citizen board issues and local newspaper coverage of risk, remediation, and environmental...

REMEDIATION Summer 2008

Citizen Board Issues and Local NewspaperCoverage of Risk, Remediation, andEnvironmental Management: Six U.S.Nuclear Weapons Facilities

Michael Greenberg

Karen Lowrie

Justin Hollander

Joanna Burger

Charles Powers

Michael Gochfeld

We examined site-specific advisory board (SSAB) minutes and local newspaper coverage of the

Fernald, Hanford, Idaho, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, and Savannah River sites of the U.S. Department of

Energy (US DOE) in order to determine the importance of risk-related issues related to remediation

and other forms of environmental management. About one-third of SSAB issues were risk-related,

and these were disproportionately major issues at meetings. The media focused on risks associated

with remediation and other forms of waste management. The analysis implies that contractors and

government officials need to establish and maintain communications with advisory panels and

accentuate these contacts well in advance of contemplated new actions. Oc 2008 Wiley Periodicals,

Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Remediation and other environmental management projects (REMPs) are monitored byresponsible parties, government agencies, and sometimes by those who live and worknearby. Few REMPs draw the attention of the media and have citizen advisory panels.Those that do attract the local media and have citizen advisory panels are major facilitiesoperated and/or managed by the Department of Energy (US DOE), Department ofDefense, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Superfund sites), and, lessfrequently, states and local governments (brownfield and selected Superfund sites).

The US DOE has been remediating and has closed scores of the smaller sites. Thisarticle focuses on US DOE REMPs that are sufficiently newsworthy and of concern towarrant media attention and have had site-specific advisory boards (SSABs). Over 50 yearsof nuclear weapons and energy production, development, and testing has resulted in theaccumulation of nuclear and chemical hazardous waste and materials stored around theUnited States at over 100 locations, now owned and managed by the US DOE (Blush &Heitman, 1995; Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, 1996, 2000;Kunreuther et al., 1990; MacFarlane & Ewing, 2006; US DOE/OEM, 1995a, 1995b;Williams et al., 1999, 2001).

c© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/rem.20173 79

Citizen Board Issues and Local Newspaper Coverage of Risk, Remediation, and Environmental Management

With the goal of gaining a better understanding of the interactions amonggovernment agencies, the media, and citizen advisory boards as they bear upon riskrelated to remediation and other parts of environmental management, we assessed theimportance of risk remediation/environmental management–related issues to SSABs andto the local media. The literature suggests that local media and citizens’ advisory panelswould focus on risk-related elements. But given the economic and political importance ofthese facilities to these regions, this expectation could be false. We have not found anyprevious efforts to jointly study these interconnections. More specifically, in this article,we address two broad questions:

The literature suggeststhat local media andcitizens’ advisory panelswould focus on risk-relatedelements. But given theeconomic and politicalimportance of these facili-ties to these regions, thisexpectation could be false.

� How central are risk remediation/environmental management–related issues at SSABmeetings compared to other concerns?

� Do local newspapers cover SSAB meetings? If they do, how much do they emphasizerisk issues related to remediation and environmental management compared toeconomics, politics, and other concerns?

The US DOE has spent about three-quarters of its environmental management legacycosts on just six of these government-owned sites: Hanford (Washington), Savannah River(South Carolina), Idaho National Laboratory (Idaho), Oak Ridge (Tennessee), Fernald(Ohio), and Rocky Flats (Colorado) (US DOE/OEM, 1995a, 1995b). These six siteswere our case studies. While these have been the major sites, they are different inimportant ways that allowed us to study intersite variations.

BACKGROUND

Site-Specific Advisory Boards

With regard to the US DOE, chartered SSABs exist at nine sites within the US DOE’snuclear weapons complex (US DOE, 2006, US DOE/Office of Public andIntergovernmental Accountability, 2006). Briefly, chartered under the Federal FacilitiesAdvisory Committee Act in 1994, the purpose of SSABs is to provide consensus adviceand recommendations to the US DOE’s environmental remediation, waste managementactivities, and restoration activities. Site-specific advisory boards are commonly referredto as citizens’ advisory boards or SSABs. Although SSABs may be set up differently, theyare all charged to represent diverse community viewpoints with a goal of directlyinvolving stakeholders in US DOE decisions (US DOE, 2006, US DOE/Office of Publicand Intergovernmental Accountability, 2006). However, SSABs are not the sole conduitfor public involvement, nor are they necessarily charged to provide advice on all topicsrelated to site operations. The charter allows SSABs to cover environmental management(EM)–specific issues such as cleanup standards and environmental restoration; wastemanagement and disposition; stabilization and disposition of nonstockpile nuclearmaterials; excess facilities; future land use; long-term stewardship; risk assessment andmanagement; and science and technology activities (US DOE, 2006, US DOE/Office ofPublic and Intergovernmental Accountability, 2006). Most of the individual SSABs’mission statements designate that they will advise the EM program on waste managementand environmental restoration topics, sometimes adding stewardship and future use.

