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 83
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
OCR for page 84
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
OCR for page 85
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.
OCR for page 86
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
OCR for page 87
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
OCR for page 88
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
OCR for page 89
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
OCR for page 90
·~.
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
OCR for page 91
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
OCR for page 92
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
OCR for page 93
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
OCR for page 101
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
OCR for page 102
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
OCR for page 103
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.
OCR for page 104
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
OCR for page 105
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
OCR for page 106
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
OCR for page 107
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
OCR for page 108
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.
OCR for page 109
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.
OCR for page 110
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.
OCR for page 111
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.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
nuclear waste
