The PDF version 
Display Related Directives to this directive.
Display Reference Documents to this directive.
DOE G 454.1-1
10-14-05
Institutional Controls
Implementation Guide for Use with
DOE P 454.1, Use of Institutional Controls
[This Guide describes suggested nonmandatory approaches for meeting
requirements. Guides are not requirements documents and are not to be
construed as requirements in any audit or appraisal for
compliance with the parent Policy, Order, Notice, or Manual.]
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, D.C.
PREFACE
This Guide provides information to assist Department of Energy (DOE) program and field
offices in understanding what is necessary and acceptable for implementing the provisions of
DOE P 454.1, Use of Institutional Controls. It identifies issues that need to be addressed when
considering the use of institutional controls to support DOE’s diverse missions. DOE P 454.1
helps ensure that institutional controls will be integrated into the environmental management
system (EMS) implementation framework to help protect the public and the environment
established in accordance with the requirements of DOE O 450.1, Environmental Protection
Program.
As much as possible, DOE sites should consider using existing processes, programs, or
documentation for addressing the provisions of DOE P 454.1 in the development,
implementation, and management of institutional controls.
This Guide is available for use by all DOE elements, including the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), and their contractors. Suggestions for corrections or improvements to
this Guide should be addressed to—
Contact Name: Colleen Ostrowski
Office: Office of Air, Water and Radiation
Protection Policy and Guidance (EH-41)
Phone: (202) 586-4997
Facsimile: (202) 586-3915
E-mail: Colleen.ostrowski@eh.doe.gov
Guides are part of the DOE Directives System issued to provide nonmandatory supplemental
information about acceptable methods for implementing requirements, including lessons learned,
suggested practices, instructions, and suggested performance measures. Guides may identify
acceptable ways to implement requirements by referencing appropriate Technical Standards, but
they shall not impose additional requirements. See Attachment 1 for references applicable to this
Guide.
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1. Policy Commitment.
DOE P 454.1 documents a commitment to the effective and appropriate use of
institutional controls, establishes a general framework for a consistent approach to the use
of institutional controls throughout the Department, and recognizes that DOE sites need
flexibility to tailor institutional controls to specific needs, jurisdictions, and time periods.
DOE P 454.1 delineates how DOE, including the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), will use institutional controls in the management of resources,
facilities, and properties under its control and in the implementation of programmatic
responsibilities.
DOE uses a wide range of institutional controls as part of efforts to:
* appropriately limit access to, or uses of, land, facilities and other real and personal
properties;
* protect the environment (including cultural and natural resources);
* maintain the physical safety and security of DOE facilities; and
* prevent or limit inadvertent human and environmental exposure to residual
contaminants and other hazards.
The purpose of DOE P 454.1 is to ensure that DOE programs—
* reaffirm a DOE-wide commitment to use institutional controls effectively;
* establish a consistent approach to the implementation, delegation, documentation,
maintenance and re-evaluation of institutional controls as an integral part of
missions and operational activities;
* integrate the use of well-designed, effective and reliable tools to manage, monitor,
and transfer real and personal property under DOE control; and
* apply institutional controls in a cost-effective way and maximize the use of
low-maintenance institutional controls to the extent possible.
DOE’s major environmental directive—DOE O 450.1, Environmental Protection
Program, promotes implementation of sound stewardship practices that are protective of
the air, water, land and cultural and ecological resources impacted by DOE operations,
and by which DOE meets or exceeds compliance with applicable environmental, public
health and resource protection laws, regulations and DOE requirements in a cost-effective
way. DOE O 450.1 requires DOE elements to ensure that the site Integrated Safety
Management System (ISMS) includes an environmental management system (EMS).
(This integration of the EMS into ISMS is referred to as ISMS/EMS).
The ISMS/EMS approach, as described in DOE G 450.1-1, Implementation Guide for
Use with DOE O 450.1, Environmental Protection Program, dated 2-18-04, emphasizes
continuous improvement of each environmental management program structured in four
phases—
* planning and aspects identification,
* implementation and operation,
* checking and corrective action, and
* management review and system maintenance.
Institutional controls fit well into an ISMS/EMS because their use and implementation
align closely with these four key ISMS/EMS phases. Since institutional controls can be
used or affected by any operations and activities at a facility, implementation of site
ISMS/EMS should provide a consistent, systematic means to ensure that all efforts
related to the use of institutional controls at DOE sites are integrated within a site-wide
program, taking into account mission needs. Institutional controls are essential elements
of ISMS/EMS related to radioactive waste disposal and waste management activities,
facility operations, restoration and closure, land use planning, cultural and natural
resources management, and legacy management activities at sites that will require use
restrictions.
2. Benefits of a Site-Wide Approach to the Use of Institutional Controls.
Incorporation of institutional control considerations in a site ISMS/EMS will help
facilitate cost-effective planning, implementation, and management review of site-wide
protection activities - across different programs and activities. ISMS/EMS allows DOE
sites to address mission needs while providing the flexibility necessary to tailor
institutional controls to unique site features such as physical setting, history, and local or
regional cultural characteristics, and to consider input from stakeholders and external
regulators. A site-wide ISMS/EMS approach also can address the need for long-term
protection, surveillance, and maintenance and allows the institutional controls to be
adapted to changes over time and provides better assurance that the need for controls and
their maintenance, as well as any changes, will be documented and available in the
future.
CHAPTER II. PLANNING FOR INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
During the planning phase of a site-wide ISMS/EMS DOE sites should identify and list
existing, as well as new or proposed activities, products and services and note how these
interact with the environment in order to identify environmental aspects. (Environmental
aspects are the attributes of a site’s activities, products, and services that can interact with the
environment). As part of a site-wide ISMS/EMS, DOE sites should evaluate the need for
institutional controls and identify areas where institutional controls will be necessary or
required (e.g., where unrestricted use or unrestricted release of property is not desirable,
practical, or possible, institutional controls are necessary to DOE efforts to protect its facilities
and operations and human health and the environment, including natural and cultural
resources). DOE sites should establish procedures to identify and maintain the environmental
aspects of the activities, products, or services that they can control and over which the sites can
be expected to have an influence.
1. Identify Institutional Controls for Existing, New, or Proposed Programs and Activities
at DOE Sites.
DOE sites commonly need and use institutional controls for programs and activities
related to the following:
* radiation protection of workers, the public and the environment,
* radioactive waste management and disposal,
* environmental protection,
* environmental restoration and cleanup,
* cultural resources management and historic preservation,
* operational continuity and security, and
* property or legacy management and stewardship.
Examples of statutes, regulations, and DOE directives that serve as drivers for DOE’s
uses of institutional controls in these generalized areas are listed in Appendix A.
