Low-Level Radioactive Waste: State and Compact Update
State Legislative Report
March 1998
Vol 23. No. 9
By Jeff Dale, Research Analyst II
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, (the Act), which was passed in 1980 and amended in 1985, gave states the responsibility of providing for disposal of low-level radioactive waste. In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in a suit brought by New York that the provision to provide for disposal "alone and in isolation, could not be construed as a command to the states independent of the remainder of the Act." Regardless of that ruling, however, states continue to pursue siting activities not because of a legislative command to do so but, rather, because of uncertainties regarding continued access to disposal. The act encouraged states to join together in regional clusters to share responsibility for low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal. In working toward these goals for nearly two decades, states have discovered that the process of siting, licensing and building disposal facilities is one of public policy's greatest challenges.
Nine regional compacts have been formed and a 10th (Texas-Maine-Vermont Compact) is awaiting congressional approval; six states remain unaffiliated. A few states have progressed to the final stages of the siting process. California (Southwestern Compact) issued a license that allows its contractor to begin construction of a disposal facility, but conflict with the federal government over acquiring the land is delaying the project. Texas (Texas Compact) issued a draft license for a facility and is currently in the final stages of an adjudicatory hearing process. Nebraska's facility developer has selected land for eventual construction of a disposal facility. North Carolina selected a land parcel for facility development, but recently began shutting down its project (see Southeast Compact information).
Recently, several states and a few compacts have questioned their commitments to siting low-level waste disposal facilities and have slowed or suspended siting activity. In July 1997, the Midwest Compact decided to halt progress toward LLRW disposal. North Carolina decided to suspend activity in December 1997 and New Jersey stopped work in February 1998. In recent years, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan and New York also have stopped their siting processes for indefinite periods.
Most states that have decided to stop progress toward siting a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility have cited similar reasons for doing so. Process efficiencies and waste compacting by radioactive materials users have significantly decreased waste volumes. While some question whether 10 or more disposal facilities are needed and whether enough waste is produced to make that many facilities economically viable, others warn that as older nuclear power plants are decommissioned, waste volumes once again will increase.
Continued access to disposal facilities at Barnwell, S.C. and Clive, Utah, (and Richland, Wash., for 11 Western and Northwestern states) is another explanation states provide for halting siting activity. In 1994, the South Carolina Legislature decided to stop accepting waste from around the country for disposal at Chem-Nuclear's Barnwell facility. In 1995, the Legislature withdrew from the Southeast Compact and reopened the facility to receive waste nationally (except for North Carolina, the state designated to develop a replacement for the Barnwell facility). Renewed access to Barnwell relieved some of the pressure to build additional disposal capacity.
Finally, states have pointed to the substantial financial demands-projected to be greater than $100 million for most compacts-of siting a disposal facility. The expense and difficulty of siting and constructing disposal facilities, coupled with current access to disposal facilities and declining waste volumes, have placed too many obstacles in the siting process for some states and compacts.
Summaries of progress toward waste disposal by states and compacts
Appalachian Compact -Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania (host), West Virginia
Pennsylvania is searching for a volunteer community that is willing to accept a disposal facility. Seventy-five percent of the Commonwealth has been eliminated from consideration due to technical requirements. The state's contractor held informational open houses across the commonwealth in 1997. The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors is serving as a resource and facilitator to municipalities that want to consider hosting this facility. Grants are available to communities for public information programs.
Central Compact -Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska (host),
Oklahoma
Nebraska's facility developer selected a site in the north central part of the state near Butte in 1989. The state is reviewing a contractor's application to build a disposal facility. State regulators recently released draft safety and environmental impact reports and approved a large portion of the application. The contractor continues to address a number of technical details related to safety and environmental effects while the state works to incorporate comments on the draft documents.
Central Midwest Compact -Illinois (host) and Kentucky
Illinois passed legislation in 1997 that requires a comprehensive reevaluation of the state and national LLRW situation, revision of the siting process and new provisions for a volunteer process. The 1997 legislation requires that a disposal site be volunteered by both the landowner and the community or county it affects. This gives municipalities greater control over a proposed facility in their community. The state projects it will complete a siting strategy by fall 1999. Projections for facility operation have been delayed from 2003 until 2012.
