It was an effort that began in February 1997 and culminated with a spate of meetings at the end of June 1998. After 17 months of meeting two or more times a month, the End Use Working Group (EUWG) completed its mission for DOE, recommending an ultimate use for each major area of contaminated land on the Oak Ridge Reservation.

The LOC was actively involved in these deliberations, with five to six Citizens' Advisory Panel members and at least one LOC Board member participating on the EUWG. All told, about 20 participants were on hand for each meeting, and thousands of volunteer hours supported the effort.

This was a noteworthy endeavor not only because of the resources DOE and numerous citizens poured into it, but also because the results provide an endpoint for cleanup of contaminated Reservation lands. Risk assessments for each area can now be targeted to its recommended end use. DOE can then determine the acceptable amount of residual contamination. Finally, a remediation technique can be chosen that is sufficient to meet the goal.

Believe it or not, this has not been easy before now. DOE has been forced to re-analyze the risk assessment for some of its most highly contaminated lands because of EPA concerns that these areas would eventually see residential and other unrestricted land uses. Now there is a clear path for each major parcel. The EUWG effort alone should save the DOE many millions of dollars and years of time.

The only missing link is EPA. Will it find the EUWG's work an acceptable outcome for the contaminated lands? EPA has shown a disturbing tendency to respond to the most extreme demands of activists instead of the more moderate and common-sense approaches that most citizens find satisfactory.

There is reason for hope. Unlike many other efforts, the EUWG included some of DOE's harshest local critics. They participated, side by side, with a diverse group of interested stakeholders. The recommendations were crafted with their input, and many of these individuals signed off on specific recommendations. Others proposed and signed minority opinions.

It is significant to note that not one of the minority opinions called for an end use less restrictive than the group recommendation. This should send a message to EPA that Oak Ridge stakeholders, including DOE's critics, acknowledge and accept that cleanup to background levels is not always necessary.

Now, can we get on with the work?

Toxic Substances Control Act:
A burning issue in Oak Ridge

by Susan Arnold Kaplan

The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has had a profound impact on Oak Ridge, with a major incinerator bearing its name. The incinerator came on line in 1987 at the K-25 Site, now known as East Tennessee Technology Park. The incinerator is unique in that not only can it

Resources

The Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submissions (TSCATS) database contains studies submitted by industry on chemical testing and adverse effects of chemicals on health and the environment. Full-text documents from TSCATS can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service at (800) 552-NTIS. The EPA/TSCA Hotline number is (202) 554-1404.

TSCA can be found in the United States Code, Title 15, Chapter 53, Subchapter I, Section 2601 through 2671 and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 700-799.

burn hazardous and radioactive wastes, but also classes of contaminants regulated under TSCA.

The incinerator has been attacked by a group of workers and nearby residents - sometimes referred to as "The Exposed" - who see the facility as a potential cause for their health problems.

The issue has been an emotional one both in Oak Ridge and in Nashville, where The Tennessean has covered these complaints extensively. The sensationalistic nature of this coverage itself became a highly charged issue.

What does TSCA do?

Congress enacted TSCA as catchall legislation to close loopholes in previous chemical laws, such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938 (FFDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Acts of 1947 (FIFRA). TSCA requires testing, regulation, and screening of all chemicals, whether they are produced in the United States or imported.

Anyone introducing, importing, or manufacturing a new chemical must notify the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Anyone who discovers that a chemical may pose a risk to human health or the environment must also notify the agency.

In addition, the law bans the manufacture and use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and regulates cleanup, disposal, and record-keeping for PCBs and asbestos.

A list of these substances is maintained in the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory, or TSCA Inventory, which was first published in 1979.

What doesn't it do?

There are a number of things not included in TSCA's definition of "chemical substances":

Pesticides as defined by the FIFRA;
Any source material, special nuclear material, or byproduct material as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954;
Any article whose sale is subject to the tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
Any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device as defined by the FFDCA.

In addition, the Act does not regulate tobacco, tobacco products, firearms, or ammunition; these are regulated by other laws.

How is TSCA enforced?

The sole authority for enforcing TSCA lies with the EPA, whose tools include injunctions, restraint orders, and forced inspections. The EPA can enforce civil administrative fines of up to $25,000 for each separate violation of the Act, with each day that a violation continues constituting a separate violation. Willful or knowing violators may be subject to criminal penalties of up to $25,000 a day for each violation and up to one year in prison. The penalty for incomplete or missing PCB Annual Reports is $10,000 per year.

