The players in the U.S. Department of Energy technology development program include more than DOE headquarters and site managers, focus area technical managers, contractors, and technology developers from national laboratories and private industries. The program also provides opportunities for a group of people, collectively known as stakeholders, to examine and discuss the Office of Science and Technology's technology development plans. Stakeholders are citizens, tribal representatives, state regulators, and others who care about, or hold a stake in, the development of acceptable environmental technologies and the cleanup work to be undertaken at DOE sites. The Community Leaders Network is an informal national stakeholder group charged by the Office of Science and Technology to provide a forum for the exchange of information among DOE technologists and interested and affected publics. On February 27, Initiatives spoke with Richard Brusuelas, chairman of CLN, and Tom Schneider, vice chairman, to get their perspective on CLN's role in technology development.
Stakeholder involvement
OST has learned from experience the value of incorporating the concerns of stakeholders early in the process of technology development. (See related article) Tom Schneider works for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Federal Facilities Oversight and has responsibility for regulatory oversight at DOE's Fernald Site. He explained, "If stakeholders aren't involved early in a technology development process, they can easily prevent the technology from being deployed. There are a number of examples of that around the country, whether the stakeholders are local citizens or regulatory agencies unwilling to accept a particular technology for various reasons. Many thermal technologies have run into opposition, [primarily] because stakeholder concerns weren't incorporated during the development phase. A lot of trouble could have been avoided if citizen concerns had been looked at early on."
Richard Brusuelas is a CLN member from Bernalillo County, New Mexico where he is the director of the Environmental Health Department. Brusuelas identified distrust and community backlash as two likely outcomes of excluding the community from DOE plans. "The DOE complex and the
U.S. Department of Defense developed in an era when they didn't let the community know what they were doing, so a certain level of mistrust developed. And there's still a feeling that maybe not all the information is coming out. But by exposing the development of technologies to groups like community advisory boards and CLN, DOE starts developing a sense of what issues concern the community." DOE can then begin to address these issues. Brusuelas said, "Nothing irks the community more" than the perception they are being pressured to approve a technology after the fact.
Negative feelings can also be engendered within the community if information about possible impacts aren't communicated to citizens prior to an environmental action. According to Brusuelas, a manufacturer of chips and other electronic equipment contaminated his New Mexico community's ground water. "They said, 'Oh, we're doing all that's necessary,' but they really kept a lot of stuff secret. Now we find we've got a plume 3,000 feet long with all kinds of nasty stuff in it." If the company had informed the community about the disposition of wastes and the consequences of dumping the wastes onto the ground, the citizens would have had an opportunity to compel the company to rethink their options.
On the other side of the coin are the positive effects of stakeholder involvement. Schneider said, "With a shared mission, citizens can be the greatest advocates for DOE. I think the Fernald example illustrates this. Citizens have expressed to Congress their concern over DOE's budget; they've called their congressional representatives and conducted letter-writing campaigns to get the budget for the site increased from what was proposed in Congress. So, they're significant advocates for DOE when they support DOE's efforts."
Building trust
As DOE works with its various stakeholders, information and concerns are shared in an open atmosphere, and respect and trust can build on both sides. A developing sense of a shared mission contributes to a true collaboration. Schneider explained, "DOE has built a greater level of trust with the public over the last two or three years" as it has shared pertinent information. "Education, if nothing else, brings people to a higher level of understanding and trust. Getting to know the people who are actually doing the work also helps build trust. If you've worked with somebody, it's generally easier to trust them than it is if you've never seen or talked to them."
Another factor in building trust on both sides is developing a common body of knowledge. When asked about the necessity of CLN members' understanding the technical issues involved in technology development, Schneider responded that community people don't need to know exactly how the technology works from a physics or chemistry point of view. Instead, he said, "they need to know the concepts, potential benefits, and drawbacks" of a proposed technology. "That's the level of conversation that needs to occur throughout the DOE complex." Brusuelas added that the public needs to understand issues like the costs and benefits of reaching a certain level of contaminant removal, the meaning of environmental standards, and how current and future health may be impacted by levels of contamination. These are the kinds of issues that determine if a technology will be acceptable to the community.
Community Leaders Network
Members of the Community Leaders Network represent public interest groups; business, civic, and education interests; and local, state, and tribal governments. Brusuelas described CLN as "a cross-section of individuals from various walks of life who are impacted by DOE and provide informal feedback to the deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Science and Technology on programs for environmental technology development, waste cleanup, and technology transfer. It's not a voting group; it doesn't carry any weight in terms of [providing an] official recommendation. It's a sounding board of individuals who have a keen interest in what's happening."
Brusuelas identified as an important CLN accomplishment "developing with DOE focus area leaders and project directors an understanding that citizen input is vital to the success of where they're going." Schneider agreed, "Yes, we've increased their [focus area leaders'] sensitivity to the need to reach out to stakeholders and ensure we're a part of the process."
Brusuelas identified as an important CLN accomplishment "developing with DOE focus area leaders and project directors an understanding that citizen input is vital to the success of where they're going. Schneider agreed, "Yes, we've increased their [focus area leaders] sensitivity to the need to reach out to stakeholders and ensure we're a part of the process." Brusuelas identified as an important CLN accomplishment "developing with DOE focus area leaders and project directors an understanding that citizen input is vital to the success of where they're going. Schneider agreed, "Yes, we've increased their [focus area leaders] sensitivity to the need to reach out to stakeholders and ensure we're a part of the process.
Technology transfer
Brusuelas, who is interested in technology transfer especially to local communities, told about several CLN members' visit to Envirocare in Salt Lake City to see how "a technology can transfer from a DOE enterprise back to the general community to provide a service." Technology transfers of government-developed and government-endorsed technologies help solve community problems, boost local economies, and create markets for proven technologies. Brusuelas also said he would be interested in helping to select from DOE-developed technologies those that would be suitable for remediating his local community's ground water. Brusuelas is also on the lookout for technologies that show promise but that are not currently being funded by DOE. He likes to bring DOE attention to these technologies.
Future directions
Brusuelas said, "I hope our participation with DOE in this fairly open process will have a long-term impact across the complex." Through CLN involvement, Brusuelas believes local community leaders will learn from each other about the best ways to interact with DOE, and "policies, processes, and methodologies will be implemented that will have payback to our communities. What's happening in Georgia and the problems they've run into might be very beneficial to the people working in Idaho. A technology's cost and its expected and non-expected consequences could be very important when you're trying to do a community cleanup.
"Our real charge in CLN is to take a look at the technologies DOE is proposing and see if we see any holes or gaps in the direction they're going and identify those citizen issues and concerns that can range from cost to options for waste disposal. People have different concerns that DOE will need to address. With the input they're getting from us and other community leaders, DOE will get a sense of what communities are feeling. This broadens DOE's perspective from just the state of Mexico or the Fernald Site to the concerns of a diverse group of individuals."
For more information about CLN, check out the CLN homepage on the Internet at http://cln.osu.edu:86/.
