No abstract

Despite literally dozens of attempts, and the expenditure of billions of dollars, efforts to site radioactive waste disposal facilities in this country have been uniformly unsuccessful. While both researchers and policymakers continue to address reasons for these failures, little attention is being given to the consequences for the communities themselves of these intensive siting battles. Using a research framework that addresses both the sources and consequences of community conflict, we examine what is happening in four different areas currently being considered as potential hosts for either a high‐ or a low‐level radioactive waste facility. Some degree of conflict is observed in each community, although it varies from one area to another based on such differences as potential to experience economic benefits, perceptions of class and ethnic equity, and the role of extra‐local players in the controversy. We conclude that current policies lead to inequitable distributions of risk that, in turn, create “fairness” questions that are important both in explaining current patterns of conflict and in anticipating long‐term consequences for the affected communities.

No abstract

No abstract

The criteria and guidance given in this addendum specificallyaddress the classificationof low-levelwaste into Category I, Category 3, and Greater Than Category 3 (GTC3). These categoriesare developedbased on the performanceassessment (PA) being conducted for the Hanford Site. The radionuclidesand their concentrationfor each category are listed in the revised Table I-I (AttachmentI). The informationto classify the waste for U.S. Departmentof Transportation(DOT) and to classify Transuranic (TRU)/ Non-TRU, Contact Handled (CH)/RemoteHandled (RH) waste is given in WHC-EP-O063-3 (WHC 1991). 1.2 NEEDFORCHANGES U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5820.2A (DOE 1988) requires that all DOE sites prepare a PA of their disposal facilities. The results of the Hanford Site's preliminaryPA require that all low-levelwaste be classified into Category I, Category 3, and GTC3. In addition,the order requires that waste be analyzed for the Nuclear RegulatoryCommissions(NRC) low-levelwaste classificationof Greater than Class C (GTCC) in accordancewith Title 10, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 61. The isotopes and the radioactivity level for each of these categorieswas determinedby the PA. This addendum will reflect the interim requirementsfor the radionuclidecharacterizationof waste. The final version of this addendum will be issued after the PA is completed and will be included in updates to WHC-EP-O063-3(WHC 1991). Minor changes, if any, are expected in the final version.