Risk and Decisions About Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste

Risk and Decisions About Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 1-215

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85024109745     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.17226/11223     Document Type: Book

References (166)

1. Abraham, S. 2003. Letter from Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, U.S. Department of Energy to The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives.
2. Andersson, J., and G. Grundteknik. 1999. Data and Data Uncertainties. SKB Technical Report TR-99-9,138. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company.
3. Apostolakis, G. E. 2004. How useful is quantitative risk assessment? Risk Analysis 24:515-520.
4. Applegate, J. S. 1995. A beginning and not an end in itself: The role of risk assessment in environmental decision making. University of Cincinnati Law Review 63:1643.
5. Applegate, J. S., and S. Dycus. 1998. Institutional controls or emperor's clothes? Long-term stewardship of the nuclear weapons complex. Environmental Law Reporter 28:10631.
6. Babich, A. 2003. Too much science in environmental law. The Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 28:119.
7. Barnes, C. M., C. B. Millet, and V. J. Johnson. 2004. Feed Composition for the Sodium-Bearing Waste Treatment Process. INEEL/EXT-2000-01378, Revision 4. Idaho National Engineering and Environ-mental Laboratory, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC.
8. Bernero, R.M. 1989. Letter to A.J. Rizzo, Richland Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy. Available through http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm.html.
9. Bernero, R.M. 1993. Letter to J. Lytle, Office of Environmental Restora-tion and Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy. March 2, 1993. Available through http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.
10. Bethke, C. M. 1992.The question of uniqueness in geochemical model-ing. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56:4315-4320.
11. Bethke, C. M. 1996. Geochemical Reaction Modeling. New York: Ox-ford University Press, 397.
12. Bingaman, J. 2004. WIPP needs independent watchdog, not DOE lap dog. Albuquerque Journal, guest column. May 15.
13. Bjornstad, D. J., D. W. Jones, M. Russell, and C. L. Dümmer. 1998. Im-plementing Outcome-Oriented Risk Planning: An Overview. JIEE 98-02. October. Knoxville, Tenn.: Joint Institute for Energy and En-vironment.
14. Bredehoeft, J. D., A. W. England, D. B. Stewart, N. J. Trask, and I. J. Winograd. 1978. Geologic Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes. Earth-Science Perspectives (Geological Survey Circular 779) 15. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15. Bredehoeft, J. D., and L. F Konikow. 1993. Reply to comment by G. de Marsily, P. Combes, and P. Goblet on "Ground-water models cannot be validated." Advances in Water Resources 15:371-372.
16. Bredehoeft, J. D. 2003. From models to performance assessment: The conceptualization problem. Ground Water 41:571-577.
17. BRERA (Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act). 2002. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revi-talization Act, Public Law 107-118, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, 9607, 9622. Clean Water Act § 33 U.S.C. § 1311(n).
18. Browning, L., W. M. Murphy, C. Manepally, and R. Fedors. 2003. Reac-tive transport model for the ambient unsaturated hydrogeochemical system at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Computers and Geo-sciences 29:247-263.
19. Budnitz, R., R. C. Ewing, D. Moeller, J. Payer, C. Whipple, and P. With-erspoon. 1999. Peer Review of the Total System Performance As-sessment-Viability Assessment Final Report, 145. Las Vegas, Nevada: Total System Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel.
20. Burger, J., C. Powers, M. Greenberg, and M. Gochfeld. 2003. The Role of Risk and Future Land Use in Cleanup at the Department of En-ergy. CRESP Report 03-001. March. Available at: http://www.cresp.org/home.html.
21. Burket, J. 2004. Changing the rules? NRDC v. Abraham and the reclassi-fication of high level nuclear waste. Southeastern Environmental Law Journal 159.
22. Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government. 1993. Risk and the Environment: Improving Regulatory Decision-Making. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
23. CBO (Congressional Budget Office). 1994. Cleaning Up the Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons Complex. Washington D.C.: CBO.
