Developing and Testing a Facility Location Model for Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste

The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a facility location model for the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility in Canada. The model is based on successful Canadian siting processes related to hazardous waste and low level radioactive waste facilities, as well as attributes of facility siting found in the literature. The proposed model was presented to a sample of participants in the federal environmental assessment review of the technical feasibility of the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Concept (CNFWDC) held throughout Canada in 1990. Results demonstrate that despite the fact that over half of the survey respondents did not support the CNFWDC during the public hearings, the majority favorably rated the proposed facility location model. Components of the model that were tested included siting criteria and goals, decision-making groups, and siting safeguards. On the basis of these results, it is concluded that the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility must make the decentralization of decision-making authority to local communities and governments a priority.     

Citizen Perceptions of Risks Associated with Moving Radiological Waste

Much has been written about public support or opposition to the siting of hazardous waste facilities and more generally about concern for radioactive contamination. Much less has been written about the perceived risks of citizens'specific concerns about the transportation of radiological waste to temporary or permanent sites. This study reviews the existing literature in the area and presents new data on the subject from an Idaho survey. The new data indicates: (1) age, gender, and knowledge are the key variables predicting opposition to the transportation of such waste, (2) the primary concern among the opposing and unsure public is the planned use of trucks to move the TRU waste, and (3) respondents have high degrees of trust in officials who make decisions based on technical knowledge, are charged with the safety of transporting TRU waste, and who respond to mishaps. These attitudes need to be understood by policymakers and administrators when designing and implementing waste-transportation programs.     

Siting Noxious Facilities: A Test of the Facility Siting Credo

Over the past decade it has become increasingly difficult to site noxious facilities, despite the fact that there is a growing need to do so. To address this problem, a set of guidelines for a fairer, wiser, and more workable siting process—the Facility Siting Credo—was developed during a National Facility Siting Workshop in 1990. This paper presents an empirical test of these guidelines. A questionnaire based on the Credo was completed by stakeholders in 29 waste facility siting cases, both successful and unsuccessful, across the United States and Canada. Using an independent determination of outcome (success), a preliminary ranking of the importance of various Credo principles was obtained. The data reveal that establishing trust between the developer and host community is an important factor in facilitating the siting process. The siting process is most likely to be successful when the community perceives the facility design to be appropriate and to satisfy its needs. Public participation also is seen to be an important process variable, particularly if it encourages a view that the facility best meets community needs. Moreover, a siting process where communities volunteer to host facilities is an approach that holds promise for meeting many of these key success criteria.     

Negotiated Compensation for Solid-Waste Disposal Facility Siting: An Analysis of the Wisconsin Experience

Since enacting a unique facility siting law in 1981, Wisconsin has had unusual success in siting solid-waste management facilities. The law mandates a state-level technical review and licensing process and a local-level negotiation/arbitration process that deals with host community impacts and concerns. Data from the negotiated compensation agreements, a survey of facility proposers, and secondary data for the host communities are analyzed in relation to compensation levels. Concerns with community image and health risks and with facility management and equity issues are found to significantly and substantially increase negotiated compensation levels. In contrast, a focus on logistics and transportation concerns is associated with lower levels of compensation. Compensation increases with facility capacity but at a less than proportional rate. Higher levels of compensation are obtained by communities that accept compensation "in kind" in the form of free or reduced fees for host community waste disposal.     

On-Site Storage of High Level Nuclear Waste: Attitudes and Perceptions of Local Residents

No public policy issue has been as difficult as high-level nuclear waste. Debates continue regarding Yucca Mountain as a disposal site, and—more generally—the appropriateness of geologic disposal and the need to act quickly. Previous research has focused on possible social, political, and economic consequences of a facility in Nevada. Impacts have been predicted to be potentially large and to emanate mainly from stigmatization of the region due to increased perceptions of risk. Analogous impacts from leaving waste at power plants have been either ignored or assumed to be negligible. This paper presents survey results on attitudes of residents in three counties where nuclear waste is currently stored. Topics include perceived risk, knowledge of nuclear waste and radiation, and impacts on jobs, tourism, and housing values from leaving waste on site. Results are similar to what has been reported for Nevada; the public is concerned about possible adverse effects from on-site storage of waste.     

