Siting America's geologic repository for high-level Nuclear Waste: Implications for environmental Policy

Siting a geologic repository for isolating highlevel nuclear waste up to 10,000 years is a controversial undertaking never before attempted in the United States. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 exempted repository siting from important requirements for environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. In December 1987, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act identified Yucca Mountain as the first site to be characterized for a high-level nuclear waste repository. In light of the unproven nature of the technology being evaluated, the scientific uncertainties associated with Yucca Mountain, and the lack of proven methods for risk evaluation, the environmental policies for repository siting represent a significant departure from more traditional, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary environmental review for siting nuclear projects. The policies warrant further study by those interested in how present as well as future decisions about complex technologies may be made.     

The role of science in the decision to site a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,Nevada, USA

Summary Actions during most of this decade concerning where and how to locate a repository for high-level commercial and defence nuclear wastes have been guided by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Issues of repository siting have been controversial, and in December 1987 Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act, which identified Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the nation's first and only site to be characterized for a potential repository. This decision has generated understudied questions regarding the role of science and ethics derived from the mandates of the legislation and use of environmental impact methodology which is predicated upon a positivistic model of science. Because of the importance of choosing an acceptable repository site to protect humans and natural resources for thousands of years into the future, the broadest spectrum of views and in-depth critiques of the role of science in the repository program is required in order that understudied questions can be resolved.John Lemons is the Chairperson of the Department of Life Sciences at the University of New England and, the Editor-in-Chief of the journalThe Environmental Professional. He has authored numerous articles on nuclear waste management, pollution, and wilderness management.Donald Brown is the Director of the Bureau of Hazardous Sites and Superfund Enforcement for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 221 North Second Street, 3rd Floor, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101. He has published numerous papers on the interface between philosophy and science as it relates to public policy making on environmental issues.     

Equity and nuclear waste disposal

Following the recommendations of the US National Academy of Sciences and the mandates of the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act, the US Department of Energy has proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the site of the world's first permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste. The main justification for permanent disposal (as opposed to above-ground storage) is that it guarantees safety by means of waste isolation. This essay argues, however, that considerations of equity (safer for whom?) undercut the safety rationale. The article surveys some prima facie arguments for equity in the distribution of radwaste risks and then evaluates four objections that are based, respectively, on practicality, compensation for risks, scepticism about duties to future generations, and the uranium criterion. The conclusion is that, at least under existing regulations and policies, permanent waste disposal is highly questionable, in part, because it fails to distribute risk equitably or to compensate, in full, for this inequity.     

Tourism impacts of Three Mile Island and other adverse events: Implications for Lincoln County and other rural counties bisected by radioactive wastes intended for Yucca Mountain

Whether the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository system will adversely impact tourism in southern Nevada is an open question of particular importance to visitor-oriented rural counties bisected by planned waste transportatin corridors (highway or rail). As part of one such county's repository impact assessment program, tourism implications of Three Mile Island (TMI) and other major hazard events have beem revisited to inform ongoing county-wide socioeconomic assessments and contingency planning efforts. This paper summarizes key research implications of such research as applied to Lincoln County, Nevada. Implications for other rural counties are discussed in light of the research findings.     

Scientific certainty and the laws that govern location of a potential high-level nuclear waste repository

Recent studies have questioned the ability of the Department of Energy to successfully construct and operate a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA, consistent with current Environmental Protection Agency standards and Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. Questions focus on whether demonstration of compliance with the agency's standards is based too much on numerical calculations and analyses that the Department of Energy must conduct to project the long-term performance of the repository. Unless these questions are resolved, the licensing of the repository could be withheld or delayed by litigation. This article reviews the extent to which laws that govern the siting of high-level nuclear waste repositories require scientific certainty in any findings about the environmental consequences of locating a repository.     

Regulatory requirements and tools for environmental assessment of hazardous wastes: Understanding tribal and stakeholder concerns using Department of Energy sites

Many US governmental and Tribal Nation agencies, as well as state and local entities, deal with hazardous wastes within regulatory frameworks that require specific environmental assessments. In this paper we use Department of Energy (DOE) sites as examples to examine the relationship between regulatory requirements and environmental assessments for hazardous waste sites and give special attention to how assessment tools differ. We consider federal laws associated with environmental protection include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as well as regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Tribal Nations and state agencies. These regulatory regimes require different types of environmental assessments and remedial investigations, dose assessments and contaminant pathways. The DOE case studies illustrate the following points: 1) there is often understandable confusion about what regulatory requirements apply to the site resources, and what environmental assessments are required by each, 2) the messages sent on site safety issued by different regulatory agencies are sometimes contradictory or confusing (e.g. Oak Ridge Reservation), 3) the regulatory frameworks being used to examine the same question can be different, leading to different conclusions (e.g. Brookhaven National Laboratory), 4) computer models used in support of groundwater models or risk assessments are not necessarily successful in convincing Native Americans and others that there is no possibility of risk from contaminants (e.g. Amchitka Island), 5) when given the opportunity to choose between relying on a screening risk assessments or waiting for a full site-specific analysis of contaminants in biota, the screening risk assessment option is rarely selected (e.g. Amchitka, Hanford Site), and finally, 6) there needs to be agreement on whether there has been adequate characterization to support the risk assessment (e.g. Hanford). The assessments need to be transparent and to accommodate different opinions about the relationship between characterizations and risk assessments. This paper illustrates how many of the problems at DOE sites, and potentially at other sites in the U.S. and elsewhere, derive from a lack of either understanding of, or consensus about, the regulatory process, including the timing and types of required characterizations and data in support of site characterizations and risk assessments.     

Environmental cleanup: The challenge at the Hanford Site,Washington, USA

Numerous challenges face those involved with developing a coordinated and consistent approach to cleaning up the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site in southeastern Washington. These challenges are much greater than those encountered when the site was selected and the world’s first nuclear complex was developed almost 50 years ago. This article reviews Hanford’s history, operations, waste storage/disposal activities, environmental monitoring, and today’s approach to characterize and clean up Hanford under a Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, signed by DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington Sate Department of Ecology. Although cleanup of defense-related waste at Hanford holds many positive benefits, negative features include high costs to the US taxpayer, numerous uncertainties concerning the technologies to be employed and the risks involved, and the high probability that special interest groups and activists at large will never be completely satisfied. Issues concerning future use of the site, whether to protect and preserve its natural features or open it to public exploitation, remain to be resolved.     

Environmental Impact Assessment Under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act: Deliberative Democracy in Canada’s North?

We consider the extent to which the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA) provides an opportunity for deliberative democracy to emerge within the context of resource management in Canada's North. The focus is on the extent to which the tenets of deliberative democracy are exercised in the environmental assessment (EA) of the Snap Lake diamonds project. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with assessment participants, and a review of documentation surrounding the EA process, and the case study. Results combined four principles of deliberative democracy: generality, autonomy, power neutrality, and ideal role taking. The EA conducted under the MVRMA can serve as a deliberative process, as illustrated by opportunities for dialogue, access to different perspectives, and learning outcomes. However, many of these positive results occurred through nonmandated technical sessions. The absence of participant funding also limits the deliberative potential of the MVRMA.     

Use of strategic environmental assessment in the site selection process for a radioactive waste disposal facility in Slovenia

The benefits of strategic environmental considerations in the process of siting a repository for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste (LILW) are presented. The benefits have been explored by analyzing differences between the two site selection processes. One is a so-called official site selection process, which is implemented by the Agency for radwaste management (ARAO); the other is an optimization process suggested by experts working in the area of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and land-use (spatial) planning. The criteria on which the comparison of the results of the two site selection processes has been based are spatial organization, environmental impact, safety in terms of potential exposure of the population to radioactivity released from the repository, and feasibility of the repository from the technical, financial/economic and social point of view (the latter relates to consent by the local community for siting the repository). The site selection processes have been compared with the support of the decision expert system named DEX. The results of the comparison indicate that the sites selected by ARAO meet fewer suitability criteria than those identified by applying strategic environmental considerations in the framework of the optimization process. This result stands when taking into account spatial, environmental, safety and technical feasibility points of view. Acceptability of a site by a local community could not have been tested, since the formal site selection process has not yet been concluded; this remains as an uncertain and open point of the comparison.     

