and states particularly appreciated having access to all the outreach materials on CDs so they could print and distribute them as needed. Like other TEC/WG topic groups, the Communications Topic Group disbanded when its tasks were complete. The NTP was eventually replaced by the EM Office of Packaging and Transportation. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, EM has not invested in maintaining these transportation-related factsheets or replacing themwith newmaterials for keeping the public informed. In addition, despite the best intentions of the DOE authors and the state reviewers, some of the factsheets rely on messages that may be ineffective —or, worse, counterproductive — in helping the public understand the benefits and risks of radioactive waste shipments. A paper by Lisa Janairo and Ken Niles, presented at the 2008Waste Management Conference, identified five frequently used messages that fail to“resonate”with the public, and offered suggestions for other, more useful messages (Janairo and Niles 2008). OCRWM staff were interested in pursuing some of the recommendations in the paper and consulted with one of the authors in 2008 on how to improve four draft factsheets that were then being developed by OCRWM’s office in Nevada (DOE 2008b, 2008d, 2008h, and 2008i). The OCRWM staff indicated that additional factsheets were in the works and expressed their interest in incorporating Janairo and Niles’s recommendations into newmaterials. The programwas redirected, however, before this effort could make much progress. In the same year, the regions provided input to OCRWM regarding the future direction of the TEC/WG. In the comments from the Midwest, the states favored the formation of a new Communications Topic Group similar to the one that had worked with EM in the 1990s on the NTP transportation fact sheets. OCRWM staff seemed genuinely interested in a new approach that would bring states and other stakeholders together to improve OCRWM’s public outreach strategy and materials. When funding for the OCRWM program was reduced, however, DOE dissolved the TEC/WG. It remains to be seen whether DOE’s new National Transportation Stakeholders Forum will follow through on any of the regional recommendations regarding outreach to stakeholders. Looking to the future, to adequately inform the public, OCRWM or its replacement will need a carefully crafted public information program that reflects the input of states and other stakeholders. Such a programwould include written materials (web and print); a web site that is up to date and searchable, containing complete information on transportation-related topics; public meetings (both OCRWM-driven as well as in response to community requests); and exhibits that not only provide information from OCRWM but give visitors a chance to ask questions and leave feedback. The rapid development of new technologies should open up new possibilities for communicating with the public and other stakeholders in the future. Because OCRWM anticipated state cooperation in disseminating information materials and messages, it will be important to include states in the effort to develop the information and outreach program from the very earliest stages. There may be an opportunity for an OCRWM successor to benefit from improvements to EM’s outreach program. While the old NTP
fact sheets are out of date and contain some messages that are unhelpful, they are testament to the EM personnel giving a great deal of consideration to their task of informing the public and other stakeholders. If the current EM transportation office were to pick up this early effort and work cooperatively with the states and others to improve upon it, the result could form the foundation upon which to build a new OCRWM outreach program. If a revamped EM outreach effort is successful, it would behoove an OCRWM successor not to reinvent the wheel but rather to make use of the same materials, when possible, with supplementary information prepared following the same consultative, cooperative approach. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT OCRWM needs to reexamine its approach to involving stakeholders in decision making with regard to the program to transport spent fuel and high-level waste. The original Transportation Institutional Plan of 1986 laid out a robust program for involving stakeholders. Later, in the 1990s, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board produced an excellent report on earning public trust and confidence. OCRWM’s efforts in 2002 and beyond, however, failed to meet the high standard set by these earlier documents. If a new or resumed program is to succeed, the program would do well to return to its roots in the area of stakeholder involvement and follow the guidelines of the 1986 plan. In 1986, OCRWM published its Transportation Institutional Plan for the purpose of “lay[ing] a foundation for interaction among all interested parties for the purpose of productive cooperation and resolution of issues related to establishment and operation of the NWPA transportation system” (DOE 1986, p. i). Indeed, the approach contained in the Transportation Institutional Plan demonstrated a solid understanding on OCRWM’s part of the many institutional issues that it would need to resolve prior to commencing shipment operations. Committing to resolve issues cooperatively, establishing cooperative agreements with key stakeholder groups, sponsoring public workshops, and providing target schedules for completing activities were all positive steps toward building a solid foundation for true cooperation and consultation in the transportation program development. In 1993, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s Task Force on RadioactiveWaste Management released its final report on a two-year study of how DOE “might strengthen public trust and confidence in the civilian radioactive waste management program” (SEAB 1993, p. v). The report described the importance of public trust and confidence: “On a pragmatic level, public trust and confidence is generally essential for agencies to carry out effectively missions assigned to them. More fundamentally, however, trust and confidence makes a central contribution to sustaining the legitimacy of public organizations within the American system of governance” (ibid.). The Task Force found that there was “widespread lack of trust in DOE’s radioactive waste management activities” (ibid.). Most troubling, despite the early promise of the OCRWM institutional program, the Task Force singled out OCRWM as having“a relatively
59
Made with FlippingBook Annual report