SUPPORT FOR NACEPT RADIATION MEETINGS
FINAL REPORT
Submitted by
RESOLVE, Inc.
1255 23rd Street, NW
Suite 275
Washington, DC 20037
and
Triangle Associates
811 First A venue
Suite 255
Seattle, WA 98104
In Response To:
Delivery Order #28
Contract 68-W4-0001
June 21, 1999
-------
SUPPORT FOR NACEPT RADIA TION MEETINGS
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FINAL REPORT
Executive Summary 1
I. Information Gathering Method 2
II. Findings from Interviews and Discussions 6
III. Recommendations 15
PROCESS REPORT i
APPENDICES
A. RESOLVE Annotated Bibliography on Issues Related to the EPA Radiation
Outreach and Communication Materials
B. Stakeholder Database
C. EPA RPD Interview Protocol and Discussion Guide
D. EPA RPD Discussions ? Detailed Responses
E. EPA RPD Interviews ? Detailed Responses
H \NACEPT\contents doc
-------
SUPPORT FOR NACEPT RADIATION MEETINGS
Final Report
Delivery Order #028
Contract 68-W4-000 1
ExEcuTivE SUMMARY
Findings from Interviews and Discussions with Stakeholders.
• Results from interviews and discussions were similar. Differences were in the
precision of the answers.
• Respondents were mostly experts, not lay people; even the non-professionals are
very familiar with the technical issues related to radiation.
• Respondents’ comments were contextual. Their descriptions about the availability
and credibility of information were quite dependent on their specific circumstance,
and their points of view.
• Most respondents have a desire for continued involvement.
• Outside experts are trusted, and most respondents had developed a network of
people they knew personally who they called whenever they needed information.
• Information for the general public needs to be described in contexts that non-
professionals can understand; on most issues early and ongoing education is needed.
• Mistrust of information from federal agencies needs to be and can be overcome.
• The Internet is preferred by many as source of information. However,
improvements in existing sites are needed.
• Credibility is the most important factor to consider when developing materials or a
system, with reliability and ease of use close seconds.
Recommendations.
• EPA should send thank you letters and the final report to all interviewees,
discussants, and academic advisors.
• Strongly emphasize enhancing the credibility, reliability, and ease of access to
radiation information.
• Improve working relationships with the other radiation offices, agencies, university
programs, and NGOs.
• Extend the stakeholder database with emphasis on stakeholder groups that were
under-represented by this phase of the process.
• Continue the interview andlor discussion process and hone the questions to lit the
needs of some specialized groups (especially the public).
• Develop new techniques for creating and enhancing personal networks.
• Conduct interactive workshops for stakeholders to design new materials, web sites,
etc. that meet the needs of the “customer.”
• Consider the use of the following information provision formats and techniques: an
Internet site, a toll free number, and educational programs n public schools.
-------
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 2
-------
I. INFORMATION GATHERING METHOD
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Overview. We began this project with the assumption that empirical research had been
conducted on what kind of information citizens wanted to know about radiation. We
expected that reviewing this research would allow us to build upon the vork already
completed to discover different stakeholders’ information needs. However, we did not
find literature or empirical research that directly answered our question, although we did
explore a substantial body of literature on risk perception and risk communication that
addresses public concerns over radiation. From this literature we discovered many
themes which informed our thinking as we prepared the interview and discussion
protocols.
Method. We began by looking for information that answered the question “what does the
public know and want to know about the risks from nuclear power radiation.”
We used the following key terms to conduct the literature review:
• radiation, nuclear power, nuclear energy
• decommissioning, decontamination
• risk, risk analysis, risk communication
• public perception, attitudes, reaction, participation, information, awareness,
understanding, knowledge
• surveys, polls, public opinion, studies, attitudes
As we discovered key literature, we entered citations into a bibliographic database (see
Appendix A; the software is Citation 7). Researchers cited several names frequently
and these names appeared in the literature repeatedly. We called these scholars to ask
them if our approach to the project made sense, if they knew of any studies, interviews,
surveys, polls, reports, or focus groups that would help us answer what information the
public would want a Radiation Information System to have.
We spoke with: -
• Thomas Dietz, Professor, Sociology and Anthropology George Mason
University;
• Penelope Canan, Professor and Director Environmental Institute, Sociology
Department, University of Denver;
• Eugene Rosa, Professor of Sociology and Rural Sociology, Washington State
University;
• James Flynn, Senior Research Associate, Decision Research, Eugene, OR; and
• Caron Chess, Director for Environmental Communication, Cook College,
Rutgers University.
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 3
-------
While we did not find any research that directly answers the question “what are the
radiation information needs of citizens”, the scholarly work did point to several
interesting issues that are described below.
Major Issues. First, it is important to develop radiation information that encompasses
the various stakeholders’ and general public’s questions about radiatiog. However, we
have discovered in our review of the literature that merely providing interested groups
and individuals with data and technical information may not meet their interests or
needs. Several risk communication studies have shown that increasing dissemination of
technical information can actually increase the public’s fear and mistrust instead of
allaying it. It is equally or more important to develop meaningful, respectful, and long-
term relationships between interested individuals, organized groups, and the agencies
providing the information. Trust in the information provider turns out to be one of the
most important variables for citizens seeking information. Trust in the organization
develops through transparent, inclusive and ongoing relationships (See Appendix A:
Gricar eta!. 1993, Flynn 1995, Kraft 1992, Lynn 1987, Pikawka eta!. 1992, Sandman
eta!. 1993). Because this variable was so prominent in the review of the literature, we
asked respondents in the interviews and discussions how they would like to be involved
in the planning process and what sources of information they relied upon.
Second, many risk communication scholars recommend acknowledging and accepting
the public’s fears and perceptions about radiation. Even when experts and governmental
agency authorities disagree with the public’s fears or weighting of risks, it is important
not to dismiss them as irrational or uniformed. Risks and fears are not only a product of
information about science and technology, but are shaped by our values. The research
describes the various ways that people assess risks within their own cultural,
organizational, or other frameworks. The review of the literature demonstrates that not
addressing citizens’ concerns or (simply calling them information gaps rather than
trying to understand why the public feels the way they do about existing information) is
likely to deepen the public’s mistrust toward government agencies responsible for
radiation issues.
We also found that different people find different sources of information credible (DOE
1993, Gricar, eta!. 1993, Flynn 1995, Pikawkaeta!. 1992, Slovic 1993). People’s
experiences with government agencies, corporations, and non-governmental
organizations shape their perceptions of the credibility of the information provider. The
discussions often highlighted that pertinent agencies, companies, and non-governmental
organizations will need to be involved in the framing and design of any information
materials to ensure that the agency can credibly address different needs of different
groups.
Finally, different individuals and groups frame or organize the categories of information
very differently than do scientists and nuclear managers. Our cognitive frameworks are
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 4
-------
influenced by our backgrounds, gender, class, and work experiences. In a pilot testing
study such as this one — which aims to understand how people think and perceive —
good research techniques recommend discovering the analytic categories from the data
instead of theoretical models. Therefore, we included open-ended as well as closed
questions in the interview protocol and discussion guide. We also elicited information
within a specific context or situation. This helped respondents answer cur questions
without us limiting or narrowing their options.
In addition to the expertise and experience of the RESOL\’E Director of Research and
Education, we relied on the following sources for conducting the literature search and
designing the questions:
Fink, Arlene, Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From Paper to the
Internet, (1998) Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications;
• Hart, Chris, Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research
Imagination, (1998) Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications;
• Weiss, Robert S., Learningfrom Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative
Interview Studies, (1994) New York, The Free Press; and
• Robson, Cohn, Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner-Researchers, (1993) Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
LIST OF RESPONDENTS
The next step was to develop a list of names, organizations, and telephone numbers for
interviews. Both Triangle and RESOLVE have extensive contacts in the environmental
community from previous projects. We also worked with EPA regions and RPD staff to
gather contacts appropriate for pilot testing. To generate the names on the prospective
interview and discussion candidate list, Triangle and RESOLVE:
• consulted with people they had worked with in the past,
• consulted past project lists,
• identified the names of the interest groups and checked the geographic
coverage to identify gaps,
• called contacts for additional names, and
• asked key contacts to review and augment our draft lists.
For this project, Triangle used these contacts:
• the League of Women Voters “National Dialogue” project,
• the NACEPT Radiation Phase IV project,
• Hanford Nuclear Reservation, especially people from the States of
Washington and Oregon,
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 5
-------
• federal contact people suggested by EPA including EPA Region I and U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) headquarters,
• consultants, and
• plaintiffs working on DOE database development.
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 6
-------
Triangle and RESOLVE conducted umini interviews with:
• Jim Cherniak and David Rothstein, EPA Region I;
• Judson Lily, DOE Decommissioning and Decontamination;
• Mary Lou Blazek and David Stewart-Smith, Oregon Dept. of Energy;
• Mike Gamer, Washington State Department of Ecology;
• Doris Cellarius, National Sierra Club;
• Toby Michelina, International Energy Strategies; and
• Paul Gunter, Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
As we added names, we kept two goals in mind. First, the list needed to include cross-
sections of people, organizations and agencies, and tribal governments. Second, we
needed to have a pooi of at least 100 names so that we could schedule approximately 50
interviews. EPA RPD staff decided they would contact people from federal agencies, so
RESOLVE and Triangle neither conducted interviews with nor held discussions with
federal agency staff.
The stakeholder database is incorporated as Appendix B. It includes all names
generated for the list. We did not, however, interview or schedule discussions with all
these individuals. The EPA RPD staff chose a list of 14 individuals to call to schedule
interviews. From these 14 names, we scheduled and interviewed nine respondents in
the order we were able to schedule calls.
From the remaining list, approximately 70 individuals were contacted and spoken with
until the goal of4l discussion appointments was reached. We sent them a fax letter
describing the project and requesting their participation. Since the goal was to pilot test
the discussion guide with only 41 respondents, some people did receive the letter who
were not scheduled for a discussion. (In the end, due to several cancellations, the final
number of the discussions held was 39.) We had 30 to 45 minute discussions with these
individuals. We have described some themes from these interviews and discussions in
the next section.
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND DISCUSSION GUIDELINES
From the review of the literature, the “mini-interviews,” and EPA’s goals for the project,
we developed a formal interview protocol and an informal discussion guide. At EPA’s
request we decided to write an interview protocol and a discussion guide. We
administered the interview protocol to nine respondents. By using the interview
protocol with nine respondents we hoped it would gamer enough information about the
instrument to serve as an adequate pre-test or pilot.
We revised the interview protocol as a discussion guide for the Triangle and RESOLVE
interviewers to use with respondents. We used the discussion guide with 39
NACEPT RADIA11ON, FINAL REPORT PAGE 7
-------
respondents. Both the draft interview protocol and the draft discussion guide were
reviewed and revised by EPA RPD staff and RESOLVE and Triangle staff.
The interview protocol and the discussion guide are in Appendix C.
Recommendations on the Interview and Discussion Documents. At EPA’s request
we enlarged the view of the project to include all environmental radiatibn issues and
focused primarily on people working with radiation issues in some way, rather than the
general public. Once these modification to the project occurred, we realized the need to
change the interview protocol or discussion guide enough to acknowledge these new
respondents and issues.
Now that we have pilot tested both the interview protocol and discussion guide, it is clear
that both need further revisions. The interview protocol and discussion guide should be
tailored to fit the experience and knowledge level of the respondents. From the interviews,
we found that people tended to cluster into three groups, 1) people who work with nuclear
issues full time, 2) people who are familiar with but not experts about nuclear issues, and 3)
people who are interested but unfamiliar with the issues or information. Therefore, three
formats should be developed, one for each experience level of the respondents.
For both the interviews and discussions, we wanted instruments that would elicit
information within particular contexts and specific experiences so that the information
would be rich and detailed. Therefore, we asked respondents to answer the questions
with specific cases or instances in mind. However, this technique was sometimes not
effective with people who work with these issues as their primary job. Asking them to
describe one situation at a time often did not help them focus on contexts, but just
confused them. We need to develop a different way for them to tell us what kind of
situations they need information for and how they address those specific needs. The
way we framed the question did not acknowledge their expertise.
Many respondents were unclear if they should answer the questions from a personal
perspective or as a member of a group. We should address how we want them to
answer in future guides.
Several respondents added sources of information to the list of prompts or follow-ups.
In particular, several respondents from tribal governments suggested adding tribal
governments as information sources. Other respondents suggested adding professional
journals and published books as sources.
Finally, the interviewers found many ways to re-format the interview protocol and
discussion guide to make it easier for respondents to follow and for future interviewers.
Several of these changes would make the form easier to use, such as providing more space
for comments and answers. Other changes included adding to the list of information sources
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 8
-------
and reminder lists, and clarifying the meaning of several questions. A revised interview
protocol and discussion guide could be developed from their comments and expenence.
II. FINDINGS FROM INTERVIEWS AND DISCUSSIONS
OVERVIEW
Interview and Discussion Results are Similar. There is not a lot of substantive
difference between the results of the interviews and the discussions. The difference is in
the precision of the answers. Overall, discussion respondents talked more. This is
especially true for questions in which respondents were asked to rate items. In the
interviews, there were clear scales (1-5) and few comments about the specific items; in
the discussions respondent’s answers varied according to the scale they decided to use,
and we got a lot more narrative.
Respondents Are Mostly Experts, not Lay People. It should be kept in mind that we
were talking with people who are veiy familiar with radiation and even with the
technical issues related to radiation. Even the “citizen” representatives were activists
and many represented national groups that provide information to their constituents.
Thus, the answers we got might be quite different from people who know little about
radiation issues. We did not interview or conduct discussions with representatives of
industry workers or management, labor unions, federal agencies, or the general public
(especially those near radiation facilities). Using the “identified stakeholder” approach
of this project does not lead to the general public. If gathering opinions from the
general public is a goal, other approaches will need to be used.
Comments were Contextual. The descriptions of the respondents about the
availability and credibility of information were quite dependent on their specific
circumstance, and their points of view. People who work as regulators are more
comfortable with the availability and verifiability of the data and information than those
who are seeking information from the “outside.”
This contextual qualifier also applies to specific issues. For example, there seems to
be agreement that information on health risks, especially from historic exposures, is
hard to get, and that it is even harder to prove definitively that an exposure in the
past is the cause of current medical condition. The differences in opinions are over
what to do about the information deficiencies and whether they are the result of a
deliberate cover-up of information or some other reason.
People outside the regulatory arena also agreed that there are too many players, too
many non-linked regulations, and too many sources of information. They don’t
know how to compare sources, or who to believe. Many mentioned being called
upon frequently to talk about their information needs. They wondered why federal
agencies do not cooperate on getting out information. Many called for independent
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 9
-------
oversight of the regulators (DOE, NRC). Some respondents suggested that this
might be a role for EPA nationally. Others called for partnering and cited past
examples of EPA partnering on information dissemination.
Respondents consistently commented that the more specific the information they
needed, the more challenging it was to find. Another consistent com nent (mostly by
radiation professionals) was that the general public tends to be more concerned with
relatively less important (i.e. less risky) radiation issues and problems and not so
concerned about other issues that are seen by the professionals as much more
important or serious.
Desire for Continued Involvement. Respondents almost universally expressed
interest in having continued involvement with the project and all who expressed
interest suggested specific ways they could help, such as being on a planning group, or
reviewing new materials.
Outside Experts are Trusted. The most frequently used and most trusted sources of
information were personal contacts with outside experts. Most respondents had
developed a network of people they knew personally who they called whenever they
needed information. This has important implications for the design of an EPA
information system. Typical systems are impersonal, thus making the most used source
of information unavailable to lay people or newcomers who have not developed a
personal network. Perhaps the Internet can be used to bridge this gap and give wider
access to experts (see Recommendations, page 14).
Put Information in Context. Many respondents suggested that information and
data needs to be presented for public use in the context of recognizable occurrences in
daily life or of values people might hold.
Education is Needed. The need for early and ongoing education about radiation was
often mentioned. Multiple respondents suggested that EPA develop K-12 curriculum
and disseminate it to schools. Wider use of print and electronic media, such as TV
specials, was also suggested. Many respondents also said that the key to getting
information is knowing what to ask and who, and where to look for the information.
They felt that an EPA outreach and information system should help guide people to
the right questions and sources of answers.
Mistrust Needs to be Overcome. Many respondents noted the historic reluctance
of regulatory agencies to share information, especially if the agency believes it might
create fear. They commented that this reticence has actually had the opposite effect
in that people fear what they do not know or cannot easily find out about. The
mistrust that has increased over the past forty years might be overcome or lessened if
people are given the information they feel they need, even if others deem it
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 10
-------
unnecessary or controversial. They suggested that people should be trusted to sort
out information and make their own decisions.
General Information Needs by User Group. Based on these discussions and
interviews we would broadly characterize the radiation information needs of four user
groups:
a. General Public/Lavperson - This group of people wants information on radiation in
its most simple form: key concepts explained in easy to understand plain language, such
as pamphlets and short pieces. These are not necessarily activists, but ordinary citizens
concerned about radiation. We did not actually talk to many people in this category, but
heard about their needs from others, such as radiation professionals who often interact
with local government agencies that provide this kind of information.
b. Non-Governmental Professional Activists and Advocates - This group of people
tends to want more than just general information. They often want highly specific
information on particular geographic locations, waste or power facilities, or companies
(but not necessarily on specific types of radiation). An example would be an
organization wanting information on radioactive waste generators in their state,
including quantities, radiation levels, locations, and destinations and schedules of
shipments. This group faces some of the same technical challenges in understanding
radiation information faced by the general public, but they tend to be more
knowledgeable and have much more specific radiation information needs.
c. Radiation Professionals — On the whole this group is much more satisfied with their
access to information on radiation. For state agency representatives, many of their
comments were geared towards satisfying the information needs of their clients (local
government and the public). Discussions did reveal some unique radiation information
needs from professionals including updates on federal regulations and licensing issues,
radiation incidence information, and centralized bibliographies.
d. Tribal Nations . Those interviewed suggested that the unique cultural circumstances
and lifestyle of the tribes (as well as the Trust responsibilities of the U. S. government)
warrant the creation of a specialized source of information related to tribal governments.
This is described in more detail in the next section and in the interview and discussion
syntheses.
THEMES THAT EMERGED FROM SPECIFIC QUESTIONS (see Appendices C, D, and E)
Situations and Information Sources. The situations for which respondents most
commonly mentioned a need for information were:
• risk and health impacts, including dose criteria;
• recycling of contaminated waste and waste disposal;
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 11
-------
• regulatory policy and standards for clean-up;
• inter-relationship between various agency regulations and standards; and
• policy and standards enforcement.
Despite the overall high level of expertise, the perspectives of the respondents clearly
shape their perception about both the availability and the reliability of information. (We
did not talk with federal representatives.) State agency representatives were more
positive about the availability of data and information, and had much more ready access
to data, especially for monitoring data, than other respondents. They mentioned
repeatedly the need to provide comparative risk information. Some radiation
professionals dismissed some of the radiation needs of other non-professional
stakeholders as excessive and unnecessaiy, such as comprehensive release of
information on all radioactive waste shippers.
Non-state government agency representatives were much less sanguine about the
availability of information, feeling that they often have to fight to gain access to it more
than they should have to. They also mistrusted the information and almost always
sought a second outside expert opinion. (We did not talk with industry representatives
who might have had a divergent viewpoint.)
The representatives of tribal governments were extremely concerned both about the way
EPA is going about involving tribes in this project, and about the availability of
information. To the first point, they questioned why the EPA American Indian
Environmental Protection Office was not the contact point with tribal representatives
and the generator of names for us to call. They also emphasized that we should be
calling direct tribal government representatives on a much broader scale, and not
counting on the ideas of a few organizational representatives as spealcing for all tribal
government interests.
To the second issue of information availability, the tribal government respondents were
very unhappy with the quantity and quality of data and its availability. They suggested
that a separate section be established within the EPA information system to address
tribal needs. They also suggested that not all tribes have access to the Internet, and that
the information will need to be presented in many formats. They want a national site
inventory that shows impact on tribal Trust lands, and site specific information.
Respondents from environmental and public interest groups were more concerned than
state agency representatives about possible negative implications of exposure for human
health and the environment. More than their agency counterparts, they found exposure
information as harder to get and less reliable. They also felt that specific data,
especially for historic sources, is particularly hard to get. They doubted the reliability of
the data and the interpretation given to it by the federal and state agencies, and almost
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 12
-------
always sought second opinions from outside experts. Respondents concerned with
specific sites expressed greater concern about access to data than those looking at a
broader national picture.
Respondents from other organizations, such as universities, felt that data is generally
available, but that it is extremely difficult to verif y. They also were quick to
acknowledge the controversy that surrounds many of the studies of dose and toxicity
and the impacts on human health.
Frequently Used Sources of Information. Almost all respondents used a few sources
of information very frequently or frequently. These include:
• federalagencies,
• the Internet,
• professional journals,
• national or international technical or professional organizations and publications,
and
• other professional colleagues or experts in the field.
General Themes That Emerged about the Sources. Among all sources of radiation
information, the Internet was the clear winner. However, some respondents found some
web sites hard to use, and suggested ways to improve the presentation and links
between the information provided.
The usefulness of the other formats varied according to whether the respondent was
answering for him- or herself, or as someone who provides information to the general
public. For example, respondents did not find pamphlets, flyers, and short written
materials very useful, except as flags to more detailed technical analyses. Yet many of
these same respondents were quick to acknowledge the value of the shorter materials to
the lay person.
Likewise, the respondents with an advanced level of technical knowledge and interest,
found the longer written reports very useful. However, they did not want to receive
such longer materials unless they specifically requested them, and they did not think
such documents were generally useful to the public.
Some respondents liked “a little bit of written materials with lots of pictures, graphs,
and figures” both for themselves and for their constituents, while some felt that such
materials would not be an improvement over the same data available in the two formats
discussed above.
Although many of the respondents participated in professional panels and regularly
attended agency presentations, they did not think that lectures and discussions are
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 13
-------
generally useful. This is largely due to the difficulty of getting people to attend and the
limited ability of program organizers to reach many people.
In the category of “other formats,” there were many suggestions that were repeated by
respondents. The most often mentioned was education, including K-12 curriculum
development and sponsorship, talk radio shows and TV specials, and more
informational press releases to the media. Other examples included:
• case studies to illustrate how radon issues were resolved in specific schools
• high school science level text books written for the public;
• speaker kits with overhead slides;
• glossary of technical terms;
• live human beings staffing toll-free customer service centers (and able to speak
multiple languages);
• quarterly updated CD-ROMs sent to state radiation offices with important data
and federal regulation information; and
• an interactive EPA cable television show.
Also suggested was a two-tiered information system that had some information readily
understandable by lay people, with the ability for any one person to go on to additional
technical information.
Some Details on Sources.
Federal agencies are consulted because they are in charge of regulating radiation
sources. Sometimes the data and information is believed, sometimes it is not, but it is
always sought. Respondents not in the federal agencies feel better about having access
to the information when they have a working relationship with people in the agencies
who they can call for assistance.
Many view the Internet as revolutionizing information flow. Even those respondents
who do not use it much personally, or have trouble navigating particular web sites,
recognize the Internet as the wave of the future. Despite the recognized benefits of the
Internet, several respondents pointed out the need to not neglect printed materials - for
some communities that is their most accessible media.
Almost all respondents mentioned professional journals (a category not on our list) as a
major source of information. Scientific articles, especially those that are peer reviewed,
are highly credible sources of information. Online search databases (i.e. Quest as a
source for health physics journals) are commonly used by radiation professionals.
National or international technical and professional organizations and their publications
are commonly used and highly regarded.
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 14
-------
Professional colleagues and other experts are regarded as far more than “word-of-
mouth” information sources because of their knowledge and stature. Many respondents
turn regularly to their colleagues who they know through professional organizations,
and they seem not to hesitate to call on those they do not know who have the
information they need. Formal and informal networks are a major source of both
general and technical information.
Use of the other sources of information varied dramatically, depending on the interest
and point of view of the respondent. Some general themes are the following.
Public libraries are used for access to technical articles and journals by those people
who do not have access through their agencies organizations. Also used are interlibraiy
loans of technical materials. Many respondents who attempt to use libraries said that
libraries are not very well supplied with information, or that they are not up-to-.thte.
The news media is not used for accurate technical information, although people read,
listen, and watch to get a sense of what the public is being told and for case examples.
Local government agencies seem to be consulted only by other local government
agencies.
Citizen groups rely on each other, but are not viewed generally by other categories of
respondents as major sources of information, with a major exception being the
American Lung Association.
Factors to Consider when Developing a System. Credibility is the most important
factor to consider, with reliability and ease of use running close seconds. Many
respondents commented that it is very difficult to establish credibility, however. In part,
this is because credibility is in the eye of the beholder. Also in part, this is because the
people with the information and data are often the very agencies or organizations that
run or regulate the projects. The fact that the agencies are self-monitoring leads
outsiders to fear that the reports are self-serving, even if they are accurate. The way
around this, as suggested by a few respondents, is for independent oversight. Others
suggested that credible organizations be given the opportunity to present alternative
perspectives on government managed information sources. Some radiation
professionals took issue with the idea of balance as granting disproportionate exposure
to view points of vocal minorities.
A number of respondents mentioned the historic tension between the people with the
data and those who want the data. Many organizations were chagnned that Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests are their major source of information, when they
believe it should be readily available. Difficulty getting information makes people
wonder why it is being hidden.
