The director of the Task Force on Civilian Radioactive Waste Management of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, United States Department of Energy, asked the National Academy of Public Administration, to convene a group of approximately one dozen individuals to attend a twoday "state-of-the-art" workshop on the issue of how institutions establish, maintain, or recover trust and confidence among significant members of their task environments.

Siting any nuclear waste facility is problematic in today's climate of distrust toward nuclear agencies and fear of nuclear waste. This study compares and contrasts the siting and public participation processes as two citizen task forces dealt with their difficult responsibilities. Though one dealt with a high level waste (Monitored Retrievable Storage - MRS) proposal in Tennessee in 1985-6 and the other with a proposed low level waste facility in Illinois (1988 and still ongoing), the needs of citizen decision makers were very similar.

The generation of knowledge regarding public risk perception general, and perception of risks associated with nuclear power and radioactive waste management in particular, requires the development and use of appropriate survey methodologies. One of the fundamental limitations of many studies of public risk perception is the assumption on the part of the investigators of similarity between themselves and their respondents. In such studies respondents are required to deal with problems of interest to and structured by the investigators.

Survey research on nuclear power issues conducted in the late 1970s has determined that nuclear waste management is now considered to be one of the most important nuclear power issues both by the U.S. public and by key leadership groups. The purpose of this research was to determine the importance placed on specific issues associated with high-level waste disposal. In addition, policy option choices were asked regarding the siting of both low-level and high-level nuclear waste repositories.

This report focuses on public meetings as a vehicle for public participation in nuclear waste management. The nature of public meetings is reviewed and the functions served by meetings highlighted. The range of participants and their concerns are addressed, including a review of the participants from past nuclear waste management meetings. A sound understanding of the expected participants allows DOE to tailor elements of the meeting, such as notification, format, and agenda to accommodate the attendees.

In order to gain a satisfactory understanding of public attitudes toward issues in nuclear waste management, it is important to recognize the context in which the public views those issues. Nuclear waste, in the minds of the public, is just one aspect of the nuclear power issue. Nuclear power, in turn, is just one means of avoiding energy shortage.

Although some observers have concluded that the technology required to assure safe disposal of nuclear wastes is currently available, others have expressed concern about the stability of the institutions that might be required to maintain the isolation of nuclear wastes. Questions about institutional stability and other factors associated with nuclear power and nuclear waste have been the subject of some study in public opinion research.