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act's Public Registry System

Public access to information and public participation in the environmental assessment (EA) process are cornerstones of the Canadian EA system. The Government's commitment is stated in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which requires that federal departments establish and operate a public registry of information on the EAs they conduct to ensure convenient public access. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has taken the lead to ensure this commitment is met through the development of an innovative electronic Public Registry System. The system allows all federal departments conducting EAs to meet their obligations in a consistent and cost-effective manner. The public can easily access information on the 'who, what, when, where and why' of all EAs carried out by the federal departments, as well as document listings and the actual EA documents. Access is through the Internet, CD ROM, and in hardcopy.     

Preferences for alternative risk management policies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites

A survey of 1351 people who lived within 50 miles of one of six US Department of Energy nuclear weapon sites showed that the vast majority of residents prefer strong public health surveillance and land use controls. The sample was stratified so that the same number of responses was obtained at each site. The strongest correlates of wanting the DOE to restrict on-site activities and maintain and expand its surveillance programs were worries about DOE activities on the site, as well as how those activities could damage the off-site environment. Notably, the exceptions, that is, those who demanded less from the DOE and were not particularly worried about the DOE's activities, tended to live near the site, many worked there or knew people who did, and had high socio-economic status, and trusted the DOE. The findings are mostly, but not entirely, consistent with expectations drawn from the risk perception and organizational trust literatures. The challenge is how to establish a stewardship program that represents a consensus among state and local government, community advisory boards and the public that remediation can go on at the same time that some waste is managed on-site until suitable technologies can be safely deployed, which at some sites means 100 years or in perpetuity.     

Strategic environmental assessment in China: motivations, politics, and effectiveness

This paper examines how strategic environmental assessment has been practiced at the national level in China through 2005 and why it has been practiced in the manner observed. Based on literature reviews and interviews carried out in 2005 and 2006, we find that bureaucratic politics between environmental and nonenvironmental ministries has limited the legislation and implementation of strategic environmental assessment to environmental assessment (EA) for a set of government plans defined in the 2003 Environmental Impact Assessment Law. Interviewees from environmental and nonenvironmental ministries and key research institutes have reported that few planning EAs have been performed at the sectoral level. Nonenvironmental ministries have either evaded the 2003 Environmental Impact Assessment Law and have not undertaken required planning EA or have organized planning EA on their own without participation by the State Environmental Protection Administration. The rising tension between the environmental and nonenvironmental ministries has limited the role of planning EA as a participatory decision-making tool. In addition to bureaucratic politics, we find that weak public participation and underemphasis on social analysis in planning EA may have further compromised the utility of planning EA.     

Characterising the landscape of state environmental review policies and procedures in the United States: a national assessment

Following the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, many states have adopted policies and procedures directing state agencies and local government units to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of development projects prior to their undertaking. In contrast to a rich literature on federal requirements, current understanding of state environmental review is narrowly focused and outdated. This paper seeks to provide information on the landscape of state environmental review policy frameworks. The paper identifies 37 states with formal environmental review requirements through a document review of state statutes, administrative rules and agency-prepared materials, and confirms this finding through a survey of state administrators. A two-tier classification is used to distinguish states based on the approach taken to address environmental review needs and the scope and depth of relevant policies and procedures implemented. This paper also provides a discussion of policy and programme attributes that may contribute to effective practice, and of the potential for adopting relevant legislation in states where environmental review is currently lacking.     

Defining an ecological baseline for restoration and natural resource damage assessment of contaminated sites: The case of the Department of Energy

