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

Our group used a different approach to initiate our discussion. Rather than starting with the four guiding questions, we went around the room to gather our views/feedback on the presentations given to us earlier. Overall, our group agreed that many nuclear waste management implementers have used the retrievability concept as well as monitoring the performance of the repository as tools to build confidence so as to gain public acceptance. However, implementers may not realise that such a tactic may be interpreted by some as a sign of inadequate confidence. That is, if the implementers are confident with the safety performance of the repository system, why do we need a 'Plan B'? Our group then identified that positive and negative impacts often arise due to differences in perceptions and/or expectations which in many cases are influenced by our experiences. The situation is somewhat similar to finding differences between technical and psychological meanings and values in managing and retrieving used fuel. At this point, our group realised that while retrieval of spent fuel or waste appears to be technically feasible, perhaps a more important question to ask is: 'How can we determine why retrieval is required'? The post-closure phase was identified in our discussion as a rather critical phase. Some individuals may consider that monitoring the performance of the repository stimulates doubts. How the monitoring system should be designed as well as how monitoring data are to be interpreted may not be easily agreed upon. It may be that different demands are made on monitoring: for professionals, monitoring may communicate doubts about the safe performance of the repository. In contrast, for local citizens, monitoring simply helps to reply to the question 'Are we safe?' In this context, monitoring information provides ongoing, valuable assurance. (This is currently the case in e.g. central France in the area of uranium mill tailings storage. There, environmental monitoring is welcomed and citizens contribute to follow up.) Monitoring is not very expensive and it may provide significant added value in terms of confidence. Similarly, the retrieval operation of spent fuel or waste, particularly in the far future post-closure phase, may actually be more complicated than we assume today. Benefits may be outweighed by radiological and financial risks. Implementers shall be careful not to give misleading information to the public. Our discussion then moved towards the topic of effective communication with the public. One member specifically noted that the communities must not be treated as one entity. Assuming that there are 'general' behaviours of the involved communities is not a wise approach because we are all different. A wide range of perceptions, attitudes and behaviours shall therefore be considered. Continuing on the public communication topic, one member in the group suggested he prefers that R and R be marketed as something not so dissimilar from best practice in other engineering fields: 'design for disassembly'. The example used by this member is the auto industry, which plans the recycling pathway of the used car components. R and R provide a means to recover useful resources from used nuclear fuel with the objective to avoid/reduce hazards to be imposed in future generations. Rather than shaping communication strictly in terms of how the 'required' legal criteria are met in implementing a nuclear waste management programme, such an approach carries a positive, environmentally responsible image and shows the public the advanced thinking on how to eliminate future problems. The remark of legal requirements then led our discussion to what role the regulators should play in repository development. Views of our group members on this topic varied. While one member felt strongly that regulators must not participate in/promote any nuclear waste management activities, others feel that regulators taking an active, 'stakeholder' role carries positive weight as long as their neutrality is maintained. In Sweden and other countri es, the safety authorities play an active role as the 'peoples' expert' and this does not damage their ability to regulate. Our discussion then moved forward to discuss the economic aspects of R and R. Overall, we feel that this is one area that deserves more work. Waste generators definitely should play a more active role in conducting research work to improve our current understanding of the economics of R and R. Studies conducted thus far have not clearly identified the elements for quantifying the polluter pays principle. While the issue may seem trivial to consumers, for whom the individual contribution is a very small proportion of the energy bill, for operators this represents very significant sums and decisions about provisioning