[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10833-S10838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    THE HANFORD LAND MANAGEMENT ACT

                                 ______


                 GORTON (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 1871

  (Ordered referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.)
  Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Hatfield, and Mr. Packwood) 
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the bill (S. 
871) to provide for the management and disposition of the Hanford 
Reservation, to provide for environmental management activities at the 
reservation, and for other purposes; as follows:

       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Enhanced Environmental 
     Cleanup and Management Demonstration Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress hereby finds that--
       (1) Defense Nuclear Facilities were used to produce nuclear 
     weapons materials to defend the United States in World War II 
     and thereafter. These facilities played a critical role in 
     securing the defense and overall welfare of the country.
       (2) Defense Nuclear Facilities are now among the most 
     contaminated sites in the country. Many are listed on the 
     National Priorities List compiled pursuant to the 

[[Page S 10834]]
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
     of 1980. Contamination and inadequate waste management 
     practices at Defense Nuclear Facilities pose threats to 
     workers, surrounding communities, and the environment.
       (3) Although the Department has begun to address the 
     contamination and manage its waste, it has achieved too 
     little progress for the significant amount of money spent.
       (4) Problems with environmental restoration and waste 
     management at Defense Nuclear Facilities are attributable to 
     a number of factors. Among these is inefficient management by 
     the Department at headquarters and at the Defense Nuclear 
     Facilities, including outmoded contracting procedures, lack 
     of competition, cumbersome bureaucratic processes, and the 
     lack of a clear chain of command. All of these things have 
     contributed to confusion and inefficiency at many Defense 
     Nuclear Facilities.
       (5) Internal orders issued by the Department of Energy 
     often hinder compliance with environmental laws and add 
     unnecessary cost to environmental restoration.
       (6) Regulatory requirements applicable to Defense Nuclear 
     Facilities can be complex and, at times, redundant. 
     Frequently, the Department is accountable to several 
     regulatory agencies.
       (7) Cleanup decisions are often made without consideration 
     of the future land uses.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to require 
     significant regulatory reform measures, and to require that 
     Defense Nuclear Facilities be managed more efficiently.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``adjoining State'' means any State other than 
     a host State, the border of which is located within 50 miles 
     of a Defense Nuclear Facility.
       (2) The term ``Defense Nuclear Facility'' means a former or 
     current Defense nuclear production facility now owned and 
     managed by the Department of Energy.
       (3) The term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy.
       (4) The term ``environmental agreement'' means an 
     agreement, including an interagency agreement, between the 
     department of Energy and/or the Environmental Protection 
     Agency that sets forth requirements and schedules for 
     achieving compliance with Federal or State environmental 
     laws.
       (5) The term ``Hanford Reservation'' means the Defense 
     Nuclear Facility located in southeastern Washington owned and 
     managed by the Department of Energy.
       (6) The term ``host State'' means a State with a Defense 
     Nuclear Facility located within its boundaries that is 
     subject to this Act.
       (7) The term ``interagency agreement'' means an agreement 
     entered into pursuant to the provisions of section 120(e) of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(e)).
       (8) The term ``Land Use Council'' means, with respect to a 
     Defense Nuclear Facility, a congressionally chartered council 
     with the authority to develop a future land use plan at such 
     facility.
       (9) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.
       (10) The term ``Site Manager'' means a presidentially 
     appointed Department of Energy official delegated with full 
     authority from the Secretary to oversee and direct all 
     operations at a Defense Nuclear Facility.
       (11) The terms ``TPA'' and ``Tri-Party Agreement'' mean the 
     Hanford Federal Facility Agreement And Consent Order as 
     amended among Washington State, the Department, and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.

     SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Hanford Reservation.--The Department's Hanford 
     Reservation in southeastern Washington shall be subject to 
     this Act.
       (b) Other Defense Nuclear Facilities.--A Governor of a 
     State hosting a Defense Nuclear Facility the fiscal year 1995 
     environmental management budget of which was $500,000,000 or 
     more may submit a request to the President that the facility 
     be covered by the terms of this Act. Within 60 days after 
     receipt of such a request, the President shall, unless the 
     President determines that such application is not in the 
     national interest, appoint a Site Manager for the facility 
     pursuant to section 5. Thereafter, such Defense Nuclear 
     Facility shall be subject to this Act.

     SEC. 5. SITE MANAGER.

