Jacques LOCHARD

1

Stakeholder Involvement in the Management of
Effluent Discharges from Nuclear Installations in
France an Overview of Recent Experience

• Jacques LOCHARD
• Director of CEPN, Chairman of CRPPH
• Tokyo - July 2, 2005

2
Historical perspective

• The starting point is the creation of the
  North-Cotentin Radioecological Group - "GRNC" in
  1997
• The following steps
• Creation by the Institute of Radiation Protection
  and Nuclear Safety - IRSN - of a Working Group on
  dialogue processes with civil society around
  nuclear installations (2000-2002)
• First IRSN Ville-d'Avray Seminar on stakeholder
  involvement (Jan 2003)
• Cooperation agreement between IRSN and the
  National Association of Local Information
  Commissions - ANCLI (2003)
• Creation of the IRSN Stakeholder Mission (oct
  2003)
• Survey on the expectations of stakeholders
  related to the surveillance of releases and
  environmental monitoring (2004)
• Second IRSN Ville-d'Avray Seminar (March 2004)
• White Paper of ANCLI on local governance of
  nuclear activities (May 2005)

3
The North-Cotentin Radioecological Group (1)

• Publications of epidemiological studies (1995
  1997) suggest an excess of leukaemia around La
  Hague reprocessing plant
• Strong reactions among the local population and
  national debate
• Creation of a pluralist expert group - the GRNC-
  by the Ministers of Health and Environment in
  1997 including experts from authorities,
  operators, local and national NGOs and foreign
  countries
• Objective of the Group to reconstruct doses for
  the 1966-1996 period and to estimate the risk of
  leukaemia associated with ionising radiation from
  industrial sources, medical practices and natural
  sources

4
The North-Cotentin Radioecological Group (2)

• Rules of co-operation in the Group no necessity
  to reach a consensus, recording of debates,
  sharing of information among the members, no
  confidentiality, regular contacts with local
  stakeholders
• Main outcomes clarification of discharges,
  validation of the different measurements
  (operators, authorities, NGOs), adoption of
  exposure scenarios based on actual local
  behaviours, development of radio-ecological
  models with all parties involved
• First result in 1999 an estimated number of
  0.001 cases of radiation-induced leukaemia during
  the 1978-1996 period associated with the
  discharges from nuclear installations.

5
The North-Cotentin Radioecological Group (3)

• Position of the Group on the first result the
  estimated number of leukaemia "is an average
  estimate and margins of uncertainty have not been
  quantified" and some members of the Group
  "maintain the assumption that the nuclear
  installations might be at the origin of the
  observed excess of leukaemia."
• Further steps investigation of uncertainties
  (2000 - 2002) and chemical impacts (until 2003)
• Main contributions of the GRNC
• a mutual understanding of the participants,
• a co-identification of "recognised scientific
  facts, uncertainties and implicit values"
• a creation of common assessment tools

6
The working group on dialogue processes

• IRSN set up a pluri-disciplinary group in 2000 to
  develop a reflection on the effectiveness and
  practicability of new approaches facilitating
  stakeholder involvement when dealing with nuclear
  activities
• Analysis of 3 case studies
• The dialogue between the Radiation Protection
  Authority, the operator of the La Hague
  reprocessing plant and a pluralist expert group
  linked to GRNC
• The actions of the Local Information Commission -
  CLI - of the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant
• The actions of the CLI of the Gravelines Nuclear
  Power Plant

7
Main conclusions of the working group (1)

• Decision-making process
• The traditional decision making process is
  confronted with difficulties because
• Non institutional stakeholders have the
  perception that operators, experts and regulators
  have shared interests
• There is a general feeling among stakeholders
  that the quality of safety is decreasing with
  time
• Strong expectation from the stakeholders for
  developing decision-making processes more
  accountable to local contexts and concerns

8
Main conclusions of the working group (2)

• Stakeholder involvement
• The continuous involvement of local stakeholders
  allows
• A better understanding of the technical problems
• A progressive elaboration of a common language
• A mutual respect between the involved
  stakeholders
• A better transparency of the decision-making
  process
• The development of a pluralist expertise

