www.em.doe.gov 1
STGWG Open Session with
Environmental Management
Frank Marcinowski
June 2011
www.em.doe.gov 2
Goal 3: Complete the disposition of 90% of the legacy transuranic waste by 2015.
Goal 2: Reduce the life cycle costs and accelerate the cleanup of the Cold War environmental legacy.
Goal 1: Complete the three major tank waste projects within the current approved baselines.
Goal 4: Reduce the EM legacy footprint by 40% by the end of 2011, leading to approximately 90% reduction by 2015.
Goal 5: Improve safety, security and quality assurance towards a goal of zero accidents, incidents, and defects.
Goal 6: Improve contract and project management with the objective of delivering results on time, and within cost.
Goal 7: Achieve excellence in management and leadership, making EM one of the best places to work in the Federal Government.
EM’s MissionTo safely transform the environmental
legacy of the Cold War into assets available
for the Nation's future by completing quality
cleanup work on schedule and within cost,
delivering demonstrated value to the
American taxpayer.
EM’s VisionTo be viewed as one of the best
managed government programs
and the employer of choice in the
Federal Government.
Environmental Management is on a
Journey to Excellence . . .
www.em.doe.gov 3
. . . while mitigating risks across the U.S.
Activities to maintain a safe, secure, and
compliant posture in the EM complex
Radioactive tank waste stabilization,
treatment, and disposal
Spent (used) nuclear fuel storage, receipt,
and disposition
Special nuclear material consolidation,
processing, and disposition
Transuranic and mixed/low-level waste
disposition
Soil and groundwater remediation
Excess facilities decontamination and
decommissioning (D&D)
Radioactive Tank Waste Stabilization
and Disposition38%
Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, receipt and
disposition3%
Special Nuclear Material
Consolidation,Processing and
Disposition10%
Transuranic and Mixed/Low LevelWaste Disposition
14%
Soil and Groundwater Remediation
10%
Excess Facilities Deactiviation andDecommissioning
17%
Essential Services
8%
FY 2012 Budget Request
www.em.doe.gov 4
* Original 110 Sites changed legislatively in 1998. Current inventory is 107 Sites.
*
www.em.doe.gov 5
EM is treating radioactive tank waste . . .
Hanford – 176M curies
Idaho – 37M curies
Savannah River Site –
379M curies
www.em.doe.gov 6
Hanford ~ 2130 MTHM
Idaho ~280 MTHM
Savannah
River Site
~30 MTHM
Fort St.
Vrain, CO
~15 MTHM
. . . storing spent nuclear fuel . . .
www.em.doe.gov 7
. . . disposing transuranic waste. . .
Hanford Site Idaho National Laboratory
Sandia National Laboratory Savannah River
Site
Materials Fuels Complex
Los Alamos National
LaboratoryOak Ridge National
LaboratoryKAPL Nuclear Fuel Services
Argonne National Laboratory - East NRD, LLC
West Valley
Knolls Atomic Power
Laboratory
Bettis Atomic Power
Laboratory
Babcock & Wilcox NES
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
www.em.doe.gov 8
. . . and dispositioning mixed and low-
level wastes.
CERCLA Disposal Facility
Regional LLW/MLLW Facility
LLW Operations Disposal Facility
MLLW Operations Disposal Facility
Legend
Commercial LLW/MLLW Operations
Disposal Facility
Closed CERCLA Site
Byproduct Material Disposal
Hanford SiteIdaho National
Laboratory
Savannah River Site
Energy Solutions
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Fernald
Crescent Junction
Nevada Test Site
www.em.doe.gov 9
New Mixed Waste Disposal Cell in Nevada
www.em.doe.gov 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
FY10 act FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Offsite
Onsite
Forecasts from DRAFT 2011 WIMS Source: 2011 WIMS data; excludes “TBD” streams
LLW/MLLW Disposal Forecast Trends
(millions of cubic feet)
www.em.doe.gov 11
Update on Savannah River Site (SRS) DU Oxide Disposition
• SRS DU oxide was determined to be excess to mission needs, and plans undertaken to dispose of oxides as waste
– Originally, 35,800 containers
– Four successful shipment campaigns from FY03-FY08
• DOE had planned to dispose of remaining SRS DU oxide at Clive
– First of three planned rail shipments completed in December 2009
– These DU oxides remain in storage at Clive pending outcome of site-performance assessment/regulatory action
• Nevada Site Office conducted special analysis to determine the acceptability of the waste stream for shallow land burial
• Due to Utah regulatory developments, balance of SRS inventory redirected to NNSS after extensive coordination with Nevada
– Approximately 9,400 containers remained at SRS in December 2010
– Shipments began by truck in January 2011 and are expected to be completed by the end of FY11
www.em.doe.gov 12
DOE is process its first Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Determination under DOE O 435.1
o DOE’s has published a Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) Evaluation for the melter equipment used to vitrify HLW at the West Valley Demonstration Project.