24. CERE (Consortium for Environmental Risk Evaluation). 1995. Health and Ecological Risk at the U.S. Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons Complex: A Qualitative Evaluation. CERE Interim Risk Report. New Orleans, L.A.: Tulane University Medical Center.
25. CMA v. NRDC (Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Natural Resources Defense Council). 1985. 470 U.S. 116.
26. Cochran, T. B. 2003. United States District Court for the District of Idaho-Second Declaration of Dr. Thomas B. Cochran. Case No. 01-CV-413. April 15.
27. CRE (Center for Risk Excellence). No Date. Need/Opportunity. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/inetapp/ dsp_inetsum.cfm?appsumid=41.
28. CRESP (Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation). 1996. CRESP National Review Panel Report: Review of Risk Data Sheet Information for FY 1998. Available at: http://www.instrm.org/ cresp1/cresp1/nrp.pdf.
29. CRESP. 1997. Improving DOE/EM Risk Information: Content and Format. Revised Version. January. Available at: http://www.instrm.org/cresp1/ cresp1/ improve.pdf.
30. CRESP. 1999. Peer Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Use of Risk in its Prioritization Process. December 15. Available at: http://www.instrm.org/cresp1/cresp1/home.html.
31. CTUIR (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation). 1995. Scoping Report: Nuclear Risks in Tribal Communities. Umatilla In-dian Reservation, Oreg.: Department of Natural Resources.
32. Curtis, C. 1995. DOE's Principles for Using Risk Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy.
33. Davis, T.L., D.W. Tharin, D.W. Jones, and D.R. Lohr. 1977. History-Waste Tank 16 1959 Through 1974. DPSPU 77-11-17. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company. Savannah River Plant.
34. de Marsily, G., P. Combes, and P. Goblet. 1992. Comment on ground-water models cannot be validated by L. F. Konikow and J. D. Brede-hoeft. Advances in Water Resources 15:367.
35. d'Entremont, P.D. and J.L. Thomas. 2002. Characterization of Tank 19 Residual Waste. WSRC-TR-2002-00052. Revision 1. November. Available at: http://www.osti.gov/bridge.
36. DOE (Department of Energy). 1988. Comprehensive Implementation Plan for the DOE Defense Buried TRU-Contaminated Waste Pro-gram. Joint Integration Office, Albuquerque.
37. DOE. 1995a. Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Envi-ronmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the Department of Energy is Doing About It. Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C.
38. DOE. 1995b. Office of Integrated Management. Available at: http://web.em.doe.gov/irm/imr1.html.
39. DOE. 1995c. Risks and the Risk Debate: Searching for Common Ground. The First Step. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
40. DOE. 1996. Implementation Plan for the Programmatic Environmental Im-pact Statement for the Department of Energy Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program. Available at: http://web.em.doe.gov/peis/.
41. DOE. 1997a. Linking Legacies: Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production Processes To Their Environmental Conse-quences DOE/EM-0319. Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C.
42. DOE. 1997b. Industrial Wastewater Closure Module for the High-Level Waste Tank 17 System, Revision 2, Savannah River Site.
43. DOE. 1997c. Final Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste. DOE/EIS-0200-F. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
44. DOE. 1997c. 2006 Plan Update. Status of Environmental Management's 2006 Plan Vision and Status of Implementation. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
45. DOE. 1998a. Tanks Focus Area: Oak Ridge Reservation. Available at: http://tech.inel.gov/documents/TEB/LDUA_Systems/html/ornl.html
46. DOE. 1998b. Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure. DOE/EM-0362. June. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
47. DOE. 1998c. Guidelines for Risk-Based Prioritization of DOE Activities. DOE-DP-STD-3023-98. April. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
48. DOE. 2000. Buried Transuranic-Contaminated Waste Information for U.S. Department of Energy Facilities. Office of Environmental Man-agement. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
49. DOE. 2001. Summary Data on the Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel, and Contaminated Media Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Environmental Management. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
50. DOE. 2002a. Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility. U.S. Depart-ment of Energy Richland Operations Office Fact Sheet. REG-02751/02. Richland, Washington.
