Project Management Plan

for

"Resolve TBD Disposition Paths for EM Nuclear Materials"

A Project Conducted by the EM-level Nuclear Materials Stewardship
Program

Project Manager: Thomas Kiess

Important Assistance and Support: Jay Bilyeu and Michael Gates

October 2000

APPROVED: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ DATE:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

John C. Tseng, Director

Office of Nuclear Material and Spent Fuel (EM-21)

EM Office of Integration and Disposition (EM-20)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Donald Bridges, Director

Nuclear Material Management Division

Office of Material and Facility Stabilization, DOE-Savannah River

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Richard Sena, Director

Nuclear Materials Stewardship Project Office,

> DOE-Albuquerque Operations Office

SUMMARY OF PROJECT MILESTONES

This page lists the accomplishments described in the plan, and the
following page describes more specific and more detailed milestones.

[By Mid FY01]{.underline}:

1.  Establish resource teams (for material management groups) and begin
    to interact with them. \[Jackson/Croff and Boyd/Klipa/Low/Arenaz
    with TBD project personnel\]

2.  Perform issue paper assessments shown in Appendix A \[assignments
    shown there\].

3.  Program/site office visits at HQ \[Kiess and Tseng\]

4.  Maintain list of issues \[Cross\]

5.  Continue with Site Assistance and visits (specific progress is
    dependent upon a number of factors) \[Scheffter/Allender/et al\]

6.  Maps and Relevant Data Fields "seeded" into corporate databases
    \[Boeke/Fuhrman et al\]

7.  Develop list of disposal orphans \[Chambers et al & "resource
    teams"\]

8.  Initiate risk studies \[Borghi and Scheffter\]

9.  Connect priorities of sites and programs in TBD streams with R&D
    priorities \[Kiess et al liaising with R&D community personnel\]

[By End of FY01]{.underline}

1.  Continue site visitation and assistance and assessments of issues
    identified to date. \[Scheffter/Allender/Appendix A personnel\]

2.  Develop generic baseline disposition maps for major material
    categories \[a product of efforts with the "resource teams" of the
    MMGs -- to be done by MMG personnel\]

3.  Begin interactions with HLW/SNF/TRU/LLW disposal programs using the
    list of orphans \[Chambers, Kiess, Gupta, Arenaz, et al\]

4.  Work with sites during springtime IPABS data call to update maps
    with quality inputs \[Scheffter/Allender/Boeke's data team,
    including Fuhrman

5.  Other data management activities \[Boeke's data management team\]

6.  Produce technical report documenting these FY01 activities \[ALL
    contributors\]

[Work for FY02 and Beyond that is not guaranteed to be done in
FY01]{.underline}

-   Continuation of site visits and assistance and of analysis of new
    issues that arise.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Other program interactions and development of any other standards
    (e.g., for long-term safe storage of materials)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Technical work to support the retention of materials in programmatic
    reuses or as national resource material.

This project is designed to implement a *process* of interactions with
other sites and programs in order to resolve TBDs. Therefore, progress
is subject to these relationships as well as to resource constraints.
Subject to those provisos, the specific milestones suggested below have
been developed.

[Nov 2000]{.underline}:

-   Complete Project Handbook \[Bilyeu\]

-   Complete map update \[Fuhrman\]

-   Update map statistics (# streams, TBD, Red, Yellow, Green)
    \[Fuhrman\]

-   Train Teams on new procedures. \[Kiess, Bilyeu, Gates\]

-   Complete follow-up from Rocky Flats Site visit \[Scheffter\]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Review site visit objectives for AL, RL, and SR
    \[Scheffter/Allender\]

[Dec 2000]{.underline}:

-   Update NMI list of issues \[Cross\]

-   Begin to prepare assessments of 1999-era identified issues to be
    resolved \[Kiess et al\]

-   Complete site visit objectives - AL \[Scheffter/Allender\]

[Jan 2001]{.underline}:

-   Enter Maps and Relevant Data Fields into IPABS \[Boeke/Fuhrman et
    al\]

-   Complete site visit objectives - RL \[Scheffter/Allender\]

[Feb 2001]{.underline}:

-   Begin site visit objectives -- new site X (X = ID, OAK, CH, NV, or
    OR) \[Scheffter/Allender\]

-   Complete site visit objectives - SR \[Scheffter/Allender\]

-   Finish assessments of 1999-era identified issues to be resolved
    \[Kiess et al\]

[Mar 2001]{.underline}:

-   Develop list of disposal orphans \[Chambers et al in concert with
    Resource teams/NMMGs\]

[Apr 2001]{.underline}:

-   Mid course planning meeting; put issue paper authors onto newly
    identified issues \[Kiess\]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Work with sites during springtime IPABS data call to update maps
    with quality inputs \[Scheffter/Allender/Boeke's data team,
    including Fuhrman\]

[May 2001]{.underline}:

-   Begin site visit objectives -- new site Y (Y = ID, OAK, CH, NV, or
    OR) \[Scheffter/Allender\]

[Jun 2001]{.underline}:

-   Complete site visit objectives X \[Scheffter\]

[Jul 2001]{.underline}:

-   Begin site visit objectives -- new site Z (Z = ID, OAK, CH, NV, or
    OR) \[Scheffter/Allender\]

[Aug 2001]{.underline}:

-   Complete site visit objectives Y \[Scheffter/Allender\]

[Sep 2001]{.underline}:

-   Complete site visit objectives Z \[Scheffter/Allender\]

