Abstract
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.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (727.1 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bonano E. J., Apostolakis G. E., Salter P. F., Ghassemi A., Jennings S. Application of risk assessment and decision analysis to the evaluation, ranking and selection of environmental remediation alternatives. J Hazard Mater. 2000 Jan 7;71(1-3):35–57. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3894(99)00071-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Feldman D. L., Hanahan R. A. Public perceptions of a radioactively contaminated site: concerns, remediation preferences, and desired involvement. Environ Health Perspect. 1996 Dec;104(12):1344–1352. doi: 10.1289/ehp.961041344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MacGregor D., Slovic P., Mason R. G., Detweiler J., Binney S. E., Dodd B. Perceived risks of radioactive waste transport through Oregon: results of a statewide survey. Risk Anal. 1994 Feb;14(1):5–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00022.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McBeth M. K., Oakes A. S. Citizen perceptions of risks associated with moving radiological waste. Risk Anal. 1996 Jun;16(3):421–427. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01476.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Slovic P., Flynn J. H., Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science. 1991 Dec 13;254(5038):1603–1607. doi: 10.1126/science.254.5038.1603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Slovic P., Layman M., Kraus N., Flynn J., Chalmers J., Gesell G. Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Anal. 1991 Dec;11(4):683–696. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00658.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tim U. S. The application of GIS in environmental health sciences: opportunities and limitations. Environ Res. 1995 Nov;71(2):75–88. doi: 10.1006/enrs.1995.1069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]