ML20125C391
| ML20125C391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/02/1984 |
| From: | Ingram F NRC OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (OPA) |
| To: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125C314 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-54 NUDOCS 8506120030 | |
| Download: ML20125C391 (5) | |
Text
-. . - - . . . . . . .- - _ _ , -- -
s.
.8/ . ,#}% $
U%/w UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N SJ3 7 AK
- J jf
\;
'+,
WM 98tKET CONTROP" "
CENTER h ,, _
November 2,1W Record File (,, pgg g, MM
~
~} '84 NOV -2 PC01 --
poa -
A+&H - ,
Distributiom. -
'm&d ggggp MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert E. Browning. Director ~
Division of Waste Management, NPK g g pA)[ _._.._.. - 4 FROM: Frank L. Ingram i Assistant to the Director -
Office of Public Affairs h.9 StBJECT: NEWS EDIA INQUIRY 4
Bruce Milhans of "The Rapid City-Journal" (South Dakota) sent me the enclosed copy of a press release issued by a lawyer for Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. Milhans questions, in particular, statements generally attributed to the NRC in the last paragraph on page three and the first paragraph on page four- "...none of the so-called ' closed sites' present a problem of health and safety for future generations" and "...the NRC does not believe that any of the sites pose any significant harm to the environment."
Specifically, Milhans would like to know: (1) Do these statements accurately reflect the NRC's views and if there is, in fact, no ,
~ environmental or health consequences from any of the existing or C closed low-level radioactive waste burial facilities? (2)Is the NRC saying there are no significant chances of any health or environmental problems in the futurv from these sites, closed or operating? I would appreciate having input to reply to Milhans questions as soon as possible.
(bU LJ g'
' Frank L. Ingram Assistant to the Director Office of Public Affairs Enclosure 8506120030 850207 PDR FOIA PAY 85-54 PDR 4.
, /. '.
PRESS RELEASE FROM: Gene N. Lebrun, Rapid City Attorney for Chom-Nucleor Systems, Inc.
DATE: October 23, 1984 RE: Hugh Kaufman It is not only surprising, but shocking that an EPA employee ei sp r I-.y .
who goes around reporting to be a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency is so uninformed. Apparently, although Hugh Kaufman purports to be a " whistle blower" for the EPA, he is unaware of the extensive rules and regulations of the EPA sister agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which, in fact, has jurisdiction over low-level radioactive disposal sites.
Hugh Kaufman, who was brought to Rapid City by the Sierra Club, charged that operating companies of low-level waste disposal sites " won't obligate company resources to clean up sites if problems occur". Isn't Kaufman aware of the NRC Regulation, Subpart E of Part 61 (10 CFR 61), which" requires that bciore 6-even obtaining a license to operate such a site, the p3onnamL operating company must provide assurance to the NPC that sufficient funds will be available not only to cover the estimated cost
.-- of conducting all licensed activities over the planne,d operating life
.u.7, _.
of the project, but also it must assure NHC that
= - - - - - - . . . .
suffi,cient funds,will b,e avai,lable,to carry out sit e closure and stabilization activities _i.ncl.u.d. i._ng de con t am ina t io n o r dismantlement of the land dispo, sal __t_acility structures and closuri.-
and stabilization'of the disposal site?
. These financial assurances must be such that following the transfer of the site back to the site owner, only minor custodial care surveillance and monitoring would*be required.
4 i
Further, NRC requires that financial assurance be renewed annually and must take into consideration such tactors al f. et. tng cost and stabilization cost as inflation, increeiues in th: amount of_ disturbed land, changes in tne engineering planc, <:loaare and stabilization that has already boon accomplished and any other conditions affecting the cost.
Ilad Kaufman been aware of the NitC's siringent reepa i r . men ts for tinancial assurances, he would know that the regul.ition specifically requires more than merely the pledging of the assets of'the operating company, whichwould be committed to-ttre pro 3ect ,
but also that such commitment must be supplemented by surety arrangements such as surety bonds, cash deposits, curtiticates of deposit, deposits of government securities, escrow accounts,
,g, irrevocable letters of lines of credit, trust funds, or combinations thereof, all which must have prior approval of the NRC.
Kaufman's lack of knowledge of existing law regarding low-level radioactive disposal sites is further eviderit Crom his comment, "Got it in wyiting. Demand to first see the deed o a 6- f, ..
, /,
and title insurance."/)If Kaufman had done his homework, he
. I would realize that before a disposal site could be put into operation, the legal title must be convoyed to the government d Q ph)q) and that title insurance merely insures the title of the land, n' /id '
neither of which have anyt,hing to do with the safety or long-term protection of a site.
2
-- O 9
,l.. ,)g / -
.. . . f Kaufman is also in error when he claims that the economic liability of the long-term care of the disposal site is not
,,.placed on the generators of radioactive waste. Not true. A l(. *
- substantial part of the fee charge /the generators of '
low-lovel 6
. ;)
radioactive waste goes toward the long-term perpetuity fund to be used for the long-term care of the site. Under the licence requirements of the Nuclear Hegulatory Commission, the cost for the perpetual care of the site must be assured in advance to the license being granted. That care is not,,and will not be an obligation of the taxpayers of the State. Nonc of...the existing sites, closed or operating, were licensed or built under the current NRC regulations.
Although Kaufman was highly critical of the undergroun<l
-method of low-level radioactive waste dEsposal, his lack of knowledge of existing sites, both operative and nonoper.itive, and the requirements for licensures for new sites, is apparcut.
Il
. ad he checked with the NRC, he would h. ave been advised that (no)ne'of the so-called " closed sites" presenta problem of health and safety for future generations. . According to William J.
.=
J ~
Dircks, Execut We Director'of Operations of the Nuclear- ltogu la tor y
.
- g'i
- ,',' Commission,/lEn~g-term monitoring of the sites by the a tto 3 l' ' custodians,
(}',(frr under lice'ns'e~ issued by either the NRC or on agreement state, will provide early detection of any unforeseen ptoblems.
t ,=*-su .
~ e' N.
y ..., ; ._T,, .,
s :
..i . n a . An
. r-
+.
TlIc. ...,>s 1 3 -
c x._
6 it. .*
/ .+ 3
/r
,- s l
\ ih3yr
{ .
h? uA b a'
9 Further .the NRC staff does not believe that any of the # ~ '
p
~~
sites pose any significant harm to the environment ' Further, ,
- a.v ,
that the NRC, which is the regulatory agency for such sites, not the EPA, has conducted 1 studies which concluded that there is no compelling health, safety or environmental reason to abandon shallow land burial methods of disposal.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Kaufman, a bureaucrat who is J
paid by the taxpayer, is so uninformed and choopes to carry water for the Sierra Club rather than perform his duties as an cmployee of the Environmental Protection Agency.
, - - - - - Why'doesn't he tell the public about the confidence that EPA has in Waste ,
Management, Inc., when it contracted with Wasto Management, Inc. to clean up an abandoned, hazardous recycling site in Seymour, Indiana, where Waste Management' removed gallons of 6-hazardous waste and yards of contaminated topsoil which were placed there not by Waste Management, not by Chem-Nucicar, but
, by other parties. Why doesn't Mr. Kaufman explain to the public that Waste Management's chemists, engineers, and technicians are frequently relied upon by EPA for disposing of the nation's waste.
In view of Kaufman's recent remarks in Rapid City, it is no wonder Kaufman said that President Reacan at ternpte,d to get him fired.
9 e
4
. - - - , . , , . ..-..-.-.--_.-. - - -