Abstract
A survey was conducted of the attitudes of 225 citizens of Española and Santa Fe toward DOE operations in New Mexico. Results show that worries about legacy waste, as well as wastes generated by present and possible future DOE operations, are combined with an appreciation for the economic benefits brought to New Mexico by these same DOE operations.
Introduction
The Department of Energy (DOE), since the beginning of its program in the mid-1990’s to clean up its nuclear weapons (NW) waste sites, has believed that it was important to its success to enlist support from members of the local communities. As one means of obtaining such support the DOE, through its office of Environmental Management (EM), has created Site Specific Advisory Boards (SSAB), located at its major NW production and/or laboratory sites around the country, and staffed by local citizen volunteers. Today the DOE can point to several accomplishments of these Boards, and argue plausibly that the Boards have been an asset to DOE-EM’s program to clean up so-called legacy waste[1].
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that a variety of problems has been experienced by the SSABs, and that these problems began to emerge early on[1,2]. For example, it has been noted that local Board members will struggle amongst themselves to reach agreement about critical questions regarding the clean up at their particular site, either to no avail, or if successfully then accompanied by a residue of bad feelings. Polarization of the Board can then ensue.
Occasionally, it has been found that Boards that are experiencing polarization are divided between members who feel a strong economic interest in the future of their DOE facility and other members who feel no economic interest but are critical of the DOE’s NW program. Such a situation may emerge if a NW production and/or laboratory facility is located within an economically depressed region in which there is an active anti-nuclear movement[2].
During the last two years the northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board (NNMCAB) has experienced some polarization. Heated discussions amongst Board members have revealed underlying prejudices, both pro and con, with regard to the DOE and its operations. Often, discussions have devolved into assertions about what members of the local community want and think. However, no real evidence has been offered to support these claims.
Consequently, a formal survey of attitudes held by members of the northern New Mexico community toward DOE-LANL was thought to be advisable. The survey was designed to reflect the debates that have occurred among NNMCAB members, during the past two years.
The local community being sampled included proportionate numbers of residents from Rio Arriba and Santa Fe counties. Hopefully, such a survey will help the DOE, LANL, and the NNMCAB to better understand the local community in which they live and work[3]. This will be particularly important as actual remediation of the affected waste sites begins, and more public involvement in the planning for long-term stewardship of these sites is sought.
In truth, DOE-LANL already conducts an annual survey of local attitudes. However, these professionally conducted surveys[4] have been confined to so-called community leaders; e.g., mayors, city council members, and local businessmen. Such surveys do not attempt to assess the attitudes of ordinary citizens.
Procedure
The procedure invoked was evolved from an approach which is standard in the polling industry[5]. The sample size obtained was of 225 respondents, which implies a maximum probable error of 6.7%, with 95% confidence[6]. As will become clear from the Results section of this report, the differences in average response rates observed were often much in excess of 10% and, therefore, much in excess of the maximum probable error.
Although the polling industry ordinarily makes use of telephone contacts to obtain its survey results, for the present survey I obtained results entirely through face-to-face contacts. In order to facilitate the process, I chose to set up polling stations in places where large numbers of people would be expected; i.e., in the lobbies of local Health and Fitness centers, during times of maximum usage.
Survey Statements
As described in the Introduction, the statements selected for this survey were suggested by conversations between members of the NNMCAB, over the past two years. The form of the survey, and its statements, were as follows:
(For each of the following, please circle one response:
5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree)
1. I believe that local communities have benefited greatly from DOE operations in New Mexico.
5 4 3 2 1
2. Money and jobs that the DOE has brought to New Mexico are the most important factor.
5 4 3 2 1
3. Radioactive and chemical wastes generated at LANL over the past60 years are of concern to me personally.
5 4 3 2 1
4. Radioactive and chemical wastes transported to, and stored at, the WIPP site are of concern to me personally.
5 4 3 2 1
5. I worry about present and future DOE operations at WIPP, at SNL, and at LANL.
5 4 3 2 1
6. The DOE is a trustworthy organization, and I feel safe knowing that their operations are located nearby.
5 4 3 2 1
7. Nuclear technologies developed at LANL and SNL have benefited New Mexico communities.
5 4 3 2 1
8. Nuclear weapons technologies developed at LANL and SNL have made the people of New Mexico more safe and secure.
5 4 3 2 1
9. Since some managers of the DOE's operations at LANL, SNL, and WIPP live within local communities, then local citizens need not worry about what the DOE is doing.
5 4 3 2 1
10. I don't believe that DOE operations are potentially hazardous to New Mexico's clean air and water.
5 4 3 2 1
Results
Surveys were completed by 225 individual respondents, and response profiles for each of the ten statements were determined by averaging over respondents. These profiles exhibited clear differences in the level of agreement, or disagreement, to the individual statements. Additional written comments by respondents appear in the Appendix.
Strongest agreement was displayed to the two statements:
3. Radioactive and chemical wastes generated at LANL over the past 60 years are of concern to me personally.
4. Radioactive and chemical wastes transported to, and stored at, the WIPP site are of concern to me personally.
Moderate agreement was displayed to the two statements:
1. I believe that local communities have benefited greatly from DOE operations in New Mexico.
5. I worry about present and future DOE operations at WIPP, at SNL, and at LANL.
Weak, although still significant, agreement was displayed to the statements:
2. Money and jobs that the DOE has brought to New Mexico are the most important factor.
7. Nuclear technologies developed at LANL and SNL have benefited New Mexico communities.
Neutrality of opinion was displayed to the two statements:
6. The DOE is a trustworthy organization, and I feel safe knowing that their operations are located nearby.
8. Nuclear weapons technologies developed at LANL and SNL have made the people of New Mexico more safe and secure.
Finally, disagreement was displayed with the two statements:
9. Since some managers of the DOE's operations at LANL, SNL, and WIPP live within local communities, then local citizens need not worry about what the DOE is doing.
10. I don't believe that DOE operations are potentially hazardous to New Mexico's clean air and water.
Graphs of the profile of these averaged responses appear in the accompanying five Figures. Each Figure contains the profile of the average response to just two statements, where Fig. 1 shows responses to the two statements which evoked the strongest agreement (statements #3 and #4); Fig. 2 shows responses to the two statements evoking moderate agreement (statements #1 and #5); Fig. 3 shows responses to the two statements evoking weak agreement (statements #2 and #7); Fig. 4 shows neutrality of opinion (statements #6 and #8); and Fig. 5 shows disagreement (statements #9 and #10).
Discussion
As has been remarked earlier, and as should be clear from Figs. 1-5, the profiles of responses to the ten statements were quite varied, being strongly dependent on the subject being addressed; i.e., on the statement #. These differences are summarized in Fig. 6, where the average response to each statement (average over each profile) is plotted versus statement #.
Further, after averaging all responses over all ten statements, the overall average response was determined to be 3.25. Hence, since 3.0 indicates “no opinion”, or a “neutrality of opinion”, I assert that the phrasing of the ten statements did not prejudice respondents toward an overall agreement or disagreement and was, in this sense, an unbiased survey.
We next consider implications of the results obtained from the 225 respondents who participated in this unbiased survey.
More than any other issue touched on by the statements in this survey, the matter of potential radioactive and chemical contamination of the local environment seems to have evoked the strongest feelings amongst respondents; viz., “radioactive and chemical wastes generated at LANL over the past 60 years are of concern to me personally”, and “radioactive and chemical wastes transported to, and stored at, the WIPP site are of concern to me personally” (statements #3 and #4), produced strong agreement. Evidently, however, the strength of these feelings was reduced if the threat of potential contamination was located at a more remote site, or was placed off into the future; e.g., statement #5.
Respondents also agreed, although with less conviction, that “local communities have benefited greatly from DOE operations in New Mexico” (statement #1), and with still less conviction to the thought that “money and jobs that the DOE has brought to New Mexico are the most important factor” (statement #2). As well, it was felt by respondents to be only somewhat true that “nuclear technologies developed at LANL and SNL have benefited New Mexico communities” (statement #7).
