ECA Update: November 5, 2014 - Election Update
Published: Wed, 11/05/14
2014 Election Update
Yesterday's election will impact every Energy Communities Alliance member, supporter, and stakeholder for the next two years. The Republican Party picked up seven seats on Election Night to win control of the Senate. Two races - Virginia and Alaska - have yet to be called and Louisiana is headed for a runoff next month. Newly reelected Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell will likely lead at least 53 GOP senators when the new Congress convenes next year. In the House, Republicans netted a fourteen seat gain and likely putting control of the House beyond contention until the next decade. With at least 248 seats, Speaker John Boehner now leads the largest GOP majority since the Great Depression.
While last night was certainly a big win for the Republican Party, commentators have stopped short of calling their victory a mandate. Acknowledging the tough terrain Democrats faced - many of their open and contested seats were in deep red states - and toxic national mood, National Journal senior political columnist Ron Fournier noted that the "public has lost faith in institutions - all institutions." Last night, at least 80% of voters disapproved of Congress, 60% disapproved of Congressional leadership, two-thirds believed the country is on the wrong track, and most disapproved of the performance of both parties. Some have gone as far to say that this election was about a repudiation of gridlock. Voters want to "get something done for a change," said Democratic political strategist Celinda Lake.
Leadership on both sides of the Congress has promised a return to "regular order." That is, an end to leadership drafted bills, and a return to a committees driving the legislative agenda and allowing Members to offer and vote on amendments. Already, a number of legislators are staking claims to chairmanships.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources will likely be led by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Her Democratic ranking member will be decided in the coming weeks. If Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) wins reelection she'll be the senior minority member on the committee; should she lose next month, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) may take the spot.
The Senate Armed Services gavel will be wielded by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) with Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) leading the Democrats on the panel. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the current ranking member, is choosing to take the top spot on the Senate Environment Committee where Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is currently the chairwoman.
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) is in line to lead the Appropriations panel, with current chair Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) as vice chair. Sen. Cochran may also lead the Defense subcommittee while the Energy and Water Development subcommittee may be led by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN).
Fewer changes are expected on the House side. Democrats face a race for the ranking member slot on the Natural Resources Committee, and the top spot on the Armed Services panel is open though current Vice Chair Mac Thornberry (R-TX) is the frontrunner for the gavel.
Some reports suggest nuclear power advocates may benefit from increased GOP control. In particular, CQ is reporting that Yucca Mountain may no longer be "off the table." While the Administration is not likely to change its position on the potential storage repository, the Senate is likely to appropriate more money for Yucca. It may even authorize the Energy Department to establish a project for consolidating spent nuclear fuel at interim storage facilities.
Final committee rosters and policy agendas will be announced in the coming weeks. Congress returns for a lame-duck session next Wednesday, November 12.
Congress should resume funding of Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site
Boston Globe
November 1, 2014
Using Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a central repository for the byproducts of nuclear power generation in the United States is not a perfect solution to a complex problem, but it's far better than the status quo. A recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission report found that Yucca Mountain meets government requirements for the safe storage of nuclear waste. That conclusion should end the decades-long debate on the suitability of the site, but it almost certainly won't stop political opposition to the project. Congress should lay politics aside and move forward anyway.
For more than a quarter century, the government has been considering whether to use Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles from Las Vegas, as the country's only long-term storage facility for waste from nuclear reactors. The plan is to collect the nuclear waste created by power plants and bury it underneath the mountain. The site was chosen because it is geologically inert; natural processes such as earthquakes are highly unlikely to will disturb any materials placed at the site, which scientists say will maintain its integrity for at least 300,000 years. The problem isn't any lack of supporting research; it's that Democrats have been loath to support the construction of the site. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, from Nevada, has consistently blocked funding for Yucca Mountain. Barack Obama vowed to kill the project as a candidate for office, and has opposed it as president -- mainly to placate Nevada voters who oppose constructing a large repository in their state.
