Context
Radioactive waste is generated not only within European countries that use nuclear power to produce electricity, but also for many other activities: medicine, research, industry and agriculture. Radioactive waste may also arise after the decommissioning of nuclear installations. Radiation sources radioactive waste is potentially hazardous to the environment and subsequently, public health. A safe and long-term management of radioactive waste is therefore a challenge for all countries, regardless of their energy policy.
While low and medium-level nuclear waste such as from medical equipment is increasingly being taken care of, there is not yet a single final repository for intermediate-level and high-level radioactive waste, such as spent fuel from nuclear power plants. In all likelihood, the first deposit of this type in Finland (Onkalo) should receive an operating license end of 2024. Currently, 16 European countries currently hold spent nuclear fuel inventories, which can take millions of years to decay.
RWM Working Group (WG)
Since NTW was established at the end of 2013, one of the activities developed has been RWM though a dedicated WG led by Johan Swahn, Director of the Swedish NGO, MKG and member of the Management Board of NTW at the time. This working group was an opportunity to create a high-level network of civil society representatives and independent experts that work on RWM issues. This RWM WG has been interacting both on a European, national, regional and local levels.
The BEPPER Project (2015)
One of the first projects developed within the NTW RWM WG was a project on improving transparency – public information and participation – named the BEPPER project. The acronym stands for “Broad framework for Effective Public Participation in Environmental decision-making in Radioactive waste management”. The aim of the project was to describe, from the perspectives of environmental NGOs, an effective Transparency and Public Participation (T&PP) regimes in the area of spent fuel and RWM. The long-term aim of the BEPPER project was to facilitate the engagement of well-resourced and enduring local, national, and international environmental NGOs in transparent (public information and participation) processes. In fact, such engagement could achieve higher-quality decision-making and increased nuclear safety in RWM.
In autumn 2014, a consortium under the auspices of Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW) successfully competed for a tender from the European Commission to write a report on transparency and public information and participation (PIP) in the field of RWM. The consortium aimed to use the results of the NTW BEPPER project in the report. The NTW BEPPER project was a collaboration of a wide European network of national and local NGOs and other national experts with experience of public information and participation in the nuclear field.
Finally, in the BEPPER project was developed the “NTW BEPPER framework” describing the levels of transparency that can provide an evolving measuring instrument to evaluate national transparency practices. These are described in a report published in 2015:
The European Joint Programme on Radioactive Waste Management: EURAD (2019-2024)
As an NGO dedicated to ensure and increase transparency and public participation in nuclear safety and security in all fields of nuclear activities, Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW) found it relevant to be involved in the European Joint Programme on Radioactive Waste Management (EURAD).
When EURAD started in 2019, the programme was foreseen to include activities and Interactions with Civil Society (ICS) in the perspective of the Aarhus Convention (adopted on 25 June 1998, the Aarhus Convention is created to empower the role of citizens and civil society organisations in environmental matters and is founded on the principles of participative democracy). Therefore, it was understood that Civil Society (CS) could contribute to enhancing decisions on safety and security of Radioactive Waste Management (RWM).
ICS activities in EURAD were structured based on a so-called “double wing” model that was established and tested during the previous European projects SITEX II and JOPRAD following a specific vision and development plan. This model allowed regular exchanges in between 13 CS experts involved in various EURAD Work Packages (WP) and 22 CS larger group members attending yearly ICS workshops as described in the figure here below.
Figure 1 – Structure of ICS activities in EURAD
The yearly ICS workshops organized by the CS experts for the CS larger group were based on the results obtained by the CS experts from their work for the WP labelled as “strategic studies” (ROUTES and UMAN) and their work for the WP PMO which included:
- Interactions with R&D technical WPs.
- Interactions with all stakeholders.
- Evaluation of the CS contribution to EURAD.
- CS coordination, organisation, integration, and reporting.
Figure 2 – ICS workshop n°6 in Ljubljana (April 2024)
Between 2019 and 2024, 17 deliverables were published by the CS experts on various topics by stimulating interactions with the CS larger group and with the technical partners of EURAD. Moreover, NTW has organized 17 workshops, participated to 30 EURAD events and contributed in around 40 EURAD documents. This iterative process helped to identify and deepen the knowledge in the main areas of concern for CS towards RWM.
