Transportation of hazardous materials, and particularly radioactive wastes, on public highways has become an important risk management issue. The unfavorability of public attitudes regarding hazardous and nuclear wastes signals the potential for strong public opposition to programs for transporting these materials. This paper presents the results of a survey conducted to assess public reactions to a long-term nuclear waste transport program planned to follow a route through a portion of rural Oregon. The survey assessed a number of key risk perception issues, including perceived health and safety risks of nuclear waste transport, relative risks of transport vs. storage at an existing site, trust in state officials, and satisfaction with life in communities along the transport route. The survey identified a number of attitudes and concerns that need to be understood and considered by those in charge of designing and implementing the waste-transportation program.

The location of a national repository for the storage of nuclear waste remains elusive, which is due, in part, to widespread public opposition. Once a site has been selected, waste will be trucked from sources to the site. This study reports the results of a survey of 28 community leaders who live along a planned route in Oregon in which waste from Hanford, Washington, would be trucked to a disposal site under consideration in New Mexico. The results show that problems of credibility of the U.S. Department of Energy as a message source and public distrust of the agency's performance are embedded in the nsk communication of waste transport: A full partnership between the agency and local citizens may be a first step for restoring lost credibility and trust on transport issues.

As part of an assessment of low-level uranium resources, the U. S. Department of Energy has funded a study of the feasibility of extracting uranium from seawater. This project was jointly conducted by Exxon Nuclear Company and Oregon State University, with Vitro Engineering Corporation serving as a subcontractor. 41 6.3 Flowsheet Criteria 43 6.4 Co-product Flowsheet 45

No abstract

No abstract