Lessons Learned

"Radioactive Waste Disposal" is a double whammy, a deadly designation. "Radioactive" strikes a chord of fear to generations nurtured on the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. And no one wants "waste disposal" in their backyard, no matter how benign the waste may be or how beneficial a disposal facility may be to a community.

Ignorance about the beneficial role of radioactive materials in our society is rife among the general public. At the same time, there is little understanding of the realistic risks of exposure to small amounts of radiation-and little willingness to assume responsibility for the waste that results during the processes that use nuclear materials.

Most opposition in New Jersey resulted from spontaneous, gut-level fear on the part of a plurality of residents in a community that announced it was looking into the issue. Opposition was neither created nor stirred up by organized opposition groups. National opposition groups, particularly NIRS, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, did provide informational materials, arguments, and anecdotes that, particularly with the growing use of the Internet, was quickly disseminated in each town. Many of the "facts" cited by these groups seemed to be half-truths and misrepresentations based on their belief that all nuclear power plants should be shut down immediately.

If siting a disposal facility in any town is to have a shot, proponents who want to learn about the issues must be identified-and be willing to be vocal and visible. They need not be convinced that they want their community to host the facility but only to have the opportunity to uncover the facts, then make up their own minds on the whether or not to volunteer.

It is important to work closely with community leaders to develop a plan-and to plan a series of mailings, forums, and events-to let residents know about the interest community leaders have in exploring the issues.

Getting people to discuss an issue that has a legacy of misinformation and mistrust, an issue that has been demonized in the popular culture, takes an extraordinary effort to address public fears and apprehensions.

Commencing any public dialogue at a large meeting is a tactical blunder. Those opposed to the idea of siting can shout down advocates of learning about the issues. A dialogue on the facts gets subsumed by the emotion of the encounter.

Proponents in favor of initiating a dialogue need a good reason to stand up to the arguments of those who don’t want to even discuss the issues, and to endure a lengthy debate and a heated controversy.

Communities may want to see money up front if they are to go through a wrenching and cantankerous public process/dialogue, and they may deserve such funds simply for agreeing to try to help solve a state problem. Elected officials and other community leaders cannot be expected to take flak for something for which, even if ultimately successful, their successors will reap all the benefits. And the public cannot be expected to trust that the benefits will be forthcoming without seeing tangible gains now.

Community leaders-even those with experience in dealing with difficult and controversial public issues-are not prepared for the scope and depth of fear and anger that surfaces when people think that a facility for radioactive waste might be sited in their backyard.

Speaking of backyards, in a small, densely populated state like New Jersey, nobody wants anything built near them, certainly not in their backyard. And the opposition-it is a lot easier to be opposed to a controversial proposal than it is to be willing to learn about it-often is more significant than the specifics of the proposal.

Given the dramatic decrease in the volume of waste generated in New Jersey, it does not appear economically viable at this time to build a disposal facility for New Jersey’s waste alone. The problem of securing a safe, dependable, long-term disposal option for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated in New Jersey remains. If New Jersey is to restart a siting process at some point in the future, it should consider designing a facility to accept waste from Connecticut as well as New Jersey generators-and perhaps from other states as well.

Last updated January 1999