Introduction to DOE s Office of Environmental Management

Introduction to DOE s Office of Environmental Management Christine Gelles Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Waste Management Office of Environmental Management 5 June 2013 www.energy.gov/em 1

Discussion Topics History and Scope of Environmental Management Program Progress Funding history and current fiscal environment Program goals Details of FY 2014 Budget Request Overview of waste and materials disposition Hot Topics Core Values Wrap Up www.energy.gov/em 2

The Fuel Cycle DOE s Manhattan Project History Fabricate uranium fuel Irradiate fuel in reactors for defense purposes Remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor Reprocess spent nuclear fuel Convert and enrich uranium Recovered uranium from spent nuclear fuel Mine uranium ore www.energy.gov/em 3

Fabricate uranium fuel Low-level waste Convert and enrich uranium Depleted uranium Low-level waste Irradiate fuel in reactors for defense purposes Mill tailings waste By-Products and Wastes from the Manhattan Project Recovered uranium from spent nuclear fuel Mine uranium ore Low-level waste Remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor Reprocess spent nuclear fuel Highlevel waste Plutonium/ Uranium for weapons fabrication www.energy.gov/em 4

EM Site work scope ties directly to Manhattan Project mission Idaho National Lab Hanford, WA Savannah River, SC Fernald, OH Hanford, WA Savannah River, SC Oak Ridge, TN Portsmouth, OH Paducah, KY Fabricate uranium fuel Low-level waste Convert and enrich uranium Depleted uranium Low-level waste Irradiate fuel in reactors for defense purposes Mill tailings waste Idaho National Lab Hanford, WA Savannah River, SC Idaho National Lab Recovered uranium from spent nuclear fuel Mine uranium ore UMTRCA Sites Fernald, OH Moab, UT Low-level waste Remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor Reprocess spent nuclear fuel Highlevel waste Idaho National Lab Hanford, WA Savannah River, SC Plutonium/ Uranium for weapons fabrication Rocky Flats, CO Oak Ridge, TN Pantex, TX Los Alamos, NM Hanford, WA www.energy.gov/em 5

EM Mission Complete the safe cleanup of the environmental legacy brought about from five decades of nuclear weapons development, production, and Governmentsponsored 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 while achieving compliance with governing environmental laws. www.energy.gov/em 6

The EM Cleanup Program: What We Do, How We Do It, and Why EM s mission is to clean up hazardous or potentially hazardous radioactive and other substances, much of which were generated in connection with the early days of the Nation s atomic energy defense activities. EM is building on past successes to complete ambitious remediation projects and treatment facilities. Workers Handling Plutonium with Special Equipment Radioactive Waste Retrieval The Nuclear Legacy Defense Waste Processing Facility Demolition of K-25 Facility Liquid Waste Tanks EM operates one-of-a-kind nuclear facilities to manage high-level radioactive waste and dispose of materials like plutonium. EM cleanup addresses the environmental legacy of America s nuclear weapons research and production complex. www.energy.gov/em 7

Safety is EM s Top Priority EM conducts cleanup within a Safety First culture that integrates environmental, safety, and health requirements and controls into all work activities. This ensures protection to the workers, public, and the environment. Worker injury rates for EM cleanup work are significantly lower than averages in comparable industries and have decreased by about one third from FY 2009 to FY 2012. EM is further strengthening its organizational safety culture through several programs, including training over 850 senior federal and contractor managers in Leadership for a Safety Conscious Work Environment. www.energy.gov/em 8

The Inherently High-Risk Work of Nuclear Cleanup We work with some of the most dangerous substances known to humanity Workers using glovebox to handle plutonium Performing first-of-a-kind tasks in highly hazardous work environments Stabilizing spent (used) nuclear fuel High level waste canisters www.energy.gov/em 9

EM is fulfilling real legal obligations Regulatory History DOE created EM to place a focus on bringing its sites into compliance, and entered into a series of site-specific enforceable cleanup agreements that provide the mechanism for bringing those sites into compliance These agreements allow DOE to maintain ongoing operations and the critical missions they support while achieving compliance with governing environmental laws not only in EM but also in NNSA, Science and Nuclear Energy Regulatory Framework EM has approximately 40 compliance agreements across its various sites with Federal and state regulators based primarily on RCRA and CERCLA Stakeholder input is required for most regulatory documents and can significantly impact requirements www.energy.gov/em 10

Environmental Cleanup Progress A Snapshot Progress through FY12 FY13 Planned Progress Remaining Remediation Complete (# of release sites) Industrial Facility Completions Radioactive Facility Completions Nuclear Facility Completions Material Access Areas eliminated LLW and M/LLW disposed RH-TRU disposed CH-TRU disposed SNF packaged for final disposition HLW packaged for final disposition Liquid waste tanks closed Liquid waste in inventory eliminated Non-enriched uranium packaged for disposition Pu or uranium residues packaged for disposition Enriched uranium packaged for disposition Pu metal or oxide packaged for long term storage Geographic sites eliminated Life Cycle 10,572 Sites 3,877 Industrial Facilities 987 Radioactive Facilities 476 Nuclear Facilities 35 Material Access Areas 1,567,758 m 3 7,268m 3 150,262m 3 2,450 MTHM 24,183HLW Canisters 239 Liquid Waste Tanks 91,907,000 gallons 736, 801 metric tons 107, 828 kg of bulk 8,198 Containers 5,089 Containers 107 Sites 0% 50% 100% www.energy.gov/em 11

EM Has Significantly Reduced Risks to the Environment and Public Completed cleanup on 90 of 107 former nuclear weapons and research sites AK EM Historical Cleanup Sites Sites Remaining in 2012 HI PR Eliminated over 5 million gallons (enough to fill over seven Olympic-sized swimming pools) of radioactive liquid tank waste glass/grout Former plutonium storage vaults Packaged nearly 100% of EM s plutonium and enriched uranium inventories for permanent disposition (over 13,000 containers) www.energy.gov/em 12

Historical EM funding (dollars in billions) $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $6.4 $6.7 $6.9 $7.0 $7.3 $6.6 $6.2 $5.7 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $5.7 $5.7 $5.7 $5.5 $5.7 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY09 ARRA FY10 Approp FY 2011 Oper Plan FY 12 Approp FY 2013 Req. FY 2013 HEWD UE D&D 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 Non-Def 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Defense $5.8 $6.1 $6.3 $6.1 $6.4 $5.7 $5.3 $5.0 $5.2 $5.1 $5.2 $5.0 $5.0 $5.0 $4.9 $5.1 FY 2013 SEWD www.energy.gov/em 13

$ in Millions Budget Reality: EM Appropriations from FY 2008-2013 6,200 6,000 5,800 5,600 5,400 5,200 5,000 4,800 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Request 5,655 5,528 5,630 6,047 6,130 5,650 Approp/Op Plan 5,757 5,991 6,006 5,665 5,710 5,290 ARRA 5,988 Delta 102 463 376 (382) (420) (360) www.energy.gov/em 14

(dollars in millions) EM Funding Levels: FY 2012 FY 2014 ($M) 6,000 5,800 5,600 5,400 5,200 5,000 4,800 4,600 4,400 5,710 5,745 472 475 235 237 5,003 5,033 5,290 448 224 4,618 5,622 555 213 4,854 4,200 FY 2012 Enacted FY 2013 Annualized CR Sequestration Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup Defense Environmental Cleanup FY 2014 Total Request www.energy.gov/em 15

Achieving Cleanup in a New National Environment After 25 years of cleanup progress, the EM program s budget, technical and regulatory challenges have changed significantly. In response to this changing environment, EM must take the opportunity to strategically refocus our cleanup program, maximizing all of our resources to best serve the American people and our local communities. Key Challenges Facing EM Along with other federal agencies, EM is facing an uncertain fiscal environment. Major technical challenges have emerged, particularly for large construction projects. Deferral of work due to fiscal constraints has significantly increased the program s total cost. Need clear linkages between technology development and deployment and end users. The Path Forward In close consultation with stakeholders, work to optimize existing waste disposal processes and systems. Invest in targeted, applied technology development in areas where cleanup depends on the use of new technologies. Work with regulators and stakeholders to ensure that the regulatory framework for remediating each site is riskinformed, aligned with expected future funding levels and based on realistic scenarios for future site use. www.energy.gov/em 16

EM Program Goals Goal 1: Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: Improve safety, security, and quality performance Reduce the life cycle cost and risks of the nuclear legacy cleanup Improve project and contract management Achieve excellence in management and leadership www.energy.gov/em 17

Current Dollars (Millions) A Multi-Billion Dollar Gap Exists between EM Planned Costs and Available Funding EM s projected costs generally reflect the cleanup actions required to meet regulatory deadlines and other key cleanup goals. A significant gap exists between EM s projected costs and the available funding expected over the next decade $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 TARGETRANGE Compliance baselines were built assuming higher funding targets than EM is currently receiving. Anticipated funding levels may be below requirements level at many EM sites. Gap between projected cost and target is approximately $14 to $29 billion assuming availability of target as sites close. Projected Cost to Go: $174 - $209B $0 www.energy.gov/em 18