TSCA does not prohibit the states from enacting their own legislation to regulate chemicals, but it does limit the states' power to test new chemicals that the EPA is testing for the same purpose. In addition, states are restricted in creating requirements that differ from those of the EPA concerning chemicals that are already regulated by the EPA.

(Susan Kaplan is a member of the Citizens' Advisory Panel)

Intersite Discussions

LOC Executive Director Susan Gawarecki and CAP members Susan Kaplan, Steve Kopp, Fay Martin and Roger Macklin attended workshops with DOE stakeholders from around the country to share opinions and educate one another. The Intersite Discussions on Nuclear Material and Waste were held in San Diego and Chicago. Four reports from the Oak Ridge contingent are presented here.

Susan Gawarecki
San Diego

As part of a very small Oak Ridge contingent, it fell to me to present the Oak Ridge stakeholder's perspective to the small groups. This meant five separate presentations. Consequently, I did not see most of the other sites' presentations. However, I did note a change in the nature of the conversation about risks presented by the various sites. Now, instead of Hanford being the site with most risk, Hanford and Oak Ridge are mentioned in the same breath.

This means Oak Ridge stakeholders are successfully getting the message across that we already have impacted groundwater, that contaminants from the Reservation discharge to major waterways, and there are potentially impacted populations downstream and downwind. Our 55 inches of annual rainfall, history of severe weather, and high water table are important points in the national debate about cleanup of DOE sites and disposition of radioactive wastes. Furthermore, these are the elements that must be stressed in order to ensure adequate funding to accomplish environmental management objectives on the Oak Ridge Reservation.

It also became apparent that DOE headquarters is unaware of many of the issues being dealt with at the sites. More problematic, is the disconnect between the field offices' and headquarter's statistics, especially regarding the quantities of existing and projected radioactive wastes and the budget figures. Successful public input at the local level must be matched with an effort to educate the political appointees at headquarters.

Steve Kopp
Chicago

The intersite discussions held in Chicago provided the stakeholders, DOE, and regulators at each site with a unique opportunity to have one-on-one dialogue with key DOE-HQ decision-makers and stakeholders and regulators at the other sites. As part of this process Suzy Riddle (DOE ORO), John Owsley (TDEC DOE-O), Bill Pardue (ORREMSSAB), Susan Kaplan (LOC/CAP), and Steve Kopp (LOC/CAP) participated in a series of presentations on the Oak Ridge Reservation to the other participants. The ultimate test of the value of this workshop will be the degree to which DOE uses input gained from the workshop in its decision-making process.

Susan Kaplan
Chicago

The need for Oak Ridge stakeholders to develop a relationship with DOE headquarters personnel became apparent. It was obvious that Hanford attendees took every opportunity to talk with DOE personnel at the conference. They also indicated they make numerous trips to Washington D.C. (approximately one per month so far this year).

Attendance at the workshops was helpful in transforming feelings of competition for funding with other DOE sites into compassion for them as individuals with problems. Instead of simply competing for funding, we need to work together to maintain funding for all sites, possibly through a national association of all DOE stakeholder groups (not just SSABs).

Interaction with Hanford attendees broadened my understanding and appreciation for the need to maintain representation in Congress for DOE sites (i.e. while closing DOE sites may save money, which may or may not be applied to further clean-up, it will decrease the number in Congress who will vote to fund clean-up activities).

The Lego exercise dramatically illustrated the impact of the "not-in-my-backyard" syndrome, and the discussions provided valuable insight on the tribes' perspectives and their interests and concerns.

Nevada's reluctance to take nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel seems to be real due to transportation concerns, in particular transporting radioactive materials via the two-lane road over the Hoover Dam and routing it through Las Vegas.

Roger Macklin
Chicago

The meeting was productive in terms of learning of the real situations at other DOE sites and "getting the word out" on some key issues at the Oak Ridge Reservation. We highlighted the highly unsuitable hydrogeology for any permanent repositories, Oak Ridge's having already served as a regional burial ground, the resultant historical and ongoing releases of hazardous and radioactive contamination into surface waters and groundwater, groundwater plumes currently extending off the reservation, and radioactive material buried a few inches deep in the sediments of the Clinch River and Watts Bar Lake. The local attendees who gave the Oak Ridge presentations to the rotating groups from other sites did a good job, and the chance to really hammer these points home came in the smaller discussion groups and impromptu meetings of stakeholders in the halls, in the elevators, and at meals in the cafeteria. (If you have the chance to attend a similar meeting, it is highly recommended that you stay/dine at the venue rather than separate hotels/restaurants.)

