Sally O'Connor and Meredith Dudley
Center for Environmental Programs
Xavier University of Louisiana
New Orleans, LA
(504) 483-7506

The Savannah River Site (SRS) is one of several installations in the nuclear weapons complex that was built in the early 1950s to develop and produce nuclear weapons. Over the past five decades, the mission of SRS has shifted from production of plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons manufacture to cleanup of the installation. Its current cleanup mission necessitates that the use of the land be known in order to determine the degree to which cleanup should be conducted. Equitable decision-making regarding the future fate of the site and eventual level of environmental cleanup would greatly benefit from broad public input in order to capture the range of citizen concerns.

Xavier University's Consortium for Environmental Risk Evaluation (CERE) has engaged in several different efforts to capture broad public perspectives on future land use options for the Savannah River Site. One effort involved the collection, cataloging, and analysis of citizens' views expressed in over 400 documents published between 1989 and 1995. A second effort involved the gathering of data through focus groups conducted among populations surrounding the SRS facility. Focus group sessions were held in early 1995 using two complementary methodologies that targeted populations potentially disproportionately affected by SRS. Populations traditionally underrepresented in usual public participation activities at the site, including disadvantaged ethnic groups and the elderly, were also included. A third effort involved a telephone survey conducted in late 1996 of residents in the seven counties surrounding SRS. Specific opinions regarding future land use options were elicited among the over 600 survey respondents who represented a variety of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

This paper draws upon the results of these various studies to characterize how different groups perceive future use options for the Savannah River Site. By utilizing several methodologies to survey citizen views regarding the future of the site, the opinions and concerns of potentially underrepresented groups can be captured and considered in more equitable waste management decisions.

The Savannah River Site (SRS), formerly known as the Savannah River Plant, is one of several installations in the nuclear weapons complex that was built in the early 1950s to develop and produce nuclear weapons. Primary activities at the site included nuclear weapons production, plutonium and tritium processing, and chemical separations. For more than 40 years, SRS produced these nuclear materials in support of national defense programs (WSRC, 1995). The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, however, marked a transition in national security policies. The Department of Energy (DOE) responded to these changes by refocusing the mission of SRS, and other installations in the nuclear weapons complex, from nuclear weapons manufacture to site cleanup and environmental restoration (DOE, 1994; 1996a). Managing the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production is now a top priority for DOE and presents challenges that require unprecedented levels of openness and communication among all affected stakeholders (DOE, 1996b).

Environmental restoration activities generally involve the assessment and cleanup of inactive waste sites, decontamination and decommissioning of surplus facilities, and the containment or treatment of previous or potential future releases of environmental contaminants (DOE, 1996a, 1996b). In addition to providing technical challenges, many of these cleanup activities involve difficult questions that can only be addressed through broad public input. For example, how do we determine "how clean is clean enough?" The term "cleanup" is used by DOE to refer to activities which identify, analyze, treat, remove, store or otherwise manage contaminated materials resulting from site operations (DOE, 1994). This term does not, however, designate what "clean" means for any particular circumstance. With no universal guidelines or national standards, this decision depends on characteristics of the site, remediation costs, and projected future use of the land (DOE, 1996c).

Faced with the challenge of refocusing missions towards environmental restoration, the question of future land use has emerged as an important consideration for the DOE and site-specific installations. According to DOE, "much of the 3,000 square miles reserved for the nuclear weapons complex is not significantly contaminated and can be returned to some level of public, industrial, or commercial use," whereas other lands should only be released after significant remediation or usage constraints (DOE, 1996a: 89). Determinations of future land use have a significant impact on decisions regarding the remediation of contaminated properties and the disposition of hazardous wastes (DOE, 1996b). If the land needs to be sufficiently cleaned up for almost any purpose, including farming or residential use, a large amount of waste may be generated during remediation. On the other hand, significantly less waste would be produced if environmental restoration were directed at industrial development or mixed land use rather than a "green fields" scenario (DOE, 1996a). The amount of waste generated and requiring treatment or disposal during environmental restoration activities therefore depends largely on decisions about how the land should be safely used in the future.

Identifying appropriate future land uses for nuclear weapons complex installations will require extensive and equitable public participation, as articulated by President Clinton's National Performance Review and former Secretary O'Leary's Land and Facility Use Policy (DOE, 1996c). For the past few years, DOE's Environmental Management (EM) Program has been seeking stakeholder input into "the future direction of cleanup activities and future land use of surplus DOE sites" (DOE, 1994: 7). Land use considerations, in turn, provide a forum in which to bring together DOE and affected communities in the identification and implementation of mutually beneficial reuse of federal lands and facilities no longer dedicated to defense missions. Equitable decision-making regarding the eventual cleanup and environmental restoration of the Savannah River Site, and future use of the property, would greatly benefit from broad public input.

