Applying the Risk Governance Framework Institutional Requirements for Dealing with Nuclear Waste

1
Applying the Risk Governance FrameworkInstitution
al Requirements for Dealing with Nuclear Waste

• Managing Radioactive WasteGothenburg, Dec. 16,
  2009
• Ortwin Renn
• University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK Institute

2
Part 1

• What is special about nuclear waste risks?

3
Common risk problemsThree challenges of risk
governance

• Complexity in assessing causal and temporal
  relationships
• Uncertainty
• variation among individual targets
• measurement and inferential errors
• genuine stochastic relationships
• system boundaries and ignorance
• Ambiguity in interpreting results

4
Nuclear Waste Repository

• Complexity
• Multitude of causal and intervening factors
• Interdisciplinary approach necessary
• However not more complex than other
  technologies
• Uncertainty
• Modeling over very large time intervals
• No historic precedent for such long time
  management
• High relevance for system boundaries and
  non-knowledge
• Ambiguity
• Extremely high mobilization potential
• Direct link with debate about future of nuclear
  power

5
Nuclear wasteThree major challenges

• Dissent among experts on most appropriate
  disposal method
• High potential for social amplification
• Long term threat
• Stigma effect of nuclear
• Typical creeping danger risk perception
• High potential for social mobilization
• Symbolic connotation for large centralized
  technologies

6
Part II

• Risk Perception
• (Nuclear Waste Repository)

7
Principles of Risk Perception

• Human behavior depends on perceptions, not on
  facts
• Perceptions are a well-studied subject of social
  science research they differ from expert
  assessments, but they follow consistent patterns
  and rationales
• There are four genuine strategies to cope with
  threats fight, flight, plying dead,
  experimentation

8
Five dominant risk perception clusters

• Emerging danger randomness as threat
• Creeping danger confidence or zero-risk
• Surpressed danger myth of cycles
• Weighing risks only with betting
• Desired risks personal challenge

9
Application to nuclear waste

• Emerging Danger
• Fear of catastrophic potential (large scale
  contamination)
• Randomness of occurrence as source of perceived
  threat
• Inequity of distribution between risks and
  benefits
• Creeping Danger
• No possibility to sense and acknowledge exposure
• Reliance on third parties (risks is communicated
  not experienced)
• Central factor trust in information and
  management

10
Empirical evidence

• Almost all surveys worldwide demonstrate that a
  large majority of the population judges risk of
  nuclear waste repositories as highly serious and
  threatening while the majority of experts
  estimates the risks of being fairly low compared
  to other risks of daily life.
• Surveys also reveal that opposition and
  mobilization potentials reach figures of above
  80 when people are asked whether they would
  accept a nuclear waste repository in their back
  yard.
• With respect to risk management, communication
  and siting procedures there are major differences
  between countries (Finland, USA, GB,
  Switzerland), which are good sources for
  institutional learning

11
Part III

• Risk Governance

12
IRGCs RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
Deciding
Understanding
Getting a broad picture of the risk
Who needs to know what, when?
Pre-assessment
Appraisal
Management
Communication
Who needs to do what, when?
The knowledge needed for judgements and decisions
Characterisation and evaluation
Is the risk tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable?
13
Need for different risk management strategies

• dealing with routine, mundane risks
• dealing with complex and sophisticated risks
  (high degree of modeling necessary)
• dealing with highly uncertain risks (high degree
  of unresolved uncertainty)
• dealing with highly controversial, ambiguous
  risks (high degree of ambiguity)
• dealing with eminent dangers or crisis(need for
  fast responses)

14
Application to waste repository I

• Routine risk management
• Determining appropriate safety standards
  (thresholds)
• Meeting technical construction and mining
  requirements
• Applying classic instruments such as BACT (best
  available control technology)
• Complex risk modeling
• Geological behavior over long time periods
• Exposure pathways modeling over long time periods
• Modeling of events that are unlikely but still to
  be expected given the long time frame

15
Application to waste repository II

• Precautionary and resilience-oriented management
• Resilient measures multi-barrier system,
  diversity of safety devices, redundant systems,
  increase of passive safety
• Higher tolerance with respect to human errors and
  ignorance
• Institutional safeguarding of long-term
  monitoring
• Application of the deliberation principle
• Consensus or arrangement about future nuclear
  policy options
• Agreement on procedural mechanisms for conflict
  resolution and participation

16
Part VI

• Institutional Arrangements for Public
  Involvement

17
Why is participation necessary?

• Increase of uncertainty and ambiguity with the
  widening of time horizons
• Integration of systematic, analytic,
  interdisciplinary and experiential knowledge
  essential
• Loss of trust and confidence in the problem
  solving capacity of the political sector, in the
  fairness and common good orientation of the
  economic sector and in the impartiality of the
  scientific sector
• Prevalence of new Governance structures
  (including governments, industry, science, civil
  society)
• Improvement of procedural legitimization
• Acceptance surplus with participation

18
Participatory requirements

• Complexity
• Knowledge-oriented strategy (epistemic
  discourse)
• State-of-the art characterization of risks
  (scenarios)
• Uncertainty
• Reflective discourse (weighing pros and cons)
• Balancing too much precaution against too little
  precaution
• Investment in resilience
• Ambiguity
• Participatory discourse
• Evaluation of different options and locations
• Risk-benefit packages (compensation)

19
Participatory requirement for dealing with
complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity(IRGC Model)

• Risk Trade-off
• Analysis Delib-
• eration necessary
• Risk Balancing
• Probabilistic Risk Modelling

• Risk Balancing
• Necessary
• Probabilistic Risk Modelling

Remedy
Remedy

• Cognitive
• Evaluative
• Normative

Probabilistic Risk Modelling

• Cognitive
• Evaluative

Conflict
Remedy
Conflict

• Agency Staff
• External Experts
• Stakeholders
• Industry
• Directly affected groups
• General public

Statistical Risk Analysis
Cognitive

• Agency Staff
• External Experts
• Stakeholders
• Industry
• Directly affected groups

Remedy
Conflict
Agency Staff

• Agency Staff
• External Experts

Actors
Actors
Actors
Actors
Participative
Instrumental
Epistemological
Reflective
Type of Discourse
Type of Discourse
Type of Discourse
Type of Discourse
Ambiguity induced
Simple
Complexity induced
Uncertainty induced
Risk Problem
Risk Problem
Risk Problem
Risk Problem
Function Allocation of risks to one or several
of the four routes Type of Discourse Design
discourse
20
Siting Decision Making I

• Complexity
• Objective Scientific-technical agreement about
  suitability of potential sites (Technical,
  geologic, political, economic, social)
• Procedures Consensus-oriented procedures for
  scientific characterization of risks
• Instruments Meta-Analysis Consensus-conferences,
  Delphi, Group-Delphi
• Institutional requirements neutral platform,
  delegation right for stakeholders, professional
  moderation. Experts from national and
  international context

21
Siting Decision Making II

• Uncertainty
• Objective fair (intra- and intergenerational)
  and robust solution of dealing with uncertainties
  
• Procedures Alternate conflict resolution
  mechanisms for finding fair and acceptable
  solutions
• Instruments Mediation, Round Table, Stakeholder
  Consensus Conferences
• Institutional requirements neutral platform,
  participants from affected populations, experts
  as sources of knowledge, then deliberation about
  acceptability, professional mediator, combination
  of national and regional stakeholders

22
Siting Decision Making III

• Ambiguity
• Objective Common arrangement about energy
  future(s) and fair siting decisions
• Procedures deliberative methods for societal
  energy policy making and for site selection incl.
  risk-benefit packages
• Instruments Citizen juries, panels, public
  consensus conferences, Round Tables
• Institutional requirements neutral platforms
  two levels national (energy policies) and
  regional (siting, risk-benefit package).
  Participants local populations (organized and
  not-organized), input from stakeholders and
  scientists

23
Siting Decision Making IV

• Integration
• Objective Combination and integration of the
  three discourse activities
• Procedure Hybrid constructions
• Instruments Analytic-deliberative approaches,
  cooperative discourse (Important independent
  supervisory board)
• Institutional requirements Integration requires
  the establishment of a board of supervisors with
  high national esteem and reputation

24
Operation and monitoring

• Establishment of a public (or private) non-profit
  foundation with sufficient funds to live from the
  interests
• The foundation needs a scientific-technical
  committee (complexity), a regional-political
  committee (uncertainty) and a citizen advisory
  committee (ambiguity)
• The foundation should supervise , control and
  monitor operation and could also be the broker
  for the benefit package

25
Part V

• Conclusions

26
Conclusions I

• Nuclear waste repositories are risk sources
  characterized by medium complexity, high
  uncertainty and extreme ambiguity
• Worldwide high potential for negative risk
  perceptions and social mobilization
• The procedures for siting that have been employed
  until today do not reflect the explosive
  situation and will not be able to resolve the
  conflicts
• One procedure by itself will not be sufficient to
  deal with the difficult situation

27
Conclusions II

• New institutional and participatory forms of
  decision making are needed
• Inclusion of a broad governance representation
  Political economic, scientific and civil society
  actors
• Three types of discourse procedures
• Complexity Scientific modeling (epistemic
  discourse)
• Uncertainty Balance between precaution and
  innovativeness (reflective discourse)
• Ambiguity Building trust and consensus
  (participatory discourse)
• Necessity of a neutral platform for designing,
  organizing and moderating these discourses under
  the umbrella of a impartial and highly esteemed
  supervisory board.