 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
A Review of DOE's Accelerated Cleanup Program and State-Based Compliance Agreements.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Ms. Jesse Roberson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Department of Energy's Environmental Management (EM) program, our progress to date in implementing the cleanup reform initiative, and the impact and role of the compliance agreements on DOE's cleanup reform initiative. I particularly appreciate the opportunity to update you on the progress we are making in reforming the EM program to re-focus efforts on our cleanup and closure mission and on accelerating risk reduction at our sites. The comprehensive, "Top-to-Bottom" review of the EM program conducted last year concluded that this program is badly in need of repair. For more than ten years, we have spent tens of billions of dollars but have failed to make commensurate progress towards cleanup and risk reduction. We are determined to make changes. We are moving forward aggressively to make good on our promises to deliver more cleanup and risk reduction for the taxpayers' dollar. Our focus is on improving the performance of the EM program and on identifying and implementing more risk-oriented and efficient cleanup approaches that serve the communities around the sites and the taxpayer. It is not our intent to get out of compliance with any of our regulatory agreements. These agreements are living documents, with processes to enable improvement and revisions to achieve mutual goals. While adopting new cleanup approaches and realigning priorities may require modification of some milestones, our efforts to work with regulators and to review the cleanup agreements must be viewed in the context of our overall efforts to reform and accelerate cleanup. PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING CLEANUP REFORM Since the Top-to-Bottom review was completed, we have been working aggressively to evaluate and implement the recommendations. Initially, our emphasis has been on bringing site cleanup plans up to date. Significant opportunities for innovative approaches exist. We have been pursuing a deliberative, multi-step process at each of our sites to identify actions to accelerate risk reduction, working with regulators and other stakeholders. The first step in the process is reaching high-level, strategic agreement with the state and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulators on how the site cleanup can be accelerated. This agreement is documented in a Letter of Intent signed by DOE and the regulatory agencies that outlines the broad goals, objectives, and strategic direction for accelerated cleanup work at the site. We are also preparing a Performance Management Plan for each site which provides a detailed delineation of how the site will accelerate risk reduction and cleanup. From this Plan, we will then develop a baseline crosswalk from the current baseline to an integrated resource-loaded project baseline that EM will use to manage cleanup at the site. Throughout the process, we have worked closely with state and federal regulators to ensure that compliance obligations are consistent with the accelerated cleanup plan. When appropriate and on a case-by-case basis, we are working with regulators to align our regulatory obligations with the cleanup approaches. Progress Toward Site Accelerated Cleanup Plans We have made progress in reaching mutual agreement on the goals, objectives and means of the new risk based cleanup strategy. To date we have signed six Letters of Intent to pursue accelerated cleanup strategies at the following sites.
Draft Performance Management Plans for about ten sites, including Hanford, INEEL, Oak Ridge Reservation, and the Savannah River Site, have already been made available for public comment. Our goal is to have Letters of Intent and Performance Management Plans, plus commitments from the regulators to take appropriate actions for implementation, completed at most of our sites by August 2002. We are very close to announcing that Letters of Intent have been finalized for a number of other sites. Based on these letters and the Performance Management Plans being developed, on July 8, 2002, the Secretary and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget agreed that the Administration would very soon transmit to the Congress an FY 2003 Budget Amendment for up to $300 million. This Amendment is necessary to support cleanup reforms at numerous cleanup sites documented by signed Letters of Intent between the Department, EPA and state regulators. Taking on Cross-Complex and Internal Challenges Now that we have begun to update our cleanup plans, we must tackle the business management systems that prohibit the EM program from operating as a true performance-based organization. Updating the cleanup plans is an important goal. However, the ability to actually carry out the commitments in the updated plans depends on objectively and credibly adjusting the organization to reflect continuous improvement. EM has begun a dedicated effort to implement changes in key areas identified in the Top-to-Bottom review that are critical to the success of the program. The implementation of needed changes will be addressed via a number of special project teams. Some examples of the projects include:
We have offered Federal staff from the field and headquarters the opportunity to develop proposals and apply to be project managers for these projects. We have received more than 100 proposals. A senior level EM manager will serve as an advisor to the project team. Projects will be managed in accordance with the project management principles outlined in DOE Orders. This approach is an important part of our human capital management initiative. Successful execution of these projects will eliminate many of the barriers that have thwarted previous EM attempts to accelerate cleanup and reduce life-cycle costs. DOE'S COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS We have reviewed the General Accounting Office's (GAO) draft report, "Status and Implications of DOE's Compliance Agreements," and generally support its findings and conclusions. As the GAO noted in their report, the cleanup at DOE's sites that contributed to the nation's nuclear weapons program and nuclear energy research is subject to multiple federal and state environmental laws, implemented and enforced by multiple agencies. Like other Federal agencies, the Department must comply with requirements in these laws in the same manner, and is generally subject to the same sanctions, as a private party. The two primary laws governing cleanup are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund, which governs cleanup of hazardous substances releases, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which governs the management of hazardous waste, including mixed hazardous and radioactive waste. In accordance with these laws, the Department has entered into legal agreements and orders with State and/or EPA authorities to carry out its cleanup activities or to resolve compliance issues. These legal agreements contain milestones that establish schedules for carrying out specific actions. The GAO draft report listed 70 agreements at 23 sites governing EM's activities, incorporating almost 7,200 separate milestones. Many of the agreements were negotiated ten or more years ago, when the EM program was in its early years. While reflecting the best understanding of the contamination problems and technical solutions at the time, it was recognized even then that the agreements and milestones would need to be periodically revisited and revised over time. The agreements therefore contain processes that allow the Department and the regulators that are parties to the agreements to do just that. We all recognize that adopting new cleanup approaches and realigning priorities to ensure we are addressing the highest risk first may require modification of some milestones contained in the agreements. The regulatory agencies that implement and enforce the laws governing most of our cleanup activities are key to our efforts to reform the EM program. Without their agreement, we are hard pressed to make the changes in cleanup approaches that we believe will result in more risk reduction and accelerated progress. Without their willingness to adjust milestones when necessary to support more risk-oriented cleanup priorities or a more cost-effective approach, we may be unable to proceed no matter how compelling the alternate path. The good news is that we have found most of our state regulators and EPA regions to be as eager as we are to achieve faster cleanup. Our efforts to work with the regulators at each of our sites over the past months to identify more effective cleanup approaches have resulted in strategic agreements at a number of our sites. We continue to make progress in developing the more detailed plans that articulate the activities and schedules for an accelerated cleanup approach. Let me be clear, however. The Department understands its obligation to comply with environmental laws and compliance agreements. We also believe it is critical that those obligations are compatible with reducing risk, as quickly and effectively as possible, and with completing the cleanup task assigned to us. We believe reform of DOE's environmental cleanup program can be achieved while meeting our environmental obligations. CONCLUSION The Department's cleanup reform initiative is not focused solely, or even primarily, on the agreements. Rather it is focused on the EM cleanup program itself and on its mission to complete cleanup and close sites. We are determined to ensure that our cleanup efforts are directed toward reducing risk as quickly and efficiently as possible. We have before us an opportunity to refocus, reshape and transform this program. I believe the progress we have made so far and the agreements we have reached at sites across the country on better ways to attack cleanup problems, demonstrate a shared frustration with too little progress to date, and a shared commitment to do better. I look forward to continuing working with the Congress and others to achieve our goals.
|
|||||||||||
|
