Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa

Communicating the safety of radioactive waste disposal – the perspective
of a person responsible for science and technology within an implementing
organisation
Piet Zuidema, Nagra, Switzerland
Communicating the safety of radioactive waste disposal is a major issue. For the scientists involved,
this communication has different target groups (different groups within the implementer organisation,
safety authorities, licensing bodies, decision-makers, public, etc.). Most of the work by a typical
scientist is directed at internal clients (people within the organisation, scientific community directly
related to project work, etc.) and at the authorities concerned with reviews and licensing. For
that purpose the scientist has today a whole suite of highly complex communication tools (3-D
visualisation, etc.) that are extensively used. However, these tools are often not the key to success
in communicating to the public. For the public, waste management is an issue of concern that often
also involves emotional components (fear, mistrust, etc.) and these are not necessarily best addressed
with the tools the scientist normally works with. Therefore, communication with the public
is very challenging for many scientists; being knowledgeable on a topic does not necessarily make a
scientist a good communicator.
The reasons for concern by the public are often related to radioactivity and the long time scales involved
in assessing the safety of disposal facilities, both issues being outside the 'area of experience'
of most members of the public. To bring these areas closer, there are limitations on what can be
done, because the public normally has neither the time to listen to, nor the background to understand,
all the detailed scientific arguments.
In communicating with the public, besides transferring the key arguments for safety at the highest
level, other elements are equally important to achieve confidence. These elements are related to
trust and credibility and include: (i) organisational issues (the role and responsibility of the different
groups, the decision-making process, the interaction – perceived or real – between the different
stakeholders); (ii) behavioural issues (openness to new findings (adaptive management), ability to
listen, open interaction with science ('we are devoted to good scientific practise'), …); (iii) issues
related to the design of the planned facilities (possibilities for monitoring, reversibility and retrievability,
etc.). This, however, also requires to respect the different roles in communication; some areas
are the main responsibility of the implementer, other that of the regulator, and again other that of
the policy maker ('the message and the messenger').
The observation of communication mechanisms shows that high quality information products are
not sufficient to generate trust. Indeed, communication with the public has to take place on a personal
basis. Scientists should be perceived as 'normal human beings' with a high sense of responsibility.
In their communication with the public, the scientists should be open and also honestly address
the challenges and difficulties of the tasks involved without confusing the public with too
many details; this also includes addressing remaining uncertainties.
With regard to safety, it may be helpful for the public to put the scientific messages in perspective
and connect them with issues familiar to the audience and to demonstrate that solutions exist, e.g.
by referring to successful projects and activity fields also in other countries, or to work performed
in underground laboratories and on natural analogues. Finally, the issue of 'how good is good
75