The "Lego exercise," a large map with colored blocks (representing amounts of various types of radioactive or mixed nuclear materials or waste at the different sites of the DOE complex), was instructive to some degree in attempting to formulate a plan for onsite treatment/storage/disposal vs. consolidation/transportation, etc. The exercise was somewhat restricted in its applicability due to the "rules of the game," one of which was that a single participant in a group could veto any decision or action, so that a substantial majority or "unanimous minus one" "consensus" could be blocked. In addition, DOE employees took part in these groups and had an equal voice/vote, so that in effect any resulting outcome was not a true reflection of stakeholder opinion to which DOE could listen, but more an exercise in demonstrating to the stakeholders the quandaries that DOE is facing (and perhaps even beyond that, insight into why DOE seems to get little or nothing accomplished in a timely manner).

Highlights from the discussion were that DOE needs to do more education of both stakeholders and the general public, but that the benefits of public input at all stages are very clear in improving DOE's "product" in terms of PEISs, EISs, RIs, Proposed Plans and RODs. One hopeful sign was the "learning curve" illustrated by the high school journalism students in attendance (some of whom were also at the San Diego workshop). Over the course of two to three days of discussions (mostly in the small groups) I feel they came to markedly greater understanding of the complexity and variety of issues involved, and that there are serious problems that will require some actions to be taken (rather than simply doing nothing).

For instance, one of the students from New Mexico started off with asking our "Lego" group to support positions of "no further research and development" and "no transportation of any material or waste." I feel I was effective in trying to educate and build consensus by asking questions to clarify/elucidate her concerns behind those positions. By the end of the discussion, although our group did not have time to agree on what to do with any particular material or waste type, we had reached agreement (unanimity required) to stop research on nuclear weapons, but support continued research and development on waste treatment and packaging. We also came to an understanding that the ultimate decisions need to be based on good science/information/risk assessment rather than simply politics, although the public having a voice was essential. I know she particularly came to understand that it was "common sense" to separately consolidate nuclear material such as highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium (where there are security implications) at sites which have worked with the particular material in question and have "expertise" in handling/working with that material and a certain level of community acceptance or "comfort" (for instance, consolidating plutonium at Oak Ridge would not be in line with this understanding, whereas consolidation of HEU at Oak Ridge would).

The Oak Ridge "delegation" had opportunities to begin discussions with some of the higher DOE officials (such as Jim Owendoff) who were present for only a short period. We need to initiate and support follow-up discussions with them in regard to the ORR environmental management budget needs and work more effectively with other Oak Ridge groups and individuals, as it became obvious that having a clear consensus position was very beneficial in getting DOE dollars and action. It was apparent that some other sites' delegations (Hanford's in particular) seem to have greater political "savvy" and we should learn from them (and talk/work with them where possible).

Based on my participation in the Chicago workshop, I would urge others to consider going to a similar meeting if they have the opportunity. I would also strongly support addition of one or more high school and/or college students to the Local Oversight Committee Citizens' Advisory Panel.

Summertime changes at the CAP

Susan Kaplan steps up

The CAP's new vice chair is Susan Kaplan. Susan replaces Gail Corbett, who resigned from the CAP earlier this year.

New members step in

The CAP welcomes new members Ken Greer and Ron Taylor.

Ken Greer has 16 years' experience as an Environmental Engineer, including work with EPA, DOE and Lockheed Martin. Most recently, he worked at ORNL and Y-12. He assisted in preparing most of the original closure plans for the S-3 ponds, the Bear Creek sites, the Chestnut Ridge site and SWSA 6, giving him an in-depth knowledge of the waste issues and groundwater movement issues for many areas at Y-12 and ORNL.

He also has three years' experience at the Rocky Flats Plant near Denver and about four years' experience at Y-12 and ORNL in low-level waste and transuranic waste certification issues, especially with regard to contamination by RCRA hazardous constituents resulting in mixed waste.

Ken also has a law degree and a second master's degree in environmental toxicology. For the past two years, he has worked in the area of intellectual property law, and he is certified to practice patent law. He is certified to practice law in Tennessee and South Carolina and before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

Ronald Taylor has been a resident of the Oak Ridge area for more than 50 years and has been very involved in community activities. He is past chairman of both the Oak Ridge and Appalachian chapters of the American Red Cross, past vice-chairman of the Oak Ridge Board of Education, past president of Camp Fire Boys and Girls of Tennessee, and past president of The Oak Ridge Jaycees. Ron is also an ordained Elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church of Oak Ridge.

He is retired from Lockheed Martin Energy Systems with more 30 years' experience in software development, analysis and management. He has held various technical and management positions at all three Oak Ridge DOE sites.

