Current Project Areas

Nuclear Safety and Waste Processing Facilities – Risk-Informed Decision Making in Safety-Related Applications

Lead Investigator: Steven L. Krahn (Vanderbilt University)
Additional Investigators: Lyndsey Fyffe (DOE-EHSS); Megan Harkema, David Kosson (Vanderbilt)

Project Objectives:

CRESP is working with EM-3/3.1 to enhance the guidance available to DOE-EM and its contractors for the use of quantitative and risk-informed decision making (RIDM) in safety-related applications at EM’s nuclear facilities. The project is in response to feedback regarding opportunities for clarification of the application of the methods described in DOE-STD-1628-2013 & DOE-STD-3009-2014. The goals of this project are to:

• Identify opportunities to enhance the application of RIDM in DOE-EM by developing a draft EM-specific guidance document on the application of quantitative methods in safety-related decision making; and
• Using that guidance, provide training on the application of the guidance, including performing a limited number of tailored case studies on DOE-EM facilities.

Significance/Impact:
Integrating risk-informed decision making into the design, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities in the United States has been recognized at all levels— from the technical (e.g., guidance from the NRC [U.S. NRC, 2008] and DOE [U.S. DOE, 2013] regarding the use if risk-informed/graded approaches to safety analysis) to the programmatic (e.g.,  the NRC’s draft Risk-Informed,  Technology Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors [10 CFR 53]). The DOE has been repeatedly encouraged by various organizations, including Congress, the GAO, and the National Academies to establish a risk-informed framework for decision making. From the EM perspective, the use of risk-informed methods to make cleanup decisions is especially critical in the management of environmental legacies to ensure that the allocation of federal taxpayer monies is both cost-effective and commensurate with risk.

Public Benefits:

The use of risk-informed methods to make cleanup decisions is especially critical in the management of environmental legacies to ensure that the allocation of federal taxpayer monies is cost-effective and commensurate with risk.  This project also provides methodologies to further enhance the nuclear-chemical processing safety paradigm, thus benefitting public health and safety.

References: (* indicates CRESP publication)

U.S. DOE. (2013). Development of Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Safety Applications, DOE-STD-1628-2013, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

U.S. DOE. (2014). Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis, DOE-STD-3009-2014, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

U.S. NRC. (2008). Risk-Informed Decisionmaking for Nuclear Material and Waste Applications, Rev. 1, ML080720238.

*Omnibus Risk Review Committee (M. Greenberg, G. Apostolakis, T. Fields, B. Goldstein, S. Krahn, R.B. Matthews, J. Rispoli, J. Stewart), A Review of the Use of Risk-Informed Management in the Cleanup Program for Former Defense Nuclear Sites, August 2015. Available at: https://www.cresp.org/reviews-reports/omnibus/

*M.R. Greenberg, G. Apostolakis, T. Fields, B.D. Goldstein, D. Kosson, S. Krahn, R.B. Matthews, J. Rispoli, J. Stewart. (2019). Advancing Risk-Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis, 39(2):375-388.

Support for Radiological Protection and Safety

Lead Investigator: Kathryn A. Higley (Lead, Oregon State University)
Additional Investigators: Steve Reese, Steve Kustka, Jillian Newmyer, Irene Marry (Oregon State University)

Project Objectives:

Objective 1: Document uptake from soil of uranium, progeny, and other co-located contaminants and their distribution within native (including medicinal and biocrust) and other plant species, from mine impacted sites.  This effort would include continued participation in IAEA CRP K41022 “Transfer of Radionuclides in Arid and Semi-Arid Environments for Radiological Environmental Impact Assessment.” The purpose of the IAEA effort is to standardize the analysis methodology and help expand the dataset on radionuclide uptake in plants (with focus on foodstuffs) in arid and semi-arid environments (most recent participation April 2024). There is a critical lack of data from arid and semi-arid regions (Semioshkina, N., & Voigt, G., 2021). Data generated as part of this collaborative effort can be used to supplement food chain pathway models used in arid and semi-arid regions of the USA as well as other regions around the world.  Emphasis is in plants with medicinal and cultural significance to tribal entities.

Objective 2: Document and analyze specific characteristics of select low energy beta emitters, such as dose coefficients, transfer factors, environmental behavior, and regulatory standards, which drive restrictive remediation standards.  Radionuclides include tritium, carbon-14, iodine-129 and potentially chlorine-36 and selenium-79.

Objective 3: Develop risk communication products for site-specific topics as requested.

Significance/Impact:
EM manages many sites with complex issues related to large-scale contamination in surface soils as well as groundwater plumes.  Contaminants include hazardous chemicals and elevated levels of radionuclides. Long-term control and reduction of bioavailability of these constituents is paramount. Stakeholder confidence in DOE EM’s mission hinges on EM employing scientifically defensible, transparent, inclusive, and efficient environmental remedies during site cleanup.  This can be achieved through employing best practices and current guidance, undertaking an ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of remediation strategies, investigating and adapting emerging science, and communicating results to a wide range of stakeholders, including the public. Low-level waste (LLW) disposal sites also can benefit, which have been constructed and operated at several facilities, including Idaho National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Reservation, Savannah River Site, Hanford Site, Moab, and Nevada National Security Site (National Academies, 2017).

Public Benefits:

Stakeholder confidence in DOE EM’s site cleanup efforts is based on EM applying scientifically defensible, transparent, inclusive, and efficient environmental remedies. Addressing scientific data gaps in transfer, uptake, and exposure pathways builds trust through sound science, public communication, and engagement.