-   Update Material Management Plans \[Team Leads\]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Produce technical report documenting these FY01 activities
    \[Fuhrman\]

-   Lessons learned meeting and prepare plan for FY02 \[Kiess\]

Project Management Plan

for

"Resolve TBD Disposition Paths for EM Nuclear Materials"

A Project Conducted by the EM-level Nuclear Materials Stewardship
Program

Project Manager: Thomas Kiess

Important Assistance and Support: Jay Bilyeu and Michael Gates

October 2000

[Background]{.underline}

The EM-Level Nuclear Materials Stewardship Program has, in conjunction
with site inputs, developed and maintained a set of "nuclear material
baseline disposition maps" that depict all nuclear materials that are
EM-owned, currently stored inside EM facilities, or projected to come to
EM by 2015.[^1] These maps were initially developed in FY98 via site
visits, contacts with knowledgeable personnel, and consultation with
other resources, and were updated with site inputs in 1999 and 2000
IPABS data calls. These maps show, for each materials stream, the
ultimate disposition destination (for reuse or disposal) and any
treatment and storage steps to be undertaken prior to dispositioning.

Many indeterminate elements exist for various reasons in these site
disposition plans, as nuclear materials progress from current storage
locations to treatment and dispositioning (i.e., reuse or disposal)
steps. Some of these issues are of a policy nature, requiring upper
management attention for resolution. Other issues involve coordination
among multiple DOE mission programs as materials are transferred in
ownership. Many issues are common to several sites and are therefore
appropriate to examine in an integrated, complex-wide approach.

For a variety of reasons disposition plans for some materials are not
finalized. For some materials, sites have not determined a disposition
path, sometimes because of lack of resources. For those materials for
which disposition plans have been made, some planned actions do not have
current NEPA coverage and are therefore subject to additional scrutiny
before being finalized, as per NEPA requirements. Some materials can be
dispositioned but are not in an acceptable form for disposal and
therefore must undergo treatment of some kind, and not all such
treatment decisions have been made. Some materials have no legal
disposition pathway in the current framework and therefore must be
managed in interim storage pending the development of a legally viable
disposal path for them (such materials are here termed "disposal
orphans"[^2]). Not all acceptance criteria for all programmatic
transfers of materials have been established.[^3]

Steps that are unknown or indeterminate, for whatever reason, are
labeled as "TBD" (for "to be determined"). Other steps in site
disposition plans that can be identified often involve some uncertainty
(or programmatic risk). The degree of programmatic risk of various
treatment, storage, programmatic (and/or site) transfer, and
dispositioning steps was assessed in the past by use of scoring criteria
and technical judgment of evaluators to label such steps as "Red,"
"Yellow," or "Green." Any materials stream with one or more TBDs in its
baseline path is labeled a "TBD" stream, and the non-TBD materials
streams are likewise categorized as Red, Yellow, or Green, depending on
the step in the baseline disposition pathway with maximum programmatic
risk.

[Program Goal and Project Objectives]{.underline}

The goal of the EM-level nuclear materials stewardship program is to
support the EM *Paths to Closure* Plan by enabling the timely
deinventory of surplus nuclear materials from EM facilities and sites.
In support of this overall program goal, the "Resolve Disposition Paths
for TBDs for EM Nuclear Materials" project has the following objectives:

(1) to identify all major categories of nuclear materials that must be
    managed and dispositioned by EM;

(2) to identify all necessary EM disposition planning that is needed for
    surplus nuclear materials coming into EM by 2015, and to establish
    disposition baselines where possible;

(3) to identify integration opportunities (i.e., issues that are
    appropriate to examine in an integrated, complex-wide way, as with
    trade studies or working group assessments); and

(4) to develop the technical information needed to resolve all issues
    that prevent mature site disposition plans from being formulated and
    executed.

The first two objectives can be accomplished by developing a complete,
comprehensive set of disposition maps and supporting data fields. For
each site's surplus nuclear materials inventory, the approach is to
develop an technically inspired list of surplus nuclear materials
categories (without necessarily being comprehensive in identifying all
constituent material items within each category) and establishing at
least a *generic* baseline disposition pathway (if not a site-specific
one) for each of these material categories.[^4] The third objective is
accomplished at present by the use of available information known to
program personnel of similar situations at multiple DOE sites, but could
be accomplished in the future by analysis of data (in the maps and in
other available data sources) of sufficient quality. The fourth
objective is accomplished by assessing the TBD, Red, and Yellow
materials streams (and all pertinent information associated with these
disposition plans), in order to identify and analyze the issues that
prevent sites from formulating and executing mature disposition plans.

To expand upon these assessments, they are envisioned to be probed by
initial "issue papers" to define and frame the issue(s), followed by
more in-depth technical analysis, as warranted, by trade studies or
working groups that are composed of teams of program personnel with
appropriate expertise. The results of these technical assessments are
forwarded to decision-making entities in DOE management and/or to the
affected sites and programs that would implement any needed actions.
Therefore, the purpose of the technical assessments is to inform
follow-on decisions and implementation activities. The intended
practical consequence in the TBD/Red/Yellow/Green framework is to enable
all sites to formulate disposition plans for all their excess nuclear
materials that can be labeled "Green."

In these project efforts, the two customers are the sites and program
offices (that own the materials and that must develop baseline
disposition plans) and EM-1 (the owner of *Paths to Closure*). Such a
dual customer base is inherent in many activities undertaken within the
EM-20 Office of Integration and Disposition.

