DOCSLIB.ORG

Cleaning up America's Nuclear Weapons Complex

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cleaning up America's Nuclear Weapons Complex CLEANING UP AMERICA’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX 2019 Update for Governors Founded in 1908, THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION (NGA) is the nonpartisan organization of the governors of the 55 states, territories and commonwealths. Through NGA, governors share best practices, address issues of national and state interest and share innovative solutions that improve state government and support the principles of federalism. The NGA Solutions: Center for Best Practices (NGA Solutions) is the only research and development firm that directly serves the nation’s governors and their key policy staff. Governors rely on NGA Solutions to provide tailored technical assistance to address the challenges that face their states; identify and share best practices from across the country; and host meetings of leading policymakers, program officials, industry experts and scholars. Through research reports, policy analyses, cross-state learning labs, state grants and other unique services, NGA Solutions quickly informs governors of what works, what does not and which lessons they can learn from others grappling with similar issues. NGA Solutions has five policy teams: • Economic Opportunity • Education • Energy, Infrastructure & Environment • Health • Homeland Security and Public Safety For information about NGA Solutions, please visit https://www.nga.org/bestpractices/. CONTENTS Executive Summary ..............................................................................................1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................4 Federal Facilities Task Force .............................................................................5 Successes Around the Complex ............................................................................7 Cleanup Successes ..........................................................................................7 Site Closures ..................................................................................................10 What Are the Main Issues of Concern for States? ................................................12 Setting Funding Priorities ...............................................................................12 Ensuring Compliance ......................................................................................13 Managing Waste Safely ..................................................................................15 Improving Communication Between States and DOE EM ................................17 Coordinating Emergency Response Communication Protocols ........................17 State by State Overview ......................................................................................18 Idaho ..............................................................................................................19 Kentucky ........................................................................................................21 Missouri .........................................................................................................24 Nevada ...........................................................................................................27 New Mexico ...................................................................................................30 New York ........................................................................................................33 Ohio ...............................................................................................................36 South Carolina ................................................................................................38 Tennessee ......................................................................................................40 Texas .............................................................................................................43 Washington and Oregon .................................................................................46 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................48 Appendix A. The History of the Nuclear Weapons Complex and Its Environmental Legacy .........................................................................................49 Appendix B. How Are Cleanup Decisions Made? ..................................................51 Appendix C. Waste Types and Definitions ............................................................53 Appendix D. Acronyms ........................................................................................55 Appendix E. NGA Solutions: Center for Best Practices Federal Facilities Task Force Principles and Associated Expectations for State–Department of Energy Engagement ........................................................................................56 Appendix F. NGA Solutions: Center for Best Practices Federal Facilities Task Force ..........................................................................................................58 CLEANING UP AMERICA’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX: 2019 UPDATE FOR GOVERNORS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors of “Cleaning Up America’s Nuclear Weapons Complex: 2019 Update for Governors” are Dan Lauf, program director, and Bevin Buchheister, senior policy analyst in the National Governors Association Solutions: Center for Best Practices’ (NGA Solutions) Energy, Infrastructure & Environment policy team. This report was written with assistance from Andy Chinn, Molly Spiller and Heather Martin from Ross Strategic. The authors would like to thank the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management (DOE EM) for its partnership and funding support for the report. We also would like to thank the members of the NGA Solutions Federal Facilities Task Force for their time and effort reviewing draft versions of the report and providing updated, state- specific information. We also thank the following individuals for their careful review of and contributions to this report: Sue Gander, Alex Schaefer and Anne Clement of NGA and Elizabeth Lisann of DOE EM. This report was completed with support from DOE EM under Award Number DE- EM0005173. Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendations, favoring by the U.S. Government or an agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. D-Reactor complex, Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington State. D-Reactor was one of three production reactors constructed at Hanford during the Manhattan Project and World War II. Photo courtesy of Library of Congress, Prints & Photo- graphs Division, HAER, Reproduction number HAER WASH,3-RICH.V,1–14. Executive Summary The research, testing and production of America’s nuclear arsenal that began during World War II and continued throughout the Cold War was critical to U.S. national security. However, this work resulted in significant environ- mental contamination at sites across the country. That contamination is now the focus of the largest environmental cleanup effort in the world. The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management (DOE EM) spends more than $6 billion per year to fund cleanup activities and manage the cleanup sites. States play an import- ant role in the cleanup partnership, overseeing the cleanup effort and working with DOE EM to ensure that federal and state laws are followed and that cleanup decisions are transparent, responsible and equitable. The National Gov- ernors Association (NGA) Solutions: Center for Best Practices’ Federal Facilities Task Force (FFTF) is a forum in which states directly affected by the cleanup effort can communicate with each other and with DOE EM on waste disposal progress, priorities and challenges and stay informed about technology, policy and budget developments. The FFTF includes Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. Important progress has been made since DOE EM was established in 1989 and the FFTF was founded in 1993, including the establishment of legal frameworks and agreements for cleanup, completion of cleanup operations at 91 of 107 total sites and significant reduction in risk to public health and the environment at all the sites.1 In addition to successes across the complex, significant cleanup progress has been made in each FFTF state that hosts cleanup sites. 1 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.energy.gov/em/office-environmental-management. CLEANING UP AMERICA’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX: 2019 UPDATE FOR GOVERNORS 1 Successes from each state are contained in the body of this report. Major highlights since NGA last published this report in 2015 include: • The first-ever demolition of a gaseous diffusion plant Tennesseein in 2016. • Completion of Idaho’s Transuranic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Atomic SRS at 50 Cover 8/11/02 5:18 PM Page 1
    Atomic SRS at 50 Cover 8/11/02 5:18 PM Page 1 at Fifty at Fifty Reed Swanson Gaither Joseph Henry srs 50 endflaps non hnj 9/29/02 7:09 PM Page 1 About the Book at Fifty Savannah River Site at 50 was written and produced as a component of the Savannah River Site History Project, a cooperative agreement between the Department of Energy and New South Associates, a professional cultural resources Through text and images, this volume presents a compre- consulting firm based in Stone Mountain, Georgia. This project hensive history of the Department of Energy’s Savannah documented the site’s architectural legacy, recovered River Site, one of the major research and production facilities important equipment and objects associated with the in in the United States’ nuclear complex. Savannah River Site’s operations, and along with researching and developing this history, produced other brochures and This history explores the events leading up to the decision to studies. create the plant, the developments in nuclear science and About the Authors world politics, the Manhattan Project, the Cold War, and the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission. Considered one of the major engineering and construction feats of its MARY BETH REED served as the Project Director and lead day, the creation of the Savannah River Site is an epic story author. A public historian with New South Associates, Ms. set in the Central Savannah River Area. The transformations Reed has researched Cold War related Department of that occurred are shown through 1950s photography, historic Defense sites throughout the US as well as in the Republic of maps, and documents, all which present a clear before and Panama.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 04 Newsletter
    United States Atmospheric & Underwater Atomic Weapon Activities National Association of Atomic Veterans, Inc. 1945 “TRINITY“ “Assisting America’s Atomic Veterans Since 1979” ALAMOGORDO, N. M. Website: www.naav.com E-mail: [email protected] 1945 “LITTLE BOY“ HIROSHIMA, JAPAN R. J. RITTER - Editor April, 2012 1945 “FAT MAN“ NAGASAKI, JAPAN 1946 “CROSSROADS“ BIKINI ISLAND 1948 “SANDSTONE“ ENEWETAK ATOLL 1951 “RANGER“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1951 “GREENHOUSE“ ENEWETAK ATOLL 1951 “BUSTER – JANGLE“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1952 “TUMBLER - SNAPPER“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1952 “IVY“ ENEWETAK ATOLL 1953 “UPSHOT - KNOTHOLE“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1954 “CASTLE“ BIKINI ISLAND 1955 “TEAPOT“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1955 “WIGWAM“ OFFSHORE SAN DIEGO 1955 “PROJECT 56“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1956 “REDWING“ ENEWETAK & BIKINI 1957 “PLUMBOB“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1958 “HARDTACK-I“ ENEWETAK & BIKINI 1958 “NEWSREEL“ JOHNSTON ISLAND 1958 “ARGUS“ SOUTH ATLANTIC 1958 “HARDTACK-II“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1961 “NOUGAT“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1962 “DOMINIC-I“ CHRISTMAS ISLAND JOHNSTON ISLAND 1965 “FLINTLOCK“ AMCHITKA, ALASKA 1969 “MANDREL“ AMCHITKA, ALASKA 1971 “GROMMET“ AMCHITKA, ALASKA 1974 “POST TEST EVENTS“ ENEWETAK CLEANUP ------------ “ IF YOU WERE THERE, YOU ARE AN ATOMIC VETERAN “ The Newsletter for America’s Atomic Veterans COMMANDER’S COMMENTS knowing the seriousness of the situation, did not register any Outreach Update: First, let me extend our discomfort, or dissatisfaction on her part. As a matter of fact, it thanks to the membership and friends of NAAV was kind of nice to have some of those callers express their for supporting our “outreach” efforts over the thanks for her kind attention and assistance. We will continue past several years. It is that firm dedication to to insure that all inquires, along these lines, are fully and our Mission-Statement that has driven our adequately addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Savannah River Site Overview
    from the Savannah River Site ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP • NATIONAL SECURITY • SCIENCE AND ENERGY SRS Occupants Savannah River Site Federal • Department of Energy: Dedicated to maintaining the highest possible safety and security standards, the Savannah Savannah River Operations Office River Site (SRS) is a key Department of Energy (DOE) industrial complex responsible • National Nuclear for disposition of nuclear materials, waste management, environmental cleanup and Security Administration environmental stewardship. • U.S. Forest Service–Savannah River • U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Safety • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SRS is committed to its people, missions and the future. SRS has a long track record of being one of the safest sites in the DOE complex and one of the safest major industrial Contractors sites in the world. Protecting workers, the public, the environment and national security • Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC interests are our highest goals. – Management and operations of SRS and Savannah River Missions National Laboratory SRS processes and stores nuclear materials in support of national defense and U.S. • Savannah River Remediation LLC nuclear nonproliferation efforts. The site also develops and deploys technologies to – Liquid waste operations improve the environment and treat solid and liquid nuclear and hazardous wastes left from • Parsons the Cold War. While current missions remain the highest priority, SRS leadership places – Salt Waste Processing Facility great importance on developing broader missions for SRS that use its unique capabilities • Centerra Group, LLC in order to address critical national missions. – SRS Security • University of Georgia History – Savannah River Ecology Laboratory During the 1950s, SRS began to produce materials used in nuclear weapons, primarily tritium and plutonium-239.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Energy National Laboratories and Plants: Leadership in Cloud Computing (Brochure), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
    Department of Energy National Laboratories and Plants Leadership in Cloud Computing Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; NREL is operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. JJJTABLE OF CONTENTS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE ........................................34 LABORATORIES AND PLANTS ......................................................4 Current State ...............................................................................34 Cloud Vision .................................................................................34 ABOUT THIS REPORT .....................................................................8 Key Initiatives ..............................................................................34 History of Computing ...............................................................9 Evolution of Computing Models ...........................................9 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY ....................................36 What is Cloud Computing? ....................................................9 Current State and Future Work ............................................36 Cloud Security .............................................................................10 RightPath – DOE/NNSA Cloud Strategy ...........................11 PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY ..............38 Vision ..............................................................................................38
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report 2019
    SAVANNAH RIVER SITE Environmental Report 2019 SRNS-RP-2020-00064 Savannah River Site employees took the photographs featured on the cover of the 2019 SRS Environmental Report as part of the Site’s pilot run of Snap SRS. The employee-driven competition cost-effectively promotes Site pride of ownership, improves facility appearances, and boosts workplace morale through art. The 2019 contest drew 246 photographs. Three Snap photographs taken onsite and in the community have been incorporated into the cover design. Front Cover—Pollinator Fire Burst, taken by Karyn Bland, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC Back Cover—Sunset Over the River, Local Scenery winning selection, taken by Mark Amidon, Savannah River National Laboratory Front and Back Cover Background—Rushing Water, taken by Laura Russo, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC For more information about this report contact: Teresa Eddy Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC Building 730-4B, Savannah River Site Aiken, SC 29808 Telephone: 803-952-8253 E-mail address: [email protected] or go to the SRS Environmental Report webpage at http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/ERsum/index.html and under the SRS Environmental Report 2019, complete the electronic Customer Satisfaction Survey. This document was prepared in conjunction with work accomplished under Contract No. DE-AC09-08SR22470 with the U.S. Department of Energy. This work was conducted under an agreement with, and funded by, the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor its employees, nor any of its contractors or subcontractors or their employees, makes any expressed or implied 1) warranty or assumes any legal liability for the accuracy or completeness—or for the use or results of such use—of any information, product, or process disclosed; or 2) representation that such use or results of such use would not infringe on privately owned rights; or 3) endorsement or recommendation of any specifically identified commercial product, process, or service.
    [Show full text]
  • The Views and Issues America's Atomic Veterans
    THE VIEWS AND ISSUES OF AMERICA’S ATOMIC VETERANS N-001 TRINITY SITE - NEW MEXICO THE FIRST ATOMIC BOMB TEST JULY 16, 1945 ATOMIC BOMB DROPPED OVER HIROSHIMA, JAPAN AUGUST 6, 1945 ATOMIC BOMB DROPPED OVER NAGASAKI, JAPAN AUGUST 9, 1945 N-002 TRINITY TEST - 07-16-45 - 19 KILOTONS N-003 HIROSHIMA 2 MILES FROM THE CENTER OF BLAST 08-07-45 N-004 HIROSHIMA 1.5 MILES FROM THE CENTER OF BLAST 08-07-45 N-005 “ FAT MAN “ DETONATION OVER CITY OF NAGASAKI PHOTO TAKEN BY A JAPANESE RAIL LINE SURVEYOR N-006 NAGASAKI 2.5 MILES FROM CENTER OF BLAST 08-10-45 N-007 NAGASAKI 1.5 MILES FROM CENTER OF BLAST 08-10-45 N-008 BIKINI ATOLL ( MARSHALL ISLANDS ) “ CROSSROADS “ 2 WEAPONS EFFECTS TESTS INVOLVING 42,000 MILITARY PERSONNEL N-009 38 MILES TEST ABLE TEST BAKER THERE WERE 23 ATOMIC WEAPONS TESTED ON BIKINI ATOLL N-010 CROSSROADS “ ABLE “ PHOTO FROM ISLAND CAMERA N-011 CROSSROADS “ BAKER “ PHOTO FROM AIRCRAFT N-012 CROSSROADS “ BAKER “ PHOTO FROM ISLAND CAMERA N-013 BIKINI ATOLL “ SANDSTONE “ 3 TESTS 10,000 + MILITARY PERSONNEL N-014 SANDSTONE “ X-RAY “ - 04-14-48 - BIKINI ATOLL TOWER SHOT 37 KILOTONS N-015 B-29 “ OVEREXPOSED “ AIR CREW BEING CHECKED FOR RADIATION AFTER RETURNING FROM ATOMIC CLOUD SAMPLING MISSION OVER BIKINI ATOLL N-016 NEVADA TEST SITE “ RANGER “ & “ BUSTER- JANGLE “ ( 11 TESTS ) 7,000 + MILITARY PESONNEL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ENEWETAK ATOLL “ GREENHOUSE “ ( 5 TESTS ) 7,500 + MILITARY PERSONNEL N-017 CAMP DESERT ROCK MILITARY PERSONNEL ASSEMBLED FOR ATOMIC WEAPONS TEST BRIEFINGS N-018 GROUND OBSERVATION TROOPS ON WAY TO THEIR
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Energy (DOE)
    Draft 2019 Report_13 February 2020 Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution Fourteenth Annual Report May 2020 DRAFT U.S. Department of Energy i Draft 2019 Report_13 February 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The September 7, 2012 Memorandum on Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution (ECCR Memorandum) issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) supersedes an OMB/CEQ joint memorandum issued in November 28, 2005, on Environmental Conflict Resolution and broadens the efforts called for under the 2005 memorandum by explicitly encouraging appropriate and effective upfront environmental collaboration to minimize or prevent conflict. The ECCR Memorandum defines ECCR as “third-party assisted collaborative problem solving and conflict resolution in the context of environmental, public lands, or natural resources issues or conflicts.” Recognizing the role of collaboration in conflict resolution and its history of collaborative approaches, both with and without third-party neutrals, to prevent or resolve environmental conflicts, the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) defines ECCR more expansively than the ECCR Memorandum. The Department defines ECCR as the use of any collaborative process to prevent or resolve environmental conflicts, whether or not the process involves the use of third-party neutrals. This definition is consistent with the spirit of the ECCR Memorandum which stated the following. The challenge of implementing Federal policies and programs can often be met with collaborative, constructive, and timely approaches to identify and address affected interests, consider alternatives, and reach solutions before different positions or opinions result in conflict. Collaborative efforts involving the public and policy and program coordination within and across multiple levels of government are important for addressing these challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Letter to Stockholders Proxy Statement 2020 Form 10-K