First and foremost, the importance of sharing a culture for safety and security was underlined as a cornerstone for any fruitful pluralistic interaction on RWM. Therefore, based on previous studies such as SITEX II a charter for fruitful interactions was established and used as an evaluation tool for the ICS activities in EURAD. It was also considered relevant to update the existing studies on safety culture with more concrete examples of ways and situations where it can be enhanced. Developing the “double wing” model into a “third wing model” was one of the propositions made, another was to continue the diversification of ways for CS to participate using existing tools such as the Pathway Evaluation Process (PEP) – allowing pluralistic views on various RWM scenarios which had already proven to be very effective considering the feedback – or with new tools such as a visualisation tool designed by CS to be used as an interactive support enabling knowledge sharing and public participation.
Finally, to sustain and improve the Aarhus Convention pillars approved by the European Union (Access to information, access to public participation and access to justice) and the addition proposed by NTW in the BEPPER report, the concept of intergenerational stewardship was studied as a means to maintain a safety culture through time until a final safe enough solution is found. This implies a recognition that the problem remains to be solved going against abandonment and amnesia.
List of EURAD publications per WP in which NTW’s has been involved:
PMO
D1.13 List of CS group members: https://www.ejp-eurad.eu/publications/eurad-d113-list-cs-group-members
D1.14 Mid-term evaluation ICS activities and interactions EURAD participants and Civil Society: https://www.ejp-eurad.eu/publications/eurad-d114-mid-term-evaluation-ics-activities-and-experimental-model-interaction
ROUTES
D9.15 Plan of actions
D9.16 Shared solutions for European countries
D9.17 Transparency in establishment of national radioactive waste facilities: Criteria for good transparency, national case studies and recommendations.
D9.18 Public participation in technical aspects of Radioactive Waste Management (RWM), such as the development of Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC), the management of challenging wastes and safety case development.
D9.19 Synthesis report of Task 7 activities
UMAN
D10.12 Preferences of different actors on uncertainty management
D10.13 Understanding of uncertainty management by the various stakeholders
D10.14 Pluralistic analysis of site and geosphere uncertainty
D10.15 Pluralistic analysis of uncertainty related to human aspects
D10.16 How to manage uncertainties in a pluralistic way and in a long-term perspective?
D10.17 Synthesis report of WP UMAN outcomes from a civil society point of view
D10.18 Views of the different actors on the identification, characterization, and potential significance of uncertainties on the near field
D10.19 Management options for different types of uncertainties and preferences of different actors
D10.20 Application of the methods for a pluralistic assessment of uncertainties and their management to near-field uncertainties
MODATS
D17.5 Enhanced system understanding, multi-party dialogue
EURAD 2
Now that EURAD (2019-2024) is finished, a second phase of the programme (EURAD 2) is under final agreement with EC with NTW again foreseen as the coordinator for all CS organisations – which makes it important to share and evaluate the results of the first EURAD programme. This is why NTW has provided the following feedback for the evaluation of Euratom Research and Training Programme (2021-2025) which encompasses EURAD to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Programme in the eyes of CS:
As an NGO involved in the Joint Programme on RWM EURAD, NTW has benefited from funding to represent civil society in the programme, in accordance with the first 2 pillars of the Aarhus Convention (access to information, access to participation) to help ensure the development of transparency and safety.
Results were obtained (e.g., production of deliverables on Transparency & Public Participation (T&PP) or Interaction with the Civil Society (ICS)) that envision better ways for interaction of different stakeholders involved in decision making procedures and research. Progress (e.g., double wing model of interaction and involvement in strategic studies) was made in understanding how to approach uncertainties through a shared culture for safety and security and what this could mean in the perspective of intra- and intergenerational stewardship.
However, there is still the need of sufficient structural and material support to develop a sustainable citizen engagement in a trustworthy environment independent from nuclear industry’s influence. Therefore, referring to the obligations under the Aarhus Convention art. 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4), it is necessary to include funds to develop civil society engagement structures to enhance civil society participation from a wider perspective and also in future research and training concerning the development of nuclear technology, including management of radioactive waste.
This is key to develop and implement processes, tools, knowledge, and relations that were previously established in the EURAD programme. If this is not continued, engagement towards transparency, public participation but also safety and security will suffer, as recognized by all stakeholders, who emphasized that participation of civil society in these research programmes is indeed indispensable in increasing safety.