Janice Beatson Deshais, Esq.*
Executive Director
Northeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Commission
ABSTRACT
On June 10, 1991, three candidate sites for a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility were announced by the Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service (CHWMS), the quasi-public agency responsible for site selection. The three sites were selected as part of a traditional "decide-announce-defend" siting process. This process relied on statewide screening, analysis of scientific data and a strong effort by the CHWMS to explain the reasons for the selections and the need for an LLRW disposal facility in the state.
The residents of the three candidate site towns immediately raised their desire to refuse an LLRW disposal facility in their "backyard" against the State's responsibility to provide for LLRW management. Within a short time, this debate included vigorous opposition, political involvement, and little or no opportunity for effective dialogue with the candidate towns. Within a year, legislation was passed that terminated the siting process.
New Jersey, Connecticut's Compact partner, was also pursuing a traditional siting approach and its siting agency, the New Jersey LLRW Disposal Facility Siting Board (Siting Board), and was close to announcing its own candidate sites. During the debate in Connecticut, New Jersey's Siting Board reevaluated its own siting program and later decided to suspend its efforts to review other siting alternatives.
The CHWMS considered siting methods and prepared a voluntary siting process in response to its legislative mandate. Following its analysis of the Connecticut experience and siting alternatives, the New Jersey Siting Board did the same. Under these plans, a facility will only be located where a community volunteers to serve as host.
Many challenges to siting in the Northeast Compact region make a voluntary plan more appropriate, including geology, population and various public and governmental perceptions of LLRW and the perceived risks involved with its generation and management. Voluntary siting has begun in both states. The CHWMS and the NJ Siting Board have made progress in the implementation of these plans. In addition, factors such as the challenges to siting a facility for LLRW disposal have lead the CHWMS to explore the concept of assured storage as an alternative to traditional disposal.
THE CONNECTICUT SITING EXPERIENCE: LESSONS LEARNED
The Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service is a non-regulatory, quasi-public agency established by state law in 1983. Originally responsible for planning and promoting the appropriate management of hazardous waste, it was given the additional duty of assisting the state in LLRW management in 1987. Its responsibilities include selection of the site for the facility, the disposal technology, and the facility developer.
In November, 1990, the CHWMS approved a Site Selection Plan, which set forth 94 criteria based upon statutory and regulatory requirements for LLRW disposal facility site screening and selection. The Plan provided for statewide screening, selection of candidate sites, on-site characterization and eventual selection of a preferred site for further characterization. This site, if suitable, would be licensed for construction of an LLRW disposal facility.
This first siting process has been characterized by Domenic Forcella, former CHWMS Chairman, and Ronald Gingerich, LLRW Program Director, as a "classic example" of a traditional "decide-announce-defend" siting approach (1). All of the elements of a traditional process were present: a decision on candidate sites; an announcement of those sites; and a defense of that decision.
Statewide data covering the criteria in the Site Selection Plan were applied to screen the state for specific characteristics. Portions of the state that did not meet the criteria were eliminated from consideration. The result of this scientific process was the identification of eight potential candidate sites which were presented to the CHWMS Board at a public workshop. The Board used a geographically neutral approach, later called a "blind process", in its decision-making; the location of the potential sites was not disclosed to the Board. The results of intermediate steps in the siting process were also not made public or disclosed to the Board. This method of decision-making was chosen to enable the Board to be involved in site selection in a way that eliminated possible political factors.
The three candidate sites selected from the eight potential sites were in the adjoining communities of South Windsor, East Windsor and Ellington; all three are in the north central portion of the state, approximately 15 miles from Hartford, the state capital. The three sites were each within approximately two miles of each other. A preferred site was to be designated following on-site testing of the three candidate sites; this selection never occurred.
After the announcement of the candidate sites, the response was immediate and intense, particularly in the area of the state in which all three sites were located. The CHWMS had to defend its decision in public meetings attended by thousands of angry local residents, the media, other citizens and often by members of state and national environmental groups. During the defense of this decision, several opposition groups were formed and took the lead role in attempting to stop the process. Local elected officials often spoke at public meetings, usually in support of the opposition of their constituents.
