A Review of the High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Siting Analysis

We critique two 1986 Department of Energy reports concerning the selection of sites for characterization as the nation's first high-level nuclear waste repository. We find that the multiattribute utility analysis of the five nominated sites was well done, although we express concern about the assessed probabilities, question the construction of two important attribute scales, and disagree with some of the value tradeoffs that were used. In contrast, we find the logic of the recommendations report to be weak and unconvincing.     

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.     

Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository

A questionnaire with items that had been used in a national survey of the general public was administered to persons attending an American Nuclear Society meeting. The items asked about risks associated with high-level nuclear waste (HLNW), trust in nuclear-waste program managers, costs and benefits of a repository project, and images of a HLNW repository. The results suggest that nuclear industry experts may have very different opinions from the general public about most of these items and their images of a repository indicate a vastly different conceptual framework within which their opinions are formed.     

Municipal Waste Management: Inequities and the Role of Deliberation

Like radioactive waste, municipal solid waste (MSW) requires consideration of a complex mix of intergenerational and intragenerational risks surrounded by uncertain science. Unlike radioactive waste, MSW is a common problem and hence one often perceived to be controllable, at least until a required facility is proposed in a particular community. The intragenerational risks focused on local communities rouse intense public pressures for management. Although some of the risks can be quantified, the risk assessment process cannot deal with all questions. This article examines the multiple dimensions of the decisions required to be made and the weaknesses of a number of decision tools traditionally used. A case is made for the need to integrate decision tools appropriate to the risks into reflexive and iterative decision processes open to public involvement. It is argued that this presents the best hope of both optimizing decisions about the intragenerational risks as well as raising public debate about the importance of sustainable waste management in transgenerational terms.     

A Multiattribute Utility Analysis of Alternative Sites for the Disposal of Nuclear Waste

Five potential sites nominated for the Nation's first geologic repository for disposing of nuclear waste are evaluated using multiattribute utility analysis. The analysis was designed to aid the Department of Energy in its selection of 3 sites for characterization, a detailed data-gathering process that will involve the construction of exploratory shafts for underground testing and that may cost as much as $1 billion per site. The analysis produced insights into the relative advantages and disadvantages of the nominated sites and clarified current uncertainties regarding repository performance.     

Decision Making for Risk Management: A Comparison of Graphical Methods for Presenting Quantitative Uncertainty

Previous research has shown that people err when making decisions aided by probability information. Surprisingly, there has been little exploration into the accuracy of decisions made based on many commonly used probabilistic display methods. Two experiments examined the ability of a comprehensive set of such methods to effectively communicate critical information to a decision maker and influence confidence in decision making. The second experiment investigated the performance of these methods under time pressure, a situational factor known to exacerbate judgmental errors. Ten commonly used graphical display methods were randomly assigned to participants. Across eight scenarios in which a probabilistic outcome was described, participants were asked questions regarding graph interpretation (e.g., mean) and made behavioral choices (i.e., act; do not act) based on the provided information indicated that decision‐maker accuracy differed by graphical method; error bars and boxplots led to greatest mean estimation and behavioral choice accuracy whereas complementary cumulative probability distribution functions were associated with the highest probability estimation accuracy. Under time pressure, participant performance decreased when making behavioral choices.     

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.     

Scenario Analysis for the Safety Assessment of Nuclear Waste Repositories: A Critical Review

A major challenge in scenario analysis for the safety assessment of nuclear waste repositories pertains to the comprehensiveness of the set of scenarios selected for assessing the safety of the repository. Motivated by this challenge, we discuss the aspects of scenario analysis relevant to comprehensiveness. Specifically, we note that (1) it is necessary to make it clear why scenarios usually focus on a restricted set of features, events, and processes; (2) there is not yet consensus on the interpretation of comprehensiveness for guiding the generation of scenarios; and (3) there is a need for sound approaches to the treatment of epistemic uncertainties.     

EvacuAid: A Probabilistic Model to Determine the Expected Loss of Life for Different Mass Evacuation Strategies During Flood Threats

Evacuation of people in case of a threat is a possible risk management strategy. Evacuation has the potential to save lives, but it can be costly with respect to time, money, and credibility. The consequences of an evacuation strategy depend on a combination of the time available, citizen response, authority response, and capacity of the infrastructure. The literature that discusses evacuations in case of flood risk management focuses, in most cases, only on a best‐case strategy as a preventive evacuation and excludes other possible strategies. This article introduces a probabilistic method, EvacuAid, to determine the benefits of different types of evacuation with regards to loss of life. The method is applied for a case study in the Netherlands for preventive and vertical evacuation due to flood risk. The results illustrate the impact of uncertainties in available time and actual conditions (e.g., the responses of citizens and authorities and the use of infrastructure). It is concluded that preparation for evacuation requires adaptive planning that takes preventive and vertical evacuation into account, based on a risk management approach.     

Cooperation Versus Confrontation: A Comparison of Approaches to Environmental Risk Management in Japan and the United States1

This paper compares approaches to environmental risk management in Japan and the United States. The paper includes an historical examination of two case studies of environmental risk management: synthetic detergents and lead in gasoline. In addition, the paper discusses several important differences between Japan and the United States, including (a) different attitudes toward separating environmental risk management from environmental risk assessment, and (b) different approaches toward environmental risk management. Specifically, the Japanese approach is based largely on a cooperative model of risk management, with a strong emphasis on negotiation and consensus-building, while the U.S. approach is based largely on a confrontational model of risk management, with a strong emphasis on rigorous scientific analysis and open adverserial processes.     

Expanding the Reach of Participatory Risk Management: Testing an Online Decision‐Aiding Framework for Informing Internally Consistent Choices

This article presents research aimed at developing and testing an online, multistakeholder decision‐aiding framework for informing multiattribute risk management choices associated with energy development and climate change. The framework was designed to provide necessary background information and facilitate internally consistent choices, or choices that are in line with users’ prioritized objectives. In order to test different components of the decision‐aiding framework, a six‐part, 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment was conducted, yielding eight treatment scenarios. The three factors included: (1) whether or not users could construct their own alternatives; (2) the level of detail regarding the composition of alternatives users would evaluate; and (3) the way in which a final choice between users’ own constructed (or highest‐ranked) portfolio and an internally consistent portfolio was presented. Participants’ self‐reports revealed the framework was easy to use and providing an opportunity to develop one's own risk‐management alternatives (Factor 1) led to the highest knowledge gains. Empirical measures showed the internal consistency of users’ decisions across all treatments to be lower than expected and confirmed that providing information about alternatives’ composition (Factor 2) resulted in the least internally consistent choices. At the same time, those users who did not develop their own alternatives and were not shown detailed information about the composition of alternatives believed their choices to be the most internally consistent. These results raise concerns about how the amount of information provided and the ability to construct alternatives may inversely affect users’ real and perceived internal consistency.     

Science for Policy: A Case Study of Scientific Polarization,Values, and the Framing of Risk and Uncertainty

It is well documented that more research can lead to hardened positions, particularly when dealing with complex, controversial, and value‐laden issues. This study is an attempt to unveil underlying values in a contemporary debate, where both sides use scientific evidence to support their argument. We analyze the problem framing, vocabulary, interpretation of evidence, and policy recommendations, with particular attention to the framing of nature and technology. We find clear differences between the two arguments. One side stress that there is no evidence that the present approach is causing harm to humans or the environment, does not ruminate on uncertainties to that end, references nature's ability to handle the problem, and indicates distrust in technological solutions. In contrast, the other side focuses on uncertainties, particularly the lack of knowledge about potential environmental effects and signals trust in technological development and human intervention as the solution. Our study suggests that the two sides’ diverging interpretations are tied to their perception of nature: vulnerable to human activities versus robust and able to handle human impacts. The two sides also seem to hold diverging views of technology, but there are indications that this might be rooted in their perception of governance and economy rather than about technology per se. We conclude that there is a need to further investigate how scientific arguments are related to worldviews, to see how (if at all) worldview typologies can help us to understand how value‐based judgments are embedded in science advice, and the impact these have on policy preferences.