The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

MANAGING RADIOACTIVE WASTE SAFELY

Chapter Two : Consulting the Public on Radioactive Waste Management

2.1 This section details the responses to the MRWS consultation document from the 4 extended focus group sessions with the 'unaffected public', 'affected public', young people and community activists.

2.2 Participants were asked in the introductory questionnaire how well informed they felt they were about the management of radioactive waste on a scale from 'very well informed' to 'not at all informed' (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Participants' perceptions of how well informed they were about the management of radioactive waste

2.3 Results indicated a range of perceived knowledge ¹¹. As expected, the 2 participants who worked directly in the nuclear industry in the 'affected' area rated themselves as being very well informed. Two people from each of the groups felt that they were fairly well informed. The majority of the 'unaffected' and community activist groups indicated that they were not very well informed. Nearly three quarters of participants felt that they were either not very well informed (24) or that they were not informed at all (9).

Overview of Group Responses

'Unaffected public' (Glasgow)

2.4 The 'unaffected public', were concerned that they did not have 'the tools' to make informed decisions. The language of the MRWS consultation document was considered to be highly technical and 'heavy going'. One participant expressed a typical view:

"How would we know as lay people? We need a certain amount of technical information and the rest could be explained in a simpler manner because we are not familiar with the language or subject." ('Unaffected public' participant, Glasgow)

2.5 Participants wanted to be involved in a discussion that started from a statement of the main problem(s), moving to an assessment of the issues and options and a detailed discussion about what should or could be done. In order to do this, they felt they needed information that they could readily understand, which provided a context for potential global as well as national and local solutions. A sentiment expressed in the 'unaffected public' focus group and echoed by 'community activist' and 'affected public' participants, was that "There needs to be a wider (global) discussion on the environment as a whole". Learning from the experience of other countries in managing radioactive waste was also felt to be important.

'Affected public' (Thurso)

2.6 The 'affected public' felt that having some people in the group who had a more detailed knowledge of the subject, largely gained through experience of working at Dounreay, was beneficial in helping to explain more fully and clearly terms they were unfamiliar with. The dynamic of the small group work enhanced the clarity of the responses given. For example, in answer to the question seeking views on segregating waste types by half-lives, one participant asked why separating mixtures is so difficult. Another participant suggested:

"Think about a cocktail with rum, coke and vodka with a twist of lemon. One way of dealing with it is to drink it (deal with the waste mixture) rather than trying to separate its constituent parts into half-lives." ('Affected public' participant, Thurso)

2.7 There was general agreement that in this type of exercise participants are better positioned to learn and reach decisions through the involvement of 'experts' able to provide honest and trustworthy information.

Young people (Argyll)

2.8 The young people felt their responses to the questions were 'confused' until a representative of the Scottish Executive translated the questions into a more meaningful format. This 'jargon-busting' role was felt by all participants to make a difference to their understanding of the issues being discussed. A widely shared view was that information should be in Plain English so people can understand it better, with greater use of pictures and diagrams.

2.9 One group was asked to develop material for a school setting. They developed a presentation, using Microsoft PowerPoint detailing their key questions and suggested responses. The output was shown on a series of PowerPoint slides (Annex 1).

2.10 The other small group focused on developing information for use in an informal youth work setting. They wrote and acted a video play, loosely based on the BBC comedy programme 'Only Fools and Horses' ¹², which highlighted the danger of radioactive waste being dumped by an unscrupulous businessman. They had intended to show what would happen if the radioactive waste was managed safely, but unfortunately ran out of time.

Community activists (Stirling)

2.11 Most community activist participants felt that the MRWS consultation document was largely informative and understandable, but expressed some concern about the technical nature of the language and about the layout. They felt this would be a barrier for those less experienced in responding to this type of consultation. There was an overall feeling that the information sheets provided an easier route into the questions.

