Whose Frames Mattered? The Feasibility Study in the Municipality of Tierp 1998-2000

In December 2001 SKB (the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co) presented a ranking list of the eight feasibility studies carried out in Sweden. The feasibility study in Tierp was cited as showing that potentially good bedrock could be found in the municipality and SKB therefore asked to carry out a site investigation. Tierp is a neighbouring municipality to Oesthammar, a municipality that hosts nuclear power plants, with around 20,000 inhabitants and an area of 1543 km2. This paper focuses on why the Municipal Council in Tierp voted 'no' to further investigations even though SKB pointed out the municipality as having potentially good bedrock. In 1998 a feasibility study in Tierp was started. The arguments presented for a feasibility study were: the proximity to Forsmark nuclear power plant in Oesthammar, responsibilities for future generations, and that an investigation of the municipality could be used for other purposes. The main question this paper asks is the following: why did the Municipal Council in Tierp say 'no' to further investigations? This question is of interest since SKB claimed that Tierp had potentially good bedrock. The hypothesis is that the democratic models (representative democracy, discursive democracy or technocracy) present in the feasibility study and the boundary work carried out, i.e. how the boundary between science and politics was drawn, and which actors had access to the discussion on the public agenda, influenced the decision of the Council. The main sources used are interviews and a Swedish governmental investigation report about the feasibility studies. Twelve fairly open interviews with actors from the municipal organization, SKB, local opinion groups and the media were carried out. The questions cover how hey worked with the study, how the municipality organized its work, how they defined the nuclear waste issues and how they tried to communicate their views to other actors