National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"2 Overview of EM Program Evolution." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 24

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

2 Overview of EM Program Evolution HOW THE PROGRAM CAME ABOUT The mission of the earliest precursor agencies of the present-day Department of Energy (DOE) involved the use of atomic energy for defense purposes and then, with the passage of the McMahon Act in 1946, the use of atomic energy for civilian purposes as well. During the 1940s, war time activities occurred at industrial scale on land reservations of hundreds of square miles in size. Smaller sites conducted upstream activities to fabricate materials needed at the larger sites for production of weapons grade materials (or for nuclear power fuel assemblies) and for the assembly of the weapons themselves. Interspersed within these sites and elsewhere in the larger complex were sites hosting research, development and test operations also using atomic energy. In the following years, as peace time activities increased—involving atomic energy and other forms of energy and topics of research—and defense activities escalated, so too did the number of sites in the complex. The department’s inventory of sites for all its activities is now well over 150 (NASEM, 2017). Several years after war time activities ended, the Atomic Energy Commission began considering the final disposition not only of the materials, the core of which were so-called “Atomic Energy Act materials,”1 but of the lands themselves at the dozen or so contract-operated laboratories and test ranges with significant land-holdings. The most radioactive of these wastes received the most attention, and by the late 1950s a consensus emerged that deep underground disposal in the lithosphere was the preferred method to isolate such wastes from the biosphere (NAS-NRC, 1957). Preparing and immobilizing wastes for ultimate disposition became the focus of further large-scale operations. In parallel, the issue of containing the wastes generated during the war-time activities become more urgent as natural processes conveyed radionuclide fractions outside site boundaries into environmental media and, within the sites, into soil and groundwater. The cleanup of environmental media2 thus became a significant mission area for the department. 1 These are defined in section 11 of the AEA of 1954, as amended, as being of three types: source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material. Source material is actinides, or ores containing actinides, that are fissionable with neutrons. Such ores can be milled and, when specified, selectively enriched in isotopes more suitable for nuclear chain reactions (becoming special nuclear material), and fabricated into fuel assemblies. The latter are used in the production of heavier elements or for release of fission energy to provide heat or generate mechanical or electric power (e.g., by raising steam to turn a Rankine cycle). Byproduct materials are chiefly those that evolve during fission of source material and special nuclear material. Byproduct materials can also include mill tailings from the processing of source material; purified quantities of a particular isotope of the element radium; or material that has become radioactive in physics experiments involving highly-energetic particles. Interested readers should consult the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for definitions of the above having proper legal meaning and effect. 2 Collectively, “cleanup” may refer to soil and groundwater treatment; building demolition; disposal (often on- site); or waste processing and immobilization. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-1

