Integrating societal concerns into
research and development (R&D) on
geological disposal at the national level
Meritxell Martell, Kris Van Berendoncks & Anne
Bergmans
IGD-TP Geodisposal 2014, 24th -26th June, Manchester
References to interaction between R&D
and society during this conference:
2





Generally: how to deal with the challenge of communicating the
ambiguous message to the public that knowledges has matured to a
phase when disposal concepts can be implemented, but while R&D on
remaining uncertainties still continues?
Difficulty of organizing a public debate in an implementing logic
and under a tight planning
(cfr. CNDP and ANDRA’s future intentions)?
Recognition of need for stakeholder involvement through advisory
group for R&D programme (cfr. OPERA)
Gaining acceptance by developing and communicating a generic
safety narrative (cfr. UK)
P. Zuidema: “Scientists should also be engaged in communication,
people don’t want to hear just from public relations”
IGD-TP Geodisposal – Manchester – 24-26 June 2014
slightly different approach
3


Dominant understanding: social and technical
divide, stable and unambiguous relationship;
InSotec: ‘Social and technical are always entwined’:
 Social
aspects in technical decisions;
 Technical aspects in social orders;


Perpetual back-and-forth between ‘technical’ and
‘social’;
Socio-technical processes, challenges,
combinations….
findings and open questions
4

From country reports:
 Some
issues (e.g. R&R) are only discussed in technoscientific communities in some countries
 Visible lack of engagement of some organisations in
science outside implementer-regulator circles

From review of IGD-TP and other ETPs:
 Interest
in mirror groups
 How is R&D organised at national level?
 Similar
structures?
 Who is involved, how and when?
Open questions
5
Are there any arenas / networks at national level
where ‘socio-technical’ research is explicitly
recognised?




Interdisciplinarity: Which socio-technical topics are considered?
Which different disciplines?
Transdisciplinarity: Who is involved in the different stages of
defining, implementing and reviewing national R&D
programmes?
How does it differ according to the countries’ stage of
implementation?
Inter- and transdisciplinary characteristics in R&D
6
Phases
of the
Elements of interdisciplinarity
research programme
Design and
formulation
Integration of socio-economic and
natural sciences under the same
programme.
Explicit acknowledgement of the
value of interdisciplinarity.
Elements of transdisciplinarity
R&D programme formulated as an
open issue.
Explicit acknowledgement of the
value of involving a wide range of
stakeholders.
Consultation with researchers from Consultation with other forms of
different disciplines on framing the knowledge (non scientific) on
research agenda.
framing the research agenda.
Review and
evaluation
Evaluation of review bodies on all Evaluation and review beyond
aspects of the programme and not academics to involve non-scientific
only confined to technical issues.
stakeholders throughout the
programme.
Framework
7
SOCIO-TECHNICAL?
RWM / GD
Programme
Government
R&D org.
Others
R&D network
Implementer
Transdisciplinarity?
Industry
Regulator/TSO
Interdisciplinarity?
R&D national programme
Definition
Implementation
SOCIO-TECHNICAL?
Review
Methodology
8


Document analysis: research strategies, programme
evaluations, etc.
Approach for more advanced countries:
 Targeted
on-line questionnaire to R&D key contacts:
 (Governmental
institution)
 Implementer
 Regulator
 Research
 Targeted

organisation
interviews on issues raised by survey
Approach for less advanced countries: interviews
Overview of selected national R&D programmes
10
Country
Programme
Main responsible authority Scope of the programme
Belgium
National RD&D programme on GD
ONDRAF/NIRAS
Geological disposal
France
R&D programme on RW
ANDRA
NEEDS
Research programme on safety
CNRS
IRSN
Geological disposal
Nuclear energy including
RWM
Nuclear safety
Finland
KYT2014
Ministry of E&E
Radioactive waste
management
Germany
BMWi Research Concept
BMWi
Geological disposal
Netherlands
OPERA
COVRA
Geological disposal
Sweden
R&D programme
SKB
Management and disposal of
spent nuclear fuel
Switzerland
RW research programme
SFOE
Geological disposal
UK
R&D strategy on GD
NDA
Geological disposal
Design and formulation of R&D
11
Diversity in national R&D programmes:





