Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
4 The Waste Repository Site: Charactenshcs and Socioeconomic Considerations There are a number of reasons for concern with the socioeconomic impacts of a waste repository. Social justice considerations, for example, would argue that we attempt to restore the status quo in locales that are subject to an imposed change. Distributive justice concerns would dictate that we try to avoid impact to communities already suffering some relative inequity (low-income populations, for example) or an uncompen- satable effect. Economics demands that we anticipate the costs of new facilities (planning and actual utilization) so as not to produce a Boom and bust n phenomenon. Finally, practical politics would argue that we should be sensitive to the needs of local areas, particularly if there is some likelihood that impacts (or potential impacts) will generate rancor and ill will. Recognizing the importance of socioeconomic impacts at repository sites does not mean that we can identify what the impacts are or know how we should deal with them (through mitigation, compensation, or override, for example). However, previous research indicates several steps that can be taken. First, we can summarize what we know and do not know about the effects of large-scale industrial facilities. This does not necessarily provide site-specific data, nor does it identify which impacts may be perceived as most important for a given locale. Second, we can involve local potentially impacted popu- lations in the identification and mitigation process. This form of iterative planning is increasingly common for public facilities, and nuclear facilities in par- ticular (NUREG/CR-2750). It is premised on increased awareness of the unique perspective of local citizens in defining key community characteristics (and, therefore, those characteristics that, if affected, will alter 83
84 community life) and in establishing the costs or other mitigating structures that will satisfy the need to main- tain community integrity. Indeed, some have argued that the planning of facilities should be an opportunity to improve the quality of life for communities rather than simply to "make them whole" again (Seley 1983). The third, and final, step is to compare the results of several community-specific impact assessment procedures. Depending on the particular consideration (social jus- tice, distributive justice, economic, political) applied, it is then necessary to choose a site based on explicit reference to the consideration and the identified impacts. For example, it would be ideal to be able to devise an index of socioeconomic impact criteria for each potential host site and then compare these across sites in terms of social justice and other considerations. The resulting matrix (impact on one dimension, social or distributive justice criteria on another) would yield a least-cost approach from both sponsor and community perspective. Unfortunately, the state of the art of impact assess- ment is not sufficiently advanced to provide such a matrix. Thus, we are left with a research and policy void that must be filled to make socioeconomic impact assessment both possible and relevant. Nonetheless, we can identify a list of impacts to look for and review some of what is known about their measurement and iden- tification to guide further research. The rest of this chapter is devoted to this review. It will be seen that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and others have already initiated research relevant to effect identification. It is the first step of the three-step process outlined here. We recommend that the integration of socioeconomic criteria into the site- selection process for a high-level waste repository focus additional attention on the other two steps in the outline--design of an iterative assessment and mitigation process and identification and comparison of criteria for selection--before impact assessments are devised or utilized. In particular, we recommend study of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' program of citizen participation (Hanchey 1975, Ragan 1975) and a review of ongoing siting efforts in regard to hazardous chemical waste repositories that employ local boards of various types to elicit local attitudes and integrate local concerns (the laws in Massachusetts and Wisconsin merit particular attention). Repository sites for the long-term isolation of high-level radioactive wastes will be primarily in rural
85 areas, and the planning, construction, and operation of the repositories will result in significant socioeconomic effects.* These effects will be of two kinds: those that occur when any large-scale industrial facility is located in a rural community (hereafter conventional effects) and those that arise as a result of the special characteris- tics of a repository for radioactive wastes (hereinafter special effects). Assessing either type of effect is difficult for a number of reasons (Finsterbusch and Wolf 1977, Peelle 1979, Finsterbusch 1980). In addition to the uncertainties inherent in predicting social attitudes and behavior, many reactions occur during actual construction and operation (Cluett et al. 1980). Hence, findings from surveys of opinion about anticipated projects are only loosely correlated with findings from later surveys conducted during construction and operation. The manner in which a facility is planned and introduced can have a significant influence on public perception of, and response to, its effects. In addition, a single accident at the site or along the transport corridor may generate psychological stress that will alter the scope and magnitude of some (or possibly all) other effects. Even a harmless accident incorrectly reported as poten- tially dangerous can result in stress and behavioral response owing to the volatility of the nuclear issue (see Chapter 2). The 1982 Court of Appeals ruling (People Against Nuclear Energy v. NRC, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Intervenors #81-1131, May 14, 1982), despite its having subsequently been over- turned by the U.S. Supreme Court, underscores the significance of psychological factors in the aftermath of accidents. Adding to the difficulty is the lack of a common standard by which to compare effects once they are *Within social science and government, it has become common to use the term n impact" to refer to the effect (positive or negative) that a project or program has on people or environments. We produce environmental impact statements, social impact assessments (SIAs) and measure- ments of socioeconomic impact in what has been an expand- ing field of study. To avoid jargon and because it seems more neutral, the panel uses the word "effect" wherever possible in this report. Some may prefer to read in the work "impact" where we have used effect, which should not change the intended meaning.
86 defined. How should social change be weighed against economic change? How should social change in one locale be compared with social change in another if the nature of the change is different? The panel cannot provide answers for these thorny questions, nor can it provide assurance that answers will be provided by others; it does, however, identify them as major socioeconomic con- siderations in the repository decision-making process. While there are important impediments to any attempt to weigh and compare socioeconomic effects, enough knowl edge does exist to categorize them. In this chapter the panel provides a description of a repository site and explores the nature and magnitude of the effects that are likely to occur and the adequacy of our knowledge about them. THE REPOS ITORY S ITE: A DESCRIPTION - The DOE's standard design for a repository includes surface facilities for receiving and handling radioactive wastes and a subsurface area of approximately 2000 acres for waste emplacement. The surface facilities will consist of a fenced area of about 400 acres and include unloading areas, water and sewage treatment plants, and a number of buildings (Figure 4.1). After the 30-40 years postulated for repository operation, only a small monitor- ing building is expected to be required at the site (Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation 1981). The size of the repository will vary according to the degree of centralization of the waste management system, the total amount of waste involved, temperature considera- tions, and the size of the buffer zone. Spent fuel will arrive in shipping casks by rail, truck, or possibly barge, in amounts dependent on the waste system design. Once at the site, the shipping casks will be removed from the carrier by crane and moved to shielded transfer cells. The remainder of the above-ground operation con- sists of moving the canisters to a shaft through which they will be lowered into the repository. Construction of the repository, the shafts, and the surface facilities will take an estimated 7 years after the site has been selected and will require an estimated 1700 construction workers if the repository is located in salt and an estimated 4200 workers if the repository is located in hard rock. Maintenance workers--those who would be needed for the 30-40-year operation phase--are
87 a, U] . ~ - . ~,,/ ~ ~ 1 ~ // :.,\? I; $., U] .,' ·- ·- C) ·~1 O · - Q ~ A; U] ~ al U] 1 ·~_1 1 1 I I O .,' .,, 1 us I Q ~ a) O ~ C) .,, O o O ~ O ~ a, ~ 0 54 U] _ ~ en o O ·- fir . A, o o P4 1 a) v' ~ Q H a; ~ · V U) ~ H · O - o
88 projected to number between 870 and 1100 (Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation 1981). The site will also likely require monitoring for a lengthy (50-100 years) period of time. DOE's socioeconomic characterization of repository sites in southeastern, Midwestern, and southwestern locations provides general descriptions of population, employment, education, and housing at the sites (Table 4.1). While such data can be useful, particularly in determining economic effects, they are inadequate indicators of the range of a repository's socioeconomic effects. The following section discusses a number of economic and noneconomic effects that depend on more than the size of the in-migrant worker population. CONVENTIONAL EFFECTS The magnitude and distribution of the conventional effects of a large industrial facility in a rural area are a function of three primary variables: the character- istics of the project; the characteristics of the site area and population; and the characteristics of workers, their families, and others attracted to the area by the project (Leistritz and Murdock 1979, 1981; Thomas et al. 1982b). The major conventional effects to be expected are shown in Table 4.2. Economic Effects Construction and operation of a radioactive waste reposi- tory will have direct and indirect effects, including changes in employment patterns, property values, the costs of goods and services, and the level of economic activity, that can be expressed in marketplace terms. Many of these effects can be projected on the basis of the expected number and characteristics of new workers or the requirements for building and maintaining the reposi- tory (Greene and Hunter 1978). The rates of change, however, are more difficult to anticipate but are perhaps even of greater importance to the host community. Some economic effects would be the result of voluntary reac- tions (e.g., growth, speculation in land prices, and new investment patterns) to the local economy. The U.S. Department of Energy (1981) has estimated the sizes of in-migrant populations for repositories in
89 different geological media. In general, the smaller th community and the more remote the site, the larger the anticipated effects (Cole and Smith 1979). The avail- ability of a construction labor force, the distance to the nearest metropolitan center, and the degree of advance site planning all affect the ability of a host community to absorb new economic activity with minimal disruption. Economists estimate that population growth in excess e of lO to 15 percent annually creates serious problems for a given locale (Gilmore 1976, Greene and Hunter 1978). Smaller growth rates can induce less serious but long-term effects; Peelle et al. (1979) conclude that a 5 percent increase plus or minus 2 to 2-1/2 percent in the popula- tion of Cherokee County, South Carolina, as a result of the construction of the Cherokee Nuclear Station, "will be sufficient to have a continuing impact" (p. 63). Mountain West Research has analyzed the total direct population influx for each lOO incoming construction workers for 14 energy-related construction projects. The average was 228 per 100, but the range was large--from 145 to 288 (Mountain West Research 1978). In-migrant population levels are highly dependent on the marital and family status of workers and on whether they decide to bring their families (Dixon 1978). In general, spending by construction and operations personnel and their families in the community near a repository benefits retail, commercial, and service businesses. A recent review of socioeconomic impacts at 12 nuclear power stations, however, found few economic benefits to localities (Chalmers et al. 1982). The initiation of most large-scale construction projects in small communities also is followed by rising prices, particularly for housing and retail goods and services (Susskind and O'Hare 1977, Dixon 1978). Local industrial and professional employers are often forced to compete for skilled workers~and must heed demands from their employees for increased pay to keep pace with that of the in-migrants (Leistritz and Murdock 1979). Pressure to expand or compete may, however, force small businesses with inadequate capital into bankruptcy (Howard et al., as cited in Finsterbusch 1980). The Site Selection program outlined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 calls for identification of five candidate repository sites before a final selection is made. This procedure can be expected to have long-term effects on some local economies. During the decision
