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.     

Public Meetings About Local Waste Management Problems: Comparing Participants to Nonparticipants

One of the more traditional ways to involve citizens in environmental management in the United States is to hold a public meeting. Yet public meetings are also frequently criticized for stereotypical weaknesses, including a concern that citizens who attend public meetings do not accurately represent citizens who do not attend. To examine this concern in the context of local waste management problems, this study investigates whether citizens who attend public meetings differ from citizens who do not attend meetings. In the spring of 1998, residents in two New York communities facing local waste management problems received mailed questionnaires. Those surveyed included citizens who had previously attended state-sponsored public meetings about the waste sites and citizens who lived within one mile of the respective waste sites but had not attended any meetings. A comparison of demographic characteristics showed that, in both communities, citizens who attended meetings tended to report higher incomes and have children living at home. In one community, previous meeting participants tended to perceive greater risks from the waste site. In both communities, participants were less likely to consider certain sources of information about the waste sites, including the state environmental agency, state health agency, and the industries, as credible. Regardless of whether they had previously attended public meetings, respondents who perceived the risks as greater also perceived the sources as less credible. The conclusions suggest some potential challenges to effective communication at public meetings, including overcoming widespread skepticism and heightened concern among audience members.     

Public concerns and the public role in siting nuclear and chemical waste facilities

Nuclear and chemical waste facilities can be successfully sited, despitenimby responses, if siting programs account for the sources of public concern. Irrational fear is not the main source; instead, waste managers must deal with perceived inequities in the distribution of benefits and costs, and concern about facility safety. Benefit-cost inequities may be dealt with in part by keeping wastes where they are generated, through political restrictions, or by providing economic compensation and political incentives (for example, a local veto). Assuring people of facility safety includes allowing local control (monitoring, health assessment, regulation), and enhancing trust of facility managers through such means as rectifying past mistakes, individual-oriented education campaigns, and negotiation of compensation packages with local residents. These means should reduce —without eliminating—public opposition to local siting of nuclear and chemical waste facilities.     

A comparative analysis of the psychosocial impacts of waste disposal facilities

This paper reports the results of a comparative analysis of the psychosocial impacts of municipal solid waste disposal facilities (both landfills and incinerators) in six communities in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Telephone surveys were administered to random samples of residents living around each facility between 1990 and 1995 (total n=1203). The results of logistic regression analyses show that type of facility was the strongest predictor of residents' awareness, concern, and actions taken in response to site concerns. Essentially, residents living in close proximity to a landfill had a higher probability of reporting awareness, concern or actions than residents living around an incinerator site. There was little evidence of differences in reactions between Ontario and British Columbia (BC) residents, despite variations in provincial policies on waste disposal. The effects of other predictors, with the exception of involvement in the local community, were not consistent, supporting previous findings that the determinants of facility impacts are outcome‐specific. It is essential that environmental managers take this constellation of factors into account in the operation of existing, or siting of new, facilities.     

Public opinion and solid waste in Bangkok

The problems encountered when seeking suitable locations for landfill sites often include public concern over the potential visual, health and environmental impacts. There have been many attempts to predict the response of residents in an area to a proposed landfill site and suggestions of ways to adequately consult and include the local population in the decision-making process. An alternative approach is described in this article where the residents living in the vicinity of a landfill site in Bangkok were asked how much they would be willing to pay for the landfill site to be closed and the waste taken out of the city. The method used, the contingent valuation method, can provide information on how much people value environmental goods and services. The use of the technique in this instance provided an estimate of the costs of the disamenity effects of the landfill site to the local residents.     

Local impacts of US nuclear weapons facilities: a survey of planners

This research examines the perceptions of planners in communities around the largest US Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Surveys and interviews revealed that planners are often unclear about DOE intentions, concerned about jobs and environmental contamination, and desire more involvement with future site use decisions. Planners' ratings of residents' trust of the DOE were also low, and low trust was most strongly associated with places where local officials have not been invited to future use meetings. Recommendations include improving coordination of on-site planning with local land use plans and increasing trust with a Federal-local government partnership that recognizes local concerns about the clean-up, closure and disposition of the sites.     

Designing effective community relations programs

• Cleanup of a contaminated site is halted as community residents launch a legal challenge against the method that those responsible for the site have selected for remediation.
• Parents and teachers at a public school call for an investigation to determine if substances in the building are making students and staff sick. Midway into the investigation, they also become concerned as to whether the right tests are being performed to detect contamination that may be present, and how they will know what the test results mean.
• Industrial neighbors of a facility oppose its air permit application out of concern for the effects the facility's emissions might have on their own workers.

Virtually no business enterprise or government entity is immune from the potential for public interest in or concern about environmental issues. Within the public arena, environmental issues are rarely viewed only in terms of their scientific, technical, or regulatory merits. Instead, they are invariably intertwined with other issues and perceptions regarding health and safety, property values, social justice, and overall quality of life. As such, environmental issues have the potential to create significant controversy, concern, and opposition among community residents. Fortunately, in many cases, much, if not all, of the anger and fear that community residents feel can be relieved through a substantive dialogue that either corrects misinformation or provides a platform for discussing actions that could, should, or are taking place to remedy a situation. Promoting and sustaining such dialogues is the goal of community relations. This article covers the process of designing and implementing a community relations program plan to address serious or long-term environmental issues surrounding facilities, sites, or projects.     

