Nuclear Waste Management: Building a Foundation to Enhance Trust
Do not shoot the messenger. Fear needs to be acknowledged, not dismissed as irrational.
If the audience wants to understand what happened in Japan, or in other incidents involving nuclear facilities, then engage in a discussion if you feel competent to do so, or try to find someone who can.
People want the responsible parties to demonstrate ability to protect them, and prove through these actions that safety is the highest priority now and in the future.
The public wants promises about definitive steps to improve safety, efficiency, and other metrics of competence; they want to know what communications will keep them or their representatives in the loop; and they want to be sure that the safety is not going to be sacrificed.
Follow-through with promised actions. Trying to change public opinion with words not matched by deeds will erode, perhaps even poison, what could be a productive ongoing organizational relationship.
More detail is provided in the body of the chapter.
KeywordsWaste Management Nuclear Power Plant Nuclear Waste Public Opinion Polling Loan Guarantee
- Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (2012) Final Updated Report. http://brc.gov Accessed March 21, 2012
- Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, National Research Council, (1989) Improving risk communication. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Connell J, Pickett D (2000) Land use controls on BRAC bases. ICMA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Covello V, Sandman P, Slovic P (1988) Risk communication, risk statistics, and risk comparisons: a manual for public managers. Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Environmental Health Center and National Safety Council (2001) A reporter’s guide to Yucca mountain. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Hollander J, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M (2008) Citizen board issues and local newspaper coverage risk, remediation, and environmental management. Remediation. Summer; 79–90Google Scholar
- Greenberg M, Lowrie K, West B, Mayer H (2009) The reporter’s handbook on nuclear materials, energy, and waste management. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
- Huizenga D (2012) WM symposia 2012 and FY 2013 budget overview. Paper copy received March 15, 2012Google Scholar
- ICMA (1996) Cleaning up after the cold war: the role of local government in the environmental cleanup and reuse of federal facilities. ICMA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Light A (2009) Global warming’s six Americas, Yale Project on Climate Change, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6american.html. Accessed march 21, 2012
- Office of Environmental Management (2000) Paths to closure, status report. DOE/EM-0526Google Scholar
- Persensky J, Browde S, Szabo A, Peterson L, Specht E, Wight E (2004) Effective risk communication, the nuclear regulatory commission’s guideline for external risk communication, NUREG/BR-0308. USNRC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Probst K, McGovern M, McCarthy K (1997) Long-term stewardship and the nuclear weapons complex. RFF, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Stern P, Fineberg H (eds) (1996) Understanding risks: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Department of Energy (2012) Department of energy: Successes at the Recovery Act, http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/RecoveryActSuccess-January 2012. Accessed March 21, 2012
- Wernstedt K, Hersh R (1997) Land use and remedy selection; experience from the field – the Fort Ord Site. Resources for the future, Discussion Paper, Washington DC, 97–128Google Scholar