THE PROCESS MODEL OF DISPLACEMENT: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF THREE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS by Kathleen M. Saul A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Energy and Environmental Policy Spring 2017 Copyright 2017 Kathleen M. Saul All Rights Reserved THE PROCESS MODEL OF DISPLACEMENT: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF THREE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS by Kathleen M. Saul Approved: ____________________________________________________________ John Byrne, Ph.D. Professor in charge of the dissertation on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: ____________________________________________________________ S. Ismat Shah, Ph.D. Interim Director of the Energy and Environmental Policy Program Approved: ____________________________________________________________ Babatunde A. Ogunnaike, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Engineering Approved: ____________________________________________________________ Ann L. Ardis, Ph.D. Senior Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: __________________________________________________________ John Byrne, Ph.D. Professor in charge of dissertation I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: __________________________________________________________ Young-Doo Wang, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: __________________________________________________________ Sanjay M. Gopal, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: __________________________________________________________ John H. Perkins, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: __________________________________________________________ Dustin Mulvaney, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee ACKNOWLEDGMENTS “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” Helen Keller This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of many people, institutions, and organizations throughout the years. I am particularly indebted to my committee chairman, Dr. John Byrne, who worked tirelessly to understand and help me solidify my ideas, and craft them into cohesive theoretical arguments. He challenged me to think deeper, write more succinctly, and make sure that I found all the gaps in my own logic. To my committee members--Dr. Young-Doo Wang, Dr. John H. Perkins, Dr. Sanjay M. Gopal, and Dr. Dustin Mulvaney—whose insights further strengthened my models and provided ideas for extensions of my research. I owe thanks to the members of the 2013 India Study Team who shared time with me along the Narmada River learning about the havoc wrought by dam construction. The families whose land, homes, and shrines were inundated to create reservoirs and irrigation channels did not benefit from the projects that disrupted their lives. Thank you to Meenal Utturkar who helped organize that trip and on my subsequent visits taught me about India and became a dear friend. Thank you to Pradeep Indulkar, to the people living in the vicinity of the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant, and to my wonderful hosts at Ganesh Agro Tourism for introducing me to Konkan and for answering all my questions and many that I did not even think to ask. I also must acknowledge the people I met and those I could not meet during a 2007 study trip to Kiev, Chernobyl, and Pripyat, Ukraine--people who inspired me to v start asking questions about why modern society continued to look to a future that included nuclear power. I am grateful to the helpful staff at the Hagley Museum & Archives, the Voices of the Manhattan Project Archives, and Chelsea Graves who helped me gain early access to the Hanford Oral History Project records at Washington State University Tri- Cities. I also must acknowledge the support of a grant from the Golden Key International Honor Society that eased the financial burden of my many travels. Thank you to Mayuri Utturkar and all my friends from the University of Delaware who provided ideas and emotional support along the way; and to my parents, Dr. and Mrs. David J. Hentges, who gave me a thirst for education decades ago. Finally, my utmost thanks to my husband, Greg Saul, who allowed me to pursue this dream of a doctoral degree, accompanied on my journeys, read every page I wrote, and who kept me going to the very end. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xi LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... xii LIST of ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................... xv ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. xviii Chapter 1 NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY AND DISPLACEMENT .................................... 1 1.1 A Brief Review of Nuclear Technology Development ............................. 3 1.1.1 The Early Years—through the 1950s ............................................ 3 1.1.2 Institutional Oversight ................................................................... 7 1.1.3 Secrecy--Another Layer of Defense in Depth ............................. 11 1.1.4 The 1960s through Chernobyl—Development of Commercial Nuclear Power ............................................................................. 13 1.1.5 Late 1980s to the Present ............................................................. 19 1.2 Summary and Moving Forward ............................................................... 24 ENDNOTES ..................................................................................................... 26 2 A SOCIO-POLITICAL ECOLOGY FOR THE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY DISPLACEMENT ............................................................... 33 2.1 Political Ecology Becomes Socio-Political Ecology ............................... 33 2.2 The Literature on Displacement .............................................................. 40 ENDNOTES ..................................................................................................... 46 3 A PROCESS MODEL OF DISPLACEMENT ................................................ 50 3.1 Place and Place Attachment .................................................................... 50 3.1.1 How is “Place” Understood? ....................................................... 50 3.1.2 “Sense of Place” Defined ............................................................ 54 3.1.3 “Place Identity” Explained .......................................................... 57 vii 3.1.4 Exploring “Attachment to Place” and “Community Attachment” ................................................................................. 58 3.2 Disruptions to Place Attachment ............................................................. 62 3.2.1 Disruptions to Place Attachment and Displacement ................... 64 3.3 A Process Model of Displacement .......................................................... 66 ENDNOTES ..................................................................................................... 71 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................................ 77 4.1 The Choice of Case Studies ..................................................................... 80 4.2 Knowing Displacement When We “See” It ............................................ 88 4.3 The Data .................................................................................................. 91 4.3.1 Archival Data and Secondary Literature ..................................... 91 4.3.2 Interviews and Oral Histories ...................................................... 94 ENDNOTES ..................................................................................................... 98 5 CONTEXTUALIZING HANFORD .............................................................. 101 5.1 The Early Days ...................................................................................... 103 5.2 Post World War II Hanford ................................................................... 117 5.3 The Clean-Up ........................................................................................ 120 5.4 Concluding Thoughts ............................................................................ 130 ENDNOTES ................................................................................................... 138 6 CONTEXTUALIZING CHERNOBYL ......................................................... 148 6.1 Nuclear Technology in the USSR ........................................................