Abstract
The American approach to radioactive waste management can be explained by four geopolitical and institutional characteristics. The first and most obvious characteristic is the geographical scale of the country: the US is 38 times the size of Britain, and nine American states are larger than the UK in area. Moreover, the UK is far more densely populated than the US. California, the most populous state, has but half the UK’s population and the seven states with the smallest population can barely muster together the population of Greater London. Geography thus confers upon the US much greater opportunity for finding remote sites for radioactive waste disposal. It also imposes greater distances between the various stages in the nuclear fuel cycle, making transportation a significant issue.1 To take an extreme example, the Palo Verde nuclear power plant 50 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona, obtains uranium from New Mexico, which is converted to uranium hexafluoride in Illinois, sent to be enriched in Ohio, Kentucky or Tennessee, and thence to be fabricated into fuel rods in Connecticut before being shipped back to Arizona.2 This uranium would thereby travel over 4000 miles before the fuel rods are loaded in the nuclear reactor. Power from the plant is distributed to four states and spent fuel rods are stored pending transport to a deep repository whose location has yet to be determined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Resnikoff, M., The Next Nuclear Gamble: Transportation and Disposal of Nuclear Waste (New York, Council on Economic Priorities, 1983)
Kirby, A., and Jacob, G., ‘The politics of transportation and disposal: hazardous and nuclear waste issues in Colorado, US’, Policy and Politics, Vol. 14, 1986, pp. 27–42.
Pasqualetti, M. J., ‘Nuclear power impacts: a convergence/divergence schema’, The Professional Geographer, Vol. 35, No. 4, November 1983, pp. 427–36.
Resnikoff, M., Living Without Landfills (New York, Radioactive Waste Campaign, 1987).
Marshall, E., ‘The buried cost of the Savannah River plant’, Science, Vol. 233, 8 August 1986a, pp. 613–5.
Stewart, J. C., and Prichard, W. C., ‘Institutional aspects of siting nuclear waste disposal facilities in the United States’, in Blowers, A., and Pepper, D., eds., Nuclear Power in Crisis (London, Croom Helm, 1987) pp. 164–77.
White, I. L., and Spath, J. P., ‘How are states setting their sites?’, Environment, Vol. 26, October 1984, pp. 16–20
Fernie, J., and Openshaw, S., ‘A comparative analysis of nuclear plant regulation in the US and UK’, in Blowers, A., and Pepper, D., eds., Nuclear Power in Crisis (London, Croom Helm), 1987, pp. 98–128.
Downey, G. L., ‘Politics and technology in repository siting: military versus commercial nuclear wastes at WIPP 1972–1985’, Technology in Society, Vol. 7, 1985, pp. 47–75.
Vogel, D., National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States (Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1986).
Kasperson, R. E., Berk, G., Pijawka, K. D., Sharaf, A. B., and Wood, J., ‘Public opposition to nuclear energy: retrospect and prospect’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, Vol. 5, Spring 1980, pp. 11–23.
Reader, M., ed., Atom’s Eve: Ending the Nuclear Age, An Anthology (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1980)
Cutter, S. L., ‘Emergency preparedness and planning for nuclear power plant accidents’, Applied Geography, Vol. 4, 1984, pp. 235–45
Zeigler, D. J., and Johnson, J. H., ‘Evacuation decision-making at Three Mile Island’, in Blowers, A., and Pepper, D., eds., Nuclear Power in Crisis (London, Croom Helm 1987) pp. 272–94.
Pollock, C., Decommissioning: Nuclear Power’s Missing Link, Washington, DC, Worldwatch Institute Paper Number 69, 1986.
Barlett, D. L., and Steele, J. B., Forevermore-Nuclear Waste in America, (New York, Norton, 1985).
Solomon, B. D., Shelley, F. M., Pasqualetti, M. J., and Murauskas, G. T., ‘Radioactive waste management policies in seven industrialized democracies’, Geoforum, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1987, pp. 415–31.
Loeb, P. R., Nuclear Culture: Living and Working in the World’s Largest Atomic Complex, (New York, Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1982).
Singer, S. F., ‘High-level nuclear waste disposal’, letter in Science, Vol. 234, 10 October 1986, pp. 127–128.
Marshall, E., ‘Nuclear waste program faces political burial’, Science, Vol. 233, 22 August 1986, pp. 835–6.
Bryan, R. H., ‘The politics and promise of nuclear waste disposal: the view from Nevada’, Environment, Vol. 29, October 1987, p. 34.
Blowers, A., ‘Radioactive waste in the United States — will New Mexico draw the short straw?’, Environment Now, Vol. 9, October 1988, pp. 26–7.
Neill, R. H., Channell, J. K., Chaturvedi, L., Little, M. S., Rehfeldt, K., and Spiegler, P., Evaluation of the Suitability of the WIPP Site, EEG-23 (Santa Fe, New Mexico, Environmental Evaluation Group of the State of New Mexico, 1983).
Anderson, R. Y., ‘Open letter to the U.S. Congress on radioactive waste disposal at WIPP’ (University of New Mexico, Department of Geology, 1988).
Tichenor, J., ‘WIPP site delayed’, RWC Waste Paper, Vol. 10, No. 3, Fall 1988, pp. 7
The compact concept has been used since US independence in 1783 to cope with transboundary problems between states, covering such issues as boundaries, tunnels, bridges, river catchments and basins, and air pollution. Some compacts such as the Colorado River Compact covering seven states were established to resolve regional problems, while others concerned problems that affected just two neighbouring states. Occasionally there have been compacts covering the whole nation, the first of which was the Interstate Compact for Supervision of Parolees and Probationers in the 1930s. Kearney, R. C., and Stucker, J. J., ‘Interstate compacts and the management of low level radioactive wastes’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 45, January/February 1985, pp. 210–20.
DiMento, J. F., Lambert, W., Suarez-Villa, L., and Tripodes, J., ‘Siting low-level radioactive waste facilities’, Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1985-6, pp. 19–43.
Blake, E. M., ‘Alternatives to shallow-land burial’, Nuclear News, Vol. 30, March 1987, pp. 61–4.
Raudenbush, M. H., ‘US struggles to site disposal facilities’, Nuclear Engineering International, Vol. 31, December 1986, pp. 49–50.
Material for this section is derived from Coyle, et. al., Deadly Defense: Military Radioactive Landfills (New York, Radioactive Waste Campaign, 1988).
Cochran, T., et. al., U.S. Nuclear Warhead Facility Profiles: Nuclear Weapons Databook, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, MA, Ballinger, 1987).
Murauskas, G. T., and Shelley, F. M., ‘Local political responses to nuclear waste disposal’, Cities, Vol. 3, No. 2, May 1986, pp. 157–62.
Blowers, A., ‘Way out West and down in the dumps’, New Scientist, Vol. 112, 4 December 1986, pp. 71–2.
Kasperson, R. E., Derr, P., and Kates, R. W., ‘Confronting equity in radioactive waste management: modest proposals for a socially just and acceptable program’, in Kasperson, R. E., ed., Equity Issues in Radioactive Waste Management (Cambridge, MA, Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, 1983) pp. 331–68.
Solomon, B. D., and Cameron, D. M., ‘Nuclear waste repository siting: an alternative approach’, Energy Policy, Vol. 13, No. 6, December 1985, pp. 564–80.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1991 Andrew Blowers, David Lowry, Barry D. Solomon
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blowers, A., Lowry, D., Solomon, B.D. (1991). The United States: In Search of the Nuclear Oasis. In: The International Politics of Nuclear Waste. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21246-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21246-0_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-49364-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-21246-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)