%-^w #

DDE/LLW—960135001 \'"fUM Notes July 1994 ''v' '

Forum Executive Committee Meets with DOE Secretary O'Leary, NRC Commissioner de Planque

On June 22, the LLW Forum's Executive Committee and other designated Forum Participants metseparately with Secretary Hazel O'Leary of the U.S. Department of Energy and Commissioner E. Gail de Planque of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The purpose of the meetings was to brief the federal officials on state and compact activities concerning low-level radioactive waste management, as well as to answer their questions on related issues. After the meetings, letters summarizing the discussions were sent to officials of both agencies. . Letter from Gregg Larson to Thomas Grambly. July 14,1994.

On behalf of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum LLW Forum Program and Meetings In response to (LLW Forum), I want to thank you for meeting with us questionsfromyou and otherDOE officials, we discussed during our June 22 briefing of the Secretary of Energy. the LLW Forum's purpose, mandate, and program. We found the discussion to be productive and are The LLW Forum is composed of officials directly encouraged about the new level of increased appointed by governors and compact commissions to communication between the states and compacts and interact with each other, federal officials, and other the Department of Energy (DOE). We are also very interested parties with the goal of implementing the pleased that the Secretary designated you—with the federal law mandating commercial low-leyel radioactive assistance of Jill Lytle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for waste disposal facility development. The LLW Forum Waste Operations—to be the principal point of contact meets regularly, maintains an Executive Committee in maintaining communication with the LLW Forum. and two active working groups, publishes a newsletter, issues periodic summary reports on disposal facility While the main purpose of the meeting was to provide development progress, informs its members and other the Secretary with information about current efforts to state and federal officials of recent activities, and develop commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal maintains a legal information clearinghouse. capacity and to answer any questions that she had, we were also fortunate to discuss with you and other DOE LLW Forum meetings are open to the public, and a officials a number of other issues of ongoinginterest to wide variety of interested parties have attended the Forum Participants and the Department meetings since the LLW Forum's inception in 1986. For your information I have attached a pre-attendance list for the upcoming meeting of the LLW Forum. The Executive Committee has asked me to summarize the discussion and the resulting points of agreement. The LLW Forum is a cooperative and consensus-based Should you wish to clarify any of these items, please organization that interacts with many different contact me. individuals and groups through its publications, its regular meetings, and through the activities of Forum Participants. This unique process requires

continued on page 27

c/oAfton Associates, Inc. • 403 East Capitol Street • Washington, D.C. 20003 • (202)547-2620 • FAX (202)547-1668 ~7F - JT/ON OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED LLW Forum

UWNate* Contents

Volume 9, lumber 4 • J&y 14,19M LLW Forum 2 Editor,. O^tstMa Nonis LLW Forum continued 3 CoatribatmgWritsssr Holmes Brom, FFCA Task Force Forms Mixed Waste Workgroup 3 States and Compacts 4 Todd Logger, Gyxfliaa Nom% IDNS Considers Construction of Centralized Storage Laara Sc&eeJe, M* A. Shaker Facility 4 layout & Design, M. A, Shaker" - Midwest Commission Agrees on Capacity Limit, Advisory Committee 5 EPA Responds to California Site Developer's Queries re Application of Air Pollutant Standards 6 LLW Notes is distributed by Afton Associates, Inc. County-Level Disqualification Site Screening of to Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants Pennsylvania Complete 7 New Jersey State Siting Board Executive Director and other state and compact officials identified by Retires 7 those Participants to receive LLWNotes. Texas Compact Legislation Introduced in U.S. Senate... 7 Determinations on which federal officials receive Courts : 8 LLWNotes are made by Afton Associates based on Generators Ask Court to Rule in Their Favor on LLW Forum Executive Committee guidelines in Surcharge Rebates Lawsuit 8 consultation with key federal officials. Specific Vermont Authority and Battelle Settle Wedands distribution limits for LLWNotes are established by Dispute 10 the Executive Committee. Eightii Circuit Affirms Decision in Nebraska Community Consent Lawsuit 11 To assist in further distribution, all documents Nebraska Court Dismisses Action Filed by Boyd included in Forum mailings are listed in LLWNotes County Local Monitoring Committee 13 with information on how to obtain them. NC Authority, Chem-Nuclear, & Stowe Exonerated 14 U.S. Supreme Court Decides Case on Commerce Clause 15 Recipients may reproduce and distribute LLW Notes as they see fit, but articles in LLWNotes must be The Administration and the Amendments Act 18 reproduced in their entirety and with full attribution. Congress and the Amendments Act 19 U.S. Congress 20 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an Senator Johnston Introduces Legislation to Transfer Ward association of representatives of states arid compacts Valley Site 20 established to facilitate state and compact Representative Dingell Writes to Clinton re commission implementation of the Low-Level Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste 21 Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low- U.S. Congress continued 22 Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of Representatives Derrick, Sharp and Senator Mitchell 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level to Retire .: 22 radioactive waste regional compacts. The Forum Federal Agencies and Committees 22 provides an opportunity for states and compacts to NAS Committee on California Site Convenes 22 share information with one another and to exchange NRC to Improve Public Petition Process 23 views with officials of federal agencies. NRC Commissioner Remick's 5-Year Term Over 23 NRC Releases Draft Proposed Rule on Criteria for Decontamination and Closure of NRC-Licensed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Facilities 24 c/o Afton Associates, Inc. EPA Names First Environmental Justice Federal Advisory 403 East Capitol Street Council 26 Washington, DC 20003 LLW Forum continued .....'...: 27 (202) 547-2620 • FAX (202) 547-1668 New Materials and Publications 30 Receiving LLW Notes by Mail 35 Prepared by Afton Associates for the LLW Forum under State of Washington Department of Ecology Contract Number C9400065.

LLW Notes o July 1994 o' page 2 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.

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

LLW Forum continued FFCA Task Force Forms Mixed Waste Workgroup On May26, the States-Only Federal Facility Compliance The States-Only FFCA Task Force requested diat the Act (FFCA) Mixed Waste Task Force agreed to form a workgroup provide a progress report and workgroup to study die issues associated with U.S. recommendations to the taskforce during die next task Department of Energy (DOE) acceptance of force meeting. commercial low-level mixed waste for treatment and disposal. Members of the workgroup are The agreement to form the workgroup followed a presentation and discussion concerning acceptance of • Teresa Hay, Iowa (Chairperson); commercial mixed low-level waste at DOE sites. The presentationwas given by TeresaHay—whoisamember • Domenic Forcella, Connecticut; of die FFCA Task Force Working Committee on Mixed Waste, a Midwest "Compact Commissioner, and a • Brian Munson, Idaho; member of die LLW Forum Mixed Waste Working Group—and by Holmes Brown, Facilitator for die • Jeff Breckel, Washington; LLW Forum. The presentation was scheduled at die request of LLW Forum Mixed Waste Working Group • Beth Partlow, Soudi Carolina; and members widi die concurrence of die full LLW Forum at its April meeting. (See liWAfote?, May/June 1994, p. • Harvey Collins, California. 25.)

Five members of the workgroup represent states mat During die April 1994 LLW Forum meeting, Forum are also represented on the LLW Forum Mixed Waste Participants unanimously resolved Working Group. Three workgroup members—Hay, Forcella, and Collins—regularly attend LLW Forum that Forum Participants contact dieir state meetings. representatives to die [National Governors' Association] FFCA Task Force and urge dieir The workgroup was charged by the States-Only FFCA support in adding die issue ofDOE acceptance Task Force with the following missions: of commercial mixed waste to dieFFCA process.

,• to better define the issues associated with DOE acceptance of commercial low-level mixed waste for treatment and disposal;

• to place die issues in a national perspective; and

• to identify existing information resources and potential data needs.

LLW Notes o j^iy-1994 o Page 3 States and Compacts

Central Midwest Compact/Illinois IDNS Considers Construction of Centralized Storage Facility Out-of-State Waste May Be Accepted

Thomas Ortciger, Director of the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS), announced in June that the Acceptance of Out-of-State state, as one of its options for management of low-level Waste Based on Economics radioactive waste, would consider developing a commercially operated state facility that would store Preliminary data indicate that, through the year 2000, waste from non-utility generators. To make such a approximately 50,000 cubic feet of commercial low- facility economically viable, the state would have to level radioactive waste generatedin Illinois will require consider acceptance—for a predetermined time off-site storage. Because constructing a centralized period—of non-utility waste from outside the Central facility for this small volume of waste would not be Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste financially feasible, the facility would need to accept Compact region. Ortciger made the announcement at waste generated in other states or compacts that are anational radioactive waste conference in AmeliaMand, actively pursuing development of their own permanent Florida. disposal facility. Surcharges would be assessed on waste sent to the facility in order to payfor the state's associated Storage Shortfall Foreseen disposal plan. The state would require assurances that waste from outside Illinois would be returned to the As of June 30, generators in the state lost access to the state or compact region of origin on a predetermined low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Barnwell, schedule. South Carolina. They must now store their waste on site, at approximately 70 locations throughout the Next Steps state. In order to more precisely gauge the storage shortfall that will result as waste accumulates, IDNS is The centralized facility and other waste management currently updating the storage study that it released in options will be discussed at a meeting between IDNS 1993. State officials have already determined, however, officials and generators onJul y 29 in Matteson, Illinois. that some generators will run out of storage capacity before the end of the year. Small industrial operations For further information, contact Michael Klebe of IDNS at and biomedical generators, such as hospitals, are likely (217)785-9986. to be the most seriously impacted.

LLW Notes ° July 1994 o Page 4 States and Compacts continued

Midwest Compact/Ohio Midwest Commission Agrees on Capacity Limit, Advisory Committee

Onjune 7, the Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission set a capacity limit for the Advisory Committee to Deal regional low-level radioactive waste disposal facility to with Storage Issues be built in Ohio and agreed to establish an advisory committee on preliminary waste acceptance criteria The advisory committee is charged with submitting and waste information and tracking. The actions were recommendations on both preliminary regional waste taken at the commission's annual meeting, held in acceptance criteria and on a data and tracking system Columbus, Ohio. for waste in storage. The system is intended to provide information on the amount, class, form, source, Capacity Capped at 2,250,000 radioactive characteristics, and treatment status of the waste. Recommendations are due no later than Cubic Feet January 31,1995.

The commission adopted a resolution limiting the In establishing the committee, the commission capacity of the future Ohio facility to 2,250,000 cubic recognized that on-site storage is likely at "over 150 feet, the specific limit that Ohio officials had been locations for an extended period prior to operation of seeking. Ohio officials have stated that this capacity will a Compact disposal facility in Ohio" and that setting be sufficient to allow for 20 years of operation, and the preliminary waste acceptance criteria "will provide resolution reiterates the understanding among compact generators with needed information on suitable waste party states that each regional facility will operate for a forms at the time waste treatment, processing, and period of 20 years. storage options are considered."

AJune 9 letter from Commission Chair Stanley York to The committee will be composed of Roger Suppes, Commissioner for Ohio, clarifies that the resolution also "assumes, but does not restate, the • one state government official with technical relevant language in the Compact amendments" expertise appointed by each party state in the approved by the commission in November 1993. These Midwest Compact; amendments include language specifying that a "host state shall be required to accept waste for disposal for a • one member of a statewide environmental period of twenty years from the date the compact organization, and one member of the general public, facility in the hoststate becomes operational, or until its both to be appointed by Ohio's Compact capacity has been reached, whichever happens first." Commissioner; and York states that "Ohio's statutory obligation, therefore, • two generator representatives—one from a utility will be to operate a disposal facility for twenty years, or and the other not—to be appointed by the Chair of until the capacity of 2,250,000 cubic feet is reached, the compact commission. whichever occurs first." The compact amendments also provide that the capacity limit cannot be changed without the affirmative vote of the host state. The The committee's first meeting is scheduled forJul y 18 amendments are currently awaiting passage in Ohio in Columbus, Ohio. and the other party states. For further information, contact Gregg Larson of the Midwest Commission at (612)293-0126.