This "TBD Project" will partially accomplish these objectives via the
FY01 activities described in this management plan. Further efforts
beyond those outlined below will be conducted either by a continuation
of "TBD Project" team activities or by actions of any resource teams
such as "Nuclear Material Management Groups" (NMMGs), if established and
functional.

[Current Status]{.underline}

The 1999 Nuclear Material Baseline Disposition Maps show approximately
1011 material streams, of which approximately 515 are "TBDs" (of the
others, 80 are red, 112 are yellow, and 304 are green).

Many reasons exist for the TBD, red, and yellow designations. Some of
these reasons were identified and/or captured in 1999 as the top-level
issues shown in Appendix A, which sketches the current status of
near-term efforts to address these issues. In general, more in-depth
assessments on many issues (i.e., "peeling an onion") are required in
FY01. For many of these issues, advancing our state of knowledge is
worthy work that is required, to enable a better understanding of the
viable disposition/reuse options and the appropriate plans that need to
be made. For many, an initial "scoping" assessment (documented with an
issue paper) is required, which would define what sort of more in-depth
trade study might be undertaken*.*

[Near-Term Goals and Deliverables based on FY00 Efforts]{.underline}

1.  Produce revised closure site (Mound, Fernald, and Rocky Flats) maps,
    based on recent site inputs. \[Fuhrman\]

2.  Provide an updated count of the current number of materials streams
    and the number that are TBDs, Reds, Yellows, and Greens, by sites
    and material category. Generate a separate total for materials
    streams at DOE sites and for materials outside DOE that are on loan
    or lease to other government/public agencies, universities, and
    institutions in the private sector.

> \[Fuhrman or Lanny King\]

[Products and Resources Available in the Near Term, Based on FY00
Efforts]{.underline}

1.  A set of disposition maps, which were initially created in FY98 and
    which have been revised via (a) site inputs during FY99 and FY00
    Springtime data calls and (b) recent efforts concentrated on EM
    closure sites to assess TBD materials streams at Mound, Fernald, and
    Rocky Flats.

2.  An assessment of closure site TBD issues. This is projected to
    involve a list of the TBD materials streams from Rocky Flats only,
    and a brief discussion of the issues preventing mature disposition
    plans from being made for these Rocky Flats TBD streams. The Fernald
    and Mound sites are projected to have no TBD nuclear materials
    streams; that is, all TBD issues for these Ohio sites are
    anticipated to have been resolved due to end-of-FY activities,
    conducted principally by the Nonactinide Isotopes and Sealed Sources
    Management Group (NISSMG).

FY01 STRATEGY

Four elements of strategy are presented below. A specific approach has
been devised and presented in the next section to incorporate these four
elements. The hope is that these four strategy elements represent
meritorious features that are characteristics of a well formed process.

Complete Assessments of Issues Already Identified (a top-down element)

-   Perform the issue paper assessments listed in Appendix A (on issues
    already identified). The goal is to clarify what the issues are and
    to determine what are the near-term actions, decisions, analysis,
    etc. that need to happen to resolve them. These assessments are
    likely to uncover information that should be used to modify plans
    shown on disposition maps.

Work with Sites (a bottom-up element)

-   Implement a site-by-site approach to probe the information depicted
    on the disposition maps. A team of project personnel, allied with
    subject matter experts, will work with knowledgeable site personnel
    to examine site nuclear materials inventories and disposition plans.
    These interactions will occur as site contacts and/or visits can be
    arranged. Site interactions would be designed to assess in
    sufficient detail the TBD materials streams that have already been
    identified, any problem issues that serve as barriers to prevent
    straightforward disposition plans from being made, and other nuclear
    materials inventories not yet represented on maps.

The site interactions will depend upon the rapport developed with the
program offices, their priorities, and resource constraints. In some
cases interaction between EM-21 personnel and site/program principles
might not involve site visits. In some cases multiple site visits might
be necessary. Therefore, a site visitation schedule is premature to
develop with certainty, but a projection is as follows:

FY00: RFFO, Mound, and Fernald

First half of FY01: follow-up with RFFO & Fernald and new initiatives at
AL, RL, SR,[^5] and ID

Second half of FY01: follow-up with AL, RL, SR, and ID and possible new
visits at NV, OAK, CH, and/or Oak Ridge

This top-down + bottom-up strategy is proposed as a pragmatic and
balanced way to complete a baselining assessment in support of project
objectives. The site interactions seem to be the best way to identify
and resolve specific materials issues (some of these TBD resolutions
would serve as "quick victories" of ongoing project accomplishments) and
to probe site inventories and disposition plans as thoroughly as
possible. In contrast, issue paper-type assessments and follow-on trade
studies are a complementary effort to initiate inquiry on TBD-related
topics whose resolution may require greater in-depth treatment and/or
upper management attention. Both elements of strategy are appropriate,
and both would generate information to contribute toward the overall
project objective of developing a comprehensive baseline assessment of
all EM-bound nuclear materials inventories (and the dispositioning plans
for them).