“Incidental waste” refers to radioactive waste that is incidental to the operations of managing HLW; i.e., it comes from or has been touched by HLW
An evaluation must be made to determine if this particular waste material is incidental to the operations of managing HLW (DOE Manual 435.1-1, Section II.B.2(a) criteria)
If it is incidental, it is non-HLW and per DOE requirements must be managed as LLW or TRU waste based on the waste’s specific radioisotopic inventory
The WIR evaluation determines if the waste material is, or it is not, incidental to the reprocessing of HLW
o Conducted 45 day public comment period, which ended April 28, 2011
o WIR Determination being finalized in light of NRC and public comments
o Following WIR Determination, final disposal decisions can proceed
www.em.doe.gov 13
The Melter
10’ x 10’ x 10’ ft. ~ 53 tons 13
www.em.doe.gov 14
What’s New with Greater-than-Class C Environmental Impact Statement
• Draft EIS published and shared with Congress in February 2011
– 120-day public comment period (ends 6/27/11)– Nine public hearings conducted in April/May at each of
the proposed sites and in Washington, DC– Meetings also held with CABS and regulators
• Proposed Disposal Methods: deep geologic repository, intermediate depth borehole; enhanced near-surface trench and above-grade vault
• Proposed Disposal Locations: Hanford, INL, LANL, WIPP/WIPP vicinity, NNSS, SRS, and generic commercial locations
• DOE does not have a Preferred Alternative; to be included in Final EIS based on public comment
• Goal is to issue Final EIS in 2012
• Before issuing ROD, DOE must submit a Report to Congress describing disposal alternatives and await Congressional action.
www.em.doe.gov 15
EM’s New Mercury Management Project
• The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 requires DOE to provide storage and long-term management of mercury (non-radioactive) generated in the U.S.
• Final EIS published in January 2011• Sites analyzed in the EIS are Hanford (WA); INL (ID); Grand Junction (CO); Hawthorne (NV); SRS (SC); Andrews (TX); and Kansas City (MO)• WCS facility in Andrews, TX is Preferred Alternative
• Critical Milestones • DOE issued Interim Guidance on operating the proposed mercury facility – 11/14/09• DOE published Draft EIS – 01/29/10• Final EIS – 1/28/11• Final Record of Decision and selection of mercury storage site(s) -Summer 2011• Mercury storage facility ready to accept mercury – 01/01/13• Ban on export of mercury from the U.S. effective – 01/01/13• DOE mercury storage facility operating under RCRA permit – 01/01/15
• Outreach • Public hearings at nine locations: 2/23/10 – 3/9/10• Public comment period: 1/29/10 – 3/30/10
www.em.doe.gov 16
DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management
o EM has initiated a multi-year effort to update DOE Order 435.1• Targeted to complete in 2012
o Developed methodologies for updating Order 435.1• Established chapter-specific “Core Teams” • Review of input from Complex-Wide Review Completed in 2010• Currently revising language in Order and supporting documents• Public review expected in early FY12
o Public meeting held in Phoenix on March 4 on DOE’s efforts toupdate O 435.1 and NRC actions related to 10 CFR Part 61
• Included a joint DOE/NRC Panel discussion to respond to and explain agencies’ positions, future plans, and specific viewsregarding the LLW management framework
• Addressed public and stakeholder suggestions and comments
www.em.doe.gov 17
Current Schedule for DOE Order 435.1 Update
Letter Reqt Updates
Compilation of Redline Chapters
Compilation of Revised Directives Package – old
format
Conversion into 251.1C Compliant
Package
DRB/Public/Dept Review Process Outreach
Oct Thru
Dec 2010
FPD/STA
Review
FPD/STA
Review
FPD/STA
Review
Formalization of Rogue GuidesTech Standard
Review
PublicWkshp
WM 2011
Jan 2011 Feb Thru Jun 2011 Jul Thru Sep 2011 Oct 2011
To Aug 2012
Aug / Sep
2011
www.em.doe.gov 18
Regulatory History
DOE created EM to place a focus on bringing its sites into compliance, and
entered into a series of site-specific enforceable cleanup agreements that provide
the mechanism for bringing those sites into compliance
These agreements allow DOE to maintain ongoing operations and the critical
missions they support while achieving compliance with governing environmental
laws not only in EM but also in NNSA, Science and Nuclear Energy
Regulatory Framework
EM has approximately 40 compliance agreements across its various sites with
Federal and state regulators based primarily on RCRA and CERCLA
Stakeholder input is required for most regulatory documents and can significantly
impact requirements
EM had 141 major enforceable milestones in FY10 of which we met 95%, and 160
major enforceable milestones in FY11 of which we expected to meet 100% with
full funding
EM is fulfilling real legal obligations . . .
www.em.doe.gov 19
Recovery Act Success
Demolition Debris and Soil – Permanently disposed 1,220,031 cubic meters
of debris and soil, which is enough to fill 488 Olympic swimming pools
Facility Completions – Completed demolition or cleanup of 180 of 261
facilities.
