PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR DECISION-MAKING: REFLECTIONS ON CANADIAN NUCLEAR CONTEXTS

PIPPA FEINSTEIN JD, LLM

NOVEMBER 28, 2021

PRESENTATION ROADMAP

• PART ONE - Decision-making theories and issues
1. Public influence over process and outcome
2. The need for transparency and accountability
3. Defining public communication beyond “risk”
4. Defining “expertise” and “expert knowledges”
• PART TWO - Water monitoring and decision-making
• Defining scopes of study
• Public access to data
• Co-determining environmental standards
• Cycles of monitoring and decision-making

​

PART ONE: DECISION-MAKING THEORIES AND ISSUES�1. PUBLIC INFLUENCE OVER PROCESS AND OUTCOME

Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Sherry R. Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” 35:4 Journal of the American Planning Association, July 1969, 216.

Genevieve Fuji-Johnson’s principles of deliberative democracy:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Genevieve Fuji-Johnson, “The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy” 40:2 Policy Sciences, June 2007, 79.

PART ONE: DECISION-MAKING THEORIES AND ISSUES�2. THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

• Defining transparency:
• Accessible and comprehensive information
• Proactive and ongoing
• Defining accountability:
• Ensuring consequences accompany activity

(Canadian and Japanese case studies: communications)

PART ONE: DECISION-MAKING THEORIES AND ISSUES �3. DEFINING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION BEYOND ‘RISK’�

• “Impact” > “risk”

​

PART ONE: DECISION-MAKING THEORIES AND ISSUES �4. DEFINING “EXPERTISE” AND “EXPERT KNOWLEDGES”

​

• Knowledge is situated and diverse
• The role of humility
• Relationships with media
• Collaborative and adversarial criticism

(Canadian case study: “Anti-nuclear activists”)

CONCLUDING PART ONE

• Decision-making theories and issues
1. Public influence over process and outcome
2. The need for transparency and accountability
3. Defining public communication beyond “risk”
4. Defining “expertise” and “expert knowledges”

​

… now time to apply this more specificly to water protection in PART TWO of this presentation

PART TWO: WATER MONITORING AND DECISION-MAKING �1. DEFINING SCOPES OF STUDY

• Monitoring parameters should be determined collaboratively. This can address:
• Geographical boundaries and monitoring locations
• Types of contaminant
• Testing frequency
• Sampling method
• Public involvement/oversight in testing

PART TWO: WATER MONITORING AND DECISION-MAKING �2. PUBLIC ACCESS TO RAW DATA

• Real-time and machine-readable formats
• Role for independent experts, NGOs, and local residents’ or other groups in interpreting data and disseminating information to the public

PART TWO: WATER MONITORING AND DECISION-MAKING �3. CO-DETERMINING STANDARDS

• Standards can be:
• flexible
• not just based on “science”
• local communities need to have say

​

Two case studies will show how these issues play out in Canadian regulation…

PART TWO: WATER MONITORING AND DECISION-MAKING �3A. CO-DETERMINING STANDARDS: CASE STUDIES

CANADIAN TRITIUM LIMITS

• 7,000Bq/L = current limit
• 2009 ODWAC recommends 20 Bq/L
• Concerns and conflict continue

​

ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR EFFLUENT

• Before human dose only consideration
• New REGDOC 2.9.2 considers exposure to aquatic life
• Result of significant advocacy, but more is required

PART TWO: WATER MONITORING AND DECISION-MAKING �4. CYCLES OF MONITORING AND DECISION-MAKING

• There needs to be ongoing procedure to allow for periodic public reevaluations in light of data received

​

CONCLUDING PART TWO

• Water monitoring and decision-making
1. Defining scopes of study
2. Public access to data
3. Co-determining environmental standards
4. Cycles of monitoring and decision-making

THANK YOU

• Email contact: pippa.d.feinstein@gmail.com