Reported by Brad Penner, STATEWIDE Correspondent

[Brad Penner, Statewide Correspondent] Mention the words Boyd County in Nebraska and most people will think of nuclear waste -- low-level radioactive waste, to be more precise. They'll also think of controversy, and lately, they'll think about time and money. It's taking a lot of both to decide whether Boyd County (along the northern border of Nebraska) is a good place to put a waste site.

The original projections called for the waste site to be open in 1993. Now, at best, it might be open by the turn of the century. It's difficult to say if it's really taking too long because the State has never had to issue a license for a facility like this before. But some hint that the process has been slowed down intentionally for political reasons, a charge vehemently denied by Governor Ben Nelson. Others say the developer has slowed things down to collect more money, a charge they deny. The accusations fly on other issues as well. They are a symptom, or perhaps a cause of conflict between the groups most involved in the Boyd County debate. And that conflict may be what's slowing things down.

The land is bare except for a few small monitoring stations and wells and a couple of trailers that serve as an office. Little has changed since this piece of ground in Boyd County was picked as the site for a low-level radioactive waste facility.

[Carol Liewer, U.S. Ecology:] "We take the temperature, the specific conductivity, the pH or P. with this instrument right here. This is a water test meter and also with the other instrument in there, a dissolved oxygen meter, we take the dissolved oxygen."

[Penner] For seven years U.S. Ecology has been gathering information about the water, the air, and the land on this site.

[Liewer:] "The temperature is 10.4 Celsius."

[Penner] After the first year they felt they had enough to back up their belief that the site was safe. They applied to the State for a license in 1990.

[John DeOld, Project Manager, U.S. Ecology:] "I've probably never been more sure of the technical adequacy of a project than this particular one. We've put many thousands of man hours of top rate engineers and scientists into the design and characterization of this site."

[Penner] The license application covered thousands of pages. The State reviewed the document and came up with questions. U.S. Ecology answered the questions. The State had more. This question and answer process continued for five years before a final application was turned in last June. John DeOld says more than 90% of the information in the final application was the same information that was in the first version.

[DeOld:] "Nothing of any significance changed with the design of the facility or with the way we would operate the facility or the actual site characterization itself. I think it's taken way too long. I personally would have expected a decision by the end of last year."

[Randy Wood, State Dept. of Environmental Quality:] "No one is able to demonstrate that a slowdown has occurred because a slowdown has not occurred."

[Penner] Randy Wood is in charge of the Department of Environmental Quality, the State agency that's done the bulk of the licensing work so far. At the last meeting of the Central Interstate Compact Commission, he told commissioners they've done their best to keep the process moving.

[Wood:] "Most people would say, 'Well, if you received it in 1990, here it is 1996, that's six years, why haven't you made a decision?' The answer is fairly simple. We weren't actually analyzing the application. We were looking at it to in essence make it complete, make it to the point where we could do a review."

[Penner] But the bottom line is the data, documents, and discussion add up to a long time and a lot of money. So far it's cost more than $80 million to select a site, make the license application, and review that application. It's a bill that's been paid primarily by anyone who uses electricity generated by nuclear power in one of the five compact states.

[Gene Crump, Exec. Director, Central Interstate Compact:] "The generators don't manufacture that money. They get their funds from their subscribers, their rate payers, their clients. So the people in Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, and Arkansas are ultimately paying for the review in Nebraska."

[Penner] Gene Crump is the Executive Director of the Central Interstate Compact. It's an organization made up of five states. They got together in 1987 to find a way to dispose of low-level radioactive waste. Crump says the Compact Commission doesn't have complaints about the initial phases of the license review, but now he has evidence he thinks might show that the State isn't moving as fast as it can.

[Crump:] "This is just a correspondence that we've ever sent or received from the State regarding the issue of the slowdown."

[Penner] Crump has a file full of documents that he says show that the State is trying to slow down the process. He points to a memo from the State instructing its primary consultant to reduce billings by 25 percent.

[Crump:] "It says this to inform you are to reduce your monthly billing by 25 percent of what has been in the recent past. Then it says inform us as soon as possible how you intend to reduce the level of effort to respond to this request. We have not been able to get records from the department or their contractor, H.D.R., to verify the degree of the slowdown in their billing statements. We haven't received records to verify that so it's still a question with the commission."

