Scottish Government

MANAGING RADIOACTIVE WASTE SAFELY

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) commissioned research (in January 2002) on views in Scotland on the policy proposals in the consultation document "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" (MRWS), about the proposed action programme to determine how radioactive waste should be dealt with in the future. The findings of the research will feed into the Scottish Executive's response to the MRWS consultation document and inform the development of the plan for consultation on the future stages of the programme to identify and consider options proposals for radioactive waste management.

1.2 The MRWS consultation document was published on 12 September 2001 by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), working in partnership with the Scottish Executive (SE), The National Assembly for Wales (NAW) and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment (DoENI). Whilst "the aim is to develop, and implement, a UK nuclear waste management programme which inspires public confidence", it recognises that responsibility for radioactive waste management policy in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Executive undertook this research to explore how to engage the public in making decisions about managing radioactive waste in Scotland. The Scottish Executive is working in partnership with DEFRA and the other Devolved Administrations on UK-wide activity to stimulate debate and encourage responses to the consultation.

1.3 The principal aim of this research project was to assess public awareness and engagement in the issues of the consultation, and to chart a route forward for successful consultation in this area. The study aimed to provide the Scottish Executive with information on:

• the level and accuracy of knowledge and interest in radioactive waste management among different groups
• the methods that should be used to consult on future proposals

1.4 The overarching term within this study is 'public engagement', including such aspects as information provision, consultation, involvement and participation. The research design used the MRWS consultation document as an important element of the engagement process, designing the focus group work by using the consultation questions and supplementary information to give participants some "hands on" experience in processing some of the information.

1.5 Scottish Council Foundation explored participants' views and previous experience of ways to engage the public decision-making processes, as well as their awareness about radioactive waste management issues and their responses to key questions in the consultation document.

Methodology

1.6 The research was evolutionary in nature primarily using the findings within the qualitative research, to initiate a dialogue and determine the participants' views and understanding of both public engagement and the management of radioactive waste. A review of the policy and research literature was also undertaken.

1.7 The fieldwork was based on a phased approach:

• Phase one focussed on the views and aspirations of the general public, undertaken using 4 extended focus groups. The focus groups were held during February and March of 2002. These were:

1. The 'unaffected public' - members of the public selected to reflect the characteristics of the adult population in Glasgow.

2. The 'affected public' - members of the public in Thurso/Wick and surrounding villages living in proximity to the Dounreay nuclear installation.

3. Young people aged 14-17 years, participating in youth work activities and drawn from 3 areas of west-central Scotland. Participants met in Argyll.

4. Community activists drawn from representative bodies across the Stirling authority area.

The majority of these participants completed short introductory and concluding questionnaires (see Annex 1). These were used to gauge their level of interest and knowledge in radioactive waste management and engagement processes. There were 44 initial questionnaires completed, from a possible 47, and 47 final questionnaires ².

The focus groups were designed to explore participants' understanding of:

• radioactive waste management issues
• their knowledge, experience and expectations of public engagement
• their response to key information from the consultation document
• and their views on how public engagement in decisions about managing radioactive waste should progress

• Phase two explored the issues and aspirations raised by the public around engagement in general and engagement in decisions about managing radioactive waste to consider the implications of the earlier findings for their sectors. The fieldwork was undertaken between March and April 2002. This focussed on why to engage and how to engage.

1. Stakeholder group - extended focus group of 7 stakeholders drawn from regulatory bodies, the nuclear industry and environmental Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

2. Public Engagement interviews - in-depth interviews with 6 people who have undertaken consultations with the general public, community organisations and public service bodies.

3. NGO interviews - in-depth interviews with 3 environmental NGO stakeholders.

4. Media interviews - in-depth interviews with 3 environmental journalists

5. Community Planning interviews - in-depth interviews with 4 Community Planning partnership members, elected member, policy maker, service manager and service deliverer

• Phase 3 involved a review of literature and written material on radioactive waste management and Scottish/UK and international approaches to public engagement.

Phase 1

1.8 The focus groups in Phase 1 were designed to explore participants' understanding of radioactive waste management issues; their knowledge, experience and expectations of public engagement; their response to key information from the consultation document; and their views on how public engagement in decisions about managing radioactive waste should progress. The composition and 'status' of these groups are shown in Table 1.1. The sequential nature of the research process and diversity of focus groups called for different approaches to the recruitment of participants (as well as the design of the programme).

Table 1.1 Composition and status of focus groups ³

1. 'What' questions: describing some of the considerations and questions on the safe management of radioactive waste.
2. 'How' questions: describing some of the techniques for bringing the public into the decision making process.
3. 'Informing' questions: focusing on meaningful information and advice, who should provide it and how should it be funded.
4. 'Action ' questions: focusing on the timescales underpinning the programme of consultation and action, and the regulatory arrangements required.

