Inside this issue:
Page
Yucca Mountain Update: NRC Complies with Court Order to Proceed with Yucca Review, and Court
Tells DOE to Stop Collecting Nuclear Waste Fee ................................................................................................ 2
EM Funding Update ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Local Government Priorities in Consent-Based Siting......................................................................................... 8
ECA Asks for Opportunity for Public Comment
DOE Releases Significant Changes to Land Transfer Regulation without Opportunity for Input
On November 13, DOE released significant changes
to 10 CFR 770 in a “Final Rule” without any
opportunity for public comment after being in place
for 13 years as an Interim Final Rule.
ECA believes these changes will impact the ability
of
DOE/NNSA
to
transfer
land
to
communities. The Final Rule changes the definition
of sites that are eligible for using the regulation,
eliminates the 90 day deadline for DOE to respond
to land transfer requests from local governments and
Community Reuse Organizations (CROs), and
removes environmental indemnification protections
for communities. These changes will ultimately
diminish the ability of DOE to facilitate land
(Continued on page 6)
Manhattan Project Park Moving Forward
The Manhattan Project National Historical Park
legislation (which would establish a Manhattan
Project National Historical Park encompassing
facilities in Hanford, Washington; Oak Ridge,
Tennessee; and Los Alamos, New Mexico) is
included in the House’s Defense Authorization bill
(H.R. 1960).
Chair
Mayor Tom Beehan
City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Energy
Communities Vice Chair
Councilmember Chuck Smith
Alliance
Aiken County, South Carolina
Immediate Past Chair
Councilmember Robert
Thompson
City of Richland, Washington
Senator Cantwell, on behalf of herself and Senators
Heinrich, Murray and Tom Udall, on November 21
submitted an amendment to add the Manhattan
Project National Historical Park Act to the Senate’s
version of the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense
Treasurer
Councilor Fran Berting
Incorporated County of
Los Alamos, New Mexico
Secretary
Mayor Steve Young
City of Kennewick, WA
(Continued on page 13)
Save The Date
ECA Peer Exchange: DOE
Moving Forward
February 27, 2014
ECA Board of Directors Meeting
February 28, 2014
Liaison Hotel, Washington, D.C.
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
YUCCA MOUNTAIN UPDATE: NRC COMPLIES WITH COURT ORDER TO PROCEED
WITH YUCCA REVIEW, AND COURT TELLS DOE TO STOP COLLECTING NUCLEAR
WASTE FEE
There was significant action on the Yucca Mountain
legal case this month:
NRC Complies with Court Order to Continue
Yucca Safety Evaluation Report
In compliance with a court order, the NRC directed
its staff, on November 18, to complete the safety
evaluation report (SER) for Yucca Mountain. This
direction is the agency’s response to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
which in August ordered the NRC to resume work
on the application, using approximately $11 million
in unspent money from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
The NRC order also directs the NRC Secretary and
other agency staff to enter thousands of documents
from the old Licensing Support Network (LSN) into
the NRC’s ADAMS documents database so they
will be available to the staff and eventually,
assuming the availability of funding, to the public.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) criticized the
decision at a November 21 Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee hearing, saying “without
notifying our committee and, I believe, acting
outside the NRC's authority, the commission issued
a new policy with substantial hurdles and delays
that could even be used to withhold information
entirely from the chairs and the ranking members of
oversight committees.”
The order also asks DOE to complete a supplement
to its environmental impact statement on Yucca
Mountain.
The SER is the key technical document of the
NRC’s review of the Yucca Mountain application. It
was to be published in five volumes: the
introduction, Volume 1, was published in August
2010. Subsequent volumes were not completed
before the review was shut down – they were
eventually published as “technical evaluation
reports,” which are less formal documents that don’t
contain regulatory conclusions about the proposed
repository. Although a finished SER would contain
those conclusions, it will not be equivalent to a
licensing decision.
The NRC order is available here.
Court Orders Government to Stop Collecting
Nuke Waste Fees
The United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit ruled on November 19 that the
Federal Government can no longer require nuclear
plant operators to pay into a nuclear waste fund. The
fund collects approximately $750 million per year,
and now contains over $30 billion.
The issue before the court focused not on the
government’s failure to dispose of waste, but
instead on its failure to conduct an adequate fee
assessment. The court said, “Because the Secretary
is apparently unable to conduct a legally adequate
fee assessment, the Secretary is ordered to submit to
Congress a proposal to change the fee to zero until
such a time as either the Secretary chooses to
comply with the Act as it is currently written, or
until Congress enacts an alternative waste
management plan.”
(Continued on page 11)
ECA will hold a Board meeting and Executive Board Elections
on February 28th.
Please contact Amy Fitzgerald at
[email protected]
or
Pam
Larsen
at
[email protected] if you would like to nominate
someone for the ECA Executive Board.
