Promoting transparency of long-term environmental decisions: The hanford decision mapping system pilot project

Risk Analysis

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1641-1664

  Drew, Christina H ^a   Nyerges, Timothy L ^a   Leschine, Thomas M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental decision making; Geographic information systems; Hazardous waste cleanup; Public participation; Transparency

Indexed keywords

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INVENTORY CONTROL; MAPPING; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANALYTIC-DELIBERATIVE DIALOGUE; DECISION PATHS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; STAKEHOLDERS;

DECISION THEORY;

CLEANUP; DECISION MAKING; HAZARDOUS WASTE; RADIOACTIVE WASTE;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CLEANING; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INTERNET; NUCLEAR WASTE; PILOT STUDY; RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROCESSING; REVIEW;

COMMUNICATION; COMPUTERS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION TREES; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION; HAZARDOUS WASTE; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INTERNET; PILOT PROJECTS; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; SOFTWARE; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS; SYSTEMS THEORY;

EID: 11344287683     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00556.x     Document Type: Review

References (92)

1. U.S. DOE. (1997). Linking Legacies: Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production Processes to their Environmental Consequences. DOE/EM-0319. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
2. U.S. DOE. (1995). Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Management Report ("BEMR"). DOE/EM-0232. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
3. Federal Risk Commission. (1997). Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making. Washington, DC: Presidential and Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management.
4. National Research Council. (1983). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. National Research Council. (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. National Research Council. (1994). Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. National Research Council. (1995). Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. U.S. DOE. (1995). DOE Public Participation Policy. Policy: DOE P 1210.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
9. U.S. DOE. (1995). Risks and the Risk Debate: Searching for Common Ground, "The First Step." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
10. U.S. DOE. (2002). Environmental Management Site Specific Advisory Boards. U.S. Department of Energy. Available at http://www.em.doe.gov/public/ssab/. Accessed February 11, 2002.
11. 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.
12. Hanford Openness Workshops. (1998). Hanford Openness Workshops October 1997-May 1998: Final Report. TRAC-0818. Rev O. Hanford Openness Workshops, Seattle, WA.
13. Hanford Openness Workshops. (1999). Is Openness Working? A Progress Report. HOW-991015-1: TRAC-0828. Rev O. Hanford Openness Workshops, Seattle, WA.
14. Drew, C. H., & Nyerges, T. L. (2004). Transparency of environmental decision making: A case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 Area. Journal of Risk Research, 7, 33-71.
15. Drew, C. H. (2003). Transparency - Considerations for PPGIS research and development. URISA Journal, 15, 73-78.
16. Bierle, T. C. (2002). The quality of stakeholder based decisions. Risk Analysis, 22, 739-749.
17. O'Fallon, L. R., & Dearry, A. (2001). Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health sciences. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110, 155-159.
18. Israel, B., Lichtenstein, R., Lantz, P., McGranaghan, R., Allen, A., Guzman, J. R., Softley, D., & Maciac, B. (2001). The Detroit community-academic urban research center: Development implementation and evaluation. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 7, 1-19.
19. Drew, C. H. (2002). The decision mapping system: promoting transparency of long-term environmental decisions' at Hanford. Doctor of Philosophy thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
20. General Accounting Office. (1997). Superfund: Duration of the Cleanup Process at Hazardous Waste Sites on the National Priorities List. Rep. GAO/RCED-97-238R. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
21. 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). Revised. Washington, DC: CRESP-IEHR.
22. CRESP. (1996). Peer Review of the FY 1998 Budget Formulation Process of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. New Brunswick, NJ: Peer Review Committee of the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP).
23. U.S. EPA, Washington Ecology. (1998). Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, as Amended through December 31, 1998. EPA Docket Number: 1089-03-04-120. Seattle, WA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, State of Washington Department of Ecology.
24. Griffith, W. C., Drew, C. H., Abbots, J. A., Leschine, T. M., & Faustman, E. M. (2002). Review of the Role of Risk in Making Soil Cleanup Decisions at Hanford Superfund Sites in the 100 Area. Seattle, WA: Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, University of Washington.
