Social and Economic Aspects of Radioactive Waste Disposal Considerations for Institutional Management (1984) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4. The Waste Repository Site: Characteristics and Socioeconomic Considerations
4. The Waste Repository Site: Characteristics and Socioeconomic Considerations
Pages 83-111
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 83... ...
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)
|
From page 84... ...
. Repository sites for the long-term isolation of high-level radioactive wastes will be primarily in rural
|
From page 85... ...
that a project or program has on people or environments. We produce environmental impact statements, social impact assessments (SIAs)
|
From page 86... ...
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)
|
From page 88... ...
Economic Effects Construction and operation of a radioactive waste repository 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 repository (Greene and Hunter 1978)
|
From page 89... ...
. 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.
|
From page 91... ...
91 lo to ~ ~ ~ ~ Lo~ · e e ~ e e ·e~ O t- ~ C0 1~1 ~ Otede -I to ~ _ ~_A)
|
From page 92... ...
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
|
From page 93... ...
. 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.
|
From page 94... ...
. As suggested in Chapter 2, public concerns over radioactive wastes indicate that perceptions will be important.
|
From page 95... ...
. Efforts have been made to link professional and community standards through attempts to regulate levels of environmental and health pollution.
|
From page 96... ...
Contradictions in the applicability and relevance of standards in individual 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.
|
From page 97... ...
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)
|
From page 98... ...
. Social changes, more than other changes, are difficult to anticipate and require carefully developed assessment procedures.
|
From page 99... ...
. Local Institutional Effects Local government and community agencies have a variety of functions that will change both qualitatively and quantitatively as a radioactive waste repository is planned, constructed, operated, and monitored.
|
From page 100... ...
Local residents might well be drawn into the battle on various sides, thus polarizing the community. Indeed, it is possible that the major adverse social effect will be community conflict during the site selection and planning stage rather than more conventional effects during the construction and operation of a repository.
|
From page 101... ...
These special effects may prove to be resistant to formal assessment and particularly to quantitative measurement 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.
|
From page 102... ...
To what extent (if any) should adverse socioeconomic effects in the many communities along transport corridors be included in impact mitigation programs?
|
From page 103... ...
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 difficult to predict, a substantial number of conventional adverse effects that will occur can be avoided or mitigated through advance planning and effective management.
|
From page 104... ...
. Even prompt and ambitious mitigation of adverse socioeconomic effects will not always suffice to provide adequate protection for the host community and host region.
|
From page 105... ...
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 recognizes this need in providing for funds to be used for impact mitigation (see Section 116)
|
From page 106... ...
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.
|
From page 107... ...
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.
|
From page 108... ...
1978. The Management of Social and Economic Impacts Anticipated with a Nuclear Waste Repository: A Preliminary Discussion.
|
From page 109... ...
1979. Economic and Social Impacts of Energy Development in the Western United States: Research Findings and Future Research Needs.
|
From page 110... ...
1980. Social Impact Mitigation and Nuclear Waste Repository Siting.
|
From page 111... ...
Pp. 157-176 in Nuclear Waste: Socioeconomic Dimensions of Long-Term Storage, S
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.