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 15
-------
Other ways to establish credibility that were mentioned by respondents include using
primary data sources, citing sources clearly, and linking summaries or analyses to
original sources, data, or studies.
Credibility for the less technical reader might be established by relating standards and
values and results to daily occurrences in people’s lives. Technical infonnation needs to
be put in a familiar context to be credible with lay readers.
Issues of Concern. The word “concern” in this question raised some red flags for
some of the respondents because it implies fear. These respondents, who were largely
the state and state organizations category, said that they work on some of the issues a
lot and consider them to be very important but are not concerned about them in a
“fear for our safety sense.” As a result, we guided them to answer the question
according to the level of attention they paid to the issue in a professional context or
as “most wanting information on.” This question is confusing for some and this
point was lost on many.
The concern over issues is again strongly influenced by the perspective of the
respondent. In general, those issues for which there was generally very high concern,
included radiation risk, public health and safety, waste disposal, plans for mitigation,
and distinctions between chemical and radioactive wastes. State agency representatives
were concerned over the lack of public interest in radon exposure and what some
viewed as disproportionate concern about comparatively less risky factors.
Those issues for which there was moderate concern often varied according to the nature
of the local situation and whether the respondent was focused on a particular site. These
included Superfund sites, regulatory history, and onsite/offsite issues.
Of low concern were distinctions between high and low level wastes, although this
question was very confusing for many respondents who didn’t know what kinds of
distinctions we were referring to (i.e. legal or dose and impact). The confusions around
this item puts the results in question. The same confusion surrounds the item on land
use patterns.
Responses to a few of the issues require explanation. With regard to worker safety,
many of the respondents said it should be of high concern, but it really is not of concern
to their constituency. (Note: We did not talk with industry or labor representatives who
should be added to future lists in order to balance this response.) The importance of
emergency response was again situational; people focused on active sites were quite
concerned. The same is true for disposition and transportation of wastes, except that
many respondents mentioned in another question their concern over the current plans
for recycling contaminated waste.
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 16
-------
would not be forced to file a FOIA request to get it. In addition, as we reviewed the
literature and developed the questions for interviews and discussions, we held
discussions with several academic experts in this field, and in exchange for theirpro
bono advice we promised to provide them a copy of the report.
Strongly emphasize enhancing the credlbffity, reliability, and ease of access to
radiation information. Above all else, the respondents told us that they are concerned
first about the credibility of the information they receive, and then the reliability and
ease of access to that information. Every effort should be made to enhance (and
demonstrate) transparency, openness, and honesty about information that is transmitted
no matter what the format. Where there is uncertainty, or more than one credible theory
or approach, EPA should say so. For Internet-based information, direct links to other
organizations and agencies (especially those which have an alternate view) will help
enhance credibility.
Improve working relationships with the other radiation offices, agencies,
university programs, and NGOs. I)uring the preliminary stages of the project, EPA
and RESOLVE received a number of comments and concerns from representatives of
other federal and state agencies and some organizations about the purpose and nature of
the project. During the interviews and discussions we received many comments that
make it clear that the non-agency stakeholders can become confused by the many
agencies (and sometimes groups) putting out information. They are confused further
when the agencies send differing messages. Where there is a lack of coordination and
understanding between federal agencies, it is more difficult for the EPA to be seen as
credible in the eyes of those using their materials.
We recommend that the next concrete step be some form of meeting between the
information providers at EPA, NRC, DOE, and other agencies. The purposes of this
meeting should be to (1) share information about the goals and approaches of the
various information programs, (2) determine gaps (in either content or target audiences)
that need filling, and (3) determine overlaps in information provision that are
unnecessaiy, and (4) decide how the agencies can best work together to enhance
credibility, reliability, and access for all stakeholder groups.
A second step is to design projects that intentionally include collaboration with
university programs and non-governmental organizations. Below, we note several
specific projects that might be appropriate for such collaborations.
Also, EPA should work closely with those respondents who specifically indicated that
they wanted to be involved in further materials development (see Appendix F).
Extend the stakeholder database with emphasis on stakeholder groups that were
under-represented by this phase of the process. The database of stakeholders
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 18
-------
(Appendix B) is a good stan toward a set of people who can advise and assist EPA in its
efforts to provide credible and easily accessible information on environmental radiation.
However, the database should be extended to include people from four stakeholder
types that are underrepresented in this database: industiy workers and unions, industry
management, federal agencies, and the public (especially people near facilities).
Also, under the Community Right to Know Act, local energy planning comm ttees are
set up to deal with emergency preparedness around toxic waste or hazardous waste
transportation issues. These committees of local government and citizen representatives
could disseminate information through existing communication channels. They should
be involved in any future outreach efforts.
Continue the interview and/or discussion process and hone the questions to fit the
needs of some specialized groups (especially the public). Discussions might be held
with more representatives of all stakeholder groups, and especially people from under-
represented stakeholder types mentioned above. As noted in section II and Appendix C,
we have recommended some changes to the interview questions and discussion
guidelines.
Since we used these two instruments as a “pilot” test, it will be appropriate to change
them as needed for further use. The interview process will require a great deal of lead-
time to account for possible Paperwork Reduction Act or 0MB requirements, and the
interview questions might need to be different for different groups (however, once the
interviewing begins, the questions should not be changed). On the other hand, the
discussion process can be modified as it goes along, since it is not subject to the same
uniformity requirements as those faced by an interview process. Such modifications
also make sense because different groups answer questions differently and have
different interests.
Develop new techniques for creating and enhancing personal networks. As
valuable as the Internet and other techniques may be for disseminating information, the
key to enhancing credibility (and thereby having the information EPA provides
accepted, used, and relied upon) is attaching a person, a face, or a voice to the
information. The more EPA can do to help their “customers” get to know the technical
people working on radiation issues, the more that the personal network will help the
customers value the information.
In many cases, the best approach is to have one good technical person serving as the
“conduit” or “bridge builder” between the agency and the customers. A good example
comes from Superfund, in which Remedial Project Managers often build close, long-
term, and collaborative relationships with the stakeholders concerned with a Superfund
site. Selecting a solid technical person with excellent communication and collaboration
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 19
-------
skills is likely to be preferable to selecting a better technical person, whose people skills
are not as good.
Conduct interactive workshops for stakeholders to design new materials, web sites,
etc. that meet the needs of the “customer.” EPA should have direct in-person
discussions with its “customers,” probably in the context of public, interactive,
stakeholder meetings. Such interactive public design meetings are commonly used in
landscape architecture, urban planning, transportation planning, and other settings to
design a “vision” of the overall information system, which the agency then produces
with additional feedback from the workshop participants. Such workshops have the
added benefit of helping participants build personal working networks, thus assisting
with credibility enhancement.
Consider the use of the following information provision formats and techniques, all
of which are opportunities to work collaboratively with other agencies, university
programs, and NGOs:
• an Internet site, fully linked to relevant non-governmental groups, other
government agencies, sites of academic journals, etc.;
• toll free number with access to experts in various aspects of radiation
information (including parallel access to non-governmental information
sources); and
• educational programs in public schools.
APPENDICES
A. RESOLVE Annotated Bibliography on Issues Related to the EPA Radiation
Outreach and Communication Materials
B. Stakeholder Database
C. EPA RPD Interview Protocol and Discussion Guide
D. EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses
E. EPA RPD Interviews - Detailed Responses
NACEPT RADIATION, FINAL REPORT PAGE 20
-------
SUPPORT FOR NACEPT RADIATION MEETINGS
FINAL PROCESS REPORT
Delivery Order #028
Contract 68-W4-000l
PURPOSE OF TUE PROJECT
EPA’s Radiation Protection Division (RPD) is updating its outreach and communication
matenals about radiation in the environment. The RPD develops these materials in conjunction
with its analytical and regulatory activities to inform the general public as well as targeted
audiences. The issues being addressed include radiation risk and sources of radiation exposure.
RPD’s activities are in the spirit of “right-to-know” about exposure to dangerous substances in
the community. RPD is interested in learning what their “customers” wish to know about
environmental radiation. The purpose of this project is to guide the development of radiation
information that meets the needs of their user groups. RPD’s user groups or customers are the
public, business, consumer advocates, public health groups, environmental groups, government
at all levels, tribal nations, and sister organizations within EPA. Once RPD knows the
information needs, they intend to obtain the information and provide it in readily accessible
formats.
The RPD needs answers to a series of questions:
overall level of public interest in environmental radiation issues,
whether information currently available fulfills the needs of user groups,
what specific information is of interest to the public,
how the information should be presented, and
where the user groups could go to find the infonnation.
PROCESS
RESOLVE and its subcontractor Triangle Associates conducted the following tasks for EPA and
provided the following deliverables (which are provided as appendices in the draft final report):
a review of existing literature and an annotated bibliography on what radiation
professionals and the general public want to know about radiation and how
they want to know it,
a protocol for conducting interviews with stakeholders and guidelines for
holding discussions with stakeholders on these issues,
a database of stakeholders who would be appropriate for interviews and
discussions,
pilot testing of the interview protocol and discussion guidelines with a subset
of the identified stakeholders and a synthesis of the information gathered
-------
on both the questions and the answers to the questions, and
a draft final report (attached) summarizing the above tasks.
The original assignment from EPA was to focus the tasks on decontamination and
decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. This initial focus guided the documents we
reviewed for the bibliography and the participants we selected for pilot testing the
interview and discussion questions. Early in the course of the project, EPA broadened the
assignment to consider environmental radiation more generally. We believe this change
had no real effect on the findings of the literature review. Moreover, the interview and
discussion questions were developed after the assignment was broadened and does not
change our assessment of the success of the interview and discussion questions.
RESOLVE assigned Senior Mediator Bruce Stedman as Project Manager. Juliana Birkhoff,
RESOLVE Director of Research and Education, advised on approaches to information gathering;
Contracts Manager Sophie Cook provided contract administration; Associate Gabe Petlin
collected and wrote most of annotated bibliographic citations, gathered preliminaiy information
for developing questions, and conducted 12 discussions; Senior Mediator Don Greenstein
conducted 2 discussions; and Senior Program Secretary Momssa Young provided project
administrative support.
The project manager for Triangle Associates was Senior Facilitator Alinda Page, who was
assisted by Associate René Alexander. Triangle Associates developed and managed the
stakeholder database of contacts for interviews and discussions. Ms. Page conducted 7
interviews and 13 discussions; Ms. Alexander conducted 2 interviews and 12 discussions.
These tasks were Phase IV of this project. Deliverables for earlier phases have already
been transmitted to EPA and are not related to this phase of activities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All 48 respondents and those who offered advice early in the project gave their personal
time and energy. Their guidance and insights shaped this project and its results. We very
much appreciate their cooperation.
II
-------
SUPPORT FOR NACEPT RADIATION MEETINGS
FINAL REPORT
APPENDICES
A. RESOLVE Annotated Bibliography on Issues Related to the EPA Radiation
Outreach and Communication Materials
B. Stakeholder Database
C. EPA RPD Interview Protocol and Discussion Guide
D. EPA RPD Discussions ? Detailed Responses
E. EPA RPD Interviews ? Detailed Responses
H \NACEPT\contents doc
-------
Appendix A
RESOLVE Annotated Issues Related to EPA Radiation Outreach and Communication
Matenal&
1. Ahearne, John F. “Integrating Risk Into Public Policy Making.” Environment 35,
no. 2 (Mar 1993).
Publisher’s Abstract: The influence that risk analysis should have on public policy is
discussed. Risk analysis should play an important role in deciding how to dispose of
radioactive waste, where to store wastes and what controls should be placed on energy
production.
2. Barke, Richard P., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. “Politics and Scientific Expertise:
Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy.” Risk Analysis 13, no. 4
(1993).
RESOLVE Annotation: This research studied whether scientists from different
disciplines (i.e. life sciences Vs. physicists) have different perceptions of environmental
risks. The researchers found that life scientists perceived greater risks and stronger
requirements for environmental management. The research suggests that disciplinary or
organizational cultures influence scientists perception of risk. The article does not tell
what citizens want to know about radiation and D&D but does help explain why inclusive
approaches and processes should be used to design the RIS.
Author’s Abstract: To study the homogeneity and influences on scientists’ perspectives
of envirorunentai risks, we have examined similarities and differences in risk perceptions,
particularly regarding nuclear wastes, and policy preferences among 1011 scientists and
engineers. We found significant differences (<0.05) in the patterns of beliefs among
scientists from different fields of research. In contrast to physicists, chemists, and
engineers, life scientists tend to: (a) perceive the greatest risks from nuclear energy and
nuclear waste management; (b) perceive higher levels of overall environmental risk; (c)
strongly oppose imposing risks on unconsenting individuals; and (d) prefer stronger
requirements for environmental management. On some issues related to priorities among
public problems and calls for government action, there are significant variations among
life scientists or physical scientists. We also found that-independently of field of
research-perceptions of risk and its correlates are significantly associated with the type of
institution in which the scientist is employed. Scientists in universities or state and local
1 In the Annotated Bibliography, we write RESOLVE Annotations which report whether the article
or book contains information directly relevant to the scope of the project. RESOLVE was not able
to acquire the full texts of all articles, books, and reports in this annotated bibliography In those
cases, we do not write annotations In a few cases, we write annotations based on other scholar’s
reviews of that literature, or based on the abstract When available, we provide author’s or
publisher’s abstracts
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography
-------
governments tend to see the risks of nuclear energy and wastes as greater than scientists
who work as business consultants, for federal organ-organizations, or for private research
laboratories. Significant differences also are found in priority given to environmental
risks, the perceived proximity of environmental disaster, willingness to impose risks on
an unconsenting population, and the necessity of accepting risks and sacrifices.
3. British Nuclear Fuels PLC. “Communicating Risks.” The Futurist 28, no. 3
(May/June 1994).
RESOLVE Annotation: An interactive menu-driven video display at the Sellafield
Nuclear Power Plant Visitor’s Center records visitors’ queries in order to measure which
aspects of the nuclear power plant concern most people. Results finds that the primary
obstacle to gaining greater public acceptance of the plant is not lack of information, but
feelings of helplessness and distrust. The article is pro-nuclear.
Publisher’s Abstract: British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) has launched an interactive public
information drive that polls local citizens on their knowledge about and support for
planned radioactive waste repository. BNFL’s promotion of its Visitors’ Center at the
Sellafleld plant as a tourist attraction is discussed.
4. Carter, L.J. Nuclear Imperatives and Public Trust . Washington, DC: Resources for
the Future, 1987.
RESOLVE Annotation: The author presents ease studies on the technical and political
challenges of successful management and disposition of nuclear waste in the US and five
other countries, as well as transboundary international issues. The emphasis is on
analyzing the political failures of the US nuclear waste program and proposing solutions
based on technical soundness and public safety. The book does not address the question
of what the public wants to know about radiation and D&D. The book is pro-nuclear.
5. Cohen, Gary. “Radioactive Ammo Lays Them to Waste.” Multinational Monitor
17, no. 1-2 (January 1996).
RESOLVE Annotation: This article addresses weapons-related radioactive exposure of
U.S. soldiers, and is not within the immediate scope of the RJS.
Publisher’s Abstract: Thousands of American Gulf War soldiers were exposed to
ammunition made from depleted uranium (DU) on the battlefield, inhaling the radioactive
dust from these projectiles. Despite widespread concern among Gulf War vets and in US
communities about the dangers of DU weapons, the military is excited about the sales
potential of DU weapons. Information about DU weapons and the danger they pose to
soldiers who come in contact with them is presented.
6. Cook, B.J., and J.L. Emel, & Kasperson. “A Problem of Politics or Technique?
Insights from Waste Management Strategies in Sweden and France.” Policy
Studies Review 10, no. 4 (Winter 1991/92): 103-13.
RESOLVE Annotation: Nuclear waste management strategies are compared in Sweden
and France, focusing on institutional arrangements, research and development activities,
site investigation procedures and overall program philosophies. In Sweden, the approach
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 2
-------
to waste repository siting and facility development emphasizes negotiation with local
opponents and national interests to achieve as high a degree of consensus as possible. In
France, the authority and prestige of the French state, in combination with effective use of
site compensation, has been used to contain the scope of social conflict. The article does
not address the question of what the public wants to know about radiation and D&D.
Author’s Abstract: Sweden and France are in many respects in the vanguard of high-
level radioactive waste disposal efforts, and they offer sharp contrasts regarding basic
strategies and underlying philosophies for waste management. We compare their waste
disposal programs for insight into the dilemma of siting and developing a permanent
waste repository. We find that technical decisions, as well as the more obvious
sociopolitical decisions about repository development, are shaped by deep seated social
and political forces in each nation.
7. Cook, B.J., J.L. Emel, and R.E. & Kasperson. “Organizing and Managing
Radioactive Waste Disposal as an Experiment.” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management 9 (Summer 1990): 339-66.
8. Dunlap, R., M. Kraft, and eds. E. Rosa. Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste:
Citizens Views of Repository Siting . Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993.
RESOLVE Annotation: See individual articles
9. Easterling, D. and Kunreuther, H. The Dilemma of Siting a High-Level Nuclear
Waste Repository . Boston, MA: Kiuwer Academic Publishers, 1995.
10. Easterling, D., Slovic. “The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco.”
Risk Analysis 13 (1993): 643-48.
11. Easterling, D., and E.W. Colglazier, & ‘White. “Nuclear Waste’s Human
Dimension.” Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy , Fall 1994, 9 1-97.
12. Fleming, Patricia. “Expert Judgment and High Level Nuclear Waste
Management.” Policy Studies Review 10, no. 4 (Winter 199 1/92).
RESOLVE Annotation: This article is a critique of the clash between positivistic
science and excessive relativism which commonly occurs in debates over technically
complex and politically controversial disputes such as selecting a HLNW repository.
Fleming calls for a middle ground which adjudicates rationally the conflict of
interpretations over Yucca Mountain. This article does not directly address the question
of what the public wants to know about radiation and D&D.
Author’s Abstract: Prominent figures believe that expert judgment must play a decisive
role in implementing the NWPPA. A cntical, philosophical examination of this method
reveals the adoption of equally problematic epistemological assumptions. A fresh
approach which rejects the dichotomies bred by the controversy over the status of expert
judgment is offered.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 3
-------
13. Flynn, James. “How Not to Sell a Nuclear Waste Dump.” Wall Street Journal ,
April 15, 1992, A20.
Author’s Abstract: James Flynn discusses an intended public awareness campaign that
was actually a thinly-veiled advertising campaign to txy and convince Nevada citizens
about the safety of the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.
Polls indicate the American Nuclear Energy Council campaign went seriously awry.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 4
-------
14. Flynn, James, et a!. “Overcoming Tunnel Vision: Redirecting the US High-Level
Nuclear Waste Program.” Environment 39, no. 3 (Apr 1997).
RESOLVE’s Annotation: The authors raise technical and scientific uncertainties that
they argue should disqua1if ’ Yucca Mountain as the long term repository of U.S.. high
level nuclear waste (HLNW). Instead they proposed dry cask storage as an interim
solution for the next 100-150 years while a technically sound and social4y acceptable
solution is sought. Given the importance of public acceptance and trust, the authors argue
that greater public participation in the HLNW program is essential and experience with
siting other hazardous waste facilities has improved understanding of what is necessary to
win public acceptance. This article does not directly address the question of what the
public specifically wants to know about radiation and D&D other than to implicitly
suggest that the public’s need for credible radiation information is high. The article is
neither pro nor anti-nuclear.
Publisher’s Abstract: Since the US began producing nuclear weapons, military and
civilian uses of nuclear reactors have generated a large quantity of nuclear waste. Several
possible solutions to the problems of disposing of nuclear waste are discussed.
15. Flynn, James, and Paul Slovic. “Time to Rethink Nuclear Waste Storage.” Issues
in Science and Technolo v 8, no. 4 (Summer 1992).
RESOLVE Annotation: Two telephone surveys, one in Nevada and one in the rest of
the continental United States, were conducted to measure public perceptions of risk
associated with disposal of high level nuclear waste. The survey questions focused on
citizens’ views of the Yucca Mountain repository, risk perceptions (including sources of
risk), voting behavior, willingness to accept compensation, and risk-induced behaviors.
Respondents were generally opposed to the repository in Nevada. This article does not
directly address the question of what citizens want to know about radiation, but does offer
insight into the fears the public has about nuclear waste. The article is neither pro nor
anti-nuclear.
Publisher’s Abstract: The US Government’s 35-year effort to find a permanent
repository for radioactive nuclear wastes is on the verge of collapse. The government
must develop a siting procedure that is both socially acceptable and technically feasible.
16. Flynn, James, Paul Slovic, and C.K. Mertz. “Decidedly Different: Expert and
Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository.” Risk Analysis 11,
no. 3 (1993): 643-48.
RESOLVE Annotation: The researchers studied nuclear waste program managers’
perceptions of risk from a high level nuclear waste facility and compared those
perceptions with those of the general public. The research demonstrates that the nuclear
waste program managers have very different views about nuclear waste and indeed a
different conceptual framework about science, technology and nsks than the public.
Publisher’s Abstract: A questionnaire with items that had been used in a national
survey of the general public was administered to persons attending an Aniencan 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
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 5
-------
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.
17. Freudenberg and Rosa. “Public Responses to Technological Risk 1 s: Toward a
Sociological Perspective.” Sociological Ouarterly 33 (1984).
RESOLVE Annotation: This article contains reviews of public surveys on public
opinion on technological risk.
18. Freudenburg, William R, and Eugene A. Rosa. Public Reaction to Nuclear Power:
Are There Critical Masses ? AAAS Selected Symposia Series 93. Boulder, Cob.:
Westview Press for the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1984.
19. Fricker, Richard L. “Information Please.” ABA Journal 76 (June 1990).
RESOLVE Annotation: We were not able to acquire this article. Unless the RIS
contains information on human radiation exposure (intentional or not), this article is not
relevant for the RJS.
Publisher’s Abstract: A case brought by Las Vegas lawyer Larry Johns against the
government on behalf of 220 plaintiffs who’d been exposed to radiation highlights
problems with the Freedom of Information Act. Other relevant cases are discussed.
20. Gricar, Barbara Gray, Anthony Baratta, and William Key. “Bridging the
Information Gap at Three Mile Island: Radiation Monitoring by Citizens —
Comment and Reply.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 19, no. 1 (Feb
1993): 35-54.
RESOLVE Annotation: The authors report on the implementation of a community-
based radiation monitoring program based on the premise that citizens are more likely to
believe information generated by themselves or by their neighbors than by government
officials. However, evidence supporting this hypothesis is not presented. Two before-
and-after surveys were administered to measure the impact on lay participants of a course
on radiation safety and monitoring. Participants deemed some sources of information on
radiation more credible after the course, but results overall were mixed. Participants felt
better informed about the hazards of radiation and the progress of clean-up at Three Mile
Island after the course. This article does not tell us what citizen’s want to know about
radiation, but it does provide evidence that classroom education can lessen participants’
skepticism of certain sources of information on radiation. It can also increase their
confidence in assessing threats to public health and safety from radiation. Two relevant
implications for the RIS from this study are 1) the importance of taking into account
citizens’ views on credibility of information sources when designing the RIS; and 2)
that citizens’ trust in the RIS may be increased if they are actively involved in the
design of the system.
Publisher’s Abstract: After the accident involving a nuclear reactor at Three Mile
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 6
-------
Island (TM!), Pennsylvania, in March 1979, a unique effort was made to provide local
citizens with information about radiation exposure and to rebuild public confidence in
information supplied by government agencies. The Citizen Radiation Monitoring
Program (CRMP) trained lay persons to monitor, interpret and publicize radiation levels
in 12 communities around TM!. The traditional mechanisms for information exchange
between the government and the public were neither functional nor adequate. The CRMP
tried to reverse this effect by involving local communities, trusting local citizens, and
addressing both emotional and technical issues. Key criticizes the Gricar and Baratta
presentation in regard to its multiplicity of project goals and its failure to provide a
research design suitable to test these goals. Key found the data and the trappings of a
research project distracting. In reply, Gricar and Baratta attempt to clarif ’ their goals and
to make several points concerning research design.
21. Hendee, William R. “Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Problems and
Implications for Physicians.” Journal of the American Medical Association 269,
no. 18 (May 1993).
RESOLVE Annotation: This article addresses public health concerns over disposal of
low-level nuclear waste (e.g. transportation, opposition to disposal facilities, and
opposition to involuntarily imposed risks). The article is not directly relevant to the RIS
project, but offers insights into public health concerns.
Publisher’s Abstract: The disposal of low-level radioactive waste, which includes
contaminated gloves, laboratory supplies and syringes, has been a controversial public
health issue for over 20 years. The waste can and should be properly disposed of
somewhere, but many people think that the somewhere is a place other than their
community or state.
22. Hileman, Bette. “New Details on Nuclear Weapons Program Bared.” Chemical &
Engineering News 72, no. 28 (Jul 1994).
RESOLVE Annotation: This article itself is not useful for the RIS. Obtaining the
transcripts or minutes from the public meetings former DOE Secretaiy O’Leary refers to,
may a useful source on what the public wants to know about radiation.
Publisher’s Abstract: In a continuing effort to be more candid about Department of
Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons programs, US Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leaiy recently
declassified a substantial amount of information. On June 27, 1994, O’Leaiy revealed
details about total US weapons-grade uranium production, testing of a bomb made of
reactor-grade plutonium, radiation experiments conducted on humans since the 1 920s,
and underground and atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. O’Leary explains the new
revelations by saying that thousands of people in meetings across the US have told her
that openness in government is very important. DOE is responding in a manner that both
satisfies that strong public interest and respects cntical national security requirements.
