Unclassified

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

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

28-Aug-2006___________________________________________________________________________________________English - Or. English

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1
Unclassified

Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOPICAL SESSION OF THE 6TH MEETING OF THE FSC ON "THE LINKBETWEEN RD&D AND STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE"

Held on the 9 June 2005
at the OECD HQ in Paris, France

English - Or. English

JT03212775
Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine
Complete document available on OLIS in its original format

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

2

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

FOREWORD

Within the Forum for Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) it is agreed that any decision-making process
should take place in stages, in order to provide for the flexibility to adapt to contextual changes,
including collective learning, new research findings and technological developments. In this processeach actor must feel that it can influence the process, including generating complementary
investigations on topics of significance in the field of safety and to the long-term impacts. It wasrecognized as well that the R&D community is also a stakeholder in the radioactive waste
management processes, and should play a key role by providing balanced and qualified input, andencouraging informed and judgement. Further, active participation in and/or monitoring of ongoing
R&D are viewed, in many countries, as providing important information for decision-making relating
to the development of a radioactive waste management strategy.
Moreover, the science involved in radioactive waste management is not fundamental science of thekind that is driven mainly by our curiosity to understand the world around us and ourselves, it is issueoriented science, as its primary objective is to provide a solution to an actual national problem. The
issue at hand combines the complexity of the geophysical systems under consideration and thecomplexity of the societal framework in which radioactive waste is produced and managed. This
complexity implies that science, as well as societal decision making, have to deal with -and live with-,
to some extent, with uncertainty, indeterminacy, ambiguity and even ignorance. Another importantfeature of the scientific enterprise – and even more so for issue-oriented science – is that it is not avalue-neutral exercise: the very definition of the problem includes value choices. And so do the
choices of boundaries, of important variables, parameters and criteria.
Finally, because, today, the issue is no longer only how to implement an economically-optimal projectof waste storage or disposal on a site imposed by the higher authorities, new challenges are posed tothe technical community and their roles and the approaches they take. In this new environment, theplace of research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the elaboration of waste management
policies and their implementation deserves to be debated.
The topical session convened at the June 9, 2005 Forum for Stakeholder Confidence was very rich inthe breadth and depth of the presentations that were received, as well as in the debate that it aroused. A
full day of proceedings was devoted to this topic, during which presentations and discussion addressed
the following:•

The role of, and relation to, science in today’s societies, as well the issue of confidence inresearchers/institutions;•

The role and behaviour of the experts (technicians, engineers, researchers) and how to expose theexperts’ value system in order to gain stakeholder confidence;•

An implementer’s view of how research and research capability are approached in order to gain
stakeholder confidence in the implementer fulfilling its mission;•

A regulator’s view of how research and research capability are approached in order to gain
stakeholder confidence in effective regulation and safety;

3

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1•

A policy maker view of how research and research capability are to be approached in order to havestakeholder confidence in policy and its implementation; and•The role of RD&D for stakeholder confidence as seen by non-institutional actors: a local
community; a mayor; and an academic.

This document provides a summary of the presentations delivered during this topical session. It
follows with highlights of some of the areas of discussion that ensued amongst FSC members, andconcludes with some broader international reflections on lessons learned.

4

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF PRESENTED PAPERS .............................................................................................. 7
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS......................................................................................................... 17
SOME INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES OF LESOSNS LEARNED......................................... 23

COMPILATION OF PAPERS
Agenda of the Topical Session of the 6th Meeting of the FSC on:
The Link Between RD&D and Stakeholder Confidence...................................................................... 33
Forum of Stakeholder Confidence - Phase II of the Program of Work
Y. Le Bars (IGGREF,CEMAGREF, France).................................................................................. 35
Role of, and Relation to, Science in Today’s Societies, as well The Issue of Confidence in
Researchers/Institutions
M. O’Connor (C3ED, France) ....................................................................................................... 37
The Role and Behaviour of The Experts and How to Expose the Expert’s Value System in Order
To Gain Stakhoder Confidence
Kjell Anderson (Karita Research, Sweden).................................................................................... 40
The Role of Research in The Radioactive Waste Mangement Policy
François Jacq (Andra, France) ...................................................................................................... 43
Stakeholder Confidence in Effective Safety Regulation - A Regulator’s View on the Role ofIndependent Research Capability
Janet Kotra and Sitakanto Mohanty (USNRC, USA) ..................................................................... 47
Government Policy, Research and Stakeholder Confidence
Carmel Létourneau (NRC, Canada)............................................................................................... 52
The Role of RD&D for Stakeholder Confidence as seen by Non-institutional Actors
Harald Åhagen (Municipality of Oskarsham, Sweden) .................................................................. 57
R+D Confiance en Un Territoire Producteur d’Énergie Nucléaire (in French)
Josep Castllnou Barceló (Maire de Vandellòs et l’Hospitalet de l’Infant, Espagne) .................... 61

5

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

The Link Between Research, Development and Demonstration and Stakeholder Confidence:
The Perspective of An Academic
Ghislain de Marsily (University Paris VI, France) ........................................................................ 64
Stocktaking from the Topical Session on the Link Between RD&D and Stakeholder Confidence heldat the 6th Meeting of the RWMC
Form on Stakeholder Confidence
Sybille van den Hove (Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain) ............................................ 67
List of Participants ............................................................................................................................... 73

6

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

SUMMARY OF PRESENTED PAPERSINTRODUCTION
Mr. Yves Le Bars welcomed the Forum for Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) participants andintroduced the day’s meetings that would investigate the possible contributions and conditions for
RD&D to support stakeholder confidence. In his introductory remarks, Mr. Le Bars reviewed theintent of this topical discussion and its contribution to the Phase 2 Programme of Work for FSC.
Observations were drawn from previous FSC work concerning the evolving requirements forstakeholder involvement that require a new culture within the organizations. It is recognized that eachactor must respect certain values and abilities, and have the capacity to communicate, to learn from thepublic and to adapt. In particular, it was suggested that the role of the expert in the decision-making
process has changed, and there is a need to restore credibility to the voice of experts to support theprocesses relating to radioactive waste management. Mr. Le Bars spoke about the changing role of the“expert” and increasing demands from the public to be informed, active participants in decisionmaking processes. As societal expectations have evolved over the years, there is less willingness togive the expert the legitimacy to decide, or the expert working solely with the decision-maker. Rather,
there are growing demands for public policies to be defined and implemented through decisionmaking processes that also invite stakeholder participation, as another important category of actors.
Thus, the decision-making process can be viewed as now involving three parties: the public, theexperts and decision-makers. Research must be positioned in this context.
Research must be part of the process, structure, behaviour and debate. It is meant to be introduced in
the process as contributor to the project definition, by providing scientific background. Further, it isbest undertaken through an adaptive behaviour, carried out by institutions with a clearly defined andcommunicated role.
In setting the context for the discussion which followed, Mr. Le Bars posed some interesting questions
and challenges relating to the contributions and conditions for research to affect stakeholder
confidence:•

What quality can we expect in research?

•

How should it be provided in the process?

•Research will inform and identify some areas of certainty and work on uncertainties, accepting
doubt. How will residual areas of uncertainty be recognized and exposed?

•

How should the fine-tuning between the project design and demonstrations and research andinvestigation be implemented?

•

How can uncertainties be reduced and exposed?

•

Recognizing that research is not value free, how can underlying values be identified and exposed?

•

How can we succeed in the face of cultural changes, and ensure that researches recognize theircontributions and role in the process, accepting that they are not the decision-makers?
7

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE VIS-À-VIS THE ROLE OF SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS,AND EXPERTS IN TODAY’S SOCIETY

Martin O’Connor, Professor of Economics, Université de Versailles, France, addressed the role of,and relation to, science in today’s societies, as well the issue of confidence in researchers/institutions.
Professor O’Connor underscored that social trust and partnership is developed through dialogue ofscientists and technical experts with the full range of stakeholders, including policy makers andimplementers. Effective dialogue, based on reciprocal learning and capacity building, will further theunderstanding of the tensions and different viewpoints and values, and reveal areas of uncertainty.
This type of dialogue responds to a social demand to reappraise publicly and reflexively. This
important process cannot unfold if research is cloistered and kept separate.
It is essential to mobilize knowledge, share it, and allow the process for social evaluation of science.
Radioactive waste management is a socially-constructed problem; an acceptable response cannot
therefore be separated from the public concerned. Expert evaluations that support regulatory processes
are insufficient for strong decision-making where there are issues of high risk and uncertainty. Sciencemust be considered in broader social context. The public is more suspicious of “expert processes” ofrisk assessment that are non-transparent. Stakeholder confidence requires building relationships ofdifferent components of society. Building stakeholder confidence is about hopes to be shared, andmust consider relationships between the actors. Research must be sensitive to the social relationshipsof the problem and respond to areas of public interest.
Trust in process is key. The foundation for a successful dialogue is agreement of the initial hypothesisis that there is a need to address the issue in question. Real dialogue also demands that participants arerespectful of others’ views and principles. This requires willingness to work on the future together oncommon problems. There must be a capacity to listen to others, and assimilate different views. This in
turn, requires processes and training to allow an effective exchange of views to take place. Participantsfrom specialist communities, and institutional actors, must be willing to listen to other views thatmatter to the public. Quality issues must also be addressed, recognizing that quality is also shaped bysocial criteria. Contributions of science and experts must be considered as institutional questions ofwhat is considered “research”? What is “good research”? What constitutes quality?
Sharing of research through stakeholder dialogue provides an important opportunity to build bridges tobring in different disciplines to the discussion. Integral to the process, is the integration of social
science expertise which, in addition to offering a broad range of insight, has an important role inassessing and establishing the legitimacy of other streams of science. It was suggested that moresignificant investments are required to integrate the contributions of social science into projects in the
nuclear sector.
There are challenges associated with executing and communicating research. Professor O’Connor
addressed the issue of competence required to support effective dialogue, and the reciprocal burden of
proof in which all actors are required to be attentive to a spectrum of quality criteria and principles. He
emphasized that expertise must be built in a fundamental way, not as a communication strategy. He
noted that ambiguities may arise in science and technology, and that challenges are greatest where
there are many different social values, remaining areas of uncertainty, risk, and high decision stakes interms of long- term impacts of decisions taken. It isn’t always possible to reconcile multiple
principles. Recognition and acceptance of these vulnerabilities assists in building trust.
8

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

Professor O’Connor offered a helpful framework for working through challenges - “Ethical Bottom
Lines”, which offer principles of responsibility for stewardship of radioactive waste:•

Have responsibilities of existing parties been appropriately assigned?

•

Have responsibilities ‘towards other parties” in the short term been adequately addressed? (e.g.
worker health and safety, security)•

Have responsibilities ‘towards other parties” in the long term been adequately addressed? (e.g.
Long-term stability of knowledge transfer, inter-generational fairness, provision for contingencies)•

Has available technical know-how and systems science been mobilised? (e.g. Adoption of bestpractices and standards, monitoring)•

Is the solution economically viable?

•

Does the solution enhance the prestige of the host communities and other stakeholder groups
closely associated with the residual/waste site?

He noted three key components for a viable solution to radioactive waste management:•

Development, application and maintenance of scientific knowledge and technical competency tomeasure and control the present and eventual exposure of living beings to radioactivity;•

Building societal relationships with the site, envisaging how the community will relate to andinteract with the site, the waste, the records, etc; and•Political and economic partnerships, to enable mobilization of the relevant knowledge andresources for implementation of an agreed societal strategy for stewardship.

Kjell Andersson, Karita Research, discussed the role and behaviour of experts in the context ofgaining stakeholder confidence.
Dr. Andersson underscored the many reasons to make explicit experts’ values. Complex policy issues
often involve many challenges – factual issues with uncertainties, values, emotions and vested
interests. All of these factors should be exposed to policy makers and the public before decisions are
made. Experts may set the agendas too narrowly, there may be mistrust in expertise and authorities,
and there may be low awareness in the political system. Excessively narrow framing of the issues canresult in frustration and inability to solve important societal problems. It was noted further, that in a
democratic society decisions are based not on expert values, but on citizen values. Democracy implies
accountability and requires awareness and transparency. Modern society is demanding higher levels oftransparency and public participation dialogue and incorporation of public values.
Dr. Andersson reviewed some of the models which have been advanced for awareness building withtransparency and participation within frameworks of representative democracy. The RISKOM model
was discussed, as was the VALDOC model, both of which invoke the practice of “stretching” inviting questions to be raised from new angles through challenges from society. Another key elementof the RISCOM model is “intelligence” – understanding future developments and outside forces, aswell as studying and planning for the future. Crucial aspects of the VALDOC methodology include theauthenticity of the approach itself, its identity in awareness and transparency, fairness in process
setting and ensure neutral venues for hearings and transparency arenas. The presentation highlighted
some applications of these models in a variety of industries in Sweden.
9

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

The presentation reviewed a number of arenas in which experts’ value systems may be exposed.
Within the expert arena, it was proposed that experts have legitimate roles in providing a scientificbasis, but they must be willing to give up control to decision-makers. Experts should not frame theproblems and set agendas. Another arena is that of deliberative discourse and participative processes
based on procedural legitimacy. It is important that there be a knowledge base underpinning
deliberative discourse and societal participation. It is important to ask whether the participative
processes create the awareness needed for democratic decisions – will citizens participate? What is therole of elected representatives? How is accountability assured? Where is the stretching? The criticalissue when it comes to application is who will be trusted to act as the host for the process. Ideally theprocess host is someone with no other interest than ensuring transparency. The process host must also
accept to be stretched.

THE ROLE OF RD&D FOR STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE AS SEEN BY INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

F. Jacq, Director General, Andra, France, offered an institutional perspective, by drawing on theexperience of Andra the implementing agency in France.
Mr. Jacq’s presentation addressed the role of research. Research is an asset, for policy, but science
doesn’t necessarily impose “truth” or consensus in society. Research considered as an essential
component of RWM projects, it is not with the objective of imposing solutions, but rather to provide
quality responses that provide us with flexibility. The example was provided of reversibility, as afeature considered in some repository concepts.
Reflecting on the discussions of the role of R&D in building public confidence, he noted that there is along-term involvement of science and research in implementation in radioactive waste programs.
The presentation emphasized the need for sharing amongst science and society. A viable and robust
system is required to connect science and social environments.
The process through which science and society collaboratively review research is also important. In
this regard, adoption of “stretching” to consider issues and research questions from many perspectives
is key.
Scientific proof is necessary, but there is also need to question how research is conducted.
The presentation continued with observations from the experience of Andra, regarding the processes
followed within the institution for setting directions, organizing and executing research.

Janet Kotra, Senior Regulation and Communication Specialist with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), provided a regulator’s view on the role of independent research capability and its
relationship to stakeholder confidence.
Ms. Kotra underscored the NRC’s commitment to regulatory openness in its Strategic Plan. A numberof actions have been adopted to achieve openness: public access to information about risks, safety and
10

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

licensee performance that is accurate and timely; enhanced awareness of NRC as an independent
regulator; fair and timely process for public involvement in NRC’s decision-making; and early public
involvement and two-way communication to enhance public confidence in NRC’s regulatory process.
The presentation reviewed the ways through which the NRC seeks to inspire confidence in its process
as independent regulator and in future decisions concerning whether to authorize the U.S. DOE toconstruct the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. Key to this will be reviewing all information
objectively, making open decisions based on sound, scientific judgements about the facts; andmaintaining an open and fair public process, and accessing independent R&D. It was noted that among
the requirements for the safety review for the Yucca Mountain repository will be extensive technicaland scientific analyses, evaluation of expert judgement, and long-range modelling assessments of
expected repository performance. NRC requires independent scientific and engineering analyses todevelop technical bases for regulations and guidance; evaluate adequacy of DOE’s safety case for apotential repository; assist preparation of NRC Safety Evaluation Report; provide technical support for
NRC testimony during licensing hearing; and develop effective outreach and communication tools.
Confidence in NRC’s use of science and engineering will depend upon: competence; independence;
open and fair process; regulatory outcomes that are subject to verification and monitoring. To assist,the NRC established the Centre for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) as a conflict-freebody of experts to assist the NRC in making independent judgements about the safety case of thenation’s first geological repository for high-level radioactive waste. The CNWRA supports the NRC’s
regulatory mission with a wide range of independent technical expertise, computers, laboratories andfield research. In addition to providing broad technical support to the NRC, CNWRA experts support
the NRC’s public meetings, open houses and other public outreach activities, assisting with theidentification of key technical concepts and plain language communications concerning researchfindings and limitations.
NRC sought to create a centre that would provide expertise that:•is competent, employing recognized experts, scientists and engineers, with in-depth knowledge ofthe scientific and technical issues related to the potential repository at Yucca Mountain;•

is independent of the DOE, free from any potential conflict of interest, or appearance of suchconflicts;•

assures long-term continuity of technical support and the maintenance of corporate memory of theevolution of repository safety and regulatory issues; and•complements NRC’s skill sets, avoiding gaps and overlaps in expertise between the NRC and
CNWRA.

NRC’s reliance on independent expertise will assist in conveying to stakeholders that the NRC is able
to challenge DOE assumptions and assertions and arrive at objective conclusions about the safety ofthe potential repository.

