[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7712]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 31, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 

Surcharge Rebates: Notice of Response to Comments on Draft 
Policies and Procedures, and Final Policies and Procedures

AGENCY: Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of final policies and procedures for payment of 
surcharge rebates.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice provides the Department of Energy's (DOE) 
responses to the comments received on two notices published in the 
Federal Register on September 30, 1992, which described the DOE's 
policies and procedures for issuing surcharge rebates following the 
January 1, 1993, milestone in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 
Act, as amended (the Act). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, 
as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.) established incentives and 
milestones for the development of disposal capacity for low-level 
radioactive waste (LLRW) in States and compact regions that do not 
currently have operating disposal facilities. States or compact regions 
that meet certain milestones set forth in the Act receive a rebate of a 
portion of surcharge payments made by generators within those States 
for disposal of low-level radioactive waste at the currently operating 
disposal facilities. In those States or compacts that fail to meet the 
1993 milestone, surcharge rebate funds are returned to the generators 
of LLRW within their borders who paid the surcharge. The surcharge 
funds are held by the DOE in a single escrow account and paid to 
eligible recipients who meet a specific milestone, or to LLRW 
generators if the 1993 milestone was not met. This notice provides 
revised eligibility criteria, policies and procedures for those 
generators, States and compacts eligible to request surcharge rebates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 1994. However, no rebate payments will be 
disbursed by DOE earlier than May 2, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry L. Plummer, Office of Waste 
Management, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Department 
of Energy, Washington, DC 20585-0002 (301-903-7176).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act's final milestone for 
the payment of surcharge rebates was January 1, 1993. The Act requires 
payment of a rebate of surcharge funds to States or their compact 
regions if by that date, ``the State in which such waste originated (or 
its compact region, where applicable) is able to provide for the 
disposal of all low-level radioactive waste generated within such State 
or compact region.'' 42 U.S.C. 2021e(d)(2)(B)(iv). States that do not 
provide for disposal of their waste also may become eligible under the 
Act to receive surcharge funds by accepting title, possession and 
liability for the waste, although none have done so to date. States 
that do not take either of these actions forfeit surcharge rebate funds 
to the generators of LLRW within their borders who paid the surcharge. 
In that event, the Act provides that these surcharges, with interest, 
are to be provided to waste generators in 36 monthly payments beginning 
by February 1, 1993. If a State can demonstrate, at any time between 
January 1993 and January 1996, that it is able to provide for disposal 
of its LLRW, monthly surcharge payments to the generators would be 
discontinued, and the balance of the surcharge funds attributable to 
generators in that State would be provided to the State in one lump 
sum.
    The Secretary of Energy is designated in the Act as trustee for the 
surcharge escrow account and the Act requires DOE to evaluate the 
status and progress of each State and compact region to determine the 
proper disbursement of surcharge funds following each milestone set 
forth in the Act. On September 30, 1992, DOE issued two Federal 
Register notices containing draft policies and procedures for 
determining eligibility of States and compacts for payment of surcharge 
rebates following the January 1, 1993, milestone.
    The first notice announced ``Eligibility Criteria and Procedures'' 
for States or their compact regions, or, in the alternative, waste 
generators, to receive surcharge rebates. The notice indicated that, 
although public comments were not required, DOE would accept written 
comments submitted within 45 days of the notice. 57 FR 45248 (1992). 
The second notice provided a discussion of policies related to the 
disposal of ``mixed waste and the 1993 deadline in the * * * Act.'' The 
notice invited public comments within 30 days of the notice. 57 FR 
45249 (1992).
    Today's notice provides DOE's responses to the comments received on 
both notices and sets forth revised final policies and procedures for 
requesting and issuing surcharge rebates. After considering all 
comments, including those addressing the sufficiency of existing 
contracts for access to the Barnwell LLRW disposal facility in South 
Carolina to meet the January 1, 1993, milestone, DOE has concluded 
that:
    (1) The Act requires that to receive a LLRW surcharge refund, a 
non-sited State or compact region must meet its January 1, 1993 
obligation ``to provide for the disposal of all low-level radioactive 
waste generated within such State or compact region.'' States that do 
not provide for disposal of their waste also may become eligible under 
the Act to receive surcharge funds by providing for such disposal any 
time between January 1, 1993 and January 1, 1996, or by accepting 
title, possession and liability for the waste. States that do not take 
either of these actions forfeit surcharge rebate funds to the 
generators of LLRW within their borders who paid the surcharge.
    (2) The Act does not explicitly define the term ``provide for the 
disposal of all'' LLRW.
    In the absence of an explicit definition, one demonstration of the 
ability to provide for the disposal of all LLRW generated within a 
State or compact region would be the existence of an enforceable 
contract for disposal with a sited State or region. A second 
demonstration would be that generators are in fact provided with the 
ability to dispose of their waste under a contractual arrangement 
between their State or compact region and a sited State or region, even 
if that contract were not by its terms enforceable. Thus, DOE will 
consider as eligible for pro-rata surcharge rebates entities that have 
the existing standard contracts for access to the Barnwell facility 
from January 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994, if they are in fact 
currently providing covered generators with LLRW disposal capacity.
    (3) Surcharge rebates will be provided to generators of LLRW from 
States and compact regions not complying with the 1993 milestone 
provisions described above.
    (4) The fact that non-sited States and compact regions do not 
provide for disposal of mixed waste, i.e., hazardous waste regulated 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that also contains 
low-level radiation, will not render non-sited States and regions non-
compliant with their January 1, 1993, obligation to ``provide for the 
disposal of all'' low-level radioactive waste and thus they are 
eligible for rebates in accordance with the criteria above.

II. Comments Received and DOE Responses on Issues Related to the 
Earlier Notices

    Section II E of this notice provides a list of organizations that 
provided comments. DOE's responses to these comments are contained in 
sections II A-D of this Notice. The majority of comments concerned the 
implications for surcharge payment eligibility of a standard 18-month 
extension of access to the Barnwell, South Carolina, disposal facility 
(addressed in section II A) and of States or their compact regions not 
providing for disposal of mixed waste (addressed in section II B). In 
addition, a number of other comments were received on procedural 
issues, and specific suggestions were offered relating to the wording 
of some of the procedures. Sections II C and D provide DOE responses to 
these comments. Revisions to the procedures for claiming and processing 
rebates are described in section IV of this notice.

