Batt Gets Positive Response On N-Waste Feds Break Deadlock By Accepting Framework, But Propose Modifications - Now Under Study

The Clinton administration agreed in principle on Tuesday to Gov. Phil Batt’s conditions for resuming radioactive dumping in Idaho.

But in his 16-page response telefaxed to the governor’s office just before 5 p.m., Assistant Energy Secretary Thomas Grumbly included a modified version of the 11-page proposal Batt made nearly two weeks ago.

Batt aides said it was not possible to determine the extent or impact of any of the modifications sought by the government.

But Jeff Schrade, who handles nuclear waste issues for Batt, said, “there’s some changes they’re going to have to take a serious look at. It’s not a slam dunk.”

The governor, who had twice extended his deadline for the Energy Department’s response, was notified that the response had been received while on the state airplane en route to Boise from Coeur d’Alene, where he had attended a state Land Board meeting.

Schrade delivered the federal response to the governor on his arrival in Boise, and Batt and Attorney General Al Lance were expected to review the document overnight.

Grumbly followed up the transmission of the response with a telephone call to Batt spokeswoman Amy Kleiner, who said the governor would talk with Grumbly by phone today in what she said would likely be a courtesy call.

Grumbly said the administration would like the governor’s reaction to their proposed changes by week’s end, Kleiner said, but he did not make that a firm deadline.

While the major components of the governor’s proposal appeared to have been accepted, even Batt had not expected unconditional agreement to his proposal to accept about half the new waste shipments the government wants to dump in Idaho in return for an enforceable guarantee that all high-level waste - new and old - and nearly all low-level waste be removed from the state by 2036.

“It would be highly unusual if they accepted every dotted i and crossed t,” said Batt, who has indicated he would make adjustments, but no substantive changes, to the deal.

If the modified proposition is acceptable to Batt, it would quell the fears raised by the Navy that national security is being jeopardized by Idaho’s refusal, backed up by a federal court order, to accept new waste shipments.

Sources indicated that the Energy Department had accepted Batt’s restriction of new high-level waste shipments to 968 totaling 97 tons over the next four decades even though it does not include any commercial waste, which the government must take responsibility for in 1998. The administration was reportedly concerned about the timetable for shipping waste from specific sources.

The Justice Department was also leery of the enforcement mechanism, which calls for the federal courts to fine the government $100,000, adjusted for inflation, beginning on Jan. 1, 2036, until all waste covered by the agreement has been removed from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

The latest maneuvering in the seven-year confrontation between Idaho and the federal government over nuclear waste storage came on the eve of arguments before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle on the Navy’s petition to resume dumping its waste immediately.

Former Gov. Cecil Andrus moved to end dumping at the INEL in October 1988 after federal officials broke repeated promises to begin moving already-stored waste out of Idaho.

Since June 1993, waste shipments from Navy warships have been limited to 27 while the government determined whether additional waste can be safely stored with the 261 tons of high-level waste already dumped at the INEL.

The Energy Department reached that conclusion this spring, but the state won an extension of the court order from U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge on May 19 until he rules in the next few weeks on the state’s challenge to the claim that more waste can be safely stored.

The Navy went to the appellate court, claiming Lodge had no authority to extend the injunction. It claims once the environmental assessment concluded new shipments could be made safely, the court ban should have been automatically lifted.

But the state, and Lodge, maintain that under the original 1993 court order the district judge has full control over the movement of waste even after the environmental analysis was completed.

As a safety valve, Adm. Bruce DeMars, head of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, generated broad congressional support to override the court order and mandate a resumption of waste shipments from nuclear warships on Oct. 1. The House has already voted to do so, and that proposal is now the subject of the negotiations between the House and Senate on defense spending.

The Navy contends that it must immediately make 12 shipments to the INEL half so that the refueling of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Nimitz remains on schedule and six to accommodate the defueling and deactivation of a cruiser and five submarines.