The Dilemma of Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository

289 Pages·1995·39.956 MB·English

by  Doug Easterling, Howard Kunreuther (auth.)

THE DILEMMA OF SITING A
HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY
Studies in Risk and Uncertainty
edited by W. Kip Viscusi
Department of Economics
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina 27706
Previously published books in the series:
Luken, R.: ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION:
TECHNOLOGY, AMBIENT AND BENEFITS-
BASED APPROACHES
Shubik, M.: RISK, ORGANIZATIONS AND
SOCIETY
Edwards, W.: UTILITY THEORIES: MEASUREMENTS
AND APPLICATIONS
Martin, W.: ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND
THE MINING INDUSTRY
'THE
DILEMMA OF SITING A
HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY
by
DODO EASTERLINO
The Colorado Trust
Denver, Colorado
and
HOWA RD KUNREUTHER
Center for Risk Management and Decision Processes
Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
~.
"
SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Easterling, Douglas.
The dilemma of siting a high-Ievel nuclear waste repository I by
Douglas Easterling and Howard Kunreuther.
p. cm. -- (Studies in risk and uncertainty)
lncludes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-7923-9584-3 ISBN 978-94-011-0629-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-0629-0
1. Radioactive waste sites--Location. 2. Radioactive wastes
sites--Public opinion. 3. Public relations. 1. Kunreuther,
Howard. II. Title III. Series.
TD898.15.E23 1993
363.72'89--dc20 93-45901
CIP
Copyright \!1l1995 by Springer Science+Business Media New York
OriginalIy published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1995
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover Ist edition 1995
AlI rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical,
photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
the publisher, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Printed on acid-free paper.
.C ONTENTS
Preface
Vll
Part I THE SITING DILEMMA
1. Introduction 3
2. Siting a High-Level Waste Repository 19
3. Siting a Monitored Retrievable (MRS) Storage Facility 69
Part IT PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO A REPOSITORY
4. Managing Local Opposition 83
5. Analysis of Public Opposition 95
6. Public Perceptions of the Proposed Repository 123
7. The Doughnut Effect 153
Part ill STRATEGIES FOR SITING A WASTE FACILITY
8. A Siting Process to Gain Public Acceptance 167
9. Analysis of U.S. Policy for Managing High-Level Waste 193
10. Next Steps for HLNW Policy 227
REFERENCES 241
APPENDIX 265
INDEX 273
v
PREFACE
This book explores siting dilemmas - situations in which an "authority" (e.g.,
Congress, a consortium of utilities) deems it in the best interest of society to build
a facility such as an incinerator, but opponents living near the proposed site thwart
the plan. Facility developers typically attribute local opposition to selfishness or
radically inaccurate views of the risks posed by the facility. We examine the validity
of these conclusions by looking in depth at the psychological response that arises
when residents are faced with the prospect of living near waste disposal facilities.
The particular siting dilemma considered in this book is the problem of how to
"dispose" of the high-level nuclear wastes accumulating at nuclear power plants in
the United States. These wastes, in the form of "spent" fuel rods, will emit
dangerous levels of radioactivity for thousands of years - anywhere between 10,000
and 100,000 years, depending on the margin of safety one adopts. The current
proposal is to encase the spent fuel in corrosion-resistant canisters and then to bury
these canisters deep underground in a geologic repository.
The two of us became involved with the high-level waste issue in 1986 as part
of an interdisciplinary research team hired by the State of Nevada. The charge of this
team was to estimate the socioeconomic impacts that would accompany a repository
if it were built at Yucca Mountain, approximately 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
At the time the study began there were three candidate sites for such a facility -
Yucca Mountain; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Hanford, Washington. One year
later, Congress singled out Nevada as the target site. Although this action appeared
to resolve the siting dilemma, technical and political problems have called into
question the viability of a repository at Yucca Mountain.
On one level, this book might be viewed as a critique of the policy that the
federal government has employed to solve the high-level waste dilemma. However,
our primary interest in writing the book was to devise a siting process that can prove
successful within the adversarial world that characterizes most attempts to build waste
disposal facilities. In our opinion, some type of voluntary siting process stands the
best chance of breaking the gridlock that characterizes almost all efforts to locate
waste storage facilities in the United States today. By "voluntary," we mean that
those persons affected by a proposed facility need to have considerable influence over
the decisions surrounding that facility - from the initial decision of what type of
facility will serve as a solution to the waste problem, through its construction and
operation. We have reached this conclusion by looking, both in the United States and
abroad, at the few successful siting experiences that have been recorded over recent
years. Studies such as those by Kunreuther, Fitzgerald, and Aarts (1993), Rabe
Vll
viii PREFACE
(1994), and Vari, Reagan-Cirincione, and Mumpower (1994) demonstrate that without
public participation and a feeling among local residents that the facility is safe and