Maximum segregation of technical / social/ regulatory
research: e.g. Switzerland
Interdisciplinary research: e.g. NEEDS in France (CNRS, Areva,
Andra, IRSN, EDF, CEA) / KYT2014 in Finland
Implementer driven research: e.g. Belgium, Finland (Posiva)
Social sciences research: e.g. SKB social science programme (a
demand from local communities) in Sweden
Independent research funds
Public involvement in R&D: priorities
12
Some observations:
 Few examples of consultation with a broader group of
stakeholders in designing the research plan, e.g. OPERA.
 Public consultation mostly not specific on R&D, but linked to
(legal requirements of) the decision-making process, e.g.
Belgium.
 Some examples of local consultation, e.g. IRSN through CLIS.
 IGD-TP national level mirror groups? NORA platform in NL
seems the only explicit example
Social sciences in R&D programmes
13
Some observations:
 All R&D programs include social sciences, but to a strongly
varying degree;
 Only rarely involved in potentially integrative topics such as R&R,
monitoring or safety case development;
 Only in a few cases are social sciences integrated from the initial
conception of the research plan. Mostly there is no vision on
bringing the technical and social research together;
 Reportedly difficult to attract social scientists to R&D in the nuclear
sector.
Topics included in R&D programmes
14
as
te
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Si
te
of
t
ig
n
W
Niras RP on GD
ANDRA RP
NEEDS
IRSN RP on Safety
Finland
KYT2014
Germany
BMWi Research Concept
Netherlands OPERA
Sweden
SKB RP on ND
Switzerland SFOE RP on RW
UK
NDA RP on GD
De
s
Belgium
France
Pr
og
ra
m
m
Co
un
tr
y
e
he
fa
cil
i
ch
ty
ar
ac
te
ch
ris
ar
at
ac
io
n
te
Sa
r is
fe
ty
at
io
ca
n
se
Pe
rc
ep
tio
n
Ra
an
di
d
at
co
io
m
n
m
p
Al
un
r
o
te
t
ica
e
rn
ct
tio
at
io
n
iv
n
es
Un
of
de
w
rs
as
ta
te
nd
m
Pa
in
an
rt
g
ici
of
ag
pa
em
th
to
e
en
De
sy
ry
t
st
ap
cis
e
pr
m
io
n
oa
ev
su
ch
ol
Re
pp
ut
es
gu
or
io
la
n
tin
to
gm
ry
Ot
et
as
he
ho
pe
rs
do
ct
s
lo
gi
General objective: mapping the topics covered by the
different R&D programmes.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Topics included in R&D programmes
15
Social science topics
 Mostly on perception, communication &
participatory approaches;
 Research on decision-making methodologies much
scarcer;
 Inclusion of social science topics seems only
temporal as opposed to continuous technical R&D;
 Once sites have been selected, social science
research is relegated, e.g. SKB and KYT.
Review and evaluation of R&D
17
Country
R&D programme
Review body
Belgium
RD&D programme on GD
Niras Technical Committee
Ad hoc committee (e.g. for Safir 2)
France
ANDRA RP
Andra Scientific Council
Ad hoc committee (e.g. dossier Argile)
CNE
NEEDS
Scientific committee, assisted by Scientific Committees
CNE
IRSN research programme
Scientific Council
Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Research Policy Committee
Finland
KYT2014
KYT Support Groups
Independent evaluation panel
Netherlands OPERA
OPERA Advisory Group
Independent evaluation panel
Safety Case group
Sweden
SKB R&D programme
SSM review
Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste
SKB’s social science advisory group
Switzerland RW research programme
Swiss Federal Workgroup for nuclear waste disposal (AGNEB)
Advisory Board of the Radioactive Waste Research Programme
Technical Forum on Safety
UK
R&D programme on GD
NDA Research Board assisted by the Research Advisory Panel on GD
CoRWM
Review and evaluation of R&D
18





From ad hoc review (e.g. SAFIR2) to recurring at the end of each
programme cycle
Mostly internal advisory group complemented with (international)
expert review
Some of these evaluation bodies also have a role in redefining the
research goals (e.g. NDA research board, IRSN policy committee,
AGNEB)
Significant differences in the openness and level of detail in the
reports
Role of national level evaluation bodies in countries with different
R&D programmes (e.g. AGNEB, CNE,…)
 Potential role of independent expert committees such as CoRWM
and the Nuclear Waste Council
A new way for interdisciplinary R&D?
19


Grown from a regional initiative, funded by
Regional Ministry of Education and Research, since
2013
Explicit goal: integrating technical and social science
research
The case of ENTRIA
20






Grown from a Regional initiative, funded by Regional
Ministry of Education and Research, since 2013
Explicit goal: integrating technical and social science
research
Implicit ambition: clarifying the (impact of) the criteria
submitted to RWM solutions
Combining vertical and transversal work packages
Initial experience of the difficulty of finding a common
vocabulary, e.g. on the notion of risk  transdisciplinary risk
research as a transversal WP
For now, interdisciplinary work on communication of safety
case results to wider audiences, joint research on radiation
and perception
Concluding remarks (1/2)
22




Variation in structuring R&D responsibilities;
Acknowledgement of the need for different disciplines to
work together;
Social sciences mostly involved in communication and
perception research. A socio-technical approach (i.e.
helping scientists and engineers to find a good technical
translation of public concerns) is missing;
Diverging understandings of terminology prove to be a
recurring barrier for interdisciplinary collaboration;
Concluding remarks (2/2)
23


Best practices range from initiatives such as R&D issue
registers or the Swiss Technical Forum on Safety, to
earmarked social science R&D budgets to promote
continuous research.
The potential of independent expert bodies, such as
CoRWM or the Swedish National Council for Nuclear
Waste, in linking R&D progress to societal conditions and
decision-making


at the European level could be of interest to engage a
broader range of stakeholders in the review and evaluation
of the IGD-TP SRA.
New promising research programmes: e.g. ENTRIA.
Thank you!
www.insotec.eu