Stepwise Approach to the Long‐Term Management of Radioactive Waste

Stepwise decision making has long been utilised as a tool for handling the technical complexity of radioactive waste management (RWM). Recently, it is being recognised as a useful means to address social complexities. This paper reviews—through a number of examples—the current developments regarding the stepwise approach to managing long‐lived wastes from a societal point of view with the aim of pinpointing where it stands, highlighting its social dimensions, and identifying guiding principles and issues in implementation. It is observed that there is convergence between the approach taken by the practitioners of RWM and the indications received from social research, and that general guiding principles can be distilled from the analysis of RWM case histories. The paper concludes that a stepwise approach to decision‐making indeed constitutes an effective tool, and that competing requirements of social sustainability and efficiency, openness and analytical rigour will need to be balanced. A long‐term process of decision‐making incorporating the views of national and local stakeholders will very likely be a difficult process to implement. The concrete arrangements for sketching out and agreeing on decision phases, for selecting and involving stakeholders in a participatory process, and for adapting institutions to meet long‐term requirements, will require careful reflection and tuning in each national context. 1. This paper is based on a recent report developed within the framework of the OECD NEA Forum for Stakeholder Confidence (FSC), entitled Stepwise Approach to Decision Making for Long‐term Radioactive Waste Management. Experience, Issues and Guiding Principles (OECD NEA, Paris, 2004). The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Claire Mays and Yves Le Bars for their help in preparing the above report. Thanks are also due to members of the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee and the Forum on Stakeholder Confidence for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of the above report.

[1]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[2]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  The Dilemma of Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository , 1995 .

[3]  A. Vari,et al.  Topical Session on "Addressing Issues Raised by Stakeholders:Impacts on Process, Content and Behaviour in Waste Organisations" , 2004 .

[4]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[5]  Ray Kemp,et al.  The politics of radioactive waste disposal , 1992 .

[6]  Arie Rip,et al.  Controversies as Informal Technology A ssessment , 1986 .

[7]  Rae Zimmerman,et al.  Social Trust and the Management of Risk , 2006 .

[8]  M. Morris.  Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1997 .

[9]  A. Massa,et al.  Siting of Major Facilities: A Practical Approach , 1982 .

[10]  D. Morell,et al.  Siting and the Politics of Equity , 1984 .

[11]  J. Rohrbaugh,et al.  A Competing Values Approach to Organizational Effectiveness , 1981 .

[12]  Patrick Day,et al.  Book Review: The Right Place: Shared Responsibility and the Location of Public Facilities , 1993 .

[13]  Walter Wildi.  Disposal Concepts for Radioactive Waste Final Report , 2000 .

[14]  Nea Forum on Stakeholder Confidence.  Disposal of radioactive waste : forming a new approach in Germany : FSC workshop proceedings, Hitzacker and Hamburg, Germany, 5-8 October 2004 , 2006 .

[15]  Ragnar E. Löfstedt,et al.  The Barseback nuclear plant case , 1996 .

[16]  S. Rayner,et al.  How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology Choice1 , 1987 .

[17]  Stephen Rayner,et al.  Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World , 2006 .

[18]  Eugene A. Rosa,et al.  Public reactions to nuclear waste : citizens' views of repository siting , 1994 .

[19]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  7. Perceived risk and attitudes toward nuclear wastes: national and Nevada perspectives , 2020, Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste.

[20]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Siting noxious facilities: A test of the Facility Siting Credo , 1993 .

[21]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science , 1992 .

[22]  Audrey Armour,et al.  The siting of locally unwanted land uses: Towards a cooperative approach , 1991 .

[23]  John Rohrbaugh,et al.  A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis , 1983 .

[24]  Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer,et al.  Conflicting Views on Fair Siting Processes: Evidence from Austria and the U.S. , 1996 .

[25]  G. Volckaert,et al.  RESULTS OF THE CONCERTED ACTION ON THE RETRIEVABILITY OF LONG LIVED RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN DEEP UNDERGROUND REPOSITORIES , 2001 .

[26]  L. Pellizzoni,et al.  Democracy and the governance of uncertainty. The case of agricultural gene technologies. , 2001, Journal of hazardous materials.

[27]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[28]  Yannick Barthe,et al.  Communication and information in France's underground laboratory siting process: clarity of procedure, ambivalence of effects , 2001 .

[29]  R. Lofstedt,et al.  Risk communication. The Barseback nuclear plant case , 1996 .

[30]  Jeryl L. Mumpower,et al.  LLRW disposal facility siting : successes and failures in six countries , 1994 .

[31]  R. Scholz,et al.  Socio-technical knowledge for robust decision making in radioactive waste governance , 2004 .

[32]  Tapio Litmanen.  Cultural approach to the perception of risk: analysing concern about the siting of a high-level nuclear waste facility in Finland , 1999 .

[33]  James Flynn,et al.  What comes to mind when you hear the words nuclear waste repository '': A study of 10,000 images , 1990 .

[34]  Fair strategies for siting hazardous waste facilities , 2005 .

[35]  T. Webler,et al.  Public Participation in Impact Assess-ment: A Social Learning Perspective , 1995 .

[36]  T Flüeler.  Options in radioactive waste management revisited: a proposed framework for robust decision making. , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[37]  Luis Suarez-Villa,et al.  SITING LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITIES. , 1985 .

[38]  H. Meier.  Abstimmungen und Wahlen , 1987 .

[39]  Jeryl L. Mumpower,et al.  The Dutch Study Groups Revisited , 1995 .

[40]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  A Novel Approach to the Appraisal of Technological Risk: A Multicriteria Mapping Study of a Genetically Modified Crop , 2001 .

[41]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[42]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .

[43]  Raymond L. Murray,et al.  Nuclear Imperatives and Public Trust: Dealing with Radioactive Waste, Luther J. Carter. 1987. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. 475 pages. ISBN: 0-915707-29-2. $25.00 , 1988 .

[44]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Risk, uncertainty and precaution: some instrumental implications from the social sciences , 2003 .