References: (* indicates CRESP publication)

*Gomez-Fernandez, M., Higley, K., Tokuhiro, A., Welter, K., Wong, W., & Yang, H. (2020). Status of research and development of learning-based approaches in nuclear science and engineering: A review. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 359.

*Greenberg, M., Burger, J., Lowrie, K., & Higley, K. (2022). Kathryn Higley-Build trust through repeated engagement as an honest expert. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 42(11), 2500–2503.

*Hargraves, J. T. (2023). Advancements in Phytoremediation, Dosimetry, and Environmental Radiological Protection: Integrating Endemic Plants, Anatomically Accurate Phantoms, and Real-world Data for Improved Assessments. PhD dissertation, Oregon State University.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board; Planning Committee on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management and Disposition. (2017). Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management and Disposition: A Workshop [Report]. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Semioshkina, N., & Voigt, G. (2021). Soil-plant transfer of radionuclides in arid environments. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 237, 106692.

Tilley, D., and T. Pickett. 2016. Plant Guide for Curlycup Gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Aberdeen Plant Materials Center. Aberdeen, ID.

Wolf, M., and B. Evancho. 2016. Plant Guide for desert globemallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua A. Gray). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tucson Plant Materials Center. Tucson, AZ.

Understanding the Narrowing Scope of Federal Agency Regulatory Authority Under New Supreme Court Decisions and the Implications for DOE Decision-Making

Lead Investigator: Jane Stewart (New York University)
Additional Investigators: David Kosson (Vanderbilt University)

Project Objectives:

The overall goal of this project is to inform and assist DOE in more fully understanding the nature and implications of important recent and anticipated (Summer 2024) Supreme Court decisions and doctrines that are narrowing the scope of federal agency authority and discretion and creating expansive opportunities for courts to override federal agency actions. Specific objectives of the project include the following:

• Assist DOE in understanding the origins, legal basis for, and history of federal agency regulatory authority and discretion, including the key role of the long-standing Chevron Doctrine in affording judicial deference to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of their statutory authority where the authorizing statute is unclear, ambiguous, or silent.
• Similarly, to address additional recent and pending Supreme Court rulings that will have major impacts on environmental and nuclear regulations (e.g., major question doctrine, statute of limitations, trial by jury, non-delegation doctrine).
• Provide DOE with an independent regulatory analysis of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on whether to overrule the Chevron Doctrine and the implications of that decision for federal agency decision-making and judicial review of agency actions going forward. 
• To the extent possible within the short timeframe of the project, provide DOE with a preliminary assessment of how lower federal courts are implementing the new Court decision on the Chevron Doctrine. CRESP may also provide future updates regarding significant court decisions that may impact the DOE-EM program.

Significance/Impact:
As the federal agency charged with the complex task of remediating contamination at former nuclear weapons production sites that often present “first of a kind” challenges, DOE, on a regular basis, must make expert, science-based decisions and establish rules and policies that are not expressly mandated by or specified in the Department’s authorizing statutes, including under the Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments and environmental laws. DOE’s ability to effectively execute the EM cleanup mission accordingly depends on the Department’s ability to exercise discretion to interpret authorizing statutes to fit new, unique, or unprecedented site circumstances and to exercise its regulatory authority in new and innovative ways that will make cleanup both protective and cost-effective. 

For the past 40 years, under the Chevron Doctrine, the Supreme Court has deferred to reasonable agency interpretations of statutory authorizing language where the statute is unclear, ambiguous, or silent. The Supreme Court recently overturned the Chevron Doctrine in two cases. Recent decisions of the Court—such as those establishing the “Major Questions Doctrine”—make clear that the Court Majority intends to limit innovative or expansive federal agency regulation significantly and to prevent federal agencies from undertaking “major” (as determined by the Court) actions that are not expressly spelled out in legislation enacted by Congress. Rejecting the longstanding Chevron Doctrine could dramatically restrict federal agency discretion, including DOE, even in “non-major” cases, and have other adverse consequences for federal agency decision-making, rulemaking, and policy making.  Furthermore, additional Supreme Court decisions during Spring 2024 (e.g., Corner-Post, effectively eliminating the 6-year APA statute of limitations for challenging agency regulations and allowing even well-settled regulations to be challenged; SEC v. Jarkesy, requiring jury trial instead of administrative law judge proceeding for agency enforcement actions imposing fines, also narrowing the major exception) will likely result in major changes in the administration of environmental law, potentially having major impact on the DOE-EM mission. Additional significant cases are pending in the upcoming Supreme Court term.  This Project will help DOE understand the scope and implications of these highly significant new Supreme Court initiatives and develop forward-looking strategies for coping with them.

Public Benefits:

Independent reviews of specific, recent Supreme Court decisions and subsequent actions by lower courts will have far-reaching implications for environmental and nuclear regulation that impacts well beyond DOE missions. The results of the CRESP reviews will be available to the public and useful as educational materials (legal and non-legal classes).

References: (* indicates CRESP publication)

*Stewart, J., Stewart R. (2024), Regulatory Considerations Update: Implications of Recent Supreme Court “Major Questions Doctrine” Decisions for DOE’s High-Level Waste Interpretation (HLWI), unpublished CRESP Memorandum.

West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022), and Biden v. Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355 (2023) (Supreme Court decisions articulating and applying the Major Questions Doctrine to invalidate federal agency regulations as not authorized by Congress).

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (Supreme Court decision establishing the Chevron Doctrine).

Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce (cases in which the Supreme Court has been asked to overrule the Chevron Doctrine and that will be decided in Summer 2024).