INVESTIGATION OF CAUSES AND STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ATTITUDES CONCERNING NUCLEAR RADIATION by Aditi Chandra B.Tech, Mechanical and Automation Engineering (2012) Amity University SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE 2014 ,7SS HUSETTS INSTITUTE 2014 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. JUL 2 9 2014 LABRPAIES Signature redacted Signature of A uthor: ............................................ .. ................ Aditi Chandra Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering May 9, 2014 -Signature redacted Certified by: .! ....................................................................... Michael W. Golay Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering 1107 Thesis Supervisor Signature redacted Certified by: ......... ............................................................ R. Scott Kemp Assistant Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering Thesis Reader Signature redacted A ccepted by ......................... ........................................ Mujid S. Kazimi -ECO Professor of Nuclear Engineering Chair, Department Committee on Graduate Students INVESTIGATION OF CAUSES AND STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ATTITUDES CONCERNING NUCLEAR RADIATION by Aditi Chandra Submitted to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering on May 9, 2014 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Nuclear Science and Engineering ABSTRACT An individual's perception of radiation, termed as "Radiation Attitudes" in this work, is vital for understanding the stakeholder relationship dynamics for acceptance of controversial nuclear technology projects. Attitudes towards nuclear technology have been found to be different from those towards other technologies perceived as hazardous, such as hydraulic fracturing, genetic engineering or biohazard facilities. Even within the subset of nuclear technology, different applications invoke different reactions. Medical uses of the technology are generally viewed as positive, whereas nuclear power plants and radioactive waste management facilities can sometimes cause fear and anxiety in the minds of some people. This work explains the causes and structure of Radiation Attitudes, and the dynamics of the various factors influencing them. A historical analysis of the narratives concerning nuclear technology was used to identify the complex, social, political, cognitive and technological factors that played a significant role in the formation of Radiation Attitudes. A system dynamics approach was utilized to construct causal loop diagrams depicting the cause-effect relationships and interdependencies between the identified variables. Qualitative interviews were conducted to test the causal relationships hypothesized in the model for Radiation Attitudes. The purpose of the interviews was to understand individual beliefs that result in a particular Radiation Attitude, the bases for these beliefs, and the process of their formation. The interviews enabled verification of the variables and relationships in the model, and the identification of the most significant interdependencies and links. The hypothesized model for Radiation Attitudes correlated well with the infonration inferred from the interviews, making the first stage of validation a success. Thesis Supervisor: Michael W. Golay Title: Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering Thesis Reader: R. Scott Kemp Title: Assistant Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering Acknowledgments I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Professor Michael W. Golay, for his invaluable support and guidance throughout the course of this work. Working with him for the past two years has been an incredible learning experience, both professionally and academically. I would also like to acknowledge the United States Department of Energy for providing the funding for this work. I would like to thank my thesis reader, Professor R. Scott Kemp, for taking an interest in this work, and whose feedback greatly improved the quality of this thesis. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution made by Adam David Williams. I would like to thank my parents, for supporting me in all my endeavours. I would like to express gratitude to the all the professors and staff of the NSE department who have taught me and guided me throughout the time I have been here. I would also like to thank all my friends for helping me maintain a good work-life balance, and making my experience at MIT a truly unforgettable one. 3 Contents 1 Introduction 10 1.1 M otivation ...................... ................. 10 1.2 O bjectives ....... ........ ........ ....... ........ 