DOE is now indexing everything it has declassified since 1946 and putting it on the
Internet so it will be easily accessible.
23. Holdren, J.P. “Radioactive Waste Management in the United States: Evolving
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 7
-------
Policy Prospects and Dilemmas.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
17 (1992): 235-59.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 8
-------
24. Hope, Chris, and Jon Parker. “Environmental Information for All: The Need for a
Monthly Index.” Energy Policy 18, no. 4 (May 1990): 3 12-19.
RESOLVE Annotation: This article addresses general environmental indicators and
does not report on what the public would like to know about radiation.
Publisher’s Abstract: The major source of environmental statistics in the UK is the
Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics. However, its iost recent data
are often quite old, and it does not contain a summary of the state of the environment. An
up-to-date, monthly regional Environmental Index would offer some protection against
misinformation and show that the government was serious in its intention to place the
environment at the forefront of its thinking. At present, what is most important is to have
a proposal for a starting point for discussions and to allow a feasibility exercise including
the construction of a pilot Environmental Index to proceed. The best way to weight the
UK Environmental Index is to use expert opinion to select indicators and weight them to
form the sub indexes for air, water, radiation, noise, transportation, and waste. Possible
objections to a monthly Environmental Index are that it is too costly, incomplete, and
arbitrary.
25. Inaba, Hirotoshi. “Information: The Key to Acceptance of Expanded Nuclear
Power Generation.” Japan 21st 38, no. 2 (Feb 1993).
RESOLVE Annotation: This article provides examples of public information
techniques designed to bolster public acceptance of nuclear power. No information is
presented regarding what the Japanese public wants to know about radiation. The
strategy of information dissemination is characterized by some critics as one-way
communication from the government to the public. The article is pro-nuclear.
Publisher’s Abstract: With 80% of its energy needs met by imports, Japan is in a
vulnerable energy position. Thus the importance of nuclear power as an alternative
energy to oil has been stressed since the l970s oil crisis. Approximately 27% of Japan’s
electricity is supplied by nuclear power, and it is expected that 43% of electricity will
depend on nuclear power in 2010. Public acceptance of nuclear power is very important.
After the Chernobyl nuclear power accident, the portion of the Japanese public viewing
nuclear power negatively increased. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry
conducts several activities to promote the public acceptance of nuclear power, including:
1. toll-free telephone question and answer services; 2. lectures; 3. the Atomnet database,
and 4. pamphlets and videos. The eight electric power companies and one atomic power
company in Japan operating nuclear power plants also promote public acceptance through
the mass media, public relations and public information centers.
26. Inhaber, Herbert. “Can an Economic Approach Solve the High-Level Nuclear
Waste Problem?” Risk 23, no. fall.
RESOLVE Annotation: This article critiques previous attempts to site the HLNV and
prescribes a series of market based bonus or auction systems to site the facility. It does
not discuss the questions that the public has about radiation, nor how they want to know
it, or methods for gathering that information. The writer may be perceived as slightly pro
nuclear.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 9
-------
27. Jack P. Young, editor, and editor Rosalyn S. Yalow. Radiation and Public
Perception: Benefits and Risks . Washington, DC: American Chemical Society,
1995.
28. Jacob, 0. Site Unseen: The Politics of Siting a Nuclear Waste Repository .
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990.
29. James Flynn, et al. One Hundred Centuries of Solitude; Redirecting America’s
High-Level Nuclear Waste Policy . Boulder, San Francisco: Westview Press,
1995.
RESOLVE Annotation: Overall, this study is critical of DOE’s approach to siting a
high-level nuclear waste repository. Reports on studies and surveys (20 conducted 1983-
1993) of perceptions and social behaviors (p. 70-73) concerning siting and management
- of high-level nuclear waste repository (especially Yucca Mountain, see YMSST 1993).
Says (p. 72-3) that there are many studies indicating the public’s strong aversion to
nuclear power plants (and other facilities) and mistrust of DOE, NRC, EPA and other
federal agencies; implies the source is YMSST 1993.
30. Johnson, Branden B. “Advancing Understanding of Knowledge’s Role in Lay
Risk Perception.” Risk 14, no. summer.
31. Kasperson, R.E., S. Ratick, and 0. and Renn. A Framework for Analyzing and
Responding to the Equity Problems Involved in High-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal (NWPO-SE-019-89 . Carson City, NV: Nevada Nuclear Waste Project
Office, 1988.
32. Kiviniaki, Mika, and Raija Kalimo. “Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant
Personnel: A Survey.” Risk Analysis 13, no. 4(1993): 421-24.
RESOLVE Annotation: This research investigated whether nuclear power plant
personnel were more or less likely to perceive nuclear power plant risks than was the
general public. The research found that plant workers were less likely to perceive risk,
and that risk perception was connected to organizational commitment. The research does
not help us understand what citizens want to know about nuclear radiation nor how they
want to know it.
Publisher’s Abstract: This study investigated risk perception, well-being, and
organizational commitment among nuclear power plant personnel. The study group, 428
employees from a nuclear power plant, completed a questionnaire which included the
same questions as those in previous surveys on risk perception of lay persons and
industrial workers. Hazards at work were not seen as a sizable problem by nuclear power
plant personnel. The study group estimated the safety of nuclear power plants better and
the possibility of a serious nuclear accident as more unlikely than the general public.
Compared to employees in other industrial companies, the overall perceived risks at work
among plant personnel did not exceed the respective perceptions of the reference groups.
Risk-related attitudes did not explain well-being among plant personnel, but the
Appendix A. Annotated Bibliography 10
-------
relationship between the perceived probability of a serious nuclear accident at work and
organizational commitment yielded to a significant correlation: Those plant workers who
estimated the likelihood of an accident higher were less committed to the organization.
33. Kraft, M.E. “Public and State Responses to High-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal:
Learning from Policy Failures.” Policy Studies Review 10, no. 4(1992): 152-56.
RESOLVE Annotation: This article indicates the extreme importance of public trust in
public agencies. This article is mostly a hypothetical consideration of why repository
siting has failed and what might have been done differently. Contrasts the assumption by
DOE that opposition to repository siting is because “the public is misinformed, and once
educated on the technical issues will be more accepting of siting decisions,” with the
finding that “research on public attitudes toward nuclear waste provides little basis for
this belief’ (p. 159). Also notes that Bradbury (1989) found that social science
information was little used by waste officials to develop public involvement programs,
which (in the 1980s) “emphasized provision of information to interested parties rather
than interaction and mutual problem solving” (p. 164). The relevant implication of this
analysis for the RIS is that simply providing the public with technical information on
radiation may not meet their information needs, not alleviate their concerns unless they
are involved in the process of designing the system.
Publisher’s Abstract: Nuclear waste policy in the United States has failed in large part
because of public and state opposition to repository siting. However, that outcome was
not inevitable. This paper argues that better policy design and greater attention to the
crucial tasks of policy legitimization (sic) both by the US Congress and the Department
of Energy might have significantly increased the chances for successful implementation.
Even though the program now has a highly uncertain future, suggestions are offered for
policy learning and change that may increase the probability of success.
34. Krafi, M.E., and B.B. Claiy. “Citizen Participation and the NIMBY Syndrome:
Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal.” Western Political Ouarterlv 44
(1991): 299-328.
35. Krafi, M.E., and B.B. Clary. “Public Testimony in Nuclear Waste Repository
Hearings: A Content Analysis.” In Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizen
Views of ReDository Siting , edited by E.E. Dunlap, M.E. Kraft and E.A. Rosa.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993.
RESOLVE Annotation: This chapter is entirely about public hearings on the waste
repository siting 1984-86. The chapter is not very helpful to RIS because the information
they drew out of the testimony was very general (i.e.. opposed or not; emotional or
factual; criticisms of siting analysis). Does provide possible areas of concern (e.g.., waste
technologies, transportation, etc.) that we have incorporated into the questions.
36. Kraft, M.E., Eugene A. Rosa, and Riley E. Dunlap. “Public Opinion and Nuclear
Waste Policy Making.” In Public Reaction to Nuclear Waste: Citizen Views of
Repository Siting , edited by R.E. Dunlap, M.E. Kraft and E.A. Rosa. Durham,
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 11
-------
NC: Duke University Press, 1993.
RESOLVE Annotation: Overview chapter for entire book. See individual chapter
annotations.
37. Kunreuther, H., and D. Easterling. “Gaining Acceptance for Noxious Facilities
with Economic Incentives.” In The Social Resnonse to Environmental Risk:
Policy Formulation in an Age of Uncertainty , edited by D.W. Bromley & K.
Segerson. Boston: Kluwer, 1992.
38. Kunreuther, H., D. Easterling, and W. Desvousges, & Slovic. “Public Attitudes
Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada.” Risk Analysis
10(1990): 469-84.
39. Kunreuther, H., K. Fitzgerald, and T.D. Aarts. “Siting Noxious Facilities: A Test
of the Facility Siting Credo.” Risk Analysis 13 (1993): 301-18.
40. Kunreuther, Howard, William H. Desvousges, and Paul Slovic. “Nevada’s
Predicament.” Environment 30, no. 8 (Oct 1988).
RESOLVE Annotation: The public opinion surveys documents the deep felt mistrusts
and opposition to the Nevada nuclear waste repository. The article is not directly helpful
to the RIS, because the surveys do not reveal directly what the public wants to know
about radiation other than their general perceptions about nsk and economic impacts of
the repository.
Publisher’s Abstract: The US government has authorized the DEA to build a nuclear
waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The results of public opinion surveys of
US and Nevada citizens concerning the repository are presented.
41. Kunreuther, Howard, and Paul R. Klemdorfer. “A Sealed-Bid Auction Mechanism
for Siting Noxious Facilities.” The American Economic Review 76, no. 2 (1986):
295-99.
Author’s Abstract: A sealed bid mechanism is proposed for facilitating the siting
process of noxious facilities, such as prisons, trash disposal plants, and incinerators for
hazardous waste. The problem arises because there are scale economies associated with
having only one plant to serve the needs of a wide region. These facilities have been
opposed strongly because they produce relatively little new employment and provide
limited additional taxes in relation to the perceived negative impact. Some compensation
an angement is needed to share the gains of the winners with the potential losers. A
sealed-bid auction model is developed for eliciting willingness-to-pay (WTP) values
when a single community is chosen as the winner among a number of possible
candidates. Each community announces a W1’P value that it will receive if it is the
winner. A series of controlled laboratory experiments using the low-bid auction examine
how close individuals are to the maximum-minimum solution. The results indicate that
the average absolute percentage deviation from maximum-minimum bids is relatively
small, particularly in the latter periods.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 12
-------
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 13
-------
42. Lynn, Frances M. “Citizen Involvement in Hazardous Waste Sites: Two North
Carolina Success Stories.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 7 (1987).
RESOLVE Annotation: The article discusses two examples of citizen committees
formed to review siting proposals, use of mutually agreed upon technical consultants, and
interactions between project proponents and local citizen groups. Although the article is
largely about public opinion and risk perception related to hazardous wastes, it also looks
at the importance of creating settings for interactions between citizens and more “expert”
stakeholders, what Lynn calls a “citizen infrastructure.” She emphasizes the importance
of giving citizens the resources they need (of which RIS would be an example) to conduct
analysis of plans and facilities. She notes that managers of the facilities in these cases
took the view that if citizens had information they would not be afraid of the facilities or
activities, and would be more likely to work with agencies and not against them.
43. . “Public Participation in Risk Management Decisions: The Right to Define,
the Right to Know, and the Right to Act.” Risk 11, no. spring.
RESOLVE Annotation: Relates Lynn’s analysis that the public wants direct
engagement in several facets of risky projects. These facets suggest questions the public
might be asked about what information they want, but more how they want it, and even
more what they might want to do with the information once they have it. The article is
mostly about public opinion and risk perception.
44. Marston, Wendy. “Friendly Fire.” Sciences 34, no. 2 (Mar 1994).
RESOLVE Annotation: This article describes recent disclosures by the US government
about human radiation experiments and efforts of citizens to sue for compensation. It
does not contain information directly relevant to the RIS unless the scope is expanded to
include human radiation experimentation. The article is mildly anti-nuclear.
Publisher’s Abstract: The declassification of government documents detailing radiation
experiments on unsuspecting citizens during the Cold War is discussed. Compensation
has been promised to the victims of the secret experiments.
45. Mary Douglas, and Aaron Wildavsky. Risk and Culture . California: University of
California Press, 1983.
46. McGarity, Thomas 0. “Public Participation in Risk Regulation.” Risk 11, no.
spring.
RESOLVE Annotation: McGarity outlines who the public is, and why they participate
in agency decision making, discusses the pros and cons of public participation and
provides six models of public participation in risk regulation. It does not help us
understand what the public wants to know about D&D, nor how they want to know it, nor
how to find out what they want to know.
47. Mitchell, T., and W. Scott. “Leadership Failures, the Distrusting Public, and
Prospects of the Administrative State.” Public Administration Review 47 (1987):
445-52.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 14
-------
48. Mushkatel, A.H., and K.D. Pijawka. Institutional Trust. Information, and Risk
Perceptions . (NWPO-SE-055-92). Carson City, NV: Nuclear Waste Policy Office,
1992.
49. National Research Council (Committee on Decontamination and
Decommissioning). A Review of Decontamination and Decommissioning
Technology Development Programs at the Department of Energy . Washington,
DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1998.
50. National Research Council (Committee on Risk Perception and Communication).
Improving Risk Communication . Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1989.
51. National Research Council (Committee on Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain
Standards). Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards . National Academy
Press, 1995.
Publisher’s Abstract: The United States cun ently has no place to dispose of the high-
level radioactive waste resulting from the production of the nuclear weapons and the
operation of nuclear electronic power plants. The only option under formal consideration
at this time is to place the waste in an underground geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain in Nevada. However, there is strong public debate about whether such a
repository could protect humans from the radioactive waste that will be dangerous for
many thousands of years. This book shows the extent to which our scientific knowledge
can guide the federal government in developing a standard to protect the health of the
public from wastes in such a repository as Yucca Mountain. The US Environmental
Protection Agency is required to use the recommendations presented in this book as it
develops its standards.
52. National Research Council, and National Academy of Sciences (Board on
Radioactive Waste Management). Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste
DisDosal . Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
RESOLVE Annotation: We were not able to acquire this report. Flynn et al.(1995)
says this report reaffirms that loss of public trust and confidence in federal government is
the primary obstacle to successful waste disposal.
53. NEA Secretariat. Nuclear Power and Public Opinion . Paris, France: OECD, 1984.
RESOLVE Annotation: This survey of public opinion on nuclear power in several
countries offers public opinion data (i.e. opposed or not opposed to nuclear power), but
not information that addresses the question of what the public wants to know about
radiation.
54. Nealey, Stanley M. Nuclear Power Development: Prospects in the 1 990s .
Columbus, OH: Battele, 1990.
RESOLVE Annotation: Have not acquired. Rosa and Freudenberg 1993 say this has
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 15
-------
reviews of public surveys. Worth reviewing.
55. Nealey, Stanley, M., Barbara D. Melber, and William L. Rankin. Public Opinion
and Nuclear Energy . Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co., 1993.
RESOLVE Annotation: This book reviews public opinion surveys on nuclear energy.
It does not report what the public wants to know about radiation, but thesurvey
methodologies and questions are well documented and may provide some guidance to
developing survey instruments for the RIS.
56. Nuclear Regulatoiy Commission. Staff Response to Freciuently Asked Ouestions
Concerning Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors . NIJREG-l628, 1998.
RESOLVE Annotation: This is a useful technical reference on decommissioning
designed to be understandable by the lay public. The document specifically addresses
questions the public has posed to the NRC about the decommissioning process. It is very
relevant to the RJS. The report comes from a pro-nuclear point of view.
Author’s Abstract: The staff realized that there was a significant lack of public
understanding of the decommissioning process and the risks associated with
decommissioning. With the recent increase in the number of power reactors beginning
the decommissioning process and the significant changes that occurred in the regulations
in 1996, this report provides NRC staff responses to frequently asked questions on
decommissioning nuclear power reactors. This document, through a question-and-answer
format, provides infonnation to the public on decommissioning. The questions were
taken from a variety of sources over the past several years, including written inquiries to
the NRC and questions asked at public meetings and during informal discussions with the
NRC staff. In responding to the questions, the NRC staff attempted to provide the
answers in a clear and non-technical form that an individual with no or little technical
training could understand. This document is being issued for public conunent. As a result
of public comment or peer review and discussions, the final document may be modified
from this draft.
57. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Fourth Report to the US Congress and
the US Secretary of Energy . Washington, DC: GPO, 1991. -
RESOLVE Annotation: Have not acquired. Flynn et a]. (1995) says that this report
reaffirms that loss of public trust and confidence in federal government is the primary
obstacle to successful waste disposal. Worth acquiring.
58. Oden, Wendy. “Where the Polluters Meet the Public.” Colorado Business
Magazine 22, no. 1 (Jan 1995).
RESOL ’E Annotation: This article does not provide any information directly relevant
to the RIS, but the Environmental Information Network (EIN) mentioned in the text
could be a useful source of information on what the public wants to know about radiation
and D&D.
Publisher’s Abstract: By day Chris Lochra is a 34-year old hydrologist working for an
environmental consulting firm. On summer weekends, you’ll find him giving equipment
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 16
-------
lectures to a group of outdoor enthusiasts eager to break ground on a new Colorado
wilderness trail. Lorraine Granado is a Latino single mother of three, who is the founder
and executive director of Cross Community Coalition, a grassroots organization that
unites organizations of people of color to enhance their communities’ quality of life.
Paula Elofson-Gardine is a working professional in the health care field who is better
known in activist circles as the “best brain-trust on Rocky Flats in the entire country. She
has degrees in biology and chemistry, is radiation-certified and has more than 18 years of
industrial toxics experience. She has lived five miles downwind of the Rocky Flats plant
for 30-plus years and is executive director of the Environmental Information Network
(E1N), a self-proclaimed “citizen watchdog organization” that focuses on hazardous waste
and radioactive material issues.
59. OffIce of Technology Assessment (US Congress). Managing the Nation’s
Commercial High-Level Radioactive Waste . Washington, DC: GPO, 1982.
RESOLVE Annotation: We have not been able to acquire this report. Flynn et al.
(1995) says this report indicates that the single greatest obstacle to successful waste
disposal program is solving the severe loss of public confidence and trust in the federal
government created by past problems.
60. Ortmeyer, Pat, and Arjun Makhijani. “Worse Than We Knew.” Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists 53, no. 6 (Nov/Dec 1997): 46-50.
Publisher’s Abstract:: It is now clear that above-ground nuclear tests conducted in
Nevada during the Cold War exposed everyone in the US to radioactive iodine--and the
US government knew it.
61. Pasqualetti, Martin, and K David Pijawka. “Unsiting Nuclear Power Plants:
Decommissioning Risks and Their Land Use.” Professional Geographer 48, no. 1
(Feb 1996): 57(1).
RESOLVE Annotation: We have been able to acquire this article. Based on the
abstract below, the subject matter is relevant to the RIS. However the length of the article
is only one page.
Author’s Abstract: A preliminary survey of how the public is likely to react to nuclear
power plant removal is presented. Results show that due to the risk perceived by the
public, power plants will remain on the landscape long after they are closed.
62. Pijawka, K.D., and A.H. Mushkatel. “Public Opposition to the Siting of the High-
Level Nuclear Waste Repository: The Importance of Trust.” Policy Studies
Review 10, no. 4(1992): 180-94.
RESOLVE Annotation: This article analyzes the relationship between political trust
and public risk perceptions of nuclear waste repository siting. Survey data and analysis is
presented. The authors identify three factors which explain whether the public is
skeptical towards governmental and scientific risk assessments and whether they accept
waste facilities. These factors are:
1) Acceptability of the procedures by which collective consent is obtained;
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 17
-------
2) Acceptability of how the liabilities/risks are to be distributed; and
3) The level of trust in institutions that regulate and manage the technology.
Other dimensions of trust -credibility, believability, and fairness-are important factors in
how the public views the risks associated with hazardous facilities such as nuclear waste
repositories. Five dimensions of repository risk are:
I) The safety and health threat from a nuclear waste accident;
2) The perceived likelihood of mitigation efforts being successful;
3) The risks and benefits of the repository;
4) The perceived likelihood of an accident;
5) The perceived risk of a transportation accident involving nuclear waste; and
This article is relevant to the RIS in two ways: 1) it describes specific concerns the public
has about nuclear waste disposal which indicates some of the radiation information needs
of public; and 2) it reveals many of the components of trust that are needed for a RJS to
be credible with the public.
Author’s Abstract: This paper examines several dimensions of public opposition to the
proposed siting of the high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In order to
provide a context for the public’s views of the repository in metropolitan Clark County,
both govenunentnj studies of the public’s views of the repository siting process are
analyzed, as well as elements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This analysis suggests
that one potentially key component of the public’s opposition to the siting, as well as their
perceptions of risk of the facility, may be the result of a lack of trust in the Department of
Energy. Empirical analysis of survey data collected in Nevada in 1988 confirms the
strong relationship between political trust and repository risk perceptions.
63. Price, Stuart V. “Learning to Remove Fear from Radioactive Waste.” Public
Relations Ouarterly 39, no. 3 (Fall 1994).
RESOLVE Annotation: This article describes the evolution of Federal radioactive
waste communication strategy over the last 50 years. It sets out Site-Specific Advisory
Boards as one possible model for involving citizens in government decision making.
This article offers lessons in public involvement that are relevant to designing an RIS.
The article is pro-nuclear.
Publisher’s Abstract: Simply mentioning radioactive waste can spur immediate and
emotional reactions from people. Effective communications must offer more than
somber, technical explanations of that status quo. Bringing concerned citizens into the
decision making process, rather than just launching one-way information packets in their
direction, is a technique that can build good will and resolve many fears. The US
Department of Energy (DOE) is empowering public Site-Specific Advisory Boards at
some of its main waste management and environmental restoration sites. Site-Specific
Advisory Boards encourage substantive dialogue between public advocates, regulators,
and radioactive waste generators. Board members have ongoing opportunities to evaluate
facility conditions and present recommendations to the DOE.
64. Rosa, Eugene A., and Riley E. Dunlap. “Nuclear Power: Three Decades of Public
Opinion.” Public Opinion Ouarterly 58, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 30.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 18
-------
RESOLVE Annotation: This article surveys public opinion on nuclear power in general
ways (i.e.. pro or con, accept or reject local repository), but does not offer information
that tells what the public wants to know about radiation.
Author’s Abstract: The varying opinions of the public over the years with regard to
nuclear power are discussed. Data show that, on the one hand, solid majorities of the
public oppose the construction of more nuclear plants and are likewise qpposed to their
local siting; on the other, equally solid majorities believe that nuclear power should be
and will be an important energy source in the nation’s future. These results do not reveal
a contradiction, but, rather, a pragmatic logic by which the public distinguishes between
nuclear power in principle and in practice. It appears that for nuclear power, the public’s
collective preference for specific policy options can differ considerably from its general
attitudes. Thus, Americans support the idea of leaving the nuclear option open, perhaps
as a trump card against possible future energy shortages; but when it comes to the
specific means for achieving that opinion, such as the siting and construction of nuclear
power plants, they are solidly opposed.
65. Rosa, Eugene A., and William R. Freudenberg. “The Historical Development of
Public Reactions to Nuclear Power: Implications for Nuclear Waste Policy.” In
Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizen Views of Renository Siting , edited by
E.E. Dunlap, M.E. Krafi and E.A. Rosa. Durham, NC: Duke University Press,
1993.
RESOLVE Annotation: This article outlines the history of public reactions and
perceptions about nuclear power and waste, the roles of various stakeholder groups, and
discusses the evolution and trends of public opinion on nuclear issues. The author’s show
increasing opposition to nuclear power generally in the 1 970s and 1 980s (especially since
the Three Mile Island accident), but do not report more specific data about what the
public wants to know. The surveys reviewed seem only to have tested whether the
respondent was in favor of nuclear power or not, andIor how close someone would live to
a plant or waste facility.
66. Sandman, Peter M., et al. “Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and
Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments.” Risk Analysis 13, no. 6
(1993): 585-98.
RESOLVE Annotation: The researchers conducted three experiments to discover what
effect agency communication, information detail and technical risk have on citizens
perception of nuclear risk. The studies demonstrate that trust is far more important for
determining perceptions of risk than is the amount of information or reducing the actual
risk. Education, gender and risk aversion were also significant predictors of risk
perception. However, the authors note that these factors are beyond the agencies control
while focusing agency efforts on becoming trustworthy - dealing responsively, openly
and respectfully with concerned citizens - is within the agency’s control and is more
effective than providing more technical information or even reducing technical risks. This
article does not tell us what people want to know about radiation or D & D but explains
why more information will not answer the public’s questions about nuclear radiation or D
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 19
-------
&D.
Publisher’s Abstract: Three experimental studies were conducted employing
hypothetical news stones to compare the effects on reader risk perceptions of two
situations: when agency conununication behavior was reported to be responsive to
citizens’ risk concerns, Vs. when the agency was reported to be unresponsive. In the first
two experiments, news stories of public meetings filled with distrust an4 controversy led
to ratings indicating greater perceived risk than news stories reporting no distrust or
controversy, even though the risk information was held constant. This effect appeared
clearly when the differences in meeting tone were extreme and subjects made their ratings
from their recall of the stories, but it was much weaker when the differences were
moderate and subjects were allowed to go back over the news stories to help separate risk
information from conflict information. In the third experiment, news stories about a spill
cleanup systematically varied the seriousness of the spill, the amount of technical
information provided in the story, and the agency behavior and resulting community
outrage. The outrage manipulation significantly affected affective and cog-cognitive
components of perceived risk, but not hypothetical behavioral intentions. Seriousness and
technical detail had very little effect on perceived risk.
67. Schaefer, J. State Opposition to Federal Nuclear Waste Repository Siting: A Case
Study of Wisconsin. 1976-1988 . Green Bay, WI: Center for Public Affairs,
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 1988.
RESOLVE Annotation: We were not able to acquire this report. Our understanding
from another source is that this is a review of how one state educated the public on
radiation issues (so as to be in opposition to a high level repository). The report may be
useful for understanding what the public wants to know about radiation.
68. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Task Force on Radioactive Waste
Management. Earning Public Trust and Confidence: Requisites for Managing
Radioactive Wastes . Washington, DC: Department of Energy, 1993.
69. Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. “Academy Recommendations on the Proposed Yucca
Mountain Waste Repository: Overview and Criticisms.” Risk 8, no. winter.
RESOLVE Annotation: Shrader-Frechette reviews the Academy’s recommendations on
Yucca Mountain. The article does not address what citizens want to know about
radiation, how they want to know it or how to find out what they want to know. It is not
clear if the writer is pro or anti nuclear.
70. Simpson, John. “The NRC Weighs Public Input on Plant Cleanup Standards.”
Public Utilities Fortnightly 131, no. 13 (Jul 1993).
Publisher’s Abstract: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is preparing to
develop radiological criteria for decommissioning nuclear power plants. The criteria
will apply to plants that operate for their normal lifespan, those that shut down
prematurely, as well as a range of other NRC-licensed facilities, including materials
licensees, fuel reprocessing and fabrication plants, and independent spent fuel storage
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 20
-------
installations. The criteria have been years in the making, and their progress is being
monitored closely by the Environmental Protection Agency, which shares with the NRC
the authority to regulate radiological hazards, hi its Rulemaking Issues Paper, the NRC
outlined for discussion 4 fundamental objectives as a basis for developing
decommissioning criteria: 1. establishing limits above which risks to the public are
deemed unacceptable, 2. establishing goals below which the risks to the public are
deemed trivial, 3. establishing criteria for what is achievable using the best
available cleanup technology, and 4. removing all radioactivity attributable to plant
activity.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 21
-------
71. Sjobert, Lennart, and Britt-marie Drottz-Sjoberg. “Physical and Managed Risk of
Nuclear Waste.” Risk 18, no. spring.
RESOLVE Annotation: This article discusses the differences between politicians and
experts opinions with those of the public regarding the location of a low level radioactive
waste site. The researchers interviewed pro and anti individuals to discover what caused
the differences in perceptions. (The article does not include the interview protocol.) The
original research may contain valuable questions or methods.
72. Slovic, P., et al. “Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a
High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada.” Risk Analysis 11, no.4
(1991): 683-96.
73. Slovic, Paul. “Perceived Risk, Trust and Democracy.” Risk Analysis 13, no. 6
(1993): 675-82.
RESOLVE Annotation: Slovic integrates many empirical studies on risk
communication, risk perception, and trust to develop a clear and convincing explanation
of why more information and better communication do not have significant effects on the
publics perception of risk from nuclear facilities. Slovic demonstrates that the public’s
trust in the individuals or agencies communicating about nuclear issues has a far greater
impact on citizen’s perception of risk than does any other factor. The research is
fundamental for understanding the processes needed for designing and operating the RJS.
Publisher’s Abstract: Risk management has become increasingly politicized and
contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and overt conflict have become pervasive.
Risk-perception research has recently begun to provide a new perspective on this
problem. Distrust in risk analysis and risk management plays a central role in this
perspective. According to this view, the conflicts and controversies surrounding risk
management are not due to public ignorance or irrationality but, instead, are seen as a
side effect of our remarkable form of participatoiy democracy, amplified by powerful
technological and social changes that systematically destroy trust. Recognizing the
importance of trust and understanding the “dynamics of the system” that destroys trust
has vast implications for how we approach risk management in the future.
74. —---. “Perception of Risk.” Science 236, no. 4799 (Apr 1987).
RESOLVE Annotation: This article does not provide information on what the public
wants to know about radiation, but the research is fundamental for understanding the
processes needed for designing and operating the MS.
Publisher’s Abstract: Research which examines the judgments people make when they
are asked to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies is presented.
The assumption is made that those who promote and regulate health and safety need to
understand how people think about and respond to risk.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 22
-------
75. -. “Public Perception of Risk.” Journal of Environmental Health 59, no. 9
(May 1997).
RESOLVE Annotation: Drawing upon numerous studies on risk perception, Slovic
argues that the public’s concerns can not be blamed on ignorance or inationality. Instead,
public reaction to risk can be attributable to sensitivity to technical, social, and
psychological qualities of hazards. These qualities include: uncertainty.i.n risk
assessments, perceived inequity in the distribution of risks and benefits, and aversion to
involuntaiy exposure to risk. Another important aspect in the risk-perception problem is
the role of trust. Slovic further argues that the limitations of risk science, the importance
and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex sociopolitical nature of risk, call for
the need for a new approach that emphasizes greater public participation in risk
assessment and risk decision-making. He reasons that a more democratic decision
making process improves the relevance and quality of technical analysis, and increases
the legitimacy and public acceptance of resulting decisions. This article does not address
the question of what the public wants to know about radiation, but it does offer an
important perspective on the likely need for a participatory approach in order to make an
RIS legitimate and trusted by the public.
Publisher’s Abstract: Slovic argues that new perspectives and new approaches are
needed to manage public health risks effectively in US society.
76. Slovic, Paul, James H. Flynn, and Mark Layman. “Perceived Risk, Trust, and the
Politics of Nuclear Waste.” Science 254, no. 5038 (Dec 1991).
Publisher’s Abstract: The DOE’s program for disposing of high-level radioactive
wastes has been impeded by overwhelming political opposition fueled by public
perceptions of risk. Postponing the permanent repository and employing dry-cask storage
of wastes on site would provide the time necessary for difficult social and political issues
to be resolved.
77. Slovic, Paul, Mark Layman, and James H. Flynn. “Perceived Risk, Trust and
Nuclear Waste: Lesson from Yucca Mountain.” In Public Reaction to Nuclear
Waste: Citizen Views of Repository Siting , edited by R.E. Dunlap, M.E. Krafi
and E.A. Rosa. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993. -
RESOLVE Annotation: This study reviews attitude, perception, and opinion surveys
regarding management of high level radioactive waste. Most of the survey questions
appear to have been about overall perceptions of nuclear waste and the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository; therefore the article is not very helpful for the RIS work. However,
there was reported deep distrust of DOE and other federal agencies, and more mist in
state agencies and politicians. They also report significant negative word associations
with “underground nuclear waste repository.”
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 23
-------
78. Slovic, Paul, Mark Layment, and James H. Flynn. “Risk Perception, Trust and
Nuclear Waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain.” Environment 33, no. 3 (Apr
1991).
Resolve Annotation: The authors analyze the political failure of DOE’s Yucca Mountain
waste repository program to overcome public opposition. One reason for the program’s
lack of success is the gulf between public perception of risks associated with nuclear
waste and the prevailing view of the technical community which believes nuclear wastes
can be stored safely in underground isolation. Understanding public perceptions of risk
from radiation, nuclear power, and nuclear waste, the authors argue, is a first step in
resolving the impasse over the waste management problem. To provide greater
understanding of public perception of nuclear waste, the authors employed mental
imagery as an analytic tool. In four telephone surveys 3,334 individuals were asked to
respond to the term underground nuclear waste repository. The surveys yielded 9,439
word associations which were overwhelmingly negative. The four most common single
word associations were dangerous (539), danger (378), death (306), and pollution (276).
These surveys, others cited, and the article itself do not answer the question of what does
the public want to know about radiation, but the “crisis in confidence” in nuclear waste
storage docwnented in this article and in much of the literature does point to some of the
obstacles that will have to be overcome in order to design a radiation information system
that is perceived as credible and trustworthy by the public.
Publisher’s Abstract: Public fear of nuclear power has become a major obstacle to the
US government’s search for a suitable site for storing radioactive wastes. The results of
four surveys of public perception of the risks from nuclear waste storage are presented.
79. Slovic, Paul, S Lichteenstein, and B. Fischoff. “Images of Disaster: Perception
and Acceptance of Risks from Nuclear Power.” In Energy Risk Management ,
edited by G. Goodman and W. Rowe, 223-45. London: Academic Press, 1979.
80. Soderberg, 0. “Information Strategies in Sweden Concerning the Disposal of
Nuclear Waste.” Advisory Group Meeting on Public Understanding of
Radioactive Waste Management Issues. Vienna, June, 1989.
81. Stanley M. Nealey, Barbara D. Melber, and William L. Rankin. Public Opinion
and Nuclear Energy . Lexington, MA, Toronto: D.C. Heath and Company, 1983.
82. Surrey, John. “Ethics of Nuclear Decommissioning.” Energy Policy 20, no. 7 (Jul
1992): 632-41.
Publisher’s Abstract: What to do with the nuclear reactors that reach the end of their
operating lives over the next 30 years entails ethical issues of an intergenerational kind.
Nuclear decommissioning options are examined in the light of these ethical issues.
Prompt dismantlement appears preferable to other options involving postponed
dismantlement, some kind of entombment, or doing nothing. This would avoid
bequeathing future generations with the disamenity of entombed reactors or responsibility
for dismantling other disused reactors. In addition, the choice of option depends on the
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 24
-------
health risks through time and whether a sufficient decommissioning fund exists to avoid
passing on debt and constrained choice. There is a strong case for supporting research
and development from public funds to develop the technology and reduce both the health
risks and the costs, particularly if dismantlement is left to future generations.
83. Swift, Peter. “Nuclear Reactions: When the Nightmare Comes True.” British
Telecom World , Dec 1989, 67-68.
RESOLVE Annotation: This radiation information system is designed to get
information on radiation out to the public in emergency situations. The article does not
address the question of what the public wants to know about radiation.
Publisher’s Abstract: The Radioactive Monitoring Network (RIMNET) is part of a
national response plan to help keep the UK public fully informed with information about
nuclear pollution advisories. Hourly radiation checks at meteorological stations, a
computer database, and a technical coordination group provide information to the public
and to central and local government officials. A radiation alert activates a complete
government screening program for crops, food, livestock and water. Computers are used
to forecast the direction of a radioactive cloud and to project the pattern of contamination
over Britain. All data from 46 field stations in the UK and Northern Ireland are
transmitted to RJMNET’s Central Database Facility (London). All information is relayed
to a backup computer in Lancaster, England, over leased landlines. One of the key
elements of the system is communication. The network is designed to allow Britain to
respond quickly and efficiently to a nuclear incident.
84. Thurber, J.A. Report on Selected Published Works and Written Comments
Regarding the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (1989-
1993) . American University, Washiigton, DC: Center for Congressional and
Presidential Studies, School of Public Affairs, 1994.
85. Trauth, Jeannette M. “A Case Study of Health Risk Communication: What the
Public Wants and What It Gets.” Risk 5, no. winter.
RESOLVE Annotation: Content analysis of local newspaper coverage of public health
risk issues associated with the USX Clariton Coke Works near Pittsburgh, combined with
surveys of local residents identifies the types of information residents find most useful in
making personal decisions about possible health risks and identifies the most credible
source(s) of information. Information deemed useful includes:
* Interpretive information and critical background, rather than unqualified nsk
statements;
* Lists of the types and amounts of toxic chemicals released into the local environment;
* Explanations of known immediate and long term health effects; and
* Distinguishing between “release” and “exposure” of toxic chemicals.
The most credible source of information is family physicians, followed by environmental
organizations. Federal, state, and industry sources were ranked as the least credible. This
article does not address nuclear issues, but provides some comparative description of the
polled resident’s information needs in other environmental pollutant areas and their
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 25
-------
opinions on the credibility of various information sources.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 26
-------
86. Tsuchiya, Fumiyuki. “Nuclear Power and Its Potential (Part 4): Learning to Live
with Nuclear Power.” Japan 21st 35, no. 5 (May 1990): 26-27.
RESOLVE Annotation: This article is of no significant use for the RIS. It reports on
the strategy of overcoming the public’s “collective illusions” on nuclear power with better
infonnation. It does not provide information on what the public wants to know about
radiation.
Publisher’s Abstract: Although people may be given current information regarding
energy demand and environmental problems, often they retain uncertainties regarding the
issue of radioactivity. These uncertainties arise because the need for nuclear power
generation cannot be explained in a way that can put a logical end to collective illusions
about radioactivity. In a nuclear reactor design, the fail-safe principle is maintained in a
manner that is totally unimaginable in terms of common sense. Thompson, who taught
nuclear reactor design at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has designed a
nuclear reactor in which the control rods fall naturally even if the operator lets go of
them. Thompson’s idea for a safe design is endorsed by the possibility that something
usually will happen when an individual is under extreme pressure. Nuclear power plant
accidents must be recorded in human history in tenns of a hard lesson for nuclear power
plant designers. Such accidents can be accepted as a warning against the fallacy that a
nuclear reactor is perfectly designed to be free from accidents.
87. US Department of Energy (DOE). Recommendation by the Secretary of Energy of
Candidate Sites for Site Characterization for the First Radioactive-Waste
Repository ( DOE/S-0048) . Washington, DC: GPO, 1986.
88. US Department of Energy (DOE) (Advisory Board Task for on Radioactive
Waste Management). Earning Public Trust and Confidence: Requisites for
Managing Radioactive Waste . Washington, DC: GPO, 1993.
RESOLVE Annotation: This report makes recommendations about how to combat the
loss of public trust and acknowledges that DOE lacked at that time institutional capacity
to strengthen public confidence. This report may be useful for creating questions for the
‘Us.
89. US Department of Energy (DOE) (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management). Integrated Database for 1990: US Spent Fuel and Radioactive
Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics . Washington, DC: GPO, 1990.
90. US Department of Energy (DOE) (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office).
Yucca Mountain Project Public Participation Program and Guidance (Draft) .
Washington, DC: GPO, 1993.
91. Van der Pligt, Jan. Nuclear Energy and the Public . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell,
1992.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 27
-------
92. Van, Anna. “Public Perceptions About Equity & Fairness: Siting Low-Level
Waste Disposal Facilities in the US and Hungary.” Risk 7, no. spring.
Resolve’s Annotation: The author concludes that the legitimacy of a siting decision
depends on the level of consensus between key stakeholders on the overall necessity of
the facility, the design of a fair siting process, and the fair distribution of risks and
benefits. Van recommends, therefore, that before planning a siting process, the views of
main actors regarding the principles and criteria for fair processes and outcomes be
explored, discussed, and a mutually acceptable agreement be negotiated. This article
does not contain information directly useful for the RIS, but if it is later learned that
citizens would like an RIS to contain information on different models of siting procedural
fairness then this article and others like it would be useful.
Publisher’s Abstract: This paper focuses on the perceptions of fairness associated with
the siting of low- and intermediate level radioactive waste (LLRW and ILRW) disposal
facilities. The study investigates publicly expressed responses to LLRW and ILRW
disposal facility siting processes in the US, specifically in New York, and Hungary. In
New York, 100 letters of protest and petitions by residents and environmental groups
from candidate siting areas were analyzed. In Hungary, texts of 24 semi-structured
interviews with residents, activists, and government offices of the “short-listed”
community and county were investigated. Arguments associated with the fairness issue
were collected from the interviews and analyzed in terms of the conceptual framework
described.
93. Weart, S.R. Nuclear Fear: A History of Images . Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1988.
RESOLVE Annotation: Not acquired. Flynn et al. (1995) says that this book shows
that “nuclear fears are deeply rooted in our social and cultural consciousness.” This book
is unlikely to tell us what the public wants to know about radiation.
94. Wellock, Thomas Raymond. Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in
California, 1958-1978 . Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998.
RESOLVE Annotation: We were not able to acquire this book, but from reading the
book review below (by James Flynn), we believe this could be an important source of
information on public perception and fear of nuclear power. Like much of the public
perception/public opinion literature annotated in this bibliography, we suspect that this
book will not tell us directly what the public wants to know about radiation.
Book Review: In Thomas Raymond Wellock’s hands, the failed attempts to site nuclear
power facilities in California during the I 960s and 1 970s provide new and important
sources for understanding why this technology went into a terminal decline. The author
discusses five significant siting attempts in some detail. He also covers a sixth episode-at
Diablo Canyon-as it influenced the development of anti-nuclear sentiment, especially
within the Sierra Club. Welllock shows that a combination of social, cultural, economic,
and political conditions marked the end of the nuclear option for California even before
the dramatic events of Three Mile Island in 1979. With admirable skill, he transcends the
case study format and ranges over a landscape of individuals, clubs and social groups,
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 28
-------
industries, politicians and parties, communities, and political jurisdictions including
towns, cities, water districts, counties, the state of California, and the federal government.
He includes important court cases and decisions as well as the development of key state
regulatory agencies. The struggle for local and state control over nuclear power is central
to this account, a movement that became a national issue and reached its final logical
conclusion at Shoreham, New York, in 1988. The author’s commentary on social values
and their place in the growth of anti-nuclear strength is unfailingly interesting and
informative, though readers may disagree with his more sweeping claims about the role
of “non-materialist” values. The book has two deficiencies, which perhaps reflect more
on the publisher than on the author. The notes are extensive and well written, but there is
no bibliography and the index is haphazard and inadequate. Let us hope that the time has
not passed when major university presses provide these for scholarly books. In summary,
among the thousands of articles and hundreds of books that have addressed the rise and
fall of nuclear power, Wellock’s book joins the top rank of efforts to account for the
curious and dramatic history of this technology. This is a fine effort and an important
book.
95. Wiltshire, S. “Public Participation in Department of Energy High-Level Waste
Management Programs.” Tennessee Law Review 53(1986): 554-57.
96. Wolfe, Bertram, et al. “Yucca Mountain.” Environment 39, no. 7 (Sep 1997).
RESOLVE Annotation: This article addresses the technical and political challenges and
controversies surrounding the Yucca Mountain repository, and does not address the
question of what does the public want to know about radiation.
Publisher’s Abstract: Wolfe and Carter comment on Flynn et al’s evaluation of Yucca
Mountain with regards to nuclear energy and Flynn et al respond.
97. Yucca Mountain Socioeconomic Study Team (YMSST). The State of Nevada,
Yucca Mountain Socioeconomic Studies. 1986-1992: An Annotated Guide .
Carson City, NV: Nuclear Waste Policy Office, 1993.
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 29
-------
Appendix C
EPA RPD Discussion Guide
Stakeholder Category________________
Who are RESOLVE & TRIANGLE
U. S. EPA’s Radiation Protection Division is updating its public outreach
and communications materials
EPA asked us to help, gather info to inform design of public outreach and
information about radiation
Want to satisf ’ public’s “Right to Know” -- collecting, analyzing, managing
and distributing information & data on naturally occurring and human made
radiation. Want to design public outreach useful to: public, local, state and
Tribal governments, and radiation professionals
Want to find out what you want to know about radiation so EPA can design
outreach that meets your needs and interests
Having discussions to find out information for EPA
Do they have 30 minutes for a discussion?
Now or when?
Schedule time
Number to call?
Can fax copy of a letter from EPA explaining purpose of project. Fax
number?
Appendix C EPA RPD Discussion Guide
-------
Appendix C EPA RPD Discussion Guide 2
-------
EPA RPD Discussion Guide
Want to know about your information needs and how EPA can fulfill the
U. S. EPA’s Radiation Protection Division updating its outreach and
communications material about radiation. Wants to design public outreach
and communications about radiation which is useful to general public and
special audiences. This discussion is part of EPA’s outreach to interested
people.
A. In what situations do you need information about radiation?
(Reminder: find out-what the context was, what did you want to know, why
did you want to know it)
B. Can you usually find the information you need?
C. Why or why not?
D. Where would you go to find that information?
Reminders:
Public library
University library
Personal contacts-organizations or committee you belong to
Newspapers
Federal Internet sites
Medical professionals
Other; please specify_________________________________________________
Appendix C EPA RPD Discussion Guide 3
-------
E. Was the information you wanted easy to find?
F. If no, why was it hard to find? _____________
A:\Appendix C EPA RPP Discussion Guide.doc_
G. If yes, why was it easy to
find?___________________________________
H. Can you think of a current situation that you would like some radiation
information for? -
(Reminder: find out-what was the context, what did you want to know, why
did you want to know it)
I. How would you find the information that you wanted?_______________
J. What are some of the other situations that you need radiation information
for?
Appendix C EPA RPD Discussion Guide 4
-------
K. Which sources of information on radiation do you use most frequently?
Reminder:
Public agencies: EPA, DOE, NRC, state agencies, local agencies
Non-governmental organizations: Environmental groups, trade
organizations
Citizen groups
Word of mouth-personal contacts
Public libraiy
The Internet,
News media
DOE Information Repositories
Other: Please specify_________________________________
L. When designing public outreach and information what is more important
to you—ease of use, reliability, credibility, balance between pro and con
views and information?________________________________________
M. There are many formats for presenting information, of the following
formats which are most useful to you and the least useful to you?
___________Pamphlets, flyers, short written materials
Longer ,written materials
__________A little bit of written materials with lots of pictures, graphs and
figures
___________Lectures or discussion
__________The Internet or worldwide web
N. Are there other factors that are important to you as the EPA designs the
public outreach?
0. There are many issues related to radiation. How concerned or interested
in these topics is your constituency or the people you talk frequently with?
Radiation
risk
Appendix C EPA RPD Discussion Guide 5
-------
Public health and
safety___________
Worker
safety___________
Waste disposal_
Nuclear power plants_________________________________________
Industrial
activities
Plans for mitigation, cleanup, decommissioning, monitoring, reuse and
emergency response for facilities that formerly handled radioactive material
Emergency
response
Appendix C EPA RPD Discussion Guide 6
-------
Disposition and transportation of
wastes___________________________________
Changing land patterns around facilities that handle radioactive material
(currently and
historically)
Distinctions between high level and low level radioactive waste___________
Distinctions between chemical and radioactive wastes____________________
Superfund
sites
Onsite/offsite issues (specific contaminated sites, current and past
emissions, burials, spills and
releases)_______________________________________________
Regulatory and inspection history of
facilities______________________________
Others: please
specify
P. As EPA improves its public outreach, would you like to continue to be
involved?
Q. How would you like to be involved?______________________________
R. If you would like to be involved is it ok if we give your name and
telephone number to an EPA staff person?________________________
Appendix C EPA RPD Discussion Guide 7
-------
Thank you very much for helping us and giving up your time, Ijust have a
one more question.
S. Can I ask you if you think there is any aspect of radiation information
that has not been covered in this interview?_________________________
Thank you again for your time and thought.
Appendix C EPA RPD Discussion Guide g
-------
Appendix C
EPA RPD Interview Protocol
Stakeholder Category_________________
Hello, my name is _____________, from (Triangle Associates or
RESOLVE). The U. S. EPA’s Radiation Protection Division is seeking to
update its information and educational materials on radiation in the
environment. EPA currently provides basic radiation information through
publications and a web site.
The EPA has asked us to help them gather background information that they
will use to improve their outreach and communications service to ensure
that the public can access accurate information about radiation in the
environment. EPA is interested in knowing the information needs of the
public, those affected by potential radiation hazards, local, state and tribal
governments, and environmental professionals.
We would like to interview you because of your work with radiation
protection, environmental, or public education issues. Do you have some
time right now or can I schedule a time to talk to you? The interview will
take between 30—45 minutes.
Ok, then I will call you at (time) . Is this the telephone number you
will be at? ___________
If it would be helpful, I could fax you a copy of a letter from EPA that
explains the purpose of this project. What is your fax number?
Thank you, I will call you at (time) on (date) at (number).
Appendix C EPA RPD Interview Protocol
-------
Appendix C EPA RPD Interview Protocol 2
-------
EPA RPD Interview Schedule
Hello, my name is ______. I am calling from (Triangle Associates or
RESOLVE) to talk to you about ways to improve informatiof and
educational materials on radiation in the environment. U. S. EPA’s
Radiation Protection is sponsoring this project to improve its public
outreach about radiation in the environment. The EPA has asked us to help
them identify ways of providing information that are useful to
environmental professionals and the public. We are talking to people like
you to find out what you want to know about radiation in the environment
so that EPA can design services that meet your interests.
First, I am going to ask you some questions about your experience getting
the radiation information you want or need.
A. Can you think of a time when you wanted to know something about
radiation?
aNo bYes
B. If yes, can you tell me about the situation?
(Reminder: find out-what was the context, what did you want to know, why
did you want to know it)
C. Did you find the information you were looking for?
aNo bYes
D. If no, why not?
Appendix C EPA RPD Interview Protocol 3
-------
Appendix C EPA RPD Interview Protocol 4
-------
E. If yes, how did you find that information?
F. Where was that information?_______________________
Reminders:
Public library
University library
Personal contacts-organizations or committee you belong to
Newspapers
Internet
Government sites
Medical Professionals
Other: Please specify______________________
G. Was the information you wanted easy to find?
aNo bYes
H. If no, why was it hard to find? _____________________
I. If yes, why was it easy to find? _____________________
J. Can you think of a current situation that you want information on
radiation hazards or radiation in the environment for? ____________
(Reminder: find out-what was the context, what did you want to know, why
did you want to know it)
K. How would you find the information that you wanted?_____________
Appendix C EPA RPD Interview Protocol 5
-------
L. What are some of the other situations that you need radiation information
for?