51. DOE. 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Re-pository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Ra-dioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, Volume II, Appendixes A through O. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management DOE/EIS-0250. Available at: http://www.ymp.gov/documents/feis_2/index.htm.
52. DOE. 2002c. Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition, Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0287. Idaho Falls, Idaho: Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office.
53. DOE. 2002d. A review of the Environmental Management Program. Pre-sented to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management by the Top-to-Bottom Review Team. February 4, 2002. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
54. DOE. 2003. DOE Policy 455.1. Use of Risk-Based End States. Approved July 15. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
55. DOE. 2004. Department of Energy FY 2005 Budget Request to Con-gress. Available at: http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/05budget/.
56. Duro, L., J. Bruno, S. Jordana, M. Grive, J. Pon, E. Castilier, C. Beau-caire, M. H. Faure, J. Peña, M. J. Gimeno, M. del Nero, C. Ayora, J. Salas, E. Ledoux, and B. Made. 2000. Blind Prediction Modeling (BPM) exercises in Oklo, Oklo working group. Proceedings of the Third and Final EC-CEA Workshop on Oklo-Phase II, held in Cadarache, France, D. Louvat, V. Michaud, and H. von Maravic, eds. Nuclear Science and Technology Report (EUR 19137 EN), 285.
57. Eide, S. A., J. L. Jones, and T. E. Wierman. 1998. Human Health Risk Comparisons for Environmental Management Baseline Programs and Integration Opportunities (Discussion Draft). INEEL/EXT-97-01253. Idaho Falls: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
58. EMAB (Environmental Management Advisory Board). 1995. Letter from EMAB to Thomas P. Grumbly DOE Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. August 25. Washington, D.C.: EMAB.
59. Ewing, R.C., M. S. Tierney, L. F. Konikow, and R. P. Rechard. 1999. Performance assessments of nuclear waste repositories: A dialogue on their value and limitations, Risk Analysis 19: 933-958.
60. FFERDC (Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Com-mittee). 1993. Recommendations for Improving the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Decision-Making and Priority-Setting Process. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
61. FFERDC. 1996. The Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environ-mental Restoration Dialogue Committee: Consensus Precipices and Recommendations for Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup. Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
62. Fehringer, D. and R. Boyle. 1987. Status of NRC rulemaking for high-level radioactive waste disposal. Proceedings of the Waste Manage-ment '87: Waste Isolation in the U.S., Technical Programs and Pub-lic Education, Vol. 1. La Grange Park, Ill.: American Nuclear Society, pp. 315-317.
63. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 1995. Department of Energy: National Priorities Needed for Meeting Environmental Agreements. GAO/RCED-95-1. March. Washington, D.C.: GAO.
64. GAO. 2002. Waste Cleanup: Status and Implications of DOE's Compli-ance Agreements. GAO-02-567. May. Washington, D.C.: GAO.
65. GAO. 2004. Nuclear Waste: Absence of Key Management Reforms on Hanford's Cleanup Project Adds to Challenges of Achieving Cost and Schedule Goals. GAO-04-611. June. Washington, D.C.: GAO.
66. Garrick, B.J. and S. Kaplan. 1995. Radioactive and mixed waste-Risk as a basis for waste classification. NCRP Symposium, Proceedings No. 2. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Md., pp. 59-73.
67. Gephart, R. E. 2003. Hanford: A Conversation About Nuclear Waste and Cleanup. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press.
68. Greenberg M., K. Lowrie, M. Frisch, D. Lewis. 2002. Future economic history of the U.S. Department of Energy's major nuclear weapon site regions: National government policy options for contributing to regional economic stability. May 2002. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rut-gers University.
