PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14744073

The voluntary siting process, a case study in New Jersey.

Abstract

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and its 1985 Amendments has not provided new disposal capacity within the United States; however, sufficient disposal capacity currently exists to handle today's disposal needs. Politics, opposition groups, and public mistrust in government have combined to limit the possibilities for establishing new disposal facilities. In 2000, New Jersey (NJ and Connecticut (CT), as members of the Northeast Compact for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, admitted South Carolina (SC) to their compact, renaming it as the "Atlantic Compact." The advantage to SC is that they are able to prevent disposal of waste from outside the Compact. The advantage to NJ and CT is that they are guaranteed waste disposal for approximately the next 50 years, or until all currently operating nuclear power plants in the states are decommissioned. This paper details the process, much of it not following the scientific method, to try to site a low-level waste facility in NJ. With the formation of the NJ Siting Board in 1987, an effort was made to locate a site using deterministic criteria; however, in 1992, the Board shifted to a voluntary process. In 1998, the Board made the determination that there was adequate capacity for waste disposal and ended active siting. In 2000, the opportunity to form the Atlantic Compact ended siting through an out-of-state solution. While it is not clear that the voluntary process would have ultimately worked in NJ, it has worked in Canada and the process may be one of the few mechanisms for the siting of any type of hazardous material disposal facility. Also, other states still have to decide what they will do after 2008 when Barnwell is no longer open to them.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joseph R Stencel, Kenneth Y Lee. 2004. The voluntary siting process, a case study in New Jersey.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200402001-00016

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Information-based monitoring of clinical trials.

When designing a clinical trial to compare the effect of different treatments on response, a key issue facing the statistician is to determine how large a study is necessary to detect a clinically important difference with sufficient power. This is the case whether the study will be analysed only once (single-analysis) or whether it will be monitored periodically with the possibility of early stopping (group-sequential). Standard sample size calculations are based on both the magnitude of difference that is considered clinically important as well as values for the nuisance parameters in the statistical model. For planning purposes, best guesses are made for the value of the nuisance parameters and these are used to determine the sample size. However, if these guesses are incorrect this will affect the subsequent power to detect the clinically important difference. It is argued in this paper that statistical precision is directly related to Statistical Information and that the study should continue until the requisite statistical information is obtained. This is referred to as information-based design and analysis of clinical trials. We also argue that this type of methodology is best suited with group-sequential trials which monitor the data periodically and allow for estimation of the statistical information as the study progresses.

Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees↗

Standard versus adaptive monitoring procedures: A commentary.

In the standard approach to designing definitive clinical trials, the primary endpoint and test statistic to be used for the primary analysis are specified before trial initiation. The false positive error rate for the null hypothesis and statistical power to detect the targeted size of treatment effect are also specified. Standard monitoring procedures, such as the group sequential guidelines, enable interim monitoring while maintaining the integrity of this approach. In contrast, adaptive monitoring procedures seek to provide flexibility to modify these pre-specified design features during the course of the trial. However, these procedures have several undesirable properties, including lesser statistical efficiency, reduced interpretability of primary outcome results, basing design changes on unreliable interim estimates of efficacy, risks to the integrity and credibility of the trial, loss of flexibility to use emerging results from external sources to alter key design features, and overemphasis of the importance of statistical significance relative to clinical significance.

Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees↗