Ethical Imperatives Shaping Yucca Mountain Perceptions. Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Environmental Sciences and Policy Program and Department of Philosophy, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., Tampa, FL 33620
Social scientists indicate that 80 percent of Nevadans oppose the proposed Yucca Mountain repository for high-level nuclear waste and spent fuel. Some of the reasons the facility appears unacceptable to laypeople are their beliefs that it is being imposed without consent, that many associated risks are unknown, and that it poses a threat to the welfare of members of future generations. This presentation argues that public concerns about free informed consent and risk compensation may explain some of the controversy over Yucca Mountain. They believe that imposition of certain risks is ethically legitimate only after consent is obtained from the affected parties, and that affected parties should be adequately compensated for risks, even if they agree to them. There is reason to believe that norms for free informed consent have been violated in the Yucca Mountain case and that compensation for imposed risks would be inadequate. For example, members of future generations obviously have no opportunity, in practice, to consent to the additional radwaste risk that the Yucca mountain facility would impose on them. And it is unlikely, in principle, that future persons would consent to such risks. Furthermore, if compensation seems to be inadequate grounds for present persons to consent to a permanent radwaste repository, then compensation is also likely to be inadequate grounds for future persons to consent to an even larger risk imposed by the same repository.