Group E - Discussion on Key Messages, Policy Studies and the Social Sciences

Within Group E, we discussed a variety of aspects related to the social sciences. Five key messages of the discussion may be highlighted. First is that citizens' workshops are a good practice and should be organised by independent, highly respected, non-nuclear-related organisations. There was some discussion on whether the citizen group should be random or mainly comprised of local citizens. It was noted that everyone is a stakeholder. Groups of randomly selected citizens tend to discuss/focus on big principle items, where local stakeholders tend to focus on specific issues. The general consensus was that the workshops were opportunities to build trust. Although the King Baudouin Foundation workshops were funded by the implementer, this was not an issue. The next key message is that a long-term road map for establishing and maintaining trust is needed. The EKRA framework is a good foundation in evaluating the process. However, public trust in government plays a key role. Clear roles and responsibilities within government are a key factor in building public trust. It was noted that although the level of trust in government and nuclear posture may differ between countries, methodology, general principles and generic ethical issues are valuable lessons to retain. Where certain outcomes may be specific, others may be universal. Another key message was that for an informed discussion, definitions need to be clearly stated. The current definitions of R and R are still not yet universally understood. It was noted that the current definitions appear to be tailored to national programme plans. For example 'reversibility' is generally viewed as a way to open a dialogue; the opponents, however, view reversibility as a way to buy the decision. It was also noted that it is important to discuss the terms 'reversibility' and 'retrievability' separately, as they relate respectively to the stepwise decision-making process versus the actual physical manipulation of waste. Another area discussed under the definitions of R and R was that R and R and their subsequent consequences have a symbolic dimension. When communicated, we must distinguish between R and R in the pre- and post-closure phase; these issues are easier to address in the early pre-phase, and much harder in the post-phase. There was agreement within the discussion that there is a role for social sciences in the process. Dialogue solely based on the technical aspects tends to result in no solution or path forward, whereas including social factors helps work towards a technical approach. The concept of 'humility' as one example can be considered under the light of a human emotion or of a set of technical provisions. Many felt that it was important to distinguish between the social system and the natural system as human behaviour cannot be modelled and there are some uncertainties, both social and technical. Nonetheless, social sciences need to have a role as they are part of the entire system. There was a discussion on the meaning of safety and whether it was an attitude based on technical or humility aspects or a combination of both. The issues with communicating safety over the long time frames associated with geologic disposal were particularly noted, as was the fact that inter-generational aspects are very difficult to quantify. The three categories of a 'risk management society' were discussed as they relate to the long time scales, however, there was no general consensus into which category(ies) - complex, uncertainty, or ambiguity - reversibility or retrievability fell into