Project History
In 2003, the Kentucky Research Consortium for Energy and Environment (KRCEE) was created at the University of Kentucky. The Consortium’s mission is to provide technical support to the US Department of Energy (US DOE), the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), and the Kentucky Division of Waste Management regarding non-consensus issues associated with clean-up efforts at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), a National Priority List (NPL) Superfund site.
In 2009, KRCEE was asked to develop a community-based future vision for the PGPD that would identify the range of community perspectives and preferences for the site’s future after US DOE closes the facility. This website has been constructed to document the project, as well as to provide important information relevant to potential future uses of the PGDP facility.
Project Objectives
The Kentucky Research Consortium for Energy and the Environment (KRCEE) at the University of Kentucky has been charged with soliciting and integrating public, regulatory, and technical community input to produce a publicly approved End State Vision Report for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) and surrounding impacted areas. To this end, KRCEE personnel will:
- Identify community, regulatory, and technical stakeholders Solicit stakeholder input regarding potential end states for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
- Provide technical support to foster stakeholder understanding of technical issues
- Facilitate multiple public meetings to further develop and integrate end state visions
- Provide document support and facilitation for the development of a “PGDP End State Vision Document” that, while not decisional, will be available to inform future Department of Energy decisions related to the disposition of the PGDP
Guiding Principles
The Paducah Future Vision Project was guided by four underlying principles:
- The project was designed to incorporate the recommendations of a report entitled “The Politics of Cleanup” (ECA, 2007) that reviewed past US DOE community involvement strategies at three major DOE facilities: Rocky Flats, Mound, and Oak Ridge.
- The project was designed to maximize citizen control, as defined in the "Ladder of Citizen Participation” (Arnstein, 1969). Not only did the ladder provide a guideline for use by the team, it served as a way to gauge public perceptions about past and current levels of community involvement, as well as preferences for future involvement.
- A key to the potential success of the project was to involve as large and diverse a group of stakeholders as possible. Consequently, a community engagement process known as “Community-Based Participatory Communication” (CBPC) was used. CBPC has been described as “a process of raising consciousness and deep understanding about social reality, problems and solutions, rather than persuasion for short-term behavioral changes that are only sustainable with continuous campaigns” (Dagron, 2001). In particular, an attempt was made both to solicit stakeholders’ values about their local community and preferences for future uses of the PGDP property and to actively involve stakeholders in developing the overall decision-making process and scenarios for consideration.
- Finally, the “Structured Public Involvement” (SPI) engagement process was selected to further maximize stakeholder participation, as well as to insure that the final set of possible future vision scenarios included the full range of stakeholder suggestions During the implementation of SPI, each public meeting participant is given a small keypad transmitter (about the size of a credit card) that provides the opportunity to respond anonymously to different questions. The collective feedback can be displayed instantly to all participants. The data also can provide more detailed information for analysis through something called the “Casewise Preference Model” (Bailey et. al., 2001), helping to identify clusters of stakeholder likes and dislikes, and even more importantly, predicting preferences and aversions for possible scenarios not explicitly considered. The latter capability becomes increasingly important as the complexity of land use possibilities increases, making it unrealistic for the public to evaluate all possible scenarios.
Project Methodology
The public engagement model utilized in this project involves four basic steps: 1) stakeholder identification and strategic interviews, 2) stakeholder focus groups, 3) community-based informational open houses, and 4) community-based future vision scenario evaluations. As part of this process, a pilot test group was also established, with members chosen to represent the diversity of stakeholder interests. This group pre-tested all project engagement protocols. The end results of this process are 1) a database which documents stakeholder preferences, and 2) final report.
PGDP Future Vision Process Steps
Step One: Stakeholder Identification
The first step of the process was the identification of key stakeholder groups within the community. After initial research and interviews with approximately sixty individuals, sixteen distinct stakeholder groups were identified (see the table below). A process pilot test group comprised of representatives from each of the sixteen groups was recruited. This pilot group pre-tests individual steps of the process prior to community-wide implementation and, where warranted, recommends changes to the process or specific components. Members of the pilot test group were selected based in part on status within their respective stakeholder groups, which directly affects their ability to bring members of their constituencies into the planning process.
Table: Key Stakeholder Groups in Paducah
- Residents Near the PGDP
- Employees at the PGDP
- Environmental and Health Advocates
- Economic Development Advocates
- Healthcare Professionals
- Educators
- Media
- Religious/Spiritual Community
- Wildlife/Recreation Enthusiasts
- Travel and Tourism Interests
- Neighboring Communities (e.g., Ballard County)
- The U.S. Department of Energy
- US DOE Contractors
- Local Government (e.g. Paducah City Council, McCracken Co. Commission)
- The PGDP Citizens Advisory Board
- The Regulatory Community, including both federal and state agencies
Prior to the development of possible future site scenarios, each pilot group member, along with dozens of other stakeholders, had been interviewed and asked to help identify: 1) key community values and visions; 2) concerns/issues/community perceptions about the future closing of the PGDP; 3) the identities of other potential stakeholder groups and key community leaders who should be engaged in the process; and 4) opinions about the feasibility of certain future land use options for the facility. Following this interview process, the KRCEE team developed an initial set of future site scenarios that encompassed the range of suggestions obtained from interviewees. These scenarios were pre-tested with the pilot group through three sub-group meetings, each attended by different members of the pilot group. Additional feedback on the overall process methodology also was solicited during these meetings.
