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,
etce.); 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 SO, - 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 Hy evaporation; co,
concentration in atmosphere.

-50-


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-


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

Environmental Health Effects Research

Environmental Protection Technology

Ecological Research

Environmental Monitoring

Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
“Special” Reports

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.

COVNOAMSRWN

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.


TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)

1, REPORT NO. 2. 3. RECIPIENT’S ACCESSION NO.
EPA-600/3-80-004
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
January 1980 issuing date

Citizen Concern with Power Plant Siting: Wisconsin 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Power Plant Impact Study
7. AUTHOR(S) ls. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
Elin Quigley, Jill Randall, Bruce Murray, and Alice

D'Alessio
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

Institute for Environmental Studies 1NE831

Environmental Monitoring and Data Acquisition Group 11, CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Madison, Wisconsin 53706 R803971

12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13, TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Environmental Research Laboratory — Duluth, MN Final; 1-77--7/77

Office of Research and Development 14, SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/03

Duluth, Minnesota 55804

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

76. 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
a. DESCRIPTORS lb, IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS |c. COSATI Field/Group
Power plants (facilities) Wisconsin power plant 43 E,F
Public opinion studies 446
Public relations Siting options and 68 G
decision alternatives
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO, OF PAGES
Unclassified 122
Release to public 20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 32. PRICE
Unclassified

EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION I$ OBSOLETE

110 + US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1960 -657-146 /5550


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

wane no

wwow

Points

39
38

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 in
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

Land Use Concerns

Rank

“
2
3
4

Points

63
54

M
33

Preservation of prime ag. land

hake use of existing facilities-roads,
transmission lines, etc.

Location of transmission lines as part of
plant siting decision

Urban sprawl because of increase in
available power

ww & wowr

eccoe

Points
10

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 in transport of
fuel wastes (nuclear)

Effect on recreational use of land and

water
Environmental disturbances of transmission
nes
Amount of land required
Disturbance of geological sites
Construction runoff
Erosion
Use of water transport

Economic hardship from power lines crossing

an

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 preserit 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


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 3

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 Brokelman
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

~T0-


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-


GROUP 5
Economic and Social

Rank Points
1 27
2 24
3 4
4 20
6 19
7 at}
8 16
9 15
9 15
Vv 14
12 13
13 rd
13 12
15 u
15 u
7 10
W7 10
7 10
20 9
20 9
20 9
23 8
24 7
25 6
26 5

‘LAND USE

Rank Points
1 51
2 42
3 »
4 27
5 25
6 24
6 24
8 22
9 v7
9 7
a 16
12 15
13 10

future energy shortages

conservation measures should be taken to
reduce eneray demand

cost incurred by delay in construction
of any generating facility

waste disposal problems connected with
nuclear power

more equitability in electric rate struc-
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 technological ly
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
Teast 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 sécondary impacts

adequate geological structure

avoid wilderness areas

amount of land available for future
expansion ; .

follow property lines with transmission
lines when possible ;

scars on landscape due to surface mining
of coal

Rank
26

28
29

2

29
32
33

33
33

33
33
33

33
33
33
33
33

33
33

33
33

Rank
13

15
16

V7
18
18

20
20

22
23
24

24

~65-

Points
5

4
3

2 © © co o

© © 000 ©

2 0 oo

Points
10

wry

o O-N Be aan

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

cooling 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

Jaws 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

Teasing of national forests for uraniun
mining

no use of agricultural land

Jand area needed for cooling ponds

need for adequate water for both farming
‘and coal processing

consideration of wind patterns in
location of power plants


TABLE 7. EAU CLAIRE WORKSHOP: RANKING OF CATEGORIES OF SITING
CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON ALL CONCERNS

Percentage of Times Importance
Concern category Points total points mentioned value (rank)

1, Economic 858 13.5 73 11.75 (14)
2. Water 516 8.0 35 1.7 (6)
3. Health and radiation 467 TH 25 18.7 (2)
4. Plant location 393 6.2 28 14.0 (8)
5. Agricultural land preservation 354 5.6 16 22.13. (1)
6. Wastes 359 5.6 21 17.09 (4)
7. Air/climate 359 5.6 26 13.8 (9)
8. Political/planning 305 4.8 27 11.3 (16)
9. Social/cultural 304 4.7 25 12.2 (13)
10. Physical site characteristics 272 4.3 20 13.6 (10)
11. Environmental pollution 252 3.9 mW 18.0 (3)
12. Transmission lines 246 3.8 27 9.1 (21)
13. Natural environment 211 3.3 23 9.2 (20)
14. Transportation 197 3.0 27 7.3 (23)
15. Need for plant 187 2.9 12 15.6 (5)
16. Safety/security 184 2.9 19 9.68 (19)
17. Plant operation 175 2.7 18 9.7 (18)
18. Growth 164 2.6 13 12.62 (12)
19. Scenic/historic 116 1.8 24 4.8 (26)
20. Recreation 91 1.4 12 7.6 (22)
21. Land-use change 86 1.3 6 14.3 (7)
22. Conservation 65 1.0 6 10.8 (17)
23. Research 70 1.0 6 11.7 (15)
24. Insurance 68 1.0 5 13.6 (10)
25. Noise 37 0.6 7 5.3 (25)
26. Future generations 4 0.2 2 7.0 (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-


Economic and Social (continued
Rank Points Rank Points
3 0 Price-Anderson act limiting utility 33 0 Balancing increased health care costs due
and government Iiability to nuclear to power plant pollution against power
accidents plant benefits
Land Use
Rank Points Rank Points
1 55 Preservation of ag land 12 5 An aesthetic approach to the design of new
2 33 Need to locate power plants close to power plant facilities
power users 15 n Beauty of the area and other aesthetic and
3 27 Coordination of site selection process scenic values which might be affected
with community planning 16 10 Plant site location in sparsely populated
4 26 Land impact of transmission line areas
facilities W7 8 The need for landowners in the area to
5 24 Need for and compliance with effective establish a resource conservation plan
zoning and other land use regulations with the soil and water conservation
5 24 Need for comprehensive environmental district
studies in waste disposal selection 18 7 Consider findings from research on the
7 19 Preservation of natural physical features archaeological study of the area
that was instrumental in establishing 19 5 Effective erosion control compatible
the cultural heritage of the area with adjacent areas
7 19 Protection of wetlands and woodlands and 19 5 Potential for land reclamation after
coastal area site becomes obsolete
9 18 Disruption of land during mining or dis- 19 5 Review process of land condemnation by
posal of elements used in the fuel eminent domain in order to protect
cycle neighboring land ownership
10 16 Potential for multiple use of transmission 22 4 Land use implications of potential
corridor nuclear accidents
10 16 Effect of nuclear plant on land use for 22 4 Energy parks versus distributed plant sites
recreational purposes 24 9 Protection of adjacent land from plant
2 18 Early research and preservation of encroachment
historic sites and buildings in the
site area
12 15 Preservation of scenic shorelines
Final_Ranking
1 31 Radioactive exposure to humans and the W 6 Need for and compliance with effective
ecosystem and food zoning and other land use regulations
2 29 Depletion of agricultural use for land 19 5 Change in air quality as a result of the
3 24 Costs/benefits of environmental protection addition, relative to present air
equipment and systems to the public quality
4 19 The technological ability to meet power 19 5 Depletion of fossil fuels which prevents
needs by alternative sources of energy utilization by future generations
5 18 The ability to meet power "needs" by 19 5 Land impact of transmission line facil-
energy conservation measures, rather
than construction of power facilities 22 4 Potential for multiple use of transmission
6 W Disposal of nuclear and coal wastes corridors
7 14 Presentation of natural areas 23 3 Effect of a nuclear power plant on land
8 13 The need for comprehensive environmental use for recreational purposes
studies in waste disposal selection 24 2 Effect on aquatic life, plants, fish, etc.
9 n Moral responsibility to future genera- 25 1 Preservation of wetlands
tions 26 0 Local climate patterns (wind, humidity,
10 10 The need for an ample energy supply to temperature)
provide jobs and reduce unemployment 26 0 Effective control and use of heat generated
10 10 The various availabilities of costs of 26 0 On site storage of nuclear wastes
fuels 26 0 Protection of wetlands and woodlands and
10 10 Need to locate power plants close to coastal areas
power users 26 0 Disruption of land during the mining or
B 9 Preservation of natural physical features disposal of elements used in the fuel
that were instrumental in establishing cycle
the cultural heritage of the area
4 8 Maintaining and improving the integrity
of the Great Lakes
4 8 Soil suitability for agriculture
16 7 Coordination of site selection process
with community planning
W 6 Interference with wildlife and botanical

habitation, especially near the mouth
of the creek or river

~9h-


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-


Minimize 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.

istan - 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 SO, scrubber sludge, use of land after power plant

-55-


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-


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 3

Leroy Bauer

John Gelshenen
Lloyd Goding

Kip Oschwald
Frank Ozier

Mrs. Denis Rupnow
Kay Schultz
Richard Stenstrom
Olive S. Thomson

Leader: Charles Andrews

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

-58-

Group 6

Nancy Douglas
Virginia Fellows
Edward Fuller
Don Goiffon
Allan Haukom
Janice Redford
Nancy Staff
Gertrude Sweet
Helmer Vasby

Leader; Jerry Shelton

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


GROUP 3

Biological and Physical

Rank
1

Points

62

53

4

34

33

33

26

(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 Tow level

(2) $0,/03 emissions - affects plants,

animals, humans

(1) Transmission lines - static, TV and
radio interference

(2) Put power potes 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.
ment - long term problem.
plant - what happens

Cumulative human life effects from Tow
level radiation. Genetic effects.
Future generations too

Entomb-
Obsolete

Economic and Social

Rank
1

one

x

wo Lo

Points

28

22

18

W7
15

4
4
13
13

13
13

(1) Cost of impact on services - fire,
police, water, sewer, streets and
highways

2) Affect on local taxes +/or -

% 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.

ring in new industry |

Cogeneration - sel] steam and electricity
(use 60% fuel energy)
ease community tax

Provigion radioisotopes for pharmecuticals
‘industry, safety devices, hospitals

Rank
13
13

15
16

V7

v7
v7

20
a

22

23
24
25
25

25
25

Rank
13
3

5
15
16
16

16

2
22

23

-95-

Points

13
13

12
n

8

8
8

oo

Points

12
12

10
10

wan o

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

varm water discharge on inland (not
Lake Michigan) water

Thermal problens: land, water, air

Health of operators, maintenance and
repairs. Nuclear, mining, manufacturing
fuclear, and coal mining - 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 problen

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 Timits and sports limits on
catch

Energy conservation and alternate sources -
Tess 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 techni
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



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-


GROUP 6

Economic and Social

Rank Points
9 12
12 u
12 n
14 8
14 8
14 8
4 8
18 7
19 6
19 6
Land Use
Rank Points
1 39
2 33
3 20
4 18
4 18
6 W7
6 W7
8 15
9 13
9 13
i} n
12 10

continued
Rank
Potential for replacement of central a
station plants by solar energy, wind, 22
or other alternatives
Zoning - is there any 22
Danger of a nuclear power accident
Cost of power for various types of 22
plants 25
Impact on other industries - displacement 26
Is the power needed - or is demand being 26
created 28
Cost of health problems created by 28
power plants
Financing costs for planning and needed 28
facilities 28
Possible decrease of recreational areas
Productivity after the plant is decom- 28
missioned
28
Rank
Avoidance of natural hazards - earth- 2
quakes, floods
Liability for land contamination 12
Zoning - is it adequate to meet new growth
demands 15
Need for highways or rivers for trans-
portation 15
Locating land for waste disposal Vv
Vanishing agricultural land 7
Land use legislation 19
Destruction of wildlife habitats
Problems caused by new transportation 20
demands
Requirements for abandoning Fal
Use of land after power plant is gone
Land needed besides that for the actual 21
plant construction
Rank
Quality of life 15
Health problems - general public 16
Avoidance of natural hazards V7
Deposition of the residue from the plant -
radioactive wastes 18
Zoning - is it adequate 18
Conservation 18
Vanishing agricultural land a
Radioactive pollution
Liability for land contamination 22
Land use legislation 22
Availability of water 22
Replacement of central station with solar, 22
wind and other alternatives
Wildlife habitat 22

