Implications of environmental program planning for siting a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,Nevada, USA

The US Department of Energy (DOE) plans to conduct site characterization studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to determine if the location is a suitable site for a nuclear waste repository. In lieu of traditional environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the DOE is relying on an environmental assessment (EA) mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as the cornerstone of its environmental program for the Yucca Mountain Project. Because of statutory restrictions, the EA is not based on comprehensive baseline information. Neither does it address fundamentals of environmental analysis such as ecological integrity and assessment of cumulative impacts. Consequently, the present environmental program for Yucca Mountain reflects decisions made without complete information and integrated environmental review. The shortcomings of the program risk compromising the natural integrity of Yucca Mountain and invalidating future assessment of the ability of a nuclear waste repository located at the site to protect the environment. Significant improvements are needed in the repository siting program before it can serve as a model of how society can evaluate the long-term environmental consequences of advanced technologies, as has been suggested.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: THE CASE OF TWO FORKS DAM1

ABSTRACT: The role of environmental mitigation in permitting decisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act is examined, addressing the extent to which compensatory mitigation is acceptable. The role of mitigation is examined both generically and specifically: first in the requirements of the Clean Water Act and NEPA, and then in the case study of the proposed Two Forks Dam. In both cases, the paper describes dual purposes of environmental protection legislation and mitigation: to protect the biophysical environment and maintain associated human values. Mitigation is found to be sometimes necessary and acceptable as compensation for unavoidable impacts of project development. However, the Two Forks case exemplifies that compensatory mitigation has also been employed as a mechanism to facilitate project development when practicable alternatives entailing less environmental impact are available. Acceptance of compensatory mitigation in such cases violates both the Guidelines of the Clean Water Act and the intent of that Act and NEPA to protect the biophysical environment and human welfare. A recent memorandum of agreement between the Corps and the EPA clarifies this policy, and suggests that permit applications which rely on compensatory mitigation when impacts are available may be denied.     

Policy and reality of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Whitman County,Washington, USA

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) promotes the conservation of natural resources through procedural review of proposed actions which may impact natural systems. There are, however, many actions specifically exempt from the SEPA review process. Since many exempt actions could have significant adverse effects on natural resources at one location and not another, the SEPA statute contains a provision that enables local governments to designate Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). Within the ESAs, these potentially adverse activities are subject to SEPA review. Local governments have complete control over the exact definition of the ESA criteria and the types of local projects exempt from SEPA. Whitman County, the most productive wheat-producing county in Washington, has recognized the need for conservation of its natural resources in its comprehensive plan but has not implemented the ESA provision. A representative watershed within Whitman County was used as a case study to identify areas which would qualify for ESA status. In these areas, specific soil, water, and biological characteristics or resources were identified as sensitive to certain common land uses. Significant differences were found between state and county policies regarding ESAs and actual conditions within the watershed. It may be more effective for the state to manage ESAs on a consistent and regional basis.     

The eclipse of NEPA as Environmental Policy

Previous evaluations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have focused on the effectiveness of its procedural requirements in improving the quality of decision making with respect to environmental matters. Subsequent growth of other environmental regulation and the changing role of Environmental Impact Statements in the decision-making process should also be considered. The many federal and state environmental laws passed in the 1970s have, by defining the nature and acceptability of environmental impact and prohibiting unacceptable impacts, superseded the substantive role of NEPA in environmental protection. Although the EIS continues to serve as a focus for public debate regarding proposed government actions, such debates usually center around social or economic rather than environmental issues. NEPA has thus been superseded by other environmental laws, and its role in the decision-making process today has little relation to its earlier environmental significance.     

