[en] Communicating risk information is more difficult than assessing it. The latter relies on data, formulas, theorems and mathematical relationships that, with some effort, can be logically explained to another person; it's objective. Communicating risks, however, is subjective and relies on personalities, perceptions and predisposition, as well as emotions. Most notably the emotion is fear--fear of the unknown, fear of the message, the messenger, or the impact of the information on something of value to the person asking the questions. The Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations Office is engaged in a Reindustrialization program to lease (and most recently, to transfer) formerly used facilities to private sector entities. The facilities are located at the East Tennessee Technology Park, originally a gaseous diffusion plant operated to enrich uranium for World War II efforts and later for use as fuel in civilian nuclear reactors

[en] When the Environmental Management (EM) Program at the Oak Ridge Office of the Department of Energy (DOE) began its major decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) program activities in the mid-1990's, it was understood that the work to demolish the gaseous diffusion process buildings at the K-25 Site, as it was then known, would be challenging. Nothing of that size and breadth had ever been done within the DOE complex and the job brought about a full menu of unique attributes: radiological contamination with enriched materials entrained in certain areas of the system, a facility that was never designed not to operate but had been shut down since 1964, and a loyal following of individuals and organizations who were committed to the physical preservation of at least some portion of the historic Manhattan Project property. DOE was able to solve and resolve the issues related to nuclear materials management, contamination control, and determining the best way to safely and efficiently deconstruct the massive building. However, for a variety of reasons, resolution of the historic preservation questions - what and how much to preserve, how to preserve it, where to preserve it, how to interpret it, how much to spend on preservation, and by and for whom preservation should occur - remained open to debate for over a decade. After a dozen years, countless meetings, phone calls, discussions and other exchanges, and four National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) [1] Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), a final MOA [2] has been executed. The final executed MOA's measures are robust, creative, substantive, and will be effective. They include a multi-story replica of a portion of the K-25 Building, the dedication of the K-25 Building footprint for preservation purposes, an equipment building to house authentic Manhattan Project and Cold War equipment, a virtual museum, an on-site history center, a grant to preserve a historically-significant Manhattan Project-era hotel in Oak Ridge, and more. The MOA was designed to offer something for everyone. The MOA for the K- 25 Building and interpretation of the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP; formerly the K-25 Site) was executed by all of the signatory parties on August 7, 2012 - almost 67 years to-the-day after the 'product' of the K-25 process building became known to more than just a small group of scientists and engineers working on a secret project for the Army Corps of Engineers Manhattan District. (authors)

[en] The Department of Energy (DOE) issued 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 770 in 2000 for the 'Transfer of Real Property at Defense Nuclear Facilities for Economic Development'. The rule was issued in order to 'offset negative impacts on communities caused by unemployment from related DOE down-sizing, facility close-outs and workforce restructuring'. There is a sense of urgency implied in efforts designed to address economic conditions, especially in communities that have hosted DOE facilities and are experiencing negative impacts of mission changes. Despite the urgency, the transfer of real property from DOE or any federal agency is a lengthy, complex, iterative, but necessarily diligent effort. After all, the aim of the process is to be able to demonstrate that the property proposed for transfer is protective of human health and the environment for the intended use. Notwithstanding the efforts of the economic development organization to market, recruit, and prepare a robust proposal to request property, and the efforts of DOE to perform the many due diligence activities in response to that request, the actual results of the evaluations are an unknown until a major portion of the process is completed. Will the property be determined to be suitable for transfer? Will there be deed restrictions? Is indemnification available? Has a mission need for the property arisen while working through the reviews? There are many points along the way that can sidetrack or delay progress and, in the interim, the economic viability of the proposal can collapse. Even without the unforeseen events, the process in and of itself is lengthy. It is often heard (loudly) that it takes far too long to obtain a piece of property once a request is made; that observation/criticism is worthy of serious attention. Rather than revisit old debates, why not learn from them? Why not look at the transfer process from a different point of view and ameliorate it so it can be more responsive to community needs? Why not anticipate change, anticipate requests, and make property available before a request as well as responding to requests to make property available? There are several ways to rethink and modify the way the transfer process is implemented to reduce the time following a request. The modifications would arise from both internal information sharing, integrated and timely up-front planning and, in particular, by varying how and when certain elements of the process to enable transfer are performed. This paper will address: 1. How a unified overall vision can be created from the cleanup input of Site-Specific Advisory Boards with the Community Reuse Organizations' planning for economic development and can help inform site cleanup to end state to future use; 2. Why DOE is in the best position to know its site conditions and could determine ahead of a transfer request what property is indeed available and notify of that determination; 3. How a range of disposition paths for real property are available to DOE; and 4. Why broadening the understanding of 'best interest of the government' to one that is clearly able to recognize non-monetary benefits is in the best interest of the government. Anticipating change helps prepare DOE and their host communities for the future. It creates opportunities for flexibility and time savings. The sooner DOE's unneeded and under-utilized real property can be made available to the communities that need it most, the sooner those communities can work to moderate the adverse effects of DOE mission changes. (author)

[en] The 1995 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) joint 'Policy on Decommissioning of Department of Energy Facilities Under CERCLA was developed so that decommissioning could occur in a manner that ensures protection of worker and public health and the environment, that is consistent with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), that provides for stakeholder involvement, and that achieves risk reduction without unnecessary delay'. The source of the 'unnecessary delays' the joint policy intended to avert could be attributed to numerous factors such as obtaining permits, conducting administrative activities, or implementing regulatory processes that could yield, among other things, differing preferred alternatives. Why, you might ask, more than fifteen years later, does DOE continue to struggle through CERCLA projects with unnecessary delays? From problem identification, to determination of nature and extent, to alternative analysis and ultimately remedy selection and implementation, reaching a compliant and effective clean-up end-point can be a process that seems to mimic geologic timescales. The source of these delays is often the failure to use all of the tools the CERCLA process offers. As one example, renewed commitment to follow the CERCLA process to address the regulatory reviews pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is called for. Project managers implementing CERCLA actions in any agency, not only DOE, do not need to be apprehensive about using the CERCLA process for NHPA review but should welcome it. It is critical that methods are used that address substantive NHPA requirements clearly and consistently, and that they are shared and communicated as frequently as needed to interested and questioning stakeholders. (author)

[en] Between the bookends of World War II and the Cold War, numerous cycles of up-sizing, down-sizing, and right sizing resulted in changing needs for federal real property to support government missions. The end of the Cold War has yielded many opportunities for reuse of federal facilities as defense-related property needs have been lessened. These federal facilities have both a historic and an environmental legacy, from radionuclides to unexploded ordnance to landfills and everything in between. Private-sector manufacturing sites have been especially affected by changing market demands. Obsolescence and advancing technologies have made the 'have to have it' product into the 'what was that for?' The result has been thousands of hectares (acres) of contaminated land throughout the country. While site histories go back in time, it is the environmental cleanup contaminants that have the ability to go forward in time and influence the future use of a site. Demonstrating that property conditions are protective of human health and the environment facilitates reuse options for these properties. Site reuse creates land for communities to attract businesses, grow their tax bases, add open space, and implement sustainability efforts, such as renewables, or set the property aside for future possibilities. A broad range of sites have been made available across the country as a result of federal mission changes and changed economic market conditions affecting private industry. This broad range of properties should have similarly broad recipes for reuse. Even with the constraints of zoning, topographic/natural conditions and use restrictions necessitated by past operations, the pathways to creative, adaptive, and sustainable reuse can be taken by integrating the planning with the remediation or, in a more community-sensitive approach, by integrating the remediation with the planning. Situations do exist where a like-kind use is an ideal reuse option, but a redevelopment of sameness need not be a foregone conclusion. Unlike the operational and imposed environments from which these sites came, with their engineered features often developed in a systematic manner with straight lines and hard edges, they can indeed be transformed into functional, relaxed, and engaging places and be productive again. A site's transformation can begin with how the remediation incorporates sustainable techniques that consider the future use of a site, and how the sustainable remediation can dovetail with the community's reuse plans. Rather than building on Greenfields and extending infrastructure and services to more distant locations, many communities are looking within their already developed footprints for growth possibilities. For some communities this is their only source of growth. Stigmatized and challenged as they may be to reuse, the nation's excess, under-utilized, surplus, and abandoned industrial past presents opportunities well worth considering for improvement to local and regional economies. Communities that are engaged in remediation and reuse planning efforts at these sites have the opportunity to shape their futures, transform their identities and incorporate sustainable practices throughout the process. Unlike the simple name change of a facility, transformative change takes time. Transformative change relies on working partnerships, dedication to achieving something better, open communication, and cooperative planning. It is this type of change that tends to be lasting and tailored to a place. (authors)

