M97001937 w

-,,"/£.. jiii. -^;?a* jJFAl^wfi -

*-

:-"'-.

Volume 11, Number 1 January/February 1996

FortMojave Indian Tribe v. California DepartmenkJ>f Health Services Appellate Court Decision Upholding Ward Valley Licensing Stands On January 18, the Supreme Court of California the license were correctly determined by the lower denied a petition to review a decision by the court to be without merit. (See LLW Notes, October California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate 1995, pp. 23-25.) District, regarding the licensing of the planned Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. As Project Status a result, the petitioners have exhausted their avenues for appeal in the state court system and the facility The planned Ward Valley facility is located on federal license issued in September of 1993 by the California land, which the State of California has requested be Department of Health Services is valid. transferred to state ownership. Language conveying the land to the state was included in the final Lower Court Decision reconciliation bill passed by the U.S. Congress in November of 1995. However, President Clinton The lawsuit, which was filed in the Superior Court of vetoed the reconciliation bill on December 6, 1995, the State of California in October 1993, sought to sending it into a new round of congressional void the certification of a final environmental impact negotiations. (See LLW Notes, November/December report (EIR) and the issuance of a license for the 1995, pp. 14-16.) Currently, it is unclear whether the planned low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in President and Congress will ever agree on a final Ward Valley, California. (See LLW Notes, Winter reconciliation bill and, if so, whether the bill will 1993, pp. 22-23.) In May 1994, the superior court include the Ward Valley transfer language. issued an order finding virtually all of the grounds continued on page 8 raised by the petitioners for contesting the license approval to be "without merit." However, the court directed the California Department of Health Services (DHS) to set aside its approval of the project In This Issue and to review in a "pre-approval setting " a December North Carolina Defers Project Work • Page 3 1993 report by three scientists employed by the U.S. Geological Survey. (See LLW Notes, May/June Lawsuits Filed Challenging California County 1994, pp. 16-18.) Ordinance • Page 6 On appeal, however, the superior court's decision was ACNW Urges Strong NRC LLRW Program • reversed. The Court of Appeal of the State of Page 14 California reinstated the project license previously issued by DHS and determined that other grounds Compact Gets A House Rule • Page 16 raised by the petitioners for setting aside the EIR and

LLW Forum c/o Afton Associates, Inc. • 403 East Capitol Street • Washington, D.C. 20003 • (202)547-2620 • mx (202)547-1668 • INTERNET [email protected] Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum

LLWNotes Volume 11, Number 1 • January/February 1996 Editor, Cynthia Norris Contributing Writers: Holmes Brown, Jean Colsant, Todd Lovinger, Cynthia Norris, Laura Scheele, M. A. Shaker Materials and Publications: Jean Colsant Layout and Design: M. A. Shaker

LLW Notes is distributed by Afton Associates, Inc. to Low- Table of Contents Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants and other state Courts 1 and compact officials identified by those Participants to Appellate Court Decision Upholding Ward Valley Licensing receive LLWNotes. Stands 1 LLWForum 2 Determinations on which federal officials receive States and Compacts 3 LLWNotes are made by Afton Associates based on LLW North Carolina Authority Defers Project Work Pending Funding Forum Executive Committee guidelines in consultation Decision 3 with key federal officials. Specific distribution limits for Host State TCC Meets in Phoenix . . .5 LLW Notes are established by the Executive Committee. Courts (continued) 2 Two Different Lawsuits Filed Challenging County Ordinance to To assist in further distribution, all documents included in Prohibit Ward Valley Facility 6 LLW Forum mailings are listed in LLW Notes with Federal Agencies and Committees 9 information on how to obtain them. Dicus Confirmed by U.S.Senate for NRC Commissioner ... .9 Grumbly Named Under Secretary of DOE 9 Recipients may reproduce and distribute LLWNotes as they Court Calendar 10 see fit, but articles in LLWNotes must be reproduced in their entirety and with full attribution. Radbits 12 Federal Agencies and Committees (continued) 14 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum (LLW Forum) is ACNW Urges Strong, Centralized NRC LLRW Program . . .14 an association of state and compact representatives, NRC Receives Applications to Import/Export appointed by governors and compact commissions, LLRW 15 established to facilitate state and compact implementation U.S. Congress 16 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and House Grants "Open Rule" For Texas Compact; Bill Could the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act Come Up At Any Time 16 of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level Budget Process Stalled: Temporary Spending Measure Funds radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW Forum Government Through March 15 22 provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to Amendment Introduced to Senate Version of USEC Privitization share information with one another and to exchange views BUI 23 with officials of federal agencies and other interested New Materials and Publications 23 parties. Obtaining Publications 27 Receiving LLW Notes by Mail 27

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Key to Abbreviations c/o Afton Associates, Inc. Code of Federal Regulations CFR 403 East Capitol Street U.S. Department of Energy DOE Washington, DC 20003 U.S. Department of Transportation DOT U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA LLW VOICE (202)547-2620 U.S. General Accounting Office GAO FAX (202)547-1668 FORUM INTERNET [email protected] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC

Prepared by Afton Associates, Inc. for the LLWForum under State ofWashington Department of Ecology Contract Number C9400065 through a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither the United States 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 use- fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any spe- cific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufac- turer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. States and Compacts continued

Southeast Compact/North Carolina North Carolina Authority Defers Project Work Pending Funding Decision At a meeting in Raleigh on January 24, the North Financial Participation by Chem-Nuclear Carolina Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority acted to seek further funding from the According to a letter from Regan Voit, President of Southeast Compact Commission before authorizing Chem-Nuclear, CNSI will contribute $1 million any additional major work on facility development by toward facility development. the Authority's contractors or consultants. Licensing Agency's Position The Authority action came in a series of motions passed after receipt of several reports from site developer On January 16, Dayne Brown, the Director of the Chem-Nuclear Systems Inc. (CNSI) and from other Division of Radiation Protection (DRP) of the North contractors. The Authority voted to Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, wrote to the Authority to convey • approve the portions of reports from Chem-Nuclear comments on a draft of the Comprehensive Site Systems Inc. (CNSI) concerning work completed in Assessment Report. When it issued its letter, DRP had 1995 but not to approve the contractor's three- not seen the recent reports from the Authority's month projections or action plans; consultants—Applied Geosciences, Inc. and Harding Lawson Associates. • authorize "only ... that work necessary to maintain a minimum maintenance level of effort or to Excerpts from Brown's comments follow: accomplish essential tasks"; • It is difficult to determine if significant progress has been made since our last review: (i) in more • defer acceptance or implementation of CNSI's adequately demonstrating licensing criteria Licensing Work Plan; and satisfaction; or (ii) in the applicant's understanding of crucial aspects of the site. From the materials • "instruct its Executive Director to attend the next submitted, it is not possible to determine: (i) when Southeast Compact Commission meeting and such progress actually will occur; or (ii) if the applicant ever will successfully respond to the (1) report the results of the Authority's numerous outstanding licensing issues. negotiations with CNSI regarding its financial participation in the North Carolina project and • [Licensing requires that the licensing authority be the results and conclusions of CNSI's satisfied that the application (including supporting 'Comprehensive Site Assessment Summary data) provides "reasonable assurance" that every Report' and the Authority's consultants and licensing criteria designed to protect human health (2)seek sufficient funds from the Southeast and the environment is satisfied. Generally, if data Compact Commission to perform all work submissions reasonably support more than one necessary to reach 'Evaluation Point 1' in the interpretation or conclusion, this requirement is not January 19, 1996 'Licensing Work Plan satisfied. This is true notwithstanding that one of the schedule." equally plausible conclusions may seem to meet the criteria. (See box, p. 4.) • [W]e believe that significantly more studies than The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Southeast described in the Report ultimately will be required. Compact Commission is in April, although the Such additional studies will increase the cost and commission may meet before then. time invested in the Wake County site well beyond that reflected in the Report, still with little assurance that the site will be licensable.

LLW Notes January/February 1996 3 States and Compacts continued

Recent Reports to the Authority CNSI's Comprehensive Site Assessment Harding Lawson Associates' (HLA) Summary Report Assessment of the Status of Licensing This document summarizes progress made in resolving Issues: Proposed North Carolina Low- key technical issues identified at the beginning of die assessment. (See LLW Notes, November/December Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, 1995, p. 4.) The report concludes, in part, that the Wake County, North Carolina "higher level of understanding of the engineered and natural systems achieved during this assessment HLA reaches the following conclusion: provides additional confidence that a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility can be designed, It is our opinion that the combination of licensed, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed information in the License Application, on this Site while meeting the performance objectives information gathered subsequent to the and regulatory requirements specified by the submittal of the License Application, and the applicable North Carolina statutes and regulations." activities described in the Licensing Work Plan (CNSI, 1996) can adequately address the three CNSI's Licensing Work Plan critical licensing issues ... This document identifies activities to be completed However, demonstrating the ability of the Wake that, in CNSI's opinion, will provide the state County site to meet the regulatory requirements regulators with sufficient information to make a will not be achieved unless, and until the licensing decision. The additional work will take 30 following occur: months to complete and will cost a total of approximately $23 million. Three "evaluation points" LA workable definition of Reasonable are outlined in the plan. These points are logical and Assurance must be provided by DRP. important places for evaluating the results and addressing future activities. Evaluation Point 1, which 2. A more effective method is developed for the is referenced in one of the Authority's motions, is Applicant to receive the appropriate guidance projected to be reached six months after work begins, from the regulator regarding the DRP's at a cost of $5.9 million. interpretation of standards for the regulatory and statutory requirements. Applied Geosciences Inc.'s (AGI) Letter HLA was retained by die Authority to provide an Report independent analysis of the suitability of the proposed Wake County site. The analysis was completed in AGI concludes, in part, that "the Comprehensive Site April 1995. (See LLW Notes, April/May 1995, p. 5.) Assessment has re-affirmed the conclusion that the HLA has continued to be actively involved in the Wake County Site is a suitable location for the licensing process as an Authority consultant. development of the disposal facility." AGI was retained by the Authority in late 1994 to support the licensing process.

4 LLW Notes January/February 1996 States and Compacts continued

Southeast Compact/North Carolina (continued) Subsequently, in November 1995, the Southeast Compact Commissioners resolved • Key elements of the license application are now in a state of flux and cannot be addressed until site not [to] release any further funds to the siting characterization is completed. These key elements process until such time as we receive a response include: site configuration; facility design, from the contractor regarding its financial engineering and construction procedures; participation in the project and a comprehensive performance assessment; and site monitoring. In site assessment report from the North Carolina many respects, the DRP now is awaiting delivery of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management a substantially new license application. Our review of Authority which includes the scope, cost, and such an application will add considerable delay, length of time required to pursue a licensing which is not reflected in the Report's licensing decision. schedule. The Commissioners indicated that they expected such a Background: Southeast Commission Policy report in late January or early February of 1996, and that they would consider the question of further re Project Funding funding after receipt of the report. (See LLW Notes, November/December 1995, p. 3.) The Southeast Compact Commission voted in August 1995 to express "the sense of the Commission that For further information, contact Andrew James of the continued funding (to North Carolina) will rely on an North Carolina Authority at (919)733-0682. agreement between the Authority and Chem-Nuclear Systems Inc. that will assure financial participation by The preceding information was distributed to Forum CNSI in future site development." (See LLW Notes, Participants and Alternate Forum Participants, Federal August/September 1995.) Liaisons and Alternates via facsimile transmission in a News Flash on January 29. 1996.

Host State TCC Meets in Phoenix

The Host State Technical Coordinating Committee • a presentation on the packaged low-level radioactive (TCC) met in Phoenix, Arizona, on December 11, waste verification system and a demonstration using 1995, in conjunction with the annual DOE Low-Level a full-scale prototype system; and Radioactive Waste Management Conference. The TCC meeting was attended by ten state staff persons, one • an evaluation of the TCC moderator's role and compact staff person, two DOE National Low-Level performance. Waste Management Program staff members, three DOE-Idaho staff persons, one NRC staff person, three The TCC plans to meet again on April 30-May 1 in El Lockheed Idaho staff persons, and three persons from Paso, Texas. The meeting will include a tour of the private companies. Laura Scheele, an Afton staff Sierra Blanca site. Following the El Paso meeting, the member who serves as the LLW Forum liaison to the TCC will meet on September 30 in Salt Lake City, TCC, also attended to present a report on LLW Forum Utah, in conjunction with the 1996 DOE Low-Level activities. Radioactive Waste Management Conference. The Salt Lake City meeting will include a tour of the Envirocare The following items constituted the TCC agenda: of Utah site.