But there is a real cost to congressional inaction on Yucca Mountain. There are over 70 nuclear power plants in the United States, and currently each one is responsible for storing the waste it generates. While each of those sites is secured by guards and certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, none were designed to permanently hold radioactive materials. Instead, power plant operators were expecting to be able to send their waste to a central disposal facility by 1998. Every year that goes by, plants are forced to store more and more hazardous materials on site, putting communities near them at risk.
There are valid logistical concerns about Yucca Mountain, such whether waste can be safely transported to the site. But these obstacles can be addressed. While the Department of Energy does not currently transport waste generated by power plants, the government has a long track record of safely transporting hazardous substances for the military by rail, including materials used in the nuclear weapons program. There is no reason a similarly robust system can't be adopted for civilian use.
The solution is for Congress to resume funding the Yucca Mountain project. Democrats should recognize that, whatever their qualms about the site, the current situation can't continue indefinitely. Republicans, who have been historically much more willing to fund the project, should make it a priority if they take over the Senate in November. Allowing nuclear materials to build up at power plants is far more dangerous than burying them at Yucca Mountain.
From the Hill: A Visit to our Nuclear Labs
Gering Citizen
Nebraskans appreciate the importance of maintaining our nation's nuclear deterrent. With the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) based in Bellevue, we have a unique perspective on the importance of this national security mission. The men and women who work at STRATCOM ensure a secure and effective deterrent while pursuing a broader, cooperative strategy to confront global threats.
While STRATCOM's role is critical, it is one piece of a much larger nuclear enterprise.
I'm fortunate to serve as a member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which has oversight of our country's nuclear weapons. As part of our committee work, Senator Angus King (I-Maine) and I recently travelled to Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, and Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. I also traveled to California to visit the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Senator King and I toured the nuclear weapons complex, met with leaders and scientists, expressed our gratitude to the workforce for their important contributions, and gained a better understanding of the issues and challenges associated with our responsibilities on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
Our national laboratories are responsible for maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent for the United States and for other science-related functions in support of U.S. national security interests. The labs we visited comprise the scientific backbone of our nuclear deterrent.
Collectively, the labs maintain our aging nuclear stockpile and perform cutting edge-science to improve our understanding of how nuclear weapons operate. The men and women at these labs do extraordinary work with limited resources and dated technology. At each laboratory, we discussed how science is used to ensure that aging weapons will perform the way we need them to, if they're ever called upon.
This is an extremely complex task, and at each facility we saw unique capabilities. For example, we toured the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. This facility utilizes a large laser, which focuses immense heat and pressure to simulate in a laboratory what happens in the core of a nuclear explosion so that scientists can better understand the dynamics of an explosion.
Our nuclear labs also perform surveillance work, which involves taking weapons back to the labs, disassembling them and inspecting their components. They may find rust or other corrosion, or even component failure. The labs then use their scientific understanding to predict whether that will impact the way the weapon functions. They're also conducting life extension programs for our oldest weapons, where they rebuild weapons that have aged to an unacceptable point.
It is almost impossible to overstate the importance and difficulty of this task. We haven't tested nuclear weapons since the early 1990s and we haven't built a new weapon since the late 1980s. Our laboratories ensure these aging weapons - which were never designed to last this long - continue to function without testing.
The labs also have enormous insight into the nuclear programs of other countries. We repeatedly discussed how U.S. stockpile work differs from that of our allies and our adversaries around the world. While attention to our own nuclear weapons diminishes, rival nations like Russia and China are investing heavily in upgrading their own technology.
While the president committed to modernize our deterrent in 2011, we've fallen short of that objective. This year, we've heard strong statements - particularly from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel - about how we must follow through with our modernization plans. I agree and intend to work with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to ensure needed resources are available for this critical national security priority.
I'm thankful for the chance to visit these unique facilities and the exceptional employees who work to maintain the nuclear weapons that STRATCOM relies on to defend our nation. Nuclear deterrence remains the ultimate safeguard for American security and it would not be possible without the hardworking men and women who make up our nuclear enterprise.
Thank you for taking part in the democratic process.