80 Remediation DOI: 10.1002.rem c© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


(See, for example, www.hanford.gov/public/boards/hab, www.rfSSAB.org/fact.sheet.html, www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab.)

Despite the somewhat limited range of topics that is the purview of the SSABs, withregard to risk, the SSAB chairs signed a statement in 2000 agreeing to expect that, withtheir advice, cleanup decisions at the sites will be protective of human health andenvironment and based on, among other things, a full assessment of human health andenvironmental risks.

Their agenda is very dependent on their own initiative and the US DOE’s needs. TheSSAB may be doing its job, for example, following the ongoing cleanup of a contaminatedwell. If at the same time, the US DOE announces that it is building a new facility that isnot part of the SSAB mandate, the SSAB may have feelings about it, and may articulatethose at meetings of the US DOE and SSAB.

Our expectations about the SSABs rest on the assumption that SSAB-US DOEmeetings reflect the diversity of site activities. Rocky Flats and Fernald are largelyremediated and have been turned over to the US DOE’s relatively new Office of LegacyManagement. Hence, we expected that most of the issues at these two sites would focuson final cleanup and closure risks, and long-term stewardship. Hanford is a massive site,almost 500 square miles, and one at which cleanup, rather than new, nuclear-relatedactivity, has dominated the agenda. At Hanford, we also expected a disproportionateamount of focus on risk-related issues. Oak Ridge, Savannah River, and Idaho haveongoing nuclear and non-nuclear-related technology and research activities, along withtheir major waste management programs. Accordingly, we expected their SSABs woulddiscuss a larger range of issues than would their counterparts at Rocky Flats, Fernald, andHanford. While issues might be somewhat different at the six sites, given the charter andpersonal experiences at the sites, we expected a strong interest in risk by the SSABs at allthe sites.

While issues might besomewhat different at thesix sites, given the charterand personal experiencesat the sites, we expected astrong interest in risk by theSSABs at all the sites.

Media Coverage

With regard to the media, journalism is a business, and journalists are trained tounderstand what is interesting to the public. Interesting almost always means that publicemotions are stirred by the news story, including personal significance to them and theirloved ones. Reporters enhance interest by using sources, verbal symbols, photos, andother devices to engage their readers (Atkin & Wallack, 1990; Berridge & Loughlin,2005; Dennis, 1990; Fortunato, 2005; Graber, 2006; Hance et al., 1990; McCombs,2004; National Research Council, 1989; Powell & Leiss, 1997; Sandman et al., 1987).

Controversy about facts, blame, and personal stories of anguish are a tried and testedmethod of achieving newsworthiness. If there is an alleged cancer cluster in the vicinity ofa site, reporters will want to know why and who caused it; likewise, a transportationaccident at the site will be a big cause-and-blame story.

Importance is another newsworthiness criterion. But importance does not strictlymean public or environmental health significance as measured by exposure, illness/injury,or even death. Importance can be political, economic, legal, and environmental, andimportance is local. An announcement that the US DOE is building a $2 billionremediation facility in an area is guaranteed to be an important story because it meansjobs, more local tax revenue, and likely some public opposition, as well as support.

c© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Remediation DOI: 10.1002.rem 81


Integrating these newsworthiness factors suggests that local newspapers will feature astory if there is a new or at least potentially interesting new problem, remediation orrestoration, or a new facility at the site. In contrast, if nothing new is happening at thenearby US DOE site (that is, routine and mundane activities are continuing), then theremay be no coverage, or the coverage may be relegated to the deep inside of thenewspaper, where only a few people will see it.

