&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Duluth MN 55804
EPA-600 3-80-004
January 1980
Research and Development
Citizen Concern with
Power Plant Siting
Wisconsin Power
Plant Impact Study
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal spe-
cies, and materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term influ-
ences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to deter-
mine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical basis
for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms in the
aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/3-80-004
January 1980
CITIZEN CONCERN WITH POWER PLANT SITING
Wisconsin Power Plant Impact Study
by
Elin Quigley
Jill Randall
Bruce H. Murray
Alice B. D'Alessio
Institute for Environmental Studies
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Grant No. R803971
Project Officer
Gary E. Glass
Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth
Duluth, Minnesota
This study was conducted in cooperation with
Wisconsin Power and Light Company,
Madison Gas and Electric Company,
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation,
Wisconsin Public Service Commission,
and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55804
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Research
Laboratory-Duluth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names on commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created because of
increasing public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution to
the health and welfare of the American people. Polluted air, water, and land
are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The
complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated attack on the problem.
Research and development, the necessary first steps, involve definition
of the problem, measurements of its impact, and the search for solution. The
EPA, in addition to its own laboratory and field studies, supports environ-
mental research projects at other institutions. These projects are designed
to assess and predict the effects of pollutants on ecosystems.
One such project, which the EPA is supporting through its Environmental
Research Laboratories in Duluth, Minnesota, and Corvallis, Oregon (Dr. Norman
R. Glass) is the study "The Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants on the Environ-
ment". This interdisciplinary study, involving investigators and experiments
from many academic departments at the University of Wisconsin, is being
carried out by the Environmental Monitoring and Data Acquisition Group of the
Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Several utilities and state agencies are cooperating in the study: Wisconsin
Power and Light Company, Madison Gas and Electric Company, Wisconsin Public
Service Corporation, Wisconsin Public Service Commission, and Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
During the next year reports from this study will be published as a
series within the EPA Ecological Research Series. These reports will include
topics related to chemical constituents, chemical transport mechanisms,
biological effects, social and economic effects, and integration and
synthesis.
This report presents in detail the responses of citizens who participated
in four public workshops dealing with the problems of site selection for power
plants. Meeting in small groups the participants formulated and then ranked
the issues related to power-plant siting that most affected them. In addition
to presenting these results, the authors describe the workshop procedure,
discuss differences among the workshops, and analyze the results of a
questionnaire which the participants were asked to complete.
J. David Yount
Deputy Director
Environmental Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Four workshops were held to identify citizen concerns with power-plant
siting. Two-hundred fifteen invited participants attended the workshops in
the spring of 1977 in four Wisconsin locations, including areas with both
existing and proposed power-plant sites. At the workshops, participants were
divided into small groups and asked to identify and rank power-plant-siting
concerns in three categories: biological and physical, economic and social,
and land use. Each group ranked the top 10 concerns from each of the three
categories. In addition, workshop participants filled out a survey which
asked them to rank the suitability of various sites for nuclear and coal-fired
power plants and transmission lines, to express the,ir views on questions that
could not be covered in a workshop format, to provide some personal
information, and to give their views on the workshop. The participants in
these workshops expressed a wide range of concerns, both positive and
negative, in connection with power-plant siting.
A composite list of every concern mentioned by the participants is
included in this report. In addition, concerns were combined and analyzed by
their ranking, both overall and in the final vote. Economic issues (taxes,
consumer costs, and jobs), agricultural land preservation, and water
availability were consistently ranked as the most important concerns.
The survey results indicated a strong negative reaction to siting in
residential areas; some preference for several small plants rather than one
large plant (46/t versus 36$); a favorable attitude to power plants serving
only local electrical needs; a negative attitude toward Wisconsin's new tax
law, which provides less power-plant tax money for local governments; and a
favorable attitude toward the workshops.
This report was prepared with the cooperation of faculty and graduate
students in the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Most of the funding for the research reported here was provided by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but funds were also granted by the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Madison
Gas and Electric Company, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, and Wisconsin
Public Service Commission. This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant
No. R803971 by the Environmental Monitoring and Data Acquisition Group,
Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, under
the partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
report covers the period of January 1977-July 1977, and work was completed as
of December 1978.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgments ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 6
3. Methods and Oyerall Results 8
4. Specific Workshop Results 17
Janesville 17
Eau Claire 22
Stevens Point 26
Sheboygan 31
5. The Survey 36
6. Comments on the Workshops 42
Appendices
A. Comprehensive List of Power-Plant-Siting Concerns . . 44
B. Janesville Workshop . 58
C. Eau Claire Workshop 70
D. Stevens Point Workshop 79
E. Sheboygan Workshop 90
F. The Survey 101
G. Comments on the Workshops 105
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Map of Wisconsin showing workshop locations and counties
represented by participants / 2
2 Category rankings provided by voting on the 30 most
important concerns and all concerns 13
3 Workshop differences in rankings of concern categories
when all concerns were considered . 15
4 Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns
given to economics, agricultural land preservation,
and water by Janesville groups 20
5 Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns
given to economic, agricultural land preservation,
and water by Eau Claire groups 25
6 Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns
given to economic, agricultural land preservation,
and water by Stevens Point groups 29
7 Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns
given to economic, agricultural land preservation,
and water by Sheboygan groups 34
Vl
-------
TABLES
lumber Page
1 Number of Workshop Participants by County and
Occupation or Field of Interest 9
2 Number of Concerns at Each Workshop Listed in Each
of Three General Areas 11
3 Power-Plant-Siting Concerns Ranked According
to 26 Categories 12
4 Highest Ranking Categories of Siting Concerns Based on the
Four Workshop Votes on the 30 Most Important Concerns 14
5 Janesville Workshop: Ranking of Categories of Siting
Concerns Based on the Vote on All Concerns 18
6 Janesville Workshop: Highest Ranking Categories of Siting Concerns
Based on the Vote in the 30 Most Important Concerns 21
7 Eau Claire Workshop: Ranking of Categories of
Siting Concerns Based on the Vote on All Concerns 23
8 Eau Claire Workshop: Highest Ranking Categories of Siting Concerns
Based on the Vote on the 30 Most Important Concerns 24
9 Stevens Point Workshop: Ranking of Categories of Siting
Concerns Based on the Vote on all Concerns 27
10 Stevens Point Workshop: Highest Ranking Categories of Siting
Concerns Based on the Vote on the 30 Most Important Concerns .... 28
11 Sheboygan Workshop: Ranking of Categories of Siting
Concerns Based on the Vote on All Concerns 32
12 Sheboygan Workshop: Highest Ranking Categories of Siting
Concerns Based on the Vote on the 30 Most Important Concerns .... 33
13 Reaction of Participants as Determined by Survey to the
Establishment of a Local Power Plant to Serve (1) Local or
(2) Nonlocal Energy Needs 38
VI1
-------
14 Rating by Workshop Participants of Land-Use Categories
for Use as Power-Plant Sites 38
15 Ranking by Workshop Participants of Land-Use Categories
for Use as Transmission-Line Sites 39
16 Effect of Occupation of Respondents on their Ranking of
the Use of Agricultural Land for Transmission Lines 40
17 Rating of Workshops by Participants 42
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks are extended to all the following workshop participants who
gave up a full day of their time to express their interest in and concern with
power-plant siting:
JANESVILLE
Judith Adler
Sanford Anderson
Robert Arn
Leroy Bauer
Don Beardsley
Ben B. Beebe
Edwin Blaney
Betty Bullock
Morris Bradley
Benita Byrd
Mrs. Stanley Cerny
Clinton Crowl
Frank Dobbs
Nancy Belle Douglas
John M. Ernster
Virginia Fellows
Mrs. Lee Fricke
Edward Fuller
John Gelshenen
Lloyd Coding
Don Goiffon
Al Haukom
Berneva Hebb
EAU CLAIRE
Richard Adler
John Bacharach
Mrs. Paul C. Bauer
Mrs. Harold C. Bauer
Margot Bouchard
Pat Brick
Albert F. Brockelman
Gil Guettner
David Carlson
Alton R. Christopherson
John Higdon
Mrs. Bernie Hilbert
Willis Hoffman
Joan Hyer
Marilyn Jensen
Gus Klatt
Richard Konicek
David Larson
William Linderud
Richelle Lisse
Robert Martin
Jerry Mason
Harmon Milner
Gerald Mryhre
Gary Murphy
Randel J. Oaklief
Sandra Osborn
Kip Oschwald
Helen Ostermiller
Frank Ozier
Richard Patten
Bessie Poppas
Norm Rable
Stanley Cider
Ruth Egerer
Clifford S. Elliott
R.T. Evans
Willard Fantle
Roger Featherstone
Jerry Fotte
Conrad Frogner
Brian Gabriel
Donald Hable
Janice K. Redford
Mrs. Denis E. Rupnow
Kay Schultz
Joy Smage
Nancy Sorce
Bob Spenle
Nancy Stabb
Lynn Stainbrook
Charles W. Staley
Richard Stenstrom
Nadine Stoner
Mrs. Jervid Swannack
Gertrude Sweet
Olive Thomson
David Thompson
Fred Uphoff
Helmer Vasby
Harvey Wedeward
Carl Welty
Charles Wileman
Zealy Williams
Lloyd Yelk
William Hehli
John Horky
Richard Jann
Rodney H. Johnson
Calvin Kraemer
Jerry Kripps
Howard Kruse
Ronald K. Kryzenske
John P. Kuziej
Marvin Lansing
IX
-------
Ruth Lee
Clyde Lehman
Kenneth Mueller
Dean Nelson
Robert Nelson
Rod Nilsestuen
George L. Oneken
Dorothy Owen
STEVENS POINT
William Apfelbeok
Max 0. Andrae
David L. Ankley
Hazel Aton
Monica Bainter
Lucille Baker
Al Berkman
Lee Burress
D.L. Cronkrite
George Dixon
Gertrude Dixon
Don E. Everingham
Fred E. Field
Alton Goerlitz
Myron Golembiewski
Donald Grade
Steve J. Greuel
Cornelia Groshek
Al Grutzik
Carl W. Guelcher
SHEBQYGAN
Lawrence Baer
Elden Born
Francis Bouda
James Derbique
Thomas D. Eisele
Carl E. Erstoeszer
John G. Fax
Alan Gartman
James E. Gillian
George Gruber
Gordon Heffernan
Joe Hutchinson
Mrs. Frank Jacobson
Stanley Jerabek
Doris Jerger
Richard E. Petershack
Robert Petershack
E.J. Polasek
David Raihle
Gordon Sill
Keith Sommerfeld
Douglas D. Sorenson
Ralph Work
Jim Hamilton
Barabra Hug
Vern Iverson
A.J. Karasch
Ken Knapp
William F. Kruger
Jeff Littlejohn
Charles Livingston
Judy Lokken
Ron Meyer
Janet Minter
Helen Molepski
Jackie Mooney
Harry Mortenson
Jerry Mroczkowski
Kenneth G. Pagels
Lester Palmer
Herbert L. Rieckmann
Burleigh Higgle
Ingrid Roach
Robert Kelling
Manning Kilton
Arden Koehler
Edgar F. Koeser
Betty Kuplic
Clarence Kwekkeboom
Mark Leider
Robert Levine
Bruce Loppnow
L.N. Mathieu
Frederick W. Meifert
Theodore J. Mosch
Paul A. Mullins
William C. Nickel
Harold Petrick
Ken Robenolt
Robert Robicheau
Richard Roth
Chelsea Saylor
Emil E. Scheurer
Marlene Schirz
Mrs. Art Siegler
David E. Smith
John D. Smith
Christy Smith-Aanes
Phyllis Sultze
Gerald Teletzke
W.W. Tolley
Cindy Voigt
John Wandry
Walter G. Wifeld
Lewis C. Wood
Paul Wright
Peter Reiohelsdorfer
William Roehl
Roland Schomberg
Mrs. Stanley Schreiber
Katie Schuette
Paul Schultz
Joy Shaw
Dave Sprehn
Richard W. Suscha
Charlotte A. Testwuide
Kenneth Turba
Carol Wieland
George Wennerlyn
-------
GROUP LEADERS
Charles Andrews
Steven Berkowitz
Robert Friedman
Sarah Jenkins
Bruce Murray
Elin Quigley
Jill Randall
Jerry Shelton
Robert Terrell
Anton tenWolde
David Younkman
Janesville, Eau Claire, Stevens Point
Sheboygan
Janesville, Eau Claire, Stevens Point
Sheboygan
Sheboygan
Janesville, Eau Claire, Stevens Point, Sheboygan
Janesville, Eau Claire, Stevens Point, Sheboygan
Janesville
Janesville, Eau Claire, Stevens Point
Janesville
Eau Claire, Stevens Point
The workshop organizers would also like to thank the many persons,
organizations, and agencies who provided us with names of persons who would
likely be interested in participating in the workshops. We mention
particularly officials in University of Wisconsin-Extension, regional and
local planning commissions, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Wisconsin Public Service Commission, and many other organizations, including
chambers of commerce, Farm Bureau, League of Women Voters, and environmental
groups. Many thanks to also to Dorothy Ingle, Susan Coyne, and Jennifer Lodde
for typing this report.
xi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
WORKSHOP RATIONALE
In the spring of 1977 four workshops on power-plant siting were organized
by researchers from the University of Wisconsin. The purpose of these
workshops, held in Janesville, Eau Claire, Stevens Point, and Sheboygan,
Wisconsin, was to enable residents of the to express their views on the
location and possible impact of power plants. Two hundred and fifteen invited
participants from 17 Wisconsin counties (Figure 1) spent an entire day at one
of the four workshops expressing their concerns, attitudes, and values with
regard to power-plant siting. The workshops were part of a larger study
designed to assess the environmental impact of power plants. That study has
sought to measure the impact of the Columbia Generating Station in Portage,
Wisconsin, on the water, wildlife, plants, air, and scenic environment of the
area.
Environmental monitoring studies, especially those concentrating on one
newly constructed power plant, cannot document all the effects of power-plant
construction and operation. They rarely, for example, focus on nonscientific
public concerns such as the plant's impact on employment or the effects of
flashing control-tower lights and increased traffic in the area. The
power-plant siting workshops were designed to identify these public concerns
and incorporate them into the overall environmental impact assessment. This
report describes the results of the four workshops.
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES
The workshops were designed to provide an organized structure for
identifying the major economic and environmental attitudes held by persons
living near present and future generating facility sites. Both positive and
negative aspects of power-plant siting were considered. All possible types of
power plants were included in the discussion for the following reasons:
1) Many of the requirements and impacts of large electric generating
stations of any type, whether coal, nuclear, or gas, are similar.
2) Even where the impacts of various types of power plants are
different, a participant's preference for one type of power plant
over another can be distinguished. For example, if radiation or
nuclear waste disposal is mentioned more often than S0?, smoke, and
-1-
-------
Figure 1. Map of Wisconsin showing workshop locations and counties
represented by participants.
-2-
-------
particulate pollution, concern is probably greater about a nuclear
power plant than about a coal-fired plant.
3) A third reason for not distinguishing the type of power plant was
that a site for a power plant may be chosen before the type. For
example, although a nuclear plant was first proposed at the
Koshkonong site, a coal-fired plant is now reportedly being
considered.
The workshops were further designed to represent all interest groups.
Participants were recommended by county extension agents, officials from the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the Wisconsin Public
Service Commission (WPSC), local officials, members of regional planning
commissions, chambers of commerce, and state and local interest groups such as
the Farm Bureau, environmental organizations, the League of Women Voters, and
many others.
Workshop participants included farmers, union members, elected local and
county officials (including several mayors and county board chairmen), county
and state employees, and representatives of commercial, industrial,
recreational, and environmental interests, as well as members of the League of
Women Voters and concerned citizens.
WORKSHOP FORMAT
Since the goal of the workshops was to identify public concerns rather
than to provide a forum for discussion, a rather rigid format was followed.
After registration and a brief introduction, participants were divided into
groups of 8-10 persons, representing a variety of interests. Each group was
led by a university person familiar with the question of the environmental
impact of power plants. The group leaders coordinated and recorded the
information developed by the groups, but did not join in the process of
listing or ranking concerns. A method of group participation known as the
"nominal group technique" was used. Developed by Professor Andre Delbecq of
the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Business, the technique
minimizes discussion and moves quickly to identify the important concerns.
The round-robin sequence of the Delbecq technique gave each participant an
equal input into the results.
Concerns of the participants were divided into three general areas: (1)
Biological and physical, (2) economic and social, and (3) land use.
Participants were given 10 min to work independently on lists of their 10 most
important concerns in each area. The group leader then asked each participant
to contribute to the group's collective list. The round-robin continued until
all concerns were listed. After discussion of the collective lists, each
participant was asked to choose the 10 most important concerns from the list.
A vote was taken on these concerns with 10 points going to the participant's
most important concern, 9 points to the second most important concern, and so
on down to 1 point for the 10th most important concern.
These concerns were then combined by the researchers into larger
categories within each of the three areas. These categories were as follows:
-3-
-------
Economic
Political/planning
Health and radiation
Growth
Water
Agricultural land
preservation
Wastes
Plant location
Air/climate
Environmental pollution
Safety/security
Social/cultural
Scenic/historic
Physical site characteristics
Natural environment
Transmission lines
Transportation
Plant operation
Need for plant
Recreation
Conservation
Land use changes
Research
Future generations
Noise
Insurance
The final vote was a vote on the 10 most important concerns in each of the
three areas, resulting in a list of the 30 most important concerns. These
concerns were again placed by the researchers in the above categories; in many
cases various concerns were combined into a single category. The workshop
format was designed to provide information that cannot be obtained by a survey
or public hearings, since in small groups each individual could contribute to
the listing and voting. The small groups also provided a means for some
exchange of ideas and viewpoints, which the final list reflects.
In addition to the workshop activity, a questionnaire was distributed to
participants to identify views not covered in the small groups. Participants
were asked (1) to rate various kinds of sites (for example, industrial,
commercial, agricultural, or wetland areas) for a nuclear power plant, a
coal-fired power plant, and transmission lines; (2) to express their
willingness to accept a power plant to meet increased electrical demand
elsewhere in the state; (3) to provide information on their occupation, age,
and whether or not they live near a power plant; and (4) to express their
views on the workshop.
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT
Section 2 is a brief summary of the principal conclusions contained in
this report.
Section 3 presents the overall results from all four workshops. Overall
summary tables are presented, together with a comparison of the results from
the four workshops. Appendix A is a list of all the concerns identified by
the 215 participants.
Section M reports on the four individual workshops and briefly examines
the variations among subgroups for some of the major concerns.
Appendices B, C, D, and E contain the lists of participants by groups
together with a complete listing by rank of each group's concerns, arranged in
the following categories: Biological and physical, economic and social, and
land use. The final voting categories are also presented.
-4-
-------
The results of the supplementary survey are found in Section 5. The
survey, which was completed by 190 participants, is presented in Appendix F.
Written comments on the workshops, obtained from participants who
completed the survey, are summarized in Section 6 and are presented in full in
Appendix G.
-5-
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The general categories of issues that were mentioned the most frequently
and ranked the highest were economics (including taxes, growth, jobs,
community costs, and consumer costs), agricultural land preservation, and
water availability. These categories may be thought of as concerns over
money, jobs, food, and water.
Environmental issues, including preservation of natural areas, water
pollution, scenic values, and noise, were often mentioned, but rarely were the
highest ratings.
Some issues, such as conservation, establishing the need for the plant,
and concern for future generations, were ranked as very important whenever
they were mentioned in a group; however, some groups considered these concerns
as prerequisites for power-plant siting and therefore did not include them.
Other issues, such as social and cultural changes (for example, population
changes and changes in lifestyle), were frequently mentioned, but never were
ranked very highly.
Despite some variations, the differences in rankings given by the
different workshops were not statistically significant.
When asked to rate various land-use categories for power-plant sites,
participants placed the categories in this order: Great Lakes shores, heavy
industrial areas, river banks, forests, light commercial areas, agricultural
land, shores of smaller lakes, wetlands, parks, and residential areas.
For transmission lines suitability, land-use categories were ranked as
follows: Industrial, agricultural, forests, wetlands, shorelines, light
commercial, parks, and residential.
Participants preferred several small plants to one large plant (46$ to
36$).
A power plant serving local electrical needs was strongly favored over one
serving distant customers.
Most participants did not favor Wisconsin's new tax law, which reduces
utility tax payments to local townships in which power plants are located.
-6-
-------
Comments on the workshops were on the whole positive, although many
specific problems were also elicited.
In general, the results indicate the range of citizen concerns over power-
plant siting. More than 2,000 specific concerns were generated, some unusual
and some based on apparent misinformation. Regardless of their outlook,
however, the participants clearly desired more information on many aspects of
power-plant siting. In addition, many participants noted that one of the
greatest benefits of the workshops was in stimulating communication among
people with different views and backgrounds.
-7-
-------
SECTION 3
METHODS AND OVERALL RESULTS
This section presents the complete lists and rankings of concerns from the
workshops and compares overall results for each workshop.
The 215 participants were chosen to represent a cross section of
occupations and interests. Table 1 provides only a general indication of this
cross section, however, since most of the participants could have been placed
in more than one category. For example, a farmer may also be a county board
member, or a business woman may head a recreation association.
METHODS
Participants at each workshop were divided into small groups. The
Janesville workshop had seven groups, Eau Claire and Stevens Point had six
groups each, and Sheboygan had five groups—a total of 24 groups. At the end
of the workshop each group had long lists of concerns and rankings for those
concerns in each of three major categories: Biological and physical, economic
and social, and land use. In addition, each group took a final vote to
determine the 10 most important concerns in each of the three categories, the
30 most important concerns.
Various techniques were used to analyze the output of the 24 workshop
groups. All the concerns were compiled into a master list, analyzed, and
placed in categories. A second method also placed the concerns in categories,
but only examined the 30 most important. The lists and rankings that are the
source of all the tabulations are included in Appendices A through D.
The major reason for arranging concerns in categories was that over 2,000
concerns for power-plant siting were listed. Obviously, almost all of the
concerns came up many times in many groups and were repeated within groups.
Even when concerns were separated into three major categories, there was a
good deal of overlap. For example, agricultural land preservation could be
listed by the same group as a biological and physical concern, an economic and
social concern, and a land-use concern. In other cases, items such as taxes,
community costs, and consumer costs always came up in the economic and social
category.
Even within a single group there were often nearly identical concerns in
the same category. An example can be seen in the following list from one
group, where radiation is mentioned several times:
-8-
-------
TABLE 1. NUMBER OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS BY COUNTY
AND OCCUPATION OR FIELD OF INTEREST
County
Occupation or
field of interest Janesville Eau Claire Stevens Point
Interested citizens/
community organizations 15 9 8
Government and elected
officials 14 7 16
Farming 10 8 6
Business/industrial 12 7 15
Environmental and
consumer groups 76 7
Recreation and tourism 3 1
Other 795
Total 68 46 58
Sheboygan
5
15
5
6
5
2
5
43
Rank Points
3 45 Air pollution- invisible: radiation.
chemicals, odor
9 16 Danger of any degree of radioactivity from
any source associated with power plants
14 12 Comparison of radioactivity - coal versus nuclear
14 12 Nuclear radiation - effect on employees -
cumulative and short term
16 11 Nuclear radiation - cumulative and acute
on all human and animal lives
24 5 Danger to irrigation water from nuclear radiation
-9-
-------
27 2 Danger from natural radiation
Group leaders did not encourage combining items before the voting because
combining items was believed to favor the most general concerns. The purpose
was to focus on the most specific concerns possible.
For analysis, however, items were combined into categories that did not
imply negative or positive reactions to power plants, but merely indicated
associated concerns. For example, we combined in one grouping all listings
that dealt with the subject "jobs." Some participants believed that the
creation of jobs was one reason for building a power plant; others feared that
all the jobs would go to outsiders with no local job benefits; still others
simply wanted to know what impact a power plant would have on the local
employment situation.
Obviously difficulties arise when concerns are combined. The more general
the grouping, the more items will be assigned to it, and the more votes it
will receive. Being very specific, however, generates lists too lengthy for
analysis. At least 95? of the concerns listed fit quite readily into one of
the combined categories. The combined categories give an indication of the
importance of that category of concern (i.e., how many points it received).
Rankings based on points were done two different ways. Each person had a
total of 55 points (10, 9, 8 ...1) on each vote; therefore, points received
could simply be added to come up with a total vote. However, for comparisons
among workshops, the votes for each category were normalized into percentages
of the total workshop votes. The frequency with which a particular concern
was mentioned was also included in the analysis.
A further analysis of category groupings was made by dividing the total
number of points each concern received by the number of times it was listed by
participants. The resulting figure, called the importance value, provides a
means of determining which concerns came up only a few times, but were rated
very highly when they did. The importance value also indicates which items
were mentioned many times, but rarely received many votes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comprehensive List of Concerns
A composite list of all the concerns that came up in every group in the
workshops appears in Appendix A. The concerns are placed in general
categories for the purpose of analysis. Priorities regarding positive,
negative, and neutral effects of power-plant siting occur in each category.
The number of concerns that were voted on, categorized, and analyzed in each
workshop is shown in Table 2.
When the total number of concerns per workshop is divided by the number of
participants, the four workshops average 9-11 concerns per person; Eau Claire
participants contributed the most concerns per person. Many of the concerns
are duplicates, however, within categories, within workshops, and in the
various small groups.
-10-
-------
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF CONCERNS AT EACH WORKSHOP
LISTED IN EACH OF THREE GENERAL AREAS
Areas of concern
Number of
Workshop groups
Janesville 7
Eau Claire 6
Stevens Point 6
Sheboygan 5
Total
Biological
and
physical
205
180
194
152
731
Economic
and
social Land-use
233 173
180 131*
208 151
169 137
790 595
Total
611
494
553
458
2,116
More economic and social concerns were listed in every workshop than
either biological and physical or land-use concerns (Table 2). Unfortunately,
the order in which concerns were listed did not vary from workshop to
workshop; thus, it is impossible to say whether participants were more aware
of economic and social concerns or whether there were other reasons for the
long lists.
The 2,116 concerns were placed in 26 categories in ranked order (Table 3).
Economics, water, and plant location were the top three categories when all
2,116 concerns were voted on.
The Final Vote; The 30. Most Important Concerns
The concerns and the points they received in the vote on the 30 most
important concerns were categorized and analyzed similarly to the concerns and
points in the vote on all listed concerns (Table 4). Importance values were
included to offset the distortions caused by a concern getting a high rating
only because it was mentioned many times or a low rating because it was
mentioned few times. These values were calculated by dividing the number of
points a concern category received by the number of times concerns in that
category were listed. Categories such as agricultural land preservation,
conservation, air climate, need for the plant, and health/radiation received
high importance values. (Concern for future generations was not mentioned in
enough groups to be included in the analysis, although it received a
comparatively high number of points when it was listed.)
-11-
-------
TABLE 3- POWER-PLANT-SITING CONCERNS RANKED ACCORDING
TO 26 CATEGORIES
Concern category
Points
Percentage of
total points
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13-
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23-
24.
25.
26.
Economic
Water
Plant location
Political/planning
Wastes
Agricultural land preservation
Health and radiation
Air/climate
Natural environment
Plant operation
Growth
Social/cultural
Transmission lines
Physical site characteristics
Scenic/historic
Safety/ security
Conservation
Environmental pollution
Transportation
Recreation
Need for plant
Land -use change
Noise
Insurance
Research
Future generations
4,122
2,449
1,985
1,953
1,794
1,755
1,733
1,552
1,524
1,268
1,191
1,187
1,090
1,074
989
913
838
718
626
652
569
476
174
172
170
140
13-2
7.8
6.3
6.2
5.7
5.6
5.5
4.9
4.9
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.4
3.2
2.9
2.7
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.5
0.5
0.5
0,5
0.4
In the final vote economic concerns received the most points.
Agricultural land preservation, a rather specific concern, moved up to second
place, followed by water, growth, and political/planning concerns.
The Ma.lor Concerns
The ratings provided by voting all concerns and by voting on the 30 most
important concerns are shown in Figure 2. The correlation between the two
methods of analysis is fairly good. In the final vote (on the 30 most
important concerns), agricultural, growth, conservation, and safety concerns
became more significant.
-12-
-------
15-
LU
.1-
O 10-
LL
O
30 Most Important Concerns
All Concerns
*•**
• _ •
• 9 •
\
\ \ ^
<5> ^.
\
V ^ "2. %«-(3?^<-^'\'
^ ^x •& ^ ^L O ">
\
\
CONCERN CATEGORIES
Figure 2. Category rankings provided by voting on the 30 most important concerns
and all concerns.
-------
TABLE 4. HIGHEST RANKING CATEGORIES OF SITING CONCERNS BASED
ON THE FOUR WORKSHOP VOTES ON THE 30 MOST IMPORTANT CONCERNS
Concern Percentage of
category Points total points
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Economic
Agricultural land preservation
Water
Growth
Political/ planning
Wastes
Health & radiation
Conservation
Plant location
Safety/ security
Air /climate
Natural environment
Social/ cultural
Physical site characteristics
Need for plant
Transmission lines
Environmental degradation
Plant operation
Future generations
Scenic/historic
944
832
816
688
679
675
660
570
538
455
406
374
313
296
294
293
271
252
149
76
9
8
8
7
7
7
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
0
.8
.7
.5
.2
.1
.0
.9
.9 .
.6
.7
.2
.9
.3
.1
.1
.1
.8
.6
.6
.8
Times Importance
mentioned value (rank)
79
40
51
54
45
47
38
29
42
27
22
35
49
28
16
31
29
19
8
15
11
20
16
12
15
14
17
19
12
16
18
10
6
10
18
9
9
13
18
5
.95
.8
.0
.74
.09
.36
.37
.66
.81
.85
-45
.69
.93
.60
.38
.45
.55
.26
.63
.07
(14)
(1)
(8)
(13)
(9)
(10)
(6)
(2)
(12)
(7)
(4)
(15)
(19)
(16)
(5)
(18)
(17)
(11)
(3)
(20)
Based on an analysis of all listed concerns and the vote on the 30 most
important concerns, the major concerns (economics, agricultural land
preservation, water, and growth) may be translated into money, food, water,
and jobs.
Workshop Differences
The percentage of votes the various concern categories received when all
the concerns were considered differed with each workshop (Figure 3). Some
categories were given similar percentage ratings in the four workshops, and
some were inconsistent in rank. On several issues the rating given at
Janesville differed noticeably from the ratings of the other three workshops.
Comparisons among workshops revealed no consistent trends in voting
response, and statistical tests failed to determine regional differences.
-14-
-------
is-
le-
O
u_
O
s'
Cn
I
I
Janesville
Eau Claire
Stevens Point
Sheboygan
CONCERN CATEGORIES
Figure 3. Workshop differences in rankings of concern categories when all
concerns were considered.
-------
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the overall results of the
four workshops:
1) The long list of power-plant-siting concerns identified many items on
which participants wanted more information, regardless of whether they had
positive, negative, or neutral feelings about power-plant siting.
2) The major finding of the workshops was that participants appeared to be
most concerned about the effects of power-plant location on the lives of human
beings. Economics (taxes, jobs, costs), food (agricultural land
preservation), and water (supply and availability) were ranked highest on
nearly every list. Although environmental topics, including preservation of
natural areas, water pollution, scenic values, and noise, were often mentioned
and occasionally given high ratings, they rarely received ratings as high as
the "human" concerns.
3) No regional differences were discernible among the four workshops.
-16-
-------
SECTION 4
SPECIFIC WORKSHOP RESULTS
JANESVILLE
The Janesville workshop on 21 April 1977 was the first and largest of the
four power-plant-siting workshops. The 68 persons attending (29% of the
number originally invited) represented a variety of backgrounds and interests.
Participants came from 4 counties—Rock, Dane, Jefferson, and Walworth—and at
least 19 towns. Most of the participants (61.8$) came from the areas of
Janesville (20.5?), Beloit (16.2$), Fort Atkinson (16.2$), and Jefferson
(8.8$).
The area from which workshop participants were drawn includes two existing
power-generating stations: Rock River, a 279.2-MW gas, oil, and coal facility
south of Janesville; and Blackhawk, a 50-MW oil, gas, and hydroelectric
facility at Beloit. In addition, a large power plant is proposed for Lake
Koshkonong, near the intersection of Dane, Jefferson, and Rock Counties. The
original proposal for a nuclear facility was the center of much local
controversy and was recently withdrawn, but the site is still under
consideration for a coal-fired plant.
The Janesville workshop consisted of seven small groups, ranging in size
from 8 to 12 participants. They listed a total of 614 concerns during the
workshop. Complete lists of participants and concerns can be found in
Appendix B.
Overall Concerns
The number of points allocated to each category of concern, the percentage
of the total number of points, the times the concern category was mentioned,
and the importance value of each category are shown in Table 5. The
categories are listed in the order of the number of points they received.
There is little relationship between the importance value of each category and
the number of points it received. (The importance value equals the number of
points divided by the number of times the item was mentioned.) For example,
water concerns received the most points, but this category is sixth in
importance value. Location concerns ranked second in number of points and
12th in importance. This category included concerns such as locating the
plant away from residential areas, near users, or in industrial areas.
Economic concerns ranked third in number of points, but only 14th in
importance value. This ranking resulted because there were many economic
concerns and each received fairly low votes. Agricultural land preservation,
-17-
-------
a relatively well-defined concern, received the highest importance value and
was rated high as well.
TABLE 5. JANESVILLE WORKSHOP: RANKING OF CATEGORIES
OF SITING CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON ALL CONCERNS
Concern Percentage of
category Points total points
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11 .
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23-
24.
25.
26.
Water
Plant location
Economic
Natural environment
Political/planning
Agricultural land preservation
Plant operation
Social/cultural
Air/climate
Waste disposal
Transmission lines
Scenic/historic
Conservation
Physical site characteristics
Safety/ security
Growth
Land-use changes
Waste use
Health and radiation
Recreation
Noise
Need for plant
Transportation
Others
Research
Insurance
1,051
961
954
781
778
611
566
498
466
420
388
384
356
257
246
213
211
189
184
180
51
50
43
38
9
0
10
9
9
7
7
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
.6
.7
.2
.9
.9
.2
.7
.0
.7
.0
.0
.9
.6
.6
.4
.2
.0
.9
.9
.8
.5
.5
.4
.3
.09
Times Importance
mentioned value (rank)
52
63
65
38
34
25
44
40
24
23
28
34
18
20
14
10
14
9
15
22
11
4
7
4
2
0
20
15
14
20
22
24
12
12
19
18
13
11
19
12
17
21
15
21
12
8
4
12
6
9
4
0
.2
.3
-7
.6
.8
.44
.9
.5
.4
.26
.9
.3
.8
.85
.6
-3
.1
.0
.3
.1
.6
.5
.1
.5
.5
(6)
(11)
(13)
(5)
(2)
(1)
(15)
(17)
(8)
(9)
(14)
(20)
(7)
(16)
(10)
(3)
(12)
(4)
(19)
(22)
(24)
(17)
(23)
(21)
(25)
(26)
Based on the list of total concerns, the six areas considered most
important by the Janesville participants were: (1) water concerns (sixth in
importance ranking); (2) location concerns (12th in importance ranking); (3)
economic concerns, including taxes, employment, community costs, and develop-
ment questions (14th in importance ranking); (4) natural environment concerns
(fifth in importance ranking); (5) political/planning concerns, such as the
need for effective citizen participation, comprehensive regional planning,
-18-
-------
and questions about what authority actually makes the siting decision (second
in importance); and (6) agricultural land preservation (first in importance).
The 3Q. Most Important Concerns
When only the 30 most important concerns are analyzed, four of the six
highest categories in the overall vote remain in the top six in order of
points received: agricultural land preservation, water (supply and
pollution), economic concerns, and plant location (Table 6). Political and
planning concerns move to eighth place in the number of points received, and
natural environment concerns move to ninth. Taking their places are
waste-disposal and waste-use concerns, which received the fourth highest
number of points, and aspects of energy growth, which received the sixth most
votes.
These four concern categories—economics, water, agricultural land
preservation, and plant location—are very important, no matter which method
of analysis is used. Other concerns, notably scenic/historic values and
aspects of energy growth, were rated differently in the final vote (the 30
most important) than they were overall. Scenic/historic values, for example,
received the 13th highest number of votes overall, yet in the final vote this
concern was second from last in importance. Energy-growth questions, on the
other hand, were rated more important in the final vote (sixth highest in
number of points) than in the overall vote (17th). These differences may
represent changes of opinion between votes, or they may indicate differences
in the relative importance of concerns from the three discussion areas. For
example, scenic/historic values were most frequently mentioned during the
land-use discussion. These values may have been relatively more important
when measured against other land-use concerns than when ranked with concerns
from biological and physical and economic and social lists.
Interaroup Differences
Although the workshop coordinators attempted to represent all interests in
each small group, the composition of lists varied among groups. Three
concerns that ranked high both overall and in the vote on the 30 most
important concerns were economics, agricultural land preservation, and water
(Figure 4). The average percentage of of points given to water and economic
concerns in the overall voting was not much different from the percentage
allotted in the final vote. Agricultural land preservation, however, received
4$ more of the final voting points than of the overall voting points. The
proportion of votes given to these three concerns at Janesville varied from
the mean by as much as 9.9$.
Conclusions
Based on the total list of concerns, water, plant location, and economics
were considered the three most important concern categories by participants in
the Janesville workshop. In the final vote agricultural land preservation was
given top priority, followed by water and economic concerns. Plant-location
concerns were ranked fifth in the final vote.
-19-
-------
1 23456
JANESVILLE GROUP NUMBER
H Economic
Agricultural Land Preservation
Water
Figure 4. Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns given to
economics, agricultural land preservation, and water by
Janesville groups.
20
-------
TABLE 6. JANESVILLE WORKSHOP: HIGHEST RANKING CATEGORIES OF SITING
CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON THE 30 MOST IMPORTANT CONCERNS
Percentage of
Concern category Points total points Times mentioned
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10-
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Agricultural land preservation
Water
Economic
Wastes
Plant location
Need for plant
Conservation
Political/planning
Natural environment
Plant operation
Transmission lines
Social/cultural
Safety/ security
Determine energy needs
Physical site characteristics
Environmental pollution
Air /climate
Health and radiation
Scenic/historic
Recreation
322
319
288
224
209
202
184
177
157
154
151
138
121
110
104
86
82
73
23
11
10.2
10.1
9.2
7.1
6.6
6-4
6.0
5.6
5-0
4.9
4.8
4.4
3-8
3-5
3-3
2.7
2.6
2.3
0.7
0.3
11
23
21
15
21
13
11
8
12
11
10
14
5
4
12
6
5
5
4
2
Janesville participants ranked water, plant-location, and natural
environmental concerns higher than the participants in the other three
workshops ranked them. Perhaps the greater interest in the water question
resulted from the emphasis placed on water, both its availability and quality,
in the debate on the proposed Koshkonong power plant. Economic concerns,
although ranked .in the top three concern categories in the Janesville
workshop, received a lower percentage of points than in any of the other
workshops.
Janesville participants ranked the health-and-radiation and the growth
categories lower than did the participants in the other workshops. Political
and planning concerns received their highest rankings in the Janesville and
Stevens Point workshops, probably because both workshops had a larger number
of influential environmental and consumer-group members than the other
workshops.
-21-
-------
EAU CLAIRE
The second power-plant-siting workshop was held on 27 April 1977 at the
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Of the 46 invited participants attending
the all-day workshop, 25 were from Eau Claire County, 14 from Dunn, 8 from
Chippewa, 5 from Pepin, and 2 from Clark. The participants represented a wide
variety of interests, and an attempt was made to reflect this variety in the
makeup of the six small groups. At the meeting were farmers, government
officials (from various agencies such as the regional planning commission,
municipal public works department, health department, and county supervisor),
electric utility employees, educators (a school superintendent, a vocational
education teacher, and a university instructor), various professionals (a
lawyer, a writer, an isurance agent, several contractors, an accountant, a
musician), general workers, and members of community organizations (League of
Women Voters and environmental/consumer groups).
At present much of the electric power in the area is supplied by rural
electric cooperatives, municipal companies, and one private utility, Northern
States Power Company. Eau Claire was chosen for a workshop because of a local
controversy over the proposed Tyrone Nuclear Energy Park in Dunn County.
Informational hearings before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission on the
advance plans for the Tyrone project and information programs by the
University of Wisconsin Extension Service on topics such as transmission lines
have been well attended by local people. Northern Thunder is one of the many
groups in the area that are active in the power-plant-siting issue.
Participants and lists of concerns from the Eau Claire workshop appear in
Appendix C.
Overall Concerns
The major concern categories of the participants in the Eau Claire
workshop were ranked according to the number of points they received (Table
7). The points each concern received as a percentage of total votes, the
times the concern was mentioned, and the importance value and importance rank
the concern category received are indicated in Table 7.
The overall concern list for the Eau Claire workshop is very similar to
the concern list for all the workshops combined (Table 3). In both
tabulations economic concerns received the most votes, followed by water
concerns. Health-and-radiation and social/cultural concerns received higher
ratings in the Eau Claire workshop than elsewhere.
On the basis of importance value, agricultural land preservation, which
was mentioned only 16 times, was ranked as the most important concern
category. Seventy-three economic concerns were mentioned, but the
economic-concern category dropped to 14th in importance. Health-and-radiation
concerns were second in importance, followed by environmental pollution
concerns and waste concerns.
-22-
-------
TABLE 7- EAU CLAIRE WORKSHOP: RANKING OF CATEGORIES OF SITING
CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON ALL CONCERNS
Concern category
Percentage of Times Importance
Points total points mentioned value (rank)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7-
8.
9-
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22,
23.
24.
25.
26.
Economic
Water
Health and radiation
Plant location
Agricultural land preservation
Wastes
Air /climate
Political/planning
Social/ cultural
Physical site characteristics
Environmental pollution
Transmission lines
Natural environment
Transportation
Need for plant
Safety/ security
Plant operation
Growth
Scenic/historic
Recreation
Land-use change
Conservation
Research
Insurance
Noise
Future generations
858
516
467
393
354
359
359
305
304
272
252
246
211
197
187
184
175
164
116
91
86
65
70
68
37
14
13
8
7
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
.5
.0
.4
.2
.6
.6
.6
.8
-7
-3
.9
.8
.3
.0
.9
.9
.7
.6
.8
.4
.3
.0
.0
.0
.6
.2
73
35
25
28
16
21
26
27
25
20
14
27
23
27
12
19
18
13
24
12
6
6
6
5
7
2
11
14
18
14
22
17
13
11
12
13
18
9
9
7
15
9
9
12
4
7
14
10
11
13
5
7
.75
-7
.7
.0
.13
.09
.8
.3
.2
.6
.0
.1
.2
.3
.6
.68
.7
.62
.8
.6
.3
.8
.7
.6
.3
.0
(14)
(6)
(2)
(8)
(1)
(4)
(9)
(16)
(13)
(10)
(3)
(21)
(20)
(23)
(5)
(19)
(18)
(12)
(26)
(22)
(7)
(17)
(15)
(10)
(25)
(24)
The 30 Most Important Concerns
The results of the analysis of the final vote for the Eau Claire workshop
are presented in Table 8. Economic concerns did not rank as high in the final
vote as in the overall vote. In the final vote agricultural land preservation
was the most important concern, followed by health and radiation, and plant
location (Table 8). Safety/security concerns were more important in the final
vote, and social/cultural concerns became less important.
-23-
-------
TABLE 8. EAU CLAIRE WORKSHOP: HIGHEST RANKING CATEGORIES OF SITING
CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON THE 30 MOST IMPORTANT CONCERNS
Percentage of
Concern category Points total points Times mentioned
1.
2.
3.
4.
5-
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13-
14.
15.
16.
17-
18.
19-
20.
Agricultural land preservation
Health and radiation
Plant location
Economic
Safety/ security
Wastes
Water
Physical site characteristics
Political/planning
Growth
Conservation
Need for plant
Future generations
Transmission lines
Air /climate
Natural environment
Plant operation
Social/cultural
Research
Scenic/historic
• •""• ' • .-•—.•.— .. I,, .I.,, _ „
189
183
137
135
121
120
120
114
94
92
75
70
64
59
56
55
34
26
25
19
12.3
12.0
7.0
7.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
3-5
3-0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.0
^^^^^^^^^^.M • •• I • ^*^m*^~~^mmmmmiim
9
14
16
20
9
9
12
9
12
10
6
4
4
8
6
9
4
7
2
4
M^^^^M^^^^M^^^hVmlM^BWMBi^-^^^^^— ^^«^
InterarouD Differences
The votes received by the various concern categories in the six workshop
groups were normalized (changed to a percentage of the votes for the group) so
intergroup comparisons could be made. A comparison of the percentage of
points received by three concern categories—economics, agricultural land
preservation, and water—in the final vote in the six Eau Claire workshop
groups reveals that, as in the other workshops, the groups were not consistent
in their concerns (Figure 5). Some of the differences among groups can be
explained by the makeup of the membership. Groups with members of Northern
Thunder were concerned about radiation. In this workshop, groups with farmers
showed more concern for agricultural land and transmission-line siting.
-24-
-------
Figure 5.
12345
EAU CLAIRE GROUP NUMBER
Economic
Agricultural Land Preservation
Water
Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns given to
economic, agricultural land preservation, and water by
Eau Claire groups.
-25-
-------
Conclusions
When the 30 most important concerns were voted on, Eau Claire participants
rated the questions of health and radiation and agricultural land preservation
higher than economic concerns, although economic concerns ranked first when
all concerns were considered. Specific concerns, such as health and radiation
and agricultural land preservation, were not mentioned often, but were
important when they were mentioned. Economic concerns were not as specific.
The economic concerns mentioned in every group included costs of the
electricity for consumers, community costs of having the power plant, and
jobs. Concerns such as noise, scenic values, and relocation of people were
mentioned in all groups, but rarely were rated among the top concerns.
The participants in the Eau Claire workshop, as well as those in the other
workshops, had a long list of concerns, both positive and negative, about
which they wanted more information.
STEVENS POINT
A power-plant-siting workshop was held in Stevens Point on 28 April 1977.
The 58 Stevens Point participants came from a larger geographic area than the
participants in any other workshop. In attendance were 20 residents from Wood
County, 13 from Portage, 11 from Juneau, 10 from Marathon, and 3 from Adams.
In this five-county area, as in the other workshop areas, there is a great
deal of interest in power-plant siting. Presently, power is provided by 15
hydroelectric generating stations along the Wisconsin River, as well as a
135-MW coal-fired power plant in Marathon County. Construction of two power
plants has been proposed in the next 10 years: a nuclear plant for Wood
County and a coal-fired plant for either Adams or Juneau County.
The participants represented a broad spectrum of interests. Two groups in
particular had a special interest in nuclear power-plant-siting questions:
L.A.N.D. (League Against Nuclear Dangers), opponents of nuclear siting, and
S.A.F.E. (Secure Adequate Future Energy), proponents of nuclear siting.
Participants and the concern lists generated by the six Stevens Point groups
are found in Appendix D.
Overall Concerns
In Table 9 the major concern categories of the participants in the Stevens
Point workshop are ranked according to the number of points they received in
the overall vote. Also presented are the percentage of total votes each
category received, the number of times the category was mentioned, and the
importance value and rank for the category.
The Stevens Point concern list is very similar to the overall list for all
the workshops (Table 3). In both tabulations economic concerns were
mentioned the most frequently and received the most votes. Concerns for
agricultural land preservation, wastes (disposal and use), air/climate, and
social/cultural concerns also kept their rank in the two lists. Concerns
bearing on political/planning, health and radiation, growth, and general
-26-
-------
TABLE 9. STEVENS POINT WORKSHOP: RANKING OF CATEGORIES
OF SITING CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON ALL CONCERNS
Concern category
Percentage of Times Importance
Points total points mentioned value (rank)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13-
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Economic
Political/planning
Health and radiation
Growth
Water
Agricultural land preservation
Wastes
Plant location
Air /climate
Environmental pollution
Safety/security
Social/cultural
Scenic/historic
Physical site characteristics
Natural environment
Transmission lines
Transportation
Plant operation
Need for plant
Recreation
Conservation
Land-use changes
Research
Future generations
Noise
Insurance
1401
688
661
572
568
511
449
427
422
365
363
312
266
266
264
254
233
224
217
207
141
133
91
68
55
53
15
7
7
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
.2
.5
.1
.2
.2
.5
.8
.6
.6
.0
•0
.2
.9
= 9
.9
.8
.5
.4
.4
.2
.5
.4
-9
.7
.5
.5
87
41
40
29
33
23
21
29
23
19
23
26
18
19
26
21
17
17
11
18
7
8
7
6
7
8
16
16
16
19
17
22
21
14
18
19
15
12
14
14
10
12
12
13
19
11
20
16
13
11
7
6
.1
.78
.53
.7
.2
.2
.4
.7
.34
.2
.78
.0
• 78
.0
.15
.09
.94
.17
• 72
.5
.14
.6
.0
• 3
.85
.63
(12)
(9)
(11)
(5)
(8)
(1)
(2)
(15)
(7)
(6)
(13)
(21)
(14)
(16)
(24)
(20)
(19)
(17)
(4)
(22)
(3)
(10)
(18)
(23)
(25)
(26)
environmental pollution ranked higher at Stevens Point than at any of the
other workshops. Water and plant-location concerns were lower for the Stevens
Point workshop than for the overall vote of the four workshops.
Items such as taxes, agricultural land preservation, wastes, consumer
costs, and conservation received the highest importance values. Overall,
economic concerns were mentioned often, but did not receive as high an
importance ranking as more specific concerns such as taxes and agricultural
land preservation.
-27-
-------
The 30. Most Important Concerns
The results of the analysis of the final vote (the 30 most important
concerns) for the Stevens Point workshop are presented in Table 10. In the
final vote water concerns became more important, and economic concerns dropped
in rank. In general, the rankings of concerns at Stevens Point correspond
closely to the combined results from all four workshops (Table 3» Table 4).
TABLE 10. STEVENS POINT WORKSHOP: HIGHEST RANKING CATEGORIES OF SITING
CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON THE 30 MOST IMPORTANT CONCERNS
Percentage of
Concern category Points total points Times mentioned
1.
2.
3-
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13-
14.
15.
16.
17-
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Water
Political/planning
Growth
Economic
Air/climate
Health and radiation
Physical site characteristics
Agricultural land preservation
Safety/ security
Wastes
Plant location
Conservation
Social/cultural
Natural environment
Need for plant
Transmission lines
Future generations
Recreation
Scenic/historic
Plant operation
Transportation
Other
282
268
267
259
216
186
184
176
173
163
135
121
100
80
79
44
38
26
24
17
14
4
9-8
9.2
9-2
9.0
7.0
6.4
6.4
6.0
6.0
5.6
5.0
4.0
3.5
3-0
3.0
2.2
1.5
1-3
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.5
12
18
17
18
9
6
14
10
9
10
10
11
12
6
4
7
1
5
3
1
2
1
Intergroup Differences
The votes received by the various concern categories in the six Stevens
Point workshop groups were normalized (changed to a percentage of the total
votes for the group) so that intergroup comparisons could be made. In the
final vote the groups were not consistent in their concerns (Figure 6),
probably because it was not possible to get a balance of interests in each
-28-
-------
2345
STEVENS POINT GROUP NUMBER
Economic
Agricultural Land Preservation
Water
Figure 6. Percentage x>f the vote on the 30 most important concerns given to
economic, agricultural land preservation, and water by
Stevens Point groups.
-29-
-------
group. Differences among groups were particularly noticeable in categories
such as health and radiation and conservation. Almost all the votes were
contributed by one group, a group which had more members of L.A.N.D. than
other groups.
Group composition, however, does not always account for the differences in
the group votes. The number of farmers in a group did not seem to affect the
concern for agricultural land preservation. In fact, the most heavily
business-industrial-urban groups gave this category the highest priority. On
the other hand, questions such as water supply and availability seemed to
receive more emphasis in groups with more farmers.
Conclusions
As in the other workshops, the categories mentioned most often and ranked
as most important in the Stevens Point workshop were those concerned with the
effect of power-plant location on the lives of human beings (for example,
economics, jobs, growth, human health and radiation effects, and water supply
and availability). Items such as water pollution, preservation of natural
areas, scenic values, land-use changes, and other environmental concerns were
mentioned often, but in most cases did not receive large numbers of votes.
Several concern categories were rated higher at Stevens Point than at the
other workshops, namely political/planning, air/climate, and growth. In the
political/planning sphere much participant skepticism was evident: "Do
engineers know what they are talking about? Are the real facts presented?
What are the differences between actual needs and utility projects?" Growth
concerns sometimes favored power-plant construction (more electricity equals
more jobs; more electricity equals more power for irrigation which equals more
food) and sometimes opposed new power plants (growth unsuited for an area).
Rankings at the Stevens Point workshop for agricultural land preservation,
waste disposal, conservation, transmission lines, and the natural environment
were somewhat lower than at other workshops. Agricultural concerns were
expressed most often in terms of water and electric-power availability for
irrigating crops. Impacts on the area's unique crops—potatoes, cranberries,
and dairy products—were mentioned. Many of the agricultural concerns were
influenced by the drought the area had been experiencing.
The Stevens Point participants compiled the longest list of research
needs, including more factual studies on biological effects; comparisons of
radiation levels from coal, nuclear, geothermal, and solar generation;
explanation of general radiation versus power-plant radiation; facts on air
and water monitoring; and independent monitoring. Participants also
questioned how to address the necessary trade-offs for power-plant siting, how
to interpret environmental impact statements, and how to differentiate between
emotional and factual studies.
Stevens Point workshop participants brought up moral issues as well as
specific concerns: responsibilities to future generations, worldwide
responsibilities, questions of conservation and American freedom, and
questions of nuclear security and freedoms.
-30-
-------
The Stevens Point workshop participants clearly wanted to know more about
many power-plant-siting concerns, regardless of whether they felt negative,
positive, or neutral about power plants.
SHSBOYGAN
The fourth power-plant-siting workshop was held in Sheboygan on 3 May
1977. The 43 workshop participants came from Sheboygan (29), Manitowoc (9),
and Kewaunee (3) Counties, all eastern Wisconsin counties bordering Lake
Michigan. Two participants were from outside the workshop area.
Power-plant-siting interest in the area is high. In some ways more
participants in the Sheboygan workshop were familiar with power-plant siting
based on their actual experiences than in the other workshops. The area has
two nuclear power plants, Point Beach and Kewaunee, on the shores of Lake
Michigan, as well as the 500-MW coal-fired plant in Sheboygan, which is being
expanded. The Sheboygan workshop area also includes a proposed nuclear site,
Haven, in Sheboygan County.
The workshop participants included elected officials (6); government
employees, including planners, a forester, and a civil defense worker (8);
members of community organizations (8); members of environmental and consumer
groups (8); farmers (4); business men and women, including utility employees
(3); people interested in recreation and tourism and other professionals,
including educators (4). As in the other workshop locations, the Sheboygan
area has active groups with a special interest in power-plant siting, such as
the Safe Haven group.
Overall Concerns
The major concern categories developed in the Sheboygan workshop were
ranked according to the number of points they received (Table 11). The
participants were more concerned about economic questions than were the
participants in other workshops. These concerns were mentioned 70 times and
accounted for over 15/& of the total concerns by points. More weight was also
given to health and radiation, waste use and disposal, air and climate, plant
operation, and physical site characteristics than in the other workshops.
Overall, participants in the Sheboygan workshop showed less concern for water,
political/planning, and plant location. In the Sheboygan workshop the need
for the power plant, conservation, agricultural land preservation, waste use
and disposal, and taxes received high importance values. Also rated important
were Lake Michigan and more general water concerns.
The 3Q. Most Important Concerns
The final vote (the 30 most important concerns) for the Sheboygan workshop
(Table 12) was generally consistent with the rankings given to all concerns
(Table 11). The most noticeable difference is that conservation became very
important (second only to economic concerns) in the final vote. Growth,
natural environmental, and agricultural land preservation also became more
important in the final vote. On the other hand, water, plant-operation, and
physical site concerns dropped in importance in the final vote.
-31-
-------
TABLE 11. SHEBOYGAN WORKSHOP: RANKING OF CATEGORIES OF
SITING CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON ALL CONCERNS
Concern category
Percentage of Times Importance
Points total points mentioned value (rank)
1.
2.
3-
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9-
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Economic
Health and radiation
Wastes
Water
Air/ climate
Plant operation
Agricultural land preservation
Physical site characteristics
Conservation
Natural environment
Growth
Scenic/historic
Plant location
Transmission lines
Environmental pollution
Political/planning
Recreation
Transportation
Safety/ security
Need for plant
Social/cultural
Future generations
Insurance
Lake Michigan
Land-use changes
909
412
377
314
305
303
279
279
276
268
242
223
204
202
202
182
174
153
120
115
73
58
51
50
46
15
7
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
.6
.2
.5
.3
.2
.2
.8
.8
.8
.6
.1
.8
.5
.5
.5
.0
.9
.6
.1
.9
.2
.9
.8
.8
.7
70
26
20
25
20
26
13
17
11
23
18
25
13
13
14
24
17
18
10
4
11
4
5
3
7
12
16
18
16
15
11
21
16
25
11
13
8
15
15
14
7
10
8
12
28
6
14
10
16
6
.98
.1
.85
.56
.25
.65
.46
.4
.09
.65
.4
.92
.69
.54
.43
.58
.24
.5
.0
.75
.64
.5
.2
.67
.57
(15)
(8)
(4)
(6)
(11)
(18)
(3)
(7)
(2)
(17)
(14)
(21)
(9)
(10)
(13)
(23)
(19)
(22)
(16)
(1)
(25)
(12)
(20)
(5)
(24)
Intereroup Differences
The votes received by the various concerns categories in the five
Sheboygan workshop groups were normalized (changed to a percentage of the
total votes for the group) so that intergroup comparisons could be made. The
groups' final voting records were compared for three concern
categories—economics, agricultural land preservation, and water—the
procedure followed in the analysis of all the workshop results. The groups
were not consistent in their concerns (Figure 7); as expected, identical
interests in each group cannot be obtained.
-32-
-------
TABLE 12. SHEBOYGAN WORKSHOP: HIGHEST RANKING CATEGORIES OF SITING
CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON THE 30 MOST IMPORTANT CONCERNS
Percentage of
Concern category Points total points Times mentioned
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14-
15.
16.
17.
18.
19-
20.
21.
Economic
Conservation
Health and radiation
Wastes
Agricultural land preservation
Growth
Water
Natural environment
Plant location
Air /climate
Plant operation
Future generations
Safety/ security
Transmission lines
Political/planning
Need for plant
Recreation
Social/ cultural
Lake Michigan
Insurance
Scenic/historic
262
190
174
168
144
127
95
82
57
52
47
47
40
39
37
35
30
19
16
8
8
14.5
10.5
9.6
9.0
8.0
7.0
5.0
4.5
3-0
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
1-6
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.4
20
8
9
13
10
14
8
8
4
5
3
3
4
6
7
4
7
5
3
1
2
Four of the five Sheboygan groups were most concerned about economic
questions (Figure 7). In four groups agricultural concerns received a high
percentage of votes. Only two groups, however, were responsible for the high
rating given to water. For some other concerns, such as conservation, health
and radiation,- and wastes, the Sheboygan groups were much more consistent.
Conclusions
Economic concerns, both for and against power-plant construction, received
a higher rating at the Sheboygan workshop than at any other. Once again,
those items were mentioned and ranked highest which concerned the effects of
power-plant location on the lives of human beings (economics, jobs, taxes,
growth, and human health and radiation).
The presence of Lake Michigan had a significant effect on regional
power-plant-siting concerns. It may seem inconsistent that half the Sheboygan
-33-
-------
1234
SHEBOYGAN GROUP NUMBER
Economic
Agricultural Land Preservation
Water
Figure 7. Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns given to
economic, agricultural land preservation, and water by
Sheboygan groups.
-------
participants rated the Great Lakes as suitable sites for power-plant siting
(as reported in Section 3), and yet water and plant-location concerns were
lower overall in the Sheboygan workshop. The explanation is that Sheboygan
participants were very concerned about water and Lake Michigan. Their water
concerns were different and not as great in number, but certainly rated high
in importance. There was little concern about water supply and availability.
Instead, the water concerns focused on water quality and impacts on Lake
Michigan. Concern was not so much addressed to one site as to the effect on
the whole lake system: for example, the cumulative effects of several
power-plant sites, the likelihood of the dispersion of radiation contamination
by the Great Lakes, and changes in longshore currents. Concern for the area's
special Great Lakes resource also came up in several different categories:
Stability of bluffs, preservation of dunes, and preservation of historic
shoreline properties.
Because of the number of power plants in the area and the participants'
familiarity with them, many of the Sheboygan concerns, both positive and
negative, were more specific than those of other workshops. These included
such issues as the good fishing in the power-plant outflow, public access to
the lake, educational and tourist attraction of the site, the planning for
placement of a power plant, sewage treatment, and industrial discharges.
Sheboygan workshop participants readily brought up items from their own
experience: Traffic tie-ups in Sheboygan from coal shipments, loss of land,
the need for relocating roads away from nuclear plants, and the need for
better fire and police protection.
Sheboygan participants also had many concerns similar to those of other
workshop participants. The question of nuclear entombment came up several
times. Participants were also concerned about keeping the public informed,
justifying power plants on the basis of third-party projections of demand, and
understanding all the statistics (plume dimensions, size, velocities, etc.) in
environmental impact statements. They also sought information on how to make
choices for decisionmaking and what resources are available for verifying
environmental impact statements.
In spite of their relative familiarity with power plants, Sheboygan
participants listed many concerns on which they wished more information.
-35-
-------
SECTION 5
THE SURVEY
The purpose of the workshops was to elicit the concerns, attitudes, and
values of invited participants on power-plant siting. Project researchers and
Public Service Commission officials were specifically interested in what
choices participants would make between various land-use categories (e.g.,
industrial areas, agricultural areas, natural areas) for siting power plants
and transmission lines. Also of interest were participants' reactions to the
supplying of power by a local power plant to other areas in the state, the use
of one large or several smaller plants to meet approximately the same energy
needs, and general reactions to Wisconsin tax laws. Since it was impossible
to address all of these questions by using the small-group method, a
questionnaire was designed for use in a survey.
Survey results from the four workshops and from different interest groups
were compared and one of the original goals of the project thus was partially
achieved. In addition, the survey showed that no one interest or age group
was over-represented or omitted at the workshops. Finally, filling out the
questionnaire gave participants the opportunity to comment on their
experiences at the workshop.
METHODS
The surveys were distributed to workshop participants at registration, and
completed surveys were returned by mail after the workshop. One hundred and
ninety participants completed the surveys. A sample survey is found in
Appendix F.
The survey was modified slightly after the first workshop. Participants
felt that they could not make siting choices for both coal and nuclear plants
at one time. Thus, for the remaining three workshops this question was
repeated, once for a nuclear plant and once for a coal-fired plant.
The surveys were analyzed using STATJOB programs at the Madison Academic
Computing Center.
-36-
-------
RESULTS
fhe Participants
The participants represented a broad spectrum of age groups and
professional backgrounds. Of those who completed the questionnaire, 26.756
were age 21-35, 28.3$ were 36-50 years old, and 45? were 50 or older. Of
these respondents 13.2? were farmers, 14.9? were business people, 11? were
educators, 8.2? were government officials or employees, 14.3$ represented
other professions (such as doctors, historians, and artists), and 38.1? were
employed in other fields, were housewives, or were retired. The percentage of
government officials identified by the survey was much lower than the actual
percentage among the participants, a possibly because government workers
primarily identified themselves by occupation and not as government employees.
Workshop members tended to be long-term residents who were very active in
their communities: 64.7? had lived in their current home area for more than
10 years, 56.3? were currently members of civic organizations, and 42.1?
belonged to professional groups. In addition, an average of 31.3?
participated in other types of organizations (agricultural, environmental,
business, political, and recreational). A high proportion reported that they
lived within 5 miles of an existing plant (27 = 9?), or that they could see a
power plant (12.6?) or high-voltage transmission lines (35.3?) from where they
lived.
Opinions About Plant Size and Location
The response of workshop participants tended to be much more favorable
toward the location of a plant in their area if that plant would supply energy
locally, rather than to other parts of the state (Table 13).
To supply the same energy demand, several smaller plants were judged
better than one large plant by 45.8? of the participants. One large power
plant was preferred by 36.3?, and 10? felt that one large plant was about the
same as several smaller plants.
About half (51.2?) answered that the new tax laws had changed the way they
felt toward the construction of a power plant in their community. Of these,
76? reported that their feelings had become more negative.
Land-Use Ratings
Participants were asked to rate several land-use categories for their
suitability for a power plant. People at the Janesville workshop considered
both coal and nuclear plants in one rating, but the other workshops rated
suitabilities for coal and nuclear facilities separately. However, since no
significant difference emerged between the combined and separate ratings, one
set of ratings (combined coal/nuclear for Janesville, and nuclear for the
other workshops) is presented in Table 14- (One exception was that Great
Lakes shorelines were rated as somewhat more suitable for nuclear than for
coal-fired plants.)
-37-
-------
TABLE 13: REACTION OF PARTICIPANTS AS DETERMINED BY SURVEY
TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LOCAL POWER PLANT TO SERVE (1) LOCAL
OR (2) NONLOCAL ENERGY NEEDS
Area of energy use
Reaction
(percentage of respondents)
Negative
Neutral
Positive
(1) Power plant supplying energy
locally
(2) Power plant supplying energy to
other parts of the state
19.2
47-5
10.7
15.7
70.1
36.7
TABLE 14: RATING BY WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS OF
LAND-USE CATEGORIES FOR USE AS POWER-PLANT SITES
Rating (percentage of respondents)
Land-use category
Poor
Good
No opinion
On Great Lakes shores
Near Great Lakes shores
In/near heavy industrial areas
On/near river banks
In/near forests
In/near light commercial areas
In/near agricultural land
On/near shores of smaller lakes
In/near wetlands
Near parks
In/near residential areas
36.35
44.7
44.7
47.25
47.05
53-6
57.8
65-4
69.25
75.7
90.85
57.2
51.5
51.7
47.15
46.5
36.6
36.2
25.3
21.95
13-0
5.35
5.95
2.65
2.65
6.1
6.45
7.7
6.0
9-4
8.8
11.3
3.75
The shorelines of the Great Lakes and industrial areas were clearly felt
to be the most suitable sites for power-generating facilities. These choices
-38-
-------
reflect the strong concerns over sufficient water supply and the use of
existing facilities, which were mentioned frequently during workshop
discussions. River banks, again reflecting the need for water, were ranked
next in suitability. Agricultural land was ranked less suitable than light
commercial areas and forests. Shores of smaller lakes and wetlands were next
in suitability. Parks and residential areas were definitely considered the
poorest locations for power plants.
The survey also ranked land-use types for their suitability for
high-voltage transmission lines (Table 15). Industrial areas received the
most votes (by a margin of 25.5$). Interestingly enough, agricultural land
received the second highest number of votes for most suitable and the third
highest number of votes for least suitable. This apparent split of sentiment
may represent a difference of opinion between farmers and other workshop
participants (Table 16). Wetlands, forests, and lakeshores, in that order,
ranked next in votes for most suitable areas. None of these categories showed
either a positive or negative trend in rankings; that is, each of the eight
possible ranking positions received approximately the same percentage of
votes. The category that was ranked sixth in suitability for transmission
lines—commercial areas—received a higher percentage of votes for second most
suitable than did any other land-use type. It may be, therefore, that
commercial areas are actually felt to be more suitable than wetlands, forests,
and lakeshores. Once again, parks and residential areas were overwhelmingly
voted least suitable; only 21.2? of the participants placed residential areas
as one of the four most suitable sites, and 42.8$ placed them as least
suitable.
TABLE 15: RANKING BY WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS OF LAND-USE
CATEGORIES FOR USE AS TRANSMISSION-LINE SITES
Land-use type Ranking (percentage of respondents)
6
Industrial
Agricultural land
Forests
Wetlands
Shorelines
Light commercial
^j
Parks
Residential
46
21
10
11
7
3
1
0
.6
.1
.8
.0
.6
.4
.1
.005
14
7
14
11
5
39
2
0
.8
.4
.8
.6
.8
.2
.3
.01
4.5
18.3
14.8
12.1
11.1
17.6
4-7
12.6
6
13
14
14
18
9
10
8
.2
.1
.8
.4
.1
.0
.5
.6
10.8
12.0
5.7
12.1
14.0
10.2
24.6
4.6
7-4
6.8
16.0
13.9
14.6
9.0
17.5
10.3
6.3
6.3
11.4
11.6
14.6
8.5
21.0
18.9
3-1
14.8
11.4
13-3
14.0
2.8
18.1
42.8
-39-
-------
TABLE 16: EFFECT OF OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS ON THEIR
RANKING OF THE USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR TRANSMISSION LINES
Occupational group
Ranking (percentage of respondents)
Farmers
Business people
Educators
Government workers and
other
Most
suitable
1
4
9.0
0
7-3
2
8
22
10
19
.7
.7
.0
.5
8
27
20
22
3
.7
.3
.0
.0
18
22
5
12
H
• 3
.7
.0
.2
5
26
9.0
10.0
12.2
0
4
25
14
6
.5
.0
.6
Least
suitable
7
34.8
4.5
20.0
7.3
In summary, industrial areas were viewed favorably as sites for power
plants and lines, whereas residential areas and parks were viewed very
unfavorably for this purpose. The relative ranking of the other land-use
categories is not as clearly defined.
Comparison of Survey Results Among Workshops
As was the case with the lists of concerns discussed in the previous
section, no large differences in responses to questions or in patterns of
answers were found among workshops. However, some small differences did
emerge in responses to individual questions. The workshops differed in some
ways in their ranking of suitability of various land-use categories for
nuclear plants. Janesville participants were more likely to rank industrial
areas as most suitable, and the Sheboygan workshop rated shorelines as the
most suitable. The workshops also differed in the distance participants lived
from a plant and whether or not they could see a plant from where they lived.
More Sheboygan and Eau Claire participants reported that they lived within 5
miles of a plant, probably because of the Edgewater plant in Sheboygan and the
small rural cooperatives scattered throughout the Eau Claire area. More
Sheboygan people (31.5856) also reported that they could see a plant from where
they lived.
Comparison of Survey Results Among Occupational Groups
Overall, differences in attitudes between different occupational groups
were not statistically significant. However, there were some interesting
differences between specific occupational groups on particular questions.
More farmers (45.8/J of those at the workshops) than any other group reported
that they could see high-voltage transmission lines from where they lived.
-40-
-------
Farmers were also more likely to rate agricultural land as very unsuitable for
high-voltage transmission lines. Many (45.8$) of the farmers rated
agricultural land as the least suitable area for transmission lines, compared
to an average of 13$ for all other occupational groups. In contrast, 30.4$ of
business people rated agricultural land as the most suitable for transmission
lines. Farmers were also likely to rank the suitability of agricultural land
for nuclear plants lower than did other groups.
-41-
-------
SECTION 6
COMMENTS ON THE WORKSHOPS
Participants in all four workshops were asked to give an overall rating of
the workshop; a tabulation of their votes is given in Table 17.
Participants gave quite high ratings to the power-plant-siting workshops:
82,5? judged their experience as "good" or "excellent," while 14.4? rated the
workshops as "fair" and 0.03& as "poor."
TABLE 17. RATING OF THE WORKSHOPS BY PARTICIPANTS
Rating (number of votes)
Workshop
NO COMMENT
POOR FAIR
GOOD
EXCELLENT
Janesville
Eau Claire
Stevens Point
Sheboygan
10
5
4
3
-
1
2
2
7
6
9
2
35
21
21
17
9
6
16
14
The participants were also asked to comment on any aspect of the workshop
or concerns addressed. Many of the participants (51$) took advantage of the
space provided in the survey for their comments. These comments, compiled
from all four workshops, are helpful to those interested in power-plant-siting
criteria and to those considering similar workshops. The comments (presented
in Appendix G), generally speak for themselves and bring out many of the
difficulties of the workshops. Remarks most frequently pertained to (1)
complaints with workshop scheduling; (2) time constraints; and (3) problems
with the format, such as general concerns getting more votes than specific
ones and some concerns overlapping others.
In choosing the locations, dates, participants, format, and even methods
of presenting the results, obviously choices had to be made. Some decisions
were based on experience with similar programs and some were based on
-42-
-------
recommendations; some techniques changed with experience. For example, after
the Janesville workshop, the survey was changed slightly and group leaders'
explanations of voting procedures were made more explicit. The value of the
workshops depends on how useful the findings prove to be in decisions on the
siting of power plants. One of the primary advantages of the workshops was
that they provided an opportunity for people of different backgrounds,
interests, and experiences to examine together a controversial and frustrating
issue.
The energy, enthusiasm, and dedication of the workshop participants were
greatly appreciated. Their willingness to give their time helped to make
public involvement in energy and natural-resource issues a reality.
-43-
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF POWER-PLANT-SITING CONCERNS
ECONOMIC
Taxes
Tax base - increased tax base; added tax revenue to municipality; taxes paid
by power plants; question of the loss of taxable land; added tax revenue
to municipality;
Tax structure - unfair tax structure;
Tax distribution - distribution of utility tax; inequitable tax
redistribution;
Tax rate - increased taxes due to influx of population when a plant is built;
increased local property taxes to support increased services;
Taxes and local government - change tax bill to benefit local government;
greater tax return to local government — first 5 years; taxation of the
utility should be adequate to compensate the local government units for
the increased services (roads, police, etc.) during plant construction;
better tax returns to local government to dull local opposition.
Consumer costs
Cost of electricity - cost to consumer; energy affordable to all; possible
decrease in electric costs; costs of electricity particularly as it
affects those on fixed incomes or those with special needs; ratepayers
should not have to absorb costs of siting changes; electric rates should
reflect true cost; increasing costs if more power not produced;
Costs and construction - cost of construction; costs per life of plant;
construction time and costs;
Financing - capital loans; need for information on the type of financing
available; competition for capital investment dollars.
nntnmnni t.y costs
Housing - need for housing in local area; mobile home park proliferation;
-44-
-------
Municipal services - cost of municipal services, fire, police; sewers for
temporary construction workers; desire for federal government loans (low
interest) for local government cost for services;
Community services - increased expenses to community: roads, schools,
hospitals, and social service agencies.
fuels
Cost - choose fuel type for least cost; current and future fuel cost; need to
know cost of radioactive waste disposal; going into plutonium economy,
domestic vs. foreign leasing of national forests for uranium mining;
Availability - depletion of non-renewable resources; availability of uranium;
priorities for use of coal; priority for use of oil;
Type - use of high-sulfur coal; access to low-sulfur fuel; cost advantages and
flexibility of nuclear power.
Land values
Cost - price of land; cost of land for site;
Changes in land values - (up/down); accelerates increase in land value;
devaluation of surrounding homes; effect on property values, both
inflation of value and detriment resulting from increased taxes; keep land
purchases secret to avoid speculation.
Jobs
Number - number of jobs during construction/operation; increase in employment;
reduction in jobs caused by automation of newer power plants; labor force
generated — both primary and secondary; employment from acquisition of
raw materials (miners, truckers, etc.); more work in area;
Jobs and energy - need to provide energy for employment of citizens;
employment and adequate energy independence;
Local or outside labor force - availability of skilled personnel; regional
employment; need to know the kind of training necessary; need to know if
employees will be drawn from local area;
Jobs and wages - need to know the salary scale; effect on local wage scale.
Costs versus benefits
Cost versus benefits - acceptable cost/benefit ratio;
Growth - healthy economic growth versus minimal economic growth; beneficial
economic impact on business; economic ceiling on growth;
-45-
-------
Costs - prediction of future energy costs; nuclear plants are too expensive;
costs for various types of plants; economic effect on current energy
providers; economic effect after construction workers leave; need to know
if construction of new plant is necessary when additional power could be
supplied by upgrading existing units;
Economic/ecological tradeoffs - costs of pollution control devices; economics
of upholding high environmental standards for coal plants;
Profits - only the company and employees make the profits.
AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION
Agricultural preservation - removal of agricultural land; agricultural land
preservation; using agricultural land; don't split up agricultural land;
amount of loss and disruption to local based agriculture; preserve prime
agricultural land.
Agricultural impacts - affecting food supply; danger to milk production from
debris effects on forage; preserve farmland for food production; impacts
on domestic animals; desire to know if local crop values will decline.
WATER
Availability/supply
Supply - for everything; effect of power plant's demand on other water users
for power plant; economics of supply; need to know amount of water
remaining for public after power plant is supplied;
Drought - need to know how water is allocated;
Drinking water - effect on drinking water;
Cost - impact on cost of water for household use;
Transportation - water availability for transportation;
Water-table disruption - effects on underground water supply; impact on
domestic and irrigation wells; no limit on water for irrigation; drying up
wells; water drawdown;
Enough water for plants and animals in streams; using hydro power would
increase supply in an area;
Effect of weather on water availability.
-46-
-------
Pollution
Water quality - minimize impact on water quality; water quality (cleanliness
and temperature); adequate protection against polluting rivers;
radioactive pollutants in water; danger to irrigation water from nuclear
radiation; radioactive water carried by Great Lakes elsewhere; discharge
of chlorine and other pollutants from treating intake water; water
pollution causing fish and vegetation kills; heavy metals discharge into
surface waters; contamination; particulate and chemical discharge;
decrease in oxygen in lake or river; leaching from on-site coal piles;
water-table conditions for ash disposal;
Temperature effect - thermal pollution; benefits of warm water — including
purification;
Effect on longshore currents; damming for hydro; damming effects on flooding.
GROWTH
Positive - assures no brown-outs; assure enough power; need adequate regional
supply; electricity assures jobs; electricity assures higher standard of
living; industrial opportunities; new businesses; need energy for home
heating; encourages industry; new electricity for food production; effects
of related development; generally positive effects on the community;
income to local businesses; increase in land use for agriculture because
of increased available electricity; greater electric energy in area.
Negative - economic growth unsuited to area; availability of power accelerates
growth, affects quality of life; conservation of energy hard as more and
more power plants built; growth may occur where growth not wanted.
Neutral - effect on future growth and development; will there be growth of
commercial and industrial areas near the plant; need to determine kinds of
growth desired.
POLITICAL/PLANNING
Who has decision-making power?
Government level - need to know which government level and who determines land
use; reduce governmental restrictions and allow private enterprise more
freedom; willingness of area to adopt and enforce air and water quality
standards; concern with over-regulation by agencies of local residents and
of power plant; lack of coordination between various governmental levels;
monopoly potential of present energy supply companies; power and authority
of regulatory agencies.
Rural rights - concern for the rights of communities and the need to return
the ability to make their own decisions; need to know if small towns are
expendable; local citizens have much less control over their lives; need
-47-
-------
to know if rural people are more expendable; public opinion; public
acceptance of need for plant; local polarization; cost of community
support; the will of the people should rule.
Planning/zoning - advanced planning to rectify possible damage to the
environment; follow zoning laws; change in zoning patterns; compatibility
with regional plans; land use legislation; local zoning should not
supercede regional needs; adequate plans should be developed prior to
construction — between utility and local municipality and business
community to provide necessary services; what procedure will be used to
change zoning designation if necessary; land development controls; need
for land-use regulation where none exists; need for regional plan first
before selection of individual sites; coordination of site selection with
community planning; no construction before environmental impact
statements; equitable regulation of environmental aspects.
Condemnation, eminent domain, compensation - local decision on eminent domain;
land condemnation; problems resulting from condemnation; responsible use
of eminent domain; how to arrive at value of land and buildings to
compensate owners; compensation to property owners whose lands suffer a
reduction in value; people forced to sell; who appraises the land's value;
leasing payment should be renegotiated periodically.
Citizen education - the need and value of plant; the need versus hazards;
interpretation of environmental impact statements.
Citizen input - community dissension; desire of people in a community for
plant safety; for siting plan in that community; equity in public opinion
(Do I, John Doe, have as much say as Vice-President of Northern States
Power).
WASTES/FUEL STORAGE
Waste disposal - whether on-site waste disposal is acceptable; coal piles;
looks, space, etc; what are the real problems with waste:
Nuclear - nuclear waste disposal problems
Fly ash
What are alternatives?
Disposal of sulfur by-products
Use of wastes - use fly ash for fertilizer, concrete; political and technical
restrictions to reprocessing nuclear wastes; use warm water for fish
hatchery, near shore or in tanks.
Use wastes for fuel - build plant near landfill sites; use solid waste as fuel
whenever possible.
-48-
-------
Fuel storage - desire to know where it is stockpiled.
Use waste heat water for heating homes or irrigation of crops.
Utilization of sludge and ash.
HEALTH AND RADIATION
Health - human; effects on local residents; health effects on those most prone
to low-level radiation; effects on public health; health hazards to the
workers; nuclear radiation effect on employees, cumulative and short term;
genetic effects of low-level radiation; humans as storers of radioactive
wastes; cumulative radiation causing cancer; health concerns from
transportation; fears/anxiety — social fears; emotional effect on people;
anxiety of people produced by uncertainty of nuclear power plants; have
too many people, therefore can't have nuclear plants.
Radiation - radioactive emissions from plant which are long-lasting low-level
radiation damage; danger from natural radiation damage; danger from
natural radiation; concentration in dairy products; agricultural concerns
due to radiation nuclear fallout; effects on biological systems;
comparison of radioactivity— coal, nuclear, geothermal, solar; cumulative
and acute on all human and plant life; value of term "pico curie" (i.e.
very small amounts of radiation); distinguishing sources of radiation.
CONSERVATION
Energy conservation - need to conserve energy produced from nonrenewable fuel
resources; extent to which conserving energy will help; implementation of
comprehensive energy conservation program; laws which forbid needless use
should be enacted.
Changing production technology - use presently owned sites for experimentation
with alternative energy-production methods; alternative energy sources;
attempt to reduce peak energy demands; need economic incentives for
alternatives; need to increase utilization of solar energy; potential for
replacement of central station plants by solar, wind, or other
alternatives; industries by conserving fossil fuel will increase their own
electrical energy demands; emphasis on use of fuel cells; emphasis on
recycling of glass and metal containers to conserve energy.
PLANT LOCATION
Existing site condition (amount and type of pollution); proximity to
communication links;
In relation to population - protect existing homes; recognition of future
growth areas; in north near labor supply; production of electricity in
area with associated effects, use of energy outside area;
-49-
-------
In relation to power uses - in industrial areas, near load center; near users
to avoid transmission lines; for cogeneration of electricity and steam;
In relation to physical features - stay out of floodplain; proximity to lakes
and streams; near large body of water.
In relation to land uses - proximity to residential areas; land not suitable
for agriculture, parks or-residential.
Specific concerns: avoid airports, locate power plants underground; stacks in
relation to air travel; physical location that can be protected; avoidance
of areas of natural hazards; considerations given to availability of basic
building material (sand, gravel, stone, etc.) in area; not many sites.
SAFETY/SECURITY
Plant safety - vandalism; probability of catastrophe; explosions; melt-down;
increased fire hazard; danger of nuclear malfunction; prime target in case
of war; stringent specifications and safety standards should be used for
nuclear plants; adequate safety precautions for coal plants; concern for
potential dangers; safety questions regarding hydro power (dam failure,
etc.); Occupational and Safety Administration (OSHA) doesn't cover nuclear
questions.
Security - danger of sabotage; site easily protected; need federal protection
force; police state/loss of civil liberties; police state measures
necessary to control sabotage; concern over loss of freedom due to nuclear
protection; legal changes to permit surveillance of radicals;
security-fuel transport and waste transport.
Plans - are evacuation plans adequate in case of accident; closer liaison
between civil defense and power plant.
AIR/CLIMATE
Air S0? - cleanliness (soot); nitrous oxide emissions; smoke emitted from
coal-fired plant; coal dust due to emptying coal cars; noxious odors;
radiation; particulate pollution; concern with view becoming obstructed by
dirty air; thermal pollution effects on air; building damage from air
pollution; nuclear - no smoke and dust.
Climate - effects on climate — cooling tower cloud fog; changes in ice cover
patterns; endangering earth's ozone layer; increased acidity in rainfall;
climatic concerns for siting — weather concerns; inversion patterns;
thermal air pollution and climate changes; electrical disturbances;
prevailing winds away from populated areas; frequency of severe storms;
global effect on weather; greenhouse effect of H_ evaporation; CO
concentration in atmosphere.
-50-
-------
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Natural -acsa preservation - least alteration of most virgin natural
environment; avoid scientific areas; preserve scientific areas; concern
for number of natural areas which remain for future generations.
Wildlife - effects of wastes and byproducts on wildlife; effect on endangered
species; avoid wildlife habitat; concern with chimneys (stacks) in
waterfowl migration routes; effects on wildlife and domestic animals;
there is a minimal effect on animal life; wildlife 'leaving area because of
unhealthy conditions; interference with wildlife and botanical habitat,
especially if near creek or river mouth.
Fish - fish kills at water intake; change in fish quality — positive or
negative; impact on fish; entrainment and entrapment of fish;
overabundance of marine life attracted to area.
Vegetation - better growth of vegetation; heat-island effect (associated with
groups of plants) .
Wetlands - avoid wetlands if at all possible; marshes and wetlands; effects on
wetlands and other ecologically fragile areas.
Forests - depletion of forests and other renewable resources; effects on
woodlots.
SOCIAL/CULTURAL
General - effects on social fabrics of the community; impact on political
structure of the community.
Population changes - increasing; growth in area; urbanization of rural areas;
quality of people brought in influx of undesirables.
People relocation, displacement - loss of land that has been in one family a
long time; displacement of business, residences; relocation of residents
who do not wish to live near facility; psychological effect on people
having land taken by power plant.
Lifestyle. values - any changes affecting human lifestyle; value changed
(attitude) towards conservation; impact on crime rate; disruption of
social order; arrogance of big business; impact on performing arts
(available facilities, etc.); minimize throw-away mentality; effect on
mores; moral justification of oil and gas use vs. nuclear; would a
nuclear plant deter people from moving into an area; boom problems
associated with construction; decrease in social programs because of
stronger economic bases; changes in living standards; moral and social
effect on people concerned with energy needs but not negative effects;
effect on feelings towards the land values; what social controls are
implied by the spartan life which may result if energy production is
halted; impact on family unit.
-51-
-------
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Soils - suitable for construction; destruction of soil fertility by nuclear
plants; erosion, construction runoff; damage from topsoil disturbance;
contamination; locate on poor soil; soil conservation practices; radiation
impacts on soil; productivity after the plant is decommissioned; increased
sedimentation in lakes and streams caused by stripping of vegetation.
Geology - least disturbance to geology; geologic stability; geographic
effects; suitable rock formation; nuclear plants causing creeks in rock
formations; mineral value of land used for siting; preservation of unique
geologic features (dunes, morraines); will there be a change in the
geographic character of the land; efforts to maintain land contours;
stability of shoreline bluff areas; need to know if plant would be more
serviceable in a higher or lower elevation area.
Land requirements - need to know how much land is needed; height of plant,
structures; land consumption of nuclear parks; regulations require
excessive amounts of land for nuclear plants.
Physical features - physical condition of the land; drainage problems from
increase in impermeable surface area; preserving the physical features
that were instrumental in establishing the cultural heritage of the area.
NEED FOR PLANT
General - need for plant; maintaining standard of living; need to fix
priorities for energy needs which are necessary; which energy uses can we
really do without if necessary; increased attention to electric plant as
opposed to other energy distribution system because of the concentrated
nature; if power plant fails, danger to public; potential for social
disruption if adequate power not provided; differences between actual
power needs and utility projections; justification of need on basis of
third-party projections of consumer demand.
Local - present and future need for power in both rural and urban sectors;
importance of community energy independence; role of electricity in
community support services.
Factories and schools - need for adequate power to keep factories and schools
open.
National - striving to achieve energy independence (the U.S. and Wisconsin);
interdependence of communities and areas; recognize the inability to ship
all the bad aspects of decisions elsewhere while keeping most of the
benefits; natural vs. local needs; consider worldwide needs for many
operations; national economic worth vs. worth of unaltered site; need vs.
industrial, commercial, agricultural, educational effects; additional
power need in 1980; recognize "greater than local" needs; second-class
status for America; ultimate inevitability; increased regional tolerance
of others; we should maintain a realistic capability to deal with nuclear
-52-
-------
questions even if we do not emphasize nuclear power generation for U.S.
needs.
TRANSMISSION LINES
General - means of transmission; need to know alternatives to transmission
lines in long distance transport of large amounts of power; loss of energy
in transmission.
Land requirements - need for transmission right-of-way; stacking of
transmission lines; land affected by transmission lines; agricultural land
should not be split up.
Location - use underground transmission lines; put transmission lines along
highways (off agricultural land); so farmers can farm around them; avoid
locating transmission lines near highways; pole placement to avoid
problems with irrigation and tillage.
ScenicT aesthetic - plan corridors for the environment; visual impact of
transmission lines; are power line poles more unsightly than other tall
objects.
Corridor Use - as wildlife habitat; as firebreaks; planned recreation
corridors.
Impacts - danger of microwave activity from HV transmission on cellular tissue
and circulatory system: human/animal; ozone build-up and destruction of
natural vegetation in transmission corridors; spraying of right-of-way;
suitable routes; placing transmission lines in major bird flyways; keep
routes open and accessible; will they follow existing corridors; effect on
land values; health effects of electromagnetic radiation; soil erosion;
farming; mining; forestry; better research on radio and TV interference.
Compensation - leasing payments should be renegotiated periodically;
compensation to municipalities for transmission lines.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION (GENERAL)
General - balance of nature; interference with ecosystem; harmful vs.
beneficial; pollution and environment balanced, not disturbing balance of
nature; quality of life, will it improve or diminish; environmental
effects of not building plants; life in general; least environmental
degradation; pollution to land and water; concentration in food chain;
highest and best use of land; impact on the food chain; synergistic
effects of thermal, chemical, and radioactive pollution; preservation of
natural areas by the plant.
Mining - damage from mining; strip-mining laws; need to restore the natural
quality of the land where fuel is extracted; biological and physical
effects of mining fuel; amount of land used in fuel procurement;
-53-
-------
destruction of natural areas in the West resulting from coal mining;
social problems (crime, delinquency, alcoholism, etc.) in boom towns near
mining; mine tailings from uranium are unusable; reclaimed land is not as
productive as before; effect of black lung and other hazards to coal
miners.
PLANT OPERATION
Operation - annual efficiency of a power plant; desire to know if utilities
are power pooling; building-code compliance; use of scrubbers on coal
plants; type of cooling methods; possibilities for load management at
site; nuclear plant needs back-up unit; lead time required to begin
operation; operation decisions unresponsive to local needs; increase
energy efficiency; switching grid to other power facilities in event of
power failure; plant should have resource conservation plan with soil and
water conservation district.
Plant size - large plants versus small plants; avoid small plants; avoid large
plants; massive plants equal fewer jobs and more welfare; smaller coal
plants rather than larger for transportation needs.
Life of plant - entombment/decommissioning — need to restore the natural
character of the land where obsolete facilities are abandoned; costs of
decommissioning; how are plants decommissioned; permanent encasement of
nuclear power plant.
Buffer zone/multiple use - buffer zone between plant and residences; use trees
for buffer; use of buffer zone for agriculture; land around plants should
be for public use and benefit — i.e. parks; all utility property should
be used (timber or crops); plant trees instead of crop land; multiple use
of area around plant; use for crops; use land as park or camping area.
FUTURE GENERATIONS
Responsibility to future generations; moral issue of responsibility to next
generations concerning nuclear wastes; land is sacred trust for future
generations.
SCENIC/HISTORICAL
Scenic - damage to scenic resources; loss of scenic areas; desire to know who
decides what is a scenic area; preservation of scenic shorelines.
Historical - historical significance; preserve historical landmarks; important
archeological sites; avoid cemeteries; destruction or conversion of
ethnic, historical sites; avoid small burial grounds; make survey through
local organization of local historical sites.
-54-
-------
visual impact of plants and lines; visual impact of tall stacks and
strobe lights; need to blend structures in with the surrounding areas; the
assurance that the plant will be an attractive installation; aesthetic
plant, including landscaping; architecture should complement area; scenic
value of power facility; unsightly cooling towers; ugly power plants;
appearances of cooling towers.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
General - increase in amount of land used for transportation (roads, etc.);
increase rail and road; loss of roads; reevaluate roads; use of water
transport; closing of roads, availability of roads, availability of water;
damage to environment from increased transportation needs; disruptions
from transportation; effects on local highway maintenance; costs of
accesses and bypasses around power plant.
Traffic increases - site far from major highways to prevent adverse traffic;
i.e.— especially during construction.
Distances - for transportation; need for roads means more land taken; site
near highways; routing of nuclear wastes; routing changes for buses and
other traffic where fogging/icing occurs from cooling towers.
RECREATION
Positive impacts - hydro creates lake and recreation areas; increased
recreation (in cooling ponds, etc.); improved fishing from thermal
pollution; hunting and fishing benefits around plants; tourism as result
of plant; use of plant for education tours; research; warms Lake Michigan
for swimming; plant is point of interest.
Potential negative - limiting access to lakes and streams; restriction of
public uses; hunting/hiking, etc; possible decrease of recreation areas;
reduction of recreational activities connected with water (boating,
swimming, etc.)
Neutral - effect on recreational use of land and water impact on parks;
effects on tourism; maintain Wisconsin's recreational appeal; effects on
fishing and hunting; effect on existing and potential future recreation
areas; regional recreation development versus economic needs for power
development; preservation of park lands, desire to know if people at plant
and changes in lifestyle would affect recreation.
LAND-USE CHANGE
Costs vs. benefits of land-use changes; site elimination from other future
land-use options; residential encroachment in remote areas; mix land-use
types; relocation of present land use; loss of natural land due to
deposition of ash and S02 scrubber sludge, use of land after power plant
-55-
-------
is gone; concern with large land holdings; return land not needed back to
private owners; protection of land from future plant encroachment.
NOISE
Noise; traffic and other noise; noise impact on residences; impact on
wildlife; noise especially during construction.
INSURANCE/LIABILITY
Is plant insurance adequate; adequacy of insurance for population; who pays
for environmental damage; public accepts liability for nuclear plant
accidents due to Price-Anderson Act; liability for land contamination;
better understanding of insurance coverage; victim culpability;
compensation for victims; ratepayers shouldn't have to absorb costs of
liability insurance; effect on local insurance costs; insurance companies
will not insure homeowners or businesses in vicinity (in case of major
nuclear accident).
RESEARCH NEEDS
Information - need for detailed, accurate environmental impact statements
total monitoring of groundwater, streams, and air; dairy milk monitoring;
need for baseline data and monitoring data; more factual data on
biological effects; comparison of radiation: coal, nuclear, solar,
geothermal; properly understood monitoring methods; better understanding
of cancer-causing properties of plutonium; independent monitoring; can
there be adaptive use of ecological change (e.g., use of thermal pools);
need for comprehensive environmental studies in waste disposal; added cost
due to overlapping research; early research for preservation of historic
building sites; more adequate knowledge about the limits of human
exposures allowable to toxic substances emitted from the plant; public
information availability and support for public-interest research;
accurate preconstruction monitoring; how to choose between air and water
pollution.
Citizen needs - education and information on energy; methods for evaluating
between emotional and factual studies; sharing of information nationwide
between communities with similar power-piant-siting experiences; earlier
citizen involvement in land-use issues, siting and licensing; educate lay
people quickly; early research for preservation of historic building
sites; keep people informed.
OTHER
Increased state aid because of short-term increase in population; should buy
the whole farm; lower electric costs for local residents; special discount
- reduced electric bill to consumers near plant; local decision on eminent
-56-
-------
domain; plant should make use of local resources (people, gravel, etc.);
relocation of residents who do not wish to live near facility; streamline
awareness of protest to reduce costs; need more global thinking (air, etc.
vs. worldwide); good agricultural effects of sulphur from coal burning;
new plants are less efficient because they are large; fission unnatural in
the universe; fly ash disposal areas should have same restrictions as the
Department of Natural Resources presumably uses for solid-waste disposal
areas; alternative cooling technologies so river, lake site not necessary;
desire to know if local agencies can monitor the impacts of the power
plant; spatial extent of pollution; time span of biological and physical
effects; better electric rates for industries in area; concern for medical
services; provision of radioisotopes for pharmaceutical, industry,
hospitals; responsible news reporting; factual information reported by all
media; local community aiding expediting building of plant; need to know
how to best address the many tradeoffs connected with these concerns; need
to know the real facts presented in the pro and con debates on future
plants; need to know if there will be more power or less during
construction in an area; question as to whether engineers know what they
are talking about; encourage public relations between power company and
area residents; inability to hold protest groups accountable for future
power deficiencies.
REGIONAL CONCERNS
Stevens Point - unique crops of area; adequate water supply from the Wisconsin
River for use by the plant; impact on specific area industries: potato,
cranberry, and dairy.
Shebovgan - regional maintenance of water quality — cumulative effects on
several sites; shoreline properties — recreational and historic; values
of maintaining and improving the integrity of the Great Lakes;
preservation of unique geologic features (sand dunes, moraines); stability
of shoreland bluff areas; changes in longshore currents; protection
coastal areas; warm-water discharge inland (not into Lake Michigan);
radiation contamination carried by Great Lakes; gondolas interfering with
traffic put on Lake Superior, not Lake Michigan; warms Lake Michigan for
swimming; aquatic life in Lake Michigan.
-57-
-------
GROUP PARTICIPANTS
Group 1
Judith Adler
Ben Beebe
Morris Bradley
Elmira Cerny
Lee Fricke
Marilynn Jensen
Gus Klatt
Robb Martin
Bessie Poppas
Norm Rable
Carl Welty
Zealy Williams
Leader: Bob Friedman
Group 2
Benita Byrd
Clinton Crowl
Mrs. Bernie Hilbert
W. 0. Hoffman
Harmon Milner
Randel Oaklief
Helen Ostermiller
Richard Patten
Charles Staley
Lloyd Yelk
Leader: Elin Quigley
APPENDIX B
JANESVILLE WORKSHOP
Group 5
Leroy Bauer
John Gelshenen
Lloyd Coding
Kip Oschwald
Frank Ozier
Mrs. Denis Rupnow
Kay Schultz
Richard Stenstrom
Olive S. Thomson
Group 6
Nancy Douglas
Virginia Fellows
Edward Fuller
Don Goiffon
Allan Haukom
Janice Redford
Nancy Staff
Gertrude Sweet
Helmer Vasby
Leader: Charles Andrews Leader: Jerry Shelton
Group 4
Frank Dobbs
Ed Arn
Joan Hyer
Bill Linderud
Richelle Lisse
Joy Smage
Bob Spenle
Nancy Source
Fred Uphoff
Leader: Jill Randall
Group 5
Donald Beardsley
Edwin Blaney
Betty Bullock
John Ernster
John Higdon
Nadine Stoner
Gary Murphy
Gerald Myhre
Leader: Bob Terrell
Group 7
Sanford Anderson
Berneva Hebb
Richard Konicek
David Larson
Jerry Mason
Lynn Stainbrook
June Swannack
David Thompson
Harvey Wedeward
Sandra Osborn
Charles Wileman
Leader: Anton TenWolde
-58-
-------
GROUP I
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
8
9
9
11
12
12
14
14
16
17
18
44
35
33
33
32
29
28
27
26
26
24
19
19
18
18
16
15
14
Pollution and environment balanced
Enough water for public after power plant
use
Type of land suitable for construction
Effect on ground water and wells
Enough water for power plant
Disposal of nuclear wastes
Rail and road transportation In the
area
Effects of wastes on humans
Type and deposit method of effluent
Type of fuels used
Advance planning to rectify possible
damage to the environment
Using ag. land
Storage of fuel wastes
Logically where heavy Industrial use
needed
Planned.corridors for the environment
Continuous Independent monitoring of
health hazards
Enough water at all (dry) times to keep
the balance of nature
Distance power Is to be transported
Economic and Social
Rank Po1nts
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
8
9
9
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
17
19
19
21
21
Land
Rank
1
2
3
4
39 1
38 1
36 l
32 I
28 1
28 1
28
26
24 1
24
22 ,
17 :
15 I
15
14 1
13
12 1
12 1
11
11 1
10 1
10 1
Use Concerns
Points
63 1
54 1
34 !
33 1
Electricity assures jobs
Higher standard of living due to
electricity
Cost of municipal services
Assure enough power
Loss of ag. and residential land
Provide jobs via construction and
operation
Taxes to various governmental units
Increased organization due to new power
Danger of nuclear disaster
Total lifetime cost in $ and energy for
construction, operation and moth-
balling
Are natural resources used to best
advantage
Social problems of large increase 1n
population
Cheaper power
Increase in population
Less likelihood of power failure because
of local plants
Traffic-direct and Indirect
Historic and archeological sites
Regional vs. local plants
Industrial conversion to electricity
Not upset local area during construction
Changes in property values
Cost of lost power due to length of trans-
mission line
Preservation of prime ag. land
Make use of existing fad 11 ties-roads,
transmission lines, etc.
Location of transmission lines as part of
plant siting decision
Urban sprawl because of Increase In
available power
Rank
19
19
19
19
23
23
23
26
27
28
28
28
28
28
33
34
34
34
34
Rank
21
21
25
25
27
28
28
30
31
31
33
34
34
36
37
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Points
11
11
11
11
9
9
9
8
7
3
3
3
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
Points
10
10
9
9
8
7
7
6
5
5
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rank Points
33
30
25
24
23
Effects of wastes and by products on
wildlife
Not disturbing the balance of nature
Could split up ag. land
Citizen input on plant safety
Air pollution
Placement of power lines over ag. land
Visual concern of plant
Environmental impact of housing and
sewers for temporary construction
workers
Additional traffic generation
Water temperature effect
Traffic and other noise
Sufficient security 1n transport of
fuel wastes (nuclear)
Effect on recreational use of land and
water
Environmental disturbances of transmission
lines
Amount of land required
Disturbance of geological sites
Construction runoff
Erosion
Use of water transport
Economic hardship from power lines crossing
land
New money in area
Increased public contest of local plant
More governmental services
Effects of plant failure on humans
Increase in local tax base
Locate where most people benefit
Can use be made of present transmission
lines
Temporary impact of construction workers
and families
Availability and quality of housing
Cost of correcting change in water purity
Cost of construction
Tourism and recreation
Impact of fuel consumption on community
Sufficient supply of labor in area
Sufficient schools
Concern for medical services
Lower tax base due to people not residing
because of environment
Wage-level changes
Loss of recreational land
Economic Impact of plant shut-down
Better fishing
Cost of duplicate construction
More use of marginal land for lines
No nuclear waste dumps due to climate
Dams-flood control-fishing, recreation
Poorer land for construction site
Site where necessary transportation
available
-59-
-------
GROUP I
Land Use Concerns (continued)
Rank Points
10 19
10 19
12 18
13 15
14 14
15 13
16 12
17 11
18 10
Final Voting
Rank Points
1 71
2 36
2 36
4 33
5 29
6 27
7 25
8 24
8 24
10 17
11 14
12 13
12 13
12 13
GROUP 2
Biological and
Rank Pol nts
1 87
2 44
2 44
4 40
5 34
6 27
6 27
8 26
8 26
8 26
11 20
12 17
13 16
14 14
14 14
Promotes linear commercial and Industrial
development
Transmission lines are hardships to
fanners
As little damage to the land as possible
Planned final use of land
Preserve scenic areas
Preserve use of lakes and waterways for
recreation
Transmission lines lower the value of ag.
land
Impact on local businesses
Effort to maintain land contour
Preservation of prime ag. land
Pollution and environment balanced
Make use of existing facilities-roads,
transmission lines, etc.
Location of transmission lines as part of
plant siting decision
Assure enough power
Cost of municipal services
Enough water for the public after power
plant use
Danger of nuclear disaster
Enough water for the power plant
Type of land suitable for construction
Type of fuels used
Higher standard of living due to elec-
tricity
Taxes to various governmental units
Total lifetime cost in $ and energy for
construction, operating, moth balling
Physical
Availability of water
Waste disposal
Coal-plant emissions in air (SOz, fly
ash, etc.)
Parti cul ate and chemical discharges in
water
Water contamination (surface and under-
ground)
Effect on agriculture
Effects on various vegetation and wildlife
Effect on downstream use
Impact on aquatic life
Limiting other water uses
Plant size having biological effects
Effects of material storage (coal...)
Effect of weather on water availability
(too much or drought)
Heat discharges
Structural strength of water contaminants
Ran^
19
20
20
20
23
24
25
25
25
28
Rank
12
16
17
17
19
19
19
22
23
24
25
26
26
28
29
29
31
Rank
14
14
13
13
20
21
22
23
24
24
24
27
28
28
28
28
Points
9
8
8
8
3
3
2
2
2
0
Points
13
11
10
10
9
9
9
8
7
6
5
4
4
3
2
2
0
Points
14
14
18
18
12
11
9
8
7
7
7
3
0
0
0
0
Economic and Social
Rank Po1 nts
1 45
Fuel transportation costs vs. trans-
Rank
2
Points
44
mission loss
Make use of existing corridors
Destroying archeological sites
Planned recreational corridors along
transmission lines
Whole farm buying
Good landscaping
Create aviation hazards
Should not fragment woodlands to
corridors
Preserve marshlands
Visual pollution detracts from scenic
value
Local radio and TV disturbance
Effects of wastes on humans
No nuclear waste dumps due to climate
Increased urbanization due to new power
Electricity assures jobs
Disposal of nuclear wastes
Transmission line hardships to farmers
Promotes linear commercial and industrial
development
Rail and road transportation in the area
Urban sprawl because of increase in
available power
Type and deposit method of effluent
Effect on ground water and
Provide jobs via construction and
operation
Poorer land for construction site
Site where necessary transportation is
available
Loss of agricultural and residential land
Maximum use of marginal land for trans-
mission lines
Dams-flood control, fishing, recreation
Structures (cooling lakes)
Floodplaln encroachment
Fuel availability
Soil suitability
Quality of life impacts
Effect of cooling tower condensation
Changing drainage courses
Maintaining unique natural areas
Erosion of construction
Transportation to the site
Limiting recreational use
Water table levels
Noise levels
Adding impacts to industrial areas rock
formation suitability
Visibility impacts
Effects of water inversion
Proximity to airports
Conservation rather than creating,
increasing demand
-60-
-------
GROUP 2
Economic and Social
Rank
3
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
12
13
13
15
15
Land
Rank
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
11
13
14
Final
Rank
1
2
3
4
4
6
6
8
8
10
11
12
13
14
14
16
Points
37 Rei
37 Ef
34 Sa
29 Loi
26 Imi
25 Mui
24 Ef
23 Ef
23 Mo
22 Ad
20 Tr
20 Im
19 Ne<
19 Pr
Use Concerns
Points
51 Co
48 Ma
42 Pr
42 Co
37 S1
32 Ma
29 SI
27 Pr
22 Av
22 Ge
22 Tr
21 As
17 Im
17 Wi
Voting
Points
59 Co
51 Av
31 Co
29 Pa
29 Si
24 Fu
24 Ad
22 Co
22 Ma
20 Sa
19 Ef
18 Lo
17 Ef
15 Wa
15 SI
14 Ef
Real estate taxes (benefits and losses)
Effect on population growth, housing,
services, etc.
Safety and security
Loss of ag. land for industry (?)
Impact on orderly growth patterns
Municipal costs (security, police, fire)
Effects of plant size
Effects on schools
More plants increase energy availability
Ad valorem tax
Transmission line compensation for
landowners
Impact on existing businesses, agricul-
ture (benefits and losses)
Need to involve citizens in site
selection
Proximity of plants to users
Conserve prime ag. land
Maximum use of existing transportation
corridors
Proximity to necessary resources (fuel,
manpower, water...to use little land)
Coordination with local and/or regional
land use plans
Siting for dual energy use
Maintain Wisconsin's recreational appeal
Site suitability in relation to other uses
Preservation of irretrievable (unique)
natural resources...wetlands, forests
Available railroad tracks (for coal)
Geographic location
Transmission line effects
Associate power plant with waste disposal
Improvement of water quality
Without local opposition
Conservation
Availability
Conserve prime ag. land
Particulate and chemical discharges
Siting for dual usage
Fuel transportation costs vs. trans-
mission loss
Advance state, county and municipal
planning
Coal plant air emissions
Maximum use of transmission corridors
Safety security
Effect on population growth
Loss of ag. land for Industry
Effect on downstream uses
Waste disposal
Siting for dual purposes
Effects of plant size
Rank
17
18
19
19
21
22
23
25
25
27
28
29
30
3]
32
Rank
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
27
27
27
Rank
17
17
19
20
21
21
23
23
25
25
25
28
29
30
31
Points
17
16
15
15
14
13
11
10
10
9
7
6
5
1
0
Points
17
15
13
12
12
11
10
9
8
7
7
4
0
0
0
Points
13
13
12
11
9
9
8
8
7
7
7
6
5
1
0
Legal changes to permit surveillance
of radicals
Education (especially on nuclear questions)
Effect on property values
Advance state, county, and municipal
planning
Siting for dual usage
Quality of life
Effect on wages
Increased regional tolerance of others
Power plants include recreational use
Compensation to municipality for trans-
mission lines
Disruption of community from construction
More employment
Opportunity cost-cost of not building
plant, delay costs, etc.
Archeological sites/historic areas
Housing availability
Strict control of area development
Use industrial land (if possible)
Type of plant in relation to population
centers
Maintain Wisconsin's recreational appeal
Preservation of wildlife nesting grounds
Ag. land becomes industrial, and lost to
other uses
Plant sites away from water shorelines
Site suitability for lands in public
domain
Preservation of pasture lands
Availability of highways
Power plant graveyards for other sites
Need for reasoning in regard to resi-
dential requirements
Appearances of cooling towers
Preservation archeological/historic sites
Scenic enhancement
Effects on agriculture
Impact on orderly growth patterns
Water contamination
Preservation of unique areas
Coordination with local and regional
land use plans
Municipal costs
Transmission line effects
Limiting other uses
Effects on native vegetation and wildlife
Use of transmission corridors for
recreation
Site suitability in relation to other uses
Impact on aquatic life
Available railroad tracks
Proximity to necessary resources
Geographic location
-61-
-------
GROUP 3
Biological and Physical
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
9
9
9
12
12
14
14
Points
52
45
41
32
31
28
21
21
19
19
19
18
18
17
17
air discharged from power pi ants—par-
ti culates
effects on surface hydrology (water) —
change in water flow
sulfur dioxide emissions
adequate means of disposal of spent fuels
lowering of water-table level
discharge of pollutants including heavy
metals into surface waters
proximity to geologic hazards - faults,
unstable soils, etc.
impact of transmission lines
effects of nitrogen oxide discharges
rise in temperature of surface water source
control of impacts on plants and animals
visible impact
changes in plant life in surface waters
effects of air pollution on dairy herds
decrease in oxygen in lake or river
Rank
14
17
18
19
19
20
21
21
21
24
25
26
26
27
27
27
Points
17
14
12
9
9
8
6
6
6
5
2
1
1
0
0
Q
Social and Economic
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
11
14
15
16
17
18
Land
Rank
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Final
Rank
1
Z
3
4
Points
44
40
35
29
24
22
20
19
16
15
14
14
14
13
12
11
10
9
Use
Points
37
17
17
16
14
12
10
8
6
5
Voting
Points
45
38
37
37
proximity of demand to proposed site
"boom" problems associated with construc-
tion
environmental degradation
cost of energy to the consumer (cost of
production at the site)
tax advantages
potential of use of waste products
industrial development
increased tax burden caused by an increase
in services provided
problems of possible sabotage
local employment as a result of power plant
effects on adjacent land values
Increased economic growth in the community
inconveniences to people being moved and
relocated
quality of life changes caused by an
increase in services provided
visual changes
use of railroads - positive and negative
impact on schools
increase in local wage scale
loss of prime agricultural land
minimize number of acres used
avoid floodplain and fault hazards
urbanization of land due to availability
of power
stacking of transmission lines
preservation of natural scientific areas
does not conflict with higher economic use
of the land
design of the power plant so that it fits
into the surroundings
loss of scenic value
loss of recreational land
loss of prime ag. land
particulate discharges
effects on surface hydrology
proximity of demand to proposed site
Rank
19
19
19
19
23
23
25
25
27
27
28
29
31
31
32
32
32
32
Rank
10
10
13
13
15
15
17
18
18
Rank
5
6
7
8
Points
8
8
8
8
7
7
5
5
4
4
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
Points
5
5
4
4
3
3
0
0
0
Points
30
28
27
19
health concern from possible accidents in
transportation or use of radioactive
fuels
destruction of rare plant or animal life
increase in humidity in surrounding area
loss of recreational use of lake
leakage of radioactive waters
effects of water withdrawals by deep wells
effect of inversions
increase in acidity of rainfall
storage of wastes on site
noise
power plant design
prevailing wind direction
proximity to end use
concern about design of power plant site
lighting
orographic effects
proximity to fuel source
rapid population growth
increased local consumption caused by
a power plant
increased demand for housing
adequate compensation for those who are
displaced
cost as caused by proximity of demand and
fuel sources
increased state aids
modification of adjacent land uses
availability of local medical facilities
effect of power plant on the local
availability of fuel
hi ghways-avai1abi1i ty
size of plant - potential for electricity
generation
increased demand for sewage treatment
loss of fanners spending on the community
health costs
ability of plant to convert to other fuels
effect on recreation
traffic safety for workers and tourists
decrease in tourism
will railroad increase economic growth
loss of historical areas
use of farm land for mobile homes and
camping
vast burial sites
concern with improvement of land around
site for recreation
proper landscaping around the plant
does not cut up existing parcels unwisely
concern with chimneys in waterfowl
migration routes
loss of land that has been in the family
for a long time
preservation of natural scientific areas
proximity to geologic hazards
environmental degradation
stacking of transmission lines
-62-
-------
GROUP 3
Final Voting
Rank Points
8 19
10 16
10 16
12 14
12 14
14 13
14 13
16 11
GROUP 4
Biological and
Rank Points
1 78
2 49
3 44
4 43
5 36
6 28
7 27
8 25
8 25
10 20
11 17
12 14
13 12
rise in surface water temperature
lowering of groundwater table
industrial development
adequate means of disposal of spent fuels
cost of production at the site
sulfur dioxide emissions
discharge of pollutants into surface waters
increased tax burden caused by an
increased demand for services
Physical
safety
immediate dispersal of pollutants in the
air
condition of existing ecosystem
water quality
ultimate disposal of nuclear waste
materials
radioactive pollution
effect of emissions on plant and animal
life
availability of water for operation
genetic effects
possible human disease
impact of input materials (pre-conversion)
location of transmission towers on
environment (flyways)
additional traffic effects
Rank
17
18
19
19
19
22
23
23
25
Rank
13
15
15
15
15
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
25
Points
r \j \ 1 1 uo
10
9
8
8
8
7
5
5
2
Points
12
10
10
10
10
9
8
6
5
4
1
0
0
0
Economic and Social
Rank Points
1 78
2 39
2 39
2 39
5 36
6 28
7 26
7 26
9 22
10 20
11 17
12 16
13 14
14 13
15 13
16 12
Land Use
Rank Points
1 44
2 35
3 32
4 30
net energy potential (system efficiency)
local area's need for power
developmental costs of site
area to be supplied by plant (local or
further away)
consideration of future alternative energy
sources
statewide energy needs
pressure on community services
operational costs
public acceptance and support
economics of scale
availability and convenience of operations
supplies
increased consumer costs due to bureau-
cratic delays
effects on the local tax base
who gets control and profits from the
plant
future impact on consumers' bills
effects on health
who makes the siting decision
balancing land use in an area
routes of transmission lines (existing
routes & development should be
considered)
preservation of prime agricultural land
Rank
17
18
19
19
21
22
22
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
Rank
4
6
7
8
Points
11
9
8
8
6
5
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Points
30
28
26
25
does not conflict with higher economic use
of the land
tax advantages
boom problems associated with construction
potential for use of waste products
minimize number of acres used
urbanization of land due to availability
of power
avoid floodplain and fault hazards
nitrogen oxide discharges
increased local employment as a result
of power plant
effects on local weather
vegetation and animal life on the site
visual effects
precluding other uses of water
contamination of food crops
transportation of nuclear waste (leakage)
thermal water pollution
effect on surface drainage
on-site storage of waste materials
impact on ground water supply
surface thermal pollution (land)
odors and smells and sounds
thermal air pollution
health effects of transmission lines
effects on food productivity
effects on social fabric of the community
effects on economic base of community (net
income to local community from plant)
population flow and fluctuation
effects on tourism
increased traffic (nuisance value)
existing transportation facilities
usurpation of agricultural land
impact on land prices in the area
attention to the desirability of
local industrial and economic growth
psychological effects (relocation)
impact on political structure of
community
potential for waste heat use
potential for co-generation facilities
aesthetic fit of plant to the site (design)
location of necessary transportation
facilities
prevailing winds in relation to housing
patterns
use of water precluding other uses
-63-
-------
GROUP
Land
Rank
8
10
10
10
13
14
15
16
17
Final
Rank
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
11
12
12
12
15
16
4
Use
Points
24
21
21
21
20
16
15
12
11
Voting
Points
41
41
35
32
26
23
21
20
18
18
16
15
15
15
14
13
location of plant in heavily industrial
area
soil and other site limitations
preserving wilderness or natural areas
(wetlands, prairies, forests)
adequate water supply for cooling
who appraises the site value
effects on streams and lakes
preserving residential areas
preservation of scenic areas
unique species or geological features
on the site
safety
who makes siting decisions
net energy potential
disposal of nuclear wastes
routes of transmission lines (stacking)
local areas' need for power
consideration of future energy sources
immediate dispersal of pollutants
genetic effects
area to be supplied with energy
availability of water for operation
radioactive pollution
developmental costs of site
preservation of prime ag. land
soil and other site limitations
availability and convenience of operating
supplies
GROUP 5
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
10
11
12
12
14
51
49
30
27
26
23
22
17
17
16
15
14
14
10
ample supply of water for proper plant
functioning
control of air pollution
geologic qualities of the proposed site
contamination of underground wells used
for water supply
contamination of subsurface water by
toxic wastes
least alteration of most virgin natural
environments
avoid discharges of toxic materials into
heated water effluent
temperature effects on surface water
effects on the aquatic ecosystem caused
by low flows due to power plant use
of surface waters
minimize effects on established wildlife
areas
pollution levels should not rise above
levels present in an area
toxic materials carried by evaporation
water from nuclear power plants to
vegetation and animals
availability of quantity of water
necessary for nuclear power plants
effects of transmission lines in wetland
areas on waterfowl
Rank
18
19
20
21
22
22
24
24
24
Rank
17
17
17
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
27
28
29
29
29
29
Rank
15
15
17
18
18
20
21
21
23
23
25
26
26
Points
11
7
5
3
1
1
0
0
0
Points
10
10
10
9
8
6
5
4
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
Points
9
9
8
7
7
6
5
5
4
4
1
0
0
location away from airport glidepaths
preservation of historically significant
sites
public access to and potential usage of
surrounding area
preservation of recreation areas
preserving shorelines
effects on feelings toward the land and
land values
preserving flyways
preserving hunting and fishing
area required for all aspects of plants
statewide energy needs
balancing land use in an area
location of necessary transportation
facilities
preserving natural areas
use of water precluding other uses
prevailing winds in relation to housing
patterns
location of plant in heavily industrial
area
operational costs
adequate water for cooling
condition of existing environment
water quality
aesthetic fit
effects of emissions on plant and animal
life
possibility of human disease
pressure on coimiunity services
public acceptance and support
avoid wild animal habitats
minimize the impact of natural disasters
(earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.) on
power plants
leaching from on-site coal piles
evaporation from river leading to prob-
lems with sewage treatment downstream
avoid interaction of on.-site nuclear
wastes with surrounding environment
high voltage transmission lines should not
endanger safety of people, animals
or vegetation
atmospheric effects of cooling towers
surface water contamination from ash or
S02 scrubber sludge disposal areas
particulate emissions from coal plants
consideration for the habitat of rare
and endangered species
nuclear plant would not be able to utilize
trash and garbage as fuel
plant should not be visibly ugly
groundwater levels being reduced during
construction
-6k-
-------
GROUP 5
Economic and Social
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
9
11
12
13
13
15
15
17
17
17
20
20
20
23
24
25
26
LAND
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
8
9
9
11
12
13
Points
27 fu
24 co
24 co
20 wa
19 mo
18 ar
16 av
15 pr
15 ap
14 av
13 ut
12 pr
12 li
11 en
11 ma
10 ty
10 en
10 al
9 tr
9 co
9 em
8 co
7 sa
6 in
5 ec
USE
Points
51 pr
42 pu
30 co
27 ca
25 re
24 po
24 po
22 co
17 ad
17 av
16 am
15 fo
10 so
future energy shortages
conservation measures should be taken to
reduce energy demand 28
cost incurred by delay in construction 29
of any generating facility
waste disposal problems connected with
nuclear power
more equitability in electric rate struc- 29
ture-real costs should be used
architectural standards allowing current
comfort levels with less energy use
availability fossil fuels
proximity to existing transmission lines
appropriate and realistic estimates of
future needs should be made
availability of land, water, trans-
portation '
utilize current waste products as fuel
proximity to need area
lifestyles altered to demand less energy
energy users should become technologically
more efficient
maximize efficiency of power plant by
utilizing waste heat
type of fuel
energy needs for food production
alter tax laws to encourage conservation
transportation costs associated with
transportation of large volumes of
coal
cost of construction should be a true
reflection of actual costs nation-
wide
employment by the power plants
costs and benefits of electrical energy
production should be born equitably
by both user and producer areas
safety problems associated with transport
of nuclear Wastes through communities
increased unemployment
economic and environmental problems
associated with coal transportation
preserve prime ag. lands
put plant in areas where there will be
least amount of deterioration
resulting
consideration of supporting transportation
systems
carrying capacity of areas for generating
industrial facilities
realization that facility and lines must
go someplace
power lines parallel to railroads and
roadways
powerplants near good supply of water
concern for spin-off or secondary impacts
adequate geological structure
avoid wilderness areas
amount of land available for future 24
expansion
follow property lines with transmission
lines when possible
scars on landscape due to surface mining
of coal
29
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Rank
13
15
16
17
18
18
20
20
22
23
24
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Points
10
8
7
6
5
5
4
4
2
1
0
emphasize recycling of glass and metal
containers to conserve energy
taxes paid by power plants
we should maintain a realistic capability
to deal with nuclear questions even if
we do not emphasize nuclear power
generation for U.S. needs
the ultimate inevitability of the use of
fast breeder reactors once the option
of building nuclear plants is selected
less restrictions on future energy pro-
duction
site should not utilize more prime
farmland than is necessary
limited uranium supplies, subsequent
rise in cost of uranium
cost of construction
danger radioactive wastes pose to future
generations
divisive nature of arguments over energy
need, supply and use
proximity of site to large residential
areas
impact on local taxes caused by increased
need for services resulting from
power plant construction
human error and possible consequences in
relation to nuclear power plants
coolinq towers vs. once-through cooling
water use by power plants
proximity of power plants to industrial
concentrations
minimum new road or rail construction to
supply fuel to power plants
monopoly potential of present energy
supply companies
existing air quality
laws which forbid needless use should be
enacted
security-relating to sabotage, terrorism,
etc.
attempt to reduce peak energy demands
most industrially developed areas should
be used for power plants
no historic or pre-historic area used
underground transmission economically
not feasible
drainage and type of soil
avoid virgin areas
electrical interference from transmission
lines in residential areas
siting away from floodplain areas
leasing of national forests for uranium
mining
no use of agricultural land
land area needed for cooling ponds
need for adequate water for both fanning
and coal processing
consideration of wind patterns in
location of power plants
-65-
-------
GROUP 5
Final Voting
Rank Points
1 34
1 34
3 28
4 27
5 23
6 20
7 19
8 18
9 17
10 15
11 14
12 13
13 11
14 10
15 9
16 8
GROUP 6
Biological and
Rank Points
1 50
2 37
3 33
4 32
5 25
5 25
7 23
7 23
9 22
10 21
11 20
12 17
12 17
Conservation measures to reduce demand
Preserve prime ag. land
Future energy shortages
Ample supply of water for proper plant
functioning
Plants in areas where there will be least
deterioration
Need for energy
Equality in electric rate structures -
reflect real costs
Least allocation of virgin natural areas
Realization that facilities and lines must
go somewhere
Contamination of underground wells
Need for realistic estimates of future
energy needs
Carrying capacity of the area for
generating and industrial
Control of air pollution
Effects of low flow on aquatic ecosystems
Availability of land, water, transpor-
tation
Geologic qualities
Physical
Air pollution affecting health (S02, NOx,
etc.)
Quality of water affected by chemical and
thermal pollution
Effect on surface water availability in
vicinity of site
What kind of energy source will be used;
if nuclear, radioactivity
Effect of transmission lines on farmland
Fuel supply problems
Power plant location so as to minimize
distribution facilities (physical
and economic)
Could the power plant utilize garbage and
other waste as fuel
Disturbance to unique or natural areas by
power plant or transmission lines
Effect of pollution on farming and farm
crops in the area
Disposal (or utilization) of sludge and
ash
Population density
Proximity of power plant, transmission
lines, rnads, etc. to each other
Rank
16
16
16
16
21
21
21
24
24
26
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
Rank
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
24
25
26
26
Points
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Points
14
13
11
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
5
4
1
0
0
Economic and Social
Rank Points
1 43
2 37
3 36
4 33
5 31
6 28
7 23
9 20
10 18
Location so as to minimize cost and
problems of electrical distribution
Availability of fuel supply: domestic vs.
foreign and plenty vs. scarce
More efficient licensing and approval
procedures
Electric service reliability and cost
Providing for efficient public input
Is more electricity really needed In the
area
Replacement of obsolete and wasteful
plants with new, more efficient plants
Job creation
Small plants vs. large plants to
eliminate transmission lines
Rank
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
15
Points
18
I/
15
14
13
11
11
11
Cost incurred by delay in facility con-
struction
Consideration of supporting transpor-
tation systems
Employment by power plants
Alter tax laws to encourage conservation
Architectural standards to preserve
present comfort
Avoid wilderness areas
Taxes paid by power plants
Contamination of subsurface water by
toxic substances
Power lines parallel to railroads and
railways
Minimum effects on established wildlife
areas
Concern for spinoff or secondary impacts
Avoid toxic discharges into heated effluent
Temperature effect on surface water
Availability of fossil fuels
Proximity to existing transmission lines
Adequate geological structures
Plants near good supply of water
Avoid archeological sites and historic
buildings or districts
Proximity of power plant to industrial areas
Will thermal pollution affect the ecosystem
in the water supply
Suitability of the topography
Effects on land vegetation in the area
Is soil type suitable for foundation and
and drainage
Visual impact of the power plant
Effect of increased humidity on the
weather (fog. sleet)
Could full use be made of wind energy
Effect on the flood plain
Can transmission lines by put underground
Proximity of residential areas to the
power plant
Can there be adaptive use of ecological
change (e.g., use of thermal pools)
Effect on animal populations
Would a plant be more serviceable in a
higher or lower elevation area
Choice of fossil fuel substitution - from
coal to sun to fusion
Cheap power within limits of safety
Could the power-plant be a site for
disposal of waste
Does the site maximize the possibility
of utilizing waste heat
Effect on the labor market before and
after construction
Provide electrical energy as a factor
in national security
Achieve balance between environmental
concerns and needs of people
Most efficient allocation of capital
-66-
-------
GROUP 6
Economic and Social (continued)
Points
10
10
9
Rank
18
18
20
21
21
Land Use
Rank Points
1 45
Rank Points
9
10
34
26
25
25
24
20
19
17
13
Final Ranking
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
11
12
12
14
28
28
21
20
19
18
15
14
14
12
11
11
10
The effect of transporting fuels on our 23
transportation system and our com- 24
muni ties
Economic and social costs of waste disposal 25
Anticipation of growth in an area, 26
population and industry 27
Site plants out of residential areas and 28
in industrial areas
Tax effects on local government financing 28
Concern with valuable farm land being used
to site the plant or transmission lines
Siting with regard to efficient distri-
bution points
Impact of industrial and residential devel-
opment of the plant vs. other uses
for the land
Preserve archeological and historic sites
Siting with adequate water supply
Proximity to significant natural spots
Placement of poles along highways and
railroad right-of-ways to keep them
out of agricultural land
Utilizing existing railroad beds for
transport of land
Land disposal of wastes
Site near industrial areas
Rank
11
12
12
14
Is more electricity really needed in the
area?
Effect on surface water availability in
vicinity of site
Air pollution affecting health (S02,
NOX, etc.)
Effect of pollution on farming and farm
crops in the area
Concern with valuable farm land being used
to site the plant or transmission
lines
Providing for efficient public input
What kind of energy source will be used;
if nuclear, radioactivity
Small plants vs. large plants to
eliminate transmission lines
Availability of fuel supply: domestic
vs. foreicm and plenty vs. scarce
Electric service reliability anc cost
More efficient licensing and approval
procedures
Effect of transmission lines on farmland
Location so as to minimze cost and
problems of electrical distribution
Disturbance to unique or natural areas by
power plant or transmission lines
14
16
16
16
19
20
21
21
Rank
14
14
17
17
19
19
21
22
22
22
25
26
27
27
27
Points
12
10
10
8
Points
10
10
Effect on the value of the sourrounding land
Cost to community of construction and
operation of plant
Proper allocation of limited water supplies
Allowance for long-term research
Industrial expansion capabilities
How can insurance against disaster be
financed
What are the possibilities for load
management at that site
Pole placement to avoid interference with
irrigation and tilling
Impact on recreation in the area of the
plant
DNR pushing power lines onto good
agricultural land
Use of round poles vs. lattice type to
conserve land
Minimize erosion from plant siting and
siting of transmission lines
Research into power storage
Lease of the land for transmission line
pole siting
Use the minimum amount of land necessary
for the plant
Impact of transmission lines on wetlands
Put transmission lines underground
Proximity to communication links
Keep the trees along the roadways
Replacement of obsolete and wasteful plants
with new, more efficient plants
Placement of poles along highways and rail-
road right-of-ways to keep them out
of agricultural land
Fuel supply problems
Siting with regard to efficient distri-
bution points
Quality of water affected by chemical
and thermal pollution
Job creation
Preserve archeological and historic sites
Could the power plant utilize garbage
and other wastes as fuels
Choice of fossil fuels substitution -
from coal to sun to fusion
Impact of industrial and residential
development of the plant vs. other
uses for the land
Proximity to significant natural spots
Power plant location so as to eliminate
distribution facilities (physical and
economic)
Utilizing existing railroad beds for
transport of fuel
Land disposal of wastes
Site near industrial areas
-67-
-------
GROUP 7
Biological and Physical
Rank
1
2
3
4
4
6
6
8
9
9
11
12
12
14
Points
49
44
41
38
38
37
37
31
28
28
23
22
22
21
Economic and
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
Land
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
9
10
10
12
Final
Rank
1
2
3
4
Points
59
51
44
42
40
35
34
32
27
25
23
18
17
16
16
Use
Points
80
73
51
39
31
30
30
30
29
26
26
24
Ranking
Points
52
51
35
32
Thermal pollution
Air pollution minimization
Need for energy investigation
Byproduct disposal
Water pollution
Effects on health
Effects on environment and drainage pat-
terns of waterway diversion
Relation to population centers
Restoration of natural habitat
Plant safety
Loss of wildlife habitat
Wetland conservation
Investigation of alternatives
Solid waste disposal-dual use
Social
Tax cost and benefits to community
No construction money spent until full
approval
Consumer cost of energy (effect on rates)
Projection methods for energy needs -
impact of advertising
Full citizen participation and information
on E.I.S.
Cultural impact, archeological site
destruction
Effect on "quality of life"
Incentives to local townships (tax)
Safety
Secure long-term power supply and
availability
True cost of alternative sources of energy
Allocation of investment dollars
(opportunities lost)
Study of social and economic aspects of
region and community
Effect of not having secure power
Incentives for use of off-peak power
Save good agricultural land
Long-term compatible landuse planning
Primary environmental corridor protection
Pursue energy center development
Siting next to existing facilities (land
use)
Individual right to aesthetic beauty of
countryside
Preservation of historical sites and
archeological sites
Avoid building on hazardous sites
Avoidance of prime residential sites
Regional coordination of landuse planning
Recreational value of uncluttered country-
side and use of recreational land
Effect of dollar value of adjoining
properties
Save good agricultural land
Investigation of need for energy
Long-term compatible land use planning
Full citizen participation and info on EIS
Rank
15
15
17
18
18
20
21
21
23
23
25
26
26
Rank
16
17
18
18
18
21
21
21
24
25
25
25
28
29
30
Rank
13
14
15
16
16
18
19
20
20
22
23
24
Rank
5
6
Points
19
19
18
15
15
12
10
10
8
8
6
3
3
Points
12
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
8
7
7
7
6
5
3
Points
22
19
18
15
15
11
9
7
7
5
4
2
Points
31
28
Effect of transportation to area
(railroads and highways)
Visual impact (minimal)
No construction before E.I.S.
Effects of transmission lines and
substations (ozone, etc.)
Depletion of water resources
Waste heat utilization
Environmental impact of boom development
Magnitude of impacts
Siting near industrial areas
Burial of small transmission lines
Investigation of weather, geology of
site (accidents, etc.)
Noise pollution
Adequate water available
Impact of construction boom (long-term)
Impact of physical extension of plant
(smell, noise)
Cost-benefits of solid waste disposal
Discussion of cost of environmental
improvements (emission controls, etc.)
Equitable allocation of costs
Psychological effects on local people
Willingness to build alternative pilot
plants
Visual pollution
Effect of abandoned plant
Relocation of people
Siting near the point of use (economic-
ally efficient)
Equitable regulation of environmental
aspects
Future recreational uses (fishing)
Impact of future industrial development
Employment (construction and maintenance)
and impact of influx of skilled
people
Stacking of power lines
Bury transmission lines
Route power lines with least possible
visible pollution
Areas of unique geological value
Transmission lines should be included
in E.I.S.
Leasing payment should be renegotiated
periodically
Improve local area during construction
and beautification
Identify beneficial impacts on landuse
Location near adequate cooling water
Disturbance of environment
Easy access to site
Land restoration after retirement of
plant
Minimization of air pollution
Secure long-term power supply and
availability
-68-
-------
GROUP 7
Final Ranking
Rank Points
Rank Points
7
9
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
26
25
23
23
23
22
21
19
17
14
13
12
11
Projection methods for energy needs and
impact of advertising
Primary environmental corridor protection
By-product disposal
Water pollution
Safety
Effect on quality of life
Relation to population centers
No construction money spent until full
approval given
Tax incentives to local townships
Effects on health
Plant safety
Pursue energy center development
Avoid building on hazardous sites
19
19
22
22
24
24
26
26
26
29
11
11
10
10
9
Recreational value of uncluttered country-
side and the use of recreational lands
Tax cost and benefits to community
Avoidance of prime residential sites
Restoration of natural habitat
Individuals right to aesthetic beauty
of countryside
Consumer cost of energy, and effects
on rate
Siting next to existing facilities
Thermal pollution
Cultural Impact
Effects on environmental and drainage
patterns of waterway diversions
-69-
-------
GROUP PARTICIPANTS
Group 1
John P. Kuziej
Keith Sommerfeld
Douglas D. Sorenson
Ralph Work
Jerry Foote
Roger Featherstone
Leader: David Younkman
Group 2
Dean Nelson
Richard Jann
Conrad Frogner
Richard Adler
Rod Nilsestuen
Gil Buettner
Lucille Bauer
Patrick Brick
Clifford Elliot
George L. Oncken
Leader: Bob Friedman
Group 5
Ken Mueller
Bob Nelson
Rich Petershack
John Horky
Don Hable
Mrs. Paul C. Bauer
Leader: Jill Randall
APPENDIX C
EAU CLAIRE WORKSHOP
Group 4
Will Fantle
Howard R. Kruse
William Hehli
Margot Bouchard
Ronald K. Kryzenske
Alton R. Christopherson
Gordon Sill
David Raihle
Jerry Kripps
Leader: Elin Quigley
Group 5
Dorothy Owen
Stanley Cider
Ruth Lee
Marvin Lansing
Clyde Lehman
Albert BrokeIman
E. J. Polasek
Rodney Johnson
Leader: Bob Terrell
Group 6
David Carlson
Brian Gabriel
R. T. Evans
Ruth Egerer
John Bacharach
Calvin Kraemer
Robert Petershack
Leader: Charles Andrews
-TO-
-------
GROUP 1
Biological and Physical
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
9
9
10
11
11
11
14
14
Points
33
30
29
26
21
21
15
11
11
10
9
9
9
6
6
Economic and
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
7
7
10
11
11
11
11
Land
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
12
13
Final
Rank
1
2
3
4
S
Points
28
15
14
13
12
12
11
11
11
10
9
9
9
9
Use
Points
22
20
19
18
16
14
13
12
11
11
11
10
9
Ranking
Points
29
27
21
18
17
Deposition of waste materials
Depletion of non-renewable resources/fuels
Need for the plant
Removal of ag. land
Air pollution (from ash dust and coal
trains - particulates, but broadened)
Thermal pollution of water
Damage from mining
Wildlife disruption/change
Low level radiation damage to ecosystems
Depletion of renewable resources -
forests...
Water availability for transportation
Damage to environment from increased
transportation needs
Radioactive pollutants added to water
Ecosystem damage from topsoil distur-
bance (runoff, etc.)
Concentration of radioactivity in dairy
products
Social
Need for plant
Siting near load center
Responsibility to future generations
Human health and safety
Increased tax base
Which govt. level has the final say
Loss of land uses
Industrial opportunities
Economic incentives for alternatives
Cost to consumer
Increased expenses to communities
(food, schools, water,..)
New business
Change in land value
Equity/voice of public opinion - Do I.
John Doe, has as much say as V ice-
President of NSP?
Disposal of waste
Use of valuable ag. land
Following zoning laws (too flexible)
Economic/ecological trade-offs
Land for transmission lines
Pollution to land and water
Size of sites
Build plant near land fill sites
Who determines land use?
Use of underground transmission lines
whenever possible
Changing land values
Future land uses
Underground plant construction
Need for the plant
Deposition of waste materials
Responsibility to future generations
Pollution to land and water
Depletion of renewable resources
(forests, etc.)
Rank
16
16
18
20
21
22
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
Rank
15
16
16
16
19
20
20
22
23
24
24
24
24
24
Rank
13
15
16
17
17
19
19
21
21
21
rt 1
21
21
Rank
6
7
8
Points
5
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Points
8
7
7
7
5
4
4
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
Points
9
8
7
4
4
1
1
0
0
0
Points
15
13
11
Q
3
Transmission right-of-way as potential
wildlife habitat
Cooling tower cloud
Thermal air pollution and climate change
Noise
Site elimination from future uses
(esp. nuclear)
Dairming of water to prevent flooding
Chemical pollutants added to water
Ozone build-up from transmission lines
Increased fire hazard
Water table disruption
Wetland disruption
Human exposure to explosions
Large ecosystem disruption from
melt-down
Damming of water for hydro and dis-
ruption to the biosphere
Fish kills at water intakes
Alternative energy sources
Proximity to residential areas
Economic advantages of renewable vs.
nonrenewable power sources
Increased population (long term growth)
Rural rights
Means of transmission
Condemnation right
Disruptions due to transportation
(materials for building, maintenance,
fuel...)
Social disruption from construction
Social fears
Large scale versus small, dispersed
siting
Cost of land for site
Value change towards conservation
Capital loans
Construction/operational jobs
Use of land for additional needed
transportation facilities
Multiple use of area around the plant
Condemnation procedures
Forests
Wetlands
Value of transmission lines - fire-
breaks and wildlife habitat
Strip mining laws
Use of irrigation
Historical significance
Loss of scenic areas
Attitude toward conservation
Fly ash for fertilizer, concrete, etc.
Depletion of non-renewable resources
(fuel, etc.)
Economic incentives for alternatives
Use of valuable ag. land for sites,
transmissions...
Build plant near land-fill areas
-71-
-------
GROUP 1
Final Ranking
Rank Points
10 8
11 7
12 6
12 6
12 6
15 5
15 5
17 4
18 3
GROUP 2
Biological and
Rank Points
1 39
2 32
3 31
3 31
5 29
6 28
6 28
8 26
9 24
10 23
11 22
12 20
13 18
13 18
14 16
15 15
16 14
17 13
18 11
19 10
19 10
19 10
(continued)
Economic/ecological trade-offs
Siting near load areas
Cost to consumer
Air pollution from ash dust and coal
trains (particulates)
Who determines land use?
Loss of land uses
Increased tax base
Low level radiation damage to ecosystem
Use of underground transmission lines
wherever possible
Physical
Air pollution
Nuclear fallout
Total monitoring of groundwater, streams
and air
Locate on "poor" soil (SCS)
No nuclear waste disposal in area
Mater availability (for everything)
Sufficient supply of water for plant
Minimize impact on water quality
Danger of nuclear malfunction
Radiation effects on biological systems
Health effects on local residents
Fly ash control
Transportation and transmission distances
Minimizing route construction to and
from plant
Suitable soil and rock formations
Relocation of people
Where fuel is stockpiled
Fuel availability
Effects on underground water supply
Danger to wildlife habitat
Adequate collection of background infor-
mation
Availability of transportation routes
Rank Points
Economic and Social
Rank Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
6
10
11
11
11
71
15
16
16
18
18
35
29
24
22
21
20
20
20
20
19
16
16
16
16
14
13
13
12
12
Proximity of plant to demand area
Increased cost of municipal services
(road, fire, police)
Displacement of businesses and residences
Adequate regional supply of electricity
Energy for home heating
Added tax revenue to municipality
Encourage industry
Accelerated increase in land value
Loss of ag. land
Suitable transmission routes
Increase In employment during and after
construction
Growth in area
Impact on area population patterns
Fear of living next to nuclear plant
Equitable compensation to land owners
Decrease in land values
Location for cost-effective regional
power system
Avoid small plants
Possible decrease in local electrical cost
18
20
20
22
22
24
24
24
24
24
Rank
19
19
24
24
26
27
27
29
29
31
32
32
34
34
34
37
37
37
Rank
20
21
21
21
24
24
26
27
28
29
29
29
32
32
34
Points
10
10
9
9
8
7
7
6
6
5
4
4
2
2
2
0
0
0
Points
11
10
10
10
9
9
8
7
6
5
5
5
4
4
3
Following zoning laws
Thermal pollution of water
Human health and safety
Which government level has the final say?
Size of sites
Wildlife disruption/change
Damage from mining
Industrial opportunities
Land for transmission lines
Changing land values
Prevailing wind away from heavily
populated area
Dairy milk monitoring
Waste water utilization (irrigation,
etc.)
Transmission lines provide fire breaks
Effects on endangered species of
plants and animals
Increase in water temperature from
plant discharge
Concern for fog and water vapor
Spraying of transmission line right-
of-way
Minimize visual impact of plants and
lines
Noise impact on residences
Residential encroachment in remote areas
Sufficient distance from major highways
to prevent adverse traffic conditions
Dust from traffic and materials
handling
Destruction of scenery
Enough water for plants and animals
in streams
Transmission line disturbance of bird
flight patterns
Fuel transportation hazards
Noise impact on wildlife
Education of populace to need and
value of plant
Unfair tax structure
Reliability of local plant vs.
distant one
Resource recovery opportunity
(refuse derived fuel)
Electricity for food production
Conforming to local zoning desires
Close location to industry to minimize
transmission line costs
Community dissension
Are utilities power-pool ing?
Choice of fuel to keep costs down
Hydro-electric create lake and recreation
Construction related traffic
Increased state aid because of short
term increase in population during
construction
Soil suitable for construction
(cost of building)
Economics of water supply
-72-
-------
GROUP 2
Economic and Social (continued)
Rank Points
35 2
36 1
37 0
Land Use
Rank Points
1 39
2 33
3 31
4 28
5 27
6 24
7 22
8 21
9 20
10 19
11 18
12 16
12 16
14 15
15 14
Final Ranking
Rank Points
1 30
2 27
3 24
4 23
5 21
5 21
7 18
8 17
9 16
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 15
GROUP 3
Biological and
Rank Points
1 45
2 24
3 23
4 20
5 19
6 17
7 16
7 16
7 16
10 14
11 13
11 13
13 11
13 11
13 11
16 10
Loss of roads
Extra security precautions needed
Additions to schools
Avoid environmentally sensitive areas
Loss of ag. land
Buffer zone between plant and residential
area
Water supply
Use a minimal amount of land
Neighborhood compatibility
More local govt. input on siting (local
decision on eminent domain)
Avoid airports
Appropriate transmission routes
Stay out of flood plain
Re-evaluation of roads
Suitability of foundation soils
Change in zoning patterns
Keep transmission line routes open and
accessible
Loss of water for irrigation of crop-
lands (limits land use)
Avoid environmentally sensitive areas
Proximity of plant to demand area
Loss of ag. land
More local govt. input on siting (local
decision on eminent domain)
Air pollution
Total monitoring of groundwater, air and
streams
Use a minimal amount of land
Suitable transmission routes
Increased cost of municipal services
Water availability
Nuclear fallout
Adequate regional supply of electricity
Displacement of businesses and residences
Physical
Air pollution (coal and nuclear effects)
Type of fuel used
Effects on ag. production
Distance of plant to heavy population
centers
Water availability for cooling
Use of prime ag. land
Disposal of plant wastes
Disposal and handling of nuclear wastes
Effects of transmission lines
Consideration of future energy needs
Safety
Physical condition of the land
Away from prevailing winds
Effects on local population
Disruption of ecosystem
Is plant really needed?
Rank
37
37
37
Rank
16
17
18
18
18
18
18
23
24
25
25
27
28
28
Points
0
0
0
Points
12
11
10
10
10
10
10
8
5
4
4
3
0
0
28
Rank
14
15
16
17
17
19
20
20
20
23
23
23
26
27
Rank
17
17
19
19
21
22
22
24
25
25
27
27
27
27
Points
14
13
12
11
11
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
6
0
Points
9
9
8
8
7
3
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
27
Conservation practices
Solid wastes disposal alternative
Encourage small plants
Closing of roads
Avoid direct crossing of crop land with
transmission lines
Mix land use types
Transmission line effects - radio,
TV, noise
Limit reserve of parks and forests
Soil suitability for sewage disposal
Limiting access to lakes and streams
Use surrounding land for crops
Preserve historical landmarks
Building code compliance
Compatibility with regional plans
Effect on recreation
Hydro-electric - loss of scenic streams
Soil conservation maintained in
adjacent land
Loss of scenic values
Buffer zone between plant and resi-
dential area
Added tax revenue to municipality
Encourage industry
Radiation effects on biological systems
Neighborhood compatibility
Located on "poor" soil
Sufficient supply of water for plant
Energy for home heating
Accelerated increase in land values
Danger of nuclear malfunction
Minimize impact on water quality
Avoid airports
No nuclear waste disposal in area
Stay out of flood plain
Frequency of severe storms
Low level local radiation
Thermal pollution (raising temperatures)
Radioactive emissions in drinking water
Probability of catastrophe
Noise pollution
Proximity to lakes and streams
Hazards of decommissioning (nuclear)
Geological stability
Good agricultural effects of sulphur
from coal burning
Location of plant relative to user market
Moving of plant parts to the sites
Insurance (adequate?)
Probability of sabotage of nuclear
plant
Plans for evacuation in case of accident
-73-
-------
GROUP 3
Economic and Social
Rank Points
1 28
2 24
3 23
4 22
5 19
6 16
7 14
8 13
8 13
10 11
10 11
10 11
13 10
13 10
Land Use
Rank Points
1 34
2 32
3 27
3 27
5 24
6 21
7 17
8 14
8 14
10 13
10 13
Final Ranking
Rank Points
1 34
2 19
3 18
4 17
5 15
6 14
6 14
8 13
8 13
10 11
10 11
12 9
12 9
12 9
15 7
GROUP 4
Biological and
Rank Points
1 42
2 39
3 38
4 37
5 35
6 32
7 23
8 19
9 18
10 16
10 16
10 16
13 15
14 14
Effects on public health
Type of fuel used
Distribution of utility tax
Consideration of energy demand
Jobs provided by plant
Displacement of people
Impact on local taxes
Adequacy of evac. plants
Availability of adequate disaster
insurance
Life expectancy of plant
Problems of nuclear waste disposal
Disruption of social order
Location in area of light agriculture
Amount of land taken (too much?)
Location near industrial areas
Loss of ag. land
Amount of land taken
Where fuel is stored
Location away from residential areas
Effects of air pollution on nearby land
Scenic values
Preservation of waterways and wetlands
Consistent with local zoning
Maintenance of property values
Effects on fishing and hunting
Use of prime ag. land
Location near industrial areas
Amount of land taken
Disposal and handling of nuclear wastes
Loss of agricultural land
Disposal of plant wastes
Effects on public health
Air pollution
Types of fuel used
Impact on local taxes
Where fuel is stored
Effects on agricultural production
Effects of transmission lines
Distribution of utility tax
Water availability for cooling
Physical
Impact of heated water on fish, algae
Air concerns for downwind areas
Physical breakdown of plant (explosion,
accident, etc.)
Availability of adequate water for plant
cooling
Radiation impacts on all living things
Particulate pollution to air
Radioactive emissions to air
Waste removal and disposal
Availability of fuel
Transmission line size and routing
Protection from natural disasters
Compatability to comprehensive zoning
Fogging effect of cooling towers
Impact on the environment
Rank
15
16
16
18
19
20
21
21
23
24
24
26
26
Rank
12
12
14
15
16
17
Rank
15
15
15
19
19
21
21
23
24
24
26
26
26
26
26
Rank
14
14
17
18
18
20
20
22
23
24
25
25
25
28
Points
9
8
8
6
5
4
3
3
2
1
1
0
0
Points
10
10
9
7
3
0
Points
7
7
7
6
6
3
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Points
14
14
13
12
12
10
10
8
7
6
4
4
4
1
Location in lightly populated area
Effects on agricultural productivity
Supply energy to local area
Adequacy of existing area services
and protection
Consideration of cost per length
of plant life
How fuel will be transported
Post-construction economic impact
Effects on land value
Transportation needs of operation
Cost and time of construction of plant
DNR and EPA
Economic demands on area construction
Effects on maintenance of local highways
Drying up wells (depleting ground water)
precludes other uses of water
Plant should make use of local
resources (people, other)
Important historical or archeological
sites and landmarks
Effects on tourism (recreation areas)
Use of woodland as buffer zone
Location of stacks in relation to
air travel
Consideration of future- energy needs
Adequacy of evacuation plans
Location away from residential areas
Jobs provided by plant
Availability of adequate insurance
Distance from heavy population centers
Displacement of people
Consideration of future energy demand
Scenic values
Consistent with local planning and zoning
Disruption of community social order
Effects of air pollution
Preservation of waterways-wetlands
Maintenance of property values
Effects on fishing and hunting
Water drawdown
Buffer zone
Needs - location, necessity of power
Emotional effect on people
Global effect on weather
Land not suitable for parks, resi-
dential or ag. land
Physical location that can be protected
Effect of noise on plant neighbors
Impact of coal transportation on
communities
Nuclear fission unnatural in universe
Radioactive impacts on aquatic environ.
Radiation effects on soil
Availability of transportation
Visibility of plant
-------
GROUP 4
Biological and Physical (continued)
Rank Points
Rank Points
29
Greenhouse effect of evaporation of
water
Economic and Social
Rank Points
1
2
3
3
5
6
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
Land
Rank
1
2
3
3
5
6
6
6
9
10
11
12
Final
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
8
11
12
13
13
13
16
49
35
30
30
28
24
24
23
21
20
18
17
16
Use
Points
49
37
32
32
30
23
23
23
21
14
13
12
Ranking
Points
38
37
32
24
22
21
18
16
16
16
14
13
11
11
11
10
Relocation of existing land use
Public health effects
Public safety concerns
Who has decision/policy making control
Availability of waste disposal sites
Will it provide jobs locally
Current and future cost of fuel
Community need for power - locally
and regionally
Provides a tax base
Impact of facility on utility rates
Impact on local schools
Operating costs over long time framework
Cost of the policy
Ag. land preservation
Amount of loss and disturbance to local
based ag.
Restricts adjacent land use (compatability)
Proximity to fuel source vs. transmission
losses
Highest and best use of the property
Effect on future growth and development
Equitable distribution of regional costs
and benefits
Need for transmission line ROW
Effect of changing uses of land and
water resources
Devaluation of surrounding homes
Protecting recreational areas
Buffer zone between plant and
surroundings
Ag. land preservation
Public health effects
Community need for power
Amount of loss and disruption to local
agriculture
Public safety concerns
Availability of adequate water
Radiation impacts on all living things
Highest and best use
Will it provide jobs locally
Provides a tax base
Waste removal and disposal
Transmission line ROW
Current and future cost of fuel
Physical breakdown of plant
Effect on future growth
Effect of changing uses of land and
water resources
29
29
14
15
16
17
18
18
18
21
22
22
22
Rank Points
13
12
10
9
8
8
8
7
5
5
Rank
13
13
13
16
16
16
19
20
20
22
23
23
Rank
16
16
19
20
20
22
22
24
25
26
26
26
29
30
31
31
Points
11
11
11
9
9
9
8
7
7
2
0
0
Points
10
10
8
7
7
6
6
5
4
3
3
3
2
1
0
0
Electrical disturbances
Weather concerns
Transportation heeded - roads, RR
Change in character of local area
Effect on property values
Impact on housing
Effect of power lines on land values
Who pays for environment damage?
Increase 1n population
Availability of skilled personnel
Nearness to fuel supply
Social impact on performing arts
(available facilities, etc.)
Facility location in relation to
population
Preserve unusual wildlife (habitat,
etc.)
Destruction and/or devaluation of
scenic areas
Population of surrounding area
Preventing land abuse: erosion,
tree cutting, etc.
Restriction of public uses, hunting/
hiking, etc.
Locating a power plant near consumers
Location near lakeshore/riverbank
Alternative cooling technologies so
river, lake site not necessary
Quality of soils for proposed uses
Destruction of historical sites
Preserving scientific areas
Price of land
Air concerns for downwind areas
Impact of facility on utility rates
Thermal pollution
Particulate pollution to air
Transmission line size and routing
Proximity to fuel source
Who has decision/policy making control
Restricts adjacent land use
Equitable distribution
Devaluation of surrounding homes
Protection from natural disasters
Relocation of existing land use
Compatability to comprehensive zoning
Availability of fuel
Availability of waste disposal site
Radioactive emissions to air
-75-
-------
GROUP 5
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
10
10
12
42
32
29
27
26
21
20
19
19
17
17
16
Radioactive emissions from plant which are
long lasting
Need for baseline data and monitoring data
Thermal pollution in the river
The plant should not be detrimental to the
health of people in the area
Impact on other valuable natural resources
(timber, groundwater, etc.)
Disposal of nuclear wastes
Minimal disturbance of plant and animal
environments
Potential for biological mutation
Research needed to develop data in areas
where such data is lacking or
inadequate
Will water use by the plant lower the
water table?
Location of plant to minimize obstructions
and interventions to other natural
areas such as scenic or wild rivers,etc.
Destruction of soil fertility by nuclear
plants
Economic and Social
Rank Points
10
11
12
13
13
35
29
26
26
25
23
21
17
17
16
15
13
11
11
Land Use
Rank Points
1
2
36
34
29
Need to conserve energy produced from
non-renewable fuel sources
What social controls are implied by the
"spartan" life which may result if
energy production is limited
Need to produce more electrical power to
replace oil and gas energy supplies
Long term social needs should take pre-
cedence over higher short term capital
costs - minimize throw away mentality
Use of solid waste as fuel when possible
Waste of energy represented in cooling
water
Need to increase utilization of solar
energy
Concern for potential dangers
Concern for the rights of communities and
the need to retain the ability to
make their own decisions
The most economical future power plants
that will fit the environment
Public accepts liability for nuclear
plant accidents due to Price-Ander-
son Act
Need to provide energy for the employ-
ment of our citizens
Need to know both production and demand
within any area
Need to prioritize energy needs - which
are necessary and which energy uses
can we really do without if necessary
Locate plant where power is needed
Concern for the preservation of good
agricultural land
Locate plant on land that has marginal
use for other uses
Rank
12
14
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
13
16
16
16
16
16
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rank
4
Points
16
15
14
13
11
7
Rank Points
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
1
0
Points
27
26
Meeting or maintaining air quality
standards 1n the area
The need to be able to predict or
estimate the potential environmental
impact of the changes we propose
Disruption to the environment caused
by the process of extracting and
shipping fuel
Loss of natural land due to disposition
of ash and S02 scrubber sludge
Concern for the number of natural areas
which remain for future generations
Availability of water for use by the
plant could vary with size and type
of plant
Visual impact of transmission lines
Destruction of natural vegetation in
transmission corridors
Minimize noise pollution
Visual impact of tall stacks and
strobe lights
Location of plant near use area to
minimize disruption to surrounding
areas caused by transmission lines
Cost of power to the consumer
Present and future need for power in
both rural and urban sectors
Beneficial economic impact on business
Reduction in number of jobs caused by
automation of newer power plants
Increased attention to electric plant
as approach to other energy distri-
bution systems because of its
concentrated nature
Danger of sabotage of nuclear plants
Effect on property values, both
inflation of value and detriment
resulting from increased taxes
Interdependence of communities and
areas - recognize the inability to
ship all the bad aspects of decisions
elsewhere while keeping most of
the benefits
Production of electricity within an
area and associated effects, but
use of this energy outside the
area and little use within area of
production
Nuclear plants are too expensive
Increased employment in site where
plant is located
Population growth increases demand for
services in area where plant is
located
Relocation of people from proposed power
plant site
Need to blend plant into community
Locate plant where amount of transmission
lines is minimized
Need to restore the natural character of
the land both where fuel is extracted
and where obsolete facilities are
abandoned
-16-
-------
GROUP 5
land Use (continued)
Rank Points
6 20
7 13
7 13
9 11
10 10
Final Ranking
Rank Points
1 27
2 19
2 19
4 18
4 18
4 18
7 16
7 16
9 13
10 12
10 12
12 11
13 10
13 10
13 10
16 9
16 9
16 9
16 9
16 9
21 8
GROUP 6
Physical and
Structures should blend In with areas
Are small towns expendable
Avoid wetlands if possible
Stay away from congested areas
Create and preserve park and recreation
land
Concern for potential dangers
Conserve energy from non-renewable sources
Preserve good agricultural land
Disposal of nuclear wastes
Not detrimental to human health
Social controls implied if energy
production limited
Use of solid waste as fuel where possible
Restore natural character of land
Minimal disturbance of plant and animal
environments
Thermal pollution
Long lived radioactive emissions
Locate plant where power needed
Need for electricity to replace gas and
oil energy sources
Beneficial impact on businesses
Strobe lights unsightly
Need for baseline ana monitoring data
Waste of energy in cooling water
Structures blend in with area
Small towns expendable
Increased employment in areas near sites
Locate plant on land with marginal use
for other uses
Biological
Rank Points
1 45
2 44
3 35
4 27
5 25
6 22
7 21
8 17
8 17
10 15
10 15
10 15
Economic and
Pan If Pninfc
ROMP. roi n i*a
1 43
2 29
3 26
4 22
5 21
Deposition of residue from plant - radio-
active wastes
Health problems - general public
Radioactive pollution
Use of prime agricultural land
Location 1n regard to wind direction
Availability of water at all times
Impact on domestic and irrigation wells
Impact on endangered plant, animal
fish species
Potential effect on drinking water,
especially on surface water
Potential effects of transport problems
for either coal or nuclear
Smoke - sulfur
Impact on the food chain
Social
Quality of life - will it Improve or
diminish
Impact on schools, law enforcement, hos-
pitals and social service agencies
Impact of large population flux
Radioactive waste disposal and storage -
economic aspects — how much does
it cost?
Can you make do by conserving energy
Rank
11
12
12
14
15
16
Rank
22
22
24
24
26
26
26
26
30
30
30
33
33
33
33
33
Rank
13
14
14
16
17
18
18
18
21
22
22
24
Rank
6
7
8
9
9
Po 1 nts
8
7
7
3
2
1
Points
7
7
6
6
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
Points
13
12
12
11
10
6
6
6
5
2
2
0
Points
20
15
13
12
1 n
12
Preserve historic and cultural sites
Visual impact of transmission lines
Avoid wildlife habitat
Strobe lights unsightly
Who decides "what is a scenic area'1
Avoid cemeteries
Potential for biological mutation
Need to increase utilization of
solar energy
Visual impact of transmission lines
Preserve historic and cultural sites
Long term social needs take precedence
over short term capital costs
Concern for rights of communities -
local decision making
Site away from congested areas
Minimize transmission lines
Water use lowering water table
Location to minimize intervention
in natural areas
Avoid wildlife habitat
Impact on other natural areas
(timber, etc.)
Research needed to develop baseline
data where inadequate
Most economic plants that will fit
the environment
Avoid wetlands
Create and preserve park and
recreational land
Noise
Concern with view becoming obstructed
by dirty air
Soil erosion due to all possible causes
Health hazards to the workers
Thermal pollution of the water
Impact of new roads and/or railroads
Visual impact
Deposition of fly ash
Placing transmission lines in major
bird flyways
Can local agencies monitor the impacts
of the power plant
Geographic area covered by the plant -
are there unnecessary land uses
Concern with fog and ice
Effect of state tax levy limits on
comnunities faced with rapid
expansion and contraction
Utility taxes - how they are distributed
Cost of living increase
Labor force generated, both primary
and secondary
Impact on land values
-77-
-------
GROUP 6
Economic and Social (continued)
Rank Points
9
12
12
14
14
14
14
18
19
19
Land
Rank
1
2
3
4
4
6
6
8
9
9
11
12
Final
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
12
13
14
12
11
11
8
8
8
8
7
6
6
Use
Points
39
33
20
18
18
17
17
15
13
13
11
10
Ranking
Points
44
31
27
24
23
16
15
14
13
12
12
10
8
7
Potential for replacement of central
station plants by solar energy, wind,
or other alternatives
Zoning - is there any
Danger of a nuclear power accident
Cost of power for various types of
plants
Impact on other industries - displacement
Is the power needed - or is demand being
created
Cost of health problems created by
power plants
Financing costs for planning and needed
facilities
Possible decrease of recreational areas
Productivity after the plant is decom-
missioned
Avoidance of natural hazards - earth-
quakes, floods
Liability for land contamination
Zoning - is it adequate to meet new growth
demands
Need for highways or rivers for trans-
portation
Locating land for waste disposal
Vanishing agricultural land
Land use legislation
Destruction of wildlife habitats
Problems caused by new transportation
demands
Requirements for abandoning
Use of land after power plant is gone
Land needed besides that for the actual
plant construction
Quality of life
Health problems - general public
Avoidance of natural hazards
Deposition of the residue from the plant -
radioactive wastes
Zoning - is it adequate
Conservation
Vanishing agricultural land
Radioactive pollution
Liability for land contamination
Land use legislation
Availability of water
Replacement of central station with solar,
wind and other alternatives
Wildlife habitat
Utility taxes - how are they distributed
Rank
21
22
22
22
25
26
26
28
28
28
28
28
28
Rank
12
12
15
15
17
17
19
20
21
21
Rank
15
16
17
18
18
18
21
22
22
22
22
Points
5
4
4
4
3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0'
0
Points
10
10
6
6
5
5
4
1
0
0
Points
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
22
The need for housing
Solid waste disposal - caused by
increased population
Will there be growth of commercial
areas near the plant
Power plant security
Fuel availability - especially uranium
Effects of the availability of more power
Cost of monitoring
Increased demand on sewage system
Job allocation - will jobs be filled
by locals or outsiders
Is there local opposition to nuclear power
Outmigration of residents as a result
of construction
Effect of population decrease after
construction is finished
What type of financing is available -
is industry bonding available
Will power plant affect use of land
near the site
Will more power bring more industrial
growth
Height of structure - in regard to
aircraft and obstruction of view
Condemnation of land for the site
Recreational use - by how many people
Is land value affected
Type of highway traffic generated
by power plant
Will new transmission lines be needed and
will they follow existing corridors
Will new railroads be needed or are
existing ones adequate
Destruction of historical landmarks
Effect of state tax levy limits
Requirement for abandonment
Potential effect on drinking water -
especially surface water
Transportation - need for more
Cost of living increase
Location in regard to wind direction
Impact on schools, law enforcement,
hospitals, social services
Waste disposal - locating land
Impact of a large population flux
Impact on land values
Labor force generated, primary and
secondary
Smoke - sulfur
-78-
-------
APPENDIX D
STEVENS POINT WORKSHOP
GROUP PARTICIPANTS
Group 1
David Ankley
Ron Meyer
Jackie Mooney
Hazel Aton
Bill Apfelbeck
Walter G. Wifeld
Lee Burress
Lester Palmer
D. L. Cronkrite
Leader: David Younkman
Group 2
Ken Robenolt
Vernon Iverson
Emil Scheurer
John Wandrey
Dave Smith
Alton E. Goerlitz
Charles Livingston
Gertrude Dixon
Barbara Hug
Group 5
Max Andrae
Don Everingham
Albert Grutzik
Blanche Siegler
Marlene Schirz
Monica Bainter
Jerry Mroczkowski
Carl Guelcher
Paul Wright
Richard Roth
Steve Greuel
Leader: Bob Friedman
Group 4
Jim Hamilton
Judy Lokken
Lewis C. Wood
Bill Tolley
Myron Golembiewski
Harry A. Mortensen
Ingred Roach
A. J. Karasch
Leader: Jill Randall Leader: Bob Terrell
Group 5
George Dixon
Christy Smith
Phyllis Sultze
Lucille Baker
Ken Knapp
Fred E. Field
C. F. Saylor
Burleigh D. Riggle
Gerald H. Teletzke
Cornelia Groshek
Kenneth G. PageIs
Jon Smith
Leader: Elin Quigley
Group 6
Helen Molepski
William H. Kruger
Jeff Littlejohn
Janet Minter
Don Grade
Al Berkman
Herbert L. Rieckmann, Jr.
Robert Robicheau
Cindy Voigt
Leader: Charles Andrews
-79-
-------
GROUP 1
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
11
11
13
14
14
65
55
45
29
29
26
23
18
16
16
15
15
13
12
12
Air pollution - visible - smoke, par-
ticulate
Contamination of soil, water and vegeta-
tion, effects on food cycle
Air pollution - invisible - chemicals,
radiation, odor
Effects on wildlife and domestic animals
Solid waste disposal from plant and
effects on environment
Danger of microwave activity from HV trans-
mission on cellular tissue and
circulatory system: human/animal
Water pollution - fish and vegetation kill
Removal of recreation and/or ag. lands
Need vs. danger to the community
Danger of any degree of radioactivity
from any source associated with
power plants
As near as practical to power demand
Danger to milk production from debris
effects on forage
Biological and physical effects of
producing fuel
Comparison of radioactivity - coal vs.
nuclear
Nuclear radiation - effect on employees -
cumulative and short-term
Economic and Social
Rank Points
1
2
3
3
5
5
5
8
9
10
10
12
13
Land
Rank
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
8
37
34
26
26
25
25
25
23
21
20
20
19
17
Use
Points
45
37
33
33
32
30
25
24
Effect on existing and potential future
recreation areas
Present taxes vs. new employment, need,
economic impact to community
Effect on local population
What kind of growth do we want?
Increased local property taxes required to
support increased services
Special discount - reduced electric bill
to consumers near plant
Potential harmful/beneficial effects
Local citizens have much less control
over their lives
Job supply - during construction, operation
and indirect effects
Pol ice state measures necessary to control
sabotage
Education to local people of need versus
hazards
Greater tax return to local governments -
first five years
Proximity to demand area
Effect on water supplies
Aesthetics
Transportation needs
Impact and disruptions to people and
communities
Regional recreational development vs. eco-
nomic needs for power development
To be located in area of least disturbance
to natural environment
Effects on adjacent land
The assurance that the plant will be an
attractive installation
Rank
16
16
16
19
19
21
21
23
24
25
25
27
28
28
28
Rank
14
15
15
17
17
19
20
21
21
23
25
25
26
27
27
Rank
8
10
11
11
13
14
15
15
Points
11
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
5
3
3
2
0
0
0
Points
16
15
15
14
14
11
10
9
9
8
6
6
4
0
0
Points
24
23
•21
21
17
16
15
15
Any changes affecting life-style
Concerns of power plant affecting weather
Nuclear radiation - cumulative and acute
on all human and animal life
Close to or near fuel source or fuel
transportation system
Determination of need
Noise
Aesthetic incompatability of plant and
transmission lines
Sabotage and nuclear blowouts/melt-
downs, effects on environment, and
safety of community
Danger to irrigation water from nuclear
radiation
Associated growth from plant - especially
rural areas
Maintain or establish smaller plants in
lieu of larger plants
Danger from natural radiation
Sites, plants not in heavily populated
area
Safety dangers due to increased highway
and rail usage
Effect of power plants' water demand
on other water users
Need vs. industrial, commercial, agricul-
tural, educational effects
Concern - operation, decisions unres-
ponsive to local needs
Danger to local traditional, archeo-
logical, cultural sites
Available power encourages some new
industries
Direct energy costs to user
Massive plants - fewer jobs and more
welfare
Effect on local wage scale
Only the company and employees make
the profit
Cost of construction
Available power sources
Why locate it here
Requirements and needs of the increased
work force
Quality of people brought in
Fair regulation
Trade skills required and its
availability locally
Positive insurance of reasonable environ-
mental safeguards
Increased industrialization of rural areas
Whether waste disposal is OK on site
Can we afford to sacrifice prime ag.
lands?
Problems resulting from condemnation
Irreversible uses of land
Preserve farm land for food production
Better tax returns to local govern-
ment to dull local opposition
-80-
-------
GROUP 1
Land Use (continued)
Rank Points
17 14
18 13
19 12
20 10
Final Ranking
Rank Points
1 40
2 38
3 35
4 32
5 31
6 30
7 29
8 28
9 24
10 20
11 17
11 17
11 17
11 17
15 15
GROUP 2
Biological and
Rank Points
1 62
2 59
3 39
4 37
5 34
6 33
7 29
8 22
9 21
10 19
10 19
12 14
12 14
14 13
15 11
16 10
Destruction or conversion of ethnic,
historical areas/sites
Will taxable land be lost?
Location in regards to demand center
Protect archeological sites
Effect on water supplies
Air pollution - visible - smoke,
particulates
Air pollution - invisible - chemical,
odor, radiation
Potential harmful /beneficial effects
Contamination of soil, water, vegetation
effect on food cycle
Water pollution - vegetation and fish
kills
Positive insurance of reasonable environ-
mental safeguards
What kinds of growth do we want?
Impact and disruptions to people and
communities
Solid waste disposal from the plant
Danger of microwave activity from H.V.
transmission on cellular tissue and
circulatory systems - human/animal
Removal of recreational and/or ag.
land
Danger from any degree of radioactivity
from any source associated with
power plants
To be located in area of least dis-
turbance to natural environment
Police state necessary to prevent
sabotage
Physical
Disposal of nuclear waste products
Safety (for local residents)
Availability of water
Geology of plant site and soil
Effects on animal and plant life
Human health (physical)
Water quality (cleanliness and temperature)
Spatial extent of pollution (effects)
Psychological effects on people of
noise and lights
Population concentration (amount)
Effects on agriculture (food supply)
Fly-ash storage
Handling and storing of raw materials
Air pollution from coal -fired plants and
controls
Safety of plant workers
Visual impact (plant) (lines)
Rank
20
22
23
Rank
15
17
17
17
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
26
26
29
29
29
Rank
17
17
19
20
20
22
22
24
35
25
25
25
Point's
r v i • • w*>
10
7
4
Points
15
13
13
13
12
10
8
6
5
5
3
3
3
0
0
0
Points
9
9
7
6
6
4
4
1
0
0
0
0
Economic and Social
Rank Points
1 59
2 53
Inequitable tax redistribution
Public awareness of consequences of lack
3
45
H.V. transmission lines cutting across
agricultural lands
Protect existing homes and homesites
Arrogance of big business
Education to local people of the meed
vs. the hazards
Effects on wildlife and domestic animals
Increased local property taxes required
to support increased services
Increased industrialization of rural
areas
Present taxes vs. new employment, need,
economic impact to community
Need vs. dangers to the coirmunity
Regional recreational development vs.
economic needs for power development
Effects on adjacent land
Effect on local population levels
Aesthetics
Job supply - during construction and
operation, indirect effects
Special discount to reduce electric
bill of consumers near plant
Local citizens have much less control
over their lives
Effect on existing and future
recreation areas
The assurance that the plant will be
an attractive installation
Transportation needs
"Land requirements" for coal
Effects of increased service facilities,
transportation facilities for plant
(roads)
Effects of related development
Water condensation (rel. to cooling tower)
Existing site condition (amount and type
of pollution)
Land requirements for nuclear waste
disposal
Safety requirements for transmission lines
Land requirements for tranmission lines
Soil conditions
Visual impact of transmission lines
Time span of biological & physical effects
Climate of site (i.e., inversion patterns)
Impact of work force (change in housing,
schools, population of area, on
social services)
-81-
-------
Economic and Social (continued)
Rank Points
4 41
5 32
6 30
7 25
8 21
9 20
9 20
11 16
11 16
11 16
14 14
Land Use
Rank Points
1 74
2 36
2 36
4 33
5 31
5 31
7 30
8 23
9 25
10 23
10 23
12 18
Final Ranking
Rank Points
1 60
2 52
3 46
4 40
5 38
6 37
6 37
8 25
9 22
10 16
11 15
12 13
12 13
14 12
15 11
16 9
GROUP 3
Biological and
Rank Points
1 68
2 54
3 48
4 46
5 38
6 37
7 36
Public acceptance of need for plant
Effect on present area (recreation.
groceries, business, etc.)
Sufficient support services; waste dis-
posal, utility
Effect on land values
Effects on general tax rate (hidden costs)
Number of permanent employees
Effects on moves (culture)
Health costs
Lead time required to begin operation
Cost and availability anywhere of fuel
chosen
Impact on utility consumer's bill
Removal of agricultural crop land
Impact on existing recreational sites
Generally positive effects on the
community
Use or development of marginal land
(higher land use)
Increased recreation (in cooling ponds,
etc.)
Regional vs. local needs and values
Zoning of the affected area
Scenic areas
Land needed for waste disposal
Increased use of lands now in use
Which unit of government has power in
siting decision
Amount of land used in fuel procurement
Safety of local residents
Disposal of nuclear waste products
Education and information RE: energy
Removal of agricultural cropland
Inequitable tax redistribution
Availability of water
Public acceptance and opinion
Generally positive effects on the
community
Geology and soils of plant site
Effects on human health
Effect on local economy
Effects on plant and animal life
Temporal and spatial extent of effects
Water quality (temperature and cleanliness)
Effects on general tax rate
Population concentration
Physical
Supply of water adequate for all uses
Air quality
Adequate soil and bedrock conditions
for nuclear
Chance of nuclear accident (including
transport)
More factual data on biological effects
Radiation health effects
Traffic patterns for service to plant
Rank
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
23
25
26
27
Rank
13
14
15
16
17
17
17
20
21
22
23
Rank
16
18
19
20
21
22
22
24
24
26
26
28
25
28
28
Rank
8
9
10
11
12
Points
13
11
10
9
9
8
7
6
5
5
2
1
0
Points
16
15
12
11
10
10
10
9
8
3
1
Points
9
8
7
6
5
4
4
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
Poi nts
30
22
20
19
18
Power authority of regulatory agencies
Costs of waste disposal and storage
Loss of agricultural production (land)
Adequacy of Insurance for population
Cost of pollution control and monitoring
Security of plant
Effects on food production
Impact on family unit
Effects on recreation in area
Local availability of fuel
Interpretation of E.I.S.'s
Costs of decommissioning
Available work force
Area of impact/enery produced ratio
Possibility of land (site) reclamation
Interpretation of E.I.S.
Relative safety from long-term land
contamination
Leased-back program of utility
Marshes and wetlands
Unique crops of area
Preservation of historic sites -
cemeteries and landmarks
Insurance for land yield
Power of eminent domain
Relocation of like facilities and land
Impact of change in work force
Use or development of marginal land
Effects on food supply
Number of permanent employees
Scenic areas
Effect on moves and culture
Regional vs. local needs and values
Effect on local land values
Sufficient support services
Impact on existing recreational sites
Zoning of the affected area
Increased recreation on the site
Land needed for waste disposal
Increased use of land now in use
Which unit of government has power in
siting decision
Cost vs. benefit of all biological and
physical concerns
Where radioactive waste stored
Environmental effects of not building
plants
Comparison of radiation from coal, nuclear,
geothermal and solar
Noise pollution in area of plant
-82-
-------
Biological and Physical (continued)
Rank Points
13
14
15
16
17
17
17
17
17
22
22
22
25
17
16
15
14
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
7
Understanding of general radiation
vs. power plant radiaion
Minimal contamination of both groundwater
and surface water
Minimal impact on surrounding areas
Water table conditions for ash disposal
Leakage of nuclear wastes
Rail availability
Available work force - minimize trans-
portation difficulties
Properly understood monitoring methods
(air and water)
What are the real problems with waste
Psychology of fear
Genetic problems from low level radiation
Power at risk of human health
Reconcentrating radiation in wildlife
(food chain)
Economic and Social
Rank Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
8
9
9
11
12
12
14
15
15
15
18
19
20
20
22
22
22
22
26
26
Land Use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
9
51
40
38
32
27
25
25
24
21
21
20
18
18
16
15
15
15
13
12
11
11
10
10
10
10
9
9
Rank
26
26
26
29
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
67
55
54
44
32
31
29
29
25
Increasing cost if more power not 28
produced 28
Change tax bill to benefit local area 30
Additional power need in 1980 31
Acceptable cost-benefit ratio 32
Enough electrical supply for agriculture 32
Locate near need for power
Employment and adequate energy inter- 32
dependence
Responsible news reporting 32
Enough power to attract industy to area 36
Healthy economic growth vs. minimal 37
economic growth 37
Local community aiding expediting build- 39
ing of plant 39
Energy affordable to all 39
2nd class status for America 39
Economical transportation of fuel and 43
supplies 43
Total cost of nuclear vs. coal, including 45
added nuclear needs
Methods for evaluating between emotional 45
and factural studies 47
Agricultural concerns due to radiation 47
Priority for use of coal 47
Income to local businesses
Responsible use of 'eminent domain1 47
Moral justification of oil and gas use vs. 47
nuclear (other uses nil) 47
More work in area
Regional employment 47
Moral issue of responsibility to next
generations (nuclear waste) 47
Importance of community energy independence
Effect on local taxes
Local polarization
Cost vs. benefit for land use concerns
Power plant near major load for
cogeneration
Ag. Land preservation
Highest and best use of land
Contamination of soil
Aesthetic plant - including landscaping
Preservation of historical and archaeo-
logical sites
Compatibility with future land use plan
Local zoning should not supercede reg
regional needs
11
12
12
12
15
15
17
17
Points
3
3
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rank Points
25
24
16
16
16
15
15
14
14
Better understanding of cancer causing
properties of plutonium
Sabotage of radioactive materials
Independent monitoring
Fishing from thermal pollution
Overall research on physical and
biological effects
Fire hazard near nuclear plants
There is minimal effect on animal life
Temperature of water leaving plant
Are power line poles more unsightly than
other tall objects
Value of term 'pico curie1
How much land needed
Better growth of vegetation
How are plants decommissioned
Enough water during low-flow
Locate in industrial areas
Milk contamination by radiation
Cost of local community support
Cost of decommissioning
Local zoning adequate
Concern over loss of freedom due to nuclear
protection
Forced conservation relative to American
freedoms
Conservation vs. economic growth
Factual information reported by all media
Distinguishing sources of radiation
Inadequate emergency evacuation plans
Insufficient insurance protection
Relative cost from each fuel source
Added cost due to overlapping research
Better understanding of insurance coverage
Prime target in case of war
Limit of controls relative to cost
Economics of holding environmental
standards for coal plants
Prediction of future energy costs
Near fuel supply
Effect on school system
Smaller coal plants rather than larger
for transportation ease
Priority for use of oil
Effect on tourism
Local economic effects of construction
period
Role of electricity in community support
services (sanitation, etc.)
Concern over strip mining
Maintain adjacent land desirability for
other purposes
Fly ash disposal (and S02 sludge)
Existing use of area
Use low population areas
Effect of lack of energy to agriculture
Use of buffer zone for farming
Avoid duplication of transmission line
Preservation of park lands
Effect of new roads and railraods on land
use
-83-
-------
Land
Rank
17
20
20
20
23
24
Use (continued)
Points
14
10
10
10
8
7
Tran:
Natii
Undei
Minii
Site
No ni
Rank Points
25
Final Ranking
Transmission lines along highways
(off ag. land)
vs. local needs
Underground transmission line
Minimize total land for plant
Site easily protected
No nuclear parks (holding waste at
generation site)
Local zoning should supercede regional
needs
1
2
3
4
4
6
7
8
8
10
11
11
13
13
15
GROUP
61
40
33
29
29
22
21
20
20
19
18
18
16
16
15
4
Biological and
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
10
11
11
Points
55
46
45
34
29
24
18
18
18
17
15
15
Supply of water adequate for all uses
Air quality
Change tax bill to benefit local area
Adequate soil and bedrock conditions
Radiation health effects
Cost vs. benefit for all biological and
physical concerns
Enough electricity supply to agriculture
Ag land preservation
Increasing cost if more power not
produced
More factual data on biological effects
Cost vs. benefit for land use concerns
Power plant near major load for
cogeneration
Chance of nuclear accident (including
transportation)
Responsible news reporting
Where radioactive waste is stored
Physical
Air discharges should not be harmful to
human health, vegetation, or animals
Adequate safeguards for the transporta-
tion and disposal of nuclear wastes
Stringent specifications and safety
standards should be used for nuclear
plants
Thermal pollution effects, both on air
and water
More adequate knowledge about the limits
of human exposure allowable to toxic
substances emitted from the plant
Possibility for smoke to contain radio-
active materials
Many transmission lines within a parti-
cular transmission corridor
preferred to multiple corridors
Potential for decreased water quality
due to discharges from the plant
Danger of explosion at nuclear site -
what precautions are taken?
How do we best address the many trade-
offs connected with these concerns
Smoke emitted from a coal -fired power
plant
Reduction of recreational activities
connected with water (boating,
swimming, etc. )
26
26
28
29
30
31
32
15
17
17
17
20
21
21
23
24
25
26
26
28
28
28
13
13
15
16
16
18
18
20
21
22
23
15
14
14
14
12
10
10
Rank Points
14
14
12
11
11
10
10
8
7
Fog problems
Benefits of warm water - including
purification
Are rural people more expendable
Smaller spread out coal plants
Use of scrubbers on coal plants
Precipitators for particulates
Hunting and fishing benefits around plant
Locate near need for power
Traffic patterns for service to plant
Additional power need in 1980
Contamination of soil
Healthy economic growth vs. minimal
economic growth
Highest and best use of land
Local zoning should not supercede regional
needs
Employment and adequate energy dependence
Acceptable cost/benefit ratio
Environmental effects of not building
plants
Preservation of historic and archae-
ological sites
Maintain adjacent land desirability for
other purposes
Enough power to attract industry to area
Compatibility with future land use plan
Aesthetic plant - including landscaping
Adequate safety precautions for coal plants
Reduction in water table due to use of
water by the plant
Safety questions regarding hydro power (dam
failure, etc.)
Transportation of fuel to the site
Potential harm to fishing in streams and
rivers
Destruction of natural areas resulting
from coal mining in the west
Using hydro power would increase water
supply in an area
Adequate water supply from the Wisconsin
River for use by the plant
Soil type most desirable for construction
of a plant - is there a most desirable
soil type (subsoil included)
Noise pollution
Coal dust due to emptying coal cars
-Qh-
-------
Economic and Social
Rank Poi nts
1 48 Need for adequate power to keep factories
and schools operating
2 33 Are the real facts presented in the pro
and con debate on future plants
3 31 Taxation of the utility should be adequate
to compensate the local governmental
units for the increased services
(roads, police, schools, etc.) neces-
sary during construction of a plant
4 29 Desire of people in a community for the
siting of a plant in that community
5 26 Is one large plant better or worse than
many small plants
6 23 Adequate plans should be developed,
prior to construction, between utility
and local municipality and business
community to provide necessary ser-
vices.
7 22 Safety of the plant
8 21 Potential for social disruption if ade-
quate power is not provided in a
timely fashion
9 19 Cost of electric energy, particularly as
it affects those on a fixed income or
those with particular health needs.
10 16 Potential for urbanization of rural areas
11 15 Put plants as close as possible to the
use area, reducing costs, etc.
11 15 Differences between actual future power
needs and utility projections
13 13 Would a nuclear plant deter people from
moving into an area
14 12 Displacement of population from the site
14 12 Increased taxes due to influx of popula-
tion when a plant is built
16 11 Changes in property values in a com-
munity near the power plant
17 10 Construction of new plant at/sites where
the additional power could be supplied
by upgrading existing units resulting
in higher costs to the consumer
Land Use
Rank Points
1 53 Sharing of information between communities
nationwide with similar power plant
siting experiences
2 51 Locate on lands of lower value, avoid
lands of historic, archaeological or
natural beauty value
3 46 Avoid agricultural land
4 34 Recognition of future growth areas in
region
5 26 Are there alternatives to transmission
lines in long distance transport of
large amounts of power
5 26 Adequate protection against pollution
of land or rivers
7 24 Transmission lines should be placed to
not waste good agricultural land and to
allow farmers to farm around them
8 22 Utilities should utilize the property they
own before siting plants on land they
do not own
9 21 Not to destroy or reduce the scenic qual-
ity of lake, river, or stream frontage
9 21 How to arrive at the values of land and
buildings to compensate displaced
11 14
Rank Points
17
19
19
19
23
22
22
25
25
27
28
29
29
31
31
33
11
11
14
15
16
17
17
19
20
21
21
23
10
Rank Points
14
14
12
11
What kind of training will be necessary for
plant employees, as well as salary scale.
Will the employees be drawn from the
local area
Is the power to be used in the area or will
it be sent to other areas
Storage and transportation of wastes
Industries, by conserving fossil fuels,
will increase their own electrical
energy demands
How many people will be employed by the
site
Would a new plant attract more people to
an area
Reduce governmental restrictions and allow
private enterprise more freedom
Electric rates should reflect the true
cost of furnishing service
Energy sources available to a community,
should there be a high dependence
on only a few sources
Security near nuclear plant
Increased revenue and business provided
by additional employees
Would additional people employed at plant
or changes in life-style cut down
the existing recreational activities
Concern about adequate insurance coverage
to cover any potential disaster
Annual efficiency of a power plant
What type of zoning will be used in the
area surrounding a plant
Will there be more power or less during
construction in an area
Increased population will mean increased
solid waste and sewage disposal
problems
Will the site be landscaped so as to
blend into the area
Preserve the existing sites of historic
or archaeological significance
Fly ash disposal areas should have the
same restrictions as DNR presently
uses for solid waste disposal areas
Is there a preference for soil type
(including subsoil) for plant location
Use of waste heat water for heating
homes or irrigation of crops
Compensation to property owners whose
lands suffer a reduction in value
Avoid potential hazard or danger to
established local airports in place-
ment of plants
The amount of land needed for plants and
transmission lines
Urbanization of rural area
What procedure will be used to change the
zoning designation of a potential site
if necessary
Need for roads would mean more land taken
Cogeneration of electricity and steam
-85-
-------
Land Use (continued)
Rank Points
23 3
Final Ranking
Rank Points
9
9
11
12
13
13
13
16
16
16
GROUP 5
53
43
41
39
31
30
24
17
14
14
12
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
Avoid location of transmission lines
near highways
Air discharges should not be harmful to
human health, vegetation, or animals
Need for adequate power to keep fac-
tories and schools operating
Locate on lands of lower value, avoid
lands of historic, archaeological
or natural beauty value
Sharing of information between com-
munities nationwide with similar
power plant siting experiences
Stringent specifications and safety
standards should be used for
nuclear plants
Avoid agricultural land
Are the real facts presented in the pro
and con debate on future plants
Is one large plant better or worse than
many small plants
Safety of the plant
Adequate protection against pollution
of land or rivers
Cost of electric energy, particularly
as it affects those on a fixed income
or those with particular health needs
How to arrive at the values of land and
buildings to compensate displaced
owners
Thermal pollution effects, both on air
and water
Adequate safety precautions for coal
plants
Recognition of future growth areas in
region
Adequate safe-guards for the transporta-
tion and disposal of nuclear wastes
How do we best address the many trade-
offs connected with these concerns
Adequate plans should be developed, prior
to construction, between utility and
local municipality and business com-
munity to provide necessary services
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
1 45 Health effects on food chain (aquatic
and land)
2 40 Air pollution (fly ash, S02)
3 37 Water contamination
4 33 Radioactive and toxic emissions from
nuclear power plants
4 33 Disposal, transportation, etc., for
nuclear waste
6 27 Soil contamination
7 25 Effects on future generations: genetic
and natural resource depletion
7 25 Health effects on people
7 25 Solid waste disposal problems
10 24 Is the nuclear plant safe
12 20 Geology of the area
12 20 Transmission line effects - land, plants,
animals, people
Rank Points
25 0
Rank Points
16 9
20 8
21 7
22
23
23
25
25
25
28
28
28
28
28
28
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
24
24
Rank Points
19
17
16
15
13
12
11
10
9
9
8
8
What consideration is given to the avail-
ability of basic building material
(sand, gravel, stone, etc.) in the area
Differences between actual future power
needs and utility projections
Desire of people in a community for the
siting of a plant in that community
Are there alternatives to transmission
lines in long distance transport of
large amounts of power
Utilities should utilize the property they
own before siting plants on land they
do not own
Taxation of the utility should be adequate
to compensate the local governmental
units for the increased services
(roads, police, schools, etc.) necessary
during construction of a plant
Transmission lines should be placed to not
waste good agricultural land and to
allow farmers to farm around them.
More adequate knowledge about the limits
of human exposure allowable to toxic
substances emitted from the plant
Potential for social disruption if ade-
quate power is not provided in a
timely fashion
Displacement of population from the site
Possibility for smoke to contain radio-
active materials
Many transmission lines within a partic-
ular transmssion corridor preferred
to multiple corridors
Potential for decreased water quality due
to discharges from the plant
Danger of explosion at nuclear site -
what precautions are taken
Potential for urbanization of rural areas
Not to destroy or reduce the scenic qual-
ity of lake, river, or stream frontage
areas
Cleanliness (soot)
Noise
Effect of groundwater table depression
Water and food in Wisconsin (area devoted
to...)
Effects on remnant wildlife populations
(endangered species, etc.)
Thermal pollution
Physical effects of increasing transporta-
tion in area (coal, workers, etc.)
Humans as storers of radioactive wastes
Culpability (victims) public health
Effects of misting from cooling towers
on health, safety, welfare
Displacement of ag lands
Cracks in rock formations (nuclear effects)
-86-
-------
Biological and Physical (continued)
Rank Points
24
24
28
28
28
28
28
33
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
Location near accident prone areas
(e.g., airports)
Population density
Scenic effects
Impacts on domestic animals
Utilization of waste heat
Priorities of water use
Public health services for contingencies
Impact on specific area industries:
potato, cranberry and dairy
Economical and Social
Rank Points
I 70
2 42
9
10
10
12
14
15
16
17
17
17
20
20
39
34
32
31
30
26
23
22
22
21
20
19
18
15
13
13
11
11
Land Use
Rank Points
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
8
10
57
48
39
39
37
36
31
27
24
Implementation of comprehensive energy
conservation program
Economic and social benefits of more
widely dispersed smaller power plants
using indigenous fuel sources
Insure adequate energy for reasonable
economic growth
More money into solar and other alterna-
tive energy sources
Don't like new tax law (local government
no longer benefits. Need economic
incentive)
Effects on health (physical and mental)
Encourage municipal plants - moratorium
on large private ones
Lowest cost generation per kw
Need tax and/or incentives for alterna-
tive energy sources (private sector)
Nuclear power plant security costs
(will users pay?)
Benefits of using waste heat
Cost of evaluation and resettlement of
people irradiated and land decon-
tamination costs
Striving to achieve energy independence
(US and His)
Increased cost of public services (police,
fire, schools, etc.)
Provide for employment (short/long term)
Why are rural areas expendable?
Effect on housing (temp and perm) avail-
ability, etc.
Need more global thinking (air, etc., is
worldwide)
Cost of transportation: fuel in and
wastes out
Public information availability and infor-
mation for public interest research
Preservation ag and wetlands
People forced to sell land
Synergistic effects of thermal chemical
and radioactive pollution
Power plants sited where needed - avoid-
ing transmission lines
Impact of lowering water tables or
surrounding land uses
Does plant siting fit local zoning/land
use plans .
Periodic review of land use policies
Location of plant away from prime
amenity areas (wildlife...)
Ag land contamination and reclamation
Rank
33
35
36
36
38
39
39
39
39
Rank
21
21
21
21
26
26
26
29
30
30
30
30
30
35
36
37
38
38
38
Points
6
5
3
3
2
0
0
0
0
Points
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
8
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
1
0
0
0
Rank
11
11
13
14
15
16
Points
22
22
21
20
19
16
Special effects on risk persons - need
for research
Woodlots
Water volume
Ecologically fragile areas (e.g., wetlands)
Effect of drought - who gets water
Emotional effects on people
Radiation effects on workers - (mining
through everything)
Effect on drinking water
Compensation for victims
Economics (cost) of pollution control
devices (scrubbers, etc.)
Individual responsibility for energy use
and generation
Adequate insurance for nuclear plants
(not the plant - but people)
Future generations insurance (nuclear)
Improve area tax base
Willingness of area to adopt and enforce
air and water quality controls
Occupational and safety admin. (OSHA)
doesn't cover nuclear ques
Land reclamation
Effects on roads, highways
Effects of closing businesses in area
(compensation)
Employment of getting raw materials
(miners, truckers, RR, etc.)
Economic ceiling on growth
Not many sites available for nuclear—
coal, etc., can be sited in many more
places
Decrease in area land values
Effects on shopping and recreation facil-
ities
Fuel supply for nuclear plants (going into
Plutonium ecomomy)
Importing construction workers from out-
side area (transient workers)
Compensation for displaced individuals and
localities
Loss of food from using ag land
Land development controls (plant and addi-
tional development)
More research on undergrounding transmission
lines
Decommissioning of power plants - how long
does land remain unusable, including use
of land for waste storage
(Rural) country - too much people feed pro-
duced cities - too many people.
Therefore, can't have nuclear power
plants
Land is sacred trust for future generations.
Condemnation of renewable resources (wood,
ag land, etc.)
-87-
-------
Land Use (continued)
Rank Points
17 14
17 14
19 11
Final Ranking
Rank Points
1 70
2 62
3 39
4 38
4 38
6 22
7 20
9 19
10 17
10 17
16 16
13 13
13 13
15 12
15 12
GROUP 6
Biological and
Rank Points
1 27
2 43
3 42
4 37
5 29
5 29
7 24
8 23
8 23
10 22
10 22
12 19
12 19
12 19
15 18
16 15
17 14
18 12
19 11
Land around plant should be used for pub-
lic benefit (e.g. parks)
Use of public lands for power plants
Mineral value of the land used for siting
(cemeteries and small burial grounds)
Implementation of comprehensive energy
conservation program
Health effects on food chain (aquatic
and land)
More money into solar and other
Effects on future generations: genetic
and natural resource depletion
Preservation of ag land and wetlands
Solid waste disposal problems
Nuclear power plant security costs (will
users pay?) Inc. loss of civil
liberties
Radioactive and toxic emissions from
nuclear power plants
Air pollution (fly ash, SO,)
C.
Synergistic effects of thermal, chemical
and radioactive
Does plant siting fit local zoning/land
use plans?
Insure adequate energy for reasonable
economic growth
Power plants sited where needed - avoid-
ing transmission lines
Groundwater contamination
Economic and social benefits of more
widely dispersed smaller power plants
using indigenous fuel sources
Physical
Particulate emissions
River water and groundwater draw down
its effect on water quality
Residual waste disposal
Water contamination of flowage waste
water enters
Health effects from electromagnetic
radiation from transmission lines
Size of area needed for power plant
Effects on natural vegetation
Need for more energy
Proximity to urban centers
If power plant fails, danger to the public
Displacement of business or perople
Removal of fly ash for stack gas
Relation to prevailing wind direction
Sulfur dioxide emissions and nitrous
oxides
Concentration in the food chain
Economic effect on various agricultural
products produced. Will local crop
values decline
Loss of wetlands
Preservation of natural resources by
power plant
Impact on aquatic life by temperature
of discharging water
Rank
20
21
22
23
Rank
17
17
19
20
20
22
22
24
24
24
27
28
29
30
30
30
Rank
19
19
22
22
24
24
24
27
27
27
30
31
31
•3O
JO
f\f\
33
35
Points
7
6
2
0
Points
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
Points
11
11
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
5
2
2
T
1
1
0
Historical and archaeological sites
Housing impacts-mobile home park pro-
liferation
Property value fluctuations (up/down)
Land consumption of nuclear parks
Don't like new tax law (local government
no longer benefits - need economic
incentive)
Periodic review of land use policies
Is the nuclear power plant safe
Impact of lowering water tables on
surrounding land uses
People forced to sell land
Effects on health (physical and mental)
Disposal, transportation, etc., for
nuclear wastes
Location of plants away from prime
amenity areas (wildlife, etc.)
Impacts of long distance, high voltage
transmission lines
Ag land contamination and reclamation
Encourage municipal plants-moratorium on
large, private ones
Lowest cost generation per kw
Soil contamination
Need tax and/or incentives for alternative
energy sources (private sector)
Benefits of using waste heat
Health effects on people
Noise - by plant, truck, etc.
Noxious odors
Accurate pre-construction monitoring -
base line studies
Amount of food products increase due to
electricity available for irrigation
Erosion of soil during construction
Loss of unique areas
Destruction of critical wildlife habitat
Impact of spraying vegetation under power
lines
Impact of obtaining fuel
Impact of emergency evacuation plans
Increase of aquatic life
Impact on crime rate
Relocation of residents who will move if
a nuclear plant is sited in an area
Impact on tourism
Loss of scenic value
Health effects on those most prone to low
level radiation
-88-
-------
Economic and Social
Rank
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
8
8
11
11
13
13
15
15
Land
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
11
13
Final
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
10
Points
47 Nui
43 Coi
43 Im|
38 Nei
35 Ha:
29 Im|
28 Whi
14 In:
14 Tri
14 Co;
12 Nei
12 Dei
11 Ool
11 Di:
10 CO!
10 Wh
Use
Points
50 Nei
36 Lo:
34 Gn
33 Chi
31 Pei
31 Cai
29 Efi
28 US'
26 In
21 Pot
20 In<
20 Us<
19 F«
Ranking
Points
54 Net
36 Rac
35 He«
34 Riv
33 Par
32 Whc
23 Imf
21 Cos
21 Grc
19 Nurr
19 Wat
12
17
Number of local people employed
Cost of providing public services
Impact on tax base, tax sharing
Need for energy now
Hazards to health of local residents
Impact of cost of energy at consumer end
Who gets the energy
Insurance protection — who is liable
for disaster
Trade off between power plants and paper
mills
Cost of plant in relation to amount of
energy produced
New manufacturing moving into local area
Decrease in social programs because of
stronger economic base
Jobs increased
Disruption of community social order
due to influx of new residents from
construction
Concern with overregulation by agencies
of local residents and of power plant
What happens after the plant has finished
operation
New industry as a result of more power
Loss of prime agricultural land
Groundwater might be polluted by ash
pit - domestic wells will be con-
taminated precluding residential use
of the land
Change in entire land use patterns
Permanent encasement of nuclear power
plant after its life is finished
Can land be used for radioactive waste
disposal.
Effect on local land values
Using land for transmission lines - use
existing corridors
Trailer courts, poor housing, as a result
of construction boom
Power plants are a good use of the land
Increase in agricultural land use caused
by increased availabity of power
Use of land for new railroads
Federal or state restrictions on resi-
dential use of land near nuclear
facilities
Need for more electrical energy now
Radioactive waste disposal
Health hazards to the general public
River water and groundwater draw down
Particulate emission
Who gets the energy
Impact on tax base - is the tax-snaring
system fair
Cost of providing public service
Groundwater be polluted by ash pits -
impact on domestic wells
Number of local people employed
Water contamination of fTowage that
surface water enters
New industry as a result of more power
Rank
17
17
19
19
21
22
22
24
24
26
Points
9
9
7
7
6
5
5
4
4
0
Rank Points
14
14
16
17
18
18
20
21
21
23
23
25
12
14
14
16
17
17
19
19
19
15
15
14
13
11
11
9
7
7
6
6
3
Rank Points
17
15
15
13
12
12
10
10
10
Relocation of residents who do not wish
to live near facility
Number of new people moving into area for
operation of the plant
Ecomomic effect on current energy providers
Economic effect after construction workers
leave
Competition for capital investment dollars
Tourism as the result of the plant
Federal protection force
Psychological aspect of people having land
taken by power plant
Assisting in maintenance of present
standard of living
Impact on recreation
Protection of wetlands
Loss of recreational areas
Need for new roads
Loss of land for future business use
Amount of land utilities own now, or will
possibly own. Concern with large land
holdings
Should the site be used as a solar energy
site
Creation of new recreation sites
Need for land use regulation, where none
exists
Use of area after life of coal-fired
power plant is finished
Do engineers know what they are talking
about
Will there be a change in the geographic
character of the land
Appearance of the power plant - how does
it affect the scenery
Effect on local land values
If power plant fails, danger to population
Impact of cost of energy at consumer's end
Size of area needed for power plant
Loss of prime agricultural land
Effect on natural vegetation
Displacement of people or business
Permanent encasement of nuclear power plant
after its life is finished
Trailer courts, housing as a result of con-
struction
-89-
-------
APPENDIX E
SHEBOYGAN WORKSHOP
GROUP PARTICIPANTS
Group 1
Betty Kuplic
Dave Sprehn
Lawrence Baer
Fred W. Meifert
Manning W. Kilton
Kenneth Turba
William C. Nickel
Joe Hutchison
Leader: Jill Randall
Group 2
Theodore J. Mosch
John G. Fax
George Wennerlyn
Bob Levin
Elizabeth Jacobson
Charlotte A. Testwuide
Katie Schuette
Bruce Loppnow
Tom Eisele
Leader: Steve Berkowitz
Group 5
E. K. Born
George Gruber
William Roehl
Stan Jerabek
Francis J. Bouda
Carol Wieland
Paul Schultz
Mark Leider
Leader: Sally Jenkins
Group 4
Joy Shaw
Doris Jerger
L. N. Mathieu
Alan H. Gartman
Edgar F. Koeser
James A. Derbique
Clarence Kwekkeboom
Roland Schomberg
Leader: Bruce Murray
Group 5
Gordon W. Heffernan
Paul A. Mullins
Peter W. Reichelsdorfer
Nancy Z. Schreiber
James Gilligan
Arden Koehler
Harold Petrick
Carl E. Erbstoeszer
Leader: Elin Quigley
-90-
-------
GROUP
1
Biological and Physical
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
10
13
Points
51
34
31
28
26
24
23
22
19
14
14
14
11
Economic and
Rank
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
7
7
10
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
17
Points
55
54
25
25
24
20
19
19
19
15
14
13
12
12
11
10
9
9
Health concerns - cumulative radiation -
cancer, and effect of other toxic
materials, SO,
Need for plant should be determined
Increase the energy efficiency of plants,
thereby decreasing environmental
effects
Effects of increased radiation in
immediate area
Adequate supply of water
Effects of radiation in agricultural
products
Regional maintenance of water quality -
cumulative effects on several sites
Type of land used - excellent farmland
or wasteland
Temporary storage of waste materials in
water and leakage of radioactive
waste into water
Man-made alterations of local climate -
effects of cooling towers and ponds -
fogs
Density of population in area and in
relation to distribution of energy
Long term economic effects on townships
of plant construction and operation
Availability of good transportation.
Put in area with existing roads
Social
Consideration of future and worldwide
energy needs for many generations
We need more energy conservation and
education program on individual
basis
Regulatory atmosphere of agencies - time
and procedures
Special government costs related to
transportation and safety
Effects on existing economic and social
structure of large land acquisition
Justification for power plant on basis
of 3rd party projections of con-
sumer demand
Loss of agricultural land
Lower cost of power (electric) for resi-
dential use
Social and environmentally acceptable
deep underground storage sites
Cost and availability of uranium
Interference with ecocycle
Closeness of plant to energy market
(biggest percent of market)
Financial benefit or expense to community
Effect on employment in area
Effects on social and economic life of
community of disputable facility
Balance between utility tax structure &
environmental concerns
Power line right-of-way alternatives
possible? (burial)
Steady employment and stabilizing econ-
omy of area
Rank
13
15
15
17
18
18
1 D
lo
18
An
22
t\f\
23
24
oyi
24
24
27
90
LO
Rank
17
20
20
20
20
20
25
26
26
28
29
29
31
31
31
34
34
34
34
Points
11
10
10
8
6
6
6
6
5
3
2
2
1
Points
9
8
8
8
8
8
7
5
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Impact of cooling water on aquatic life in
general positive or negative
Storage of nuclear wastes
Use presently owned sites for experimenta-
tion with alternative (less environment
harmful) energy production methods
Availability of type of fuel used in the
area
Use areas that will affect wildlife
habitat the least
Market for product (electricity)
Use of high-sulphur coal in plants
Should utilize by-products
Recreational and historical values of
shoreline properties
Changes in lake temperature
People displacement - off the site
Effect of weather (temp.) on water temper-
ature w/relation to cooling requirements
Discouragement of residential and business
development in area
Wildlife leaving the area becasue of un-
healthy conditions
Change in fishing quality - positive or
negative
National economic worth of the plant vs.
unaltered site
Discouragement of residential and business
development
Temporary alteration of housing needs and
costs - during construction
Loss of business for housing contractors
after plant construction (safety fears)
Be sure to have enough power for the area
Increased area income through construction
and operation, bolsters local economy
Better rate for industry in area
Decrease in value of farmland due to
radiation
Changes in community style of living
Decommissioning of nuclear power plant -
cost and responsibility
Possibility of tax benefits to the area
Effects on wildlife (hunting and fishing)
Nuclear safety features - adequate or
excessive
Improved recreation facilities
Change in physical layout of area (streets
and parks)
Active life of power plants. What is it?
Inflationary impact of higher-salaried
construction workers in rural area
Loss of recreational and historical shore-
line property
Loss of public access to shorelines
-91-
-------
Land
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
13
IS
15
17
18
Final
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
9
9
9
12
13
13
15
16
Use
Points
47
37
36
32
29
28
28
26
21
19
16
15
11
11
10
10
8
7
Ranking
Points
52
38
35
31
25
22
22
22
20
20
20
19
17
17
14
11
Conservation of existing resources
Earlier citizen involvement in land use
issues, siting and licensing
More emphasis on solar energy
Minimum use of the highest quality ag land
Maximize power output from each plant
(fewer plants)
Build plants on poorest quality land
possible
Utilization of waste products for fuel
Need for regional plan first - before
selection of individual sites
Concern over concentration of plants
around Lake Michigan
Security, terrorism, sabotage
Emphasis on use of fuel cells (for energy
which solar couldn't provide)
All property of utility should be used
(timber or crops)
Exercise soil and water conservation
Scenic and land use impacts of trans-
mission lines
Effects on value of farmland
Educating lay people quickly (spread
technical expertise)
Radiation to farmland and farm animals
Consideration of land-use problems for
support facilities and activities
Health effects - i.e., of cumulative radi-
ation and effects of other toxic
materials
Conservation of existing resources
More conservation measures and educational
programs
Consideration of future and worldwide
energy needs - for many generations
Minimum use of highest quality agricul-
tural land
Increase the energy efficiency of plants -
thereby decreasing the environmental
effects
Adequate supply of water
More emphasis on solar energy
Type of land used - excellent farmland
or wasteland
Earlier citizen involvement in land use
issues in siting and licensing
Maximize power output from each plant -
fewer plants
Temporary storage of waste materials in
water and leakage of radioactive
wastes into water
Utilization of waste products from area
The need for plant should be determined
Loss of agricultural land
Regional maintenance of water quality -
cumulative effects of several sites
GROUP 2
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
1 47 Disposal of nuclear and coal wastes
2 33 Depletion of agriculture used for land
3 31 Radiation exposure to humans and the
ecosystem and food
Rank
18
20
20
20
20
20
25
26
27
28
20
29
29
29
Points
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
Rank
17
18
18
20
21
21
23
23
25
25
27
28
29
29
29
29
Rank
3
Points
10
7
7
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
Points
31
Encourage public relations between power
company and area residents
Rate payers shouldn't have to absorb costs
of siting changes and liability
insurance
Institution of "Town Hall"
Keep plants least visible
Plant workers - exposure to radiation
Storage of wastes from other plants and
areas
Effects of radiation on transient workers
(repairmen)
Should locate plant in forest areas
Protection of wildlife on plant property
Architecture should complement area
Prevention of change of site alter
approval
Zoning opportunity (surrounding area
could be limited industry)
Use of plant land for educational purposes
(tours, etc.)
Location of market
30
Need for regional plant first before selec-
tion of individual sites
Man-made alterations of local climate,
effects of cooling towers and ponds -
fogs
Need justification for power plant on the
basis of 3rd party projections of con-
sumer demand
Socially and environmentally acceptable
deep underground storage sites
Effects of increased radiation in the
immediate area
Cost and availability of uranium
Build plants on poorest quality land
Regulatory atmosphere of agencies -
costs, time, and procedures
Density of population in area in relation
to distribution of energy
Special government costs related to trans-
portation and public safety
Security - terrorism and sabotage
Effects on existing economic and social
structure of large land acquisition
Effects of radiation on agriculture
production
Long-term economic effects on townships of
plant construction and operation
Lower cost of power (electric) for resi-
dential use
Concern over concentration of plants on
Lake Michigan
Change in air quality as a result of the
addition, relative to present air
quality
Preservation of natural areas
-92-
-------
Biological and Physical (continued)
Rank Points
Maintaining and improving the integrity
of the Great Lakes
7 21 Effect on aquatic life, plants, fish, etc.
8 20 Local climate patterns (wind, humidity,
temperature)
9 18 Preservation of wetlands
10 16 Soil suitability for agriculture
10 16 Interference with wildlife and botanical
habitation, especially if near the
mouth of a creek or river
10 16 Effective control and use of heat
generated
13 13 Water quantity availability for cooling
13 13 Preservation of unique geologic features
like dunes, moraines
15 12 Ability of water body to disperse heat
15 12 Possible depletion of well water in the
area of the site
15 12 Supply of pure drinking water
18 11 Carbon dioxide concentrations in the
.atmosphere
19 10 Safety of any power source
19 10 Could the site be reclaimed for any other
use after the plant becomes obsolete
21 9 Population density
21 9 Underground rock formations of the area
23 5 Drainage problems caused by increased im-
permeable surface area
24 4 Increased sedimentation in our lakes and
streams caused by stripping of vege-
tation in plant construction
25 3 Transportation access to the plant
Economic and Social
Rank Points
31
2
2
4
4
6
7
8
9
9
11
12
13
13
15
15
17
17
19
23
23
22
22
21
19
16
15
15
14
13
12
12
11
11
10
10
9
The ability to meet the power "needs" by
energy conservation measures rather
than construction of power facilities
The various availabilities and costs of
fuels
Loss of productive farmlands to power
plants and transmission lines
Health and safety concerns of people
living near a nuclear plant
The technological ability to meet power
needs by alternative sources of energy
Moral responsibility to future generations
On site storage of nuclear wastes
The need for an ample energy supply to
provide jobs and reduce unemployment
Costs/benefits of environmental protection
equipment and systems to the public
Depletion of fossil fuels which prevents
utilization by future generations
Support of public opinion. The will of
the people should rule
Shift from scarce fuels to electricity
The effects on recreational use of adja-
cent lands and waters
Cost advantages and flexibility of nuclear
The impacts of a large labor force during
construction
Need for a detailed environmental impact
statement
The large capital investment in high
technology - intensive low labor
intensive power facilities
Early research for preservation of
historic sites of building
Impact of land values adjacent to the pro-
posed site
25
27
27
29
29
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
19
21
22
22
22
22
26
27
28
28
30
30
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
Rank Points
17 9
19
7
6
5
4
4
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stability of shore!and bluff areas
Discharge of chlorine and other water pol-
lutants from treatment of intake water
Increase in noise pollution due to the
transport of fuels
Indirect consequences to other areas due
to construction of facilities
Preservation of woodlands
The aesthetic beauty of the area
Entrairment and entrapment of fish from
cooling water source
Sulphur pollutants from coal-fired, both
inhaled and ingested
Types of cooling methods to be used
Changes in longshore currents
The anxiety produced by people by the
"uncertainty" of nuclear power plants
Changes in ice cover patterns
Increased concentration of particles in
the air and resulting fallout on the
area
Increased strontium-90 in milk supply
Preserving the physical features that were
instrumental in establishing the cul-
tural heritage of the area
The anxiety produced in people to live or
work in the immediate area of nuclear
plants
Aesthetic beauty of the area
Stimulation of forms of economic growth
unsuitable to the area
The political climate's lack of coordina-
tion between different government levels
The tax impacts of power plant siting
The inability to hold protest groups
accountable for future power deficiencies
Reduction of access to the shoreline
Routing of nuclear waste transport
The effect on the agricultural community
Housing needs due to increased population
during and after construction
Nuclear more expensive in long term
Streamline the avenues of protest to reduce
costs
Terrorism and sabotage of nuclear
The ability of existing roads to handle
increased traffic
Disruption caused by transportation of fuel
Increase of public service needs to the
community
Political and technical restrictions to
reprocessing nuclear wastes
The impact of cost of water for household
use and other industrial purposes
Direct employment opportunities before,
during and after plant construction
The impacts of energy intensive industries
locating near power plants
-93-
-------
Economic and Social (continued)
Rank Points
33 0
Land Use
Rank Points
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
7
9
10
10
12
55
33
27
26
24
24
19
19
18
16
16
15
12 15
Final Ranking
1 31
6
7
8
9
10
10
10
13
14
14
16
17
29
24
19
18
17
14
13
11
10
10
10
9
Price-Anderson act limiting utility
and government liability to nuclear
accidents
Preservation of ag land
Need to locate power plants close to
power users
Coordination of site selection process
with community planning
Land impact of transmission line
facilities
Need for and compliance with effective
zoning and other land use regulations
Need for comprehensive environmental
studies in waste disposal selection
Preservation of natural physical features
that was instrumental in establishing
the cultural heritage of the area
Protection of wetlands and woodlands and
coastal area
Disruption of land during mining or dis-
posal of elements used in the fuel
cycle
Potential for multiple use of transmission
corridor
Effect of nuclear plant on land use for
recreational purposes
Early research and preservation of
historic sites and buildings in the
site area
Preservation of scenic shorelines
Radioactive exposure to humans and the
ecosystem and food
Depletion of agricultural use for land
Costs/benefits of environmental protection
equipment and systems to the public
The technological ability to meet power
needs by alternative sources of energy
The ability to meet power "needs" by
energy conservation measures, rather
than construction of power facilities
Disposal of nuclear and coal wastes
Presentation of natural areas
The need for comprehensive environmental
studies in waste disposal selection
Moral responsibility to future genera-
tions
The need for an ample energy supply to
provide jobs and reduce unemployment
The various availabilities of costs of
fuels
Need to locate power plants close to
power users
Preservation of natural physical features
that were instrumental in establishing
the cultural heritage of the area
Maintaining and improving the integrity
of the Great Lakes
Soil suitability for agriculture
Coordination of site selection process
with community planning
Interference with wildlife and botanical
habitation, especially near the mouth
of the creek or river
Rank Points
12
15
16
17
18
19
19
19
22
22
24
17
19
19
19
22
23
24
25
26
26
26
26
26
15
11
10
8
7
5
5
5
Balancing increased health care costs due
to power plant pollution against power
plant benefits
An aesthetic approach to the design of new
power plant facilities
Beauty of the area and other aesthetic and
scenic values which might be affected
Plant site location in sparsely populated
areas
The need for landowners in the area to
establish a resource conservation plan
with the soil and water conservation
district
Consider findings from research on the
archaeological study of the area
Effective erosion control compatible
with adjacent areas
Potential for land reclamation after
site becomes obsolete
Review process of land condemnation by
eminent domain in order to protect
neighboring land ownership
Land use implications of potential
nuclear accidents
Energy parks versus distributed plant sites
Protection of adjacent land from plant
encroachment
Need for and compliance with effective
zoning and other land use regulations
Change in air quality as a result of the
addition, relative to present air
quality
Depletion of fossil fuels which prevents
utilization by future generations
Land impact of transmission line facil-
ities
Potential for multiple use of transmission
corridors
Effect of a nuclear power plant on land
use for recreational purposes
Effect on aquatic life, plants, fish, etc.
Preservation of wetlands
Local climate patterns (wind, humidity,
temperature)
Effective control and use of heat generated
On site storage of nuclear wastes
Protection of wetlands and woodlands and
coastal areas
Disruption of land during the mining or
disposal of elements used in the fuel
cycle
-94-
-------
GROUP 3
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
Rank Points
7
8
9
10
11
11
62
53
41
34
33
33
26
17
16
15
14
14
(1) Accidental release of nuclear wastes
to human environment
(2) Radiation escape - routine or acci-
dental ; sabotage
(3) Safety protection against runaway
reaction, vandalism, crime, sabotage
Long term waste disposal needs (area,
acres, groundwater impacts) and con-
tainment (both coal and nuclear)
(1) What happens to nuclear plant when
fuel runs out or plant retired
(2) Fuel supply for company
Heavy vapor emission - cooling towers,
fog, driving, health effects,
building damage
(1) Air pollution - high level and cumu-
lative low level
(2) S02/03 emissions - affects plants,
animals, humans
(1) Transmission lines - static, TV and
radio interference
(2) Put power poles along fences, roads,
not across fields
Long term availability fuel and impact
of obtaining fuel-strip mining
Animals - including people and plants -
food, trees preservation - danger from
nuclear aid
Far from population
Transportation of nuclear wastes to and
from processors
Not in geophysical fault area. Entomb-
ment - long term problem. Obsolete
plant - what happens
Cumulative human life effects from low
level radiation. Genetic effects.
Future generations too
Economic and Social
Rank Points
1
28
22
18
17
17
15
14
14
13
13
13
13
(1) Cost of impact on services - fire,
police, water, sewer, streets and
highways
(2) Affect on local taxes +/or -
(1) Economic effect of nonexpansion of
power per capita and to replace exist-
ing power plants as they age
(2) Prevention or modification of lower
standard of living by meeting energy
needs
Cost of building nuclear vs. coal. Hidden
nuclear costs - size of area, entomb-
ment, require more area, etc.
Land values
Why not substitute solar or wind power
Availability of power accelerates growth -
attracts population - affects quality
of life
Increased employment directly and
indirectly linked to plant
Lessen dependence on other forms of energy
that may be running out or becoming
more expensive
Bring in new industry
Cogeneration - sell steam and electricity
(use 60% fuel energy)
Increase community tax base
Provision radioisotopes for pharmecutical,
industry, safety devices, hospitals
13
13
15
16
17
17
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
25
25
13
13
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
21
22
23
13
13
12
11
Rank Points
12
12
10
10
Protect animals and plants during construc-
tion and operation phases
Power plant as close as possible to users
to maintain quality of life we have
Use community water, sewers
On communities - energy available or not.
What if we don't have energy
Warm water discharge on inland (not
Lake Michigan) water
Thermal problems: land, water, air
Health of operators, maintenance and
repairs. Nuclear, mining, manufacturing
nuclear, and coal raining - including
nuclear breeder. Health of coal plant
workers too.
Food chain radiation buildup
Effect on aquatic life of plant discharges
on natural environment
Best pollutant controls on coal, on mining,
storing, burning. Best health and
accident protection
Radiation contamination carried by Great
Lakes elsewhere
Juxtaposition of warm water and sanitary
sewage discharge points
Impact - mutation and heat on organisms in
water - future impact
Put on Lake Superior instead of Lake
Michigan - Milwaukee and Chicago affect-
ing Lake Michigan
Warms Lake Michigan for swimming
Land contamination from radioactive par-
ticle buildup
Short term housing and school requirements
Terrorism and sabotage - making bombs, con-
tamination (air, land, water) threats
as a social problem
Keep more tax money in county
Moral and social effect of people concerned
only with energy needs and not concerned
about negative effects
Relatively short life nuclear plant - cost
caretaker responsibility to future
Use warm water for fish hatchery (on shore)
or perch in tanks. Tags on fish -
commercial limits and sports limits on
catch
Energy conservation and alternate sources -
less reliance on electricity and less
depletion of resources and funds
diverted for alternate sources
Economic and social consequences of muta-
tion and genetic effects and of land
contamination-radiation, gen. effects -
man, plants, animals
Education needs - training technicians for
power plant and new industry
Keep people informed
Need? Balance conservation and efficiency
against additional facilities
Conservation of energy hard as build more
and more power plants
-95-
-------
Economic and Social (continued)
Rank Points
23 5
25
26
27
Land Use
35
27
26
6 25
Final Ranking
Rank Points
1 39
2 32
3 24
19
11
n
18
18
17
17
14
14
11
11
11
Social problems (crime, delinquency,
alcoholism, etc.) in boom town areas
near mining
Plant trees instead of cropland near
plant - land owned by company
Use heat for district heating
Effect on local business and/or -
Effect of transportation of fuels and
wastes on land
(1) Land impact of transmission lines
(2) Aesthetic impact of transmission
lines. Ecosystem impact of trans-
mission lines (wetlands and woods).
Therefore, power plants should be
closer to users
Strip mining ravages land
Land modification/disturbance by waste
disposal
Stay away from ag land and historical
sites and natural beauty areas in-
cluding historical stores of Lake
Michigan
Use some land as park or camping area.
Multiple use facilities on power
company land-natural, hunting
Long-term waste disposal needs - area
(acres and groundwater) and contain-
ment - both nuclear and coal
Radiation excape - routine or accident
to human environment, safety protec-
tion from runaway reaction or
sabotage vandalism
Economic effect of non-expansion of power
plants. As population grows - amount
per person and to replace old units.
Prevention or modification of lower-
ing standard of living by meeting
energy needs
Effect on local taxes; cost of impact
on services - fire, police, water,
sewer, streets and highways
Why not substitute solar or wind power
Land values
Heavy vapor emissions - cooling towers.
Fog - driving safety, health effects,
building damage
Lessen dependence on other form of
energy that may be running out or
becoming more expensive
Bring in new industry
Transmission lines - aesthetic and
ecosystem impact - put plants closer
to users
What happens to nuclear plant when fuel
runs out or plant is retired
Air pollution - high level and cumula-
tive low level of S02/03 emissions -
effect on plants, animals and man
Long term availability of fuel and
impact of obtaining fuel/strip mining
Rank Points
27 0
27
27
27
27
10
n
12
13
14
15
15
15
17
18
18
20
20
22
23
23
25
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
Rank Points
7 22
8 21
9 19
18
15
14
12
9
7
Rank Points
11
11
10
10
9
8
Effect of capital intensive giant in area.
Proper taxation - Two Creeks
Insurance costs - local
Locate In north near labor supply
Power lines underground
Growth may occur where growth not wanted
Restore drainage and waterways
Relocation of people from power plant site
Increased population in area possibly
unprepared for it (land use planning)
Scenic value of cement covered nuclear
power plant for 200 years after 40
years operation
Concern over detrimental effect energy has
on land use by Industry in the vicinity
of power plant
Nuclear - lose land from ecological system,
from emotional needs (scenic values),
farmland and lowered water table
Protecting wildlife habitat
Coal uses less land
Have city school kids plant trees and
shrubs
Animals (including people) and plants - food
and tree preservation - danger from
nuclear and air emissions
Cost of building nuclear vs. coal. Hidden
nuclear costs - size of area, require
more area, size reserve, entombment
Provision radioisotopes - Pharmaceuticals,
Industry, hospitals, safety
Increase community tax base
Transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes
to and from processors
Strip mining ravages land
Availability of power, accelerate growth,
attract population, affect quality
of life
Relocation of people from site
Cogeneration - sell steam and electricity
Increased employment directly and indlr
indirectly linked to plant
Land modification - waste disposal
Transport fuel and waste
Avoid agricultural land, historic sites,
scenic areas
Transmission lines - static: TV and radio
interference, and poles along fences or
roads, not across fields
Far from population
Multiple use land on site - camps, hunting,
natural area
Increased population in unprepared area -
land use plan
Scenic value: concrete covered plant for
200 years after 40 years use
Detrimental effect of industry near power
plant on land
-96-
-------
GROUP 4
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
Rank Points
7
8
8
10
41
34
31
30
30
29
26
25
25
24
Danger of radioactivity getting into food
chain and water table
Coal - possibility of endangering earth's
ozone layer
Possibility of radiation
Disposal - utilization of energy waste
Airborne emissions' effect on plants,
animals, and humans
Effects of plants and transmission lines
on breeding and migration habits
Effect upon communities' drinking water
Isolating land used for nuclear waste
disposal from biosphere
Effect on water temperature
Disposal of sulphur compounds
Economic and Social
Rank Points
12
13
13
13
29
26
26
23
21
20
19
18
18
18
18
15
14
14
14
Land Use
Rank Points
32
31
30
Inadequate tax incentives for community
involved
Hidden cost associated with construction
of nuclear power plant (entombing
plant)
Insurance companies will not insure home
owner or business in vicinity of power
plant (in case of major, nuclear
accident)
Effect of new industry locating in area
Raising employment
Cost of building and operating plant is
much greater than conservation or
more efficient use of energy
Price-Anderson act diminishing utili-
ties liability in case of nuclear
accident
Possibility of greater electric energy
in area
Housing construction workers
Provides energy for now and future thus
insuring retention of jobs at local,
statewide area (midwest), thus reliev-
ing burden of oil at this time
Potential loss of revenue for farmers
whose products may be contaminated
from radioactivity getting into food
chain
Locating plants in rural areas reduces
opportunity to provide heat for homes
and Industry
Expanded economy of the area
Possible loss of population living in
proximity to a plant
Social-aesthetic costs of losing natural
areas like wetlands, forests and
shorelines
Condemnation proceedings used to acquire
land are not fair to landowner
Land recovered from strip mining is not
as productive as before. Mine tall-
ings from uranium mines leaves land
Cannot count on geological stability of
sites chosen for permanent disposal of
nuclear waste
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
Rank
16
17
18
19
19
21
21
21
24
24
26
27
28
28
28
28
28
22
21
18
17
15
15
14
13
10
Points
13
11
10
Rank Points
4 28
5 25
22
Safety
Returning high temperature water into lake
Water and air pollution
Ph the case of nuclear plant, building back-
up unit that may endanger more of the
environment
Aquatic life in Lake Michigan
Heat island effect (associated with group
of plants)
Overabundance of marine life attracted to
the area
Long term deterioration of containers
Life in general
Creates the need for additional service
business to serve needs of added
laborers in labor market, thus ensur-
ing jobs and businesses (creating
service type businesses)
Improve fishing from warm water discharge
Tax cost of building plant not usually in-
curred by community that is not major
user
Loss of efficiency in transporting power
over long distances
High cost of uranium
A drain on recreation
Entombing plant would take productive land
out of use for many years
Social problem that accompanies bringing
in labor force, exposing them to larger
doses of radiation in very short times.
Increasing local labor costs while plant
under construction
Duration of a nuclear plant
Nuclear plant would provide few low-level
jobs - coal plant would provide more
Large plant using up an area's air quality
standard (level)
Cost of road construction
Transportation congestion - construction
operation
Influx of undersirables in work force
during construction
New nuclear plants are less efficient than
old plants because they are so large(?)
Transportation problem in bringing in coal
Plant would improve business climate of
area
Problem of using prime agricultural land
for facilities rather than locating in
industrial area
Takes least farmland out of production, but
provides the land and water facility for
an energy plant that is much needed
-97-
-------
Land Use (continued)
Rank Points
6 22 Storage of waste would adversely affect
land values
6 22 Strip mining - ugly
6 22 Nuclear - further land is tied up by ex-
pensive backup plants
10 20 Scenic value of power facility
11 17 Damage to crops from air pollution
(nuclear-coal)
12 16 Soil erosion, farming, mining, forestry,
scenic value affected by transmission
lines
12 16 Recreation and tourism value of area
(positive)
12 16 On-site entombment freezes land on which
materials are deposited and plant is
located
15 14 Excessive land required for power facili-
ties by regulation (nuclear)
Final Ranking
Rank Points
1 29 Danger of radioactivity getting into
food chain and water table
2 27 Disposal - utilization of energy waste
2 27 Inadequate tax incentives for community
involved
4 26 Condemnation proceedings used to acquire
land are unfair to landowner
5 23 Cost of building and operating plant is
much greater than conservation or more
efficient use of energy
6 16 Airborne emissions' effect on plants,
animals, and humans
6 16 Problem of using prime agricultural land
for facilities rather than locating
in already industrial areas
6 16 Raising employment
9 15 Expanded economy of area
9 15 Soil erosion, farming, mining, forestry,
scenic value affected by transmission
lines
11 13 Cannot count on geological stability of
sites chosen for disposal of nuclear
waste
12 12 Hidden cost associated with construction
of nuclear power plant (entombing
plant)
13 11 Potential loss of revenue for farmers
whose products may be contaminated
from radioactivity getting into food
chain
13 11 Social-aesthetic costs of losing natural
areas like wetlands, forests and
shorelines
15 10 Disposal of sulphur compounds
15 10 Provides energy for now and future thus
insuring retention of jobs at local,
statewide area (midwest) thus reliev-
ing burden of oil at this time
15 10 Storage of waste affects land values
18 9 Creates need for additional service
business to serve laborers
GROUP 5.
