Building channels for transparent risk assessment. Final report RISCOM pilot project

摘要

Recent developments in the Swedish programme for nuclear waste management have underlined the need for a broad consultation process with public participation. Decision procedures that provide transparency for people outside the groups of experts and political decision-makers must be developed. This report explores what this transparency means and how it could be enhanced. It is acknowledged that the concept of transparency includes three equally important aspects: factual issues, normative issues, and stakeholder''s authenticity. So far experts have dominated the decision process in the nuclear waste area. Value judgements of experts may appear as normative issues, for instance among other scientists; or they may be related to issues of authenticity, for instance when discussions take place with community stakeholders. The formal decision process must always be the basis for building transparency. Two dominant approaches are compared: the Swedish ''review/decide'' approach, and the ''inquiry/decide'' approach used in the UK. Suggestions are made as to how the best features of the two approaches could be combined. The report also includes a study on the systemic roles of SKI/SSI in the Swedish nuclear waste management system. This study identifies several systemic functions carried out by SKI/SSI. Awareness of these roles within SKI and SSI (and among other stakeholders) is crucial for transparency. This report argues that a key element in building transparency is to create mechanisms for ''stretching'' SKB. Various channels for stretching and providing new perspectives are explored. Among the procedures discussed are those concerned with hearings and dialogue. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is seen as the umbrella under which most of the stretching activities can take place. Team Syntegrity was used as a method to compare the Swedish and UK procedures. It is a non-hierarchical approach that enhances the effective contribution of a wide variety of participants with different viewpoints to the discussion of complex issues. Team Syntegrity is thus suggested as one of the stretching tools. 14 refs, 6 figs, 3 tabs.