Now, I would like to ask you some question about sources of information
on radiation.
M. Which sources of information on radiation do you use most frequently?
On a scale of 1-6, 6 being most frequently and 1 being never, please rank
each of the following information sources.
______Public agencies, EPA, DOE, NRC, state agencies, local agencies
Non-governmental organizations
_____Word of mouth-personal contacts
_____Public library
_____The Internet
_____News media
______Medical Professionals
______Other, Please specify___________________________________________
As the EPA develops its public outreach on radiation, they will try to
develop systems that meet the most people’s needs. The next questiàn will
help the EPA decide which factors to pay most attention to as they design
their public outreach.
N. On a scale of 1-6, 6 being most important and 1 being not at all
important, how would you rank the following factors?
_____Easy to use
______Reliable (the public outreach is dependable, users trust it, have faith
and confidence in it)
Appendix C EPA RPD Interview Protocol 6
-------
_____Credible (the information from the public outreach system is
believable, plausible, it is worth people’s confidence)
_____Balanced (pro’s and con’s)
______Other; please specify__________________________________________
Appendix C EPA RPD Interv iew Protocol 7
-------
0. There are many formats for presenting information, of the following
formats which are most useful to you and the least useful to you?
___________Pamphlets, flyers, short written materials
____________Longer ,written materials
__________A little bit of written materials with lots of picmres, graphs and
figures
___________Lectures or discussion
___________The Internet or world wide web
P. There are many issues related to environmental radiation. For each of
these, can I ask you how concerned or interested the people you serve seem
to be?
On a scale of 1-6, 6 being most concerned/interested and 1 being not at all
concerned/interested how would you rank the following issues?
_______Radiation risk
_______Public health and safety
________Worker safety
________Waste disposal
_______Nuclear power plants
________Industrial activities
_______Plans for mitigation, cleanup, decommissioning, monitoring, reuse
and emergency response for facilities that formerly handled radioactive
material
Emergency response
_______Disposition and transportation of wastes
Changing land use patterns around facilities that handle radioactive
material (currently and historically)
________Distinctions between high level wastes and low level wastes
________Distinctions between chemical and radioactive wastes
_______Superfund sites
________Onsite/offsite issues (specific contaminated sites; current and past
emissions, burials, spills, releases)
________Regulatory & inspection history of facilities
________Others; please specify?
Appendix C EPA RPD Interview Protocol 8
-------
Q. As EPA improves its public outreach function, would you like to
continue to be involved?______________________________________
U.S EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsy iania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
Appendix C EPA RPD Interview Protocol 9
-------
R. How would you like to be involved?___________________________
S. If yes, would you like us to pass your name, telephone number and
address on to the EPA so that they can get in touch with you?__________
Thank you very much for helping us and giving up your time, I just have a
one more question.
T. Can I ask you if you think there is any aspect of radiation information
that has not been covered in this interview?________________________
Thank you again for your time and thought.
Write any extra notes here if you need more room.
Don’t forget to write the question number next to the answer.
Appendix C EPA RPD Interview Protocol 10
-------
Appendix D
EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses
For questions A-I, situations in which information was needed, the following was
offered by respondents:
Respondent #1 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): First, there is the
situation of risk analysis for operational emissions and for clean-up decisions; second, there is
the range of estimates for individual doses for safety and clean-up standards. The information
cannot usually be found because there is a wide range of operational standards that are not
expressed in terms of the underlying risks that members of the public and the media often ask
about. There are questions about which standards apply under what circumstances, and why
there are differences in standards between agencies, and why there are differences in the
underlying nsk levels utilized to generate the standards.
To seek information, we go to Internet sites of federal and state agencies and other organizations;
to independent experts who are often at universities; and to other orgsni72tions. Personal
contacts are very important.
The information is hard to find because standards are presented in individual regulations without
comparisons to other radiation or radionuclide standards, for example, DOE puts out materials
saying acceptable public radiation exposure is 100 milliremlyear. The average person looking
for a standard would only find one for DOE, but not for EPA. DOE operational exposure figures
give no explanation of how they are measured, then there is a different figure and standard for
hazardous air particulate emissions.
Respondent #2 (Consultants): Radiation in utility business. Itis very difficult to find needed
information, esp., in relation to DOE Weapons Complex and exposure to workers. There is
some mb. from epidemiological studies including the “RERF” (formerly, the Atomic Bomb
Casualty Commission, and some for discreet sites, but more is needed.
What sources are used depends on what is being looked for. Exposure data is histonc and very
hard to get, and sometimes not reliable. There is also the question of the potential recycling of
radioactive waste that is bemg done outside of the NEPA process and unregulated. There are 1.5
million tons of wastes that are being promoted for recycling into products for public use without
the requirement to inform the public. EPA should look at this.
Sources used most frequently are personal contacts and federal Internet sites (and others).
Information is also available from the Argon or DOE lab sites, Congressional reports, state and
local agencies involved in oversight, and the network of organizations interested in the topic.
Respondent #3 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Clean-up at nuclear sites
and transportation of waste, esp. with regard to Hanford. Information is generally available,
pnmanly because I don’t need much. I’ve been doing this for years and have a lot in my head.
Don’t know why EPA is doing this when they have so many more important tlungs to do I
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses
-------
would go to EPA for information. I would use DOE sources, and the Center for Disease
Control. Also, the media (radio, magazines like NRDC publications) All the information we
need to know is already available.
Respondent #4 (Other National Groups): Worker exposures at DOE facilities, commercial
industry, uranium mining sites; exposure of people involved in transportation of wastes such as
thick drivers, longshoremen, medical emergency workers, rural responders whb are first at a site;
exposure of communities next to sites. Information of health effect is very difficult to find.
There are not that many studies and lots of un2n wered questions.
I mostly use personal contacts and experts in the medical field to get information. I don’t use the
Internet or web.
Respondent #5 (Tribes and Tribal Organizations): Any information on radiation related to
geographical locales. They have 17 tribes in their state who have a great lack of technology to
find any information on radiation. Information on mitigation. Nevada Indian Environmental
Coalition (NIEC) gets information from the EPA website (but it mostly has information on
mdoor air), University of Nevada, and public meetings with the state and EPA on such topics as
Radon. They find it inconvenient to have to ‘order’ information or can)’ it if they are not
connected to the Internet. When they are present at meetings the information is a bit more
accessible.
Respondent #6 (States and State Organi7ations): Need information on radiation when it relates to
a public perception of how a particular topic affects them. For example, how a medical x-ray
affects a person. Give them comparisons of the dose in tangible terms. Can usually find
information due to familiarity and frequency with their sources. Use the CRCPD, NRC, FDA,
and technical documents gathered from professional contacts, federal Internet sites, and the
national low level waste group. Easy to find through these channels.
Has difficulty finding information on very simple topics like ‘waste volumes or activity of waste
a certain sites’. It becomes challenging when the information must be verified by multiple
sources (i.e. to have credibility, validity for the state legislature) or has to be double checked for
how recent the data/or mformat ion is.
Respondent #7 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Local oversight
committee on radiation. Need information, when contacted, on health affects. Must follow up
on claims to verify or disprove risks and affects. Using the Internet, email list called ‘radsafe’,
and a lot of knowledgeable contacts, can fmd some information. But not always b/c of not
knowing where to look or the information is not readily available. Once the right avenues are
found, it is easy to fmd.
Respondent #8 (States and State Organizations): Specific miormation about an industrial park
having food sterilization going on and a nearby school wants to know the risks. Can usually find
the information readily as this person is a professional and knows who to contact. First contacts
the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements, then the organizations and
committees he works with; the International Commission on Radiation Protection (authorized by
Congress and independent), the International Commission on Radiological Units, and the
National Academy of Sciences Hazards Committee for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 2
-------
Though this information is easy to find for him, it is very technical and not easily accessible to
the general public.
Respondent #9 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Information on
environmental cleanup of nuclear weapons sites for the general public.
The information is accessible from Industry, trade, and environmental groups 1ong with other
personal contacts. Federal Internet sites and other sites are great for a variety and diversity of
sources.
Respondent #10 (Public Interest troups): Need general information on radiation to provide to
public. Using contacts at DOE sites or contractors for information, increasingly using
government Internet sites, frequently uses personal contacts and academic journals. Information
is easy to find when there is an actual process or decision happening. For example, if DOE is
involved in NEPA decision or process that is underway, you can find information on it.
information is hard to find if you need specifics or greater detail. Information on exposure or
momtonng is hard to get hold of.
Respondent #11 (States and State Organizations): Radiation related to health affects. Radon.
Working to gather information, or update it to provide to the general public. Their organization
is a source of information for other organizations. They know where to go for new information
and research. They have access that the members of the public do not. They first check with
organizations who make their living compiling information, check reviews, scientific
mformation, and federal Internet sites. The information system on radiation that currently exists
is sponsored by government and non-government organizations. We feed, not the other.
The more specific it is, the more challenging it is to locate for them or the general public.
Members of the public are looking for more basic information that is not necessarily current.
Respondent #12 (National Environmental Organizations): Laws regulations and policies, who
does what where. Wanted to find out about Yucca Mountain, who is going to issue the heath
regulations, who will enforce, who will set and implement? Like to have a one-stop, user-
friendly technical information source about radiation terms and radiation risk. There is not a
good site that talics about linear no-threshold theory, why it applies to radiation, health affects on
human body, nsk modeling for the human body. Put info in perspective. He knows there are
different principles - but if someone doesn’t know, it would be helpful for the EPA to say why
they are different and how.
Information is usually found after a lot of digging. (Not a typical answer) works with EPA and
knows whom to call. Use some Internet sites (Health Physics Society has the worst site ever,
even though you think it would be good). Suggests the EPA work with the Health Physics site,
NCRP site as well. University of Michigan- use a university to help lmk. Books are a good
source of information (BEIR books, NAS books are great for Radon), professional reports by
ICR.P and NCRP—and need to be up on the web.
When can’t find the information- better way to ask can he find in a form that is usable to him 7 Is
the language arcane? Information may be out there, but it is not accessible, in some cases it is
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 3
-------
just not there. EPA may not need a ‘hotline’, but they need a well stocked website that is
accessible.
Respondent #13 (Tribal Governments and Organizations):
Note: This respondent was very distressed about the approach being taken to gather information
about tribal interests. Specifically, he wondered why the EPA American Indian Environmental
Protection Office was not consulted and did not send out the letter. He also emphasized that to
find out what the tribal nations want, you have to talk with them directly and cannot rely on a
few interest organizations, some of which don’t have any direct membership or accountability.
He cited the many times he has been called to represent tribal interests, and has said to call the
tribe directly, only to be quoted in a report as speaking for the tribes.
He is veiy frustrated about the lack of comprehensive outreach directly to tribal representatives
and wants it to be different. He reminded me that they are sovereign nations to whom the U.S.
government has Trust responsibilities, and that they must be treated differently than other
interest groups. He says that the issue of veracity of the findings is directly related to the
approach taken to gathering data, and that the approach being used here will not be credible
among the tribes.
However, he also wants to cooperate with this effort as much as possible and agreed to complete
the interview provided that we are clear that he does not represent all tribes. I told him that we
would pass his concerns passed along to both the sponsoring EPA office and the AJEP Office.
Comments: He needs data about the land in and around sites that is owned by the tribes through
Trusts. If EPA puts together this data base, there will be a question of veracity because there is a
lack of confidence in regulatory standards and enforcement around past facilities. The data
needs com,boration or an independent oversight group.
He would set up a whole subject matter area on matters pertaining to tribes. What is in the data
base should be guided by Trust responsibilities. There is a question of EPA’s regulatory or
oversight role, for example on DOD or DOE sites that include tribal lands. The data base should
cover federal sites, utilities that must meet federal standards, and environmental management
sites.
The data base should cover all tribal interests, including land rights, cultural uses, health and
welfare, and the data gathered by states that monitor sites for cumulative impact information.
Respondent #14 (States and state organizations): setting clean-up regulations for implementing
NRC guidelines. Looking for draft NRC guidance and for information on radiation risk and
what dose levels mean.
The information can usually be found. There’s a lot of international and national guidance
through the ICRP’s and NCRP’s that give a lot of mformation on dose/risk. It is readily
available. To get the information, respondent goes to federal internet sites, especially the NRC
site, to experts in the field, especially the Battelle NW Labs, and to personal and organizational
contacts, especially the CRCPD Committee on Decommissiomng and Decontamination. The
information is easy to find if you’re willing to dig a little.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 4
-------
Respondent #15 (National Community and Site Specific Organi7.ations): When people make
Freedom of Information (FOJA) requests for certain devices. School kids doing special projects
who want to know “everything there is to know about radiation”; real estate agents or potential
land purchasers where there are possible burial sites or contamination. The information can
usually be found, either because we keep it, or it has been sent to us, or it is mthe library across
the hail. Respondent also has a lot of contact with other Agreement states and works through
the Southern States Energy Board. Professional organizations, mcluding the Health Physics
Society, and International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP), and the American Nuclear
Society, are also good sources for information. Finally, many vendors produce data and
information. Information is easy to find. And, respondent has been working in the field for
thirty+ years.
Respondent #16 (National Environmental Organi7ations): Effects on health; medical information
about exposures; information on accidental releases. Finding out what exposure levels are
requires getting monitormg records, metrology reports that are not always available or reliable.
Accidental spill information is not routinely reported to the public. Information is hard to get,
and not always reliable. We often have to use FOIA requests that are a lot of trouble.
The integrity of reports is questionable because many facilities are self-monitoring. Need
independent oversight. Also, it’s hard to get old records on facilities — “stonewalling” by
operators. About risk levels there is an ongoing debate in the professional and scientific
community about the impact of low level exposure, so it’s hard to know what is true. Even when
we get data, it is often hard to sort out, especially for lay people, so we must consult with
independent experts.
Sources used include federal and state agencies, and county health departments. Experts there
and outside (m universities) are a major source of information. We also turn to elected officials
when we can’t get information. Federal Internet sites are heavily used, along with other
Internet sites. We are often forced to make FOJA requests.
Respondent #17 (States and State Organizations): Will this be used for all areas of EPA — Not
just
RPD, Water, Air, etc? Nothing technical they need to know. Need to know what regulatory info
from EPA. Need to know EPA’s approach or rational for a given rule. Distribute pamphlet
about Radon. Keeps them from having to duplicate. Always useful to set EPA protocols and
guidance. Resource. Have all the information National Academy of Sciences, ICRP, NCRP,
recognized organizations that are not regulators, federal sites — NRC.
Respondent #18 (National Community and Site Specific Organization): Used to help others
understand risk management as it related to environmental cleanup. Can sometimes find the
information (speaking for citizens that call their organization) They feel that citizens don’t
know where to look for information or the information is not readily available and in and easy to
ready and understand format. They go to the DOE website, their own library which contain
many different federal documents, think tank materials and non-profit documents. They feel that
the mformation is out there if you know where to look Often times the information needs to be
synthesized m an easy-to-use maimer for the layperson.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 5
-------
Respondent #19 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Need information
because state has a federal nuclear facility or proposed nuclear facilities and citizens from all
over the state need information, from basic to complex. Our organization, in conjunction with
other federal agencies, deals with Superfwid style clean up and the State, DOE and EPA will
publish proposed clean up plan and people will call with questions. I hate to sound negative but
people seem to be comfortable with the knowledge (or in many cases, lack of knowledge) about
radiation. Most frequently they get their information from the media, whose Job is to
sensationalize info to increase viewership. People are familiar with media scare features, Three-
Mile Island and Homer Simpson and they are comfortable with their misconceptions. Often
times citizens call when they can’t find information on TV and come to a public hearing about a
proposed incinerator of mixed waste and think that 1 microgram will kill them! The
information is out there if people want to look for it but there is a very low interest in really
finding out about radiation. We do lots of county fairs and malls to try to get the word out and
most people are comfortable with their misconceptions. It is hard b/c people don’t seem to care
and a negative education has already occurred through the media (shows like the Simpsons, etc.)
People also are quick to think that the federal government is not being upfront with them and
they have a skepticism related to radioactivity regardless of who produces the materials.
Respondent #20 (Canadians): Respondent is a specialist in aboriginal relations in Canada, not in
nuclear power. He recently spoke at the Second International Symposium on Ionizing Radiation
- Environmental Approaches for Nuclear Facilities, held in Ottawa, and was brought to our
attention by a conference attendee. He was quite happy to help us, but could not talk about
nuclear situations in detail since that is not his specialty. His keynote presentation entitled
“Citizen Engagement from and Aboriginal and Environmental Perspective” is available as power
point slides from The Willow Group who managed the conference. He made the point that there
are very specialized laws and cultural considerations when consulting with aboriginal tribes. He
faxed the program for the conference that contains other useful international references and
people (included in Appendix).
Respondent also recommended that we get a copy of the ‘Seaborn Report’ on hearings held
concerning depositing nuclear waste in vaults in the Canadian Shield. This is native land for
many aboriginal tribes and would have impacted them significantly. He referred us to the
Canadian government web site for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in order that
we might locate the person who managed the hearings process.
Respondent #21 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): How much radiation is out there; how
it is dispersed; what are the impacts on human health and the environment? What impacts on the
unique tribal lifestyle and culture? Respondent usually cannot find the information, and it’s hard
to get. Everybody’s afraid to turn loose of the pertment information; afraid they’ll get sued.
This causes us to suspect that something bed happened whether it did or not, then there are
denial, etc. It’s hard to do scientific studies that are relevant unless the expert understands the
unique lifestyle and culture.
To get information respondent relies on hired technical experts and outside experts, including
medical professionals. It’s hard to trust the information that comes from the agencies.
Respondent #22 (State and state organizations): Technical information about uses of radioactive
matenals at site. Technical information that would help m evaluating releases. It has gotten
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 6
-------
better in the past few years; now we can usually find the information we need. This is because
we have established good personal relationships with the people in the federal agencies. You
have to know the right question to ask them, also. They don’t volunteer information.
Respondent #23 (National Environmental Organization): We are in the process of working with
the DOE to establish a national database on the amounts of radioactive waste currently stored or
handled at the DOE sites. Issue came up-will know about the quantity and thetype but will not
know about the risk and the dose. Can usually find the information he needs, generally. But by
and large —the nsk to the public- bottom line this information is not available. Because there
have been no Uniform Clean-Up Standards set. EPA has chosen not to exercise
jurisdiction/regulation over DOE, have looked to NRC decommissioning rule as the generally
applicable regulation.
To get information on dose or risk generally, EPA has info in the public domain. BEIR
materials, EPA, materials from the NRC, International standards, NEI, Internet. Public domain
stuff is veiy general. JEER, NIRS. Again, specific is hard to find. Monitoring and getting it
translated so you can understand it.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 7
-------
Respondent #24 (Tribal Government and Organization) To produce the Tribal Decision Maker’s
Guide to Plutonium we needed good information on the effects of radiation on cell structure. It
was hard to get good information. It was not available or if it was available, we were not aware
of it and other people didn’t know it existed. We couldn’t find information in plain English.
More complicated information was available. We mostly used our office library.
This kind of information is hard to find because it is generally done in so simplified a way that it
is inaccurate and misleading, or it is so complicated and geared for the professional that the
layperson can’t read it.
Respondent #25 (Tribal Government and Organization): Mined uranium on Navaho land. Did
not find information other than word of mouth. Didn’t know where to go. Looked in the library,
but I knew nothing to be able understand any of it. Asked Dept of Interior, but they weren’t
helpful. We need someone who can translate technical information to the public. I call nuclear
power plants and put the information on e-mail for others to get. Tried to get information on
transport of nuclear waste from a DOE workshop, but it wasn’t helpful. The DOE was preaching
to the choir in their technical language and not to the general public. We have to beat them with
a stick to get any understandable information out of them. How are they going to train any local
groups to handle emergency situations from a waste transport accident? The routes are secret.
Respondent #26 (Local Government Organization): Received a call from a local public health
official, who was getting called by concerned citizens about radiation risks, about a Superfund
site in her community. Refen ed them to an EPA website run by the Office of Air and Radiation.
Don’t know what happened, don’t normally follow-up.
Respondent #27 (National Community and Site Specific Organization): We wanted to find out
about U.S. Ecology a major nuclear waste management company in California. We wanted
statistical data on the kinds of radioactive waste they were handing. The company claimed the
majority was low level radiological (hospital) waste. We called the California Dept. of Health,
but they refused to give the information saying it was proprietary. We’re thinking of going to
the California Dept of Transportation. California does not keep data on radioactive waste
producers, nor records of shipments. The potential for abuse is high, because the public doesn’t
have access to this information.
Eventually it took the intervention of Congressman Miller to get some of the waste stream
information released. We face issues of proprietary and classified information. It shouldn’t
have to be that hard to get information. We were able to gather some of data we were looking
for, but only on a piece meal basis.
What we want is a geographically organized comprehensive inventory(including radio nucleides)
of what radioactive waste is being generated, in what quantities, by whom, and where is it going.
Toxic Release Inventory is one model. We’ve worked to make TRI more user friendly,
geographically organized, and company specific. We’ve tned asking universities informally to
share information on radioactive waste, but we can’t always rely on voluntary information
sharing. The EPA is the correct agency to house this information, because it is the only agency
that can require reporting.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 8
-------
Respondent #28 (Academic/Scholarly Journal): It’s generally easy for me to gain access to
information on radiation. I have 33 years experience as a health physicist. I don’t really have
any specific information needs —I’m linked into the best sources on radiation. Example: I needed
pubhshed information on thyroid blocking. I checked Medline (online medical information
searchable mdex) and Quest (online searchable index of health physicist journals). I checked
other on-line health physicist journals. The search yielded a large volume of articles on the
topic. I frequently use the NRC website as a source of regulatory information: I also serve on
scientific committees of the NCRPM and have access to information through colleagues.
Respondent #29 (Academic/Scholarly Journal): Nuclear Testing sites (NTS), level or Radiation
in Water sources (Lake Mead, Colorado River, Atlas Mine contribution to problem), soil testing
for plutonium, man made radiation sources v. natural (non-man made sources of radiation),
variant model values.
Definitional information is readily’available, but too general for those who have a technical
background and desire the specifics and background data. Or the information is to specific.
Sampling data—technical people want the background testing data, the data that reflects how the
test was taken and number of samples taken. Background information can be in an addendum to
public documents. Government responds to damage control and the public is too naïve and
doesn’t understand that even without man-made problems radiation exists throughout our daily
lives.
Information obtained mostly from libraries, DOE, Universities, project managers. This
information can be too technical or too general for public to get information but he can break it
down and share with public at large. Machine and human error is high. Public cannot verify
information. Background information not supplied. Ground water contaminants model is too
conservative.
Peer review by an outside entity reflecting DOE data inaccuracies would be helpful. Public
doesn’t have a technical comprehension for the data—they need it broken down into easily
understood information.
Most information comes from library, web; no problem for him in past twelve years getting
detailed information. Feeling that DOE censures information—he shares his data with public.
He believes that the sophistication and education needed to comprehend radiation issues makes it
difficult for most people to comprehend government information published or to know where to
look for information people want.
Respondent #30 (State and State Organization): We help implement EPA’s Radon Program We
have to explain radiation risk to the public in Colorado. Need mfonnation on comparable risk to
other non-radiation risk factors. What is the outside ambient radon level in the U.S., are there
good measurements? NCIP did a report on background levels
In this case we contacted our local EPA representative and searched the literature, but the
numbers tend to be too geographically specific. We did not find the information on national
ambient radon levels, because up until now no one has not thought it important enough to
measure.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 9
-------
Respondent #31 (State and State Organization): Our mformation needs are met. We provide
radon information to our customers who don’t have the information: School districts don’t have
the time or knowledge to deal radon issues. We provide free radon testing for schools and
consultants to tailor specific solutions for the school. The schools are in shock over testing. The
health department can only address the health issues, but we offer a full solution that combines
testing, diagnosis by NYSERDA, and then a heating and ventilation solution chat addresses both
health concerns and energy efficiency. The goal is to provide no or low cost solutions. The
energy cost savings can hopefully cover the costs of the making the upgrades. Sometimes there
is atwo year pay back.
The school administrators don’t know who to contact about radon. They depend on who does
the testing to guide them. Radon is not on their radar screens. We’ve produced a number of
publications: “Indoor Air Quality: A Guide to Your Home”, “A Home Owner’s Guide to
Ventilation”, and “Active Soil Depressurization for School Units.” There needs to be greater
awareness of indoor air quality issues in the schools. When parents have access to general
information they become concerned and their concerns are what drives the schools to take action.
Respondent #32 (State and State Organization): Radio nucides in nuclear medicine. Looked
through publications and did not find information. Then found a website on nuclear medicine.
We can also ask other staff people, use my personal library, or our division library with a
computerized index. We also use commercial software such as Quest indexes on health physics,
and health physics journals and newsletters. Occasionally use the Vanderbilt library system,
sometimes NRD, DOE, FDA, and EPA. Couldn’t imagine using the newspapers. In general it is
easy for me to get the radiation information I need, but it is not always routine and occasionally
impossible.