Thousands EM is developing advanced analytical tools to inform planning and budget. Thousands Analysis of last year s hypothetical flat funding cases showed the impact of flat funding: 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Funded ongoing operations such as SRS liquid waste, INL TRU, WIPP Prioritized mortgage reduction projects like River Corridor, PFP, ETTP, INL to free up outyear target Deferred SRS tank closure New ORP tank farm projects until RL transferred target in FY16-18 Assumed Paducah GDP transfer costs would come from additional appropriations Compliance Case 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 River Protection ORP-1 Richland RL-1 Savannah River SRS-1 Idaho ID-1 Oak Ridge OR-1 Paducah PAD-1 Portsmouth PORT-1 WIPP WIPP-1 Moab Moab-1 WVDP WV-1 Brookhaven BNL-1 ETEC ETEC-1 SLAC SLAC-1 SPRU SPRU-1 Los Alamos LANL-1 Livermore LLNL-1 Nevada NV-1 Sandia SN-1 HQ Total HQ $5.7 Target $5.7 Flat Case River Protection ORP-2 Richland RL-2 Savannah River SRS-2 Idaho ID-4 Oak Ridge OR-3 Paducah PAD-2 Portsmouth PORT-2 WIPP WIPP-2 Moab Moab-2 WVDP WV-2 Brookhaven BNL-1 ETEC ETEC-1 SLAC SLAC-1 SPRU SPRU-1 Los Alamos LANL-1 Livermore LLNL-1 Nevada NV-1 Sandia SN-1 HQ Total HQ $5.7 Target www.energy.gov/em 19

EM Program Priorities Balancing priorities within the complex Maintain a safe, secure, and compliant posture in the EM complex Radioactive Tank Waste Special Nuclear Materials and Used Nuclear Fuel Transuranic & Solid Waste Facilities D&D Essential Site Services www.energy.gov/em 20

EM s FY 2014 Budget Request: Funding by Site Los Alamos National Laboratory $220M Program Direction $281M Paducah $322M Idaho $370M Portsmouth $152M Carlsbad $208M Oak Ridge $413M West Valley Demonstration Project $66M Nevada Other $62M $56M Moab $36M SPRU $24M Richland $993M River Protection $1,210M Total Request $5.622B Savannah River $1,209M www.energy.gov/em 21

Where Does Each Dollar of Funding Go? Funding by EM Mission Area in FY 2014 Radioactive Tank Waste $ 1,933M / 34% Special Nuclear Materials and Used Nuclear Fuel** $ 906M / 16% Soil and Groundwater $ 492M / 9% EM s FY 2014 Budget Request - $5.622 Billion Total *Includes Program Direction, Program Support, TDD, Post Closure Administration and Community and Regulatory Support **Includes Safeguards and Security Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding Facility D&D $ 1,095M / 19% Transuranic & Solid Waste $ 804M / 14% Essential Site Services* $ 392M / 7% www.energy.gov/em 22

EM s FY 2014 Budget Request: Funding by State CA $11M WA $2.3B NV $65M ID $377M UT $36M NM Sites Remaining in 2012 $444M Total FY14 Request $5.622B OH $188M KY $332M TN $427M SC $1.3B NY $90M www.energy.gov/em 23

Technology Development in FY 14 and Beyond FY 2014 Funding: $24M Maximizing waste loading in glass Groundwater modeling Mercury remediation Separations technologies www.energy.gov/em 24

EM is an integrated, national program. No single site, project or programmatic activity can be considered in a vacuum. All strategic plans, regulatory decisions, waste disposition decision, policy change and budget request (etc!) are developed within the balanced, risk informed program which prioritizes safety above all else and targets continued compliance, progress, fiscal responsibility and continuous improvement. www.energy.gov/em 25