·~. o o o cn u] v cq a' s~ a a) a' s E~ o u] .,1 v ut .-l v s c) v v ~1 ~n a) u' cq ~ ~: v m o4 3 ~ E~ H a' 0 ·,4 cr CO ~ V P: U) :> V V ~ ~ :' O O tJ] C~ ~ O V C, U] P: V ~n v~ 3 ~ ·,. O x: V ·,' cn ~n 3 V o U] .,' V ut .,' ~4 a, V L. C) O O O .- tJ N ~O V O C O ~s O N C-) ~ ~n a, o o -,. V O O ~_ 1 U~ ~0 ~: o .,' V 3 _ . _ V ~q ~ 1 1 ~ V L~ O O O L0 ~- v ~ a, V ~ ~ O - - ~ ~ E V C) oa dP U~ a, 1 o a, d~ 90 O N ~D O ~ C~ ~_J ~tD U~ ~ CO r~ ~ ~ O . · N . · .· .· ·· · · · · \0 O ~ ~ N N oO CO~- ~1 ~ u~ ~ N ~ ' ~I I Lt) ~D C ~1~ N N ~ ~N t_ a' ~r O ~ ~D ~ ~ ~) ~, ~ ~ N kD k0 ~- O · · I · · · · ~· ·e · ·· e aN O ~J -I 1 ~D \0 0 ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ I ~1 1 1 ~ q. L~ N N t_ ~D 0 _' a) 0 0 1- _1 0 ~- ~~) N r- ~Lf, N O · · \0 · ~ . · . · . · . · . · O ~ ~0 ~t O U ~ ~0~ U~-~ N ~ ~ In N ' H 'I ~ ~tr' N ~OC ~_I U~ N 0 0\ ~ ~ ~r a) ~r ~D tD ~D O ~ ~ ~D . ~1 . ~ . · . . . . .. u' ~1 t- 0 CO t- o a, u ~ ~ ~0 ~ O a~ _1 N I ~1 ~t ~ N ao `D OD o · · a c0 1 If, N . · 1 1 1 1 O O .Q 1- a, U~ ~ ~ ~N o · · · · ~ O c0 1 a, · · · · ~ O tD ~ N 1 t- 1 U~ 1 o a~ V V ~ Ll O O O CD . - e-1 01 V V C) ~ e~ o V V Z Z ~a O O a~ a ._' S U) o U) O S O t- V l- ~ ' - ,~1 3 -I V ~ _ U] . - C ~ a ~ U) V -,1 ' - 3 ' - O Z dP d~ 0o a _I ~ ~: C~ r~ co ~ ~ ~D Ln · . · . ~ . a~ vo ~ u~ ~ u~ ~D a N _1 N 1~ I ~ O ~ ~ e e · [~ M0 ~ U~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~) N _I ~: O O .,. -~1 V V Ll - - V E ~0 ~ o v o ~e o 3 o ~ v 1 o O Z
91 lo to ~ ~ ~ ~ Lo~ · e e ~ e e ·e~ O t- ~ C0 1~1 ~ Otede -I to ~ _ ~_A) 0 a' e e ~ a, ~c0 At ·· ~ to 3 .,, V C, O .,1 LetUS ~ ~ O ~- . ~·· vo ~ )J aJ · . · . ~ t- a, o · ~· ~· ~e u ~C a n U)~ ee ° ~r. ~ cn ~ ~ ·· · . · · · · ~ U~ a, ~ u~ 0 c ~CD · ~· · · e · · ~ 01 U~ ~0 ~ U r~ ·,. 3 o ·,1 v · - ~·- v 3 ~· - U U pu O ~ ~ ~3 c O ~· - ·^ C: tn U ~ ~ ~ O ~3 ~ O ~ _1 3 ~0 3 ~·- 0 13 ~C _~ a~ ~_ O ~m ~ ,.c ` ~ a, :' ~ ~a O U) V V _ ~·,1 ~ dP ·- V tn ~1 03 ~ U) ~ · - v · - RS-C~ ~ ~ :~ ~l U] J O~ ~ ~ Q 3 3 U)c: U] CJ1 -~ U) i-~ U] IO eq ~n { ~U] V e) V V V ~ V ~ ~ ~ .,' ~ . - · - · - O · - ~ ~o O c:-m ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~: ff} ~ ~ o~ ~ dP ~ dP dP C) ·,1 tn ·,. a' o C) o v ~e ~ ' - ~ O :^ ~ ~ a' al - W O ~ v 3 ~ O v ~ ' Pd ~D a 0 o co cn e ~ ·. Q Cd :) o U] .,1 .,, v ,' (n v ·,' U] ·,' ~n v ln a, Ll 3 o ~n Q ~4 v ~n o ~4 o ,' ~4 ~ ~0 v o · - V o C . - ~n
92 TABLE 4.2 Conventional Site Effects of a Large Industr ial Facility 1.0 Economic Effects 1.1 Change in property value 1.2 Change in rental costs 1.3 Change in cost of goods and services 1.4 Higher property taxes 1.5 Change in employment 1.6 Change in provision of jobs 1.7 Change in travel costs 1.8 Change in market areas and competitive position of economic activities 2.0 Environmental and Health Effects 2.1 Noise 2.2 Air pollution 2.3 Damage to soil quality 2.4 Water drainage damage 2.5 Vibration 2.6 Congestion and access 2.7 Accidents 2.8 Aesthetic changes 3.0 Social Change Effects 3.1 Social Pathologies (alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness, divorce, juvenile delinquency) 3.2 Crime 3.3 Personality adjustment 3.4 Affectual relations 3.5 Use of community facilities 3.6 Intergroup conflict 3.7 Quality of public services 3.8 Sense of community (includes sense of attachment, support networks) 4.0 Location Transfer Costs and New Location Effects 4.1 Searching 4.2 Moving 4.3 Capital Financing Costs 4.4 Start-up and operating costs (businesses) 4.5 Personality adjustment 5.0 Institutional Adaptations 5.1 Land-use functions 5.2 Development planning 5.3 Negotiations with contractors, government agencies 5.4 Conflict resolution 5 5 Jurisdictional issues 5.6 Public service bureaucracies; direct-service agencies 5.7 Division of responsibilities
93 making period, residents in the vicinity of the candidate sites are likely to place less emphasis on property maintenance (Miller 1971), properties will be hard to sell (Corrigan 1976), and economic development is often hampered. The effects of uncertainty will be felt most strongly by residents with fixed incomes. There may be a significant trade-off, however, between the economic costs of a large number of potential sites and the political costs of a small number of sites (Ghovanlou et al. 1980). As noted in the previous chapter, while multiple repositories would generate adverse socioeconomic effects at more sites, they have potential for reducing overall regional inequities, transport system costs, and state emergency response burdens. Several conclusions can be drawn about the likely economic effects of a radioactive waste repository: 1. The effects are potentially large, involve uncertain rates of change, and are sufficiently complex that they cannot be projected from population increases alone. 2. Some effects will not be apparent until the construction process actually begins, thereby implying that some means of monitoring and responding to effects at site are needed (Wolf 1974, Cluett et al. 1980). 3. The site-selection procedure mandated in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 will impose adverse effects (e.g., community conflict, speculation) on the candidate host sites as well as on the site finally selected. A decentralized waste system could well add to these site effects, although compensating with advantages in overall socioeconomic and institutional effects. Environmental and Health Effects Nonradiological environmental and health effects arising from the construction and operation of a repository should be no more severe than those of most large con- struction projects. This appears also to be true for nuclear power plants (Chalmers et al. 1982). The measurement of environmental and health effects requires two kinds of standards: (1) professionally established norms for such effects as noise and air pollution and (2) standards established by the community on how much noise and pollution residents are willing to tolerate. Professional standards are useful in providing