2
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
EM FUNDING UPDATE
EM FY 2014 Budget by Site
The Office of Environmental Management presented FY 2014 budget information at the Intergovernmental
Meeting with DOE in New Orleans, LA on October 28–30. Terry Tyborowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Program Planning and Budget, said in prepared comments that the “FY 2014 Continuing Resolution will be
one of the most challenging in recent EM history… Relative to FY 2012, EM’s available funding has
decreased by nearly $1 billion. This decrease is roughly equivalent to the annual budget of a large site like
River Protection or Savannah River.”
EM Purchasing Power Has Decreased, Slowing Cleanup Progress
Tyborowski explained that funding reductions have limited EM’s purchasing power, and this has affected
active cleanup progress (“Progress Dollars”) more than maintenance operations (“Maintenance Dollars”)
because maintenance costs are largely fixed.
3
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
EM Purchasing Power
Environmental Management Cleanup Progress Overview
Tyborowski further presented information on EM program progress at the meeting.
4
November 2013
While the national mood calmed in the weeks after
Congress restored government operations in midOctober, budget uncertainty remains a real threat.
The continuing resolution that temporarily ended the
crisis, by copying spending levels from the previous
fiscal year, is the epitome of uncertainty. When this
funding authority expires on January 15, Congress
must make another deal or the government will shut
down again. And the longer it takes for a deal to
form, even if another shutdown is ultimately
averted, the likelier it becomes that the government
will simply limp along on a full-year continuing
resolution.
No Visible Progress on Budget Conference
The Continuing Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year
2014 was signed into law on October 16, ending the
16-day government shutdown that began when
Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations lapsed on October
1. When the FY 2014 CR was enacted, it directed a
House-Senate budget conference to produce a report
on FY 2014 discretionary spending levels by
December 13, which could be used to draft full-year
appropriations bills to replace the CR. While hopes
were never high that the House and Senate could
suddenly find agreement on spending levels,
progress to date has nonetheless disappointed.
House Republican appropriators have repeatedly
urged budget conferees to make a deal, saying in a
November 18 letter, “If a timely agreement is not
reached, the likely alternatives could have extremely
damaging repercussions. First, the failure to reach a
budget deal to allow Appropriations to assemble
funding for FY 2014 will reopen the specter of
another government shutdown. Second, it will
reopen the probability of governance by continuing
resolution, based on prior year outdated spending
needs and priorities, dismissing in one fell swoop all
of the work done by the Congress to enact
appropriations bills for FY 2014 that reflect the will
of Congress and the people we represent.” The letter
is available here.
ECA Bulletin
There are no specific consequences if the budget
conference does not report back to Congress in time,
however, it would directly feed into Congress’s
inability to negotiate and pass FY 2014 government
funding, and be a harbinger of continued
uncertainty.
Defense Authorization Stalled in Senate
Senate consideration of its version of the Fiscal
Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (S.
1197), which authorizes DOE national security
program funding, stalled over policy disagreements
on November 20. This will push the Senate’s
ultimate passage of the bill to after Thanksgiving
recess, which means Congress will have an even
tighter December when trying to pass the bill before
year end. The Defense Authorization bill has been
successfully enacted 51 years in a row.
When the Senate does pass its bill, the House and
Senate will be able to “conference” their bills in
order to reconcile differences between them. The
House passed its version (H.R. 1960) in June.
House Energy and Water Appropriations
Committee Gavel Passes to Idaho Congressman
Mike Simpson
The House subcommittee that directs funding for
DOE has a new chairman: Idaho Congressman Mike
Simpson. Simpson is familiar with DOE issues
because his state hosts the Idaho National
Laboratory, along with its associated research and
cleanup
activities.
Representative
Rodney
Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), the previous subcommittee
chairman, stepped down from the role to take over
the
Defense
Appropriations
subcommittee
chairmanship.
“Given the importance of this Subcommittee to
Idaho and its daily impact on my constituents, I am
honored and pleased to have the opportunity to be
its new Chairman,” said Simpson. “The Idaho
delegation has a strong history of involvement in
(Continued on page 11)
5
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
(Continued from page 1)
applied. DOE also identified that DOE’s General
Counsel’s Office would issue a letter that clarifies
the definition of “closed and downsizing sites.”
ECA was told in the meeting that “downsizing”
means the action of leasing or conveying property
for economic development and does not mean a
decrease in mission, funding, site employment,
etc.
Communities Ask DOE: Where is the
Public Comment? DOE Releases Changes
to Land Transfer Regulation Without
Opportunity for Public Input
transfers in a timely manner. ECA has also asked
whether the changes negatively impact DOE’s
ability to build new privatized government facilities
at the labs and NNSA facilities (also called third
party financed deals). DOE maintains that the
changes to the rule will have no impact on how it
will be applied, and that the addition of “closed or
downsizing” sites will not exclude any defense
nuclear facilities.