[en] The long regulatory road has finally been completed-after years of effort a Record of Decision has been signed and a Permit to Construct has been granted or a Permit to Operate has been obtained. But what about the other road that should be taken in parallel-community engagement? Working with the public is not a sequential activity, rather it is a consequential one and needs to be integrated with overall project planning. Unless you have effectively, meaningfully, and patiently engaged with the project's communities of impact, you may find your project trying to obtain a social license or a social license to operate (SLO). The SLO has its origins in the mining industry and its roots in the business model of corporate social responsibility and sustainability. These latter practices are well known to the US DOE and its contractor community. Aspects of the SLO are emerging as individuals and communities are becoming more informed and have increased expectations for being able to influence and shape decisions. When local community issues are not sought out, listened to, or addressed early, and questions are left unanswered, they can become agenda items for larger unaffiliated groups, and project loss (through delays and/or cancellation) can occur. Issues can transition from resolvable to intractable, a type of SLO face-off. Social media campaigns, serial negative media coverage, and protest signs at project sites opposing regulatory decisions already made are no longer anomalies. These types of incidents demonstrate the increasingly delicate relationship between approved regulatory/technical decisions and public acceptance of those decisions. A SLO is not a requirement. However, the building-blocks of a SLO - working with members of affected communities to build understanding, potentially to obtain and maintain community acceptance or even gain approval or support - are evidence of leadership by project sponsors. Actions taken, or not taken, by project sponsors truly have the ability to influence an outcome. While projects are not assured of success or failure, engaging the community in an empowered process is an investment of time and resources toward success for the project and thus for the communities of impact. Authors Note: Extensive literature searches were performed in developing this paper. The majority of the published literature on SLO as a 'movement' was found from sources in Canada, the European Union (Germany and France in particular), South Asia, South Korea, and many Latin American countries. The literature addressed resource development (mining), infrastructure, and energy projects. Articles written by US sources often spoke to origins and structural theory, specific project issues such as Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY) and to protests/demonstrations related to those projects, rather than systemic opposition/conflict phenomena. For these reasons many international SLO experiences and sources are cited in the discussion. The authors recognize these non-US experiences with SLO as having a 'forecast' value to US projects, especially those related to nuclear projects of any type, waste treatment and disposal, energy development (especially fossil fuels as well as alternative sources), mining, and infrastructure. The body of future SLO experiences in the US will shape the future responses to it. (authors)

[en] The process of transferring real property from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is always the same - except when it's not. The most frequently asked questions in the process are: how can this take so long and be so complex, and why is it different every time? The process of transferring real property from the Department of Energy is always the same - except when it's not. Repeat as needed. The authority for DOE to transfer property is found in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). Specifically, the transfer of real property for mission-related purposes is done pursuant to the AEA Section 161(g). Another rule that can provide certain unique benefits to the transferee is found in 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 770, Transfer of Real Property at Defense Nuclear Facilities for Economic Development; it can be followed for economic development purposes at defense nuclear facilities. All federal real property transfers include at minimum a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) chap. 120(h) environmental due diligence evaluation. The end-point objective is to be able to demonstrate that a transfer is protective of human health and the environment - typically attained via a risk evaluation. That's it...mostly. None of these requirements are new; their processes are well-known. So, why is it different every time there is a transfer and what can be done to move things along? Time and the perception of open-ended schedules kill projects. Economic development projects that are proposed by Community Reuse Organizations (CROs) and others or by parties who need private capital are especially time-sensitive. It is not reasonable to expect business interests or investors to wait two years while the property transfer process is carried out. Lenders are also risk-sensitive and not solely business-risk sensitive. After all, these are federal properties where contamination is a factor. What are some of the things you can do to address those time and risk issues? Issues of time and complexity arise from several variables. Short-sighted vision and lack of project definition lead to wasted effort and lengthy delays. Some variability on the input side of the process can be controlled in a way that will save you time and actually work to your advantage. Steps can be taken to systematize the transfer process on the agency's part and on the requester/grantee's part. Having the right mix of dedicated people from the beginning, planning with flexibility, coordinating with the clean-up program at your site, knowing the interests and issues of your stakeholders, and working with the CRO/economic development authorities - all of these measures and others can and will help you. The key is not simply knowing the steps and making a punch-list, but understanding the steps and how to work with and use them. These concepts can be applied to create a vision of success for those engaged in real property transfer. (authors)

[en] The best of the best are brought in for the new project - the most experienced project management team; a stellar engineering and design staff; project controls experts; the best estimators; a proven environment, safety and health team; professional technical writers; top-shelf communications/public relations personnel, and graphic artists to optimally convey targeted messages and information. The project features an unmatched quality assurance/quality control staff, a configuration control team that assures an air-tight process, and a solid legal team. Not only does this team bring experience and confidence, it brings time-tested models and methods to implement their responsibilities and save schedule and budget resources. The experienced team can take advantage of internal off-the-shelf manuals and procedures that bring in a level of calm at a time when so much is changing and happening so fast. There is one area where off the shelf will not work well - the project Community Engagement Plan. An attempt to homogenize a present project with one from the past could introduce significant obstacles to be overcome while creating project setbacks. The best place for an off-the-shelf Community Engagement Plan is back on-the-shelf. There are too many variables at play to simply try and 'adjust a few things' and use a prior or a 'standard' plan. Pushback is all but guaranteed from any community that perceives it is being labeled as 'standard.' 'average,' or 'basic.' Your client deserves better, and the host community for the project certainly deserves better. Social Ecology methods are the path to better. This paper will discuss the origin of the practice of Social Ecology, how and why it works, and the value of early initiation of the process of learning community and learning the community. The former is a skill-based way to understand how communities work by engaging with them, whereas the latter is knowledge-based and involves learning about the involved community. Both processes are essential to effective community engagement planning. Suggestions will be offered on the type of project personnel who should engage in the community and the favorable skill sets needed. Further, the paper will detail how and where to find community influencers to learn from and obtain their insights on community concerns that pertain to proposed projects. Also discussed will be the need for approaches to ensure underserved community voices are sought and heard. This includes the value of continued and personal contact in creating enthusiasm for participation, and the understanding that learning community is a type of site-specific and project-specific due diligence. Social Ecology methods enable relationship-building with and within the communities that will be valuable into the future and help to mitigate outside influences on projects. The Engagement Plan that is tailored to the community and built with their participation will provide both structure and flexibility - valuable assets for projects and important voices of reflection for communities. Regulated/technical projects that lack public support are challenged with greater frequency, leaving public issues unmet. Community participation and support have become critical to achieving success on complex energy, environmental and waste management projects. The ability to be granted a Social License to Operate (SLO) by a community, or attain other levels of understanding, approval or support, is best sought using Social Ecology principles. Understanding a community's pulse, traditions, beliefs, values, and concerns are as important to a project as understanding a project's physical environment. Social Ecology methods work from the inside out of a community and enable a plan to be constructed with both knowledge and perspective - keys to ensuring deeper community involvement and enduring project support. (authors)