ML20041C794
| ML20041C794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1982 |
| From: | Dunbar P MARYLAND, STATE OF |
| To: | Snyder B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203020564 | |
| Download: ML20041C794 (18) | |
Text
e s
ee S\\
s.
s x
BUREAU OF MINES JAMES B COULTER ENERGY OFFICE SECaffaar POWER PLANT SITING PROGRAM STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF N ATURAL RESOURCES ENERGY ADMINISTRATION TAWCS STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS 21401 (301) 269 2261 January 26, 1982 e g ;%.,h C
' g tm
~ '
U. T Bernard Snyder k-y p%D Program Director 2
gg$prj.d. r ~
USNRC 0
na r ',
./
7920 Norfolk Ave.
Q J.'
Bethesda, Md 20014
%/
T'i i :.j
Dear Dr. Snyder:
~
Thank you for your input regarding contractor selection for our study of the potential of consumer avoidance of Bay products due to a release of processed TMI accident water to the Susquehanna River. We have awarded the contract to R.J. Harmon and Associates.
A final scope of work is attached and work will commence February 1.
We also appreciate receiving your Statements of Work regarding socioeconomic studies of the other discharge options.
Although the studies address our concerns relative to other disposal options, they do not address our concerns over the need for a comprehensive study of the potential economic losses to Chesapeake Bay activities. In fact, your studies specifically exclude studies of the Bay region. The State of Maryland's study is not designed to be a comprehensive assessment in as much as we have always expected the NRC to independently perform such a comprehensive assessment. This expectation and concern was expressed in a letter to the commission, 3/13/81 and in our response to the draf t PEIS, 11/20/80.
If you review these letters, you will find it clearly indicated that any study undertaken by the State of Maryland will be of limited scope and independent of NRC studies.
Similarly, it is expected that any studies which the NRC undertakes will be able to come to a conclusion independent of Maryland work.
4 Task 5 of your statement of work incorporates our study as an " add i
on" to your assessment of socioeconomic impacts on other geographical regions.
The accounting elements of Tasks 2 and 3 must include the Bay region if a ecusistent development of relative impact estimates for all COO /
options is desired. There are also several elements included in the other tasks which will not be addressed by our study (i.e. mitigation strategies, best and worst case scenarios, and impact cost estimates).
/ /
8203020564 820126 i
PDR ADOCK 05000320 P
Although we are quite willing to provide any information you may desire, we are not satisfied with the exclusion of the Bay region as an integral part of your study.
Your reliance on the State of Maryland's study as the only source of information concerning the socioeconomic impact on Bay industries is unacceptable to us. Our desire to perform an independent analysis of the questions of vital concern to Maryland should not be misconstrued as supplanting the necessity of a comprehensive analysis by the NRC.
We would have commented earlier on your scope of work had we been apprised of its development. We will however continue to review you statement of work and will quite likely formally express our concerns to the Commission.
In the interim we are available should you wish to discuss this matter at greater length.
V ry truly yours, lt 1 ~_.
ffv '
\\
Peter M. Dunbar, Administrator Site Evaluation Power Plant Siting Program PMD:kss 2
TMI RISK ASSESSMENT STUDY CONTRACT # //f-@-83 Robert J. Harmon & Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX A SCOPE OF WORK The approach and task activities described below follow the general outline set forth in the RFP. Because of substantial overlap in activities and data usage, tasks 5-8 of the RFP have been combined into two tasks (5/6 and 7/8). The schedule by task is presented in Exhibit 1, which also indicates milestones for delivery of interim technical working papers, presentations and the draft final report and the approximate person-hours and percentage of the total effort to be devoted to each task.
Task 1 - Describe the Chesapeake Bay Commercial Fisheries System The purpose of this task is to establish a comprehensive, integrated and up-to-date information base on pertinent aspects of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay commercial fisheries.
This data base will utilize, to the extent possible, information available from the Departments of Economic and Community Development and Natural Resources. This data base will subsequently serve to identify the specific locales, industry segments and products / species at risk from potential consumer avoidance, and to define the thresholds and sensitivities with respect to impact severity and duration.