Utility taxes - how are they distributed

~78-

Points

© 2 Co CONKRwS & fu

Points
10

10
6

Rae

Points

HNNn waa

2° e000

The need for housi
Solid waste disposal - caused by
increased population
Wil] 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

Wi11 power plant affect use of land
near the site
Wil] more power bring more industrial

grow
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, Taw 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


Ruth Lee

Clyde Lehman
Kenneth Mueller
Dean Nelson
Robert Nelson
Rod Nilsestuen
George L. Oncken
Dorothy Owen

STEVENS POINT

William Apfelbeck
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

SHEBOYGAN

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 Riggle
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 Reichelsdorfer
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


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

iit


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. Economic 262 Wad 20
2. Conservation 190 10.5 8
3. Health and radiation 174 9.6 9
4, Wastes 168 9.0 13
5. Agricultural land preservation 144 8.0 10
6. Growth 127 7.0 14
7. Water 95 5.0 8
8. Natural environment 82 4.5 8
9. Plant location 57 3.0 4
10. Air/climate 52 2.8 5
11. Plant operation 47 2.6 3
12. Future generations 47 2.6 3
13. Safety/security 4o 2.2 4
14. Transmission lines 39 2.0 6
15. Political/planning 37 2.0 T
16. Need for plant 35 2.0 4
17. Recreation 30 1.6 7
18. Social/cultural 19 0.9 5
19. Lake Michigan 16 0.8 3
20. Insurance 8 0.4 1
21. Scenic/historic 8 0.4 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.

Conelusions

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-


GROUP 4

Land _Usi

Rank
8

10
10

2

Points
24

21
21

GROUP 5
Biological and Physical

Rank
1

a 2 sen

0

Points
51
49
wH
27
26
23
22
7
7
16
15
14

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

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
2
22
22
24

24
24

Rank

Rank

15
15

Ww
18
18
20
21
21

23
23

25

26
26

-64-

Points

u
7

soe o

eco

Points

Points

9
9

a ~~ Ne

Be aw

oo

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
Jand 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 aninal
ife

possibility of human disease

pressure on community 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-
Jems 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
$02 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


GROUP 2

Economic and Soc: continued

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 eninent 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-
Tands (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

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 ecosysten

Rank Points
35 2
36 1
7 0
Land Use
Rank Points
1 39
2 33
3 7
4 23
5 27
6 24
7 22
8 au
9 20
10 19
u ay
12 16
12 16
14 15
5 4
Final Ranking
Rank Points
1 30
2 27
3 24
4 23
5 21
5 2a
7 18
8 W7
9 16
10 15
10 15
10 15
10 15
GROUP 3
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
1 45
2 24
3 23
4 20
5 19
6 7
7 16
7 16
7 16
10 4
nN 3
n 13
13 n
13 u
3 nN
16 10

Is plant really needed?

“B+

Rank
7

7

Rank

Points

Points

12
n

10
10

10
10
Ww
8
5
4
4
3
0
0
t)

Points
4

13
12
vu
u
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
6
0

Points

HH NUwreowe

2 2000

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 compl iance

Compatability 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 systens

Neighborhood compatibility

Located on "poor" soiT

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 tenperatures)
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


United States Environmental Research EPA-600/3-80-004
Environmental Protection Laborator' January 1980

y
Agency Duluth MN 55804

Research and Development

SEPA Citizen Concern with
Power Plant Siting

Wisconsin Power
Plant Impact Study

> Ds»


Biological and Physical (continued.

Eg

nk Points Rank Points
5 27 Muclear: no smoke and dust 20 8 si
torage of nuclear materials
6 2 Control of radtoactive leakages and 2 7 Avaslabslity of vater aff-9e> Lake Michigan,
jarge sources n
7 22 Transporting of spent fuel out of the 2 § foal gendo} as interfering with traffic
Yt design should conform to
8 21 Smoke and dust from coal plants oof appearance
the area
8 19 Effects of ‘power plants on plants, 2 6 Appearance, etc., of coal piles
9 19 Impact on recreation” by none 22 6 Public should know where to go (what re-
act on recreition: fishing, Sources are available) for verifying
. tion in environmental impact
u 16 Interfacing of power plant and other tater pa
public and private facitities 26 4 Wise ents
Power plant next to sewage plant 26 4 Nailability of roads, etc., for peopl
1 next to fishing, etc.) Teave area in case ‘of accident”
i 16 How tp choose betuéen air and water 26 4 Planning of transmission lines not to dis-
ution rupt agricuttural Tand
3 15 How much land is needed? 29 3 evelopment. of buffer between plant and
4 14 Underground pover transmission Vines surrounding area
erever possible 29 3 Can lay public relate to all the statistics
15 12 Better research on eVimination of radio in environmental impact statenent (1.2,
nce from transmission plumage dimensions, size, etc.
lines 29 3 Cloter'Tistson Setueen’civil defence and
16 12 Effect on roads and traffic during con- power plant in event of major disasters
struction (should be in S.0.P.)
v7 10 Using waste heat for fisheries or some- 32 2 Changes in environment affecting wildlife
hing... (large scale changes)
7 10 Mater cooiing towers 33 © Using of valuable farmland for the site
19 9 Restriction of access to areas used for
recreational activity
Economic and Social
Rank Points Rank Points
1 68 Effect on taxes v7 9 Access to transportation facilities for
2 47 ‘Total local community costs (includes tax fuel
structure, schools, housing, natural 18 8 No brown-outs
areas...) 19 6 Survey costs: private vs. public ownership
3 32 Cost of power bought by consumer 19 6 Railroad traffic
4 26 New industries to service plant 19 6 Profits on sale of land for plant and com
5 24 Additonal employment (construction and pensation for, transnission Vines (are
operation and effects of this on owners satis
Toca! nerchants) 2 5 Changes in living standards in local com-
6 20 Need for imported personnel (local labor munity » sointcot
capabilities not sufficient to get 2 5 Influx of tourists (plant: point-of-
contracts) interest
7 18 Access to large body of water where heat, 22 5 Casts of potential disasters: nuclear and
can be discharged with low environ-
mental effect 88 4 Greating housing problems
7 18 Need to present pros and cons of economic 25 4 Routing changes needed for buses, high
and social costs to the local public traftic where fogging and fein
9 16 Jobs for building trade workers
0 14 Loss of productive Tand 25 4 effect of black Tung and other hazards to
1 Increased recreation facilities
" 13 Bringing in outside businesses to area 28 3 Switching grid to other power facilities
" 2 Easing of EPA regulations for uses of 29 2 when eva OF Pot ore mete out, replace
ow sulfur fuel en pre .
1 . ‘h nuclear
4 nl Nearness to existing transmission lines with nuc .
15 1 AvaiTabitity of Tand for the site 0 Greatas crime and violence during construc
15 10 Government ‘loans (Toan interest ra he
. cess to low sulfur fuel
for local governments of new con 30 § owes and new buildings increase tax base
struction 30 0 Costs of access and bypass to ‘and around
plant
Land Use
Rank Points Bank Points '
; that is not needed back to pri-
1 56 Develop good land conservation practices = 4 29 Return land OD
on land owned by the power plant 5 28 New sites should not be sited in residen-
2 39 reserve historic and architectural sites i fites, sho
3 30 Provide public access to lake for public

use (recreation)

-99-


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.

ii


Land Use (continued

Rank Points
6 a7

7 26

7 26

9 20
10 18
un 7
12 16
13 13
4 12
14 2
4 12
Final Ranking
Rank Points
1 45
2 7
3 34
4 29
5 28
6 21

7 18
7 18
9 16
10 15
W 14
V 14
13 12
4 u
14 i

Keep prospective land purchase secret to
avoid land speculation

Preserve wetlands

Loss of land used for production of food

Preserve fishing and boating in area

Aesthetic design should be compatible
with the area

Recognize land use concepts of “greater
than local concern', “we gotta have
energy”

Locate site in center of energy distribu-
tion system

Keep boundary roads intact wherever
possible *

Make park out of unused land

Plant trees, etc., to obscure coal
piles, etc.

Plants tend to improve police and fire
protection for surrounding rural
communi ties

Effect on taxes

Total local community costs (includes
tax structure, schools, housing,
natural areas

Location in rela
dential,

n to existing resi-
1 and industrial

areas

Available land and closeness to water
supply

Safety and security

Effects of power plants on plants,
aquatic life, silva and fauna

Cost of power bought by consumer

Loss of productive land

Develop good land conservation practices
on land owned by the power plant

Disposal of waste heat

Control of radioactive leakages and
discharges

Access to large body of water where
heat can be discharged with low
environmental effect

Preserve fishing and boating in area

Provide public access to lake for public
use (recreation)

Loss of Tand used for production of food

Rank
WV
18
18

20
20

20

20
24

25
26

Rank
16
V7
18
18
20
20

22

24
26
27
28
28
28
28

100

Points

10

ROOM YS WN wo

Points

1

0
8
7
7
6
6
5

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 loca? 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:
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

fishing, hunting,


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. Agricultural land preservation 322 10.2 1
2. Water 319 10.1 23
3. Economic 288 9.2 21
4, Wastes 224 7.1 15
5. Plant location 209 6.6 21
6. Need for plant 202 6.4 13
7. Conservation 184 6.0 11
8. Political/planning 177 5.6 8
9. Natural environment 157 5.0 12
10. Plant operation 154 4.9 1
11. Transmission lines 151 4.8 10
12. Social/cultural 138 4 14
13, Safety/security 121 3.8 5
14. Determine energy needs 110 3.5 4
15. Physical site characteristics 104 3.3 12
16. Environmental pollution 86 2.7 6
17. Air/climate 82 2.6 5
18, Health and radiation 3 2.3 5
19. Scenic/historic 23 0.7 4
20. Recreation W 0.3 2

workshops ranked them.

Janesville participants ranked water, plant-location, and natural
environmental concerns higher than the participants in the other three

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.
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.

Economie concerns,

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-


GROUP 1

Biological and Physical

na pews

wwor

55

45

29
29

26

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 comunity

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 37
2 34
3 26
3 26
5 25
5 25
5 25
8 23
9 21
10 20
10 20
12 19
13 7

Land Use

Rank Points
1 45
2 37
3 33
3 33
5 32
6 30
7 25
8 24

Effect on existing and potential future
recreation areas

Present taxes vs. new employment, need,
economic impact to community

Effect on loca) 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

Police 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

24
25

Rank
4

18
15
v7

7
19

Rank

-80-

Points
Vv
n
an)
10
10

9
9
8

coo ON www

Points
16

15
15
4

14
u

10
9

Con ammo

Points
24
23

21
2

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


GROUP 4

Biolog’ and Physical (continued,

Rank
29

Points

0

Greenhouse effect of evaporation of
water

Economic and Social

Rank Points
1 49
2 35
3 30
3 30
5 28
6 24
6 24
8 23
9 2
10 20
an) 18
12 7
13 16

Land Use

Rank Points
1 49
2 37
3 32
3 32
5 30
6 23
6 23
6 23
9 21
10 4
13
12 12

Final Ranking

Rank

Points

Relocation of existing land use

Public health effects

Public safety concerns

Who has deciston/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.

Rank
13

Restricts adjacent land use (compatability)
Proximity to fuel source vs. transmission 13

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
surround ings

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

Rank

-15-

co

Points
13

10

AUT Ooow

Points
Vv

V
1

sme © oF

cons

Points

10
10

CO-NUwwWwWRAAA VIO

Electrical disturbances
Weather concerns

Transportation needed - 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 in 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 Takeshore/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


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-


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-


Biological and Physical (continued

Rank Points
24 8

yg
8
EET

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
1 70
2 42
3 39
4 34
5 32
6 31
7 30
8 26
9 23
10 22
10 22
12 21
4 20
5 19
16 18
V7 15
V7 13
W 13
20 VW
20 u
Land Use
Rank Points
1 57
2 48
3 39
3 39
5 37
6 36
7 31
8 27
10 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 resettTement of
people irradiated and land decon-
tamination costs

Striving to achieve energy independence
(US and Wis)

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:
wastes out

Public information availability and infor-
mation for public interest research

fuel in and

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 Tand 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

Rank
a
2
a1

35
36

Ky

38

Rank
an
n
13

4

15
16

-87-

Points

6

eo COoNneun

Points

10
10
10
10

9
9

aa a ane o

Points

22
22
2

20

19
16

Special effects on risk persons - need
for research

Wood! ots

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 fact-
ties

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
Tines

Decommissioning of power plants - how Tong
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.)


GROUP 5
Final Voting

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

Biological and Physical

Rank Points
1 34
1 34
3 28
4 27
5 23
6 20
7 19
8 18
9 7
10 18
W 4
12 13
13 Vv
14 10
15 9
16 8
GROUP 6
Rank Points
1 50
2 7
3 33
4 32
5 25
5 25
7 23
7 23
9 22
10 a
nv 20
12 7
12 7

Air pollution affecting heal h (S02, NOx,
ete.

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, roads, etc. to each other

Economic and Social

Rank
1

one wir

Points
43
37
36
33
ci
28
23

20
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
16
16
16
ral
21
21
24

24

Rank
13

4
15

25
26
26

Rank
10

u
12

13
4
18
15
15

-66~

Points

Soo ©

own

ec0ccCow & ao

Points

14

13
V

n
10
9

Sana +30

eo

Points

18

WV
15

14
13

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 confort

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

Wil] 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


TABLE 9. STEVENS POINT WORKSHOP: RANKING OF CATEGORIES
OF SITING CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON ALL CONCERNS

Percentage of Times Importance

Concern category Points total points mentioned value (rank)

1, Economic 1401 15.2 87 16.1 (12)
2. Political/planning 688 7.5 44 16.78 (9)
3. Health and radiation 661 7.1 4o 16.53 (11)
4. Growth 572 6.2 29 19.7 (5)
5. Water 568 6.2 33 17.2 (8)
6. Agricultural land preservation 511 5.5 23 22.2 (1)
7. Wastes 44g 4.8 21 21.4 (2)
8. Plant location 42T 4.6 29 14.7 (15)
9. Air/climate 422 4.6 23 18.34 (7)
10. Environmental pollution 365 4.0 19 19.2 (6)
11. Safety/security 363 4.0 23 15.78 (13)
12. Social/cultural 312 3.2 26 12.0 (21)
13. Scenic/historic 266 2.9 18 14.78 (14)
14. Physical site characteristics 266 2.9 19 14.0 (16)
15. Natural environment 264 2.9 26 10.15 (24)
16. Transmission lines 254 2.8 21 12.09 (20)
17. Transportation 233 2.5 17 12.94 (19)
18. Plant operation 224 2.4 17 13.17 (17)
19. Need for plant 217 2.4 11 19.72 (4)
20. Recreation 207 2.2 18 11.5 (22)
21. Conservation m4 1.5 7 20.14 (3)
22. Land-use changes 133 1.4 16.6 (10)
23. Research 91 0.9 T 13.0 (18)
24. Future generations 68 0.7 6 11.3 (23)
25. Noise 55 0.5 T 7.85 (25)
26. Insurance 53 0.5 8 6.63 (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-


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)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8

Industrial 46.6 14.8 4.5 6.2 10.8 TH 6.3 3.4
Agricultural land 21.1 7-4 18.3 13.1 12.0 6.8 6.3 14.8
Forests 10.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 5.7 16.0 11.4 11.4
Wetlands 11.0 11.6 12.1 14.4 12.1 13.9 11.6 13.3
Shorelines 7.6 5.8 11.1 18.1 14.0 14.6 14.6 14.0
Light commercial 3-4 39.2 17.6 9.0 10.2 9.0 8.5 2.8
Parks 1.1 2.3 4.7 10.5 24.6 17.5 21.0 18.1
Residential 0.005 0.01 12.6 8.6 4.6 10.3 18.9 42.8

~39-


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 chat certain forest areas may well be considered

@ 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 Parmer)

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, Farmwife, 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 al! 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)

0.K., but nearly all ideas expressed were already known to me. (Dairy Parmer)

Proper use of speaker system. (Resort Owner)

Lack of understanding of agriculture problems by people participating. (Housewife)

If thie 1s Professor Delbecq's technique for group workshops, I go along with it 100%. Dave Younkman did a fine job.
(Executive Dir., Touriem 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-


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.

Community costs

Housing - need for housing in local area; mobile home park proliferation;

yy


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)
Most Least
suitable suitable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Farmers 4 8.7 8.7 18.3 26 0 34.8
Business people 9.0 22.7 27.3 22.7 9.0 4.5 45
Educators 0 10.0 20.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 20.0
Government workers and 7.3 19.5 22.0 12.2 12.2 14.6 7.3
other

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 (31.58%) also reported that they could see a plant from where
they lived.

fomparison 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% of those at the workshops) than any other group reported
that they could see high-voltage transmission lines from where they lived.

-ho-


GROUP 7

Final Ranking
Points

Ey

nk,

26

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

-69-

Points

an

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


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

Leader: Jill Randall

APPENDIX D

STEVENS POINT WORKSHOP

Group 3

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: Bob Terrell

-19=

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. Pagels
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


30

% OF VOTE

_
1 2 3 4

SHEBOYGAN GROUP NUMBER

i | Economic

OQ 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.

=34-


IN WETLANDS -2 -1 tC) + 42
NEAR WETLANDS -2 a 0 +1 +2
ON RIVERBANKS -2 -1 ° +1 42
NEAR RIVERBANKS -2 -1 0 +1 42

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 (east 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-


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


GROUP 4

Biological and Physical

Rank
1

Se et a saw

Points

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 eneray 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
1 29
2 26
2 26
4 23
5 21
6 20
7 19
8 18
8 18
8 18
8 18

12 15

13 4

13 4

13 14
Land Use

Rank Points
1 32
2 31
3 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 ener

Price-Anderson act diminishing utiti-
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-
jing burden of oi] 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 tail-
ings from uranium mines leaves land
unusable ;

Cannot count on geological stability of
‘sites chosen for permanent disposal of
nuclear waste

Rank Points
uv 22
2 21
13 18
4 7
15 15
18 15
WV 4
18 13
19 10

Rank Points
16 13
v7 n
oy 10
19 9
19 9
21 6
21 6
a 6
24 5
24 5
26 4
27 2
28 0
28 0
28 0
28 )
28 0

Rank Points
4 2
5 25
22

-97-

Safety

Returning high temperature water into lake

Water and air pollution

Th 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
Vaborers 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 comunity 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 then 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


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,
eranberry, and dairy.

Sheboygan - 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.

-5T-


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-


Land Use

Rank Points Rank Points
1 47 Conservation of existing resources 8 7 Encourage public relations between power
2 37 Earlier citizen involvement in land use company and area residents
issues, siting and licensing 20 6 Rate payers shouldn't have to absorb costs
3 36 More emphasis on solar energy of siting changes and liability
4 32 Minimum use of the highest quality ag land insurance
5 29 Maximize power output from each plant 20 6 Institution of "Town Hall"
(fewer plants) 20 6 Keep plants least visible
6 28 Build plants on poorest quality land 20 6 Plant workers - exposure to radiation
possible 20 6 Storage of wastes from other plants and
6 28 Utilization of waste products for fuel areas
8 26 Need for regional plan first - before 25 5 Effects of radiation on transient workers
selection of individual sites (repairmen)
9 a Concern over concentration of plants 26 4 Should locate plant in forest areas
around Lake Michigan 27 2 Protection of wildlife on plant property
10 19 Security, terrorism, sabotage 28 1 Architecture should complement area
nN 16 Emphasis on use of fuel cells (for energy 20 C) Prevention of change of site alter
which solar couldn't provide) approva
2 15 AN property of utility should be used 29 ) Zoning opportunity (surrounding area
(timber or crops) could be limited industry)
3 nN Exercise soi] and water conservation 29 0 Use of plant land for educational purposes
13 a Scenic and land use impacts of trans- (tours, etc.)
mission lines 29 0 Location of market
5 10 Effects on value of farmland
15 10 Educating lay people quickly (spread
technical expertise)
7 8 Radiation to farmland and farm animals
18 7 Consideration of land-use problems for
support facilities and activities
Final Ranking
Rank Points Rank Points
1 52 Health effects - i.e., of cumulative radi- 17 10 Need for regional plant first before selec
ation and effects of other toxic tion of individual sites
materials 18 7 Man-made alterations of local climate
2 38 Conservation of existing resources effects of cooling towers and ponds -
3 35 More conservation measures and educational fogs
programs 18 7 Need justification for power plant on the
4 3 Consideration of future and worldwide basis of 3rd party projections of con-
energy needs - for many generations sumer demand
5 25 Minimum use of highest quality agricul- 20 6 Socially and environmentally acceptable
tural land deep underground storage sites
6 22 Increase the energy efficiency of plants - 21 5 Effects of increased radiation in the
thereby decreasing the environmental immediate area
effects 21 5 Cost and availability of uranium
6 22 Adequate supply of water 23 4 Build plants on poorest quality land
6 22 More emphasis on solar energy 23 4 Regulatory atmosphere of agencies -
9 20 Type of land used ~ excellent farmland costs, time, and procedures
or wasteland 25 3 Density of population in area in relation
9 20 Earlier citizen involvement in land use to distribution of energy
issues in siting and licensing 25 3 Special government costs related to trans
9 20 Maximize power output from each plant - portation and public safety
fewer plants 27 2 Security - terrorism and sabotage
2 19 Temporary storage of waste materials in 28 1 Effects on existing economic and social
water and leakage of radioactive structure of large land acquisition
wastes into water 29 0 Effects of radiation on agriculture
13 W Utilization of waste products from area production
B Ww The need for plant should be determined 29 0 Long-term economic effects on townships of
15 4 Loss of agricultural land Plant construction and operation
16 n Regional maintenance of water quality ~ 29 0 Lower cost of power (electric) for resi-
cumulative effects of several sites dential use
29 0 Concern over concentration of plants on
Lake Michigan
GROUP 2
Biological and Physical
Rank Points Rank Points
1 47 Disposal of nuclear and coal wastes 3 31 Change in air quality as a result of the
2 3 Depletion of agriculture used for land addition, relative to present air
3 31 Radiation exposure to humans and the quality
ecosystem and food 5 30 Preservation of natural areas

~92-


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
dance ite (20.5%), Beloit (16.2%), Fort Atkinson (16.2%), and Jefferson

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.

Qverall 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-


@ 30 Most Important Concerns

@ All Concerns

ALOAIO%

CONCERN CATEGORIES

Category rankings provided by voting on the 30 most important concerns

and all concerns.

Figure 2.


Economic and Social

Rank Points
23 5
25 4
26 3
27 0
Land Use
Rank Points
1 40
1 40
3 35
4 27
5 26
6 25

Final Ranking

Rank Points
1 39
2 32
3 24
4 19
5 18
5 18
7 7
7 7
9 4
9 4
n n
YW W
a n

‘continued

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 cumuta~
tive low level of S0,/0, emissions -

effect on plants, animals and man
Long term availability of fuel and
‘impact of obtaining fuel/strip mining

Rank
uv

15

15

v7
18

18
20

20
22
23
23
25
26
27
27
27
27
27

2

-96-

Points

0

crores

Points

22
21
19

18

Points

Vv

10

© 0 00 Oo Huh Baa am wo SD

°

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 (Tand 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, entombnent

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 - sel] steam and electricity

Increased employment directly and indir
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


—
{o)
T

% OF VOTE

ai

1 2 3 4
EAU CLAIRE GROUP NUMBER

| | Economic

Q Agricultural Land Preservation

Water

Figure 5. Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns given to
economic, agricultural land preservation, and water by

Eau Claire groups.

~25=


Survey by mail and use of computer could have been used without taking avay 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 be helpful and make the vorkshop 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
troversial. (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 Farmer)

Well conceived to obtain public opinion. Phraseology of several similar concerns could result in dilution of vote on
an area, (istrict 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
iteelf. 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 conceris which may reveal a need for better information to the public. (Div. Mer. 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-


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-


Do you presently belong to any of the followin, izati

u pr ig types of organizations
associations or clubs, or have you belonged withi $
Please check each appropriate choice, nes nin The Past three years?

___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 %-S0 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
concems 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 coop VERY CooD

LOCATION LOCATION OPINION LOCATION LOCATION
IN HEAVILY INDUSTRIAL AREAS -2 a 0 + #2
NEAR (WITHIN 2 MILES OF) HEAVILY  -2 1 0 41 #2

INDUSTRIAL AREAS
IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS -2 a 0 + 42
NEAR AGRICULTURAL AREAS -2 1 0 A #2
IN LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREAS -2 -1 ) # #2
NEAR LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREAS 2 -1 0 + ”
IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS -2 a 0 a +2
NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS -2 a 0 a 42
NEAR PARK AREAS -2 0 “a +2
2

IN FOREST AREAS -2 a 0 4 +
NEAR FOREST AREAS -2 1 0 #1 #2
ON GREAT LASES SHORELINES 2 - 0 a 2
NEAR GREAT LAKES SHORELINES -2 -1 0 +
ON SHORES OF SMALLER LAKES -2 al ° ey ¢
NEAR SHORES OF SMALLER LAKES -2 a 0

-103-



GROUP 6

Economic _and Social (continued

Rank
18

1’
20
ral
21

Land _Us«

Rank
1

2

Mose

Points
10

10
9
6
6
e

Points
45

34
26

Final Ranking

Rank
1

2
2

Points
35

28
2
2
20
19
18
15
4

14
12

Vu
n

10

Rank
The effect of transporting fuels on our 23
transportation system and our com- 24
munities
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

Rank
Concern with valuable farm land being used 11
to site the plant or transmission lines
Siting with regard to efficient distri- 12
bution points
Impact of industrial and residential devel- 12
opment of the plant vs. other uses

for the land 4
Preserve archeological and historic sites
Siting with adequate water supply 4
Proximity to significant natural spots
Placement of poles along highways and 16

railroad right-of-ways to keep them 16

out of agricultural land
Utilizing existing railroad beds for 16

transport of land
Land disposal of wastes 19
Site near industrial areas 20
Fa]
Rank
Is more electricity really needed in the 14
area?
Effect on surface water availability in 4

vicinity of site
Air pollution affecting health (S02,

NOx, etc.

Effect of pollution on farming and farm W
crops in the area

Concern with valuable farm land being used 19
to site the plant or transmission

lines 19
Providing for efficient public input 21
What kind of energy source will be used; 22

if nuclear, radioactivity
Smal} plants vs. large plants to 22

eliminate transmission lines
Availability of fuel supply: domestic 22
vs. foreian and plenty vs. scarce
Electric service reliability anc cost
More efficient licensing and approval 25
procedures 26
Effect of transmission lines on farmland
Location so as to minimze cost and

problems of electrical distribution a7
Disturbance to unique or natural areas by
power plant or transmission lines 7

-67-

Points

© cone au

Points

12
10
10

RNWA YW VN © @

Points
10

10

SB BOW V wo

eo

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
managenent at that site

Pole placenent to avoid interference with
irrigation and tilling

Impact on recreation in the area of the
plant

DNR pushing power Tines onto good
agricul tural Tand

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 Tine
pole siting

Use the minimum amount of land necessary
for the plant

Impact of transmission Tines 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~
toad right-of-ways to keep them out
of agricultural land

Fue) 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


and questions about what authority actually makes the siting decision (second
in importance); and (6) agricultural land preservation (first in importance).

The 30 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/historiec 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.

Intergroup 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-


Economic and Social

Rank Points
1 48
2 33
3 un
4 2
5 26
6 23
7 22
8 ral
9 19

10 16

ah} 15

u 15

13 13

4 12

“4 12

16 u

7 10
Land Use

Rank Points
1 53
2 51
3 46
4 4
5 26
5 26
7 24
8 22
) 2
9 2

n 4

Need for adequate power to keep factories
and schools operating

Are the real facts presented in the pro
and con debate on future plants

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

Desire of people in a community for the
siting of a plant in that community

Is one large plant better or worse than
many smal) plants

Adequate plans should be developed,
prior to construction, between utility
and local municipality and business
community to provide necessary ser-
vices.

Safety of the plant

Potential for social disruption if ade-
quate power is not provided in a
timely fashion

Cost of electric energy, particularly as
it affects those on a fixed income or
those with particular health needs.

Potential for urbanization of rural areas

Put plants as close as possible to the
use area, reducing costs, etc.

Differences between actual future power
needs and utility projections

Would a nuclear plant deter people from
moving into an area

Displacement of population from the site

Increased taxes due to influx of popula-
tion when a plant is built

Changes in property values in a com-
munity near the power plant

Construction of new plant at sites where
the additional power could be supplied
by upgrading existing units resulting
in higher costs to the consumer

Sharing of information between communities
nationwide with similar power plant
siting experiences

Locate on lands of lower value, avoid
lands of historic, archaeological or
natural beauty value

Avoid agricultural land

Recognition of future growth areas in

jion

Are there alternatives to transmission
ines in long distance transport of
large amounts of power

Adequate protection against pollution
of land or rivers

Transmission lines should be placed to
not waste good agricultural land and to
allow farmers to farm around them

Utilities should utilize the property they
‘own before siting plants on land they
do not own

Not to destroy or reduce the scenic qual-
ity of lake, river, or stream frontage
areas

How to arrive at the values of land and
‘buildings to compensate displaced

mers
Cogeneration of electricity and steam

Rank
WV

19
19
19
23
22
22
25
25
27
a)
29

29

3
31

33

Rank

u

VW
14
5

16
WV
7
19

23

-85-

Points

10

aay 4 4) wo

Points

4

4
12
iV

ao wo wo

Be oo

What kind of training will be necessary for
plant employees, as well as salary scale.
Wi1T the employees be drawn from the
Jocal 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 mary people wilT be employed by the
s

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 enployed 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

WiTT there be more power or Tess during
construction in an area

Increased population will mean increased
solid waste and sewage disposal
problens

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
Jands 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


GROUP LEADERS

Charles Andrews
Steven Berkowitz
Robert Friedman
Sarah Jenkins
Bruce Murray
Elin Quigley
Jill Randall
Jerry Shelton
Robert Terrell
Anton tenWolde
David Younkman

The workshop

Janesville,
Sheboygan

Janesville,
Sheboygan

Sheboygan

Janesville,
Janesville,
Janesville
Janesville,
Janesville
Eau Claire,

Eau

Eau

Eau
Eau

Eau

Claire,

Claire,

Claire,
Claire,

Claire,

Stevens

Stevens

Stevens
Stevens

Stevens

Stevens Point

Point

Point

Point, Sheboygan
Point, Sheboygan

Point

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


GROUP 7

jological_and Physical

Fa

ank

rece aoecun-|

BRA

Points

Economic and Social

Rank Points
1 59
2 51
3 44
4 42
5 40
6 6
7 u
8 32
9 27
i) 25
n 23
12 8
13 W
4 16
4 16

Land Use

Rank Points
1 80
2 73
3 51
4 39
5 a
6 30
6 30
6 30
9 29
10 26
10 26
12 24

Rank
Thermal pollution 15
Air pollution minimization
Need for energy investigation 15
Byproduct disposal 7
Water pollution 18
Effects on health
Effects on environment and drainage pat- ‘18
terns of waterway diversion 20
Relation to population centers 21
Restoration of natural habitat 21
Plant safety 23
Loss of wildlife habitat 23
Wetland conservation 25
Investigation of alternatives
Solid waste disposal-dual use 26
Rank
Tax cost and benefits to community 16
No construction money spent until full v7
approval
Consumer cost of eneray (effect on rates) 18
Projection methods for energy needs - 18
impact of advertising
Full citizen participation and information 18
on E.1.S. 2
Cultural impact, archeological site a1
destruction
Effect on “quality of life" 21
Incentives to local townships (tax) 24
Safety 25
Secure long-term power supply and 25
availability
True cost of alternative sources of energy 25
Allocation of investment dollars
(opportunities lost) 28
Study of social and economic aspects of 29
region and community 30
Effect of not having secure power
Incentives for use of off-peak power
Rank
Save good agricultural land 13
Long-term compatible landuse planning 4
Primary environmental corridor protection 15
Pursue energy center development
Siting next to existing facilities (land 16
use 16
Individual right to aesthetic beauty of
countryside 18
Preservation of historical sites and
archeological sites 19
Avoid building on hazardous sites
Avoidance of prime residential sites 20
Regional coordination of landuse planning 20
Recreational value of uncluttered country- 22
side and use of recreational land 23
Effect of dollar value of adjoining 24
properties
Rank
Save good agricultural land 5
Investigation of need for energy 6

Long-term compatible land use planning
Full citizen participation and info on EIS

-68-

Points

19

19
18
15

Points

22
19
18

15
15

VW

Raa ©

Effect of transportation to area
(raitroads and highways)

Visual impact (minimal)

No construction before £.1.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
(smel1, 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.1.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


GROUP 3

Economic and Social

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 agricul tural production
Effects of transmission lines
Distribution of utility tax

Water availability for cooling

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

Rank Points
1 28
2 24
3 23
4 22
5 19
6 16
7 14
8 13
8 B
10 W
10 n
10 n
3 10
13 10
Land Use
lank = Points
1 34
2 32
3 27
3 27
5 24
6 al
7 v7
8 4
8 4
10 13
10 3
Final Ranking
ank = Points
1 cS
2 19
3 18
4 7
5 15
6 4
6 14
8 13
8 13
10 V
10 an
12 9
12 9
12 9
15 7

GROUP 4

Biological and Physical
ank = Points
7 42
2 39
3 3B
4 37
5 35
6 32
7 23
8 9
9 18
10 16
10 16
10 16
13 15
14 14

Impact on the environment.

Rank

Rank
12

12
14
15

16
7

Rank

14
14
7
1

8
18

Points

COHHNOws WW aww

Points
10

10
9

oun

20000=-NwwaAa

Points

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


TABLES

Number

1

10

1

12

13

Number of Workshop Participants by County and
Occupation or Field of Interest .. 2... 1. ee eee ee eee ee

Number of Concerns at Each Workshop Listed in Each
of Three General Areas . 2. 2 1 1 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee

Power-Plant-Siting Concerns Ranked According
to 26 Categories . 2... we

Highest Ranking Categories of Siting Concerns Based on the
Four Workshop Votes on the 30 Most Important Concerns .

Janesville Workshop: Ranking of Categories of Siting
Concerns Based on the Vote on All Concerns .........4.--.

Janesville Workshop: Highest Ranking Categories of Siting Concerns
Based on the Vote in the 30 Most Important Concerns .......

Eau Claire Workshop: Ranking of Categories of
Siting Concerns Based on the Vote on All Concerns ........0-.

Eau Claire Workshop: Highest Ranking Categories of Siting Concerns
Based on the Vote on the 30 Most Important Concerns ........

Stevens Point Workshop: Ranking of Categories of Siting
Concerns Based on the Vote on all Concerns ............

Stevens Point Workshop: Highest Ranking Categories of Siting
Concerns Based on the Vote on the 30 Most Important Concerns .

Sheboygan Workshop: Ranking of Categories of Siting
Concerns Based on the Vote on All Concerns .........2.4--

Sheboygan Workshop: Highest Ranking Categories of Siting
Concerns Based on the Vote on the 30 Most Important Concerns .

Reaction of Participants as Determined by Survey to the

Establishment of a Local Power Plant to Serve (1) Local or
(2) Nonlocal Energy Needs ......-...--020--0 50200,

vii

1

12

21

23

24

27

28

32

33

38


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
The power plant would 2 “al 0 4 42
basically supply energy
to your area,
‘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

I£ "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 __NETLANDS

__ 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 "I" (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-


GROUP 1

Final Ranking (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

Biological and Physical

Rank Points
10 8
n 7
12 6
12 6
12 6
15 5
15 5
7 4
18 3

GROUP 2
Rank Points
1 39
2 32
3 vn
3 vu
5 29
6 2
6 28
8 26
9 24
10 23
iW 22
12 20
13 18
13 18
4 16
15 15
16 4
W7 13
18 n
19 10
19 10
9 10

Air pollution

Nuclear fallout

Total monitoring of groundwater, streams
and air

Locate on “poor” soil (SCS)

No nuclear waste disposal in area

Water availability (for everything)

Sufficient supply of water for plant

Minimize impact on water quality

Danger of nuclear malfunction

Radiation effects on biological systens

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

Economic _and Social

Rank Points
1 35
2 29
3 24
4 22
5 21
6 20
6 20
6 20
6 20
10 19
n 16
VW 16
Vv 16
un 16
15 4
16 13
16 13
18 12
18 2

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

Rank

Rank
19

19
24
24
26
27

27
2

29
cd}
32
32
34

4
4

7

7
7

Rank
20

a
2

£8

-T2-

Points

e000O-=NNYw

Points
10

10
9

20 OC NN ON BEE mM oN~

Points
n

10
10

Saunas ooo S

-

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 fron
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 fron 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


Land Use (continued

Rank
6

6
6

10
n

12

12
12

1

Final Ranking
Rank

1
2
2

woo

6
15

15
18

GROUP 5

Points

22

22
22

20
v7

16

16
16

4

Points

29

27
as

26
23

16
16

16
15

10
10

Storage of waste would adversely affect
land values

Strip mining - ugly

Nuclear - further land is tied up by ex-
pensive backup plants

Scenic value of power facility

Damage to crops from air pollution
(nuclear-coa!)

Soil erosion, farming, mining, forestry,
scenic value affected by transmission
lines

Recreation and tourism value of area
(positive)

On-site entombnent freezes and on which
materials are deposited and plant is
located

Excessive land required for power facili-
ties by regulation (nuclear)

Danger of radioactivity getting into
food chain and water table

Disposal - utilization of energy waste

Inadequate tax incentives for community
‘involved

Condemnation proceedings used to acquire
land are unfair to landowner

Cost of building and operating plant is
much greater than conservation or more
efficient use of energy

Airborne emissions’ effect on plants,
animals, and humans

Problem of using prime agricultural land
for facilities rather than locating
in already industrial areas

Raising employment

Expanded economy of area

Soil erosion, farming, mining, forestry,
scenic value affected by transmission
Tines

Cannot count on geological stability of
sites chosen for disposal of nuclear
waste

Hidden cost associated with construction
of nuclear power plant (entombing
plant)

Potential loss of revenue for farmers
whose products may be contaminated
from radioactivity getting into food
chain

Social-aesthetic costs of losing natural
areas like wetlands, forests and
shorelines

Disposal of sulphur compounds

Provides energy for now and future thus
‘insuring retention of jobs at local,
statewide area (midwest) thus reliev-
ing burden of oi] at this time

Storage of waste affects land values

Creates need for additional service
business to serve laborers

Biological and Physical

Rank

1
2

Points

37
34

Safety and security
Available land and closeness to water
supply

Rank
16

v7
18
19
19

ral

Rank
19
19
19

19
23

23

25
25

Points

13

eno

Points

8

Se © ©

NO Bu oO

eoco+—

0

Could be creating a problem of having an
an inferior - poorly planned housing
development in area where power plant
fs 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 problens

Plant would not cause problems to arch-
aeologic-historic values

Effects of plants and transmission Tines
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 Teaves land unusable

Recreation and tourism value of the area
(positive)

Possible loss of population living in
proximity of plant

On-site entombment freezes Tand on which
materials deposited

Location in relation to existing residen-
tial, commercial and industrial areas
Disposal of waste heat


Biological and Physical (continued

Rank Points
13 Ww
14 16
15 15
16 14
WV 12
7 12
V7 12
7 1
7 12
22 n
22 n
22 an
25 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 problens 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 51
2 40
3 38
4 32
5 27
6 25
6 25
8 24
9 21
9 al

n 20

12 18

12 18

4 16

15 15

15 15

15 15

18 13

19 2

20 n

20 n

22 10

22 10

22 10

22 10

26 9

26 9

Land Use
1 67
2 55
3 54
4 4g
5 32
6 31
7 29
7 29
9 25

Increasing cost if more power not
produced

Change tax bill to benefit local area

Additional power need in 1980

Acceptable cost-benefit ratio

Enough electrical supply for agriculture

Locate near need for power

Employment and adequate energy inter-
dependence

Responsible news reporting

Enough power to attract industy to area

Healthy economic growth vs. minimal
economic growth

Local conmunity aiding expediting build-
‘ing of plant

Energy affordable to all

2nd class status for America

Economical transportation of fuel and
‘supplies

Total cost of nuclear vs. coal, including
‘added nuclear needs

Methods for evaluating between emotional
and factural studies

Agricultural concerns due to radiation

Priority for use of coal

Income to local businesses

Responsible use of ‘eminent domain’

Moral justification of oi] and gas use vs.
nuclear (other uses nil)

More work in area

Regional employment

Moral issue of responsibility to next
generations (nuclear waste)

Importance of community energy independence

Effect on local taxes

Local polarization

Cost vs. benefit for land use concerns

Power piant near major load for
‘cogeneration

ig. Land preservation

Highest and best use of land
ntamination of soi

secthetie plant - including landscaping

Preservation of historical and archaeo-
Togical sites

compatibility with future land use plan

Local zoning should not supercede reg

regional needs

Rank

26

Rank

83+

Points

3

New

22000 cocoo

Points

HRNOUWLEEEE OF BAAVR®

© © cco

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 curie’

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 oi7

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 $0, 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


NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Natural area 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 valués; what social controls are
implied by the spartan life which may result if energy production is

halted; impact on family unit.

-51-


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-


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 Sheboygan
Interested citizens/
community organizations 15 9 8 5
Government and elected
officials 4 7 16 15
Farming 10 8 6 5
Business/ industrial 12 T 15 6
Environmental and
consumer groups 7 6 T 5
Recreation and tourism 3 - 1 2
Other 7 9 5 5
Total 68 46 58 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
a4 5 Danger to irrigation water from nuclear radiation

-9-


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

Reaction
(percentage of respondents)

Area of energy use Negative Neutral Positive
(1) Power plant supplying energy

locally 19.2 10.7 70.1
(2) Power plant supplying energy to

other parts of the state 47.5 15.7 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 36.35 57.2 5.95
Near Great Lakes shores YT 51.5 2.65
In/near heavy industrial areas 44.7 51.7 2.65
On/near river banks 47.25 47.15 6.1
In/near forests 47.05 46.5 6.45
In/near light commercial areas 53.6 36.6 7.7
In/near agricultural land 57.8 36.2 6.0
On/near shores of smaller lakes 65.4 25.3 9.4
In/near wetlands 69.25 21.95 8.8
Near parks 715.7 13.0 11.3
In/near residential areas 90.85 5.35 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-


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 10 - T 35 9
Eau Claire 5 1 6 21 6
Stevens Point 4 2 9 21 16
Sheboygan 3 2 2 17 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-


GROUP 1

Biological and Physical

iE

nk

moon osens

10

n
a

VW
4

4

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

Wild] {fe 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

Economic and Social

Rank

Points

Land Use

Rank

CwOVawsun

we

2
3

Points

Final Ranking

Rank

Opons

Points

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 Vice-
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

Rank

Rank

-7T1-

Points
5

Resa

20 © eecc000~

Points

Rea VO

e000 onw

Points

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)

Damming 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
mel t-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-fi11 areas


Economic Physical site characteristics

Political/planning Natural environment
Health and radiation Transmission lines
Growth Transportation
Water Plant operation
Agricultural land Need for plant
preservation Recreation
Wastes Conservation
Plant location Land use changes
Air/climate Research
Environmental pollution Future generations
Safety/security Noise
Social/cultural Insurance
Scenic/historic

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 4 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


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-


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 their 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% 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


GROUP 3

Rank

rise in surface water temperature 7

lowering of groundwater table

industrial development 18

adequate means of disposal of spent fuels 19

cost of production at the site 19

sulfur dioxide emissions 19

discharge of pollutants into surface waters 22

increased tax burden caused by an

increased demand for services 23

23
25

Biological and Physical

Final Voting
Rank Points
8 19
10 16
10 16
12 14
2 14
4 13
4 13
16 n

GROUP 4

Rank Points
1 78
2 49
3 44
4 43
5 36
6 28
7 27
8 25
8 25
10 20
W 7
1% 4
13 12

Rank

safety 13
immediate dispersal of pollutants in the 15
air 15
condition of existing ecosystem 15
water quality 15
ultimate disposal of nuclear waste 19
materials 20
radioactive pollution 2
effect of emissions on plant and animal 22
life 23
availability of water for operation 24
genetic effects 25

possible human disease 25
‘impact of input materials (pre-conversion) 25
location of transmission towers on

environment (flyways)
additional traffic effects

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
an V7
12 16
13 4
4 13
1s 13
16 12

Land Use

Rank Points
1 4
2 35
3 32
4 30

Rank

net energy potential (system efficiency) 17
local area's need for power 1B
developmental costs of site 19
area to be supplied by plant (local or

further away) 19
consideration of future alternative energy 21

sources 22
statewide energy needs 22
pressure on community services 23
operational costs 24
public acceptance and support 24

economics of scale

availability and convenience of operations 24
supplies 24

increased consumer costs due to bureau-

cratic delays 24
effects on the local tax base 24
who gets control and profits from the

plant

future impact on consumers’ bills
effects on health

Rank
who makes the siting decision 4
balancing land use in an area 6
routes of transmission lines (existing
routes & development should be 7
considered) 5

preservation of prime agricultural land

~63-

Points
10

Ran YeEeoo

Points

2
10
10
10
10
9
8
6
5
4
1
i)
0
0

Points
u

20 00 co-auae wo

Points

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 asa 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 (1and)
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 conmunity (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
ocal 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


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 Times Importance
category Points total points mentioned value (rank)

1. Water 1,051 10.6 52 20.2 (6)
2. Plant location 961 9.7 63 15.3 (11)
3. Economic 954 9.2 65 14.7 (13)
4. Natural environment 781 7.9 38 20.6 (5)
5. Political/planning 778 7.9 34 22.8 (2)
6. Agricultural land preservation 611 6.2 25 24.44 (1)
7. Plant operation 566 5.7 yy 12.9 (15)
8. Social/cultural 498 5.0 40 12.5 (17)
9. Air/climate 466 4.7 24 19.4 (8)
10. Waste disposal 420 4.0 23 18.26 (9)
11, Transmission lines 388 4.0 28 13.9 (14)
12. Scenic/historic 384 3.9 34 11.3 (20)
13. Conservation 356 3.6 18 19.8 (7)
14. Physical site characteristics 257 2.6 20 12.85 (16)
15. Safety/security 246 2.4 14 17.6 (10)
16. Growth 213 2.2 10 21.3 (3)
17. Land-use changes 211 2.0 Wy 15.1 (12)
18. Waste use 189 1.9 9 21.0 (4)
19. Health and radiation 184 1.9 15 12.3. (19)
20. Recreation 180 1.8 22 8.1 (22)
21. Noise 51 0.5 1 4.6 © (24)
22. Need for plant 50 0.5 4 12.5 (17)
23. Transportation 43 0.4 7 6.1 (23)
24. Others 38 0.3 4 9.5 (21)
25. Research 9 0.09 2 4.5 (25)
26. Insurance 0 0 0 ) (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-


GROUP 2
Economic and Social

Rank

aL}

Points
37
37

19

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

Land Use Concerns

Rank

Points

5)
48

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

Avai lability

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
7

18
19
9

Rank

Rank

-61-

Points
Vv

16
15
15

Points

Points

e-nan See

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 Vines

Disruption of community from construction

More employment.

