ECA Update: July 26, 2013
Published: Fri, 07/26/13
|
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) called for immediate action to preserve Hanford's B Reactor as part of a new Manhattan Project National Historical Park. Cantwell said that a backlog in National Park Service maintenance should not stop the creation of a new park at Hanford.
Cantwell sponsored the bipartisan Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act (S. 507) that would preserve Hanford's B Reactor as part of a new National Historical Park. The bipartisan legislation is led by Cantwell and ENR Committee member Lamar Alexander (R-TN). Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) are original cosponsors of the bill, along with ENR Committee member Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM).
During today's hearing, Cantwell also noted how National Parks can attract tourism and support economic development. The Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau estimates that B Reactor tourism will bring more than $1 million to the local economy in direct visitor spending annually.
"Do I think we should stop creating national parks because of what somebody thinks about the maintenance backlog? No," said Cantwell during the hearing. "I want to commemorate what happened at Hanford and various parts of what we've done across the country. I certainly am not going to have the attitude that we're not going to do any new park until the maintenance backlog is caught up."
In response to a question from Cantwell about preserving the B Reactor, National Parks Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis said: "My theory on new units is that history doesn't stop just because you have an economic challenge. The National Park Service has been challenged and charged by this body for almost 100 years to take care of not only the extraordinary -- the crown jewels such as the Grand Canyon and the Grand Tetons, and Yosemite -- but also historical sites that are representative of the full American experience.
"And that story is incomplete," Jarvis continued. "The B Reactor is a perfect example of that, in that it tells an incredibly important story about this country and its leadership and the development of the atomic bomb and its role in ending World War II."
Video of Cantwell's statement available here.
The S. 507 bill would create a National Historical Park at Manhattan Project-related sites at Hanford as well as Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Los Alamos, N.M. The Hanford sites that would be included in the new park include the historic B Reactor, the first full-scale nuclear reactor ever built. A National Historical Park designation would give Hanford sites the same status as Independence Hall, Valley Forge and Abraham Lincoln's birthplace. Congressman Doc Hastings (R-WA-04), Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, oversees the committee of jurisdiction on the House side and has introduced similar legislation (H.R. 1208).
"Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Senator Cantwell for bringing up the Manhattan proposed park," said Senator Heinrich at today's hearing. "I think that's something that I heard consistently from the community of Los Alamos and the surrounding communities, how important that is to their history. I think Director Jarvis will find a very willing partner in those communities to make sure that we do a good job of stewarding that resource and making sure the Park Services has the resources they need and the support they in the community to create that new park unit."
The Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau estimates that B Reactor tourism will bring more than $1 million to the local economy in direct visitor spending annually. The Department of Energy expects 10,000 people to visit the B Reactor this year. Since opening to the public for the first time, more than 20,000 visitors have toured the B Reactor from all 50 states and more than 48 countries.
Cantwell introduced the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act earlier this year with Senators Alexander (R-TN), Heinrich (D-NM), Murray (D-WA) and Udall (D-NM). The bill would create a National Historical Park at Manhattan Project-related sites such as Hanford's B Reactor as well as Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Los Alamos, N.M. A National Historical Park designation would give Hanford sites the same status as Independence Hall, Valley Forge and Abraham Lincoln's birthplace.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources approved the legislation by voice vote on May 16. It is now ready for consideration by the full Senate. On June 14, the House approved amendments authored by Congressman Doc Hastings (R-WA-04) to establish a Manhattan Project National Historical Park.
Since 2003, Cantwell, Patty Murray (D-WA) and Hastings have advocated for the historic preservation of Hanford's B Reactor. In 2004, they championed legislation into law directing the National Park Service to conduct a study on the potential for developing and utilizing the B Reactor and other Manhattan Project facilities as historical sites. That study, finalized in 2011, laid the groundwork for today's effort to preserve the B Reactor.
Highlights from today's hearing follows.
Senator Maria Cantwell: My colleague Senator Alexander and I have been sponsors of the creation of a new park for the B Reactor. It's celebrating scientific excellence that our country achieved and preserving that between the Department of Energy and the department.
Do I think we should stop creating national parks because what somebody thinks about the maintenance backlog? No. I want to commemorate what happened at Hanford and various parts of what we've done across the country. I certainly am not going to have the attitude that we're not going to do any new park until the maintenance backlog is caught up.