By 1980, the responsibility for managing defense wastes had been assigned to DOE’s Office of Defense Programs pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1981. The annual budget for management of such wastes was approximately $300 million (Ghosling and Fehner, 1994, p. 29). In 1989 DOE elevated and consolidated the responsibility for the cleanups within the organization. This created for the first time an assistant secretary with line management responsibility for the disposition of defense wastes.3 The organizational unit was called the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management—albeit now headed by a presidentially-appointed, senate-confirmed official—but within a few years became known as the Office of Environmental Management (EM).4 The Office of Environmental Management currently has three verticals: Field Operations (EM-3), Regulatory and Policy Affairs (EM-4), and Corporate Services (EM-5). This tri-partite structure followed from a reorganization in June 2016 that consolidated seven offices down to current three. Perhaps most prominently, this consolidation included “changes in the reporting relationships of the EM field organizations.”5 Whereas previously the headquarters units through which the sites reported were gathered under the assistant secretary (EM-1),6 they now reported to an associate principal deputy assistant secretary (EM-3). REGULATORY REGIMES FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT In the 1960s and 1970s, the department began to reckon with its major waste streams. A pilot project in New Mexico was proposed in a salt formation in the Permian Basin, and various wastes became candidates for final disposition there. A Defense Waste Processing Facility was proposed at the Savannah River Site (SRS) to immobilize the 25 million gallons of liquid waste in a form suitable for deep underground or “geologic” disposal. At the same time, the environmental laws that had been created in the years since the Atomic Energy Act led to debate over the applicability of these same laws to defense wastes. Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976, but, to a literal reading, the Act exempted sites with so-called mixed waste that has both AEA material and RCRA- hazardous constituents. The Department continued to assert for several years that the exemption of RCRA Section 1006 applied. Litigation followed, including a 1984 decision in which a Federal Court ordered DOE to comply with RCRA. See Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation v. Model, 586 F Supp. 1163 (E.D. Tenn.1984). Definitive resolution would have to wait until 1992 and the passage of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act (P.L. 102-386), which amended section 6001 of RCRA to specify that federal facilities are subject to “all civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of whether such penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in nature.” The cleanup of inactive sites in the department’s inventory became subject to a further environmental law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), created in 1980. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 required DOE to enter into cleanup agreements for all sites on the National Priorities List. CERCLA and RCRA are the two main laws under which EM cleanups proceed. (DOE, 2017). 3 November 8, 1981: Secretary of Energy James Watkins issued SEN-13-89 affirming the Department’s intention to ask for Congressional authority for a new assistant secretary. 4 References to EM include both the Office of Environmental Management and the assistant secretary-level predecessor the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management. 5 Michele Inge-Farmer, Workforce Analytics & Planning Division, HC-52 Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer. June 30, 2016, “Memorandum for Mark Whitney, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary; Subject: Organization Change Implementation Material – Environmental Management.” H-14-16 (06/27/16). 6 In addition, there is EM-2, the principal deputy assistant secretary. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-2

While these legalities were being resolved, DOE in 1989 elevated and consolidated the responsibility for the cleanups within the department. This created for the first time an assistant secretary with line management responsibility for the disposition of defense wastes.7 EM was charged with the responsibility of cleaning up 107 contaminated sites in 35 states, covering approximately 3,100 square miles.8 Over time the on-site contractors funded by EM cleaned-up sites of varying size and complexity. (See the section “Accomplishments to Date,” below.) In 1989 four parcels at the Hanford Plant were added to the National Priorities List.9 By 1990, nine of the weapons complex sites were proposed or listed on the National Priorities List (OTA, 1991). The authority to regulate radioactive material also shifted over time. In 1970, the newly created U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)10 was given authority set standards for radiation exposure and for the concentrations of Atomic Energy Act materials in the general environment. This authority was clarified in 1974 to allow EPA to specify such standards to apply outside the boundaries of sites without specificity on the particular activity occurring within.11 The AEC and its successors, the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and DOE, retained authority to regulate its own sites contaminated with AEA materials. There were exceptions to the latter, and for example the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1993 (P.L. 102-579) however gave EPA authority to set standards for that site, which EM developed and operates. SIZE, SCOPE AND SCALE OF EM PROGRAM At its 1989 inception, EM was charged with the environmental cleanups of 107 sites in 35 states.12 The office set the priorities for cleanups in a 5-year plan issued in 1989 (Gosling and Fehner, p. 73). By one estimate, the 5-year plan contained over 1,500 projects. (Gosling and Fehner, p. 77). The early years of EM were dominated by constructing and operating waste management facilities (over half of budget authority). Further significant outlays addressed corrective actions necessary to bring sites into compliance with the environmental laws and regulatory regimes noted above. Today’s EM includes 17 sites (Figure 2.1), or a six-fold reduction versus 1989. Sixteen of these are contaminated from the use of atomic energy for defense purposes (see Table 2.1), the civilian nuclear fuel cycle, development of naval propulsion systems, or other Atomic Energy Commission objectives. A seventeenth site in Carlsbad, New Mexico, carries out disposal operations and accepts a specific type of waste (“transuranic”) contaminated with AEA material containing chiefly plutonium but also other actinides heavier than uranium. Sites that are deemed sufficiently cleaned-up are transferred to the Office of Legacy Management (LM). LM has responsibility for “long-term surveillance and maintenance, workforce restructuring and benefits, property management, land use planning, and community assistance.”13 LM continues the groundwater treatment activities from the EM ownership phase. For example, at the former Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado within the 1,300-acre Central Operable Unit, LM continues groundwater treatment and site monitoring. (The former security buffer zone, the Peripheral Operable Unit, was transferred in July 7 Secretary of Energy James Watkins issued SEN-13-89 on November 8, 1981, affirming the Department’s intention to ask for Congressional authority for a new assistant secretary. 8 Todd Shrader, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (EM-2); Office of Environmental Management (EM); “EM Program History and Overview,” presentation to the Committee, February 24, 2020, Washington, D.C. 9 Schneider, Keith (February 28, 1989). “Agreement for a Cleanup at Nuclear Site”. The New York Times. 10 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. Federal Register 35: 15623; and 84 Stat. 2086. 11 Richard D. Lyons, (December 12, 1973), “E.P.A. Loses Power to Limit Radiation.” The New York Times. 12 Todd Shrader, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (EM-2); Office of Environmental Management (EM); “EM Program History and Overview,” presentation to the Committee, February 24, 2020, Washington, D.C. 13 U.S. Department of Energy “Office of Legacy Management,” < https://www.energy.gov/lm/office-legacy- management>. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-3

