ECA Asks for Opportunity for Public Comment

Transcription

1 Inside this issue: 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 Page 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). 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 (Continued on page 13) Energy Communities Alliance Chair Mayor Tom Beehan City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee Vice Chair Councilmember Chuck Smith Aiken County, South Carolina Immediate Past Chair Councilmember Robert Thompson City of Richland, Washington Treasurer Councilor Fran Berting Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico Secretary Mayor Steve Young City of Kennewick, WA 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.

2 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 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 AFitzgerald@oakridgetn.gov or Pam Larsen at plarsen@ci.richland.wa.us if you would like to nominate someone for the ECA Executive Board. 2

3 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 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

4 EM Purchasing Power Environmental Management Cleanup Progress Overview Tyborowski further presented information on EM program progress at the meeting. 4

5 While the national mood calmed in the weeks after Congress restored government operations in mid- October, 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. 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

6 (Continued from page 1) 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 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. 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, 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 server messages here. DRAFT FY EPA STRATEGIC PLAN AVAILABLE The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of the Draft FY 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. In addition, the EPA is proposing new FY 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, EPA expects to submit the plan to Congress in February The announcement, with additional information, is available here. 6

7 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 Dr. Ernest Moniz Since May 16, 2013 Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman Since May 18, 2009 Under Secretary for Management and Beth Robinson Nominated (David Klaus is Deputy) Performance Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and NNSA Administrator Lieutenant General Fran G. Klotz, USAF (Ret) Nominated (Bruce Held is acting) Under Secretary for Science and Energy None No nomination nor acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management None No nomination; Dave Huizenga is Senior Advisor and acting as head of EM (see rumor below) Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dr. Pete Lyons Since April 14, 2011 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 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 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 Environmental Management Leadership 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

8 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 In an 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 Clay Killian, Aiken County Administrator 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 discussion on stakeholder involvement in consent-based siting 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: 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) 8

9 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 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 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: to be added to our mailing list 9

10 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 Reservations Procedures To make your reservations call (866) and reference yourself as part of the Energy Communities Alliance group or provide the reservation ID: ECA221. We have secured a group rate of $ 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: Fax: allison@energyca.org Sharon Worley ECA Staff Member Phone: Fax: sharon.worley@energyca.org 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. FY 2015 Budget New Leadership at DOE High-Level Waste Land Transfer Issues Nuclear Energy NNSA Topics to be covered include: 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 $ for Private Sector participants If you are interested in being a sponsor please contact Allison at or Allison@energyca.org for more information 10

11 (Continued from page 5) D.C. Update 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. 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 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bureau of Reclamation 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 (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, 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

12 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 Y- 12 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

13 (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 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 MANHATTAN PROJECT NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. (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 (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 ; 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 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

14 (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, (3) SECRETARY.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior. (d) Establishment of Manhattan Project National Historical Park.--(1) ESTABLISHMENT.-- (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''. (B) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY REQUIRED.-- The Historical Park shall not be established until the date on which the Secretary determines that-- (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 (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 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 Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) NHL District (Working Draft of NHL Revision), Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR (January 26, 2012); (ii) at the former East Cafeteria located at 1670 Nectar Street; and (iii) at the former dormitory located at th Street. (C) HANFORD, WASHINGTON.--Facilities, land, or interests in land that are-- (i) in the B Reactor National Historic Landmark; (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; (iv) at the warehouse in the Bruggemann's Agricultural Complex; (v) at the Hanford Irrigation District Pump House; and (vi) at the T Plant (221-T Process Building). (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) 14

15 (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 Secretary of Energy, shall complete a general management plan for the Historical Park in accordance with-- (A) section 12(b) of Public Law (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

16 December (estimated) Early December December 9 December 10 December 13 January 15, 2014 February 27-28, 2014 Senate panel consideration of Madelyn Creedon as Principal Deputy Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration. Office of Management and Budget returns amended fiscal year 2015 budget submissions to agencies (budget passback). Senate returns from recess. 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 safety-design-operations-and-emergency-preparedness-y-12-national-s 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. Continuing Resolution expires, necessitating enactment of a new budget to maintain government funding. ECA Peer Exchange: DOE Moving Forward; Washington, D.C. Contact Allison Doman at Allison@energyca.org for more information Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, D.C Phone: Fax: bulletin@energyca.org 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 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 or Bulletin@energyca.org Thank you to the Department of Energy s Environmental Management Office for their support of the through cooperative agreement No. DE EM