Cleanup, not cover-up, at Rocky Flats

Abstract

Clark, Janecky, and Lane reply: The letters from William Alschuler and Anne Fenerty raise many interesting points; we will address the major ones. Of particular relevance is the unprecedented stakeholder involvement that enabled the cleanup of Rocky Flats. Although there were many perspectives surrounding issues such as cleanup levels, dirty demolition, landfill capping, and 903 Pad remediation, all organizations helped advance the removal of plutonium and reduction of the risks to metropolitan Denver.An example of stakeholder involvement and communications was the formulation of actinide cleanup levels. Many stakeholders were concerned by the original radionuclide soil action level (RSAL) of 651 picocuries per gram of plutonium, acceptable under Superfund regulations. Intense community concern prompted the Department of Energy (DOE) to fund a citizens’ group to reexamine RSALs; though members did not reach consensus, they helped emphasize protection of surface water that could leave the site during the necessary trade-off between cleanup of more highly contaminated surface soils and the disturbance of vegetation, streams, and soils. That extensive public process developed a much reduced RSAL for surface soil (50 pCi/g) while allowing for more residual contamination at depth beneath old building sites—an approach that had wide support. As Fenerty’s letter implies, not every stakeholder concern could be satisfied. The containerized waste was sent to two disposal facilities, one DOE’s and one commercial.Most of the site (3900 of 6200 acres) has been transferred to the Interior Department to become a national wildlife refuge. The former industrial area will remain restricted and under DOE jurisdiction. The cleanup has significantly reduced risk, but ongoing monitoring and maintenance by the DOE Office of Legacy Management remain vital to ensuring long-term protection of human health and the environment. In addition, the US Congress approved legislation in 2004 creating the Rocky Flats Stewardship Council to focus on issues central to the site’s post-closure care and management.Regarding independence, anyone in the US who has experience and expertise with plutonium has been funded at some time by DOE, including us and the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board. As scientists, we always hope that our science is brought out in public discussions and then used to improve the technical basis for decision making, so that decisions will be more transparent, repeatable, and thus scientifically defensible. Describing the value, process, and results of our participation was a major driver in developing the article for Physics Today. For us, the invitation to become involved in cleaning up Rocky Flats was an ultimate opportunity for science in the public interest. We remain committed to working with all participants—site contractors, regulators, governments, stakeholder organizations, individuals, and the international scientific community.Rocky Flats, the largest, most complex environmental cleanup in US history, was completed nearly 50 years sooner and $30 billion lower than initial estimates. The cleanup removed plutonium and reduced risks to metropolitan Denver. It was many things, but through broad-ranging community participation, it is certainly not a cover-up.ADDITIONAL RESOURCESSection:ChooseTop of pageADDITIONAL RESOURCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. US Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, http://www.lm.doe.gov. Google Scholar2. US DOE, Office of Legacy Management, Rocky Flats site, http://www.lm.doe.gov/land/sites/co/rocky_flats/rocky.html. Google Scholar3. Rocky Flats Stewardship Council, http://www.rockyflatssc.org/index.html. Google Scholar4. National Research Council, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, Long-Term Institutional Management of US Department of Energy Legacy Waste Sites (2000), National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2000), http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9949=R1. Google Scholar© 2007 American Institute of Physics.