ML20059J581

Comments on Louisiana Energy Svcs Application to Build U Enrichment Plant in Homer,La.Evaluates Equity/Fairness of Site Location

ML20059J581
Person / Time
Site:	Claiborne
Issue date:	01/20/1994
From:	Bullard R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
NUDOCS 9402010079
Download: ML20059J581 (13)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:* fI 70-3v70 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES ~ UCLA f e stPktsti non in is t: tossM.EErs an Eniur s4N Dit t.o s ss e ssu nto -{ f sssTastkB*** - 6 4%14 ( ht z kt " my. CIENTEli FOll AFIlO-AMElilCAN STt' DIE 5 1(O II AINES HALI. 405 HILC ARD WENt E LOS ANGELES. CALIII)RNIA WMC41545 January 20, 1994 Chief, Enrichment Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Safety Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguard, Mailstop 4-E-4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir:

Please find my comments on the Draf t Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of C_laiborne Enrichment Center, Homer, Louisiana. Sincerely, i 1 I l L Ro ert D. Bullard Professor 270040 9402010079 940120 ,vg ; PDR ADOCK 07003070 - (f I C PDR ,6 i

F w DR. ROBERT D. BULLARD CENTER FOR AFRO-AMERICAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF CLAIBORNE ENRICHMENT CENTER, HOMER, f LOUISIANA My comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I the Construction and Operation of the Clairborne Enrichment Center, Homer Louisiana will address the elements of environmental equity. t Environmental equity is distilled into three broad categories: procedural, geographic, and social equity. Procedural equity refers to the " fairness" question: the [ extent that governing rules, regulations, evaluation criteria, and enforcement are applied uniformly and in a nondiscriminatory way. Procedural equity might involve nonscientific and undemocratic decision making, exclusionary practices, nonrepresentativeness of samples, subjects, and opinion leaders selected in community rating and site selection scoring systems. Geographic Equity refers to location and spatial configuration of communities and their proximity to environmental hazards, noxious facilities, and locally unwanted land uses (LULUS) such as landfills, incinerators, sewer treatment plants, lead smelters, refinerics, and uranium enrichment plants. Because of their geographic and spatial configuration, some communities (i.e., rural areas, sparsely populated areas, Native American reservations, urban ghettos and barrios, the southern United States, Third World i i nations, etc.) are more vulnerable than others. Social equity assesses the role of sociological factors (race, ethnicity,

class, culture, life

styles, political

power, l

2 organization, legal incorporation, etc. ) on environmental decision making. Poor people and people of color often work in the most dangerous jobs, live in the most polluted neighborhoods, and their children are exposed to all kinds of environmental toxins on the playgrounds. In the real world, all people, communities, and regions are not created equal. Some communities and interests are more equal than others. Unincorporated communities of color are vulnerable to a " triple jeopardy" in that they are often rural, poor, and politically powerless against industrial interests. Unequal interests and power arrangements have allowed poisons of the rich to be offered as short-term remedies for poverty of the poor. This scenario plays out in the United States, and in the proposal to site Clairborne Enrichment Center, where low-income and people of color communities are disproportionately impacted waste f acilities and " risky" technologies. Many facility siting decisions---as in the case of the proposed Clairborne Enrichment Center (CEC)---distribute the costs in a regressive pattern, while providing disproportionate benefits for individuals who fall at the upper end of the socioeconomic spectrum.2 In the United States, race has been found to be independent of class in the location of municipal landfills and incinerators,' abandoned toxic waste dumps,2 and cleanup of Superfund sites.' 4 I Environmental racism is real. Environmental racism refers to i any policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or i

3 disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color.5 Environmental racism combines with public policies and industry practices to provide benefits for whites while shifting costs to people of color. ' Environmental racism is reinforced by government, legal, economic, l political, and military institutions. The same forces that drive toxic waste incinerator proposals to Kettleman City and East Los Angeles (CA), Emelle ( AL), Southside Chicago and Sauget (IL), and Alsen (LA) also operate in pushing proposals for low-level nuclear storage facilities or monitored retrieval storage (MRS) proposal on Native American Reservations, operate in targeting a uranium enrichment plant proposal for one of the poorest regions of the country and a regions where African Americans are significantly overrepresented in the population---the South and Clairborne Parish, Louisiana. The southern United States is this nation's Third World where people of color, low-income, and working-class communities have become the " dumping grounds." The findings in Dumpina in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Ouality show that African Americans in the southern states have borne a disparate burden in the siting of hazardous waste landfills and incinerators, lead smelters, ) petrochemical plants, and a host of other noxious facilities.' The l selection of the CEC site in Clairborne Parish conforms to this l ) pattern. The Draf t Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) failed address many " social impacts" concerns required under the National 1

1 \\ 4 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and " equity impacts" (nondiscriminatory effect) covered under Title VI of the 1964 Civil 1 Rights Act. Eavironmental justice and equity concerns have received the attention of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. In its September, 1993

report, the Louisiana Advisory Committee to the U.S.

Commission on Civil Rights reinforced what many people already knew: African American communities (along the lower Mississippi disproportionate health' and River chemical corridor) bear a environmental burden from industrial pollution.' Health concerns raised by residents and grass-roots activists who live in small towns such as Alsen, St. Gabriel, Geismer, Morrisonville,

Wallace, and Lions (Louisiana) have not: been adequately addressed by local, state, and federal agencies.

Many of these unincorporated communities were established by former slaves and predate the petrochemical plants and toxic ' waste facilities that moved next-door. The mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was never designed to address environmental policies and practices that result in unfair, unjust, and regressive outcomes.

However, environmental equity concerns must be addressed if we are to have iust and fair siting decisions.

Without public input, the NRC'and private industry such as Louisiana Energy Services (LES) are not likely to ask the questions that go to the heart of environmental injustice: What groups are most affected? Why are they affected? How can the problem be prevented?

5 Residents of two African American communities---Forest Grove and Center Springs---want answers as to why the nation's first privately-owned uranium enrichment plant is slated to be built so close to their communities. Forest Grove (founded just after slavery in 1866) is just 1.25 miles from the proposed CEC facility. Center Springs (founded in 1910) is just one quarter mile from the proposed facility. Invisible Communities. There are clearly ethical, economic, and legal issues involved in the siting of the LES facility. First of

all, the Clairborne Enrichment Center (CEC) is located "approximately 8 kilometer (km) (5 miles) from Homer" (p. 1--2).

The CEC is also located between two African American communities of Forest Grove and Center Springs. As far as the DEIS is concerned, these two communities do not exist---they are " invisible" ~ communities. ' Because of their invisibility, they could not have consented to host the facility. The socioeconomic and local community characteristics of Homer were detailed in the DEIS---not that of Forest Grove and Center Springs, communities closest to the proposed site. Race and Class in Claiborne Parish. African Americans comprised 12 percent of the U.S. population and 30.8 percent of Louisiana's population in 1990. The racial composition of Clairborne Parish was 53.4 3 white, 46.09 African American, 0.16 percent American Indian, 0.07 percent Asian, 0.23 Hispanic, and-0.01 percent "other" in 1990. Because of out-migration.of whites I since the 1990 census, African American make up nearly half of l l l l

6 Claiborne Parish population in 1994. The CEC facility is proposed for a state where the percent African American is two and a half time greater than the percent African American in the nation. The percent African American in Clairborne Parish is 4 time greater than the percent African American in the country. Center Springs had approximately 100 inhabitants (99 percent African American) in 1990. The population of Forest Grove was approximately 150 (100 percent African American) in 1990. Clairborne Parish is poorer than the surrounding parishes. was only According to the DEIS, the parish per capita earnings compared to a national average of "about $5,800 per year. almost $12,800" (3--108). Clairborne Parish is one of the poorest regions of the United States. Unequal Benefits and Burdens. Should two small African disproportionate burden for this American communities bear a nation's domestic energy shortfall? The DEIS reports that the CEC would produce about-17 percent of the estimated U.S. requirement for enrichment services in the year 2000 (p.1--5). Too often low-income and people of color communities have borne-a disproportionate burden for the nation's energy and environmental policies (costs tend.to be regressive), while: whites and those.- . communities that f all 'at' the upper' end 'of the income spectrum receive greater benefits (jobs, increased tax _ base, new construction, residential amenities, etc.). Clearly, existing Clairborne Parish residents will receive

7 fewer economic benefits (high paying jobs and home construction) than those who relocate to the area or commute to the proposed facility. the DEIS predicts that it is unlikely that the project will get its skilled work-force from the nearby population, particularly Clairborne Parish population. Moreover, CEC staff is expected to buy homes "outside of the parish area" (p. 4--33). The DEIS sums up the socioeconomic impact of a "no action alternative" on the proposed CEC in the following passage: "The socioeconomic impact of a no-action alternative is a continuation of the depressed economic conditions in this area an a likely out migration of skilled and higher income workers. This region would continue to depend on its current commercial, industrial, and agricultural base." (p. 4--74) Given the nature of the proposed project (for some residents the CEC would bring some unacceptable risks) and work-force projections (higher-end jobs going to commuters and those who relocate outside of Clairborne Parish, the CEC facility might have the opposite effect of that predicted. The existing Clairborne Parish residents who are better educated and more skilled (and who receive jobs at the facility) will likely move to outlying parishes. This type of out migration is fairly common and generally results in a fairly predictable pattern of " white flight." Because mobility options are greater for whites than for blacks (at every income), the project will likely accelerate the clairborne Parish's transition from majority white to majority black.

)

Social Costs. Social costs include noise, public safety, mental stress, physical health, land use,.and transportation -1 I .i

8 impacts on nearby residents. Social costs will be localized to nearby residents (those closest to the facility such as Forest Grove and Center Springs), while benefits are more dispersed (jobs and other economic benefits) for some Clairborne and other parish residents, and the workers who relocate to the area or commute to the facility. Property Values. Several key questions arise regarding property values and housing eqtiity. What impact will the proposed project have on property values, especially those owners who live closest to the f acility? Will the impact on property values be the same (positive or negative) for the community residents who live in Forest Grove and Center Spring compared to the property values of owners who live in Homer and other outlying areas? It is unlikely that the property values of Center Springs and Forest Grove will be enhanced by the fac3lity. The value of their homes will likely decrease with if the facility is approved. The DEIS identifies Clairborne Parish residents as the ones "likely to fill the lower end of the skill and pay scale jobs" and occupy housing units where there already is "an over supply of .ower quality and older homes?" (p. 3--103). Greater housing benefits are likely to accrue to commuters not existing residents. Center Springs and Forest Grove would be clear " losers" in this plan. Labor Pool. Similarly, economic benefits (jobs and pay scale) appear to be regressive---with existing residents taking the jobs at the " lower-end of the skill and pay scale" and "an increasing i

l ) 4,*. 9 number of migrants will take the jobs" at the higher-end (p. xxii). The very upper-level jobs (skilled health physicists, chemical engineers, etc.) will likely come from other parts of the United l i States. It is unlikely that these individuals will relocate to j Center Springs, Forest Grove, or the existing communities that are closest to the proposed facility. t Clairborne Parish does not have a shortage of unskilled workers. With a dropout rate of 47 percent, " job training and employment is likely to be awarded to an available group of currently more qualified and more educated individuals. Lesser qualified individuals in the area may obtain jobs in the cafeteria, administration, and support services" (p. xxii). The CEC will'not create an economic rebirth for the large number of parish residents who fall at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Waste Disposal. The DEIS indicates that the CEC will generate non-hazardous, radioactive, hazardous, and mixed wastes. It also indicates that the wastes will be collected, inspected, volume-i reduced, and transferred to treatment facilities or disposed of at authorized waste disposal facilities. The DEIS failed to specify where the hazardous wastes, i.e.,

solvents, thinners, phenol mercury, sulfuric acid, lead, pesticides, etc., will be disposed (p. 2--13).

Will the hazardous wastes go to the nearby licensed landfill in Monroe, LA (Ouachita Parish) where over 60 percent of the nearby residents are African Americans? Or will the wastes be shipped south to the licensed facility in Alsen, LA (Rollins Environmental Services) where over 90 percent of the community l l i

10 residents are African Americans? Site Selection Process. Did anyone poll the residents of Center Springs or Forest Grove about how they felt about the CEC facility? One of the site selection criteria states, "the facility should be developed in a locale where it would be considered an asset to the community" (p. 2-39). Again, the two African American communities were defined out of the process. These two communities (located just one quarter mile and one and one-fourth mile from the i proposed facility) did not give their consent to host the CEC facility. The " Homer" site score (a misnomer since the site is located some 5 miles from Homer) was derived from opinion leaders who reside outside of the two communities where the CEC facility is proposed. One criteria used in scoring the site was "an _ active' and cohesive community leadership to facilitate development. of the site" (p. 2--50). Again, " Homer was selected because it was the t highest rated community. (p. 2--50). These results probably l would be a lot different if opinion leaders' views from Forest Grove and Center Springs had been used in the community scoring for site selection. There are some validity and representativen%s issues involved when views were reported from a community t!;at is 5 miles away (Homer), but no similar outreach to a community that is just one-fourth mile (Center Springs) from the property line of the proposed site. 'l Decontamination and Decommissioning. The CEC proposes to l operate for 30 years. The phase down of the project will have I

11 regressive impact with workers at the lower-end of the skill and pay scale experience greater dislocation. Workers at the higher-end of the skill and pay scale will have more resources at their disposal to absorb the change and relocate.