       (a) Policy.--The President shall appoint, within 60 days 
     after enactment of this Act, a Site Manager for the Hanford 
     Reservation. For other Defense Nuclear Facilities, the 
     President shall appoint a site manager, within 60 days of 
     receipt of a request from the Governor of a host State 
     submitted pursuant to section 4(b). The Site Manager shall be 
     appointed from a list of 3 candidates for such position to be 
     provided by the Secretary.
       (b) Scope.--In addition to other authorities provided for 
     in this Act, the Site Manager for a Defense Nuclear Facility 
     shall have full authority to oversee and direct all 
     operations at the facility including the authority to--
       (1) enter into and modify contractual agreements to enhance 
     environmental cleanup and management at the Defense Nuclear 
     Facility;
       (2) manage congressionally appropriated environmental 
     management funds allocated to the Defense Nuclear Facility, 
     with the ability to transfer funds among accounts in order to 
     facilitate the most efficient and timely cleanup of the 
     Facility;
       (3) negotiate amendments to the Tri-Party Agreement or 
     other environmental agreements for the Department;
       (4) manage Department personnel at the Facility; and
       (5) carry out recommendations of the Department of Energy 
     Office of Environmental Health and Safety where the Site 
     Manager determines that those recommendations are consistent 
     with the goals set forth in this Act, except that if the Site 
     Manager elects not to carry out such recommendations, the 
     Site Manager shall provide to the Governor of the host State 
     and the Secretary a statement of the reasons therefor.

     Decisions by the Site Manager to disregard recommendations 
     made by the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental 
     Health and Safety shall take effect unless the President 
     determines within 21 days of implementation of the issuance 
     of the decision that the particular decision is not in the 
     national interest and where the State concurs with the 
     President's opinion. In such cases, the President and the 
     host State shall certify within such 21-day period that the 
     recommendation does not add prohibitively to costs at the 
     site and that the alternative meets important environmental 
     or human health or safety concerns.
       (c) Additional Duties.--The Site Manager for any Defense 
     Nuclear Facility subject to this Act shall prepare the 
     following for each remedy selected under the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 at such facility if the cost of the remedy exceeds 
     $25,000,000:
       (1) An analysis of the incremental costs and incremental 
     risk reduction or other benefits associated with the selected 
     remedy
       (2) An assessment of the costs and risk reduction or other 
     benefits, including protection of human health or the 
     environment, or the fostering of economic development, 
     associated with implementation of the selected remedy.
       (3) A certification of each of the following:
       (A) That the assessment under paragraph (2) is based on an 
     objective and unbiased scientific and economic evaluation.
       (B) That the remedy will substantially advance the purpose 
     of protecting human health or the environment against the 
     risk addressed by the remedy.
       (C) That there is no alternative remedy that is allowed by 
     the statute that would achieve an equivalent reduction in 
     risk in a more cost-effective manner.

     The assessments and certifications required under this 
     paragraph may be set forth in several documents or a single 
     document, as determined by the Site Manager. Completion of 
     such assessments and certifications shall not delay selection 
     or implementation of a remedy and shall be completed prior to 
     or concurrent with the selection of a remedy.
       (d) Cleanup Standards.--The Site Manager shall select 
     remedial actions for a Defense Nuclear Facility in accordance 
     with the provisions of section 121(d) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9621(d)), except that the remedial actions 
     need not attain any relevant and appropriate standard, 
     requirement, criteria, or limitation.
       (e) Metric System.--The Site Manager for any Defense 
     Nuclear Facility subject to this Act may exempt the facility 
     from the requirements of the Metric System Conversion Act of 
     1975 (15 U.S.C. 205a and following).
     SEC. 6. DEPARTMENT ORDERS.

       (a) Existing Orders.--The internal orders of the Department 
     of Energy, whether or not they have been adopted as 
     regulations, shall not apply at a Defense Nuclear Facility 
     subject to this Act 60 days after the confirmation of the 
     Site Manager except for those orders that the Site Manager 
     deems essential for the protection of human health or the 
     environment, or to the conduct of critical administrative 
     functions.
       (b) New Orders.--The Site Manager of a Defense Nuclear 
     Facility subject to this Act may adopt a new order only after 
     finding that the order is essential to the protection of 
     human health or the environment, or to the conduct of 
     critical administrative functions, and, to the extent 
     possible, will not unduly interfere with efforts to bring the 
     Defense Nuclear Facility into compliance with environmental 
     laws, including the terms of any environmental agreement.
     SEC. 7. STATE EXERCISE OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

       (a) State Exercise of Authorities Under CERCLA.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a host State may 
     exercise the authorities vested in the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency under the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) at any Defense Nuclear Facility 
     subject to this Act if the host State complies with the 
     provisions of this section.
       (2) A host State that elects to exercise the authorities 
     vested in the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency under the Environmental Protection Agency under the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 shall notify the Administrator in 
     writing. Within 60 days of the Administrator's receipt of the 
     State's notification, the Administrator shall provide for the 
     orderly transfer of her authorities at the Defense Nuclear 
     Facility to the host State. The host State and the Department 
     shall amend any existing interagency agreement to reflect the 
     transfer of authorities at the Defense Nuclear Facility.

