National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2003. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10703.
×

SUMMARY

The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for cleanup and care of over 140 sites contaminated with radioactive and chemical wastes, the residue of a half-century’s production of nuclear weapons and research. DOE has embarked on an ambitious remediation program at these waste sites. Even so, more than 100 of these sites cannot be cleaned up enough to permit unrestricted human access and will require long-term management, in some cases indefinitely. DOE thus faces the challenge of protecting human health and environmental quality at these “legacy” sites, a process it calls “long-term stewardship” (LTS).

This study, initiated at the request of DOE’s Office of Environmental Management, was undertaken to analyze long-term institutional management1 plans and practices for a small group of representative DOE legacy waste sites, and to recommend improvements to these plans. (See Appendix A for the full statement of task.) To inform its deliberations, the committee visited two DOE sites in Ohio, Mound and Fernald, as well as the Moab Site in Utah, which was examined as a side study requested by Congress. The committee’s observations from the Ohio sites are discussed in some detail in Appendix E, and the committee’s work on the Moab Site was published previously (NRC 2002a).

At the request of DOE’s assistant secretary for environmental management, the National Academies’ Board on Radioactive Waste Management asked the committee to end its information-gathering activities early and to prepare a status report based on its work to date. The report is based on what the committee has found in visiting three DOE sites, reviewing documents relevant to LTS at these three and other DOE sites, and engaging in discussions with DOE staff and others. The findings and recommendations are necessarily somewhat limited, in some cases raising more questions than answers, partly because the study did not run its full course.

The report addresses the task statement by developing lessons that could be learned from the sites the committee visited and the documents it reviewed, and

1  

Long-term institutional management (LTIM) is an approach to planning and decision making that balances the use of measures available to site managers in protecting public and worker health and safety, and the environment: contaminant reduction, contaminant isolation, and long-term stewardship (NRC 2000a).

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2003. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10703.
×

focusing on high-level issues related to improving planning and implementation of LTS at DOE legacy waste sites.

WHAT IS STEWARDSHIP?

DOE uses the term “long-term stewardship” to describe the activities required at contaminated sites where cleanup is complete, that is, after site closure. The word “stewardship” has been readily accepted by many people who have different understandings of the word. In this committee’s view, stewardship comprises several tasks: A steward of very long-lived hazards acts as

  • a guardian, stopping activities that could be dangerous;

  • a watchman for problems as they arise, via monitoring that is effective in design and practice, activating responses and notifying responsible parties as needed;

  • a land manager, facilitating ecological processes and human use;

  • a repairer of engineered and ecological structures as failures occur and are discovered, as unexpected problems are found, and as re-remediation is needed;

  • an archivist of knowledge and data, to inform the future;

  • an educator to affected communities, renewing memory of the site’s history, hazards, and burdens; and

  • a trustee, assuring the financial wherewithal to accomplish all of the other functions;

This range of activities requires the human and institutional capacity to fulfill these roles as needed, through the decades and centuries in which the risks persist. The human and institutional demands of these activities are broader than the traditional engineering expertise of DOE, so questions arise regarding how best to meet the federal government’s responsibilities over the long term.

CHIEF FINDING: The committee observed a compartmentalization of cleanup planning and LTS planning at the sites visited: cleanup planning and execution will conclude at a site, and LTS is left to address the resultant end state.

The committee has found no evidence that DOE (a) is considering requirements for and the likely effectiveness of LTS measures when establishing cleanup goals and approaches, or (b) has worked out practical and enduring means of implementing LTS so as to realize its goals for protection over the long term. In the recent emphasis by DOE on the objective of accelerating cleanup, the committee has seen no statement of how DOE will balance that objective against future risks. There is the possibility of a need for additional cleanup in the future if remediation is poorly planned or carried out. Moreover, if greater reliance on LTS is chosen over contaminant reduction, the

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2003. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10703.
×

consequences and in turn the risks of LTS failures may increase. Explicit consideration of LTS issues when establishing cleanup goals and approaches would demonstrate that DOE is taking its responsibilities seriously—a key step in building trust among wary stakeholders. The failure to link LTS to cleanup undermines credibility and strengthens the fear among skeptical stakeholders and regulators that a hollow promise of stewardship is being imposed as a substitute for more costly and complete near-term cleanup.

The committee has seen some progress in DOE efforts on LTS in recent DOE documents, but despite statements embracing LTS, the way in which DOE has selected, developed, and implemented remedies means that LTS continues to be an afterthought in practice.

CHIEF RECOMMENDATION: DOE should explicitly plan for its stewardship responsibilities, taking into account stewardship capabilities, when making cleanup decisions. DOE should also implement steps to anticipate and carry out those responsibilities in concert and conjunction with the cleanup process.

DOE’s plans and practices today fall short of meeting the requirements of stewardship, in part because the Department focuses narrowly on complying with regulations. While compliance is necessary, it is not sufficient, because today’s regulations do not fully address LTS challenges. Accordingly, the committee calls for a national dialogue on the broad challenge presented by the stewardship of industrial legacies and natural resources, and on the federal government’s responsibilities.

The long-term effectiveness of a remedy is a criterion to be used in remedy selection under CERCLA, the law that frames decision making for many of DOE’s cleanups. But this formal criterion has not resulted in thorough examinations of stewardship so far, nor even of the specific institutional controls stipulated in regulatory documents. On the contrary, regulators have agreed to remedies at DOE sites with only scant provisions for LTS, assuming that institutional controls are self-executing and self-enforcing. Experience with institutional controls demonstrates some of their limitations and fallibility, particularly over the long term. The point is not that institutional controls should not be used; they are among the few tools available. But the uncertainties of both institutional controls and engineered containment mean that simply complying with today’s regulations is not enough. Compliance now does not ensure fulfillment of the responsibility to protect human health and the environment for the long term, because one cannot assume that the conditions set forth in regulations will endure.

Society needs a responsible authority to ensure that the LTS job is carried out adequately. Regulators have this role in principle. It will be important for DOE, as the responsible party at these sites, to make its own efforts in this area, exceeding the demands of regulators when necessary.

DOE bears an enduring responsibility—and a corresponding liability—for problems that arise in the future at its legacy-waste sites. The liability is in the form of the risks to human health and ecosystems that, at some sites, are likely to be unacceptable if planned or contemplated stewardship measures fail. For example, if controls at uranium tailings sites fail, anyone residing on or using waste materials from those sites could encounter risks that remain unacceptably high, indefinitely. It is in the long-term

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2003. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10703.
×

interest of DOE and the nation for DOE to recognize and act to fulfill its obligations, even when they carry the agency beyond existing regulations.

For a public agency to act in this fashion responsibly requires explicit attention to the values at stake in making choices and committing resources. This is because the process of remediation makes value commitments—apportioning costs and risks over time among populations, and altering the environment and the hazards posed. These values are expressed through decisions that are influenced by the state of the site and its surroundings, scientific understanding, and technological and institutional capabilities. The committee has not seen the values entering into DOE’s decisions articulated in a way that connects to the people affected (in both present and future), or to human obligations for care of natural systems. Without clearly articulated value premises, DOE lacks a basis on which to defend its decisions, except by complying with regulations that are as yet unable to address adequately the long-term demands of the legacy waste sites.

At many of its contaminated sites, DOE operates in a social environment of public distrust.2 Yet DOE needs public trust if the agency is to have sufficient flexibility to reach its cleanup objectives and to undertake LTS. DOE continues to face a challenge in rebuilding public trust and strengthening confidence in the constancy of the institutions charged with stewardship. Social science provides some insight into organizations that enjoy public trust and exhibit constancy, and into processes that tend to build public trust and confidence. These are described in the report.

Because stewardship raises difficult technical and social issues, it is important that choices made during the cleanup phase take into account the needs of LTS from the outset instead of treating LTS as an afterthought, as is now the case. The report provides recommendations for incorporating LTS into each phase of environmental management:

  • Recognize that both natural and social environments will change at the legacy sites. Design and select remedies that accommodate or benefit from natural communities and processes, so as to enhance the durability of remedies.

  • Involve the stakeholders from the earliest phases of decisions that involve risk management. DOE should foster a positive working relationship with interested parties to work together to achieve common goals of protecting human health and the environment. Specific steps described in the report would support these efforts.

  • Plan for fallibility, because unforeseen events and some failures of remedies will occur at DOE’s legacy waste sites over the long term. Analyze the consequences of failures in engineered barriers and institutional controls, and the implications of environmental changes at the sites, to inform decisions.

2  

This environment is by no means uniform across the sites, and the committee notes that in its visits to Mound, Fernald, and Moab, members of the local public said they work with and trust their local DOE office, but not DOE headquarters or DOE overall. Probst and Lowe (2000) describe another kind of relationship with DOE, apathy and indifference, although the committee again notes that the public appeared engaged and interested at all of the committee’s site visits.

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2003. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10703.
×
  • Tailor monitoring to the specific risks and circumstances of each site, while providing national-level guidance for reporting formats and record-preservation protocols. Both goals are important for providing reliable knowledge of the legacy sites, so that problems can be detected and protection can be assured in the long term.

  • Build understanding of DOE’s approach during the remaining period of cleanup, so as to make LTS a welcome step as sites are closed. Activities during the ground water cleanup phase provide important opportunities to build credibility. Given the uncertainties of stewardship, it is important that DOE make learning a part of the mission of cleanup and LTS.

  • Select remedies recognizing that cleanup and LTS are complementary stages in the long-term management of hazards that cannot be eliminated completely. The task is to allocate risks and costs over time in ways that will protect health and environment over the decades and centuries to come.

  • Initiate a national dialogue, involving DOE and other agencies facing stewardship responsibilities, on these enduring responsibilities for wastes created by industrial activities.

The current leadership of DOE cannot assure that the proper actions are taken one hundred years hence. What they can do is to make decisions with an eye on the distant goal and to implement LTS in a way that assures that future generations have what they need to carry out the responsibilities of stewardship.

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2003. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10703.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2003. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10703.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2003. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10703.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2003. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10703.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2003. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10703.
×
Page 5
Next: Contents of Report »
Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites: A Status Report Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Department of Energy (DOE) has over 100 sites at which human access will be restricted even after scheduled cleanups because of the radioactive and chemical contamination and waste that will remain. This report reviews long-term plans for protecting human health and the environment at these sites--a mission DOE calls "long-term stewardship." The committee finds that there is a compartmentalization of cleanup planning and planning for long-term stewardship at the sites. The committee recommends that DOE explicitly plan for long-term stewardship responsibilities as part of its cleanup decisions, and that it taking into account capabilities and limitations of long-term stewardship when making cleanup decisions.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!