Major DOE Radioactive Waste Transfers Waste exports from DOE Generator Sites are shown in the incoming shipment boxes for the treatment and disposal facilities. This map is not inclusive of all past or planned shipments. MLLW/LLW from ANL-E, BNL, Fermi, Hanford, INL, Naval Reactor Sites, Paducah, Portsmouth, PPPL, RF, SLAC, and SR for disposal [Naval Reactor sites are located in several states and are not shown on map] TRU from Columbus for processing/storage SNF and HLW to Yucca Mtn for disposal SNF to INL for storage TRU to WIPP for disposal MLLW to PEcoS, Permafix, and OR for treatment SNF to INL and SR for storage, treatment, or repackaging TRU to WIPP for disposal MLLW/LLW to Envirocare and NTS, for disposal MLLW from Hanford, INL, and RF for treatment SNF from Hanford, OR, and WV, and D/FRR for storage, treatment, or repackaging M/LLW from INL for disposal Stanford Linear Accelerator Lab (SLAC) Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) HLW and SNF from Hanford, INL, SR, and WV, and D/FRR for disposal Hanford Pacific EcoSolutions (PEcoS) Yucca Mtn (proposed) Envirocare Nevada Test Site (NTS) HLW, SNF, and D/FRR to Yucca Mtn for disposal TRU to WIPP for disposal MLLW/LLW to Envirocare, Hanford, and NTS for disposal MLLW to PEcoS, Permafix, and OR for treatment Idaho National Lab (INL) Rocky Flats (RF) Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) Fermi National Accelerator Lab Argonne National Lab-East (ANL-E) Paducah Oak Ridge (OR) Mound Fernald Permafix MLLW from Fernald, Hanford, INL, LLNL, NTS, OR, Paducah, Portsmouth, RF, and SR for treatment MLLW/LLW from OR for disposal West Valley (WV) Columbus Portsmouth Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (PPPL) MLLW from Hanford, INL, LLNL, RF, and SR for treatment MLLW to OR for treatment TRU to WIPP for disposal MLLW/LLW from ANL-E, Fernald, INL, LANL, LLNL, Mound, NTS, Paducah, Portsmouth, PPPL, OR, RF, SR, and WV for disposal Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) MLLW/LLW from ANL-E, BNL, Columbus, Fermi, Fernald, INL, LANL, LLNL, Mound, Paducah, Portsmouth, OR, RF, SLAC, SR, and WV for treatment and/or disposal Waste Control Specialists MLLW from RF for treatment TRU from ANL-E. BNL, Hanford, INL, LANL, LLNL, NTS, OR, RF, SR, and WV for disposal Savannah River (SR) Permafix MLLW from INL and RF treatment For Illustrative Purposes Only Dated Information SNF from OR and D/FRR for storage, treatment, or repackaging TRU from Mound for processing/storage LLW from SR and Naval Reactors for disposal HLW and SNF to Yucca Mtn for disposal TRU to WIPP for disposal MLLW/LLW to Envirocare, Hanford, and NTS for disposal MLLW to OR for treatment Low-Level Waste (LLW) Mixed Low-Level Waste (MLLW) High-Level Waste (HLW) Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Domestic/Foreign Research Reactor Fuel (D/FRR) Transuranic Waste (TRU) DOE Generator Site (no on-site disposal facility) DOE On-site Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility DOE Off-site Waste Treatment Facility EXHIBIT B DOE Off-site Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (NTS and Hanford are also generator sites and dispose of some waste on-site) Commercial Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (Note: Envirocare also treats waste) Commercial Radioactive Waste Treatment Facility Incoming Waste Shipment Outgoing Waste Shipment

Network of Major DOE Radioactive Waste Transfers Shipment lines do not portray actual transportation routes. This map is not inclusive of all past or planned shipments. From Naval Reactor sites located in several states Hanford Pacific EcoSolutions To Hanford To Permafix To Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Idaho National Lab To Oak Ridge Treatment West Valley Brookhaven Stanford Linear Accelerator Lawrence Livermore Yucca Mtn (proposed) Nevada Test Site Envirocare Rocky Flats To Envirocare Fermi Argonne Mound Fernald Columbus Portsmouth Princeton To Oak Ridge Treatment Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Los Alamos Waste Control Specialists Paducah Oak Ridge Permafix Savannah River To Nevada Test Site To Nevada Test Site Permafix To Yucca Mtn For Illustrative Purposes Only Dated Information From Naval Reactor sites located in several states Transuranic Waste Disposal Shipment Transuranic Waste Processing/Storage Shipment DOE Generator Site (no on-site disposal facility) DOE Onsite Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Spent Nuclear Fuel/High-Level Waste Disposal Shipment Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, Treatment, or Repackaging Shipment DOE Offsite Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (NTS and Hanford are also generator sites and dispose of some waste onsite) DOE Offsite Radioactive Waste Treatment Facility Low-Level Waste/Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal Shipment Low-Level Waste/Mixed Low-Level Waste Treatment Shipment Commercial Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (Note: Envirocare also treats waste) Commercial Radioactive Waste Treatment Facility