A. Implications for Surcharge Payment Eligibility of Contracting for an 
18-Month Extension of Access to the Barnwell, South Carolina, Disposal 
Facility.

    Under the Act, the three States with operating disposal facilities 
were allowed to limit use of those facilities to waste generators 
within their respective regions beginning January 1, 1993. While two 
(Nevada and Washington) of the sited States closed their disposal 
facilities to out-of-compact region States in June 1992, the State of 
South Carolina chose not to limit access to its disposal facilities to 
out-of-compact generators, but instead to allow the disposal facility 
located in Barnwell County to continue accepting LLRW from outside the 
Southeast Compact region through June 30, 1994. To obtain this extended 
access, eligible States or compact commissions were required to execute 
a standard contract offered by the Southeast Compact Commission that 
provided terms and conditions for access after January 1, 1993.
    The offer of extended access to the Barnwell, South Carolina 
facility raised a significant issue related to eligibility for 
surcharge rebates. DOE's original Notice of Eligibility Criteria and 
Procedures had provided that a State or compact would be eligible for a 
rebate of surcharge funds if the State or compact, on January 1, 1993, 
had ``a valid contract with another State or compact region for 
disposal or storage of all low-level waste.'' 57 FR 45248. Because 
access to the Barnwell site under the standard contract was limited by 
South Carolina to 18 months, could be canceled at will by either party 
with 60 days notice, and by its own terms purported not to be a 
contract for disposal, a number of generators, States, and compact 
regions provided views on whether execution of such a contract by a 
State or compact could be considered compliance with the requirements 
of the January 1, 1993, milestone. With some exceptions and variations, 
the States and compact regions that provided comments on this issue 
generally contended that States and compact regions that had entered 
into 18 month agreements were entitled to surcharge rebates. In 
contrast, the commenting waste generators or generator representatives 
generally asserted that the 18 month Southeast Compact Commission 
agreement should not entitle States and compacts to surcharge rebates.
    For reasons stated below, DOE is providing notice that a 
contractual arrangement such as the Southeast Compact Commission 
standard contract, when coupled with a demonstration of the actual 
provision of low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity, would be a 
demonstration of meeting the January 1, 1993, milestone in the Act 
sufficient to invoke, pro rata, its rebate scheme.
Discussion
    The Department believes that as a threshold issue, a contract for 
disposal is generally a valid method of complying with the 1993 
deadline. In taking this position, the Department rejects the view that 
the January 1, 1993 milestone can be met only by each State or compact 
region having developed its own additional disposal facilities for the 
following reasons. First, if the January 1, 1993, obligation could be 
met only by a State or compact region's construction of new disposal 
capacity, the statute would have indicated this with greater clarity 
than the statutory text actually adopted.
    Second, the statutory text actually adopted to describe the January 
1, 1993, obligation (``provide for the disposal'' of low-level 
radioactive waste) is identical to that contained in 42 U.S.C. 
2021e(e)(1)(F), a provision that also specified explicitly that ``an 
agreement with [a sited] region'' would suffice for a non-sited State 
``to provide for the disposal'' of its low-level radioactive waste.
    Third, given that a central policy of the Act is that each State, 
on its own or in cooperation with other States, must provide for means 
for LLRW waste disposal, 42 U.S.C. 2021c(a)(1), the legislative history 
of the Act makes it clear that voluntary arrangements with other States 
are sufficient to satisfy this objective of the Act. While the 
incentives of the Act, which were supported by the three existing sited 
States, were to be a means of encouraging new disposal capacity to 
relieve the burden of LLRW disposal on the sited States, continued 
disposal at any site was permissible if the sited State consented to 
further LLRW disposal. This point was made in the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee report on the Act's milestones:

    [The predecessor milestone provision of] Section 5(e)(1)(D) 
allows any non-sited State subject to the milestones to enter into 
an appropriate agreement with a compact commission for a region in 
which an operating disposal facility is located to provide for the 
disposal of the non-sited State's low-level radioactive waste. The 
State in which the disposal facility is located must approve the 
agreement.
    The appropriateness of any such agreement is a matter to be 
settled by the parties to the agreements themselves. The Committee 
assumes that sited regions will refues (sic) to enter into any 
agreement that they view as detrimental to their interests. Nothing 
in the Act requires any party to enter into an agreement. On the 
other hand, one of the sited regions may be able to come to a 
mutually acceptable voluntary agreement with a non-sited State to 
dispose of the waste generated in that non-sited State. The 
Committee sees no reason why such an agreement would not be an 
acceptable solution to the provision of adequate low-level 
radioactive waste disposal capacity in the context of the policy set 
out in the Act. Therefore, the agreement would be an entirely 
acceptable substitute for compliance with the milestones of the Act.

S. Rep. No. 199, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., at 13 (1985).
    The Senate Committee report agreed with the earlier report of the 
House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee on the issue of using 
contracts to comply with milestones. In discussing the requirement that 
a non-sited State show with reasonable certainty that it will be 
capable of providing for the disposal of LLRW generated within its 
borders, or providing some alternative for management of such waste 
when the period of mandated interim access to operating disposal 
capacity would terminate in December of 1992, the Committee reported 
that under the House version of the Act:

    The governor [of an unsited State] might show that some 
alternate to disposal technology will be provided by the state, such 
as interim storage facilities, or that disposal will be provided 
through an arrangement with another compact or state that has an 
operating disposal capacity or which has provided acceptable 
assurance that disposal or other facilities will be available in a 
timely manner. The intent of the committee is not to require states 
and compacts each to have demonstrated by this date they will have 
provided for disposal of the waste generated in the state or region 
but to assure the committee and the Congress that when interim 
access is terminated, low level waste generated within each state 
will not constitute an involuntary burden either on the other states 
or on the Federal government or any Federal agency.

