Governing Radioactive Waste Disposal:
Processes for Resolving a Wicked Problem

Ortwin Renn
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies
IASS, Potsdam, Germany

Part 1
What is special
about nuclear waste risks?

Nuclear Waste Repository
Complexity

Multitude of causal and intervening factors
Interdisciplinary approach necessary
However – not more complex than other technologies

Uncertainty

Modeling over very large time intervals
No historic precedent for such long time management
High relevance for system boundaries and nonknowledge

Ambiguity
Extremely high mobilization potential
Direct link with debate about future of nuclear power

Nuclear waste

Three major challenges
Perceived dissent among experts on mostappropriate disposal method: confusion in thepublic debate
High potential for social amplification

Long term threat
Stigma effect of “nuclear”
Typical “creeping danger” risk perception
High potential for social mobilization

Symbolic connotation for large centralized
technologies (Human Hybris)Part II

Risk Perception(Nuclear Waste Repository)

Empirical evidence
Almost all surveys worldwide demonstrate that a large
majority of the population judges risk of nuclear waste
repositories as highly serious and threatening while themajority of experts estimates the risks of being fairly low
compared to other risks of daily life.
Surveys also reveal that opposition and mobilization
potentials reach magnitudes of above 80% when people
are asked whether they would accept a nuclear waste
repository in their back yard. Yet they agree that a waste
repository is necessary.
With respect to risk management, communication andsiting procedures there are major differences between
countries (Finland, Japan, USA, GB, Switzerland), which
are good sources for institutional learning

Part IIIInstitutional
Arrangements for
Risk GovernanceThree Major Options
Top-Dow n Decision M aking (expert driven
selection, legitimization by parliament,implementation if necessary by force)

M uddling Through: stakeholder driven process

by navigating along public support and oppositionand hope for a window of opportunity

Deliberative P articipatory Approach: Involving

stakeholders and the directly affected public in a
structured and goal-oriented involvement process

Why is participation necessary?
Increase of uncertainty and ambiguity with thewidening of time horizonsIntegration of systematic, analytic, interdisciplinaryand experiential knowledge essential
Loss of trust and confidence in the problem solving
capacity of the political sector, in the fairness and„common good“ orientation of the economic sector
and in the impartiality of the scientific sector
Prevalence of new governance structures (including
governments, industry, science, civil society)
Procedural legitimization might overcome impasse
Acceptance surplus with participation

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Scientists/
Researchers

Affectedstakeholders
Scientists/
Researchers« Civilsociety »Affectedstakeholders
Scientists/
ResearchersAgency Staff

Agency Staff

Agency Staff

Agency Staff

Instrumental

Epistemic

Reflective

Find the mostcost-effective
way to makethe risk
acceptable ortolerable

Use experts tofind valid,reliable andrelevant
knowledge
about the risk

Involve allaffectedstakeholders
to collectively
decide best
way forward

Include allactors so as toexpose,accept,discuss andresolvedifferences

SimpleComplexity

Uncertainty

Ambiguity

ActorsType ofparticipation

Dominant risk
characteristic

Participative

As the level of knowledge changes, so also
will the type of participation need to changeRisk Governance Process
Deciding

Understanding

Pre-Assessment

ManagementCommunication

Characterisationand Evaluation

Appraisal

Participatory requirements
Complexity

Knowledge-oriented strategy (epistemic discourse)State-of-the art characterization of risks (scenarios)

Uncertainty

Reflective discourse (weighing pros and cons)
Balancing too much precaution against too little
precaution
Investment in resilience

Ambiguity

Participatory discourse
Evaluation of different options and locations
Risk-benefit packages (compensation)

German Policies
Political paralysis until 2011

Gorleben selected for further characterization as
national high-level site
Ongoing protest and public outrage at the location
Initiative AK-End did not resolve conflicts

Nuclear Phase out after 2011

Agreement on phase out until 2021
National consensus on new approach for site selection
Parliament establishes nuclear waste committee(2014-2016)
Committee issues final report in July 2016
Report emphasizes participatory approaches

Part IVConclusions

Conclusions I
Nuclear waste repositories are risk sources characterized
by medium complexity, high uncertainty and extreme
ambiguity
Worldwide high potential for negative risk perceptions
and social mobilizationThe procedures for siting can be grouped in top-down,
muddling through and deliberative participation
approaches
It seems wise to take the approach of deliberative
participation

Conclusions IINew institutional and participatory forms of decision making
are needed
Inclusion of a broad governance representation: Political
economic, scientific and civil society actors
Three types of discourse procedures:
Complexity: Scientific modeling (epistemic discourse)
Uncertainty: Balance between precaution and innovativeness(reflective discourse)
Ambiguity: Building trust and consensus (participatory
discourse)

Necessity of a neutral platform for designing, organizing andmoderating these discourses under the umbrella of a
impartial and highly esteemed supervisory board.