Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Social License for Nuclear Technologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume IV

Abstract

Nuclear energy technologies have the potential to help mitigate climate change. However, these technologies face many challenges, including high costs, societal concern and opposition, and health, safety, environmental and proliferation risks. Many companies and academic research groups are pursuing advanced designs, both fission and fusion-based, to address both costs and these risks. This chapter complements these efforts by analyzing how nuclear technologies can address societal concerns through the acquisition of a social license, a nebulous concept that represents ‘society’s consent’ and that has been used to facilitate and improve a wide range of publically and privately funded projects and activities subject to a range of regulatory oversight, including large industrial facilities, controversial genetic engineering research, and environmental management. Suggestions for public engagement and consent-based siting, two aspects of a social license, have been made before. The chapter modernizes these suggestions by briefly reviewing the social license and engagement literature. It discusses, in the context of how to acquire a social license, the role of government regulation, the role of project proponents and government actors, and the role of four key principles, including engendering trust, transparency, meaningful public engagement, and protection of health, safety and the environment. Further, the chapter uses the social license concept to explain why some nuclear waste repositories have succeeded while others languish, and it provides concrete recommendations for the deployment of new nuclear waste repositories and advanced power plants, both fission and fusion-based.

Chief Operating & Science Officer, Post Road Foundation, https://www.postroadfoundation.org.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a review of early opposition in the 1970s, when nuclear power was expanding rapidly, see Bickerstaffe and Pearce 1980; Falk 1982. Such challenges and protests continue to occur worldwide. See The Economist 2013.

  2. 2.

    Bickerstaffe and Pearce 1980, pp. 313–320.

  3. 3.

    Mufson 1982, p. 60, citing Otway et al. 1978.

  4. 4.

    Both the International Energy Agency and the IPCC report that nuclear power production should at least double over the next thirty years in order for the earth’s temperature rise to remain below the 2 °C goal of the Paris Agreement. Edenhofer 2014; International Energy Agency 2015.

  5. 5.

    Bickerstaffe and Pearce 1980; Slovic et al. 1991; Macfarlane and Ewing 2006.

  6. 6.

    Lassiter 2018. http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-formed-company-launch-novel-approach-fusion-power-0309; Sorbom et al. 2015.

  7. 7.

    Nuclear Energy Institute 2018.

  8. 8.

    Otway et al. 1978. It has been long known that individuals ascribe more risk to radiation than experts ascribe, and more risk than other hazards. This asymmetry, also generated by other hazard types, has been explained by the fact that radiation risk is perceived to be, inter alia, less voluntary, more catastrophic, and more likely to be fatal than other hazards. Slovic 1987, 1996. Further, the fact that radioactive material is invisible instills a sense of dread regarding nuclear accidents—radioactive accidents have no visible end. Erikson 1990.

  9. 9.

    Coal combustion alone is estimated to kill 366,000 people in China per year. Wong 2016. In contrast, the Chernobyl accident is expected to result in only 4,000 deaths in total. International Atomic Energy Agency 2008.

  10. 10.

    Bickerstaffe and Pearce 1980, p. 326.

  11. 11.

    For example, Austria held a two-year long public debate and referendum regarding placing a completed nuclear plant into operation between 1976 and 1978. At the conclusion of the debate, voters rejected the plant. Mufson 1982, pp. 55–57.

  12. 12.

    Reed 2008, p. 2421.

  13. 13.

    Reed 2008, p. 2420.

  14. 14.

    Reed 2008, pp. 2418, 2421; Reed et al. 2018.

  15. 15.

    Slovic et al. 1991, pp. 1606–1607.

  16. 16.

    For example, some commentators recommend nearly twenty years ago that nuclear waste repositories be sited through a consent-based process. Slovic et al. 1991, p. 1607, citing E. R. Frech, in Proceedings of the 1991 International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (American Nuclear Society, La Grange, IL, 1991), vol. 1, pp. 442–446. Yet, as further discussed below, present U.S. law does not use a consent-based process.

  17. 17.

    Note that the terms a ‘social license’ and a ‘license to operate’ are often used interchangeable in the literature. Both terms are often used to describe all obligations that an activity must meet, including legal, economic and social. Gunningham et al. 2004, p. 329. This chapter adopts this meaning for a ‘social license’, so that a social license can equal or exceed legal obligations. Other authors interpret a ‘social license’ as necessarily separate and distinct from legal obligations. Bankes 2015; Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen 2017. For these authors, a ‘social license’ refers only to obligations that go beyond the requirements of statutes, regulations, permits or treaties. Id. What constitutes ‘society’ and ‘consent’ are context-dependent questions that are further discussed below.