94 outer boundaries __ . chances that do not produce mea- surable harm; community standards represent tolerance levels. People are sometimes willing to tolerate far greater levels of "nuisance" (such as noise in New York City or rock music) than professional standards would specify as healthy. People in rural areas and small communities may be more sensitive to artificial environ- mental changes and less tolerant of environmental damage than people in urban areas. This implies that community standards may often be more important than professional standards (Saarinen 1976). Community standards for individual pollutants or over- all environmental impact are most commonly estimated by using changes in property values as an indicator of personal sentiments, although the application of this measure is not definitive. In general, application of this standard suggests a correlation between actual and perceived levels of pollutions (Pearce 1978a). As suggested in Chapter 2, public concerns over radioactive wastes indicate that perceptions will be important. Should high community standards override all other standards where the community is especially sensitive, or should a lower professional standard prevail across all communities? This type of question has, of course arisen in other contexts--such as the search for a generally applicable legal definition of obscenity--but has been difficult to resolve. Professional standards are not much easier to develop and apply than community standards. Noise and air pol- lution, for example, have been studied extensively in an attempt to establish professional standards. Researchers have attempted to model the effects of such pollutants, placing a monetary value on the magnitude and scope of the pollution. But as Pearce (1978a) points out, such efforts deny the variability of impact. Units of noise, for example, cannot be assessed at the same price regard- less of how much is "consumed" by an individual. We know that certain levels of noise will cause stress, loss of sleep, and other social, psychological, or economic effects (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1973), but noise is experienced differently by various segments of the population. In addition, the volume, pitch, and duration of individual noises can cause specific reactions. Similarly, air pollution involves estimation and ~ _ damage can po~'ut~on--corrosion, paint damage, assessment difficulties. Obvious ohveical result from air ~~ ~
95 soiling of laundry, and soiling of windows or building interiors are all measurable indicators with measurable costs. Respiratory and other diseases have been linked directly to air pollution, although the time scales involved make causality difficult to determine precisely in some instances. But despite the fact that some of the consequences of air pollution can be identified, the measurement technique used in any study can have a sig- nificant effect on its results and conclusions (Pearce 1978b). Efforts have been made to link professional and community standards through attempts to regulate levels of environmental and health pollution. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency published noise standards in 1974 that set an Ldn (day-night average sound level)* of 45 dBA indoors and 55 dBA outdoors for residential areas, hospitals, and schools (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1974). I'm . . . . . , . . _ lne Naclona1 Research council nas esc~macea Anal at by Dan a community will generally not react to noise exposure, while at 75 Ldn and higher a community can be expected to react strongly (National Research Council 1977). Almost all heavy trucks and construction equipment exceed that noise level at a distance of 50 feet or less (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1972). The construction equipment at *An EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Group has assessed the impact of cumulative noise exposure on annoyance (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1973). Their conclusion was that the "energy" equivalent, or average, A-weighted sound level, taken over a 24-hour period, with a 10-decibel penalty applied to nighttime sound levels, is the simplest noise measure that provides high correlation with annoyance, complaint behavior, and overt community reaction (don Gierke 1973). This measure was named "day-night average sound leveler or Ldn. Sound-level meters typically contain three different response weighting networks: The A, B. and C networks, with the A used most commonly. When using the meter on the A weighting, the quantity obtained is the A-weighted sound level. Its unit is the decibel (dB) most popularly referred to as dBA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1973). The 10-dBA nighttime penalty applies to sounds measured between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Thus, a 40-dBA sound after 10 p.m. is counted as a 50-dBA sound (Finsterbusch 1980).
96 radioactive waste repository would probably not be near enough to any town to cause annoyance, but community residents, businesses, and schools at nodes in the waste funnel may be expected to react to increased noise levels from truck and car traffic. On-site monitoring would be necessary to verify noise levels and citizen reactions. There are a variety of ways to abate noise, such as bar- riers, sound insulation, and time restraints. But such strategies often themselves engender a negative reaction from people who desire no aesthetic changes in their environment. To conclude, although environmental and health effects can be anticipated and measured in many instances, dif- ferent community standards, the problems of determining causality, and the compounding of reactions by anxiety complicate the prediction of actual consequences. Physi- cal measurement would therefore have to be combined with careful surveys and behavioral indicators. Contradictions in the applicability and relevance of standards in indi- vidual cases are likely to require resolution before priorities can be established. Locational Costs and Effects Since a radioactive waste repository does not require a large amount of surface land, it is unlikely that many people would be required to relocate. However, searching for, moving to, and financing a new home or business can be costly, especially in times of rapidly increasing home prices and high mortgage interest rates. In circumstances where government compensation is appropriate, bureaucratic delays cause cash-flow problems, especially for those of moderate income and for small businesses. Indeed, the possibilities of relocating a small business are often severely limited. Such businesses generally have a local- ized clientele that is lost when the business is moved. The growth in the number of steady customers needed to ensure its survival at a new location is often slow. Residents and business owners being forced to move often experience psychological hardship. Finsterbusch (1980) suggests that the approach taken by government authorities to displacement and relocation can strongly affect its success. He recommends that the government keep the public well informed, that it seriously consider a full range of alternatives (including the no-build alternative), that it allow sufficient time for reloca
