skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: The National Historic Preservation Act is Not Your Problem, But How You are Addressing it for Your CERCLA Project May Be - 12344

Abstract

The 1995 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) joint 'Policy on Decommissioning of Department of Energy Facilities Under CERCLA was developed so that decommissioning could occur in a manner that ensures protection of worker and public health and the environment, that is consistent with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), that provides for stakeholder involvement, and that achieves risk reduction without unnecessary delay'. The source of the 'unnecessary delays' the joint policy intended to avert could be attributed to numerous factors such as obtaining permits, conducting administrative activities, or implementing regulatory processes that could yield, among other things, differing preferred alternatives. Why, you might ask, more than fifteen years later, does DOE continue to struggle through CERCLA projects with unnecessary delays? From problem identification, to determination of nature and extent, to alternative analysis and ultimately remedy selection and implementation, reaching a compliant and effective clean-up end-point can be a process that seems to mimic geologic timescales. The source of these delays is often the failure to use all of the tools the CERCLA process offers. As one example, renewed commitment to follow the CERCLA process to address the regulatory reviews pursuant to the Nationalmore » Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is called for. Project managers implementing CERCLA actions in any agency, not only DOE, do not need to be apprehensive about using the CERCLA process for NHPA review but should welcome it. It is critical that methods are used that address substantive NHPA requirements clearly and consistently, and that they are shared and communicated as frequently as needed to interested and questioning stakeholders. (author)« less

Authors:
 [1]
  1. Restoration Services, Inc. (RSI), Oak Ridge, Tennessee (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
WM Symposia, 1628 E. Southern Avenue, Suite 9-332, Tempe, AZ 85282 (United States)
OSTI Identifier:
22293606
Report Number(s):
INIS-US-14-WM-12344
TRN: US14V1262115130
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: WM2012: Waste Management 2012 conference on improving the future in waste management, Phoenix, AZ (United States), 26 Feb - 1 Mar 2012; Other Information: Country of input: France; 15 refs.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; DECOMMISSIONING; ENVIRONMENT; FAILURES; HAZARDS; PRESERVATION; PUBLIC HEALTH; SAFETY

Citation Formats

Cusick, Lesley T. The National Historic Preservation Act is Not Your Problem, But How You are Addressing it for Your CERCLA Project May Be - 12344. United States: N. p., 2012. Web.
Cusick, Lesley T. The National Historic Preservation Act is Not Your Problem, But How You are Addressing it for Your CERCLA Project May Be - 12344. United States.
Cusick, Lesley T. Sun . "The National Historic Preservation Act is Not Your Problem, But How You are Addressing it for Your CERCLA Project May Be - 12344". United States.
@article{osti_22293606,
title = {The National Historic Preservation Act is Not Your Problem, But How You are Addressing it for Your CERCLA Project May Be - 12344},
author = {Cusick, Lesley T.},
abstractNote = {The 1995 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) joint 'Policy on Decommissioning of Department of Energy Facilities Under CERCLA was developed so that decommissioning could occur in a manner that ensures protection of worker and public health and the environment, that is consistent with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), that provides for stakeholder involvement, and that achieves risk reduction without unnecessary delay'. The source of the 'unnecessary delays' the joint policy intended to avert could be attributed to numerous factors such as obtaining permits, conducting administrative activities, or implementing regulatory processes that could yield, among other things, differing preferred alternatives. Why, you might ask, more than fifteen years later, does DOE continue to struggle through CERCLA projects with unnecessary delays? From problem identification, to determination of nature and extent, to alternative analysis and ultimately remedy selection and implementation, reaching a compliant and effective clean-up end-point can be a process that seems to mimic geologic timescales. The source of these delays is often the failure to use all of the tools the CERCLA process offers. As one example, renewed commitment to follow the CERCLA process to address the regulatory reviews pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is called for. Project managers implementing CERCLA actions in any agency, not only DOE, do not need to be apprehensive about using the CERCLA process for NHPA review but should welcome it. It is critical that methods are used that address substantive NHPA requirements clearly and consistently, and that they are shared and communicated as frequently as needed to interested and questioning stakeholders. (author)},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {2012},
month = {7}
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share: