Earle C. Dixon
Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies

Kevin J. Rohrer
U.S. Department of Energy

In June of 1996 the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) proposed a strategy to accelerate cleanup at DOE weapons sites in a ten year period (1996-2006). The initial guidance to DOE field offices in preparation of the Ten Year Plan was to implement the vision in collaboration with local regulators and stakeholders. Subsequently, the DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) developed and executed a stakeholder involvement plan that emphasized interaction with the Nevada Test Site (NTS) Community Advisory Board (CAB) as the lead stakeholder group to help comment and provide input on the NTS draft plan. Despite changing guidance and deadlines on the site draft plan, the DOE/NV office kept stakeholders informed of their plan by involvement opportunities through workshops and NTS CAB subcommittee meetings.

A total of six stakeholder workshops were conducted over a 13 month period. Regular briefings on the status of the local and national Ten Year Plan (later renamed Accelerating Cleanup: Focus On 2006) were given at the NTS CAB monthly meetings. Workshops I, II, and III addressed the assumptions DOE/NV proposed to use in the development of their site draft plan. Workshop IV was held to solicit further comments to the DOE/NV draft plan, and to explain to stakeholders the changing guidance from Headquarters. During Workshop V the long list of issues was discussed and reduced into a short list of six issues requiring an Action Plan for resolution. Workshop VI was held to address final stakeholder comments on the local DOE/NV and the National Discussion Draft Plan just prior to a meeting with then Assistant Secretary of Energy Alvin Alm.

The DOE/NV recognized early stakeholder involvement through workshops was essential for the public to feel it had some measure of ownership in the Site Discussion Draft plan. The CAB helped to take the lead on the development of budget priorities and refinement of issues for Action Plans with Nevada stakeholders. This paper will describe the approach and results of the workshops and how schedule changes were used to maximize stakeholder interactions. Although the Focus On 2006 public involvement strategy varied between sites, the strategy and experiences at the NTS were generally positive and could be used as a model for other initiatives requiring stakeholder input on EM activities.

In July of 1996, Assistant Secretary Al Alm presented a vision for cleaning up the DOE weapons complex by the year 2006. The 2006 Plan is a visionary plan which describes how DOE will accelerate the cleanup of Environmental Management (EM) sites which in turn, would reduce the life-cycle costs of programs, and still maintain regulatory compliance. Mr. Alm noted that while significant progress had been made, he was concerned that Congress, the President, and the public would not support an EM program that stretched 70 years and cost over $200 billion to complete. The DOE EM program initiated an ambitious, new strategic planning process called the Ten Year Plan to implement the vision.

Each DOE site was assigned the task of developing a 2006 Site Plan that would guide strategic thinking, decision making, and performance measures. The 2006 Site Plan would look for ways to reduce risk and cost, optimize regulator flexibility, use innovative technology to improve performance, and maximize privatization. Recognition and incorporation of stakeholder values was an essential component of the national and site plan development. Initially, DOE Headquarters (HQ)set a deadline of having draft Site Plans due from each site in the fall of 1996. However, as the planning process evolved DOE realized more time was needed to maximize stakeholder participation and the final draft deadline was first extended into 1997 and subsequently 1998. The Plan was officially named Accelerating Cleanup: Focus On 2006 to focus on the end point goal for most sites while acknowledging that cleanup will continue at many sites after 2006.

The DOE Environmental Management public participation strategy in Nevada focuses on three levels of public interaction: awareness, information sharing, and involvement. Awareness is accomplished through press releases, mailings, and putting information in the public reading room. For those wishing to be more informed, additional information is available through a Speakers Bureau, exhibits, educational activities, and public meetings. Stakeholders wanting to be involved, may participate more actively in workshops, the Site Technology Coordination Working Group, Transportation Working Group, and the Community Advisory Board.