General newsworthiness factors are confounded by media size and service area. TheIdaho, Hanford, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River Sites are in less populated and urbanizedregions, and the US DOE site is important to these regions. Researchers estimated that19, 16, 14, and 16 percent of the gross regional product of these four regions,respectively, came from US DOE expenditures (Frisch et al., 1998). In contrast, Fernaldand Rocky Flats Ridge are located in larger metropolitan regions (Cincinnati and Denver,respectively), and less than 3 percent of their gross regional product is associated with theUS DOE. Accordingly, we expected more interest from the local newspapers of the firstfour than from the last two. Newspapers covering the first four sites were expected tocover not only accidents and new remediation and EM programs, but also routinemeetings. In contrast, we expected to find the larger regional newspapers for Fernald andRocky Flats to focus only on “exciting” new events and activities, not on routine programs.

DATA AND METHODS

We used three sources of data: (1) content analysis of full SSAB meetings, (2) contentanalysis of newspaper coverage, and (3) interviews with journalists.

SSAB Minutes—Content Analysis

We went back to the two recent years that had published meeting minutes to examineSSAB meetings. We performed content analysis on recorded SSAB minutes from fullSSAB board meetings (not including planning retreats) at the six sites held between July 1,2003 and June 30, 2005, a total of 93 meetings. These minutes were publicly availableand posted on each SSAB’s Web site. Some sites (Rocky Flats and Oak Ridge) had morethan 20 meetings, and other sites (Hanford and Savannah River) had less than a dozen.However, the meetings at the first pair of sites tended to be relatively short, each roughlyabout three hours, whereas the length of the meetings at the second pair were a day longor multiday meetings. In other words, the number of meetings was not a meaningfulindication of SSAB involvement.

The purposes of the con-tent analysis were to assesswhat topics were discussedbetween the SSAB and theUS DOE, and the empha-sis on risk-related concernsabout remediation and EM.

The purposes of the content analysis were to assess what topics were discussedbetween the SSAB and the US DOE, and the emphasis on risk-related concerns aboutremediation and EM. The raw data for each set of minutes included, at a minimum, a listof each topic that was discussed, as recorded in the minutes; a judgment about whether itwas a major (presentation or lengthy discussion) or minor (brief update with limiteddiscussion) topic at the meeting; and a judgment about whether risk was emphasized inthe discussion (yes/no). Risk emphasis was judged in the affirmative if it appeared fromthe minutes that the topic was presented with either a sense of alarm or with a stressing ofenvironmental or public health hazards and risks. Two of the authors read each of the setsof minutes to make sure that there was a consensus about the information.



We point out several caveats regarding the data obtained from the content analysis ofthe SSAB minutes. Each SSAB has a different format, degree of formality and length fortheir full meetings (held either monthly or bimonthly), and these minutes are written indifferent styles at each site and varying levels of detail. So we did not have exactly thesame information for each site.

Another thing to consider about the use of full SSAB meeting minutes as a proxy forwhat the SSAB discusses is that there are a variety of other forums that occur at each sitethat may cover topics not addressed at full formal SSAB meetings, with more or lessattention to risk. This study could not evaluate all of the site-related public involvementevents or workshops. There was no consistent set of data. Also, it is well known thatinformal unrecorded discussions can be quite critical in interactions. We have no recordof informal discussions. Lastly, SSABs offer recommendations to the US DOE. We hadexpected them to be a rich and systematic source of data. The recommendations werenot, because, while some sites provided resolutions, cover letters, and explanations,others provided a list of the resolutions that were not sufficiently detailed to be useful.Since resolution data were inconsistent, we did not use them.

Newspaper Articles—Content Analysis

We also performed content analysis on major daily newspapers with online searchablearchives within a 50-mile region of each site from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2005. Weincluded all articles about waste management activities, waste shipment, newmission-related projects, decommissioning activities, or accidents at the US DOE site.The sample of 399 articles did not include editorials, letters to the editor, or contractualtopics or national-scale issues. Like the analysis of the SSAB minutes, the entire articleswere read and coded for whether risk was emphasized in the article (yes/no). We judgedthat risk was emphasized if risks or hazards were mentioned often or early in the article,and that risk was not emphasized if it was not mentioned at all, or only in a nonalarmingway or late in the article.

Please note that the media study was local newspaper coverage of the last two yearsand did not include radio, television, the Internet, or any other form of masscommunication.

