This is the first of a two part discussion the purpose of which is to demonstrate that a frankly structural, or network, approach to the analysis of community decision-making allows an observer to anticipate and manage community response to specific policies. Here I am concerned with anticipating community response. In part two (Burt, 1978), I am concerned with conflict resolution strategies. The specific policy used as illustration is siting nuclear power facilities. Published accounts of siting nuclear facilities are used to identify basic social parameters of the nuclear power issue as a community conflict. Changes in the form and content of relations in the network among opponents and proponents of a facility are described. Subsequently, the description is used to specify a causal model of the manner in which conflict escalation is promoted or inhibited by the characteristics and leadership structure of a community in which a nuclear facility is proposed. Hypotheses are derived predicting what types of communities can be expected to become embroiled in conflict and the process that conflict escalation will follow.

This report is a scholarly discussion of the escalation and possible resolution of community conflict in the nuclear power issue. The concern is at all times with the social factors in this conflict; technical problems in nuclear power are only considered to the extent that such problems are raised in conflict over nuclear power. Social science research on conflict is only reviewed to the extent that it bears on community conflict over nuclear power. Chapter 1 describes the nature of community conflict escalation in the nuclear power issue: stages of escalation, typical individuals and groups involved, typical issues raised, typical manners in which participants become involved, and the basic social parameters of conflict escalation. Chapter 2 outlines the community level determinants of conflict escalation in the nuclear power issue: How is a community in which conflict over a nuclear facility is most likely different from a community in which such conflict is least likely. Chapter 3 is a detailed consideration of alternative methods of containing and resolving conflict. Chapter 4 summarizes principles for dealing with community conflict in the nuclear power issue. Finally, Chapter 5 is an annotated bibliography of the literature reviewed in the report. 840 references.

Some of the major problems and issues related to coal development and use in the South are identified and assessed assuming a base-case energy scenario for the next 45 years. This scenario assumes a midrange of coal use and a relatively high rate of nuclear use over the forecast period. The potential impacts from coal development and use are significant, particularly in the 1990-2020 time period. Practically all available sites suitable for power plant development in the assessment will be utilized by 2020. Overall, sulfur dioxide will be well below the annual primary standard; however, several local hot-spot areas were identified. In addition, sulfate concentrations will be increased significantly, particularly over Virginia, West Virginia, and northern Kentucky. Coal mining is expected to affect 6 of the 12 major ecological regions. Coal mining will lead to increased average suspended sediment concentrations in some river basins, and special measures will be required to control acid discharges from active mines in pyritic regions. The increased mining of coal and subsequent sulfur dioxide increases from its combustion may also give rise to a land-use confrontation with food and fiber production. Potential health effects from exposure to sulfur dioxide and sulfates are expected to increase …