Maintain Human and Data Resources (a Get Organized element)

-   [Management Structure]{.underline}: Establish and use resource teams
    (e.g., EM-level Nuclear Material Management Groups (NMMGs) or their
    equivalent) for SNF, NISS, U, Pu, and Heavy Isotopes. These groups
    would build upon past work of the Material Evaluation Teams and the
    Material Management Plans (MMPs). These groups would be the best
    resource to know how to address certain issues, such as

(a) how to help sites establish baseline plans where they do not now
    exist,

(b) updating the MMPs,

(c) identifying needs/issues/problematic inventories,

(d) assessing them with issue papers and/or trade-type studies (these
    assessments include the material characteristics and any ES&H or
    programmatic risks of current storage or future treatment),

(e) identifying integration opportunities (e.g., where consolidated
    storage makes sense), and

(f) matching treatment facilities to feeds across the complex.

The default approach, if these resource teams are not formed, is to
conduct such assessments through EM-level Nuclear Material Stewardship
Program (NMSP) personnel who are not so organized into material teams.

Specific tasking of a resource team:

"As resources are available and as opportunities permit, resource team
personnel will assess existing EM nuclear material baseline disposition
site plans (as depicted on maps, with follow-up site visits as
warranted) for identification and resolution of issues preventing mature
disposition plans from being made. These assessments are of material
inventories, characteristics, ES&H & programmatic risks of current
storage and future treatment steps, beneficial reuse opportunities,
final disposition options, and integration opportunities. The results of
these assessments will be reported to the HQ NMSP as needed. Closure
sites will be provided first priority."

-   [Data Tools]{.underline}: Get maps and associated important data
    fields organized and "seeded" into corporate databases (EM's IPABS
    and DP's NMIA). These efforts are described more completely in a
    separate Data Management Plan.

Maintain Communication with All Appropriate Levels of Management (a
Liasing-With-Others Element to manage inputs and outputs)

Interact as necessary with

\(a\) HQ site/program offices (esp. DP and EM Ops Office representatives
under other DAS's)

\(b\) R&D community (NMFA and 94-1)

\(c\) transportation packaging community

\(d\) DNFSB 94-1/00-1 and 97-1 programs

\(e\) INMM Implementation activities

\(f\) Other EM-level projects, trade studies, or working group
activities:

i.  Actinide-Contaminated HEU --

> A trade study, co-led by NN-60, is in progress, to finish in 12/00,
> when
>
> findings are to be presented for decision & action
>
> \[Bridges, Tousley, Boeke, Peterson, WSRC folks, et al\]

ii. Canyon Action Plan -

> The study and briefings are due 9/00; the likely outcome is to monitor
> certain inventories for which canyons may be a good back-up, and that
> F-canyon can be closed as early as FY02 \[Peterson, Klipa, WSRC
> folks\]

iii. Classified Non-SNM Parts Working Group

> A working group has prepared a preliminary report. The final report
> for phase I of the study is scheduled for completion by 22 November
> 2000. An AL meeting is planned for the week of October 22 to revise
> the draft report developed to date. A briefing to DAS Dave Huizenga is
> planned for mid-Dec but has not yet been scheduled.

\(g\) Important Non-EM activities:

(i.) Special Items Working Group \[Khalil, Peterson, et al\]

APPROACH - First Half of FY01

The actions listed below specify what is to be done, and by whom, in
line with the aforementioned strategy and in support of project
objectives and program goals.

-   Establish resource teams within the EM-level Nuclear Material
    Stewardship Program activities \[Tseng, Sena, Bridges; Low, Klipa,
    Jackson/Wynn, Boyd/Croff, Arenaz\]

> Goal: Resource teams are established.

-   Perform the issue paper assessments listed in Appendix A (on issues
    already identified)

> \[assigned to specific personnel shown in App A\]

Goal: The issues of Appendix A are well understood and recorded. The
product of these assessments is (1) a clear recording of issues that
warrant further attention, (2) a set of identified changes to the maps
that reflect the understandings learned as a result of the issue
paper-type assessments, and (3) a recount of the remaining TBD, Red, and
Yellow paths, and an association of which paths are affected/resolved by
which specific issues.

-   Conduct office visits to make contact with HQ program/site
    representatives. The purpose of these visits is to enhance their
    relationship with the EM-level Nuclear Materials Stewardship
    Program, to share our views of their problemmatic issues in excess
    nuclear materials disposition planning, to solicit their views of
    their nuclear materials needs, and to suggest future site visits.
    \[Tseng and Kiess\]

> Goals: Establish connections with other program/site offices, open
> doors for future site visits, represent "their" issues on "our" issue
> list, and obtain their cognizance/buy-in of issues on our list.

-   Scout to identify new/emerging issues from any and all good sources
    of information. Combine such knowledge with existing set of
    identified issues (as in above list), to maintain a list of issues.
    \[Cross/Kiess/any & all\]

> Goal: An actively maintained and up-to-date list of issues/barriers
> that need resolution in EM nuclear materials disposition planning.

-   Continue to work with sites, providing assistance to identify
    materials in inventory, disposition pathways, and issues preventing
    plans from being made. The result of these site interactions is a
    set of updated maps showing updated "baselining" assessments of the
    TBD/Red/Yellow/Green programmatic risk scores. Follow the schedule
    suggested above.

> Work with sites to develop map information, especially the risk
> scores, and liaise in particular with the site managers of Project
> Baseline Summaries (PBS's) to solicit PBS #s.
>
> \[Fuhrman, Scheffter, Allender, et al; to liaise with R&Ders Roberson
> & Polansky, NISSMG via Low, U expertise via \_\_\_, Pu expertise via
> Klipa, Orphan List Developer Billy Chambers, HI and SNF subject matter
> experts, etc.\]
>
> Goal: Achieve ongoing progress on materials streams, in practical site
> assistance.

