ML20057F505
| ML20057F505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/07/1993 |
| From: | Saloman S NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-1 NUDOCS 9310180109 | |
| Download: ML20057F505 (13) | |
Text
b p nog
,f s.,
E UNITED STATES a
~' i 5;(
' l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q,
N ss,#
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
~~***
September 7, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Program d
S) p,\\
THRU:
Sheldon A.
Schwart ss a ant J rector State, Local and dian Relati15ns q
Office of State Programs i
e FROM:
Stephen N. Salomon, Technical Analyst N
State, Local and Indian Relations Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
POLICY HIGHLIGHTS OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE FORUM i
MEETING, JULY 21-23, 1993
SUMMARY
I attended the quarterly meeting of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) Forum, July 21-23, 1993, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
The LLW Forum received a presentation from a representative of the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) on GAO's pending review of LLW issues.
Martin Halsch, Of fice of the General Counsel (OGC), participated in sessions on termination of certain NRC licenses: radiological criteria for release of land and structures and ownership of waste i
at LLW disposal facilities.
James Kennedy, Low-Level Waste Branch (LLWB),
Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, participated in a session on NRC's government ownership requirements for disposal facilities and another on uniform manifest.
The Forum held other sessions on the Environmental Protection Agency jurisdiction over LLW; potential use of closed military bases as LLW disposal sites; Department of Energy acceptance of commercial mixed waste; surcharge rebates; State and Compact efforts to obtain alternative views on LLW management; compact amendments and legislation and cross-contamination.
Finally, there were reports on new developments in States and compacts.
The Forum adopted a motion to send a letter to the Se'cretary of the U.S.
Department of Transportation explaining how important the uniform manifest is to Compacts and States and that the manifest working group will meet to resolve outstanding issues at the time of the Forum meeting in Williamsburg, October 20-22, 1993.
GAO REVIEW OF LLW ISBUES Daniel Semick, GAO, reviewed his charter from Connecticut U.S.
Senators Dodd and Lieberman.
The GAO report is expected to have no recommendations but rather stress the many options of a policy 9310100109 930907 PDR STPRO ESGGEN PDR D F o 2-iti
Richard L.
Bangart 2
SEP 7 - 1993 analysis.
There is strong interest in economics, alternative j
disposal technologies, Class B and C LLW,.public health and safety i
risks of storage of LLW and alternatives to the current Federal
)
law.
Participants were concerned that the report have honest and objective reporting without speculation, the adverse impact that any change in the Federal law may cause to the current siting and licensing process, and any incentives, such as extra highway funds, that could boost the progress in the States.
MRC RADIGLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR RELEASE OF L&MD AMD STRUCTURES Marty Malsch, OGC, presented the requirements that are currently in
- place, reviewed the progress and next steps of enhanced participatory rulemaking on residual radioactivity criteria for decommissioning facilities, discussed the rules that apply to those sit as carrently undergoing remediation following license termination and the NRC or EPA rules that apply.
Participants were concerned over the license renewal issue and the-length of time that decommissioning takes because of the volume and tiining of LLW that may be sent to LLW disposal facilities.
One participant believed that the decommissioning rule should be reopened to include entombment.
There was also concern over how much LLW could be disposed of on-site versus sent to a LLW disposal j
facility.
Many of these issues will be addressed in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
States and Compacts were encouraged to comment.
NRC'8 GOVRMMMENT OWNWm8EIP REOUIR u nTS FOR DISPOa1L FACILITIES James Kennedy, LLWB, briefed the participants on the Commission's approval of Utah's exemption of the Envirocare facility and explored the implication for other LLW disposal facilities, especially Nebraska's interest in US Ecology, the licensee, owning the property.
Participants recognized that a crucial issue is who is going to ensure that necessary controls are implemented.
Although in the case of Utah, Envirocare will retain ownership during the 100 year institutional care period, the question was raised whether the company will last that long, and what happens if the company goes out of existence before then.
Utah's arguments in their exemption are that the controls can be assured by the State without owning the land.
North Carolina's participant reported that according to that State's law, no land can be used for LLW disposal until the land is conveyed to the State.
California also requires State ownership.
