Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Summary
The socioeconomic and institutional issues associated
with high-level radioactive waste management are complex
and challenging. Waste management decisions involve the
allocation of uncertain risks and benefits to different
regions of the country, to different generations, and to
different social groups. Many of these decisions are
linked to the national debate over the role of nuclear
energy and the future of nuclear weapons.
In 1980, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requested
the National Research Council to conduct a study of socio-
economic aspects of nuclear waste repository siting, and
a panel was established under the aegis of the Board on
Radioactive Waste Management. The request was made, and
the panel responded in the framework of the policy of
several past administrations, since enacted into law with
adoption of the National Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, that high-level nuclear waste from commercial power
reactors shall eventually be permanently isolated in
mined geologic repositories.
Despite the difficulties in fashioning an acceptable
strategy for high-level nuclear waste management, there
is agreement that the present storage arrangements are
not acceptable for the ultimate disposition of very-long-
lifetime hazardous nuclear wastes. Selecting sites for
geologic repositories and deploying a nuclear waste
system that transports and manages those wastes must be
accomplished with sensitivity to the complex socioeconomic
issues involved.
The study mandate called for the identification of
major socioeconomic considerations in the location,
construction, and operation of a generic radioactive
waste repository; an assessment of what is known about
these considerations, the extent of the data base
1
OCR for page 2
2
associated with them, and the applicability of what is
known to the repository siting process; and finally,
suggestion of an approach or approaches for incorporating
socioeconomic considerations into the repository selection
process. The panel took no position on the desirability
or merit of permanent isolation in a geologic repository
as the ultimate disposition of high-level radioactive
waste.
In conducting its work, however, the panel did expand
the mandate to incorporate other aspects of the radio-
active waste disposal system, including issues related to
transportation of wastes and temporary storage. This
expanded focus allowed the panel to address key socio-
economic aspects of the nuclear waste management system
that would not have been possible with a more limited
focus on repositories. The panel paid particular atten-
tion to the etiology of public concern over nuclear
wastes, to above-ground effects (especially on cost and
equity) of different repository site locations, and to
means for channeling public concerns (including those of
states and local communities) into effective participation
· ~ . . . .
in recision making.
The panel found an incomplete and inadequate body of
social science knowledge available to guide the formula-
tion and implementation of an effective radioactive waste
management system. The basis for assessing socioeconomic
effects of comparable projects only partially exists,
because of the underdeveloped state of the theory and
methodology of social impact assessment, the limited
scale of the research program enacted to date, and the
difficulty of comparing the radioactive waste management
program to other large-scale industrial projects. The
panel explicitly rejected the idea that specific socio
economic criteria could be developed at this time to
supplement physical science and engineering criteria in
the repository selection process. However, through its
attention to waste transportation and facility location,
effects at a repository site, intergovernmental relations,
and the basis for public concern, the panel has identified
socioeconomic issues that it views as among the more
important social questions facing implementation of a
workable radioactive waste management strategy. Moreover,
the panel believes that the current state of knowledge
precludes identification of a satisfactory means for
integrating socioeconomic criteria into siting decision
making and also that such decisions should be the result
of a participatory process. The panel, however, views
its work on this study as contributing to such goals.
,
OCR for page 3
3
In 1982, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
(NWPA), which outlined a comprehensive strategy for
permanent disposal of commercial nuclear power wastes.
Throughout the complex debate that led to this legisla-
tion, two issues--technical feasibility and public
acceptance--were of paramount importance. This report
examines the social science knowledge base appropriate to
the latter issue, though it also addresses many technical
logistical, and institutional questions that fall between
feasibility and acceptance. This analysis is intended to
illuminate those key issues facing the DOE and other
agencies responsible for the implementation of the NWPA.
The panel's limited resources prevented it from
analyzing comprehensively the broad set of socioeconomic
considerations that it identified. It examined, for
example, only one scenario for nuclear power's future (a
scale equal to the plants that are in existence or under
construction) in terms of a few of the many radioactive
waste management alternatives under consideration. The
panel chose to allocate primary attention to spent-fuel
management, leaving aside the implications of nuclear
fuel reprocessing for waste generation, shipment, and
social impact. The panel excluded consideration of
commercially generated low-level nuclear wastes, and it
has not addressed questions directly relevant to the
management of defense wastes, except to note those
experiences that offer lessons. The results of this
effort are most properly viewed as suggestive of research
that can be performed and as indicative of major gaps
that need to be filled.
