Passed in House, Manhattan Project Park amendment falls short in Senate

Posted at 6:48 pm December 11, 2013
By John Huotari 6 Comments

Now mostly demolished, the former mile-long, U-shaped K-25 Building is pictured above. The site could be included in a Manhattan Project National Historical Park. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy)

The legislation to create a Manhattan Project National Park that would include Oak Ridge has fallen short in the U.S. Senate, but the representative from Washington state who wrote the House amendment vowed to press ahead next year.

The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. But it was not included in the final text of the defense bill released late Tuesday night, said U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, the Washington Republican who wrote the amendment.

Besides Oak Ridge, the park would include Hanford, Wash., and Los Alamos, N.M. The three cities played key roles in the Manhattan Project, a top-secret program to build the world’s first atomic weapons during World War II.

“I’m disappointed, but not deterred,” said Hastings, chair of the House Natural Resources Committee. “To all the advocates for this park: You’ve given great energy, enthusiasm, and expertise to this effort to date, and I know that will continue until our goal is accomplished, which I am confident it will ultimately be.”

Building 9731 at Y-12 could also be included in the Manhattan Project park. The Manhattan Project was a top-secret federal program to build the world’s first atomic weapons during World War II.

Hastings said the defense bill must be passed by the House and Senate before it can be signed into law. The congressman had a separate amendment for a small transfer of Hanford land.

“The annual defense bill represented the best chance to actually achieve these community priorities this year, and it’s unfortunate that the opportunity has been wasted by the Senate,” Hastings said. “The Senate’s failure to even pass an annual defense bill complicated the ability to get this accomplished, but it could have still happened except for the unwillingness of the Senate to simply agree to include the new park in the final bill and complete the land transfer.”

Cindy Kelly, president of the Atomic Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., called the failed amendment a golden opportunity that had been fumbled, the victim of legislative negotiations that got bogged down.

“The process moved on, and we were left on the cutting room floor,” Kelly said Wednesday evening.

The Manhattan Project National Historical Park would include the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (Submitted photo)

Among other things, there had been 507 amendments proposed to the NDAA, and legislators only wanted amendments that came up through the Armed Services Committee.

“Ours was kind of a casualty, at least on the Senate side,” Kelly said.

But the good news is that there is a lot of support for the legislation in both the House and Senate and in the committees of jurisdiction, she said.

Hastings has already promised to get the bill in next year’s NDAA, Kelly said. It’s been ruled germane to that legislation because of the Army’s role in the Manhattan Project and because the top-secret wartime effort led to nuclear weapons.

The bill also failed last year, but that was an end of a session.

“We’re a lot closer this time around than last year because it did go through the House,” Kelly said.

The current session of Congress continues next year, so the bill won’t have to be reintroduced or go back through committees, Kelly said. She said the House and Senate versions of the bill are 97 percent the same.

“This setback is just a minor blip,” Kelly said. “We have all the support that we need.”

Hastings said the House will begin work on its 2015 National Defense Authorization Act in the next few months, and he will keep pushing ahead next year to “again include these priorities in the House bill and provide the Senate another opportunity to do the right thing and get this done.”

In Oak Ridge, the park could include the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Beta 3 Building and 9731 at the Y-12 National Security Complex, and the K-25 site at East Tennessee Technology Park. ORNL, Y-12, and ETTP are U.S. Department of Energy or National Nuclear Security Administration sites. The NNSA is an independent agency within DOE.

The park could also include the B Reactor in Hanford, and the Oppenheimer House, V-Site, and Gun Site in Los Alamos.

See a previous story and guest column here and here.

More information will be added as it becomes available.

Note: This story was last updated at 9 a.m. Dec. 12.

If you haven't already, please consider subscribing to Oak Ridge Today. You don't have to subscribe to read our stories, but your subscription will help us cover local news for you day and night, as best we can. You can subscribe for as little as $5 per month. You can read more about your options here.

Thank you for your consideration and for reading Oak Ridge Today. We appreciate your support.

If you prefer to send a check, you may do so by mailing one to:

Oak Ridge Today

P.O. Box 6064

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

You can also contribute without a monthly subscription, through a one-time contribution below.

We welcome comments, but we ask you to follow a few guidelines:

1) Please use your real name, including last name. Please also use a valid e-mail address.
2) Be civil. Don't insult others, attack their character, or get personal.
3) Stick to the issues.
4) No profanity.
5) Keep your comments to a reasonable length and to a reasonable number per article.

We reserve the right to remove any comments that violate these guidelines. Comments held for review, usually from those posting for the first time, may not post if they violate these guidelines. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Thank you also for reading Oak Ridge Today and for participating in the discussion.

More information is available here.

Greg Mello

Dear John —

This is the second piece in the last two or three days (the first was in WA state) that failed to mention the opposition in the Senate from six Republican senators. Here in New Mexico, there is opposition not just from citizens but also from Santa Fe New Mexican editorial board,publishing for the metro area that includes Los Alamos.

In many peoples’ view including our organization’s, the proposal is ideologically driven and serves as a propaganda front for contractors. We think it lies far outside the Park Service mission, and is a bad use of scarce taxpayer dollars, especially given the huge backlog of maintenance in our national parks. Much of what the public takes for granted in these parks won’t be there for long without more money than is presently available. The proposed Manhattan Project Park is also an administrative nightmare. The prospect that the Park Service will be able to “objectively” interpret the history involved is laughable.

