Opening up or Closing Down Radioactive Waste Management Policy? Debates on Reversibility and Retrievability in Finland, France, and the United Kingdom

The possibilities of recovering radioactive waste deposited for final disposal (retrievability), and of reversing decisions concerning the management of the waste (reversibility) have emerged as central issues on the policymaking agenda in a number of countries. Calls for reversibility and retrievability (R&R) have emanated mainly from civil society and politicians, and have subsequently, and to varying degrees in different countries, been translated into technical and administrative solutions. This paper examines the ways in which R&R have been dealt with in the national-level radioactive waste management (RWM) policies in France, Finland, and the UK, and examines the role of the debates around R&R in fostering deliberative democracy. The focus of the analysis is on the participatory and deliberative planning and decision-making processes instigated by the state and the nuclear industry. The paper argues that in France and the UK the broad societal debates over the years concerning R&R have to a certain degree contributed to an “opening up” of the RWM policymaking to new options and new actors. In Finland, by contrast, R&R were addressed briefly, as an essentially technico-economic issue, with a rapid closure of the debate around the notion that retrievability had been ensured in the RWM company’s original disposal concept. The paper identifies

[1]  C. Hendriks,et al.  Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy , 2006 .

[2]  Annukka Berg The Discursive Dimensions of a Decent Deal: How Nuclear Energy Evolved from Environmental Enemy to Climate Remedy in the Parliament of Finland , 2009 .

[3]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  Nuclear Futures: Assessing Public Attitudes to New Nuclear Power , 2006 .

[4]  The Temporary Nature of Societal Risk Evaluation: Understanding the Finnish Nuclear Decisions , 2009 .

[5]  David J. Ball,et al.  Deliberating Over Britain's Nuclear Waste , 2006 .

[6]  B. Loïc,et al.  Le nouvel esprit de la démocratie , 2008 .

[7]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Environmental Risk, Uncertainty, and Participation: Mapping an Emergent Epistemic Community , 2008 .

[8]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Power Relations: The Politics of Risk and Procedure in Nuclear Waste Governance , 2008 .

[9]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  Mark E. Warren,et al.  Democracy and Trust , 1999 .

[11]  C. Calhoun,et al.  Habermas and the Public Sphere. , 1993 .

[12]  Lawrence D Phillips,et al.  Nuclear Risk Management on Stage: A Decision Analysis Perspective on the UK's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  S. Topçu Confronting Nuclear Risks: Counter-Expertise as Politics Within the French Nuclear Energy Debate , 2008 .

[14]  Gordon MacKerron,et al.  Lessons from the UK on Urgency and Legitimacy in Energy Policymaking , 2009 .

[15]  B. Wynne Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out? , 2002 .

[16]  Sezin Topçu Dossier Engagement public des chercheurs Nucléaire : de l'engagement «savant» aux contre-expertises associatives , 2006 .

[17]  John R. Parkins,et al.  Public Participation as Public Debate: A Deliberative Turn in Natural Resource Management , 2005 .

[18]  L. Carson Creating Democratic Surplus through Citizens’ Assemblies , 2007 .

[19]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Towards Analytic‐deliberative Forms of Risk Governance in the UK? Reflecting on Learning in Radioactive Waste , 2007 .

[20]  David Ockwell,et al.  ‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: a role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia , 2008 .

[21]  P. Simmons,et al.  Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste , 2008, Public understanding of science.

[22]  Sabine Saurugger Democratic ‘Misfit’? Conceptions of Civil Society Participation in France and the European Union , 2007 .

[23]  J. Dryzek Deliberative democracy and beyond : liberals, critics, contestations , 2000 .

[24]  A. Blowers,et al.  Nuclear Waste and Landscapes of Risk , 1999 .

[25]  Jon Elster,et al.  THE MARKET AND THE FORUM : Three varieties of political theory , 2005 .

[26]  M. Dogan Erosion of Confidence in Thirty European Democracies , 2005, Political Mistrust and the Discrediting of Politicians.

[27]  Yannick Barthe Les qualités politiques des technologies. Irréversibilité et réversibilité dans la gestion des déchets nucléaires , 2009 .

[28]  Roland W. Scholz,et al.  Functional‐dynamic public participation in technological decision‐making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories , 2010 .

[29]  D. McCauley Environmental Mobilization and Resource-Opportunity Usage: The Examples of WWF-France, FNE and LPO in Policy Processes , 2007 .

[30]  The Changing Role and Contribution of Social Science to Nuclear Waste Management in Finland , 2008 .

[31]  J. Parkinson,et al.  Deliberating in the real world : problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy , 2006 .

[32]  M. Callon,et al.  Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy , 2009 .

[33]  F. Berkhout,et al.  Learning to listen: institutional change and legitimation in UK radioactive waste policy , 2009 .

[34]  A. Stirling “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” , 2008 .

[35]  Karen Bickerstaff,et al.  The participatory turn in UK radioactive waste management policy , 2006 .