Economic & Social Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Western Waste Management Facility – Independent Economic and Social Analysis prepared for: Golder Associates prepared by: Gartner Lee Limited reference: date: GLL 23-414 March, 2004 distribution: 4 Golder Associates 6 Gartner Lee Limited Executive Summary Low and intermediate level radioactive waste is produced at all of Ontario’s nuclear generating stations. For more than 30 years, this waste has been safely transported to waste management facilities located on the Bruce Power site in the Municipality of Kincardine. The waste management facility, currently known as the Western Waste Management Facility, is owned and operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG). The facility currently provides interim storage of the waste and OPG is seeking to find an acceptable long-term management solution. In 2002, the Municipality of Kincardine and OPG signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The purpose of the MOU is to set out terms under which OPG, in consultation with the Municipality of Kincardine, will develop a plan for the long-term management of low and intermediate level radioactive waste at the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF). As part of the MOU related activities, an independent assessment study (IAS) is being undertaken of three possible long-term management options which are presently under consideration by OPG. These options are: Enhanced Processing and Storage (EPS), Surface Concrete Vaults (SCV), and Deep Rock Vaults (DRV). In addition, the costs and benefits of the current low and intermediate level waste management operations at the WWMF, identified as the “Status Quo” are provided. The IAS is being carried out to develop information regarding the costs and benefits of a short-list of possible long-term management options for the low and intermediate level wastes currently stored at the WWMF and planned to be received in future. The goal of the IAS is to provide decision makers with a clear and fact-based assessment of each of the options. As part of the IAS, an economic and social analysis was undertaken. The purpose of the economic and social analysis was to identify, describe and quantify (where possible) the likely economic and social effects of the various options for the long term management of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes at OPG’s WWMF. This study accomplishes the following: 1. Describes the existing and foreseeable socio-economic conditions within defined Study Areas. 2. Characterizes the existing WWMF and available options for the long term management of Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste. 3. Conducts economic modelling to quantify the economic effects of available options within defined time frames. 4. Estimates municipal tax implications for the available options. (1rb0323/23414-f-rpts/04) i 5. Conducts public attitude research, interviews and a round table to identify and describe relevant potential for social effects. 6. Summarizes results in an “Independent Economic and Social Analysis” report (this report). This economic analysis concluded that there are significant economic benefits to Kincardine and the Neighbouring Municipalities associated with all of the options. These benefits are greater than those currently occurring as a result of the operation of the WWMF. The economic analysis did not identify any negative economic effects associated with the options. The figure below provides a summary of the direct, indirect and induced employment associated with each of the options. The incremental employment above that for the Status Quo is generally similar for all the options although it is larger for the two vault options. 6000 5000 4000 Status Quo EPS 3000 SCV 2000 DRV Employment (FTEs) 1000 0 Direct Employment Indirect Employment Induced Employment The following provides a summary of the expenditures and income-related spending in Kincardine for each of the options. The incremental dollar value above that of the Status Quo is generally similar for all the options although vault options are somewhat larger. (1rb0323/23414-f-rpts/04) ii 1000 900 800 700 600 Status Quo 500 EPS 400 SCV 300 DRV Million Dollars (CAN) 200 100 0 Total Expenditures Income Related Spending in Kincardine The social analysis component of this study concludes that, at the present time, there is little potential for significant social effects as a result of the implementation of long term waste management options at the WWMF. This conclusion was determined by examining the initial impressions of people to the idea of long term waste management at the WWMF; the potential for changes in public attitudes (i.e., feelings of personal security, community satisfaction and commitment to farming); potential for stigma (i.e., the attractiveness of the area as a place to live, establish a business or visit as a tourist); and the potential for changes in people’s behaviours (i.e., living in the community, fishing and boating activities near the Bruce Power site, and use of parks, beaches and trails near the Bruce Power site). No clear preference for any of the options was identified throughout the study. (1rb0323/23414-f-rpts/04) iii Table of Contents Executive Summary Page 1. Background .............................................................................................................................1 2. Methodology............................................................................................................................1 2.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries.................................................................................... 2 2.2 Economic and Social Analysis ........................................................................................ 3 2.2.1 Scope................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.2 Methodology...................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2.1 Data Collection ................................................................................... 4 2.2.2.2 Data Analysis and Evaluation.............................................................. 5 3. The Existing Western Waste Management Facility..........................................................8 3.1 Public Attitudes Towards the Existing WWMF ............................................................. 10 4. Long-Term Management Options for Low and Intermediate Level Waste...............13 4.1 Enhanced Processing and Storage ................................................................................. 13 4.2 Surface Concrete Vaults ............................................................................................... 14 4.3 Deep Rock Vaults......................................................................................................... 14 4.4 Conceptual Schedule .................................................................................................... 15 5. Baseline Economic and Social Conditions........................................................................17 5.1 Economic Profile.......................................................................................................... 17 5.1.1 Population........................................................................................................ 17 5.1.2 Employment..................................................................................................... 19 5.1.3 Business Activity ............................................................................................. 21 5.1.4 Tourism ........................................................................................................... 24 5.1.5 Housing ........................................................................................................... 26 5.1.6 Property Values................................................................................................ 28 5.1.7 Municipal Finance ........................................................................................... 29 5.2 Social Profile................................................................................................................ 30 5.2.1 Community Character ...................................................................................... 30 5.2.2 Community / Recreational Features and Activities............................................ 34 5.2.3 Public Attitudes................................................................................................ 36 6. Economic Analysis................................................................................................................40 6.1 Employment................................................................................................................. 40 6.1.1 Status Quo ....................................................................................................... 40 6.1.2 Enhanced Processing and Storage..................................................................... 43 6.1.3 Surface Concrete Vaults................................................................................... 45 6.1.4 Deep Rock Vaults ............................................................................................ 47 6.1.5 Summary of Employment................................................................................. 49 6.2 Facility Expenditures and Income Spending.................................................................. 51 6.2.1 Status Quo ......................................................................................................