Stakeholder Preference Mapping—seeking a way forward for the processing of spent nuclear fuel

Abstract

Continuing concern in many countries about the processing of spent nuclear fuel has sparked new interest in how best to make evidence-based decisions about divisive issues. Stakeholder Preference Mapping (SPM), described here, is a way of applying multi-attribute decision analysis to structured dialogue and engagement with stakeholders. It uses the recorded views of stakeholders, supplemented where necessary by direct stakeholder contact, to understand and evidence stakeholder perspectives and to anticipate arguments for and against particular outcomes. It is illustrated in this paper through an exercise to examine competing options for the processing of spent nuclear fuel. The potential merits of SPM in terms of informing, focusing and accelerating stakeholder interactions and its relationship to other similar approaches are described and discussed.

Appendix

Examples of VSG characterisation

The following two examples set out the kind of ‘pen pictures’ created to support the SPM team and stakeholder representatives in deriving viewpoints about the likely criteria and criteria weighting that might be associated with varying stakeholder perspectives on the spent nuclear fuel issue.

VSG1. Stop nuclear power

This virtual group views the safety and security risks of nuclear power as the primary detriments to be avoided, and remains sceptical of claims of scientific or technical fact. Any reduction in fuel cycle costs and any re-use of materials would be viewed as increasing the credibility of nuclear power as a sustainable power source and hence the unacceptable prospect of the construction of new nuclear power stations. The security and proliferation aspects of continued nuclear power operations are of concern, as are issues around the inability of inspection to provide adequate assurances and protection, together with a more general fear about the erosion of civil liberties if significantly augmented security measures were to be implemented as a response to possible threats. Therefore, arguments are set out to arrive at an outcome where materials and fuel are declared as waste or at least put beyond use. This is to reflect that while the objective may be to declare the fuel and materials to be waste, there is much resistance amongst some of this VSG to the concept of geological disposal.

Indicative arguments potentially used by the VSG are as follows:

• Nuclear power is dangerous, the waste problem is insoluble and detriments associated with it are unacceptable.

• Nuclear power is expensive to build, to operate and to decommission.

• Re-use of nuclear materials and recycling of spent fuels is unjustified, being uneconomic and increasing environmental burdens, the risk of accidents and security concerns.

• The energy input into nuclear power and its fuel cycle is much larger than official estimates.

• The detriment of radiation dose from discharges is greatly underestimated.

• Transport of nuclear materials is very dangerous and should be rigorously minimised.

• Global warming and climate change can be overcome without the use of nuclear power.

• Official or nuclear industry data and information are not reliable or transparent.

• Proliferation and materials control regimes cannot be relied upon to adequately prevent diversion or terrorist activity.

Valued concepts may be: security, public safety, life cycle impacts, amenity, transport, socio-economic, costs.

VSG7. Local socio-economically motivated stakeholder

The VSG is motivated by the perceived socio-economic value of a nuclear licensed site and the desire to maintain or attract processes that will underpin or enhance employment opportunities and associated local community well-being. It considers that local oversight (through planning and engagement processes) and the workforce will ensure that activities are safe, secure and do not impinge upon worker safety or public amenities. Continued support will depend on whether socio-economic prosperity and community well-being are perceived to be linked to the activities on site, and therefore the relative socio-economic profiles of storage, re-use and waste management options will be important. The amount of disruption caused by operations in terms of local amenities and transport will be of concern. The group would not be constrained to support cheaper options on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole and some would not want to see more nuclear materials being moved into their areas, thus opposing centralised storage. The VSG believes that some subsidy is justified by the delivery of local benefits.

Typical arguments used by the VSG are as follows:

• The operations at the site and its environmental effects are assured by the scrutiny afforded by the regulators, the local workforce and the community.

• Options will be favoured that offer sustainable employment—the numbers of jobs and the timescales involved.

• The employment provided by operations contributes to the social prosperity of the locality.

• Amenity impacts of operations and mitigating the effects of transporting nuclear materials are part of the partnership and socio-economic packages agreed between site operators, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the local community.

Valued concepts would be: socio-economic impacts, amenity, worker safety, transport.