25. U.S. 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, WA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
26. Hanford Openness Workshops. (1999). Hanford Openness Workshop Fact Sheet on Access to Documents. HOW-980815-4. Hanford Openness Workshop, Seattle, WA.
27. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28. IAP2. (2002). International Association of Public Participation. Available at http://www.iap2.org. Accessed February 11, 2002.
29. Florini, A. M. (1999). Does the invisible hand need a transparent glove? The politics of transparency. Presented at Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, Washington, DC.
30. Stiglitz, J. E. (1999). On liberty, the right to know, and public discourse: The role of transparency in public life. Oxford Amnesty Lecture. Oxford, UK: World Bank.
31. Buiter, W. H. (1999). Alice in Euroland. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37, 181-209.
32. Goldberg, S. (1994). Public Access to Government Information. Freedom Paper No. 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Information Agency.
33. International Monetary Fund. (1999). Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency - Declaration of Principles. Available at http://www.imf.org/ external/np/fad/trans/code.htm. Accessed: February 11, 2002.
34. Lodge, J. (1994). Transparency and democratic legitimacy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 32, 343-368.
35. Stiglitz, J. E. (1999). The World Bank at the millennium. Economic Journal, 109, 577-597.
36. Transparency International. (2002). Available at http://www.transparency. org. Accessed: February 11, 2002.
37. Wolfensohn, J. D. (1999). Remarks at the 9th Annual Anti-Corruption Conference. Durban, South Africa.
38. Brown, J. (1995). Enterprise Wide Transparent Information Access. PNL-SA-26111. Dallas, TX: Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
39. Hanford Openness Workshops. (1999). Hanford Openness Workshop Fact Sheet on Public Involvement. HOW-991015-2. Hanford Openness Workshop, Seattle, WA.
40. Applegate, J. S., & Dycus, S. (1998). Institutional controls or emperor's clothes? Long-term stewardship of the nuclear weapons complex. Environmental Law Reporter, 28, ELR 10631.
41. National Research Council. (2000). Long-Term Institutional Management of U.S. Department of Energy Legacy Waste Sites. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42. Probst, K. N., & McGovern, M. H. (1998). Long-Term Stewardship and the Nuclear Weapons Complex; The Challenge Ahead. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
43. Merriam-Webster. (2000). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online. Rep. Available at http://www.m-w.com/home.htm.
44. 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: European Council.
45. Issing, O. (1999). The Eurosystem: Transparent and accountable or "Willem in Euroland." Journal of Common Market Studies, 37, 503-519.
46. Drew, C. H., Nyerges, T. L., McCarthy, K., & 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.
47. Patton, D. E. (1998). Environmental risk assessment: Tasks and obligations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 4, 657-670.
48. Beveridge, G. (1998). The work of a radioactive waste management watchdog: The work of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 23, 209-213.
49. Henschler, D. (1996). Risk in environmental and health protection: Identification, assessment and management. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 21, 324-335.
50. Boiko, P. E., Morrill, R. L., Flynn, J., Faustman, E., van Belle, G., & Omenn, G. S. (1996). Who holds the stakes? A case study of stakeholder identification at two nuclear weapons production sites. Risk Analysis, 16, 237-249.
51. Boiko, P. E., & Takaro, T. K. (1995). Fourth party to the Tri-Party: Getting involved at Hanford. Illahee, 11, 184-192.
52. Nature. (1996). The hazards of government data [Editorial]. Nature, 383, 463.
53. IMF Working Group. (1998). Report of the Working Group on Transparency and Accountability. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
54. Katz, E. M. (1999). Transparency in Government - How American Citizens Influence Public Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs.
55. Joos, W., Carabias, V., Hinistoerfer, H., & Stuecheli, A. (1999). Social aspects of public waste management in Switzerland. Waste Management, 19, 417-425.
56. Edwards, W. S., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1987). Public values in risk debates. Risk Analysis, 7, 141-158.
57. Fiorino, D. J. (1989). Technical and democratic values in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 9, 293-299.
58. Keeney, R. L., McDaniels, T. L., & Ridge-Cooney, V. L. (1994). Determining and Structuring Goals and Making Value Tradeoffs. Seattle, WA: King County Department of Metropolitan Services.
59. McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S., & Fields, D. (1999). Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19, 497-511.
60. von Winterfeldt, D. (1987). Value tree analysis: An introduction and an application to offshore drilling. In P. R. Kleindorfer & H. C. Kunreuther (Eds.), Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond (pp. 349-385). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
