Reaching Critical Mass 2
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Reaching Critical Mass: The Rise of Grassroots Groups and the Politics of Nuclear Accountability Carah Lynn Ong Whaley Charlottesville, Virginia Bachelor of Arts, University of California at Santa Barbara, 2002 Master of Arts, University of Virginia, 2010 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics University of Virginia December, 2015 REACHING CRITICAL MASS: THE RISE OF GRASSROOTS GROUPS AND THE POLITICS OF NUCLEAR ACCOUNTABILITY Carah Lynn Ong Whaley University of Virginia, 2015 Advisers: Sidney M. Milkis, Sarah Milov, William B. Quandt, Larry J. Sabato Abstract This dissertation examines the factors that contributed to the opening of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) nuclear weapons complex to environmental regulation and public participation and assesses the implications of shifts in regulatory politics for democratic governance. While acknowledging the importance and role of elite actors, this research places community-based grassroots groups at the center of analysis to contribute a better understanding of how a multidimensional regulatory framework structures interactions between communities, states and the federal government. It also evaluates opportunities for public participation in policy and decision-making processes at the federal, state and local level. While some scholars have bemoaned the decay of American politics and a decline in democratic participation, this study finds there is in fact sustained and informed grassroots participation in regulatory decision and policymaking processes. Even if it falls short of participatory ideals, communities are demanding a say in regulatory politics, and not just relegating decisions to administrators, contractors, experts, or national interest groups. This research is based on analysis of hundreds of Congressional records, government documents, and news articles; materials produced by community-based grassroots groups; and interviews with government officials, and with leaders and staff of community-based grassroots organizations. This research concludes that even in a policy area as scientifically and technologically complex as environmental remediation of the nuclear weapons complex, community-based grassroots organizations have made significant contributions to the regulatory process by developing expertise, monitoring and participating in environmental remediation and waste management processes, advocating greater public involvement opportunities and mobilizing public participation. This research also finds that when community-based grassroots groups and the public are involved early and continuously in regulatory processes, there are better policy outcomes and decisions reached have greater legitimacy. For Ben, Ever and Cade. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe much gratitude to the members of my distinguished committee: Sidney M. Milkis, Sarah Milov, William B. Quandt and Larry J. Sabato. I am grateful not only for their constructive feedback, but also for their overwhelming support and encouragement to see this project through, and for bearing with me as I made my way to a research agenda that combined my scholarly interests with my passion for nuclear issues. I’d like to thank my husband for all of his love and support, and for being my proofreader, sounding board and cheerleader. I am also grateful to my colleague and dear friend Nicole Pankiewicz for constructive feedback on early drafts, for long walks and comradery as we have made our way through the graduate program. I am also thankful to my family and friends who have listened and provided encouragement. I am exceedingly grateful to the members of the public, community groups and government officials who gave their time to participate in this research project. Without their ongoing work, insights and feedback, this research would be meaningless. Finally, I’d like to express my gratitude to the John Anson Kittredge Education Fund and the Bankard Fund in Political Economy for financial support. Acronyms ANA – Alliance for Nuclear Accountability AEA – Atomic Energy Act AEC – Atomic Energy Commission CCNS – Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, a.k.a. Superfund CO – Consent Order between Department of Energy and New Mexico governing cleanup CPRA – California Public Records Act DAD – Decide Announce Defend DFNSB – Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board DOE – Department of Energy EEIOCPA – Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act EIS – Environmental Impact Statement EM – Office of Environmental Management at DOE EPA – Environmental Protection Agency ERDA – Energy Research and Development Administration FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation FFA – Federal Facilities Agreement FFCA – Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 FRESH – Fernald Residents for Environmental Health and Safety FOIA – Freedom of Information Act GAO – General Accounting Office, later renamed Government Accountability Office HEAL – Hanford Education Action League HLW – High Level Waste HSW – Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 INEL – Idaho National Engineering Laboratory LANL – Los Alamos National Laboratory LLNL – Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLW – Low-level waste MESH – Miamisburg Environmental Safety and Health MPN – Military Production Network NNSA – National Nuclear Security Administration, a department within DOE NMED – New Mexico Environment Department NRC – Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRDC – Natural Resources Defense Council NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 NPL – EPA’s National Priorities list of Superfund Sites NWPA – Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 OREPA – Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 RECA – Radiation Exposure Compensation Act RMPJC – Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center SIS – Special Isotope Separator SNF – Spent Nuclear Fuel SNL – Sandia National Laboratory SRA – Snake River Alliance SRIC – Southwest Research and Information Center SRS – Savannah River Site Tri-Valley CAREs – Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment TRU – Transuranic waste WIPP – Waste Isolation Pilot Plant WIPP LWA – Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1990 WPPSS – Washington Public Power Supply System TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................. 2 Chapter Two: The Labyrinthine Regulatory Framework for Remediation ............. 39 Chapter Three: The Grassroots Movement for Openness and Nuclear Accountability ................................................................................................................. 83 Chapter Four: From Decide-Announce-Defend to Announce-Discuss-Decide: Fernald As Proving Grounds ....................................................................................... 137 Chapter Five: Breaking DAD: Grassroots Efforts to Involve the Public at Sites with Ongoing National Security Missions ........................................................................... 179 Chapter Six: Conclusions: The Criticality of Regulatory Change ........................... 224 Bibliography..………………….………………………………………………………247 List of Interviews and Oral Histories.....……………………………………………..264 Chapter One: Introduction “I know of no safe repository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the answer is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.” Thomas Jefferson “Fighting the good fight for all of us was getting correct data and information to the community, involving our community in what I call the good fight, encouraging people to come and participate, to come to the meetings and ask questions, and offer public comment, really getting people engaged and involved in this issue. Because seven women can’t fight the fight for everybody. That was a huge success for us.” Lisa Crawford, Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health “It was their investment, day after day, and our public meetings and reading our reports and cutting through them, and interacting with us as we went along and then reporting to the community at large that changed it.”1 Dennis Carr, Former Fernald Site Deputy On June 28, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8807 and, in so doing, secretly authorized committees that would begin to research and develop technology to produce the nation’s first nuclear weapons.2 By 1945, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Manhattan Engineer District, or the Manhattan Project, successfully developed and detonated three nuclear weapons. The first nuclear weapon was detonated on July 16, 1945 at the Trinity Test Site near Alamogordo, New Mexico. On August 6, 1945, the United States detonated a bomb with an enriched uranium core with an explosive force of some 12,500 tons of TNT over the Japanese city of Hiroshima, immediately killing between 70,000 and 90,000 people; the total would reach 145,000 by the end of 1945. On August 9, 1945, the U.S. detonated a bomb with a plutonium core and an explosive force of some 22,000 tons of TNT over the Japanese city of Nagasaki, 1 Quoted from “Roadmap to Resolution: Communities, Government and Corporations Solving 2 Franklin D.