And so I guess I just believe our generation's challenge is to be good stewards. These are our decisions forever and ever. These are our decisions to be good stewards for the next generation. So I would hope you comment on: (1) the continuation of the B Reactor Park, and (2) the economic impact that we are seeing from sequestration on our national parks and what else we can do to help our colleagues illuminate that it really will impact jobs and impact small-town economies across our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Honorable Jonathan B. Jarvis: My theory on new units is that history doesn't stop just because you have an economic challenge. The National Park Service has been challenged and charged by this body for almost 100 years to take care of not only the extraordinary the crown jewels such as the Grand Canyon and the Grand Tetons, and Yosemite, but also historical sites that are representative of the full American experience.
And that story is incomplete. The B Reactor is a perfect example of that, in that it tells an incredibly important story about this country and its leadership and the development of the atomic bomb and its role in ending World War II. It is the same thing with Harriet Tubman or the story of Fort Monroe in Virginia.
Now, what's different about these new sites is that the National Park Service goes into it knowing we have extraordinary economic challenges, so we look for partners. And certainly with the B Reactor, we have the Department of Energy, we have the communities and others to work with us. We go in and attempt to minimize the direct responsibilities of the National Park Service that would add to our maintenance backlog, but recognize we also want to be a part of the stories that tell the American experience.
Cantwell: Mr. Sherman, my time is expired, but I want to point out last time I visited Grand Teton I was so surprised walking down the street how little English I heard being spoken. We think of these as our crown jewels, but this is an international tourist area that supposedly generates $436 million of benefit to the local economy. So these are huge economic resources. I hope that we will track as a committee these gateway communities, the local economic impact of what sequestration is doing. I think we have to be very smart about living within our means but as you pointed out sequestration's impact is across the board, and not giving you the flexibility to do something that might have less impact on those local communities. I thank the Chairman. I thank Director Jarvis.
...
Senator Ron Wyden: I would also note, by way of doing a little advertising as well, that Senator Cantwell's bill on the B Reactor is right now part of the hotline underway. Senator Cantwell's bill, and Chairman Doc Hastings, and Senator Alexander, and Senator Heinrich, so urge all colleagues on both sides of the aisle to clear this very fine piece of legislation.
Senator Martin Heinrich: Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Senator Cantwell for bringing up the Manhattan proposed park. I think that's something that I heard consistently from the community of Los Alamos and the surrounding communities, how important that is to their history. I think Director Jarvis will find a very willing partner in those communities to make sure that we do a good job of stewarding that resource and making sure the Park Services has the resources they need and the support they in the community to create that new park unit.
I want to thank Senator Cantwell for bringing up the issue of just how important these recreation jobs are. In New Mexico it is not inconsequential to have 68,000 jobs tied directly to outdoor recreation, and certainly the impact of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Petroglyph National Monument in Albuquerque. Places like Bandelier, next to Bandelier National Monument next to Los Alamos, these are major draws to people across the country and around the world that come to New Mexico and drive our local economy.
Senate Hearing to consider the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013 (S. 1240) on July 30
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1240, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013.
The hearing will be webcast live on the committee's website, and an archived video will be available shortly after the hearing is complete. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing.
House Hearing on Oversight of DOE's Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste on July 31
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
The Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy will hold a hearing on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled "Oversight of DOE's Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste." Witnesses will be announced and are by invitation only, and the hearing webcast will be available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/.
Congress Looks Headed for Another CR
Billy House and Michael Catalini, National Journal
July 23, 2013
Billy House and Michael Catalini, National Journal
July 23, 2013
The continuing resolution, which is supposed to be a temporary legislative fallback when Congress can't agree on bills to keep government operating, appears on the verge of getting a bit more permanent.
Lost in all the Senate Republican threats this week to block a continuing resolution to keep government funded beyond the end of the current fiscal year--unless such a measure unwinds funding for Obamacare, they say--is the surprisingly casual nature in which many lawmakers now seem to be conceding that a temporary measure will again be necessary.
"Responsibility is in short supply," House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday, addressing the prospect of the Senate and House reaching agreement on any of the 12 annual spending bills.