  18. 18.

    Rooney et al. 2014, p. 209.

  19. 19.

    Hall et al. 2015.

  20. 20.

    Dixon-Woods and Ashcroft 2008; Carter et al. 2015.

  21. 21.

    Raman and Mohr 2014.

  22. 22.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016.

  23. 23.

    National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity 2016. Although the exact details of some types of gain-of-function research is not public due to dual use concerns, the governing regulations were developed through public engagement and explicitly considered ethical values other than technical risks.

  24. 24.

    For example, an experimental ecology project in Ontario, Canada, the Experimental Lakes Area, pays particular attention to societal concerns. See https://www.iisd.org/.

  25. 25.

    Note that the environmental management and conservation literature generally does not use the language of social license but has developed many similar concepts in the context of public engagement. Fiorino 1990; Reed 2008; Reed et al. 2018.

  26. 26.

    Gunningham et al. 2004, p. 308.

  27. 27.

    Rooney et al. 2014, p. 215.

  28. 28.

    Stilgoe et al. 2006, p. 19; Raman and Mohr 2014, p. 12.

  29. 29.

    Fiorino 1990.

  30. 30.

    Ottinger 2013.

  31. 31.

    Ottinger 2013; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016, p. 134.

  32. 32.

    Fiorino 1990, p. 228.

  33. 33.

    Fiorino 1990, p. 227. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016, p. 133.

  34. 34.

    Gunningham et al. 2004, p. 327.

  35. 35.

    Id.

  36. 36.

    Id.

  37. 37.

    Gunningham et al. 2004, pp. 318–319.

  38. 38.

    Gunningham et al. 2004, p. 327.

  39. 39.

    Id.

  40. 40.

    Id.

  41. 41.

    For nuclear technologies, which are heavily regulated, government regulation with regards to health and safety likely addresses health and safety concerns. However, there may be other values, such as the cultural significance of a power plant location, that government regulations is less able to address. Note that some commentators argue that the social license concept undermines the rule of law by giving local communities veto authority over otherwise approved projects. Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen 2017. In some respects, the tension between local veto and legal authority is analogous to the tension between minority and majority rights in a democracy: minority groups have some inalienable rights, regardless of majority decision by vote.

  42. 42.

    Reed 2008, p. 2419.

  43. 43.

    Gunningham et al. 2004, p. 329.

  44. 44.

    Gunningham et al. 2004, pp. 308, 329.

  45. 45.

    Gunningham et al. 2004, p. 308.

  46. 46.

    Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen 2017.

  47. 47.

    Carter et al. 2015, p. 2.

  48. 48.

    Effective engagement requires that outcomes are ‘necessarily uncertain’. Reed 2008, p. 2426.

  49. 49.

    Slovic et al. 1991, p. 1606.

  50. 50.

    Slovic et al. 1991, p. 1606.

  51. 51.

    Slovic et al. 1991, p. 1606.

  52. 52.

    Plumer 2018.

  53. 53.

    Reed et al. 2009, p. 1934.

  54. 54.

    Reed 2008, p. 2423.

  55. 55.

    Reed et al. 2009.

  56. 56.

    Reed 2008, p. 2423.

  57. 57.

    For example, the shoreline of an island hosting a genetically engineered mosquito trial, where the mosquito is not expected to leave the island, defined the boundary for societal consent via referendum. http://keysmosquito.org/oxitec-ox513a-trial/#1485203300201-22f823b0-92bd.

  58. 58.

    For example, in U.S. federal court, litigants must demonstrate that (i) they have ‘suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent’; (ii) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant; and (iii) a favourable decision will redress the injury. Mass. v. EPA 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–561 (1992). In a possible analogy to nuclear risks, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that future injuries to the state of Massachusetts caused by greenhouse gasses meet this three-part test. Id., at 521.

  59. 59.

    The International Law Commission has opined that risks of ‘causing significant transboundary harm’ that trigger notification duties include ‘risks taking the form of a high probability of causing significant transboundary harm’ and risks taking the form of ‘a low probability of causing disastrous transboundary harm’. International Law Commission 2001, pp. 5–6.