-   Connect with DP and EM-CIO to "seed" maps and relevant data fields
    into the NMIA and IPABS-IS, respectively. \[Boeke, Kiess, Allender,
    Fuhrman, Cross, Scheffter, Bracey, et al\]

> Goal: Complete these efforts to seed maps and key data fields into
> corporate
>
> databases. (The NMIA item crosswalk is either pre- or post-seeded into
> NMIA.)

-   In concert with site visits and other informational inputs, develop
    a list of "disposal orphans" that cannot be readily disposed in the
    current disposal framework. That is, develop a good, reasonably
    comprehensive list of all such nuclear materials that are
    problematic to go to LLW, WIPP, or HLW/SNF disposal as is, without
    some decision/modification to current procedures or regulatory or
    legal barriers. This effort is described in greater detail in
    Appendix B, and a strategy to resolve orphan disposal issues is to
    be developed later and described in a separate writeup. \[Billy
    Chambers et al, working with "resource teams"\]

> Goal: A list of "disposal orphans" is developed and maintained.

-   In concert with site visits and other informational inputs, develop
    risk studies and assessments of the steps posing important ES&H
    and/or programmatic risk. This effort is described in greater detail
    in a separate writeup. \[Lou Borghi et al\]

> Goal: Risk information is developed as a prioritization tool.

-   Liaise with the R&D community to identify their "top ten" priority
    needs, and how these R&D needs relate to the maps and to high
    priority "TBD" issues.

> \[Kiess et al to liaise with R&D community (Roberson, Arp, Polansky,
> Eller, Erickson, et al)\]
>
> Goal: Understand connections to the R&D community, opportunities for
> synergistic interactions, and which TBDs are likely to be resolved by
> R&D approaches (and which are not).

[A Project Meeting in Mid-FY01]{.underline}

At the end of the first half of FY01, a meeting of TBD principals is
suggested to determine the next steps & a path forward. Specific work
products to be reviewed at this meeting, resulting from the combined
efforts of the above-mentioned activities:

(a) A status report on a complex-wide look at EM disposition plans for
    nuclear materials, based on work to date. This is an overview of
    where we are with "top priorities," broadly defined to be any issues
    appropriate for project personnel to work on and that have been
    uncovered to date. Simply put, can we define and defend what are the
    right areas for us to be addressing, and are we working in those
    areas?

(b) A new count of TBD/Red/Yellow/Green paths, using the following
    inputs:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
i.  site visits and map revisions to date, and (ii.) issue paper
    assessments.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(c) A mid-FY list of active issues and the status and future plans of
    activities to address

> them.

\(d\) A mid-FY list of disposal orphans.

\(e\) A status of risk-related information developed to date.

\(f\) A comparison of TBD-related issues with the R&D community's "top
ten" R&D

> priorities, and how these two sets of issues interrelate.

APPROACH - Second Half of FY01

-   Continue to implement many of the activities initiated in the first
    half of FY01, esp. the site visitation and assistance activities,
    and trade studies on top-level issues.

> Goal: Continue with constructive work that resolves some TBD
> streams/issues.

-   Develop generic baseline disposition maps for all material
    categories identified to date

(to be done by the Resource Teams/Material Management Groups) Goal:
develop the documentation to show the EM-level Nuclear Materials
Stewardship Program's recommended disposition planning for a broad class
of materials. Document these generic maps in the end of FY status report
described below.

-   Use list of "disposal orphans" to interact with the LLW
    disposal/TRU/RW programs. In particular, interact with National TRU
    Program personnel as needed to ensure that their long-term planning
    uses our inputs and is consistent with our best technical advice. &
    similarly for LLW and RW. \[Chambers, Kiess, Gupta, Arenaz, et al\]

> Goal: Lay out for upper management what decisions/changes need to be
> made to
>
> accommodate all TBD streams into LLW, TRU, HLW disposal -- or at least
> the
>
> best attempt at this in FY01, at the present state of knowledge.

-   Work with sites and site nuclear materials manager contacts during
    the springtime IPABS data call. As part of this effort, develop and
    use a list of site contacts who could assist in updating the
    disposition maps. \[Scheffter, Allender, Fuhrman, Boeke, Cross\]

> Goal: Ensure that maps receive proper attention in IPABS data
> gathering activity.

-   Perform other data management activities as described in the Data
    Management Plan

Goal: Get data organized. \[Boeke, Fuhrman, Cross, Allender, et al\]

-   \[optional -- may be done\] Devise ways to interact as necessary and
    as appropriate with other programs (e.g., R&D programs,
    transportation/packaging planning, and efforts to develop
    standards).

> Goal: Establish program interfaces, to provide inputs/outputs.
>
> \[Peterson, Kiess, et al?\]

-   \[optional -- may be done\] Many activities, such as the issue
    paper-type assessments, are likely to develop information regarding
    reuse options for select nuclear materials. The implementation
    activities of the *Integrated Nuclear Materials Management* (INMM)
    Plan include an effort on preservation of some materials as
    "National Resource Material." Therefore, some support to these
    efforts might be possible, if only by making available information
    that is obtained during the course of other TBD activities. A larger
    and more proactive role might include scouting for information to
    support the following assessments: (1) identify candidate materials
    able to go to programmatic reuse, (2) identify materials that are
    otherwise not intended for near term disposal, (3) develop
    information needed to support the retention of such materials in
    programmatic uses or as national resources.