• state highlights and reports; For further information, contact TCC Moderator Thomas Kerr of DOEs National Low-Level Waste Management • agency and organizational reports, including reports Program at (208)526-8465. from NRC, the National Low-Level Waste Management Program, and the LLW Forum;

LLW Notes January/February 1996 5 American College of Nuclear Physicians v. County of San Bernardino California Radioactive Materials Management Forum v. County of San Bernardino Two Different Lawsuits Filed Challenging County Ordinance to Prohibit Ward Valley Facility In December 1995, two separate lawsuits were filed in and both were subsequently amended to include the the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Department of Health Services (DHS) and California challenging an ordinance passed by the San its Director—S. Kimberly Belshe—as additional Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. The stated defendants. purpose of the ordinance, which would effectively prohibit the planned Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, is "to prevent and mitigate The Issues potential risks to public health and safety and to protect The lawsuits, although not identical, address similar significant water resources from contamination from issues, including the following: improper storage of radioactive wastes." Answers to the lawsuits were filed by the state defendants on January Federal Preemption The Supremacy Clause of the 23, 1996. County defendants' answers were filed on U.S. Constitution provides that "the Constitution, and January 29. the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Background Land." Plaintiffs to both actions claim that the San Bernardino County ordinance violates the Supremacy The Facts On November 21, the San Bernardino Clause because it regulates in a field that is fully County Board of Supervisors voted 5 to 0 to pass an occupied by federal legislation, frustrates the purpose of interim ordinance regarding the storage or disposal of federal legislation, and conflicts with that legislation. low-level radioactive waste in the county. The Specifically, the plaintifFs argue that the ordinance is ordinance, among other things, preempted by the following federal laws for the reasons identified: • prohibits the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in San Bernardino County unless it was generated in • Atomic Energy Act It violates the act's prohibition the county, over the regulation of radioactive materials by any entity other than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory • requires that low-level radioactive waste be disposed Commission and NRC-authorized "Agreement of in lead-lined concrete vaults, and States" that develop a regulatory program that is compatible with federal law. • provides that no radioactive waste disposal facility shall overlie a significant water resource. (See • Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act It LLWNotes, November/December 1995, p. 5.) interferes with the act's intent to create a comprehensive and pervasive federal/state regulatory The ordinance was initially set to expire on January 5, scheme governing the siting and design of low-level 1996. However, it has been extended for an additional radioactive waste disposal facilities. 90 days. • Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive Waste The Parties The initial suit was brought by the Disposal Compact Consent Act It conflicts with California Chapter of the American College of Nuclear key provisions of the Southwestern Compact, which Physicians, the National Association of Cancer Patients, is now federal law as a result of congressional and US Ecology. The California Radioactive Materials ratification, including provisions concerning host Management (CalRad) Forum filed a separate action state obligations, facility access requirements, and the one week later. Both suits named the County of San express agreement to provide a regional disposal Bernardino and its Board of Supervisors as defendants, facility.

6 LLW Notes January/February 1996 Courts continued

Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause of the U.S. • The ordinance imposes facility siting and design Constitution grants to Congress the power "to regulate standards that conflict with, and are antagonistic to, commerce ... among the several states." The plaintiffs those required by the California Department of argue that the ordinance violates the Commerce Clause Health Services—the express delegatee of the by attempting to regulate a field that Congress has California legislature. It therefore renders dual preempted. Specifically, they assert that low-level compliance with state and local laws impossible. radioactive waste, an item of interstate commerce, is regulated by the above-stated federal laws. Exemption from Local Regulation The plaintiffs argue that "[t]he Ward Valley facility, as a state-licensed In the alternative, the plaintiffs argue that by project to be constructed and operated in furtherance of prohibiting in the county any low-level radioactive a vital state purpose on state-owned land, is exempt waste not generated there, the ordinance is from local building and zoning laws, including the discriminatory and impermissibly burdensome to Ordinance." interstate and intrastate commerce. They claim that the burden imposed by the ordinance is excessive in relation Violation of the California Environmental Quality to any local benefits that it may provide. Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any "public agency," including State Law Preemption The Constitution of the State "... any ... board [or] county," evaluate the of California prohibits counties from enacting environmental impacts of any "discretionary projects regulations that "conflict with general laws.' proposed to be carried out or approved by public Accordingly, local laws are preempted to the extent that agencies including, but not limited to, the enactment they purport to regulate in an area occupied by state law and amendment of zoning ordinances." The plaintiffs or that they conflict with the general laws of the state. contend that the ordinance is invalid because the San The plaintiffs argue that the ordinance is preempted by Bernardino County Board of Supervisors incorrectly state law for the following reasons: determined that the ordinance is exempt from CEQA's requirements. • "The California legislature has, through the [Radiation Control Law] ... established a According to the plaintiffs, the ordinance will result in comprehensive regulatory scheme governing the significant environmental impacts that have not been siting, design, licensing, safety, operation, and evaluated by the county board, in the following ways: location of California's regional LLRW disposal facility ... The legislature has delegated to defendant • by preventing the timely establishment of a ... [Department of Health Services] the authority to centralized disposal facility, the plaintiffs argue that implement this regulatory scheme and to determine the county board is promoting the continued use of whether any plan for the disposal of LLRW within storage facilities at hundreds of locations throughout California complies with all federal public health and the state—an environmentally inferior solution; safety regulations which have been incorporated into, and made a part of, the general laws or the State of • by establishing siting and design criteria for disposal California... This comprehensive state law scheme ... facilities within the county, and by prohibiting the fully occupies the regulatory field of LLRW disposal, disposal of all low-level radioactive waste generated which cannot tolerate local, conflicting, and outside of the county's borders; and inconsistent regulation in this technically complex area." • by establishing facility standards that are inconsistent with those employed by DHS, the plaintiffs allege • The practical effect of the ordinance is to prohibit that the county board has improperly assumed establishment of the Ward Valley facility, which has authority vested in the California Department of already been licensed, in the county. It therefore Health Services. creates an obstacle to contractual obligations assumed by the California legislature via the continued on page 8 Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact.

LLW Notes January/February 1996 7 Courts continued

American College of Nuclear Physicians v. County of San Bernardino California Radioactive Materials Management Forum v. County of San Bernardino (continued) Relief Requested The plaintiffs are also requesting that the court declare

The plaintiffs are requesting that the district court that defendant DHS, not the County, is the declare that the ordinance is agency responsible for establishing the criteria for the location of the LLRW disposal facility in the • preempted by the federal Low-Level Radioactive State of California, for approving the location of Waste Policy Act, the Southwestern Low-Level that facility, for protecting the health and safety of Radioactive Waste Compact Consent Act, and the the citizens of California as to that facility's site, Atomic Energy Act; for defining who may use the Ward Valley Facility, for ensuring that the State of California provides • invalid under the Commerce Clause of the for LLRW disposal capacity for its citizens and U.S. Constitution; those of the Compact States in a timely manner, and for setting the packaging and disposal • preempted by the California Radiation Control Law requirements for LLRW at the Ward Valley and the Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facility. Compact; State Defendants9 Answer • invalid under California law in that it seeks to regulate a land use on state land that is exempt from The state defendants responded to the lawsuits: local building and zoning laws; and The first amended complaint, and the whole • void and of no force and effect because it was enacted thereof, fails to state a cause of action against State in violation of the requirements of the California Defendants, and each of them, because such Environmental Quality Act. defendants are misaligned herein as defendants as State Defendants, and each of them, agree with the plaintiffs that the County Ordinance is invalid and unconstitutional as alleged.

FortMojave Indian Tribe v. California Department of The oldest suit—Committee to Bridge the Gap v. Health Services (continued from page 1) Babbitt—seeks to postpone the Ward Valley land In addition, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt transfer until alleged violations of the National has announced his intention to transfer the land to the Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and die Federal state. However, Babbitt has indicated that he intends to Land Policy and Management Act have been remedied. attach certain oversight conditions to the land transfer (See LLW Notes, February 1993, p. 6.) Further action which the state of California argues are unacceptable. on the case has been suspended pending review of the (See LLWNotes, October 1995, pp. 14-16.) land transfer by Secretary Babbitt.

U.S. Representative Brian Bilbray (R-CA) has also The other two suits—California Radioactive Materials introduced legislation, H.R. 2334, to convey the land Management Forum v. County of San Bernardino and from the federal government to the state. To date, no American College of Nuclear Physicians v. County of San action has been taken on this legislation. Bernardino—challenge a local ordinance that would have the practical effect of prohibiting the planned Other Litigation Ward Valley disposal facility. These actions are currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central Currently, there are three lawsuits challenging the District of California. (See related story, this issue.) planned Ward Valley disposal facility before the courts.

8 LLW Notes January/February 1996 Federal Agencies and Committees

Dicus Confirmed by U.S. Senate Grumbly Named for NRC Commissioner Under Secretary of DOE The nomination of Greta Dicus to be an NRC DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary has named Thomas Commissioner was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Grumbly as Acting Under Secretary of Energy. December 22, 1995. Accordingly, Dicus will now join Grumbly was named by President Clinton as DOE the two current NRC Commissioners—Chair Shirley Under Secretary in December 1995. The position Jackson and Kenneth Rogers. Dicus is expected to be requires U.S. Senate confirmation. Responsibilities of sworn into office on February 15> thereby allowing the the Under Secretary include oversight of DOE's five-member commission to have a quorum for the first nuclear materials and weapons cleanup programs, time in nearly a year. DOE's health and safety programs, and the civilian radioactive waste program. Dicus was nominated earlier this summer by President to fill one of the three open seats on the Press reports have indicated that Alvin Aim, currently commission. Recent press reports have indicated that co-chair of DOE's Environmental Management the "White House is considering Nils Diaz and Perry Advisory Board and Vice President of Science Robinson to fill the two remaining vacant seats. Diaz is Applications International Corporation (SAIC), will a Republican professor of nuclear engineering at the succeed Grumbly as DOE Assistant Secretary for University of Florida in Gainesville. Robinson is an Environmental Management. Nominees for the Independent partner with Winston and Strawn, a law DOE Assistant Secretary position also require firm with offices in Washington, D.C. confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Dicus has been appointed to a term that expires June 30,1998. She is currently Director of the Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management of the Arkansas Department of Health. She is also a former chair of the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission and a former Forum Participant.

LLWNotes January/February 1996 9 Court Calendar

Case Name Description Court Date Action

American College Challenges a local United States December 8, Plaintiffs filed a of Nuclear ordinance that District Court 1995 complaint for Physicians v. prohibits the disposal for the Central declaratory relief. County of San of any LLRW within District of Bernardino (See San Bernardino California, related story, this County not generated Eastern January 23, 1996 The state defendants issue.) within the county and Division filed an answer. that establishes criteria for the siting January 29, 1996 The county defendants and design of LLRW filed an answer. disposal facilities.

California Challenges a local United States December 15, Plaintiffs filed a Radioactive ordinance that District Court 1995 complaint for Materials prohibits the disposal for the Central declaratory relief. Management of any LLRW within District of (CalRad) Forum v. San Bernardino California, December 21, Plaintiffs amended their County of San County not generated Eastern 1995 complaint to include as Bernardino (See within the county and Division defendants the related story, this that establishes California Department issue.) criteria for the siting of Health Services and and design of LLRW S. Kimberly Belsche. disposal facilities. January 23, 1996 The state defendants filed an answer.

January 29, 1996 The county defendants filed an answer.

FortMojave Appeal of a suit that California January 18, 1996 The Supreme Court of Indian Tribe v. seeks to void the Supreme the State of California California certification of the Court denied the petition for Department of final EIR/S and the review, thereby Health Services issuance of a license exhausting all avenues (See related story, for the Ward Valley for appeal in the state this issue) facility based on court system. alleged violations of state and federal law.

Keyserling v. Challenges the Supreme December 27, Respondents filed their Beasley (See inclusion of certain Court of the 1995 brief. LLWNotes, provisions relating to State of South October 1995, the Barnwell LLRW Carolina January 11, 1996 Petitioners filed their p. 21.) disposal facility in the reply brief. state's General Appropriations Act of 1995

10 LLWNotes January/February 1996 Court Calendar continued

Case Name Description Court Date Action

Nebraska v. Seeks to compel the United States October 24, Central Commission Central Interstate Central Commission District Court 1995 filed a brief opposing Low-Level to pay rebate funds for the District Nebraska's motion for Radioactive Waste recently received from of Nebraska summary judgment, Commission (See the U.S. Department and a motion for LLWNotes, of Energy to the State summary judgment. January/February of Nebraska. 1995, pp. 16-17.) November 13, Central Commission 1995 filed an amended answer and counterclaim.

December 4, Nebraska filed a 1995 response to the Central Commission's counterclaim. Nebraska's reply to the January 12, 1996 Central Commission's brief opposing the state's motion for sum- mary judgment is due.

Nebraska's response to January 12, 1996 the Central Commissions amended answer and to the commissions motion for summary judgment is due.

Appalachian States Seeks the release of all United States February 9, 1996 Oral arguments are Low-Level surcharge fees, Court of scheduled. Radioactive Waste collected from Appeals for Commission v. Appalachian region the Third O'Leary (See LLW generators, being held Circuit Notes, November/ in an escrow account December 1995, by DOE Secretary pp. 6-8.) Hazel O'Leary.

