The management of high level radioactive waste is nowadays recognised as a complex decision-making where no solution can be reached solely on the basis of technical considerations. While this issue is acknowledged as a problem for the community as a whole, waste management remains a global problem looking for a local solution. Starting from this view, COWAM network (Community Waste Management), developed under the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Commission, addressed the following objectives: 1) To empower local actors through a networking process; 2) To gather and discuss the available experiences of decision-making processes at the local level within their national context in Europe; 3) To set up an arena for balanced exchanges between local actors, NGOs, regulators and implementers; 4) To promote new approaches to decision-making in national contexts in Europe. COWAM network comprises 230 delegates from 10 European countries, involving in priority local communities and NGOs. The emphasis put on the local participation enabled members of COWAM network to overcome distrust and to build common lessons and views beyond usual stakeholder positions. Through the analysis of case studies different issues were identified, among them two relate more specifically to expertise and environmental quality in the long term and sustainable development.

The objective of this paper is to present the (rarely heard) argument in favour of retention of the present system of radiation protection of the environment. There has been a recent trend in the radioecological and radiation protection community towards greater regulation of the effects of ionising radiations on biota. In particular, the often quoted International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) hypothesis that: If humans are protected from the effects of ionising radiation, then flora and fauna are also adequately protected has been criticised as being too anthropocentric and not adequate for protection of the environment. In this paper I will challenge this view, arguing firstly that this statement is almost always quoted out of its proper context, and secondly that the ICRP hypothesis does adequately protect the environment from the effects of ionising radiations. In view of the relatively insignificant effect of regulated releases of ionising radiation on the environment, the economic cost of further regulation will not result in a significant environmental benefit. Whilst empirical research to test the ICRP hypothesis should continue, until there is clear evidence against it, this simple and cost-effective approach should be retained. This would benefit the environment by directing scarce resources to more urgent environmental problems.

A risk related Value of Spend for Saving a Statistical Life (VSSSL) is proposed for cost-benefit studies across the power generation sector, and the nuclear industry in particular. An upper bound on VSSSL is set based on the UK government standard of around £1M or, in particular circumstances, £2M and the observation that excessive spend (probably of the order of more than £5M per statistical life) will cost lives. Above a risk of 10-3 a-1 it is assumed that VSSSL approaches a value around £2M (broad range £1M to £5M). At risks around 10-6 a-1 it is proposed that an appropriate VSSSL lies at £0.5M (range £0.25M to £1M). Where risks to the individual fall to the order of 10-9 a-1, or less, a low residual VSSSL of £0.01M is applied. A practical example is explored with respect to radiological protection where a total collective dose determination is disaggregated to resolve broad bands of individual exposure, and hence risk. Where collective doses are dominated by individual doses no more than a few μSv, the detriment arising from a manSv can be valued at about £15k to £60k, which can have a major effect on cost-benefit approaches to spend decisions.