The Department of Energy and NASA have signed the two Consent Administrative Orders (AOCs) with the California Environmental Protection Agency, which define the process for characterizing and cleaning status for SSFL parts. Follow these links to read the main documents related to the DOE agreement. (2) Grouping corrective actions into corrective action units (CAUS), the corrective action strategy was based on four steps: (4) Implementation of investigations and/or corrective actions, where appropriate. Corrective action sites are classified approximately into four categories based on the source of contamination: (1) industrial sites, (2) underground test sites (UGTA), (3) ground sites and (4) off-site sites. The NNSS and TTR correction sites, where activities in support of nuclear testing activities have been carried out, are grouped into industrial sites. CAS associated with underground nuclear tests that have or could have local or regional impacts on groundwater resources are grouped into UGTA CAUs. The CAS, for which tests have resulted in significant surface and/or flat surface contamination, are grouped together as Soils Sites CAUs. Upper and underground CASS/CAUs are linked to underground nuclear tests at off, CNTA and PSA sites. Industrial sites – These sites included, but were not necessarily limited to, landfills, mud pits, diversion fields with or without radiological contamination, or discarded or abandoned materials such as drums, batteries and lead-acid materials. Some 2,000 industrial sites have been identified as part of the FFACO process.

To date, two (2) industrial sites must be closed. All other DEUS sites for industrial sites have been either closed cleanly or closed with use restrictions depending on future land use. Underground Test Sites (ATUs) – The UGTA strategy is presented in Figure 3-2 of Section 3.0 of Annex VI of the FFACO. Three assumptions about the UGTA strategy are described in the vision of the Nevada Environmental Site Assessment Site (see pdf document on page 52). The first hypothesis is that groundwater technologies to remove or stabilize underground radiological impurities are not cost-effective. Second, due to these high remediation costs, closure, with institutional oversight and controls, is the only likely corrective action. Finally, there are significant risks of radiological contamination of groundwater to workers, the public and the environment; and exposure to these risks requires access to groundwater. The Regulation provides for corrective measures for chemical contamination of soil and groundwater in Zones I, II, III and IV, including a timetable for completion and penalties for non-compliance. The order is signed jointly by DTSC and the respondents (Boeing, DOE and NASA). Annex VI of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order describes the strategy used for the planning, implementation and implementation of environmental remedial measures under the supervision of NDEP at facilities where nuclear operations have been conducted in Nevada.

(3) Prioritize corrective action units for funding and work; and the technical basis for achieving the UGTA strategy is an assessment of each CAU UGTA using a combination of approaches, including the following: on 16 August 2007, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) adopted a Consent Order for Corrective Action to Boeing, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to lead the clean-up of the RCRA at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. This four-component approach is used to achieve the main objective of the UGTA strategy, namely the definition of perimeter limits for each CAU over the next 1,000 years. Perimeter boundaries will surround areas that may exceed the radiological standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (CFR, 2010). . . .