Nuclear waste transportation: case studies of identifying stakeholder risk information needs.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the cleanup of our nation's nuclear legacy, involving complex decisions about how and where to dispose of nuclear waste and how to transport it to its ultimate disposal site. It is widely recognized that a broad range of stakeholders and tribes should be involved in this kind of decision. All too frequently, however, stakeholders and tribes are only invited to participate by commenting on processes and activities that are near completion; they are not included in the problem formulation stages. Moreover, it is often assumed that high levels of complexity and uncertainty prevent meaningful participation by these groups. Considering the types of information that stakeholders and tribes need to be able to participate in the full life cycle of decision making is critical for improving participation and transparency of decision making. Toward this objective, the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) participated in three public processes relating to nuclear waste transportation and disposal in 1997-1998. First, CRESP organized focus groups to identify concerns about nuclear waste transportation. Second, CRESP conducted exit surveys at regional public workshops held by DOE to get input from stakeholders on intersite waste transfer issues. Third, CRESP developed visual tools to synthesize technical information and allow stakeholders and tribes with varying levels of knowledge about nuclear waste to participate in meaningful discussion. In this article we share the results of the CRESP findings, discuss common themes arising from these interactions, and comment on special considerations needed to facilitate stakeholder and tribal participation in similar decision-making processes.

[1]  U. S. Tim,et al.  The application of GIS in environmental health sciences: opportunities and limitations. , 1995, Environmental research.

[2]  T. Nyerges,et al.  Geographic information systems for group decision making : towards a participatory, geographic information science , 2001 .

[3]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Rating the Risks , 1979 .

[4]  Ellen Hall,et al.  Inner City Health in America , 1979 .

[5]  J. Applegate A Beginning and Not an End in Itself: The Role of Risk Assessment in Environmental Decision-Making , 1995 .

[6]  G. David Garson,et al.  Data-Gathering Strategies , 2001 .

[7]  Piotr Jankowski,et al.  Data-gathering strategies for social-behavioural research about participatory geographical information system use , 2002, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[8]  P Slovic,et al.  Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste , 1991, Science.

[9]  Jean-Jacques Salomon Science, Technology and Democracy , 2000 .

[10]  M. Morris Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1997 .

[11]  P Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. , 1991, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  C. Andrade,et al.  Values of Corrosion Rate of Steel in Concrete to Predict Service Life of Concrete Structures , 1994 .

[13]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[14]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[15]  Angela Lee,et al.  Hagerstrand Revisited: Interactive Space-Time Visualizations of Complex Spatial Data , 1999, Informatica.

[16]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[17]  James Flynn,et al.  Who holds the stakes? A case study of stakeholder identification at two nuclear weapons production sites , 1995 .

[18]  Timothy L. Nyerges,et al.  GROUP-BASED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT SITE SELECTION , 1997 .

[19]  Timothy L. Nyerges,et al.  Transparency of environmental decision making: a case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area , 2004 .

[20]  Timothy L. Nyerges,et al.  Geographic Information Systems for Risk Evaluation: Perspectives on Applications to Environmental Health , 1997 .

[21]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[22]  P Slovic,et al.  Perceived risks of radioactive waste transport through Oregon: results of a statewide survey. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[23]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[24]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[25]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Overcoming Tunnel Vision: Redirecting the U.S. High-Level Nuclear Waste Program , 1997 .

[26]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .

[27]  Robert B McMaster,et al.  GIS-based Environmental Equity and Risk Assessment: Methodological Problems and Prospects , 1997 .

[28]  G E Apostolakis,et al.  Application of risk assessment and decision analysis to the evaluation, ranking and selection of environmental remediation alternatives. , 2000, Journal of hazardous materials.

[29]  D. Feldman,et al.  Public perceptions of a radioactively contaminated site: concerns, remediation preferences, and desired involvement. , 1996, Environmental health perspectives.

[30]  John F. Ahearne,et al.  Radioactive Waste: The Size of the Problem , 1997 .

[31]  K. S. Neuhauser,et al.  Urban Risks of Truck Transport of Radioactive Material , 1998 .

[32]  T. Bernhardsen Geographic Information Systems: An Introduction , 1999 .

[33]  C. King,et al.  The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration , 1998 .

[34]  M K McBeth,et al.  Citizen perceptions of risks associated with moving radiological waste. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[35]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .