Radioactive Waste Management

ISBN 978-92-64-99015-9

Fostering a Durable Relationship
Between a Waste Management
Facility and its Host Community

Adding Value Through Design
and Process© OECD 2007
NEA No. 6176

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTThe OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the
economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts
to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate
governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides
a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify
good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark,Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, theNetherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes partin the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering andresearch on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards
agreed by its members.
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions
expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation orof the governments of its member countries.

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYThe OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the
OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972, when Japan
became its first non-European full member. NEA membership today consists of 28 OECD member countries:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, theRepublic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and theUnited States. The Commission of the European Communities also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:

to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international cooperation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentallyfriendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as
to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues as input
to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas
such as energy and sustainable development.

Specific areas of competence of the NEA include safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive
waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear
fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data andcomputer program services for participating countries.
In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy
Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other internationalorganisations in the nuclear field.

© OECD 2007
No reproduction, copy, transmission or translation of this publication may be made without written
permission. Applications should be sent to OECD Publishing: rights@oecd.org or by fax (+33-1) 45 24 99
30. Permission to photocopy a portion of this work should be addressed to the Centre Français d’exploitation
du droit de Copie (CFC), 20 rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France, fax (+33-1) 46 34 67 19,(contact@cfcopies.com) or (for US only) to Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive
Danvers, MA 01923, USA, fax +1 978 646 8600, info@copyright.com.

FOREWORD

The Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) was created under a mandate
from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency’s Radioactive Waste Management
Committee to facilitate the sharing of international experience in addressing thesocietal dimension of radioactive waste management. It explores means of
ensuring an effective dialogue amongst all stakeholders, and considers ways tostrengthen confidence in decision-making processes. The working definition
given to the term stakeholder1 is: any actor – institution, group or individual –with an interest or with a role to play in the process.
It is a special challenge to assure safe radioactive waste management(RWM) over the long term. The greatest challenge, from both technical andsocietal perspectives, may be to create a local operating facility to fulfil thatmission over generations. Several conditions are needed: scientific knowledge
and technical competency, resources for implementing an agreed approach, andcontinued willingness to live with and maintain the facility. In other words, asustainable relationship must be created between the host community and thesite installation. The present report explores this need, by asking how may a
facility and its site be better integrated with its host community, and be madeattractive for the long term? To meet the challenges, the local facility in fact
should actively improve a community’s prospects for quality of life across thegenerations.
Traditionally, local benefits to be drawn from a radioactive waste management facility are discussed in terms of hosting fees and socio-economic
development packages (such as accompanying employment and infrastructure).
These are meant to offset real and perceived impacts. Beyond traditional
benefits and land-use compensations, however, there has been little explorationof how else the presence of the installation may help improve the quality of lifein the region. The report investigates features of waste facilities and sites that__________________________________
1.

Italicised words are defined and discussed in Appendix 2 (Glossary).

3

would provide added value in both the short and long term and thereby help tobuild a sustainable relationship with the host community/region. Improving
quality of life may be as straightforward and relatively inexpensive as providing
a special coat of paint (as at the Vandellós site in Spain), or as complex and richas engaging community processes to design an integrated radioactive waste
management project (as in the “local partnership” approach created in
Belgium).
Numerous stakeholders from inside and outside the FSC, including local
communities, have provided input to this study. They show that stakeholders
can identify long-term cultural and amenity value to be added by a radioactive
waste management facility, as well as the economic opportunities to be seizedin their context. Their experience may be useful for those discussing major
projects to be implanted in a local community.
Different countries and regions are likely to have different socio-politicalrealities and therefore best practices for one region may not be best for another.
The exact definition of “added value” will be specific to each site, and more
importantly to each community, and will have to be developed in consultation
with local stakeholders. This report seeks to provide input to that debate andprovides examples of initiatives that are being undertaken in this field. This
report is not prescriptive, but fosters an exchange of ideas on the international
level.
Broadly speaking, this report addresses two spheres of activity, and builds
bridges between them. One sphere concerns developing installations for the
long-term management of radioactive waste. Some people are specialised in thissphere of activity, comparable to other economic spheres concerned withdelivering products and services. The second sphere is general, and concerns
daily life where each of us seeks improved quality of life and, finally, happiness.
Everybody participates in this sphere of activity, which could be called thepersonal sphere. To build a sustainable relationship between the radioactive
waste management sphere and the personal sphere, designers have to make theradioactive waste management facility and site to suit peoples' needs, ambitions
and likings.
The report is proposed to communities and to national radioactive waste
management programmes in order to facilitate the discussion of added value
and sustainability in their particular context.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ..........................................................................................................

3

Summary ..........................................................................................................

7

1.

Introduction ..............................................................................................

92.

Added value as a means to a sustainable relationshipbetween a facility and the host community.............................................. 13

3.

Value added by facility design features ................................................... 17
3.1 Functional design features ................................................................ 18
3.2 Cultural design features .................................................................... 23
3.3 Physical design features.................................................................... 30

4.

Value added by the process of planning and implementing the facility... 35
4.1 Local utility....................................................................................... 35
4.2 Capacity-building ............................................................................. 37
4.3 Image refinement .............................................................................. 40

5.

Conclusions .............................................................................................. 43

Appendices:
1. Stakeholder acknowledgements ........................................................... 47
2. Glossary of terms ................................................................................. 51
3. References ............................................................................................ 59

5

SUMMARY

Any long-term radioactive waste management project is likely to last
decades to centuries. It requires a physical site and will impact in a great variety
of ways on the surrounding community over that whole period. Short-term fixes
to facilitate a project and installation are not good enough. The societal
durability of an agreed solution, i.e., its sustainability over the long term isessential to success.
Sustainability is not gained solely through financial compensation anddevelopment opportunities. Whilst those economic means are important,radioactive waste management projects also offer opportunities to improvewell-being, consolidate knowledge, fulfil value ideals, elaborate community
identity and image, and live out desired social relationships. Planning for andimplementing a facility should seize these opportunities. In these goals, how
may a facility and its site be better integrated with the community? How may
they be made attractive for the long term? Ultimately, how may they add value
and improve a community’s prospects for quality of life across the generations?
Improving quality of life may be as straightforward and relatively
inexpensive as providing a special coat of paint (as at the Vandellós site in
Spain), or as complex and rich as engaging community processes to design an
integrated radioactive waste management project (as in the “local partnership”
approach created in Belgium). A number of basic design elements that would
favour building a durable relationship between the facility and its hostcommunity are identified, based on the analysis of numerous stakeholders’
input and FSC experience. These design elements include functional, cultural,and physical features.
Amongst the functional features, multi-functionality or polyvalence may
be singled out, meaning that the facility and its site are conceived to serve multiple uses. Other important functional features include adaptability and flexibility. Amongst the cultural features, distinctiveness may be mentioned, indicatingthat the facility or site is attractive and like no other, and has the potential of
becoming an icon, lending a positive reputation and drawing visitors. Other
cultural features include aesthetic quality and “understandability”, whereby the7installation can be tied in with existing knowledge and related to everyday life.
“Memorialisation” is another cultural feature, meaning that both physical andcultural markers identify the site and tell its story, so that people will grasp andremember what is there. Finally, physical design features include integration,
amenity, and accessibility, which can help the facility and site correspond to the
local definition of a safe, unthreatening environment. Examples of practicalimplementation are provided.
The very process of working out the desired features of a radioactive waste
management facility and site can bring added value to the community. This has
been the conclusion of local stakeholders who take an active role in site
investigations, or who participate with implementers in formal partnerships.
Social capital – networks, norms and trust – is built up, equipping thecommunity to face other decisions and issues. Local stakeholders may also
focus their work on community identity, image and profile. Even when notfavourable to hosting a radioactive waste management facility, communities canuse the opportunity to develop quality-of-life indicators and reflect on the
direction they want to take in coming years. Other benefits that may be accrued
are an enhanced educational level in the host community related to the influx ofhighly skilled workers. Not least important, when host communities demand
training and participate in monitoring site development and operations, they arebuilding their capacity to act as guardians and therefore ensure another layer ofdefence-in-depth. These added-value aspects of facility planning and implementation should also be capitalised upon.
Added cultural and amenity value is specific to each context, and while itis may be possible to formulate general principles, no universal recipes can beprovided. Examples gathered in this report show, however, that there is apracticable path towards building facilities that favour a sustainable relationshipwith the community.
Sustainability and value-added themes are clearly a new topic inradioactive waste management stakeholder discussions. It is hoped that thisstudy report, with input from a wide range of contexts, may be beneficial toboth communities and national radioactive waste management programmes indesigning their paths forward.

8

1.

INTRODUCTION

The length and complexity of the radioactive waste management task
represents a particular challenge to our society. Planning, siting, constructing,operating and, finally, decommissioning a radioactive waste management
facility is not a simple linear affair and it takes decades to accomplish. It implies
many different types of assessment, evaluation and decision, and involves manydifferent types of actors. All the decisions cannot be taken at once: there will be
evolution in the type of administrative assessments that will be required, in thelevel of technical knowledge available, in the political climate from decade to
decade. There will be a renewal of actors as new ones, as yet unborn, enter thescene. In such a context, the societal durability of an agreed solution and its
sustainability over the long term are key to success.
Many stakeholders agree that the chosen radioactive waste management
solution must first deliver an agreed level of safety for man and the environment, and then meet requirements for fairness (including fulfilling the “producer pays” principle), and finally, address other aspects of individual andsocial acceptability. We will argue that all these dimensions benefit from early
study and planning in a participative manner, and that the positive gains to besought on each level may reinforce each other.
This report looks into features and strategies that maximise the chances for aradioactive waste management facility to better fit into the personal sphere ofthose hosting it over the generations. A long-term relationship may befacilitated by designing and implementing facilities in ways that provide added
cultural and amenity value to the local community and beyond. By cultural andamenity value we mean: agreeable additions to quality of life, through suchfeatures as distinctiveness, aesthetic quality, convenience and meaningfulness;through providing opportunities for residents and visitors to meet, learn, relax,
enjoy…; through fostering community improvements in areas like educational
level, image definition, or problem-solving capacity. It is the opposite to___________________________
2.
3.

Italicised words are defined and discussed in Appendix 2 (Glossary).
We quote de Swiss expert group EKRA, and a similar hierarchy of concerns was expressedby stakeholders who gave input to our study.

9building an ugly, threatening facility that upsets or repels people, and remains
like a stranger or an unwelcome presence in the community.
Added cultural and amenity value brings direct gains in quality of life; it
can foster socio-economic gains by making a place more attractive to visitors or
future residents. In the best of cases, added cultural and amenity value will starta virtuous circle, bringing benefits now, encouraging an on-going relationshipwith the facility, and strengthening the community such that in future years it
can face challenges and continue to improve quality of life.
The added value to be sought when designing and negotiating a radioactive
waste management facility is not a secondary detail. We believe it is one of theconditions that will help assure safe management of radioactive waste over thegenerations. Making a facility into an important, positive part of its community
may be vital for making sure that the facility is understood and rememberedover time by residents and not only by the technical people.
Different cultural contexts may have varying approaches to these issues.
This report is offered as an input into site – and community-specific discussions
on the development of radioactive waste management facilities. It provides
examples of initiatives that communities may want to consider. What constitutes added value will need to be discussed and agreed with the local stakeholders in potential host communities and will reflect their particular circumstances. A “one-size-fits-all” solution cannot be offered.
Alongside reading this report and setting up discussions, radioactive waste
management stakeholders are encouraged to investigate the experience of otherindustries in similar settings and with comparable challenges. They may learn inthis way from specific solutions that have produced added value within a given
local framework.
This report does not look into “spin-off”, thematically unrelated
infrastructure projects that may accompany the building of a radioactive waste
management facility, nor into incentives or compensation, although our findings
may be useful in these areas. It is recognised that as decades pass, theimportance of monetary compensation may recede, while the importance ofgood relations and durable added value will increase.
Section 2 of this report summarises the argument in favour of developing asustainable relationship between a community and a radioactive waste
management facility through added cultural and amenity value. In section 3 thereport identifies design considerations – functional, cultural and physical – that
may help facilities and sites fit into their community in an acceptable and10sustainable manner. Each design feature is illustrated with examples. The fourth
section discusses the benefits that may be gained from the very process ofplanning radioactive waste management projects that target sustainability andquality of life. These benefits – capacity building, local image refinement –should be understood as cultural added value in and of themselves. Finally,
conclusions are highlighted.
Illustrations are drawn from FSC publications, a literature review, specificinterviews and stakeholder responses to a questionnaire. Appendix 1 acknowledges the many stakeholders who gave detailed input. Appendix 2 is a glossaryof terms (whose first appearance in the report is italicised) and identifies FSC
references.

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

Because a radioactive waste management facility and site will be present ina host community for a very long time, a fruitful, positive relationship must be
established with those residing there, now and later. Both the ongoing quality oflife in the host community, and indeed future societal capacity to watch over thewastes there, depend on building a sustainable relationship. This section defines
what we mean in this report by “sustainability”, and by “local community”. It
shows how cultural and amenity value added by a radioactive waste
management facility may foster a sustainable relationship, and tells why thisadded value should be considered early on.
Many countries have committed to the sustainability principle. Sustainable
development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the abilityof future generations to meet their own needs”. It is “...not a fixed state ofharmony, but rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources,
the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, andinstitutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs”.4
Because the physical environment is our primary resource base, the first pillarof sustainable development (SD) is ecology: we ought not to harvest resources
faster than they can be regenerated, nor emit wastes faster than the environment
can assimilate them. The three other pillars of SD are economic, social, andethical. Altogether, SD targets not only material (ecological and economic)
needs but also social, spiritual and cultural needs.
How can radioactive waste management contribute to sustainability?
Waste, by definition, cannot be recycled directly into a useable physicalresource. However, all four pillars of SD should be kept in view. In principle,
radioactive waste management should become a source of further development
for a community, through adding economic, social and/or ethical value. Economic added value is a relatively familiar concept, and economic development
packages (as well as incentives and compensations) have been already widely
4.

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our
Common Future (Brundtland Report), §27 and §30.

13

discussed.5 On the other hand, social and ethical added value may be more difficult to grasp. The National Academy of Public Administration6 explains thoseintangible values: “Each generation creates and uses resources (over and above
natural resources) that are very future-oriented. The most important examples
are the education system, opportunities for contributions to social and economic
needs, the capabilities for research and scientific investigation, and literaturethat analyses and records our understanding of our own acts. Each generationmust use some of its current resources to enrich these intellectual resources forthe ultimate benefit of future generations”. In this way, “sustainability is also an
opportunity”. Furthermore, we would argue, if value is added to a community
by a radioactive waste management facility, this value is like a capital whose
benefits can accrue over time. In this report, we will give some examples of
how radioactive waste management has contributed to communities what wecall cultural added value, made up in particular of future-oriented resources as
described by NAPA.
In a sustainability perspective, radioactive waste management facility andsite should not only avoid disrupting but should in fact improve community
living conditions over the full life cycle of the facility.7 The installation can
provide community growth potential – not only through financial compensationand development opportunities. Whilst those economic means are important,radioactive waste management projects also offer opportunities to improvewell-being, consolidate knowledge, fulfil value ideals, elaborate community
identity and image, and live out desired social relationships. Planning for a
facility should seize these opportunities.
In this report, local community is a generic term for the group of personalactors that become involved in deliberations about radioactive waste management facility siting and operations. It is a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common
cultural and historical heritage. Community is not tied firmly to a geographic
area. Frequently today, extended local units, groupings of townships, or regions
are brought to consider the place of a radioactive waste management facility orsite in their territorial identity.
5.

6.

7.

See for instance Kotra, J. (2003) “How to Address Social Concerns? Round Table
Discussions during Session II of the FSC Workshop in Canada”, in NEA (2003) (the fullreference for NEA, 2003 is found at the end of this report in Appendix 2).
NAPA (1997) Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits Fairly AcrossGenerations. Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration for the
U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration,
June.
The facility life cycle includes planning and construction, operation, monitoring and whenappropriate, decommissioning.

14

Without durable cultural and amenity value a facility will have less potential to survive over the generations, even in the presence of socio-economic
provisions and institutional controls. In contrast, as one local stakeholder representative expressed it:“With local community support for a facility from the outset of design andto the end of construction, and the development of a lasting amenity for the
local and regional area for generations, I believe that the management of the
facility is more likely to be continued through a number of generations. As well
it is less likely to be seen to be a burden to the local area or future generations,as there is a benefit derived for those future generations.”
It is thus important to investigate features of waste facilities and sites that
may enhance quality of life in both the short and long term and thereby help
build a sustainable relationship between a community and facility.
Integrative reflection on technical and socio-economic aspects, and on
cultural and amenity value that could be added by a radioactive waste management facility, is best started from the very first planning stages even before final
siting agreement is reached. It takes time to work out new ideas, new possibilities, and where the communities’ own interests lie. The information, concepts
and ideas gained from this reflection will form a part of the basis on which a
local partner may agree to become a candidate community and then actively
engage in the final siting stages.
Institutions generally cannot commit to the final form of a radioactive
waste management facility before a specific site is agreed, nor to the ultimate
fate of the facility and site. As well, the relationship between a community and afacility or site will depend in part upon external events (for instance, safety performance in the nuclear or radioactive waste management realm; attitudes andstatements by political actors; etc.). Still, feasibility studies and social science
investigations early in the decision-making process can provide meaningfulpreparation. This approach is supported by e.g., the UNECE Aarhus
Convention.
Often it can be difficult to hold a mutually satisfying discussion on compensation and development measures, one that will create no perception of“bribery” by the implementer, nor of a “mercenary” attitude on the part of thepotential host community. Just as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
has proved to be a good umbrella process for discussing stakeholders’ concerns,
the added cultural and amenity value theme could drive sustainability dialogues,
facilitating more productive exchanges on compensation as well as other, longterm provisions.

15

3.

VALUE ADDED BY FACILITY DESIGN FEATURESIn the 1st century BC, classical Roman architect Vitruvius outlined what
good architecture should achieve. He stated that a structure must exhibit thethree qualities of firmitas, utilitas, venustas: it must be strong or durable, useful,and beautiful. These are qualities that can be sought for the radioactive waste
management installation, for both the physical building structures, and for what
the installation can bring to the community.
This part of the report reviews each design consideration that helps aradioactive waste management installation to maximise the value added – thatis, to maximise its contribution to potential sustainability and well-being in thecommunity. Relevant design features relate to functional, cultural, or physicalaspects. It is important to note that while the design features can be separated
out for discussion, often, in practice, they are tightly linked.
Illustrations from stakeholder experience are given, including some fromindustries or areas outside radioactive waste management. Probably many more
illustrations can be found.
Table 1 below summarises the design features that may help the facility
and site to add durable value to the community. These features tend to maximise
the potential of a facility to be “adopted” by the members of the host community, by fitting in, adapting to and, moreover, contributing directly to their preferred way of life.
Table 1. Design features that help to maximise the added value brought
to a community by a radioactive waste management facility

Functional aspects

Cultural aspects

Physical aspects

Multi-functionality or polyvalence

DistinctivenessIntegration

Adaptability

Aesthetic quality

Amenity

Flexibility

Understandability

Accessibility

Memorialisation

17

3.1 Functional design features“Function” concerns the uses to which the facility and site may be put. The
radioactive waste management facility must serve the primary purpose ofassuring safe and secure long-term management of radioactive waste. Careful
functional design can add value, by allowing parallel uses that are of directinterest to residents and visitors. Table 2 summarises design features and characteristics related to facility function, as well as the value that may be added tothe community, and finally, possible strategies to achieve each feature.
Table 2. Functional design features that help to maximise the added value brought
to a community by a radioactive waste management facility

Design feature

Characteristics

Value added

Multifunctionalityor
polyvalence

The installation
serves several
functions at thesame time: it
assures its missionof safely managing
radioactive waste
and also supports
other uses likerecreation or
education.
Foreseeable
functions can beaccommodated at
acceptable or no
cost.

Offers opportunities fora wider range of
persons to come into
contact with the
installation and to bringit into their lives.
Offers opportunities forthe community to drawa range of benefits(prosperity,
amenity…).
Supports the near-term
multi-functionality of
the installation.

