Ginger Swartz
Swartz & Associates
Boulder City,
Nevada,
ABSTRACT
In 1989, the National Research Council recognized that, although the benefits of technology have increased, so too, have the public's fears related to the potential risks of those technologies. Technological decision making is no longer the sole function of technical end economic research and debate, but has far-reaching political and social implications. When technical decisions become political, the importance of vesting responsibility in the citizenry should not be ignored.
But, in the technical realm, what is it we get in the bargain when we ask for public participation in the decision making of technology selection? Technical experts worry that a given technology will not be accepted because the public does not understand the scientific details of how the system operates. The public worries that scientists and engineers will manipulate outcomes for some hidden political purpose. Despite the difficulties apparent in such a teaming, public involvement is a democratic task that should not be ignored in the process of assessing, selecting and implementing new technologies for use in the cleanup of contaminated sites in the United States.
The Department of Energy's (DOE) Integrated Non-Thermal Treatment Systems (INTS) study moved outside the framework of existing public involvement programs by providing the opportunity for technicians and other "stakeholders" to work in a collaborative decision making partnership at the early stages of criteria development and technology assessment. In addition to addressing its responsibility to educate the public about available non-thermal treatment systems, the INTS study attempted to consider human values end perceptions as part of the technology equation.
The INTS study was funded as the result of recommendations from the Integrated Thermal Treatment Systems (ITTS) review panel (funded by DOE prior to the INTS review), end as a direct response to recommendations from the Mixed Waste Working Group (MWWG) of the Federal Committed to Develop Onsite Innovative Technologies (DOLT) project. The primary goals of the INTS study were twofold:
This paper focuses on the "lessons learned" aspect of INTS tribal and stakeholder involvement activities.
BACKGROUND
A Brief History of the Integrated Non-Thermal Systems (lNTS) Review's Tribal and Stakeholder Working Group (TSWG)
Beginning in early 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science and Technology (OST), began an experiment that attempted to link tribal and stakeholder representatives into technology assessment activities related to an Integrated Nonthermal Treatment System (INTS) study. The INTS study was initiated as the result of recommendations that came from a DOE panel that looked at Integrated Thermal Treatment Systems (ITTS), and as a direct response to recommendations from the Mixed Waste Working Group (MWWG) of the Federal Committee to Develop Onsite Innovative Technologies (DOLT), a project funded by DOE from December 1992 through June, 1996.
In order to provide the opportunity for equal participation in the INTS study, DOE OST invited twenty-four representatives from a diverse range of interest areas to be members of what became known as the INTS Tribal and Stakeholder Working Group (TSWG). Those members of the TSWG who attended the first meeting in August of 1995 agreed that, in a technical analysis process such as the INTS, criteria development would be the earliest and most meaningful place for stakeholder involvement to play a role. As a result, a draft list of broad public criteria to be addressed in technology selection exercises was developed. This list was revised a number of times and became known as the "TSWG Principles? Once the Principles were drafted, a "crosswalk" between the technical criteria and the stakeholder principles was completed, which cross-referenced the Principles to relevant technical requirements, whenever possible. The original intention was that these Principles would be used as part of the basis for selection of treatment systems to be analyzed by the INTS review.
The INTS TSWG worked together with the INTS Technical Support Group (TSG) from August 1995 through December of 1996. In addition to the Principles document, TSWG products included: 1) the document "Tribal and Stakeholder Involvement in the DOE INTS Review: History, Process and Products;" 2) Chapter 1, Section 4 of the "Integrated Nonthermal Treatment System Study, Final Draft;" and 3) this Report.
Defining the Problem
In May of 1995, The Western Govenors' Association (WGA) and DOE, OST sponsored a Forum focused on developing guidance for working with communities on technology assessment issues. (The Forum was part of the larger DO lT dialogue.)
The objective of the two-day Forum was to engage participants from tribes, universities, citizen advisory boards, local governments and various environmental and public interest groups in defining the role of community in determining technology acceptance. The Forum became known as "The DOIT Tribal and Public Forum on Technology Acceptance" or the "DOIT Forum."
The DOIT Forum helped lay the groundwork for the tribal and stakeholder involvement experiment related to the INTS study. The "problem" was defined by Forum participants as:
"The decision making process for technology development is seen to be unclear, with little perceived tribal and community impact on final decisions. What tribal and community involvement does occur is often late in the process, after many key decisions have already been made The process of involving tribal governments and communities in technology assessment needs explicit and bread definition and clarification." (Reference: "A Guide to tribal and Community Involvement in Innovative Technology Assessment," developed by the DOIT Tribal and Public Forum on Technology Acceptance, Reno, Nevada, May 4-5, 1995.)
