Jonathan Kang Office of Disposal Operations, EM-43 Office of Environmental Management (EM)

1. Jonathan KangOffice of Disposal Operations, EM-43Office of Environmental Management (EM) DOECAP Conference September 2010 EM Program Update

2. Discussion Topics • Overview of EM/Programmatic Update • Summary of DOE Order 435.1 Update • M/LLW Program Update (Tomorrow) • Closing -- EM Feedback to DOECAP

3. EM Program Background • EM was established in 1989 to cleanup Cold War legacy with an annual budget of about ~$6 billion. Responsible for cleanup activities at 21 sites, covering more than 2 million acres, and employs more than 30,000 Federal and contractor workers. It is the largest nuclear cleanup program in the world. • Dr. Inés Triay confirmed as EM-1 in May 2009. • EM has recently embarked on “Journey To Excellence” to become more efficient and effective organization. • EM’s updated strategic goals include the following: • Timely completion of tank waste treatment facilities • Complete disposition of 90% of legacy transuranic (TRU) waste by 2015 • Reduce the EM Footprint: 40% by 2011, leading to 90% by 2015 • Reduce the life cycle costs and accelerate the cleanup of the Cold War legacy • Improve safety and quality performance towards a goal of zero accidents, incidents and defects • Improve project and contract management… so that EM is viewed as one of the federal government’s best managed programs • Achieving excellence in management and leadership with the objective of making EM an employer of choice in the federal government.

4. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) • EM has been given the opportunity to make additional investments in lower risk activities and complete building the capability for dispositioning tank waste, nuclear materials, and spent nuclear fuel. • With the additional $6 billion of ARRA funding EM is expected to achieve significant results • Create and preserve thousands of jobs • Provide significant environmental cleanup • Make large tracts of land available for potential re-utilization • ARRA funds supported significant remediation and solid waste disposition work. • EM takes this opportunity very seriously and is employing a formal, integrated project approach to implement ARRA

5. EM’s waste disposition scope is significant • Liquid tank waste (HLW and “low activity waste”) and other HLW streams • 88 million gallons of liquid waste, stored in over 200 tanks • Much of the disposition system is under design and construction • Transuranic (TRU) waste • ~157,000 m3 legacy wastes managed as TRU waste • Future TRU will be generated by DOE mission activities • Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste (LLW/MLLW) • Majority of legacy wastes disposed – over 1 million m3 disposed to date and over 6 million m3 counting on-site cleanup wastes • DOE mission activities and EM cleanup generate LLW/MLLW wastes

6. DOE’s Radioactive Waste Management Priorities • Continue to manage waste inventories in a safe and compliant manner • Address high risk waste in a cost-effective manner • Maintain and optimize current disposal capability for future generations • Develop future disposal capacity in a complex environment • Promote the development of treatment and disposal alternatives in the commercial sector • Review current policies and directives • Provide needed oversight

7. In 20 years, EM has accomplished much in the area of waste management • Conducted complex-wide characterization and regulatory planning to guide environmental clean-up activities • Improved key LLW disposal facilities and established new on-site disposal facilities for remediation wastes • Emptied and closed about a dozen high level waste (HLW) tanks • Constructed and operated two HLW vitrification facilities • The third and largest HLW treatment facility is 50% complete • Two additional liquid waste systems nearing completion • Constructed and commissioned the nation’s only geologic repository -- the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) opened in 1999 • Over 69,800 m3 of transuranic (TRU) waste emplaced to date • Over 8, 800 shipments safely completed • Developed needed technologies and strategies to significantly reduce stored waste inventories and associated risks

8. DOE’s Waste Disposal Complex DOE Generator Site (no on-site disposal facility) Sites are closed Hanford West Valley Knolls Fermi INL Ames RMI Mound Bettis ANL LBNL Fernald BCL Kansas City NTS Rocky Flats Portsmouth Brookhaven LLNL Paducah LANL SLAC Oak Ridge Princeton (PPPL) ETEC Sandia Sandia General Atomics ITRI Savannah River Pantex Plant WIPP Legend CERCLA Disposal Facility LLW Operations Disposal Facility MLLW Operations Disposal Facility Regional LLW Disposal Facility Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for TRU disposal 8

9. Complex-wide views on DOE Waste Management • EM provides complex-wide leadership in management and disposition of DOE waste streams • Corporate Boards exist for each major waste stream • Headquarters oversight and coordination increased in recent years • DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, is currently being updated. • Availability of commercial facilities for DOE’s M/LLW treatment/disposal is a “must” to EM’s program. The commercial facilities play an important role in managing DOE’s M/LLW wastes. (more tomorrow).

10. DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, establishes policy & framework for waste disposition • For LLW/MLLW, the Order requires the following: • If practical, disposal on the site where generated • If on-site disposal not available, at another DOE disposal Facility • At commercial disposal facilities if compliant, cost effective, and in the best interest of DOE • DOE M. 435.1 further states that such non-DOE TSDF’s shall: • Comply with applicable Federal, State and local requirements • Have the necessary permit(s), license(s), and approval(s) for the specific waste(s): and • Be determined by the Field Element Managers to be acceptable based on a review conducted annually by DOE. • DOECAP provides an efficient means for Field managers to determine acceptability of commercial facilities

11. DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management DOE Order 435.1 was issued in 1999 and much has changed Update planned to address multiple purposes Incorporate lessons learned Institutionalize informal guidance documents Address changes in relevant statutes, regulations, and standards Account for advances in technology Address new and emerging DOE needs Progress to date Completed Complex-Wide Reviews in July 2010 to assess waste management activities and to support the update Reviewed all DOE/NNSA sites that manage radioactive waste Identified 69 Best Practices and 134 Areas for Improvement Completed team workshops to update DOE O 435.1 Next workshop is scheduled for October 2010 to discuss cross-cutting issues Teams are in the process of drafting new order, which will ultimately be submitted to DOE RevCom for formal concurrence review 11

12. Summary of Complex-wide Review Results BP – Best Practices AI – Areas for Improvement

13. Some Highlights from Complex Wide Review • DOE has made significant progress in its management of waste management activities since issuance of DOE Order 435.1 • Programmatic vulnerabilities that led to DNFSB Recommendation 94-2 and identified in the first Complex Wide Review (1996) have been resolved • Implementation of oversight has been conducted inconsistently among programs and sites. While certain oversight responsibilities have become part of DOECAP – and this has emerged as an example of a cost-effective program –additional guidance is required in several areas • Modification needed on current commercial exemption requirements for LLW

14. Conclusions and EM Feedback to DOECAP DOE, especially EM, will continue to rely on commercial facilities to manage its M/LLW wastes An objective and efficient consolidated assessment system to support decision to utilize commercial facilities DOE Nationwide Treatment Contract references that annual audits of awardees will typically be performed by DOECAP EM must be fully informed of the compliance and safety status of all commercial entities supporting waste disposition EM requests objective feedback from DOECAP about operational conditions at commercial facilities Reliable information on compliance status improves DOE waste disposition planning Imminent safety and performance risks warrant immediate identification EM would like to see the definition of P-1 findings “tied” closely to imminent risks that truly affect commercial TSDF’s ability to process the waste, and not with non-risk associated procedures 14

15. Conclusions and EM Feedback to DOECAP (cont’d) • EM views DOECAP as an assessment tool, not as oversight or regulatory measure (i.e., assessment vs. audit) • DOE has no regulatory authority over commercial operations • Lines of inquiry must align with facilities’ NRC/State regulatory standards and DOE contract requirements, if applicable. • Consistent with Department’s strategy to streamline DOE requirements, EM attempts to minimize number of DOE orders included in prime waste treatment and disposal contracts • EM looks to DOECAP to ensure LOI’s based on external regulatory requirements – not DOE standards • DOECAP role with externally regulated commercial facilities is markedly different than DOE programs’ and HS role to conduct nuclear safety and QA oversight at DOE sites where DOE self-regulates • EM has benefited greatly from increased coordination with DOECAP in planning and conduct of TSDF assessments over last year • EM welcomes opportunity to participate in DOECAP planning