DOE/ORO, the Environment and Public Involvement
Continuing Retrogression
(7/9/02): With the announcement (Oak Ridger 6/19/2002)
of a closed meeting the avowed purpose of which is "to facilitate a
greater information exchange between management at the Y-12 National Security
Complex and the Oak Ridge community", DOE and its contractors have reduced
public participation to a new low since the national security cloak was shed in
1982. Not only are the public excluded but the official representatives of the
public, the SSAB and the LOC/CAP, have also been excluded. Mr. Mitchell, the
head of Y-12 and the source of the information, should be ashamed of himself.
DOE should take steps to see that this affront to the public is corrected. (Mr.
Mitchell's office refused to inform me of his E-mails address and placed me in
contact with Mr. Greg Baker who knew nothing of the matter and failed to make
the promised return call. I accept this as further evidence of lack of interest
in real public participation.)
At best a closed public
meeting is an oxymoron; at worst it is a giant step back to square one and I
therefore place DOE's public participation on step one: Ignore, right where it was in 1982.
Retrogression: It is with the greatest regret that today (
Additional Public Participation Links:
The Development Stages of Public Participation -
How are we doing
Rebuttal of "The Continuing Assault ...."
- Another View of DOE/ORO
Rebuttal of Missing the Path to
"Cleanup" - Maybe or Maybe Not
During the past four decades, there has been a changing relationship between the Oak Ridge Operations Office of the now Department of Energy and the Oak Ridge public. The start of this period is somewhat arbitrary, but in 1956 with the sale of the land and homes of Oak Ridge, the government gave up ownership of what is now the public sector of Oak Ridge. Additionally, that year marked the beginning of a major off reservation pollution event in that the Lower East Fork Poplar Creek (LEFPC), which passes through the private part of the city, was polluted by many metric tons of mercury. Most importantly, at this time the relationship of the DOE to the public was dominated by regulations and attitudes necessary to the Hot War and the early Cold War. This is not to say that in any way the DOE did not have the best interests of the public in mind for they did involve the public in the public matters not directly related to the ongoing defense efforts. However in that gray area where defense activities abutted against private interests, the DOE kept their own council and did what they deemed appropriate.
Many changes in the relationship between the DOE and the public took place in and during the Lower East Fork Poplar Creek project. There were also notable meetings on other issues and some of the changes occurred after the public participation phase of LEFPC was over. One of the most important changes was that LEFPC was placed on the National Priorities List (Superfund) which brought the Environmental Protection Agency and the CERCLA procedures into the process. This is one participant's personal view on the changing interactions and the current improved relationship based on participation in several group efforts.
The Lower East Fork Poplar Creek Project
After the mercury discharges occurred from 1956 to 1962, the public simply was not informed, and efforts to study the spill were discouraged, as this would have informed the public. It is hard to imagine a lower degree of public participation. This condition persisted until 1983 when there was an unauthorized announcement of unofficial information obtained under questionable circumstances ( see letter to E. A. Slavin ). Although there were some concerns for personal health there was no general panic in spite of the large headlines.
DOE, through the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, immediately started investigations into the status of the Creek, and the process was relatively open as landowners were provided the analytical results as soon as available. The State regulators set a remediation level of 10 ppm and some public lands were cleaned up to an interim level of 100 ppm. There were a few informational meetings, and the discussion was relatively open but not two-way by any means. During this period, it became known that the mercury was probably present as the very insoluble mercuric sulfide and would not be considered a serious risk.
In 1986, the LEFPC was declared a Superfund site and the Environmental Protection Agency became involved. It took several years to re-study the LEFPC under the CERCLA procedure.
In early 1992, the Waste Area Grouping (WAG) 6 Project came up for public discussion. WAG 6 is a radioactive disposal site on the Oak Ridge Reservation. The issue was whether or not to cap the site at a cost of about $140 million. Many members of the community, familiar with the site, felt that this expense was unnecessary, as the risks from the site appeared to be acceptable. It contributed only 1 % of the strontium-90 leaving the watershed. While the WAG 6 episode was relatively short, it demonstrated that the Oak Ridge public was knowledgeable and had something to say. In addition, the DOE acquiesced to the public's request, and did not cap the site. More importantly, the public learned it had a voice in these matters, and at least some members of DOE saw that early public involvement could be very advantageous to the process of reaching remediation decisions.
Later in 1992 as the LEFPC Remediation Investigation report was published, a Citizens Working Group was formed that met monthly. It soon became apparent that the EPA would ignore the early site-specific information, including feeding studies that indicated most of the floodplain was safe. They would also proceed with the proposed remediation level of 50 ppm which would gut much of the floodplain, including many privately owned acres, at great cost, $230 million. The public, in the absence of any data to the contrary, strongly believed it was not necessary to destroy the valley in order to save it and began to ask, Why?