Opportunity cost-cost of not building
plant, delay costs, etc.

Archeological sites/historic areas

Housing availability

Strict contro) 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

Avallabi lity 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
Lim{ting other uses
Effects on native vegetation and wildlife
Use of transmission corridors for
recreation
Site suitability in retation to other uses
Impact on aquatic life
Available railroad tracks
Proximity to necessary resources
Geographic location


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

Qperation - 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


TABLE 2. NUMBER OF CONCERNS AT EACH WORKSHOP
LISTED IN EACH OF THREE GENERAL AREAS

Areas of concern

Biological Economic
Number of and and
Workshop groups physical social Land-use Total
Janesville 7 205 233 173 611
Eau Claire 6 180 180 134 494
Stevens Point 6 194 208 151 553
Sheboygan 5 152 169 137 458
Total 731 790 595 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 Vot®: 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-


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. Water 282 9.8 12
2. Political/planning 268 9.2 18
3. Growth 267 9.2 7
4, Economic 259 9.0 18
5. Air/climate 216 7.0 9
6. Health and radiation 186 6.4 6
7. Physical site characteristics 184 6.4 14
8. Agricultural land preservation 176 6.0 10
9. Safety/security 173 6.0 9
10. Wastes 163 5.6 10
11. Plant location 135 5.0 10
12. Conservation 121 4.0 1
13. Social/cultural 100 3.5 12
14, Natural environment 80 3.0 6
15. Need for plant 79 3.0 4
16. Transmission lines yy 2.2 7
17. Future generations 38 1.5 1
18. Recreation 26 1.3 5
19. Scenic/historic 24 0.8 3
20. Plant operation 17 0.7 1
21. Transportation 14 0.5 2
22. Other 4 0.5 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-


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, conerete; 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-


TABLE 4. HIGHEST RANKING CATEGORIES OF SITING CONCERNS BASED
ON THE FOUR WORKSHOP VOTES ON THE 30 MOST IMPORTANT CONCERNS

Concern Percentage of Times Importance

category Points total points mentioned value (rank)
1, Economic guy 9.8 719 11.95 (14)
2. Agricultural land preservation 832 8.7 40 20.8 (1)
3. Water 816 8.5 51 16.0 (8)
4. Growth 688 7.2 54 12.74 (13)
5. Political/planning 679 7.1 45 15.09 (9)
6. Wastes 675 7.0 AT 14.36 (10)
7. Health & radiation 660 6.9 38 17.37 (6)
8. Conservation 570 5.9. 29 19.66 (2)
9. Plant location 538 5.6 42 12.81 (12)
10. Safety/security 455 4.7 27 16.85 (7)
11. Air/climate 406 4.2 22 18.45 (4)
12, Natural environment 374 3.9 35 10.69 (15)
13. Social/cultural 313 3.3 49 6.93 (19)
14. Physical site characteristics 296 3.1 28 10.60 (16)
15. Need for plant 294 3.1 16 18.38 (5)
16. Transmission lines 293 3.1 31 9.45 (18)
17. Environmental degradation 271 2.8 29 9.55 (17)
18. Plant operation 252 2.6 19 13.26 (11)
19. Future generations 149 1.6 8 18.63 (3)
20. Scenic/historic 16 0.8 15 5.07 (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-


GROUP 1

Land Use_ (continued

Rank Points
v7 4
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
VW 7
nv 7
iW 7
n W
15 15
GROUP 2

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 cycie

Water pollution - vegetation and Fish

s

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.
Tand

Danger from any degree of radtoactivity
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

Biological and Physical

Rank Points
1 62
2 59
3 39
4 37
5 34
6 33
7 29
8 22
9 21

10 19

10 19

14 14

12 4

4 13

15 n

16 10

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 arkers

Safety of plant worker:

Visual impact (plant) (Vines)

Economic and Social

Rank Points
1 59
2 53

Inequitable tax redistribution
Public awareness of consequences of lack
of electrical energy

-~81-

Rank

22
23

Rank

Rank

7
7
19
20
20

Points

10

as

Points

15

13
13

13
12

10
8

Points

9
9

eocomm & aon

45

H.V. transmission lines cutting across
agricultural lands

Protect existing homes and homesites

Arrogance of big business

Education to local people of the need
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 conmunity

Need vs. dangers to the community

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)


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, ete.) 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-


GROUP 5
Biological and Physica!

Rank

1

Ma ow sun

wo

Points
42
32
29
27
26

21
20

19
19

7
7

16

Radioactive emissions from plant which are
long lasting

Need for baseline data and monitoring data

Therma? 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

Wil 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
1 35
2 29
3 26
3 26
5 25
6 23
7 2
8 WV
8 V7
10 16
W 15
12 13
13 n
13 n

Land Use

Rank Points
1 36
2 34
3 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 oi] 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 conmunities 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
W
18
18
20

2)
22

23

Rank

13
16

16
16

16

16
2

22

23

24
25

26

a
28

-T6-

Points

16
15

4

13

ye Ba oN

Points

nN
10

10
10

10

ery

Meeting or maintaining air quality
standards in 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


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.

Scenic, 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-


GROUP 5

Land Use (continued

Rank

Points

Structures should blend in with areas

Are small towns expendable

Avoid wetlands if possible

Stay away from congested areas

Greate and preserve park and recreation
ai

Concern for potential dangers

Conserve energy fron 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

Smal1 towns expendable

Increased employment in areas near sites

Locate plant on Jand with marginal use
for other uses

Physical and Biological

Rank Points
1 27
2 19
2 19
4 18
4 18
4 18
7 16
7 16
9 13
10 1
10 12
2 u
13 10
13 10
13 10
16 9
16 9
16 9
16 9
16 9
2) 8

GROUP 6

Rank Points
1 45
2 44
3 35
4 27
5 25
6 22
7 21
8 7
8 v7
10 15
10 15
10 15

Deposition of residue from plant - radio~
active wastes

Health problems - general public

Radioactive pollution

Use of prime agricultural land

Location in 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

Economic and Social

Rank
1

Swen

Points
43

29
26
22

21

Quality of life - will it improve or
diminish

Impact on schools, aw 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

Rank

13
4

Rank
6

© won

-11-

8
7
7
3
2
1

© ON NNER B ROM

eo

Points

13
12

Points
20

15
13
12

12

Preserve historic and cultural sites
Visual impact of transmission lines
Avoid wildlife habitat

Strobe Tights unsightly

Who decides “what is a scenic area"
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

Inpact 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 imoact

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
communities 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


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-


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:
SANESVILLE

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 Goding

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

ix

Janice K. Redford
Mrs. Denis E. Rupnow
Kay Schultz

Joy Smage

Naney 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


RESULTS
The Participants

The participants represented a broad spectrum of age groups and
professional backgrounds. Of those who completed the questionnaire, 26.7%
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.

Qpinions 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
sSuitabilities 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.)

-37T-


14

Rating by Workshop Participants of Land-Use Categories

for Use as Power-Plant Sites .

Ranking by Workshop Participants of Land-Use Categories
for Use as Transmission-Line Sites . oe . oe

Effect of Occupation of Respondents on their Ranking of
the Use of Agricultural Land for Transmission Lines

Rating of Workshops by Participants

viii

38

39

4O

42


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.

SHEBOYGAN

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.

Qverall 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 30 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-


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-


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.


CONTENTS

Foreword ©. 6 6 ee ee ee ee ee ee we GGT
Abstract 2. 6 6 we ee ee ee ee eee ee AV
Figures 2 6 6 ww ee ee ee ee ee ee ee WE
Tables . 6. we ee ee eee ee ee WEE
Acknowledgments ©... 1 6 1 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee AK

Introduction ... a 1
Conclusions and Recommendations a 6
Methods and Oyerall Results... 1... ee eee ee eee eee 6B
Specific Workshop Results ..... 1... 6... ee eee ee ee ee NF
Janesville 2... we ee ee ee ee TT
Eau Claire 2. 6 1 1 we ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 22
Stevens Point . 2... ee ee ee ee ee ee 26
Sheboygan . 2 6 ww ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee 8
The Survey .. a
Comments on the Workshops Se ee ee ee ee ee M2

FW

5.
6.
Appendices

Comprehensive List of Power-Plant-Siting Concerns ......... 44
Janesville Workshop... ... 2... 22 ee eee eee eee es 58
Eau Claire Workshop... 2... 6 ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee 70
Stevens Point Workshop ........ 5.5. ee ee eee eee ee 19
Sheboygan Workshop . . . 1. ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee 80
The Survey .. | 8 |
Comments on the Workshops eo ee ee eee ee ee ee 105,

AMID >


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 oop VERY GOOD
LOCATION LOCATION OPINION LOCATION LOCATION
IN HEAVILY INDUSTRIAL AREAS 2 ol 0 41 +2
NEAR (WITHIN 2 MILES OF) HEAVILY
INDUSTRIAL AREAS -2 -1 0 cst 2
IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS 2 “1 ° cl 2
NEAR AGRICULTURAL AREAS 2 -1 oO +1 +2
IN LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREAS -2 -1 oO +1 +2
NEAR LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREAS 2 a o or 2
IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. -2 -1 oO +1 +2
NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS 2 -1 oO +1 42
NEAR PARK, AREA -2 -1 0 +1 +2
IN FOREST AREAS 2 -1 0 +L 42
NEAR FOREST AREAS -2 <1 0 a 2
ON GREAT LAKES SHORELINES -2 -1 0 +1 2
NEAR GREAT LAKES SHORELINES -2 -1 0 41 42
+ 2
ON SHORES OF SMALLER LAKES 2 -1 o 1
+2
NEAR SHORES OF SMALLER LAKES -2 - 0 a
~ - 0 +1 42
IN WETLANDS 2 1
- - 0 4 2
NEAR WETLANDS 2 1
“ - ° 4 2
‘ON RIVERBANKS 2 1
2 “1 0 41 2

NEAR RIVERBANKS

~101-


GROUP I

Land Use Concerns (continued)

Rank Points
10 19
10 19
12 18
13 15
4 4
6 13
16 ard
v7 nv
18 10

Final Voting

Rank Points
1 7
2 6
2 cy
4 33
5 29
6 27
7 25
8 24
8 3
10 v7
uv 4
12 13
r4 13
12 13

Promotes linear commercial and industrial
development

Transmission lines are hardships to
farmers

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.
Jand

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

Availability of water
Waste disposa’
Coal-plant emissions in air (S02, fly

ash, etc.)

Particulate 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

Economic and Social

Rank
1

Points
45

Fuel transportation costs vs. trans-
mission loss

Rank

19
20
20

Rank

Rank

-60-

Points

Oo NN NLOwWE mmo

Points

200 Cw NES

Points

4

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)

Floodplain 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 denand


@ Stevens Point
@ Sheboygan

2
=
FA
@
<
&
Ss
e

4 Eau Claire

ALOAIO%

CONCERN CATEGORIES

Workshop differences in rankings of concern categories when all

concerns were considered.

Figure 3.


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-


% OF VOTE

Figure 4.

2 3 4 5
JANESVILLE GROUP NUMBER

i | Economic

KY Agricultural Land Preservation

Water

Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns given to
economics, agricultural land preservation, and water by
Janesville groups.

20


Economic and Social

Rank Points
1 47
2 43
2 43
4 38
5 35
6 29
7 28
8 4
8 14
8 14
VW 12
Vv 12
13 n
13 uu
15 10
15 10
Land Use
Rank Points
1 50
2 36
3 34
4 33
5 31
5 ci)
7 29
8 28
9 26
10 21
u 20
n 20
13 19

Final Ranking

Rank

@e Yaunewn

Points

Number of local people enployed

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 overregul ation 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 ot 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 enission

Who gets the energy |

Impact on tax base - is the tax-sharing
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 flowage that
surface water enters

New industry as a result of more power

Rank
7
7

19
19

Rank

Rank

~89-

15
15
4
13
1

Points

9

o 8 Bane

Points

Points

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

fied 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 eneray
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 Tand

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 prine 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


Economic and Social (continued

Rani
4
5

Sor weworn oa

4

Land Use

Rank

1
2
2
4

ank = Points
1 60
2 52
3 46
4 40
5 38
6 7
6 37
8 25
9 22
10 16
n 15
12 13
12 13
4 12
15 an)
16 9
GROUP 3

Points

4a
32

Points

4
36
36

33

Rank
Public acceptance of need for plant 15
Effect on present area (recreation, 16

groceries, business, etc.) 7
Sufficient support services; waste dis- 18

posal, utility 18
Effect on land values 20
Effects on general tax rate (hidden costs) 21
Number of permanent employees 22
Effects on moves (culture, 23
Health costs 23
Lead time required to begin operation 25
Cost and availability anywhere of fuel 26

chosen 27
Impact on utility consumer's bill

Rank

Removal of agricultural crop land 13
Impact on existing recreational sites 4
Generally positive effects on the 15

commun‘ ty 16
Use or development of marginal land

(higher land use) Ww
Increased recreation (in cooling ponds, 17

etc.) WV
Regional vs. local needs and values 20
Zoning of the affected area
Scenic areas 2
Land needed for waste disposal 22
Increased use of lands now in use 23
Which unit of government has power in

siting decision
Amount of land used in fuel procurement

Rank

Safety of local residents 16
Disposal of nuclear waste products 18
Education and information RE: energy 19
Removal of agricultural cropland 20
Inequitable tax redistribution 21
Availability of water 22
Public acceptance and opinion 22
Generally positive effects on the 24

community 24
Geology and soils of plant site 26
Effects on human health 26
Effect on local economy 28
Effects on plant and animal life 25
Temporal and spatial extent of effects 28

Water quality (temperature and cleanliness) 28
Effects on general tax rate
Population concentration,

Biological and Physical

Rank

Mow = wn

Points

68
54
48

46
38

37
36

Rank
Supply of water adequate for all uses 8
Air quality
Adequate soil and bedrock conditions 9
for nuclear 10
Chance of nuclear accident (including
transport) u
More factual data on biological effects
Radiation health effects 2

Traffic patterns for service to plant

-82-

Points

13
YW
10

O-NaTAn@©oo

Points

16
15

Points

COCO NN SRUANOEW

Points
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.1.S.'s

Costs of decommissioning

Available work force

Area of impact/enery produced ratio

Possibility of land (site) reclamation

Interpretation of E.1.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


_o0ustas| BAYFIELD
< sswaal fun] 3 ¢ Moron,
5 ° 2 a vias = ce
y suanerr |, y R ° suonencey
WASHBURN: SAWYER)
n q
oneroal
Pau FOREST
s AUSK|
Pou! aRRon| a
[LINCOLN LANGLI
tartoal/ MENOMINEE MARINETTE
Joconro
o
Ny rho Isiawano _S} DO0R
ia
BUFFALO
S 4
§ zy
& BROWN
104 IRFAL |WAUPACAY _|OUTAGAMJE—~7
JACKSON] 2 y y,
( &
WAUSHARA| | 2
INNES =
y, g
anno é
J) WW, FOND DU LAC
VERNON}
E
OLUMBIA| Fat =
RICHLAND iy 2
AUK se 7
oo) i z
a g/t
> Fe
4 1owal uy 4
RACINE
LAFAVETTE GREEN nc@TBetw]__KeNnosHal

Figure 1. Map of Wisconsin showing workshop locations and counties
represented by participants.


Land Use (continued

Rank Points Rank Points

Historical and archaeological sites

Housing impacts-mobite home park pro-
liferation

Property value fluctuations (up/down)

Land consumption of nuclear parks

WV 14

7 14
19 nv

Land around plant should be used for pub- 20 7
lic benefit (e.g. parks) ay 6

Use of public lands for power plants

Mineral value of the land used for siting 22 2
(cemeteries and smal] burial grounds) 23 0

Final Ranking

Rank Points Rank Points
1 70 Implementation of comprehensive energy W 8 Don't like new tax law (local government
conservation program no longer benefits - need economic
2 62 Health effects on food chain (aquatic incentive)
and land) v7 8 Periodic review of land use policies
3 39 Nore money into solar and other 19 7 Is the nuclear power plant safe
4 38 Effects on future generations: genetic 20 6 Impact of lowering water tables on
and natural resource depletion surrounding land uses
4 38 Preservation of ag land and wetlands 20 6 People forced to sell land
6 22 Solid waste disposal problens 22 5 Effects on health (physical and mental)
7 20 Nuclear power plant security costs (will 22, 5 Disposal, transportation, etc., for
users pay?) Inc. loss of civil nuclear wastes
liberties 24 4 Location of plants away from prime
9 19 Radtoactive and toxic emissions from amenity areas (wildlife, etc.)
nuclear power plants 24 4 Impacts of long distance, high voltage
10 V7 Air pollution (fly ash, $09) transmission lines
24 4 Ag land contamination and reclamation
10 W7 Synergistic effects of thermal, chemical 27 3 Encourage municipal plants-moratorium on
and radioactive large, private ones
16 16 Does plant siting fit local zoning/land 28 2 Lowest cost generation per kw
use plans? 29 1 Soil contamination
13 13 Insure adequate energy for reasonable 30 0 Need tax and/or incentives for alternative
economic growth energy sources (private sector)
3 13 Power plants sited where needed - avoid- 30 0 Benefits of using waste heat
ing transmission lines 30 0 Health effects on people
15 12 Groundwater contamination
15 2 Economic and social benefits of more
widely dispersed smaller power plants
using indigenous fuel sources
GROUP 6
Biological and Physical
Rank Points Rank Points
1 27 Particulate emissions 19 iW Noise - by plant, truck, etc.
2 43 River water and groundwater draw down 19 u Noxious odors
its effect on water quality 22 9 Accurate pre-construction monitoring -
3 42 Residual waste disposal base line studies
4 37 Water contamination of flowage waste 22 9 Amount of food products increase due to
water enters electricity available for irrigation
5 29 Health effects from electromagnetic 24 8 Erosion of soi] during construction
radiation from transmission lines 24 8 Loss of unique areas
5 29 Size of area needed for power plant 24 8 Destruction of critical wildlife habitat
7 24 Effects on natural vegetation a7 7 Impact of spraying vegetation under power
8 23 Need for more energy lines
8 23 Proximity to urban centers 27 7 Impact of obtaining fuel
10 22 If power plant fails, danger to the public 27 7 Impact of emergency evacuation plans
10 22 Displacement of business or perople 30 5 Increase of aquatic life
2 19 Removal of fly ash for stack gas 31 2 Impact on crime rate
12 19 Relation to prevailing wind direction 31 2 Relocation of residants who will move 1f
a nuclear plant is sited in an area
12 19 Sulfur dioxide enisstons and nitrous 2 1 Impact on tourism
15 18 Concentration in the food chain oss of scenic value
16 15 Economic effect on various agricultural 35 0 Health cf fects on those most prone to low
products produced. Wil] local crop evel radiation
values decline
v7 4 Loss of wetlands
18 12 Preservation of natural resources by
power plant
19 un Impact on aquatic life by temperature

of discharging water

-88-


Biol

ical_and Physical

‘continued

Maintaining and improving the integrity
of the Great Lakes

Effect on aquatic life, plants, fish, etc.

Local climate patterns (wind, humidity,
temperature)”

Preservation of wetlands

Soil suitability for agriculture

Interference with wildlife and botanical
habitation, especially if near the
mouth of a creek or river

Effective control and use of heat
generated

Water quantity availability for cooling

Preservation of unique geologic features
Tike dunes, moraines

Ability of water body to disperse heat

Possible depletion of well water in the
area of the site

Supply of pure drinking water

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere

Safety of any power source

Could the site be reclaimed for any other
use after the plant becomes obsolete

Population density

Underground rock formations of the area

Drainage problems caused by increased im-
permeable surface area

Increased sedimentation in our lakes and
streams caused by stripping of vege-
tation in plant construction

Transportation access to the plant

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
power

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 Tabor
intensive power facilities

Early research for preservation of
historic sites of building

Rank Points
6 2
7 21
8 20
9 18
10 16
10 16
10 16
13 13
13 13
15 12
15 12
15 12
18 an
19 10
19 10
21 9
2 9
23 5
24 4
25 3
Economic and Social
Rank Points
1 31
2 23
2 23
4 22
4 22
6 21
7 19
8 16
9 15
9 15
u 4
12 13
13 12
13 12
15 W
15 uv
v7 10
7 10
19 9

Impact of Tand values adjacent to the pro-
posed site

Rank

25
7

27
29
29
ci)
31
31
31
31
3
31
3

31

Rank
W
19
19

21

22
22

~93-

Points

eo coe © oo

Points

9

=n ween on

© © © © ce co

Stability of shoreland 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

Entrainment 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


I think this is tremendous. Would like more information abo:
against other methods. Glousewife, Environmentalist) MY 8fOUPsy bere and in other areas, Alao a check

T enjoyed hearing other people's views at my table ~ very educational, (Retired Gas Service Man (latural Gas Company)
It was a good way to exchange fdeas. (Grain Farmer)

I believe all measures to bring considerations of these t

Tavissomental coacoresy om the beste ot meus of these tuques that must involve reevaluation of our physical and social

common goals of humanity, is vitally important, Qfuseum Dir.)
Would like to have scientists, etc., work on how nucl

clear plance would te Balle, “Ceotney Booed gypeuc teat enerey waste can he neutralized ao St would be safe before
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 ha
X would Like to see nore done on sols esn't harm people. Spend more time and money on this

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)

Buphasis could be placed on hydroelectricity and solar energy. Solar energy not in large scale energy patks, 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 orily 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 Farner)
I did not answer the above because I am not sure of the goal of the workshop. (Homemaker, Coum. Worker)

here to prioritize without a need to defend my personal opinions.
Appreciated an impersonal atmosphere to Pp) personal opinions oe comerce)

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)

ic areas that are suitable (i.e., bedrock close, water

a = there are only certain specifi
sent eieebs therefore’ gener You should list specific sites and then relate

supply close), therefore, generalizing is not a good approach.
questions about them. (Paper Mill Manager)

-109-


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-plant-siting experiences; earlier
eitizen 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-


GROUP 3
Biological and Physi

Rank
1

Points
52

air discharged from power plants~=par-
ticulates

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

Social_and Economic

Rank

OOM Be wo

9
10

Points
a
40

35
29

an @

Final Voting

Rank
1
2
3
4

Points

45
38
7
37

proximity of demand to proposed site

“poon* 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

jocal 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

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
4

Rank

Rank

10

15
v7
18
18

Points
7

20 C==NUMAr@owo

Points

COCO==N NR BUEN VY 2D eo

Points

2 Cow we Bam

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

Joss of recreational use of lake

leakage of radtoactive 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
@ 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
avatlability of fuel

highways-avat lability

size of plant - potential for electricity
generation

increased demand for sewage treatment

loss of farmers 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 raflroad 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


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.


