Nuclear Waste Disposal Exacerbates Environmental Injustice

Related to Subrat's blog posting last Sunday, there is evidence that the government of Taiwan and Taipower "failed to fulfill the requirements of environmental justice" in deciding where to locate a final disposal repository for radioactive/nuclear waste (Huang et al. 2013, 1555). In Huang et al.'s case study paper, the authors assert that their paper accomplishes the following objectives:

"First, it adds to the growing number of studies that show how siting decisions systematically and deliberately disadvantage vulnerable communities. Second, it finds the basis of this discriminatory policy to lie in the wider pattern of inequality that exists in Taiwanese society — a pattern that is rooted in historical traditions of racial and tribal prejudice, reinforced by contemporary forms of corruption. Third, it suggests that a solution to the problem of environmental injustice in nuclear waste siting policy may have to wait until these broader practices of unequal treatment in Taiwan are addressed. Fourth, it speculates that the need for a solution to the nuclear waste problem may be a catalyst for dealing with these broader patterns of unequal treatment" (Huang et al. 1555).

With personal accounts from interviews the authors conducted, there is some reason to believe environmental injustice regarding improper nuclear waste disposal siting did exist in Taiwan because of a variety of facts.

1. Only one public hearing took place — therefore there was only one major opportunity for local residents to discuss their complaints and input regarding the siting process (ibid. 1564).
2. Allegedly peaceful anti-disposal protesters were unfoundedly arrested by police (ibid. 1565).
3. Taipower may have "coerced poor people...to accept nuclear waste in their area" by influencing them with money, promised trips, and other types of bribes (ibid. 1565).

While interviews are helpful in finding possible detailed information from local residents who could possibly know what's going on in their community, a survey with hundreds and thousands of volunteers and unbiased questions (related to assessing the siting process) could provide more comprehensive information that can be analyzed in concert with statistical, empirical analysis (which does not appear in this paper). In the meantime, the authors practically encourage the readers to believe the interviewed residents. The authors adequately explained "contemporary forms of corruption" by telling facts regarding the government and Taipower working together to choose waste disposal sites. However, they did not quite explain examples of the "historical traditions of racial and tribal prejudice" in Taiwanese culture and society.

The authors are correct in saying that their research is a contribution to the growing study of environmental injustice regarding the siting of hazardous waste disposal centers. For example, other researchers have studied the effect of hazardous waste disposal facilities in Taiwan. According to Weng 2001, "Over 80% of nuclear waste is stored in an indigenous people’s island [Orchid Island] situated 75 km from the main island" (Huang et al. 1557). Plenty of other national case studies exist of nuclear waste disposal sites that are misplaced geographically in regards to environmental justice considerations. Much of the United States' hazardous waste is disposed in Western states, even though states in the East have higher populations and higher nuclear waste usage. Northern Canada is the site for nuclear waste disposal sites despite having a larger population in Southern Canada.

Nuclear waste in the United Kingdom is mostly stored in Sellafield (northwest England) and Dounreay (northern Scotland), which are both communities featuring disadvantaged (especially low-income) populations. Thankfully, hazardous waste sites in both Dounreay and Sellafield (website hyperlinks) are in the lengthy process of decommissioning, attempting to rid those sites of their hazardous waste. Michigan (Saha and Mohai 2005), India (Kumar et al. 2008) and Namibia and South Africa (Glazewski 1993) are some other places where environmental injustice plays a role in the geographic placement of hazardous waste disposal centers. In the case of India, South Africa, and other so-called developing countries, imported hazardous waste can be a serious problem since there are shortcomings in handling domestic waste, let alone in handling large quantities of imported waste (Kumar et al., Daniel 2012, and Glazewski 1993).

Citations — Literary Resources

Daniel, Anne. "Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste." Yearbook of International Environmental Law 23.1 (2012): 280. Web.

Glazewski, JI. "Regulating Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste: International Developments and Implications for South Africa." The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 26.2 (1993): 234-49. Web.

Huang, Gillan Chi-Lun, Tim Gray, and Derek Bell. "Environmental Justice of Nuclear Waste Policy in Taiwan: Taipower, Government, and Local Community." Environment, Development and Sustainability 15.6 (2013): 1555-71. Web.

Kumar, Sunil, et al. "Hazardous Waste Management System in India: An Overview." Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 38.1 (2008): 43-U1. Web.

Saha, Robin and Paul Mohai. "Historical Context and Hazardous Waste Facility Siting: Understanding Temporal Patterns in Michigan." Social Problems 52.4 (2005): 618-48. Web.