Interestingly, respondents were either unsure, or of decidedly mixed opinion, that “the DOE is a trustworthy organization, and I feel safe knowing that their operations are located nearby” (statement #6), and “nuclear weapons technologies developed at LANL and SNL have made the people of New Mexico more safe and secure” (statement #8).
Definite disagreement was shown by respondents to the thought that “since some managers of the DOE's operations at LANL, SNL, and WIPP live within local communities, then local citizens need not worry about what the DOE is doing” (statement #9). Also, “I don't believe that DOE operations are potentially hazardous to New Mexico's clean air and water” (statement #10) evoked strong disagreement; i.e., in accord with the strong agreement of respondents to the closely related statements #3 and #4, which were expressed as a positive.
Summary
Based on these results, it is plausible to say that money and jobs brought to northern New Mexico by the DOE are generally considered to be very important to many of northern New Mexico’s citizens. At the same time, however, concerns about pollution caused by the DOE’s operations are very worrisome. Often, strong feelings of gratification due to economic benefit, and pronounced worries about pollution, appear within the same individual.
There is also evidence of ambivalence toward the DOE’s ongoing nuclear weapons program. Although, generally, it seems that strong opinions pro and con about nuclear weapons do not appear within the same individual, definite uncertainty about this issue can still be seen in the views of individual respondents.
Finally, it seems fair to say that suspicion about the DOE’s operations in northern New Mexico is widespread. The fact that many DOE employees live and work in northern New Mexico is, generally, not seen as a reason to be sanguine about the DOE’s operations here.
References
[1] History of the DOE-EM SSAB; March, 2009; http://www.em.doe.gov
[2] Advice and Consent: the DOE’s SSABs; Jennifer Weeks, Harvard U.’s Belfer Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy; Discussion Paper; Sept., 2000.
[3] Tuler, S. and Webler, T.; 2003, SERI Report 03-004; Public Participation in Setting Clean Soil Standards at Rocky Flats; http://www.seri-us.org
[4] http:// www.lanl.gov/orgs/cpo/
[5] Research and Polling, Inc.; Albuquerque, NM; telephone: 505-821-5454.
[6] http://www.DSSResearch.com; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size
Appendix
Additional written comments by respondents were as follows:
Let the masters of science at LANL focus on climate change, health care, etc.
The powers that be do not reside in, and perhaps do not even visit, New Mexico so why should I believe that they have the health and welfare of New Mexico’s citizens in mind? They do not!
I think LANL is good because it gives work to the community and because it is safe.
I believe that DOE does everything in their power and within the law to protect the economy, safety, and way of life in New Mexico, and wherever else they operate.
Sloppy procedures with radioactive materials at LANL concerns me greatly. I equate the DOE’s attitude toward New Mexico with that of the Catholic church’s attitude toward its pedophile priests, many of whom it dumped in New Mexico.
Statement #9 is poorly written. Also, if statement #10 refers to WIPP, then there are other problems that concern me more.
I am not very familiar with the DOE’s operations, and their effect on New Mexico.
Keep doing good work!
No more nuclear development in New Mexico please!
Yucca Mt. is example of DOE’s misuse of tax $. DOE is not credible!
DOE badly manages tailings and dump sites and inadequately protects ground water.
LANL has a terrible history of contamination of the ground water.
I do not consider myself to be well informed about these issues,
DOE needs to be more efficient at the planning and execution of its work.
Let’s move into the 21st century!
I hope that those who lost jobs at LANL will get them back.
Thank you for taking time to conduct this study!
I’m glad that over 1 million American lives were saved by the Manhattan project.
If LANL loses funding then I am concerned, otherwise no!
The cleanup at LANL is necessary, but the research there is questionable.
Statement #10 is tricky.
Fig. 1: statement #3 (solid line); statement #4 (dash line)
Fig. 2: statement #1 (solid line); statement #5 (dash line)
Fig. 3: statement #2 (solid line); statement #7 (dash line)
Fig. 4: statement #6 (solid line); statement #8 (dash line)
Fig. 5: statement #9 (solid line); statement #10 (dash line)
Fig. 6: mean of responses (solid line); variance of responses (dash line)
A survey was conducted of the attitudes of 225 citizens of Española and Santa Fe toward DOE operations in New Mexico. Results show that worries about legacy waste, as well as wastes generated by present and possible future DOE operations, are combined with an appreciation for the economic benefits brought to New Mexico by these same DOE operations.
