Environmental Management Roundtable
November 28, 2006
Washington, D.C.

Welcome
Chair, Representative John Heaton, New Mexico
Doug Frost, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management

Rep. John Heaton, NM

• Nuclear Renaissance occurring
• When enrichment plant is built, it will raise our domestically-produced energy to just 50%.
• If we are to sustain the 20% level of electricity produced from nuclear, we will need another 50 nuclear power plants.
• New Mexico plant the first to have construction and operations permit provided by NRC -> New expedited process.
• Unless states begin to integrate their interests into a comprehensive policy, the nation as a whole will lose.
• With new legislators, we need to intensify their education on nuclear issues to move the entire process forward.
• With changes in Congress, uncertainty surrounding Yucca Mountain -> begin to look at other issues (GNEP/recycling of used materials) -> could make the potential of Yucca Mountain more robust.  Will require better education to address these issues.

Doug Frost, US DOE-EM

• Working in EM office for ten years.
• Roundtables
  • Appreciates that group is made up of elected officials.
  • Very relaxed, casual give and take that produces a tremendous amount of information that affects constituents.
• Election
  • Doesn’t think it will affect the EM program much, if at all.
  • EM is a bipartisan issue (as demonstrated by this group).
  • Historic:
    • First in almost 100 years that not one Democratic incumbent lost a state seat, Senate seat, or House seat.
    • Issues: Iraq, corruption (number of factors) -> but election will not affect the movement forward for the goals of this group.

History of the NCSL/DOE-EM Cooperative Agreement
Review of the NCSL Federal Facilities Management Policy
Review of the Updated NCSL Fact Sheets for DOE EM Nuclear Sites
Linda Sikkema, Group Director, National Conference of State Legislatures
Melissa Savage, Program Director, National Conference of State Legislatures
Christina Nelson, Senior Policy Specialist, National Conference of State Legislatures

Overview of History

• NCSL's EM Roundtables date to early 1980s with the civilian program; NCSL was able to participate further when the cleanup of sites began.
• Work with EM has varied:
  • Outreach to legislators in various ways
  • Engage legislators in a more effective, direct manner.
  • Conversation was paramount to making the relationship between DOE and legislators operate more effectively, trustingly.
  • Legislators have typically wanted to defend money directed at the sites in their states.
  • Elections: large percentage of states will experience changes that present NCSL with significant challenges (outreach, legislative experience) and opportunities to approach colleagues in a different manner and bring in fresh perspectives (find out what the legislators need) -> NCSL has seen that new legislators have different needs/requests.
  • NCSL often invited to testify before legislative committees; can put together a program for your state.
  • Importance of Fed. Facilities policy is to allow NCSL’s D.C. office to lobby for the states’ interests. (Allows the states to speak with one collective voice).

EM Site Fact Sheets

• Website covers both HLW and EM
  • Can find under Environmental Protection section (then Nuclear Waste Cleanup, Federal Facilities)
  • Section on news summaries of current issues in the nuclear field
  • Databases covering HLW and Environmental Justice
• NCSL's Federal Facilities Policy
  • Will review thoroughly at this meeting
  • Committee which oversees it may take it up at NCSL's Spring Forum, so we'd appreciate legislator input in advance is there are recommended changes/updates.

Overview of the Office of Environmental Management
Frank Marcinowski; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management

Over the past year, reorganization has occurred to make it more transparent where one needs to go for information

• Structural changes occurred as a result of the reorganization.
• Budget - almost all went to contracts at various sites (help understand how to run activities more efficiently).
• Going through process within the agency of defining requirements for projects

DOE Assistant Secretary for EM, James Rispoli, priorities:

• Safety first
• High performance rate
• Human capital resources- significant work performed analyzing skills that revealed they need different/more skills in house
• Establish constant feedback mechanism

History of EM

• Responsibilities
  • Liquid tank waste - highest risk currently
  • Spent nuclear fuel
  • Nuclear materials
  • Solid radioactive waste, contaminated soils, and groundwater
  • Nuclear and radiological-contaminated facilities
  • EM is no longer in the business of simply closing sites and risk reduction -> look at sustainability on the energy front; EM is able to take on issues that arise in more divergent areas.
    • Accepted Oak Ridge project for disposition of U-233
    • EM seen as waste experts within DOE
• When established, focus was on compliance and scope

FY 2006 Budget

• $6.5 billion
• Hanford and SRS received the highest amounts of funding.

