NUCLEAR WASTE GOES ON THE ROAD - RISK PERCEPTIONS AND COMPENSATORY TRADEOFFS IN SINGLE-INDUSTRY COMMUNITIES

Because of the toxicity and half-life of nuclear waste, the permanent disposal of stockpiles in Canada is arguably Canada's largest and most difficult environmental problem. While requiring permanent storage, r adioactive waste is notorious for arousing local protest and not-in-my -back-yard (NIMBY) reactions. Nevertheless, the great majority of rese arch by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has been on natural science and e ngineering aspects of the proposed underground repository. The need to transport the waste from Canada's nuclear facilities to a remote nort hern site on the Canadian Shield provides a unique experimental design opportunity. Four northern communities were surveyed in this study, o n their willingness to (1) host an underground repository for nuclear waste near their community or (2) reside on the transportation route a long which the nuclear waste would travel to the permanent disposal lo cation. Overall, there was considerable opposition to either hosting a nuclear waste disposal site or being along the transportation route t o it. This lack of support was not related to the economic prospects t hat a megaproject like the underground nuclear waste repository will c reate. Beyond the strong opposition that was observed overall, however , we did find that there was slightly greater acceptability with invol vement in the planning process. Similarly, the low acceptability along potential transportation corridors could be partially offset by direc t monetary payments. Individual differences were also measured for tru st in the government regulatory agencies, perceived fairness of the pr ocess, emotional responses, and faith in science and technology to dea l with future problems. Together, these variables accounted for 50% of the variance in acceptability of either hosting the repository or bei ng along the transportation route. Ethical implications of (i) the two -stage siting process Canada is following, and (ii) using monetary com pensation to offset perceived risks, are discussed. Ultimately, burden sharing by distributing the risks with the benefits may be a fairer a nd more effective way of avoiding NIMBY.