THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Doc Contents
S.896
Department of Energy Abolishment Act (Introduced in the
Senate)
`SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.
`(1) DEFENSE NUCLEAR
FACILITY- The term `defense nuclear facility' means--
`(A) a production facility or utilization facility (as those terms are
defined in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2014)) that is under the control or jurisdiction of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Defense Nuclear
Programs and that is operated for national security purposes (including the
tritium loading facility at Savannah River, South Carolina, the 236 H facility
at Savannah River, South Carolina, and the Mound Laboratory, Ohio), but the term
does not include any facility that does not conduct atomic energy defense
activities and does not include any facility or activity covered by Executive
Order Number 12344, dated February 1, 1982, pertaining to the naval nuclear propulsion program;
`(B) a nuclear waste
storage or disposal facility that is under the control or jurisdiction of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Defense Nuclear Programs;
`(C) a testing and assembly facility that is under the control or
jurisdiction of the Under Secretary of Defense for Defense Nuclear Programs and that is
operated for national security purposes (including the Nevada Test Site,
Nevada, the Pinnellas Plant, Florida, and the Pantex facility,
Texas);
`(D) an atomic weapons research facility that is under the control or
jurisdiction of the Under Secretary of Defense for Defense Nuclear Programs (including the
Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories);
and
`(E) a facility described in subparagraphs (A) through (D)
that--
`(i) is no longer in operation;
`(ii) was under the control or jurisdiction of the Department of
Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Energy Research and
Development Administration, or the Department of Energy; and
`(iii) was operated for national security purposes.
`(2) UNDER SECRETARY- The term `Under Secretary' means the Under
Secretary of Defense for Defense Nuclear Programs.
`Subtitle B--Selection of Remedial Action
`SEC. 511. REVIEW OF ONGOING AND PLANNED REMEDIAL ACTIONS.
`(a) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
title, the Under Secretary shall review each remedial action described in
subsection (d) for purposes of determining whether the remedial action was
selected in a manner consistent with the requirements of this subtitle.
`(b) MODIFICATION OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS- If the Under Secretary determines
the selection was not consistent with the requirements of this subtitle, the
Under Secretary shall modify the remedial action in a manner consistent with
the requirements of this subtitle.
`(c) MINIMIZATION OF DELAYS- The Under Secretary shall, to the maximum
extent practicable, ensure the minimization of any delays in the performance
of remedial action that result from the Under Secretary's activities under
subsection (a).
`(d) APPLICATION OF SECTION- This section applies to any remedial action
at a defense nuclear
facility--
`(1) that is being performed as of the date of enactment of this title,
including a facility for which construction is ongoing or has been completed
as of that date; or
`(2) for which construction is planned but has not yet commenced as of
such date of enactment.
`SEC. 512. SELECTION OF REMEDIAL ACTION.
`(a) IN GENERAL- The Under Secretary shall select a remedial action for a
defense nuclear facility based
on consideration of a site-specific risk assessment conducted in accordance
with section 513 and an analysis of risk reduction benefits and costs
conducted in accordance with section 514.
`(b) REQUIREMENT FOR LOWEST COST ACTION- In selecting a remedial action,
the Under Secretary shall select the lowest cost action which achieves a
residual risk that is within the risk range goal established by the National
Contingency Plan for protection of public health and the environment,
unless--
`(1) the incremental benefits of a more expensive remedial action
justify incurring the incremental costs of the more expensive remedy, as set
forth in the analysis of risk reductions cost and benefits for the remedial
action under section 514, in which case a more expensive remedy may be
selected; or
`(2) the benefits of the lowest cost remedy which achieves a residual
risk level within the risk range goal are not reasonably related to the
costs of such remedy, in which case a less expensive remedy may be
selected.
`(1) IN GENERAL- Before selection of a remedial action and before public
comment under subsection (d), the Under Secretary shall consult with the
Administrator, officials of State, local, or tribal governments having
jurisdiction over the property or, in the case of property which is
exclusively under Federal jurisdiction, having jurisdiction over the
surrounding areas.
`(2) MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED- Consultation under paragraph (1) shall
include discussion of, at a minimum, current area demographics, land and
water uses, and currently planned land and water uses, the determination of
which shall remain the sole purview of the appropriate State, local, or
tribal government with jurisdiction.
`(d) PUBLIC COMMENT- Before selection of a remedial action, the Under
Secretary shall provide a period of not less than 30 days for public comment
on the remedial action.
