Risk Communication and Community Involvement at NASA’s CERCLA Site at

the Jet Propulsion Laboratory

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Merrilee Fellows, Manager, Community Involvement, NASA

andSusan L. Santos, Ph.D.,

FOCUS GROUP Consulting, Medford, MA

Site Background and HistoryThe Early Days

In the 1930s and during the years of World War II, the area that is now JPL was a site for testing some of the first rockets.

www.nasa.gov

Site Background and HistoryThe Early Days

• In the mid-40s the use of solid rocket fuel commenced, using perchlorate (ClO4

- ) as an oxidizer.• Waste products containing perchlorate and VOCs were

disposed of in seepage pits, a waste management practice that was common at the time.

• In the early 1980s several chemicals originating from the JPL site were detected in groundwater.

• In 1992, the site was placed on the National Priorities List, requiring regulation under the federal statute known as CERCLA.

www.nasa.gov

WHAT IS RISK COMMUNICATION?

“Risk communication is an interactive process or exchange of information and opinions among individuals, groups, and institutions.

It involves multiple messages about the nature of risk, and other messages, not strictly about risk, that express concerns, opinions, or reactions to risk messages or to legal and institutional arrangements for risk management.”(NRC, 1989)

www.nasa.gov

WHY RISK COMMUNICATION?

Risk Communication is important when dealing in situations of:

• “High” concern

• Low trust

• Differential relationships of power

• Communicating technical/complex or sensitive information

• High uncertainty or expert disagreement

www.nasa.gov

COMMUNICATION SHOULD BE MULTI-DIRECTIONAL

• All stakeholders need access to information and to gain knowledge

• Technical experts and officials need to learn more about other stakeholders’ interests, values, concerns, and perceptions

• Dialogue is important to establishing effective involvement

www.nasa.gov

WHAT WE KNOW FROM RESEARCH &

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE• Early release of information, even if negative, does not

increase concern but leads to improved job performance ratings

• Early involvement reduces potential controversy, sets stage for resolution

• Disclosure and regulatory reporting levels are not the right threshold for deciding what and when to communicate with the public

• Track record, responsiveness and accessibility count• Maintaining trust and credibility are key

www.nasa.gov

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION & INVOLVEMENT

• Lack of skills and/or training on how to communicate risk

• Organizational tradition of not communicating or involving “the public”

• Fear of loss of control• Inability of staff to articulate technical

information in lay terms • Legal concerns• Lack of management support/rewards• Arrogance/negative attitudes• Lack of time and resources• Public’s inability to understand technical issues

www.nasa.gov

1. Determine your goals (Why are we communicating, i.e., regulatory driven, relationship building, build consensus, other?).

2. Identify your stakeholders.3. Identify stakeholder concerns, values,

information needs. (What do they want to know or want to provide input on?)

4. Design your message(s). (What do we want to get across?)

PLANNING FOR EFFECTIVE INVOLVEMENT

AND COMMUNICATION

www.nasa.gov

PLANNING FOR EFFECTIVE INVOLVEMENT

AND COMMUNICATION5. Select “channels” (How will we

communicate? How will we listen?)6. Prepare to deliver/present your message

(Who? When?)7. Anticipate and plan to address potential

problems8. Evaluate your program (Did we succeed?)9. Modify as needed (What do we do next?)

www.nasa.gov

Determine Your Goals• Maintain (build) community trust • Foster positive community relations that

encourages people to ask questions before reacting negatively

• Educate and inform the community….early and often

• Put information into understandable formats• Develop comfortable agency/community

working relationships• Develop a more open “process” for people to

have input

www.nasa.gov

WHO IS THE “PUBLIC”?

