, culture may be assimilated to shared meaning and practices.
Culture is not a fixed-for-ever set of features, and facility designers must giveattention to what may help culture to develop further.
Four design features were found by the FSC to provide opportunities for how
designers and communities can instil meaning into a radioactive waste
management facility and site. Table 3 summarises these features and theircharacteristics, the value they may add to the community and strategies forachieving them.

2.

24

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, adopted on 2 November 2001,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127162e.pdf.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

Table 3. Cultural design features that help to maximise the added value brought
to a community by a radioactive waste management facility
Possible strategies to achieve
the desired feature

Design feature

Characteristics

Value added

DistinctivenessThe installation is
attractive,
recognisable andunique.

The installation may become
an icon, a well-known,emblematic and admiredfeature of the place. People
may draw pride from thepresence of the installation; it
can become a positive part oflocal identity.

Artists and architects apply theirhighest creative and design skills;
incorporate state-of-the-art and/or
traditional materials; introduce
innovative engineering, etc.

Aesthetic quality The installation is nice People may draw enjoyment
to look at and tofrom the presence of theexperience.
installation rather than
avoiding it or rejecting it.

Architects, artists and community
stakeholders consult each otheron desirable look, layout andlandscaping.

Understandability The installation and its People can connect thefunctions areradioactive waste
understandable.
management project andinstallation to various parts of
their lives and theirknowledge.

Stakeholders (technical andsocietal) engage in an open,transparent and collaborative
process to work out theradioactive waste management
project.
Information and education
programmes.

MemoryThe facility and site
are marked so thatpeople know bothwhat is there andsomething about its
context.

People can integrate into their Durable markers such as
sense of place the meaning of interactive museums or art
what the site is and why it is installations can be built.
there. Features of local
identity and culture arepreserved and showcased.
The community’s choices andachievements are recorded.
The potential for lastingoversight is enhanced.

Distinctiveness and aesthetic quality
Attention should be given to making the facility an object of community pride.
Distinctiveness means that the radioactive waste management facility or site is
attractive, recognisable and like no other. The facility and site has the potential to
become an icon, lending a positive reputation and drawing visitors to the locality.

Austria:
The household waste treatment facilities at Spittelau near Vienna weretransformed into a delightful landmark when they were given a new outershell by artist Hundertwasser.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

25

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

Sweden:The Oskarshamn municipality felt that a future spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste facility could be a showcase for Swedish innovation and design.
They called for a national architectural competition to be held.
The visual impact of industrial installations can be designed to support
pleasant and desirable interactions with the community.

Hungary:
In Bátaapáti, the design of surface buildings, wood and stone materials used
for construction, and the orderly maintenance of the numerous environmental
stations, are all intended to suggest that the radioactive waste repository
adapts itself to the land in an environmentally friendly manner (NEA, 2009).

Netherlands:
In the south-west, the COVRA HABOG high-level waste treatment and interim
storage installation has been designed in tight collaboration with artist William
Verstraeten, who proposed to integrate the building into a multi-year
conceptual art project. The building itself is now a piece of art, a statement byitself as well as a landmark included in regional architectural tours byuniversities. The art concept, with its specific storytelling about waste
management, is elaborated inside and outside the building (see the section onunderstandability below). With “Metamorphosis 2003-2103”, COVRA offered to
the local community the largest work of art in the region together with thestorage facility for radioactive waste. The inclusion of art in the activities of
COVRA shows pride in the work performed. At the same time, COVRA points
out that art creates opportunities for communication (Codée and Verhoef,
2015).

Sweden:At Forsmark, the architectural firm selected to design the surface installations
for a future repository told the FSC in 2011, that the skyline of the facility
should be integrated in the surrounding landscape and not dominating. The
proposed design emphasises flat roofs. In this way it will be less noticed fromthe sea perspective (NEA, 2012). Aesthetic quality means that the installation is
nice to look at and to experience. In sum, if an installation is aestheticallypleasing one would be happy to pose for a photograph with the site in the
background. There are different ways to achieve this: through tradition or
through innovation.
The Äspö surface buildings look like handsome examples of regionalarchitecture. They resemble classical wood houses and respect the traditional
colour scheme of red siding, dark roofs and white trim.
Another example of pleasant interactions with the community can be found in
Artist Cécile Massart’s work. She has visited waste facilities throughout the world
and captured their particular beauty and identity in graphic works (photos,
engravings and videos).

26

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

Understandability
Understandability means that people understand the facility and its functions – orthat they have the means to learn about them. The installation can be tied in withexisting knowledge and understanding, allowing members of the community torelate to the facility. Moreover, understandability allows community stakeholders
to play a sought-after role in lasting oversight of the facility. In turn, their
participation in oversight and monitoring enhances understandability.
Understandability must be built up through relationships with the facility andsite. Providing transparent and accessible information about the site can enhancepeople’s ability to relate to it. This can be achieved through the means ofconceptual art, visits, demonstrations, mock-ups and hands-on interactive exhibits,or through archiving and transmission of data. Many industrial facilities, including
nuclear power plants and operating waste management installations, hold open
door days to build up relationships with the neighbours. Residents can visit thesite, meet and talk with the people who work there and participate in family
activities that bring the facility closer to everyday experience.

Belgium:
In their final report, community members of the Stora (formerly Stola) andMONA integrative local partnerships (Dessel and Mol) spelled out theirrequirements for accepting a facility: the repository project for low-level waste
must integrate technical and social aspects. Moreover, it must bring positive
value to the community. The partnerships set requirements to foster
understanding of the facility and site, now and over the years. Next to therepository there will be a communications centre, telling the full story ofradioactive waste management. Via a special circuit, visitors will also be able
to take a look at the full process, from temporary storage to final disposal. The
opportunity to visit the site shows the visitor that the disposal facility is safe.
The whole story that will be told, is written in close co-operation with thepartnerships Stora and MONA.

France:The CSM can be toured throughout the year and draws both tourists andregional inhabitants.
Cogema (now Areva) demonstrated that it is possible to place cameras even in
the “hot” areas of waste management facilities, allowing people to look in andhelp them form an image of what waste management looks like (this featuremust be considered in light of security constraints). Several implementers havedisplayed long-term containment structures for the waste so that people may
distinguish these from more fragile engineering structures and build up theirunderstanding of the waste containment systems.
At the proposed repository site at Bure, visitors can take an elevator down
several levels into the earth, learn about the clay geology and experience amock repository tunnel constructed at full scale. Four times per year, theMeuse/Haute-Marne Underground Research Laboratory at 500 metres
underground is opened to visits by the general public. The nearby

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

27

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

Technological Exhibition Facility allows visitors to examine sample containers,
the machines that handle them and the innovative equipment designed to drill
tunnels. Some 40 000 individuals pass through the visitors’ centre each year
(NEA, 2010c).
The Local Information and Oversight Committee for the French Meuse/HauteMarne laboratory project runs a well-stocked public reading room in the villageof Bure. Regional residents and visitors can peruse documents collected frommany sources, on both technical and socio-economic aspects of waste
management in France and internationally. A nice-looking stone wash house,of a design traditional to the region, was restored for this purpose using funds
made available by the French National Radioactive Waste Management Agency(Andra) (NEA, 2010c).

Hungary:
Several thousands of persons visited the exploration site and shafts before
commissioning of the low- and intermediate-level waste repository at
Bátaapáti. Once these could no longer be accessed, a visitors’ centre absorbed
the tourism demand. Visitors learn how the waste management and control
process work and why the facility was sited at Bátaapáti (NEA, 2009).

Netherlands:
The COVRA HABOG installation was described above as a significant aesthetic
contribution to its region. As conceptual art, it is also a major example of acreative approach to increasing understandability of high-level radioactive
waste and the function of the treatment and interim storage installation. Totell a story about the activities inside the facility, a formula is painted inmonumental letters of aqua green on each of the three outside walls: Einstein’s
famous equation E=mc2, as well as m=E/c2 and Planck’s formula, E=hυ. Theseequations refer to the metamorphosis from mass to energy, providing an
insight into the radioactive character of the waste. Overall, the building is anorange object. This colour was chosen for its potential to suggest themetamorphosis of something dangerous (red) into a safe situation (green). The
decrease over time in heat production of the high-level waste will be portrayedin the gradual change of the colour painted on the outside of the building.
Every 20 years, when the building needs to be repainted, this will be done in acolour that is slightly lighter than the existing one. After about 100 years, thecolour will be white instead of orange. The gradually fading colour tells a story,
helping to explain radioactive decay. Inside the building there are many more
relations between the art concept and features of waste management. With
HABOG, COVRA explicitly tried to address the question of how to explain thelong-term aspect of radioactive waste management in a way people can relate
to. “The answer is surprisingly simple. Show people that we have a very long
history of preserving things, often things that are far more difficult to store
than immobilised waste. Ask people how long we should preserve our cultural
heritage such as the paintings of Rembrandt or Van Gogh. The answer isgenerally: ‘forever’. The link between the long-term preservation of art and the
management of radioactive waste helps people to visualize and trust theconcept of long-term management”. (Moreover, a direct link was established28

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

with the skilled conservation of cultural heritage; see the section in this reporton multifunctionality). “Telling stories to present and future generations topass on knowledge and memory is a demanding craft. To make the story last it
has to be a thing of beauty and it needs vivid descriptions that appeal toemotions. Boring, complex or difficult to understand metaphors can turn animaginative journey into a lifeless plot. Emotions are subconscious and they
will leave a trace long after the words have been forgotten. Art and cultural
heritage give such stories and provide compelling metaphors for radioactive
waste” (Codée and Verhoef, 2015).
Understandability can be enhanced if community members are directly
involved in details of the site function. Communities may wish to develop theirunderstanding through training, which also equips them to participate inmonitoring and oversight of the facility life cycle over the years. Enhancing local
understanding, familiarity and control through this participation are essential
components of the safety concept.

Belgium:
Individual budgets are granted to the partnerships Stora and MONA, which
ensure them a high degree of autonomy. It gives them the ability to hire theirown experts and order independent studies regarding the safety case. The
participating residents also organise visits to similar repository projects inother countries, invite experts to give lectures, etc. Moreover, the partnerships
have their own communication channels (website, newsletter, magazine,social media, etc.) to inform the local community.
World-renowned institutions like the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre(SCK•CEN) and the Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO) arelocated next to the Belgian repository site in Dessel. This makes it an area withunique nuclear expertise. For the sake of employment, but also for the sake ofsafety, it is imperative to keep that expertise within the region. ONRAF/NIRAS
draws special attention to maintaining and, even, expanding this local base ofknowledge. In addition, the organisation will start an education programme onradioactive waste management, in association with the local university,
Thomas More.