`(e) CERTIFICATION- When selecting a remedial action, the Under Secretary
shall certify that--
`(1) the analysis of risk reduction benefits and costs for the remedial
action under section 514 is based on objective and unbiased scientific and
economic evaluations of all significant and relevant information and on risk
assessments provided to the Under Secretary by interested parties relating
to the
costs, risks, and risk reduction and other benefits of the remedial action
selected;
`(2) the incremental risk reduction or other benefits of the remedial
action will be likely to justify, and be reasonably related to, the
incremental costs incurred by the Federal Government, by State, local, and
tribal governments, and other public and private entities; and
`(3) alternative remedial actions identified or considered by the Under
Secretary were found to be less cost-effective at achieving a substantially
equivalent reduction in risk.
`(f) ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD- All documents considered by the Under
Secretary shall be made part of the administrative record for purposes of
judicial review.
`SEC. 513. SITE-SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT.
`(a) IN GENERAL- A site-specific risk assessment shall be performed in
accordance with this section before the selection of a remedial action at a
defense nuclear facility.
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Under Secretary shall apply the principles
described in paragraph (3) to ensure that a site-specific risk
assessment--
`(A) distinguishes scientific findings from other
considerations;
`(B) is, to the extent feasible, scientifically objective, unbiased,
and inclusive of all relevant data; and
`(C) relies, to the extent available and practicable, on factual
site-specific data.
`(2) NO REPETITION- Discussions or explanations required under this
section need not be repeated in each risk assessment document if there is a
reference to the relevant discussions or explanation in another agency
document that is available to the public.
`(3) PRINCIPLES- The principles to be applied in conducting a
site-specific risk assessment are as follows:
`(i) IN GENERAL- In connection with a discussion of human health
risks, a site-specific risk assessment shall contain a discussion of
both relevant laboratory and relevant epidemiologic data of sufficient
quality which finds, or fails to find, a correlation between health
risks and a potential toxin or activity.
`(ii) CONFLICTS- If conflicts among those data appear to exist or
animal data are used as a basis to assess human health, the
site-specific risk assessment shall, to the extent feasible and
appropriate, include discussion of possible reconciliation of
conflicting information, and, as relevant, differences in study designs,
comparative physiology, routes of exposure, bioavailability,
pharmacokinetics, and any other relevant factor, including the
sufficiency of basic data for review.
`(iii) RECONCILIATION- The discussion of possible reconciliation
should indicate whether there is a biological basis to assume a
resulting harm in humans.
`(iv) ANIMAL DATA- Animal data shall be reviewed with regard to its
relevancy to humans.
`(B) DEFAULT VALUE, ASSUMPTION, INFERENCE, OR MODEL- If a
site-specific risk assessment involves selection of any significant
default value, assumption, inference, or model, the risk assessment
document shall, to the extent feasible--
`(i) present a representative list and explanation of plausible and
alternative assumptions, inferences, or models;
`(ii) explain the basis for any choices;
`(iii) identify any policy or value judgments;
`(iv) fully describe any model used in the risk assessment and make
explicit the assumptions incorporated in the model; and
`(v) indicate the extent to which any significant model has been
validated by, or conflicts with, empirical data.
`(C) RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND COMMUNICATION- The site-specific risk
assessment shall meet each of the following requirements regarding risk
characterization and communication:
`(i) RISK CHARACTERIZATION-
`(I) DESCRIPTION OF POPULATIONS- The risk characterization shall
describe the populations or natural resources that are the subject of
the risk characterization.
`(II) NUMERICAL ESTIMATES- If a numerical estimate of risk is
provided, the Under Secretary shall, to the extent feasible,
provide--
`(aa) the best estimate or estimates for the specific populations or
natural resources which are the subject to the characterization (based on the
information available to the Under Secretary); and
`(bb) a statement of the reasonable range of scientific
uncertainties.
`(III) OTHER ESTIMATES- In addition to best estimate or estimates
under subclause (I)(aa), the risk characterization document may
present plausible upper-bound or conservative estimates in conjunction
with plausible lower-bound estimates.
`(IV) MULTIPLE BEST ESTIMATES- If appropriate, the risk
characterization document may present, in lieu of a single best
estimate, multiple
best estimates based on assumptions, inferences, or models which are equally
plausible, given current scientific understanding.
`(V) DISTRIBUTION AND PROBABILITY OF RISK- To the extent
practicable and appropriate, the risk characterization document shall
provide descriptions of the distribution and probability of risk
estimates to reflect differences in exposure variability or
sensitivity in populations and attendance
uncertainties.
`(VI) SUBPOPULATIONS- Sensitive subpopulations or highly exposed
subpopulations include, to the extent relevant and appropriate,
children, the elderly, pregnant women, and disabled
persons.
`(ii) EXPOSURE SCENARIOS-
`(I) IN GENERAL- Exposure scenarios shall be based on actual
exposure pathways and currently planned future land and water uses as
established by any local governmental authorities with jurisdiction
over the property and shall consider the availability of alternative
water supplies.