Carmel Létourneau, Senior Policy Advisor with Natural Resources Canada, addressed the topic ofgovernment Policy, research and stakeholder Confidence from the perspective of government policy
makers in Canada.
The presentation reviewed the question: why carry out more research into methods of long-term
management of nuclear fuel waste? In addressing this question, Ms. Létourneau provided some11

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

perspectives that were expressed by the Canadian public, since reflected in the Final Study ofmanagement approaches led by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), an
organization set up by the nuclear industry to study options for the long-term management of nuclear
fuel waste. The Final Study was submitted to the federal Minister of Natural Resources in November
2005 as required under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act.
The NWMO’s Final Study emphasized the important role of continuous learning, a key element in the
NWMO’s recommendation of Adaptive Phased Management. It was reported that the NWMO work
had identified many reasons to carry out further research. Regardless of the management approach
adopted, activities to manage radioactive waste will continue for a very long time. Any management
program could be expected to apply the best practice available at the time. A program that will evolve
over a long period of time will have many opportunities for improvements to increase performance,enhance effectiveness, and address rising societal concerns. It was suggested that, to realize thesebenefits, there needs to be a vibrant and robust research and development effort during management
program development and execution, a period that will last many generations, and enable
implementers to adapt to a changing environment. Among the reasons put forward for continuingresearch were, to:•Embody the principles of continuous learning which encourages standards of excellence andintegrity•

Prepare for facility siting, design, licensing, development and operations to improve designs,
minimize costs, enhance schedules, and reduce uncertainties•

Assure adequate human capacity to manage the program throughout its existence to maintaincompetence and credibility•

Enhance scientific understanding to improve confidence in predictions and to evaluate potential
program improvements•

Confirm performance or identify anomalies during and after program operations and thereby
increase confidence•

Clearly demonstrate to citizens an ongoing capability to manage the enterprise and to respond totheir concerns and desires•

Be able to enact mid-course corrections in response to new information or societal decisions byadapting to new designs, new regional, national or international institutional changes, or new
international standards•

Be able to adapt to new capabilities developed externally to the program that show promise of
improving program success.

Ms. Letourneau addressed the role of the public and private sector in conducting research on RWM in
Canada. The Government of Canada has clearly indicated that the responsibility for providing soundscientific data for proposed practices rests with the proponent who is taking action associated with therisk of potential serious harm. Where it is less clear that the proponent should shoulder the entire
responsibility for research programs, the Government step in and assist the proponent or the generalindustry in question. The relationship between research and Government policy focuses on the public
good and always aspires to public confidence. It cannot focus only on ideas and technologies withcommercial potential. Its top priority must retain the public interest of present and future generationsof Canadians. The Government is interested in supporting research which responds to public prioritiesof the day. The presentation reviewed the functional objectives of government research, and noted that
increasingly, the setting of research priorities now involves more intensive and extensive public
12

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

consultations. It was noted that allocation of responsibility for research can shift over time, as
knowledge grows, and the roles of the public and private sectors evolve.
Reference was made to the “precautionary principle” that has been an important factor in setting
priorities in science and technology research and development since the early 1990s. Precautionary
decision-making is in keeping with Canadians social, environmental and economic values andpriorities. Ms. Létourneau commented that the application of “precaution”, the “precautionary
principle”, the “precautionary approach”, also recognizes that the absence of full scientific uncertainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible
harm. R&D can assist to improve stakeholder confidence and risk management, but should not be used
to unnecessarily delay decisions to reach zero risk. When considering public views, governments willneed to balance their ability to practice good governance (making decisions) with the thoughtful
application of precaution (delaying decisions until more research can be carried out). This approachshould lead to increasing public confidence in RWM decisions based on sound R&D.

THE ROLE OF RD&D FOR STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE AS SEEN BY NON-INSTITUTIONAL ACTORSHarold Åhagen, of the Municipality of Oskarshamn in Sweden delivered remarks from theperspective of a local community. His presentation was based on his observations of the Oskarshamn
experience with the site selection process in Sweden.
Mr. Åhagen set the context for his presentation by profiling the geographic location and history ofOskarshamn including the feasibility study and the council’s 2002 unanimous vote to accept site
investigation with 13 conditions and clarifications. Among the conditions were such requirements
such as: public guidance on the safety assessments, continuous SSI and SKI oversight and reporting,development of connection between PA, siting criteria and site characterisation and compilation andevaluation of critical research results by SKI and SSI.
The municipality’s policy places an emphasis on ensuring safety first, providing information on thetable from all parties at all times, and ensuring active engagement and influence. Working groups were
established by the municipality to follow the safety issues and ensure that the 13 conditions are
fulfilled, require investigations enhance citizens’ competence; collect and forward questions andissues; and draw experience from local participation in other national programmes.
The Oskarshamn model has a number of key elements:•

Openness and participation, through which all research results are shared and put on the table.

•

Collaborative development of the EIA process.

•The role of Council in serving as the reference group for the voters – competent elected officials
are responsible for the voters.

•

The public serving as a resource through their contributions. Clearly-defined studies and plans are
pre-requisites for public engagement and influence.

•

Environmental groups serving as resources also, as their members and experts make valuable
contributions.

13

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1•

Stretching of the implementing agency, SKB (the community must build competence so it can ask
difficult questions, until clear answers are provided).

•Competent authorities visible throughout the process, as the “peoples” experts.

•

SKI’s oversight role, conducting independent R&D; a key process for public confidence. The
regulator puts findings into perspective; communicates to municipality its findings.

•

Demonstration playing an important role - laboratories which demonstrate the technology found toplay key roles in competence building and confidence building.

Reaching “informed consent: in siting depends upon many factors, a key factor of which is RD&D.
Mr. Åhagen identified two components that he believes to be key to achieving informed stakeholder
consent. To reach an informed consent there is first a need to build local competence on local terms,
allowing the municipality to have the capacity to independently judge the project. The second
challenge is to achieve consent – a conclusion by a majority (qualified majority) that the repository
can be accepted and is compatible with the broader visions for the municipality. It was noted that local
issues may arise which cannot be resolved. The example of the municipality of Storuman wasprovided, in which the suggestion of a radioactive waste repository was found to be incompatible withthe local focus on wildlife tourism. In Oskarshamn, an industrial municipality familiar with nuclear
plants, the same image dilemma did not arise.
R&D, together with parameters from site investigations form the basic safety case for repository
siting. It was noted that evaluations of safety also are based on assumptions and value judgements.
Mr. Åhagen underscored that the public has a much better understanding of R&D than most experts
are aware of, and that implementers should have faith in the public and trust the public’s ability toabsorb the facts and follow the issues. Citizens understand the quality aspects of R&D, including therole for peer reviews. The public is also aware that facts change over time and that scientists may holddifferent opinions.
The presentation emphasized the importance of capacity-building at the local level. Stable local
support can only be sustained if there is a high degree of competence established about the project. It
is key to be mindful that it will take time to bridge that gap between the nuclear waste management
experts and the local community. It takes a long period of time for a local community to develop its
capacity to participate in decision-making in a way that will support implementation that can takedecades to complete. Building true competence takes a long time and it must be undertaken on theterms of the public and the local decision makers. Lack of patience or tight schedules adopted by the
implementing agencies can pose threats to the maturing of this process. It requires participation andinfluence, and cannot be forced by education and information. The challenge and time required tobuild this local capacity is even greater within non-nuclear municipalities. An ongoing process ofrevitalisation of the local platform is required, as individuals involved at the local level will changeover the years. The experience of Finland and Sweden suggests that access to a local veto has been an
important aspect of local acceptance. With a local veto, there is reduced risk for local decision-makers
to engage in a siting effort. In Oskarshamn, this local power has been used to engage in thecompetence building and to ensure that there is informed consent for participation in site
investigations and possibly hosting of the repository in future.
There was discussion of the types of research most likely to engage local publics. In terms of focus,
participation of the local community will likely begin with a focus on the safety case, and then shift toenvironmental impacts, societal issues and socio-economic issues. The municipality can have more
influence in the social science area, in light of their already established competences on socioeconomic matters. In these areas, the municipality will want to have more direct influence in
14

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

identifying the need for R&D and investigations, following R&D progress and understanding theresults in more detail. It is not the task of the local community to define the program of natural science
R&D. This is largely the domain of the regulators and implementing agencies. The local level can
influence R&D in an indirect way through the identification of questions, a commitment tocompetence building and continuous follow-up on identified issues. Local influence on R&D in
Oskarshamn is described as aggressive competence building through questioning (stretching) of theexperts of implementing agency and regulators.
Modern siting processes present new challenges. Experts are asked to be more open to dialogue and to
sharing of findings as they emerge, including areas of incomplete knowledge and plans. Citizens must
be willing to take on more active roles and invest in capacity building to gain competence to engage inthis new active citizenship. To allow for local influence, the dialogue must start before the solutions
are set and final designs confirmed. The role of the regulator was of fundamental importance inOskarshamn. The openness of SKB’s experts, their willingness to share plans and preliminary results,
and active participation by the regulatory experts has resulted in a solid platform for local participationand influence over the work. Clear definition of roles and responsibilities of implementing agencies,
the regulators, government and the municipality, early in the process, was found to be fundamental tothe process.
It was suggested that demonstration plays quite a different role in local confidence building than does
R&D. Demonstration is seen to be more effective in explaining to the public how a repository isintended to work and how it is intended to isolate the waste from the biosphere. In the case ofOskarshamn, hosing CLAB, the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory and the encapsulation laboratory has
been found to play a significant role in the competence building and in building local acceptance.

Josep Castellnou Barceló, Mayor of Vandellòs and L’Hospitalet de L’Infant in Spain, addressed thelinkages of R&D and stakeholder confidence from the perspective of a mayor. His presentation drewon his experience as mayor of nuclear community in Vandellòs and Hospitalet, Spain.
Mr. Castellnou began by reviewing the economic profile of his community and the chronology of thenuclear program in that area. In discussing factors influencing trust and confidence at the local level,
it was noted that safety and security were key, (not negotiable). Economic development and prospects
for the future were also seen as important pillars for building public confidence. Cutting across theseareas, was a role for R&D and information.
It was important to provide information to the public, and to communicate effectively around issues ofrisk and security. R&D plays a role in supporting these activities to generate confidence. There wereactive training and education initiatives for elected officials and citizens and other stakeholders, which
included local participation in site visits. Education on matters of nuclear energy was provided,
seminars and technical visits. The community participated in the COWAM project, to benefit from theexchange of information internationally. In addition, local information committees were created thatplay an important role in ensuring a flow of information to the general public. The local level has
access to experts to support their activities. The presentation profiled the ways in which themunicipality retains an active role in overseeing the decommissioning of the local nuclear plant.
The presentation reviewed areas in which R&D provided linkages to future well-being of themunicipality, through professional training, linkages with universities, promotion of culture andbusiness and economic diversification. Research in social disciplines is found to be important inbuilding confidence of the public.
15

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

Ghislain de Marsily of the University de Paris VI and French Academy of Sciences contributed to thediscussion by providing a presentation from the perspective of an academic.
In reviewing the role of science, Professor de Marsily focused on the important roles of science andR&D following a siting process. Science and R&D is essential for understanding the physical systems,
displaying and demonstrating processes involved, measuring key parameters, and assessing areas ofresidual uncertainty. He outlined a number of factors that are key to making a strong case to
stakeholders, to demonstrate that the system is well understood:•

explaining the past history of the site;•

explaining unexpected features or occurrences (such as seismic anomalies);•

ensuring the capacity to observe and note unexpected features;•

having the capacity to introduce new measurements that can inform the system;•

deriving scientific validation of theory (noting the example of WIPP);•

maintaining the capacity to be at the frontier of science; and•having the ability to answer unexpected questions from any party.

It was suggested that credibility and stakeholder confidence is linked, in part, to credibility of theresearch in the eyes of the scientific community. The scientific community must be engaged to addressquestions of interest to the public. The role of peer review is essential in establishing the credibility of
researchers, and within academic circles, publications in the scientific literature is highly valued. It is
important for both implementers and regulators to retain their own capabilities and competence to becredible in the eyes of stakeholders. The experience of Andra was noted, in underscoring theimportance of having high-level scientists internal to the implementing organization to ensure
momentum and institutional knowledge. Thesis students also offer ways of promoting science in areasof interest concerning radioactive waste management.
Demonstration plays an essential and distinct role from R&D. It offers tangible insight to stakeholders.
At the same time, it may reveal unexpected features and can be a catalyst for triggering yet further
R&D. Demonstration carries more relevance for engineering knowledge. The presentation concluded
with the example of CLIS, a forum which is interested in the results of research.

16

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS

Sybille van den Hove, of the Autonomous University of Barcelona in Spain, contributed context
roundtable discussion amongst FSC members and guest presenters, by discussing some generalobservations and key issues that surfaced during the day’s discussions. In her stocktaking, Professor
van den Hove reviewed highlights from the discussion and presented her own reflections on the role ofscience and the inter-disciplinary aspects of research discussed. She noted the themes arising from thepresentations concerning transparency, openness, accountability, as well as the emphasis placed on“stretching” in framing research programs, and the importance of recognizing and managing residual
uncertainty.
In commenting on the role of science, Professor van den Hove observed that science is important inframing issues, but it does not provide truth. Science deals with incomplete explanations of the world;
uncertainty and ignorance are parts of science; and yet we tend to still operate as if science brings theabsolute truth.
•

Science does participate in the definition of problems, but it is not alone in this role.

•

We must consider the role of established knowledge vs. “destabilised” knowledge (research).

•

Translation is required: need translations from science to society and from society to science.

•

There are cultural differences in understanding the role of science – we have heard very different
approaches in terms of role of science.

•

What is science? This is an on-going research question. It is definitely a human process. Has thereever been such a thing as a pure scientist?

•

Too often science processes are black-boxed in our institutions.

•(Power) asymmetry between science/expertise and the public, is still very present, even in
discursive processes, but processes can be designed to address this.

•

There are many different types of expertise, knowledge, intelligence.

•

Science is not neutral and not always independent, nevertheless it does maintain ideals ofneutrality and independence in scientific methods.

Roundtable discussion ensued in an exchange of comments and observations amongst FSC members
and guest presenters, covering a range of topics:
Discussion continued on the role of RD&D•

Participants discussed the ways in which research and society may be linked. One individualsuggested that until the actors are brought together, it will not be possible to build a vision of asocially acceptable future. In that case the research has to be “stretched” in a way that responds tothe task of partnership-building. Expertise must be built up in the spirit of partnership building. As
part of this, it is important to open up the question of “what is the future”?
17

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1•

There was discussion from the perspective of different agencies on how decisions are taken
regarding the amount of research required. The case of Canada was noted, in which the Seaborn
Panel found that, notwithstanding the millions of dollars directed to years of technical research,safety had not been demonstrated from a social perspective. The Panel’s finding was instructive inencouraging new thinking on decision- making processes.

•

There was discussion on the role of demonstration; recognizing it has a very different role from
R&D, but an essential role.

Roles and responsibilities were considered•

Participants discussed “who should conduct research”? It was recognized that there are many
possible approaches, and each actor has associated with it its own scientific network.

•

Some suggested that, to some extent, implementers and regulators may be competing technically.
Consideration should be given to how many researchers are required, the required functions of thevarious technical committees, and the role for stakeholders in national programmes.

•

The question of who undertakes social science was addressed. It was noted that there are different
ways of involving social scientists in the process.

•The role for public guidance in safety assessments was discussed. Some proposed that this is thesame notion as stretching - that by asking questions and understanding the answers, we canunderstand the maturity of the work. Implementers should not be afraid of questions raised by thehost municipality or potential host communities - this questioning should be seen as helpful to theprocess.

•

It was suggested that the significance and the acceptability - to an individual, to members of acommunity, and to a society - of exposure to risk depends on perceptions about how, by whom andwhy the risk is produced. When talking of risk, there are many dimensions, beyond the purely
technical ones. A participant suggested that risk is not just a scientific concept; it is value laden.
Some proposed that many aspects of radioactive waste management are socially constructed.

•

There was discussion of the roles of the public, the authorities, inter-disciplinary peer reviewers
and other actors in ensuring quality of science and expertise.

•

There was discussion of the merit of allowing scientists to proceed independently, outside of theimplementing or regulatory organization (i.e. not “in-house” scientists) for special projects. Somesuggested that if science was left only to outside labs, the result may not be helpful. Yet, it wasrecognized that one can’t expect to micro-manage the research internally. It is important to find abalance, with sufficient independent scientific contribution while maintaining at each point a
dialogue so work does not diverge too far from the objectives of the organization.

•

The potential for self-interested behaviour of researchers was acknowledged. It was noted thatmany make livelihoods out of ongoing research, and it is therefore in their interest to keep
identifying problems to investigate. It was suggested that it is important that the leadership of
implementing and regulatory organizations to include strong scientific capabilities to help theorganization make important judgments concerning the extent and areas of research needs.

•

Reference was made to the French law of 1991 which enforced a new model for scientific andtechnical development. In contrast with the previous rationale based on large organisations, thecreation of Andra as a programme organisation, not entrusted with a mission to carry out and toconcentrate all investigations within its own structure, but to federate other scientific resources
sharing a common objective, constituted a major innovation. A new working method was createdbased on a new scientific organisation, guaranteeing openness, a finer and more relevant account18

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1of the issues at stake by the scientific community, a sharper critical outlook over the entire work,or in brief, some of the specific virtues ascribed to scientific investigations.
Funding of research was raised as an issue that perhaps should receive more attention.
•

One member suggested that there are a number of financial questions that may warrant more indepth consideration in relation to stakeholder confidence:-

Who should pay for research: the public or the waste producer?

-

Is research funded by public monies found to be more credible? The case could be made it is in
the public interest.

-

The counter argument is that polluters should pay. Is industry-funded research seen as lesscredible than research funded by public monies?

-

Does the issue of who finances significantly affect the credibility issue? Is this expected tovary by country?

Participants exchanged views on the role of civil society.
•

Participants shared perspectives on whether the public should be viewed as being “expert”. Someargued that this should be the case and that lay persons can understand complex risk assessment.

•

The question was asked, if we acknowledge that there is expertise in civil society, then what is its
responsibility in the process? It was proposed that views on whether or not civil society ought toplay a prominent role must be situated in a cultural setting. The cultural framing is key where
different values exist.

•

It was remarked that, as higher education and R&D play a much larger role in almost all aspects ofour modern western society, there is generally a much better understanding spread among the
public on what R&D constitutes. It was suggested that the public appreciates that what constitutes“facts” will change over time, and that scientists have different opinions about the same matter. It
was proposed that that evolution is not unique to matters of nuclear waste; rather these aredevelopments and features that permeate our society generally.

•

A participant observed, with reference to a nuclear community, that those citizens, through theirlife experiences, have shown to have very sophisticated knowledge about the presence and effectof radioactivity.

•

A participant suggested that there is a need to rebuild relationships among the actors, but that in sodoing, we should not go back to old models.