97 Lion, and that it be prompt and generous in relocation payments. In general, officials should demonstrate that they are helpful and concerned. Social Change Some of the most complex but most important effects of siting can be grouped under "social change." Fragile social networks in rural towns, for example, are damaged by large-scale energy developments nearby (Freudenberg et al. 1977, Freudenberg 1978, Susskind and O'Hare 1977, Cortese and Jones 1977). Assessing social change, how- ever, requires agreement on the meaning of such concepts as social stability, social cohesion, and "community, n i.e., what it is that is subject to change. Despite the acknowledged importance of a "sense of community," strong local attachments are usually revealed only when an area or group is threatened (Burkhardt 1971, Erikson 1976). At that point it is difficult to determine whether opposition is a generalized feeling, a specific response to a decision, or the strong but possibly not representa- tive feelings of a small but vocal group. The elderly and those with low or fixed incomes are particularly vul- nerable to social change and to inequities in the siting process. In the 1960s planners learned that communities pre- viously believed to be disordered and unsupportive can provide their residents with social support networks (Michelson 1970). The lengthy history of conflict over large-scale construction projects is dotted with examples of inaccurate assessments of community attachment in low and moderate income areas (Altshuler 1965, Keyes 1969, Simmie 1974, Fagence 1977, Gold 1979). To determine which types of areas are the least susceptible to damage to social cohesion, or how it can be minimized if inevit- able, is a formidable problem. Lacking any agreed-upon measures of social change, researchers have devised a series of indicators. It is often assumed that length of residence and home ownership are appropriate indicators for community attach- ment and serve as convenient predictors of negative reaction to a facility or project. Yet there is no clear correlation between community attachment and length of residence. In some cases the high cost of moving to another home is more distressing to a family than changes in the locality. On the other hand, certain groups have
98 exhibited clear signs of despair when forced to relocate (Marris 1974). Certain pathological changes occur in a community because of unwanted construction or an influx of new workers (Coates 1975). Higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, mental illness, juvenile deliquency, and divorce among residents are all indicative of social change (Freudenberg et al. 1977, Susskind and O'Hare 1977, Kohrs 1974~. Increased crime rates will cause greater fear and fear-related reactions among residents (Freudenberg et al. 1977, Greene and Hunter 1978). Measures of social interaction include such factors as rates of church attendance and organizational membership (Stanley and Rattray 1978). Neighborhood interaction scales have been combined with surveys of satisfaction, participation, identification, and the desire to stay in the neighborhood to determine community stability (Burkhardt 1971). Neither observations nor surveys, however, are entirely reliable. Preferences themselves do vary. Some may like a particular locale because they do not have to interact much. Or behavior and expressed preference are contra- dictory (Hoinville 1971, Clemente et al. 1977). Respon- dents may find it difficult to recognize their emotional ties to a locale or to predict their future behavior. There is some evidence that residents favor large public projects before they are built but change their minds once construction begins (Little and Lovejoy 1977, Freudenberg 1978, Peelle 1979). In any case, indicators of social interaction do not in themselves tell us how to plan. Patterns of use of community facilities, such as recreation areas, historic sites, museums, taverns, or movie theatres, are affected by an influx of new resi- dents. Newcomers replace oldtimers at such places, but such behavior is hard to predict. Intergroup conflict arises among local residents or between local residents and newcomers, particularly in regard to life styles, economic interests, political philosophies, and moral values (Shields 1977, Finsterbusch 1980). Increases in the numbers of individuals seeking public services often result in changes in service quality or a scarcity of services relative to demand. New workers frequently exhibit health problems unique to a locale (Greene and Hunter 1978). Social changes, more than other changes, are difficult to anticipate and require carefully developed assessment procedures. And again, the rates of such changes will
99 likely be as important as the types and eventual mag- nitudes. Social change can be critical to the character of a locale (particularly a small town), is often the type of change of the greatest concern to residents, and should be monitored during both the planning and con- struction stages of a facility (Cluett et al. 1980). Local authorities and the federal government need to be prepared to respond flexibly and in timely fashion to changes (Greene and Hunter 1978). Local Institutional Effects Local government and community agencies have a variety of functions that will change both qualitatively and quan- titatively as a radioactive waste repository is planned, constructed, operated, and monitored. During the siting process local governments often find themselves in a reactive posture that is inconsistent with the historic patterns of leadership, community structure, community interaction, and autonomy generally characterizing small communities (Cortege and Jones 1977). There will be new needs for funds to support increased services and new requirements for planning and land use control to ensure that the influx of new workers and economic growth is orderly. Hence, the local governments could find them- selves negotiating with the project developer for finan- cial help (Stenehjem and Allen 1978) and seeking a greater share of tax revenues from government agencies at the state and federal levels. It may have to apply for grants or loans or impose new taxes (Greene and Hunter 1978). All of these activities require greater expertise, result- ing in a change in the size and professionalism of the local government. This development has been noted in communities hosting nuclear power plants (Chalmers et al. 1982). Small towns, accustomed to more informal modes of governance (Shields et al. 1978), frequently resent the requirement to conduct their affairs in a more complex and time-consuming manner. The need to redesign service agencies to meet increased or changed demands usually strain small local governments. New agencies may be required to deal with heavily affected groups. Small businesses will need advice or assistance to cope with new demands. Local courts may find it diffi- cult to deal with a new array of criminal and jurisdic- tional issues. Hospitals are likely to have to deal with an increased number of patients.
