Tom Attridge
Community Relations Manager
New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority
ABSTRACT
On the Saturday after Thanksgiving in 1993, staff of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) divided into teams of two, knocked on the doors of 57 property owners, and asked permission to take soil samples to test for Cesium-137 (Cs-137) contamination. Within a week, 53 property owners had agreed to allow access to their land for testing. Two years later, NYSERDA delivered the final project report to each property owner amid little reaction.
The project had the potential for NYSERDA to lose credibility and, at the same time, for public fear to increase. But neither happened. Why? Because NYSERDA employed a proactive public involvement and risk communication strategy to successfully complete the project.
The Western New York Nuclear Service Center (Center) is located 30 miles south of Buffalo, New York and occupies 3,340 acres of land. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) operated a fuel reprocessing plant at the Center from 1966 to 1972. In 1968, NFS reported an airborne release of Cs-137 due to a filter failure in the process building's main stack. The winds carried the material to the west and northwest where some of it was deposited in areas outside the boundaries of the Center. To ensure people living in the area were safe, several testing campaigns were conducted in portions of the off-site area over the next 20 years. During each survey, the results indicated that the soil contained slightly elevated Cs-137 levels, but the levels were below the existing regulatory limits.
Over time, however, the regulatory limits became more restrictive, thus prompting NYSERDA to undertake a more detailed study of the area in 1993. The project carried with it many challenges. For example, since 1968, many individuals had purchased property and moved into the affected area. So, to even begin the investigation, NYSERDA needed permission to gain access to private land from 57 property owners. Also, there was a concern to move as quickly as possible to determine whether the radiation doses to people living in the area were above current regulatory guidance.
To meet the challenges, NYSERDA implemented a proactive public involvement and risk communication strategy for the project. At project completion, NYSERDA had learned a lot about communication. Among the many lessons learned, the following seemed most important to project success:
- Understand the different "publics" affected - be sensitive to different informational needs of the people affected by the project;
- Be prepared for interactions - use preproject risk communication training and "practice, practice, practice" before each interaction;
- Be proactive with information - saturate the various "publics" with project information as soon as it becomes available;
- Develop clear and open relationships - facilitate as much in-person, one-on-one contact as possible with the people affected by the project;
- Listen, then always respond - make sure you understand the concerns of the public first, then make sure you respond; and
- Compare results with known standards - provide the appropriate safety standards along with the project results for comparative purposes.
The full paper will elaborate on the above elements in greater detail.
INTRODUCTION
What does it take to successfully complete a site investigation on privately-owned properties that have radiologically contaminated soil? A logical first step is to compile as much existing information as you can about the site. Then, a technical plan is usually developed to guide you in the study.
The technical plan, however, is just half the recipe for success. The other ingredient is effective communication of the plan, the work, and the project results with the people affected by the study. This requires that the technical plan incorporate a well thought-out public involvement and risk communication strategy.
This paper describes the public involvement and risk communication strategy used by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) in its successful completion of a Cesium-137 (Cs-137) site investigation conducted on private properties adjacent to the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (Center) in West Valley, New York. As a result of this work, NYSERDA learned many valuable lessons in designing and carrying out this strategy.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
What happened?
Since 1962, New York State has owned the Center, which is located 30 miles south of Buffalo, New York. The 3,340-acre site is situated in the rural township of Ashford in northern Cattaraugus County.
Under an agreement with the state, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) operated a fuel reprocessing plant at the Center from 1966 to 1972. In 1968, NFS reported an airborne release of Cs-137 due to a filter failure in the process building's main stack. The winds carried the material to the west and northwest, where some of it was deposited in areas outside the boundaries of the Center.
To ensure people living in the area were safe, several testing campaigns were conducted in portions of the off-site area. The results of each survey indicated the soil contained slightly elevated Cs-137 levels, but the levels were below the existing regulatory limits.
Purpose of the Study
In 1993, NYSERDA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) were preparing a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate options for completing the West Valley Demonstration Project and managing the Center over the long term. As part of this study, it was necessary to gather and analyze data in the off-site area.