New andunforeseenfunctions can beaccommodated at
acceptable cost.

Supports longer-term
multi-functionality,
including complete
transformation of
structure or uses.

Adaptability

Flexibility

18

Possible strategies
to achieve thedesired feature
Designers andcommunity
stakeholders explore
community needs for
additional functions,work closely withregulators to reconcile
demands for safety
and for parallel uses

Designers choose
appropriate materials
and structures toaccommodate
foreseeable uses andto make necessarytransformations easy.
Designers anticipate
that new functions
will be introduced by
future users; they
assure robustness andavoid building infeatures that narrowly
restrict potential uses.

Not every square metre of a radioactive waste management facility can be
put to multiple uses. The desirability of multi-functionality and the ways toachieve it should be decided in each context, by the stakeholders involved.
Multi-functionality
Industrial facilities are often mono-functional, dedicated only to serving
their engineering purpose. In the past managers and politicians sometimes
pressured communities to accept facilities in the name of glorious technologicalprogress or “the greater good”, and relied on financial incentives andcompensations to make the facility attractive. In contrast, FSC workshops in
Canada and Belgium8 have highlighted the desirability, and necessity, of
integrating radioactive waste management facilities into people’s way of lifeand vision for growth. Like mobile phones that also serve as personal planners
and cameras, or living spaces employed for many different activities,
radioactive waste management facilities may more easily become part ofpeople's lives if they have multiple uses. Similarly to other products andservices, if a radioactive waste management facility does not make positive
contributions to the consumer cycle, it may soon be left aside or resented.
“Multi-functionality” means that the radioactive waste management facility or site can be used by the community for other purposes. These functions
may be exploited by the community immediately or in the future. They mightprovide economic benefit, enjoyment, learning or socialising opportunities. In
all these ways, the facility or site provides added value.
There is a difference here with “spin-off” opportunities or unrelated infrastructure that may be offered to a community as an incentive or supplementary
grant. Multi-functional facilities and sites (for example, scientific, cultural andrecreational facilities built within site confines) are designed to deliver, in andof themselves, added cultural and amenity value closely tied to the radioactive
waste management project itself. In this way, the added value helps to fit
the radioactive waste management facility or site into community life over thegenerations.
We have found examples of multi-functionality providing added culturaland amenity value, as well as traditional economic value.

8.

NEA (2003) Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian
Context, OECD, Paris.
NEA (2004) Dealing with Interests, Values and Knowledge in Managing Risk, OECD,
Paris.

19

x

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

x

Two waste storage facilities in France, the Centre de stockage del’Aube (CSA) and Centre de stockage de la Manche (CSM), function
as tourist destinations, providing revenue to the region. At CSA, amuseum-like visitors’ centre informs about local geology andarchaeology, and the storage area can be toured. The extendible
hangar design has been noted and copied by visiting farmers.

x

In Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France, a mining museum also contains acultural centre, where lectures and concerts can take place. One could
extend such a concept to a surface building on a radioactive waste
management site: community members could use the building fortheir own agreed purposes, for cultural advancement or enjoyment.

Added scientific value too can be generated through multiple uses ofpolyvalent radioactive waste management facilities.
x

Underground installations offer unique opportunities to carry out
research requiring an exceptional environment. Zero-gravity experiments are carried out at Japan’s Tono Mine underground laboratory,
and the North America Deep Underground Science and Engineering
Laboratory foresees a number of experiments unrelated to waste
management that may be carried out at WIPP.

x

Laboratory facilities at Spain’s El Cabril and WIPP in the US areavailable for use by universities and administrations. This up-to-date
infrastructure serves for research and for regional environmental
analysis or monitoring.

The link between scientific culture and “everyday” culture can be made inmulti-purpose, interactive facilities. This represents added value for the users of20

these facilities, and over time can help improve the educational capital ofsociety as a whole.
xAt Äspö, Sweden’s hard rock laboratory includes a demonstration
component, providing knowledge to scientists through research and to
the public through a hands-on museum experience.

x

The Association of Swedish Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities(KSO) Secretariat gave ideas for cultural added value installations. In
an environmentally oriented bio-geo-science centre or “Experimenter
Facility”, visitors could create things themselves with the help ofcomputers, see rock samples, play games with scientific content inphysics, chemistry and biology, and learn about up-to-date geologic
knowledge and even the history of the stone industry of the
Oskarshamn area or iron-work industry of Forsmark. The geoscientific centre could be complemented by a large outdoor stage (dugin the bedrock) for music and theatre performances in a true
“Mountain King” concert hall. The outdoor stage area could have ageo-scientific trail with stations explaining bedrock types, fossils etc.

Radiation protection and safety needs push engineering solutions towards
isolating the waste. Is it really possible to create a multi-functional facility while
preserving safety? In principle the answer is yes: if this is taken into accountfrom the beginning, architects and engineers can lay side-by-side the “hardhat
and dosimeter” waste-management area with the part welcoming visitors forother pursuits. This is the case for the El Cabril and WIPP laboratories cited
above, and for museums and visitors’ centres at other repositories. The concept
in principle can be extended to any installation, and a wider variety of uses
imagined.
x

In Canada, the Port Hope community worked with the federal safety
authority to check the feasibility of the public-use projects they would
like to see within the low level waste storage area.

Adaptability and flexibility“Adaptability” and “flexibility” are necessary for achieving multifunctionality. They mean that designers do not lock the facility or site into asingle purpose. Instead, designers choose forms and materials that may allow agraceful transition to parallel or new, unforeseen uses.
x

A typical example is seen in modern exhibit or theatre spaces that canbe transformed according to need (walls and seats are modular andmobile). On the scale of an entire construction, the “innards” of thebuilding – heat, waste and ventilation conducts – can be placed along21

the margins, so as to facilitate new organisation of the open central
space. As for radioactive waste management installations, such a
concept could be extended to the entire site, designing and placing
protected areas in such a way that they do not hinder a large array of
expected or unexpected site uses.
When creating a new facility, it is necessary to foresee the end of its usefullife. If future needs are not anticipated, there is a risk that the facility will
become a liability for the community. Proper foresight – on the end use of the
facility and site, or technical provisions for quick transitions to other types offacilities – provides better assurance to the host community that there will be
flexibility in future planning capacity.

9.

x

In France, a tumulus formed of mining waste has been adapted into a
ski slope. This required engineering foresight to provide the correct
slant and access arrangements.

x

In Kävlinge, the town hosting Sweden’s Barsebäck nuclear power
plant (NPP), the municipality views that the operating reactor is avaluable asset and should go on running for economic andenvironmental reasons. If Government decides to decommission, thecommunity does not want to be tied for 30 years to a restricted,
unproductive site.9 The municipal preference would be to turn the sitevery quickly into a new seaside housing area. The choice of land use
reflects both the changing demography of the region and themunicipal need to generate revenue. If the older type of reactor had
been built with design provisions that favour a prompt dismantling –like current plants – there would be a shorter lead time to thedecommissioning of the reactor and there would be a smoothertransition to a final and accepted new condition.

x

At the Dounreay NPP in Scotland, the process of setting decontamination priorities and radiological target levels will take someyears. Stakeholders are currently working to find agreement on whichsurface buildings should be maintained, which areas should beaccessible to visitors, and which new uses should be created. Because
at the time of construction and in the early years of operation the
future need for such decisions was not taken into account, clean-up
and transformation of site elements may be a heavy and costly task.
The famous domed reactor building has been proposed as a national

Palmqvist, R. (2005) “The Municipality as a Stakeholder”. In WPDD Topical Session on
Stakeholder Involvement in Decommissioning, November 2005.
NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)5; www.nea.fr/html/rwm/docs/2006/.

22monument, but the cost associated with its maintenance under that
regime appears too high, as would be the cost of dismantling ortransformation. Today many local stakeholders with family employment ties are sentimentally attached to the landmarks of the no-longer
operating site, but in any case it appears that there is little choice to bemade regarding whether to keep or eliminate the reactor dome. It may
be an unused landmark, admired or not, for generations to come.
An adaptable, flexible facility can provide enjoyment during its operation
and also make possible the transition to a full community facility when its
industrial use is no longer needed. This preserves the potential for local culture
to develop further according to future needs. Cultural identity takes decades tocenturies to form. Radioactive waste management projects should be sensitive
to present and also evolving cultural identity. A flexible, multi-purpose facility
can contribute to the latter, as it is likely to last for generations of social use andenjoyment.
x

The city of Rome is an outstanding example of how cultural identity isformed through the layering of sites and buildings from many eras ofhistory. Ancient religious sites were rebuilt over the centuries withchurches that show architectural and decorative features from manysuccessive eras, and they are still in use today. Throughout the historic
centre, major facilities constructed to serve the institutions of theirtime have been adopted and transformed to suit successive needs.
While some stand as museums, many more house today’s institutions.
Ancient vestiges and newer constructions co-exist in a living manner,integrated in today’s practices. Remnants of the past are completely
adapted in a vibrant modern community.

Facilities built to store today’s waste must have the technical potential tolast over the centuries. The visible layering of history in the city of Rome offers
an example of how radioactive waste management host communities may hope
to construct for the future. They can envision how today’s site may best be
given a form around which future developments may grow. Along with carefulplanning for radiological safety on-site, adaptability and flexibility will leave
development pathways open.
3.2 Cultural design features“Cultural value” is found in arrangements that reflect and strengthen agiven society’s knowledge, tastes, aspirations, ethical views, or beliefs. It lies inall that is meant to help to transmit an honoured legacy, to communicate
symbolic meaning, or to advance ideals.

23

Culture has been defined as “the set of distinctive spiritual, material,
intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, encompassing,in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value
systems, traditions and beliefs”.10 In this way, culture may be assimilated toshared meaning and practices. Culture is not a fixed-for-ever set of features, andfacility designers must give attention to what may help culture to develop
further.
Four design features are found to be part of how designers and communities can instil meaning into a radioactive waste management facility andsite. Table 3 summarises these features and their characteristics, the value they
may add to the community, and strategies for achieving them.
Table 3. Cultural design features that help to maximise the added value brought to
a community by a radioactive waste management facility

Design feature

Characteristics

Value added

DistinctivenessThe installation
is attractive,
recognisable
and “like noother”.