100 Institutions at the local level, in short, almost cer- tainly will face a number of challenges to their tradi- tional patterns of operation. SPECIAL EFFECTS Effects associated with the radiological characteristics of the repository have received relatively little atten- tion and are not well understood. The factors pertinent to this special class of impacts include (1) public con- cerns; (2) equity across regions and across generations; (3) the national debate over nuclear power; and (4) institutional issues--credibility of institutions, long- term security of site, waste transportation, and roles in decision making. Public concern will be found not only at the waste repository site but in the surrounding region and within communities along the "waste funnel" leading to the repository. Psychological stress felt by many people in the vicinity of the repository and along transportation routes is a possible social effect that should be antici- pated and evaluated. Equity issues may also become important (Kasperson and Rubin 1983). Many residents are likely to find it diffi- cult to accept the fact that their area has assumed a burden for the benefit of distant areas, particularly if the repository is the only one for all commercial high- level wastes. This leads residents both to identify more adverse effects and to see them as more unacceptable. Concern must also be expected in the host region over even _ minimis adverse effects on the health of today's children and succeeding generations. The existence of the national debate over nuclear power impinges on arguments over the siting of a repository. A prospective site, whatever the local sentiments, will likely become a battleground for contending groups. Local residents might well be drawn into the battle on various sides, thus polarizing the community. Indeed, it is pos- sible that the major adverse social effect will be com- munity conflict during the site selection and planning stage rather than more conventional effects during the construction and operation of a repository. Finally, there are local institutional concerns. The degree of public concern about the long-term security of the site depends in part on the extent to which local residents believe that stable institutions are ready and
101 able to protect the community. The handling of the accidents that would inevitably occur will do much to determine local confidence in the responsible institutions (and the degree of behavioral reactions to stress). If institutional credibility is found wanting, then demands for intervention by local institutions are likely. The way in which spent-fuel casks are transported, for exam- ple, could well affect public acceptance, particularly if the flow of waste at and near the repository site becomes particularly heavy. Finally, the host locality will undoubtedly be affected by the adequacy of its partici- pation in decision making. These special effects may prove to be resistant to formal assessment and particularly to quantitative mea- surement and expression. It must be recognized, however, that they could well exceed the more conventional effects of a repository and also prove resistant to mitigation or elimination. Methods for assessing these effects, which note both advantages and disadvantages, have recently been carefully appraised (Thomas et al. 1982a). Further, recognition is needed that system design choices will interact with site effects, in ways sometimes predictable and sometimes not. INFLUENCE OF TIME AND DISTANCE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Different effects will occur at different stages in the siting and development of a repository. The first rumors of planning for such a facility will cause changes in property values, depending on site location and existing land use. Values will change again after construction is finished if the effects, or perceptions of the effects, are different from those anticipated. Since the selection of a particular site may not occur until after the site has been acquired (and "qualified"), rumors will sometimes coincide with planning. Psychological, health, and social changes, on the other hand, will become evident only after the facility has been operating for a number of years. Effects are also related to distance from a facility, but this relationship is not always unilinear. Some people in the immediate vicinity of a repository may not be perturbed and choose to remain where they are, whereas others further away may leave the area. The extent of most effects will depend on the shape and slope of their distance-decay curves (Massam 1975). Health effects, for
102 example, will likely be highly sensitive to proximity to the facility--the closer one's home to the site, the greater the effects of noise and air pollution. Economic effects, on the other hand, are generally more evenly spread over a wider area. Disturbances resulting from in-migration will tend to be unevenly distributed. If all effects were equal in weight or uniformly diffused, their measurement would be relatively simple, and choosing one site instead of another would alter equities in ore- dictable ways. complex. _ _ , _ ~. Unfortunately, the situation is more LOCAL EFFECTS ALONG TRANSPORT CORRIDORS As indicated in Chapter 3, a substantial amount of truck or rail traffic can be anticipated in the delivery to away-from-reactor storage facilities (if built) a reposi tory for repositories) or both. Special problems may occur for locales located at nodes along transport cor- ridors. Truck stops will be created, and certain roads or intersections will experience unusually heavy traffic. Depending on the size of the locale and the number of trucks traveling through, some of the same effects-- increased stress or greater anxiety for local populations, reduced property values, pressures on the local economy, and disruptions of social fabric--that would occur at site during repository operation should be anticipated. Whether these problems will assume sufficient magni- tude to require governmental intervention is uncertain and depends, in part, on overall waste system design. But the study and mitigation of socioeconomic effects should certainly include increased attention to these potential problems. The panel recognizes that the assessment and mitigation of transport corridor effects could present planning and organizational problems. To what extent (if any) should adverse socioeconomic effects in the many communities along transport corridors be included in impact mitigation programs? The panel notes that adverse effect mitigation is generally not under- taken for the movement of other enerav Or. Ah as a _ _ _ ,, ~ _ ~ coal). Scent information and analysis does not exist at this time for the panel to take a position on this question. What is essential is that such prospective problems at nodes along transport corridors be antici- pated, that means be instituted to identify and assess such effects, and that the possibility that mitigation of
103 effects may be required be included management program. MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION part of the waste The potential adverse effects to a community hosting a radioactive waste repository should be avoided where it is feasible to do so and, for those adverse effects that cannot be avoided, mitigated to the fullest extent reason- ably achievable. A sound program to this end does not now exist. The Council on Environmental Quality's regulations to federal agencies for implementation of the National Environmental Protection Act require environmental impact statements to include provisions for mitigating adverse impacts (Peelle 1979). The panel's view is that a sound program for anticipating and responding to the socioeco- nomic effects of siting a radioactive waste repository would comprise the following: 1. Analysis of socioeconomic effects, with par- ticipation by the residents; 2. Development of plans and policies to avoid and to mitigate adverse effects, with participation by the residents; 3. Capital, provided by the beneficiaries of nuclear power, to fund the mitigation of expected adverse conventional effects; 4. Compensation for adverse effects, conventional and special, that cannot reasonably be avoided or further mitigated; and 5. Means of redress for effects resulting directly from the siting of a radioactive waste repository or from overall changes in the radioactive waste program that alter site characteristics. Although the occurrence of specific effects is diffi- cult to predict, a substantial number of conventional adverse effects that will occur can be avoided or miti- gated through advance planning and effective management. The process by which planning and management can be successfully implemented calls for interaction between residents of the community and representatives of state and federal agencies. The involvement of local residents in identifying and assessing local effects, in evaluating planning alternatives, and in contributing to the defini- tion and evaluation of management options can increase the effectiveness of the siting process.