9
Main conclusions of the working group (3)

• Justification of hazardous activities
• Involving stakeholder inevitably raises the
  difficult issue of the justification of the
  nuclear activities
• Justification cannot be only based on global
  considerations (national issues) and the
  tolerability of risk
• Dialogue processes with stakeholders need to also
  address the considerations of quality of life of
  the local communities and the sustainable
  development of their territories

10
The survey on radioactive release surveillance

• In the framework of their Cooperation agreement
  IRSN and ANCLI decided in 2003 to perform a
  survey on the quality of radioactive release
  surveillance and environmental monitoring around
  nuclear installations
• Those in charge of the survey used a 4 steps
  strategic dialogue with several CLIs the IDPA
  method
• Identification of the main issues at stake
• Diagnosis on the present actions
• Prospective about possible scenarios
• Actions for a process of change

11
Main conclusions of the survey (1)

• I Identified qualities
• Responsible actors and a transparent process
• A realist surveillance performed by competent and
  independent experts and taking into account the
  local context
• Need to satisfy regulatory criteria but also to
  have personal benchmarks to assess the local
  situation and to put it into perspective with
  other nuclear installations
• Need to take into account the "global quality" of
  the environment i.e. all impacts related to human
  and industrial activities on the concerned
  territory

12
Main conclusions of the survey (2)

• D Diagnostic on the present actions
• Although the operator is respecting the release
  authorisation and the regulator is controlling
  regularly the installation, the available
  information on radioactive releases is difficult
  to understand and do not necessarily respond to
  local concerns
• Although the CLIs are officially in charge of
  informing the local communities, their role is
  "ambiguous" do they have to reinsure the
  population or do they have to raise questions and
  new issues?

13
Main conclusions of the survey (3)

• P Prospective on scenarios
• Several CLIs call for an evolution of their role
  at the local and national levels but are
  expressing concerns about their future in
  relation with the preparation of the National Law
  on Nuclear Safety
• A positive scenario the CLIs are able in the
  future to have access to public and
  non-institutional expertise, to develop their own
  technical and scientific capacities and to
  participate to pluralist expertises

14
Main conclusions of the survey (4)

• A Actions to change
• Reinforce the national network of CLIs through
  actions coordinated by ANCLI
• Develop pilot actions with IRSN and local
  stakeholders to improve the role of CLIs in the
  radioactive releases surveillance of nuclear
  installations
• Promote also stakeholder involvement in
• nuclear wastes management
• siting and dismantling of installations
• emergency management and rehabilitation
  strategies

15
The White Paper on local governance of nuclear
activities

• Prepared by ANCLI with the support of 12 CLIs in
  the perspective of the future Parliament debate
  on the National Law on Nuclear Safety. Presented
  officially in June 2005
• The White Paper asserts that CLIs have a "general
  mission of information, follow-up and expertise
  related to the operation of nuclear installations
  as well as their health, environment and economic
  impacts during the whole life of the
  installations and beyond".
• It also points out
• the territorial competence of the CLIs
• the need for them to have a legal status with
  financial resources, an access to public
  expertise and their participation to the
  information and dialogue process at the national
  and international levels

16
Current developments

• A Pilot Action coordinated by IRSN on
  environmental monitoring and surveillance
  (2005-2006)
• Co-expertise with local stakeholders from 3 CLIs
  in the Loire valley
• Potential use at the local level of the data
  generated by the national network of
  radioactivity measurements in the environment
• The preparation of the Third Ville d'Avray
  seminar (Dec 2005) mainly devoted to stakeholder
  involvement and the role of public expertise
• The participation of several French stakeholders
  to the international workshop on "Processes and
  Tools for Stakeholder Engagement in Radiological
  Protection", Salamanca, Spain, 16-18 November 2005

17
Some preliminary results

• Recurrent questions remain opened concerning the
  objectives of the dialogue with stakeholders
• Is it a way to manage conflicts of interest?
• Is it a way to reach common views?
• Does it substantially improve the quality of the
  surveillance of the installations?
• Beyond these questions, the dialogue with
  stakeholders is a difficult process, requiring
• Mediation skills
• A mid-term or even long-term prospect
• Dedicated resources
• An ethical framework