69. Hamilton, L. D., S. Holtzman, A. F. Meinhold, S. C. Morris, M. D. Rowe, J. I. Daniels, D. W. Layton, and L. R. Anspaugh. 1993. Les-sons Learned: Needs for Improving Human Health Risk Assessment at USDOE Sites. BNL-60157. Upton, N.Y.: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
70. Hanford FFA (Federal Facility Agreement). 2003. Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order by Washington State Department of Ecology, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Department of Energy as amended through September 1, 2003. Available at: http://www.hanford.gov/tpa/agreement-6/tpadoc.pdf.
71. Harris, S., and B. Harper. 1999. Characterizing Risks: Can DOE Achieve Intersite Equity by 2006? Available at: http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/ reports/doc12.html.
72. Herrick C., and D. Sarewitz. 2000. Ex post evaluation: A more effective role for scientific assessments in environmental policy. Science, Technology and Human Values 25:309-330.
73. Hintze, D. 2004. Waste Disposition Project. Presentation to the National Academies Committee on Risk-Based Approaches for Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste. Augusta, Georgia. January 28. Available through the National Academies Office of News and Public Information.
74. Holdren, K. J., B. H. Becker, N. L. Hampton, L. D. Koeppen, S. O. Magnuson, T. J. Meyer, G. L. Olson, and A. J. Sondrup. 2002. Ancil-lary Basis for Risk Analysis of the Subsurface Disposal Area. INEEL/EXT-02-01125. September. Idaho Falls: Idaho National En-gineering and Environmental Laboratory.
75. Hornstein, D. T. 1992. Reclaiming environmental law: A normative cri-tique of comparative risk analysis. The Columbia Law Review. 92:562.
76. Howard, R.A. 1966. Decision Analysis: Applied Decision Theory. Pp. 55-71 in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Op-erational Research, D. G. Hertz and J. Melese, eds. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
77. Hughson, D. L., L. Browning, W. M. Murphy, and R. T. Green. 2000. An archeological site at Akrotiri, Greece, as a natural analog for ra-dionuclide transport: Implications for validity of performance as-sessments. Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 608:557-563.
78. Hulstrom, L.C. 2003. 618-10 and 618-11 Burial Ground Remedial De-sign Technical Workshop Summary Report. WMP-17684. Revision O. September. Richland, Wash.: Fluor Hanford.
79. Hunter, R. L., D. W. Layton, and L. R. Anspaugh. 1994. Opportunities and impediments for risk-based standards: Some views from a work-shop. Risk Analysis 14(5):863-868.
80. INEEL FFA (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order). December 9, 1991. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, The State of Idaho, Department of Health And Welfare, and The United States Department of Energy. Available at: http://web.em.doe.gov/ 2001_Agreements/Idaho/INEEL_FFA_CO_12-9-91.pdf.
81. Jasanoff, S. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
82. Jenni, K. E., M. W. Merkhofer, and C. Williams. 1995. The rise and fall of a risk-based priority system: Lessons learned from DOE's Envi-ronmental Restoration Priority System. Risk Analysis 15(3):397-410.
83. Jensen, K. A., C. S. Palenik, and R. C. Ewing. 2002. U6+-phases in the weathering zone of the Bangombe U-deposit: Observed and pre-dicted mineralogy. Radiochimica Acta 90: 761-769.
84. Karkkainen, B. C. 2001. Information as environmental regulation: TRI and performance benchmarking, Precursor to a new paradigm? Georgetown Law Journal 89:257.
85. Konikow, L. F. 1986. Predictive accuracy of a ground-water model-Lessons from a postaudit. Ground Water 24:173-184.
86. Konikow, L. F. 1992. Discussion of the modeling process and model validation by Chin-Fu Tsang. Ground Water 30:622-23.
87. Konikow, L. F. 1995. The value of postaudits in groundwater model ap-plications. Pp. 59-78 in Groundwater Models for Resources Analysis and Management. Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers.
88. Konikow, L. F., and J. D. Bredehoeft. 1992. Ground-water models can-not be validated. Advances in Water Resources 15:75-83.
