STATEMENT OF HERBERT FROST, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES REGARDING S. 3300, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE MANHATTAN PROJECT NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK IN OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO, AND HANFORD, WASHINGTON, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
JUNE 27, 2012
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 3300, a bill to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington, and for other purposes.
The Administration supports S. 3300. The development of the atomic bomb through the Manhattan Project was one of the most transformative events in our nation's history: it ushered in the atomic age, changed the role of the United States in the world community, and set the stage for the Cold War. This legislation would enable the National Park Service to work in partnership with Department of Energy to ensure the preservation of key resources associated with the Manhattan Project and to increase public awareness and understanding of this consequential effort.
S. 3300 would require the establishment of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System within one year of enactment, during which time the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Energy would enter into an agreement on the respective roles of the two departments. The unit would consist of one or more named resources located in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, or Hanford. The National Historical Park would be established by the Secretary of the Interior by publication of a Federal Register notice within 30 days after the agreement is made between the two secretaries.
The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the named resources in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, or Hanford. It would also allow the Secretary to acquire land in the vicinity of the park for visitor and administrative facilities. The bill would provide authority for the Secretary to enter into agreements with other Federal agencies to provide public access to, and management, interpretation, and historic preservation of, historically significant resources associated with the Manhattan Project; to provide technical assistance for Manhattan Project resources not included within the park; and to enter into cooperative agreements and accept donations related to park purposes. The Secretary of Energy would be authorized to accept donations to help preserve and provide access to Manhattan Project resources.
S. 3300 is based on the recommendations developed through the special resource study for the Manhattan Project Sites that was authorized by Congress in 2004 and transmitted to Congress in July 2011. The study, which was conducted by the National Park Service in consultation with the Department of Energy, determined that resources at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Hanford, met the National Park Service's criteria of national significance, suitability, feasibility, and the need for Federal management for designation as a unit of the National Park System. S. 3300 assigns the respective roles and responsibilities of the National Park Service and the Department of Energy as envisioned in the study: the National Park Service would use its expertise in the areas of interpretation and education to increase public awareness and understanding of the story, while the Department of Energy would maintain full responsibility for operations, maintenance, and preservation of historic Manhattan Project properties already under its jurisdiction, along with full responsibility for any environmental and safety hazards related to the properties.
Because the Department of Energy would maintain and operate the primary facilities associated with the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, the study estimated that the National Park Service's annual operation and maintenance costs for the three sites together would range from $2.45 million to $4 million. It also estimated that completing the General Management Plan for the park would cost an estimated $750,000. Costs of acquiring lands or interests in land, or developing facilities, would be estimated during the development of the General Management Plan. The Department of Energy has not yet assessed fully the operational difficulties in terms of security and public health and safety, applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and the potential new cost of national park designation at the sensitive national security and cleanup sites.
The Department anticipates that the initial agreement between the two departments likely would be fairly limited in scope, given the bill's one-year timeframe for executing an agreement that would enable the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. We appreciate the language specifically providing for amendments to the agreement and a broad range of authorities for the Secretary of the Interior, as these provisions would give the National Park Service the flexibility to shape the park over time and to maximize the promotion of education and interpretation related to the park's purpose.
The flexibility is particularly important because managing a park with such complex resources, in partnership with another Federal agency, at three sites across the country, will likely bring unanticipated challenges. Fortunately, we have already begun a partnership with the Department of Energy regarding the Manhattan Project resources through our coordinated work on the study. If this legislation is enacted, we look forward to building a stronger partnership that will enable us to meet the challenges ahead.
While we support S. 3300, there are some areas where we would like to recommend amendments, and we are continuing to review the bill for any technical issues. We would be happy to work with the committee to develop the appropriate language and will provide our recommendations in the near future.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.