U.S. DEPARTMENT of COMMERCE National Technical Information
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. DE81 028818 HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL: INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION f I S.G. Hadden, et al U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. July 1981 U.S. DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE National Technical Information Service DE81 028818 Q High Level Nuclear "Waste Disposal: Information Exchange and Conflict Resolution by Susan G. Hadden James R. Chiles Paul Anaejionu Karl J. Cerny PROJECT DIRECTOR Robert D. Smith PROJECT COORDINATOR Gary W. Hamilton Prepared for Texas EnerK~' and Natural Resources Adt'/sory Council Funded, in part, by a gant from the U.S. Department of Ener~' NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE U.S. D[pJRII,tENI OF CON~dE;~CE ~lillIG~l[I.O. Vk i~lGl Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the Texas Energy and Natural Resources Advisory Council or the U.S. Department of Energy _. !' rLT. ALL PROGRAMS AND INFORMATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE TEXA.5 ENERGY AND NATURAL RE.SOURCES ADVISORY COUNCIL ARE AVAILABLE V,'ITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, ETHNIC ORIGIN, RELAGION, SEX, AND AGE. II READER'S GUIDE This study provides background information for local, state, and federal decision-makers who are responsible for establishing the frameworks within which the qlP~' high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal issue will be resolved. The authors have attempted to develop balanced presentations exploring the pros and cons of the various facets of this issue. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department o[ Energy or the Texas Energy and Natural Resources Advisory Council. The research presented here was conceived as an exploration of the interactions among parties involved in the resolution of the HLW disposal issue. Because ol the major dilferences in the nature of the interactions between levels of government, on the one hand, and between government and the public, on the other hand, this study is divided into two primary areas -- public participation and intergovernmental rela° tions. These areas are further divided into theoretical and practical considerations. The theoretical discussions generally present basic history and background) explicate fundamental principles and problems, and suggest useful institutional mechanisms. The practical presentations include discussions of experiences and case histories of issues similar to the HL~ disposal issue and suggestions for avoiding some of the pitfalls identified by those past experiences. The format ol the paper reflects the divisions explained above as well as the interaction of the various authors. Public participation is addressed from a theoretical perspective in Part 2. In Parl 3 an essentially pragmatic approach is taken drawing on experiences from similar exercises. These two aspects of the s~Jdy are presented in separate parts because the authors worked largely independently. Intergovernmental relations is treated in Part ~. The treatment is organized ~s iii two Sections of Part 4 to reflect the authors' close interaction which yielded a more integrated treatment of the theoretical and practical aspects o[ intergovernmental relations. Detailed recommendations and conclusions appear in the final subsections of Parts 2, 3, and 4. Part 5, Summary and Conclusions, does not reiterate the detailed conclusions and recommendations presented in previous parts but rather expresses some general perceptions with respect to the high-level waste disposal issue. A brief review of the Table of Contents will assist in visualizing the detailed format of this study and in identifying the portions of greatest relevance to specific questions. A detailed Subject Index and an Acronyl~ Index have been inclLrded for the reader's convenience. The scope of the HLW disposal issue is much broader than can be treated by any single study. Although many aspects of the issue have been treated here, many others were neglected. Cost issues were largely ignored. The timing of participation programs and information were mentioned but not treated in detail° Potential delays resulting from more extensive interactions also merit care[u[ study. Further analysis of some of the topics addressed in this paper and studies o£ other areas not treated will be required to fully characterize the institutional problems and possible solutions. Nevertheless, the subjects within the scope of this study have been addressed in depth, and the final document does represent a significant contribution to the body of knowledge required for resoluuon of the high-level nuclear waste disposal issue. iv ACKNO~LEDG EM ENTS Throughout the preparation of this study, the individuals involved have fulfilled ~he responsibilities expected of them and then have generously contributed that extra 9 effort required