FORUM ON
STAKEHOLDERCONFIDENCE

NE A

The role of regions in siting procedures
BackgroundDefining what is a region

Over the past 20 years, the NEA Forum on Stakeholder
Confidence (FSC) has worked extensively on the
involvement of local stakeholders in decision-making
processes concerning high-level radioactive waste disposal
facilities located in their area. This work has mainly focusedon the direct impact of the disposal facilities on the hosting
municipalities and their immediate vicinity. However, thesocial and economic effects of these facilities affect wider
territorial areas that also have a say in the decisions madeon their development. Because of this, the FSC has taken
an interest in the role of regions in site selection proceduresfor deep geological repositories (DGRs). For the purpose ofthis document, “regions” are understood as the intermediate
governance area between the local and national levels. These
regions can sometimes be located in a neighbouring country.

In most countries, at least one “intermediate” governancelevel can be identified between the national and local levels.
This is the level which is considered as a “region” for the
purpose of this document. Some countries present only one
layer between “national” and “local” levels. It is the casefor Japan (prefectures), Sweden (counties), and Switzerland(cantons). Others have different “intermediate” governancestructures, such as Belgium (regions, provinces, cantons),
France (regions, departments), Italy (regions, counties), Spain(autonomous communities and provinces) and the UnitedStates (states, counties). In other countries, differences exist
between areas within the nation, which adds complexity
to the understanding of “regions”. Moreover, the size ofregions varies significantly from country to country. The
term therefore needs to be understood in a loose way.

To investigate this topic, an exploratory questionnaire wascirculated among all FSC members in 2022. The objective
was to frame the issue and to identify various regional
involvement practices, possible challenges and ways todeal with these challenges. Eleven countries responded:
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates. This document describes the survey’s findings. It
includes an introduction presenting the situation in different
countries and three national examples offered by Japan,
Switzerland and the United States.

Various regulatory schemes for site
selection and participation

From a general point of view, one observation from thereplies to the questionnaire is that countries adopt different
methods to involve intermediate governance levels in thesite selection process for a waste repository. Participation
schemes are aligned to larger contexts of each country’s
governance structure, as well as political and geographicalconditions.

The site selection of a DGR is a long and complex process
in which decisions must be based on scientific and technicalarguments, with wide-ranging public participation andultimately wide societal support. A country can choose toestablish its site selection process by a legal act adopted
by Parliament (typically a law), or by governmental decision(e.g. a Ministerial Order or an announced national policy).
Germany and Japan are countries where such processes
have been established by a law. In these cases, thesiting process is highly prescriptive, including roles andresponsibilities of the different actors and administrationlevels (although the main focus remains the local level).
In Canada, England and Spain1, the site selection process
has not been framed by law and is instead based on
governmental policies and decisions. In the absence of alaw prescribing the process for site selection, regional

1. The information provided for Spain refers to an experience of site selection for a centralised interim storage facility for spent fuel, not a
DGR. The site selection of a centralised interim storage facility for spent fuel was a project initiated in 2006 with the constitution of an InterMinisterial Commission to define the licensing criteria for this facility and elaborate a proposal of candidates.

© OECD 2023

Page 1

participation can be promoted in other ways: either byactivities organised by the waste management agency(Nuclear Waste Management Organization, Canada) or
through other channels.
In several countries, the search of a site for a geologicalrepository is not governed by a specific set of site selection
laws, but by a broader legislative framework. In Italy, theinvolvement of regions in siting procedures is based ona general law regarding administrative procedures andaccessibility of administrative documents. In Belgium,
regional involvement in siting is regulated by environmental
and land use (including the underground) legislation. It isalso the case in France2 and Sweden, where the frameworkis additionally set by nuclear safety legislation as well asplanning and construction legislation. In Switzerland,
co-operation with cantons is prescribed in land-use planninglegislation, which also applies to the Swiss site selection
procedure.
Countries which refer to dedicated legislation on regional
involvement in siting of a DGR are Germany, where the Site
Selection Act (2013, amended in 2017) assigns limited roles
to the regional level, and Japan, where the Final Disposal Act(2000) prescribes that national government should adhere
to the agreement of the prefectural governor in the siting
process, among other requirements.
While many countries grant financial benefits to local
communities participating in site selection procedures, only
a few of them provide specific financial support for regional
involvement on a wider scale. In Switzerland, cantons
receive annual funding for their participation in siting. It isalso the case in Japan. In England and Wales, the relevant
principal local authorities participating in working groups
and/or community partnerships get financial support forparticipation costs in the siting process.