TRU Waste – Dispositioned 2,959 cubic meters of transuranic waste. This
waste has been removed from sites’ inventories
Low-Level Waste/Mixed Low-Level Waste – Disposed 78,925 cubic meters
of low-level and mixed low-level waste, equal to 379,087 55-gallon drums
Groundwater Wells – Installed 448 remediation and monitoring wells
Mill Tailings – Disposed close to 2.2 million tons of uranium mill tailings,
surpassing the goal for disposal of the tailings with Recovery Act funding at the
Moab Site in Utah
. . . and making real progress . . .
www.em.doe.gov 20
91 cleanup projects in the EM Recovery Act portfolio
42 capital projects and 49 operational activities
95% are on cost and schedule
Routinely reviewed by the GAO and the IG
FY 2010 – EM completed 5 out of 5 cleanup capital projects on cost and schedule
FY 2010-2012 – Expected rolling average for EM project success, above 90%
EM has had a lot of success on cleanup projects
Since 2005, 30 cleanup projects originally estimated at a total cost of $12.9B have been completed for
an actual cost of $12.1B
Two cleanup projects (Rocky Flats and Fernald, with total project costs originally estimated at $7.5B,
and $3.1B, respectively) won the Project Management of the Year Award from the Project
Management Institute.
OE
CM
Ma
rch
20
11
Mo
nth
ly D
OE
Pro
ject
Po
rtfo
lio S
tatu
s
Organization# of Projects
Post CD-2$ (M)
% of $ Value with
Acceptable Status
% No. of Projects with
Acceptable Status
EERE 5 $262.7 100% 100%
EM 59 $22,487.1 97% 88%
NA 17 $6,878.6 89% 82%
SC 23 $2,593.1 100% 100%
. . . while improving project management.
www.em.doe.gov 21
EM is facing real challenges after the
FY2011 Continuing Resolution . . .
The final FY2011 CR for EM is $5.67 billion
– 6.3% or a $380 million reduction from the FY2011 request
Looking for additional operational efficiencies to continue
progress on cleanup
– Evaluating all operations for improvements while maintaining
safety first priority
– Looking to align the workforce to meet the cleanup mission need
– Essential to complete Recovery Act scope of work
– Evaluating environmental compliance posture
www.em.doe.gov 22
FY 2011 Operating Plan
Site
FY 2010 Current
Enacted
FY 2011 Operating
Plan
FY 2012
Cong. Request
Argonne 10,000 - -
Brookhaven 15,000 13,833 8,185
ETEC 10,500 6,466 10,679
Hanford 1,080,503 1,038,876 1,005,987
Idaho 469,168 403,448 392,000
Los Alamos 200,438 191,801 361,577
Lawrence Livermore 2,924 822 873
Miamisburg 33,243 - -
Moab 39,000 30,938 31,000
Nevada 74,405 62,510 66,000
Oak Ridge 436,448 401,142 401,056
River Protection 1,096,600 1,135,597 1,361,391
www.em.doe.gov 23
Site
FY 2010 Current
Enacted
FY 2011 Operating
Plan
FY 2012
Cong. Request
Paducah 165,127 144,370 143,769
Portsmouth 310,307 257,604 310,035
Savannah River 1,342,013 1,300,024 1,363,728
SPRU 15,000 50,895 1,500
SLAC 7,100 7,711 2,435
Sandia 2,864 3,014 -
WIPP 234,981 220,006 233,771
West Valley 59,933 59,589 60,000
Other Activities (Headquarter/Prog Dir) 392,687 341,282 347,146
TD&D 19,440 19,413 32,320
Subtotal, EM 6,017,681 5,689,340 6,133,452
Defense Prior Year Offset: (11,787) - (3,381)
Total, EM 6,005,894 5,689,339 6,130,071
FY 2011 Operating Plan (continued)
www.em.doe.gov 24
Site Managers are evaluating impacts for FY2011
– with potential further impacts in FY 2012
FY2012 Budget Request - $6.1 billion developed to meet
full compliance
FY2012 Planning Scenarios
– Scenario A: $5.67B (FY11 CR level – 7.5% reduction from FY12
request)
– Scenario B: $5.38B (additional 5% reduction from FY11 CR)
– Evaluation of impacts is continuing
Congress has begun markup of the FY2012 appropriation
bills soon
Challenges may continue into FY2012
and beyond.
www.em.doe.gov 25
EM’s National Cleanup Progress:
A Sound Investment
1989: Start of
EM Cleanup110 sites*
35 states
3,125 sq. miles
End of FY 201018 sites
11 states
2020 EM Vision
One major site remaining (Hanford)
States with remaining minor legacy
cleanup
States receiving legacy waste or
awaiting decisions on high level waste
End of FY 2015~90 sq. miles
2020 Cleanup Vision:By 2020, EM legacy cleanup will be virtually completed.
Hanford will be the only large site remaining. Minor cleanup will remain at
Savannah River, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge.
* Original 110 Sites changed legislatively
in 1998. Current inventory is 107 Sites.