ML20043E962
| ML20043E962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/27/1990 |
| From: | Carr NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| BEVILL-900327, CCS, NUDOCS 9006140043 | |
| Download: ML20043E962 (1) | |
Text
9##/#8 MR. BEVILL:
What impact do you believe the problems created by dual regulation will have on the selection and development of the low-level waste sites?
CHAIRMAN CARR:
As indicated in my previous response, the NRC believes that a mixed waste f acility can be developed under dual regulation.
In order to niinimize the impacts on the site selection process, EPA and NRC issued a joint guidance document on siting guidelines for the disposal of mixed wastes on March 13,
- 1987, it was the view of the NRC and EPA at that time that if states and compacts observed the combined siting guidelines and keep abreast of the developing EPA location standards, the absence of final RCRA location standards should not prevent states and compacts from meeting their obligations under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
However, some states and compacts have expressed concern related to LLW site development within the framework of what they perceive to be the " regulatory uncertainty" of dual regulation. NRC and EPA are continuing in their efforts to provide guidance in the implementation of their respective regulatory responsibilities in order to mitigate concerns over regulatory uncertainty.
The uncertainty and added burden and costs have been identified as unacceptable business risks by at least one private sector site developer, At a minimum mixed wastes are an additional challenge for the States and Compacts, are diverting resources to special studies and separate negotiations, and create a public perception problem.
Impacts of dual regulation under the Clean Air Act are uncertain at this time but should not affect siting efforts. Developmental impacts will depend on the results of EPA's reconsideration of steyed Subpart I of 40 CFR 61.
s Ml 9006140043 900327 EODILhhh*
PDC Question 25/Bevill/NMSS 03/27/90 4
_