Radioactive Waste Service
Strategic Environmental Analysis, L.C. (SEA) is an environmental management consulting firm that serves clients in the hazardous waste, radioactive waste, solid waste, recycling and wastewater fields by analyzing the impact of business, regulatory and technology factors on the environmental services marketplace, and by devising strategies to cope with future market conditions. SEA`s areas of practice include custom market surveys, due diligence investigations, regulatory analysis, expert witness testimony and litigation support, and technology assessments, multi-client research, and policy development and representation projects.
The links listed below summarize some of SEA’s recent and historical Radioactive Waste projects including LLRW, MLRW, TRU and High-Level wastes:
High-Level Mixed Radioactive Waste
SEA assisted a government contractor in determining the origins, scope and purposes of the treatability testing provisions of RCRA. SEA prepared an Expert Report in this regard for use in an ongoing dispute with a State Agency over the proper interpretation of this provision. SEA determined that the State’s interpretation was inconsistent with the origins purpose and historical implementation of RCRA’s treatability provision.
High-Level Mixed Radioactive Waste - Permitting
SEA was retained by a national environmental group to assess the applicability of RCRA’s substantive and permitting requirements to the ongoing treatment of mixed high-level radioactive wastes at a governmental facility. In particular, SEA assessed the legitimacy of claims by a government contractor of exemptions under RCRA by virtue of the waste water treatment tank and totally enclosed treatment exclusions. This case was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved.
Radioactive Waste Remediation
SEA was retained as a Superfund (CERCLA) regulatory and policy expert in a case involving the remediation of a radioactive material processing site in the southern U.S. Prepared an expert report highlighting the inconsistency in the application of the “useful products” doctrine to governmental defendants as compared to private party defendants in the Case.