Newspaper Focus on the Site—Phone Interviews

We attempted to interview at least one reporter from each of the major local newspapersnearest the six sites in August and September 2006. The reporters were asked threeopen-ended questions: how important the US DOE site is to the newspaper; how theycovered news at the local US DOE site; and how much they rely on SSAB meetings.

The reporters were askedthree open-ended ques-tions: how important the USDOE site is to the newspa-per; how they covered newsat the local US DOE site;and how much they rely onSSAB meetings.

RESULTS

We present the SSAB results first, then the media.



Exhibit 1. Summary of risk emphasis at community advisory board meetings∗

Site Number of Topics Number Emphasized Risk Percent Emphasized Risk

Fernald 21 8 38Hanford 24 11 46INL 42 10 23Oak Ridge 21 4 19Rocky Flats 42 25 59SRS 42 8 19Six sites 192 66 34

∗The SSABs are officially charged with representing the community to the Department of Energy.

Exhibit 2. Community advisory board meetings: Association between emphasis on

risk and major issues

Issue Risk Emphasized Risk Not Emphasized All Issues

Major 46 (70%) 52 (41%) 98 (51%)Minor 20 (30%) 74 (59%) 94 (49%)All Issues 66 126 192

The Site-Specific Advisory Boards

Exhibit 1 shows that 192 topics were discussed at the main SSAB meetings during the twoyears. Thirty-four percent of those topics emphasized risk. There was wide variationamong the six sites, with Rocky Flats (59 percent), Hanford (46 percent), and Fernald(38 percent) emphasizing risk-related issues. The SSABs at the three sites with multiplemissions were much less focused on risk-related topics. Only about 20 percent of thetopics at these sites emphasized risk, although we know from site visits thatsubcommittees were involved in risk issues during the study period.

Exhibit 2 shows that 70 percent (46 of 66) of the SSAB issues that emphasized riskwere major issues at a meeting. Often, SSAB members’ concerns were about a projectthat appeared to be falling behind schedule or about a project for which a change had beenproposed.

The SSABs’ focus on risk also appeared in the form of commitment to ongoing publicinvolvement. For example, at Fernald and Rocky Flats, which were in the process of beingtransferred to the US DOE’s Office of Legacy Management as closure sites, the SSABswere heavily focused on creating a record of the postremediation legacy for futuregenerations. The Fernald SSAB stated that it wanted to act as a “midwife” during thischangeover from active environmental remediation management to stewardship/legacymanagement. The SSAB wanted to make sure that future residents would be cognizant ofthe legacy left at the site. It called for an educational facility at the site and a Web-basedsystem that would convey historical information. As part of its future-oriented concern,



the Fernald SSAB argued against removing the fence surrounding the site and againstturning over the community advisory responsibility solely to elected officials. The minutescontained considerable debate about both of these issues between members of the SSABand between the SSAB and US DOE.

There was little evidence of interaction with the media presented in the minutes, butwhen there was, it focused on risk. For example, there was strong criticism of aCincinnati newspaper for what the Fernald SSAB called “sensationalizing” a risk-relatedissue. The SSAB argued that the newspaper had inappropriately exaggerated the risk. TheRocky Flats SSAB addressed many of the same issues. It was notably distressed about theidea of turning over its role to local elected officials, which it felt would have lessexpertise and much less activism than the group currently serving a site. Summarizing, theSSABs of both closure sites were focused on the transition of EM from active remediationto the long-term stewardship. Their concerns were principally around the need toguarantee long-term public involvement and attention to legacy risks. Their currentinterest was more about restoration and stewardship than about active remediation.

The SSABs of both closuresites were focused on thetransition of EM from activeremediation to the long-term stewardship.

The four major sites are not closing any time soon, and remediation-related riskswere central to the discussions. They also emphasized public involvement aroundrisk-related issues. Oak Ridge’s public outreach committee maintains a speakers’ bureauthat makes presentations to local high schools and community groups. The group waspreparing a stewardship resource kit for local high school students, which it believes iscritical to maintain long-term local community surveillance of the site.

This SSAB’s commitment to public involvement was underscored when a spill ofnuclear materials occurred on a public road. The SSAB and US DOE had a frankdiscussion about the implications of this incident. The SSAB urged the US DOE toconstruct a separate US DOE road that would be used to transfer materials among the USDOE sites, and not to rely on local public roads. There was also an exchange regarding theUS DOE’s need to communicate with the public about this incident, which the local OakRidge newspaper covered with six stories. The SSAB had a clear vision of howinformation about remediation projects and EM more generally should be communicatedso that it could be understood.

