NYHETER
|2004-10-18|
Repository Siting – Public engagement an asset or an obstacle?
Authors
Harald Åhagen, Municipality Expert Group
Åhagen&Co
Box 300 Box 6048
S-590 21 Väderstad, Sweden
Kaj Nilsson Project Manager LKO
Municipality of Oskarshamn
Box 706
S-572 28 Oskarshamn, Sweden,
Kjell Andersson, Municipality Expert Group
Karinta-Konsult
S-187 06 Täby, Sweden
Torsten Carlsson, Mayor (1988-2002)
Municipality of Oskarshamn
Box 706
S-572 28 Oskarshamn, Sweden
Abstract
The Municipality of Oskarshamn in Sweden is currently being investigated for an encapsulation plant and a final repository for spent nuclear fuel [1]. Site investigations have been started in two municipalities after completed feasibility studies in eight municipalities. The municipality has accepted the site investigation after an extensive internal process, a supportive regulatory review and a clear government decision on national policy. The municipality decision to accept a site investigation is subject to thirteen conditions. The municipality of Oskarshamn achieves an open democratic decision making process with public influence over the program by the use of the so called Oskarshamn Model. An important factor in the Swedish context is that the municipality has a siting veto.
The paper elaborates on the Oskarshamn Model, the results gained applying the model, the recent decision from March 2002 to accept site investigation and the organization and local work scope for the site investigation phase. Lessons learned and challenges ahead are discussed
In 1992 the nuclear industry announced Oskarshamn as the preferred site for an encapsulation plant for spent nuclear fuel. The municipality leadership took the decision to be an active part in the program demanding a completely open process with full participation and influence of the municipality and the public. Independent funding for the municipality participation was a pre-condition to participate. Funding was established by the government in 1994.
A final repository has proven to be one of the most controversial siting challenges in our time. We suggest that there are three prerequisites that must be fulfilled to accept a repository namely 1) that the disposal method is safe and technically sound, 2) that the site is suitable, and 3) that the public can accept it.
The engagement of the municipality has successively been refined and has resulted in what is currently referred to as the seven points in the Oskarshamn Model (total openness and participation, the EIA the legal framework, municipality council the local client, the public a resource, the regulatory authorities are our experts, the environmental groups a resource and stretching of SKB and the regulators for clear answers).
When SKB in 1995 sent a request for a feasibility study the municipality was well prepared and after one year of internal discussions and broad public consultations the feasibility study was accepted with conditions. The municipality then formed an organization to follow and influence the studies. The core of the organization was six subject working groups. The working groups have used conventional and unconventional means to engage the public. Based on a condition by the municipality SKB published a comprehensive report with the results from all the feasibility studies, a status report on the disposal method and the plans how to continue with site investigations. In parallel to an extensive national review administrated by the regulator SKI the municipality council chartered its own internal organization in order to come up with a recommendation to the council if to accept or reject the site investigation and propose conditions for a possible acceptance. During this phase of the work the preferred industry location of the repository was known and focus could be given to those who where the most concerned by a possible repository within the municipality.
The three working groups recommended to accept the site investigations and also proposed conditions. Various polls showed a public support towards accepting site investigations between 75 and 80%. In March 2002 the council accepted with 13 conditions site investigations with 49 members for and 1 against.
1 THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
Sweden is administratively organized on two main levels – a national level with a parliament and government and 284 municipalities with a council and executive council. Elections are held on the same day for both levels every fourth year. The municipalities have a large degree of autonomy and the right to tax. Municipality matters are such as schools, child care, elderly care, roads administration, other infra structure projects etc. The main part of the income tax is paid to the municipalities averaging around 30%. The annual municipality budget in Oskarshamn is ???????
The municipalities autonomy is also strong in planning matters and land use. The Swedish municipalities practically holds have a planning monopoly and has a veto power towards national projects. In the case of a final repository the municipality has a veto but as a final repository for nuclear waste is also on the exception list of projects of particular national importance the government has a theoretical chance to overrule the veto – the so called veto valve. For practical reasons this veto valve is not seen as a real threat by Oskarshamn as the burden of proof on the government (proof that it is the best site or that no other option is available[2]) will be most difficult to present in a legal process. Further it is the national policy that a final repository only will be sited in municipality where this is accepted. Further the policy laid down by the government and by the industry in their official planning documents state that siting of a repository should be carried out on voluntary basis. The decision on the veto is to be taken by the municipality council as part of the licensing procedure. At this point the municipality has access to the regulatory review by the Swedish Nuclear Inspectorate – SKI. The final license is to be granted by the government after the municipality council has taken a decision on to use the veto or not.
2 THE MUNICIPALITY OF OSKARSHAMN
Oskarshamn is located on the south east coast of Sweden, occupies a total area of about 1.000 km2 and has 27.000 inhabitants. The local economy is strong with low unemployment and a high level of industrialization but the weakness is dependence on few large industries where the nuclear utility is one large employer with about 1000 employers. Oskarshamn itself does not have a strong dependence on tourism but the region has one of the highest number of overnight stays in Sweden with the island of Öland, the Glass District, an archipelago and the Astrid Lindgren amusement park as main attractions. Image issues are thus of major regional importance in relation to a possible repository.
Oskarshamn is hosting the first commercial nuclear reactor in Sweden commissioned in 1972. Today three reactors are operational contributing to 10% of Sweden’s electricity demand. In the late sixties when siting took place of the first reactor local decision makers asked about waste from the nuclear operation and they where told “It is only a few buckets of waste” [3]
Oskarshamn is also hosting the Central Interim Storage - CLAB – where all spent fuel from the Swedish reactor program is stored. When accepting the CLAB siting the municipality stressed in its decision that the facility should only be seen as an interim solution for about 40 years storage and cooling and that the waste problem must be solved by a long term solution. This standpoint is just as valid today and it is also strongly supported by current decision makers and a large majority of the public.
3 REPOSITORY SITING - LOCAL ENGAGEMENT BY USE OF THE OSKARSHAMN MODEL
In 1992 the Swedish Nuclear Waste Management Company – SKB proposed Oskarshamn for an Encapsulation Plant and in 1995 SKB asked the municipality for permission to conduct a feasibility study for a final repository[4]. A local engagement in the siting procedures for a repository is may not be obvious to justify and politically it includes risks if the decision-makers engage in a direction the public does not agree with. With a strong level of independence and a veto right – the options are to passively await the outcome of an implementer lead process or to engage and get the process accommodating local requirements. For the Oskarshamn decision makers it was clear that a strong engagement was the only way to make sure that the public could access and influence the content and direction of the program and engage in formulating the decision making process to accommodate such local input.
Starting with two fundamental basis for participation in a feasibility study for a final repository – complete openness and participation – a local working model was formulated currently described as the Oskarshamn model. The Oskarshamn Model has continuously been refined in order to constitute a framework for the local engagement and a way to explain internally and externally to the counterparts how we work.
The Oskarshamn working model contains seven components:
- openness and participation
- the EIA the legal framework
- the municipality council the local client
- the public a resource
- the environmental groups a resource
- the regulatory authorities our experts
- stretching of SKB and the regulators for clear answers
3.1 Openness and participation
Public insight and involvement requires openness from all the key parties. The procedures used should provide early availability of results. Thorough documentation of meetings and decisions and availability of minutes e.g. via internet are important elements.
Participation can only be achieved if there is real influence. Nobody has an interest to participate if all decisions already have been made. It can not be a prerequisite that a repository should be accepted. The political decisions to be taken in the municipality must thus be a result of the public involvement and may lead to rejection. Even if this of course is a setback for the implementer and no solution of the waste problem it is can not be the goal for the decision making process to work for a certain outcome. A good decision making process does not necessarily lead to public consent. To gain consent the public must share the values leading to the proposal and have confidence in its technical soundness.
3.2 The EIA process
In the Oskarshamn model the EIA process provides the structure under which activities take place. Participation by all key stakeholders, while maintaining integrity and independence is crucial. A well planned working schedule of the EIA Forum, publicly available records from the meetings and defined milestones where other interested parties are invited to review the products are crucial components. The EIA process in Oskarshamn contains four steps – wide consultations on the scope – compilation of a scoping report – review and acceptance of the scoping content – investigations and studies by the implementer – broad review of the draft EIS – final EIS as an umbrella for the license application.
Through this EIA process all parties should be able to agree on the basis required for the respective individual decisions – the decisions themselves are taken independently by each party.
3.3 The municipality council as client to the local organization
The municipality council in Oskarshamn is the client to the municipality organization and for the EIA process. The engagement by the municipality in the nuclear waste program is lead by the council. With this role the council members – the local politicians – are directly accountable to the voters, they get involved in the issues, their knowledge increase and they get directly prepared for coming decisions. With this clear responsibility resting with the council the municipality is using the established form for representative democracy in this critical issue. As a spin off it has been demonstrated that the nuclear waste issue has vitalizes the work by the council in general.
3.4 The public as a resource
Public concerns and questions can not be seen an obstacle. The idea of a repository is to protect the public and the environment. Those who may come to live close to the final repository will also be those mostly effected by the project and their concerns and questions must be taken seriously and be addressed in detail. No individuals know more about the local conditions that must be included in the investigations and used as basis for mitigating actions. In terms of the social aspects the local public are those who know most about their values in life and how they would like to form their future. They are thereby also those who best can determine those social, socio economical and image aspects that has to be investigated and described as part of the impact analysis.
Ultimately high quality decisions regarding the solution of the nuclear waste problem must include the citizens. They should therefore get early involved in the EIA process. In today’s society, however, it is not always easy to actively engage citizens in public affairs. The key is that they must see their involvement in a concrete way. Therefore, the municipality has firmly stressed that SKB makes public in a concrete way where a repository could be located, how the facilities will be situated, where tunnels and shaft may enter, visualize the amount of surplus rock, describe possible groundwater disturbance etc. Concrete and timely descriptions of impacts and an openness to discuss them has increased public involvement and it has also had visible impacts on the program.
3.5 The environmental groups as a resource
On a local level environmental groups have been invited to participate in the municipality working groups. Some organizations have accepted but some have made the decision to be active outside the municipality structure. Regardless how the individual groups have decided to organize their work they have all participated in local seminars and workshops. In many seminars the local groups have also invited their experts e.g. from national environmental groups. Such participation has been paid for by the municipality project LKO by funding from the nuclear waste fund.
Participation by the environmental groups in the work and in the debate is important. In the views of the public[5] the critical experts engaged in the environmental organizations are given high credibility. They are seen as an insurance that the issues are scrutinized, that the difficult questions are asked and thereby a demanding environment is created for the implementor and regulators.
3.6 Regulatory involvement
The regulators (SKI and The Swedish Radiation Protection Institute - SSI) must be independent, with the power to review the safety assessment of the SKB. However, for the municipality it is also a need to bring in the regulators early in the process and to maintain their involvement. Firstly, they should have the role of ”peoples experts”, since the municipality can not and should not build up its own independent scientific expertise. Secondly, it is important that SKI and SSI can explain their regulations and requirements, and what they mean in concrete terms, e.g. in the site selection process.
It is important that the regulator is visible to the public throughout the process and explain in understandable terms their view of the status of the disposal method, selection of candidate sites etc.
3.7 Transparency and stretching SKB
The RISCOM Pilot Study [6], funded by SKI and SSI, and in which the municipality of Oskarshamn took part, gave a framework for transparency built on three blocks: facts, values and authenticity. In a transparent process it must be possible to evaluate factual claims, value laden issues and the authenticity of experts and stakeholders in the decision making process. Even if these different aspects have not always been treated as clear as would be expected in an ideal process, many of the activities in Oskarshamn have served the purpose of clarifying facts and value aspects in issues such as the ”zero solution”, reprocessing and transmutation, as well as the impact of ice ages on a repository.
The concept of stretching, discussed by Espejo and Stewart [7] was emphasized in the RISCOM report. In the present context it means that the procedures have to ensure that SKB’s, SKI`s and SSI´s environment is sufficiently demanding and that questions are put forward from different angles and that these questions will be answered in a clear and understandable way.
The RISCOM report claims that stretching must take place at different levels of the program. One level is the total nuclear waste management system, at another level we have the site selection process and at a third level we find the individual site specific studies in specific communities. At each level, at stake are the efficiency (soundness) of the proposed technical solution, the authenticity (trustworthiness) of SKB, SKI and SSI team(s) and the legitimacy of their actions. At each level this requires communicative processes to provide transparency.
We claim that much of the methodology developed in the RISCOM report with ”the three corners of transparency”, and the ”stretching” concept, is practically applied in the Oskarshamn model. It is fair to say that the municipality council, the working groups and, to a certain extent, the interested public have now developed such competence that they have the capacity to stretch the other parties to a considerable degree in many areas.
4 THE DECISION TO ACCEPT A SITE INVESTIGATION
The decision by the municipality council to accept a site investigation was prepared by a local dialogue by three working groups. The working groups had each a defined target group for their public dialogue.
Each group had around one year to complete its mission in dialogue with the public target group and address the two questions:
- should the council accept or reject the site investigations?
- do you propose any conditions in case you recommend to accept?
After extensive public consultations, arrangements of public polls and meetings with the regulatory authorities and arrangements of topical seminars the three groups recommended the council to accept site investigations and proposed several conditions for the acceptance.