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 _3

E. K. Born
George Gruber
William Roehl
Stan Jerabek
Francis J. Bouda
Carol Wieland
Paul Schultz
Mark Leider

Leader: Sally Jenkins

APPENDIX E

SHEBOYGAN WORKSHOP

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-


TABLE 3. POWER-PLANT-SITING CONCERNS RANKED ACCORDING
TO 26 CATEGORIES

Percentage of

Concern category Points total points
1. Economic 4,122 13.2
2. Water 2,449 7.8
3. Plant location 1,985 6.3
4, Political/planning 1,953 6.2
5. Wastes 1,794 5.7
6. Agricultural land preservation 1,755 5.6
7. Health and radiation 1,733 5.5
8. Air/climate 1,552 4.9
9. Natural environment 1,524 4.9
10. Plant operation 1,268 4.1
11. Growth 1,191 3.8
12. Social/cultural 1, 187 3.8
13. Transmission lines 1,090 3.5
14. Physical site characteristics 1,074 3.4
15. Scenic/historic 989 3.2
16. Safety/security 913 2.9
17. Conservation 838 2.7
18. Environmental pollution 718 2.3
19. Transportation 626 2.0
20. Recreation 652 2.0
21. Need for plant 569 1.8
22. Land-use change 476 1.5
23. Noise 174 0.5
24. Insurance 172 0.5
25. Research 170 0.5
26. Future generations 140 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 Major 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-


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.

-4y-


Land Use (continued
Rank Points

23 3 Avoid location of transmission lines

near highways

Final Ranking
Rank Points

1 53 Air discharges should not be harmful to
human health, vegetation, or animals
2 43 Need for adequate power to keep fac-
tories and schools operating
3 41 Locate on lands of lower value, avoid
lands of historic, archaeological
or natural beauty value
4 39 Sharing of information between com-
munities nationwide with similar
power plant siting experiences
5 31 Stringent specifications and safety
standards should be used for
nuclear plants
6 30 Avoid agricultural land
7 24 Are the real facts presented in the pro
and con debate on future plants
8 7 Is one large plant better or worse than
many small plants
9 4 Safety of the plant
9 14 Adequate protection against pollution
of land or rivers
n 12 Cost of electric energy, particularly
as it affects those on a fixed income
or those with particular health needs
12 n How to arrive at the values of land and
buildings to compensate displaced
owners
13 10 Thermal pollution effects, both on air
and water
B 10 Adequate safety precautions for coal
plants
13 10 Recognition of future growth areas in
region
16 9 Adequate safe-guards for the transporta-
tion and disposal of nuclear wastes
16 9 How do we best address the many trade~
offs connected with these concerns
16 9 Adequate plans should be developed, prior
to construction, between utility and
local municipality and business com-
munity to provide necessary services
GROUP 5
Biological and Physical
Rank Points
1 45 Health effects on food chain (aquatic
and land)
2 40 Air pollution (fly ash, $0,)
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
16
20
a

22

23

23
25
25
25
28

28

28
2

28
28

Rank

-86-

Points

i)

Points

9
8
7

ow

°

eo fo oO

Points

What consideration is given to the avail-
ability of basic building matertal
(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)


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. Agricultural land preservation 189 12.3 9
2. Health and radiation 183 12.0 14
3. Plant location 137 7.0 16
4. Economic 135 7.0 20
5. Safety/security 121 6.5 9
6. Wastes 120 6.5 9
7. Water 120 6.5 12
8. Physical site characteristics 114 6.0 9
9. Political/planning 94 5.0 12
10. Growth 92 5.0 10
11. Conservation 75 4.0 6
12. Need for plant 70 4.0 4
13. Future generations 64 3.5 4
14, Transmission lines 59 3.0 8
15. Air/climate 56 3.0 6
16. Natural environment 55 3.0 9
17. Plant operation 34 2.0 4
18. Social/cultural 26 1.4 vi
19. Research 25 1.4 2
20. Scenic/historic 19 1.0 4
Intergroup 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.
points received by three concern categories--economies, 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).

A comparison of the percentage of

explained by the makeup of the membership.
Thunder were concerned about radiation.
showed more concern for agricultural land and transmission-line siting.

-24-

Some of the differences among groups can be
Groups with members of Northern

In this workshop, groups with farmers


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
eross 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-


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-


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 hav.

e a fe the inclination to care, or are unemployed.
Perhaps nunber of persons, as myself, would like to be here and help you but the econoutc crises caused by the loss of
a day's wages is on my family. I personally would prefer re eal
eae getntee te hard on ny fantly. y PI an evening or weekend date if we all get together to do

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 lav, 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)

Yuch 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 sone 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?22", could have kept number of duplications down. (Advertising Exec.)

The participants could not follow directions at all. (Dist. Manager, Utility Company)

It ie 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 D.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)

T 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 w:
induce comminities to put up with the disadvantage of hosting a plant. Perhaps comunities could bid (ne ively)

for plants. (4.e., "Pay us X$ to cover the risk and inconvenience of a plant to us and ve will accept one-")
Everyone wants power but no one vants plants near then. Make social costs private costs (1.e-, don't let plants inp
costs on others for which they are not reimbursed. Anti-pollution laws accomplish this - relocation allow
accomplish this, etc. (Economist, Farm Wife, Politician)

I feel it is highly invalid.

A-vorkshop such as thie oversimplifies the array of economic interdependencies of the environmental, social and land
use considerations of power plant siting. (Economic Community Development, City)

anywhere. Also I question the validity of this work~

I don't Like this survey. T oppose nukes and oppose their siting an ner Mee ovatfect the results.” Secondly,

shop due to sample problems, specifically how do absences of certa
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-


Let's get a power plant of some kind started shortly. (Retired)

One possible problem is the distortion of findings (rankings) due to the inte
do not necessarily represent the total interests of the public. (Manager of fleetrie tenia) ens attending. They

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 opint kedl
overall power production. (Chemist) 7 opinions markedly, aise growth sn

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
Yesults...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)

Conc is dy helpful. Moves right along. I am somewhat overwhelmed by so much attempted
cept 4 good, eaders are a (Retired School Administrator)

concern is not with the workshop but with the lack of conservation of what we already have - the biggest waste ie
Teheing of shopping centers. 1 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)

ho want

ower plants at all, I think we should have one category for people wi

one light to the yPand dt should be financed by the federal government. I think we should
We should have a crash program

Couldn't give ri
crash program (like the flight to the moon
Tiaten' to "salph Nader, Jacques Cousteau, Senator Frank Church, and Douglas LaFollette
on solar and other forms of clean energy. (Housewife. Piano Teacher, Environmentalist)

Could have spent less time. (News Reporter)
en. 1 they have the same meaning to someone
tt interpretation of those ideas is a problem. Wil. e e
cerns are taken seriously by the powers that be. (Profe or)

The scope was a little narrow. (Farmer)
11 be built; that is nowhere near being a valid assumption. This

I dislike the attitude taken that a nuclear plant wi tee lacing Contractor)

assumption is very much evident in the way this survey is written.

eta-
This program format is somewhat restrictive, but OK for large group in limited time. There is a probem of interpreta:
tion of categories. (Ag Writer, Journalist)

Should be more concern on shortage of electricity instead of danger- (farmer)

-107-


FIGURES

Number

Map of Wisconsin showing workshop locations and counties
represented by participants .....

Category rankings provided by voting on the 30 most
important concerns and all concerns ..+.s+

Workshop differences in rankings of concern categories
when all concerns were considered .... 2... + eee

Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns
given to economics, agricultural land preservation,
and water by Janesville groups... ......+ 246

Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns
given to economic, agricultural land preservation,
and water by Eau Claire groups .........-e8-.

Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns
given to economic, agricultural land preservation,
and water by Stevens Point groups .........

Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns
given to economic, agricultural land preservation,
and water by Sheboygan groups ..........

vi

13

15

20

25

29

34


Land Use

Rank Points
V7 14
20 10
20 10
20 10
23 8
24 7
25 6

wo aeons

13
15

GROUP 4

Transmission lines along highways
{off_ag. land)

National 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

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

Biological and Physical

Rank Points
1 55
2 46
3 45
4 4
5 29
6 24
7 18
7 18
7 18
10 V7
W 15
nv 15

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.)

Rank

Rank

13
13

15

16
16

18
18
20
2

22
23

-8h-

Points

CofNe an

eco 8 &

Points

14
14

12

VN
nu

10
10

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

Naintain 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


% OF VOTE

2 3 4 5
STEVENS POINT GROUP NUMBER
| | Economic

Q Agricultural Land Preservation

Water

Figure 6. Percentage of the vote on the 30 most important concerns given to

economic, agricultural land preservation, and water by
Stevens Point groups.

~29-


GROUP 1

Biological and Physical

Rank
1

on

=

© 0 4 am

10
10
13

Points
51

34
31
28

26
24

23
22
19

14

4
14
Vv

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

Economic and Social

Rank
1
2

aww wo

Points

55
54

25
25
24
20
19
19
19
15
14
13
12
12
NW
10

9

9

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

‘ffect on employment in area

Erfects on social ‘and economic life of
comunity 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
Vv
18

Rank
W
20
20
20

20
20

25
26

26
28

29
29
31

31
31

34
4

34
34

-91-

Points

VW

10
10

RN TARA 7 ©

Points

9

a4 =RN aa an 2m @ © @

2 2 90

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
aid 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-
‘Vine property

Loss of public access to shorelines


TABLE 11. SHEBOYGAN WORKSHOP: RANKING OF CATEGORIES OF
SITING CONCERNS BASED ON THE VOTE ON ALL CONCERNS

Percentage of Times Importance

Concern category Points total points mentioned value (rank)

1. Economic 909 15.6 70 12.98 (15)
2. Health and radiation 412 7.2 26 16.1 (8)
3. Wastes 377 6.5 20 18.85 (4)
4, Water 314 5.3 25 16.56 (6)
5. Air/climate 305 5.2 20 15.25 (11)
6. Plant operation 303 5.2 26 11.65 (18)
7. Agricultural land preservation 279 4.8 13 21.46 (3)
8. Physical site characteristics 279 4.8 17 16.4 (7)
9. Conservation 276 4.8 1 25.09 (2)
10. Natural environment 268 4.6 23 11.65 (17)
11. Growth 242 4a 18 13.4 (14)
12. Scenic/historic 223 3.8 25 8.92 (21)
13. Plant location 204 3.5 13 15.69 (9)
14. Transmission lines 202 3.5 13 15.54 (10)
15. Environmental pollution 202 3.5 14 14.43 (13)
16. Political/planning 182 3.0 24 7.58 (23)
17. Recreation 174 2.9 17 10.24 (19)
18. Transportation 153 2.6 18 8.5 (22)
19. Safety/security 120 2.1 10 12.0 (16)
20. Need for plant 115 1.9 4 28.75 (1)
21. Social/cultural 73 1.2 11 6.64 (25)
22. Future generations 58 0.9 4 14.5 (12)
23. Insurance 51 0.8 5 10.2 (20)
24. Lake Michigan 50 0.8 3 16.67 (5)
25. Land-use changes 46 0.7 T 6.57 (24)

Intergroup 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-