Re: "Political wranglings over WIPP"

[Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>]

October 22



	I would like to try and straighten out some of the confusion or

misunderstanding about "misconceptions" pertaining to WIPP.  To do this I

will quote a lengthy passage from the Nuclear News review of Chuck

McCutcheon's book, and make some comments about misconceptions.  I will

begin quoting on page 26, col. 1, of the review.



	"Individuals' perceptions of others' trustworthiness are largely

history-dependent.  In the history of WIPP, the DOE on many occasions was

unwilling or unable to respect the views of vulnerable parties, which led

to an erosion of the public's trust.  Once trust is lost, it is very hard

to get it back.



	"It is good to see that the DOE's culture in dealing with the public is

changing.  They learned the lesson the hard way.  What the public wants is

not so much the outcome of the decision itself, but a justifiable

decision-making process.  The book empirically proves that public

opposition to a nuclear repository stems from lack of trust toward the

government and the perceived risk.  Developing and sustaining the culture

of trust, along with bringing procedural justice into the decision-making

process, will be a critical factor in any of the government's future

efforts in nuclear waste management.



	"Some of the major misconceptions of the public choice process over

repository siting are also evident in McCutcheon's book.  Examples of

misconceptions cited are quotations from a 1983 book (Facility Siting and

Public Opposition, by M. O'Hare, L. Bacow, and D. Sanderson):  'Just offer

them enough money and they will be happy.';  'All we have to do is to

perform a really complete, objective analysis of the project, showing that

the risk is low and the site is good.  If we have any opposition, it must

be because they don't understand.'; and 'Bring everyone together to talk

about it.  Be sure that everyone's view is heard by everyone else.' "



	In his initial posting on this, Bill Lipton separated the second "major

misconception" ("All we have to do . . . .") into two parts:  "All we have

to do is to perform a really complete, objective analysis of the project,

showing that the risk is low and the site is good."; and, "If we have any

opposition, it must be because they don't understand.")



	Barbara Hamrick said she couldn't understand how the second part (about

opposition) was a misconception.



	Let us assume that O'Hare, Bacow, and Sanderson are saying that DOE is

suffering from the "misconception" that opposition to (in this case WIPP)

is due to the public not understanding that risk is low and the site is

good.  If DOE thinks opposition to WIPP is based on a public

misunderstanding of low risk and the goodness of the site, then DOE is

deceiving itself, it is naïve in the extreme, or it doesn't understand the

nature of the opposition to WIPP.  The opponents of WIPP are motivated by

politics and their political philosophy.  They don't care how safe the site

is.  The opponents don't want that waste stored anywhere, and they don't

give a you-know-what about how safe the site is.  In fact, they don't even

want the waste to exist, because they don't want the United States

government building bombs no matter what.



	That is the nature of the opposition.  It has nothing to do with low risk

or how good the site is.  The opposition does not want that waste anywhere

and the fact that it exists and must be stored somewhere means nothing to

them.



	I have been to WIPP hearings.  I have read anti-WIPP propaganda for 20

years.  It's the same dreary refrain.  "Quite building bombs."  "We don't

like bombs."  "We never should have built any bombs."  You cannot talk

about low risk and the goodness of the site with a bunch of people who want

defense spending diverted into more student loans, more "free" medical

care, and more subsidized housing. 



	The reviewer asserts, "In the history of WIPP, the DOE on many occasions

was unwilling or unable to respect the views of vulnerable parties, which

led to an erosion of the public's trust."



	Why should the DOE be willing to respect the views of an opposition that

knows nothing about health physics, risk analysis, or even the most

elementary facts of science?  How can the DOE be able to respect such

views?  What is a "vulnerable" party?  Is the party deciding for himself

that he is vulnerable?  Does he have any basis in fact for this decision?

What is his basis?  Is it grounded in science or in political philosophy?  



	Who does the reviewer mean by "public"?  Is it the broad masses of the

citizenry, or is it the professional anti-WIPPers who fought WIPP for 20

years?  The latter's trust couldn't erode because it never existed to begin

with.



Steven Dapra

sjd@swcp.com







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/