Xavier University's Consortium of Environmental Risk Evaluation (CERE) engaged in several different efforts to capture the range of citizen perspectives on future land use options for SRS. The first effort involved the document review component of CERE's Inventory of Public Concerns at the Savannah River Site (CERE, 1995). Documents containing public comments about DOE or SRS were retrieved from private citizens' collections, DOE public reading rooms, and public and university libraries. The purpose of the document review was to capture the views and concerns of citizens and groups who speak at public meetings and hearings or otherwise express their concerns in writing. Over 400 documents published between 1989, when DOE began to open up its records, and 1995 were collected, abstracted, and entered into a database using a standardized format. Relevant comments were indexed according to document type, topic, and stakeholder category (when known). Future land use was one of the topic categories designated for analysis, and individual comments were coded into eight separate subcategories: archeological site, cleanup level, economic development, facility transition, permit, public involvement, Tribal land right, and other concerns. The source, or stakeholder affiliation, of each comment was also designated where evident. This paper reports the number of documented concerns expressed about future land use, the most salient concern categories which emerged, and the stakeholder groups which most frequently expressed these concerns.

To explore more fully the range of citizen concerns, focus group sessions were conducted as a part of CERE's Inventory of Public Concerns in early 1995 using two complementary methodologies. The first type of focus group targeted populations potentially disproportionately affected by SRS, including downwind or downgradient populations, as well as populations traditionally underrepresented in public participation activities at the site. These populations include African-Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and the elderly. Another type of focus group was conducted with regulators, site workers, environmental activists, local government officials, and emergency responders who had more extensive knowledge about the site. Focus group discussions were transcribed and coded according to the topic category of each comment. Statements addressing future land use concerns were then summarized for each stakeholder category represented in the focus groups (CERE, 1995). Highlights from this analysis are briefly presented.

A third CERE effort involved a telephone survey of residents in the seven counties surrounding SRS: Barnwell (SC), Allendale (SC), Burke (GA), Richmond (GA), Screvern (GA), Bamberg (SC), and Aiken (SC). Disadvantaged and ethnic communities within these selected counties were targeted using a directory-listed random sample. Telephone interviews were conduced between August and September 1996 by a team of students at Savannah State University's Survey Research Center. A total of 602 interviews were completed at a refusal ratio of 4:1. The survey instrument consisted of twenty questions structured in a standard multiple-choice format and was based on the previous focus group study. The question chosen for analysis in this paper asked what respondents would like to see the land from SRS used for when it is returned to the community. The following options were offered: (1) farming/agricultural use, (2) industrial use, (3) residential use, (4) commercial/retail use, or (5) other. Respondents who chose "other," were asked to specify their future land use preference. Individual responses were coded into nine additional categories: park/recreational use, natural habitat/national forest land, research and development, historical site/educational use, isolated/left alone, remain open/stay as SRS, economic/job opportunities, uncertain, or miscellaneous use. Responses were analyzed by ethnicity, gender, length of residence, education, occupation, age and income to determine the effect of socio-demographic variables on future land use preferences.

Document Review. There were 187 comments concerning future land use in the 409 documents collected and abstracted during the document review. The majority of expressed concerns were regarding facility transition (33.2%, N=62), followed by cleanup level (26.7%, N=50) and public involvement in the decision making process (20.3%, N=38). Fewer comments were expressed concerning economic development (7.5%, N=14), land use or facility permitting (2.1%, N=4) or tribal land rights (1.6%, N=3). Only one comment was recorded regarding the impact of future land use decisions on the archeological importance of the site.

The source of each comment or stakeholder affiliation of the person(s) making the comment was also entered into the database. Potential affiliations were grouped into 22 categories and assigned source ID codes (Table I). Multiple affiliations (i.e. local resident and environmental group) were recorded for each commentor where appropriate. Individuals affiliated with environmental groups accounted for the majority of comments concerning future land use (16.9%, N=67), followed by individuals affiliated with the government (14.1%, N=56). Future land use comments represented a wide range of affiliations, however, indicating that this issue is a broad based rather than stakeholder specific concern.

