ICP CAB to Discuss National Recommendations

Earlier this month, Josh Bartlome, CAB vice-chair, and I participated in a two-day virtual Environmental Management Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) meeting. It was a great meeting, and much was accomplished.

Twice a year, the chairs and vice-chairs of the DOE SSABs meet to discuss common issues and goals.

The early October meeting was originally set to take place in Idaho Falls, but was moved to Zoom due to the resurgence of COVID and the importance of safety. Thank you to all involved in the work behind the scenes to pull off the successful meeting.

Over the past year. Two SSAB subcommittees have been working on white paper recommendations to be given to Mr. William “Ike” White, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.

Two recommendations were approved during the virtual SSAB meeting and the wording for a third recommendation is being finalized. All three will be presented to the ICP CAB during the October 21 meeting. The board will be asked to consider and approve the recommendations.

First recommendation:

The EM SSAB understands that successful completion of the DOE-EM mission must include a significant community, public and stakeholder outreach. While DOE-EM has been engaging in public outreach from the beginning we believe that the effectiveness can be improved by any of several different approaches described in this document taking into consideration the complexity and uniqueness of each of the cleanup sites managed by DOE-EM.

Below are observations from the SSABs developed during public outreach committee meetings. These are followed by specific recommendations from this committee.

Observations:

• Some SSABs feel that the relationship between DOE and their communities is top-notch, while others feel that the public stakeholders need greater involvement in the cleanup conversation as decisions are being made.
• SSABs tend to agree that DOE sites are most successful when they host and encourage frank, transparent conversations with the public and regulators regarding the decisions that are being made and the challenges they face. These are often difficult and complex topics that the public is eager to understand and need to have the opportunity to ask questions and see their concerns addressed.
• Sites are most successful when they get in the “trust zone” with their local and regional stakeholders and partners.
• Frequent sharing of information about cleanup, schedules, and funding with local Chambers of Commerce and economic development organizations as well as city and county governments has been found to be very advantageous for one SSAB. 
• Public involvement in shaping decisions is important to project success. In order to accomplish this overarching goal, several areas of the public involvement relationship could be improved. What is legally required is just the start. 
• Public stakeholders appreciate when we see their values reflected in the activities, agreements, and products of site managers and regulators. Examples include DOE’s solicitation of board values and incorporation of those values in Federal Facility Agreement Public Involvement Plans, soliciting and incorporating board input on informational materials and effective public meeting designs.
• In-depth informational outreach is highly valued by the different SSABs. This can take the form of monthly newsletters for those who can’t attend meetings, to virtual meetings that give the public access to SMEs on specific topics of interest, to regional in-person “dialogues” that promote a two-way communication between interested stakeholders and site managers from both DOE and the regulatory agencies. Access to information digitally and in an approachable format are also highly valued in order to reach and inform the widest audience.
• Beyond virtual access, the ability to take in-person tours is deemed fundamental to the openness and transparency the public is seeking.
• In general, the SSAB boards are interested and willing to consult with DOE on how meetings and outreach materials are designed and distributed, and we encourage DOE to make use of this resource.  New media such as videos, animations, virtual tours, regular newsletters, and digital histories are excellent tools for site outreach and education, and their continued development should be supported.

* Many sites like Paducah have a book on the history of the site. These could be placed in the community, university, and local school libraries, city and county offices, tourism, and Chambers of Commerce offices. These could also be presented to state and federal officials, Congressional delegation, state legislators and others.

* Exhibits on the history of the site and cleanup process placed in appropriate locations, such as area universities and colleges, city and county offices; public meetings regarding the site and cleanup and other appropriate locations.

Recommendations:

We recommend that the individual site managers/designees and their advisory boards work together to discuss and determine which activities best suit their circumstances and respond to public needs. The detail, depth, and implementation plan should result from this collaborative effort. The following thematic areas of improvement were agreed upon by the Public Outreach Committee and are offered as recommendations to DOE EM, as well as some specific recommendations within each thematic area.
 

1. Develop an optimal design and platform for virtual and hybrid meetings and make the most of virtual opportunities. Not only does this allow us to make the most of the change that COVID-19 brought to the world but allows access by members of the public that might not be able to travel to SSAB meetings. Utilize social media to quickly disseminate important information to the public, State and local governments, and stakeholders.
2. Maintain efforts for in-person outreach. Make site tours for board members a requisite, and include the public, stakeholder groups, and the media whenever possible. Utilize local museums to house displays for preserving site history or virtual museums to tell the story of the site using online format that can be accessed at any time.
3. Outreach should be a mechanism for effective two-way communication between DOE-EM and the general public. DOE-EM outreach should seek to increase (1) the general public’s awareness and understanding of DOE-EM activities as well as (2) actionable feedback from the general public regarding past, current, and future DOE-EM activities. Engage the public early and often. Have interactive conversations with the public that allow the public to ask questions and get answers about complex subjects. Share how public input has shaped or influenced cleanup decisions. Ensure open and transparent decision making.
4. Continue to support and improve informational outreach products to engage the public.
5. Continue seeking ways to support and improve the impact of DOE’s Site Specific Advisory Boards
6. Facilitate and support cross-site sharing of activities and public outreach resources.
7. Utilize metrics and principles of social science to inform the design and dissemination of outreach efforts and products.