In a meeting between ECA and the Deputy Under
Secretary for Management and Performance, the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Intergovernmental Affairs, the Senior Advisor for
Environmental Management, the Office of
Management (OM), the Office of General Counsel
(GC) and others to discuss the new Final
Rule, DOE officials from OM and GC explained
that they believed the changes to the rule were
insignificant and would not impact how the rule is
ECA communities have asked DOE to withdraw
the changes to 10 CFR 770 and allow for public
comment and discussion before the Final Rule
becomes
effective
on
December
13,
2013. Communication between DOE and local
governments is essential for DOE’s success. ECA
members are disappointed that they were surprised
with this information that could hinder
opportunities to diversify their economies despite
the fact that two weeks before the release, ECA,
NGA, STWG, ECOS, NAAG and NCSL were
meeting with high level DOE officials.
DOE’s Final Rule can be seen here.
For a more detailed analysis of the changes to 10
CFR 770, please see ECA’s original email server
messages here.
DRAFT FY 2014-2018 EPA STRATEGIC PLAN AVAILABLE
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
announced the availability of the Draft FY 20142018 EPA Strategic Plan for public review and
comment, on November 19, which provides the
Agency's long-term direction and strategies for
advancing human health and the environment. For
this notice, the EPA is seeking comment from
individual citizens, states, tribes, local government,
industry, the academic community, nongovernmental organizations, and all other interested
parties. The agency is particularly interested in
feedback addressing strategies contained in the goal
narratives, cross-cutting fundamental strategies, and
strategic measures.
6
In addition, the EPA is proposing new FY 20142015 Agency Priority Goals—a key component of
the Administration's performance management
system—to align more closely with its highest
priorities, including improving the health of
communities across the country and tackling the
issue of climate change.
Comments must be received on or before January 3,
2014. EPA expects to submit the plan to Congress
in February 2014.
The announcement, with additional information, is
available here.
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
DOE LEADERSHIP UPDATE
Numerous DOE leadership positions remain vacant or filled in an “acting” capacity, presenting unneeded
challenges to the accomplishment of the Department’s mission. A Senate rule change passed on November 21,
sometimes referred to as filibuster reform or the “nuclear option,” is designed to curb filibusters on presidential
nominations. This change could have a positive effect on the filling of DOE leadership positions.
DOE Leadership Status
Title
Name
Status
Secretary of Energy
Deputy Secretary of Energy
Under Secretary for Management and
Performance
Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and
NNSA Administrator
Under Secretary for Science and Energy
Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management
Dr. Ernest Moniz
Daniel Poneman
Beth Robinson
Since May 16, 2013
Since May 18, 2009
Nominated (David Klaus is Deputy)
Lieutenant General Fran G.
Klotz, USAF (Ret)
None
None
Nominated (Bruce Held is acting)
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy
Dr. Pete Lyons
NNSA Nomination
President Obama announced, on November 7, his
nomination of Madelyn Creedon to serve as
principal deputy administrator of NNSA.
Creedon is the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Global Strategic Affairs, a position she has held
since 2011. From 2001 to 2011, Creedon was
counsel for the Democratic staff on the U.S. Senate
Committee on Armed Services and was responsible
for the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces as well as
threat reduction and nuclear nonproliferation issues.
From 2000 to 2001, she served as the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs at NNSA, and
from 1997 to 2000 she was counsel on the Senate
Committee on Armed Services. Creedon was the
Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy from 1995 to
1997 and served as the General Counsel for the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission from 1994 to 1995. From 1990 to
1994, Creedon was counsel for the Senate
Committee on Armed Services. Prior to this, from
1980 to 1990, she was a trial attorney and Acting
Assistant General Counsel for Special Litigation in
the Office of the General Counsel at the
Department of Energy.
The White House announcement is available here.
Office
of
Leadership
No nomination nor acting
No nomination; Dave Huizenga is
Senior Advisor and acting as head of
EM (see rumor below)
Since April 14, 2011
Environmental
Management
Weapons Complex Monitor reports that Dr. Monica
Regalbuto, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fuel
Cycle Technologies in the Office of Nuclear
Energy, is the top candidate for the EM-1 position
in the Office of Environmental Management. This
is not confirmed. According to DOE:
As a researcher at Argonne National Laboratory,
she has made key contributions to nuclear fuel
cycle technology, beginning with the TRUEX
process for removing transuranic elements from
aqueous acidic solutions such as those found at
DOE waste sites throughout the United States
followed by the development of advanced
separations processes as alternatives for recycling
spent fuel. She led the development of AMUSE, a
computer model used by researchers to optimize
processes for separating dissolved spent nuclear
fuel.” Under Dr. Regalbuto’s leadership, Argonne
conducted
highly
successful
process
demonstrations, the CSSX process, a process for
separating cesium-137 from high-level radioactive
waste at DOE’s Savannah River site and the
UREX+ processes, a suite of solvent extraction
processes for the recovery of actinides and fission
products from spent fuel.
7
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
TRACY MUSTIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EM
ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT
This month, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management
Tracy Mustin announced her retirement from DOE effective on December
31. Tracy has worked at DOE since 1991 in various roles at NNSA and EM. Tracy
has been the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management
since August 2011. In an email to DOE employees announcing her retirement
Tracy said:
“Throughout my career I have been blessed to work with people I admire and
respect; people who give 110% every day, who truly understand the importance of
what they do, and who take joy in having a positive impact. I have come to
consider many of these wonderful professionals lifelong friends. In particular, my
time in EM over the past two and a half years have been fulfilling in wonderful and
unexpected ways. I am very proud to have been able to work with each of you and to support our important
mission. To finish out my career working in the Office of Environmental Management has been a singular
privilege.”
ECA has had a very positive working relationship with Tracy over the years, and has appreciated her efforts to
work with local governments. ECA wishes her the best in retirement.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES IN CONSENT-BASED SITING
Funding Needed to Begin Community Education and Outreach Efforts
Aiken County Administrator and
ECA Member Clay Killian outlined
challenges
faced
by
local
communities potentially interested
in hosting a nuclear waste storage or
disposal facility developed through
a
consent-based
siting
process. Killian helped lead the
Clay Killian, Aiken
discussion
on
stakeholder
County
involvement
in
consent-based
siting
Administrator
at the US Nuclear Used Fuel
Strategy Conference in Charlotte,
NC, an annual meeting that brings together public
utility commissioners, utility executives, industry
specialists and government officials. The session
focused on questions including:
8
1. What form do you think Consent-Based Siting
will take? What is involved from a process
perspective and what resources do you think are
necessary?
2. How do you think stakeholders at the local, state
and federal level, and within the industry, can
influence prospects outside of legislation?
3. What do you think has worked in the U.S. so
far?
Similarly, Kara Colton, ECA’s Director of Nuclear
Energy Programs, facilitated a session on
stakeholder strategies for nuclear waste reform at a
meeting of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition in
(Continued on page 12)
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
DOE IN TALKS WITH THE STATE OF NEVADA TO DISPOSE OF OAK RIDGE LLW
AT THE NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE STARTING IN JANUARY 2014
DOE will continue to work with the State of Nevada
on the Department’s plan to ship 403 canisters of
low-level nuclear waste to the Nevada National
Security Site (NNSS) starting in January 2014. The
State of Nevada remains concerned that DOE has
provided inadequate notice on the plan and has not
properly collaborated or communicated. Nye
County, the host to the NNSS, “strongly supports
the importation and disposal of nuclear waste – both
low level and high level – as long as it is done
safely, with transparency and mitigation for the
County.”
The 403 canisters of low-level waste in question
come from the Consolidated Edison Uranium
Nevada National Security Site
Solidification Project, which generated the waste as
part of a research program at the Nuclear Fuel
Services plant in West Valley, New York in 1968. The resulting U-233 was then transferred to Oak Ridge
National Laboratory for storage and potential future use. The material is planned for direct disposal at the
NNSS. DOE states that it performed all necessary safety, security and risk assessments in order to determine
that it met all requirements to dispose of this material at the NNSS facility.
Representatives from DOE and the State of Nevada met in October 2013 for the first formal meeting of a
working group established by Secretary Moniz and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval to discuss the issue.
DOE also held public meetings on November 13 and November 14 to brief the public on the project.
Presentation materials from the November public outreach meetings are available here.
Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) questioned Secretary Moniz regarding the plan in an August 2013 letter, saying
“I have made it clear that I am concerned about DOE’s plan to bring hazardous nuclear waste from out-of-state
to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS).” In addition to technical details, Heller’s letter focused on the
need for DOE to communicate and collaborate with the State of Nevada. For example, Heller requested that
Moniz clarify previous comments he made, which indicated that Nevada had signed off on the plan. The letter
is available here.
Please visit our website:
http://www.energyca.org
to be added to our mailing list
9
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
ECA Peer Exchange: DOE Moving Forward
February 27-28, 2014
Liaison Hotel, Washington, D.C
LOCATION
Liaison Hotel
415 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Reservations Procedures
To make your reservations call
(866) 233-4642 and reference yourself as
part of the Energy Communities Alliance
group or provide the reservation ID:
ECA221.
We have secured a group rate of $219.00
per night.