LLW Notes o j^iy 1994 o page 5 States and Compacts continued

Southwestern Compaq/California EPA Responds to California Site Developer's Queries re Application of Air Pollutant Standards

In aletter datedjune 20, the region IX office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responded to EPA's Explanation a request from US Ecology for a determination concerning the compliance of a planned low-level EPA's response attributes the delay in processing the radioactive waste disposal facility with the National application to factors introduced by the Endangered Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Species Act and the pending litigation regarding the (NESHAP). US Ecology is the developer/operator for Ward Valley site. the facility, which is to be located in Ward Valley, California. The facility cannot be built until EPA Before EPA takes final action on your determines that the air pollutant standards have been application, EPA must comply with section 7 of met and grants permission to construct the Endangered Species Act ... Section 7 requires federal agencies to ensure that their The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air actions do not jeopardize the continued Pollutants are contained in the Federal Clean Air Act existence of athreatened or endangered species and in Subpart I, Part 61 in Chapter 40 of the Code of or destroy or adversely modify its designated Federal Regulations (40 CFR 61). critical habitat. The Fish & Wildlife Service listed the Mohave population of the Desert Tortoise as a threatened species on April 2, Developer's Request 1990 ... The Service's designation of critical habitat on February 8,1994 ... includes land US Ecology formally requested a compliance within your project's boundaries. EPA is determination in January 1993. In a subsequent letter working with the Fish 8c Wildlife Service and dated May 13,1994, Steve Romano, Vice President of other federal agencies to resolve Endangered US Ecology, wrote to EPA Region IX regarding the Species Act issues. status of US Ecology's request. In addition, EPA is awaiting the resolution of In October 1993, the company was informed pending litigation regarding this project. The that it had satisfactorily addressed all of the litigation process may lead to additional matters raised by EPA and that timely issuance information that warrants agency review as of the NESHAP permit was anticipated. We required by the radionuclide NESHAP. Because have received no indication since that time the Department of Interior has similarly that additional information is desired .... decided to await the transfer of federal lands until all lawsuits have been resolved, this Romano's letter includes a chronology documenting decision should have little additional impact both EPA's promulgation of the Subpart I regulations on the project, (citations omitted) and US Ecology's communications with EPA on this matter, which date from March 1990. Romano closed Forfurtherinformation, see "NewMaterials andPublications," with a request that EPA either advise the company of this issue. the reason for the delay or take final action on the application.

LLW Notes ° Jv&y 1994 o Page 6 States and Compacts continued

News Briefs Appalachian Compact/Pennsylvania Northeast Compact/Cormecticut/NewJersey County-Level Disqualification New Jersey State Siting Board Site Screening of Pennsylvania Executive Director Retires Complete Samuel Penza, Executive Director of the New Jersey The developer for a low-level radioactive waste disposal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Siting facility to be located in the state of Pennsylvania has Board, retired from his position on June 30. In a issued a map showing results of the third stage of preparedstatement,SitingBoard Chair Paul Wyszkowski disqualification screening. The map and its expressed his gratitude for Penza's efforts to find accompanying report, released on May 17, show areas solutions for New Jersey's disposal needs. "Sam, as the at a county level that have been eliminated from Board's first executive director, has played a key role in consideration as the site for the facility. Seven public guiding the development of this very challenging meetings, preceded by local media briefings, have been program during the past five years." held around the state to discuss the results and obtain information for future screening activities. A search is under way for a permanent successor. Jeanette Eng, Deputy Executive Director at the Siting Approximately 75 percent of the state has currently Board, is serving as Acting Executive Director. been disqualified. The remaining areas will undergo evaluation screening, which is scheduled to result in For further information, contact Jeanette Eng of the Siting the recommendation of three potential sites in the Board at (609)777-4247. spring of 1995.

For further information, contact William Dornsife of theTexas Compact/Texas Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources at (717)787-2480. Texas Compact Legislation Introduced in U.S. Senate

Onjune 21, a bill granting congressional consent to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact was introduced by Senator George Mitchell (D-ME). The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Co-sponsors of the bill, S. 2224, are Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT)JamesJeffords (R-VT) and William Cohen (R-ME). Maine and Vermont are listed as member states of the compact, along with the host state of Texas. (See LLWNotes, May/June 1994, p. 1)

For further information, contact Lee Mathews of the Texas. Low-LevelRadioactive WasteDisposalAuthority at (512)451- 5292.

LLW Notes o j^iy 1994 o page 1 Courts

Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission v. O'Leary Generators Ask Court to Rule in Their Favor on Surcharge Rebates Lawsuit

In May 1994, Commonwealth Edison Company and The act provides that 25 percent of surcharges on low- Illinois Power Company, which are interveners in a level radioactive waste disposed of between January 1, lawsuit concerning the distribution of surcharge rebates, 1990, and December 30,1992, shall be returned, with filed a joint motion for summary judgment in the interest, to the state or compact region in which the United States District Court for the Central District of waste originated if the state or compact region is able to Illinois. The motion requests that the court rule in favor provide for the disposal of all low-level radioactive waste of the moving parties on the basis that there is no generated within the region by January 1,1993, or if genuine issue of material fact and that the moving certain other conditions are met Otherwise, generators parties are entitled to prevail as a matter of law. may become eligible to receive the surcharge rebates on aproratedbasis. (See LLWNotes,June 1993, pp. 14- The Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive 15.) Waste Commission and the Department of Energy, both of whom are parties to the litigation, filed separate Federal Register Notice—September 30, 1992 The briefs opposing the intervenors' motion on June 27, Department of Energy published a notice describing 1994. In addition, the commission filed a motion criteria and procedures for states or compacts and requesting that the court affirm in part and remand in generators to obtain surcharge rebates in the part U.S. Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary's Federal Register on September 30, 1992. (See determination regarding distribution of the rebate 57 Federal Register 45,248.) According to the notice, funds. The Department of Energy, however, filed a states or compacts may be eligible to receive the rebates montion requesting that the court rule in favor of the if they meet one of several criteria, including having a Department. valid contract with another state or compact for low- level radioactive waste disposal or storage. A number of Background states, compacts, and industry groups submitted comments on the notice. Subsequently, DOE staff indicated that the department was reconsidering its The Federal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Legislation position on this subject. Under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, sited states were allowed The Lawsuit: On June 4, 1993, the Central Midwest from 1986 through 1992to collectagraduatedsurcharge Commission filed a lawsuit against Secretary O'Leary on the disposal of waste that was generated outside of seeking payment of the surcharge rebates. (See their particular regions. Twenty-five percent of these LLWNotes, June 1993, pp. 14-15.) The commission surcharges was required to be transferred to an escrow took the position thatithasprovidedfor disposal of low- account held by the Secretary of Energy. Periodic level radioactive waste by virtue of a contract with the payments from the account were then to be made to Southeast Compact Commission that provides states or compact regions that complied with a series of generators in Illinois and Kentucky continued access to deadlines or milestones specified in the act. the disposal facility at Barnwell, subject to certain conditions. The contract expired on June 30, 1994. (See LLWNotes, February 1993, p. 28.)

LLW Notes o Ju\y 3.994 o ]page 8 Courts continued

Federal iZegwfer Notice—March 31,1994 A new notice Amendments which were clearly intended to ensure responding to comments on the earlier notice and thatstates and compacts assumed essentiallypermanent describingfinalpoliciesandproceduresforthepayment responsibilityfor disposal of [low-level radioactive waste] of surcharge rebates was published in the FederalRegister generated within their jurisdictions." on March 31, 1994. (See 59 Federal Register 15,188.) Under the final policies and procedures, states and Disposal Within the Compact Region The intervenors compacts that have entered into contracts for access to also claim that the Barnwell contract violates the Barnwell are found eligible to receive the 1993 rebates requirements for the milestone of January 1, 1993, on a prorated basis. In addition, states that do not because it does not provide for disposal within the provide for mixedwaste disposal are nonetheless eligible compact region. They claim that "the plain language of to receive the rebates. The notice provides that the 1985 Act requires thatstates and compact regions generators eligible to receive rebate payments will providefor [low-level radioactive waste] disposal within receive them on aproratedbasis in monthly installments. the state or compact region before the state or compact is entitled to surcharge rebates."

The Motion for Summary Disposal of Mixed Waste The intervenors argue that Judgment since the Barnwell contracts do not provide for the disposal of mixed waste, they do not satisfy the milestone The Barnwell Contract of January 1,1993. The 1985 Act expresslyprovides thatsurcharge Development of New Disposal Capacity The two payments will be made to states and compact intervening utilities argue that the contract for access regions only if "the State in which such waste to Barnwell does not satisfy the milestone of January 1, originated (or its compact region, where 1993, because it does not provide for long-term applicable) is able to provide for the disposal disposal—by the development of new disposal of all low-level radioactive waste generated capacity—for all low-level radioactive waste generated within such state or compact region." ... within the compact region. In support of this position, (emphasis added). The 1985 Act expressly the intervenors point to the 1985 act's legislative history, excludes from the definition of [low-level which they claim "compels the conclusion that radioactive waste] "high-level radioactive waste, compliance with the January 1,1993 milestone requires spent nuclear fuel or by-product material." ... development of a new [low-level radioactive waste] Mixedwaste, on the other hand, is not excluded disposal facility to provide a long-term solution to the by any provision of the 1985 Act. disposal problem." They assert that the House and Senate Reports consistently refer to new site The intervenors again cited the letter from development as the catalyst behind both the Low-Level Representatives Synar and Lehman in support of their Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the 1985 argument that states and compacts need to provide for Amendments Act. the disposal of mixed waste in order to be eligible to receive surcharge rebates. In addition, the intervenors cite an October 4,1993, letter to Secretary O'Leary from U.S. House The [DOE] is clearly overreaching in its search Representative Mike Synar (D-OK), Chair of the for its legislative intent to exclude mixedwaste. Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural The statutory language repeatedly requires Resources, Committee on Government Operations, states and compacts to provide for all low-level and from U.S. House Representative Richard Lehman waste generated within their jurisdictions, not (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and some. Mineral Resources, Committee on Natural Resources. Theletterstates thatits authors "believesuch temporary contracts are inconsistent with the intent of the 1985 continued on page 10

LLW Notes o j^iy 1994 o page 9 Courts continued continued from page 9 Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste The DOE Surcharge Regulations Authority v. Battelle Memorial Institute Authority of an Administrative Agency Theintervenors Vermont Authority and assert that the surcharge regulations published by the DepartmentofEnergyintheifeferaiil^irferonMarch 31, Battelle Settle Wetlands 1994, are invalid as contrary to both the express language and legislative intent of the 1985 act because they find that the Barnwell contracts satisfy the milestone of Dispute January 1,1993. On May 26, the Vermont Low-Level Radioactive Waste An administrative agency that administers a Authority and Battelle Memorial Institute reached a statute does not have the power to make law; settlement in their legal dispute over site rather its authority is to adopt regulations to characterization work done by Battelle on property carry into effect the will of the legislature as located adjacent to the VermontYankee Nuclear Power expressed in the statute, and thus the agency station in Vernon, Vermont. The settlement was may not make a rule or regulation that is out of presented to the court prior to the completion of ajury harmony with or goes beyond the scope of its trial in Washington County Superior Court in statutory grant of authority. Montpelier, Vermont. Under the terms of the settlement, which has been accepted by the court, Statutory Interpretation Although the intervenors Battelle agreed to pay the Authority $750,000 by June acknowledge that a provision in the 1985 act permits 10. The settlement also stipulates that a counterclaim states and compacts to satisfy the milestones by entering thatBattelle filedagains t the Authority will be dismissed. into disposal contracts with another state or compact region, they claim that this provision must not be read The lawsuitwas filed by the Authority on May 11,1992. in isolation. Instead, they argue itshould "be read with In its complaint, the Authority charged that Battelle the surrounding sections, which expressly require a failed to provide accurate and timelyinformatio n about long-term solution to the disposal problem through the presence of wetlands on the VermontYankee site, the development of new disposal sites." According to thereby breaching its contract with the Authority and the intervenors, "DOE has failed to distinguish among its professional obligations. (See LLWNotes, July 1992, 'the types, duration and terms' of the Barnwell Contract p. 15.) Vermont law prohibits locating a disposal site in and the contracts intended by Congress in [the 1985 a wedand or within 100 meters of a wetland. The act]." Authority voted to terminate characterization of the Vermont Yankee site in September 1991. (See Method of Paymentof Surcharge Rebates Inaddition, LLWNotes, October 1991, p. 7.) According to the the intervenors assert that the surcharge regulations set complaint, the termination decision was based upon forth a method of payment that is inconsistent with the factors other than wetlands, but had Battelle advised 1985 act the Authority about the wetlands, the other data provided about the site would have been unnecessary for the decision.

Battelle filed an answer and counterclaim against the Authority onjune 2,1992, seeking, among other things, damages of at least $106,253. Battelle asserted that the Authority breached its contract by refusing to pay for certain work performed in connection with the site characterization plan.

LLW Notes ° July 1994 o page 10 Courts continued

Nebraska ex. rel. Nelson v. Central Interstate Loxo-Level Radioactive Waste Commission Eighth Circuit Affirms Decision in Nebraska Community Consent Lawsuit

On June 13,1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the In dieir motions for summary judgment, US Ecology Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision to and die Central Commission argue diat die court does grant motions for summary judgment filed by die not have die audiority to hear die case because, among Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste odier tilings, die state failed to comply widi provisions Commission and US Ecologyinalawsuitbroughtagainst of die Central Compact diat require suits regarding them by die state of Nebraska. The lawsuit seeks a final decisions of die Central Commission to be filed permanent injunction to prevent die licensing or widiin 60 days after die final decision. According to die construction of a low-level radioactive waste disposal defendants, die 60-day timelimi t should have begun on facility in Boyd County, Nebraska—or anywhere else in February 6,1990, when Norman Thorson, dien-Chair die state—until community consent is demonstrated. of die commission, wrote to every member of die Nebraska Legislature announcing that the commission The State of Nebraska subsequendy filed a petition for had directed US Ecology to notify Nebraska of the Boyd rehearing en banc—a new hearing before all of die County site's selection as the final site. (See LLWNotes, appeals court judges. As of press time, die court had September 1993, p. 13.) The state, however, argues not ruled on the motion. diat die Thorson letter and US Ecology's notice of site selection do not constitute binding decisions of the Background commission and diat die documents, therefore, did not trigger the 60-day limitation period. In addition, The Pleadings The complaint was filed in die United die state claims that even if die limitation period was States District Court for die District of Nebraska on triggered, it only applies to actions against die January 13,1993. (See LLWNotes, January 1993, p. 3.) commission, not to actions against US Ecology. On March 8, 1993, US Ecology and the Central Commission submitted separate answers to die The District Court5s Order On October 8,1993, die complaint (See LLW Notes, March 1993, p. 12.) In U.S. District Court for die District of Nebraska granted addition, die defendants filed separate, but nearly die defendants' motions for summary judgment. The identical, motions for summary judgment on August court found diat 23,1993. (See LLW Notes September 1993, p. 13.) The Issues The state alleges diat die defendants have • die state failed to comply widi provisions of the violated Nebraska law by failing to make every effort to Central Compact diat require suits regarding final site the low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in a decisions of die Central Commission to be filed community where support is evident The state also widiin 60 days after die final decision; and claims that community consent does not exist Community consent was one of die ten conditions • die state's lawsuitis barred by die equitable doctrines specified by dien-Governor Kay Orr when Nebraska of estoppel and laches—"it would be grossly was chosen as die compact's host state, and die concept inequitable to permit die State of Nebraska to of community consent is included in Nebraska's siting challenge die actions of die Compact Commission law, aldiough die meanings of die terms "community" and die developer at tiiislat e date." (See LLWNotes, and "consent" are contested. (See LLWNotes, Winter 1993, p. 26.) January 1993, p. 3.) US Ecology and die Central Commission answer diat "all requirements of law widi The state appealed die district court's decision. respect to seeking community support have been complied widi." (See LLWNotes, March 1993, p. 12.) continued on page 12

LLW Notes ° July 1994 o page 11 Courts continued

continued from page 11 Witii regard to die question of whether the commission made a final decision, the court held as follows.

The language of Thorson's letter and U.S. Subsequent Lawsuit Ecology's notice of final selection leaves no doubt that the Commission's site selection On August 27, 1993, US Ecology submitted process had been completed. Bodi documents revisions to its application for a license to indicate that the Butte site in Boyd County was construct and operate a low-level radioactive the Commission's final selection. After the waste disposalfacilityinBoydCounty, Nebraska. Commission directed U.S. Ecology to inform Under the revisions, the location of the site the Nebraska legislature of the final site remains the same, but the size of the site is selection, the Commission had nothing left to reduced from 320 acres to 110 acres. (See do. Pursuant to Article V, paragraph f of the LLWNotes, July/August 1993, p. 8.) On Compact, the Boyd County site would become October 25, 1993, the state filed a second the regional disposal facility upon issuance of lawsuit in district court based upon the site alicense by die State. Accordingly, we conclude reconfiguration. The suit alleges that diat there is no genuine issue of fact as to community consenthas no tbeen demonstrated whedier die Commission made afinal decision. for the reconfigured site. The court granted summaryjudgmentinfavor of die defendants— Issue: Does the Limitations Period Apply to Actions US Ecology and the Central Commission—on Against US Ecology? The courtfound diat die language December 3, 1993. The state did not appeal of die compact does not support die state's argument the court's decision. (See LLWNotes, Winter diat die 60-day limitations period applies only to actions 1993, pp. 26-27.) against die commission.

Article IV, paragraph 1 provides diat the sixty- day limitation period applies to all actions by The Appeals Court's Order "any person or party state aggrieved by a final decision of the commission. Thus, the On June 13, 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the application of die sixty-day limitation period is Eighdi Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to determined by die nature of die plaintiffs grant summaryjudgment in favor of the defendants in claim rather than by the identity of the the lawsuit diat was filed on January 13,1993. defendant The essence of die State's action against U.S. Ecology is a challenge to die Issue: DidtheCommissionMakeaFinalDecision? The Commission's site selection and dius is barred appeals courtfound that whether the Thorson letter or by die Compact's limitation period. US Ecology's notice of site selection constitute a binding decision of the commission is not the issue. Instead, the Issue: IsuieLawsuitBaiTedbytheDoctrinesofEstoppel issue is whether the record shows that a final decision and Laches? The appeals court held diat since it was made by the commission. "Even if we assume that determined diat die district court properly found die the letter and notice cannot constitute a binding lawsuit to be time barred, it "need not consider die Commission decision, the contents of the two districtcourt's alternative holding that die State's action documents, which are undisputed, indicate that the was barred by die equitable doctrines of estoppel and Commission, not the authors of die documents, made laches." the final site selection." Most of the preceding information was distributed to Forum Participants and Alternates, Federal Liaisons and Alternates •via facsimile transmission in a News Flash on June 22.

LLW Notes ° Juily 1994 ° Page 12 Courts continued

Boyd County Local Monitoring Committee v. Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Nebraska Court Dismisses Action Filed by Boyd County Local Monitoring Committee

On June 3, the District Court of Lancaster County, notice does not apply to the site characteristics as Nebraska, dismissed an action filed by the Boyd County described in the revised application and is therefore Local Monitoring Committee against the Nebraska moot. (See LLWNotes, September 1993, p. 5.) In an Department of Environmental Quality, US Ecology, order dated October 26, 1993, the Director of the and the Save Boyd County Association. The action Department of Environmental Quality dismissed the challenges the dismissal of a contested case hearing on contested case hearing. the announced intent of two Nebraskastate agencies to deny US Ecology's applicationforalicense to construct and operate alow-level radioactive waste disposal facility The Pleadings in Boyd County, Nebraska, for the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact region. As of The Petition for Review On November 16,1993, the press time, no appeal of the dismissal order has been Boyd County Local Monitoring Committee filed a filed. petition asking the District Court of Lancaster County to review the dismissal of the contested case hearing. According to the committee, the dismissal was based on Background improper ex parte communication, was not supported by the evidence, and was implemented by unlawful The Contested Case Hearing On February 19, 1993, procedure. The committee requested that the courtset US Ecology filed a petition requesting a contested case aside the dismissal and that it order the department to hearing on the announced intent of the Nebraska conduct a full hearing to determine whether the Departments of Environmental Quality and Health to proposed site contains wetlands, is subject to flooding deny US Ecology's license application for the proposed or frequent ponding, and is generally well drained. disposal facility in Boyd County, Nebraska. The intended (See LLWNotes, Winter 1993, p. 28.) denial was based on the departments' interpretation of state regulations pertaining to the presence of wetlands The Answers Separate answers to the legal action were at the site of the facility. (See LLWNotes, February 1993, filed by the Save Boyd County Association and the pp. 1,8.) The request was subsequently granted, and a Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality on hearing was scheduled to begin in October 1993. The December 16,1993. The association agrees with virtually Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, every claim made in the committee's petition, and US Ecology, Save Boyd County, and the Boyd County concurs with the committee in its grounds for relief. Local Monitoring Committee were identified as The department, on the other hand, denies allegations participants in the hearing. (See LLWNotes, June 1993, of improper exparte communication and unlawful p. 4.) procedure and argues that the dismissal was supported by the evidence. According to the department, the Dismissal of the Hearing On August 27, 1993, action is premature because the dismissal order is not US Ecology submitted revisions to its license application a final decision on the license application. The that reduced the original 320-acre site for the disposal department also claims that the issues addressed by the facility to a 110-acre site, thereby eliminating all wetlands plaintiffs' petition are no longer relevant because the shown in the original application. (See LLWNotes, license application that is the subject of the petition no July/August 1993, p. 8.) The Departments of longer exists—it has been revised. (See LLWNotes, Environmental Quality and Health subsequently Feb/March 1994, pp. 26-27.) withdrew the Notice of Intent to Deny, stating that the continued on page 14

LLW Notes o July 1994 o page IS Courts continued

continued from page 13 The court determined that the Department of The Motion to Dismiss US Ecology filed a motion to Environmental Quality's dismissal order did not dismiss the petition on December 11, 1993, arguing constitute a "final decision" under Nebraska statutory that the local monitoring committee has no power to law. sue, lacks legal standing, is not a real party in interest, and should never have been allowed to intervene in the The decision of the Director to permit [the contested case hearing. The committee filed a brief Nebraska Department of Environmental opposing US Ecology's motion on February 22,1994. Quality] and [the Nebraska Department of The brief states that the committee is not seeking a full Health] to withdraw their notice of intent "to hearing on the merits of the license application. Instead, deny [US Ecology's] license application neither it is seeking a hearing to determine whether wetlands imposed any obligation nor fixed a legal exist on the proposed site, whether the proposed site is relationship between the parties. The question subject to flooding or frequent ponding, and whether of whether the reconfigured site ... is in the proposed site is generally well drained. (See compliance with minimum site requirements LLWNotes, Feb/March 1994, pp. 26-27.) A hearing on must still be determined. [The Nebraska the motion to dismiss was held on March 17,1994. Department of Environmental Quality] and [the Nebraska Department of Health] have The Court's Order specifically reserved the right to review the new site for compliance and a decision on the In explaining its June 3 dismissal of the action filed by merits must still be made. the Boyd County Local Monitoring Committee, the court noted that Nebraska statutory law provides that The court, having determined that the dismissal order any "final decision" of the Director of the Department was not a final decision on the license application, of Environmental Quality may be appealed and that decided not to address the issue of whether the Boyd any person aggrieved by a "final decision" in a contested County Local Monitoring Committee is an aggrieved case is entitled to judicial review of the decision. person under Nebraska statutory law. Accordingly, thefirstissue to beaddressedin considering the motion to dismiss is whether the Department of Environmental Quality's October 26,1993, dismissal of the contested case hearing constitutes a "final decision."

Quick v. North Carolina Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority NC Authority, Chem-Nuclear, & Stowe Exonerated

On May 20, a U.S. District Court jury in Greensboro, The dispute began in August 1992 when Stowe obtained North Carolina, delivered a verdict in favor of Chrystal two warrants charging Quick with threatening and Stowe—aformer employee of the North Carolina Low- assaulting her at a public meeting. After Quick was Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority—in a found not guilty of the charges, hefiledalawsuitagainst lawsuit filedagains t Stowe, the Authority, and its prime Stowe, the Authority, and Chem-Nuclear alleging contractor—Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., by Bobby malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of Quick, Co-Chair of For Richmond County's emotional distress, and violations of both state and Environment (FORRCE), a group that opposes siting a federal constitutional law. In their answers, the low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Richmond defendants denied the charges and asserted that Quick County. All of the charges against the Authority and committed the offenses. (See LLWNotes, November/ Chem-Nuclear were dismissed by the district court Decemberl992, p. 19.) judge during the course of the trial. The lawsuit stems from Quick's arrest after Stowe filed complaints about For further information, contact Perry Newson of the North his conduct toward her at a public meeting on siting. Carolina Authority at (919) 733-0682.

LLW Notes o Jnnly 1994 o j>age 14 Courts continued

C &A Carbone, Inc. v. Town ofClarkstown, New York U.S. Supreme Court Decides Case on Commerce Clause

On May 16, 1994, the United States Supreme Court Carbone to ship all nonrecyclable waste to the transfer found to be unconstitutional a flow-control ordinance station. that requires all nonhazardous solid waste within Clarkstown, New York, to be processed at a designated Lower CourtDecisionsAlowerNewYorkcourtgranted transfer station before leaving the municipality. The summaryjudgment in favor of the town. The appellate decision may be of interest to those in the low-level division affirmed, finding that the ordinance did not radioactive waste field since it concerns waste and the discriminate against interstate commerce because it Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. "applies evenhandedly to allsolidwasteprocessedwithin the Town, regardless of point of origin." The New York Background Court of Appeals denied Carbone's motion for leave to appeal. The Facts Clarkstown entered into an agreement that allowed a private contractor to construct within town The Majority Opinion limits asolid waste transfer station to separate recyclable from nonrecyclable items. Under the agreement, the Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the contractorwould operate the facilityfor five years, after opinion, which reversed the decisions of the lower which the town would buy it for one dollar. In order to courts andfound that theflowcontrol ordinance violates finance the cost of the transfer station, the town the Commerce Clause. The opinion was joined by guaranteed a minimum waste flow, for which the AssociateJusticesPaulStevens,AntoninScalia, Clarence contractorwas permitted to charge the hauler a"tipping Thomas, and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. According to the fee" of $81 per ton—more than the disposal cost of Court," [s] tate and local governments may not use their unsorted solid waste on the private market The town regulatorypower to favorlocal enterprise byprohibiting promised to make up the deficit between the tipping patronage of out-of-state competitors or theirfacilities." fee receipts and the costs of facility development if less than the minimum guaranteed waste flowwere received continued on page 16 by the transfer station in a year.

In an effort to meet the waste flow guarantee, the town The Commerce Clause adopted a flow-control ordinance requiring that all Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United nonhazardous solid waste within the town be deposited States Constitution provides that Congress— at the transfer station. Although the ordinance allows as opposed to the states—has the power to recyclers to receive solid waste at their own sorting regulate commerce with foreign nations, and facilities, it requires them to send nonrecyclable residue among the several states, and with Indian to the transfer station. The effect is to forbid recyclers Tribes. from shipping the nonrecyclable waste themselves and to require them to pay the tipping fee on trash that has The Commerce Clause limits state action to already been sorted. regulate or tax in a manner that would In 1991, the town discovered that C & A Carbone, impermissibly burden or discriminate against Inc.—a Clarkstown company that operates a recycling interstate commerce, even in areas where center—was shipping nonrecyclable waste to out-of- Congress has not acted. state destinations. The town filed suit in the New York Supreme Courtseekingan injunction thatwould require

LLW Notes o j^ly 1994 o page 15 Courts continued continued from page 15 limits of the town. The ordinance is no less Does the Ordinance Regulate Interstate Commerce? discriminatory because in-state or in-town processors As an initial matter, the Court found, contrary to the are also covered by die prohibition." The Court found town's position, that the flow-control ordinance diat the protectionist effect of die ordinance is made regulates interstate commerce. The town had argued even more acute by die fact diat it favors a single local that the ordinance only affects waste within the town proprietor, since diis bars all competition in die waste- limits andlikenedittoaquarantine—it prevents unsafe processing business. waste from entering the stream of commerce. The Court, however, determined that the ordinance has Does the Town Lack Other Means to Advance a interstate economic effects. For instance, die ordinance Legitimate Local Interest? The Court noted diat requires Carbone to send the nonrecyclable portion of " [discrimination against interstate commerce in favor die out-of-town waste it receives at its Clarkstown facility of local business or investment is perse invalid, save in a to the transfer station at an additional cost In addition, narrow class of cases in which die municipality can die ordinance prevents anyone except for die favored demonstrate, under rigorous scrutiny, diat it has no local transfer station from performing the initial odier means to advance a legitimate local interest" In processing step, thereby depriving out-of-state diis case, however, die Courtfound diat Clarkstown has businesses of access to a local market odier nondiscriminatory means of addressing local interests. Forinstance, uniform safety regulations could After finding that die flow-control ordinance regulates be implemented to address healtii andsafety problems, interstate commerce, die Courtaddressed die question and taxes an d municipal bonds could be used to address of whedier the ordinance is valid despite its effect on financing issues. In addition, die Court noted diat die interstate commerce. Prior case law provides two ordinance cannot be justified as a means of steering conditions underwhich die ordinance would be invalid: solid waste away from out-of-town disposal sites diat (1) if it discriminates against interstate commerce or may be harmful to die environment because diis (2) if it imposes a burden on interstate commerce that rationale would extend die town's police powers beyond is "clearly excessive in relation to die putative local its jurisdictional borders. benefits." Since die Court found diat the ordinance discriminates against interstate commerce, it did not The Concurring Opinion apply die latter test Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed a Does the Ordinance Discriminate Against Interstate concurring opinion agreeing with the majority's Commerce? The town had argued diat die ordinance conclusion diat die Clarkstown ordinance violates the is not discriminatory because it requires all solid waste, Commerce Clause. However, she found die ordinance regardless of origin, to be processed at die designated to be unconstitutional "notbecause offadal or effective transfer station prior to leaving die municipality; solid discrimination against interstate commerce, butradier waste is not differentiated on the basis of its geographic because it imposes an excessive burden on interstate origin, and no barriers are imposed to die import or commerce." One of die reasons given by O'Connor export of solid waste. The Court, however, found diat for her separate opinion was "to address die contention die article of commerce is die service of processing and diat flow control ordinances of diis sort have been disposing of die waste, not die waste itself, since die expressly audiorized by Congress, and are dius outside value of die waste is diat die possessor must pay to get die purview of die dormant Commerce Clause." rid of it Accordingly, the Court determined that "die flow control ordinance discriminates, for it allows only die favored operator to process waste diat is widiin die

LLW Notes o ju\j 3.994 o page 16 Courts continued

Does the Ordinance Discriminate Against Interstate Did Congress Authorize the Flow-Control Ordinance? Commerce? In her opinion, Justice O'Connor noted a In response to arguments that Congress authorized significant distinction between regulations previously flow-control ordinances in the Resource Conservation struck down by the Court as discriminatory and the and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and in the Solid ordinance adopted by Clarkstown. Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980, O'Connor stated as follows. Unlike the regulationswehavepreviouslystruck down, ... [Clarkstown's ordinance] does not Congress must be "unmistakably clear" before give more favorable treatment to local interests we will conclude that it intended to permit as a group as compared to out-of-state or out- state regulation which would otherwise violate of-town economic interests. Rather, the garbage the dormant Commerce Clause... The State or sorting monopoly is achieved at the expense of all competitors, be they local or nonlocal... locality has the burden of demonstrating this Because in-town processors are treated equally, intent I cannot agree that ... [the ordinance] "discriminates" against interstate commerce. The Dissent Rather, ... [the ordinance] "discriminates". evenhandedly against all potential participants Associate Justice David Souter authored the dissenting in the waste processing business, while opinionjoined by Chiefjustice William Rehnquistand benefiting only the chosen operator of the Associate Justice Harry Blackmun. The dissenting transfer facility. Justices agreed with the majority opinion that the ordinance regulates a processing service available in Does the Ordinance Impose an Excessive Burden on interstate commerce, and that it does so in manner that Interstate Commerce? Although O'Connor found the excludes out-of-town processors. However, they found ordinance to be nondiscriminatory, she agrees with the the ordinance to be nondiscriminatory against out-of- majority opinion that the ordinance violates the town processors because it favors a single processor— Commerce Clause. "Even a nondiscriminatory notthe entire class ofsuch local businesses—andbecause regulation may nonetheless impose an excessive burden the favored proprietor is essentially an agent of the on interstate trade when considered in relation to the municipal government, which is responsible for local benefits conferred." In this case, O'Connor ensuring waste removal under acceptable standards of determined that while the local interestin properwaste public health. disposal is significant, the town has other, less burdensome means of achieving this interest. In Since the dissent found the ordinance to be addition, O'Connor found the ordinance to be nondiscriminatory, they reasoned thatitmust be upheld excessively burdensome because of its potential unless itimposes a burden on interstate commerce that interaction with similar legislation passed in other is "clearly excessive in relation to the putative local jurisdictions. benefits." In this particular case, the dissent found no such excessive burdens. The increasing number of flow control regimes virtually ensures some inconsistency between jurisdictions, with the effect of eliminating the movement of waste between jurisdictions. I therefore conclude that the burden ... [Clarkstown's ordinance] imposes on interstate commerce is excessive in relation to Clarkstown's interest in ensuring afixed supply of waste to supply its project.

LLW Noites ° July 1994 ° Page 17 The Administration and the Amendments Act

Be assured that, like you, this Despite the delays, the Department There is no reason to believe that the Administration is eager to see the Low believes that it is not advisable to basic Federal policy of State Level Waste Act implemented as revise the fundamental framework responsibility for low-level waste will Congress intended.—President Bill embodied in the Act at this time. The be changed. As you know, this policy Clinton. January 21,1994. Department maintains that States can is deeply ingrained in both the 1980 establish new low-level radioactive Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy I understand and share your concern waste disposal capability under the Act and the 1985 Low-Level that the problem of low-level provisions of the Act... The Radioactive Waste Policy radioactive waste disposal is a serious Department continues to support Amendments Act—U.S. Nuclear one. Please be assured that we are them in their efforts.—U.S. Secretary of Regulatory Commission Chair Ivan Selin. committed to a program of nuclear Energy Hazel O'Leary. February 10, January 27,1993. waste management that is safe, 1994. efficient, and effective for the long I will say in conclusion that I view the term.—Vice President Al Gore. Safe disposal of low-level radioactive next two and one-half years—between November 16,1993. materials is a necessity. It is not now and January 1,1996—as crucial tolerable that such material be for the low-level waste program. If, This Administration is aware of the indefinitely accumulated at dozens of two and one-half years from now, we importance of addressing and have yet to see a resolving the difficult construction issues associated with authorization the safe disposal of issued or a low-level wastes, and it facility in is committed to faSTllM (JT7 operation; if working with the denial of access states in framing a fails to achieve its long-term solution to intended the issue. In purpose and particular, our instead leads to support for the Low the result that we Level Radioactive have seen so far Waste Act remains in Michigan over strong, as does our the past three commitment to years—I do close and continuing coordination hospitals, research facilities, utilities, believe at that point that a with the states.—Mack McLarty, then- and other generators.—U.S. Secretary fundamental reevaluation of the Chief of Staff to the President. February of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. August 11, program would be called for.—then- 17,1994. 1993. U.S. NRC Commissioner James Curtiss. June 8,1993. After careful consideration, this This Ad^ministration shares your Administration is not prepared to commitment to ensuring that The Commission (with all transfer the Ward Valley site to the responsible solutions are found to the Commissioners agreeing) believes State of California under FLLPMA Nation's low-level radioactive waste that it would be premature to without there being a formal disposal problem. As you point out, undertake additional major efforts in hearing... both President Clinton and Secretary this area since there are still major Babbitt, when they were governors, actions being undertaken by the I understand and share your concern helped shape the Low-Level States and Compacts in order to meet that the problem of low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1930 their obligations under the Low-Level radioactive waste disposal is a serious and both realize the difficulty and Radioactive Waste Policy one. I think that the current situation importance of making it work.—Bob Amendments Act of 1985 and a major will provide the opportunity necessary Armstrong Assistant Secretary, Land andinitiativ e at this time may have to open the process for additional Minerals Management, U.S. Departmentunintende d consequences.—U.S. review.—Kathleen McGinty, Director, of the Interior. March 22,1994. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Secretary White House Office on Environmental Samuel Chilk. November 9, 1993. Policy. November 8,1993.

LLW Notes o jBiy 1994 o page 18 Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Capacity Development Chart Compacts/States Siting License* M*C**. Appalachian host Pennsylvania siting process under way application early 1997 mid-1999

Central host Nebraska site selected application submitted Sept. 1998

Central Midwest host Illinois siting process under way application Nov. 1997 July 2000

Midwest host Ohio enabling legislation expected application 4.25 years 7.25 years after in 1995 after enabling legislation enabling legislation

Northeast host Connecticut siting process under way application Tulv 1997 Dec. 1999 host New Jersey- siting plan under public review application July 1997 late 1999

Northwest host Washington facility operational since July 1965, license reissued May 1992

Rocky Mountain contract with Northwest and Washington for disposal at Washington facility

Southeast hostNoith Carolina site selected application submitted early 1996 hostSovith. Carolina facility operational until 1996, license issued April 1971

Southwestern host California site selected issued Sept. 1993 mid-1997 but currently set aside

Texas host Texas site selected application submitted mid-1997

Massachusetts siting process under way application Jaru/Feb. 1998 2000/2001

New York siting process under way application June 1999 Nov. 2001

Michigan no active site selection process

District of Columbia not siting a facility

New Hampshire not planning to site a facility at this time

Puerto Rico not planning to site a facility at this time

Rhode Island not planning to site a facility at this time

Afton Associates, Inc. for the LLW Forum. July 1994. * All future dates are estimated and subject to change. 403 East Capitol Street • Washington. DC 20003 • (202)547-2620 Appalachian

Southwestern

Appalachian Compact Midwest Compact Northeast Compact Unaffiliated States Delaware Indiana • Connecticut District of Columbia Maryland Iowa • New Jersey • Massachusetts Pennsylvania Minnesota Michigan Southeast Compact West Virginia Missouri New Hampshire Alabama Ohio • New York Florida Central Compact Wisconsin Puerto Rico Georgia ArKansas Rhode Island Northwest Compact Mississippi Kansas • North Carolina Louisiana Alaska • current host state • South Carolina • Nebraska Hawaii Tennessee Oklahoma Idaho • future host state Virginia Montana Central Midwest Oregon Southwestern Compact Utah Compact • Illinois * • Washington Arizona Kentucky Wyoming • California North Dakota Rocky Mountain South Dakota Compact Northwest accepts Colorado Texas Compact Maine, Texas and Vermont are Rocky Mountain waste Nevada Maine named as members of a compact as agreed passed by all three states. The between compacts New Mexico Texas compact is awaiting consent by the Vermont U.S. Congress. T/ie Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum includes a Participant from each regional compact, current host state, future host state and unaffiliated state. Graphic by Afton Associates, Inc. for the LLWForum. June 1994. Kf • v_ungressiunai activity special session: v^erang a .Handle on • residual contamination standards Volumes/Curies—Potential Factors in »effects of wetlands regulations on siting Long-Range Projections Jusly AuagMst September

20 - 22 LLW Forum Meeting Seattle, WA 17 - 19 National Northwest Compact/Washington Governors' • executive session, Forum management • international export of LLW for disposal Association •business session • • preparation of EIR/S Annual • new developments in states & compacts • EPA's radiation cleanup standard Meeting •DOE technical assistance - • commercial mixed waste disposal Boston, MA • agenda planning • TCC liaison, CRCPD E-27 committee • conversation with DOE • surcharge rebates status • interregional shipment of waste • uniform manifest • air pollution standards & LLW facilities • waste information working group • DOE mixed waste disposal at Hanford • community consent • NRC compatibility requirements • legal challenges at each stage of siting • storage of LLW at nuclear power plants „ . , _ . _, ,...... Jr . .j ,. ~r . r Special Session: Radioactive Waste •NorthwesXT t guidelines re Envirocare /-£.,•.*. o . ° Classification System 25 - 26 Host State Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Seattle, WA Qcftobeir November December

26 - 28 LLW Forum Meeting Williamsburg, VA 12 Host State Southeast Compact Technical Coordinating • executive session • report on new activities of scientific and Committee •business session state organizations Meeting • new developments in states & compacts • Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Phoenix, AZ • Army information • separate facilities for class A waste • DOE technical assistance •DOE radiation experiments 13 - 15 DOE •TCC report Annual • agenda planning Special One-Day Session: Meeting • tracking and manifesting Transportation of Low-Level Phoenix, AZ Radioactive Waste for Storage, • disposal of NARM and NORM Processing and Disposal

c/o Af ton Associates, Inc. • 403 East Capitol Street • Washington, D.C. 20003 • (202) 547-2620 • FAX (202) 547-1668 •;;'-:Bg::,C^ ••••!' :;:..IS; ;r •.'1.994'^GaleM'iclai"^ ...:. FORUM • ;,;:,;-.;-;?:: \ • : \; •;;;•• ,. '-.j;, ';•-;'" ^^7;/r^/7'7'^ll'^:^.-^

Jaeuaairy Feforaary Mairclh

: : : : • -26, -- 28:' • tLW Forurri Meeting-- '.„..,:',„;. .'•''':'' , -. ' •', • ' ',- 'San Ufaego/CA Jl/-29-r;^/,l;.National,- : ^/27> ;3f3:;.;:;^4te1 - .' - ' -. ,.'.,."';/• .'..','rtoUt^W^tfimK^mpfipt/C^Ufprmk^ '•': ','•',. 1% ".:'/.'/l't"'..;'":':.: .:'•'•'"'.":- •••\ u; •?••*• "Governors'- -, _,: ;-:"; Association' '. - "" "'. ' ... - \QA •businesssession \'"> , ". .•'., ;,,.;;. 'Californiadisposaifaeility dpvelopmeiii;;:,• ;; s rJ-^-S/Jf •''/;• ; MntjetfY<<• \ ••; SJ .-'.TucsBn/'Az! -? / .'selection of:Convenor and Executive; '.status of site,development in other states ; : ''"'"" "'i-f': :"•/' "Mee&rig Committee -'.<;', -';/, '- ''.'-• •FFCA'/mixed waste, ' ;' -"-', •//• "Washington; DC :

~ i 1995meetingldca€6ns » -/ . \ ;--•'--' '•" •- '•••surcharge-rebates.,/ -. /_;,; ,/;-.> ~ -;' ,-t-".-: • new developments in .'states' and/ • greater*-than-elass C waste :: ~ ,' '-'"'•• "'.•'•. ; ' "compacts ,.;. -.'"'-',"•'-."".., • .. -,.,-.. _ / ' • disposal after July 1.994.- .• - \' •••;-. _ ' "'-'•.•".; •% : •Army information session . •storage of. LLVV , :',.\.. .'.,•'•''• \„ :.V ." •waste tracking demonstrations >waste acceptance criteria . -?•: •-.•;: ; •TCC report -V- ,-, - '••,'*„', ';'' *new; generator organizations! J /, . .--

• • agenda jplarihing" ..-'.' ,. ; ; -. : ;;,"," ;__.„->.-; y , J =. '•trackin< and;manifestin< '..J.... . , ; .v §pe

•long-rangeplanning!calendar ,, ; , -.'/-• ;

April May Juaee

14 - 15 Host State Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting St. Louis, MO": \'ii\ 2^''r;Natipn'ai;'; : 13 - 16,, Radioactive:; \ V. Conference,. . :., "•,-. _ \ ."Exchange1« 25 - 27 LLW Forum Meeting New Orleans, LA 1 : ;: of Radiation • ; _'; L^edsionmakers^;,. • " ' - • • ;,'-,' ,- \ Central'Compact,. '-,,, - •-.• --• r\ ••.-. .- .-- t ;;/., -;••-/,, ^Control/ • ._.:". . " ~\_;.Forum / : i! : .•executive session ;• -•' -, • surcharge rebates ,, ./-' Y '\ :,'„^r6g4reim s , .,, Amelia Island';. BL;; •business session •interregional transportation of waste , ,.-.,' Directors 1 • new developrnents in States and ,\ ,. • LLW site land ownership requirements,, Annual compacts * • concentration averaging rule • Meeting •TCC report \ «EBASCO report on fllmbis siting, process Williamsburg, VA • agenda planning • rates of decay for classes of waste •tracking and manifesting. •environmental justice • high-volume, low-activity waste •performance assessment 1995 Calendar FORUM

Januiairy Feforaary March Apjril

18 - 20 LLW Forum San Diego, CA 26 - 3/2 Waste date Host State Southwestern Compact/California Management '95 Technical Tucson, AZ Coordinating • executive session • licensing: what works? Committee • business session • emergency access Meeting • selection of Convenor • health effects of low location and Executive doses of radiation Committee • the challenge of • 1996 meeting locations adjudicatory hearings • new developments in • EPA low-level states and compacts radioactive waste • Army information standard •TCC report • agenda planning Special Session: • tracking and Interregional manifesting Agreements •long-range planning calendar

'-iar r ~ -,-

29 - 31 NGA Winter Meeting Washington, DC

May Junme July Anagmst

7 - 11 CRCPD Annual Mtg San Antonio, TX date Radioactive 30 - 8/1 NaHonal date Host State Exchange Governors' Technical Decisionmakers' Association Coordinating 16 Forum Site Visit: Forum Annual Committee Meeting Meeting 17 - 19 LLW Forum Burlino+nn VT • executive session, • Congressional Forum management activities • business session • residual waste • new developments in • community benefits states and compacts • Army information Special Session: •DOE technical Public Hearings and assistance Public Testimony •TCC report • agenda planning • tracking and manifesting

September October November December

26 Forum Site Visit: Envirocare date DOE Annual Northwest Compact Meeting location 27 - 29 LLW Forum Salt Lake City, UT Northwest Compact date Host State Technical • executive session • report on new Coordinating • business session activities of scientific Committee • new developments in and state Meeting states and compacts organizations location • Army information • closures of present •DOE technical sites assistance •TCC report Special Session: • agenda planning International Waste • tracking and Management, Storage manifesting and Disposal

c/o Afton Associates, Inc. • 403 East Capitol Street • Washington, D.C. 20003 • (202)547-2620* FAX (202) 547-1668 Congress and the Amendments Act

As one of the principal authors of the disposal facilities. The states sought disposal facilities, it should be given National Governors' Association and received this important every chance to do so.—U.S. proposal that formed the basis of the responsibility, and the federal Representative Richard Lehman. January Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy government should not be an 5,1994. Act, you are well aware of the need for impediment to that process.—U.S. new low-level radioactive waste RepresentativeJohn DingelL May 2, Although progress is painfully slow, a disposal capacity and the importance 1994. conclusion that the program is a Congress attached to developing new failure is not warranted. There is sites in a timely fashion.—U.S. Senator It is my sincere hope—and I evidence that the denial of access to J. Bennettjohnston. October 19,1993. understand that of the other disposal capacity serves as a chairmen of jurisdiction on both sides meaningful enforcement mechanism This nation cannot afford to in the Act, even without the continue avoiding our nuclear "take title" provision that was waste management struck down by the Supreme responsibilities. Thirteen years Court last year. ago, President Clinton and two members of his Cabinet The apparent consensus among proposed a responsible solution the leadership of committees of to our low-level waste problem. A jurisdiction in both the House bipartisan coalition in Congress and Senate is that the process has remained committed to that should not be interfered with by solution and most states are Congress at this time.—U.S. bravely trying to implement it.— Representative Richard Lehman. U.S. Senator J. Bennettjohnston. May 5,1993. December 13,1993. While others may disagree, I am In light of the economic and not prepared to conclude that political difficulties in rinding the Act has failed—though new regional disposal sites under painful, the difficulties now the current process, it makes being experienced were •sense to review the situation from anticipated by Congress. In fact, a national perspective to see if Congress crafted a combination the process could be improved or of the Capitol—that the Low Level of "carrots and sticks" in the Act to changed. There must be a better way Waste Act will still work as designed. offset these pressures and serve as ... It is unfortunate that the current There is every reason to believe that incentives to progress. In answer to process for siting new low-level the lack of access to disposal capacity, those who suggest the Act should be radioactive waste disposal facilities has which will beset most parts of the rewritten, I note that the current set not worked as intended. It is in the country when the Southeast Compact of difficulties, including strident national interest to recognize this stops accepting out-of-compact waste political opposition, would not be problem and address it as soon as later this year, will provide the relieved were Congress to do so.—U.S. possible, rather than to continue on necessary incentives for states to Representative Philip Sharp. December 21, the current impractical course.—U.S. accelerate their progress. However, 1993. Senators Christopher Dodd and Joseph this will only prove true if Congress Lieberman and U.S. Representatives Samcontinue s to stay the course. Let me reiterate that point—Congress Gejdenson and Barbara Kennelly. March does not need to reexamine the 15,1994. ... Anybody who thinks federalization framework of the established low-level of the program is theanswer need waste policy. States refusing to meet Your administration has the look no farther than our troubled their obligations in the hope that opportunity to act responsibly so that high-level radioactive waste program current law will change should know the process continues to move to see the folly of that position. that I will fight any attempt to reopen forward in the way the Act and its Reopening the Low Level Waste Act this law. There are no problems I am authors originally intended. The would be a political bloodbath in aware of that cannot be cured by the states, including California, should Congress. If the current program states within the existing proceed, singularly or as a part of a might yet generate the needed new framework.—U.S. Representative Butler compact, to move toward siting Derrick. May 5, 1993.

LLW Notes o j^iy-1994 o page 19 U.S. Congress

U.S. Senate Senator Johnston Introduces Legislation to Transfer Ward Vail ey Site

SenatorJ.BennettJohnston (D-LA) introduced abill in I regret having to take this action. I still hope the U.S. Senate on May 25 that directs the U.S. Secretary thatyou will proceed with the sale, eliminating of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, to convey federal land in the need for legislation. But I intend to do all Ward Valley to the California Department of Health that I can to see the Ward Valley site conveyed Services (DHS). The state of California had previously to California before the end of the session. requested that the land be transferred to DHS for use in siting a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. In his letter, Johnston recognized that Babbitt has (See LLW Notes, Jzxiuzry 1993, p. 2.) The bill, S.2151, certain obligations to perform prior to makinga decision was read twice and then referred to the Senate on the proposed Ward Valley land transfer. However, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which Johnston questioned the scope of such obligations. Johnston chairs. No hearings on the proposedlegislation have been scheduled. I agree thatyou have an obligation to determine that the sale of the site meets the standards of Over the course of the past year, Johnston has written the Federal Land Policy and Management Act several times to members of the Clinton administration before proceeding. But the statutory standard concerning the proposed land transfer. In the most is that die sale "will serve important public recent letter to Babbitt, dated May 16, Johnston objectives ...." The Bureau of Land expressedfrustration at the administration's reluctance Management, in its Supplemental to commit to holding a hearing on the land transfer Environmental Impact Statement last year, immediately or to abide by the outcome of the current determined that the sale met this test. state litigation involving the Ward Valley site. As a resultjohnston informed Babbitt that he was preparing I do not agree that the Federal Land Policy and the above-mentioned legislation. Management Act gives you the power to substitute your judgment for the State's on the I have repeatedly asked you and Mack McLarty licensability of the site or the migration of either to accept the outcome of the state radionuclides. The Atomic Energy Act, the litigation or, if you insist upon another federal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, and proceeding, to initiate it immediately, without the law approving the Southwestern Compact waiting for the state court proceedings to be entrust those issues to the State of California. completed. You have yet to commit yourself to either course or to provide me with any assurance thatyou will proceed with the sale of the Ward Valley site on a timely basis.

I am, therefore, preparinglegislation to compel conveyance of the land... I intend to move it as soon as the California Department of Health Services completes its analysis of the Wilshire report and Judge O'Brien disposes of this last issue.