Mitigation and Benefits Measures as Policy Tools for Siting Potentially Hazardous Facilities: Determinants of Effectiveness and Appropriateness

How do mitigation and benefits measures affect public acceptance for siting different kinds of potentially hazardous facilities? What kinds of benefits measures are seen as most (or least) appropriate for different kinds of facilities? This study used a nationwide telephone survey consisting of 1,234 interviews with randomly selected respondents to test for the effects of packages of safety and benefits measures for siting a landfill, prison, incinerator and nuclear waste repository. The experimental design used in the survey permits analysis of the fractions of respondents who are willing to change their initial levels of acceptance (or opposition) when presented with a sequence of the safety and benefit measures. The measures vary significantly in their impact on levels of acceptance for the facilities, and some measures that would at face value appear to reassure residents of facility safety turn out to lack credibility and therefore diminish facility acceptance. Ordering of the benefits versus safety measures significantly affects changes in acceptance in surprising ways. The perceived appropriateness of different kinds of benefits measures varies systematically by the type of facility under consideration. It appears that successful benefits packages will directly address the underlying dimensions of concern caused by the facility. These findings point to the importance of further research on “commensurable” benefits measures.     

Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities

This paper addresses the use of mitigation and compensation as incentives policies to stimulate agreement between parties interested in siting a hazardous waste facility and potential host communities. We develop a model of facility siting that distinguishes five key factors which influence the acceptability of a proposed facility when considered in relation to status quo conditions. This model then is used to examine the effectiveness of different incentives policies with regard to (a) mitigating the perceived risks and (b) compensating the adverse impacts of a hazardous waste facility.     

Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Nuclear Waste Siting Issue

Stakeholders are often regarded as a critically important group in such issues as the siting of nuclear facilities. In this article, stakeholders were identified on the basis of self-reported activities with regard to a nuclear waste siting issue under debate in four communities. Data were obtained in an extensive mailed survey from a total of 2,548 respondents, approximately an equal number from each community. The overall response rate was 43.9%. Some of the results and telephone interviews with a sample of the nonrespondents indicated that the data are reasonably representative of the respective populations. Stakeholder activities were measured by 20 questions and combined with an index of stakeholder activity level, dichotomized at the 90th percentile. Stakeholders were found to have a higher level of education than others, but otherwise they did not differ in demographics. They did not tend to see risks in general as high, but were quite interested and involved in the nuclear waste siting issue. The stakeholder activity level correlated with risk perception and attitudes in the waste siting issue, but with different signs for those who were for and those who were opposed: stakeholders of both types had more extreme views than others, but in different directions. In addition, stakeholder opponents were much more likely to strongly espouse extreme statements regarding the project than were supporters who also were stakeholders. Implications for risk management and communication are discussed.     

Voluntary Siting and Equity: The MRS Facility Experience in Native America

This article focuses on aspects of intragenerational and intergenerational equity in the context of a unique policy experiment: the effort of the U.S. government to site a monitored, retrievable storage (MRS) facility for high-level civilian nuclear waste. This process and its outcomes are examined from both normative and subjective perspectives. While the MRS siting process was designed to be equitable, its eventual focus on Native American communities raises profound questions about environmental justice, as well as procedural, outcome, and intergenerational equity in cross-cultural contexts. The diverse reactions among Native American tribes demonstrate that translating theoretical concepts of equity into practice is an extraordinarily complex exercise. The MRS siting process, instead of being a bold policy experiment that promoted equity, emerges substantially flawed after its implementation in the Native American context.     

Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and “Political Anchoring”: The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom

Attitudes toward the use of nuclear energy pose fundamental issues in the political debate about how to meet future energy needs. Development of new nuclear power facilities faces significant opposition both from knowledgeable individuals who display an understanding of the risks attached to various forms of power generation and those who follow strict politically based ideological dogmas. This article employs data from a 2005 Eurobarometer survey of UK citizens to examine the influence of both political preferences and knowledge in explaining support of nuclear power. Findings reveal that attitudes about nuclear power are highly politically motivated while the influence of knowledge about radioactive waste is dependent upon beliefs about the consequences of nuclear energy use. Perceptions of being informed about radioactive waste and trust in sources providing information about radioactive waste management also predict attitudes toward nuclear power generation.     