More recently, he was Deputy Product Manager for Lockheed Martin Support Services on the Navy's NSIPS software-development program in New Orleans. He has now returned to Oak Ridge in a consulting role.

Ron has a bachelor's degree in management from the University of Tennessee and a master's degree in management from the Army's Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He is also a graduate of the Air War College and has been honored at two Lockheed Martin Energy Systems Awards Nights.

Four CAP vets sit tight

Four CAP members have decided to stay on for another stint. Charlotte Robinson, Fay Martin, Ralph DePorter and Kenny Cook reapplied to the CAP and were accepted for a second term.

Two others bow out

The CAP bids farewell to Buck Hall and John Griess, who chose not to reapply. We thank them for their interest and participation and hope they will continue to be active in Oak Ridge issues.

Help TDEC look to the future

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation is preparing a four-year Strategic Plan. The Plan will provide a "road map" for TDEC's future and will apply to all of TDEC's areas: State Parks, Conservation and Environment. The Strategic Plan is to be completed by Jan. 1, 1999. There will be an opportunity for public comment on the draft report.

TDEC needs your help in identifying issues! An Issues Identification Survey is available for your use in submitting issues of concern. The survey form is on the TDEC Web site.

You can also get a hard copy of the survey by contacting the TDEC Planning Coordinator, Paul Evan Davis, at (615) 532-0072 or at the address below. Instructions and further information about the planning process are on the survey form itself. The deadline for submitting issues is Aug. 10. Completed issue surveys can be submitted by mail or fax. The mailing address is Planning Coordinator, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 401 Church Street, 20th Floor L & C Tower, Nashville, TN 37243-0454. The fax number is (615) 532-0740.

Issues submitted after the deadline will be retained for preparing or revising future plans.

Hot Flashes

Changes in the Board

Gerald Palau has resigned as Chair of the City of Oak Ridge Environmental Quality Advisory Board to free up time for other interests. His replacement, Ellen Smith, is now automatically a member of the LOC Board. We thank Gerry for all his hard work and insightful input.

LLW Listserver Information

The LOC invites you to join the DOE-LLW-Stakeholders listserver. If you have an interest in the problems of DOE low-level waste disposal and would like to try this new venue for stakeholder communication, please join us.

This is an unstructured effort; it will be successful only to the degree that "subscribers" send (and read) messages. This e-mail listserver is operated to promote informal communication primarily between DOE public stakeholders with a common interest in the DOE Low Level Waste Disposal Program.

The listserver was conceived at an informal meeting between several Nevada Test Site and Oak Ridge Reservation stakeholders. It is hoped that dialogue via the listserver will apply to a broader range of sites.

All stakeholders of DOE LLW sites are invited to participate, especially members of public participation groups. To get signed up, send us an e-mail and subscription information will be sent back electronically. There is no charge to participate.

Disconcerting findings from GAO

Two high-risk areas with respect to DOE management problems have been identified by the General Accounting Office.

The first is in contract management. DOE contracts out about 90 percent of its budget ($15 billion for fiscal 1999) but has a history of weak contractor oversight. These problems include making non-competitive contract awards the rule rather than the exception, reimbursement of virtually any cost to contractors and lax oversight of contractors. Reform efforts to date have failed.

The second area of concern is the Year 2000 problem. The GAO has found DOE among the federal agencies least prepared to handle this impending computer problem.

These and other serious concerns are summarized on Freedom Works: Home Page of the Office of the House Majority Leader.

UF6 hotline

For updates on information about uranium hexafluoride (UF6) issues, DOE has set up a toll free line at (800) 517-3191. Unfortunately, at press time, the recorded message was seriously out-of-date.

Alphabet Soup

(Initials and acronyms to make this newsletter and other DOE-related documents easier to read)

CAP = LOC Citizens' Advisory Panel
CROET = Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee
DOE = Department of Energy
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
EQAB = City of Oak Ridge Environmental Quality Advisory Board
EUWG = End Use Working Group
FFDCA = Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act
FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Acts
GAO = General Accounting Office
LLW = low-level waste
LOC = Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, Inc.
ORNL = Oak Ridge National Laboratory
ORR = Oak Ridge Reservation
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
RCERB = Roane County Environmental Review Board
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SSAB = Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board
SWSA = Solid Waste Storage Area
TDEC = Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
TRU = Transuranic
TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act
TSCATS = TSCA Test Submission

August 1998

End Use Working Group did its job and did it well

Toxic Substances Control Act: A burning issue in Oak Ridge

Resources