LLW Notes o jnlv 1994 o Pasre 20 U.S. Congress continued

U.S. House of Representatives Representative Dingell Writes to Clinton re Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

U.S. Representative John Dingell, Chair of the House Dingell noted that in Clinton's January 21,1994, letter Committee on Energy and Commerce, wrote to toU.S.RepresentativeRichardLehman(D-CA),Clinton President Bill Clinton on May 2 concerning low-level stated that he was waiting until state court litigation is radioactive waste disposal and the proposed transfer of resolved before preceding with afederal hearing on the federal land in Ward Valley, California, to the state for land transfer. In the same letter, Clinton stated that siting a disposal facility. In his letter, Dingell stressed U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt is prepared to the importance of the authorities accorded to the states take appropriate action expeditiously upon resolution under federal law. of thestate courtlitigation. Dingell pointed out that the superior court found on February 7, 1994, that The currentstate compactsystemfor disposing adjudicatory hearings are not required before a license of low-level radioactive waste was developed could be issued for the facility. after careful and difficult consideration of the options. The federal government agreed, at I would urge you to instruct Secretary Babbitt the request of the states, that the states would to move forward with the Administration's • assume responsibility for the waste. The Low- hearing on the Ward Valley Site. Your Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and administration has the opportunity to act the 1985 amendments to that Act are the responsibly so that the process continues to product oflon g negotiations and deliberations. moveforwardin theway the Act and its authors In that law, Congress created the authorities originally intended. The states, including and guidelines for the compact system in place California, should proceed, singularly or as today. The law provides for many important part of a compact, to movetowardsitingdisposal decisions to be made by the states themselves, facilities. The states sought and received this including the establishment of siting criteria. important responsibility, and the federal government should not be an impediment to Dingell wrote that he has been following that process. correspondence between the Administration and members of Congress concerning the proposed Ward In his letter, Dingell also stated that he opposes any Valley land transfer. efforts to split the waste stream or to reclassify items considered to be low-level radioactive waste. Dingell I have found the actions of the Administration, wrote, "I vigorously fought this effort successfully on with respect to the California siting process, the floor of the House during consideration of the troubling. The purpose in establishing the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and do not believe it is a currentsystem was to avoid the intrusion of the suitable or reasonable alternative." federal government in the siting process. Understandably, the federal government does have a role to play in the case of Ward Valley, as the property under consideration for use as a disposal site is federal land. However, there is a significant and unnecessary level of federal government involvement in the siting process.

LLW Notes ° July 1994 ° Page 21 U.S. Congress continued Representatives Derrick, Sharp and Senator Mitchell to Retire Two prominent members of Congress who have been Sharp, who has been a member of the House since influential in issues involvinglow-level radioactivewaste 1975, serves on the House Committee on Energy and disposal have announced that they will not seek Commerce and the House Committee on Natural reelection: U.S. Representative Butler Derrick (D-SC) Resources. Sharp also chairs the Subcommittee on and U.S. Representative Philip Sharp (D-IN). In Energy and Power. addition, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D- ME) has announced that he will not seek reelection at Mitchell served on several committees, including the the expiration of his term. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. IthasnotyetbeendeterminedwhowillsucceedMitchell Derrick is a senior member of the House leadership, as the Senate Majority Leader. having been appointed a Chief Deputy Whip in 1991. He serves as Vice-Chair of the House Committee on Rules.

Federal Agencies and Committees

National Academy of Sciences NAS Committee on California Site Convenes Onjuly 7-9 in Needles, California, an expert committee The three geologists are employees of the U.S. convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Geological Survey, but their report, which was requested met to discuss scientific and technical safety issues by Senator BarbaraBoxer (D-CA), states thatit does not concerning the low-level radioactive waste disposal represent the policies or positions of any government facilityplannedforconstruction approximately 22 miles agency. away, in Ward Valley, California. At the request of U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt (see LLW Notes, During the course of the meeting, members of the NAS April 1994, p. 18), the committee is assessing the specific committee heard presentations from a number of issues raised in two documents: scientists studying the site and from state agency staff. Speakers included Howard Wilshire and his coauthors, • a memorandum to Babbitt datedjune 2,1993, from and consultants to the CaliforniaDepartment of Health geologists Howard Wilshire, Keith Howard, and Services. Time was also allowed each day for public David Miller, and comment.

• a report by the same geologists entitled Description The committee will next meet on August 30- of Earth Science Concerns Regarding the Ward ValleySeptembe r 1. The committee's evaluation is scheduled Low-Level Radioactive Waste Site Plan and Evaluation.fo r completion by December 31,1994.

LLW Notes o j^lly 1994 o page §2 Federal Agencies and Committees continued

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC to Improve Public Petition Process The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans Public Involvement in Review Process During the to improve its public petition process, which is its workshop, NRC received comments on the need for primary mechanism for the public to raise potential bettercommunicationwiththepetitionerafterapetiion safety issues involving NRC-licensedfacilities. NRC staff hadbeenfiled. Under the proposed revised procedures, will prepare a Management Directive setting forth staff petitioners will now be kept informed of the status of practices and procedures governing the public petition their petitions, provided with a copy of the licensee process. According to NRC staff, the Management responses, and given an apportunity to participate in Directive and an accompanying descriptive information NRC-licensee meetings on their petition. pamphlet will be available in August 1994. Petitions that present new information on or a new Review of the Public Petition Process The petition approach to evaluating asignificantsafetyissue mayfall process, contained in Part 2, section 2.206 of NRC's under a new procedure for offering an informal public regulations, provides members of the public with the hearing at an open meeting. The same criteria will means to request investigation and resolution of apply to petitions that allege violations of NRC potential health and safety problems with facilities that requirements. If an immediate public health or safety have been licensed by the NRC. Consistentwith current problem exists, the NRC will take action to resolve it efforts to enhance public participation in the decision• prior to resolution of the petition process. making process, the Commissioners reviewed the 2.206 process to improve its effectiveness, accessibility and Other RecentlyRevised Procedures The newprovisions credibility., As part of its review, NRC staff conducted a will further strengthen recently revised procedures public workshop last July. that provide for the prompt handling of petitions and the designation of a staff contact for petitions. An electronic bulletin board will provide petitioners and the general public with up-to-date information regarding petitions. According to NRC staff, the electronic bulletin board should be available in September 1994.

NRC Commissioner Remick's 5-Year Term Over

On June 30, the five-year term of Commissioner At press time, the Clinton administration had not Forrest Remick of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced a nominee to replace Commissioner ended, leaving the commission with only three sitting Remick. The NRC needs three Commissioners present Commissioners, instead of the usual five. Remick was for a quorum. To assure that the commission's function appointed to his position as NRC Commissioner by is notimpaired byinability to reach a quorum, the NRC President George Bush on December 1,1989. has modified its internal procedures to allow absent Commissioners to take part in formal commission actions, including voting, by speakerphone. The procedural change will have no affect on the commission's compliance with Sunshine Actprocedures or on the ability of the public to attend and observe commission meetings.

LLW Notes ° Jmly 1994 ° Page 23 Federal Agencies and Committees continued

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (continued) NRC Releases Draft Proposed Rule on Criteria for Decontamination and Closure of NRGIicensed Facilities

On June 6, the Commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear The draft proposed rule would allow a restricted Regulatory Commission released a draft proposed rule termination of an NRC license if the following four on radiological criteria for the decontamination and conditions have been met: closure of most facilities licensed by NRC. The draft proposed rule sets standards for the remediation of • thelicenseecandemonstratethatfurtherreductions lands andstructures to allowproperty to be releasedfor needed to achieve the 15 mrem per year dose limit unrestricted use before an NRC license can be for unrestricted use are not technically achievable, terminated. For low-level radioactive waste disposal would be prohibitively expensive, orwould result in facilities, the draft proposed criteria would apply only net public or environmental harm; to ancillary surface facilities that support radioactive waste disposal activities, since criteria for closure of • the licensee has made adequate provisions for these facilities and termination of the licenses are institutional controls to restrict the use of the site in already contained in 10 CFR Part 61. order to achieve the 15 mrem per year dose limit;

NRC staff developed the draft proposed rule using an • the licensee has provided sufficient financial enhanced participatory rulemaking process. Under assurance to enable an independent third parly to theenhancedpartitipatoryprocess,NRCstaffincreased assume and carry out responsibilities for any public input in the early stages of the rulemaking's necessary control and maintenance of the site; and development by holding scoping meetings and workshops, operating an electronic bulletin board • the licensee has reduced the residual radioactivity system, andissuing the draft criteriafor informal public at the site so that the total effective dose equivalent reviewand commentprior to formal reviewand approval would not exceed 100 mrem per year even if the by NRC Commissioners. (See LLWNotes, Feb/March restrictions failed. 1994, p. 19.) Over 7,000 comments have been received to date under this rulemaking process. Additional Highlights

Overall Risk Standards The draft proposed rule also includes the following: The draft proposed rule would establish a dose limit of • provisions for public notification and participation, 15 millirem (mrem) per year total effective dose including the establishment of Site Specific Advisory equivalent for residual radioactivity that is Boards; and distinguishable from background radiation in order to release the site for unrestricted use. The draft proposed • a requirement that new facilities be designed and rule also requires that licensees reduce residual operated in ways that reduce contamina• radioactivity to levels as low as reasonably achievable tion, facilitate eventual decontamination, and (ALARA). According to NRC staff, the draft proposed minimize the generation of radioactive waste. rule wouldrequirelicensees to demonstrate whyfurther reductions below the 15 mrem per year limit are not reasonably achievable. NRC staff are currently developing guidance for licensees on the level of documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with these standards.

LLW Notes ° Jmly 1994 ° Page 24 Federal Agencies and Committees continued

Relationship to EPA's Radiation • for sites already covered by a decommissioning plan approved by the NRC prior to the effective Site Cleanup Regulation date of the rule, the draft rule would not apply. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a preliminary draft Radiation Site Cleanup NRC/Agreement State Regulation that sets standards for the remediation of Compatibility soil, ground water, surface water and structures. (See News Flash, June 1, 19940 EPA's preliminary draft The NRC is developing a new policy on Agreement regulation would apply to federal facilities, including U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) andU.S. Department State compatibility, which will be issued for public of Defense (DOE) facilities. NRC licensees are also comment in the near future. According to the draft potentially subject to EPA's Radiation Site Cleanup Federal Register notice, the NRC "believes thatitwould Regulation. be premature to make a proposed compatibility determination on the radiological criteria for EPA and NRC have signed a Memorandum of decommissioning at this time." The commission is Understanding (MOU) under which EPA will make a inviting comments on to what extent and under what determination as to whether NRC's proposed circumstances Agreement States should be authorized decommissioning standards provide a sufficient level to establish requirements more stringent than those of protection for public health and safety and the contained in the NRC rule. environment. If EPA concludes that the NRC standards are- sufficient, EPA will publish its findings in the Obtaining Copies of the NRC Federal Register tor notice and comment and propose that NRC licensees be exempt from the standards Draft Proposed Rule developed by EPA. At the request of EPA, NRC referenced EPA's The draft proposed rule will be published in underground sources of drinking water standards in the Federal Register when the NRC Commissioners NRC's draft proposed rule to ensure conformance to formally vote to publish it The Commissioners have EPA requirements. Other than the maximum not scheduled a meeting to discuss publishing the contaminant levels contained in the EPA requirements notice at this time. for drinking water, the draft rule does not set dose limits for individual pathways. In the meantime, copies can be obtained from the NRC Public Document Room by calling (202) 634-3273 from 8:30 A.M. to 4:15 P.M. (EDT). The document's Applicability of the NRC Draft reference number is SECY-94-150. Proposed Rule In addition, NRC is planning to make the draft notice The proposed rule would apply to the decommissioning available on an electronic bulletin board. To access the of all NRC-licensed facilities with the following bulletin board, call (800) 880-6091. For information on exceptions: the bulletin board, call Christine Dailey of the NRC at (301)415-5385. • for high-levelandlow-levelwastefacilitiesas defined in 10 CFR Parts 60 and 61, the draft rule would For further information on the proposed rule, contact fames apply only to ancillary surface facilities thatsupport Malaro of the NRC at (301)415-6201. radioactive waste disposal facilities; • for uranium mills, the draft rule would apply to The preceding information was distributed to Forum decommissioning of the facility, but not to the Participants and Alternates, Federal Liaisons and Alternates cleanup of soil and the disposal of uranium mill via facsimile transmission in a News Flash onfune 8. tailings, which is covered in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40; and

LLW Notes o ju\y 1994 o page 25 Federal Agencies and Committees continued

Eywironmental Protection Agency/Administration EPA Names First Environmental Justice Federal Advisory Council

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in April the names of the members of the Council Members first Environmental Justice Advisory Council. The Council members include representatives from Council was created in January under the Federal community-based groups, industry andbusiness,federal, Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to provide advice and state, tribal and local government organizations, information on broad, cross-cutting domestic academic and education insitutions, and non• environmental justice policies and issues to the EPA governmental and environmental groups. John Hall of Administrator. According to an EPA press release, the the Texas Natural Resources Commission chairs the Council will also be responsible for creating "mutually Council. The Council has four subcommittees: supportive partnerships andincreasing communication among all levels of government, the business and • the Subcomittee on Enforcement; industry and academic institutions to improve the effectiveness of federal and non-federal resources • the Subcommittee on Waste; directed at solving environmental justice problems." • the Subcommittee on Health and Research; and In February, President Clinton signed the Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental • the Subcommittee on Communication and. Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Outreach. Populations. Under the executive order, each federal agency is directed to develop an agency-wide The Council held its first meeting on May 20 in environmental justice strategy to identify and address Washington, D.C. Items discussed included, an disproportionately high and adverse human health or orientation to the FACA process, the charge of the environmental effects of its programs, policies and Council, the history and background of environmental activities on minority populations and low-income justice, and EPA's environmental justice strategy. populations. (See LLW Notes, April 1994, p. 12) The Council will be responsible for providing direct input to the Administrator on her efforts to develop and implement the EPA's environmental justice strategy.

