National Governors Association Federal Facilities Task Force May 22, 2007 Augusta, Georgia Prepared...
-
Upload
domenic-williamson -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
3
Transcript of National Governors Association Federal Facilities Task Force May 22, 2007 Augusta, Georgia Prepared...
National Governors Association
Federal Facilities Task Force
May 22, 2007 Augusta, Georgia
Prepared by Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd., for submission under Contract with the National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices. The preparation of this document was
financed in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy.
2
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Presentation Agenda
What’s new since our last meeting?• Meeting with Assistant Secretary Rispoli
Overview of recent waste management activities• New waste data• A few site-specific highlights
DOE-EM Budget Issue updates
• GNEP / siting studies• Yucca Mtn.• Long Term Stewardship• NRDA
Roundtable discussion
Reminder of what the five-group joint letter said to Secretary Bodman and Asst.Sec. Rispoli January 17, 2006.• Funding• Stakeholder involvement• Waste disposition• Long-term stewardship• Natural resource damage assessment
3
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
What’s New
Task Force delegation meeting with Assistant Secretary Rispoli – May 2, 2007
Meeting theme: communication
Opportunities and Action Items:
Mr. Rispoli asked the Task Force to propose how EM can communicate better with stakeholders knowing the constraints of the budget process.
Mr. Rispoli suggested we consider more frequent communication such as monthly or bimonthly calls. How can we take advantage of that suggestion and ensure calls are substantive?
Mr. Rispoli said his office is willing to talk about the Five Year Plan anytime. How should the Task Force take advantage of this offer to engage DOE?
4
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Language in DOE-EM FY’08 Congressional budget document (p.12)
“However, even with these numerous accomplishments, EM has experienced some setbacks. As with many complex and diversified programs, the challenges behind achieving highly visible and significant results are not always apparent. At the core of these setbacks are planning assumptions that have not materialized. For example, EM based its cleanup plans on such optimistic assumptions as:
• Performance-based acquisition strategies and other initiatives would greatly improve the cost efficiency of performing cleanup work.
• Maintaining a defined scope for the EM program with no additional work scope or emerging requirements.
• Receiving flexibility from State regulatory officials to implement cost-effective disposition of EM waste and materials.
However, these assumptions have not withstood the test of time. For example:
• Regulatory permit and inter-site waste shipment approvals have been delayed or are still pending, leading to increased costs and delayed schedules at several sites. In particular, the passage and implementation of the FY 2005 National Defense Authorization Act language on tank waste disposition (Section 3116) was not factored into earlier plans.”
5
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
What’s New (Summer 2006)
August 2006 Rispoli meeting Budget
• Possibility of separate meeting(s) about the EM budget discussed Performance Measures
• Contrary to some reports, Gold chart measures are not being revised
• EM is running about 90% on budget/on schedule • EM is 100% projectized• Tutorial about EM’s performance-based project management tool
—on tomorrow’s meeting agenda Rispoli’s Key Messages
• Safety – for the workforce and communities • Delivery on promises – Goal is to sustain at least a 90% on
budget/on schedule record for EM’s cleanup projects• Human capital – Enabling DOE staff to deliver on promises
6
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
What’s New (2)
Changes on the Org Chart Linton Brooks out at NNSA Bud Albright reportedly to replace David Garman as Under
Secretary for Energy & Environment• Albright is minority staff director for House Energy & Commerce
Jill Sigal out as Asst. Sec. for Congressional & Intergovt. Affairs (WCM, 3/5/07)
Strategic Plans Office of Legacy Management: Strategic Plan Office of Nuclear Energy: GNEP Strategic Plan
Gaseous Diffusion Plants Three-state meeting last month
IAEA released new radiation symbol
7Source: DOE-EH, May 15, 2007
8
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Waste Management November 2006-May 2007
DOE Draft National Waste Disposition Strategy• Draft document (Rev. 0) has been out for an extended
comment period• State Comments were submitted 10/2006. Themes:
− Data gaps and inconsistency exist in information provided− Mixed Low Level Waste disposition options not well developed− Cost is emphasized over all other factors, including safety
• DOE planning to revise the Strategy this summer• Staff directed to use Technology Roadmap process as model
for stakeholder coordination
Some milestones missed; Cleanup delays announced at both ‘major’ and ‘small’ sites--examples:
• Major: Hanford, SRS, INL• Small: Brookhaven, W.Valley, ETEC, SLAC, Moab
First annual RadWaste Summit, Sept 4-7, Las Vegas• Replacement for FEDRAD meetings.