And so is time. The reality is that Congress will leave for its traditional August break next week, and there are only nine scheduled legislative days in September before the current resolution expires with the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
What has yet to be determined is exactly what level of spending will be included in a new resolution, how many government areas will be rolled into it, how the latest sequester cuts will be addressed, and the length of time that it will cover. One month? Two months? A year?
The House and Senate have yet to go to conference on a budget blueprint. Officially, leaders in both chambers remain bullish on their respective--and highly divergent--paths on appropriations bills. House Republicans argue they're letting the legislative process play out and reject the notion that a continuing resolution is a foregone conclusion.
"That's why we're passing appropriations bills, and we believe the Senate should do the same," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R‑Ohio. "The House continues to act on appropriations bills in regular order. If House Democratic leaders have concerns, they should be [discussing] them with Senate Democratic leaders."
The Senate is expected to vote on passage of its first bill this week, and the House was expected to be voting on its fourth this week, the annual defense spending bill. Other bills are in line for markups.
"I think these appropriation bills are largely about message," Hoyer said.
But the messaging is coming from both sides of the Capitol. An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says he acknowledges the disconnect between staying bullish on the appropriations process and the likelihood that a continuing resolution will be the vehicle for keeping the government funded. "But the process has to play out. I can't tell you what's going to happen in two months," the aide said.
Still, Senate Democrats plan to stick with their $1.058 trillion figure for discretionary spending. That figure reflects the Democratic budget that undoes sequestration and is at odds with Senate Republicans' $967 billion topline figure, a figure President Obama has said he would veto in appropriations bills.
As for the Pentagon spending bill, usually an area where the parties can find agreement, they are notably far apart. While Republicans and Democrats agree that the cuts to the Pentagon are likely to become more damaging in the next two years, they disagree about how to proceed.
Republicans aim to roll back sequestration's effects on defense, and cut more deeply into domestic spending. Democrats want to undo the sequester across the board.
This dynamic, the aide said, explains why Reid and the Senate Appropriations Committee itself have been reluctant to begin with Defense appropriations. By completing a rollback of sequestration on Pentagon spending, Democrats would then lose Republican support for undoing the cuts elsewhere in the government, the aide said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., doubled down on his view that sequestration should remain in place, a sign of just how far apart his conference and the majority are.
"My view is we should do what we promised two years ago," he said. "And that will be my goal going into the final discussions."
As for the time frame, aides say the likelihood is that any temporary spending measure would be short enough to leave longer-range spending discussions for the debt-ceiling talks. That makes it doubtful a resolution would cover the entire year. Many say it is likely to be no longer than 60 days but no shorter than 30.
Debt ceiling drama returns
Jake Sherman and Burgess Everett, Politico
July 23, 2013
Warnings from the White House, Wall Street and the world economic community be damned: Debt ceiling drama is back.
The rapidly approaching fight over lifting the nation's borrowing limit won't only pit Republicans against President Barack Obama but also pit Republicans against Republicans.
One example of the GOP tension: Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and several other Senate Republicans are hoping to strike a large-scale fiscal deal with Democrats and the White House to reform entitlements, the Tax Code, fund the government and infrastructure projects, and most important, blunt sequester cuts. They met with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough again Tuesday.
But Rep. Paul Ryan, who is taking a lead in crafting the House Republican debt plan, wants nothing to do with it.
"It doesn't matter -- we're not going to do what they want to do," the Wisconsin Republican told POLITICO when asked about Senate Republicans' plan for the debt ceiling. "It really doesn't matter what they do. It doesn't matter what John McCain and others do on the taxes and the rest. If they want to give up taxes for the sequester, we're not going to do that. So it doesn't really affect us."
Once again, Washington is waltzing toward calamity with no clear strategy. In the next six months, however, Congress and the White House will need to raise the nation's borrowing limit to avoid a debt default and downgrade. Congressional sources say the nation will hit its borrowing limit anytime from October to the end of 2013.
At this point, some Senate Republicans appear to be in a deal-making mood -- endangering the nation's creditworthiness runs counter to cultivating an image of a party that wants to get things done.
But House Republican leaders have been telling their members for months that the debt ceiling is where they should pick their fight with the White House. As if they were reading off cue cards, several leading House Republicans inside and outside leadership say there are loads of GOP lawmakers who are perfectly willing to gamble with default.