APPROACH OF THIS STUDY
The study panel found that there are several conceptions
of the term "socioeconomic. n At one extreme is the
narrow view that the term should be limited essentially
to measurable changes in employment, housing, and demo-
graphic characteristics that would be caused by a new
facility. At the other extreme is the broad view that
socioeconomic should refer to virtually any nontechnical
effect, whether psychological, political, or behavioral.
Clearly all the effects of a given facility cannot be
reasonably anticipated or accounted for in the short
run. While the narrow conception of the term socioeco-
nomic has the advantages of simplicity and ease of
OCR for page 4
4
measurement, its use may be greatly misleading to the
decision maker.
Site selection is a political as well as social issue,
involving complex value judgments and a wide range of
poorly understood "effects." Both the state of the art
of social impact theory and the complex nature of nuclear
waste repository siting argue, in the panel's view, for
adopting a wide view of the term. Even though methods
for measuring and comparing many kinds of effects are not
yet fully developed, the panel concluded that both
methodological and political realities require us to go
beyond the relatively narrow definition usually employed
in environmental impact statements.
Efforts to identify criteria for making decisions are
founded on the assumption that there is an adequate body
of knowledge that can be used to link particular programs
with particular results. Where such a body of knowledge
is available, choices can be made among options based on
an assessment of beneficial or harmful effects. If socio
economic criteria are to be used in selecting repository
sites, however, two conditions must be met:
1. The effects likely to result from choosing one or
another option must be specified, in regard both to an
individual repository and to the progressive deployment
of an entire waste management system. This suggests that
effects caused by the waste management operations for a
U.S. nuclear energy system involving at least twice the
currently licensed 75 nuclear power plants must be
assessed. In addition, there are effects from the waste
generated by the military program.
2. The social values relevant to the concerns and
goals of different social groups, particularly as they
bear on the socioeconomic effects experience, must be
specified. In other words, the social values (e.g.,
equity, quality of life) should be described in ways that
allow the public to judge the degree to which the waste
program realizes or fails to realize them.
Both of these analytical elements should be addressed.
However, when the panel took up its work it discovered
that only limited progress had been made in the first and
little or no progress in the second area. Although a
data base of useful studies and surveys has been emerging,
little systematic work has been done in integrating the
results or assessing their relevance to policy choices in
a radioactive waste management system. Experiential
OCR for page 5
5
information on the socioeconomic effects of a high-level
waste repository is not available because no such facility
has been established in the United States. Instead,
assessment must draw on the siting of other nuclear fuel
cycle facilities, highways, and noxious functions (e.g.,
drug treatment centers, prisons, hazardous waste disposal
sites) and interpret this experience in light of possible
relevance to nuclear waste facilities. Further, there
has been little attempt to specify the conditions that
would signal the attainment of various social or economic
outcomes.
The panel believes that further research is required
for sound estimates of the social, economic, and political
consequences of locating and operating a nuclear waste
repository at a particular site in the United States.
The panel is also quite certain that those sponsoring and
conducting research are in full agreement with this
statement; in fact, it is explicitly acknowledged in
reports and briefings. Even greater information and
analyses are needed on the effects of waste management
systems composed of more than one repository, for such a
system is likely needed to service present and future
reactors.
The panel necessarily limited itself to near-term
socioeconomic considerations (i.e., the next 50 years).
Owing to the very long duration of radioactive waste
hazards, there may be socioeconomic effects far beyond
this. However, since the predictive powers of social
science are very limited, the highly uncertain long-term
considerations cannot play a definable role in repository
site-selection criteria. What the panel has sought to do
is identify the relatively near-term socioeconomic and
institutional considerations that should be addressed in
locating, building, and operating high-level waste reposi-
tories, to explore the nature of the considerations, to
assess the adequacy of the current data base and under-
standing, and to suggest the implications of alternative
strategies for addressing these considerations. In doing
so, the panel has identified a variety of assumptions
that could constrain current policy choices and concep-
tions of the management system. The panel did not, how-
ever, restrict its analysis to fit those preconceptions.
This report, in fact, points out areas where such assump-
tions should be explicitly debated.
As noted earlier, the study focuses on the isolation
of unreprocessed spent fuel produced in commercial nuclear
power reactors. Consistent with its study mandate, per
OCR for page 6
6
manent isolation of the waste in stable geologic forma-
tions within the continental United States was the only
disposal concept considered. Because the configuration
of the network of waste facilities influences the number
of potentially affected states and communities, the panel
addressed facility locations and the associated transpor-
tation system that would be required to move the wastes
from the places where they are generated to repository
sites. The managerial and socioeconomic issues involved
in storing spent fuel temporarily at reactors or away-
from-reactor storage facilities were also considered.