Institutional controls used at DOE sites generally fall into one of the following
categories:
a. Government ownership (e.g., Federal or State);
b. warning notices (e.g., no trespassing signs, notification signs for hazardous and
sensitive areas);
c. entry restrictions (e.g., requirements for security badges, fencing, training for
persons entering hazardous or sensitive areas);
d. resource-use management (e.g. land use and real property controls, excavation
permits, ground water use restrictions); and
e. site information systems (e.g., information tracking systems on the location and
nature of waste sites or geographic based-information archives).
Appendix B provides a generic table illustrating these types of site-wide institutional
controls as well as corresponding mechanisms and objectives.
2. Planning Checklist for Institutional Controls.
During the planning phase, DOE sites can develop and use a checklist for identifying,
evaluating, and selecting appropriate institutional controls for use at their sites. A
checklist example follows:
? Document risk exposure assumptions.
? Describe expected future land use, as well as any known prohibited uses that
might not be obvious on the basis of anticipated land uses.
? Describe the end state that currently is envisioned for the property.
? Describe the need for the institutional controls (e.g., security, public risk, site
integrity, etc.).
? State performance objectives.
? Generally describe the institutional controls, the rationale for their selection and
a consequence assessment if they are not used.
? Provide maps and figures showing boundaries of the planned institutional
controls.
? Describe the necessary duration.
? Identify monitoring and reporting needs.
? Identify roles and responsibilities for selection, implementation, maintenance,
reporting and termination of institutional controls.
? Provide a list of institutional controls considered or evaluated for the purpose of
selecting appropriate institutional control mechanisms to be implemented.
? Describe how the effectiveness of the institutional controls will be measured.
? If applicable, provide a comparison of institutional controls to be implemented at
the site with requirements for institutional controls stipulated in the appropriate
documentation.
3. Application of a Defense-in-Depth or Layering Approach.
During the planning phase, DOE sites should consider the following:
a. What levels and types of protective measures (e.g., physical, administrative, etc.)
are appropriate for the associated risks?
b. How much redundancy (layers of protection) does each situation warrant?
c. How effectively will institutional controls address the specific conditions (e.g.,
prevent exposure to contaminated ground water) for the necessary period?
d. How effectively will the institutional controls survive future changes that may
occur in—
(1) the status of property (e.g., change in property ownership, or transition
from operations to disposition in a facility’s life cycle),
(2) contamination (e.g., decay or migration),
(3) exposure pathways (e.g., cross media impacts), or
(4) receptors (e.g., change in site use or demographics)?
e. What potential consequences could be envisioned if an institutional control fails
to perform as expected?
Since institutional controls often must perform far into the future, it is possible for
temporary lapses of some controls to occur over time. A DOE site may plan to use a
defense-in-depth strategy for institutional controls to provide a reasonable expectation
that if one control temporarily fails, other controls will remain in place or actions will
be taken to mitigate the potential consequences of a temporary failure.
Defense-in-depth uses multiple layers of protection to ensure that safety is not
dependent solely on any single element of design, construction, maintenance, or
operation – that is --a single failure will not significantly compromise safety, health, or
environmental protection.
It may be useful to prioritize institutional controls based on their potential effectiveness
and consequences of failure such that there is a primary group of controls that provide
the primary protection and a secondary group that provides backup protection should the
primary controls fail. Such categorization may be helpful in prioritizing maintenance
activities and resource allocations.
Three examples of how DOE sites apply a defense-in-depth strategy to institutional
controls follow. In each case, the individual institutional controls provide protection in
different ways and together provide enhanced protection of the public and the
environment.
* A site plans Federal ownership with continued DOE custody and accountability
for a disposal cell and surrounding buffer zone in conjunction with restrictions
on soil excavation and alteration of topography or vegetation in the area between
the buffer zone and the site boundary.
* A site uses continued Federal ownership, compliance with State well-drilling
regulations, notation on the Federal ownership record, an interpretive center, and
historic markers.
* The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) plans a defense-in-depth strategy for
passive institutional controls to provide layers of information and warnings with
redundant messages by using a number of components, each with its own
message and method of communication. Components of the WIPP passive
institutional controls are—
? monuments to define the boundary of the withdrawal area,
? markers that consist of perimeter monuments, an earthen berm, an
information center, two buried rooms and randomly-spaced buried
markers,
? sets of records distributed to national and international archives,
? sets of records distributed to records centers locally, nationally and
internationally,
? Government control and land use restrictions, and
? other means of communication such as encyclopedias, textbooks, and
maps.
In situations where the consequences of loss of institutional controls are expected to be
small, the need for redundant controls could be minimal. The rigor of the institutional
controls needs to be commensurate with the associated hazards. Application of a graded
approach (or tailoring) during the planning stages recognizes that specific factors (e.g.,
physical characteristics of the site that limit future land use, land uses that are acceptable
and land uses that should be prohibited, hazard of the real or personal property, cost of
monitoring and maintenance, and jurisdictional limitations) affecting risk vary from site
to site. A graded approach allows DOE sites to evaluate the appropriateness and
consider the benefits associated with available institutional controls and to tailor and
layer choices from among a variety of institutional controls that can be implemented.
For example—
* A deed restriction against well drilling that cannot be guaranteed to apply to all
subsequent owners of the property may not be appropriate for restricting use of a
site at which well drilling would result in exposure to hazardous contaminants
for a 100-year period.
* Local zoning ordinances may not apply to activities on DOE-owned property
where the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction due to Federal
ownership, and therefore may not be an effective control in a situation where
continued Federal ownership is envisioned.
* A wire fence with “No Trespassing” signs might be appropriate for remote sites
with minimal potential for harm and a very low appeal to potential trespassers,
but may not be appropriate for a site that could be attractive to trespassers (e.g.,
for use of off-road vehicles or other recreational purposes). In this last example,
if consequences of such an intrusion posed a significant risk then additional
controls should be considered. However, if the hazardous materials were not
easily accessible (e.g., waste buried several meters below the surface) fencing
may be unnecessary and a combination of signs and markers with use
restrictions may be sufficient.
4. Funding Considerations.
Cost is an important factor in decisions to use institutional controls, in comparisons of
available controls and in long-term budget planning. To the extent possible, DOE sites
should consider the cost of available institutional controls as well as the cost of different
combinations of the controls early in planning and decision making. Cost
considerations should include the costs of implementation, maintenance, monitoring,
assessment and periodic reassessment activities over time, and termination costs.
Cost estimates for institutional controls will vary from site to site and may rely heavily
on factors such as:
* type of institutional control used (e.g., a high-security fence or a three-strand
fence);
* site characteristics (e.g., signs may need to be replaced frequently at sites with
seasonal floods, inspections to locate any unapproved excavations may be more
frequent at sites that are attractive and prone to intrusion);
* location (e.g., remoteness or ease of access to institutional controls);
* need for and frequency of inspections (e.g., quarterly inspections, regular
security patrols, etc.)
* level of cooperation with other Government agencies (e.g., local law
enforcement); and
* length of time institutional controls needs to be effective.
As part of a site-wide ISMS/EMS, DOE sites and programs should commit to requesting
sufficient resources in the annual budgetary process to ensure that funds are available to
implement and maintain the institutional controls over time and to sustain an appropriate
level of protection. Modification, enhancement, or termination of institutional controls
during the later “implementation and operation,” “checking and corrective action,” or
“management review” phases of the ISMS/EMS also may necessitate future DOE
resource allocation requests.
5. Property Considerations.
Institutional controls at DOE sites are associated most often with control of hazards
(e.g., contaminated soil), facility security, or protection of resources (e.g., historic sites
or wetlands) on real property. However, institutional controls also are applicable to the
management of personal property (e.g., ensuring the safety and security of chemicals).
Institutional controls at DOE sites contribute to assurances that contaminated items are
not released without authorization, equipment is not stolen, and valuable cultural
artifacts are protected.
Institutional controls may be applied to property that DOE—
* owns or controls and expects to own or control indefinitely,
* may transfer internally to other DOE sites or to another Federal agency,
* transfers out of Federal control, or
* leases to non-Federal entities.
Controls may also be applied to property that—
* may be transferred to DOE from non-Federal control (e.g., certain Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees’ property or Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) sites), or
* is owned by others.
Expected future land use and envisioned end state can affect the types of institutional
controls. The following should be considered.
* What is the envisioned end state for the property?
* What are the projected needs of future generations (e.g., is continued growth of
adjacent communities expected), and what, if any, stresses would such growth
place on the natural resources system (e.g., increased demand for water and
land)?
* Will DOE retain the property for future use by DOE?
* Will DOE retain the property but allow use by non-DOE entities (e.g., leasing)?
* Does DOE plan to transfer the property (e.g., by sale or grant)?
Complexities related to available options for institutional controls may include—
* the need to place institutional controls on private lands or
* situations where DOE owns the land but not the water or mineral rights and
needs to include a notice in the deed.
DOE sites can conduct title searches to ensure that all property owners and parties that
have easements or rights-of-way are identified and provided an opportunity to express
their views during the planning phase.
When required by law to implement institutional controls for property that it does not
own or specifically control (e.g., where DOE is responsible for protecting the public
from contaminated ground water near a former uranium mill tailings site), DOE will
provide equivalent assurance for these institutional controls as it provides for
properties DOE owns, transfers or accepts. DOE needs to coordinate with States,
Tribes and other entities having jurisdiction over the property appropriately when
implementing these institutional controls. If necessary, DOE could use its broad
authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, to ensure that
institutional controls necessary to protect public health and national security are
maintained.
DOE O 481.1C, Work for Others (Non-Department of Energy Funded Work)
establishes requirements and conditions that must be met for the performance of work
for non-DOE entities by DOE and DOE contractor personnel and/or the use of DOE
facilities that is not directly funded by DOE appropriations. The Order requires that
the proposed work “not create a detrimental future burden on DOE/NNSA resources.”
It limits and requires approvals for construction and other capital improvements at
DOE sites in support of work for others. If such work requires implementation of
additional institutional controls for its conduct or potential for long-term institutional
controls following the conduct of the work, the cost of such controls and the feasibility
of their implementation should be assessed before accepting the work and appropriate
costs need to be included in resources plans for the work should it be approved.
6. Transfer of Property with Institutional Controls.
DOE sites must comply with statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the
transfer of property. Transfer of DOE property follows a well-defined process and
must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of DOE O 430.1B, Real
Property Asset Management. Information on the environmental requirements
associated with the transfer of real property is contained in DOE/EH-413/9712, Cross-
Cut Guidance on Environmental Requirements for DOE Real Property Transfers
(Update). Before a DOE site commits to transfer property all institutional control
needs should be identified and there should be a reasonable expectation that these
institutional control needs will be met. This applies to the new owner (may also be
referred to as transferee, or receiver) when DOE transfers property from its control and
to DOE when it accepts property from another entity.
When considering the transfer, sale, lease or change of management (e.g., management
of the land by another Federal agency) of any property for which cleanup under
CERCLA was conducted, the DOE site should assess whether the property is subject to
institutional control requirements based on the corresponding Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) decision
document. If such requirements exist, the DOE site should consider the following
actions:
* Notify the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State before any
action is taken, in accordance with any applicable requirements,
* Retain appropriate property interests,
* Attach institutional controls to the property, as appropriate, and
* Conduct other efforts in support of long-term stewardship of the property (e.g.,
information management).
When first considering transfer of property to which institutional controls apply
(including transfer among DOE offices, from DOE to another Federal agency, or from
DOE to a non-Federal party), DOE should ascertain that the new owner understands
the institutional control needs and has the authority, willingness and actual capability
to fulfill responsibilities imposed upon the property for the expected life of existing or
planned institutional controls, including performing needed maintenance and other
activities. DOE should examine the capability of the new owner to fund
implementation and maintenance activities over the necessary period and ensure
long-term effectiveness of the institutional controls. Provisions for ensuring the
continued maintenance of institutional controls should be incorporated into written
agreements or other legal documents, as appropriate. Contingencies to mitigate events
such as abandonment of the property, bankruptcy of the owner, or failure to maintain
institutional controls if property ownership changes in the future should be considered
to the extent possible during the planning stages and should be commensurate with the
risk of such events and their consequences. Entities receiving DOE property may
maintain and monitor institutional controls put in place by DOE, or DOE could arrange
to retain a right of access to the property to continue that responsibility.
In the planning phase, DOE should take necessary steps to ensure that the appropriate
institutional controls associated with the property will be transferred to the new owner.
DOE should inform the new owner of any institutional controls that will remain in
place upon transfer of property and may use the appropriate mechanisms to attach the
controls to the property at the time of transfer. Any additional measures that may be
necessary would be determined on a case-by-case basis and would be delineated in the
transfer documents. DOE should notify the new owner of any need to inform local
governments about institutional control issues that could affect adjacent non-Federal
property. The nature of the limits and restrictions on property need to be publicly
available and documented. Beyond establishing appropriate institutional controls
before transfer, DOE may have only limited authority over property that DOE no
longer owns unless agreements indicating otherwise have been put in place.