•

There was some exploration of the practical possibilities of truly engaging the general public that
may have a low level of awareness or interest in the topic. Discussion ensued around the issue thatsome countries require consultation at the national level. The work of the UK CoRWM was noted,
in bringing together a wide range of experts. Trends to move toward more pluralistic models ofadvisory committees to government were noted. In France, it was noted that the CNE has 12
members appointed by the Parliament, safety authorities and others, which are not exclusively
scientists.

19

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

There was considerable discussion on quality and stakeholder perceptions of competence andcredibility of researchers.
•

Some commented that the recent breakdown of the credibility of science and engineering is
primarily a social phenomenon. At a time when many actors are experiencing low publicconfidence, the level of trust that the public has in institutions undertaking the research becomes
important. It was noted that quality considerations vary with different sets of people. In order toassess and foster acceptability of a given strategy for waste management, it was suggested that it isnecessary also to consider the meanings and relationships that alternative strategies might
establish among the people implicated in the waste management process. Trust must be built
amongst these constituencies.

•

Important questions emerging are:-

What should be the role of science in, and the contribution of expertise to, decision-making
processes?
What constitutes quality in scientific research?
Which are issues experts need to be aware of so credibility is not impaired?
What is the role for peer review processes?

•

A participant suggested that the credibility of technical experts and institutions depends on theissue at hand, and that the issue is more about the “credibility of applied science”.

•

Participants considered the question, of “credibility to whom?”, and how credibility is meant to be
defined. It was suggested by some that there is no higher credibility than that brought by the peerreview process, and that to maintain currency, researchers must be published and recognizedwithin their own communities. The challenge is how to navigate between interests – independentscientists won’t have credibility if they are not current.

•

The experience of the U.S. NRC was noted, in which the peer review process tries to be current, toreach out and be visible.

•

Participants acknowledged the role for mutual questioning, which must be allowed. The peer
review – including the extended peer review – is also important. Some stressed the need to open
up all contributions to debate - to scientists, society and implementers - so that there can be mutual
questioning, understanding and stretching.

•

The Eurobarometer survey and the findings presented in Mr. Le Bars’ presentation on “being told
the truth” and “competence” were discussed, as participants reflected on what might be deeper
implications underlying these findings.

Transparency and accountability were much discussed.
Transparency and openness around science and expertise in supporting decision-making processes wasconsidered in terms of the implications for scientists, experts, decision-makers and institutions.
•

There was discussion on the background context. It was suggested that the strong belief in ascientific and technological revolution as a source of progress has weakened. The public isdemanding greater levels of transparency in processes, including a sharing of research programs
and findings. Citizens wish to have access to information and findings of specialists.

•

The public is more suspicious of “expert processes” of risk assessment that are non-transparent.
Challenges appear to be greatest on issues in which there are many different social values,20

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

remaining areas of uncertainty, risk, and high decision stakes in terms of long- term impacts ofdecisions taken.
•

Complex policy issues often involve many challenges – factual issues with uncertainties, values,
emotions and vested interests. All of these factors should be exposed to policy makers and the
public before decisions are made. There should be transparency about the assumptions, values andinterests of experts. Participatory processes may help to clarify these assumptions. A range ofquestions emerge in considering the issue of transparency and accountability.
-

Does a less formal process lead to less accountability?
What does accountability mean in a very long term framework?
Is partiality acceptable, provided that it is declared?
How can consistency between discourse and behaviour (authenticity) be ensured?

Other process challenges emerged in the discussion.
•

Some noted the difficulty for many researchers to stay within their own fields, focused on theirmandates. Others noted that researchers can become enamoured with their respective fields inways that pose challenges to the process.

•Some emphasized the importance of having a process host that has a strong vested interest in thevalue of the process. All actors carry competences and values and we need to build the bridges forthese competences to be exchanged.

•

Participants considered the challenge of working with experts who hold different points of view.
-

Some observed that experts have not been trained to work with dilemmas. Situations may arise
with a majority viewpoint, and minority outliers. It was suggested that the RISCOM model isable to test the authenticity of these viewpoints.

-

Others suggested the importance of demonstrating competence vis-à-vis certain levels of duty
and criteria. Demonstrating integrity and authenticity in a structured way will allow a player
to build space for compromise. E.g. “I must demonstrate attention to “your concern””.

•

There was recognition of the importance of effectively communicating research findings. A
participant noted the experience of their organization, in which the direction to the technical staff
is that “research results that we do or sponsor have to be explainable in the plainest language”.

•

Participants questioned whether these challenges are problems exclusive to radioactive waste
management, or whether they are features of the realm of science more generally. Somemaintained that these challenges are evident more broadly across sectors. For example, issues of
mistrust are of a generic nature in large part, which also originate with other issues, such as the
GMO issue.

Concluding comments and preliminary thoughts on possible ways forward were invited by the FSC
secretariat.
•

A participant remarked that national differences were more pronounced than had been expected.
In light of these differences, it was suggested that it may be useful to undertake further work in thisarea, by framing the issue more precisely to understand national and cultural differences anduncover areas of common ground. If this is of interest to FSC members, consideration might begiven how best to collect relevant information from members.

21

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1•

An individual suggested that it may be interesting to review selected processes through a casestudy format, to compare a radioactive waste management process to another case in anothersector, to explore whether the challenges and issues are topic-specific or whether they apply moregenerally across other sectors.

•

Another idea tabled was that the FSC might reach out to people affected at the local level, to
explore areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction concerning their role in interacting with otherplayers and RD&D.

•

Participants raised the question, where do we go from here? How do we change/build institutions
for interfacing science and society in practice?

•

One individual suggested areas for further exploration might include:-Ways of training scientists
How to ensure transparency
Approaches to engaging stakeholders vs. the general public in the process
Articulation of different forms of participation.

In concluding discussion of a way forward, it was agreed that the next step would involve asummary and distillation of the key themes and lessons learned from this topical session. The CoreGroup would then consider an appropriate course forward on this item.
As the discussion concluded, FSC members expressed appreciation to the guest presenters. Members
acknowledged the extensive ground covered by the presentations. The topical session highlighted anumber of key issues, opportunities and challenges regarding the linkages of science and research to
stakeholder confidence.

22

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

SOME INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES OF LESSONS LEARNEDThe topical session provided a forum in which FSC members could explore the relationship of RD&D
to stakeholder confidence, reflecting on their own experiences and learning from a rich discussion
provided through presentations offering a multiple of perspectives – implementing agencies,
regulators, governments, local communities and academia – as well as their own experiences.
This section draws on the FSC presentations and discussion which followed presentations, thestocktaking of Sybille van den hove, and the NEA Secretariat’s observations of international
experiences and lessons learned.
Throughout the discussion, it emerged that there are very notable differences across jurisdictions interms of how RD&D has been integrated in radioactive waste management programs. While it is notpossible to draw broad generalizations across countries, it is possible to note a number of the themes
discussed.
Confirmation of the important linkages of science and research to stakeholder confidence – RD&D-- the nature and robustness of the work which is conducted, the manner in which it is conducted andthe effectiveness of its communication -- is acknowledged to be a critical contributor to stakeholder
confidence in nuclear waste management approaches. RD&D has a role in both meeting regulatory
requirements, and also in seeking broader social understanding and confidence in decisions taken.
Among the factors considered key to building confidence among stakeholders are: demonstration thatthe system is well understood; explaining the past history of the site; explaining unexpected features or
occurrences; ensuring the capacity to observe and note unexpected features; having the capacity tointroduce new measurements that can inform the system; deriving scientific validation of theory;
maintaining the capacity to be at the frontier of science; and having the ability to answer unexpected
questions from any party. Residual areas of uncertainty must be acknowledged, and continuous
learning should guide decision-making. Social sciences play an important role in establishing thelegitimacy of societal, scientific and expert processes, and furthering understanding of social issues
that are essential components of integrated risk assessment. Implemented well, science and research
programs help to build stakeholder confidence to facilitate and sustain momentum for decisions andimplementation.
The essential and distinct role of demonstration – Demonstration is highly valued in offering
tangible insight to stakeholders, particularly concerning engineering knowledge. Observations fromdemonstration projects may, in turn, be a catalyst for further R&D.
Examples: Effectiveness of CLAB, Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory was noted in building local
confidence. Experience of CLIS was discussed.
The need to consider science and research in the broader social context of decision-making –Modern society is demanding greater public participation and incorporation of citizen values in23

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

decision-making. Processes and systems must be in place to connect science with society, to ensure
research reflects the public’s priorities, visions and concerns. Experts are important actors but do nothold the exclusive right to influence over decision-making – they contribute alongside citizens,regulators, governments and implementers. The scientific community needs to engage and respond to
the interrogations raised by citizens since quality of science and expertise will ultimately be assessedagainst criteria established by society.
Importance of clarifying roles, responsibilities and relationships early in the process - Experience todate highlights the importance of establishing, early in the process, roles and responsibilities ofdifferent actors, including their roles in influencing and discussing science and research investigations.
Different approaches are adopted across jurisdictions with regard to who are considered to be“experts” in the decision-making process – e.g. can range from regulators, NGO’s, implementers orothers. However, it is important for both implementers and regulators to retain their own capabilities
and competence to themselves be credible in the eyes of stakeholders. Some jurisdictions are adopting
the terminology of “specialists” (rather than “experts”) to cover the full range of contributors –including civil society, which is increasingly accepted as being “specialist” in its own right.
Inclusion – making space for multi-disciplinary contributions – Society now expects that a broad
range of considerations and expertise will be brought to the waste management project, and in an
integrated way that bridges and builds accountability across disciplines. Citizens expect holistic
decision-making on complex issues to be well informed by specialists from many disciplines and avariety of institutions or sources. The public views decisions as strongest and most trustworthy when
informed by many objective sources. Inviting multiple perspectives within a discipline adds further
rigor. In this context, social science research is widely acknowledged as having an important role toplay alongside technical and scientific investigation. While social science may not be considered as aformal domain of expertise in many institutional designs, it is seen as essential in considering thehuman dimensions of integrated risk assessments and in guiding the design of sound process andstakeholder involvement.
A more active role for citizens – There are rising demands from the public to be active informed
participants with opportunities to influence decisions that affect them. The public is asking
implementers to both assist and trust the public’s ability to absorb information, understand research
processes and follow issues. Guidance in identifying and managing potential socio-economic effects
from interests that may potentially be affected, as well as from experts in the field, is essential toproviding socio-economic-related insight concerning the area hosting the facility. This guidance isalso an important focus for ongoing socio-economic and cultural-related work as implementation
proceeds.
Affected communities may exert influence by asking questions, identifying new areas of research,
reviewing progress and understanding results. In asking questions, local communities can exert
influence directly or indirectly on the research program. This influence can be important in“stretching” the experts from implementing and regulatory institutions, however it necessarily requires
the community to invest in capacity-building.
Changing roles for experts – Although a very critical partner in waste management decision making,the time has past when experts can make decisions on behalf of society in this area without its direct
involvement. Scientists offer confidence to society about the sound quality of its activities. Moreover,
applying rigour in the implementation of scientific projects ensures the reliability and relevance of the
proposed suggestions.

24

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

However, it is becoming increasingly recognized that research is not value-free: stakeholder
confidence requires that researchers declare their interests and expose their value frameworks. Experts
are being asked to be more open to dialogue – sharing findings as they emerge, including residual
areas of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. In framing the issues and research questions, experts
must be open to listening to citizen concerns, agree to be “stretched” as questions are posed from new
angles, ensure their questions are addressed and agree to be open to changes in direction.
It is understood that a broad range of knowledge is required to fully understand the issues. The
inclusion of a multiplicity of diverse perspectives helps ensure the entrance of additional information,
values and concerns within the project dialogue and debate. Provided early in the process,consideration of this diverse perspective can reduce the risk of mistrust that tends to emerge fromoverly narrow framing of research programs and questions. The “stretching” of expertise in bothprocess and substance aspects of research, which results from consideration of this diverse perspective,
is important in opening up the dialogue and ensuring partnership building.
Sharing of knowledge and reciprocal learning is key for relationship building – Dissemination ofresearch findings and provision for real dialogue about these findings are key to building publicconfidence -- it is important to avoid sequestered learning. Social trust is enhanced through the broad
sharing of knowledge and providing opportunities for all interested stakeholders to ask questions andshare perspectives. Processes of collaboration that bring together specialists and communities for twoway conversation and earnest exchange of views can assist in building trust amongst different
constituencies. Such processes offer the opportunity for inter-disciplinary aspects of the project to be
discussed, and provides bridging opportunities for multiple areas of specialist knowledge andcompetencies. Effective reciprocal learning requires responsiveness to citizens, so that expertise andspecialist information includes areas of interest and inquiries of potentially affected communities. A
variety of mechanisms have been employed to encourage expression of a wide range of stakeholder
perspectives.
Examples: In Vandellòs, Spain, reciprocal learning was facilitated by municipalities’ active
involvement in training, education and participation in international projects (COWAM), a well as
through local information committees established to ensure ongoing flow of information to the
public.
In Oskarshamn, Sweden, sharing is facilitated through working groups set up by the municipality
to follow safety issues and site investigation process.
In Canada, the NWMO study process was driven by societal direction. Through a collaborative
process, the NWMO process created an open forum which brought specialists and citizens
together - information was widely distributed, findings discussed, multiple perspectives
welcomed, and direction on research questions invited. Dialogues were designed, conducted andreported on by third parties to ensure accuracy and transparency.
Importance of capacity-building – In voluntary siting processes, it is important that the local
community has the capacity to participate in decision-making in an informed and active manner.
Sustained, stable local support also requires a high degree of competence at the local level. It istherefore essential to recognize the potential for the existence of a large knowledge gap, initially,
between affected communities and implementers and the importance of community capacity-building
to bridge this gap. Experience indicates that building capacity takes significant periods of time. Lackof patience and tight implementation schedules can pose significant threats to the maturing of thisprocess. Experience also indicates that participation and influence cannot be forced by education andinformation; it must unfold on the terms of the public and local decision makers.
25

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

In order to support effective participation, it is important to ensure that the citizens and communities
impacted by the selection of a site for the management facility are sufficiently resourced and informed
to fully participate in discussions and decision-making which affects them. Their participation must be
based on an understanding of potential risks and the means to manage them. There must be
opportunities for genuine involvement in decision-making concerning the future facility. Communities
need to be informed and have the capacity to, should they wish, participate in monitoring as well as
decision-making. Experience indicates that effective engagement is based on principles of openness,transparency, integrity and mutual respect, which imply a shared responsibility.
RD&D a key feature embedded in some management approaches – There are a number of ways inwhich a new relationship between science and society is being recognized and encouraged in waste
management programs. Recently, explicit inclusion of RD&D in the implementation plans for
management approaches by some implementers and/or authorities are examples of current thinking
about how the relationship between science and society might be formalized to facilitate decisionmaking in to the future. For instance, RD&D is an explicit feature of adaptive/phased management
approaches which embody continuous learning. As an explicit part of an implementation plan, RD&D
becomes part of the process established to respond to societal expectations for: continuous learning;incorporation of scientific advancement; sequential decision-making informed by most recent
international understandings; reduced uncertainty; and flexibility to adjust course, in response to newtechnology or shifting societal priorities and values. Inclusion of RD&D in this way explicitly laysout a course by which science and society will jointly consider and make the decisions necessary to
explore and capitalize on opportunities to improve system design and effectiveness, advanceunderstanding, reduce uncertainties, assure regulatory requirements and respond to societal concerns
over the generations required for implementation.
Waste management approaches which include continuous learning as a component, more so than otherapproaches, require longer term thinking about how the relationship between science and society will
evolve over time. Continuous learning demands research and development to help assure focus onareas that warrant attention, and the improvement and adoption of evolving best practices and, should
they become available, new technologies. Since program requirements are set not at minimally
acceptable performance and regulatory compliance, but at meeting societal expectations to continually
improve upon best practices and adapt to unfolding advances in related fields as the program
progresses, it is important that mechanisms to identify these societal expectations and factor them into
decision-making are established.
Programs involving sequential decision-making can be informed and enriched by new learning fromRD&D provided that such knowledge, skills and capability are effectively sustained over the longtime horizon associated with implementation. RD&D would ensure that institutions retain theflexibility and capability to adapt to changing circumstances and adjust direction as appropriate. Thisin turn may help ensure that responsible organizations maintain skills and knowledge required tooversee and manage facilities, and address emerging issues long into the future, thereby sustaining
public confidence. Within affected communities, an ongoing process of capacity building andrevitalization would be required to retain competence, as individuals involved at the local level changeover the years. Vibrant and well-directed research programs would be required to sustain this capacity
over time and ensure the availability of well-trained, experienced personnel focused on solving
emerging issues throughout the duration of the program. Ongoing collaborative research with local
communities can serve to build and maintain important long-term relationships with local
stakeholders.

