U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Environmental Management

Office of Long-Term Stewardship

LONG-TERM

STEWARDSHIP STUDY

DRAFT

Prepared to comply with the terms of a

settlement agreement: 

Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v.

Richardson, et al., Civ. No. 97-936 (SS)

(D.D.C. Dec. 12, 1998).

Draft for Public Comment

October 2000
Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

Letter from Dr. Carolyn Huntoon

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management

The Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA), has prepared this Draft Long-Term Stewardship Study to comply with the terms of a

settlement agreement between DOE, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and 38 other

plaintiffs. The Draft Study describes and analyzes several significant national or cross-cutting

issues associated with long-term stewardship. The Department identified these issues by

conducting a public scoping process and considering information from a variety of other

organizations that have considered long-term stewardship. Because the Draft Study is not a

decision document, it does not attempt to describe how DOE intends to address these issues

except where decisions already have been made. Where possible, the Draft Study identifies

options for addressing these issues to promote information exchange and to inform the decisionmaking processes at the national level and at individual sites.

Many of the decisions framing DOE’s long-term stewardship activities will be site-specific and

depend on a variety of factors such as potential or future site missions, unique state, local, and

Tribal requirements, and the ability of local communities and Tribal nations to maintain future

land use controls. Many local issues can be discussed collectively on a programmatic basis. A

better understanding of the challenges faced by DOE will allow individuals and organizations

within and outside of the Department to make more informed decisions that shape future longterm stewardship activities, both nationally and at individual sites. The key challenges discussed

in the Draft Study include:

• Incorporating long-term stewardship considerations into cleanup decisions. The term

“cleanup” refers to the process of addressing contaminated land, facilities, and materials in

accordance with applicable requirements. Cleanup does not imply that all hazards will be

removed from the site. This function encompasses a wide range of activities, such as

stabilizing contaminated soil; treating groundwater; decommissioning process buildings,

nuclear reactors, chemical separations plants, and many other facilities; and exhuming sludge

and buried drums of waste. The term “remediation” is often used synonymously with

cleanup. Cleanup decisions have a significant influence on the “end state” (i.e., the physical

condition reached when cleanup actions are complete) and on the resulting long-term

stewardship requirements. Where a number of options are available to meet cleanup goals,

more complete consideration of the long-term stewardship implications of each option would

improve the Department’s ability to plan for and implement long-term stewardship.

• Ensuring the continued effectiveness of long-term stewardship if property ownership

changes. At some sites, DOE may transfer DOE owned or controlled property that requires

long-term stewardship to other federal or non-federal entities. Under these circumstances,

the Department will need to determine whether responsibility for long-term stewardship 
-iishould be transferred to the other entity in whole or in part; whether and how to impose

management or use restrictions on the property; and how to oversee any restrictions or limits

that are imposed. It may be difficult for DOE to enforce land use restrictions on land owned

by someone else, particularly if ownership of the property continues to change hands.

• Ensuring public access to information about residual hazards. Successful

implementation of long-term stewardship will depend on open public access to the

appropriate information about the residual hazards at DOE sites; how they were generated;

what the Department has done to reduce or mitigate the risks they pose; what ongoing longterm stewardship measures are required; and how long such measures are required. 

Continued protection of human health and the environment during long-term stewardship

will depend upon public awareness and institutional openness. It will be difficult for the

public to maintain land use restrictions without access to and understanding of information

about residual hazards. However, public access to information needs to be balanced with

legitimate security concerns.

• Ensuring reliable and sufficient funding. In the short term, annual Congressional

appropriations provide an adequate mechanism for funding DOE’s long-term stewardship

activities. In the future, alternatives such as investment funds, mitigation funds, trust funds,

commercial fees, or public-private partnerships may provide more stable sources of funding,

although a variety of issues are associated with each funding alternative, including, in some

cases, a lack of legislative authority to implement these options. Funding will be an

important component of the overall long-term stewardship strategy at each site.

• Maintaining continued partnerships with state, local, and Tribal governments. States,

local governments, and Tribal nations are likely to have some responsibility for certain longterm stewardship activities, including land use planning; developing and enforcing land use

restrictions (e.g., zoning); and record-keeping (e.g., deed registration). Tribal nations also

retain a unique political and legal status that requires federal trustee responsibility to protect

the interests of Tribes. The affected communities surrounding DOE sites will need to be

active participants in creating and maintaining institutions to transfer long-term stewardship

information and responsibility over time.

• Developing mechanisms to promote the sustainability of long-term stewardship. Some

of the residual hazards at DOE sites will almost certainly outlive any cleanup strategies that

can be implemented using today’s technologies. Unless advances in science and technology

allow us to eliminate or otherwise reduce the hazards associated with long-lived substances,

long-term stewardship responsibilities at most DOE sites will continue for many generations. 

Many aspects of human society, including cultural values, economic conditions, knowledge,

science, and technology, will change over time. Therefore, mechanisms need to be developed

to ensure that long-term stewardship survives, maintains focus, incorporates new science and

technology, and re-evaluates requirements and strategies in light of these changes.

• Building the concept of “pollution prevention” into the planning processes for new

missions and facilities. New missions at existing DOE facilities may generate long-lived

wastes, wastes that have no clear path to disposal, surplus materials, or surplus facilities that 
-iiirequire long-term stewardship. The life-cycle environmental and cost impacts of mission

operations, including those that occur during long-term stewardship, may be more easily

mitigated if they are taken into account early in the planning process.

DOE has identified and discussed many of the issues associated with cleanup and the subsequent

long-term stewardship requirements in two reports, and the Department has established an

internet web site to better inform the public about cleanup and long-term stewardship issues. 

• The Accelerating Cleanup/Paths to Closure Reports. Both the original report, published

in June 1998, and the recent Status Report, published in March 2000, note that DOE cleanup

efforts will not result in conditions that support unrestricted use at many sites.

• The Background Document for this Draft Study. From Cleanup to Stewardship, a

Companion Report to Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure and Background Information

to Support the Scoping Process Required for the 1998 PEIS Settlement Study, U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management DOE/EM-0466, October

1999.

• The Long-Term Stewardship Web Site. The site is available at http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov.

Furthermore, the Department has taken steps to improve planning for long-term stewardship.

• DOE established the Office of Long term Stewardship. The Office provides support and

coordination among EM and other DOE offices. The Office has a major role in identifying

policy and guidance needs; working with other DOE offices to develop and implement

policies and communicate with national stakeholder groups; and coordinating with research

and development organizations internal and external to DOE.

• DOE formed the Long-term Stewardship Working Group. The working group was

established in 1998 to improve communication and coordination among DOE sites and

organizations. The working group has provided guidance in preparing this Draft Study and is

the focal point for DOE review of materials related to long-term stewardship (for example,

draft Environmental Protection Agency guidance on CERCLA 5-year reviews).

• Each DOE site is preparing a Project Baseline Summary (PBS) for long-term

stewardship. Guidance for preparing the EM annual budget directs each DOE site to prepare

an independent PBS for long-term stewardship activities. At sites where this PBS is

implemented, as cleanup projects are completed, budget requests, cost estimates, and

performance metrics for the follow-on long-term stewardship activities will be shifted into

this PBS.

• DOE sites are preparing site-specific long-term stewardship plans. The Grand Junction

Office (GJO) in Colorado is responsible for long-term stewardship at more than 25 sites

where cleanup is complete. The Office currently requires development of a site-specific

long-term stewardship plan before accepting long-term stewardship responsibilities for any

site. Other DOE sites have prepared comparable plans such as Resource Management Plans.
-iv-

• DOE is preparing a Report to Congress on long-term stewardship. The Report to

Congress requested in the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act will identify sites or

portions of sites where environmental restoration, waste disposal, and facility stabilization

will be completed by 2006 without unrestricted land use and will describe the necessary

management and long-term stewardship responsibilities for these areas, including cost, scope,

and schedule. The Report to Congress will include the Department’s most comprehensive

estimate of long-term stewardship costs to date.

The Department of Energy recognizes that long-term stewardship is critical for ensuring

continued protection of human health and the environment and is taking steps to develop

policies, guidance, and procedures for planning and implementing long-term stewardship. This

report, however, identifies a number of important issues and challenges that will need to be

addressed. The success of long-term stewardship will depend upon a strong, open partnership

between the Department, affected parties, and the general public. We welcome your comments;

all comments should be submitted within 45 days of publication on the Notice of Availability in

the Federal Register, as described in Section 1.2 of the Draft Study. With your help, we will

continue to build a strong and sustainable long-term stewardship program.

Thank you again for your continued work on issues related to this Draft Long-Term Stewardship

Study.

Sincerely,

Carolyn L. Huntoon

Assistant Secretary

 For Environmental Management
- v -

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Organization of the Draft Study .......................................................... 3

1.2 How to Provide Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter 2: Long-term Stewardship is Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 Today’s Cleanup Decisions Have Profound Implications for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Long-term Stewardship Activities are Subject to a Variety of Legal Requirements .................. 6

2.3 New Site Missions and Facilities May Affect Long-term Stewardship Requirements ................. 6

2.4 Land Transfers Challenge Implementation of Long-term Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.5 The Public Needs Open Access to Information about Residual Hazards at DOE Sites ................ 8

2.6 Reliable Funding is a Significant Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.7 Continued Partnerships with State, Local, and Tribal Governments is Essential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.8 Long-term Stewardship Responsibilities Will Pass from Generation to Generation .................. 9

Chapter 3: The Relationship Between Cleanup, End State, and Long-term Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1 Cleanup and Long-term Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2 Documenting Long-term Stewardship Obligations During the Selection and Implementation 

of Cleanup Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.3 Criteria for Evaluating Long-term Stewardship Requirements During Remedy Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter 4: DOE’s Long-term Stewardship Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1 What are the Drivers for Long-term Stewardship? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.2 How is Long-term Stewardship Currently Managed and Implemented by DOE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.2.1 Office of Long Term Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2.2 Implementation of Long-term Stewardship Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.2.3 Entities External to DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.2.4 Research & Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.3 How will Long-term Stewardship be Managed at Sites with Ongoing Missions other than Cleanup? . . . . 38

Chapter 5: Hazard Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.1 Engineered and Institutional Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.2 Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance of Engineered Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.3 Long-term Maintenance of Institutional Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5.4 Identifying Uncertainty and Contingency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.4.1 Contingency Planning and Emergency Response During Long-term Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.4.2 Monitoring and Responding to Uncertainties During Long-term Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Chapter 6: Managing Real Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6.1 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.1.1 Planning under NEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

6.1.2 Planning under DOE Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6.1.3 Integrating Long-term Stewardship More Effectively Into Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6.2 Property Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter 7: Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

7.1 Current Responsibilities and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

7.2 Improving the Ability to Meet Long-term Stewardship Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

7.3 Developing an Institutional Framework for Managing Critical Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
- vi -

Chapter 8: Funding and Financial Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

8.1 Estimating Long-term Stewardship Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

8.2 Potential Funding Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

8.3 Managing Available Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Chapter 9: Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, Socioeconomic Impacts, and Environmental Justice . . . . . . . 93

9.1 Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

9.2 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

9.3 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

9.4 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Chapter 10: Sustainability of Long-term Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

10.1 What is Required for Sustainability? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

10.1.1 Ensuring Survival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

10.1.2 Maintaining Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

10.2 The “Rolling Stewardship” Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

10.2.1 Re-evaluating Yesterday’s Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

10.2.2 Incorporating Science and Technology Changes into Long-term Stewardship Strategies . . . . . 111

List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Appendices

Appendix A: History of Long-Term Stewardship and Events Leading to the Draft Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B: How DOE Identified the Study Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C: Long-Term Stewardship Activities, Guidance, Reports, and Internet Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D: Statutory and Regulatory Requirements and Obligations for Long-Term Stewardship . . . . . . . D-1

Appendix E: Using a Conceptual Site Model to Communicate End State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Appendix F: Developing Uncertainty Matrices to Communicate Uncertain Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G: DOE Property Transfer Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Appendix H: Long-Term Stewardship Points of Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

Appendix I: List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
- vii -

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1 Recent Documents Related to the Concept of Long-Term Stewardship at DOE Sites ........... 2

Exhibit 1-2 Legal Basis for the Draft Long-Term Stewardship Study ................................. 3

Exhibit 3-1 CERCLA Criteria for Evaluating and Selecting Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Exhibit 3-2 Highlights of the CERCLA Remedial Action Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Exhibit 3-3 Criteria Developed by DOE, EPA, and DoD for Evaluating Long-Term Stewardship

Requirements During Remedy Selection and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Exhibit 3-4 Recommendations by Affected Parties for Considering Long-Term Stewardship

During Remedy Selection and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Exhibit 4-1 DOE’s Grand Junction Office Expects to be Responsible for Long-Term Stewardship

at 28 or more Sites by 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Exhibit 5-1 Use of Engineered and Institutional Controls to Manage Residual Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Exhibit 5-2 Examples of Institutional Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Exhibit 5-3 When Does Long-Term Stewardship Begin? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Exhibit 5-4 Obstacles to the Long-Term Effectiveness of Common Institutional Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Exhibit 6-1 Life-Cycle of DOE Activities at a Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Exhibit 6-2 Relationship Between DOE Planning Processes and the Life-Cycle of DOE Mission

Activities at a Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Exhibit 7-1 Current Records Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Exhibit 7-2 Options for an Institutional Framework to Manage Critical Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Exhibit 8-1 Limitations of the Activity-Based Cost Approach for Estimating Long-Term

Stewardship Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Exhibit 8-2 Use of Statistical Analysis to Establish Upper and Lower Bounds for Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . 84

Exhibit 8-3 Potential Mechanisms for Funding Long-Term Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Exhibit 8-4 Examples of Federal Trust Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Exhibit 8-5 State of Tennessee Perpetual Care Investment Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Exhibit 8-6 Contracting Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Exhibit 9-1 Environmental and Economic Issues will Affect the Process of Developing and

Implementing Long-Term Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Exhibit 9-2 Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders Concerning Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Exhibit 9-3 Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders Concerning Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Exhibit 10-1 The Four Principles of Intergenerational Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Exhibit 10-2 Changing Conditions at and near DOE Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Exhibit 10-3 The Dynamic Nature of Long-Term Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
- viii -
1

The term “affected parties” refers to individuals and communities living in the vicinity of DOE sites and

includes Tribal nations, state governments, local governments, and private citizens. 2

Status Report on Paths to Closure. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. 

DOE/EM-0526, March 2000.

3

Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Richardson, et al., Civ. No. 97-936 (SS) (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 1998).

- 1 -

Chapter 1: Introduction

During World War II and the Cold

War, the federal government

developed the “nuclear weapons

complex,” a vast network of industrial

facilities for the research, production,

and testing of nuclear weapons. The

production of tens of thousands of

nuclear weapons, and the testing of

more than a thousand, left an enormous

legacy of radioactive and chemical

waste, contamination, and hazardous

facilities and materials. During the

past decade, the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) Environmental

Management (EM) program has made

significant progress in addressing this

environmental legacy, and has reduced

the risks and costs associated with

maintaining safe conditions across the DOE complex. Based on existing plans and agreements

with regulators and affected parties,1

 EM program cleanups will leave behind residual levels of

radioactivity (e.g., buried waste) and other residual hazards at most sites.2

 The challenge facing

DOE is how to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment after the

cleanup projects are complete. Exhibit 1-1 provides an overview of recent documents that

discuss DOE’s long-term stewardship mission.

DOE, including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), has prepared this Draft

Long-Term Stewardship Study to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement between

DOE, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and 38 other plaintiffs.3

 The specific language

pertaining to the Long-Term Stewardship Study is summarized in Exhibit 1-2 and presented in its

entirety in Appendix A. In preparing this Draft Study, DOE conducted a public scoping process

to obtain input on what issues the Department should address. The Draft Study considers

information provided by other organizations that have considered long-term stewardship,

including stakeholder groups at DOE sites, the Environmental Management Advisory Board, the

State and Tribal Government Working Group, the National Research Council, the Energy

Communities Alliance, the Environmental Law Institute, and Resources for the Future. 

Appendix B provides a summary of the scoping comments received and the issues identified

during the scoping process.

What is Long-term Stewardship?

There are many different perspectives on the definition and

scope of long-term stewardship. The Draft Study uses the

following definition from the 1998 Settlement Agreement:

“the physical controls, institutions, information and

other mechanisms needed to ensure protection of

people and the environment at sites where DOE has

completed or plans to complete ‘cleanup’ (e.g., landfill

closures, remedial actions, removal actions, and facility

stabilization). This concept of long-term stewardship

includes, inter alia, land-use controls, monitoring,

maintenance, and information management.”

The Draft Study also considers issues related to several sites

where cleanup was completed by parties other than DOE, but

where DOE has been mandated to conduct long-term

stewardship.
- 2 -

From Cleanup to Stewardship was

published as a companion document to the

1998 Paths to Closure report and began to

examine national policy issues, challenges,

and barriers associated with the transition

from cleanup to long-term stewardship.

From Cleanup to Stewardship also provides

a summary of the nature and extent of DOE’s

long-term stewardship responsibilities for soils,

facilities, groundwater, surface water, and

engineered units.

The Report to Congress on

Long-Term Stewardship

identifies sites or portions of

sites where environmental

restoration, waste disposal,

and facility stabilization will be

completed by 2006 but land

use would be restricted. The

Report to Congress describes

the necessary management

and long-term stewardship

responsibilities for these

areas, including cost, scope,

and schedule, at a much finer

level of detail than in previous

reports. The Report to

Congress is expected to be

released in December, 2000.

Copies of these documents can be obtained from the Center for Environmental Management Information (1-800-736-3282) or

from the Internet at http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov

The Draft Long-Term Stewardship

Study describes and analyzes the

national issues associated with longterm stewardship in greater detail. 

Because it is not a NEPA or decision

document, the Draft Study does not

attempt to describe how DOE

intends to address these issues

except where decisions already have

been made. Where possible, it

identifies options for addressing

issues in order to promote

information exchange and to inform

the decision-making processes at

the national level and individual

sites. The Draft Study does not

address issues related to specific

sites or national security issues such

as stewardship of nuclear weapons

and special nuclear materials.

The 1995 and 1996 Baseline Environmental 

Management Reports provided the first

comprehensive scope and cost estimates for the

cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex. The reports

clearly identified that most of the contaminated areas at

DOE sites would not be cleaned up to “green field” or

unrestricted use and that almost all DOE sites would

require long-term surveillance and monitoring far into

the future.

The Paths to Closure Reports reorganized the scope associated

with the schedule and cost in the Baseline reports into formal

projects. The 1998 report articulated the vision of reducing the

overall program cost by accelerating cleanup, completing projects,

and closing sites, with a goal of achieving as much as possible by

2006. The 2000 Status Report updates life-cycle cost and schedule

estimates. The Department addressed the need for long-term

stewardship in these national summaries, but in response to

significant public comment, a more complete consideration was

deferred to a companion document.

Exhibit 1-1. Recent Documents Related to the Concept of Long-term Stewardship

at DOE Sites
- 3 -

The Department is preparing this study pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement between DOE, the

Natural Resources Defense Council, and 38 other plaintiffs (see Appendix A). According to the Settlement

Agreement:

“While DOE’s study on long-term stewardship will not be a NEPA document or its functional equivalent,

DOE will, nevertheless, follow the procedures set forth in the regulations of the President's Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) for public scoping, 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7(a)(1)-(2)....”

DOE has followed the President’s Council on Environmental Quality procedures for public scoping, 40 CFR Part

1501.7(a)(1)-(2), in preparing the Draft Study. The scoping process provided DOE with input about the topics

and issues that the commenters believed should be included in the study. DOE considered all relevant comments

and suggestions in developing the scope of the study.

As specified in the Settlement Agreement, the public review process for the Draft Study will follow:

“the procedures set forth in DOE's NEPA regulations for public review, of environmental impact

statements, 10 C.F.R. § 1021.313, except that (a)...DOE (not EPA) will publish a Notice of Availability in

the Federal Register, as set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 1021.313(a); and (b) DOE will not include any Statement

of Findings as set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 1021.313(c).”

This public review process includes a public comment period and a public hearing. It is intended to allow

comprehensive public comment on the Draft Study. DOE will use input from the public to complete the final

study. A Notice of Availability has been issued in the Federal Register describing the public review process for

the Draft Study. A public comment period will extend for 45 days after publication of the Notice of Availability. 

DOE will prepare a final study, including a comment response summary document, for release to the public.

The full text of the PEIS Settlement Agreement can be found at http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov

Exhibit 1-2. Legal Basis for the Draft Long-Term Stewardship Study

1.1 Organization of the Draft Study

• Chapter 2 describes the complexity of long-term stewardship and notes where critical issues

are discussed in the Draft Study.

• Chapter 3 describes the relationship between cleanup decisions and long-term stewardship

obligations.

• Chapter 4 describes DOE’s long-term stewardship activities and how long-term stewardship

is being planned and implemented at DOE sites.

• Chapters 5 through 9 provide more detailed discussions of several key issues that have been

identified by DOE and during the public scoping process:

– Managing residual site hazards (Chapter 5);

– Managing land and real property (Chapter 6);

– Information management (Chapter 7);

– Funding and financial management (Chapter 8); and 

– Environmental and socioeconomic issues, including public involvement (Chapter 9).
- 4 -

• Chapter 10 identifies and discusses some of the important challenges associated with

maintaining the sustainability of long-term stewardship over multiple generations.

1.2 How to Provide Public Comments

The Department encourages members of the public to provide comments on the issues and

findings raised in this Draft Study. Comments may be submitted in the following manner:

• By electronic submission to http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov

• By mail to Steven Livingstone, Project Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box

45079, Washington, D.C. 20026-5079.

• By fax at 202-863-7036.

• By email to Steven Livingstone (Steven.Livingstone@em.doe.gov).

• At the public hearing to be held on Thursday, November 30, 2000 from 9:00AM - 1:00PM at:

U.S. Department of Energy

Forrestal Building 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 

Room 1E245

All comments should be submitted or postmarked by December 15, 2000.

Limitations of the Draft Study

The Draft Study describes and analyzes several significant national or cross-cutting issues associated with longterm stewardship and, where possible, options for addressing these issues. However, the Study is not a decision

document, and it does not attempt to select among any options discussed. The principal purposes of the Draft

Study are to promote information exchange and to inform the decision-making processes at the national level and

at individual sites.
4

The term “cleanup” refers to the process of addressing contaminated land, facilities, and materials in

accordance with applicable requirements. Cleanup does not imply that all hazards will be removed from the site.

This function encompasses a wide range of activities, such as stabilizing contaminated soil; treating groundwater;

decommissioning process buildings, nuclear reactors, chemical separations plants, and many other facilities; and

exhuming sludge and buried drums of waste. The term “remediation” is often used synonymously with cleanup.

- 5 -

Chapter 2: Long-term Stewardship is Complex

Many of the decisions framing DOE’s longterm stewardship activities will be site-specific

and depend on a variety of factors such as

potential or future site missions; unique state

and local requirements and Tribal agreements;

and the willingness and ability of affected

parties to maintain future land use controls. 

Many local issues can be discussed

collectively in general terms. A better

understanding of the challenges faced by DOE

will allow individuals and organizations

within and outside of the Department to make

more informed decisions that shape future

long-term stewardship activities, both

nationally and at individual sites.

DOE is currently conducting long-term stewardship at many sites across the country, either as the

sole activity at the site (e.g., monitoring a uranium mill tailings disposal cell), or for some portion

of a site where remediation has been complete (e.g., performing quarterly groundwater

monitoring for a pump and treat system). At other sites, the decision-making processes that will

ultimately determine long-term stewardship obligations are just now underway. The questions

that remain, however, are numerous, complex, and profound. What type of framework will guide

long-term stewardship activities? Who will ultimately be responsible for managing long-term

stewardship and ensuring its success? How reliably will DOE and perhaps others carry out longterm stewardship activities at sites? What will happen if long-term stewardship fails? What are

the implications on long-term stewardship of cleanup decisions that are made today? To be able

to begin to address these and other questions, it is important that DOE and all affected parties

fully understand the challenges ahead.

This chapter provides an overview of several issues that were identified during the research and

public scoping for the Draft Study. These issues will shape DOE’s long-term stewardship

activities and also highlight the complex nature of those activities. The chapter also identifies

where these issues are discussed in the Draft Study.

2.1 Today’s Cleanup Decisions Have Profound Implications for the Future

Decision-makers should take into account the cost and difficulty of long-term stewardship before

selecting a cleanup4

 option. Cleanup decisions affect the “end state,” or the physical condition

APPLICABLE SCOPING COMMENTS

AND ISSUES

Each subsequent chapter will include a box that

highlights the public comments received by DOE

during the scoping process for the Draft Study that

apply to the issues being discussed in the chapter.

The box also will identify which of the 27 issues

identified during the scoping process are addressed

in that chapter. Appendix B summarizes all of the

scoping comments, lists the 27 issues, and identifies

where the comments and issues are addressed in the

Draft Study.
- 6 -

reached when cleanup actions are complete (including residual hazards). The end state, in turn,

essentially determines how the residual hazards will need to be managed for the long term, and

thus establishes implicit or explicit long-term stewardship obligations. The end states and

resulting long-term stewardship requirements, in turn, are the basis for identifying needs and

opportunities for new science and technology to improve protectiveness and/or lower costs. 

Because cleanup decisions are still being made at many sites, all cleanup alternatives should

include long-term stewardship activities to ensure that scope, schedule, and cost issues are

adequately addressed.

At many sites, a number of options may be available to meet the cleanup goals established for a

particular environmental problem. For example, options available for contaminated soil or

groundwater may include removal, in-situ treatment, containment, or monitored natural

attenuation. Each of these options has implications for long-term stewardship. Removal or

treatment to achieve unrestricted use would result in no need for long-term stewardship beyond

routine record-keeping at that site. However, when radioactive or other hazardous materials are

removed from one site and relocated to another, the requirements for long-term stewardship are

merely transferred, not eliminated. The use of caps, barriers, or pumping to prevent additional

migration of contaminants would result in a need to monitor, maintain, and repair or replace the

containment systems. Containment and monitored natural attenuation would likely require the

maintenance of land use controls to retain protectiveness. For long-term stewardship to be

successful, all controls used to contain or isolate residual hazards must remain effective until the

residual hazards have diminished to the point that unrestricted use is allowed.

Chapter 3, The Relationship Between Cleanup, End State, and Long-term Stewardship, describes

the relationship between cleanup decisions and long-term stewardship requirements. Chapter 5,

Hazard Management, discusses issues involved in managing residual hazards following cleanup.

2.2 Long-term Stewardship Activities are Subject to a Variety of Legal Requirements

More than 100 Executive Orders, statutes, regulations, compliance agreements, and treaty

obligations may affect long-term stewardship activities. The existing framework for DOE

mission activities includes the concept of long-term stewardship. Each of these requirements

address facets of long-term stewardship, but there currently is no single enforceable requirement

that clearly and cohesively directs the planning and implementation of long-term stewardship.

Chapter 4, DOE’s Long-term Stewardship Activities, describes the current regulatory framework

and how DOE is currently implementing long-term stewardship at its sites. Appendix D

summarizes major statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders that require DOE to conduct

miscellaneous long-term stewardship activities.

2.3 New Site Missions and Facilities May Affect Long-term Stewardship Requirements

New DOE missions and facilities may have long-term stewardship implications. Mission

operations may generate long-lived wastes or surplus materials that may require long-term

stewardship. After operations are completed, facilities may be entombed in place or

decontaminated and decommissioned in such a manner that results in residual hazards requiring

long-term stewardship. New or expanded site missions and associated facilities may eventually
- 7 -

lead to additional long-term stewardship challenges. The life-cycle environmental and cost

impacts of mission operations, including those that occur during long-term stewardship, may be

more easily mitigated if they are taken into account early in the planning process.

Chapter 6 of this report, Managing Real Property, presents a full discussion of the current

planning requirements that exist at DOE sites.

2.4 Land Transfers Challenge Implementation of Long-term Stewardship

At the conclusion of cleanup activities, lands owned or controlled by DOE are likely to follow

one of four disposition paths:

• Retention indefinitely as federal lands managed by DOE or another federal agency. This is

most likely where lands are needed for ongoing missions, federal and Tribal governments

want to preserve natural resources or cultural resources, or risks associated with residual

hazards are relatively high.

• Transfer to the Secretary of the Interior, under the direct management of the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, to be held in federal trust for Native American Tribes. This is most likely where

affected parties want to use lands for specific uses (e.g., treaty reserved use) and risks

associated with residual hazards are consistent with these anticipated uses.

• Transfer to non-federal government ownership and release for restricted or specific use. This

is most likely where affected parties want to use lands for economic redevelopment or other

specific uses and risks associated with residual hazards are consistent with these anticipated

uses.

• Transfer to non-federal ownership and release for unrestricted use. This is most likely for

lands that are currently uncontaminated or where cleanup has been able to reduce risks to

levels appropriate for unrestricted use.

The transfer of property that requires long-term stewardship to other entities presents challenges

to long-term stewardship implementation. The federal government has ultimate fiduciary

responsibility for long-term stewardship at DOE sites. DOE will need to determine whether to

retain active control of long-term stewardship activities, whether and how to impose management

or use restrictions on the property, how to oversee any restrictions or limits that are imposed, and

how such activities will be funded. It may be difficult for DOE, other agencies, or regulators to

enforce restrictions on land owned by someone else, particularly if ownership continues to

change hands.

Chapter 6, Managing Real Property, presents a discussion of managing real property, the

implications of property transfers on long-term stewardship requirements, and the difficulties that

property transfers may pose for long-term stewardship.
- 8 -

2.5 The Public Needs Open Access to Information about Residual Hazards at DOE Sites

Successful implementation of long-term stewardship will be aided by open public access to the

specific information about the residual hazards at DOE sites, including how they were generated,

what DOE has done to reduce or mitigate the risks they pose, what ongoing measures are

required, and, to the extent possible, how long such measures are required. Continued protection

of human health and the environment will depend on public awareness and institutional

openness. For example, it may be difficult for people to accept restrictions on land and resource

use unless they fully understand why such restrictions are necessary (and conversely what

activities can be safely conducted on the land). This is a challenge in the near term, and because

long-term stewardship obligations will be passed on from generation to generation, it becomes

one of the most critical challenges to sustainability.

Chapter 7, Information Management, describes the types of information practices that will be

necessary to support long-term stewardship and identifies how DOE has begun to develop such

practices.

2.6 Reliable Funding is a Significant Concern

One of the biggest stakeholder concerns is the source and nature of sustained funding for longterm stewardship. Long-term stewardship activities at DOE sites are currently funded largely

through annual Congressional appropriations. In the short term, this process is adequate. In the

future, however, funding shortfalls could result from competing national priorities or

unanticipated one-time expenditures (e.g., to repair a waste vault failure). Alternatives such as

investment funds, mitigation funds, trust funds, commercial fees, and public-private partnerships

may provide more stable sources of funding. A variety of issues are associated with each funding

alternative, including in some cases the lack of clear legislative authority to implement the

alternative.

Chapter 8, Funding and Financial Management, provides further detail on the challenges to

estimating what the costs for implementing stewardship will be and the types of funding

mechanisms that could be used for long-term stewardship.

2.7 Continued Partnerships with State, Local, and Tribal Governments is Essential

Depending on specific site circumstances, successful implementation of long-term stewardship

may require significant participation from states, local communities, and Tribal nations, which

have a unique legal and political relationship with the United States government. Entities other

than DOE are likely to have some responsibility for certain long-term stewardship activities. For

example, local and Tribal governments have traditionally conducted and enforced land use

planning, certain land use restrictions (e.g., zoning) and certain types of record-keeping (e.g.,

deed registration). Local communities and Tribal governments also may need to be active

participants in creating and maintaining institutions to transfer long-term stewardship

information and responsibility from generation to generation.

Affected parties may have secondary long-term stewardship goals for a site. In some instances,

secondary goals may conflict with one another. Tribal goals often differ from those of local
5

The half-life of a radionuclide is a physical characteristic specific to that radionuclide. A half-life is the time

required for a given amount of radioactive material to decay to half that amount. Half-lives of radionuclides vary

from a fraction of a second to billions of years.

- 9 -

governments. A secondary goal of maintaining a site as open space for cultural resource

protection or aesthetic reasons might be in conflict with a secondary goal to develop the site to

enhance the local economy. It is essential that existing partnerships between DOE and affected

parties continue to be maintained during long-term stewardship.

Chapter 9, Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, Socioeconomic Issues, and Environmental

Justice, identifies many of the concerns and competing priorities that may need to be balanced

during long-term stewardship. The strong need for continued partnerships is also noted in

several other chapters.

2.8 Long-term Stewardship Responsibilities Will Pass from Generation to Generation

How long will long-term stewardship be required? There is no precise answer to this question,

but many of the residual hazards at DOE sites are likely to persist for many generations:

• Chromium, lead, and other elemental metals do not degrade in the environment and may pose

threats through bioaccumulation in the food chain.

• Many organic chemicals, such as trichloroethylene, are relatively stable in the environment

and may persist for hundreds of years. Other organic chemicals (e.g., benzene) may degrade

in the environment over periods of decades. Organic chemicals may be difficult to remove

from contaminated media and thus may pose threats for continued migration.

• Entombed facilities, building foundations, and buried infrastructure left in place may present

physical hazards that will persist far into the future.

• Many of the radionuclides present at DOE sites have half-lives5

 measuring hundreds,

thousands, and even millions of years. While half-life per se does not necessarily indicate

either the hazards posed by the material or the length of time that long-term stewardship will

be required, it is clear that many of the long-lived residual hazards at DOE sites have the

potential to persist far into the future.

Some of the residual hazards at DOE sites will almost certainly outlive any cleanup strategies

that can be implemented using today’s technologies (e.g., disposal in landfills). Therefore, unless

advances in science and technology allow us to eliminate or otherwise reduce the hazards

associated with these long-lived substances, long-term stewardship responsibilities will pass

from generation to generation. However, as experience has shown, there are challenges inherent

in such intergenerational transfer.

The threats posed by residual hazards, the ability to reduce or eliminate these threats, and the

economic value placed on residual materials and contaminated areas are likely to change over

time. However, the obligation to conduct long-term stewardship to protect human health and the

environment will remain. Therefore, the approaches and strategies developed for long-term
- 10 -

stewardship must also evolve over time. Residual hazards and strategies for managing these

hazards should be re-evaluated periodically to take into account new science and technology. 

Periodic reviews also will allow stewards to evaluate current and future technologies for which

long-term effectiveness has not been demonstrated.

Chapter 10, Sustainability of Long-term Stewardship, discusses these inter-generational issues in

detail, including the importance of integrating science and technology effectively into long-term

stewardship activities. Chapter 4, DOE’s Long-term Stewardship Activities, also discusses

science and technology development efforts within the Department.
6

The “end state” of a site or portion of a site is the physical condition reached when cleanup actions are

complete. Key components for long-term stewardship include the nature and extent of residual contamination; the

location and condition of stored or disposed materials; the location, type and condition of all engineered control and

monitoring systems, and the threats posed to affected parties. 7

Planning and Implementing RCRA/CERCLA Closure and Post-Closure Care When Wastes Remain Onsite. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, RCRA/CERCLA Information Brief. 

DOE/EH-413-9910, October 1999.

- 11 -

Chapter 3: The Relationship Between Cleanup, End State, and

Long-term Stewardship

Many of the specific long-term stewardship

requirements at a site will follow directly from

the types of cleanup actions being performed

today. Decisions such as what to do with

contaminated soils or facilities, and the

subsequent cleanup actions taken to implement

these decisions, will result in a specific end state

for the site.6 The cleanup strategy implemented

at a site and the resulting end state achieved are

closely related to the potential future use of land

and water resources and long-term stewardship

requirements. In some cases, intended future

uses will determine the end state conditions to be

achieved during cleanup. In other cases,

technical, economic, and worker safety

considerations may limit the end state conditions

that can be achieved, and thus may limit future

uses. Specific long-term stewardship

requirements will depend directly on the cleanup

strategy implemented, end state achieved, and

desired future uses.

This chapter describes DOE’s efforts to integrate

consideration of long-term stewardship issues

into cleanup decisions, identifies several

challenges facing the Department, and identifies

several criteria for evaluating the long-term

stewardship implications of cleanup decisions

and end states.

3.1 Cleanup and Long-term Stewardship

During cleanup, it is important to consider long-term stewardship issues and obligations

explicitly when examining remedial alternatives and implementing a final remedy.7

 Affected

parties need to understand how the cleanup actions selected during remedy selection and

APPLICABLE SCOPING COMMENTS

(see Exhibit 2 in Appendix B)

• DOE should not use long-term stewardship as a

substitute for cleanup; leaving contamination in

place should not be a priority cleanup strategy

(13, 14)

• Long-term stewardship should be instituted only

after cleanup to remove the maximum amount of

contamination has been undertaken (13)

• DOE’s long-term stewardship obligations will be

higher at a given site if on-site waste treatment

and disposal facilities are used instead of off-site

facilities (15)

• DOE should develop methods for accurately

reflecting long-term stewardship commitments in

decision documents or should identify any

uncertainties related to these commitments

(STGWG)

• Each remedial alternative considered should be

evaluated with respect to the types of institutional

controls required and how they will be

implemented (1, STGWG)

• DOE should use life-cycle accounting to assess

the complete costs, present and future, associated

with cleanup decisions (1, 4)

• DOE needs to identify portions of sites that can

be cleaned up to unrestricted use and portions

that can never be cleaned up completely with

available technologies (18)

APPLICABLE ISSUE

(see Exhibit 3 in Appendix B)

1. Relationship of “Cleanup” Decision Process to

Long-term Stewardship Needs
8

For example DOE has developed Orders such as Order 5400.1 General Environmental Protection Program,

Order 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, and Order 435.1 Radioactive Waste

Management in order to establish and maintain conditions that are protective of human health and the environment. 

DOE Orders are internal requirements that are not enforceable by external parties (e.g., regulators). 9

Activities under the jurisdiction of DOE generally are exempt from licensing requirements of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC), with limited exceptions. For example, DOE conducts cleanup actions and long-term

stewardship at uranium mill tailings sites under site licenses issued by the NRC in accordance with requirements in

10 CFR Parts 40.27 and 40.28; and DOE conducts long-term stewardship of decommissioned nuclear reactor

facilities at Hallam, Nebraska and Piqua, Ohio under NRC site licenses.

- 12 -

implementation processes will be implemented over time. To the extent they are willing to have

a role in implementing certain aspects of long-term stewardship (e.g., managing and

disseminating monitoring data, maintaining and enforcing groundwater use restrictions), affected

parties also need to understand the future resource obligations they may incur as a result of this

role. Affected parties also need to determine the value of long-term stewardship activities in

terms of how effectively they may prevent a larger scale problem from impacting their

communities in the future.

The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) directs DOE to manage radioactive materials in a manner

consistent with the protection of health and safety of the public. The AEA authorizes DOE to

establish standards to protect human health and the environment from activities under DOE

jurisdiction.8 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires DOE and all other

federal agencies to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations concerning solid

and hazardous waste (including mixed waste). As a consequence, DOE relies upon regulations

and procedures developed under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA), RCRA, the

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation

Control Act (UMTRCA), similar

state regulations, site-specific

agreements, and in some cases

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) regulations to carry out

cleanup actions.9

 The cleanup

authorities under the AEA,

CERCLA, RCRA, and UMTRCA set

the initial parameters for engineered

and institutional controls and longterm care of sites as the necessary

follow-on tasks to cleanup actions

that cannot achieve unrestricted use.

The processes for determining

cleanup decisions involve (1)

evaluating the site conditions (e.g., contaminants of concern and concentration levels, real or

potential risk, future use); and (2) developing remediation goals consistent with a set of threshold

(or performance) criteria and balancing criteria, identified in both the CERCLA National

Future Site Transfers May Increase DOE’s

Long-term Stewardship Responsibilities

At most sites, long-term stewardship requirements stem from the

decisions made jointly by DOE, EPA, and state and Tribal

governments, with input from the public during the cleanup

process. At other sites where cleanup is not completed by DOE,

Congress has authorized the transfer of long-term stewardship

responsibility to DOE after cleanup is complete. 

• Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act

(UMTRCA) requires the transfer of uranium processing sites

that were privately owned when the Act was passed to the

host state or the federal government. If the state declines,

then DOE becomes the site steward; to date no states have

expressed an interest in permanent custody and long-term

stewardship.

• Section 151(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act allows the

transfer of certain NRC licensed, privately owned sites with

low-level radioactive waste (and the land on which such

waste is disposed of) to be transferred to DOE for long-term

custody and care; but only if DOE accepts these sites.
10Development of Remediation Goals under CERCLA, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental

Policy and Assistance, CERCLA Information Brief. DOE/EH-413/9711, August 1997; RCRA Closure and PostClosure Plans, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Guidance, RCRA Information Brief. DOE/EH231-009/1291, December 1991.

- 13 -

Contingency Plan and in RCRA guidance documents. These criteria include evaluating longterm effectiveness and permanence of the alternative, anticipated future use, and the degree of

certainty that the alternative will prove successful (Exhibit 3-1).10 Requirements of cleanup

decisions under RCRA typically extend up to 30 years beyond completion of cleanup, with

provisions to extend monitoring and maintenance activities beyond that period if necessary.

Exhibit 3-1. CERCLA Criteria for Evaluating and Selecting Remedies*

Cleanup standards and long-term stewardship requirements for UMTRCA sites are established

directly by UMTRCA, NRC regulations, and EPA regulations. A long-term surveillance and

maintenance plan is required for each UMTRCA site, including the monitoring and maintenance

Protection of human health and the environment. The ability of each alternative to provide protection is

assessed. The assessment draws on the baseline risk assessment and the evaluations of other criteria, especially

the long- and short-term effectiveness evaluations.

Compliance with Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). Each alternative must

comply with chemical-specific, action-specific and location-specific ARARs. If an alternative cannot achieve

compliance, justification for a waiver of the ARAR must be developed.

Long-term effectiveness. This evaluation assesses the residual risk posed by the site following the remedial

action. This assessment also considers the reliability and adequacy of the remedial action in providing a longterm solution to the contamination at the site.

Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contamination. This involves assessment of the treatment

process, the materials being treated, the effectiveness of the treatment and the quantity of contaminated material

remaining following the remedial action.

Short-term effectiveness. This addresses the risks posed by each remedial alternative during construction and

implementation, up to the time the remedial action objectives are achieved. Each alternative is evaluated to

determine the degree of protection afforded the surrounding community during the remedial action, the degree of

the risk posed to workers during implementation, the adverse environmental impacts arising from construction

and implementation, and the time required to achieve the remedial action objectives.

Implementability. This assesses both the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing each remedial

alternative. Included in this assessment are (1) consideration of the availability of the necessary resources to

construct and implement the remedy, (2) an assessment of the reliability of the technology, and (3) the ease of

undertaking other remedial actions at the site once the alternative is implement. Another aspect of this

assessment is the determination of the requirements for interaction with other federal, state or local agencies. For

example, this assessment may require determining any necessary permits for offsite activities.

Cost-effectiveness. This evaluation includes direct and indirect capital costs, as well as the operating and

maintenance costs, associated with the remedial action. This process should also consider the costs of any longterm liability associated with implementing the remedy.

State and community acceptance. After the state and stakeholders have had an opportunity to review the

proposed remedial and corrective action alternatives and supporting documentation, their comments can lead to

modification of DOE’s preferred alternative.

*RCRA requirements for remedy selection are similar
11DOE is responsible for the cleanup of Title I sites; the licensee is responsible for the cleanup of Title II sites. 1210 CFR Part 40.27(b) [Title I] and 10 CFR Part 40.28(b) [Title II]

- 14 -

of engineered controls and provisions for emergency measures required to protect public health

and safety. Under the AEA, once site cleanups are completed,11 the NRC will license the longterm maintenance and monitoring of UMTRCA sites in perpetuity. According to NRC

regulations,12 there is no termination of the general license issued by the NRC for custody and

long-term care of residual radioactive material disposal sites.

The remedy selection process essentially determines how any residual hazards at a site will be

managed for the long term and thus establishes implicit or explicit long-term stewardship

requirements. For example, a remedy that incorporates an assumption about anticipated future

land use establishes the long-term stewardship requirement to ensure that actual land uses remain

consistent with this assumption. Similarly, a remedy that involves construction of a cap over a

landfill establishes the long-term stewardship requirement to perform surveillance and

maintenance of the cap and perform monitoring around and below the landfill. Similar long-term

stewardship obligations apply to privatesector and municipal landfills.

With respect to remedial actions conducted at

DOE sites, if complete treatment or removal

of the source(s) and resulting contaminated

media is technically and economically

feasible, the affected area should be suitable

for unrestricted use (unless the area is needed

for security or safety reasons). In these cases,

where residual hazards have been eliminated,

information management (e.g., routine

record-keeping) will be the only long-term

stewardship activities that will be required.

DOE typically conducts cleanups to achieve

levels of residual hazards that are consistent

with site land use plans. At sites where it is

not technically or economically feasible to

remediate to levels consistent with

unrestricted use, CERCLA, RCRA,

UMTRCA, and other statutes require the use

of long-term controls and/or operations as

part of the remedy. A remedy consistent with

an industrial land use plan would thus require

appropriate institutional controls to protect

worker health and safety. RCRA, CERCLA,

and UMTRCA also require the monitoring of

remedies to ensure their efficacy. The

implementation of monitoring and institutional controls becomes a major part of long-term

stewardship (see Chapter 5).

