ML20052H391
| ML20052H391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/06/1982 |
| From: | Kerr G NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Slosky L COLORADO, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052H392 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205200314 | |
| Download: ML20052H391 (5) | |
Text
'
~
l
/, ga arc <,,*%',
UNITED STATES
'! \\
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\;...../
MAY 6 1982 gg 4
c Mr. Leonard Slosky, Chairman f
D.
1 N
Rocky Mountain States 2
Q
' ^:
y
%,,y/ Og'4?A '
Compact Negotiation Group p-c State of Colorado
%,ge,,,
Executive Chambers 136 State Capitol Q t,'q.jg y x
Denver, CO 80203
%j
Dear Mr. Slosky:
Thank you for your letter of March 19, 1982 in which you share with us your response to our earlier letter to you of January 5,1982 with regard to the " Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact." We also appreciate receiving a copy of the revised version of the State of Colorado House Bill No.1246 The Rocky Mountain States are to be complimented for all the effort that they have concluded to date to realize a workable compact.
We are concerned with two issues that we addressed in our letter of February 1,1982 but were not considered in your response.
These issues are the scope of the compact and the restriction on export of waste which are discussed below.
Following the discussion are some other comments that may be helpful.
1.
The Scope of the Compact In Article 2 the definitions of facility and management support the policy of waste management stated in Article 1 and thus raise a question about the scope of the compact.
The emphasis on management, not just disposal of all wastes generated in the region, is also stated in Article 3.A. Thus, in terms of the definitions, the central concept, and the activities of the Compact Board, the draft language goes far beyond
" disposal" of low-level radioactive waste into practically every aspect l
of low-level radioactive waste handling.
Of special concern to us is the possibility under the compact that the Compact Board may take on functions of a regional health, safety and environmental regulatory authority regarding all aspects of low-level radioactive waste management and therefore appear to duplicate the authority of the host Agreement State and/or the NRC.
You note in your letter on page two that "The Board's approval of regional facilities is based solely on the two economic factors specified in Article 4.B."
l Furthermore, you emphasize that "The Board will in no way duplicate or review the health and safety determination made by an agreement State or 8205200314 820506 PDR STPRQ ESGCO
Mr. Leonard Slosky i the NRC in licensing a facility." Such a disclaimer written into the Rocky Mountain Compact would diminish our concern pertaining to the duplication of the authority of the host Agreement State and/or the NRC.
It is our view that the Low-Level Radioactive Wasta Policy Act (P.L.96-573) only provides authority to enter into regional interstate compacts limited to regional disposal facilities for low-level waste, as stated in Section 4(a)(2)( A).
Further, we do not believe health and safety regulatory frameworks beyona those currently provided for in the Atomic Energy Act need be established.
2 The Restriction on Export of Waste Article 7 states that "After January 1,1986, it shall be unlawful for any person to export low-level waste which was generated within the region outside the region unless authorizsd to do so by the board." The Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act allows State restriction only on the import of out-of-region waste for disposal in a regional site.
Although the economic motives underlying the restriction on export are understandable, the restriction goes beyond the terms of the Act, and could be viewed as an unauthorized and unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. On the assumption that by 1986 all States will be included in regions with mutually reinforcing restrictions on importation, we would question the need for a stated prohibition on export.
Some other comments that might be helpful follow:
1.
Article 1. Findings and Purpose Article 1 states that "The party states agree that each state is responsible for providing for the management of low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders, except for waste generated as a result of defense activities of the federal government or federal research and development activities." Article 2.G states that "' Low-level waste' or ' waste' means radioactive waste, other than:
(1) waste generated as a result of defense activities of the federal government or federal research and development activities..."
In the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, the only kinds of low-level radioactive wastes excluded from consideration in low-level radioactive waste disposal are those wastes that originate as a result of defense activities of the U.S. Department of Energy or federal research and development activities. The Act does not extend this exclusion to waste generated resulting from defense activities from the U.S. Department of Defense (D00). Therefore, the policy as described in Article 1 of the Compact may be too broad.