Respondent #33 (State and State Organization): Recently working on a guidance document on
radioactivity in municipal solid waste transfer stations. An NAS study is available as well as
literature in health physics journals. There is more information available than needed for this
task. Relatively easy for me to get information. I would go to Federal agencies for documents
such as FDA, NRC Nu-Reg documents, and EPA documents. The Regulatory Analysis Code of
Federal Regulations. Professional journals and organizations and international organizations
such as Health Physics Society, International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP),
National Commission on Radiation Protection and Management (NCRPM), International
Commission on Radiological Units (ICRU), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), American College of Radiation
(ACR). The National Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (NCRCD) is very
active in information dissemination and sends out regular broadcast e-mails.
Respondent #34 (State and State Organization): There is great controversy over determining
ground water contamination at the Nevada Test Site. A lot of money is being spent. 300 curies
may be tied in ground water and alluvium. The EPA could help demystify what is known and
not known about radioactive ground water contamination in Nevada and explain this to the
people of Nevada.
Another issue is Yucca Mountain. It is hard to interpret the complex models, but they show that
the high level waste repository will eventually leak (exposure levels of 25 imuirams up to 25
kilometers from the site. The EPA will eventually have to understand this and explain what it
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 10
-------
means.
To get information on Yucca Mountain, you have to go to the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, a separate agency from DOE whose sole purpose is manpgement of Yucca
Mountain. For Nevada Test Site, you go to DOE’s Environmental Management division. Going
to separate agencies is one of the challenges in getting information. What information you could
get wouldn’t be of much use unless you were a highly technical person such a a radiation
physicist. I rely almost exclusively on EPA and DOE information.
The Southern Nevada situation is pretty unique. There is a need for information much more
tailored to the local environment. There needs to be openness about radiation historically in the
environment
Respondent #35 (State and State Organization): Does training and analysis of radiation for state
agencies and emergency response for the approximately 130 incidents that occur each year.
Example: Needed information on regulation information. Florida has naturally occurnng
radiation and the EPA acceptable norms on naturally occurring radiation. Situation: needed
information on public health risks from slag material in a residential area. Used the extensive in-
house library. Our entire radiation staff are health physicists. We have access to a lot of
information.
Respondent #36 (State and State Organization): Radioactive Waste related to plant
decommissioning, regulatory protection programs. Conflict of States and Federal Laws. Can a
state enact laws more restrictive than federal regulations? Gathering information for state
legislature and their constituents need to know both sides of issue and cost benefit analysis v.
risks to public. Information is accessible through web. The regulations giving the various
agencies their individual authority are difficult to locate. A web sight with a synopsis would be
useful with “hotlinks” to specific statutes. They get most information from Internet, some from
libraries or Federal agencies. Web sights with links to pamphlets in PDF format are useful for
circulating. Most information is in language for layperson with graphics making it easily
decipherable.
Respondent #37 (Industry/Trade Association): Answered as a provider of radiation information.
Gets many calls from students and the public concerned about radiation. Exaxnple Caller
concerned about radon exposure in the home, has an earthen cellar. Suggests additional testmg
to verify. Gave him EPA Radon booklet, suggested companies that do abatement. Eventually
state passed a law requiring reporting of radon information for property transactions. Sends
adults to university web sites and federal Internet sites
Gets questions related to transportation from the public. Also questions from school kids. He
sends them to www.NRC.govINRC/school.html and other sites for kids web mformation on
radiation. Site also has a teacher’s corner Other good sites NRC Penn State, NEI.
Gets e-mails from kids and sends them EPA materials. Sees a need for information on radiation
geared towards kids.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 11
-------
Respondent #38 (States and State Organizations): Need information regarding disposal of
recycled radioactive low level waste. Pertaining to the area of Riceland, WA. Can usually fmd
the information either by attending the International Low Level Waste Forum or through the
contractor. They provide a low level waste notes that summarizes these issues Nationwide. The
respondent uses organizations and personal contacts along with the sources listed above. In
addition uses the national low level radiation waste Internet sites. Because of the respondent’s
participation in the International Low Level Waste Forum, he is able to get information from a
variety of contacts through this network of participants.
Respondent #39 (States and State Organizations): Shipment of radioactive waste into a state for
disposal. Information about half life and health hazards. Need basic information concerning low
level waste and how it differs from high level waste and how compacts were formed.
Respondent can usually find the information he needs. Works with personal contacts to gather
information includes facilitating a forum among states to promote communication among states.
This is part of the compact states Low Level Radiation Waste Forum. In addition to
participation in professional organizations and personal contacts, he gets information from DOE
and NRC as well as the University Libraiy. Answers are usually easy to find because he needs
basic information-questions are not usually ones that ‘stump’ the experts.
For questions H & I, a current situation in which information is needed, the
comments were:
Respondent #1 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): The 100-Area clean-up
site on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation with regard to applicable standards and risk information
for doses. To get information, it was necessary to go to each individual regulatory source, then
put together a matrix for public use that compared standards. Such info is not presented in EPA
or DOE documents about the clean-up.
Respondent #2 (Consultants): We’re currently m court over the recycling of nuclear waste
materials. Need to know the characteristics of the waste, whether it is contaminated on the
surface or volumetrically contaminated. DOE is “hustling” nickel.
Respondent #3 (National Community and Site Specific Orgamzations): No other situations.
Respondent #4 (Other National Groups): No new situations to add.
Respondent #5 (Tribes and Tribal Organizations): Any nuclear testing in the state. When testing
the tribes want to know what are the affects? Tribes want to know any study results instead of
having to search for them. Naval Air station. They want to know about any disposal of wastes.
They feel there is total lack of consultation with tribes when waste is transported through towns
or reservations. Foreign spent fuel is being transported on its way to Idaho and there is not
proper consultation. The state does not have one person who notifies or works with the tribes.
Do not find the information they need on DOE transporting waste to Yucca mountam.
Notification of WHIPP being transported. Why not send an email to tribes notifying them before
nuclear waste goes through their reservations
Respondent #6 (States and State Orgamzations): Transportation of radioactive waste Naturally
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 12
-------
occurnng radioactive material. In looking for information on the transportation of waste they 1)
check with people who have expertise in the field, 2) check with agencies: DOE, 3)DOE sites
and 4) contact whoever has shipping responsibility (sometimes the NRC) Itis difficult to find
information on how or by whom low level waste is shipped. There is no tracking (i.e. foreign
spent fuel to DOE sites.)
Respondent #7 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): What in the decay chain
in some radioactive waste on the reservation will become a problem? Is it chenucal or
radioactive? Who to call? Try personal contacts and DOE contractors to get the information,
but these are not complete answers.
Respondent #8 (States and State Organizations): Food irradiation., fear of irradiation. Finding
out about E. coli and food contamination- which is more dangerous put in terms that is
understandable for the general public. Sources include the Internet, and agencies.
Respondent #9 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Migration of plutonium
through clay soils. Goes to the National Resource Center for Plutonium or calls someone first in
the scientific field at the consortium of three universities. In addition to these scientists, can find
academic documents electronically through their website. library.
Respondent #10 (Public Interest Groups): Discussions w!th DOE and their central Internet
Database. Putting information online about the annual waste streams. Help the DOE make
record keeping and monitonng on the web. The general public and agencies should all have the
same information available to them. To get this information, he calls someone who is working
on the project.
Respondent #11 (States and State Organizations): Gaps exist right now on health. Non-ionizing
radiation. Prevalence of cell phones. General public health concerns. Research reports. Vague
science. Ionizing radiation- risk from low level radiation. Reviewing the subject. Edge of
science. Another issue that is becoming more of an interest is what makes different people suffer
or have different reactions to radiation. Sensitivity vanes from one person to another, can we
understand some of the factors that make a difference. Following the scientific literature.
Respondent #12 (National Environmental Organizations): Very often need information on site
cleanup. Organization doing a case study of different sites around the country and how they
handle waste. Wants documents associated with clean-up and remediation at the sites. Some are
available from the web, or document room Best luck from getting information from contractor
or regulator or government agency making documents publicly available.
Respondent #13 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): See comments above under
questions A-I, Respondent #13. Nothing new to add.
Respondent #14 (States and state organizations): Sometimes people call us and we go to our data
base of environmental samples we and licensees have collected. The information is in our data
base.
Respondent #15 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations) See situations listed
above Questions A-I nothing new to add The sources for information are the same.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 13
-------
Respondent #16 (National Environmental Organizations): Information on emissions and the
implications for health. We go to the agencies charged with oversight, and to other public
agencies and experts who can verify or refute what is reported.
Respondent #17 (States and State Organizations): Very rare in terms of physics of the matter,
keep in house. Radio chemistry lab that does develop methods, need new radio methods they
can employ. Sometimes EPA is a source of these methods, but other researchers and other
vendors are developing these as well. Research methods for doing radio chemistry. If all of
sudden they had a new resource for this knowledge, this would be great. EPA used to sponsor
research into Radon Mitigation, but no longer. Always on the lookout for better methods and
innovations.
Respondent #18 (National Community and Site Specific Organization): Another situation where
info would be needed is for environmental clean-up issues to help local governments understand
the direct and indirect impacts to the local community where again, I would suggest the DOE
website
Respondent #19 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Citizens wanted to
know about an advanced mixed waste treatment f cility and what that means to them and their
community.
Respondent #20 (Canadians): See Questions A-I for Respondent 20.
Respondent #21 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): Tank waste remediation situations.
The potential for seismic events. The potential for another explosion. The same inside and
outside experts are relied upon to produce information.
Respondent #22 (State and state organizations): It’s been a tough uphill battle for the past ten
years. In the past we fought to be notified of incidents, and still we don’t always get the
information we want on the major problems. There has been a huge turn around from the public
affairs office at the site. We also negotiated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the
site, and now have meetmgs every six weeks with ni nagement. That’s a big breakthrough, so I
don’t want to sound all negative. It’s just taken such a struggle over such a long time.
Respondent # 23 (National Environmental Organization): DOE defense program sites.
Respondent #24 (Tribal Government and Organization): We needed information on radiation
nsk. We ran into difficulty. Most work is done by either ideologues or those in the radiation
profession, so it is not always objective. We’re trying to create a different model of
environmental justice — distributive vs. zero sum game. We need to create a new metrics on
radiation risk to compare it to other risks. We would usually try to get the information by calling
a colleague in the field —health physicists, environmental engineers, nuclear physicists, and
people in the nuclear industry
Respondent #25 (Tribal Government and Organization): Information on a nuclear power plant in
Cincrnnati, OH. Stakeholders want to know what to do with ground clean-up of contaminated
soil.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 14
-------
Respondent #26 (Local Government Organization): Get many calls asking for radon information
from health officers and city officers wondering about their radon profile. We have a lot of
information on radon and it is easy for us to access additional radon information. There are
radon publications on-line from the EPA, they also have an indoor air information clearing house
with a toll-free number. EPA also has another clearing house for ordering bulk copies of indoor
air information. Don’t use libraries, mostly government and other Internet sites. NAS Bier 6
Report is frequently used. I can get the information I need, because I’ve been working in this
area for five years, so I know where to turn to. I’m not on the consumer level, I’m a
professional, so its easier for me.
Respondent #27 (National Community and Site Specific Organization): Shallow trenches
holding nuclear waste in Ward in the East Mojave Dessert, critical habitat for desert
tortoise.
Respondent #28 (Academic/Scholarly Journal): No additional situations.
Respondent #29 (Academic/Scholarly Journal): Transport of low level waste- what is the dose of
radiation form a truck in transit? This type of information would help people gain insights and
get good information. People misuse information for their own agenda. Refuse to consider
other positions on the issue and only use it for own pulposes. NIMBY. Gathered most
information from Internet, library, and federal agencies. Wants supporting documentation or
reference to sites where he can look it over. Yucca Mt., Nevada
Respondent #30 (State and State Organization): Very localized information. Example: radio
iodine fallout data county by county. There exists good information for the Nevada Test Site,
but not good information on other types of fallout such as long half life materials, e.g., cesium
137 or stronium 90, -the two primary long term isotopes. This information is not available in a
comprehensive way. This data could be used to estimate what is the total radiation dose
someone may have received from background levels, from DOE facilities, and from other
sources if you live in a given location. There is no comprehensive database on radiation dose
levels by geographic location. The EPA could create a database with a massive bibliography of
all literature on radiation and all radiation in the environment.
Respondent #31 (State and State Organization): No additional situations
Respondent #32 (State and State Organization): Recently needed to know why americium 243
was turning up in sewer sludge. Used the Quest program to find references.
Respondent #33(State and State Organization): No additional situations
Respondent #34 (State and State Organization): No additional situations
Respondent #35 (State and State Organization): It is very difficult to enforce EPA regulations,
e.g. 1998 Federal Regulations on radon in drinking water require that drinking water contribute
less radon to the air than is naturally occurring. $80 million has been spent to prevent 80 deaths
(I in a million). We keep making lower protection standards that cost more money I question
regulatory agency conducting in-house risk assessments. The EPA’s rn-house risk assessments
are not an exact science. Would prefer to see independent risk assessments done by either 1)
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 15
-------
EPA contractors, 2) Health Physics Society, 3) a Science Advisory Board, or 4) National Council
on Radiation Protection. Feels this would be less controversial, e.g. Federal Guidance Report
#13 was controversial.
The EPA is in the habit of calculating low risks times large populations. This is not the best use
of time. The exposure to that large of a population may not be realistic. We don’t know how
many people are exposed to radon in drinking water. Not enough is know to)ustify the large
amounts of money being spent to remove health risks from drinking water. Can’t clean up
naturally occurring radiation.
Respondent #36 (State and State Org ni7.s tion):
-Yucca Mt,
-Marrisum Process- what it means, re: protecting the public NRC explanation.
-Public should have access to criteria for decommissioning a plant.
- Information obtained from Internei , technological trade papers, Government pamphlets
and brochures.
Respondent #37 (IndustrylFrade Association): No additional situations
Respondent #38 (States and State Orgmiizations): Needs technical information. Usually calls the
Department of Health or a contractor to get the information.
Respondent #39 (States and State Organi7 ations): No other situations.
For question J, asking for another situation that the respondent needed radiation
information on, the responses were:
Respondent #1 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): The controversy over
applicable emissions standards for DOE facilities and the rules for calculating them.
Respondent #2 (Consultants): All around weapons sites the data is terrible. People don’t know
where the waste is located. Ex. — law suit in Ohio for workers exposure was settled but is not
being enforced.
People need information even if the risks aren’t great to make their own decisions and lessen
their fears.
Respondent #3 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): No other situations.
Respondent #4 (Other National Groups): No other situations.
Respondent #5 (Tribes and Tribal Organizations): Feels completely out of the loop and
disrespected on the tribal notification of transportation of waste issues.
Respondent #6 (States and State Organizations). Response to incidents and accidents.
Information on nsks to the public. Also, information on benefits (medical) of radiation. Need to
expand the availability of surveys done nationally on x-ray radiation. Have state level
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 16
-------
surveys/studies available.
Respondent #7 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Chemical aspects of
radio-nucleids. Transportation issues. Penetrating power of low level waste components.
Hormesis.
Respondent #8 (States and State Organizations): Safe Drinking Water Act andhow radioactivity
affects drinking water. Where do you get information about it? The general public needs to
know about natural radiation and its occurrence.
Respondent #9 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Potential impacts of new
projects/missions that could be performed at the Pantex plant. As these missions are being
started, what are the impacts.
Respondent #10 (Public Interest Groups): Help explain issues or pending decisions or be
engaged in the process or decision.
Respondent #11 (States and State Organizations): See above answers from Respondent #11.
Respondent #12 (National Environmental Organizations): Generally helpful to have
information on methodological information. Can find in books. Or get it from journal article or
from colleagues.
Respondent #13 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): No other situations.
Respondent #14 (States and state organizations): How to apply CERCLA to radiation sites.
Respondent #15 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): See response to
Questions A-I Respondent #15.
Respondent #16 (National Environmental Organizations): No additional situations.
Respondent #17 (States and State Organizations): No additional situations.
Respondent #18 (National Community and Site Specific Organization): It really all comes down
to risk and understanding what it means to po , store and clean up nuclear materials.
Respondent #19 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Nuclear weapons
testing and fall-out and emergency responders in transit.
Respondent #20 (Canadians): see earlier response questions above for Respondent #20.
Respondent #21 (Tribal Governments and Organizations). see earlier response for Respondent
#21.
Respondent #22 (State and state organizations): see earlier response for Respondent #22.
Respondent #23 (National Environmental Organization) see earlier response for Respondent #23.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 17
-------
Respondent #24 (Tribal Government and Organization): Hanford clean-up activities affecting
tribes and other DOE facilities. Decommissioning and Decontamination of nuclear power plants
and work with community organizations and tribe. People tend to treat radiation as one discreet
body of knowledge. People make riskier decisions, e.g. routing radioactive transport away from
interstate highways actually creates more risks on smaller roads.
Respondent #25 (Tribal Government and Organization): Receives several c-malls on low level
radioactive waste in Ward Hospital in Lowe Valley, CO. Wants information provided in plain
language, not technical language.
Respondent #26 (Local Government Organization): Someone (a local government official) called
me who was on a shipping route for radioactive spent reactor fuel and containin ted soil. They
were getting calls from concerned local residents who wanted information. I told them about
DOE and EPA web sites and the quasi-government agency Urban Energy and Transport Agency.
I’m not swe about the follow-up. I get many calls for radon information.
Respondent #27 (National Community and Site Specific Organization): No additional situations
Respondent #28 (AcademiclScholarly Journal): No additional situations
Respondent #29 (Academic/Scholarly Journal): Nuclear issues with public. He desires entire
breadth of information from basic to complex. A package of information concise & in booklet
form would be nice.
Respondent #30 (State and State Organization): No additional situations
Respondent #31 (State and State Organization): No additional situations
Respondent #32 (State and State Organization): Many routine situations. Example: volumetric
contamination research.
Respondent #33 (State and State Organization): No additional situations
Respondent #34 (State and State Organization): No additional situations
Respondent #35 (State and State Organization): No additional situations
Respondent #36 (State and State Organization):
-Low level radiation issues
-Pilot plant issues
-Transportation of radioactive material
-Drinking water and hydrology issues
Respondent #37 (Industry/Trade Association): No additional situations
Respondent #38 (States and State Organizations): No additional situations
Respondent #39 (States and State Organizations): No additional situations
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 18
-------
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 19
-------
For question K, frequently used sources of information, the responses were:
Note: most respondents only mentioned the sources they use most frequently.
Federal agencies - very frequently; very frequently; very frequently (add DHHS); somewhat
frequently; frequently; frequently; very frequently; (DOE’s information is focpsed on nuclear
weapons and they have done a lousy job getting information to the public othef federal agencies:
used at one time or another) frequently; frequently; frequently; frequently; very frequently; very
frequently; (related to policy- don’t consider EPA, NRC, or DOE to be the primary or original
sources of basic information on radiation- they use the same information from ICRP, NCRP,
BEIR committees to get their information and adapting it) frequently to moderately; most
important and most frequently; very, very frequently; (not relied on because not trustworthy)
rarely; some; frequently; very frequently; infrequent; frequently; frequently (NRC); infrequently;
(NRC more than DOE and EPA); DOE and EPA almost exclusively; sometimes; (EPA, NRC,
DOE, National Governors Association) frequently.
State a encles - frequently; very frequently; frequently; frequently; frequently; frequently;
frequently; less frequently (except for information they generate); rarely; very frequently;
frequently; very frequently; very frequently; not frequently; (depends on the issue) rarely; (not
their jurisdiction - this is for the West, East is different) rarely; not frequently; not often;
frequently; most frequently; (lead states like CA, AZ, IL, and TX) frequently; sometimes;
frequently.
Local aaencles - never; not frequently, frequently, some; frequently; frequently; frequently;
rarely; rarely, rarely; very frequently; very frequently; rarely, none; never; not frequently; never;
frequently; never.
Non-2overnmefltal oraanizations - frequently (but with scrutiny, e.g. ANA fine, but NIRS off
the board); occasionally; (for targeted information e.g. American Lung Association) sometimes;
e.g. (NIRS, Safe Energy Community Council) sometimes; (weigh NOOs’ perspective carefully
for example a website displayed a map of all radioactively contaminated sites in Colorado and
listed every single mine that ever existed in the state. This kind of information can be
misleading, because there is no way of distinguishing the degree of risk and contamination. The
American Lung Association has good information. NCRP maintains publications) frequently,
frequently; frequently; periodic contact.
Environmental groups - very frequently (consult regularly with LEER), frequently consult with
Corbin Hamey,
Trade organizations - never; rarely, frequently; rarely-too biased; some; frequently; rarely;
infrequently; unreliable - rarely; very frequently; very frequently; very frequently; none; rarely,
frequently;
Citizen groups — very frequently; rarely, rarely; some; frequently; frequently; rarely; (point of
view of not a citizen as a professional in the field, have different needs-too site onented or
infused with a specific point of view) rarely; very frequently; (they ask us) very frequently,
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 20
-------
(unreliable) rarely; rarely; (as I am skeptical of much of their info whether they are pro-nuclear
or anti-nuclear) rarely; rarely; frequently.
Personal contacts or word-of-mouth - very frequently, very frequently; very frequently;
frequently, frequently; frequently; frequently; frequently; (International groups and scientific
organizations) frequently; frequently; very frequently; (professional organizations) very
frequently; (original authors who are very important and highly credible) frequently; rarely;
rarely; frequently; most used source; moderately; frequently; occasionally; (from other state
representatives) frequently; frequently.
Public library — rarely, not often (geographically limited), rarely, rarely; rarely; rarely; for
scientific and medical journals: frequently; rarely; (the State library) frequently; never; never;
never; rarely; never; never; never; sometimes; no; frequently; no; frequently
The Internet — (to a regular grouping of web sites for universities and agencies) very frequently;
(use EPA web site for current policies and studies) very frequently; (check the Western
Shoshone National Council) frequently; frequently; frequently; frequently; frequently;
frequently; frequently; frequently; (just a vehicle to find resources that were written by the
credible sources) frequently; (to search public agency and NGO websites) very frequently;
(EPA’s websites differ greatly, Canadian websites have great information to see how they have
analyzed the problems) very frequently; some; frequently; very frequently; very frequently;
occasionally; frequently, frequently; frequently.
News media - rarely; frequently; frequently; some; (keep up with it to see how issues are being
framed for the general public) some; (source for science information) rarely; (for health issues)
frequently; rarely; (use it to provide information to the public to see what’s of concern)
frequently; (almost always confused-not reliable- but use only to gauge where interest lies or to
see where misinformation is being promulgated) frequently; rarely; (the bulk of information that
the average citizen gets is from the news media and they may try to show good informational
pieces but it is difficult to get basic accurate info out but I would like to see it used more for an
educational tool) rarely;; never; never; rarely; almost never; occasionally for case examples.
DOE Information repositories — sometimes; sometimes; rarely; frequently; frequently;
frequently; rarely; occasionally; (to see what official line is) frequently; rarely; (the DOE
website) frequently, (but no other repositories) rarely; rarely; frequently; rarely.
Other —
• Hanford Health Information Network: frequently;
• Research reports and treatises: frequently;
• Experts in the field: frequently;
• Personal knowledge gamed from years of being involved: always;
• State office of emergency management: frequently;
• Internet newsgroups and professional publications: frequently;
• Nuclear Energy Institute and Institute for Energy Education and Research: frequently;
• National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, International Commission on
Radiadoliogical Protection, National Academy of Sciences: frequently;
• NRC website (for decisions, hearing testimony) frequently;
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 21
-------
• Trade journals with good information on new techniques and new technology - frequently;
• Data or studies from Universities; frequently
• Tribal organization-frequently;
• Federal register, agency circulars, publication-frequently;
• ICRP: frequently, also JAEA, some medical professional journals, Industry: frequently;
• British Nuclear Fuels, Cogema (French company), Technical media, con1 rences/symposia:
frequently;
• Congressional Research Service Report on the nuclear waste stream sponsored by Senator
Boxer, health physics journals, JAEA, CRCPD, ICRU, published books, NAS, BEIR
Reports: frequently.
For question L, factors to consider when designing public outreach, the following
comments were made:
Respondent #1 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Need to present a range
of views on health effects and dose; needs to have transparency so that users can easily find and
review source documents. Need to link information from other reports.
Respondent #2 (Consultants): All the suggested factors are important, and credibility is the most
important.
Respondent #3 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Afler we answer why
EPA needs to do this, the thing that should be considered is the target audience. Tailor the
information.
Respondent #4 (Other National Groups): Needs to be balanced in terms of viewpoints. Give a lot
of information with alternatives that will let people make their own decisions. Bad if people
can’t get information. Ex. — National Cancer Institute Study which was suppressed for eight
years until a lawsuit forced its release. This is clearly a needed public health risk report, but
agency has yet to notify public or medical community of its availability.
Respondent #5 (Tribes and Tribal Orgamzations): The main factor to consider is credibility.
Especially the DOE. Important to show pro and con, and Indian views on the topic.
Respondent #6 (States and State Organizations): Equal importance on all. Credibility is
important with the EPA as many groups and people have a bias against them.
Respondent #7 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): #1 is credibility. It is not
useful to have pro and con-want scientifically accurate and verifiable data.
Respondent #8 (States and State Organizations): All are equal. If something is credible but
unreadable, it is useless. Can’t sacrifice one for the other
Respondent #9 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): #1 and #2 are credibility
and balance.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 22
-------
Respondent #10 (Public Interest Groups): #1 Credibility. Data being accurate and fair. Want
validity. There are too many inconsistencies now. #2 is ease of use.
Respondent #11 (States and State Organizations): All are important — but when it comes to pro
and con (does this mean scientific questions being answered by non credible or non verifiable
just to show pro or con?)