26

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

Examples: Provision for retrievability featured in some repository programs to accommodate
new learning. Reversibility options ensure renewed interrogation in RWM, and provide
flexibility to allow for collective aspirations for continuous learning to be reflected in soundsocial and technical practices.
In Canada, the societal emphasis placed on continuous learning and R&D as a public goodrequired to inform decisions - now featured in Adaptive Phased Management proposed by
Canada’s NWMO.
France’s Andra underscored the importance of having high-level scientists internal to theimplementing organization to ensure momentum and institutional knowledge.
In the U.S., the CNWRA established by the NRC will help to assures long-term continuity offocused support in technical areas, and maintenance of “corporate memory” of the evolutionof repository safety and regulatory issues.
Transparency and accountability key to earning trust— Indications are that the public has come tofeel that the scientific and technical system is too opaque and expect greater openness andtransparency in the sharing of research findings, areas of uncertainty and in decision-making. In thisenvironment, transparency and accountability are key to building and retaining trust. The public wants
to know and better understand why decisions are being made, how they are being implemented, andthe extent to which standards are being met.
Experience indicates that transparent and accountable reporting needs to include explicit publicrecognition of the limits to the current state of knowledge, areas of uncertainty and the areas ofcontinued scientific debate. Experience also indicates that scientific openness does not constitute agoal in itself. Rather, its importance lies in its contribution to broadening the public debate, giving riseto new questions, and structuring scientific investigation in accordance with both the standard
requirements of the scientific world as well as societal expectations. A transparent and accountableprocess contributes to building a sense of public trust in that process and greater stakeholder
confidence. Quality of research, fairness of process, transparency in values frameworks and interestsof participating experts, and willingness to be “stretched” all contribute to stakeholder confidence. It is
understood that complex policy issues, such as the long term management of nuclear waste, often
involve many challenges – factual issues with uncertainties, values, emotions and vested interests. Allof these factors need to be exposed to policy makers and the public before decisions are made.
Examples: The openness of SKB’s experts, their willingness to share plans and preliminary
results, along with active participation of regulatory experts, has resulted in a solid platform
for local participation and influence.
U.S. NRC commitment to reviewing information objectively, making open decisions, running
open and fair public process, ensuring availability of documents.
In Canada, throughout its study the NWMO publicly reported on points of convergence
between experts and citizens, and the broad diversity of view including debates amongexperts.
Quality as a condition of credibility – The issue of quality of science and expertise must be
considered and built into the research process. Experience indicates it is important to question how
research is conducted. Applying rigour in execution of science and research enhances relevancy andpublic acceptance of ultimate decisions taken. In this regard, stakeholder confidence is linked to the27

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

perceived credibility of the scientific community and the role of peer review is essential inestablishing the credibility of researchers. Within academic circles, publication in the scientific
literature is highly valued. Peer reviews may take many forms, such as written reviews, advisorycommittees or other screening processes. “Extended peer reviews” open up the peer community toother forms of knowledge to allow debate beyond narrow scientific circles, amongst the public,
implementers, regulators and scientists, for mutual questioning and confirmation of the problem
definitions, stretching and understanding. Experts must agree to be evaluated in their own right andtheir mandates and constraints made clear.
Examples: To enhance the public confidence of its regulatory processes and decisions, theU.S. NRC recognizes the importance of open and fair processes, independence andverification and monitoring. The NRC established the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory
Analyses (CNWRA) in 1987, employing experts on scientific and technical issues, to assist
NRC in making independent judgments about the safety of the nation’s first geologicalrepository for high-level radioactive waste.
Canada’s NWMO adopts the practice of peer reviewing its research and using third-party
facilitators and reporters for transparency and independence.
Integration of RD&D in ongoing process of dialogue and decision-making – Public demands arelikely to continue to increase for real engagement with experts and other stakeholders as decisions aretaken. Many of the challenges associated with strengthening linkages between RD&D and stakeholder
confidence in the RWM sector are also encountered in other sectors as part of evolving societal
expectations more generally. There is a growing body of experience from which lessons can belearned associated with siting large projects in RWM, as well as in other sectors, which offer insights
and innovation in bringing together affected organisations and individuals into decision-making
processes. As well, through collaborative processes which bring experts and citizens together,experience is being gained with addressing socio-economic and cultural affects to ensure alignment
between projects and citizen values and priorities leading to greater stakeholder confidence. Agencies
responsible for implementation will need to stay abreast of emerging societal expectations, and look to
innovation across sectors for new and evolving approaches and practices in strengthening therelationship between science and society.
Examples: Models such as VALDOC and RISCOM offer new ways of approaching process,challenging participants to embrace transparency and “stretch”, to consider issues from new
perspectives.
In France, Andra has sought to diversify its partnerships on a constant basis.
Shared challenges – National differences exist in terms of the way in which science and RD&D
contribute to stakeholder confidence and decision-making, and the way in which roles andresponsibilities have been assigned. The balance struck between science driven decision-making andbroader societally-directed decision-making, and methods for achieving this balance, are at the heart ofachieving stakeholder confidence. The range of approaches used by different waste management
programs reflects the historical and cultural context in which a new relationship between science andsociety is being built in various national contexts.
It is expected that jurisdictions will continue to share a number of interests and challenges as they seek
to develop and refine decision-making and implementation processes. Within each country’s own
societal and cultural context a number of questions will continue to pose challenges:

28

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1•

How to improve the interaction of science and society, to enhance confidence in RWM decisionmaking processes?

•

How to encourage cross-fertilization of specialist knowledge in informing decisions on RWM?

•

How to ensure opportunities for societal direction of RD&D, to enhance confidence in theprocess?

•

How to clearly and effectively communicate scientific findings and uncertainties? And address
contradictory views of process participants?

•

How to anticipate, and provide for, rising societal expectations for active citizen engagement indesign and review of science and research?

•

How to encourage further “stretching” of specialists for disclosure of interests, greatertransparency, broader dialogue and ensured rigour of research programs?

•

How to design and execute effective collaborative processes that engage all affected parties in the
broad direction of the consideration of risk and the safety case?

•

How to build local capacity and competence for active roles in RD&D and decision-making?

29

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

30

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1COMPILATION OF PAPERS

31

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

32

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

AGENDA OF THE TOPICAL SESSION OF THE 6TH MEETING OF THE FSC
12.

THE LINK BETWEEN RD&D AND STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE
Co-Chairs: Y. Le Bars, K. Shaver
Rapporteur: S. van den Hove

12.a

Introduction
Y. Le Bars
PART-1: STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE VIS-À-VIS THE ROLE OF SCIENCE, SCIENTIFICINSTITUTIONS, AND EXPERTS IN TODAY’S SOCIETY

12.b

Role of, and relation to, science in today’s societies, as well the issue of confidence inresearchers/institutions.
M. O’Connor

12.c

The role and behaviour of the experts (technicians, engineers, researchers) and how to expose theexperts’ value system in order to gain stakeholder confidence.
K. Andersson
Discussion of Items 12.a, 12.b, 12.c
PART-2: THE ROLE OF RD&D FOR STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE AS SEEN BY INSTITUTIONALACTORS

12.d

An implementer’s view of how research and research capability are approached in order to gain
stakeholder confidence in the implementer fulfilling its mission
F. Jacq

12.e

A regulator’s view of how research and research capability are approached in order to gain
stakeholder confidence in effective regulation and safety
J. Kotra12.f

A policy maker view of how research and research capability are to be approached in order tohave stakeholder confidence in policy and its implementation
C. Létourneau

12.g

Discussion of Items 12.d, 12.e, 12.f
PART-3: THE ROLE OF RD&D FOR STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE

AS SEEN BY NON-INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

12.h

The perspective of a local community
H. Åhagen

12.i

The perspective of a mayor
J. Castellnou

12.j

The perspective of an academic
G. De Marsily
PART-4: LESSONS TO BE LEARNT

12.k

Discussion of Part-3, plus overall discussion, including suggestions for way forward
K. Shaver

12.l

Stocktaking from the topical session on the Link Between RD&D and Stakeholder Confidence
held at the 6th Meeting of the RWMC held at the 6th meeting of the RWMC forum on
stakeholder confidence
S. van den Hove33

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

34

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

FORUM OF STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE - PHASE II OF PROGRAM OF WORK

Yves LE BARSIGGREF, France
Extended Aims to Six Major Areas
•
•
•
•
•
•

The role of RD&D for stakeholder confidence.
Cultural and organizational changes for credibility of RWM institutions and experts.
Different actors and stakeholder values, perspectives and needs.
Involving and interacting with the media.
Means to help society make decisions through stakeholder involvement.
Help create a relationship between a community and the local waste facility.

Some key conclusion from the FSC
Stakeholder involvement requires a new culture in the organisation:•

Each actor must respect certain values and abilities; capacity to communicate, to learn form thepublic and to adapt.

•

A need to restore credibility to the voice of experts.

1. The role of the expert has changed:•

After the 2nd World War: shortages and cold war gave the expert the legitimacy to decide:
legitimacy given to one.

•

Some difficulties, and recognition that alternatives are possible, led to share the “expert” role, withthis of the “decision maker”: legitimacy given to two.

•But crisis in health and environment, and number of independent actors involved ask for “public
policies” defined and implemented through “decision making processes”, with stakeholders
participation.
Complexity of issues, complexity of the social system have led to: An interplay among three typesof actors.

2. Competence and credibility: Could research play a role?
•

Trust in the actors and confidence in the way they manage are rather low in the nuclear field.
Independent research organistions resist more than others.
35

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

3. FSC Programme of Work: The links between research and stakeholders confidence
We suppose research to be part of our “process, structure, behaviour and debate”:•

To be introduced in the process, as contributor to the project definition, providing scientificbackground.

•

To be carried out by institutions, with a clear role.

•

To adopt an adapted behaviour.
The thematic session is supposed to investigate contribution and conditions for research to
Stakeholder confidence

Research contributions to stakeholders confidence; some questions
Research, certainties and uncertainties:•

Research provides evidences, certainties.

•

But in environmental issues, and RW LT management, project managers have to recognize that
uncertainties will remain.

•It’s one of the research tasks to provide qualified certainties, and to work on uncertainties,
accepting doubt.
Which quality we can expect from research?
How to implement it in the process?

Research contribution to stakeholders confidence
Research and the project: an organization is needed:•

Project managers have to design and demonstrate.

•

Researchers have to investigate, and to work on uncertainties, to expose, to reduce them.

•Each of the two has its own evaluation.
How to implement a “fine tuning” between project and research?

Research contribution to stakeholders confidence
Researchers, project managers and the debate; a cultural and personal “conversion”•“Speaking to a journalist, a researcher quite always go out of his field of expertise” (H. Curien).

•

Experts and researchers often “fall in love” with their research topic.

•

Researchers have to accept, and to demonstrate they accept, not to be the decision maker; values
out of sciences are part of the decision.
How to succeed in these cultural changes?

36

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

ROLE OF, AND RELATION TO, SCIENCE IN TODAY’S SOCIETIES, AS WELL THE
ISSUE OF CONFIDENCE IN RESEARCHERS/INSTITUTIONS.

Outline based on the presentation of Professor Martin O’Connor
The recent breakdown of the credibility of science and engineering is primarily a social phenomenon.
This problem cannot be solved merely by science, but it should also be addressed by social science
research. Especially important questions are, for example: What constitutes quality in scientificresearch? What should be the role of science in, and the contribution of expertise to, decision making
processes?
Problems of social acceptance are also pertinent to the radioactive waste problem. However, in the
nuclear waste management field there are major differences between investments in technical andsocial science research. Large efforts need to be made in the latter area, because many aspects ofradioactive waste management are socially constructed. In general terms, social construction of a riskmeans that the significance and the acceptability - to an individual, to members of a community, andto a society - of exposure to a dose depends on perceptions about how, by whom and why the dose has
been produced. Correspondingly, in order to assess to what extent or on what basis the members of asociety will judge acceptable a given strategy for waste management, it is necessary also to consider
the meanings and relationships that alternative strategies might establish between the people
implicated in the waste management process.
The key issue is to build an appropriate relationship between the key components of the waste
management process, i.e., the host community, the science community, the waste generators and thepolicy makers. Trust is an important component of this relationship. In general, trust can becharacterised as the willingness of a person, group or community, to make itself vulnerable in the hopeof a benefit coming from association with others that would not otherwise be forthcoming. Therefore,
the building of the trust of stakeholders means building a shared hope1.
In addition to hopes for shared benefits, another condition of trust is the confidence in the capacity andwill of institutional actors to assure the sharing of the benefits. Due to the above mentioned breakdownof the credibility of science and engineering, technocratic approaches (where the locus of making
decisions is at science and engineering organisations), or administrative approaches (where decisions
are made by policy makers with the aid of technical experts, but without involving other stakeholders),
are not appropriate for building up such confidence any more. Chances of building up confidence are
improved by a dialogue between policy makers, technical experts and other stakeholders.
Participants in a dialogue should recognise that there are many different (and equally legitimate)principles and quality criteria to be considered, the importance of which can be very different for thevarious stakeholder groups. In policy debates parties should understand and address all principles and1.

It can be stated that one of FSC’s objectives is exploring the hopes that can be shared by stakeholders of
the RWM problem.

37

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

quality criteria that are deemed significant by any of the stakeholder groups, rather than usingarguments which relate only to their own principles and criteria. This means a reciprocal burden of
proof, in contrast to traditional approaches where the burden of proof lies with only one of the parties.
For example, a dialogue can improve the prospects of reaching agreement about satisfactorystewardship strategies for radioactive waste sites. To address this problem, a multi-stakeholder multicriteria deliberation process has been developed, which starts with identifying a set of alternative
stewardship strategies (scenarios). This is followed by the definition of the evaluation criteria to be
used for comparing the scenarios. To help the development of criteria, six fundamental principles(“ethical bottom lines”) have been elaborated (see box)2. In the following step, a comparativeevaluation of alternative stewardship scenarios takes place. By assigning different weights to thequality criteria, each stakeholder group will bring a different balance of preoccupations to theevaluation process. Also, different stakeholder groups may evaluate the same scenarios in terms of thesame quality criteria differently. Where dissent emerges between stakeholders, divergent views andthe underlying arguments should be documented. The reasons for dissent (e.g., conflicting interests,
differences in knowledge or values) should be discussed in a transparent way, which may lead to anagreement or opens up prospects for novel scenarios.
A set of “ethical bottom lines” (Principles of responsibility) for the radioactivity stewardshipdomain3
PR.1

Have the responsibilities of existing parties been appropriately assigned?
• Application of a principle of national autonomy/responsibility (“take care of your own
wastes” at national scale).
• Application of the principle that “the polluter pays”.
• Clear expression of, and respect for, local, national and international regulatory conditions.

PR.2

Have responsibilities ‘towards other parties’ in the short term been adequately
addressed?
• Health security to workers and the public on or close to the site.
• Security against attack in the face of external or internal sources of aggression.

PR.3

Have responsibilities ‘towards other parties’ in the longer term been adequately
addressed?
• A “sustainability” principle of inter-generational responsibility (don’t pass on problems toothers that you cannot cope with yourself).
• A thorough characterisation of risks/uncertainties/future contingencies (with reference to:the dangerous substances, the engineering works, the living environment, and futuresocietal evolutions).
• An application of some version of the principle of precaution.
• Is there likely long term stability of the necessary knowledge base (e.g. transmission ofrecords, specialised know-how, local knowledge) for competent stewardship?

2.
3.

It is noteworthy that quality criteria relevant for science constitute only one (PR.4) of these principles.
Under each principle, examples for evaluation criteria are provided.

38

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

PR. 4 Has available technical know-how and systems science been mobilised?
• Rigorous profiling (in technical, medical and sociological terms) of the exposure risks.
• Standards of best practice (technical reliability, simplicity...).
• Monitoring procedures attentive to the full spectrum of identified risks/uncertainties/futurecontingencies.
PR. 5 Is the solution economically viable?
• Are the immediate costs of stewardship affordable with the available resources?
• Clear picture of the trade-offs and relationship between clean-up and stewardship.
• Are the solutions cost-effective for the identified risk reduction results?
• Are the major financial costs shifted into the future?
• Reasonable prospects of mobilising resources for the forecast stewardship costs in thelonger term?
PR.6

Does the solution enhance the prestige of the host communities and other stakeholder
groups closely associated with the residual/waste site?
• Viable partnership between local and national stakeholders (e.g. agreed distribution of
responsibilities; legal mandate for stewardship activity; agreement on bases for financing
of different cost components, etc.)• Site specificities clearly in evidence?
• Local competencies clearly in evidence?
• Well defined framework for ongoing involvement of stakeholders in stewardship oversightand review.
• Links to educational and training activities at local and wider scales.

Finally, it needs to be emphasised that, at present, scientific experts are not prepared for the above typeof dialogue. In general, they are trained only about the principles and quality criteria of their own
profession. It is recommended that their expertise be expanded, for example, developing a capacity for
listening to others would be crucial. Understanding the multiplicity of quality considerations and being
reciprocal in the burden of proof should become also key components of their expertise. It is also
recommended that such expertise should be built in a fundamental way and not as a communication
strategy.

