Dialogue as nuclear waste management policy: can a Swedish transparency programme legitimise a final decision on spent nuclear fuel?

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to discuss Swedish nuclear waste management policy and assess whether a transparency programme has affected the policy discourse and contributed to legitimatising the forthcoming government decision on a final solution for spent nuclear fuel. The transparency programme implemented by the National Council for Nuclear Waste (NW Council) consisted of two main activities: dialogue meetings and public hearings for deliberating on different aspects of the waste issue. Lessons are drawn from an evaluation of the programme. The article concludes that the NW Council has implemented the government's legitimatisation policy by its existence and through the transparency programme, but achieving long lasting legitimacy is a complicated matter. Dialogue meetings and public hearings are reasonable measures; whether these measures are sufficient to legitimatise the final decision also depends on how the appropriate state agencies and the government justify their assessments and decisions regarding the long-term safety, security and sustainability of the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company's proposed final repository. The dialogue policy and transparency programme, however, has failed to influence the key decisions which remain in the control of the powerful interests, most notable Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) and the government.

Is there a Nordic model of final disposal of spent nuclear fuel? Governance insights from Finland and Sweden

“…A clear difference between Sweden and Finland is the public participation initiatives taken by societal actors other than the SKB, such as the Dialogue Project by the Swedish nuclear safety authority and the Transparency Programme by the Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste (Elam et al 2010;Hanberger 2012. ) Also, the candidate municipalities in Sweden have been more active in promoting public participation than in Finland.…”

“…While Sweden and Finland are commonly seen as success stories in implementing final disposal of SNF (e.g. Blowers & Sunqvist 2010;Elam & Sundqvist 2011;Hanberger 2012), we will highlight differences in how CSOs are integrated into the nuclear waste regimes and the licencing processes.…”

“…In 2005, SKB, after critique and pressure from CSOs, opened the regional consultations to the public and CSOs have also been able to attend the public consultation meetings directed at the local citizens. Moreover, in 2006, The Swedish Nuclear Waste Council started a 'transparency programme', a descendant of the dialogue project from 1990-1992, which identified a need for a broader set of actors to participate and accordingly included CSO representatives (Elam et al 2009, 23, 36;Hanberger 2012). Unfortunately, CSOs quickly learned that opening up of regional and citizen consultations did not always mean opening up to real participation and influence, which frustrated CSO representatives (Elam et al 2009, 25).…”