Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities

The paper by Metz challenges the view that stigma associated with a nuclear waste repository might lead to significant economic losses to the host region. We have been invited to comment on the general issues raised by this paper. We find that much of the evidence presented in the paper consists of factual and conceptual errors and misrepresentations of the research literature. Based on our review of evidence documenting the social and economic impacts of perceived risk, we conclude that stigma is an important phenomenon that is symptomatic of fundamental problems with the way in which nuclear waste facilities are sited.     

The Rise and Fall of a Risk-Based Priority System: Lessons from DOE's Environmental Restoration Priority System

This paper presents the history of the Environmental Restoration Priority System (ERPS), a decision aid developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to help determine how to allocate funds for cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Although praised in technical peer review, the system was strongly criticized by stakeholders external to the DOE. Ultimately, and in the midst of a National Academy of Sciences review, DOE shelved the system. The rise and fall of ERPS provides useful lessons for analysts hoping to improve risk management in the public sector.     

Nuclear Risk Management on Stage: A Decision Analysis Perspective on the UK's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

In 2003, the UK government set up a broad-based Committee on radioactive waste management (CoRWM) to look at the UK's policy on radioactive waste management with a view to jumpstarting a stalled policy process. The committee's brief was to come up with a set of recommendations that would protect the public and the environment, and be capable of inspiring public confidence. After consulting widely with the public and stakeholders, and drawing on advice from scientists and other experts, CoRWM arrived at a remarkably well-received set of recommendations. On the basis of our experiences of working on CoRWM's multi-criteria decision analysis of different management options, study of CoRWM documentation, and interviews with committee members, we describe the explicit and implicit principles that guided CoRWM. We also give an account of the process by which CoRWM arrived at its conclusions, covering four phases: framing, shortlisting, option assessment, and integration; and four cross-cutting activities: public and stakeholder engagement (PSE), science and engineering input, ethics and social science input, and learning from overseas practice. We finish by outlining some of the key developments in the UK's radioactive waste management process, which followed on from the publication of CoRWM's report, and present our reflections for the benefit of the risk and decision analysts of future committees that, like CoRWM, are charged with recommending to government on the management of technically complex and risky technologies, drawing on extensive public and stakeholder consultation.     

Strategic Appraisal of Environmental Risks: A Contrast Between the United Kingdom's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

In this article, we compare two high‐profile strategic policy reviews undertaken for the U.K. government on environmental risks: radioactive waste management and climate change. These reviews took very different forms, both in terms of analytic approach and deliberation strategy. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was largely an exercise in expert modeling, building, within a cost‐benefit framework, an argument for immediate reductions in carbon emissions. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, on the other hand, followed a much more explicitly deliberative and participative process, using multicriteria decision analysis to bring together scientific evidence and stakeholder and public values. In this article, we ask why the two reviews were different, and whether the differences are justified. We conclude that the differences were mainly due to political context, rather than the underpinning science, and as a consequence that, while in our view “fit for purpose,” they would both have been stronger had they been less different. Stern's grappling with ethical issues could have been strengthened by a greater degree of public and stakeholder engagement, and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's handling of issues of uncertainty could have been strengthened by the explicitly probabilistic framework of Stern.     

Risks of Hazardous Waste Sites versus Asteroid and Comet Impacts: Accounting for the Discrepancies in U.S. Resource Allocation

Approximately $6 billion is spent annually in the United States on the cleanup of sites regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund). The current health risks posed by such sites are thought to be quite small; the expenditures are justified primarily as protecting hypothetical future residents of these sites. Approximately 0.05% of this amount, or $3 million, is spent annually by the U.S. government on the detection of asteroids or comets that could strike the earth. Such damaging impacts do occur from time to time--most recently in 1908 in an unpopulated region of Siberia--but no person is confirmed ever to have died as a result. Anticipated impacts over the course of 1 million years would yield deaths that, when annualized, total approximately 4,000 per year. The risk reduction goal for CERCLA is 15 orders of magnitude greater than that for asteroid/comet detection. A modest increase in resources devoted to asteroid detection would greatly increase the chances of early detection of a threatening object, allowing an effective defense to be attempted. This article argues that the much lower risk-to-resources ratio for CERCLA cleanups than for asteroid and comet detection can be explained by four primary factors: (1) the regard for future generations, since CERCLA benefits mainly the unborn; (2) concrete fears, since toxics are much more feared than asteroids or comets; (3) the source of the threat, since toxic contamination is caused by human beings, unlike impacts from space objects; and (4) the greater political constituencies for hazardous waste cleanup than for space object detection.     