For property transfers to other Federal agencies or within the DOE complex, the new
owner should be responsible for maintenance, monitoring, and management of
institutional controls. Proprietary controls may not be an effective option because a
transfer among Federal agencies may not generate public records when a deed does not
exist to record the transfer or when the agency lacks the authority to encumber the
property. Therefore, certain institutional controls such as deed restrictions may not be
used when DOE transfers property to another Federal agency. Property transfers
among Federal agencies are usually documented in a memorandum of agreement
(MOA) or other appropriate instrument that should identify existing institutional
controls and itemize land or water use restrictions. Such agreements should be
maintained in the DOE records management system and appropriately archived with
retention periods at least as long as the institutional controls are expected to be needed.
DOE should work with the receiving agency to ensure that the institutional controls
remain effective.
CHAPTER III. LAWS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER DIRECTIVES
RELATED TO DOE USES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
As part of a site-wide ISMS/EMS, DOE sites should establish and maintain procedures to
identify and access legal and other requirements. Activities pertaining to planning,
selection, and use of institutional controls must comply with all applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements, permit or compliance agreement conditions, and DOE Order
requirements and need to be integrated with other appropriate DOE directives (e.g.,
DOE policies, guides, and manuals).
Many major Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and various other drivers influence the
use of institutional controls at DOE sites. Some drivers directly authorize or require the use of
institutional controls, while others do not. Also, DOE uses institutional controls when no
specific statutory requirement exists to supplement active remediation, pollution control, public
and resource protection, and physical security, or to bolster the integrity of engineered remedies.
A listing of various drivers for the use of institutional controls at DOE sites is presented in
Appendix A with the principal statutory drivers mentioned below.
The AEA, the Department of Energy Organization Act, and related statutes assign DOE the
responsibility to protect the public, the environment, and property from hazards associated with
its research, development, production or other activities. This responsibility includes protecting
the public and the environment from radiation or radioactive material. DOE requirements
mandate continued control of property until the radiological hazard associated with the property
is reduced to levels at which regulation under the AEA is no longer needed to ensure protection
of the public and the environment. Similarly, CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) require that decisions related to environmental restoration and corrective
action remain protective of human health and the environment. Requirements for institutional
controls have also been established under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
(UMTRCA), the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, and the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act.
DOE and its predecessor agencies have conducted activities for over 50 years, using land
ownership and access control, environmental monitoring and surveillance, and other tools to
support protection efforts at operational and inactive facilities, including radioactive waste
burial grounds. For example:
* DOE has used institutional controls successfully to restrict access at the Nevada Test Site
for over 50 years.
* DOE continues oversight and care of the Piqua nuclear reactor begun in 1968 by the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) when this reactor was decommissioned and
entombed.
* DOE is implementing institutional controls for Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action
(UMTRA) Project sites in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements and
site-specific long-term surveillance and maintenance plans.
* DOE is implementing institutional controls at sites in accordance with site-specific
RCRA and CERCLA agreements (such as DOE Tri-Party Agreements) which tend to
focus the use of institutional controls on the need to create a sustainable cleanup strategy.
DOE decision makers need to account for applicable statutes, regulations, and DOE directives
when evaluating institutional control options for activities at DOE sites during the planning
phase. Appendix A identifies general areas of activity where DOE uses institutional controls.
In addition to Federal drivers, individual State and local laws may affect the use of institutional
controls for a specific site, for example, requirements to use State model language in drafting
controls, State laws on recording deeds or local zoning ordinances. DOE’s legal counsel and
realty specialists need to be cognizant of applicable State and local property laws and
environmental laws and should be consulted to ensure that such State and local requirements do
not conflict with Federal law. Land use controls must comply with requirements in Federal
property management regulations.
CHAPTER IV. KEY PARTIES AND THEIR STRUCTURES, ROLES,
RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES
1. Department of Energy.
DOE is responsible for establishing policy and guidance related to the use of institutional
controls at its sites. DOE line management is responsible for ensuring that institutional
control needs are addressed as part of an ISMS/EMS. DOE line management at a site has
the primary responsibility for:
* the identification, use, implementation, oversight, integration, and maintenance of
institutional controls at DOE sites,
* ensuring compliance with any applicable requirements,
* evaluating the effectiveness of the institutional controls, and
* communicating with other Federal, State, and local agencies and Tribal
governments.
For example, DOE line management is responsible for
* ensuring adherence to any institutional control requirements specified in
CERCLA decision documents and for the development of any necessary reports,
* assuring that institutional controls are implemented as planned, and
* periodically assessing the effectiveness of the institutional controls and for
conducting assessments regarding the performance of the institutional controls
under their purview.
For DOE sites that have transitioned into the legacy management program, the DOE
Office of Legacy Management is responsible for the identification, implementation,
evaluation, maintenance, and documentation of institutional controls, and communication
of institutional controls failure and corrective action. The Office of Legacy Management
has the responsibility to ensure that institutional controls remain in place as long as they
are needed at legacy management sites. In addition, should there be a transfer of
ownership of any part of a legacy management site, deed restrictions, if implemented,
will be reviewed by the Office of Legacy Management to ensure that they remain in
effect with the local authorities.
DOE offices need to coordinate decisions and integrate programs related to institutional
controls with site-wide operations. Regular communication with program managers of
facilities or activities that may have potential impacts on institutional controls is essential.
For example, DOE site environmental staff should ensure that the DOE legal counsel and
property experts understand the access restrictions necessary to protect public health and
the environment; DOE offices responsible for water resource programs should be
cognizant of institutional controls involving restrictions on ground water uses; DOE
facility management and maintenance personnel should be notified of institutional
controls that restrict soil use in particular areas; and grounds maintenance personnel
should be made aware of the placement and purpose of institutional controls such as
markers, fences and signs. Effective communication and coordination at DOE sites can
be accomplished in a number of ways, such as through a site-wide ISMS/EMS team or
committee.
DOE sites can use various management tools such as laws, regulations, DOE orders,
internal procedures, agreements, consent orders, Federal Register notices, information
announcements, and contracts to ensure that institutional controls needs are met.
In accordance with DOE P 454.1, DOE will maintain and oversee the institutional
controls under its control as long as necessary for the controls to perform their intended
protective purposes. In some case, because of remediation, natural processes or
radioactive decay, DOE control of the property may be required for a limited amount of
time, while in other cases, due to factors such as the nature of the hazards, statutory
requirements or ongoing missions, Federal control may be required indefinitely.
DOE sites need to ensure that institutional controls are maintained properly and protected
from damage so that they continue to function effectively and provide an adequate level
of protection. Effectiveness of institutional controls can be enhanced by routine custodial
maintenance (e.g., clearing vegetation to keep markers visible; removing deep-rooted
vegetation on a disposal cell; road maintenance) and repair (e.g., fence repair around
controlled areas; repairing damage to a disposal cell; fixing gates and locks). Custodial
maintenance should be documented and incorporated into a site’s permanent file.