> \[people to work with NMMGs, Head\]
>
> Goal: Support, as needed, this INMM Plan implementation item; perhaps
>
> establish structure to the methods by which programmatic reuses are
> identified
>
> and valuable materials retained.

-   Document FY01 program activities and the end-of-FY01 status with a
    written report.

> Goal: Communication to interested parties of program accomplishments,
> status,
>
> and path forward. \[Kiess, Bilyeu, Gates, et al\]

[A Project Meeting at the End of FY01]{.underline}

On or about the end of FY01, the plan is to schedule another meeting of
TBD principals to determine the next steps & a path forward. Specific
work products to be reviewed at this meeting are as follows:

(a) An end-of-FY status of progress on the three project objectives. In
    particular,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
i.  assess inventories known to date,

ii. identify the necessary disposition planning activities and baselines
    that need to be developed, and

iii. list the TBD issues that need resolution.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(b) A new count of TBD/Red/Yellow/Green paths, using the following
    additional inputs that are projected to be available by then:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
i.  the site visits in the second half of FY01,

ii. Springtime IPABS data call activities,

iii. the NMIA crosswalk,

iv. other data management activities (as described in a separate Data
    Management Plan), and

v.  TBD issues resolved by trade studies or other means.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(c) The end-of-FY list of active issues and the status and future plans
    of activities to address them.

\(d\) The end-of-FY list of disposal orphans.

> \(e\) The status of risk-related information developed to date.

[Dynamic that is Planned to be Perpetuated (until problem statement is
fully solved)]{.underline}:

Continue to work off TBDs (and establish/reaffirm baselines) via site
contacts and to work off top-level issues with trade study assessments
(or their equivalent). In the process of accomplishing these tasks, it
is anticipated that project personnel will be in touch with information
(re)sources, as with site visits and contacts with knowledgeable site
personnel, that will enable the project to uncover new information
(e.g., previously unidentified priority issues that prevent sites from
making mature disposition plans). The result is a "DO LOOP" of project
activity (of new information feeding additional bottom-up and/or
top-down assessments, which in turn uncover additional information,
which in turn leads to additional bottom-up and/or top-down assessments,
etc.) that is projected to continue for 2-3 years (depending, of course,
on the level of resources available for these efforts). At that point in
time, the character of these TBD resolution activities is expected to
change/wind down, perhaps to become a smaller project focused on select
materials inventories or specific problematic dispositioning challenges.

[Vision]{.underline}:

At the end of FY01, the hope is to have an institutionalized structure
in place (i.e., resource teams, such as NMMGs or their equivalent) to
provide site assistance, to identify disposal orphans, to identify
crosscutting material issues, and to work these issues with trade
studies (or else forward such issues to the DOE-wide NMSI program to
work). At any time, each of these resource teams could be pulsed to
provide two lists that they would maintain. One list is of their
"disposal orphan" materials that do not have a possible disposition path
in the current legal framework. The second list is of their current
issues (associated with their nuclear materials type) that prevent sites
from making disposition plans and that need attention and resolution, as
by trade study analysis followed by management decisions. Until these
resource teams are in place, these activities (and the aforementioned
lists) will be maintained by the "TBD Project" efforts.

Many current EM-level nuclear materials stewardship program personnel
will likely be allied with one or more resource team, and others will
work in other areas (e.g., transportation and packaging, R&D,
development of standards, policy activities and program interactions)
that are complementary.

This structure/process, as diagrammed in the figure, will accomplish the
mission described above; namely, to enable willing sites to make mature
disposition plans in order to resolve their TBDs.

This TBD "project" is done when either (1) the resource teams are fully
functional and can be the "engine" to continue future TBD assessments
and resolution activities (in the accompanying graphic, such resource
teams can do every task shown inside the dotted lines), or (2) the
character of the pursuit of TBDs changes, as is anticipated to occur in
2-3 years.

APPENDIX A: NEAR-TERM PURSUIT OF ISSUES ALREADY IDENTIFIED

Listed below are issues identified to date that are candidates for
"issue paper" type of assessments with the following suggested content:

Capture the questions being asked that need attention and resolution
(and the drivers for action).

Describe the inventory by segregating it into an inspired list of
different groups that are worth considering separately because of
important characteristics that may lead them to have different
disposition paths. For example, for U-233, those groups are (i.)
relatively pure 3019 materials, (ii.) the LWBR pellets at INEEL, (iii.)
the CEUSP material of low isotopic quality, and (iv.) U-233 waste
inventories. For Cs/Sr, these groups might be something like (i.)
Hanford WESF capsules, (ii.) the OR Sr RTG and other things worth saving
for reuse, and (iii.) all other sources.

Describe present management strategy and current approach (e.g., storage
with a view to future treatment operation X and either reuses Y1 and Y2
or disposal options Z1 and Z2)

Describe possible beneficial uses.

Describe disposal options.

Describe storage configuration options.

Describe treatment options.

Describe the near-term decisions and actions that the above
considerations suggest as good things to pursue.

Describe the longer-term decisions and actions worth pursuing.

Describe what else is needed or recommended for attention.

List resources (technical, written, databases, or human) consulted.

ISSUE FY00 Effort Future Efforts for FY01 and beyond

The first 11 issues listed below were identified in 1999 as contributing
to TBD, Red, and Yellow disposition plans. The rest of the issues have
been identified as integration opportunities worthy of investigation to
ensure that the project objectives are completely met when done. They
are likely to be found to be relevant to one or more TBD, Red, and/or
Yellow disposition plans, although those connections to specific maps
and streams have not yet been made.

Am/Cm NMC 7/00 decision review decisions and disposition maps; update
the latter as

> on 17.1 solutions necessary; identify remaining issues to be resolved
>
> & 9/00 decision
>
> on MK-18A's \[Tam Tran\]
>
> Tentative assessment: NMC 7/00 decision resolved a path forward for
> the Tank 17.1 solutions, to be stabilized and vitrified for interim
> storage. A long-term disposal path (the most likely candidate is YM)
> has yet to be developed. No formal long-term storage criteria exist (a
> possible storage standard opportunity?).

U-233 97-1 consolidations future ORNL RFP + INEEL effort led by Ron
Fontana.

> \+ NMC 9/00 decision For actions on ORNL inventory, EM participants
> are
>
> on ORNL inventory the 97-1 program (Hoyt Johnson and Jim Nail).
>
> Greg Johnson has contributed to MD eng'g design studies.
>
> Tentative TBD assessment is in an issue paper by Kiess.

Cs/Sr trade study workshop, etc. to finish by 12/00; then deliver
product to

> in progress mgmt for decision M. Gates

Tentative Assessment: issue is best path for non-WESF sources

> (consolidation to WESF vs. SCW designations vs. ...)

Np-237 NE EIS future liaising with NE & future assessments required

(possibly in conjunction with a possible future HI MMG?)

> Greg Johnson to do a preliminary assessment?
>
> ORNL contacts: Larry Boyd, Allen Croff

Tentative Assessment: As with Am/Cm, may have a lack of

> disposal options and storage criteria.

Radium Prepare issue paper to document current status and identify

> path forward. Someone needs to pulse Polansky and Parks
>
> who know about this; need to document their
>
> understandings; possibly have Dawn Gillas and/or
>
> Bob Seidel perform this assessment.

NU, DU, LEU Trade Study Identify which particular site inventories are
suitable

to be finalized for which options (blending, open market sales, DOE
uses, that identifies storage, directly dispose as waste, dispose as
waste after

economic benefit treatment). This likely means going to a more detailed

to consolidate level than is represented in the nonHEU U trade study.

blendable inventories

> This future identification will likely happen in two parts:

(1) FY01 EIS work to be done by Dale Jackson's team for

> blendable inventories to be consolidated to Portsmouth.
>
> \(2\) Dawn Gillas and Tom Wynn to identify nonblendable inventories,
> explore whether any work on them is warranted; parttime support from
> Wade Bickford and Roger Henry

H-3-Be options identified finish trade study; assess options

Reflectors by Boeke, Parks Billy Chambers and/or NISSMG to finish?

NISS several priority finish n trade study and initiate studies on other
issues

items issues identified; Low et al in NISS MMG have these in view

n trade study initiated

Pu-239 work to help Finish establishing the Pu MMG; get a team together;

items establish Pu MMG develop issue paper; assess options

Proposed team: Klipa, Moore

"Other TRU" Establish a HI NMMG; Oak Ridge personnel to be

> identified & to work with Kiess. On issues, get a team
>
> together to develop issue papers & assess options
>
> Proposed personnel: Prior to the inauguration of the HI MMG, Greg
> Johnson and/or Bob Seidel to gather info to assess this scene; perhaps
> Wade Bickford. Oak Ridge personnel in HI MMG (Larry Boyd, Allen Croff,
> et al) to pick up & liaise with Kiess.

Thorium get a team together todevelop issue paper & assess options;

> consult MMPs & Gary Polansky
>
> Proposed team: Tom Wynn and Dawn Gillas ; possibly Bob Seidel

Other NM team to assess is Allender & Scheffter

(d, t, Li, etc.) Issue: ID nuclear materials missed in initial NMI
efforts

MMP B. Cross to assess broader assessment of these and other issues

Issues C. Martin's "Action from all good sources (e.g., current site
activities)

Tracking System"

List These issues will be prioritized to guide future work

Orphans such Orphan Cmte A comprehensive inventory will be developed as
the

as slightly formed to pursue next step;

Irradiated personnel involved: Arenaz, Kiess, Gupta, Billy Chambers

Fuel and other + help from "resource teams"

HLW/YM

candidates

Small Sites' & team needed to assess these maps; Allender has this info

Commercial Billy Chambers to help with this

Inventories

of DOE-owned

nuclear materials

NEPA SR did scoping INEEL personnel to do complex-wide assessment

Coverage work

Acceptance SR did scoping INEEL personnel to finish

Criteria work

Assessment

Low-cost Jim Nail to identify options for low-cost storage

Interim configurations

Storage

**APPENDIX B: ASSESSMENT OF ORPHAN MATERIALS**

######### THAT MAY REQUIRE GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL

# Background

Over half a century of U.S. government research, production, and use of
nuclear materials by the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor
agencies has generated significant inventories of nuclear materials,
nuclear fuel forms, and waste products. The long-term plan for much of
these materials is to dispose of them as waste, after it is determined
that they have no future productive use in either the DOE or the private
sector.

In the current framework, three major disposal options exist for all
such materials. The potential deep geologic repository at the Yucca
Mountain (YM) site is currently planned to be licensed to accept
principally spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and defense high-level waste (HLW).
The operational Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) accepts only defense
transuranic (TRU) waste. The DOE low-level waste (LLW) disposal sites
accept materials for which shallow land burial can be modeled to provide
adequate current and future protection from exposure to radioactivity.
Each of these current or future facilities has "waste acceptance
criteria" that material forms must meet in order to be acceptable for
disposal. Each is certified or licensed based on a performance
assessment calculation of modeled scenarios by which radioactivity might
be released from the site.