General Observations

2.12 Specific questions were raised in the 'affected public' and community activist groups about the information provided in the consultation document. In the 'affected public' focus group, one participant felt that it did not cover all of the available options due to the lack of reference to waste minimisation. This participant felt that the options provided in the consultation document were linked to decommissioning and did not explore the possibility of minimising waste as part of the potential for managing radioactive waste. One community activist participant highlighted the need to consider the implications of the UK Energy Review of 2001, a consultation which aimed to set out the objectives of UK energy policy (PIU, 2002). If the review led to more nuclear power stations being built, this would have an impact on the level of radioactive waste produced in the future:

"We need to recognise that the statement about waste management is based on an assumption of tailing off [use of nuclear power]. This may not be a reality." (Community activist participant, Stirling)

2.13 Overall the response to the MRWS consultation document was not positive. Participants felt that barriers were created by the use of technical language and the possibility that there was no 'right' or 'ideal' answer to the safe management of radioactive waste, was raised in all of the adult groups. Community activist and 'affected public' participants questioned whether the background information in the MRWS consultation document could be trusted. The need for 'expert' knowledge to increase understanding was raised in all groups except the community activist group. Participants in all groups, except the young people's, expressed some scepticism about the impartiality of experts and the difficulty of finding agreement among them.

Responses to the MRWS Consultation Questions

2.14 Thirteen key questions were identified from the MRWS consultation document (listed in Annex 2). The language was simplified and the number of questions reduced to 11 by combining questions 7 and 8, and 10 and 11 (Annex 2). These were then included in 4 themed handouts: 'How', 'Action', 'Informing' and 'What'. At the focus group meetings each smaller working group was given one of the handouts. Those with the 'How', 'Action' and 'Informing' themes were asked to answer all the questions on the handout, a maximum of 2. The 'What' theme contained 6 questions, and this group were asked to concentrate on 2:

1. Should we segregate UK waste types by half-lives?
2. What are your views on the general approach outlined for decommissioning?

2.15 Only if time allowed did groups move on to answer the further questions. The 2 questions were selected as those that the public might be expected to have a greater initial interest and knowledge in.

2.16 Bearing in mind the constraints identified around language, knowledge of the subject and previous experience of consultation, each of the smaller working groups within the focus groups had the opportunity to respond to at least 2 questions posed in the consultation. As a precursor to tackling the questions, the groups were asked to identify potential sources of radioactive waste. Participants identified a limited number of sources, with nuclear energy proving to be the most widely recognised

Q1. Should we segregate UK waste types by half-lives?

2.17 One small group in the 'unaffected public' and another in the 'affected public' focus groups explored this question. Participants in the 'unaffected public' group felt that on the basis of the information presented their answer would be "Yes, and" or "No, but". This was because they identified additional questions that they felt needed to be answered in order to be sure that they could make an informed response. These included:

• is the storage to be designed for toxicity?
• will it be designed to protect for ten thousand years?
• what will the inspection procedure be?
• will storage options adapt to changes in the knowledge base, including more research into recycling?

2.18 Discussions in the community activist group also identified some concern that the storage design would not be effective for the length of time needed to secure certain radioactive waste types. Some participants in the 'affected public' group identified the difficulty and expense involved in separation, indicating that we should seek the most practical classification for management purposes. One participant argued that not all radioactive waste can be separated and that the separation process itself creates more radioactive waste.

Q2. Should additional resources be ring-fenced for the management of spent sealed sources of radioactive waste?

2.19 One small group in the 'unaffected public' group, which explored the case for segregating radioactive waste by half-lives, also looked at this question. They agreed that there is a need for ring-fenced funding.

"Yes - as long as it really is ring fenced. It needs to be seen as open and accountable. People want to know where the money goes and what happens with it. We should have a state magazine (published quarterly) about what's happening, what the issues are and to make sure that the fund is spent accountably." ('Unaffected public' participant, Glasgow)

2.20 Participants in the 'community activist' focus group also highlighted the need for ring fencing of resources, with one participant feeling that proper protection would be " a legacy for future generations".

Q4. What are your views on the general approach outlined for decommissioning?

2.21 Participants from the Young people's group were divided into 2 smaller groups and, using the information available, asked to prepare a presentation aimed at a group of their peers. Although they did not answer the question specifically, one group developed a power point presentation highlighting the main issues they felt their classmates needed to know (Annex 1) and the other presented a play (see paragraph 2.14).

2.22 One small group in the 'unaffected public' focus group meeting also considered this question. They felt that it was essential to look at experience elsewhere and called for more research into experiences in other countries. They also expressed concerns that risk management was not identified as an option. They felt that there should be ring-fenced resources for waste minimisation. In the community activist group there was a call for more research into disposal options. Participants in the 'affected public' group were concerned that there appeared to be no guidance on decommissioning from the regulatory body.