Guidelines and Techniques for Improving the NEPA Process

/ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) principal aims in implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are (1) to reduce paperwork, (2) to avoid delay, and most importantly (3) to produce better decisions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. This paper presents four strategies for improving the NEPA process along with tools that can be used to implement each strategy. The tools include guidelines for project management and problem definition, tips for acquiring existing information and identifying issues of public concern, worksheets on how to identify and analyze potential impacts on resources, ideas for enhancing NEPA documents, and a NEPA process checklist. The tools can be used at various stages of the NEPA process and provide a toolbox of guidelines and techniques to improve implementation of the NEPA process by focusing the pertinent information for decisionmakers and stakeholders. KEY WORDS: National Environmental Policy Act; NEPA; Environmental impact assessment; Ecosystem management     

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.     

Wyoming's industrial siting permit process and environmental impact assessment

The problem of management of industrial residuals can be reduced through a rational system for siting and planning major industrial facilities. In the United States, Wyoming has moved in the direction of establishing a one-stop permitting system that provides important information for air and water quality planning and solid waste management with a minimum of regulatory overlap. This paper describes Wyoming's Industrial Development Information and Siting Act of 1975 and suggests ways in which the Wyoming permitting system can be improved and applied elsewhere.     

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.     

Environmental regulatory compliance on army lands: A case study

A “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI) resulting from an environmental assessment (EA) was reported by the US Army in June 1986 for the construction and utilization of a multipurpose range complex (MPRC) at the Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii. There was little public response, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies were consulted and had few comments concerning the results of the botanical surveys used in the assessment. Construction of the $24 million project was begun in 1988. Near the end of construction in 1989 a lawsuit was filed to halt construction because an environmental impact statement (EIS) had not been done for the project, and the plaintiff thought that significant damage had occurred to several unusual ecosystems. Judgment was against the plaintiff and construction continued. An appeal was filed with the 9th Circuit Court. As MPRC construction was nearly complete, and on advice of Department of Justice lawyers, the Department of Army agreed to settle out of court. The settlement in part called for: (1) the plaintiff to drop the appeal and allow construction to be completed as scheduled, and (2) the Department of Army to prepare an EIS for the operation of the MPRC. A subsequent botanical survey for the EIS discovered one endangered plant species, four category 1 candidate plant species (taxa with sufficient data to support listing as endangered or threatened), three category 2 candidate plant species (taxa with some evidence of vulnerability but insufficient data to support listing at this time), one category 3a species (presumably extinct taxa), and possibly three undescribed species growing within the MPRC boundary. The MPRC case study is an excellent example of why the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) must be modified to require in-depth and thorough environmental surveys.     

Structuring cooperative behavior under the National Environmental Policy Act of the United States

A trend is presently under way to streamline the compliance requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of the United States through cooperative assessment procedures. Since the law was enacted in 1970, however, participants in the assessment process have tended to settle disagreements by adversarial rather than cooperative means. This study focuses on a highly acclaimed environmental assessment procedure undertaken by the U.S. Steel Corporation for its proposed $4.0 billion Lakefront Steel Plant. Survey research data were gathered to measure the underlying management philosophy perceived by interorganizational representatives, who attended a series of Technical Team meetings designed to coordinate the assessment effort and to open communication channels. A social psychological scale of behavioral dimensions was adapted from Likert to define the composition and the extent of cooperation at these meetings. A newly constructed scale was used to measure the quantity and quality of representation by each of the major organizations involved. Informal interviews were conducted with project participants to obtain further insight into member interaction. Results indicate that democratic problem solving was in evidence but also suggest a preference by respondents for improved procedures. The paper outlines areas of concern voiced by respondents and offers the means for improving the operating procedures of similar interorganizational environmental assessments.     

Evaluation of the california environmental quality act

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has evolved from a mini-NEPA, first enacted in 1970, into a procedural act that affects the approval process of all large developments in California. In 1990, California local governments produced over 1600 environmental impact reports and 30,000 initial studies under CEQA. Because of its widespread use, CEQA has periodically drawn the attention of the state legislature, most recently in 1993, when over 60 CEQA reform bills were introduced. This paper describes the CEQA process and evaluates its success at meeting its explicit and implicit goals. The research includes a statewide survey of CEQA practice, sent to the planning departments of all 513 local governments in California in 1991. Survey respondents agreed that CEQA helps in evaluating environmental impacts, reducing impacts, informing the public, and coordinating public agency review. It is effective in reducing the environmental impacts of individual projects, but is not as effective in improving environmental quality on an areawide scale. This research concludes that CEQA has led to positive outcomes and is not as deeply flawed as many of its critics claim. Still, CEQA as currently designed may not be the optimal vehicle for ensuring environmental quality.     

Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments

Environmental concerns such as loss of biological diversity and stratospheric ozone depletion have heightened awareness of the need to assess cumulative impacts in environmental documents. More than 20 years of experience with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have provided analysts in the United States with opportunities for developing successful techniques to assess site-specific impacts of proposed actions. Methods for analyzing a proposed action's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts are generally less advanced than those for project-specific impacts.The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines cumulative impact to include the impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes the action. Court decisions have helped clarify the distinction between reasonably foreseeable future actions and other possible future actions. This paper seeks to clarify how past and present impacts should be included in cumulative impact analyses.The definition of cumulative impacts implies that cumulative impact analyses should include the effects of all past and present actions on a particular resource. Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments increases the likelihood of identifying significant impacts. NEPA requires agencies to give more consideration to alternatives and mitigation and to provide more opportunities for public involvement for actions that would have significant impacts than for actions that would not cause or contribute to significant impacts. For an action that would contribute to significant cumulative impacts, the additional cost and effort involved in increased consideration of alternatives and mitigation and in additional public involvement may be avoided if the action can be modified so that its contributions to significant cumulative impacts are eliminated.Managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with the US Department of Energy.     

Sweet for the sour: Incentives in environmental mediation

The siting of facilities with undesirable environmental characteristics often leads to public conflict. Efforts to resolve the conflict and make siting decisions frequently exacerbate the problem. Environmental mediation, the process of negotiating an agreeable settlement, is an accepted approach to resolving conflict. This paper explores the use of incentive systems as a means of achieving equity in environmental mediation. Obnoxious and noxious characteristics of facilities are discussed as the basis of conflicts. Four types of incentives—mitigation, compensation, reward, and participation—are discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion of the utility and application of incentives for solving environmental conflicts.     

The management of household hazardous waste in the United Kingdom

Waste legislation in the United Kingdom (UK) implements European Union (EU) Directives and Regulations. However, the term used to refer to hazardous waste generated in household or municipal situations, household hazardous waste (HHW), does not occur in UK, or EU, legislation. The EU's Hazardous Waste Directive and European Waste Catalogue are the principal legislation influencing HHW, although the waste categories described are difficult to interpret. Other legislation also have impacts on HHW definition and disposal, some of which will alter current HHW disposal practices, leading to a variety of potential consequences. This paper discusses the issues affecting the management of HHW in the UK, including the apparent absence of a HHW-specific regulatory structure. Policy and regulatory measures that influence HHW management before disposal and after disposal are considered, with particular emphasis placed on disposal to landfill.     

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.     

Historical paths of environmental injustice: a century of placing industrial facilities in Helsinki,Finland

The article explores the historical process of creating unjust environmental conditions in one geographical area in the Finnish capital, Helsinki. The study traces back the decision-making processes about placing environmentally burdensome, communal facilities, such as power plants, waste disposal and other infrastructural facilities. Also the lack of environmental amenities is investigated. The study covers a time period from the latter half of the nineteenth century to the 1980s. The historical analysis of the development of land-use decisions in the city is based on documentary and archival sources about the decision-making processes and it is conducted in the framework of distributive and procedural environmental justice. Four different periods of siting policies are identified. The motives for land-use decisions at each phase reflect geographical, political and historical reasoning. The concept of path dependency is introduced to explain, how environmental injustices were reproduced because of past paths of siting policies locked in subsequent decisions and created a negative twist of accumulating environmental burden.