It was noted that both NRC and Utah have an exemption provision so that such arrangements can be worked out, whereas Nebraska does not
39 7 - 19@
Richard L.
Bangart 3
appear to have a similar exemption provision.
(Note:
Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality does not have the exemption whereas the Department of Health does.
Both are responsible for licensing the US Ecology facility under a
memorandum of understanding where the responsibility of each agency is not always clearly delineated.)
CERCLA liability was discussed.
If a States owns the land it is fairly clear that the State has the liability.
Even if the State does not own the land but is a party to the disposal, the State still can be held 100 percent responsible.
At the previous meeting in Austin, Texas, April 28-30, 1993, CERCLA liability was discussed in more depth.
OFFERSHIP OF LLW AT DISPOSAL FACILITIES A panel discussed this subject from various perspectives.
Marty
- Malsch, OGC, reviewed NRC's interpretation being one of a
contractual relationship. The regulations are indifferent when the license is transferred from the operator to the State.
What matters is State or Federal ownership of the site, not the LLW.
According to George Antonucci, Chem-Nuclear, in South Carolina, the company takes title to the LLW when it is received.
However, when the LLW is buried, South Carolina assumes ownership.
The company is responsible for the long term care fund which will reach $1.1 billion after 100 years.
At that time, the license is transferred to South Carolina.
What matters is that the State is satisfied.
Rich Paton, US Ecology, said that US Ecology gets the title to LLW when it is accepted or received from a broker.
The LLW must meet all applicable standards.
Taking title does not necessarily mean that liability is accepted.
That depends on State and Federal law.
The long term care funds established in Nevada and Washington are not as great as that reported for South Carolina.
In Texas, the law is silent according to Lee Mathews, Texas LLW Authority.
The Authority will accept LLW but there is no discussion of title or ownership, He believes that responsibility is more important than ownership. After burial, the Authority owns the LLW, but it will be retrievable, and the State will operate the facility.
Consequently, some liability is attached to the generator and shipper.
In the proposed Texas Compact, the normal generator and shipper will have liability, but Maine and Vermont may have some liability because they have some control.
In Washington, according to Elaine Carlin, Department of Ecology, the expectation is that the State's lease from the U.S. Department of Energy for the Hanford LLW disposal
- facility, will be transferred back when the 99 year lease expires in 2063.
There is already $20 million in the perpetual care fund and $2.80 per cubic foot is going into that fund currently.
SfP 7 - 1993 Richard L. Bangart 4
In New York, the generator has perpetual ownership of LLW and the State will not take title and will not be liable.
If there is harm, the injured party sues the New York LLW Disposal Authority, which in turns goes after the generator.
According to the proposed amendments to the Midwest Compact, the 1
host State of Ohio should not have to foot the bill for the other States, but will be shared among the party States.
One participant emphasized that according to CERCLA, an arranger has responsibility to protect the public health and safety and that liability is related to responsibility.
ILLINOIS 1 MILLIREM PROVISION Marty Malsch, OGC, discussed the June 30, 1993, determination of the Commission (SECY-93-080) that the Illinois regulatory program is compatible with NRC's regulation including the 1 milliram 1
performance objective which is more stringent that the 25 milliram radiation protection standard of 10 CFR Part 61.
The 1 millires is compatible so long as the State does not claim that it is necessary for health and safety protection but is necessary to meet local needs.
Participants from Pennsylvania and other States believe that local activists could possibly bring pressure to adopt something similar to Illinois' provision.
Other issues that surfaced include the ability to measure the gamma emission during operations and arguments on how to calculate the 1 millirem because it cannot be measured.
UNIFORM MANIFEST Jim Kennedy, LLWB, reviewed the status of the proposed uniform manifest / database rulemaking.
Mr. Kennedy summarized the public meeting held on June 15, 1993, in Bethesda, Maryland, to further discuss concerns raised in the comment letters on the proposed rulemaking.
Outstanding issues covered three areas:
the use of existing Chem-Nuclear and US Ecology manifests because the generators and brokers do not want to spend money to change their hardware and software; whether the forms actually decrease or increase the paperwork; and the need for a processor to know what is being received.
