Brian Ahier Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management Division

1. Observations and Lessons from OECD/NEA Activities in Stakeholder InvolvementSummary of Experience from theNEA Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health(CRPPH) Brian Ahier Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management Division OECD Nuclear Energy Agency 10th European ALARA Network Workshop (12-15 September 2006, Prague)

2. OECD/NEA Activities - Overview • Public involvement in government decision making on major technological activities and projects is no longer a desired attribute or ideal, it has become a necessity for effective governance. Policies that lack public support are policies that risk failure. • For this reason, the OECD/NEA is closely examining the role of civil society in public decision-making processes in • radiation protection • radioactive waste management • nuclear safety regulation

3. NEA Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH) CRPPH role: • Assist member countries in applying and further developing the system of radiation protection • Provide timely identification of new or emerging issues, analyse their possible implications and recommend action to address these issues to further enhance RP regulation and implementation. • Challenge: how to better integrate radiation protection within modern concepts of and approaches to risk governance.

4. Societal Aspects in theICRP System of Radiological Protection • ICRP-60 clearly identifies social judgement as a key part of radiological protection: • The basic framework of radiological protection necessarily has to include social as well as scientific judgments, because the primary aim of radiological protection is to provide an appropriate standard of protection for man without unduly limiting the beneficial practices giving rise to radiation exposure (para. 100)

5. Societal Aspects in theICRP System of Radiological Protection • Optimisation, one of the main principles of the ICRP-60 radiological protection system, relies on social aspects: • In relation to any particular source within a practice, the magnitude of individual doses, the number of people exposed, and the likelihood of incurring exposures where these are not certain to be received should all be kept as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account (para. 112)

6. Looking BackCRPPH Collective Opinion (1994) • In 1994, the CRPPH identified the involvement of social parties in RP decisions as increasingly important: • Society is showing an ever increasing interest in being involved in decisions affecting the well-being of its members. • The need to involve social parties (workers, employers, public)... in decisions concerning RP when a potential exists for a social impact of such decisions must be accommodated. • Public involvement in RP decisions needs to receive closer attention, with a view towards a better integration of, and dialogue between the social and scientific parties.

7. CRPPH Activities • Consultation with interested parties by authorities is not new…but • the notion that a broad range of stakeholders, many perhaps without expertise in the field in question, should be involved in the decision process raised apparently difficult questions • CRPPH undertook activities on stakeholder involvement to investigate these issues in the context of RP decision making

8. CRPPH Working Group on Societal Aspects of Radiation Protection (1996) 1st Villigen Workshop (1998): The Societal Aspects of Decision Making in Complex Radiological Situations OBJECTIVES: • Better understand how the process of RP risk identification, assessment and management should evolve to better address societal needs, particularly decision making in complex radiological situations. • Case studies of intervention: restoration of contaminated areas OUTCOMES: • Stakeholder involvement is a key emerging issue in the governance of risk • Decision process must be open, transparent and inclusive • The radiological protection community must adapt to address these needs Radiological protection must adapt to the needs of society (not the reverse)

9. CRPPH Expert Group on Stakeholder Involvement (1999) 2nd Villigen Workshop (2001): Better Integration of Radiation Protection in Modern Society OBJECTIVES: • Make preliminary suggestions on adapting RP to societal needs based on expert talks, broad range of national experiences in SI OUTCOMES • There is a need to foster mutual trust between the radiological protection community and society as a whole • Stakeholder interaction must be sensitive to specific contexts but share features of openness, inclusiveness and agreed procedures • An understanding of roles and responsibilities of and by all stakeholders is essential, and a willingness for mutual learning Broad stakeholder participation is not needed in the majority of regulatory decisions, however, it can be the best and sometimes only way to achieve agreement in some situations

