Peter Pastorelle wrote:
>
> The withdrawl of North Carolina from the Southeast Compact is the latest
> example of the ineffectiveness of the Low-Level Waste Policy Acts. It is
> time this unfortunate legislation was repealed and the private sector be
> given the chance to implement solutions to low-level radioactive waste
> disposal in the US, without government draining the financial resources to
> accomplish it. To this end, EPRI provided me with the opportunity to
> present the following presentation at the recent Low-Level Waste Conference
> in New Jersey:
>
> Low-Level Waste, The ACT, Cabbages and Kings
>
> The title of this talk is Low-Level Waste, The ACT, Cabbages and Kings. The
> Low-Level Waste is created by you. The ACT was devised by Congress. And
> the "Cabbages and Kings" originated from Lewis Carroll's sequel to Alice In
> Wonderland, in Through the Looking Glass, where the Walrus lures the oysters
> from the sea to his dinner plate with promised tales of cabbages and kings.
> For those who have never read it,...the oysters were eaten. In any event,
> as the Walrus said, "The time has come!"
>
> When the South Carolina legislature closed the Barnwell site to
> out-of-compact waste on July 1 of 1994, most of the nation's health care,
> research, industrial, and utility facilities were forced to hold onto the
> low-level waste generated. The burden and expense placed on these
> institutions and companies to manage a continuous waste stream without an
> outlet was significant. This set in motion a whole new industry dedicated to
> waste minimization, volume reduction and, real and imagined perceived legal
> liabilities. Meanwhile the governors and legislators on the state and
> federal levels did relatively little. This lack of constructive action by
> our elected officials prevented a resolvable situation from being addressed
> practically, economically and environmentally in the national interest.
>
> When former Governor David Beasley of South Carolina saw fit to reopen the
> Barnwell site in July 1, 1995, four environmental groups immediately
> initiated legal action to close the site. These groups never bothered to
> consider if it is prudent to prohibit disposal of waste stream from
> important activities generated nationwide; and frankly they could have cared
> less.
>
> Thomas Jefferson evoked the "Principle of Subsidiarity" when he wrote,
> "Government if necessary, but not necessarily government." Subsidiarity
> means any task should be performed in the smallest available unit, i.e, in
> the family before the private sector; the private sector before the local
> government; the local government before the state; the state level before
> the federal. With the low-level waste issue, the process was just the
> reverse. Congress lifted the obligation off its own shoulders by imposing
> the Low-Level Waste Policy Act on the States. The Act itself, introduced by
> Congressman Moe Udall, a well-known conservationist from Arizona, was
> drafted by the National Governors' Association Committee in an assertion of
> States' rights. Ironically, two former governors who were members of that
> committee responsible for drafting the legislation are President Clinton and
> Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.
>
> Once the Act was passed, the state governments, for the most part, acted
> irresponsibly, neglecting the intent of the federal mandate. The very
> legislators who enacted the law in Congress and those legislators and
> administrators at the State level obligated to carry out the federal
> mandate, have done little or nothing to implement it. In a number of
> instances, some have used their elected office to directly impede their
> state's compliance; presumably to protect the backyards of their
> constituents. What good is a law if, after it is passed and enacted, the
> lawmakers themselves work against it, as Senators Barbara Boxer and Paul
> Wellstone so actively do?
>
> The Federal and State governments thereby left the private sector in limbo,
> but nevertheless fully responsible for the financial liability for all
> siting initiatives. Looking at the State of California's siting effort, one
> is struck by the sincerity of that struggle to comply with the Act. Under
> the leadership of the then Governor Pete Wilson, California led the way. It
> formed a compact with Arizona and the Dakotas and enacted its own laws
> governing the siting. California developed and implemented a site selection
> plan, contracted with an operator to finance and run the site and selected a
> remote desert area, identified geologically, biotically and environmentally
> as an optimally suitable area for the proposed site. Unfortunately,
> California's vocally active senator and the current federal administration
> were in the forefront impeding the California siting. Now, after the last
> election, California has a new governor with a long history of opposition
> toward the site.
>
> At the other pole is New York State. New York never truly possessed the
> political will to host a site. The State did not enter a compact but
> decided to be independent; even though the state had the 3,300 acres
> enclosing the West Valley Low-Level Waste site within its domain. The
> people of the town of Ashford, in which the waste site is situated,
> overwhelmingly supported its reopening. Instead New York sued the federal
> government over the "take title" issue. The Amendments Act of 1985 mandated
> that States, not in compliance with the Act, take title to the waste
> generated within the state. This was intended to put teeth into the Policy
> Act of 1980, which had proven to be ineffective. But the Act's dentures
> were totally removed when New York State won the decision in the US Supreme
> Court, which eliminated State liability for waste generated in the State,
> even though New York and most other states were still out of compliance with
> the federal law.
>
> One would think, a law enacted by a governing authority should be binding on
> the entire community, inclusive of the law-makers. But in both instances,
> one state making a sincere and concerted effort to comply with the Act, the
> other paying it lip service, the implementation of the Low-Level Waste
> Policy Act resulted in naught. Recently Nebraska was cited and is now being
> sued for "bad faith" by the other members of the Central States Compact.
> The Texas iniative for a site in Andrews County was denied. Similar tales
> of woe can be heard with the Northeast Compact, the Southeast, Appalachian,
> Central Midwest and with the unaligned states.
>
> Although the original intent of the Act was good, its main flaw lies in that
> the legislation does not take into account the resulting negative political
> ramifications that naturally arise. The Act, of its nature, inherently
> places the resolution of the Low-Level waste issue in the political arena.
> And, I think, any legislation regarding this issue would necessarily be a
> political endeavor and consequently doomed to a disappointing end. The
> Policy Act encourages and empowers politicians to act on a high profile
> matter they would rather not address for obvious political reasons. The
> myopia of the Act results in the inequity of the financial liability being
> placed upon entities, who have little or no say in the process. Taxation
> without representation, if you will. So those who are vested with the
> responsibility, have no incentive, while others are forced to subsidize
> their inaction.
>
> Unintentionally, but regrettably, the Act has also served as a springboard
> for the anti-nuclear movement to place obstacles in the way of all siting
> initiatives. By impeding these initiatives the anti-nuclear movement has
> successfully created the stigma in the mind of the public that nuclear waste
> is an unsolvable problem. With this perception they hope to hasten an end,
> in the United States, to what was once the golden promise of nuclear energy.
> They are well on their way towards their intended goal.
>
> The only substantive progress made in low-level radioactive waste disposal
> since 1980 is by the private sector. Processing facilities implemented
> tried but true technologies in waste reduction, like incineration, heat
> transforming, vitrification, encapsulation, compaction, metal-melt, in
> addition to the development of a disposal site external to the confines of
> the compact legislation.
>
> The Low-level Waste Policy Act has not worked. The compacts are, for all
> practical purposes, in disarray and only serve to impede private initiative,
> resulting in a disturbing wake, which stifles the operations of important
> industries. It has compounded bureaucracy and wasted valuable resources. It
> has blocked practical solutions, and is noteable only for its glaring lack
> of positive results now or in the foreseeable future. After almost twenty
> years, with nearly one billion dollars expended, disposal fees computed by
> stratospheric accounting principles, many states non-compliant with the
> federal law, lawmakers doing little, nothing or overtly impeding its
> implementation, state bureaucracies bloated with siting commission budgets,
> the Low-Level Waste Policy and Amendments Act has not accomplished its
> mission.
>
> The Act also demonstrates little foresight on a global scale. For even if
> all compacts and unaligned states did comply with the requirements of the
> Act, the result would be fiscal disaster, with sixteen separate sites and
> not enough waste for two or three. The Low-level Waste Policy Act has been
> tried and tested for nearly 20 years. If a law does not work over that
> length of time, it should not require the wisdom of Solomon to conclude, the
> law should be repealed. The issue of low-level waste disposal should be
> left to private initiatives and entrepreneurship, with government supplying
> a supportive and regulatory role.
>
> At a recent siting meeting, I heard a participant comment, "Granted the Low
> level Waste Policy Act is not having positive results, but if we didn't have
> it, what would take its place?" That's sort of like someone with a hairy
> growth the size of a softball on their neck, saying, "if I had it cut-off
> what would take its place?"
>
> America is a superpower because of its entrepreneurial spirit, initiative,
> innovation, and the individual's dedication to solving problems. The private
> sector has invested heavily in new technologies, high-tech training, quality
> control, and improved information systems; all responsible for this nation's
> dominant world-leadership status. Instead of remaining bogged down in the
> mire of inaction and ill-conceived, burdensome legislation dressed in the
> cloak of "policy," a constructive long-term nuclear energy strategy that
> will practically and realistically address the waste issue will also help to
> ensure maintaining America's role as a global superpower well into the next
> century.
Excellent presentation, Peter! I think you've "hit the nail right on the
head" as the old saying goes. This Act was doomed right from the start
because of the political "baggage" it carried with it. Any future
legislation, (if it comes to that), should strive to keep any chance of
political meddling completely out of the process. Frankly, the only way
I can foresee this ever being accomplished would be to develop future
sites on unencumbered federal lands, preferrably where sites already
exist, such as the Hanford Reservation.
Your eloquent presentation did neglect to mention one thing. The tons of
money being made by all involved in the perpetuation of this ill-fated
piece of legislation. Many people are not only getting rich off of this
Act, but are also assured of jobs for as long as it is allowed to
continue on, to it's eventual demise.
I, like you, and I believe most others in the industry out on the front
lines everyday think the time has come to admit this monstrosity is
unworkable and go in a new direction to solve this very difficult
problem. Twenty years and a billion dollars have been expended and still
not one new site is on the horizon. Enough is enough!
Jim Bell
Adco Services, Inc.
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html