The information base to be prepared during this task will cover both quantitative and qualitative data and will cover the following elements of the Bay's fisheries:
Watermen, suppliers, dealers, brokers, marketing and distribution channels, wholesalers, retailers, and the geographic and demographic characteristics of consumers.
It also will include data on the overall cast coast and national fisheries, to the extent necessary to define potential impacts.
The specific activities to be performed by the Contractor as part of this task include:
j EXIIIBIT 1 PROJECT SCIIEDULE (Months)
F M
A M
J J
A S
O N
D
% of Total Task 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
, Total Effort Person llours 1.
Describ'e commercial fisheries industry M ---------
10 %
150 2.
Identify recreational resources at risk M ---------------
8%
120 3.
Compile care studies M ---
10 %
160 4.
Diagnostic evaluation 2
of case studies 6
24 %
360 e
i 5.
Evaluate risk of consumer g
avoidance and likelihood of adverse impacts M
20 %
320 6.
Describe nature / extent of adverse impacts and evaluate industry sensitivity to length /
severity of reaction 17 %
260 7.
Assess impact of media &
6%
80 contextual factors Final report preparation, review and submission M - -W 5%
80
~,530 1
100 %
Interim Technical
- 1/2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6 Working Papers
'Pr( sentations M
Major Effort
--- Update & Review
Compilation and analysis of data files available from the Resource Statistics Division of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The analysis will include: 1) annual and monthly landings (volume and value) by species for each Bayfront county in Maryland and 2) the location, species and product form, product volume and value and employment for each processing plant in the State. (The processed product output and employment data will be aggregated at a county or multi-county level as necessary to retain the confidentiality of proprietary information.
DNR shall not have the right to obtain individual plant production records which have been identified as proprietary - the lowest level of disaggregation will be to clusters of three or more plants.) This analysis initially will encompass the period from 1976-80; 1981 data will be incorporated as it becomes available (May 1982).
A series of field reconnaissance trips to selected Chesapeake Bay locations, incorporating both observations of existing activities and facilities and informal discussions with selected local watermen, dealers, processors, truckers, retailers, industry representatives and DNR field personnel (including information available as a result of the Coastal Resource Division's current studies). The locations and individuals will be selected to provide information on major and typical situations and activities and on special or unique aspects of-the industry. The purpose of these trips will be to update the 1978 study of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Commercial Fisheries, with respect to current vessel and facility operations and characteristics, product flows, local socio-economic conditions in the fisheries and role of the fisheries in the local community structure.
Compilation of the most disaggregate possible economic and employ-ment data base for each Bayfront county and for municipalities with significant harvesting and/or processing activity; to be used in later tasks for assessing the possible localized economic impacts of avoidance reactions.
This data base will include:
population, employment by standard industrial classification code, size of labor force, major employers and institutions, unemployment rate and pertinent demographic data, as available from the 1980 census.,
_~
3 Review and analysis of the findings of the 1980 national seafood consumption survey, when available, to identify regional and national consumption patterns for the predominant Bay species and to establish the demographic characteristics of major Bay species consumers.
Review and analysis of the commercial fisheries files, and license and vessel registration records maintained by the DNR and review of the existing DNR data base with respect to the ecology and hydro-dynamics of the Bay. This latter information will be used to describe the empirical basis of scientific evidence, as related to Task 7.
Review of other pertinent reports, statistics, documentation, etc.
dealing with Maryland's commercial Bay fisheries, including infor-mation available from the Departments of Economic and Community Development and Natural Resources.
Review of existing regulations, restrictions and resource management regimes applicable to the Bay fisheries to identify species, seasonal and geographic constraints on harvesting activity.
Review of available wholesale and retail pricing data and indices for major Bay species and of supply records for major markets (Iulton and Baltimore) to identify the Bay's share of market volumes and the markets' share of Bay landings.