Comments were split between individuals who supported a continued role for SRS within the nuclear weapons complex, particularly the consolidation of tritium handling operations at the site, and citizens who felt that production of nuclear weapons materials must cease before cleanup can begin in earnest. One citizen stated that "it is time that DOE come forth and accept full responsibility for the numerous safety and environmental hazards posed by SRS." Other citizens felt that such cleanup and environmental restoration efforts would provide necessary jobs and economic opportunity. However, skepticism about DOE's commitment to meet environmental obligations, and concern about funding priorities, was also expressed.

Many individuals expressed concern that the site would become a permanent dumping ground, resulting in additional public and environmental risk. The importance of educating citizens about risks involved in various future use scenarios, and the need to actively involve the public in the planning process also emerged as important themes. One member of DOE's Future Use Subcommittee commented that "overlooked groups and communities must be involved in future use planning." The need to address environmental justice issues was likewise mirrored by several commentors. One local educator claimed that "we have been the brunt of the smoke stacks, the radioactive waste, all of these destructive and deadly killers. We want SRS restored to its original habitat with animals." Other suggestions for future land use included parks, alternative energy generation, or research and development facilities.

Focus Groups. Participants in both types of focus groups expressed a variety of opinions and concerns about the future use of SRS. Government officials suggested that the site should host a civilian nuclear reactor or that land use should diversify in the future. Members of the regulators group stressed that future land uses need to be negotiated with the public, who, in turn, need to become more educated about associated risks and opportunities. Environmental group participants feared that new missions for the site would undermine cleanup efforts. Other participants were more optimistic that the site would be cleaned up. Participants who lived close to the site expressed concern about increased health risks if the area was developed. One participant suggested that national forest lands should expand in the area.

African American participants were extremely concerned about contamination and suggested focusing on cleanup activities. Aware of past environmental racism, African American participants were also adamant about not wanting SRS to become a dumping ground or waste storage facility. Participants from the Santee Tribe were more divided over whether the site should stay open or whether production of nuclear weapons materials should move out of state. Many members of the senior citizens and downwind group also supported keeping the site open unconditionally, primarily for economic reasons. The majority of individuals from other groups suggested, however, that the site only remain open under certain conditions, such as the termination of weapons production. Although concerned about the economic viability of the area, most participants felt strongly that the area should be cleaned up in the future. No participant discussed residential use of the site.

Survey. Future land use concerns were elicited in the portion of CERE's "public concerns" survey that concentrated on perceptions about the local Savannah River Site. The first question in this section examined levels of knowledge about the DOE, including activities at SRS. Respondents who claimed to know "nothing" about DOE and SRS were not asked remaining questions about the site, including preferences for the future use of its lands. Due to the high percentage of individuals (55%) who claimed no knowledge about the site, future land use preferences are missing for over half (60.4%) of the original respondent pool, leaving 238 individuals who responded to this question.

Fig. 1. Preferences for Future Land Use at Savannah River Site.

Of the future land use categories offered for selection, the greatest number of respondents preferred industrial use (25.6%, N=61), followed closely by farming/agricultural use (23.5%, N=56) (Figure 1). Relatively few individuals selected commercial/retail use (13.0%, N=31) or residential use (8.0%, N=19). Most respondents, however, specified other land use options (29.8%, N=71) rather than select from the given categories. The 71 specified responses for "other" future land uses were coded into nine additional categories (Figure 2). Of the individuals who volunteered other land use options, the greatest number designated park land/recreational use of the property (7.6%, N=18), or alternatively recommended that the site be isolated from contact and left alone (7.6%, N=18). Preference was also expressed that the site be allowed to return to natural habitat or be used as National Forest land (5.0%, N=12). Other respondents remained uncertain (2.9%, N=7) or stated miscellaneous uses (2.9%, N=7), such as parking lots, prisons, or bathroom facilities. Several individuals also volunteered historical/educational use (1.3%, N=3), research and development (0.8%, N=2), economic/job opportunities (0.8%, N=2) or favored that the site remain open and stay as the SRS (0.8%, N=2). A significant finding may be that no respondent volunteered using the land as a waste repository or landfill.

It was hypothesized that future land use preferences would be affected by various socio-demographic factors such as ethnicity, gender, length of residence, education, occupation, age, and income. Preference for future land use options was, in fact, significantly (C ² =31.07, df=16, p<.05) predicted by ethnic affiliation (Table II). A breakdown of future land use preferences by ethnic group allows for more in depth analysis of results.

The greatest number of Native American respondents (35.0%, N=7) designated agricultural use, followed by industrial use (25.0%, N=5) when the land from SRS is returned to the community. Commercial/retail use and "other" land use options enjoyed equal preference among Native American respondents (15.0%, N=3), who specified park/recreational use, natural habitat, or isolation of the site (Table III).