104 The panel's review of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the siting programs of DOE suggest that an appro- priate mechanism or process for assuring the active involvement of local residents in assessing site effects and in monitoring mitigation and compensation programs does not now exist. There is need, therefore, for prompt attention to redressing this deficiency in institutional arrangements for site selection and development. Consid- eration should be given to the appropriate role and powers of such a mechanism, budgetary needs, and capacity for independent technical review. One useful model at the state level may be the Environmental Evaluation Group, which has advised the governor of New Mexico on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant project. A number of federal programs exist that are aimed at mitigating the conventional impacts that stem from the location of energy or other industrial facilities. The applicability and timeliness of each, however, are limited. The Education Act of 1950, for example, pro- vides federal financial assistance to school districts experiencing financial burdens as a result of federal project development, but there are serious time lags in the flow of assistance funds. Small communities that need technical planning expertise can obtain help through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program, but there are numerous eligibility restrictions and a cumbersome application process. The Community Facilities Loan and Grant Program of Federal Housing Administration is another source of assistance for fire-fighting and transportation needs, but inflexible funding formulas have hampered its application (Leistritz and Murdock 1979, pp. 322-324). The recently passed Energy Impact Assistance Act may improve the situation, although administrative complexities, fragmented sources of aid, and the "prohibition of delay" stipulation (Section 608) may reduce its potential effectiveness (Peelle 1980, pp. 120-121). Even prompt and ambitious mitigation of adverse socio- economic effects will not always suffice to provide adequate protection for the host community and host region. Past experience suggests that many adverse effects will be underestimated, will not be quantifiable, or will not become apparent until the siting process actually begins. Other effects, such as those described above as comprising social change, will be essentially irreversible and not subject to mitigation. The community
105 is also vulnerable to policy or program changes that could alter expected benefits or add new (and perhaps unforeseen) effects. The conversion of a demonstration facility to a permanent repository, for example, would introduce a new array of beneficial and adverse effects. Meanwhile, the research base to support mitigation efforts is limited and uneven: studies of impact mitigation have been largely limited to a few selected types of manage- ment processes or only a few cases relevant to a given process (Halstead and Leistritz 1982). As a result, an adequate conceptual basis for designing mitigation pro- grams does not now exist (but see Murdock et al. 1982, Chapters 10-12 for a noteworthy effort to fill this void). To prevent the community from bearing unfair burdens and harm, an ambitious program of technical and financial support for the mitigation of adverse effects at the site will be needed. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 recognizes this need in providing for funds to be used for impact mitigation (see Section 116). Grants may be made to states to develop a request for impact assistance which must be submitted to the Secretary following the site characterization activities and before the recom- mendation of a repository site by the Secretary to the President. Since no limit to such mitigation funds is specified, the scale of the program is potentially adequate. There are, however, several potential problems which will need to be addressed by DOE in implementation. First, the goals and levels of funds are set in a binding agreement following the granting of construction authori- zation. But, as the panel has noted, many adverse impacts cannot be identified at this time and will become apparent only as the site is developed and undertakes operation. Second, the agreement is between the federal government and the state, with no assurance that the state will adequately assess the needs of the host locality or allocate the funds delivered in an effective manner. FINDINGS From its analysis of likely socioeconomic effects at the waste disposal site, the panel finds the following: 1. 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
106 impact assessment theory and methodology and the cursory efforts thus far in comparative analysis of impact mitiga- tion 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 rates of adverse socioeconomic effects to be expected at a repository site nor criteria that should be formulated for site suitability or appropriate program of impact mitigation. 2. 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. 3. 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 large industrial facilities in rural communities. 4. A number of significant effects will not become evident until the 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. 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 miti- gate 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 further mitigated; and (e) means of redress for effects resulting directly from the siting of a repository or
107 from overall changes in the radioactive waste program that alter site characteristics. 6. 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, problems may be expected in implementation. mitigation, for example, 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. A1SO, no assurance exists that the states will adequately assess the needs of this host locality and allocate funds in an effective manner. The goals and levels of funds for impact . REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 Altshuler, A. 1965. The City Planning Process. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Burkhardt, J. 1971. Impact of Highways on Urban Neighborhoods: A Model of Social Change. No. 356. Highway Research Board. Chalmers, J., D. Pijawka, K. Branch, P. Bergmann, J. Flynn, and C. Flynn. 1982. Socioeconomic Impacts of Nuclear Generating Stations. Summary Report. NUREG/CR-2750. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Clemente, F., J. Cole, E. Kloman, J. McCabe, P. Sawicke, J. Schumaker, and J. Spencer. 1977. Public Participation in Energy Related Decisionmaking: Six Case Studies. M76-53. McLean, Va.: The Mitre Corporation and National Academy of Public Administration, December. Cluett, C., M. Greene, and L. Radford. 1980. Individual and Community Response to Energy Facility Siting: An Annotated Bibliography. No. P-493. Montacello, I1: Vance Bibliographies, May. Coates, V. 1975. Community Level Impacts of Expanded Underground Coal Mining. Readings in Technology Assessment. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology, June. Cole, R., and T. Smith. 1979. Compensation for the Adverse Impacts of Nuclear Waste Management Facilities: Application of an Analytical Framework to Consideration of Eleven Potential Impacts. Summary
