National Governors Association Federal Facilities Task Force States-Only Introductory Briefing

1. National Governors Association Federal Facilities Task ForceStates-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

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 Stewardship DESIRED OUTCOMES FROM THE MEETING • Make clear to DOE that LTS is not a settled issue as far as states are concerned. • Secure full engagement with the Office of Legacy Management (and OGC) for policy dialogue with NGA working group. • Clarify who is the NNSA point of contact on LTS issues, and secure their cooperation. • Show DOE that the intergovernmental groups are coordinating on LTS issues. • Generate ideas for how to best use DOE’s Spring 2004 LTS conference.

16. Long-term Stewardship KEY ISSUES FOR NGA TASK FORCE • Implement enforceable institutional controls, including federal compliance with state covenant laws. • 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. • Clarify NNSA’s role and responsibilities in LTS. • Clarify specific roles and responsibilities for implementing the components of LTS (incl. legal issues of transferring LTS obligations to other parties). • 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

21. List of DOE Project Teams

22. 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

25. NOTES: 1. The various functions of the “steward” could be carried out by more than one entity. • This table does not distinguish between the entity that is responsible for the function and any agent (contractor) of that entity. • 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. • PRP means potentially responsible party (in general, this is DOE for a DOE-owned site). • In general, funding mechanisms are not yet determined; therefore the responsible entity cannot yet be identified. • 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. • This document has not been reviewed by or concurred with by DOE-MEMP.

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