Hazardous Waste Incineration at Sea: EPA Decision Making on Risk

This paper critiques the Environmental Protection Agency's assessment of risk for hazardous waste incineration at sea. It reviews operational and transportation risks and considers alternative approaches for managing chlorinated organic hazardous wastes. It concludes that depending on the scale of the program, ocean incineration will either contribute little to the overall management of this waste stream or else it will engender significant risks, especially in the coastal environment. Furthermore, past assessments on the part of EPA have tended to understate the risks of incineration at sea while simultaneously holding out the promise of the technology as a commercial-scale management option. Finally, this paper observes that the Western European countries that pioneered incineration in the North Sea are now finding practical alternatives. It is recommended that waste reuse, on-site treatment, and techniques of waste reduction provide viable alternatives and obviate the need for incineration at sea.     

Analysis of Local Acceptance of a Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility

Like many other countries in the world, Korea has struggled to site a facility for radioactive waste for almost 30 years because of the strong opposition from local residents. Finally, in 2005, Gyeongju was established as the first Korean site for a radioactive waste facility. The objectives of this research are to verify Gyeongju citizens' average level of risk perception of a radioactive waste disposal facility as compared to other risks, and to explore the best model for predicting respondents' acceptance level using variables related to cost-benefit, risk perception, and political process. For this purpose, a survey is conducted among Gyeongju residents, the results of which are as follows. First, the local residents' risk perception of an accident in a radioactive waste disposal facility is ranked seventh among a total of 13 risks, which implies that nuclear-related risk is not perceived very highly by Gyeongju residents; however, its characteristics are still somewhat negative. Second, the comparative regression analyses show that the cost-benefit and political process models are more suitable for explaining the respondents' level of acceptance than the risk perception model. This may be the result of the current economic depression in Gyeongju, residents' familiarity with the nuclear industry, or cultural characteristics of risk tolerance.     

The informed society: an analysis of the public's information-seeking behavior regarding coastal flood risks

Recent flood risk management puts an increasing emphasis on the public's risk perception and its preferences. It is now widely recognized that a better knowledge of the public's awareness and concern about risks is of vital importance to outline effective risk communication strategies. Models such as Risk Information Seeking and Processing address this evolution by considering the public's needs and its information-seeking behavior with regard to risk information. This study builds upon earlier information-seeking models and focuses on the empirical relationships between information-seeking behavior and the constructs of risk perception, perceived hazard knowledge, response efficacy, and information need in the context of coastal flood risks. Specific focus is given to the mediating role of information need in the model and to the differences in information-seeking behavior between permanent and temporary residents. By means of a structured on-line questionnaire, a cross-sectional survey was carried out in the city of Ostend, one of the most vulnerable places to coastal flooding on the Belgian coast. Three hundred thirteen respondents participated in the survey. Path analysis reveals that information need does not act as a mediator in contrast to risk perception and perceived knowledge. In addition, it is shown that risk perception and perceived hazard knowledge are higher for permanent than temporary residents, leading to increased information-seeking behavior among the former group. Implications for risk communication are discussed.     

Local Acceptance of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository

The siting of nuclear waste facilities has been very difficult in all countries. Recent experience in Sweden indicates, however, that it may be possible, under certain circumstances, to gain local support for the siting of a high-level nuclear waste (HLNW) repository. The article reports on a study of attitudes and risk perceptions of people living in four municipalities in Sweden where HLNW siting was being intensely discussed at the political level, in media, and among the public. Data showed a relatively high level of consensus on acceptability of at least further investigation of the issue; in two cases local councils have since voted in favor of a go-ahead, and in one case only a very small majority defeated the issue. Models of policy attitudes showed that these were related to attitude to nuclear power, attributes of the perceived HLNW risk, and trust. Factors responsible for acceptance are discussed at several levels. One is the attitude to nuclear power, which is becoming more positive, probably because no viable alternatives are in sight. Other factors have to do with the extensive information programs conducted in these municipalities, and with the logical nature of the conclusion that they would be good candidates for hosting the national HLNW repository.     