10. CRPPH Expert Group on the Process of Stakeholder Involvement (2001) 3rd Villigen Workshop (2003): Stakeholder Participation in Decision Making Involving Radiation - Exploring Processes and Implications OBJECTIVES: • Develop practical guidance by identifying commonalities in the processes used to involve stakeholders in the decision-making processes, based on in-depth analysis of specific case studies OUTCOMES • While all stakeholder involvement situations are unique in nature, many generic lessons are broadly applicable • Stakeholder involvement improves the sustainability of decisions • Stakeholder involvement improves the value of science for decision making by focusing it on stakeholder concerns Bringing radiological protection science to the service of stakeholder concerns will help to improve decisions

11. Some Conclusions The Workshops have progressively moved from: an examination of the broad question of the societal aspect of decision making in complex radiation situations  a more focused consideration of how radiation protection may be better integrated in society  to an exploration of the common processes and implications of stakeholder involvement in RP decision making

12. Common Themes What are the Issues? • When should stakeholder participation be used? • Who should be involved? • What distinguishes it from what is already done? • How long does it last? • How extensive is the process? • What sort of issues may be discussed? • Who is responsible? • When does it work? • When won’t it work?

13. Common Themes What is a Stakeholder? • There is no way, a priori, to define what a stakeholder will be for a particular situation • Those who have a defined role to play in making a particular decision • Those interested in the outcome of a particular decision • Those who can block the implementation of a particular decision • Stakeholders interested in a particular situation may be different than those interested in other situations, and may change as the situation evolves

14. Common Themes What type of Process? • Decision-aiding may be shared with stakeholders • Decision-taking remains with the decision-maker, and is generally clearly identified • The operator / regulator / government each takes some decisions • Good, accepted and sustainable decisions will appropriately address stakeholder concerns, and take account of stakeholder views • The balance between internationally harmonised approaches and local specificity will be a central issue in radiological protection.

15. Other Venue • 1st and 2nd Asian Regional Conferences on the Evolution of the System of Radiological Protection • Address stakeholders with different societal and cultural backgrounds in the system of radiological protection • Waste Management: Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (RWMC) • Outline ways to integrate waste management programmes and socio-political considerations, analyse successful, unsuccessful experiences • Nuclear Regulators and the Public (CNRA) • How to build mutual trust between authorities and the public to improve efficiency in regulatory decision making • Information System on Occupational Exposure

16. Looking ForwardCRPPH Collective Opinion (2006) • While the central importance of stakeholder involvement in addressing many risk situations is now widely accepted, the next step will be to optimise structures and processes to facilitate such participation. • Balancing Local, National, International Needs • Involving the Public and Workers in Radiological Protection • Addressing Complex Exposure Situations

17. Looking Forward • Key questions: • How will Stakeholder Involvement affect RP decision making? • How will Stakeholder Involvement affect RP structures? • Emergency Preparedness, Consequence Management • Increasing role of stakeholders in post-accident consequence management • EGSS: Stakeholders and RP – Lessons from Chernobyl 20 yrs after • INEX 3 international consequence management exercise follow-up • Impact on RP Organisational Structures • How should the implications of the Villigen workshops be reflected in the work of RP authorities and experts? • Case-study analysis of approaches taken by specific organisations towards inclusive risk governance

18. Looking Forward • Evolving System of Radiological Protection • While the extent of stakeholder involvement will vary from one situation to another, it is a proven means to achieve the incorporation of values into the decision-making process, the improvement of the substantive quality of decisions, the resolution of conflicts among competing interests, the building of shared understanding with both workers and the public as well as trust in institutions. (ICRP RP06 draft) • Continued role of CRPPH/EGIR

19. Conclusion • Decision-making processes in “complex” technological situations are evolving to be more transparent and inclusive • The radiological protection community continues to evolve to adapt to this new reality • Stakeholder participation can improve the acceptability and sustainability of decisions • Most decisions do not require broad, stakeholder consultation or participation, but some can only be addressed this way • NEA will continue to investigate and share its experiences in stakeholder involvement towards practical improvements in and implementation of the evolving RP system www.nea.fr