• Active Public (seeking to affect decisions and make its views known)

• Attentive Public (relatively aware)• Passive Public (largely unaware)

DIFFERENT MESSAGES & CHANNELS MAY BE NEEDED FOR THESE

DIFFERENT GROUPS!www.nasa.gov

Identifying Stakeholders• Individuals/groups likely to be affected• Individuals/groups likely to perceive

themselves as affected• Those likely to be angry if not

asked/involved• Those previously involved/interested in

the issue• Those you’d LEAST like to communicate

withSource: Caron Chess, Rutgers University

www.nasa.gov

Identifying Stakeholders• Geographical

– Including “sensitive” populations• Environmental groups

– National, State, Local• Employees• Community organizations

– Homeowners’ groups, sporting groups• Civic organizations• Professional and trade organizations• Bankers/realtors• Educational and academic entities• Religious groups• Your own organizationswww.nasa.gov

Understand Your Stakeholders

• Have a process for systematically identifying their values, concerns, and perceptions

• Determine stakeholder information needs

• Who do they trust as information sources?

• What are the best ways to inform and involve them?

www.nasa.gov

UNDERSTAND YOUR STAKEHOLDERS

• Environmental concerns• Lifestyle concerns• Economic concerns (e.g., property values

liability, etc.) • Aesthetic concerns (e.g., visual impact,

noise, odors)

• Health/safety concerns (What does it mean to me or my family? Am I safe? What level is safe? etc.)

www.nasa.gov

UNDERSTAND YOUR STAKEHOLDERS (Cont.)

• Data and information concerns• Fairness/equity concerns (e.g.

What benefits does the community receive? Are the risks fairly distributed?)

• Trust and credibility concerns

• Process/value concerns (Who makes decisions? How? How do we get more information or become more involved?)

www.nasa.gov

Understanding Risk Perception

• Scientists have identified specific attributes/characteristics that influence judgments of risk

• Risk perception is NOT misperception• Social scientists have also identified

that people have differing worldviews that influence both perception and acceptability of risk

www.nasa.gov

HOW THE PUBLIC VIEWS RISK

Benefits Understood Benefits UnclearAlternatives Available No AlternativesRisk Shared Risk Affects Few

Voluntary InvoluntaryIndividual Control Controlled by OthersFamiliar Unfamiliar

Low Dread High DreadAffects Everybody Affects ChildrenNaturally Occurring Human Origin

Little Media Attention High Media AttentionUnderstood Not UnderstoodHigh Trust Low Trust

Less Risky More Risky

www.nasa.gov

Degree of Risk

MEAN RISK-PERCEPTION RATINGS BY RACE & GENDER

Source: Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C.K. (1994), Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101-1108.www.nasa.gov

WHAT MAKES A SOURCE CREDIBLE

Empathy and/or Caring

Competence and

Expertise

Honestyand

Openness

Commitmentand

Dedication

Assessed in First30 - 60 Seconds

Source: Adapted from Vincent Covello, Columbia Univ.www.nasa.gov

WHOM THE PUBLIC PERCEIVES IS CREDIBLE

• Local citizen and/or citizen advisory panels perceived as neutral, respected, and well-Informed about the issue

• Non-management employees• Health/safety Professionals (nurses, physicians, firefighters)• Professors/educators (especially from respected local institutions)• Clergy• Non-profit organizations• Media• Environmental/advocacy groups• Federal Government• State/Local Government• Industry • “For Profit” consultants

MOST CREDIBLE

LEAST CREDIBLEwww.nasa.gov

ESTABLISHING TRUST & CREDIBILITY

• Third-party endorsements from credible sources

• Demonstrating supporting characteristics– Caring– Honesty– Competence– Dedication

• Organizational credibility– Consistency– Accessibility– Track record

www.nasa.gov

DESIGNING MESSAGES & DETERMINING CHANNELS

• Messages need to respond first to what your stakeholders need and want to know

• Messages must also convey what you want stakeholders to learn

• The channels used to both inform/educate and involve stakeholders should be selected based on stakeholder needs and your own goals

• Public involvement and risk communication need to be fluid - channels and messages needed over time will change

• Consider under-represented groups in determining channels

www.nasa.gov

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE MESSAGES: Respond to Concerns

• It’s important to have written and verbal messages start off by showing EMPATHY and validating identified concerns. People need to know you listened.

• Have a key point (message) -- make it short and solution-oriented.

Source: Vincent Covello, Columbia University CRC

www.nasa.gov

Provide two or three SUPPORTING FACTS or reasons to back up main points Repeat Your key messages Always provide follow-up ACTIONS. Let people know where else they can go for information; what you are doing to resolve uncertainty, how they can be involved, etc.

