The Bureaucrat, the Scientist, and the Citizen: A Risk Assessment of the Columbia River. Douglas Mercer, University of Washington, Box 353550, Seattle, WA 98105
In this paper, I will present case studies from Hanford that illustrate how procedural and distributive questions come into play in risk decisions. The risk paradigm of the past was distributive. Analysis was judged on the basis of quantifiable reductions in risk. More recent permutations of risk analysis incorporate certain procedural elements, for instance, involving stakeholders in the development of land use scenarios.
At Hanford, there has been increasing pressure on the DOE to conduct a comprehensive, site-wide risk assessment for the Columbia River, principally from groundwater contamination. The DOE’s first site-wide effort, unfortunately called CREEP, was widely criticised as too narrow, and conceptually flawed. Under stakeholder and regulator pressure, the DOE undertook another assessment, called CRCIA. The CRCIA effort initially enlisted national lab researchers and regulators, nut later the team was expanded to include members of tribal nations and the Hanford citizens advisory board. Negotiations were intense over the veracity and breadth of data, land use scenarios, and the long-term management of the assessment. Eventually, the structure and intent of the CRCIA slipped from the DOE’s control and became a reflection of stakeholder, tribal, and regulator interests.
This paper considers the implications of increasingly democratic-procedural risk assessments using the CRCIA experience as an indicator. I used interviews, recordings of CRCIA team meetings, reviews of public comments, and peer reviews to evaluate how technical and social values were incorporated into the CRCIA, and what the implications are for risk analysis in a democratic society.
Go to . . .