FY 2007 Budget

• Significantly lower than 2006, $5.828 billion.
• CR now through December 8 may be extended through February or March.
• Result of EM focusing on accelerated cleanup led to peak appropriation in 2005, decreasing budgets thereafter, so no reinvestment.
• Significant compliance agreements with sites, so need a budget that allows the program to meet these agreements.
• Fair amount of budget goes toward waste disposal operations.

Q: DOE Breakdown?
A: EM (1/4-1/3 of DOE Budget), Office of Science, Nuclear Energy Program, OCRWM, National Nuclear Security Administration

Comment: NRC reevaluating ways that they would license nuclear power plants -> correct one of the biggest drawbacks/deterrents for trying to establish nuclear power plants.

Accomplishments

• Physical closure of Rocky Flats and Fernald.
• 40,000 cubic meters of TRU waste sent to WIPP.
• Almost 1 million cubic meters of LLW/MLLW disposed.
• Making progress on tank waste.  Cleaned three tanks that were part of 2005 appropriation (completed last week); delayed by snow and unsure what will be able to be accomplished throughout the winter.  One small tank left.
• SC had waste determination done in January -> Hoping permit will be issued shortly.
• 232-Z Incinerator building at Hanford demolished.
• Mixed/Low-Level Waste disposal performance at Idaho
• F Area Deactivation at Savannah River Site
• Rocky Flats cleanup a very significant accomplishment

EM 2007 Priorities:

• Tank waste (establish disposition capability)
• Dispose contact-handled and remote-handled TRU and LLRW.
  • Working on final bits and pieces to begin shipments.
  • Still have some issues with EPA to get through.
• Decontamination and decommission facilities no longer needed.
• Remediate contaminated soil and groundwater - some budget language could provide additional funding for these issues.
• Support post-closure benefits and liability requirements
  • Big issues in health care and benefits for workers at closure sites.

Initiatives:

• Assure safety is number one
• Evaluating baselines, schedules and assumptions -> get better handle on what is required
• Contract mechanisms - establish appropriate contracts
• Focus on engineering and technology - especially during planning stages

General Principles:

• Need to understand directions (“Lessons learned”)
• Integration has been lacking:
  • Need to transfer knowledge from one site to another more effectively (bring groups together to avoid reinventing the wheel).
• Contracting Strategy - upcoming projects will absorb a lot of time & resources

Q: Transferring ownership of SRS; how much confidence will the community have when ownership/operation of the site changes? Who will answer when contracts are disbanded?
A: Want to break up contracts into smaller pieces where it makes sense (by particular issue).  There is expertise related to specific issues at each site; as technologies evolve, increased specialization will be beneficial.  For general issues, Jeff Allison (site manager) would be the place to turn.

Q: SNF- How high on the list of priorities would GNEP be?
A: Run by a different part of DOE.  EM looking at fuels that might be included in reprocessing.  A lot of EM waste is damaged and would not be a candidate for recycling (“inconsistent fuel”).  They want to ensure that their fuel is packaged and ready to go to Yucca Mountain when it’s ready to receive material.

Acquisition Focus:

• Number of ongoing procurements.
• Within the next 2-3 years:
  • Idaho AMWTP, Oak Ridge TRU, etc.
• Proponent of small business ($200 million in contracts)
• 5-7 years
  • Re-procurement of some of the major sites
• Establishment of acquisition office couldn’t come at a better time

Q: Regarding the budget submittal - Do you have the ability to ask for more money?
A: EM is asking for reestablishment of budget at $6.5 billion level.
C: Good momentum has been established and needs to be continued in closure of more sites.  As take on more work, need adequate funding to perform these tasks.  Use additional money from outside the EM budget (from other parts of DOE) when take on new/external work, i.e. for nuclear energy.  So far that has been relatively small (tens of millions of dollars).

