1. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 CARL workshop Antwerp Results of the country studies SWEDEN

2. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 2 Research Angles Process (object – spent nuclear fuel – and organisation) Contextual elements (political initiatives, counter frames, municipal resistance) Historical turning points: 1977, 1985, 1992, 1995, 2002 Current process: two site investigations conducted in Oskarshamn and Östhammar

3. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 3 1970s: new political initiatives Intense and controversial public and political debate Nuclear industry responsible for waste New legislation (1977): nuclear reactors fuelled if industry shows how and where to finally store waste with absolute safety Industry response to political initiatives: the KBS 3 concept Conclusion: a power game between national politicians and nuclear industry in the context of a polarised public debate

4. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 4 1980s: Implementation and crisis of technocratic strategy Nuclear waste independent of nuclear power A new act (1984): industry every third year presents an R&D programme reviewed by government authorities SKB systematic geo-scientific research programme met strong public opposition Successful siting of CLAB 1985 and SFR 1988 Both facilities the result of a technocratic nuclear oases strategy

5. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 5 Search for a new strategy (1986-92) SKB states that many sites in Sweden are geologically suitable Any volunteers? SKB sends a letter to all 286 Swedish municipalities Feasibility studies carried out in two municipalities in northern Sweden No more volunteers! Conclusion: the municipality became a major stakeholder due to a new strategy based on voluntarism and dialogue

6. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 6 Stakeholder Identity Formation Feasibility studies connected with a turn to ’voluntarism and dialogue’ Feasibility studies prior to site investigations More concerned with political geology than physical geology Feasibility studies in relation to nuclear ’virgins’ versus established ’hosts’ Feasibility studies = opportunity to redefine what it means to ’host’ nuclear activities

7. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 7 Oskarshamn 1995 – An Already Seasoned Stakeholder Contemplates a New Offer Already host to 3 reactors, CLAB and Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory Since 1992, proposed site for encapsulation plant Already a hub of NWM activity/engaged in putting KBS-3 method into practice 1994 municipality already participating in regional EIA forum, already developing LKO

8. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 8 Östhammar 1995 – A Neutral Host to Nuclear Facilities Accepts SKB’s Invitation Already host to 3 reactors and SFR (deep repository for low- and intermediate level waste) NWM already everyday life in the municipality, no introductions needed Established acceptability of nuclear activities based on local ability to treat them as unexceptional Östhammar accepted a feasibility study 4 weeks after being invited to host one So long as NWM can be treated more or less as ’municipal business as usual’ further facilities can be feasibly sited Broad local consensus, siting of deep repository will call for a local referendum, testing the legitmacy of established attitude to hosting nuclear facilities

9. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 9 Oskarshamn – Becoming Something More Than a Conventional Host After 1994, Oskarshamn committed to making NWM their concern Sharing SKBs concerns, while developing own perspectives on them Feasibility studies – municipalities were wary, ’offer SKB a finger and they will take your hand’ Oskarshamn saw a feasibility study as SKB offering them a finger Oskarshamn seeking to enrol SKB in their vision of creating ’The Municipality with Energy’ Oskarshamn have ’moved up a league as a stakeholder’ BUT (i) Are they over-involved in NWM? (ii) Over-committed to the KBS-3 system?

10. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 10 Östhammar – Passive But Nobody’s Fool? Hitherto, Östhammar unwilling/unable to share Oskarshamn’s level of involvement in NWM Welcomes SKB in the municipality while choosing to remain relatively distant from them – a genuine host, nothing more and nothing less Thanks to CLAB, Oskarshamn does own HLW problem more than Östhammar HLW is today out-going, not in-coming. Worth thinking twice before striving to reverse flow Östhammar can afford to be more indifferent as to where deep repository ends up Östhammar content to remain just a local stakeholder. Perhaps making them a player in danger of being played by more competent and determined actors?

11. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 11 Site Investigations in Oskarshamn and Östhammar (1) Can stakeholder involvement be sustained in Oskarshamn and Östhammar as siting process re-focuses on comparative geology? Swedish Environmental Code and Act on Nuclear Activities portrayed as equal partners in relation to which site investigations being carried out. 2 worlds of SI Oskarshamn have always used environmental legislation to extend their influence over the siting process

12. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Sweden 12 Site Investigations in Oskarshamn and Östhammar (2) Just because Oskarshamn already have so much invested in KBS-3 system now refusing to be kept in dark over exact criteria determining which site considered superior Are Oskarshamn together with new environmental groups entering the EIA process on the verge of expanding the scope of stakeholder involvement to engage core issues of nuclear safety? Will SKI and SSI be pulled more out into the open through the EIA process? Or will they remain more apart with SKB negotiating nuclear safety?

13. CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 CARL workshop Antwerp Results of the country studies SWEDEN