Midwest Interstate Seeks payment of United States December 18, Plaintiff filed a reply to Low-Level surcharge rebates held District Court 1995 the defendant's motion Radioactive Waste in escrow with respect for the District for summary judgment. Commission v. to the period from of Minnesota O'Leary (See LLW July 1, 1995 through December 18, Defendant filed a reply Notes, July 1995, December 31, 1995. 1995 to the plaintiff's motion pp. 12-14.) for summary judgment. March 8, 1996 Oral arguments are scheduled.

LLWNotes January/February 1996 11 States and Compacts U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service and the National Low-Level Waste On January 29, EPA Management Program have finalized the scope of published in the work for a study to develop "comparative cost estimates Federal Register a for a Connecticut LLRW disposal facility and a notice that the public Connecticut LLRW assured storage facility." The hearing on the proposal to "assured storage" concept is described in the rescind Subpart I of the cover story of the September 1995 National Emission Radwaste Magazine. According Standards for Hazardous Air to the article, the concept Pollutants (NESHAPs) for involves "the establish- NRC- and Agreement ment of facilities for the State-licensed facilities assured storage of low- other than power reactors level radioactive waste will be held on February for an indefinite period 29 in Arlington, Virginia. of time." Rogers and Associates EPA is proposing to rescind haj.xu,Lsr contractewvutiavkvdu witCTILIhI thI^IVe xNationa lauv/ucul —j ~ • ^—j~—ji j ^— OViDDcilL X TOX XlC'CIXjCCo OLXXCi Low-Level Waste Management des'9n e0MaF* "If Bob Peml<0WICZ than power reactors once NRC Program to conduct the comparative cost study. The adopts a constraint level rule. (See related Radbit, this work plan projects that the final report will be available issue.) The public comment period on the proposal June 21, 1996. For further information, contact Ronald closes on February 22. For further information, call Gingerich of the Connecticut Hazardous Waste Eleanor Thornton ofEPA's Office of Radiation and Management Service at (860)244-2007. Indoor Air at (202)233-9773.

U. S. Department of Energy On December 21, EPA published the proposed # Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) in DOE has extended by 60 days the public the Federal Register for public comment. The comment period on the Draft Waste Management comment period closes February 20. The proposed Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement rule establishes constituent-specific "exit levels" for (WMPEIS). The comment period now closes on low-risk solid wastes that are designated as hazardous February 19. The WMPEIS evaluates the management wastes because they are listed, or nave been mixed and siting alternatives for the treatment, storage and/or with, derived from, or contain hazardous wastes. disposal of five DOE waste streams. For further Under this proposal, generators of listed hazardous information, call the Center for Environmental wastes that meet the self-implementing "exit levels" Management Information at (800)736-3282. See also would no longer be subject to the hazardous waste "New Materials and Publications." management system under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as listed hazardous wastes. (See LEWNotes, Nov./Dec. 1995, p. 20.) For further information, contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)424-9346.

12 LLW Notes January/February 1996 Radbits continued

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission On January 9, NRC published a Federal Register # notice soliciting public comment on a petition On January 30, NRC published in the Federal requesting that NRC change its regulations to # Register for public comment proposed require private land ownership of low-level radioactive amendments to the licensing, inspection and waste disposal sites during operations and closure of annual fees charged to NRC license applicants and the disposal facility and then to require conversion of licensees. The comment period closes February 29. the title to the site to the U.S. Department of Energy. The amendments would reduce the annual fees for all The comment period closes on March 11. The licensees. The proposed amendments also include petition was filed by Diane Burton, Managing revisions to hourly rates charged for the reactor, Director of Heardand Operations to Protect the nuclear materials and nuclear waste programs and Environment (HOPE). (See LLWNotes, October clarify that fees would be assessed for licenses 1995, p. 33.) For further information, see "New authorizing the import or export of radioactive waste. Materials and Publications."

On January 22, NRC published the proposed # staff technical position on the disposition of On December 13, 1995, NRC published in the cesium-137 contaminated emission control dust Federal Register for public comment the [baghouse dust] and other incident-related material in proposed rule to establish a constraint of 10 the Federal Register for public comment. The comment millirems per year total effective dose equivalent period closes on March 22. Baghouse dust can become (TEDE) for dose to members of the public from air radioactively contaminated when scrap metal emissions of radionuclides from NRC- and Agreement containing a radioactive sealed source is inadvertently State-licensed facilities other than power reactors. The smelted. The resulting volatilization of the sealed public comment period on the rule closes on March source can contaminate the finished metal product, 12. The proposed rule is necessary to provide existing dust already in storage, equipment and duct assurance to EPA that future emissions from NRC and systems, and the surrounding facilities. Contaminated Agreement State licensees will not exceed levels that baghouse dust is a commercial mixed waste regulated will provide an ample margin of safety. This action is by both EPA and NRC. The proposed guidance may expected to be the final step in providing EPA with a be used by state permitting agencies in case-by-case basis upon which to rescind Subpart I of the National requests to dispose of treated cesium-contaminated Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants baghouse dust at hazardous waste disposal facilities (NESHAPs) for NRC and Agreement state licensees permitted under Subtitle C of the Resource other than power reactors. For further information, see Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). For further the following issues ofLLWNotes: Nov.lDec. 1995, p. information, call William Labs ofNRC's Division of 20; October 1995, p. 20; April/May 1995, p. 18; and Waste Management at (301)415-6756. See also "New JanJFeb. 1995, p. 22. Materials and Publications."

