Real-world experiment; experimental mindset; High-Level Radioactive Waste; RWM organisations; national radwaste policies; deep geological disposal
Abstract :
[en] Following the theoretical approach of Herbold (1995), Gross and Krohn (2005), and Van de Poel et al. (2017), this article argues that nuclear waste management is a real-world experiment. Based on this first assumption, we examine how radioactive waste management (RWM) organizations conceive or organize their experiments. Through three illustrative case studies in France, Belgium and Canada, we highlight how the RWM organizations obliged to participate in complex networks and unable to completely control the experimental process, adopt two different attitudes: an “open” or “closed” experimental mindset. We argue that these mindsets provide different answers to the questions: which main variables to focus on, how and who should design them, how to deal with conflicts and unexpected events, what are the justifications for participation and expert analysis, and what are the expected outputs and outcomes. The findings underline that although some RWM organizations have -at least since the participatory turn- had some ‘open’ mindset moments in some cases, they quickly revert to a closed mindset. We conclude by emphasizing the need for practitioners and scholars to further examine and evaluate the virtues of the open mindset when the experimenter assumes the program has a real-world ex- perimental status. This status recognizes the limits of control over experimental conditions, allows for more substantial moral considerations when making technical choices before wider audiences and allows for collective sharing of responsibility, knowledge production and trade-offs over such a long-term and controversial program.
Research center :
Centre de recherches Spiral
Disciplines :
Law, criminology & political science: Multidisciplinary, general & others Engineering, computing & technology: Multidisciplinary, general & others Political science, public administration & international relations
Author, co-author :
Parotte, Céline ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de science politique > Département de science politique
Language :
English
Title :
A nuclear real-world experiment: Exploring the experimental mindsets of radioactive waste management organisations in France, Belgium and Canada.
Publication date :
20 August 2020
Journal title :
Energy Research and Social Science
ISSN :
2214-6296
eISSN :
2214-6326
Publisher :
Elsevier, United Kingdom
Volume :
69
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
Commentary :
Acknowledgments: I would to thank Catherine Fallon and Pierre Delvenne, from Liege University for their patience, their constructive comments and their careful proofreading. They both know how to motivate their colleagues and help them enjoy the writing process. Many thanks to Fabien Medvecky from University of Otago for his challenging review and his scrupulous proofreading. Finally, thank you Nina for your brilliant and smiling ideas.
Brunnengräber, A., Di Nucci, M.R., Losada, A.M., Mez, L., Schreurs, M., Nuclear Waste Governance. 2015, An International Comparison, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden.
A. Brunnengräber, M.R. Di Nucci, eds., Conflicts, Participation and Acceptability in Nuclear Waste Governance: An International Comparison Volume III, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27107-7.
Litmanen, T., Kari, M., Kojo, M., Solomon, B.D., Is there a Nordic model of final disposal of spent nuclear fuel? Governance insights from Finland and Sweden. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 25 (2017), 19–30.
Diesendorf, M., Shunning nuclear power but not its waste: Assessing the risks of Australia becoming the world's nuclear wasteland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 19 (2016), 142–147, 10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.003.
Wynne, B., Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Sci. Technol. Soc. 1 (2007), 99–110.
Parotte, C., L'Art de gouverner les déchets hautement radioactifs. 2018, Presses Universitaires de Liège, Liège, Belgique.
Parotte, C., Delvenne, P., Co-produced legitimacies: Parliamentary technology assessment and nuclear waste management in France. Sci. Public Policy 45 (2018), 853–862, 10.1093/scipol/scy016.
Lehtonen, M., Kojo, M., Jartti, T., Litmanen, T., Kari, M., The roles of the state and social licence to operate? Lessons from nuclear waste management in Finland, France, and Sweden. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 61, 2020, 101353, 10.1016/j.erss.2019.101353.
Richter, J., Energopolitics and nuclear waste: Containing the threat of radioactivity. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 30 (2017), 61–70.
Johnstone, P., Stirling, A., Comparing nuclear trajectories in Germany and the United Kingdom: From regimes to democracies in sociotechnical transitions and discontinuities. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 59, 2020, 101245.
Neumann, A., Sorge, L., von Hirschhausen, C., Wealer, B., Democratic quality and nuclear power: Reviewing the global determinants for the introduction of nuclear energy in 166 countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 63, 2020, 101389, 10.1016/j.erss.2019.101389.
Osička, J., Černoch, F., Anatomy of a black sheep: The roots of the Czech Republic's pro-nuclear energy policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 27 (2017), 9–13, 10.1016/j.erss.2017.02.006.
Latré, E., Thijssen, P., Perko, T., The party politics of nuclear energy: Party cues and public opinion regarding nuclear energy in Belgium. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47 (2019), 192–201, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.09.003.
Brook, B.W., Blees, T., Wigley, T.M.L., Hong, S., Silver buckshot or bullet: Is a future “Energy Mix” necessary?. Sustainability, 10, 2018, 302, 10.3390/su10020302.
Wang, J., Kim, S., Comparative analysis of public attitudes toward nuclear power energy across 27 European countries by applying the multilevel model. Sustainability, 10, 2018, 1518, 10.3390/su10051518.
U. Felt, The temporal choreographies of participation: Thinking innovation and society from a time-sensitive perspective, in: J. Chilvers, M. Kearnes (Eds.), Remaking Particip. Sci. Environ. Emergent Publics, Routlegde, Oxon, New York, 2016: pp. 178–199. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203797693.
Schröder, J., Geological disposal of radioactive waste: A long-term socio-technical experiment. Sci. Eng. Ethics 22 (2016), 687–705, 10.1007/s11948-015-9650-4.
Jasanoff, S., In a constitutional moment: science and social order at the millennium. Soc. Stud. Sci. Technol. Look. Back Ahead., 2003, 155–180.
M. Callon, P. Lascoumes, Y. Barthe, In the Search of a Common World, in: Act. Uncertain World Essay Tech. Democr., MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2009: pp. 107–152.
Parotte, C., Delvenne, P., Co-Produced Legitimacies: Parliamentary Technology Assessment and Nuclear Waste Management in France. 2018, Public Policy, Sci https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/218936 (accessed January 24, 2018).
Stirling, A., “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33 (2008), 262–294.
Stefanelli, A., Seidl, R., Siegrist, M., The discursive politics of nuclear waste: Rethinking participatory approaches and public perceptions over nuclear waste storage repositories in Switzerland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 34 (2017), 72–81, 10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.042.
Bergmans, A., Sundqvist, G., Kos, D., Simmons, P., The participatory turn in radioactive waste management: Deliberation and the social-technical divide. J. Risk Res. 18 (2014), 347–363, 10.1080/13669877.2014.971335.
J. Lezaun, N. Marres, M. Tironi, Experiments in participation, in: Handb. Sci. Technol. Stud., MIT Press, 2016: p. 195.
Delvenne, P., Macq, H., Breaking bad with the participatory turn? Accelerating time and intensifying value in participatory experiments. Sci. Cult. 29 (2019), 245–268, 10.1080/09505431.2019.1668369.
Overdevest, C., Bleicher, A., Gross, M., The Experimental Turn in Environmental Sociology: Pragmatism and New Forms of Governance. Gross, M., Heinrichs, H., (eds.) Environ, 2010, Sociol. Eur. Perspect. Interdiscip. Chall, Springer, New York, 279–295.
R. Herbold, Technologies as Social Experiments. The Construction and Implementation of High-Tech Waste Disposal Site, in: A. Rip, J.T. Misa, J. Schot (Eds.), Manag. Technol. Soc. Approach Constr. Technol. Assess., Pinter, London and New York, 1995: p. 361.
Krohn, W., Weingart, P., Commentary: Nuclear power as a social experiment-european political “fall out” from the chernobyl meltdown. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values. 12 (1987), 52–58.
van de Poel, I., Asveld, L., Mehos, D.C., New Perspectives on Technology in Society: Experimentation Beyond the Laboratory. 2017, Routledge.
Taebi, B., Roeser, S., van de Poel, I., The ethics of nuclear power: Social experiments, intergenerational justice, and emotions. Energy Policy 51 (2012), 202–206, 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.004.
Durant, D., Resistance to Nuclear Waste Disposal: Credentialed Experts, Public Opposition and their Shared Lines of Critique. Sci. Can. Can. J. Hist. Sci. Technol. Med. 30 (2007), 1–30, 10.7202/800524ar.
Kojo, M., Kari, M., Litmanen, T., Vilhunen, T., Lehtonen, M., The critical Swedes and the consensual Finns: Leading newspapers as watchdogs or lapdogs of nuclear waste repository licensing?. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 61, 2020, 101354, 10.1016/j.erss.2019.101354.
Laurent, B., Political experiments that matter: Ordering democracy from experimental sites. Soc. Stud. Sci., 1–22, 2016.
Latour, B., Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. Sci. Obs., 141, 1983, 170.
Shapin, S., Schaffer, S., Chapter 2 Seeing and Believing: The Experimental Production of Pneumatic Facts. Leviathan Air Pump Hobbes Boyle Exp. Life, 1985, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 22–79.
Jasanoff, S., Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva. 41 (2003), 223–244, 10.1023/A:1025557512320.
Guggenheim, M., Laboratizing and de-laboratizing the world: changing sociological concepts for places of knowledge production. Hist. Hum. Sci. 25 (2012), 99–118.
Krohn, W., Weyer, J., Real-life experiments. Society as a laboratory: The social risks of experimental research. Sci. Public Policy 21 (1994), 173–182.
Gross, M., Krohn, W., Society as experiment: Sociological foundations for a self-experimental society. Hist. Hum. Sci. 18 (2005), 63–86.
Barthe, Y., Lindhart, D., L'expérimentation: un autre agir politique. 2009, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, Mines ParisTech, Paris https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00352411/document.
M. Callon, La sociologie peut-elle enrichir l'analyse économique des externalités? Essai sur la notion cadrage-débordement, in: Editions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (Ed.), Innov. Perform., Paris, 1999: pp. 399–431.
Krohn, W., Nature, Technology, and the Acknowledgment of Waste. Nat. Cult. 2 (2007), 139–160.
Kemp, R., Parto, S., Gibson, R.B., Governance for sustainable development: Moving from theory to practice. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 8 (2005), 12–30.
Parotte, C., Delvenne, P., Taming uncertainty: Towards a new governance approach for nuclear waste management in Belgium. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag., 2015, 1–13, 10.1080/09537325.2015.1044429.
Sovacool, B.K., Axsen, J., Sorrell, S., Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: Towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018), 12–42, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.007.
C. Zwetkoff, C. Parotte, Un programme participatif et son évaluation procédurale. Le projet Plan Déchets pour la gestion à long terme des déchets conditionnés de haute activité et/ou de longue durée de vie, in: Peterlang (Ed.), Particip. À Lépreuve, Bruxelles, 2013: pp. 157–177.
Parotte, C., Lits, G., Quel sort pour les déchets moyennement et hautement radioactifs belges? Controverses et traitements médiatiques entourant le choix de l'option, in. Presses ULg, 2013, 1–17.
C. Parotte, 100 000 ans de déchets nucléaires: le défi de la légitimité démocratique à long terme, in: Légitimité Démocr. Dans Prat. Polit. Contemp., Academia-L'Harmattan, Louvain-La-Neuve, 2020: pp. 108–123.
Hammersley, M., Gomm, R., Introduction. Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., Foster, P., (eds.) Case Study Method Key Issues Key Texts, 2000, Sage Publications, London, 1–16.
Murphy, B.L., Canadian Communities and the Management of Nuclear Fuel Waste. Durant, D., Johnson, G.F., (eds.) Nucl, 2009, UBC press, Vancouver, Waste Manag. Can. Crit. Issues Crit. Perspect., 130–149.
Barthe, Y., Le pouvoir d'indécision. 2006, La mise en politique des déchets nucléaires, Economica, Paris.
M. Rocard, Communiqué des services du Premier ministre, en date du 7 février 1990, sur la recherche par l'ANDRA de sites d'enfouissement des déchets nucléaires, (1990).
M. Rocard, Communiqué des services du Premier ministre, en date du 9 février 1990, sur la recherche par l'ANDRA de sites d'enfouissement des déchets nucléaires, (1990).
Barthe, Y., Rendre discutable. Le traitement politique d'un héritage technologique, Politix. 15 (2002), 57–78, 10.3406/polix.2002.1207.
Lehtonen, M., Megaproject Underway. Governance of Nuclear Waste Management in France. Brunnengräber, A., Di Nucci, M.R., Losada, A.M., Mez, L., Schreurs, M., (eds.) Nucl, 2015, Waste Goverance Int. Comp, Springer VS, Germany, 117–138.
OPECST, Rapport sur l’évolution de la recherche sur la gestion des déchets nucléaires à haute activité, tome I: les déchets civils, déposé le 27 mars 1996 par le Député Christian Bataille, OPECST, Paris, 1996.
OPECST, Rapport sur les possibilités d'entreposage à long terme de combustibles nucléaires irradiés, présenté par M. Christian Bataille, 2001.
OPECST, Rapport sur l'avancement et les perspectives des recherches sur la gestion des déchets radioactifs, déposé le 16 mars 2005 par MM. Christian Bataille et Claude Birraux, députés., OPECST, Paris, 2005.
CEN, Rapport d’évaluation n°1, 1995.
CEN, Rapport global d’évaluation des recherches conduites dans le cadre de la loi du 30 décembre 1991, 2006.
Dupuis, M.-C., Intervention de la Directrice de l'ANDRA in Extraits du compte rendu de la réunion du 19 juin 2008. 2008, CLIS, Bure.
ANDRA, Les installations et leur localisation, (2020). https://meusehautemarne.andra.fr/le-projet-cigeo/les-installations-et-le-fonctionnement-du-centre/les-installations-et-leur (accessed June 4, 2020).
OPECST, Rapport sur l’évaluation du plan national de gestion des matières et des déchets radioactifs, PNGMDR 2013-2015 réalisé par M. Christian Bataille, député, et M. Christian Namy, sénateur, OPECST, Paris, 2014.
CNDP, Bilan du débat public. Projet de centre de stockage réversible profond de déchets radioactifs en Meuse/Haute Marne (Cigéo) 15 mai- décembre 2013, 2014.
ANDRA, Les différentes phases du projet. Les opérations sur le terrain avant la construction du centre, www.andra.fr. (2019). https://www.andra.fr/cigeo/les-installations-et-le-fonctionnement-du-centre/les-differentes-phases-du-projet.
P. Ginet, Cigéo, artefact d'une géographie de la domination, révélateur d'une Géographie académique dominée ? Contextualisation, enjeux démocratiques et perspectives scientifiques, in: Oppos. Citoyenne Au Proj. Cigéo Cadrage Géographique Enjeux Géopolitiques Locaux Globaux, L'Harmattan, 2017: pp. 169–181. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01592406 (accessed January 8, 2018).
Hurel, T., Areas to defend, a new form of opposition to large-scale equipment projects. Rev. Gen. Nucleaire., 2018, 34–35.
OPECST, Rapport sur l’évaluation du plan national de gestion des matières et des déchets radioactifs 2010-2012, déposé le 19 janvier 2011 par MM. Christian bataille et Claude Birraux, Députés, OPECST, Paris, 2011.
M. Callon, Pourquoi débattre des sciences et des techniques? Quels sont les enjeux? Qu'attendre de ces débats? Quelles sont les conceptions sous-jacentes de la science et de la société?, (2014).
Schröder, J., Rossignol, N., Van Oudheusden, M., Safety in long term radioactive waste management: Insight and oversight. Saf. Sci. 85 (2016), 258–265.
Durant, D., Stanley, A., An Official Narrative: Telling the History of Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Policy Making. Durant, D., Johnson, G.F., (eds.) Nucl, 2009, UBCPress, Vancouver, Waste Manag. Can. Crit. Issues Crit. Perspect., 31–51.
Durant, D., The Trouble with Nuclear. Durant, D., Johnson, G.F., (eds.) Nucl, 2009, UBCPress, Vancouver, Waste Manag. Can. Crit. Issues Crit. Perspect., 11–30.
Aiken, A.M., Harrison, J.M., Hare, F.K., The management of Canada's nuclear wastes: report of a study prepared under contract for the Minister of energy, mines and resources Canada. 1977, Federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Government of Canada, Ottawa.
AECL/EACL, Environmental Impact Statement on the Concept for Disposal of Canada's Nuclear Fuel Waste, AECL/EACL, Canada, 1994. https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/41/057/41057247.pdf?r=1 (accessed June 8, 2020).
C. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Report of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, 1998.
NWMO, Study Areas, (2020). https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Site-selection/Study-Areas (accessed June 8, 2020).
ONDRAF/NIRAS, Waste Plan for the long-term management of conditioned high-level and/or long-lived radioactive waste and overview of related issues, Bruxelles, 2011.
Rip, A., A Co-Evolutionary Approach to Reflexive Governance-And Its Ironies. Vob, J.-.P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R., (eds.) Reflexive Gov, 2006, Sustain. Dev, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, USA, 82–100.
Felt, U., Living a Real-World Experiment: Post-Fukushima Imaginaries and Spatial Practices of “Containing the Nuclear”. Van de Poel, I., Lotte, A., Mehos, D.C., (eds.) New Perspect, 2017, Routledge, Technol. Soc. Exp. Lab.
Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., others, Taking European knowledge society seriously. Luxemb. DG Res. EUR., 22, 2007, 700.