9
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Waste Management – Data
Updated waste database released 5/2007• Based on site submittals as of December 2006• 676 waste streams reported• Includes waste from other PSOs for the first time
− Waste from other PSOs represent 9% of waste volume, 46% of waste streams.
• Does not include TRU (being done by Carlsbad office)• Does not include High Level Waste• Does not include some wastestreams, e.g.:
− Any future GNEP waste (to be discussed in GNEP EIS)− Mound OU-1 waste− Waste from D&D projects− DUF6 byproduct − Moab, Utah waste− Unlined burial trenches at Hanford—estimated to hold ~500 million
cubic meters of waste (WCM, 12/4/06)
• Includes regulatory ‘flags’ (37 Red, 100 Yellow)• Data recently posted at WIMS website:
http://wimsweb.hcet.fiu.edu/wims
10
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Waste Management – Data (2)
• Low Level Waste (LLW)− Total volume: 4.8 million cubic meters (FY’07-->closure, life
cycle projections)− disposition: 80% on-site; 11% commercial; 1.1% TBD− Majority of waste located at Hanford, Oak Ridge, & SRS
• Mixed Low Level Waste (MLLW )− Total volume: 382,000 cubic meters− disposition: 68% on-site, 23% to commercial; 5% TBD− Majority of waste at Hanford & Oak Ridge
(2 handouts)
11
12
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Waste Management
Nevada opposes disposal of DUF6 byproduct at NTS
Greater-than-class-C waste: Notice of Intent for EIS delayed; scheduled for next month (6/2007); draft EIS scheduled for 1/08; disposal site selection by 12/08. (WCM, 1/15/07)
Fernald Silo Waste: stored at WCS in Texas
Draft Engineering and Technology Road Map released• Open for public comment through 6/30
What we said in the Bodman/Rispoli letter• Much work remains to be done• Applaud effort to generate new waste database and draft a National Strategy• Regulators will continue to exercise appropriate flexibility, within the law, when
consulted early and often.
13
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Waste Management – Sites (1)
Savannah River Site Options for disposition of surplus Plutonium still being discussed
Idaho National Lab DOE’s appeal of Federal District Court opinion upholding 1995 Batt
agreement pending. (WCM, July 31)
A-76 study controversy (WCM, 4/16/07)
Hanford New baseline cost estimate for the Hanford Vitrification Plant is
$12.26 Billion
Court case on WA’s “Cleanup Priority Act” pending in 9th Circuit
EPA fined DOE $1.1 million (stipulated penalties) for problems at ERDF facility
14
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Waste Management – Sites (2)
Fernald Fernald cleanup completed; DOE formally signed off on
site closure (1/2007)
Mound Unanticipated levels of rad contamination found during
excavation of OU-1 landfill
Oak Ridge DOE reconsidering accelerated disposition of facilities—
Oak Ridge Integrated Facility Disposition Plan—for FY’09 budget request.
TSCA incinerator set to close in 2009
15
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Waste Management – Sites (3)
West Valley DOE and regulators propose a new “way ahead” (WCM, 4/9/07)
Cleanup delayed (WCM, 4/16/07)
WIPP Received first Remote-handled TRU waste (1/2007) Six shipments a week of RH-TRU waste are planned by
the end of 2007 http://www.wipp.energy.gov/TeamWorks/index.htm
Rocky Flats Mineral rights purchased with $10 M appropriation NRDA claims extinguished
WCS (Andrews County, TX) Submitted revised LLW disposal permit application
16
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
DOE-EM Budget
FY2007 Continuing Resolution signed in to law 2/19/07• DOE’s FY2007 ‘Operating Plan’ Budget released 3/16/07• EM budget ~$6.2 Billion, $350 Million above the request
$50 Billion increase in total life cycle cost of the cleanup program since last year’s budget submittal
• “This is a staggering cost increase.” --Sen. Jeff Sessions, Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, May 2 hearing (WCM, 5/7/07)
• Rispoli says further increases not likely.• Budget document includes language explaining “setbacks” are
due to “optimistic assumptions”
FY2008 budget proposal • Task Force conference call w/Mark Frei 2/6/07• $5.655 billion requested for EM• Rispoli emphasizes “risk-based approach” in FY’08 allocations
What we said in the Bodman/Rispoli letter• Cleanup funding for remaining sites should be maintained, not cut, as a result
of success of accelerated cleanup at sites such as Rocky Flats.
