1. Sending commercial spent fuel rods from the La Salle nuclear power reactors in Illinois to Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is a violation of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. Providing a waiver to the 1995 Settlement Agreement allows the DOE camel’s nose back into the tent for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in Idaho. The Settlement Agreement is crystal clear: spent fuel can only be shipped to INEEL in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. Spent fuel shipments are limited only to DOE spent fuel and from Fort St. Vrain (under limited conditions). No legal authority exists to allow a one time waiver of the Settlement Agreement for the shipment of commercial spent fuel to INEEL for reprocessing.

2. The Settlement Agreement was the resolution of a lawsuit filed in federal court which contained numerous findings. The Settlement Agreement (p. 13) provides for “continuing jurisdiction of the Court...” Under the Settlement Agreement, Oversight or another entity lack the unilateral authority to set aside the Settlement Agreement without going back into federal court to accomplish the waiver.

3. Oversight has presented no legal authority, which is based upon any language contained in the Settlement Agreement, for Idaho or Oversight to propose the waiver. Oversight has incorrectly presented the idea that a one-time waiver to the 1995 Settlement Agreement can be made for a private commercial entity, the Framatone Corporation. The Settlement Agreement only gives Idaho the ability “to waive performance by the federal parties of any terms, conditions and obligations contained in this Agreement.” (Emphasis supplied). The Settlement Agreement does not provide Idaho the right to request a waiver for private commercial entities in Illinois or elsewhere to ship spent fuel to INEEL for reprocessing, inspection or other activities. Idaho and Oversight thus have no authority to request a one-time waiver to the 1995 Settlement Agreement for INEEL to receive spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors in Illinois.

4. Likewise, ANL-W has offered no legal authority from the Settlement Agreement that allows ANL-W as a private institution operating on the DOE INEEL site to request an exception to the Settlement Agreement in order to benefit a private commercial corporation, the Framatone Corporation. Oversight has additionally not provided any statement as to the authority or due process to be used by Oversight or any other person or state agency of Idaho to accomplish a waiver of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

5. Idaho has no authority to attempt to undo or act counter to federal law by allowing a waiver under the Settlement Agreement. The 3/03 Oversight states, “ Argonne’s treatment process would extract the usable uranium and about 21 kilograms of solid ceramic and metal waste.” The extraction of “usable uranium” from commercial spent fuel violates the Presidential Directive 8 signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. This executive order renounced reprocessing and plutonium breeder research. The order was declassified in 1994 and survives today as President Bill Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive 13. For reprocessing research to resume, the directive would have to be either rescinded or reinterpreted. Because the executive orders are federal law they are preemptive. While Oversight may be in favor of cranking up a plutonium reprocessing economy it is currently prohibited from doing so.

6. The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) lacks the appropriate federal permits under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) for atmospheric emissions. It would moreover be illegal for the spent fuel rods to be shipped to INEEL because the rods constitute mixed waste and must be sent to a RCRA compliant facility.

7. The use of the golden retriever dog analogy for comparison with the spent fuel volume in six spent fuel rods is ridiculous considering the toxic potential of the waste being processed. (Why not instead compare the waste to four 10 pound bags of Idaho #1 potatoes?) Oversight has missed the point entirely.

Idaho has been horribly polluted by the activities of reprocessing radioactive and chemical waste from the DOE and sent from other commercial entities. The job has been mismanaged in the past and is currently mismanaged, i.e., lack of RCRA and/or CAA permits, excessive emissions and contamination of the Snake River aquifer.

Recent findings by EPA (1/29/03) state that the INEEL Title V Clean Air Permit was rejected due to understated emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Additional Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) reprocessing will only increase these emission violations. The proposed Argonne National Laboratory - West (ANL-W) variance offers no guarantees that upgrades to emission control systems will be required for the new SNF processing. In 1999, ANL-W released 1,911 curies and 402.5 curies in 2000 of radioactivity into the atmosphere.

8. The notion that because Idaho already has so much toxic waste and is a nuclear waste dump for the U.S. “a little more toxic waste can’t hurt us” is wrong to use as a reason to import more waste. Oversight should bring itself to the idea that the nuclear and chemical waste in Idaho should be cleaned up to protect the environment while excluding the addition of more waste into Idaho.

9. ANL-W SNF electro-metallurgical reprocessing operations have no hazardous waste RCRA Part B Permit as required by law. An application for a Part B Permit is not scheduled until July 2003, with a theoretical final application after resolving IDEQ’s Notices of Deficiency slated for 10/04.

10. Oversight Monitor has failed to inform the public that ANL-West’s nuclear project for Generation IV reactors is a proposal to bring commercial nuclear reactors back into production and operation in Idaho. The Mission Change statement and commitment of federal resources to begin this project have been conducted in the absence of any Environmental Impact Statement.

11. Oversight has provided an extremely limited time until April Fools Day for comments on this important issue. I received a mailing from Oversight of the Monitor on March 15, 2003. Framatone Corporation’s “short time frame” to “make a decision on who does the work” should not be used by Oversight to impose an unreasonable comment period on the citizens of Idaho who were involved for years in litigation to prevent precisely the importation of more commercial spent fuel into Idaho.