to transform a good product into an excellent document. Assembling a more capable, conscientious, and cooperative group would, at best, be extremely difficult. Sincere appreciation is expressed to the researchers who authored the text. Professor Susan G. Hadden is a member of the faculty of the Lyndon ESaines 3ohnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin. 3ames R. Chiles is now Special Research Assistant to the Alaska Statehood Commission in Fairbanks. He was engaged in freelance writing in Austin, Texas after graduating cure laude from Harvard College and with honors from the University of Texas Law School. Professor Paul Anaejionu is a member of the faculty of the Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin. Karl J. Cerny is a doctoral candidate specializing in intergovernmental relations in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin. The excellent text prepared by these authors is the core of this study and any praise garnered by this document is theirs. The coordination of the preparation of the separate manuscripts was handled by Gary W. Hamilton. He was also responsible for preliminary editing to nninirnize redundancy and to integrate more effectively the various parts. The following individuals reviewed and offered comments on various drafts of this study: Curt Carlson, DOE Regional Representative, Region Vl; Ted Taylor, Policy Analysis Division Director, Texas Energy and Natural Resources Advisory Council (TENRAC); and Mil~on Holloway, Execu~-ive Director, TENI<AC. Eddie Selig coordinated the special services and prin~ing for this volume. Layne Jackson designed and executed the cover and title page. Amanda P.. Mas=erson edited the final text and prepared the indexes. Special thanks is extended to Christine Dominguez who ior months has patiently prepared countless revisions of every part ol this document and who painstakingly prepared the intricate [igures and tables. Most of the funding for this study was provided by the Department of Energy, National Waste Terminal Storage Program Office, Columbus, Ohio under Grant No. DE-FG-97-79ETO~6608. Robert D. Smith Project Director vi CONTENTS Pa e xi List o[ Figures xii List of Tables El Executive Summary El History and Overview El Public Participation E4 Intergovernmental Relations PART 1 - HISTORY AND OVERVIEW I. Introduction 2. Consultation and Concurrence 2. I Background l 3 2.2 Consultation 3 2.3 Concurrence tt 2.~ State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management 3. Summary and Conclusions References PART 2 - DESIGNING A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROGRAM FOR SELECTING A NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SITE 1. Introduction 2. History and Purposes of Citizen Participation 2.1 Democratic Theory 2.2 Development of Groups 2.3 Citizen Participation Trends 2.3.1 Involvement of Previously Unrepresented Groups 9 10 2.3.2 Open Government 2.3.3 Effects of New Technologies 10 II 2.4 Purposes of Participation 2.5 Costs and Benefits of Citizen Participation 13 15 2.6 Summary 15 3. Information for Public Participation 16 3.1 Types of Inlormation 3.2 Role of Substantive Information in Participation 17 3.3 In_formation About Risk and Probabilities IS 3.3.1 Lack of Knowledge 20 20 3.3.2 Use of Probabiliszic Data 3.3.3 Assessment ol Risk 21 vii I CONTENTS (continued) Page 3.4 Resolution of the Information Problem 23 4. Design of a Participation Program 24 4.1 Purposes and Mechanisms 24 4.1.1 Inlormation Provision 24 llp 4.1.2 Information Collection 27 4.1.3 Conflict Resolution 28 4.1.4 Citizen Input Improvement 29 4.1.5 Other Purposes 30 4.2 Designation ol Participants 30 4.2.1 Individuals and Groups 30 4.2.2 "fhe Role of States 33 4.2.3 Affected Parties 33 q.3 Timing of Participation 36 4.4 Monetary Costs 40 4.5 Additional Proposals 40 4.5.1 Compensating Local Residents 42 4.5.2 A Federalist Strategy: Designing for Non-Concurrence 43 4.5.3 Funding of Technical Staff 45 4.6 Summary 46 5. Conclusions 46 5.1 Reasons for Citizen Participation 47 5.2 The Unalterable Opposition Assumption 48 5.3 Evaluation of the Present Plan 50 5.4 Requisites for a Participation Program 50 5.5 Problems with Proposed Process 51 5.6 Conclusion 51 Appendix 53 Description of Participation Mechanisms 53 Description of Functions 56 Participazion Techniques 57 References 60 PART 3 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION iN THE SITING OF A NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY 63 1. Introduction 63 1.1 General Statement 63 1.2 The Purposes o£ Public Partic':.pazion 65 1.3 Parties 69 viii CONTENTS (continued) 2. The "Public": A Question of Spokesmen 70 2.1 Eligibility to Participate 73 3. Modes of Participation 77 3.1 Information Exchange 78 3.1.1 Sources of the Public's Information (Passive Public) 79 3.1.2 Information Return from Public (Active Public) 87 3.2 Power Balancing Between Government and an Aggressive Public 88 3.2.1 Use of the Courts 88 3.2.2 Civil Disobedience 9O 4.