Dealing with uncertainties in the process of planning geological disposal for high-level
radioactive waste in the Czech Republic
Draft paper for the “Risk and Uncertainty in Changing Society” workshop at the University of
Antwerp, Belgium, November 22 – 23, 2012
Karel Svačina, Department of Sociology, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
This is a draft of the paper as of October 30, 2012.
The Czech Republic is one of the countries that use nuclear power plants to generate electricity. As
such, it is faced with the question of what to do with its used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste. Similarly to a number of other European countries, its preferred answer to this question is the
construction of deep geological disposal (GD). But as in the other countries, it turns out that the
planning and the construction of GD is a complex socio-technical endeavour that is characteristic by
a number of uncertainties that implementers, scientists, and the public have to face: there are
uncertainties about the future availability of drinking water near the GD, about the future
development of local real estate market or tourism, while there are also scientific uncertainties
related to metal corrosion or interaction of bentonites in granite environment. At the same time,
governments and implementers have set goals that specify when GD is to be constructed (e.g. EC
2009, p. 9, MPO ČR 2001). Therefore, there is pressure to deal with these uncertainties.
The aim of this paper is to investigate ways in which some of these uncertainties are
handled in the process of negotiating geological disposal. The first part of the paper will consist in a
discussion of the most important policy documents that frame the management of highly radioactive
waste in the Czech Republic. The aim of this part is to see whether and how uncertainties are
addressed in these documents. The second and the major part of the paper will consist in an
investigation into how some uncertainties are articulated and handled in specific situations of
negotiating geological disposal in the Czech Republic. The aim of this part is to see how different
actors articulate and frame uncertainties, how they try to reduce them or make them more visible,
bypass them or mobilise them to support their arguments.
Risk governance literature has developed various categorisations for different types of
risks. For instance, Klinke and Renn (2002) distinguish between “simple”, “complex”, “uncertain”,
and “ambiguous” risks, with consequences for how these risks should be treated (see also Renn
2005). However, such distinction reduces uncertainty into a specific category and a special
condition within risk management, and as such it has recently been disputed: de Vries et al. (2011)
argue that risk problems may move between the four categories, and therefore policies based on this
distinction are misguiding (de Vries et al. 2011, p. 497). They propose to turn the problem around –
to put uncertainty forward while considering risk a special case, “namely as a condition that may
come about when the efforts to translate uncertainty into (calculated) risk have been achieved
successfully.” (Ibid.) It is in this framework that this paper will proceed. In the case of planning GD
it is clear that – mainly due to the extremely long time frame, which can be in terms of human
experience described as “eternity” – it is problematic to speak of quantifiable risks. Rather, it seems
much more appropriate to focus on uncertainties, and consider risks only as potential special (and
probably very rare) cases. In this respect, the paper will follow the recommendations of de Vries et
al. (2011) and the WRR (2009).
The paper is based on interviews with different actors who take part in the process of
negotiating geological disposal in the Czech Republic – members of staff at the implementing
organisation RAWRA,1
mayors and representatives of the concerned municipalities, members of
1 RAWRA stands for “Radioactive Waste Repository Authority”. It is a state organisation established on the basis of
NGOs, and a scientist. It also draws on empirical material collected during several public debates as
well as official documents and technical reports.2
Uncertainties in policy documents – handling uncertainties by means of a process?
In policy documents, the presence of uncertainties in radioactive waste management is generally
expected and accepted. However, the references to them seem to be rather superficial. For instance,
the European Council directive 2011/70/EURATOM refers to uncertainties twice: first, in paragraph
34 of the preamble, it states that
“The documentation of the decision-making process as it relates to safety should be
commensurate with the levels of risk (graded approach) and should provide a basis for
decisions related to the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. This should
enable the identification of areas of uncertainty on which attention needs to be focused
in an assessment of safety.” (European Council 2011, p. L199/51)
The Council directive expects uncertainties, and it expects the national radioactive waste
management programmes to take them into account when carrying out safety assessment. It relates
uncertainties to risks: a graded approach which helps address different levels of risk should also
help identify uncertainties. Nevertheless, the directive is not more specific on how to deal with
these uncertainties.
