Advertisement

Making Nuclear Waste Problems Governable

Conflicts, Participation and Acceptability
  • Maria Rosaria Di NucciEmail author
  • Achim Brunnengräber
Chapter
Part of the Energiepolitik und Klimaschutz. Energy Policy and Climate Protection book series (EPKS)

Abstract

Disposing of nuclear waste remains one of the most complicated problems to solve; it is a wicked problem. Finding and gaining public acceptance solutions for a high level radioactive waste (HLW) repository is cumbersome even in the case of the most resilient democratic political system. Handling radioactive waste is a permanent reminder of the historical paths and legacies connected with the civilian and military development of nuclear power. Despite the many attempts made in the last forty years, there is no civilian permanent repository for spent fuel and HLW in operation in any nation state. Long-lasting and thorny social conflicts and distrust continue to play an inhibiting role in actual siting procedures of nuclear waste repositories. However, in the last decade, these issues have stopped being regarded as a mere technical problem. Against the background of conflicts and deadlocks, the nuclear waste issue has broadened in scope to consider societal, political, psychological and ethical factors. This has led to the use of deliberative procedures enhancing the integration of community and stakeholder values into decision-making. The chapter briefly introduces the major issues dealt with in this volume and discusses the role of inclusive participatory procedures and stakeholder involvement, as well as of consent-based siting and compensation to enhance acceptability of contested socio-technical solutions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In: Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmans, A.; Sundqvist, G.; Kos, D. and Simmons, P. (2015). The participatory turn in radioactive waste management: deliberation and the social–technical divide. In: Journal of Risk Research, 18(3), 347-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickerstaff, K. (2012). “Because We’ve Got History Here”: Nuclear Waste, Cooperative Siting, and the Relational Geography of a Complex Issue. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(11), 2611-2628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blowers, A. (2016). The legacy of nuclear waste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brunnengräber, A.; Di Nucci, M. R.; Isidoro Losada, A. M.; Mez, L. and Schreurs, M. A. (Eds.) (2015). Nuclear Waste Governance. An International Comparison. Volume I. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Brunnengräber, A.; Di Nucci, M. R.; Isidoro Losada, A. M.; Mez, L. and Schreurs, M. A. (Eds.) (2018). Challenges of Nuclear Waste Governance. An International Comparison. Volume II. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Cowell, R.; Bristow, G. and Munday, M. (2011). Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(4), 539-557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowell, R. and Devine-Wright, P. (2018). A ‘delivery-democracy dilemma’? Mapping and explaining policy change for public engagement with energy infrastructure. In: Journal of Environmental Policy and Panning, 499-517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Nucci, M. R. (2016). NIMBY oder IMBY: Akzeptanz, Freiwilligkeit und Kompensationen in der Standortsuche für die Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle. In: Brunnengräber, A. (Eds.) 2016. Problemfalle Endlager. Gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen im Umgang mit Atommüll. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 119-143.Google Scholar
  10. Di Nucci, M. R. and Isidoro Losada, A. M. (2015). An Open Door for Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Export? The International and EU Framework. In: Brunnengräber, A.; Di Nucci, M. R.; Isidoro Losada, A. M.; Mez, L. and Schreurs, M. (Eds.) (2015). Nuclear Waste Governance. An International Comparison. Volume I, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 79-97.Google Scholar
  11. Di Nucci, M. R. and Brunnengräber, A. (2017). In Whose Backyard? The Wicked Problem of Siting Nuclear Waste Repositories. In: European Policy Analysis, 3(2), 295-323.Google Scholar
  12. Di Nucci, M. R.; Brunnengräber, A. and Isidoro Losada, A. M. (2017). From the “right to know” to the “right to object” and “decide”. A comparative perspective on participation in siting procedures for high level radioactive waste repositories. In: Progress in Nuclear Energy, 100, 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards, G. and Del Tredici, R. (2013). Examples of Rolling Stewardship. Beyond One or Two Generations. Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. Opinion to the Joint Review Panel. http://www.ccnr.org/CCNR_Undertaking_final.pdf, last accessed 24 April 2019.
  14. Huijts, N. M. A.; Molin, E. J. E. and Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1): 525-531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IAEA (2018). Status and Trends in Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series, Vienna, No. NW –T-1.14. International Atomic Energy Agency. https://www.pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1799_web.pdf, last accessed 24 April 2019.
  16. Kojo, M. and Richardson, P. (2014). The use of community benefits approaches in the siting of nuclear waste management facilities. In: Energy Strategy Reviews, 4(3), 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krütli, P.; Flüeler, T.; Stauffacher, M.; Wiek, A. and Scholz, R. W. (2010). Technical Safety vs. Public Involvement? A Case Study on the Unrealized Project for the Disposal of Nuclear Waste at Wellenberg. In: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 7, 229-244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lentsch, J. and Weingart, P. (2011). Introduction: the quest for quality as a challenge to scientific policy advice: an overdue debate? In: Lentsch, J. and Weingart, P. (Eds.) (2011). The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-18.Google Scholar
  19. NEA (2009). Partnering for long-term management of radioactive waste – overview of evolution and current practice in twelve countries. Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD. https://www.oecdnea.org/rwm/docs/2009/rwm-fsc2009-2.pdf, last accessed 24 April 2019.
  20. NEA (2015). Stakeholder Involvement in Decision Making: A Short Guide to Issues, Approaches and Resources. Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD. Paris. https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/pubs/2015/7189-stakeholder-involvement-2015.pdf, last accessed 24 April 2019.
  21. Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level-Games. In: International Organization, 42 (Summer 1988), 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosa, E. and Clark, D. (1999). Historical routes to technological gridlock. In: Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 7, 21–57.Google Scholar
  23. Taebi, B. (2017). Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability. In: Risk Analysis, 37(10), 1817–1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wesselink, A; Paavola, J.; Fritsch, O. and Renn, O. (2011). Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners’ perspectives. In: Environment and Planning, 43(11), 2688-2704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forschungszentrum für Umweltpolitik (FFU)Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations