Siting & Implementing a Repository Project in Partnership...Part 2: Communicating in partnership to gain public trust and support . ... Phase 1 • Main message: We need your help

Siting & Implementing a

Repository Project in

Partnership

Evelyn Hooft

The Belgian Local Partnership Experience with a

surface repository for category A-waste

2 Conference on Public Involvement in Siting of Nuclear Facilities

ONDRAF/NIRAS

Public agency with legal personality

• Responsible for the management of all radioactive

waste in Belgium

• Four basic missions:

Inventory Management

system

Decommissioning Enriched

fissile

materials


Content

1. Historical context

2. Communicating in partnership to gain public

confidence and support

3. The voluntary site selection process

4. Siting and designing a repository project in

partnership

5. Designing and implementing a repository project

in partnership


Part 1:

Historical Context


The early days of cat A-waste management

• 1960 - 1982: sea disposal (15 sea burial

campaigns under supervision of the NEA)

• 1983 internat. moratorium on sea disposal: LT

management of cat A-waste becomes a siting

question

• 1980‟s: immediate action needed, namely to

provide interim storage facilities

• 1982: foundation of ONDRAF/NIRAS

• 1993 internat. prohibition on sea disposal: the

search for a final land based solution begins


Evolutions in the 1990‟s

• NIROND 94-04: a technical answer to a technical

problem

• 1994 – 1998: design and siting of a cat A-waste

repository = a technical question with societal

implications

• From 1998 onward: design and siting of a cat A-

waste repository = a societal question with

technical implications


Federal Government Decision Jan 1998

• DISPOSAL IS THE CHOICE

• Final (or liable to become final)

• Reversible

• Progressive and flexible

• Either surface or geological

• Concentrate on existing nuclear sites

• Co-operate with local actors to integrate the

repository facility at the local level

THE ANSWER:

Public participation in decision-making processes

through the creation of local partnerships


The Local Partnership Concept

An attempt to address the cat A-waste

disposal siting issue through both technical

research and concept development, and

interaction with the local stakeholders

Technical

aspects

Societal

aspects


Part 2:

Communicating in

partnership to gain

public trust and

support


Gaining public support

• By communicating with them:

• by talking to them, and

• by listening to their expectations and needs

• By offering them more than a radioactive waste

repository INTEGRATED PROJECT

• By giving them the opportunity to help shape the

project to the benefit and overall good of the

concerned community


Communicating in Partnership

• Negotiating a decision

• Seeking common ground between different interests,

values, knowledge bases, systems of reference,

perceptions, ...

• Arriving at a shared solution through a shared problem

definition and common interest in addressing it

• From DAD (Decide – Announce – Defend) to ADD

(Announce – Discuss – Decide)


Part 3:

The voluntary site

selection process


A Voluntary Siting Procedure

• Finding a suitable site

rather than the optimum one

• Socio-political factors become key in site selection

emphasis on engineering, site design and impact management

• Scientific criteria for suitability however remain important

nobody wants an unsafe site,

particularly not a host-community


Willingness to Participate

• Voluntarism extended to nuclear communities

• Stepwise engagement process: - willingness to participate = willingness to investigate the possibility of

hosting a cat A repository facility (+)

- identification of key-decision stages in the process (+/-)

- existence of a clear legal framework (-)

• Municipal right to veto

• Co-design of an integrated repository project (repository facility + community package)

• Provide structure, time and resources to participate properly and independently


Pre Partnership Communication – Phase 1

• Lead sender: ONDRAF/NIRAS

• Lead receivers: municipal authorities, with focus on

nuclear communities

• Main types of communication:

• Direct communication with nuclear communities (and one

interested municipality)

• Letter to all Belgian municipalities

• Symposium for those interested



• Main message: We need your help !

• By government order ...

