The DOE asked the EUWG to develop:

• recommendations for end uses of contaminated areas on the Oak Ridge Reservation; and
• community values that could be used to guide DOE’s remedial action decision-making process.

These end use recommendations will help DOE identify objectives for remediation. However, if remediated land is released from DOE ownership, uses for that land will be determined by local government planning commissions and landowner decisions, within relevant deed and zoning restrictions.

The EUWG process preceded CERCLA cleanup decisions for the watersheds, with the result that the EUWG’s end use recommendations and Community Guidelines will be factored into overall remediation planning. The EUWG did not replace existing public involvement opportunities, nor did it make recommendations on specific remediation levels or technologies. As additional data are generated during the CERCLA process, the context of end use recommendations could change. Recognizing this possibility, each EUWG recommendation contains the statement that "if DOE cannot meet the EUWG recommendations, then exceptions must be discussed in a public forum as part of the decision-making process."

As EUWG deliberations progressed, it became apparent that additional issues related to end use recommendations needed to be evaluated:

• the relationship of the use of contaminated groundwater and surface water to recommended end uses for contaminated areas;
• the need for a long-term stewardship program to protect human health and the environment when an end use recommendation results in residual contamination; and
• the need for an on-site waste disposal facility somewhere on the Oak Ridge Reservation.

Approximately 20 EUWG members met almost every two weeks from February 1997 through June 1998. In addition, a volunteer steering committee of four to six members met before and after each meeting to help direct the content, scope, and format of information and presentations for each meeting.

EUWG membership was diverse and included members from most area stakeholder organizations, including the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, both the Citizens’ Advisory Panel and the Board of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, the Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental Management Site Specific Advisory Board, Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Environmental Quality Advisory Board, League of Women Voters, and Coalition For a Healthy Environment. Oak Ridge City government also participated through members of the Oak Ridge City Council and the Oak Ridge Regional Planning Commission. Participation by individuals with different perspectives enhanced the quality of discussions and the development and evaluation of alternative end uses for contaminated areas within each watershed. Appendix A contains a list and brief background of individuals who participated in the EUWG.

Oak Ridge citizens and area stakeholders have a deserved reputation for involvement in local issues. This long-standing community activism was evident within the EUWG. Most members regularly participated in meetings, and several thousand hours of volunteer time were devoted to a quality process and outcome.

Membership was open to all stakeholders interested in the future of the Oak Ridge Reservation, and visitors regularly attended and contributed to discussions. Steering committee meetings were also open to anyone who wished to attend. No formalized registration procedures or prerequisites for membership existed. The EUWG asked only that its members attend and actively participate in meetings. Meetings were videotaped for airing on public access television; these videos also provided members who were absent from meetings the opportunity to review the Group’s activities.

Open membership allowed individuals to join the EUWG at any time. Throughout the process, participation was strongly encouraged through mailings, newspaper ads, and personal contacts. Members were also free to attend only those meetings that related to recommendations that were most important to them. Schedules were advertised in advance so that individuals could track the EUWG progress and identify when specific sites and issues would be discussed.

Most of the original EUWG members participated throughout the process, but the open process did result in changing membership. However, the consistent format of information and discussions, easy access to past meeting information, and focused scope enabled the Group to make continuous progress without much need for revisiting issues.

The EUWG formed committees on an ad hoc basis to examine two issues important to the end use process. The first was the Community Guidelines committee, followed by the Stewardship Committee, which was a joint effort with the Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The committees’ progress was regularly communicated to the full EUWG during its general meetings.

EUWG members strove to understand the key information needed to make end use decisions for each watershed. It is important to remember that the scope and timing of the end use process precedes the remedy selection process. Thus, detailed Remedial Investigation information was not yet available for all watersheds. However, the level of written information, coupled with the participation of technical experts responsible for each watershed, was considered by most members to be adequate to make end use recommendations. The EUWG presentations, information and discussion included:

• historic uses of sites and waste disposal practices,
• nature and extent of the contamination,
• current risks to human health and the environment,
• future land use projections,
• geology and hydrology of the area,
• potential remediation risks and costs,
• the practicality of achieving different end uses,
• likely near-term uses of sites,
• environmental justice and inter-site equity, and
• long-term stewardship.