Hungary:
Members of the “information associations” have obtained training to support
their active participation in the technical monitoring of nuclear facilities. At
the low- and intermediate-level facility in Püspökszilágy and repository in
Bátaapáti, as well as the interim spent fuel storage facility in Paks, trained
municipal groups perform various measurements including regularrandomised control of incoming waste packages, comparing resulting datawith the expected values recorded in the drum’s passport. Local groups will be
trained to perform this monitoring at the site of the future high-level waste
repository near Boda (NEA, 2009).

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

29

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

Spain:
Former Mayor J. Castellnou of Vandellòs i l’Hospitalet de l’Infant, the Vandellòs
nuclear plant host community, told the FSC (Castellnou Barceló, 2006) that
local confidence – in the host community and beyond – rests on four pillars:
safety, local training and knowledge development, socio-economic
development and future-oriented sustainable development mechanisms.
Communities appreciate being part of checking for safety and ask to be trainedin the relevant areas. They thus build not only competence but also accrued,
tangible safety mechanisms and the basis for long-term co-existence with thefacility.
Monitoring emerges as a particularly important aspect of understandability, as
it allows the community to form an extensive idea of how the presence of the
facility impacts the context (this is mentioned again in this report under theheading of capacity building). The FSC has published a detailed study on local
demand for monitoring (NEA, 2013). Local stakeholders see a role for themselves inthis oversight, which has clear relevance for ensuring durable quality of life intheir community, as well as maintaining and refining understanding of thecontinuing presence of the facility. Communities are of the opinion thatenvironmental, socio-economic and epidemiological impacts should be measured
and followed up, as well as physical repository processes, institutional processes
and checking the activities of each player.

Belgium:
ONDRAF/NIRAS, together with the partnerships Stora and MONA, started a
project to monitor the health of people living in the area surrounding thefuture surface disposal facility. The project aims at mapping theenvironmental health by means of human biomonitoring. More specifically, it
will measure the presence of environmental pollutants in 300 children born inand around Dessel with a long-term follow-up. In addition, other health data
will be gathered with a view to health prevention in the region. Every ten years,
a new group of new-borns will be recruited to participate.

France:The French local information committees tasked with oversight of repository
projects, monitoring is a key issue principally in regard to health andenvironmental concerns. The Local Information Commission of SoulainesDhuys obtained an epidemiological study of cancer rates by the FrenchInstitute for Public Health Surveillance (Institut de veille sanitaire) andundertook biomonitoring projects. French host communities are also asking formonitoring to measure impacts on socio-economic variables like property
values or economic development. They have stated that monitoring should belaunched before a given facility starts its operation in order to record thebaseline situation (NEA, 2010c).
Another aspect of understandability is ensuring that the community andinterested parties have facilitated access to knowledge materials concerning thewaste management project and installation. Translation and interpretation oftechnical materials, as well as discussion opportunities, enhance this access.
30

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

France:The Bure Local Information and Oversight Committee has used part of its
funding to engage external expertise on major technical documents submitted
by the waste management agency Andra concerning the projected deep
geological repository (NEA, 2010c).
The French National Association of Liaison Committee (ANCCLI), actively offers
white papers and frequent training/discussion seminars to its membership.
A special series of seminars has taken place in connection with the 2013
national public debate consultation on the proposed emplacement and designof the future deep repository. These day-long meetings were arranged jointlywith the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN)
which, as the national regulatory authority’s technical support organisation,
plays a public expert role.

Hungary:
Official local committees tasked with information and control call upon
independent experts from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences to interpret
research documents and help disseminate technical information in a broadly
understandable manner (NEA, 2009).

Spain:A regional university professor was given the role of translating the relevant
technical concepts into non-technical language that local people on the
Vandellòs dismantling monitoring commission could understand. This
increased members’ grasp of the issues they were to monitor (NEA, 2007b). At
the same time, these concepts became part of a local narrative, giving a better
integrated cultural presence to the facility.
Understandability may also mean that the community accepts the presence ofwaste and does not try to hide its existence. In questionnaires, most stakeholders
indicated that they do not seek to camouflage the presence of radioactive waste intheir community. A facility can be designed to show, rather than hide, the fact thatwaste is placed there.

Belgium:
ONDRAF/NIRAS seeks to communicate openly about its disposal project in
Dessel. A footpath and special footbridge were designed to take visitors fromthe communications centre to the nuclear area, where they can have a look at
the waste management process. They will be able to have a glimpse into thestorage building, the monolith production facility and have a view on thedisposal modules. This openness creates a sense of security and ensures thevisitor that nothing is hidden.

France:P. Gontier, an ecological architect, observed in an interview that “showing, nothiding” is a preference that has emerged relatively recently in the history ofarchitecture and urban planning. It is both an ideological preference and a

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

31

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

utilitarian one: when the function of an installation is hidden, it can beforgotten. He suggests that the best path to follow in designing a radioactive
waste management installation is not to attempt to disguise its function, but,to render that function visible and understandable. In the architect’s opinion,
designers should seek out an aesthetic code that is distinctly appropriate fornuclear power (or for radioactive waste management). They should not borrow
aesthetics from other domains. Doing so would be anti-transparent; it would
comfort the notion that radioactive waste management has something to hide.
The installations should look like what they are. The building should display
its “truth”, and moreover, “tell a story” in which the community will recognise
itself. To discover the desired story implies consulting and involving thecommunity.

Hungary:
In the National Radioactive Waste Repository at Bátaapáti, visitors can see
through fences to see outdoor processes such as waste transportation to thesite and into the disposal areas (NEA, 2009).
The themes of understandability are closely linked to issues of memory.

Spain:At Vandellòs, visitors can look at the stored graphite waste through peep-holes.

MemorySustaining a long-term relationship with a radioactive waste management facility
implies that the memory of the site is preserved, which means that both physicaland cultural measures are taken to mark the site and tell its story, so that people
will grasp and remember what is there. The NEA initiative “Preserving Records,
Knowledge and Memory across Generations” has delved deeply into the reasonsand the means for maintaining this memory. 3

Belgium:
At the request of the local partnerships Stora and MONA, ONDRAF/NIRAS
created a local fund, as a means to realise additional socio-economic added
value projects. A fund has been set up to last for many years. It allows future
generations to anticipate on changing needs in society. The nature of projects
and activities financed by this local fund may vary: they may have a social,economic or cultural character or be aimed at the environment, health, welfare,etc. The local fund is not only a manner to create persistent added value forthe society, it also plays an important role in keeping the memory alive. Eachinitiative, supported by the local fund, creates an opportunity to bring theorigin of the funds to attention, namely the repository for radioactive waste.

3.

32

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

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

France:Andra has observed that without memory preservation, closed down industrialsites may become lost or unreadable in as little as 20-30 years. A living history
should be composed by ongoing collection of records based on local experience,
communal archives, such as photos and written material. In parallel withresearch on archiving systems and materials, Andra considers that active
memory must rely on ongoing interactions with the local public. The local
information committees (Commissions locales d’information, CLI) must be
supported to play their fundamental role over time.

United Kingdom:
The UK National Nuclear Archive is expected to be built at Wick, one of themember communities of the Dounreay Site Stakeholders Group. The archive
will hold information in diverse quantitative and qualitative forms concerning
all 19 nuclear sites in the United Kingdom. Local communities want to knowwhat kind of nuclear and non-nuclear material is stored in their locality. They
also want to know about the social history of their community relationshipwith their site (including occupational health information). Much reflection is
given on how to ensure durable quality of information and knowledgetransmission in the archive, especially in light of the fact that different
operators and different sites have not always maintained adequate records
from the beginning. The Highland Council is partnering on this project byproviding the land, and its own North Highland archive will be housed in thesame installation (including clan history and genealogical records which arefrequently accessed by persons who no longer live in northern Scotland). The
national archive helps the history of nuclear facilities, Dounreay in particular,
to be integrated into larger community history.
For decades, technologists have reflected on the need to preserve site memory
by constructing durable markers. While the markers have a protective function,
marking the facility can also be a means to add cultural and amenity value. These
are important considerations if the memory of the radioactive waste management
facility and site is to be preserved over many, many generations into the far
future – a future much longer than the industrial experience to date.
Artist C. Massart reminded the participants at the FSC Belgian Workshop(18-21 November 2003) that we must archive information for the future, taking into
account that present-day meaning will fade away or become unreadable. She
showed how we can mark repository sites or facilities through symbolic, artisticmeans. This way, it is also possible to create new relationships, a newcontemporary dialogue around waste management (Massart, 2004). Massart
explained in an interview that everything that should be known, thought andretained about the actual repository site cannot be grasped in a single glance. The
site cannot be fully archived with a simple label: neither a detailed technicalpresentation, nor an eloquent discourse on “what is here and what it has meant inour society” will assuredly be readable over tens, hundreds or thousands of years.
Nor will simply reading produce in each person a maximum sense of “where he is”
and the presence and form of the waste. Massart suggested that we must multiply
the means through which a visitor may approach and form a relationship with the

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

33

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

repository site. The visitor may leave, each generation is likely to leave, withoutcomprehending and possessing the full sense of what is there, but “at least ourthoughts and questions are recorded”.
During the “Constructing Memory International Conference and Debate on the
Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory of Radioactive Waste acrossGenerations” (NEA, 2015), which took place in September 2014, C. Massart
presented her latest work on creating “laboratories” that would be placed in thearea of the disposal site. Her vision for those is to “fulfil the function of markers
and living research platforms at once. Through such laboratories, each generation
would try ‘to visualise’ the radioactive waste sites, thus creating an international
community of guardians, weaving a link from one generation to the next. The idea
is to bring together people with a variety of backgrounds (musicians,
archaeologists, writers, economists, artists, farmers, poets, among others) who
would reflect about the transmission of memory from an ethical, economic or
artistic perspective” (Massart, 2015).
The concept of memory is present in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention(UNESCO, 1972), which aims at listing monuments, groups of buildings and sites (inthe World Heritage List) to be placed under the protection of the UNESCO World
Heritage Committee, because they are considered of outstanding universal
significance and represent a unique achievement. Do long-term radioactive waste
management facilities potentially resemble this type of cultural property?
Considering the World Heritage inclusion criteria (testimony to a time and place,exerting considerable influence, associated with significant ideas, beliefs, events,etc.) may aid in conceiving and designing radioactive waste management facilities.
The criteria may help identify specific dimensions of cultural value (artistic,
historic, social and scientific) that a local community, and our society, would liketo see associated with a repository project.
Markers are being considered in some contexts of national repository
programme in order to reduce the possibility of human intrusion. Over the years
these markers would, inevitably, become part of the local heritage. However, theirsignificance will likely evolve and warning messages may be ignored, as it haslargely happened in the case of the Japanese tsunami stones (NEA, 2014a). Future
populations’ awareness of such markers, their understanding of the meaning of
the markers and their motivation to maintain them appear more likely to persist if
the facility is a positive part of daily community life for the several decades of its
operation than if it is something kept apart, isolated and forgotten (Pescatore andMays, 2008).