The DOE and EPA answer was simple - the regulations and procedures require it. The public began its own risk assessment studies focusing on the safety factors in the EPA proposed remediation goals and in the assumptions made in this process. The EPA process had simply ignored site-specific information in the risk assessment. The resulting safety factor was shown to be excessive, i.e., 500,000 to 5,000,000, and the model implicitly assumed limitless cleanup resources. Since Oak Ridge was faced with other massive cleanup requirements that clearly were potential risks, the latter concern was not minimal.
For a while there was a period of friendly stalemate - the public continued, on several grounds, to question the technical validity of the remediation model and the cleanup goals set, and DOE continued to say it was because of the EPA process and regulations. Information became available that indeed the DOE had requested more reasonable risk assessment parameters similar to the public's values and this request had been rejected by EPA.
In July 1994, EPA and ATSDR were invited to Oak Ridge to critique the public's risk analysis and justify the EPA methodology. It was an open and productive meeting. EPA freely admitted that the public's risk analysis was technically correct and went on the describe the EPA position on risk assessment and proposed remediation goals (paraphrased):
"The EPA process consists of two phases: Risk Assessment and Risk Management. The EPA regards CERCLA as a mandate through Congress from the people to restore a site to an unquestionably safe condition regardless of cost. This requires, in the first phase, remediation goals that are very conservative, which in turn requires the use of conservatively biased risk assessment data. In the risk management phase the public may oppose these goals based on cost, excessive safety or any other basis it chooses and EPA encourages them to do so. However EPA cannot change nor let DOE change unless Congress changes the law."
This did not appear consistent to the wording of CERCLA, but it was undoubtedly how it worked. Given this information, the public took the EPA advice and continued its opposition in the Risk Management phase as a combined technical and political issue. It took the form of letters to the editor, presentations to organizations, public petitions, letters and comments by environmental committees. At the final LEFPC public meeting, there was an outpouring of public concern against excessive cleanup. The formal comments ran 197 to 3 against the conservative cleanup goal. In the end, DOE suggested a remediation goal of 400 ppm and EPA accepted it after some internal discussion. The public learned that it could influence the DOE decisions, the DOE learned the public could be reasonable and objective, and EPA learned the public could effectively challenge the technical foundation of the EPA process.
LEFPC is being cleaned up to 400 ppm at a cost of about $20 million. Discussion of the technical issues continued in a friendly manner with DOE, EPA and ATSDR. Technical papers have been submitted to or given at subsequent workshops. There are some efforts to change the law.
The Ten Year Plan
In the summer of 1996, the Oak Ridge Public was introduced to the new DOE Ten Year Plan, which would attempt to carry out a large majority of the cleanup in ten years rather than 60 years. All the correct statements about involving the public were voiced but little seemed to happen. At first, some of the public voiced concern about being involved too little, too late. This interlude turned out to be the calm before a storm of very successful meetings and dialogue with the public. They illustrate the current positive character of the DOE public involvement efforts. These meetings were designed as pre-CERCLA process meetings to give the public to participate in the early decisions before the formal CERCLA meetings that would be held.
The Ten Year Plan Budget Assumptions Meetings
The Ten Year Plan Budget was based on a large number of assumptions, which many members of the public felt were vague, ambiguous or unjustified. In a series of open weekly meetings attended by 50 to 70 members of the public, each of the assumptions was reviewed in detail. The facilitator did an excellent job of eliciting public opinion and the DOE program manager was most receptive to the public consensus. Each changed assumption was reviewed at the next meeting and, if necessary, clarifications made. At the end, the list of assumptions was shorter, more definitive, and while ambitious, more justifiable. Many of the changes were for clarification, but a few were more fundamental.
At the end, a friendly working relationship existed between the public and DOE. This is not to say there was unanimous agreement but there appeared to be no large disagreements and the lesser ones were understood by both sides and were on record. It is difficult to imagine a more productive set of meetings.
The End Use Meetings
The End Use meetings are intended to produce a set of community values, pertinent data, and a set of end uses for contaminated sites on the Oak Ridge Reservation recommended by the public to DOE. It is a large task and got started perhaps a bit late due to the shift between the 60 year plan and the Ten Year Plan. Due to the tight schedule, it appeared at first to go too fast and to be somewhat unidirectional. However, this soon changed to bi-directional discussions and excellent interchanges of ideas. The open-ended committee comprises about 60 persons including DOE and contractors and was formed under the auspices of the DOE Site Specific Advisory Board. It is very goal oriented and suitably dominated by the public The DOE role has been kept to supplying information about the sites and technical background information. Clearly, they do not try to channel the public's position. The Committee meets every one or two weeks with several additional meetings a week by the Steering Committee and sub-committees. The DOE and contractor staff works very hard to keep up the pace.
The total effort involves three major DOE plants, five major watersheds, and innumerable contaminated sites of widely varying character. To date, the community values are drafted, hashed over, consolidated, redrafted and ready for prioritization and adoption. Several tutorials on background topics have been held. The database of necessary information has been specified by the committee and is complete for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory main plant area. For this plant, the hardest part of the work has been done and the degree of agreement surprised everyone.