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
1 37 Safety and security
2 34 Available land and closeness to water
supply
17
18
19
19
21
Rank
19
19
19
19
23
23
25
25
25
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
11
10
8
8
Points
Could be creating a problem of having an
an inferior - poorly planned housing
development in area where power plant
is developed
Beauty of Lake Michigan shoreline ruined
by power plants that dot it
Safety to populated area
Plants and transmission lines are ugly
Major users of power are not directly
affected by land use problems
Plant would not cause problems to arch-
aeologic-historic values
Effects of plants and transmission lines
on breeding and migration habits
Price-Anderson act - diminishing utilities
liability in case of nuclear accident
Possibility of greater electric energy in
the area
Returning high temperature water into lake
Isolating land used for nuclear waste
disposal from biosphere
Locating plants in rural areas reduces
opportunity to provide heat for home
and industry
Plant would improve business climate of
the area
Takes least farmland out of production,
but provides the land and water facil-
ity for an energy plant that is much
needed
Nuclear plant building backup unit that
may endanger more of environment
Effect on new industry locating in area
Coal-possibility of endangering earth's
ozone layer
Housing construction workers
Nuclear - further land is tied up by expen-
sive backup plants
Strip mining - ugly
Scenic value of power facility
Effect upon communities' drinking water
Effect on water temperature
Safety
Land recovered from strip mining is not
as productive as before. Mine tailings
from uranium mines leaves land unusable
Recreation and tourism value of the area
(positive)
Possible loss of population living in
proximity of plant
On-site entombment freezes land on which
materials deposited
Rank
3
4
Points
31
29
Location in relation to existing residen-
tial, commercial anfl industrial areas
Disposal of waste heat
-98-
-------
Biological and Physical (continued)
Rank Points
5 27 Nuclear: no smoke and dust
6 25 Control of radioactive leakages and
discharges
7 22 Transporting of spent fuel out of the
area
8 21 Smoke and dust from coal plants
8 19 Effects of power plants on plants,
aquatic life, silva and fauna
9 19 Impact on recreation: fishing,
hunting, boating
11 16 Interfacing of power plant and other
public and private facilities
(power plant next to sewage plant
next to fishing, etc.)
11 16 How to choose between air and water
pollution
13 15 How much land is needed?
14 14 Underground power transmission lines
wherever possible
15 13 Better research on elimination of radio
and TV interference from transmission
lines
16 12 Effect on roads and traffic during con-
struction
17 10 Using waste heat for fisheries or some-
thing...
17 10 Water cooling towers
19 9 Restriction of access to areas used for
recreational activity
Economic and Social
Rank Points
Rank Points
9
10
II
11
11
14
15
15
68
47
32
26
24
20
18
18
16
14
12
12
12
11
10
10
Land Use
Rank Points
56
39
30
Effect on taxes
Total local community costs (includes tax
structure, schools, housing, natural
areas...)
Cost of power bought fay consumer
New industries to service plant
Additional employment (construction and
operation and effects of this on
local merchants)
Need for imported personnel (local labor
capabilities not sufficient to get
contracts)
Access to large body of water where heat
can be discharged with low environ-
mental effect
Need to present pros and cons of economic
and social costs to the local public
Jobs for building trade workers
Loss of productive land
Increased recreation facilities
Bringing in outside businesses to area
Easing of EPA regulations for uses of
low sulfur fuel
Nearness to existing transmission lines
Availability of land for the site
Government loans (loan interest rates)
for local governments on new con-
struction
Develop good land conservation practices
on land owned by the power plant
Preserve historic and architectural sites
Provide public access to lake for public
use (recreation)
20
21
22
22
22
22
26
26
26
29
29
29
32
33
18
19
19
19
22
22
22
25
25
25
28
29
30
30
30
30
8
7
6
6
6
6
Rank Points
17 9
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
2
0
0
0
0
Rank Points
4 29
5 28
Storage of nuclear materials
Availability of water (e.g., Lake Michigan.
large sources needed)
Coal gondolas interfering with traffic
Plant design should conform to appearance
of the area
Appearance, etc., of coal piles
Public should know where to go (what re-
sources are available) for verifying
information in environmental impact
statements
Noise
Availability of roads, etc., for people to
leave area in case of accident
Planning of transmission lines not to dis-
rupt agricultural land
Development of buffer between plant and
surrounding area
Can lay public relate to all the statistics
in environmental impact statement (I.e.,
plummage dimensions, size, etc.)
Closer liaison between civil defense and
power plant in event of major disasters
(should be in S.O.P.)
Changes in environment affecting wildlife
(large scale changes)
Using of valuable farmland for the site
Access to transportation facilities for
fuel
No brown-outs
Survey costs: private vs. public ownership
Railroad traffic
Profits on sale of land for plant and com-
pensation for transmission lines (are
owners satisfied?)
Changes in living standards in local com-
munity
Influx of tourists (plant: point-of-
interest)
Costs of potential disasters: nuclear and
natural
Creating housing problems
Routing changes needed for buses, high
traffic where fogging and icing from
cooling towers occurs
Effect of black lung and other hazards to
coal miners
Switching grid to other power facilities
in event of power failure
When present generators wear out, replace
with nuclear
Creates crime and violence during construc-
tion
Access to low sulfur fuel
Homes and new buildings increase tax base
Costs of access and bypass to and around
plant
Return land that is not needed back to pri-
vate ownership
New sites should not be sited in residen-
tial areas
-99-
-------
Land Use (continued)
Points Rank Points
27 Keep prospective land purchase secret to 17 10
avoid land speculation 18 8
7 26 Preserve wetlands 18 8
7 26 Loss of land used for production of food
9 20 Preserve fishing and boating in area 20 7
10 18 Aesthetic design should be compatible 20 7
with the area
11 17 Recognize land use concepts of "greater 20 7
than local concern', "we gotta have
energy" 20 7
12 16 Locate site in center of energy distribu- 24 5
tion system
13 13 Keep boundary roads intact wherever 25 2
possible
14 12 Make park out of unused land 26 1
14 12 Plant trees, etc., to obscure coal
piles, etc.
14 12 Plants tend to improve police and fire
protection for surrounding rural
communities
Final Ranking
Rank Points Rank Points
1 45 Effect on taxes 16 10
2 37 Total local community costs (includes 17 8
tax structure, schools, housing, 18 7
natural areas...}
3 34 Location in relation to existing resi- 18 7
dential, commercial and industrial 20 6
areas 20 6
4 29 Available land and closeness to water
supply 22 5
5 28 Safety and security
6 21 Effects of power plants on plants,
aquatic life, silva and fauna 24 4
7 18 Cost of power bought by consumer
7 18 Loss of productive land 26 2
9 16 Develop good land conservation practices 27 1
on land owned by the power plant 28 0
10 15 Disposal of waste heat
11 14 Control of radioactive leakages and
discharges 28 0
11 14 Access to large body of water where
heat can be discharged with low 28 0
environmental effect
13 12 Preserve fishing and boating in area 28 0
14 11 Provide public access to lake for public
use (recreation)
14 11 Loss of land used for production of food
Unsightly cooling towers
Coal piles and wastes: looks, space, etc.
Restoration of lands after the plant is
entombed
Utilize area as tourist attraction
Plants bring urban people to rural areas
because of tax advantages
Provide housing and facilities close to
plant for personnel
Easy access from mine to power plant site
Power companies should provide sanita-
tion facilities
Expansion of existing plants should not
create new and/or more problems
Make survey through local organization of
local historical sites
Transporting of spent fuel out of the area
Nuclear: no smoke and dust
Need to present pros and cons of economic
and social costs to the local public
Preserve historic and architectural sites
New industries to service plant
New plants should not be sited in resi-
dential areas
Additional employment (construction and
operation) and effects of this on
local merchants
Impact on recreation: fishing, hunting,
boating
Smoke and dust from coal plants
Need for power
Need for imported personnel (local labor
capabilities not sufficient to get
contracts)
Return land that is not needed back to
private ownership
Keep prospective land purchase secret to
avoid land speculation
Preserve wetlands
100
-------
APPENDIX F
THE SURVEY
SPECIAL SURVEY FOR WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR HELP IN ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS,
WHICH MAY NOT BE COVERED DURING THE WORKSHOP. YOUR ANSWERS WILL
BE AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE SUMMARY REPORT.
How would you rate each of the following areas as a potential nuclear
power plant site? Please circle the number which indicates
your rating of each type of area. Please read all the categories
before you start circling your answers.
VERY POOR POOR NO GOOD VERY GOOD
LOCATION LOCATION OPINION LOCATION LOCATION
IN HEAVILY INDUSTRIAL AREAS -2 -1 0 +1 +2
NEAR (WITHIN 2 MILES OF) HEAVILY
INDUSTRIAL AREAS -2 -1 0 +1 +2
IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS -2 -1 0 +1 +2
NEAR AGRICULTURAL AREAS -2 -1 0 +1 +2
IN LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREAS -2 -1 0 +1 +2
NEAR LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREAS -2 -1 0 +1 +2
IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS -2 -1 0 +1 +2
NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS -2 -1 " +1 *2
NEAR PARK, AREA -2 -1 ° +1 *2
IN FOREST AREAS -2 -1 ° +1
NEAR FOREST AREAS
ON GREAT LAKES SHORELINES
-2 -1 ° *1
-2 -1 ° +1
NEAR GREAT LAKES SHORELINES -2 -1 0 +1
ON SHORES OF SMALLER LAKES -2 -1 °
NEAR SHORES OF SMALLER LAKES -2 -1 °
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
IN WETLANDS
-2 -1 0 *1 +2
NEAR WETLANDS
2-10+1 +2
ON RIVERBANKS
-2 -1 0 +1 *2
NEAR RIVERBANKS
-101-
-------
How would you feel about the location of a power plant in your area,
under each of the following two conditions?
STRONGLY NEGATIVE NEUTRAL POSITIVE STRONGLY
NEGATIVE POSITIVE
1. The power plant would -2 -1 0 +1 +2
basically supply energy
to your area.
2. The plant would basically -2 -1 0 +1 +2
supply energy to other
parts of the state.
To supply about the same amount of power, do you think one large plant
would be better than about the same as, or worse than several
smaller plants?
Have the new tax laws changed the way you would feel about the construc-
tion of a power plant in your community?
YES NO
If "yes", how have your feelings changed?
much more somewhat more much more
negative more negative positive positive
About how far do you live from any existing power plant?
less than 5 miles from 5-10 miles further than 10 miles
don't know
Can you see the power plant from where you live? YES NO Don't know
Can you see high voltage transmission lines from where you live?
YES NO Don't know
We would like you to rank the following 8 types of areas for their suitability
for high-voltage transmission lines, from "1" (most suitable) through "8"
(least suitable).
Please write the appropriate number in the space next to each item.
AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMERCIAL AREAS
RESIDENTIAL AREAS PARKS
INDUSTRIAL AREAS WETLANDS
SHORELINE AREAS FORESTS
For how many years have you lived in this area?
.less than 1 1-5 years 5-10 years more than 10
Next we would like you to rank the following seven types of areas
for their suitability for a power plant site, from "1" (most suitable)
through "7" (least suitable). Please write the appropriate number
in the space next to each item.
PARKS HEAVILY INDUSTRIAL AREAS
RESIDENTIAL AREAS NATURAL AREAS
AGRICULTURAL AREAS SHORELINE AREAS
LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREAS
-102-
-------
Do you presently belong to any of the following types of organizations,
associations or clubs, or have you belonged within the past three years?
Please check each appropriate choice.
AGRICULTURAL SPORTS OR RECREATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICAL
BUSINESS CIVIC
PROFESSIONAL OTHER
What is your occupation? Please be as specific as possible.
What is your age?
21-35 36-50 50+
Overall, how would you rate the Power Plant Siting Workshop?
POOR
FAIR, BUT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
GOOD, ONLY MINOR PROBLEMS
EXCELLENT
If you would like to comment on any aspect of the workshop or the
concerns addressed, please tell us about them in the space below.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP.
One additional sheet -
How would you rate each of the following areas as a potential. COAL
power plant site? Please circle the number which indicates your
rating of each type of area. Please read all the categories before
you start circling your answers.
VERY POOR POOR NO GOOD VERY GOOD
LOCATION LOCATION OPINION LOCATION LOCATION
IN HEAVILY INDUSTRIAL AREAS -2 -1 0 +1 +2
NEAR (WITHIN 2 MILES OF) HEAVILY -2 -1 0 +1 +2
INDUSTRIAL AREAS
IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS -2 -1 ° ^ +?
NEAR AGRICULTURAL AREAS -2 -10+1
IN LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREAS -2 -1 0 +1 +2
NEAR LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREAS -2 -1 0 +1 «
IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS -2 -1 ° +J ^
NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS -2 -1 °
NEAR PARK AREAS - -1 ° +1
IN FOREST AREAS -2 -1 ° £ ^
NEAR FOREST AREAS -2
ON GREAT LAKES SHORELINES -2 ~1 ° £ *2
NEAR GREAT LAKES SHORELINES -2 -1 u
ON SHORES OF SMALLER LAKES -2 -* ° +2
NEAR SHORES OF SMALLER LAKES -2 -1
-------
IN WETLANDS -2 -1 Q +1 +2
NEAR WETLANDS -2 -1 Q +1 +2
ON RIVERBANKS -2 -1 Q +1 +2
NEAR RIVERBANKS -2 -1 Q +1 +2
Next we would like you to rank the following seven types of areas
for their suitability for a COAL fired power plant site, from "1"
(most suitable) through "7" (least suitable). Please write the
appropriate number in the space next to each item.
PARKS HEAVILY INDUSTRIAL AREAS
RESIDENTIAL AREAS NATURAL AREAS
AGRICULTURAL AREAS SHORELINE AREAS
LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREAS
-104-
-------
APPENDIX G
COMMENTS ON THE WORKSHOPS
COMMENTS OF THOSE WHO RATED THE WORKSHOPS AS POOR
This workshop is for those who can afford to take a day off work and have the inclination to care, or are unemployed
allays waget ±1 terl*"™'f^7* I' Irsonall^ " ^ h"e "* ^^ y°U "" ^ economic crises cau*** ^^los's
of
Most opinions were unqualified. More education in nuclear power and safety to educate all is badly needed.
(Ass't General Manager)
Employed grass roots people can't afford to attend these workshops on weekdays and daylight hours. (Professor)
A very fine workshop. I enjoyed it very much. (Retired Science & Math Teacher).
Other : Farmer
COMMENTS OF THOSE WHO RATED THE WORKSHOPS AS FAIR
Since all workshops were held at potential nuclear sites and since site considerations, by federal and state law, differ
for type of plant, I believe an outright admission that the workshop was a sampling of opinion on nuclear plants should
have been made explicit from the beginning. For instance, how can this questionnaire ask If the first four categories
on p 1 are good nuclear sites when federal regulations prohibit such siting? (Teacher)
Much input by the participants, but no concerns or questions answered! Were concerns real or well-founded? This type
of workshop pinpoints concerns, but provided NO ANSWERS. There is a need for some informative sessions by qualified,
non-biased authorities. Perhaps more direction by group leaders in pinpointing or defining concerns - when concerns
numbered over 30 there was overlapping and final count was affected. The question, "Is anyone else concerned with
this area? Can we combine your concern, or not???", could have kept number of duplications down. (Advertising Exec.)
The participants could not follow directions at all. (Dist. Manager, Utility Company)
It is frustrating to deal with such complex issues in such a short time. I'm not sure the data is reliable. Grouping
concerns before voting might have helped. (Homemaker, Teacher)
Assumption is for large central station plants (I think) answers to questions (on this survey) are different for dif-
ferent sizes and types of plants. (Secretary)
Fair, but could have been better. There is only so much you can do with this sort of thing. I did learn a lot. I'm
just not optimistic of the outcome of the research, lobbies in Washington B.C. being what they are. I am concerned
that this material could be used to the advantage of industry. When they know what John Q. Public is concerned about,
they can set to work launching an ad campaign to dispel his beliefs. (Houseparent for retarded/Office Worker)
I feel it is highly invalid. I rebel at the whole notion that A.P.A. bureaucrats should decide where plants will go.
The industry, local communities and the market can best determine this. Adequate incentives via tax benefits will
induce communities to put up with the disadvantage of hosting a plant. Perhaps communities could bid (negatively)
for plants. (i.e., "Pay us X$ to cover the risk and inconvenience of a plant to us and we will accept one. )
Everyone wants power but no one wants plants near them. Make social costs private costs (i.e., don t let plants impose
costs on others for which they are not reimbursed. Anti-pollution laws accomplish this - relocation allowances
accomplish this, etc. (Economist, Farm Wife, Politician)
A workshop such as this oversimplifies the array of economic interdependences of the environmental, social and land
use considerations of power plant siting. (Economic Community Development, City)
I don't like this survey. I oppose nukes and oppose their siting anywhere. Also I ^"J*^^' sL^iy"
shop due to sample problems, specifically how do absences of certain representatives affect the results. Secondly,
were union people invited? (Hospital Orderly)
A boring exercise in democratic effort to get opinions - the value of which is questionable at best. (Teacher)
-105-
-------
Survey by mall and use of computer could have been used without taking away from time needs of participants.
(City Attorney)
There's a limit to how much of this type of analysis and how representative of informed public opinion it is.
(Municipal Public Works Director)
Too much ground to cover in time allotted. The number of similar concerns with small differences in wording invali-
dates the ranking. As the lesser of two evils, I would prefer consolidation of similar concerns.
(Paper Mill Executive)
I am primarily interested in seeing that we build power plants as rapidly as possible. Not strict enough in separat-
ing categories. Good method of extracting ideas. (Paper Mill Executive)
Based on intuitive thoughts more discussion on how to approach the problem would he helpful and make the workshop more
meaningful. (Paper Mill Executive)
Excellent for the purpose of gathering opinions. The purpose of the workshop wasn't clearly disclosed.
(Manager Financial Inst. & Chamber President)
All interests at my table not represented in approximately equal numbers: 10 pronuclear, 1 opposed. (Homemaker)
Others: President of Chamber of Commerce, County Agricultural Agent, Executive of Electric Utility, Insurance Agent,
County Planner, Consulting Electrical Engineer.
COMMENTS OF THOSE WHO RATED THE WORKSHOPS AS GOOD
(Idea excellent). Would recommend the use of a referendum vote in areas of much dispute when nuclear plants are con-
(Owner-Operator of Commercial Sign Studio)
Don't address these as concerns, these are, as yet unsolvable problems. (Housewife)
I feel the workshop helped to provide a better understanding of some of the problems facing everybody in meeting our
energy needs. Believe a definition of the types of parks and forest areas you have in mind would be helpful in trying
to place an evaluation on them for a site location. I personally feel that certain forest areas may well be con-
sidered a practical site. The same could probably apply to large wilderness area parks that are not normally used
by large crowds. (Semi-Retired Business Executive)
Nowhere was there an effort to establish whether people wanted a plant or wanted less energy consumption.
(Housing Planner)
Covered much material - time is a problem - not much discussion. (Dairy Fanner)
Well conceived to obtain public opinion. Phraseology of several similar concerns could result in dilution of vote on
an area.
(District Manager, Utility)
Scope seemed limited by prevailing power plant siting concerns in the area, particularly reflecting the concern about
nuclear power, (Group Leader, Testing Services)
Some problem came about because of discussion of need vs. siting of plant. People need reassurance of need of plant in
itself. These concerns should have been weeded, and concerns evaluated with the given: power plant is needed:
Question, where to site? (Librarian)
In rating for essentially similar categories, participants may have split their votes, resulting in a low count for
each, and eliminating them from the final list. Judgments for such long lists were hard to make and were probably
unrealistic in choice of rating. (Retired College Professor)
There are many alternatives to some of these questions that were not listed. (General Farming)
Will bring out concerns which may reveal a need for better information to the public. (Div. Mgr. Elect. & Gas Utility)
Seemed to be quite productive. Heard good comments from participants. Only problems were those discussed below:
Small group leaders tended to change wording of concerns listed by participants. Lost a lot of time during listing
process by debating wording. Group too often changed what participant initially said. Heard group leader commenting
on personal opinions during process. Her opinions may have tended to bias the'group. (Coastal Planner)
Overlapping in biological physical and economic and social concerns. Ambiquity in some of statements as to what was
meant, i.e., affect on local taxes (i.e. + or -). Habit of combining numbers to reduce voting choices was highly
political. (Supervisor in Post Secondary Education)
Method used is restrictive in expressing concerns. Relative measures hard to express. Priority of concerns are
hard to, express in a hurry. (Volunteer)
A lot of the concerns mentioned were repetitious and got very technical. They should have remained more general.
(Soil Conservationist)
-106-
-------
Let's get a power plant of some kind started shortly. (Retired)
One possible problem ±s the distortion of findings (rankings) due to the intercut, nf «, • j< ,j ,
do not necessarily represent the total interests of the public. (Manager or Electric Utility) ' a"ending' Th<*
Would have been interesting to have time to explore problems of greatest concern. (Dist. Manager, Utility)
More specific instructions on power plant siting - too much emphasis on specific sites in area.
(Dist. Mgr., Wis. Electric Power Co.)
Difficult to wait for overall results so long. (Housewife, Newspaper Correspondent)
Assumptions should have included consideration of plant size - this affects my opinions markedly, also growth in
overall power production. (Chemist)
I would have appreciated learning from some of the expertise in the group. (Housewife concerned with Env. quality)
What is the value - we need power plants - they have to be some place. (County Supervisor)
Clarify rating instructions. (Homemaker)
More specific definitions needed of concern categories. (Engineering Mgr., Prof. Engr.)
Should make the instructions for drafting criteria suggestions. (Lawyer)
Everyone wants power - no one wants to be inconvenienced. (Retired)
It's difficult for participants from both sides of issues to refrain from imposing their biases on others.
(Manager, Electric Utility)
Ten is too many suggestions from each participant. Five would be better. (No occupation listed)
Send explanation, in brief, on mechanics and expectations of ''nominal group" techniques along with workshop
results — to all participants. (County Planning Director)
The nominal group approach was very appropriate for securing group opinions without stifling comments and participation.
(Electric Utility Employee)
The letter inviting participation did not clarify what kind of a site was to be considered. I just presumed it would
be a nuclear or coal-fired. It would have helped our research had we been informed more definitely. (Retired Teacher)
By agreement, cross out or combine minor concerns before voting to prevent spreading of votes amongst concerns.
(Land Use Consultant)
The final words - a lot of different answers to one question. (Housewife)
Question that selection was completely balanced - perhaps due to area response. (Potato Plant Manager)
Concept is good, leaders are helpful. Moves right along. I am somewhat overwhelmed by so much attempted.
(Retired School Administrator)
My concern is not with the workshop but with the lack of conservation of what we already have - the biggest waste is
lighting of shopping centers. I feel they should close at 6 p.m. The parking lighting could be eliminated. Sunday
openings should be eliminated - this would save thousands of gallons of gasoline. (Retired from sales)
Couldn't give reasons for not having power plants at all. I think we should have one category for people who want a
crash program (like the flight to the moon) and it should be financed by the federal government. I think we should
listenP"8R^ph Nader, Jacques Cousteau, Senator Frank Church, and Douglas LaFollette We should have a crash program
on solar and other forms of clean energy. (Housewife. Piano Teacher, Environmentalist)
Could have spent less time. (News Reporter)
ysz ftsrars ssrts itr"" r 5tr«-"S£tt"-£=: TSS sr=
cerns are taken seriously by the powers that be. (Professor)
The scope was a little narrow. (Farmer)
i i=nf »m be built- that is nowhere near being a valid assumption. This
I dislike the attitude taken that a nuclear plant will be »>«•"• cna. Contractor)
assumption is very much evident in the way this survey is written. (Printing Contractor)
. ., >.„.- nK for larse eroup in limited time. There is a probem of interpreta-
This program format is somewhat restrictive, but OK tor .large group
tion of categories. (Ag Writer, Journalist)
Should be more concern on shortage of electricity instead of danger. (Farmer)
-107-
-------
I feel the workshop helped to provide a better understanding of some of the problems facing everybody in meeting our
energy needs. Believe a definition of the types of parks and forest areas you have in mind would be helpful in trying
to place an evaluation on them for a site location. I personally feel that certain forest areas may well be considered
a practical site. The same could probably apply to large wilderness parks that are not normally used by large crowds.
(Business Executive)
Keep power plants close to the prime usage, as not to interfere with the production of food and fiber for the underfed
world. Even if the mass labor forces of the U.S. are not underfed. (Agriculture production of food and fiber)
Would have preferred separating the different types of power plants for the ranking process. (City Planner)
I'm sure some of my answers would be different if a specific site or sites were being considered. Hard to be realistic
when thinking in generalities - trade-offs don't enter in in the same way. (Housewife active in Env. Org.)
I felt we should have been more positive in our approach to power plant siting. (Dairy Farmer)
I am not in favor of any new power plants (nuclear) until a number of issues are solved, namely, waste disposal, effec-
tive radioactive monitoring, prevention of sabotage, etc...I have recently become aware that if limestone can be added
to coal production procedure, sulphur emissions are greatly reduced. On that basis, I answered the survey. (Student)
I think we should have been able to evaluate the top ten after listing to see if the group felt something should be
moved up or out. (Housewife)
Enjoyed the people - did not realize the deep division of opinion. (Cash Grain and Mink Farmer)
Many of the individuals are not well enough informed to look at all the problems involved and their interrelationship.
Many do not have technical knowledge to know what priorities should be. (Musician)
Others: County Surveyor and Realtor, Education, Retired Farmer/REA Board, Environmental Engineer/Contractor, Dairy
Farmer, Planner, Homemaker/Commission on Aging, Chemistry Professor, Farmer/Trucker/Logger, Farmer/Seed Dealer,
Vice-President Bank and Insurance Agent, Planner, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Housewife, Retired Teacher,
Farmer, Writer, Farmer, Farmwlfe, Retired Engineer, Newspaper Reporter, Professor, Farmer, Education Supervisor,
Plumbing and Heating Business, Insurance Agent, Homemaker/Elementary Teacher, Farmer, Retired Millitary/Realtor,
Graduate Student, Division Manager, Carpenter, Civil Defense Director, Retired Mason Contractor (now Bait and Tackle
Shop), Government Employee, Fishery Biologist, Farm Owner, Extension Resource Agent, President of Environmental
Engineering Contracting Firm.
COMMENTS OF THOSE WHO RATED THE WORKSHOPS AS EXCELLENT
Very good approach. (Retired - part time Assessor and County Board)
Would help to have a little more time for evaluation even if it meant an evening session or earlier start.
(Pharmacist, Bank President)
All concerns voiced. Leadership non-controversial - conducive to freedom of expression. Good mix of participants.
(Homemaker)
Please - PSC and DNR and EPA - listen to the concerns of average citizens. The utilities are too powerful and enjoy a
luxurious monopoly. And to think we even tolerate advertising for increased energy consumption by the utilities.
(Teacher)
You did a great job. I hope such workshops can be held all over the U.S. (College Prof.)
I wish it could have been held on a Saturday, for weekdays with jobs are difficult to coordinate.
(Teacher, Politician, Farmer)
It was stated at the workshop, but it seemed everyone was picking out the negative aspects of a power plant.
(Retired - Soil & Water Conservation)
Some groups were biased in utilities favor; some groups were biased against power plants. (Housewife, County Supervisor)
More Input given by small groups due to ease of relating to given subjects. (Accountant)
O.K., but nearly all ideas expressed were already known to me. (Dairy Farmer)
Proper use of speaker system. (Resort Owner)
Lack of understanding of agriculture problems by people participating. (Housewife)
If this Is Professor Delbecq's technique for group workshops, I go along with it 100Z. Dave Younkman did a fine job.
(Executive Dir., Tourism Promotion Association)
The workshop is fine, but I do hope your work to the PSC will be able to carry some weight and that the PSC will be
able to carry some weight with NRC. (General Farming)
Interesting and informative. (Housewife)
Could have used more time to rank concerns once they were itemized. (Financial Manager)
-108-
-------
- * •*. areas, Mao a cB.dc
I enjoyed hearing other people's views at ay table „ very educational. (Retired Gas Service Man (Natural Gas Company!
It was a good way to exchange ideas, (grain Farmer)
I believe all measures to bring considerations of these Issues
environmental concerns, on the basis of futurism ^T
Very good. If there is any argument about electricity shut off the power in all plants in the nation for one day.
I would like to see more done on solar energy which is free and doesn't harm people. Spend more tine and money on this
study (solar energy) . (Dairy Farmer)
Others: Engineer for Electrical Co-op, Extension Agent, County Park Superintendent, Farmer, Artist, Housewife,
Extension Resource Agent, County Coordinator for Elderly, Maintenance, Extension Home Economist, Pulp and Paper
Technician, Paper Mill Manager, Municipal Employee, Union Business Representative, Farmer, Unemployed Teacher
Retired Person, Forester DNR, Interior Designer and Consultant/active in community affairs.
COMMENTS OF THOSE WHO DID NOT RATE THE WORKSHOPS
I am against siting of anymore nuclear or low fired coal plants. I am for mass production of solar units for home heat-
ing and air conditioning. I would like to see more pilot projects, such as the fuel cell funded by ERDA. If forced
to choose between nuclear and coal, I could go with coal if scrubbers, etc., to keep air quality standards high were
used. More emphasis on energy efficient conservation. (Housewife)
We are, under the present energy condition, going to need more electrical power and must learn not to pass the burdens
on others of assuming responsibilities which are very beneficial to us in our different localities. (Marine Operator)
Emphasis could be placed on hydroelectricity and solar energy. Solar energy not in large scale energy parks, but at
the site where used, perhaps with technology and components provided by local power plant. (County Planner)
I don't want a nuclear power plant anywhere. I only want coal as an interim measure for the next fifty years or so
until we develop solar, wind power, geothermal power, etc. (Active Citizen)
How much impact will these workshops have on actual power plant siting? (Dairy Farmer)
I did not answer the above because I am not sure of the goal of the workshop. (Homemaker, Comm. Worker)
Appreciated an impersonal atmosphere to prioritize without a need to defend my Phonal opinions.^ ^ Camezce)
Too general - not specifying type of plants makes difficult if not Impossible to answer questions or ranking. Hard
to compare the incomparable. (V.P. , Real Estate & Development Company)
These questions are too general - there are only certain specific areas ^t are suitable (ie bedrock close water
supply close), therefore, generalizing is not a good approach. You should Ust specific sites and then
questions about them. (Paper Mill Manager)
-109-
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/3-80-004
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
January 1980 issuing date
Citizen Concern with Power Plant Siting: Wisconsin
Power Plant Impact Study
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Elin Quigley, Jill Randall, Bruce Murray, and Alice
D'Alessio
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Institute for Environmental Studies
Environmental Monitoring and Data Acquisition Group
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1NE831
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R803971
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, MN
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 1-77—7/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/03
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Two hundred and fifteen invited participants attended four public workshops in
four Wisconsin cities in the spring of 1977. They were divided into small groups
and asked to identify and rank power plant siting concerns in three categories:
biological and physical, economic and social, and land use. Each group ranked the
top ten concerns in each of the three categories. Participants also completed a
survey asking them to rank sites for power plants and transmission lines, to provide
some personal background information, and to express their views on the workshop.
A list of every concern mentioned is included in this report, and concerns are
combined and analyzed by their ranking, both overall and in the final vote. Economic
issues (taxes, consumer costs, community costs, and jobs), agricultural land
preservation, and water availability were consistently ranked as the most important
concerns. The survey revealed a negative reaction to siting in residential areas,
some preference for several small plants rather than one large one, a favorable
reaction to power plants designed to serve only local needs, a negative attitude
toward Wisconsin's new tax law which provides less power plant tax money for local
governments, and a favorable attitude toward the workshops.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Power plants (facilities)
Public opinion
Public relations
Wisconsin power plant
studies
Siting options and
decision alternatives
43 E,F
44 G
68 G
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
122
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
110
a U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-657-146/5550
------- |