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.     

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.     

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.     

Fair Processes for Societal Decisions Involving Distributional Inequalities

We investigate fair processes for societal decisions that involve different risks and benefits to different groups. A fair decision-making process is particularly important for decisions such as siting hazardous facilities. We experimentally evaluate the impact of alternative decision processes on the final choice of hypothetical facility sites and the resulting benefit and risk distribution to groups. The experimental task required choice among many alternative sites for a hazardous facility. Sites differ by the distribution of risks and benefits to each of two communities, and in the attractiveness of the sites to each community. Subjects were divided into three groups: individuals who judged the best site in the role of arbitrators, pairs of negotiators with one person representing each of the two communities, and trios who identified the best site in the role of a siting jury. We found the choices of negotiating and siting jury groups tended to emphasize the communities'preferences compared to the individual arbitrators who tended to focus on balancing the distribution of risks and benefits. Also, undergraduate psychology students, regardless of the dispute resolution mechanism, tended to display more emphasis on the risks and benefits, and graduate business students tended to focus more on the communities'preferences.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Low Probability Accidents

Experts frequently differ on their estimates of risk associated with accidents that have a low probability of occurrence. Those who stand to benefit from siting a new facility often perceive it as acceptably safe, using expert opinion to defend their argument. Potential losers find data to suggest that the new technology is too hazardous. This paper contrasts the role of risk assessments of low probability events in siting Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. In both cases the decision process was a rather lengthy one due to conflicts between interested stakeholders. The paper discusses the potential of compensation and insurance as policy tools for facilitating negotiation. Four criteria for improving the siting process in any country are also outlined.     

NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear-Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site-Specific Surveys

Public and political opposition have made finding locations for new nuclear power plants, waste management, and nuclear research and development facilities a challenge for the U.S. government and the nuclear industry. U.S. government-owned properties that already have nuclear-related activities and commercial nuclear power generating stations are logical locations. Several studies and utility applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission suggest that concentrating locations at major plants (CLAMP) has become an implicit siting policy. We surveyed 2,101 people who lived within 50 miles of 11 existing major nuclear sites and 600 who lived elsewhere in the United States. Thirty-four percent favored CLAMP for new nuclear power plants, 52% for waste management facilities, and 50% for new nuclear laboratories. College educated, relatively affluent male whites were the strongest CLAMP supporters. They disproportionately trusted those responsible for the facilities and were not worried about existing nuclear facilities or other local environmental issues. Notably, they were concerned about continuing coal use. Not surprisingly, CLAMP proponents tended to be familiar with their existing local nuclear site. In short, likely CLAMP sites have a large and politically powerful core group to support a CLAMP policy. The challenge to proponents of nuclear technologies will be to sustain this support and expand the base among those who clearly are less connected and receptive to new nearby sites.     

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.     

Analysis of the Treatment, by the U.S. Department of Energy, of the FEP Hydrothermal Activity in the Yucca Mountain Performance Assessment

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR Part 63, stipulates that the expected performance of the geological high-level nuclear waste repository must be demonstrated through a total system performance assessment (TSPA). The TSPA represents an analysis that identifies all features, events, and processes (FEPs) that might affect the disposal system and examines the effects of the identified FEPs upon the performance of the system. Secondary minerals from the thick unsaturated zone of Yucca Mountain were deposited from waters with temperatures up to 70-90 degrees C. U-Pb dating constrained the ages of the elevated temperatures to the period between 10 and 5-6 million years ago. Relatively youthful circulation of thermal waters (hydrothermal activity) would be of concern for the safety of the disposal facility. A phenomenological model was advanced by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which proposed that the minerals were deposited by infiltrating meteoric waters that were heated upon contact with the bedrock; it was hypothesized that the latter was conductively heated by a shallow silicic magma body. The model rendered processes responsible for elevated water temperatures inconsequential for the safety of the proposed nuclear waste facility. However, attempts by DOE at validating the model by means of numeric thermal simulations and analogue system observations were unsuccessful. Regulations specify two criteria for exclusion of a FEP from consideration in the TSPA: low probability and low consequence. The lack of a plausible phenomenological model makes it impossible to apply either of these two criteria to the FEP Hydrothermal Activity. Despite the lack of a valid criterion for exclusion, it was excluded from the TSPA. Both the development of DOE's thermal model and the formal FEP analysis were associated with deviations from DOE's quality assurance regulations.     

Information Needs Concerning a Planned Waste Incineration Facility

Waste management has become a major environmental issue in Germany. The siting of waste incineration especially arouses strong local opposition. The study presented here is related to such a case (i.e., a planned waste incineration facility in a small West German village). The study is based on a telephone survey aimed at the information needs of the residents. Two topics are stressed: (1) the thematic relevance of the siting project as seen by the public; and (2) the residents'information needs. The results show that a majority of residents are concerned about the planned facility, and the most important topics of their information needs refer to the risks and the safety systems of the planned facility, as well as information about waste management alternatives. Furthermore, the information needs depend on the personal relevance of the issue and the perceived knowledge deficit about it. Conclusions are drawn with regard to the design of a risk communication program. Here, four groups of residents are distinguished in terms of knowledge and motivation and, thus, need to be approached in different ways.     

A Bicriterion Maximal Covering Location Formulation Which Considers the Satisfaction of Uncovered Demand

There have been many applications of the maximal covering location problem (MCLP). An underlying assumption of the MCLP is that demand not covered (i.e., not within a prespecified maximal distance of a facility) is not served. This may be an unrealistic assumption in many location planning scenarios, especially in the public sector. For example, in cases such as fire protection or ambulance service, calls not technically covered will still be serviced. The MCLP, however, does not consider the distances or travel times necessary to service such demand. This paper presents a bicriterion locational covering model which explicitly considers the travel distance or time necessary to service demand not within the maximal covering distance of a facility. The model may be used to generate noninferior (Pareto optimal) siting configurations which demonstrate the inherent trade-offs between a siting scheme designed to maximize total coverage and one designed to minimize total travel time for uncovered demand to reach its nearest facility. In addition, it is shown that for any particular weighting scheme on the two objectives, the problem can be solved as a p-median problem; a problem for which several efficient solution methods exist.     

Historical Application of a Social Amplification of Risk Model: Economic Impacts of Risk Events at Nuclear Weapons Facilities

Public perception of risk is being cited as a documented reason to rethink a very contentious congressionally mandated process for siting interim storage and permanent disposal facilities for high-level radioactive waste. Rigorous survey research has shown that the public holds intense, negative images of "nuclear" and "radioactive" technologies, activities, and facilities. Potential host states and opponents claim that these negative images, coupled with an amplification of negative risk events, will potentially stigmatize the area surrounding such facilities and result in significant economic losses. At issue is whether a supporting social amplification of risk model is applicable to communities hosting facilities that are part of the U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Complex. An initial assessment of high-profile discrete and cumulative key negative risk events at such nuclear facilities does not validate that there has been stigmatization or substantial social and economic consequences in the host areas. Before any changes to major national policy are implemented, additional research is required to determine if the nearby public's "pragmatic logic," based on practical knowledge and experience, attenuates the link between public opinion and demographic and economic behaviors.     

The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco

The U.S. Congress has designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the only potential site to be studied for the nation's first high-level nuclear waste repository. People in Nevada strongly oppose the program, managed by the U.S. Department of Energy. Survey research shows that the public believes there are great risks from a repository program, in contrast to a majority of scientists who feel the risks are acceptably small. Delays in the repository program resulting in part from public opposition in Nevada have concerned the nuclear power industry, which collects the fees for the federal repository program and believes it needs the repository as a final disposal facility for its high-level nuclear wastes. To assist the repository program, the American Nuclear Energy Council (ANEC), an industry group, sponsored a massive advertising campaign in Nevada. The campaign attempted to assure people that the risks of a repository were small and that the repository studies should proceed. The campaign failed because its managers misunderstood the issues underlying the controversy, attempted a covert manipulation of public opinion that was revealed, and most importantly, lacked the public trust that was necessary to communicate credibly about the risks of a nuclear waste facility.     

The Crucial Role of Nomothetic and Idiographic Conceptions of Time: Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Nuclear Waste Management

The disposal of nuclear waste involves extensive time scales. Technical experts consider up to 1 million years for the disposal of spent fuel and high‐level waste in their safety assessment. Yet nuclear waste is not only a technical but also a so‐called sociotechnical problem and, therefore, requires interdisciplinary collaboration between technical, natural, social sciences, and the humanities in its management. Given that these disciplines differ in their language, epistemics, and interests, such collaboration might be problematic. Based on evidence from cognitive psychology, we suggest that, in particular, a concept like time is presumably critical and can be understood differently. This study explores how different scientific disciplines understand extensive time scales in general and then focuses on nuclear waste. Eighteen qualitative exploratory interviews were conducted with experts for time‐related phenomena of different disciplines, among them experts working in nuclear waste management. Analyses revealed two distinct conceptions of time corresponding to idiographic and nomothetic research approaches: scientists from the humanities and social sciences tend to have a more open, undetermined conception of time, whereas natural scientists tend to focus on a more determined conception that includes some undetermined aspects. Our analyses lead to reflections on potential difficulties for interdisciplinary teams in nuclear waste management. We focus on the understanding of the safety assessment, on potential implications for communication between experts from different disciplines (e.g., between experts from the humanities and engineering for risk assessment and risk communication), and we reflect on the roles of different disciplines in nuclear waste management.     

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.