Public perceptions of a radioactively contaminated site: Concerns, remediation preferences, and desired involvement

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 104, Issue 12, 1996, Pages 1344-1352

  Feldman, David L ^a   Hanahan, Ruth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Community; FUSRAP; Public attitudes survey; Radiological contamination; Remediation

Indexed keywords

GROUND WATER; SURFACE WATER;

ARTICLE; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION;

EID: 0030502947     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.961041344     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Slovic P. Perceived risk, stigma, and economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Anal 11:683-696 (1991).
2. Greenberg M, Schneider D. Hazardous waste site remediation, neighborhood change, and neighborhood quality. Environ Health Perspect 102:542-547 (1994).
3. Bailey C, Faupel CE, Holland SF. Hazardous wastes and differing perceptions of risk in Sumter County, Alabama. Soc Nat Resour 5:21-26 (1992).
4. U.S. DOE. Feasibility study/environmental impact statement for the St. Louis site, St. Louis, Missouri, comment resolution draft. DOE/OR/21950-130. Oak Ridge, TN: Department of Energy, 1994.
5. Early atomic waste lingers in St. Louis suburbs. Los Angeles Times, 23 February 1991;A-29.
6. Nuclear waste site endangers areas, says council member. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 27 January 1994;3.
7. Reynolds meets with DNR director: bunker design does not meet Missouri's safety requirements. Florissant Valley Reporter, 1 March 1994;1.
8. Reynolds concerned over plans to build permanent waste bunker on banks of Coldwater Creek. Florissant Valley Reporter, 1 February 1994;1.
9. DOE to begin cleanup of radioactive contamination. DOE News, 15 August 1994.
10. DOE official: decision on waste not finalized. North County Journal, County Edition, 20 March 1994;1A.
11. Weapons Complex Monitor. Environ Manage, 30 March 1994;24-25.
12. U.S. DOE. Baseline risk assessment for exposure to contaminants at the St. Louis site, St. Louis, Missouri. DOE/OR/23701-41/1. Oak Ridge, TN:Department of Energy, 1992.
13. Kowalewski D, Porter KL. Environmental concern among local citizens: a test of competing perspectives. J Political Military Sociol 21:37-62 (1993).
14. Adeola FO. Environmental hazards, health, and racial inequity in hazardous waste distribution. Environ Behav 26:99-126 (1994).
15. Dantico MK, Mushkatel AH, Pijawka KD. Political trust's role in explaining Nevada urban residents' perceptions of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. In: High level radioactive waste management: proceedings of the second annual conference, vol 1. New York:American Society of Nuclear Engineers, 1992;748-757.
16. Fischer F. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: from theoretical to practical cases. Policy Sciences 26:165-187 (1993).
17. Rabe BG. Beyond NIMBY: hazardous waste siting in Canada and the United States. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press, 1994.
18. East-West Gateway Coordinating Council. St. Louis trends, a statistical snapshot of the St. Louis Region. St. Louis:East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, 1993.
19. DOE opens door to communication on radioactive waste problem. Florissant Valley Reporter, 23 February 1993;1.
20. Soil cleanup underway at residential sites. North County Journal, 26 October 1994;3A.
21. Dunlap, RE, Mertig, AG. The evolution of the U.S. environmental movement from 1970 to 1990. In: An overview in American environmentalism: the U.S. environmental movement, 1970-1990 (Dunlap RE, Mertig AG, eds). New York:Taylor and Francis, 1992;1-9.
22. Freudenberg N, Steinsapir C. Not in our backyards: the grassroots environmental movement. In: American environmentalism: the U.S. environmental movement, 1970-1990 (Dunlap RE, Mertig AG, eds) New York:Taylor and Francis, 1992;27-37.
23. Runoff of de-icer from Lambert field pits airport against U.S. EPA. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5 February 1995;1,4.
24. Environmentalist rips radioactive cleanup. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6 April 1993;2.
25. Mazmanian D, Morell D. The 'NIMBY' syndrome: facility siting and the failure of democratic discourse. In: Environmental policy in the 1990s (Vig NJ, Kraft ME, eds). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1990;125-143.
26. Wildavsky A. Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Press, 1988.
27. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office. Cleaning up the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex. Washington, DC:Congressional Budget Office, 1994.
28. DOE recommends burying toxic waste. North County Journal, 23 January 1994;2A.
29. City pushed to move on excavation of radioactive soil. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 13 January 1994;2.
30. Groothuis PA, Miller G. Locating hazardous waste facilities: the influence of NIMBY beliefs. Am J Econ Sociol 53:335-345 (1994).
31. Gerrard MB. Whose backyard, whose risk? Fear and fairness in toxic and nuclear waste siting. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1994.
32. U.S. DOE. Public participation in environmental restoration activities. DOE/EH-0221. Washington, DC:Department of Energy, 1991.
33. Sheak RJ, Cianciolo P. Notes on nuclear weapons plants and their neighbors. Res Soc Probl Public Policy 5:97-122 (1993).
34. Hoopes JR, Glover WA. Public participation in the NEPA process: lessons learned on the UMTRA process. In: Waste management '88: symposium of radioactive waste: vol 2 - lowlevel waste. Tucson, AZ:University of Arizona, 1988;431-436.
35. Schlatter JF. Effective application of public and media relations for the DOE Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. In: Spectrum '86: proceedings of the American Nuclear Society international topical meeting, waste management and decontamination and decommissioning (Pope JM, Leonard IM, Meyer EJ, eds). New York:American Nuclear Society, 1986;2030-2035.
36. Kannard JR, Dravecky TM. Case study: FUS-RAP in New Jersey, 1980-1997. In: 1987 Oak Ridge model conference proceedings: waste management, vol I, number 1. Oak Ridge, TN:Analysas Corporation and Martin Marietta Energy Systems, 1987;89-201.
37. Salvesen D. Toxic legacy: what 50 years of nuclear weapons production has wrought. Planning 60(October):8-12 (1994).
38. Renn O, Webler T, Dienel P, Johnson B. Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sci 26:189-214 (1993).
39. Kraft ME. Searching for policy success: reinventing the politics of site remediation. Environ Prof 16:245-253 (1994).
40. Flynn J, Kasperson R, Kunreuther H, Slovic P. Time to rethink nuclear waste storage. Issues Sci Technol 8:42-48 (1992).
41. Area residents want waste shipped out. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11 September 1996;4.
42. Scholtz D. Hazardous waste contamination: implications for commercial/industrial land transactions in Silicon Valley. Berkeley Planning J 4:96-113 (1989).
43. Page GW, Rabinowitz H. Groundwater contamination: its effects on property values and cities. J Am Planning Assoc 59(4):473-481 (1993).
44. Cameron DM, Solomon BD. Nuclear waste landscapes: how permanent? New York: Transaction Publishers, 1990.
45. Graham JD, Sadowitz M. Superfund reform: reducing risk through community choice. Issues Sci Technol 10:35-40 (1994).