DOE Environmental Management

Transcription

1 DOE Environmental Management Mary Neu Chief Scientist, DOE-EM NAS Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board Meeting May 30,

2 EM Chief Scientist, EM-1.1 Background Position Duties Position created as part of an effort to improve the technical quality of EM. Neu asked to serve under an Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement from Los Alamos National Laboratory, beginning Provide technical direction for applied research and development performed in Environmental Management programs. Develop policy and guidance, and provide technical assistance for projects and operations. Advise EM senior managers on technical matters. Prior to serving as EM-1.1, Dr. Neu was Associate Laboratory Director for Chemistry, Life and Environmental Sciences at Los Alamos National Laboratory, As a research leader and manager, Dr. Neu led research teams in actinide separations, biological and environmental science, nuclear detection, nuclear waste isolation, and heavy element chemistry programs, primarily for DOE programs. 2

3 EM Mission is Nuclear Cleanup Cleanup the environmental legacy from nuclear weapons development, production, and Government-sponsored nuclear energy research From a legacy of weapons production to the world s largest environmental cleanup program Operating in the world s most complex regulatory environment EM clean-up enables DOE to maintain ongoing operations and other critical missions (NNSA/SC) while achieving compliance with governing environmental laws Mission executed primarily by private contractors 3 3

4 Many Sites Restored -Challenges Remain in Tank Waste, Soils and Decommissioning In 1989: 107 sites, a total area of 3,125 square miles in 35 states In 2012: 17 sites, a total area of 318 square miles in 11 states EM cleanup sites outset of FY

5 EM Program To Go: Projected Duration is 40+ years; Projected Cost is $300+B re Dollars (Billions) Year of Expenditur $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 Recovery Act Facility D&D, Soil & Groundwater LLW & MLLW TRU Waste SNM/SNF Tank Waste $1 $0 Year Remaining Life-Cycle Cost $274B to $309B 5

6 Near-term Focus is Construction, Completing TRU Waste Disposition, and Reducing Base Treatment of HLW via three major tank waste facilities Cleanup Goal Sodium Bearing Waste Facility by 2011 (operational 2012) Salt Waste Processing Facility by 2015 (operational 2016) Waste Treatment Plant by 2017 (operational 2019) FY 2013 Progress towards Cleanup Goal Complete Sodium Bearing Waste Facility operations by December 2012 Continue construction of the Salt Waste Processing Facility and Waste Treatment Plant Disposition 90% of legacy TRU waste Cleanup Goal Through the end of FY 2011, 85,066 cubic meters of the 116,335 cubic meters total goal have already been dispositioned (73%) FY 2013 Progress towards Cleanup Goal Continue progress toward the goal for 90% legacy TRU completion Shrink the EM legacy footprint 90% Cleanup Goal In 1989, the legacy cleanup footprint was 3,125 sq. miles. By 2009, it was 931 sq. miles. At the end of 2011, 318 sq. miles were remaining a 66% reduction relative to the 2009 value. FY 2013 Progress towards Cleanup Goal Reduce EM s legacy cleanup footprint by an additional 20 square miles. Including the planned progress in FY 2012, this will bring the total footprint reduction to 71% or greater. 6

7 FY13 Budget Request $5.65B Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and disposal Spent (used) nuclear fuel storage, receipt, and disposition Special nuclear material consolidation, processing, and disposition Transuranic and mixed/low-level waste disposition Soil and groundwater remediation Excess facilities deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) $631M $805M $950M $428M $722M $177M $1,958M * Includes Program Direction, Program Support, TDD, Post Closure Administration and Community and Regulatory Support 7 ** Includes Safeguards and Security 7

8 EM Structure Reflects Site and Renewed Program Emphasis 8

9 Strategic Focus on Common Elements Environmental compliance, common mission needs Remedies Endpoints Barriers Stewardship Increased Certainty Predictive Models 9

10 Major Soil & Groundwater Restoration Sites and Contaminants Nearly 1,800 million m 3 of groundwater and 75 million m 3 of soil; Broad range of geology, geochemistry and contamination Hanford Sr, U, Tc, 3 H, Cr, I, Cs, Pu, Co, Diesel, CCl 4, Nitrate, TCE Idaho Cr, U, 3 H, TCE, CCl 4 Oak Ridge U, Tc, 3 H, Sr, Co, Hg, PCB, TCE, PCE, Cr, Nitrate Los Alamos Nitrate, Cr, PCE, PCB Nevada National Security Site - U, Tc, 3 H, 14 C, 36 Cl, I, Pu, all of the Actinides Savannah River Site U, Pu, Cs, 3 H, PCE, TCE 10

11 Greatest Groundwater and Soils Challenges at Hanford and Oak Ridge Hanford pump & treat systems for the 200 Area cost ~$20 million/year with an annual pumping rate of 1.3 billion gallons of groundwater Oak Ridge mercury contamination in debris, soil, groundwater, and stream systems is estimated to cost $1 billion to meet regulatory requirements 11

12 Risk, Compliance, and Priority Setting Challenge Timely, Cost-effective Completion Environmental Compliance: One of EM s top program drivers Conflict of top down (Federal budget process and targets) and bottom up (site-specific needs) Risk prioritization: Existing processes provide the framework Sequence and schedule Federal Facility Agreements and Consent Orders Remedy Selection CERCLA Nine Criteria and Waste Determinations/Disposal Authorization Statements Decisions regarding cleanup priorities are Risk-INFORMED NOT Risk-BASED 12

13 Considerations, Tools, Approaches for EM Cleanup and Closure 2.0 Many DOE sites are large with federal presence over the long-term Institutional controls: future use, long-term stewardship, monitoring, Five-Year Reviews Location of points of compliance (risk envelope) Alternate cleanup levels other than drinking water standards for groundwater EM Internal Remedy Reviews Coordinate with the Department of Defense s cleanup program DOE Order Radioactive Waste Management processes (performance-based) Integration of Natural Resource Damages considerations Application to RCRA and NEPA decision-making Advanced simulation capability, towards state-of-science performance assessment Field-scale studies for validation and verification, and for remedy development State-of-science hydrology, geophysics, geochemistry, databases Case studies: Oak Ridge ETTP, Hanford Central Plateau, Los Alamos above-ground TRU, Savannah River tank farms 13

14 NAS Workshops for Next Generation, Risk-Informed Clean Up and Closure Clean up and Closure NAS charged by EM to facilitate workshop series bringing together DOE, DOD, others EPA (regions and HQ), NRC State Regulatory Agencies and the Environmental Key Stakeholders SMEs from national labs and universities Holistic approaches for remediation of sites with multiple contaminant sources and multiple post-closure uses, including technically based point-of-compliance and point-ofuse monitoring locations. Effective post-closure controls: monitoring, engineered controls and natural controls Assessing performance of site remedies and closures, especially technically advanced approaches that reduce performance uncertainties and need for post-closure controls on land use, resource management and intruder prevention. Risk-informed decision-making 14

15 Advanced Simulation Capability for Environmental Management (ASCEM) Next generation, parallel processing code Toolset includes: model set up, data management, visualization, uncertainty quantification, parameter estimation, decision support and risk analysis. HPC simulator, Amanzi, will allow for flow and reactive transport on both structured and unstructured grids, and include physical forms and processes: Biogeochemical Reaction Processes Thermal Effects Radioactive decay Mechanical Effects Source Term Degradation Cementitious waste and structures Waste tanks and metallic wastes 15

16 Applied Field Research: Partnerships with Office of Science, Sites, and Researchers Focus on controlling processes, characterization & monitoring, remediation, and modeling Develop, compare, and demonstrate technologies, including in situ stabilization methods, real-time geophysical monitoring Transition technologies to site contractors and across the EM complex Target both short- and long-term goals Promote regulatory acceptance of technologies and approaches 1) Savannah River: Amendments to stabilize I and testbed for geochemical faciesand other concepts; 2) Oak Ridge Surface and Subsurface Hg; 3) Hanford Deep Vadoze Zone 16

17 Thank You Discussion? 17