17
Comparison of 5-Year Plan EM Funding Profiles
7.28
6.59
5.21 5.26
4.905.04
5.66 5.57
6.006.17 6.22
5.83
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
FY 2005Actual
FY 2006 Actual
FY 2007Request
FY 2008Target
FY 2009Target
FY 2010Target
FY 2011Target
FY 2012Target
Bil
lio
ns
of
Do
lla
rs
2006 5-Year Plan
2007 5-Year Plan
18
US Department of Energy Environmental & Disposal Liabilities
Source: Financial Reports of the US Government
182.7 184.2161.8
116.6 112.8 121.4
159.1
18.2 17.517.5
18.2
26.0 31.4
26.6
27.5 30.426.0
27.6
14.314.6
14.8
14.9 14.9 15.1
15.5
11.38.1
6.5
6.2 6.19.8
9.9
0
50
100
150
200
250
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Billio
ns
of
do
lla
rs
All other energy env.Liabilities/Surplus Pu& HEU Disp.
High level waste andspent nuclear fueldisposition
Active and surplusfacilities—otherprograms
Long-termstewardship
Environmentalmanagementbaseline estimates
19
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
GNEP Update
FY2007 GNEP budget: • House would cut $250 M FY’07 funding request to $120 M;
Senate increase funding above request. • Final budget ~$167 M (Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative)
FY2008 request is $395 M
DOE-NE released the GNEP Strategic Plan, 1/2007
GNEP Draft pEIS now scheduled for release 10/2007• Still open for scoping comments - through 6/4/07
Complex 2030 Draft pEIS scheduled for release 9/07
20
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
GNEP Update (2)
Key Questions:
What waste would result from the GNEP facilities and operations? Where would it be generated, treated, disposed? • National Academy’s Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board
meeting, April 4, received a presentation on GNEP waste streams and disposition options.
− Presented by Argonne and INL staff What are the life cycle funding needs for GNEP?
21
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
GNEP Siting Studies
Proposed Site Location Teaming Consortia
Atomic City, ID EnergySolutions, LLC
Idaho National Laboratory, ID Regional Development Alliance, Inc
Barnwell, SC EnergySolutions, LLC
Savannah River Nat’l Lab., SC Econ. Devel. Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Co.
Hobbs, NM Eddy Lea Energy Alliance
Roswell, NM EnergySolutions, LLC
Morris, IL General Electric Company
Paducah GDP, KY Paducah Uranium Plant Asset Utilization, Inc.
Portsmouth GDP, OH Piketon Initiative for Nuclear Independence, LLC
Oak Ridge Nat’l Lab., TN Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee
Hanford Site, WA TriDEC/Columbia Basin Consulting Group
TOTAL of siting grants awarded: $10,458,242
22
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
GNEP Siting Studies--observations (1)
Studies looked at siting of two facilities: • Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center (CFTC), aka Nuclear Fuel
Recycling Center (NFRC). • Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR), aka Advanced Recycling Reactor
(ARR).
All studies found their locations suitable for the CFTC and the ABR.
• The Hanford study went one step further and claimed that the existing FFTF could serve in the role of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility.
Major unknown is ownership of facilities• Studies acknowledge permitting requirements depend on ownership: i.e.,
whether commercially or DOE-owned. Several of the studies described permitting requirements under both scenarios.
Many Uncertainties: Studies acknowledge that the operational and safety parameters of the proposed facilities are as yet undetermined.
• Despite this, none of the studies concluded that permitting would be an issue.
23
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
GNEP Siting Studies--observations (2)
Waste: All studies concluded that waste streams, on-site storage of spent fuel, and disposition of hazardous waste would all be within permissible limits.
Construction costs for the proposed facilities were indeterminate due to lack of specific facility designs.
• The most detailed construction costs were provided in the site study for the Morris site and totaled just over $2 billion. This number was reached by using information on construction costs for an Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor.
Many of the studies used data from previous siting surveys, EIS documents, etc.
At least two of the site studies found potential state legislative impediments:
• Morris site: Illinois statute prohibiting construction of new nuclear power reactors
• Kentucky statute prohibits the construction of a nuclear power facility until the Public Service Commission finds that the US government has identified and approved a demonstrable technology or means for the disposal of high level nuclear waste.