Closure of Beatty Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Disposal Site

On December 30, 1997, the State of Nevada assumed

long-term stewardship responsibility for a commercial,

low-level waste disposal site in Beatty, NV. The

disposal site was established in 1962 as a commercial

site that was located on state property. The site closed

in 1992, and the owner conducted closure and postclosure activities pursuant to the requirements in 10

CFR Part 61. The site was always state property, and

the terms of the original site license called for the State

of Nevada to accept permanent custody of the disposal

site after closure. Because the license was agreed

upon prior to the promulgation of 10 CFR Part 61,

only some of the requirements of the regulation are

applicable (for example, financial assurance was not

applicable). The Beatty site was the first low-level

radioactive commercial waste disposal site to complete

all closure activities. It is not clear whether DOE will

be responsible for long-term stewardship pursuant to

section 151(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. DOE

has the authority (but not the obligation) to take

responsibility for long-term stewardship of certain

closed, privately owned sites with low-level

radioactive contamination.

Sources: Beatty facility closure complete, state takes

over. Nuclear News, February 1998, p. 67; Telephone

conversation with the State of Nevada Health Division,

June 26, 2000.
13Using Remedy Monitoring Plans to Ensure Remedy Effectiveness and Appropriate Modifications. U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, RCRA/CERCLA Information Brief. 

DOE/EH-413/9809, July 1998. Assessment of Short-term and Long-term Risks for Remedy Selection. U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, CERCLA Information Brief. DOE/EH413/9708, August 1997. These documents are available at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/portal/ksmlinkReg.htm. 14Assuring Land Use Controls at Federal Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Federal Facilities

Branch, Memorandum 4WD-FFB, April 1998.

- 15 -

The processes for evaluating remedial alternatives and selecting, designing, and implementing

remedies should include consideration of the full life-cycle of each alternative, including any

needed long-term stewardship activities associated with the remedial alternatives. DOE has

developed initial guidance for evaluating long-term stewardship requirements during these

processes,13 and NRC has developed specific regulations for long-term stewardship of UMTRCA

sites (10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A). However, certain challenges remain, particularly for

RCRA/CERCLA cleanup actions. In particular, it is not clear what documents are most

appropriate for recording the long-term stewardship activities and obligations associated with

each decision, and what criteria are appropriate for evaluating the long-term stewardship

implications of remedial decisions. Each of these challenges is discussed below.

3.2 Documenting Long-term Stewardship Obligations During the Selection and

Implementation of Cleanup Actions

 

Some observers have expressed concerns that decision documents (e.g., Records of Decision

under CERCLA) do not explicitly identify all of the long-term stewardship activities associated

with the selected remedy. Records of Decision come relatively early in the overall cleanup

process (see Exhibit 3-2), at a time when many details of the final remedy are not always known. 

Preliminary and Final Close-out Reports and other documents developed later in the cleanup

process provide more specific information about the constructed remedy and requirements for

operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the remedy.

Although documents such as Close-out Reports identify the types of institutional controls

required for a specific cleanup action, institutional controls required for a number of individual

cleanup actions are addressed through area- or site-wide land use plans (see Chapter 5). Most

Regional offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed

institutional controls policies that require federal sites to develop and maintain Land Use Control

Assurance Plans or their equivalent. For remedies that depend upon land use controls for the

protectiveness of the remedy, EPA Region 4 Federal Facilities Branch has issued a policy

memorandum on land use controls at Federal Facilities.14 Region 4 policy is to require, as a

precondition to concurrence on any remedial action that relies on land use controls for the

protectiveness of the remedy, that the lead federal agency seeking EPA concurrence commit itself

to implementing a detailed written Land Use Control Assurance Plan (LUCAP) designed to

assure the effectiveness and reliability of the land use controls for as long as they are required to

maintain the protectiveness of the remedy. A LUCAP may be documented in a Memorandum of

Agreement, Federal Facility Agreement, or Record of Decision.
15Institutional Controls in RCRA and CERCLA Response Actions. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Policy and Guidance, RCRA/CERCLA Division, DOE/EH-413-0004, August 2000; Planning and

Implementing RCRA/CERCLA Closure and Post-Closure Care when Wastes Will Remain On Site. U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, DOE/EH-413-9910, October 1999. 16Institutional Controls in RCRA and CERCLA Response Actions, page 29.

- 16 -

Investigate Site Select Remedy Implement Remedy Operate and Maintain Remedy

Cleanup Long-term

Stewardship

Site Investigation RI/FS and Remedy

Selection

Remedial Design/

Remedial Action

Operation & Maintenance/

Close Out • Evaluate relative threat

posed by site

• Determine whether

remedial investigation

should be undertaken

• Identify remedial action

objectives

• Select preferred remedial

action alternative

• Detail steps to meet

remediation objectives

• Construct and inspect

remedy

• Perform response actions until

cleanup criteria met

• Document completion of cleanup

Remedial Design and

Action Documentation

• RD documents the technical

specifications for the design

of the selected remedy.

• RA documents the technical

specifications for construction

and implementation of the

selected remedy

Close-out Reports

• Documents that cleanup activity is

completed and QA/QC performed

• Identifies activities remaining to

ensure effectiveness of remedy

(tasks, schedule, cost)

• Identifies any required institutional

controls (type, who maintains, who

enforces)

• Describes redevelopment potential

at the site

• Identifies whether a 5-year review

is needed to evaluate remedy

performance and effectiveness

• After completion of the close out

report, agency concurrence that no

further action is warranted, and

public comment, the site may be

deleted from the NPL

Five Year Reviews

• Evaluate performance and

implementation of remedy

• Ensure remedy is protective of

human health and environment

Five Year Report

• Delineate whether remedy is

or is expected to continue to

be protective

• Identify any deficiencies

discovered during the review

• Recommend actions to

assure that the remedy will

continue to be protective

Preliminary Assessment

and Site Inspection

• PA evaluates site threat using

readily available data. If PA

results in recommendation for

further investigation, an SI is

performed.

• SI identifies sites that enter

NPL Site Listing Process and

provides data for NPL Hazard

Ranking System scoring

• Sites with Hazard Ranking

Score of 28.50 or greater are

listed on the NPL.

Remedial Investigation

and Feasibility Study

• RI characterizes site risks to

human health/environment,

and evaluates the potential

performance and cost of

treatment technologies

• FS is the mechanism for the

development, screening,

and detailed evaluation of

alternative remedial actions

Record of Decision

• ROD Is a public document

that provides the rationale

for selection of the remedial

alternative that will be used

for site cleanup

Remedial Action Report

• Documents cleanup activities

that take place, including

design, construction, and

performance standards

• Documents that the remedy

is operating and functional

DOCUMENTS STAGES

Exhibit 3-2. Highlights of the CERCLA Remedial Action Process*

*The cleanup process under RCRA is similar but uses different terminology.

According to DOE guidance,15 documentation for the proposed and final remedy should describe

the criteria used to evaluate each remedial alternative with respect to long-term stewardship and

how long-term stewardship was considered in the decision making process. For example:

The potentially feasible institutional controls will be bounded by:

• Short and long term land-use expectations (e.g., current industrial, future

residential, future recreational green space);

• Availability of enforcement mechanisms (e.g., property owner controls, third

parties, local government, state government); and

• Community acceptance of the response action.16

The documentation also should describe how each remedial alternative and its associated longterm stewardship requirements are related to the anticipated future land use, and particularly

should describe systems and procedures that will be implemented to maintain the anticipated

land use. The Department is currently evaluating whether it may be appropriate to consider

supplemental documentation for older decisions that do not fully describe long-term stewardship

issues.
- 17 -

It is not clear whether decision documents such as CERCLA Records of Decision are the most

appropriate documents for recording specific long-term stewardship requirements and

obligations. On the one hand, CERCLA Records of Decision are enforceable federal

requirements developed with well-defined public involvement processes; and they are highly

visible public documents. Including long-term stewardship requirements in CERCLA Records

of Decision would ensure that these requirements are considered early in the remedy selection

process. On the other hand, many cleanups are conducted pursuant to other, non-CERCLA

authorities (e.g., AEA, state laws) which may differ in the requirements for the consideration of

remedial alternatives. Moreover, many removal actions under CERCLA are not based on

Records of Decision, and decision documents often cover only part of an overall long-term

stewardship problem (e.g., they cover one operable unit at a large site, or there may be separate

Records of Decision for groundwater and soil contamination). In addition, remedies may need to

be adjusted based on information that becomes available during design and implementation

stage.

It may be more practical to build upon existing Remedy Monitoring Plans (RMPs) or their

functional equivalent to both establish the high-level goals for long-term stewardship (e.g.,

protecting a key natural resource, facilitating economic development of the site) and provide

more specific details about long-term stewardship requirements. There is no direct regulatory

driver for a long-term stewardship RMP. However, CERCLA and other environmental laws and

regulations require remedies to be monitored. The enhanced RMP could apply either to a

specific cleanup project or to a site/area in general. It would provide a formal basis for

developing and evaluating long-term stewardship plans and requirements, while at the same time

preserving the flexibility to modify approaches as new information becomes available. The RMP

also could be used for self-regulated DOE activities (e.g., facility disposition, on-site disposal of

low-level waste), although any such plans would need to incorporate the performance assessment

(PA) and composite analysis (CA) required by DOE Order 435.1 for each low-level waste

disposal facility (see Section 5.2).

Remedy Monitoring Plans

DOE guidance recommends development of a remedy monitoring plan (RMP) to identify the objectives,

schedules, information, procedures, technologies, and personnel necessary to monitor and ensure the continued

effectiveness of a remedy. The plans would include evaluation of the compliance of the remedy with applicable

standards; continued performance of the design, operation, and maintenance of the remedy; and continued

maintenance of the land use upon which the remedy selection was based. The RMP also should include

provisions for modifying the RMP and/or the remedy itself to respond to changes in land use, advances in

technology, changes in remedy performance, or changes in site characteristics. The RMP should be established

as part of the decision document for the remedy. To the extent feasible, a preliminary draft RMP should be

developed for each remedy being considered in the remedy selection process to identify the long-term

stewardship requirements for each alternative being considered. In cases where RMPs for individual remedial

actions are impractical (e.g., many separate areas of concern within a larger area or site), it may be possible to

extend the concept of the RMP to an entire site or major portions of a site.

Source: Using Remedy Monitoring Plans to Ensure Remedy Effectiveness and Appropriate Modifications. U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, RCRA/CERCLA Information Brief,

DOE/EH-413-9809, July 1998.
- 18 -

3.3 Criteria for Evaluating Long-term Stewardship Requirements During Remedy

Selection

Several criteria and recommendations for evaluating long-term stewardship requirements during

remedy selection have been suggested in guidance developed by DOE, EPA, and the Department

of Defense (DoD) and in recommendations forwarded to the Department by stakeholders and

throughout the public scoping process. These criteria and recommendations and their citations

are highlighted in Exhibits 3-3 and 3-4 and summarized below.

• Ability to demonstrate the long-term effectiveness of institutional controls. The

evaluation of each alternative should include the identification, description, and assessment

of existing systems for implementing, enforcing, and funding institutional controls within the

site-specific context of affected parties. An alternative that relies upon affected parties to

enforce land use controls but does not identify specific mechanisms by which affected parties

can enforce these controls should be given less consideration than an alternative for which

oversight and enforcement authorities and mechanisms have been clearly identified.

• Ability to monitor, maintain, and replace engineered controls. The evaluation of each

alternative should include the identification, description, and assessment of the technologies

for maintaining, refurbishing, and replacing any required engineered controls at the end of

their functional design life. An alternative for which there is no technologically feasible

methodology for replacing the engineered control at the end of its functional design life

should be given less consideration than an alternative for which periodic replacement is

feasible. Similarly, an alternative for which maintenance procedures are difficult to design

and implement, or for which data to monitor remedy effectiveness would be difficult to

interpret, should be given less consideration than an alternative for which monitoring and

maintenance are relatively straightforward. Choices are not always simple. Some monitoring

activities may be more difficult to implement and may require more resources to maintain,

but produce data that are much more accurate and therefore much more valuable for

protecting human health.

• Ability to identify uncertainties and develop contingency plans. The evaluation of each

alternative should include the identification, description, and assessment of uncertainties

related to long-term stewardship requirements. An alternative for which there is considerable

uncertainty concerning the functional design life of an engineered control, or the ability to

detect and mitigate potential failures, should be given less consideration than an alternative

for which there is less uncertainty and clear contingency plans for addressing potential

failures.

• Full life-cycle cost accounting. The evaluation of each alternative should include an

estimate of its full life-cycle cost, including costs for surveillance, maintenance or

replacement of engineered controls, and implementation and enforcement of institutional

controls. Although the annual long-term stewardship cost of an alternative may represent

only a small fraction of the capital cost to implement the alternative, the long-term

stewardship costs may be incurred for hundreds or thousands of years. Although engineered

controls that are designed to last a long time and be easy to maintain may have large up-front
- 19 -

costs, they may be less expensive in the long run than controls that cost less to build initially

but are not expected to last as long. The Department recognizes that it may be difficult to

estimate life-cycle costs, particularly early in the remedy evaluation process. Where

considerable uncertainty exists, it may be appropriate to develop a range of life-cycle cost

estimates based on upper and lower bound design life scenarios to compare one alternative to

others (see Chapter 8).
- 20 -

Exhibit 3-3. Criteria Developed by DOE, EPA, and DoD for Evaluating Long-term Stewardship

Requirements During Remedy Selection and Implementation

Department of Energy

Long-term Effectiveness of Institutional Controls

• Institutional controls (ICs) must be effective for both

current and future conditions. Effectiveness criteria

should include durability and monitoring of remedy

and ability to modify controls.1

• Remedy selection process should assess capacity to

identify, implement, and enforce ICs, including

existence of the legal authorities.1

• DOE should investigate the practicability and cost of

ICs as thoroughly as the proposed treatment

technology during the remedy selection process.2

• DOE should evaluate the long-term risks of remedial

alternatives during the feasibility study phase of the

remedy selection process to ensure that the “long-term

effectiveness and permanence” of each alternative is

considered.3

Monitoring and Maintenance of Engineered Units

• DOE guidance recognizes that many containment-inplace remedies require monitoring through the use of

discrete monitoring points. Discrete points often only

indicate data trends and cannot provide conclusive

evidence that the remedy is functioning properly.4

• DOE should develop remedy monitoring plans to 

screen each alternative remedy for effectiveness, cost,

and implementability. Remedy monitoring plans

should be designed to gauge performance of the

remedy design, operation, and maintenance and detect

engineered or institutional control failure.4,5

Uncertainty Management / Contingency Planning

C DOE can use Conceptual Site Models to evaluate

uncertainties associated with remedial alternatives.

• Remedy monitoring plans should specify under what

conditions contingencies must be implemented.4

• DOE can use uncertainty matrices to identify impacts

of uncertainties associated with engineered and

institutional controls, assess uncertainties that may

affect performance, and identify contingencies to

mitigate potential impacts.1,6

• Effectiveness of ICs can be enhanced if the ICs are

managed as rolling rather than static systems. IC

monitoring plans should allow for systematic

reassessment of the need for ICs and effectiveness.1

Remedy Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

C Evaluation of ICs requires consideration of life-cycle

costs that will be incurred over the length of time the

controls will be required to be effective. Remedy

evaluations should consider life-cycle costs of ICs,

including maintenance of physical control measures,

monitoring, and enforcement.1

C Some IC life-cycle costs will be incurred by entities

other than the federal government. These costs must

also be considered in the life-cycle cost analysis.1

C The DOE Offices of Site Closure and Long-term

Stewardship will ensure that sites create Long-term

Surveillance and Maintenance (LTSM) programs that

will estimate continuous and intermittent costs.7

Environmental Protection Agency

Long-term Effectiveness of Institutional Controls

• EPA remedy selection criteria used to evaluate the

long-term effectiveness of ICs also can be used to

evaluate the potential for the controls to fail.8

• In evaluating remedies EPA should determine the

existence of the authority and ability and resolve of

the implementing entity to implement controls.8,9,10

• EPA should evaluate ICs as rigorously as proposed

engineered controls and should evaluate long-term

effectiveness and permanence of the ICs.8,10,11,12

• A remedy that relies on ICs should be selected only if

the ICs will be effective and enforceable against both

current and potential future property owners.8

• DOE facilities should develop and implement land use

control assurance plans that identify procedures to

ensure ICs remain effective, prior to agency approval

of the remedy.12

Uncertainty Management/Contingency Planning

• Institutional Control Plans developed for selected

remedies should identify and establish contingencies

to be implemented in the event of control failures.8

Remedy Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

C Cost estimates developed for remedial alternatives

should incorporate remedy capital costs and lifetime

operation and maintenance costs.13

C The remedy selection process should include a

comparison of long-term risks and costs of leaving a

residual hazard in place versus permanent remedies

that do not require ICs. Long-term costs of leaving

residual hazards in place include cost to implement

and maintain engineered controls and cost to

implement contingencies for control failures.8
- 21 -

Department of Defense

Long-term Effectiveness of Institutional Controls

• DoD reserves the right to enforce ICs and include

enforcement language in land transfer documents.14

• DoD should consider the pros and cons of establishing

and maintaining ICs in the remedy process.16

• DoD guidance recommends that, to the extent

allowable by state and local law, ICs should “run with

the land” and be enforceable by all prior owners of

property and other third parties.16

Monitoring and Maintenance of Engineered Units

C DoD advocates establishment of ongoing long-term

monitoring optimization programs to maintain the

maximum effectiveness for monitoring engineered and

institutional controls. Monitoring programs should be

reviewed and updated periodically.15

• Property transfer agreements will include provisions

for continued access to DoD to conduct five year

reviews and effectiveness monitoring.17

Remedy Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

• Feasibility studies for remedial alternatives should

analyze the relative cost of implementation and

monitoring of ICs.15

• To ensure effectiveness of ICs, stakeholders may need

to coordinate long-term responsibilities for

implementation among federal and local entities and

determine resources that are needed and/or available

to implement controls.15

C DoD recommends periodic cost analysis review of

long-term monitoring systems. DoD’s Remedial

Actions Cost Engineering and Requirements tool

facilitates comparison of long-term monitoring

program costs.18

1. Institutional Controls in RCRA and CERCLA Response Actions. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy

and Guidance, RCRA/CERCLA Division, DOE/EH-413-0004, August 2000.

2. Effects of Future Land Use Assumptions on Environmental Restoration Decision Making. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Policy and Assistance, RCRA/CERCLA Information Brief, DOE/EH-413/9810, July 1998.

3. Assessment of Short-Term and Long-Term Risks for Remedy Selection. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental

Policy and Assistance, CERCLA Information Brief, DOE/EH-413/9708, August 1997.

4. Planning and Implementing RCRA/CERCLA Closure and Post-Closure Care when Wastes Will Remain On Site. U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, DOE/EH-413-9910, October 1999.

5. Using Remedy Monitoring Plans to Ensure Remedy Effectiveness and Appropriate Modifications. U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, RCRA/CERCLA Information Brief, DOE/EH-413-9809, July 1998.

6. Uncertainty Management: Expediting Cleanup through Contingency Planning. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Management and Office of Environmental Safety and Health, DOE/EH/(CERCLA)-002, February 1997.

7. Self-Assessment of Business Close-Out Activities. U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Site Closure, March 15, 2000.

8. Use of Institutional Controls in the RCRA Corrective Action Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Waste

, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, March 2000.

9. Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, and Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, OSWER No. 9200-4.18, August 22,

1997.

10. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response, EPA OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04, May 1995.

11. Region X Final Policy on the Use of Institutional Controls at Federal Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region

10, Office of Environmental Cleanup Memorandum, May 1999.

12. Assuring Land Use Controls at Federal Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Federal Facilities Branch,

Memorandum 4WD-FFB, April 1998.

13. The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy Selection Process. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, Publication 9200-3-23FS, EPA 540/F-96/018, September 1996.

14. DoD Responsibility for Additional Environmental Cleanup After Transfer of Real Property. U.S. Department of Defense,

located at www.dtic.mil/envirodoc/brac.flu.html July 25, 1997.

15. The Environmental Site Closeout Process Guide. U.S. Department of Defense, Air Force Base Conversion Agency, September

1999.

16. A Guide to Establishing Institutional Controls at Closing Military Installations. U.S. Department of Defense, February 1998.

17. DoD Guidance on the Environmental Review Process to Reach a Finding of Suitability to Transfer for Property where Release or

Disposal has Occurred. U.S. Department of Defense, located at http://emmisary.acq.osd.mil/bccr/brim, June 1, 1994.

18. Long-Term Monitoring Optimization Guide. U.S. Department of Defense, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence,

located at http://www/afbca.hq.af.mil/closeout/.
- 22 -

Exhibit 3-4. Recommendations by Affected Parties for Considering Long-term Stewardship During

Remedy Selection and Implementation

Long-term Effectiveness of Institutional Controls

• The goals of institutional controls, the types of controls required, and control implementation and maintenance should

be evaluated for each alternative in the remedy selection process.1

• DOE should retain ownership of land requiring institutional controls unless affected state or Tribal governments

certify that adequate institutions and legal mechanisms exist to implement and enforce such controls.1

• DOE sites need to prepare site stewardship plans that address the legal authority and enforcement of institutional

controls, as well as the effects of property transfers to other agencies or non-federal owners.6

• The Assistant Secretary should evaluate the applicability and reliability of available non-physical institutional

controls, with particular attention to their effectiveness, enforceability, and permanence. The evaluation should

consider controls on lands held in federal ownership and lands leased or sold to private individuals or entities.7

• The Assistant Secretary should evaluate the capabilities of relevant public and private institutions to effectively

implement and administer institutional controls over time; and should ensure that remediation and institutional

controls have overlapping and/or redundant requirements.7

Monitoring/Maintenance of Engineered Units/Verification of Remedy Monitoring Data

• DOE should identify for each engineered control remedy the expected design life of the remedy and associated repair

or replacement costs that can be expected to be incurred by future generations.2

• DOE should establish a stewardship research program designed to understand the ecological and social impacts of

residual hazards and to devise new and improved long-term remediation methods and technologies.2

• DOE sites need to prepare site stewardship plans that address monitoring and maintenance of facilities and physical

controls.6

• The Assistant Secretary should require periodic review of all sites to evaluate the effectiveness of remediation

decisions and institutional and physical controls, in light of technology development, changing environmental and

contamination conditions, and costs.7

Information Management

• DOE should establish mechanisms for the collection, retrieval, and storage of site data and information necessary for

long-term stewardship and preservation of cultural and historic resources.1,6

• DOE should collect, preserve, and integrate all information needed for long-term stewardship into its information

management system, and incorporate stewardship activities into a project management and tracking system to provide

track the progress of and provide stewards with timely notification of stewardship activities.2

• DOE should implement effective procedures for managing contaminated land notices to ensure that they are found in

property title searches, and incorporate information on land use restrictions in state, county, and city information

systems.2

• DOE should jointly manage and link databases of land use information with local land use agencies, and consider

establishing cooperative planning entities with local and state planning agencies.5

• DOE should immediately suspend the operation of protocols that require the routine destruction of relevant records.

DOE should coordinate its information activities with the work of the Secretary’s Openness Committee to identify

and provide for the management of records relevant to long-term stewardship.6

• DOE should create a geographically based or other type of database for stewardship information. The database

should be a means to informing decisions, and any form that the database takes should be durable.6

• DOE should identify its “stewardship baseline” - the specific items of information that are necessary to plan and carry

out long-term stewardship.6

• The Assistant Secretary should create a publicly available information system that identifies waste sites, location,

characteristics, controls, and contingency plans; and should develop options for maintaining remediation and

institutional control records at several government levels (local, state, tribal, national).7
- 23 -

Exhibit 3-4 (continued)

Uncertainty Management and Contingency Planning 

• For decisions that include long-term institutional controls or monitoring and maintenance of engineered controls.

DOE should develop methods for accurately reflecting such commitments in the decision process or identify and

emphasize uncertainties surrounding such commitments.1

• DOE sites should prepare stewardship plans that include contingency planning for potential identification of new

contamination or failure of remedy.6

• The Assistant Secretary should develop contingency plans for reasonably forseeable failures of remediation and/or

physical and institutional controls.7

Remedy Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Funding Mechanisms

• DOE’s current method of costing long-term institutional controls does not accurately reflect the relative cost of longterm stewardship activities. If present worth values are used to compare the cost of remedial alternatives, annual

costs associated with the use of institutional controls becomes negligible beyond a few decades. DOE should more

fully explain and quantify the required long-term cost and funding commitment required for long-term institutional

controls, and develop plans to ensure availability of adequate funding for such controls.1

• DOE should formally acknowledge that remedy decisions requiring long-term institutional controls will not be

considered final until DOE can implement an acceptable stewardship program that includes an acceptable funding

mechanism.1

• For new facilities and missions DOE should address the closure and long-term stewardship commitments associated

with the facility or mission in the initial approval decision, and make provisions for funding of the closure and postclosure operation of the new facility or mission.1

• DOE should promote mechanisms for funding stewardship that do not depend upon annual appropriations, with trust

funds being the preferred approach. At a minimum an adequate principal should be set aside to produce sufficient

income to fund long-term monitoring of residual hazards.2

• Congress should establish a fund that will generate the required annual budget for stewardship. Until such an

independent funding mechanism is established DOE should request stewardship funding as a specific line item in its

annual appropriations process.3

• DOE should estimate the cost, time frames, and types of activities that will be needed for long-term stewardship at

DOE sites.4

• DOE should define responsibilities for long-term stewardship, including early involvement of local government and

adequate long-term support to local agencies charged with stewardship responsibilities.5

• The Assistant Secretary should require full consideration of the estimated life-cycle costs of remediation and longterm institutional controls in order to evaluate the tradeoffs between cleanup and stewardship.7

1. Closure for the Seventh Generation: A Report from the Stewardship Committee of the State and Tribal Government Working Group. National

Conference of State Legislatures, Washington D.C., February 1999.

2. The Oak Ridge Reservation Stakeholder Report on Stewardship, Vol. 2. Oak Ridge Reservation Stewardship Working Group, December 1999.

3. The Oak Ridge Reservation Stakeholder Report on Stewardship, Vol. 1. Oak Ridge Reservation Stewardship Working Group, July 1998.

4. Probst, K. N., and McGovern, M. H. Long-Term Stewardship and the Nuclear Weapons Complex: The Challenge Ahead. Center for Risk

Management, Resources for the Future, Washington D.C., June 1998.

5. Lowrie, K. Local Land Use Planning and Future Use of U.S. DOE Sites: Communication, Coordination, and Commitment, Report 32. 

Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, September 1999.

6. Bodde, D., Environmental Management Advisory Board Long-term Stewardship Committee Report and Recommendations. October 8, 1998.

7. Bodde, D., and Bennett, Joel. Resolution on Institutional Controls on DOE Properties. Environmental Management Advisory Board, April 17,

2000.
- 24 -
17The Executive Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the Governmentto-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (April 29, 1994) enumerates the federal

government's responsibility to operate within a government-to-government relationship with federally-recognized

Native American tribes.

- 25 -

Chapter 4: DOE’s Long-term Stewardship Activities

The Department established the Office of

Long Term Stewardship in 1999 to help

coordinate and communicate long-term

stewardship efforts within EM. 

Coordination is required because the

majority of long-term stewardship

activities are conducted at individual DOE

sites and managed by a variety of

programmatic offices at headquarters and

in the field. This reflects the fact that longterm stewardship represents an important

part of DOE’s strategic objective to

conduct its missions in a manner that

protects human health and the

environment.

This chapter describes how long-term

stewardship is being planned, managed,

and implemented at DOE sites.

4.1 What are the Drivers for

Long-term Stewardship?

The principal drivers for existing longterm stewardship requirements at DOE

sites have been: (1) the legal responsibility

of DOE to protect human health and the

environment pursuant to AEA; (2)

CERCLA, RCRA, UMTRCA, other

environmental statutes, and implementing

requirements, including Consent Decrees,

Federal Facility Agreements, licenses, and

permits; (3) Executive Orders; and (4)

Treaty obligations pertaining to Tribal

governments.17 More than 100 Executive

Orders, statutes, regulations, and

compliance agreements and Treaty

obligations may affect long-term

APPLICABLE SCOPING COMMENTS

(see Exhibit 2 in Appendix B)

• The Assistant Secretary should ensure that the Longterm Stewardship Office at headquarters has the

responsibility and authority for directing policy for

long-term stewardship, and for ensuring

implementation and accountability in the field (4)

• DOE should create a specific long-term stewardship

program office not limited to EM (STGWG)

• DOE should continue to work with stakeholders,

regulators, and Tribes to develop an acceptable longterm stewardship program (3, 4, STGWG)

• DOE should discuss long-term stewardship

responsibilities at multi-program sites (14)

• DOE should evaluate the pros and cons of different

federal agencies performing long-term stewardship

activities especially at sites with significant natural

resources or historic preservation value (1)

• DOE should continue research and development

activities to minimize residual contamination and

reduce future long-term stewardship costs (4)

• DOE sites should each develop a long-term

stewardship plan that defines costs, constituents, and

implementation mechanisms (2)

• The study should examine DOE’s existing legislative

mandates for maintaining institutional controls over

contaminated sites and alternatives for sharing

regulatory responsibilities with other federal agencies

(6)

• The study should examine alternative internal

organization/program strategies that will be needed to

maintain long-term stewardship programs (6)

APPLICABLE ISSUES

(see Exhibit 3 in Appendix B)

 4. Regulatory Drivers, Negotiated Agreements, and

 Legislative Barriers

 7. Science and Technology Development

14. Stewardship Responsibilities at Non-EM Facilities

 with Continuing Operations and Multi-Purpose Sites

20. Enforcement

23. Tie National Policy to Stewardship Legislative

 Mandate
18Appendix D summarizes major statues, regulations, and Executive Orders that require DOE to conduct

miscellaneous long-term stewardship activities 19Tribal governments have a special and unique legal and political relationship with the US Government,

defined by history, treaties, statutes, court decisions, and the US Constitution. The United States has entered into

more than 600 treaties and agreements with American Indian Tribes. These treaties and agreements create a variety

of legal responsibilities by the United States toward Tribes and provide the basis for a government-to-government

relationship. Although the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has the principal

responsibility for upholding obligations of the federal government to American Indians, this responsibility extends to

all federal agencies, including DOE. Source: DOE Order 1230.2 American Indian Tribal Government Policy. 

April 8, 1992, available at http://www.explorer.doe.gov:1776.

- 26 -

stewardship activities.18 Many of these requirements were developed for other purposes, not

specifically for long-term stewardship. Specific requirements for long-term stewardship that

apply to DOE include:

• Ensuring compliance through routine surveillance and monitoring under AEA and DOE

Order 5400.1, General Environmental Protection Program, and DOE Order 5400.5 Radiation

Protection of the Public and the Environment, for sites contaminated with radioactive

materials.

• Implementing the long-term surveillance and maintenance requirements established by Titles

I and II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA, 10 CFR Part 40.27-

28).

• Where contaminants are left in place, conducting five-year performance reviews for sites

remediated under CERCLA (40 CFR Part 300.430).

• Implementing post-closure maintenance and monitoring, and periodic performance reviews

for sites remediated under RCRA, which requires a minimum of 30 years of post-closure care

(40 CFR Part 264.117).

• Ensuring compliance with long-term monitoring, maintenance, and institutional controls

requirements for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico established by the

WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (Public Law 102-579) and regulations promulgated under this

statute (40 CFR Parts 191 and 194).

• Ensuring compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and Executive

Orders protecting natural resources and cultural resources (see Chapter 9).

• Ensuring compliance with DOE Order 1230.2, American Indian Tribal Government Policy,

and ensuring that obligations under the Federal Indian Trust Responsibility (Seminole Nation

v. United States, 1942) and treaty obligations are met.19

• Ensuring compliance with DOE Orders on facility and land use planning (430 Series).

• Ensuring compliance with DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, for designing

and maintaining low-level waste disposal cells.
20The Long-Term Control of Property: Overview of Requirements in Orders DOE 5400.12 & DOE 5400.5. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, Information Brief. EH-412-0014/1099,

October 1999.

21Cross-Cut Guidance on Environmental Requirements for DOE Real Property Transfers, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance. DOE/EH-413/97/2, October 1997; CERCLA Requirements

Associated with Real Property Transfers, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and

Assistance, CERCLA Information Brief. EH-413-9808, April 1998. 22Specific monitoring or oversight provisions may be needed when DOE transfers land to a non-federal entity

(see the example of groundwater use restrictions at the Oak Ridge Reservation in Section 5.3) or leases on-site

facilities to non-federal entities (see the example of site institutional controls at the Mound Environmental

- 27 -

The concept of long-term stewardship is partially incorporated into CERCLA, RCRA, DOE

Orders, NRC regulations, state laws, and supporting regulations and guidelines.20 However,

differences in requirements and standards in existing regulations, as well as the unique

circumstances for each site, could lead to a patchwork of different regulatory requirements for

similar long-term stewardship activities. The resulting patchwork of regulatory requirements will

make it difficult to manage long-term stewardship activities. The Department is reviewing

options for developing additional policy and guidance to clarify the regulatory requirements

pertaining to long-term stewardship.

As long as the federal government retains ownership or control of sites, long-term stewardship

requirements established in site-specific compliance agreements and in laws, regulations, and

treaties will remain applicable and enforceable. If ownership is transferred to a non-federal entity

(e.g., states, Tribes, local governments, private entities), it may be difficult to ensure the longterm enforceability of existing requirements and associated compliance oversight.21 DOE has not

traditionally established specific monitoring or oversight provisions for property transfers and

other activities that rely upon local institutional control mechanisms.22

Advisory Groups’ Recommendations for Establishing a Long-term Stewardship Program within DOE

“DOE should create a specific program office to manage stewardship responsibilities. This is needed because

stewardship at DOE sites is not limited only to Environmental Management (EM) programs. Stewardship may be

required during cleanup or closure and during operation of related facilities with continuing missions”

Source: Closure for the Seventh Generation: A Report from the Stewardship Committee of the State and Tribal

Government Working Group. National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver CO, February 1999.

“The Environmental Management Advisory Board recommends that the Assistant Secretary take the following

steps in the coming months to assure that long-term stewardship remains a major focus of the EM program:

• Promulgate a formal policy (that is, DOE Order or similar document) that requires the sites to plan for and

implement long-term stewardship.

• Establish a distinct budget for long-term stewardship at Headquarters, Operations, and site levels.

• Ensure that the Long Term Stewardship Office in Headquarters has the responsibility and authority for

directing policy for long-term stewardship, and for ensuring implementation and accountability in the field.

• Assure that relevant state, tribal, and local governments are fully informed of information resources and DOE

activities relating to long-term stewardship.

• Provide the general public with ready access to long-term stewardship information and activities to facilitate

public participation in decisions regarding long-term stewardship.”

Source: Letter from Dr. David L. Bodde and Joel H. Bennett, Co-Chairs, Environmental Management Advisory

Board, April 17, 2000.
Management Project in Section 6.2). 23ASTM Standard D5746-98 Standard Classification of Environmental Condition of Property Area Types for

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Facilities.

- 28 -

The Department of Defense (DoD)

has faced a similar issue associated

with property transfers under the

Base Realignment and Closure

(BRAC) process. Congress

originally authorized BRAC under

Public Law 100-526, the Defense

Authorization Amendments and

Base Closure and Realignment Act

for FY 1988, and has modified the

process in subsequent legislation,

primarily through provisions

contained in the National Defense

Authorization Acts for FY 1992

through FY 1997. Since 1988,

DoD has successfully transferred

ownership of many former military

installations for economic re-use or

natural resource conservation under

the BRAC program. Some of these

installations require long-term

stewardship after property transfer. Such long-term stewardship activities generally are

conducted by DoD but may also be conducted by the property owner, local government, or other

entities. When appropriate, DoD retains access rights to transferred BRAC properties for the

purposes of conducting long-term stewardship and additional cleanup activities (if required)

under the provisions of the land transfer agreements.

DoD currently requires that an environmental baseline survey be conducted for all DoD property

that is under consideration for transfer by lease or deed to any non-federal government entity. 

Environmental baseline surveys are used to support Finding of Suitability for Lease (FOSL) and

Finding of Suitability for Transfer (FOST) determinations, and are incorporated into property

transfer documents. ASTM also has developed a standard classification of environmental

condition of property for DoD BRAC facilities that is used to support the DoD environmental

baseline survey and FOSL/FOST process.23

4.2 How is Long-term Stewardship Currently Managed and Implemented by DOE?

As with other Departmental activities, DOE’s long-term stewardship responsibilities are divided

among headquarters and field elements. DOE headquarters offices are responsible for

developing policy, guidance, and internal requirements (DOE Orders); providing programmatic

oversight; providing funding advocacy; and communicating with representatives of national

stakeholder and Tribal organizations. The Office of Long Term Stewardship (EM-51) is

responsible for coordinating such activities with respect to long-term stewardship. DOE has

ASTM Standards for Environmental Site Assessments

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has

developed standard practices for conducting environmental site

assessments for commercial real estate. The standards were

developed to assist purchasers of the property in qualifying for the

“innocent landowner” defense to CERCLA liability; i.e., they had

conducted “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and

uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary

practice” as defined in 42 U.S.C. §9601(35)(B). The standards

include practices and procedures for the identification and

documentation of the presence or likely presence of any CERCLA

hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under

conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a

material threat of a release into structures on the property or into the

ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.

Source: ASTM Standard E1527-97 Standard Practice for

Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site

Assessment Process; ASTM Standard E1903-97 Standard Practice

for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site

Assessment Process.
- 29 -

Five Key Principles for Effective Long-term Stewardship

The National Research Council recently recommended that DOE commit the time and funding needed to develop

and implement effective institutional management plans devoted to five key principles: 

1. Plan for uncertainty by anticipating a range of possible outcomes of cleanup strategies and post remediation

institutional management strategies and adding uncertainty by applying uncertainty ranges.

2. Plan for fallibility in cleanup strategies and post remediation institutional management strategies by selected

site uses that are less likely to be subject to frequent change, and that assure that information about

contaminated sites is preserved and communicated effectively to future site users.

3. Develop appropriate and substantive incentive structures, including stable long-term funding structures,

access to needed resources, and encourage active citizen oversight of long-term institutional management.

4. Undertake scientific, technical, and social research and development, including research and development

for contaminant reduction, contaminant isolation, and stewardship measures.

5. Plan to maximize follow-through by implementing an iterative, long-term institutional management strategy

that allows for adaptation to changing conditions or unexpected outcomes and allows for follow through on

successive phases of the institutional management plan.

Source: Long-Term Institutional Management of U.S. Department of Energy Legacy Waste Sites. National

Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, August 2000

established procedures that require involvement and coordination among DOE Principal

Secretarial Offices (PSOs) and Deputy Administrators (within the NNSA) in the development of

policies, guidance, and DOE Orders. EM-51 has the lead for long-term stewardship policy and

guidance development and works in coordination with the Office of Environment, Safety, and

Health (EH) to ensure that policy and guidance pertaining to long-term stewardship is consistent

with existing Departmental policies and guidance. The DOE field offices are responsible for the

implementation of long-term stewardship through planning, developing budgets, and managing

the projects that include long-term stewardship activities. The Grand Junction Office, which

reports to the Albuquerque Operations Office, has project management responsibility over the

majority of the projects currently in the long-term stewardship phase (see Section 4.2.2).

As cleanup actions are completed at certain EM sites (e.g., Pinellas, Weldon Spring), the Grand

Junction Office will assume responsibility for long-term stewardship. The DOE Office of

Science will assume long-term stewardship responsibility when cleanup is complete at the

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey. At other EM sites, responsibility for longterm stewardship after cleanup actions are complete has not yet been assigned.

4.2.1 Office of Long Term Stewardship

The Office of Long Term Stewardship provides support and coordination among the other EM

program offices, EH, and other PSOs. The Office has a major role in identifying policy and

guidance needs; working with other offices within DOE – including the NNSA – to develop and

implement policies and communicate with national stakeholder and Tribal organizations; and
- 30 -

coordinating with research and development (R&D) organizations internal and external to DOE. 

To meet these responsibilities, the Office performs several functions.

• Drafting policy: The Office works with other DOE offices to draft policies for

implementing and managing long-term stewardship activities at DOE sites. The Office also

sponsors independent research on specific long-term stewardship policy issues and ensures

integration with existing DOE policies.

• Coordination and communication: The Office coordinates the DOE Working Group on

long-term stewardship; prepares reports such as this Draft Study and the companion Report to

Congress; maintains information systems such as the long-term stewardship web page

(http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/); and provides liaison to national stakeholder and Tribal

organizations involved in long-term stewardship.

• Drafting guidance: Although long-term stewardship activities at a site will be driven by

site-specific factors and requirements, some practices are addressed consistently across sites. 

The Office works with EH, other EM program offices, and other PSOs to draft guidance for

issues such as contracting strategies, negotiated agreements, and development of site-specific

implementation plans. Guidance for long-term stewardship is developed using existing

administrative processes already established within DOE.

• Developing performance measures: The Office is working with other EM program offices

to develop performance measures to evaluate whether long-term stewardship functions are

being performed adequately and cost effectively and to determine whether needed research

and development is being performed or given sufficient priority.

• Managing data: The Office oversees the development and implementation of the Central

Internet Database pursuant to the 1998 PEIS settlement agreement to track the location of

residual hazards and their movement through shipments of waste and materials among sites. 

The Office also coordinates with the DOE Chief Information Officer to develop and support

policies that ensure the collection, preservation, and accessibility of the information

necessary to support long-term stewardship activities.

• Identifying needs of science and technology for long-term stewardship: The Office

coordinates with organizations within the EM program responsible for planning and

implementing long-term stewardship and EM program organizations responsible for science

and technology development to identify new science and technology needed to enhance

protectiveness and reduce costs during long-term stewardship and identify strategies for

meeting these needs.
24Guiding Principles for Long-Term Stewardship. U.S. Department of Energy, Ohio Field Office, Miamisburg,

OH, March 27, 2000.

- 31 -

• Incorporating research and development in science and technology: To ensure that

developments in science, technology, and other areas of knowledge become incorporated into

long-term stewardship strategies at sites, the Office provides information to sites on

strategies, science, and technologies that are available at other DOE sites, other federal

agencies, and in the private sector. The Office also performs analyses to re-evaluate and, in

concert with federal regulators, modify as necessary national long-term stewardship strategies

based on new science and technology.

• Supporting and scrutinizing proposed EM funding for long-term stewardship: The

Office reviews proposed budgets and plans for long-term stewardship and provides advocacy

for long-term stewardship funding in the annual budget process. The Office also evaluates

alternative funding mechanisms as appropriate.

4.2.2 Implementation of Long-term Stewardship Activities

Long-term stewardship activities at the site level include RCRA post-closure monitoring,

CERCLA five-year reviews, and long-term monitoring and maintenance activities pursuant to

AEA, DOE Orders, NRC license requirements (e.g., at uranium mill tailings sites) and sitespecific requirements. DOE field offices also have begun to issue long-term stewardship

guidance. For example, the Ohio Field Office has issued guiding principles for long-term

stewardship that address stakeholder and regulator involvement, institutional controls, funding,

review of cleanup remedies, technology development and implementation, communication, and

conservation of resources.24

DOE Long-term Stewardship Working Group

In 1998, DOE convened the Long-term Stewardship Working Group to provide a forum for field and

headquarters personnel to coordinate and facilitate long-term stewardship planning and implementation.

• The initial objective was to ensure that personnel involved in cleanup and post-cleanup activities are informed

of ongoing and planned research, planning, and implementation activities related to long-term stewardship. 

This improved opportunities for leveraging expertise and resources to efficiently address long-term

stewardship issues and concerns.

• The near-term objective is to begin to address the many challenges associated with long-term stewardship in a

coordinated fashion and to establish an understanding of how expertise within the Department (e.g., at Grand

Junction Office and headquarters programs) can be applied to these issues and concerns.

• The longer-term objective is to develop an understanding of what it will require to maintain a viable

commitment to long-term stewardship over multiple generations and to define appropriate roles for

headquarters and field elements in meeting that commitment.

Appendix H provides a listing of the current principal Working Group Members and the areas they represent.

The list will be updated periodically on the long-term stewardship information center web site

(http//lts.apps.em.doe.gov)
25This requirement applies to sites with EM program funding. 261999 Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program Report. U.S. Department of Energy, Grand

Junction Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, March 2000.

27Guidance for Implementation of Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance at DOE Sites in Long-Term

Stewardship. U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, December 30, 1999.

- 32 -

Long-term stewardship is budgeted and managed in different ways at different sites across the

DOE complex. Some sites have established long-term stewardship as a specific project with a

distinct budget. Other sites include long-term stewardship as part of each cleanup project. Many

long-term stewardship activities (e.g., records management, site security) are included as part of

the overall infrastructure maintenance activities. Where long-term stewardship activities are

budgeted within site overhead accounts, it is difficult to attribute costs to the precise areas

undergoing long-term stewardship and identify the overall scope of long-term stewardship

activities currently underway. This information should be most complete at sites where cleanup

and closure are the sole mission, particularly where closure is expected before 2006. To better

understand long-term stewardship activities and costs, many DOE sites will have an independent

post-closure Project Baseline Summary (ledger for tracking cost and progress in support of the

EM annual budget) for long-term stewardship by Fiscal Year 2003.25 As noted in Chapter 1, the

companion Report to Congress will identify sites or portions of sites where cleanup is complete

or expected to be complete by 2006, and the scope of long-term stewardship activities anticipated

for these areas.

