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
27
Embed
National Governors Association Federal Facilities Task Force States-Only Introductory Briefing
National Governors Association Federal Facilities Task Force States-Only Introductory Briefing. Fall Intergovernmental Meeting November 5-6, 2003 Washington, DC - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
(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
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