Second, paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the directive talks about licensing and the related safety
demonstration. It calls for a rigorous demonstration which is “commensurate with the complexity of
the operation and the magnitude of the hazards associated with the radioactive waste and spent fuel,
and the facility or activity.” (European Council 2011, p. L199/54) The very last sentence of the
paragraph states that the approach outlined “shall identify and reduce uncertainties” (Ibid.). Here
again, uncertainties are expected, and they are expected to be identified and reduced by employing a
thorough licensing process with safety demonstration. Thus, in both cases mentioned here, it seems
that the European Council directive expects that there will be uncertainties in radioactive waste
management. It asserts that attention needs to be paid to them, and in both cases it expects that an
appropriate process can be used to handle them. In the first case, a decision-making process which
employs a graded approach sensitive to different levels of risk is advised. In the second case, a
thorough licensing process is expected to help identify and reduce uncertainties.
David Durant makes a similar observation when analysing the Canadian radioactive waste
management programme. At a certain phase of the process, Durant observes, it was being
differentiated between “ineradicable uncertainty” and “uncertainties expert judgement had already
resolved.” (Durant 2009, p. 908) Durant further argues that “the contentious middle ground of
remaining uncertainties was said to be resolvable by adherence to management principles.” (Ibid.)
Thus, it seems that adherence to processes or management principles is indeed sometimes seen as a
way to handle uncertainties, and not only in policy documents, but also in radioactive waste
management praxis. However, Durant's observations tell us more than that. Although he does not
say it explicitly, when he mentions that some uncertainties were said to be resolved by experts,
others were supposed to be dealt with by following management principles, and yet others were said
to be ineradicable, he shows that in that specific situation, uncertainties were handled by means of
categorisation. Some uncertainties were identified as resolved, others as resolvable by means of an
the Czech Atomic Act in 1997. It is responsible for the management of all kinds of radioactive waste in the Czech
Republic. Organizationally, it is established by the Ministry of Industry and Trade. (For more information on the
institutional background of radioactive waste management in the Czech Republic, see e.g. Svačina and Konopásek
2012, p. 3.)
2 The empirical material used in this paper is being collected during our work on the InSOTEC project, which is
funded by FP7 Euratom (www.insotec.eu). The topic itself is a part of my doctoral research.
appropriate management process. Thus, what remained was a relatively smaller category of
uncertainties that could not be done away with. Apparently, such categorisation was seen as
legitimate: Durant observes that in that situation, “disposal technology was considered sufficiently
advanced, and adaptable enough to local sites.” (Ibid.) In sum, it seems that at a policy level, a way
of handling uncertainties can be to categorise them and delegate them to various domains, such as
expert or scientific work or management principles.
The Czech government adopted a policy document called “Strategy for dealing with
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in the Czech Republic” in 2001 (MPO ČR 2001). This is a
binding document that RAWRA follows. Among other things, the document states that geological
disposal is the preferred choice in long-term high-level radioactive waste management. It also
provides a schedule for finding a site for and implementing the geological disposal. According to
this schedule, a “primary” and a “backup” site “with best geological conditions” for geological
disposal need to be identified by 2015. By 2025 the choice will be confirmed by detailed site
investigations. By 2030, the construction of an underground laboratory needs to be prepared, and
finally, by 2065, the repository is to be opened (MPO ČR 2001, p. 22; cf. also Svačina and
Konopásek 2012, p. 8).
The Czech governmental strategy document does not mention the possibility of
uncertainties related to geological disposal preparation and implementation. It mentions several
risks, such as the risk of insufficient funds due to the shortened operational life of the Czech nuclear
power plants,3
or due to unexpected macroeconomic circumstances (MPO ČR 2001, p. 24). Another
possible risk that is identified is that of not finding a suitable site in terms of “safety, technical
obstacles, or public opposition” (Ibid.). Nevertheless, this chapter in the Strategy seems to be
somewhat underdeveloped (it is the very last chapter of the document and it is half a page long).