24
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Yucca Mountain
Repository opening date now estimated to be no earlier than 2017 (2020—Clay Sell)
Proposed legislation re-submitted to Congress, 3/2007• Bill is nearly identical to the 2006 version (S.2589)
• DOE to discuss in plenary meeting tomorrow
Supplemental EISs due 10/2007• Repository• Rail corridor
Federal Court of Claims awards $143 M to operators of three commercial reactors in ME, CT, MA for DOE’s failure to take spent fuel. (Sept 2006)
25
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Long Term Stewardship
Task Force commented on draft LM Strategic Plan 1/2007
LTS Roundtable & Training• April 4-6, 2007, San Diego, CA• Sponsored by EPA, ASTSWMO, ICMA, and National Association of
Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP)
LM transitioning 10 to 12 of about 120 sites to Local Government by 2011. (WCM, 5/7/07)
• LM still responsible for any future contamination
What we said in the Bodman/Rispoli letter• Cleanup to unrestricted levels is the goal. Institutional controls are not a substitute for
quality cleanup.• When ICs are necessary, they must be enforceable. • DOE must comply with State, Local, and Tribal laws for IC’s (E.g., UECA and related laws)• Dispersal of LTS to DOE-LM has resulted in less clarity. DOE should provide clear policy for
every DOE office; and for any site where a portion of the site will transition to LTS.• DOE must seek new technology to complete cleanup at sites not cleaned to unrestricted
levels.• Certainty/duration of funding for LTS should match certainty/duration of residual risk.• DOE must work with the intergov’t groups to ensure clarity of responsibility, enforcement,
and funding for LTS plans.
26
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
DOE announced it would start an assessment at Hanford• DOJ then argued in Federal Court that it is premature for non-federal trustees
to file legal claims until DOE has made final cleanup decisions (WCM, 4/30/07)
FACA committee (convened by Interior) still meeting
No information forthcoming on NRDA policy from DOE-HQ• Answers to the 18 questions of May 2005 never released
NRDA developments at other sites?
Any developments at STGWG meeting?
What we said in the Bodman/Rispoli letter• DOE should increase amount of attention paid to NRDA• DOE should work proactively & cooperatively to address NRDA issues as early as possible
− Injury assessment and restoration should be integrated into remediation planning• All DOE offices should follow existing DOE policy on NRDA
27
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Other issues covered in letter to Bodman & Rispoli (January 2006)
Stakeholder Involvement DOE should re-engage stakeholder groups in national level
discussions of EM policies and decision-making processes. Full engagement of stakeholders and transparent decision-making
should be explicitly re-established as the normal way EM conducts business.
End States Initiative Is complete at many sites. At some sites, vibrant discussions should continue without being
driven from Headquarters. DOE must recognize links between cleanup/end-state decisions; LTS;
and natural resource damages.
28
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Roundtable Discussion
1. What’s happening at your site?
> GNEP siting studies?> Waste management issues?> NRDA activities?> Long-term stewardship activities?> New or emerging issues?
2. Task Force messages and priorities
> Next move following Rispoli meeting?> What changes/new messages do you suggest for
our communication to DOE?> How should we communicate Task Force priorities
this year?
29
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
The end
www.fftfcleanupnews.org
30
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Long Term Stewardship
DOE-LM Draft Strategic Plan - Comments due January 2
DOE-LM reorganization
31
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
DOE-EM Funding Profile
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
FY 2005Actual
FY 2006 Actual
FY 2007Request
FY 2008Estimate
FY 2009Estimate
FY 2010Estimate
FY 2011Estimate
Th
ou
san
ds o
f d
ollars
Other
All Other Sites
NNSA Sites
Closure Sites
Major Sites
Source: Congressional budgets; DOE-EM 5-Year Plan
32
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
NRDA research questions (DOE-EM; May 4, 2005)
1. Exceptions to Liability: Are there any exceptions to a responsible party’s liability for injury to natural resources?
2. Private Parties: Can private persons bring a claim for injuries to natural resources under CERCLA?
3. Private Property: Can trustees recover damages for injuries to privately owned natural resources?
4. Citizen Suits: Can private citizens sue to enforce CERCLA’s trust responsibilities?
5. Groundwater: Is groundwater a public resource subject to trustee action under CERCLA, or a privately owned natural resource subject to action under the Federal Tort Claims Act?
6. Scope of Trust: What is the scope of resources for which any given state or tribal trustee may bring an NRD claim under CERCLA?
7. Multiple Trustee Involvement at DOE Sites: May individual trustees participate in deliberations and decisions regarding issues and resources that are outside their specific trust responsibilities?
8. Use of Recovered Damages: For what purposes may a trustee use damages recovered for injury to natural resources?
33
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
NRDA research questions (2)
9. DOI’s NRDA Regulations: What is the effect of following or not following the Department of the Interior’s natural-resource-damage-assessment regulations?
10. NRDA Procedures: What procedures should EM sites follow when performing a Natural Resource Damages Assessment (NRDA)?
11. DOE’s Dual Role as Responsible Party and Natural Resource Trustee: What are DOE’s responsibilities as a natural-resource trustee at sites where it is also a responsible party?
