ML20206E931
| ML20206E931 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606240046 | |
| Download: ML20206E931 (52) | |
Text
f p
MAY 2 01985 MEMORANDUM FOR:
John G. Davis Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING By memorandum of February 13,1984, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," Offices were directed that effective April 1,1934, (1) all offices under EDO purview must obtain my approval to begin and/or continue a specific rulemaking, (2) resources were not to be expended on rule-makings that have not been approved, and (3) RES would independently review rulemaking proposals forwarded for my approval and make recommendations to me concerning whether or not and how to proceed with the rulemakings.
In accordance with my directive, the following proposal concerning rulemaking has been forwarded for my approval.
Proposed rule,10 CFR Part 61, " Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Term Care of Low Level Waste Disposal Sites."
(Sponsored by NMSS - memorandum, Minogue to EDO dated May 15,1985.)
I approve continuation of this rulemaking. The NRC Regulatory Agenda (NUREG-0936) should be modified to reflect the status of this rulemaking.
ISigned)' Jack W. Boe lilliam J. Dircks i
Executive Director i
for Operations 5
cc:
V. Stello J. Roe H. R. Denton J. Taylor R. B. Minogue P. G. Norry e606240046 850520 EDO RM PDR 61 Distribution:
WJDircks W HSniezek VStello WSchwink JPhilips JHenry E00 rf Central File DEDROGR cf
/
a OFC :ROGR/S
- ROG /D
- D JRQGJ
- EBD
_ _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _f _ _l____: g,
___k____:)
W4
___:__4._______:____________:____________:___________
NAME :BGabile
- m ze
- VtIfo
- WDircks
_ _ _ _ _ : _ _4 :_ _ _ _ _ _ : _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ : _ _ b/8 5C_______:__7__5 DATE :5/16/85
- 5/ 7 /85
- 5/
- 5/ /8
r-pyYM
$U
~' s
+a
^
-pppnp" "m.
wwu yt fg wz, ;,~bd UNITED STATES "4d" 1 (N f['
t g
- f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4/g g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 g, p af, f
AIAY 151985 HEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL 0F NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F PROPOSED RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY NMSS Based on our independent review of the proposed rulemaking, " Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Term Care of Low Level Waste Disposal Sites," sponsored by NMSS, RES agrees with the recommendation of the Director,.
HMSS, that this rulemaking effort should continue. Specifically, we agree that NRC should proceed with preparatio'n of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRh) to obtain industry and public input with regard to this issue.
This rulemaking would require 10 CFR Part 61 licensees to demonstrate that they had sufficient funds to pay for long-term care of the LLW disposal site.
The.NPRM would outline the NRC's proposed regulatory approach, present draft standards by which the NRC staff could evaluate the adequacy of financial responsibility for long-term care, and would ask for public comment on what criteria the staff should use in evaluating financial responsibility standards.
The basis for our recomendation is as follows:
- o. Proceeding with the NPRM would have the benefit of enabling NRC to obtain industry and public input regarding issues related to financial. responsibility standards for long-term care at an LLW disposal site which can be factored into any subsequent rulemaking.
o Proceeding with rulemaking subsequent to the NPRM should result in assurance of funds to-pay for maintenance and surveillance activities associated with long-term care at LLW disposal sites, thus protecting public health and safety by reducing the risk of radiation exposure of the public and workers.
e William J. Dircks 2
MAY 151965 This action is consistent.with previous Commission actions on funding requirements as contained in 10 CFR 40 and 10 CFR 61 and in proposed 10 CFR 50.
It is also consistent with Commission requests that Congress grant it statutory authority to proceed with this. amendment.
The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OED0 (Attention:
DEDR0GR) and to the Director, NMSS.
Robert B. Minogue, rector Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research t
1 T
l t
l i
Date E Y 15 BB5 nounNG AND TRANSMMAL SUP-e 14k
. oAlee symbol, reem number. -
Init6als Date Aeoney/PosO O 6D0 [O 'D6pRosR) n.
c 3.
4, 5.
R$ri File Note and Retum Approwel For Cleerence Per Conversetton As N-
^'
For Correction Propero Reply Circulate For Your Information See Me -
invest 6sete Signature '
Mment CMnation Justify amwss --W CP w
S 00 NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvels, concurrences, *Fa=*
clearances, and similar actions FIIObs:(Name, org. symbol. Agency / Post)
Room No.-81ds.-
I(OM N f3 IWk j
Phone No.
g 0es3-202 OPTIONAL FOItte 41 (Rev. 7-76) resen Y c k T.13.aes
,e.pos tt,82 o. 3ss-srs n2n
- + - - - -
I l
l DISTRIBUTION: RES RDG/ ALPHA 7
CEBR RDG/SUBJ RBMinogue DFRoss FPGillespie JMalaro o
GAArlatto KGSteyer NAY 151985 JHenry FPCardile IEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Robert B. Minogue Director Office of Iluclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY INSS Based on our independent review of the proposed rulemaking, " Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Term Care of Low Level Wasta Dismsal Sites," sponsored by 19415. RES agrees with the recosmendation of tu Director, 191S5, that this rulemaking effort should continue. Specifically, we agree that flRC should proceed with preparation of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (IIPRM) to obtain industry and public input with regard to this issue.
This rulemaking would require 10 CFR Part 61 licensees to demonstrate that they had sufficient funds to pay for long-term care of the LLW disposal site.
The NPRM would outline the R C's proposed regulatory approach, present draft standards by which the llRC staff could evaluate the adequacy of financial responsibility for long-term care, and would ask for public comment on what criteria the staff should use in evaluating financial responsibility standards.
The basis for our recommendation is as follows:
Proceeding with the NPRM would have the benefit of enabling MRC o
l to obtain industry and public input regarding issues related to financial responsibility standards for long-term care at an LLW disposal site which can be factored into any subsequgnt rulemaking.
Proceeding with rulemaking subsequent to the llPRM should result in o
assurance of funds to pay for maintenance and surveillance activities associated with long-term care at LLW disposal sites, thus protecting public health and safety by. reducing the risk of radiation exposure of the public and workers.
1 l
arrics>
l wc roau ne no-so Nacu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
William J. Dircks 2
IIAY 151985 o
This action is consistent with previous Coundssion actions on funding requirweents as contained in 10 CFR 40 and 10 CFR 61 and in proposed 10 CFR 50. It is also consistent with Coundssion requests that Congress grant it statutory authority to proceed with this amenchent.
The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:
IEDROGR) and to the Director.1915S.
Wby:
HOBERT B. Mrg)gg Robert B. Minogue. Director Office of Huclear Regulatory Research i
l l
l l
See attached sheet for previous concurrences.
.....S.:.D.E.T....
..C.H.M.N.:.R.I.R.B....
..R.E.S.:.D.D......
..R.E M
....E.S : C.E.B.R RE OFFICE >...RES : C.EBR R..
T......
SURNAME >,F,P,C,a,r.d.i.l.e,: b.h,. XG,S,t.ey,e.r..,.qMr.l.o.tto.....F.P.Qi.1.1.qs.p.i.q...QF.Ross.......RB dame..............
- * " >. 5 5b5.... 5 55.... ~.. kb]55.~.~...~5 bb]55~..~.~.~.
.~k/55)5~.~.~~~4/.
./65..
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY NEC FOKM 318 (1CL80) NRCM O240
w..,...-.-.
Mr. Dircks 2
I I
This action is consistent with previous Cosmission actions on o
funding requirements as contained in 10 CFR 40 and 10 CFR 61 and in proposed 10 CFR 50. It is also consistent with Commission requests that Congress grant it statutory authority to proceed with this amendment.
- s The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:
DEDROGR) and to the Director, NMSS.
/
Robert 8. Minogue, Director
/
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research y
.Q/
Enclosures:
1.
Sponsori Office Review Package 2.
Addit nal Papers used to support RES staff review 3.
RE taff Recommendation 4.
Staff Review
/, ' /
s l
l See previous concurrences.
j j
emes)
RES:CEBR RES:CEBR RES:DET RES
'RES:DIR cumug.PCardile:bh KGSteyer GAArlotto lespie DF RBMinogue
. ~...
~.. -..
.../......./.8 5 4
Sm>. 4./. 3. /.8. 5........4../. 4./. 8. 5..........
- 4../.6../. 8. 5............
.4 85
/85 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ur.c m u m oo..o>unc"
Mr. Dircks 2
public and workers. More detailed judgement would ha o be mado at a later date when the exact contents of t ulemaking package are known, specifically the criteria i would be used in evaluating financial responsibility.
o This action is consistent with pr ous Cosmiission actions on funding requirements as contain in 10 CFR 40 and 10 CFR 61 and in proposed 10 CFR 50. It i iso consistent with Commission requests that Congress gr it statutory authority to proceed with this amendment.
The complete RES independe review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:
DEDROGR) and to the Dir or,1855.
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Enclosur s:
1.
S nsoring Office Review Package 2.
ditional Papers used to support RES staff review 3
RES Staff Recomunendation RES Staff Review l
1 RES:CEB RES CHMN:RIRB RES:DD RES:DIR
- *c5 >..$.Eg,:,Cg,BR
" " ^ " >.FfCardi.1'ath..XQS.tRy
.15ttQ......fPM.1.laspie.
... DERas s..........RBMinogue....
mars) 4../. 3./. 8 5....'....
4./.4-./. 8. 5.......
...../...... /.8 5
. 4../....../. 8. 5......
4
. 4/..t A /. 85.. y...........
..../....../. 8 5 4
unc ro== n. no..o nacu on' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
7-O I
i' e.e
- RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE
RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET TO: RIRB FROM:
F. P. Gillespie, Chairman, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Term Care of LLW Disposal Sites (Part 61)
REQUEST RIRB
/)
AGREE WITH '. REC 0petENDATIONS
, MEETING.
/
IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE MODIFY REC 000ENDATION3 IN NOT PARTICIPATING.
RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE AS INDICATED BELOW C0fEENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
'O
\\,
}
F. P. Gilles le Chaiman, RI p.
ll b IATE l
l i
l
-~.
RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD VOTING SHEET TO:
F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN. RIRB FROM:
K. R. Goller, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING: Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Term Care of LLW Disposal Sites (Part 61) i REQUEST RIRB
-v' AGREE WITH RECOpMENDATIONS MEETING.
A IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE MDDIFY REC 0lWENDATIONS IN NOT PARTICIPATING
~
C0fMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
s l
l
\\
p.
MEPBER RIRB H/7/8r DATE l
.c>
m....a.____..
RES 1NDEPENDEf.1 in1EW BOARD VOTING SHEET 10:
F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM:
W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRB TITLE OF RULEMAKING:
Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Term Care of LLW Disposal Sites (Part 61)
AGREE WITH REC 0fEENDATIONS IN RES RULEMAKING REVIEW PACKAGE l
l l
MODIFY RECOMMENDATI'ONS IN NOT PARTICIPATING
I agree with the thrust of the Minogue to Dircks memorandum in which RES recomends that NRC should proceed with this rulemaking by the preparation of a notice of proposed rulemaking.
It should be obvious that the RES recomendation is based on the information now available before the first step of the rulemaking has begun. The memorandum l
should not, therefore, include caveats concerning the preliminary nature l
of RES findings in this regard for reasons such as we do not yet know the contents of the proposed rule.
Accordingly, I recommend that the last sentence of the first paragraph be deleted.
In the third paragraph which provides the basis for the RES recommendation I would modify the second bullet as follows:
[4t-is sur preliminary judgment-that] Proceeding with rulemaking subsequent to the NPRM [would] should result in assurance of funds..." Then delete the last sentence of this bullet.
hNh I
W. M. MORRISON MEMBER, RIRB APRIL 12, 1985 DATE I
,. =
' 1. _
.__.Z_.__....
- - -..__..k_.___........
I.
1 ROUTING AND TRANSaHTTAL SUP R
9 1985 m menne. ema s,=ner, seem seneer, amesi osee hases. Asensy/reso 3.
W. M. Morrison, Member, RIRS g
K. R. Goller, Membr, RIRB a
4, F. P. Gillespie, Chairmn, RIRB E
r homen rue seate eas netwn hannovos per cesseense per cenameson he neousness per caressmen pensem nostr l
k:seevises per veer essennemen see as.
E_
- ^
" -. ^ ^
Senotues aggaang g....a
. na.
nr..1 s p ro u+ uw a % CPw6 t)
We are at step III.C.2 "RIRS deliberations ' of.the RES independent review procedu'res for the attached specific ongoing rulemaking sponsored by Please evaluate the. attached dra'ft independent review l
I package and provide RAf1RB with your voting sheet indicating your. position on the rulemaking.
APR 19~ 1985 Your response by c.c.b.
will assist in RES' making independent recomendations to the EDO in a timely manner.
Do geof use teds conn as e nectz, et appeevels, eensuneness, empensen, esserensen, and samaer sousne FRonL (8desne, erg. syneet, Asensy/Ptsy Room fee.-40ss.
RAMRB staff pnene peo.
443-7885 seen-aer penas sa gnev. 7-ps) e spo: stea 0 - ses.52s (232) 883 383*IM l
1 1
x
~.-
e e.
DISTRIBUTION: RES RDG/ ALPHA e
CEBR RDG/SUBJ RBMinogue DFRoss FPGillespie
_JMalaro GAArlotto KGSteyer JHenry FPCardile EM0RANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Robert B. Minogue. Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF PROPOSED RULEMAKIhG SPONSORED BY NHSS Based on our independent review of the proposed rulemaking, " Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Term Care of Low Level Waste Disposal Sites," sponsored by NMSS RES agrees with the recommendation of the Director.
191S5, that this rulemaking effort should continue. Specifically, we agree that NRC should proceed with preparation of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to obtain industry and public input with regard to this issue. Since we do not yet know the contents of the proposed rule or regulatory analysis, I
our recommendation regarding the more general question of proceeding with further rulemaking following from the NPRM is more preliminary in nature and will have to be developed in more detail based on comments received on the' NPRM and the exact contents of any subsequent rulemaking package.
This rulemaking would require 10 CFR Part 61 licensees to demonstrate that they had sufficient funds to pay for long-term care of the LLW disposal site.
The NPRM would outline the NRC's proposed regulatory approach, present draft standards by which the NRC staff could evaluate the adequacy of financial responsibility for long-term care, and would ask for public comment on what criteria the staff should use in evaluating financial responsibility standards.
l l
The basis for our recommendation is as follows:
Proceeding with the NPRM would have the benefit of enabling NRC o
l to obtain industry and public input regarding issues related to financial responsibility standards for long-term care at an LLW disposal site which can be factored into any subsequent rulemaking.
It is our preliminary judgement that proceeding with rulemaking o
subsequent to the NPRM would result in assurance of funds to pay for maintenance and surveillance activities associated with long-l term care at LLW disposal sites, thus protecting public health l
and safety by reducing the risk of radiation exposure of the emn stvs>
W. Dircks 2
public and workers. More detailed judgaraent would have to be sado at a later date when the exact contents of the rulemaking package are known, specifically the criteria which would be used in evaluating financial responsibility.
o This action is consistent with previous Cornission actions on funding requirements as contained in 10 CFR 40 and 10 CFR 61 and in proposed 10 CFR 50. It is also consistent with Comission requests that Congress grant it statutory authority to proceed with this amendment.
The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention:
DEDROGR) and to the Director, NiiSS.
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Rese:rch l
Enclosures:
1.
Sponsoring Office Review Package 2.
Additional Papers used to support RES staff review 3.
RES Staff kecomendation 4.
RES Staff Review i
l l
l 1
/
RES CHMN:RIRB RES:DD RES:DIR l
crescry,,RES:CEBR
,RES:CEB l "">.FfCordi.ieth...GS.ttty
.16 tta......fP.Gil.1ep.ie.
... DERQs s..........RBMinogue....
=^n > 4../. 3./. 8. 5....'....
4/. A../. 8. 5.......
. 4/..'y'.'./. 85
...../...... /.8 5
. 4../....../. 8. 5......
4
..../....../. 8 5 4
=.
~
g[ * "*%
umveo stavas NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N g
.g wasmworow, p.c. mossa e.
,,..../
V7 W
~
MAR 221125 MEMORANDUM FOR:
G. A. Arlotto, Director g
Division of Engineering Technology, RES FROM:
F. P. Gillespie Chairman RES Independent Review Board
/
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F ONGOING RULEMAKING g
/r W Enclosed is a rulemaking review package received from a sponsoring office for f
RES independent reivew. (Enclosure 1) y y
In accordance with procedures approved by the EDO on May 30, 1984, the rulemaking review package is assigned to your branch for action. (Enclosure 2)
The EDO-approved procedures allow a total of 20 working days for completing the RES independent review. To assist RES in completing its independent review in a timely manner, please submit the draft independent review package for this specific rulemaking to RAMRB by 7 working days from the date of this memorandum.
F. P. Gillespi Chaiman RES Independent Review Board s.
Enclosures:
1.
Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Tem Care of LLW Disposal Sites l
(10CFR61) 2.
Procedures for Conducting RES l
Independent Review of Rulemakings l
l l
h 8
p,e OFFICE REVIEW PACKAGE RECEIVED FROM NMSS e
e' w
's
? ?\\[ n%q o
..' ' /
fg UNITED STAT $s NUCLEAR REGULATOR */ COMMISSION
'* 3.I,s.(y og. j wasmucrow, m. c. aosss g
)
%I
+#
W R 1 4 i383 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
John E. Davis, Director
~
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING - EDO QUARTERLY REVIEW In response to your memorandum of February 13, 1984, and in accordance with instructions provided in subsequent memoranda from the Office of Nuclear Regu-latory Research (NRR), the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) has reviewed the ongoing or proposed rulemaking activities listed in to this memorandum.
On the basis of our review, we recommend approval of continued activity on these rules, with the exception of "Certifi-cation of Industrial Radiographers" and " Shallow Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste". Staff efforts on these are now directed toward tenninating the two rulemaking activities.
Also, as directed by your memorandum and the subsequent instructions from RES, we have prepared Review Packages for all of the listed rulemaking activities.
~
These'are included as attachments to this memorandum, with copies forwarded to l
l RES and the other reviewirig office.
f-J hn G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Attachments:
As stated bec:
NO o-t I
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
" Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Term Care of LLW Disposal Sites"
Contact:
Mary Jo Seeman 427-4647 O
G S
e O
m o
._ v
... ~. _
g=
S.
g g
ee 9
I e
ab.*
S NRC REGULATORY AGENDA ENTRY i
e O
o e i
-. - ~ _ -
for Low Financial Responsibility Standards for Long Term Care TITLE:.
~
Level waste Disposal Sites 4
I CFR CITATION:
10 CFR 61 ld ensure that The proposed rule-would provide standards that wou ABSTRACT:
l l
each licensee responsible for the disposal of low-evether radioactive waste possess an adequate bond t
7\\
-%rM Cut.
established by the Commission for d;;;n:::.in;;ienSection 151 of the uclear
-3.;. ;1e;=S d rds for gd::;ri-=ianineWasta Policy Act authorizes the NRC to develop stan a i
closure. Comments on the $NPRM will help h
ture and i
developed.
scope of the action. NRC resource scheduling is be ng TIMETABLE:%{B0'%
NPRM 00/00/M-I LEGAL AUTHORITY:
42 USC.10171 l
No EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS AND OTHER ENTITIES AGENCT CONTACT:
i i
Mary Jo Seemanoffice of Nuclear Material Safety and I
Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4647 i
i 1
4 3
f 112 l
l b-
araps-
+
=e a
e-r-w
-w-
-e-O
- 6 0
9 mp
- TASK LEADER EVALUATION i
me*=
0 t
O t 1 I
l l
1 1
B.3 4
NMSS OFFICE FINDING ON PROPOSED RULEMAKING Financial Responsibility Standards for Long Term Care of LLW Disposal Sites 1.
Issue:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (P.L.97-425) provides the Commission with two types of authority for financial arrangements.
Both can be implemented as the NRC determines "necessary" or " desirable":
-- Section 151 (a)(1) provides the authority to set standards for decontamination, decommissioning, site closure, and reclamation;
-- Section 151 (a)(2) provides the NRC with authority to ensure that i
a licensee has in place financial arrangements for long-term maintenance or monitoring.
In the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking, the Commission staff developed financial responsibility standards for short term closure, decommissioning, and decontamination activities at LLW disposal sites.
These standards were promulgated under the broad authority granted to the Commission in Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
That Section gave the Commission the authority to set standards to ensure that public health and safety are protected along with the environment.
l Section 151(a)(1) provides the NRC with explicit authority to set such standards.
However, the NRC staff believes that the financial responsibility requirements for closure and decommissioning developed in the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking are sufficient.
However, this is not the case with financial standards for long term care of LLW disposal sites. When financial responsibility requirements were developed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 61, the NRC lacked the authority to require LLW disposal licensees to demonstrate that they had sufficient funds to pay for long term care.
Accordingly, because of this lack of statutory authority, the staff was limited to requiring licensees to show that they are party to a legally binding contract with the site owner, which lays out responsibility for long term care of the site.
.w
,,.--,,-_m
.,7,__
-m
t-,
N x
Section 151(a)(2) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act provided the NRC with the statutory authority to enact stricter standards. The staff believes that modifications to 10 CFR Part 61 may be appropriate to ensure that explicit and uniform financial responsibility requirements for long term care are -
in place.
2.
Need:
fir.sncial responsibility for long term care of LLW disposal sites has been an issue at all of the existing commercial LLW disposal sites; this issue has also been raised by negotiators of LLW compacts.
Under Section 151(a)(2) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act-of 1982 (NWMPA), if the Commission determines that long-term maintenance or monitoring will be necessary at a LLW disposal site, the Commission must ensure before termination of the license that the licensee has made adequate financial arrangements.
Currently, the Commission lacks uniform standards to evaluate the adequacy of financial arrangements for long term care at LLW disposal sites. Development of standards through a rulemaking would provide this guidance.
3.
Alternatives:
There are a range of alternative approaches that could be used to implement i
Section 151(a)(2), ranging from developing no guidance to developing broad generic standards.. These include the following:
-- No Regulatory Action Instead of developing new regulatory requirements, the Commission could rely on the existing guidance for financial responsibility for long term care in 10 CFR Part 61.
(That rule requires licensees to demonstrate that they and the site owner have entered into a legally binding contract t
delineating responsibility for long term care of the LLW disposal site.)
While it provides the legislative authority to develop standards in this area, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not actually require the Commission l
to do so.
There is, however, a serious drawback to this status quo
)
approach, of having the NRC limit its purview of regulating financial j
responsibility for long term care to evaluation of contracts between the States and the site owner.
If NRC were to continue to follow this approach, they would only indirectly be regulating financial responsibility for long term care.
i
Ju ~ :.-
3 r
I An additional problem with this approach is that it would conflict with the Commission's previous position to Congress.
Earlier, we found this approach unsatisfactory, and the Commission asked Congress to provide us with statutory authority to develop financial responsibility standards for long term care.
The Commission might appear inconsistent if they failed to to utilize the authority previously requested from Congress.
-- Publish Detailed Guidance in a Regulatory Guide or Technical Position Instead of developing requirements in a femal, full-blown rulemaking, the Comm ssion could issue less formal requirements by issuing such i
standards or publishing a regulatory guide or branch technical position.
With these guidance documents, the Commission could continue to evaluate each long term care arrangement at a LLW disposal site on a stand alone basis. This approach would save the agency the expense and effort of entering into a formal rulemaking.
However, lacking standards developed from a formal rulemaking might leave them more open to challenge, and thus have the effect of placing the agency in a reactive mode, as it received each application for a disposal site. Another drawback of not enacting formal regulations would be that the NRC would leave itself open to criticism that it was giving preferential treatment to one licensee over another.
-- Publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register In their Regulatory Agenda, the Commission originally decided on this approach.
Comprehensive standards promulgated as a result of a formal l
rulemaking would lessen u: certainty in the licensing process.
A formal rulemaking also has the advantage of offering the best opportunity to allow all affected parties to provide input on the development of such standards, as well as developing detailed, prescriptive standards with the weight of a formal rulemaking behind them.
However, a comprehensive rulemaking would involve considerable resources.
Staff Recommended Alternative:
As previously noted, in the fall, 1984 Regulatory Agenda published in the Federal Register, the Commission stated that they planned to publish a proposed rule in the fall of 1985. The description of the NMSS Program in the Fiscal Year 1986 NRC Greenbook also states that the agency will publish a proposed rule by FY 1985 or early FY 1986. The staff continues to recommend this approach, because it would offer the Commission the widest opportunity for early public involvement to develop standards.
i
[ ~_-a. _ __
lL.
y; *.
i.
4
}
' 4.
Proposed Action The Commission staff will prepare a Commission Paper seeking permission to publish a Notice.of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Recister. The NPRM would outline the Commission's proposed regulatory approach, present draft standards by which the NRC staff could evaluate the adequacy of financial responsibility for long term care at a LLW disposal. site, as well i
as asking for public comment on what criteria the staff should use in 1
evaluating financial responsibility standards for long term care at a LLW disposal site.
Assuming that the Commission approves publication of the NPRM, it would then be published in the Federal Recister for public comment.
After evaluation of these comments, the Commission will be in a better position i
to arrive at a decision on how to proceed with this rulemaking.
5.
Effects of Proposed Action l
NMSS believes that entering into a rulemaking will have the following effects:
- offer the States, the industry, and the.public early involvement in the development and evaluation of standards, I
- result in an optimum use of NRC resources; with the development of generic standards developed in a rulemaking, staff will have a supportable basis for responding more expeditiously when the Commission receives an application for a LLW disposal facility.
4 l
- 6. Resources and Schedule The Staff proposes to follow the schedule outlined in the NRC FY 1986 Green Book, which stated that a proposed rule would be published in late FY 1985 or early FY 1986, with a final rule two years later.
The January 28, 1985 OMB Budget Mark for NRC stated that the agency would be expending.7 SY in FY85, and.5 SY in FY86.
Additionally, the staff is in the process of evaluating the level of effort required, and may require contract dollars to support the initial scoping period of the rulemaking in early FY 1986.
0 1
N m_e RES TASK LEADER RECOHENDATIONS
C 1
Enclosura 3
~
1
)
Draft RES Recomendation Related to The Proposed Rulemaking on " Financial Responsibility Standarc s for Long-Term Care of Low Level Waste Disposal Sites" t
Based on the detailed RES draft independent review of the proposed rulemaking, it is the staff's draft recomendation that the NRC should proceed with this rulemaking, specifically that a Commission Paper be prepared seeking permission to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register. Since we do not yet know the contents of the rule or of the regulatory analysis, the draft recommendation regarding the more general questions of the content of the NPRM and of proceeding with further rulemaking following preparation of this NPRM are more preliminary in nature and will i
have to be developed in more detail when this information is known.
I This draft recomendation is based on our finding that there is a need for the l
rulemaking, that it is important relative to accomplishing NRC's mandate of j
protecting public health and safety, that it is consistent with applicable policies, and that it appears to provide a benefit without imposing an undue 1
cost. These findings are discussed below.
The need for this proposed rulemaking is to assure that there are sufficient j
funds to pay for the maintenance and surveillance activities associated with long-term care during the institutional control period of LLW disposal sites so that the stability and integrity of the site are maintained and that the public's health and safety are protected. Previous environmental impact i
statements and rulemakings for 10 CFR 61 have pointed out situations where inadequate funds at LLW sites resulted in problems in ensuring protection of public health and safety. Existing requirements in 10 CFR 61 have i
shortcomings with regard to the Comission being able to assure establishment of funds. Based on the need indicated above the Comission has previously requested that Congress give it the statutory authority to impose these requirements and this authority has now been granted in the National Waste Policy Act.
l This action is consistent with other actions of this type with regard to funding requirements for closure of LLW sites as contained in 10 CFR 61, for long-term surveillance following termination of a uranium or thorium license as contained in 10 CFR 40, and for long-term storage and surveillance of reactors as contained in proposed amendments to 10 CFR 50 on decomissioning.
Benefits of proceeding with this action include providing industry and the i
public the opsortunity for input to decisions made in the NRC rulemaking process. Witi regard to any final rulemaking which may proceed from this action the benefit cannot be definitively stated yet since the contents of the l
2 rule are not yet known. However, our preliminary assessment is that it will have the benefit of providing a clear licensing policy and of assuring that adequate funds will be available to carry out long-term care activities with a reduced risk of potential radiation exposures to the public and workers.
Costs associated with this action will not be significant since it is only a request for comment. As is the case for benefits, a preliminary assessment of costs associated with any final rulemaking is that industry and NRC staff time will be spent obtaining and reviewing financial responsibility plans, respectively. Another impact would be the cost of the required funding method. However, this impact may not be significant since this amendment will only affect those licensees which would be affected by the existing 10 CFR 61 requirement and it appears to be codifying or standardizing a general financial assurance requirement currently existing.
l l
l
y --.
h.*
9 RESULTS OF RES TASK LEADER REVIEW i
s:,
RES Staff Review The RES staff review consists of two parts: the detailed draft independent review and the sumary of staff preliminary judgements.
A.
Detailed RES Draft Independent Review of Proposed Rulemaking on " Financial Responsibility Standards for Long Term Care of Low Level Waste Disposal Sites" 1.
Introduction The following contains the details of the RES staff evaluation of the proposed rulemaking. This review consists of considerations and preliminary judgements related to (a) the issue to be addressed, (b) the necessity and urgency for addressing the issue, (c) alternatives to rulemaking, (d) how the issue will be addressed through rulemaking, (e) how the public, industry, and NRC will be affected as a result of rulemaking, and (f) NRC resources and scheduling needed for the rulemaking. This review is based on the information available at this stage of rulemaking. This information consists of the NMSS Office Finding on the Proposed Rulemaking, as well as other information contained in earlier rules, environmental impact statements, and legislation as noted below.
2.
Details of RES draft review a.
Issue to be Addressed The problem to be addressed is to assure there are sufficient funds to pay for long term care of low level waste disposal sites after termination of the 10 CFR 61 license.
Lack of funds could result in improper facility maintenance, surveillance and monitoring with resultant public health and safety problems.
w p
2 j.
b.
Necessity and Urgency for Addressing this Issue The proposed rulemaking indicates that there is a need for financial responsibility standards for long term care of LLW disposal sites.
i This need has been discussed in detail in section 5 of the Final Environmental
!)
Impact Statement (FEIS) on 10 CFR Part 61 " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal-of Radioactive Waste," NUREG-0945, November 1982, and in the Supple-i mentary Information to the Final Rule on " Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste," 47 FR 57446, December 27, 1982. These docu-ments point out situations in which inadequate funds for closure and long term t
j care at LLW disposal sites' resulted in problems regarding ensuring protection i
of,r Slic health and safety and the environment. Financial assurance for the long term institutional control period would cover surveillance, monitoring, f
and any necessary maintenance to assure that the stability and integrity of 5
the site are maintained during the institutional control period.
Based on this need 10 CFR 61.63 currently requires that a licensee provide to l
the Commission a binding arrangement to cover costs incurred during the 1
institutional control period.
In NUREG-0945 it was indicated that this current approach has shortcomings in that the Commission cannot actually require that a long term care fund be established thus resulting in potential health and safety prob 1sns. However, at the time of promulgation of 10 CFR 61, the Comission did not have the legal authority to impose such specific requirements.
The Commission, in recognizing the shortcomings of the financial assurance provisions in 10 CFR 61.63, indicated in the Supplementary Information at 47 FR 57460 that it had asked Congress, both in testimony and in a letter, for authority to require greater assurances.
3 Subsequent to promulgation of 10 CFR 61.63 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Section 151(a)(2), provided the Commi'ssion with the authority to ensure that a licensee has inplace financial arrangements for long-term maintenance or monitoring.
Based on that and on the need for more explicit and uniform financial responsibility requirements than are currently in 10 CFR 61 regarding long-term care, it appears that the amendment to 10 CFR 61 is needed in assuring that adequate funds are available for long-term care of LLW disposal sites so as to protect the public health and safety.
There is some urgency associated with beginning this effort since the Supplementary Information and FEIS supporting the existing 10 CFR 61 recognized that shortcomings in the rule existed and that NRC was looking into establishing the authority to remedy this. Congress has now giver. NRC this authority. Until NRC acts on this authority it lacks uniform standards to evaluate the adequacy of financial arrangements for long-term care at LLW disposal sites. This has beer) an issue at all of the existing LLW disposal I
sites and has also been raised by negotiators of LLW compacts. The fact that this proposed rulemaking and the effective rulemaking that would follow will take several years to complete means that it is necessary to get on with this task.
c.
Alternatives to Rulemaking 1.
No Action One alternative is to take no action on this matter. This alternative would result in retaining the current requirements in 10 CFR 61 regarding financial responsibility.
However, as noted above this alternative has shortcomings with regard to NRC's inability to directly regulate financial responsibility for long-term care and in so doing protect public
n.
4 health and safety over this period.
In addition, as noted above, the Comission is already on record to Congress as finding the current 10 CFR 61 l
to be unsatisfactory and requesting the statutory authority to develop appropriate financial responsibility standards. Since the need for this requirement still exists, it seems incorrect not to act on this authority in j
light of earlier NRC actions.
2.
Other Guidance Regulatory guides could be used to assure financial t
1 responsibility for long-term care. However, there is not sufficient regulatory basis on which to base detailed guidance. Hence any guides l
developed would not have a strong regulatory basis, thus leaving them open to challenge and resulting in the need for time-consuming case-by-case evaluations. As noted above this would also result in lack of standardized l
criteria for financial responsibility.
3.
Rulemaking The Office Review Package proposes that a Comission paper j
be prepared seeking permission to publish an NPRM in the Federal Register i
regarding financial responsibility for long-term care of LLW disposal sites.
The NPRM would provide clearly implementable requirements by outlining the Comission's proposed regulatory approach and presenting draft standards by l
which the NRC staff could evaluate the adequacy of financial responsibility.
Following public comment on the proposed rule, the Comission could then decide on how to proceed with this rulemaking.
l Rulemaking would lessen uncertainty in the licensing process by providing I
detailed requirements for financial responsibility so that funds are available to provide for long-term care in a manner which protects public health and 1
a. _.
^^
~
i 5
safety. Rulemaking also provides the best opportunity to allow all-affected parties to provide input to development of such standards.
1 A precedent for this action is that, based on its statutory authority, the NRC promulgated the existing rules in 10 CFR 61 which provide specific financial requirements for the closure and stabilization of the LLW disposal sites.