The Purpose of This Report
The INTS TSWG effort was an experiment in early tribal and stakeholder participation in DOE technology assessment activities. The experiment was based on the assumption that collaborative decision making is a value-added, rather than risk-aversion, activity that can lead to more confidence in the technical analysis process, more informed decisions and, therefore, better technologies.
This paper is a "lessons learned" report developed by the INTS project as a companion to the document "Tribal and Stakeholder Involvement in the DOE INTS Review: History, Process and Products," which provides a description of the process used to organize and manage INTS TSWG activities. It is intended to provide guidance to project managers, engineers, scientists, public involvement professionals, representatives of tribes and other stakeholders, who find themselves working in decision making partnerships related to innovative technology assessment and evaluation activities.
PREFACE
When technologists and the public work together in derision making partnerships, a variety of educational experiences take place. Not only is it necessary to provide a certain level of technical education to those participants in the public involvement program, but the technical team also has the opportunity to learn more about how to interact with the non-technical stakeholders; how to work productively in participatory partnerships; and how to effectively include diverse stakeholder opinions, values end perceptions in collaborative decision making activities.
Stakeholder representatives gain an understanding of what kinds of technical activities are doable and develop an increased knowledge of the level of effort required to assess, select and implement new technologies. At the same time, technical team members become more aware of the content and value of public opinion and perceptions. In addition, the technical team gains credibility by "opening a window" for public viewing as it puts its house in order. In the words of one member of the INTS Technical Support Group, "To put on one another's head is a very illuminating and valuable exercise that should not be missed."
The idea that tribes and the public should be given the opportunity to be involved in technology development decisions before they are finalized was fundamental to the tribal and stakeholder involvement approach of the INTS study. The study moved outside the framework of after-the-fact public involvement by providing the opportunity for technical and non-technical stakeholders alike to work together in the early stages of criteria development and technology assessment related to mixed waste treatment technologies. (Reference: "Tribal and Stakeholder Involvement in the DOE INTS Review: History, Process and Products," November, 1996.)
Objectives of the INTS tribal and stakeholder involvement program were identified at the first meeting of the TSWG in August of 1995. As noted above, the structure of this paper is formatted around four of the five TSWG objectives as originally defined.
Objective #1: To involve the TSWG in defining the scope of the INTS study by providing tribes and stakeholders the opportunity to participate directly in the criteria erection activity for the INTS review;
Objective #2: a) To demonstrate that early and meaningful tribal and stakeholder involvement is beneficial in planning for technology development and to b) provide opportunity for tribes and the public to participate in the research and development phase of technology assessment by bringing them into the INTS process early;
Objective #3: To provide an example of how technical and non-technical, DOE and non-DOE, participants can work together in the early stages of technology planning; and
Objective #4: To demonstrate a DOE commitment to educating and informing the public so it can be capable of making informed decisions related to technology assessment issues."
Objective #5: To provide an opportunity for tribal and public participants in the INTS study to become acquainted with and comment on the results of the Integrated Thermal Treatment Systems (ITTS)review. (NOTE: This Objective is not addressed in this report.)
OBJECTIVE #1
Defining the Scope of the INTS Study/Criteria Development
Those members of the TSWG who attended the first meeting in August of 1995 agreed that, in a technical analysis process such as the ITS, criteria development is the earliest and most meaningful place for stakeholder involvement to play a role. As a result, a draft list of broad public criteria to be addressed in technology selection exercises was developed. This list was revised a number of times and became known as the "TSWG Principles." Once the Principles were drafted, a "crosswalk" between the technical criteria and the stakeholder principles was completed, which cross-referenced the Principles to relevant technical requirements, whenever possible.
The success of this activity was interpreted in a variety of ways. Some TSWG members felt that the Principles were used by the technical team and the contractor to incorporate public considerations into the ITS technology selection process. Others felt that, even considering the explanation of the systems selection process provided in the ITS Draft Final Report, it remained unclear how technology selections were made. TSG personnel also reported a mixed response to the question of how much the Principles were used in identifying treatment systems.
Although most participants acknowledged that the work done on the Principles document was important to the criteria development task, a lack of agreement existed as to whether this activity could be viewed as participation in defining the scope of the ITS study.