Introduction
The Department of Energy (DOE), since the beginning of its program in the mid-1990’s to clean up its nuclear weapons (NW) waste sites, has believed that it was important to its success to enlist support from members of the local communities. As one means of obtaining such support the DOE, through its office of Environmental Management (EM), has created Site Specific Advisory Boards (SSAB), located at its major NW production and/or laboratory sites around the country, and staffed by local citizen volunteers. Today the DOE can point to several accomplishments of these Boards, and argue plausibly that the Boards have been an asset to DOE-EM’s program to clean up so-called legacy waste[1].
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that a variety of problems has been experienced by the SSABs, and that these problems began to emerge early on[1,2]. For example, it has been noted that local Board members will struggle amongst themselves to reach agreement about critical questions regarding the clean up at their particular site, either to no avail, or if successfully then accompanied by a residue of bad feelings. Polarization of the Board can then ensue.
Occasionally, it has been found that Boards that are experiencing polarization are divided between members who feel a strong economic interest in the future of their DOE facility and other members who feel no economic interest but are critical of the DOE’s NW program. Such a situation may emerge if a NW production and/or laboratory facility is located within an economically depressed region in which there is an active anti-nuclear movement[2].
During the last two years the northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board (NNMCAB) has experienced some polarization. Heated discussions amongst Board members have revealed underlying prejudices, both pro and con, with regard to the DOE and its operations. Often, discussions have devolved into assertions about what members of the local community want and think. However, no real evidence has been offered to support these claims.
Consequently, a formal survey of attitudes held by members of the northern New Mexico community toward DOE-LANL was thought to be advisable. The survey was designed to reflect the debates that have occurred among NNMCAB members, during the past two years.
The local community being sampled included proportionate numbers of residents from Rio Arriba and Santa Fe counties. Hopefully, such a survey will help the DOE, LANL, and the NNMCAB to better understand the local community in which they live and work[3]. This will be particularly important as actual remediation of the affected waste sites begins, and more public involvement in the planning for long-term stewardship of these sites is sought.
In truth, DOE-LANL already conducts an annual survey of local attitudes. However, these professionally conducted surveys[4] have been confined to so-called community leaders; e.g., mayors, city council members, and local businessmen. Such surveys do not attempt to assess the attitudes of ordinary citizens.
Procedure
The procedure invoked was evolved from an approach which is standard in the polling industry[5]. The sample size obtained was of 225 respondents, which implies a maximum probable error of 6.7%, with 95% confidence[6]. As will become clear from the Results section of this report, the differences in average response rates observed were often much in excess of 10% and, therefore, much in excess of the maximum probable error.
Although the polling industry ordinarily makes use of telephone contacts to obtain its survey results, for the present survey I obtained results entirely through face-to-face contacts. In order to facilitate the process, I chose to set up polling stations in places where large numbers of people would be expected; i.e., in the lobbies of local Health and Fitness centers, during times of maximum usage.
Survey Statements
As described in the Introduction, the statements selected for this survey were suggested by conversations between members of the NNMCAB, over the past two years. The form of the survey, and its statements, were as follows:
(For each of the following, please circle one response:
5=Strongly Agree; 4=Agree; 3=Neutral; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly Disagree)
1. I believe that local communities have benefited greatly from DOE operations in New Mexico.
5 4 3 2 1
2. Money and jobs that the DOE has brought to New Mexico are the most important factor.
5 4 3 2 1
3. Radioactive and chemical wastes generated at LANL over the past60 years are of concern to me personally.
5 4 3 2 1
4. Radioactive and chemical wastes transported to, and stored at, the WIPP site are of concern to me personally.
5 4 3 2 1
5. I worry about present and future DOE operations at WIPP, at SNL, and at LANL.
5 4 3 2 1
6. The DOE is a trustworthy organization, and I feel safe knowing that their operations are located nearby.
5 4 3 2 1
7. Nuclear technologies developed at LANL and SNL have benefited New Mexico communities.
5 4 3 2 1
8. Nuclear weapons technologies developed at LANL and SNL have made the people of New Mexico more safe and secure.
5 4 3 2 1
9. Since some managers of the DOE's operations at LANL, SNL, and WIPP live within local communities, then local citizens need not worry about what the DOE is doing.