39

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

THE ROLE AND BEHAVIOUR OF THE EXPERTS AND HOW TO EXPOSE THE
EXPERTS' VALUE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO GAIN STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE

Kjell Andersson
Karita Research, Sweden
In policy issues with a high technological and scientific content it is common that experts set theagendas too narrowly, there is mistrust in expertise and authorities, fragmentation by interest groups
and low awareness level in the political system. Often, early narrow framing leads to a decisionmaking basis not sufficient, or even relevant, for the political decisions, resulting in frustration andinability to solve important societal problems.
A structured framework for awareness building
These deficiencies are recognized to a certain extent by policy makers and more dialogue is proposed
both at the highest EU level as well as in many individual countries. In spite of this recognition of theneed for citizen participation in general terms, experts and policy makers often show quite anotherattitude to the role of lay people. The point of departure is still often that new technologies should be“accepted” by the public, and that there are “barriers” against acceptance. Still it is clear that mostpolicy issues with some complexity involve not only factual issues with uncertainties, but also
values, emotions and vested interest. All these factors should be exposed to policy makers and thegeneral public before decisions are made.
Current societal structures thus need to be strengthened for the propose of providing a practicalframework for decisions with high awareness in highly complex areas. Moreover, the need for moretransparency and public participation must be seen within the broad framework of current
developments and democratic problems in modern society. The initially promising ideas ofparticipative and deliberative democracy have their limitations with respect to transparency andaccountability.
A new approach with a structured framework for awareness building with transparency andparticipation taking place within the framework of representative democracy has been developed andtested in three example areas. The VALDOC approach contains four principles: 1) A multi-perspective
starting point, 2) Stretching capacity, 3) Impartiality and fairness, and 4) Publicity. The concept of“stretching” is a key element in the RISCOM model, which gives structure and a deeper meaning to
the concept of “transparency”, and what is needed for its realization. The VALDOC approach has afirm theoretical base and it contains practical methods for its implementation.
Applications
The RISCOM Model has emerged as a result of efforts in the area of nuclear waste management tomake decision processes for e.g. the selection of sites for final disposal transparent. This is also the40

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

area where the model was first applied when hearings were designed for the Swedish site selection
process. However, the model is generally applicable to decision processes on technically complex
issues with large benefits but with uncertain and potentially very unfavourable consequences. Now themodel is becoming more widely appreciated and also used in other areas.
One current area of application is the introduction of the third generation (3G) of cellular phones
which has caused much discussion in Sweden. The time table and the level of ambition in terms ofaccess to the system all over the country was early set at the highest political level. The developmentof 3G has, however, caused opposition and controversy in a number of municipalities. There areconcerns over radiation risks from the masts, which are built with much higher density than for theprevious GSM system, although the authorities assure that there are no such risks. Resistance groups
have emerged, and there are municipalities wanting to establish zones free from masts. Now industry,
authorities, municipalities and critical groups have agreed to form a joint Transparency Forum using
the VALDOC approach with the RISCOM Model through an initiative taken by the Swedish
Radiation Protection Authority.
Another area of application is contaminated waste landfills and sediments. As the awareness about theexistence of waste landfills, contaminated sites and contaminated sediments, and their risks forhumans and the environment, has gradually increased world-wide - so has the need for assessing andmanaging them in the best possible way. The technical complexity and potentially high costs
associated with remediation projects require efficient, reasonable and democratic risk reduction
policies and strategies. In a recent project the RISCOM Model has been used to diagnose the Swedish
national programme for cleaning-up and remediation, and recommendations were made for measures
to improve transparency and awareness before decisions are made. As a result, a pilot project is to belaunched to support municipalities with in a few selected projects.
Discussion
Crucial aspects of the VALDOC methodology are the authenticity of the approach itself, its identity inawareness and transparency, fairness in process setting and neutral venues for hearings andtransparency arenas. The critical issue when it comes to application is who will be trusted to act as thehost for the process leading to awareness. Ideally, the process host should be someone with no otherinterest than the transparency itself and with no other vested interest. If the process host is in fact a
stakeholder with its own interest in the outcome, an agreement must be signed with the otherparticipating stakeholders about process format and content. The parties need to look up for
manipulation since the RISCOM Model can be a sophisticated instrument if someone wants to misuse
it. Finally the process host must also accept to be stretched.
Doubtless, journalistic skills will be needed to stretch stakeholders and interest groups, and to makeissues and their value-ladenness transparent in the public domain. However, these skills must be
combined with the analytic skills of natural scientists, the contextual understanding of social scientists
and the human knowledge of behavioural scientists. Structured ways of cooperation between thesegroups need to be worked out, and new forms of citizen participation need to be developed, tested andapplied to practical problems.
References1.

Andersson, K., Espejo, R., Wene, C-O. Building channels for transparent risk assessment, SKI
Report 98:5, RISCOM pilot study, Stockholm 1998

41

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

2.

Andersson, K., Westerlind, M. et.al. Transparency and Public Participation in Radioactive
Waste Management. RISCOM II Final report, SKI Report 2004:08, Stockholm, December 30,
2003

3.

Andersson, K., Wene, C-O. Drottz Sjöberg, B-M and Westerlind, M. Design and Evaluation of
Public Hearings for Swedish Site Selection, SKI Report 2003:32, (RISCOM II Deliverable 5.3)

4.

Andersson, K., Grundfelt, B. and Wene, C-O, Transparent Remediation Projects.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Contract E-48-04, Stockholm 2005

5.

Andersson, K., Drottz Sjöberg, B-M, Wene, C-O. Transparency and Trust in Risk Management– The VALDOC Approach. Presented at the International Conference on Risk Management for
Preventive Medicine; Union of Risk Management for Preventive Medicine (URMPM), Tokyo,
March 27-28, 2003. Health Journal, 2005

6.

CEC. EU White Paper on Governance, 2001. Page 3

7.

Cohen, J., Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In Contemporary Political Philosophy. (Ed:
Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit). Blackwell Publishers. Oxford 2002 First print 19978.

Drottz Sjöberg, B-M. Evaluation of hearings with questionnaires and interviews. SKI Rapport
01:39. In Swedish with a two page English summary (RISCOM II Deliverable 5.4)

9.

Habermas, J. Theorie des kommunikative Handelns, 2 vols, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1981.

10.

Held, D., Models of Democracy, Second Edition, Polity Press, Oxford, 2002

11.

House of Lords, Science and Society. 3rd Report of the Select Committee on Science andTechnology, 2000. Summary recommendation l

12.

The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies:
opportunities and uncertainties. London, 2004.

42

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

THE ROLE OF RESEARCH IN THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY

François JACQ
Andra, France
Nowadays, growing emphasis is made on the essential role of research in developing soundradioactive-waste management policies. Research has constituted a reliable component for a very longtime in that field. The reason why research is now making the headlines is less due to the fact that its
rightful significance has been finally recognised than to the change operated in the approach. In thepast, research was synonym with technical rationality and was expected to provide “the” most efficientsolution by the sheer virtue of its intrinsic logic. Broadly speaking, science was entrusted with the
responsibility to resolve the issues raised by the presence of radioactive waste. Gradually, however,research certainly appeared as a requirement, but proved insufficient. Moreover, the conduct of
research policies also became a theme for debate: how are scientific issues identified? What
guarantees exist for scientific openness? How do final programmes on radioactive waste studies meetthe requirements for good scientific practice? Are scientific investigations paying sufficient attention
to the questions raised by stakeholders?, etc., etc. All those questions succeeded progressively intransforming the scientific policy and practices. In my presentation today, I would like to illustrate thatevolution based on Andra’s experience in the framework of the French research programme.
The new role of research
The major orientations guiding the research systems of the Western world, particularly up to 1980s,
were outlined back during the Second World War. One of the options selected by France was to rely
on large specialised research organisations, such as the CEA (Atomic Energy Commission).
Obviously, the first investigations on nuclear energy, and later on radioactive waste, were conductedin this framework.
Since the waste issue was entrusted to those organisations and their associated programmes, the work
performed remained practically unknown to the non-specialists. Over the years, a small group ofengineers and scientists gradually developed a sorting and selection process that materialised in a
programme focusing mainly on the disposal of radioactive waste in a deep geological formation.
Presented to the public, to politicians and to the larger circle of all stakeholders involved, this solution
was not unanimously approved as it had been by the scientific community. Far from it. Hence, theconsensus reached behind closed doors in the 1970s was suddenly broken and opened the way to a
new approach.
The situation is also linked to the fact that, since the 1980s, the model derived from the Second World
War and the Cold War has been drastically destabilised. The strong belief in a scientific andtechnological revolution as a source of progress has weakened. Lastly, citizens feel that the scientificand technical system is too opaque and they call for more democracy and transparency. All thoseelements joined together imposed a revision of the post-war systems and an attempt to develop new
approaches.
43

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

Towards a more open and shared scientific policy
In France, the evolution I just mentioned was reflected in a law adopted by Parliament in
December 1991. Among its prescriptions, the Law requires that the waste issue be considered from a
new perspective. In other words, it organises the scientific and technical controversy by implementing
a research programme based on three different options.
Most of all, it enforces a new model for scientific and technical development. In contrast with theprevious rationale based on large organisations, the creation of Andra as a programme organisation,
not entrusted with a mission to carry out and to concentrate all investigations within its own structure,
but to federate other scientific resources sharing a common objective, constitutes a major innovation.
In practical terms, the Law resulted in a scientific diversification. The mandate of a programme agency
is to mobilise those skills when they exist, to create them among the most relevant stakeholders when
they are lacking, to organise the scientific debate, as well as to share and compare existing knowledge.
It also has to find a balance between scientific investigations and development of a project.
Such an approach gave rise to a new working method based on a new scientific organisation,
guaranteeing openness, a finer and more relevant account of the issues at stake by the scientificcommunity, a sharper critical outlook over the entire work, or in brief, some of the specific virtues
ascribed to scientific investigations. That comment is valid not only for studies on waste disposal, butalso for other research areas.
The main orientations may be briefly summarised as follows:•First and foremost, considering scientific and technical activities as a useful tool in thedevelopment of the waste-management public policy implies two conditions: observing thespecific rules of the scientific world and taking seriously the practice of science as it is generally
understood at the international scale. The first step consists therefore in formulating a clear-cut
scientific policy allowing the scientific community and the various teams concerned to have at
hand a non-equivocal definition of its leading orientations or topics. This policy constitutes anindispensable tool to open up the scientific programme and to welcome all the required skills. By
its very nature, such an openness is synonym with confrontation, enrichment and cross-fertilisationof knowledge.

•

Formulating a policy is the first step, but that would be far from sufficient to attract the scientificcommunity and to mobilise it around a common issue. In order to fulfil that goal during a second
step. One must develop specific tools in the form of multiyear partnerships, but also encourage
young researchers in order to promote innovative research projects with a view to allow
laboratories meet the general objective and to further their own research field. Those principles
have become conventional components in the management of any scientific activity, but require apermanent mobilisation and effort. In France, the grouping of nearly 100 university laboratories
around Andra’s programme is the result of 10 years of patient labour and constitutes one of the
major achievements of the Law of 30 December 1991.

•

The programme must meet the standard rules governing data acquisition and validation. Scientificopenness does not constitute a goal in itself. It aims rather at broadening the debate, sharing andcomparing views, giving rise to new questions and structuring the scientific controversy in order toensure that all possible solutions have been explored. Downstream, the purpose is to certify thatany relevant knowledge was actually acquired in accordance with the standard requirements of thescientific world and meets all accepted rules. Hence, the capability to publish the results and thedevelopment of international scientific events represent significant indicators. Once again, nothing
44

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

is new is that approach, but the endeavour has contributed to the implementation of new practices
in a field such as radioactive-waste management. After five years of efforts, the French research
programme on waste disposal may be considered to be in line with the international standards asshown by the recent conferences organised by Andra in Reims and Tours.
•

Lastly, scientific openness implies also rigour and renewal. Any programme must demonstrate its
capability to create and maintain efficient research networks. Those networks must absolutely
avoid to rehash the same schemes and to call over and over again upon the same partners who
would gradually become regular customers of the agency managing the research programmes.
Andra’s concern is therefore to diversify its partnerships on a constant basis.

Those elements constitute an essential contribution, but would not be complete without the existenceof an array of assessment tools, such as advisory committees, individual experts and peer reviews. In
that field, the efforts made since the 1990s in France have started to bear fruit.
The items mentioned above constitute a base in order to guarantee the quality of the investigations
under way. This involves two major features:•Firstly, without being capable entirely on its own to win any form of approval, this approach
protects against a certain type of intellectual and scientific short-sightedness. Gone is the time
when an expert was still able to impose his decisions or to see his views greeted with unadulterated
confidence. Nowadays, by clarifying their own work methods, scientists offer an additional
guarantee to the public about the sound quality of their activities. Moreover, applying rigour in theimplementation of scientific projects ensures the reliability and relevancy of the proposedsuggestions;•

Secondly, the scientific debate helps to envision future scientific and technical development
scenarios and allows for hypotheses, once tested, to become precious assets in responding to theinterrogations of the public at large.

A rigorous research capable of dealing with stakeholders’ interrogations
In the previous section, I emphasised the significance of a rigorous scientific approach capable ofexplaining to the various stakeholders which tools or mechanisms were used to acquire knowledge. As
mentioned earlier, such a concern constitutes a prerequisite for the development of any public policy,
but is far from being sufficient. From a no less significant point of view, the selected scientific policy
must be able to deal with the interrogations raised by citizens, especially since the objective is not toprescribe a single solution based on the sole weight of an obvious rationale, but rather to instil somekind of hybrid system integrating both social logic and scientific rationality.
The example of reversibility may help to illustrate the nature of the work around the scientific policy
relating to waste management, since it pertains typically to the issues raised by the scientific andpolitical debate on waste.
In the 1960s, a repository for radioactive waste was supposed to be as irreversible as possible, bydefinition. However, citizens found that notion objectionable, because they were confronted with atechnical project that scientists guaranteed safe for one million years, although such a long timescale isnormally hard to foresee. Moreover, citizens were not offered any alternative solution in order tomaintain a certain form of flexibility.
Gradually, public demands converged towards a requirement for reversibility, a general concept thatremained quite vague during the initial reflections on the subject. However, the process initiated by the
Law of 30 December 1991 formally incorporated reversibility in the research programme.
45

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

The first signs appeared in the 1990s when it was suggested to study reversibility, although it seemed
difficult to deal with its underlying motivations. In other words, the situation was boiling down torecognising a social need without reflecting in more detail on the appropriate means to materialise it intechnical terms.
In fact, paying serious attention to the notion of reversibility also meant recognising that it involved
very complex expectations. Consequently, it also implied that the technical stakeholder was
responsible for proposing technical options, even if it meant that those options might be rejected or
require changes.
From then on, it is easy to show how the situation evolved and oriented research on the geologicaldisposal of radioactive waste. The idea suggested by Andra in response to the reversibility requirement
was to propose a stepwise approach consisting of successive reversibility levels within the potential
repository.
The ruling principle is to be in a position to react upon the evolution of a potential repository by
maintaining the possibility of choices over time. Any transition from one phase of the repository to thenext is not permanent and “no page is turned forever”. Every decision is based on a rational choice andis taken with full knowledge of the facts, including any changes in the scientific, technical, economic,
social and environmental parameters that may be induced by the transition to a new phase of thelaboratory.
Nevertheless, there are significant consequences on the type of research to be carried out:•

Any phenomenon occurring in the lifetime of the facility must be very clearly understood;•

Observation and monitoring programmes, as well as corresponding sensors, must be developed;•

Suitable modelling and simulations resources must be available.

In brief, the objective is to change the “reversibility” concept from an empty shell to a researchprospect in order to develop in turn a technical proposal for which only the future will tell how it wasreceived, understood or modified.
The various reversibility options for the management of radioactive waste then becomes a means tomaterialise collective aspirations into a sound social and technical practice. Reversibility renews
interrogations on radioactive waste by dealing with the issue from a pragmatic standpoint and by
seeking to develop and negotiate the possible conditions for waste management. Reversibility imposesa new research plan that needs to be taken into account. A well thought research policy enables moreeasily to take those demands into account.
Conclusion
Research has become an essential component in support of public policies for the management ofradioactive waste. The objective is not to impose any scientific truth, but to provide all relevant tools
in order to introduce the most open and serene approach possible in response to interrogations. Such agoal implies the existence of a formal scientific policy, relying on the best modern management tools
and practices in order to guarantee the exemplariness of the implemented methods. Without being aconvincing tool per se, the approach should contribute to implement suitable conditions for a sounddebate and to develop gradually appropriate solutions that will clarify and recognise the expectationsof the various stakeholders.

46

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE IN EFFECTIVE SAFETY REGULATION –A REGULATOR’S VIEW ON THE ROLE OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH CAPABILITY

Janet KOTRA and Sitakanto MOHANTYUSNRC, USA
Outline•••••

NRC’s openness goal.
Openness in HLW regulation.
Role of independent scientific and engineering analyses.
The Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA).
Conclusions.

Openness: Part f NRC’s Strategic Plan
Mission:License and regulate radioactive materials to protect public health and safety,
promote security, and protect the environment.

Vision:Excellence in regulating safe and secure use of radioactive materials for the
public good.

Strategic objective:

Realise this vision using regulatory actions that are open, effective, efficient,realistic and timely.

Strategies for Achieving Openness••••

Public access to information about risks, safety and licensee performance that is accurate andtimely.
Enhanced awareness of NRC as an independent regulator.
Fair and timely process for public involvement in NRC’s decision-making.
Early public involvement and tow-way communication to enhance public confidence in NRC’s
regulatory process.

NRC’s Role at Yucca Mountain••

Independent regulator
Primary mission is to protect public health and safety and the environment

47

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1••

Must decide whether to authorize U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to construct the proposed
repository.
If authorization is granted, must assure DOE complies with NRC regulations.

To do so in a way that inspires confidence, NRC must…
•
•
•
•
•

Review all information objectively.
Make open decisions based on sound, scientific judgments about the facts.
Maintain an open and fair public process.
Ensure availability of documents.
Keep State, Counties, Tribes and public informed.

On what basis will NRC decide?
Any NRC decision on a potential license application for a repository will:••

Be based on NRC staff’s comprehensive, independent safety review
Include a full and fair public hearing that follows formal, well-established rules to ensure, anddocument, an open, objective decision.

NRC Staff Safety Review••••

Review license application.
Request more information from DOE, if needed.
Conduct independent confirmatory analyses.
Document results in a Safety Evaluation Report.

Public Licensing Hearing
If DOE submits a license application …
••

Any NRC decision will be based on a full and fair public hearing before an independent panel ofjudges.
Hearing will follow formal, well-established rules, and will result in findings of fact andconclusions of law that are based on the record of the proceeding.

Formal Evidentiary Hearing•••

DOE has burden of proof.
State, Counties, Tribes, and other parties must present evidence to support their issues orcontentions.
NRC staff will testify on the basis and conclusions of its independent safety evaluation report.

48

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

Openness Challenges at Yucca Mountain••••

Highly controversial, licensing decision for a first-of-its-kind facility.
Safety review will require extensive technical and scientific analyses, evaluation of expert
judgment, and long-range modeling assessments of expected repository performance.
Formal, trial-type proceeding.
Law provides limited time to decide.

NRC needs Independent Scientific and Engineering Analyses to:
•
•
•
•
•

Develop technical bases for regulations and guidance
Evaluate adequacy of DOE’s safety case for a potential repository at Yucca Mountain.
Assist preparation of NRC Safety Evaluation Report.
Provide technical support for NRC testimony during the licensing hearing.
Develop effective outreach and communication tools.

Confidence in a Regulatory uses of Science and Engineering•

Confidence in NRA’s use of science and engineering to formulate realistic regulatory requirements
and make sound regulatory judgments depends on:- Competence.
- Independent.
- Open and fair process.
- Regulatory outcomes that are subject of verification and monitoring.

Formation of the CNWRA••••

NRC established the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), in 1987, to assist
NRC in making independent judgments about the safety of the nation’s first geological repository
for high-level radioactive waste.
Creation of the CNWRA resulted from NRC’s long-term, strategic preparation for the review of alicense application for a potential license application for the proposed HLW repository at Yucca
Mountain.
CNWRA was chartered with clear goals and guidelines consistent with U.S. low governing
Federally-Funded Research and Development Corporations.
NRC sought to create a research and development center to provide expertise that;- Is competent- employing recognized experts, scientists and engineers, with in-depth
knowledge of the scientific and technical issues related to the potential repository at Yucca
Mountain.
- Is independent of DOE - free from any potential conflict of interest, or the appearance of suchconflicts.
- Assures long-term continuity of focused support in technical areas, and maintenance of“corporate memory” of the evolution of repository safety and regulatory issues.
- Complements NRC’s skill set - avoiding gaps and overlaps in expertise between NRC and
CNWRA.

49

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses
•
•
•
•
•

Supports NRC’s regulatory mission with expertise, computers, laboratories, and field research.
66 technical and 20 support staff members.
Part of Southwest Research Institute (SWRI), San Antonio, Texas.
SWRI is an independent, nonprofit, applied engineering and physical sciences research anddevelopment organisation.
SWRI occupies, 1,200 acres, with ~2,000,000 ft2 of laboratories, test facilities, workshops, andoffices for more than 2,900 employees.

Roles and Responsibilities of CNWRA
•
•
•
•
•

Research and technical assistance.
Technical bases for regulations and guidance.
Assist review of license application.
Hearing support of NRC staff.
Support NRC outreach and communications.

CNWRA Technical Expertise
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Hydrology/Climatology
Material Sciences
Mechanical Engineering
Geochemistry/Radiochemistry
Rock Mechanics
Mining Engineering
Structural Geology
Health Physics
Nuclear Engineering
Volcanology
Computer Sciences
Performance Assessment

Joint NRC and CNWRA Analyses
•
•
•
•
•

Comprehensive understanding of repository system.
Independent performance assessment model and codes.
Evaluation of technical uncertainties.
Risk significance of repository safety issues.
Documented bases for regulatory decisions.

CNWRA provides a wide range of independent technical support to NRC••

Technical experts.
Computer Modeling.
50

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1•••

Laboratory investigation.
Field studies.
Safety Assessment.

NRC relies on CNWRA for broad technical support•••

Primary area of support is to NRC’s high-level waste repository safety program.
CNWRA also performs scientific and engineering analyses for other NRC regulatory application.
- Uranium mining and mill tailings.
- Waste reprocessing.
- Site decommissioning.
- Spent fuel storage.
Examples; Aircraft crash probability.
- Issues of contention in hearing for an interim storage facility.
- Independent CNWRA analyses used to support NRC testimony.

Technical Support for Public Outreach
•
•
•
•
•

CNWRA experts support NRC public meetings, open houses and conference exhibits
Help NRC staff identify key technical concepts and defining science-based messages.
Aid NRC in translating key messages into plain language.
CNWRA and NRC Staff strive to publish research findings and limitations in plain language.
CNWRA is working to develop physical models, computer visualization, and animations toillustrate regulatory requirements for repository performance.

Conclusions••••

NRC is committed to regulatory openness.
Independent research and development is necessary to support NRC regulatory actions anddecisions regarding a proposed HLW repository at Yucca Mountain.
NRC established the CNWRA as a conflict-free body of experts to support NRC’s HLW
regulatory programme.
NRC’s reliance on independent expertise conveys to stakeholders that NRC is able to challenge
DOE’s assumptions, and assertions and arrive at objective conclusions about the safety of thepotential repository.

51

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

GOVERNMENT POLICY, RESEARCH AND STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE- Current Trends in Canada Carmel LETOURNEAUNatural Resources Canada
An issue which has been recently expressed by the public in Canada is whether there is a need to carryout more research into methods of long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. Public comments on
this issue were formally reported on May 25, 2005, when the Nuclear Waste Management
Organization (NWMO), an organization set up by the nuclear industry, published its draft Study ofoptions for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. The NWMO will continue to consult
with the public and all other interested parties on the draft Study so that it may take further views into
account during the development of the final Study to be submitted to the federal Minister of Natural
Resources by November 15, 2005 as required under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. Of note for thispaper, at issue is whether further research is needed and if so who would carry it out and fund it.
Why carry out research?
In the draft Study, the NWMO makes the case that, while current waste management technologies are
deemed to be safe, there are many reasons to carry out further research. The Box below reports thereasoning of the NWMO in this regard.

THE CASE FOR MORE RESEARCH AS ARGUED BY
THE NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
Regardless of the approach taken, activities to manage radioactive waste will continue for a very
long time. Any management program could be expected to apply the best practice available at thetime. There is confidence in present best practices for safely handling the waste and that such waste
can be properly managed in the future. However, a program that will evolve over a long period oftime will have many opportunities for improvements to increase performance, enhance effectiveness,
and address rising societal concerns. To realize these benefits, there needs to be a vibrant and robust
research and development effort during management program development and execution, a periodthat will last many generations.
Therefore there are many reasons to pursue research:1.

to embody the principles of continuous learning which encourages standards of excellence andintegrity;2.

to prepare for facility siting, design, licensing, development, and operations to improve
designs, minimize costs, enhance schedules, and reduce uncertainties;

52

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

3.

to assure adequate human capacity to manage the program throughout its existence tomaintain competence and credibility;4.

to enhance scientific understanding to improve confidence in predictions and to evaluate
potential program improvements;

5.

to confirm performance or identify anomalies during and after program operations and thereby
increase confidence;6.

to clearly demonstrate to citizens an ongoing capability to manage the enterprise and torespond to their concerns and desires;7.

to be able to enact mid-course corrections in response to new information or societal decisions
by adapting to new designs, new regional, national or international institutional changes, or
new international standards;

8.

to be able to adapt to new capabilities developed externally to the program that show promiseof improving program success.

The reasons given by the NWMO are all compassing and respond to either private and public interests,
to either technical considerations or stakeholder confidence.
Who is responsible for carrying out and funding research?
Government policies on research either deal with providing funds to conduct research or directing
others to carry out necessary research. In this case, the NWMO indicate that the responsibility,
financial or otherwise for carrying out additional research, resides with the nuclear industry. It is clearthat the proponent intends to be responsible for the research it deems necessary. The Government of
Canada has yet no immediate plans to direct the NWMO in its research undertakings.
Where it is less clear that the proponent should shoulder the entire responsibility for research
programs, the Government may decide to step in and assist the proponent or the general industry inquestion. The relationship between research and Government policy focuses on the public good andalways aspires to public confidence. It cannot focus only on ideas and technologies with commercial
potential. Its top priority must retain the public interest of present and future generations of Canadians.
The Government is interested in supporting research which responds to public priorities of the day:within recent years, those priorities were usually related to sustainable development activities.
The Government has clearly indicated that the responsibility for providing sound scientific data for
proposed practices rests with the proponent who is taking an action associated with the risk ofpotential serious harm. Nevertheless, responsibility for research can shift as knowledge grows, androles of the public and private sectors evolve.
The Government can either act as a contractor or as the performer of research, independently or inassociation with other partners. The research may involve revenue generation over the short-term withspecific clients or lead over the long term to non revenue-generating results for the public good withno specific client targeted. The latter reflects the majority of government research. Considering thelimited amount of funds from taxpayers and the many demands, considerable amount of time andeffort is spent in setting research priorities which moreover may vary over time. Increasingly within
the last few years, the setting of research priorities now involves more intensive and extensive public
consultations.

53

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

In setting priorities, not only thematic public priorities are to be considered but the function to besupported by research needs to be considered. These functions include:•

to provide and disseminate information;•

to support laws and regulations;•to promote competitiveness of the private sector;•

to assist international cooperation on global issues;•

to carry out basic research without obvious short-term gains;•

to conduct national monitoring and data and inventory base management;•

to carry out pre-competitive research and development;•

to assist in new technology deployment;•

to support the mandate of government departments; and,•to support universities, and other educational establishments.

Research, the Precautionary Approach and Stakeholder Confidence
Since the early 1990s, one important factor in setting priorities in science and technology research anddevelopment has been the precautionary principle.
Precautionary decision-making is in keeping with Canadians social, environmental and economic
values and priorities. The challenge for governments is to balance its ability to practice good
governance with the various views of the precautionary principle expressed by a wide-section of
Canadians.
Although the principle has now been adopted nationally and internationally, it is sometimes
misinterpreted into as a “prevention principle”. Nevertheless, as developed, the application of“precaution”, the “precautionary principle”, the “precautionary approach”, also recognizes that theabsence of full scientific uncertainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing decisions where there
is a risk of serious or irreversible harm. The application of precaution is distinctive within sciencebased risk management and is characterized by four basic tenets: the need for a decision, a risk ofserious or irreversible harm, a lack of full scientific certainty and, cost-effectiveness.
The need for a decision
Living in a society implies carrying out communal activities which all have some degree of risk. In
making decisions, in order to proceed with practices that may involve some risks and where the extent
of these risks cannot either be accurately determined or countered with absolute scientific uncertainty,
the need for the practice needs first to be clearly justified in a transparent way. The application of
precaution here entails a clear and credible explanation why a certain practice needs to be carried out
now. Would postponing a decision to carry out more research be prudent, not necessary or dangerous?
Should the decision and actions be taken by this generation and should they be postponed to future
ones? In any democratic society, the answers to these questions may vary between groups of citizens
and it will be up to governments to develop fair decision-making processes ultimately culminating infully justified decisions made in the best interests of all citizens.

54

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

A risk of serious or irreversible harm
The application of precaution by governments is guided by society’s chosen level of protection against
risk. The Government must analyze and understand the public’s tolerance of risks based on knowledge
and values. Scientific data relevant to the risk must conclude on the possibility of the occurrence of theharm and the magnitude of that harm, including the extent of possible damage, persistency,
reversibility, reversibility and delayed effects. Reports should summarize the existing state ofknowledge, provide scientific views on the reliability of the assessment, and address remaining
uncertainties and areas for further scientific research and monitoring.
A lack of full scientific certainty
Governments can rarely act on the basis of full scientific certainty and cannot guarantee zero risk. It isneither justifiable to postpone a pressing decision in order to achieve full scientific uncertainty, norprevent a practice because there is no full scientific certainty. Faced with a lack of full scientificcertainty where a decision needs to be taken and where risks are tolerable, there are neverthelessmeasures that governments can take to increase confidence in their decisions. The application of
precaution would include: the establishment of advisory bodies, ongoing public consultations, funding
additional research to reduce uncertainties if resources permit, national or international peer reviews ofcomponents leading to the decision, including adaptive flexibility to decisions or orders, third-party
monitoring of risks from the practice carried out after the decision, reporting requirements, andencouraging international information exchanges.
Cost-effectivenessAs science evolves, it is inherently appropriate that the cost-effectiveness of decisions and associatedmeasures be assessed on an ongoing basis, i.e. taken into account initially, in the mid, and possibly thelong term. For some issues, a net benefit may not be realized for a long period of time. However, theemphasis should always be on ensuring that ongoing costs are assessed and minimized so that newscientific data which alter cost-effectiveness considerations can be incorporated (including
performance monitoring results) while maintaining the reduction of risks and, where appropriate,maximizing the benefits (e.g. from innovation).
Conclusion•

A fundamental government policy is that the proponent has the primary responsibility for research,as mandated by governments if necessary. This is the basic premise unless special circumstances
put governments in a better position to carry out the required research;•

Under such special circumstances, the trend is to carry out more intensive and extensive
consultations with the public on research initiatives;•

When considering public views, governments will need to balance their ability to practice good
governance with the thoughtful application of precaution;•

This approach should lead to increasing public confidence in RWM decisions based on sound
R&D.

55

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

References
BRASSARD, Daniel, 1996. Science and Technology: The New Federal Policy. Library Of Parliament,
Science and Technology Division.
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2004. In the Service of Canadians: A Framework for Federal
Science and Technology. Prepared by the Interdepartmental Working Group on Federal S&T
Framework
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2003. A Framework for the Application of Precaution in ScienceBased Decision-Making about Risk.
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2000. A Framework for Science and Technology Advice: Principles
and Guidelines for the Effective Use of Science and Technology Advice in Government Decision
Making.
NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA, 2003. The Future of Science and Technology at Natural
Resources Canada. Prepared by the Science and Technology Secretariat, Corporate Policy andPortfolio Coordination Branch.
NWMO, 2005. Choosing a Way Forward. Draft Study of options on the long-term management of
nuclear fuel waste in Canada. Nuclear Waste Management Organization, May.

56

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

THE ROLE OF RD&D FOR STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE AS SEEN BY
NON-INSTITUTIONAL ACTORSThe Perspective of a Municipality
Harald Åhagen,
Municipality of Oskarshamn, Sweden
Introduction
Stakeholder confidence is difficult to define. There are no criteria for when stakeholder confidence has
been reached and it is difficult to measure a level of confidence e.g. in opinion polls. Implicit in theinstitutional look at stakeholder confidence is a stage where the proposed project – in this forum a
repository – is accepted. The theory is that initially concerned stakeholders have reached confidence
and with confidence comes acceptance. There are however examples where this acceptance orconfidence has not been reached. It seems in some cases that it may not be a viable goal to be reached.
A waste disposal is in general terms defined very different by e.g. an implementer – who has the task
to find a solution and a site where this solution can be realised. If this task can not be solved there is alevel of failure. For a local community – where a majority may well agree to that the problem should
be solved - the decision-makers and the public may disagree that a repository should be sited in theircommunity. They may see a stopped repository as a victory. I argue that this is not just to be discarded
as a NIMBY syndrome. It may from a local perspective be completely logical and based on sensible
arguments such as for example incompatible image, lack of trust in the safety case, diverging values orsome other reasons.
I see two components that are key to local stakeholder confidence summarised in the term – Informed
Consent. To reach an informed consent there is first a need for competence building – to get informed.
To judge the repository the public and the local decision makers must first understand what they are tojudge. Here lies the first challenge in repository siting – building true competence takes a long timeand it must be done on the terms of the public and the local decision makers. It is not something that in
my mind can be done by forced information or education it requires participation and influence. Lackof patience and tight schedules by the implementor is the largest threat for this process to mature. The
second challenge - an informed public and decision makers does not automatically give their consent.
There are true local issues that may not be resolvable. One example is the incompatible images of“Europe’s last wilderness” with a radioactive waste repository - as was found to be two incompatible
images by many in the municipality of Storuman in Sweden. Storuman has wildlife tourism as a largepart of the local economy. In the Storuman case the rejection has little to do with what the local public
and local decision makers believe it is more related to how the outside world will view a repository inthis wilderness. For Oskarshamn - an industrial municipality already with a nuclear power plants there
is no such image dilemma.
To reach the situation of an informed consent depends on many factors and RD&D is certainly one of
the key factors. I will elaborate on some of the aspects of the RD&D efforts from a local perspective. I
treat R&D separate from demonstration as I think they play quite different roles in local confidencebuilding.
57

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

RD&D – Safety and Site Selection
Research & Development R&D was historically not something the general public could easily relate
to. As higher education and R&D plays a much larger role in almost all aspects of our modern western
society there is generally a much better understanding spread among the public what R&D constitutes.
I actually feel that there is a far better understanding then most experts seem to be aware of. People are
generally aware of the quality aspects of R&D, the system for publication and review and also thescientific dialogue about what facts are and what are not. The public is also aware about that facts
change over time, that scientists have different opinions about the same matter and that this is nothing
particular just for nuclear waste. Nuclear waste experts and managers however often seem to believethat nuclear waste is a special case. 3G and GM food debates are examples where R&D issues are infocus in the debate and where experts draw completely different conclusions on the same research
results.
In repository siting the paramount issue is safety. R&D is there to demonstrate safety. R&D together
with parameters from site investigations form the basic safety case but evaluation is also based onassumptions and value judgements – something I hope Kjell Andersson will talk about at this FSC
meeting
A local view on uncertainty, indeterminacy, ambiguity and ignorance
In the expert world and in particular in the waste managers world there is a clear vision of atechnically solved problem. R&D and safety assessments over decades have proven to this communitythat there is a safe and viable solution. This solution however requires access to a site – a site thatpeople live on and around. People that has not taken any part in the decades of R&D as it has not been
any of their concern. This site is located in e.g. a municipality with autonomy of some kind.
Sometimes this autonomy has a strong legal base with a local veto sometimes not. By looking at theexperience in Finland and Sweden the access to a local veto seem to be an important aspect of local
acceptance. There is no risk for local decision makers to engage in a siting effort with a local veto. In
Oskarshamn this local power has been used to engage in the competence building and make sure that
there is an informed consent to participation in the site investigations and in becoming a possible hostmunicipality for a repository.
A repository siting effort is an undertaking that takes a decade or more. Local participation in a siting
effort requires long term public support. In the case of Oskarshamn there is an opinion among the local
politicians that a qualified majority of the public need to agree with the site investigations. Such astable local support can probably only be reached if there is a large degree of competence about therepository project. Initially the contacts between the implementor and the local community is veryfragile. The implementor has a safe solution that he has worked on for decades but for the local
community this is a completely new project and the local community has the right to be sceptical andto take the time to find out, from various sources, if they can be comfortable with the project.
Local demands on the technical community
Modern open siting efforts where local participation and influence are components puts new demands
both on the citizen – to engage, to build up competence and to offer questions and advice to theexperts. Dialogue, participation and local influence also puts new demands on the experts to share also
uncertainties and decision power. Experts are not only required to have communicative skills they arealso requested to talk about their work before they have final answers and present plans in a draft
form. In order to allow for local influence the dialogue must start before the solutions are set, drawings
58