61. Keating, T. J. (1997). Facts and values, cars and smog: Analytical perspectives of stakeholders involved in air quality management. Ph.D. Dissertation thesis. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
62. Batty, M., & Densham, P. J. (1996). Decision support, GIS and urban planning. Systema Terra, V, 72-76.
63. Cinderby, S. (1999). Geographic information systems (GIS) for participation: The future of environmental GIS? International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 11, 304-315.
64. Jankowski, P., & Nyerges, T. L. (2001). Geographic Information Systems for Group Decision Making: Towards a Participatory, Geographic Information Science (p. 273). London: Taylor and Francis.
65. Nyerges, T., Barndt, M., & Brooks, K. (1997). Public participation geographic information systems. Proceedings of Auto Carto, 13, 224-233.
66. Nyerges, T., Robkin, M., & Moore, T. J. (1997). Geographic Information Systems for risk evaluation: Perspectives on applications to environmental health. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 24, 123-144.
67. Applegate, J. S., & Sarno, D. (1997). FUTURESITE: An environmental remediation game-simulation. Simulation and Gaming, 28, 13-27.
68. Hedley, N. R., Drew, C. H., Arfin, E., & Lee, A. (1999). Hager-strand revisited: Interactive space-time visualization of complex spatial data. Informatica, 23, 155-168.
69. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland; or, Why its Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All. Berkeley: University of California Press.
70. Chess, C., Salomone, K. L., & Hance, B. J. (1995). Improving risk communication in government: Research priorities. Risk Analysis, 15, 127-135.
71. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15, 137-145.
72. U.S. EPA. (2001). USDOE Hanford Site First Five Year Review Report. Richland, WA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Hanford Project Office.
73. Gerber, M. (1992). On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
74. 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 (CRESP): Institute for Evaluating Health Risks.
75. Bechtel Hanford Incorporated. (2000). Hanford Site Waste Management Units Report (WIDS Database). Richland, WA.
76. U.S. DOE. (1998). Remedial Design Report/Remedial Action Work Plan for the 100 Area. DOE/RL-96-17 Rev 1. Richland, WA: U.S. Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
77. U.S. DOE. (2000). Remedial Design Report/Remedial Action Workplan for the 100 Area. DOE/RL-96-17 Rev. 2. Richland, WA: U.S. Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
78. U.S. EPA. (1997). Amended Record of Decision. U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site - 100 Area, Benton County, Washington. Decision Summary and Responsiveness Summary. Seattle, WA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X.
79. U.S. EPA. (1998). Tri-Party Agreement Handbook: Management Procedures. RL-TPA-90-0001. Richland, WA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
80. British Medical Association. (1990). The BMA Guide to Living with Risk. London: Penguin Books.
81. Kamrin, M. A., Katz, D. J., & Walter, M. A. (1995). Reporting on Risk: A Journalist's Handbook on Environmental Risk Assessment. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Foundation for American Communications and National Sea Grant College Program.
82. Klaassen, C. D. (Ed.). (1995). Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
83. League of Women Voters Education Fund. (1993). The Nuclear Waste Primer. Washington, DC.
84. League of Women Voters of Washington. (1987). Nuclear Waste in Washington State. Seattle, WA: League of Women Voters Education Fund.
85. National Research Council. (1989). Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
86. FSUWG. (1992). The Future for Hanford: Uses and Cleanup: Summary of the Final Report of the Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group, Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group. Richland, WA.
87. Hanford Advisory Board. (1995). HAB Consensus Advice #23: Current Tri-Party Planning for 100 Area Cleanup. Richland, WA: Hanford Advisory Board.
88. Hanford Advisory Board. (1996). Hanford Advisory Board Progress Report Fiscal Year 1996. Richland, WA: Hanford Advisory Board.
89. Hanford Advisory Board. (1999). Letter to Keith Klein, DOE-RL Manager. Subject: 100 Area Cleanup Objectives. Richland, WA: Hanford Advisory Board.
90. CRCIA Management Team, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories. (1998). Screening Assessment and Requirements for a Comprehensive Assessment (Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment). Rep. DOE/RL-96-16, Revision 0. DRAFT. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment Management Team, Richland, Washington.
91. U.S. DOE. (1998). Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration Project Specification. Rep. DOE/RL-98-48 Draft A. Richland, WA: U.S. Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.
92. U.S. DOE. (1999). Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement. Executive Summary. Rep. DOE/EIS-0222-F. Richland, WA: U.S. Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office.