DESIGNING EFFECTIVE MESSAGES

www.nasa.gov

Applying Risk Communication to NASA’s Groundwater Cleanup

at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory

www.nasa.gov

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

www.nasa.gov

Pacific OceanPacific Ocean

Jet PropulsionLaboratory

Jet PropulsionLaboratory

San GabrielMountains

San GabrielMountains

www.nasa.gov

EARLY CLEANUP ACTIVITIES

• The JPL site was divided into 3 Operable Units (OUs)– OU-1 = on-site groundwater– OU-2 = on-site soils– OU-3 = off-site groundwater

• In May/June 2001, NASA held three public meetings to address its plan to clean up of soils.

• Next meeting and first newsletter held January 2004.

www.nasa.gov

Recent History• 1990s – Two VOC treatment plants installed to the

east of Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Air stripper installed for adjacent wells and LGAC process installed for a separate, smaller off-site purveyor. Wells re-opened.

• 1997 – New technology enabled detection of perchlorate at lower levels than that able to be detected previously.

• Low levels of perchlorate found in some area drinking water wells, which were closed again.

• Community concerns heightened as news stories about the presence of perchlorate in the environment became more frequent.

www.nasa.gov

Recent History• In 2004 NASA funded perchlorate treatment

plant off-site for affected wells of small water purveyor.

• In early 2005 NASA constructed on-site (on JPL) demonstration plant for removal of perchlorate and VOCS in the “source area”.

• In November 2005 NASA proposed expansion of the on-site “source area” plant.

• NASA now proposing off-site plant to address mid-plume.

www.nasa.gov

DEVELOPING A RISK COMMUNICATION & COMMUNITY OUTREACH PLAN

• Background Research• Community Interviews • Defining Objectives• Devising Strategies to

Reach Objectives

www.nasa.gov

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLANCommunity Interviews

• Community interviews were basis for 1994 Community Relations Plan, amended in 2003 following additional community interviews and taking into consideration public feedback received.

• Further community interviews in 2005 underpin an amendment published by NASA in 2006.

Community Relations Plans are now known as Community Involvement Plans.

www.nasa.gov

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLANResearch

Research– Interviews with staff, those historically

involved – Review of pertinent documentation– Assessment, evaluation of activities to date– Review of news coverage– Stakeholder and issues research

www.nasa.gov

Analyze multicultural differences

www.nasa.gov

FlyersAdvertisingCommunityInformationSession inEnglish andSpanish

Multicultural Outreach

www.nasa.gov

Multicultural Outreach

www.nasa.gov

www.nasa.gov

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLANDefining Our Objectives

General Objectives• Joint problem-solving/conflict resolution• Information/education

Specific Objectives• Facilitate the CERCLA process at JPL to

restore the aquifer • Build/maintain trust and credibility

www.nasa.gov

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLANDefining Our Objectives (Cont.)

Problem-Solving/Conflict Resolution Objectives Include:

•Improving relations with key stakeholders•Facilitating implementation of proposed clean up actions •Positioning NASA as a leader and committed partner in addressing water quality concerns

www.nasa.gov

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLANDefining Our Objectives (Cont.)

Information/Education Objectives Include:• Getting the “good news” out on efforts to

date to key stakeholders and the general public

• Responding to community concerns over health issues by providing independent sources

• Create support for clean up initiatives

www.nasa.gov

COMMUNITY RELATIONS/INVOLVEMENT PLANDevising Strategies To Reach Our Objectives

Reach out to key stakeholders such as City Council, water purveyors, third party intermediaries•Disseminate new materials•Offer briefings•Determine their needs and concerns •Provide constant flow of information

www.nasa.gov

COMMUNITY RELATIONS/INVOLVEMENT PLANDevising Strategies To Reach Our Objectives (Cont.)

Proactive outreach campaign targeted at residents, key community groups, JPL employees:

• Meet key stakeholders one-on-one to build relationships, hear concerns

• Disseminate new materials• Respond promptly to speaking requests • Conduct interviews with opinion, community leaders and employees

www.nasa.gov

COMMUNITY RELATIONS/INVOLVEMENT PLANDevising Strategies To Reach Our Objectives

(Cont.)