In order to meet the initial fall 1996 deadline for the draft 2006 Site Plan, the DOE/NV chose to emphasize the NTS Community Advisory Board as its lead public participation program for stakeholder involvement in the 2006 Plan, with additional emphasis on public meetings and workshops. The NTS CAB is part of the EM Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) program in existence at approximately 12 DOE field sites. The SSAB program is an effort supported by the DOE to provide a regular public participation mechanism at EM field sites undergoing some phase of environmental remediation. Representation of stakeholders on a site board provides a broad spectrum of interested public, and it is not intended to represent all possible groups of citizens at or impacted by a DOE facility. The general public is invited to attend and participate at the monthly meetings and subcommittee meetings. An SSAB site board is typically comprised of 20 volunteer men and women members generally representing many of the following types of groups: site worker; scientist; educator; business person; landowner; environmentalist; health care provider; resident; retiree; minority; Native American; local government, state regulator; and DOE program manager.

The NTS CAB was established in 1994 as a mechanism for public involvement in EM activities. Membership on the CAB is broadly representative of stakeholder groups in the southern Nevada community, however, participation from two local Native American tribes (Western Shoshone and Southern Paiute) has been irregular due to unfilled vacancies on the board for these two stakeholders. Despite efforts of the NTS CAB to draw Native American membership to the board, members of the Southern Paiute and Western Shoshone people periodically attend monthly meetings and provide comment on their issues of concern. These comments are usually general in nature and have not related to the specific development of the 2006 Plan.

The DOE/NV created a draft stakeholder involvement plan outlining the various opportunities for public participation in the development of the DOE/NV draft Focus On 2006 Plan by the Fall 1996 deadline. The initial stakeholder involvement plan included: two public workshops; briefings at the NTS CAB monthly meetings; workshop announcements and news releases in local newspapers; and distribution of information through the CAB mailing list of over 400 stakeholders. By the time the 2006 Plan process had evolved over a period of 13 months in 1996-97, the DOE/NV public participation activities included six stakeholder workshops, briefings and presentations at 13 NTS CAB monthly meetings, six CAB subcommittee meetings, and two local stakeholder meetings with Al Alm. All activities were conducted in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The NTS CAB monthly meetings offered a convenient, regular opportunity to announce workshops and update the public on the progress of the Focus On 2006 Plan. The CAB mailing list was utilized to inform interested public of the Plan and to invite their participation in workshops. Various subcommittees of the NTS CAB offered the DOE/NV a reliable mechanism to maintain public participation on budget planning, Action Plan development, and comments on the Final Discussion Draft in a world of changing Headquarters guidance and shifting deadlines.

During the months of July 1996 to January 1997, the DOE/NV conducted five stakeholder workshops to obtain input on the development of the draft site 2006 Plan for the NTS. Generally, the workshop date and location was announced at the preceding NTS CAB monthly meeting, and invitations to attend the workshop were sent out to the mailing list and advertised in the local newspapers. The sixth and final workshop was conducted in the afternoon prior to the evening meeting with Al Alm to review the Discussion Draft for the NTS one last time, and to help define focus points of discussion for the Assistant Secretary. The CAB would play a key role in assimilating the various stakeholder issues, presenting them to the Assistant Secretary, and leading discussions.

Announcements at the NTS CAB July 1996 monthly meeting, advertisements in local papers, and distribution to an enhanced CAB mailing list set the first Focus On 2006 Stakeholder Workshop for July 18, 1996. Since DOE/NV was uncertain of the level of interest by the public, interested stakeholders were asked to notify DOE of their intent to participate in Workshop I. Advance notification served two purposes: 1) it gave DOE/NV an indication of the number of expected participants for meeting room size and agenda facilitation planning, and, 2) and it provided an opportunity to allow those stakeholders unable to attend the workshop to have their name added to or kept on the mailing list for future activities and information regarding the Focus On 2006 Plan development. Stakeholder Workshop I helped set the basic format for the subsequent workshops that could be adjusted to meet stakeholder needs and changing DOE/HQ guidance and deadlines.

Discussion of major planning assumptions at Workshop I was essential in order for stakeholders to understand the Focus On 2006 strategy early on in the process, and for DOE/NV to have a foundation upon which to develop the Draft Plan (Version 1) with stakeholder input. About 20 stakeholders participated in Workshop I, although many others asked for their names to be added to the mailing list for information purposes. The DOE/NV utilized stakeholder comments from Workshop I to revise and create the Site Interim Draft Focus On 2006 Plan. Members of the CAB participating in this workshop were instrumental in providing specific comments based on their prior program knowledge. Comments from the public tended to be more general and less focused on the task at hand. The revised Interim Draft Plan was distributed to DOE/HQ on July 31, 1996 and to the stakeholder mailing list on August 1, 1996.

Following a briefing on the status of the Focus On 2006 Draft for the NTS at the NTS CAB August 7, 1996 monthly meeting, Workshop II was conducted on August 21, 1996. Workshop II was an improvement over Workshop I because two facilitators were utilized to break out the stakeholders in two groups according to the primary Environmental Management programs of environmental restoration (ER) and waste management (WM). Each planning assumption in the Draft Plan for ER and WM was addressed individually in a facilitated fashion with stakeholders. Each stakeholder comment was noted by transcribers and made part of the public record for Workshop II. The two breakout groups reconvened and discussed their results. Copies of the different planning assumptions and resulting comments were made and distributed to all active workshop participants and the stakeholder mailing list.

Workshop II also served to prepare Nevada stakeholders for a visit to Las Vegas by Assistant Secretary Alm on August 23,1996 to discuss the strategy of the Focus On 2006 Plan. Specific knowledge gained at Workshop II and the meeting with Mr. Alm helped the NTS CAB and the State of Nevada write pointed letters to the DOE regarding important concerns over the Focus On 2006 Plan strategy for the NTS EM programs. During the discussions with Mr. Alm, the Underground Test Area subproject was recognized and designated as a "high visibility" item based on the high degree of stakeholder concern expressed through the CAB.

Comments from Workshop II and the stakeholder meeting with Mr. Alm were utilized by the DOE/NV to produce another revision of the Site Interim Draft Focus On 2006 Plan called the Redline Version. The Redline Version was a chance for DOE/NV to show Nevada stakeholders where their comments were incorporated or changed the Draft Plan before they published the Final Draft Plan and submitted it to DOE/HQ

After briefing the public at the September 4, 1996 NTS CAB monthly meeting, DOE/NV conducted Workshop III on September 17, 1996. The DOE/NV presented the Site Interim Draft Focus On 2006 Plan Revision 3 at Workshop III which incorporated many of the comments from stakeholders received at Workshop II in August 1996. The main purpose of Workshop III was for the DOE/NV to respond to stakeholder concerns expressed at previous workshops, and to discuss how they will be addressed in the Final Draft Plan submittal. Thirty-seven stakeholders attended Workshop III due to an enhanced information distribution list of 1300 people for this particular workshop.

Nevada stakeholders were pleased to see that the comments from Workshops I, II, and III, and the August 23, 1996 meeting with Al Alm were incorporated into the appropriate parts of the Draft Plan. An appendix also contained stakeholder comments as transcribed at the previous workshops, so the public felt some ownership of the DOE/NV Draft Plan. Based on a change in guidance from DOE/HQ, the new deadline date for sites to submit their Draft Focus On 2006 Plan is now November 15,1996.

Workshop IV was held on October 23, 1996 to announce that DOE/HQ was issuing further guidance and implementing additional activities that would enhance stakeholder involvement in the Focus On 2006 planning efforts at the field sites. Stakeholder attendance at this meeting was limited to about 20 people. The DOE/NV gave stakeholders another opportunity to comment on Revision 3 of the DOE/NV Draft Plan at this workshop, however, no new substantial comments were received. Since the Focus On 2006 process was becoming more complicated and not all stakeholders were at the same level of involvement and progress across the nation, the DOE/HQ also announced that more time would be given to stakeholders to participate in the Plan.

Meanwhile, the NTS CAB continued to stay active in the Focus On 2006 process. After a status update at the NTS CAB November 6, 1996 meeting, the CAB Budget Subcommittee decided to host a meeting to discuss the Focus On 2006 Plan with a emphasis on the Project Baseline Summary (PBS) information. The CAB learned in the status briefing that DOE/HQ would utilize the PBS to describe and make budget projections as part of the DOE federal budget process. The CAB also learned that the DOE/NV was to submit their Draft Focus On 2006 Plan to DOE/HQ on February 15, 1997, and that the draft national plan was to be released after the end of March 1997. The CAB Budget Subcommittee meeting on November 25, 1996 was advertised to the Focus On 2006 mailing list, however, attendance was limited to 18 people due in part to the proximity of the meeting to the Thanksgiving holiday, and stakeholder frustration with changing guidance. In addition, it is thought that attendance was somewhat limited based on the detailed technical review of the budgets.

The DOE/NV presented another briefing on the Focus On 2006 Plan at the NTS CAB December 4, 1996 monthly meeting. It was also announced that the NTS CAB Budget Subcommittee would hold another meeting on December 16, 1997 to discuss more of the new guidance from DOE/HQ. The 10 attendees at the Budget Subcommittee meeting learned DOE/HQ was developing a list of issues that would need resolution in conjunction with stakeholders. These list of issues and their proposed resolution would be designated "Action Plans". The DOE/NV distributed the updated DOE/HQ guidance and the initial list of issues for potential Action Plans to stakeholders on December 30, 1997 along with the announcement to attend Workshop V on January 29, 1997.

At Workshop V on January 29, 1997, the DOE/NV primarily focused on the determination of which issues would require a formal Action Plan in order to reach resolution. The facilitator at the workshop reviewed the issues with the 25 attendees, and asked which issues were important enough to require designation as an Action Plan. At first the stakeholders wanted to make most of the issues worthy of an Action Plan, however, the Technical Advisor to the NTS CAB strongly explained to stakeholders that there were simply too many issues to do this (21 categories of issues and numerous issues per category). Each potential Action Plan would have to be resolved on an individual basis, and the resources of the DOE/NV and the level of commitment demonstrated by Nevada stakeholders on specific topics was too limited. Through a process of elimination on a one by one basis, the group of stakeholders decided by consensus which issues were to be resolved by an Action Plan. Workshop V resulted in six issues for Nevada stakeholders that would require resolution by an Action Plan.

Meanwhile, as the DOE complex worked on the assembling the Draft Focus On 2006 Plan at the site and Headquarters offices, the DOE/NV briefed the NTS CAB on the progress of the Plan at the February and March 1997 monthly meetings. The NTS CAB Environmental Management (EM) Subcommittee met on April 4, 1997 to help formalize a statement that accurately and concisely captured the issue for each of the six Action Plans. The DOE/NV conducted a Fiscal Year 1999 (FY99) Budget Priority Workshop on April 9, 1997 to help develop stakeholder input toward the PBSs and focus for the NTS EM program. Workshop VI for the Focus On 2006 Plan was scheduled for April 17, 1997, but was later canceled due to schedule changes. The DOE/HQ decided to push back the Plan schedule to allow more time for comment after criticism from a national stakeholder group. Finally, on May 21, 1997 Al Alm provided the status of the Focus On 2006 Plan, and announced that the "Discussion Draft" of the national plan and each site’s individual plan would be released for public comment on June 12, 1997.

At this time, DOE/NV had received feedback from some stakeholders that the process was becoming long and drawn-out, making it hard to keep the general public updated and involved. Based on this feedback, DOE/NV in cooperation with the CAB would focus on working closely with the CAB for detailed input while conducting public meetings and workshops for more significant general issue discussion and input from stakeholders.

The month of July 1997 was a busy month for the NTS CAB as it continued to work on activities related to the Focus On 2006 Plan. The CAB Budget Subcommittee met on July 1, 1997 to help draft a letter of recommendation to the DOE/NV in support of the FY99 Budget. The Budget Subcommittee utilized the Focus On 2006 National Plan Discussion Draft, the NTS Focus On 2006 Discussion Draft, and the PBSs as source documents to support the recommendation letter. The NTS CAB received a briefing on the NTS Discussion Draft at the July 2,1997 monthly meeting. The CAB EM Subcommittee met on July 11, 1997 to discuss and begin formulation of comments to DOE/HQ on the National Discussion Draft document by the September 9, 1997 deadline. On July 23, 1997 the DOE/NV provided the opportunity for the CAB to participate in a regional tele-video conference hosted by Al Alm to give input on the budget requirements over the course of the Focus On 2006 Plan.

In preparation for Workshop VI, the DOE/NV announced at the August 6, 1997 NTS CAB monthly meeting that Al Alm would be visiting Nevada to meet with stakeholders on August 20, 1997 to discuss the Focus On 2006 Plan. Workshop VI was conducted on August 20, 1997 in the afternoon prior to the evening meeting with Mr. Alm. At Workshop VI approximately 20 attendees were asked to review the goals, assumptions, strategies and project specifics of the Focus On 2006 Plan at the national and site levels. A facilitator helped the group of stakeholders reach consensus on the major issues of comment for the National and Site Plans. The NTS CAB Technical Advisor presented a summary and explanation of stakeholder issues for the Focus On 2006 Plan to Al Alm at the evening meeting. Mr. Alm addressed the issues individually, and the Technical Advisor helped facilitate questions from about two dozen stakeholders who attended the meeting.

The initial workshop indicated to the DOE/NV that there was extreme skepticism and disagreement with the planning assumptions for the development of the draft site 2006 Plan. Originally, the DOE/NV categorized stakeholder comments by recurring major themes to include: transportation; new ways of doing business; life-cycle costs/funding; skepticism of plans for implementability; definition of cleanup; land use assumptions; uniqueness of site; waste disposal equity; and miscellaneous. A lot of interest was generated in the EM program planning which indicated that significant additional input from stakeholders was needed. The CAB was particularly interested in following the development of the Focus On 2006 Plan, and began discussing it at the CAB Budget and Environmental Management Subcommittee regular meetings.

At the second workshop stakeholder comments were grouped under the areas of EM or WM. The EM group of stakeholder concerns embraced 47 comments in seven main categories. The EM main categories of concern were: 1) assumptions in the plan; 2) stakeholder involvement; 3) uniqueness of the NTS; 4) lack of information and unknown policy path forward for NTS issues; 5) groundwater contamination; 6) landlord and monitoring responsibility; and 7) corrective action level for soils. The WM group of stakeholder concern embraced 54 comments in five main categories. The WM main categories of concern were: 1) assumption that the NTS would become a regional low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility; 2) transportation risk; 3) life cycle cost and responsibility; 4) waste generator fees; and 5) clarification of definition and terms.

DOE/HQ organized Nevada stakeholder comments from EM and WM areas into 21 categories. DOE/NV decided to work with stakeholders to discuss which of the issues of concern were to be designated as requiring an Action Plan. Nevada stakeholders, working closely with the CAB, decided to eliminate many issues since they had since been addressed by additional clarification in the 2006 Plan text. The remaining six major issues that required an Action Plan to be resolved include: 1) Land withdrawal for the NTS; 2) Greater Confinement Disposal Program at the NTS; 3) Definition of complete cleanup; 4) Environmental contamination at the NTS is largely unknown; 5) Life-cycle funding and closure costs; and 6) Transportation.

The strategy to develop a plan to cleanup most of the DOE weapons complex in a ten year period is an extremely ambitious and overwhelming task with or without stakeholder collaboration. To incorporate the broadest stakeholder involvement possible on issues pertaining to nuclear waste and materials across the nation almost ensures that such an undertaking will be subject to harsh criticism and scrutiny by many different groups that have an interest in the issues. The guidance from DOE/HQ to develop Focus On 2006 Plans at the site level in collaboration with local stakeholders was a challenge. The DOE/NV chose to design a public participation plan that emphasized an existing organization formed under the DOE EM Site Specific Advisory Board program. Initial guidance from DOE/HQ required that sites develop their draft Focus On 2006 Plan quickly and still involve as many stakeholders as possible. For DOE/NV the most organized and knowledgeable group of stakeholders was the NTS CAB.

The NTS CAB served as the lead group for Nevada stakeholders to participate in the formulation of their site Draft Plan. The NTS CAB monthly meetings offered the most logical and cost-effective place for the DOE/NV to announce the workshops to the public. The CAB mailing list was enhanced to create a Focus On 2006 mailing list to keep stakeholders apprised of workshop opportunities and the status of the Plan throughout its development. The CAB Subcommittees offered another opportunity for the DOE/NV to discuss and receive more detailed input from the stakeholders on the Plan strategy and various components.