`(II) SIZE OF POPULATION AT RISK- To the extent feasible, the
site-specific risk assessment shall include a statement of the size of
the population at risk under any proposed exposure scenario and the
likelihood of such scenario.
`(III) EXPOSURE PATHWAYS- Exposure scenarios shall explicitly
identify any exposure scenarios that result in plausible completed
exposure pathways.
`(iii) MAGNITUDE OF RISKS-
`(I) IN GENERAL- A site-specific risk assessment shall contain a
statement that places the magnitude of risks to human health, safety,
or the environment in context.
`(II) COMPARISONS WITH OTHER RISKS- A statement under subclause
(I) shall, to the extent feasible, provide comparisons with estimates
of greater, lesser, and substantially equivalent risks that are
familiar to and routinely encountered by the general public as well as
other risks, and to the extent appropriate and meaningful, comparisons
of those risks with other similar risks regulated by the Under
Secretary resulting from comparable activities and exposure
pathways.
`(III) DISTINCTIONS AMONG RISKS- In formulating comparisons under
subclause (II), the Under Secretary should consider relevant
distinctions among risks, such as the voluntary or involuntary nature
of risks and the preventability or nonpreventability of
risks.
`(iv) RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH- Each site-specific risk assessment
shall include a statement of any significant substitution risks to human
health, if information on such risks has been provided to the Under
Secretary.
`(v) RISK ASSESSMENTS BY COMMENTERS-
`(I) IN GENERAL- If a commenter provides the Under Secretary with
a relevant risk assessment and a summary of the risk assessment in a
timely fashion and the risk assessment is consistent with the
principles and the guidance provided under this section, the Under
Secretary shall, to the extent feasible, present the summary in
connection with the presentation of the site-specific risk
assessment.
`(II) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in subclause (I) shall be
construed to limit the inclusion of any comments or material supplied
by any person to the administrative record of any
proceeding.
`(D) INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE- A site-specific risk assessment may
satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (C) (iii), (iv), or (v) by
reference to information or material otherwise available to the public if
the document
provides a brief summary of the information or material.
`SEC. 514. ANALYSIS OF RISK REDUCTION BENEFITS AND COSTS.
`(a) IN GENERAL- The Under Secretary shall prepare an analysis of risk
reduction benefits and costs in accordance with this section before the
selection of a remedial action at a defense nuclear facility.
`(b) CONTENTS OF ANALYSIS- An analysis of risk reduction benefits and
costs for a remedial action shall contain--
`(1) an identification of reasonable alternative strategies, including
strategies that are proposed during a public comment period;
`(2) an analysis of the incremental costs and incremental risk reduction
or other benefits associated with each alternative remedial action
identified or considered, which costs and benefits shall be quantified to
the extent feasible and appropriate and may otherwise be qualitatively
described;
`(3) a statement that places in context the nature and magnitude of the
risks to be addressed and the residual risks likely to remain for each
alternative strategy identified or considered by the Under Secretary, which
statement shall, to the extent feasible, provide comparisons with estimates
of greater, lesser, and substantially equivalent risks that are familiar to
and routinely encountered by the general public as well as other risks and,
to the extent appropriate and meaningful, comparisons of those risks with
other similar risks regulated by the Federal Government resulting from
comparable activities and exposure pathways, and which comparisons should
reflect consideration of relevant distinctions among risks, such as the
voluntary or involuntary nature of risks and the preventability or
nonpreventability of risks; and
`(4) an analysis of whether the identified benefits of the remedial
action are likely to exceed the identified costs of the remedial
action.'.
SEC. 602. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 120(a)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(a)(3)) is amended by
inserting after the second sentence the following: `This subsection shall not
apply to the extent otherwise provided in title IV with respect to selection
of remedial actions at defense nuclear facilities.'.
SEC. 603. RENEGOTIATION OF COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS.
(a) DEFINITION- In this section, the term `defense nuclear facility' has the meaning
given the term in section 502 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (as added by section 601).
(b) REQUIREMENT- For each defense nuclear facility with respect to which
a compliance agreement has been entered into by the Secretary, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and a State as of the
date of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense for Defense
Nuclear Programs shall enter
into negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency and the State
concerned to renegotiate the terms of the compliance agreement to reflect
title IV of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as added by section 601.
(c) DEADLINE- The Under Secretary of Defense for Defense Nuclear Programs shall complete
renegotiation of compliance agreements as required by subsection (a) not later
than the date that is 1 year after date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE VII--CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
SEC. 701. TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.
(a) TRANSFER- Effective at the expiration of the 3d calendar month
beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is
amended by striking section 304 (42 U.S.C. 10224) and inserting the
following:
`SEC. 304. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Doc Contents