Long Term Stewardship in the Nuclear Weapons Complex -- A States Perspective

Selected Annotated Bibliography on Long-Term Stewardship
Prepared for the
Federal Facilities State Task Force, National Governors’ Association
April 8, 2001

Page Index

Key Documents

Full List of Documents
Arranged by Organization

US Department of Energy (DOE)- Headquarters
US DOE-HQ Policy Memoranda
US DOE Field Offices
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
US EPA Regions
US Department of Defense (DoD)

State Organizations
Local Government Organizations
Citizen Advisory Boards
Independent Organizations
International Organizations

Other Articles & Publications
Conference Proceedings
Forthcoming Documents

Download this Document

I. Key Documents
(These are the most important documents for state policymakers
or other persons approaching this issue for the first time.)

Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom -- U.S. Department of Energy - Office of Environmental Management DOE/EM. January 1995 -- 106 Pages

DOE Office of Environmental Management. October 1999. From Cleanup to Stewardship: a Companion Report to ACCELERATING CLEANUP: PATHS TO CLOSURE. DOE/EM-0466. 57 pp. plus appendices. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/companion.asp
A well-illustrated statement of the problem and basic issues, this document is an excellent starting point for those not already familiar with the transition from cleanup to stewardship of the DOE nuclear weapons complex.

DOE Office of Long-Term Stewardship (EM-51) October 2000. Long Term Stewardship Study--Draft. 167 pp. (“Notice of Availability” published October 31, 2000, 65 FEDERAL REGISTER 64934. ) (Contact: Tish O’Connor, EM-51) http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/DraftStudy.pdf
This national policy study was prepared to comply with the terms of the December 1998 settlement agreement between NRDC, et al., and DOE, a lawsuit related to DOE’s Waste Management Programmatic EIS. Does not make recommendations. Final version expected April 2001. Of interest, the document includes a 4-page letter of transmittal from Assistant Secretary Carolyn Huntoon describing the essence of DOE’s current LTS program.

November 9, 2001 -- Read the final study online

DOE Office of Long-Term Stewardship (EM-51). January 2001. Report to Congress on Long-Term Stewardship. Volume 1--Summary Report. 194 pp. Volume 2--Site Summaries. DOE/EM-0563. (Contact: Jonathan Kang, EM-51) -- This report was mandated by the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, and is the first national effort to compile an estimate of the future long-term stewardship responsibilities for the Department of Energy. This report provides an order-of-magnitude estimate, based on numbers submitted by DOE Field Offices, that the ultimate (year 2050) cost of LTS will be approximately $100 million per year for 129 sites, subject to a variety of uncertainties and data limitations. Volume 2 provides individual narrative summaries for each site.

National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. August 2000. Long-Term Institutional Management of U.S. Department of Energy Legacy Waste Sites. Committee on Remediation of Buried and Tank Wastes, Board on Radioactive Waste Management. 178pp. (Committee chair: Tom Leschine, University of Washington) http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9949.html
“The Committee...finds that much regarding DOE’s intended reliance on long-term stewardship is at this point problematic.” This study argues that while LTS is essential, a much broader-based, more systematic approach is needed. For any given site, contaminant reduction, contaminant isolation, and stewardship should be treated as an integrated, complementary system: one that requires foresight, transparently clear and realistic thinking, and accountability. Today’s waste management actions should become an integral part of stewardship planning. ...”No plan developed today is likely to remain protective for the duration of the hazards.”

Applegate, John and Stephen Dycus. November 1998. Institutional Controls or Emperor’s Clothes? Long-Term Stewardship of the Nuclear Weapons Complex. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER News & Analysis 28(11) ELR 10631-10652. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/doc42.pdf
In this thought-provoking paper, the authors find that the statutory framework (primarily CERCLA and RCRA) for addressing long-lived wastes fails to impose effective restrictions on the future use of contaminated property and does not establish the types of institutions that are necessary to manage long-lived wastes. The authors further conclude that existing institutional controls are not likely to be effective over the long term. They therefore advocate the development of new legal instruments, procedures for current decisionmaking, and stewardship institutions that will ensure successful long-term management of long-lived waste. They also set forth a set of characteristics that would enable an effective LTS program. The authors are both professors of law and members of DOE’s Environmental Management Advisory Board, Long-Term Stewardship Committee.

Environmental Law Institute and Energy Communities Alliance. 2001. The Role of Local Governments in Long-Term Stewardship at DOE Facilities. 166pp. (Contact: Seth Kirshenberg (ECA) or Jay Pendergrass (ELI)). www.eli.org
A useful synthesis of information and viewpoints on LTS from local government perspective, this report includes policy recommendations emerging from case studies of Rocky Flats, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge.

II. Full List of Documents, Arranged by Organization

US Department of Energy (DOE)- Headquarters

DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM). October 1999. From Cleanup to Stewardship: a Companion Report to Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure. DOE/EM-0466. 57 pp. Plus appendices. [Annotated above]

DOE Office of Long-Term Stewardship (EM-51), October 2000. Long Term Stewardship Study-Draft. Notice of Availability: 65 FR 64934, 10/31/2000. [Annotated above]

DOE Office of Long-Term Stewardship (EM-51). January 2001. Report to Congress on Long-Term Stewardship. Volume 1-Summary Report. 194 pp. Volume 2-Site Summaries. DOE/EM-0563. (Contact: Jonathan Kang, EM-51) [Annotated above.]

DOE Office of Long-Term Stewardship (EM-51). January 2001. Long-term Stewardship Implementation Plan Guidance, Draft. 92 pp. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/stewlink0.asp Preliminary draft. A significantly revised draft is expected April 17, 2001 (see forthcoming) DOE. January 2001. “Interim Policy for the Department of Energy’s Use of Institutional Controls.” Preliminary Draft. 6 pp. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/stewlink0.asp (Contact: Tish O’Connor) Revised version expected in April 2000.

DOE EM-51. May 24, 1999. “Draft Outline, Site Specific Stewardship Plan,” 4 pp. (Contact: John Stewart, DOE EM-51)

DOE. Forthcoming. Long-Term Stewardship Strategic Plan. (Contact: Julie Connor, DOE-Idaho)

US DOE-HQ Policy Memoranda

DOE, Memo from T.J. Glauthier, Deputy Secretary of Energy. December 15, 2000. “Long-Term Stewardship Transition to Site Landlord.” 3 pp.
http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/dec15memo.pdf
This memo announces a directive that site landlord programs (e.g., Defense Programs, stockpile stewardship, research) will take responsibility for LTS activities at sites where there is a continuing non-EM mission after EM finishes cleaning up the site.

DOE-EM, Memo from Carolyn Huntoon, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. January 19, 2001. “Long-term Stewardship Responsibility.” 3 pp. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/ltsresp.pdf
This memorandum directs all sites where EM is landlord to prepare a LTS plan to be included in the site’s Project Baseline Summary by Fiscal Year 2004, or sooner when practicable. The memo also requests that each site submit its proposed schedule for preparing its LTS plan to the Assistant Secretary by 3/15/01.

DOE-EM, Memo from Carolyn Huntoon, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. January 19, 2001. “Realignment of the Grand Junction Office from Albuquerque to Idaho Operations Office.” 3 pp. plus 6 pages of attachments. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/gjmemo.pdf
This memo quotes Secretary Richardson’s announcement that INEEL would serve as the “lead field site for guiding our Long-Term Stewardship Program.” The memo announces transfer of GJO to DOE-ID, and directs DOE-ID and GJO to develop, by March 15, 2001, a memorandum of agreement with the Office of Long-Term Stewardship (EM-51), and the Closure (EM-40) and Project Completion Offices (EM-30) establishing clear roles and responsibilities. The attachments also assign LTS responsibility to GJO for the following sites: FUSRAP (6 sites), Weldon Spring; Section 151(b) sites (up to 10 sites); and the Bonus Reactor site in Puerto Rico.

US DOE-Office of Environmental Policy and Guidance (EH) DOE-EH. August 2000. Institutional Controls in RCRA & CERCLA Response Actions at Department of Energy Facilities. DOE/EH-413-0004, 41 pp. http://tis.es.doe.gov/oepa.guidance/cercla/ic_rfinal.pdf
This guidance is intended to provide information on institutional controls to DOE environmental restoration project managers for making remedy decisions under CERCLA and RCRA. The document describes the federal and state regulatory framework, evaluates types of ICs that would apply based on whether DOE is retaining or transferring the land, or allowing use by non-DOE entities; and provides basic information about how and when to select appropriate ICs in the full context of regulators, stakeholders, and site-specific conditions. (Contact: John Bascietto, EH-413) cf. EPA’s Institutional Controls: A Site Managers Guide . . .September 2000, below.

DOE-EH. March 2000. Developing Exit Strategies for Environmental Restoration Projects. DOE/EH-413-0013. 4 pp. (contact: Steve Golian, DOE-EH) http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/cercla/exitstrategies.pdf
This guidance applies to CERCLA & RCRA cleanups that involve a long-term obligation, such as monitoring or operation and maintenance. It also applies to sites where such obligations are expected to be perpetual by shifting the focus to a “ramp-down” rather than an exit strategy. “Experience has shown that without an exit strategy, it is difficult to reach consensus on when to stop active remediation or associated monitoring.” The report describes four essential elements of an exit strategy: (1) agreed-upon description of the objective; (2) a performance model that describes the expected course of remediation; (3) a listing of the performance metrics, decision criteria, and endpoints that will be used; and (4) a contingency plan to be implemented if data indicate that objectives will not be met.

