Nuclear Waste: Progress with Public Engagement—Response

Abstract

Cannara recommends the adoption of the Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor. We urge caution. The nuclear industry has never fully realized safety and other promises. Grimes and Nuttall ([ 1 ][1]) explain that the fissile Uranium-233 produced by the slow neutron capture of Thorium-232 “is difficult to extract and handle, because it is produced together with other highly radioactive isotopes, and the performance of thorium fuels is not well understood. The proliferation resistance credentials of the thorium fuel cycle deserve greater scrutiny but appear promising.” These are precisely the kinds of uncertainties and risks that should be part of a wider public discourse about energy choices. We applaud the commitment of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRCANF) to exceeding the Federal Advisory Committee Act's (FACA's) legal requirements, as described in the letter from Hamilton and Scowcroft. However, past research and our own experience in conducting FACA processes show the law to be a minimal standard, suited to hearing prepared (and sometimes strategic) comments from professionals. Such testimonies cannot reveal the depth of distrust among culturally and historically disenfranchised individuals. Hearing public concerns is not the same as engaging with the public and making them part of deliberations. The response to the tritium leak at Brookhaven National Laboratory in 2002 provides a good example of using effective engagement, supported by social science knowledge, to resolve conflict with the public ([ 2 ][2]). By focusing on procedural mechanics (e.g., going beyond FACA), the BRCANF does not address the deeper issues of how problems are framed and how options are deliberated. Listening to social scientist explanations is no substitute for carefully conducted research and active outreach to citizens for whom the act of communication may be as important as the communication content. We argued for social science membership on the BRCANF or its subcommittees because we believe it is important to provide social science expertise on a continuing basis. This structure will ensure the implementation of effective deliberation techniques that engage the public early and continuously—not just to communicate their views but to give them a meaningful role in the decision-making process. As the BRCANF learned at its meetings, social science input has played a constructive role in the design of nuclear waste management planning in Europe ([ 3 ][3]) and Canada ([ 4 ][4]). To achieve similar success, the Commission must meaningfully involve the public and the social sciences. The efforts cited in the BRCANF letter will create neither the social trust nor the trustworthiness needed to solve the waste problem. 1. [↵][5] 1. R. W. Grimes, 2. W. J. Nuttall , Science 329, 799 (2010). [OpenUrl][6][Abstract/FREE Full Text][7] 2. [↵][8] 1. T. Webler , “Low dose risk perception and communication: A case study of the tritium controversy at Brookhaven National Laboratory” (SERI Report 02-002, Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield, MA, 2002); [www.seri-us.org/pubs/02-002.pdf][9]. 3. [↵][10] Nuclear Energy Agency, Forum on Stakeholder Confidence, Europe ([www.nea.fr/fsc/][11]). 4. [↵][12] Nuclear Waste Management Organization, Canada ([www.nwmo.ca][13]). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DGrimes%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BW.%26rft.volume%253D329%26rft.issue%253D5993%26rft.spage%253D799%26rft.epage%253D803%26rft.atitle%253DGenerating%2Bthe%2BOption%2Bof%2Ba%2BTwo-Stage%2BNuclear%2BRenaissance%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1188928%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F20705854%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMjkvNTk5My83OTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyNDoiL3NjaS8zMzAvNjAwMy80NDguMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30= [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [9]: http://www.seri-us.org/pubs/02-002.pdf [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [11]: http://www.nea.fr/fsc/ [12]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [13]: http://www.nwmo.ca