H.R. Rep. No. 314, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., Pt. 1, at 31 (1985), 
reprinted in 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2994.
    Finally, the Supreme Court seems to have viewed the statute as 
permitting non-sited States to avoid the post-1995 taking-title 
sanction through meeting the January 1, 1993, statutory obligation to 
provide disposal capacity ``by contracting with sited regional 
compacts.'' New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 2428 (1992).
    As the threshold question whether contracting for disposal capacity 
can suffice to fulfill the 1993 milestone has been answered in the 
affirmative, the next question is whether the standard contracts that 
have been entered into between non-sited States and regions and the 
Southeast Compact Commission would be sufficient to fulfill the January 
1, 1993, obligation, and, if not, whether and how any deficiency 
affects the payments to which the non-sited State or compact region 
otherwise would be entitled. For the following reasons, DOE concludes 
that while a contract is one method of compliance with the milestone, 
because of particular features of the Southeast Compact Commission 
standard contracts, i.e., their limited duration and cancellation 
provisions, the contract terms themselves are not dispositive, but 
rather must be examined in conjunction with the question whether 
disposal capacity is actually being furnished.
    The commenters on DOE's original notice advanced two particular 
contentions bearing on the question whether the particular contracts 
executed between non-sited States and regions and the Southeast Compact 
Commission are by their terms adequate ``to provide for the disposal'' 
of ``all'' low-level radioactive waste generated within their borders. 
The first is that the 18-month duration of these contracts makes them 
inadequate because it does not provide for ``permanent'' or long-term 
disposal of low-level radioactive waste. See comments of Edison Elec. 
Inst. 1, 3 & 4 (Nov. 13, 1992). With respect to this contention, 
however, the statute's text does not require non-sited States to 
provide for ``permanent'' disposal of low-level radioactive waste; the 
statute merely requires those States or regions on January 1, 1993 to 
be ``able to provide for the disposal of'' such of that waste which is 
generated within the particular non-sited State or region. Although it 
is true that the statute defines the term ``disposal'' to mean the 
``permanent isolation of low-level radioactive waste,'' 42 U.S.C. 
2021b(7), it seems clear from the definition's terms that the required 
``permanen[ce]'' is the isolation from the environment of that waste 
which in fact is emplaced in a disposal facility, and not that the term 
``disposal'' imparts by itself any particular duration for conducting, 
or for ``providing for,'' disposal activity. Because the statute does 
not expressly specify the duration of the period for which a non-sited 
State must be ``able to provide for the disposal'' of waste in order to 
have met its January 1, 1993, milestone, it is necessary to examine the 
related workings of the statute during the 3-year period between 
January 1, 1993, and January 1, 1996, in considering this question.
    First, each non-sited State or compact region that has failed to 
meet the January 1, 1993, milestone may fulfill its obligation by 
taking title to the waste and accepting liability for damages to each 
generator for any inability by the State to take possession of the 
waste as soon after January 1, 1993, as the generator notifies the 
State that the waste is available for shipment. 42 U.S.C. 
2021e(d)(2)(C)(i). A non-sited State, however, is not required to take 
title to the waste during the 3-year period between January 1, 1993, 
and January 1, 1996. See New York v. United States, supra. In the event 
a State that has not provided for disposal of its LLRW on January 1, 
1993, chooses not to take title to the waste, the generators in that 
State are to begin receiving proportionate repayments of the 25% of the 
surcharge imposed between January 1, 1990, and December 30, 1992, and 
held by the Secretary. These repayments, however, are to be made on a 
monthly basis of \1/36\th of the total due to be repaid, until January 
1, 1996 or, if earlier, whenever the non-sited State becomes ``able to 
provide for the disposal'' of all low-level radioactive waste generated 
within that State. 42 U.S.C. 2021e(d)(2)(C)(ii).
    The reason for the interruption of payments to the generators is 
that the statute evidences a broad intention that it serve as a 
mechanism to encourage States and compact regions to come into 
compliance with its provisions. For instance, the Act explicitly 
affords a State that is non-compliant as of January 1, 1993, the 
opportunity to come into compliance for the remainder of the 3-year 
period, and thereby become eligible to receive its remaining share of 
the 25% surcharge balance:

    If a State (or, where applicable, a compact region) in which 
low-level radioactive waste is generated provides for the disposal 
of such waste at any time after January 1, 1993 and prior to January 
1, 1996, such State (or, where applicable, compact region) shall be 
paid * * * a lump sum amount equal to twenty-five per centum of any 
amount collected by a State under paragraph (1): Provided, however, 
That such payment shall be adjusted to reflect the remaining number 
of months between January 1, 1993 and January 1, 1996 for which such 
State (or, where applicable, compact region) provides for the 
disposal of such waste.

42 U.S.C. 2021e(d)(2)(C).
    This aspect of the statutory scheme indicates that, for the 
particular purpose of payment eligibility, each non-sited State or 
compact region is under a continuing duty to provide for the disposal 
of all of its LLRW during the entire 3-year period between January 1, 
1993, and January 1, 1996. It also indicates that the Congress intended 
that non-sited States or their compact regions that are non-compliant 
with their disposal obligation for only a portion of this 3-year period 
nonetheless would remain eligible to receive proportionate payments by 
the Secretary corresponding to the portion of the 36-month period in 
which they have met their disposal obligation.
    The Department concludes that for complete, lump-sum rebate 
eligibility, the States or their compact regions must have provided for 
disposal capacity for the entire 36-month period between January 1, 
1993, and January 1, 1996. The duration of the existing contracts with 
the Southeast Compact Commission, however, covers just half of the 
required 36-month period.
    In the absence of a 3-year contract sufficient for a lump sum 
payment, DOE notes that as of January 1, 1993, those non-sited States 
and regions that had executed the 18-month contract with the Southeast 
Compact Commission were in fact then providing for the disposal of 
their low-level radioactive waste. Owners and generators of such waste 
were and are being provided access to the Southeast Compact 
Commission's disposal facility. Because the non-sited States that have 
executed these contracts have not simply chosen to opt-out of their 
obligation to provide for the disposal of their low-level radioactive 
waste, it does not seem that the event that would give rise to 
reimbursement of owners and generators--failure to arrange access to a 
disposal facility--has yet occurred. Therefore under the contractual 
arrangements in place, it seems impossible now to conclude that owners 
and generators have lost or will in fact lose access to disposal 
facilities through failure of their State or region to provide for 
disposal of this waste for the 18-month period provided in the standard 
contract.
    At the same time, however, because it appears that each non-sited 
State or region is required to have ``provided'' for the disposal of 
all its low-level radioactive waste at a minimum for the entire 36-
month period beginning January 1, 1993, it is difficult to conclude 
that, by entering into 18-month contracts, those States or regions have 
fully met the obligation that entitles them to payment in a lump sum of 
their share of the remaining surcharge balances held by the Secretary. 
The 18-month duration of the existing standard contracts with the 
Southeast Compact Commission indicates that by their terms, these 
arrangements will expire before the end of the 36-month period set 
forth in the Act. When this occurs and no replacement contract were 
executed, prior payment to each non-sited State or region having such a 
contract of the entire amount of its share of the surcharges would 
leave nothing for reimbursement of owners and generators.
    The text of the statute itself provides the answer to addressing 
contracts for less than the duration of the three year period. ``If a 
State [or region] * * * provides for the disposal of [its] waste at any 
time after January 1, 1993 and prior to January 1, 1996,'' it ``shall 
be paid * * * a lump sum amount * * * adjusted to reflect the remaining 
number of months between January 1, 1993 and January 1, 1996 for which 
such State [or region] provides for the disposal of such waste.'' 42 
U.S.C. 2021e(d)(2)(C). Here, the non-sited States and regions thus far 
have ``provide[d] for the disposal'' of their LLRW for a period of 18 
months ``after January 1, 1993 and prior to January 1, 1996.'' The 
Department interprets ``the remaining number of months'' to mean the 
months in the 36-month period that remain after subtracting the number 
of months during which disposal was not provided, rather than the 
number of months in the 36-month period that remain after the month in 
which disposal services were first provided. It follows from this that 
the ``lump sum'' to which they otherwise might be entitled should be 
``adjusted to reflect'' the number of remaining months during the 36-
month period for which they have provided for the disposal of their 
low-level radioactive waste. In this light, the ``remaining number of 
months between January 1, 1993 and January 1, 1996'' for which holders 
of the 18-month contracts are providing for disposal of their waste 
simply is 18 months. In short, the 18-month duration of the standard 
contracts with the Southeast Compact Commission would be sufficient for 
a payment at this time of \18/36\ths, or one-half, of the amount the 
non-sited States and regions otherwise might have received from the 
Secretary's trust account.
    The Department believes that this approach avoids the illogical 
result of having DOE pay surcharge rebates for the entire three year 
period when, in fact, the 18-month contracts for disposal will expire 
by their own terms midway through the three year period and provision 
for disposal for the generators may cease. On the other hand, the 18-
month contracts may be renewed or other contracts may be entered into 
with other States or compact commissions that would satisfy the 
requirements of the Act of providing for disposal of LLRW. In that 
case, the Department believes that further payments of the surcharges 
collected would be warranted. In the event that disposal capacity is 
not provided at that time, however, then the generators would be 
entitled to begin receiving the rebates in the monthly installments 
specified by the Act.
    Moreover, a segmented approach to payment of the surcharge rebates 
is permissible because the clear statutory object of the Act is that 
States and compact regions be encouraged to stay in compliance with the 
Act by furnishing disposal capacity, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 2021e(d)(2)(C). By 
dividing the payments into two discrete periods, bridging the three 
year period between January 1, 1993, and January 1, 1996, DOE is 
furthering the purposes of the Act by encouraging the States or their 
compact regions to continue to provide disposal capacity for their 
generators during this 3-year transition period until longer disposal 
arrangements can be made. Of course, if the 18-month contracts are not 
renewed, or if they are canceled, and the States and compact regions 
have not furnished new disposal capacity, taken title to the LLRW or 
otherwise manifested an ability ``to provide for the disposal of all 
low-level radioactive waste generated within such State or compact 
region,'' the balance of the surcharge rebates ultimately will revert 
to the generators.
    Finally, pro rata rebate eligibility under 42 U.S.C. 2021e(d)(2)(C) 
arises from providing for disposal ``at any time after January 1, 1993 
and prior to January 1, 1996.'' The statutory text does not say 
``beginning'' at any time during that period. ``Any time'' means just 
what is says, and can include the first 18 months of the period just as 
readily as the second 18 months.
    DOE's interpretation of the Surcharge Rebate Eligibility Criteria 
as applying to a standard contract with another State or compact region 
is appropriate because refunding surcharge rebates to the States or 
compacts having contracts for the disposal of LLRW will further the 
purpose of the Act. The purpose of providing rebates to States or 
compacts is to assist them in disposing of LLRW so that they will not 
be an involuntary burden on other sited States or the Federal 
government. H.R. Rep. No. 314, part 1, supra, at 31. By law, rebate 
payments may only be used by States or compacts to establish low-level 
radioactive waste disposal facilities, mitigate the impact of low-level 
radioactive waste disposal facilities on the host State, regulate low-
level radioactive waste disposal facilities, or ensure the 
decommissioning, closure, and care during the period of institutional 
control of low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. 42 U.S.C. 
2021e(d)(2)(E). Since refunds may be used only for low-level waste 
disposal purposes under the Act, the refund of surcharge rebates to 
States or their compact commissions will further purposes of the Act by 
furnishing the funds necessary to develop disposal capacity.
    In addition, rebates to States and compacts also further the 
purposes of the Act by giving States or their compact commissions more 
flexibility to work out LLRW disposal arrangements during transition 
periods. For instance, since South Carolina could extend access for 
out-of-compact waste past the current self-imposed termination date of 
June 30, 1994, a State or compact commission could ease the transition 
to its own LLRW disposal facilities if the Southeast Compact Commission 
further contracted to accept out-of-compact waste while that State or 
compact commission develops its own disposal site. Similarly, other 
States or their compact commissions could also contract for access to 
Barnwell or other regional facilities that would come into being. 
Temporary contracting by a State whose facilities are almost ready to 
begin operation could give a State additional flexibility while 
establishment of its own regional facility is progressing.
    For the foregoing reasons, DOE concludes that the standard contract 
of 18-month duration with the Southeast Compact Commission, when 
coupled with the provision of actual disposal capacity, is sufficient 
under the Act for a lump sum payment at this time of \18/36\ths, or 
one-half, of the amount the non-sited States and regions would receive 
from the escrow account held by the Secretary, provided that the 
standard contract and arrangements under it have provided for disposal 
of ``all'' covered low-level radioactive waste.

B. Implication of States and Compacts Not Providing for Disposal of 
Low-Level Mixed Waste

    The second major issue raised by commenters is that, by failing to 
include radioactive mixed waste (waste that has both hazardous and 
radioactive constituents), a contract would not meet the statutory 
requirement that each non-sited State provide for the disposal of 
``all'' low-level radioactive waste by January 1, 1993. Under this 
view, by failing to include radioactive mixed waste, a contract would 
fail to meet the statutory requirement that each non-sited State 
provide for the disposal of ``all'' low-level radioactive waste 
generated within such State or compact region by January 1, 1993.
    The Act first defines low-level radioactive waste to mean 
``radioactive material'' that ``is not high-level radioactive waste, 
spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material,'' and which the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission ``classifies as low-level radioactive waste.'' 42 
U.S.C. 2021b(9). Standing alone, this definition would have low-level 
waste mean whatever radioactive material the NRC might now or hereafter 
``classif[y]'' as low-level radioactive waste, provided the material so 
classified did not fall within the three excluded categories of high-
level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel and byproduct material.
    In defining State responsibilities, however, the Congress chose to 
fix the definition of ``radioactive waste'' implicating State duties 
under the Act as that waste which ``consists of or contains Class A, B, 
or C radioactive waste as defined by section 61.55 of title 10, Code of 
Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 26, 1983.'' 42 U.S.C. 
2021c(a)(1)(A). Moreover, the Act went on to specify that ``[n]o 
regional disposal facility may be required to accept for disposal any 
material * * * that is not low-level radioactive waste as defined by 
section 61.55 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
January 26, 1983[.]'' 42 U.S.C. 2021c(a)(2)(A) (emphasis supplied).
    Thus the statute's text indicates that the waste disposal 
obligation it imposed on the States was confined to those wastes that 
were ``defined by'' 10 CFR 61.55 in effect on January 26, 1983. That 
provision, in turn, did not itself address at all either the 
characteristics or the status of those materials under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992, which defines and 
provides for regulation of hazardous waste. Instead the regulation 
simply defined ``classification'' of waste eligible for ``near surface 
disposal'' based only on ``two considerations''--the ``concentration of 
long-lived radionuclides'' and the ``concentration of shorter-lived 
radionuclides.'' 10 CFR 61.55(a)(1) (1983).
    None of these statutory elements exhibits any indication by the 
Congress that the Act was intended to impose on States any duties 
regarding, let alone address, the subject of mixed waste. This 
conclusion is reinforced by the relevant legislative history.
    The House Report described State responsibility as follows:

    Section [2021c(a)] makes states responsible for providing for 
disposal of * * * waste as defined by Sec. 61.55 of title 10, Code 
of Federal Regulations, as in effect on December 27, 1982.\1\ This 
reference * * * is intended to remain independent of definitions of 
low-level radioactive waste developed by state or Federal entities, 
or for other purposes under Federal law.

    \1\This date reflects the publication in the Federal Register 
that yielded the Code of Federal Regulations provision cited in the 
statute as it was ultimately enacted. See 10 CFR part 61 note 
(1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. Rep. No. 314, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1985), reprinted in 1985 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 2987.
    The Congress, however, was not oblivious to the existence of mixed 
waste when it considered this legislation. The bill reported to the 
House would have addressed (albeit elsewhere in the legislation) this 
subject explicitly by imposing new duties on federal agencies--not the 
States. See H.R. Rep. No. 314 (Pt. II), 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 37 & 38 
(1985), reprinted in 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3026-27. The Senate, too, had 
the opportunity to address mixed waste when it considered this 
legislation. See Amendment No. 1429, Section 11, 131 Cong. Rec. 38605 
(1985). Ultimately, however, Congress decided not to address the 
subject of mixed waste at all in this legislation. See 131 Cong. Rec. 
38118-19 (1985) (House rejecting the Senate-passed mixed waste 
provisions as raising complex issues).
    From this it follows that non-sited States and regions are 
obligated to ``provide for the disposal'' of ``all'' volumes of 
conventional low-level radioactive waste generated within their 
borders. The Act, however, imposed no explicit requirements on any 
State, including any non-sited State, regarding the subset of low-level 
radioactive mixed waste.
    It also appears that none of the sited States accepted low-level 
radioactive mixed waste from generators, and therefore did not collect 
surcharges attributable to radioactive mixed waste. Since none of the 
surcharges collected by the sited States were paid by generators for 
the disposal of radioactive mixed waste, it follows that there are no 
rebate surcharge funds available which generators should be entitled to 
receive in the form of a rebate.
    In view of the foregoing, DOE has concluded that the fact that the 
18-month contracts with the Southeast Compact Commission do not provide 
access for disposal of mixed waste does not render non-sited States and 
regions that have entered into these contracts noncompliant with their 
January 1, 1993 obligation to ``provide for the disposal of all'' low-
level radioactive waste.

C. Comments on Other Issues Identified in the Notices

    Following are comments and DOE responses on several other issues 
identified in the notices.
    One view expressed by a commenter was that a generator should not 
be required to store waste between January 1, 1993, and January 1, 
1996, in order to be eligible to receive a rebate of surcharges that it 
paid between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1992.
    The policy announced previously made eligibility of a generator for 
payment of surcharge rebates contingent upon the generator possessing 
at least one shippable container of waste after January 1, 1993, and 
making the waste available to the State--until the generator did this, 
monthly rebates would be forfeited to the sited States. 57 F.R. 45248 
(1992). Upon consideration of the comments and further review, DOE has 
decided to revise the policy.
    The Act provides, in part:

    [I]f such State elects not to take title to, take possession of, 
and assume liability for such waste pursuant to clause (i), twenty-
five per centum of any amount collected by a State under paragraph 
(1) for low-level radioactive waste disposed of under this section 
during the period beginning January 1, 1990 and ending December 31, 
1992 shall be repaid, with interest, to each generator from whom 
such surcharge was collected.

42 U.S.C. 2021e(d)(2)(C)(ii).

The section goes on to require that such payments be made in 36 monthly 
installments beginning February 1, 1993.
    DOE is aware of the fact that many small generators produce waste 
only sporadically and may not have had a container of waste to offer to 
their States beginning early in 1993. Some may have paid surcharges 
between 1990 and 1992 but no longer generate waste. Under the 
procedures in the previous Notice, such a generator would forfeit its 
monthly surcharge payments, in apparent contradiction of the Act, to 
the sited States until such time as it had a shippable container of 
waste to tender to the State.
    Therefore, the clear directive from the Act, that DOE issue monthly 
surcharge payments beginning February 1, 1993, to ``each generator from 
whom surcharges were collected,'' suggests a reasonable alternative 
interpretation. The introductory reference to ``such waste, pursuant to 
clause (i) can be read in a way that is consistent with this directive. 
Within this context, ``such waste'' refers not just to specific 
containers of waste awaiting shipment to the State, but rather to low-
level waste in general. The section, then, can be read as a simple and 
consistent declaration: If a State that misses the milestone also 
decides as a matter of policy not to take title to the low-level waste 
for which it has responsibility under the Act, then DOE must initiate 
surcharge payments beginning February 1, 1993, to each generator in the 
State from whom such surcharges were collected.
    Under 42 U.S.C. 2021e(d)(2)(C)) of the Act, a decision by DOE on 
whether a State or its generators are eligible for surcharge rebates 
depends simply upon whether the State has or has not met the 
requirements of the milestone. Therefore, the procedures in part IV of 
this notice have been revised. Any generator from whom a surcharge was 
collected in a State that has not met the milestone may request a 
rebate of surcharge funds at any time after January 1, 1993, regardless 
of whether the generator still produces low-level waste or has 
requested that the host State accept specific containers of low-level 
waste.
    Another commenter offered that each generator should not be 
required to correspond with its State in order to document whether or 
not the State is able to provide for disposal or intends to take title 
and possession of low-level waste, because it is common knowledge that 
no State currently plans to do so. This commenter contended that the 
procedures are far too restrictive in this regard, and evince an 
assumption of surcharge eligibility in favor of States and compacts. 
(Several commenters provided specific suggestions on ways to streamline 
the procedures.) Rather than making hundreds of generators document 
that their States are not providing disposal capacity, the States 
should be required to document that they are providing for disposal. 
DOE could simply make clear that it will provide rebates to generators 
unless a State notifies it of its ability to provide for disposal in 
accordance with DOE's policies, or its intent to accept title, 
possession, and liability for low-level waste generated within the 
State.
    After review, DOE agrees with the comment and has revised the 
procedures accordingly. Except for those States and compacts that are 
relying on disposal contracts with the Southeast Compact Commission to 
demonstrate that they have met the milestone by virtue of disposal 
access contracts, DOE is not aware of any non-sited State or compact 
that has indicated that it will be able to provide for disposal of all 
its generators' low-level radioactive waste after 1992, or any that 
plans to take title, possession and liability for waste generated 
within its borders. The Southeast Compact Commission will be asked to 
provide DOE with a list of States and compacts that have entered into 
disposal access contracts with the Southeast Compact Commission as of 
January 1, 1993. For States and compacts that have not entered into 
disposal access contracts with the Southeast Compact Commission, the 
final procedures announced in this notice require such States or 
compacts to notify DOE by a specific date if they believe that they 
have met the milestone in accordance with the policies and criteria 
provided in this notice. Absent such notification, payments to entities 
in such States and compacts that paid the surcharges will commence soon 
after expiration of the notification deadline. Requests for surcharge 
rebates by generators in States that have not met the January 1, 1993, 
milestone need not include documentation or statements pertaining to 
their States' policies with respect to the milestone.
    Another commenter noted that the Federal Register notice says that 
a State would be eligible for a surcharge rebate if it provides storage 
of low-level waste ``at the point of low-level waste generation.'' On-
site storage is not ``disposal'' as defined in the Act, and therefore 
does not meet the milestone requirements in the Act. It is clear from 
discussions during Senate floor debate on the Act that the issue and 
dichotomy between ``storage'' and ``disposal'' was understood and 
brought to the attention of the Congress. The floor debate revealed 
particular concern that ``a state may choose to 'manage' its waste by 
telling the waste generators that they have to develop a means of 
storage for their waste. Such a policy would be unacceptable from our 
perspective and would leave generators with no effective recourse.'' 
131 Cong. Rec. S 18104 (daily ed. December 19, 1985) (statement of 
Senator Hart).
    A State that does not provide for disposal of its low-level waste 
could be eligible for surcharge rebates on January 1, 1993, by the use 
of on-site storage, but only if it takes title, possession and 
liability for the waste. This was indicated in section II.A.3 of the 
prior notice. 57 F.R. 45248. As of the day of this notice, no State has 
elected to take title to, possession of and liability for low-level 
waste.

D. Comments and Suggestions To Make the Procedures and Guidelines 
Clearer

    One commenter urged that the criteria and procedures should 
emphasize that no surcharge rebate payments will be made of any 
surcharges paid by a generator during a period of non-compliance with 
specific milestones.
    The statute provides that ``No rebate shall be made * * * of any 
surcharge or penalty surcharge paid during a period of noncompliance 
with [previous milestones].'' 42 U.S.C. 2021e(d)(2)(G). DOE has 
provided additional information on surcharge escrow funds and surcharge 
rebates in section III. A of this notice.
    Another comment received pointed out that DOE's guidance would 
require low-level waste generators to exclude low-level waste 
``volume(s) shipped during a penalty period'' from the volumes of low-
level waste eligible for rebate, and yet, under 42 U.S.C. 
2021e(d)(2)(G), it is surcharges paid during a penalty period, rather 
than ``volume shipped,'' that may not be rebated. Accordingly, it would 
be possible that some surcharges associated with low-level waste 
shipped during a penalty period would be eligible for rebates if paid 
in a non-penalty period. DOE concurs with this comment and has modified 
the guidance document accordingly. (See section III A. of this notice)
    One commenter asked how many copies of surcharge request 
documentation are required and to whom should requests be sent. DOE has 
provided the information in the revised policies and procedures that 
follow.
    A commenter questioned what would be considered a ``reasonable'' 
period of time for a waste generator to have to wait for a reply from 
the State on whether the State will take title to the waste. That issue 
has been rendered moot by the revised policies and procedures.