Differing levels of involvement of regions
Regional involvement is often defined as a consultative and/or monitoring role, meaning that opinions, concerns and/or
objections can be voiced, but are not necessarily incorporated
in the final decision. However, some countries designed
more elaborate mechanisms for regional involvement:
through involvement in parliamentary approval at the endof each phase of the site selection procedure (Germany),through an initial application/expression of interest (France,
Italy) or a requirement for regional authorities to have a final
agreement with steps taken in the siting process (Japan).
Another consideration in the site selection procedureof a waste repository is the involvement of neighbouring
countries. Cross-border participation is an important issue
that is dealt with differently by various countries. In practice,cross-border involvement is currently not incorporated in
the siting process in most countries. This can be due to thecurrent lack of a regulated national siting procedure (Spain),the lack of identified potential sites (Belgium), geographicalisolation (Japan), or other reasons. However, the absenceof current cross-border consultation mechanisms does not
imply that such consultation would be disregarded once
particular siting procedures are set.
In other countries, such supra-national regional involvement
already took place, or is clearly included in the site selection
procedure. It was the case with the involvement of Åland
(Finland) in the siting process taking place in Östhammar(Sweden). The Finnish region was informed about the siting
process and was attributed a consultative role in meetings
and through written comments. Other examples can befound in Switzerland and Germany. In the case of Switzerland,
affected German communities are part of the Swiss
regional conferences. In the case of Germany, neighbouring
countries will be involved in the siting process throughformal participation inscribed in international standards andthe national Site Selection Act (e.g. participation in regional
conferences).

Dealing with challenges along the site
selection process
Given the complexity of the subject matter, it is only
natural that tensions arise as the repository becomes a
reality. Regardless of whether countries have a regulatory
framework for the site selection process or what the levelof regulation/formalisation is, such challenges require anadequate response. Past experiences in several countries(such as Italy and Spain) illustrate the fact that national
decisions on siting can be met with strong regional
opposition, sometimes causing the project to fail. Reasonsfor this opposition can be varied. Conflicts, including judicial
procedures, may typically arise when regions regulate issues
within their realms of competence that collide with othercompetences reserved for the national level (e.g. the useof the underground could potentially become an issue ina country like Belgium, where regions are responsible forgroundwater protection and reservoirs, geothermal projects
and extractive activities). Other circumstances that can result
in conflict can be a lack of confidence in national decision
makers, a vocal and effectively organised protest movement,a perceived lack of involvement of the regions, etc.
No matter the motives, experience proves that suchchallenges arising during the siting process must be
addressed as they occur. Otherwise, they are likely to affectthe procedure as the case of Spain illustrates, with a process
to select a centralised interim storage facility being judiciallychallenged3.

2. The applicable law in France makes reference to the siting of an underground laboratory, which is in France a prerequisite to establishing ageological repository.
3. The Spanish case refers to lack of agreement between the central and the regional governments in licensing a centralised interim storage
facility for spent fuel in a site in the municipality of Villar de Cañas, in the Autonomous Community of Castilla La Mancha. This site wasdesignated among a list of candidate municipalities by the Central Government in December 2011. Some activities were conducted to prepare
the license application for this site, but in July 2015, after a change of administration, the regional government made use of its competences topropose the extension of an environmentally protected area (Natura 2000 Network) which would, in practical terms, hinder the construction of
the facility in that location. This decision was judicially challenged by the central Government. A judicial process took place until July 2018, when
the Supreme Court of Castilla La Mancha ruled against the decision to expand the Natura 2000 Network. Ultimately, the delays in the process
and lack of agreement resulted in an abandonment of the project.

Page 2© OECD 2023

Additional considerations

Conclusion

Apart from the abovementioned questionnaire, the FSC
has discussed the involvement of regions in site selection
processes during regular meetings. Among the ideas thatemerged, one relates to specific communication issues.
Some countries have multilingual communities, such as
Belgium, Canada, Spain or Switzerland. In these cases,
it can be beneficial to translate the information into thedifferent national languages to foster the involvement ofregions, because among other things this is a sign of respectof different identities and facilitates the community’s open
and direct participation in the debate.

