IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i11p4906-d1665233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Collaboration Succeed in Siting a Spent Nuclear Fuel Facility in the United States?—A Challenge in Political Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Michael R. Greenberg

    (Edward J. Bloustein School, Rutgers University and Vanderbilt University, 228 Lawrence Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA)

  • Henry J. Mayer

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA)

  • Megan Harkema

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University, PMB 351831, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37235, USA)

  • Steven Krahn

    (Practice of Nuclear Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University, PMB 351831, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37235, USA)

Abstract

We examine the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s collaborative process to locate, build, and operate one or more federal consolidated interim storage facilities (FCISFs) for commercial U.S. spent nuclear fuel—instead of continuing to store the material at over 70 nuclear reactor sites. Technocratic siting of nuclear facilities in the U.S., most of which did not involve meaningful public participation, was not successful. We consider increasing pressure to find at least one FCISF site, as well as the critical role of trust in engaging communities and reaching agreement—leading some observers to assert that DOE is in the “trust building business”, not the siting business. We present case studies with the following: (1) illustrating community engagement that led to a more satisfactory outcome than had been anticipated (Fernald); (2) a planned voluntary process that failed to produce an operating CISF (Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator); and (3) a site that demonstrates the ongoing need for negotiations to keep a site open and operational (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant). The essay concludes with the observation that a collaboration-based siting effort can succeed in the U.S., but that five main challenges—related to trust and requiring patience—will need to be addressed.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael R. Greenberg & Henry J. Mayer & Megan Harkema & Steven Krahn, 2025. "Can Collaboration Succeed in Siting a Spent Nuclear Fuel Facility in the United States?—A Challenge in Political Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:4906-:d:1665233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4906/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4906/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael K. Lindell & Timothy C. Earle, 1983. "How Close Is Close Enough: Public Perceptions of the Risks of Industrial Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(4), pages 245-253, December.
    2. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    3. Blair, Robert A. & Morse, Benjamin S. & Tsai, Lily L., 2017. "Public health and public trust: Survey evidence from the Ebola Virus Disease epidemic in Liberia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 89-97.
    4. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    6. Stacey M. Conchie & Ian J. Donald, 2006. "The Role of Distrust in Offshore Safety Performance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1151-1159, October.
    7. Porter, Richard C., 1988. "Environmental negotiation: Its potential and its economic efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 129-142, June.
    8. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2004. "Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1475-1486, December.
    9. Anne Bergmans & Göran Sundqvist & Drago Kos & Peter Simmons, 2015. "The participatory turn in radioactive waste management: deliberation and the social-technical divide," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 347-363, March.
    10. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2020. "Unpacking the idea of democratic community consent-based siting for energy infrastructure," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 94-109, November.
    11. Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2005. "American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1433-1442, December.
    12. Homer Hoyt, 1961. "The Utility of the Economic Base Method in Calculating Urban Growth," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(1), pages 51-58.
    13. Howard Kunreuther & Kevin Fitzgerald & Thomas D. Aarts, 1993. "Siting Noxious Facilities: A Test of the Facility Siting Credo," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 301-318, June.
    14. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "The Urban Economic Base Reconsidered," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 32(1), pages 95-99.
    15. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    16. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1994. "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1101-1108, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael R. Greenberg & Dona Schneider, 2024. "Trust in and Building of Sustainable Local Health and Well-Being Programs in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    4. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    5. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    6. Stacey M. Conchie & Ian J. Donald, 2006. "The Role of Distrust in Offshore Safety Performance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1151-1159, October.
    7. Christian Oltra & Paul Upham & Hauke Riesch & Àlex Boso & Suzanne Brunsting & Elisabeth Dütschke & Aleksandra Lis, 2012. "Public Responses to Co2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 227-248, May.
    8. Timothy C. Earle & Michael Siegrist, 2008. "On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1395-1414, October.
    9. Ellen Van Kleef & Arnout R. H. Fischer & Moin Khan & Lynn J. Frewer, 2010. "Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phone and Base Station Technology in Bangladesh," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 1002-1015, June.
    10. Michael R. Greenberg, 2009. "NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear‐Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site‐Specific Surveys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1242-1254, September.
    11. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    12. Wouter Poortinga & Patrick Cox & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2008. "The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 235-248, February.
    13. Gareth Enticott & Damian Maye & Rhiannon Fisher & Brian Ilbery & James Kirwan, 2014. "Badger Vaccination: Dimensions of Trust and Confidence in the Governance of Animal Disease," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(12), pages 2881-2897, December.
    14. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    15. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    16. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    17. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    18. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    19. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    20. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:4906-:d:1665233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.