1.10 An additional short exercise explored participants' reactions to information collected from the sources identified in Table 1.2 below, to find out how accessible they felt that current information available to the public is.

Table 1.2 Information provided for the public

1.11 In each location participants were split into smaller groups of up to 4 people (self-selected), and allocated enough time to spend on one or two of the consultation questions. This approach provided the opportunity to develop first hand experience of responding to this type of consultation, with more participants able to contribute more actively than in the larger group setting. The next stage involved feedback on:

• their responses to the questions posed
• how they felt about the questions in terms of language, content and ease of understanding
• any additional information they required to enable a more detailed response
• how they felt other people could become involved in this process

1.12 Key findings from the focus groups were recorded on flip charts in both plenary and smaller groups sessions, complemented by one facilitator taking detailed notes. Direct quotes from participants were recorded in this way. Participants were encouraged to record individual views and the views of their group in their own words. The groups were facilitated by asking questions to stimulate discussion and to follow through on points that were raised, which proved useful in keeping to time and ensuring the main points of the discussion were captured. Qualitative data from focus groups were analysed using a simple gridding technique, where the information from the groups was gridded across the questions for ease of analysis, to identify areas of agreement and disagreement within and between the groups. In addition, the questionnaire results were analysed across the groups using an excel spreadsheet.

The 'unaffected public' (Glasgow)

1.13 There were 16 participants recruited by a market research organisation to reflect the broad socio-economic characteristics and geographical spread within the city, as well as stratified by sex, age and ethnicity (the group included 2 Asian participants, both male). The term 'unaffected' was used to test the assumption that participants would feel only indirectly affected by radioactive waste management issues and that levels of awareness would be relatively lower than in an area where nuclear power plays a prominent role. The group work involved a combination of full group and smaller group discussions with 3 project facilitators.

The 'affected public' (Thurso)

1.14 Participants were recruited from the communities around Dounreay nuclear installation through a random mail drop and distribution on the street in Thurso, Wick and surrounding villages (of 500 letters, with stamped addressed envelopes for response). Responses were received from 36 potential participants. There were only 5 female respondents in all, who were all invited to participate. In order to ensure a balanced group, 7 of the male respondents were invited to attend. The final group was selected on the basis of age and local profile information provided by Highland Council and Highland & Islands Enterprise covering general characteristics of the local population and taking socio-economic factors into account. This group brought together 9 participants in total ⁶. The group involved a combination of full group and smaller group discussions with 3 project facilitators.

Young people (Argyll)

1.15 Ten participants previously involved in youth work activities were drawn from North Lanarkshire, Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire, the latter of which is an "affected" ⁷ area The groups were recruited and accompanied by a Community Education youth worker or a youth sessional worker ⁸. This group was recruited to provide comparison with the 3 adult groups. The group work was extended over an evening to allow the participants additional time to think about how their peers could be informed and to explore different methods of presenting their views. The group was co-ordinated by a trained youth worker, and involved 3 youth support workers and 2 of the project facilitators. An observer from the Scottish Executive provided a 'jargon-busting' information as required during the session.

Community activists (Stirling)

1.16 People involved as community activists in the Stirling area were invited to take part in a group session, in order to involve members of the public who have direct experience of consultation and involvement processes on behalf of their communities. These participants were recruited through a local authority wide umbrella organisation to reflect the geographical diversity of the local authority area. There were 12 participants all aged over 30.

1.17 The purpose of the community activist group was two-fold. The programme was designed to find out their views on engaging the public in radioactive waste management decisions and on engagement in general, as with the other public focus groups. This group also provided an opportunity to explore their experience of being engaged in decision-making processes and of engaging with their communities to identify views and issues as part of decision-making processes.

1.18 Unlike the other groups, these participants were sent copies of the MRWS consultation document in advance, along with information briefing sheets based on the consultation questions that were used in the other groups. Participants were invited to read these before attending the group meeting and to consider avenues for more effective consultation and information sharing. Three project facilitators led the session using full group and small group discussions.

Phase 2

Stakeholders (Edinburgh)

1.19 In addition to gaining deliberative views of members of the public, a stakeholder focus group was conducted using 2 facilitators to discuss the potential for consultation and involvement. The group brought together a mixed group of people who work in the nuclear industry, regulatory bodies and people representing environmental NGOs. There were 7 participants in this group (see Table 1.1) recruited through contacts established at various stages of the study. A small number of NGO and media stakeholders were unable or unwilling to take part in the group meeting. We therefore conducted subsequent one-to-one interviews to ensure their views were included. The discussion schedule was designed to reflect on the initial findings from the other groups and discuss the implications for action.