Some TSWG members felt the objective was fulfilled because they worked on the task of criteria development, while others believed they did not play an instrumental role in defining the scope of the study despite their participation in the criteria exercise. Furthermore, "defining the scope of the study," means different things to different people. In this case, several tribal and stakeholder participants felt that defining the scope of the study should include design of the tribal and stakeholder program itself. One member commented that stakeholders should play a greater role in designing the "full process" and in determining the scope of activities related to the group's task or effort.
Problems of this nature could be avoided by addressing the expectations of members at the outset of the study. Guidelines can be written in cooperation with the stakeholder group as a first step in working together, and should include:
Once these tasks are completed, the technical teem and the stakeholder working group will be ready to move forward on a more-or-less "even" playing field.
OBJECTIVE #2
Early and Meaningful Tribal and Stakeholder Involvement
Community dialogues directed at defining the concepts of "early" and "meaningful" stakeholder involvement have been going on for years. What is early to one person may be too early to another. What is meaningful at one community or site may be meaningless at another.
In an attempt to define the idea of "meaningful" involvement, the DO lT Tribal and Public Forum provided the following guidelines to be used to establish communication with tribes and communities:
These guidelines were discussed several times during the life span of the TSWG and members generally agreed that they should be used as a reference in DOE technology assessment activities.
An additional criteria for meaningful involvement, participation in decision making related to the project, was raised by the TSWG. Although the INTS study was not a decision making exercise, there was a great deal of discussion within the TSWG about how DOE makes technology decisions end how that process might be used to move INTS and TSWG information and data to the derision making level. Within the TSWG itself, members agreed to make consensus-based decisions whenever possible and when consensus was not possible, to append clarifying comments from members to any documents representing TSWG decisions. Overall, TSWG participants agreed that what was lacking within the ITS process was a dear definition of the decision making process for the project itself.
What became clear during the TSWG process is that tribal and public involvement activities should be integrated with the decision making processes of government agencies. More often than not, these two important program elements run parallel to one another, with little intersection or recognition that such integration should take place. The DOIT Federal Advisory Committee emphasized the importance of this point in its June 22, 1996 final report: "Incorporation of tribal and stakeholder involvement in technology decision making as part of the management and systems cost structure can save time and dollars in the long term."
The importence of defining the decision making process cannot be over emphasized. If there is no formal definition of how decisions are made, it will be impossible to incorporate stakeholder input and opinions as part of derision making activities. It is generally not the case that citizens believe they should take over the decision making authority from federal agencies. TSWG members pointed out the difference between citizens actually making the decision as compared to participating in the decision making process. One member defined the TSWG role as that of "helping scientists be sure the decision they make is the best possible one they can make, not to make the derision for them."
OBJECTIVE #3
Working Together In Technology Planning
As mentioned earlier in this paper, the INTS TSWG was an attempt to bring together tribes and stakeholders with the technical team as early in the analytical process as possible. As noted in the DOIT Tribal and Public Forum Guidance, the purpose of this "coming together," shouldnot be to push public acceptance or buy-in, but to engage tribes and publics in the technology planning process. Furthermore, this "cooperation" should not be mistaken as "co-option" of stakeholders, but should be used as an opportunity to create positive decision-making partnerships end to benefit from a two-way education process that will benefit both technical and non-technical participants.
The INTS process provided an opportunity for tribal and stakeholder representatives to work with the technical team to develop technology selection criteria and work together during the technology assessment phase of the project. If a similar technology assessment exercise is linked in any way to site selection activities, stakeholders should have the opportunity to participate in selection of technologies on a site specific basis; assist in the development of technology demonstrations; and be involved in all phases of the development, demonstration and application of technologies. (NOTE: Although the INTS review was a paper study only and was not connected to site selection activities or policy development, the project generated products which could be used in future site-specific selection activities.)
In recognition of the fact that Tribal and citizen organizations such as TSWG cannot be expected to be experts on ell things, two technically trained TSWG participants were asked to act as liaisons in representing stakeholder issues to the technical team and technical issues to the TSWG. Although the two "liaisons" were available throughout the process and did participate in TSG and TSWG activities, TSWG members did not make use of their services. Although it is not clear why this was the case, TSWG members suggested that a staff support person assigned directly to the TSWG could perhaps have prompted the liaison representatives to be ready with ways to deal directly with TSWG needs and to remind other members of their availability.
