Problematic cases and lessons learned

There were many lessons learned from the siting process in both Finland and Sweden. During the early years following the start of the programmes, almost all emphasis was on technical and scientific issues. This was understandable since the first goal was to develop a method and a system for nuclear waste management that could be accepted as a safe solution by the scientific com­munity. When the feasibility studies started, in Sweden in 1992 with the study in Storuman and in Finland already in 1986 with the preliminary study in Ikaalinen, it became obvious that a new dimension had been added, com­municating technical issues and assessment of risk to the general public.

In Storuman, the publicity was from the beginning characterized by polarization. National actors, such as Greenpeace, came to help the local opposition and could deliver clear and well media-adjusted messages. It soon became clear that communicating the risks of a nuclear waste reposi­tory required much work and time. Communication risk using information campaigns can be a successful method if the risks are known and to some extent accepted. In the case of nuclear waste, where risks are debated, there is room for interpretation. SKB soon realized that it was essential to gain the confidence of the majority of the public in a municipality, i. e., to be seen as honest and reliable before SKB’s risk assessments could be accepted. A similar lesson was learnt by TVO in Ikaalinen.

When the feasibility studies were completed, SKB ’ s CEO summarized the lessons learned and the way forward as (Nygards et al., 2003):

• The process itself must be well known and clear to get acceptance.

• The actors/stakeholders must also see the possibilities for how or in what way the process can be affected or changed and what is fixed.

• Openness and clarity in statements from all actors is absolutely essential.

• All actors in the process must be prepared to answer questions.

• All actors must be prepared to listen to (and learn by) the arguments brought up during the process.

• Discussion in small groups and with the people potentially most affected is the most valuable part of the process to build trust and to learn about key questions.

• There will never be consensus regarding all questions. The fact that you have a consultation process does not mean that consensus will be or will have to be reached.

• The attitudes among those working in the process must reflect their belief that dialogue and discussion of these questions will create a better repository — both technically and socially.

• There must be respect for all stakeholders and their arguments and a willingness to listen and learn.

In Finland, the legally binding DiP included technical concept and public acceptance of the spent fuel repository to be located in Eurajoki. In the Finnish experience, their success factors for spent fuel and waste manage­ment can be summarized as (Varjoranta and Patlemaa, 2010):

• Long-term political commitment to resolve the spent fuel and waste issue.

• National strategy and discipline.

• Well-defined liabilities and roles.

• Establishment of funding system at early stage.

• Veto-right for the local community regarding hosting the repository in a stepwise licensing process.

• Regulator’s strategic planning to allow development of regulatory approach parallel with R&D and in analogy with nuclear plant safety regulations.

• Well-structured, stepwise, open and defendable implementation pro­gramme using graded approach and ‘rolling documents’ strategy.

• Good safety culture and importance of dialogue between the regulator and the implementer based on comparable levels of technical competence.

• Transparency and engagement of public and domestic and international scientific and technical communities.

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *