1. Institutions and Engagement What is the role of institutions (RWM agencies, regulators, etc.)? Should they play a purely technical role, or engage themselves also in social implications of RWM? BelgiumThe national RWM agency NIRAS/ONDRAF is a public agency with mainly technical expertise. It's activities are financed by the waste producers, based on conventions between the parties concerned. The regulator FANC is a public institution with technical and juridical expertise. FANC is responsible for licensing and monitoring all nuclear activity and nuclear pollution. CanadaThe Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is a not-for-profit organization created by the waste producers in response to federal legislation to conduct a study of options, and to implement the option selected by the Government. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is the regulatory body established by the federal government to license nuclear facilities and to regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment and to respect Canada’s international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. FinlandThe RWM organisation Posiva is a joint company owned by the two Finnish nuclear power companies. It is responsible for the construction and operation of a final disposal facility of spent fuel, but does not deal with LILW (the NP companies take care of this themselves). The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) is responsible for licences. MTI had some co-operation with the representatives of the candidate municipalities and funded civic movements’ information activities. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) was more active in the local debate after renewing its information policy in the late 1990’s, but focused only on safety issues. SloveniaARAO (the Slovenian RWM agency) is a governmental agency with mainly technical expertise, but which for several years engages also services of social scientists and organizes cooperation with the public. Other institutions like the Slovenian nuclear safety administration and the Slovenian radiation protection administration have a regulating role. SwedenThe RWM organisation SKB is a private company owned by Swedish and German energy producers. It's activities are financed by the Swedish Nuclear Waste Fund (based on a 'polluter pays' tax on Swedish nuclear energy production). Two government authorities, the Swedish Nuclear Inspectorate (SKI) and the Swedish Radiation Protection Agency (SSI), closely monitor and evaluate SKB’s work. Swedish RWM is framed by the 1984 Act on Nuclear Activities and more recently by the Environmental Code from 1998. The institutional changes and new forms of engagement implied by recent environmental legislation are still taking shape and challenging the established institutional actors in the field. UKThe RWM organization Nirex is a company created by the industry with Government backing but whose shares, since April 2005, are now owned by Government. It has mainly technical expertise but since 1997 has commissioned social science and ethical research, and sees establishing the conditions for legitimacy as essential to performing its role. Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) is the safety regulator and has technical and legal expertise. The Environment Agency is the environmental regulator. Although its expertise is mainly technical it frames its work in terms of sustainability and addresses social dimensions such as equity.  What general expectations do stakeholders have concerning the role of a RWM agency or regulator? How do these institutions perceive their own role?  Should these institutions manage the social and ethical implications of RWM themselves or should they delegate responsibility for these to other people or organisations?  Or should RWM agencies primarily be concerned with social aspects? If so, who should manage the technical aspects?  Should there be a full integration of the social and technical aspects? Are these RWM institutions capable of incorporating the social aspects in a reliable way? If required, how should they change in order to incorporate social aspects in a reliable way?  Can one expect RWM agencies be totally independent from radwaste producers. Is this important? Or is it more crucial for the regulators to act fully independent?  Who could or should act as defender of the ‘public interest’: the agencies, the regulators, the governments, the citizen-stakeholders, environmental organisations?  What role could for instance an independent mediator play? And what kind of person/organisation could take up such a role?  In what way do international regulations influence the role of the institutions? Should this be enforced for instance by international institutions such as the IAEA or the EU? Or is this in the first instance a national matter?  What could be expected from international institutions such as the IAEA, the NEA or the EU concerning stakeholder engagement and integrating social and technical aspects of RWM? Context CARL Workshop Antwerp Discussion November 30 – December 1, 2005