LLW Notes ° July 1994 o Page 26 LLW Forum continued

continued from page 1 On July 1, in response to Secretary O'Leary's request, I ongoing and substantial involvement by transmitted a matrix depicting state and compact Forum Participants in matters ranging from agenda progress inprovidinglow-level radioactivewaste disposal development to decisions about how information is capacity, a color overhead illustrating low-level distributed. Recently the LLW Forum has increased its radioactive waste disposal compact membership, a list outreach efforts, going beyond its mandate by providing of talking points, and background information on the LLW Forum materials for distribution to the general LLW Forum. You and other DOE officials have also public through the DOE National Low-Level Waste receivedacopy of thewritten materials. TheLLWForum Management Program at EG&G Idaho, Inc. would be pleased to furnish any additional information requested. Should you require any additional information on the LLW Forum or the way it operates, please contact me or DOEUseof CommercialFacilitiesforDOEWaste We M. A. Shaker, ManagementAdvisorfor theLLW Forum welcome your commitment to seek prior consultation and the President of the LLW Forum's management with states and compacts and early notification of any firm, Afton Associates, Inc. DOE consideration of the use of commercial facilities for DOE waste. As you know, the use of these facilities LLW Forum Interaction with the Department As you by the Department would require the consent of the know, Congress assigned to states and compacts the affected state or compact. Advance communication responsibility for developing commercial low-level will helppreventmisunderstandings aboutDepartment, radioactive waste disposal capacity under the Low- state or compact positions regarding such disposal. Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. As progress continues under the Amendments Act, better PrivatizationofFoimerfyDOEFacilities Aswe discussed communication amongstates, compacts, and thefederal during our meeting, the Central Midwest and Midwest government will facilitate the development of new compacts and their host states have voiced strong disposal capacity. Forum Participants anticipate greater concerns over the U.S. Enrichment Corporation's plans communication and interaction with you and with Jill for disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated at Lytle, as well as other DOE officials and staff. We look the uranium enrichment plants in Kentucky and Ohio. forward to your attendance at a future LLW Forum Your willingness to communicate the concerns of the meeting and would like to meet with you again in states and compacts to others in the Department and to Washington, D.C., ata mutually convenient time.Asw e the U.S. Enrichment Corporation is appreciated. As we agreed, holding these types of regular meetings twice a agreed, the LLW Forum looks forward to receiving an year—perhaps one in conjunction with a regularly update from the Department soon on the status of the scheduled LLW Forum meeting and one in privatization negotiations between the Department and Washington—should enhance pur understanding of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. the waste disposal challenges faced by the Department and by states and compacts. Non Fuel-Bearing Components The LLW Forum continues to seek clarification on whether the Communicating Progress Made in Low-Level Department will accept non fuel-bearing components Radioactive Waste Disposal We appreciate your for disposal. During our meeting, Jill Lytle stated that commitment to assist the LLW Forum in the Department is planning to undertake a rulemaking communicating the progress in the development of to address non fuel-bearing components and would commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity recognize state and compact concerns during the development As noted during the meeting, it is rulemaking process. important to keep the public informed of favorable developments as well as the setbacks covered in the continued on page 28 press.

LLW Notes ° Jmly 1994 o page §7 LLW Forum continued continued from page 27 FFCA workgroup is now studying the issues associated Mixed Waste In November 1990, the LLW Forum with DOE acceptance of commercial low-level mixed initiated an ongoing dialogue with the Department waste for treatment and, disposal, and a number of regarding DOE acceptance of commercial low-level representatives from LLW Forum states and compacts mixed waste for disposal. Recently, the LLW Forum's are involved in the FFCA process. The LLW Forum will Mixed Waste Working Group has begun working with continue to keep lines of communication with the the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) TaskForce Department open on this subject to address issues of equity between generating and potential disposal states. In addition, the LLW Forum Our governors and compact commissions appreciate has been in contactwithjames Turi, Director ofProgram the assistance andsupportprovided by the Department Support, Office of Waste Management, on this matter. in the past. We hope that this mutually beneficial relationship can continue until our common objectives At our meeting, we all agreed that, for now, the FFCA are realized. Task Force is the appropriate body to further examine the issues associated with DOE acceptance of Forfurtherinformation, see "New Materials andPublicatums," commercial low-level mixed waste for disposal. An this issue. Attendees: DOE Meeting Forum Executive Committee: DOE Officials: Gregg Larson, Convenor, LLW Forum Hazel O'Leary, Secretary of Energy Midwest Compact Dan Reicher, Deputy Chief of Staff William Dornsife, Pennsylvania Eugene Gleason, New York Terry Lash, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy

Lee Mathews, Texas G. Thomas Todd, Special Assistant to the General Eathryn Visocki, Alternate Convenor, LLW Forum Counsel Southeast Compact Office of the General Counsel

Don Womeldorf, Southwestern Compact Thomas Grumbly, Assistant Secretary for Drusilla Butler, Washington Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Forum Participants and Alternates: Jill Lyde, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Operations Clark Bullard, Central Compact Office of Waste Operations Jane Harf, Ohio Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Thor Strong, Michigan Joe Coleman, Director, Office of Eastern Waste Joe Stohr, Northwest Compact Management Operations Marc Tenan, Appalachian Compact Office of Environmental Management

Forum Staff: Terry Plummer, Manager, National Low-Level Waste Program Holmes Brown, LLW Forum Facilitator Division of Technical Support Afton Associates Office of Waste Operations Laura Scheele, LLW Forum Federal liaison Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Afton Associates Management

LLW Notes o jBiy 1994 o page 28 LLW Forum continued

Letter from Gregg Larson to E. Gail de Planque. June 28, 1994.

On behalf of the members of die Executive Committee At this time, I would like to invite you and your staff to of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, I wish to attendanupcomingLLW Forum meetingofyour choice extend our thanks for meeting with us on Wednesday, in order to discuss issues of common concern with the June 22, during our visit to Washington. entire LLW Forum. As you know, we will be meeting in Seatde, Washington on July 20-22 and Williamsburg, We were encouraged by the meeting. Your suggestions Virginia on October 26-28. Laura Scheele of Afton for enhancing interaction between die U.S. Nuclear Associates, the management firm for the LLW Forum, Regulatory Commission and states and compacts were will contact your office with additional information appreciated. Better communication between diefederal concerning these meetings. government and states on waste managementstatements and decisions will benefit all of us as we move forward Again, thank you for a productive meeting. widi implementation of die Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. Forfurtherinformation, see "NewMaterialsandPublications," this issue. Attendees: NRC Meeting Forum Executive Committee: NRC officials: Gregg Larson, Convenor, LLW Forum E. Gail de Planque, Commissioner Midwest Compact Joel Lubenau, Technical Assistant to William Dornsife, Pennsylvania Commissioner de Planque Eugene Gleason, New York Kathryn Visocki, Alternate Convenor, LLW Forum Southeast Compact Don Womeldorf, Southwestern Compact

Forum Participants and Alternates: Marc Tenan, Appalachian Compact

Forum Staff: Holmes Brown, LLW Forum Facilitator Afton Associates Laura Scheele, LLW Forum Federal Liaison Afton Associates

LLW Notes o jBiy 1994 o page §9 New Materials and Publications

Document Distribution Key

p LLW Forum Participants D LLW Forum Document Recipients A LLW Forum Alternates F LLW Forum Federal Liaisons LLW Notes Recipients L LLW Forum Federal Alternates T LLW Forum Media Contacts LLW Forum Meeting Report Recipients V LLW Forum Press Monitors

LLW Forum PA Letter from Gregg Larson, Meeting packet: quarterly Convenor, LLW Forum, to Hazel meeting of the LLW Forum, PA Letter from Gregg Larson, O'Leary, Secretary, U.S. July 20-22,1994. (Distributed Convenor, LLW Forum, to E. Gail Department of Energy, on July 6,1994.) de Planque, Commissioner, U.S. transmitting information Nuclear Regulatory Commission, requested by the Secretary during A Conversation with the DOE thanking de Planque for meeting her meeting with members of the Deputy Chief of Staff with members of the LLW LLW Forum's Executive Forum's Executive Committee on Committee on Wednesday, June D Letter from Donald Wednesday, June 22, in 22, in Washington, DC. July 1, Schregardus, Director, Ohio Washington, DC. June 28,1994. 1994. (Distributed to the Environmental Protection Agency, members of the LLW Forum (Distributed to the members of to Hazel O'Leary, Secretary, U.S. Executive Committee and to the LLW Forum Executive Department of Energy, expressing attendees of the June 22 meeting Committee and to attendees of the concern about the impact of the on July 1,1994). June 22 meeting on June 29, creation of the United States 1994). Enrichment Corporation on state responsibility for low-level PA Letter from Gregg Larson, radioactive waste management PA Letter from Gregg Larson, Convenor, LLW Forum, to June 21,1994. Convenor, LLW Forum, to Hazel Thomas Grumbly, Assistant O'Leary, Secretary, U.S. Secretary for Environmental D Letter from Gregg Larson, Department of Energy, thanking Restoration and Waste Executive Director, Midwest Secretary O'Leary and her staff for Management, U.S. Department of Interstate Low-Level Radioactive meeting with members of the LLW Energy, summarizing the Waste Commission, to Greta Forum's Executive Committee on discussion and agreement points Dicus, Director, Radiation Control Wednesday, June 22, in from the LLW Forum Executive and Emergency Management, Washington, DC. June 22,1994. Committee's meeting with DOE Department of Health, State of (Distributed to the members of Secretary Hazel O'Leary on Arkansas, expressing concern the LLW Forum Executive Wednesday, June 22, in about the disposal of low-level Committee and to attendees of the Washington, DC. July 14,1994. radioactive waste from the United June 22 meeting on June 27, States Enrichment Corporation's 1994). Portsmouth uranium enrichment plant. June 20,1994.

LLW Notes o j^iy 1994 o page 80 New Materials and Publications continued

Applicability of EPA Air Pollution D Letter from Jan Schori, Liaison Report: Host State Standards (NESHAP) to Low-Level General Manager, Sacramento Technical Coordinating Radioactive Waste Disposal Municipal Utility District (SMUD), Committee Facilities to Don Womeldorf, Executive D D Director, Southwestern Low-Level Letter from Ruben Alvarado, Letter from David Radioactive Waste Compact Convener, Host State Technical Howekamp, Director, Air & Toxics Commission, responding to a Coordinating Committee, to John Division, U.S. Environmental letter of May 3,1994, regarding Thoma, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Protection Agency, to Robert statements made to the SMUD Commission, urging NRC to give Rittenberg, Project Manager, Board of Directors on the subject top priority to the review of the US Ecology, explaining the status of low-level radioactive waste topical report for the 3R-STAT of US Ecology's application for an storage at Rancho Seco. computer code. May 25,1994. Approval to Construct for the May 17,1994. planned low-level radioactive waste LLW Forum Business Session disposal facility at Ward Valley, D Letter from Governor Pete California. June 20,1994. Wilson (R-CA) to U.S. PA Draft: Rules of the Low-Level

D Representative Robert Matsui (D- Radioactive Waste Forum including Letter from Stephen CA) agreeing with Matsui's Statement of Principles and Operating Romano, Vice President, position on the subject of low-level Procedures. Afton Associates. July US Ecology, to Felicia Marcus, radioactive waste storage at 1994 Regional Administrator, U.S. Rancho Seco. May 10,1994. Environmental Protection Agency, International Export of Low-Level Region DC, inquiring as to die D Letter from Don Womeldorf, Radioactive Waste for Disposal status of the U.S. EPA Region IX Executive Director, determination regarding D Southwestern Low-Level Letter from Ivan Selin, compliance of the planned Ward Radioactive Waste Compact Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Valley low-level radioactive waste Commission, to Jan Schori, Commission, to Gregg Larson, disposal facility with the National General Manager, Sacramento Convenor, LLW Forum, Emission Standards for Hazardous Municipal Utility District, responding to the LLW Forum's Air Pollutants (NESHAP) concerning recent activities of the May 18 letter requesting the NRC requirements for radionuclide utility district to consider storage to proceed with issuance of emissions. May 13,1994. of low-level radioactive waste at revisions to its regulations on the Rancho Seco. May 3,1994. international import and export of Storage of Low-Level Radioactive radioactive waste. June 21,1994. Waste at Nuclear Power Plants Northwest Compact Clarification D "List of Applicable NRC On- of Guidelines for Waste Accepted D Letter from Gregg Larson, Site Storage and Disposal at Envirocare Convenor, LLW Forum, to Ivan Guidance." Afton Associates. Selin, Chair, U.S. Nuclear June 1994. D Clarification Supplement to Regulatory Commission,

D Northwest Interstate Compact transmitting a motion passed by Letter from Ivan Selin, Resolution and Order of December 18,th e LLW Forum at its April Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1991 as Amended by Order of May 28,meetin g concerning the NRC's Commission, to U.S. 1992. Northwest Interstate rulemaking on the international Representative Robert Matsui (D- Compact on Low-Level import and export of radioactive CA) responding to a May 2 letter Radioactive Waste Management waste. May 18,1994. regarding the potential use of the May 2,1994. Clarification regards closed Rancho Seco Nuclear Envirocare. Generating Station site to store continued on page 32 low-level radioactive waste. May 18,1994.

LLW Notes ° July 1994 ° Page 31 New Materials and Publications continued

Document Distribution Key

p LLW Forum Participants D LLW Forum Document Recipients A LLW Forum Alternates F LLW Forum Federal Liaisons N LLW Notes Recipients L LLW Forum Federal Alternates T LLW Forum Media Contacts M LLW Forum Meeting Report Recipients V LLW Forum Press Monitors

Meeting packet: quarterly Current U.S. System for Classifying D Excerpt from slides meeting of the LLW Forum, Commercial Radioactive Waste presented by the U.S. July 20-22,1994 (continued) Environmental Protection Agency D 10 CFR 61.55. U.S. Nuclear at a NACEPT subcommittee EPA's Radiation Cleanup Standard Regulatory Commission. meeting on May 19,1994, Regulations concerning regarding the development of D Slides on the EPA Radiation commercial radioactive waste comprehensive radioactive waste Site Cleanup Regulation classification. regulations/guidance. presented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Alternative Approaches to Waste D Excerpt from slides at a June 1994 meeting of the U.S. Classification presented by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection D Excerpts from a letter from on May 13,1994, at a meeting of a Agency. Thomas Tipton, Vice President, subgroup of the National Council Operations and Engineering, on Radiation Protection (NCRP). D "Chart: U.S. EPA Office of Nuclear Energy Institute, to the Office of Radiation and Indoor Radiation and Indoor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Air, U.S. Environmental Rulemakings," LLW'Notes, May/ Agency transmitting comments on Protection Agency.

June 1994, pp. 26-27. Afton a staff draft of radjation site D Excerpts from Draft NACEPT Associates. cleanup regulations and on staff plans for developing Issue Paper. Comprehensive Radiation Waste Management D Staff Working Draft of the comprehensive waste management standards. June 13,1994. Program, U.S. Environmental EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Protection Agency. May 11,1994. Regulation. U.S. Environmental D Discusses current practices for Discussion Points for May 19, Protection Agency. May 11,1994. radioactive waste disposal, future 1994, National Advisory Council disposal strategy, elements of a for Environmental Policy and Conference of Radiation Control risk-based disposal scheme, and Technology (NACEPT) Program Directors Proposed E-27 issues which remain to be subcommittee meeting. Committee ' resolved. Comprehensive Radiation Waste D "Radioactive Waste Disposal Management Program, U.S. D "Proposal to the National Facility Regulation and Licensing Environmental Protection Agency. Council on Radiation Protection Committee." Description of the for a Task Group on Risk-based new E-27 committee, its member Waste Classification." Describes states, advisors, and charges. the proposed activities of a task group under NCRP Scientific Committee 87 for the purpose of studying and developing recommendations on risk-based waste classification.

LLW Notes o J^ly 1994 ° Page 32 New Materials and Publications continued

D "Recommendations for a States and Compacts Southwestern Compact/ 'Total Hazard' Classification California System," Low-Level Radioactive Northeast Compact/ Waste Management Plan, Volume II, Connecticut/New Jersey Section 7.5. Massachusetts Low- PAIL Memorandum from Todd Level Radioactive Waste Lovinger, Legal Liaison, Afton Proposed Voluntary SitingPlan Associates, Inc. re judgment issued Management Board. January for Locating a Low-Level Radioactive 1994. in Ward Valley lawsuits—City of Waste Disposal Facility in New Jersey.Needles v. California Department of New Jersey Low-Level Radioactive D Health Services and Fort Mqjave "New England Petition on Waste Disposal Facility Siting Indian Tribe v. California Department Nuclear Pollution, Inc.; Denial of Board. New Jersey Radioactive of Health Services. June 8,1994. Petition for Rulemaking." 59 Waste Advisory Committee. Federal Register'17052. U.S. Nuclear (Transmitted via facsimile on June 6,1994. Describes the June 8,1994.) Regulatory Commission. April 11, voluntary siting approach that the 1994. New Jersey Siting Board and Advisory Committee have PAn D "Comments to US proposed to site a low-level - Ward Valley Land Transfer Act. Representatives, Senators and staff radioactive waste disposal facility. S. 2151. A bill introduced in the members on the Implementation Encourages public comment in U.S. Senate by Senator J. Bennett of the 'Low-Level' Radioactive the form of a questionnaire. To Johnston (D-LA), which directs Waste Policy Act and Amendments obtain a copy, contact Jeanette U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Act." Nuclear Information and Eng of the Siting Board at Babbitt to convey federal land in Resource Service. March 22,1994. (609)777-4247. Ward Valley to the California Department of Health Services for Congressional Committee a planned low-level radioactive Authority and Federal Laws that waste disposal facility. Directly Affect Classification Southeast Compact/North May 25,1994. (Transmitted via Carolina/South Carolina facsimile on June 3,1994, with a D Letter from U.S. cover memo from Todd Lovinger Representative John Dingell (D- 1992 Summary of Low-Level of Afton Associates, Inc.) MI), Chair, Committee on Energy Radioactive Waste Management in the and Commerce, to President Bill Southeast Compact. Prepared by the Clinton commenting that he is Southeast Compact Commission Letter from Senator Barbara "opposed to any efforts to split the Technical Advisory Committee Boxer (D-CA) to Governor Pete waste stream or reclassify any and Commission Staff for the Wilson (R-CA) responding to portion of the low-level waste." Southeast Compact Commission. Wilson's letter of April 27,1994, May 2,1994. March 1994. Examines the low- concerning the planned Ward level radioactive waste Valley facility. May 9,1994. management practices of generators within the Southeast Compact region to determine whether current commission low- level radioactive waste management plans are adequate to meet regional needs. To obtain a copy, contact Sherol Bremen of the Southeast Compact Commission at (919)821-0500.

LLW Notes ° Jely 1994 ° Page 33 New Materials and Publications continued

Document Distribution Key

p LLW Forum Participants D LLW Forum Document Recipients A LLW Forum Alternates F LLW Forum Federal Liaisons N LLW Notes Recipients L LLW Forum Federal Alternates T LLW Forum Media Contacts M LLW Forum Meeting Report Recipients V LLW Forum Press Monitors

Massachusetts Evaluation of Licensee Status for Nuclear Regulatory Interim Storage of Low-Level Commission Low-Level Radioactive Waste Radioactive Waste. Massachusetts Management Plan, Volumes I and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Performance Assessment of a n. Massachusetts Low-Level Management Board. April 1994. Hypothetical Low-Level Waste Facility: Radioactive Waste Management To obtain a copy, contact Richard Groundwater Flow and Transport Board. January 1994. Presents an Fairfull or Sheila Holmes of die Simulation (NUREG/CR-6114, Vol. "action plan" for low-level Massachusetts LLRW Management 3). Prepared by die Department radioactive waste management in Board at (617)727-6018. the Commonwealth of of Civil and Environmental Massachusetts. Summarizes all Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for die policy issues considered by die Federal Agencies Management Board and all U.S. Nuclear Regulatory recommendations adopted to Commission. Applies stochastic ensure die safe and Department of Energy subsurface hydrologic dieory to environmentally-sound supervision data for a hypodietical low-level of low-level radioactive waste in National Low-Level Radioactive Wasteradioactiv e waste site to Massachusetts. Detailed Management Program Radionuclide demonstrate die features of die information on these issues is Report Series, Volume 7: Strontium-90hydrauli c parameter estimation contained in Volume II of die (DOE/LLW-123). INEL National process, as developed by Gelhar Management Plan. Brief Low-Level Waste Management and odiers. To obtain a copy, documents are also available diat Program, EG&G Idaho, Inc. June contact die National Technical give an overview of the 1994. Discusses radiological and Information Service at (703)487- Massachusetts Low-Level chemical characteristics of 4600. Radioactive Waste Management strontium 90. Includes discussions Act and summaries of die of waste streams in which Management Plan, low-level strontium 90 can be found, waste Other radioactive waste-related forms diat contain strontium 90, regulations administered by die and the behavior of strontium 90 Are We Scaring Ourselves to Massachusetts Department of in die environment and in die Death? ABC News Special Public Healdi, site selection human body. To obtain a copy, Presentation Video. 1994. To criteria regulations, and low-level contact Donna Lake of EG&G obtain a copy, contact MPI Home radioactive waste facility operator Idaho at (208)526-0234. Video at (708)687-7881. (The selection regulations. To obtain a video costs $19.98 plus $3.95 for copy of the Management Plan or shipping and handling. Use order summaries, contact Ben McKelway number MP8088D.) of die Massachusetts LLRW Management Board at (617)727-' 6018.

LLW Notes o July 1994 o Page 34 New Materials and Publications continued

The Nuclear Waste Primer, A Low-Level Radioactive Waste: A The Untold Story: Economic Handbook for Citizens. The League Legislator's Guide. National and Employment Benefits of the Use of of Women Voters Education Fund. Conference of State Legislators. Radioactive Materials. Prepared by 1993 Revised Edition. To obtain a January 1994. Summarizes die Management Information copy, call (800)225-6973. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Services, Inc. for Organizations handbook is available free of Policy Act of 1980, its United for Responsible Low-Level charge. amendments, and state actions to Radioactive Waste Solutions. meet the laws' requirements. March 1994. Identifies the uses of Suggests how legislators and odier radioactive materials and estimates state officials can improve public their direct and indirect benefits understanding of disposal of low- to the U.S. economy and job level radioactive waste throughout market To obtain a copy, contact the process of siting and licensing Organizations United at (202)293- disposal facilities. For furdier 0165. information or to obtain a copy of the guide, contact Cheryl Runyon of the National Conference of State Legislators at (303)830-2200.

~\ Receiving LLW Notes by Mail

LLW Notes and the Summary Report: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Activities in the States and Compacts is distributed to state, compact and federal officials designated by LLW Forum Participants and Federal Liaisons. In April 1994, Forum Participants unanimously approved a change in LLW Forum procedures in order to allow representatives of industry, environmental and citizen groups—as well as other interest groups and members of die public—to receive these two publications directly by mail.

Members of the public may now apply to the National Low-Level Waste Program at EG&G Idaho to be placed on a public information mailing list for copies of LLWNotes and the supplemental Summary Report Afton Associates, the LLW Forum's management firm, will provide copies of these publications to EG&G. The LLW Forum will monitor distribution of these documents to the general public to ensure that information is equitably distributed throughout die states and compacts. This system of distribution is being established on a trial basis and will be reviewed before the end of 1994 to determine whether it meets die needs of citizens and is affordable to die LLW Forum.

For further information on receiving LLW Notes and the Summary Report by mail, please contact Donna Lake, Senior Administrative Specialist, EG&G Idaho, Inc., at (208)526-0234.

LLW Notes o jmly 1994 o page 35 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Membership

Texas

Southwestern

Appalachian Compact Midwest Compact Northeast Compact Unaffiliated States Delaware Indiana Connecticut District of Columbia Maryland Iowa New Jersey Massachusetts Pennsylvania Minnesota Michigan Southeast Compact West Virginia Missouri New Hampshire Alabama Ohio New York Central Compact Wisconsin Florida Puerto Rico Georgia Arxansas Rhode Island Northwest Compact Mississippi Kansas North Carolina Alaska current host state Louisiana South Carolina • Nebraska Hawaii Tennessee Oklahoma Idaho future host state Virginia Montana Central Midwest Oregon Southwestern Compact Utah Compact • Illinois * • Washington Arizona Kentucky Wyoming California North Dakota Rocky Mountain South Dakota Compact Northwest accepts Colorado Texas Compact Maine, Texas and Vermont are Rocky Mountain waste Nevada Maine named as members of a compact as agreed passed by all three states. The between compacts New Mexico Texas compact is awaiting consent by the Vermont U.S. Congress. Tlie Lozv-Level Radioactive Waste Forum includes a Participant from each regional compact, current host state, future Iwst state and unaffiliated state. Graphic by Afton Associates, Inc. for tlie LLWForum, fune 1994. Q