  60. 60.

    Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (25 February 1991), https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-4&chapter=27&clang=_en; Implementation Committee 2011 citing decision IV/2 annex I, para 54.

  61. 61.

    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 2017, p. 34.

  62. 62.

    A trial of a genetically modified mosquito in the Florida Keys exemplifies both techniques. The local mosquito control board approved the trial and then put the trial to a local non-binding referendum. Citizens on one island approved the trial, while citizens on another island declined. The sponsoring private company and local mosquito control board then followed the results of the referendum. See http://keysmosquito.org/oxitec-ox513a-trial/#1485203300201-22f823b0-92bd.

  63. 63.

    Bickerstaffe and Pearce 1980, p. 330.

  64. 64.

    Reed 2008, p. 2424.

  65. 65.

    Reed 2008, p. 2425.

  66. 66.

    Rooney et al. 2014, p. 210; Hall et al. 2015, p. 306. ‘Although there is no universally accepted definition of trust’ trust is described as ‘having three main aspects: confidence, the belief that an individual or entity has the ability to do what they say they will do; integrity, the belief that an individual or entity is fair and just; and dependability, the belief that an individual or entity will do what they say they will do. Trust also depends on the available information that serves as the basis for judging these characteristics’. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016, p. 136. Citing Childers and Grunig 1999.

  67. 67.

    Slovic et al. 1991, p. 1606.

  68. 68.

    Coglianese et al. 2008, p. 927; Long and Scott 2013, p. 49. (‘To engender trust, the people or groups conducting or managing research should explain clearly what they are trying to accomplish, what they know and do not know, and the quality of the information [that] they have. They should reveal intentions, point out vested interests, and admit mistakes, and do all of this in a way that is frank and understandable[.]’).

  69. 69.

    For example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that all documents and correspondence relating to an application for a nuclear power plant construction permit and operating or combined license be made available to the public. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2004, p. 1.

  70. 70.

    According to one mining executive, a social license is best acquire by ‘show[ing] anyone anything’. Gunningham et al. 2004, p. 327.

  71. 71.

    Rooney et al. 2014, p. 210; Hall et al. 2015, p. 306; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016, p. 136. Coglianese et al. 2008, p. 927.

  72. 72.

    For example, the nuclear industry is often accused of having a habit of secrecy, stemming in part from its historical connection to weapon development and fear of public concern. See Bickerstaffe, pp. 326–327.

  73. 73.

    For example, in a genetically engineered mosquito trial, the sponsoring company gave permission for the FDA to open its draft environmental assessment to public comment in order to facilitate effective public engagement. “Letter from Oxitec Ltd. To FDA DDM re: Draft Environmental Assessment for Investigational Use of Aedes aegypti OX513A, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2014-N-2235-1294. The FDA is statutorily required to maintain the confidentiality of information submitted by research proponents, absent such a waiver. 21 CFR §§ 20.61(c), 25.50(b), 514.11.

  74. 74.

    Coglianese et al. 2008, p. 926.

  75. 75.

    Reed 2008, p. 2422.

  76. 76.

    Coglianese et al. 2008.

  77. 77.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016, p. 131. When discussing the benefits of a public process of review of gene transfer experiments, a National Academy report remarked that “By engaging the public in a focused discussion on the technology and its potential societal impacts, the RAC engendered trust and credibility.” Institute of Medicine 2014, p. 5.

  78. 78.

    In the U.S., federal agencies undertaking major actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment must complete an environmental impact statement and must solicit comments from the public as part of competing such statement. 40 CFR §§ 1502.3, 1503.1(a)(4) (2018) and 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (C).

  79. 79.

    In the U.S., federal agencies are required to provide an opportunity for ‘interested persons’ to participate in agency rulemaking proceedings through written comments and other means. 5 USC § 553(c) (2018).

  80. 80.

    Article 3.8 of the Espoo Convention requires transboundary public engagement for projects that are ‘likely to cause a significant adverse transboundary impact’.

  81. 81.

    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2004.

  82. 82.

    Reed 2008, p. 2422.

  83. 83.

    ‘The outcome of any participatory process is far more sensitive to the manner in which it is conducted than the tools that are used’. Reed 2008, p. 2425.

  84. 84.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016, p. 131.

  85. 85.

    Bickerstaffe and Pearce 1980, p. 323.

  86. 86.