The panel did not address the question of the overall
role of nuclear power in the United States, nor did it
compare the effects of nuclear power and its wastes with
those of nuclear power's alternatives. Potential health
effects and the adequacy of the technology for isolating
radioactive wastes were considered only to the extent
that they impinge on social issues and public concerns.
MAJOR SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
In its mandate to the panel, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) requested an identification of major socioeconomic
considerations involved in repository siting, construc-
tion, and operation. As noted above, the social science
knowledge base does not at present permit detailed pre-
dictions or development of siting criteria.
Nonetheless,
the panel has developed a list of major socioeconomic
considerations that ideally should be addressed in siting
nuclear waste repositories over the next several decades.
The list is, of course, not exhaustive, and a different
group of social scientists would certainly identify other
considerations. Nevertheless, those identified herein
suggest the scope and types of issues that require
analysis by the DOE.
The considerations are stated in the form of questions
and follow the organization utilized in this report. The
list, of course, is much larger than could be addressed
by the panel in one study. Those issues assessed either
partially or fully by the panel are indicated by an
asterisk.
A. Public Response
1. What are the trends, magnitude, and charac-
teristics of public concerns over radioactive wastes?*
OCR for page 7
7
2. How do public concerns over these wastes compare
with concerns over nuclear power, hazardous wastes, and
other technological hazards?
3. What explains public concerns over radioactive
wastes?*
4. How may public trust and confidence be developed
in the institutions responsible for radioactive waste
management?*
5. How may public values best be accommodated in
repository site selection, in weighting various socio-
economic and institutional effects, and in avoiding or
mitigating adverse effects?
6. How should public concerns and values be
compared, and weighted, with technical criteria?
B. The Waste Management Network
1. How will the number and location of waste reposi-
tories affect the socioeconomic and institutional burdens
associated with radioactive waste-management?*
2. What socioeconomic effects will be associated
with at-reactor, away-from-reactor, or interim storage
facilities co-located with repositories?*
3. What significance should be attached to
psychological stress occurring at facility sites and
along transportation corridors?
4. Should socioeconomic effects occurring along
transport corridors be included in impact mitigation
programs?
5. How will scale and the rate at which the waste
system is brought to scale affect the magnitude of
socioeconomic effects and institutional burdens?*
6. What socioeconomic and institutional con-
siderations are involved in the mix of transport modes
(railroads, trucks, barges) used in transporting radio-
active wastes?*
7. How sensitive are overall waste management costs
to transportation designs, cask costs, and repository
development?
8. How should waste management costs be compared,
and weighted, with long-term safety and intergenerational
equity?
9. How adequate are state and local monitoring,
regulatory, and emergency response capabilities, given
the demands that may be placed on them during the
deployment of the waste management system?
OCR for page 8
8
10. How are the beneficial and adverse effects of
radioactive waste management distributed over generations,
geographical regions, social groups r and beneficiaries
nuclear power?*
and nonbeneficiaries over
C. Site Effects
1. To what extent will the socioeconomic effects of
a nuclear waste repository resemble those associated with
other large industrial facilities located in rural areas?*
2. Which effects are amenable to quantitative expres-
sion. and which must be stated in qualitative terms?*
3. Which effects can be reasonably predicted in
advance, and which are likely to become annar~nt mn] v tic
the site is developed?*
~ ~ . , ~
,
-~ ~ I''- ~ & ~ ~ ~-
a. now s~gn~r~cant are rates as compared with types
of social and economic change in the host repository
region?
5. What are likely to be the most beneficial impacts
of a repository on the host community and region?
6. How may socioeconomic changes in one locale be
compared with those at another?
7. How may local citizens best participate in
identifying, assessing, and proposing means to ameliorate
siting effects?*
8. What is the likely magnitude of socioeconomic
effects associated with postclosure or unexpected
premature closure of the repository?
9. How adequate are provisions in the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 and other existing governmental
programs for assuring the time and equitable flow of
incentives, impact mitigation, and compensation measures?*
D. Institutional Issues
.
1. What is the nature of this generation's respon-
sibility to future generations?
2. What are the institutional prerequisites for
effective management and disposal of radioactive wastes?*
3. What means exist for resolving conflict over
repository siting at both federal/state and state/local
levels, and how adequate are they?*
4. How adequate are the scientific and managerial
resources of the major institutions responsible for
radioactive waste management for identifying and
OCR for page 9
9
responding to the social and economic obstacles to the
timely implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982?
5. What types of failure identification and contin-
gency planning are required for effective implementation
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982?*
6. What are the alternative modes of conflict resolu-
tion available for siting controversies, and what are
their potential applicability to the radioactive waste
problem?
