Impact Assessment and Policy Failure: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

Clary, Bruce B.; Kraft, Michaël E.

doi:10.1080/07349165.1988.9725651

Cited by 4 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of the absence of comprehensive site-specific environmental information and the lack of completed site characterization plans for describing proposed actions, the EAs were not well received by the affected states and the public (Clary and Kraft 1988). Moreover, the DOE analysis that ranked the sites in order of suitability for repository siting revealed that DOE had not designated the top three for characterization but instead had chosen the fifth in rank (Hanford, Washington) over the second (Richton, Mississippi) (Department of Energy 1986b).…”

Section: Narrowing the Number Of Sites For Characterizationmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…A role was also provided for state and local governments to participate in the siting process. However, this role eventually was compromised as DOE increasingly asserted its authority over states in the face of public opposition and controversy surrounding the site selection process (Carter 1987, Gervers 1987, Kraft 1988, Clary and Kraft 1988.…”

Section: Environmental Review Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The DOE did not completely share information it possessed with either affected states or the public (Clary and Kraft 1988). Questions arose concerning technical considerations affecting site suitability (Carter 1987, Brown 1987a, Strolin 1987.…”

Section: Narrowing the Number Of Sites For Characterizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, NWPA defined a rapid schedule of tasks for DOE, even though the scientific community concluded that insufficient time would be available to obtain necessary scientific and technical information by established deadlines (Clary and Kraft 1988).…”

Section: Environmental Review Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the issues faced by the nation in disposing of as much as 50-100 tons of commercial and defense high-level nuclear wastes by the year 2000 or shortly thereafter are of considerable importance, relatively stringent and comprehensive environmental review KEY WORDS: Environmental policy; Nuclear wastes; National Environmental Policy Act; Nuclear Waste Policy Act; Yucca Mountain called forth by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been compromised by NWPA and NWPAA of the sake of political expediency (Carter 1987, Cooper 1988, Clary and Kraft 1988. In light of what is generally perceived as the prevailing public attitude in favor of vigilant environmental protection and the contradictory eclipse of and unfulfilled potential of NEPA, it is important to be aware of how current nuclear waste policy is evolving and what its potential implications are to the future of decision making for protecting the environment (Caldwell 1985, Bartlett 1986, Renwick 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Siting America's geologic repository for high-level Nuclear Waste: Implications for environmental Policy

Lemons

Malone²

1989

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Narrowing the Number Of Sites For Characterizationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Environmental Review Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Narrowing the Number Of Sites For Characterizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Environmental Review Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Siting America's geologic repository for high-level Nuclear Waste: Implications for environmental Policy

Lemons

Malone²

1989

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implications of environmental program planning for siting a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA

Malone¹

1990

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

In Whose Backyard?: Concern About Siting a Nuclear Waste Facility*

Benford¹,

Moore

Williams

1993

Sociological Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proponents of hazardous and nuclear waste depositories label opponents to local siting of such facilities “NIMBYs” (Not In My Backyard). This study assesses the extent to which the NIMBY label and the strategies of industry proponents to reduce opposition function on a reasonable set of assumptions. Using survey data and multiple regression techniques, the levels of concern of residents living in the county selected as the site of a low level radioactive waste disposal facility (imminent threat condition) are compared with a statewide sample (hypothetical threat condition). Consistent with proponents' theoretical assumptions, the levels of concern are greater for respondents under conditions of imminent threat than of hypothetical threat. However, within the host county, levels of concern are lowest, albeit most polarized, in the community closest to the proposed site. A conflict theory approach enhances an understanding of these findings by suggesting that within the most proximate community levels of concern are lowest for citizens who stand to gain the most economic benefits from the facility but highest for those citizens who are least likely to derive tangible gains.

show abstract

Impact Assessment and Policy Failure: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Siting America's geologic repository for high-level Nuclear Waste: Implications for environmental Policy

Siting America's geologic repository for high-level Nuclear Waste: Implications for environmental Policy

Implications of environmental program planning for siting a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA

In Whose Backyard?: Concern About Siting a Nuclear Waste Facility*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About