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

are made and results are final. This engagement with people before the expert has a solution to present
has for many experts been difficult. One category experts - the regulators are seen by decision makers
and the public as the “peoples experts”. The role of the regulator has been of fundamental importancein Oskarshamn. In the initial stage SKI and SSI where reluctant to participate in the siting programmea position that was not accepted by the municipality. Currently the party roles are well defined andworking practices for the participation of the regulatory experts work well.
The openness by SKBs experts, their willingness to share plans and preliminary results, and the active
participation by the regulatory experts has resulted in a solid platform for local participation andinfluence over the work. This working model is probably one of the key explanations to that the publicin Oskarshamn increasingly supports the site investigations for the spent fuel repository – currently
this support around 80% as measured by opinion polls this April.
The role of demonstration
Demonstration, prototyping and large scale experiments has several purposes but I like to focus on therole of demonstration in communicating waste repository solutions to the public and decision makers.
Complicated analysis, laboratory experiments and complex mathematical models are things difficult tomake transparent to the public, many small pieces in a large scientific puzzle is only interesting to afew. Demonstration has thus turned out to be more effective to explain to the public how a repository
is intended to work and how this practically is designed. Demonstrating the technology and the barrier
functions in large scale tests, eg such as disposal prototype tests, has proven to be very effective to
make the public understand the basic concept of a repository and how it is intended to function toisolate the waste from the biosphere.
The fact that Oskarshamn is hosting CLAB, the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory and the Encapsulation
Laboratory plays a significant role in the competence building and in building acceptance. I would
argue that the value of the two laboratories - locally and nationally - by itself is justifying theinvestment in these facilities.
Local influence on RD&D
Who determines R&D needs? Who judges when there is enough R&D? Who determines acceptable
uncertainties?
From our work in Oskarshamn a clear definition of party roles has been fundamental to the process.
SKB – the industry, responsible according to the law to develop, investigate and propose a final
disposal (a final disposal is determined as the national solution in the Nuclear Act in Sweden). The
regulators – SKI and SSI are assigned to set standards and criteria for the repository, to review SKBs
programme and to advice the municipality on the quality, the soundness of the work and the validity of
the results. Later SKI and SSI will review the license application and determine if it proves the safetycase and the suitability of the site. The government is setting national policy, gives general direction to
the programme and takes the final political decision on approval or disapproval of the license
application. The municipality will have to live with the facility for generations if located there andneeds to give their informed consent. The municipality and its citizens also know the local conditions
best and how they would like to form their future. The municipality can veto the repository.
To say yes or no to a repository is first and foremost based on if it is proven to be safe. After safety
comes many issues on non nuclear environmental impacts, societal issues and socio-economical
issues. It is not only the natural science areas that require R&D and investigations. A final repository
59

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

is a large industrial establishment, it will be a large workplace, it will have effects on the local image,it requires various goods and services and it will be around for longer time than any other industry.
Siting of a repository includes many aspects where R&D is required or requested. Repository R&D
traditionally referred to as R&D in natural sciences and for the safety case this is also the fundamental
work required. The local influence on this R&D in Oskarshamn can be described as aggressivecompetence building through questioning (or stretching according to the RISCOM model) of SKBs,
SKIs and SSIs experts. If we get clear, convincing and understandable answers we are mostly satisfied
if not we continue to ask. If we find that SKB on one hand and SKI and SSI on the other hand disagree
on the answers we identify this as an issue to follow up, we try to learn more and we try to understand
why there are different opinions. It is not the role of the municipality to decide on R&D in naturalsciences this is mainly the task of SKB and the regulators. Through our identification of questions,competence building and continuos follow up on identified issues we certainly influence the R&D but
in a secondary way. Through our international contacts we have seen examples of more direct local
activities in R&D and investigations e.g. the boreholes drilled by Nye County in Nevada - we don’t
find such activities compatible with our party role.
Other R&D related to other environmental issues for the EIA, on social aspects and socio economical
aspects the municipality wants to have a more direct influence in identifying the need for R&D andinvestigations, to follow the R&D progress and to understand the results in more detail. This is also
how the site investigation phase is organised in Oskarshamn. Examples on this working method can beseen in the work of the safety group that mainly follows the work by SKB, SKI and SSI in contrast to
the social science R&D where the assigned local working groups participate in developing the plans,follows actively each project through delegations and review draft reports for possible clarifications
and complementary R&D. In the social science areas the local influence is more direct and more
fundamental and this is motivated by that in these areas the municipality has direct competence about
what is required in order to form basis for decision making should the application come to
Oskarshamn.

60

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

R+D Vs CONFIANCE EN UN TERRITOIRE PRODUCTEUR D’ÉNERGIE NUCLÉAIRE

Josep CASTELLNOU BARCELÓ
Maire de Vandellòs et l’Hospitalet de l’Infant
La municipalité••

Municipalité agricole.
Tourisme naissant.

Changement économique• Disparition système agricole.
• Consolidation du secteur industriel énergétique.
• Cohabitation secteur Touristique et de services.
Chronogramme I
•
•
•
•
•
•

Année 1965 - Début construction central nucléaire Vandellòs I (HIFRENSA).
Année 1970 - Mise en service CNVI.
Année 1975 - Début construction centrale nucléaire Vandellòs II.
Année 198 - Mise en service CNVII.
Année 1989-1990 - Incident à CNVI et fermeture.
Année 1997 - Début désassemblage.

Chronogramme II•••

Année 2002 - Proposition d’installation ITER
Année 2002 - Début démarches construction Centrale de Cycle combiné.
Année 2004 - Centre Technologique Mestral.

Monde Local•

Piliers de base pour la confiance :- Sécurité. Bien non négociable.
- Information. Facteur nécessaire.
- Développement économique.
- Garantie de futur.

61

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

R+D en Information•••

Générer confiance à travers une correcte perception de la sécurité.
Activités formatives destinées aux élus et aux citoyens (stakeholder).
Experts de support pour activités et politique local.

Expériences ; R+D en Information•

Formation en énergie nucléaire
- Séminaires et visites techniques. (Population, élus et autres représentants locaux.
- Participation à des programmes européens (COWAM). Connaissances d’expériencesinternationales.
- Création de Commissions locales d’information. Outil pour l’information et participation
publique.

Commission de Suivi Municipal Désassemblage CNVI
Membres :
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Mairies : Vandellòs et l’Hospitalet de l’Infant, Pratdip, Montroig del Camp ; L’Ametlla de Mar y
Tivissa (9 personnes).
Conseil Comarcal du Baix Camp (1 personne).
Délégation Territoriale d’Industrie (1 personne).
Délégation Territoriale de l’Environnement (1 personne).
Univeristé Rovira i Virgili (1 personne).
Directeur du désassemblage de la CN (1 personne).
Directeur Technique de la CN (1 personne).
Secrétaire.

Commission de Suivi Municipal Désassemblage CNVI
Thèmes :
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Suivi des travaux.
Personnel engagé.
Contrôle de matériels.
Gestion de résidus conventionnels et radioactifs ou contaminés.
Effluents (liquides et gazeux).
Sécurité (liquides et gazeux).
Vigilance (radiologique et environnemental : poussières, bruit).
Incidences.
Respect des conditions.

62

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

Commission de Suivi Municipal Désassemblage CNVI
Information publique :
•
•
•
•
•

Réunions informatives générales.
Centre d’information ; Unité mobile dans les propres installations de la CN.
Magazine municipal ; information périodique à la population sur le désassemblage.
Station émettrice municipale.
Un ou deux rendez-vous annuels avec la presse locale et de l’état.

R+D en Développement et Futur
•
•
•
•
•
•

Formation professionnelle et technique.
Lien avec les universités.
Promotion de la culture des entreprises.
Investissement en R+D énergétique sur le territoire.
R+D = + Valeur ajoutée.
R+D = Consolidation activité économique.

Expériences : R+D en Développement et Futur•••

Syndicat de communes de municipalités limitrophes. Promotion économie sociale.
Zone industrielle. Diversification économique.
- Inauguration 1995 ; 99% lotissements vendus et 40 entreprises situées.
Pépinière d’entreprises. Promotion culture de entreprises.

Le R+D en thèmes sociaux entraînera la confiance de nos voisins.

63NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

THE LINK BETWEEN RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION AND
STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE: THE PERSPECTIVE OF AN ACADEMIC

Ghislain de MARSILY
University Paris VI & French Academy of Sciences, France
In this paper, we will examine the potential role of science (as seen by an academic) for nuclear waste
disposal projects, for the stage of site selection, site reconnaissance, and implementation, by the use of
research, development and demonstration operations (RD&D) and how they may influence thestakeholders’ confidence.
Science plays an obvious role
The obvious role of science in nuclear waste disposal projects can be seen as:•

Use of science and R&D to try to understand the physical system and its behaviour, both in space
and through time (past and future).

•

Design experiments to display the physical-chemical-biological processes at hand, both now andafter waste emplacement.

•

Measure the relevant parameters.

•

Assess the residual uncertainty in both conceptual model and parameter values.

To convince stakeholders, its is necessary to show that the system is well understood:•

Explain the past geologic history of a site.

•

Explain unexpected features (e.g. seismic anomalies, abnormal pressures,…).

•Show the capacity to observe and notice unexpected features.

•Show the capacity to imagine new measurements that can learn something on the system.

•

Derive an experiment to scientifically validate a theory.

•

Show the capacity to be at the frontier of science.

•Show the capacity to answer unexpected questions from any party.

Some particular examples may be brought here to illustrate the relevance of the above desired actions.
During a briefing previous to the visit of the Bure site in clay (France), the public was informed thatthe clay layer was almost “completely impervious”, which in many cases was mistakenly interpreted
as implying the “absence of water”, with the subsequent surprise when visiting the undergroundfacility. The physical explanation of why there is so much water in the clay (porosity of about 10%),
but that this water has a very low mobility requires explanations, and scientific evidence that thiswater is non-mobile (e.g. with water molecule isotopes).
64

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

Another example of unexpected results was the 36Cl measurements at Yucca Mountain. At the time of
the measurements, the current theory was that the water in the volcanic tuff was almost immobile.
Therefore the 36Cl tracer (coming form the atmospheric bomb tests in the Nevada Test Site in the
1950’s) should not be present at depth. But some scientist of the National Labs decided to sample thewater in the unsaturated zone and to measure 36Cl. And there it was ! This example shows thatallowing scientists to perform experiments that are initially considered as unjustified, just to test
hypotheses, or invalidate the current model, is of major importance to understand the system and gain
confidence. The same happened concerning migration of Pu in the aquifers, from the undergroundnuclear tests in the Nevada test site.
A third example at the WIPP site concerns the mechanical behaviour of salt. Initially, the R&D
programme very ambitiously decided that the mechanical parameters characterizing the behaviour ofsalt would be measured from core samples, and then the prediction of the mechanical evolution of thein situ excavations would be made before construction by modelling, and then compared with theobservations. If the two matched, this would have been a strong demonstration of understanding andof being able to predict. In practice, this was too ambitious, and the match was not perfect, inducing
the revision of the mechanical model. But the scientific merit of this protocol in terms of confidencebuilding remains clear.
In summary, for science to perform successfully its fundamental understanding role, two actions arecalled for:•The continuous exercise in-the-field of the scientific enquiry process, notably of the capacity forobserving and noticing unexpected features and validating theoretical predictions.

•

To increase the awareness of the scientific community towards the special nature of the societal
decision to be taken, and the level of information and questioning required by the public.

Role of the academic circle in the R&D programmes
In the above, the role of science was emphasized independently of the positions of the scientists
involved. Let us now consider the potential role of the academic circle (universities, independent
research organisations …) to address the credibility issue. This role can be:•

Increase the credibility of the outcome of R&D first to the rest of the scientific community, andthen to the stakeholders, by independently validating the scientific quality of the work performedby the implementer.

•

Increase the credibility by acting as peer reviewers, e.g. through publications in the scientific
literature by the scientists of the implementers, in the Journal having the highest possible impact.

•

Increase the credibility within the implementers-regulators own institutions by helping them attract
and keep high calibre scientists, and have them do good work.

•

Be the source of interesting problems suitable for training brilliant young Ph.D. students.

With this pre-requisite of acceptance by the scientific community, the credibility by the stakeholders
may be addressed, although it is by no means granted. A particular note concerns the need forregulators to carry out a scientific exercise of the same scientific quality than the implementers. Bothtypes of organizations need to attract and maintain the best scientific personnel and the latter cannot
be achieved without challenging research and development programmes. They thus need to maintainstrong links with the academic circle.

65

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

Why should science also develop somehow independently of the project?
Developing a nuclear waste repository project should also include a scientific component that isneither necessarily directly applicable nor useful to the project. Reasons for this can be:•

Potential benefit of R&D to scientific knowledge in general; for instance, if a project is abandoned
before its conclusion, for any reason, the only benefit left to society will be the increase inscientific knowledge.

•

Purely scientific R&D activity can also be recommended when a project is put on hold, pending
political decisions; rather than having the staff kept without prescribed goals, the time may bebetter spent pursuing scientific objectives.

•

Pure scientific R&D activity can also be pursued for the benefit of the convincing power ofenthusiasm.

•

Pure scientific R&D can be a valid objective, with waste disposal as a means to finance pureresearch; society is ready to finance research with no direct application, such as astronomy, or
archaeology, etc. Why would fundamental research not be financed partly with funds dedicated toan applied objective? In France, for example, there is a small percentage of the costs of building a
construction (road, building, train track, …) which should be made available for archaeologicalresearch, if initial findings justify it.

Demonstration phases may feedback into R&D (and science)
Demonstration phases are primarily a requirement to show the practical feasibility of a project (e.g.
waste emplacement techniques, reversibility…) and will satisfy stakeholders as a part of the credibility(e.g. in France, the reversibility issue is not considered credible by the public, and only a trick to makethe project more acceptable; a demonstration would possibly change this). Although demonstration
may feedback to R&D programmes by showing unexpected difficulties or features (and inevitably
they will), they are more likely to contribute to engineering knowledge.
Conclusion
The above discussion only relates to “hard” sciences. However, social sciences are also concerned byissues of decision making, discussion, acceptance or rejection, with stakeholders and the public. Theseshould not be considered as applied research on the best means to make a given project acceptable, butalso as pure research on major societal decision making and governance.
The direct involvement of the physical scientists on the discussion with the stakeholders and the public
is also an important issue.

66

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

STOCKTAKING FROM THE TOPICAL SESSION STOCKTAKING ON THE LINKBETWEEN RD&D AND STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE HELD AT THE 6TH MEETING OF
THE RWMC FORUM ON STAKEHOLDER CONFIDENCE

Sybille van den Hove
Institute for Environmental Science and Technology
Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain
Introduction
The topical session on “The Link between R&D and Stakeholder Confidence” held on the occasion of
the 6th Meeting of the RWMC Forum on Stakeholder Confidence addressed the roles of science,scientific institutions and experts in waste management and decision-making. The topical session
focussed more specifically on the relation to stakeholder confidence.
The aim of the present text is not to provide a summary of the discussions held; rather, it extracts someof the key issues and ideas that emerged from the presentations and subsequent discussions, andproposes some background and framing elements or references.
Interface between science, policy and society
One can distinguish three models for the relation between scientific knowledge and political practice(Habermas 1971 [1968]). In the decisionistic model of Max Weber, technical (scientific) knowledge ispresent but the political choice based on values and beliefs is prevalent. In the technocratic model, thisdependency between knowledge and politics is inverted and political practice is relegated to the role ofexecutive arm of a scientific intelligentsia. Optimal solutions emerge from science and political choicebecomes fictive. The pragmatic model recognises that there is an interdependence between values andfacts: “For there is obviously an interdependence between values that proceed from interest situations
and techniques that can be utilised for the satisfaction of value-oriented needs.” (ibid.: 66) In thismodel, “the strict separation between the functions of the expert and the politician is replaced by acritical inter-relation.” (ibid.: 66) This inter-relation can be understood as an interface between scienceand policy. In today’s policy and societal processes addressing high risk, complex, uncertain andirreversible issues this interface tends to be opened-up to other actors, namely stakeholders and the
public, which defines a wider interface between science and society. (Guimaraes Pereira et al.,forthcoming)
Nature and role(s) of science
The role of science hit as an important element in the discussions. Sometimes decision processes areoperating based on a misconception of the role of science. Science does not provide truth, science (bydefinition) deals with incomplete explanations of the world. Uncertainty and ignorance are parts ofscience but, notwithstanding, much too often when dealing with high risk, high uncertainty and67

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

irreversible issues, we still make decisions and operate as if science was (or would soon be) bringing
the “absolute truth” or something relatively close to it.
Science has multiple roles and the scientific endeavour multiple drivers. Some science is driven
mainly by our curiosity to understand and explain the world around us and ourselves, it is curiositydriven or fundamental science, while other is issue-driven as its primary objective is to solve a societal
problem, it is science oriented towards action. (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993) Obviously, these are notabsolute categories. Clearly, the science at play in radioactive waste management falls in the second
category, although, like any science, it strongly builds on results and efforts in fundamental science.
Now science itself is constituted of, and produces, various types of knowledge that have different rolesin the decision-making processes. A question that needs deepening is to consider the role ofestablished knowledge vs. that of “not-yet-stable” knowledge, i.e. on-going research knowledge.
Moreover there are many different types of expertise, knowledge, understanding, not all belonging to
the realm of science, but which can be relevant to the management of high risk, high uncertainty
issues. In other words, in facing complex situations we must accept that science alone will not provide
the solution.
Among its key roles, science contributes to the definition of problems, just as it strives to contribute to
the design and choice of solutions. But in all these roles, science is not alone in the game, which maylead to conflicting situations within the science-policy and science-society interfaces, as actors might
be fighting for the power of defining problems. Another important role for science is a translation role,as there is a need for translations of knowledge from science to policy and society. This role is often
downplayed or undervalued in the scientific world.12 Incidentally, the other way around is equallyimportant as there is also a need for translations from society to science. Finally, it is important to bearin mind that there are important cultural differences in the very understanding of the role of science.
This can impact the various interfacing processes and the confidence of actors.
The nature of science is another background element to the discussions that were held during thesession. The question “What is science?” is an on-going research question which has no simple or
unique answer. Science has fuzzy border and a not so obvious identity. (van den Hove 2005) It is ahuman process carried forward by actors with multiple values and identities. There is no such thing asa pure, neutral, and independent scientist and this bears on the relations between science and actors.
But although science is not neutral and not always independent, it does maintain ideals of neutrality
and independence in scientific methods, which contributes to the very definition of science as opposed
to other types of processes or knowledges and which are the backbone of the high level of quality andsuccess encountered in science. Notwithstanding, the processes of science – and more generally allprocesses of knowledge acquisition – are too often black-boxed in our institutions and the knowledge
itself is too often safe-vaulted. This does not contribute to trust-building. While black-boxing of theresults of science for the sake of translation and simplification of scientific knowledge might be theonly viable option (people cannot be experts in everything) the transparency of the knowledge
acquisition process and the accessibility of knowledge are key to confidence.
There exists a (power) asymmetry between science/expertise and the public, which stems from thenature and roles of science. This asymmetry is still very present, even in participatory decision1.