E. The Commenters

    The organizations listed below provided DOE comments on the 
previous Federal Register notices. Some of the organizations provided 
comments in more than one letter.
    1. Massachusetts Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Board (2).
    2. Maine Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority.
    3. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
    4. Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission.
    5. California Department of Health Services.
    6. Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission.
    7. Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste 
Commission (2).
    8. New Jersey Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Siting 
Board.
    9. Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority.
    10. Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact 
Commission.
    11. New York State Low-Level Waste Group.
    12. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Medical Products.
    13. ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Fuel.
    14. UNC Naval Products.
    15. U.S. Council for Energy Awareness.
    16. Edison Electric Institute (2).
    17. California Radioactive Materials Management (CALRAD) Forum (3).
    18. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps for Biomedical Industry 
Council (BIC).
    19. Interstate Nuclear Services.
    20. Baltimore Gas and Electric.
    21. Cintichem, Inc.
    22. US Ecology.
    23. Arizona Public Service Company, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 
Station.
    24. TU Electric.
    25. Illinois Power Company, Clinton Power Station.
    26. Boston Edison, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
    27. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    28. Southern California Edison Company.
    29. Southwest Health Physics.
    30. Rochester Gas and Electric.
    31. NELRAD.
    32. Congressman Michael Synar and Congressman Richard Lehman, 
Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, Committee 
on Government Operations, and Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
Representatives.
    33. Arkansas Department of Health.

III. Additional Information on Surcharge Escrow Funds and Surcharge 
Rebates

A. Penalty Surcharges Not Subject to Rebate

    Surcharges paid by a waste generator for waste disposed during a 
period of non-compliance by its State or compact region with milestones 
described in the Act are not included in surcharge rebate payments. 
Under the Act, no portion of surcharges paid for waste disposed during 
a period of non-compliance is transferred by the sited States to DOE's 
surcharge escrow account. Therefore, for States and compacts that were 
not in compliance for any period, the total of rebate payments made to 
a generator, less interest, will not necessarily be equivalent to the 
total amount of surcharges paid by the generator between the period 
January 1, 1990, through December 31, 1992.

B. Potential Tax Liabilities for Interest Earned on Surcharge Funds

    Surcharge rebate payments include interest income that is 
potentially subject to taxation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 
Prior to issuing rebates of interest on surcharge funds to a waste 
generator, DOE is required to have on file a completed IRS Form W-9 
from the generator. Failure to provide DOE with IRS Form W-9 will 
result in backup tax withholding of 31% on the entire rebate. 
Corporations and certain other entities identified in the instructions 
included with the IRS Form W-9 are exempt from this backup withholding 
and information reporting (IRS form 1099). Each generator requesting a 
surcharge rebate should include a completed W-9 Form and submit it 
along with the request for surcharge rebate. DOE will report the 
rebates for each surcharge recipient on an annual basis to the IRS on 
IRS Form 1099.
    In the event that DOE receives surcharge rebate requests that do 
not include a completed Form W-9, DOE will provide the generator a copy 
of the Form to be completed and submitted to DOE within 30 days. If the 
W-9 is not received within 30 days, DOE will issue the rebate subject 
to the 31% required backup withholding.

IV. Revised Final Policies and Procedures on Surcharge Rebates Pursuant 
to the January 1, 1993, Milestone

A. Criteria A State or Compact Region Should Meet For Payment of 
Surcharge Rebates

    1. A State or compact region should provide documentation of the 
January 1, 1993, availability of one or a combination of the following 
options:
    a. An operating disposal facility for all the low-level waste for 
which the State has responsibility under the Act. In the situation in 
which States or compact regions elect to take title, take possession, 
and assume liability for the waste, storage facilities may be employed, 
which may be at the point of low-level waste generation or away from 
the point of low-level waste generation;
    b. For a lump sum payment, a contract with another State or compact 
region for the disposal of all the low-level waste for which the State 
has responsibility under the Act. At a minimum, the contract must 
provide for disposal of LLRW until January 1, 1996, the end of the 
surcharge rebate period.
    2. If a State or compact region cannot provide for the disposal and 
does not elect to take title of low-level radioactive waste under the 
above options by January 1, 1993, it will be eligible for a prorated 
portion of the rebate surcharges before January 1, 1996, if it can 
provide documentation of the availability of one or a combination of:

    a. A subsequent operating disposal facility for low-level waste 
for which the State has responsibility under the Act.
    b. A contract with another State or compact region providing 
access to a low-level waste disposal facility for the low-level 
waste as to which the State has responsibility under the Act for a 
period between January 1, 1993 and January 1, 1996, the end of the 
surcharge rebate period.

B. Notification to DOE of State or Compact Compliance With the 
Milestone

    A compact or non-compact member State that can demonstrate 
compliance with the milestone, consistent with the guidance contained 
in this Notice, should provide notification to DOE at the address 
indicated in section IV F of this notice not later than May 2, 1994. 
Such notification should be signed by the Chairperson or Executive 
Director of the compact, or by the Governor of a non-compact member 
State. The notification should describe the basis for compliance with 
the milestone.
    In the event that DOE determines, based on the notification, that 
the State or compact region is in compliance with the milestone, DOE 
will issue a surcharge rebate to the State or a compact region in a 
single payment. DOE will consider all available information that bears 
on the adequacy of any agreement for LLRW disposal, or whether, in 
fact, disposal capacity is being provided generators by the State or 
compact.
    To comply with the documentation requirements, the State or compact 
region may either:
    1. a. Transmit to DOE a letter from the Governor of the State or 
the executive director (or chairperson) of the compact commission 
requesting the surcharge rebate; indicating the capability for disposal 
and the initial date of operation of the disposal facility; in the 
alternative, indicating the date, and the action by which the State 
elected to take title, to take possession, and accept liability for the 
low-level radioactive waste generated in the State; and providing the 
name of a contact person, telephone number, and an address to which the 
surcharge rebates should be sent; or
    b. Transmit to DOE a letter from the Governor of the State or the 
executive director (or chairperson) of the compact commission 
requesting the surcharge rebate; stating that a contract providing 
access to a disposal facility is in place, and transmitting a certified 
copy of the executed contract, indicating the dates through which the 
contract provides access to the disposal facility. This letter should 
also include the name of a contact person, telephone number, and an 
address to which the surcharge rebate should be sent.
    2. If the State is using storage of low-level waste as a means of 
managing the low-level waste, then the letter to DOE should include a 
certification by the Governor that the State takes title to, takes 
possession of or is obligated to take possession of, and assumes 
liability for, the low-level waste in storage.

C. Procedures for Waste Generators To Request Surcharge Rebates

    Any entity that paid surcharges between January 1, 1990, and 
December 31, 1992, during a period of compliance with previous 
milestones, may submit a request for rebate to the contact address 
provided below, as soon as possible, but not later than December 31, 
1995. An entity that requested surcharge rebates in response to DOE's 
previous Notice (57 F.R. 45248) need not re-submit a request under 
these procedures. Two copies of the request for surcharge rebates 
should be submitted. The following information should be included in a 
request:
    1. Current name of the entity requesting the surcharge rebate.
    2. Any former organizational names or name variations under which 
waste was shipped that might help DOE identify the account.
    3. Complete address where surcharge rebate payments should be 
mailed, including the department, office or mail stop within the 
organization. (Note that surcharge payment checks will be issued by the 
Department of the Treasury without extensive explanatory information 
within the envelope. Therefore, any direct payments to accounts 
receivable departments should be coordinated by the recipient.)
    4. In the case of surcharges paid for waste disposed in South 
Carolina or Washington, the permit number(s) issued to the organization 
by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control or 
the Washington State Department of Ecology.
    5. The total volume of waste disposed of during the three year 
period from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1992.
    6. Frequency of payments requested--monthly, semi-annual, annual, 
or a single payment after January 1, 1996. (Although the Act calls for 
36 monthly payments beginning February 1, 1993, other Federal policies 
disallow payments of less than $10. Because most surcharge accounts are 
relatively small, and for ease of processing, generators may not want 
to avail themselves of the monthly payment provision. Generators should 
consider their costs for processing such receipts in deciding upon the 
frequency of payments. The first payment made to any eligible recipient 
will include the pro rata amount retroactive to January 1, 1993.)
    7. A completed Internal Revenue Service Form W-9. (See section 
III.B of this notice.)
    8. Signature and personal contact information, including telephone 
number of the requestor.

D. Eligibility of States and Compacts for Partial Rebates

    Those States and compact commissions establishing that they 
currently hold 18-month standard disposal contracts with the Southeast 
Compact Commission, when coupled with a demonstration of the actual 
provision of low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity, will be 
eligible to receive a lump sum payment at this time of 18/36ths, or 
one-half, of the amount the non-sited States and regions otherwise 
might have received from the escrow account. After June 1994, States 
and compacts holding unmodified contracts with the Southeast Compact 
Commission may continue to receive surcharge rebates on a monthly basis 
as long as the Southeast Compact Commission continues to provide 
covered generators with disposal capacity under the unmodified 
contracts, or until the end of the rebate period. After June 1994, 
those States and compacts establishing that they have entered into new 
or modified disposal contracts providing with certainty for disposal 
for a period equal to or beyond the remaining time period for rebate 
payments will be eligible for a lump sum payment for 18 months, or the 
remainder of the rebate period, whichever is applicable. Any State or 
compact that believes it is eligible for rebates after June 1994 should 
formally notify DOE in writing and provide the documentation described 
in section IV B of this notice. Upon formal notification, DOE will 
discontinue monthly or periodic payments to generators in those 
jurisdictions until an evaluation and determination is made of 
compliance with the remaining portion of the 1993 milestone by DOE. DOE 
will consider all available information that bears on the sufficiency 
of any agreement for LLRW disposal, or whether, in fact, disposal 
capacity is being provided generators by the State or compact.
    Partial rebates may be paid, in accordance with the Act, to States 
or compacts that in the future become able to provide for disposal of 
all their low-level waste for the entire remainder of the rebate period 
at some time between January 1, 1993, and January 1996. In such cases, 
States or compacts will receive a pro rata portion of surcharges 
attributable to such States or compacts. In such an event, the 
applicable State or compact should formally notify DOE in writing. Upon 
formal notification, and in the absence of a showing that agreements 
for LLRW disposal are ineffective or that disposal capacity is not 
being provided by the State or compact, DOE will discontinue monthly or 
periodic payments to generators in those jurisdictions and issue the 
remaining balance of surcharge funds to the State or compact region in 
a single payment. Any payments to generators that had been established 
on a semi-annual, annual or one-time basis would be apportioned between 
the generators and the State or compact region based on the date upon 
which the State or compact region is found by DOE to be able to provide 
for disposal of all applicable low-level waste.

E. Unclaimed or Abandoned Funds

    Surcharge funds that remain unclaimed after January 1, 1996, will 
be administered in accordance with the Act (42 U.S.C. 2021e(d)(2)(F)) 
and other applicable laws and regulations.

F. DOE Contact Address

    Any notifications or requests for rebates of surcharge funds under 
these procedures should be submitted in writing to: Terry L. Plummer; 
Office of Waste Management, Office of Environmental Management; U.S. 
Department of Energy; Washington, DC, 20585-0002, (301-903-7176).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25, 1994.
Thomas Grumbly,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 94-7712 Filed 3-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P