Retrospective ecological risk assessment, restoration, natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) and managing ecosystems all require having a baseline. This policy and practice paper explores the factors that influence baseline selection, and it is suggested that ecological resources would best be served by: (1) integrating NRDA considerations into both future land-use planning and remediation/restoration; (2) selecting a baseline for NRDA that approximates the land-use conditions at the time of occupation (or a preferred ecosystem); and (3) integrating both the positive and negative aspects of industrial occupation into restoration decisions, baseline selection and NRDA. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), natural resource damages are assessed for injuries incurred since 1980 due to releases, but the release itself may have occurred before 1980. The paper uses the Department of Energy as a case study to examine NRDA and the management of ecosystems. Releases occurred at many DOE sites from the 1950s to the 1980s during nuclear bomb production. It is suggested that the DOE has been responsible not only for injuries to natural resources that occurred as a result of releases, but for significant ecosystem recovery since DOE occupation, because some lands were previously farmed or industrialized. Natural resource injuries due to releases occurred simultaneously with ecosystem recovery that resulted from DOE occupation. While the 1980 date is codified in CERCLA law as the time after which damages can be assessed, baseline can be defined as the conditions the natural resources would have been in today, but for the release of the hazardous substance. It is also suggested that NRDA considerations should be incorporated into the remediation and restoration process at DOE sites, thereby negating the need for formal NRDA following restoration, and reducing the final NRDA costs.     

NEPA AND A STATE'S ROLE IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT1

ABSTRACT The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, has been called a revolutionary piece of legislation. It has changed, and is still changing the traditional ways of governmental decision-making. NEPA has strongly influenced the field of water resources management. An environmental statement can now be seen not as a document to support or justify a plan, but an objective assessment of what environmental costs and benefits are involved. New York State has seized upon NEPA as an important feature of its environmental quality management programs and has used the opportunity to comment upon draft environmental statements under NEPA to increase its influences upon Federal decision-making. The Department of Environmental Conservation coordinates and synthesizes all comments and provides one unified State response on a statement. At the State level, lacking a comprehensive “little NEPA”, an extensive environmental analysis program has been built by utilizing a wide spectrum of Federal and State Laws and administrative regulations.     

Risk perception, future land use and stewardship: comparison of attitudes about Hanford Site and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

With the ending of the Cold War, the Department of Energy (DOE) is evaluating mission, future land use and stewardship of departmental facilities. This paper compares the environmental concerns and future use preferences of 351 people interviewed at Lewiston, Idaho, about the Hanford Site and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), two of DOE's largest sites. Although most subjects lived closer to Hanford than INEEL, most resided in the same state as INEEL. Therefore their economic interests might be more closely allied with INEEL, while their health concerns might be more related to Hanford. Few lived close enough to either site to be directly affected economically. We test the null hypotheses that there are no differences in environmental concerns and future land-use preferences as a function of DOE site, sex, age and education. When asked to list their major concerns about the sites, more people listed human health and safety, and environmental concerns about Hanford compared to INEEL. When asked to list their preferred future land uses, 49% of subjects did not have any for INEEL, whereas only 35% did not know for Hanford. The highest preferred land uses for both sites were as a National Environmental Research Park (NERP), and for camping, hunting, hiking, and fishing. Except for returning the land to the tribes and increased nuclear storage, subjects rated all future uses as more preferred at INEEL than Hanford. Taken together, these data suggest that the people interviewed know more about Hanford, are more concerned about Hanford, rate recreational uses and NERP as their highest preferred land use, and feel that INEEL is more suited for most land uses than Handford. Overall rankings for future land uses were remarkably similar between the sites, indicating that for these stakeholders, DOE lands should be preserved for research and recreation. These preferences should be taken into account when planning for long-term stewardship at these two DOE sites.     

An evaluation paradigm for cumulative impact analysis

Cumulative impact analysis is examined from a conceptual decision-making perspective, focusing on its implicit and explicit purposes as suggested within the policy and procedures for environmental impact analysis of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. In this article it is also linked to different evaluation and decision-making conventions, contrasting a regulatory context with a comprehensive planning framework. The specific problems that make the application of cumulative impact analysis a virtually intractable evaluation requirement are discussed in connection with the federal regulation of wetlands uses. The relatively familiar US Army Corps of Engineers' (the Corps) permit program, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) responsibilities in managing its share of the Section 404 regulatory program requirements, is used throughout as the realistic context for highlighting certain pragmatic evaluation aspects of cumulative impact assessment.To understand the purposes of cumulative impact analysis (CIA), a key distinction must be made between the implied comprehensive and multiobjective evaluation purposes of CIA, promoted through the principles and policies contained in NEPA, and the more commonly conducted and limited assessment of cumulative effects (ACE), which focuses largely on the ecological effects of human actions. Based on current evaluation practices within the Corps' and EPA's permit programs, it is shown that the commonly used screening approach to regulating wetlands uses is not compatible with the purposes of CIA, nor is the environmental impact statement (EIS) an appropriate vehicle for evaluating the variety of objectives and trade-offs needed as part of CIA. A heuristic model that incorporates the basic elements of CIA is developed, including the idea of trade-offs among social, economic, and environmental protection goals carried out within the context of environmental carrying capacity.     

