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.
Glasgow, UK, 13 – 18 May, 2012
RC6: Conducting Effective Stakeholder Engagement
Helen A Grogan, PhD
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.
Building credibility and trust in risk assessment is as important as the science itself.
Why Credibility and Trust are Essential
Must be based on data and science
Must be transparent
Must be effectively communicated
Must be earned
Must go beyond what is expected
(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.
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.
There is stakeholder important as the science itself.engagement...
…and there is stakeholder important as the science itself.engagement
Question One important as the science itself.
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 important as the science itself.
< 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.)
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.
The Radionuclide Soil Action Level Oversight Panel important as the science itself.
RSAL = important as the science itself.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 area located north of the site. 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 of greater resuspension following the fire.
Probability of exceeding the
50% chance of exceeding dose limit
10% chance of exceeding dose limit
(90% chance of not exceeding dose limit)
Soil action level (Bq/kg)
Scenario 1 of greater resuspension following the fire.─ Rancher
Rancher with fire probability = 1
Rancher with probabilistic fire
Probability of exceeding the
239+240 Pu (Bq kg-1)
Rancher with probability of fire = 1 of greater resuspension following the fire.
Resolution of Soil Action Level at Rocky Flats
Probability of Exceeding Dose Limit
RSAL is about 1300 Bq kg-1
at the 10% level
239+240Pu (Bq kg-1)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Do you believe stakeholders can help us conduct better science to be used for making recommendations about protection of the environment?
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 stakeholdersStakeholder Involvement in Characterizing Exposure at Hanford
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
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
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
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?
Cerro Grande Fire (May 2000) Documentation of Future Audits
Data not consistent or accessible
Lack of transparency in decision process
Communication of decisions not effective or timely
Risk evaluation difficult and lengthy process
Lack of confidence in results and distrust of decision makers
Open and consistent communication
Tools to relate data and information to decisions
An innovative approach to support decision making and communication related to risks from chemicals and radionuclides in the environment
Data Documentation of Future Audits
Optimize sample locations
temporal trendsTurning Data Into Information and Knowledge
Incorporates a series of tools into the risk assessment process for:
Electronic transfer of data to the database
Linked to a relational database of relevant environmental data
Provides options for selecting and analyzing data
Areas Documentation of Future AuditsEvaluated
As a Ratio to 20 mSv/y
As a Dose in rem/y
Ratio of 1
Radionuclide Dose Ratio