Re: Accelerate DOE "cleanup" programs...

[Susan Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>]

As Executive Director of a 'citizen-participation' program in Oak Ridge,
I can reply to some of Jim M's comments, especially with respect to what
we're seeing in Oak Ridge.  These are my own opinions, based on several
years of close study of our situation.

The DOE and its contractors wasted cleanup money for years.  Times are
much leaner now, and involved citizens much more saavy.  Also, there is
a new generation of DOE EM managers who seem to be motivated to get the
job done.

No one wants to spend all the available funding cleaning up one site to
background, at the expense of the other problems.  Nor should it be
frittered away on routine monitoring or "regulatory compliance"
activities that address low to non-existent risks. Unfortunately, the
regulators are there to enforce regulations, most of which are extremely
conservative.  Only a small percentage of EM dollars actually go to
cleaning up radionuclides or hazardous wastes--much more is spent on
EPA- or state-mandated routine monitoring and paperwork.  I personally
know many DOE project managers who are extremely frustrated at not being
able to get to the point of cleanup for all the (expensive) hoops they
have to jump through.  Plus we see the self-regulated hazards given a
much lower priority so DOE can avoid fines for non-compliance with EPA
or state regulations.

There are also dynamics involving mistrust between the various agencies,
personal vendettas, a desire by some regulators to "punish" DOE, bad
blood over decisions at one facility spilling over into negotiations for
cleanup decisions at others, and a host of political considerations, not
the least of which is a reluctance to approve a decision that may be
questioned later (we are dealing with technically challenging problems
with no guarantees of success).  The citizens have taken the lead by
insisting that not just DOE but the regulators justify their positions. 
Now there are high-level face-to-face discussions going on regularly,
which should help ease some of the past problems between agencies.

It's not simple, and it's never going to be cheap.  What is particularly
galling, is that DOE (headquarters) cannot manage to accomplish some of
the most cost-effective activities without years of angst--for example,
opening NTS to Oak Ridge low-level wastes would save millions of
survellience-and-monitoring dollars a year that could be reprogrammed to
cleanup.

Members of my Citizens' Advisory Panel have been pushing DOE
(headquarters) to come up with de minimis levels for release of
radioactive contaminants for years.  The standard reply is there is a
team working on this in conjunction the NRC and EPA.  The reality is no
one wants to propose a number.  This issue has hobbled the ability to
pick a target for cleanup, find an appropriate technology, and dispose
of the wastes in a cost-effective manner.

There has been, however, a great deal of progress that DOE (ORO), for
some reason, is reluctant to publicize.  One of my CAP members has
listed completed cleanups on his Web site:
http://user.icx.net/~brooks/mov_dirt.html

We support DOE in accomplishing its cleanups.  We try to provide
constructive comments on its decision documents, to strenthen them
technically and provide a basis for broad community acceptance.  Often,
we seem to be more at odds with regulators who seem to be "in the way"
than with DOE the "polluting bad guy."  I can safely say that we try to
incorporate the best science and common sense into our evaluations. 
Maybe Oak Ridgers are different, or maybe my group attracts people of
like minds, but we've found that support--not mindless criticism--is the
magic ingredient for progress.

And of course we'd love to have more federal spending in our community. 
If you were experiencing the local financial impacts--declining sales
tax revenues, soft real estate market, out-migration of the most
civically active citizens due to job losses, declining school
enrollments, businesses failing or moving, 25% retail occupancy in the
local mall, the constant threat of property tax hikes--you'd want more
spending, too. 

Jim and others, I hope this gives you a little more insight into what we
face to get the cleanups done in our community.  I can only touch on
some of the variables and issues here, but I have addressed others in
previous posts to RadSafe.  Again, these comments represent my opinions
only.

Regards,
Susan Gawarecki

Jim Muckerheide wrote:

> Is DOE/official-Washington worried that the LNT will be refuted before they
> can spend/waste massive public funds on 'make-work' cleanup programs for no
> public benefit? So they're pushing for more funds earlier? (And hiring
> public-advocacy-instigators, like CCRI, etc., to make local
> 'citizen-participation' programs more aggressive. Which is, of course,
> received well by political interests want more federal $$ in the region - esp.
> like Brookhaven, where there's no, or incompetent, DOE support for any more
> quality nuclear research.)
> 
> It's clear: DOE cleanup work should be redirected to only actual hazards, with
> research and program planning for other hazards (and uses for radionuclides)
> pending resolving the LNT-justified extreme cleanup standards, and shifting
> the closed NCRP and BRER, and rad protection regulation roles, to biology and
> health roles, especially to bypass/eliminate the 'radiation research study
> section' of NIH to approve all radiation research.
> 
> I'd appreciate your comments.

-- 
==================================================
Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director
Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, Inc.
136 S Illinois Ave, Ste 208, Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Phone (865) 483-1333; Fax (865) 482-6572; E-mail loc@icx.net 
==================================================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html