| Title | Controversy and consensus in the design of a consent-based siting process for radioactive waste |
| Publication Type | Journal Article |
| Authors | Tuler, Seth P., and THOMAS WEBLER |
| Journal | Energy Research & Social Science |
| Volume | 95 |
| Pagination | 102906 |
| ISSN | 2214-6296 |
| Abstract | Crafting a successful plan to store nuclear waste in the United States from commercial nuclear reactors and defense-related activities has been stymied by multiple technical, social, and political challenges. Recent focus has returned to the role of consent to site a deep geologic repository and interim storage facilities. However, what “consent” means has been left quite vague. We report on an empirical investigation using Q method to identify perspectives about how a consent-based siting process should be designed for one or more deep geologic repositories. We recruited twelve individuals deeply engaged with policy and regulatory questions associated with managing nuclear waste in the United States. Results reveal four perspectives: get to yes expediently, seek acceptance by gaining trust, promote inclusion and transparency for informed community choice, and develop legitimacy for the process and outcomes. Each perspective includes features meant to ensure that core concepts of consent are addressed in a process to site one or more deep geologic repositories: self-determination, understanding, and voluntariness. We discuss how perspectives emphasize them in different ways. We also highlight how perspectives reveal preferences for responding to three challenges raised by the socio-political context: what is the scope of the problem to be addressed, how the process can be protected from external pressure, and how to proceed in a context of social distrust. The perspectives suggest many areas of agreement about how a consent-based process should be designed. However, key differences are also revealed which pose a significant challenge for those that will be responsible for designing a process that achieves the promise of consent. |
| Notes | 'My opinion:\n\n\nCommunity can decide elected officials or public referendum\n\n\nProcess should focus on designing the entire waste management system\n\n\nNot a lot of constant renegotiation of consent after given\n\n\nPromote transparency while trying to establish trust\n\n\nDon’t find a community, find a place without a community\n\n\nconsent must be a phased process, simply because site characterization is a long and expensive process\n\n\n\n - anastasiat968'
'3 challenges:\n\n\nchallenges raised by the definition of the problem;\n\n\nchallenges raised by the need to protect the process from external pressure and coercion; and\n\n\nchallenges raised by social distrust\n\n\n\n - anastasiat968'
'\n\nWhat is an affected community?; how does a community voice consent?\n\n\nHow can voluntariness be assured, especially when proposals are coupled with incentives?\n\n\nWhen in the process is consent sought?\n\n\nIs consent a singular decision or are there multiple opportunities for a community to consent or withdraw?\n\n\nBy whom and how should risks and benefits to future generations be raised and considered as part of a consent-based process?\n\n\n\n - anastasiat968'
'4 perspectives:\n\n\nget to yes expediently (elected officials)\n\n\nFacility will be safe\n\n\nEntire waste system designed\n\n\nCommunity should be able to withdraw consent\n\n\n\n\nseek acceptance by gaining trust (up to community to choose)\n\n\nDemonstrate trustworthiness by having an independent and diverse group overseeing entire process\n\n\nEntire waste system designed\n\n\nStrict timetable, not fond of constant renegotiation of consent\n\n\nCommunity has a role in monitoring facility after built\n\n\nCongress shouldn’t be able to override communities’ decision \n\n\n\n\npromote inclusion and transparency for informed community choice (public referendum)\n\n\nEmpower community to make own decision, whether yes or no\n\n\nCommunity to participate in continuous monitoring after facility built\n\n\nCongress shouldn’t be able to override decision\n\n\nCongress should amend the Atomic Energy Act to remove exemptions from environmental laws for spent fuel and defense high-level waste\n\n\n\n\ndevelop legitimacy for the process and outcomes (up to community to choose)\n\n\nFocused on siting of repository\n\n\nGive public meaningful roles to design consent-based process\n\n\nTime to establish understanding \n\n\nNRC can monitor facility \n\n\n\n\n\n - anastasiat968'
'Thomas Webler, co-author, is one of the consortia members\n\n - Brandon Costelloe-Kuehn'
|
| URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629622004091 |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102906 |
Zotero attachments as links:
