« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
MANAGING RADIOACTIVE WASTE SAFELY
Annex 1
Focus Group Programmes
'Unaffected public' (Glasgow) and 'affected public' (Thurso)
9.45 | Introductions - SCF, the research and the programme |
10.15 | Group work on knowledge of participation, involvement, decision making |
11.00 | Group work Initial reactions to radioactive waste as issue. |
11.45 | Feedback |
12.15 | Introduction to consultation document and questions presentation |
12.40 | Testing the information available - participants to rate information on boards |
12.50 | Copies of questions & background information handed out, discuss in pairs |
1.00 | Lunch |
2.00 | Group Work On questions in the consultation document |
3.00 | Group Work How can we involve other people |
3.55 | Anything to add |
Young people (Argyll)
1.00 | Introduction (what's it all about then?) |
1.30 | Graffiti Wall on first responses |
2.00 | Drama input and discussion prompts |
3.00 | Making sense of the information - Input |
3.20 | Making sense of the information Workshop |
5.30 | Dinner |
9.00 | Feedback Presentations |
Day 2
10.00 | Feedback on yesterday, where are we up to? |
10.30 | What kind of materials workshop |
11.45 | What kind of feedback? |
12.00 | Quick debrief and evaluation of event |
Community activists (Stirling)
6.00 | Introductions |
6.15 | Group work on consultation document |
7.15 | Plenary |
7.45 | Group work Informing and involving people |
8.30 | Group work Informing and involving people in decision making about managing radioactive waste safely in Scotland |
8.50 | Plenary Key points of the process |
Stakeholders (Edinburgh)
6.00 | Introductions, the research process and the role of the focus group |
6.15 | Initial findings on the consultation questions |
6.30 | Discussion |
7.30 | Key elements |
7.45 | Engaging the public - initial findings |
8.00 | Discussion |
8.45 | Key issues and opportunities |
8.55 | Final points for consideration |
The 'unaffected public' (Glasgow)
Members of the public (16) were selected to reflect the characteristics of the adult population in Glasgow. A full-day session was organised to find out what people who lived in an area that had no direct knowledge of radioactive waste management issues felt about the engaging the public on the subject. Participants felt that the technical nature of the language and their lack of knowledge of the subject made it difficult for them to engage. They also felt however that it was important that they and people like them should be able to find out the information they need so that they can choose to become engaged in the decision making process. "But the more information we have, the more informed the decision!!!" ('unaffected public' participant, Glasgow). Participants felt that it was the responsibility of the government, the industry and the public to discuss and decide the most effective ways of managing radioactive waste safely.
The 'affected public' (Thurso)
Members of the public (9) were recruited from the communities around Dounreay nuclear installation through a random mail drop and distribution on the street in Thurso, Wick and surrounding villages. In reflecting the characteristics of the area it was felt important to include participants who worked in Dounreay as well as those who did not. All the participants felt that it was beneficial to have the expertise this provided as part of the discussion. The group agreed with the Glasgow participants that it was important that people should be able to access the information that they needed for informed discussions about the issues and that it is necessary to support public engagement for those who want to be involved. There was concern about how the media reports the issues involved in radioactive waste management and where the public could access information that they can trust. As in Glasgow, participants felt it was important to develop the general public's awareness and understanding so that they can engage in an informed way.
Young people (Argyll)
Ten participants who are involved in youth work activities (aged between 14 and 17 years) were drawn from North Lanarkshire, Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire, which is an 'affected' area. The participants worked through the consultation materials and discussed their views as they prepared presentations that they felt would inform their peers. They thought, as the previous participants had, that the technical language involved made it very difficult for them to understand the issues. They also felt that other ways of informing people should be thought about. Pictures and drawings for easier understanding. The media for awareness raising. Informal peer education, both in school and out of school hours, were felt to be the most effective ways of engaging their peers in the discussion. They felt that informing young people is essential because of the long-term nature of the issue.
Community activists (Stirling)
People involved as community activists in the Stirling area (13) were invited to take part in a 3 hour evening focus group session, in order to involve members of the public who have direct experience of engagement processes on behalf of their communities. They felt that their experience of dealing with complex consultation documents made it easier for them to understand the information provided, and that without that experience it would be difficult for the public to become engaged. Many of their reactions to the issue echoed those of the general public and the young people. Access to information, in plain English, awareness raising about the discussions so that other people could respond and long-term planning and engagement were seen as essential elements of the engagement process. Participants explored engagement processes as those who engage, as well as those who are engaged with. The essential elements that they identified included, clarity of purpose, establishing that there will be feedback on what decisions are made and why and of continuing the process, rather than a one-off.
Stakeholders (Edinburgh)
An extended focus group of 7 stakeholders drawn from regulatory bodies, the nuclear industry and environmental Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) met for a 3 hour evening focus group. The research was designed to build on the interest and awareness shown by the general public in managing radioactive waste safely and the findings from the earlier focus groups were used to stimulate discussion in the stakeholder focus group and to consider the implications of the earlier findings for their sectors, focusing on why to engage and how to engage
Participants agreed that access to information, which can be understood and trusted is an important consideration for engaging the public in this process. They felt it was important to find ways of moving away from the technical nature of the language where it was possible. They also felt that the differences of opinion about what the 'right' answers might be needed to be discussed, so that solutions would be transparent, on how the decision was reached, what the alternatives might be, and where there are disagreements. This group also identified the need for awareness raising and for finding effective ways to share public information and discussions.
This is a typed version of the scroll used in the drama sketch presented to the young people to convey information about the issues of managing radioactive waste.
Drama Presentation - Scroll
Some of the nuclear waste which has to be managed in the UK contains atomic nuclei with half-lives of hundreds of thousands of years and therefore needs to be segregated from the environment and human contact during the lifetime of many generations to come.
Nuclear waste is ……… waste contaminated by or incorporating radioactivity above threshold levels defined in legislation.
It can be divided into four levels;
1. Very low level wastes (VLLW).
This can be disposed of with ordinary refuse and mostly originates from hospitals, research labs and other non-nuclear industry.
2. Low level wastes (LLW).
These are not suitable for disposal with ordinary refuse but require authorised burial at specialised landfill sites.
3. Intermediate level wastes (ILW).
These have radioactivity levels exceeding that of LLW's but do not require heating to be taken into account in the storage or disposal facilities. Mostly arises from reprocessing of spent fuel and also from general operations and maintenance of radioactive plant.
4. High level wastes (HLW).
Wastes in which the temperature may rise significantly as a result of their high level of radioactivity so this must be taken into account when designing storage or disposal facilities.
- The main producers of radioactive waste are:
- The nuclear power sector.
- The ministry of defence.
- Small users such as hospitals and universities, research labs and offshore gas and oil industries.
Nuclear decommissioning is ……… the dismantling of a closed down nuclear facility and the removal of it's contents, both radioactive and non-radioactive. The key objective in this is to remove the hazard safely.
Young People's group PowerPoint Presentation: 'Mad Mental Thing'
Interview Questions
Public Engagement interviews
What topics do you engage the public on?
What approaches and techniques do you use?
What are the resource implications?
What are the most effective approaches and why?
What are the least effective approaches and why?
What are the key lessons that you have learned?
What does the process involve? (e.g. identifying participants, support to participants, dialogue, exit strategy, impact of engagement, feedback)
What other experience of engagement do you have?
Do you think there would be differences in public interest in engagement on other topics?
What local engagement structures are there? Is there work through or in partnership?
How do you bring in those who don't normally engage?
Community Planning interviews
Is public engagement an element of CP? Why/why not?
What kinds of processes are used?
Do all of the partners engage the public?
Do the partners share engagement activities?
What works and what doesn't work?
What are the resource implications?
Do you think engaging the public in decisions about radioactive waste management is necessary?
How do you think the public can become engaged?
NGO interviews
Should there be public engagement?
Do you think there are issues around 'trust'?
What experience does your organisation have of engaging the public?
What are the key issues for engaging the public in decisions about radioactive waste?
What are the key issues in engaging the public?
What needs to happen?
What is the role of the green NGO's in engaging the public about radioactive waste?
What are the rules of engagement?
Media interviews
What opportunities do you think there are in engaging the public?
What limits do you think there are in engaging the public?
What is the role of the press in reporting issues like how radioactive waste is managed?
What issues or opportunities are important for involving the public in decision-making on radioactive waste management?
What are your views on public information provision?
What is the media's responsibility?
What constraints or opportunities do you expect to find in future?
« Previous | Contents | Next »