89. Lichtner, P. C., C. I. Steefel, and E. H. Oelkers. 1996. Reactive transport in porous media. Reviews in Mineralogy. 34:438.
90. Long, J. C. S. and R. C. Ewing. 2004. Yucca Mountain: Earth science issues at a geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste. Annual Reviews in Earth and Planetary Science 32:363-401.
91. Madé, B., E. Ledoux, C. Ayora, and J. Salas. 2000. Coupled chemical transport modeling of uranium around the reaction zone at Ban-gombé, Oklo, Gabon. Oklo working group. Proceedings of the Third and Final EC-CEA workshop on Oklo-Phase II, held in Cadarache, France, D. Louvat, V. Michaud, and H. von Maravic, eds. Nuclear Science and Technology Report (EUR 19137 EN) 307.
92. Mears, D. K., and J. Ruple. 2004. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Abraham: Preventing the Department of Energy from defining away high-level waste. Journal of Land Resources and Environmental Law 24:77-112.
93. Morgan, M. G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cam-bridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
94. Morrison, R. D. 2004. Richland Operations Office. Personal correspon-dence with H. Brownell. U.S. EPA Region X, October 5.
95. NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 2002. Risk-Based Classification of Radioactive and Hazardous Chemical Wastes. NCRP Report No. 139. Bethesda, Md.: NCRP.
96. NEJAC (National Environmental Justice Advisory Council). 2004. Cu-mulative Risk/Impacts Workgroup Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.EPA.
97. Nordstrom, D. K. 2004. Modeling low-temperature geochemical proc-esses. Pp. 37-72 in Treatise on Geochemistry, H. D. Holland and K. K. Turekian, eds. Vol. 5, Surface and Ground Water, Weathering, and Soils, J. I. Drever, ed., Amsterdam: Elsevier Pergamon.
98. NNMCAB (Northern New Mexico Citizen's Advisory Board). 2004. Recommendation to the Department of Energy No. 2004-3. Regard-ing DOE's Commitment to Public Participation. Approved July 28. Santa Fe, N.Mex. Available at: http://www.nnmcab.org/recommendations/board-recommendations.htm.
99. NRC (National Research Council). 1957. The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.
100. NRC. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
101. NRC. 1989a. Review Comments on Predecisional Draft II of DOE's En-vironmental Restoration and Waste Management Five-Year Plan. August 3. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.
102. NRC. 1989b. The Nuclear Weapons Complex: Management for Health, Safety, and the Environment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
103. NRC. 1990. Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal: A Posi-tion Statement of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
104. NRC. 1994a. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
105. NRC. 1994b. Ranking Hazardous Waste Sites for Remedial Action. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
106. NRC. 1994c. Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Man-agement of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
107. NRC. 1995a. Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Trans-mutation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
108. NRC. 1995b. Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's En-vironmental Management Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
109. NRC. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
110. NRC. 1999. Disposition of High-Level Radioactive Waste Through Geo-logic Isolation. Development, Current Status, and Technical and Pol-icy Challenges. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
111. NRC. 2000a. Alternatives for High-Level Waste Salt Processing at the Savannah River Site. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
112. NRC. 2000b. Long-Term Institutional Management of U.S. Department of Energy Legacy Waste Sites. Washington, D.C.: National Acad-emy Press.
113. NRC. 2001a. Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup at Hanford. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
114. NRC. 2001b. Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
115. NRC. 2001c. Basic Research Opportunities in Earth Science. Washing-ton, D.C.: National Academy Press.
116. NRC. 2004. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
117. NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Snake River Alliance, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Abra-ham. 2002. Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Case 01-413. U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
118. NRDC, Snake River Alliance, and the Confederated Tribes and Banks of the Yakama Nation v. Abraham. 2003. Memorandum Decision. Civ. No. 01-0413-S-BLW. U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. 271 F. Supp. 2d 1260. July 2.