2007 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.14) Since its establishment in December 2003, LM has accepted the transfer of 101 sites. FIGURE 2.1 Locations of sites in the Office of Environmental Management inventory as of 2020. SOURCE: Adapted from Todd Shrader, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (EM-2), Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy, “EM Program History and Overview,” presentation to the committee, February 24, 2020. TABLE 2.1 List of Defense Sites Hanford Sitea Idaho National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory Nevada Nuclear Security Site Oak Ridge Sandia National Laboratory Savannah River Site Separations Process Research Unit Waste Isolation Pilot Plant a Administered as two separate sites: Office of River Protection and the Richland Operations Office. SOURCE: DOE (2018). The budget authority for EM comes from more than one source (FIGURE 2.2), the dominant one being Atomic Energy Defense Activities, which is part of the National Defense Budget Function (050). Smaller portions of budget authority are sourced from the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning account. These three accounts are 14 Office of Legacy Management, June 2020, “Fact Sheet: Rocky Flats Site, Colorado.” https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/06/f75/RockyFlatsFactSheet.pdf. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-4

allocated predominantly to the sites through headquarters and the monies obligated in contracts. The topline budget authority for the EM since its inception is shown in Figure 2.3. Figure 2.4 shows allocation to the eight largest sites in terms of budget authority. The budget priorities for FY 2021 are sorted by program breakdown structure (PBS) in Figure 2.5. Recent accomplishments include, for example, the decontamination and decommissioning of the K-25 building at East Tennessee Technology Park (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), a gaseous diffusion plant; removal of sludge, debris and water from the K-West basin at the inactive K-West nuclear reactor in Richland Operations Office (Hanford Site) in Washington state; and closure of almost 90 acres of coal ash and contaminated soil at the D-Area Ash Basin, adjacent to a steam and electricity plant that provided energy services at the Savannah River Site (Aiken, South Carolina). One measure of the size, scope and scale of EM’s activities is the dollar amount of its clean-up liabilities. Environmental laws such as CERCLA and RCRA, noted above, require the cleanup of contaminated sites. These requirements and any specific remedies are negotiated with the U.S. EPA and state authorities, and such remedies can be estimated and reported as liabilities. Since 2010 liabilities have increased $271 billion (Figure 2.6). During the same time period, EM spent $70 billion on the sites. In recent years DOE has taken on additional contaminated sites from other DOE organizations (GAO, 2019, p. 7). The liabilities themselves have occasioned numerous studies by the Government Accountability Office.15 FIGURE 2.2 Detail of budget authority for the Office of Environmental Management, 2010 to 2020. 15 Amanda Kolling, Government Accountability Office, “DOE’s Environmental Cleanup Mission: Scope and Growth in DOE’s Environmental Liabilities and Challenges to Progress,” presentation to the Committee, February 24, 2020, Washington, D.C. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-5

