![]() |
Hanford
Environmental Report |
| Dedicated to the Goal of 100% Environmental Compliance | |
Volume 21, Number 4 - April 16, 1999
DOE ISSUES DRAFT REQUIREMENT ON THE USE OF NON-DOE FACILITIES FOR DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL AND MIXED LOW-LEVEL WASTE
On March 11, DOE published an announcement in the Federal Register (64 FR 12161) that the draft requirement on the use of non-DOE facilities for treatment, storage, and disposal of radioactive waste was available. The draft requirement is consistent with results of a policy analysis DOE recently completed that concluded the agency should use DOE disposal facilities for DOE waste and should use commercial facilities that have gone through an exemption process when DOE disposal is not practical. The draft requirement also states that when on-site disposal is not practical, use of both on-site DOE facilities and commercial facilities may be necessary. Subsequent to the results of this analysis, DOE has decided to continue its current policy to dispose of DOE low-level and mixed low-level waste at the site of generation, if practical, or if on-site disposal is not available, then DOE may approve exemptions to dispose of these wastes at a commercial facility.
DOE has delegated the exemption authority for determining when commercial facilities should be used to the DOE Field Office Managers. The policy analysis was not completed at the time DOE published the draft Order and Manual on radioactive waste management in the Federal Register (August 6, 1998, 63 FR 42012); therefore, the section pertaining to the use of non-DOE facilities for treatment, storage, and disposal of radioactive waste was reserved pending the outcome of the policy analysis. For more information, email or call Donald_W_Jr_Fritz@rl.gov of Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc. at (509) 372-2066.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARGUES RCRA ALLOWS EPA OVERFILING OF STATE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
In the case of Harmon Industries Inc. vs. Browner, the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently argued in a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that RCRA allows EPA to pursue enforcement against a company that had already settled with the state over the same violations. The DOJ also argued that the decision by the federal court violates EPA's sovereign immunity. DOJ was disputing an August 25, 1998 federal court ruling on this case that EPA had no authority to overfile a state enforcement action. The U.S. District Court of Missouri had ruled that RCRA forbids EPA overfiling of a state enforcement action. It also ruled that the principle of res judicata, which bars relitigation of the same claims against the same parties also forbids overfiling. If the district court ruling is allowed to prevail, EPA's enforcement powers in a state that has authority to implement RCRA would be limited since a state settlement could take precedence over a federal action.
In support of Harmon Industries, several national industry trade associations, business groups and a legal foundation have filed friend-of-the-court briefs with the Court of Appeals. They argue that establishment of a federal-state partnership by Congress under RCRA allows the states the primary role of implementing and enforcing RCRA management standards. They also argue that any duplicate enforcement action by EPA violates this partnership and undermines the responsibility of states to administer their RCRA programs. Harmon Industries has recently filed its own brief with the Court of Appeals disputing the DOJ claims. For more information, email or call Marsha A_Beery@rl.gov of Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.'s Regulatory Interface at (360) 709-0664.
Ecology recently released the "Summary of Case-Studies Conducted to Test the Draft Antidegradation Implementation Plan (AIP)" ( Summary). The Summary compares actions that have been or will be reviewed for compliance with the State Water Quality Standards against the requirements of the draft AIP. The Summary provides information on the elements of the draft AIP that will cause the greatest increase in work and compliance costs as well as provides a summary of issues that resulted from the case studies. The information learned from the case studies will be incorporated into the draft AIP which Ecology is currently preparing. For a copy of the summary, email or call Marsha A_Beery@rl.gov of Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.'s Regulatory Interface at (360) 709-0664.
On March 25, Ecology released a document entitled," Draft: Analysis and Selection of Fish Consumption Rates for Washington State Risk Assessments and Rick-based Standards". This document was developed by Ecology's Risk Assessment Forum in response to requests from agency staff and the public for more consistent application of fish consumption rates in Ecology's risk assessments, screening criteria, and risk-based standards. The document provides an evaluation of fish consumption surveys conducted in Washington, a review of policy directives, and recommendations for consumption rates that are to be used in Ecology's risk-based guidelines and risk assessments. For a copy of this document, email or call Marsha A_Beery@rl.gov of Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.'s Regulatory Interface at (360) 709-0664.
|
||||||