September 30, 2010
U.S. poised to repeat mistakes concerning nuclear wastes, researchers say
Much of the problem of dealing with high-level nuclear waste — from both defense wastes and spent fuel from commercial nuclear power — is political and social, yet the search to date for workable solutions has been dominated by technological remedies, says Thomas Leschine, a UW professor of marine affairs.
Leschine was a co-author of a perspectives piece in Science this August that says a renewed federal effort to fix the nation’s stalled nuclear waste program is so focused on technological issues that it fails to address the public mistrust hampering storage and disposal efforts.
For example, the Blue ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, appointed recently by the Obama administration to address the nation’s mounting nuclear waste problem, has an unprecedented opportunity to revamp national policy, Leschine says. But, as the Science perspective piece notes, the commission “should make the rebuilding of social trust and credibility central to both their own operations and their proposed strategies for waste management, then draw on the social sciences needed to fulfill these commitments.”
Right now the 15-member commission is dominated by science and technology experts and politicians, says Eugene Rosa, a Washington State University professor of sociology and lead author of the paper.
“The psychological and social sciences have accumulated a solid knowledge base about the factors that shape public perceptions and attitudes about the risks associated with nuclear waste,” Rosa says. “For the past several decades they have actively researched a wide variety of issues in connection with stakeholder involvement in public decisions over environmental policy. As a result, they are prepared to advise the policy process,”
The advice includes how to select representative stakeholders, develop effective deliberation techniques and integrate technical and lay knowledge.
“Taking advantage of this knowledge would be a very inexpensive step in developing a publically acceptable solution to the nuclear waste problem,” Rosa says.
The Science piece comes during what’s been called a “nuclear renaissance” with more than 50 reactors under construction and more than 100 planned during the next decade. Meanwhile, some 60,000 tons of high-level waste have accumulated in the U.S. alone as 10 presidential administrations have failed to develop a successful waste-disposal program.
“U.S. efforts to deal with large inventories of potentially dangerous high-level nuclear waste have spanned decades, cost billions and been the source of considerable social and political discord,” Leschine says. “Public mistrust, fueled by repeated failures to engage effectively with affected publics that span many decades, is arguably among the chief reasons for the relative lack of progress.”
Publicly acceptable solutions are key because the co-authors write, “some communities will be asked to host the processing, storage, and disposal of used nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Others will be asked to allow the transport of these materials. Through taxes and utility bills, all Americans will pay for the infrastructure.
“While scientific and technical analyses are essential, they will not and arguably should not carry the day unless they address the issues that concern the public, both substantively and procedurally.”
Relevant links:
World Nuclear Association, “The Nuclear Renaissance”
Presidential memorandum on Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future
National Research Council report, “One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste.” Report free online,
National Research Council report, “Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making.” Not directly on the nuclear topic, but provides deeper understanding of social science contributions in decision making. Report free online,