Q7. How could we build on these existing initiatives or develop any of the other techniques for engaging the public?

2.23 Participants in all groups felt that it was essential that the public be given the chance to participate in discussions about managing radioactive waste safely. To do this effectively, participants believed that some of the information provided had to be of a technical nature, but identified a need, and the potential, to provide more information in Plain English.

2.24 All groups identified a variety of processes for informing and involving people, including using the media to host debates and documentaries, and through children's cartoons. This would make information on the subject more widely available. All participants felt it important to recognise that accurate and accessible information is the starting point for any involvement strategy. Community activist participants pointed out that it was important for consulting organisations to recognise that stakeholder feedback should inform the beginning of a different kind of dialogue, rather than being a 'one-off event'.

2.25 A variety of techniques for public engagement were identified. These included information dissemination, including accessibility in language and sources of information, consultation approaches with the general public and involvement processes with experts, the public in general and with those directly affected by decisions, using different degrees of engagement. Participants felt that all of these are necessary to enable anyone who wants to become involved to do so. Trust in the motives of consulting bodies and in the accuracy and completeness of information provided were felt to be key elements of any successful involvement process. These issues are discussed further in Chapter 3.

Q8. Should there be a new advisory body and how should it be funded?

2.26 Although this question was not asked specifically as part of the process, participant discussions in the adult groups identified a need for an independent advisory board, with expert advisers "from all sides" working together to find the most effective solutions.

2.27 At the heart of the discussions was a concern about 'vested interests', which included government, and questions raised about the independence of 'expert' views. The community activist group felt that NGOs should be involved as part of this process . There was clear support for an independent advisory board with the experience and knowledge to earn widespread respect, with sufficient independence from Government and the waste producers for its deliberations to be considered objective. There was a strong feeling that this is a Scottish, as well as an UK and international issue, and there was concern across the groups that Scottish views and expertise should be included at all levels.

Q9. Should the advisory and research roles be combined under one body and what kind of organisation could take [this on]?

2.28 Wherever the advisory or research function lies there was a strong feeling in the adult groups, and suggested by the young people to a lesser extent, that the organisation responsible should have some specific responsibilities. These included the need to ensure that the language used is understandable, that levels of expertise are explicit and that processes are open and accountable. Some community activist participants felt that research and advisory roles were intimately linked, and identified issues around "funding, possible partisanship and the independence of the role".

Q10. What do you think of the indicative programme of action?

MRWS, 2001:56

2.29 Some participants again felt that they needed more information to answer this question. However, all felt that involving, informing and consulting the public were important to the development of policy for managing radioactive waste safely in Scotland, and that the engagement process should be a continuing process, broadening the involvement of all age groups and particularly future generations.

2.30 Some community activist participants considered that the programme proposed in the timetable is too tight and that there is a need for longer-term solutions unlikely to be decided by 2007, while others felt that the programme is not tight enough to reflect the urgent need for action. There was a common view across the groups that there is a need for ongoing public involvement alongside action.

2.31 Most participants, with the exception of the young people, wondered if the current legislation needed to be reviewed. There was surprise across all of the groups that the Nuclear Licensing Act of 1965 had not been replaced by later legislation (the MRWS consultation document included reference to it). Participants felt it may be out of date, although there was an assumption that it had been amended over the years, it was still felt that there might be a need for some fundamental changes.

Q11. Should the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in Scotland have a new statutory power over the storage of wastes on nuclear licensed sites?

2.32 Participants in the 3 adult groups felt that SEPA's current degree of authority called its role into question. Some community activist participants wanted to ensure that SEPA had "teeth", believing that it should have ultimate responsibility for management of all types of waste. However, some in the 'affected public' group suggested that a new independent organisation might be necessary if SEPA did not take on powers over the storage of wastes on nuclear licensed sites. Participants also posed questions about the degree of SEPA's independence from Government and the nuclear industry and its quango status. The 'unaffected public' participants felt that, based on their current information and knowledge, this was a positive proposal.

Summary of Key Points

« Previous | Contents | Next »