On March 11, 2002 [8] the council took the decision to accept the site investigations with thirteen conditions. The decision was formulated as follows- “The Oskarshamn Municipality allows SKB to commence site investigations within the area designated by SKB, namely the Simpevarp peninsula and an area west thereof with the following conditions and clarifications”
The thirteen conditions where in summary:
- Continuos funding of the municipality work from the Nuclear Waste Fund
- Only Swedish spent nuclear fuel and waste accepted
- A deepened dialogue with the citizens to guide implementation of regulations and safety analysis
- Close scrutiny of the initial site investigations for review of the site suitability and parallel safety analysis. Report to the municipality from the regulators if it is suitable to continue the site investigations after the first initial phase.
- Correction of the lack of correlation between the safety analysis, siting criteria and the site investigation program.
- Development of a systems analysis report for the proposed system with an integrated description of the complete final disposal sub-systems including CLAB, encapsulation, transportation and the geological disposal.
- A compilation by SKI and SSI of research that has concluded differently than the results from SKBs research.
- A restriction of any construction license for the encapsulation plant not to allow active operation until the repository is licensed.
- The municipality is allowing site investigations only if SKB can reach voluntary agreements with the concerned land-owners.
- A complete site investigation program including site specific geoscientific-, socio-economical- and social science studies shall be submitted to the council for final approval.
- The EIA-work should initially be focused on consultations leading to a scoping report. The scoping report shall be subject to a wide review process in the municipality and in the region.
- Alternatives to the KBS-3 method shall be defined as a result of the EIA consultation process.
- Current lack of clear legislation on the responsibility for the closed and sealed repository must be clarified by law during the site investigation phase.
5 ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK
The organization of the municipality work have evolved in stages since the first request to conduct a feasibility study was received by the municipality in 1995. The preparation of an answer to SKB on the feasibility study request was carried out by two working groups directly chartered by the council. The first group constituted the executive council members with some additional senior politicians and the second constituted the youngest council members from each party. The two groups prepared their recommendations to the council during one year in dialogue with the public in Oskarshamn. As a result the council received two reports recommending to accept a feasibility study with certain proposed conditions.
After debate in the council the feasibility study was accepted with conditions.
The second organizational evolution was the establishment of of a project office for Local Competence Building – LKO and the formation of six working groups with the task to follow the feasibility study phase, influence the studies and review the results as they where developed. The groups where following the basic structure of SKBs work structure for the study and worked closely with contracted consultants and scientists with access to preliminary results and draft reports. The basic structure of the organization of the work has basically been stable following the general outline in figure 1 but with variations in the working group structure to accommodate the feasibility review phase and the preparations for a council decision on the site investigation phase.
In November 2002 after the latest election in September 2002 the council took a decision on the organization and working charter for the site investigation phase [9]. The organization for this phase is given in figure 1 and the core are the working groups with a total of about 50 members. The working groups each have a concrete sets of tasks to complete and the 13 municipality conditions are equally spread among the working group in order to have a follow up and reporting on progress for each one of the conditions. In general the working groups have the following tasks:
- Safety. To follow the site investigation work and the development of the safety case for the repository.
- Most effected. To focus on local issues and a build a local development program compensating for the effects from the site investigations and a possible siting of a repository.
- Community. To focus on city planning issues and souci economical impact analysis for the municipality and the region in case of a repository siting.
- Societal. To focus on social and image aspects and have the main responsibility for the regional contacts.
Figure 1. The municipal organization during the current site investigation phase.
The members of the working groups constitutes a mixture of people with different background such as politicians, people active in various associations, environmental groups and ordinary citizens. Many of the group members are what is commonly referred to as opinion formers meaning in this work that they have wide contacts and are well respected in the society. This is important as it will contribute to that the issues brought up by the working groups are reflecting a broad range of topics that concerns the public.
In order for the decision makers – the council members – to be able to take decisions, impose relevant conditions and interfere in the process in case there are things in the program not working to full satisfaction the continuos feed back from the working groups is essential. The elected council members can only represent their voters if there is a continuos exchange of information and issues truly representing the actual public concerns and public will.
