National Governors Association Federal Facilities Task Force

States-Only Introductory Briefing

Fall Intergovernmental Meeting November 5-6, 2003

Washington, DC

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, Grant No, DE-FG02-97FT34337

2

Breakout Session Overview• DOE Project Teams – Outcome &

follow-up– Risk-based End states– FOCUS (small sites)– Other-than-HLW-and-SNF

• State Grants (Guest: Sandra Waisley)

• DOE out-year Budget (Guest: Roger Butler)

• Long-term Stewardship (action agenda & panel)

• What’s worked / lessons learned (panel)

3

Breakout Session Overview

• Other issues/questions to prepare for plenary?– High Level Waste issues– DOE’s site-specific RBES process– DOE’s “Sustainable Solutions” meeting

4

DOE Project TeamsNGA Working Groups

• Ground rules developed December 2002

• Additional briefings arranged with Spent Fuel and Transportation Project Teams

• DOE refused interaction with HLW Project Team

• Paul Golan provided update about most project teams

5

DOE Project TeamsNGA Working Groups

• “The intent of this dialogue is to go substantially beyond mere information sharing to a collaborative, consultative dialogue that provides the potential for the development of consensus solutions where possible, or at minimum, informed, collegial dialogue on issues of concern.”

–Ground Rules

6

Risk-Based End States Project Team

• DOE Project Lead—Dave Geiser (now in LM, no longer part of Team)

• DOE Policy 455.1- “Use of Risk-Based End States,” approved July 15, 2003

• Final Guidance

• Draft Implementation Plan (August 2003)

• Other documents

• 7 conference calls

7

Risk-Based End States

• Most sites were required to submit a draft RBES vision and variance analysis by 10/31/03.

• Currently unclear who will follow up on RBES Team initiatives.

• How is the RBES mandate being carried out in your state?

8

National FOCUS Project Team(small sites)

• DOE Team Leader—Cynthia Anderson, DOE-SRS

• Kick-off call—January 15th

• Almost no substantive information provided to the Working Group in spite of repeated requests and assurances.

• Other DOE Teams have referred to the FOCUS team’s activities.

• Next steps for Task Force?

9

Other-Than-SNF-and-HLWProject Team

• DOE Project Lead—Reinhard Knerr, DOE-Carlsbad

• Many documents shared with Working Group; excellent cooperation

• Many topics addressed by Project Team

10

Other-Than-SNF-and-HLW Team• Finalizing contract incentives language• Nat’l Consolidation and Acceleration Facility

(NCAF) for LLW, MLLW, & TRU waste– Candidate sites: INEEL, Hanford, SRS, Oak Ridge– NEPA gap analysis pending– Equity protocols to be developed (as advice to

contractors)

• TSCA incinerator – process to improve access• Orphan waste data – nearly final• Corporate Board idea – dropped• Status of “rejected” options – to be clarified in

Project Closeout Report• Project ends mid-November

11

State Grants - discussion points• Accommodating workload fluctuations

under accelerated cleanup• Oversight at ongoing mission sites and

LTS sites? (and, clarify “oversight” account)

• How to avoid funding fits & starts?• How to deal with DOE HQ-site

differences?• Specific areas of DOE concern states

could address?

12

DOE-EM Budget

• May 2003 question: will budget from sites closing in 2006 be transferred to benefit sites still being cleaned up?

• No new information from DOE

• New analysis of out-year budget forecasts

• Compares last year’s DOE planning forecasts with this year’s OMB forecasts

13

Out-year budget estimates for DOE-EM

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2002 actual 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fiscal Year

$ M

illio

ns

Total EM Budget 2002 est.

Total EM budget 2003 est.

14

DOE-EM Budget

Issues/questions: Out-Year Budget

– Explanation for large funding drop after 2006? – Sufficient funding to support accelerated

cleanup?

15

Long-term StewardshipDESIRED OUTCOMES FROM THE MEETING 1. Make clear to DOE that LTS is not a settled issue

as far as states are concerned.

2. Secure full engagement with the Office of Legacy Management (and OGC) for policy dialogue with NGA working group.

3. Clarify who is the NNSA point of contact on LTS issues, and secure their cooperation.

4. Show DOE that the intergovernmental groups are coordinating on LTS issues.

5. Generate ideas for how to best use DOE’s Spring 2004 LTS conference.

16

Long-term StewardshipKEY ISSUES FOR NGA TASK FORCE 1. Implement enforceable institutional controls,

including federal compliance with state covenant laws.

2. Identify mechanism for assured funding for LTS.– The states’ underlying interest is to minimize the risk that the

annual appropriations process will result in a break in continuity of funding for essential LTS activities over the long run.

3. Clarify NNSA’s role and responsibilities in LTS.4. Clarify specific roles and responsibilities for

implementing the components of LTS (incl. legal issues of transferring LTS obligations to other parties).

5. Maximize cleanup to minimize need for LTS.

17

Panel: What’s Worked…

•

18

Backup information•

19

Events since our last meeting (5/03)

• DOE’s Project Teams continue• DOE-EM reorganization announced• EM-1 directed field to share budget info• HLW court decision/DOE legislative efforts• DOE held “Sustainable Solutions” meeting• Office of Legacy Management established• Out-year budget question unresolved• NGA staff changes

20

21

List of DOE Project TeamsProject Team Project Manager

Getting More Performance from performance based contracts Charlie Dan (RFETS)

Managing waste to reduce risk--other than SNF and HLW Reinhard Knerr (Carlsbad)

Integrated/risk-driven disposal of spent nuclear fuel Christine Gelles (EM HQ)

Managing waste to reduce risk--high level waste Joel Case (INEEL)

Focusing EM resources on cleanup Mike Weis (EM HQ)

Safeguards and security/nuclear material consolidation Matt McCormick (Richland)

A cleanup program driven by risk-based end states Dave Geiser (EM HQ)

National FOCUS Project (small sites) Cynthia Anderson (Savannah)

Transportation Gary DeLeon (EM HQ)

Source: DOE, “Updated FY 2004-2008 Planning Guidance.” Memo from Deputy Secretary Francis S. Blake, March 19, 2002.

23

Corporate Performance Measures - EM Program

24

Planning the Implementation of Long-Term Stewardship (a cycle)For a DOE Owned Site---Draft Miamisburg Mound Example

What’s Required?Functions/tasks/activities/

remedies

Who is Responsible?

Implementing it Overseeing itEnforcement Mechanism/Document

Funding Source

Funding Amount

($)

Funding Mechanism

For Imple-mentation

For Oversight

Preparation of initial LTS Plan

US DOE leadState/Local

government/Public

State/Local government.

O&MAgreement DOE DOE

To be determined

??

Engineered/physical controls, incl. Inspection & maintenance

DOE or successor Federal Agency

USEPA/StateO&M

Agreement DOE DOETo be

determined??

Institutional Controls, e.g., 1. zoning 2. building permits 3. deed notices 4. easement/covenant 5. well drilling restrictions etc.

Local governmentLocal government

DOE, Owner & Local government

DOE, Owner & Local government

State water agency

Overall: State/LocalLocal governmentLocal government

DOE/Local government

DOE, State/Local governmentState/Local government

State and Local Regulations; ROD (Quit Claim Deed) and Annual O&M Report

DOE DOETo be

determined??

Record keeping & reporting

DOE or successor Federal Agency

StateO&M

Agreement DOE DOETo be

determined??

Information managementDOE or successor Federal

Agency??

O&MAgreement

DOE DOETo be

determined??

Environmental monitoringDOE or successor Federal

AgencyState

O&MAgreement

DOE DOETo be

determined??

Emergency responseDOE with Federal/State and Local government

Local government/State/

Federal and USEPA

O&MAgreement DOE DOE

To be determined

??

Non-routine fixesDOE or successor Federal

Agency

State/Local government and

USEPA

O&MAgreement DOE DOE

To be determined

??

Public educationDOE or successor Federal

AgencyAll parties to O&M

AgreementO&M

AgreementDOE ??

To be determined

??

25

Compliance monitoring DOE or successor Federal

AgencyState O&M

AgreementDOE DOE

To be determined

??

Enforcement of ICs and monitoring

DOE or successor Federal Agency (Primary)

State/Local governmentUSEPA/State

Federal/State and Local RegulationsROD (one and five year reviews)

DOE DOETo be

determined

Cultural resource management

Not Applicable ??

Periodic reassessment(including revision & update of LTS plan) Initial interval is: __? Years or as needed

DOE or successor Federal Agency

StateO&M

Agreement DOE DOETo be

determined??

Administration of funding

??(If trust, then trustee)

??O&M

Agreement DOE ??To be

determined??

NOTES: 1. The various functions of the “steward” could be carried out by more than one entity.2. This table does not distinguish between the entity that is responsible for the function and any agent (contractor) of that entity. 3. An additional level of detail beyond this table would be to identify what specific subdivision of the entities shown (i.e., DOE, Local Government, State,

EPA) would be responsible. 4. PRP means potentially responsible party (in general, this is DOE for a DOE-owned site).5. In general, funding mechanisms are not yet determined; therefore the responsible entity cannot yet be identified.6. The entity listed under “overseeing it” is intended to be the entity with legal oversight authority/responsibility. This is not meant to exclude informal

oversight by the public and/or other organizations.7. This document has not been reviewed by or concurred with by DOE-MEMP.

What’s Required?Functions/tasks/activities/

remedies

Who is Responsible?

Implementing it Overseeing itEnforcement Mechanism/Document

Funding Source

Funding Amount

($)

Funding Mechanism

For Imple-mentation

For Oversight

26

Other-Than-SNF-and-HLW Team

• Immediate Risk Reduction Action Plans (IRRAPs):– Green is Clean: Minimizing Waste Generation– Dedicated Use– Surface Decontamination– Blanket Exemptions: Expediting Waste

Disposition– Environmental Management Consolidated

Audit Program

27

FY 2004 DOE-EM Budget (5/03)• FY-’04 budget proposes an increase to $7.24

billion from $6.99 billion approved for EM-’03 budget.

• Intergovernmental Group conference call with Jessie Roberson on February 11th to discuss the EM ’04 budget

• Changes to FY-’04 budget:– New office of Legacy Management– No Clean-up Reform Account– Etc. . .

• Performance measures included