Consortium For Risk Evaluation With Stakeholder Participation Research Articles

Inverse modeling of unsaturated flow using clusters of soil texture and pedotransfer functions

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC-04-97-056 (1997-2002)]; NSF-EAR grant [0737945 (2005-2009)]; University of Arizona; Vanderbilt University under the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) III; U.S. Department of Energy

Mercury at Oak Ridge: outcomes from risk evaluations can differ depending upon objectives and methodologies

Risk evaluations play an important role in environmental management, remediation and restoration. Yet when different agencies and groups evaluate risk, the objectives and methods may differ, leading to different conclusions, which can confuse managers, policy-makers and the public. In this paper, we examine two evaluations of the potential risk from mercury contamination deriving from the Y-12 facility at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Reservation (Tennessee, USA). The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) examined the past and present risks from mercury to humans, using data provided in government reports and publications. The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) used a risk-informed prioritization model, developed for managers to evaluate different remediation projects. The CRESP prioritization model considered both human and ecological receptors, as well as future potential risks. Risk was an important component of both evaluations, and both evaluations found that there was a completed pathway of mercury from the source on the Oak Ridge Reservation to offsite human receptors, although the evaluations differed in their final conclusions. CRESP evaluated the risk as ‘high’, while the ATSDR noted that the risk was ‘moderate’ for people consuming fish from East Fork Poplar Creek. In both cases, the pathway to off-site human exposure was through fish consumption. The two evaluations are compared with respect to purpose, specific goals, target audience, receptors, assumptions, time frames, evaluation criteria and conclusions. When these aspects are considered, the risk evaluations are congruent, although the risk communication messages differ. We conclude that there are many different possible risk evaluations, and the aforementioned variables must be carefully considered when making management decisions, determining remediation goals, and communicating with regulators, managers, public policy-makers and the public.

Collaboration versus communication: The Department of Energy's Amchitka Island and the Aleut Community

Increasingly managers and scientists are recognizing that solving environmental problems requires the inclusion of a wide range of disciplines, governmental agencies, Native American tribes, and other stakeholders. Usually such inclusion involves communication at the problem-formulation phase, and at the end to report findings. This paper examines participatory research, the differences between the traditional stakeholder involvement method of communication (often one-way, at the beginning and the end), compared to full collaboration, where parties are actively involved in the scientific process. Using the Department of Energy's (DOE) Amchitka Island in the Aleutians as a case study, we demonstrate that the inclusion of Aleut people throughout the process resulted in science that was relevant not only to the agency's needs and to the interested and affected parties, but that led to a solution. Amchitka Island was the site of three underground nuclear tests from 1965 to 1971, and virtually no testing of radionuclide levels in biota, subsistence foods, or commercial fish was conducted after the 1970s. When DOE announced plans to close Amchitka, terminating its managerial responsibility, without any further testing of radionuclide levels in biota, there was considerable controversy, which resulted in the development of a Science Plan to assess the potential risks to the marine environment from the tests. The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) was the principle entity that developed and executed the science plan. Unlike traditional science, CRESP embarked on a process to include the Alaskan Natives of the Aleutian Islands (Aleuts), relevant state and federal agencies, and other stakeholders at every phase. Aleuts were included in the problem-formulation, research design refinement, the research, analysis of data, dissemination of research findings, and public communication. This led to agreement with the results, and to developing a path forward (production of a biomonitoring plan designed to provide early warning of any future radionuclide leakage and ecosystem/human health risks). The process outlined was successful in resolving a previously contentious situation by inclusion and collaboration with the Aleuts, among others, and could be usefully applied elsewhere to complex environmental problems where severe data gaps exist.

Root causes of unsatisfactory performance of large and complex remediation projects: Lessons learned from the united states department of energy environmental management programs

AbstractThe Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) was asked by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) to consider the root causes of remediation projects that fail to entirely achieve their goals and then to offer suggestions to assist the Department. To begin this project, CRESP held several meetings at which the group defined problematic outcomes, the early symptoms of problematic outcomes, and the root causes of failing to meet expectations. The five root causes are complex science, engineering, and technology; ambiguous economics; project management shortcomings; political processes and credibility; and history and organizational culture. This article, while focusing on the US DOE, provides a larger context for many remediation projects that have failed to entirely live up to their sponsors' expectations. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

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.

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.