Public Involvement in Science and Decision Making

Abstract

Members of the public are becoming increasingly interested in understanding risks associated with their exposure to radionuclides and chemicals in the environment. They also want to be more involved in decision making about future exposures to risks. This paper reviews one community's involvement in decisions about technical methods to calculate soil cleanup criteria for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site near Denver, Colorado. The public anticipated that much of the site would be available for their use following cleanup. Final decisions regarding the future use of the site have yet to be made; however, the soil action levels were developed for this eventuality. When the public expressed considerable concern about cleanup standards for the site in 1996, a community group met to focus efforts on reviewing the cleanup standards. Later, the U.S. Department of Energy officially established the community panel to oversee an independent calculation of radionuclide soil action levels that would be used as the basis for cleanup at Rocky Flats. The primary radionuclide of concern was 239+240Pu. The Radionuclide Soil Action Level Oversight Panel (Panel) was substantively involved in all aspects of the work, from selecting the contractor, approving the computer code that formed the basis of the calculation, and assisting in developing the exposure scenarios, to selecting the values for the numerous input parameters. Communicating the uncertainties to the public, which was a major component of the analysis of soil action levels, presented a unique challenge. Over the course of the 18-mo project, the Panel and interested members of the public gained an understanding of the technical elements of the calculation and the sensitivities of the different parameters. This project serves as an excellent model of the effectiveness of public involvement in science and decision making for the future. It also illustrates the public expectations, difficulties, and time commitments encountered when making scientific decisions in a public forum. Although the process was time consuming for the scientists responsible for the calculations, a more technically defensible as well as publicly acceptable soil action level emerged. The technical approach developed during the project has been recommended for use as a decision-making tool for cleanup of the site.

Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice

“…However, consensus rules are often criticized for leading to ''least common denominator'' outcomes (Coglianese and Allen 2003;Gunton and Day 2003). They can also lead to decision stalemates (Coglianese and Allen 2003), though it is possible for collaborative processes to begin with consensus procedures and then to revert to other procedures in the case of stalemate (Till and Meyer 2001).…”

“…Many of the case studies note that collaborative governance is a time-consuming process Imperial 2005;Margerum 2002;Roussos and Fawcett 2000;Till and Meyer 2001;Warner 2006). Consensus building, in particular, requires time and cannot be rushed (Coglianese and Allen 2003;Yaffee and Wondolleck 2003).…”

Risks to the public from historical releases of radionuclides and chemicals at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

“…To do this effectively, the public must be involved throughout the process for credibility and to consider their concerns and ideas ( Till and Meyer, 2001 ). Throughout the course of the 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 Year 10 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 Y ear 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 Year 10 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 Year 10 Figure 7.…”

Adaptive Co-Management

“…The adaptive co-management process does not happen overnight or in one workshop. It involves building relationships and networks as well as establishing trust which is a time consuming exercise (Roussos and Fawcett 2000, Till and Meyer 2001, Margerum 2002, Imperial 2005. In some cases it can take up to a decade or more for institutional arrangements, trust and social capital to develop (Armitage et al 2009).…”