119. Oreskes, N., and K. Belitz. 2001. Philosophical issues in model assess-ment. Pp. 23-41 in Model Validation: Perspectives in Hydrological Science, M. G. Anderson and P. D. Bates, eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
120. Oreskes, N., K. Shrader-Frechette, and K. Belitz. 1994. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sci-ences. Science 263:641-46.
121. ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 1982. Proceedings of Alpha-Contaminated Waste Management Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD, 10-13 Aug 1982 (CONF-820845).
122. Passell, H. D., V. C. Tidwell, S.H. Conrad, R.P. Thomas, and J. Roach. 2003. Cooperative Water Resources Modeling in the Middle Rio Grande Basin. SAND2003-3653. Sandia National Laboratories. De-cember. Available at: http://www.sandia.gov/water/rdocs.htm.
123. Perge, A. 1982. Historical Overview. Proceedings of Alpha-Contaminated Waste Management Workshop. 1982. CONF-820945. Gaithersburg, MD, 10-13 Aug 1982.
124. PCCRARM (Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management). 1997a. Framework for Risk Assessment: Final Report, Volume 1. Available at: http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1996/risk_rpt/Rr6me001.htm
125. PCCRARM. 1997b. Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regula-tory Decision-Making: Final Report, Volume 2. Available at: http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1996/risk_rpt/Rr6me001.htm
126. Probst, K. N., and A. I. Lowe. 2000. Cleaning Up the Nuclear Weapons Complex: "Does Anybody Care?" Center for Risk Management. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
127. Raffensperger, C., and J. Tickner, eds. 1999. Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
128. Rasmussen, N. C. 1975. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Acci-dent Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-75/014, WASH-1400. October. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
129. Rechard, R. P. 1999. Historical relationship between performance as-sessment for radioactive waste disposal and other types of risk as-sessment. Risk Analysis19:763-807.
130. Rizzo, A.J. 1989. Letter to Robert Bernero, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. March 6, 1989. Available through http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.
131. Roberson, J. 2003a. Guidance to Support Implementation of DOE Policy 455.1 for a Site-Specific Risk-Based End State (RBES) Vision Document. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
132. Roberson, J. 2003b. Risk Based End States Vision Document. Memo-randum. December 9. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
133. Russell, M. 1997. Toward a Productive Divorce: Separating DOE Clean-ups from Transition Assistance. JIEE 97-03. Knoxville, Tenn.: The Joint Institute for Energy and Environment.
134. Russell, M. 2000. Reducing the Nuclear Legacy Burden: DOE Environ-mental Management Strategy and Implementation. JIEE/2000-01.Knoxville, Tenn.: The Joint Institute for Energy and Environment.
135. Schmitt, E. 2003. Risk Based End States Guidance Clarification. Memo-randum. December 23. Washington, D.C.: DOE.
136. Shapiro, S. A., and R. L. Glicksman. 2003. Risk Regulation at Risk: Re-storing a Pragmatic Approach. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
137. Smith, C. 1982. A Review of the Risk Assessments for Defining the Al-pha-Contaminated Wastes. Proceedings of Alpha-Contaminated Waste Management Workshop. 1982. CONF-820945. Gaithersburg, MD, 10-13 Aug 1982.
138. SNL (Sandia National Laboratories). 2004. Greater Confinement Dis-posal Project. Available at: http://www.nwer.sandia.gov/wlp factsheets/gcd.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2004.
139. SRS FFA (Federal Facility Agreement for the Savannah River Site). 1993. Administrative Document Number 89-05-FF. WSRC-OS-94-42. Effective Date: August 16. Available at: http://www.srs.gov/general/enviro/erd/ffa/ffaa.pdf.
140. Tal, A. 1997. Assessing the environmental movement's attitudes toward risk assessment, Environmental Science and Technology 31:470a-476a.
141. Thompson, K.M. 2004. Impacts of residual radioactive waste on Hanford groundwater. Presentation to the National Academies Committee on Risk-Based Approaches for Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste. Richland, Wash.. March 9. Available through the National Academies Office of News and Public Information.
142. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Federal Register 51(185):33992-34003.