Another motivating factor was that, over the 25 years since the main stack release, applicable regulatory requirements became more restrictive. Since 1968, many individuals had purchased property and moved into the affected area. To begin the investigation, NYSERDA had to obtain the permission of 57 property owners to get on the land. In addition, there was pressure to move as quickly as possible to determine whether the radiation doses to people living in the area were above current regulatory guidance.
Thus, the objectives of the study were to obtain better data for use in the EIS and to determine whether actions might be necessary to limit people's individual radiation exposure in the area.
The Technical Strategy
In November 1993, NYSERDA initiated a radiological investigation in the area adjacent to the boundaries of the Center. NYSERDA's technical strategy was designed to confirm the distribution of radionuclides reported in the previous surveys, to define the location of elevated areas of radioactivity, and to estimate the dose to nearby residents.
The field work was performed in two phases of sampling, measurement, and analysis. The first phase included a coarse-grid radiological investigation of a 1,000-acre area to determine the distribution and general location of the more elevated areas of radioactivity. This phase was followed by a fine-grid radiological investigation of a smaller area (46.5 acres) covering the more radioactively-elevated regions. The fine-grid survey evaluated the magnitude, depositional pattern, and extent of radioactive material.
Once all the data was collected, a dose assessment was performed to determine the potential radiation dose to an individual in the fine-grid area due to the concentration of radioactive Cs-137 in the soil.
A more detailed discussion of the technical study can be found in the paper entitled Determination of Site Status in an Evolving Regulatory Environment in WM '97 proceedings.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND RISK COMMUNICATION
The Strategy
Realizing the potential impacts of this project on the people living in the off-site area, NYSERDA moved quickly to develop a strategy for involving the public. The primary impacts to the property owners and the surrounding community included increased anxieties about health and safety, perceived decreases in property values, and the loss of trust in the state government that is paid to protect them. It was important to involve the affected people in the project to the greatest extent possible.
NYSERDA staff also recognized that effectively communicating the risks of the radiological soil contamination to the people affected was essential to the success of the project. It was clear the results of the study could require remedial actions be taken that could severely impact the property owners (i.e., moving from the property).
NYSERDA's public involvement and risk communication strategy was guided by the following principles:
Applying the Principles
Understand the Different "Publics" Affected - At the beginning, NYSERDA realized that there were several distinct "publics" affected by the project.
Private Property Owners - As work was being conducted on private properties, the primary "public" was the property owners themselves. The people living in the proposed testing area varied in technical understanding of radioactivity and the activities being conducted nearby at the Center. NYSERDA felt that the property owners should be the first to receive information about the project.
The Local Community - Another distinct "public" was the surrounding community. Although not directly affected by the field work, the results held potential consequences for the community as a whole (i.e., negative stigma, decreased property values, etc.).
Environmentalists - A local environmental group also expressed interest in the conduct of the study. This group had been active since the late 1970's and was well versed in the history and technical aspects of activities at the Center.
The Media - Most people in the region receive local news from a weekly newspaper. NYSERDA took opportunities to keep the correspondent for the area informed about the meetings, reports, and project findings.
NYSERDA realized that each public had unique informational needs. For example, the property owners were very interested in the technical results (and what they meant) even though most did not have a technical background. The surrounding community was interested in general information about the project and its progress. The local environmental group was interested in the design of the testing program and the dose assessment calculations.
NYSERDA felt that it was important that all the "publics" had the same general understanding of the project plans and results at the same points in time. Without this happening, the resulting informational disjoints could occur and create serious public perception problems.
Be Prepared for Interactions - As part of the planning process, NYSERDA initiated discussions with several governmental agencies including county health department and legislative officials, local town board members, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and the New York State Department of Health. NYSERDA gained valuable insights from these agencies on the design and implementation of an effective public involvement and risk communication plan.
The technical plan for the project necessitated gaining access to 57 private properties. It was important to get permission from people to do the necessary field work on their land. If a large number of property owners refused access, the technical plan would have to be significantly altered, which could negatively affect the quality of the study.