Q: Permitting problems at SRS; Why aren’t legislators included in attempts to help the process move through “political pressure?”
A: DHEC has been working closely with governor’s office to get the permit ready.  There has been that level of involvement

Q: We fought these same battles with CSG in different arenas… Have we thought about consulting CSG on these issues and approaching them in a different manner? 
A: Unaware that CSG has a department/program related to this particular issue.
A: In the EM arena, there is not overlap.  In Transportation/Nuclear Materials there is overlap.  There are cross-discussions/cross-policy development going on there.

Q: Concerned about budget cuts since it was the initial intention to maintain the budget, putting greater emphasis on coming projects after others are completed (reinvesting saved dollars).  The accelerated program could sustain if it received additional funding to speed up the process.  What can we do to encourage this?
A: That was the initial philosophy, but it is not being approached that way from those making budget decisions.  They believe that once you’ve completed a project, that frees up money for other areas.  Tough to know how to change this.  Try educating people at OMB as to what the budget trend means for EM in the future. 

Q: Need to get EM onto NNSA sites, so that EM funds are used toward appropriate objectives.  Because EM is the expert, they should be more heavily involved in cleanup at NNSA sites.  As budgets get cut, the cleanup gets sacrificed. What can we do?
A: Issue has come up several times (e.g. Los Alamos).  NNSA sites the law that prohibits EM from taking control.  Fundamentally, need to change the law to change interpretation.  EM contracts are being done through field offices -> This leads to little control over how money is spent or scope of work at these sites.

Marcinowski: We believe there can be more efficient use of funds at Los Alamos than what is currently taking place.

Q: Suggest changing NNSA laws?
A: See particular issues at NNSA sites.
Comment: Need to look into reforming cleanup authority at NNSA sites.
Can accomplish the same tasks with less money than current level of funding.

Q: We don’t know who to go to in terms of site contacts.  How is funding being analyzed for future needs?
A: Better to ask the budget expert who will be at the Intergov. meeting tomorrow.

Q:  Legislative or administrative cut?
A:  During Jessie Roberson's time, developed budget profiles with a peak in 2005 and declining figures after that.  Difficult to reverse now. 

Q: Agreements/Involvement with state environmental departments?  Involvement increases credibility.
A:  Yes, EM tries to meet requests because need state organizations to perform EM some functions.

Q: Because NNSA controls the contracts/budget decisions, how do you exert influence?
A: Because the funding comes in through the feds rather than the contracting side, directions are given to field sites.

Comment: Even after cleanup is finished and the property is turned back over to the landlord (NNSA), issues persist that the states become responsible for. 

Comment:  In New Mexico, we’re extremely tired of NNSA; having two groups to contend with makes it frustrating to operate.

Q: Frustrating to lose a technical department like EM and people who truly understand the issues.  Is DOE so partisan that it causes these losses?
A:  Don’t believe the issue is partisan as much as an aging workforce.  We weren’t bringing in people out of college and grooming them for careers in DOE.  Recently began an outreach program that looks to bring in new blood and improve this in the future.

Q: Small contractors/specialties; Technology is coming from different areas; how do you reconcile this issue and consolidate the efforts to develop technology advances?  Is there a clause in these contracts that DOE can replace them if they see fit?
A: One of the most productive advances came out of a household operation in Denver.  They may elect to replace a contractor, but there are clauses and components that create deterrents to do so.

