DOE Office of Environmental Management

GREENING, MAINTAINING AND DISPOSITIONING EM’S REAL

PROPERTY ASSETS

Donna Green

Office of D&D and Facility Engineering

June 13, 2011

Outline• EM Background

– Mission– Facilities– Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D)

• ARRA Accomplishments: Footprint Reduction• Maintenance Program Reviews• EM Sustainability

– Performance Status– Challenges– Path Forward– High Performance Sustainable Building Strategy

• Summary• Questions

2

3

EM Mission

• Largest environmental cleanup effort in the world, originally involving two million acres at 108 sites in 35 states

• Safely performing work in challenging environments

• Involving some of the most dangerous materials known to man

• Solving highly complex technical problems with first-of-a-kind technologies

• Operating in the world’s most complex regulatory environment

• Supporting other continuing DOE missions and stakeholder partnerships

“Complete the safe cleanup of the environmental legacy brought about from five decades of nuclear weapons development, production, and Government-sponsored nuclear energy research.”

EM Mission: Program Priorities

• Essential activities to maintain a safe, secure, and compliant posture in the EM complex

• Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and disposal

• Spent nuclear fuel storage, receipt, and disposition

• Special nuclear material consolidation, stabilization, and disposition

• High priority groundwater remediation • Transuranic (TRU) and mixed/low-

level waste disposition• Soil and groundwater remediation• Excess facilities deactivation and

decommissioning (D&D)

4

Locations of Major EM Sites

Hanford Reservation

Idaho National Lab

Carlsbad - WIPP Savannah River Site

Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office

Oak Ridge - ETTP

Facilities: EM Real Property Assets

Real Property Assets DOEa

EM b

All Facilities Operating Only Facilities

All EM(LPSO and

Tenant)

All EM(LPSO and

Tenant)EM-LPSO Sites

Total Footprint Owned 121 MGSF30.5 MGSF25% of DOE

14.4 MGSF11.9% of DOE

11.1 MGSF9.2% of DOE

RPV Owned c $94.8 B$17.4 B

18.4% of DOE $11.2 B

11.8% of DOE

$8.8 B9.3% of DOE

Number of Assets - Buildings and Trailers

18,751

2,403 1,856 1468

Number of Assets - OSFs d 2,271 1,719 1420

Total Number of Real Property Assets

4,674 3,575 2,888

a Source: FIMS historical data for FY 2010. DOE assets reported include land and leased assets.b Source: FIMS historical data for FY 2010. Does not include leased property or land. Operating only facilities refers to those facilities designated in FIMS with a status code of Operating (1), Operating Standby (2), or Operating Pending D&D (6). c RPVs (Replacement Plant Value) across DOE complex updated in November of 2010. Many sites using FIMS asset models based on RS Means. d OSFs (Other Structures and Facilities) are assets not considered buildings (i.e. fences, paved surfaces, tanks, piping, and electrical systems).

7

EM Footprint Reduction to DateThe graph below shows EM footprint reductions through FY 2010 and planned reductions due to disposal in FY2011 and FY2012. It does not reflect new construction or transfers into EM.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned

2012 Planned

20,000,000

22,000,000

24,000,000

26,000,000

28,000,000

30,000,000

32,000,000

34,000,000

36,000,000

38,000,000

Gross Sq. Footage of EM Owned Facilities

Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D)

• D&D: The process of taking an active/excess/abandoned facility to a final disposition end state. D&D presents unique hazards that must be addressed from a safety, programmatic, environmental, and technological standpoint due to residual radioactivity, and other hazardous constituents, and the physical condition of EM’s facilities.

• These facilities contain many complex systems (e.g. ventilation), miles of contaminated pipelines, glove boxes, and unique processing equipment that require labor intensive deactivation and decommissioning methods.

• More information about DOE’s D&D program: www.em.doe.gov/pdfs/DDMaps.aspx

8

9

ARRA Program Funding

• Will demolish more than five million square feet of facilities by end of FY 2011

• Will demolish more than six million square feet of facilities by end of FY 2012

• Many of these facilities are not at EM sites

EM Received $6 Billion in Recovery Act Funding - $3.32 Billion Allocated to D&D, Greatly Accelerating D&D over EM Baseline

ARRA Program Performance Metrics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Target to Date (3/31/11)ARRA Total

Actual to Date (3/31/11)

CH TRU Waste Processed (Certification Ready)

6,485 m3

6,103,207 sq. ft.

4,036 m3

4,201,775 sq. ft.

20% 80% 100% 60% 40% 0%

3,824 m3

Facility Square Footage Demolished 2,296,841 sq. ft.

120%

10

CH TRU Waste Certifiedfor Final Disposal

3,740 m3

2,224 m3 2,226 m3

7,888 m3 Transuranic Waste Dispositioned from

Inventory

2,959 m3

2,790 m3

8 sites

TRU Small Quantity Site Completions

3 sites3 sites

81,301 m3

LLW/MLLW Disposed (Legacy and NGW)78,925 m3 72,498 m3

Facility Completions261 facilities

180 facilities155 facilities

Mill Tailings Disposed (Moab)

2,004,035 tons

2,184,252 tons1,762,235 tons

Base Program FY 2011 Metrics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

FY 11 Actual to Date (3/31/11)FY 11 Target to Date (3/31/11)FY 11 Total Target

20% 80% 100% 60% 40% 0%

11

Liquid Waste eliminated

892,000 gallons

375,000 gallons 508,000 gallons

HLW packaged for disposition

311 containers

140 containers158 containers

1,943 m3

1,142 m3

CH TRU Waste Certified for Final Disposal1,151 m3

5,984 m3

Transuranic Waste Dispositioned from Inventory1,832 m3 2,728 m3

LLW/MLLW Disposed (Legacy and NGW)

