A Siting Policy for an Acceptable Nuclear Future

Abstract

A nuclear siting policy leading to a few, large concentrated sites, it is argued, is preferable in the long run to the present policy which could lead to many dispersed sites. Such a policy could be implemented incrementally if requirements for new nuclear generating capacity were met by adding reactors to the existing 100-odd sites. Such a concentrated nuclear siting policy would, to some extent, isolate nuclear activities while augmenting the strengths of the institutions responsible for managing them. Additionally, it would confer an element of permanence on the sites and thereby open new options fer managing low level wastes and reactor decommissioning. These actions may improve the public acceptability of nuclear energy in the United States as well as lead to a more rational contained nuclear system in the long run.

NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear‐Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site‐Specific Surveys

“…( 16,17 ) In order to reduce the need to evacuate millions of people, and overcome public opposition, utilities proposed siting nuclear power plants off the U.S. coast in the Atlantic Ocean ( 18,19 ) and/or clustering them in a few locations where they might be accepted by the public. ( 20,21 )…”

“…(16,17) In order to reduce the need to evacuate millions of people, and overcome public opposition, utilities proposed siting nuclear power plants off the U.S. coast in the Atlantic Ocean (18,19) and/or clustering them in a few locations where they might be accepted by the public. (20,21) The author believes that we have entered a third period in the United States when it has been generally accepted that short of a national security justification finding new sites is problematic, and instead efforts will focus on "concentrating locations at major plants" (CLAMP) that already exist. CLAMP is a pragmatic policy.…”

Secular and Faith-based Organisations as Reliable Information Sources for Residents of Environmentally Stressed Neighbourhoods

“…Surprised at rst by the vehemence of the opposition, industry and government argued that the public lacked the scienti c background to understand the technology and was acting on the basis of irrational fears (Merkhofer et al, 1997). When mandated public involvement did not disappear, proponents of facilities tried negotiations, offered compensation and thought about clustering sites and locating them in the oceans (Ratick & White, 1988;Dames and Moore, Inc., 1973;Burwell et al, 1979).…”