State Legislative Role in Environmental Management Issues

Representative John Heaton, New Mexico
WIPP

• Great success story - took a long time (began in 1975)
• Have received 40,000 cubic meters of CH TRU waste; 5,000 shipments
  • Shipments are extremely secure and safe
  • Track record great considering the number
• DOE has had great success regarding the EM story
  • If you start on the East coast, and move West, and look at cleanup of facilities, the record is outstanding. 
  • In the last ten years, great progress has been made that would not be possible if it were not for the existence of WIPP
• Limitations (primarily centered around the Land Withdrawal Act)
  • Land withdrawal restrictions
    • Can only be TRU waste
    • New permit goes over 200 nanocuries
    • Limited in capacity
    • Limited to “defense only” waste, but there is other waste out there that needs to go somewhere (WIPP becomes a candidate)
    • At some point, there may be a need to change the land withdrawal act to accommodate the disposal of some of these other wastes and to achieve greater available capacity.
• Every year a survey is conducted in which WIPP consistently receives majority statewide support.

Senator Karen Fraser, Washington
Dual Constitution System in the United States affects nuclear cleanup

• Hanford one of the most significant nuclear sites in the country.
• Legislative role:
  • Difficult to understand all laws at different levels affecting the site.  Roundtable helps understand the context, experiences at various sites.
  • Enact laws/budgets setting responsibilities
  • Initiatives and Referenda responses
  • Lobbying the federal government
  • Involvement in elections
• Washington
  • Hanford located in eastern part of the state
  • Communities around the site are generally pro-nuclear while the rest of the state is more skeptical.
    • Past initiative to stop importation of waste unless all applicable standards are met (passed with apx 70%) -> repealed on grounds of interstate commerce (being appealed).
    • This fall, measure on ballot on renewable energy portfolio requiring percentage from renewables.
    • Many years ago, a board proposed seven new nuclear power plants.  One plant was built and had the biggest bond default in the history of the nation.
  • Reluctance surrounding nuclear energy because the state wants the waste cleaned up (but then budgets are cut); and the federal government is seen as unresponsive in general to the Northwest.  Bonneville contentions. 
  • Governor is very strong on these issues
  • Working on legislation for coming session on covenants.

Update on the Issuance of the WIPP Remote-Handled Waste Permit
James Bearzi, New Mexico Environment Department

Local officials/representatives continue to treat WIPP success as though it is their own:

• Great indication of the support of the project
• Could provide a story for other states to follow

New Mexico Environmental Dept. (NMED) has strong federal component.

Of the 25 permitted facilities, ten are federal.

WIPP is the final destination for what waste remains at Rocky Flats.

Bearzi was transferred to his current position about 7 years ago and has been catching up ever since.

Origin of transuranic waste (TRU)

• Manhattan Project - Hanford, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos
• Weapons complex established thereafter
• People knew it was hazardous, but not particularly aware of the long-lived effects of radiation (wanted to get the bomb produced, not much consideration of the long-term effects). 

What is TRU?

• “Beyond uranium” – elements such as plutonium, americium, etc.
• Less radiation/heat than fission products.
• Requires long term regulation due to their greater half-life.

Operations that generate TRU

• Production of nuclear weapons
• Plutonium recovery
• R&D

Classes

• Contact handled- can walk up and touch it (less than 200 mrem)
• Remote handled- need machinery to touch

Physical forms

• Homogenous solids
• Soils, gravels
• Debris

Ineligible at WIPP

• Non-defense- becoming more blurry
• Non-mixed
• High-level waste and SNF- permitting/politics would be difficult
• Low-level waste
• TRU generated prior to 1970- interesting for Idaho
  • This waste was disposed of by dumping into a trench
  • Decision was made without thinking about the long-term effects (particularly ground water issues) -> before 1970 legislation had not defined TRU waste

Congressional Intent for TRU Waste

• Land Withdrawal Act – 1992
  • Established regulatory framework for WIPP
    • Divided elements between different federal and state departments/agencies
  • Specified total disposal capacity for TRU waste
  • Also set REM and curie limits for TRU waste

NMED’s RH TRU Waste Prohibition

• Permit issued in 1999; NMED included RH TRU waste disposal prohibition
  • Issuance of permit a good thing (on state level)
• Prohibition based upon failure to submit appropriate waste analysis (WAP) for RH waste
• NMED also questioned the applicability of CH waste characterization techniques to RH

The Torturous Path to RH Approval - Between 1999 and today, everyone weighed in on the subject.