Cultural Considerations: In response to a TSWG request, a Native American scientist was hired by DOE and added to the technical team in the spring of 1996. This addition was made for the purpose of providing a coordination point for Native American opinions and to assist in clarification of TSWG views.
Because the ITS review was strictly a paper-review of non-thermal technologies, it was difficult for the technical team to understand how to factor cultural, spiritual and social considerations into the technology assessment process. Although these issues were expressed both verbally and in writing, the technical team still struggled with what to do with the information in terms of cross-referencing the concepts into the technical portion of the study. At the close of the study in January 1996, some TSG members still felt that TSWG members did not understand that the ITS study was not a treatment facility siting exercise. Others, including beth TSG and TSWG participants, stated that they had "developed a sensitivity" that they did not have before.
Participants in TSWG meetings agreed that the most beneficial aspect of the tribal and stakeholder portion of the project was the positive network connections created between stakeholder representatives and the technical team. A general feeling existed that everyone was focused on solving the same problems; the technical team was open and willing to participate with the TSWG; and after an initial "getting acquainted" period, participants were generally willing to extend credibility to one another. (However, it is important to note that the greatest "upsets" in terms of agendas, facilitators and TSWG products, were related to the lack of time available to the TSWG to express protocols, agenda needs, and issues of representation, goals, perceptions and values.)
OBJECTIVE #4
Educating and Informing the Public
Education serves a primary function in any meaningful public involvement process. Unless adequate resources are provided to the technical team as well as to tribes end local communities for training and preparation for participation, the effort will not serve a meaningful or useful purpose.
Those participants who do not have technical training should be educated as to how to evaluate proposed technologies. Members of the technical team can benefit from training focused on defining a role for engineers end scientists in public involvement; recognizing cultural end social values related to the project end incorporating them into technical analysis activities; end communicating with team members outside the technical professions. Both technical end non-technical participants should receive training in how to work on a collaborative derision making team and how to remain accountable in terms of fulfilling individual responsibilities to the team. To support the education effort, information resources tailored to communicate across disciplines and between cultural communities should be made available to the full team at the earliest possible stage of product or project development.
The education process was the single most commented on element of the ITS project. Those TSWG members with a background in chemistry, biology, physics or other technical fields agreed that the ITS team did an adequate job in "leaching" what was going on in each of the five treatment systems. Other members reported that the technical team provided them with more then enough technical information, and that a summary of findings and results at significant points in the experiment that could be used as a basis for deciding what kind of additional background detail was needed to move forward would have provided added value.
All participants agreed that the effort made at educating the TSWG was impressive and commendable. Virtually no negative comments were received about this portion of the project.
CONCLUSIONS
Proponents of public involvement claim that, by increasing stakeholders' knowledge about and involvement in decisions of importance to them, project acceptability will also increase. Unfortunately, very little information is available in the way of methods to demonstrate evidence of the value added through incorporating public involvement into technology assessment or other types of projects. As noted in the "Guidebook to Tribal end Public Involvement in Technology Assessment," published by the Western Governors' Association, stakeholders often "feel that public involvement is of value only if it provides a meaningful role in the actual decision making process. Still others believe that evaluation is the process of determining the extent to which overall program objectives are met. Industry views evaluation as the determination of how smoothly a project operates end whether it was completed within budget end on schedule while providing maximum return on dollars invested. Federal agencies often focus on the need for public involvement programs to demonstrate return on taxpayer investment. From the public standpoint, 'benefits' of involvement are not only of a financial nature, but relate to environmental concerns, family, and cultural and social values as well."
The ITS TSWG effort addressed both the importance of meaningful involvement and participation in the derision making process as ways of assessing the value of the involvement process. As discusses in the Background material at the front of this report, the four Objectives identified at the initial TSWG meeting, along with a process evaluation survey administered to TSWG members, were USES as "success measures" to provide some level of evaluation for the ITS tribal and public involvement experiment. For purposes of this presentation, TSWG Lessons Learned can be summarizes, as follows:
TSWG LESSONS LEARNED - SUMMARY LIST
Project Planning
Meaningful Participation
Working Together
Information Dissemination and Education
Success measures should ideally be identified and agreed on by the stakeholder group itself. However, in the absence of that exercise (and recognizing a key lesson learned for the future), an evaluation of whether or not each Objective was successfully accomplished forms the basis for the final report on TSWG activities, which can be obtained by calling Swartz & Associates at (702)293-6297.
*February 1997 (Prepared for Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Co., Idaho Falls, Idaho, under contract #C94-170615).