11 1.3 Conflicts of Risk Perception between Experts and Laymen ... ....... ... 12 1.3.1 Cognitive Psychology Approach ....... ................ 13 2 System Dynamics Approach 16 2.1 Dynamics of Complex Systems ............................ 17 2.2 System Dynamics Tools ............................... 17 3 Models for Stakeholder Acceptance 19 3.1 Definition of Acceptance ............................... 19 3.2 Definition of a Stakeholder .............................. 19 3.3 Stock-Flow Diagram for Stakeholder Acceptance .................. 21 3.4 Causal Loop Diagram for Stakeholder Acceptance at the Local Level ........ 23 3.5 Causal Loop Diagram for Stakeholder Acceptance at the State and Federal Level . 26 3.6 Necessity for Addition of "Radiation Attitudes" to Model .............. 29 4 Identification of Variables for Causal Loop Diagram 30 4.1 Timeline of Nuclear Technology ...... .......... ......... .. 30 4.1.1 Late 19th Century to Early 20th Century- An Era of Scientific Discovery . 30 4.1.2 Discovery of Fission and the Manhattan Project . ......... ..... 31 4.1.3 The 1950s- Atoms for Peace and the Atomic Age .. ............ 33 4.1.4 The 1960s- The Cuban Missile Crisis and its After-Effects .... ..... 35 4 4.1.5 The 1970's - Anti-Nuclear Movements Gain Momentum ..... .... 36 4.1.6 Late 20th Century and the Chernobyl Accident ............... 37 4.1.7 The Yucca Mountain Controversy ...... ................ 38 4.1.8 The 21st Century -Nuclear Proliferation in Iran and North Korea ..... 39 4.1.9 The Fukushima Disaster and its Consequences ..... .......... 40 4.2 List of Important Variables ... .............. ............. 43 5 Construction of a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) for Radiation Attitudes 45 5.1 Methodology .......................... ........... 45 5.2 Model Description ............................ ...... 45 5.3 Description of Identified Variables ......... ................. 46 5.4 Explanation of Important Interdependencies and Loops .. ............. 62 5.5 Testing the Model .............. .............. ....... 67 6 Validation of Model by Interview Data 73 6.1 Interview Method ........... .............. .......... 73 6.2 Interviews for Stakeholder Acceptance at the Local Level . ............. 74 6.3 Interviews for Stakeholder Acceptance at the State and Federal Level ....... 74 6.4 Interviews for Determining Radiation Attitudes .. ......... ........ 75 6.5 Selection of Interviewees . ......... .......... ......... .. 76 7 Interview Data and Analysis 77 7.1 Interview No. 1 .... ......... .......... ......... .... 77 7.1.1 Identification of Important Interdependencies and Loops ......... 78 7.1.2 Identification of Important Links .. ......... ......... ... 78 7.2 Interview No. 2 .... .............. .............. .... 80 5 7.2.1 Identification of Important Interdependencies and Loops 80 7.2.2 Identification of Important Links ........... ......... 81 7.3 Interview No. 3 ................... ...... .......... 83 7.3.1 Identification of Important Interdependencies and Loops .......... 83 7.3.2 Identification of Important Links .. .......... .......... 84 7.4 Interview No. 4 ....... .................. ... ...... 86 7.4.1 Identification of Important Interdependencies and Loops .......... 86 7.4.2 Identification of Important Links ........... ....... ... 86 7.5 Interview No. 5 ....... .................. .......... 88 7.5.1 Identification of Important Interdependencies and Loops .......... 88 7.5.2 Identification of Important Links ............ .......... 89 7.6 Interview No. 6 ........... .............. .......... 91 7.6.1 Identification of Important Interdependencies and Loops .......... 91 7.6.2 Identification of Important Links ............ .......... 92 7.7 Quantification of Responses ............ ...... .......... 94 7.8 R esults ............................. .... ...... 97 8 Conclusions 99 8.1 Recommendations for Future Work. .... ......... ......... .. 99 A Variable Definition & Quantification Table for Local & State/Federal CLDs 101 B Interview Questions 111 B. I Interview Questions for Stakeholder Acceptance at a Local Level . ....... 111 B.2 Interview Questions for Stakeholder Acceptance at the State and Federal Level . 112 B.3 Interview Questions for Determining Radiation Attitudes ....... ...... 113 6 C Description of MITR-II and Proposed Changes 116 D Detailed Interview Responses 119 D .1 Interview ee No. 1 ............ ....................... 119 D. 1.1 Responses to Questions related to the MIT Reactor and Proposed Fuel Change 119 D. 1.2 Summary of Responses to Questions related to Radiation Attitudes .. .. 120 D .2 Interview N o. 2 .. ............................ ...... 124 D.2.1 Summary of Responses related to Attitudes towards Hazardous Projects .. 124 D.2.2 Summary of Responses related to Radiation