• Designate spokespersons – to respond to requests for information, give briefings, etc.

• Provide training to all spokespersons and related staff

• Track news and listserv coverage of target chemicals and groundwater cleanup issues

• Continuously evaluate approach• Implement proactive media strategy • Develop multi-cultural communications

program to address diverse needs

www.nasa.gov

EFFECTIVE OUTREACH TOOLS & TECHNIQUES

• Public and small group meetings

• Community Involvement Sessions

• Open Houses; site “tours” • Written materials, project

website• Community workgroups• Media-related activities• LISTEN & RESPOND!

Regulations provide a minimum for informing but do not achieve dialogue or relationships.

PUBLIC MEETING

• Increases Participation• Allows for One-on-One

Communication• Discourages Unproductive

Negative Group Dynamics• Allows for Expression of

Diverse Viewpoints• Structured to Meet

Individual Needs• Can Increase Information

Exchanged and Reinforce Main Messages

• Limits Participation• Forces Presenter to be

Public Speaker• Encourages

Unproductive/Negative Group Dynamics

• Fails to Meet Individual Needs

• Difficult to Have Real “Dialogue”

COMMUNITY INFORMATION

SESSION

vs.

www.nasa.gov

PLANNING FOR PUBLIC MEETINGSBEFORE

• Plan in advance (objectives, constraints, audiences, etc.)

• Provide a meeting structure that allows for dialogue• Consider room set up/location

www.nasa.gov

www.nasa.gov

Residents engaged in discussions at Community Information Session

www.nasa.gov

www.nasa.gov

INFORMATION SESSION LOGISTICS

www.nasa.gov

• Risk Communication/Speaker Training• Newsletters• Fact Sheets and Brochures• Display Materials for Public/Other

Meetings• Web Site

Written Materials & Other Techniques

www.nasa.gov

Risk Communication/Speaker Training

• Prior to each major public meeting, a series of “Tough Questions” is prepared for meeting participants

• NASA, key contractors, public officials are prepared to properly handle their respective roles in meetings

• “Dry-run” sessions are held, including regulators

www.nasa.gov

HOW HAS THE APPROACH WORKED?

www.nasa.gov

“NASA, just as you would expect from any goodneighbor, will be doing the cleaning because,shoot, we ought to do it,” said Fred Gregory,deputy director for NASA.

www.nasa.gov

www.nasa.gov

3 And I've been a resident and my family has been

4 here for 40 years. So I'm concerned about the level of

5 protection that people have or have had who are residents

6 50 years or 40 years before -- I mean, you're saying that,

7 just ten years ago, or whenever you discovered perchlorate,

8 there was a point in time when you did not know about the

9 volatile compounds that are cancer causing.

10 Now, to me, this is a lawsuit in the making. And

11 I feel like I'm in an Erin Brockovich movie. I'm concerned

12 about when they discovered those two cancer-causing agents.

Transcript from Public Meeting,January 28, 2004; Muir High School, Pasadena, CA

www.nasa.gov

From: [Resident’s Email Address]Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 5:52 PMTo: Merrilee FellowsSubject: Re: NASA Water Cleanup at JPL: Community Information Session, Tuesday, March 29

It's great when people can partner toward a positive end, isn't it?[Resident’s name]

Merrilee Fellows wrote:

>You're welcome. Also, FYI, the PUSD Board will be >considering (hopefully, approving) a monitoring well >site next week. Thanks to your helping us make contact >with them!>>Merrilee

www.nasa.gov

Where are we now?Current Challenges and

Opportunities

Current Challenges and Opportunities• Public response to proposal to site new plant has

engaged additional stakeholder groups.• New approaches for both outreach and more

substantive involvement:– “Satellite” Working Meetings – Shift from environmental/health focus to “my

back yard”• With new issues and concerns, and different

communities, be consistent in providing ways to get involved to meet THEIR needs

RISK COMMUNICATION AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IS A PROCESS