High level waste (HLW) management Hanford 176M curies; 55M gallons 177 Tanks; ~ 9,700 canisters (projected) Idaho 37M curies, 900K gallons 15 tanks (11 closed); ~3,590-5,090 canisters (projected) West Valley Demonstration Project (owned by NY) ~ 25M curies in 275 canisters; 4 tanks (emptied) Savannah River Site 292M curies; 37M gallons 51 Tanks (4 closed) ~3,600 canisters (2013); ~7,580 (total projected) www.energy.gov/em 28

Spent nuclear fuel management Hanford ~ 2130 mthm Idaho ~280 mthm Fort St. Vrain, CO ~15 mthm Savannah River Site ~30 mthm www.energy.gov/em 29

Transuranic (TRU) waste disposition Hanford Site Idaho National Laboratory Materials Fuels Complex Argonne National Laboratory - East NRD, LLC West Valley Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory Sandia National Laboratory Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Oak Ridge National Laboratory KAPL Nuclear Fuel Services Babcock & Wilcox NES Savannah River Site www.energy.gov/em 30

WIPP Disposal Operations www.energy.gov/em 31

The WIPP Transportation System: Safest shipping containers on the road Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified TRUPACT-II RH-72B The [WIPP transportation] system is safer than that employed for any other hazardous material in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, WIPP Panel CNS10-160B TRUPACT-III HalfPACT www.energy.gov/em 32

National TRU Waste Program Status Safe TRU waste disposal for 14 years (March 1999) More than 11,000 shipments received at WIPP More than 13.5 million safe loaded miles traveled 22 sites cleaned up of legacy TRU waste More than 86,000 cubic meters of waste disposed FY14 Budget to maintain a capability of certifying, shipping, and receiving up to 17 shipments/week WIPP operational plans may be modified to support disposition of unique TRU streams. 33 www.energy.gov/em 33

TRU Waste Shipping Routes www.energy.gov/em 34 34

TRU Shipments Summary Shipments received at WIPP as of April 29, 2013: 11,244 Contact-handled: 10,594 Remote-handled: 650 947 818 1,144 1,002 988 997 1,032 1,194 1,073 846 730 366 44 84 161 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 CH TRU waste shipments only Total Shipments Received by Calendar Year (Including intersite shipments) CH and RH TRU waste shipments www.energy.gov/em 35

PE-Ci per cubic meter emplaced Plutonium Equivalent curies (PE-Ci) per cubic meter by calendar year 16.56 18.89 Higher in 2011 and 2012 than in recent years 12.17 12.7 9.51 7.52 7.96 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 to date What this trend shows is we are more efficiently disposing of greater curies and, therefore, reducing risks sooner. As of 8-30-12 36 www.energy.gov/em 36

WIPP: Repository Status 37 www.energy.gov/em 37

Low Level/Mixed Low Level Waste Disposition Energy Solutions Hanford Site Idaho National Laboratory Fernald Crescent Junction Nevada Test Site Legend CERCLA Disposal Facility LLW Operations Disposal Facility MLLW Operations Disposal Facility Waste Control Specialists Oak Ridge National Laboratory Savannah River Site Regional LLW/MLLW Facility Commercial LLW/MLLW Operations Disposal Facility Los Alamos National Laboratory Closed CERCLA Facility Byproduct Material Disposal www.energy.gov/em 38

(millions of cubic feet) Complex-wide LLW/MLLW Disposal Forecasts -- Continued Downward Trend 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 OnSite Commercial NNSS TBD FY11 Actual FY12 Actual FY13 FY14 FY15 Forecasts from DRAFT 2011 WIMS www.energy.gov/em 39

LLW/MLLW Disposition Options EnergySolutions (Utah) Accept Class A LLW and MLLW; 11e(2); NORM FY12 LLW/MLLW Disposal 2% 1% Offers rail access, onsite treatment, and favorable bulk waste handling and disposal Waste Control Specialists LLC (Andrews County, Texas) Multiple disposal facilities/licenses NNSS Commercial Onsite Hazardous/exempt; 11e(2); NORM Texas Compact Class A, B and C LLW non-doe waste 97% Federal Waste Facility Class A, B, and C LLW/MLLW DOE waste www.energy.gov/em 40

