ML20043E960
| ML20043E960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/27/1990 |
| From: | Carr NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| BEVILL-900327, CCS, NUDOCS 9006140041 | |
| Download: ML20043E960 (2) | |
Text
,
g,g
- f ;.-
9p0099 4
MR. BEVILL: What policy options is the C w ission considering with regard i
to mixed waste.that you believe would be most successful in' resolving the problems created by dual regclation?-
CHAIRMAN CARR:
We have not identified any literal conflicts or inconsistencies between NRC's and EPA's regulations for mixed waste.
However, the differences between the-regulations, the perception that they may be inconsistent, and the associated economic and pclitical uncertainties bave thwarted progress in developing new disposal and treatment facilities for such waste. The volume of-mixed waste that will be generated in most States or Compacts is relatively small, and industry is reluctant to invest in treatment and disposal facility. development with high economic risk and a burdensome dual regulatory scheme. The same political pressures that make States and Compacts unwilling to accept low-level-waste from outside sources also make these parties ur.willing to accept other
~ States' mixed wastes, further complicating the development of mixed waste treatment and disposal facilities. Therefore, we expect that management of-l mixed wastes will continue to be a troublesome ano time-consuming problem for waste generators, site developers, and regulatory agencies.
1he Counission believes there are two basic policy options to resolve the.
problenis associated with dual regulation of mixed waste. These options are:-
one, seek legishtion to eliminate dual regulation; and two, work together with EPA to minimize dual regulation. At this timt., the NRC believes that option two -- working with EPA -- is appropriate.
Given the complexities associated with dual jurisdiction, the Commission be-.
11 eves that some measure of progress has been achieved to date on the mixed waste issue. We nevertheless have endorsed the Office of Technology Assessment's recommendation of a high-level EPA-NRC task force as the most effective means c
L to focus regulatory attention not only on mixed waste, bat on all such issues for which our agencies have dual or overlapping authority.
I had previously l'
discussed with Adm. Reilly the establit,hment of such a joint EPA-NRC task force, and we are currently evaluating the merits of such an approach.
9006140041 900327 (CSl
- CONG *****
BEVILLO24 PDC Question 24/Bevill/NMSS I
03/27/90
t 2
- QUESTION 24. (Continued),i
.Also, the-EPA and NRC staffs are continuing to work together and have developed several joint guidence. documents on mixed waste.
NRC is also assisting EPA'in conducting.a series of workshops for State, EPA, and NRC inspectors to fami-liarize them with mixed waste issues and to improve the regulation of storage, treatment and disposal of mixed waste.
'It is our hope that the-joint approach to the mixed waste issue can lead to-the successful development and o'peration of mixed waste disposal facilities as the States move forward to carry out their responsibilities under the Low-Level
~
Radiodctive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
To date, the NRC has not identified any literal conflicts in the requirements of RCRA and the Atomic Energy Act that would frustrate compliance with the joint approach established by EPA and NRC.
We are committed to making a-joint approach work, flowever, if the joint approach proves to be unsuccessful, it may well be that further legislative consideration of this matter will be necessary to achieve the objectives of y
-the Low-Level Radioactise Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
i i
(
s.
L, i
i l
e i
Question 24/Bevill/NMSS 03/27/90
.-