Agricultural use tied with commercial/retail use as the future use category most likely to be chosen by African American respondents (24.1%, N=13). African American respondents were also fairly divided in their selection of industrial (18.5%, N=10), residential (16.7%, N=9) or "other" (16.7%, N=9) future land use options. Almost half of the respondents who specified options volunteered that the site be isolated or left alone (7.4%, N=4) (Table IV). The remaining individuals were uncertain (3.7%, N=2) or preferred that the land be used for natural habitat (3.7%, N=2) or park/recreational use (1.9%, N=1).

Asian (28.6%, N=6), White (36.2%, N=47), and Hispanic (46.2%, N=6) respondents were more likely to specify "other" future land options for SRS rather than choose from the given categories. Half of the Asian respondents who volunteered land uses suggested that the site be isolated or left alone (14.3%, N=3) (Table V). Other responses included miscellaneous use (9.5%, N=2), or both farming and industrial options (4.8%, N=1). Of the respondents who selected from given categories, Asian Americans were more likely to favor industrial (23.8%, N=5) and farming/agricultural use (23.8%, N=5), rather than residential (14.3%, N=3) or commercial use (9.5%, N=2).

Almost half of the Hispanic respondents (46.2%, N=6) specified "other" land use options, particularly park/recreational use (15.4%, N=2) or natural habitat (15.4%, N=2) (Table VI). Miscellaneous use (7.7%, N=1) or isolation of the installation (7.7%, N=1) were also suggested. Of the Hispanic respondents who chose from the designated future land use categories, commercial/retail use (23.1%, N=3) and industrial use (23.1%, N=3) were equally favored. Only one individual preferred agricultural use (7.7%, N=1), and no Hispanic respondent selected residential use.

Park/recreational use was the specified "other" future land use most often volunteered by White respondents (10.0%, N=13), followed by isolation of the site (6.9%, N=9) or natural habitat (5.4%, N=7) (Table VII). Many additional categories of future land use were also volunteered by White respondents, including miscellaneous use (3.1%, N=4), historical site/educational use (2.3%, N=3), remain open/stay as the SRS (1.5%, N=2), economic/job opportunities (1.5%, N=2), research and development (0.8%, N=1), and both farming and industrial use (0.8%, N=1). Of the designated future land use categories, White respondents were most likely to favor industrial use (29.2%, N=38), followed by agricultural use (23.1%, N=30). Very little support was given for future commercial/retail (7.7%, N=10) or residential (3.8%, N=5) use of SRS lands.

Gender was also significantly correlated with preferences for future land use of the SRS (C ²=10.93, df=4, p<.05). Men were most likely to volunteer "other" land use options (35.8%, N=34), followed by agricultural use (30.5%, N=29) and then industrial use (18.9%, N=18) of the land (Table VIII). "Other" land use options most often specified by men included park/recreational use (14.7%, N=14), natural habitat (6.3%, N=6), or isolating the site (4.2%, N=4). Women were most likely to choose industrial (30.0%, N=42) followed by specified "other" land use options (27.1%, N=38), and then agricultural use (18.6%, N=26) of the land. The top future land use options volunteered by women included isolating the site (10.0%, N=14) or using the site for natural habitat (3.6%, N=5).

Future land use preferences were significantly correlated with length of residence (C ²=21.55, df=12, p<.05). Recent residents of less than a year were most likely to prefer agricultural use (44.4%, N=4), whereas residents of one to ten years were more likely to prefer industrial use of SRS lands (32.8%, N=21) (Table IX). Respondents who had lived in the area for more than ten years were, however, most likely to specify "other" land use options (34.1%, N=57), followed by industrial use (24.6%, N=41). Land use options most often volunteered by residents of more than ten years included park/recreational use (8.4%, N=14), isolation (7.2%, N=12), or miscellaneous use (6.0%, N=10).

Table IX. Preferences for Future Land Use by Length of Residence
(C ²=21.55, df=12, p<.05)

Preferences for future land use options were also significantly correlated with education (C ²=41.55, df=20, p<.01). Respondents with less than a high school degree were most likely to favor agricultural use (66.7%, N=10), whereas respondents who had graduated high school were more likely to prefer industrial use of SRS lands (35.2%, N=19) (Table X). Respondents with at least some college education were, however, more likely to specify "other" land use options (35.2%, N=60), followed by industrial use (24.0%, N=41). Future land uses most often volunteered by higher educated individuals (at least some college) included park/recreational use (8.2%, N=14), natural habitat (6.4%, N=11), or isolating the site and leaving the land alone (8.8%, N=15). Occupation, age, and income were not significantly (p>.05) associated with preferences for future use of the SRS, neither was knowledge about the site.