The dynamics are set for a nasty fall fight.
At this point, leadership positions in both chambers are clear. Senate Democrats say the borrowing cap needs to be lifted without any corresponding spending cuts.
"We are not negotiating on the debt ceiling," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Tuesday. "The president's said this, I've said it and I don't know how many more times we need to say that."
In a familiar refrain, House Speaker John Boehner is already saying he needs "significant cuts in spending" to lift the debt ceiling. The Ohio Republican says the so-called Boehner rule -- a hike in the debt ceiling must be matched by equal cuts and reforms -- is the "right formula."
From there on out, the positions quickly unravel.
People in and around Boehner's leadership team privately tell POLITICO that the sooner the party moves away from the dollar-for-dollar mantra, the better off Republicans will be in negotiations with both the Senate and the White House. Boehner's aides maintain that "reforms" to certain laws would qualify under his standard.
And that's where GOP leadership is currently heading. House Republicans are deathly afraid of being jammed by their Senate GOP colleagues and feel that they have to pass a bill before the emerging bipartisan governing coalition in the upper chamber comes to an agreement and sends it their way.
At this point, the most likely scenario is that the House will pass a bill as an opening gambit that, in some way, combines tax reform and a new energy policy that the GOP hopes will set the nation on a path toward energy independence, according to sources familiar with House GOP planning. This way, House Republicans establish their position and try to avoid having to accept a bill worked out by Senate Republicans and the White House.
"I'm always worried about the Senate Republicans after what they've done," said New Jersey Rep. Scott Garrett, a leading lawmaker in the Republican Study Committee.
Most Senate Republicans embrace the general idea of reining in entitlement spending and keeping -- or even expanding -- the sequester cuts. Few like raising revenue -- something the White House is sure to demand.
"Our main goal going into the year-end discussion is to not walk away from the bipartisan agreement that we made two years ago to reduce spending," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of the 2011 Budget Control Act. "And that unfortunately had to be done by the sequester. But the sequester is the law."
Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, a member of GOP leadership, said: "We need to make sure that we cut spending, not increase taxes.
Graham, who is in talks with the White House, said it's a good sign people are beginning to engage on a deal in these early stages.
"We're talking at different levels about Tax Code reform, entitlement reform, infrastructure packages. What do we have to do? I think we have to fund the government, we have to raise the debt ceiling, or at least talk about raising the debt ceiling. Anything that's going to happen, happens around those two issues," Graham said Tuesday. "The fact that so many people are talking about how to get ready for these events is a bit encouraging."
But Republicans like Rep. Steve King of Iowa and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida show how difficult it will be to satisfy the right. In exchange for hiking the debt ceiling, Rubio wants a plan to balance the budget in the next decade. King wants a balanced-budget amendment sent to the states -- or a repeal of Obamacare.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has a laundry list of asks.
"We have all kinds of options," Johnson told POLITICO. "I certainly want to take a look at what we can do in terms of removing from the health care legislation the most damaging parts ... We should really repeal the medical device tax" and allow states to opt out of Obamacare.
Although no decisions have been made about how to proceed, preliminary discussions among House leaders have led to additional clarity. First, the preference now in leadership circles is to have one debt ceiling hike instead of several short-term debt-cap hikes. Moving several bills would present stiff challenges to those trying to gather 218 GOP votes.
Although they once toyed with releasing a debt-limit plan before August, Republicans now say there's no reason, since the borrowing limit might slip until the end of 2013.
The lack of certainty among Republicans about the right approach is somewhat stunning. In January, House Republicans used most of a legislative retreat to reorder the year's fiscal fights to their advantage. Increased revenues and an improved economic picture ruined that plan, pushing the debt ceiling fight from this summer until the fall or winter.
House Democrats are watching these contortions with some disbelief. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said "this is as serious a challenge on fiscal matters as I've seen." New Jersey Rep. Rob Andrews, who has been Democratic negotiator on previous deals, said Republicans will fold in this fight.
"I think there will be an omnibus appropriations bill, an extension of the debt ceiling, a fix to the sequester as part of that compromise," he said.
As for Ryan's criticism of McCain's plans, the Arizona Republican said he thinks he could sell the House on whatever he comes up with.
"It's kind of chicken or egg," he told POLITICO. "Do you want to negotiate with them first or do you want to come up with a proposal and try to sell it, like we're doing with immigration? You need to keep in constant communication with the House so that they don't feel left out of anything."
History of the Atom Bomb Goes Online
Bob Brewin, Nextgov
July 25, 2013
The Department of Energy has started to post online the internal history of the first atomic bombs.
It was commissioned by Lt. Gen Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, which managed the nationwide complex of labs and factories that developed and produced the raw material for the first atom bombs in a crash three-year project that eventually employed 130,000 people and cost $26 billion in current dollars.
The Manhattan District History consists of 36 volumes grouped in eight books, with a third of the volumes, or parts of volumes, still classified. DoE said the rest of the volumes have been declassified, with some made available to the public on microfilm.
One of the online documents offers fascinating insights into Operation Peppermint, which aimed to determine whether the Germans had developed a radiological weapon, using among other things film distributed to troops to detect radiation fogging.
The bulk of the online collections detail development of the Oak Ridge, Tenn., gaseous diffusion plant to produce Uranium-235 and the Hanford, Wash., plutonium plant. Hanford was so large - 586 square miles - that it gobbled up towns, farms and orchards, with federal prisoners tasked to operate the farms and orchards, an interesting fact gleaned from the online histories.
DoE said its Office of Classification and the Office of History and Heritage Resources, in collaboration with the department's Office of Science and Technical Information, have committed to making the full text of the entire thirty-six volume Manhattan District History available online. Unclassified and declassified volumes will be scanned and posted as available, DoE said.
Classified volumes will be declassified with redactions, and the remaining unclassified parts made available to the public, posted incrementally as review and processing is completed.
Kudos to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy for unearthing these historical nuggets.
Los Alamos Offers Glimpse Into Early Cold-War Nuke Vault
Global Security Newswire
July 25, 2013
Officials at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico have given the public a first look at the oldest-ever storage facility for nuclear-bomb material, the Albuquerque Journal reported on Wednesday.
The "Tunnel Vault" served as the nation's sole repository for the "pits, cores and components" of nuclear arms for about nine months following World War II. It then stored bomb-usable components until 2001, when officials emptied it out in reaction to a nearby wildfire.
The subterranean complex became a top-secret historical display in 2004 and remained classified until the United States acknowledged its existence last year.
Los Alamos last week released a YouTube video of the secured storage area to mark the 70th year since the laboratory's founding.
SRS could miss nuclear waste cleanup deadlines
Rob Pavey, The Augusta Chronicle
July 19, 2013
Federal budget cuts could push Savannah River Site out of compliance with radioactive waste cleanup commitments made to South Carolina.
The commitments - outlined in a federal facilities agreement between the Energy Department and South Carolina's Department of Health & Environmental Control - include schedules for closing 47 underground storage tanks filled with Cold War nuclear waste.
David Moody, the Energy Department's site manager, said state officials have been advised that reduced federal budgets could put the department out of compliance with the agreement as early as 2015, and almost certainly by 2016.
Originally, there were 51 underground tanks at the site. Two were closed in the 1990s, and two more were closed last year, with efforts underway to complete the closure of two more tanks this year.
Closure involves emptying the tanks, processing the waste and filling in the aging, carbon-steel vats with a specialized grout. Each tank is 86 feet across and 44 feet deep, and all are buried 10 to 12 feet below ground level.
During a forum at Aiken Technical College earlier this week, Moody said there are funds available to complete the closure of the two tanks this year, including the final grout process.
"What we've started communicating is that we may not have the funds to grout and close the next tanks," he said.
A possible change under discussion with South Carolina involves using available funds in 2014 and 2015 to clean out the tanks and process the waste, but to postpone the final grouting process until more funds are available.
"We are looking for opportunities to continue risk reduction but with a different approach," Moody said.
The final grouting process is time-consuming and expensive.
"It's like filling two high school gymnasiums with concrete," Moody said.
If the grouting is postponed, failure to complete the closures on time could violate the agreement.
"Technically, versus the federal facilities agreement, we could be out of compliance with cleaning and closing tanks perhaps as early as '15 and certainly by '16," Moody said.