Although with the rising trend towards research programmes which call for immediate return on investment– i.e. for “useful” science, whatever that may mean – translation becomes a strategic must in thecompetition for funding. But this is not necessarily the type of translation needed in science-policy andscience-society interfaces.

68

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

processes. But such processes can be designed to address this, in particular building on Habermas’s
discursive ethics (Habermas 1986 [1983]) one would aim for processes allowing (i) a free speechsituation devoid of external constraint and of strategic behaviour and accessible to all; (ii) consistency
between discourse and beliefs as well as consistency between discourse and behaviour; (iii)transparency, in particular of values and references; and (iv) a focus on the common interest.
(van den Hove 2004)
Scientific quality and interdisciplinarity
Of uttermost importance to the relation between science and society and to the link between R&D andstakeholder confidence is the question of quality of scientific knowledge and of expertise. In
particular, quality can be used to build credibility. Scientific quality processes are built-in as key
elements of the research and expertise processes. For high risk, high uncertainty, high irreversibility
issues, traditional scientific quality processes need to be enlarged. This involves interdisciplinary peerreviews as well as opening up the traditional quality processes of science by creating so-called“extended peer communities” in which the scientific peer community is opened to other forms ofknowledge and critiques (lay people, stakeholders,…) (Funtowicz & Ravetz 1993; Funtowicz 2001)
As argued by Martin O’Connor during the session, there is a need for building a dialectical frameworkof dialogue in which all actors must be attentive to a spectrum of quality criteria and principles, even if
some of those are not within their concern. The challenge being the design of institutions which allow
such “reciprocal burden of proof” processes, where one needs to find good arguments in relation toanother’s reasons.
These considerations on quality raise questions about the role of authorities and other actors inensuring quality of expertise as well as the role of the public and stakeholders in science policy. Also,
as stressed by François Jacq, finding the right balance between the autonomy and independence of
science on the one hand and accountability and the maintenance of a dialogue between science andpolicy on the other hand remains a challenge.
Interdisciplinarity is another key issue, strongly related to quality. There is a need to acknowledge thediversity of expertise, to articulate different knowledges, and to ensure a transboundary mobilisationof knowledge. Does this in particular mean that decision processes should rely on more than one
scientific institution for the provision of scientific knowledge? Discussions showed different
approaches in different countries, e.g. in France, “scientific diversification” is the objective, where
different scientific research institutions participate to a research programme driven by a programmeorganisation (ANDRA) which federates other scientific resources, while in the USA NRC has createda specific and independent research and development centre: (CNWRA).
Since multiple scientific disciplines are brought to bear on the issue, there is a need to bridge between
different disciplines and competencies and to build accountability between disciplines. As radioactive
waste management is a societal problem, bridging with social sciences is important. However, social
science is de facto not considered as a relevant domain of expertise in many institutional designs (e.g.
ANDRA or CNWRA). But then the question is: how do you make an integrated risk assessment
without considering the human dimensions? As shown by the Swedish example in Oskarshamn
presented by Harald Åhagen, local communities can act as drivers of social science research.
Discussions also stressed that, if they are included, social sciences may be as difficult to grasp by nonexpert as natural sciences, hence the same translation problem as mentioned above.
Finally, at another level, social sciences can assess the legitimacy of societal processes, including thescientific and expertise processes, and they can contribute to institutional design.
69

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

Transparency, openness and accountability
Several presentations and discussions stressed that transparency, openness and accountability of thescientific and expertise processes are key ingredient for building – and maintaining – confidence, just
as is the transparency, openness and accountability of decision processes. In particular, transparency isneeded about where the scientist or expert speaks from, that is about his assumptions, values, andinterests. Partiality is unavoidable, for scientists as for any other person. It is acceptable to the extent
that it is not hidden. As we have seen above, participatory processes, if well designed, can help toclarify assumptions and make them explicit. Consistency between discourse and behaviour on the partof all actors, including scientists and experts – or in other words a commitment to authenticity andintegrity – is equally key to confidence building.
Openness and transparency relates to the idea of stretching which was presented by Kjell Andersson
and further discussed during the session. Stretching allows for the possibility of questions being raised
from new angles. It is needed because there may be different views within one single area of expertise(e.g. geology). It is further needed because of the various expertises that can legitimately bring insighton the radioactive waste issue. Stretching helps to ensure that entrance of other information, values
and concerns in the debate is not ex-post to the scientific/expert debate. Moreover, expertise can beenlarged – stretched – beyond substance to the knowledge provision process and to partnershipbuilding. That is there is the possibility to open-up the realm of expertise to process design, an area
where social science may play an important role.
Several issues regarding accountability were raised. It was recalled by Kjell Andersson that
accountability is part of democracy. Beyond the accountability of decision-makers and institutions,reflections are needed on what is – what should be – the accountability of scientists and experts. The
question of whether less formal processes lead to less accountability, and of how to ensureaccountability with less formality was raised and deserves to be addressed when decision processes –not just science-society interfaces – are designed. Finally also deserving attention is the question of themeaning of accountability in a very long term framework.
As for uncertainty, indeterminacy, ambiguity and ignorance, decision processes on high risk, highirreversibility issues need to recognise that they are facts of life. Not even scientists know about theunknown unknowns. This is another reason to keep processes open. Time and innovation areimportant here, as is the capacity of adaptation to a changing environment (societal or natural) and tochanging knowledge. Openness in this light also means maintaining open the possibility for making
corrections in the future or for changing one’s mind. Hence the importance of reversible decisions(e.g. retrievability) and of “maintaining of institutional, technological and policy diversity as a meansof conferring resilience in the face of ignorance and ambiguity” (Stirling 2004, p. 60) that is, decisionmaking which leaves open the possibility to abandon some paths if they later prove unsatisfactory.
Conclusions
Many other issues and questions were raised during the session and would deserve further attention,
including in no particular order: the difference between scientists and experts, and that between
stakeholders and the public; the articulation of different forms of participation; the fact that consent
does not necessarily come with competence; and the question of possible “overconfidence” of experts
in their work.
It stems from the issues addressed during the session that the practical challenge relating to the link
between R&D and the building of stakeholder and public confidence lies in institutional innovation. A
70

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

change in our institutions is required to strengthen the interface between science and policy inparticular, and science and society more generally. Some suggestions for actions in that direction
include: (i) training of scientists in communication, interdisciplinary dialogue, and in working withdilemmas; (ii) opening up the scientific process; (iii) reinforcing its transparency; and (iv) stretching
the scientific quality process.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Claudio Pescatore and Federico Mompean for their comments on an earlier version ofthis text. I am however solely responsible for remaining errors or weaknesses.
References
Funtowicz, S. & Ravetz, J. (1993) Science for the Post-Normal Age, Futures, 25(7), pp. 735-755.
Funtowicz, S. (2001) Peer Review and Quality Control, in: International Encyclopaedia of the Social
and Behavioural Sciences, Elsevier, pp. 11179-83.
Guimaraes Pereira, A. et al. (forthcoming) Interfaces between Science and Society, Greenleaf:
Sheffield.
Habermas, J. (1971 [1968]) Towards a rational society. Student Process, Science and Politics.
Beacon, Boston, 132 pp. Transl. from: Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie, Suhrkamp
Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1968.
Habermas, J. (1986 [1983]) Morale et Communication, Les Editions du Cerf, Paris, ??? pp. Trans.
from: Moralbewusstsein und Kommunikatives Handeln, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main,
1983.
Stirling, A. (2004) Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: Some Instrumental Implications from the Social
Sciences, in: F. Berkhout, M. Leach and I. Scoones (eds), Negotiating Environmental Change,
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
van den Hove, S. (2004) ‘Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation
dimension in participatory approaches’, Land Use Policy, in press, e-version available at:
http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0264837704000857.
van den Hove, S. (2005) “Interfaces between Science and Policy for Environmental Governance: A
theoretical exploration”, paper presented at the 6th International Conference of the European
Society for Ecological Economics “Science and Governance – The Ecological Economics
Perspective”, Lisbon 14-17 June 2005, draft available from the author.

71

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

72

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
OF THE 6H SESSION OF THE FORUM ON STAKEHOLDERS' CONFIDENCE
BELGIUM
HOOFT, Evelyn
Press Officer
ONDRAF/NIRAS
14 avenue des Arts
BE-1210 Bruxelles

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+32 2 212 10 37+32 2 212 10 40
e.hooft@nirond.be

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+49 (1888) 333 1820
+49 (1888) 333 1715
garens@bfs.de

BROWN, Peter
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste
Natural Resources Canada
580 Booth Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A OE4

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+1 (613) 996 2395
+1 (613) 947 4205
pbrown@nrcan.gc.ca

LETOURNEAU, Carmel
Senior Policy Advisor, Natural Resources Canada
580 Booth Street
OTTAWA, Ontario K1A OE4

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+1( 613) 995 2634
+1 (613) 947 4205
CLetourn@NRCan.gc.ca

SHAVER, Kathryn
Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)
49, Jackies Avenue, First Floor
Toronto Ontario M4T 1E2

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+1 416 934 9814 ext. 227+1 416 934 9526
kshaver@nwmo.ca

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+420 221 421 532+420 221 421 544
jarosova@rawra.cz

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+358 2 8372 3763
+358 2 8372 3709
timo.seppala@posiva.fi

GERMANYARENS, Georg
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz
Willy-Brandt-Str.5, Postfach 10 01 49
D-38206 Salzgitter
CANADACZECH REPUBLICJAROSOVÁ, Lucie
Communication Manager, RAWRA
Dlázdená 6
11 000 Praha
FINLAND
SEPPÄLÄ, Timo
Communications manager
Posiva Oy
SF-27160 Olkiluoto73

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

FRANCE
DE MARSILY, Ghislain
Laboratoire de Géologie Appliquée, B 123
Univ. Pierre et Marie Curie
4 Place Jussieu
75252 Paris Cedex 05

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 44 27 51 26+33 (0)1 44 27 51 25
gdemarsily@aol.com

EYMARD, Jacqueline
Directrice de la communication, ANDRA
Parc de la Croix Blanche
1/7 rue Jean Monnet
F-92298 Châtenay-Malabry Cedex

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 46 11 82 94+33 (0)1 46 11 81 00
jacqueline.eymard@andra.fr

JACQ, Francois
Directeur général, ANDRA
Parc de la Croix-Blanche
1-7, rue Jean Monnet
F-92298 Chatenay-Malabry Cede

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 46 11 80 25+33 (0)1 46 11 82 25
francois.jacq@andra.fr

LE BARS, Yves
CEMAGREF (Direction Générale)
B.P. 4492163 Antony Cedex

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 40 96 60 72+33 (0)1 40 96 62 25
yves.lebars@cemagref.fr

O'CONNOR, Martin
Centre d'Economie et d'Ethique pourl'Environnement et le Développement (C3ED)
Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-En-Yvelines
47 Bd Vauban
78047 Guyancourt Cedex

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 39 25 56 60+33 (0)1 39 25 53 00
martin.oconnor@c3ed.uvsq.fr

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+36 23-423 184/+36 23 445 995+36 23-423 181
peter.ormai@rhk.hu

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+39 06 3048 4157
+39 06 3048 6306
daniel.taccarello@casaccia.enea.it

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+41 (0) 56 437 1249
+41 (0) 56 437 1349
hideki.sakuma@itc-school.org

HUNGARY
ORMAI, Peter
PURAM
Puskas Tivadar 11.
Budaörs 2040
ITALY
TACCARELLO, Daniel
ENEA C.R.E. Casaccia
Via Anguillarese, 301
00060 S.M. di Galeria
Roma
JAPAN
SAKUMA, Hideki
Nuclear Cycle Backend Division
Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institutec/o NAGRA, Hardstrasse 73
CH-5400 Wettingen
Switzerland

74

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

TAKEUCHI, Mitsuo
Director, Safety Affairs, Science andTechnology Department, Nuclear Waste
Management Organisation of Japan (NUMO)
Mita NN Bldg., 1-23, 4-chome, Shiba,
Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0014

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+81 3 4513 1571
+81 3 4513 1599
mtakeuchi@numo.or.jp

CASTELLNOU, Josep
Alcalde, Ayuntamiento de Vandellós I
L'Hospitalet de l'Infant
Plaza Ayuntamiento 6
Vandellós, Tarragona

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+34 977 823313+34 823900
alcaldia@vandellos-hospitalet.org

LANG-LENTON, Jorge
Director de Comunicacion
Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos
Calle Emilio Vargas 728043 Madrid

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+34 91 5668200+34 91 5668163
JLAL@enresa.es

RUIZ LOPEZ, Carmen
Head of the High Level Waste BranchConsejo de Seguridad Nuclear
Justo Dorado 11
28 040 Madrid

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+34 (91) 3460 143+34 (91) 3460 496
mcrl@csn.es

VAN DEN HOVE, Sybille
Visiting Professor
Median SCP
Passeig Pintor Romero, 808197 Valldoreix (Barcelona)

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+34 93 587 95 36+34 93 587 95 36
s.vandenhove@terra.esǺHAGEN, Harald
Project LKD
Municipality of Oskarshamn
Box 706
SE - 57228 Oskarshamn

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+46 142 70200+46 70 814 8624
harald.ahagen@scama.se

ANDERSSON, Kjell
Karita ResearchBox 6048
SE - 187 06 TAEBY

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+46 (0)8 510 147 55+46 (0)8 510 147 55
kjell.andersson@karita.se

SPAIN

SWEDENBÖLENIUS, Anni
Tel:
Press Relations Manager
Mob:
Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co. (SKB) Eml:Box 5864
SE-102 40 Stockholm+46 8 459 8587
+46 (0) 70 567 67 04
anni.bolenius@skb.se

HEDBERG, Björn
Programme Coordinator, Repositories and Siting
Dept of Waste Mngt and Environmental Protection
Swedish Radiation Protection Institute (SSI)S-171 16 Stockholm+46-(0)8-729 72 51+46-(0)8-729 71 08
bjorn.hedberg@ssi.se

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

75

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1SWITZERLAND
AEBERSOLD, Michael
Deputy Head of Nuclear Energy Section
Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE)
CH-Bern 3003

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+41 31 322 56 31+41 31 3220078
michael.aebersold@bfe.admin.ch

ZURKINDEN, AugusteHead, Division for Transportand Waste Management Safety
Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate
CH-5232 Villigen-HSK

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+41 (0)56 310 3937
+41 (0)56 310 3907
auguste.zurkinden@hsk.ch

CHANDLER, SteveThe Environment Agency
Isis House, Howbery Park
Wallingford, Oxon, OX10 8BD

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+44 1491 828430+44 1491 828466
steve.chandler@environmentagency.gov.uk

GRAY, Elizabeth
Scottish Executive, Environment and Rural
Affairs Dept. SEPA Sponsorship and Waste
Radioactive Waste Team, Area 1-J(N)Victoria Quay, Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+44 131 244 0400
+44 131 244 0245
elizabeth.gray@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+1(301)415-6674+1(301)415-5399
jpk@NRC.gov

HILDEN, Wolfgang
Head of Nuclear Safety and Radioactive Waste
Management group
European Commission, DG Transport and Energy
Complexe Euroforum, 10 rue Robert Stumper
L-2557 Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+352 4301 33546+352 4301 30139
wolfgang.hilden@cec.eu.int

WEBSTER, Simon
European Commission
DG-Research, CDMA 01/55
B-1049 Brussels
BELGIUM

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+32 (0)2 299 04 42+32 (0)2 295 49 91
Simon.Webster@cec.eu.int

UNITED KINGDOMUSAKOTRA, Janet P.
HLW Public Outreach teamDivision of High-Level Repository Safety
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7F-3
Washington DC 20555
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONSEUROPEAN COMMISSION

76

NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4/REV1

OECD Public Affairs and Communications Directorate
2 rue André Pascal
75016 Paris, FRANCEDI BIASIO, Stephen
Media Relations Division

Tel:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 45 24 81 03
stephen.dibiasio@oecd.org

DISSLY, Meggan
Public Affairs Division

Tel:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 45 24 80 94
meggan.dissly@oecd.org

WEST, John
Head, Public Affairs Division

Tel:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 45 24 80 25
john.west@oecd.org

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency

Le Seine Saint-Germain Bât. B
12, Boulevard des Iles
92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, FranceECHÁVARRI, Luis
Director-General

Tel:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 45 24 10 00
luis.echavarri@oecd.org

RIOTTE, Hans
Head of Division
Radiation Protection
and Radioactive Waste Management

Tel:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 45 24 10 40
hans.riotte@oecd.org

PESCATORE, Claudio
Principal Administrator
Radioactive Waste Management

Tel:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 45 24 10 48
claudio.pescatore@oecd.org

VOINIS, Sylvie(now at Andra)
Administrator
Radioactive Waste Management

Tel:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 45 24 10 49
sylvie.voinis@oecd.org

ENG, Torsten
Administrator
Radioactive Waste Management

Tel :
Eml:

+33 (0)1 45 24 10 44
torsten.eng@oecd.org

KOVACS Pal
Administrator
Nuclear Development

Tel:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 45 24 10 68
pal.kovacs@oecd.org

MAYS, Claire
Institut SYMLOG
262 rue Saint JacquesF- 75005 Paris
France

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+33 (0)1 46 33 86 42+33 (0)1 4740 8258
claire.mays@wanadoo.fr

VARI, Anna
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Sociology
Uri u. 49
1014 Budapest

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

+36 1 224 6743; home: 355 2564
+36 1 224 6741
anna.vari@socio.mta.hu

CONSULTANTS TO OECD/NEA

77