The Grand Junction Office (GJO) in Colorado is currently responsible for long-term stewardship

at 26 sites where cleanup is complete and expects to become responsible for two more sites by

2003 (Exhibit 4-1). The mission of GJO is to assume long-term custody of these sites and

provide a common basis for their operation, security, surveillance, monitoring, maintenance,

annual reporting, and emergency response. Sites assigned to GJO include 21 disposal cells that

contain encapsulated uranium mill tailings and associated contaminated material; entombed

reactors in Nebraska and Ohio; and the Pinellas Site in Florida. Additional sites are anticipated

to be transferred to GJO in the future. Some of these sites are presently owned by private parties

and regulated under NRC license (i.e., UMTRCA Title II sites).26 Site-specific long-term

stewardship plans are required by law for UMTRCA sites and must be approved by NRC. GJO

also requires the development of a site-specific long-term stewardship plan before accepting

long-term stewardship responsibilities for any site.27 This plan must explain how DOE will

provide effective long-term stewardship for the site and include:

• Legal, regulatory, and other long-term stewardship requirements;

• Institutional controls to be implemented;

• Physical and baseline conditions at the site when long-term stewardship begins;

• History of site operations and cleanup activities;

• Planned surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance activities;

• Emergency response provisions;

• Records management and public information; and

• Cost and schedule.
28Self Assessment of Business Close-out Activities. Memorandum from James J. Fiore, Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Site Closure, Office of Environmental Management, March 15, 2000. The Draft Plans were completed

by June 30, 2000.

- 33 -

CERCLA Sites

Weapons Program Sites

D&D Program Sites

UMTRCA Title II Disposal Sites

NWPA Section 151 Sites

UMTRCA Title I Disposal Sites

Canonsburg

Burrell

Parkersburg

Falls City Pinellas

Blue Water

Ambrosia Lake

Shiprock

Slick Rock

Site A / Plot M

Piqua

Weldon Springs

Gunnison

Edgemont

Hallam

Spook

Maybell

Rifle

Grand Junction

Tuba City

Lakeview Lowman

Durango

Green River

Salt Lake City

Naturita Monticello

Mexican Hat

Exhibit 4-1. DOE’s Grand Junction Office Expects to be Responsible

for Long-term Stewardship Activities at 28 or more Sites by 2003

At sites where it has programmatic responsibilities, the Office of Site Closure within EM has

initiated a process to evaluate business close-out activities to assist sites in addressing and

developing management plans to expedite and monitor progress toward the completion of EM

program projects and the transition to long-term stewardship.28 The self-assessment will use a

framework which includes 13 defined activities related to site close-out:

• Establishing contract incentives to maximize contractor efforts to complete EM projects.

• Planning for sale of site/end state to ensure that an early determination is made regarding the

post-DOE use(s) of sites and that detailed planning is developed and executed.

• Identifying post-contract benefit liabilities, including pension, medical and life insurance, and

post-employment benefits such as severance pay.

• Developing and implementing records disposition plans for contaminated, electronic,

transuranic waste, and classified records and the post-closure custodianship of these records.

• Mitigating the effect of any ongoing lawsuits on meeting the schedule for site closure;
- 34 -

• Ensuring that transition plans maximize, to the extent possible, employee options for reemployment or retirement and retain the appropriate labor skill mix.

• Ensuring the development of schedules and approaches for personal property disposal.

• Planning and implementing the re-industrialization or leasing of sites as appropriate.

• Identifying DOE Orders which are no longer necessary to maintain health and safety.

• Documenting effective site closure experiences.

• Providing assistance, as needed, to ensure that the specific needs of the communities near

closure sites are being considered and addressed appropriately.

• Developing memoranda of agreement between EM and other DOE PSOs to establish

responsibilities for conducting any needed long-term stewardship activities.

• Identifying the specific long-term stewardship responsibilities at the site.

4.2.3 Entities External to DOE

EPA, NRC, state regulatory agencies, and Tribal governments have expressed a strong interest

in long-term stewardship. Their role(s) in planning, implementing, and providing oversight of

long-term stewardship activities varies among sites. At many sites, EPA, states, and Tribal

governments currently provide oversight of DOE cleanup activities conducted pursuant to

CERCLA, RCRA, and/or site-specific agreements. Although land use planning in the United

States typically is conducted primarily at the local level, certain state and Tribal governments

Role of State Governments in Long-term Stewardship

The roles and responsibilities for state governments in implementing and overseeing long-term stewardship

activities will vary depending upon the specific activities to be conducted, the legal authorities for such activities,

and site characteristics. At many sites, the division of authority and responsibility between DOE, EPA and state

regulatory agencies for remedy selection and implementation, including long-term stewardship, is specified in an

Interagency Agreement.1

 For example, EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology oversee long-term

stewardship activities associated with remedies for the Hanford Site under the terms of the Hanford Tri-Party

Agreement.2

 Many states (referred to as “agreement states”) regulate the handling and storage of radioactive

material through state regulations pursuant to an agreement with NRC. States also may regulate long-term

stewardship pursuant to state hazardous waste laws. States generally retain ownership of groundwater and

surface waters, and many states retain authority for land use planning (and have delegated this authority to local

governments). State governments also may assume a more prominent role in managing long-term stewardship

information and in promoting education and training to ensure the continuity of long-term stewardship across

multiple generations. The draft long-term stewardship plan for the Weldon Spring Site in Missouri3

 identifies the

State of Missouri as an “oversight steward” for the site. The draft plan also identifies specific roles and

responsibilities for the state government, including overseeing access agreements for long-term stewardship

activities conducted by DOE on state-owned lands adjacent to the site and providing oversight of long-term

stewardship activities required by state regulations.

1

A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection

Decision Documents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

EPA 540-R-98-031, OSWER 9200.1-23P, July 1999. 2

Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations

Office; Washington State Department of Ecology; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. EPA

Docket Number: 1089-03-04-120, Ecology Docket Number: 89-54, May 15, 1989. 3 Stewardship Plan for the Weldon Spring Site, Revision A, April 1999. Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action

Project. DOE/OR/21548-771, April 1999.
29Certain states (e.g., Tennessee, Washington) have state regulations pertaining to land use planning. Tribal

nations also have regulations governing land use and planning. For example, the Yakama Nation has promulgated

regulations to encourage appropriate use of the land; to protect the social and economic stability of residential,

agricultural, commercial, industrial, forest, reserved and other areas within the reservation; to assure orderly

development of such areas; and to otherwise promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare in

accordance with the rights by the Yakama Indian Nation in the 1855 Treaty with the Yakamas (12 Stat. 951). 

Additional information on these regulations is available at http://wolfenet.com/~yingis/.

- 35 -

also have regulations pertaining to land use.29 Depending on site-specific situations, local and

Tribal governments may play a primary role in the operation of processes that support

institutional controls through land and resource use permits, zoning, deed restrictions, easements,

and other similar mechanisms (see Chapter 5).

As DOE moves forward with long-term stewardship, DOE will need to continue to build upon its

existing partnerships with other federal agencies, Tribes, states, and local governments. All

parties must share a common understanding of the nature of the residual hazards at DOE sites,

the need for continued implementation of long-term stewardship activities, and the need for

Examples of Management Agreements between DOE and Other Federal Agencies

• Argonne National Laboratory-East – DOE is coordinating with state and local governments and the

Department of Agriculture to manage the site deer herd.

• Hanford Site – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has managed the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife

Refuge (recently designated as the Hanford Reach National Monument) since 1971and the Fitzner/Eberhardt

Arid Lands Ecology Reserve since 1987.

• Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) – The Bureau of Land Management is

responsible for the administration of grazing permits and granting of utility rights of way on portions of the

site. More than 300,000 acres are used for cattle and sheep grazing each year.

• Savannah River Site – The U.S. Forest Service has managed natural resources at the Savannah River Site

since 1952, and responsibilities now include developing land management and ecosystem plans for wildlife

and forest resource management, engineering support for soil erosion and watershed management, threatened

and endangered species recovery and management, fire control, wetland restoration, and support for site wide

planning. Agricultural and timber land acquired for the site in 1952 was heavily degraded at the time, and the

land has been restored to both provide a sustainable crop of timber and provide enhanced habitat for

endangered species.

• Several sites – DOE, in partnership with state and Tribal governments and other federal agencies, is creating

land reserves from parts of DOE sites. For example, on June 24, 1999, DOE Secretary Richardson

designated 10,000 acres of the Department’s Savannah River Site as a biological and wildlife refuge, thereby

creating the Crackerneck Wildlife Management Area. Similar preservation activities have been implemented

at INEEL, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and

Rocky Flats. State wildlife agencies or other federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management, will

be responsible for management of the areas to protect the unique habitat, and DOE will continue to control

custody of the property and maintain responsibility for access controls.

Sources: Conference call with Chicago Operations Office, November 1, 1999; Hanford Comprehensive LandUse Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS). DOE/EIS-02222-F, September 1999; INEEL

Comprehensive Facility and Land Use Plan, 1997; Http://www.srs.gov/general/srenviro/srfs/srfs.htm. U. S.

Forest Service, Savannah River Operations Office, April 6, 2000; Land Reserves Created at Departmental Sites,

DOE This Month, August 1999.
30Innovation in Ground Water and Soil Clean up: From Concept to Commercialization. National Research

Council, Washington, D.C. National Academy Press, 1997. 31Natural Attenuation in Ground Water. Re-dedication and Research Needs in Subsurface Science. National

Research Council, Washington, D.C. National Academy Press, March 2000. 32Groundwater Monitoring Activities at Department of Energy Facilities. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Inspector General, Office of Audit Services. DOE/IG-0461, February 2000. 33 Memo: Departmental Position on the Office of Inspector General Report IG-0461, “Ground Water

Monitoring Activities at Department of Energy Facilities.” To: Phillip L. Holbrook, Deputy Inspector General for

Audit Services. 

- 36 -

continued restrictions on land and resource use. These partnerships will require continuing open

communication, information exchange, and coordinated planning to develop solutions.

4.2.4 Research & Development

The need for long-term stewardship reflects the inadequacy of existing cleanup technologies. For

example, the National Research Council noted that “although considerable effort has been

invested in groundwater and soil cleanup, the technologies available for these cleanups are

relatively rudimentary,”30 and recently reaffirmed its support for greater investment in science

and technology.31 In addition, a recent audit report by the DOE Office of Inspector General

found that:

“The Department’s groundwater monitoring activities were not being conducted

as economically as they could have been since some sites had not adopted

innovative technologies and approaches to well installation, sampling operations,

and laboratory analysis. This occurred in part because innovative groundwater

monitoring techniques adopted by some sites had not been effectively

disseminated, evaluated for applicability at other sites, and implemented.”32

In response, the Secretary of Energy directed EH to be the lead office to improve the consistency

and quality of ground water monitoring and reporting.33

The majority of the EM program’s science and technology development effort is focused on

supporting near- and mid-term objectives, not long-term stewardship. Given the number of sites

expected to require long-term stewardship by DOE, initial estimates suggest the annual cost of

long-term stewardship will be in excess of $70 million in FY 2006. Environmental sampling and

analysis is anticipated to be a significant long-term stewardship cost. For example, analysis of a

single groundwater sample for volatile and semivolatile organic compounds and metals may cost

$1,000 or more. Therefore, the Department invests in science and technology in order to

improve the permanence of the cleanup remedies and reduce the monitoring and maintenance

costs while maintaining or improving protection of human health and the environment.

DOE has initiated an effort to make investments in science and technology that will result in

significant reductions in the risk, cost, and duration of long-term stewardship. DOE has

identified the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) as the lead

laboratory for coordinating science and technology development related to long-term

stewardship, but the Department expects significant participation from the other national

laboratories, industry, and academic centers currently involved in EM science and technology
- 37 -

development efforts. DOE is developing planning documentation for a long-term stewardship

science and technology “roadmap” that will (1) identify new science and technology needs

specific to long-term stewardship; (2) identify existing capabilities to meet these needs both

within and external to DOE; (3) determine critical research and development priorities; and (4)

direct specific efforts to meet these needs. A preliminary roadmap is anticipated by September,

2000; however, the Department intends to use an iterative process to identify and address science

and technology needs as the scope of long-term stewardship becomes more certain.

Initial activities are focused on identifying current needs and capabilities, performing gap

analyses, and developing an approach for meeting high priority needs. Because many science

and technology investments that already have been made (e.g., more durable caps and covers;

real-time monitoring equipment) can be deployed now to support long-term stewardship

activities today, adapting available technologies to long-term stewardship is a high priority. For

the same reason, certain long-term stewardship needs (e.g., information management) are not

addressed within existing DOE research and development efforts. Over time, it will be necessary

to continually re-assess science and technology needs as the longer-term EM projects begin to

reach completion and additional information is learned at sites.

Scope of Long-term Surveillance and Monitoring at DOE Sites

Current estimates indicate that approximately 548,000 acres of land currently are or eventually are expected to

require long-term stewardship by DOE. DOE’s long-term stewardship activities will include maintaining controls

and/or monitoring for:

• Contaminated groundwater at 80 sites.

• Vaults, tank farms, and/or radioactive, hazardous, or sanitary landfills at 63 sites.

• Contaminated soils at 25 sites.

• Contaminated facilities at 13 sites.

• Contaminated surface water or sediment at nine sites.
- 38 -

4.3 How will Long-term Stewardship be Managed at Sites with Ongoing Missions other

than Cleanup?

DOE has organized its mission areas into the following categories: national security, science and

technology, energy security, and environmental quality. Some DOE sites have multiple, ongoing

missions, are being cleaned up by EM, and are performing long-term stewardship in portions of

the site. DOE also has begun to promote private redevelopment at certain sites (e.g., Mound,

Hanford, Oak Ridge). The EM program currently is responsible for long-term stewardship at 21

sites engaged in continuing DOE missions other than cleanup (see EM Program Text Box

below). At these 21 sites, the Department had not clarified which Program Office would be

responsible for long-term stewardship after EM cleanup work is complete. The Department is

now developing an explicit policy to articulate which DOE Program Office is responsible for

long-term stewardship at these 21 sites following the completion of EM cleanup activities.

Science and Technology Investments for Long-term Stewardship

Two types of information are necessary to fully understand long-term stewardship science and technology needs: 

(1) the end states to be achieved by EM projects; and (2) the resulting technical baselines for long-term

stewardship, including the scope of activities, schedule, and cost estimates. Once the end states and baselines are

known, it is then possible to identify opportunities for new science and technology to improve reliability and

reduce costs. Based on current understanding, DOE has developed a preliminary list of science and technology

needs:

• Information about durability of materials, and more durable materials - capping/barrier materials (e.g., clay,

geotextile, plastic, rock), waste containers and waste forms.

• Knowledge of fate and transport mechanisms and predictive capabilities.

• Monitoring and surveillance methods (e.g., methods of detection, analysis, remote sensing and data

transmission).

• Information management - methods for identifying, recording, storing, archiving, and accessing relevant and

necessary information for future site stewards and land/facility users.

• Support systems - renewable energy systems (e.g., geothermal heat pumps, solar photovoltaic systems) that

can reduce the costs and improve the reliability of pump-and-treat and monitoring systems.

• Improved systems engineering and design needed to ensure that, before new facilities are built and operated,

requirements for D&D and waste disposition are considered carefully.

Although this preliminary list provides a starting point for science and technology development efforts, a reliable

list awaits completion of more long-term stewardship baselines and plans.
- 39 -

Two general program succession paths for these sites are anticipated:

• EM may transfer long-term stewardship responsibility to the DOE program(s)

responsible for the ongoing mission(s). This option would allow for better planning and

efficiency on a site-specific basis. However, there may be lower priority for funding and

implementing long-term stewardship activities at the site than for activities directly related to

other ongoing site missions. This may be particularly the case if the long-term stewardship

activities represent a small part of the overall mission of the site and do not have a strong

regulatory driver. Also, this option would establish long-term stewardship as a responsibility

for multiple organizations within DOE. This may result in duplication of effort and actually

reduce opportunities for planning and efficiency on a complex-wide basis.

• EM (or a successor organization) may take responsibility for long-term stewardship at

the site. This option would have the advantage of consolidating long-term stewardship

responsibility and expertise within a single management organization that already is focused

on long-term stewardship planning and implementation. However, the division of

responsibilities for a site reduces accountability of the individual Program Office, and

implementation could be complicated if responsibilities for specific activities (e.g., provision

of site security) overlap or are unclear. For example, the recent creation of the NNSA, with

independent lines of authority within DOE, may pose additional challenges to the

implementation of long-term stewardship at sites where NNSA is the landlord.

DOE will need to resolve these issues and develop a process for deciding which program

succession path makes most sense, either programmatically or at a given site.

The program succession path for a site may be particularly uncertain when decisions regarding

future missions are pending and/or when DOE and local communities are interested in economic

re-development of the site. Establishing organizational responsibilities, sources of funding, and

other mechanisms for managing long-term stewardship at the site will be difficult until the nature

and scope of future site missions become clearly established.

Multi-Program Long-term Environmental Stewardship Work Group

In 1999, DOE convened a multi-program working group to identify and analyze the issues associated with longterm stewardship at sites with continuing non-EM operations. The Work Group included representatives from

the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Environmental Management, and the Office of Science. The issues

were developed through a series of conference calls, a face-to-face meeting, and analysis of relevant case studies. 

The Work Group recommendations have led to a draft DOE policy assigning long-term stewardship

responsibility at sites engaged at continuing DOE missions other than cleanup. The draft policy is currently

being reviewed by DOE managers.

Source: Discussion Paper on Long-term Environmental Stewardship Responsibilities at Sites with Continuing

Non-Environmental Management Operations. U.S. Department of Energy, Multi-program Long-term

Environmental Stewardship (LTES) Work Group, Spring 2000.
- 40 -

The EM Program is Currently Responsible for Long-term Stewardship at 21 Sites

with Continuing, non-EM Missions

Since 1989, the EM program has had the primary responsibility for planning, funding, and conducting cleanup

and long-term stewardship at all DOE sites. This responsibility currently includes 21 sites with continuing, nonEM missions. At these sites, another Principal Secretarial Officer (PSO) has general management and direction

(landlord) responsibility:

NNSA Office of Defense Programs

• Kansas City Plant

• Los Alamos National Laboratory

• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Main Site

• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Site 300

• Nevada Test Site

• Pantex Plant

• Sandia National Laboratory – California

• Sandia National Laboratory – New Mexico

• Savannah River Site1

• Y-12 Plant (Oak Ridge Reservation)

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology

• Argonne National Laboratory – West

Office of Science

• Ames Laboratory

• Argonne National Laboratory – East

• Brookhaven National Laboratory

• Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

• Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory

• Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

• Stanford Linear Accelerator

1

The EM Program is the current landlord at the Savannah River Site
34RCRA Closure and Post-Closure Plans, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Guidance,

RCRA Information Brief. DOE/EH -231-009/1291, December 1991; Planning and Implementing RCRA/CERCLA

Closure and Post-Closure Care When Wastes Remain Onsite. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental

Policy and Assistance, RCRA/CERCLA Information Brief. DOE/EH-413-9910, October 1999. 35Other terminology has been used to describe the types of controls involved in long-term stewardship. For

example, EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 191) define the term “institutional controls” to broadly encompass all longterm stewardship activities, and divides activities into ‘active’ vs. ‘passive’ controls.

- 41 -

Chapter 5: Hazard Management

A key element of long-term stewardship will

involve containing and preventing access to

residual site hazards. Hazard management will

involve the operation, maintenance, and periodic

replacement of active and passive control

mechanisms (e.g., treatment systems, access

restrictions, warning signs) as well as

contingency systems for addressing unexpected

failures of control mechanisms or newly

discovered environmental problems.34 This

chapter describes the types of active and passive

controls that are used to manage residual hazards. 

This chapter also describes how long-term

stewardship is affected by current practices and

presents alternatives for addressing uncertainty

and contingency planning during long-term

stewardship.

5.1 Engineered and Institutional Controls

At sites where cleanup to levels appropriate for

unrestricted use cannot be achieved, two general

types of long-term controls are used to protect

human health and the environment: engineered

controls and institutional controls.35 As noted in

Chapter 3, these controls are established during

the site cleanup process. Both types of controls are intended to block exposure pathways

(Exhibit 5-1):

• Engineered controls include actions implemented to stabilize and/or physically contain or

isolate waste, contamination, or other residual hazards. They are used to prevent residual

hazards from migrating in the environment and reaching human and environmental receptors. 

Engineered controls include in-situ stabilization; caps on residual contamination; and vaults,

repositories, or engineered landfills designed to isolate waste or materials.

• Institutional controls are legal and other non-engineering measures intended to affect human

activities in such a way as to prevent receptors from reaching residual hazards. Institutional

APPLICABLE SCOPING COMMENTS

(see Exhibit 2 in Appendix B)

• DOE should evaluate the reliability of

institutional controls over extended periods of

time, adopt redundant, overlapping functions to

ensure efficacy of control measures, and

recommend methods to prevent or minimize

future failures (1, 4, 10)

• Every long-term stewardship plan should have an

emergency response contingency plan to address

potential failures of controls (7)

• The study should address the relative roles of

active vs. passive controls with guidance on

determining the length of time of active controls

(2, 8)

• Long-term stewardship should be expected to

fail. DOE should plan for and consider the

consequences of failure (18)

APPLICABLE ISSUES

(see Exhibit 3 in Appendix B)

 2. Development of Site-specific Long-term

 Stewardship Plans

 8. Institutional Controls

12. Risk Management

25. Minimize Risks/Hazards and Plan for Failures
36CERCLA: 40 CFR Part 300.430 (a)(1)(iii)(D)6; RCRA: 61 FR 19448 (May 1, 1996); NRC: 10 CFR Part

20.1402.

37Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers at Waste Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington D.C. EPA 542-R-98-005, August 1998, page 18. 38DOE Order 4330.4B, Maintenance Management Program. Note that the Order does not explicitly require a

“replacement plan” for property such as engineered controls, although such a requirement may be inferred.

- 42 -

RESIDUAL

HAZARD

HUMAN or

ENVIRONMENTAL

RECEPTOR Exposure Pathways

Engineered Controls are

used to Prevent

Residual Hazards from

Reaching Receptors

Institutional Controls are

used to Prevent

Receptors from

Reaching Residual Hazards

controls include land and resource management, deed restrictions, well-drilling prohibitions,

building permits, hunting licenses or permits, physical measures such as markers, and facility

security. For purposes of this Draft Study, they may be divided into nine categories (Exhibit

5-2).

Exhibit 5-1. Use of Engineered and Institutional Controls to Manage Residual Hazards

For long-term stewardship to be successful, both engineered and institutional controls must

remain effective until the residual hazards have diminished to the point that unrestricted use is

permitted. The National Contingency Plan under CERCLA, RCRA regulations, and NRC

regulations all consider the use of institutional controls as a supplement to the use of engineered

controls as appropriate for short- and long-term management to prevent or limit exposure to

residual hazards.36

5.2 Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance of Engineered Controls

Any engineered control system will require inspection and periodic maintenance to ensure

continued performance. Engineered control systems, such as surface covers, subsurface barriers,

and landfill caps and their components, have finite design lives. These systems are expected to

fail at some point in time – although the effective design life of an engineered control can be

extended with long-term inspection and routine maintenance37 – and DOE sites are required to

develop a maintenance plan for DOE property, including all engineered controls.38 The effective

design life of an engineered control, and the associated inspection and maintenance requirements,

depend upon the characteristics of the system, such as:
- 43 -

Exhibit 5-2. Examples of Institutional Controls

• A groundwater pumping system is designed to prevent migration of contaminated

groundwater. It will require operation of groundwater pumps and possibly a groundwater

treatment system. Such a system, involving powered equipment having moving parts and

exposed to weather, will require frequent inspection and maintenance in order to guard

against events such as power failure, plugging of system piping, blockage of wells, frost

damage, corrosion, and other pump failure mechanisms. Active systems cannot be neglected

for even a few months without risk of failure. Even with rigorous routine inspection and

maintenance, powered equipment such as groundwater pumps are not expected to last for

many years without requiring repair or replacement.

• A subsurface engineered barrier is designed to prevent migration of subsurface

contamination. It is a static system that does not require direct human intervention in order to

function. However, a subsurface barrier system requires periodic monitoring to ensure that it

continues to function as designed, and requires maintenance or replacement in the event that

its performance degrades. A recent study of 36 subsurface engineered barrier systems found

• Easement – A legal mechanism creating a limited interest in land belonging to another person (a positive

easement), such as an easement granting access to conduct groundwater monitoring; or a limitation on the

rights of the owner of the land (a negative easement), such as a prohibition on construction of housing.

• Deed Notification – A description in a property deed that conveys information about the property to future

buyers (e.g., a notice that hazardous materials have been placed in a landfill on the property).

• Deed Restriction – A provision in a deed prohibiting certain uses of the property (e.g., a covenant that the

property may never be used for housing). Certain deed restrictions may be enforceable through reversion

clauses, which allow the former property owner (i.e., the federal government) to take back ownership of the

property if terms of the deed restrictions are not followed.

• Lease – A document that outlines and restricts the conditions for temporary use of a property.

• Covenant – A promise by one landowner to another made in connection with a conveyance of property to use

or refrain from using the property in a certain manner. Generally, covenants may be binding on subsequent

landowners (i.e., “run with the land”) if: (1) notice is given to the subsequent landowner, (2) there is a clear

statement of intent to bind future owners, (3) the agreement “touches and concerns” the land, and (4) there is

vertical and horizontal privity between the parties.

• Permit – A document that authorizes or prohibits certain land use activities (e.g., a building permit or a permit

to withdraw groundwater) through approval by the appropriate federal, local, or state government entity. 

Permits do not affect property rights.

• Zoning – Police power used by local governments to regulate or control the use of property by specifying

zones or districts within which only specified uses or types of construction may occur as a means to

implement a master plan.

• Sign – A marker that conveys messages regarding property and its use restrictions.

• Fence – A fixed structure used as a boundary or barrier to physical access.
39Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers at Waste Sites, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington D.C., EPA 542-R-98-005, August 1998, page 78. 40Ibid, page 12. 41Ibid, page 55. 42Subsurface Containment and Monitoring Systems: Barriers and Beyond - Overview Report. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office,

Washington D.C., March 1999, page 18. 43Waugh, W.J. et. al., 1995. Natural Analogs of the Long-term Performance of Engineered Covers. ThirtyThird Hanford Symposium on Health and the Environment. In Situ Remediation: Scientific Basis for Current and

Future Technologies, Part I.; Waugh, W.J., and Richardson, G. N., 1995b. Ecology, Design, and Long-term

Performance of Waste-Site Covers: Applications at a Uranium Mill Tailings Site. National Academy of Sciences

Workshop on Barriers for Long-term Isolation, Denver Colorado, August 13, 1995.

44DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, July 9, 1999. Available at: 

http//www.explorer.doe.gov:1776/htmls/currentdir.html.

- 44 -

few data available to assess their actual functional life and failure modes.39 In contrast to

active pumping systems, where groundwater monitoring data are typically collected quarterly

or monthly to ensure that residual hazards are contained, essentially no post-construction

monitoring is being performed on these systems to identify long-term environmental

degradation mechanisms.40 In addition, the industry baseline standard for subsurface barrier

systems is that no post-construction monitoring is performed.41

• High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is used in the construction of landfill liners and

subsurface vertical barriers. The long-term durability of HDPE is not known, as the material

has only been in use in liner and barrier system applications for several decades. HDPE is

anticipated to have a design life in excess of 300 years based on available information, but

the factors that may influence HDPE degradation are still being studied.42

• Surface covers for byproduct material and other radioactive waste (e.g., uranium mill tailings

cell caps) are required by regulation to be designed to last for at least 200 to more than 1,000

years. Such performance requirements are unprecedented and there are no direct methods of

predicting surface cover performance over such time frames. Potential surface cover failure

mechanisms include water infiltration, frost penetration, erosion, and plant and animal

intrusion.43

Long-term stewardship of uranium mill tailings surface covers, including surveillance and

maintenance, is currently being conducted by DOE to assess, prevent, and mitigate effects of

potential failures such as erosion and biological intrusion. Even assuming rigorous long-term

surveillance and maintenance is conducted, performance of these surface covers over the time

frames they are required can only be predicted, not demonstrated.

To address the uncertainties in surface cover performance over long periods of time, DOE Order

435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, requires DOE to develop a performance assessment

(PA) and composite analysis (CA) for each low-level waste disposal facility.44 The PA is an

analysis of the expected future radiological exposure resulting from the waste disposed in the

facility. The CA is a similar analysis that accounts for not only the radioactivity in the disposal

facility, but all other sources of radioactivity at the site that could contribute to an overall

exposure should a failure occur.
- 45 -

The distinction between operation and maintenance during cleanup and long-term stewardship is

not clearly defined. Many activities that are considered part of an ongoing cleanup project could

be classified as part of long-term stewardship (see Exhibit 5-3).

Exhibit 5-3. When Does Long-term Stewardship Begin?

∞

Annual Operation or Surveillance and Maintenance Cost

decontamination,

decommissioning

deactivation,

stabilization, 

entombment

1989

Time (years)

Operation Cleanup LTS Phase 1 LTS Phase 2

Cleanup

Long-term stewardship generally begins when active cleanup, stabilization, or disposal has been completed in

accordance with an applicable regulatory requirement or management plan. In some cases, particularly at the

large, complex sites, the cleanup plan addresses an entire geographic site; in other cases, long-term stewardship

may occur at a portion of a site long before cleanup of the entire site is completed. For many sites and facilities,

there also are two phases to performing long-term stewardship. In most cases, “terminal” long-term stewardship

begins when cleanup of a site or portion of a site has been cleaned up to the agreed-upon end state. For some

facilities – particularly reactors and large processing canyons – an initial “interim” phase of long-term

stewardship is needed after a facility has been stabilized, but where further remedial action or decontamination

and decommissioning is not expected to occur for a significant period of time after the stabilization is completed. 

The above exhibit illustrates the relative timing of the two phases of long-term stewardship. The exhibit

illustrates a hypothetical cost profile for a large facility that operated for several years, underwent initial

deactivation and stabilization, and was entombed for several decades while a final disposition strategy was

determined (e.g., original reactors and the PUREX Plant at Hanford). After several decades, the facility

underwent final decontamination and decommissioning. The activities that occurred during the period of

entombment could be defined as the interim phase (phase 1) of long-term stewardship. Once decontamination

and decommissioning are complete, the facility would be considered in the terminal phase (phase 2) of long-term

stewardship. The interim phase of long-term stewardship was identified specifically in the FY 2000 National

Defense Authorization Act report language that requested the Report to Congress:

“The report shall ... identify the long-term stewardship responsibilities (for example, longer than 30

years) ... for ... portions of sites for which ... facility stabilization is expected to be completed by the end of

calendar year 2006.”
45The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is the world's first underground repository licensed to safely and

permanently dispose of transuranic radioactive waste left from the research and production of nuclear weapons. 

After more than 20 years of scientific study, public input, and regulatory struggles, WIPP began operations on March

26, 1999. Located in the remote Chihuahuan Desert of Southeastern New Mexico, project facilities include disposal

rooms mined 2,150 feet underground in a 2,000-foot thick salt formation that has been stable for more than 200

million years. Transuranic waste is currently stored at 23 locations nationwide. Over the next 35 years, WIPP is

expected to receive about 37,000 shipments. Source: http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us/

- 46 -

5.3 Long-term Maintenance of Institutional Controls

DOE and its predecessor agencies have been maintaining institutional controls over site hazards

for decades. However, many institutional controls assumed continued federal ownership of the

property in perpetuity. While government ownership and control is a central component of the

legislation creating the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) repository45 (i.e., the WIPP Land

Withdrawal Act), DOE planning at some sites must now consider the possibility that the site will

no longer have an ongoing mission other than long-term stewardship, and parcels of the site may

not need to remain federal property (see Chapter 4). In addition, DOE is now conducting cleanup

and long-term stewardship at sites not owned or controlled by the Department. State, local, and

Tribal governments already have a primary role in the maintenance of many institutional

controls, and this role may grow as parcels of land are transferred from federal control. Over

time, a given parcel of land may cycle again and again between multiple missions and may

change ownership many times, creating additional challenges for the maintenance of institutional

controls.

Affected Parties Are Critical Long-term Stewardship Partners

At most sites, the roles and responsibilities of local governments for implementing and overseeing long-term

stewardship activities remain to be defined explicitly. Local governments already have a primary role in the

maintenance of many institutional controls, including preserving easements, deed restrictions, and parcel maps;

implementing groundwater use controls; and issuing zoning approvals and building permits. Local governments

have primary responsibility for land use planning and also maintain emergency response capabilities (e.g., fire,

rescue). Where parcels of land have been transferred or leased to local governments (e.g., Hanford, Mound,

Pinellas), local governments have assumed additional responsibilities such as ensuring that re-use of site facilities

and infrastructure is consistent with restrictions necessary to protect human health and the environment. Local

governments also may assume a more prominent role in managing long-term stewardship information and in

promoting education and training to ensure the continuity of long-term stewardship across multiple generations. 

The draft long-term stewardship plan for the Weldon Spring Site in Missouri1

 identifies the local government as

an “oversight steward” for the site. The draft plan also identifies specific roles and responsibilities for the local

government, including a primary role in planning, zoning, and enforcing institutional controls such as

groundwater use restrictions.

1

Stewardship Plan for the Weldon Spring Site, Revision A, April 1999. Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action

Project. DOE/OR/21548-771, April 1999.
46RCRA Closure and Post-Closure Plans, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Guidance,

RCRA Information Brief. DOE/E -231-009/1291, December 1991. Planning and Implementing RCRA/CERCLA

Closure and Post-Closure Care When Wastes Remain Onsite. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental

Policy and Assistance, RCRA/CERCLA Information Brief. DOE/EH-413-9910, October 1999. Use of Institutional

Controls in the RCRA Corrective Action Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, March 2000. 47DOE Long-term Stewardship -- Real Estate Issues, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental

Management, Office of Long Term Stewardship, January 10, 2000. 48A land transfer from the federal government to a non-federal entity is necessary to create the deed restriction in

the first place, because transfers within the federal government would not result in the creation of a deed. Local

governments cannot enforce zoning restrictions on the federal government.

- 47 -

Both DOE and EPA Regions have developed guidance on the selection and enforcement of

institutional controls when residual hazards remain onsite.46 DOE also has enforced easements

and other restrictions in the course of mission-related activities. For example, Oak Ridge

Operations Office transferred land to a local community with deed restrictions that included a

prohibition on the use of groundwater because DOE did not know whether a contaminant plume

might eventually migrate to the area. DOE did not conduct regular monitoring to ensure the deed

restriction was being enforced, and accidentally discovered that the community later drilled

groundwater wells to irrigate a golf course. DOE met with the community, mandated immediate

removal of the wells, and threatened that the land would revert to DOE. The community

complied.47 Other sites have obtained easements for access to off-site property to conduct

monitoring activities or to build and maintain utility rights of way or infrastructure. DOE also

has some experience maintaining institutional controls after real property transfer (see Chapter

6).

Institutional controls can be used individually or in combination (referred to as “layering”),

depending on the legal status of the property and the nature and extent of residual hazards on the

property. “Layering” of institutional controls should be able to increase protectiveness. All may

be used on any DOE property; however, deed restrictions, and zoning are only relevant for sites

where the federal government (e.g., DOE) will not retain ownership of the land (such as when

land is transferred to non-federal entities pursuant to CERCLA §120(h)).48 Under some

circumstances, it may be important to consider the use of institutional controls for off-site areas

adjacent to DOE sites (e.g., as buffer zones for residual hazards onsite).

The temporary failure of institutional controls at Oak Ridge noted above suggests that

enforcement of institutional controls for the extended periods of time involved in long-term

stewardship will require new oversight systems, especially procedures for monitoring compliance

with institutional controls after land transfers have occurred. If such a failure can occur at an

active site, where affected parties are exceptionally knowledgeable about site hazards, EM

program activities, and long-term stewardship issues, it is reasonable to anticipate similar failures

at other sites if monitoring and oversight is not maintained. DOE has in place formal procedures

and directives that establish programmatic responsibilities to enforce institutional controls, and

the Office of Long Term Stewardship will work with other programs to develop and implement

“layering” strategies and contingency plans to address potential or actual failures.
49English, M., Feldman, D, Inerfeld, R. and Lumley, J, “Institutional Controls at Superfund Sites: A Preliminary

Assessment of Their Efficacy and Public Acceptability.” July 1997. This report summarizes much of the recent

research on institutional controls. The Environmental Law Institute is conducting extensive case studies on the topic

at numerous sites, including DOE sites. 50Black, P., et al. A Common-Sense Probabilistic Approach to Assessing Inadvertent Human Intrusion into

Low-level Radioactive Waste at the Nevada Test Site. Paper presented at Waste Management 2000, Tucson AZ.

- 48 -

The long-term effectiveness of institutional controls is a much-debated topic, although there is

little historical precedent or empirical information upon which judgments can be based.49 Some

studies have estimated the probability of human intrusion into waste disposal cells under

different scenarios.50 There are inherent obstacles to the long-term effectiveness of every

common type of institutional control (Exhibit 5-4). Over time, the sustainability of institutional

controls may be affected by changes in real property law, which already varies from state to state;

socioeconomic developments affecting land use; and the potential information loss that will

accompany multiple changes in land ownership. DOE will need to expand its focus beyond 

Exhibit 5-4. Obstacles to the Long-term Effectiveness of Common Institutional Controls

Deed

Notices

• Over time, deed records may be destroyed, lost, or corrupted

• New property owners may not search the deed records adequately or may miss the deed notice

• New owners who receive property by gift or inheritance may not review the deed records

• Transfers of land among federal agencies may not generate deeds on which to place notices

• New deeds that do not include the restriction may be created legally after certain transfers

• Some states have enacted statutes that extinguish deed notices if the deed is not re-recorded after a

certain period of time

Deed

Restrictions

• Enforceability of deed restrictions is being eroded by changes in state laws

• Deed restrictions frequently cannot be enforced by anyone except landowners who share a chain of

title with the restricted parcel

• Deed restrictions frequently cannot be enforced against anyone who does not have legal notice of

the restriction

Negative

Easements

• Prohibitions on the use of property, such as negative easements for lesser requirements, are

disfavored and may be overturned by courts or legislatures

• State laws allowing negative easements for conservation or historic preservation need to be broadly

interpreted to cover long-term stewardship needs

• DOE, as the transferor of real property covered by an easement, would be the only party that could

enforce the easement; enforcement could not be transferred or delegated to a Tribal, state, local, or

private party

Zoning • Local zoning ordinances are probably not enforceable against federal agencies if the agency asserts

sovereign immunity

• State law creating local zoning authority may change over time

• Local zoning ordinances may be amended or repealed

• Local governments may not enforce zoning restrictions

Source: Applegate, J.S., and Dycus, S. Institutional Controls or Emperor’s Clothes? Long-term Stewardship of the

Nuclear Weapons Complex. Environmental Law Reporter, November 1998; Pendergas, J., Use of Institutional Controls

as Part of a Superfund Remedy: Lessons from Other Programs. Environmental Law Reporter, March 1996.
51U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, BLM Internal Advisory, Nevada

http://www.blm.gov/narsc/aml/hazards2.htm#top 52A Guide to Establishing Institutional Controls at Closing Military Installations, U.S. Department of Defense,

February 1998.

- 49 -

enforcing land use restrictions and other institutional controls within site boundaries. The

Department needs to continue to coordinate with Tribal, state, and local authorities responsible

for enforcing institutional controls in the surrounding communities. Where property transfers or

leases have occurred, it may be necessary for DOE to actively monitor compliance with existing

institutional controls and take steps to enforce, extend, or replace them when necessary. This

may require new procedures, funding, and authority. For transfers within the federal

government, DOE may need to enter into specific agreements with the receiving agency to ensure

continued enforcement of institutional controls.

Other federal agencies have encountered situations in which failure or intentional breaching of

institutional controls has had significant consequences. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

implements institutional controls such as warning signs, fences and steel gratings to protect

people from risks associated with abandoned mine sites under their jurisdiction. These

institutional controls are often torn down or intentionally breached. For example, BLM reported

in a recent internal agency advisory that two men in Virginia City, Nevada breached a fence in

order to explore a closed mine. The men were later discovered within 75 feet of the mine

entrance, asphyxiated. BLM reported that they died of carbon dioxide poisoning.51 In this case,

BLM retained ownership of the abandoned mine site but did not implement active control over

human access to the site. Human intrusion scenarios are less likely to occur in cases where site

access controls include “layering” of multiple institutional control mechanisms and active

management of the site. Both EPA and other federal agencies managing sites containing residual

hazards have recommended layering of institutional controls.52

“Layering” of Institutional Controls at Department of Defense Sites

The U.S. Air Force and EPA have agreed to use layering of notices, deed restrictions, permit approvals, and

access rights to limit subsurface use at former Minuteman Missile Silo sites in North Dakota, South Dakota, and

Minnesota. The concrete silos were dismantled by imploding the structures and capturing contamination within

the concrete structures. Each structure was capped with three feet of soil and a plastic liner, and the landscape

was contoured with an additional seven feet above the buried structure. The silo site properties may be

transferred to non-federal entities under CERCLA §120(h). The agreement calls for the General Services

Administration (GSA) to be involved in any property disposal and for GSA to notify federal and state regulators

when the property is transferred. GSA is also to provide prior notice of and obtain approval of federal and state

regulators for any construction or other activity on the sites that would affect buried structures or groundwater

monitoring wells. GSA also is required to place restrictions in the deed of conveyance to prohibit future property

owners from installing water wells or otherwise penetrating the surface of the site to a depth of more than two

feet. Both the U.S. Air Force and federal and state regulators retain rights of access to the sites under any transfer

agreement.

Source: Institutional Controls: What They Are and How They Are Used. U.S. Department of Defense, Office of

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

Environmental Program Fact Sheet. Spring, 1997.
53Gaspar, C. and VanBurik, D., Local Government Use of Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites. 

International City/County Management Association, April 1998. Of particular interest is the fact that although the

respondents reported that traditional zoning (56%) and groundwater restrictions (26%), both types of institutional

controls generally implemented by local governments, were the most common controls, they also reported low levels

of enforcement and high likelihood the controls would be breached. 54Institutional Controls Case Study: Grand Junction. Environmental Law Institute, Research Report, 1999. 55Assessment of Short-term and Long-term Risks for Remedy Selection. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Policy and Assistance, CERCLA Information Brief. DOE/EH-413/9708, August 1997; Uncertainty

Management: Expediting Cleanup Through Contingency Planning U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Management and Office of Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

DOE/EH/(CERCLA)-002, February 1997; Planning and Implementing RCRA/CERCLA Closure and Post-Closure

Care When Wastes Remain Onsite. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance,

RCRA/CERCLA Information Brief. DOE/EH-413-9910, October 1999.

56Standards for Remedial Actions at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites. 48 FR 590, 597, January 5, 1983. 57Development of Remediation Goals under CERCLA, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental

Policy and Assistance, CERCLA Information Brief. DOE/EH-413/9711, August 1997.

- 50 -

A report by the International City/County Management Association, based on a survey of state

and local government officials, points out the importance of working closely with local

governments and the need to increase their level of expertise with respect to institutional

controls. The study concludes that nearly 75 percent of local government respondents presently

do not have experience implementing institutional controls at former hazardous waste sites

(probably the closest analog to DOE sites released for restricted use). The respondents reported

minimal efforts to enforce controls, and reliance on institutional memory, citizen complaints, and

informal inspections as triggers for the majority of enforcement efforts. The study also notes that

over 60 percent of respondents believed that it was “likely” or “highly likely” that institutional

controls could be breached without the knowledge of the implementing local government.53

According to a recent case study, if the public perceives a substantial residual risk, there is

increased public acceptance of institutional controls and greater public cooperation in

implementing the controls.54 These studies emphasize the importance of continuing to maintain

and enhance partnerships between DOE and local communities to maintain the continued

effectiveness of institutional controls.

Given the uncertainty associated with the long-term effectiveness of institutional controls, DOE

may need to investigate new approaches for ensuring the protectiveness and effectiveness of

institutional controls. This research would be in addition to existing efforts to develop new

science and technology to increase the protectiveness and effectiveness of engineered controls.

5.4 Identifying Uncertainty and Contingency Planning

DOE currently considers the long-term implications of each proposed remedy during the remedy

selection process, and DOE has developed guidance on the use of conceptual site models and

uncertainty management matrices to assist with contingency planning during cleanup.55

However, uncertainties exist for long-term performance of cleanup remedies. It therefore is not

possible to fully understand their long-term viability, cost, or reliability.56 Engineered and

institutional controls are selected and implemented based on an understanding of current site

conditions.57 However, site conditions, as well as changes in social and economic values,

regulatory standards, etc., may differ from those assumed or may change with time. Major
5842 U.S.C. §6973(a), RCRA §7000(a).

- 51 -

deviation from expected site conditions could result in unacceptable risks to human health and

the environment. Therefore, DOE needs to develop the capability to identify, plan for, and

respond to potential changes in site conditions and possible failures of engineered or institutional

controls. This will require a dual capability to (a) identify and rapidly respond to actual or

threatened failures of controls, and (b) monitor and respond to more gradual changes in

regulations, site conditions, values, etc. to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedies.

5.4.1 Contingency Planning and Emergency Response During Long-term Stewardship

RCRA and CERCLA require DOE to respond to actual or threatened releases of hazardous

substances that present an imminent and substantial threat to human health or the environment,58

even for sites where remediation has been completed. Although monitoring the performance of

remedies will be an important element of long-term stewardship, unexpected deviations or

failures will occur – fences or other barriers may be breached, engineered controls may fail to

contain contaminants or waste, or unknown sources of contamination may be discovered. 

Therefore, DOE needs to retain the capability to detect and respond to unexpected conditions,

preferably before a release occurs.

Monitoring during long-term stewardship may identify conditions that indicate deterioration of

the performance of the remedy or changes in site conditions that require corrective measures. 

Ideally, the long-term monitoring plan for a site should be designed to identify changing

conditions at an early stage, before the protectiveness of the remedy is compromised. The

monitoring plan should also include contingency plans to respond to the changes in conditions in

order to maintain protectiveness. However, site stewards also need to recognize the need for

emergency response when necessary. Emergency response activities may involve fire and rescue

responses, responding to spills and other chemical or radionuclide releases, or responding to

natural disasters such as earthquakes or tornados. Emergencies may directly involve residual

hazards onsite (e.g., discovery of new contamination) or may involve such hazards indirectly

(e.g., a fire may sweep across onsite areas containing radioactive or chemical hazards).

Many affected parties maintain emergency response capabilities; therefore, site stewards should

coordinate emergency response training and contingency planning with appropriate state, local,

and Tribal governments. It will be important to identify clear roles and responsibilities for

specific responses (e.g., what actions are required, who does each action) and to conduct joint

exercises to practice responses. Such coordination also should include coordinated special

training for emergency response personnel to ensure they have the knowledge to respond to

anticipated emergencies as well as avoid unnecessary risks from potential exposure to residual

hazards. Emergency preparedness also will require appropriate up-to-date information about

residual site hazards (e.g., fire fighters responding to a brush fire onsite would need to know the

location(s) of residual site hazards and what types of personal protective equipment is necessary).
59Natural Attenuation in Ground Water. Re-dedication and Research Needs in Subsurface Science. National

Research Council, Washington, D.C. National Academy Press, March 2000.

- 52 -

5.4.2 Monitoring and Responding to Uncertainties During Long-term Stewardship

Environmental remediation is a relatively new field. There is little information on remedy

performance over a 30-50 year time frame, and no information on remedy performance over very

long periods of time (e.g., centuries). There also are no examples of past environmental

remediation projects to provide a basis for evaluating uncertainties over very long periods of time

(e.g., how land use changes have impacted remedies over the last two hundred years, or how

accurate life-cycle cost estimating methodologies are). Hence, protectiveness may not be borne

out over even moderate periods of time without continued monitoring of site conditions and

remedy performance. An integral part of long-term stewardship activities, whether performed by

DOE or other entities, is the need to improve knowledge and understanding related to:

• The reliability, long-term effectiveness, and permanence of remedial actions. One

reason that monitoring is required is to ensure that implemented remedies are functioning as

intended.

• Natural processes and their interactions with hazards and remedies. The natural

processes at a site, and therefore geochemical interactions with residual hazards, may change

over time. Climate changes can affect the performance of surface covers and other

engineered structures. The understanding of these processes is not complete at this time. For

example, the National Academy of Sciences recently reaffirmed the need for better science

and technology with respect to natural attenuation processes.59

• Exact extent and level of contamination. The understanding of the extent and level of

contamination is based on sampling and monitoring. Sampling presents an approximation of

site characteristics. More sampling or continuous monitoring may provide better estimates of

site characteristics over time. However, economic factors often limit the amount of sampling

that can be conducted, and even unlimited sampling does not eliminate all uncertainties.

• Land use. Many remedial approaches rely upon restricted land use to ensure protection of

human health and the environment. While it is feasible for decisionmakers to assume a

particular land use in the near future, the long-term effectiveness of land use restrictions is

uncertain (see above).

If adapted to long-term stewardship, two of DOE’s existing tools for managing uncertainty

during environmental cleanups – conceptual site models and uncertainty management matrices –

could provide critical information needed for successful contingency planning.

• Using Conceptual Site Models During Long-term Stewardship. Conceptual Site Models

(CSMs) are used during cleanup actions to depict the relationship between existing hazards,

environmental transport mechanisms, exposure pathways, and ultimate human and ecological

receptors. CSMs can also be used to distinguish between known and unknown site

conditions (e.g., the existence of fractured bedrock or preferential pathways for groundwater
- 53 -

flow). While CSMs have traditionally been used for individual Operable Units or Areas of

Concern, it may be possible to develop a long-term stewardship CSM for broader areas of a

site (encompassing multiple Operable Units or Areas of Concern). A long-term stewardship

CSM, however, may be difficult to develop or impractical at large, complex sites. Functional

equivalents could include management plans specific to particular biological resources, or

area management plans.

Long-term stewardship CSMs could be used to illustrate the characteristics of a site and its

residual hazards, how hazards have been contained, how exposure pathways have been

blocked, and the uncertainties that may affect the performance of engineered and institutional

controls. Where significant uncertainties exist, the CSM could identify the range of scenarios

that are probable or otherwise indicate the importance of the uncertainties. The resulting

model could serve as the basis for evaluating the likelihood and consequences of events such

as barrier failures, identifying how stewards can plan to mitigate these events, and predicting

the ability of future generations to ensure protectiveness based on improved technology and

increased understanding of science. The CSM also could serve as a tool for communicating

with local governments and stakeholders. An example of a long-term stewardship conceptual

site model is presented in Appendix E.

• Developing Uncertainty Matrices to Communicate Uncertain Conditions. Uncertainty

matrices can be used to describe the expected condition and performance of an engineered or

institutional control; potential failures and their likelihood; expected impacts; monitoring

strategies to prevent or detect failures; and contingency plans to mitigate failures. 

Uncertainty matrices also can be used to evaluate the relative need for “layering” of controls. 

Greater “layering” (e.g., multiple engineered and institutional controls, more frequent

monitoring and reporting requirements) will be needed if (1) there are many uncertainties; (2)

uncertainty is very large, and/or (3) the consequences of potential failures are very high. 

Appendix F presents an example of an uncertainty matrix.
- 54 -

Long-term Stewardship at Maralinga, Australia

The British government, with the agreement and support of Australia, carried out nuclear tests between 1952 and

1963 at three sites in Australia. Maralinga in South Australia was the most used site, and hosted two major and

several hundred minor trials, as well as various assessment tests and experimental programs. The trial resulted in

the dispersal of roughly 24 kilograms of Plutonium-239 in the area of Maralinga. The site was officially closed

in 1967 following the cleanup effort termed Operation Brumby.

Maralinga was Tjarutga Aboriginal land prior to the testing. The Tjarutga were displaced in 1953, and were

allowed to return to their land in 1984. Between 1984 and 1996, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear

Safety Agency assessed the extent, quantities, and physical characteristics of plutonium that remains and

conducted dose assessment studies. In cooperation with the Tjarutga, the Agency agreed to remove surface soil

from the most contaminated areas, and to restrict the use of another 120 square kilometers of land to transitory

activities such as hunting and travel. Planned institutional controls include:

• A buffer zone surrounding the contaminated land.

• Removal of regular travel tracks and paths through the contaminated area.

• Construction of alternative tracks and paths outside the contaminated area and buffer zone.

• Installation of boundary markers and signs.

• Construction of a fence around the perimeter of the contaminated area and buffer zone.

Sources: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency website

(http://www.arpansa.gov.au/er_mrp.htm); Australian Department of Primary Industries and Energy internet

website (http://webserver.dpie.gov.au/dpie/pr/issues_papers/96_3.html)
- 55 -

Chapter 6: Managing Real Property

DOE conducts cleanup of real property (land and

facilities) owned by the federal government,

states, and private parties. DOE real property –

primarily land – is a key focus of long-term

stewardship. It will be difficult if not impossible

to ensure long-term protection of human health

and the environment without the ability to

maintain appropriate controls on the use of real

property. Real property includes land and

structures on the land such as buildings, missionrelated infrastructure, waste disposal facilities,

and other waste management units. Long-term

stewardship must also address issues associated

with groundwater, surface water, natural

resources, and cultural resources. However,

rights to water and mineral resources may be

managed differently than surface property rights. 

At Rocky Flats, for example, DOE owns the land

but not the mineral rights beneath the land.

DOE currently has an inventory of about 2.4

million acres of land. Much of this property once

supported weapons production activities or was

used as buffer zones, and DOE retains ownership

or control of nearly 90 percent of the land

acquired for that mission since 1942. This

chapter describes how DOE currently plans the

development and use of the real property it

controls; how land and other real property is

managed; how property is transferred out of

DOE; and how DOE may maintain certain

control over property for long-term stewardship

purposes after the property has been transferred. 

This chapter also describes some of the

challenges associated with integrating long-term

stewardship concerns into current planning

practices, and presents alternatives for addressing these challenges. Appendix G provides a more

detailed discussion of the technical and legal aspects of real property management and transfer.

APPLICABLE SCOPING COMMENTS

(see Exhibit 2 in Appendix B)

• Long-term stewardship commitments associated

with proposed new missions and new facilities

should be identified in approval decision

documents for the facility (15, STGWG)

• When starting new projects, DOE should be

required to provide a technical and financial plan

to clean up and maintain any resulting waste (18)

• DOE should retain ownership and control of

lands for which institutional controls are

necessary unless adequate legal mechanisms and

institutions exist to enforce such controls against

future landowners (STGWG)

• DOE needs to make distinctions between parts of

sites that are very contaminated and parts of sites

that are clean (18)

• DOE should explicitly show how liability will be

transferred in the event of the failure of a

subsequent landholder to perform long-term

stewardship adequately (e.g., bankruptcy) (16)

• The study should discuss the approaches to longterm stewardship and land use control used by

other federal agencies and other nations (2)

• DOE should ensure effectiveness of mechanisms

for restricting future land use (10)

• The study should carefully review, document,

and provide recommendations on the transfer of

cleanup and long-term stewardship liability for

properties that are sold into the private sector or

to other governmental agencies (16)

APPLICABLE ISSUES

(see Exhibit 3 in Appendix B)

 6. Relationship of Facility Development Planning 

 to Long-term Stewardship Needs

10. Property Transfer Policies and Procedures
60For example, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 requires the Secretary of Energy to

create future land use plans for the Hanford Site, INEEL, the Rocky Flats Site, and the Savannah River Site. 61Four federal statutes enact special planning activities for three particular categories of DOE sites. The Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Amendment Act (Public Law 104-201, as amended) places specific

planning requirements on DOE for WIPP. UMTRCA addresses uranium milling sites. The Nuclear Waste Policy

Act addresses high-level waste disposal facilities. Section 632 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State,

the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 required DOE to transfer particular

parcels of land at or in the vicinity of Los Alamos National Laboratory to local governments.

- 56 -

Acquire

Land

ID and

Locate

Mission

Design

Mission

Operate

Mission

Conduct

Cleanup

Conduct

Long-term

Stewardship

Real Property Transfer

Demobilize

Mission

6.1 Planning

The life-cycle of DOE mission activities at a site may include up to seven stages (Exhibit 6-1). 

Each of the initial stages of the mission life-cycle, and several of the later stages, are covered by

planning processes that are mandated by a variety of laws, regulations, and DOE internal

directives. Different authorities, including statutes and internal DOE directives create land use

planning requirements.60 Statutes establishing the requirements for cleanup, particularly

CERCLA and RCRA, also can play a prominent role in planning at different points in the lifecycle of DOE activities at a site.61 In principle, NEPA and DOE Orders, such as DOE Order

430.1A, Life Cycle Asset Management (LCAM), cover the entire mission life-cycle. In practice,

it has been difficult to cover the entire life-cycle within a single planning activity such as

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (see Exhibit 6-2).

Exhibit 6-1. Life-Cycle of DOE Activities at a Site

The mission life-cycle begins when DOE identifies and selects a site for the mission. DOE then

must acquire the land, with appropriate buffer areas for safety and security, to support the

mission. In the mission design stage, DOE must design and build the facilities, infrastructure,

and other assets needed to support the mission. During operation, DOE performs the mission in

accordance with applicable laws and regulations. After operation, DOE demobilizes the mission. 

During and after operation, DOE completes needed decontamination and decommissioning,

waste management, environmental restoration, and material disposition. In some cases, site

missions other than long-term stewardship also continue beyond cleanup. When cleanup is

complete, DOE conducts appropriate long-term stewardship. If the property is no longer needed

for a DOE mission, DOE may transfer it to other federal or non-federal entities.
- 57 -

ID and

Locate

Mission

WIPP Land Withdrawal Act

Nuclear Waste Policy Act

DOE Order 430.1A (LCAM)

Acquire

Land

Design

Mission

Operate

Mission

Conduct

Cleanup

Conduct

Long-term

Stewardship

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act

Real

Property

Transfer

DOE Order 5400.5 (Radiation Protection)

DOE Order 435.1

(Radioactive Waste Management)

DOE Order 4330.4B

(Monitoring and Maintenance)

CERCLA

RCRA

DOE Grand Junction Office

Long-term Stewardship Plans

NEPA and National Historic Preservation Act*

Demobilize

Mission

Exhibit 6-2. Relationship Between DOE Planning Processes and

the Life-Cycle of DOE Mission Activities at a Site

*36 CFR Part 800, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (May 18, 1999) directs federal agencies to coordinate compliance

with NEPA and the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and to consider NHPA requirements as early

as possible in the NEPA process (36 CFR Part 800.8).

Planning processes under a variety of federal laws and DOE directives collectively cover the full life-cycle of DOE mission

activities at a site, but no single law or directive has been used to cover the full life-cycle. The solid lines indicate the stages of

DOE mission activities that have been covered by each specific statute or directive. For example, the Uranium Mill Tailings

Radiation Control Act requires DOE to take ownership of certain Title II sites after cleanup (solid line on the left) and to conduct

cleanup and long-term stewardship at Title I sites (solid line on the right). However, the Act does not address the possibility of

property transfer from DOE ownership and control. A dotted line indicates where a specific directive applies to all DOE

activities but does not specifically identify long-term stewardship (or its functional equivalent) as an activity. For example, DOE

Order 435.1 directs DOE to manage radioactive waste but does not specifically direct DOE to conduct long-term stewardship for

residual radioactive contamination..

6.1.1 Planning under NEPA

Although many DOE sites were established before its enactment, NEPA now plays an important

role in site planning. NEPA and its implementing regulations require DOE and other federal

agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed actions that may have significant

environmental effects (e.g., a major change in the structures or operation of an existing facility;

decontamination, decommissioning, and disposition of an existing facility; the siting,
62For example, in the Final EIS for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project facility at the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, DOE stated that: “The nature, extent and timing of future D&D

activities are not known at this time. No meaningful alternatives or analysis of impacts can be formulated at this time

since D&D is so remote in time that neither the means to conduct D&D, nor the impacts of the actions, are

foreseeable in the sense of being susceptible to meaningful analysis now. Accordingly, D&D activities are not

analyzed in detail.” Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project. DOE/EIS-0290, January 1999, Section 3.1. 63Until 1994, planning was governed by DOE Order 4320.1b, supplemented by additional planning directed at

radiation protection (DOE Order 5400.5), and radioactive waste management (DOE Order 431.5).

- 58 -

construction, operation, decontamination, decommissioning, and disposition of a new facility). 

However, documents produced under NEPA at early stages in the planning process are not

always able to fully consider the complete life-cycle of a proposed action. For example, potential

impacts of decontamination and decommissioning activities on future land use for a proposed

action may be considered too speculative for analysis at the beginning of a project (i.e., during

the initial planning process), although NEPA requires a reasonable effort to obtain such

information.62

Because information related to the “back end” of the life-cycle of a proposed action tends to be

difficult to quantify during the planning process, initial NEPA analyses are limited in their ability

to consider the life-cycle costs and associated longer-term environmental impacts of the various

alternatives for the proposed action. This makes it necessary to periodically review more

complete information about long-term stewardship as it becomes available to see whether

decisions should be revisited or if an earlier NEPA review should be supplemented. For

example, it may become apparent upon later review that DOE has selected an alternative that will

result in significant long-term stewardship liabilities, when another alternative also capable of

meeting the mission objective would have resulted in fewer or less costly long-term stewardship

requirements.

6.1.2 Planning under DOE Orders

DOE’s internal operating procedures and directives include planning requirements. Land use

planning at DOE sites historically has focused on developing facilities and infrastructure to

support DOE missions (including cleanup) often assuming that these missions would continue

indefinitely.63 Planning documents developed prior to 1994 generally did not consider land use

patterns in surrounding communities, or the potential consequences of completing site missions

and transferring site lands to other owners. In fact, many plans were classified or otherwise

controlled because they contained sensitive information.

In 1994, DOE land use planning was re-organized under DOE Order 430.1A, Life Cycle Asset

Management (LCAM). LCAM is focused on performance-based management of real property

over its entire life-cycle: from planning to acquisition, through operation, decommissioning, and

disposition or transfer out of DOE control. LCAM, which is still in effect, provides overall

performance requirements, but otherwise allows sites the flexibility to specify their planning

process. Although LCAM requires a comprehensive land use planning process with stakeholder

involvement, the quality and content of land use plans are left to the discretion of DOE program
64LCAM-based plans have won awards from the American Planning Association and have peer respect. For

example, the INEEL Comprehensive Facility and Land Use Plan was recognized as the Outstanding Federal

Planning Project for 1997 by the Federal Planning Division of the American Planning Association for its original and

comprehensive analysis of the environmental, historical, cultural, and economic assets of the region and their

relationships to the future growth of the site. The INEEL plan is available at http://titanic.inel.gov:1025/index.html 65In some cases, state planning requirements also may be pertinent, and county and city government-derived

authority for land use planning (e.g., local governments adjacent to the Hanford Site pursuant to Washington State’s

Growth Management Act).

66Lowrie, K. Land Use Planning On and Around U.S. DOE Sites: Communication, Coordination, and

Commitment. CRESP-EOHSI, Draft, September 1999. This study, based on a survey of 21 off-site municipal or

county planners from counties that have land area occupied by part of a DOE site and major host or adjacent towns,

as well as on-site planners at 13 major sites, concluded that “although sites are required to do land use planning,

there have been so many different initiatives in this direction that sites have been, at best, free to adopt or pursue

what type of land use planning suits their needs, and, at worst, confused as to how to meet requirements and have

therefore done nothing.” The study identified a need for substantially more direct communication between the sites

and local planners: more mutual review and comment on land use plans between the sites and neighboring

jurisdictions; early involvement of local officials in developing and defining roles and responsibilities for

stewardship; and coordination and linkage of on-site and off-site databases of land use information with local land

use agencies.

- 59 -

directors.64 In 1996, the Department issued DOE Policy 430.1, Land and Facility Use Policy

(July 9, 1996), which further addresses life-cycle planning activities for DOE land and facilities. 

The policy promotes the involvement of the surrounding communities and the integration of

missions, ecology, cultural, and social factors in a regional context.65

Although LCAM is intended to apply over the entire life-cycle of DOE’s management of real

property, it has been difficult to develop operational requirements specific to long-term

stewardship. For example, the Order does not explicitly identify long-term stewardship as a

requirement, or explicitly require development of long-term stewardship plans prior to project

design or execution. As a consequence, a recent analysis of land use plans developed by sites

pursuant to LCAM suggests that land use planning for long-term stewardship is not always

addressed in a comprehensive and coordinated manner by the sites and their surrounding

communities.66 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Use Planning

BLM’s planning processes are established primarily by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

The FLPMA requires BLM to prepare land use plans to provide management direction for the public lands. 

Since 1984, BLM has completed 108 Resource Management Plans; 56 earlier and smaller Management

Framework Plans (MFP) are still in place. These plans are periodically evaluated, amended or revised to respond

to new circumstances or proposals. Some of the MFPs are replaced by new Resource Management Plans when

the decisions in the MFPs are no longer valid and it is not feasible to update the decisions through the MFP

amendment process. Planning Regulations at 43 CFR Part 1610.2(b) require BLM to annually publish a planning

schedule identifying plan amendments and new Resource Management Plans in progress or planned over the next

three years. Six Resource Management Plans were scheduled to be completed in FY 1999 and one is scheduled

to be completed in FY 2000. 

Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/what/PAC_support/planschedule0.htm
- 60 -

To improve future project planning documentation and life-cycle cost analyses, DOE may need

to place greater emphasis on identifying and addressing any long-term stewardship activities that

are required for the asset. In addition, planning under LCAM may need to identify long-term

stewardship as a performance measure in the facility disposition process.

6.1.3 Integrating Long-term Stewardship More Effectively Into Planning

Comments and suggestions forwarded to DOE have noted three general options for improving

planning requirements to more effectively integrate consideration of long-term stewardship in

land use plans. The three suggested approaches summarized below are not mutually exclusive.

• DOE could develop site-specific long-term stewardship plans at all DOE sites. Congress

has directed that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and uranium mill tailings sites have site-wide

long-term stewardship plans. As a management tool, the DOE Grand Junction Office

requires a site-wide plan prior to accepting a new site into the long-term surveillance and

monitoring program. Other DOE sites are not required to have site-wide long-term

stewardship plans, although CERCLA Operation and Maintenance Plans and RCRA postclosure permits may cover some long-term stewardship requirements for specific areas. Sites

will continue to conduct the planning activities that are directly required by other applicable

requirements, including DOE directives, external regulations, and site-specific compliance

agreements. Many sites may develop site-specific long-term stewardship plans that

incorporate the planning activities conducted pursuant to those directives. Other sites may

address long-term stewardship planning in a different manner that is consistent with the

needs of stakeholders, regulatory agencies, and Tribal nations. DOE could improve the

consistency of site-specific long-term stewardship plans in terms of scope, level of detail, and

organization by: (1) requiring all sites to develop long-term stewardship plans; (2)

developing comprehensive guidance for these plans; and/or (3) conducting pilot projects to

develop a model plan at one or more sites. 

 

• DOE could adopt “pollution prevention” concepts into mission planning and operation

to increase the reliability of and reduce the need for long-term stewardship. The use of

pollution prevention principles in long-term stewardship planning can address, in the initial

planning stages, the potential impacts after mission completion. At DOE sites with ongoing

missions, DOE could incorporate long-term stewardship considerations in all planning

efforts. Because the effectiveness of long-term stewardship is uncertain, the best way to

ensure against ineffectiveness is to minimize the need for long-term stewardship through

careful consideration of the long-term stewardship implications of DOE decisions. Decisions

concerning the continued generation of an existing waste stream at a site could consider the

extent to which that generation is creating or contributing to residual hazards that will require

long-term stewardship. Decisions concerning constructing and operating a new facility could

consider the ability to decontaminate and decommission the facility after the mission is

completed. DOE could draw upon the experience other federal agencies have with life-cycle

mission planning that includes long-term stewardship. DoD regulations require life-cycle

planning for new missions and programs, including the following life-cycle phases: 
67Department of Defense Regulation 5000-2-R - Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition

Programs and Major Automated Information System Acquisition Programs. 6813 Steps to a Restoration Project, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service,

www.aqd.nps.gov/grd/distland/toolbox/15steps.htm; Abandoned Mine Lands Program, U.S. Department of Interior,

National Park Service, www.aqd.nps.gov/grd/distland/amlreports/puf.pdf 69As part of the Federal Indian Trust Responsibility, the federal government must hold and appropriately

manage land for federally-recognized tribes. However, the Department of the Interior is committed to promoting

tribal control and self-determination over tribal trust lands and resources (Principles for the Discharge of the

Secretary’s Trust Responsibility, Department of Interior Order 3215, April 28, 2000). 

- 61 -

manufacture, test and evaluation, deployment, maintenance, demilitarization, and disposal.67

Life-cycle planning and analysis for new DoD missions and programs includes NEPA

analysis. The National Park Service also conducts planning for long-term stewardship,

including NEPA analysis, under its Disturbed Lands Restoration Program and Abandoned

Mineral Lands Program.68 The concepts of pollution prevention, waste minimization, and

stewardship minimization can be incorporated into the NEPA process for the evaluation of

proposed actions and alternatives.

• DOE could coordinate land use planning processes more thoroughly with planning

processes conducted by affected parties. Such coordinated planning would be beneficial in

two situations. First, where uncertainty exists with respect to the potential migration of

contamination off-site (e.g., groundwater plumes), coordinated planning could enhance the

protectiveness of long-term stewardship. For example, DOE could assist local communities

or Tribes in determining where use or zoning restrictions would prevent exposures in the

event that a groundwater plume were to migrate off-site. Second, decisions about transfers of

property to non-federal owners depend upon whether the federal government, local

governments, or the new owners can and will enforce long-term restrictions on use of the

property and supply periodic maintenance where required. Coordinated planning could help

define the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, local, and Tribal governments with

respect to the creation and maintenance of land use controls. It also could be a means

through which local governments take an active role in monitoring properties or maintaining

and enforcing land use controls.

6.2 Property Transfer

At the conclusion of current cleanup activities, lands and other real property owned or controlled

by DOE may be retained indefinitely in federal control or transferred to non-federal ownership. 

A variety of options are available for the transfer of DOE property to other federal agencies and

non-federal owners.

The Department may transfer the property under a variety of authorities, including the AEA,

General Services Administration (GSA) regulations, and specific Congressional legislation such

as the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the Hall Amendment to the DOE

Organization Act, and Public Law 105-119. Real property may be transferred to the Secretary of

the Interior, under direct management of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to be held in federal trust

for Tribal nations.69 In many cases, other federal agencies have the right of first refusal for

excess real property owned or controlled by DOE (e.g., land withdrawn from the Department of
- 62 -

the Interior, acquired land transferred via GSA). These disposition paths will affect long-term

stewardship in different ways. DOE requirements for real property transfers are discussed in

more detail in Appendix G.

The least complicated transfer will occur if the property is not needed for any continuing DOE

mission and if the property has been cleaned up to levels that support unrestricted use. In that

case, the only long-term stewardship obligations that will accompany the property or remain with

DOE is routine record-keeping. The transfer of property that requires long-term stewardship to

another federal, state, Tribal, local, or private entity presents challenges to long-term stewardship

implementation. In this case, as part of the transfer process, DOE and affected parties will need

to determine:

• The parcels for which long-term stewardship is needed.

• What types of management or use restrictions are necessary for the parcel.

• Whether use restrictions should affect only the entity to whom the property is transferred or

apply more broadly to all subsequent owners.

• Procedures for overseeing all restrictions or limits that are imposed. Note that providing

oversight may be difficult (see Exhibit 5-4).

• Funding and responsibility for long-term stewardship activities.
- 63 -

A variety of factors will affect the choice of a disposition path. DOE will need, as a first step, to

determine the suitability of the property for disposition. This means systematically assessing

sites and portions of sites to determine if they are needed for a continuing DOE mission other

than long-term stewardship. Unused property must then be given a second screening to

determine whether it should remain in DOE possession for long-term stewardship or can be

released with or without restrictions. To date, these decisions have been made under a variety of

statutory and regulatory authorities and via different processes (see Exhibit 6-3). The following

factors will be particularly important for evaluating the potential for transferring real property

from DOE control to another federal or non-federal entity:

• Potential legal restrictions. Under current law, parcels of land which are part of a larger site

that is listed in its entirety as a single site on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL)

cannot be transferred unless (a) EPA concurs with the transfer or (b) the larger site is deleted

from the NPL. If the site is not on the NPL, then DOE must obtain concurrence from the

appropriate state agency. If a parcel contains residual radioactive contamination or materials

at levels subject to regulation under the AEA, it may not be possible for DOE to transfer

responsibility for long-term stewardship over those materials to another federal or nonfederal entity without the NRC or an agreement state licensing the entity for their possession.

Leasing Property at DOE Sites

Several mechanisms are available to implement leases of DOE property. DOE has implemented guidance on the

protection of workers using DOE leased facilities.

• DOE can lease property under section 161(g) of the Atomic Energy Act, provided that the property was

acquired by DOE in connection with functions pursuant to the Act or the property will be used to carry out

objectives of the Act.

• Section 649 of the DOE Organization Act authorizes DOE to lease facilities that are temporarily not needed

for up to five years if leasing is in the public interest. Unused facilities at the Hanford Site have been leased

under this authority.

• The Hall Amendment to the DOE Organization Act allows DOE to lease excess property for up to 10 years at

DOE facilities to be closed or reconfigured. The Hall Amendment provides EPA with the authority to concur

in the DOE determination that lease conditions are “consistent with safety and protection of public health and

the environment.” Surplus facilities at the Oak Ridge East Tennessee Technology Park have been leased

under this authority.

Sources: (1) Selecting a Suitable Transfer Mechanism: Benefits and Limitations, U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Environmental Management, May 13, 1997 (http://www.em.doe.gov:80/future/sec6.html). (2) Joint

DOE/EPA Policy Statement on Leasing under the “Hall Amendment,” Memorandum from Timothy Fields,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency; James M. Owendoff, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department of

Energy; Robert W. DeGrasse, Jr., Director, Office of Worker and Community Transition, U.S. Department of

Energy; and G. Thomas Judd, Director, Office of Field Management, U.S. Department of Energy, June 30, 1998

(www.epa.gov/swerffrr/doc/halltran.htm). (3) Guidance on the Protection of Workers using DOE Leased

Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition, August 6, 1999

(http://www.wct.doe.gov/owct/Documentation/Authorities%20and%20Guidance.htm).
70Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-02222-F, September

1999.

71Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies – Subject Government to Government

Relationship with Native American Tribal Governments, Executive Memorandum, April 29, 1994; DOE Order

1230.2, American Indian Tribal Government Policy. 72Seminole Nation v. United States, 1942, 316 U.S. 286 (1943); see also http://www.doi.gov/oait/q&a.htm.

- 64 -

• Tribal Treaty Rights and Federal Indian Trust Responsibility. Tribal nations have legal

rights to pursue certain activities (e.g., hunting, gathering plants, pasturing livestock) on

certain lands identified in treaties (e.g., “open and unclaimed lands”). There is disagreement

as to whether these treaty rights apply to certain withdrawn lands (e.g., at Hanford).70 In

addition to specific treaty rights, the Federal Indian Trust Responsibility is a legally

enforceable fiduciary obligation, on the part of the United States, to protect tribal lands,

assets, resources, and treaty rights, as well as duty to carry out the mandates of federal law

with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. DOE’s implementation of this

responsibility is directed by Executive Memorandum and DOE Order.71 In several cases

discussing the Trust Responsibility, the Supreme Court has used language suggesting that it

entails legal duties, moral obligations, and the fulfillment of understandings and expectations

that have arisen over the entire course of dealings between the United States and the Tribes.72

• The nature and extent of residual contamination and other site hazards. These must be

considered in determining both whether to transfer property and what restrictions should be

placed on that property if transferred. Documents that assess the environmental baseline,

such as discharge permits, release sites, sampling plans and results, and descriptions of all

waste management units will be needed. Federal and state regulators involved in the decision

process will need to be notified at the start. In most cases, their concurrence with DOE’s

decision to transfer the property will be needed.

• Property rights that do not convey with surface rights. Minerals in place (in many states)

may be conveyed by deed separately from the overlying property. Generally, the ownership

of land overlying a groundwater resource determines access to the resource. However, in

some states a permit to withdraw groundwater may be required. Also, in some states,

groundwater may be withdrawn for use either on or off the overlying land even if this

interferes with use by another landowner.

• Needs for buffer zones and other “set-asides.” Uncontaminated property may be needed

as a safety buffer zone around continuing or future mission needs other than long-term

stewardship. Other areas may be set aside to protect valued natural resources or cultural

resources.

• Local interest in site re-use for economic development and other socio-economic or

environmental justice considerations. Public and Tribal government involvement will be

necessary throughout the process to determine suitability for transfer. DOE may need to

continue to build upon existing public involvement processes (e.g., Federal Advisory

Committees such as Site-Specific Advisory Boards, site planning boards) to more effectively

involve affected parties in property management issues (see also Chapter 9).
73Cross-Cut Guidance on Environmental Requirements for DOE Real Property Transfers. U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance. DOE/EH-413/97/2, October 1997. 74The Environmental Site Closeout Process Guide, U.S. Department of Defense, Air Force Base Conversion

Agency, September 1999; A Guide to Establishing Institutional Controls at Closing Military Installations. U.S.

Department of Defense, February 1998; Guidance on the Environmental Review Process to Reach a Finding of

Suitability to Transfer for Property where Release or Disposal has Occurred, U.S. Department of Defense, June

1994 (available at http://emmisary.acq.osd.mil/bccr/brim).

- 65 -

DOE has developed guidance outlining the information relating to the past as well as the current

history and condition of the parcel that is required before property can be transferred.73 The

necessary information includes CERCLA Records of Decision or other decision documents that

identify cleanup end states and long-term stewardship strategies, NEPA review, safety/hazard

analyses, and detailed real property records. In most cases, new property surveys and deed

registrations will be needed to prepare for long-term stewardship activities or reduce acreage

required to support ongoing site missions. Real property records, to be complete, also should

identify all infrastructure on the parcel, current and past facilities, boundaries, and all easements

or covenants. For buildings, information about zoning and code compliance, structural integrity,

and electrical and mechanical systems should be included, although as-built drawings and other

records for older facilities may not be available (see Chapter 7).

DoD has extensive experience in property transfer through implementing the Base Realignment

and Closure (BRAC) Program. DoD has received explicit statutory authority to conduct transfers

of DoD property at closing and realigning military bases, and is implementing the program under

an extensive series of regulations and guidance documents.74 DoD has developed a classification

system for properties intended for disposal, and property must be qualified for disposal through

an Environmental Baseline Survey and either a Finding of Suitability for Transfer (FOST) or

Finding of Suitability for Lease (FOSL). Typically, DoD property transfer is accomplished

through an Economic Development Conveyance to an approved Local Redevelopment Authority.

Indemnification Following Property Transfer

Section 3158 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 authorizes the Secretary of Energy to hold harmless and

indemnify a person or entity to whom property is transferred against any claim for injury to person or property that results

from the release or threatened release of a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant as a result of DOE activities at the

defense nuclear facility on which the real property is located. This indemnification does not apply to the extent that the

persons and entities contributed to any such release or threatened release. (42 USC 7274(q)(b))
- 66 -

Recent DOE Land Transfer Experiences

Hanford Site. The State of Washington and EPA determined that the 1100 Area at Hanford poses no significant threat

to public health and the environment and deleted the Area from the CERCLA National Priorities List in 1996. The 870

acre property was transferred to private ownership pursuant to section 161(g) of AEA. GSA was not involved in the

transaction, although the general structure of GSA’s land transfer process was used. An Environmental Assessment

under NEPA was prepared that concluded that all hazardous materials would be removed prior to transfer of ownership,

and a Finding of No Significant Impact was made. Prior to the transfer, historical records were reviewed, and potentially

problematic areas were surveyed for radiation using DOE Order 5400.5 radioactive release criteria. After the transfer,

DOE Richland radiology staff requested additional surveys, which will be accomplished in the near future. DOE does

not have an easement to conduct a survey, just a good faith agreement. Contingency provisions within the land transfer

agreement allow for future DOE remediation on the property if post-transfer surveys or sampling identify any

contamination.

Sources: Environmental Assessment for the Transfer of 1100 Area, Southern Rail Connection and Rolling Stock.

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, August 1998, DOE/EA-1260; 61 FR 51019,

September 30, 1996.

Mound Site. In 1998, DOE agreed to sell the Mound Environmental Management Project Site (formerly the Mound

Plant) to the Mound Miamisburg Community Improvement Corporation (MMCIC). DOE will convey the entire site to

MMCIC in discrete parcels, or "release blocks." The sales contract specifies that a release block must be remediated

pursuant to CERCLA, and each conveyance must be formally approved by EPA. Such transfers are authorized by

section 3154 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 (the Hall Amendment to the DOE Organization Act),

which allows for below market rate transactions for economic development. MMCIC in turn subleases parcels to private

entities. DOE operations and decontamination and decommissioning activities are continuing at the Project Site. Some

parcels have been occupied by private sector tenants prior to the remediation of the entire release block. The tenants are

generally not familiar with DOE operating procedures. A recent study by the Environmental Law Institute reviewed the

master lease between DOE and MMCIC and the subleases between MMCIC and its subtenants. The study identified

several provisions that serve as controls to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and to ensure that exposures

during reuse of the site are consistent with cleanup to industrial reuse standards. However, the study questioned whether

lease restrictions or deed restrictions alone would be effective in managing residual hazards.

Sources: Miamisburg Environmental Site Management Project Site Profile, DOE Office of Oversight, Environmental,

Safety, and Health, June 1999; Institutional Controls Case Study: Mound Plant. Environmental Law Institute, 1998;

Integrated Safety Management Evaluation of the Miamisburg Environmental Management Project. U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Environment, Safety, and Health, July 1998. EM2MGT/07-98/01SH; Mound’s Land Transfer

Process. U.S. Department of Energy, Miamisburg Environmental Management Project, Miamisburg, Ohio, 1999;

Commercialization of the Mound Plant, Miamisburg, OH, DOE/EA-1001; Disposition of Mound Plant’s South

Property, Ohio, DOE-EA-1239.

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). In 1997, Congress passed Public Law 105-119, the Departments of

Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, which directs DOE to

convey or transfer certain parcels of DOE land in the vicinity of LANL to the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New

Mexico, and to the Secretary of the Interior, in trust for the Pueblo of San Ildefonso. DOE’s responsibilities under the

Act include identifying potentially suitable tracts of land; conducting a title search on each tract; identifying and

conducting any environmental restoration and remediation needed for each tract; and conducting a NEPA review of the

proposed conveyance. DOE has no role in the designation of recipients nor how the parcels of land will be allocated

between the recipients.

Source: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered

by the U.S. Department of Energy and Located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties,

New Mexico. U.S. Department of Energy, Los Alamos Area Office, Los Alamos, NM, DOE/EIS-0293, October 1999. 
75CERCLA Requirements Associated with Real Property Transfers, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Policy and Assistance, CERCLA Information Brief. EH-413-9808, April 1998. 76Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, Section 1.4.3. DOE/EIS-02222-F,

September 1999.

- 67 -

6.3 Post-Transfer Property Management

DOE’s role in long-term stewardship may not end after property is transferred, particularly if that

property requires the maintenance of access or use restrictions.75 As Chapter 5 described, such

restrictions could take several forms:

• Planning restrictions, in which the transferee is required under enforceable provisions of the

transfer document (e.g., an enforceable deed restriction incorporated into a sale agreement or

condition of a lease agreement) to adopt and enforce the existing land use plan. Planning

restrictions may be difficult to enforce. For example, even if a site-specific land use plan has

been developed under NEPA (as at Hanford, for example),76 the Record of Decision can be

changed. Even if the property or portion of the property is transferred to another federal

agency or consulting Tribal government included in the NEPA process, the Record of

Decision is not binding on the cooperating agency or consulting Tribal government and does

not create an obligation for a cooperating agency or consulting Tribal government to

implement the plan. Once the property leaves DOE control, DOE would not have control

over the use of the land unless the property is conveyed with deed or other legal restrictions.

• Traditional land use restrictions, which are created by covenants, deed restrictions,

reversionary clauses, or similar provisions. The availability of such restrictions and special

circumstances governing their enforcement and persistence generally would be established by

state law and therefore would be likely to differ from state to state. DOE might also create

and enforce easements to ensure continued access to sites for monitoring and maintenance of

waste disposal facilities. The availability and limitations of land use restrictions that can be

implemented by DOE would also vary according to state law.

• Zoning restrictions, which would require the cooperation and continuing involvement of

Tribal and local governments because they could probably not be enforced directly by DOE. 

The roles and responsibilities of the federal, local, and Tribal governments would need to be

defined and agreed upon, and DOE might need to supply necessary technical expertise.

DOE has used deed restrictions (e.g., reversion clauses) to retain the authority to ensure the

continued maintenance of institutional controls after property has been released. Examples

include:

• Disposal of property on the Monticello, Utah, site involves deed restrictions establishing

prohibition of residential development without prior DOE approval and prohibition of

groundwater use.

• In 1973, 2,200 acres surrounding the Argonne National Laboratory East facility were

transferred to a local forest preserve district. The deed included future use limitations
77DoD Guidance on the Environmental Review Process to Reach a Finding of Suitability to Transfer for

Property where Release or Disposal has Occurred. U.S. Department of Defense, June 1, 1994, 

http://emmisary.acq.osd.mil/bccr/brim. 78Draft Standard Review Plan 16.0. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,

Decommissioning Program; 10 CFR Part 61.

- 68 -

because shallow groundwater and surface water contaminated with volatile organic

compounds had migrated into the preserve.

• At the Oak Ridge Reservation, disposals of land to private parties by means of quit-claim

deeds included deed provisions in which DOE reserved rights of continuing access and

specified that the property could only be used for certain purposes or it would revert to DOE.

Three issues for long-term stewardship are raised by these experiences with post-transfer

controls: 

• Additional staff and resources, focused on monitoring institutional controls and enforcing

land use restrictions, may be needed as more properties, with more complicated and

numerous restrictions, are transferred by DOE.

• DOE may need to be prepared to enforce institutional controls through judicial or

administrative means if local governments or private individuals to whom property has been

transferred do not adhere fully to the restrictions.

• For transfers within the federal government, DOE and/or Congress will need to decide

whether the funding/budget authority required to conduct long-term stewardship activities

transfers with the parcel or remains with the program that transferred the parcel.

Other federal agencies have experience enforcing institutional controls after real property

transfer. Findings of Suitability for Transfer and land transfer agreements for DoD property that

requires long-term stewardship are required to include provisions allowing for continued access

by DoD to conduct CERCLA five year reviews and monitor the effectiveness of engineered and

institutional controls.77 NRC has also addressed decommissioning of NRC-licensed sites and

transfer of sites for restricted use, requiring institutional controls to maintain future land use

restrictions.78 The licensee (ordinarily the property owner) is required to demonstrate that

required institutional controls are effective, enforceable, and funded prior to property transfer. 

The licensee also must demonstrate how the responsibility for such controls will be passed on to

future responsible parties.
79Even at sites where cleanup achieves unrestricted use, it may be necessary to demonstrate that cleanup to a

specified level actually was achieved and/or waste actually was removed to another location (e.g., for litigation or

property transfer). It also may be necessary to re-evaluate these sites in response to changes in scientific information

or health standards.

80Roadmap to the Year 2000, U.S. Department of Energy, Records Management Quality Improvement Team,

Revision 1, August 1995; Responsible Openness: An Imperative for the Department of Energy. U.S. Department of

Energy, Openness Advisory Panel, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, August 25, 1997; Managing Data for

Long-term Stewardship, Working Draft Report Prepared by ICF Kaiser Consulting Group, March 1998.

- 69 -

Chapter 7: Information Management

As DOE sites make the transition from cleanup to

long-term stewardship, site stewards will need

detailed, accurate information about the location

and nature of residual hazards and the processes

and cleanup strategies that generated these

hazards. Other people will need to have access to

this information, including health professionals,

neighbors who live and work in the surrounding

communities, and off-site entities who are

responsible for some institutional controls,

emergency response, and community planning

and development. Even where sites have been

cleaned up to levels that support unrestricted use,

information that documents the levels of cleanup

that were achieved will be needed.79 The

information needs to be available in a useful and

readily accessible form. In order for long-term

stewardship to be effective, appropriate

information should be readily available to the

public and all entities conducting long-term

stewardship activities.

This chapter summarizes recent

recommendations for improving DOE’s

information management requirements and

practices to better serve long-term stewardship needs. The chapter also describes DOE’s efforts

to improve the identification, preservation, and future accessibility of this information.

7.1 Current Responsibilities and Practices

Recent studies have described DOE’s information management responsibilities and practices as

they pertain to long-term stewardship.80 Many DOE information management requirements were

developed to support nuclear weapons production. The basis for these requirements (e.g., a need

for secrecy to protect national security, the assumption that site access will be restricted) was and

continues to be critical to the success of national security missions. Conversely, long-term

APPLICABLE SCOPING COMMENTS

(see Exhibit 2 of Appendix B)

• DOE needs to provide adequate information to

the public (4, 18)

• DOE should discuss approaches for preserving

information about a site and its past activities and

contamination history (2)

• DOE needs to institute a reliable documentation

update/revision system to ensure that crucial data

on each site are preserved (4)

• DOE should identify processes whereby owners

and neighbors are made aware of, in perpetuity,

the nature and extent of contamination and use

restrictions so that any attrition of personnel and

changes in filing and computer systems do not

result in a loss of corporate memory (16)

• DOE should establish mechanisms for the

collection, retrieval, and storage of information

needed for long-term stewardship and site

historic preservation programs (1, STGWG)

APPLICABLE ISSUE

(see Exhibit 3 of Appendix B)

5. Information Management
81Although the focus of this chapter is on DOE information management practices, management of some

long-term stewardship information is governed by external regulation. For example, section 113(k) of CERCLA

requires the establishment of an administrative record file containing all information and documentation used in the

selection of a response action. This file must contain documents relevant to the selected remedy as well as relevant

comments and information, site-specific data, guidance documents, and technical references that the lead agency

considered in the ultimate response selection decision. The administrative record file must be made available for

public inspection. Regulations in 40 CFR Part 300.800 pertaining to the administrative record establish procedures

for public involvement in the development of the administrative record file. Source: RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA

Hotline Training Module, Introduction to Superfund Community Involvement. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA540-R-98-027, June 1998.

- 70 -

stewardship requires public awareness and institutional openness to ensure continued protection

of human health and the environment.

Many information management practices that

were appropriate during weapons production

are counterproductive to long-term

stewardship goals, particularly where

property, facilities, and other site assets may

be leased or transferred to non-DOE entities.

Exhibit 7-1 provides an overview of current

DOE records management practices.81 Four

major aspects of current information

management practices are likely to affect

DOE’s ability to implement long-term

stewardship:

1. Uniform criteria are needed for

identifying information critical for

long-term stewardship. A large amount

of information is generated every day at

DOE sites in support of regulatory and

mission requirements. The Department

needs to develop a standard methodology

for identifying the portion of this

information that will be critical to support long-term stewardship.

2. Data quality must meet current and future needs. Current uses of data involve

evaluations such as whether an engineered control is functioning properly. Future uses of

data may involve evaluations such as temporal trends in contaminant concentration or

migration.

3. Information that may be critical for long-term stewardship needs to be preserved. As

site missions, contractors, personnel, and information management technologies change,

information is often destroyed or lost. Information also is rendered useless when it is

maintained in an obsolete format, or stored in disarray among other records without being

Openness vs. Protection

Although long-term stewardship generally will require

open public access to information, some exceptions are

necessary to protect national security (e.g., classified

material), privacy (e.g., personnel records), and sensitive

natural resources and cultural resources. While the need to

maintain these protections presents some challenges for

long-term stewardship, it should be possible to preserve the

mechanisms currently in place to achieve protection during

long-term stewardship. For example, DOE currently

provides public access to unclassified information at a site

(e.g., information related to cleanup) while at the same time

maintaining classified information in a variety of secure

databases. In addition, some information about cultural

resources (e.g., location of archeological sites) is currently

exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, and there is

no reason to remove such an exemption for long-term

stewardship. Tribes and resource management agencies

currently use a variety of techniques to inform the public

about the existence of sensitive resources without

disclosing their exact locations. There is no reason to

anticipate that these techniques are incompatible with longterm stewardship.
82Hedstrom, M. Playing for Keeps. Electronic Records Management Conference Proceedings, Canberra,

Australia, November 1994.

83DOE Records Retention Schedules. Available at http://www-it.doe.gov/records/doers/doers.html, identify the

length of time records are required to be kept. While many critical records are required to be preserved permanently,

some records useful for long-term stewardship are required to be retained for less than 100 years. For example,

DOE Records Retention Schedule 14: Design and Construction Drawings and Related Records, requires project

construction files (including “as built” drawings) for completed projects to be preserved “until dismantlement or

disposal of the facility, equipment, system, or process; or when superseded or obsolete; whichever is earlier.”

- 71 -

catalogued or formally archived.82 Even when information is sent to a storage repository and

adequately documented, in some cases the storage repository is mandated to destroy this

information after several years.83

Exhibit 7-1: Current Records Management Practices

Information is generated at DOE sites to support a

variety of regulatory and mission requirements,

including cleanup. Once a given piece of

information is generated, it may become a “record”

as defined by the National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA). Records are used for a

period of time and, when no longer in active use, are

either preserved permanently or saved for a

specified period of time and then destroyed.

Books, reports, maps, and other “hard copy” records

typically are preserved by placing them in boxes,

indexing the boxes, and shipping the boxes to an

interim repository at the site. Records are stored in

the interim repository for varying periods of time

(e.g., 1 year, 25 years, or longer) until they are

either destroyed or shipped to an archival repository

managed by NARA.

NARA retains the records either permanently or for varying periods of time (e.g., 75 or 80 years). Records

retention schedules approved by NARA establish specific requirements for preserving and destroying records. 

Information management practices for electronic materials are evolving. Some electronic materials (e.g.,

electronic copies of reports) are considered identical to their “hard-copy” counterparts and are preserved in a

similar manner. The status of other electronic materials (e.g., databases) is unclear at present. Access to

preserved records is achieved by request. The person requesting a record submits a request to NARA (or the

organization that manages the onsite repository). Requests for specific records (e.g., an annual report) are filled

by locating the box containing the record, retrieving it from storage, extracting the record, and sending a copy to

the requestor. Requests for more general information (e.g., all reports that cover groundwater monitoring) are

filled by first searching indexing systems to locate potentially relevant records and then following the above

retrieval and shipping process. DOE also has developed searchable electronic indexes to certain types of

electronic records and has made copies of these records available via the Internet and has developed electronic

indexing systems for a variety of hard copy records.

4. Future generations must be able to locate and readily access the information. At

present, it is difficult to locate and retrieve information from storage repositories without

specific knowledge about the existence and archiving of the specific records containing the

needed information. For this reason, many of DOE’s unclassified documents are effectively

What is a Record?

The National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA) defines records to include all books, papers,

maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or

other documentary materials, regardless of physical

form or characteristics. To be managed by NARA,

records must be made or received by an agency of the

United States Government under Federal law or in

connection with the transaction of public business and

must be preserved by that agency or its legitimate

successor as evidence of the organization, functions,

policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other

activities of the government or because the records

contain information of value.
84Responsible Openness: An Imperative for the Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy, Openness

Advisory Panel, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, August 25, 1997.

- 72 -

unavailable to the general public.84 Locating information using general search criteria (e.g.,

“all soil contamination records from 1995 to 1998”) seldom works. When information can

be located, it often takes weeks or months to retrieve a record from an archival repository. 

The search for information is also complicated by the lack of standard methods (e.g.,

indexing, keywords, geospatial coordinates) for describing and referencing critical

information.

In spite of all the cleanup accomplishments to date, if current requirements and practices

continue unchanged, future generations may not have access to adequate information to conduct

long-term stewardship, and critical information on where and why residual hazards exist may be

lost as a result. Failure to generate, identify, and preserve critical information may result in

unnecessary exposure to residual hazards, delays in desired site re-use or property transfers, and

increased long-term stewardship costs.

Information Management System for Uranium Mill Tailings Sites

DOE is required to conduct long-term surveillance and maintenance of uranium mill tailings sites in accordance

with NRC licensing regulations. Information required by NRC regulations includes a detailed description of the

final disposal site conditions. frequency and extent of groundwater monitoring, and procedures for site

inspections, record keeping and quality assurance (10 CFR Parts 40.27 and 40.28). DOE’s Grand Junction

Office has developed a document management system to manage more than 50,000 records for nine DOE

projects comprising more than 30 DOE sites. Documents in the system contain the following information:

• Present and historical chemical, radioactive, and physical hazards, both natural and man-made, and present

and historical releases of contaminants.

• Active and passive devices for preventing exposure to humans and the environment.

• Current (including post-closure) and historical site processes and infrastructure, such as buildings, utilities,

pipelines, tanks, and wells.

• Current and historical agreements, regulations, permits, and other legal requirements associated with longterm stewardship.

• Property records related to the site, easements, and other on-site access rights.

• Off-site access rights through public and private property for monitor wells and active or passive control

systems, and mineral, water, and other natural resources rights.

• Locations and descriptions of cultural resources and habitats and species of concern.

• Relationship of site resources and access to Native American Tribes or interest groups.

• Site topography, hydrogeology, and geology.

• Site and surrounding property land use.

• Public exposure data.

• Current and historical concerns expressed by the public. 

Source: Edge., R. and Pavelka-Zarkesh, L. Document Systems for Site Stewardship at the U.S. Department of

Energy Grand Junction Office. U.S. Department of Energy Grand Junction Office, Grand Junction, Colorado,

March 1999.
- 73 -

7.2 Improving the Ability to Meet Long-term Stewardship Information Needs

The studies cited at the beginning of this chapter identify several recommendations for improving

DOE’s ability of meet long-term stewardship information management needs. These

recommendations, and DOE’s efforts to implement them, are discussed below.

• Develop criteria for identifying critical information. The first step in such an effort would

be to develop a consensus on the types of activities onsite and in the surrounding

communities that will require information. The second step would be to identify the

information needed to support these activities. The third step would be to develop criteria

and guidance for identifying specific site records that meet these information needs. 

Although complex-wide guidance may ensure a more systematic approach to identifying

critical information, individual sites could begin the process independently. Subject matter

experts and others (including community members) at each site could identify that subset of

current, active records that appear to have long-term value, and site records management

organizations could ensure that these records are retained and preserved. Preserving

information could provide significant long-term benefit at relatively low cost. In developing

the Report to Congress on Long-term Stewardship at DOE Sites, DOE has begun to

catalogue and report the types of long-term stewardship activities that are to be conducted at

its sites in a standardized way. However, the methodology and resulting data apply only to

that unique report.

• Establish data quality objectives. It will be important to collect and preserve enough data

to support long-term stewardship without overburdening information management systems

Information Management Systems at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Although BLM does not have a long-term stewardship program in place, their current information management

systems and practices have the potential to support long-term stewardship planning and implementation. BLM

operates an extensive land use information management system, and possesses expansive current and historical

information about land ownership, use, and condition in the United States. The Bureau maintains cadastral survey

and historical data on lands patented, along with information on the mineral estate, resource conditions, and

permits or leases on Federal lands. BLM also provides other agencies, customers, and the public with efficient

and effective means to retrieve and use this information. Preserving records is critical to resolving ownership

disputes and are an important source of both historic and resource information.

BLM is using information technology to speed up workflow, improve accuracy, and share information with

customers, agency partners, and the public. Determining user requirements, developing systems, collecting and

storing data, maintaining systems, and providing for security and training is part of the information technology

development process at BLM. BLM uses geospatial tools, including geographic information systems, mapping,

remote sensing, and global positioning systems, to acquire and process information. Land managers can use the

information to determine the location, extent, and condition of natural resources and to monitor activities on

public lands. To respond to demands for faster and more accessible records, the Bureau's land ownership, status,

and other records are being automated. Deployment of this automated system, known as the Automated Land

and Mineral Record System (ALMRS), began in fiscal year 1998.

Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, http://www.blm.gov/nhp/what/index.htm
85Data Quality Objectives process for Superfund: Interim Final Guidance, U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency, EPA/540/G-93/071, September 1993. 86Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement, Part 23, Sampling and Data/Document Availability. July 19, 1996. 87DOE Records Retention Schedule 14: Design and Construction Drawings and Related Records, available at

http://www-it.doe.gov/records/doers/doers.html.

- 74 -

with irrelevant information. For example, EPA has developed data quality objectives

guidance to assist in focusing data collection and preservation on information critical for

environmental decision-making.85

• Establish a clear information baseline at the completion of cleanup. The baseline

information would fully describe the location, condition, and status of all former and residual

hazards; a summary of site activities as they pertain to those hazards; and the history of

significant public health and environmental impacts to the surrounding communities. This

baseline would form the core of information required for long-term stewardship. As noted in

Chapter 4, the site-specific long-term stewardship plans required by DOE’s Grand Junction

Office (GJO) establish an information baseline for sites entering into long-term stewardship,

but these plans are required only for closed sites for which GJO has responsibility. In

addition, the independent Project Baseline Summaries for long-term stewardship (to be

developed by Fiscal Year 2003) will provide a basis for establishing a baseline at many DOE

sites (see Chapter 4).

• Make critical information available to offsite entities. DOE needs to work proactively

with local communities to make information available to allow them to be informed and

serve an appropriate role in long-term stewardship. In this way, the information needed for

site-specific long-term stewardship activities can be readily identified and utilized as early as

possible. This would reduce information management costs during cleanups, help ensure that

adequate baselines are established, and ensure that information transfer protocols are

established well before all projects at a site are complete. At the same time, sites should

work with the offsite entities to improve long-term preservation and access. DOE sites have

begun to establish formal agreements to share and disseminate critical information with

regulators and local communities. For example, the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement among

DOE, EPA, the State of Colorado, and several local governments required DOE to create a

database of monitoring data and related documents that is accessible to all parties to the

agreement. The short-term objective of the database is to improve the effectiveness and

efficiency of current monitoring programs, while the long-range goal is to integrate all

environmental and natural resource monitoring at the site.86

• Modify existing records retention schedules to meet long-term stewardship information

needs. Federal records retention schedules establish specific requirements for preserving and

destroying records, including the length of time records must be retained in an archival

repository. Retention times for information critical to long-term stewardship range from

essentially zero (information for obsolete facilities and infrastructure is required to be

destroyed immediately)87 to essentially forever (certain records of injuries and residual

hazards are required to be retained permanently). Thus, retention times for some critical data

should be examined and adjusted to meet long-term stewardship needs. The EM program has
- 75 -

begun discussions with the DOE Chief Information Officer to modify DOE records retention

schedules to better meet long-term stewardship needs.

• Develop appropriate indexing and metadata standards. The term “indexing” refers to the

process of referencing the content of records through keywords, subject codes, and other

identifiers. The term “metadata” refers to the content, quality, condition, and other

characteristics of data, particularly for electronic formats. Metadata and indexing provide

important contextual information, such as where and when data were collected, quality

assurance protocols, uncertainties in the data, which is necessary for interpreting and using

Information Management Requirements for the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain

NRC has proposed licensing criteria for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the

proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. Prior to permanent closure of the repository, DOE is required

to provide to NRC a detailed description of the measures to be employed (e.g., land use controls, construction of

monuments, preservation of records) to regulate or prevent activities that could impair the long-term isolation of

emplaced waste within the geologic repository and to assure that relevant information will be preserved for the

use of future generations. Specific information management requirements include:

• Identification of the site and geological repository operations area by monuments that have been designed,

fabricated, and emplaced to be as permanent as is practicable.

• Placement of records in the archives and land record systems of local, state, and federal government agencies,

and archives elsewhere in the world, that would be likely to be consulted by potential human intruders–such

records to identify the location of the geologic repository operations area, including the underground facility,

boreholes, shafts, and ramps, and the boundaries of the site, and the nature and hazard of the waste.

• Preservation and maintenance of geologic, geophysical, geochemical, hydrologic, and other site data that are

obtained during the operational period.

• Preservation and maintenance of records of the receipt, handling, and disposition of radioactive waste are

required to contain sufficient information to provide a complete history of the movement of the waste from

the shipper through all phases of storage and disposal.

• Preservation and maintenance of records of the construction of the geologic repository operations in a manner

that ensures their usability for future generations.

• Preservation and maintenance of records associated with a program of material control accounting and

accidental criticality reporting.

Each record must be legible throughout the retention period (specified by NRC regulations). The record may be

the original or a reproduced copy or a microform provided that the copy or microform is authenticated by

authorized personnel and that the microform is capable of producing a clear copy throughout the required

retention period. The record may also be stored in electronic media with the capability for producing legible,

accurate, and complete records during the required retention period. Records such as letters, drawings, and

specifications must include all pertinent information such as stamps, initials, and signatures, and DOE is required

to maintain adequate safeguards against tampering with and loss of records.

Source: 64 FR 8639, February 22, 1999. Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geological

Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Proposed Rule, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Proposed 10 CFR

Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 51, 60, 61, and 63.
88For example, Executive Order 12096, Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National

Spatial Data Infrastructure requires federal agencies to ensure that all geospatial data are collected in a manner that

meets all relevant standards adopted by the Federal Geographic Data Committee, an interagency committee

established by the Office of Management and Budget. 89Available at http//cid.em.doe.gov.

- 76 -

information. While certain standard indexing and metadata protocols exist,88 specific

protocols could be developed for DOE issues and residual hazards. The Office of Long Term

Stewardship has established a Central Internet Database that provides available information

on waste, contaminated media (e.g., water, soil, sediments), spent fuel, materials in inventory,

and facilities.89 The system for referencing these data provides a starting point for developing

a more comprehensive referencing system for long-term stewardship data.

• Develop a system to facilitate public access to and retrieval of critical information. A

system should be developed to enable a person with limited knowledge of DOE sites to be

able to easily search, find, and understand relevant information. An effective system might

include both “hard copy” and electronic elements. An effective “hard copy” system might

include information centers or displays at the site or in nearby communities; maintenance of

Communication Through Time Using Non-Electronic Means

Suggestions on information management presented in this section are intended to supplement, but not replace,

existing protocols established by authorities such as the National Archives and Records Administration. Due to

the ephemeral nature of electronic technologies, the electronic archiving of long-term stewardship data will not,

by itself, provide a secure means to transfer information critical to long-term stewardship to future generations.

The Department intends to use non-electronic means such as monuments and markers to communicate through

deep time. For example, DOE will provide archived records, maps, and other information pertaining to the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico to be stored at many locations around the world. At the site itself,

DOE also will institute a number of passive controls to warn future generations about the radioactive hazards

present in the below-ground repository. These controls will not require continual maintenance, but assume that

society in general will maintain some knowledge of the wastes. The controls will include:

• Granite monuments with inscriptions in seven languages.

• A berm surrounding the site that includes radar and magnetic indicators.

• On-site warning markers with information about the waste.

• Informational inscriptions on granite walls.

Source: Citizens’Guide to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Compliance Certification Application to the EPA. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office, Carlsbad, NM, November 1996. DOE/CAO-96-1207.

Other organizations have begun to examine approaches for both thinking and communicating across large periods

of time. For example, the Long Now Foundation (http://www.longnow.org) was established in 1996 to develop

the Clock/Library Projects as well as to become the seed of a very long term cultural institution. The foundation

is developing a large, mechanical “10,000 Year Clock” to serve as an iconic focal point for thinking about time. 

The foundation also intends to found a library of and for the deep future to meet the need for content to go along

with the long-term context provided by the Clock. The library could become a repository for kinds of

information deemed especially useful over long periods of time, such as minding extreme longitudinal scientific

studies, or accumulating a 'Responsibility Record' of policy decisions with long-term consequences.
- 77 -

site files in local libraries; and periodic updates of all hard-copy materials and records

indexes. An effective electronic system might include (1) an electronic archive where

digitized copies of all critical records are kept; (2) an electronic index consisting of a standard

thesaurus of reference terms, uniform metadata, and consistent geospatial referencing; (3) a

system for delivering electronic copies of records to its patrons; (4) a user interface with a

search engine for identifying and locating relevant records; and (5) a maintenance system to

ensure that electronic technologies remain current. The Central Internet Database provides a

step in this process. The overall system also might include periodic training and education of

local librarians and other information management professionals.

• Integrate information management considerations into all site missions. Under current

business practices, information management is considered a “support” or “overhead” function

that is adjunct to DOE site missions. As a consequence, funding to support information

management improvement directly competes with funding for accelerated cleanup. This

competition is likely to continue until DOE recognizes information management as an

integral part of all missions, including national security, cleanup, and long-term stewardship. 

Such recognition could be achieved by creating information management “projects” within

the EM program budget and including information management requirements in all business

transactions. DOE has not initiated a specific effort to projectize information management. 

However, the Office of Long Term Stewardship has identified information management as a

high-priority science and technology need (see Chapter 4).

7.3 Developing an Institutional Framework for Managing Critical Information

Although DOE sites can take many steps now toward improving information management

practices, a more systematic approach may be needed to coordinate and focus efforts throughout

the DOE complex. The necessary framework would include an organization, or a network of

organizations, which would have the authority, mission, and funding to identify, preserve, and

provide access to information critical to long-term stewardship. There are three general options

for developing such a framework: dispersed, concentrated, and hybrid (see Exhibit 7-2).

Finding the appropriate balance between local (dispersed) and central strategies for the archival

and management of information will be challenging. The architecture of the World Wide Web

provides a useful model for discussion – the server(s) upon which databases reside represent the

data archive(s); the internet represents the means of accessing data; search engines represent the

means of finding data; and desktop computers represent the points of access. It clearly would be

advantageous for points of access to be widely dispersed; and search engines can be rapidly

updated. The more difficult choice is how to distribute critical information among one or more

servers. On the one hand, there appears to be a clear need for one or more central repositories as

a backup so that failure of one or more local servers does not result in information loss. A

central repository also would provide maximum configuration control over both data and

hardware/software requirements. On the other hand, long-term stewardship information needs

and preferences for archiving and disseminating this information will be somewhat site-specific,

so a degree of flexibility in the design of databases and search engines will likely be needed. 

This, in turn, would make configuration control more difficult, especially with respect to

hardware/software requirements. The ultimate solution is likely to be some type of hybrid
90Draft Standard Review Plan 16.0. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,

Decommissioning Program; 10 CFR Part 61.80. 91U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, www1.nature.nps.gov/facts/faml.htm. 

- 78 -

between dispersed and central control, but more dialogue is required before this issue can be

resolved.

Exhibit 7-2. Options for an Institutional Framework to Manage Critical Information

Option Advantages Disadvantages

Dispersed – multiple, site-specific

entities would be responsible for

managing information. No central

management entity would exist.

Most flexible alternative. The

number, structure, and

responsibilities of entities could be

matched with site-specific needs.

Coordination among numerous

entities would be difficult. Difficult

to ensure that existing and future

requirements, standards, and

protocols are being followed. 

Configuration control would be

difficult.

Concentrated – a single, national

entity would be responsible for

managing information. No sitespecific entities would exist.

Most efficient alternative. 

Relatively easy to maintain

standards and practices and to

ensure technologies are current. 

Configuration control would be

maximized.

Least flexible alternative. Uniform

approach to diverse, site-specific

information management needs

may not be appropriate.

Hybrid – some information

management responsibilities would

be concentrated in a single entity;

others would be dispersed among

multiple, site-specific entities.

Intermediate in terms of flexibility, efficiency, and the need to maintain

coordination. A single entity could maintain overall responsibility for

managing system (e.g., ensuring standards and protocols are followed;

updating technologies). Other entities could be responsible for specific

types of information (e.g., local governments could manage real estate

records).

Other federal agencies have established institutional frameworks for managing stewardship

information. NRC procedures for transfer of information (10 CFR Part 61.80) provide an

approach that could be used to improve information management at DOE sites. NRC requires

records to be maintained for the duration of the license. Upon termination of the license,

information is to be transferred to local, state, and federal agencies, unless the property is being

transferred to another licensee. The NRC draft Standard Review Plan notes that any transfer of

land for restricted use by a licensee should be accompanied by a transfer of information and

information management procedures for the property.90 The Bureau of Land Management has

established information management systems for Agency land records. The National Park

Service has established a Geologic Resources Department to manage data and information for

more than 2,400 sites in the Abandoned Mine Lands Program.91 The Geologic Resources

Department is in the process of collecting information for these sites, and the Department is

anticipated to remain in operation for the duration of remedial activities at the Abandoned Mine

Lands Program sites, which will be at least several decades.
- 79 -

Information Management Systems for Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites

The International Atomic Energy Agency has issued guidance for developing a system for maintaining

information pertaining to near surface radioactive waste disposal sites and geologic repositories. The guidance

calls for the identification of:

• The types of information of most value to future generations.

• The physical form, location, indexing, and retention schedules for this information.

• Measures to be taken to ensure the continued collection and maintenance of records.

• A schedule for transfer of the collected information into a Records Management System (RMS) during the

lifetime of the site.

• Methods to ensure that the information will remain accessible and understandable to future generations.

• Remedial actions to be taken in the event of records deterioration.

The guidance advocates establishing a hierarchal structure of long-term stewardship information for disposal

sites, including:

• A Primary Level Information Set, consisting of all of the records continuously developed during the lifetime

of the site.

• An Intermediate Level Information Set, consisting of the condensed important documentation that is

necessary to ensure an understanding of the disposal site system and the contents and location of the Primary

Level Information Set. This data set consists mainly of the records needed to meet the regulatory and

licensing requirements of the disposal site.

• A High Level Information Set, consisting of the information sufficient to provide a more fundamental

understanding of the disposal system. This data set should provide sufficient information for future

generations to make informed decisions concerning the consequences of intentional actions and unforeseen

occurrences pertaining to the disposal site.

The rationale for creating a hierarchal structure of information, rather than managing all of the information in a

single manner, is to ensure that information most critical to future generations is preserved. A condensed and

essential set of data may be more useful and understandable to future generations than a massive archive of both

essential and nonessential information that would be provided by a Primary Level Information Set. The guidance

advocates national and international archiving of the High Level Information Set to counteract the threats to a

single repository of information.

Source: Maintenance of Records for Radioactive Waste Disposal. International Atomic Energy Agency, Waste

Technology Section, Vienna, Austria. IAEA-TECDOC-1097, July 1999.
- 80 -
92The“life cycle” planning horizon for the EM program is currently 70 years. Within this time frame, all EM

cleanup projects are anticipated to be complete; however, this time frame is not intended to encompass the life cycle

of long-term stewardship, which may be hundreds or even thousands of years.

- 81 -

Chapter 8: Funding and Financial Management

Estimating future costs for long-term

stewardship remains uncertain and will be

addressed in the National Defense

Authorization Act (NDAA) Report to

Congress. The estimates in the NDAA

Report will be based on the known or

anticipated scope of long-term stewardship

activities at individual sites, which, in turn,

are based on known or anticipated cleanup

end states. The funding options for long-term

stewardship will depend partly on the

magnitude of estimated long-term

stewardship costs. However, regardless of

this estimate, some consideration of how

long-term stewardship will be funded is

warranted. Congress currently funds most

environmental cleanup and stewardship

activities through annual budget

appropriations for the EM program. As EM

completes more cleanup, many DOE sites (or

portions of sites) will close or transfer to

different entities. DOE and other site

stewards might have to secure and maintain

funding to conduct stewardship activities, but

the long-term and uncertain nature of those

activities complicates the ability to estimate

long-term funding requirements.

This chapter reviews DOE’s current approach to estimating costs for long-term stewardship. It

also examines current funding practices, as well as several alternative approaches.

8.1 Estimating Long-term Stewardship Costs

DOE’s current approach to estimating long-term stewardship costs follows the general approach

used for developing the DOE’s annual budget. DOE field office staff and their contractors

prepare annual cost estimates for EM program activities (including long-term stewardship). 

These cost estimates are developed for individual projects and include either a single, integrated

baseline or several interrelated baselines. The project baseline(s) identify objectives, information

needs, and performance measures; estimate annual and “life-cycle” costs;92 and establish overall

APPLICABLE SCOPING COMMENTS

(see Exhibit 2 in Appendix B)

• DOE should describe funding approaches available

for long-term assurance oversight without relying on

Congressional appropriations (1)

• DOE should seek alternative funding for long-term

stewardship in terms of trust funds or endowments,

fee-generating schemes, etc. because Congressional

appropriations are uncertain (4)

• DOE should explore the option of setting up funding

for long-term stewardship separately from operational

and programmatic funding for the contractors, and

supported by a source not subject to the annual

appropriations process (16)

• DOE should consider forming a joint long-term

stewardship assessment group involving state and

Tribal governments and other stakeholders to

independently conduct long-term stewardship under a

“trust” funding mechanism (17)

• DOE should not consider decisions requiring

institutional controls to be final until an acceptable

funding mechanism is implemented (STGWG)

APPLICABLE ISSUES

(see Exhibit 3 in Appendix B)

3. Funding Mechanisms
93Integrated Planning, Accountability, and Budgeting System Information System (IPABS-IS) Guidance. U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, December 1999.

- 82 -

schedules and major milestones.93 Sites use a variety of techniques to develop cost estimates for

the current 70-year planning time frame, including activity-based cost estimating, parametric

estimating techniques, and extrapolations based on current funding levels. EM’s baselines

provide accurate information on long-term stewardship costs for the 26 sites currently managed

by the Grand Junction Office (i.e., sites where the only EM mission is long-term stewardship). 

At other EM sites, the accuracy and transparency of long-term stewardship cost data vary.

EM’s baselines provide a tool for managing cleanup activities more efficiently. They are used to

coordinate schedules, identify regulatory compliance requirements, and identify science and

technology needs. Similar estimates could assist DOE’s long-term stewardship mission to secure

and manage its resources efficiently. However, the current approach for estimating life-cycle

costs requires more and better data for long-term stewardship than are currently available

(Exhibit 8-1).

Exhibit 8-1. Limitations of the Activity-Based Cost Approach

for Estimating Long-term Stewardship Costs

Given these data limitations, DOE has undertaken several efforts to improve its ability to

estimate long-term stewardship costs:

• DOE has developed a ‘Post-Closure’ Project Baseline Summary. Guidance for preparing

the EM life-cycle estimates directs sites to prepare an independent ‘post-closure’ Project

• DOE’s activity-based cost estimation approach is derived from large capital projects which generally have a

well-defined beginning and completion. In contrast, the beginning of many long-term stewardship projects is

difficult to determine, and the end of long-term stewardship is difficult to estimate due to the uncertainties in

planning that far into the future.

• Activity-based cost estimates become more accurate when there is a clear understanding of the type, number,

and timing of activities to be undertaken. The major determinant of the accuracy of cost estimates is where

the project is in terms of completion and what uncertainties remain. Cost estimates for some DOE sites (e.g.,

uranium mill tailings sites managed by the Grand Junction Office) are reasonably accurate because (1) the

sites have clearly defined long-term stewardship requirements; (2) cleanups have been completed and the sites

already are in the long-term stewardship phase; and (3) mill tailings disposal cells are relatively simple

systems compared to other sites.

• Knowledge of historical costs can assist DOE in projecting costs for future stewardship activities. However,

DOE’s historical cost knowledge is limited because (1) DOE has encountered a limited portion of the longterm stewardship scope that will ultimately be required; and (2) most long-term stewardship costs for work

completed to date have not yet been formally defined.

• Long-term stewardship may need to address situations that are not addressed very effectively with activitybased cost estimation techniques. These include non-traditional costs associated with damage to or lost use of

environmental resources and changes in long-term stewardship requirements.
94A PBS is a management tool used by the EM program for planning, budgeting, and evaluation. The PBS

summarizes information on scope, schedule, cost, risk, technical approach, end state, regulatory drivers, safety and

health, and performance metrics for each EM program project. 95Integrated Planning, Accountability, and Budgeting System Information System (IPABS-IS) Guidance. U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, December 1999. 96The ECES is the result of an inter-agency effort to develop a standardized method for estimating and tracking

environmental management costs. DOE’s Applied Cost Engineering (ACE) team has worked with representatives

from the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a comprehensive, hierarchical list of work activities

(tasks, items, or products) that may be required to accomplish cleanup projects. Its activity-based structure provides

a consistent and visible cost management framework, with sufficient detail and coverage of project types, to track

project costs and summarize into higher-level cost elements in a standardized fashion. Although additional efforts

would be required to adapt ECES to long-term stewardship activities, ECES could serve as a model for developing a

Work Breakdown Structure for long-term stewardship. 971999 Long-term Surveillance and Monitoring Report. U.S. Department of Energy Grand Junction Office,

April 2000.

- 83 -

Baseline Summary (PBS)94 by Fiscal Year 2003. At sites where this PBS is implemented, as

cleanup projects are completed, budget requests, cost estimates, and performance metrics for

the follow-on long-term stewardship activities will be shifted into this PBS.95 This

information base will continue to grow as DOE makes more cleanup decisions, completes

more cleanup activities, and develops more experience with long-term stewardship. As

confidence in the activity-based baseline estimates of long-term stewardship costs increases,

DOE may be able to explore efforts to include additional cost factors, including impacts to

natural resources, opportunity costs, and benefits of infrastructure re-use.

• DOE is working to improve cost estimates based on existing data. DOE recently began to

develop and implement a more standardized methodology for defining and estimating longterm stewardship costs based on the Environmental Cost Element Structure (ECES).96 DOE

and other federal agencies developed ECES to provide a consistent framework for estimating

and managing environmental management costs. The National Energy Technology

Laboratory Center for Acquisition and Business Excellence (CABE) is currently leading

efforts to develop separate modules for long-term stewardship. A web-based ECES is also

being developed as a data repository for actual environmental management costs, including

long-term stewardship. The CABE will maintain the ECES database and perform quality

control and analyses on the data as required. In 1999, the Rocky Flats Site developed an

activity-based methodology to estimate their annual long-term stewardship costs. DOE’s

Grand Junction Office develops activity-based annual cost estimates for the long-term

stewardship activities it currently conducts at DOE sites. These estimates are based on the

requirements and guidance issued under DOE’s Order 430.1A, Life Cycle Asset

Management.97

• DOE is using available cost estimation techniques. DOE sites are using cost estimation

techniques other than activity-based techniques to develop and improve long-term

stewardship cost estimates. One technique is the level of effort estimate that considers certain

long-term stewardship activities as a maintenance or operating mission rather than a series of

individual projects. Another technique is the parametric estimate that generates estimates

based on historical long-term stewardship costs combined with a set of reasonable
- 84 -

programmatic assumptions (e.g., factors to adjust for the relative size and complexity of sites

and activities).

Given the limitations of available data, considerable uncertainty will be associated with any longterm stewardship cost estimates. DOE could employ statistical uncertainty or scenario analysis

to identify this uncertainty more explicitly (i.e., estimate upper and lower bounds for long-term

stewardship cost estimates). To develop the upper and lower bounds, DOE could measure the

uncertainties related to long-term stewardship costs using statistical tools such as Monte Carlo

modeling in a process similar to that used by DOE for the FY 1999 Consolidated Financial

Statements (Exhibit 8-2). 

Exhibit 8-2. Use of Statistical Analysis to Establish Upper and Lower Bounds 

for Cleanup Costs

8.2 Potential Funding Mechanisms

The long-term and uncertain nature of long-term stewardship activities presents challenges not

only for estimating costs but also for identifying sustainable funding mechanisms. This is one of

the most frequently identified concerns from DOE advisory groups and the public. DOE’s EM

program currently requests and receives funds for long-term stewardship activities through the

annual federal budget appropriations process. In the short term, this process provides an

adequate mechanism for funding ongoing long-term stewardship activities. In the long term,

however, several factors could limit the effectiveness of the appropriations process for

maintaining a consistent stream of funding. These factors include:

• As site cleanups are completed, the overall budgets for DOE sites may decline dramatically,

especially for sites with no remaining mission other than long-term stewardship. In an annual

appropriations process, relatively small site budget requests, even if driven by regulatory

compliance requirements, may be assigned a lower priority than the higher level budget

requests in other areas of government.

• Sites with ongoing missions other than long-term stewardship might seek to re-program longterm stewardship funding to support primary site missions in the event of a budget shortfall.

During the formulation of the FY 1999 Consolidated Financial Statement, DOE initially scored the programmatic

risks to assign an uncertainty range for each applicable cleanup activity. The approach assumed three key factors

influenced cost uncertainty:

• Project definition, the level of site-specific information and engineering available;

• Innovation, the extent to which the project relies on “tried and true” vs. new technical approaches; and

• Complexity, the number of process steps required to execute a project.

Projects with high uncertainty in each of the three factors have the largest range of costs, whereas projects with

low uncertainty in each factor have the smallest range of costs. Given cost ranges for each project, DOE used the

Monte Carlo simulation to develop a cost uncertainty range for the total life-cycle costs.
- 85 -

• Long-term stewardship responsibilities for some DOE sites could be transferred to other

federal entities. Under this scenario, long-term stewardship organizations responsible for

different sites could wind up competing with one another for funding through the annual

federal appropriations process.

• The annual funding process might not readily address unanticipated expenditures related to

long-term stewardship. An expenditure “spike” resulting from, for example, a need to

mitigate a waste vault failure, might fall outside of the scope of a site’s annual appropriations

for long-term stewardship. The budget shortfall might not be addressed in a manner timely

enough to protect human health and the environment. A consistent, long-term funding

stream would allow DOE to set aside contingency funding to address unexpected

expenditures.

There are several alternative approaches to funding long-term stewardship, depending upon the

entity responsible for conducting the long-term stewardship. This report assumes that the

primary responsibility for funding long-term stewardship will continue to be assigned to the

federal government, although states, Tribes, local governments, and private parties may assume

some financial responsibility for particular sites or parcels of land that are transferred to their

control or ownership. Consequently, the funding alternatives discussed reflect the range of

options available to DOE or another federal agency. 

For this study, DOE identified four types of funding mechanisms that could be used to support

long-term stewardship activities at current and former DOE sites. These alternatives are

described briefly below and in Exhibit 8-3.

1. Annual Congressional Appropriations. DOE would prepare a proposed budget for long-term

stewardship that would be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). After

review and revisions carried out in negotiations among DOE, OMB, the Department of the

Treasury, and the Executive Office of the President, a budget for long-term stewardship could

be included in the President’s budget proposal to Congress. The Committees of the House of

Representatives with jurisdiction over DOE would review the budget proposal and could

adjust funding levels, increase or decrease funding for particular activities or sites, and add or

eliminate programs.

2. Long-term Stewardship Funds(s)/Escrow Account. Establishing a long-term stewardship

trust fund (or funds) or escrow account would address the uncertainty associated with the

annual appropriations process by producing a consistent, predictable funding source for longterm stewardship activities. DOE would need new legislative authority to establish such

accounts. Annual funding would be provided from trust fund/escrow account income or

escrow account principal. The trust funds or escrow accounts could be created at the

national, state or site level. However, a larger number of funds could require larger and more

expensive DOE oversight of fund management. The source of the initial funding for the trust

fund or escrow account could be derived through a number of mechanisms, including

Congressional appropriations and fees or asset sales (see below).
- 86 -

Exhibit 8-3. Potential Mechanisms for Funding Long-term Stewardship

Description Advantages Disadvantages

Annual Congressional Appropriations

• DOE prepares a proposed

budget and submits to the

Office of Management and

Budget (OMB); after review

and revisions by OMB and

Congress, funding appropriated

for long-term stewardship

• Currently in place

• Provides process with annual

feedback that helps to optimize

the amounts of funds provided.

• Burden of funding shared by

current and future beneficiaries

of long-term stewardship

activities

• Potentially able to respond

quickly to unexpected costs or

programmatic risks through

increases in the next annual

appropriation or re-allocation of

spending

• High annual transaction costs

(e.g., budget preparation)

• Short planning horizon

• Funding subject to significant

uncertainties

• May be decreased incentives to

fund long-term stewardship as

other site missions end

Long-term Stewardship Trust Fund(s)/Escrow Accounts/Investment Fund

• Funds provided in single-year

or multi-year contributions

(public or private)

• Once appropriated, the monies

are typically managed in some

type of trust fund

• Long-term stewardship

activities funded through an

earnings stream

• Already familiar (more than

150 of such funds are currently

in existence)

• Transaction costs would be

likely lower

• Annual budgets more

predictable

• Allows multi-year planning and

budgeting to take advantage of

efficiencies

• Ability to respond to

unexpected costs or

programmatic risks will depend

on terms of the trust and the

size of the trust’s earnings

stream

• Requires new statutory

authority for initial

appropriation and

Congressional legislation to

allow DOE or site steward to

manage fund and use earnings

• Difficult to estimate the

“correct” funding level

accurately (see Section 3.1.1);

need to ensure funding levels

could be adjusted in later years

• Even if the “correct” amount of

money is initially funded,

invested funds could be

managed too conservatively or

too aggressively

• Money in trust funds can be

held back (not spent) in order to

balance the federal budget
- 87 -

Exhibit 8-3 (continued)

Description Advantages Disadvantages

Fees from DOE Commercial Activity/Sales of Assets

• DOE or other site stewards use

fees generated from

commercial activities (e.g.,

waste treatment or disposal) to

fund long-term stewardship

• Fee-based approach is more

likely to occur under a publicprivate partnership approach.

• DOE or other site stewards

allowed to sell property or other

site assets (e.g., mineral

resources) to pay for long-term

stewardship

• Mechanisms to direct the sale of

federal assets to specific

spending exist and are

understood

• Sales would raise non-federal

funds (i.e., private capital) to

pay for long-term stewardship

• Deed restrictions could be used

to require the new owners to

conduct long-term activities

• Sales at one site could fund

activities at multiple sites

• Congressional action required

for a federal agency to conduct

commercial activities or to

retain asset sale proceeds

• Asset sale is a one-time event,

whereas long-term stewardship

activities occur over a long

time; sale proceeds could be

insufficient

• DOE would need to monitor the

site to ensure private parties are

in compliance with long-term

stewardship requirements

• May be large transaction costs

associated with asset sales and

site monitoring after sales

• Difficult to address unexpected

costs or programmatic risks

because of fixed levels of fees

or saleable assets

Public-private partnerships

• Private entities would be

allowed to lease or otherwise

use site assets at below-market

rates (perhaps with additional

subsidies) in return for funding

long-term stewardship activities

• Many of the same benefits as

asset sales, with more control

over assets that are leased vs.

sold

• Public-private partnerships

already exist, have been

successful, and would allow redevelopment of long-term

stewardship sites

• Deed or lease restrictions can

require private, and not federal,

funds to pay for long-term

stewardship activities

• Congressional action required

• DOE would need to monitor the

site to ensure private parties are

in compliance with long-term

stewardship requirements

• Allowing development too

close to residual hazards is still

possible but less likely with an

active partnership

• Responding to unexpected costs

or programmatic risks would be

difficult, because it would

require re-negotiation of publicprivate lease or contracts unless

all potential contingencies are

provided for in advance
98Resource Stewardship 2000, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 

http://www.usbr.gov/stewardship; Sowing the Seeds of Success, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1999.

- 88 -

3. Fees from DOE Commercial Activities/Sales of Assets. DOE would generate revenue by

selling property or other site assets (e.g., mineral resources) or by providing services such as

waste storage, treatment, and disposal. The receipts from asset sales or fees for services

could be collected into a fund that would support long-term stewardship activities on a sitespecific or Department-wide basis. However, sales receipts would normally go to the general

Treasury unless DOE received new legislative authority to retain the receipts.

4. Public-Private Partnerships. Private entities would be allowed to lease or otherwise use site

assets at below-market rates (perhaps with additional subsidies) in return for funding longterm stewardship activities. These types of partnerships would require identifying sites with

appropriate infrastructure, and then carefully establishing leasing rates that would be make

leasing attractive to a private sector entity. Not only would leasing rates take into account the

cost of conducting long-term stewardship activities but also the risk associated with

maintaining residually-contaminated areas in or around leased facilities. DOE would require

new legislative authority to establish public-private partnerships.

Because alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would

require specific Congressional action in

the form of legislation or specialized

appropriations, the viability of these

alternatives is dependent upon Congress

establishing long-term stewardship as a

priority. Congress has provided DOE and

other federal agencies with the authority

to use alternative funding mechanisms for

environmental activities:

• DOE currently contributes to two nonstewardship trust funds supporting future environmental cleanup activities: (1) the Nuclear

Waste Fund to support the construction, operation, decommissioning, and final closure of a

geologic repository for High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel; and (2) the Uranium

Enrichment D&D Fund to support the final cleanup of DOE uranium enrichment facilities. 

Both funds are supported by Congressional appropriations and by fees levied on utilities. 

The Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund also is the source of Title X Uranium/Thorium

Program reimbursement funds. The Title X sites are a subset of the Title II UMTRCA sites,

which will revert to DOE for long-term stewardship unless the host state assumes financial

responsibility.

• The environmental restoration challenge grants program with the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation (NFWF) is one of the many tools used by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to

promote natural resource stewardship on BOR lands.98 BOR uses challenge grants, where

recipients match funds to encourage partnerships among federal agencies, Tribal

governments, state and local governments and other organizations, to help leverage funds

Long-term Stewardship Fees

Owners of sites subject to UMTRCA Title II and NWPA

section 151(b) must pay a one-time fee to the U.S.

Treasury for long-term stewardship. For the UMTRCA

sites, the amount was established by NRC and is adjusted

annually for inflation – it now is approximately $600,000. 

DOE does not receive these payments directly; but instead

submits a budget request to Congress to pay for long-term

stewardship at these sites. These payments are potential

sources for contributing to a trust fund for long-term

stewardship, but there is no legal mechanism to do so.
99U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Abandoned Mine Lands Program, Frequently

Asked Questions, http://www.blm.gov/narsc/aml.

- 89 -

from many sources. In 1999 the NFWF and BOR awarded 36 grants. Recipients matched

funds with an average of 3.5 non-federal dollars for every federal dollar. Non-federal funds

come from a variety of sources, including private firms, nonprofit organizations, Tribes, civic

groups, and private land owners. All projects receiving these funds must be connected to the

resources. BOR administers the funds and must promote natural resource stewardship.

• BLM is working in partnership with the EPA, state agencies, Tribal governments, private

parties, and other interested groups to accelerate the rate of cleanup of watersheds affected by

abandoned hard rock mines, using the approach outlined in the Interdepartmental Abandoned

Mine Lands Watershed Initiative. Based on sources and availability of agency funding, BLM

must first focus cleanup efforts on watersheds damaged by abandoned mines rather than on

physical hazards associated with these sites. BLM works in collaboration with other

government and private landowners in those watersheds to leverage their funds to clean up all

sites affecting the watershed.99

8.3 Managing Available Funds

The procedures for managing long-term stewardship funds are likely to vary depending on the

sources of funding, financial instruments, and contracting strategies. If Congress continues to

provide funds through annual appropriations, it is likely there will be little change in current

procedures for funding DOE cleanup and associated long-term stewardship activities. Funds will

continue to be authorized and appropriated and expended using procurement and grant-issuing

procedures. However, different procedures will be required if DOE utilizes alternative funding

sources and instruments such as trust funds, commercial activity fees or public-private

partnerships. In addition, DOE and site stewards must consider appropriate contracting strategies

for conducting long-term stewardship activities.

Several types of financial instruments could be used to manage funds for long-term stewardship. 

One type of fund with substantial precedent is Federal Trust Funds (Exhibit 8-4). Federal Trust

Funds generally are accounting entities whose assets are not held separate from other federal

funds or reserved exclusively for the designated purpose. This means Congress can use the funds

to pay for other social needs or borrow against their assets. The majority of Federal Trust Funds

are seeded with public funding generated through taxes or other user fees. It is unclear whether

an analogous tax or user fee system could be established to support long-term stewardship

activities. Congress generally requires the tax or user fee to be related to the problem addressed

by the trust. The procedures for funding annual expenditures and reinvesting income are specific

to each Federal Trust Fund and are established in their enacting legislative language.
100Federal regulations at 40 CFR Parts 264.140(c) and 265.140(c) stipulate that states and the federal

government are exempt from the RCRA financial assurance requirements.

- 90 -

Exhibit 8-4. Examples of Federal Trust Funds

A second type of fund is a trust fund held by a regulated financial institution for the benefit of a

federal agency. In general, these trusts are established by private sector entities and, therefore,

may be applicable only to a subset of long-term stewardship sites depending upon the final site

long-term stewardship entity.100 This type of fund is well-precedented. Trusts of this kind are

used in a number of financial assurance programs, particularly for the post-closure care of

hazardous waste disposal facilities under RCRA or sites licensed by NRC. They typically are

created by a licensee or permittee at the beginning of the licensed activities. The amount of

money placed into the fund equals the estimated funds necessary to close the facility or to

provide long-term care for the closed facility. This estimate can be adjusted during the life of the

trust, thereby requiring further contributions to or releases from the fund. If the licensee or

permittee fails to pay the costs of closure or long-term care, the fund trustee is instructed to do so

using funds in the trust. Both the principal and income of the fund are available to support

expenditures for closure or post-closure long-term care. 

Trust funds or “perpetual care investment funds” (Exhibit 8-5) could be established on a

nationwide basis, or site-specific basis, provided legislative authority is established to do so. A

single national fund would require a huge amount of up-front capital. Although a single fund

would generally incur lower transaction costs than many separate funds, a national fund may be

more costly to administer because of its larger size and multi-site responsibilities. The allocation

of a national fund to multiple sites may be complicated by uncertainty in the types and cost of

required long-term stewardship activities and the highly contentious issue of equity (i.e., how

much is each site’s “share” of a national fund?). It would be difficult to establish a mechanism

for determining each site’s “share” of such a fund under any circumstances. Unexpected costs or

an unexpectedly high rate of spending at a single site might lead to additional concerns about

equitable distributions from a single fund. However, improving estimates over time would make

it less likely that one or more sites could obtain more than their “share” of a single fund. 

• Nuclear Waste Fund (42 U.S.C. § 10222)

• Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (42 USC § 401(a))

• Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund (42 U.S.C. § 401(b))

• Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (26 USC § 9501)

• Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (26 USC § 9504)

• Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (26 USC § 9505)

• Inland Waterways Trust Fund (26 USC § 9506)

• Airport and Airways Trust Fund (26 USC § 9502)

• Highway Trust Fund (26 USC § 9503)

• Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund (26 USC § 9510)

• Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund (26 USC § 9508)

• Hazardous Substance Superfund (26 USC § 9507); uses of fund (42 USC § 9611)

• Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (26 USC § 9509)
- 91 -

Improved estimates could include required contingency funding to cover potentially high costs

associated with cleanup remedy failure. 

Exhibit 8-5. State of Tennessee Perpetual Care Investment Fund

Regardless of the chosen financial instrument for funding stewardship, DOE and site stewards

also must choose effective contracting strategies for conducting long-term stewardship activities. 

This requires an understanding of both the nature of long-term stewardship activities and the

contracting lessons learned by DOE during the 1990s (See Exhibit 8-6). DOE’s efforts at

contract reform and privatization have demonstrated that the choice of more appropriate contract

instruments (e.g. fixed-price contracts, incentive fees) can reduce costs and improve productivity. 

In general, long-term stewardship activities fall into four types of work:

• Routine, repetitive services (e.g., groundwater monitoring, site security);

• Short-term capital construction projects (e.g., re-constructing a cap, re-installing a

groundwater flow barrier);

• Special studies or analyses (e.g., health surveys, groundwater modeling); and

• Long-term institutional knowledge maintenance tasks.

Routine, repetitive services and short-term capital projects are amenable to fixed-price

contracting to the extent the service or project is well-defined. In contrast, where the number and

type of long-term stewardship activities are uncertain, a fixed-price approach is not appropriate. 

The Tennessee Perpetual Care Trust Fund is an example of a “perpetual care pooled investment fund.” The Fund

was established pursuant to Tennessee State law (T.C.A. §9-4-603) and is administered by the Tennessee

Department of Conservation (TDEC). DOE signed a Consent Order with the State of Tennessee and agreed to

deposit $14 million (in $1 million annual installments) into the Fund. Other states may not have the legislative

authority to implement such a fund.

The requirements for managing the Fund are established in a Fund Implementation Plan included in the Consent

Order. The Plan requires that income from the Fund be used to conduct surveillance and maintenance of the Oak

Ridge Reservation Environmental Management Waste Management Facility or other DOE-Oak Ridge Operations

Office related activities. The Plan also requires that the principal of the Fund not be used in any circumstances.

The Fund will terminate upon written agreement that surveillance and maintenance for the facility is no longer

required. Upon termination, the balance of the fund will be returned to DOE. At this time, DOE and the State

disagree on the State’s ability to compel DOE contributions to the Fund if Congress does not appropriate

sufficient annual funding.

There are two unique features of this agreement:

• After payment of the final installment, interest from the Fund will be used to pay for surveillance and

maintenance for the Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental Management Waste Management Facility. This

fund is intended as the primary source of long-term stewardship funding, not a “backstop” to DOE funding.

• The State, not DOE, will conduct the surveillance and maintenance using the interest proceeds from the fund.
- 92 -

It is more difficult to apply performance-based incentives to activities for which there may be no

foreseeable completion date. As long-term stewardship activities become more defined, DOE

and site stewards can utilize lessons from recent contract reform to reduce the costs of long-term

stewardship.

Exhibit 8-6. Contracting Lessons Learned

During the Manhattan Project and throughout the Cold War, DOE and its predecessor agencies secured nuclear

weapons research, production, and testing services through broadly-written, cost-reimbursable contracts that

relieved contractors of most of the financial risk associated with their work. This approach was seen as necessary

given the risks involved in conducting “first-of-a-kind” research and production efforts. However, as the Cold

War ended, DOE’s missions began to broaden and necessitated new approaches to contracting services. DOE’s

EM program is an example of a mission focused on the completion of discrete cleanup projects rather than

maintenance of large-scale industrial manufacturing capability. The change in missions combined with an

increasingly competitive funding environment required DOE to undertake several contracting reform initiatives

during the 1990s. As a result, DOE’s current best practices for contracting include increased competition, more

fixed-price contracts, clearer work scope definitions, multiple contract awards, and performance-based incentives.
101There are currently 558 federally recognized Tribes in the United States. A federally recognized Tribe is a

Tribe and/or Tribal group that has a federally acknowledged legal and political relationship with the federal

government. This relationship is referred to as a government-to-government relationship. Several DOE sites have

both federally recognized and non-federally recognized tribes. Federally recognized Tribes must be incorporated

into DOE decision processes as a governmental entity in accordance with DOE Order 1230.2 and Council of

Environmental Quality Memorandum, Designation of non-Federal Agencies to be Cooperating Agencies in

Implementing the Procedural Requirements of NEPA, July 28, 1999.

- 93 -

Chapter 9: Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, Socioeconomic Impacts,

and Environmental Justice

Long-term stewardship is a complex, multifaceted process that cannot be successfully

performed in isolation. Protection of natural

resources, protection of cultural resources, and

a variety of other environmental, social,

economic, and engineering issues are integral

to long-term stewardship. The regulatory

regime within which DOE performs cleanup

and long-term stewardship provides a

framework for addressing a number of

interrelated environmental and economic

issues. This chapter discusses four major

environmental, social, and economic issues that

will affect long-term stewardship, and the

importance of continued partnerships between

DOE and affected parties in addressing these

issues. Exhibit 9-1 illustrates some of the

complex ways in which concerns about natural

resources, cultural resources, socioeconomic

impacts, and environmental justice affect longterm stewardship.

The extent to which long-term stewardship can remain effective will depend in large part on the

degree of understanding and appreciation that local communities have for potential

environmental risks and benefits and their belief that long-term stewardship activities are being

implemented fairly, with input from affected parties. Therefore, a strong public participation role

in long-term stewardship will help to:

• Identify and avoid adverse impacts to natural resources and cultural resources.

• Balance the socioeconomic needs of affected parties with DOE’s stewardship goals.

• Ensure that federal Indian Trust Responsibilities and federal treaty obligations consistent with

the unique legal and political status of Tribes are met.101

APPLICABLE SCOPING COMMENTS

(see Exhibit 2 in Appendix B)

• Where cleanup cannot fully restore natural

resources, stewardship should be used to address

natural resource damage for DOE sites by

improving comparable resources (3)

• The study should address impacts to Tribal

nations with respect to long-term stewardship (3

• Any acceptable long-term stewardship program

must ensure long-term protection of human

health, the environment, and cultural resources

(STGWG)

APPLICABLE ISSUES

(see Exhibit 3 in Appendix B)

11. Land Use/Natural Resources

16. Sociological/Political Issues

17. Environmental Justice

19. Public Involvement

27. Social/Citizen Control
- 94 -

Inputs Process Limiting Factors/DOE Considerations

DOE Site

DOE and host community

discuss desired end state:

aligning of goals

Cleanup plans are developed and

implemented based on the

desired end state.

Will cleanup plans remediate

site to desired end state?

Yes

Development and implementation

of long-term stewardship activities

based on remediation achieved by

the cleanup.

Extended time frame:

• Technology changes

• Priorities change

• Socio-economic conditions change

DOE and local community work together

to determine:

• Potential future site uses

• Alternative site uses

• Inter-generational equity and responsibility

• Degree and type of site contamination

• Site suitability for proposed end state

• Infrastructure surrounding the site

• Conflicts between local community stakeholders

• Conflicts between primary and secondary DOE LTS goals

• Degree of community’s economic dependence on the site

• Protection of future generations

• Health surveys

• Natural and cultural resources

• Degree and type of contamination

• Available resources

• Available technology

• Cleanup decisions made at other sites: site is part of

the DOE complex

• Ensuring equal environmental protection

Ensure long-term stewardship:

• Provides equal environmental protection

• Does not exacerbate existing environmental

burden on low-income and minority communities

• Minimizes impact on natural and cultural resources

Ensure inter-generational equity and

responsibility

Public

Involvement

Public

Involvement

Public

Involvement

NO

• Ensure that long-term stewardship activities do not create or exacerbate disproportionate

environmental burdens on low-income and minority populations.

Exhibit 9-1. Environmental and Economic Issues will Affect

the Process of Developing and Implementing Long-term Stewardship
102Survey of Ecological Resources at Selected U.S. Department of Energy Sites; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

September 1996. 103Some DOE sites have biological resource management plans in place, which establish site-wide policies

regarding management of wetlands, habitats of endangered and threatened species, systematic bio-monitoring,

wildlife disease, big game, trespass livestock, forest, and wildfire. These plans can be used to identify locations of

habitats of endangered and threatened species, environments of migratory birds, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

designated areas, and other environmentally sensitive natural resources. The Hanford site uses Natural Resources

Management Plans to protect its resources. These plans are incorporated into the Hanford Comprehensive Land Use

Plan, which is a NEPA Record of Decision applicable to DOE. If property is transferred to another federal agency,

the new agency will not be legally obligated to follow the conditions of the plan unless that Agency commits to the

plan in its own Record of Decision. Also, a non-federal entity would not be bound by the plans unless there are other

binding legal commitments (e.g., deed restrictions). 104Cross-Cut Guidance on Environmental Requirements for DOE Real Property Transfers, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance. DOE/EH-413/97/2, October 1997. 105The DOE Presence at the Hanford Site: Benefits to Natural Resources, Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory, November 1996.

- 95 -

9.1 Natural Resources

DOE sites are home to diverse and important natural resources,102 such as biological resources

(including fish and wildlife and threatened and endangered species) and wetlands that could be

affected by long-term stewardship in numerous ways. Congress has enacted legislation to protect

natural resources (Exhibit 9-2). DOE sites implement the requirements included in this

legislation by first identifying these resources on the site through various mechanisms such as a

biological resource management plan,103 surveys, and special studies.104 In its current site

planning process, DOE considers the potential impacts of proposed activities on these resources

and typically documents its analyses in environmental impact statements and environmental

assessments prepared pursuant to NEPA. In some cases, actions taken by DOE and other federal

agencies over the past 50 years have enhanced natural resources at DOE sites.105

Importance of Public Participation in Long-term Stewardship

Successful implementation of long-term stewardship at DOE sites will require a strong partnership with affected

parties. Members of the host community may serve as one of the most effective overseers of the stewardship

process, given their vested interest in ensuring that stewardship activities continue to be conducted and are

appropriate to remaining site risks. A local community that has the opportunity to help develop cleanup

strategies and long-term stewardship measures is more likely to support the continued implementation of those

measures. As time passes, new generations will need to continuously engage in long-term stewardship planning

and implementation to ensure that community involvement remains strong.

Effective public involvement in environmental decision-making involves two-way communication between the

public and the agency charged with making the decision. A meaningful public involvement effort needs activities

that disseminate information to, gather information from, and exchange information with all stakeholders.

Information distribution activities provide technical information about the issue under consideration (e.g.,

cleanup remedies, future site uses, desired end state, proposed land use options, and risk management) to all

stakeholders. To enable stakeholders to participate in stewardship decisions in a meaningful way, DOE must

provide accurate and timely information.

Sources: Site-Specific Advisory Board Stewardship Workshop Report; Oak Ridge, TN, October 1999; Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act Public Participation Manual; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996.
10643 CFR Part 11 Natural Resource Damage Assessments.

- 96 -

Exhibit 9-2. Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders Concerning Natural Resources

While planning and implementing long-term stewardship activities, DOE will need to avoid

additional impacts to natural resources that could result in liability for natural resource damage

assessments under CERCLA.106 Long-term stewardship activities may impact natural resources

in a positive or negative way. For example, wildlife (including threatened or endangered species)

and their habitat might be protected by the maintenance of a buffer zone around a site or by

restricting human access to site segments, thereby creating de facto wildlife preserves. On the

other hand, wildlife could be adversely affected by fences or other barriers that are erected as a

long-term stewardship measure but disrupt foraging or migration patterns.

Many DOE sites have been removed from the public sector for over 50 years, and at large sites

often less than 10 percent of the land area is developed. Due to this situation, large parcels of

DOE sites have provided unusual havens for many biota. Decisions to transfer or re-use DOE

property could also affect natural resources, depending on the allowable future use of the

property. For example, sensitive ecosystems and species may be protected further by creating

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 USC 668-668d et seq.

• Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1251 et seq.

• Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 USC 1451 et seq.

• Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1531 et seq.

• Executive Order 11990, Wetlands Protection

• Executive Order 11988, Floodplains Protection

• Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 16 USC 2901 et seq.

• Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 USC 1361 et seq.

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 USC 703 et seq.

• National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4231 et seq.

• Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 USC 300f et seq.

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 USC 1271 et seq.

Role of Tribal Governments in Long-term Stewardship

Tribal governments have a primary role in the enforcement of Tribal laws and regulations that affect long-term

stewardship (e.g., Tribal land use and hazardous waste regulations) and in the maintenance of institutional

controls such as zoning approvals. Tribal governments also have responsibilities as a trustee of natural resources

pursuant to Subpart G of the CERCLA National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300) and as a trustee of cultural

resources pursuant to several statutes and Executive Orders (see Exhibit 9-3). Tribal governments also have a

special and unique legal and political relationship with the federal government (e.g., treaty rights, the Federal

Indian Trust Responsibility) that provides Tribes with a unique role in the management and protection of Tribal

lands, assets, resources, and treaty rights. For example, Tribal governments potentially affected by DOE

decisions are consulted on a “government-to-government” basis concerning such decisions. Where parcels of

land are transferred to Tribal governments (e.g., Los Alamos National Laboratory), Tribal governments may

assume additional responsibilities such as ensuring that future uses of these lands are consistent with restrictions

necessary to protect human health and the environment. Tribal governments also may assume a more prominent

role in managing long-term stewardship information and in promoting education and training to ensure the

continuity of long-term stewardship across multiple generations.
- 97 -

special reserves within lands owned or controlled by DOE or by transferring those areas to

agencies better equipped to manage those resources. The presence of an endangered species

within a DOE site could encourage DOE to retain ownership of that land or to transfer the land to

another entity that has the mission and means to better preserve such species (e.g., the

Department of the Interior, a state wildlife management agency, or even a private land trust

organization). As previously discussed, this has been done at a number of DOE sites (see page

36).

Partnerships among DOE, other federal agencies, Tribes, and local governments generally have

been successful. However, in some cases Indian tribes and local governments have expressed

concern about the need for more effective government-to-government interaction prior to land

use decisions being made. The Department has recognized these concerns and is committed to

more effective coordination with Indian Tribes and local governments.

DOE will need to continually monitor the extent to which long-term stewardship activities affect

natural resources. Over time, new resources may be discovered and existing resources may

change or be transferred, particularly over the long time periods potentially required for longterm stewardship. For example, species not currently included on the threatened or endangered

species list may be added, or species currently on the list may migrate to the site, may recover

and be removed from the list, or may become extinct. DOE will need to consider potential

EM Policy on Integration of Natural Resources Concerns Into Response Actions

DOE has responsibilities under Executive Order 12580 and Subpart G of the CERCLA National Contingency

Plan (40 CFR Part 300) as both a natural resource trustee and lead agency for response actions at sites under the

Department’s jurisdiction, custody, and control. In fulfilling these responsibilities, the heads of EM program

field organizations and program and project managers are required to:

• Evaluate potential risks to natural resources or the services they provide when planning response action

investigations and studies.

• Establish appropriate mechanisms for early and ongoing consultation with natural resource trustees, including

establishing a natural resource trustee council or including trustee representatives on Site Specific Advisory

Boards.

• Coordinate and maintain an ongoing dialogue with the trustees on potential natural resource injuries

throughout the remedy selection process.

• Give strong consideration to the selection of response actions that minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to

natural resources.

• Seek to obtain, where possible, covenants not to sue for natural resource damages from trustees that may file

claims against DOE.

• Specifically identify any injuries to natural resources that may result from implementing the selected response

actions, including any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources, in CERCLA Records

of Decision or applicable licenses and permits.

• Use the Department’s Natural Resource Trustee Steering Committee as a resource for implementing this

policy.

Existing mechanisms for implementing this policy, such as the natural resource trustee councils established at

several sites, may not be the way that this policy is implemented during long-term stewardship.

Source: Policy on Integration of Natural Resources concerns into Response Actions, Memorandum from Alvin

Alm, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy, September 8, 1997.
107This definition was developed in 1989 by DOE’s Office of Environment, Safety, and Health in cooperation

with staff from the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the National

Congress of American Indians, and the Native American Rights Fund. 108DOE has issued a wide variety of guidance documents and information briefs over the past decade to raise

awareness of cultural resource management requirements (e.g., Management of Cultural Resources at Department of

Energy Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy Guidance Memorandum, February 23, 1990; Environmental

Guidelines for Development of Cultural Resource Management Plans, U.S. Department of Energy, Final Report,

DOE/EH-501, August 1995).

109Cross-Cut Guidance on Environmental Requirements for DOE Real Property Transfers, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance. DOE/EH-413/97/2, October 1997.

- 98 -

impacts to natural resources and consult with affected parties in any periodic assessment it makes

of ongoing long-term stewardship activities.

9.2 Cultural Resources

DOE sites are home to diverse and historically and culturally significant resources. Cultural

resources include artifacts and sites dating to the prehistoric, historic, and ethnohistoric periods

that are currently located on the ground or buried beneath it; standing structures that are over 50

years of age or are important because they represent a major historical theme or era; cultural and

natural places, select natural resources, and sacred objects that have importance for Native

Americans and other ethnic groups; and American folklife traditions and arts.107 Many of these

resources are protected by federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (Exhibit 9-3). DOE

has long recognized its responsibilities for complying with applicable requirements and for

managing cultural resources on DOE land and other lands that are impacted by DOE programs.108

DOE policy and guidance documents provide a framework for implementing these requirements. 

DOE sites can implement applicable federal cultural resources management requirements

through mechanisms such as a cultural resource management plans, Technical Site Information

documents (described in Chapter 6), NEPA documents, surveys, and studies.109

Exhibit 9-3. Statutes, Regulations, and Executive Orders Concerning Cultural Resources

In its current site planning process, DOE analyzes the potential impacts of proposed activities on

these cultural resources and typically documents the analyses in environmental impact statements

• American Antiquities Preservation Act, 16 USC 431 et seq.

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 USC 1996 et seq.

• Archeological Resources Protection Act, 16 USC 470aa

• Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological Collections, 36 CFR Part 79

• Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 36 CFR Part 65

• Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment

• Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites

• Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act, 16 USC 1461 et seq.

• National Historic Preservation Act, 16 USC 470 et seq.

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 USC 3001

• National Register of Historic Places, 36 CFR Part 60

• National Historic Landmarks Program, 36 CFR Part 65

• Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, 36 CFR Part 800
110Conference call with Los Alamos operations office, November 2, 1999. 111For example, the Hanford B Reactor is on the National Register of Historic Places as a nationally significant

property. Source: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service. 112DOE has this authority as long as the desired action can be justified in support of DOE’s mission. However,

there are a number of additional statutory and regulatory requirements that would apply. For example, if DOE

decides to significantly alter or demolish an historic property, timely steps must be taken to make appropriate records

and deposit the records in the Library of Congress or with another appropriate agency designated by the Secretary of

the Interior for future use and reference.

113DOE Order 1230.2, American Indian Tribal Government Policy, outlines the principles to be followed by

DOE in its interactions with federally recognized Tribes.

- 99 -

and environmental assessments prepared pursuant to NEPA and in other studies conducted

pursuant to other regulatory frameworks. In some instances, National Historic Preservation Act

requirements can be combined with the NEPA process. For example, the potential

environmental effects of property transfers at the Nevada Test Site and Los Alamos National

Laboratory were assessed in NEPA documentation. The respective State Historic Preservation

Officers and Tribal Preservation Officers generally review all federal actions subject to NEPA,

and information provided by DOE, to determine if any properties have historical significance.

DOE is required by law to consider the effects of its actions, such as implementation of longterm stewardship, on cultural resources. Continued involvement of the Department’s Federal

Preservation Officer, the State Historic Preservation Officers, Tribal Preservation Officers, local

organizations, and Tribal governments will be needed to assure that the value of historic

properties, and other cultural resources, is considered during the planning and decision-making

processes. To the extent feasible, DOE should implement long-term stewardship in a manner

that both continues to protect and provide appropriate access to cultural resources, including

historical properties. It may be necessary for DOE to evaluate many competing or conflicting

factors related to cultural resources management responsibilities and long-term stewardship

activities. For example, cultural and historic resources might be protected by limiting human

access to traditional sacred areas;110 treaty rights to hunt, gather plants, or graze livestock, and the

presence of culturally significant resources could also affect plans to implement some long-term

stewardship activities; and the transfer, lease, or sale of property out federal ownership or control

without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance would be viewed as an adverse effect on the property. 

In some cases, DOE may reconsider or modify proposals to re-use or transfer ownership of an

area in which a historic or cultural site is located.111 In other cases, DOE may decide to transfer

an historic or cultural site or to substantially alter or demolish an historic property.112 Ultimately,

DOE’s responsibility will be to balance the needs of the agency mission, the public interest in

protecting historic properties, the costs of preservation, and other relevant factors.

As a federal agency, DOE must ensure that federal Indian Trust Responsibilities and federal

treaty obligations consistent with the unique legal and political status of Tribes are met.113

Traditional cultural properties, archeological sites, or structures may become eligible for historic

preservation or inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Access to information

regarding the location of many cultural resources may be appropriately restricted in accordance

with legal requirements (e.g., the Archeological Resources Protection Act; the National Historic

Preservation Act) or specific agreements with Tribal nations. Thus, long-term stewardship plans
114Frisch, M., et al. 1998. Regional Economic Benefits of Environmental Management at the U.S. Department

of Energy’s Major Nuclear Weapons Sites. Journal of Environmental Management 54: 23-37; Greenberg, M., et al. 

1999. Questioning Conventional Wisdom: the Regional Impacts of Major U.S. Nuclear Weapons Sites, 1970-94. 

Socioeconomic Planning Sciences 33: 183-204.

115For example, in 1993, DOE made a decision to close the Pinellas plant in Florida. In 1995, DOE sold the

plant to the Pinellas County Industry Council, a non-profit organization created to promote industrial growth. The

Council is actively seeking tenants to occupy the facility, and 80 percent of the available space is currently leased. 

Source: www.osti.gov/privatization/report/case12.htm

- 100 -

may require protection of resources without specifically disclosing protected information. 

Requirements to protect cultural resources also may change over time. Treaty reserved rights

could be exercised, increasing the amount of land subject to Tribal use.

9.3 Socioeconomic Impacts

The transition from cleanup to long-term stewardship may socially and economically impact

affected parties by changing workforce levels and composition, local government resources,

access to community services (police, fire, schools, libraries), and housing availability. A

decision to close a site and maintain it as a wildlife preserve could adversely affect the number

and type of jobs available in the community (such a decision could also increase recreation or

tourism opportunities and associated economic benefits) or could affect treaty reserved rights. 

Similarly, a decision to transfer property for industrial or commercial re-use could maintain or

enhance the socioeconomic status quo, or cause job growth and increased pressures on social

services and housing. The extent to which DOE decisions affect socioeconomic conditions in a

community generally reflects the community’s economic dependence on the DOE site. The more

diverse a community’s economy, the more resilient and adaptable it will be to changing

circumstances resulting from DOE decisions.114

One of the more significant results of the transition from cleanup to long-term stewardship will

be changes in workforce levels and composition. As site missions change, many sites will

significantly decrease the demand for highly skilled employees, which could create significant

economic disruption in communities that are economically dependent on these jobs. DOE may

be able to offset this decrease by transitioning some employees into long-term stewardship 

activities. However, it is likely that the scale and scope of long-term stewardship activities will

be significantly smaller than cleanup activities. DOE also may be able to offset this disruption by

attracting private industry to sites, as Mound, Pinellas, and the former K-25 site in Oak Ridge

(now the East Tennessee Technology Center) have demonstrated.115
116Such an alignment does not imply DOE is responsible to provide long-term socioeconomic support to the host

community. The alignment could be achieved, for example, if long-term stewardship requirements are compatible

with the host community’s wish for Lands owned or controlled by DOE to remain as open space and serve as an

aesthetic resource within the community.

- 101 -

As stated earlier, successful implementation of long-term stewardship activities will require

significant participation and support from affected parties. If the affected parties receive

socioeconomic benefits from long-term stewardship activities, then there is likely to be a greater

degree of cooperation in implementing and enforcing institutional controls. Thus, to the extent

feasible, DOE should align long-term stewardship goals with the cultural and economic priorities

of Tribes, local governments, and other affected parties. This will enhance the durability and

effectiveness of long-term stewardship.116

9.4 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations, directs federal agencies to make environmental justice

part of their mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human

Requirements Mandating DOE Consideration of Socioeconomic Impacts

• DOE Order 4300.1C, Real Property Management, requires analysis of particular impacts before a real

property transfer can occur.

• DOE Order 4330.5, Surplus Facility Transfer, requires development of a human resources plan.

• Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993 requires measures designed to minimize

social and economic impacts associated with reconfiguration of the DOE weapons complex.

Re-Use of Pinellas Site

In 1995 the Pinellas Site was sold to the State-chartered Pinellas County Industry Council for industrial

redevelopment while site remediation was ongoing. Groundwater remediation is being conducted using a "pump

and treat" system, and DOE anticipates that operation of the system will continue until 2014, after which no

further remedial action will be required. On-site groundwater monitoring may be required after completion of

remediation activities. The sales contract between DOE and Pinellas County includes provisions for a "lifetime

easement" for DOE to conduct environmental remediation and monitoring and a similar easement for regulatory

agencies to conduct activities on the site. The sales contract sets terms and conditions for potential demolition of

buildings and set specifications for decontamination to levels appropriate for an industrial park. The sales

contract also requires that the State of Florida acknowledge and concur with the effectiveness of the remediation.

However, the question of identifying the responsible party for remediating contamination that may potentially be

discovered on site after the time of sale was not addressed in the sale documents. As of CY 2000, most of the

industrial space in the former Pinellas Plant is fully occupied with industrial operations, and there may be

situations where site contamination is discovered in the future that cannot be clearly attributed either to DOE's

past operations or to current industrial operations.

Sources: Quit-Claim Deed. Pinellas County, Florida, 1995. Pinellas County Office of Records Book 8939, pp.

1357-1358, March 17, 1995; Sale and Purchase Contract for the Pinellas Plant. U.S. Department of Energy and

Board of County Commissioners, Pinellas County, Florida, 1995. DE-RP04-95A187442, March 17, 1995.
117Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

Income Populations. February 11, 1994. 118 Greenberg, M. and Simon, D. Demographic Characteristics of Counties Adjacent to the Savannah River,

Hanford, and Other Major U.S. Department of Energy Sites; Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder

Participation Report No. 1, March 1996; Greenberg, M. and Simon, D. Demographic and Economic Characteristics

of Areas Surrounding Small DOE Site; Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation Report No.

17, December, 1998.

- 102 -

health or environmental effects of federal programs, policies, and activities on minority

populations and low-income populations in the United States.117

The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with

Stakeholder Participation has completed an

initial analysis of the demographic and

economic composition of communities

surrounding DOE’s 19 major sites and 75

smaller sites. Findings from these studies

show that many counties within a 10-mile

radius of DOE sites have a higher

percentage of minority populations and/or

low-income populations than the national

average. For example, the study concluded

that the 16-county region bordering the

Savannah River Site was 41 percent African-American in 1990. This is a higher percentage than

typically found in South Carolina, Georgia, or the United States. The study also found that there

was a higher percentage of residents living below the poverty line in this region than in the

country or surrounding states. In addition, the counties surrounding the Hanford Site have a

lower socioeconomic status than in either the host State of Washington or nearby Oregon.118

Environmental justice issues can take many forms, but often focus on the geography of risk or

burden stemming from environmental hazards, such as the impact of long-term stewardship

activities on the host communities and communities that could be exposed to residual site

hazards. In developing and implementing long-term stewardship strategies, DOE is directed by

Executive Order 12898 to consider the extent to which minority or low-income populations

might face disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental consequences. 

Disproportionately high and adverse consequences can be caused by a population's geographical

location, lifestyle, culture, economic condition, or other elements that increase their vulnerability

and susceptibility to environmental burdens. Examples include:

• Lands transferred for industrial development could be located near an existing minority or

low-income neighborhood.

• Minority or low-income workers might tend to live in off-site areas that are relatively close to

residual site hazards, where property values are lower.

• Minority or low-income populations might receive higher-than-average doses from the

consumption of relatively large amounts of freshwater fish from contaminated waters and

General Methodology for Evaluating Current and

Potential Environmental Justice Concerns

1. Identify the impact from the proposed action to

determine adverse environmental and health impacts.

2. Identify the impacted community.

3. Analyze the environmental and health impacts on the

community from proposed action.

4. Analyze the socio-economics and demographics of the

community.

5. Test for disproportionally high and adverse impact.
119Lazarus, R.J. and Tai, S. Integrating Environmental Justice into EPA Permitting Authority. Ecology Law

Quarterly 26, 1999; West, P.C. Invitation to Poison? Detroit Minorities and Toxic Fish Consumption from the

Detroit River. In: Bryant, B. and Mohai, P. (eds). Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press, 1992.

- 103 -

may also suffer disproportionate impacts because they lack access to adequate medical care

or are not provided useable information about risks.119

To effectively address stakeholders’ environmental justice concerns and ensure that no valid

environmental justice concerns remain unaddressed, DOE should find ways to promote

opportunities for members of minority and low-income populations to participate in the longterm stewardship planning process. Such opportunities may include providing translation

services during public meetings, publication of notices in different media (newspapers,

television, radio, or distribution of flyers to community centers or door-to-door), and in different

languages, and siting meetings at convenient locations (e.g., accessible by public transportation). 

With effective public involvement, DOE can ensure that cleanup decisions and long-term

stewardship activities consider any environmental justice concerns.
- 104 -
- 105 -

Chapter 10: Sustainability of Long-term Stewardship

Developing and implementing long-term

stewardship activities at the national scale and

over an extended period of time is an

unprecedented task with many uncertainties. 

No existing institution has yet acquired

experience in protecting public health and the

environment for the centuries that may be

involved in long-term stewardship. Although

existing statutory and regulatory requirements

provide some guidelines for long-term

stewardship activities, it is not clear that they

anticipate all of the long-term stewardship

measures that may be needed in the future,

nor ensure the development of effective

implementation strategies.

This chapter discusses several types of issues

that may affect the sustainability of long-term

stewardship over long periods of time.

It is important to be cognizant of the issues

associated with the sustainability of long-term stewardship over many decades and perhaps

centuries. DOE recognizes that efforts to define and evaluate these issues are speculative in

nature, and the discussion in this chapter is not intended to either direct or impede public debate

or to attempt to resolve these issues, particularly as they pertain to specific sites. Nonetheless,

the Department believes it is important to note the unique challenges facing long-term

stewardship as it moves into the future.

10.1 What is Required for Sustainability?

If long-term stewardship is not designed

and managed to be enduring, human

health and the environment may be

endangered through a variety of means. 

Society’s commitment to long-term

stewardship may gradually fade away or

be eliminated, causing necessary

monitoring and maintenance to lapse. 

Opportunities for improving the cleanup

end state and monitoring and mitigation

strategy may be missed at sites where

residual hazards become neglected. The

public as well as government decisionAPPLICABLE SCOPING COMMENTS

(see Exhibit 2 in Appendix B)

• Long-term stewardship plans should be flexible

and take into account future advances in

technology and science and future and changes in

cultural values and politics; these plans should

undergo revisions via a democratic process (4)

• DOE should periodically re-evaluate long-term

stewardship plans and implementation programs

at both the site and headquarters level to reflect

changing conditions (STGWG)

APPLICABLE ISSUES

(see Exhibit 3 in Appendix B)

 7. Science and Technology Development

13. Intergenerational Transfer

15. If the Department of Energy Goes Away

20. Roles and Responsibilities

22. Long-term vs. Short-term

Seventh Generation Planning

The Constitution of the Iroquois Nation was drafted as

early as 1390 and possibly between 1450 and 1500. It

notes the following planning horizon:

In every deliberation, we must consider the impact

of our decisions on the next seven generations ...

Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people

and have always in view not only the present but

also the coming generations.

Source: http://www.axess.com/mohawk/constitution.htm
- 106 -

makers may come to believe that site hazards have been eliminated. When residual hazards are

rediscovered, the ability to address the problems may have declined and the cost needed to do so

may increase.

Civilization has had only limited success in planning for and avoiding the consequences of

natural disasters like floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanoes. In some situations,

governments have acted to ensure that activities and developments in these areas take into

account the hazards, for example, through compliance with stringent building standards or

zoning restrictions. Often, however, lessons learned about the hazards are ignored, downplayed,

or lost as development occurs following a disaster. In many cases, known hazards are accepted

(e.g., people readily move back into homes in floodplains periodically subjected to floods). 

Approaches to ensure that long-term stewardship remains robust and adaptable must recognize

that the future decisions about end states and monitoring and mitigation strategies will reflect not

only new scientific and technical information and options, but also the changing values of future

generations. 

To design long-term stewardship to survive across generations and adapt to profound changes,

DOE must address two primary questions:

• How can implementation be structured to ensure that robust and adaptable long-term

stewardship endures?

• How can DOE ensure that implementation remains reliable over time?

There are no simple approaches for addressing these issues. However, four principles of

intergenerational equity proposed by the National Academy of Public Administration may

provide a foundation for ensuring that long-term stewardship endures (Exhibit 10-1).

Exhibit 10-1. The Four Principles of Intergenerational Equity

Trustee Principle – Every generation has obligations as trustee to protect the interests of future generations.

Sustainability Principle – No generation should deprive future generations of the opportunity for a quality of life

comparable to its own.

Chain of Obligation Principle – Each generation’s primary obligation is to provide for the needs of the living and

succeeding generations. Near-term concrete hazards have priority over long-term hypothetical hazards.

Precautionary Principle – Actions that pose a realistic threat of irreversible harm or catastrophic consequences

should not be pursued unless there is some compelling countervailing need to benefit either current or future

generations.

Sources: Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits Fairly Across Generations, National

Academy of Public Administration, June 1997; Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment

and Development (the Brundtland Commission) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987, page 43.
- 107 -

Characteristics of an Effective Stewardship Program

According to the National Research Council, “the overarching requirement for an effective stewardship program

is that it be reliable. A reliable program has a reasonable likelihood of achieving its objectives over the period it

must remain in effect.” The NRC identified several characteristics that enhance the reliability and effectiveness

of a stewardship program.:

• Layering and redundancy. Layering means using several measures to carry out roughly the same function;

redundancy means creating a situation in which several entities are responsible for or have a vested interest

in the effectiveness of the measures.

• Ease of implementation. A stewardship activity must be capable of being put into effect, and it also should

be reasonably easy to keep in effect.

• Monitoring commensurate with risks. Monitoring methods and schedules need to be commensurate with the

harm that could be caused in the case of release of contaminants or failure of a monitoring system.

• Oversight and enforcement commensurate with risks. One key stewardship activity is to have a “watchdog”

over other stewards and stewardship activities. For the watchdog to be effective, however, it must have

teeth.

• Appropriate incentive structures. Attention needs to be devoted to assuring that site stewardship managers

will be appropriately motivated for carrying out the needed tasks over time...”

• Adequate funding. Implementing, monitoring, and appropriately modifying stewardship activities will

require adequate and reliable financial resources throughout the activities’ required lifetimes.

• Durability and replaceability. A stewardship activity should endure either for as long as the site’s residual

contaminants remain hazardous, or until the activity can be refreshed or replaced by an equally reliable

substitute activity.

Source: Long-term Institutional Management of U.S. Department of Energy Legacy Waste Sites. National

Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, August 2000.

10.1.1 Ensuring Survival

Long-term stewardship will face a variety of long-term survival challenges. Future generations

may suspend long-term stewardship activities in order to deal with more pressing needs (e.g.,

economic depression, war).

The long-term survivability of long-term stewardship can be bolstered by local decision-making,

active involvement of a wide range of affected parties, and frequent communication across

parties at each site. The affected parties located near sites have the most at stake in the success

and survival of long-term stewardship. They also will have the best access to certain types of

information that should influence evolving site strategies, such as information on changes in land

use patterns, property values, and social values. For these and other reasons, long-term

stewardship should rely considerably on local decision-making.

A centralized institution such as DOE, however, may have the best access to other types of

relevant information, such as changes in science and technology, and a greater ability to capture

economies of scale in developing and disseminating such knowledge. Therefore, a centralized

long-term stewardship institution, focused on activities other than day-to-day work at each site,

also appears appropriate.
- 108 -

A certain degree of redundancy could also be beneficial. A wide range of parties have an interest

in long-term stewardship, including local residents and businesses; various state, local, Tribal,

and federal agencies; site owners and contractors; technology vendors; and advocacy groups. 

When these parties are directly involved in long-term stewardship, communicate frequently, and

understand the importance, goals, and responsibilities associated with long-term stewardship,

they can help counteract threats. For example, if a local government agency that has played a key

role in long-term stewardship is abolished, the remaining interested parties at the site that have

been conducting similar activities can ensure that the functions performed by that agency are

transferred or assumed by others.

Frequent communication among stakeholders at a site also can help ensure that new information

is widely distributed and its implications are understood and incorporated into future decisions. 

Likewise, fostering a community of interest groups across sites may help bring expertise and

resources to bear if the survival of long-term stewardship is threatened at one site. This benefit

may be particularly valuable at sites located in sparsely populated areas or in communities with

few resources.

10.1.2 Maintaining Focus

Site stewards need to avoid the perception that the problems at the sites have been solved. 

Stewardship organizations also should avoid merely ensuring regulatory compliance and

implementation of existing monitoring and mitigation strategies. Instead, the organizations

should continually seek better solutions and incorporate new developments in science,

technology, land use patterns, and societal values. The organizations also should continually

learn and reinvent themselves, adapting to changing circumstances, or they will risk becoming

irrelevant and targets for elimination. At least two approaches may be used to ensure that the

organizations responsible for long-term stewardship remain active and focused on their

responsibilities:

• Separate the responsibilities for ensuring regulatory compliance from responsibilities for

sponsoring improvements in science and technology. This division would help to ensure that

the former goal does not exclude the latter. This approach may increase the difficulty of

learning lessons from existing strategies, but establishing appropriate communication paths

could mitigate the problem.

• Separate the responsibilities for implementing long-term stewardship from responsibilities to

educate the public about the residual hazards at sites and the rationale for long-term

stewardship. Educational organizations that focus on transferring institutional knowledge

from generation to generation, targeted at communities surrounding DOE sites, could reduce

the possibility that remaining site hazards are forgotten.

10.2 The “Rolling Stewardship” Strategy

One of the challenges facing DOE, regulators, and stakeholders is to set in place a long-term

hazard management framework that ensures protectiveness of human health and the environment

for future generations. Through this hazard management framework, DOE must address
120Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits Fairly Across Generations, National

Academy of Public Administration, June 1997

- 109 -

possibilities such as: (1) the remedies established during cleanup will fail (e.g., engineered

controls stop working as designed, institutional controls are not enforced); (2) changing

circumstances at and around the site will require corresponding changes in long-term stewardship

strategies; and (3) future generations will want to change the use(s) of the lands and resources

involved in long-term stewardship. Pursuant to the “chain of obligation principle” (Exhibit 

10-1), the current generation should always provide the next generation with the skills, resources,

and opportunities to cope with any problems that may result from cleanup and long-term

stewardship decisions (a “rolling stewardship” strategy).120

The following two principles provide guidance for making decisions that incorporate the “rolling

stewardship” strategy:

• Focus on managing the problem rather than trying to solve the problem. Given the

limitations of present-day technologies and the uncertainties in what we know about residual

hazards, the durability of engineered and institutional controls, and what will happen in the

future, we cannot expect at the present time to find permanent solutions to all of the problems

associated with existing hazards at DOE sites. More permanent solutions may be developed

in the future as a result of technological advances.

• Focus on managing hazards for the near future (e.g., 30-50 years) rather than trying to

manage hazards for centuries or millennia. Given the uncertainties in site conditions and

new science and technology, long-term strategies implemented today will need to be reevaluated and likely changed at regular intervals in the future. Depending on the site

characteristics, it may be more productive to develop strategies using a “near-future” time

horizon (e.g., 30-50 years, or some other appropriate time frame) than to attempt to develop

strategies using a longer time horizon. In other cases (e.g., UMTRCA sites, WIPP),

regulations require consideration of longer time frames in designing the facility. However,

these regulations acknowledge and address uncertainties associated with these longer time

frames.

Education and Training

Education and training will be a critical part of long-term stewardship, particularly among affected parties and

will serve to continually reinforce concepts and keep them familiar and pertinent. Enhancing the awareness of (1)

why long-term stewardship is necessary, (2) how to conduct long-term stewardship activities, (3) how to evaluate

and interpret change, and (4) how to modify activities in response to changing circumstances will enhance the

ability of long-term stewardship to survive and adapt to the changing cultural and natural environment.

Education of the public – particularly affected parties – can enhance the effectiveness of institutional controls and

the protectiveness of long-term stewardship. Communities that are well educated and trained with respect to

long-term stewardship issues are less likely to challenge institutional controls, and more likely to prevent unaware

parties (e.g., children, visitors) from putting themselves at risk. Education and training efforts also would help to

promote trust between affected parties and site stewards.
- 110 -

Two key elements of the “rolling stewardship” strategy, re-evaluating yesterday’s decisions, and

incorporating new science and technology, are discussed below.

10.2.1 Re-evaluating Yesterday’s Decisions

As noted in Chapter 3, decisions made today (and over the next 40 years or more) will have

ramifications for the future generations who will be responsible for managing residual hazards. 

In effect, the present generation is making cost-benefit tradeoffs and committing future

generations to managing residual hazards, but future generations are not participating in the

decision-making process. The present generation also is committing land and other resources

that may be needed or desired for other purposes in the future. Future generations may need to

commit additional resources to remediate or otherwise reverse the consequences of decisions

made today should they wish to use the land containing the waste management unit for other

purposes.