Gov. Inslee gives his support to saving B Reactor
Tri-City Herald
October 31, 2014
Creating a Manhattan Project National Historical Park that includes Hanford is critical to preserving important 20th century American history, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee told congressional committee leaders Friday.
Four and a half years ago, Inslee signed a group letter asking the National Park Service director to include B Reactor in any plans to create a park that would preserve Manhattan Project history. At the time, he was part of the Washington congressional delegation, which sent the letter.
The letter he sent Friday to key committee leaders is perhaps his strongest statement of support for a new national park since becoming governor.
"Congress got very, very close to passing this provision into law last year, and we have another opportunity now," Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said in a recent speech at ExchangeMonitor Publication's Decisionmakers Forum.
Hastings hopes the Senate will allow the new national park provision to remain in the National Defense Authorization Act when final negotiations are completed this year, he said.
Inslee's letter was sent to leaders of the House Committee on Natural Resources, which is led by Hastings; Inslee's fellow Democrat, Sen. Mary Landreiu, the chairwoman on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; and Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the committee's ranking member.
Inslee said he hoped they would consider supporting inclusion of bipartisan legislation to create the new park in the National Defense Authorization Act.
"Currently, there is tremendous interest in these Manhattan Project historical sites as the public recognizes the profound impact these places had on our nation's history," Inslee said in the letter.
Almost 10,000 visitors from all 50 states and dozens of countries last year visited Hanford's historic B Reactor, he said. The reactor is open some days in the spring and summer for bus tours. More than 150,000 tourists visited the Bradbury Science Museum in Los Alamos, N.M., and 60,000 went to the American Museum of Science and Energy in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
A multi-state park is proposed to allow visitors to learn about the race to produce the world's first atomic weapon during World War II by visiting historic areas of Hanford, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.
The National Park Service is the correct agency to provide information about the Manhattan Project, based on its track record of providing a full and fair picture of the history and significance of park sites across the country, Inslee said.
"A noteworthy example is the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial -- another WWII-era monument which memorializes a painful chapter in our nation's history," he said. "Similarly, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park will appropriately recognize the important but somber history of the work that occurred at these sites."
It also could tell the story of the thousands of workers who helped build the new nuclear sites during the war, and the science and engineering work that led to contributions in the fields of nuclear medicine, industrial isotopes and nanotechnology, he wrote.
Creating a national park would increase visitors to the three sites by tens of thousands, contributing to the tourism sector of the state of Washington's economy, Inslee wrote. Not only would visitors to Hanford's B Reactor learn about the Manhattan Project, but they also would further their appreciation for the need for environmental cleanup at Hanford, he wrote.
In U.S. Cleanup Efforts, Accident at Nuclear Site Points to Cost of Lapses
New York Times
Earlier this year, a violent chemical reaction at a New Mexico facility that stores waste from the making of plutonium bombs broke open a storage drum and sprayed the waste into the air, leading to the closure of the repository.
Fortunately, the incident on Feb. 4 at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, near Carlsbad, N.M., happened at night when operations were limited; no workers were injured beyond a very small radiation exposure, and only a very small amount of radioactive waste leaked into the environment.
But the reaction, which forced the closure of the site, came as a blow to the country's efforts to clean up old nuclear weapons manufacturing sites and has forced the government to take extraordinary measures to prevent a repetition. The reopening of the waste repository will stretch into next year and cost at least $551 million, according to the Energy Department.
The price could jump even higher. The State of New Mexico is nearing a decision on fining the Energy Department for its safety lapses at the repository -- the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, near Carlsbad, N.M. -- and at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where the plutonium waste was packaged in a way that ultimately led to the accident. The storage drum was one of many filled there as part of a cleanup campaign.
In addition, the Energy Department has taken extraordinary precautions with dozens of similar containers, in case they also burst and spew their contents. Some of them have been buried at the repository, in rooms that are now being sealed, and others are in reinforced temporary storage at a site intended for low-level waste, nearby in Andrews, Tex.
The lapse reflects a problem that has plagued the weapons complex for years -- radioactive materials should not be mixed with organic chemicals because the radiation generates explosive gases. It raises questions about the Energy Department's ability to apply what it has learned over decades of painstaking, mistake-ridden stewardship of the leftovers of nuclear bomb manufacture.
"I don't know how you can look at the facts themselves or any of the subsequent investigations and not have serious questions about the effectiveness of management and oversight at Los Alamos National Laboratory and WIPP," said Ryan C. Flynn, the secretary of the Environment Department in New Mexico. His staff is in the unusual position of drafting a proposal to fine the federal government because the Energy Department violated its state environmental permit.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act suggest that the Energy Department does not know what is in many of the waste containers it has filled over the years.
The department has begun a review of how it packages plutonium wastes at Los Alamos and its laboratories at Idaho Falls, Idaho, and Oak Ridge, Tenn., said Frank Marcinowski, the deputy assistant secretary for waste management. Control over waste packaging at Los Alamos was recently shifted from the Energy Department's weapons program to its environmental management division.
The February leak has also cast doubt on the Energy Department's safety calculations. Robert Alvarez, a nuclear waste expert and a former special assistant to the energy secretary, said that a safety analysis conducted before the repository opened predicted one such incident every 200,000 years; the mine has been open for 15 years.
"What makes this event so disturbing is that radiation went half a mile up the shaft into the open environment," he said. Twenty-two workers were exposed to small amounts of radiation.
Mr. Alvarez said he was surprised by the safety problem. He said he had considered the repository as a possible disposal site for tons of weapon-grade plutonium, long-lived radioactive waste that had been headed for recycling. The Energy Department had planned to turn the weapons plutonium into reactor fuel as a way to dispose of it, and broke ground on a plant in South Carolina to make that conversion. But the Obama administration recently decided that the factory was too expensive and wants to halt work on it.
Now Mr. Alvarez says that he is not so sure that burial at WIPP is safe. "I feel like I drank the Kool-Aid," he said.
Some of the repair costs for the repository, which has been closed since February, are highly uncertain, including a new ventilation system, with an estimated cost of $65 million to $261 million, and a new shaft for exhausting the air from the plant, at a cost of $12 million to $48 million. Simply analyzing the plant's safety will cost $5.4 million; independent assessments of readiness will cost $10 million, according to the department's recovery plan.
No one is talking about expanding the repository, which has gone from a model of smooth operation to another troubled Energy Department plant.
The February incident was not the first time that a drum from Los Alamos had exploded; one did so at the lab in November 2008. According to a report last month by the inspector general of the Energy Department, the event -- technically a "deflagration," an extremely fast burn that falls short of an explosion -- was caused by a mixture that was "known to be inherently hazardous."
Some of the wastes were liquid, and technicians had been using a clay commonly used as kitty litter to solidify them for burial but switched to an organic compound, which caused the chemical reaction that led to a buildup of hydrogen. Several opportunities to catch the error were missed, according to the report.
While "the event did not appear to involve an explosion," the report said, it generated enough heat to breach the lid and damage surrounding objects. A separate accident investigation board is still at work.
But the Energy Department is preparing to reopen the repository in 2015. While workers had been filling underground rooms with barrels and then sealing them, the new plan is to seal rooms immediately, on the chance that more barrels could blow up. But the work will go slowly; the mine's working areas have to be supplied with air piped in from the surface.
Now that the underground area is contaminated, the air has to be passed through high-efficiency filters before it is exhausted back into the desert, and those filters can handle a limited amount. So cleaning and reopening the mine will require a series of steps that can be accomplished only sequentially, according to the department. Part of the expense is for new ventilation equipment.
In the meantime, the department has a limited ability to package and dispose of wastes left over from decades of nuclear weapons production.
Nuclear Security Agency Director Pledges Renewed Focus
DoD News
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30, 2014 - The National Nuclear Security Administration, which maintains the nation's nuclear weapons, must reinvigorate its focus for this crucial deterrent capability, the agency's director said here yesterday.
Speaking at a Defense Writers Group breakfast, Frank G. Klotz acknowledged that there are issues associated with the management of the nuclear enterprise that must be fixed.
Nuke Stockpile Safe
But despite these issues, said Klotz, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who has been in charge of the National Nuclear Security Administration for six months, the bottom line is that the agency's Stockpile Stewardship Program is able to assess the health and safety and the security of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The director gave a bit of history to put the administration's problems in perspective.
The United States voluntarily put in place a moratorium on nuclear explosive testing in 1992 - a moratorium observed by four successive presidents from both political parties. At the time, Klotz said, there were those who believed it was impossible to ensure these fearsome weapons would work without periodic testing. The agency had to have the level of development for diagnostic tools, test facilities and the high-performance computers to conduct a stewardship program.
"Guess what?" he said. "We did."
Challenges Remain
But challenges remain, Klotz said. "My generation came of age in the Cold War, when nuclear deterrence and our nuclear deterrent forces were center stage," he added. "At the end of the Cold War, it was almost as if we had all heaved a sigh of collective relief and said 'Thank goodness we don't have to worry about that any more.'"
At the same time, he said, the focus of the U.S. national security departments shifted to conflicts in the Balkans, in the Middle East and to the issue of combating terrorism across the globe. There were more pressing spending priorities, and money to maintain the nuclear enterprise just was not there.
"As a result, the attention, the focus and the resources that were given to our nuclear deterrent forces were not what they were in the past," Klotz said.
"Quite frankly, we lost focus," he told the defense writers. "The situation we find ourselves in 20 years later is we reinstituted that focus and we stepped up to making the types of investments we need to make in order to continue to ensure this part of our national security policy ... is able to function the way it is supposed to."
Klotz said the agency simply has to do a better job managing capital projects.
Multifaceted Agency Mission
Klotz stressed that his organization does more than the nuclear stockpile mission. "We also have extraordinarily important missions with respect to nuclear nonproliferation and trying to promote ... safety and security across the United States and the globe," he said.
The agency also has responsibility for emergency response to a radiological or nuclear incident, so NNSA personnel continually train and prepare teams at home and abroad, and the administration has a special responsibility for naval reactors.
Doing all these missions requires focus, the administrator said, but he added that the people of the agency are ready for all of their missions. Our Voice: Time for DOE to release unused Hanford land
Tri-City Herald
As we usher in a new era in the 4th Congressional District with today's election, the retiring office-holder continues to champion clean-up at Hanford.
We only hope Doc Hastings' successor understands the importance of fighting the many battles with the federal government surrounding Hanford.
While there's no doubt it would be shameful for the government to gut the budget for Hanford work outside of the tank farms and vitrification plant as has been rumored in the upcoming fiscal year, Hastings also recently questioned why the government hasn't given back land that is no longer needed at the complex.
The decision regards what to do with 1,600 acres of unused land at Hanford which has sat idle for more than four years, even though it is earmarked for industrial use. Hastings questioned why it hasn't been returned to the community for economic development.
As we've learned at Hanford, decisions never come quickly but this is a planned use agreed upon by the Department of Energy. Yet the land continues to be out of anyone's reach.
In a visionary move, our community submitted a proposal for use of lands that will soon be ready to be returned to public access for activities that include hiking, biking and camping on 220 square miles of land along the banks of the Columbia River. Clean-up on that land is expected by the end of next year, if budgets allow for the project's completion.
Hastings -- and many in the Tri-Cities -- believe local communities should be the drivers of what happens to land taken by the federal government decades ago that is now ready to be returned to citizens.
The Tri-City Development Council hired a consultant and held public meetings to look at potential uses for the land in a forward-thinking move, the kind of proactive action seemingly foreign to our federal government.
It was basically a blueprint to show the government we are ready to take our land back and we have productive uses for it based on community input. But, thus far, no action has been taken.
Of course nothing is ever simple when it comes to dealing with government and the return of the land is layered with agencies and departments who don't always have the same goals in mind or show much interest in the wishes of the people.
One of the key roles for our new member of the U.S. Congress will be to listen to the people who live here and fight the fight to fund Hanford clean-up and get the land that is clean and ready back to the people where it belongs. Contractors win extension on MOX project
GSA Business
The contractor building the MOX plant at Savannah River Site has received a 10-year extension on the project's completion date from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
According to a license extension request approved by the NRC on Oct. 23, the project's completion date is being pushed out to March 30, 2025. The NRC announced the extension in the Federal Register.
MOX is the common name for the mixed-oxide fuel developed from plutonium and uranium.
The contractor, Shaw Areva MOX Services, said reasons for the extension included:
■ The MOX facility is "a unique, first-of-a-kind facility."
■ Annual appropriations from Congress to support construction activities have been "less than projected funding profile for several years."
■ There's a shortage vendors and qualified construction workers, requiring long durations of key construction activity.
■ A two-year delay between issuance of the NRC construction authorization and start of nuclear construction.
However, Shaw Areva said "substantial progress" has been made in construction of the plant, which is designed to process weapons grade nuclear material for commercial use.
The fuel fabrication building is substantially complete including roof and exterior structure and more than 100 tons of heating, ventilation and air conditioning ductwork has been installed. Also, construction of an administration building, technical support building, craft support building and secured warehouse has been completed.
Key structures that need to be completed include the emergency generator building and reagents processing building.
The 10-year period is to "bound" the additional length of time needed to complete the project, though it is unknown if the project can ever be completed or if the plant will operate, according to Savannah River Watch, a public interest group that's monitoring the MOX project.
"This delay in construction of the MOX plant is an admission that spiraling costs will increase further and affirms that there is no certain date for completion of the controversial project," said Tom Clements, director of Savannah River Site Watch. "It is inexcusable that DOE has allowed the MOX project to continually drift with no firm budget and no established construction schedule, things that are indicative of a mismanaged project that is far over budget. This 10-year delay is a clear signal that DOE needs to move forward with placing the project on cold standby as it considers other safer and cheaper ways to dispose of surplus weapons plutonium."
Originally estimated to cost $4.9 billion, projections have zoomed to $7.7 billion, according to federal reports. And the price could go higher. The government estimates that the project could cost $30 billion to complete in 2019, three years past the original completion date.
The project, which is more than 60% complete, has become a flashpoint in a running battle between S.C. politicians and the Obama administration.
Concerned about the rising price tag for the project, the White House proposed in March to cut funding and put the project on "cold standby," which would essential shut down the MOX program.
The state sued the U.S. Department of Energy, charging that the federal government was obligated to complete the project, which employs about 1,800 workers in the Aiken area.
The Energy Department later said it would continue the project, and the state dropped its lawsuit.
DOE Issues Draft RFP for Waste Treatment Services
DOE
Cincinnati -- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today issued a Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) for Low-Level Waste (LLW) and Mixed-Low Level Waste (MLLW) treatment services that may result in the issuance of one or more Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs).
The RFP is for the treatment of LLW and MLLW including liquid and solid Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulated waste, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and, asbestos. Also, under this requirement, DOE seeks a contractor to provide services such as: Treatment Storage Disposal Facility (TSDF) Authorized Release for Directed Disposal including Bulk Survey for Release (BSFR), Restricted and Unrestricted Recycling/Reuse, Low Activity Waste (LAW) Services, Ancillary Services, and support in establishing authorized release limits.
This requirement supports the DOE Office of Environmental Management cleanup mission and materials to be treated originates from Federal activities such as clean-up and remediation, demolition, operations waste, and or other waste under the DOE's purview.
All BOA(s) issued as a result of this DRFP will be for a period of five years with no associated option periods. Work will be performed using competitive firm-fixed price task orders issued against the treatment BOA(s). DOE Offices (including the National Nuclear Security Administration, Laboratories, and Project Offices), DOE Prime Contractors and Subcontractors to DOE Prime Contractors, performing environmental cleanup services for DOE, are authorized to place task orders under the resulting BOA(s).
Additional information on the Draft RFP is available at: http://www.emcbc.doe.gov/SEB/llwmllwtreatment. DOE has request that all comments, suggested changes, feedback and proposed changes be submitted by industry no later than November 21, 2014. |
|