    Stilgoe et al. 2006, p. 19; Raman and Mohr 2014, p. 12.

  87. 87.

    Rooney et al. 2014, p. 214.

  88. 88.

    Rooney et al. 2014, p. 215.

  89. 89.

    Reed 2008, p. 2422; Rooney et al. 2014, p. 214.

  90. 90.

    Coglianese et al. 2008, p. 926.

  91. 91.

    Id.

  92. 92.

    According to one engagement expert, ‘It is not enough simply to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to participate in decision-making […]. [T]hey must actually be able to participate’. Reed 2008, p. 2422.

  93. 93.

    Coglianese et al. 2008, p. 927.

  94. 94.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016, p. 134.

  95. 95.

    Reed 2008, pp. 2422, 2425.

  96. 96.

    Coglianese et al. 2008, p. 927; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016, p. 133.

  97. 97.

    Fiorino 1990, p. 227. Non-experts ‘see problems, issues, and solutions that experts miss’. They have a sensitivity ‘to social and political values that experts’ models [do] not acknowledge’. Id. Further, they may have a better capacity for ‘accommodating uncertainty and correcting errors over time through deliberation and debate’. Id.

  98. 98.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016, p. 135.

  99. 99.

    Gunningham et al. 2004, p. 314; Rooney et al. 2014, p. 210.

  100. 100.

    For example, nuclear power advocates occasionally argue that existing health, safety and environmental regulations are excessively expensive and stifle innovation. See Institute for Energy Research 2018.

  101. 101.

    See the nuclear waste repository case studies below.

  102. 102.

    Gunningham et al. 2004, pp. 308, 329.

  103. 103.

    Supra note 73.

  104. 104.

    Supra note 62.

  105. 105.

    For this particular trial, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration exercised regulatory oversight under its authority over animal drugs. U.S. FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine 2017, p. 6. FDA approval was conditioned on an environmental assessment and a determination that the investigation was neither unsafe nor ‘otherwise contrary to the public interest’. Id. FDA regulations do not discuss local community acceptance.

  106. 106.

    Supra note 62, 73.

  107. 107.

    See 82 FR 7149 (January 19, 2017) and 45 CFR §§ 46.101, 122, 123. Strictly speaking, U.S. federal regulations on human subject research only pertain to those projects funded by the U.S. federal government. However, most institutions adopt these regulations as their own rules, regardless of funding source. See for example, https://cuhs.harvard.edu/procedures/institutional-authority. In addition, the U.S. FDA requires studies submitted in support of a new drug or medical device to have been conducted in conformance with federal human subject research regulations. 21 CFR 56.103 (2018).

  108. 108.

    Human subject research regulations in the U.S. were recently revised in 2017 using a public engagement process. 82 FR 7149 (January 19, 2017). Before 2018, they were most recently revised in 2005. Id.

  109. 109.

    Katherine Ling, ‘Budget Will Eliminate Yucca Nuclear Waste Repository Says Sen. Reid’, NY Times (1 February 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/01/01greenwire-budget-will-eliminate-yucca-nuclear-waste-repos-9897.html; Ewing and Hippel 2009.

  110. 110.

    Zhang 2017.

  111. 111.

    Yucca Mountain is pervaded by geologic fractures that could transport radioactive materials to the local aquifer. Murphy 2006, p. 49. There is a 5% chance that the radiation dose by contaminates in the aquifer will double an individual’s annual radiation exposure. Whipple 2006, p. 61.

  112. 112.

    Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future 2012, p. 23; Ewing and Hippel 2009, p. 151.

  113. 113.

    Cotton 2006, p. 36; Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and as amended 1987, 42 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq. (2017).

  114. 114.

    Id.

  115. 115.

    Dawn Stover, ‘The “scientization” of Yucca Mountain’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (12 October 2011), https://thebulletin.org/scientization-yucca-mountain.

  116. 116.

    See U.S. vs. Nevada, No. 2:00-CV-0268-RLH-LRL, ORDER on Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction-#120 (D. Nev. August 31, 2007), available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/yucca/documents/AG-155-2007-000513.pdf.

  117. 117.

    The DOE undertake numerous public engagement events. For example, between May and August of 2001 alone the DOE held 66 public hearings. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority Staff 2006.

  118. 118.

    Raman and Mohr 2014, pp. 10, 12.

  119. 119.

    Fountain 2017.