FIGURE 2.3 Topline Budget Authority (BA) since 1989 for Office of Environmental Management and predessor offices. The BA is given both in as-spent dollars and in amounts inflated forward to 2018. SOURE: Rodney Lehman, DOE, “EM Historical Appropriations as of 1989,” email to National Academies staff, July 14, 2020. FIGURE 2.4 Office of Environmental Management Budget Request ($000,000), listed by site; fiscal year 2021. “Other” includes monies for, in decreasing order: Los Alamos National Laboratory; West Valley Demonstration Project; Nevada National Security Site; Moab; Separations Process Research Unit; Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC); Sandia National Laboratories (managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration); Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and Brookhaven National Laboratory. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-6

FIGURE 2.5 Office of Environmental Management fiscal year 2021 budget request ($000,000), by program breakdown structure (PBS). NOTE: D&D = decontamination and decommissioning; SNF = spent nuclear fuel; and TRU = transuranic radioactive waste. FIGURE 2.6 Cleanup liabilities ($ billions) for sites in the inventory of the Office of Environmental Management. SOURCE: Data from U.S. Department of Energy, email to NASEM staff from Catherine Bohan, Office of Environmental Management, “NAS 3133 Response to Request for Additional Information #1 dated 03062020 (Item 2),” April 8, 2019. ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE The cleanup of the industrial complex maintained by DOE and its predecessor agencies has proved to be a massive enterprise. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Manhattan Engineering District, started constructing the complex during the Second World War. The complex was expanded during the ensuing Cold War by the Atomic Energy Commission, the Energy Research and Development Authority, and starting in 1977, DOE. At its peak, this nuclear complex encompassed 134 distinct sites in 31 states and 1 territory, with a total area of more than 2 million acres (DOE, 1998, see Figure 2.7). Nuclear weapons and energy production activities required the construction of many buildings and facilities, PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-7

produced large quantities of radioactive and hazardous wastes, and resulted in widespread groundwater and soil contamination at these sites, often referred to as “nuclear legacy sites.” More than 100 of the DOE nuclear legacy sites required cleanup actions. Eleven were cleaned up prior to 1989; the majority of sites, 55, were cleaned up in the 10 years between 1989 and 1998; 20 sites were cleaned up between 1999 and 2008; and 5 sites between 2009 and 2019 (see Table 2.2).16 In total, EM and its predecessor offices have completed cleanup actions at 90 out of 107 sites.17 The remaining cleanup sites, listed in Table 2.3, are often cited as the most complex, and therefore the most costly to remediate with the longest timelines to completion. FIGURE 2.7 Sites requiring environmental remediation in 1989 when the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (later the Office of Environmental Management) was created. Blue circles indicate locations of sites. Additional sites (not shown) were located in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. TABLE 2.2 DOE Office of Environmental Management’s Cleanup Completion of Sites Site Closure Date Hallam Nuclear Power Facility, NE 1969 Piqua Nuclear Power Facility, OH 1969 Bayo Canyon, NM 1982 Kellex/Pierpont, NJ 1982 University of California, CA 1982 Acid/Pueblo Canyons, NM 1984 Chupadera Mesa, NM 1984 Canonsburg, PA 1986 16 Cleaned up refers to the state of the site in which cleanup actions were completed and the site determined “closed” by EM. 17 Todd Shrader, Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary (EM-2); Office of Environmental Management (EM); “EM Program History and Overview,” presentation to the Committee, February 24, 2020, Washington, D.C. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-8