As with the Ten Year Plan Assumptions meetings this committee has developed an excellent rapport with the DOE and its Contractors. The remaining sites on the ORR have different issues, and they will be vigorously debated, as they should be. I would predict that we shall stay on schedule and give to DOE a completed set of responsibly formed End Uses expressing the public views.
Things to Come
There will be many other topics to debate before the Records of Decision are reached. Two of these are the possible establishment of an onsite waste disposal cell and the continued use of the TSCA incinerator as a component of the DOE national cleanup effort.
At the public's request, the waste disposal discussions were delayed until the End Use discussions had made some progress. These discussions will be renewed soon.
The TSCA discussions are a bit different as they involve the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conversation and a continuing question on the part of some members of the public as to the safety of the incinerator. It is obvious the public is of different opinions and wishes to be heard.
A Look to Improvements
As remarkable and encouraging as the changes in the DOE public involvement effort are, it would be wrong to leave the impression that it is perfect. The major and perhaps only short fall is the DOE interface to the many concerned and involved public groups. DOE has tended to deal primarily through the SSAB, and the SSAB has been sensitive to the concerns of other groups. There are many cross-memberships. However, there are groups such as the City of Oak Ridge Planning and Zoning Board, the Environmental Quality Advisory Board and their counterparts in the surrounding counties. These groups have statutory responsibilities that cannot be subject to the SSAB process. There is also the ORR Local Oversight Committee created under the Federal Facilities Act by the State of Tennessee, which fills a similar but wider scope than the SSAB. In addition, there are several independent groups with an interest in the DOE CERCLA process that would feel better if their access to DOE was more direct.
This is not to say the opinion of these groups or individuals is ignored, but the DOE needs to develop the proper interfaces with these groups appropriate to their roles and responsibilities. It is suggested that alternating or cooperative assignments when appropriate would be a measure to accomplish this goal as well as the formal recognition of these groups as DOE public assets.
Addendum - October 1997
Recently there has been a changing of the guard at the SSAB. The new officers and members seem determined to improve the public's access to the SSAB board processes. If they are as successful as they are competent, this will go along way in providing the widely based interaction to the public so necessary to the establishment of public confidence in the DOE public participation arena. The SSAB's subgroups, such as, the End Use Working Group, continue to set an example of completely open public participation.
In addition, the End Use Working Group's loss of the Planing Commission member with the death of Stanley Reel has been replaced with a new member of the Planning Commission. This closes a significant gap.
Also there was a recent productive meeting between the Steering Committee of the End Use Working Group, Justin Wilson of the Governor's Office and the EPA Region IV Office. This form of outreach is necessary if the End Use Recommendations are not to be lost in a report.
There is evidence that more and more DOE staff members are becoming comfortable with public participation.
The recent Governor's Independent Panel investigating the TSCA Incinerator and worker's complaints of illness has proceeded well with a great deal of public participation. Its report is due shortly.
While it is difficult to measure, there is a distinct air of closer contact of the public to the DOE remediation process and its associated Regulatory agencies.
In Summary
The DOE has recognized that informed public opinion can be of great assistance in the formation of their plans as well as the presentation of their plans to the greater public. They recognize that early and full public involvement is one key to successful public involvement. They are willing to invest the large effort, which is necessary to reap the benefits of this assistance. The public is also willing to invest their time and effort, to become informed and to help DOE meet the challenges the Ten Year Plan presents.
Addendum: October 1998
Things still improve. There is clearly earlier, pre-CERCLA public involvement; earlier formal meetings, acceptance of comments on these meetings and even public participation in the planning public meetings. The old wounds formed by having two "official" public interface organizations are healing and cooperation between them is improving. DOE is accepting constructive public comment on almost any facet of operations. The dedication of the top management to full public participation is frequently demonstrated. There is still a way to go but the big hurdles have been passed. It is a win-win situation.
Addendum: March 1999
The following DOE/ORO/EM announcement is a real advance in the DOE trust of the public and should result in a reciprocal trusting relationship.
Everyone should NOW be able
to get READ ONLY access to Oak Ridge
Environmental Information
System (OREIS) data including sample analysis
results and maps. Access
is through the following URL.
http://www-oreis.bechteljacobs.org:8080/oreis/help/oreishome.html
Click on it and browse through
the data. Data can be viewed in summary
tables or the detailed data
can be downloaded to your PC. Downloaded data
can be easily read into EXCEL
and other common PC database and spreadsheet
software programs.
There are 7 million data records in OREIS that can be
downloaded and
used. Maps and high resolution aerial photos of Oak Ridge,
Paducah, and Portsmouth are
also available for viewing and downloading.
Let me know what you think.
THANKS!!!
David Carden
phone: 576-9262