The Hanford SSAB meetings were quite comprehensive, dealing with the need formulticultural outreach, tutorials, and workshops for board members about riskassessment, physical barriers, board practices, and other issues that bear directly upon theboard’s capacity to represent the surrounding areas. The Hanford SSAB even summarizedits contributions, for example, noting that during the late 1980s and 1990s the publicbecame distressed by what it considered to be deliberate US DOE efforts to exclude thepublic until decisions had already been made. This pattern, the board said, was broken inthe mid-1990s, when the US DOE realized that its public involvement process was leadingto distrust, opposition, and more lawsuits against the US DOE. The Board summarized itsaccomplishments as less litigation, reduction in negative feelings, and less suspicion of theUS DOE. However, throughout the two years (July 2003 through June 2005), theHanford board was clearly uncertain about what it considered to be mixed signals fromthe US DOE about public involvement, especially from US DOE headquarters.

The Savannah River and Idaho SSABs have dealt with the broadest portfolio of issues,such as cleanup of existing wastes, new nuclear-related missions, transportation of nuclearmaterials, long-term stewardship, the future of nuclear power at the sites, and others.Increasing public involvement to monitor these activities also was a theme at these two sites.



Newspaper Articles

We interviewed reporters at six newspapers, one for each site. The differences were quitestriking. Reporters for the large Denver and Cincinnati newspapers had manyresponsibilities, and the newspapers were relatively uninterested in the site and in theSSAB meetings, which they rarely, if ever, attended. In contrast, the newspapers thatcovered the Hanford, Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River Sites view the DOE sites asnewsworthy. As indicated earlier, the US DOE is the largest employer in these four areas,and what happens at the sites is critically important to many of the residents. For the foursites, SSAB meetings were covered by a reporter. The reporters requested anonymity, sotheir names and newspapers are not identified in the following presentation.

With regard to importance of the site, a reporter for one of the four sites said: “It’stypically a front-page story, [but] not what it was 10 years ago when the Cold War was stillblazing, the site employed 13,000 people, and they spent in excess of $1 billion a year.”

A reporter at another one of the four sites elaborated: “It’s a pretty small town; it’sour largest employer. There’s so much news out of that site. We think much of whathappens there is important. The problem is that it’s not headline-matter news every timeyou take away another container of waste. When there are milestones, which areimportant, people get very emotional about it. It’s kind of interesting here. People intown are pretty pro-nuclear people, and surrounding areas view it morenegatively.”

A reporter representing the third newspaper added: “It depends on the story;sometimes it’s on page 1, sometimes its inside.” A journalist representing the fourthregion underscored the economic link: “It’s a very important story, the [site] employs upto 15,000 people, there’s very little that goes on at that site that isn’t covered in thisnewspaper. It is, by far, a dominating economic force; it’s a large issue for our paper. Mymain job is every day to come in and find out what’s going on at [the site].”

Reporters at the two major metropolitan newspapers that cover Rocky Flats andFernald summarized their views of the newsworthiness of the two sites as follows: “Not ahuge priority—more a historical story, unless there is an explosion” and “I’ve beencovering it for the last two years; [the story] is at the end of its controversial life. To behonest, I think editors got tired of it. Stories about [the site] were always a tough sell.”

More specifically with regard to extent of coverage of the site, a reporter for one ofthe four local newspapers said: “We rely on a very wide range of sources, including a lotof documents. Between the e-mail and employees, I could build a tower of documents,very tall, just from the documents produced at [the site]. DOE press releases are the leastused for reporting the news.” In contrast, a reporter for one of the large metropolitannewspapers said, regarding the amount of coverage, “It depends on the story.”

A reporter for one of thefour local newspapers said:“We rely on a very widerange of sources, includ-ing a lot of documents. Be-tween the e-mail and em-ployees, I could build atower of documents, verytall, just from the docu-ments produced at [thesite]. DOE press releasesare the least used for re-porting the news.”

With regard to coverage of the SSAB meetings, a reporter for a major metropolitannewspaper said that she did not cover the SSAB: “There’s no time. I have other beats. Notmuch happens at SSAB meetings that is newsworthy.” A reporter for the second largemetropolitan newspaper said, “Generally, I don’t find the [SSAB] meetings to be useful,but people on the SSAB would keep me up-to-date.”