All in all, while uncertainty seems to be acknowledged in some policy documents, specific
ways of dealing with it are not developed there. After all, it is reasonable to say that it is impossible
to address uncertainties specifically in a general policy document. That gives us yet another reason
to pay attention to specific situations where uncertainties appear. Therefore, the following part of
the paper will have a look at the process of negotiating geological disposal in the Czech Republic,
and see how uncertainties are articulated and handled in some specific situations.
Negotiating site investigations
According to the official schedule for implementing geological disposal in the Czech Republic, the
main present task for RAWRA is to find suitable sites for constructing the repository. To this end, in
the early 2000s RAWRA announced six areas as potentially suitable. This selection was said to be
based mainly on preliminary aerial and surface investigations of the geology. This announcement
was followed by strong local public protests in the municipalities concerned – a social conflict
developed around the issue of siting geological repository. Partly as a result, the Ministry of
Industry and Trade declared a five-year moratorium on the process. This moratorium was concluded
in 2009 with a conference called “Towards geological disposal without conflict”.
Since 2009, RAWRA is trying to negotiate with the six areas, and most recently it added an
additional area to the list. Therefore, presently there are seven areas identified as potentially
suitable, and they comprise of 39 municipalities4
. In 2010, a national “Working group for the
dialogue about geological disposal” was established. The group brings together mayors from the
3 According to the legislation, a “Nuclear fund” was set up, and radioactive waste management is financed from this
fund. By law, the producers of nuclear waste have to contribute to this fund. As for the nuclear power plants, their
operator pays 50 CZK (about 2 Euros) for each Mwh produced in a nuclear power plant. Therefore, should the
operating lifetime of the nuclear power plants be shortened, the operator would pay less than had been expected.
4 For a more detailed account of this history, see e.g. Svačina and Konopásek 2012, p. 5.
affected municipalities, members of local and national NGOs, people from RAWRA as well as from
several ministries and other state offices. One of its main aims is to “improve the transparency of
the site selection process with respect to the public concerns” (Pracovní skupina pro dialog
o hlubinném úložišti 2010, p. 1). So far, the group has focused on how to change existing legislation
in terms of strengthening the position of municipalities in the negotiation and planning process.
The current situation is that RAWRA is trying to obtain consent of the municipalities with
geological site investigations. RAWRA as well as representatives of the Ministry of Industry and
Trade have repeatedly stated that the consent with geological research does not mean a consent with
the repository. In October 2012, first two municipalities signed a contract with RAWRA that
expresses their consent with the investigations. Nevertheless, most of the municipalities have
refused to give their consent so far.
At a public meeting in Věžná in April 2012, Jiří Slovák, the head of the geological disposal
development programme at RAWRA described the proposed site investigations as following:
The geological research will be relatively simple, there certainly will not be any major
drilling before 2018. In all cases, there will be surface geophysical research, which
means that a small team will walk around, set up some cables and carry out
measurements. Geochemical research means drilling shallow holes approximately 2 to
5 metres deep, depending where the bedrock is, and taking samples of soil and rock
from this bedrock and their analysis. Subsequently, or in parallel, there will be
geological and hydro-geological mapping. Only afterwards a decision on drilling several
deep drills will be made. We suppose that these will be two to three drills 500 metres
deep, and one to two drills 1000 metres deep.
(Jiří Slovák at a public meeting in Věžná, April 2012)
One of the reasons for the refusal of the municipalities may be that there are many questions related
to what the site investigations will be like, specifically. For instance, at a meeting of the Working
group in June 2012, one of the mayors said:
“I need to know: what is it going to look like? There also needs to be a binding contract
on how it will be constructed, what will be excavated, and so on.”