We note that Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker did not co-sponsor the current measure. It had only four co-sponsors, all self-interested Democratic senators from Washington state and New Mexico.

You can see the Republicans opposing the proposal the Park Service, and an outline of the reasons why we think it is a bad idea, in this letter to Senator Mike Lee (http://www.lasg.org/MPNHP
/Lee_ltr_29Nov2013.html).

Greg Mello, Los Alamos Study Group
- johnhuotari
  
  Greg,
  
  I just now had a chance to read your letter. Thank you for including the link.
  
  I do recall noticing that senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker were not listed among those who were reported to have proposed including the Senate’s version of the park bill as an amendment to the NDAA. (See this story: http://oakridgetoday.com/2013/12/03/atomic-heritage-still-hopeful-manhattan-project-park-legislation-will-pass/
  
  But Cindy Kelly, Atomic Heritage Foundation president, said Alexander’s leadership on the park bill has generally “been terrific,” and he’s helped generate committee support and support among colleagues. Kelly also cited the roles that Corker and Rep. Chuck Fleischmann have played.
  
  I was not aware of the specific opposition to this particular amendment in the Senate, and I wasn’t sure the names of the members would be easy to find given the 507 proposed amendments to the NDAA. So, I appreciate you giving me some insight.
  
  I guess Oak Ridge might be a little different than Los Alamos on this issue. I am not aware of any significant public opposition here. That’s not to say that there might not be some. But I can say that I haven’t heard of any organized opposition here.
  
  Some of the sites that could be included in the park here are already open for tours at certain times of the year, and I think local supporters of the national park proposal see it as a natural fit with a long-expressed desire to promote heritage tourism in Oak Ridge. I also think supporters here are pleased that the proposal could help preserve or commemorate some Manhattan Project facilities that they have long tried to save, including the K-25 Building and the Alexander Inn (the former Guest House).
  
  It’ll be interesting to see what happens with this bill in the coming year.
  
  Thank you for getting in touch,
  
  John Huotari
  Owner/Publisher
  Oak Ridge Today
  (865) 951-9692
Greg Mello

Dear John —

For reference, the six Republican senators who wanted their opposition to S. 507 recorded were senators Barrasso, Lee, Heller, Flake, Scott, and Portman. This information is available in Senate Report 113-65, accompanying the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp113:FLD010:@1(sr065), under “Committee Recommendation.”

Best wishes,

Greg Mello, Los Alamos Study Group
- johnhuotari
  
  Thank you, Greg.
  
  Do you have a sense of whether residents in the Los Alamos area are mostly in favor of or mostly opposed to the proposed park?
  - Greg Mello
    
    Dear John —
    
    I suspect most them would favor it, especially if it were presented in a frame that silently assumed continued growth in the National Park Service budget. I don’t really know. It is a majority Republican town, which gives at least lip service to smaller government, etc. The Chamber of Commerce and business community would very strongly favor the proposal I am sure.
    
    I suspect however that the dominant social and political reality in Los Alamos is not just neutrality but non-involvement in all such issues — in any issue whatsoever. People care about their careers and other private concerns almost to the exclusion of all else, except for a small minority who are passionate (and argumentative) about local issues. This tendency is present everywhere in the U.S. but in Los Alamos it seems to be more extreme, perhaps driven by the transience of many residents on the one hand, and the aging of the long-term residents on the other. It is a divided demographic and one that does not have a clear common identity and social contract at this point. And as of 5 or 6 years ago, reliable sources in the Lab mentioned that none — not one — of the senior management of LANL lived in the town any more. One lived in California. The recent tragic suicide of another high school student, and the attempted suicide of another, horribly illustrates the sense of emptiness that haunts Los Alamos. Even nature appears to be badly wounded. The forests above the town have burned, never to return in their current form now that the soil is so heavily eroded and the winters sometimes too warm to kill bark beetles. Some of our members won’t even go there any more.
    
    With most retail business having disappeared to Santa Fe or on-line outlets, the community is somewhat desperate. There is no book store in Los Alamos any more, for example; and some — too many — downtown storefront properties are vacant.
    
    I’m sorry to try your patience with this long account, but somehow these struggles seem relevant to the discussion. Los Alamos is struggling. Perhaps I am saying that Los Alamos needs much more, and something quite different, than a token National Park encompassing a fraction of an acre in town and some inaccessible sheds at the Lab. What the Park would provide, they already have, and in spades.
    
    Greg Mello
    - Helen Standifer
      
      Thank you Greg for your description of Los Alamos. It’s how I had it pictured in my mind. Oak Ridge is also struggling with the aging population and the lack of jobs, with the exception of the highly skilled and trained work force necessary to keep our industry (nuclear, I guess?).
      I agree there are many more crucial areas where the extra?, what! where did that come from? money could go.
      Here in Oak Ridge, some folks are very proud of our history and want to show it off. Only, K25 is gone, the Alexander Guest House is going to be an old folks home, appropriately, I think. Most of the people who grew up here left after high school. Some, myself included, have come back for elderly parents. I only left for 20 yrs.
      We still have the beautiful nature around us. Of course, they are talking about fracking in the mountains. I pray that nothing else happens to destroy its beauty. I just don’t think a National Park would satisfy those who want it.
      But, if someone can make a buck or two, they’ll tear up anything. A Park won’t bring back the so-called glory days of making the deadliest weapon ever conceived.