France:The CSM is planning to build a stela “indicating the main characteristics of therepository, potentially linked to an art work, will be erected at the repository”(NEA, 2015).
Local stakeholders express interest in preserving memory of waste
management installations (NEA, 2010a; NEA, 2013). A number of local stakeholders
have proposed that waste management facilities and sites should be accompaniedby science museums, visitors’ or communication centres. These proposals show

34

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

how our cultural design features of distinctiveness, understandability and memory
may be tightly linked in practice. Several complementary aims are addressed bythese community proposals: preservation of knowledge, demonstration of waste
management concepts and solutions, public accessibility of information, sitememory, reinforcement of regional identity, generation of tourism revenue and/or
creation of recreational amenity.
In particular cases, when mines were closed they were transformed intomining museums, offering a new tourism industry while memorialising theactivity that meant so much to the region and shaped it.

Belgium:
Stora recommended a communications centre in the vicinity of the repository
site, to serve as the point of reference for information regarding radioactivity,
its applications and consequences. An interactive science exhibit onradioactivity should be part of this centre. The partnerships are involved in theentire development process: volunteers join the table to discuss thearchitecture of the building and work out the content of the exhibition.

Canada:The Port Hope End Use Advisory Committee put forward the idea of aninterpretative centre or museum. This would pass along history on the nuclear
industry and “how we got to be what we are” in the local community: Port
Hope was the site of a radium processing industry, then was affected by legacy
waste and finally stepped forward to manage the waste on residents’ own
terms.

Hungary:
In the natural surroundings of the visitors’ centre in Bátaapáti, visitors candrink from a spring that local legend calls the “mother’s fountain”. Inside themuseum, waste generation, packaging and disposal, facility operations,environmental monitoring, and historical interrelations between the geologicalenvironment and local society, are presented in the centre of the show area.
These exhibits are encircled by presentations of local flora and fauna. The
centre acts as both a cultural destination and a venue for scientific lectures(NEA, 2009).

Sweden:The municipality of Östhammar considered the establishment of a sciencecentre or a time travel museum looking at spans of hundreds or thousands ofyears in both historical and prospective terms.
The idea of an on-site environmentally oriented geoscience centre or“experimenter facility” was highlighted by the Association of Swedish
Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities.
Creating a museum is similar to other heritage endeavours. Steps include:
study, selection and valorisation of the essential elements that should betransmitted over time beyond those directly involved in building or living with the

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

35

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

property. Museums allow others to observe and appreciate the technical and social
qualities of the past (and to enjoy while learning). In the radioactive waste
management realm, local proposals for museums may allow visitors and future
generations to understand the technical dimension of the waste management
activity. Even when this technical aspect is not memorialised, the culture(knowledge, tastes, aspirations, ethical views or beliefs) of the host community andtheir active part in building the centre or site recreational amenities can be madeapparent to future visitors.

3.3

Physical design features

The physical level of design is a familiar one for architects and engineers. The
factors found by the FSC (Table 4) suggest that they can seek to integrate thefacility into its physical setting, and increase site and facility amenity.
Table 4. Physical design features that help to maximise the added value brought
to a community by a radioactive waste management facility
Possible strategies toachieve the desired feature

Design feature

Characteristics

Value added

Integration

The installation respects
the “genius loci” (spirit of
the place), fits into thelandscape andcomplements it.

The installation enhances
people’s living space andtheir attachment to theplace.

Architects study and respect
the “genius loci”.

Amenity

The site includes featuresthat enhance its
attractiveness,convenience and usability.

People may actively go
towards the site and draw
enjoyment from viewing
and using it.

Architects, artists and thecommunity consult eachother on desirable
landscaping and equipment.

Accessibility

A large proportion of theinstallation surface is
open; fences and barriers
are reduced to theessential.

People get a feeling of
security and familiarity
rather than a sense of
threat.

Architects, planners andregulators seek to reconcile
protection and openness.

Integration
Integration means that care is taken to make the facility and site blend into thenatural or built landscape. The radioactive waste management installation can be
implanted with respect and regard for the harmony of the place.

36

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

Belgium:
Before laying the first brick for the Belgian surface disposal project,
ONDRAF/NIRAS consulted landscape architects to work out a “visual qualityplan” for the whole site. The undeveloped and hardly accessible area is to betransformed into an attractive and valuable nature park. The plan is the basis
for cohesion and visual quality through the whole area. Every building will be
integrated naturally into the landscape, so that it ensures as minimal
disruption as possible. The plan describes the materialisation of the buildings
and disposal modules, the maintenance of the surrounding nature, etc. The
area and its nature will be open for tourists and residents through a network ofpaths.

Spain:
Vandellòs-I reactor was closed in 1990 and while awaiting a management
facility, contaminated graphite is stored on-site in former reactor buildingsthat have been restructured and restyled. The city of Vandellòs is a beachresort and the existing building has been made more attractive in the local
landscape through various means. In particular, the site is no longer intrusive
to the view from an inland position: a special paint job makes the remaining
building blend into the natural setting by matching the green of the forest line
and the blue of the sea. Integration was improved by reducing the reactor
building from 90 to 60 metres in height.

Sweden:
The nuclear fuel and waste management company SKB asked an architect tothink about “industrial design with man in mind” for the future final repository
for spent nuclear fuel. “What will it look like? A big square industrial structure?”
The architect answered that it is important to get to know the site where thebuildings will stand and the “genius loci” or spirit of the place. New buildings
and industrial plants must be in harmony with the unique feeling each placehas. “When we are finished using the site we want to be able to leave it theway we found it. It should be able to resume its original appearance”. Security
features may be integrated in the form of natural obstacles and differences ofground level. The architect points out that in the areas investigated for siting
facilities, nature is not pristine, but shaped by man over the centuries. He tries
to capture the interplay between man and nature with the proposed placementof buildings, where “man has already made his mark on the landscape, taken
the land in his possession and tilled it for centuries; in this way the final
repository can be a continuation of the site’s history, revitalising it and keeping
it to the same course it has been following for millennia”.
Integration is a physical design concept, but it also has meaning in socioeconomic terms. The radioactive waste management facility and site should fit
into and stimulate other community projects and initiatives.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

37

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

Canada:Port Hope’s End Use Advisory Committee stipulates that repository planningshould consider long-term and integrated planning for, or compatibility with,the entire neighbourhood.

Sweden:The Oskarshamn municipality pointed out that “to be effective, the findings(on to be brought by a repository) must also be put in a broader perspective. All
municipality activities are part of a larger picture and none can be treated inisolation”. Considering a repository “forces discussion on prioritisation”.

Amenity
Amenity is any feature that enhances attractiveness and increases the user’s
satisfaction. It will be achieved in all the ways a radioactive waste management
facility or site can provide appealing resources for everyday use by the community.
This can be related to multifunctionality.

Belgium:
The communications centre combines a tourist and informative programmewith functionalities for the local community. The centre is surrounded by abeautiful nature park, ideal for walking and cycling. There will be acafe/restaurant with accompanying playground. A number of features for the
local community are also integrated into the building: multifunctional rooms,
conference rooms, a theatre, an exposition space, etc. This creates aconnection between the community and the disposal site, and it creates avibrant place for tourists and locals.

Canada:Port Hope’s vision for parallel uses of the low-level waste storage area targets
pleasant use of the area now and in the future. In the near term, the area canbe used for sports. A more far-sighted use as a garden aims to preserve green
acreage and its enjoyment for centuries to come.

Czech Republic:
Local stakeholders have suggested that a repository should bring with it local
amenities such as playgrounds and support for leisure activities (Kojo andRichardson, 2014).

Sweden:The industrial architect hired by SKB pointed out that designing a final
repository is “like designing a small city, with restaurants, offices, overnightaccommodation and everything”.

Accessibility
Accessibility means that the site and facility, even with fencing to ensure security,
are still open and welcoming. People can go towards the installation without
feeling unreasonable fear. Accessibility appears to be closely linked with feelings of

38

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

safety. Safety is more than just a technical concept – it also has everyday meaning
in the community.

Belgium:
From 2015, the HADES underground research laboratory will have its own
access, outside the SCK•CEN compound, hence becoming more easily
accessible for the public.

Hungary:
The main guideline adopted for designing the low- and intermediate-level
waste repository at Bátaapáti is openness. Visitors have to see clearly how
well-managed the site is. The Public Limited Company for Radioactive Waste
Management (PURAM) proposed screens through which people can see all
outdoor management processes such as waste container arrivals and handling.
At the same time, local people wish for the installation design to convey that it
is safe and that the protective barrier guarantees that no unauthorised persons
will enter (NEA, 2009).

Sweden:The industrial architect selected by SKB replied to the 2007 survey that “this isa facility you want to show off, not hide deep in the woods”. The access roadmust not give the impression that it is taking employees and visitors “to thesite of some suspicious enterprise. Rather, the final repository should radiate
openness, insight and transparency”. Later, at the 2011 FSC National Workshop
and Community Visit held in Sweden, the proposed design showed theintention to make the surface installations almost invisible from the sea
perspective. (In the summertime, thousands of tourists come to the area tostroll in the surrounding nature, enjoy the coast and swim in the sea). However,discussion revealed that another option could be to present an attractive
landmark to those approaching from the sea. A resolution must be foundbetween the desire to avoid calling attention to a facility and the need todemonstrate that a facility is a safe addition to a community, as well as alasting asset (NEA, 2012).
Meeting radiological safety demands – the primary condition set by the
stakeholders consulted for this study – is linked to how accessibility is managed.
While technical features will provide the agreed level of protection, physical design
elements will help create the feeling of security. 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 clearly must be safe. It no longer
seems to impose restraints on the user, nor shuts people out in an alarming way. It
accomplishes its goal of protection without emphasising danger. This style ofsafety differs from the traditional implementation found in many contexts.
Radioactive waste management projects today often push safety away from amilitaristic concept, towards an implementation that is more socially welcoming.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

39

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES

Canada:The Port Hope community determined early that the long-term low-level
radioactive waste management facility should be completely accessible,
thereby communicating assurance that it is completely safe. Since January
2005, the End Use Advisory Committee has developed framing principles for
deciding how the facility should be designed. Those directly related toaccessibility and safety are “First and foremost, ensure the safety of the
population; assure them of the site’s safety; make the site open and accessible;
and ensure public oversight through accessibility”.

Spain:The Vandellòs waste storage site can be visited without extensive personal
protection, and a confident feeling is produced by the ability to peer into thestorage area through portholes.

Sweden:In a similar manner, the underground offshore facility of the Swedish Final
Repository for Radioactive Operational (low- and-intermediate level) Waste canbe visited essentially in street clothing.
Certainly each and every area of a radioactive waste management facility
cannot be made open to the public. Areas restricted for the necessities of safety
and security need not benefit from the same degree of functional, cultural andphysical design input, for they are not aiming to add direct value to thecommunity. Still, the radioactive waste management facility and site should beconsidered in a holistic manner, in order to maximise the added value that it ispossible to achieve at reasonable cost.
Accessible installations serving multiple functions can be achieved only withthe careful co-operation of the regulator. Although the cultural approach cannot,
in and of itself, provide a demonstrable and technically based safety assurance,building a facility that is a positive, sustainable and accessible community feature
could add an additional layer of defence in depth, one beyond those contemplated
by technologists today.

40

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY THE PROCESS OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE FACILITY

4. Value added by the process of planningand implementing the facility

This section discusses benefits that may be gained from the very process ofplanning and implementing radioactive waste management projects that target
sustainability and quality of life. These benefits – local utility, capacity building,
local image refinement – should be understood as added value in and ofthemselves. The added value is found principally on the cultural level, witheconomic value present as well.

4.1

Local utility

As part of its basic function a radioactive waste management facility should serve
the local community. Local utility means that the radioactive waste management
facility provides jobs and stability to the community. Services may be provided aswell.

Belgium:
In order to minimise road transport, the Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste
and Enriched Fissile Materials (ONDRAF/NIRAS) built a quay for the supply of
raw materials. Local enterprises can also take advantage of this newly created
quay.
Local durable employment creates ties, bonds and memory – cultural benefits –as well as prosperity. Many communities point out the need to gain stable, durable
employment with a radioactive waste management facility and not just service
jobs associated with a temporary influx of workers or the creation of a small
number of expert positions.
Moreover, there may be special demands imparted by the long-term nature ofradioactive waste management. How can high socio-economic potential andquality of life be favoured by the very presence of the radioactive waste
management programme in the host community?

Canada:The Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) descriptionof its siting process for a geological repository of used nuclear fuel (NWMO,
2010) highlights the organisation’s commitment to fostering well-being in thecommunity and surrounding area through the implementation of the project.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

41

VALUE ADDED BY THE PROCESS OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE FACILITY

Spain:The multi-stakeholder research programme Cowam-Spain investigated therole of financial support to host communities in ensuring sustainable
development. Moving beyond the concept of short-term compensation or
incentives, future instruments should enable local and regional development,
help the community assume responsibility for waste generated for the benefit
of society at large, and also serve to create and maintain local knowledge andcompetence to monitor management over the coming decades and generations(NEA, 2006b).

United Kingdom:
In their reply to a national consultation, then UK waste management company
Nirex stressed the need for suitable long-term projects that would help support
the sustainability of the radioactive waste management facility hostcommunity. The Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum (NuLeAF) of the UK Local
Government Association, drafted a policy statement recommending benefit
packages “with an emphasis on contributing to the sustainable development of
the affected area and the well-being of local communities and theirdescendants” (NuleAf, 2006).
Local utility lessons may be drawn from other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle orother industries in which there is experience with declining industrial activity anddecommissioning.

Canada:In the far north, where uranium is mined, the traditional aboriginal culture is
still dominant locally. It is important to organise sustainable modern economic
activities in harmony with ongoing traditional activities. A miner gets morecommunity respect and satisfaction from being a skilled and experienced
trapper. France’s Cogema (now Areva) recognised that miners should enjoy
working conditions (time schedules, geographic placement) allowing them todevote themselves meaningfully to traditional skills. In this case, local utility
implies the provision of resources enabling people to preserve theirenvironment and perpetuate their traditional culture despite modern
economic pressures. Furthermore, the uranium industry has committed to thelong-term goal of offsetting diminishing mineral resources by the creation ofother economic opportunities. Specialised academic and technical trainings
allow greater numbers of northern people to move up into the mining
management ranks. As their economic and educational level rises, the workforce is becoming more flexible and competent. Successful northern-owned aswell as joint-owned service industries have taken root (NEA, 2003).

European Union:
An existing European regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of
23 July 2002 on state aid to the coal industry) relative to mining in general
stipulates that host compensation funds must not all be ear-marked for shortterm needs, but must be directed in part to generating economic and social
resources that will sustain the local communities over the long term.

42

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY THE PROCESS OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE FACILITY

Every waste management facility will eventually reach the end of its
operational life and pass into a post-operational phase when human intervention
is no longer expected. While the active period of construction and operation may
generate palpable economic benefits for the host region, this is less likely duringlater phases characterised by indirect oversight. Therefore, the present-day
creation of added cultural and amenity value and present-day contributions tocommunity resiliency, may provide a positive legacy that outlasts some benefits
achieved by pure economic means. While such multi-generational value additions
as infrastructure, health services and employment may be spontaneously targetedby the community (Réaud, Schieber and Schneider, 2009), the identification of
amenity and cultural value needs special attention.

France:With this perspective in mind, the French National Agency for Radioactive
Waste Management (Andra) has developed a number of activities on the site of
the Manche Surface Repository (Centre de Stockage de la Manche, CSM). These
include guided tours, exhibitions, collaboration with associations linked to the
topic of memory and the foundation of a think tank (composed of retired
Andra staff and other nuclear professionals, archivists, artists, local citizens
and locally elected officials) tasked with finding ways to transfer the history
and memory of the CSM to future generations (NEA, 2015). Through this thinktank and efforts to remember and develop the local utility of the facility, an
important sustainability effort has been made by Andra.

4.2

Capacity building

If the decision-making process is fair, inclusive and equitable, communities may
draw cultural value from the very process of deliberating about hosting aradioactive waste management facility or site. This added value may lie inenhanced capacity to address quality-of-life issues, increased empowerment andsocial capital.
At first sight it is not easy to measure or quantify the cultural or amenity valuethat a facility could add to the community. Local democratic institutions, however,
may assemble important information when deliberating on what it would mean tointegrate a radioactive waste management facility into the community. They may
gain a more complete view of community goals and resources. In particular,
quality of life is a primary concern of communities when contemplating hosting an
industrial facility.

United States:
Through the process of developed detailed economic, fiscal, social,environmental and public health and safety indicators, Clark County in thestate of Nevada has enhanced its self-knowledge and understanding of theelements that are important to residents and community identity. Clark
County has accrued “cohesive integration of community resources and […]a system for long-term monitoring of impacts through community indicator
tracking and evaluation”. This results in improved decision-making capability

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

43

VALUE ADDED BY THE PROCESS OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE FACILITY

and adaptability that will benefit the community whether or not the repository
is authorised for construction one day.
A constructive local multi-stakeholder discussion of how radioactive waste is
to be managed creates social capital that may remain available to the community.
Where there is municipal leadership and motivation to join this discussion, skills,
knowledge, networks and trust are created. These constitute a cultural fund on
which the community may draw in other circumstances (not least importantly, inthe later phases of radioactive waste management).

Belgium:
The Belgian low-level waste management partnerships draw upon theaccumulated experience of the diverse participants. They have created social
capital in the form of inter-stakeholder networks, shared knowledge andmutual trust. Significantly, the Belgian communities want to realise theirinvestment by using the committee structure to address other unrelated local
topics. They have maintained the existing structures to face new steps in theradioactive waste management siting process (Dessel was designated in July
2006). The conditions – imposed by the partnerships – were further concretised
in a master plan (ONDRAF/NIRAS, 2010). This plan was the basis for further
close co-operation between ONDRAF/NIRAS and the partnerships. In numerous
working groups, volunteers contribute intensively to the shaping of all projectcomponents, both technical and social. The steering committee comprises
representatives of both MONA and Stora and the mayors of Dessel and Mol.
This work method ensures local support, a high degree of commitment andeven a sense of pride.

Sweden:When the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB)
applied, in March 2011, to build a final repository at Forsmark, this did not
signify that the Östhammar community had given its green light for thisconstruction within its territory. Instead, the municipality accepted (alongside
the safety and land-use authorities and the government decision maker) toreview the licensing application to build a repository. To address this expectedfive-year process, the municipality created an independent review
organisation to decide whether or not to exercise its veto power at any time
during the procedure, keeping in mind the best interest of the Östhammar
citizens. The review organisation counts 40 persons and is made up of
3 committees (responsible for examining long-term safety issues orenvironmental/health issues, or for organising consultation). Five civil servants
are employed on the issue. The municipality has access to the national Waste
Fund (generated by a tax on each kWh) to support their knowledge building
activities, and politicians are empowered to take decisions for which they thus
become accountable.
In contexts where a siting process has not yet narrowed to the point ofdesignating a particular locality, co-operative study and deliberation can be useful.
Stakeholders in potential candidate communities can make contacts and form
relationships with their peers and with national-level actors.

44

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY THE PROCESS OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE FACILITY

Belgium:
For the long-term management of high-level and/or long-lived radioactive
waste, ONDRAF/NIRAS recommends a global geological disposal solution,
including a technical solution that fits into a decision-making processintegrating the technical and societal aspects in its Waste Plan
(ONDRAF/NIRAS, 2011). The development and implementation of this process
is accompanied by a series of conditions arising from the societal consultation
organised on the initiative of ONDRAF/NIRAS (such as the ONDRAF/NIRAS
dialogues, the interdisciplinary conference and the citizens’ conference[Fondation Roi Baudouin, 2010]) and from the legal consultation in theframework of the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) procedure.
ONDRAF/NIRAS would prefer that the process progress in steps, be adaptable,
participative and transparent, and ensures continuity. The participatory
decision-making process will be independently monitored.

Czech Republic:
A Working Group for Dialogue on the Site Selection Process for a Deep
Geological Repository was established in 2010 as an advisory body of the
Ministry of Industry and Trade. This group includes mayors, non-governmentorganisations, parliamentarians, implementers, regulators, experts in sociology,
law and geology and responsible ministries. Its objective is to define acceptable
criteria for transparent site selection. The group is pluralistic, meaning that it
can embrace vertical issues (relationships between national, regional and local
actors, as well as the degree of fit with international requirements) and also
horizontal issues (varying aspirations and priorities, and differing definitions ofrisk and benefit across stakeholder groups). The evolution of the working groupfrom an informal to an institutionalised advisory body is rare in internationalterms. At the same time, however, this group views that it has not been able todeliver its full potential as a neutral platform to help build up relationships andprepare more active stages of repository development (NEA, 2014b). To
empower its mandate the Working Group for Dialogue has been transformed
into a Governmental Council for Energy and Raw Material Strategy to reachdirect contact to the government.
The Cowam-2 project created thematic co-operative research groups at theEuropean level. The group, which focused on long-term governance of radioactive
waste management, concluded that alongside socio-economic and legal provisions,the community’s capacity to monitor its facility must be maintained over thegenerations (Lavelle, Schieber and Schneider, 2013). Sustainability funds, intended
to improve quality of life over the following decades, were designated bypartnership initiatives in Belgium as a condition for hosting a repository. In Spain,
stakeholders consider that such funds should be used to enhance the community’scapacity to play a future oversight role.

Spain:The project Cowam-Spain suggested that radioactive waste management
stakeholders, including local and regional authorities, should focus on devisingmechanisms for social learning, economic development and environmental

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

45

VALUE ADDED BY THE PROCESS OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE FACILITY

protection over the long term, to be supported by grant funds. Experience has
already been gained in Spain in the decommissioning area: in the context of
dismantling Vandellòs-I, where a multi-stakeholder, the Municipal Monitoring
Commission, oversaw work progress, safety, waste management,
environmental surveillance and contracted personnel issues (Castellnou
Barceló, 2006). Waste management facilities and sites diminish the green acres
available to a community and their resource capital must be replenished inanother way. Integrated waste facility projects can generate added value on
the intellectual and cultural plane, increasing the ability of future generations
to take decisions.

Sweden:Oskarshamn has a good economic development status. However, the local
educational level is lower than in Sweden’s regions that are experiencing
higher levels of economic expansion. The municipality never considered theradioactive waste management project as primarily a source of economic
compensations. Safety was the primary concern; the working groups added
deliberations and research on added value for the community in later stages of
the candidacy. A rising educational level was seen to be one potential benefit.
In Oskarshamn, it was recognised that taking decisions whose benefits may be
soft and not immediately observable, requires boldness and vision (theexample of the once-rejected, now lauded Eiffel Tower was quoted).

United States:
Nye County in the state of Nevada comprises the nation’s candidate site fordeep geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste,
Yucca Mountain. The county has a co-operative agreement with the
US Department of Energy (DOE) to collect data and perform research vital to
the repository research and development project, for example regarding
ground water movements. Nye County has over a dozen recognised expert
earth scientists and subcontracts some tasks to universities. The studies not
only serve the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP), but also increase the knowledge
base regarding ground water resources for future regional development.
Should the repository be built, it is anticipated that the influx of scientists witha high educational demand for their families will produce added value for theentire community through reinforcement of the rural school system.
(Of interest is the Nye County Comprehensive Community Protection Plan
which outlines the measures required to protect the health, safety andeconomic well-being of Nye County residents as repository hosts. Alongside
many detailed measures to create a sustainable long-term partnership with
the DOE, the plan outlines requirements for ongoing institutional oversight by
the county.)
Carlsbad in the state of New Mexico, where the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant(WIPP) repository is sited, has already begun to draw the cultural benefits ofhosting a highly educated workforce. The local community stakeholders pointout that the workers from the national laboratories and contractors are
involved in all aspects of the local community life. Their involvement
enhances and improves the culture within the community.

46

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

VALUE ADDED BY THE PROCESS OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE FACILITY

4.3

Image refinement

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 inthe siting 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 are taking an active role. They increasingly expect a
projected facility to fit their concept of safety and amenity, and are willing to work
hard to achieve this. 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 radioactive waste
management facility, this ought to be a true article of local pride. Such an objective
leads to creativity: communities imagine cultural elements that will define theproject as an asset in an overall development vision.
A repository may not be compatible with a local image.

Canada:The Councils of the Municipality of Port Hope decided to take an active role
when federal efforts failed to find a new host for legacy low-level radioactive
wastes. Elected officials approached the federal government with local
solutions based on local values and desires. They then entered into a legal
agreement for the long-term management at three sites. In this way, thecommunities transformed liabilities into assets. Valuable cultural changes
occurred through this search for a solution to a long-standing environmental
problem. The communities have developed their identity and image as
problem-solvers. Once stigmatised as a contaminated community, Port Hopehas gone on to develop a new image as a tourist destination and “a great place
to live, work and play”.

Sweden:In the Municipality of Storuman in Sweden there was a significant opposition
feeling that their image of being Europe’s last wilderness was not compatible
with representations of a nuclear waste repository (Tourist Entrepreneur Stig
Stand, Storuman 1994, quoted in the Oskarshamn questionnaire response tothis study). For an industrial community, in contrast, a repository may havethe potential to enhance the local image.
As a candidate, Oskarshamn took an active part in a social science project
looking at ways to integrate a repository with the community identity andimage. “We are not accepting a waste dump; we are accepting a hightechnology facility for the purpose of protecting our environment and ourcoming generations. This should enhance and sharpen our local ‘brand’ profile
already expressed by our motto ‘Oskarshamn – the municipality with energy’.
Engaging in such studies was part of the Oskarshamn ambition to engage in a

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

47

VALUE ADDED BY THE PROCESS OF PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE FACILITY

partnership with the industry and not be seen as a ‘target for decisions taken
elsewhere’”.
In many countries, the communities that have gone furthest in considering aradioactive waste management facility project are those which already count a
nuclear installation within their territory. These may be called communities withindustry awareness. This should not be primarily seen as a sign of economic
dependency and certainly not as a willingness to sacrifice safety (Hetherington,2003). Instead, it should be recognised that host communities have alreadyintegrated the industrial activity and cognitive understanding into their local
culture. This has been referred to in the past simply as familiarity, but in fact it
may be called an existing cultural basis for facility development. In thesecommunities, solid support to engage is often found among the public. Whereothers see radioactive waste management facilities as threats, these communities
see the potential of something to be proud of, an advanced facility that solves anational environmental problem relating to an energy source that is also familiar
to the community. Developing joint solutions consists of building on and adding tothat existing cultural basis.

48

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

CONCLUSIONS

5. Conclusions

Long-term radioactive waste management projects can last anywhere fromdecades to centuries and can have a considerable impact on the surrounding
community. Such projects require more than short-term fixes to facilitate a projectand installation at a physical site. Indeed, the societal durability of an agreed
solution and its sustainability over the long term are essential to a project’s
success. In the 1st century BC, classical Roman architect Vitruvius outlined what
good architecture should achieve. He stated that a structure must exhibit the three
qualities of firmitas, utilitas, venustas: it must be strong or durable, useful andbeautiful. These are the sought-after qualities of a radioactive waste management
installation, for both the physical building structures and for the benefits that the
installation can bring to the community.
The greatest challenge, both technical and societal, is to create a local operating
facility that can fulfil its mission over generations. Alongside scientific knowledge,
technical competency and resources for implementing an agreed approach, there
must be a continued willingness to maintain the facility. Moreover, radioactive
waste management projects must support the sustainable development of the hostcommunity and its long-term capacity to continue hosting the facility. As part ofthese efforts, it is important to decide how a facility and its site can be better
integrated into the community; how the facility and site can be made attractive forthe long term, and ultimately, how it can improve a community’s prospects for
quality of life across generations.
Communities do not gain added value and sustainability solely through financial
compensation and development opportunities. While these economic factors areimportant, radioactive waste management projects also offer opportunities toimprove well-being, consolidate knowledge, fulfil value ideals, elaborate community
identity and image, and live out desired social relationships. Such opportunities canbe seized when planning and implementing a facility.
Today, partnerships between host communities and radioactive waste
management institutions (industry, policy bodies, etc.) are reflecting on how to build
a long-term, sustainable relationship with a facility. Different countries and regions
are likely to have different socio-political realities and therefore best practices for
one region may not be best for another. It should nonetheless be possible to extend
and structure this reflection by exchanging ideas at the international level.
A number of basic elements for designing a radioactive waste management
facility have been identified based on the analysis of input from stakeholders and on
the experiences of the Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC). These design
elements include functional, cultural and physical features. Among the functionalfeatures, multifunctionality or polyvalence should be highlighted, meaning that the