The EUWG and its support staff worked to ensure that members reached a common level of understanding on issues before discussions ended or recommendations were drafted. Tours and numerous informational sessions were held for each watershed. Experts worked with the Steering Committee to develop charts, diagrams, graphs and document summaries that presented complex, abstract, and often confusing technical data in a form understandable to the layperson. These materials were assembled into reference notebooks that served as background for understanding and discussing crucial issues. These materials will be retained as a record of the process. (See Appendix B for examples of a few of these materials.) The EUWG also sponsored programs for learning about broader issues, such as a half-day workshop on nuclear criticality concepts.

Another strength of the EUWG was the use of an independent technical facilitator experienced in public participation, future use planning, and the technical aspects of remediation. He worked closely with the EUWG to encourage involvement while maintaining the Group’s focus, and ensured that all sides of an issue were explored and all relevant information evaluated before recommendations were drafted. He was selected by of the Site Specific Advisory Board to facilitate the EUWG because of his background as an environmental engineer and his experience in successfully guiding stakeholder groups through similar processes.

The EUWG members were urged to discuss information openly. Members were free to request additional information or discuss problems with the available experts. While most members were satisfied with the level of information presented by DOE and its contractors, some members were not. It was a constant challenge to decide how much information was needed to make end use recommendations within the time constraints of the Group. (See Appendix C for a list of meetings and topics addressed.)

Recommendations were developed only after all information was presented. Draft recommendations were developed based on the key issues identified by the Group and then debated and amended until key issues were addressed and general agreement was reached. Then, recommendations were finalized and signed by those members who chose to support a recommendation; no formal votes were taken. (Signed recommendations are in Section 4.)

Toward the end of the process, several members felt there were some outstanding issues to be addressed. The Group asked its members to submit such issues, and two members submitted a total of 25 issues. A survey of then-current members was taken of the importance of these issues to completing the end use process. Survey results showed that, while some issues were considered generally important, their resolution was not believed to be necessary to complete the end use process. The EUWG forwarded these issues to DOE requesting appropriate action. (See
Appendix D.)

A hierarchy of end uses was developed to illustrate how increasingly stringent cleanup levels allow for less restrictive end uses. Table 3.1 identifies the end use categories and the criteria used by the EUWG in evaluating contaminated areas on the Reservation and making end use recommendations. Each land use alternative has its own unique set of criteria which describe how the land and water are expected to be used following remediation. For example, each category has an allowable excavation depth. These excavation depths were considered typical for the given end use and were used to determine relative volumes of wastes and associated costs for end use discussions. However, the criteria and resulting estimates were in no way intended to represent legal or other requirements, or the actual remedial alternatives that will be developed for sites. The EUWG recognizes that environmental laws and regulations ultimately determine the remedia! l actions that occur on the Reservation. Thus, actual remediation will be based on more detailed information, analysis, and design than this simple end use scheme developed by the EUWG.

The EUWG received administrative, technical, and financial support from DOE Oak Ridge Offices Environmental Management Program and its contractors. DOE’s watershed team leaders were involved throughout the EUWG process and made themselves available to provide information about their watersheds. They participated in the preparation and presentation of data and worked to understand the impact of the EUWG recommendations on their watersheds. Countless hours were provided by DOE and its contractors responding to information requests. The DOE senior management provided continuous support and participated in most meetings. The DOE is committed to using the EUWG recommendations in its decision-making process for remediation of contaminated areas on the Reservation.

The EUWG members met with EPA Region 4 and TDEC DOE-O to ensure that EUWG activities were serving the regulators’ environmental decision-making expectations. In addition, TDEC DOE-O staff attended almost every meeting, and EPA staff attended meetings in the early months of the process. The EUWG also held a meeting with Justin Wilson, Deputy to the Governor for Policy, to discuss the State’s position on long-term waste disposal and stewardship.

EUWG members met with the following stakeholders and local government groups interested in remediation of the Reservation to discuss the EUWG process and its results:

• Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental Management Site Specific Advisory Board (ORREMSSAB),
• Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee (LOC),
• Citizens’ Advisory Panel of the LOC,
• Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
• League of Women Voters of Oak Ridge,
• Oak Ridge City Council,
• Oak Ridge Regional Planning Commission and Community Development staff,
• Oak Ridge Environmental Quality Advisory Board,
• Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce,
• Roane-Anderson Professional Society, and
• Oak Ridge High School Advanced Placement Environmental Sciences class.

Of these, the first four groups subsequently endorsed most or all EUWG recommendations and Community Guidelines (see Appendix E for examples). In the case of ORREMSSAB, EUWG recommendations were reformatted and modified slightly in some cases before being formally presented to the DOE.