Nuclear Community What does it mean to live in a ‘nuclear community’? BelgiumFour nuclear communities have taken up an active stakeholder role in the siting of a LILW repository: 2 ‘highly’ nuclear communities hosting different nuclear activity and temporary storage of LILW and HLW (Mol + Dessel) and 2 ‘semi active’ nuclear communities hosting small scale nuclear activity (Fleurus + Farciennes). Two remaining nuclear communities (hosting nuclear power plants and storage of spent fuel) explicitly rejected an active stakeholder role. CanadaSeven communities currently store used nuclear fuel, five of which also host nuclear power plants. These communities formed an organization to facilitate deliberations with the NWMO which included passing of joint resolutions. Most municipal councils preferred NWMO take the lead role in involving their citizens in dialogue for the study, preferably as part of the broader region. FinlandTwo out of four candidates were nuclear communities (Loviisa and Eurajoki, both hosting a nuclear power plant). Based on previous co-operation agreements between the municipality and the nuclear power company the municipality of Eurajoki negotiated with the nuclear industry about compensations alongside the EIA process ( ). This was heavily criticized by the municipality of Loviisa. SloveniaThere are two nuclear communities in Slovenia: Krško where the nuclear power plant is located and Dol pri Ljubljani where an experimental reactor and the central interim LILW storage for small producers are located. Besides Krško also nearby Brežice and Sevnica are active stakeholders in the siting process, but surprisingly also 2 others communities without nuclear facility (Lenart and Šmartno pri Litiji). SwedenDifferent nuclear municipalities have different stakeholder identities in Sweden. These differences in identity are largely themselves a product of different ways of participating in the siting process for a deep repository for spent fuel. The existence of CLAB (storage of spent nuclear fuel) has given Oskarshamn reasons for being a more active stakeholder in the siting of a deep repository than Östhammar (already hosting a final repository for LILW). UKCurrently no siting process in which communities might take up a stake. However, waste is produced and stored in or near about 30 communities around the country. At 17 locations around the country, community representatives are actively engaged as stakeholders in the current decommissioning process, involving significant volumes of ILW and LLW originating from power stations and other facilities. The most nuclear communities that are host to the most significant volumes of waste are (1) Drigg in Cumbria (already hosting the UK’s LLW repository, but with limited future capacity); (2) the Sellafield site, also in Cumbria (the UK’s largest nuclear complex, holding most of the UK’s HLW and spent fuel in temporary storage, in addition to large volumes of ILW and LLW) and (3) Dounreay, in Caithness, Scotland (comparable to Sellafield, but on a smaller scale). Representatives of the communities in Cumbria, which was the focus a previous siting attempt, have long played an active role at a national level. Many of these communities now have collective representation in the national policy process through the Local Government Association’s Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum (NuLeAF).  Do you see yourself as a member of a ‘nuclear community’? What does this mean to you?  What is a ‘nuclear community’? How should it be delimited or defined (administratively, territorially,…)?  Does a nuclear community automatically have a stake in the national radwaste policy debate? Should a nuclear community automatically be assumed to have an interest in siting a radwaste store or repository?  Why do some communities identify themselves as stakeholders? How do they come to that identification?  Do you see nuclear communities as being deprived or in any sense ‘peripheral’ or marginalised? Could such a community today build a positive identity based on its nuclear character? Could SI play a role in this, and how?  What could be the advantages/disadvantages of taking up an active stakeholder role as a nuclear community (in the national RWM policy debate or in a siting process)? What could be the advantages/disadvantages of rejecting an active stakeholder role (in the national RWM policy debate/in a siting process)?  Could the involvement of “non-nuclear” communities in the debate on national radwaste policy, particularly where this concerns siting issues, bring added value ?  There appears to be a tendency towards the formation of an international stakeholder network of nuclear communities (as a counterbalance to the longstanding network of international nuclear experts). What are your feelings about this? What are your expectations regarding such an international network? Context CARL Workshop Antwerp Discussion November 30 – December 1, 2005