• Central Waste Characterization/Confirmation Facility Permit Modification Request (PMR)
  • Presented by DOE in 2000.
  • 2001- DOE position paper (stating why it was a good idea and why it was necessary).
  • 2001- Class 3 PMR
  • NMED issues NOD June 2002.
  • Dec. 2002- DOE Inspector General found CCF won’t actually save any money or provide better protection.
  • Throw in the Towel- DOE withdraws PMR on Jan. 13, 2003.
• RH Disposal PMR
  • 2003- First Notice of Deficiency
  • EPA Approval- 2004
  • Dec. 2004
• Container Management Improvements PMR
  • Storage, parking lots, shipments, containers, etc., addressed
  • Never got sorted out because it went all over the place
  • Eventually withdrawn
• Section 311 (FY 04 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill) PMR
  • Roots in reducing waste characterization requirements
  • From state’s perspective, the bills language seemed unclear and they didn’t know what to do with it.
• Consolidation Response (“Ah-hah moment”)
  • Four actions and years passing with nothing going on
    • Skepticism from individuals that this could be accomplished
  • Big NOD (on all permit modifications) – March 2005
  • Consolidated Response – April 2005
    • Back-and-forth
  • NOD on Consolidated Response – September 1, 2005
  • Response to NOD – September 22, 2005
  • Post-draft Permit
  • Negotiate and arrive at final order
• Issuance of Draft Permit
  • November 23, 2005
  • 30 day extension granted
  • Hundreds of comments from 68 entities
  • 18 hearing requests
• Set-up for negotiations
  • Internal response to comments
  • Get management buy-in
  • Invoke seldom-used regulation (used 3 times)
    • Resolve issues giving rise to hearing request
    • In conjunction with applicants
  • Everyone invited (crucial to include everyone who requested hearings)
  • NMED in control of meeting
• Negotiations (3-4 activist groups, DOE, AG, individuals by telephone)
  • First day – March 9
  • Day 2-3 – common ground found over waste analysis
  • Day 5 – get it in writing
  • Day 6 – Draft Permit as changed and Stipulation
  • Issues:
  • WAP, Storage, RH Prohibition, Dispute Resolution, Notification, Transportation, Environmental Justice
  • Got main activist to agree to everything contained in the permit (brought everyone into the negotiations on real permit language)
• Hearing and Post-Hearing Submittals
  • “Draft Permit as Changed”
  • Only issues that couldn’t be resolved were Environmental Justice (and Transportation)
  • 193 provided non-technical testimony
    • Overwhelming support in Carlsbad; mixed in Santa Fe
  • Comments on Hearing Officer’s Report
• Secretary Issues Final Order – October 16, 2005
  • Draft Permit as Changed with no changes
  • Softened some of the EJ findings
• Appeal of Final Permit Decision
  • Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping (CARD)
  • NMED, DOE, and WIPP M&O named in appeal
  • Basis for appeal expected to focus on EJ issues
    • Claim that when shipments hit their peak, health effects will hit minority communities harder than others.
    • Success of the appeal could have major, widespread effects (“Slippery slope”)

Comment: Story provides commentary on the political aspects surrounding these issues that can apply in other states

Overview of the Office of Transportation
Dennis Ashworth, Director of Transportation, Office of Environmental Management

Been with DOE for about two years

Overview of EM Project

• 2 million acres
• 114 sites
• 31 states
• LLW

EM Facilities - cleaning up entire sites or parts of these areas

Transportation

• 2005- 22,100 shipments
• 2006- 14, 060 shipments
• LLW shipments dwarf all other forms of waste/shipments

Rocky Flats - focused effort to transforming entire site to nature preserve.