Because of last minute non-participation of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Forum adopted a motion to send a letter to the Secretary of DOT explaining how important the uniform manifest is to Compacts and States and that the manifest working group will meet to resolve outstanding i_ssues at the time of the Forum meeting in Williamsburg, October 20-22, 1993.
Richard L.
Bangart 5
S P 7 - 1993 Also, the National LLW Management Program contractor, EG&G Idaho, is to investigate the use of the uniform manifest system for establishing a national data base; and report what they find at the next meeting of the Forum.
EPA JURISDICTION OVER LLW James Gruhlke, Chief, Waste Standards Section, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
explained the evolution of the proposed EPA LLW standards since j
1971 following Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 that created EPA.
The primary advantages of the standards are that they provide protection of ground water; cover direct radiation; regulate
{
disposal of high activity discrete NARM waste; have the chance to reconsider BRC; and covers all LLW, both DOE and commercial.and extends coverage to treatment and storage.
The primary issues to be addressed by EPA's LLW rulemaking are groundwater,
The tasks for EPA are to examine rulemaking issues; prepare a new background information document; prepare a new economic impact analysis;_ and limit the new analyses.
j The time frame to complete these tasks is uncertain.
Participants questioned why EPA needs to become involved when NRC's 10 CFR Part 61 is supposed to accomplish this. Two objectives were described, the assurance of ground water protection and the improvement in public confidence because EPA regulations need to be incorporated into NRC regulations.
The impact on State standards was viewed by participants to be small because most States already have similar standards.
The development of EPA cleanup standards that include radionuclides was discussed by Amica Vagita, EPA.
At this time, the regulated community does not know how to clean up because there are no consistent Federal regulatory criteria.
An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) will be issues in August 1993.
The EPA representative answered two concerns of the States (1) that State standards must be compatible with Federal regulations and (2) the ground water protection strategy of 1991 that requires remediation when there is a reasonable chance that the ground water will be 1
used and be related to the rules of Superfund.
STATUS OF SURCHARGE REBATES Ronald Sandwina, U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), continued his discussion from the last Forum meeting regarding the surcharge rebates under the Act which is $22 million.
(See:
" Policy l
Highlights of LLW Forum Meeting, April 28-30, 1993," June 3,1993. )
He said that the final decision on which party gets the rebates, the Scates or generators, rests with Thomas Grumbly, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, DOE, by July 30.
(Note:
Since the meeting, staff has learned that DOE J
,. ~, _,, _,, _ _, _,.
Richard L.
Bangart 6
was to make a decision by August 30, but has been postponed because of the pending lawsuit.)
The apparent reasons for the l
delay is that the Central-Midwest Compact is suing DOE and Commonwealth Edison filed a motion to request to intervene.
j In addition to the action by the Central-Midwest Compact, the Midwest Compact authorized its legal counsel to take any action as necessary and the Appalachian Compact commissioners are talking to DOE managers.
Pennsylvania U.S.
Senator Harris Wofford wrote Secretary of Energy O' Leary urging DOE to make a determination of eligibility as soon as possible because $4.3 million in surcharge rebates is at stake for the Appalachian Compact to continue its siting efforts.
POTENTIAL USE OF CLOSED MILITARY BASES AS LLW DISPOSAL SITES The participants were briefed on the continued conceptual discussions of the use of closed military bases as LLW disposal sites by Colonel Randy Morin, Assistant for Occupational Health, Installation, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, U.S.
Department of the Army.
He wat assisted by Larry McNamara, Radiation Safety Planning Specialist, Safety
- Office, U.S.
Dcpartment of the Army.
(See Policy Highlights of the LLW Forum Meeting, April 28-30, 1993, dated June 3, 1993.)
As the Army sees it, there are five issues driving the consideration of using closed military bases:
escalating costs of
- disposal, increasing regulatory oversight, lack of available disposal sites, lack of national cleanup standards, and potential remediation of sites.
Army, Navy and Air Force bases are under consideration but bases of the Navy's nuclear program are specifically excluded. The location of these is available and will be given to the Forum.
The Department of Defense will not be volunteering a site in view of the Illinois experience with Martinsville.
