Despite literally dozens of attempts, and the expenditure of billions
of dollars, efforts to site radioactive waste disposal facilities in t
his country have been uniformly unsuccessful. While both researchers a
nd policymakers continue to address reasons for these failures, little
attention is being given to the consequences for the communities them
selves of these intensive siting battles. Using a research framework t
hat 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 radioa
ctive waste facility. Some degree of conflict is observed in each comm
unity, although it varies from one area to another based on such diffe
rences as potential to experience economic benefits, perceptions of cl
ass and ethnic equity, and the role of extra-local players in the cont
roversy. We conclude that current policies lead to inequitable distrib
utions of risk that, in turn, create ''fairness'' questions that are i
mportant both in explaining current patterns of conflict and in antici
pating long-term consequences for the affected communities.