To register for the meeting click here.
The cut-off date for your reservation is
Friday, February 14, 2014
Please make your reservations
early
Contacts
Allison Doman
Executive Deputy Director
Phone: 202-828-2423
Fax: 202-828-2488
E-mail: [email protected]
Sharon Worley
ECA Staff Member
Phone: 202-828-2313
Fax: 202-828-2488
Email:
[email protected]
Registration is now open for the ECA Peer Exchange on February 27th at
the Liaison Hotel. Join the communities and local governments around
DOE sites as we discuss key issues. DOE Officials, administration
officials and Washington insiders will discuss important issues and provide
you with their insights.
Topics to be covered include:






FY 2015 Budget
New Leadership at DOE
High-Level Waste
Land Transfer Issues
Nuclear Energy
NNSA
Schedule
Thursday, February 27th (8:30am to 4:00pm)
ECA Peer Exchange: DOE Moving Forward
Friday, February 28th (9:00am to Noon) Board meeting for ECA
members and invited guest; ECA Board of Directors meeting and ECA
Executive Board Elections
Cost
$200 for ECA Members, Government and Public Sector participants
$495.00 for Private Sector participants
If you are interested in being a sponsor please contact Allison at
202-828-2423 or [email protected] for more information
10
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
(Continued from page 5)

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
D.C. Update

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
federal issues related to energy development and
water infrastructure, and in particular nuclear
energy. This new assignment gives me the
opportunity to expand our involvement in these
issues and make sure the concerns of our state and
region are heard and addressed.”

Bureau of Reclamation
The Subcommittee’s primary jurisdiction includes
the following federal agencies:

Department of Energy

National Nuclear Security Administration

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(Continued from page 2)
Yucca Mountain Update
Regarding DOE’s attempt to base fees on Yucca
Mountain costs, the court said, “The government
claims it is put in a catch-22 position because our
prior opinion said it was unreasonable for the
Department to use Yucca Mountain as a proxy to
estimate disposal costs, and petitioners now argue
that the government cannot assume a hypothetical
non-Yucca Mountain depository. But the
government’s problem is of its own making. It
certainly could have used Yucca Mountain’s costs if
it were still pursuing that site, but it cannot have it
both ways. It cannot renounce Yucca Mountain and
then reasonably use its costs as a proxy. The
government was hoist on its own petard.”
The court expressed a lack of confidence in DOE’s
plan to implement a waste storage solution, saying
“The government asks us, if we conclude the
Department’s latest position is contrary to law, to,
“Whether it’s the cleanup of sites like INL, the
maintenance of our nation’s nuclear weapons, or the
many vital water projects across the Western United
States, the Energy and Water Subcommittee’s work
touches almost every community in Idaho and
across the country,” said Simpson. “I have served
on the Subcommittee for a number of years and
have worked hard to learn about the issues before it
and the federal programs under its jurisdiction. I am
looking forward to getting to work immediately.”
ECA has worked with Simpson over the years, and
he has addressed ECA members at several ECA
conferences
once again, remand rather than order the Secretary
to suspend the fee. But the Secretary’s position is so
obviously disingenuous that we have no confidence
that another remand would serve any purpose. As
we noted, we are not unaware of the political
dilemma in which the Department is placed. But
until the Department comes to some conclusion as
to how nuclear wastes are to be deposited
permanently, it seems quite unfair to force
petitioners to pay fees for a hypothetical option, the
costs of which might well – the government
apparently has no idea – be already covered.”
Discussing how DOE could address the situation,
the court said, “When the Secretary is again able to
conduct a sufficient assessment, either because the
Yucca Mountain project is revived, or because
Congress enacts an alternative plan, then payments
will resume (assuming that some future
determination concludes that further fees are
necessary).”
The ruling is available here.
11
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
NNSA ADHERES TO ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR AWARD FOR CONSOLIDATED
OPERATIONS OF Y-12 AND PANTEX; LOSING TEAM FILES NEW BID PROTEST
On November 1, NNSA reaffirmed the award to
Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (CNS), to be
the management and operating contractor for the Y12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge,
Tennessee and the Pantex Plant near Amarillo,
Texas. The contract includes project management of
the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at Y-12 and
an unexercised option for Savannah River Tritium
Operations at the Savannah River Site near Aiken,
S.C.
On November 20, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) announced that a losing bidder,
Nuclear Production Partners (led by Babcock &
Wilcox), filed a protest over the $22 billion
contract. This is the third time Nuclear Production
Partners has filed a protest over the award. The
GAO will rule on the protest by February 28.
“Our nuclear production capabilities are critical to
our national security, and CNS represents the best
value to the government as evidenced by its superior
technical and management approach and its lower
evaluated cost,” said NNSA Acting Administrator
Bruce Held. “Additionally, this award puts NNSA
in a position to improve mission delivery by
focusing on improving the way we operate, saving
taxpayer dollars, and aligning ourselves for the
future.”
CNS is comprised of Bechtel National, Inc.;
Lockheed Martin Services, Inc.; ATK Launch
Systems, Inc.; and SOC, LLC. Additionally, CNS
will use subcontractors Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.,
as a Merger and Transformation specialist, and
General Atomics for Savannah River Tritium
Operations if that option is exercised by NNSA in
the future.
The press release is available here.
(Continued from page 8)
ECA in Action: Aiken County Administrator Clay Killian, ECA Staff Highlight Local
Government Priorities in Consent-Based Siting; Funding Needed to Begin Community
Education and Outreach Efforts
Washington, DC. The panel, which included representatives from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S.
Nuclear Infrastructure Council and the Decommissioning Plant Coalition, highlighted efforts underway by
groups impacted by DOE’s and congressional efforts to introduce a consent-based siting process for nuclear
waste facilities.
Both Killian and Colton identified ECA’s priorities in defining consent, addressing DOE’s legacy waste, and
the need for communities to be involved throughout the process. They also emphasized the need for funding
to go out to potential host communities as soon as possible to being education and outreach efforts on nuclear
waste issues.
The Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition meeting also featured Annie Caputo, staff for the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, and David Berick from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Other
topics addressed during the meeting included an update from Mary Louise Wagner and Chris Hanson on
DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy activities, funding reform and a presentation by NRC Commissioner William
C. Ostendorff that addressed the status of the Yucca Mountain licensing review.
12
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
(Continued from page 1)
Manhattan Project Park Moving Forward
Authorization Act (S. 1197). The Senate has yet to
vote on the amendment.
The next step for the Defense Authorization Act is
unclear, as the Senate failed to pass the measure in
late November due to disagreement over
controversial amendments (not related to the
Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act).
The full text of the amendment is copied below:
SA 2492. Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. HEINRICH,
Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. UDALL of New Mexico) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S.
1197, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such
fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the end of title XXXI, add the following:
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 3141. MANHATTAN
HISTORICAL PARK.
PROJECT
NATIONAL
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that-(1) the Manhattan Project was an unprecedented top-secret
program implemented during World War II to produce an
atomic bomb before Nazi Germany;
(2) a panel of experts convened by the President's Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation in 2001-(A) stated that ``the development and use of the atomic bomb
during World War II has been called `the single most
significant event of the 20th century' ''; and
(B) recommended that nationally significant sites associated
with the Manhattan Project be formally established as a
collective unit and be administered for preservation,
commemoration, and public interpretation in cooperation with
the National Park Service;
(3) the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act
(Public Law 108-340; 118 Stat. 1362) directed the Secretary
of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to
conduct a special resource study of the historically significant
sites associated with the Manhattan Project to assess the
national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating
1 or more sites as a unit of the National Park System;
(4) after significant public input, the National Park Service
study found that ``including Manhattan Project-related sites in
the national park system will expand and enhance the
protection and preservation of such resources and provide for
comprehensive interpretation and public understanding of this
nationally significant story in the 20th century American
history'';
(5) the Department of the Interior, with the concurrence of the
Department of Energy, recommended the establishment of a
Manhattan Project National Historical Park comprised of
resources at-(A) Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
(B) Los Alamos, New Mexico; and
(C) Hanford, in the Tri-Cities area, Washington;
(6) designation of a Manhattan Project National Historical
Park as a unit of the National Park System would improve the
preservation of, interpretation of, and access to the nationally
significant historic resources associated with the Manhattan
Project for present and future generations to gain a better
understanding of the Manhattan Project, including the
significant, far-reaching, and complex legacy of the Manhattan
Project; and
(7) the permanent historical preservation of the B Reactor at
Hanford as part of the Manhattan National Historical Park
would provide significant savings to the Federal Government
relative to placing the reactor into interim safe storage and
subsequently dismantling the reactor-(A) as determined as part of the Record of Decision entitled
``Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production 3 Reactors at
the Hanford Site, Richland, WA''; and
(B) as included within milestone M-093-00 of the Hanford
Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are-(1) to preserve and protect for the benefit and education of
present and future generations the nationally significant
historic resources associated with the Manhattan Project;
(2) to improve public understanding of the Manhattan Project
and the legacy of the Manhattan Project through interpretation
of the historic resources associated with the Manhattan
Project;
(3) to enhance public access to the Historical Park, consistent
with protection of public safety, national security, and other
aspects of the mission of the Department of Energy; and
(4) to assist the Department of Energy, Historical Park
communities, historical societies, and other interested
organizations and individuals in efforts to preserve and protect
the historically significant resources associated with the
Manhattan Project.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) HISTORICAL PARK.--The term ``Historical Park''
means the Manhattan Project National Historical Park
established under subsection (d).