5 4 3 2 1
10. I don't believe that DOE operations are potentially hazardous to New Mexico's clean air and water.
5 4 3 2 1
Results
Surveys were completed by 225 individual respondents, and response profiles for each of the ten statements were determined by averaging over respondents. These profiles exhibited clear differences in the level of agreement, or disagreement, to the individual statements. Additional written comments by respondents appear in the Appendix.
Strongest agreement was displayed to the two statements:
3. Radioactive and chemical wastes generated at LANL over the past 60 years are of concern to me personally.
4. Radioactive and chemical wastes transported to, and stored at, the WIPP site are of concern to me personally.
Moderate agreement was displayed to the two statements:
1. I believe that local communities have benefited greatly from DOE operations in New Mexico.
5. I worry about present and future DOE operations at WIPP, at SNL, and at LANL.
Weak, although still significant, agreement was displayed to the statements:
2. Money and jobs that the DOE has brought to New Mexico are the most important factor.
7. Nuclear technologies developed at LANL and SNL have benefited New Mexico communities.
Neutrality of opinion was displayed to the two statements:
6. The DOE is a trustworthy organization, and I feel safe knowing that their operations are located nearby.
8. Nuclear weapons technologies developed at LANL and SNL have made the people of New Mexico more safe and secure.
Finally, disagreement was displayed with the two statements:
9. Since some managers of the DOE's operations at LANL, SNL, and WIPP live within local communities, then local citizens need not worry about what the DOE is doing.
10. I don't believe that DOE operations are potentially hazardous to New Mexico's clean air and water.
Graphs of the profile of these averaged responses appear in the accompanying five Figures. Each Figure contains the profile of the average response to just two statements, where Fig. 1 shows responses to the two statements which evoked the strongest agreement (statements #3 and #4); Fig. 2 shows responses to the two statements evoking moderate agreement (statements #1 and #5); Fig. 3 shows responses to the two statements evoking weak agreement (statements #2 and #7); Fig. 4 shows neutrality of opinion (statements #6 and #8); and Fig. 5 shows disagreement (statements #9 and #10).
Discussion
As has been remarked earlier, and as should be clear from Figs. 1-5, the profiles of responses to the ten statements were quite varied, being strongly dependent on the subject being addressed; i.e., on the statement #. These differences are summarized in Fig. 6, where the average response to each statement (average over each profile) is plotted versus statement #.
Further, after averaging all responses over all ten statements, the overall average response was determined to be 3.25. Hence, since 3.0 indicates “no opinion”, or a “neutrality of opinion”, I assert that the phrasing of the ten statements did not prejudice respondents toward an overall agreement or disagreement and was, in this sense, an unbiased survey.
We next consider implications of the results obtained from the 225 respondents who participated in this unbiased survey.
More than any other issue touched on by the statements in this survey, the matter of potential radioactive and chemical contamination of the local environment seems to have evoked the strongest feelings amongst respondents; viz., “radioactive and chemical wastes generated at LANL over the past 60 years are of concern to me personally”, and “radioactive and chemical wastes transported to, and stored at, the WIPP site are of concern to me personally” (statements #3 and #4), produced strong agreement. Evidently, however, the strength of these feelings was reduced if the threat of potential contamination was located at a more remote site, or was placed off into the future; e.g., statement #5.
Respondents also agreed, although with less conviction, that “local communities have benefited greatly from DOE operations in New Mexico” (statement #1), and with still less conviction to the thought that “money and jobs that the DOE has brought to New Mexico are the most important factor” (statement #2). As well, it was felt by respondents to be only somewhat true that “nuclear technologies developed at LANL and SNL have benefited New Mexico communities” (statement #7).