A number of scenarios are envisioned and a small number of States have expressed some interest at least at the level of understanding what is available.
The time frame for decisionmaking is 4-5 years.
DOE ACCEPTANCE OF COMMERCIAL MIIED WASTE Ronald Sandwina, DOE-Idaho, reviewed the July 9, 1993, DOE letter the Forum received from Jill Lytle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management, Environmental Restoration snd Waste Management.
He stressed three points.
First, DOE acci,tance of commercial mixed waste is still in the conceptual stage.
Second, the DOE's recent feasibility study did not reveal significant legal or regulatory obstacles to DOE's acceptance of commercial mixed waste.
The process of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (FFCA) will be used to resolve outstanding questions regarding resources, regionalization and RCRA.
SEP 7 - 1993 Richard L.
Bangart 7
Participants also heard Teresa Hay, Midwest Compact, report on a meeting June 14, 1993, of the Federal Facilities State Task Force organized by the National Governors' Association (NGA).
The DOE was asked to identify commercial and defense waste in each region.
The FFCA process has not advanced much according to the inventory I
4 group.
Forum participants recognized that mixed waste is of low priority in the NGA group and that participants should stress equity concerns (host States do not want out-of-State waste), the accuracy of inventories and the treatment methodologies.
Gary King, New Mexico, reported on the June 22 meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee to Develop On-site Innovative Technology (DOIT)
The main objective of the group is to provide nature technologies for cleanup.
Much of the focus is on transuranics.
Also, some $10 million has been earmarked for demonstrations in the area of mixed waste problems.
The Forum's roixed waste working group will be interacting with the DOIT Committee in the future.
J STATE AND COMPACT PROGRESS PROVIDING DISPOS _AL Bouthwestern Connect.
There are 4 lawsuits pertaining to the LLW disposal facility at Needles.
In California Radioactive Materials
)
k nuamuent Forum v.
Health and Welfare Acency, on June 16, 1993, j
the California Senate Rules Committee filed a petition for review in the State Supreme Court.
Earlier, a California appeals court j
ruled that neither State nor Federal law require formal adjudicatory hearings to be held in connection with US Ecology's application for a license.
In July 1992, US Ecology and two other groups brought the Department of Health Services (DHS) to the California Supreme Court prohibiting adjudicatory hearings.
The DHS had agreed to a condition by the California Senate Rules 1
I Committee to hold adjudicatory hearings as a condition for epproving the DHS director.
Responses to the petition were due July 6 and the court has 60 days from the filing to decide whether i
to grant or deny it.
Three lawsuits involving the transfer of ownership of the Ward Valley site from the Federal government to the State of California were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the National Environmental Policy Agt (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Endangered Species Act regarding the desert tortoise.
The parties to one of the suits, Committee to Bridae the Gao v. Luian, agreed to suspend all court actions pending review by U.S.
Interior Secretary Babbitt.
On June 25, 1993, the U.S. District Court held a hearing on Desert Tortoise v.
- Luian, and status and issues raised by Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Babbitt and Committee to Bridae the Gao v. Luian.
Pursuant to that hearing, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife will issue in August 1993, a draft report that defines the critical habitat of the desert tortoise.
A final decision is expected by December 1, 1993.
Afterwards, the DHS is assuming that the land will be transferred from BLM to the State of California sometime in
i SfP 7 I lb93 l
Richard L. Bangart 8
(Note:
Secretary of Interior Babbitt proposed that December 1993.
the State hold hearings to support his decisionmaking in a letter 11, 1993, to Governor Pete Wilson.
The hearing dated August schedule is August /early September for design and arrangsments; late September /early October to conduct the hearings; and forwarding the recommended findings in November to the Secretary.)
The DHS is now completing its scrutiny of its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) so that it can certify in July the EIR, the license and lease as so complete that the documents will withstand expected court challenge. A licensing decision is expected 30-60 days after certification.
The site may be operational by July 1994, or September at the latest.
Central compact.
The Nebraska regulatory authorities notified US Ecology (USE) on January 22, 1993, of its proposal to intend to deny its license because the site does not meet the minimum siting requirements with regard to wetlands.