• Selection of site and method (surface versus deep) for cat

A waste disposal

• Voluntarism: engagement = to investigate possibility of

hosting

• Opportunity to influence the project outlook

• Preparedness to listen

• Framework offered for public participation and bottom up

communication



• Preliminary social site investigation as part of the

communication with interested municipalities

• Researchers send out as “formateurs”

• Communication focussed on interaction with key actors

within the community

• Direct communication: face-to-face interviews and

distribution of documentation on purpose and process


Part 4:

Siting & Designing a

repository project in

partnership


The Local Partnership: a

representative democracy at micro level

3 partnerships

• STOLA (Dessel)

° September 1999

• MONA (Mol)

° February 2000

• PaLoFF (Fleurus-Farciennes)

° February 2003


Characteristics of a “siting Partnership”

• Mission: to study the possibility of hosting

• „Independent‟ organisation set up between: • ONDRAF/NIRAS, the concerned municipal authority (or

authorities) and local civil society organisations

• Broad representation of the local community

• Arena and facilitator for dialogue: forum for

negotiation and concept development

• Annual budget to work independently

• Located “on site”


Info Sharing within the Partnerships

• Announce: problem stated in both technical and

social terms

• ONDRAF presents its suggestion for a technical solution

• Different stakeholders add their framework of reference +

conditions

• Discuss:

• Discussing different options (both technical and social)

• Engaging different interests and fields of expertise

• Decide: agree on an integrated project


GENERAL ASSEMBLY

• ONDRAF/NIRAS

• LOCAL PARTNERS

municipal council (+ administration)

social and cultural + environmental +

economic organisations

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

WORKING GROUPS

on different subjects (e.g. implantation & design; local

development; environment & health; safety;

communication; …)

PROJECT

COORDINATORS

Structure of a LP


Main tasks of a LP in siting phase

Discussion and follow

up of technical and

other studies

Interactive

communication policy

accompanying

local project

repository

additional

local

conditions

technical &

safety

measures

Concept development


The local partnerships repository

designs


Main Characteristic of Siting Phase

• Until final report on „integrated project‟ and

municipal decision to become a candidate host

community:

• All communication (local and regional) through LP

• Input from ONDRAF/NIRAS, but always from a

subservient position

• Communication aimed at finding ways to make a cat A

waste repository fit the local environment and identifying

obstacles for acceptance


Results of the siting phase


Part 5

Designing &

Implementing a

repository project in

partnership


Governmental decision Surface disposal in Dessel

Development of an

integrated project

Participation with Dessel & Mol has to be continued

Exploratory

studies Pre-design

Decision

16/01/1998 Decision Council of

Ministers

23/06/2006

2006

1998

1982

Complete design of the integrated project

(repository + conditions)

Design +

licenses 2011

Construction

Implementation

Purely technical

approach Integrated approach

2016

Operation of

repository &

conditions

Operation


Main Differences with Previous Phase

• Local partnership no longer the sole centre of

communication and negotiation

• Project development (all aspects) by professional

team from ONDRAF/NIRAS

• Partnerships in role of “watchdog”, guarding the

integrity of their proposed project

• Steering committee between ONDRAF/NIRAS,

STORA and MONA + mayors in advisory role


Development of the integrated

project

•Cooperation between Dessel en Mol • Partnerships autonomous entities

• ONDRAF/NIRAS-STORA-MONA steering group

•Project-oriented approach • Projectteam in Dessel

•Integrated approach • Fullfilling the conditions of the partnerships

• Equal treatment of all subprojects

•Co-design • Development of the various project components in an open spirit

of « designing together »

Safe longterm management of the waste &

prosperity and welfare for the local communities


Integration of all subprojects

• All conditions of Dessel & Mol taken in the elaboration of the project and divided in a number of subprojects

• Masterplan instrument to interrelate and integrate all subprojects from one common vision


To conclude

• Important to develop community relations beyond

the local decision-makers

• Avoid issue to become a political plaything

• Avoid isolation of particular groups

• Support local decision-makers by providing them a

framework for broader community input

• Development integrated project = designing &

developing together

• Masterplan = shaping all components of the project

from a single common vision


Siting & Implementing a Repository Project in Partnership...Part 2: Communicating in partnership to gain public trust and support . ... Phase 1 • Main message: We need your help

Documents