Making Decisions about Hazardous Waste Remediation When Even Considering a Remediation Technology Is Controversial. Amy K. Wolfe and David J. Bjornstad, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Advice to public officials involved in making decisions about highly controversial technologies—such as "conduct early and often public participation," "decision making should be risk-based," or "don’t break the bank"—typically is woefully inadequate. Further, the volume, quality, and relevance or irrelevance of information about human health or ecological risks, the effectiveness of technologies, economic costs and benefits, and stakeholders’ concerns and preferences, may be more confusing than enlightening. Decision makers may find that their preferred solutions, or the "offers" they make, unexpectedly and inadvertently fan the flames of controversy. This paper discusses a different perspective on decision making about controversial technologies, one that may allow participants in the process—especially the decision makers themselves—to have more effective and productive decision-oriented dialogs. This perspective suggests that technologies, involved constituency groups, and the physical, social, and institutional setting all have attributes that can influence decision processes in predictable ways. We use as our empirical base U.S. Department of Energy Site-specific Advisory Board dialogs about technologies to use for hazardous and radioactive waste remediation.
Work supported by the U.S. DOE’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research Program, Bioremediation and its Social Implications and Concerns Program Element.
Go to . . .
1999 SRA Table of Contents
1999 SRA Author Index
Main Abstracts Menu Page
RiskWorld Home Page