LLW Notes January/February 1996 13 Federal Agencies and Committees continued

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACNW Urges Strong, Centralized NRC LLRW Program In a December 29 letter to NRC Chair Shirley Jackson, Recognizing that the fundamental mission of the Paul Pomeroy, Chair of Advisory Committee on NRC is to protect the health and safety of the Nuclear Waste (ACNW), urged the NRC public and the environment, the ACNW has Commissioners to concluded that in the radioactive waste field, the management of LLW poses broader, more direct • evaluate the priority of NRC s low-level radioactive and ubiquitous potential risks to health and safety waste program on the basis of public health and than any other activity. Factors contributing to the safety and the national need for a centralized source risk of low-level waste include the long time of regulatory and technical expertise to ensure a frames associated with large volumes of uranium- consistent, adequate, and coherent approach to contaminated waste, the performance of near- NRC's low-level radioactive waste program; and surface facilities for long-term disposal, and the existence of multiple disposal sites. Hence, the • direct the NRC staff to reassess the elements of the proper management of the storage and disposal of low-level radioactive waste program—on the basis of such wastes should command major attention the priority assigned by the NRC Commissioners— from the NRC. We note that generating, storing, as part of the agency-wide rebaselining process. and disposing of LLW at multiple sites often affect ACNW urged the NRC staff to use the the public and other stakeholders more directly recommendations contained in the letter report to than other activities in which NRC participates. configure these elements into a program that is We believe the NRC provides the important responsive to the national need. consistency and technical competence that these stakeholders require to ensure that their interests The ACNW was established in 1988 to advise the NRC are protected. Finally, the orderly progress toward on nuclear waste management issues, as directed by the safe disposal of LLW requires a stable regulatory NRC Commissioners. base that can only be provided by a centralized agency thoroughly involved in the LLW program. Background: Staff LLRW Options Paper Next Steps for ACNW, NRC In September 1995, NRC released a staff options paper—Alternatives to Terminating the Nuclear The ACNW letter report includes a number of Regulatory Commission Low-Level Radioactive Waste recommendations and observations on specific Disposal Program—that discusses the implications of elements of NRC s low-level radioactive waste program. ending NRC's low-level radioactive waste disposal According to ACNW staff, the committee discussed the program. The staff paper addresses three options, necessary elements for a low-level radioactive waste ranging from continuing the current NRC program to program at its January meeting and may continue to ceasing all NRC low-level radioactive waste program discuss this issue at future meetings. activities. The paper recommends option two, which is "to reduce the program to those activities required by NRC Division of Waste Management staff are law and a few others that are necessary and essential to preparing a paper analyzing the public comments the national program." At the request of the NRC received on the staff options paper for presentation to Commissioners, the ACNW reviewed the staff options the NRC Commissioners. The ACNW letter report will paper and issued the December 1995 letter report be addressed in the commission paper. The future of containing recommendations on the future of the NRC NRC's low-level radioactive waste program will also be program. addressed as part of the agency-wide strategic rebaselining and reassessment initiative. NRC's Role in LLRW For further information, see "New Materials and The letter report contains the following view of what Publications." NRC's role in low-level radioactive waste management should be:

14 LLW Notes January/February 1996 Federal Agencies and Committees continued NRC Receives Applications to Import/Export LLRW

Since publication of NRC s final rule on the import and Act, South Carolina is not responsible for disposal export of radioactive waste, the commission has of waste generated within another country. It has received one application to import radioactive waste been the policy of the State of South Carolina to from a foreign country and one application to export only accept waste generated within the borders of radioactive waste to a foreign country. (See LLW Notes, the United States and its Territories. There are no July 1995, p. 17.) NRC is currently reviewing the provisions in the state law to allow for disposal of import application. The export application is on hold at waste generated in another country. Therefore, the the request of the applicant. State of South Carolina prohibits the disposal of any waste at the Barnwell Facility imported into Import Application this country regardless of any foreign requirements. Proposed Shipments On September 22, 1995, Nuclear Sources and Services, Inc., DBA Next Step NRC staff indicate that the license NSSI/Recovery Services Inc. (NSSI) submitted an application is still under review and that the application to NRC for a specific license to import 940 commission has asked NSSI for additional information. cubic feet of class A low-level radioactive waste from Mexico for a period of five years (up to 25 barrels per Export Application year). The waste to be imported is generated from the use of nickel 63 as an ionizing material in the Proposed Shipments Shortly after publication of manufacture of electrical surge arrestors. The nickel 63 NRCs final import/export rule, Master International is sold to a manufacturer in Mexico by a U.S. Systems USA Corporation submitted an application to distributor. The Mexican government requires, as one the NRC for a license to export class A low-level of its import permit requirements, that the nickel 63 radioactive waste to the Russian Republic of Dagestan. waste residues be returned to the U.S. Accordingly, The application indicated that Scientific Ecology NSSI's application proposes that the waste be shipped Group (SEG)—a wholly owned subsidiary of to NSSI in , Texas, for volume reduction and Westinghouse Electric Corporation—would be the then to Barnwell, South Carolina, for disposal. principal supplier of the waste. (See LLW Notes, However, NSSI proposes to store the waste at its own August/September 1995, p. 26.) facility when U.S. disposal sites are not available. Status of Application In late 1995, however, at the Application Review As part of its review process, NRC request of a legal representative for Master International contacted officials in Texas and South Carolina— Systems, NRC put a hold on the processing of the proposed import destinations for the waste—to company's export license application. Master confirm that the facilities identified in the license International Systems has indicated that it may application can accept the proposed waste shipments reactivate the application at some point in the future. and that the states do not object to the import. NRC also contacted officials at the U.S. State Department. Russian Law In a related matter, various recent press articles have indicated that Russian law forbids the Virgil Autry of the South Carolina Department of importation of foreign radioactive waste. One article, Health and Environmental Control, responded by letter citing a translation of Russian law supplied by dated December 15, 1995. Autry s letter states: Greenpeace, states that article 50, paragraph three of the Russian law on Protection of the Natural The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Environment would prohibit shipments such as those Amendments Act of 1985 requires that a state only proposed by Master International Systems. The law, as be responsible for waste generated within that translated, reads as follows: state. South Carolina is therefore only responsible for disposal of low-level radioactive waste Import for the purposes of storage or permanent generated within the state. South Carolina has disposal of radioactive waste and material from gone beyond this responsibility by allowing other states, sea dumping, (or) sending into space disposal of waste from other states and U.S. for the purpose of permanent disposal of Territories. Also, under the Policy Amendments radioactive waste is forbidden.

LLW Notes January/February 1996 15 U.S. Congress

U.S. House of Representatives House Grants "Open Rule" for Texas Compact; Bill Could Come Up Any Time