West Valley

• Original venture between N.Y. and DOE
• Energy Solutions & NTS

SRS

• Smartest, most professional contractors in all of EM
• Never had a release from a shipment in 54 years

Oak Ridge

• 2005 to 2006
• Haul Road- completed in 2006
• DUF6
  • Gas shipped to Portsmouth and Paducah for processing

Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Sites

• DUF6 will be conducted here
• Building these facilities to convert DUF6 to uranium oxide
• Process will result in 3,000 cylinders shipped per year
  • 1,100 from Portsmouth
  • 1,900 from Paducah
  • Using best railcars available for the shipment of this material
• Cylinders weigh 14-18 tons
  • 5 or 6 will be transported from each site on a weekly basis

EM TRU Shipments - 1,147 shipments have been made to WIPP so far

WM Information System (WIMS) - online info on what is being taken and delivered from each site.

Office of Transportation Vision

• Leaders in transportation and operational excellence
• Use the best practices from government and industry
• Focus on protecting public and environment
  • Comply with regulations, operating procedures
  • Inspections
  • Lessons learned
  • Strive for continuous improvement

If EM Office of Transportation is successful, results should be measurably better and operations should be emulated.  Transportation successful if a product is delivered from point A to point B without any noticeable event. -> Want to hear from our “customers” and we have responded to suggestions with action.

Status

• 2004 – 23 “events”; worst was a shipment around Oak Ridge that leaked onto a highway
• 2005 – 15 “events”
• 2006 – 27 “events”
• Their standards, however, are far higher than DOT standards.
• Worst event of the year was on Dec. 27, 2005 when a WIPP truck carrying. TRU packs crashed and the containers fell off onto the road.
• Sites need to make sure that trucks are clean and safe before they leave.

Areas of focus

• 2006 – collisions were biggest issue; some of these weren’t driver's fault, but the Office still holds it against themselves.
• Every year, look at type, volume of shipments, routes, previous collisions.
• Take experts from separate sites to others to compare and contrast.

Collision Avoidance

• Earmark arranged by Sen. Harry Reid that has been used with UNLV Research Foundation.
• Detect something wrong with the driver or truck before accident/event:
  • Record driver performance based on averages or expectations
  • Can detect sudden lane changes or abrupt stops
  • Recorded in real time
• Operation Respond
  • When a truck does have an emergency, an alert is sent out to Operation Respond, which sends a responder in the vicinity with detailed information related to the area where the event took place.
• Inspections
  • Provide checklists to ensure performance
  • Prospective Shipments Report
• Incident rate per 10,000 shipments
  • Rose from ’05-‘06
  • Per million miles used as a standard as well

TEPP

• Assistance to emergency responders throughout the country
• Improve standards
• Materials on decontamination
• Emergency Response exercises - all free, a state/local group just has to ask

Commodity Flow Surveys

• Conducted three so far
• Develop a profile of what materials are transported along a route over 24 hrs.
• Improve information and preparedness
• Type of information Office of Transportation can provide communities Time of day, type of material, type of placards, truck types

Service Organization within DOE

• Customer surveys done yearly.
• Focused on communication last year - put out weekly report for DOE.
• Got poor marks in thoroughness of studies.

Q: Have you worked with state legislators in the past to draft legislation?
A: Mainly through the state regional groups.

C: Many constituents would be surprised to discover how much hazardous material is transported every day.

Q: What did you find in terms of dangerous shipping practices with the commodity flow studies?
A: We’re not there to issue tickets; in Tennessee, one of the trucks was dripping.

Q: Any international transportation? From Mexico or Canada?
A: Main ones are FRR shipments through Charleston - about twice per year.  If coming from a developed nation, it is that country’s responsibility to get the material to the U.S. and then we take control of it and deliver it to Idaho.  Nothing from border nations to his knowledge.

Q: 2005-2006 shipment reductions. Why?
A: Presence of haul road in Oakridge and closure of Rocky Flats. Next year will be even fewer as other sites close.