The Effect of Risk Beliefs on Property Values: A Case Study of a Hazardous Waste Site1

Health risk beliefs of homeowners near a landfill site were assessed in a survey and compared to expert judgments of the health risks of living near the site. A bimodal distribution of health risk beliefs suggested sharp disagreement between the experts and at least some of the residents. Correlates of high risk beliefs included perception of odor from the site, exposure to media coverage of the problem, having children living at home, age (younger respondents more concerned), and gender (females more concerned). An aggregated neighborhood health risk belief predicted reductions in home prices even after controlling for home physical characteristics, such as size and other disamenities such as proximity to a freeway. In the 4100 homes near the site, the estimated depression in property values was estimated to total about $40.2 million before the site was closed and to be about $19.7 million after closure. Implications of these results for community conflict and for benefit-cost analysis of hazard site remediation are discussed.     

The Role of Performance Assessment in the Regulation of Underground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: An International Perspective

Much has been written about the development and application of quantitative methods for estimating under uncertainty the long-term radiological performance of underground disposal of radioactive wastes. Until recently, interest has been focused almost entirely on the technical challenges regardless of the role of the organization responsible for these analyses. Now the dialogue between regulators, the repository developer or operator, and other interested parties in the decision-making process receives increasing attention, especially in view of some current difficulties in obtaining approvals to construct or operate deep facilities for intermediate or high-level wastes. Consequently, it is timely to consider the options for regulators' review and evaluation of safety submissions, at the various stages in the site selection to repository closure process, and to consider, especially, the role for performance assessment (PA) within the programs of a regulator both before and after delivery of such a submission. The origins and broad character of present regulations in the European Union (EU) and in the OECD countries are outlined and some regulatory PA reviewed. The issues raised are discussed, especially in regard to the interpretation of regulations, the dangers from the desire for simplicity in argument, the use of regulatory PA to review and challenge the PA in the safety case, and the effects of the relationship between proponent and regulator. Finally, a very limited analysis of the role of PA in public hearings is outlined and recommendations are made, together with proposals for improving the mechanisms for international collaboration on technical issues of regulatory concern.Until August 13, 1997, the author was employed as a Principal Pollution Inspector by the Environment Agency (EA) of England and Wales. Responsible for managing the development and application of the regulatory postclosure assessment capability of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) between 1982 and 1996, when HMIP was merged with the National Rivers Authority and the Waste Regulatory Authorities to form the EA on April 1, 1996. Represented HMIP/EA on a number of international committees related particularly to PA; 20 Bonser Road, Twickenham, Middlesex TW1 4RG, U.K.     

运用结构化的数据分析方法做严谨的质性研究——中国企业管理案例与质性研究论坛(2019)综述

本文聚焦于质性研究的数据分析方法,主要是基于本届论坛的两个主旨报告,重点阐述结构化的数据分析方法,包括其数据结构的科学哲学假设、本质特征和优势,以及具体应用过程。本文通过对一篇范文的深度分析说明,这个方法强调系统性呈现证据,便于新见解的涌现和理论构建,可在原始数据和结论间形成牢固的证据链,而且相对容易学习借鉴,可显著提升质性研究的质量。此外,本文也对近年来案例论文中常见的3个缺陷进行了剖析,包括与文献对话不足、过度概念化,以及单案例的不当抽样问题。     

Explanatory Matrices on the Causes of a Tailing Dam Collapse in Brazil: The (Dis)Articulation of Epistemes

Mining tailing dam ruptures are increasingly common events in South America. Due to their high potential degree for avoidance, they are considered to be technological disasters and often have a considerable impact on local populations and communities, as well as affecting the ecosystem. The failure of the Fundão dam in 2015 in the Brazilian State of Minas Gerais (is) considered one of the largest socioenvironmental disasters in the country's history. Different explanations for the causes of the disaster were put forward by various social actors. This article critically analyzes these discourses through the theoretical-methodological reference of the social theory of discourse, with the aim of understanding the various discursive contexts of the causes of the breach of the dam. The analysis and understanding of these explanatory matrices suggested that different discourses present different epistemological approaches to the causes of the disaster, related to aspects such as sociohistorical, political, ideological, and asymmetric relations of power. The statements had different emphases, being associated with distinct epistemic positions that were often not in convergence.  Moreover, certain terms and approaches reinforce or minimize processes of vulnerability experienced by the affected populations. These discourses present consents, dissents, and contradictions and when systematically integrated can improve the planning of risk management and broaden the understanding related to technological disaster occurrence.