These three principle disposal options do not currently allow for the
disposal of all DOE nuclear materials. Those that cannot be disposed of
in the current framework (i.e., that are unacceptable for current LLW or
WIPP disposal and that do not qualify as the material forms --
principally SNF and HLW - that meet the terms of the current YM license
application) are hereby termed "disposal orphans." This initiative is
designed to identify and assess the size and characteristics of the
inventory of such "disposal orphans."

### Approach

This project is aimed chiefly at developing a list of (1) material
categories, and (2) specific material items within those categories of
"disposal orphans."

The product of these efforts is an excel database of all such DOE
"disposal orphans."

The approach is to have SR Nuclear Material Stewardship organization
undertake this effort on behalf of key DOE champions and interested
parties, who are chiefly John Tseng and his staff (esp. Dinesh Gupta and
Tom Kiess) at DOE-HQ and Mark Arenaz of the National Spent Nuclear Fuel
Program.

The method is to build an database based on (1) inputs received from
various sources, and (2) additional scoping activity to attempt to
identify inventories in as comprehensive a manner as possible. No formal
data calls are envisioned for now; the aforementioned scoping activity
would be conducted based on (a) informal contacts (e.g., telephone call
and email inquiries) with knowledgeable personnel at DOE sites and at
locales in the private and public sectors where DOE-owned materials are
on loan or lease, and (b) piggybacking onto site visits that are already
planned for similar purposes (i.e., to assess TBD nuclear materials
inventories and plans). Quantitative information and data on material
characteristics (e.g., material forms, constituent contaminants, and
important physical, chemical, and radiological properties) are hoped to
be collected in this database.

The goal is to have the initial version of a database developed in a few
months. Refinements over time, as with information obtained from site
visits, are projected to occur. In the process of obtaining the input
for this database, it is anticipated that the principal(s) could develop
some engineering judgement of how complete the information is, so that
an extrapolation could be made to attempt to estimate the total
inventory, based on the representative sample items identified to date.

Further efforts are subject to mutual inspiration and agreement. It is
anticipated that at some point the Orphan Committee will reconvene to
review this database (and other pertinent information currently under
development) and to engender necessary dialogs with other DOE mission
programs, particularly the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. In general, future project actions would be to pursue
appropriate management and disposition strategies for the orphans
identified in the database. This may involve a limited data call to the
sites. One candidate approach is to augment the NEPA and license
application terms of the YM repository, at some time, to accommodate
these disposal orphans, and to revise the YM waste acceptance criteria
to specify the material forms that are acceptable for disposal.

**SUGGESTED FUTURE STRATEGY**

For "orphans" that are not candidates for future disposal in WIPP or LLW
facilities, disposal plans would presumably focus on how to send such
materials to the geologic repository for HLW and SNF. Here we identify
the following four possible categories of materials and approaches:

1\. direct disposal of material with low Metric Tons Heavy Metal (MTHM)
content (this is "stuff in a can" to be backfill in drifts)

2\. direct disposal of material with MTHM content (perhaps SNF
look-alikes and any other materials acceptable for direct disposal)

3\. material contained inside a SNF-like waste form that is produced via
melt and dilute and generated as part of that DOE site's SNF quota; and

4\. material contained inside a site\'s HLW form that is produced via
incorporation into the HLW stream feeding a vit plant. This forms glass
logs that are part of that DOE site's HLW quota. A Spectrum'2000 paper
by Forsberg and d'Entrement describes this approach in detail.

The suggestion here is to assess which of these four
categories/approaches are most appropriate for each item identified as a
"disposal orphan." Then, a suitable strategy would be devised for each
of the four material categories. For materials in the first two
categories, direct interactions with RW is required, which implies a
likely role of the Orphan Committee. Material in category #2 is a
greater near-term priority for DOE than material in category #1 (because
of current legal restrictions on the MTHM capacity of a Yucca Mountain
repository). For the last two categories, lesser direct interactions
with RW would be needed. Materials in the third category involves
interactions with a site\'s SNF management. Materials in the fourth
category involves interactions with a site's HLW management.

The tentative concept for future strategy is to begin such interactions,
once the list of "disposal orphans" is sufficiently well developed. For
RW interactions to address materials in the first two categories, the
scope of the EIS, the licensing terms, and the waste acceptance criteria
would be examined in turn to assess any changes that might be needed to
each of those documents.

[^1]: These maps also show nuclear materials with undetermined
    dispositions and for which future EM management is possible.

[^2]: Other definitions of "orphan" exist; the term is sometimes used to
    describe those DOE materials without a clear mission program owner.
    In the commercial sector, an orphan source is one that lacks an
    owner (to assume responsible management for it).

[^3]: These maps show transfers across sites and programs and as nuclear
    materials are transitioned to "waste." The boundary between whether
    an item is managed as a nuclear material or as waste is typically a
    site management decision. A waste determination implies that no
    further uses are planned.

[^4]: Examples of such generic maps are contained in the Pu-239 Material
    Management Plan.

[^5]: These three site visits would follow up from NMFA workshops
    conducted at these Ops Offices during the weeks of Sept 5, Oct 9,
    and Oct 30, respectively.