Risks of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration: An Environmental Perspective

The central focus of the debate over incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW) has shifted from its apparent management advantages to unresolved risk issues. This shift is a result of the lack of comprehensive consideration of risks associated with incineration. We discuss the need to expand incinerator risk assessment beyond the limited view of incinerators as stationary air pollution sources to encompass the following: other products of incineration, ash in particular, and pollutants other than dioxins, metals in particular; routes of exposure in addition to direct inhalation; health effects in addition to cancer; and the cumulative nature of exposure and health effects induced by many incinerator-associated pollutants. Rational MSW management planning requires that the limitations as well as advantages of incineration be recognized. Incineration is a waste-processing--not a waste disposal--technology, and its products pose substantial management and disposal problems of their own. Consideration of the nature of these products suggests that incineration is ill-suited to manage the municipal wastestream in its entirety. In particular, incineration greatly enhances the mobility and bioavailability of toxic metals present in MSW. These factors suggest that incineration must be viewed as only one component in an integrated MSW management system. The potential for source reduction, separation, and recycling to increase the safety and efficiency of incineration should be counted among their many benefits. Risk considerations dictate that alternatives to the use of toxic metals at the production stage also be examined in designing an effective, long-term MSW management strategy.     

Quality splitting in waste incineration due to non-convex production possibilities

Using a real case study of waste incineration, we show a new form of non-convexity in the transformation process of the inputs into the outputs. Its consequence is quality splitting, i.e. the separate use of different input qualities, yielding a better result than a homogeneous mix. For waste incineration plants (WIP), this leads to surprising practical implications for strategies of waste collection and supply, as well as for the control of a WIP. The insights are based on the evaluation of a basic model of waste incineration developed for the case study. Thus, the paper also contributes to production research by modelling waste incineration as a central process for the “reduction” of waste from manufacturing and consumption.     

Not in My Town: Conflicting Views on the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Incinerator

In recent years a large number of conflicts associated with environmental risks have arisen in Hungary. The case study described here is related to the siting of a hazardous waste incinerator in Dorog. First, the history of the siting procedure is outlined in terms of the multiparty, multiattribute decision framework. Subsequently, the case reveals how stakeholder groups can be identified in the structure of decision-making, how they think about the object causing the conflict, about the conflict itself, and the possibilities of resolving it. In investigating the conflict, a combination of analytical tools were applied. The multiple-perspective model of Linstone and the argumentation analysis of Toulmin provided the frame for analyzing the information collected by interviews in the affected town, Dorog, and two other towns affected to different degrees in environmental problems.     

Potential Negative Impacts of Nuclear Activities on Local Economies: Rethinking the Issue

Surveys of public opinion about perceptions of risk associated with the nuclear fuel cycle have shown that the public professes a widespread feeling of dread, a fear of associated stigmas, and a concern about possible catastrophic nuclear accidents. Various interest groups and state governments that oppose congressionally mandated siting of centralized high-level radioactive waste (HLW) storage and disposal facilities are using this negative imagery to create a powerful, emotional obstacle to the siting process. From statistical analyses of images and location preferences, researchers have claimed that possible significant economic losses could potentially accompany the siting of HLW facilities. However, several paradoxes, or self-contradictory statements, apparently exist between the responses expressed in surveys and the actual economic and demographic behavior evidenced in the marketplace. Federal policymakers need to evaluate whether the request for a change in siting policy is based on subjective fear of a potential negative economic effect or on proven negative effects. Empirically observed behavior does not support predicted negative economic effects based on survey responses.     

Public Opposition to a Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository in Canada: An Investigation of Cultural and Economic Effects

Residents of four northern communities were surveyed about Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's proposal to site an underground repository for high-level nuclear waste somewhere in the Canadian Shield. Opposition to the repository was relatively strong in all communities, but was strongest among aboriginal respondents. Path analysis revealed that trust in nuclear regulators, faith in science and technology, and anticipated net costs were important mediators of this effect. Aboriginals were less trusting, exhibited less faith in science and technology, and perceived the costs associated with the repository to be higher than their nonaboriginal counterparts. No support was found for the hypothesis that, after controlling for aboriginal status, financially insecure individuals would display greater support for the nuclear waste repository than financially secure individuals. Policy implications for balancing perceived risks and siting needs are discussed.