6 LESSONS LEARNED AN CHALLENGES AHEAD
The difficulties facing many national nuclear waste disposal programs in finding suitable sites where the public is giving its consent is well known. Numerous studies have looked at the public reactions and stigma that often is a result of a siting proposal. One theory to allow for progress in solving the waste disposal problem is to allow for the local authorities and the public to influence or even direct the studies. Within the European Community has sponsored studies [10] and multi stakeholder discussions about how to empower local communities in siting discussions for final disposal programs. The ultimate empowerment for a community maybe is the possibility to veto a project as the case is in Sweden but it may only be part of the answer. Regardless if a community has a veto or not siting against a majority will has proven difficult if not impossible.
With or without a veto it may be more of an issue how to participate as an equal party without becoming a hostage? The political leadership in the municipality of Oskarshamn has engaged itself strongly in the final disposal program in Sweden. One important factor for this is of course the fact that all spent nuclear fuel is already in the municipality in temporary storage and without a satisfactory solution for the longer term the temporary solution will become more and more long term and this is not deemed acceptable.
A strong engagement under the structure of the Oskarshamn model was initiated in 1994. The experience for the municipality is very satisfactory. This strong engagement has been widely accepted politically and among the public as the right thing to do. The general opinion is that the political leadership is well reflecting the general opinion and that the conditions etc imposed on the other parties are well founded and supported by the public and therefore there is no conflict about the engagement in the disposal program.
The municipality has achieved several important results based on this engagement such as, economical compensation from the Waste Fund, considerable changes of the national decision making process, a thorough review of the disposal concept as a foundation to initiating the site characterization phase, a change of focus from only technical - only national, to a strong local focus including studies also of social aspects of the problem, considerable increase of the local competence and a development of a working model that also has inspired more democratic decision making in other areas then nuclear waste.
The decision to accept site investigations was taken by the council with 49 members for and 1 against and it was perceived as a very serious decision with possible long term applications but it was not considered as a politically controversial decision to take. Why? Because the council members had a good knowledge about the public opinion and could include in the decision conditions that had been developed based on the public concerns. Public polls conducted both by the municipally and others show that 75 to 80% of the public accept a site investigation [5].
Is the conclusion then that the public in Oskarshamn have no doubts about final disposal? Definitely not. If asked about the safety of the KBS-3 disposal method there is only around 50% public consent [11]. What explains this difference? From the public dialogue the indication is a strong support to continue to work towards disposal, develop the technology and study the safety - but more convincing evidence must be put forward before the public finally can agree to actually putting waste underground. The coming seven years will show if the public is willing also to actually accept the final disposal to be built.
All involved parties has a responsibility to honor a transparent process that ultimately may lead to a license application for a disposal system in Oskarshamn. A continued open process with well defined consultation points where the public can be consulted in a meaningful way, evidence that their questions and concerns are included and influence the program is maybe the largest challenge for this long process.
From the municipality perspective the largest threat to the process is a return to central decision making reserved for experts only – this may well lead to a situation where the consent now at hand from the public will erode quickly.
7 ASSET OR OBSTACLE?
The active involvement of the municipality and its citizens may sometimes have been perceived as troublesome by the industry and by the authorities. We are, however, convinced that it has been, and will continue to be, an asset for the overall decision-making process. The capacity of the municipality and the public to challenge the program and to stretch SKB and the authorities is the only way we see to achieve transparency in investigations and analyses and thereby reach a more trustworthy decision-making process and better results. We argue that a well founded decision on how to solve the waste problem must include a public consent.
References
1.Integrated account of method, site selection and program prior to the site
investigation phase, TR-01-03, SKB, Stockholm, December 2001
2.The Environmental Protection Act (Miljöbalken) SFS 1998:808
3.Council Preparation Group On the Feasibility Study. Oskarshamn 1999??? (In Swedish)
4.Letetr from SKB to the Municipality requesting a feasibility study. Datum??? (in Swedish)
5.Lennart Sjöberg. Attitudes towards Risk and Final Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in four Municipalities. Stockholm School of Economics December 2001. (in Swedish)
6.Kjell ??????
7.Andersson, Espejo &Wene 1998. Building channels for transparent risk assessment, RISCOM Final Report SKI TR 98:6
8.Site investigation in Oskarshamn. Council decision §29, 2002-03-11 (partial English translation available)
9.Proposed organization, final disposal of spent nuclear fuel – site investigation phase, Council decision §132, 2002-11-11 (in Swedish under translation)
10.European Commission. The COWAM European Concerted Action. Comparison of Decision-making Processes at the Local and Regional Community level in Nuclear Waste Siting. Brussels November 2000.
11.LKO Oskarshamn. Internal Poll on Attitudes towards Nuclear Waste in Oskarshamn 2001 (in Swedish)
|
|
NYHETER
KALENDER
 |
Start