The information obtained as a result of these activities will be synthesized to provide a composite profile of:
- 1) the geographie dispersion of commercial fishing activity and the role of such activity in the local socio-economic base;
- 2) the nature and interactions of activity within each functional element (i.e. harvesting, supply, distribution, processing and marketing) of the isheries system; 3) the flow of individual species and processed products from catch to consumer; 4) the various market factors (e.g. price margins, consumer prefer-ences, supply / demand relations, etc.) which shape the options and decision of participants in the fisheries system; and 5) the habitat, regulatory, socio-cultural and other factors which underlie differences and sensitivities of various regions _ -
1 of the Chesapeake Bay.
This profile will be summarized in technical working paper #1. This paper will be submitted to PPSP and also will form a partial basis for a presentation of the resources at risk, which will be made at the conclusion of task 1 and 2.
Task 2
. Identify and Profile the Chesapeake Bay Recreational Resources at
_ Risk _
The purpose of this second task is similar to that of Task 1, but the emphasis will be on both the recreational fisheries and the relevant non-fisheries recreational resources, facilities and usage of the Bay.
The recreational activities to be examined by the Contractor include: recreational fishing (from party / charter boat, private boats, beaches, banks and man-made structures),
swimming, recreational boating, waterfowl hunting, trapping (for commercial and personal purposes), camping., and passive recreation (sightseeing, picnicking and dining at shoreside restaurants).
The specific activities to be performed by the Consultant as part of this task include:
Compilation of an inventory of the number, type and location of facilities and establishments which cater to or are available for anglers, hunters and other recreational users of the Bay.
This information will be derived from: field visits; review of directories, maps, tourism publications; discussions with coastal resource and waterway improvement specialists at DNR and DECD; County j
Business Patterns and other U.S. Department of Commerce publica-tions; local branches of various user associations, etc.
Determination of the activity / usage levels and patterns of Bay recreational facilities, resources and services, by type, geographic sub-area, season and user-characteristics. The information to be used for this determination will include: DNR hunting, fishing and boating license files; pertinent highway traffic data (as available); applicable Maryland data from the 1980/81 National Anglers Survey (as - _ ___ _ __-____-_ _____
augmented by DNR); data from the most recent National Travel Surveys; published reports, records and statistics; discussions with State and local officials, facility operators, user group represen-tatives, etc.; and field observations.
Characterization of the economic significance of recreational activ-ity related to the Bay and the major factors which may influence such value.
These estimates will be derived from: activity / usage levels (i.e. number of participants and extent of usage) as determined above; published surveys and studies of tourist and recreational expenditure levels and patterns (including data available from DECD);
available financial and revenue records; extrapolation from employ-ment and payroll data for establishments catering to recreational usces, published reports of recreation-related expenditures and sup-port industry norms; and estimation of regional economic and employment multipliers applicable to tourism / recreational activity.
Synthesis of the above information to yield a composite picture of the localized economic, functional and community infrastructure relating to Bay recreational use.
Sensitivity assessment with respect to dependence on specific categories of users, seasonal fluctuations and options available in the event of decline in trade.
The findings of this task will be summarized in technical working paper #2, which will be submitted to PPSP. This material, together with that developed in task I will form the basis of a presentation to PPSP, covering the Bay resources, activities and economic values potentially at risk.
l j
Task 3 - Identify and Select Applicable Case Studies f
The activities under this task focus on the establishment of a list of relevant and fruitful case studies for use in assessing the likelihood of a consumer avoidance reaction. These activities will consist of four sub-clements: 1) the establishment of criteria for screening and selection of case studies; 2) the enumeration of a
}
comprehensive listing of possible candidates; 3) the screening and ranking of candidates with respect to these criteria; and 4) the selection of the cases for detailed analysis.
The specific eetivities to be undertaken by the Contractor in each ste7 nclude i
the following:
Establishment of Criteria - The Contractor will establish a range of criteria for use in assessing the appropriateness of possible case studies and ensuring that the selected cases I covide the most comprehensive and valid possible insights into the potential consumer response to a TMI discharge. The criteria to be developed will be categorized into incident-specific, contextual and data availability factors (an initial listing described in Exhibit 2). The criteria will be derived on the basis of:
the Contractor's familiarity with the operational and market dynamics and vulnerabilities of the commercial fisheries sys-tem, the perceptions, characteristics and behavior of scafood consumers and recreational participants; a review of pertinent consumer behavior and social science research studies and literature (e.g., response to specific inci-dents, attitude formation and change, credibility of information sources, product utilities, spread of rumors, decision and choice behavior, risk assessment etc.); and i
discussions with consumer and market specialists at the NMFS, food industry and recreational trade and consumer organi-zations and university research and extension specialists.