12. Process and Timing: What is the process for implementing DOE’s trustee responsibilities and when should implementation begin?
13. DOE Funding: To what extent and under what conditions may EM sites fund the trust-related activities of its co-trustees?
14. Settlement Enforcement: What is the mechanism for enforcing a settlement of natural-resource-damage claims when the settlement occurs outside of litigation?
15. Natural Resource Enhancement Credits: Is DOE entitled to credit where its administration of a particular site has actually enhanced rather than injured some of the natural resources on the site?
16. Drinking Water Standards: Is ground or surface water contamination that is below applicable drinking water standards “injured” for purposes of CERCLA’s natural-resource-damages provisions?
17. Trustee Interaction Models: In what form should DOE’s coordination and cooperation with co-trustees take place (e.g., trustee councils, Biological Technical Assistance Groups, etc.)?
34
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Interim Storage
Section 313, H.R. 5427 (Energy & Water Appropriations), added by Sen. Domenici with support from Sen. Reid (June 2006)• 31 states eligible for a “consolidation and preparation facility”• Spent fuel and high-level waste eligible • Could be sited at any federal property or any property
available from willing seller• No state or local veto• Aggressive schedule
17 Governors oppose interim storage idea• Letter sent to House and Senate Appropriations committees
(Nov 2006)• Ten state Attorneys General also oppose legislation• Dozens of citizens groups opposed• Secretary Bodman skeptical of idea of siting several facilities
Utah: Goshute proposal dead (?) • Utah pays tribe’s legal costs for fighting state laws found
unconstitutional.
35
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Governors singing letter opposing interim storage provision (Sec. 313) (November 2006)
1. Governor Janet Napolitano, Arizona
2. Governor M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut
3. Governor Jeb Bush, Florida
4. Governor Rod Blagojevich, Illinois
5. Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas
6. Governor John Baldacci, Maine
7. Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, Michigan
8. Governor Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota
9. Governor Haley Barbour, Mississippi
10.Governor John Lynch, New Hampshire
11.Governor Jon S. Corzine, New Jersey
12.Governor George E. Pataki, New York
13.Governor Michael F. Easley, North Carolina
14.Governor Brad Henry, Oklahoma
15.Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski, Oregon
16.Governor Mark Sanford, South Carolina
17.Governor Dave Freudenthal, Wyoming
36
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Other
NNSA issues NOI for “Complex 2030” Programmatic EIS
National Academies’ study on TCE (WCM, Aug.7.p.7)
37
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
[previous version of roundtable discussion topics]
News from your state
• Waste management -- progress and issues
• FY2007 budget− DOE funding of state oversight activities
• Activities at your site related to: − Long-term stewardship− DOE’s End States initiative− NRDA− other initiatives of interest
• Emerging issues?
• Policies, disputes, lessons-learned, priorities?− esp. those with ramifications beyond a single state
38
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Long-term Stewardship
Uniform Environmental Covenant Act• Now enacted in 14 states plus DC and USVI
LTS Roundtable & Training• April 4-6, 2007, San Diego, CA• Sponsored by EPA, ASTSWMO, ICMA, and National
Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP)
• Abstracts due 11/30/06
39
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
LTS: Status of UECA
40
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
NGA Federal Facilities Task Force ~ AgendaNovember 30, 2006
> Task Force messages and priorities
> What changes/new messages do you suggest for our communication to DOE?
> How should we communicate Task Force priorities this year?
> Topics or activities for Task Force consideration?
> Future meeting format, topics, location?
41
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
5-group Joint meeting
> Joint messages and priorities
> What changes/new messages do you suggest for our communication to DOE?
> How should we communicate priorities this year?
> Topics or activities for the groups’ consideration?
> Future meeting format, topics, location?
42
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
43
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Waste Management - Sites
DOE-IG Audit suggests direct disposal of Cs/Sr capsules without vitrification may not be viable or cost-effective, rendering this waste “orphan.” (August 2006)
44
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Issues
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
Yucca Mountain
Gaseous Diffusion Plants NRDA LTS
DOE-NNSA “Complex 2030” Interim storage proposals
45
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Fed
eral
Fac
ilitie
s T
ask
For
ce–S
tate
s O
nly
Ses
sio
n M
ay 2
007
Waste Management – High Level Waste
Waste Incidental to Reprocessing NRC determined DOE’s plans for Idaho tank waste provide
“reasonable assurance” that criteria to reclassify the waste as low-level waste will be met. (WCM, Oct. 30)
• After formal determination of “WIR,” will allow grouting residual tank waste in place
DOE~NRC in dispute about advisory role in “WIR” determinations (WCM, August 14)