108 Report. Seattle, Wash.: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, September. Corrigan, R. 1976. The western boom towns - "going crazy, n going it alone. National Journal August:1150-1152. Cortese, C. F., and analysis of boom 8:76-90. B. Jones. 1977. The sociological towns. Western Sociological Review Dixon, M. 1978. What Happened to Fairbanks? Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Erikson, K. 1976. Everything in its Path. New York: Simon and Schuster. Fagence, M. 1977. Citizen Participation in Planning. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Finsterbusch, K., and C. P. Wolf, eds. 1977. Methodology of Social Impact Assessment. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. 1976. Everything in its Path. New York Finsterbusch, K. 1980. Understanding Social Impacts. No. 110. Beverly Hills ~ Calif.: Same Librarv of Social Research. Freudenberg, W., L. Bacigalupi, A. Clay, C. Landoll, and K. N. Deeds. 1977. Subjective responses to an energy boomtown situation: a preliminary report on research in progress in four western Colorado towns. Presented at Annual Meetings, American Sociological Association, Chicago, September. Freudenberg, W. 1978. Toward ending the inattention: a report on the social consequences of energy boomtown developments. Paper presented at the 144th National Meeting, AAAS, Washington, D.C. Ghovanlou, A., L. Ettlinger, A. De Agazio, and N. Lord. 1980. Analysis of Nuclear Waste Disposal Technologies and Strategies for Technology Deployment. Draft. McLean, Va.: The Mitre Corporation, April. Gilmore, J. S. 1976. Boom towns may hinder resource development. Science 191:535-540. energy Gold, R. L. 1979. On local control of western energy development. The Social Science Journal 16:121-127. Greene, M., and T. Hunter. 1978. The Management of Social and Economic Impacts Anticipated with a Nuclear Waste Repository: A Preliminary Discussion. Draft. Seattle, Wash.: Battelle Memorial Institute, May. Halstead, J. M., and F. L. Leistritz. _ ~. ~ 1982. Resolving redeems In repository sltlng: a review of issues and mitigation measures. Pp. 179-199 in Nuclear Waste: Socioeconomic Dimensions of Long-Term Storages, H. Murdock, F. L. Leistritz, and R. R. Hamm, eds. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
109 Hanchey, J. R. 1975. Public Involvement in the Corps of Engineers Planning Process. IWR Research Report 75-R4. Fort Belvoir, Va.: U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources. Hoinville, G. 1971. Evaluating community preferences. Environment and Planning 3:33-50. Kasperson, R., and B. Rubin. 1983. Siting a radioactive waste repository: what role for equity? Pp. 118-136 in Equity Issues in Radioactive Waste Management, R. Kasperson, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: UGH Publishers. Keyes, L. 1969. The Rehabilitation Planning Game. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kohrs, E. 1974. Social consequences of boom growth in Wyoming. Paper given at the Rocky Mountain AAAS, Laramie, Wyoming, July. Leistritz, L., and S. Murdock. 1979. Economic and Social Impacts of Energy Development in the Western United States: Research Findings and Future Research Needs. Texas A&M, College Station, Tex., June. Leistritz, L., and S. Murdock. 1981. Socioeconomic Impact of Resource Development: Methods for Assessment. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Little, R. L., and S. B. Love joy. 1977. Benefits from Rural Industrializaton. Research Project, Los Angeles. Marris, P. 1974. Loss and Change. Books. Employment Lake Powell New York: Pantheon Massam, B. 1975. Location and Space in Social Administration. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Michelson, W. 1970. Man and His Urban Environment. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Miller, Jr., S. F. 1971. Effects of Proposed Highway Improvements on Property Values. Report No. 114. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C. Mountain West Research. 1978. Construction Worker Profile: Final Report for the Old West Regional Commission. Washington, D.C., December. Murdock, S. H., F. L. Leistritz, and R. R. Hamm, eds 1982. Nuclear Waste: Socioeconomic Dimensions of Long-Term Storage. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. National Research Council. 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise. Report of the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics Working Group 69. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
110 Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation. 1981. Framework for Community Planning Associated with Nuclear Waste Repository Siting. Draft. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Memorial Institute, October. Pearce, D. W. 1978a. Noise nuisance. of Social Cost, D.W. Pearce, ed. & Unwin. In The Valuation London: George Allen Pearce, D. W. 1978b. Air pollution. Of Social Cost, D. W. Pearce, ed. London: George Allen & Unwin. Peelle, E. 1979. Community impacts of energy production. Prepared for the Sociopolitical Resource Group of the Risk/Impact Panel, Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., December. Peelle, E. 1980. Social Impact Mitigation and Nuclear Waste Repository Siting. Statement to Subcommittee on Rural Development, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, August 26. Peelle, E., M. Schweitzer, P. Scharre, and B. Pressman. 1979. A Study of the Cherokee Nuclear Station Projected Impacts, Monitoring Plan, and Mitigation Options for Cherokee County, South Carolina. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, July. Ragan, J. F., Jr. 1975. Public Participation in Water Resources Planning: An Evaluation of the Programs of 15 Corps of Engineers Districts. IWR Contract Report 75-6. Fort Belvoir, Va.: U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources. Saarinen, T. F. 1976. In The Valuation Environmental Planning: Perception and Behavior. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Seley, J. E. 1983. Politics of Public Facility Planning. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books. Shields, M. 1977. Grounded theory construction in social impact assessment. Pp. 64-73 in Methodology of Social Impact Assessment, K. Finsterbusch and C.P. Wolf, eds. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Shields, M., J. Cowan, and D. Bjornstad. 1978. Socio-Economic Impacts of Nuclear Power Plants. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, July. Simmie, J.M. 1974. Citizens in Conflict. London: Hutchinson and Co. Stanley, J., and A. Rattray. 1978. Social severance. Pp. 140-163 in The Valuation of Social Cost, D.W. Pearce, ed. London: George Allen & Unwin.
111 Stenehjem, E., and E. J. Allen. 1978. Constraints to Energy Development. American Behavioral Scientist 22:92-213. Susskind, L., and M. O'Hare. 1977. Managing the Social and Economic Impacts of Energy Development. Summary Report. Phase I of the MIT Energy Impacts Project. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Thomas, J. K., D. E. Albrecht, and S. H. Murdock. 1982a. Assessing the social effects of repository siting. Pp. 157-176 in Nuclear Waste: Socioeconomic Dimensions of Long-Term Storage, S. H. Murdock, F. L. Leistritz, and R. R. Hamm, eds. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Thomas, J. K., R. R. Hamm, and S. H. Murdock. 1982b. The socioeconomic impacts of repositories. Pp. 103-117 in Nuclear Waste: Socioeconomic Dimensions of Long-Term Storage, S. H. Murdock, F. L. Leistritz, and R. R. Hamm, eds. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. U.S. Department of Energy. 1981. The National Plan for Radioactive Waste. Working Draft 4. Washington, D.C., January. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Report to the President and Congress on Noise. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise. No. 550/9-73-002. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, July. Von Gierke, H. E. 1973. Impact Characterization of Noise Including Implications of Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure. NTID 73.4. Prepared for US EPA, July. Wolf, C. P. 1974. Social impact assessment: the state of the art. In Social Impact Assessment (ERDA-5), C. P. Wolf, ed. Milwaukee, Wisc.: Environmental Design Research, Inc.