Respondent #12 (National Environmental Organizations): #1,2,3 of ease of use, reliability,
and credibility
Respondent #13 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): No comment
Respondent #14 (States and state orgnni7.ations): Ease of use and credibility are vely important;
balance of pros and cons is not, as she would be looking for scientific proof.
Respondent #15 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Reliability and
credibility are the most important. Give direct results from case studies.
Respondent #16 (National Environmental Organi inions): Credibility is most important, and self-
monitoring is a real problem for credibility. Need independent oversight. There is a tendency by
the agencies to discount the ambiguity and uncertainty in data or analyses, and to conclude that
things are ok when they are really quite uncertain. They need to acknowledge it instead. Also,
there is not enough data in many cases, especially related to health risks. Then, the agencies say
“no data” but do nothing about it. No data becomes translated to no public health risk.
Agencies have a propensity towards panic prevention that is manipulated by the proponents of
toxic tolerance. EPA must be very careful about what it says about tolerance to low level
exposures.
Respondent #17 (States and State Organizations): #1 Reliability and Credibility
Respondent #18 (National Community and Site Specific Organization): Reliability is most
important but the other three are very important but without reliability you have nothing.
Respondent #19 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Ease of use and
credibility are both cntical; you must have information that is accurate and understandable for
people to be able to use that information.
Respondent #20 (Canadians): no response
Respondent #21 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): Most important is to tell the truth.
Identifying pros and cons would be good because at least it would provide the public with a
sense of fairness. People need access to classified information to make decisions
Respondent #22 (State and state organizations): Why is EPA doing this project? They
ought to contract it out. Just because the information comes from them, it looses
credibility. Need to come from an independent source They also need to use matenal
that’s peer reviewed.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 23
-------
Respondent # 23 (National Environmental Organization): #1 and #2 —equally high, credibility
and reliability.
Respondent #24 (Tribal Government and Organization): The information has to be tiered so you
can get the basics and then move up the ladder to more complex information. Put radiation
information in context in comparison with other risks, e.g. a woman next to TM! is concerned
with human-made radiation, but not womed about naturally occurnng radon in her home.
Respondent #25 (Thbal Government and Organization): Information needs to be honest and
clear. There is a great imbalance. Most people can’t understand the information.
Respondent #26 (Local Government Organization): There is no one ideal system for information
dissemination. You need to approach different audiences in different ways. Radon information
is usually not decipherable to the general public.
Respondent #27 (National Community and Site Specific Organization): User friendly,
geographically organized, company-specific, inventory of all radioactive waste generators, exact
quantities, and dates and destinations of waste shipments. In an EPA radiation information
system credible organizations should have the opportunity to present alternative analysis and
perspectives.
Respondent #28 (Academic/Scholarly Journal): There are huge differences in the information
needs and capabilities of the general public vs. professionals. Most information on radiation is
not understandable by the average person. You have to first reinterpret information and put it in
language that the public can understand. For example: there is great controversy on current
theoretical debate over the effects of radiation and the linear no-threshold model. Experts tend to
think differently than the public which tends to think that there exists no safe level of radiation
exposure.
Respondent #29 (Academic/Scholarly Journal): Pro & con is most useful. People must learn to
view radiation differently. It is a natural phenomenon as well as artificial—need a thorough risk
& benefit analysis. EPA no where to be found. DOE is everywhere. Atomic energy act gives
full authority to federal agencies. Problems lie between state and federal agencies abuse of
power with no information sharing. -
Respondent # 30 (State and State Organization): It is hard to have “balance” in a non-interactive
information system where people are biased going in. Should be a realistic balance. Just
because there are two sides doesn’t mean both are equally legitimate, for example if 5% think
one way and 95% think another —that is not necessarily balance.
Respondent # 31 (State and State Organization): There needs to be basic information on why
radon is an important health issue.
Respondent # 32 (State and State Organization): The EPA tells people they have a drinking water
standard that limits exposure to 4 millirams per year, but it is not true. They need to tell people
what the limitations are of these standards and just exactly what the standards mean.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 24
-------
Respondent #33 (State and State Organization): Information for public should be about at the
8th grade science level.
Respondent #34 (State and State Organization): Need to expand public education on radiation in
the environment on the Internet. The basic primers are there. There needs to be more
geographically specific information on where are the contaminated sites and what are the risks?
In Nevada we’ve spent Billions of dollars on the nuclear weapons complex an the public knows
almost nothing. Its no surprise they have deep fears. We need to do a better job educating the
public. For radioactivity we need to tell them where most of it is, what is going to be done with
it, and whether it is safe. If the government wants to play the “its harmless” game they are
fooling themselves. They need to explain radiation to the public in honest credible ways.
People’s fears won’t go away.
Respondent # 35 (State and State Organi7ation): All factors important. The EPA needs to take a
realistic approach in explaining risks to the public.
Respondent #36 (State and State Organization): Balance of information reflects both sides of
issue presented — reliability based on scientific principle easily explained for people with no
technical training.
Respondent #37 (Industry/Trade Association): Depends on where stakeholders are coming from.
Some members of the public become skeptical and say things like “You’re not telling me
anything negative.” (JTherefore I don’t believe you.) We use the EPA book on radon because it
has become a credible source. Materials should use agreed upon legal definitions of radiation
terms. When dealing with risk-based issues you encounter emotional reactions, narrow
mindedness, and balance is tough. There are different versions of the truth. That’s why we need
a federal agency to maintain a balanced perspective, a neutral referee to sort out different sides
and come to some balance. This requires critical thinking, “Modicum of the Golden Mean.”
Respondent #38 (States and State Organizations): All are important. Can’t be a one-sided
presentation. Give people information they can use to help them take a position. Very important
for all Federal agencies and industry to get information out to the public that is clear, simple,
concise, and diverse so we develop a general belief among the public that they are getting the
full story.
Respondent #39 (States and State Organizations): All factors are very important. Balance is
important and it is in the eye of the beholder, but data that is made available needs to be based on
science not on allegations or gears. Especially if there is a difference between the NRC and EPA
views on acceptable doses and background radiation required before D & D power plant can be
officially closed.
For question M, relating to possible formats for presenting information and the
usefulness of each format, the following comments were made:
Pami,hlets, flyers, short written materials - very useful; (sometimes too short) useful; (make
them easy to reproduce) useful; (and easy to obtain) very useful; useful; not useful; useful;
somewhat useful; somewhat useful; (if is going to general public, but you sacnfice mformation
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 25
-------
for readability) useful; useful; (different for different things just for general public distribution-
know audience and subject) useful; most useful and easiest; very useful; better than others;
(need a combination of all types of formats, but they can’t just be slick public relations
documents, they need to have substance) useful; not at all; not useful; not useful; (for the public)
useful; useful; (for the public) very useful; valuable; (especially with case studies of radon)
useful; (when they tell the whole story) useful; important for public; (EPA has a good document
on naturally occurring radiation); EPA’s radon pamphlets are well regarded by some; veiy
useful; very useful.
Longer written materials — not very useful; useful; somewhat useful; not useful; useful; less
useful; somewhat useful; not useful; useful-but for different audience; useful if you want the
data; useful if you want the information neutral about ease of use, not most or least useful; not
useful; not useful; very useful; longer is better, but context matters; (for professionals) useful,
(public, has short attention span); valuable, good for parents and teachers, not great for the
public; important but less for public; ok less useful.
A little bit of written materials with lots of pictures, graphs and figures - useful (also need
overarching charts), very useful; useful; somewhat useful (depends on what it is showing, make
sure it’s appropriate for this format); not useful; less useful; somewhat useful; very useful;
somewhat useful; (the “dog and pony show” type of written and oral presentation keep the
listener or reader interested and work very well) useful; (for the general public) useful; least
useful; (only if there is good and understandable visuals) very useful; somewhat useful; (longer
is better, but context matters; useful for professionals, public , has short attention span) valuable;
(good for parents and teachers, not great for the public) valuable; important (but less for public),
(especially for general public) very useful; (must be enough written material to be useful not just
pretty, if that is the case,) very useful.
Lectures or discussions — not very useful; (hard to get people to come out) not useful;
(“especially when public meetings are held and the EPA send PR people who can’t answer
technical questions”); not useful; not useful at all; not useful; useful; not useful; not at all useful;
(because of attendance-depends on interest of topic) less useful; somewhat useful; (for site
specific) useful; somewhat useful; (if you are working with an already-educated audience for
more rn-depth discussions but not for newcomers) useful; (depends on the person lecturing) not
useful; (does this include a public meeting or public hearing?) useful; not useful; (helpful in
tandem with other materials) useful; (can be helpful e.g. helps local governments set up outreach
sessions) useful; useful; not effective; (good if people come, but unlike to come unless there is a
local controversy) useful; less useful; (difficult for public, essential for low level waste siting and
site remediation), not useful; not useful
The Internet — (Need a “transparent” site as sources are known and available that includes simple
comparative charts and information about where to go to get applicable information for a
specific standard. Need cross-cutting overarching comparisons, not the “boatload” of
information currently available on the EPA site. Need to link radiation releases in terms of toxic
release in an inventory of sites.) very useful; (it’s where people are going) very useful; (provide
grant information on this site, guidelines, where tribes should go to look for this info, link to
organizations with resources) very useful; useful; most useful; very useful; most useful; more
useful than the others; (can be general or specific- and people logging on will look for things if
they are interested) very useful; very useful; (the Internet is the most useful source of
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 26
-------
information., but not all tribal governments have access) veiy useful; very useful; (if you’re
looking for something specific, it is usually out of date-links to printed information are out of
date- so at the moment EPA’s website is more for advertismg instead of serious information
dissemination) useful; most useful; (especially with good visual and reaches a wide audience)
veiy useful; somewhat useful; very useful; most powerful tool, (most flexibility to provide tiers
of information and context) useful; useful; useful; (wave of the future, but there is too much to
sort through which can be very time consuming, impressed that able to download government
agency fact sheets) very useful; (needs to be geared towards school, plant managers and parents
e.g. radon issues) good; helpful; (becoming more important at local level) useful, (good, but not
everyone has access) very useful; very useful.
Other :
The distribution must be tailored to the audience; otherwise materials just get thrown away. Do
a combination of all these depending on the audience.
Videos and CD-ROMs would be very useful. A CD that contains all the EPA regulations,
guidelines, decisions re: substances containing radioactive waste. How waste clean up relates to
policies i.e. The Clean Water Act. Policy issues related to radiation. This information is not
accessible to people who are not in the know. A CD that could be distributed to libraries or
professionals.
-Lectures are not an effective way to reach 250 million people. Typical radiation professor
would loose the audience within 30 seconds. The public doesn’t understand the terms -e.g. rads,
millirads are different by a factor of 1000.
-Case Studies (radon): Allows people to look at the problem in the context of a specific school
building with its particular characteristics, how the problem was solved and why, in a simple
format people can understand. Can be in a Tools for Schools format on Indoor Air Quality.
Needs to be written in a positive way that shows the authors understand the job of a school plant
manager.
-For the Public: balanced television documentaries, e.g. Nova.
-Realistic documentation that people could understand and respect. Examples: CRCPM
developed public information; The League of Woman Voters has done good work at finding out
what the public wants they published the “Nuclear Waste Primer.” An excellent publication.
The EPA should get the states together and develop materials. Most committees have a core
group of technical experts and a group of non-expert advisors.
-Pamphlets that are short and concise with a point of contact (person with more info, at agency)
and web sight for further information. Graphics, maps, on net in PDF format for downloading
and easy sharing access.
-All are important, unfortunately some teachers can’t use the Internet. Hard copy is still the best
medium.
For question N, additional comments on factors that are important as the EPA
designs public outreach, the comments were:
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 27
-------
Respondent #1 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): EPA needs to clearly
segregate voluntaiy or involuntary human caused exposures. Clearly show where exposure can
be reduced if showing comparisons between two. Ex. - DOE materials always show facility
exposure compared to living in a city. This is not a useful risk comparison. Need to compare
with medical or airplane flight exposure, for example. Don’t end up with EP ’s site looking like
DOE’s that is clearly “politicized” and lobbied.
Respondent #2 (Consultants): Look at the report from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission (the court for OSHA). Also, see what role EPA can play in regulating
classified sites and data, and letting the public know.
Respondent #3 (National Community and Site Specific Organi7lltions): Same comment about
why is EPA doing this.
Respondent #4 (Other National Groups): Certainly should involve stakeholders in reviewing and
choosmg materials for clarity, user friendliness etc.
Respondent #5 (Tribes and Tribal Organizations): Tribes need to connect via the web to a
particular area that is appropriate for just them. B/c of their status with the government.
Respondent #6 (States and State Organizations): Appreciate the EPA soliciting input on this, but
they need to consider partnering.
Respondent #7 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Scientifically verifiable.
Also, need to insure that the data is reviewed by outside scientific experts in the field. And when
scientific opinions differ, show the evidence on both sides.
Respondent #8 (States and State Organizations): No more fear, give people real information.
Don’t educate through fear.
Respondent #9 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Important to design
materials/services with credibility of EPA to reduce or allay people’s irrational fears about
radiation. Use “real-world” terms and demonstrate the differences in types of radiation.
Respondent #10 (Public Interest Groups): The EPA representatives are NOT comfortable
speaking or participating at public meetings. There seems to be a variety of reasons for this;
EPA politics and the individuals do not seem clear on EPA positions (if they have any) or are not
‘high up’ enough in the EPA to give information or opinions.
Respondent #11 (States and State Organizations): EPA - one experience, look up a paper
document issued on the Internet, tried to download, couldn’t go section to section. Whoever
does their website, some are excellent since you can go item by item, otherwise long download-
Make user friendly (i.e. don’t want a 1,000 page documents if they want one page.) Developing
outreach information- using focus groups to help format and including or excluding information.
Need to have focus group reflecting the audience you’re targeting
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 28
-------
Respondent #12 (National Environmental Organizations): Inside the beltway person who needs
technical and policy information. But there are a lot of people interested who need site specific-
good, objective information as citizens. Agency should be serving them FIRST. They have to
live with the decisions, the radiation risks and affects. Need to build credibility among the
general public. This should be a high priority. Create and update a list of Internet links. Act as
a gateway to other sites.
Respondent #13 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): The information should be separated
by levels of expertise, some for lay people and some for technical people.
Respondent #14 (States and state organizations): There should be a place where you can find
what questions the public has asked other states who are implementing some form of regulations
or clean-up. Then we could be better prepared to answer questions and provide information.
Respondent #15 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Must look at and report
on long-term effects, such as the 500 generation effects of waste ionizing radiation.
Respondent #16 (National Environmental Organizations): no comments
Respondent #17 (States and State Organizations): What is most important is the format and the
media for these efforts can be seriously influenced by the subject at hand. One format does not
fit all issues. Consult with the proper contacts. Depends on their approach (Radon and Air is not
a regulatory responsibility but they recognize their job as public information and not
enforcement), but then a program such as Radon and Water- there is nothing in the public’s
hands to describe where the EPA is going on this. No rules, no clarity. If the regulatory arm of
the EPA is interested in getting information out, should communicate it with the non regulatory.
Respondent #18 (National Community and Site Specific Organization): Try to involve the public
on a real level and also determine your target audience. You can not cover a range from
layperson to expert or technical staff and use the same information. Scope and scale will have to
change with the audience you intend to target.
Respondent #19 (National Community and Site Specific Organizations): Define the goal (what
the EPA wants to do? What audiences do you want to reach?) Also need to address basic risk
communications (it needs to be basic and short, unlike the EPA regulations webpage now) as
well as educational and somewhat interactive or entertaining to keep people interested.
Respondent #20 (Canadians): no comment.
Respondent #21 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): Stay away from being too flashy; it
turns the public off. Work with someone who believes in an easy readmg standard even for
highly technical information.
Respondent #22 (State and state organizations): no comment.
Respondent # 23 (National Environmental Organization): From his perspective EPA interaction
has been a void. Has not aggressively (since abandomng rule-making procedure) gone after
what it typically does- settmg standards for radiation in unlicensed sites. Watches the EPA in
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 29
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in hazardous waste. Doesn’t pay attention in EPA-
irrelevant force in management clean-up of DOE sites. If the EPA ventures back into
rulemaking standards he and his colleagues will be interested. NRC guidelines are what they
look at.
Respondent #24 (Tribal Government and Organization): Information needs to be tailored to
individual audiences, e.g. tribes or local governments. There needs to be radiation text book
geared towards the layperson at the introductory college science or senior high school science
level.
Respondent #25 (Tribal Government and Organization): 50 page book form for high schools and
teachers. Hire nice people.
Respondent #26 (Local Government Organization):
- Speaker kits w/overhead slides
- Check lists on indoor air quality
— Tools for schools
- Information that enables stakeholders to effect change
Respondent #27 (National Community and Site Specific Organization):
- Glossaiy of technical terms
- Some communities lack access to the Internet and thus need hard copies
- Need a human being customer service person able to answer questions in English,
Spanish. Tagalog (Philippines), and other languages. Staff must be culturally
sensitive.
Respondent #28 (Academic/Scholarly Journal): Trust - lack of trust comes when the
disseminpting agency is also the regulatory agency. The public will not buy information on
radiation from NRC, and would be unlikely to trust the EPA on Superfund site information. The
public is likely to trust the EPA to provide information on radiation.
A centralized database on nuclear waste producers and shippers is not needed. The safety record
of nuclear waste transport is extremely good. Putting out more information would just raise
public fears and would be used by activists to throw up road blocks causing delays in shipping.
There are several agencies already responsible for radioactive waste shipment and has-concern
that the EPA is creating more bureaucracy. He doesn’t understand why the EPA is looking for
new things to do.
Respondent # 29 (Academic/Scholarly Journal): Depends on the audience but pamphlets are
good, little bit of written with graphics and pictures that transmit the information in basic terms
is acceptable. Technical data and supporting information he gets off the net. like videos,
interactive programs, CDs, short and concise matenal, use of slide shows geared to audience he
offers Radiation 10 1-105 from basic to very technical. Teach about it m schools. Get
information out to children at a young age.
Respondent # 30 (State and State Organization): Communicating nsk to the public is very
challenging when people are fearful of radiation.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 30
-------
Respondent #31 (State and State Organization): No additional
Respondent #32 (State and State Organization): I need a computer that can answer every
question we have on radiation. There are 49 state radiation control agencies all tiying to provide
information to the public. Then there are many other entities interacting. There needs to be an
entity to “package” one common system to help all states keep up to date information they need
to interact with federal agencies. Suggestion: Technical overlay with quarterly updates sent to
state radiation professions quarterly via CD-ROM, including:
- all proposed promulgation of Federal Rules (radiation professionals often find out
about new rules too late
- Technical updates on licensing issues
- Radiation incident information
— Updates on publications on radiation
There are two very different arenas -technical people need answers to their questions. Lay
people needs theirs. Need good quality information -fair and unbiased.
Respondent # 33 (State and State Org inization): No additional situations
Respondent # 34 (State and State Org2ni7- tion): In Nevada a professional video “Yucca
Mountain What’s Up Doc?” did very well in the schools. It was a response to DOE. It was a
frank and honest presentation: here’s radiation and what’s really going on.
Respondent # 35 (State and State Organization): No additional situations
Respondent # 36 (State and State Organization): State Legislatures and their constituents want to
be involved and heard. It would be important for Feds to have regular public meetings and/or
hold focus groups to hear from the public at large and allow a Q&A session. l’his would allow
agencies to see if they are meeting their own goals.
Respondent # 37 (Industry/Trade Association): The EPA could use cable TV systems to provide
programs that have interactive scheduling tailored to viewer’s concerns. We have history
channels, annual channels, nature/science channels, Disney channels, why not an EPA Channel?
Respondent #38 (States and State Organizations): Need to make a lot more information
accessible.
Respondent #38 (States and State Organizations): no comments.
For question 0, relating to how concerned or interested in the following topics
and issues of radiation the respondent and/or the constituency of people they
serve, the comments were as follows:
Radiation risk — very; very; (key issue that comes up repeatedly) very unportant; important; very
important, very important; very; very interested; (in terms people can understand, including dose
compansons in layperson terms) very interested; very concerned; very interested; very
interested; (issue of how EPA represents radiation nsks to radiation dose) moderately interested;
very interested; very interested, very; very; very interested; moderate; very; very; not;
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 31
-------
(perceptions out of whack when people are living next to a nuclear power plant) ; most
important; very concerned; Top; important; very important.
Public health and safety — veiy; very; very (risk is always posed in this context); important; very
important; very important; very interested; interested; very concerned (layperson terms); very
concerned; very interested; very interested; very interested; very interested (peed to be part of
nsk discussion) very interested; very important; very important; very mterest&l; moderate; very;
high (is it safe or not?); top; (people concerned about cancer and radiation even though there is
low incidence); very concerned; very important; very important.
Worker safety - very; very; very (key for Defense Weapons Complex); important; not
applicable, very important; very; (radiological health) very interested; very important; (not raised
as often as it should be) somewhat concemed very interested; not as interested; very (an awful
lot of misinformation); moderate interest; very interested; very interested but need to be part of
risk discussion; very important; very important; very interested; not asking about it; concerned;
very concerned; risk rankings from DOE; very important; very important.
Waste disposal — very; very; (an awful lot of misinformation) very interested; (can’t separate this
from other concerns) important; very interested, very important; very; very interested; somewhat
interested; very concerned; very interested; interested; very interested; very interested; (biggest
interest in Idaho) very interested; very important; very interested; very interested; moderate; top
concern; top concern; moderate; hot topic is low level waste; huge interest; very important.
Nuclear power plants — very; very; (not in Northwest because Trojan closed and only one left in
Washington state) not very; important; very important; (as there are no nuclear reactors in UT)
not interested; not very interested; very interested; NA in their area; less concerned; (as the lead
state agency in responding to accidents-from that perspective-) interested; very interested;
(“mixed bag” because people aren’t too concerned about the plants but are very concerned about
the waste product build-up and bi-products) very interested; very interested; not very interested;
not very interested; very interested; very interested; interested; less; value of power vs. risk; low
interest; very interested; not as much a concern today; (no plants in state) na- (more with waste
products if they are being moved and dumped locally) interested; important, less important.
Industrial activities — very; not very; not at all; very; very interested, not interested; (as they
relate to DOE sites) very interested; (food irradiation) very interested; interested; (unless related
to radiation) not very concerned; not interested; not as interested; (especially research and
development lab wastes and long lived materials) very interested; (EPA in control to orphaned
control of radiation sources that can be traced back to an owner for licensing) very interest; very
interested; (tied in with clean up and disposal but) very interested; very interested; somewhat
interested; interested; low; moderate; some concern with waste sites, dumps, sumps, landfills;
important; very important.
Plans for mitigation, clean up. decommissioning, monitoring, reuse and emergency response for
facilities that formerly handled radioactive material — very; very; very; very important; (when
related to Indian reservations) extremely important; very interested; very mterested; very
interested; NA; more and more interested; very interested; somewhat interested; (many plants
currently planning for D and D) very interested; very interested; very interested; very interested;
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 32
-------
very important; very important; very interested; less; not experienced; moderate interest; major
concern - to him and his audiences; important; very important.
Emergency response - extremely; not very; some; important; very important, not as interested as
other topics; interested (but not a high priority); very interested; not interested; (especially when
it relates to transportation spills) very interested; very interested; not interested; very interested;
very interested; interested (because of on-going operators/transportation); very important; very
important; somewhat mterested high; very; very; top; huge interest (as no preparedness in the
rural communities while large urban areas are somewhat prepared.); somewhat important; very
important.
Disposition and transportation of wastes . - very; not very; very; very important; very important,
very interested; very interested; (transportation of WHIP) very interested; not a big interest; very
interested; (only in terms of emergency perspective) interested; not interested; moderately
interested; very interested; interested; very important; very important; very interested; moderate;
very; very; low; (intermodel transport - rail and truck but no explanation of reasoning for why
each used and when depending on high or low level risks); very important; very important.
Changing land attems around facilities that handle radioactive material (currently and
historically - very; not very; not very; important; very important when related to sacred sites
(tribal), not interested; very interested; less important; growing interest; (decommissioning-
residual activity that can be left on a site, change needs to be factored in) interested; not
interested; slight to moderate interest (if it would help us evaluate possible scenarios of future
use); very interested; not important; very important; somewhat important; extremely interested;
less; low; (Yucca Mt., down gradient communities being kept from expansion, ground water
problems and water quality issues) very concerned; not that important; very important.
Distinctions high level and low level radioactive wastes — very; (what does this mean — legal
distinctions or real world effects?); (need a better understanding of what this means and the
potentially high risks related to low level waste) very; (because it is used as an excuse for not
doing difficult clean-up or for poor decisions-people mislead to feel they should be less
concerned over lower radiation exposures) very important; important very important-biggest
concern, very interested; very interested (add transuranic wastes: very interested); very
concerned; somewhat interested; medium interest; not interested; somewhat interested; not
interested; very interested; (most people are not interested in this highly bureaucratic regulatory
stuff and are only interested in the extend that they want it translated to public and health worker
impacts); extremely interested; not at all (because there is no distinction); interested; no one
cares; somewhat; (mostly people do not understand; needs clarification because some LLNW is
more dangerous than HLNW, people are confused on this and so is the media.); important; very
important.