Although DOE has ownership responsibility for institutional controls, DOE may execute
the actions necessary for implementation and maintenance through the use of contractors.
DOE contractors are required to comply with applicable environmental laws, DOE
directives, and administrative orders through contract requirements. DOE site line
management is responsible for assuring that the contractors adhere to all applicable
requirements.
2. Other Federal, State, and Local Agencies.
Federal, state, and local government agencies may play a role in the success of
institutional controls at DOE sites. For example, in CERCLA remediation and cleanup,
EPA and the States generally are the primary external regulatory agencies that oversee
cleanup activities at the DOE sites while the NRC is the primary regulatory agency
overseeing DOE activities related to the UMTRCA Title I and Title II sites. NRC also
will be the licensing authority for a DOE-developed high-level radioactive waste
repository.
Early cooperation and involvement with other interested and affected governments
including State and local governments, other appropriate State agencies, and affected
Federal agencies should increase the successful implementation of institutional controls,
especially when there is a need for institutional controls on property owned by non-DOE
entities. Whether DOE sites intend to transfer property to non-Federal entities or retain
property for DOE missions, institutional control alternatives, and their implications for
future use need to be clearly understood by DOE, external regulators and the public.
Entities such as economic development interests, local re-use authorities, local
municipalities, DOE-certified realty specialists, DOE legal representatives, and
appropriate site managers should be involved in identifying potential future uses for a
site. Such entities should be consulted to obtain information on topics such as the
following:
* community needs,
* anticipated future stresses on natural resource systems (e.g., greater demand for
water or land by adjacent communities)
* potential land uses,
* local land use authorities and restrictions,
* anticipated property owners,
* legal status of the property and knowledge of the implications of that status, and
* expected economic, legal, and demographic conditions (e.g., changes in growth of
adjacent communities).
DOE site representatives should work closely with individual land owners surrounding
the site and appropriate local governments to ensure that legal ownership and planned
land use are accurate and complete for both the surface and subsurface. This is
particularly relevant where a hazard such as contaminated ground water or soil had or has
the potential to migrate offsite.
3. Native American Tribes.
Tribal governments may also play a role in implementation of institutional controls at
DOE sites. Principles set forth in the DOE American Indian & Alaska Native Tribal
Government Policy should be followed to ensure effective implementation of a
government-to-government relationship with tribal governments. DOE should encourage
input from neighboring tribes on program management activities that could affect them.
Communication and requests for tribal input should occur early in any DOE process that
may affect tribes and consideration should be given to the policies, priorities and
concerns of the affected tribes, and/or, where appropriate, affected tribal members.
Existing methods of effective communication with the tribes can be used to convey
information on institutional controls.
4. Public Participation and Outreach.
DOE P 141.2, Public Participation and Community Relations, recognizes that public
participation is a fundamental component in program operations, planning activities and
decision making within DOE. DOE sites should encourage meaningful public
participation and community involvement early in the development and implementation
of institutional controls to keep local communities and stakeholders informed and to
provide a feedback mechanism. Security concerns and safety priorities will compel DOE
sites to limit information released to the public domain about certain types of institutional
controls, as discussed in Chapter V. However, local communities and stakeholders
should be afforded access to publicly available information on institutional controls.
Publicly available information on institutional controls should be included in a site’s
general public participation programs to facilitate input and to ensure that the public
understands DOE’s ongoing activities. Existing public outreach mechanisms (e.g., the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, site-specific advisory boards,
scheduled meetings with local governments or community-based organizations, public
meetings, mailings, information centers, web sites, etc.) can be used to engage the public.
Early outreach can enhance public awareness of the institutional controls. Educating the
local communities on institutional controls is an important aspect of outreach efforts.
Education programs can be tailored to the needs of specific groups (e.g., property owners,
schools, developers, etc.). The public, particularly the local communities, need
information in an understandable format that conveys why the institutional controls are
necessary, what the existing hazards are, how DOE makes decisions related to the
controls, what activities are restricted and which can be conducted safely, and how the
institutional controls will be managed.
Coordination with local communities and other stakeholders is an important way to gain
input on decisions related to future use of the property. Future use expectations of local
communities may drive the type and extent of institutional controls used. Economic,
social or legal (e.g., treaties or agreements) pressures for land use can affect the types of
institutional controls under consideration. Stakeholders’ needs, values, and expectations
for site use may determine whether or not institutional controls are acceptable, or which
specific institutional controls are considered for the site. For example, based on input
from one local community a DOE site decided that future public access to an on-site
disposal facility would be restricted and future uses of the site will be limited to
environmental, educational, and passive controls, with a continued DOE presence at the
site into the foreseeable future. In another situation, excess land was identified through
the request for use by neighboring counties to a DOE site. DOE approved the request
and the land was disposed of, with a future use identified as a municipal solid waste
landfill.
The public needs to know the names and phone numbers of responsible DOE contacts to
be notified if problems arise and where to direct questions related to institutional controls.
There should be mechanisms in place at DOE sites to ensure that the public is notified in
a timely manner of any incident related to failure of an institutional control.
5. Future Generations.
As part of its stewardship responsibilities DOE needs to recognize the importance of
intergenerational equity considerations in the planning, usage and implementation of
institutional controls, that is, how the interests of future generations are factored into
decisions made by the current generation. The following principles should be
considered when making decisions related to institutional controls that could affect future
generations:
* Trustee Principle—Every generation has obligations as trustee to protect the
interests of future generations;
* Sustainability Principle—No generation should deprive future generations of the
opportunity for a quality of life comparable to its own;
* Chain of Obligation Principle—Each generation’s primary obligation is to
provide for the needs of the living and succeeding generations. Near-term
concrete hazards have priority over long-term hypothetical hazards;
* Precautionary Principle—Actions that pose a realistic threat of irreversible harm
or catastrophic consequences should not be pursued unless there is some
compelling countervailing need to benefit either current or future generations.
Although general in nature, these principles and the associated NAPA recommendations
represent a reasonable framework to aid DOE line management in making institutional
control decisions in a manner that fairly balances risk, costs and benefits across
generations.
6. Training, Awareness, and Competence.
In addition to communication, training is another essential element of an ISMS/EMS.
DOE sites should evaluate the need for general awareness training related to the need for,
and use of, institutional controls at DOE sites for personnel whose work may create a
significant impact on the effectiveness of institutional controls so that they have the
necessary knowledge to carry out the responsibilities of their positions. The sites should
establish and maintain procedures to make personnel at each relevant function and level
aware of the following:
* the importance of conformance with the institutional controls policy and
procedures and with the requirements of the EMS;
* the significant environmental impacts, actual or potential, of their work activities
and the environmental benefits of improved personal performance;
* their roles and responsibilities in achieving conformance with the institutional
controls policy and procedures; and
* the potential consequences if procedures are not followed.