Aesthetic
quality

The installation
is nice to lookat and to“experience”.

The installation
may become an
icon, a well-known,emblematic andadmired feature of
the place. People
may draw pride
from the presenceof the installation;
it can become apositive part oflocal identity.
People may draw
pleasure from thepresence of theinstallation rather
than avoiding it orrejecting it.

10.

Possible strategies
to achieve thedesired feature
Artists andarchitects apply
their highest
creative anddesign skills;
incorporate stateof-the-art and/or
traditional
materials;
introduce
innovativeengineering…
Architect, artists
and community
stakeholders
consult ondesirable “look”,
layout andlandscaping.

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2001, 2004. Online at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ (consulted 19 September 2006).

24

Table 3. Cultural design features that help to maximise the added value brought to
a community by a radioactive waste management facility (Contd)

Design feature

Characteristics

Value added

Understandability The installationand its functions
are understandable.

People can connect
the radioactive waste
management projectand installation tovarious parts of theirlives and theirknowledge.

The facility andsite are marked sothat people (nowand later) knowboth what is there
and something
about its context.

People can integrate
into their sense ofplace the meaning ofwhat the site is andwhy it is there.
Features of local
identity and culture
are preserved andshowcased.
Society’s choices andachievements arerecorded.

Memorialisation

Possible strategies
to achieve thedesired feature
Stakeholders(technical andsocietal) engage in an
open, transparent andcollaborative process
to work out the radioactive waste management project.
Information andeducation
programmes.
Interactive museums.
Art installations.
Durable markers.

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

The household-waste treatment facilities at Spittelau near Vienna weretransformed into a delightful landmark when they were given a newouter shell by artist Hundertwasser.

x

The Oskarshamn municipality feel that a future SNF and HLW facility
could be a showcase for Swedish innovation and design. They call fora national architectural competition to be held.

25

The visual impact of industrial installations is a real issue. As soon as you
can see it, you are interacting with a facility; this interaction has to be madepleasant and desirable. “Aesthetic quality” means that the installation is nice tolook at and to experience. If an installation is aesthetically pleasing, in sum, one
would be happy to pose for a photograph with the site in the background. There
are different ways to achieve this: through innovation, or through tradition.
x

The Äspö surface buildings in Sweden look like handsome examplesof regional architecture. They resemble classical wood houses andrespect the traditional colour scheme of red siding, dark roofs andwhite trim.

xArtist C. Massart has visited waste facilities throughout the world andcaptured their particular beauty and identity in graphic works (photos,
engravings, videos).

x

In the Netherlands, the COVRA Habog interim storage installation is
painted a warm saffron yellow and the different forms of the equation
E=mc2 are represented in monumental letters of aqua green on the foursides of the building. This landmark is included in regional architectural
tours by universities. Beyond the pleasing colours, this treatment of thebuilding is meant to communicate to the community that COVRA iscommitted to finding more aesthetic and acceptable ways of fitting in.

Understandability“Understandability” means that people comprehend the facility and its
functions – or that they have the means to learn about them. The installation canbe tied in with existing knowledge and understanding, and members of thecommunity can relate to the facility.
Understandability must be built up through relationships with the facility
and site. Providing transparent, accessible information about the site canenhance people’s ability to relate to it. This can be achieved through visits,
demonstrations, mock-ups, and hands-on interactive exhibits, or througharchiving and transmission of data.
x

In their final report, community members of the STOLA integrative
local partnership (Dessel, Belgium) spelled out their requirements for
accepting a facility: The repository project for low-level waste must
integrate technical and social aspects, and moreover, must bringpositive value to the community. STOLA set requirements to foster
understanding of the facility and site, now and over the years. They
stipulated that alongside a repository must be built a clearinghouse for26

information regarding radioactivity, its applications and consequences.
A small interactive science centre should be part of this.
x

France’s Centre de Stockage de la Manche can be toured and draws
both tourists and regional inhabitants.

x

Many industrial facilities, including nuclear power plants andoperating waste management installations, hold “open door” days tobuild up relationships with the neighbours. Residents can visit the site,
meet and talk with the people who work there, and participate infamily activities that bring the facility closer to everyday experience.

x

Cogema has demonstrated that it is possible to place cameras even in
the “hot” areas of waste management facilities, allowing people tolook in and form an image of what waste management really looks
like (this feature must be considered in light of security constraints).
Several implementers have displayed long-term containment structures for the waste so that people may distinguish these from morefragile engineering structures and build up their understanding of thewaste containment systems.

Understandability can be enhanced if community members are involved inworking out details of the site function. Communities may wish to develop theirunderstanding through training, which also equips them to monitor the proper
running of the facility over the years.

11.

x

Mayor J. Castellnou of Hospitalet, the Vandellós nuclear plant hostcommunity (Spain), told the FSC11 that local confidence – in the hostcommunity and beyond – rests on four pillars: safety, local training
and knowledge development, socio-economic development, andfuture-oriented sustainable development mechanisms. Communities
appreciate being part of checking for safety, and ask to be trained in
the relevant areas. They thus build not only competence but also
accrued, tangible safety mechanisms and the basis for long-term coexistence with the facility. This familiarity and control are part andparcel of the safety concept. Local stakeholders may one day be called
to be the guardians of a facility or its memory.

x

A regional university professor was given the role of “translating” therelevant technical concepts into plain language that local people on the
Vandellós dismantling monitoring commission could understand. This

J. Castellnou, in Proceedings of the FSC topical session on “The link between
RD&D and stakeholder confidence” held in June 2005; see OECD/NEA document
NEA/RWM/FSC(2006)4.

27

increased members’ grasp of the issues they were to monitor. At thesame time, these concepts became part of a local narrative, giving abetter integrated cultural presence to the facility.
Understandability may also mean that the community accepts the presenceof waste and does not try to hide its existence. In questionnaires, moststakeholders contributing to this study indicated that they do not seek tocamouflage the presence of radioactive waste in their community. A facility canbe designed to show, rather than hide, the fact that waste is placed there.
x

P. Gontier, an ecological architect, observed in an interview that“showing, not hiding” is a preference that has emerged relatively
recently in the history of architecture and urban planning. It is both an
ideological preference and a utilitarian one: when the function of an
installation is hidden, it can be forgotten. He suggests that the best
path to follow in designing a radioactive waste management
installation is not to attempt to disguise its function, but, to render thatfunction visible and understandable. In the architect’s opinion,
designers should seek out an aesthetic code that is distinctly
appropriate for nuclear power (or for radioactive waste management).
They should not borrow aesthetics from other domains. Doing sowould be anti-transparent; it would comfort the notion that radioactive
waste management has something to hide. The installations shouldlook like what they are. The building should display its “truth”, andmoreover, “tell a story” in which the community will recognise itself.
To discover the desired story implies consulting and involving thecommunity.

The themes of “understandability” are closely linked to issues of“memorialisation”.
Memorialisation
Sustaining a long-term, care-taking relationship with a radioactive waste
management facility requires that the memory of the site be preserved.
“Memorialisation” means that both physical and cultural measures are taken to
mark the site and tell its story, so that people will grasp and remember what isthere.
For decades technologists have reflected on the need to preserve sitememory by constructing durable markers. Whilst the markers have a protectivefunction, “marking” the facility can also be a means to add cultural and amenity
value. These are important considerations if the memory of the radioactive

28

waste management facility and site is to be preserved over many, many
generations into the far future – a future much longer than industrial experience
to date.
x

Artist C. Massart reminded the FSC Belgium workshop participantsthat we must archive information for the future, taking into accountthat present-day meaning will fade away or become unreadable. She
showed how we can mark repository sites or facilities throughsymbolic, artistic means. In this way it is also possible to create new
relationships, a new contemporary dialogue around waste management. Massart explained in an interview that everything thatshould be known, thought and retained about the actual repository sitecannot be grasped in a single glance. The site cannot be fully archived
with a simple label: neither a detailed technical presentation, nor an
eloquent discourse on “what is here and what it has meant in oursociety” will assuredly be readable over tens, hundreds or thousandsof years. Nor will simply reading produce in each person a maximum
sense of “where he is” and the presence and form of the waste.
Massart suggests we must multiply the means through which a visitor
may approach and form a relationship with the repository site. The
visitor may leave, each generation is likely to leave, withoutcomprehending and possessing the full sense of what is there, but “atleast our thoughts and questions are recorded”.

xWhen mines are closed they have been transformed into mining
museums, offering a new tourism industry while memorialising theactivity that meant so much to the region and shaped it.

There is experience with memorialisation in the World Heritage programme. Monuments are identified for protection by the UNESCO World
Heritage Commission, because they are considered of “outstanding universal
significance” and represent a “unique achievement”. Do long-term radioactive
waste management facilities potentially resemble this type of cultural property?
Considering the World Heritage inclusion criteria (“testimony to a time andplace – exerting considerable influence – associated with significant ideas,
beliefs, events” – etc.) may aid in conceiving and designing radioactive waste
management facilities. The criteria may help identify specific dimensions ofcultural value (artistic, historic, social, and scientific) that a local community,and our society, would like to see associated with a repository project.
A number of local stakeholders have proposed that waste management
facilities and sites should be accompanied by science museums, visitors’ orcommunication centres. These proposals show how our cultural design featuresof distinctiveness, understandability and memorialisation may be tightly linked29

in practice. Several complementary aims are addressed by these community
proposals: preservation of knowledge, demonstration of waste management
concepts and solutions, public accessibility of information, site memorialisation,
reinforcement of regional identity, generation of tourism revenue, and/or
creation of recreational amenity.
x

The municipality of Oskarshamn has considered a Science Centre or aTime Travel Museum looking at spans of hundreds or thousands ofyears in both historical and prospective terms.

x

The idea of an on-site environmentally-oriented geoscience centre or“Experimenter Facility” was highlighted by Sweden’s KSO.

x

STOLA recommended a communications centre in the vicinity of therepository site, to serve as the point of reference for information
regarding radioactivity, its applications and consequences. An interactive science exhibit on radioactivity should be part of this centre.

x

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

Creating a museum is similar to other heritage endeavours. Steps include:
study, selection, and valorisation of the essential elements that should betransmitted over time beyond those directly involved in building or living withthe property. Museums allow others to observe and appreciate the technical andsocial qualities of the past (and to enjoy while learning). In the radioactive
waste management realm, local proposals for museums may allow visitors andfuture generations to understand the technical dimension of the waste
management activity. Even when this technical aspect is not memorialised, theculture (knowledge, tastes, aspirations, ethical views or beliefs) of the hostcommunity and their active part in building the centre or site recreational
amenities can be made apparent to future visitors.
3.3 Physical design features
The physical level of design (Table 4) is a familiar one for architects andengineers. They can seek to integrate the facility into its physical setting, toeliminate any threatening, repulsive character, and increase site and facility
amenity.