Although the end state conditions resulting from the completion of EM projects will dictate the

specific long-term stewardship requirements, issues that may require changes in these

requirements include:

• After very long periods of time, residual levels of radionuclides and hazardous organic

chemicals will eventually decay/degrade over time to levels that are safe for unrestricted use.

• Demographic and political changes around sites may change exposure pathways or levels of

concern. Over the past 50 years, urban development around some sites has dramatically

increased, and ecological conditions at others have changed significantly (Exhibit 10-2). 

Long-term stewardship strategies that are effective today may no longer be effective in the

future. For example, the needs for buffer zones and other restricted use areas at sites are

likely to change over time as population patterns in the vicinity of the sites evolve.

• Climate change and other geological events may be an issue given that long-term stewardship

may be required for hundreds or thousands of years.

Exhibit 10-2. Changing Conditions at and near DOE Sites

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site – The population within a 50-mile radius of the site increased from

approximately 600,000 in 1950 to more than 2 million today, and this population is expected to increase by an

additional 30 percent in the next 20 years. [From Cleanup to Stewardship, October 1999]

Savannah River Site – When the federal government purchased the site in 1951, 80-90 percent of the land area

was farmland in degraded condition, and wildlife populations had been depleted by nearly 200 years of overhunting and exploitation. By 1968, more than 100 million trees had been planted on the site. Today, wildlife

populations have recovered, and seven percent of the site has been set aside for ecological research. [Savannah

River Site Future Use Plan, March 1998]
121Pursuant to DOE Order 435.1 Radioactive Waste Management.

- 111 -

• Future advances in science and technology could reduce long-term stewardship requirements

and/or make it possible to clean up existing residual contamination to less restrictive levels. 

Advances in robotics, for example, might enable future generations to excavate areas that

currently pose unacceptable risk to remediation workers.

• Advances in science and medicine may identify new hazards or mitigate existing hazards. A

century ago, the effects of ionizing radiation were largely unknown and unsuspected;

therefore, a long-term stewardship strategy developed then would not have considered

the hazards associated with such radiation. A century from now, medical science may

develop treatments that mitigate or reverse the effects of ionizing radiation.

• Cultural and economic values may change over time. Today, the presence of residual

contamination generally reduces property values. In the future, limited land availability or

concerns over urban sprawl could increase the relative value of property with low levels of

residual contamination.

• Changes in on-site plant and animal communities may affect the protectiveness of existing

long-term stewardship strategies (e.g., resident species may be listed as endangered or

threatened and thus may be subject to special protection).

10.2.2 Incorporating Science and Technology Changes into Long-term Stewardship

Strategies

Site stewards will need to continually leverage advances in science and technology to reduce

costs and risks associated with long-term stewardship activities and to identify more effective

ways of managing residual hazards (Exhibit 10-3). The benefits to be gained from advances in

science and technology are available only if they are recognized and incorporated into long-term

stewardship. The results of research applied to other areas may be applicable to long-term

stewardship, but without a mechanism to identify and prioritize technology needs, potential

improvements in the ability to meet long-term stewardship needs may be overlooked.

DOE has begun planning to identify new science and technology needs, initiate efforts to meet

these needs, and develop the capability to react to scientific advances (see Chapter 4). The

requirements for DOE to develop a performance assessment (PA) and composite analysis (CA)

for low-level waste disposal facilities (see Chapter 5)121 may provide a starting point for

developing a process and strategy for incorporating science and technology changes into longterm stewardship. Limited by imperfect knowledge and understanding of controlling

phenomena, as well as the inability to foresee future events, the PA and CA results may be very

uncertain. Therefore, the PA/CA process includes a sensitivity analysis that identifies the

parameters contributing most to the long-term risk posed by the facility. These results can be

used to focus research and development (R&D) efforts on those areas that would result in the

greatest reduction of risk and/or uncertainty. DOE also is required to continually update the PA

and CA as new information becomes available. This requirement provides a means for

incorporating R&D results into the PA and CA and for identifying new R&D needs.
- 112 -

Exhibit 10-3. The Dynamic Nature of Long-term Stewardship

Changing knowledge and technology will affect cleanup goals and strategies and longterm stewardship activities. Site stewards will need to re-evaluate existing end states and

monitoring/ mitigation strategies in response to changing knowledge and technology.

The PA/CA model approach could be applied to long-term stewardship. Site stewards will be

limited by imperfect knowledge and understanding of the long-term risks associated with a site

and the phenomena controlling these risks. PAs incorporating sensitivity/uncertainty analysis

could identify the uncertainties that have the greatest potential for prolonging the duration of the

risk or masking the true risk associated with a residual hazard. Given those characteristics, it

would be possible to establish priorities for R&D to address long-term stewardship needs. 

Adopting a requirement to continually update the basis for the site long-term stewardship strategy

as new information becomes available would provide a means for incorporating new R&D

results into long-term stewardship.
- 113 -

List of Acronyms

AEA: Atomic Energy Act

BLM: Bureau of Land Management

BOR: Bureau of Reclamation

BRAC: Base Realignment and Closure

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CSM: Conceptual Site Model

D&D: Decontamination and

Decommissioning

DOE: Department of Energy

ECES: Environmental Cost Element

Structure

EH: Environment, Safety and Health

EM: Environmental Management

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

FOSL: Finding of Suitability of Lease

FOST: Finding of Suitability of Transfer

GJO: Grand Junction Office

GSA: General Services Administration

INEEL: Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory

LCAM: Life Cycle Asset Management

NARA: National Archives and Records

Administration

NDAA: National Defense and Authorization

Act

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NFWF: National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation

NPL: National Priorities List

NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NWPA: Nuclear Waste Policy Act

OMB: Office of Management and Budget

PBS: Project Baseline Summary

PEIS: Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement

PSO: Principal Secretarial Office

RCRA: Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

UMTRCA: Uranium Mill Tailings

Radiation Control Act

WIPP: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
- 114 -
- 115 -

Glossary

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(AEA), 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.: The federal

statute that is the primary source of NRC

and DOE regulatory authority.

Baseline: A quantitative expression of

planned costs, schedule, and technical

requirements for a defined project. Baselines

should include criteria to serve as a standard

for measuring the status of resources and the

progress of a project.

Cleanup: The process of addressing

contaminated land, water, and facilities;

nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel; and 

waste produced by past nuclear weapons

production activities in accordance with

applicable requirements. Cleanup does not

imply that all hazards will be removed from

the site. This function encompasses a wide

range of activities, such as stabilizing

contaminated soil; treating groundwater;

decommissioning process buildings, nuclear

reactors, chemical separations plants, and

many other facilities; exhuming sludge and

buried drums of waste; and treating and

disposing of waste. The term “remediation”

is often used synonymously with cleanup.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A

document containing the regulations of

Federal departments and agencies.

Composite Analysis (CA): An analysis that

accounts for not only the radioactivity in the

disposal facility, but all other sources of

radioactivity at the site that could contribute

to an overall exposure should a failure

occur.

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, 

42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.: A federal law (also

known as Superfund), enacted in 1980 and

reauthorized in 1986, that provides the legal

authority for emergency response and

cleanup of hazardous substances released

into the environment and for the cleanup of

inactive waste sites.

Conceptual Site Model (CSM): A set of

qualitative assumptions used to describe a

system or subsystem for a given purpose.

CSMs are used during cleanup actions to

depict the relationship between existing

hazards, environmental transport

mechanisms, exposure pathways, and

ultimate human and ecological receptors. 

CSMs can also be used to distinguish

between known and unknown site

conditions (e.g., the existence of fractured

bedrock or preferential pathways for

groundwater flow).

Contingency Plan: Preparations for

unexpected or unwanted circumstances (e.g.,

engineered control failures, environmental

change, etc.).

Cultural Resources: Include artifacts and

sites dating to the prehistoric, historic, and

ethnohistoric periods that are currently

located on the ground or buried beneath it;

standing structures that are over 50 years of

age or are important because they represent a

major historical theme or era; cultural and

natural places, select natural resources, and

sacred objects that have importance for

Native Americans and other ethnic groups;

and American folklife traditions and arts. 

Many cultural resources are protected by

Federal laws and regulations, including the
- 116 -

American Antiquities Preservation Act, 16

USC 431 et seq.; the Archeological

Resources Protection Act, 16 USC 470a.;

Executive Order 11593, Protection and

Enhancement of the Cultural Environment;

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites;

the National Historic Preservation Act, 16

USC 470 et seq.; and the National Historic

Landmarks Program, 36 CFR Part 65.

Decommissioning: The process of

removing a facility from operation followed

by decontamination, entombment,

dismantlement, or conversion to another use. 

Disposition: Reuse, recycling, sale,

transfer, storage, treatment, or disposal.

DOE Orders: Internal requirements of the

DOE that establish policy and procedures,

including those for compliance with

applicable laws. DOE Orders are established

by DOE under the authority of the AEA, and

are not enforceable by external parties (e.g.,

regulators). 

End State: The physical state of a site after

agreed upon remediation activities have

been completed.

Engineered Control: Includes radioactive,

hazardous, and sanitary landfills; vaults; 

repositories; in-situ stabilization; caps on

residual contamination; or other man-made

controls designed to isolate or contain waste

or materials.

Environmental Contamination: The

release into the environment of radioactive,

hazardous, or toxic materials.

Environmental Justice, Executive Order

12898: The fair treatment of people of all

races, cultures, incomes, and educational

levels with respect to development,

implementation, and enforcement of

environmental laws, regulations, and

policies. Fair treatment implies that no

population of people should be subject to

disproportionate negative environmental

impacts of pollution or environmental

hazards. The methodology for addressing

environmental justice is laid out on p.101.

Environmental Management (EM): An

Office of DOE that was created in 1989 to

oversee the Department’s waste

management and environmental cleanup

efforts. Originally called the Office of

Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management, it was renamed in 1993.

Exposure Pathway: The course a chemical

or physical agent takes from the source to

the exposed organism; describes a unique

mechanism by which an individual or

population can become exposed to chemical

or physical agents at or originating from a

release site. Each exposure pathway includes

a source or a release from a source, an

exposure point, and an exposure route.

Federal Facilities Compliance Act of

1992, 42 U.S.C. 6961 et seq.: The Act

makes DOE subject to fines and penalties

for violations of RCRA and requires DOE to

adhere to state, interstate, and local

government hazardous and solid waste

management requirements. The Act also

defines “mixed” radioactive and hazardous

waste as being subject to both Atomic

Energy Act and RCRA requirements.
- 117 -

Half-life: The time it takes for one-half of

any given number of unstable atoms to

decay to another nuclear form. Each isotope

has its own characteristic half-life. They

range from millionths of a second to billions

of years. 

Hazards: Materials or conditions that have

the potential to cause adverse effects to

health, safety, or the environment.

Hazardous Waste: A category of waste

regulated under the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6901

et seq.). To be considered hazardous, a

waste must be solid waste under RCRA and

must exhibit at least one of four

characteristics described in 40 CFR Part

261.20 through 40 CFR Part 261.24 (i.e.,

ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or

toxicity) or be specifically listed by the

Environmental Protection Agency in 40

CFR Part 261.31 through 40 CFR Part

261.33. Source, special nuclear, or byproduct materials as defined by the Atomic

Energy Act are not hazardous waste because

they are not defined as solid waste under

RCRA.

High-Level Waste (HLW): Highly

radioactive waste material resulting from the

reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including

liquid waste produced directly in

reprocessing and any solid materials derived

from such liquid waste that contains fission

products in sufficient concentrations; and

other highly radioactive material that is

determined, consistent with existing law, to

require permanent isolation.

In-situ: In its natural position or place.

Institutional Controls: Non-engineering

measures - usually, but not always, legal

controls - intended to affect human activities

in such a way as to prevent or reduce

exposure to hazardous substances. Examples

of institutional controls are on page 43. 

Ionizing Radiation: Any radiation capable

of displacing electrons from an atom or

molecule, thereby producing ions.

Isotopes: Any of two or more variations of

an element in which the nuclei have the

same number of protons (i.e., the same

atomic number) but different number of

neutrons so that their atomic masses differ.

Isotopes of a single element possess almost

identical chemical properties, but often

different physical properties (e.g., carbon-12

and carbon-13 are stable, carbon-14 is

radioactive).

Intergenerational Equity: A concept that

emphasizes the importance of considering

future impacts and consequences when

making decisions; likewise, future

generations should not be unnecessarily or

disproportionately burdened by current-day

decisions. 

Land Use Control Assurance Plans

(LUCAP): A written installation-wide plan

that sets out the procedure to assure land use

controls remain effective over the long-term

for all areas at the particular installation

where they are required.

Life-Cycle Cost Estimate: All the

anticipated costs associated with the project

or program alternative through its life. This

includes costs from pre-operations through

operations and post-operations stewardship.
- 118 -

Long-term Stewardship: All activities

required to protect human health and the

environment from hazards remaining after

cleanup is complete. 

Low-level Waste: Radioactive waste that is

not spent fuel, high-level waste, transuranic

waste, byproduct material (as defined in

section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of

1954), or naturally occurring radioactive

material.

Metadata: Refers to the content, quality,

condition, and other characteristics of data,

particularly for electronic formats. Metadata

(and indexing) also provide important

contextual information, such as where and

when data were collected, quality assurance

protocols, and uncertainties in the data,

which is necessary for interpreting and using

information. 

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq: A Federal

law, enacted in 1970, that requires the

Federal government to consider the

environmental impacts of, and alternatives

to, major proposed actions in its decisionmaking processes.

Natural Attenuation: A process that

reduces the risk of hazards through three

possible mechanisms: 1) transform

contaminants to a less toxic form through

destructive processes (e.g., biodegradation,

radioactive decay); 2) reduce potential

exposure levels by lowering concentration

levels (e.g., dilution, dispersion); or 3)

reduce contaminant mobility and bioavailability by sorption to the soil or rock

matrix.

Natural Resources: Includes, but is not

limited to, biological resources (fish and

wildlife), threatened and endangered species,

groundwater, water rights, mineral rights,

timber, and wetlands. Natural resources are

protected by Congressional legislation,

including the Clean Water Act, 33 USC

1251 et seq.; Endangered Species Act, 16

USC 1531 et seq.; Executive Order 11990,

Wetlands Protection; the Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Act, 16 USC 2901 et seq.; the

National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC

4231; and the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42

USC 300f et seq.

Performance Assessment (PA): An

analysis that predicts the behavior of a

system or system component under a given

set of conditions.

Project Baseline Summary (PBS): A

management tool used for planning,

budgeting, and evaluation that summarizes

information on scope, schedule, cost, risk,

technical approach, end state, regulatory

drivers, safety and health, and performance

metrics for each EM program project.

Principal Secretarial Office: A program

reporting to the Secretary of Energy. 

Includes over 25 offices, including the

Office of Environmental Management;

Office of Defense Programs; Office of

Environment, Safety, and Health; and Office

of Science.

Radioactivity: The spontaneous

transformation of unstable atomic nuclei,

usually accompanied by the emission of

ionizing radiation (decay). 

Radionuclide or Radiosotope: An unstable

isotope that undergoes spontaneous

transformation, emitting radiation.

Real Property: Includes land and structures

on the land such as buildings, missionrelated infrastructure, waste disposal

facilities, and other waste management units. 

For the purpose of long-term stewardship,
- 119 -

real property also includes groundwater,

surface water, natural resources, and cultural

resources; however, rights to water and

mineral resources may be managed

differently than surface property rights. 

Receptor: Any human or other living thing

that could be exposed and/or threatened by

hazardous or toxic contaminants.

Record of Decision (ROD): A public

document that records the final decision(s)

concerning a proposed agency action. RODs

may be prepared in accordance with

requirements of the Council on

Environmental Quality NEPA regulations

(40 CFR Part 1505.2). or pursuant to

CERCLA and the National Contingency

Plan. A NEPA ROD identifies the

environmentally preferable alternative(s),

factors balanced by the agency in making the

decision, whether all practicable means to

avoid or minimize environmental harm have

been adopted, and, if not, why they were not. 

A CERCLA ROD is a public document that

records a final decision in a remedial action

process, such as selection of a remedial

action.

Remedy Monitoring Plan (RMP): A plan

that is used to identify the objectives,

schedules, information, procedures,

technologies, necessary personnel, etc., to

ensure the continued effectiveness of a

remedy. RMPs can include evaluation of the

compliance of the remedy with applicable

standards; continued performance of the

design, operation, and maintenance of the

remedy; and continued maintenance of the

land use upon which the remedy selection

was based. RMPs are established as part of

remedy decision documents.

Resource Management Plan: A

management strategy for the conservation of

biological (e.g., fish, wildlife, plants) or

cultural (e.g., historically significant

buildings, sites, objects) resources. Its

primary purpose is to provide DOE and its

contractors with a consistent approach to

protect resources and to monitor, assess, and

mitigate impacts from site development,

cleanup or restoration activities.

Risk: Risk requires the presence of a

hazard, but adds to the hazard the

probability that the potential harm of

undesirable consequences will be realized

upon exposure of a receptor to the hazard.

Risk is expressed (qualitatively or

quantitatively) in terms of the likelihood that

an adverse effect will occur as a result of the

existence of the hazard. The existence of a

hazard does not automatically imply the

existence of a risk since risk requires a

pathway (to a receptor) for an exposure to

occur.

Spent Nuclear Fuel: Fuel that has been

withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following

irradiation, the constituent elements of

which have not been chemically separated.

Spent nuclear fuel also includes

uranium/neptunium target materials, blanket

assemblies, pieces of fuel, and debris.

Transuranic Elements: All elements

beyond uranium on the periodic table,

including neptunium, plutonium, americium,

and curium.

Unrestricted Use: Land use status upon

which there is no restriction on the types of

activities that may occur, including

permanent residential use.
- 120 -

Uranium Mill Tailings: Tailings or waste

produced by the extraction or concentration

of uranium or thorium from ore for the

source material content. Mill tailings are

one type of byproduct material, and typically

contain about 85 percent of the radioactivity

present in unprocessed ore. 

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control

Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.: The

Act that directed the Department of Energy

to provide for stabilization and control of the

uranium mill tailings from inactive sites in a

safe and environmentally sound manner to

minimize radiation health hazards to the

public. It authorized the Department to

undertake remedial actions at 24 designated

inactive uranium processing sites and at an

estimated 5,048 vicinity properties.
- 121 -
- A-1 -

Appendix A History of Long-term Stewardship and Events Leading to the

Draft Study

History of Long-term Stewardship as an Issue for DOE

Prior to 1995, Congress and the public assumed that DOE generally was cleaning up its sites to

levels appropriate for unrestricted use. However, the 1995 and 1996 Baseline Environmental

Management Reports acknowledged that no feasible remediation strategy was available for

certain hazards at DOE sites. The Baseline Reports suggested that site cleanup strategies and

remedial endpoints for some sites were closer to “brownfields” than “greenfields.” The report

Paths to Closure also acknowledged that DOE has no remediation plans for certain types of

residual hazards (e.g., entombment vs. demolition of many facilities), and concluded that longterm stewardship would therefore be needed at DOE sites to manage residual hazards. The

report From Cleanup to Stewardship, published in October 1999, began to examine national

policy issues, challenges, and barriers associated with the transition from cleanup to long-term

stewardship and provided a summary of the nature and extent of DOE’s long-term stewardship

responsibilities. Advisory groups and non-DOE entities that have also identified long-term

stewardship issues and/or provided recommendations to DOE include individual state, Tribal,

and local governments, Site Specific Advisory Boards, the State and Tribal Governments

Working Group (STGWG), the National Association of Attorneys General, and the

Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB).

The PEIS Settlement Agreement

In 1998, the Natural Resources Defense Council and 38 other plaintiffs reached a Settlement

Agreement with DOE (Joint Stipulation: Natural Resources Defense Council et. al. v.

Richardson et. al. Civ. No. 97-963 (SS) December 14, 1998). The text of the Settlement

Agreement can be found at http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov.

The PEIS Settlement Agreement contains three elements:

1. DOE was required to establish a Central Internet Database of information on waste,

contaminated media (e.g., water, soil, sediment), facilities, and waste transfers. Data in the

Central Internet Database is limited to available site data, and the Settlement Agreement

required public participation in its development.

2. DOE was required to prepare a Study on long-term stewardship (Exhibit A-1). The

Settlement Agreement requires DOE to conduct a scoping process for the Draft Study in

accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and to conduct the

public review process for the Final Study in accordance with DOE NEPA regulations.

3. DOE was required to allocate $6.25 million in funds for citizen monitoring and technical

assessment for eligible organizations to procure technical expertise to review DOE

Environmental Management activities. Any nonprofit organization, non-governmental
- A-2 -

organization, or tribal organization group is eligible for funding. RESOLVE was selected as

the “Administering Organization” for the funding.

Exhibit A-1. Language from PEIS Settlement Agreement

Pertaining to Long-term Stewardship Study

Relationship Between the Background Document, the Draft Study, and the National

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Report to Congress

The Background Document From Cleanup to Stewardship provides background information for

the long-term stewardship study scoping process required by the PEIS Settlement Agreement.

The Background Document provides an overall summary of the nature and extent of current and

anticipated long-term stewardship needs at all DOE sites. The Background Document also

summarizes available information about the number and location of sites that will likely require

long-term stewardship by DOE, the type of long-term stewardship activities likely to be required,

and the DOE sites at which long-term stewardship activities are currently being conducted. DOE

used this information to identify sites where contaminated facilities, water, soil, and/or

engineered units would likely remain after cleanup is complete, and to estimate the scope of

long-term stewardship activities needed.

DOE prepared the Draft Study pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, to meet the

commitment made in the Background Document, and to respond to insights provided by the

public during a recently completed public scoping process. The Draft Study is not directly

related to the other two elements of the Settlement Agreement. The funding allocated by DOE

for citizen monitoring and technical assessment is not being used to support preparation of the

Draft Study. The Draft Study is being prepared independently of the Central Internet Database,

which contains site-specific information concerning DOE facilities. The Draft Study does not

analyze site-specific issues, but analyzes the national issues that DOE needs to address in

planning for and conducting long-term stewardship activities. The Draft Study promotes

exchange of long-term stewardship information between DOE and non-DOE agencies and

organizations, including Tribal nations, state and local governments, and private citizens. The

Draft Study will inform future DOE site and national programmatic decision processes affected

by long-term stewardship issues.

“DOE will prepare a study on its long-term stewardship activities. By "long-term stewardship," DOE refers to

the physical controls, institutions, information and other mechanisms needed to ensure protection of people and

the environment at sites where DOE has completed or plans to complete "cleanup" (e.g., landfill closures,

remedial actions, removal actions, and facility stabilization). This concept of long-term stewardship includes,

inter alia, land-use controls, monitoring, maintenance, and information management. While DOE’s study on

long-term stewardship will not be a NEPA document or its functional equivalent, DOE will, nevertheless, follow

the procedures set forth in the regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for public

scoping, 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7(a)(1)-(2), and the procedures set forth in DOE's NEPA regulations for public review,

of environmental impact statements (EIS’s), 10 CFR § 1021.313, except that (a) DOE will not transmit the study,

in draft form, to EPA, and DOE (not EPA) will publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, as set

forth in 10 C.F.R. § 1021.313(a); and (b) DOE will not include any Statement of Findings as set forth in 10

C.F.R. § 1021.313(c). In the study, DOE will discuss, as appropriate, alternative approaches to long-term

stewardship and the environmental consequences associated with those alternative approaches.”
- A-3 -

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Report to Congress is the third important

building block for developing DOE’s long-term stewardship program. While the Draft Study and

Background document address long-term stewardship issues on a broad, complex-wide scale, the

Report to Congress addresses DOE’s long-term stewardship requirements on a more sitespecific, detailed scale. The report is currently being prepared and is anticipated to be released in

October 2000. As the title implies, the report was requested by Congress during its consideration

of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998. The Report to Congress will:

• Identify sites or portions of sites where environmental restoration, waste disposal, and facility

stabilization will be completed by 2006 without unrestricted land use.

• Include sufficient detail to undertake the necessary management and stewardship

responsibilities, including cost, scope, and schedule.
- A-4 -
- B-1 -

Appendix B How DOE Identified the Study Scope

How DOE selected the overall scope and issues that are addressed in the study

DOE developed the overall scope and issues that are addressed in the Draft Study based on the

comments received through the scoping process, ongoing work on long-term stewardship being

conducted by DOE and non-DOE organizations, and requirements of the PEIS Settlement

Agreement. DOE headquarters and field organizations have been working with DOE

organizations, state and federal regulatory agencies, and national and local stakeholder

organizations to identify and address long-term stewardship issues. Stewardship issues have been

identified by DOE as part of the Department’s cleanup, economic re-development, and facility

disposition programs. DOE has identified and is addressing long-term stewardship issues and

statutory requirements through the development of complex-wide and site-specific guidance,

site-specific agreements, and site-specific and organization-specific programs. Examples of

these documents are discussed in this Appendix and referenced throughout the Draft Study. The

long-term stewardship issues that DOE has identified and is addressing through these documents

provides a basis for the overall scope and the specific issues addressed in the Draft Study.

The scoping comments received from DOE stakeholder organizations and the public raised a

number of broad long-term stewardship issues, including: complex-wide and site-specific

planning; long-term provision of engineered and institutional controls; residual hazard

management; alternative long-term funding mechanisms; life-cycle cost estimation; information

management; natural resources management; cultural resources management; and compliance

oversight. Scoping commenters also specifically requested that DOE consider recommendations

on long-term stewardship issues that have been developed by advisory groups and non-DOE

organizations. DOE has integrated the long-term stewardship issues identified in the scoping

comments with the issues that have been identified through DOE’s ongoing long-term

stewardship work in developing the overall scope and specific issues for the Draft Study. Each

chapter of the Draft Study focuses on a single broad issue of long-term stewardship. 

The scoping process and how scoping comments were incorporated into the study

DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a study on long-term stewardship in the

October 6, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 54279). The NOI described the goals of the study and

development process for the study. The NOI also described the study scoping process and

established the formal period during which DOE would accept scoping comments. Initially, the

formal scoping period for the study was October 6, 1999 to January 4, 2000. In response to

public comment, DOE extended the scoping period from January 4, 2000 to February 3, 2000. 

The notice of extension for the scoping period was published in the December 29, 1999 Federal

Register (64 FR 73027.) DOE developed a background document for the study: From Cleanup

to Stewardship, A Companion Report to `Paths to Closure' and Background Information to

Support the Scoping Process Required for the 1999 PEIS Settlement Study. Notification of the

publication of the Background Document was included in the Notice of Intent. 
- B-2 -

In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, DOE followed the President's Council

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) procedures for public scoping, 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(1)-(2), even

though the study is not a NEPA document or its functional equivalent. The public scoping

process provided interested parties with opportunities to learn about the goals of the study and

review background information related to the study. The public scoping process also provided

DOE with input about the topics and issues that should be included in the Draft Study, within the

general parameters established by the settlement agreement.

DOE conducted a public scoping workshop October 28, 1999 in Oak Ridge, TN to provide an

opportunity for information exchange and constructive discussions between DOE and interested

parties on the types of issues DOE should examine in the study. The public scoping workshop

was scheduled to coincide with the 1999 annual Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) National

Stewardship Workshop held October 25-27, 1999. A public notice for the public scoping

workshop was published in the October 7, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 54624.) At the public

workshop, DOE staff discussed the study process and objectives, described how public input will

be incorporated into the study, and addressed questions. The facilitated workshop provided the

means for interaction among the participants so as to promote a thorough, open discussion of

long-term stewardship issues. 

In addition to the public workshop, DOE pursued other opportunities to inform the public about

the study and scoping process throughout the scoping period. DOE distributed the Background

Document and other relevant information to existing forums and entities, including the

Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB,) Site-Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs,)

State and Tribal Governments Working Group (STGWG,) and other stakeholder organizations. 

DOE also conducted public presentations concerning the Draft Study at many locations

throughout U.S. (see Exhibit B-1). DOE also published the Background Document and other

information relevant to long-term stewardship on the Internet Web Site

(http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/lts). DOE solicited comments through its Internet Web Site and by

postal mail and fax to the DOE Study Project Manager.

DOE received scoping comments from 18 commenters (Exhibit B-2). DOE reviewed and

considered all scoping comments and other suggestions. These comments and suggestions were

integrated with ongoing DOE work to determine the overall scope and issues to be included in

the Draft Study. DOE made a concerted effort to address every substantive comment received. 

The Draft Study does not address site-specific issues except as examples in the context of

presenting national issues. Therefore, site-specific scoping comments have been incorporated

into the Draft Study scope only to the extent feasible in the context of national long-term

stewardship issues. Comments that were received by DOE after the closing date of the formal

scoping process (February 3, 2000) have been considered in the Draft Study to the extent

practicable considering schedule constraints. Exhibit B-2 provides a summary of each scoping

comment and where the comment is addressed in the Draft Study (or whether DOE considered

the comment to be out of scope for the Draft Study). The Draft Study also identifies the scoping

comments addressed in each chapter.

At the public workshop, DOE identified a number of issues regarding long-term stewardship that

had been raised during the past few years. The workshop participants identified a number of
- B-3 -

additional issues pertaining to long-term stewardship. The combined list of 27 issues was

included in subsequent briefings used at the public presentations noted above. Exhibit B-3 lists

these 27 issues and where they are addressed in the Draft Study (including those considered out

of scope).

Other factors that led to the identification of issues addressed in the study

DOE considered the ongoing work on long-term stewardship that is being conducted within DOE

organizations to determine the issues addressed in the Draft Study. The Grand Junction Office,

Oak Ridge Operations Office, Richland Operations Office, and other DOE organizations are

already conducting long-term stewardship activities at sites or portions of sites for which cleanup

has been completed, both in response to statutory requirements and to the conditions of

negotiated site-specific agreements. The FY 2000-2001 Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory Institutional Plan prepared by the Idaho Operations Office describes

INEEL’s role as the lead laboratory for DOE’s efforts to incorporate new science and technology

into long-term stewardship. Long-term stewardship activities are also addressed in site-specific

DOE documents, including the 1999 Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Report prepared

by the Grand Junction Office, and the WIPP Compliance Certification Application prepared by

the DOE National Transuranic Waste Program Office.

DOE Headquarters and Field Offices have also developed complex-wide and site-specific

guidance documents and reports that address long-term stewardship issues. These include the

Cross-Cut Guidance on Environmental Requirements for DOE Real Property Transfers, the

DOE RCRA/CERCLA Information Bulletin Planning and Implementing RCRA/CERCLA

Closure and Post-Closure Care when Wastes Remain Onsite, and Facility Disposition Lessons

Learned from the Mound Site Monograph, prepared by the DOE Office of Environmental Policy

and Assistance. DOE also reviewed other Environmental and Property Management Information

Bulletins, DOE Site Profiles, Guidance Documents, and information developed by the DOE

Stewardship Working Group to identify the specific issues to be included in the Draft Study. 

DOE considered recommendations related to long-term stewardship developed by advisory

groups, stakeholder organizations, and non-DOE entities, including the EMAB, STGWG, the

Oak Ridge Stewardship Working Group, the Environmental Law Institute, the Energy

Communities Alliance, and Resources for the Future. These include the recommendations in the

STGWG report Closure for the Seventh Generation, the EMAB Report and Recommendations

on Long-Term Stewardship, and the Oak Ridge Reservation Stakeholder Report on Stewardship. 

Scoping comments specifically requested that DOE consider the recommendations in these

stakeholder reports in developing the scope of the Draft Study.

DOE obtained site-specific and program-wide information from other federal agencies with longterm stewardship responsibilities. These include the Department of Defense Base Realignment

and Closure (BRAC) program, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

DOE also reviewed EPA guidance documents concerning long-term stewardship, including

guidance on the use of institutional controls as part of CERCLA remedies.
- B-4 -

Exhibit B-1. Presentations by the Office of Long Term Stewardship

Date Organization Location

November 16, 1999 National Association of Attorney’s General Oak Ridge, TN

November 17, 1999 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Citizens Advisory Board

Idaho Falls, ID

December 8, 1999 Environmental Management Advisory Board Washington, DC

December 14, 1999 Environmental Management Advisory Board Washington, DC

January 4, 2000 Nevada Test Site Citizens Advisory Board Las Vegas, NV

January 5, 2000 Community Advisory Board for Nevada Test Site – Site

Programs 

Las Vegas, NV

January 15, 2000 Fernald Citizens Advisory Board Harrison, OH

January 19, 2000 LLRW Decisionmakers’ Forum & Technical Symposium Amelia Island, FL

January 25, 2000 Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board Aiken, SC

February 2, 2000 Office of Science and Technology Focus Area Meeting Germantown, MD

February 28, 2000 Long-Term Stewardship Workshop

Waste Management 2000 Symposium

Tucson, AZ

March 9, 2000 Energy Communities Alliance Washington, DC

April 7, 2000 Interstate Technology Regulatory Coordination Group Arlington, VA

April 18, 2000 Applied Research, Development & Deployment

Cleanup Technology Colloquium

Scottsdale, AZ

May 24, 2000 Environmental Quality Portfolio Analysis Televideo Conference
- B-5 -

Exhibit B-2. Scoping Comments

Commenter, Date Received, Summary of Scoping Comments, Where Addressed in Draft Study

1. State Attorney General Office, January 4, 2000

• Suggests that DOE evaluate the failure of institutional controls and then recommend methods to

prevent/minimize such failures in the future. (Chapter 5)

• Asks DOE how it intends to provide long-term protection for UMTRCA “vicinity properties” in cases where

owners did not allow property cleanup. (out of scope)

• Proposes that DOE dedicate part of each former DOE facility as a historic site or museum for long-term

information management. (Out of scope)

• Requests that DOE respond to the STGWG recommendations in “Closure for the Seventh Generation.”

(STGWG comments included in boxes entitled “Applicable Scoping Comments and Issues” in Chapters 2-10)

• Asks DOE to describe funding approaches available for long-term assurance of adequate oversight without

relying on Congressional appropriations. (Chapter 2, Chapter 8)

• Recommends that DOE evaluate the pros and cons of different federal agencies performing long-term

stewardship responsibilities, esp. at sites with significant natural resources/historic preservation values.

(Chapter 4)

• Suggests that DOE consider the issue of cost of stewardship activities when taking a remedial action that may 

have long-term stewardship implications and provide for redundant/overlapping oversight mechanisms to

ensure that such long-term stewardship/remedial action decisions are appropriately carried out. (Chapter 3)

2. Private citizen, January 4, 2000

• Suggests that each major site have its own detailed long-term stewardship plan that must be

approved/reviewed by EPA and the State. (Chapter 4)

• Recommends that the Study include discussion on the approaches to long-term stewardship and land use

control used by other federal agencies and other nations. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)

• Study should assess the relative roles of active vs. passive controls with guidance on determining the length of

time for active controls. (Chapter 5)

• Study should discuss approaches for preserving information about a site and its past activities and

contamination history. (Chapter 2, Chapter 7)

3. Private citizen, January 4, 2000

Provides alternative definitions of long-term stewardship. (Chapter 1)

• Asks DOE to assess several natural resources damage and cleanup issues/decisions. (Chapter 9)

• Recommends that the Study be conducted by those not previously involved with DOE, DOD, and National

Labs because of possible bias, and asks that stakeholders and Tribes be involved fully in the Study. (out of

scope)

• Wants DOE to focus more on protecting the future and actual cleanup of sites rather than assessing the need

for cleanup. (Chapter 2)

• Asks that stewardship involve leaving a site in a better natural condition than when DOE started using the site.

(out of scope)
Commenter, Date Received, Summary of Scoping Comments, Where Addressed in Draft Study

- B-6 -

4. Private citizen, January 4, 2000

• Wants DOE to create a single headquarters office with cross-cutting authority to oversee long-term

stewardship activities and develop rules and approve individual site plans. (Chapter 4)

• Recommends that long-term stewardship decisions be transparent by involving the public and that public

involvement be a key element in the planning and implementation of stewardship programs. (Chapter 2,

Chapter 9)

• Suggests that DOE use life-cycle accounting to assess the complete costs, present and future, associated with

cleanup decisions. (Chapter 8)

• Asks DOE to seek alternative funding for long-term stewardship in the form of trust funds or endowments,

fee-generating scheme etc. since Congressional appropriations are uncertain. (Chapter 8)

• Emphasizes that DOE needs to institute a reliable documentation update/revision system to ensure that crucial

data on each site is preserved. (Chapter 7)

• Acknowledges that DOE may not remain the steward and asks that provisions be made for another entity to

take over as steward. (Chapter 4, Chapter 10)

• Believes that DOE should evaluate the reliability of institutional controls; DOE should adopt

redundant/overlapping functions to ensure efficacy of control measures; and every long-term stewardship plan

should have an emergency response component to address failure of such controls. (Chapter 5)

• long-term stewardship plans should be flexible and take into account future advances in technology, science,

changes in cultural values and politics etc. and undergo revision via a democratic process. (Chapter 10)

• Proposes that DOE continue R&D activities to minimize residual contamination and reduce future long-term

stewardship costs. (Chapter 4)

5. Citizen group, January 4, 2000

No relevant suggestions for national study. Requested EM briefing at Spokane Indian Reservation and/or

Spokane. Requested copy of Background Document

6. State regulatory agency, December 15, 1999

• Wants DOE to explain why residual contamination will remain at some sites. (out of scope)

• Suggests that the Study examine alternative internal organizational/program strategies and financial

mechanisms that will be needed to maintain long-term stewardship programs. (Chapter 8, Chapter 10)

• Would like Study to examine DOE’s existing legislative authorities for maintaining long-term institutional

control over contaminated sites and the alternatives for sharing regulatory responsibilities with other federal

agencies. (Chapter 3, Chapter 4)

7. State regulatory agency, January 4, 2000

• Requests a more uniform definition of long-term surveillance and maintenance. (Chapter 5)

• Recommends that the Study address the need for consistent policy and guidance at the Secretary of Energy

level for long-term stewardship across all departmental programs. (Chapter 4)

• Asks that the Study discuss contingency/emergency plans being included in long-term stewardship plans.

(Chapter 5)

• The state expects to work with DOE on the NDAA Report and wants the Study to be consistent with the

NDAA Report to Congress. (Chapter 1)

• Emphasizes that the Study must identify milestones for activities leading to a final action or decision by DOE

on its plan for long-term stewardship. (Chapter 4)
Commenter, Date Received, Summary of Scoping Comments, Where Addressed in Draft Study

- B-7 -

8. DOE Advisory Group, January 4, 2000

• Addresses DOE’s responses (5-24-99) to earlier recommendations. (out of scope)

• Emphasizes that DOE retains liability in perpetuity for all contamination at its sites. (Chapter 6)

• Expresses concern over DOE’s reliance/dependency on the use of institutional controls for extended periods.

(Chapter 5)

• Asks DOE how it intends to assess comprehensively all elements in determining cleanup levels and future land

uses. (Chapter 3)

9. Citizen group, January 6, 2000

No scoping comments provided. General comments are provided urging DOE to completely decommission

facilities that are no longer needed. Supports projects like the AMWTF at INEEL.

10. State regulatory agency, January 10, 2000

• Wants DOE to establish consistent policy and guidance for stewardship across all DOE programs. (Chapter 4)

• Also wants DOE to ensure programmatic effectiveness of long-term institutional controls and mechanisms for

restricting future land use. (Chapter 5, Chapter 6)

11. Environmental group, January 12, 2000

No scoping comments provided. Requests DOE to extend the scoping period for 30 days, or until February 3,

2000.

12. Citizen Advisory Group, January 12, 2000

• Requests DOE to address the issues raised in the two-volume document, “The Oak Ridge Reservation

Stakeholder Report on Stewardship” and the comments submitted by [see number 7 above].

13. State regulatory agency, January 26, 2000

• States that the state is directly affected by decisions concerning the cleanup of the Hanford site. (out of scope)

• Is disappointed at the lack of public involvement in developing the study – only two public meetings, both of

which were held on the eastern half of U.S. (Chapter 1, Appendix B)

• Concerned that stewardship will substitute actual cleanup – does not agree that leaving contamination in place

under long-term stewardship is a primary cleanup strategy. Long-term stewardship should be instituted only

after the necessary cleanup action to remove maximum amount of contamination has been undertaken.

(Chapter 3)

• Skeptical of the viability of long-term institutional controls citing the historical evidence of transient nature of

institutions and commitments. (Chapter 5)

14. Environmental group, January 31, 2000

• Concerned that long-term stewardship will be used an excuse to avoid cleanup of sites. (Chapter 3, Chapter

10)

• Wants more emphasis on groundwater monitoring. (Chapter 5)

• Suggests conducting health studies alongside monitoring of waste and caps etc. (Chapter 4)

• Questions who will be overseeing, esp. in multi-program site cases – does not trust DP to conduct long-term

stewardship effectively. (Chapter 4, Chapter 6)
Commenter, Date Received, Summary of Scoping Comments, Where Addressed in Draft Study

- B-8 -

15. Private company, February 2, 2000

• Advises that DOE-EM's long-term stewardship obligations be fully addressed in conjunction with all new

DOE projects and missions. (Chapter 6)

• States that DOE should consider the use of commercial facilities to manage its waste instead of using on-site

DOE facilities. Further adds that DOE should have addressed this option in its WMPEIS. (out of scope)

• Emphasizes that an institutional bias at DOE favors the development of new "on-site" DOE projects by

traditional DOE contractors since this allows DOE to maintain and/or increase its current scope of

work/mission. (out of scope)

• Believes that on-site waste treatment and disposal facilities increase DOE’s long-term stewardship obligations. 

Believes that DOE’s use of "off-site" commercial options for waste treatment and disposal as opposed to

DOE's development of new "on-site" treatment and disposal facilities can reduce DOE's long-term

stewardship obligations. (out of scope)

16. Citizen Advisory Board, February 27, 2000

• Acknowledges that comments were submitted late but would still like them to be included/addressed in the

study.

• Considers the scoping process to be limited since scoping meeting was held in Oak Ridge, TN and not

conducted on a regional basis to allow residents near sites to participate. (Chapter 1, Appendix B)

• Recommends that study carefully review, document, and provide recommendations on the transfer of liability

for monitoring, surveillance, and cleanup for properties that are sold into the private sector or to other

governmental entities. (Chapter 6)

• Also suggests that study explicitly show how liability will be assigned in the event of the failure of a

subsequent landholder to perform adequately (e.g., bankruptcy) so that public is guaranteed that a responsible

steward is always identifiable. (Chapter 6)

• Emphasizes that the study should identify process(es) whereby owners and neighbors are made aware of, in

perpetuity, the nature and extent of contamination and use restrictions and maintain corporate memory so that

any attrition of personnel and changes in filing and computer systems do not result in loss of corporate

memory. (Chapter 7)

• Suggests that study provide that stewardship activities of DOE contractors be mandated by law. (Chapter 4)

• Study should explore the option of setting up funding for stewardship separately from other operational and

programmatic funding for the contractors, and supported by a source not subject to the annual appropriations

process. (Chapter 8)

17. State regulatory agency, March 24, 2000

• Discusses an underground nuclear test area (UGTA) as an unique DOE former nuclear test site in the

continental U.S. because of the uncontrolled pathways allowing radionuclides from the underground tests to

enter the accessible marine environment. (out of scope)

• Comments focus on approaches that should prove helpful to DOE in carrying out its long-term stewardship

responsibilities at such a site. (out of scope)

• Scope of contamination at DOE’s UGTA sites should discuss the contaminated subsurface areas and marine

waters around the site as media of special concern. (out of scope)

• Questions how DOE and its affiliates in the nuclear testing program will meet their joint long-term

stewardship responsibility at the site and which federal entity will be assigned long-term stewardship

responsibility -- DOD, DOE, USFWS? (out of scope)

• States that past monitoring efforts for the region have been poor and deficient and suggests several types of

monitoring plans that need to be included in a long-term stewardship plan. States that this is critical for

building stakeholder trust and confidence from the native population in the region that depends on subsistence

survival from the natural environment, e.g., fishing. (Chapter 9)

• Suggests forming a joint long-term stewardship assessment group involving State, Tribal Governments, and

other stakeholders to independently conduct long-term monitoring under a “trust” funding mechanism.

(Chapter 8)
Commenter, Date Received, Summary of Scoping Comments, Where Addressed in Draft Study

- B-9 -

18. State regulatory agency, October 28, 1999

• DOE needs to provide adequate information to the public. (Chapter 7) 

• States that the boundaries of most sites include very contaminated areas and some clean areas; he states that

these should be accounted for separately. (Chapter 6)

• States that DOE needs to recognize what areas need to be cleaned up, what has been cleaned up and is now in

a long-term stewardship state. (Chapter 6)

• States that DOE needs to identify what is expected to be cleaned up to pristine standards for unrestricted use,

and what can never be cleaned up completely with available technologies; identifying sites in this way will

help DOE build a reliable program, identify research needs, and budget appropriately. (Chapter 3)

• Suggests that long-term stewardship will inevitably fail; it's only a matter of when and where it will fail.

Suggests that efforts can delay it or stretch it out, but not prevent failure. Recommends that DOE assume that

long-term stewardship will fail, and the report should consider this possibility. (Chapter 5)

• Suggests that currently, long-term stewardship relies on several things going perfectly: perpetual funding,

perpetual record-keeping, perfect monitoring and modeling, and effective containment. DOE should consider

the consequences if these don't remain perfect, specifically with regard to health impacts, ecological impacts,

economic disruption, and disproportionate effects of future exposures on certain segments of the population

(manual laborers, low-income communities, etc.). (Chapter 5)

• When starting new projects, DOE should be required to provide a technical plan and adequate funding to fully

clean up any waste or contamination that would result from the project. (Chapter 6)
Commenter, Date Received, Summary of Scoping Comments, Where Addressed in Draft Study

- B-10 -

State and Tribal Working Group (STGWG), Closure for the Seventh Generation, February 1999

Commenter number 1 requested that DOE respond to recommendations in the report “Closure for the Seventh

Generation.” The STGWG recommendations from that report are summarized here. 

Goals of Long-term Stewardship

• Any accepted long-term institutional control or stewardship program must ensure long-term protection of

human health, the environment and cultural resources. (Chapter 9)

Long-term Stewardship Planning.

• The specifics concerning the goals of institutional controls, the types of controls required, the manner in which

the controls will be implemented, and how the controls will be maintained should be evaluated for each

alternative being considered in a feasibility study. (Chapter 3)

• DOE should more fully explain and quantify the required long-term cost and funding commitment required for

long-term institutional controls; should develop plans to ensure the availability of adequate funding for these

controls; and should not consider decisions requiring these controls to be final until DOE can implement an

acceptable stewardship program that includes an acceptable funding mechanism. (Chapter 8)

• DOE should develop methods for accurately reflecting long-term institutional controls, monitoring, or

maintenance commitments in decision documents or should identify any uncertainties related to these

commitments. (Chapter 3)

• DOE should establish mechanisms for the collection, retrieval, and storage of information needed for longterm stewardship and site historic preservation programs. (Chapter 7)

• DOE should continue to work with regulators and stakeholders to develop an acceptable stewardship program. 

Each site should develop a stewardship plan that defines constraints, costs, and implementation mechanisms.

(Chapter 4)

• Stewardship planning and implementation should be an iterative process. DOE sites and headquarters should

re-evaluate and revise stewardship plans and implementation on a routine basis to reflect decisions made and

changing conditions. (Chapter 10)

Long-term Stewardship Implementation

• DOE should create a specific program office, not limited to the EM program, to manage stewardship

responsibilities. (Chapter 4)

• DOE should retain ownership and control of lands for which institutional controls are necessary unless

adequate legal mechanisms and institutions exist to enforce such controls against future landowners. 

(Chapter 6)

• Experience shows that implementing legislation facilitates maintaining long-term commitment of resources. 

DOE should continue to work with the states, tribes, and other stakeholders to explore the parameters of

statutory long-term stewardship. (Chapter 4)

• For new construction and new facilities, the closure and long-term commitments associated with the facility

should be addressed in the initial approval decision. Provisions should be made for closure and post-closure

funding for the facility. (Chapter 6).

Public Education and Awareness

• DOE needs to complete the final report, Moving from Cleanup to Stewardship, and distribute it for public

comment as soon as possible. (out of scope)
- B-11 -

Exhibit B-3. The 27 Issues Noted During the Scoping Process

Issue

Where

Addressed in

Draft Study

1. Relationship of “Cleanup” Decision Process to Long-term Stewardship Needs - how to

better integrate consideration of long-term stewardship needs and requirements in waste

management, facility decommissioning, and remedial action decision-making processes?

Chapter 3

2. Development of Site-specific Long-term Stewardship Plans - when are they needed; what

should they include; how to coordinate development among sites; how to revise and update

them?

Chapter 5

3. Funding Mechanisms - how much funding will be required; financial obligations of federal,

state, and local governments; what will and will not be paid for; when are payments made and

funds obligated; adequacy of the annual appropriation model for long-term stewardship?

Chapter 8

4. Regulatory Drivers, Negotiated Agreements, and Legislative Barrier - to what extent do

existing regulatory requirements address long-term stewardship needs and requirements (are

additional regulations needed?); how to better integrate consideration of long-term stewardship

issues in planning processes (e.g., NEPA documents)?

Chapter 4

5. Information Management - what information will be required; how will it be preserved and

made accessible; how should information be provided to federal, state, and local officials and to

the general public; what entities will be responsible for information management?

Chapter 7

6. Relationship of Facility Development Planning to Long-term Stewardship Needs - how to

better integrate consideration of long-term stewardship needs and implications in decisions to

site, build, and operate a new facility?

Chapter 6

7. Science and Technology Development - how to ensure periodic re-examination of existing

end states and long-term stewardship activities to apply new science and technology; how to

focus science and technology development on long-term stewardship needs?

Chapter 4

8. Institutional Controls - appropriate entities (organizations, individuals) to ensure that longterm stewardship occurs; role of state and local governments at federal sites; long-term viability

of existing institutional control mechanisms; variability among state and local laws and

authorities?

Chapter 5

9. Purpose of Long-term Stewardship - maintaining status quo or reassess site condition and

remedy?

Chapter 10

10. Property Transfer Policies and Procedures - what obligations and restrictions will convey

to future site owners and tenants; what are the mechanisms by which property transfers from

federal to non-federal (public or private) entities; role of the federal government after property

transfers; variability among state and local property laws; criteria for deciding which property

can be transferred?

Chapter 6

11. Land Use/Natural Resources - how to integrate on-site and off-site land use planning; how

to balance preservation of site assets (e.g., natural or cultural resources, infrastructure) with

long-term stewardship needs; how to meet treaty obligations with Tribal governments during

cleanup and long-term stewardship?

Chapter 9

12. Risk Management - relationship between short-term risk reduction achieved by remedial

actions vs. long-term risks during stewardship; potential conflicts between economic benefits of

site redevelopment and risks to onsite workers/visitors; how to evaluate and manage risks over

multiple generations?

Chapter 5
Issue

Where

Addressed in

Draft Study

- B-12 -

13. Intergenerational Transfer - what mechanisms and institutions are appropriate means to

ensure transfer of long-term stewardship information and responsibility to future generations?

Chapter 10

14. Stewardship Responsibilities at Non-EM Facilities with Continuing Operations and MultiPurpose Sites - what are the options for long-term stewardship responsibilities and funding at

non-EM facilities and multi-purpose sites? How do we do long-term stewardship for these

sites/facilities? How do you tie long-term stewardship into on-going production sites/facilities?

Chapter 4

15. If the Department of Energy Goes Away - what about long-term stewardship if DOE does

not exist? What happens? What happens when the Administration changes?

Chapter 10

16. Sociological/Political Issues - what is the federal obligation/compensation for impacts

related to long-term stewardship? Socioeconomic/local and regional impacts?

Chapter 9

17. Environmental Justice - the tribes need to be engaged and involved. Chapter 9

18. Realistic Cleanup Standards out of scope

19. Public Involvement - during and after long-term stewardship. Chapter 9

20. Roles and Responsibilities - who will be responsible in the long term. How can we

maintain sustainable responsibility?

Chapter 4,

Chapter 10

21. Enforcement - who is going to enforce long-term stewardship? Look at the NRC licensing

process.

Chapter 4,

Chapter 6

22. Long-term vs. Short-term - need to articulate what is short vs. long-term and how long is

long.

Chapter 10

23. Tie National Policy to Stewardship Legislative Mandate - need policy and legislative

mandate now. Need these regulatory drivers to get and maintain funding.

Chapter 4

24. Moral Responsibility to Follow the Waste - especially when it goes offsite. out of scope

25. Minimize Risks/Hazards and Plan for Failures - need to plan for contingency actions now. Chapter 5

26. Expedite - DOE needs to act now. Chapter 2,

Chapter 4

27. Social/Citizen Control - Communities/citizens need to have the information, etc. Chapter 7,

Chapter 9
- C-1 -

Appendix C Long-term Stewardship Activities, Guidance, Reports, and

Internet Web Sites

DOE is conducting ongoing long-term stewardship activities at DOE headquarters, field offices,

and sites. This Appendix highlights DOE’s recent long-term stewardship efforts, reports, and

activities; describes DOE’s long-term stewardship Internet Web Pages; and identifies the points

of contact at each DOE field office.

Program Management

• The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management established the Office of Long Term

Stewardship in 1999.

• In 1998, DOE Formed the Long-term Stewardship Working Group to identify and address

stewardship issues.

• DOE sponsored three workshops and a background report by Resources for the Future on

long-term stewardship and analysis of long-term funding mechanism options.

• DOE sponsored case studies and workshops conducted by the Environmental Law Institute

and the Energy Communities Alliance.

• DOE supported local government and SSAB evaluations of long-term stewardship issues at

DOE sites (e.g., Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Oak Ridge).

• DOE sponsored contractor reports on data management for long-term stewardship and riskbased requirements for long-term stewardship.

• DOE sponsored an analysis of long-term stewardship risks in the context of other risks by the

Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation.

• DOE incorporated a Project Baseline Summary (PBS) within the Integrated Planning,

Accountability, and Budgeting System – Information System (IPABS-IS) and developed

guidance for completing the PBS. Independent PBSs for long-term stewardship are required

of all EM sites by Fiscal Year 2003.

• DOE sponsored Environmental Law Institute case studies on institutional controls at the

DOE Grand Junction, Mound, and Hanford sites.

• DOE prepared two reports to Congress on land-use planning at DOE sites.

• DOE prepared studies that identified actions for improving how information is currently

controlled and maintained in order to provide for long-term stewardship. Relevant studies

include Roadmap to the Year 2000, and Responsible Openness: An Imperative for the

Department of Energy.
- C-2 -

• The Ohio Field Office has issued guiding principles for long-term stewardship: Guiding

Principles for Long-term Stewardship. U.S. Department of Energy, Ohio Field Office,

Miamisburg, OH, March 27, 2000.

• DOE issued Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. The Order requires DOE sites to

develop a performance assessment (PA) and composite analysis (CA) for each low-level

waste disposal facility.

• The National Energy Technology Laboratory is currently leading efforts to develop separate

cost estimating techniques for long-term stewardship and incorporate these modules into the 

Environmental Cost Element Structure, a cross-agency framework for estimating and

managing environmental management costs.

• In 1999, the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site developed an activity-based

methodology to estimate their annual stewardship costs based on the type, cost, and duration

of anticipated long-term stewardship activities.

Guidance

• Guidance for Implementation of Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance at DOE Sites in

Long-Term Stewardship. U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction Office, Grand

Junction, Colorado, December 30, 1999.

• Development of Remediation Goals under CERCLA, DOE, Office of Environmental Policy

and Assistance, CERCLA Information Brief. DOE/EH-413/9711, August 1997.

• RCRA Closure and Post-Closure Plans, DOE, Office of Environmental Guidance, RCRA

Information Brief. DOE/EH-231-009/1291, December 1991.

• Planning and Implementing RCRA/CERCLA Closure and Post-Closure Care When Wastes

Remain Onsite, U.S. DOE, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, RCRA/CERCLA

Information Brief. DOE/EH-413-9910, October 1999.

• Using Remedy Monitoring Plans to Ensure Remedy Effectiveness and Appropriate

Modifications, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance,

RCRA/CERCLA Information Brief. DOE/EH-413/9809, July 1998.

• Effects of Future Land Use Assumptions on Environmental Restoration Decision Making.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Analysis, RCRA/CERCLA

Information Brief. DOE/EH-413/9810, July 1998.

• Cross-Cut Guidance on Environmental Requirements for DOE Real Property Transfers, U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance. DOE/EH-413/97/2,

October 1997.
- C-3 -

• CERCLA Requirements Associated with Real Property Transfers. U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Analysis, CERCLA Information Brief. 

EH-413-9808, April 1998.

Reports

• From Cleanup to Stewardship. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Long Term

Stewardship, October 1999. DOE/EM-0466.

• 1999 Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program Report, U.S. Department of

Energy, Grand Junction Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, April 2000.

Long-term Stewardship Internet Web Sites

http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/

This website is a tool of the DOE Long-Term Stewardship Working Group for providing longterm stewardship information to the public. The website provides news and information

concerning DOE’s long-term stewardship activities, including the long-term stewardship study,

NDAA Report to Congress, other complex-wide and site-specific reports and workshops, and

site-specific perspectives on long-term stewardship.

http://www.em.doe.gov/settlement/index.html

This website provides news and information about the implementation of the December 12, 1998

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Settlement Agreement, and provides links to the

Central Internet Database, Citizen’s Monitoring and Technical Assistance Fund, and Long-term

Stewardship Study Internet Web Sites.

http://www.em.doe.gov/settlement/index2.html

This website provides access to the Central Internet Database (CID). The CID contains reports

for radioactive waste, contaminated media, spent nuclear fuel, non-radioactive waste, toxic

waste, facilities, and materials in inventory. CID also contains information on DOE's current and

projected waste and spent nuclear fuel inventories, management activities, and shipping and

receiving quantities. The CID has organized much of its information in a searchable manner,

according to state, site, DOE programs, or year.

http://www.em.doe.gov/settlement/funding.html

The Settlement Agreement requires that DOE establish a $6.25 million citizen monitoring and

technical assistance fund. This Internet Web Page provides information concerning the purpose 

and administration of the fund.
- C-4 -

http://doe-web-rpt.em.doe.gov/login.asp

This website provides access to site-specific “Paths to Closure” data.

http://www.lastinglegacy.net/legacy3.1/loadup.htm

This interactive website explains production, waste, and stewardship across the nuclear

weapons complex over time.

http://ndaa.longtermstewardship.net/ndaa/index.asp

This website provides access to site-specific long-term stewardship data for the NDAA Report to

Congress.
1

Tribal governments have a special and unique legal and political relationship with the US Government, defined

by history, treaties, statutes, court decisions, and the US Constitution. The United States has entered into more than

600 treaties and agreements with American Indian Tribes. These treaties and agreements create a variety of legal

responsibilities by the United States toward Tribes and provide the basis for a government-to-government

relationship. Although the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has the principal

responsibility for upholding obligations of the federal government to American Indians, this responsibility extends to

all federal agencies, including DOE. Source: DOE Order 1230.2 American Indian Tribal Government Policy, April

8, 1992, available at http://www.explorer.doe.gov:1776.

- D-1 -

Appendix D Statutory, Regulatory, and Executive Order Requirements and

Obligations for Long-Term Stewardship

DOE is required to conduct long-term stewardship activities in accordance with various statutes,

regulations, Executive Orders, and International and Tribal government treaties. These statutes,

regulations, Orders, and treaties vary considerably in site-specificity, detail, and purpose. Statutes

that broadly require DOE to conduct long-term stewardship activities include the Atomic Energy

Act (AEA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA, also known as Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA). The AEA requires DOE to conduct its activities in a manner that protects human

health and the environment. RCRA and CERCLA, as implemented through the Federal

Facilities Compliance Act, broadly require DOE to ensure that contaminated sites and associated

residual hazards are managed to protect human health and the environment over the long-term.

Specific activities that DOE must conduct in order to manage residual hazards at DOE sites are

established in RCRA and CERCLA regulations and through site-specific agreements with the

regulators.

Statutes that require DOE to conduct long-term stewardship activities at specific sites include the

WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA), the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and the Uranium Mill

Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). These statutes do not apply to the entire DOE

complex, only to specific sites and facilities. The WIPP LWA is applicable to the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is applicable to high-level waste disposal

facilities; and UMTRCA is applicable to former uranium and thorium milling sites. These Acts

and their associated regulations require DOE to implement specific engineered and institutional

controls for these sites in order to ensure effective long-term stewardship. 

Other requirements for long-term stewardship activities that apply to DOE are related to DOE’s

status as a federal agency and the Department’s role as an owner and manager of federal lands.

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies to conduct environmental

impact analyses of major federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human

environment, including assessment of impacts to natural and cultural resources.

• DOE Order 1230.2, American Indian Tribal Government Policy, requires that obligations

under the Federal Indian Trust Responsibility (Seminole Nation v. United States, 1942) and

treaty obligations should be met.1

 Treaty obligations require a long-term planning process,

which directly affects Tribal rights as they were defined when treaties were signed.
- D-2 -

• Federal real property management statutes establish requirements for owners and managers of

federal land, including the acquisition, transfer, management, and sale of public land.

• The Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archeological

Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and

other statutes require federal agencies to manage natural resources and cultural resources.

• Federal agencies including DOE are subject to Executive Orders issued by the President that

may include provisions for long-term stewardship activities for public lands, such as wetlands

or fisheries.

Exhibit D-1 lists major statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders that may affect long-term

stewardship activities.

*** NOTE ***

Exhibit D-1 is intended as an information resource for DOE managers and others to

identify long-term stewardship requirements for the Department. The Exhibit will contain

a summary of long-term stewardship requirements and is currently being reviewed by the

DOE Office of Environment, Safety, and Health and the DOE Office of General Counsel. 

The Exhibit will be included in the Final Long-term Stewardship Study.
1

Planning and Implementing RCRA/CERCLA Closure and Post Closure Care when Wastes Remain Onsite. 

U.S. Deparment of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, RCRA/CERCLA Information Bulletin,

DOE/EH-413-9910, October 1999.

- E-1 -

Appendix E Using a Conceptual Site Model to Communicate End State

Conceptual Site Models (CSMs) are used during cleanup actions to depict the relationship

between existing hazards, environmental transport mechanisms, exposure pathways, and ultimate

human and ecological receptors. CSMs can also be used to distinguish between known and

unknown site conditions (e.g., the existence of fractured bedrock or preferential pathways for

groundwater flow). While CSMs have traditionally been used for individual Operable Units or

Areas of Concern, it may be possible to develop a long-term stewardship CSM for broader areas

of a site (encompassing multiple Operable Units or Areas of Concern). A long-term stewardship

CSM, however, may be difficult to develop or impractical at large, complex sites. Functional

equivalents could include management plans specific to particular biological resources, or area

management plans.

Long-term stewardship CSMs could be used to illustrate the characteristics of a site and its

residual hazards, how hazards have been contained, how exposure pathways have been blocked,

and the uncertainties that may affect the performance of engineered and institutional controls. 

Where significant uncertainties exist, the CSM could identify the range of scenarios that are

probable or otherwise indicate the importance of the uncertainties. The resulting model could

serve as the basis for evaluating the likelihood and consequences of events such as barrier

failures, identifying how stewards can plan to mitigate these events, and predicting the ability of

future generations to ensure protectiveness based on improved technology and increased

understanding of science. The CSM also could serve as a tool for communicating with local

governments and stakeholders. An example of a long-term stewardship conceptual site model is

presented below.1
- E-2 -

Cap

Landfill containing chemical and radiological contaminants

discharge

Water WithdrawalRestrictions

Source DepletionwithVaporExtraction Volitalization

ResuspensionDirect ContactRunoff

Infiltration Ground

Water

Surface Water

Air

deposition

wind/dispersion

Land Use Restrictions inBuffer Zone 

Surface Water

Run on/ Run offControls

AccessRestrictionsWorkplanReviews

Limits TransportOut

PreventsWindContactPreventsShallowContactPreventsDirectContact

PreventsPercolation

O

S

Wo

F/

Exhibit 2. Example of Post-Remediation Conceptual Site Model

KEY

Potential exposure or transport pathwayBlocked exposure or transport pathwayEngineered or administrative barrier

Components of End State Description

W aste Characteristics One landfill remains on site. Contaminants include: Ra-226, Sr-90, NO, CHCL, DCE, Toluene, H3, C14, and DCA. The es

420,000 y3; a minumum of 1,000 curries was disposed in the landfill, based on historical records and knowledge of past pra

Unit Characteristics

Landfill is approximately 50 - 60 feet above the upper huydrostratigraphic unit (HSU) and approximately 80 ft. above the loaquifer. The contaminants detected in the upper HSU include: CHCl3, DCA, Cr, NO3, DCE, Toluene, H3, and C14. Contam

include: Cr, NO, CHCl3, DCE, Toluene, H3, C14, and DCA. 

Barriers in Place

One single-layer cap with a design life of 30 years covers the landfill. Vapor extraction system installed and operated un

threshold. Land use restriction covenants in place such that: (1) There can be no digging in the landfill area; and (2) Th

residential use of groundwater; pumping groundwater from wells is prohibited.

Other Key Assumptions toMaintain Protectiveness

Land use will remain industrial. Monitored natural attenuation will demonstrate that contaminants in the groundwater aRemaining contaminants in landfill are will not continue to leach to the groundwater. An alternate water supply is provided 

I InhF IngD De
- F-1 -

Appendix F Developing Uncertainty Matrices to Communicate Uncertain

Conditions

One key to successful communication and implementation of long-term stewardship will be to

identify and describe to future site stewards the residual hazards and any associated uncertainties

that remain once cleanup is complete. It is important for local residents to understand the need to

adhere to and maintain land use and access controls imposed on a site because of residual

contamination/hazards. Site stewards need to understand the potential for breaks in the barriers

to occur, understand the impact on human health and the environment should a failure in the

remedy occur, and have prepared a contingency plan for addressing the situation before major

problems occur. This information can be organized and characterized with a tool called an

“uncertainty management matrix”. An example is presented below.
- F-2 -

Exhibit F-1. Example Uncertainty Matrix for Long-term Stewardship 

Expected

Condition

Reasonable

Failure

Probability of

Occurrence

Time to

Respond

Impact Monitoring Plan 

Cap preventsinfiltration andsubsequentleachatedevelopment.

Burrowinganimals or plantroots will breachcap integrity

High.Operations ofother landfillsindicate thatover time this isa commonintrusionscenario.

Short foranimals. In thecase of plants, ittakes time toestablish a deeproot system.

Significant since capintegrity will be lost andleachate is likely to carrycontaminants to theground water.

Site inspectionevery 3 months toensure integrity ofcap. 

A rinsaniare patinsonPladetroo

Access andinstitutionalcontrols willpreventexcavationthrough cap.

Humans will digin the area of thelandfill,breachingintegrity of thecap.

Low. Additionalcontrols (i.e.,land userestrictions and afence) are inplace to preventhuman intrusion.

Short for directcontact ofhumans, longerfor loss of capeffectivenesswith respect toinfiltration.

Same as above. Inaddition, intrusion intothe soil would likelyresult in dermal contactwith radioactivecontaminants, posing anunacceptable risk tohuman health.

Site inspection willinclude surveillanceof cap condition,evaluation of fenceintegrity andmaintenance of landuse controls.

Rewihuof conOpsopsite 

Contaminants inthe groundwaterwill naturallyattenuate tolevels belowMCLs within a20-yeartimeframe.

Contaminants donot attenuatenaturally tolevels belowMCLs within therequiredtimeframe.

Low. Based onmodeling of siteconditions,contaminantcharacteristics,and the generaltrend establishedby existingmonitoring data,MCLs will beattained within a20-yeartimeframe.

Long.Monitoring datawill indicate ifthe current trendin contaminantreductionchanges. Basedon these data,the site managerwill haveadvance warningif end objectiveswill not be metin 20 years.

1. High. If groundwaterremediation goals cannotbe reached in the 20-yearperiod, unit regulatorswill require a differentremediation approach,which would be quitecostly.2. Low. No risk to humanhealth would result fromadditional contaminationof the groundwaterbecause land userestrictions and analternate drinking supplyprevent ingestion.

Wells within theplume will besampled every 3months to ensurethat naturalattenuation isreducing theconcentration ofcontaminants in thegroundwater.Sentinel wells willbe monitoredquarterly to detectany escapementnear receptor wells.

If dnegpreconextwi
1

Cross-Cut Guidance on Environmental Requirements for DOE Real Property Transfers. U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, October 1997. DOE/EH-413/97/2, October 1997.

- G-1 -

Appendix G DOE Property Transfer Requirements

This Appendix summarizes federal real property transfer requirements, including requirements

applicable to federal agencies in general, requirements specific to DOE, and CERCLA property

transfer requirements. As background, the appendix first describes the roles of the various

agencies potentially having jurisdiction over federal real property owned or controlled by DOE,

and also describes the legal authority and implementing regulations that control property

transfers. This is followed by a description of the various procedures that DOE may employ to

transfer real property. The appendix closes with a description of CERCLA requirements related

to disclosure of hazardous substances and the transfer of contaminated property. 

Agency Roles, Legal Authority, and Implementing Regulations for Property Transfers

To understand the property transfer requirements, it is important to know that other federal

agencies and their associated statutes and regulations often have a role in transfer of property

owned or controlled by DOE. Depending on the type of property that DOE is transferring, the

Department of Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the General Services

Administration (GSA) may play a role. DOE has authority under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA)

to engage directly in real property transfers without BLM or GSA involvement in some

circumstances. There are specific statutes that grant DOE such authority, including AEA and the

DOE Organization Act1 (see Exhibit G-1). The type of property transfers that may occur, the

required procedures, and the potential recipients of the property will depend, in part, on how

DOE first acquired ownership or control of the property: by direct purchase; by withdrawal from

the public domain and reservation by DOI for use by DOE; or through some other process such

as a grant or gift. In addition, Congress sometimes directs DOE by legislation to transfer certain

properties without the involvement of BLM or GSA.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) becomes involved in federal land transfers when

sites proposed for transfer have hazardous waste contamination. EPA’s authority in these

transactions derives from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA). Other federal agencies may become involved if the property transfer

would impact other resources (e.g., wetlands, endangered species, archaeological or historic

resources). 

BLM Oversight. BLM has jurisdiction over transfers involving property that was acquired by

DOE through withdrawal from the public domain. Withdrawn properties that were reserved by

DOI for DOE must be relinquished to the original holder upon completion of DOE missions for

which the land was withdrawn. Withdrawn land comprises 62 percent of DOE’s real property. 

GSA may become involved in these property transfers. For real property transfers of withdrawn

land, federal agencies are required to transfer the land in accordance with the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579, as amended). The regulations on the
- G-2 -

GSA NDAA 1993

Hall Amendment AEA 161g NDAA 199810 CFR 770 PL 105-119

DOE Annual

Survey

E.O. 12512

FPMR 101-47.2

DOE reports

Excess

Property

GSA

Accepts 

Excess

GSA Review

CERCLA 120,

NEPA, or

other

Requirements

DOE Excess

Compliance

DOE-STD

1120-98

CERCLA 120,

NEPA, or

other

Requirements

DOE 

General Counsel

review and

acceptance

DOE sells or 

leases property

DOI/BLM

DOI 

disposes

property

GSA

Concurrence

required

Property 

returned to

Public

Domain

DOI decides

to accept or reject

excess property Accepts Rejects

DOE Annual

Survey

Field Office lists

eligible

property

File “Land Transfer

Report” to

Identify Property

Conduct title search

and file 

“Title Report”

Identify remediation

and restoration

needed and file

“Restoration Report”

NEPA Review

and Conveyance

Transfer EIS

Report to Congress

and prepare 

transfer plan

DOE

EPA 

Concurrence

required

State

Concurrence

required

NPL Site?

Yes

No

Withdrawn Real Property Congressional Mandate for LANL

Acquired Real Property Acquired Real Property

DOE reviews

proposals

for property use

Accepts Rejects

Property

leased

or

sold

DOE

continues

to review

proposals

Complete

SF-118

Disposal

DOE Annual

Survey

DOE

leases

Property

Transfer of

property

Excess 

Withdrawn

Property

DOE Annual

Survey

E.O. 12512

FPMR 101-47.2

DOE

leases

Property

Exhibit G-1. Potential Disposition Paths for Excess DOE Real Property

Withdrawn Real Property. DOE transfers all withdrawn real property under the authority of Federal Land Policy and Management Act of

1976 (Public Law 94-579 as amended), with concurrence from the Department of the Interior (DOI). Executive Order 12512 (April 29, 1985)

and Federal Property Management Review (FPMR) 101-47.2 require real property utilization surveys at DOE facilities. DOI has the discretion

to decide whether the property is suitable for return to the public domain. If the property is contaminated or has any “improvements” upon it, it

may be rejected by DOI, and GSA concurrence is required. If DOI accepts the excess property it will return the land to the public domain, often

as land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Acquired Real Property – Atomic Energy Act. DOE uses its broad authority to sell or lease acquired real property under Section 161(g) of

AEA of 1954. Property disposals under the Act must comply with DOE internal orders including DOE-STD-1120-98, Integration of

Environment, Safety and Health into Facility Disposition Activities. It is DOE policy to file a memorandum to the Real Property Branch and to

have the Assistant General Counsel for General Law or appropriate Field Counsel review the transfer of real property.

Acquired Real Property – Hall Amendment. DOE uses its broad authority under Section 3154 of the National Defense Authorization Act of

1993 (“Hall Amendment”) to lease acquired land to promote the public interest, with special emphasis on economic development. DOE

conducts an annual survey to determine excess real property. The determination to lease is made by DOE Field Office Manager. If the property

is on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL), DOE must obtain concurrence from EPA. If the property is not on the NPL, DOE must obtain

concurrence from the appropriate state regulatory agency.

Acquired Real Property – GSA. DOE disposes of acquired real property through the GSA under the Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of 1949. A determination by DOE that the property is “excess” to facility needs is required before disposition may proceed. 

Standard Form 118, “Report of Excess Real Property” must be filed with the GSA.

Acquired Real Property – NDAA. DOE disposes of real property pursuant to section 3158 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998

and 10 CFR Part 770. Field Office managers will provide the Community Reuse Organization and other interested parties with a list of real

property that may be transferred under this Act. DOE reviews property use proposals to determine the economic development impact and if the

use would be in the best interest of the government.

Congressional Mandate. (example) Public Law 105-119, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related

Agencies Appropriation Act of 1998 requires DOE to convey or transfer certain Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) real property to the

County of Los Alamos or the Secretary of the Interior, in trust for San Ildefenso Pueblo. In October 1999, DOE issued the Conveyance and

Transfer Final Environmental Impact Statement, which was required under PL 105-119. In the associated March 2000 Record of Decision, DOE

decided to convey or transfer 10 tracts of land, in whole or in part, subject to DOE’s ability to complete needed environmental restoration or

remediation.
2

Cross-Cut Guidance on Environmental Requirements for DOE Real Property Transfers. U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, October 1997. DOE/EH-413/97/2, October 1997.

- G-3 -

restoration and revocation of withdrawn land that BLM developed to implement the Act are

included in 43 CFR Part 2370.

DOE may temporarily outgrant withdrawn lands to other parties by lease with the consent of

BLM. An exception is that withdrawn lands that are under the purview of the Atomic Energy

Act and that are temporarily not needed, may be outgranted by DOE without BLM consent

(Section 161(g) of the Atomic Energy Act). In a few situations, DOE has been permitted by

other federal agencies to build facilities on land withdrawn for use by those other federal

agencies. In such cases, DOE may outgrant DOE facilities as long as (1) the terms of the lease

are consistent with the original withdrawal and original use permitted by BLM and (2) the other

federal agency agrees.2

Some of the withdrawn lands reserved for and used by DOE now contain improvements, such as

buildings, structures, and other facilities, or have otherwise substantially changed in character. 

Such withdrawn lands are generally not suitable for return to the public domain for disposition

other than leasing and are generally turned over to GSA for disposition, when both BLM and

GSA concur.

GSA Oversight. GSA’s role in property transfers is that they generally have oversight over all

acquired land and withdrawn lands that are not suitable for return to the public domain. 

Acquired land, defined as real property that DOE (or its predecessors) originally purchased,

comprises 27 percent of DOE’s real property. Disposition of acquired land and withdrawn lands

that are not suitable for return to the public domain is governed by requirements of the Federal

Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. GSA issued Federal Property Management

Regulations (FPMR) under 41 CFR Parts 101-47 and 109 to implement the Act. AEA and other

statutes provide DOE with limited authority to engage directly in real property transfers without

GSA authorization.

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act authorizes federal agencies to declare real

property as “excess, underutilized or temporarily underutilized,” and dispose of such property. 

GSA has disposition oversight for property transfers under the Act. In addition, Executive Order

12512, “Federal Real Property Management,” and FPMR regulations under 41 CFR 101-47.202-

2, require federal agencies to conduct real property utilization surveys. The FPMR requires

agencies to conduct an annual survey and Executive Order 12512 requires agencies to conduct a

survey every five years. 

DOE Authorities. The primary statutory authorities for DOE property transfers are Section

161(g) of the Atomic Energy Act and Section 646(c) - (f) (known as the “Hall Amendment”) and

Section 649 of the Department of Energy Organization Act. Section 161(g) of the Atomic

Energy Act authorizes DOE to transfer real property that was originally acquired under the

authority of the Act, or will be used to further the purposes of the Act, without the involvement

of the GSA. Section 649 of the Department of Energy Organization Act applies to leasing of
- G-4 -

underutilized real property. Section 646(c) - (f) of the Act applies to leasing of specific facilities

that DOE will close or reconfigure. A number of other statutes have granted DOE limited

authority to transfer real property without BLM or GSA authorization or involvement, or have

directed DOE to transfer specific real property. These statutes have often been focused on

specific DOE sites. 

DOE property transfers are governed by the Life Cycle Asset Management (LCAM,) DOE Order

430.1A, including NEPA review, as appropriate. Requirements for Life-Cycle Asset

Management include for DOE real property include:

• Use of a DOE-certified real estate specialist to execute the transfer of real property, including

land and improvements (e.g., facilities).

• A DOE decision-making process by which land and facilities that are candidates for transfer

are either transferred to other DOE program offices, or are determined excess and therefore

available for disposal.

• Completion of a pre-transfer review commensurate with the nature of existing hazards for

transfer of any contaminated land or facilities, and participation in the review process of the

DOE Office of Environment, Safety, and Health.

• Specific procedures for disposition of contaminated facilities, including characterization of

hazards, surveillance and maintenance; assessment of decontamination and decommissioning

alternatives, identification of a specific facility end point; and preparation of a final report.

• Compliance in all disposition of physical assets with all applicable federal, state, and local

laws, regulations, negotiated agreements, and DOE integrated safety management Orders and

Policies.

DOE also recently issued an interim final rule (10 CFR Part 770) to address the transfer by lease

or sale of unneeded real property at DOE defense nuclear facilities for the purpose of economic

development (65 FR 10685, February 29, 2000). Under the interim final rule, which was

required by Section 3158 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, DOE

identifies real property at defense nuclear facilities that is unneeded, and provides this

information to a local economic development organization. Interested parties may then approach

DOE with a specific proposal concerning lease or sale of identified property for the purpose of

economic development.

Under the interim final rule, DOE may indemnify an entity receiving the real property against any

claim for injury that results from the release or threatened release of any contaminant as a result

of DOE (or predecessor agency) activities at the defense nuclear facility. This indemnification

provision is similar to provisions enacted for the Department of Defense Base Realignment and

Closure (BRAC) program. The indemnification provisions in Section 3158 are intended to

facilitate transfers for economic development, because the possibility of as-yet undiscovered

contamination poses uncertainties even at sites that have been remediated in accordance with
- G-5 -

applicable regulatory requirements. DOE may grant indemnification when it is deemed essential

for facilitating local redevelopment of DOE real property proposed for transfer.

Requirements and Procedures

Internal DOE Screening. One place to begin in illustrating the requirements and procedures for

property transfers is DOE’s procedures for the identification of excess property. The site

manager of a DOE field element (these include operations offices, field offices, energy

technology centers, and power marketing administrations) identifies real property that is no

longer needed by a specific DOE program as directed by Executive Order 12512, Federal Real

Property Management, through analysis required under DOE Orders 4320.1B, Site Development

Planning and DOE Order 430.1, Life-Cycle Asset Management. The site manager determines

whether the real property is temporarily or permanently not needed. The property is then

screened to see if it might meet the needs of other DOE programs. If there are no DOE programs

that can use the property, the site manager reports the property to the Office of Management and

Administration (MA) at DOE Headquarters or the appropriate DOE Field Office. The

appropriate Program Secretarial Officer or designee makes a determination that a real property is

excess by preparing the following for MA or the appropriate Field Office:

• Memorandum stating that the real property is excess.

• GSA Standard Form (SF) 118, “Report of Excess Real Property,” and any appropriate

supplementary forms.

• Recommendation for disposal of the property from DOE accountability.

The memorandum stating that the property is excess must receive all appropriate field element

concurrences. The Attachment to SF 118 must address 13 items required by the FPMR. Some of

these items include a description of the real property, any restriction on the property, floodplains,

wetlands, historic significance, and hazardous materials or waste. Concurrent with addressing

the 13 items in SF 118, the field element must identify that portion of the real property on which

no hazardous substances or petroleum products were stored for one year or more, released, or

disposed in order to meet requirements of the Community Environmental Response Facilitation

Act of 1992 (CERFA). The results of this identification must be submitted for concurrence by

EPA if the real property is a site on the National Priorities List or by a state official if the

property is not on the National Priorities List. If DOE is transferring the property under Section

161(g) of the Atomic Energy Act, DOE does not have to involve GSA in the transfer process or

prepare GSA Standard Form 118. However, in practice, DOE essentially collects and discloses

similar information for real property transferred under Section 161(g) in terms of identifying

hazardous materials and wastes, other environmental considerations, and property future use

restrictions. 

MA or the appropriate Field Office screens the property identified for transfer with respect to

potential needs of the other DOE field elements, program offices and operations offices for the

property. The property is declared excess to DOE if there is no permanent need for the property

within DOE. Upon approving the property disposal action, the Team Leader of the DOE Real
- G-6 -

Property Team within MA or the appropriate Field Office transmits the completed GSA Standard

Form 118 to the appropriate GSA regional office and a copy to the DOE field element. DOE

Headquarters’ approval for reporting of excess real property is generally required for large

properties or for field elements lacking a certified realty specialist. If DOE Headquarters

approval is not required, the DOE field element then reports the real property to GSA for

disposal, and submits the required GSA Standard Form 118 and any appropriate supplementary

forms. For property transferred by DOE under the Section 161(g) of the Atomic Energy Act,

DOE headquarters and field elements in practice follow the internal DOE processes and

procedures described above, but without the involvement of the GSA.

Steps for Withdrawn Land. If the excess real property is withdrawn land, DOE must notify the

appropriate BLM office that it intends to relinquish the property for return to the public domain,

and prepare a Notice of Intent to Relinquish. DOE must also send a copy of the Notice to the

appropriate GSA regional office. There is no specific standard format for the Notice of Intention

to Relinquish, however, the it must contain 13 specific items identified by regulation, including: 

 

• The extent to which the land is contaminated and the nature of the contamination.

• The extent to which the land has been decontaminated or the measures being taken to protect

the public from the contamination.

• The extent to which the land and resources have been disturbed and the measures being taken

to recondition the property.

In addition, DOE must describe easements or other rights and privileges burdened on the land

and a list of the terms and conditions, if any, DOE deems necessary to be incorporated in any

further disposition of the land in order to protect the public interest. BLM then reviews the

Notice of Intention to Relinquish to determine the suitability of returning the property to the

public domain. The five conditions for BLM acceptance of withdrawn land for return to the

public domain, as identified in 43 CFR 2374.2, are as follows:

1. The lands have been decontaminated and restored to suitable conditions. If decontamination

and restoration are uneconomical, DOE must install and maintain protective notices and

barriers.

2. DOE agrees to undertake treatment measures and measures deemed necessary by BLM to

prevent deterioration of the land and resources.

3. DOE has exhausted GSA procedures for disposition of improvements to the land and certifies

they are of no value.

4. DOE has resolved, through a final grant or denial, all commitments to third parties relative to

rights and privileges related to the land.

5. DOE has submitted to the appropriate BLM office a copy of the easements, leases, or other

encumbrances. 
- G-7 -

If the property meets all of the five conditions, BLM will notify DOE and GSA that it accepts

accountability and responsibility for the excess withdrawn land. BLM then manages the land. If

BLM determines that the excess withdrawn land has been so substantially changed in character

that it is not suitable for return to the public domain, BLM will notify GSA and request GSA to

concur in the determination. BLM tends to reject for return to public domain excess withdrawn

land upon which improvements have been built.

GSA Reviews. GSA reviews the submission from DOE to ensure that the documentation is

complete and that the real property has no encumbrances and has a marketable title. If GSA

rejects the property that DOE has reported as excess, it becomes a candidate for transfer to

DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM). GSA generally rejects real property if it is

contaminated. If GSA accepts the property, then DOE can relinquish the property to GSA for

disposal. Until the property is disposed, the DOE field element has environmental, safety, and

health responsibility for the property for five fiscal quarters from GSA’s acceptance of the report

of excess property, or until the excess property is disposed, whichever is earlier. 

CERCLA Requirements. CERCLA requires DOE to disclose whether any hazardous

substances, certain hazardous wastes, or petroleum products have been stored, released, or

disposed of on the property, in accordance with CERCLA Section 120(h)(1) and (3) and EPA

regulations at 40 CFR Part 373. Conversely, CERCLA Section 120(h)(4) requires DOE to

identify uncontaminated parcels of land that are proposed for transfer. EPA or the state agency

must approve DOE’s identification of uncontaminated parcels. CERCLA Section 120(h)(5)

requires notification of the leasing of DOE real property which has been contaminated and where

government operations will cease.

CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A) requires that a federal agency transferring real property to a

nonfederal entity include a covenant in the deed of transfer warranting that all remedial action

necessary to protect human health and the environment has been taken prior to the date of

transfer with respect to any hazardous substances remaining on the property. In addition,

CERCLA Section 120(h)(B) requires, under certain circumstances, that a federal agency

demonstrate to EPA that the cleanup remedy implemented on the property is “operating properly

and successfully” before the federal agency can provide the “all remedial action has been taken”

covenant to the nonfederal entity to which the land will be transferred. Under CERCLA Section

120(h)(C), the covenant can be deferred so that property may be transferred before all necessary

remedial actions have been taken if regulators agree that the property is suitable for the intended

use and the intended use is consistent with protection of human health and the environment. 

EPA has issued Interim Final Guidance on Institutional Controls and Transfer of Real Property

under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A), (B) or (C). Depending upon whether the property is or is

not listed on the NPL, either EPA or the state must approve transfer of property under CERCLA.
- G-8 -

For the purpose of spurring economic development in communities where federal facilities are

closing, Congress has enacted several statutes to facilitate the transfer of contaminated properties

from the federal government. These statutes are aimed at avoiding delays in clean-up and

indemnifying new owners from having to clean-up hazardous substances attributable to federal

activities. The statutes include CERFA, which amended CERCLA in 1992, and specific to DOE,

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (see page G-3).
- H-1 -

Appendix H Long-term Stewardship Points of Contact

This Appendix lists the current principal Working Group Members and the areas they represent.

The list will be updated periodically on the long-term stewardship information center web page

(http//lts.apps.em.doe.gov).

DOE Headquarters Offices

Office Name Phone, Fax, Email

Office of Environmental Management James Werner 202-586-9280 (phone)

202-586-1241 (fax)

james.werner@em.doe.gov

Steven Livingstone 202-586-9874 (phone)

202-586-7365 (fax)

steven.livingstone@em.doe.gov

Office of Environment, Safety, and Health Andrew Wallow 202-586-4996 (phone)

202-586-3915 (fax)

Andrew.Wallo@hq.doe.gov

Office of Science Arnold Edelman 301-903-5145 (phone)

301-903-7047 (fax)

Arnold.edelman@science.doe.gov

Office of Management and Administration Andrew Duran 202-586-4548 (phone)

202-586-9440 (fax)

Andrew.Duran@hq.doe.gov

Office of Defense Programs John Marchetti 301-903-3487 (phone)

301-903-1562 (fax)

John.marchetti@dp.doe.gov
- H-2 -

DOE Field Offices

Office Name Phone, Fax, Email

Albuquerque Operations Office Deborah Griswold 505-845-4752 (phone)

505-845-4239 (fax)

dcouchman-griswold@doeal.gov

Chicago Operations Office Susan Heston 630-252-2381 (phone)

630-252-2654 (fax)

Susan.heston@ch.doe.gov

National Energy Technology Laboratory Celinda H. Crawford 304-285-4128 (phone)

304-285-4403 (fax)

Celinda.Crawford@netl.doe.gov

Idaho Operations Office Patty Natoni 208-526-1292 (phone)

208-526-0603 (fax)

plw@inel.gov

Nevada Operations Office Bobbie K. McClure 702-295-1862 (phone)

702-295-1113 (fax)

McClure@nv.doe.gov

Oakland Operations Office Laurence B. McEwen 510-637-1623 (phone)

510-637-2031 (fax)

laurence.mcewen@oak.doe.gov

Oak Ridge Operations Office Ralph Skinner, Jr. 423-576-7403 (phone)

423-576-5333 (fax)

skinnerrm@oro.doe.gov

Ohio Field Office Susan L. Smiley 937-865-3987 (phone)

937-865-4402 (fax)

sue.smiley@ohio.doe.gov

Ohio - Fernald Environmental Management

Project

Kathi Nickel 513-648-3166 (phone)

513-648-3076 (fax)

kathi.nickel@fernald.gov

Richland Operations Office Jim Dailey 509-376-7721 (phone)

509-372-2610 (fax)

James_L_II_Daily@rl.gov

Rocky Flats Field Office Thomas E. Lukow 303-966-4561 (phone)

303-966-2994 (fax)

Tom.Lukow@rfets.gov

Savannah River Operations Office Donald E. Scott 803-725-1548 (phone)

803-725-2016 (fax)

Donald.Scott@srs.gov

Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project Thomas Pauling 314-441-8978 (phone)

314-447-0739 (fax)

thomas_pauling@wssraphost.wssrap.com
- I-1 -

Appendix I List of Contributors

[to be completed]