Unclassified NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12-Dec-2006 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English - Or. English NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Unclassified NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 Working Party on Decommissioning and Dismantling (WPDD) WHAT WE HEARD WITHIN WPDD ON STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECOMMISSIONING, 2001-2004 A Compilation of Papers English - Or. English JT03219599 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 2 NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 FOREWORD At its sixth meeting, in Paris, 14-16 November 2005, the WPDD held a topical session on Stakeholder Involvement in Decommissioning Projects. The topical session was jointly planned and run with members of the NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC). The Topical Session is documented and publicly available [NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)5, see also NEA webpage: http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/docs/2006/rwm-wpdd2006-5.pdf]. The Topical Session provided a stimulus to review the contributions in the area of stakeholder involvement that the WPDD have received since its inception. This report contains a compilation of all papers regarding stakeholder involvement in decommissioning given at WPDD meetings and workshops between 2001 and the end of 2004. The compilation, together with other relevant material collected by FSC, will serve as background material for a review, focussing on lessons to be learnt and including examples of key statements by representatives from different NEA member states involved in or affected by decommissioning projects. The review is intended to be published during 2006 in a NEA brochure. 3 NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 4 NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 TABLE OF CONTENTS WPDD-1 Meeting May 2001 • M. Vila d’Abadal, Member of GMF staff, Spain .................................................................... 9 WPDD-3 Meeting June 2002 • P. Moding. Secretary of KSO, Sweden................................................................................... 17 The Tarragona Seminar on “Strategy Selection for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities”, September 2003 Session V “Social Aspects” at the Seminar: • P.B Woollam, BNFL Magnox Electric plc, U.K. ................................................................... 23 • J. Castellnou, Mayor of L'Hospitalet i Vandellòs, Spain........................................................ 29 • K. Hayes, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, U.K.......................................................... 33 • P. Moding, Secretary of KSO, Sweden................................................................................... 39 • L. Kraemer, Mayor of Kincardine, Canada ............................................................................ 43 Summary and overview of lessons learnt”, Tarragona, Spain, 2-4 September 2003, • A. Duncan (Rapporteur) and C. Pescatore, NEA Secretariat ................................................ 55 • M. Vila D’Abadal, AMAC, Spain ......................................................................................... 59 Rome Workshop: On “Safe, Efficient, and Cost-effective Decommissioning” September 2004 Session 2: Italian Decommissioning Scene: • S. Frullani, A. Rogani and E. Tabet, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy ................................. 65 Session 5: Management of Transition and Change throughout Decommissioning • P. Almeida (Jose Cabrera NPP), B. Gil (CSN) Spain; A. Lekberg (SKI), B.Hansson (BKAB) Sweden; A. Frischknecht (HSK) (SEGHOF Chairman) Switzerland; P. Pyy (NEA Secretariat) .................................................................................. 73 • A. Rodríguez, Vandellós 1 NPP Decommissioning, ENRESA, Spain................................... 87 • D.Keyes, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, U.S. ................................... 93 • M. Laraia IAEA, Austria, S Gordelier and A Neal, UKAEA, U.K........................................ 97 “Conclusions/Final Stocktaking”, 6-10 September 2004, Rome, Italy • Overall main messages from the Rome workshop .............................................................. 115 • Outcome – Session on “Management of Transition and Change Throughout Decommissioning” ........................................................................................... 117 5 NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 6 NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 WPDD-1 Meeting, 2001 7 NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 8 NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 Speech by Vila d’Abadal, member of GMF staff I am the general Secretary of the GMF, a group of European municipalities with nuclear facilities. I would like to speak about nuclear facility decommissioning from the point of view of civil society. Our vision of these issues is exclusively social. We know what radioactivity, nuclear power plants and radioactive waste are like but at the same time we stay away from debates aiming at finding a technical solution in relation to a specific event. Getting to this point I would like to tell you how people who lives in the surrounding of NPP feel when decommissioning takes place. NNP's existence can be divided into three periods a bit similar to human life: birth, life and death. In this case, birth is the construction period, life is the working period and death is both the shutting down and the decommissioning. Each period requires particular policies in order to meet different types of problems and effects dealt with by local authorities' suitable decisions. The construction period looks like an explosion. Many people get to the site, the population increases as well as the expectations for a better future. Jobs are created on and around the NNP and life standard improves. At the same time, local authorities have to assume two main challenges: • On one hand the construction of public facilities in order to meet people's needs (infrastructure, health, social services, education, etc.) • On the other hand ensuring the participation of the citizens in the new situation by implementing the right information policy. During the working or operation or operation period, once the effects of the construction are over, there are two aspects that worry both citizens and local authorities: • The first and principal is to follow the operation of the installation mainly as far as security and environment are concerned. • The second is the increased number of inhabitants on the territory independently of the existence of a nuclear facility When the nuclear facility shuts down and the decommissioning period starts, the situation is completely different. We can say that, in spite of the differences, it is the same situation as when a big industrial installation closes down and a lot of people are both directly and indirectly affected. As I said before, the decommissioning is the death period and it is a negative stigma as it means the disappearance of a facility that was the main economic activity in the area. That is the reason why, at this point, people's worries change: 9 NEA/RWM/WPDD(2006)6 • Before decommissioning concerns were about the operation of the nuclear installation, but after they are about nuclear waste policy. Before decommissioning concerns were about the increased number of inhabitants but after they are about emphasising the necessity of diversifying economical activities by making them independent of nuclear economy. • Only the idea of transparency, information and participation remains unchanged. The activity of local authorities or local councils facing decommissioning includes three issues: – Control of decommissioning activity as far as general local responsibilities are concerned. – Participation in decommissioning process in order to defend local interests. – Definition and management of socio-economic plans. The decommissioning as industrial activity includes a lot of proceedings that affect the territory and its life. As the other industrial activities these have to be subjected to municipal control. Sometimes we observe a tendency in nuclear sector to act without taking into account the competence of the municipalities. It looks as if the nuclear area was a territory out and only the regulatory organism and owners had responsibilities for decision making processes. On the contrary, it is very important to respect the role of local authorities. They have to answer for the legality of all of the proceedings before the citizens. This is very important if they assume the role of spokesman before the media and on account of this before some social sectors who calls for strong control on nuclear facilities. In both cases, media and social calls, local authorities have to demonstrate that their nuclear facilities have either the same amount of control or even more than any other industrial facility existing on the municipality. Some technical help is needed in order to ensure a real practice of these responsibilities because the contents of the decommissioning projects are very specialised and town halls don't usually have people qualified for these issues. Some countries have accepted to pay for this help when municipalities have to face the following of nuclear projects with estate interest. Local authorities have other responsibilities which are not included in their general competence but which are actually the most important when we talk about nuclear facility decommissioning. The first is the environmental protection. If during the