The emerging criteria will be presented to the PPSP project office for their review prior to their application for case study screening.
Enumeration of Possible Candidates - The Contractor will develop a preliminary list of. ssible incidents or circumstances which might
_7_
t
3 EXHIBIT 2 PRELIMINARY LISTING OF CASE STUDY SCREENING CRITERIA I.
RELEVANCE A.
Incident Specific Factors 1)
Product Characteristics Seafood vs. edible non-scafood vs. non-edible consumer goods Brand name vs. generic product involvement Totality vs. subset of product involved Narrow vs. broad geographic market Narrow vs. broad consumer market Narrow vs. broad supplier market Dominance of at-home vs. "away" consumption Necessity vs. specialty or discretionary-use products Substitutability of brand / product Typical frequency of product consumption Price elasticity of product and substitutes Consumer ability to identify product to be avoided etc.
2)
Problem Characteristics Triggering mechanism-identifiable critical incident vs.
" discovery" of longer term problem Degree and unanimity of scientific evidence Degree to which product at-risk can be identified by consumer (e.g. physical changes, lot numbers, etc.)
Immediacy / severity of use consequences or adverse reae-tions etc.
EXHIBIT 2 (continued)
B.
Contextual Factors Depth and duration of media coverage Tone and objectivity of media coverage Presence / absence of contradictory views Spokespersons utilized-credibility, prestige, etc.
Geographic area of media coverage vs. user / distribution mar-kets Time of year vs. supply / demand cycle Presence / absence of recognized / organized adversary and/or advocacy groups Reaction of intermediate market channels (brokers, wholesalers, retailers, institutional purchasers, etc.)
etc.
II.
DATA AVAILABILITY Detailed documentation and quantified analytic data in open litera-ture.
Detailed documentation and quantified analytic or emperical data in private files.
Partial empirical data or documentation in public files Partial empirical data or document in private files Empirical data potentially extractable from existing files Potential for comprehensive debriefing from knowledgeable indivi-duals Anecdotal evidence from variety of direct and secondary sources None beyond limited general press coverage
-9_
3 merit consideration as pertinent case studies.
This list will be derived from the following sources:
discussions with state and federal fisheries, agricultural, natural resource, tourism / recreational and consumer affairs officials; newspaper and other print media files; a canvas of pertinent trade, market and user organizations (e.g. the Food Marketing Institute; the National Fisheries Institute; the National Fisheries Education and Research Foun-dation; the National Food Processors Association; the regional Fisheries Development Foundations; health and consumer safety organizations; campers; hunters' and anglers' organizations; hotel / motel, restaurant and institutional food service associa-tions, etc.) and of the specialized libraries and publications maintained by such organ!zations.
a canvas of information services, e.g. Newsbank, Congressional Information Service, Enviroline, Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstract, etc.
Screening and Ranking of Candidates - Each incident derived from the above activities will be subjected to an outline review, sufficient to categorize it with respect to the screening criteria.
Each candidate will be arrayed against these criteria in a summary matrix.
The candidates will then be ranked in terms of data availability, comparability and relevance.
Selection of Case Studies for Detailed Analysis - In coordination with the PPSP, the Contractor will select the set of case studies which will be subjected to detailed analysis and diagnostic evaluation. This selection will emphasize the rank assigned to each candidate and also will consider the diversity and range of contexts, products, circum-stances and triggering mechanisms which should be reflected in the case study evaluation.
The listing of candidates and criteria, the recommended case studies and the rationale for their selection will be documented in technical working paper #3, submitted to the PPSP prior to final enumeration of the case studies to be examined in detail.
Task 4 - Data Compilation and Diagnostic Evaluation of Case Studies This task involves the collection, review, categorization and cross-comparison of available case study information, in order to derive the situational, event and response characteristics which can provide clues as to the risk of consumer avoidance reactions in the Chesapeake Bay.
The Contractor will examine all available documentation, media reports, files (e.g. sales, price, production and activity / usage records, etc.) and other sources of empirical data and where possibic, will interview key individuals with knowledge of the circumstances and aftermath of each case.
The compiled information will be examined for each case to provide the most complete possible picture of: the incident of event and circumstances which triggered it; the situational context; the nature, focus and intensity of media coverage; the perceived nature and severity of risk and the factors relating to such perceptions; the empirical evidence relating to possible hazards; the existence of controversy or disparate opinions as to risk; the specifies of the avoidance reaction (e.g., duration, product dispersion, geographic dispersion, proportion and characteristics of consumers evidencing avoidance, etc.) and all other pertinent factors.
After each individual case is detailed, the Contractor will examine the findings across cases, to identify those factors or circumstances which appear to account for any variations in the occurrence, nature, severity and/or duration of consumer avoidance reactions from case to case. Finally, the attributes which serve to discriminate among variations in consumer reactions will be analyzed further in terms of available research evidence and the specifies of the TMI discharge option. This will provide a coherent discussion of: the extent to which case study evidence can provide a basis for predicting consumer behavior in the present instance; the limits of such extrapolation; and the conclusions which can o
be drawn from the case studies. A technical working paper (#4) covering the activities and findings of this task will be prepared for PPSP at the conclusion of this portion of the effort.
Task 5 - Evaluate the Risk of Consumer Avoidance and the Likelihood of Adverse Impacts The purpose of this task is to develop an informed consensus as to the likelihood that the circumstances surrounding the discharge of TMI wastes could trigger consumer avoidance of Bay fisheries products and/or recreational resources, sufficient to adversely impact the economics of Bay-related industries oi-activities.
The detailed methodology to be utilized in Task 5 will be influenced by the fertility and convergence of data emerging from the case study analyses.
In i
evaluating risk, the Contractor will start with data elements defined by the prior tasks. Specifically these include:
The harvest, market, price and distribution structure of the Bay's commercial fisheries and seafood products; The consumption patterns of individual Bay species in terms of consumer demography, geographic patterns, retail vs. away purchases, price / demand relations, price margins at market sectors, etc.;
I The nature of Bay recreational industries at risk, the patterns of use i
and the demographic / geographic characteristics of facility patrons; and l
The product, operational and contextual factors which relate to the occurrence and extent of consumer avoidance, as established by the case study analyses.
I The assessment of risk potential will be carried out at the level of the individual industry component or resource element which constitutes the possible target of a consumer avoidance reaction. For the recreational industries, the Contractor 1
l.
will make separate estimates of the likelihood of avoidance reaction for: the private recreational sports fishery; party and charter boat; recreational boating; camping; hunting and trapping; passive recreation and other forms of tourist activity. Similarly, risk estimates for the commercial fisheries will define the risk potential for each of the following elements (i.e. product forms and markets):
Fresh Bay products sold by local watermen to local brokers and dealers; Fresh Bay products sold via regional wholesale markets (e.g. Fulton, Baltimore, etc.);
Fresh Bay species sold directly to local / regional restaurants; Fresh Bay species sold directly to local / regional retail outlets asnd specialty shops; Fresh / frozen Bay species sold to other processors for further packaging; Frozen / prepared Bay species sold in the national retail market; Frozen / prepared Bay species sold to the national institutional market; and Fresh / frozen Bay species sold nationally for use in the restaurant f
market.
The actual mechanism to be used in estimating risk potential will take the form of a modified version of the Delphi technique using members of the study team.
j If the findings which emerge from the case study analysis are clear-cut and consistent with respect to the factors or circumstances which indicate the presence or absence of a consumer avoidance reaction, the assessment or risk potential should be relatively straightforward. Ilowever, if, as expected, some of the composite findings are inconclusive or contradictory (or if the circum-,_,_
stances which negate adverse reactions cannot be fulfilled in the present situation) alternative scenarios will be developed to cover a variety of hypotheses and incorporate these into the iterative assessment procedures.
