[en] Environmental remediation of radioactively and chemically contaminated sites represents one of the most complex challenges of our age. It is currently a problem at nuclear weapons sites in the United States, but as the civilian nuclear industry everywhere deals with decommissioning and decontamination, the lessons learned from these early activities will be influential. The task is challenging for several reasons. First, standards governing remedial action are complex and constantly evolving. Second, unless contaminated material is to be stabilized in place, it must be removed and sent to another facility for storage and ultimate disposal. Third the task is technically demanding. Those who undertake the challenge must be technically sophisticated, creative, and innovative. Fourth, the challenge is a risky one. Those who seek to remediate past contamination may find themselves exposed to expanding and unfair allegations of liability for that very contamination. Finally, there is often a basic crisis of public confidence regarding remediation efforts

[en] The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 brought together for the first time in one department most of the government's energy programs. With these programs came a score of organizational entities, each with its own history and traditions, from a dozen departments and independent agencies. This report traces the history of the Office of Military Application, from its inception as the Division of Military Application in the Atomic Energy Commission, through the Energy Research and Development Administration to its present status as an office in the Department of Energy

[en] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final, dated October 1988 (EPA 1988) requires a detailed analysis be conducted of the most promising remedial alternatives against several evaluation criteria, including cost. To complete the detailed analysis, order-of-magnitude cost estimates (having an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent) must be developed for each remedial alternative. This paper presents a methodology for developing cost estimates of remedial alternatives comprised of various technology and process options with a wide range of estimated contaminated media quantities. In addition, the cost estimating methodology provides flexibility for incorporating revisions to remedial alternatives and achieves the desired range of accuracy. It is important to note that the cost estimating methodology presented here was developed as a concurrent path to the development of contaminated media quantity estimates. This methodology can be initiated before contaminated media quantities are estimated. As a result, this methodology is useful in developing cost estimates for use in screening and evaluating remedial technologies and process options. However, remedial alternative cost estimates cannot be prepared without the contaminated media quantity estimates. In the conduct of the feasibility study for Operable Unit 5 at the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP), fourteen remedial alternatives were retained for detailed analysis. Each remedial alternative was composed of combinations of remedial technologies and processes which were earlier determined to be best suited for addressing the media-specific contaminants found at the FEMP site, and achieving desired remedial action objectives

[en] In the past the protection of the public from radiation has been provided by various Federal and State government agencies in a relatively uncoordinated manner. The EPA, NRC, DOE, DOD, DOT, State agencies and others have established and enforced standards applicable within their mandated jurisdictions. The amount of attention that has been given in the adoption of these standards to the possibility that people could be exposed to multiple sources is considered by some to be inadequate. There has been a tendency to develop specific standards, well below 500 millirems per year, on the basis of cost-benefit analysis that consider only the source under study. Logic would seem to dictate that an acceptable level of collective risk would be established for public exposure to ionizing radiation susceptible to governmental controls, and that an appropriate fraction of this risk would then allocated to each contributing source. Nothing of this nature has happened yet, but the problem of exposure to multiple sources is receiving more attention. In consideration of the above problems, a Federal interagency committee has been formed under the lead of the EPA to prepare new Federal guidance for radiation protection of the public. Several meetings of this committe have been held, and discussions have indicated the need for a logical framework within which the committee's deliberations can proceed in a systematic manner. The balance of this paper is devoted to a framework of this nature that has been presented to the committee and is now under consideration

[en] Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Public Law 96-510), commonly known as Superfund, in 1980. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (Public Law 99-499), which amended CERCLA in 1986, added Section 120 regarding the cleanup of contaminated sites at Federal facilities. Under Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA, each department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal government responsible for compliance with Section 120 must submit an annual report to Congress concerning its progress in implementing the requirements of Section 120. The report must include information on the progress in reaching Interagency Agreements (IAGs), conducting Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies (RI/FSs), and performing remedial actions. Federal agencies that own or operate facilities on the National Priorities List (NPL) are required to begin an RI/FS for these facilities within 6 months after being placed on the NPL. Remediation of these facilities is addressed in an IAG between the Federal agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and in some instances the state within which the facility is located. This report, prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Environmental Management, is being submitted to Congress in accordance with Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA. It is DOE's Eighth Annual Report to Congress and provides information on DOE's progress in implementing CERCLA Section 120 in Fiscal Year 1994 (FY 94), i.e., from October 1, 1993, to September 30, 1994. In this report the words open-quotes siteclose quotes and open-quotes facilityclose quotes are used interchangeably

[en] The handbook is directed toward those federal agencies involved in providing direct field assistance to state and local governments in radiological emergency response planning. Its principal purpose is to optimize the effectiveness of this effort by specifying the functions of the following federal agencies: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of Transportation, Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, and Federal Preparedness Agency

[en] Since the first U.S. nuclear power plant started operation at Pennsylvania in 1957, nuclear energy has continuously grown up. Nowaday, about 110 nuclear power plants are supplying up to 20% of electricity produced. United States is generating different kinds of nuclear wastes from electricity generation and nuclear weapons industry. This paper describes U.S. policy and governmental programs for radioactive wastes management. DOE, NCRP, EPA and DOT are working together on this management. Additionaly there is an international collaboration for exchange of information

[en] Current programs directions are being evolved and implemented to transport drums of contact-handled transuranic (CH-TRU) waste generated at defense-related sites. The TRUPACT-II design will handle boxed waste of limited dimensions only, due to size constraints. This paper analyzes the development and evaluation process for a type B container to transport waste currently stored in boxes. The available options discussed include repackaging, use of existing containers that envelop box dimensions, and even new container designs. An Interface Working Group (IWG) comprised of user sites and Sandia National Laboratories has been formed to evaluate container options and the economics of repackaging waste into smaller boxes or drums for transport in a TRUPACT-II. The IWG reviewed Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) listings for certified packagings and other documents and developed a concise list of options. The possibility of moving all boxes to a central location, as well as use of a single facility for the size reduction/repackaging process, is also being evaluated

[en] The Department of Energy (DOE) is moving towards Long-Term Stewardship (LTS) of many environmental restoration sites that cannot be released for unrestricted use. One aspect of information management for LTS is geospatial data archiving. This report discusses the challenges facing the DOE LTS program concerning the data management and archiving of geospatial data. It discusses challenges in using electronic media for archiving, overcoming technological obsolescence, data refreshing, data migration, and emulation. It gives an overview of existing guidance and policy and discusses what the United States Geological Service (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are doing to archive the geospatial data that their agencies are responsible for. In the conclusion, this report provides issues for further discussion around long-term spatial data archiving

[en] An effective White Paper on recycling radioactive scrap metals has been drafted at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently. The paper has received the praise and commendation of the DOE's Director of Environmental Management. However, obstructionist posturing by the petty bureaucrats in DOE continues to plague the meaningful implementation of RSM recycling. The key findings of the White Paper study and its major recommendations have discussed in this paper. The study indicates that several technologies, such as melt refining and electro refining, are currently available for surface and volume decontamination of metals. The unit cost of decontamination was found to vary from $700 to $400/ton; recycling of most low-contaminated metals can therefore be cost-effective vis-a vis the average cost of low-level radioactive wastes disposal of %400 to $2800/ton. Major recycling demonstration projects with emphasis on restricted RSM reuse options have been recommended. Volume contamination standard for unrestricted release should be established only after adequate studies of health effects and scientific/industrial effects of RSM reuse has been conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Some of the significant technical data developed during this study have also been briefly discussed in this paper. (author)