[[Page S 10835]]

       (3) A host State that elects to exercise the authorities 
     vested in the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 shall retain its 
     authority under section 310 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 9659) to 
     enforce compliance with any requirement of an interagency 
     agreement with the Department, including the authority to 
     compel implementation of a remedy selected by the State and 
     shall have the authority granted under section 109 of that 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 9609(a)(1)).
       (4)(A) At a Defense Nuclear Facility where the 
     Administrator's authorities under section 120(e)(4) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(e)(4)) have been 
     transferred to the host State pursuant to this section, and 
     the host State does not concur in a remedy proposed by the 
     Site Manager, the parties shall enter into dispute resolution 
     as provided in their interagency agreement.
       (B) The final level of such disputes shall be to the Site 
     Manager and the Governor of the host State, and if the Site 
     Manager and the Governor do not reach agreement, the host 
     State shall select the final remedy: Provided, however, That 
     before reaching the final level of dispute, the remedy 
     selection dispute shall be reviewed by a mediator selected by 
     the host State and the Site Manager. The mediator shall be 
     experienced in contaminated site remediation, and 
     radionuclide exposure issues. The mediator may consult with 
     representatives of the National Academy of Sciences, and 
     other qualified experts as the mediator deems necessary. If 
     the mediation does not result in the parties reaching 
     agreement, the mediator shall recommend the remedy he deems 
     appropriate. The mediation process shall be completed as 
     quickly as possible, and in no event shall take more than 90 
     days to complete. If the Governor disagrees with the 
     mediator's recommendation, the host State shall issue the 
     final determination on the dispute, with a written rationale 
     for such determination.
       (C) In selecting a remedy, the Site Manager, the mediator, 
     and the host State shall consider the remedy selection 
     criteria in section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9621), and in the National Contingency Plan, the provisions 
     of this Act, and the assessment and the certification 
     prepared by the Site Manager under section 5(c) of this Act.
       (5) Remedial actions selected for Defense Nuclear 
     Facilities or portions thereof shall be consistent with the 
     Future Land Use plan developed by the Land Use Council. 
     Remedial actions, including cleanup standards, shall be 
     selected using reasonable maximum exposure scenarios that are 
     consistent with the future land uses set forth in the Future 
     Land Use plan. Appropriate institutional controls shall be 
     implemented whenever the concentration of hazardous 
     substances remaining after completion of the remedial action 
     would pose a threat or potential threat to human health under 
     a residential use exposure scenario.
       (b) Redundancies.--The host State shall integrate, to the 
     maximum extent possible, the requirements of applicable laws 
     over which it has jurisdiction, to eliminate redundancies 
     that do not contribute to the environmental management 
     program.
       (c) Adjoining States.--(1) The Site Manager shall provide 
     to any adjoining State those opportunities for review and 
     comment regarding any response action at a Defense Nuclear 
     Facility that are provided pursuant to section 
     121(f)(1)(D),(E),(G), and (H) by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9621(f)(1)(D),(E),(G), and (H)).
       (2) A host State shall enter into negotiations with, and is 
     authorized to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with, 
     an adjoining State addressing issues of mutual concern 
     regarding a Defense Nuclear Facility. Nothing in this 
     paragraph shall delay implementation of this section.
       (3) If a host State brings an action to compel 
     implementation of a remedial action pursuant to this section, 
     an adjoining State may intervene as a matter of right in such 
     action.
       (d) Penalties.--All funds collected by the host State from 
     the Federal Government as penalties or fines imposed for the 
     violation of any environmental law at a Defense Nuclear 
     Facility shall be used by the host State only for projects to 
     protect the environment at or near the facility from threats 
     resulting from the facility or to remedy contamination 
     associated with the facility.
     SEC. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.

       The Site Manager shall integrate, to the maximum extent 
     possible, the requirements of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321) with other applicable State and 
     Federal regulatory requirements. Where an analysis of 
     environmental impacts and public comment process has been 
     completed under other applicable law, including the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and following) or State 
     environmental laws, for any decision, project, or action 
     conducted at a Defense Nuclear Facility, and the Site Manager 
     determines that the analysis and process are substantially 
     equivalent to that required by the National Environmental 
     Policy Act, the Site Manager need not conduct another 
     environmental analysis or public comment process under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act.
     SEC. 9. LAND USE COUNCIL.

       (a) Council Established.--There is hereby established a 
     Land Use Council for each Defense Nuclear Facility for which 
     a Site Manager has been appointed under this Act. Each Land 
     Use Council shall develop a future land use plan for all 
     lands within the Defense Nuclear Facility boundaries that are 
     managed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and are listed on the 
     National Priorities List. The Council shall not specify 
     future land use for lands outside National Priority List site 
     boundaries. At the Hanford Reservation, the Council shall not 
     specify future land use for the Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands 
     Ecology Reserve or the Wahluke Slope. The plan shall be given 
     full consideration in developing and selecting remedial 
     actions for the Defense Nuclear Facility.
       (b) Membership.--Each Land Use Council shall make decisions 
     by majority vote. The members of the Council for a Defense 
     Nuclear Facility shall include the Site Manager for the 
     Defense Nuclear Facility who shall be a voting member and the 
     following additional members appointed by such Site Manager:
       (1) One voting member nominated by the Governor of the host 
     State.
       (2) One voting member nominated by the elected officials of 
     counties and cities contiguous to or within 15 miles of a 
     Defense Nuclear Facility.
       (3) One nonvoting member consisting of the chair of the 
     site advisory board, established by the Department at the 
     Defense Nuclear Facility or such members designee.
       (4) One nonvoting member appointed by the national 
     laboratory in closest proximity to the Defense Nuclear 
     Facility.
       (c) Plan Adoption.--The Land Use Council shall adopt, 
     within 24 months after confirmation of the Site Manager, a 
     Future Land Use plan for the Defense Nuclear Facility. To 
     support remedial action decisions, the Council shall use a 
     phased approach in developing a future land use plan. Prior 
     to completion of the full plan, but no later than 9 months 
     after the Site Manger's confirmation, the Council shall adopt 
     land use plans for portions of the Facility to support 
     scheduled remedial action decisions as requested by the Site 
     Manager.
       (d) Content of the Plan.--The Future Land Use Plan for a 
     Defense Nuclear Facility shall include--
       (1) lands that should be retained by the Department for its 
     use or for the maintenance of institutional controls needed 
     to protect the public or environment from hazardous 
     substances or radioactive materials;
       (2) lands designated for industrial use;
       (3) lands designated for commercial use;
       (4) lands designated for residential use;
       (5) lands designated for agricultural use;
       (6) lands designated for recreational use; and
       (7) lands designated for open space.
       (e) Plan Criteria.--In developing the Future Land Use Plan, 
     the Land Use Council shall consider information it deems 
     appropriate, including--
       (1) the degree to which lands within the Defense Nuclear 
     Facility could be reasonably remediated given technological 
     considerations;
       (2) the cost of remediation;
       (3) the risks to human health and the environment;
       (4) the land use history of the facility and surrounding 
     lands, current land uses of the facility and surrounding 
     lands, recent development patterns in the proximity of the 
     facility, and population projection for the area;
       (5) land use plans prepared for adjacent lands and for the 
     facility, including for the Hanford reservation, the report 
     of the Future Site Working Group;
       (6) Federal or State land use designations, including 
     Federal facilities and national parks, State groundwater or 
     surface water recharge areas, recreational areas, wildlife 
     refuges, ecological areas, and historic or cultural areas;
       (7) the proximity of contamination to residences, sensitive 
     populations or ecosystems, natural resources, or areas of 
     unique historic or cultural significance;
       (8) the potential for economic development; and
       (9) recreation, open space, cultural, and other noneconomic 
     values.
       (f) Consultation.--In preparing the land use plan, the 
     Council shall consult with--
       (1) adjoining States,
       (2) affected Indian Tribes,
       (3) affected local governments,
       (4) appropriate State and Federal agencies, and
       (5) the public.
     All Council meetings shall be open to the public and shall be 
     scheduled and conducted to promote public participation. 
     Adjoining States, affected Indian Tribes, affected local 
     governments, appropriate State and Federal agencies, and the 
     public shall be given an opportunity to comment on the land 
     use plans prior to their adoption. The Council shall advise 
     commentors of the disposition of their comments.
     SEC. 10. TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Site Manager shall promote the 
     demonstration, certification, verification, and 
     implementation of new environmental technologies at Defense 
     Nuclear Facilities.

[[Page S 10836]]

       (b) Criteria.--The Site Manager shall establish a program 
     at the Defense Nuclear Facility for testing environmental, 
     waste characterization and remediation technology at the 
     site. In establishing such a program, the Site Manager is 
     authorized to--
       (1) establish a simplified, standardized and timely process 
     for the testing and verification of new technologies;
       (2) solicit and accept applications to test environmental 
     technology suitable for waste management and environmental 
     restoration activities at Defense Nuclear Facilities, 
     including prevention, control, characterization, treatment, 
     and remediation of contamination; and
       (3) enter into cooperative agreements with other public and 
     private entities to test environmental technologies at the 
     Defense Nuclear Facility.
       (c) Safe Harbors.--At the request of the Site Manager, the 
     Secretary shall seek to provide regulatory or contractual 
     ``safe harbors'' to limit liability of companies using 
     technology approved for use at a Defense Nuclear Facility for 
     use at other Department of Energy facilities.
       (d) Nuclear Material.--When source, special nuclear, or by-
     product materials are involved, agreements with private 
     entities under section 9, subsection (b), shall--
       (1) provide indemnification pursuant to section 170d. of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d));
       (2) indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the contractor 
     from and against all liability, including liability for legal 
     costs, for any preexisting conditions at any part of the 
     Defense Nuclear Facility managed under the agreement;
       (3) indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the contractor 
     from and against all liability to third parties (including 
     liability for legal costs and for claims for personal injury, 
     illness, property damage, and consequential damages) arising 
     out of the contractor's performance under the contract, 
     unless such liability was caused by conduct of the contractor 
     which was grossly negligent or which constituted intentional 
     misconduct; and
       (4) provide for indemnification of subcontractors as 
     described in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3).

     SEC. 11. CONTRACT REFORM AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT.

       (a) Contracting Strategies.--The Site Manager, in entering 
     into and managing all contracts at Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     (including contracts for design, construction, operation and 
     maintenance of treatment, storage and disposal facilities), 
     may ensure effective, efficient and consistent implementation 
     of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (hereinafter in this 
     section referred to as ``FAR'') and the Federal Acquisition 
     Streamlining Act (hereinafter in this section referred to as 
     ``FASA'') requirements and shall--
       (1) encourage market-based management and practices;
       (2) maximize competition in new procurements;
       (3) maintain an effective capability to recompete existing 
     contracts;
       (4) maximize efficient and effective use of multiyear 
     contracting practices that enhance commercialization and 
     privatization;
       (5) maximize use of incentives and performance guarantees;
       (6) assure coordination and integration of all contractor-
     developed designs, plans, and schedules;
       (7) maximize application of best commercial standards and 
     specifications in all contracts;
       (8) consult to maximum extent possible, the host State 
     regarding contracting strategies and oversight, including 
     project plans, facility designs, and schedules and cost 
     estimates; and
       (9) maximize use of fixed-price contracts in lieu of cost-
     plus reimbursement contracts.
       (b) Multiyear Contracting.--The Site Manager is authorized 
     to enter into and implement multiyear contracts, in 
     accordance with FAR and FASA requirements and the provisions 
     of this Act for the design, construction, operation and 
     maintenance of treatment, storage and disposal facilities by 
     private entities. The Site Manager shall do so when the Site 
     Manager determines that such a contract will maximize public 
     resources and result in efficient and timely environmental 
     improvements. In entering into such a contract, the Site 
     Manager shall not jeopardize the funding of environmental 
     agreement obligations. The Site Manager may use Department of 
     Defense FAR multiyear funding and termination liability 
     procedures in lieu of civilian agency FAR procedures if the 
     Site Manager demonstrates this to be beneficial to the United 
     States.
       (c) Assistance in Improving Contracting Strategies and 
     Government Oversight.--The Site Manager shall obtain the 
     expertise necessary to implement performance oriented 
     incentive based contracting and procurement practices. To 
     accomplish this, the Site Manager may obtain the involvement 
     of qualified representatives from other Federal agencies in--
       (1) developing improved contracting strategies, and 
     participating in selection of contract sources; and
       (2) the oversight and administration of contracts.

     The Secretaries of involved agencies shall ensure selection 
     of qualified and knowledgeable representatives to assist and 
     advise the Site Manager. The Site Manager may also, to the 
     extent allowed by the FAR separately consult with the private 
     sector.

     SEC. 12. ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS NOT AFFECTED.

       Nothing in this Act shall impair the force or effect of any 
     environmental agreement, except to authorize re-negotiation 
     to incorporate the changes required to comply with provisions 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 13. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Two years after the effective date of this Act, and every 
     two years thereafter, the Site Manager for each Defense 
     Nuclear Facility subject to this Act shall submit to Congress 
     a report evaluating progress or cleanup made under the 
     provisions of this Act. The report shall identify 
     efficiencies achieved and moneys saved through implementation 
     of this Act and shall identify additional measures that would 
     increase the pace and lower the cost of environmental 
     management activities at the facility. The Site Manager shall 
     also report specific actions undertaken to implement business 
     and contracting strategies that maximize the use of fixed 
     price and incentive based contracting in lieu of cost 
     reimbursement contract arrangements. The Site Manager shall 
     also specify in his report the utility of commercial 
     standards, specifications and practices, as well as 
     improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal 
     contract oversight and administration activities within his 
     purview.

     SEC. 14. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT.

       Federal structures at a Defense Nuclear Facility smaller 
     than 100,000 square feet shall be exempt from the National 
     Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 and following) 
     unless the Site Manager deems these structures appropriate 
     for National Historic Preservation Act protection, and deems 
     that such action will not delay cleanup activities or 
     increase cleanup costs at the facility. National Historic 
     Preservation Act review for structures larger than 100,000 
     square feet shall be limited to no more than 30 days.

     SEC. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY.

       The Department of Energy Office of Environmental Health and 
     Safety shall enforce safety and health activities at Defense 
     Nuclear Facilities.

     SEC. 16. PRIVATIZATION OF WASTE CLEANUP AND MODERNIZATION 
                   ACTIVITIES OF DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES.

       (a) Contract Authority.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Site Manager may enter into 1 or more long-term contracts, 
     with a private entity located within 75 miles of a Defense 
     Nuclear Facility, for the procurement of products or services 
     that are determined by the Site Manager to be necessary to 
     support environmental management activities at such 
     facilities, including the design, construction, and operation 
     of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
       (b)  Contract Provisions.--A contract under subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) shall be for a term of not more than 30 years;
       (2) may include options for 2 extensions of not more than 5 
     years each;
       (3) when source, special nuclear, by-product, hazardous 
     materials are involved, shall include an agreement to--
       (A) provide indemnification pursuant to section 170d. of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d));
       (B) indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the contractor 
     from and against all liability (including liability to 3rd 
     parties for legal costs and for claims for personal injury, 
     illness, property damage, and consequential damages) relating 
     to pre-existing conditions at any part of the Defense Nuclear 
     Facility arising out of the contractor's performance under 
     the contract unless such liability was caused by conduct of 
     the contractor which was negligent or grossly negligent or 
     which constituted intentional misconduct; and
       (C) provide for indemnification of subcontractors as 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B);
       (4) shall permit the contractor to obtain a patent for and 
     use for commercial purposes a technology developed by the 
     contractor in the performance of the contract;
       (5) shall provide for fixed or performance based 
     compensation; and
       (6) shall include such other terms and conditions as the 
     Site Manager considers appropriate to protect the interests 
     of the United States.
       (c) Preference for Local Residents.--In entering into 
     contracts under subsection (a), the Site Manager shall give 
     preference, consistent with Federal, State, and local law, to 
     entities that plan to hire, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, residents in the vicinity of the Defense Nuclear 
     Facility who are employed or who have previously been 
     employed by the Department of Energy or a private contractor 
     at the facility.
       (d) Payment of Balance of Unamortized Costs.--
       (1) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``special facility'' means land, a depreciable building, 
     structure, or utility, or depreciable machinery, equipment, 
     or material that is not supplied to a contractor by the 
     Department.
       (2) Contract term.--A contract under subsection (a) may 
     provide that if the contract is terminated for the 
     convenience of the Government, the Secretary shall pay the 
     unamortized balance of the cost of any special facility 
     acquired or constructed by the contractor for performance of 
     the contract.
       (3) Source of funds.--The Secretary may make a payment 
     under a contract term described in paragraph (2) and pay any 
     other costs assumed by the Secretary as a result of 

[[Page S 10837]]
     the termination out of any appropriations that are available to the 
     Department of Energy for operating expenses, not including 
     funds allocated to environmental management activities at the 
     site, for the fiscal year in which the termination occurs or 
     for any subsequent fiscal year.
       (e) Limitation.--Funds appropriated pursuant to this or any 
     other Act enacted after the date of enactment of this Act may 
     be obligated for a contract under this section only--
       (1) to the extent or in such amounts as are provided in 
     advance in an appropriation Act, and
       (2) if such contract contains each of the following 
     provisions:
       (A) A statement that the obligation of the United States to 
     make payments under the contract in any fiscal year is 
     subject to appropriations being provided specifically for 
     that contract.
       (B) A commitment to obligate the necessary amount for each 
     fiscal year covered by the contract when and to the extent 
     that funds are appropriated for such contract for such fiscal 
     year.
       (C) A statement that such a commitment given under the 
     authority of this section does not constitute an obligation 
     of the United States.
       (f) Lease of Federally Owned Land.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Site Manager may lease federally owned land at a 
     Defense Nuclear Facility to a contractor in order to provide 
     for or to facilitate the construction of a facility in 
     connection with a contract under subsection (a).
       (2) Term.--The term of a lease under this paragraph may be 
     either the expected useful life of the facility to be 
     constructed, or the term of the contract.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--A lease under paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) require the contractor to pay rent in amounts that the 
     Site Manager considers to be appropriate; and
       (B) include such other terms and conditions as the Site 
     Manager considers to be appropriate.
       (g) Commercial Standards.--The Site Manager shall, whenever 
     practicable, apply commercial standards to contractors used 
     in the performance of a contract under subsection (a).

     SEC. 17. PREFERENCE AND ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION FOR 
                   COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL RESIDENTS.

       (a) Preference.--In entering into a contract or subcontract 
     with a private entity for products to be acquired or services 
     to be performed at a Defense Nuclear Facility, the Site 
     Manager and contractors under the Site Manager's supervision 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, give preference to 
     an entity that is otherwise qualified and within the 
     competitive range (as determined under section 15.609 of 
     title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, or a successor 
     regulation, as in effect on the date of the determination) 
     that plans will--
       (1) provide products and services originating from 
     communities within 75 miles of the facility;
       (2) avert, to the maximum extent practicable, the dismissal 
     of employees employed by the Department or a private 
     contractor at the facility, and protect, to the maximum 
     extent possible, the continuity of service and benefits of 
     such employees;
       (3) hire residents living in the vicinity of the facility, 
     especially residents who have previously been employed by the 
     Department or its contractors at the facility, to perform the 
     contract; and
       (4) invest in value-added activities in the vicinity of the 
     facility to mitigate adverse economic development impacts 
     resulting from closure or restructuring of the facility.
       (b) Applicability.--Preference shall be given under 
     subsection (b) only with respect to a contract for an 
     environmental management activity that is entered into after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 18. JURISDICTION.

       The United States District Court for the district in which 
     a Defense Nuclear Facility is located shall have exclusive 
     jurisdiction over any claims arising under this Act with 
     respect to such facility.

     SEC. 19. STABLE FUNDING.

       It is the sense of the Senate that stable levels of funding 
     are essential to carry out this Act. The Site Manager and the 
     President are encouraged to seek funding levels not lower 
     than that allocated during fiscal year 1996

     SEC. 20. EXPIRATION.

       The provisions of this Act shall expire 10 years after its 
     enactment, but Congress may review and revoke any provisions 
     of this Act after 5 years if Congress determines that 
     enactment of this Act has not accelerated cleanup or reduced 
     costs at the Defense Nuclear Facility.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Department of Energy's defense nuclear 
complex--and Hanford in particular--has been maligned and criticized 
long enough. Today, in a truly bipartisan spirit, my colleagues and I 
are offering substantive, workable, and dramatic solutions to the 
Nation's Environmental and Waste Management Program. Congressman 
Hastings and I have worked with Senator Murray, the State of 
Washington, and with the support of our delegation, to forge a creative 
new course for the Department of Energy and its massive cleanup 
operations. The old paradigm of bureaucratic cleanup is being tossed. 
Accountability and responsibility are the new standards to be employed 
at Hanford and other DOE sites. As most of us know, Hanford is no small 
problem--in complexity or cost. This amendment's foundations lie in 
four areas: Leadership, future land use, regulatory reform, and 
privatization. Those ideas have been cooperatively crafted into the 
legislation being introduced today. Let me emphasize some of Hanford's 
shortcomings, and how we have set out to correct them.


                               leadership

  DOE is plagued with a gaping absence of firm, decisive leadership. 
Likewise, Hanford and its communities suffer from an overabundance of 
committees, review processes, open-ended debates and rule by consensus, 
rather than decision. This process simply has not worked. Paper-
shuffling bureaucrats in Washington, DC try to manage, direct, and 
understand paper shuffling bureaucrats in Richland. Part of this is 
simply fear: Third party lawsuits, disproportional stakeholder 
influence, and uncertainty over DOE's future has driven management into 
circular uncertainty. If Richland can't do it, DC will--if DC is not to 
blame, then the field staff is at fault. Accountability seems to be 
lost and cleanup ultimately is left in a vapid holding pattern.
  This amendment changes the nature of leadership at Hanford and puts 
complete authority for cleanup decisions--and all other site 
operations--under the
 site manager's purview. To emphasize the importance of the task, and 
the quality of the person in charge, the President shall appoint the 
site manager for Hanford, with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
With this step, DOE headquarters is tacitly removed from the 
decisionmaking process. Accountability and responsibly are focused 
locally. There will be no room for excuses if the job is not being done 
promptly and properly.


                                Land Use

  Any attempt to deal with Hanford's cleanup problems must tackle the 
enigmatic, yet important, issue of how clean is clean. To determine how 
clean certain portions of land will be, you must decide thresholds of 
cleanliness, and ultimately determine what those lands will be used for 
once the job is finished. This amendment invests proportional authority 
for these decisions into local voices, as these are the people most 
affected by cleanup and future land use issues. Today the Federal 
Government has complete authority for the use, and final disposition, 
of 562 square miles in Washington State. We wanted to give local imput 
some teeth--more than merely an advisory role. To do that, we 
established a process that enables State and local representatives to 
be on equal footing with the Federal Government in land use decisions. 
In that vein, this amendment establishes a land use council to make 
difficult, yet essential, decisions on how clean portions of the site 
will be. Our amendment does not address final disposition of land, and 
specifically exempts the Hanford ALE and REACH from the land council's 
purview. This is a bold attempt to tackle what is perhaps the most 
contentious, and difficult, issue to address at Hanford and our other 
defense nuclear facilities.


                           regulatory reform

  Like the proverbial kitchen with too many cooks, DOE's defense 
nuclear facilities suffer from an overabundance of regulators--each 
with an agenda and each with the potential to make a job significantly 
more cumbersome than it needs to be. Contrary to rumors and unfounded, 
naive speculation, we are not gutting environmental or safety laws at 
Hanford. Indeed, we are streamlining
 the process. Under this amendment, Washington State becomes the sole 
regulator at Hanford--a job it is prepared, and capable, to do. We have 
worked closely with the Governor and attorney generals' offices to 
ensure the conditions under which Washington will accept these new 
responsibilities. Currently, three regulators govern site cleanup at 
Hanford: EPA, DOE, and Washington State. EPA, for example, has only 8 
employees at Hanford. A surprising statistic, yet its influence is 
disproportional to the role it plays. 

[[Page S 10838]]
The added presence of another regulator, however, forces DOE to follow 
many of the same regulations and processes Washington State already 
requires. One regulator simplifies the oversight role, and arguably 
increases safety, saves money, and assures compliance.


                             privatization

  As I have said many times in the past, engaging private sector know-
how will make for better, cheaper, quicker cleanup. He have included 
the major portions of the privatization bill I sponsored with 
Congressman Hastings. Privatization is not the only solution for 
Hanford's problems, as the rest of this amendment demonstrates. it is, 
however, a significant portion of how we are going to expedite fast 
cleanup for lower cost. There have been numerous statements of general 
support for privatization--this amendment codifies those abstract 
thoughts into concrete legislation. Provided it thinks clearly before 
it acts, DOE will truly benefit from the enhanced privatization tools 
it receives under the provisions of this Act.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today I am pleased to submit a 
substitute amendment with my colleagues, Senators Gorton, Hatfield, and 
Packwood, that I believe will dramatically improve the way business is 
done at the Hanford Reservation in Washington State.
  Hanford is the biggest, most toxic defense nuclear facility in the 
United States. Its recent annual budgets have cost American taxpayers 
almost $2 billion per year. Hanford is home to 80 percent of this 
Nation's spent plutonium. Its radioactive and other toxic materials are 
being stored in dangerous conditions and/or are already seeping into 
the ground water, toward the Columbia River. In other words, Hanford is 
a costly mess.
  Earlier this year, Senators Johnston and Murkowski introduced their 
vision of how to improve cleanup at Hanford. In S. 871, which this 
amends, they suggest abandoning the environmental agreement between the 
Federal Government and the State of Washington and allowing the 
Department of
 Energy to establish its own cleanup agenda and environmental 
standards. We cannot support that approach because we believe the 
people of the region must have a say in the way cleanup is conducted. 
The people of the Tri-Cities proudly built Hanford; they deserve a role 
in restoring Hanford.

  So, we take a different approach and offer a comprehensive bill 
addressing many issue impacting the cost and speed of cleanup at 
Hanford. The most fundamental and sweeping concept of the bill is its 
emphasis on increasing the role of the State in regulating cleanup. We 
create a single regulator primarily applying a single law: The State 
assumes jurisdiction of CERCLA, or Superfund. The amendment also 
reaffirms the Tri-Party Agreement, ensuring the people of the Tri-
Cities and Washington State continue to have a voice in Hanford cleanup 
and restoration.
  Anther important aspect of this amendment is its emphasis on the 
adjacent community and its stability. The people of the Tri-Cities have 
worked hard to help America win the cold war. They have sacrificed 
their environment and given of their working lives. This amendment 
encourages new companies to provide a continuity of benefits and 
preferential hiring to former site employees. It urges private 
contracts to be let to companies based in the area. It also encourages 
greater privatization and commercialization of new technologies in 
order to attract new businesses to the area--and then keep those 
companies there after cleanup is completed.
  The amendment contains several other concepts I would like to 
emphasize. It streamline decisionmaking by giving a presidentially-
appointed site manager significantly more authority to make decisions, 
transfer money, negotiate contracts, waive duplicative regulations, 
manage personnel, and select cleanup remedies. The amendment also 
establishes a land use council to help define cleanup objectives and 
standards for areas on the Superfund national priorities list. Finally, 
it urges a stable level of funding for cleanup to allow long-term 
planning.
  I want to conclude by saying that this truly is a bipartisan 
amendment. We elected officials, Democrats and Republicans representing 
both State and Federal Government, put our energy together to find 
solutions to the problems facing Hanford. We worked long and hard and 
none of us got everything we wanted. Had I been the sole author of this 
amendment, it would have been a different bill. However, I strongly 
support most of this amendment and believe it will hasten cleanup and 
benefit the people we represent--and the people who elected us and this 
Nation's taxpayers. I look forward to continuing to work with my 
colleagues in the Senate and with Representatives Hastings and Dicks, 
Governor Lowry, and Attorney General Gregoire to push this amendment 
and make it the law.


                          ____________________