Two of the major aspects of developing the Focus On 2006 Plan at the NTS was the struggle to respond to the ever-changing guidance from DOE/HQ and the rescheduling of document deadlines. It is very challenging to work with stakeholders on ER and WM issues at the NTS when there were so many planning assumptions required to meet the DOE/HQ guidance. Many stakeholders were overwhelmed when asked to analyze complicated scenarios to reach an end-state in ten years on a number of projects encompassing an area as large as the NTS. It basically took the first three workshops (I, II, and III) to get the public to understand and comment on the planning assumptions. Workshops IV and V were necessary to inform the stakeholders that the schedule was pushed back into the middle of 1997 before the Final Draft Plan would be released, and that Action Plans had to be developed. Workshop VI was primarily a summary and culmination of work on the Focus On 2006 Plan just prior to the meeting with Al Alm. The changing guidance from DOE/HQ was frustrating for the sites and the stakeholders, however, the NTS CAB remained flexible and responsive to the needs of the DOE/NV Focus On 2006 team.

In spite of the measurable success the NTS had in developing its Draft Focus On 2006 Plan there were still several shortcomings. Although there was sporadic involvement by some Native Americans, there was no formal involvement from tribal nations in Nevada on the Plan. Lands encompassing the NTS are the ancestral territory of the Western Shoshone and Southern Paiute Indians. The DOE/NV and the NTS CAB struggle to get involvement of the tribal nations in many of the EM issues at the NTS. Many stakeholders did not consistently attend all the workshops because of the inconvenient meeting time and place, the thirteen-month period to reach a Final Draft, and the underlying belief that the DOE was not really going to cleanup the NTS. After all, the NTS is still a defense site and although it encompasses the largest track of land of any DOE weapons-related facility, it still gets less than two percent of the EM budget on an annual basis. For example, the contamination of the Nevada subsurface from over 800 underground nuclear weapons tests was assumed not to be cleaned up, but characterized and closed in place with institutional control where necessary. Many Nevada stakeholders cannot accept the planning concept of spending millions of dollars to characterize the subsurface contamination, and spending no money to clean it up.

The public participation at the NTS was an open process utilizing the NTS CAB as the center for stakeholder involvement. Stakeholders contributed to the development of the Phase I Site and National Discussion Draft 2006 Plans. The public participation activities helped define for the DOE the issues of most concern to stakeholders. It also helped prioritize site programs and guide DOE/NV to develop the plan with stakeholder input. While larger public meetings were useful in receiving general input in the 2006 Plan development, it was the CAB that has provided a more comprehensive technical review of project activities. The activities provided a model for stakeholder involvement on a process that evolved over a period of time.

The NTS CAB has made the Focus on 2006 Plan one of its top five issues in its 1998 Workplan. The other four issues in the CAB 1998 Workplan address topics of concern that were discussed early and throughout the 2006 Plan process at the NTS. These issues include: 1) Plutonium-contaminated soil remediation; 2) Groundwater characterization; 3) Equity for LLW disposal at the NTS; and 4) Transportation. The CAB has planned activities to learn more about these issues in order to develop recommendation letters to the DOE in 1998.

Of particular interest to the NTS CAB, other SSAB site boards, and the DOE is the plan by the CAB to host a LLW Forum in the spring of 1998 to discuss the Disposition Maps and the next draft of the Focus on 2006 Plan. Since Nevada stakeholders perceive the NTS will become a major regional or centralized LLW disposal facility, the CAB is anxious to discuss issues of concern relative to LLW disposition and decision making with the other boards and the DOE. The LLW Forum would be a great opportunity for many stakeholders to meet and discuss the latest information on the 2006 Plan in an intersite fashion since many of the DOE’s decision-making points involve other sites.

The DOE/NV will continue to involve stakeholders in the upcoming activities related to the 2006 Plan as the final plan is made available. For general input, larger public meetings will be scheduled, however, for more detailed stakeholder input, DOE will continue to work with the CAB and its subcommittees. The CAB will help ensure there is deliberate, formalized engagement with local stakeholders in the 2006 Plan as it continues to evolve and become more institutionalized in 1998.

BACK