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 201549

CONCLUSIONS

facility is built to serve multiple uses. Other important functional features include
adaptability and flexibility. Distinctiveness should be mentioned as one of thecultural features, whereby the radioactive waste management facility or site is
attractive and unique, and has the potential to become a local landmark, lending to a
positive reputation and drawing visitors. Other cultural features include
understandability: the installation can be tied to existing knowledge and related toeveryday life. Thanks to its aesthetic quality – meaning that both physical andcultural markers identify the site and tell its story – people grasp and remember
what is there. Finally, physical design features include integration, amenity andaccessibility, which can help the facility and site correspond to the local definition ofa safe, unthreatening environment.
This report examines the added value that may arise from the decision-making
and implementation process. Implementing any radioactive waste management
facility has the potential to benefit the community in terms of prosperity, but in thebest of cases, increased stability and cohesiveness are also gained, which represent
added cultural value. Other cultural benefits that may be accrued are an enhanced
educational level in the host community because of the influx of highly skilledworkers. Not least important, when host communities demand training andparticipate in monitoring site development and operations, they are building theircapacity to act as guardians and therefore ensure another layer of defence in depth.
The very process of working out the desired features of a radioactive waste
management facility and site can bring added value to the community. This has been
the conclusion of local stakeholders who take an active role in site investigations, or
who participate with implementers in formal partnerships. Social capital – networks,
norms and trust – is built, equipping the community to face other decisions and issues.
Local stakeholders may also focus their work on community identity, image andprofile. Even when communities are not favourable to hosting a radioactive waste
management facility they can use the opportunity to develop quality-of-life indicatorsand reflect on the direction they want to take in the coming years.
While this publication highlights some experiences to date, it cannot provide
universal guidelines. Added cultural and amenity value is specific to each context.
As recognised by many, it is vital that the concerned stakeholders work out whatkind of solution is desired and appropriate for their own setting. Radioactive waste
management stakeholders are encouraged to investigate the experience of otherindustries in similar settings and with comparable challenges, as they may learn
from specific solutions that have produced added value within a given local
framework.
Examples gathered in this report show that there is a practicable path whenbuilding facilities that favour a sustainable relationship with the community.
Sustainability and value added themes nevertheless remain a new topic inradioactive waste management stakeholder discussions. While such potentiallylasting value additions as infrastructure, health services and employment arequickly targeted by potential host communities, special attention must also be given
to identifying cultural and amenity values, because of their major role in preserving
knowledge and memory. This report, which has received input from a wide range ofcontexts, will be beneficial to both communities and national radioactive waste
management programmes when fostering durable relationships.
50

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

REFERENCES

6. References

AkEnd (2002), “Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites, Recommendations of the
AkEnd – Committee on a Site Selection Procedure for Repository Sites”,
Arbeitskreis Auswahlverfahren Endlagerstandorte, Salzgitter, www.curie.ornl.gov/
system/files/documents/SEA/Site_Selection_Procedure_for_Repository_Sites.pdf.
Bergmans, A. (2010), International Benchmarking of Community Benefits Related to Facilities
for Radioactive Waste Management, ONDRAF/NIRAS, Brussels, www.edram.info/up
loads/media/2010-01_EDRAM_Com_Benefits_Final_ENG_.pdf.
Castellnou Barceló, J. (2006), “R+D confiance en un territoire producteur d’énergie
nucléaire?” in Proceedings of the Topical Session of the 6th Meeting of the FSC on "The Link
between RD&D and Stakeholder Confidence", OECD, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/rwm/docs/2006/rwm-fsc2006-4-rev1.pdf.
Codée, H. and E. Verhoef (2015), “What’s the story? Using art, stories and cultural
heritage to preserve knowledge and memory”, in Radioactive Waste Management andConstructing Memory for Future Generations: Proceedings of the International Conference
and Debate, 15-17 September 2014, Verdun, France, OECD, Paris.
CoRWM (2006), “Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoWRM’s Recommendations
to Government”, Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, London,
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/294118/7
00_-_CoRWM_July_2006_Recommendations_to_Government_pdf.
Dumont, J-N. and F. Espiet (2015), “Memory provisions for the Manche Surface
Repository”, in Radioactive Waste Management and Constructing Memory for Future
Generations: Proceedings of the International Conference and Debate, 15-17 September
2014, Verdun, France, OECD, Paris.
European Union Law (2002), “Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on
State aid to the coal industry”, Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) L 205/1 (2August 2002), www.eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002
R1407&from=EN.
European Union Law (1985), “Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on theassessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on theenvironment”, Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) L 175/40 (5 July 1985),
www.eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31985L0337.
Fondation Roi Baudouin (2010), “Conférence citoyenne : Comment décider de la gestion
à long terme des déchets radioactifs de haute activité et de longue durée de vie?”(in French), Fondation Roi Baudouin, Brussels, www.ondraf-plandechets.be/nieuw/downloads/pdf/1968-FRB-POD-Ondraf.pdf.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

51

REFERENCES

Hetherington, J. (2003), “Community involvement: Stakeholder learning in the UK
and Canada”, in Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The
Canadian Context, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/pubs/2003/4292-publicconfidence-canadian-context.pdf.
Ipsen, D. (2000), “Civil landscapes and changing modes of participation” in
Stakeholder Confidence and Radioactive Waste Disposal, OECD, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/rwm/reports/2000/nea2829.pdf.
Kojo, M. and P. Richardson (2014), “The use of community benefits approaches inthe siting of nuclear waste management facilities”, Energy Strategy Reviews,
Vol. 4, pp. 34-42, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2014.06.004.
Kojo, M. and P. Richardson (2013), “Stakeholders’ Views on Added Value
Approaches: Results of the first WP4 Questionnaire (2011-12)”, IPPA Deliverable
4.2 (EC Contract Number: 269849), University of Tampere and Galson Sciences,Ltd, www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/ippa-deliverable-4-2stakeholders-views-on-added-value-approaches.pdf.
Kojo, M. and P. Richardson (2012), “The Added Value Approach – Clarifying the Key
Concepts”, IPPA Deliverable 4.1 (EC Contract Number: 269849), University of
Tampere and Galson Sciences, Ltd., www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/
files/deliverables/IPPA-Deliverable-4_1-the-added-value-approach%20.pdf.
Kotra, J. (2003), “How to address social concerns? Round table discussions during
session II of the Forum on Stakeholder Confidence Workshop in Canada”, inPublic Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context,
OECD,
Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/pubs/2003/4292public-confidencecanadian-context.pdf.
Lavelle, S., C. Schieber and T. Schneider (2013), “Ethics and governance of nuclear
technology: The case of the long term management of radioactive wastes”, inDoridot, F. (Ed.), Ethical Governance of Emerging Technologies Development, IGI
Global, Hershey.
Massart, C. (2015), “Constructing memory through artistic practices”, in Radioactive
Waste Management and Constructing Memory for Future Generations: Proceedings of theInternational Conference and Debate, 15-17 September 2014, Verdun, France, OECD,
Paris.
Massart, C. (2004), “How plural interests, values and knowledge could be translated
into a concrete radwaste disposal project design: An artist’s vision”, in Dealing
with Interests, Values and Knowledge in Managing Risk, OECD, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/rwm/pubs/2004/5301-dealing-values-knowledge.pdf.
NAPA (1997), Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits Fairly AcrossGenerations, National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC,
www.homer.ornl.gov/sesa/environment/reports/napa.pdf.
NEA (2015), Radioactive Waste Management and Constructing Memory for Future Generations:
Proceedings of the International Conference and Debate, 15-17 September 2014, Verdun,
France, OECD, Paris.

52

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

REFERENCES

NEA (2014a), “Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory across Generations(RK&M): Markers – Reflections on Intergenerational Warnings in the Form ofJapanese Tsunami Stones”, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2014/rwm-r2014-4.pdf.
NEA (2014b), “Deliberating Together on Geological Repository Siting: Expectations
and Challenges in the Czech Republic”, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/
docs/2014/rwm-r2014-1.pdf.
NEA (2013,) “Local Communities’ Expectations and Demands on Monitoring and
the Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory of a Deep Geological
Repository”, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2013/rwm-r2013-4.pdf.
NEA (2012), “Actual Implementation of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Sweden:
Seizing Opportunities”, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2012/rwmr2012-2.pdf.
NEA (2011), “Regional Elected Authorities as Stakeholders in Radioactive Waste
Management: Their Needs, Interests and Aspirations - Co-operating with
Regional Elected Authorities”, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/
docs/2010/rwm-fsc2010-3.pdf.
NEA (2010a), Partnering for Long-Term Management of Radioactive Waste: Evolution andCurrent Practice in Thirteen Countries, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/
rwm/pubs/2010/6823-partnering-management.pdf.
NEA (2010b), More than Just Concrete Realities: the Symbolic Dimension of Radioactive
Waste Management, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2010/nea6869symbolic.pdf.
NEA (2010c) Repositories and Host Regions: Envisaging the Future Together, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/fsc/documents/FSC_Workshop_France_2009_
Proceedings_En_000.pdf.
NEA (2009), Regional development and community support for waste management, OECD,
Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2009/6258-FSC-Hungary.pdf.
NEA (2007a), Fostering a Durable Relationship Between a Waste Management Facility andits Host Community: Adding Value Through Design and Process, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2007/nea6176-fostering.pdf.
NEA (2007b), Radioactive Waste Management in Spain: Co-ordination and Projects, OECD,
Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/pubs/2007/6116-fsc-workshop-spain.pdf.
NEA (2006a), “Proceedings of the Topical Session of the 6th Meeting of the FSC on
The Link between RD&D and Stakeholder Confidence”, OECD, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/rwm/docs/2006/rwm-fsc2006-4-rev1.pdf.
NEA (2006b), “Coordination of Decision Making in Spain: The "COWAM SPAIN"
Initiative and the Current Project under Consideration for a National Interim
Storage Facility for Spent Fuel and High Level Waste”, OECD, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/rwm/docs/2006/rwm-fsc2006-7.pdf.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

53

REFERENCES

NEA (2004a), Dealing with Interests, Values and Knowledge in Managing Risk, OECD,
Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/pubs/2004/5301-dealing-values-knowledge.pdf.
NEA (2004b), Stepwise Approach to Decision Making for Long-term Radioactive Waste
Management: Experience, Issues and Guiding Principles, OECD, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/rwm/reports/2004/nea4429-stepwise.pdf.
NEA (2003), Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian
Context,
OECD,
Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/pubs/2003/4292-publicconfidence-canadian-context.pdf.
NEA (2000), Stakeholder Confidence and Radioactive Waste Disposal, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2000/nea2829.pdf.
NuLeAF Steering Group (2006), Implementing policy on the long-term management ofradioactive wastes: Draft Outline Policy Statement 1, NuLeAF, www.nuleaf.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/Implementing-LT-Management-Policy-Statement-1June-06.pdf.
NWMO (2010), “Moving Forward Together: Process for Selecting a Site for Canada’s
Deep Geological Repository for Used Nuclear Fuel”, Nuclear Waste
Management Organization, Toronto, www.nwmo.ca/uploads_managed/Media
Files/1545_processforselectingasiteforcan.pdf.
O’Connor, M. (2003), “Building Relationships with the Wastes”, in Public Confidence in theManagement of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context, OECD, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/rwm/pubs/2003/4292-public-confidence-canadian-context.pdf.
OECD (2013), OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, OECD, Paris,dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en.
ONDRAF/NIRAS (2011), Waste Plan for the long-term management of conditioned highlevel and/or long-lived radioactive waste and overview of related issues (NIROND
2011-02 E), Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials,
Brussels, www.ondraf-plandechets.be/nieuw/downloads/Waste%20plan%20-%
20English.pdf.
ONDRAF/NIRAS (2010), The cAt project in Dessel: Master Plan, A long-term solution for
Belgian category A waste, Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched
Fissile Materials, Brussels, www.niras-cat.be/downloads/cAt_masterplanENG.pdf.
Pescatore, C. and C. Mays (2008), “Geological disposal of radioactive waste: Records,
markers and people - An integration challenge to be met over millennia” in NEA
News No. 26, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/pub/newsletter/2008/NEA_News_
Vol_26.pdf.
Putnam, R. (1995), “Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital”, Journal of
Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Réaud, C., C. Schieber and T. Schneider (2009), “Sustainable Territorial Development
Associated with Radioactive Waste Management”, Report D2-5/A (Final Research
Briefs 2), COWAM in Practice (European Commission contract FP6/036455), Centred'étude sur l’Évaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire, Paris.