The Rules Committee of the U.S. House of Bryant's amendment is virtually identical to that Representatives granted an "open rule" for proposed by Coleman, but it excludes the language consideration of H.R. 558, the Texas Low-Level prohibiting siting a facility within 60 miles of an Radioactive Waste Disposal Compaa, at 5:30 p.m. on international boundary which is a river. the evening of Tuesday, December 19. An "open" rule permits all provisions of the compaa legislation to be The disposal facility site selected by the Texas Low- debated and amended when it is considered on the Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority is in House floor. southern Texas, in Hudspeth County, approximately 20 miles from the Mexican border and the Rio Grande. In The following day, the full House approved by voice April, an earthquake measuring 5.6 on the Richter scale vote the "open rule" for consideration of the compact occurred near Alpine, Texas. Its epicenter was legislation. Consideration of whether or not to approve approximately 100 miles southeast of the proposed site. the rule lasted for approximately one hour, during Accordingly, both amendments, if passed, would which time proponents and opponents of the legislation effectively preclude the Hudspeth County site. engaged in spirited debate, principally over the merits of the compact rather than over the rule itself. As part of its siting process, the Texas Low-Level Future Action Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority has collected data on seismic activity for more than Vote by the Full House Now that a majority of the five years. The proposed disposal facility was House has agreed to a rule, a vote on the compact analyzed assuming both a magnitude seven legislation itself may occur at any time. However, the earthquake occurring six miles from the site and a House is currently not expected to vote on the magnitude six earthquake occurring immediately legislation until after federal budgetary issues are beneath the site. According to the Authority, "in resolved. (See related story, this issue.) Accordingly, both cases, our evaluations showed that the facility Congressional staff predict the compact legislation is will perform satisfactorily with no failure of not likely to come up until late March. canisters or covers. We are confident that the proposed disposal facility will perform as designed Amendments U.S. Representatives John Bryant following an earthquake of this magnitude." (D-TX) and Ronald Coleman (D-TX)—both of whom are vocal opponents of the Texas Compact—have announced their intention to offer amendments to the compaa legislation.

Colemans amendment makes congressional consent to the compact subject to the condition "that no compact facility... may be sited within 60 miles of an international boundary which is a river and which is within an active earthquake zone." An "active earthquake zone" is defined as "an area within 150 miles from the epicenter of an earthquake which measured in excess of 5.0 on the Richter scale and which occurred in 1995."

16 LLW Notes Jan uary/February 1996 U.S. Congress continued

"Dear Colleague" Letters in Support Previous Letters Previously, a "Dear Colleague" letter in support of the Texas Compact was circulated by the Recent Letters Prior to debate on the "open rule" for following four "freshmen" Representatives: the compact legislation, supporters of the Texas Compact sent one of four "Dear Colleague" letters to Richard Burr (R-NC) each member of the House. The four letters are similar but are addressed to different groups of Representatives: James Longley (R-ME)

• those who voted yes on suspension of the rules last (R-TX) time the bill was considered and who have received letters from their compact and/or state, William (Mac) Thornberry (R-TX) • those who voted yes on suspension of the rules last "Dear Colleague" Letters in Opposition time the bill was considered and who have not received letters from their compact and/or state, Representative Ronald Coleman (D-TX) distributed a "Dear Colleague" letter in opposition to the Texas • those who voted no on suspension of the rules last Compact legislation on December 1, 1995. time the bill was considered and who have received letters from their compact and/or state, and A separate "Dear Colleague" letter opposing H.R. 558 was distributed on December 11, 1995, by • those who voted no on suspension of the rules last Representative (R-TX). time the bill was considered and who have not received letters from their compact and/or state. The Representatives signing these "Dear Colleague" letters are

Charles Stenholm (D-TX) (R-TX) Jim Longley (R-ME) (D-TX) (R-TX) (R-TX) (D-TX) Bernard Sanders (I-VT) John Baldacci (D-ME) (R-TX) (R-TX) William (Mac) Thornberry (R-TX)

continued on page 18

LLW Notes January/February 1996 17 U.S. Congress continued

Debate re Granting an Open Rule for H.R. 558 —the Texas Compact Legislation The following Representatives spoke in favor of an The following Representatives spoke against the open rule for the Texas Compact legislation and in legislation: favor of the legislation itself: Henry Bonilla (R-TX) Dan Schaefer (R-CO) Ronald Coleman (D-TX) John Baldacci (D-ME) (D-TX) Joe Barton (R-TX) John Bryant (D-TX) Gene Green (D-TX) Shirley Jackson Lee (D-TX) Frank Pallone (D-NJ) Jack Fields (R-TX) Bernard Sanders (I-VT) (D-TX) James Longley (R-ME)

The following statements were made by various Representatives during debate over whether or not to grant H.R. 558 an open rule:

Representative Dan Schaefer (R-CO) Representative Henry Bonilla (R-TX) The measure had strong bipartisan support I rise in opposition to the Texas Low-Level during the Commerce Committee's Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent consideration of it, and I am hopeful that once Act and the rule for the bill. As you all know, this Members have listened to this debate at the full bill was considered by the House back in House level, the bill will enjoy similar wide September. The House overwhelmingly defeated support on final passage ... One of the important this bill by a vote on 243 to 176 under and controversial matters raised during the suspension of the rules ... The House already House's first consideration of this bill revolved made its statement loud and clear by rejecting the around the siting of the low-level waste facility. bill. This bill is not in order today and I urge my H.R. 558, like the other nine compacts before it, colleagues to oppose the bill and the rule. does not specify a site. It was the intent of Congress that siting, like the other responsibilities outlined in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste [Policy] Act, would remain a State issue.

18 LLW Notes January/February 1996 U.S. Congress continued

Representative John Baldacci (D-ME) Representative Ronald Coleman (D-TX)

Neither the compact nor H.R. 558 specify any In response to Representative Bartons statement particular site in Texas. This decision is solely the above: responsibility of the Government of the State of Texas. The siting decision is the right of the State All of my colleagues in Texas that think this is of Texas. We in Washington should not interfere smart better start thinking ahead just a little bit. in that process. This is not about Maine and Vermont and Texas only. Once they open this site, these Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) commissioners will elect to put radioactive nuclear waste from every State, if they want to, When this bill came to the floor earlier this year, because only they will be doing it. it was defeated ... primarily because many Members felt ... that since one or two Members Representative Gene Green (D-TX) in the State of Texas on the Republican side were opposed to this legislation, that the State of Texas We cannot continue to stick our head in the sand itself and the Republican delegation in general and say we do not have a place for this [low-level was opposed. radioactive waste]. By allowing this compact, it would allow the State of Texas, a large geographic Nothing could be further from the truth. The State with a great deal of urban area that Governor of the State of Texas, the Honorable produces this low-level waste, a place to store it George Bush, strongly supports the passage of other than the urban areas that is [sic] close to all this act. The former Governor, the Honorable of our homes. Ann Richards, formerly when she was Governor supported this act. So both our Democrat former Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) Governor and Republican Governor support the passage of H.R. 558. No site will be selected without public hearings that give concerned citizens the opportunity to In response to an inquiry from Representative express their views on the location of the facility. Ronald Coleman (D-TX) as to whether or not Environmental agencies will conduct the Barton would support an amendment that would appropriate review and resolve environmental restrict the compact to only Maine, Vermont, and concerns in accordance with current law and Texas: regulations. No radioactive waste from States other than Texas, Maine, and Vermont would be I would say to the gentleman that I was one of stored at the facility. The future facility must the authors of the amendments in 1985, and it is meet Federal regulatory standards developed by the intent of the legislation to give the States the the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relating to right to negotiate between themselves for these safety in the construction and operation of the compacts. It would, in my opinion, be outside facility. the scope of this particular bill to try to limit any of the legislatures in what they could do. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which approves this compact among Texas, Maine, and I would oppose the gentleman's amendment if he Vermont and permits those states to manage their were to offer such an amendment. I personally do low-level radioactive waste in compliance with not have a problem limiting the States, but the Federal environmental law and regulations. underlying legislation gives the States the right to negotiate these compacts, and the Congress' role is simply to ratify or to not ratify the compact. continued on page 20

