A Review of the Army's Public Affairs Efforts in Support of the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (2000)

The committee drew on many sources of information in preparing thisreport, including visits to stockpile sites and discussions duringquarterly meetings of the full committee. In addition, the Army suppliedmany documents on the planning and strategy of the public affairsprogram, along with thousands of newspaper clippings about stockpileand disposal activities at all sites. The committee was also givencomprehensive reports on focus groups developed by Battelle PacificNorthwest Laboratory for the eight stockpile sites in the continentalUnited States and the results of public opinion polls conducted byInnovative Emergency Management and Rowan and Blewitt for severalstockpile sites (Battelle, 1994a through 1994h; Innovative EmergencyManagement and Rowan and Blewitt, Inc., 1995, 1996). As this reportwas being prepared, POIO was developing data on focus groups, newsmedia, and its public survey. However, with the exception of twounpublished papers on the survey, final data were not available tothe committee (Williams et al., 1999a, 1999b).

In late 1999, the Stockpile Committee submitted a list of questionsto PMCD relevant to the eight requirements presented in Table 1. In the context of the recommendations from the 1996 Stockpile CommitteePublic Involvement letter report (NRC, 1996), the committee asked POIO two sets of questions,one focused on public involvement and one focused on the overallpublic affairs program. The Army presented its initial responseson November 4, 1999. The responses were subsequently amended andexpanded, resulting in a 170-page document received on December 17,1999 (PMCD, 1999a).

Over the past several years, the Stockpile Committee has visitedwith seven state-appointed Citizens Advisory Commissions (CACs).For this report, the committee distributed questions to the CACsrepresenting all eight continental U.S. stockpile storage sites togive them an opportunity to comment on the Army's CSDP public affairsprogram. The committee's goal was to allow the CACs to express theirlatest ideas on public involvement. The committee received four responsesfrom CACs, one in Kentucky, one in Maryland, and two in Utah. CACsfrom the remaining five locations neither responded nor providedan explanation for not responding.