Constructed in the 1950s to produce plutonium and tritium for the nation's nuclear weapons buildup, the SRS changed its mission to environmental cleanup at the end of the Cold War. The installation continues to process tritium with one of five reactors on active standby and remains the biggest employer in the state of South Carolina. In addition, SRS is used as a storage and disposal facility for all types of waste from past and current activities. In its Strategic Plan of 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledged that while most of the other installations in the complex will undergo major, and perhaps complete, cleanup, overall cleanup at SRS will not be achieved. To achieve effective cleanup, SRS must continue not only to seek more public participation but to engage the various publics in the debate on what to do with the present land and facilities at the site.

Based on comments that appeared in the document review, future land use concerns are of extreme relevance to local citizens. The 187 comments regarding future use of the SRS make a significant contribution to the inventory of public concerns, especially since these concerns were freely volunteered. Decisions regarding future use of the site are complicated by the public debate over whether the installation should remain an active component of the nuclear weapons complex. Citizens are extremely divided as to whether production should continue or whether production should cease in order to focus on environmental cleanup activities. Many citizens also expressed a strong desire to become more informed about risks involved in different future use options and wanted to become more actively involved in the decision making process.

Our study also demonstrated that a proactive approach to reach potentially disproportionately affected or underrepresented citizens could be achieved. Focus groups can be effectively utilized as a methodology to capture a broad range of citizen concerns. Discussions about future use options did in fact inspire a diverse array of views and concerns. Underlying all of these was an expressed desire for more information in order to understand the implications of different options. Citizens on the whole were also quite concerned about not wanting SRS to become a dumping ground for the nation, with African Americans being the most adamant about this concern.

In addition to capturing citizen views concerning future land use, survey findings also demonstrated an alarming lack of information about SRS. Over half of the original respondents claimed to know nothing about the site. Sociodemographic variables such as ethnicity, gender, length of residence, and education proved to be significant predictors of future land use preferences; although industrial or agricultural uses of the property were, in general, preferred out of the given options. Another important finding was the large number of respondents who designated "other" land use preferences. The most frequently volunteered options included either leaving the site alone, or utilizing the land for park/recreational use or natural habitat. Since all of these options require very different cleanup efforts, the public needs to become more informed about the environmental remediation and waste management scenarios each of these options entails.

While most citizens are in favor of "cleaning up" SRS, the term cleanup can be misleading in that greater cleanup efforts often involve the generation of massive amounts of waste, which need to be properly treated or disposed of. Citizens need to be informed about the waste management scenarios associated with different cleanup efforts as these relate to future land use options. Only through a broad and informed public debate can difficult decisions facing the future of the site be addressed.

1. WSRC, "Savannah River Site Report for 1994: Summary Pamphlet," Aiken, S.C.: Westinghouse Savannah River Company (1994).
2. DOE, "Committed to Results: DOE's Environmental Management Program," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1994).
3. DOE, "Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the Department of Energy is Doing About It," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996a).
4. DOE, "Taking Stock: A Look at the Opportunities and Challenges Posed by Inventories from the Cold War Era," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996b).
5. DOE, "Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the Department of Energy is Doing About It," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996a).
6. DOE, "Taking Stock: A Look at the Opportunities and Challenges Posed by Inventories from the Cold War Era," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996b).
7. DOE, "Committed to Results: DOE's Environmental Management Program," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1994).
8. DOE, "Charting the Course: The Future Use Report," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996c).
9. DOE, "Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the Department of Energy is Doing About It," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996a).
10. DOE, "Taking Stock: A Look at the Opportunities and Challenges Posed by Inventories from the Cold War Era," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996b).
11. DOE. "Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the Department of Energy is Doing About It," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996a).
12. DOE. "Charting the Course: The Future Use Report," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1996c).
13. DOE, "Committed to Results: DOE's Environmental Management Program," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1994).
14. CERE, "Inventory of Public Concerns at the Savannah River Site," Volume VI, CERE Public Concerns Report. New Orleans: Xavier University of Louisiana (1995).
15. CERE, "Inventory of Public Concerns at the Savannah River Site," Volume VI, CERE Public Concerns Report. New Orleans: Xavier University of Louisiana (1995).

BACK