These requirements were put into place based on a perceived need as stated in NUREG-0945 that it was necessary to provide assurance of funds for closure and stabilization in order to protect public health and safety and also on the fact that during this period, closure costs are incurred after the site operator is no longer receiving revenues from waste generators. Thus, proper planning during the operating phase when revenues can accrue is indicated in NUREG-0945 as being essential. NUREG-0945 points out the same situation exists with regard to financial assurance for long-term care, however at the l
time of the issuance of 10 CFR 61 NRC did not have the statutory authority to impose such standards during that period. Based on the Waste Policy Act, section 151(a)(2) that authority now exists.
i Another precedent is Appendix A to 10 CFR 40 which sets financial responsibility standards for uranium mill operators for long-term surveillance following termination of a uranium or thorium mill license.
A precedent which has similarities is contained in the proposed rule on Decomissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 FR 5600, which places i
requirements on methods for assurance of funds on licensees who intend to i
place a reactor into a period of storage or long-term surveillance in order to complete decommissioning. These facilities would be covered by these funding i
.,, _ _, _, -. -, +., -.,, _,.,--
- - - ~ -.
,..-..,,.,,-.___n,,,.
l 6
requirements even though they are still licensed.
It would seem even more important to have financial responsibility requirements to cover similar activities for the LLW disposal sites which would no longer be licensed.
d.
How the Issue will be Addressed Through Rulemaking Little specific information on the contents of the proposed rule is contained in the sponsoring office rulemaking review package. The package indicates that the proposed rule would contain the proposed regulatory approach and contain the standards by which the NRC staff could evaluate the adequacy of financial arrangements for long-term care at LLW disposal sites.
These standards might include such items as a bond, a surety, or other financ.ial arrangements and the amount of funds would be sufficient to permit completion of all requirements established by the Commission for long-term care. The proposed rule would ask for public comment on the criteria to be used in establishing the financial responsibility standards.
1 Based on the public responses to the proposed rule as well as on other detailed comments, the sponsoring office review package indicates that the Comission will then consider how to proceed with this rulemaking.
It is presumed in this review that the content of an effective rule will reflect the comments and consider the benefits of the rule versus impacts to the licensees.
e.
How the Public, Industry and NRC will be Affected as a Result l
of Rulemaking, including Benefits and Costs 1.
Benefit The proposed rule itself will have the benefit of giving the industry and the public the opportunity to provide early input into the
x 7
r 8
I I
I NRC decision-making process.
It will also have the benefit of providing NRC with industry and public input so that the decisions with regard to rulemaking can be more responsive to the public.
With regard to any final rulemaking which may proceed from the proposed rule, it is somewhat premature to definitively state the benefit since the content of the proposed rule is not known. However, based on the preliminary assessment of what might be in the rulemaking as well as on other similar rulemakings in this area the following appear to be benefits:
NRC The NRC will have the benefit of having in place a clear policy regarding financial responsibility standards for long-term care of LLW disposal sites.
This will assure that NRC's mission of protecting public health and safety is carried out by reducing risk of radiation exposure to the public and workers during this period. With the assurance of funds for long-term care, NRC staff will not have to be involved in time-consuming activities such as difficulties in terminating licenses where adequate funds are not available and interfaces with a concerned public regarding inadequate funds for site maintenance and surveillance.
i i
Industry The rulemaking process will assure industry has an input to the f
decision-making regarding such important questions as how much coverage should be required and what funding methods should be allowed.
Industry will benefit in that funds will be available to pay for maintenance, surveillance, and monitoring of the site during long-term care.
l l
e..
w e-
=g..
e 8
Public The benefit to the public will be a reduced risk of potential radiation exposures resulting from improper conduct of long-term care activities caused by lack of funds. This reduction in risk would apply to both the general public and workers who might be involved in the activities. The risk associated with improper conduct of long-term care activities could result from either direct exposure to contamination or releases of radioactivity from a contaminated facility.
2.
Impacts / Costs The proposed rule itself will not cause undue impact or cost to the public, industry, or NRC since it is only a request for comments on proposed rulemaking.
With regard to any final rulemaking which may proceed from the proposed rule, it is somewhat premature to definitively state the impact or costs to Itcensees since the content of the proposed rule is not known and, in l
particular, the proposed rule will request public comments on the criteria the staff should use in evaluating financial responsibility for long-term care.
l It is expected that in the later stages of proposed rulemaking and at the time of final rulemaking the impacts and costs to the NRC, licensee and the public will have to be carefully considered and balanced against the benefits. A preliminary estimate of those impacts / costs is the following:
NRC The impact on the NRC will be the staff time necessary to complete rulemaking. This will include the regional offices, NMSS, RES, and OSP. In addition, regulatory guidance implementing the rule may be necessary. If the l
l
x 9
proposed rule results in rulemaking becoming effective, staff time may have to be spent reviewing and approving financial responsibility plans if they are submitted to the NRC. This would probably involve NMSS and regional offices.
In addition, staff time may be necessary in reviewing updates to those plans if it is deemed necessary. This staff time should be similar to that for review of licensees affected by the existing 10 CFR 61.62 requirements and by the proposed decommissioning criteria discussed above. The number of licensees affected should be the same as that affected by the existing 10 CFR 61.62 rulemaking.
Industry The impact of potential rulemaking on the industry is the time spent obtaining the means of financial responsibility required. Another impact is the cost of the required method. Because 10 CFR 61 currently places general financial assurance requirements on licensees for long-term care, this impact may not be significant since this amendment appears to be codifying or standardizing this requirement.
f.
NRC Resources and Scheduling Needed for Rulemaking The NMSS Office Review Package indicates that the resources necessary for the proposed rulemaking are about 0.7 SY in FY85 and 0.5 SY in FY86. The schedule for completion of the proposed rule is late FY85 or early FY86 with a final rule two years later.
No information is given in the package regarding resources or schedule for any final rulemaking and rule enforcement which fo11cNs the proposed rule. This
n _. -
10 is likely dependent on the comments received and the scope of the resultant rulemaking.
It is expected that the NRC resources and scheduling expended in any rulemaking would be comensurate with those of similar efforts such as the rulemaking on financial assurance for decomissioning or the rulemaking on financial responsibility requirements for closure and stabilization presently in 10 CFR 61. The number of licensees affected would be the same as those affected by the earlier rulemaking on 10 CFR 61. Hence staff time involved in enforcement of this rule would be similar to that for the existing parts of 10 CFR 61.
B.
Sumary of RES Staff Preliminary Judgements Developed from the RES Draft Independent Review of Prcoosed Rulemaking on " Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Term Care of Low Leve' Waste l
Disposal Sites" Based on the detailed draft independent review of the proposed rulemaking on " Financial Responsibility Standards for Long-Term Care of Low Level Waste Disposal Sites," it is the staff's preliminary judgement that the NRC should proceed with this rulemaking effort, specifically that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) be prepared as a Comission paper for publication in the Federal Register. As noted in the detailed RES review, this recomendation is that this rulemaking should proceed, specifically in the form of preparation of an NPRM to obtain industry and public input with regard to this issue.
