Opening up or Closing Down Radioactive Waste Management Policy? Debates on Reversibility and Retrievability in Finland, France, and the United Kingdom

Abstract

The possibilities of recovering radioactive waste deposited for final disposal (retrievability), and of reversing decisions concerning the management of the waste (reversibility) have emerged as central issues on the policymaking agenda in a number of countries. Calls for reversibility and retrievability (R&R) have emanated mainly from civil society and politicians, and have subsequently, and to varying degrees in different countries, been translated into technical and administrative solutions. This paper examines the ways in which R&R have been dealt with in the national‐level radioactive waste management (RWM) policies in France, Finland, and the UK, and examines the role of the debates around R&R in fostering deliberative democracy. The focus of the analysis is on the participatory and deliberative planning and decision‐making processes instigated by the state and the nuclear industry. The paper argues that in France and the UK the broad societal debates over the years concerning R&R have to a certain degree contributed to an “opening up” of the RWM policymaking to new options and new actors. In Finland, by contrast, R&R were addressed briefly, as an essentially technico‐economic issue, with a rapid closure of the debate around the notion that retrievability had been ensured in the RWM company's original disposal concept. The paper identifies three factors that may, apart from the strict administrative and legislative framework governing the Finnish RWM policy, help to explain the differences between the three countries in general and the Finnish “exceptionality” in particular: the control of knowledge production in the area of RWM, the degree of trust in public institutions, and the credibility and status of nongovernmental organizations.

Down the Line: Assessing the Trajectory of Energy Policy Research Development

“…Facilitated engagement of multiple stakeholders prior to public discussions may provide a better understanding of perceived risks and inform more comprehensive nuclear energy policy (Poetz, ). An examination of policymaking processes in some European Union countries suggests that “opening up” policy choices, encouraging the use of participatory methods and efforts to gain local acceptance can have a depoliticizing effect (Lehtonen, ). The research contends that public trust levels for state institutions play an important role in this relationship, but it is not yet clear in which direction the relationship flows (Lehtonen, ).…”

“…An examination of policymaking processes in some European Union countries suggests that “opening up” policy choices, encouraging the use of participatory methods and efforts to gain local acceptance can have a depoliticizing effect (Lehtonen, ). The research contends that public trust levels for state institutions play an important role in this relationship, but it is not yet clear in which direction the relationship flows (Lehtonen, ). Policy design rooted in community “volunteerism” may prove useful to reduce the political cost as examples in Sweden and Finland suggest (Darst & Dawson, ).…”

Integrating societal concerns into research and development (R&D) on geological disposal at the national level

“…For instance, in France, the focus on reversibility and retrievability emanated from civil society (Aparicio, 2010) and the National Waste Act in 1991 changed the focus of the research programme to introduce the study of reversibility and the impact of waste retrievability. In the context of RWM, Lehtonen (2010), borrowing Barthe's concepts of 'reversibilization' and 'irreversibilization', argued that there are signs of an opening up of RWM policy in France to new actors and new options. However, it is not clear whether this opening up is part of a 'staged process whereby political decisions progressively lead towards final GD, with R&D perceived by policymakers as an interim solution on the path towards such irreversibilization' or to 'subsequent moments of 'opening up' and reappraisal of alternatives' (Lehtonen, 2010).…”

The non-use and influence of UK Energy Sector Indicators

“…Earlier analysis of energy policy in general and nuclear sector in particular suggests that technocratic dominance may in these domains well be a rule rather than an exception in many countries (e.g. Lehtonen, 2010;Litmanen, 2009;Topçu, 2010).…”