Of a clarifying nature.

SA 3428. Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Craig) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2400, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Services, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 384, line 15, strike “by rule in consultation” and all that follows through page 385, line 21, and insert “by rule approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;

(2) has had highly radioactive radionuclides removed to the maximum extent practical in accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved criteria; and

(3) in the case of material derived from the storage tanks, is disposed of in a facility (including a tank) within the State pursuant to a State-approved closure plan or a State-issued permit, authority for the approval or issuance of which is conferred on the State outside of this Act.

(b) Inapplicability to Certain Materials.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any material otherwise covered by that subsection that is transported from the State.

(c) Scope of Authority To Carry Out Actions.--The Department of Energy may implement any action authorized--

(1) by a State-approved closure plan or State-issued permit in existence on the date of enactment of this section; or

(2) by a closure plan approved by the State or a permit issued by the State during the pendency of the rulemaking provided for in subsection (a). Any such action may be completed pursuant to the terms of the closure plan or the State-issued permit notwithstanding the final criteria adopted by the rulemaking pursuant to subsection (a).

(d) State Defined.--In this section, the term “State” means the State of South Carolina.

(e) Construction.--(1) Nothing in this section shall affect, alter, or modify the full implementation of--

(A) the settlement agreement entered into by the United States with the State of Idaho in the actions captioned Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Batt, Civil No. 91-0035-S-EJL, and United States v. Batt, Civil No. 91-0054-S-EJL, in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, and the consent order of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, dated October 17, 1995, that effectuates the settlement agreement;

(B) the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order; or

(C) the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.

(2) Nothing in this section establishes any precedent or is binding on the State of Idaho, the State of Washington, or any other State for the management, storage, treatment, and disposition of radioactive and hazardous materials.