Judgements regarding the more general questions of the content of the NPRM and of proceeding with further rulemaking following this NPRM are more preliminary in nature and will have to be developed in more detail based on the exact contents of rulemaking package and on the comments received on 1
. ~.
11 the NPRM. At this time, RES staff agrees with the recomendation of'the Director, NMSS, that this rulemaking effort should continue because based on the detailed review in A.2a through f above, there is a need for the rulemaking, it is consistent with applicable policies, and it appears to be important relative to accomplishing NRC's mandate, namely, protecting the public health and safety.
'A BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY RES TASK LEADER l
t 1
l l
l l
~
~
~
- p.
C35 FAT. 3344 PUBIJC LAW M-425-JAN. 7,1988 untu smeh time as the Soestery deeldes that emeh is se longer a emedidate slee under eensideration for
- ^ as a rupeeleery.Sech sustriction shaB esatiamo to apply
' site selected per somstreetion as a sopository.
Paniscuraries er traves Ano inesaw Tusems.-Any faculty 1
purement to this esetion eben he amidact to the provimiens eastions 115, tietal,114thi, lleid),117. and.118. Pier purposes of est the of this sehsection, any reforesee in 118 118 to a shaU be seasidered to refer a seesdnered retrievablestorage i
Busivisa D-Ingr4 aves. Rassenersvs Waars
,,sanceas,. =.--- - som seweaves, massanevivs waars arts i
assues anc.181. (a) Fan==ar
^ ^-
-.41) The rw-=3==a=
eben estehush by runn, segulatism, er order aner puhue acties, and een enesedesse with section 181 ef tim Atomic amarg
'UAc. assu, ameh standeses and hatructimes as y Ast of1964 M2 the n--a'-
smay dessa assessary er desirehle to ensure h the ease of each radiomethe weste that an ado-5 win be psevided by a Mesaase to persait comple-the ef au se w--
guiremente estehlished by the r m Air the
- ; she chanse, and e d- --+'-- of sites, streeteres, and equipment need la asudameties with auch low-novel rednesethe weste. seek emancial arrangements eben he v6ded and approved by the F er, h the emme of a l ;
within the hommemries of egn======a 4 tete under eseties FN of t
the Atomde Ensesy Ast of Mt UAc astil,b i
state er asses entity, prior to enemmes of u===y the
=== sur
% weste disposal er, h the asse ofliesames in eSect en the date of the enectment of this Aet, prior to ter% of each liesemes.
t i
e If the m deterunimes that say Isas4erum h or - - " _
er hath, wSI be neoussary at a site damerihed in l
.'"'Ef.e h,et.e4.minden shan ensure heAme ter=8==*8 = ef the Osa t
nue.see b.s m.de a aside e h heading, surety, er other Amanedal arrangemente as eney he messe.
to emeure that any assessary a=*==--a er seemi-
=aad der omsk elle wiB he out by the persom having tiene and==naar sie sach atte sinowing unemme ter-a==es
l th) Trna assa Cuescer.- G) The Sometery shaR hevo authority to mamme tune and muletr of nee 4 el semanathe weste and the amad in which seek weste is of, spea sequest of the~ hermer af meh weste andimme and ter-s==es-g of the unesse humed y the @==l==d== Ser each dispenal, if them determines 4 set-4,
(A) th.e
' of the m hr ette stesore,
-W h h met by the Mesmese leveheland that seek licensee is k eeupManos with the peevieteas efenksectiental; S)ameh title and wSI be transfersed to the Secretary east to the c_. -
^.and
1 l
,,. f,, l &,W f.y.;., y h
- R'~.;
- y., *.'Q' \\ f (!';'.f. > 7 efs-N * { p ' f.[. fr,..**k l $ agt-},..
.&,.' p,
1.
F, y
,f,,,....,,.
.n
r
^
',= 3
.. Ty,
N.. <
- -. v, g..,
~~
? j,&Q-%:
y
~
~
N,C 9-
; f'.
' * * ' ~
c
.. ( c p
Y.,
s..y
.,. c s
=e
. ~
.f,ny.y (
- 0 4 *y*g., *.e.
}
V
=
1 yV s
., " g. _ A,.:
.a
. ey - S j,7 l 9e -
t.
.y s.,
s g
. f'h }
.s,arh Q. -:
's
- '^.
p.
33 g 7
- ,, 3. g.
....-.4.....
...."..":~~...i..
- % ;*. n. h. 1L.L***..
y
... _ ~...
R
---...'i
., ~
"s.,
- f.,
'I-
,y 549*-}~
," O
- A s
r.;
}
. g G., - } ~% -
h-G . /.. s c w. /. +,u p..Q.! % ts y.3 ew w -r
- . g ~ q } \\
^.k Q
- t;pQ q.::,4 2 t ! ! 3 ; f j.i.. f..[g..[ 4 J;
,_ p. y v. ;.
. Ii t l ',f.. g4.+, 4
- d.,,.. ^
j,.I i 'l... i I.
y l
f
/
.5 -Y j 4 7 +, ',. _ '
.}.
1 ~
f
[ j-
'.' ) % A.)
'F.,*
'A '
U.
I f."
t_ - (
~g. J. h
. f F. f..
7 '. f. h.
I
+
ei u
c l
~s g
s -
F-N * ',
i ' E.
- N,.
l h#
( f *h' L., I *
[}
- f. *2.T' 7
-} f. k s
e
?'-
a f-
?,
k' 3
4 __. _. '.....
N I I.
i e
r.
d
- ) 1"p'
~
4fg F
(
r j
o-p'
'. f r.
.-. 1 g -
-. \\ p. e ):*.
4 g.
g t.
e E
, 4
.".., 6
..e g.. F ~9 g s.? t,L e <
i ri "r
~*,-
4m e
L r.
~
l
- ;{ ;,+..p; -
, h. L.,
,f g*
v' 1
,.g...
g$ ( '... "
P
~
5 l
4,
. h.
.: ' ~
f, ' ty f,),...
f
, /-..
.1 '.
y '.
~
^
.,s
.' h -{*;5
~
s
-e
... - ~,..
J.. '*askm gwl.Y.....
N
' \\
- f. t 2
s.
.u.
3
_ _.L...
w 3.
3.-w. -
- - -- m:.. -.
. : ~.,z J_,
' e.y * - -
- .f.
- W'N
. * $ ~g
-Q, '.
1 l
(
e
.e
,.g
.s.
. i
, ',e
. u... _.L
\\
..-~s,
._q_,..-
I v- -
t I
- s,'*y g..aq.f -
_ Q1f...g.'[. ;. %
I
,e,,,.'.s i k ;f jff
'l
~
- n-I
. ". - (
t.- -', -
,, s; 4 g f:
T
^
~ '.
' ).
r
- %,.'y* T O*
w w
(
~
~ ; ;.l.
- ney, y.$ '.
.f; f er v.
.n
)
s-9
,...g g
/-
o s.