These two large metropolitan newspapers stand in strong contrast to theircounterparts at the smaller and economically dependent regions. For example, onereporter said, “I go to a lot of public meetings, and a lot of District of Columbia meetingsare webcast.” A second said, “We cover these meetings, we send a reporter. We do have



Exhibit 3. Risk emphasis in newspaper articles by site

Number Number of Articles Risk/DangerSite of Articles Emphasizing Risk/Danger Emphasized, %

Fernald 35 21 60Hanford 123 65 53INL 64 18 28Oak Ridge 92 27 29Rocky Flats 46 27 59SRS 39 21 54Total 399 179 45

someone there for every meeting. Every time he goes, he comes back with a story.”Perhaps the most interesting comment came from a reporter from a newspaperrepresenting one of the four sites: “We have three DOE sites. What goes on at the SSABmeetings is an important part of people’s lives and the historical part of the community.The SSAB recently received a special national award. We have a very good advisoryboard; they take information to the DOE.” In essence, this reporter confirmed that theSSAB does listen to the US DOE as well as bring information to the US DOE.

The reporters’ collective comments are affirmed by the data in Exhibit 3. Hanford(123), Oak Ridge (92), and Idaho (64) had the most stories. Rocky Flats (46) and Fernald(35) had many fewer news articles. The unexpected finding was that Savannah River hadmuch less coverage (39) than had been anticipated. With regard to emphasis on risk,Rocky Flats, Fernald, and Hanford, as expected, disproportionately emphasized risk intheir articles. Idaho and Oak Ridge did not. Once again, Savannah River was theunexpected result, demonstrating a much larger proportion of stories that emphasizedrisk.

Exhibits 1 and 3 show a general association between emphasis on risk at SSABmeetings and media coverage of risk-related issues. The Spearman rank correlationbetween SSAB and media emphasis on risk was 0.50, which means that greater SSABemphasis on risk-related issues is generally paralleled by more media reporting ofrisk-related subjects.

Exhibit 4 groups the 399 articles into eight risk remedation/EM–related categoriesand an “All other stories” category. Waste contamination, with 53 percent (212 of 399) ofthe stories, dominates. Transport of waste (35), site accidents (27), and public exposureto contaminants (24) constitute most of the remaining coverage by the newspapers. Atypical story was in fact about an actual or potential water contamination problem andefforts to remediate the problem.

DISCUSSION

The results mostly followed expectations. The community advisory boards focused onremediation and other environmental management issues and risks associated with these,and they demonstrated a strong orientation toward involving the community in the



Exhibit 4. Newspaper article topics

Topic Number of Stories Percent of Stories

Contamination from waste 212 53Transport of waste 35 9Site accidents 27 7Public exposure to hazards 24 6New nuclear-related missions and jobs 16 4Worker health 10 3Ecology-ecosystems 9 2Terrorism at site 3 <1All other stories 61 15All stories 399 100

process. This was true of the four sites that have ongoing US DOE-related missions, aswell as the two sites that are closed and are turned over to the US DOE’s Office of LegacyManagement.

With regard to media coverage, as anticipated, the amount and focus of the coverageheavily depended on the size and market of the newspaper and onsite activities.Environmental contamination dominated media coverage at all six sites. Indeed, there wasa general association between SSAB discussion and media coverage of risk.

With regard to private contractors and government officials, these results send anumber of messages. With regard to contractors, as they move from stage to stage, theyneed to anticipate and be prepared to explain what changes are occurring, why they areoccurring, and what the implications are for those who live nearby. They need tocoordinate with other contractors and government officials to make sure that informationis unambiguous and not contradictory. The sooner they establish channels with localmedia and inform the SSAB and make themselves available for questions, the less likelytheir projects will be greeted with hostility and/or fear.

With regard to the federal government, it is quite clear that they need to consider themessage implied by reducing or even threatening to reduce SSAB budgets. Budgetreductions that squeeze the body representing the community will most certainly notenhance the credibility with surrounding populations, especially in light of the reality thatthe SSABs are a key vehicle for disseminating news to the media, especially for the smallermetropolitan areas.

With regard to the local newspapers, their interactions with the US DOE and withthe SSABs were predictable. If the US DOE believes that the local media are important,then it will need to enhance its efforts to make site activities newsworthy. Actually, it maywant less attention, but, often, deliberately seeking less attention leads to a loss ofcontacts and trust between the media and the site, which could become very importantwhen a problem arises at the site. The prudent path is to deliberately build and sustainrelationships with the local media.



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was prepared with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy, underaward number DE-FG01-03EW15336 to the Institute of Responsible Management,Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) II. Any opinions,findings, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the US DOE or of IRM/CRESP II.

REFERENCES

Atkin, C., & Wallack, L. (Eds.). (1990). Mass communication and public health. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berridge, V., & Loughlin, K. (2005). Medicine, the market and the mass media: Producing health in the

twentieth century. New York: Routledge.

Blush, S., & Heitman, T. (1995). Train wreck along the river of money: An evaluation of the Hanford cleanup.

Washington, DC: Report to the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. (1996). Building an effective environmental

management science program: Initial assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. (2000). Long-term institutional management of US

Department of Energy legacy waste sites. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Dennis, E. (1990). Covering the environment. New York: Gannett Center.

Fortunato, J. (2005). Making media: The influence of constituency groups on mass media content. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Frisch, M., Solitare, L., Greenberg, M., & Lowrie, K. (1998). Regional economic benefits of environmental

management at the U.S. Department of Energy’s major nuclear weapons sites. Journal of Environmental

Management, 4, 23–37.

Graber, D. (2006). Mass media and American politics (7th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Hance, B. J., Chess, C., & Sandman, P. (1990). Industry risk communication manual. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis

Publishers.

Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., Desvousges, W., & Slovic, P. (1990). Public attitudes toward siting a high-level

nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 10, 469–484.

MacFarlane, A., & Ewing, R. (Eds.). (2006). Uncertainty underground: Yucca Mountain and the nation’s

high-level nuclear waste. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

National Research Council, Committee on Risk Perception and Communication. (1989). Improving risk

communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Powell, D., & Leiss, W. (1997). Mad cows and mother’s milk: The perils of poor risk communication. Montreal,

Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Sandman, P., Sachsman, D., Greenberg, M., & Gochfeld, M. (1987). Environmental risk and the press.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.



U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE). (2006). Environmental management: Site-specific advisory board.

Retrieved April 27, 2007, from http://www.em.doe.gov/pages/ssab.aspx

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management (US DOE/OEM). (1995a). Closing the circle

on the splitting of the atom (EM-4). Washington, DC: US DOE.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management (US DOE/OEM). (1995b). Estimating the

Cold War mortgage (Vol. 1). DOE/EM-0232. Washington, DC: US DOE.

U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), Office of Public and Intergovernmental Accountability. (2006, April 11).

Department of Energy Charter for the Environmental Management: Site-specific advisory board: Interim

guidance. Memo. (EM-13).

Williams, B., Greenberg, M., & Brown, S. (1999). Determinants of perceptions of trust among residents

surrounding the Savannah River Site. Environment and Behavior, 31, 354–371.

Williams, B., Suen, H., Brown, S., Bruhn, R., De Blaquiere, R., & Rzasa, S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models of

factors associated with public participation among residents living near the US Army’s chemical

weapons stockpile sites. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(1), 41–65.

Michael Greenberg is a professor and the dean of the faculty at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning

and Public Policy at Rutgers University. Dr. Greenberg’s work focuses on environmental health policy.

Karen Lowrie is a project manager for the National Center for Neighborhood and Brownfields Redevelopment

at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. Dr. Lowrie’s expertise is

in the areas of urban revitalization, land-use planning, and community participation.

Justin Hollander is an assistant professor of planning at Tufts University. Dr. Hollander’s research focuses

on urban revitalization and urban planning.

Joanna Burger is a distinguished professor of biology at Rutgers University and teaches ecological risk and

behavioral biology. Dr. Burger’s research focuses on behavior of vertebrates and risk concerning exposure of

ecological receptors and people to metals and radionuclides.

Charles Powers is a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Vanderbilt Univer-

sity. Dr. Powers is an environmental ethicist and has developed organizations to manage complex environmental

issues, including the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation.

Michael Gochfeld is a professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the

Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and teaches medical and public health students about environmental

toxicology and occupational safety and health.


citizen board issues and local newspaper coverage of risk, remediation, and environmental...

Documents