of a site--often reflects an underlying lack of communication among the
actors involved in the process ( Clary, 1992). For the most part, the federal
regulatory agencies and nuclear industry view the process as involving
technical solutions relying on good science ultimately translated into
rational policy solutions. In contrast, local opposition groups and state
governments are generally more attuned to issues of equity, public accept-
ability, and more nebulous value choices in policymaking.

This chapter argues that the elements of equity, acceptability, and values
have come to dominate the nuclear waste policymaking process. These
elements are not conducive to resolution through a traditional, and fairly
limited, rational policymaking process, and until federal decisionmakers
and the nuclear industry recognize the limits of the rational policy and
good science approach, nuclear waste disposal policy will continue to be
stalemated. We further conclude that recognition of the priority of politics
in nuclear waste policymaking may ultimately necessitate more authori-
tarian decisionmaking in selecting waste disposal sites, although such
political solutions should be approached with extreme caution and prop-
erly safeguard public input.

We begin with a discussion of the structure of rational policymaking
that underlies the federal agency and industry approach to nuclear waste
policy development. We then discuss how a naive model of "good science"
combines with the rational policy approach. Problems with that approach
are identified. We then discuss the lack of commensurability between
policy approaches among various actors in the process and note that
decisionmaking may ultimately rest not on consensus but on a more
majoritarian allocation of values.

U.S. public policy analysis has been primarily directed and ordered by
a profound emphasis on rationality. Indeed, a recent assessment of the
policy field concluded that methodological rigor and rationality are closely
linked to professional legitimacy. What is required is "empirical research
which aspires to be rigorous, or will be updated in the future with more
rigor--especially if previous research about a subject was not so rigorous"
( Wall, 1984:406).

Why policy analysis has been animated by a quest for rationality and
methodological rigor can be explained in part by the generally desired
purpose of the activity itself: "There is a modest consensus that social
research can and should be relevant to immediate policy concerns" ( Paris

-2-