Literature DB >> 12611653

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

Christina H Drew1, Deirdre A Grace, Susan M Silbernagel, Erin S Hemmings, Alan Smith, William C Griffith, Timothy K Takaro, Elaine M Faustman.   

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.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12611653      PMCID: PMC1241381          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.5203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Health Perspect        ISSN: 0091-6765            Impact factor:   9.031


  7 in total

1.  Application of risk assessment and decision analysis to the evaluation, ranking and selection of environmental remediation alternatives.

Authors:  E J Bonano; G E Apostolakis; P F Salter; A Ghassemi; S Jennings
Journal:  J Hazard Mater       Date:  2000-01-07       Impact factor: 10.588

2.  Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada.

Authors:  P Slovic; M Layman; N Kraus; J Flynn; J Chalmers; G Gesell
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 4.000

3.  Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste.

Authors:  P Slovic; J H Flynn; M Layman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1991-12-13       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  Citizen perceptions of risks associated with moving radiological waste.

Authors:  M K McBeth; A S Oakes
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 4.000

Review 5.  The application of GIS in environmental health sciences: opportunities and limitations.

Authors:  U S Tim
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 6.498

6.  Perceived risks of radioactive waste transport through Oregon: results of a statewide survey.

Authors:  D MacGregor; P Slovic; R G Mason; J Detweiler; S E Binney; B Dodd
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 4.000

7.  Public perceptions of a radioactively contaminated site: concerns, remediation preferences, and desired involvement.

Authors:  D L Feldman; R A Hanahan
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 9.031

  7 in total
  3 in total

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

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Charles Powers; Michael Gochfeld
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 6.789

2.  Framing scientific analyses for risk management of environmental hazards by communities: case studies with seafood safety issues.

Authors:  Nancy L Judd; Christina H Drew; Chetana Acharya; Todd A Mitchell; Jamie L Donatuto; Gary W Burns; Thomas M Burbacher; Elaine M Faustman
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 9.031

3.  A Toxicological Framework for the Prioritization of Children's Safe Product Act Data.

Authors:  Marissa N Smith; Joshua Grice; Alison Cullen; Elaine M Faustman
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 3.390

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.