LLW Notes January/February 1996 19 U.S. Congress continued

Debate re Granting and Open Rule for H.R. 558—the Texas Compact Legislation (continuedfrom page 19)

Representative John Bryant (D-TX) Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) [The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste] Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention ... that this Commission is going to be able to accept nuclear is the 10th compact to receive congressional waste from every State of the Union. It is, in my approval. Basically, the compact system envisions view, very regrettable. that low-level radioactive waste policy is developed with the strong support of the We are going to offer an amendment to say that National Governors' Association, and under the it [the compact] is limited to the two States law, the task of selecting the disposal sites is the involved, Vermont and Maine. I see no way to States' responsibilities. So, the subcommittee, in justify doing otherwise. The bill has been lobbied reporting out the bill, was cognizant of the fact to Members of Congress from my region to say that the States involved in the compact do that it just involved the two States. The fact of support it. the matter is that it does not. If it did, I think no one would mind if we offered an amendment Traditionally, Congress' responsibility is to that said this would be a compact between the simply act quickly on the compacts' request by three States ... the respective States and if all is in order, to approve it promptly. The site that has been chosen is one that is on an international border, very close to the Rio In response to an inquiry from Representative Grande River in an area that is a volatile Bryant as to whether or not Pallone would support earthquake zone. This area experienced an an amendment that would restrict the locations in earthquake scoring 5.6 on the Richter scale on which the State of Texas may site a disposal facility: April 13 of this year. The epicenter was less than 100 miles away and the quake was felt by [A]s the gendeman knows, I did not support any individuals several hundreds of miles away... Mr. amendments like that in the subcommittee and I Speaker, it is not in the national interest to ratify would not support it on the floor. Again, because this [compact] knowing that the State of Texas my understanding is that this has been looked plans to locate this in this place. If it were to into and that those on the State level that looked pollute the Rio Grande River, we would have an into it took that into consideration. enormous problem with Mexico; a problem not only for the people of Texas, but all the people of Representative Ronald Coleman (D-TX) the United States who would have to help pay this liability. In response to above-statement by Pallone: I think the reason the gendeman from Texas asked the question is simply because it will be taxpayers in New Jersey and Kansas and California and New York that will be participating in the clean-up of an accident when it occurs. It is not going to just be Texas, Maine, or Vermont.

I hope that the gentleman and my colleagues understand that, that it will be the responsibility of all of us, because it is an international river and international boundary that belongs to the United States as well as to Mexico.

20 LLW Notes January/February 1996 U.S. Congress continued

Representative Jack Fields (R-TX) Representative Bernard Sanders (I-VT) Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for my [Tjhere are nine compacts that have already been colleagues to understand that the site that has approved by the Congress, impacting 42 States. been chosen by the State of Texas will be used as This will be the 10th compact. I think from a a waste site regardless of what the House of precedent point of view, it is important for this Representatives does. That decision has been Congress to pass this compact. made. That is where waste generated in the State of Texas will be disposed. ... [T]his Congress is not designating a specific disposal site. That is not what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, the advantage of our State entering Presumably, the people of Texas have a process to into a compact with other States is basically we determine what is in the best interests of their put a lock on what waste our State at any point own people. Frankly, I would hope and expect in the future would have to accept. That is why it that the people of Texas would not do anything is so important that the State has made the that is environmentally dangerous to the people decision, entered into the compact and made the of their region. We in Congress are not making ironclad decision that that site is going to be that decision. The people of Texas are making used, whether this compact passes or not. that decision, and I hope that we could respect that process. ... The only thing the House would do, if they overturned this particular decision, is set a very I would simply suggest that from a precedent bad precedent for other States wishing to enter point of view, from respect to local control, we into similar compacts. If this decision by the should support this rule and we should three States is overturned, it is the first time that eventually support the bill. States having made a decision will have that decision contradicted by an action of the House, Representative Ralph Hall (D-TX) and I think that is tragic. The States have complied with their directive, Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and I think we ought to honor their good-faith efforts by vote to go ratify this compact. I urge [T]he sponsors of this measure are unwilling to Members to vote for H.R. 558. limit it to the three States of Texas, Vermont and Maine. They envision a vehicle here where an Representative James Longley, Jr. (R-ME) unelected commission will be able to expand this compact to include an unlimited number of This is a win/win situation for all three States. In States. particular, the State of Texas is going to benefit to the extent of $50 million that will be contributed by the States of Maine and Vermont. I think it is a positive for all three parties involved.

LLW Notes January/February 1996 21 U.S. Congress continued

Budget Process Stalled: Temporary Spending Measure Funds Government Through March 15 Ward Valley Land Transfer and USEC Privatization Remain Uncertain

In late January—following a series of budget • funds foreign aid programs through September 30 at impasses—Congress and the President passed a short- levels approved by Congress for 1996; term spending measure to temporarily fund the federal government, thereby averting the third partial • restricts travel spending by Cabinet secretaries— government shutdown since November 1995. The except for the secretaries of state and defense, the measure allows nine Cabinet departments and about CIA director and the United Nations ambassador; three dozen other federal agencies which have not yet and received Congressional approval of their fiscal year 1996 appropriations measures to continue operating • orders the sale of a House office building. through March 15, although most of these programs will be funded at levels below that received for fiscal Reconciliation Bill year 1995. A reconciliation bill, which is necessary to address Temporary Spending Measure funding shortfalls in entitlement programs and taxes, was passed by the full U.S. Congress in late November The House passed the short-term spending measure 1995. The bill included many provisions of the 371 to 42 on January 25 on a roll call vote, with 39 Republicans' "Contract with America," as well as a plan Democrats, two Republicans, and one Independent for balancing the federal budget in seven years. It also voting against it. The Senate approved the measure on contained a provision to transfer federal land in Ward January 26 by a vote of 82 to 8, with six Democrats and