Site Closure Date Shiprock, NM 1987 Middlesex Municipal Landfill, NJ 1987 Niagara Falls Storage Site Vicinity Properties, NY 1987 Salt Lake City, UT 1989 Spook, WY 1989 National Guard Armory, IL 1989 University of Chicago, IL 1989 Green River, UT 1990 Lakeview, OR 1990 Riverton, WY 1990 Tuba City, AZ 1990 Durango, CO 1991 Lowman, ID 1992 Pagano Salvage Yard, NM 1992 Elza Gate, TN 1992 Albany Research Center, OR 1993 Baker and Williams Warehouses, NY 1993 Falls City, TX 1994 Grand Junction Mill Tailings Site, CO 1994 Monument Valley, AZ 1994 Salton Sea Test Base, CA 1994 Project Chariot, AK 1994 Aliquippa Forge, PA 1994 Granite City Steel, IL 1994 Seymour Specialty Wire, CT 1994 Ambrosia Lake, NM 1995 Holloman Air Force Base, NM 1995 Kauai Test Facility, HI 1995 Mexican Hat, UT 1995 Peak Oil PRP Participation, FL 1995 Alba Craft, OH 1995 Associate Aircraft, OH 1995 C. H. Schnoor, PA 1995 Chapman Valve, MA 1995 General Motors, MI 1995 Herring-Hall Marvin Safe Co., MA 1995 Gunnison, CO 1995 Oxnard Facility, CA 1996 South Valley Superfund Site, NM 1996 B&T Metals, OH 1996 Baker Brothers, OH 1996 Oak Ridge Associated Universities, TN 1996 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-9

Site Closure Date Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, IL 1996 Site A/Plot M, IL 1997 Geothermal Test Facility, CA 1997 New Rifle, CO 1997 Old Rifle, CO 1997 Pinellas Plant, FL 1997 Slick Rock Old North Continent, CO 1997 Slick Rock Union Carbide, CO 1997 New Brunswick Site, NJ 1997 Ventron, MA 1997 Bellfield, ND 1997 Bowman, ND 1998 Maybell, CO 1998 Naturita, CO 1998 Center for Energy and Environmental Research, PR 1998 Ames Laboratory, IA 1998 Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, NJ 1999 Sandia National Laboratories – CA 1999 Monticello Remedial Action Project, UT 1999 Columbus Environmental Management Project - King Avenue, OH 2000 Argonne National Laboratory - West, ID 2000 General Atomics, CA 2001 Grand Junction Office, CO 2001 Weldon Spring Site, MO 2001 Maxey Flats Disposal Site, KY 2002 Salmon Site, MS 2005 Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research, CA 2005 Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, CO 2006 Kansas City Plant, MO 2006 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory - Main Site, CA 2006 Amchitka Island, AK 2007 Columbus Environmental Management Project - West Jefferson, OH 2007 Ashtabula Environmental Management Project, OH 2007 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, CA 2007 Fernald Environmental Management Project, OH 2007 Miamisburg Environmental Management Project, OH 2008 Pantex Plant, TX 2009 Argonne National Laboratory - East, IL 2009 General Electric Vallecitos Nuclear Center, CA 2010 Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory, NM 2011 Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, CA 2014 SOURCE: Modified from https://www.energy.gov/em/completed-cleanup-sites (accessed 10/14/2020). PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-10

TABLE 2.3 Department of Energy Sites and Locations with Current Remediation and Cleanup Activities; Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Request Values Included FY 2021 Budget End Site Name Location Request Date** Hanford: Office of River Protection Richland, WA $1.258 billion Hanford: Richland Operations Office Richland, WA $655 million Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Tracy, CA $1.764 million* Savannah River Site Aiken, SC $1.703 billion Portsmouth Piketon, OH $491 million 2038 Oak Ridge Oak Ridge, TN $432 million Paducah Paducah, KY $282 million 2065 Idaho Idaho Falls, ID $271 million Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM $120 million West Valley Demonstration Project West Valley, NY $92 million Nevada National Security Site near Las Vegas, NV $61 million Moab Moab, UT $48 million Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU) Niskayuna, NY $15 million 2030 Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) Canoga Park, CA $11 million Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM $5 million 2031 Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY $0 million 2020 NOTES: * Some EM funded work is also managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration. ** As reported by EM’s 2020 strategic plan. SOURCE: modified from https://www.energy.gov/em/mission/cleanup-sites (accessed 10/14/2020). To meet this objective, EM has undertaken a major cleanup effort, which, according to DOE, is the largest environmental cleanup in the world. Estimates of the remaining cost to cleanup have long been uncertain because the magnitude of contamination, the level of cleanup effort required at some sites, and the environmental liability (one of the largest in the U.S. government) are still poorly understood (NRC, 2000, p. 14). EM reports continuing progress, as reported to the committee18 include the following:  At Hanford’s Richland site, radioactive sludge has been transferred away from the Columbia River to T Plant;  At Hanford’s other site, River Protection, significant steps were made in the ongoing construction of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant required for processing the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste;  Cleanup of the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) at Oak Ridge gained headway with completion of demolition of the K-1037 Building;  Savannah River Site completed an 11-year demonstration of two interim salt waste processing facilities which support preparations for the startup of the Salt Waste Processing Facility, to be used to process tank waste on-site; 18 Todd Shrader, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (EM-2); Office of Environmental Management (EM); “EM Program History and Overview,” presentation to the Committee, February 24, 2020, Washington, D.C. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-11

 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) received its 12,500th shipment of transuranic waste for disposal;  At the Idaho site, safely completed processing at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Facility of stored transuranic waste, preparing it for offsite disposal;  At Portsmouth, reached the highest operating uptime at the site’s depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion plant since it began operations; and  At the West Valley site, completed disposition of waste from the demolition of the West Valley Demonstration Project vitrification plant shipping nearly 460 containers of waste by train and truck to off-site disposal facilities. (Adapted from Todd Shrader, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (EM-2), Office of Environmental Management, “EM Program History and Overview,” presentation to the committee, February 24, 2020). These successes reported by EM do show progress at the remaining sites. However, as discussed above, the rate of increase of EM’s environmental liabilities eclipses the rate of closure of these sites and have increased $271 billion since 2010. REFERENCES Gosling, F.S. and T.R. Fehner. 1994. Closing the Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Management: 1942 to 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. March. U.S. Department of Energy, Rocky Flats Project Office. 2006. Closure Legacy: from weapons to wildlife. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. August. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1998. Paths to Closure: Accelerating Cleanup. DOE/EM-0362, June 1998, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/631199-accelerating-cleanup-paths-closure (accessed 10/14/2020) DOE. 1999. Memorandum for all departments from T.J. Glauthier, Deputy Secretary. Subject: Project Management Reform Initiative. June 25, 1999. DOE. 2000. Status on Paths to Closure. DOE. 2017. Future-Years Defense Environmental Management Plan: FY 2018 to FY 2070. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. DOE. 2020. Department of Energy FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request: Volume 5, Environmental Management. DOE/CF-0166. Washington, D.C.: DOE. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2019. Environmental Liabilities: DOE Would Benefit from Incorporating Risk-Informed Decision-Making into Its Cleanup Policy. GAO-19-339. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2017. Utilizing the Energy Resource Potential of DOE Lands. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Academy of Sciences – National Research Council (NAS – NRC). 1957. The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land. Washington, D.C.: NAS – NRC. National Research Council (NRC). 2000: National Research Council, https://www.nap.edu/download/9793#, accessed 10/20/2020 NRC. 2007. Assessment of the Results of External Independent Reviews for U.S. Department of Energy Projects (2007). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Office of Technology Assessment. 1991. Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production. OTA-O-484. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States. February. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 2-12

Next: 3 Contracting and Project Management in the Office of Environmental Management »
Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies have conducted activities to develop atomic energy for civilian and defense purposes since the initiation of the World War II Manhattan Project in 1942. These activities took place at large federal land reservations of hundreds of square miles involving industrial-scale operations, but also at many smaller federal and non-federal sites such as uranium mines, materials processing and manufacturing facilities. The nuclear weapons and energy production activities at these facilities produced large quantities of radioactive and hazardous wastes and resulted in widespread groundwater and soil contamination at these sites. DOE initiated a concerted effort to clean up these sites beginning in the 1980s. Many of these sites have been remediated and are in long-term caretaker status, closed or repurposed for other uses.

Review of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report provides background information on the sites currently assigned to the DOE's Office of Environmental Management that are undergoing cleanup; discusses current practices for management and oversight of the cleanups; offers findings and recommendations on such practices and how progress is measured against them; and considers the contracts under which the cleanups proceed and how these have been and can be structured to include incentives for improved cost and schedule performance.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!