DOE-EH. October 1999. The Long-Term Control of Property: Overview of Requirements in Orders 5400.1 & 5400.5. DOE/EH-412-0014/1099. 6 pp. http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/aea/5415b.pdf
Provides a brief summary, with references to further guidance, of DOE Orders 5400.1B General Environmental Management Program; and 5400.5B Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. These orders establish a framework for many of DOE’s LTS responsibilities, including dose limits, monitoring, reporting, and institutional controls when “residual radioactive material” is present. The document includes a discussion emphasizing that there is no time limit on DOE statutory responsibility to protect public health and the environment, in spite of various analytical requirements that allow for time-limited calculations of risk. DOE plans to replace 5400.1 with Order 450.1; and 5400.5 with 10 CFR 834.

US DOE Field Offices

DOE Grand Junction Program Office (GJO). June 1999. Long-Term Surveillance and Management Program Plan. GJO-99-93-TAR. 30 pp plus appendices. http://www.doegjpo.com/programs/ltsm/general/proj_info/ltsm progplan/ltsmplan99n.pdf
Provides a description of the LTSM program, which has operated at DOE’s Grand Junction Office since 1988.

DOE-GJO. March 2000. LTS & M Program 1999 Report. GJO-2000-139-TAR. 24 pp.
DOE-GJO. February 2001. LTS & M Program 2000 Report. GJO-2000-181-TAR. 26 pp.
http://www.doegjpo.com/programs/ltsm/general/2000report/2000report.pdf
These reports provide an update on the status and accomplishments of the LSTM Program, and include a one-paragraph summary of the status of each site under the management of the Program.

DOE-Idaho. August 4, 2000. Long-Term Stewardship: Initial Needs Assessment and Technology Baseline Inventory 2000, working draft. For DOE Office of Science and Technology. 34 pp. plus appendices. (Contact: Bryan Bowser, DOE-ID) http://emi-web.inel.gov/lts
This report is a first attempt to catalog and categorize long-term stewardship technological needs and to identify present and emerging technology that may be useful in meeting those needs. DOE-Idaho is DOE’s science and technology lead for LTS.

DOE-Ohio Field Office, Susan R. Brechbill, Manager. March 27, 2000. “Guiding Principles for LTS.” 2 pp. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/doc198.pdf
Outlines six principles for DOE-Ohio sites to embrace during development of LTS Plans: Stakeholder and Regulator Involvement; Institutional Controls; Funding; Review of Remedy; Technological Opportunities; and Pooling Resources. Quote from institutional controls: Given that the final step in the cleanup process is making sure that the administrative controls and use restriction are not lost over time, LTS commitments for ‘knowledge/data management’ may, in fact, be one of the Department’s most challenging obligations for funding: The cost-benefit of any potential LTS action should be evaluated at the time of remedy selection.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

US EPA OSWER. September 2000. Institutional Controls: A Site Manager’s Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups. 30 pp. EPA-540-F-00-005. http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/resources/institut/guide.pdf
This fact sheet provides EPA site managers with an overview of the types of ICs that are commonly used, and outlines the factors that should be considered when evaluating and selecting ICs as part of a remedy. Summarizes legal mechanisms for imposing ICs. Covers all cleanups, including those at federal facilities. Includes sections on determining the role of states and local governments. Includes several references to: Institutional Controls: A Reference Manual(see below). Includes a checklist for implementing ICs as well as an extensive table of ICs with their benefits, limitations, and enforcement mechanisms.
[From the Assistant Administrator’s letter of transmittal:] “Some of the key messages from this fact sheet are: 1) if the cleanup does not result in unrestricted use and unlimited exposure at a site, an IC is likely appropriate, 2) understand the life-cycle strengths, weaknesses and costs for implementation, monitoring and enforcement before choosing an IC, 3) coordinate early with all state and local governments that may have responsibilities for the ICs, 4) evaluate ICs as rigorously as you would any other remedial alternative, 5) layer and/or place ICs in series to increase their reliability, 6) when writing decision documents, make sure that the objective(s) of the IC are clear, 7) get assurances (in writing if possible) from entities that will be responsible for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing ICs, and 8) remember that since all ICs have weaknesses, the role of the decision maker is to select the best ICs to protect human health and the environment.”

US EPA. February 2000. Institutional Controls and Transfer of Real Property under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3) (A), (B) or (C). 9 pp. (Contact: Allison Abernathy, EPA-Fed.Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office) www.epa.gov/swerffrr/fi-icops.106.wpd -- See number 19
This document provides guidance on the exercise of EPA’s discretion for property to be transferred under CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A),(B), or (C) when EPA is called upon to evaluate institutional controls as part of a remedial action. The guidance provides guidelines applicable to property transfers in general and, more specifically, to support “operating properly and successfully determinations” under CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(B). The guidance does not address the issue of whether an institutional control is appropriate for a particular site.

US EPA, Workgroup on Institutional Controls. March 1998. Institutional Controls: A Reference Manual. Working Draft. 87 pp. plus appendices. (Contact: Stephen Hess. EPA Office of General Counsel) (Not available online)
This manual was prepared for use by EPA staff involved in evaluating and implementing institutional controls in cleanup programs primarily CERCLA and RCRA. It is not intended as Agency guidance. It identifies the kinds of legal and other vehicles that can serve as ICs and discusses in detail the legal and practical considerations that may arise in putting such controls in place. It includes a section on ICs and federal facilities. While useful for both program and legal staff, it is expected to be of particular value to regional counsel. EPA currently has no plans to finalize the document.

US EPA Regions

US EPA Region 4. April 13, 1998. Memorandum from Jon D. Johnson, “Assuring Land Use Controls at Federal Facilities.” 7 pp. www.epa.gov/region04/waste/fedfac/landusec.htm
Establishes Region 4 policy on use of land use controls at federal facilities under CERCLA and RCRA. Requires the lead federal agency to implement a detailed land use control assurance plan (LUCAP), and sets forth-minimum requirements for such plans. For purposes of this “policy, and use control” incompasses institutional controls, access controls (including engineered barriers such as fences), or other affirmative or prohibitive measures involving use of the property.

US EPA Region 5. March 2000. “Use of Institutional Controls in the RCRA Corrective Action Program.” 23 pp. http://www.epa.gov/reg5oopa/rcraca/Institutional_Controls_Guidance.PDF
Region 5 is recommending that for corrective action projects where EPA is the lead agency for oversight (federal lead sites) it will use administrative orders (e.g., under the authority of sections 7003 or 3008(h) of RCRA) to ensure federal enforceability of institutional controls. "We recognize that in limited circumstances States may have other legal mechanisms that allow for federal enforceability of an institutional control. We encourage the States to consider the issues in this guidance in developing their own policies for establishing enforceable institutional controls.”

US EPA Region 10. 1999. “Region 10 Final Policy on the Use of Institutional Controls at Federal Facilities” 12 pp. (Contact: Jan Palumbo, EPA Region 10)
Establishes Region 10 policy to ensure short and long-term effectiveness of institutional controls at federal facilities under CERCLA and RCRA. Establishes requirements for ICs that are operable-unit-specific as well as facility-wide. For purposes of this policy, “institutional controls” generally includes all non-engineered restrictions on activities, access, or exposure to land, groundwater, surface water, waste and waste disposal areas and other areas or media. Physical structures such as fences may or may not be determined to be components of institutional controls in decision documents.

US Department of Defense (DoD)

US DoD. Spring 1997. “Institutional Controls: What they are and how they are used?” Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Environmental Program Fact Sheet. 6 pp. http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/brac/ic.html
Serves as a basic introduction to two categories of ICs: proprietary controls (easements, covenants, reversionary interests), and governmental controls (e.g. permit programs and zoning controls on land use).

US DoD. February 1998. “A Guide to Establishing Institutional Controls at Closing Military Installations.” 10 pp. http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/brac/icguide.html
A straightforward guide for what to do at DoD facilities when restoration or reuse alternatives under consideration may require “some sort of control or limit on use of the property.” Emphasizes the necessity for community acceptance of ICs. Recommends formation of a multi-stakeholder team to plan and implement ICs. Provides a checklist of issues and tools to be considered when establishing and maintaining ICs. Includes “layering” -combining mutually reinforcing controls-as a recommended technique. Also recommends broad notice: “The more people who are aware of and responsible for an IC, the easier it is to ensure that the controls will be heeded and maintained.”

US DoD. January 17, 2001. Memorandum from Sherri W. Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security). “Policy on Land Use Controls Associated with Environmental Restoration Activities.” 6 pp. plus attachments (14 pp). http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/dodjanpol.pdf
Establishes DoD policy for implementing, documenting, and managing land use controls (LUCs) for real property being transferred out of federal control and for active DoD installations. Land use controls are defined broadly to include physical, legal, and administrative mechanisms to limit use of land. ICs are considered a subset of LUCs. Among other things, requires “feasibility studies that consider a remedy requiring a land use restriction shall include the costs of implementing and maintaining the LUC, as well as an evaluation of an ‘unrestricted use’ alternative.”
Requires DoD components to maintain a central database of LUCs and/or to use of appropriate existing state or local registries. Attachments are “guidance” to accompany the 6-page policy.

State Organizations

State and Tribal Governments Working Group, Stewardship Committee. February 1999. Closure for the Seventh Generation. 6 pp. text plus 54 pp. appendices. National Conference of State Legislatures. http://www.em.doe.gov/stgwg/ (See also response letter from James Owendoff, DOE, dated 5/24/99 http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/doc203.pdf )
This report compiles the results of a survey of contaminated sites to determine whether remedies - including institutional controls - were effective and how each site or responsible party was planning or implementing a stewardship program. Survey responses were received from 12 sites found in the following states: CO, ID, KY, MO, NM, NV, OH, PA, and TN. Based on these case studies, the Committee developed a series of finding, conclusions, and recommendations.

Association of State & Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. December 1997. ASTSWMO Survey of State Institutional Control Mechanisms. 131 pp. http://www.astswmo.org/Publications/pdf/instit.pdf
This document provides a compilation of the results of a survey of State Cleanup Programs to determine the extend that ICs are used nationally, and to determine the successes and issues surrounding their use. Specific response information is shown for each of the 42 responding states. Topics of survey questions included the degree of community/local involvement in establishing ICs; the enforcement, tracking, funding of ICs; how ICs are used at National Priorities List sites; whether ICs are considered takings; and perceived obstacles to successful use of ICs.
Among the findings: deed restrictions, deed notices, land use restrictions, and water use restrictions are the most common forms of ICs used. Hazardous substance easements, a fairly new mechanism, were used in three responding states. Most states indicated that ICs had not been used long enough to determine whether they will be effective in preventing exposure in the long run. The vast majority of information on ICs was managed, maintained, and controlled through local property records. Thirteen states had a registry or database for tracking and recording ICs.

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. February 23, 2001. White Paper: Research on Implementing Stewardship. John McCartney, Intern, for the Rocky Flats Stewardship Working Group. 94 pp. (Contact: Steve Tarlton, CDPHE)
A well-referenced compilation of information on physical and institutional controls for LTS, including advantages, disadvantages, and case studies on the effectiveness of such controls, when available. This document includes an outline of procedures for using the stewardship “toolbox” developed by the Rocky Flats Stewardship Working Group. Useful supplementary information tables on access restrictions, records management, and monitoring are included. Also includes an extensive bibliography.

Local Government Organizations

Environmental Law Institute and Energy Communities Alliance. 2001. The Role of Local Governments in Long-Term Stewardship at DOE Facilities. 166 pp. (Contact: Seth Kirshenberg (ECA), Jay Pendergrass (ELI)). [annotated above]

International City/County Management Association. 1996. Cleaning Up After the Cold War: The Role of Local Government in the Environmental Cleanup and Reuse of Federal Facilities. 123 pp. Based on case studies at seven DoD sites and four DOE sites (Rocky Flats, Mound, Oak Ridge, and Pantex), this report develops a set of 17 recommendations to facilitate more effective involvement by local governments in the cleanup and reuse of federal facilities in or near their jurisdictions.

Citizen Advisory Boards

DOE Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB) Long-Term Stewardship Committee, John Applegate and Tom Winston, co-chairs; Kimberly Stewart, staff analyst. Report and Recommendations, 10/8/98, 3 pp. http://www.em.doe.gov/emab/ltscomm.html
(See also response Letter from James Owendoff, DOE, April 16, 1999, 5 pp. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/doc204.pdf -Long-term Stewardship Committee: resolutions dated 4/13/2000.

Hanford Advisory Board, Advice letter #63, Subject: Institutional Controls, February 7, 1997. 2 pp. http://www.em.doe.gov/emab/ltscomm.html

Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) - End Use Working Group. Stakeholder Report on Stewardship, July 1998, 105 pp. -Stewardship Working Group. Stakeholder Report on Stewardship Volume 2, December 1999, 174 pp. http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/pubs.htm

Rocky Flats Stewardship Working Group. March 2001. Hand-in-Hand: Stewardship and Cleanup. Report from Rocky Flats Stewardship Working Group to the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments and the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board. (Contact: c/o Steve Tarlton, CDPHE)
The purpose of this report is to emphasize the importance of incorporating LTS into the remedy selection process, and to offer guidance as to how this incorporation can best be accomplished. The document presents a draft stewardship “toolbox,” developed to help identify and organize the LTS activities necessary for an effective program so that they may be systematically considered during remedy selection. Identifies the six major stewardship tools as:

For a given remedy, a 7x7 matrix is constructed that causes the interactions among tools and remedies to be revealed. This document also introduces a distinction between “fixed” stewardship needs that are needed regardless of which remedy is chosen, and “variable” needs that vary depending on the remedy. Extensive bibliography.

