Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealized project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of project area.

Table 1. Key features of project area.

Features of host canton/municipality	Host municipality Wolfenschiessen	Canton of Nidwalden	Switzerland
Area (km^2)	93	276	41,285
Number of inhabitants (1995)	1993	39,803	7,459,100
Population density (persons per km^2)	21	144	181
Net-income/p.p. (2002) [CHF]	No data available	56,879	48,562
Number of municipalities (2009)	–	11	2715
Occupation in agriculture and forestry (2000) (%)	40.2	8.9	4.5
Note: Key features of Canton of Nidwalden and potential host municipality Wolfenschiessen as well as Switzerland. Source: Swiss Federal Office of Statistics.

Table 2. Key features of case study.

Name	Major method	Preparatory work	Key features of method applied	Quality of data	Reference to result section
Media module	Content analysis	Checklist-based expert interviews to develop code book	6 local (regional) newspapers	Recoding of 60 articles, supplementary in depth interviews with 5 stakeholders supporting interpretation of finding	Figures 2 and 3
			627 articles (out of 1400), 1487 arguments
			13 variables (e.g. date, length, origin and position of actor, argument)
Survey module	Anonymous postal questionnaire	Focus groups with 26 persons (m = 11, f = 15), different political positions (anti-, pro-nuclear)	N = 1790 households, latest-birthday rule plus over 18 years-old, 2 written reminders	Response rate: 30.7% (N = 532), good representation (except for women and opponents, both underrepresented)	Figures 4 and 5
		Pre-test with 65 persons	14 sections with 160 individual questions
Process module	Exploration parcours (interactive in-depth interviews)	Eight expert interviews for relevant decision aspects	41 persons (m = 30, f = 11; 18 proponents of nuclear, 23 opponents to nuclear energy)	30-min introduction, 60-min interviews each with a possibility of second inquiries (by respondent and interviewer)	Table 3
		Actor-analysis based phone interviews to obtain contrasting groups	23 involved (cantonal actors), 18 external (national actors)
			10 aspects with totally 32 attributes

Figure 2. Results from media module.

Figure 3. Results from media module.

Figure 4. Results from survey module.

Figure 5. Results from survey module.

Table 3. Results from process module.

Aspects (spontaneous and supplied from literature)	Number of entries as important aspect	Mean weight (scale 1–10)	Variance
Type of energy supply	6	7.9	6.9
Location of deep geological repository site (domestic/foreign)	5	7.5	7.5
Involvement of population (public involvement)	26	8.8	2.4
Accountability of decision process	4	7.9	3.9
Site-selection criteria	9	8.8 (9.2^b; 8.4^c)	1.5
Responsibility of site selection	3	8 (8.6^b; 7.4^c)	2.7
Safety philosophy of deep geological repository	23	8.8	4.7
Size of deep geological repository^a	<3	5.9 (6.9^b; 4.7^c)	7.4
Type of compensation	4	5.3	7.1
Monitoring of deep geological repository^a	<3	7.6	6.1
Note: Number of spontaneous entries of aspects (three per person maximum, top entries shaded) and mean weights of all aspects with variance (10-point scale from ‘“unimportant’” = 1 to ‘“very important’” = 10) (n = 41).
^aSupplied from literature.
^bInvolved in Wellenberg process: n = 18.
^cNon-involved in Wellenberg process: n = 23, significant with p ≤ 0.05. Source: Scholz et al. 2007, 90, unpublished data.

Box 1. Sectoral plan for deep geological repository.

The events of Wellenberg finally resulted in the preparation of a concept for a new site selection procedure (2002–2006) with a so-called sectoral plan4, a planning instrument based on the Spatial Planning Act. Given the flaws and experience from the Wellenberg, a substantial consultation procedure was already set up from 2006 to 2007 on the concept and provided 11,300 responses (BFE 2008, p. 20). The concept was revised accordingly and approved by the Federal Government in spring 2008, and the procedure was launched in November 2008. It consists of a systematic screening of geologically suitable siting regions and a final selection in a three-stage procedure over one decade (BFE 2008). The new Nuclear Energy Act (in force from 2005) does not allow a cantonal veto on nuclear matters. The final decision will rest on the national level, i.e. the decision will be taken by the Federal Government and the Parliament, which will probably be followed by a (facultative) national referendum. Consequently the final decision lies in the hand of the Swiss national electorate.

In the technical (“safety first”, i.e. no principle of voluntarism as e.g. in Sweden, see Elam and Sundqvist 2009, Lidskog and Elander 1992) approach, the first screening step is to list suitable geological siting regions, a task which is up to technical specialists. In this – ongoing – Stage 1, Nagra has to propose technically suitable siting areas based on safety criteria. In the potential siting regions the population must be involved early on. An extensive consultative regional participation is currently being prepared. This stronger emphasis on participation, but still giving safety priority, runs through the whole new procedure and is a clear lesson learnt.

In Stage 2 (from 2012), the proposed siting regions will have the opportunity to co-determine the content of the siting projects with respect to above-ground buildings and participate in studies on the socioeconomic effects and spatial planning impacts. Nagra will carry out further geological studies, preliminary safety assessments, and safety comparisons before it proposes at least two sites each for low- and intermediate level waste and high-level waste.

In Stage 3, the remaining sites will be studied in greater detail. With input from the siting region, the socioeconomic studies will be intensified. The siting regions will propose projects for regional development and define principles for any necessary compensation measures, as well as for monitoring the socioeconomic and ecological impacts. Finally, Nagra will submit applications for two licenses (one each for high-level waste and low-/intermediate-level waste), or for one license for two repositories at the same site (around 2016–2018). A facultative referendum at the national level (public vote) will most probably complete the procedure.

Scholz , R W , Stauffacher , M , Bösch , S , Krütli , P and Wiek , A . 2007 . Entscheidungsprozesse Wellenberg. Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in der Schweiz. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2006 , Zürich/Chur : Rüegger .

 Google Scholar