Countries are pursuing different paths to identify theirsites for a high-level waste repository, thereby involving
stakeholders at different levels of governance. The role
played by the intermediate level of governance (or what isreferred to here as the region) depends on several factors.
These include the governance structure of the country as
well as political and geographical aspects. Each country
defines more or less formally the role of such intermediatelevels, giving their regions a consultative role in most cases.

A key factor in this discussion is the benefits for the region asa whole in terms of added value gained from the existence ofthe facility. The site selection process can be jeopardised by
the regional perception that a single municipality will benefit
from the DGR (in terms of increased sources of income,
employment growth, enhanced environmental protection,
possible tax benefits, etc.), while the region as a whole
would be obligated to endure potential inconveniences suchas waste shipments and water use and address concerns
from any environmental impacts associated with the DGR.
This perception could be overcome with a broader approachthat would extend the circle of benefits to not only the hostmunicipality and its immediate neighbours, but to wider
areas. The sectoral plan in Switzerland has taken this issue
into account, setting the debate on “regional” rather thanlocal development.

• an area wider than the sole hosting municipality should be
included in the decision-making process, be it in a formal
or informal way;

Practical experience demonstrates that:• the involvement of regions should be considered at theinitial stage of the selection process;• foreseeing mechanisms for conflict resolution during thesearch process is important;• flexibility in the design and development of site selection
dynamics, including in the participation framework, is key.
The following case studies provide further insights into
the interactions between national, regional and local
representatives in DGR siting decisions in three different
countries.

Three national examples
Japan
The political hierarchy in Japan consists of three levels:
national, prefectural and municipal. There are 47 prefecturesand 1 718 municipalities in Japan.
The site selection process for a geological disposal projectis specified in the Final Disposal Act, which requires that
disposal site(s) be selected through three investigation
stages: Literature Survey (LS), Preliminary Investigation (PI),and Detailed Investigation (DI).
The literature survey can be initiated by two mechanisms:
application for the LS to the Japan Nuclear Waste
Management Organization (NUMO) by a municipality or
proposal by the national government to a municipality toaccept the LS.
The inclusion of the regional level in the procedure depends
on the stage of the procedure. The LS application and theacceptance of the government proposal can be made at thediscretion of the municipality. These steps do not require
prefectural approval. However, when proceeding from LS toPI, from PI to a DI, and from DI to the selection of a disposal
site, agreement from both mayors of the municipality
and prefectural governors are required. In addition, the© OECD 2023

intention of the municipalities surrounding the hosting
municipality that accepted investigation will also be taken
into consideration when the prefectural governor decides
whether or not to proceed to the next stage.
In terms of added value, municipalities that accept theinvestigation receive a grant from the national government.
During the LS, JPY 1 billion (ca. EUR 7.2 million) per year witha maximum of JPY 2 billion (ca. EUR 14.4 million) is provided.
During the PI, JPY 2 billion (ca. EUR 14.4 million) per year
for PI, with a maximum of JPY 7 billion (EUR 50.7 million)
is provided. The grant for DI and the later stages have notbeen specified yet. The grant will be given to the hosting
municipality, however the neighbouring municipalities andprefectures could also receive a grant that should not exceed
50% of the total grant.
In the Hokkaido prefecture, the first phase of the site selection
stage (the LS), is being conducted in two municipalities(Suttu town and Kamoenai village) since November 2020.
The LS does not involve on-site activities such as borehole
drilling, however a “Place for Dialogue” initiative has been
held in the local municipalities since April 2021 to enhance
the understanding of geological disposals. An officer fromthe Hokkaido prefectural government participates in the“Place for Dialogue” as an observer.

