Abstract
Nuclear technologies are often evaluated not only by their technical performance but also by how well the institutions behind them earn public trust. In the case of a United States pyroprocessing facility, this challenge is especially significant because the work takes place in shielded hot cells with remote handling, making the process physically inaccessible to the public. As a result, public confidence depends not only on whether safeguards exist, but on whether monitoring, oversight, and accountability are communicated in ways that appear honest, fair, and credible. My work on this topic examines pyroprocessing as a sociotechnical issue, where technical safeguards and ethical legitimacy must be developed together. Across both subarguments, the central concern is that a facility may be technically secure yet still face resistance if affected communities believe risks are hidden, uncertainty is obscured, or oversight is inaccessible to public judgment. This summary presents an overview of both arguments and explores the following guiding question: How can safeguards and oversight practices for a United States pyroprocessing facility balance technical verification with the ethical need for transparency, fairness, and public trust?
To address the first part of this question, my prospectus argues that safeguards by design can contribute to public acceptance when they are understood as more than a technical system intended only for inspectors. Research on nuclear risk perception shows that support for nuclear technologies is shaped by institutional trust, fairness, and stigma, not simply by technical knowledge or accident probabilities. This is especially important for pyroprocessing, where measurement uncertainty, material holdup, and shielded operations can make safeguards appear opaque to outsiders. My argument is that these challenges should not be treated merely as public misunderstanding. Instead, they require institutions to demonstrate that uncertainty is being managed openly and responsibly. Historical examples such as the radium dial painters and downwind communities show how long term distrust can emerge when institutions control information and delay acknowledgment of harm. In this context, safeguards by design should include not only early integration of monitoring and surveillance measures, but also structured transparency that shows how anomalies are reviewed, how corrective action is taken, and how accountability is maintained without exposing sensitive details.
The second part of my work focuses on environmental reporting and regulatory communication as safeguards practices in their own right. Environmental reports and licensing documents shape whether oversight appears real or merely symbolic to people outside the facility. Reporting can support trust when it shows a visible cycle of measurement, comparison to standards, and follow up action, but compliance language alone may still feel performative if uncertainty is not explained in plain language or if residents cannot see how concerns affect decisions. Similarly, regulatory communication is most credible when it does more than admit uncertainty. It must also make decision rules legible by showing what triggers further investigation, operational limits, or denial of approval. My argument is that trust, fairness, and voice depend on whether communities can understand how oversight works and how institutions respond when risks or gaps are identified. Transparency therefore should not mean disclosing sensitive technical details, but rather making accountability visible through public summaries, clear response procedures, and participatory structures that allow residents to ask questions and influence oversight priorities.
Taken together, these two arguments show that the public acceptance of a United States pyroprocessing facility depends on more than technical safeguards performance alone. Strong monitoring systems, overlapping verification measures, environmental reporting, and regulatory review are all necessary, but they are not sufficient unless they are paired with communication and governance practices that make oversight understandable and trustworthy. This work ultimately argues that safeguards, transparency, and legitimacy should be designed together. When institutions acknowledge uncertainty, communicate clearly, and create meaningful pathways for public engagement, they are better positioned to align technical security with the ethical responsibility to let communities judge the risks they are being asked to bear.