There are 42 acres of wetlands on a 320 acre site.
The definition of wetlands used was that of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
On March 17, 1993, there public hearing on this matter.
The record is now being was a reviewed.
Recently, USE approached the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to reconfigure the proposed site to eliminate wetlands.
Proposed contested hearings (see below) may be moot if the wetlands are eliminated.
According to DEQ. a smaller site would have to still satisfy all health and safety concerns.
(Note:
August 18, 1993, USE decided to amend its license application to reconfigure the site to eliminate the contentious wetlands.)
on March 12, 1993, US Ecology filed an objection to the above hearing on the grounds that its February 19 request for a contested case hearing " supersedes and supplants" the March 12 public hearing.
A contested case hearing is now scheduled for October 4, 1993, before the DEQ.
The hearing, originally scheduled for June 8, was postponed to allow parties to hold discovery into September.
1 The hearing officer that was appointed is retired District Court j
Judge Robert Moran.
}
On April 14, the Southeast Compact Commission voted unanimously to terminate its access contract to Barnwell with the Central Compact Commission effective July 1, 1993.
This action can be done if the commission " determines that an overt action has been taken by a compact region, designated host state within the compact region, or unaffiliated state, which the Commission determines substantially impedes the state or region's progress..."
The Central Compact Commission, Nebraska, and major generators in the region, made a final appeal and presented a " Plan of Progress" to the Southeast Compact's Import Policy Committee on June 30 to keep access to i
l
SEP 7 - 1993 Richard L.
Bangart 9
Barnwell for its generators.
A decision by the Southeast Compact Commission was expected at the next meeting of the Commission scheduled for August 26-27.
However, on August 27, action was tabled until the Commission's October 19, 1993 mesting.
Southeast concact.
The North Carolina LLW Authority reported that Chem-Nuclear characterization work is essentially complete.
Chan-Nuclear is talking to the regulators who claim that Cham-Nuclear is a
long way from characterization and Wake /Chatham requires additional work.
The applications will be filed by December 1993.
Site selection is anticipated by the end of 1993 to meet the South Carolina imposed milestone.
Because North Carolina law requires that the sites be licensable, Chem-Nuclear is being asked to make judgment whether both sites are licensable because the company a
has long-term responsibility for liability.
The selection of the sites is the responsibility of the Authority.
The Texas Authority's representative reported that characterization at the Sierra Blanca site should be completed by October. The Texas Water Commiscion will begin the technical review in earnest at that time.
( cVernor Ann Richards signed on June 9 the Texas LLW Disposal Compact with Maine and Vermont as initial party States.
The compact was signed by Maine Governor John McKernan, Jr. on June 21.
However, Maine law requires a referendum vote that is scheduled for November 2, 1993. Vermont will consider its membership in the next regular session of the legislature in January 1994.
Under the Compact the benefits to the host county are sizeable,10 percent of the fees collected which is estimated at $1.9 million; and include emergency response capabilities.
On June 4, Alert Citizens for Environmental Safety (ACES), a Texas nonprofit corporation, and others filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas against the Texas LLW Disposal Authority.
The plaintiffs are seeking to void the selection of a site in Hudspeth County.
The plaintiffs claim that the legislature acted unreasonably and arbitrarily and constitutes a taking of property without due process of law because the legislature did not follow the Authority's screening process and no hearings were held on the site.
The Authority has filed briefs and a motion to dismiss.
The nuclear utilities and Hudspeth County are seeking to intervene.
No hearings or rulings have occurred, j
ACES and others also filed suit in the 126th District Court in Travis County with a similar pleading.
The Authority and others are pursuing a similar path as in the case of the Federal court.
No hearings or rulings have occurred.
Appalachian Compact.
Pennsylvania reported that Cham-Nuclear satisfactorily implemented in February 1993 Stage 2,
regional disqualification screening, that eliminated a total of 46 percent
i Richard L.
Bangart lo SEP 7 - 1993
)
of the State from further consideration as a potential site for a LLW disposal facility.
The third stage, the application of local disqualifying criteria, which was scheduled to take place the and I
of 1993, has slipped to mid-January 1994 to maintain and enhance credibility, complete the process entirely with all available information, and to allow for a meaningful volunteer process.
Three potentially suitable sites will be proposed to the Environmental Quality Board in late 1994.
The operational date is
{
mid 1998.
j New York.
By a letter dated June 21, 1993, Governor Mario Cuomo assured the Southeast Compact Commission that his State is committed to providing for the management of LLW. A draft schedule was released showing that under a site selection approach, a LLW i
disposal facility is projected to be operational by January 2001.
A volunteer approach would have a facility in operation by November i
2001.
Neither approach in the schedule allows for litigation.
Method selection will take place before site selection.
The draft LLW storage report indicates that most generators could store for 10 years or more except for biomedical generators which j
are limited to 3 years.
In the New York City metropolitan region, 1
storage is limited to less than 6 months.
In the legislature, the governor asked to remove the ban on West Valley and have NYS Energy and Research Authority build a storage site.
The issue remains unresolved.
Central Midwest Compact.
The Illinois legislature passed a bill (SB616) to amend the procedures for siting a LLW disposal facility enacted in January 1993.
Governor Edgar was expected to sign within a couple of days.
There are two principal aspects: (1)
There are two additional persons to the task group charged with developing proposed criteria for site selection.
One must be a citizen with environmental experience and the other must have at least 5 years of experience in local government.
(2)
Site i
selection issues are expanded to include land use, economics, transportation, meteorology and other matters identified by the group.
Northeast Compact.
In Connecticut, new projection of LLW indicate an annual volume of 29,000 cubic feet per year for 50 years. There will be a public hearing in September on that matter.
There is continued interest in the volunteer process and mandatory site screening.
The legislature was quiet.
In New Jersey, the Management Board was working toward adoption of a volunteer plan later this year and appointed a permanent public advocate.
l i
Richard L.
Bangart 11 BEE 7 - 1993 In the Northeast
- Compact, various meetings were held.
In particular, the former high-level waste negotiator, David LeRoy, spoke on the need for oversight of the process.
The regional 1
management plan is being updated.
Midwest connact. Ohio's Blue Ribbon Commission held a series of 12 public hearings and is now completing initial drafts of its report.
The LLW Advisory Committee is preparing reports to the Blue Ribbon Commission and General Assembly on licensure, design technology, and other technical factors.
All reports are expected by the and of the summer.
The Midwest Compact Commission continued funding the Ohio Blue Ribbon Commission with a total of $260,000.
Ohio State University is receiving $274,000 for educational activities.
Draft proposed amendments to the Midwest Compact were issues. They are more comprehensive compared to those of the Southeast, Central and Central-Midwest amendments.
j Maine.
On June 21, Governor John McKernan, Jr. signed an emergency 1
bill endorsing the establishment of the Texas, Maine and Vermont compact.
However, the compact cannot be ratified until approved by a majority of the voters in a special referendum to be held on November 2, 1993.
The approximate phrasing of the referendum is:
Do you approve of out-of-State disposal of LLW at a location in Texas?
Green Peace is funding opposition to the compact.
Because of the likelihood of the success of the compact, the Authority le scaling back its activities, siting efforts are being suspended, and staff being reduced.
Because of the likelihood of the Texas compact, the Vermont Authority is scaling back its siting activities.
The expectation is that the compact legislation that will be introduced in January will pass smoothly and quickly.
(Note:
A private consulting firm, ERM, has been contracted by Vermont to assure by means of independent investigations that the proposed Texas site will be environmentally acceptable.
ERM has received the license application and will be conducting interviews in Texas.)
The representative was not present because the Massachusetts LLW Board was conducting additional statewide hearings and information sessions because the public asked for them.
Michican.
Michigan is still trying to resurrect its now defunct LLW policy advisory committee of the Board of the Governor's Research Institute which will make recommendations.
In the meantime, amendments to the siting law are under consideration and the Siting Commission is getting comments from generators and others.
The contractor, Battelle, is now on board creating an epilogue to the review of siting criteria.
The report is not
4 Richard L.
Bangart 12 l
complete.
However, it appears that the siting criteria cannot be met in Michigan.
