Editor's Note: While the Community Guidelines are addressed to DOE they are applicable to the entire process and are thus guidelines for EPA and TDEC as well as DOE. The requlators, as well as DOE, need to openly explain to the public the reasons for their decisions.

The DOE, EPA & TDEC Community Goal Scorecard
Scorekeeper: Al Brooks

The above goals provide criteria for scoring the DOE choice of proposed alternatives for remedial actions. In fairness to DOE, TDEC and EPA play a major role in the choice of alternative and may be the responsible party for DOE's action.

Update: The EUWG Guidelines and Recommendations are begining to appear in DOE CERCLA documents and DOE is clearly trying to meet them. At the recent EUWG End-of-Task meeting, the attendence and participation by DOE/ORO top management was encouraging.

The following is a running scoreboard for the DOE remedial decisions:

Goal Exceptions are those criteria for which a second satisfactory alternative exceeded the selected alternative. See the Proposed Plan Documents for details. Green is Good. Red is not. Watersheds
 

Operable Unit	Alternative Selected	Cost Difference	EU Goal Exceptions	Notes
ORNL Surface Impoundments	6 - Sludge Removal, Treatment & Disposal	37 Million vs. Alternative 3	1) Worker Safety 2) Cost	1
K-25 - Ponds K 1007 & K901A	Remediate &    Keep Ponds	Not Applicable	None, compliant with habitat preservation	2
K25 K1070 Burial Grounds	Excavate & Remove	NA	None anticipated
Bethel Valley  RI/FS-D1	2 - Composite	20 million	Deemed compliant	3, 4
Melton Valley PP-D1	Mixed methodologies	NA	None	3,5
Bear Creek Valley ROD S3 & BYBY	Interception Trenches & Treat.	NA	None	3
UEFPC FS-D1	NA	NA	NA	3
ETTP RI-D1	To be submitted
Waste Disposal Cell Site	East Bear Creek Site	NA	None	3
MSRE Fuel & Salt Removal	Remove & Store	NA	None
UEFPC - Mercury Sludge & Sump	Remove & Fill	Below Estimate	None

Watersheds and major critical projects

Notes:

1) Alternative 3, On-Site Consolidation, was rated by the EUWG as satisfactory in all categories but was not selected. TDEC is reportedly responsible for the decision. DOE is attempting to obtain a more favorable cost for Alternative 6. The bid for Alternative 6 came in far beneath the estimated cost so cost is not an issue. The difference in worker safety is somewhat subjective and probably small. Deemed acceptable.

2) After discussions with stakeholders, DOE has adopted plans less destructive of the environment. i.e., the ponds will be cleaned and restored as wetland habitat.

3) For reasons which are not now clear, the regulators have not signed off on these RODs, FSs or RIs. There are some indications that they wish more costly alternatives or are hesitant to commit to actions. The delays may result in lost opportunities. The public deserves an explanation for the delays from the regulators. Hopefully this will be resolved soon.  Ratings are interim until regulatory approval.

4) While this is not the lowest cost option compliant with EUWG reccomendations, the added protection  against pollution migration (a high priority EUWG guideline)  is deemed worth the additional cost.

5) The proposed plan was not the least expensive but did offer more remediation at a reasonable cost increase,