143. U.S. EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS). Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM), Part A, Baseline Risk Assessment, Volume I. Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/002. NTIS PB90-155581. Washington, D.C.: Office of Emergency and Reme-dial Response.
144. U.S. EPA. 1990a. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment, Part A, Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-09A. NTIS PB92-963356. Washington, D.C.: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
145. U.S. EPA. 1990b. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment, Part B, Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-09B. NTIS PB92-963362. Washington, D.C.: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
146. U.S. EPA. 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (Part B, De-velopment of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals). EPA/540/R-92/003. OSWER Directive 9285.7-01B. NTIS PB92-963333. Washington, D.C.: Office of Emergency and Remedial Re-sponse.
147. U.S. EPA. 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (Part C, Risk Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives). Interim. EPA/540/R-92/004. OSWER Directive 9285.7-01C. NTIS PB92-963334. Washington, D.C.: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
148. U.S. EPA. 1991c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume I-Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guid-ance: Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Di-rective 9285.6-03. Washington, D.C.: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
149. U.S. EPA. 1991d. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions. OSWER Directive 9355.0-30. Wash-ington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. Federal Register Notice. 57(104): 22888-22938.
150. U.S. EPA. 1998. Final Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Federal Register 63(93): 26846-26924.
151. U.S. EPA. 2000 Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. EPA/600/G-96/055. Washington, D.C.: Office of Environ-mental Information.
152. U.S. EPA. 2001a. Guidance for Characterizing Background Chemicals in Soil at Superfund Sites. OSWER Directive 9285.7-41. Washington, D.C.: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
153. U.S. EPA. 2001b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume III, Part A, Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessments. OSWER Directive 9285.7-45. Washington, D.C.: Office of Emer-gency and Remedial Response.
154. U.S. EPA. 2002. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-02/ 001A. Washington, D.C.: Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
155. U.S. EPA. 2003. RCRA Orientation Manual. EPA530-R-02-016. Wash-ington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
156. U.S. NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2000. A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities. Recommendations of NRC's Performance Assessment Work-ing Group. NUREG-1573. Washington, DC.: Division of Waste Man-agement, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
157. van den Belt, M. 2004. Mediated Modeling. A System Dynamics Ap-proach to Environmental Consensus Building. Washington, D.C.: Is-land Press.
158. Wagner, W. E. 1995. The science charade in toxic risk regulation. Co-lumbia Law Review 95:1613.
159. Wang, Y. F., C. Bryan, H. F. Xu, and H. Z. Gao. 2003. Nanogeochemis-try: Geochemical reactions and mass transfers in nanopores. Geology 31:387-90.
160. Weinberg, A. 1971. Letter to the editor. Science 174:546.
161. Weinberg, A. 1972. Science and trans-science. Minerva 10:209.
162. Wiegman, S. 2004. Office of River Protection. Presentation to the Na-tional Academies Committee on Risk-Based Approaches for Dispo-sition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste. Richland, Washington. March 9. Available through the National Academies Office of News and Public Information.
163. WIPPLWA (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act). 1992. Public Law 102-579, 106 Stat. 4777, as amended October 30.
164. WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Inc.). 2001. HLW-STE-2001-00508. 29801. Cited in Langton, C. A. and G. M. Iversen. Stabilization of Tank 33 and 35 Aqueous PUREX Waste. WSRC-TR-2001-00546. Revision 0. December 4., Aiken, South Carolina.
165. WSRC. 2004. Annual Radioactive Waste Tank Inspection Program-2003. WSRC-TR-2004-00167. Aiken, South Carolina.
166. Zitnik, J. F., A .T. Armstrong, B. K. Corb, M. H. Edens, D. B. Holsten, P. M. O'Flaherty, J. Rodriguez, R. L. Treat, W. Schofield, and K. L. Sykes. 2002. Preliminary Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives for the Subsur-face Disposal Area. INEEL/EXT-02-01258. Revision 0. Idaho Falls: Idaho National