May I suggest here a way, perhaps, to get at this question of conflict? Part of my problem is to say that ``in the event of conflict''--in my judgment there is no possibility of conflict. We have written conflict out. So, therefore, you do not want to admit the possibility of that which you have written out, which injects its own ambiguity. So you ought to take that phrase out and simply say that nothing herein shall derogate or diminish or repeal or modify the health-based standards or the technology-based standards of environmental statutes--or words to that effect.
David Cay Johnston: “May I suggest here a way, perhaps, to get at this question of conflict? Part of my problem is to say that ``in the event…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing potential conflicts in environmental legislation.
Share
More from David Cay Johnston
If I may answer that, because the Senator is a very thoughtful Senator and it is a fair question. First of all, let me say, on the issue of reprocessing, you would need a central facility for reprocessing anyway. So that does not solve the…
No, the Senator is wrong. First of all, damages would not be paid from the nuclear waste fund. Damages would have to be paid from the judgment fund, provided elsewhere.
I very much appreciate the very warm and generous remarks of my colleague from New Mexico. While he is new in the chairmanship on this committee, he is not new to the committee. We have worked side by side for all of these 22 years…
The decision of the court of appeals makes clear that they have a vested right to the title passing as of the time that the nuclear repository is built and not until that time, but they have the duty to dispose of the waste January 31…





