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

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.

Dirty Soil and Clean Consciences: Examining Communication of Contaminated Soil

“…The public is a highly heterogeneous group (Wester-Herber, 2004) and what might be important for one group may not be relevant for another. There are numerous studies indicating which concerns are most common among parts of the public (Drew et al, 2003;Hansen et al, 2003) and also a number of studies and suggestions on how risk communication is best achieved (Frewer, 2004;Grey & Ropeik, 2002) that could serve as a useful tool at an early stage in planning a remediation project.…”

“…Recent research has shown that transparent and open risk assessments, and the communication thereof, can improve relations with a community and make policy issues closer to citizens concerns (European Commission (EC), 2001). This is true even under conditions of uncertainty, as studies have shown that lay people are certainly capable of understanding complex technical information and issues of uncertainty (Drew et al, 2003;Frewer, 2004). However, definitions of key terms, such as risk, differ between experts and lay people (Sjöberg, 2002).…”

Environmental risk and risk perception management in public health

“…The health risk assessment of potential ecological and health risk rising from the planned industrial transport and the treatment of waste at facilities and other industrial and construction activities is paramount [14]. Of course, the public health processes and procedures of such waste management and industrial activities as such cited projects are primarily controlled, regulated and approved by district or regional public health and state authorities, within the scope of prevention of risk, health supervision and best practices.…”

Regulatory requirements and tools for environmental assessment of hazardous wastes: Understanding tribal and stakeholder concerns using Department of Energy sites

“…Tribal governments are interested in integrating cleanup and future land use, decreasing effects on human health and the environment, and understanding effects of contamination and cleanup on their usual and accustomed treaty rights (Tano et al, 1996; Harris and Harper, 1997, 2008; Goldstein et al, 2000; Nez Perce Tribe, 2003; Drew et al, 2003; Harper et al, 2008). DOE and others recognized the importance of building consensus (NRC 1994), and of turning extensive and diverse opinions about future use of the site into a comprehensive future land-use plan that was developed as an Environmental Impact Statement under the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (DOE, 1999, revised 2008).…”