Transparency of environmental decision making: A case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 33-71

  Drew, Christina H ^a   Nyerges, Timothy L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision transparency; Environmental cleanup; Environmental decision making; Hanford; Stewardship

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HEALTH CARE; PUBLIC POLICY; SOILS;

DECISION TRANSPARENCY; ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP; ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING; STEWARDSHIP;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0442279570     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1366987042000151197     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Applegate, J.S. and Dycus, S. (1998) Institutional controls or Emperor's clothes? Long-term stewardship of the nuclear weapons complex, Environmental Law Reporter 28, ELR 10631.
2. Bechtel Hanford Incorporated. (1999a) Cleanup Verification Package for 100-D-20 Sludge Pit. Prepared for the US Department of Energy, Richland, WA: Bechtel Hanford Incorporated.
3. Bechtel Hanford Incorporated (1999b) Cleanup Verification Package for 116-C-1 Effluent Trench. Prepared for the US Department of Energy, Richland, WA: Bechtel Hanford Incorporated.
4. Bergquist, G. and Bergquist, C. (1999) Post-decision assessment, in V. H. Dale and M. R. English (eds) Tools to Aid Environmental Decision Making, pp. 285-316. New York: Springer.
5. Beveridge, G. (1998) The work of a radioactive waste management watchdog: the work of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 23, 209-13.
6. Brown, J. (1995) Enterprise wide transparent information access, presented at the Sybase Users Group Conference, 15-18 May, Dallas, Texas: Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
7. Buiter, W.H. (1999) Alice in Euroland, Journal of Common Market Studies 37, 181-209.
8. Coenen, F.H.J.M., Huitema, D. and O'Toole, L.J.J. (1998) Participation and the Quality of Environmental Decision Making, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9. Council of the European Union (1999) Basic texts on transparency concerning the activities of the Council of the European Union / Council of the European Union, General Secretariat, DG F, Information Policy, Transparency, Public Relations, Luxembourg: The European Council.
10. CRESP (1996) CRESP National Review Panel Report: Review of Risk Data Sheet Information for FY 1998, Washington, DC: Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation-Institute for Evaluating Health Risks (CRESP-IEHR).
11. CRESP (1997) Improving DOE/EM Risk Information: Content and Format. Conclusions and Recommendations from Two Working Meetings Organized by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP). Washington, DC: CRESP-IEHR.
12. CRESP (1999) Peer Review of the US Department of Energy's Use of Risk in its Prioritization Process, New Brunswick, NJ: Peer Review Committee of the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP).
13. CRESP (2001) 100 Area Soils Cleanup: CRESP Review of Cleanup Verification Packages for the 116-C-1 and 100-D-20 waste sites (Draft), Seattle, WA: Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation.
14. Dale, V.H. and English, M.R. (1999) Tools to Aid Environmental Decision Making, New York: Springer.
15. Dorian, J.J. and Richards, V.R. (1978) Radiological Characterization of the Retired 100 Areas, Richland, WA: United Nuclear Industries
16. Drew, C.H. (2002) The Decision Mapping System [http://nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms], Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
17. Drew, C.H., Nyerges, T.L., McCarthy, K. and Moore, J.A. (2002) Using decision paths to explore three environmental cleanup decisions: a cross-case analysis, International Journal of Environment and Pollution 17, 171-201.
18. Edwards, W.S. and von Winterfeldt, D. (1987) Public values in risk debates, Risk Analysis 7, 141-58.
19. Florini, A.M. (1999) Does the invisible hand need a transparent glove? The politics of transparency, Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, pp. 1-40, Washington, DC: World Bank.
20. FSUWG (1992) The Future for Hanford: Uses and Cleanup: Summary of the Final Report of the Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group, Richland, WA: Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group.
21. Garrett, L. (2000) Betrayal of Trust: the Collapse of Global Public Health, New York: Hyperion.
22. Goldberg, S. (1994) Public Access to Government Information, Washington, DC: US Information Agency.
23. Gregory, R., Keeney, R. and von Winterfeldt, D. (1992) Adapting the environmental impact statement process to inform decision makers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11, 58-75.
24. Henschler, D. (1996) Risk in environmental and health protection: identification, assessment and management, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 21, 324-35.
25. International Monetary Fund (1999) Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency - Declaration of Principles, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
26. IMF Working Group (1998) Report of the Working Group on Transparency and Accountability, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
27. Issing, O. (1999) The Eurosystem: transparent and accountable or 'Willem in Euroland', Journal of Common Market Studies 37, 503-19.
28. Katz, E.M. (1999) Transparency in Government - How American Citizens Influence Public Policy, Washington, DC: US Department of State, International Information Programs.
29. Keating, T.J. (1997) Facts and values, cars and smog: Analytical perspectives of stakeholders involved in air quality management (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), Department of Environmental Science and Engineering. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
30. Keeney, R. (1992) Value Focused Thinking, Harvard, Cambridge, MA: University Press.
31. Keeney, R.L., Renn, O. and von Winterfeldt, D. (1987) Structuring West Germany's energy objectives, Energy Policy August, 352-62.
32. Keeney, R.L., McDaniels, T.L. and Ridge-Cooney, V.L. (1994) Determining and Structuring Goals and Making Value Tradeoffs, Seattle, WA: King County Department of Metropolitan Services.
33. Kern, M. (1999) Is Openness Working? A Progress Report, Seattle, WA: Hanford Openness Workshops [http://www.hanford.gov/boards/openness].
34. Lodge, J. (1994) Transparency and democratic legitimacy, Journal of Common Market Studies 32, 343-68.
35. McDaniels, T.L. and Thomas, K. (1999) Eliciting preferences for land use alternatives: a structured value referendum with approval voting, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18, 264-80.
36. Merriam-Webster (2000) The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online [http://www.m-w.com/].
37. National Research Council (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38. National Research Council (2000) Long-term Institutional Management of US Department of Energy Legacy Waste Sites, Washington DC: National Academy Press.
39. Nature (1996) The hazards of government data (Editorial), Nature 383, 463.
40. Oxford English Dictionary (2001) The Oxford English Dictionary Online [http://www.oed.com].
41. Patton, D.E. (1998) Environmental risk assessment: tasks and obligations, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 4, 657-70.
42. Pressman, J.L. and Wildavsky, A. (1984) Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, Why it's amazing that federal programs work at all, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
43. Probst, K.N. and McGovern, M.H. (1998) Long-term Stewardship and the Nuclear Weapons Complex; The Challenge Ahead, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
44. Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedermann, P. (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
45. Rosa, E.A. (1998) Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk, Journal of Risk Research 1, 15-44.
46. Schneider, E., Oppermann, B. and Renn, O. (1998) Implementing structured participation for regional level waste management planning, Risk: Health Safety & Environment 9, 379-95.
47. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (1997) Responsible Openness: An Imperative for the Department of Energy, Washington, DC: Openness Advisory Panel, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board.
48. Stiglitz, J.E. (1999a) On liberty, the right to know, and public discourse: the role of transparency in public life, Oxford Amnesty Lecture, 27 January, Oxford: The World Bank.
49. Stiglitz, J.E. (1999b) The World Bank at the Millennium, The Economic Journal 109, 577-97.
50. Transparency International (2002) Transparency International [http://www.transparency.org].
51. US DOE (1992a) RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study Work Plan for the 100-DR-Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
52. US DOE (1992b) RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study Work Plan for the 100-HR-1 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
53. US DOE (1992c) Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan for the 100-BC-1 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
54. US DOE (1993) Limited Field Investigation Report for the 100-BC-1 Operable Unit, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
55. US DOE (1994a). 100 Area Feasibility Study, Phases 1 and 2, Richland, WA: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
56. US DOE (1994b). 100-BC-1 Operable Unit Focused Feasibility Study, Richland, WA: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
57. US DOE (1994c) 100-DR-1 Operable Unit Focused Feasibility Study Report, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
58. US DOE (1994d) 100-HR-1 Operable Unit Focused Feasibility Study, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
59. US DOE (1994e) DOE Public Participation Policy, Washington, DC: US Department of Energy.
60. US DOE (1994f) Limited Field Investigation Report for the 100-DR-1 Operable Unit, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
61. US DOE (1994g) Limited Field Investigation Report for the 100-HR-1 Operable Unit, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
62. US DOE (1995a) 100 Area Source Operable Unit Focused Feasibility Study, Richland, WA: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
63. US DOE (1995b) Proposed Plan for Interim Remedial Measures at the 100-BC-1 Operable Unit, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
64. US DOE (1995c) Proposed Plan for Interim Remedial Measures at the 100-DR-1 Operable Unit, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
65. US DOE (1995d) Proposed Plan for Interim Remedial Measures at the 100-HR-1 Operable Unit, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
66. US DOE (1995e) Risks and the Risk Debate: Searching for Common Ground, the First Step, Washington DC: US Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
67. US DOE (1997) Linking Legacies: Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production Processes to their Environmental Consequences, Washington: US Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management (DOE/EM-0319).
68. US DOE (1998a) 100 Area Remedial Action Sampling and Analysis Plan, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
69. US DOE (1998b) Remedial Design Report/Remedial Action Work Plan for the 100 Area, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
70. US DOE (2000) Proposed Plan for the 100 Area Burial Grounds Interim Remedial Actions, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
71. US EPA (1991) Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order Change Package, Richland, Washington: US Environmental Protection Agency (Region 10), Washington Department of Ecology, US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
72. US EPA (1995) Declaration of the Record of Decision, USDOE Hanford 100 Area, 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1, and 100-HR-1 operable units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington, Richland, Washington: US Environmental Protection Agency.
73. US EPA (1999) A guide to preparing superfund proposed plans, records of decision and other remedy selection decision documents, Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
74. von Winterfeldt, D. (1987) Value tree analysis: an introduction and an application to offshore drilling, in P.R. Kleindorfer and H.C. Kunreuther (eds) Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 349-85.
75. Westinghouse Hanford Company (1994a) Qualitative Risk Assessment for 100-BC-1 Source Operable Unit, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
76. Westinghouse Hanford Company (1994b) Qualitative Risk Assessment for 100-HR-1 Source Operable Unit, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
77. Westinghouse Hanford Company (1994c) Qualitative Risk Assessment for 100-DR-1 Source Operable Unit, Richland, Washington: US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
78. Wolfensohn, J.D. (1999) Remarks at the 9th Annual Anti-Corruption Conference, Durban, South Africa: World Bank.
79. Woods, N. (2000) The challenge of good governance for the IMF and the World Bank themselves, World Development 28, 823-41.
80. Yin R.K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.