Distinctions chemical and radioactive wastes — very; (what does this mean?); (more public fear
related to radioactive, but chemical has greater nsks, esp. in water) very interested; important;
very important, very interested; mterested; very important; very important (their group is
interested in groundwater pollution from Pantex plant); important; not interested; very interested;
(chemical fires, spills, etc.) somewhat; not interested, very interested; — not an issue; no; people
accept chemical waste more than radioactive waste, some concern based on companson of it and
depending on location, urban areas very concerned, rural not as concerned; important, very
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 33
-------
important.
Sunerfund sites — very; very; not very (too long to get clean-up people are losing interest);
important; very important (how does a site become designated? For example, Anaconda mines
in Yerington Nevada); not interested (no sites in their area); very interested very interested;
somewhat interested; interested; interested; somewhat interested; (staff has been attending
MARSIM course) very interested; (EPA’s policies relative to dealing w/ states with radiation
Superfund sites) highly interested; veiy interested; very important; not very interested; somewhat
interested (if its generic); moderate; very important.
Onsite/offsite issues (snecific contaminated sites, current and past emissions, burials, spills and
releases’) - very; very; not very (except hen one occurs); important; very interested, some interest;
very interested; very concerned; declining interest (people are tired of hearing about it, just want
to know when it will be cleaned up); somewhat interested; in the capacity of obtaining
information to respond to the public interest- interested; somewhat interested, very; very; only if
they pertain to Superfund-or are unaware of- very interested; very interested; should fold into
clean up but very interested; very important; somewhat important; extremely important;
moderate (but spills and releases high; concern); not a big concern (depends on locale as well.
Each NTS site is a Superfund site); very important; very important.
Regulatory and inspection histo of facilities - very; extremely; some; important (because
having information shows how flawed processes and records were in the past and how little is
actually known about what it will take to clean up sites); interested, very interested; somewhat
interested; very interested; not at all interested; not interested; interested; somewhat interested; (a
lot of FOJA requests from potential land purchases) very concerned; very interested; very
interested (but don’t think it is appropriate for EPA to get involved in); very interested; very
interested; somewhat interested; somewhat interested; not much; concerned; (yes; he’s given up
on NTSB like some neutral uninterested body to inspect and share information with public
neutral method); very important; less important.
Other-
- Compensation for people who have been exposed: very;
- Independent oversight for D & D: extremely; make information available to people with
competence to do analysis (federal system is overstitched): very;
- What clean-up progress is being made: very;
Transportation notification: very important;
Positive health benefits — x-rays, cancer therapies: very important;
Recycling metals contaminated with radiation; very interested;
Uranium mining high;
Nuclear weapons testing: high;
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 34
-------
- Radiation and medicine: moderate;
- Nuclear weapons: moderate
- Local issues are what gets people interested, schools are primarily interested in radon issues,
generally there are no other sources of radiation in schools;
- Radon;
- Hot new topic- potassium iodide to lessen the effects of exposure m the event of a power
plant accident, 5 millirams of exposure in a round trip transcontinental flight may exceed
allowable levels for some flight crews
- Illness and disease and risks to the environment from bio-accumulation: interested
- Issues of external regulation. Clarity of roles of EPA, NRC, and DOE needed. Issues of
EPA having standards: very thterested
- NORM, NARM, and TEN NORM: interested;
- Really all comes down to risk and perceived risk: very interested;
- Columbia River issues are of the very highest interest;
- Didn’t mention clean-up standards. Didn’t mention public participation in decisions about
disposition of radioactive waste: very interested
- -Needs to be independent monitoring of what’s going on in agencies. EPA could fulfill that
role, but EPA is extremely weak, so it might not want the job.
- For generators in the region, knowledge that waste will be disposed of in a safe manner and a
reasonable time.
- How interstate commerce usage affects waste transport across state lines. -
For questions P and Q, respondent interest in follow up involvement or
participation, the contacts are listed in a separate memorandum provided to the
EPA.
For question R, other aspects of radiation information to consider, the
following were offered:
—EPA needs to look very seriously at this. I have very serious doubts that headquarters
can contribute much to the information issue. EPA should concentrate on its much bigger
mission of overseeing ongoing clean-up work. This idea turns me off.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 35
-------
—There has been a negative attitude from DOE and DHBS towards citizens knowing
information and making their own decisions about health issues. Example is the Cancer
Study. Agencies are afraid public will overreact and there will be unnecessary surgeries,
i.e., thyroldectomies, so they won’t release information. People, especially workers, need
the Information and to be educated about what It means. Then they will know when
surgery is necessary, etc.
—Needs to be more clarification to the general public of the difference between man made
and naturally occurring radiation. More linkage to the tribes so they know who to contact
for the proper Information.
—Everyone is waiting for ONE federal agency to regulate. Get It together!
—Depleted uranium Is a big one. EPA needs to set minimum standards to get the sites
cleaned up.
—Prolonged missions in space- radiation in the environment is different than all mentioned
above. Too general.
—Two types of folks in the general public- very afraid, or completely apathetic. Think
about that when designing materials and outreach.
—No mention of Radon-b/c they are already doing a good job
—Need info on non ionizing radiation. Part of the problems they face at the state-
conflicting positions at the Federal agencies. Differences In their approaches to the same
issues- come up with different limits. It would be useful nationally to have one- forces the
state to develop their own, look in different places, confuses everyone- and creates a lack of
credibility of state workers by In the general public.
—Respondent has talked with many representatives of DOE, DOD, EPA and other agencies
over the years, but nothing changes with regard to outreach to tribal nations. It’s very
frustrating.
—Very important to get copies of report on this project out without having us use FOJA to
get It.
—Information usually exists; people need to be told where to look for it.
—In listening to the public, they’re still not over “radiation syndrome”, that is, fear beyond
reason about radiation risks. This is because they can’t feel or touch it or smell it like they
can chemicals, so they don’t know if it’s around and hurting them. Need education.
—It’s important for people to get information about radiation from someone other than the
regulatory agencies. Radiation impacts as a topic is often conspicuous by omission from
the information stream. It can’t be left in the hands of DOE and NRC.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 36
-------
—Do wish they could have provided context for these questions. They tried to develop
questions that tried to address all possible audiences. Need to recognize that the level of
understanding in this survey was high. This discussion was not in context. Need to do a
better job of targeting their audiences. For Radon, they do a good job. Where they have a
regulatory function their approach has been ‘one-size fits all’ (response to comments on
rules). This approach has not served them well. Unspecific purpose.
— Feel that you need to address exposure risk modeling to make It easy for people to use
and understand how it works (interactive activities or models) Also feel It is critical to
Integrate with DOE, local and state governments and other portions of the EPA offices
(such as the federal facilities re-use office)
— EPA needs to set standards for all of the above, not just put out information on other
agencies Then, they need to get information out about the standards they set. EPA keeps
asking the same questions and getting the same answers and not doing anything.
— The EPA staff, at the site, with one exception, has almost never given us credible, useful
information. They always say “We haven’t got enough staff,” “It’s not our responsibility”,
“Check with DOE on that”. At this point, it would never dawn on us to ask. They’re just
not included in our circle of information sources.
—Forfeit all attempts to eat. guidelines/regulations/input in the DOE disposition of its
contaminated sites as well as ongoing management of nuclear materials- either in favor of
DOE or NRC. NACEPT panel explanation- DOE initially asked EPA to est. guidelines.
DOE said they didn’t need them anymore and EPA backed off. WHAT? If EPA is
seriously considering returning to this effort, he would be willing to assist them to go back
to a public participation forum. CERCLA and RCRA have broad experience- and the EPA
punted. The situation is getting worse. The political movement to tear apart DOE is
increasing- so where is their cleanup process going to wind up? Nowhere? With no
guidance? No specifications? There isn’t a whole lot of time. This is a very odd way of
going about this. Hey, EPA “A- identify the problem B. establish guidelines C. Co from
there. Public opinion poll is not going to help you.”
Nuclear power plants happy with NRC. DOE does not want to go anywhere, and it does
not want the EPA to mettle, so there are a lot of barriers. Will be shocked if this goes
anywhere.
Appendix D EPA RPD Discussions - Detailed Responses 37
-------
Appendix E
EPA RPD Interviews - Detailed Responses
For questions A-I, a situation in which information was needed, the following was
offered by respondents:
Respondent # 1 (States and state organizations): From perspective as a regulator, how to
improve quality of images at x-ray facilities without giving more radiation to patients.
Overall questions of quality control. The information was found by contacting
professional groups, such as medical physicists, who referred them to written materials;
they also purchased materials. They also relied on information from x-ray film
manufacturers. The information was “somewhat easy and somewhat hard” to find
because sometimes it was “in the brains” of people they needed to contact and sometimes
it was readily available from print sources.
Respondent # 2 (National environmental organizations). The purchase of real estate near a nuclear power
station. The information was not found because the agencies contacted could not define the amount of
cuirent discharge and bio-accumulation of radiation into the environment. Sources checked were the
pubhc libraiy, the Internet, and federal, state and private organizations. Also, the yellow pages. The
information was not easy to find.
Respondent #3 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): They are often asked about where there might
be a problem around the country, and they don’t have an extensive data base of sites or situations. A site
inventory for different types of problems, including radon gases or effects of mill tailings, is needed.
They need to know the effects in uptake especially related to a subsistence or pastoral lifestyle. What’s
going into the food chain, not just what happened at a site. Example is the Rio Puerco site in New Mexico
where there was a financial settlement, but no mitigation. It is impossible to know the real impact on the
lives of the people who may have been exposed or have eaten something that was exposed.
The information was not found because there is not such an inventory. Information is anecdotal by site,
but not systematic.
Respondent #4 (Other National Public Interest Groups): EMFR. This group is self-
contained citizens monitoring group for Three Mile Island (TMI) and gather much of
their own information. They provide their data to other professionals, groups, and
citizens who need information that is independent. Information is needed that is
independent of an Electrical Utility if there is an incident at a nuclear power plant.
Information that is independent of a carrier if there is an accident in transport is also
needed. The EMFR — Radiation Monitoring Group at TMI has their own radiation
monitoring equipment and THEY provide precise empirical data independent of the
government. The EMFR gets information from the company who owns TMI, the
Department of Environmental Protection, and a Umversity Laboratory. The EMFR also
uses personal contacts, federal Internet sites, and medical professionals for additional
data/information that they include in their newsletters.
Appendix E EPA RPD Interviews - Detailed Responses
-------
Presently the information comes from the Emergency Management Agency or a company and is not easy
to get. Also, this issue is not accessibility of information, but the voracity of the info provided.
Government tends top y things down.
Respondent # 5 (Local Government Organizations): Not very many situations where
information is needed. Recently a source was discovered in a dumpster, and the local fire
and police department were called in a long with the DOE representatives and the
contractors. It turned out to be unimportant. Town is the home community for the Idaho
National Engineering and Enviromnental Laboratory. Information is usually available, in
part because the respondent has a 25 year history with the lab and is personally
acquainted with many staff members. This facilitates information gathering when it is
needed. Respondent also gets a lot of information through serving on various advisory
committees, including the SSAB for the site.
Personal contacts are the most used sources of information. The Internet is sometimes used, as is the
public ieading mom at the library. Information is generally easy to find when you know what questions to
ask of whom.
Respondent #6 (National Environmental Organi ntions): Deregulation and recycling of radioactive wastes,
with respect to new regulations and background studies and methodologies utilized to make calculations.
Information is hard to find on the Internet, especially on the NRC site. NRC people are impossible to deal
with and DOE people are even wor e. EPA people up toapomt.
Generally, information is not easy to find. To find information respondent uses the Federal Register at the
Repository at the Library. Respondent is unhappy that it is usually ten days behind. This is a much more
accessible and easier to deal with then the Internet. Respondent also uses organization and committee
contacts. It has been very difficult to persuade EPA to put respondent on the distribution list for
documents, and it is very costly to get the documents from the agency. This puts interest groups and
citizens at a great disadvantage compared to agencies that are tied into the information sources.
Respondent # 7 (States and State Organizations): Mostly have all the information already. Cannot think of
a time when they could not find the information they needed. They use a number of different sources
depending on the type of information they need. Using the NRC, DOE, appropriate organizations and
committees, EPA labs, university and public libraries, and professional and scientific publications, they can
find what they need.
The issue was not finding the information, but knowing when they were getting good information.
Respondent #8 (National Environmental Organization): Began with a healthy distrust of radiation risks.
Has an interest in energy and avoiding nuclear power. Interest in knowing about radioactive matenals on
islands in the Columbia River near Hanford. This information was not easy to find. First it takes time to
make something an issue before it is ‘covered’ and there is information about it. Many things have not
been measured, therefore there isn’t information on it.
In order to get information, this respondent uses federal and state experts, the DOE or DOH to find out
health affects. Also uses personal contacts and organizations with which they have a relationship. Specific
information is always hard to find.
Respondent #9 (Other National Public Interest Groups) Frequently in contact with patients from Hanford,
or others involved with radiological suites at hospitals Information is not easy to find Information on
Appendix E EPA RPD Interviews - Detailed Responses 2
-------
exposure is usually lacking There are radiation exposure databases maintained by the PNNL, but that was
all that was mentioned
It is very difficult or impossible to get information. There is no symmetry. Need to attempt to create it
from job data.
For questions J-K, a current situation in which information is needed, the following
was offered by respondents:
Respondent # 1 (States and state organizations): Infonnanon on radium in water. We collected samples for
which the analysis produced different results. It became a research project with EPA lab’s participation.
Very “hands-on”.
Respondent #2 (National environmental orgnni7ations): Medical exposures for diagnostic and treatment
purposes. Went about seeking info in the same manner as above, with similar results.
Respondent #3 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): Where did veterans, cap. WWII, serve and what
was their exposure? Can’t make a causal link between exposure and later disease or death of these “atomic
workers”. Also uranium miners.
Respondent #4 (Other National Public Interest Groups): The EMFR monitors 24-7. Seasonal issues at
Thfl. Largest civilian radiation monitoring network in the world. Important to dispel myths, but give clear
instructions on risks.
Respondent #5 (Local Government Organizations): State hearing for an air permit on
Advanced Waste Facility. There was only a tiny radiation discharge and the local people
weren’t veiy concerned; however, people from a city in a nearby state read about it in the
newspapers and got upset. Respondent was able to get them with experts and they were
satisfied. I usually can get to the experts, and that is usually satisfactozy. Fear comes
form a lack of information generally. People often don’t pay attention until late in a
process, then act from fear.
Respondent #6 (National Environmental Organizations): The current plans for recycling scrap metal and
possibly concrete that is contaminated, the intention of the agencies with respect to recycling of depleted
uranium, decommissioning criteria especially as related to standards for water and to background
information and the ongoing battle between EPA and NRC. To get the information I would talk to people I
know in the agencies.
Respondent #7 (States and State Organizations) Tntium in landfills Some information is available but
whether it is verifiable, is in question. Many times, when looking for information, especially on the web,
political aspects enter into it depending on the website. There needs to be a more extensive range of
information including what other people found and when To find information on this situation they look
m radiological health reports, journals with momtoring results, and research literature.
Respondent # 8 (National Environmental Organization): no additional mformation.
Respondent #9 (Other National Public interest Groups): State asked for comments or proposed revision for
standards for soil Used the NRC and DOE documents for information.
Appendix E EPA RPD Interviews - Detailed Responses 3
-------
For question L, asking for another situation that the respondent needed radiation
information on, what was mentioned was:
Respondent # 1 (States and stale organizations): Setting clean-up standards. To get information they read
professional journals, attended conferences, and NRC workshops.
Respondent #2 (National environmental Organizations): General mformanon on sources and consequences
of radiation exposure.
Respondent #3 (Tribal Governments and Organi7i%tions): Down wind communities form the DOE
weapons complex sites.
Respondent #4 (Other National Public Interest Groups): potassium iodine in a nuclear accident, Y2K and
nuclear power, Radon, transport of radioactive materials, and what will happen to TMJ when it shuts down.
Respondent #5 (local Government Organizations): Foreign reactor fuel coming on trains to our state.
Respondent #6 (National Environmental Organizations): See above i-K, Respondent #6.
Respondent #7 (States and State Organizations): None. But wanted to note that they thought it was a
disaster that the ‘cross check’ program was cancelled.
Respondent #8 (National Environmental Organization): no others given.
Respondent #9 (Other National Public Interest Groups): Information needed that relates to wildlife and
environmental questions
For question M, asking the respondent to rate sources of information on radiation
(on a scale of 1-5, 1 being the most frequent, 5 being never), the following was
offered:
Federal agencies — 1 (MARSIM training and manuals); 3; 3; I;2;l; 2; 2; 1
State government agencies 1; 2; 5; 3; 3;2; 3;2; 2
Local government agencies — 5; 1; 5; 4; 5; 5; 5; 4; 3
Non-governinen organi 0 _ 1; l,3;2;4;2; 1;2, 1
Personal Contacts orword-of.mouth—2 1; l;2;3, 1; l;2; 1
Public libraries — 5, 3; 5; 3; 2; 5; 5; 4, 5
The Internet—4, 2; 2; 1;4, 2, 1; 1; 3
News media —3 (unreliable but we read it); 1,4; 1; 3; 4; 5, 3; 3
Medical professionals — 5, 1,3 (hard to get releases); 4; 4; 1, 1; 4, 2
Appendix E EPA RPD Interviews - Detailed Responses 4
-------
Other — other professionals. 3; professional journals; other professionals: 3; bookstores. 1; other Tribal
governments: 1; people who are doing the actual monitoring and reporting: 1; experts: 3; mail from
agencies, journals: 1, EML, NIEHS, American Nuclear Society, American Academy of Health Physics: 1,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: 1, professional journals: 2, experts: 2; Consortium for
Risk Evaluation, Hanford Health Information Network, Medline: 1.
For question N, factors to consider when designing public outreach (using a scale of
1-5, 1 being most important, 5 being not at all important), the ratings were:
Easytouse—3; 1; 1; l;3; l;2; l;3
Reliable—3; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1;2; 1; 1
Credible — I (absolutely essential); 1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1
Balancedbetweenpro andconviewsofinformation— 2; 3; 1; 1; 2; 1; 1; 3; 2
Other — name the sources of infonxiation: 1; primary sources: 1;
Respondent # 1 (States and state organi tions): Make it so that the reader will be able to put what is read
in perspective with other factors in their lives, such as non-ionizing radiation (hair dryers and power lines).
People must realize that electro-magnetic fields around hair dryers, for example, is greater than exposure to
a power line. Need to put in a range of values and common daily occurrences. Have comparisons with
background in the area or with some other factor.
Respondent #2 (National environmental organizations): Use lay language and avoid jargon; the fewer the
acronyms the better. It must be decipherable.
Respondent #5 (Local Government Organization): clearly identify the level of technical information
included in a report. Use a variety of mechanisms for outreach.
Respondent #6 (National Environmental Organization): put in leading edge or against
the commonly accepted wisdom articles and research findings. The peer review process
that has been shaped to be a method of excluding research findings that are outside the
mainstream has damaged credibility. This is a serious impediment to research work on
ionizing radiation. Those considered “experts” often have direct or indirect support from
industry, and that damages credibility.
Respondent #7 (States and State Organizations) use credible expert groups
Respondent # 8 (National Environmental Organization): writing and reading levels must fit the audiences.
Some simple to read materials; accessible and well publicized (people of all kinds must know it’s
available) Documentation and evidence of peer review There are too many self-styled experts.
Respondent #9 (Other National Public Interest Groups) Comprehensive 2, based on experimental
evidence vs epidemiological evidence: 1; animal vs. human experiments 1.
For question 0, relating to possible formats for presenting information, (on a scale
of 1-5, 1 being the most useful, 5 being not useful) the following ratings were given:
Appendix E EPA RPD Interviews - Detailed Responses 5
-------
Pamphlets,etc.—2; 1;3; 1;2;4;2; 1;3
Longerwnttenmaterials— 1;2;2;2;3;3 1;2; 1
A combination of short written materials with graphs and figures - 2; 3; 1; 1; 1; 3; 3; 2; 3
Lectures and discussions — 3; 3; 3; 3; 2; 2; 2; 3; 2
Internetlwww— 1;2;2; 1;3;2; 1; l;3
Other - develop and disseminate K-12 information for schools: 1; public access TV: 1; talk radiO shows: 1;
other media. 2; continuing education or adult education for credit; public access television and distance
learning to get people educated and make contacts:!, direct contact with researchers, reliable scienüfic
literature:!; personal monitoring and indirect observation: 1; using the National Radiation Protection of
Great Britain “At A Glance” series and plagiarize like crazy: 1; more press releases to print and TV media,
quality radio talk shows, TV specials on nuclear waste, clean-up, and tiansport: 1.
For question P, respondents were asked to rate how concerned or Important the
following Issues related to environmental radiation are to them and the people they
serve (using a scale of 1-5, 1 being very Interested or concerned, 5 being not
concerned or interested), the following ratings were given:
Radiationrisk —2 ; 1; 1; l;4; 1; l;2; 1
Publichealthandsafety—2 ; 1;!; l;3; 1;!; 1;!
Workersafety—4 ; 3; 3; 1;2; l;2; 1;!
Wastedmsposal—yourwaste= l,other’s=5;2; 1; l;2; 1; 1; l;2
Nuclearpowerplants — l;3;3; 1;2; 1; l;2; 1
Industrial activities —5,3; 3, 3; 3, 1; 2,2; 2
Plans for mitigation, cleanup, decommissioning, monitoring, reuse and
for facilities
emergency response
that formerly handled radioactive material - 3; 3; 1; 1; 2, 1; 3, 1, 1
Emergencyresponse— l;2, 1, 1;3, 1; l;2; 1
DlsPositionandtransportatjonofwas1e—53 1, l;3; 1,3,1; 1
Changing land use patterns around facilities that handle radioactive material (currently and historically)
- 3,
2, l,2;4; l;4;2; 1
Distinctions between high level and low level wastes — 5; 3, 2,2; 3, 1; 1, 2, no response
Distinctions between chemical and radioactive waste — 1, 3; 3, 3, 3; 1, 3, 2; 2
Supeifundsites—2,3; 1,4,4,1,5,1,1
Appendix E EPA RPD Interviews - Detailed Responses 6
-------
Onsite/offsite (specific contaminated sites: current and past emissions, burials, spills, releases ) — of live
nexttosites3,ifnot5; 1; 1; l;3; l;interest: l,unportance:4;2; I
Regulatory and inspection history of facilities —3; 3; 1; 1; 2; 1; 1; 2; 1
Other
Respondent # I (States and state organizations): radon: I (people may be apathetic, but
should be concerned); non-ionizing issues such as cell phones and power lines: 1; x-rays
for mammography: 2; orphan sources (materials that have escaped form regulations and
inspe tipns at scrap metal facilities, for example): 4
Respoi der t #2 (National environmental organizations): discharges to air and water 2; D & D: 3
Respondent #3 (Tribal Governments and Organizations): cultural significance of sites; access to sites
where there is cultural significance
Respondent #4 (Other National Public Interest Groups): tracking health issues. Most Gov. and private
agencis have no health or cancer registry. Needs longitudinal Health tracking: 1
Respondent #5 (Local Government Orgmiiiation): Regulatory enforcement 1; updating standards: 1;
unwillingness by the bureaucrats to consider new information: 1
Respondent #6 (National environmental organizations) no additional.
Respondent #7 (States and State Organizations): no additional.
Respondent #8 (National Environmental Organization): government policy in general on nuclear power
and nuclear war; clean-ups and destruction of planned nuclear weapons (i.e. nerve gas)
Respondent #9 (Other National Public Interest Groups): offsite exposure pathways and water.
For questions Q, R & S, asking if the respondent would like to be contacted or further involved, the contact
names are listed separately in Appendix F.
Appendix E EPA RPD Interviews - Detailed Responses
-------
For questions T, other aspects of radiation information to considEt, thekfollow1ig
were mentioned:
—The currently available information doesn’t put risk in per ecdve. Put things on the teth hat should
be of interest because of risk, even though public might seem apathetic. AIsQ, when &eating and targeting
information, recognize that there is a bi-polar level of public interest, that is, there wv those who fear
radiation in any, form, and there are those who have great apathy about radiation.. It’is in oz1ánt tbstatt
educating people at an early age about radiation so they can make informed choices.: There should be a K
- 12 ithcu1um developed and distributed to schools.
—Distinguish between positive societal benefits of nuclear medicine versus the adverse coi sequences of
nuclear power. Need clear distinctions not lumping. Suggested EPA use partnerpig such as what was done
in the early 90’s with ‘SWOOP’ at Los Alamos; DOE and Citizen groups.
--Public involveniont can be greatly improved by having workshops’when settibg
standards, etc. Need to get balanced participation between interest groups industry, and
govt.; interest and environmental groups usually way outnumbered. Also need to reach
out to general public, not just interested “stakeholders” who are part of the inner group.
Open public meeting process needs to be iterative, so that people have a chance to follow
the issues over time.
—EPA needs to reach out, not just wait for public to initiate contact, and it needs to follow-through.
--We all need to get this report without having to fight for it through FOl.
-The EPA needs to understand the public perspective. Jn terms of cflitreach. the public falls into two
groups; completely interested, or completely unconcerned. The public .s perfectly accepting 6f a risk-that
has a 1/100 chance of killing them but are completely fearful of a riakthat has a 1/1,000,000 hance of.
killing them The EPA needs to know that public misconception is very prevalent.
--Risk to the general public. People really should know what to be afraid of and what not
to fear. The majority of the population won’t be interested unless you an really get them
to see how it affects their everyday lives. Link information with what touches people at
home and in their communities.
Appendix E EPA RPD Interviews - Detailed Responses 8
------- |