Interestingly, respondents were either unsure, or of decidedly mixed opinion, that “the DOE is a trustworthy organization, and I feel safe knowing that their operations are located nearby” (statement #6), and “nuclear weapons technologies developed at LANL and SNL have made the people of New Mexico more safe and secure” (statement #8).
Definite disagreement was shown by respondents to the thought that “since some managers of the DOE's operations at LANL, SNL, and WIPP live within local communities, then local citizens need not worry about what the DOE is doing” (statement #9). Also, “I don't believe that DOE operations are potentially hazardous to New Mexico's clean air and water” (statement #10) evoked strong disagreement; i.e., in accord with the strong agreement of respondents to the closely related statements #3 and #4, which were expressed as a positive.
Summary
Based on these results, it is plausible to say that money and jobs brought to northern New Mexico by the DOE are generally considered to be very important to many of northern New Mexico’s citizens. At the same time, however, concerns about pollution caused by the DOE’s operations are very worrisome. Often, strong feelings of gratification due to economic benefit, and pronounced worries about pollution, appear within the same individual.
There is also evidence of ambivalence toward the DOE’s ongoing nuclear weapons program. Although, generally, it seems that strong opinions pro and con about nuclear weapons do not appear within the same individual, definite uncertainty about this issue can still be seen in the views of individual respondents.
Finally, it seems fair to say that suspicion about the DOE’s operations in northern New Mexico is widespread. The fact that many DOE employees live and work in northern New Mexico is, generally, not seen as a reason to be sanguine about the DOE’s operations here.
References
[1] History of the DOE-EM SSAB; March, 2009; http://www.em.doe.gov
[2] Advice and Consent: the DOE’s SSABs; Jennifer Weeks, Harvard U.’s Belfer Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy; Discussion Paper; Sept., 2000.
[3] Tuler, S. and Webler, T.; 2003, SERI Report 03-004; Public Participation in Setting Clean Soil Standards at Rocky Flats; http://www.seri-us.org
[4] http:// www.lanl.gov/orgs/cpo/
[5] Research and Polling, Inc.; Albuquerque, NM; telephone: 505-821-5454.
[6] http://www.DSSResearch.com; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size
Appendix
Additional written comments by respondents were as follows:
Let the masters of science at LANL focus on climate change, health care, etc.
The powers that be do not reside in, and perhaps do not even visit, New Mexico so why should I believe that they have the health and welfare of New Mexico’s citizens in mind? They do not!
I think LANL is good because it gives work to the community and because it is safe.
I believe that DOE does everything in their power and within the law to protect the economy, safety, and way of life in New Mexico, and wherever else they operate.
Sloppy procedures with radioactive materials at LANL concerns me greatly. I equate the DOE’s attitude toward New Mexico with that of the Catholic church’s attitude toward its pedophile priests, many of whom it dumped in New Mexico.
Statement #9 is poorly written. Also, if statement #10 refers to WIPP, then there are other problems that concern me more.
I am not very familiar with the DOE’s operations, and their effect on New Mexico.
Keep doing good work!
No more nuclear development in New Mexico please!
Yucca Mt. is example of DOE’s misuse of tax $. DOE is not credible!
DOE badly manages tailings and dump sites and inadequately protects ground water.
LANL has a terrible history of contamination of the ground water.
I do not consider myself to be well informed about these issues,
DOE needs to be more efficient at the planning and execution of its work.
Let’s move into the 21st century!
I hope that those who lost jobs at LANL will get them back.
Thank you for taking time to conduct this study!
I’m glad that over 1 million American lives were saved by the Manhattan project.
If LANL loses funding then I am concerned, otherwise no!
The cleanup at LANL is necessary, but the research there is questionable.
Statement #10 is tricky.
Fig. 1: statement #3 (solid line); statement #4 (dash line)
Fig. 2: statement #1 (solid line); statement #5 (dash line)
Fig. 3: statement #2 (solid line); statement #7 (dash line)
Fig. 4: statement #6 (solid line); statement #8 (dash line)
Fig. 5: statement #9 (solid line); statement #10 (dash line)
Fig. 6: mean of responses (solid line); variance of responses (dash line)
