Our Voice: Consent decree panel’s discussion should be open
The federal judge in charge of hearing Hanford consent decree litigation made a wise choice in selecting a panel of advisers to help her wade through the technical complexities in the case.
But her decision to keep her discussions with them closed to the public is disconcerting.
Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson has agreed to three experts. One was proposed by the state of Washington, one by the Department of Energy and another was recommended by both.
Hanford cleanup issues are now before a judge because DOE has said it is at high risk of missing most of the remaining deadlines for emptying waste from certain tanks and building and starting operation of the vitrification plant to treat the waste.
The judge said she plans to discuss issues with all three technical advisers present, but her discussions with them will be private.
A federal judge can make that call, but in the spirit of transparency we would like her to reconsider. Closing any part of the proceedings diminishes confidence in the system.
Malouf Peterson said the court wants an “open dialogue among the technical advisers” and believes that is best achieved by keeping the discussions closed. It appears she thinks panel members will be more comfortable if their discussions cannot be observed.
But we would think these advisers are confident enough in their field to speak their minds and not worry about how they will come across in a public setting. A closed-door approach ultimately lends itself to questions about the process — especially since the panel member selected by the state initially was opposed by DOE.
Suzanne Dahl, the state Department of Ecology section manager for tank waste treatment, is the state’s pick. But DOE officials objected to her, saying she is biased and lacks the scientific and technical experience needed to explain the issues surrounding the case.
The state countered that Dahl has been the state’s point person on vitrification plant matters for 20 years, which makes her an excellent choice and qualified to assist the judge. Malouf Peterson agreed and overruled DOE’s objection.
So already there is concern, at least from the DOE perspective, on how the discussion will go and what kind of advice will be given to the judge.
An open dialogue would help alleviate that and give Dahl the opportunity to better defend herself.
Malouf Peterson admitted she is aware of potential biases on both sides, and said she will keep it in mind as these technical experts give their advice. It’s an admirable pledge, but it is not as reassuring as conducting the discussions in the open.
Court business is meant to be conducted in public as much as possible. Conducting discussions in private just compounds the lack of public participation on this issue.
This story was originally published October 26, 2015 at 5:02 PM with the headline "Our Voice: Consent decree panel’s discussion should be open."