CARL workshop Antwerp

1
CARL workshopAntwerp

• Results of the country studies
• SWEDEN

2
Research Angles

• Process (object spent nuclear fuel and
  organisation)
• Contextual elements (political initiatives,
  counter frames, municipal resistance)
• Historical turning points 1977, 1985, 1992,
  1995, 2002
• Current process two site investigations
  conducted in Oskarshamn and Östhammar

3
1970s new political initiatives

• Intense and controversial public and political
  debate
• Nuclear industry responsible for waste
• New legislation (1977) nuclear reactors fuelled
  if industry shows how and where to finally store
  waste with absolute safety
• Industry response to political initiatives the
  KBS 3 concept
• Conclusion a power game between national
  politicians and nuclear industry in the context
  of a polarised public debate

4
1980s Implementation and crisis of technocratic
strategy

• Nuclear waste independent of nuclear power
• A new act (1984) industry every third year
  presents an RD programme reviewed by government
  authorities
• SKB systematic geo-scientific research programme
  met strong public opposition
• Successful siting of CLAB 1985 and SFR 1988
• Both facilities the result of a technocratic
  nuclear oases strategy

5
Search for a new strategy (1986-92)

• SKB states that many sites in Sweden are
  geologically suitable
• Any volunteers? SKB sends a letter to all 286
  Swedish municipalities
• Feasibility studies carried out in two
  municipalities in northern Sweden
• No more volunteers!
• Conclusion the municipality became a major
  stakeholder due to a new strategy based on
  voluntarism and dialogue

6
Stakeholder Identity Formation

• Feasibility studies connected with a turn to
  voluntarism and dialogue
• Feasibility studies prior to site investigations
• More concerned with political geology than
  physical geology
• Feasibility studies in relation to nuclear
  virgins versus established hosts
• Feasibility studies opportunity to redefine
  what it means to host nuclear activities

7
Oskarshamn 1995 An Already Seasoned
Stakeholder Contemplates a New Offer

• Already host to 3 reactors, CLAB and Äspö Hard
  Rock Laboratory
• Since 1992, proposed site for encapsulation plant
• Already a hub of NWM activity/engaged in putting
  KBS-3 method into practice
• 1994 municipality already participating in
  regional EIA forum, already developing LKO

8
Östhammar 1995 A Neutral Host to Nuclear
Facilities Accepts SKBs Invitation

• Already host to 3 reactors and SFR (deep
  repository for low- and intermediate level waste)
• NWM already everyday life in the municipality, no
  introductions needed
• Established acceptability of nuclear activities
  based on local ability to treat them as
  unexceptional
• Östhammar accepted a feasibility study 4 weeks
  after being invited to host one
• So long as NWM can be treated more or less as
  municipal business as usual further facilities
  can be feasibly sited
• Broad local consensus, siting of deep repository
  will call for a local referendum, testing the
  legitmacy of established attitude to hosting
  nuclear facilities

9
Oskarshamn Becoming Something More Than a
Conventional Host

• After 1994, Oskarshamn committed to making NWM
  their concern
• Sharing SKBs concerns, while developing own
  perspectives on them
• Feasibility studies municipalities were wary,
  offer SKB a finger and they will take your hand
• Oskarshamn saw a feasibility study as SKB
  offering them a finger
• Oskarshamn seeking to enrol SKB in their vision
  of creating The Municipality with Energy
• Oskarshamn have moved up a league as a
  stakeholder BUT (i) Are they over-involved in
  NWM? (ii) Over-committed to the KBS-3 system?

10
Östhammar Passive But Nobodys Fool?

• Hitherto, Östhammar unwilling/unable to share
  Oskarshamns level of involvement in NWM
• Welcomes SKB in the municipality while choosing
  to remain relatively distant from them a
  genuine host, nothing more and nothing less
• Thanks to CLAB, Oskarshamn does own HLW problem
  more than Östhammar
• HLW is today out-going, not in-coming. Worth
  thinking twice before striving to reverse flow
• Östhammar can afford to be more indifferent as to
  where deep repository ends up
• Östhammar content to remain just a local
  stakeholder. Perhaps making them a player in
  danger of being played by more competent and
  determined actors?

11
Site Investigations inOskarshamn and Östhammar
(1)

• Can stakeholder involvement be sustained in
  Oskarshamn and Östhammar as siting process
  re-focuses on comparative geology?
• Swedish Environmental Code and Act on Nuclear
  Activities portrayed as equal partners in
  relation to which site investigations being
  carried out. 2 worlds of SI
• Oskarshamn have always used environmental
  legislation to extend their influence over the
  siting process

12
Site Investigations inOskarshamn and Östhammar
(2)

• Just because Oskarshamn already have so much
  invested in KBS-3 system now refusing to be kept
  in dark over exact criteria determining which
  site considered superior
• Are Oskarshamn together with new environmental
  groups entering the EIA process on the verge of
  expanding the scope of stakeholder involvement to
  engage core issues of nuclear safety?
• Will SKI and SSI be pulled more out into the open
  through the EIA process? Or will they remain more
  apart with SKB negotiating nuclear safety?

13
CARL workshopAntwerp

• Results of the country studies
• SWEDEN