Chapter 2 Contemporary poetry and the polar sublime
1 Shackleton (2002), p 80 2 Leane (202), p 4
Many of the issues that arise during a siting process involve local concerns regarding safety and environmental impact, especially during the construction period, when heavy plant and industrial activities will be most prevalent. It is therefore vital to develop channels for liaison with all the parties involved, including the various on‑site contractors. Such interaction with the local community needs to form integral parts of their contracts.
Where a community has a right of veto that right and any associated issues will clearly cease to exist at some stage during the siting process. As described, this is normally around the time that major investment in invasive and/or underground exploration and research begins. However, there is still a need to maintain the social licence to operate, such that where local partnerships have been developed, these need to be continued, with funding and support maintained. It is essential that local stakeholders are confident in the continuation of both the financial and political support, which contribute to maintaining local trust and confidence [17]. In some situations, there may have been a local referendum on whether to agree to facility development, although final approval of course needs to come from the regulatory authorities. Continued monitoring of this local acceptance through deliberative polling and other methods is nevertheless essential until final regulatory approval is granted.
Although the safety of geological disposal facilities does not depend on long term institutional controls after closure [28], these may contribute to confidence building by, for example, reducing the likelihood of future human intrusion and demonstrating the continued integrity of waste packages (through environmental monitoring). Such controls, while not necessary for safety, could form an integral part of the ongoing local participation, with clear demonstration of the need to ensure necessary technical and financial resources for these to be implemented. It is to be expected that community participation and confidence building throughout a facility’s operation may lead to continued local acceptability after closure, when the implementing body may reduce its community presence. It can also help in guaranteeing the transfer of knowledge to future generations.
practical details. Of course, there are to date few concrete examples of completed geological repository implementation programmes, especially for higher activity waste, such that learning is necessarily continuing. The discussion below is, therefore, not so much a list of ‘do’s and don’ts’; rather it presents ways in which these challenges have been addressed in some Member States and suggests some lessons that can be learned, with the tacit understanding that such examples of responses to specific challenges will be assessed and adjusted to the specific social, political and indeed situational setting.
Discussion of these challenges, and responses to them in a number of Member States, demonstrates their relevance across the various steps in a siting process, with some more relevant during policy development and establishing the programme framework, or as part of the planning and early implementation stages of a programme3, while others are more likely to arise during the ongoing siting stage and even into the repository construction, operation and/or post‑closure periods. Although a number of the challenges in this section refer specifically to building or maintaining trust at particular stages in the process, trust itself underpins many if not all of the activities discussed.
Below is an attempt to group these many challenges and responses under five distinct groups of issues.
5.1.1. Social licence issues
Social licence issues deal with basic challenges relating to communicating with stakeholders and the need to develop and maintain a mutual understanding of the issues among the parties involved.
5.1.2. Involvement process issues
Involvement process issues are issues and challenges that arise concerning the nature and degree of stakeholder involvement expected in or with decision making, the factors affecting progress and timescales inherent to the various activities. They need due consideration on how to initiate and then how to maintain stakeholder involvement and the needed flexibility in the overall process.
5.1.3. Political and regulatory framework issues
Political and regulatory framework issues include examples of the challenges associated with gaining and maintaining consistent political support over project timescales, and with the transparent involvement of the regulatory agencies and other authorities, according to their roles and responsibilities, to further develop confidence by other stakeholders that decisions are suitably informed and made. This includes issues such as acknowledging and clarifying a local community’s rights in the process, such as veto or withdrawal.
5.1.4. Resourcing issues
Resourcing issues are challenges associated with the establishment and maintenance of institutional capabilities and capacity, as well as ensuring a broad understanding of the roles of different stakeholders in the decision making process. In particular, these issues concern the provision of adequate financial resources and professional competences to credibly contribute to the basis for sound decisions.
3 The distinction between stakeholder communication and involvement activities that occur prior to, or as part of a siting process during detailed planning, is sometimes difficult to make, especially when an earlier period of siting studies has concluded and a new siting process is required. Presenting the challenges identified in this section of the publication and examples of Member State responses acknowledges this difficulty.
5.1.5. Community support issues
Community support issues include all issues associated with the use of community benefits as a means to mitigate the real or perceived impacts of repository development and operation and to recognize community participation.
For easy reference, various issues associated with each of the above groups of challenges and for different phases in a repository development programme are provided in Table 2. Examples of relevant responses in Member States to these challenges and issues are provided in Sections 5.2–5.4 (relevant sub‑sections are signposted in parentheses in Table 2).
TABLE 2. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN EACH PHASE OF A REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
Phases National level challenges Locality specific challenges
Issues
Development of a radioactive waste management policy and establishing the programme framework
The siting process
Construction, operation and post‑closure Initiating the siting process
(detailed planning and implementation)
The ongoing siting
process Social
licence issues
Development of mutual understanding and confidence
→ (5.2.1.2)
Continued
development of mutual understanding and confidence
→ (5.3.1.1b)
Communicating changing timelines and processes
→ (5.3.1.2b)
Continuation of mutual understanding and confidence
→ (5.4.1.2)
Discussing complex issues with non‑specialist stakeholders
→ (5.2.1.4)
Communication with neighbouring states
→ (5.3.1.1d)
Provision of clear and understandable information about the issues
→ (5.3.1.2d)
Continuation of local engagement
→ (5.4.1.4)
Provision of clear and understandable information
→ (5.2.1.6)
Improving public confidence in the safety case and technology development
→ (5.3.1.2f)
Maintaining social licence and intergenerational knowledge
→ (5.4.1.6)
Communication with the concerned public or outspoken opponents
→ (5.2.1.8)
Keeping promises
→ (5.3.1.2h)
Engaging with opponents (or the concerned public)
→ (5.3.1.2j)
TABLE 2. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN EACH PHASE OF A REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (cont.)
Phases National level challenges Locality specific challenges
Issues
Development of a radioactive waste management policy and establishing the programme framework
The siting process
Construction, operation and post‑closure Initiating the siting process
(detailed planning and implementation)
The ongoing siting
process Involvement
process issues
Development of an acceptable decision making process
→ (5.2.2.2)
Beginning a consent based or volunteer process (5.3.2.1b)
Allowing sufficient time and process flexibility
→ (5.3.2.2b)
Ensuring flexibility
→ (5.4.2.2)
Understanding the need for a flexible and long term process
→ (5.2.2.4)
Tailoring the engagement process to local needs
→ (5.3.2.2d) Designing a national
level stakeholder involvement
→ (5.2.2.6)
Maintaining and enhancing local support
→ (5.3.2.2f) Selecting a consent
based or volunteer siting process; right of withdrawal
→ (5.2.2.8) Political
and regulatory framework issues
Obtaining political support
→ (5.2.3.2)
Involvement of the regulator
→ (5.3.3.1b)
Involvement of the regulator
→ (5.3.3.2b)
Ensuring ongoing local support
→ (5.4.3.2)
Ensuring the competence and independence of a regulator
→ (5.2.3.4)
Continuation of national political support
→ (5.3.3.2d)
Involving all suitable levels of government while defining a role that does not
prematurely thwart the consent based siting process
→ (5.2.3.6)
Obtaining local political support
→ (5.3.3.2f)
Testing local approval
→ (5.3.3.2h)
TABLE 2. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN EACH PHASE OF A REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (cont.)
Phases National level challenges Locality specific challenges
Issues
Development of a radioactive waste management policy and establishing the programme framework
The siting process
Construction, operation and post‑closure Initiating the siting process
(detailed planning and implementation)
The ongoing siting
process Resourcing
issues Ensuring provision of funding (national waste funds)
→ (5.2.4.2)
Making first contact with potential host communities
→ (5.3.4.1b)
Using suitable staff
→ (5.3.4.2b) Ensuring the existence of a suitably qualified workforce
→ (5.4.4.2) Ensuring staff are aware
of processes
→ (5.2.4.4)
Establishing a credible presence within potential host communities
→ (5.3.4.2d) Community
support issues
Benefits agreed in principle
→ (5.2.5.2)
Supporting local involvement
→ (5.3.5.1b)
Negotiating locally acceptable benefits
→ (5.3.5.2b)
Ensuring mitigation of adverse impacts
→ (5.4.5.2) Maintaining progress
while making benefits available
→ (5.3.5.2d)
Maintaining benefits over time
→ (5.4.5.4)
Supporting involvement of all interested stakeholders
→ (5.2.5.4)
Satisfying communities not selected to continue
→ (5.3.5.2f)
Ensuring visibility of the long term commitment of the facility operator
→ (5.4.5.6)
5.2. DEVELOPMENT OF A RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND