A day and a half workshop, for federal agencies with regulatory, stewardship and similar responsibilities for sites where radiological and other contamination requires sustained management when active remedial activities have been completed.

The purpose was to promote active informal discussion and review among these federal entities of the policies and guidance currently in place and being developed for this complex of issues. The discussion was convened by, and informed by work produced by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) and participating agencies.The workshop included a packet of background readings from EPA, NRC, DOE and CRESP (See below). View Complete Workshop Agenda and Background Readings

Three fundamental questions of the Workshop:

Are the timeframes which flow from the several regulatory regimes reconcilable and/or adequate to properly shaping the task of sustained protection? If not, could they be?

What are the key factors in both creating – and building the perception – that a series of protective mechanisms will, in fact, be sustained. Is the separation of remediation and stewardship inherent even in this workshop itself a mistaken view of the proper relationship between remedial choice and post-construction stewardship systems?

What are the prospects for improving the coherence and integration of the several systems built to assure sustainable protection when more than a single federal agency is involved/has regulator responsibilities?


Introduction with Goals of the Workshop:

Chuck Powers, CRESP. Introduction with Goal of the Workshop View presentation

What are the responsibilities/views policies of participating agencies on these issues?


Tracy Hopkins, EPA. National Strategy to Manage Post Construction Completion Activities at Superfund Sites View Presentation

Ellen Manges, EPA. EPAs Long-term Stewardship Effors and its evolving policy View Full Stewardship Report


Robert Johnson, NRC. NRC's Approach to Sustaining Long-term Pprotection at NRC Licensed SItes View Presentation


Larry Bailey, Environmental Mangement. David Geiser, Legacy Management Andrew Wallo, Environment, Safety and Health. What is the status of work on these issues at the Department of Energy.

Specific factors that shape credible answers to these three questions:What does the public perceive about sustainability?

Mike Greenberg, Rutgers University. What the nearby publics say "peace of mind" at sites will involve.

Is the science/technology adequate to provide what is needed for sustainable

David Kosson, Vanderbilt University and CRESP. Engineering Realities for Sustainable Protection

Joanna Burger , Rutgers University and CRESP. Where are we in providing a credible baseline for long-term monitoring?

Integrating Institutional and Engineering Controls

Jim Clarke, Vanderbilt University and CRESP. The Integration of Engineered and Institutional Controls

Mike Bellot, EPA. EPA's new IC policy and policy initiatives.

Other Tools Needed for Sustainability

Hank Mayer, Rutgers University and CRESP. Other Tools needed to ensure Sustainability.

Related Background Readings

Most of the readings listed below can be obtained from the web. The Web addresses are listed below. (Note materials not available through the web may be requested from CRESP.)


1. End State Land Uses, Sustainable Protective Systems, and Risk Management: A Challenge for Multi-Generational Stewards by Michael Greenberg, Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, David Kosson, Karen Lowrie, Henry Mayer, Charles Powers, Conrad Volz, and Vikram Vyas, Remediation, 16(1), 2005, 91-105.


EPA's Stewardship Guidance and Post-Construction Completion Strategy Documents

2. US EPA. Long-term Stewardship: Ensuring Environmental Site Cleanups Remain Protective over Time: Challenges and Opportunities Facing EPA's Cleanup Programs, A Report by the Long-term Stewardship Task Force, September 2005

3. US EPA. National Strategy to Manage Post Construction Completion Activities at Superfund Sites (OSWER 9355.0-105) October 2005

4. US EPA. Strategy to ensure Institutional Control implementation at Superfund sites (OSWER No. 9355.0-106), September 2004.


5. Robert L. Johnson. NRC's Durable Long-Term Control System to Sustain Site Protection, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (Search "ML051300002")

6. Code of Federal Regulations Title 10: Energy, Part 20- Standards for Protection against Radiation Subpart E- Radiological Criteria for License Termination

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance (NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Rev. 1, Vol. 2 & Vol. 3) Hardcopies not Included

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. NUREG-1757 Supplement 1, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance: Updates to Implement the License Termination Rules Analysis, Draft Report for Comment, Chapter II Restricted use, Institutional controls, and Engineered barriers, pp II-1 - II-2.


7. DOE's new Institutional Controls policy
A. US Department of Energy. Institutional Controls Implementation Guide for Use with DOE P 454.1, Use of Institutional Controls.
B. US Department of Energy, DOE P 454.1, Use of Institutional Controls.

8. Readings on Legacy Management Policy
A. US Department of Energy. Site Transition Framework for Long-term Surveillance and Maintenance. http://www.lm.doe.gov/documents/3_pro_doc/guidance/04_14stf.pdf
B. US Department of Energy. Office of Legacy Management Information and Records Management Transition Guidance, March 2004.


9. Land Use Controls, Public Health Surveillance, and the Public's Peace of Mind at the United States Major Nuclear Weapons Legacy Sites, M. Greenberg, K. Lowrie, J. Burger, C. Powers, M. Gochfeld, and H. Mayer, CRESP Report, September 2005.

10. Engineered Containment and Control Systems: Nurturing Nature, J. H. Clarke, M. M. MacDonell, E. D. Smith, R. J. Dunn and W. J. Waugh. 2004. Risk Analysis 24(3):771-779. [Not available online]*

11. The Integration of Engineered and Institutional Controls: A Case Study Approach with Lessons Learned from Previously Closed Sites, K. M. Kostelnik, J. H. Clarke and J. L. Harbour, Proceedings of the 05 Waste Management Conference, Tucson, AZ, February, 2005. [ Not available online ]*

12. Using Integrated Geospatial Mapping and Conceptual Site Models to Guide Risk-Based Environmental Clean-up Decisions. H. Mayer, M. Greenberg, J. Burger, M. Gochfeld, C. Powers, D. Kosson, R. Keren, C. Danis and V. Vyas. 2005. Risk Analysis 25(2): 429-446. [ Not available online ]*

13. Guidance for Determining the Best Disposition of Large Tracts of Decommissioned Land, M.A. Carletta, K. Lowrie, K.T. Miller, M. Greenberg and J. Burger, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(2): 243-268. [Not available online]*

14. Legal and Related Policy Issues for Integrating Remediation and NRD Strategies at DOE Site, R.B. Stewart, CRESP Report, June, 2005

15. Natural Resource Damages and the Department of Energy: Integrating Ecosystem Recovery into the Remediation Process, J. Burger, M. Gochfeld, C.W. Powers, In Press Journal of Environmental Management.

* Articles may be requested from CRESP.

Contact Information:

Charles W. Powers
(732) 235-3457

The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation II
CRESP Headquarters: Institute for Responsible Management
675 Hoes Lane, N-112 RWJMS Piscataway, New Jersey 08854
Tel. 732-235-3460 Fax 732-235-9607