It was decided to seek the permission of the property owners in person and during a weekend when the chances of personal contact were best. To accomplish this, five teams of two were assembled. Before going out, NYSERDA contracted with a risk communication trainer to hone the staff's communication skills and role play the anticipated interaction with the property owners. This training proved to be invaluable. In addition to honing staff communication skills, the training helped staff:
After the training was over, staff felt ready for the upcoming door-to-door work. In addition to the training, a three-page packet of information was prepared for the two-person teams to leave with the property owners. The packet included a letter from NYSERDA to each property owner, a map of the proposed testing area, and a fact sheet. The information packet:
A letter was sent to all property owners announcing NYSERDA's plans for conducting the investigation in the area. On Saturday, November 27, 1993, the five teams divided up the list of property owners, and headed out to knock on doors. By early December, 53 owners had given NYSERDA permission to conduct the field work on their land. There was very little emotional reaction to the teams' requests for permission. However, four property owners did refuse NYSERDA access. One refused on ethical grounds, another was aggravated that an earlier request of another agency for environmental monitoring data was not adequately met, and the other two gave no reason. As it worked out, these four properties were not located in areas critical to successful completion of the testing project.
On December 6, 1993, NYSERDA held a public meeting to discuss the project plans and expectations. The meeting provided the public and property owners the opportunity to direct questions and concerns to NYSERDA and their technical contractor staff.
Preparation was vital to the success of the project. NYSERDA staff participated in many public meetings, home visits, and technical briefings on the project plans, field work, and results. Prior to all interactions with the public, NYSERDA staff defined communication messages, developed anticipated questions and answers, and role played the anticipated interaction. The result of all this preparation? NYSERDA staff communicated confidently and effectively.
Be Proactive with Information - The technical strategy for completing the project used a never-been-done before approach to measure the levels of contamination and the potential radiation doses to people living in the area. Getting information on this project out to people was one goal. Ensuring they understood the information was another.
To communicate effectively with the property owners, NYSERDA employed as much one-on-one contact as possible. Home visits, special meetings, phone calls, and letters were the primary means of keeping the property owners informed. The property owners were very interested in the results of the testing and the risks they posed.
The local community was kept informed of the project through regularly scheduled community roundtable meetings, a community newsletter, and newspaper articles. The local town supervisor was kept informed of the project's progress via phone calls and meetings.
The local environmental group requested several project briefings with NYSERDA's technical staff. They were interested in discussing the proposed testing design, equipment, and dose assessment calculations.
The local newspaper covered the community roundtable meetings and the special project meetings attended by the property owners.
The field work of the first phase of the project was completed in early spring of 1994. NYSERDA held a meeting on April 28, 1994, to present the results and to discuss plans for the next phase of the project. As not all the property owners could attend this meeting, NYSERDA sent a project status letter to each of these property owners. NYSERDA staff followed up the letter with a telephone call to make sure everyone had a clear understanding of the results and plans for the next phase of work.
Develop Clear and Open Relationships - The "narrowing" of the investigation in Phase 2 meant the field work would affect fewer property owners. In fact, the field work of Phase 2 was conducted on only three of the initial 57 properties. As a result, the focus of the NYSERDA's public involvement strategy changed at this time. Interacting with 57 property owners required less personal communication activities (public meetings, newsletters), while interacting with three provided NYSERDA the opportunity to develop more personal relationships. This narrowing also suggested that the 54 other properties were "off the hook." Although, in reality, additional field work on these properties was still a possibility.
The three property owners were contacted by telephone to discuss the plans of the Phase 2 testing and to arrange home visits. With NYSERDA's Project Manager and Community Relations Manager at each home visit, the project plans and field work expectations were discussed and questions posed by the property owners were answered to the extent possible. Some of the questions included:
In June, the field crews began the second phase of testing. This phase required field crews to take over 35,000 instrument readings and over 200 soil samples. As a result, it took 15 months to compile and validate the data, as well as recheck anomalous instrument readings. Throughout this time, NYSERDA kept the public informed by holding two community roundtable meetings, issuing two community newsletters, and meeting periodically with the three property owners at their homes.
