The Evolution of the
DOE ORR EM Public Participation
A. A. Brooks - 1945, 1956-1997
Public Participation in
1 - Don't Ask, We Don't Tell - 1942 to 1982
2 - Talk To - 1982 to 1992
3 - Talk With - 1992 -1994
4 - Talk With, Listen To - 1994 to 1996
5 - Talk With, Listen To, Explain Non-Responses - 1997
6 - Talk With, Listen To, Accept Advice, Explain - 1998
7 - The DOE, EPA, and TDEC Final Decisions - ????
8 - Public Participation is Automatic
without Prompting
Abstract and Conclusions
Public participation in the affairs of the
Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) program on the Oak
Ridge Reservation (ORR) has evolved slowly and at times painfully. It has
progressed from non-existent to an almost fully developed stage. Its remaining
shortfalls involve both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). These shortfalls
are openly acknowledged by DOE and are being openly discussed. Improvements
will be forthcoming. Clearly, excellent, productive public participation occurs
at ORR. It has taken a long time but DOE acknowledges its worth.
Stage 1 - Don't Ask, We Don't Tell
This stage, from 1942 to 1982, which added up
to Ignore, was derived from the classified nature of the early ORR
missions. It was also a period when the nature of radioactive pollutants was
not well understood. There is little evidence that there was any general,
callous neglect of worker or public health. When the two major off-site
releases, i.e., radioactivity to the
Stage 2- Talk To - 1982 to 1992
This stage started with a forced release
(Freedom of Information Act) of information on the contamination of Lower East
Fork Creek by large amounts of mercury. Once past the original hurdle, DOE did
a reasonable job of keeping the public informed. When LEFPC became a Superfund
site in 1986, DOE adopted the CERCLA required procedures for public
involvement. By 1992, it became apparent that the
Stage 3 - Talk With - 1992 -1994
In 1992 to their credit, DOE formed a LEFPC
Citizens' Working Group under David Page, the project manager. Though the CWG
had a fixed membership, it had open public participation and Mr. Page and his
staff went out of their way to aid in the presentation of all points of view
including the opposition. In a July 1994 meeting with EPA, the stakeholders
presented their technical arguments. Dr. Elmer Akin explained the EPA
regulatory risk assessment model and its use of biased data as well as the
public's right of protest during the subsequent risk management phase. This
defined the nature of future public efforts, it turned to a political effort
based on technical reasons.
Stage 4 - Talk With, Listen To - '94 to '96
This stage includes an event in 1992, the WAG
6 public meeting, at which the public strongly opposed the $140 million asphalt
cap on the grounds it did not decrease the risks. Brief but important, it set
the pattern for the LEFPC CWG. The LEFPC cemented the trend in that the public
mustered the necessary, vocal attendance at the January 1995 LEFPC public
meeting to convince the regulators that the proposed 180 ppm
mercury level was conservative and it should be changed upwards. It was changed
to 400 ppm with savings upwards of $150 million. ORR
public participation would never regress to its former state. DOE knew beyond a
doubt that the public's input on balance was sound and constructive. Above all,
it was appreciated.
Stage 5 - Talk With, Listen To, Explain Non-Responses
This stage is characteristic of the DOE
CERCLA procedures wherein there is a requirement after the major decisions are
made to obtain public comment, both oral and written. The responses are given
(and lost) in a formal report with little opportunity for the public to explain
how they were misunderstood. This mode of public interaction simply is not
suitable for complex remediation projects where much of the concern is for the
technical basis of the remediation and for the cost-effectiveness of a truly
complex total project. Fortunately, this stage was brief because DOE
recognized, as the public had claimed, that early and extended participation
was necessary if mutual understanding was to be reached, and trust established.
Stage 6 -Talk With, Listen To, Accept Advice, Explain
This stage started in 1996, after a brief
lull, with discussions of the then "Ten Year Plan" assumptions. It
started early and comprised a series of excellent meetings with constant
feedback. A great deal of credit is due Mark Musolf
and Marianne Heiskel for eliciting diverse opinion
and its excellent reception. Curiously, much but not all of the discussion, was
about the clarification of wording and simplification of the document. The
experience was actually enjoyable. These discussions continued in the same vein
on the topic of the 1998 budget document. Early in 1997, the End Use Working
Group was formed through SSAB under Doug Sarno, its
capable facilitator, Karen Bowdle and with DOE's
Margaret Wilson and many dedicated assistants.
Stage 6 Continued - The End Use Working Group
This arduous public effort deserves special
mention because it deals with so many complex aspects of the entire ORR
Environmental Management Program. Although its final
recommendations are related to contaminated land use, it must consider the
geology and environment of the waste sites, the technical feasibility and cost
of proposed remediations, long-term stewardship and
questions of inter-site equity in order to make sound recommendations. This is
being done with DOE's assistance but without their domination. The community
goals developed and the recommendations presented do not necessarily agree with
DOE, EPA and TDEC preferences. The ORNL Surface Impoundment ponds are an
example. This leads to Stage 7.
Stage 7 - The DOE, EPA and TDEC Final Decisions?
The final selection of the remediation alternative is arcane. The public hears differing reports and knows neither whether its recommendations were well presented and argued nor why the contrary actions were selected. It does not even know who was primarily responsible, DOE, EPA, or TDEC. After spending thousands of hours in preparing its positions, the public deserves better reporting and a place at the table. After all, the Public does accept the risks and pays the bills. Currently (Dec 1997), this problem is openly acknowledged by DOE, which promises progress.
Late Flash: A recent open dialogue with EPA and TDEC promises much improved public participation.
More on this and other ORR Environmental Management projects can be found on: http://home.comcast.net/~brooks50/
About the Author: The author is a retired
chemist who owns about five acres of pasture on the mercury-contaminated LEFPC
floodplain. He has participated in these ORR processes as a wartime and
post-wartime, prime contractor employee, as an owner of contaminated land, as a
public participation advocate and as an antagonist to the EPA biased risk
assessment and other distortions of science. In spite of outspoken comments
against the establishment's positions, he enjoys a friendly working
relationship with DOE management and much of the regulatory community. He is a
member of the SSAB End Use Working Group, the
Citizens' Advisory Panel of the Local Oversight Committee,
Inc. and of the Environment Committees of the League of Women Voters of Oak
Ridge and the Friends of ORNL.
His retirement now consists of meetings, meetings, meetings
...
Structure of the ORR Stakeholders Organizations
Orginal poster display converted to this hierarchical form.
The Oak Ridge Reservation
Stakeholders
Local Oversight
Committee, Inc. - FFA
Board -
comprising County & City elected Executives
Citizens
Advisory Panel - comprising
Board appointed Citizens
Sub-Committees
DOE ORO EM Site Specific
Advisory Board - FACA
comprising
DOE Appointed Citizens
Sub-Committees & Working Groups
There are additional active Stakeholder Groups at ORR. FFA is the Federal Facilities Agreement between DOE, EPA and Tennessee. FACA is the Federal Advisory Committee Agreement.