7. How may the integrity and stability of the
radioactive waste management program be insulated from
changing political administrations?
8. Given the complexity of a National High-Level
Waste Program, what long-range institutional effects will
need to be addressed?*
9. How is experience with siting low-level
radioactive waste and other hazardous waste facilities
likely to affect (if at all) the siting of a high-level
radioactive waste repository?
10. How may public information and involvement
programs for radioactive waste management best be
designed, managed, and evaluated?*
11. What should be the relationship (if any) in the
management of high-level commercial and defense
radioactive wastes?
MAJOR FINDINGS
All the above issues could not, of course, be addressed
in the panel's study. As noted above, the panel has
evaluated a number of those issues judged among the more
important and within study scope and panel expertise.
Generally these fall within, the major chapter headings--
public concern, effects of facility location and
transportation, site-related effects, and institutional
issues .
1. Although the electoral, legislative, and
administrative sectors in the United States have
historically demonstrated substantial support for the
economic benefits of nuclear power, over the past 15
years (and particularly since 1979) support has weakened
significantly in all three sectors. In the same period,
an articulate organized opposition has emerged, one with
support among a significant minority of the population.
OCR for page 10
10
2. There is widespread perception that nuclear energy
entails risks to health and safety. This perception is
by the fact that most of the public groups do
not distinguish clearly between the risks of nuclear
weaponry and those of nuclear power plants. The extent
to which fear over nuclear weapons enters into attitudes
on nuclear wastes is difficult to pinpoint, but it is
undoubtedly an element in the formation of public opinion.
Concern over catastrophic accidents in nuclear power
plants appears to add to these fears of the technology.
3. The level of knowledge about nuclear power and
radioactive wastes remains low among the general public.
This limited knowledge, however, does not explain the
high level of concern. It is uncertain whether greater
amounts of information would reduce or increase public
concern, but improved public understanding of waste
management problems is a central need for developing an
informed public policy and a socially acceptable
management program.
4. Public concern and the perception of threat are
exacerbated by mistrust of government in general and by
the appearance of secrecy or desire to exclude the public
from governmental decisions about radioactive waste and
repository siting.
5. A substantial disparity exists between the amount
of research effort expended on technical aspects of under-
ground nuclear waste storage and the limited efforts
expended on the above-ground design of a waste system.
Specifically, the socioeconomic and institutional issues
associated with facility location and transport modes,
routes, distances, and scheduling require greater
attention than they have received to date. While the
panel believes that the logistical and institutional
challenges involved can be met, it finds substantial
tasks ahead that merit attention in a formulation and
implementation of a national radioactive waste management
strategy. The panel also emphasizes that the kinds of
problems involved are not readily amenable to easy
technical solutions; they must be considered in the
overall system design and in institutional policies that
include socioeconomic as well as technical criteria.
6. The socioeconomic and institutional effects
associated with the network of nuclear waste facilities
and transportation are quite sensitive to the number and
location of repositories. These effects, as suggested by
the panel's analysis, include transport system complexity,
shipping costs, public concern and conflict, vulnerability
exacerbated
OCR for page 11
11
to possible transport system bottlenecks, and institu-
tional burdens on states and localities. One problem--
interregional inequity--viewed as particularly important
by the panel, could be minimized through regional siting.
The relationships among these factors and effects have
received only limited research attention and require
further explicit analysis. They will also need to be
weighed against geologic criteria and overall waste
management system costs.
7. The socioeconomic effects of establishing tem-
porary away-from-reactor facilities for interim storage
depend on specific assumptions and scenarios chosen and
are at present not well understood. Whether such storage
facilities are co-located with repositories, located at
reactors, or located away from both reactors and reposi-
tories appears to affect significantly total system
transport costs, regulatory and emergency response
burdens on state and local governments, and public
concern along transport routes. At-reactor storage, in
particular, may have potential for reducing these
effects. At the same time, the panel recognizes the
potential usefulness of the limited away-from-reactor
storage provided for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982.
8. Current DOE plans assume that the transportation
of waste will be primarily by rail. The panel has iden-
tified a variety of obstacles to a predominantly rail
transportation system. The rail industry appears to have
few economic incentives and a stated reluctance to take
on radioactive waste transport. Rail also does not appear
to have a decisive economic advantage over truck trans-
port, and the rail system is,less responsive to possible
demands for routing changes. These obstacles should
receive further review from the DOE. If these problems
lead to greater use of truck transport, differing socio-
economic and institutional effects will need to be
anticipated.