54

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

REFERENCES

Simard, M. (2002), “Urban Quality of Life and Industrial Project Management: The
Case of Alcan Aluminium Smelter in Alma, Quebec, Canada”, in Public
Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context, OECD,
Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/pubs/2003/4292-public-confidence-canadiancontext.pdf.
UNECE (2013), “Report of the Task Force on Public Participation in Decision-making”
on its fourth meeting, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe,
New York, www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/ppdm/4th_PPDM/ECE.MP.PP.
WG.1.2013.6_as_submitted.pdf.
UNESCO (2001), “Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity”, United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0012/001271/127162e.pdf.
UNESCO (1972), “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural andNatural Heritage”, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, Paris, http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext.
UN/WCED (1987), “Report of the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment: Our Common Future (Brundtland Report)”, United Nations World
Commission on Environment and Development, New York, www.undocuments.net/wced-ocf.htm.
Van Hove, E. (2004), “Valorisation of a repository in an added value project”, in
Dealing with Interests, Values and Knowledge in Managing Risk, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/pubs/2004/5301-dealing-values-knowledge.pdf.
Webster, S. (2000), “Deliberations of Working Group 3 - Stakeholders and the
public: Who are they”, in Stakeholder Confidence and Radioactive Waste Disposal,
pp. 117-119, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2000/nea2829.pdf, OECD, Paris,.
Wylie, R. (2010), “COWAM in Practice Methodological Task Force Research Brief:
Defining an Affected Community”, Westlakes Scientific Consulting Ltd, Cumbria,
www.cowam.com/IMG/pdf_D2-3_D_Defining_an_Affected_Community.pdf.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

55

ANNEX 1: STAKEHOLDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Annex 1. Stakeholder acknowledgements

The research and reflection at the basis of this report were first discussed at theForum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) meetings in 2005 and 2006, and the firstedition of the publication was issued in 2007. The theme “Increasing the Value ofWaste Management Facilities to Local Communities” was then added to theforum’s regular programme of work and case studies continued to be investigated.
The 2014-2015 update of this publication includes examples gathered during the
FSC national workshops and community visits. All Internet hyperlinks wereverified in July/August 2014.
The field study conducted for the original publication benefited from direct
input by 32 different stakeholder sources covering 20 localities or radioactive waste
management programmes. FSC participants were invited to provide input, as weresome stakeholders from outside the forum. The aim was to obtain a variety ofviews, not a fully representative sample. The following stakeholders filled out aquestionnaire, gave written comments, or granted a telephone interview (from end
2005 to mid-2006):•

Harald Åhagen (Oskarshamn, Sweden).

•Anni Bölenius (Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company[SKB]).

•

Vernon Daub (US Department of Energy, Carlsbad Office).

•

Miquel Ferrús (The Association of Spanish Municipalities [AMAC] and Groupof European Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities).

•

Evelyn Hooft (Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile
Materials [ONDRAF/NIRAS]).

•

Hans Jivander (Östhammar, Sweden).

•

Josefin Jonsson (Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate [SKI]).

•

June Love (UK Atomic Energy Authority).

•

Meritxell Martell (Enviros, Spain).

•

Philip Moding (Swedish Association of Municipalities with Nuclear Reactors[KSO]).

•

Irene Navis, Sheila
United States).

•Gérald Ouzounian (National Radioactive Waste Management Agency[Andra], France).

ConwayFOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

andJeremyAguero(ClarkCounty,57

ANNEX 1: STAKEHOLDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS•

Roland Palmqvist (Kävlinge, Sweden).

•

Luc Smeyers (MONA, Mol, Belgium).

•

Liz Stewart and Mark Stevenson (Port Hope, Canada).

•

David Swanson (Nye County, United States).

•

Yves Le Bars (Cemagref, France).

•

Steve Chandler (UK Environment Agency).

•

Elizabeth Gray (Scottish Executive).

•

Elizabeth Atherton (Nirex, United Kingdom).

•

Hideki Sakuma (National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste[Nagra], Switzerland).

•Auguste Zurkinden (Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate [HSK]).

•

Michael Aebersold (Swiss Federal Office of Energy, or Bundesamt für Energie[BFE]).

Special thanks are offered to the local stakeholder representatives and experts
who participated in the June 2006 topical session entitled “Forming a Sustainable
Relationship to a Waste Facility”: Roland Palmqvist (Mayor of Kävlinge andPresident of the Group of European Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities (GMF);
Peter Wretlund (Mayor of Oskarshamn); Ursula Rüetter-Fishbacher (Social
Researcher), Professor Erik Van Hove (University of Antwerp, retired) and to thespecialists who granted interviews: Pascal Gontier (Ecological Architect, Paris),
Cécile Massart (Artist and Professor of Art, Brussels).
Various observations inspired the FSC to think about how to build asustainable, long-term relationship between a radioactive waste management
facility and the community:•

Professor Martin O’Connor pointed out the importance of the relationshipbetween the community and the waste itself (O’Connor, 2003).

•

Professor Erik Van Hove emphasised that the facility should not be seen
solely as a waste management instrument; an attractive, multifunctional
facility has more chances to become a positive part of community life,
contributing to enjoyment and local pride (Van Hove, 2004).

•

Artist Cécile Massart showed how a waste facility can become an art object
and how it is important to preserve the memory of disposal, not just forsafety reasons, but also because radioactive waste has unique societal
significance (Massart, 2004).

•

The Sellafield enquiry of 1997 mentioned as one disabling community
objection to planned radioactive waste management surface buildings thatthey would impact negatively upon the amenity of the host region.

The 2007 study was discussed at FSC meetings in 2005 and 2006. The report
was written by Claire Mays (Symlog) and Claudio Pescatore (NEA), with valuableguidance from the FSC and from Professor Erik Van Hove.

58

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

ANNEX 2: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Annex 2. Glossary of terms

In this glossary, some basic terms encountered during the study (italicised in themain body of the report) are defined.

Added value
The increase in worth of a product or service provided by features and benefits
over and above those representing the core product.

Amenity
Feature of real property that although not essential to use, enhances its
attractiveness and increases the user’s satisfaction. It is a positive enhancement toliving environment conditions, providing convenience, comfort, satisfaction orappeal.
Natural amenities include a pleasant or desirable location, scenic surroundingarea, etc. Human-made amenities include recreational and other facilities forcollective use.

Bribery
An offer of money, goods or services in order to persuade a second party toperform an action in the interests of the party offering the bribe, or to sway thesecond party’s opinion or decision.
Persons objecting strongly to the presence of radioactive waste may viewcompensations or other socio-economic benefits as the wages of risk, or bribery to
persuade a community to accept a management facility which they view as
inherently unsafe.

Community identity
Internal view that members have of their community.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 201559

ANNEX 2: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Community image
View the outside world has of the community.

Community profile or brand
Strong points and values for which the community wants to be known.
Communities look to gain a positive identity and develop meaningful facilities
or projects in their area. Working out desired cultural value can be part of aprocess of clarifying community identity. Cultural value can be used to enhance
the community profile or brand and to shape the image of the community.
Identity, image and branding are becoming more important with thecirculation of people and goods in the global economy. Countries, regions andcommunities are all concerned with their image. A successful image must be
rooted in a corresponding identity – it is virtually impossible to create a positive
public image if that is not the deep identity experienced by the community.
Constructing identity and image requires long-term effort and commitment.

Compensation
Repayment for any necessary expenditures or losses associated with the siting andoperating of a facility. Sometimes conceptualised as equity offsets.
Benefits which are part of an agreement to an affected community inrecognition of their service or acceptance of inconvenience or disruption.
Compensation and incentives may be financial or non-financial and can beprovided at one time only or on a continuous basis during the siting, construction
and/or operation of the facility (NEA, 2004b).
There is consensus today across governments, institutions, industry and civilsociety that potential host communities should actively define the right siting
package, including not only financial but also other accompanying measures (NEA,
2010a; Kojo and Richardson, 2012; Kotra, 2003).
A distinction is made between an engagement package, enabling communities
to participate fully in a siting process whatever its outcome, and a compensationtype benefits package, which becomes available when a community has beenretained by a hosting decision (CoRWM, 2006).
In some contexts, land-use compensation schemes have been decided bynational actors and detailed formulae for calculating sums due are used or evenset out in the law. In Spain, unusually, communities hosting nuclear power plants
are compensated primarily in relation to the volume of (spent) nuclear fuelcurrently stored on local territory (NEA, 2010a).
In the Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) questionnaire responses
regarding dialogue among technical and societal partners, some stakeholders

60

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

ANNEX 2: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

stated that compensation “is not discussed”: “the word has never been used”;“points concerning compensation have not yet been raised”. This suggests that
local development, sustainability and quality-of-life issues are recognised to beprospective, not one-to-one compensation issues.
However, the discussion of traditional compensation and benefits remains
important in many contexts (Kojo and Richardson, 2012; Kojo and Richardson, 2014;
Kojo and Richardson, 2013).