Current Hot Topics in EM o o o o o o o o o Construction of the Waste Treatment Plant at ORP Construction of Salt Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River Treatment of Sodium Bearing Wastes in Idaho Suspected leaking tanks at ORP Surplus plutonium disposition Impact of delays in availability of a HLW repository on EM inventories Spent nuclear fuel processing? Mission of WIPP Construction of new on-site disposal facilities o o o o Challenging waste stream disposition o Depleted uranium o Uranium 233 o Wastes incidental to reprocessing Scrap metals and contaminated nickel disposition Greater Than Class C LLW Disposal Environmental Impact Statement Mercury Storage Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement o Revision to DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management o Risk Informed Decision Making www.energy.gov/em 41

Risk-informed Decision Making Manage environmental contamination and waste in a manner that optimizes, balances protection of human health and the environment and cost effectiveness for current and future generations Will be necessary to leave residual waste in place Allows for natural attenuation Integrates stewardship into holistic, life-cycle management options Requires further development of predictive modeling and visualization, and monitoring and sensor technologies Recognizes U.S. Government s long term commitment to monitoring and other institutional controls Savannah River Tank 5 Heel Removal (Tank Interior) Natural attenuation of uranium contamination 300 area, Hanford Site www.energy.gov/em 42

Core Value: Community Involvement EM s success hinges on its collaboration with affected state, local, tribal governments, and local citizen groups. EM supports national intergovernmental organizations and citizen groups through grants and cooperative agreements. Bases for EM processes include: Early public and tribal involvement Communication Coordination among multiple regulators Transparency and confidence in risk ranking methodology Enhance involvement in EM and regulatory decisions www.energy.gov/em 43

Core Value: Lessons Learned & Continuous Improvement o Based on successes at Rocky Flats, Fernald, Mound, and other DOE sites, EM has developed Lessons Learned. These lessons are continuing to be applied to ongoing EM cleanup effort. o Over the years, EM program has solved many cleanup problems that one time seemed unsolvable. Lessons Learned from these and other EM efforts can be used to address decommissioning and remediation issues all over the world. o EM lessons learned can be accessed at http://www.hss.doe.gov/sesa/analysis/ll/links.html ohttp://rockyflats.apps.em.doe.gov/ TMI Fuel Storage Facility at Idaho Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor after the disaster Fukushima Reactors damage due to 2011 tsunami www.energy.gov/em 44

The World is Watching: EM International Efforts Canada Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) Sellafield SOI between UK NDA and DOE for Exchange of Information Concerning Management of Radioactive Waste UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE-ONR) Russia SOI between Rosatom and DOE concerning collaboration in innovative technologies for environmental restoration and radioactive waste management Khlopin Radium Institute (KRI) SIA Radon Institute Nuclear Safety Institute Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) St. Petersburg Electrotechnical University (ETU) LETI AtomEco Conference Argentina US-Argentina Joint Standing Committee Meetings on Nuclear Energy Cooperation (JSCNEC) France DOE-CEA Agreement for Cooperation in Low-Carbon Energy Technologies AREVA MOU between ANDRA and DOE concerning cooperation in the field of radioactive waste management ICEM Conference 2011 International Multilateral Organizations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development / Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC) International Decommissioning Network (IDN) Sweden SKB, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company Ukraine International Radioecolog y Laboratory (IRL) Hungary MOU with Public Limited Co. for Radioactive Waste Management (PURAM) Taiwan American Institute in Taiwan - Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (AIT TECRO) State Department led meeting China China Academy of Sciences Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Technology (PUNT) Migration Conference 2011 Japan US-Japan Nuclear Energy Action Plan (JNEAP) U.S.-Japan Science Mission Fukushima workshops Bilateral Commission on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation South Korea Nuclear Engineering and Technology Institute (NETEC) US-Korea Joint Standing Committee Meetings on Nuclear Energy Cooperation (JSCNEC) US-Korea Energy Dialogue meeting www.energy.gov/em 45

Closing Messages EM reduces risks and protect our workers, our communities and the environment through our continued cleanup. We have demonstrated value for the American Taxpayer by delivering significant progress in the past several years in reducing risks and the overall liability - but our work is not done. Our work is urgent and essential to the health and economic vitality of our communities and the nation and positions our Sites for future missions Our mission is not discretionary - it is a congressional mandate to D&D uranium enrichment facilities and a federal obligation to address the cold war environmental legacy cleanup and honor our regulatory commitments. Time is not on our side costs and risks increase over time. EM s continued success is dependent upon an integrated, risk informed national program, which can only be sustained by support of regulators and stakeholders. www.energy.gov/em 46