Multiattribute Utility Analysis as a Framework for Public Participation in Siting a Hazardous Waste Management Facility

This paper describes a public participation exercise in which stakeholders used an approach based on multiattribute utility analysis to select a site for a hazardous waste management facility. The key to success was the ability to separate and address two types of judgments inherent in environmental decisions—technical judgments regarding the likely consequences of alternative choices and value judgments regarding the importance or seriousness of those consequences. The approach enabled technical specialists to communicate the essential technical considerations and allowed stakeholders to establish the value judgments for the decision. Although rarely used in public participation, the multiattribute utility approach appears to provide a useful framework for the collaborative resolution of complex environmental decision problems.     

Science, Policy, and Stakeholders: Developing a Consensus Science Plan for Amchitka Island, Aleutians, Alaska

With the ending of the Cold War, the US Department of Energy is responsible for the remediation of radioactive waste and disposal of land no longer needed for nuclear material production or related national security missions. The task of characterizing the hazards and risks from radionuclides is necessary for assuring the protection of health of humans and the environment. This is a particularly daunting task for those sites that had underground testing of nuclear weapons, where the radioactive contamination is currently inaccessible. Herein we report on the development of a Science Plan to characterize the physical and biological marine environment around Amchitka Island in the Aleutian chain of Alaska, where three underground nuclear tests were conducted (1965–1971). Information on the ecology, geology, and current radionuclide levels in biota, water, and sediment is necessary for evaluating possible current contamination and to serve as a baseline for developing a plan to ensure human and ecosystem health in perpetuity. Other information required includes identifying the location of the salt water/fresh water interface where migration to the ocean might occur in the future and determining groundwater recharge balances, as well as assessing other physical/geological features of Amchitka near the test sites. The Science Plan is needed to address the confusing and conflicting information available to the public about radionuclide risks from underground nuclear blasts in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as well as the potential for volcanic or seismic activity to disrupt shot cavities or accelerate migration of radionuclides into the sea. Developing a Science Plan involved agreement among regulators and other stakeholders, assignment of the task to the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, and development of a consensus Science Plan that dealt with contentious scientific issues. Involvement of the regulators (State of Alaska), resource trustees (U S Fish and Wildlife Service), representatives of the Aleut and Pribilof Island communities, and other stakeholders was essential for plan development and approval, although this created tensions because of the different objectives of each group. The complicated process of developing a Science Plan involved iterations and interactions with multiple agencies and organizations, scientists in several disciplines, regulators, and the participation of Aleut people in their home communities, as well as the general public. The importance of including all parties in all phases of the development of the Science Plan was critical to its acceptance by a broad range of regulators, agencies, resource trustees, Aleutian/Pribilof communities, and other stakeholders.     

Science, Policy, Stakeholders, and Fish Consumption Advisories: Developing a Fish Fact Sheet for the Savannah River

In recent years there has been a startling rise in the issuance of fish consumption advisories. Unfortunately, compliance by the public is often low. Low compliance can be due to a number of factors, including confusion over the meaning of advisories, conflicting advisories issued by different agencies, controversies involving health benefits versus the risks from consuming fish, and an unwillingness to act on the advisories because of personal beliefs. In some places, such as along the Savannah River, one state (South Carolina) had issued a consumption advisory while the other (Georgia) had not, although at present, both states now issue consumption advisories for the Savannah River. Herein we report on the development of a fish fact sheet to address the confusing and conflicting information available to the public about consuming fish from the Savannah River. The process involved interviewing fishers to ascertain fishing and consumption patterns, evaluating contaminant levels and exposure pathways, discussing common grounds for the provision of information, and consensus-building among different regulatory agencies (US Environmental Protection Agency, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Georgia Department of Natural Resources) and the Department of Energy. Consensus, a key ingredient in solving many different types of “commons” problems, was aided by an outside organization, the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP). The initial role for CRESP was to offer scientific data as a basis for groups with different assumptions about risks to reach agreement on a regulatory response action. The process was an example of how credible science can be used to implement management and policies and provide a basis for consensus-building on difficult risk communication issues. The paper provides several lessons for improving the risk process from stakeholder conflicts, through risk assessment, to risk management. It also suggests that consensus-building and risk communication are continuing processes that involve assimilation of new information on contaminants and food-chain processes, state and federal law, public policy, and public response.