Each time NYSERDA staff met with the three property owners, more personal information was shared. As NYSERDA shared more information about the project, more issues could be discussed and clarified. Over time a sense of trust began to develop between the individuals involved, which proved to be vital to the project's success.
Listen, Then Always Respond - At the beginning of the project, NYSERDA established a contact management file for each of the 57 property owners, which was used to track all correspondence, requests, and interactions between NYSERDA and the property owner. These files provided NYSERDA with a continuous understanding of the property owner's concerns, which in turn helped staff prepare for anticipated interactions with each property owner. This system proved to be an effective way to keep track of all personal communication with the property owners.
During the initial home visits (to get permission do field work on private properties), NYSERDA staff documented the questions and concerns of the property owners. Interestingly, many concerns were not related to the project. For example, several property owners inquired about gaining access to the 3,340-acre site to hunt deer. In a rural community, hunting is an inherent value. And, with the site not being hunted for over 30 years, it irked many people living near the site. A year later, NYSERDA opened the site to town residents for hunting deer. In 1996, over 700 hunters have applied to participate in the program.
The anxiety level of some property owners was elevated after the project was made public. This prompted some people living in the testing area to request that special samples be collected from their property and analyzed (i.e., well water, soil, etc.). Whenever a request was made, NYSERDA quickly responded by sending a field technician to the home to collect the samples. As soon as the data was analyzed, results were communicated to the property owner via telephone and follow-up letter. All special samples analyzed were found to be within existing safety standards.
In April 1995, the Phase 2 field work was winding down. At this time, another community newsletter was issued by NYSERDA. The newsletter's cover story provided the preliminary results of the Phase 2 testing and the plans for calculating the potential doses to people living in the area. NYSERDA held a public meeting to reiterate the project results and plans for finishing the project. A letter was sent to each of the initial 57 homeowners in the testing area inviting them to this meeting. Prior to the meeting, NYSERDA met in person with each of the three property owners in the Phase 2 area to discuss the dose calculations.
Compare Results with Known Standards - Based on prior interactions with the community, how the results were presented was as important as what the results were. Risk communication experience suggests that people feel most comfortable receiving results which can be compared to either a measure that is familiar to them or to a measure (standard) developed by a trusted source. For this project, NYSERDA provided the project results to people in comparison to a conservative safety standard from a trusted source, the regulator. The NYSDEC had issued the clean-up guidance for contaminated soil of 10 millirem per year.
NYSERDA ensured that all project plans, dose calculations, and results were communicated with the cognizant regulatory agency, the NYSDEC. In response, the NYSDEC provided NYSERDA with periodic approvals of plans and proposed activities. The project gained credibility as a result of the positive coordination between the two agencies.
Potential radiation doses to people living or using the testing area were calculated using the field measurements and accepted dose calculation models. Conservative assumptions for four types of land use conditions were used: the resident - farmer, the residence - trailer, the resident - home worker, and the hunter-camper.
Once the dose assessment was completed, the results indicated that for all four types of land use conditions, the potential doses to people living in the area were below the NYSDEC-issued 10 millirem per year guideline. The highest dose (8.0 millirem per year) was for the residence - trailer scenario. Standing alone, the results were not very meaningful to people. However, compared with the state regulatory guideline, the impacts of the results could be understood.
In late April 1995, NYSERDA issued a draft report of the results of the testing. The report was broadly distributed and sent to each of the 57 property owners for public comment. NYSERDA hand-delivered the report to each of the three property owners in the Phase 2 study area and discussed the results in more detail.
On December 1, 1995, NYSERDA distributed the final report of the Off-Site Radiation Investigation to all of the 57 property owners.
SUMMARY
Effective public involvement and risk communication is dependent on the openness of the organization doing the investigative work; the timeliness of sharing project information; honest, two-way communication; and the affected public's familiarity of the risk. To be successful, one must want to share information, rather than have to share information.
In summary, NYSERDA learned and applied the following lessons during this project:
When we develop open and honest relationships with people, information sharing is made easier. That is not to say that the results are always easier to digest. For the digestion may be inexplicably tied to the relative impact of the results. But, even in these situations, the messenger can still maintain their credibility if carrying out an effective public involvement and risk communication strategy.