Step Two: Stakeholder Focus Groups
Following pre-testing and revision of the focus group protocol, focus groups were implemented with distinct stakeholder groups. Because of logistical constraints and the large number of stakeholder interests, a reduced number of focus groups were held in which distinct-but-related stakeholder groups met jointly. These meetings were conducted over a two week period in Paducah. Per the revised protocol, focus group participants engaged in several exercises designed to identify 1) community values, 2) concerns and issues, and 3) existing beliefs and information gaps. A detailed discussion of the CBPC process as implemented in Paducah is provided by Anyaegbunam et al. (2010).
The CBPC protocol included the presentation of potential future vision scenarios developed by the Structured Public Involvement team. The SPI team created the focus group scenarios based upon the range of possible land uses and taking into consideration stakeholder feedback from initial interviews, as well as data gathered during the pilot focus group. To accommodate time constraints and allow ample time for group evaluation, a limited number of scenarios were selected for use as discussion triggers., The specific sample scenarios were chosen to provide a robust and representative sample of potential future land uses. In addition, each scenario was based on a combination of two landuse decisions, 1) what should be done with the existing DOE property that is currently leased to Kentucky as part of the West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area, and 2) what should be done with the existing DOE property that is currently used in support of ongoing enrichment operations (i.e. the existing plant site).
Focus group participants were asked to discuss specific scenario examples as they related to the previously identified community values, concerns, and beliefs. Following the discussion, participants evaluated the individual sample scenarios anonymously using SPI keypad technology. A detailed discussion of the application of the SPI process at Paducah is provided by Grossardt et al. (2010) and Bailey et al. (2010). Based on the results of step two, a new protocol was developed to guide a series of large public meetings. Prior to implementation, the pilot test group will again pre-test the Phase III protocol. Suggested modifications may then be incorporated into the final protocol.
Step Three: Community Informational Meetings
Based on information gaps identified in step two of the process methodology, additional research was performed to obtain answers for a set of more than 100 questions that were identified by stakeholders as important factors in their preferences for future uses of the PGDP property. These questions were broadly grouped into four major categories: 1) Site Description (including Seismic Issues), Site Purpose and History; 2) Environmental Impacts, Regulatory Issues and Environmental Cleanup, Burial Grounds, and CERCLA Cell, 3) Monitoring and Health Issues; and 4) Economic Development and issues associated with Nuclear Energy (radiation, nuclear waste, contamination, nuclear power). Results of the research will be structured in a FAQ format, posted on the KRCEE website, and disseminated at community informational meetings to be held in Paducah during the month of September 2010. The meetings will allow citizens to attend focused informational meetings or to stop by general informational kiosks for general informational materials or to talk with subject matter experts.
Step Four: Community Scenario Meetings
Following the community informational meetings, at least two community meetings will be held at which the participants will be asked to evaluate potential future vision scenarios. These final scenarios and the meeting protocol will be pre-tested with the pilot group prior to implementation in the community scenario meetings. During the public meetings, the KRCEE team will provide initial explanations of each scenario, after which participants will anonymously evaluate the scenarios using keypad technology. Preferences will be displayed for attendees to view at the end of each scenario's evaluation period. The sites and times of the public meetings will be chosen in consultation with the pilot group and other stakeholders to maximize participation and stakeholder diversity. Following the public meetings, community responses will be aggregated and analyzed, and a final report will be prepared and presented to the pilot group. Based on feedback from the group, the report may be further revised. The final report will be presented both to US DOE for inclusion in its Risk-Based End State vision document and to the community as documentation of identified preferences for use in discussions with state and federal representatives about the future of the PGDP. A database which encapsulates the community's preferences also will be provided to both US DOE and the citizens of Paducah.
Project Team
Project Manager: Lindell Ormsbee, Ph.D, Director, Kentucky Water Resources, University of Kentucky lormsbee@engr.uky.edu
Community Based Participatory Communication: Chike Anyaegbunam, Ph.D., College of Communications, University of Kentucky Canya2@email.uky.edu
Structured Public Involvement: Ted Grossardt, Ph.D., Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky tedgrossardt@gmail.com
Casewise Visualization Evaluation: Keiron Bailey, Ph.D., Department of Geography, University of Arizona Kbailey@email.arizona.edu
Communications Director/Facilitator: Anna Hoover, Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute, University of Kentucky Aghoov2@email.uky.edu
Computer Visualizations: John Ripy, Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky
Computer Visualizations: Ben Blandford, Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky
Facilitator: Chas Hartman, College of Communications, University of Kentucky