30

Table 4. Physical design features that help to maximise the added value brought
to a community by a radioactive waste management facility

Design feature

Possible strategies
to achieve thedesired feature
Architects study
and respect the“genus locus”.

Characteristics

Value added

Integration

The installation
respects the “genus
locus” (spirit of theplace), fits into thelandscape andcomplements it.

The installation
does not intrude onor disrupt people’s
living space andtheir attachment to
the place.

Amenity

The site includes
features thatenhance its
attractiveness,convenience andusability.

People may actively Architects, artists
go toward the siteand communityand draw satisfacconsult on desirable
tion from using it.
landscaping andequipment.

Accessibility

A large proportionof the installation
surface is open,
fences and barriers
are reduced to theessential.

People get a feelingof security andfamiliarity rather
than a sense of
threat.

Architects, planners
and regulators seek
to reconcile
protection andopenness.

Integration“Integration” means that care is taken to make the facility and site blend into
the natural or built landscape. The radioactive waste management installation
should not be implanted without regard for the harmony of the place.
x

Spain’s Vandellós-I reactor was closed in 1990 and while awaiting amanagement facility, contaminated graphite is stored on-site in former
reactor buildings that have been restructured and re-styled. The city ofVandellós is a beach resort and the existing building has been mademore attractive in the local landscape through various means. In
particular, the site is no longer intrusive to the view from an inland
position: a special paint job makes the remaining building blend into
the natural setting by matching the green of the forest line and the blueof the sea. Integration was improved by reducing the reactor building
from 90 metres to 60 metres in height.

x

In Sweden, implementer SKB has asked an architect to think about“industrial design with man in mind” for the future final repository for
SNF. “What will it look like? A big square industrial structure?” The31

architect answers that it’s important to get to know the site where thebuildings will stand, and the “genus locus” or spirit of the place. New
buildings and industrial plants must be in harmony with the uniquefeeling each place has. “When we’re finished using the site we want tobe able to leave it the way we found it. It should be able to resume its
original appearance”. Security features may be integrated in the formof natural obstacles and differences of ground level. On the site
investigated in Oskarshamn, the architect points out that nature is notpristine, but shaped by man over the centuries. He tries to capture theinterplay between man and nature with the proposed placement ofbuildings, where “man has already made his mark on the landscape,taken the land in his possession and tilled it for centuries; in this way
the final repository can be a continuation of the site’s history,
revitalising it and keeping it to the same course it has been following
for millennia”.
“Integration” is a physical design concept, but it also has meaning in socioeconomic terms. The radioactive waste management facility and site should fit
into and stimulate other community projects and initiatives.
x

Port Hope’s End Use Advisory Committee stipulates that repository
planning should consider long-term and integrated planning for, orcompatibility with, the entire neighbourhood.

x

The Oskarshamn municipality points out that “To be effective thefindings (on added value to be brought by a repository) must also be
put in a broader perspective. All municipality activities are part of alarger picture and none can be treated in isolation”. Considering arepository “forces discussion on prioritisation”.

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

x

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

x

SKB’s industrial architect points out that designing a final repositoryis “like designing a small city, with restaurant, offices, overnightaccommodation and everything”.
32

Accessibility“Accessibility” means that the site and facility are not barricaded, but areopen and welcoming. People can go toward the installation without feelingunreasonable fear. Accessibility appears to be closely linked with feelings ofsafety. Safety is more than just a technical concept – it also has everyday
meaning in the community.
x

SKB’s industrial architect says “this is a facility you want to show
off, not hide deep in the woods”. The access road must not give theimpression that it is taking employees and visitors “to the site ofsome suspicious enterprise. Rather, the final repository should
radiate openness, insight and transparency.”

Certainly each and every area of a radioactive waste management facility
cannot be made open to the public. Areas restricted for the necessities of safety
and security need not benefit from the same degree of functional, cultural, andphysical design input, for they are not aiming to add direct value to thecommunity. Still, the radioactive waste management facility and site should beconsidered in a holistic manner, in order to maximise the added value that it ispossible to achieve at reasonable cost.
Meeting radiological safety demands – the primary condition set by the
stakeholders consulted for this study – is linked to how accessibility is
managed. While technical features will provide the agreed level of protection,
physical design elements will help create the feeling of security. A facility thatis carefully designed and monitored for public safety is demystified if it offers
parallel uses for the community. In particular, if a site that is licensed to operate
can be freely visited, walked through, or enjoyed for other uses, it clearly mustbe safe. It no longer seems to impose restraints on the user, nor shuts people out
in an alarming way. It accomplishes its goal of protection without emphasising
danger. This style of safety differs from the traditional implementation found inmany contexts. Radioactive waste management projects today often push safety
away from a militaristic concept, towards an implementation that is moresocially welcoming.
x

The Vandellós waste store can be visited without extensive personal
protection, and a confident feeling is produced by the ability to peer
into the storage area through portholes.

x

In a similar manner, the underground offshore facility of the Swedish
Final Repository (SFR) for Radioactive Operational (L/IL) Waste canbe visited essentially in street clothing.

33

x

The Port Hope community determined early that the Long Term Low
Level Radioactive Waste Management Facility should be completely
accessible, thereby communicating assurance that it is completely
safe. Since January 2005, the End Use Advisory Committee hasdeveloped framing principles for deciding how the facility should bedesigned. Those directly related to accessibility and safety are: “Firstand foremost, ensure the safety of the population; assure them of thesite’s safety; Make the site open and accessible; Ensure public
oversight through accessibility”.

Although the cultural approach cannot in and of itself provide a demonstrable and technically-based safety assurance, building a facility that is a positive, sustainable and accessible community feature could add an additional layerof defence-in-depth, one beyond those contemplated by technologists today. It
would also provide an identity to those in local communities as guardians rather
than outsiders.
Accessible installations serving multiple functions can be achieved onlywith the careful cooperation of the regulator and willingness to adapt or rethink
regulations that were created in a different context. It is difficult to predict the
future demand for safety as both knowledge and living conditions will evolve.
Flexibility (on the functional level of design) may prove its value here as well.

34

4.

VALUE ADDED BY THE PROCESS OF PLANNING
AND IMPLEMENTING THE FACILITY

This section discusses benefits that may be gained from the very process ofplanning and implementing radioactive waste management projects that target
sustainability and quality of life. These benefits – local utility, capacity
building, local image refinement – should be understood as added value in andof themselves. The added value is found principally on the cultural level, witheconomic value present as well.
4.1 Local utility
As part of its basic function a radioactive waste management facility
should serve the local community. “Local utility” means that the radioactive
waste management facility provides jobs and stability to the community.
Services may be provided as well.
x

In Belgium, the STOLA local partnership stipulated that a low- andintermediate-level waste repository should be accompanied by adigital network, delivering free internet access to residents.

Local durable employment creates ties and bonds and memory – cultural
benefits – as well as prosperity. Many communities point out the need to gain
stable, durable employment with a radioactive waste management facility, andnot just service jobs associated with a temporary influx of workers, or thecreation of a small number of expert positions. Moreover, there may be special
demands imparted by the long-term nature of radioactive waste management.
How can high socio-economic potential and quality of life be favoured by thevery presence of the radioactive waste management programme in the hostcommunity?
x

12.

UK implementer Nirex stresses the need for suitable long-term
projects that would help support the sustainability of the radioactive
waste management facility host community.12 NuLeAF, the Nuclear

Nirex’s response to CoRWM’s second consultation document – How should the UK
manage radioactive waste? (Ref. 472433) Didcot: UK Nirex Ltd.

35

Legacy Advisory Forum of the UK local government association,
drafted a policy statement recommending benefit packages “with anemphasis on contributing to the sustainable development of theaffected area and the well-being of local communities and theirdescendents”.13
x

The multi-stakeholder research programme Cowam-España hasinvestigated the role of financial support to host communities inensuring sustainable development. Moving beyond the concept ofshort-term compensation or incentives, future instruments should
enable local and regional development, help the community assume
responsibility for waste generated for the benefit of society at large,
and also serve to create and maintain local knowledge and competence
to monitor management over the coming decades and generations.

Local utility lessons may be drawn from other parts of the nuclear fuelcycle or other industries in which there is experience with declining industrial
activity and decommissioning.
x

13.

In the far north of Canada where uranium is mined, the traditional
aboriginal culture is still dominant locally. It is important to organise
sustainable modern economic activity in harmony with ongoing
traditional activities. A miner gets more community respect andsatisfaction from being a skilled and experienced trapper. Cogema hasrecognised that miners should enjoy working conditions (timeschedules, geographic placement) such that they can still devote
themselves meaningfully to traditional skills. Local utility here
implies provision of resources enabling people to preserve theirenvironment and perpetuate their traditional culture despite modern
economic pressures. Furthermore the uranium industry has committed
to the long-term goal of offsetting diminishing mineral resources by
the creation of other economic opportunities. Specialised academic
and technical training allow greater numbers of northern people tomove up into the mining management ranks. As their economic andeducational level rises, the work force is becoming more flexible andcompetent. Successful northern-owned as well as joint-owned service
industries have taken root.

NuLeAF Steering Group, Implementing policy on the long-term management of radioactive
wastes, Draft Outline Policy Statement, 6 April 2006.

36

x

An existing European regulation14 relative to mining in general
stipulates that host compensation funds must not all be ear-marked forshort-term needs, but must be directed in part to generating economic
and cultural resources that will sustain the community over the longterm.

In essence, a waste management facility will eventually reach the end of its
operational life and be decommissioned one day. While the active period of
construction and operation may generate palpable economic benefits for thehost region, this is less likely during surveillance and decommissioning phases.
Sustainability implies addressing the entire life cycle of a facility and site.
Where diminishing economic returns are to be expected, the creation of added
cultural (and amenity) value is all the more important.
4.2 Capacity-building
If the decision-making process is fair, inclusive and equitable,communities may draw cultural value from the very process of deliberating
about hosting a radioactive waste management facility or site. This added value
may lie in enhanced capacity to address quality of life issues, and increasedsocial capital.
At first sight it is not easy to measure or quantify the cultural or amenity
value that a facility could add to the community. Local democratic institutions
however may assemble important information when deliberating on what it
would mean to integrate a radioactive waste management facility into thecommunity. They may gain a more complete view of community goals andresources. In particular, quality of life is a primary concern of communities
when contemplating an industrial facility.
x

14.

A pertinent (counter) example is found in Clark County, Nevada(USA). Clark County includes the Las Vegas “Strip” and has
expressed opposition to the federal high-level waste repository
project. To support their argument that Yucca Mountain could
adversely affect the fast-growing Las Vegas community, they havedeveloped detailed economic, fiscal, social, environmental and publichealth and safety indicators. In so doing, Clark County has enhanced
its self-knowledge and understanding of the elements that areimportant to residents and community identity. Clark County has
accrued “cohesive integration of community resources and (…) asystem for long-term monitoring of impacts through community

Regulation CE 1407/2002 of the European Council 23 July 2002.

37

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

The Belgian LLWM partnerships draw upon the accumulated
experience of the diverse participants. They have created social capitalin the form of inter-stakeholder networks, shared knowledge, andmutual trust. Significantly, the Belgian communities want to realise
their investment by using the committee structure to address otherunrelated local topics. They have maintained the existing structures toface new steps in the radioactive waste management siting process(Dessel was designated in July 2006). STOLA was replaced by
STORA, a new association acting as Dessel's “eyes and ears”. Mol
proposes a permanent participatory body to defend its role asneighbour to the repository, and also to assure the dialogue on highlevel radioactive waste management when that comes onto the federal
agenda.

Europe’s Cowam-2 project focusing notably on long-term governance ofradioactive waste management concludes that alongside socio-economic andlegal provisions, community capacity to monitor their facility must be
maintained over the generations. “Sustainability funds”, intended to improve
quality of life over the decades, are being suggested by partnership initiatives in
Belgium. In Spain, such funds should be used to enhance community capacity
to play a future guardianship role.
x

Cowam-España suggests that radioactive waste management stakeholders including local and regional authorities should focus ondevising mechanisms for social learning, economic development andenvironmental protection over the long term; these would be
supported by grant funds. Spain’s planned National Interim storage
facility could serve in this connection as a tool for research, training
and social learning. (Note that experience is already accumulating inSpain in the decommissioning area: in the context of dismantling
Vandellós-I, a multi-stakeholder Municipal Monitoring Commission

38

oversaw work progress, safety, waste management, environmental
surveillance, and contracted personnel issues.15)
Waste management facilities and sites diminish the green acres available toa community and their resource capital must be replenished in another way. The
resource most obviously associated with radioactive waste management isknowledge. Integrated waste facility projects can generate added value on theintellectual and cultural plane, increasing the ability of future generations totake decisions.

15.

xBelgian local partnership STOLA laid out a requirement forknowledge resources. The repository must integrate a nuclear
information clearinghouse and a science museum, such that theknowledge associated with the nuclear industry and radioactive waste
management can be made accessible to those who wish to manage andreduce risks. Two “layers” of cultural value are thus provided:
knowledge is disseminated (for any use the visiting public may wish
to make of it), and, knowledge is kept available for the specific needsof societal risk management.

x

Oskarshamn (Sweden) has good economic development status.
However, the local educational level is lower than in Sweden's regionsthat are experiencing the most economic expansion. The municipality
has never considered the radioactive waste management project as
primarily a source of economic compensations. Safety has been the
primary concern, and in the past few years the working groups haveconsidered added value for the community. A rising educational levelis seen to be one potential benefit. In Oskarshamn, it is recognised thattaking decisions whose benefits may be “soft” and not immediately
observable, requires boldness and vision (the example of the oncerejected, now lauded Eiffel Tower was quoted).

x

Nye County, Nevada (USA) comprises the nation's candidate site fordeep geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear
waste, Yucca Mountain. The county has a cooperative agreement with
the US Department of Energy (DOE) to collect data and performresearch vital to the repository research and development project, forexample regarding ground water movements. Nye County has over adozen recognised expert earth scientists, and subcontracts some tasks
to universities. The studies not only serve the YMP, but also increase

J. Castellnou (2005), “Dismantling of the Vandellós-I Nuclear Power Plant”, paper
presented at the Workshop of the OECD/NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence,

L’Hospitalet de l’Infant, 21-25 November 2005 (proceedings in preparation).

39

the knowledge base regarding ground water resources for future
regional development. Should the repository be built, it is anticipatedthat the influx of scientists with a high educational demand for theirfamilies will produce added value for the entire community throughreinforcement of the rural school system. (Of interest is the Nye
County Comprehensive Community Protection Plan16 which outlines
the measures required to protect the health, safety and economic wellbeing of Nye County residents as repository hosts. Alongside many
detailed measures to create a sustainable long-term partnership with
the DOE, the Plan outlines requirements for ongoing institutionaloversight by the county.)x

Carlsbad, New Mexico (USA), where the WIPP repository is sited,
has already begun to draw the cultural benefits of hosting a highlyeducated workforce. The local community stakeholders point out thatthe workers from the national laboratories and contractors are
involved in all aspects within the local community. Their involvement
enhances and improves the culture within the community.

4.3 Image refinement
In the 60s, the siting of nuclear facilities conferred upon host communities
a strong positive sign of being part of the future but there was no active local
role in the siting process. The welcoming attitude linked to technologicalenthusiasm eroded in the 1970s and siting became viewed as imposing a burden
on an unwilling host. Now, in several countries, the process has been turned
around. Whether they volunteer or are approached by implementers, whether
they address a waste legacy or envision integrating a new radioactive waste
management activity, many communities are taking an active role. They
increasingly expect a projected facility to fit their concept of safety andamenity, and are willing to work hard to achieve that. In this process,communities are looking not only to protect their community identity and image,but to create a positive community brand or profile with the radioactive waste
management facility as a visible component. If the town or region must be
identified in the public mind with a radioactive waste management facility, thisought to be a true article of local pride. Such an objective leads to creativity:communities imagine cultural elements that will define the project as an asset inan overall development vision.
x

16.

The Municipality of Oskarshamn (Sweden) decided early on to“stretch” the implementer to gain assurance that the repository projectConsult www.nyecounty.net/.

40

proposal is the best from multiple perspectives. Oskarshamn has theambition to engage in a partnership with the industry and not be seen
as a “target for decisions taken elsewhere”. Alongside checking
technical aspects, they have formed working groups to reflect on
maximising benefits should the repository be sited. The implementer
SKB thus is funding several studies conducted by national experts todevelop the basis for siting decisions not only on technical criteria but
also on added-value activities.
A repository may not be compatible with a local image. In the
Municipality of Storuman in Sweden there was a significant opposition feelingthat the image of “Europe’s last wilderness” was not compatible withrepresentations of a nuclear waste repository.17 For an industrial community, incontrast, a repository may have the potential to enhance the local image.
x

Oskarshamn is taking an active part in a social science project looking
at ways to integrate a repository with the community identity andimage. “We are not accepting a waste dump; we are accepting a hightechnology facility for the purpose of protecting our environment andour coming generations. This should enhance and sharpen our local‘brand’ profile already expressed by our motto “Oskarshamn – themunicipality with energy”.

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

In many countries, the communities that have gone furthest in consideringa radioactive waste management facility project are those which already count a
nuclear installation within their territory. These may be called communities with“industry awareness”. This should not be seen primarily as a sign of economic

17.

Tourist Entrepreneur Stig Stand, Storuman 1994, quoted in the Oskarshamn questionnaire
response to this study.

41

dependency, and certainly not as a willingness to sacrifice safety.18 Instead, itshould be recognised that host communities have already integrated theindustrial activity and cognitive understanding into their local culture. This has
been referred to in the past simply as “familiarity” but in fact it may be called an
existing cultural basis for facility development. In these communities solid
support to engage is often found among the public. Where others see radioactive
waste management facilities as threats these communities see the potential ofsomething to be proud of, an advanced facility that solves a national
environmental problem relating to an energy source that is also familiar to thecommunity. Developing joint solutions consists of building on and adding tothat existing cultural basis.

18.

J. Hetherington, “Community Involvement: Stakeholder Learning in the UK and Canada”
in Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context.
Workshop Proceedings, Ottawa, Canada, 14-18 October 2002. OECD, Paris.

42

5.

CONCLUSIONS

Any long-term radioactive waste management project is likely to last
decades to centuries. It requires a physical site and will impact in a great variety
of ways on the surrounding community over that whole period. Short-term fixes
to facilitate a project and installation are not good enough. The societal
durability of an agreed solution and its sustainability over the long term areessential to success.
The greatest challenge, both technical and societal, may be to create alocal, operating facility that can fulfil its mission over the generations.
Alongside scientific knowledge and technical competency, and resources for
implementing an agreed approach, there must be a continued willingness to livewith and maintain the facility. Moreover, radioactive waste management
projects must support the sustainable development of the host community andits long-term capacity to go on hosting the facility. In these goals, how may a
facility and its site be better integrated with the community? How may thefacility and site be made attractive for the long term? Ultimately, how may they
improve a community’s prospects for quality of life across the generations?
Communities do not gain added value and sustainability solely throughfinancial compensation and development opportunities. Whilst those economicmeans are important, radioactive waste management projects also offer opportunities to improve well-being, consolidate knowledge, fulfil value ideals,
elaborate community identity and image, and live out desired social relationships. Planning for and implementing a facility should seize these opportunities.
Today individual communities and radioactive waste management
partnerships (grouping community and technical stakeholders) are reflecting on
how to build a long-term, sustainable relationship with a facility sited in theirterritory. Different countries and regions are likely to have different sociopolitical realities and therefore best practices for one region may not be best foranother. Still, it should be possible to extend and structure this reflection
through exchanging ideas on the international level.

