[CPEO-MEF] Long-Term Stewardship/article+comments

[marylia@earthlink.net]

DOE Releases Long-Term Environmental Stewardship Study

by Peter Strauss and Marylia Kelley
from Tri-Valley CAREs' December 2000 newsletter, Citizen's Watch

On October 31, DOE released its draft study on long-term environmental
stewardship, in accordance with a 1998 Settlement Agreement with the NRDC
and other plaintiffs, including Tri-Valley CAREs.

Long-term stewardship (LTS) is generally defined by DOE as the physical
controls, institutions, information and other mechanisms needed to protect
people and the environment at sites where the Department has "completed"
its active cleanup efforts. The DOE's stewardship concept includes such
things as land-use controls, long-term monitoring, maintenance and
information management over long periods of time, so long as there are
significant hazards left in the ground.

Community groups have understood for some time that many DOE sites will not
be cleaned up, in the usual sense of the word, even after DOE declares it
has finished with remediation measures. For example, how do you "clean up"
after many hundreds of nuclear bomb tests in Nevada? At numerous DOE sites,
dangerous radioactive and chemical contaminants will remain  in the soil
and groundwater for hundreds and even thousands of years. Moreover, in many
cases, "remedies" chosen during active cleanup may include landfills
containing wastes with  radioactive half-lives in the thousands of years.
These dumps, even the newly-lined ones, will fail after 50 years or so.
They, too, are therefore future candidates for long-term stewardship. In
sum, the unprecedented magnitude and complexity of the environmental mess
caused by nuclear weapons activities has motivated groups to urge DOE to
grapple with issues of long-term environmental stewardship.

On the other hand, how can communities ensure that DOE will aggressively
remediate all pollutants that can be cleaned up? How do we make sure DOE
does not merely "transition" sites into long-term stewardship, which
essentially baby-sits the wastes, when a little more money and effort
applied today would result in a permanent remedy? What is the appropriate
interface between active cleanup and long-term stewardship? How will the
public be brought into decision-making in a meaningful way over the long haul?

First, the draft study is very readable and comprehensive. It lays out the
very complex issues involved in the long-term stewardship program and shows
the reader the choices facing DOE. However, the study lacks a
community-based perspective -- which differs from the agency-based
analysis, and can contribute a whole different set of values, insights and
recommendations to the long-term stewardship effort.

While it states the problems very well, the DOE' draft study only suggests
paths and policies needed to establish this program that will affect many
generations to come.

Below are some of Tri-Valley CAREs' comments on the Draft Long-Term
Stewardship Study. Feel free to use them as "talking points" for the Dec.
14th public meeting or incorporate them into your written comments. (See
below for details.)

*       THE HIGHEST PRIORITY SHOULD BE PLACED ON SELECTING REMEDIES THAT
PROTECT THE LONG-TERM SAFETY AND HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY AND OF THE
ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE DOE FACILITY. All aspects of establishing,
maintaining and funding long-term stewardship activities should be
considered during the remedy selection process that is part of active
cleanup. Wherever possible, we prefer that DOE facilities are cleaned up to
a level that allows unrestricted use and avoids the need for long-term
stewardship. Where cleanup to such a level is not practical due to current
technical constraints, we want commitments inserted into final remedy
decision documents detailing the stewardship plan and funding.

*       DOE SHOULD DEVELOP A PROGRAM TO LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD
MINIMIZE OR ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP. We are aware that
some contaminants will have to be "stored" in place or at the site for long
periods of time. This may be true for many radionuclides and some
chemicals, often when they are in the form of dense-non-aqueous phase
liquids (DNAPLs). We also believe that once decisions are made to leave a
contaminant in place, it is difficult to get funding to monitor it while
simultaneously continuing research on how the contaminant could be safely
treated. Still, developing a remedial treatment that destroys a chemical
contaminant, for example, should remain a high priority, as it avoids the
need for long-term stewardship measures.  We propose that DOE form a
dedicated program that keeps an eye towards the future, and continually
looks for solutions to these problems. In short, DOE should continue to
develop new and better remediation technologies for sites that are in the
long-term stewardship mode, and then to move them back to active cleanup
when it is technically feasible to do so.

*       WE STRONGLY ADVISE THAT DOE DEVELOP A MECHANISM WHERE LOCAL
COMMUNITIES WILL BE INVOLVED IN LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP DECISIONS. This
should include involvement in initial long-term stewardship activities and
any changes to those activities that may occur as a result of re-evaluation
or modification of the remedy. The community should also be involved in
periodic reviews, such as the five-year review cycle under CERCLA (the
Superfund law) to re-evaluate the effectiveness and performance of long
term stewardship activities. Additionally, independent technical expertise
should be provided to communities to assist them in wading through the many
technical documents that form the basis for key decisions.

*       DEVELOP CONTINGENCY PLANS AT THE TIME CLEANUP DECISIONS ARE MADE.
The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council recommended
that "DOE should plan for uncertainty and fallibility" of some aspects of
the long-tern stewardship program; including developing plans "to maximize
follow-through on phased, iterative and adaptive long-term institutional
management approaches at sites where contaminants remain." We believe that
these plans should be developed concurrent with cleanup decisions, and
should be periodically revisited.

*       DEVELOP FIRM FUNDING COMMITMENTS FOR LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP. Funding
for stewardship activities must be adequate.  When the final remedy is
agreed upon at a site, full funding for stewardship activities should be
defined, including the role of the parties who will manage the funding and
the funding sources. 

*       PERIODICALLY RE-EVALUATE THE REMEDY. DOE (or subsequent federal
managers) should implement a systematic process for re-evaluating and if
needed, modifying existing LTS activities to ensure that developments in
science, technology and performance are incorporated. This reevaluation
should consider the following: changes in health standards associated with
contaminants that are left in place, changes in technology that were not
available at the time when initial cleanup decisions were made but if
implemented would eliminate the need for long-term stewardship activities,
and performance of the remedy in place. The community should be involved in
these re-evaluations.

*       A RELIABLE, UP-TO-DATE RECORD MANAGEMENT FACILITY ACCESSIBLE TO THE
COMMUNITY IS REQUIRED.  DOE must fully characterize, document, and disclose
all environmental contamination at its sites in case failures occur. At a
minimum, DOE needs to develop a record management system that will always
be accessible at or near the location of the stewardship activities.

*       DEVELOP POLICY AND REGULATIONS ON PROPERTY TRANSFERS. One of the
more difficult aspects of this program is deciding how to handle property
transfers and the obligations of DOE and the new owner after the transfer.
We strongly advise that this be addressed as policy and specific
regulation, which contains the premise that DOE is responsible for a site
in perpetuity unless the new owner has altered the property (e.g., drills
through a landfill), violated a legal deed restriction, or contaminates the
environment.

*       AVOID TRANSFERRING OR RELOCATING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. This
practice adds the complication of transportation and reclamation of the
former site, while still maintaining the burden of long-term stewardship
activities.  We are also concerned that some locations with lax standards
could become the dumping ground for many long-lived hazardous materials.

*       ALL CLEANUPS THAT FALL UNDER THE LTS PROGRAM SHOULD USE THE CERCLA
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. There are many cleanups conducted pursuant to
non-CERCLA authority.  We propose that DOE take the initiative to form a
consistent regulatory mechanism for the LTS program, and that CERCLA is the
method that provides the most opportunity for community involvement in
decision making.

*       WHEN CONTAMINANTS ARE LEFT IN PLACE, DOE SHOULD COMPENSATE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS.  Compensation to fund protective equipment, emergency
preparedness, and sophisticated record keeping should be available to all
local governments where LTS activities fall under their jurisdiction. 

We invite your comments and perspectives, and we hope you will participate
in this and future opportunities to hold DOE's feet to the fire on key
environmental issues.

*****
"Stakeholder Workshop"
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 6:00 - 8:00 P.M.
ARGENT HOTEL, 50 THIRD STREET, SAN FRANCISCO
(just one block south of the Montgomery BART station)

Copies of the Draft Study can be requested by telephone at 1-800-736-3282.
The Draft Study and its supporting technical documents also are also
available at www.em.doe.gov/lts.

Comments can also be submitted during the public comment period (which ends
December 15, 2000) to Steven Livingstone, Project Manager, Office of Long
Term Stewardship, (EM-51), Office of Environmental Management, U.S.
Department of Energy, P.O. Box 45079. Washington, D.C. 20026-5079, phone:
202-586-9280.

Comments may also be submitted to Stephen.Livingstone@em.doe.gov or by fax
to 202-863-7036.

Marylia Kelley
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94550

<http://www.igc.org/tvc/> - is our web site, please visit us there!

(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax

Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley
CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the
Abolition 2000 global network for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the
U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Back From the Brink
campaign to get nuclear weapons taken off hair-trigger alert.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at 

http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html.

If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to: 

cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com

___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics