The Siting of Radioactive Waste Faculties: What Are the Effects on Communities?¹

Abstract

Despite literally dozens of attempts, and the expenditure of billions of dollars, efforts to site radioactive waste disposal facilities in this country have been uniformly unsuccessful. While both researchers and policymakers continue to address reasons for these failures, little attention is being given to the consequences for the communities themselves of these intensive siting battles. Using a research framework that addresses both the sources and consequences of community conflict, we examine what is happening in four different areas currently being considered as potential hosts for either a high‐ or a low‐level radioactive waste facility. Some degree of conflict is observed in each community, although it varies from one area to another based on such differences as potential to experience economic benefits, perceptions of class and ethnic equity, and the role of extra‐local players in the controversy. We conclude that current policies lead to inequitable distributions of risk that, in turn, create “fairness” questions that are important both in explaining current patterns of conflict and in anticipating long‐term consequences for the affected communities.

Support for Waste Facility Siting: Differences between Community Leaders and Residents

“…Therefore, we argue that the explanation of leader-resident differences in waste siting perceptions lies in the utilization of an array of existing theoretical perspectives. This has been suggested most recently by Albrecht et al (1996) who found that neither the growth machine perspective (Molotch 1976) nor risk dimensions (Freudenburg and Gramling 1992) could adequately explain the events occurring in different communities relative to low-level nuclear waste siting. At our present state of knowledge, we believe it is only possible to develop middle range theories (Merton 1968) which identify broad sets of conditions that explain perceptions and leader-resident differences in waste siting.…”

Courting LULUs: Characteristics of Suitor and Objector Communities*

“…In the first part we develop two hypotheses. First, that organized, local economic development efforts in the pursuit of such LULUs are related inversely to community socioeconomic status, population density, geographic accessibility, and local employment opportunities in nonmetropolitan places (Albrecht, Amey, and Amir 1996 ;Bailey and Faupel 1993 ;Bullard 1994;Fitchen 1991) . Second, in keeping with work by Logan and Molotch (1987), that the pursuit of waste treatment and storage facilities may be even more prevalent than anticipated by researchers such as Fitchen (1991) and may be tied to more aggressive local economic development efforts such as promoting business and industrial development, regardless of nonmetropolitan community socioeconomic status, location, or employment opportunities.…”

The Impact of Economic Shocks on Quality of Life and Social Capital in Small Towns*

“…Shocks with negative community outcomes. On the other hand, some shocks lead to extremely divisive outcomes (Albrecht, Amey, and Amir 1996) resulting in what Freudenburg and Jones (1991) call ''corrosive community.' ' Albrecht et al (1996) studied four communities selected as sites for nuclear waste disposal facilities.…”

“…On the other hand, some shocks lead to extremely divisive outcomes (Albrecht, Amey, and Amir 1996) resulting in what Freudenburg and Jones (1991) call ''corrosive community.' ' Albrecht et al (1996) studied four communities selected as sites for nuclear waste disposal facilities. They found that value differences within the communities about economic development and environmental quality and differences in perceptions of risks and benefits from the shock led to heated acrimony that strained or ruined interpersonal relations extending beyond the siting debates, both in time and in subject matter.…”

“…While this literature provides insight into possible community outcomes from shocks, it contains several theoretical and methodological limitations. First, because shocks have been studied ad hoc, community by community, (Dudley 1997;Erikson 1976;Grey 1995) or organized by a single kind of shock as it affects a limited number of communities [e.g., siting meatpacking plants in rural towns (Broadway 1994;Leistritz and Sell 2001), hosting major sports venues (Jones 2005), school consolidation (Sell and Leistritz 1997), boom growth from natural resource development (Brown et al 2005;Smith et al 2001), toxic contamination (Aronoff and Gunter 1992a;1992b;Gunter et al 1999), and siting radioactive waste facilities (Albrecht et al 1996)], it is not possible to test which characteristics of shocks are detrimental to communities and which are beneficial, and how they interact with community characteristics. It is a natural inclination with the corrosive community and consensus crisis event conceptualizations to categorize shocks based primarily on their impact on communities.…”