(A mayor at the meeting of the Working group, Prague, June 2012) (Mayor A)
The mayors and local people are concerned with questions related to how the site investigations are
going to be carried out, but they also feel that there may be wider uncertainties related to the site
investigations: in interviews, they expressed their concern about the future availability of drinking
water, about the development of the local real estate market, and about the immediate
environmental consequences of drilling very deep boreholes (interview with a mayor and a focus
group at a preselected site, May 2012).
One may think that some of these questions could be clarified if RAWRA was giving out
more specific technical information. For instance, one of the mayors complained about the way
RAWRA provides technical information about the proposed site investigations. When I asked him,
“does RAWRA talk with you about what the site investigations will actually look like?” he replied:
It is very unprofessional. They do not really talk to us, they say a general sentence:
“research drills will be made.” Period. Only when some people inquire, … they answer
in a very unprofessional manner. I remember one answer: “it will look just as if a regular
water well was drilled.” For your information, water wells are drilled 40 metres deep,
while these drills are supposed to be some 400, 500, 600 metres deep. And if you ask
what the drilling equipment will look like, they answer that it will be as if you drilled a
water well. Such a drilling machine is on a V3S,5
but in this case, I think that they do
5 V3S is the name of a light-weight off-road lorry that was produced in Czechoslovakia between 1950s and 1990s,
not even know how to describe it, that they do not even know what kind of equipment
they would use. And then, if you ask them how many acres of forest they would need to
cut down, they say “nothing, it will be just a little spot.”
(Interview with a mayor of one of the concerned municipalities, May 2012) (Mayor B)
The mayor complains that RAWRA is reluctant to provide specific information, and suggests that
they do not even know this information. Indeed, there are controversies about what the drills will be
like. For instance, a geologist working in a nearby coal mine published an article saying that
although there is a strong history of mining and drilling in the Czech Republic, drills into granite of
such depth have never been done here. He also argues that such drills necessarily need a large area
for the equipment on the surface, and that the immediate environmental effects may be quite severe
(Svejkovský 2012a). Against this statement there is that of RAWRA, which says in one of its
bulletins distributed in the concerned municipalities that using modern drilling technologies, the
drilling does not have such impact any more (RAWRA 2012, p. 6).
In any case, for the purpose of this paper it is interesting to see what happens with the
uncertainties related to the proposed site investigations: the mayors mobilize these uncertainties to
refuse to give consent with the site investigations. As Mayor A said, “I need to know: …” He
suggests that he needs to know detailed information in order to make a decision. Similarly, Mayor B
says later in the interview:
I think that even drills of this size must destroy the nature severely, because otherwise I
do not understand why they do not give us the information. Either they do not know it,
which means that they are unprofessional and should not be doing this job, or they do
not say it because they do not want to. And I think this is more likely.
(Interview with Mayor B)
Here the mayors mobilize something that is uncertain to refuse the investigations. As a matter of
fact, sometimes it seems to be a reason to refuse the whole project of the repository. People tend to
see the proposed investigations as a first step in the construction of the repository itself. For
instance, Mayor B says:
Site investigations? And what for? It would be nonsense. Why should I agree with a
research drill, if I do not want this [the repository].
(Interview with Mayor B)
Even more strongly, people from a local association in Lubenec area have argued that the consent
with geological research means a consent with the repository – Svejkovský argues that once first
deep drills are made, more and more will be needed to confirm the suitability of the site, and that in
effect, the research works cannot easily be distinguished from the actual construction of the
repository (Svejkovský 2012b). This view is supported by several national NGOs, albeit from a
different perspective. According to a legal analysis commissioned by them, the only time when the
municipality is a formal participant in the decision-making process is when the consent with
geological research is issued. In all steps that would follow, the municipality's position from a legal
perspective is significantly weaker (interview with a member of a national NGO). However, the
argument that a consent with site investigations leads to a consent with the repository has been
heavily contested by RAWRA as well as by the Ministry of Industry and Trade. Since the
moratorium ended in 2009, they have gradually put more and more emphasis on phasing the
process of geological disposal development, and most significantly, on a careful separation of the
geological research from the construction of the repository.
and used extensively for all kinds of applications. As it is now only scarcely seen in used, for many people it is a
symbol of industrial production in the socialist Czechoslovakia.
Phasing as dealing with uncertainties
In the current situation of negotiating the Czech geological disposal, phasing is explicitly as well as
implicitly referred to by different actors in various situations.6
Let us see just three examples as an
illustration: first, during a meeting of the Working group in June 2012, the minister had an argument
with a representative of one of the municipalities:
Minister: Do not be irrational. The research does not mean the construction.
Municipal representative: But the people feel that the research does mean the
construction!
Minister: That is what I am talking about. Let us make it clear: this is research, this
construction, and this is operation...we want a clear description of the situation.
(Meeting of the Working Group, June 2012)
Second, in the opening of the public debate in Věžná, the director of RAWRA emphasized: “We are
not talking about the repository now, only about geological research.” (Jan Prachař, RAWRA
director, public debate in Věžná, April 2012). Third, the contract that RAWRA wants to sign with
the municipalities where they would express their consent with the site investigations contains a
clause saying that the consent with the site investigations does not imply a consent with the
repository.
The process of geological disposal development is extremely long and complex. Therefore,
in many ways it seems reasonable to phase it, to split it into smaller steps. With regard to the Czech
situation, the more we go into the future, the less clear things are: at present, the municipalities feel
that there are uncertainties about the site investigations. But there are also uncertainties about what
the repository will actually be like. There is no specific technical project, only a very general
“reference project”, which is situated at a hypothetical site. What happens during the repository's
operation and after its closure is not even a topic in the public discussions in the Czech Republic.
Phasing the process, clear separation of site investigations from the construction of the repository,
makes concerns about such uncertainties somewhat irrelevant, illegitimate, and the demand to
“know everything” irrational. In this sense, phasing the process may be seen as a way of dealing, or
“doing away” with uncertainties that are farther in the future.
In an interview a RAWRA employee said about the technical aspects of repository
construction: “Conclusions cannot be made until geological research is carried out, including deep
boreholes at the sites ... The whole development is an iterative process.” (Interview with a member
of staff at RAWRA, August 2011) Here it is acknowledged that certain things cannot be known in
advance, and this is taken as a reason to go forward with site investigations – “we need to carry out
site investigations to know more. Thus, uncertainties about the geology at a particular site are here
not something that would prevent technical intervention, as articulated by the mayors (“We need to
know everything to make a decision”). On the contrary, once they are separated from the first phase,
they are a reason to enter this first stage of the implementation process (“We need to do research to
make things clear”).
Here we have seen that phasing seems to help render concerns about future uncertainties
and the demand to know everything somewhat illegitimate, while it helps make initial technical
intervention (in the sake of reducing future uncertainties) legitimate. The other side of this coin is
that it also makes legitimate the uncertainties that are in the future – “yes, there are things in the
phases that will follow, that we now cannot know”. During the public meeting in Věžná, Jiří Slovák
was asked about the size of the surface area needed for the repository. His answer was following:
6 Phasing of the Czech geological disposal negotiation process is a theme of a current case study, which is being
carried out by Zdeněk Konopásek and me within the InSOTEC project. Therefore, in this paper I do not want to
discuss phasing of the process as such. Rather, I would like to focus mostly on its implications for dealing with
uncertainties in the process.
We had a so-called “reference project” of what the surface area could look like at a
hypothetical site. There it was 18 – 20 hectares. We then considered some specific
sites and there we got to only a few hectares. That means around six...