Q: Has the UNLV study yielded any information? How many trucks are included?
A: No data yet, but will request feedback through a final report.  Not very many trucks, and while it will not be statistically significant, it will provide information on sudden stops or lane closures.

Q: What does it cost to equip a truck?
A: Not sure exactly.  However, it’s possible to transmit even more information using existing technology, which could lower potential costs.  It is a financial burden on the trucking company, so there must be some financial return as a result of it.

Environmental Covenants: Possible Opportunities for States
Nithin Akuthota, Policy Specialist, National Conference of State Legislatures

Environmental Covenants

• Broadly define institutional controls
• Might grant a regulatory agency to go onsite and regulate

Doctrine came about in 2000 through model legislation; in 2004 ABA reviewed and promulgated the Act officially.

What the Act does fundamentally, is create possible covenants between agencies, but there is no guarantee that they will be enforced.  Courts sometimes rule that they do not relate to the land they are intended to affect. 

E.G. Rocky Flats – just recently after completing cleanup, created covenant as part of the state signing on.

• Parts of the site had restrictions placed on certain activities and guidelines.
• Environmental, real estate, business, and local communities all supported because it’s not an additional regulation, but rather a law that ensures that cleanup is sustained over time.

Karen Fraser:

• First heard about this in 2005 from the Colorado A.G.
• “Institutional controls” are neither institutional, nor controls.
  • Love Canal - despite instructions not to build, people were developing the land within several years.
• Introduced her own covenant in 2006 session
  • Task force meetings in interim.
  • An appellate court judge who was a legislator has become very interested.
  • Environmentalists, businesses, agencies all interested in the issue.
• Surrounding Issues
  • Who can hold a covenant?
  • Should covenants be able to be lifted in eminent domain issues?
  • Biggest: Who can enforce a covenant? (currently negotiating on this)
  • How are people to know about the covenants? -> Decided on an online registry of summaries of the covenants.

Q: Groundwater covenants?
A: In NM, 93% of drinking water is groundwater. We use covenants as backbone standards for certain land uses.  NM bill also includes provisions that require the new owner of the property to live by covenants if the land is sold, but also allows a new owner to go back to the environmental agency and renegotiate.  Where groundwater is concerned, no covenant can supercede restrictions currently in place concerning the water supply.  There has been some concern that the legislation could open the door for anyone to start adopting covenants. 

Q: Have covenants been tried constitutionally?
A: Covenants on land have been.  This is a way to get by institutional controls.  These really deal just with the surface and try not to reach too deep. 

C: Such a bill would require the state to seek agreed upon redevelopment uses.

Q: How binding are these covenants?
A: In his, there is an exception to ensure that groundwater continues to be protected regardless of what happens at the surface.

C: Without passing this kind of legislation, will end up with some brownfields that would never be able to develop otherwise.

C: I see this as a trial lawyer’s dream.  If a covenant establishes that a daycare can’t be built somewhere, but a warehouse can, then it makes it very easy for a lawyer to come in and sue the richest target he can find.  I don’t see why this is necessary.

C: The attractive part is that a government can enforce requirements rather than leaving it up to the two parties. 

Examine and Comment on the NCSL Federal Facilities Cleanup Policy
NCSL Staff

NCSL adopts policies in order for our Washington, D.C. office to lobby the federal government on behalf of the states.

Federal Facilities policy will sunset in July, 2007.