Science, Policy, and Stakeholders: Developing a Consensus Science Plan for Amchitka Island, Aleutians, Alaska

With the ending of the Cold War, the US Department of Energy is responsible for the remediation of radioactive waste and disposal of land no longer needed for nuclear material production or related national security missions. The task of characterizing the hazards and risks from radionuclides is necessary for assuring the protection of health of humans and the environment. This is a particularly daunting task for those sites that had underground testing of nuclear weapons, where the radioactive contamination is currently inaccessible. Herein we report on the development of a Science Plan to characterize the physical and biological marine environment around Amchitka Island in the Aleutian chain of Alaska, where three underground nuclear tests were conducted (1965–1971). Information on the ecology, geology, and current radionuclide levels in biota, water, and sediment is necessary for evaluating possible current contamination and to serve as a baseline for developing a plan to ensure human and ecosystem health in perpetuity. Other information required includes identifying the location of the salt water/fresh water interface where migration to the ocean might occur in the future and determining groundwater recharge balances, as well as assessing other physical/geological features of Amchitka near the test sites. The Science Plan is needed to address the confusing and conflicting information available to the public about radionuclide risks from underground nuclear blasts in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as well as the potential for volcanic or seismic activity to disrupt shot cavities or accelerate migration of radionuclides into the sea. Developing a Science Plan involved agreement among regulators and other stakeholders, assignment of the task to the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, and development of a consensus Science Plan that dealt with contentious scientific issues. Involvement of the regulators (State of Alaska), resource trustees (U S Fish and Wildlife Service), representatives of the Aleut and Pribilof Island communities, and other stakeholders was essential for plan development and approval, although this created tensions because of the different objectives of each group. The complicated process of developing a Science Plan involved iterations and interactions with multiple agencies and organizations, scientists in several disciplines, regulators, and the participation of Aleut people in their home communities, as well as the general public. The importance of including all parties in all phases of the development of the Science Plan was critical to its acceptance by a broad range of regulators, agencies, resource trustees, Aleutian/Pribilof communities, and other stakeholders.     

Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities

Professor of wildlife biology in the department of biological sciences, California State University. Dr K. Shawn Smallwood is a systems ecologist and may be contacted at 109 Luz Place, Davis, CA 95616, USA. Dr Jan Beyea is a physical scientist with Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, NJ 08530, USA. The US Government produced and acquired approximately 111 t of plutonium in support of its nuclear weapons programme. Verified reports of the loss of nuclear material into the environment, including loss by animals, has raised questions regarding the monitoring programmes in place on the nuclear facilities. Given these concerns regarding the fate of stored nuclear waste, the authors conducted a review of the wildlife monitoring programme used at nuclear weapons and storage facilities by (1) reviewing the key facets of the monitoring used at the facilities, (2) evaluating published and unpublished data from the facilities and (3) incorporating data from personal site visits. The study concentrated on the Department of Energy's Hanford Reservation in rural south–central Washington and the Rocky Flats Plant in central Colorado. Based on the review, it is concluded that an improved and rigorous environmental surveillance and monitoring programme is needed at both locations. The site surveys identified frequent instances of intrusion into burial sites by animals, most of which had gone unreported by Hanford and Rocky Flats personnel. It was apparent that a significant source of potential contamination was not being adequately monitored at the nuclear waste sites. It is recommended that the development of a systematic, well-planned programme of monitoring animal intrusion on burial sites be considered, coupled with improved training for responsible personnel.     

Results of Community Deliberation About Social Impacts of Ecological Restoration: Comparing Public Input of Self-Selected Versus Actively Engaged Community Members

Participatory processes for obtaining residents' input about community impacts of proposed environmental management actions have long raised concerns about who participates in public involvement efforts and whose interests they represent. This study explored methods of broad-based involvement and the role of deliberation in social impact assessment. Interactive community forums were conducted in 27 communities to solicit public input on proposed alternatives for recovering wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest US. Individuals identified by fellow residents as most active and involved in community affairs ("AE residents") were invited to participate in deliberations about likely social impacts of proposed engineering and ecological actions such as dam removal. Judgments of these AE participants about community impacts were compared with the judgments of residents motivated to attend a forum out of personal interest, who were designated as self-selected ("SS") participants. While the magnitude of impacts rated by SS participants across all communities differed significantly from AE participants' ratings, in-depth analysis of results from two community case studies found that both AE and SS participants identified a large and diverse set of unique impacts, as well as many of the same kinds of impacts. Thus, inclusion of both kinds of residents resulted in a greater range of impacts for consideration in the environmental impact study. The case study results also found that the extent to which similar kinds of impacts are specified by AE and SS group members can differ by type of community. Study results caution against simplistic conclusions drawn from this approach to community-wide public participation. Nonetheless, the results affirm that deliberative methods for community-based impact assessment involving both AE and SS residents can provide a more complete picture of perceived impacts of proposed restoration activities.