Public perceptions of a radioactively contaminated site: concerns, remediation preferences, and desired involvement.

Abstract

Public aversion to plans by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to remediate radionuclide-contaminated sites under its jurisdiction is due in large part to three factors: a lack of confidence in the ability of the DOE to manage these sites; the perception that the department pays insufficient attention to public health, the environment, and options for future land use; and previous DOE failure to elicit public opinions about the management and remediation of these sites. By eliciting public attitudes toward the remediation of one set of DOE sites in a large metropolitan area, this case study tries to gauge the relationship between public concerns about the site and attitudes regarding proposed remediation strategies. It also seeks to ascertain if and how the public wants to participate in the selection of remediation strategies.Considerable research has been done on public perceptions of the risks associated with hazardous and radionuclide-contaminated sites (1-3). However, few studies have related these risk perceptions to public views toward remediation strategies. For example, do members of the affected public who view the site as a health risk prefer a certain type of remediation strategy?The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in St. Louis, Missouri, provides a unique opportunity to explore these issues. Recently at this site, controversy has emerged over proposed remediation strategies that could leave considerable amounts of contaminated materials within the community. As a result of public opposition to these plans, the DOE has decided to elicit public input into the process of selecting a remediation strategy so that the strategy that is chosen is durable and politically acceptable.

Distribution of uranium‐238 in environmental samples from a residential area impacted by mining and milling activities

“…A recent study indicates that public perceptions concerning radioactively contaminated sites are centered primarily around environmental contamination of surrounding areas and subsequent impact on human health [21]. The study presented here addresses some of these concerns and indicates that residents of Karnes County in the vicinity of uranium mining/ milling facilities have increased concentrations of 238 U in surface soil as a result of the mining/milling activities.…”

Nuclear Power Plant Location Selection in Vietnam under Fuzzy Environment Conditions

“…The main aim of this work is to study in detail the location selection in NPP construction. In this process of site selection for building an NPP in Vietnam, the main factors are discussed based on the regulations for environmental radiation protection of a nuclear power plant [30] and some previous works [31][32][33][34][35]: Reliability and Security of the Site (C1), Site Characteristics Corresponding to Environmental Compatibility (C2), Economic Rationality (C3), and Technical Feasibility (C4). The hierarchical structures of the FANP model are shown in Figure 4.…”

Soil pollution and site remediation policies in China: A review

“…Ensure the public's right to be informed and to participate in decision-making. Groups, ranging from national research committees to grassroots organizations, have long argued that public participation is a necessary and required condition for fair and competent environmental decision making (Wernstedt and Hersh 1998), and 76% of the respondents to a stakeholder survey indicated an interest to "learn more about and (or) express viewpoints" (Feldman and Hanahan 1996).…”