Points of Interest:

• Begins with Environmental Reclamation
• Types of federal facilities, labs, waste
• Goes into things states believe and things states want to happen.  Inadequate interim storage.
  • Intended to be vague in order for the Washington staff to be able to lobby on different/new topics. 
• Military installations and defense site closure, redevelopment.
• Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992
  • Comply with federal, state, and local environ. Laws
  • Coordination among federal offices and with state
  • DOE facilities on National Priority List - cleanup should be independent of Superfund monies.
  • DOE to continue to use contract review process for oversight and cost accountability.
  • Long-term funding, cost-effective strategies.  Invest in research and technology development.
  • Lands requiring less cleanup, should be restored as quickly as possible
  • States, tribes, local, public should play substantive role in planning and oversight of waste mgmt.
  • DOE should recognize cultural resources and artifacts important to affected Indian tribes.
  • Pollution prevention and recycling.
  • Transportation must comply with state and federal safety procedures.
• Accelerated Cleanup
  • Heard today from Mr. Marcinwoski that this is no longer DOE-EM strategy.  Now continuing, enduring mission.
  • Comment - could still be accelerated if fully funded.  DOE should educate OMB.
  • NCSL committee will decide what stance to take on this issue (may still decide to lobby for this).  Input appreciated.
  • Long-term Stewardship
  • DOE's top to bottom programmatic review
  • Performance standards, risk-based cleanup, DOE adherence to NEPA.
• WIPP
  • Background
  • Appropriate funding, such as for:
    • Independent environ monitoring lab
    • Highway maintenance
    • Other transport needs

Anything missing or that needs to be updated can be changed -> We have requested input from the High-Level Waste Working Group as well.

Comment: Important to maintain budget and not frame it as “accelerated” cleanup.  Fight for budget so that cleanup can continue.

C: “Minimally acceptable criteria”
C: “It has to be more definable than ‘minimally’”

C: Want to keep the policy focused on risk management.  Establish a reasonable timetable (i.e. not 2023).

C: Having some statement about reprisals of state enforcement of environmental standards would be preferred.  Neutralize leverage that can be used against states.
C: Have to be careful because some states have become over-zealous and are even trying to close down military bases. 
C: Heard just the opposite, that some bases should close but it would cost too much because of environmental standards. 

C: Regarding WIPP – after proven state operations of a certain number of years, DOE should look at potential changes to the Land Withdrawal Act to amend land use restrictions to maximize the potential of the site. 

Q: What is the range of the half-life of the material at WIPP?
A: Into the millions of years

C: Emphasize funding, and express the desire that funding be re-dispersed, not withdrawn when sites are completed. 

C: Can NCSL construct a letter to deliver to our Congressional delegations that express the need for awareness on these issues?
C: A page-long, bullet point document of talking points would be extremely useful. 
C: Form letters get far less attention; instead we could take the talking points that NCSL compiles and draft our own letter to send to our respective legislators.
C: Might want to include the governors as targets of this as well.
A: NCSL will create, with our DC office, a list of bullet points for legislators to take to their Congressional delegation on EM needs.

Q: Can we also add specific recommendations for Hanford?  I.E. fully funding the project?
A: Yes, legislators can submit any recommendations to the committee by letter or in person when the policy is taken up.  

Q: Is there a system to use to inform the group of legislation before the federal government?  We can have an impact if we have the information in time.
C: AND we need this information while it is still in committee, rather than on the floor, for this group's input to have its greatest impact. 
A: Yes, available on NCSL's website.  Can add interested legislators to our listserve to receive notice of updates and links when we make them to our news page.

C: Would like to visit a nuclear power plant and get to see the entire process from uranium to energy to waste take place.  This is important because nuclear power is the likely filler of the future gap in energy supply over the next fifty years.  There is no real energy policy in this country, despite being one of the biggest issues facing the country today.  We cannot remain competitive globally unless we become independent from other nations.

Action Items

• NCSL staff will create, with our DC office, a list of bullet points for legislators to take to their Congressional delegation on EM importance/needs.
• NCSL staff to add interested legislators to our email listserve to receive notice of updates and links when we make them to our news page, particularly regarding federal legislation.
• Legislators to submit any recommendations for changes to the Federal Facilities policy to NCSL's Agriculture, Environment, and Energy Committee by letter ahead of time or in person when the policy is taken up (may occur at Spring Forum).

 Environmental Management of Federal Facilities Web Page

 Return to the Nuclear Waste Cleanup Menu Page