Controversy and consensus in the design of a consent-based siting process for radioactive waste. (January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tuler, Seth P.; Webler, Thomas
• Is Part Of: Energy research & social science. Volume 95(2023)
• Publication Date: 2023-01
• Subjects: Nuclear waste -- Q method -- Consent -- Siting -- Decision making; Power resources -- Social aspects -- Periodicals; Energy consumption -- Social aspects -- Periodicals; 333.7905
• DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102906
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2214-6296

Abstract

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.