(Continued on page 14)
13
November 2013
(Continued from page 13)
Manhattan Project Park Moving Forward
(2)
MANHATTAN PROJECT.--The term “Manhattan
Project” means the Federal program to develop an atomic
bomb ending on December 31, 1946.
ECA Bulletin
Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) NHL District (Working
Draft of NHL Revision), Los Alamos National Laboratory
document LA-UR 12-00387 (January 26, 2012);
(ii) at the former East Cafeteria located at 1670 Nectar Street;
and
(iii) at the former dormitory located at 1725 17th Street.
(3)
SECRETARY.--The term ``Secretary'' means the
Secretary of the Interior.
(C) HANFORD, WASHINGTON.--Facilities,
interests in land that are--
(d) Establishment of Manhattan Project National Historical
Park.--(1) ESTABLISHMENT.--
(i) in the B Reactor National Historic Landmark;
(A) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subparagraph (B), there is
established in the States of Washington, New Mexico, and
Tennessee a unit of the National Park System to be known as
the ``Manhattan Project National Historical Park''.
land,
or
(ii) at the Hanford High School in the town of Hanford and
Hanford Construction Camp Historic District;
(iii) at the White Bluffs Bank building in the White Bluffs
Historic District;
(B) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY REQUIRED.-The Historical Park shall not be established until the date on
which the Secretary determines that--
(iv) at the warehouse in the Bruggemann's Agricultural
Complex;
(i) sufficient land or interests in land have been acquired from
among the sites described in paragraph (2) to constitute a
manageable park unit; or
(vi) at the T Plant (221-T Process Building).
(ii) the Secretary has entered into an agreement with the
Secretary of Energy in accordance with subsection (e).
(2) ELIGIBLE AREAS.--The Historical Park may be
comprised of 1 or more of the following areas or portions of
the areas, as generally depicted on the map entitled
“Manhattan Project National Historical Park Sites”, numbered
540/108,834-C (4 pages), and dated September 2012:
(A) OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE.--Facilities, land, or interests
in land that are-(i) at Buildings 9204-3 and 9731 at the Y-12 National Security
Complex;
at the X-10 Graphite Reactor at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory;
(iii) at the K-25 Building site at the East Tennessee
Technology Park;
(iv) at the former Guest House located at 210 East Madison
Road; and
(v) at other sites within the boundary of the city of Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, that are not depicted on the map described in this
paragraph, but are determined by the Secretary to be suitable
and appropriate for inclusion, except that sites owned or
managed by the Secretary of Energy may be included only
with the concurrence of the Secretary of Energy.
(B) LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO.--Facilities, land, or
interests in land that are-(i) in the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory National Historic
Landmark District or any addition to the Landmark District
proposed in the National Historic Landmark Nomination--Los
14
(v) at the Hanford Irrigation District Pump House; and
(3) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.--The map described in
paragraph (2) shall be kept on file and available for public
inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park
Service and the Department of Energy.
(e) Agreement.-(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Secretary of
Energy (acting through the Oak Ridge, Richland, and Los
Alamos site offices) shall enter into an agreement governing
the respective roles of the Secretary and the Secretary of
Energy in administering the facilities, land, or interests in land
under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of
Energy that is to be included in the Historical Park, including
provisions for public access, management, interpretation, and
historic preservation.
(2) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY.--Any
agreement under paragraph (1) shall provide that the Secretary
shall-(A) have decisionmaking authority for the content of historic
interpretation of the Manhattan Project for purposes of
administering the Historical Park; and
(B) ensure that the agreement provides an appropriate role for
the National Park Service in preserving the historic resources
covered by the agreement.
(3) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF
ENERGY.--Any agreement under paragraph (1) shall provide
that the Secretary of Energy-(A) shall ensure that the agreement appropriately protects
public safety, national security, and other aspects of the
ongoing mission of the Department of Energy at the Los
(Continued on page 15)
November 2013
(Continued from page 14)
Manhattan Project Park Moving Forward
Alamos National Laboratory, Hanford Site, and Oak Ridge
Reservation;
(B) may consult with and provide historical information to the
Secretary concerning the Manhattan Project; and
(C) shall retain responsibility, in accordance with applicable
law, for any environmental remediation and structural safety
that may be necessary in or around the facilities, land, or
interests in land governed by the agreement.
(4) AMENDMENTS.--The agreement under paragraph (1)
may be amended, including to add to the Historical Park
facilities, land, or interests in land described in subsection (d)
(2) that are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy.