14,297 m3

10,691 m3 7,475 m3

Facility Completions

121 facilities

34 facilities47 facilities

188 release sites

Remediation Complete26 release sites23 release sites

692,860 tons

Mill Tailings Disposed369,106 tons346,430 tons

Land Footprint Reduction Status

12

EM Maintenance Program Reviews• Purpose

– Meet EM responsibilities for oversight and awareness

– Verify compliance with DOE Order 430.2B

– Assess site programs for maintaining safe operating conditions at shut-down facilities

• EM-Headquarters and Field Offices jointly conducted reviews at:

– Hanford

– WIPP

– Savannah River

13

Maintenance Program Review Results• Results

– Site maintenance programs are well managed

– Field Offices and Contractors have a good understanding of maintenance needs

– DOE corporate maintenance metrics for EM do not consistently reflect site conditions

– EM has many beyond-design-life facilities and recapitalization investments have been limited

– EM Guidance and site policies for surveillance of shut-facilities are generally implemented to ensure that critical maintenance needs are identified and addressed.

14

15

EM Maintenance Metrics

EM as LPSO Sites ACIa

2010 (actual)

Annual Maintenance/RPVb

(Sustainment)

FY 2010(actual)

FY 2011 (planned)

FY 2012 (planned)

SRS 96.5% 2.4% 2.7% 2.3%

ETTP 95.6% 5.0% 3.7% 2.9%

RL 89.7 % 2.9% 2.7% 2.7%

Portsmouth 99.4% 1.9% 1.4% 1.3%

Paducah 97.9% 1.5% 1.0% 1.5%

Moab 96.6% 3.0% 0.7% 0.7%

Carlsbad 95.6% 9.4% 11.0% 12.2%

EM Total Sustainment 95.4% 2.7% 2.8% 2.5%

Source: a – 2010 FIMS Snapshot, January 2011 b - 2010 FIMS Snapshot, EM Operating Facilities Only c – 2010 IFI Crosscut budget

EM Real Property Improvements• EM sites continue to improve the quality of data in the

FIMS database

– Adding facilities to FIMS

– Improving accuracy of replacement plant value estimates

– Improving quality of Condition Assessment Surveys and resulting deferred maintenance estimates

• Savannah River replaced a forty year old coal-fired boiler with a new energy-efficient biomass cogeneration facility through an ESPC

– EM may have more opportunities to recapitalize infrastructure through ESPC and similar mechanisms

16

EM FY2010 Sustainability Performance

While completing significantly increased mission work:

• Met energy and water intensity reduction goals

• Slight decrease in Scopes 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

• Minimal increase in Scope 3 GHG emissions

• Nearly 40 percent increase in fleet petroleum use over FY2005

• No buildings meet the High Performance Sustainable Building (HPSB) Guiding Principles

17

EM Greenhouse Gas Reduction Challenge

0

400

800

12001,000 Metric Tons/Year CO2

1,000 Metric Tons/Year CO2

18

EM Sustainability Path Forward

Broaden our risk management considerations to include greenhouse gas emissions and resource consumption in our decision making– Consider green remediation where appropriate

• In addition to potential reduction in fossil energy use, green remediation offers the potential for reduced water use, improved storm water management, and soil sequestration of carbon

– Consider in-situ decommissioning (entombment) where appropriate

– Use HPSB Guiding Principles as opportunity to reduce lifecycle costs and GHG emissions

– Pursue ESPCs, UESCs, and similar third party financing mechanisms to recapitalize infrastructure and meet sustainability goals

19

In-Situ Decommissioning (ISD)• ISD is the permanent

entombment of a contaminated facility

• ISD Projects– Savannah River P-Area

Production Reactor– Hanford U-Plant Canyon– Idaho National Lab

• 125 to 200 potential facilities• $2.5 to $4 billion savings• 900 to 1900 thousand metric

tons CO2 avoided

20

Before

After

EM HPSB Strategy• EM has few new buildings coming on line and will mainly need to

address existing buildings - possibly including shut down and process buildings

• Approximately 50% of the Guiding Principles are to establish and implement site-wide policies, plans, or specifications

• EM sites implement most of the green procurement and waste minimization requirements and can take credit for existing programs

• Many Guiding Principles do not apply to non-occupied buildings

• Guiding Principles that do apply to non-occupied buildings can be valuable tools to reduce life-cycle costs and GHG emissions

• HPSB Guiding Principles are consistent with EM’s environmental protection mission

21

Summary

• EM’s mission supports DOE’s sustainability goals

• EM assets are well-maintained considering age• EM sites continue to improve the quality of FIMs

data• HPSB Guiding Principles can be tools to reduce

GHG emissions and life-cycle costs• ESPC and similar financing mechanisms might

help EM meet its sustainability goals and recapitalize its infrastructure

22

Questions

Contact Information:Donna GreenSupervisorOffice of Deactivation & Decommissioning

and Facility EngineeringOffice of Environmental ManagementDepartment of Energy202-586-1467fax: 202-586-1492E-mail: donnal.green@em.doe.gov

For More Information:Office of Deactivation & Decommissioning

and Facility Engineering

http://www.em.doe.gov/EM20Pages/DDFE.aspx

D&D Maps: http://www.em.doe.gov/pdfs/DDMaps.aspx

23