The Effect of Decisions About Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage on Residential Property Values

Abstract

National, regional, state, and local surveys have revealed that people have intensely negative images of "nuclear" and "radioactive" technologies, activities, and facilities, as well as associated fears of stigmatization. In light of these perceptions, the debate over where to temporarily store or permanently dispose of spent nuclear fuel (at the reactor site, an interim storage facility, or a permanent repository) provokes immense concern among possible host jurisdictions. To address these concerns, one needs to know if people's subjective opinions conform with the choices they make and are therefore reflected in their economic behavior. Argonne National Laboratory researchers used a hedonic model to complete a study of residential property value dynamics over a 5-year period within a 15-mile radius of two California nuclear power plants. They tracked the economic ramifications of decisions about the spent nuclear fuel stored at those reactors. The study revealed that no significant negative effects on residential property values resulted from a decision to move spent nuclear fuel from wet storage to a dry-cask storage facility or from a request to extend the reactor operating permit (given future changes in the type of nuclear fuel storage facility that would accompany such an extension).

Moderating effect of forest cover on the effect of proximity to chemical facilities on property values

“…These results confirm previous findings that suggest a positive contribution of vegetated open spaces (Kestens et al, 2004;Cordell, 1985, 1988;Thériault et al, 2002;Luttik, 2000;Tyrväinen, 1997Tyrväinen, , 2001Leggett and Bockstael, 2000;Bolitzer and Netusil, 2000;Geoghegan, 2002). Previous studies have also indicated that hazardous facilities such as nuclear repositories and toxic waste sites have negative effects on housing prices (Nelson, 1981;Galster, 1986;Hageman, 1981;Slovic et al, 1991;Metz and Clark, 1997;Boyle and Kiel, 2001;Kohlhase, 1991). Our results indicate that the distance to TRI chemical sites may have negative effects on property values.…”

“…Folland and Hough (1991) also found these negative effects and extended them to show that even the prices of agricultural lands were significantly diminished by the presence of a nuclear reactor. Housing and land values are consistently and significantly related to environmental factors such as flooding risk (Dei-Tutu, 2002), water quality (Leggett and Bockstael, 2000;Michael et al, 1996), air quality (Leggett and Bockstael, 2000), nuclear repositories or power plants (Metz and Clark, 1997;Nelson, 1981;Slovic et al, 1991), airport noise (Nelson, 1979), and proximity to toxic waste sites (Boyle and Kiel, 2001;Kohlhase, 1991).…”

Using GIS and large-scale digital data to implement hedonic pricing studies

“…These were chosen on the basis of variables found to be signi cant determinants of property prices in previous studies (Pompe and Rinehart 1995, Metz and Clark 1997, Powe et al 1997, and included ground oor area, plot area and property type. The procedures applied to calculate such variables are described in the following paragraphs.…”

Hedonic valuation of the perceived risks of nuclear power plants

“…They find no significant effects of the distance to the nuclear power plant on property values and no evidence that the TMI accident had a significant adverse effect on property values. Metz and Clark (1997) find no significant effect of decisions and announcements about spent nuclear fuel storage on the residential property markets near two California nuclear power plants. Gawande and Jenkins-Smith (2001) show that transitory nuclear waste shipments have no effect on residential property values in three South Carolina counties.…”