Midwest Compact -Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin (no host state)
Ohio and the Midwest Compact stopped activities related to siting a disposal facility in June 1997. The compact voted to cease siting activity and to rescind Ohio's obligation to host a facility. The compact commission will convene in June 1998 to reevaluate the situation.
Northeast Compact -Connecticut and New Jersey (both are host states)
New Jersey abandoned its search for a volunteer community in February 1998. Connecticut has refrained from implementing its volunteer process and currently is studying a concept for long-term storage of LLRW called assured isolation. Assured isolation differs from disposal in that the waste management facility is not sealed off once it stops accepting waste and the facility continues to be inspected and monitored. Some state officials believe that assured isolation could offer a more flexible and publicly acceptable approach to long term management of LLRW than traditional disposal.
Northwest and Rocky Mountain Compacts -Northwest: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington (host) and Wyoming.
Rocky Mountain-Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada
A disposal facility in Richland, Wash., has been operating since 1965. Because the facility disposed of much of the nation's waste until 1992, the compact is concerned about the development of disposal capacity in other states and compacts. Rocky Mountain Compact states have a contract for disposal with the Northwest Compact.
Envirocare- The private Envirocare facility operates near Clive, Utah, and accepts Class A wastes from commercial generators and the U.S. Department of Energy. The Utah Legislature has assigned to an interim study committee a bill (S.B. 144) that would increase the fee from $2.50 per ton to $7.50 per ton that the state charges for Class A low-level radioactive waste disposal.
Southeast Compact- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina (host), Tennessee and Virginia
North Carolina chose a site near Raleigh for the compact disposal facility in December 1993. Progress in reviewing a contractor's license application has been stopped because of financial disputes within the compact. In December 1997, the North Carolina siting board voted to suspend activity pending resolution of funding issues conflicts.
Southwestern Compact- Arizona, California (host), North Dakota, South Dakota
California is ready to begin construction of a disposal facility at Ward Valley for the Southwestern Compact, but is engaged in a fierce battle with the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), whose Bureau of Land Management owns the land where California wants to build the disposal facility. Due to alleged environmental and health concerns, DOI has retreated from a decision to transfer the land. California argues that the National Academy of Sciences found the site to be safe, and the California Supreme Court upheld a state license to build the disposal facility against environmental challenges. A decision is expected soon in a federal lawsuit where California and the site contractor, US Ecology, are seeking damages from the Department of the Interior for not transferring the land.
Texas Compact (pending)-Texas (host), Maine, Vermont
In Texas, the state regulatory body issued a draft license for a disposal facility and currently is in the final stages of an adjudicatory hearing process. The site is located near Sierra Blanca in rural southwest Texas. State officials expect the disposal facility will be licensed by November 1998 and operational by late 1999. On April 7, 1998, the U.S. Senate passed S. 270, providing approval for the Texas Compact. The House had approved the compact last fall. Because the Senate and House versions of the bill differ, each chamber will appoint conferees to resolve the differences. The resulting bill then will be submitted to both chambers for approval. Under federal law, if a state does not have a valid compact-one ratified by Congress-it may have to accept waste from the entire country.
Another complicating factor in Texas is the fact that a private company (Waste Control Specialists Inc.) in Andrews county is attempting to open a disposal facility for Department of Energy LLRW (generated during nuclear weapons production and now during cleanup and mixed waste). A recent controversial federal court ruling found that such a facility would not have to be licensed by the state or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The ruling has drawn a large amount of attention and opposition and is currently under appeal.
Unaffiliated States and Territories
- Massachusetts ceased siting activity in March 1996 and is monitoring the national waste management situation.
- Michigan's membership in the Midwest Compact was revoked in the early 1990s for not making adequate progress toward disposal facility development. Michigan has suspended its unaffiliated efforts to site a facility.
- New York withdrew funding for development of LLRW disposal in its 1995-1996 budget.
- South Carolina's disposal facility at Barnwell has been in operation since 1971. South Carolina currently accepts LLRW from all states except North Carolina.
- The District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island have no plans to site LLRW disposal facilities.
Selected Resources
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Brochures, NCSL, August 1997.
Afton Associates, LLW Notes (various issues).
Dale, Jeff. "California vs. the Department of the Interior." State Legislatures, October/November 1997, 29-31.
|