  120. 120.

    http://www.skb.com/news/a-week-in-osthammar-with-focus-on-the-environment/.

  121. 121.

    In 1985, the Swedish nuclear waste company, SKB, drilled exploratory bore-holes at 10 locations throughout Sweden. Lidskog and Sundqvist 2004. Local opposition to the drilling, however, led SKB to change its strategy: instead of focusing on the best site at the start of the process, the company decided to focus on many suitable sites that were all socially acceptable. Id., at 261. As explained by SKB: ‘The site where the final repository is built must fulfill two fundamental requirements: There must be bedrock that permits long-term safe disposal, and there must be political and popular support in the concerned municipality and among nearby residents’. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company 2011, p. 19. According to Timo Aikas, a former executive of the Finish nuclear waste company, Posiva, initially, ‘[Posiva] ran into difficulties because we tried to behave as industry did back then—we’d decide and announce. […] Very soon we learned that we had to be very open. […] This openness and transparency creates trust’. Fountain 2017.

  122. 122.

    Lidskog and Sundqvist 2004, p. 261.

  123. 123.

    Id., at 262.

  124. 124.

    Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company 2011, pp. 19–20.

  125. 125.

    Id.

  126. 126.

    http://www.skb.com/future-projects/the-spent-fuel-repository/our-applications/.

  127. 127.

    The final disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel, at 4–7. http://www.posiva.fi/files/738/The_final_disposal_facility_for_spent_nuclear_fuel_small.pdf.

  128. 128.

    Id.

  129. 129.

    Curry 2017.

  130. 130.

    http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/selecting_the_site_the_final_disposal_at_olkiluoto#.Wk6JGbenGDI.

  131. 131.

    Id.

  132. 132.

    http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/general_time_schedule_for_final_disposal#.Wk6VF7enGDI.

  133. 133.

    Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future 2012.

  134. 134.

    The Swedish and Finnish Governments were heavily involved in assessing health and safety.

  135. 135.

    U.S. v. Morros, 268 F.3d 695, 699 (9th Cir. 2001).

  136. 136.

    However, a preliminary geologic screen of suitable communities likely does not require community consent to the extent that such screening requires limited, if any, sampling or drilling.

  137. 137.

    In the event that no community agrees to host a waste repository, the siting process would need to begin again.

  138. 138.

    In some circumstances, it may even be possible to co-locate fusion plants and waste disposal facilities to minimize transport of radioactive material.

References

  • Bankes N (2015) The social license to operate: Mind the gap. University of Calgary Faculty of Law Blog on Developments in Alberta Law. http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Blog_NB_SLO_June2015.pdf. Accessed 23 March 2017

  • Bickerstaffe J, Pearce D (1980) Can There Be a Consensus on Nuclear Power? Social Studies of Science 10:309–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (2012) Report to the Secretary of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen (2017) Social License to Operate. http://landman.ca/2017/03/13/social-license-operate/. Accessed 23 March 2017

  • Carter P, Laurie GT, Dixon-Woods M (2015) The social licence for research: Why care.data ran into trouble. Journal of Medical Ethics 41:404–409. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers L Hon, Grunig J (1999) Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations. Institute for Public Relations

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese C, Kilmartin H, Mendelson E (2008) Transparency and public participation in the federal rulemaking process: Recommendations for the new administration. Geo Wash L Rev 77:924

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context Implementation Committee (2011) Opinions of the Implementation Committee (2001–2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton T (2006) Nuclear Waste Story: Setting the Stage. In: Macfarlane A, Ewing RC (eds) Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation’s High-level Nuclear Waste. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry A (2017) What Lies Beneath. The Atlantic

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft RE (2008) Regulation and the social licence for medical research. Med Health Care and Philos 11:381–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-008-9152-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edenhofer O (ed) (2014) Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Erikson K (1990) Toxic Reckoning: Business Faces a New Kind of Fear. Harvard Business Review 68:118–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing R, Hippel FV (2009) Nuclear Waste Management in the United States - Starting Over. Science 325:151–2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk J (1982) Global fission - The battle over nuclear power.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 15:226–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fountain H (2017) On Nuclear Waste, Finland Shows U.S. How It Can Be Done. The New York Times

