Nuclear Waste Cleanup : Programs, Management and Alternatives / Josh Levine.

Format:

Book

Author/Creator:

Levine, Josh, author.

Series:

Waste and waste management series.

Waste and Waste Management Series

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Radioactive waste sites--Cleanup.

Radioactive waste sites.

Physical Description:

1 online resource (201 pages)

Edition:

First edition.

Place of Publication:

New York : Nova Science Publishers, [2024]

Summary:

Atomic energy activities supported by the federal government generated large amounts of radioactive and hazardous waste over several decades of nuclear weapons production and energy research. This waste has contaminated soil, groundwater, and structures at sites across the country, posing potential risks to human health and the environment.

Contents:

Intro

Contents

Preface

Chapter 1

Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Army Corps Could Benefit from Following Leading Practices for Program Management for Contaminated Sites0F(

Why GAO Did This Study

What GAO Recommends

What GAO Found

Abbreviations

Background

FUSRAP History and Cleanup Process

Overview of FUSRAP Structure and Operations

FUSRAP Site Characteristics

Size and Location

Type and Extent of Contamination

Ownership

Phase of Cleanup

The Corps Reported 2.6 Billion in Environmental Liabilities for Contaminated Sites, but Uncertainties May Affect Future Estimates

Of the Reported 2.6 Billion in Environmental Liabilities, Four Sites Made up 75 Percent of the Total Estimate

Uncertainties Affect FUSRAP's Environmental Liability Estimates, Such as Sites without a Complete Estimate and Amount and Accessibility of Contamination

Sites without a Complete Estimate

Amount of Contamination

Physical Access to the Contamination

Legal Access to Private Properties

The Corps Minimally Met Selected Leading Practices for Program Management Related to Planning, Cost Estimating, and Risk Management

Planning-Having a Program Management Plan That Is Regularly Updated28F

Cost Estimating-Having an Integrated, Comprehensive Life Cycle Cost Estimate That Is Updated on a Regular Basis30F

Risk Management-Conducting Program Risk Management throughout the Life of the Program

We Identified Eight FUSRAP Sites Near Underserved Communities

The Corps Has Begun to Implement the Justice40 Initiative

Underserved Racial or Ethnic Populations

Families in Poverty

FUSRAP Has Taken Initial Steps to Implement Justice40

Stakeholders' Views on the Corps' Communications Provide Path for Implementing Justice40 Strategy

Build Trust with Communities

Improve Readability of Information.

Use a Variety of Formats for Meetings and Other Communication

Broaden the Main Target Audience beyond Property Owners

Conclusion

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Comments

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Appendix II: Comparison of FUSRAP Policies and Procedures and GAO Leading Program Management Practices

Our Assessment of FUSRAP Policies with Our Leading Practices for Program Management

Appendix III: Geospatial and Statistical Analysis of Distance to FUSRAP Sites and Community Characteristics

Methods

Geospatial Data

Community Characteristics

Geospatial Analysis

Regression Analysis

Results

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

Chapter 2

Nuclear Waste Cleanup: DOE Needs to Address Weaknesses in Program and Contractor Management at Los Alamos71F(

EM Cleanup Mission at Los Alamos

EM 2020 Program Management Protocol

Contract Oversight and Evaluation

EM-LA Has Made Progress in the Three Main Cleanup Categories, but Certain Risks Could Increase Scope, Cost, and Time Frames

EM-LA Has Made Progress in Its Environmental Remediation, Legacy Waste Remediation, and Deactivation and Decommissioning Responsibilities

Environmental Remediation

Legacy Waste Remediation and Disposition

Deactivation and Decommissioning

Scope, Cost, and Schedules Could Increase, due to a Strained Relationship with the State Regulator, and Other Risks

Strained Relationship with the State Regulator

Unanticipated Contamination

Staffing Capacity.

EM-LA Has Drafted Key Documents but Has Not Analyzed Causes of Cost and Schedule Increases or Taken a Comprehensive Approach to Prioritizing Cleanup Activities

EM-LA Has Drafted Key Program Documents, Which Show Substantial Cost and Schedule Increases since 2016

EM-LA Has No Plans to Conduct a Root Cause Analysis of Cost and Schedule Increases

EM-LA Has Not Taken a Comprehensive Approach to Prioritizing Cleanup Activities

Weaknesses in EM- LA's Oversight of Contractor Cost and Schedule Performance Have Limited EM-LA's Understanding of Cleanup Progress and Costs

Appendix I: Status of the 17 Consent Order Cleanup Campaigns to Complete Soil and Groundwater Remediation at Los Alamos

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy

Acknowledgments

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Congressional Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and External Liaison

Chapter 3

DOE Nuclear Cleanup: Clear Guidance on Categorizing Activities and an Assessment of Contract Cost Effectiveness Needed124F(

EM's 15 Cleanup Sites

Process for Categorizing Activities as Base Operations During Budget Formulation

EM Contracting Types and Terms

EM Sites Varied in How They Categorized Activities as Base Operations or Progress, in Part Due to Limitations in Guidance

Budget Request Estimates for Base Operations Varied Across EM Sites

EM Sites Varied in How They Categorized Similar Activities

EM's Guidance on Categorizing Activities Is Not Consistent or Comprehensive.

EM Relies on Contract Mechanisms to Ensure That Base Operations Are Cost Effective but Has Not Assessed the Effectiveness of Those Mechanisms

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Chapter 4

Hanford Cleanup: DOE Should Consider Including Expedited Nuclear Waste Treatment Alternatives in Upcoming Analysis147F(

Treatment of Tank Waste at Hanford

Hanford Tank Farms and Key Tank Farms Facilities and Infrastructure Required for Managing Tank Waste

Regulatory Framework and Agreements Governing Hanford Tank Waste

DOE Developed Plans to Begin Treating Some Tank Waste but Is Not Planning to Evaluate Certain Alternatives That May Expedite Cleanup in Its Upcoming System Plan

DOE Has Developed Plans for Managing a Portion of Hanford's Tank Waste and Identified Barriers to Implementing the Plans

DOE Is Considering Alternatives for Treating the Remaining Tank Waste but Is Not Planning to Evaluate Certain Alternatives That May Shorten the Treatment Mission in Its Upcoming System Plan

Recommendation for Executive Action

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony.

Order by Phone

Index

Blank Page.

Notes:

Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.

Description based on print version record.

ISBN:

979-88-911-3809-4