Regulatory context for cumulative impact research

Wetlands protection has become a topic of increased public attention and support, and regulation of wetlands loss under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act has received high priority within the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Despite this, the nation is continuing to experience serious wetlands losses. This situation reflects the contentious nature of wetlands protection; it involves fundamental conflicts between environmental and development interests. Better information is needed to support regulatory decision making, including information on cumulative impacts. Currently, consideration of cumulative impacts, although required by various federal regulations, is limited. One reason is that most regulatory decisions are made on a permit-specific, site-specific basis, whereas cumulative impacts must be assessed on a broader, regional scale. In addition, scientific information and methods necessary to support cumulative impact assessment have been lacking. An anticipatory, planning-oriented framework to complement the existing site-specific permit review program is needed to support more effective consideration of cumulative impacts; such an effort is beginning to emerge. In addition, EPA is supporting research to provide better information on cumulative effects. It is recommended that the EPA program place initial emphasis on synthesis and analysis of existing information, on maximizing its use in decision making, and on information transfer. Recommended approaches include correlation of historic wetlands losses with loss of wetlands function and values, regional case studies, and development of indices of cumulative impact for use in permit review.Formerly Director, Office of Federal Activities, US Environmental Protection Agency     

Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment hearings

This research examined the opportunities for critical education available to participants of a federal environmental assessment (EA) that includes hearings. The Sable Gas Panel Review, an assessment of a natural gas project situated in the Maritimes, was undertaken between 1996 and 1997. This study documented what participants learned through their experiences and how that learning was facilitated. Primary data collection emphasized the use of semi-structured interviews to record the experientially based observations of panel participants. Primary data were supported by a review of material submitted by hearing participants for consideration by the panel, and complemented with literature related to EA, environmental education, and transformational learning theories. Evidence was considered in terms of assessment-specific operational definitions, developed from Shor (1993) [Education is politics: Paulo Freire's Critical Pedagogy. In: McLaren, P., Leonard, P. (Eds.), Paulo Freire : A critical Encounter, Routledge, New York, pp. 25-35] ten indicators of critical education. The study revealed that participants of the Sable Gas panel review had an opportunity to engage in critical education. While it is important to acknowledge that the panel did not set out to engage participants in a 'critical educational' experience, each of the 10 operational definitions of critical education used in the study were addressed to varying degrees through activities undertaken by the panel secretariat. Results illustrate the types of educational opportunities, such as a class on how to participate in a quasi-judicial hearing, and the importance of participant-led research that can arise out of the panel review process. The findings of this research contribute to the evolving literature regarding the role of critical education in EA and environmental management. Understanding the existing scope of critical education within a panel review provides the foundation for identifying opportunities for expanding the capacity of the existing EA process to facilitate learning by participants.     

STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM IN ARIZONA1

ABSTRACT: Arizona's water pollution control program is based on authorties of Arizona Revised Statutes and Public Law 92–500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The primary areas of this program are monitoring, facility inspections, plan review, planning, discharge permits and grants for the construction of publicly-owned waste water treatment facilities. The discharge permit program deals with control of point-source discharges and is administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The planning and construction grants programs are administered by the State Water Quality Control Council and are implemented by the Bureau of Water Quality Control, which serves as staff to the Council. There are several challenges that face the State in this program. First is the adaptation of the “eastern law” to deal with Arizona's water quality problems. Second is to address problems caused by a long history of “laissez-faire” environmental quality management. Third is a mutual cooperation and coordination among the many entities involved in water resources management. Areas of particular interest in the State's program is the process setting water quality standards and the involvement of people of diversified backgrounds in the field of areawide planning under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which is primarily concerned with non-point sources of water pollution.