Second Recommendation

A second focus was the DOE EM 10-Year Strategic Plan Development Plan. A different group focused on communications and these are their recommendations:

1. DOE should hold 10-year Strategic Vision public meetings every year, at each site, in order to share the next iteration of programmatic goals, including discussions of successes, roadblocks, course changes, new scopes of cleanup and recognition of potential uncertainties. Public tutorial meetings should be held two weeks in advance of the beginning of any formal Public Comment period in order to build a common knowledge base.
2. EM Sites have the commonality of specific, near-term, three to five year, plans. These specific site plans should all trigger public involvement campaigns, outlining yearly updates on their next respective, goals. Site near-term plans should be aligned with 10-year Strategic Plan goals such that near-term plans can be used iteratively to benchmark programmatic progress.
3. Regarding the Strategic Vision, in addition to reducing jargon and allowing for a quicker means of identifying or getting to information pertinent to a specific site, the document needs a better explanation of how the priorities are established.  What criteria are used with regard to public health, environmental risks, local economies, cost to complete, land transfers, etc.  Not details for each site, but an overall explanation of the process. This might help people understand why some sites have larger budgets or seem to be more active.  Local SSABs are probably knowledgeable about planning for their sites, but each board should have some education on national priorities.

Communication:

1. DOE should put forth a concerted effort to define terminology so that FACA Boards and the public understand what is being considered and asked for, from them, within the decision matrix to be discussed. DOE needs to clearly communicate the boundaries of what is being considered. Additionally, DOE should articulate, in what manner, public policy advice can be successfully received by DOE-EM in order to see it incorporated into DOE’s pending decisions. Lastly, DOE must convey how they will respond to public comments.
2. Utilize the strength of the SSAB Board’s experiences and longevity by having them help to facilitate public meeting design, timing and locations. DOE-EM SSABs are now long-standing. They are formed from broad representation of the communities they represent and as such have the ability to help DOE regionalize presentations.
3. Evaluation of SSAB effectiveness should be based on several factors.  This should include development of guidance on when and what types of recommendations are needed.  Although less objective, evaluative assessments from community stakeholders, DOE, DOE contractors, regulatory personnel and the SSAB’s themselves should be incorporated.
4. Activities at some sites are long term and have reached the stage where little change is seen during the tenure of a typical SSAB member.  Hence, the need for major decisions and recommendations is less or non-existent.  Maintaining SSAB member interest is difficult.  In this situation, DOE should consider ways to involve the SSABs in less consequential decisions and public outreach.  DOE should also consider what types of education might provide a better background for recommendations, decisions, community outreach that will occur in the future.
5. Written communication produced by DOE and the SSABs that is intended for the general public should be reviewed by site Public Affairs to verify that the use of jargon or uncommon terminology is understandable to a non-technical audience.

Public Involvement:

1. DOE should embrace the tenet that institutional knowledge and transparency in all aspects of the cleanup program is an essential component of building informed, useful and supportive public policy advice from the SSAB Boards, Tribes and the public. By engaging the public early and often, DOE can utilize the SSAB Boards and their operating structures such that they help prepare future generations of Board members and the public for informed engagement.
2. DOE should support STEM program development for local schools and colleges with curriculum development. Efforts should include supporting development of trained people for trade-focused careers.
3. DOE should actively provide opportunities for informational engagement and coordinate with the EM SSAB meeting schedule to the extent possible.
4. DOE should hold public tutorial meetings in order to share DOE interactions with regulatory bodies and formally convened scientific panels. Building a collective, scientific basis for remediation pathway development that incorporates informed public policy recommendations should be the goal.
5. SSAB membership should be consistent in reflecting community educational levels, proximity, racial and cultural diversity, and income levels.  An exact mirror of the community is not necessarily beneficial.  Interest and commitment are most important.  Including actual stakeholders affected by public health or environmental risks or community economic and political factors is more important than simply looking at the community demographics.  Also, having people that can contribute to SSAB decisions because of experience, education, and connections in the community is important.  One criterion that should be emphasized is a member’s willingness and ability to communicate with the general public.
6. Introductory training for new board members appears to be inconsistent.  Site tours and in-person instruction should be required.  These should be supplemented by on line or other virtual resources.  In addition to DOE and/or contractor personnel, current SSAB members should be involved in the tours and training.  Introductory training can be spread out over time, but should be separate from SSAB meetings.  A more formal schedule of when new SSAB members are added should be established to allow for a better introductory training schedule and to reduce the need for continual repetition of in-formation that has already been addressed by longer term SSAB members.
7. Because of COVID, virtual meetings have become routine.  Although these meetings allow for participation of people geographically distant or with health issues, they are not as effective regarding communication within and between SSAB, DOE, regulatory personnel, DOE contractors, and the general public.  Virtual meetings allow for a lessened commitment among participants.  SSAB in-person meetings should be prioritized, with hybrid meetings as needed. 

Risk Communication:

1. DOE should address the Boards and the public on how risk assessments affect prioritization and decision making.
2. Training should be provided to Board members on communications surrounding high-profile or sensitive issues.

Third recommendation

The third recommendation focused on the long process of applying for appointment to a DOE SSAB position. Both DOE Headquarters and DOE-EM sites are looking at ways to streamline the selection and appointment process.
 
These recommendations were unanimously approved by the SSAB members. We look forward to discussing the recommendations with the Idaho board during the October 21 meeting.