State politicians also became involved in the controversy. Shortly after the announcement of the sites, the state legislature approved a grant of $400,000 to the candidate site towns. These funds came from an account that is funded by the state's LLRW generators. Several months after the candidate site announcement, the governor ordered reports on the sites from several state agencies.
In 1992, the Connecticut General Assembly directed the CHWMS to terminate its site selection process and prepare a new plan. A fair and objective process, based on neutral and scientific evaluation of the state, had failed before it was given the chance to be completed.
In the 1993 Management Plan, Volume II: Volunteer Approach To Siting a LLRW Disposal Facility in Connecticut, the CHWMS proposed a voluntary approach for siting an LLRW disposal facility in the state. The Connecticut General Assembly approved this plan in 1993.
There were many factors involved in the failure of the traditional siting process in Connecticut. Siting any unwanted facility is difficult in a state such as Connecticut, even under the best of circumstances. It has a relatively small land area, about 5,000 square miles, and a moderately large population of approximately 3.2 million. It is the fourth most densely populated state, with 650 people per square mile. Its land area is dotted with many wetlands and bodies of water. The climate is temperate; average annual rainfall is over 45 inches.
Local government and the concept of "home rule" are strong traditions. Connecticut has no unincorporated land and no county government; the state's 169 towns are the primary unit of government and most have powers that include land-use controls. Many towns still use the town meeting form of government.
Two theories noted by the CHWMS' Forcella and Gingerich in their Radwaste Magazine article are especially relevant. Each theory points to public perception as a factor in the failure of the first siting process. First, the CHWMS did not fully take into account the depth of the negative public perception of the siting effort. Second, the fundamental elements of a "decide-announce-defend" approach are directly at odds with what has to be done to address the existing public perception of the risk involved in an LLRW disposal facility.
A third factor was also evident in the Connecticut experience: determined opposition can almost always stop a project. Commentators speak of "the myth of preemption", the false assumption by government and project developers that preemptive legal authority carries the political power to override local opposition (2). This myth, in conjunction with the belief that a scientific and neutral process would eventually override most opposition, contributed to the downfall of the traditional siting process in Connecticut.
PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND LLRW FACILITY SITING
The lessons learned from the Connecticut experience with the traditional siting method demonstrate a great deal about the public's perception of the risk of an LLRW disposal facility and LLRW in general, as well as the exacerbation of the perception of those risks when a decision to site a waste facility is imposed on a community. The Connecticut experience seems to demonstrate that this latter factor is probably the most important element and one that may be eliminated when a decision to accept a facility is voluntarily entered into by a host community.
In Connecticut, it seemed that the public did not make a distinction between LLRW and anything that involves radiation or is nuclear in nature. It did not matter if the issue was nuclear energy or medical technology, federal weapons facilities or medical laboratories; the outcome was the same. Although medical waste was, at times, referred to as "good waste" by some, it was more often the case that all LLRW was called nuclear waste, or "bad waste". References to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were not uncommon in public meetings. The common everyday uses of LLRW were rarely, if ever, discussed. The fact that generators of LLRW include companies other than the utilities was noted infrequently or not at all. Even though the process was based on scientific application of the siting criteria, all that seemed to matter to the public was that this waste was dangerous, the state and their communities were not suitable for siting such a facility, the waste was not their problem, and this unwelcome situation was being forced on them without thought or good judgment on the part of the mistrusted state officials.
Numerous studies have been conducted as to the public's views on repository siting and the risks associated with nuclear waste. Generally, the unknown nature of the risks associated with nuclear waste and the perceived lack of control over the facility have been high on the public's scale rating fears associated with this issue (3). Some commentators suggest that a thorough discussion of LLRW and related issues be part of any siting process. This seems to be sound advice and such public dialogue is an important aspect of a voluntary siting plan. However, there is also evidence that the actual public health and environmental risks posed by new and potentially hazardous facilities pale in comparison with the public's perceptions of them (4). It would therefore seem that although a discussion of real risk would be beneficial, it is often not relevant to many members of the public; the issue is the perception of risk.
Some commentators believe the concept of public trust and confidence is the real issue in waste siting (5). As was demonstrated in Connecticut, this concept is an important factor in the issue of the public's perception of risk. Rather than replacing risk perception, however, the Connecticut experience seems to demonstrate that the public's mistrust and lack of confidence complement its perception of the risks involved with LLRW and facility siting. If the public believes a facility to be a risk, they will neither trust nor have confidence in public officials. If the public does not trust or have confidence in public officials, they will perceive the facility to be a risk.
The belief as to whether something is a risk is, of course, increased when a risk is imposed on the public. (When we impose a risk on ourselves, we often consider any possible risk to us as acceptable. Consider the examples of skydivers, rock climbers, cigarette smokers.) When any activity associated with risk--such as the hosting of a disposal facility--is imposed on a community by the government, in whom the public has neither trust nor confidence, the result is a high perception of risk.
Placed upon all this, and amply illustrated by the Connecticut experience, is the proliferation of negative and often incorrect information that quickly circulates throughout the process. Opponents of facility siting quickly compile a plethora of information, including technical newsletters and papers put forward by anti-nuclear groups and environmental organizations. The issue of a "nuke dump" becomes a glamorous and sensational story; any news associated with nuclear waste or energy is tied into the siting issue. Unfortunately, once the public reaches conclusions based on this information, opinions will not often change even if a barrage of information is presented by the siting agency and, perhaps, even by LLRW generators. The public never gets the opportunity to consider this issue with all available information in front of them.
The traditional "decide-announce-defend" siting process does little to address the public's perception of risk, trust and confidence in state officials, and the nature of the information the public receives to decide how they feel about either of these factors. As was seen in the Connecticut example, the public is generally unaware of LLRW or the need for a disposal facility until the time of the site announcement. No one cares about this issue until "the dots are on the map".
Under this circumstance, LLRW and a siting process are unknown quantities until the time when the average citizen is thrust into a situation which many find to be frightening and highly emotional and which causes deep resentment. The risk of the facility is perceived as higher than the risks as presented by the mistrusted state officials. The public hears their fears reinforced by the information they receive from opponents and the press. The siting agency, put in a defensive posture, is seen as being in control of the process and advocating, rather than proposing, a facility. Public negative perceptions are increased and the traditional process reaches a point from which it cannot recover.
A voluntary siting process does not magically whisk away all the problems associated with the siting of an LLRW disposal facility. It can, however, effectively address some of the issues associated with the public's perception of risk and their trust in the state and officials involved in the process. Potential host communities have the opportunity to learn about LLRW and any risks associated with its safe management before they are a "dot on the map". The voluntary process allows for two factors with a significant influence on the way a siting process is received by the public. These are the important issue of choice, of course, but also the equally significant concept of control.
An important factor in the control a potential host community has in the process is the agreement that a community will negotiate with siting and other state officials. This agreement will outline the parameters of the community's participation; all compensation and other benefits that accrue to this community will be part of this agreement. This agreement is an essential element of the voluntary siting process, and one that sets it far apart from the traditional "decide-announce-defend" approach. The negotiated agreement represents an accommodation of local interests, rather that an attempt to overpower them (6). Beyond a financial dimension, the agreement may also include authorization for the local community to inspect a facility, and even demand certain packaging or transportation of the waste (7).
SITING IN THE NORTHEAST COMPACT:
SURE AND STEADY PROGRESS
The Northeast Compact has adopted a dual host state management plan under which Connecticut and New Jersey are each responsible for developing the capacity to provide disposal for an equitable portion of the Compact region's LLRW. Dual host state responsibility meets short and long-term goals of equity by distributing the costs, benefits and obligations of proper LLRW management between the two states.
Connecticut
The Connecticut voluntary siting plan outlines a process that provides for thorough consideration of the LLRW issue and the need for LLRW management by a community prior to any decision to participate in the process. Interested towns may apply for monetary grants to develop public information and education programs presenting a balanced consideration of LLRW management issues.
The siting plan establishes a series of financial and other incentives for single towns, or regional groups of towns, to participate in the process. To participate, a town or towns will indicate an intention to identify a site, negotiate a facility development agreement, and hold a town or region-wide referendum on the site and the agreement. CHWMS will share control over development and operation of a facility with the volunteer town or regional group. The facility operator will be required to enter into a facility development agreement which could provide more guarantees than might otherwise be available. The facility development agreement will also establish procedures for withdrawal of a site or the shut down of a facility. CHWMS will provide compensation for all costs associated with participation.
CHWMS will only consider a site that has been approved by the electorate in a referendum. Only towns or a regional group of towns that want to participate will be considered. A town or towns that participate and hold a referendum will also be exempt from any subsequent statewide site screening approach that might become necessary if the volunteer approach does not result in a licensable site.
Implementation of the voluntary siting plan has included an extensive public information effort designed to inform the public and local officials about the voluntary approach. The CHWMS public involvement efforts have included the development of public information materials, handbooks, flyers, models and a video on LLRW and the siting process. The CHWMS provided funding to the League of Women Voters for a contract with Connecticut Public Television to produce a program on LLRW management. This program was broadcast in May, 1996, and included the airing of a documentary on LLRW and related issues and a panel discussion. The CHWMS also provided funding to the Connecticut Environment Roundtable to manage a Stakeholders' Group Process which provided a series of discussions among individuals and representatives of organizations having a strong interest in the management of low-level radioactive waste in Connecticut.
The governing bodies of several towns have initiated discussions with CHWMS about siting a disposal facility. However, the reopening of the Barnwell, South Carolina facility and the availability of the Envirocare facility in Utah for some types of LLRW have made disposal possible for LLRW generators in Connecticut. This current availability of out-of-state LLRW disposal has reduced the urgency for development of new capacity for LLRW management and has given the CHWMS an opportunity to consider an alternative to development of traditional LLRW disposal.
The CHWMS has begun to explore the concept of an assured storage facility as an alternative to a disposal facility. Assured storage differs from disposal in that the waste management facility is not sealed off after waste acceptance has ended. The interior of the facility continues to be inspected and monitored until future generations decide on an appropriate action, for instance: to move the waste to another site; to seal off the facility as in the case of a disposal facility; or to implement some new solution resulting from technological advances not available when the facility was first opened. At the request of its Advisory Committee, the CHWMS is exploring the opinion of the NRC regarding this concept, as well as the economic, sociopolitical, technical and legal implications of assured storage.
New Jersey
The New Jersey Siting Board has responsibility for LLRW management in New Jersey. The Board's responsibilities include: development of the siting criteria, the waste disposal plan and the methodology to apply the siting criteria; site selection; oversight of construction, operation, and closure of the facility; and implementation of a public participation and information program.
New Jersey's voluntary siting process officially began in February, 1995, when the Siting Board adopted New Jersey's Voluntary Plan for Siting a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. This adoption came after an extensive examination of the voluntary siting concept and a lengthy period for public comment that began with the distribution of a proposed voluntary siting plan in June, 1994.
The voluntary siting process has three broad phases. In the first two phases, Exchange of Information and Community Exploration & Consideration, the Siting Board will provide resources for interested communities considering whether to host a facility. In the third phase, Decision Making, the Siting Board and a volunteer community will write an agreement specifying the protective measures, financial compensation and other benefits to be provided to the host community. The objective of New Jersey's voluntary siting process is to site an LLRW disposal facility that protects public health, safety and the environment, and is accepted and agreed to by the community in which it is located.
To accomplish this, the Siting Board and the LLRW Advisory Committee are working to promote dialogue among citizens and help communities explore the possibility of volunteering to site an LLRW disposal facility. Under the voluntary siting process, the Siting Board encourages citizens to seek and evaluate information and to discuss openly all of the issues involved. These issues include the need for such a facility, its potential impact on a community, community participation in the decision-making process, and the benefits to a community for hosting such a facility.
Several municipalities have publicly expressed an interest in the voluntary siting process since the voluntary plan was implemented. Individuals, organizations and all of New Jersey's municipalities have received copies of the siting plan. Members of the Siting Board and staff have met with elected officials and other interested parties to explore the communities' interest. Valuable information has been exchanged in public meetings regarding LLRW and the need for its management in the state.
Some volunteers have been eliminated from further consideration, either because the Siting Board determined they did not have a suitable site or because the local governing body chose to end the siting process. The Siting Board continues to proceed with discussions with other potential volunteer communities.
Public information materials, including a question-and-answer booklet addressing key introductory questions and booklets on waste transportation and the possible use of contaminated land as a site, have been prepared and distributed. Information has been widely distributed concerning LLRW, radioactivity, LLRW minimization efforts, and the safety and economics of LLRW disposal. Over 200 New Jersey doctors, scientists and educators have signed a "statement of support" for the disposal facility. This statement has been published in newspapers and other publications throughout the state. The Board completed a video on LLRW and the siting process, and its members and staff have participated in several radio and cable television programs that featured discussions on issues related to siting the state's LLRW disposal facility. The Board has supported the efforts of the New Jersey League of Women Voters to work together with generators and environmental groups. The Board has funded several League-sponsored workshops for elected officials on issues associated with LLRW management.
Important documents have been developed and distributed by the Board. In June, 1995, the Board adopted the Voluntary Site Evaluation Methodology, which describes how the Board will evaluate potential sites. In April, 1996, the Board approved the Update to New Jersey's Waste Disposal Plan, which includes technical information about LLRW characteristics, management, projections, transportation, and disposal. The Board has begun to prepare its Request For Proposal for a facility operator. As a preliminary step, the Board recently prepared and distributed a Request for Information to entities that might be interested in bidding to be the operator.
The Siting Board has also met with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and with representatives of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to begin planning for the license and permit applications that eventually will be submitted for the state's disposal facility.
The Board has also started to focus on the need to develop a cost estimate for constructing and operating a disposal facility in New Jersey. To assist it in its efforts, the Board has engaged the services of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), part of the U.S. Department of Energy's National LLW Management Program. A financial study, to be completed by INEL in 1997, will be analyzed and evaluated.
As in Connecticut, currently available access to LLRW disposal for New Jersey LLRW generators has made the immediate need for development of an LLRW disposal facility in New Jersey less critical. However, the Siting Board and New Jersey's generators realize that it remains necessary to develop disposal capacity for New Jersey LLRW. Access to the Barnwell facility rests on the winds of political fate and access to the Envirocare facility is limited to high volume, low activity wastes. The Siting Board continues its efforts to find New Jersey communities willing to consider hosting a disposal facility. At the same time, the Siting Board remains committed to working with the Northeast Commission and Connecticut, its Compact partner, to pursue any out-of-state opportunities for management of LLRW pursuant to federal and state law and its duty to future generations of New Jersey citizens.
CONCLUSION
Connecticut and New Jersey determined that a voluntary process should be pursued in their state. These processes share similar characteristics. Both include planned incentives for a community's participation. A community has the choice as to if it will participate and control over when and if it will continue in the process and consider the decision to host a facility. The incentives for participation will be formalized in a negotiated community agreement, including control over the operation of the disposal facility.
In both member states, groups with an interest in the process were consulted in the drafting of the voluntary plans. Meetings with the public, government groups and others are part of the implementation of the plans. Generator participation in educational efforts will help facilitate an understanding of LLRW and the need for safe, effective LLRW management.
The goals of the voluntary siting processes are a more realistic public perception of the risks associated with LLRW disposal and trust and confidence in siting and state officials and in the community's decision to host a facility. The descriptions of these processes, detailed in each state's siting plan, illustrate the ways in which these goals will be reached and will lead to successful LLRW management in the Northeast Compact region (8).
REFERENCES
* The opinions and conclusions stated in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or decisions of the Northeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission or its member states.