Page 3

Switzerland

United States

Cantons are the member states of the Swiss Confederation.
They act as the intermediate level between the federal
government and the communal level (i.e. municipalities).
The implementation of the site selection procedure
for a DGR for all waste categories is set out by law. It is
carried out in accordance with spatial planning legislation(”Sectoral Plans”), which calls for co-operation at all
three levels. Sectoral Plans are the most important spatialplanning instrument of the federal government to plannational infrastructure projects such as a DGR and are ameans to co-ordinate projects with the cantons and otherstakeholders. The siting decisions for a DGR that result fromthis collaboration are made within the Sectoral Plan process
and are binding on the authorities at all levels. Currently, the“Sectoral Plan for Deep Geological Repositories for Nuclear
Waste” (Sectoral Plan for DGR) is in its third and last stage.
In September 2022, the implementer Nagra announced
the siting region for which it will submit the general licenceapplication in 2024.

The United States is a federal republic of 50 states. These
50 states are further divided into smaller political subdivisions
typically called “counties” (one state – Louisiana – uses theterm “parish” and one – Alaska – uses the term “borough”).
Cities are the dominant local unit of government.

Cantons were already engaged in the development of the“Conceptual Part” of the “Sectoral Plan for DGR”4 . The
Conceptual Part defines the goals, the procedures, and theroles of all involved stakeholders as well as the criteria tobe applied in selecting sites for DGRs in Switzerland. Since
the start of the site selection procedure according to theConceptual Part of the Sectoral Plan for DGRs in 2008, thecantons are already involved on a political and technical level.
This involvement is formalised through various mechanisms(committees, expert groups, involvement in planning ofimportant procedural steps, early information, publicationof statements, etc.). Thus, cantons bring their interests andvalues into the decision-making process by participating ineach of the three stages. They receive a certain amount offunding from the waste producers each year to cover their
participation costs and collaboration in the Sectoral Plan
and to fund their own experts. Thus, the cantons can build
knowledge on safety-related topics with their own chosen
experts.
Because the cantons (and the municipalities) do not havea right to veto a DGR, early and broad co-operation is
crucial in order to acknowledge the needs and concernsof the cantons and to identify potential conflicts that may
arise during the process. Conflicts can be resolved before
decisions are taken by the Federal Government andParliament (and possibly by a facultative referendum by the
Swiss voters).
If conflicts between the Sectoral Plan and cantonal
spatial planning cannot be resolved, the siting cantons,
neighbouring cantons and federal authorities have the rightto invoke the settlement procedure at any time from theresponsible Federal Department.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 supports
the use of deep geologic repositories for the safe disposalof radioactive waste. The NWPA establishes procedures toevaluate and select sites for geologic repositories and for theinteraction of state and federal governments. It also provides
a timetable of key milestones the federal agencies mustmeet in carrying out the programme. The NWPA assigns the
US Department of Energy (DOE) the responsibility to site,build, and operate a deep geologic repository for the disposalof high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. The NWPA directs
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop
standards for protection of the general environment from
offsite releases of radioactive material in repositories. The
NWPA directs the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
to license the DOE to operate a repository only if it meets the
EPA’s standards and all other relevant requirements. Later
amendments were made to the NWPA to:• Direct the DOE to consider Yucca Mountain in the stateof Nevada as the site to be evaluated for the first geologic
repository;• Prohibit the DOE from conducting site specific activities
at a second site unless authorised to do so by Congress;• Require the Secretary of Energy to develop a report on theneed for a second repository no later than 1 January 2010;• Establish a commission to study the need and feasibilityof a monitored retrievable storage facility.
In 2002, the DOE formally recommended to the US President
that Yucca Mountain be constructed as the nation’s firsthigh-level waste repository. Although the US President
approved the recommendation, the NWPA provided thestate the opportunity to veto the decision. The State of
Nevada exercised its right to veto the selection of Yucca
Mountain. However, consistent with the process defined inlaw, Congress passed a resolution approving the location,
allowing the DOE to move forward. The DOE submitted its
licence application in 2008, although the proceeding has
been suspended since 2011.
Recently, the DOE initiated a Consent-Based Siting Programfor Spent Nuclear Fuel to broadly look at stakeholder
engagement strategies to facilitate the siting of a facility.

4. SFOE (2008), Sectoral Plan for Deep Geological Repositories: Conceptual Part, Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Bern.

For more information, please contact the NEA Division of Radiological Protection and Human Aspects of Nuclear Safety:
Page 4© OECD 2023
Ludivine GILLI, Social Scientist: Ludivine.GILLI@oecd-nea.org