CHAPTER V. INVENTORY AND DOCUMENTATION
OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
1. Inventory of Institutional Controls.
DOE sites should have a reliable inventory of all institutional controls in use. DOE
O 430.1B states that Facilities Information Management System (FIMS) data must be
maintained as complete and current throughout the life cycle of real property assets,
including real property related institutional controls. A tracking mechanism that
identifies all land areas under restrictions or controls would be useful to develop or to
expand. Some DOE sites use existing documents such as land use plans to track the
institutional controlled areas.
2. Documentation and Records Management.
Documentation and recordkeeping are essential to ensuring effective and lasting
institutional controls. Although it may not be possible to guarantee that the controls
will be effective 100% of the time, good records management should greatly minimize
chances of lengthy failure. DOE P 454.1 calls for the purpose and need for the
institutional controls to be documented, and made publicly available, as appropriate
and allowed by law. The site’s ISMS/EMS, Annual Site Environmental Reports
(ASERs) and NEPA documents are examples of documentation that can support this
objective. Real property asset management at DOE sites needs to be conducted in
accordance with DOE O 430.1B, Executive Order 13327, Federal Real Property Asset
Management, and land use planning provisions of DOE P 430.1 Land and Facility Use
Planning, to ensure that pertinent real estate and records management activities are
conducted in accordance with applicable DOE directives and that access constraints
imposed upon DOE’s comprehensive land and facility use planning process by current
and future needs for institutional controls are recognized and clearly understood.
DOE sites need close coordination with their Records Management and Classification
offices because documentation released to the public must not contain sensitive or
classified information. In this regard, this Guide does not suggest, nor should it be
interpreted to suggest that any information regarding security measures be released to
the public. Security concerns and safety priorities will compel DOE sites to limit
information released to the public domain about certain types of institutional controls
(see for example, DOE O 471.3, Identifying and Protecting Official Use Only
Information and the associated DOE M 471.3-1 and DOE G 471.3-1; DOE O 471.1A,
Identification and Protection of Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information; DOE M
475.1-1A, Identifying Classified Information; and current classification guides). DOE
sites also must comply with other applicable restrictions on the release of information.
For example, the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), as
amended, precludes public access to maps or other information concerning the nature
and location of cultural resources under Subchapter II of Chapter 5 of Title 5 of the
United States Code (Freedom of Information Act) or under any other provision of law
unless certain conditions specified in ARPA are met. However, such requirements do
not preclude documentation in appropriately-controlled records.
Whenever possible and appropriate, documentation on the institutional controls that a
DOE site makes publicly available should allow interested parties to understand—
* the need for the controls (e.g., physical security, worker protection, pres
ervation of cultural resources, etc);
* the objectives of the institutional controls (e.g., limit unauthorized access to a site,
protect cultural resources from vandalism, block a particular receptor pathway,
restrict the use of ground water for a specified period of time, etc.);
* the types of institutional controls that are planned at the site, and their associated
limitations;
* site-specific factors that could affect the type and extent of controls;
* a description of any authorized uses and the nature of constraints and restrictions
on the use of property by present and future owners;
* the magnitude of any hazard or risk that may be present,
* a timeframe during which the institutional controls will apply and the duration of
DOE control over the property;
* life cycle cost estimates for institutional controls to the extent practicable;
* the manner in which the institutional controls will operate and be maintained;
* a description of tools and procedures that will be applied to implement the
controls and to evaluate the effectiveness of institutional controls;
* identification of conditions that could result in termination of the institutional
controls;
* identification of the organization responsible for implementation and maintenance
of institutional controls;
* the name and phone number of the appropriate organization to be notified in the
event that a violation or failure of the institutional controls is discovered (e.g.,
security telephone numbers may be posted on the site perimeter, access points and
other key locations on the sites);
* a description of the mitigative actions that may be undertaken if institutional
controls are violated or fail;
* any reporting procedures for compliance with environmental laws and DOE
directives; and
* a description of the records management system for the institutional controls, how
and where records will be maintained, and how the public will have appropriate
access to publicly available records.
Site office or program office management is responsible for maintaining institutional
control information. For sites that have transitioned to the Office of Legacy
Management, information that is needed for institutional control purposes will be
managed by the Office of Legacy Management. Any centralized system to provide
stakeholders with access to publicly available information on legacy management sites
will be managed by the Office of Legacy Management.
Information management is necessary to ensure that records pertaining to institutional
controls are preserved and remain accessible to DOE and other appropriate officials and
whenever permitted by law and security requirements to the public. DOE sites may
establish a central database of properties, sites, or areas affected by institutional controls,
or use existing databases. For example, DOE O 430.1B requires that complete and
current information on institutional controls for real property be maintained in the DOE
FIMS. DOE sites should maintain and update site maps and information on properties
affected by institutional controls and may track these institutional controls in FIMS, as
appropriate and allowed by law and consistent with DOE security needs. DOE sites may
need to establish supplemental systems or procedures if they need to retain pertinent site
historical records on leased properties. Additionally, since FIMS does not archive all
seismic information, DOE sites that need to retain pertinent seismic information should
do so separately from FIMS. When available, detailed maps or Graphic Information
Systems (GIS) computerized maps can depict the areas affected by the institutional
controls. Pertinent information on the institutional controls also can be contained, or
incorporated by reference in other documents prepared by the sites for other purposes
(e.g., facility plans, regulatory supporting and decision documents, land transfer
agreements, etc.), as appropriate. The information media used should be evaluated
periodically and updated to ensure data remain accessible for future reference.
Accessible publicly available documentation on a DOE site’s institutional controls will be
of value to both current and future generations. Institutional controls provide protection,
but also ensure that there is adequate information publicly available for current and future
generations to make informed decisions regarding the controls. To account for
intergenerational equity and to avoid foreclosing options for future generations,
documentation should also communicate to future generations: the rationale, an
understanding of the underlying environmental concerns, and limitations and uncertainty
of data and analyses related to present-day decisions on institutional controls.
CHAPTER VI. MONITORING, PERIODIC ADDESSMENT AND CORRECTIVE
ACTION FOR INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
An integrated program to monitor and periodically assess institutional controls can be planned
and conducted as part of a site’s ISMS/EMS assessment or as part of existing site inspections.
These existing mechanisms can be used to satisfy the DOE O 450.1 requirement that a site’s
ISMS/EMS include policies and procedures to assess performance and implement corrective
action. Procedures for monitoring, periodic assessment, and when necessary, corrective actions,
related to institutional controls should be documented as part of the site’s ISMS/EMS.