9. The research base that exists to support the
selection of sites for a nuclear waste repository and the
formulation of programs for impact mitigation is limited
and uneven. The underdeveloped state of theory in social
impact assessment theory and methodology and the cursory
efforts thus far in comparative analysis of impact
mitigation are particularly problematic. The limited
research program sponsored by the DOE has not sufficed to
fill this void. As a result, no authoritative statements
can be made at this time about the magnitude, types, or
OCR for page 12
12
rates of adverse socioeconomic effects to be expected at
a repository site nor criteria that should be formulated
for site suitability or an appropriate program of impact
mitigation.
10. Adverse socioeconomic effects will likely be
strongly site-specific and will be related in particular
to the population size and rural qualities of the host
region as well as to the overall waste system design.
These effects will be difficult to predict on the basis
of experience with other types of facilities at other
sites. These effects have the potential, however, for
substantial harm to the host community and region and
should, therefore, receive more thorough assessment than
has been accomplished to date.
11. The special effects associated with the radio-
logical mission of the repository will interact with, and
may well exceed, the more conventional effects resulting
from the location of any large industrial facilities in
rural communities.
12. A number of significant effects will not become
evident undo ~ one siting process begins. Accordingly,
careful monitoring of socioeconomic effects at the site
and a program for timely and flexible provision of
resources to reduce or mitigate adverse impacts are
required. The panel finds that an appropriate mechanism
for assuring the active involvement of local residents in
assessing site effects and in monitoring mitigation and
compensation programs does not now exist and should
receive attention by the DOE.
13. A sound program to anticipate and respond to the
effects of siting a radioactive waste repository should,
in the panel's view, comprise (a) analysis of socioeco-
nomic effects, with participation by the residents; (b)
development of plans and policies to avoid and to mitigate
adverse effects, with participation by the residents; (c)
capital, provided by the beneficiaries of nuclear power,
to fund mitigation of expected adverse conventional
effects; (d) compensation for adverse effects, conven-
tional and special, that cannot reasonably be avoided or
~:A~e .,~: ~ =_
further mitigated; and (e) means of redress for effects
resulting directly from the siting of a repository or
from overall changes in the radioactive waste program
that alter site characteristics.
14. An ambitious program of technical and financial
support to mitigate adverse effects at repository sites
will be needed. While the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 provides for this need, several problems may be
OCR for page 13
13
expected in implementation. The goals and levels of
funds for impact mitigation are set at an early stage in
site development, yet many effects cannot be anticipated
and will become apparent with the development of the site
and the beginning of operations. Moreover, no assurance
exists that the states will adequately assess the needs
of the host locality and allocate funds in an effective
manner.
15.
A major institutional gap exists in the framework
defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. There
Is no Institutionalized process for relating the concerns
of locally affected populations to the actions of state
governors or legislatures. Institutional designs for
bridging this gap have been utilized in other policy
areas and may provide possible means to fill this void.
16. The site-selection timetable outlined in the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) is likely to force the
DOE to choose between an open, consultative approach to
planning that fails to meet deadlines and a closed,
executive approach that meets schedules. A decision to
adhere to the tight schedule of the NINA could contribute
to insufficient attention to local concerns and par-
ticipatory opportunities or result in inappropriate
compromises.
17. Informal processes of planning and conflict
resolution can provide valuable supplements to the
official administrative and judicial processes outlined
in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Environmental mediation
is one such process that deserves further exploration.
18. An ambitious program of public participation is
needed to meet the challenges posed by high levels of
public concern and the complexity of issues surrounding
the siting of nuclear waste repositories. Previous
research and experience suggest that an effective
participation program will include (a) the direct
involvement of affected public groups in impact
assessment; (b) early and broad public involvement in
both site searching and site selection, within the
context of technical criteria; (c) the development of an
independent technical review capability, similar to that
created for the state of New Mexico for a Waste Isolation
.
Pilot Plant, among citizens of the communities hosting
the repositories or those exposed to extraordinary waste
transportation flow at major points along the waste
funnel; (d) a variety of techniques and mechanisms of
public participation, since the state of social science
theory does not indicate a preferred mode of public
OCR for page 14
14
participation. The participation program may be designed
as a major research effort, with participation of citi-
zens, peer review, and careful monitoring and evaluation.
19. Transportation of radioactive wastes by truck
could be carried out either by a federally owned and
operated fleet or by private trucking companies subject
to federal and state regulation. Whether private
companies or the federal government transport the waste,
a sound federal regulatory system requires (a) a suf-
ficiently broad-based and uniform regulatory regime, (b)
the elimination of redundancies and incompleteness in the
existing Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Department of
Energy regulations for transportation, and (c) addressing
the desire of states to deal with safety on their own
highways.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
nuclear waste