legitimate, the facility will not be sited. The lessons from those studies are
particularly relevant to the problem of disposing of high-level wastes.
It should be noted at the outset that this book is not a technical study of the
suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. Our backgrounds are in policy analysis,
economics, and psychology, rather than geology or seismology. When we discuss
technical issues surrounding geologic disposal, it is from the vantage point of a
student rather than an expert. Uncertainty regarding the riskiness of the proposed
repository permeates both scientific and political debates. Thus, we have consciously
avoided reaching strong conclusions regarding the validity of claims as to the dangers
involved in building a repository at Yucca Mountain. We recognize that this may
make it difficult for the reader to judge the appropriateness of the proposed facility,
but scientific disputes and uncertainty tend to be the rule in siting controversies. This
is another reason why we feel the siting process needs to involve the public in the
process of discovery.
Any study of a controversial problem reflects a set of personal experiences. Our
research on high-level nuclear waste was undertaken for the State of Nevada.
However, we have always felt that we had the freedom to explore the siting issues
as independent, critical researchers. We have endeavored to understand and represent
the perspectives of the many parties who have taken part in the often caustic debate
surrounding the high-level waste dilemma. We hope we have succeeded.
The book could not have been written without the interaction and contributions
of our colleagues on the Yucca Mountain socioeconomic project. We would like to
thank Jim Chalmers, Jim Flynn, Kay Fowler, Roger Kasperson, Rick Krannich, Ron
Little, AI Mushkatel, David Pijawka, Paul Slovic and Jim Williams for their many
insights, comments and suggestions during this period. Their data playa major role
in helping us tell the story of public response to the repository. Moreover, the
experience of working with this group over the past eight years has been a very
rewarding one for both of us.
The survey research that formed the basis for this book was reviewed by the
Technical Review Committee (TRC) convened by the State of Nevada (White et a1.,
1994). The TRC also played an invaluable role in critiquing our work and in urging
us to pursue new avenues of research to expand our understanding. We are grateful
to Mike Bronzini, Bill Colglazier, Bruce Dohrenwend, Kai Erikson, Reed Hansen,
Allen Kneese, Rick Moore, Edith Page and Roy Rappaport, all of whom served on
the TRC, and to Bill Freudenburg and John Gervers, who acted as consultants to the
TRC. A special debt of gratitude goes to Gilbert White, Chairman of the TRC, who
reviewed the manuscript and provided us with constructive feedback.
We also want to express special appreciation to Joe Strolin of the Nevada Nuclear
Waste Project Office, for his leadership and encouragement over the past eight years.
Throughout the process he has urged us to interact with the many different
PREFACE ix
stakeholders concerned with the siting process and never once tried to direct our
actIvItIes. His encyclopedic knowledge of the political aspects of the Yucca
Mountain project was crucial in pulling together Chapter 2.
In addition to the persons directly involved in the Nevada project, a number of
others have advanced this effort. Baruch Fischhoff, Brad Hoaglun, Michael Kraft,
and Kip Viscusi each provided useful comments on major portions of the manuscript.
Gib Bassett and Hank Jenkins-Smith have played a continuing role in pushing us to
think more deeply on the psychological and political issues involved in siting a
repository. The two individuals who have filled the unenviable position of nuclear
waste negotiator - David Leroy and Richard Stallings - have been refreshingly
open in sharing their experiences with the voluntary siting model.
This book extends the dissertation that Doug wrote for his degree in Public
Policy and Management at the Wharton School. Howard was his advisor during this
time, The other members of the dissertation committee - Colin Camerer, Paul
Kleindorfer, Mark Pauly, and Dennis Yao - deserve special mention for their
particularly constructive feedback on that document.
As we have learned during this process, the quality of the editing can make or
break a book. Linda Carlson and Jim Ruprecht contributed their proofreading skills
at different stages of the manuscript. Doug Easton crafted the index. Zachary Rolnik
provided encouragement and understanding over the course of a project that at times
seemed to defy closure,
We also want to express our deep thanks to our families (Lucinda. Gail, Laura,
Joel, Michael and David), who were forced to hear more about high-level nuclear
waste than they ever bargained for. They served as touchstones during this project.
giving us direct insight in the attitudes of the general public.
Finally, we want to acknowledge the role that future generations have played
in motivating us to pursue this book. The nuclear-waste decisions that governments
around the world are currently making will leave an incomparable legacy, either good
or bad. Tribes in the Iroquois Confederacy have long spoken of the need to consider
the consequences that a decision will have on the seventh generation to come (Lyons,
1980), In the case of high-level nuclear wastes, the consequences extend for up to
700 generations. Our sincere hope is that this book prompts a new mode of decision
making that leads to choices that will appear wise in the eyes of the 700th generation
to come.
Doug Easterling
Howard Kunreuther
November 1994
Part I: THE SITING DILEMMA