Mr. Leonard Slosky 2.
Article 2. Definitions We have read with much interest your discussion on why the Rocky Mountain Compact definition of low-level radioactive waste should be retained.
Nevertheless, we believe that the prospects for uniform consent by Congress of all low-level radioactive waste interstate compacts would be enhanced to the degree that the definitions in the compacts conform to the definition of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Polic.y Act.
For the two other items (1) and (3) listed in your letter of March 19 regarding definitions, we thank you for your comments and have no outstanding concerns with them.
3.
Article 3. Rights, Responsibilities and Obligations For items 1, 2, 3, and 5 in your letter o'f March 19, 1982, we acknowledge i
your comments and have no further outstanding concerns with them.
We acknowledge your interest in developing a 2741 agreement with the NRC as indicated in your comments in item 4.
We are willing to work with l
individual States to achieve such agreements.
Some recent examples of such agreements are those for the States of Washington and South Carolina.
The subagreement between the State of Washington and the NRC is related to the use of third party data in transportation enforcement cases and was signed in January 1982.
(See enclosure.)
The memorandum of agreement between NRC and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental i
Control relates to the use of third party data and the regulation of NRC licensee-shippers of radioactive waste to the Barnwell facility. This agreement is still being negotiated.
We are not certain that the provision in Article 3.F is capable of implementation. A State should not be required to make a commitment to enforce federal law or regulations dealing with packaging and transportation of radioactive materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act unless it l
is an Agreement State or willing to become one.
If the Congress wishes to extend State jurisdiction to provide for State enforcement of U. S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations without the use of State / DOT enforcement contracts, which is an administrative action, then the Congress would presumably need to authorize or establish a DOT / State program similar to the NRC's Agreement State program in section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. This potential for inconsistency with federal law would be eliminated by inserting an introductory limitation at the beginning of the section, se that it reads, "To the extent authorized by federal law, each party state..."
l l
9 Mr. Leonard Slosky 4.
Article 4. Board Approval of Regional Facilities We ackncwledge your comments on this item.
Please see our comments above regarding the scope of the compact.
5 Article 5. Surcharges We acknowledge your comments on this item and we note that volume is to be measured in cubic feet, except as otherwise determined by the Board, as indicated in item 1 under Article 3 of your letter.
6.
Article 6. The Board We acknowledge your comments on this item. We have no further concerns on this matter.
i 7.
Section 2 Where necessary some parts of Section 2 would have to conform to changes made in the various articles cited above. Otherwise, we have no further concerns in Section 2.
There is another matter we want to discuss.
In the process of reviewing a number of low-level radioactive waste compacts and available data, it has become increasingly apparent that some may have problems with economic stability.
Due to the relatively small low-level waste generation rate in the Rocky Mountain compact as currently constituted, the disposal costs might be quite high compared to neighboring compacts and States causing the Rocky Mountain Compact to be unstable. This instability would take the form of some party States withdrawing and joining nearby I
l compacts, or joining up with individual States, where disposal. costs are forecast to be considerably less. A shrinking number of party States with a correspondingly smaller volume of waste available for disposal would force disposal costs still higher for the remaining party States.
These higher costs could possibly create an incentive among generators for compromises in public health and safety.
l The relatively high disposal cost for the Rocky Mountain Compact is suggested by examining the enclosed curve that illustrates the strong economy of scale in disposal cost versus generation rate. We believe that all compacts and States that have generation rates that fall on the steep portion of the curve should closely examine the ramifications that could result from such high disposal costs.
Mr. Leonard Slosky We continue to believe that the Rocky Mountain States are making important progress toward achieving a workable compact. We are looking forward to discussing with you further any of the points we have made here and wish you a successful conclusion in this compact effort.
Sincerely,
.(A)
G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
Subagreement between NRC and Washington Disposal Cost vs. Annual Generation Rate cc: Charles Tedford Ace Marte11e George Goldstein Al Rickers Walt Ackerman Dcug Larson l
l l
.