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham N, Kagan RA, Thornton D (2004) Social license and environmental protection: Why businesses go beyond compliance. Law & Social Inquiry 29:307–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall N, Lacey J, Carr-Cornish S, Dowd A-M (2015) Social licence to operate: Understanding how a concept has been translated into practice in energy industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 86:301–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute for Energy Research (2018) Regulations Hurt Economics of Nuclear Power. IER. https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/regulations-hurt-economics-nuclear-power/. Accessed 3 May 2018

  • Institute of Medicine (2014) Oversight and Review of Clinical Gene Transfer Protocols: Assessing the Role of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Atomic Energy Agency (ed) (2008) Chernobyl: Looking back to go forward. Proceedings of an International Conference on Chernobyl: Looking Back to Go Forward … held in Vienna, 6–7 September 2005. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency (2015) Special Report on Climate Change. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter J (2018) Op-Ed: Why Private Investors Must Fund “New Nuclear” Power Right Now. HBS Working Knowledge. http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/op-ed-why-private-investors-must-fund-new-nuclear-power-right-now. Accessed 25 April 2018

  • Lidskog R, Sundqvist G (2004) On the right track? Technology, geology and society in Swedish nuclear waste management. Journal of Risk Research 7:251–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987042000171924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long JC, Scott D (2013) Vested Interests and Geoengineering Research. Issues in Science and Technology 29:45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane A, Ewing RC (eds) (2006) Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation’s High-level Nuclear Waste. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Mufson M (1982) Psychosocial Aspects of Nuclear Power: A Review of the International Literature. In: American Psychiatric Association (ed) Psychosocial aspects of nuclear developments. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy W (2006) Regulating the Geologic Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste at Yucca Mountain. In: Macfarlane A, Ewing RC (eds) Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation’s High-level Nuclear Waste. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (2016) Recommendations for the Evaluation and Oversight of Proposed Gain-Of-Function Research. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuclear Energy Institute (2018) Ensuring the Future of U.S. Nuclear Energy. Creating a Streamlined and Predictable Licensing Pathway to Deployment

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottinger G (2013) Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps: STS Insights into Procedural Justice. Science, Technology, & Human Values 38:250–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912469669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otway HJ, Maurer D, Thomas K (1978) Nuclear power: The question of public acceptance. Futures 10:109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(78)90065-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plumer B (2018) The U.S. Backs Off Nuclear Power. Georgia Wants to Keep Building Reactors. The New York Times

    Google Scholar 

  • Raman S, Mohr A (2014) A social licence for science: Capturing the public or co-constructing research? Social Epistemology 28:258–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N et al (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90:1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Vella S, Challies E et al (2018) A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology 26:S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooney D, Leach J, Ashworth P (2014) Doing the Social in Social License. Social Epistemology 28:209–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.922644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1996) Perception of Risk from Radiation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 68:165–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a031860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M (1991) Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste. Science 254:1603–1607. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.254.5038.1603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorbom BN, Ball J, Palmer TR, et al (2015) ARC: A compact, high-field, fusion nuclear science facility and demonstration power plant with demountable magnets. Fusion Engineering and Design 100:378–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2015.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe J, Irwin A, Jones K (2006) The received wisdom: Opening up expert advice. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (2011) Application for license under the nuclear activities act

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (20 July 2013), Limiting the fallout https://www.economist.com/china/2013/07/20/limiting-the-fallout

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2017) Implementation of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (2013–2015) Fifth review. United Nations Publication

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine (2017) Guidance for Industry #187, Regulation of Intentionally Altered Genomic DNA in Animals, Draft Guidance

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2004) Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority Staff (2006) Yucca Mountain: The most studied real estate on the planet

    Google Scholar 

  • Whipple C (2006) Performance Assessment: What Is It and Why Is It Done? In: Macfarlane A, Ewing RC (eds) Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation’s High-level Nuclear Waste. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong E (2016) Coal Burning Causes the Most Air Pollution Deaths in China, Study Finds. The New York Times

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S (2017) The White House Revives a Controversial Plan for Nuclear Waste. The Atlantic

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1900 Powell Street, Suite 600, Emeryville, CA, 94608, USA

    Seth Hoedl

Authors
  1. Seth Hoedl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seth Hoedl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Jonathan L. Black-Branch

  2. Cologne, Germany

    Dieter Fleck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hoedl, S. (2019). A Social License for Nuclear Technologies. In: Black-Branch, J., Fleck, D. (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume IV. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-267-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-267-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-266-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-267-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation