home > about > archive > past consultations > may-jul 2001 workshops
The following is a report by David Churcher, Senior Research Manager, CIRIA.
Two stakeholder workshops were held, on 17 May 2001 and 2 July 2001 to discuss the key principles that had been derived from the consultation (running from November 2000 to April 2001). Both workshops were held at The Orange Studio in Birmingham.
The principal objective of the workshops was to achieve consensus amongst the stakeholders present on the wording, amplification and supporting guidance for the key principles, and if this was not possible, then to understand why consensus could not be achieved.
Secondary objectives were to seek feedback on the intended structure of the guidance document, the purpose of the proposed learning network and how to address the advocacy issues (those issues that had been raised during the consultation but which were outside of the direct remit of SAFEGROUNDS).
The outcome of the questionnaire based consultation was that seven key principles were under development, covering:
At the end of the questionnaire consultation it seemed that no key principle 7 could usefully be written, because the favoured options would place bureaucratic burdens on public bodies that were outside of the remit of SAFEGROUNDS.
In readiness for the workshop on 17 May, Marion Hill of WS Atkins prepared three possible wordings for each key principle 1 to 6.
During the workshop on 17 May, stakeholders considered each of the key principles and were able to propose further alternative wordings if they wished. All the alternative wordings for all 6 principles were then considered by stakeholder sub-groups. Where possible, each sub-group selected a preferred wording for each key principle. In a plenary session, these preferences were discussed, and a process of negotiation started, with the aim of securing agreement by all sub-groups to a particular wording of each key principle.
The outcome of 17 May was that preferred wordings, acceptable to the whole group, were identified for key principles 1 and 2 (Protection of human health and the environment, stakeholder involvement). There was much discussion concerning principle 3 (Use of BPEO) particularly on the impact of cost. It was eventually agreed that cost should not be an initial constraint, but would have to be taken account of when determining the preferred option or options.
As it had not been possible to discuss all the key principles, a straw poll was taken on the willingness of stakeholders to reconvene for a second workshop to continue the discussion. There was almost unanimous agreement to organising a follow-on workshop. This was later fixed for 2 July.
26 stakeholders were able to attend both workshops. Of the 8 others who attended on 17 May but not on 2 July, 7 were represented by colleagues. In addition, 3 new stakeholder organisations were present on 2 July. In total, 36 stakeholders attended on 2 July.
New participants were taken through a short induction session, both to bring them up to speed with the aims and objectives of the SAFEGROUNDS project, and with the principles of stakeholder dialogue.
For this workshop, principle 7 on record keeping was reinstated. There were, therefore, four principles which had not been discussed in plenary at the previous workshop. So that all those present had the opportunity to make comments on these four proposals before the plenary discussion, stakeholders divided themselves into four sub-groups and visited each of the remaining principles in turn.
However, since the stakeholder group was not exactly the same as on 17 May, it was vital to revisit the originally agreed principles as well as discuss the remaining principles.
During the discussion, it was agreed that principle 5 (Making a contaminated site suitable for future use) should be subsumed into principle 3 (Use of a BPEO process), by making sure that one of the possible options to be considered was to return the site to its pre-use state. It was also agreed that principle 6 (Tolerable levels of residual radioactive contamination) could not be usefully expressed in a way that would help the users of the guidance and that this subject could be dealt with in the detailed guidance for principle 1 (Protection of people and the environment).
Principle 3 (Use of a BPEO process) was not agreed in detail at the workshop, with some stakeholders seeking for this to be expressed in more general terms. However much useful direction on the sentiments that this principle must express. A post-workshop consultation of those present is being carried out to seek feedback on a proposed principle on identification of a preferred land management option.
At the conclusion of the workshop, the following principles had been agreed (the numbering has been changed to reflect where principles have been removed):
The fundamental objective of managing contaminated land on nuclear-licensed sites and defence sites should be to achieve a high level of protection of people and the environment, now and in the future.
Site owners/operators should develop and use stakeholder strategies in the management of contaminated land. In general, a broad range of stakeholders should be invited to participate in decision making.
The wording of this principle was finalised by stakeholders after the 2 July workshop, as follows:
Site owners/operators should identify the preferred management option (or options) for contaminated land by carrying out a comprehensive, systematic and consultative assessment of all possible options. The assessment should include a range of factors that are of concern to stakeholders. At present, the best practice is to use a BPEO approach in which health, safety and environmental impacts are considered, together with various technical, social and financial factors.
Site owners/operators shall take measures immediately to monitor and control all known (or suspected) contamination and continue such measures until a preferred land management option has been identified and implemented.
Site owners/operators should make comprehensive records of the nature and extent of contamination, the process of deciding on the management option for the contaminated land and the findings during implementation and validation of the option. All records should be kept and updated as necessary.
A full draft of the contaminated land management guidance will be prepared by Enviros, issued to the SAFEGROUNDS Project Steering Group for first check, then issued to all consultees in the SAFEGROUNDS dialogue for comment at the end of 2001. All comments will be taken into account in the preparation of the final draft of the guidance which will be published on the SAFEGROUNDS web site later in 2002.
Once the guidance is available through the web site, and practical experience in its use is gathered, the SAFEGROUNDS learning network will consider how the guidance can be improved for a revised edition.
David Churcher, CIRIA
24 August 2001