Search

Projects for the long-term disposal of radioactive waste have often been hampered by strong local and regional opposition. Public participation has been recognized as a means to cope with this problem. Advocates promoting extensive public participation suggest various, mostly distinct, involvement techniques that are claimed to cover all needs. However, public participation is still a controversial issue. Several key questions need to be answered: why and when should who be involved, by whom, using which technique, and with which expected outcome? Here, a procedure with a functional-dynamic view of public participation is proposed that combines the decision-making process (DMP) with specific types and extents of public participation. We distinguish four discrete levels of public participation, namely information, consultation, collaboration, and empowerment. We argue that these levels of participation must fit the corresponding technical and non-technical requirements of the different phases of the DMP and illustrate our arguments using a proposed site selection process for nuclear waste. This means that the type and the extent of public participation vary over the time span of a long-term DMP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The disposal of radioactive waste is a striking example with which to trace the changing relationship between technology, society and policy when dealing with societally relevant controversial issues. The change is characterized by a transition from a technocratic approach to an approach with more intense cooperation and public participation. We analyze the societal discourse of a failed disposal project for low- and intermediate-level waste at the Mount Wellenberg site, Canton of Nidwalden (Central Switzerland). Insights are based on a case study in 2006, with focus groups, expert interviews, a media analysis, a representative canton-wide postal survey and targeted in-depth stakeholder interviews. The article focuses on the relationship of safety and process aspects. The data suggest that both are prime issues and people recognize the need for disposal of radioactive waste in a technical system but only if a fair procedure is guaranteed. We conclude that a sound balance between safety and procedural aspects needs to be found and thus a functional-dynamic view of public involvement is necessary, i.e. distinct levels of involvement (ranging from mere information up to empowerment) must fit the corresponding technical and non-technical requirements of a stepwise decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In administrative law, various regulation strategies are used to limit technical risks. Frequently, their approach is deterministic. Risk-based regulation seeks to make law more efficient as well as more transparent. Its aim is to replace prescriptive, deterministic regulations by goal-oriented, probabilistic regulations, based on the criteria of cost-effectiveness and limitation of individual risks. The overall goal is to achieve more safety at less cost. The project Risk-Based Regulation (1996-99) was intended to evaluate the feasibility of the approach from both technical and legal perspectives in the Swiss context. Nine case studies were carried out: storage and management of explosives (both military and civil), occupational safety, non-occupational accident prevention (mainly road accidents), fire protection, transportation of dangerous goods, waste disposal (conventional toxic landfills and radioactive repositories), and nuclear (reactor) safety. This paper summarizes final results of the case studies and draws general conclusions on the possibilities and limitations of implementing a risk-based approach. Its findings should be useful in formulating standardized approaches as envisaged by the European Commission under the heading of a Compass for Risk Analysis (EC-JRC, 2000), and the safety guidelines of the so-called Swiss Agency for Technical Safety (SATS), a new institution to be set up in Switzerland to integrate all federal regulatory bodies dealing with technical risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]