A graded approach can be applied to determine the frequency of, and need for, monitoring and
assessment of institutional controls, based upon site-specific circumstances and the degree to
which the institutional controls provide protectiveness. Once the assessment process is
well-established and the DOE site has demonstrated the effectiveness of the institutional
controls, the frequency of future assessments may be modified. In some circumstances, this
modification may be subject to approval by EPA or the State. Conversely, if it is deemed
necessary or appropriate, the DOE site can schedule more frequent assessments (e.g., discovery
of unauthorized activities or uses, or if the site is in an area of rapid development) to ensure that
site restrictions are being maintained.
Monitoring and periodic assessment provide DOE sites with valuable opportunities to evaluate
whether the assumptions made at the time the institutional controls were selected are still valid
and protective of public health and to re-evaluate whether the physical (e.g., materials used for
fences or signs) and the organizational (e.g., local zoning boards, deed recording systems)
components of the institutional controls will remain intact for the necessary period of time.
Through monitoring and periodic assessments, DOE line management can be kept apprised of
the conditions of the institutional controls; detect conditions that, if left unattended, could
promote failure; and respond to problems that may develop over time.
Monitoring and periodic assessment within an ISMS/EMS also provide opportunities to analyze
the impacts of any changes to laws, regulations and directives; re-evaluate stakeholders
understanding of the situation; determine the impacts of any changes in resources; and
recommend cost-effective improvements.
Periodic assessments also can identify the need to implement changes, adjustments, or corrective
actions to the institutional controls based on performance findings. Periodic assessments should
be consistent with DOE O 226.1.
Periodic assessments of institutional controls by DOE sites can include, but are not limited to,
the following activities:
* site visits and visual inspections to evaluate the condition of controls (e.g., fences, signs
and postings) and ensure that controls are in place and functioning as intended;
* taking and analyzing site photographs (including aerial photographs if available) to track
changes in land and resource uses;
* observations of adjacent properties for evidence of land use changes;
* interviews with neighboring property owners;
* evaluation of the integrity of runoff controls and natural drainage courses in the
immediate vicinity;
* inspection of the general area for signs of erosion, excess sediment, seepage and signs of
human or animal intrusion;
* review of environmental surveillance data;
* review of documentation to determine whether inappropriate land or resource use is
occurring (e.g., property title examination to determine whether original controls imposed
on real property are still in place or have been modified over time); and
* review of legal and administrative documentation (e.g., deed restrictions, siting
restrictions and zoning ordinances) to determine whether proprietary controls are being
obeyed.
Periodic assessments should address the following types of questions:
* Are the institutional controls performing as intended and do they continue to provide the
necessary level of protection?
* Are the institutional controls still the most cost-effective way to provide the necessary
protection or physical security?
* Have any unacceptable conditions developed (e.g., unauthorized access to the site by
off-road vehicles, attempts to use soil or water in an inappropriate manner, damage to
fencing, gates or postings, extensive vandalism, structural instability caused by
subsidence or creep, plant intrusion, existence of burrowing animals, etc.)?
* Is the current land use still appropriate?
* Do the institutional controls need to be modified, replaced, or terminated? If yes, what is
the rationale for such actions?
* Have any significant changes occurred to alter the original decision to use institutional
controls? (e.g., changes in DOE missions, changes in applicable requirements, changes in
onsite conditions such as contaminant migration, changes in offsite conditions, such as
land use or resource activities or land use designations, particularly if such activities are
not consistent with the objectives of the original institutional controls, or changes in
assessment of risk, etc.).
* Is the public still aware of the institutional controls?
In the context of an ISMS/EMS, DOE sites should consider establishing performance indicators
to facilitate assessments and to delineate under what conditions institutional controls—]
* should remain in place, can continue to provide protectiveness and still work as planned;
* are no longer working effectively and need to be modified or replaced;
* are no longer needed and can be discontinued; or
* are no longer needed for their original purpose, but other purposes for the controls have
been identified and the continuation of the institutional controls is deemed appropriate.
Information obtained from periodic assessment can build a knowledge base of the actual
performance of the institutional controls and improve effectiveness. The assessment process can
be directed through the use of a checklist or evaluation form to focus the scope of the
assessments on primary outcomes, to provide an objective review of the controls and to provide a
continuous record for tracking changes over time. This assessment can be documented in a
report that summarizes the assessment activities, identifies deficiencies, and makes
recommendations regarding repairs and improvements to the implementation of the institutional
controls. A lessons-learned program can record information on effectiveness, maintenance
requirements, costs, and other factors to foster greater understanding of institutional controls and
improved implementation.
DOE sites should establish and document procedures for defining responsibility and authority for
handling and investigating non-conformance, taking action to mitigate any impacts that were
caused, and initiating and completing corrective and preventive action. For example, if a failure
or violation of an institutional control is detected through a periodic assessment or discovered at
any other time, personnel identifying the failed or violated institutional control should notify the
appropriate DOE official. This DOE official should notify external parties as necessary (e.g., a
CERCLA Record of Decision (ROD) may require notification of EPA and/or the State if an
institutional control failure is detected; and at Title I and Title II sites 10 CFR 40 requires DOE
to submit a preliminary report to NRC within 60 days if unusual disruption or damage is
detected). The DOE site should identify the root cause of the institutional control process
failure, evaluate how to correct the process to avoid future problems, implement these changes,
and ensure that the integrity of the control is restored.
CHAPTER VII. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION
OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
It may be necessary to replace, modify, or terminate the controls due to changes in conditions
existing at a site over time, or changes in the institutional controls themselves. DOE sites should
establish procedures to modify or terminate institutional controls when warranted. These
procedures should clearly delineate criteria to assist DOE sites in determining whether it is
appropriate to modify or terminate institutional controls, and should be documented.
The procedures should establish a process for site personnel to follow when modifying or
terminating institutional controls, including:
* DOE legal offices need to be consulted to determine the specific requirements for
modifying or terminating the institutional controls.
* DOE site managers need to approve all modifications or terminations of institutional
controls in writing before these actions are implemented.
* When appropriate, DOE should notify EPA and appropriate State government offices, as
well as local jurisdictions, before any anticipated change in restrictions, land uses or
activity for any legally required institutional control.
* Appropriate documents and agreements should be developed, amended, or modified, as
necessary, to reflect changing conditions and ensure compliance with applicable public
participation, administrative record and legal requirements.
* A schedule of activities needs to be established.
DOE sites should document decisions to modify, enhance or terminate existing institutional
controls. This documentation should address the following, as appropriate to the specific
situation:
* Provide the basis for the decision that existing institutional controls need to be modified
or enhanced (e.g., the hazard has increased), or that the institutional controls are no longer
needed and can be terminated (e.g., the hazard has decreased).
* Identify what modifications or enhancements will be made and how these modifications
or enhancements will serve to protect public health and the environment.
* List the names and phone numbers of the organization responsible for implementing the
decision to modify or terminate the institutional controls.
CHAPTER VIII. MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Management review is the periodic review of the need for, and use of, institutional controls in
the context of an ISMS/EMS by senior management (i.e., managers who have the authority to
make decisions for the site or facility). The primary goal of a management review should be to
ensure that the institutional controls continue to be suitable, adequate, and effective for their
intended purpose. The management review process allows senior managers of the site to assess
the existing institutional controls within the context of the overall ISMS/EMS, evaluate the
possible need for changes, provide direction and/or resources for any actions necessary to make
the changes, and to promote continual improvement through their leadership. This review
should be documented. Guidance pertaining to management review can be found in DOE
G 450.1-1.
REFERENCES
1. DOE P 141.1, Department of Energy Management of Cultural Resources, dated 5-2-01.
2. DOE P 141.2, Public Participation and Community Relations, dated 5-2-03.
3. DOE P 226.1, Department of Energy Oversight Policy, dated 6-10-05
4. DOE O 226.1, Implementation of Department of Energy Oversight Policy, dated 9-15-05.
5. DOE O 413.1A, Management Control Program, dated 4-18-02.
6. DOE P 430.1, Land and Facility Use Planning, dated 7-9-96.
7. DOE G 430.1-2, Implementation Guide for Surveillance and Maintenance During
Facility Transition and Disposition, dated 9-29-99.
8. DOE G 430.1-5, Transition Implementation Guide, dated 4-24-01.
9. DOE O 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management, dated 9-24-03.
10. DOE M 435.1-1 Chg.1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, dated 6-19-01.
11. DOE O 435.1 Chg 1, Radioactive Waste Management, dated 8-28-01.
12. DOE G 450.1-1, Implementation Guide for Use with DOE O 450.1, Environmental
Protection Program, dated 2-18-04.
13. DOE O 450.1 Chg 1, Environmental Protection Program, dated 1-15-05.
14. DOE G 450.1-3, Environmental Guidelines for Development of Cultural Resource
Management Plan—Update, dated 9-22-04.
15. DOE G 450.3-3, Tailoring for Integrated Safety Management Applications, dated 2-1-97.
16. DOE P 454.1, Use of Institutional Controls, dated 4-9-03.
17. DOE P 455.1, Use of Risk-Based End States, dated 7-15-03.
18. DOE O 471.1A, Identification and Protection of Unclassified Controlled Nuclear
Information, dated 6-30-00.
19. DOE M 471.3-1, Manual for Identifying and Protecting Official Use Only Information,
dated 4-9-03.
20. DOE G 471.3-1, Guide to Identifying Official Use Only Information, dated 4-9-03.
21. DOE O 471.3, Identifying and Protecting Official Use Only Information, dated 4-9-03.
22. DOE M 475.1-1A, Identifying Classified Information, dated 2-26-01.
23. DOE P 580.1, Management Policy for Planning, Programming, Budgeting, Operation,
Maintenance and Disposal of Real Property, dated 5-20-02.
24. DOE/Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH)-412-0014/1099, Long-Term
Control of Property: Overview of Requirements in Orders DOE 5400.1 & 5400.5, Office
of Environment, Safety and Health, October 1999.
25. DOE/EH-413/9712, Cross-Cut Guidance on Environmental Requirements for DOE Real
Property Transfers (Update), Office of Environment, Safety and Health, March 2005.
26. DOE/EH-413-0004, Institutional Controls in RCRA & CERCLA Response Actions,
August 2000.
27. DOE Long-term Stewardship Study, Vol.1—Report, Office of Environmental
Management, October 2001.
28. DOE/WIPP 04-2301, Passive Institutional Controls Implementation Plan, dated August
19, 2004.
29. Environmental Management Systems: Getting Started, EH-41 Environmental
Management Systems Information Brief, March 1998.
30. Terms and Conditions for Site Transition, 2005, Office of Legacy Management, available
at http://www.lm.doe.gov/pro_doc/site_trans_doc.htm, February 2005.
31. DoD, A Guide to Establishing Institutional Controls at Closing Military Installation,
1998.
32. DoD, Guidance on Land Use Controls Associated with Environmental Restoration
Activities for Property Planned for Transfer Out of Federal Control, Attachment to
Memorandum Policy on Land Use Controls Associated with Environmental Restoration
Activities, dated 1-17-01.
33. DoD, Guidance on Land Use Control Agreements with Environmental Regulatory
Agencies, Memorandum from Gary D. Vest, dated 3-2-01.
34. Master Plan for Public Use of the Fernald Environmental Management Project, DOE
Fernald Office, 2002.
35. How Will Future Generations Be Warned? DOE Carlsbad Field Office Fact Sheet,
Revised January 2003 (online at www.wipp.ws).
36. 10 CFR 862.4, Restrictions on Aircraft Landing and Air Delivery at Department of
Energy Nuclear Sites.
37. E.O. 13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management, dated February 4, 2004.
38. EPA-F-00-005, Institutional Controls: A Site Manager’s Guide to Identifying,
Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective
Action Cleanups, September 2000.
39. 68 FR 8757, Final Guidance on Completion of Corrective Action Activities at RCRA
Facilities, dated February 25, 2003.
40. Telling the Story of Fernald, Community Based Stewardship and public access to
information, Fernald Citizens Advisory Board (prepared by the Perspective Group),
October 2002.
41. Federal Institutional Control Requirements for Radioactive Waste and Restricted Release
of Property Containing Radioactive Material, Interagency Steering Committee on
Radiation Standards (online at http://www.iscors.org/ictables.pdf).
42. Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits Fairly Across Generations,
National Academy of Public Administration, June 1997.
43. Long-Term Institutional Management of U.S. Department of Energy Legacy Waste Sites,
National Academy Press, National Research Council, 2000.
44. Long-Term Stewardship of DOE Legacy Waste Sites—A Status Report, National
Research Council, 2003.
45. NUREG-1727, NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, September 2000.
46. Establishing and Maintaining Institutional Controls for Ordnance and Explosives (OE)
Projects, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 15, 2000.
47. Site Transition Framework for Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance, (undated)
Office of Legacy Management, available at
http://www.lm.doe.gov/pro_doc/site_trans_doc.htm.
48. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Government Policy, Office of Congressional
and Intergovernmental Affairs, available at www.ci.doe.gov, October 2000.
APPENDIX A. STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND OTHER DIRECTIVES AS DRIVERS FOR
USES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AT DOE SITES
APPENDIX B. EXAMPLES OF SITE-WIDE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
View appendices in the PDF file.