1.20 Of the 7 participants in the focus group, 4 came from the industry and 3 from NGOs concerned about environmental issues. The consultation document was not used as part of this phase of the work, although most participants were familiar with its contents. The focus instead was on the issues, aspirations and experiences identified by the public in Phase 1:

• the public should be enabled to find out about options and decisions made

• engaging the public in the decision-making for managing radioactive waste safely is a necessity at international, UK, and Scottish levels and over time
• the need for accurate and accessible information as the starting point for any engagement strategy (participants had identified newspapers and television as the most likely sources of information currently available)
• the need for appropriate 'pitch' in engaging with people
• the problems of trust
• the issues and possibilities identified in the roles of 'experts'

1.21 The participants then discussed what they felt were the implications of engaging the public in decisions about managing radioactive waste safely. They considered how their field of expertise could inform the discussions and what their role might be if the public were to be engaged effectively. The NGOs had been identified as a source of trusted information in all but the young people's focus group. The importance of understanding community level engagement processes had been identified within the public focus groups and by the public engagement interviewees. Stakeholder participants considered the implications of the findings for their sectors. This part of the research therefore focused on stakeholders' thoughts about:

• why to engage
• how to engage

In-depth Interviews

1.22 In total, 16 individual interviews (12 face-to face, 3 by telephone and 1 by e-mail and telephone) were conducted as described in Table 1.3 below.

Table 1.3 Details of interviews undertaken

1.23 Six people experienced in undertaking public consultation or involvement exercises at community, local authority, Scottish and UK levels, as well as from within the nuclear industry, were interviewed. These were designed to:

• explore the nature of the consultation or involvement processes that interviewees had experience of
• highlight the positive, negative and missing elements they felt were significant
• identify resource implications
• explore the implications of their experience for future work

1.24 Three representatives of NGOs were interviewed to:

• explore the response of NGOs to the role that was identified in the earlier fieldwork

• highlight any significant issues or opportunities for involving the public in decision making on radioactive waste management

• explore their views on the safe management of radioactive waste

1.25 Three journalists with specialist knowledge of environmental issues were interviewed to:

• explore the role of the press in reporting sensitive and complex issues like how radioactive waste is managed
• highlight any issues or opportunities they felt were important for involving the public in decision-making on radioactive waste management
• explore their views on public information provision, the media's responsibility and constraints or opportunities they would expect to find in future

1.26 Four Community Planning Partnership members from different sectors were interviewed in order to:

• explore their views on radioactive waste management
• identify current engagement and involvement processes used in the Community Planning process
• highlight any issues or opportunities they identify for involving the public in decision making on radioactive waste management

1.27 Qualitative data from the in-depth interviews were analysed, using the gridding technique described on page 15, to identify areas of agreement and disagreement across the interviews and compared with the findings from the public focus groups.

Phase 3

1.28 Throughout the course of the study, desk research was undertaken covering 2 specific sets of literature:

• radioactive waste, covering definitions, challenges for policy-makers and industry practitioners and transparency issues
• public consultation and wider involvement approaches from Scottish, UK and international experiences

Ultimately the findings from the qualitative data were used to frame the literature review.

Structure of the report and emerging key questions

1.29 The study aims to explore the actual and potential roles of public engagement in order to maximise understanding of the issues and influence decisions on radioactive waste management.

1.30 The research was designed to investigate the views of a diverse range of participants, (based on direct or indirect experience, or perceptions of the 54 people who participated) on how the public should be involved in helping decision-makers to act - specifically how the public should be engaged in decision-making on radioactive waste management and more general principles for engagement. The report is written to reflect these 2 strands.

1.31 Chapter 2, Consulting on Radioactive Waste Management, reports on the issues and opportunities identified in the research for engaging people in discussions about radioactive waste management.

1.32 Chapter 3, Engaging the Public, explores:

• reasons for engaging the public in decision-making processes
• essential elements of a successful engagement process
• some of the strengths and weaknesses identified in particular approaches

1.33 Chapter 4, Involving Other Stakeholders¹⁰, covers the information collected from participants who have experience and knowledge covering either:

• public engagement
• issues involved in managing radioactive waste

1.34 Chapter 5, A Framework for Engagement, presents the concluding questions from the focus groups and interviews and develops a framework that shapes the literature review.

1.35 Chapter 6, Literature Review, presents a literature review showing how the findings from this research fit with the existing body of knowledge on public involvement methods and on radioactive waste management issues.

1.36 Chapter 7, Conclusions and Recommendations, highlights the key findings and lessons learned from the research.