Rocky Flats Stewardship Dialogue Planning Group. April 1999. Beyond Closure: Stewardship at Rocky Flats. 53 pp. Convened by the Rocky Flats Local Impacts Initiative. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/doc55.pdf
This document focuses on who and how stewardship should be carried out at Rocky Flats. Sets out categories of stewards as principal steward, implementation stewards, and oversight stewards. Includes informative sections on regulatory requirements, institutional controls, engineered controls, and information requirements.
[From the introduction:] “Can you find the city Çatal Huyuk on a map? Even if you know it’s in Turkey, and you know the countryside well you may not be able to find it. It’s one of the first cities built by humans - over 6,000 years ago - and is in total ruins now, not even recovered. Their long-dead script is an indecipherable cuneiform. Even if the ancient Çatal Huyukans had wanted to communicate something to the future, we probably are not getting the message.”

Independent Organizations

National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. August 2000. Long-Term Institutional Management of U.S. Department of Energy Legacy Waste Sites. Committee on Remediation of Buried and Tank Wastes, Board on Radioactive Waste Management. 178 pp. [annotated above]

Environmental Law Institute and Energy Communities Alliance. 2001. The Role of Local Governments in Long-Term Stewardship at DOE Facilities. [Annotated above]

Environmental Law Institute. 1995. Institutional Controls in Use. 35 pp. Plus appendices 19 pp. www.eli.org
Commissioned to help guide the federal Superfund program, this report identifies federal, state, local, and private programs that use institutional controls to protect the public. Recommendations are made based on an analysis of how such controls performed. Four states were specifically studied: Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont, and Florida. Private mechanisms studied included conservation easements and restrictive covenants.

Environmental Law Institute. 1998. Institutional Controls Case Study: Mound Plant. 40 pp. http://www.eli.org/contracts/rr99moundplantcontract.htm
This study examined the ongoing decision-making process at Mound, and the options being considered in order to aid DOE’s and the public’s understanding of ICs. The study found that deed restrictions were the primary IC considered, and that the analysis of other approaches was limited. It also found that some reuse and cleanup decision were being made prior to the identification and development of ICs, possibly making it more difficult to impose some forms of IC, such as covenants, that depend on legal priority and specific relationships between grantors and grantees, and among grantees of parcels of land. There was substantial public involvement in decision-making about ICs at Mound.

Environmental Law Institute. 1999. Institutional Controls Case Study: Grand Junction. 34 pp. http://www.eli.org/contracts/rr99grandjunctioncontract.htm
This study examined the status of institutional controls at the Climax Uranium mill site in Grand Junction, Colorado. This site is an UMTRA project site under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978. The statute provides for annotation of land records. The researchers found that the state, DOE, real estate professionals, lenders and property owners have opposed annotating land records of vicinity properties (sites where tailings were used for construction or deposited through erosion). They also found that the voluntary nature of the UMTRA program has resulted in “anomalous gaps” in the protection provided by ICs because property owners could refuse to have their property evaluated or cleanup up under the program.

Environmental Law Institute. 1999. Protecting Public Health at Superfund Sites: Can Institutional Controls Meet the Challenge? 134 pp. ISBN #0-911937-85-4. http://www.eli.org/contracts/rr00institutionalcontrolscontract.htm
This study consists of four in-depth case studies of NPL sites where there has been experience selecting and implementing various types of institutional controls. Sets forth recommendations for (a) intergovernmental coordination, (b) selection of ICs, (c) long-term monitoring and enforcement, and (d) public awareness and participation.
[From the conclusion:] “These case studies demonstrate that there are many obstacles to the long-term effectiveness of [ICs]. ... Unless there is improvement in the use of [ICs] it is likely that [ICs] will continue to fail at some sites and that eventually one or more of these failures will cause people to be exposed to residual hazardous substances.”

Joint Institute for Energy & Environment. May 2000. Reducing the Nuclear Legacy Burden: DOE Environmental Management Strategy and Implementation. Author: Milton Russell. 60pp. JIEE-00-01. www.jiee.org/SPO/spo.html
The author argues that DOE’s goal as agent for the public should be to minimize the joint risk and cost burden on this and future generations. He advocates switching from a physical (“cleanup”) transformation mindset to one of minimizing the legacy burden. The legacy burden includes the value of both the direct harmful effects borne and of the resources absorbed and other harms incurred in reducing such effects. This paper provides a strategy that emphasizes implementation of necessary trade offs while achieving equity within this and succeeding generations.

Joint Institute for Energy and Environment. July 1997. Institutional Controls at Superfund Sites: A Preliminary Assessment of Their Efficacy and Public Acceptability. Authors: Dr. Mary English, David L. Feldman, et al. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 100 pp. JIEE Report 97-02. (Full text not available online)
The lead author served as vice chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Remediation of Buried Tank Wastes in producing their recent report (NRC, 2000).
[From the abstract:] This report provides a preliminary assessment of the public acceptability and efficacy of institutional controls at Superfund sites. Based on a review of the literature and the study's empirical findings, there is good reason to be concerned about the viability of institutional controls, as they are currently employed. The study offers six conclusions and recommendations for EPA and others to consider:

National Environmental Policy Institute. December 1999. Rolling Stewardship: Beyond Institutional Controls, Preparing Future Generations for Long-Term Environmental Cleanups. 51 pp. www.nepi.org
Describes “rolling stewardship” as focusing on the links needed between generations to carry long-term stewardship forward. Rolling stewardship requires a framework for stewardship decisions that can be tailored over time, and empowers each generation with greater information on stewardship tools and practices. The rationale behind this approach is that there are too many imponderables, in terms of planning for conditions many decades in the future, to make decisions today that will be effective many generations from now. Rolling stewardship allows greater flexibility, yet ensures there is an infrastructure in place to empower the next generation of decision-makers. This approach disarms the critic who harps on the infeasibility of perpetual guarantees. Instead, it focuses attention away from the imponderable future and onto practical issues that we can carry out today with some assurance of success. The test is, “Will the solution remain viable for a generation?” rather than, will it be viable for the next millennium and beyond -- Download Publication on Rolling Stewardship (PDF File 200 KB).

National Academy of Public Administration. June 1997. Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits Fairly Across Generations. 49 pp. ISBN: 1 57744 050 1. http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oepa/data/napa.pdf
Commissioned by DOE, this report sets forth a set of principles for allocating resources and making decisions that affect present and future generations. The Academy arrived at four principles: the trustee principle, the sustainability principle, the chain of obligation principle, and the precautionary principle. The foreword notes that “traditional techniques, such as economic discounting, are not adequate to address the far future. The present value of the entire earth can be discounted to almost nothing in several hundred years. Where, then, can we turn for guidance?”

Resources for the Future Bauer, Carl, and Katherine N. Probst. December 2000. Long Term Stewardship at Contaminated Sites: Trust Funds as Mechanisms for Financing and Oversight. Discussion Paper 00-54, 35 pp.
The authors examine three types of trusts: federal, state, and private, and evaluate them against five criteria for their effectiveness for funding long term stewardship at federal and other contaminated sites. They conclude that, on balance, private charitable trusts appear to be the best option for funding LTS. Federal “trust funds” are specifically not recommended. This report does not address where the money to capitalize a trust would come from, except to say that it is unclear whether federal agencies have authority to finance state or private trusts.

Probst, Katherine N., and Michael H. McGovern. June 1998. Long Term Stewardship and the Nuclear Weapons Complex: the Challenge Ahead. 67 pp. ISBN 0-915707-97-7. http://www.rff.org/reports/PDF_files/stewardship.pdf
This is a thoughtful study that begins with a description of the waste legacy and institutional legacy from the cold war, and the key functions of a long-term stewardship program. Drawing on an analogy with cemetery preservation and maintenance, the authors then examine a number of factors essential to creating a successful LTS program. They argue in favor of creating an enduring stewardship mandate through federal legislation amending CERCLA or RCRA or enacting stand-alone legislation. They examine candidate federal agencies for implementing LTS (including DOE, EPA, Corps, and BLM), and conclude that there is no obvious best candidate, pending decisions about whether the scope of LTS is DOE sites only or all contaminated sites.
Having concluded that another component of a successful LTS program is an effective mechanism for ensuring external accountability, they examine several models for this and further conclude that external accountability may be best served by some sort of joint oversight, conducted by the federal and state government. They provide additional recommendations for next steps and specific topics for further study, including a recommendation for EPA to commission a study examining the role of state and local governments as stewardship implementors and/or overseers. Among the appendices, one enumerates the relevant features of the various federal environmental programs with stewardship elements.

International Organizations

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). July 1999. Maintenance of records for radioactive waste disposal. IAEA-TECDOC-1097. 33 pp. http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Books/TecDoc/
This report provides guidance for preserving information about near surface and geological repositories for radioactive waste including long-lived and transuranic waste and spent fuel if it is declared as a waste. The report discusses the identification, transfer, and long term retention of high-level information pertaining to the repository in a records management system (RMS) for retrieval if it becomes necessary in the future. The report recommends a three-level, hierarchical structure for storage of information at varying levels of detail and at multiple locations.