43A number of basic elements for designing a facility that would favour
building a sustainable relationship between a facility and a local community
were identified, based on the analysis of numerous stakeholders’ input and FSC
experience. The design elements include functional, cultural, and physicalfeatures. Amongst the functional features, multi-functionality or polyvalence
may be singled out, meaning that the facility is built to serve multiple uses.
Other important functional features include adaptability and flexibility.
Amongst the cultural features, distinctiveness may be mentioned, indicating thatthe radioactive waste management facility or site is attractive and like no other,but has the potential to become an icon, lending a positive reputation anddrawing visitors. Other cultural features include aesthetic quality and understandability, whereby the installation can be tied in with existing knowledge andrelated to everyday life. “Memorialisation” means that both physical andcultural markers identify the site and tell its story, so that people will grasp andremember what is there. Finally, physical design features include integration,
amenity, and accessibility, which can help the facility and site correspond to the
local definition of a safe, unthreatening environment.
The report also examined the added value that may reside in the very
decision-making and implementation process. Implementing any radioactive
waste management facility should benefit the community in terms of prosperity,
but moreover in the best of cases increased stability and cohesiveness are
gained. These represent cultural added value. Other cultural benefits that may
be accrued are an enhanced educational level in the host community related tothe influx of highly skilled workers. Not least important, when host communities demand training and participate in monitoring site development andoperations, they are building their capacity to act as guardians and therefore
ensure another layer of defence-in-depth.
The very process of working out the desired features of a radioactive waste
management facility and site can bring added value to the community. This has
been the conclusion of local stakeholders who take an active role in site
investigations, or who participate with implementers in formal partnerships.
Social capital – networks, norms and trust – is built up, equipping thecommunity to face other decisions and issues. Local stakeholders may also
focus their work on community identity, image and profile. Even when notfavourable to hosting a radioactive waste management facility, communities canuse the opportunity to develop quality-of-life indicators and reflect on the
direction they want to take in coming years.
While this paper reported good practice, it could not provide universal
recipes. Added cultural and amenity value is specific to each context. It is
important that the stakeholders concerned work out what kind of solution is44

desired and appropriate for their own setting. Radioactive waste management
stakeholders are encouraged to investigate the experience of other industries insimilar settings and with comparable challenges. They may learn in this way
from specific solutions that have produced added value within a given local
framework.
Examples gathered in this report show that there is a practicable path
towards building facilities that favour a sustainable relationship with thecommunity. Still, sustainability and value-added themes are clearly a new topic
in radioactive waste management stakeholder discussions. It is hoped that thisstudy report, with input from a wide range of contexts, may be beneficial toboth communities and national radioactive waste management programmes.

45

Appendix 1
STAKEHOLDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study benefited from direct input by 32 different stakeholder sources
representing 20 localities or radioactive waste management programmes. Somestakeholders filled out a questionnaire or gave written comments, whilst others
granted a telephone interview (from end 2005 to mid 2006). We invited all FSC
participants to provide input, and we sought out the opinion of some stakeholders from outside the FSC. Our aim was to obtain a variety of views, not a
fully representative sample. Alongside this input, we relied on the FSC stakeholder workshops and topical sessions held through November 2006 and also
conducted desk and internet research.
We are grateful for the participation and input by many stakeholders andexperts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Harald Åhagen (Oskarshamn, Sweden).
Anni Bölenius (SKB, Sweden).
Vernon Daub (USDOE Carlsbad Office, USA).
Miquel Ferrús (AMAC, Spain and GMF).
Evelyn Hooft (NIRAS/ONDRAF).
Hans Jivander (Osthammar, Sweden).
Josefin Jonsson (SKI, Sweden).
June Love (UKAEA, UK).
Meritxell Martell (Enviros Spain).
Philip Moding (KSO, Sweden).
Irene Navis, Sheila Conway and Jeremy Aguero(Clark County, Nevada).
Gérald Ouzounian (Andra, France).
Roland Palmqvist (Kävlinge, Sweden).
Luc Smeyers (MONA, Mol, Belgium).
Liz Stewart and Mark Stevenson (Port Hope, Canada).
David Swanson (Nye County, Nevada).

47

We thank those who granted an interview, or who took the time to write
detailed, thoughtful responses to the study questionnaire. A finding is that sustainability and value-added themes are a new topic in stakeholder discussions.
Not all dialogues today include these themes, sometimes because stakeholders
perceive that other outstanding concerns (safety foremost among these) must be
taken care of first. Where added cultural and amenity value are discussed, it isoften in close relation with more familiar local development items. Front runners, however, show that structured field studies can identify potential added
value in addition to economic opportunities. Tangible and intangible effects oncommunity “identity, image and profile”, can also be assessed. Working groups
can provide meaningful proposals to be submitted to implementers, regulators,
and municipal authorities, and many stakeholders expressed satisfaction withthis type of process.
Special thanks are offered to the local stakeholder representatives andexperts who participated in the June 2006 topical session entitled “Forming a
Sustainable Relationship to a Waste Facility”: Roland Palmqvist (Mayor of
Kävlinge and President of GMF; Peter Wretlund (Mayor of Oskarshamn);
Ursula Rüetter-Fishbacher (Social Researcher) , Prof. Erik van Hove (Univ. of
Antwerp, retired) and to the specialists who granted interviews: Pascal Gontier(Ecological Architect, Paris), Cécile Massart (Art Professor and Artist, Brussels,
Belgium), as well as to FSC members: Yves Le Bars (Cemagref, France), Steve
Chandler (UK Environment Agency), Elizabeth Gray (Scottish Executive),
Elizabeth Atherton (Nirex, United Kingdom), Hideki Sakuma (Nagra,
Switzerland), Auguste Zurkinden (HSK, Switzerland), and Michael Aebersold(BFE, Switzerland).
Various observations inspired the FSC to think about how to build asustainable, long-term relationship between a radioactive waste management
facility and the community:

1.
2.

•

Professor M. O’Connor pointed out the importance of the relationshipbetween the community and “the waste” itself.1•

Professor E. van Hove emphasised that the facility should not be seen
solely as a waste-management instrument; an attractive, multifunctional facility has more chances to become a positive part ofcommunity life, contributing to enjoyment and local pride.2

O’Connor, M. (2003) “Building relationships with the wastes”, in NEA (2003b) (seeAppendix 3 for references).
Van Hove, E. (2004) “Valorisation of a repository in an added-value project”. In NEA(2004a).

48

•Artist C. Massart showed how a waste facility can become an art
object and how it is important to preserve the memory of disposal, notjust for safety reasons, but also because radioactive waste has uniquesocietal significance.3•

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

This study was discussed at FSC meetings in 2005 and 2006. The report
was written by Claire Mays (Symlog) and Claudio Pescatore (NEA) withvaluable guidance from the FSC and from Prof. Erik van Hove.

__________________________________
3.

Massart, C. (2004) “How Plural Interests, Values and Knowledge Could be Translated intoa Concrete Radwaste Disposal Project Design: An Artist’s Vision”, in NEA (2004a).

49

Appendix 2
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

In this glossary some basic terms encountered during the study (italicisedin the main body of the report) are defined and discussed. The FSC publications
from which some citations have been drawn are listed at the end of the annex.
Added value
The increase in worth of a product or service provided by features andbenefits over and above those representing the “core product”.
Amenity
Feature of real property that although not essential to use, enhances its
attractiveness and increases the user’s satisfaction. It is a positive enhancement
to living environment conditions, providing convenience, comfort, satisfaction
or appeal.
Natural amenities include a pleasant or desirable location, scenic surrounding area, etc. Human-made amenities include recreational and otherfacilities for collective use.
Bribery
An offer of money, goods or services in order to persuade a second party toperform an action in the interests of the party offering the bribe, or to sway thesecond party’s opinion or decision.
Persons objecting strongly to the presence of radioactive waste may viewcompensations or other socio-economic benefits as “the wages of risk”, orbribery to persuade a community to accept a management facility which they
view as inherently unsafe.

51

Community identity
Internal view that members have of their community.
Community image
View the outside world has of the community.
Community profile or brand
Strong points and values for which the community wants to be known.
Communities look to gain a positive identity and develop meaningful
facilities or projects in their area. Working out desired cultural value can be partof a process of clarifying community identity. Cultural value can be used toenhance the community profile or brand and to shape the image of thecommunity.
Identity, image and “branding” are becoming more important with thecirculation of people and goods in the global economy. Countries, regions andcommunities are all concerned with their image. A successful image must be
rooted in a corresponding identity – it is virtually impossible to create a positive
public image if that is not the deep identity experienced by the community.
Constructing identity and image requires long-term effort and commitment.
Compensation
Repayment for any necessary expenditures or losses associated with thesiting and operating of a facility. Sometimes conceptualised as “equity offsets”.
Compensation and incentives may be financial or non-financial and can beprovided at one time only or on a continuous basis during the siting,construction, or operation of the facility (NEA, 2004b).
There is consensus today that potential host communities should actively
define the right siting “package” including not only financial but also otheraccompanying measures.1
In some contexts, land-use compensation schemes have been decided bynational actors and detailed formulae for calculating sums due are used or evenset out in the law. In Spain, unusually, communities hosting nuclear power1.

See Kotra, J. (2003) “How to Address Social Concerns? Round Table Discussions during
Session II of the FSC Workshop in Canada”, in NEA (2003).

52

plants are compensated primarily in relation to the volume of (spent) nuclear
fuel currently stored on local territory.
In questionnaire responses regarding dialogue among technical andsocietal partners, some stakeholders stated that compensation “is notdiscussed”: “the word has never been used”; “points concerning compensation
have not yet been raised”. This suggests that local development, sustainability
and quality of life issues are recognised to be prospective, not one-to-one
compensation issues.
Culture“The set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotionalfeatures of society or a social group, encompassing, in addition to art andliterature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions andbeliefs”.2
Incentive
A benefit to motivate local communities to accept a facility.
Integrative local partnerships
Committee structures in which technical and community stakeholders
come together to work out an integrated radioactive waste management project(setting physical and safety characteristics, socio-economic and cultural/amenity
requirements).
The recommendations to Government by UK CoRWM include a chapter
on implementing a radioactive waste management strategy. This committee hashigh regard for the integrative local partnership approach. One of theadvantages of the partnership approach is that it achieves an environment inwhich host communities can engage with an implementing body without feeling
victimised by a national process over which they ultimately have little control.
CoRWM therefore believes that a partnership approach should be developed inorder to achieve community involvement. Partnerships should be based on an
open and equal relationship between the potential host community and theimplementing body. (…) International research shows that it is important thatthe host community has a sense of ownership of the facility that will be built
and is therefore involved as early as practicable in the generic technical aspects
2.

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2001, 2004. Online at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ (consulted 19 September 2006).

53

of the design. (…) CoRWM therefore concludes that representatives of thepotential host communities should be involved in determining both the broad
technical aspects of the proposed facility as well as the socio-economic aspects
aimed at ensuring the well being of the community”.3
Stakeholders in several countries are turning to integrated projects,
focusing on both technical and societal aspects of facilities. Technical partners
and local partners alike treat these as interdependent and inseparable elements.
Local stakeholders review or help build up the proponent’s technical concept,
satisfying themselves as to the level of protection that fits their demand; inparallel they work out expectations and requirements for radioactive waste
management to function in the local context. The stakeholders envision livingwith the facility during its active period and beyond, considering simultaneousor end uses of the site. They mark out the development opportunities provided
by hosting a facility. Beyond jobs, heightened economic activity, and “spin off”
infrastructure development, local communities envision added cultural andamenity value, in the perspective of ensuring satisfactory quality of life for thepresent and future generations and ultimately a durable and sustainable
relationship with the relevant facility.
NIRAS/ONDRAF, participating as implementer in the Belgian local
partnerships, explains:“The discussion bears on a mixture of technical criteria, traditional socioeconomic aspects and added value. The essence is to develop an integrated
disposal project, so the local community decides what it considers to be thenecessary conditions (technical, environmental, aesthetic) for a disposal facility
and they develop an accompanying local project that seeks to bring added value
to the community. The outcome differs from community to community. The
partnerships become the carriers of the site investigations and repository designand deal with all related issues such as safety, social, economic and ecologicalimpact, urban planning.”
Even where such integrative partnerships do not exist, cultural benefits
accrue to the community taking an active part in defining desirable design
features. A most positive outcome can be “consensus or agreement between
parties with regard to the need to obtain support [for a concept or demand] fromthe national level, and to apply democratic rules in decision making”, or thedemonstration that “local participation works, giving added value to a
democratic decision making process, making it possible to reach consensus
3.

CoRWM (2006) Managing our radioactive waste safely. CoRWM’s recommendations toGovernment. London: Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, July 31, pp. 136-137.

54

among members with quite different approaches to nuclear energy andradioactive waste management. Maybe this contributed to the upgrading of thelevel of public acceptance of the site [proposal]”.
One challenge of working closely in a formal or informal technical andsocietal partnership, as pointed out by a stakeholder contributor, is “initially tofind a functional working format and to understand each others’ language”.
Another challenge, according to a questionnaire response, is “maintaining
the interaction between the partnership members and the local community (localorganisations and the public in general)”.
Partnerships call on the national or federal level to respect their work andtake it into account in their decisions. The loose articulation between thepartnership and this higher level of authority may be a source of “frustration” or
weakness.
Local community
Generic term which refers to the group of personal actors that become
involved in radioactive waste management facility siting deliberations.
“Local community” is understood in this report as a social group of any
size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often
have a common cultural and historical heritage. Community is not tied firmly toa geographic area. AkEnd has proposed that the area that volunteers to host aradioactive waste management facility should be self-defining and calls it a“social, cultural and economic unit” with no clearly marked geographic
borders.4 Frequently today, extended local units, groupings of townships, orregions are brought to consider the location of a radioactive waste management
facility or site in their territorial identity.5
Administrative character, location, mode of government, history andshared economic and cultural practices are complemented by further dimensions
4.
5.

AkEnd (2002) Selection procedures for repository sites, AkEnd. Available from Bundesamt
für Strahlenschutz, Salzgitter, Germany (e-mail: info@bfs.de).
D. Ipsen told the FSC: “Regionality becomes more important as an arena of socio-economic
development. (…E)economic and cultural globalisation (reinforces) regionality as a basis
for success in the competition for resources and geographical status. (…) To involve people
in the design of the future mainly means to give people an active role in local and regional
development. In the context of (radioactive waste management), this means that thehandling of nuclear waste will have to be better integrated in the general regional
processes” (p. 69). (“Civil landscapes and changing modes of participation”, in NEA,
2000.)

55

of “community”. Each member’s sense of belonging may be linked to aperception of the “spirit of the place”, and by identifying with the group
established there. Local community should be understood too as the extensionof each member’s personal sphere. The community is a network of personal
relations. It is one space in which our lives take place, alongside otherspecialised spheres (for instance, the sphere of our employment, or the spheresdelivering to us services and goods). By considering “local community” in aholistic manner, we may gain a better understanding of what is needed for aradioactive waste management facility to fit in, be welcomed, and be
maintained there in a sustainable manner.
Quality of life
A state of physical, psychological, and social well-being.6
Physical well-being relies on working conditions, recreational opportunities and health care access. Psychological well-being depends on harmony
between one’s cultural identity and one’s actual living conditions. Social wellbeing depends on the ability to share in cultural practices with one’s peers. In
the formal radioactive waste management decision process, quality of life may
be addressed through social impact assessment (SIA), which more and more isapplied in parallel with the required environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Quality of life is also addressed when communities develop a vision of the cultural and amenity value they expect to draw from a radioactive waste management facility or site.
SafetyThe condition of being protected against failure, damage, error, accidents,or harm.
Safety is a physical criterion addressed by the exact sciences. Safety is alsoa social construct.
Communities and societal groups may have their own requirements
defining what is acceptably safe. These requirements may go beyond the levelof protection set by national or international norms. Regarding a radioactive
waste management facility, community requirements may imply technicalfeatures or mechanisms that might not be called strictly necessary from an
6.

M. Simard (2002) “Urban Quality of Life and Industrial Project Management: The Case of
Alcan Aluminium Smelter in Alma, Quebec, Canada” in Public Confidence in theManagement of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context. Workshop Proceedings,
Ottawa, Canada, 14-18 October 2002. OECD, Paris.

56

engineering or optimisation point of view. Conversely, a community may attach
special cultural importance to design features that could challenge the desired
level of safety. In each case, the regulator will provide expertise and feedback
enabling the partners to reconcile all the requirements.
Regulators have begun to recognise that the community is a vital partner inmonitoring and assuring safety over the long term, with precise knowledge ofthe site at all phases before, during and after facility development, and the highmotivation to preserve local health and their way of life. It is in everyone’s
interest to adapt the radioactive waste management facility to the community
and thereby improve its chances of being taken care of by the succeeding local
generations as well as by technical people.
Safety is a rolling concept. In the past, terrorist attacks were formally
excluded from safety analyses because their likelihood was consideredunquantifiable; today, they are a major item of societal concern. It is difficult topredict the future demand for safety as both knowledge and living conditions
will evolve.
Social capital
Features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that enable persons to
act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives.7
Spin-off
An economic venture underwritten or made possible in the context of alarger undertaking.
Many projects today are accompanied by appreciable spin-off projects
funded by radioactive waste management implementers or other institutions.
These might be described as “icing on the cake” – good things that come alongwith the facility but which are not an essential part of it. Instead, the reportfocuses explicitly on “the cake”: how the conception and design of radioactive
waste management facilities and their sites themselves may generate value for acommunity or for society as a whole. This is a new perspective on the “goodneighbour” concept: traditionally project proponents make themselves agreeable
by supporting demands coming from the community; here, the facility itself
would be designed to facilitate the networks and activities that are important tocommunity members, and contribute to them positively.

7

R. Putnam (1995) “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital”, Journal of
Democracy, vol. 6, no 1, p. 65-78.

57

Stakeholder
Any actor – institution, group or individual – with an interest or with a roleto play in the process.8
UNECE Aarhus Convention
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Accessto Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice inEnvironmental Matters, adopted 24 June 1998 in Aarhus, Denmark.
An elaboration of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, the Aarhus
Convention “links environmental rights and human rights. It acknowledges that
we owe an obligation to future generations. It establishes that sustainable
development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders.
It links government accountability and environmental protection. It focuses oninteractions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context”.9
The Aarhus Clearinghouse for Environmental Democracy, a UNECE website [http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/] points out that effective public
involvement in environmental issues is made possible through adoption of laws,
policy development, capacity-building, research, etc. Documents collected atand disseminated through the Clearinghouse website can lend insight on bestpractice in involving stakeholders in environmental decision making.

8.
9.

NEA (2000), See Deliberations of Working Group 3 on “Stakeholders and the Public: Who
Are They?” in Stakeholder Confidence and Radioactive Waste Disposal. OECD, Paris.
www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html, consulted 7/27/2006.

58

Appendix 3
REFERENCES

NEA (2000), Stakeholder Confidence and Radioactive Waste Disposal, OECD,
Paris.
NEA (2003), Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The
Canadian Context, Workshop Proceedings, Ottawa, Canada, 14-18 October
2002. OECD, Paris. Summary and International Perspective online at:www.nea.fr/html/rwm/fsc.html.
NEA (2004a), Dealing with Interests, Values and Knowledge in Managing Risk,
Workshop Proceedings, Brussels, Belgium, 18-21 November 2003, OECD,
Paris. Summary and International Perspective available online at:www.nea.fr/html/rwm /fsc.html.
NEa (2004b), Stepwise Approach to Decision Making for Long-term
Radioactive Waste Management: Experience, Issues and Guiding Principles.
OECD, Paris. www.nea.fr/html/rwm/fsc.html.
NEA (2006), Proceedings of the FSC topical session on “The link between
RD&D and stakeholder confidence” held in June 2005. OECD, Paris.
www.nea.fr/html/rwm/fsc.html.

59