Such delays would also lengthen the overall tank cleanup and closure program by several years. Current estimates place the completion date at 2042 with an approximate cost of $60 billion.
Advisory board opposes SRS as nuclear waste venue
Rob Pavey, The Augusta Chronicle
July 23, 2013
Savannah River Site's Citizens Advisory Board adopted a position paper Tuesday opposing SRS' future use as a storage site for spent nuclear fuel.
"Future generations of South Carolinians and Georgians will not be well served by having the Savannah River Site become an interim storage site for commercial nuclear waste, and for what will be an undetermined length of time," the position paper stated.
Its adoption in a 17-6 vote followed debate in recent weeks during which South Carolina's Sierra Club and other groups lobbied against using the site to store commercial nuclear waste once destined for the defunct Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada.
"This vote firmly established that the community is on a track to reject any formal proposal to store highly radioactive commercial spent fuel at SRS," said Tom Clements, the Southeastern Nuclear Campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
Washington's cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project left the nation without a final resting place for about 75,000 tons of spent fuel that continues to accumulate at the nation's 104 commercial power reactors.
A federal committee has proposed "consolidated, interim storage" as an alternative, and SRS has been discussed as a possible location.
According to a $200,000 study commissioned by the SRS Community Reuse Organization, the Aiken County site's nuclear expertise and infrastructure could fulfil the needs of an interim storage program, while bringing jobs and economic benefits to the region.
The advisory board's position paper, however, stated that there are no data supporting an assumption that a repository superior to Yucca Mountain will ever be identified.
"In addition, the $13 billion ... already spent to build the Yucca Mountain facility will be totally lost if a different site is selected," the group said. "Considering the current national debt and budget deficit, it is unlikely that adequate funding will be available."
Clements said the advisory board's position is politically important, in part because a proposed law that would create a federal Nuclear Waste Administration calls for "consent-based siting" in which communities affected by waste storage would have a high level of influence.
David Allen named to top safety position at DOE's Oak Ridge Office
DOE Oak Ridge Office
July 25, 2013
David Allen has been named assistant manager for Safety and Technical Services at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Office.
In this federal senior executive service position, Allen will report directly to the ORO manager and will be responsible for managing the performance of technical support in the areas of environment, safety and health, or ES&H; quality assurance; and engineering provided to multiple DOE site offices nationwide under the control of the department's Office of Science Integrated Support Center.
"David is a highly qualified, technical leader with many years of experience in the area of safety, which is clearly something the Department of Energy takes very seriously," said ORO Manager Larry Kelly. "I look forward to David's insight and guidance as we continue our mission of ensuring that the agency's projects are completed in a safe and environmentally responsible manner."
Allen's career with DOE-ORO spans nearly 30 years. Since 2003, he has served as ORO director of the Engineering and ISC Services Division, which is responsible for providing technical support in the areas of ES&H, quality management, and engineering, to ORO programs and serving as the liaison for ES&H support to DOE Office of Science laboratories throughout the U.S. Prior to that position, he served in positions at ORO as corporate support team leader in the ES&H Division, branch chief of the Environmental Operations Branch, and site manager for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Ky.
Prior to his DOE career, he worked for the Tennessee Valley Authority as facility safety engineer at the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, and lead mechanical engineer at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.
Allen is a certified Integrated Safety Management verification team leader, has chaired numerous DOE Accident Investigation Boards, and has led and participated on multiple SC ISM and Contractor Assurance System Implementation Assessments.
Allen holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Kentucky in Lexington, with an emphasis in nuclear engineering. He is a licensed professional engineer, a registered environmental manager, and qualified as a senior technical safety manager.
In his spare time, he is an avid distance runner competing in a variety of races. Allen and his wife, Connie, live in Andersonville. They have five children, Sara, 26; Emily, 23; David, 22; Rachael, 20; and Ethan, 17; and they are the proud grandparents of two new grandchildren, Summer, 20 months, and Riley, 1 month.
 |
|
More Information |
|
To help ensure that you receive all email with images correctly displayed, please add [email protected] to your address book or contact list |
|
to the ECA Email Server |
|
If you have trouble viewing this email, view the online version |