Other Articles & Publications

Applegate, John, and Steve Dycus. November 1998. “Institutional Controls or Emperor’s Clothes? Long-Term Stewardship of the Nuclear Weapons Complex,” Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 28 ELR 10631-10652. [Annotated above.]

Brand, Stewart. June 2000. The Clock of the Long Now: Time and Responsibility, Basic Books. 200 pp.
From Library Journal: “(The author) takes on civilization's “pathologically short attention span” with a proposal to encourage us all to assume long term responsibility for the continuation of the human species. How to do this? By creating both a myth and a mechanism with which to counter our short focus these days, which Brand names as the core of the problem. He spends the remainder of this rumination clarifying that thought and outlining the details of the myth and mechanism that he suggests as a catalyst: a clock that ticks once a year, bongs once a century, and cuckoos but once a millennium.” From the book jacket: “The Clock of the Long Now tackles the necessary and "timely" question of how to make long term thinking an integral part of our fast paced lives.”

ICF Kaiser. March 1998. Managing Data for Long-Term Stewardship, working draft. (Contact: Bob Hegner, ICF.) Commissioned by US DOE. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/doc1.html
Findings:

Pasqualetti, Martin J. 1997. “Landscape Permanence and Nuclear Warnings,” THE GEOGRAPHIC REVIEW 87(1): 73-91.
[Abstract] From the perspective of a human lifetime, the hazards of some nuclear wastes are permanent, so the warnings we place at contaminated nuclear sites must be permanent too. I address questions of how best to provide one hundred centuries of public warning at the first facility for permanent disposal, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. Scenarios of intrusion developed to guide the design of warning markers predicted that most of the changes in the area will be social and cultural. Because blatant and permanent markers will increase, not reduce, the probability of inadvertent intrusion, the most appropriate warning is a “landscape of illusion.” Such a landscape needs no permanent surface markers but underground warning devices beneath a soft surface marker. No warning can guarantee deterrence for 10,000 years, however.

Conference Proceedings

Meeting Summary. Eleventh Technical Information Exchange Workshop, Las Vegas, NV, October 27, 1999. Session XVII: Stewardship Panel Session, chaired by John C. Stewart, DOE-HQ. 9 pp. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/pdf/doc191.pdf

DOE-Grand Junction Office. Third Annual LTS Workshop. August 7-10, 2000. Denver. http://www.doegjpo.com/programs/ltsm/general/workshophighlights.htm The Fourth Annual LTS Workshop is scheduled for July 30-August 2, 2001, in Grand Junction.

Energy Communities Alliance (ECA). Stakeholder forums on Land Use Controls. West coast forum 1999, East coast forum June, 2000.

ECA/ELI, April 8-9, 1999, Highlights: ECA/ELI Local Government Long-Term Stewardship Meeting, Westminster, CO. http://www.energyca.org/WestminsterMeetingHighlights.html

ECA/ELI, August 2-4, 2000, Roundtable Minutes: Role of Local Government in Long-Term Stewardship and Institutional Controls Project , Denver. http://www.energyca.org/DenverRoundtableMinutes.pdf

Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) Stewardship Workshop, October 26-27, 2000, Denver.

Waste Management 2000 Symposium (Tucson), session on stewardship, February 29, 2000. http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/reports/ppt/session1/wm2000session1_files/ppoint.pdf

Waste Management 2001 Symposium (Tucson), sessions on stewardship, February 27 and March 1, 2001. http://www.wmsym.org/

Workshop to Address Management of Contaminated Federal Facilities. December 13 15, 2000, San Francisco. http://www.pacific rim.org/calconf/Summary.htm

Forthcoming Documents

DOE Office of Long-Term Stewardship (EM-51). Forthcoming. Long Term Stewardship Study-Final. Expected April 2001. (Contact: Tish O’Connor, EM-51)

DOE Office of Long-Term Stewardship. Long-term Stewardship Implementation Plan Guidance, Draft. A significantly revised, but still preliminary, draft is expected April 17, 2001. (Contact: Jonathan Kang, EM-51) http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/stewlink0.asp
This guidance is intended to assist DOE field offices in the preparation of site specific stewardship plans and is scheduled to be finalized by October 1, 2001.

DOE. Forthcoming. Long-Term Stewardship Strategic Plan. (Contact: Julie Connor, DOE-Idaho) Drafts of a Strategic Plan have been circulated internally within DOE. The department is developing a new draft of this document.

National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). Survey of state laws and regulations applicable to LTS. (Contact: Paula Cotter, NAAG)

Download this Document

Adobe Pdf file Format

MS Word file Format (includes hyperlinks)

Back to LTS Home Page

Lasted Updated 10/2002

This document was prepared by Jerry Boese of Ross & Associates
The webpage was developed by John Walker - State of Nevada

	Organized By The National Governors Association Federal Facilities Task Force