[Penner] But Randy Wood says he has an explanation. He says the State needed more money to keep the process moving.

[Wood:] "When it was apparent that we weren't going to get those funds, we instructed our contractor to reduce the projected level of expenditures down to the $300,000 level that we knew we could pay so that's the -- it has been characterized as a slowdown. It was and never has been a slowdown. It just simply wasn't a speed-up that we could have accomplished."

[Penner] A dispute over money between the State and the compact is the latest conflict to arise. It revolves around money known as rebate funds. Here's how it works. Nuclear power plants like the Cooper Nuclear Station in Brownville now ship low-level waste to a facility in South Carolina. Much of the waste consists of clothing, tools, or other equipment that's been exposed to radiation. For each shipment they pay a fee. Part of the fee goes to the federal government to help pay the cost of licensing new disposal sites. These rebate funds are sent to states and compacts. Here's where the conflict lies. The Department of Environmental Quality believes they should get the money to pay for their license review. The compact believes they control the money and they want to know how the State would use it before they give it to the State.

[Steve Moeller, Governor's Advisor:] "The easiest way to accelerate the licensing would be to return the rebate funds that the department is -- or excuse me, that the commission is withholding from the State."

[Crump:] "So the State is claiming that they need the rebate funds for licensing costs and we're saying we gave you the rebate funds for licensing costs but you've already got another pot of money that you're getting from the U.S. Ecology to pay for the licensing costs so we don't see the connection."

[Penner] The bills for the licensing process are ultimately paid by the Compact which gets its money from nuclear power generators. Some say the State should simply speed up the process and send out the bills, but Randy Wood says they can't do that. He says they need to have the money in hand before they order work done.

[Wood:] "In other words, I can't call in our contractors and tell them to do over the next four months $4 million worth off work unless I've got $4 million to pay them. I can't even say to them, U.S. Ecology under the law will reimburse us and therefore, I will pay you when I get reimbursed. I'm not able to do that. I've got to have money in the bank to tell a contractor to do some work."

[Penner] This dispute over the rebate funds has even led to a lawsuit. If it isn't settled, it's expected to go to trial this summer. Another issue that pits the State against the Compact is the schedule for the license review. At its meeting in March, the Compact emphasized it wants to see it's own timetable followed, because the State doesn't have one.

[Crump:] "So we said there are two issues here. If you show us what your schedule is and how you can accelerate that and what is the cost for that acceleration, the commission, the generators, U.S. Ecology can provide that funding for that."

[Penner] Randy Wood has a chart on the wall of his office that looks like a schedule, but it's called a management plan. It even has target dates for completing certain phases of the license review. The areas highlighted in pink are places he thinks the review can be speeded up, but he says this schedule is for his own use, and it isn't something he wants the department to be forced to follow.

[Wood:] "It all of a sudden went from my management tool to a schedule that they wanted to then enforce and they wanted to say -- and they still apparently want to say -- you've got to meet this date by this time or -- or we're going to do something."

[Penner] Disputes over things like money and schedules have led to a lot of finger pointing and may be the best evidence of why it's taking so long to decide if a waste site should be built in Boyd County.

[Moeller:] "Part of the problem I think that we're having here is a continued failure to communicate."

[Crump:] "I think there is some accuracy in that statement. I think we're both, this side, that side, and other sides are communicating. We're all not hearing what the other person is saying."

[Penner] No one expected the State to quickly issue a license for a low-level radioactive waste facility, but it's taken years longer than the original projections. On the other hand, it's never been done before so it's hard to say if it's taking too long. Ultimately that question may be answered in court as well. The lawsuit over rebate funds includes a very pertinent question. Is the State of Nebraska acting in good faith or bad faith as it reviews the license application?

[Wood:] "I have a hard time really understanding how it can be alleged that we have not in good faith provided the Compact with the records they needed."

[Penner] Meanwhile, back in Boyd County, the work continues. They collect milk samples from a nearby dairy. Tests tell them what the normal milk contains. That way they'll know if anything changes after the waste site is built, if it's built. Right now the best case scenario is for the license review to be done in 1998. A public hearing period would follow. That will add another year or two to the process, but guess what? The State and the compact disagree over how that will be done.

Reporting for STATEWIDE, I'm Brad Penner.