This is the first time that there is adequate i
documentation to support that conclusion. Consequently, the siting i
process and how it works is under revision.
District of Coln=him.
The District of Columbia is pursuing membership in a compact or a contract for the disposal of LLW.
Some storage of LLW is happening in Civil Defense air raid fallout shelters.
Some LLW may be moving across the District line into Maryland.
One example cited was Walter Reid Hospital that lies on the border.
Some hospitals have reclassified LLW as hospital supplies and are being returned to the supplier.
The overall LLW problem is small because most generators cleaned house in 1992.
1 Rocky Mountain Connact. US Ecology (USE) brought a lawsuit against i
the State of Nevada because the Beatty site was closed the end of 1992 by the governor of Nevada' executive order.
USE claims that i
the executive order violates the Beatty lease and is an unlawful i
taking of USE's property rights and interests in violation of the Nevada Constitution.
Oral arguments were held on July 6.
The judge issued a bench ruling denying USE's motion for judgment on
]
the pleading.
No hearings have been scheduled.
J Northwest Compact.
A LLW broker in Richland, Washington, Allied i
Technology Group (ATG), a subsidiary of LA Technology in Los
- Angeles, has been investigated for over 5 months by Federal i
attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Army and others i
for misrepresentation and fraud. The issue concerns waste packages that had original markings spray painted over.
Because of the I
importation of out-of-compact waste, several thousand dollars in surcharges that would have been paid to the Southeast Compact were avoided.
Other States and Compacts were advised to scrutinize i
waste brokers for such unauthorized importation.
US Ecology and Envirocare are still disputing over the legitimacy of Envirocare's proposal to take millions of cubic feet of contaminated soils from nuclear power plants.
Currently, USE cannot accept such waste because of the Northwest's prohibition on the import of non-compact LLW.
The Northwest Compact's resolution allows only the importation of non-reactor low activity bulk LLW for Envirocare.
t i
Washington State has a $1 billion deficit but will not allow the importation of LLW to the Richland facility with a surcharge to help reduce the State deficit, as in the case of South Carolina.
+
4 s
-r M" ' '""'*
Richard L. Bangart 13 JCordna, OGC MMalsch, OGC Distribution RFonner, OGC DIR RF SFonner, OGC RBangart FCameron, OGC PDR Dmichaels, OGC Meeting File Kwinsberg, OGC SSchwartz Tcombs,CA SSalomon Rhauber, IP SA RF RVollmer, OPP RSLos (5)
JLambert, OPP RSAOS (5)
SGagner, PA VMiller KSchneider, OCM/IS JSurmeier SCoplan, OCN/KR CMaupin RBoyle, OCM/FR DSo11enberger KWhitfield, OCM/GD SDroggitis JLubenau, OCM/GD RBernero, NMSS JGreeves, LLWM External PLohaus, LLWM HLarson, ACNW MBell, LLWB LMilkman, DOJ JKennedy, LLWMB JKehne, DOJ LPerson, LLWMB HBrown, LLW Forum RUleck, LLWMB DSemick, GAO RHogg, LLWMB RRoy, OTA RTurtil, LLWMB TBuckner, SE Compact RNelson, LLWMB Commission JThoma, LLWMB JLentz, LLWB DSmith, LLWB CMcKenney, LLWMB Madams, LLWMB JAustin,LLDR MWeber, LLDR WLahs, LLDR Norlando, LLDR MHarvey, LLDR CGlenn, LLDR BMorris, RES, DRA MSilberberg, RES, WMB JPhillips, RES, WMB JRandall, RES, WMB EO'Donnell, RES, WMB MHaisfield, RES, WMB TNicholson, RES, WMB PRoed, RES, WMB SBahadur, RES, REB CPrichard, RES, RDB RCunningham,-NMSS,IMNS I
JGreeves, IMNS JHickey, IMNS FCombs, IMNS PGoldberg, IMNS CHaney, IMNS CSeelig, NMSS,PMPA MKnapp, NMSS.PMPA CDefino, NMSS,PMPA JCunningham, NRR,PRPB HThompson, DEDO NStablein, DEDO WParler, OGC
_