The Contractor will also examine the most sensitive or fragile elements in the fisheries and recreational economics to establish their tolerance.
The Con-tractor will then estimate the probability that any consumer reaction would generate impacts approaching this threshold. This provides a further basis for evaluation of the susceptibility of specific fisheries or recreational elements to consumer reaction.
The end product of Task 5 will be a series of estimates of the likelihood of an avoidance reaction for each of the fishery and recreational elements noted above. In each instance, the Contractor will describe the emerging consensus (if any), a range cf astimates (as reflected by individual estimators), the worst case potential, and the analytic basis, rationale and assumptions underlying these estimates. This material will be presented in technical working paper #5, to be submitted to PPSP and used as the basis for a presentation to the PPSP project office.
Should the Contractor and PPSP agree at the end of Task 5, that no risk of consumer avoidance exists, the effects in subsequent tasks may be redirected by mutual consent.
Task 6 - Describe the Nature and Extent of Adverse Impacts and Evaluate Effects on the Long-term Viability of Fisheries / Recreational Com-ponents This task, which will begin prior to case study selection and continue through the remainder of the project period, will involve a detailing of any adverse impacts identified in the preceding task.
The Contractor will estimate the likely magnitude and targets of avoidance reactions and apply the resulting lowering of demand rate and/or supportable price levels to the fisheries and recreational data base compiled in the first two tasks.
These lower values will then be applied to each of the impacted species / products / services to determine the impact on the price structure, operations, supply / demand relationship and market o-stability of each sector and element of the fisheries or recreation industries.
The Contractor will also evaluate possible alternatives for impacted elements (e.g. changes in restaurant offerings, processor switches to different species or product forms, watermen converting to party boat operations or unaffected species, etc.)
The Contractor will also address the question of the tolerance thresholds, i.e.,
the magnitude and/or duration of consumer avoidance or resistance which could cause irretrievable damage to fishery participants, market channels or recrea-tion-related operations and facilities. The supply / demand and interactions in the fisheries are normally in delicate and tenuous balance and can easily be upset.
Long term disruptions in this balance can create significant and even permanent loss of the market's ability to restore equilibrium. The potential for such long term impacts will be evaluated.
Similarly, the Contractor will examine the potential for long-term shifts in recreational and tourism activity based on consumer reactions and decisions to visit /use alternate resources or locations.
The Contractor will give special attention to those fisheries and recreational elements and sectors which are operating under marginal circumstances and may be unable to absorb even a relatively short period of avoidance. Special attention will also be given,to communities which are largely dependent on fisheries and/or recreational activity for their economic base and/or those which could bear a major share of any potential adverse impacts.
The assessment of impacts and long-term effects will be summarized in technical working paper #6 which will be submitted to PPSP and used as the basis for a presentation to the PPSP staff. This presentation will also include a description of the content and format of the draft final report.
Task 7 - Assess the Impact of Media Coverage and Contextual Factors This task, which will begin prior to case study selection and continue through the remainder of the project period, will serve two purposes: 1) to establish likely
' I
7 scenarios with respect to media coverage, the identity, influence and arguments presented by advocacy snd adversary groups, etc. for use in evaluation of risk potential and 2) to detemine the extent to which risk assessments and adverse impacts are sensitive to variations in such scenarios. The Contractor's activities under this task will include:
a review of media coverage and of formal public comments and responses to the TM1 waste disposal EIS, to EIS's prepared for other nuclear facilities and to other pertinent circumstances.
identification of significant groups or individuals likely to take a public position (pto or con) on the present issue and a review of the materials, evidence, communication channels, spokespersons, etc.
such groups have used in past situations.
The findings of this task also will be incorporated into technical working paper
- 6 for submission to the PPSP staff.
At conclusion of Tasks 6 and 7, the Contractor will submit twenty (20) copies of a draft final report to PPSP for review and comment. Upon receipt of PPSP comments the Contractor will submit fifty (50) copies of the final report. PPSP will be provided with a reasonable period (3-4 weeks) for review and comment and the Contractor likewise will be allowed reasonable time (2-4 weeks) to respond to PPSP comments on the draft and deliver final copies.
1l i
t 4
ic -