Culture“The set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features ofsociety or a social group, encompassing, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles,
ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs”. 1

Incentive
A benefit to motivate local communities to host a facility.

Integrative local partnerships
Committee structures in which technical and community stakeholders cometogether to work out an integrated radioactive waste management project (setting
physical and safety characteristics, socio-economic and cultural/amenity
requirements).
The recommendations to government by the UK Committee on Radioactive
Waste Management (CoRWM) in 2006 included a chapter on implementing aradioactive waste management strategy. This committee has high regard for the
integrative local partnership approach. “One of the advantages of the partnershipapproach is that it achieves an environment in which host communities canengage with an implementing body without feeling victimised by a national
process over which they ultimately have little control. CoRWM therefore believes
that a partnership approach should be developed in order to achieve community
involvement. Partnerships should be based on an open and equal relationshipbetween the potential host community and the implementing body. […]International research shows that it is important that the host community has asense of ownership of the facility that will be built and is therefore involved as
early as practicable in the generic technical aspects of the design. […] CoRWM
therefore concludes that representatives of the potential host communities should
be involved in determining both the broad technical aspects of the proposed
facility as well as the socio-economic aspects aimed at ensuring the well-being of
the community” (CoRWM, 2006).

1.

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, adopted on 2 November 2001,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127162e.pdf.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

61

ANNEX 2: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Stakeholders in several countries are turning to integrated projects, focusing
on both technical and societal aspects of facilities. Technical partners and local
partners alike treat these as interdependent and inseparable elements. 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 theywork out expectations and requirements for radioactive waste management tofunction in the local context. The stakeholders envision living with the facility
during its active period and beyond, considering simultaneous or end uses of thesite. They mark out the development opportunities provided by hosting a facility.
Beyond jobs, heightened economic activity and spin-off infrastructuredevelopment, local communities envision added cultural and amenity valuewith
the perspective of ensuring satisfactory quality of life for the present and future
generations, and ultimately a durable and sustainable relationship with therelevant facility.
The Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials(ONDRAF/NIRAS), participating as implementer in the Belgian local partnerships,
explains:
The discussion bears on a mixture of technical criteria, traditional socioeconomic aspects and added value. The essence is to develop an integrated
disposal project, so the local community decides what it considers to be
the necessary conditions (technical, environmental, aesthetic) for adisposal facility and they develop an accompanying local project that seeks
to bring added value to the community. The outcome differs from
community to community. The partnerships become the carriers of the site
investigations and repository design and deal with all related issues suchas safety, social, economic and ecological impact, urban planning.
Even where such integrative partnerships do not exist, cultural benefits accrue
to the community taking an active part in defining desirable design features.
A most positive outcome can be “consensus or agreement between parties withregard to the need to obtain support [for a concept or demand] from the national
level, and to apply democratic rules in decision making”, or the demonstration that“local participation works, giving added value to a democratic decision making
process, making it possible to reach consensus among members with quite
different approaches to nuclear energy and radioactive waste management. Maybe
this contributed to the upgrading of the level of public acceptance of the site
[proposal]”.
One challenge of working closely in a formal or informal technical and societal
partnership, as pointed out by a stakeholder contributor, is “initially to find afunctional working format and to understand each other’s language”.
Another challenge, according to a questionnaire response, is “maintaining theinteraction between the partnership members and the local community (localorganisations and the public in general)”.
Partnerships call on the national or federal level to respect their work and takeit into account in their decisions. The loose articulation between the partnershipand this higher level of authority may be a source of frustration or weakness.

62

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

ANNEX 2: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Local community
A generic term that refers to the group of personal actors that become involved inradioactive waste management facility siting deliberations.
Local community is understood in this report as a social group of any size
whose members reside in a specific locality, share government and often have acommon cultural and historical heritage. Community is not tied firmly to ageographic area (Wylie, 2010). The German Independent Working Group on Site
Selection
Procedures
for
Final
Repositories(AkEnd–Arbeitskreis
Auswahlverfahren Endlagerstandorte) has proposed that the area that volunteers
to host a radioactive waste management facility should be self-defining and calls it
a “social, cultural and economic unit” with no clearly marked geographic borders(AkEnd, 2002). Frequently today, extended local units, groupings of townships, orregions are brought to consider the location of a radioactive waste management
facility or site in their territorial identity (Ipsen, 2000).
Administrative character, location, mode of government, history and sharedeconomic and cultural practices are complemented by further dimensions ofcommunity. Each member’s sense of belonging may be linked to a perception of
the “spirit of the place” and to an identifiation with the group established there.
Local community should be understood too, as the extension of each member’s
personal sphere. The community is a network of personal relations. It is one spacein which our lives take place, alongside other specialised spheres (for instance, thesphere of our employment, or the spheres delivering to us services and goods). By
considering local community in a holistic manner, what is gained isa better
understanding of what is needed for a radioactive waste management facility to fit
in, be welcomed and be maintained there in a sustainable manner.

Quality of life
A state of physical, psychological, and social well-being (Simard, 2002).
Measured, according to the OECD Better Life Index, notably through:employment status, health status, work/life balance, education and skills, social
connections, civic engagement and governance, environmental quality, personal
security (OECD, 2013).
Physical well-being relies on working conditions, recreational opportunities
and health care access. Psychological well-being depends on harmony between
one’s cultural identity and one’s actual living conditions. Social well-being
depends on the ability to share in cultural practices with one’s peers. In the formal
radioactive waste management decision process, quality of life may be addressed
through a social impact assessment (SIA), which is applied more and more inparallel with the required environmental impact assessment (EIA). Quality of life isalso addressed when communities develop a vision of the cultural and amenity
value they expect to draw from a radioactive waste management facility or site.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

63

ANNEX 2: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

SafetyThe condition of being protected against failure, damage, error, accidents, or harm.
Safety is a physical criterion addressed by the exact sciences. Safety is also asocial construct.
Communities and societal groups may have their own requirements defining
what is acceptably safe. These requirements may go beyond the level of protection
set by national or international norms. Regarding a radioactive waste management
facility, community requirements may imply technical features or mechanismsthat might not be called strictly necessary from an engineering or optimisation
point of view. Conversely, a community may attach special cultural importance todesign features that could challenge the desired level of safety. In each case, theregulator will provide expertise and feedback enabling the partners to reconcile all
the requirements.
Regulators have begun to recognise that the community is a vital partner inmonitoring and assuring safety over the long term, with precise knowledge of thesite at all phases before, during and after facility development, and the highmotivation to preserve local health and their way of life. It is in everyone’s interest
to adapt the radioactive waste management facility to the community and thereby
improve its chances of being taken care of by the succeeding local generations aswell as by technical people.
Safety is a rolling concept. In the past, terrorist attacks were formally excluded
from safety analyses because their likelihood was considered unquantifiable; today,
they are a major item of societal concern. It is difficult to predict the future
demand for safety as both knowledge and living conditions may evolve.

Social capital
Features of social life – networks, norms and trust – that enable persons to act
together more effectively to pursue shared objectives (Putnam, 1995).

Spin-off
An economic venture underwritten or made possible in the context of a larger
undertaking.
Many projects today are accompanied by appreciable spin-off projects fundedby radioactive waste management implementers or other institutions. Thesemight be described as icing on the cake – good things that come along with thefacility, but which are not an essential part of it. Instead, the report focuses
explicitly on the cake: How the conception and design of radioactive waste
management facilities and their sites themselves may generate value for acommunity or for society as a whole. This is a new perspective on the goodneighbour concept: Traditionally, project proponents make themselves agreeable
by supporting demands coming from the community; here, the facility itself would

64

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

ANNEX 2: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

be designed to facilitate the networks and activities that are important tocommunity members and contribute to them positively.

Stakeholder
Any actor – institution, group or individual – with an interest or with a role to playin the process (Webster, 2000).

UNECE Aarhus Convention
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access toInformation, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice inEnvironmental Matters, adopted on 24 June 1998 in Aarhus, Denmark.
An elaboration of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, the Aarhus Convention“links environmental rights and human rights. It acknowledges that we owe anobligation to future generations. It establishes that sustainable development canbe achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders. It links government
accountability and environmental protection. It focuses on interactions between
the public and public authorities in a democratic context”. 2
The Aarhus Clearinghouse for Environmental Democracy 3 points out that
effective public involvement in environmental issues is made possible throughadoption of laws, policy development, capacity building, research, etc. Documents
collected at and disseminated through the Clearinghouse website can lend insighton best practice in involving stakeholders in environmental decision-making. In
the area of nuclear power and radioactive waste management, significant
stakeholder-led study of the application of the Aarhus Convention has been
conducted, contributing to empowerment and capacity building for oversight(UNECE, 2013).

2.

www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html.

3.

aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/.

FOSTERING A DURABLE RELATIONSHIP, NEA No. 7264, © OECD 2015

65

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, theNEA website offers free downloads of hundreds of technical and policy-oriented
reports.
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/bulletin/.
Visit us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OECDNuclearEnergyAgency orfollow us on Twitter @OECD_NEA.

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

Fostering a Durable Relationshipbetween a Waste Management
Facility and its Host Community

In the field of long-term radioactive waste management, repository projects last fromdecades to centuries. Such projects will inevitably have an effect on the host communityfrom the planning stage to the end of construction and beyond. The key to a longlasting and positive relationship between a facility and its host community is ensuringthat solutions are reached together throughout the entire process. The sustainability ofradioactive waste management solutions can potentially be achieved through design
and implementation of a facility that provides added cultural and amenity value, as wellas economic opportunities, to the local community.
This edition of Fostering a Durable Relationship between a Waste Management Facility
and its Host Community: Adding Value through Design and Process highlights new
innovations in siting processes and in facility design – functional, cultural and physical –from different countries, which could be of added value to host communities and theirsites in the short to long term. These new features are examined from the perspective ofsustainability, with a focus on increasing the likelihood that people will both understandthe facility and its functions, and remember over very long timescales what is locatedat the site.
This 2015 update by the NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence will be beneficial indesigning paths forward for local or regional communities, as well as for national
radioactive waste management programmes.

Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
12, boulevard des Îles92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France
Tel.: +33 (0)1 45 24 10 15
nea@oecd-nea.org www.oecd-nea.org

NEA No. 7264