(f) Public Participation.-(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall consult with
interested State, county, and local officials, organizations, and
interested members of the public-(A) before executing any agreement under subsection (e); and
(B) in the development of the general management plan under
subsection (g)(2).
(2) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.--Not later than 30 days
after the date on which an agreement under subsection (e) is
executed, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register
notice of the establishment of the Historical Park, including an
official boundary map.
(3) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.--The official boundary map
published under paragraph (2) shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National
Park Service.
(4) ADDITIONS.--Any land, interest in land, or facility within
the eligible areas described in subsection (d)(2) that is
acquired by the Secretary or included in an amendment to the
agreement under subsection (e)(2) shall be added to the
Historical Park.
Administration.-(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall administer the
Historical Park in accordance with-(A) this section; and
(B) the laws generally applicable to units of the National Park
System, including-(i) the National Park System Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.);
and
(ii) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
(2) GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.--Not later than 3
years after the date on which funds are made available to carry
out this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the
ECA Bulletin
Secretary of Energy, shall complete a general management
plan for the Historical Park in accordance with-(A) section 12(b) of Public Law 91-383 (commonly known as
the ``National Park Service General Authorities Act'') (16
U.S.C. 1a-7(b)); and
(B) the agreement established under subsection (e).
(3) INTERPRETIVE TOURS.--The Secretary may, subject to
applicable law, provide interpretive tours of historically
significant Manhattan Project sites and resources in the States
of Tennessee, New Mexico, and Washington that are located
outside the boundary of the Historical Park.
(4) LAND ACQUISITION.-(A) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary may only acquire land and
interests in land within the eligible areas described in
subsection (d)(2) by-(i) transfer of administrative jurisdiction from the Department
of Energy by agreement between the Secretary and the
Secretary of Energy; or
(ii) purchase from willing sellers, donation, or exchange.
(B) FACILITIES.--The Secretary may acquire land or interests
in land in the vicinity of Historical Park for visitor and
administrative facilities.
(5) DONATIONS; COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.-(A) FEDERAL FACILITIES.-(i) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary may enter into 1 or more
agreements with the head of a Federal agency to provide
public access to, and management, interpretation, and historic
preservation of, historically significant Manhattan Project
resources under the jurisdiction or control of the Federal
agency.
(ii) DONATIONS; COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.--The
Secretary may accept donations from, and enter into
cooperative agreements with, State governments, units of local
government, tribal governments, organizations, or individuals
to further the purpose of an interagency agreement entered into
under clause (i).
(B) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.--The Secretary may
provide technical assistance to State, local, or tribal
governments, organizations, or individuals for the
management, interpretation, and historic preservation of
historically significant Manhattan Project resources not
included within the Historical Park.
C) DONATIONS TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.--For the
purposes of this section, or for the purpose of preserving or
providing access to historically significant resources relating
to the Manhattan Project, the Secretary of Energy may accept,
hold, administer, and use gifts, bequests, and devises
(including labor and services).
15
November 2013
ECA Bulletin
December (estimated)
Senate panel consideration of Madelyn Creedon as Principal Deputy Administrator for the
National Nuclear Security Administration.
Early December
Office of Management and Budget returns amended fiscal year 2015 budget submissions
to agencies (budget passback).
December 9
Senate returns from recess.
December 10
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board public hearing, “Safety in Design, Operations,
and Emergency Preparedness at the Y-12 National Security Complex;” Knoxville, TN;
for more information, see http://www.dnfsb.gov/board-activities/public-hearings/
safety-design-operations-and-emergency-preparedness-y-12-national-s
December 13
Due date for Congress to adopt a House-Senate conference committee report on a budget
resolution for FY 2014, per the requirement contained in the 2014 Continuing
Appropriations Act.
January 15, 2014
Continuing Resolution expires, necessitating enactment of a new budget to maintain
government funding.
February 27-28, 2014
ECA Peer Exchange: DOE Moving Forward; Washington, D.C.
Contact Allison Doman at [email protected] for more information.
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202.828.2423
Fax: 202.828.2488
Email: [email protected]
ECA Articles
Allison Doman, Deputy Executive Director
Kara Colton, Director of Nuclear Energy Programs
Eli Persky, Assistant Director
Layout and Design
Sharon M. Worley, ECA Staff Member
Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) Bulletin
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036
All Rights Reserved © 2009 by the Energy Communities Alliance. No portion is to be reproduced without credit and written
notification to the Energy Communities Alliance. The Energy Communities Alliance Bulletin is published monthly via a published
and electronic version. If you would like to subscribe to the Energy Communities Alliance Bulletin, please send your name and
address to the address above or fax it to us at 202-828-2488 or email [email protected]
Thank you to the Department of Energy’s Environmental Management Office for their support of the ECA Bulletin
through cooperative agreement No. DE—EM002400
16