INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES USED BY EPA, SCDHEC, AND DOE TO INCREASE STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE CLEANUP OF NUCLEAR PRODUCTION FACILITIES

This paper will describe the importance of public and stakeholder involvement to the decisions being made at Savannah River Site (SRS) regarding the cleanup of major production facilities. For over a decade the Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) have operated under a three party agreement (known as the Federal Facilities Agreement or FFA) to clean up the SRS from the remnants of the Cold War plutonium production at SRS. During this time, the 3 agencies have consulted with the surrounding and impacted public to gain stakeholder input on the decisions concerning the clean up of various wastes at the SRS. The primary instrument of public input has been and remains the SRS Community Advisory Board (CAB). Much progress has been made over the years in cleaning up the SRS and the CAB has provided invaluable stakeholder input. Many planned decisions have been modified and changed as a result of the input of the CAB. Recently, DOE has decided to move forward with the Decommissioning of excess facilities at the SRS. These facilities include many buildings involved in the various missions of radioactive isotope production at the SRS, including the reactors and the plutonium processing facilities. The discussions of the 3 agencies on how to best accomplish this work have always included discussions about how to best involve and receive input from all stakeholders. The innovative way the 3 agencies have worked together through the public involvement format has application nationally and DOE-Complex wide. The decisions made will impact the surrounding community and the country for years. Multiple meetings with the CAB and other stakeholders will be required and it will be incumbent on the 3 agencies to reach out to and involve all interested parties. At least 3 different approaches could be used for stakeholder involvement. (1) a typical CERCLA ''proposed plan format'' with several alternatives presented and the agencies pointing out the most likely alternative; (2) present all possible alternatives without bias and take feedback from the public; (3) present all possible alternatives along with their pros/cons. Each approach has its own pros and cons. This paper will discuss the pros and cons and describe how the Agencies are moving forward. This paper will also discuss the public involvement aspects of such major decisions. In order to be successful, education efforts will need to be made to the general public. All aspects of the decisions must be properly communicated. Cleanup decisions that are protective of human health and the environment, compliant with all other pertinent laws and restrictions and keep risk to workers at a minimum and are cost effective must be made. However, decisions that are acceptable to all stakeholders are needed in order to succeed. The details of the goals of the effort will be presented in this paper