Finally,

" risky" technologies and " dirty" industries have followed the " path of least resistance. " Poor people and people of color communities are given a false choice of "no jobs and no development" versus " risky low paying jobs and pollution." Some industries have often exploited the economic vulnerability of poor communities, poor states, and poor regions for " risky" operations. The proposed CEC facility fits this pattern. [ Endnotes 1. See Robert D. Bullard, " Solid Waste Sites and the Black Houston Community." Socioloaical Inauiry 53 (Spring, 1983): 273-288; United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, Toxic Wastes

I and Race in the United States (New York:

United Church of Christ, t 1987 ) ; Dick Russell, " Environmental Racism. " The Amicus Journal 11 j (Spring, 1989): 22-32;_ Eric

Mann, L.A.'s Lethal Air:

New i Stratecies for Policy, Orcanizina, and Action (Los Angeles: i Labor / Community Strategy Center, 1991); Leslie.A. Nieves, "Not in Whose Backyard? Minority Population Concentrations and Noxious-l Facility Sites. " Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the i American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago (February, 1991); D. R. Wernette and L. A. Nieves, " Breathing Polluted Air: Minorities are Disproportionately Exposed." EPA Journal 18 (March / April, 1992): 16-17; Robert D. Bullard, "In Our Backyards: Minority Communities Get Most of the Dumps." EPA Journal 18 (March / April, 1992): 11-12; Bryant and Mohai, Race and i the Incidence of Environmental Hazards (Boulder, CO: Westv.tew Press, 1992), pp. 163-176. 2.

Bullard,

" Solid Waste Sites and the Black Houston Community."pp. 273-288; Robert D. Bullard, Invisible Houston: The Black Experience in Boom and Bust (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University

Press, 1987),

chapter 6; Robert D.

Bullard, i

" Environmental Racism and Land Use. " Land Use Forum: A Journal of Law, Policy & Practi<:e 2 (Spring, 1993): 6-11.

.u u i 12 e 3. United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, Toxic Wastes and Race; Paul Mohai and Bunyan Bryant, " Environmental Racism: Reviewing the Evidence," pp. 163-176. 4. Marianne Lavelle and Marcia Coyle,- " Unequal-Protection," l National Law Journal, September 21, 1992, pp. Sl-S2. 5. Robert D. Bullard, Confrontina Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots (Boston: South End Press, 1993), chapter 1. 6. See Commission for Racial Justice, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States; Robert D.

Bullard, ed.,

Confrontina Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots, chapter 1; Robert D.

Bullard, "The Threat of Environmental Racism,"

Natural Resources Environment 7 (Winter, 1993): 23-26; Bunyan Bryant and Paul Mohai, l eds., Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards, pp. 163-176; Regina Austin and Michael Schill, " Black, Brown, Poor and Poisoned: Minority Grassroots Environmentalism and the Quest for Eco-l Justice." The Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy l'(1991): 69-82; Kelly C. Colquette and Elizabeth A. Henry Robertson, " Environmental Racism: The

Causes, Consequences, and Commendations." Tulane Environmental Law Journal 5 (1991):

153-207; Rachel D. Godsil, " Remedying Environmental Racism." Michiaan Law Review 90 (1991): 394-427. 7. Robert D.

Bullard, Dumpina in Dixie:

Race, Class and Environmental Ouality (Boulder: Westview Press), pp. 25-44 ; Robert D.

Bullard,

" Ecological Inequities and the New South," Black Communities under Siege," Journal of Ethnic Studies 17 (Winter i 1990): 101-115. 8. Louisiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Battle for Justice in Louisiana. Government, Industry, and the People (Kansas City: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Central Regional Office, September 1993). 9. For an in-depth discussion of this phenomenon see Robert D. Bullard, Invisible Houston: The Black Experience in Boom and Bust (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1987). F 1 .-}}