    2021 Letter to Stockholders Proxy Statement 2020 Form 10-K Dear Stockholders, When I last reported to you a year ago, we were closely monitoring the spread of COVID-19 and what 2020 had in store for us. Now, as we enter 2021, I can look back and say I have never been prouder of our team than after seeing how they rose to meet the challenges we faced together over the past year. 2020 Performance and Accomplishments Before I report on our many achievements in 2020, it is important to acknowledge how the pandemic has affected our 39,000 colleagues around the globe. We lost team members to COVID-19, and many of us have lost friends and family members as well. There have been very real economic, emotional and psychological impacts of the virus and the lockdowns that have been neces- sary to combat it. Throughout the year, as the virus first appeared and then spread, we worked to keep our workplaces healthy, our communities resilient, and our global food chain strong. We dramatically expanded our IT infrastructure to allow non-production colleagues to work safely from home, while simultaneously supporting our frontline teams, who continued coming to our production facilities every day. We worked with the University of Illinois on new saliva-based COVID-19 testing capabilities. And we offered financial and other support to colleagues and communities in need. Now, we are focused on helping our team members get vaccinated to protect ourselves and those around us, and accelerate a return to normalcy. Amid all of these challenges, our team delivered for our company and our customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE
    Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE Note: For information related to claims, call the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at 800-827- 1000 or the Department of Justice (DOJ) at 800-729-7327. For all other information, call the Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) Program at 800-462-3683. Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, the ninth series of atmospheric nuclear tests, was conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) at the Nevada Proving Ground (NPG) from March 17, 1953, to June 4, 1953. The series consisted of 11 nuclear tests. One detonation was an atomic artillery projectile fired from a 280-mm cannon, three were airdrops, and seven were detonated on towers ranging from 100 to 300 feet in height. The operation involved an estimated 20,100 Department of Defense (DoD) personnel participating in observer programs, tactical maneuvers, scientific studies, and support activities. UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE was intended to test nuclear devices for possible inclusion in the U.S. arsenal, to improve military tactics, equipment, and training, and to study civil defense needs. Historical Background During UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, the largest DoD participation was in Exercise Desert Rock V, a program involving members of all four armed services. Exercise Desert Rock V included troop orientation and training, a volunteer officer observer program, tactical troop maneuvers, operational helicopter tests, and damage effects evaluation. Orientation and training generally included lectures and briefings on the effects of nuclear weapons, observation of a nuclear detonation, and a subsequent visit to a display of military equipment damaged by the detonation. In the volunteer officer observer program, trained staff officers calculated the effects of a nuclear detonation to determine a minimum safe distance for observing the blast; they later watched the detonation from the calculated position.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling – Approach and Example
    Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling – Approach and Example Bill Wilborn UGTA Activity Lead U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office Bob Andrews Navarro-INTERA December 12, 2014 Outline • Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) • Environmental Management (EM) mission at NNSS • Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) • UGTA strategy and approach • NNSS inventory • Example of UGTA strategy implementation at Yucca Flat • Summary ID 876 – December 2014 – Page 2 PageLog 2Title No. 2014-231Page 2 EM Mission at NNSS • Characterization and remediation activities at radioactive and non-radioactive contaminated sites – Activities focus on groundwater, soil, and onsite infrastructure contamination from historic nuclear testing • Low-level radioactive and hazardous waste management and disposal – National disposal facility for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Complex (Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site) • Environmental planning, compliance, and monitoring ID 876 – December 2014 – Page 3 PageLog 3Title No. 2014-231Page 3 FFACO • FFACO provides approach for DOE to develop and implement corrective actions under the regulatory authority and oversight of State of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) • Agreement for governing the process to identify, characterize, and implement corrective actions at historical sites used in the development, testing, and production of nuclear weapons • Tri-party agreement – NDEP, DOE, and U.S. Department of Defense ID 876 – December 2014 – Page 4 PageLog 4Title No. 2014-231Page 4 FFACO UGTA Strategy Assumptions 1. Groundwater technologies for removal or stabilization of subsurface radiological contamination are not cost-effective 2. Closure in place with monitoring and institutional controls is the only likely corrective action 3.
    [Show full text]
  • AECOM Proxy Statement
    21JAN201911445341 AECOM 1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 2600 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 Dear AECOM Stockholder: You are cordially invited to attend the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the ‘‘2020 Annual Meeting’’) of AECOM, which will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. local time in the Conference Center located at 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, California 90067. Details of the business to be conducted at the 2020 Annual Meeting are given in the attached Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and the attached Proxy Statement. Whether or not you plan to attend the 2020 Annual Meeting in person, it is important that your shares be represented. The attached Proxy Statement contains details about how you may vote your shares. Sincerely, 13JAN201802584662 Michael S. Burke Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer 21JAN201911445341 1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 2600 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON MARCH 10, 2020 The 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the ‘‘2020 Annual Meeting’’) of AECOM (the ‘‘Company,’’ ‘‘our’’ or ‘‘we’’) will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. local time in the Conference Center located at 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, California 90067. At the 2020 Annual Meeting, you will be asked to: 1. Elect each of the 10 director nominees named in the Proxy Statement accompanying this notice to the Company’s Board of Directors to serve until the Company’s 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR each of the director nominees.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 112/Monday, June 11
    31218 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices Dated: June 5, 2001. The meeting will commence at 8:30 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas M. Corwin, a.m. with opening remarks, and review Office of Worker Advocacy, 1–877–447– Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for and approval of the meeting agenda. 9756. Elementary and Secondary Education. From 9 a.m. to 12 noon, the Board will ADDRESSES: The Department welcomes [FR Doc. 01–14767 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am] discuss and take action on comments on this list. Individuals who BILLING CODE 4000–01–M recommendations of the Committee on wish to suggest additional facilities for Standards, Design, and Methodology inclusion on the list, indicate why one (COSDAM) on the NAEP design. From or more facilities should be removed DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 12 noon to 1 p.m. the Board will receive from the list, or provide other an update on NAEP related information may contact: National Assessment Governing Congressional activities. From 1:00 to Board; Meeting Office of Worker Advocacy (EH–8), U.S. 2:00 p.m., the Board will discuss Department of Energy, 1000 AGENCY: National Assessment COSDAM’s recommendations on the Independence Avenue, SW, Governing Board; Education. NAEP 2002 Field Test. A general Washington, DC 20585, email: discussion of President Bush’s ‘‘No ACTION: Notice of full board meeting. [email protected], toll- Child Left Behind’’ initiative will take free: 1–877–447–9756 place between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., upon SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: schedule and proposed agenda of a which time the meeting will adjourn.
    [Show full text]