(Jiří Slovák at a public meeting in Věžná, April 2012)
Here, Mr. Slovák gives an initial figure of 18 – 20 hectares, which is calculated with respect to a
general, hypothetical site. In specific circumstances, Mr. Slovák says, the figure could be much
more favourable. But these specific circumstances are presently uncertain. Similarly, Mr. Slovák
was also asked about the necessity for a protected area around the repository. His answer was
following:
We had a risk-assessment study carried out in 2002. And if – the largest risk is the “hot
chamber”, which is a place where the Castor container will be opened, the spent fuel
will be taken out and will be put into the containers for disposal. If this facility is – even
if this facility was – on the surface, the study said that it is of course a question of local
weather conditions, the proximity of villages and so on, that if an airliner fell on this
spot, there probably would not need to be a protected area. If this facility is
underground, then based on this study we suppose that the protected area will not be
needed in any case.
(Jiří Slovák at a public meeting in Věžná, April 2012)
In both of these cases, it seems that uncertainties are taken for granted – we do not know the
specific conditions because the site is not known, therefore we cannot describe the specific
circumstances. At the same time, this uncertain state of affairs lets Mr. Slovák choose the best or the
most favourable option from the range of options that the uncertain situation offers him. In the first
case, he arrives at the conclusion that although the reference project worked with an area of 18 – 20
hectares, it is possible that only six will be needed. In the second case, he arrives at the conclusion
that probably no special protected area will be needed. But there is always this caveat of “specific
conditions”, that are not known. In other words, it seems that the uncertainties related to specific
conditions at the unknown site enable Mr. Slovák to “manoeuvre” in a wider number of
possibilities, and most importantly, they let him choose to present the most favourable ones. Such
strategy resembles a strategy described by Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius and Rothengattner in their analysis
of the planning of “megaprojects” (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003).
It should be added that the need to phase the process is emphasized not only by people
from RAWRA and the Ministry of Industry and Trade. So-called “step-wise approach to the longterm
management of radioactive waste” has been advised strongly also by the Forum on
Stakeholder Confidence of the Nuclear Energy Agency within OECD (FSC 2008). FSC says that
“the new view of decision making focuses on designing a phased, staged, or stepwise process,
composed of incremental steps that are to some extent adjustable and reversible.” (FSC 2008, p. 1)
All in all, while phasing of such a complex and long-term process is in many ways rational,
we have seen that it also has consequences for how uncertainties situated in different phases of the
process are handled – sometimes, phasing renders concerns about them irrelevant, while other
times, it renders the uncertainties legitimate and moreover, it legitimises the technical intervention
which is supposed to reduce them. Last but not least, uncertainties about the specific site for the
repository let the implementers present the most favourable yet hypothetical parameters of the
facility.
Uncertainties in the process: narrowing down the options, or keeping the options open?
The previous section discussed the recent emphasis on phasing the geological disposal development
process and its implications for dealing with some uncertainties. However, there are also
ambiguities about the process itself. On the one hand, clear separation of site investigations from
the construction of the repository is emphasized. At the same time, RAWRA representatives
publicly admit that negotiations are carried out simultaneously at two different levels: within the
National Working group, and directly between RAWRA and the individual municipalities (Jiří
Slovák at the public meeting in Věžná, April 2012). While the Working Group seems to be at a
stalemate with trying to implement a “veto” in the legislation7
(Svačina and Konopásek 2012,
p. 15), RAWRA wants to sign contracts with municipalities in which the municipalities would
express their consent with site investigations. On the one hand, by signing the contract,
municipalities would implicitly accept and enter into the phased process of geological disposal
development, while on the other hand, the contract does not specify the phases of the process that
would follow the site investigations.
Therefore, it seems that on the one hand, RAWRA is keeping the options (in terms of
different negotiation strategies) open, while on the other hand, there is a pressure to narrow down
the options. This narrowing down is done by means of phasing discussed above, as well as in other
practical ways. For instance, in a bulletin distributed to the preselected sites in September 2012,
there is a graph that shows the proposed progress in identifying the site for geological disposal.
According to this graph, in 2012 there are seven sites as potentially suitable for geological disposal.
Between 2012 and 2018, geological research is carried out at four of them, and in 2018, only two of
these sites remain as a “Candidate site 1” and a “Candidate site 2” (RAWRA 2012). The number of
options in terms of potential sites is gradually narrowed down, while options for different types of
negotiation strategies are kept open.
Where are the scientific uncertainties?
This paper has hardly discussed scientific uncertainties so far. For instance in Sweden, the question
of copper corrosion has become an important scientific (Macdonald and Sharifi-Asl 2011,
Kärnavfallsrådet 2009) as well as social (MKG 2011) issue. In the Czech Republic, however,
scientific uncertainties seem to play a much more subtle role in the process of planning geological
disposal. A geologist who studies the properties of bentonites in environments similar to those of
the future repository confirmed in an interview that there are many uncertainties regarding this
topic. At the same time, several times during the interview he assumed that there are no such
uncertainties in other disciplines related to geological disposal (such as engineering) (research
interview, May 2012). Nevertheless, in the public discourse these uncertainties do not seem to be
visible. For instance, in presentations given by the RAWRA staff during public meetings it is said
that the question of how to build the repository is clear (public meeting in Věžná, April 2012, FSC
community visit, October 2012). Similarly (and perhaps even more importantly), in the summary
assessment of the environmental impact of the future repository, the Czech geological disposal
Reference project states:
The isolation of radioactive waste from surrounding environment is based on a multibarrier
principle (engineered and natural barriers). The disposal system does not
endanger the health of future generation or the environment. Technological procedures
will ensure permanent isolation from individual parts of the environment. Technical
7 The Working Group loosely follows the deliberative principles formulated by the “Riscom” model for public
participation. This model is designed to increase transparency and trust in political decision making (cf. Vojtěchová
2009). However, critique towards the ways in which similar efforts are being carried out has recently appeared
within the field of STS (e.g. Sundqvist and Elam 2010, Lezaun and Soneryd 2007). Our preliminary research within
the InSOTEC project also shows that the Czech implementation of RISCOM “has shaped the current public
involvement into a rather narrow, rigid and localized form, organized 'from the top'” (Svačina and Konopásek 2012,
p. 17). Here it could be argued that the Riscom technology for public participation has contributed to the fact that
some uncertainties are being left out of the public debate, but a more detailed discussion would fall out of the scope
of this paper.
solution will eliminate all risks (radiation, toxicity, heat).
(EGP Invest 1999)
However, at some occasions, the scientific uncertainties do appear also in public meetings: for
example during the public meeting in Věžná, Mr. Slovák was asked about the possible effects of the
repository in terms of “heating up” the surrounding environment. His answer was following:
...the only effect will really be in that the massive will be heated up, and the
temperature will gradually move to the surface. But this heating up and the actual
temperature on the surface is a very difficult question … so it is difficult to say today,
what kind of real effect this will have. It depends on the specific situation on the site,
and on all the factors that there will be.
(Jiří Slovák at the public meeting in Věžná, April 2012)
While Mr. Slovák acknowledges uncertainties related to the heat output of the waste, his answer
implies that first, the outcome depends on the specific site, and second, it cannot be known at the
moment. To sum up this part, the fact that scientists acknowledge and talk about uncertainties
within their own discipline may be seen as a way to legitimise their ongoing research and “maintain
a degree of control” over the uncertain issue (cf. Soneryd 2007, p. 308-309). At the same time,
scientific uncertainties seem to play a minor role in the public discourse Czech situation. Whereas
they may be acknowledged, they do not seem to take over as “issues” (cf. Marres 2007).
Conclusion – summary
In this paper I tried to explore different kinds of uncertainties as they emerge during the process of
negotiating geological disposal for highly radioactive waste in the Czech Republic, and the ways
these uncertainties are handled. It was seen that in some situations, uncertainties about proposed site
investigations may be used as a resource to refuse not only these site investigations, but also the
whole project of the repository. Conversely, phasing, or separating the process of repository
development into steps, may be seen as a way to make some of these uncertainties legitimate, while
at the same time making them a reason to start technical intervention on the preselected sites.
Further, it was observed that uncertainties about specific site conditions may give opportunities to
describe the future repository project in the best possible parameters. It was also observed that there
are some uncertainties about the process itself: while there is pressure to gradually narrow down the
number of potential sites, options for different types of negotiation strategies are kept open. Finally,
it seems that scientific uncertainties, although sometimes implicitly acknowledged, are kept outside
of the public debate on the Czech geological disposal.
References
Dubreuil, G. H. et al. (2010). “European-level Guidelines for the Inclusive Governance of
Radioactive Waste Management.” COWAM In Practice report. Available at:
<www.cowam.com>.
Durant, D. (2009). Radwaste in Canada: a political economy of uncertainty. Journal of Risk
Research, 12, 7/8, 897-919.
EC (European Commission). (2009). Implementing geological disposal of radioactive waste
technology platform: Vision report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union.
EGP Invest. (1999). “Referenční projekt hlubinného úložiště. B. Souhrnné řešení stavby.” Prague:
RAWRA.
European Council. (2011). Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM . Official Journal of the
European Union.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of
ambition. Cambridge University Press.
FSC (Forum on Stakeholder Confidence). (2008). “Stepwise approach to the long-term
management of radioactive waste.” Paris: OECD-NEA.
Kärnavfallsrådet (The Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste). (2009). “Mechanisms of
Copper Corrosion in Aqueous Environments .” Report 2009:4e from the Swedish National
Council for Nuclear Waste .
Klinke, A. & Renn, O. (2002). A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based,
Precaution-Based, and Discourse-Based Strategies. Risk Analysis, 22, 6, 1071-1094.
Lezaun, J. & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of
publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 3, 279-297.
Macdonald, D. S. & Sharifi-Asl, S. (2011). Is Copper Immune to Corrosion When in Contact With
Water and Aqueous Solutions? Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, Report number
2011:09.
Marres, Noortje. 2007. The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of
Public Involvement in Controversy. Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 759-780.
MKG (Miljöorganisationernas kärnavfallsgranskning – The Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste
Review). (2011). “Rust is always a risk when using old technology. A critique of the
planned Swedish repository for spent nuclear fuel.” Gothenburg: mkg.
MPO ČR (Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic). (2001). Koncepce nakládání
s radioaktivními odpady a vyhořelým jaderným palivem v ČR (Strategy for dealing with
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in the Czech Republic). Prague: MPO ČR.
Pracovní skupina pro dialog o hlubinném úložišti. (2010). “Statut.” Praha: Pracovní skupina pro
dialog o hlubinném úložišti.
RAWRA. (2012). “Zprávy ze Správy, září 2012.” Praha: RAWRA.
Renn, O. (2005). Risk governance: towards an integrative approach. Geneva: International Risk
Governance Council.
Soneryd, L. (2007). Deliberations on the Unknown, the Unsensed, and the Unsayable? Public
Protests and the Development of Third-Generation Mobile Phones in Sweden. Science,
Technology, & Human Values, 32, 3, 287-314.
Sundqvist, G. & Elam, M. (2010). Public Involvement Designed to Circumvent Public Concern?
The "Participatory Turn" in European Nuclear Activities. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public
Policy 1, 4, Article 8.
Svačina, K. & Konopásek, Z. (2012). Identifying remaining socio-technical challenges at the
national level: Czech Republic. InSOTEC working paper (WP1 – MS 4).
Svejkovský, J. 2012a. “Kilometrový vrt v žule není rutinní záležitost .” In SOS Lubenec, a leaflet
published by a community association in Lubenec, June 2012.
Svejkovský, J. 2012b. “Souhlas s průzkumy = souhlas s úložištěm .” In SOS Lubenec, a leaflet
published by a community association in Lubenec, June 2012.
Vojtěchová, H. (2009). Application of the RISCOM model in the Czech Republic. ARGONA
Research Report.
de Vries, G., Verhoeven, I. & Boeckhout, M. (2011). Taming uncertainty: the WRR approach to risk
governance. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 4, 485-499.
WRR. (2009). Uncertain safety: allocating responsibilities for safety. Amsterdam University Press.