IRPA13: Living with Radiation – Engaging with Society Glasgow, UK, 13 – 18 May, 2012 RC6: Conducting Effective Stakeholder Engagement Helen A Grogan, PhD Cascade Scientific
Objective To recognize the importance of credibility and trust for effective stakeholder engagement. To show different ways that this can be achieved using case studies that highlight different aspects of the process.
Our Ultimate Goal with the Public is Credibility Trust
Building credibility and trust in risk assessment is as important as the science itself. Why Credibility and Trust are Essential • If we carry out the best possible environmental risk assessment but in the end find that the results are not believed, then we have failed in our objective.
Building Credibility and Trust Must be based on data and science Must be transparent Must be effectively communicated Must be earned Must go beyond what is expected
ICRP Publication 82 (58) In the wider decision making process, the role of all interested parties, usually termed stakeholders, should be recognized. This recognition is particularly important in cases of remediation and rehabilitation of land with residues from past activities and events. The extent of stakeholder involvement will vary from one situation to another…. The weight given to these interests could be an important factor in the acceptability of the ultimate decision.
Who Are Stakeholders and What Is Their Authority? Stakeholders are individuals who have a personal, financial, health, or legal interest in policy or recommendations that affect their well-being or that of their environment. Operators and regulators are decision makers and the stakeholders help in the process by providing information and guidance related to decisions being made.
Question One Do you believe stakeholders can play a role in making policy recommendations and can help us make better decisions about protecting the environment?
PLUTONIUM IN SOIL AROUND ROCKY FLATS Bq kg-1 < 3.7 (960 ha.) > 3.7 - 37 (960 ha.) > 37 and < 190 (380 ha.) > 190 and < 370 (75 ha.) > 370 and < 930 (110 ha.) > 930 and < 3,700 (21 ha.) > 3,700 and < 9,300 (4.5 ha.) > 9,300 and < 53,000 (2 ha.) > 53,000 and < 370,000 (1.2 ha.) > 370,000 (0.24 ha.)
Study Objective These activity levels are called Radionuclide Soil Action Levels or RSALs To estimate the levels of plutonium and other actinides in soil released from Rocky Flats such that subsequent human exposure during future use of the site does not result in levels of radiation dose that exceed specified limits.
Requirements • 0.15 mSv per year dose constraint • Unrestricted use of the land • 1000 year time frame • Use of available site specific data • Account for uncertainties
We did not take account of • Cost of cleanup • Risks to the public associated with cleanup • Institutional controls
RSAL = radionuclide soil action level Dconstraint = (0.15 mSv y-1) DSR = dose-to-source ratio (mSv per Bq kg–1).
We considered lifestyles, occupations, diets, etc., for people who may inhabit the land in the future.
Rocky Flats is surrounded by areas of wild grass like this area located north of the site.
Resuspension of plutonium contaminated soils was a dominant exposure pathway
We concluded a rancher living on the land with his family is the scenario that would lead to the highest dose.
A prairie fire could significantly increase the dose because of greater resuspension following the fire.
Probability Curve 1 Probability of exceeding the dose limit .5 50% chance of exceeding dose limit 10% chance of exceeding dose limit (90% chance of not exceeding dose limit) .1 0 B A Soil action level (Bq/kg)
Scenario 1 ─ Rancher 1 Rancher with fire probability = 1 Rancher with probabilistic fire Probability of exceeding the dose constraint .5 .1 2000 3000 4000 1000 5000 239+240 Pu (Bq kg-1)
Rancher with probability of fire = 1 Curve A Rancher scenario Curve B Child scenario Curve C Resolution of Soil Action Level at Rocky Flats 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Probability of Exceeding Dose Limit RSAL is about 1300 Bq kg-1 at the 10% level 10% level 239+240Pu (Bq kg-1) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Question Two Do you believe stakeholders can help us conduct better science to be used for making recommendations about protection of the environment?
Data Gathered in Consultation with the Tribes Nine tribes each collected primary dietary & residential mobility data (1944-46 & 1961-63) Tribes also summarized distinctive patterns of food preparation, occupational niches, seasonal variation, ceremonial activities that may have led to exposures distinct from the general, non-Indian population
Involvement of Native American stakeholders in the study increased the state of the art of knowledge about pathways Their involvement also significantly improved our credibility both with Native American people and with other stakeholders Stakeholder Involvement in Characterizing Exposure at Hanford
Question Three Do you believe by involving stakeholders in the decisions and recommendations we make today, these will be more enduring and better accepted in the future ?
Los Alamos National Laboratory LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Background Audit conducted as part of a settlement agreement and consent decree that resolved a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Energy. As part of the consent decree, Risk Assessment Corporation, was asked to lead the audit. Question posed was, “Did Los Alamos National Laboratory meet requirements for compliance with the Clean Air Act? The stakeholder group appointed representatives to monitor and verify the audit’s integrity.
The Audit Process Changed in the Procedures and Documentation of Future Audits
Remember These Points About Stakeholder Participation Recognize the difficulty of this commitment Understand that short term costs are greater Clearly define the role and authority of stakeholders Develop a plan for receiving and responding to stakeholder input Have a well defined schedule and product for the end Recognize that once the commitment is made to involve stakeholders, you cannot retract the commitment
Question Four Do you believe it is possible to conduct environmental risk assessment that is based on sound science while being transparent and flexible and involves stakeholders in the decision-making process?
Key Findings from Cerro Grande Fire Problem Data not consistent or accessible Lack of transparency in decision process Communication of decisions not effective or timely Result Risk evaluation difficult and lengthy process Lack of confidence in results and distrust of decision makers 42
Foundation for RACER® Clear objectives Integrated processes Open and consistent communication Tools to relate data and information to decisions Consistency Transparency Flexibility Repeatability 43
What is RACER®? An innovative approach to support decision making and communication related to risks from chemicals and radionuclides in the environment 44
Principles of RACER® • Make environmental data consistent and accessible • Provide a framework that links environmental data and human health • Emphasize relative comparisons for decision making and communication • Engage Stakeholders
Data Information Knowledge Optimize sample locations Spatial and temporal trends Turning Data Into Information and Knowledge
RACER® Process Incorporates a series of tools into the risk assessment process for: Data analysis Risk analysis Ranking 47
Data Analysis Tool Electronic transfer of data to the database Linked to a relational database of relevant environmental data Provides options for selecting and analyzing data Trend analysis Spatial analysis Standards comparison 48
Areas Evaluated UrbBufWest UrbanArea UrbRestricted UrbBufEast AgriAreaWest AgriBufEast AgriAreaEast AgriBufWest AgriRestricted
Comparison of Exposure Areas As a Ratio to 20 mSv/y As a Dose in rem/y Ratio of 1 20 mSv Radionuclide Dose Ratio Radionuclide Dose