..F l~ ~
$4~z 6*;
r -
,. :.. %., N
' / ?. h..*
yD
.l m
..c q
< j.
~
.~'$'.
lf. -
A.N _ ],,
71'1.
I
~
\\..
g.
Nf g V, m.L
~
~. ~
.M....i w '.'.
)p% ', ' .JJ., L(.
. q4 2
-s
,4
. p..
,2?,,y 7-
% s-a p
.s y =
. - f..
l'$
ff ^
^* I )~f,,
,1 e :
~
j m? 'l. ~ ; 4[ ~.
,R f%s. -
e.j d., '...,
.. q 4
- m., m'
,n, f -_ ~;
a.
e
[.
)4 f.
M.. M " '
- : >. N '
.l
'dgaM.. N=- g f.
+
t
- k..';.
. k: (.' - '
}-
_-c
_.v t%:2 ; a >
.f l Ik I
^
4 k-
. e.; c W[,
' ~
i.
E Y
!!. 1 O ~r C
- ;j~
['{ J. *. :
N j.:x,. jg~ n,.p l
....,. 4. ;
r.
M;v.px g4,5#g.q, g. ri.
g~.
. n,.;.
g j
g 4i A5e
.., w.
~.,.....
a.
\\
j a +-
c
- ; p.
... r
.,7..y.
. u wc,.,.. p,9.. a.,
g,,
j
.c
,.,n,...,e
.k.g-
- p. 'c. g-1. y..
1
..../... y..
- 4
~
y q:
.e..
.a. a.. f.-- - a 9...
..w...
..,6..
,, =.
^-
L
['r 3!
..y s
. g.
.A.
4:
r -
$.y.
f, -
n L.
.. y : e N,.: +
=-
. #.q,.'. y. R...; r g e. W - Q [
}...
- mx.:
.m. ; : 1
=.
w a +
,y 7 4
~m-
-;_.g_
v us;,a.
... : ;.. :;. c. ;
y
One of the technical requirements for transfer of the disposal facility title to the site owner is that the radiation levels at the surfaces of the disposal unit covers be controlled to minimize potential exposures to the site owner's maintenance personnel.
levels be limited to "a few percent of background."The proposed Part 61 rule Commenters on the draft rule questioned the ambiguity of the requirement, and some suggested values from as low as 1% of background to as high as 1 ares / hour (about 5000% of back-ground).
The rules in section 20.105 of 10 CFR Part 20 contain provisions for permiss-ible levels of radiation in unrestricted areas.
NRC staff considers these to be appropriate for application at the time that the disposal site is trans-ferred to the site owner for the period of institutional control.
Although access to the site will be controlled to prevent inadvertent intrusion and the site could be viewed as a restricted area NRC staff believes that it is not proper to consider those who do have acces,s to the site, such as caretakers and site maintenance personnel as radiation workers who could receive much higher occupational exposures., Therefore, the Part 20 unrestricted limits will be used for limits to radiation levels at the surfaces of disposal units.
In practice NRC staff would expect that radiation levels may easily be limited to levels significantly less than the Part 20 limits.
Institutional Control Period During the institutional control period, which for purposes of the Part 61 rule the Commission assumes to be not more than 100 years, the custodial agency carries out a program of monitoring and physical surveillance to assure con-tinued satisfactory site performance, as well as other minor custodial activi-ties.
During this period, productive uses of the land might be permitted if those uses do not affect the stability of the site and its ability to meet the performance objectives.
As a part of the license termination requirements, the licensee is required to place records of the disposal facility with local, state, and federal agencies. These records, along with restrictions on the property deed and trench markers, should help minimize disturbance of the dis-posal site.
These latter mechanisms are those that would continue after the active institutional control period.
At the end of the necessary institutional control period, the custodial agency license may be terminated (Section 61.31).
5.4.2 Financial Assurance Requirements Financial assurance requirements for low-level waste disposal facilities are needed to help ensure the long-term protection of public health and safety and the enviro ~iient.
Financial assurance requirements are set forthTd'50bpart E n
of tne Tinal rart 61 rule.
A review by the staff of the operating experiences at both hazardous waste and LLW disposal sites reveals that operators of both tynmof sites did nnt ade-quately )lan for closure anW long-term care activities.
With respect to LLW sites, tie state and federal governments recognizea thi need to care for the sitg Lover __th Cling term.__ The sites had to be located'on land owned by the federal or state government and funds were collected for long-term care activi-ties.
In most cases, however,_the funds collected for long-term care activi-ties (e-g., the %xey no s Kentucky site) were not adequate anrt there was need to pump trenches and treat trench leachate.
In addition, isntH recently 5-51
little planning _or financial assurance was provided for funding final closure This has led to a situation where and stabilization of the ex M ing sites.
financial responsioiiity for the continued assurance of protection of the public health and safety at several of the existing closed sites already has' or could become a responsibility of the' state or federal government.
Closure, post-closure, and active institutional control costs are_ generally incurred after the site operator is no innaec r.,- iui~; - annes from waste uenerai.yn. Thus,
proper planning during the operating phase when revenues can be accrued is essential.
Based on these considerations, there is a strong need for reaulatory -emare _
ments to ensure that:
(1) the licensee has sufficient financial resources to construct and operate the facility and to provide for final closure and post-closure care of the site and (2) the licensee provides finan_ciaJ_assuranceJor the active institutional contrb1 [ieriod after the site is closed and stabilized.
Th'e stari Delieves tnese ciosure aMTci.WeVs~tifutional control costs __should be identified early and should be provided for as part of the necessary costs
~
of operating mii.e.
Financial assurance mechanisms to jirodde for these costs should be established during the active operating period of the site, when revenues are still being received by the licensee and h'e has access to financial The need for stringent financial requirements to ensure that the resources.
licensee is financially responsible has been voiced by a number of sources, including the UT General Accounting Office and the National Conference of RadtEtion Lontrol Program Directors.
Ine costs for short-and long-term finuncial assurances mave been included as part of the Lost for the reference i
facility.
Requirements for Short-Term Financial Assurances for Operations, Closure, and l
Post-closure Observation and Maintenance Given the past history at some of the existing disposal sites, one of the requirements in the Part 61 rule is assurance of adequate financial qualifica.
tion on the part of the applicant to construct and operate the disposal facility and to provide adequate financial provisions for disposal site closure and post-operational activities.
u Short-term financial assurance mechanisms refer to arrangements intended to ensure that the licensee is financially responsible for undertaking required closure, stabilization, and post-closure activities at a low-level waste site, and would be particularly based on a specific site closure and stabilization plan. The amount of financial assurance required would be based on cost esti-mates submitted by the licensee in an approved plan for disposal site closure and stabilization. The applicant must submit a cost estimate for disposal site closure that includes consideration of inflation, increases in the amount of disturbed land, and the closure and stabilization activities that have already occurred at the disposal site. As used in the Part 61 rule, the concept of financial assurances does not; include any requirements for third party liability coverage for damages to people or property resulting from operation of the facilities.
The rule requires applicants to provide proof of financial qualifications prior to the commencement of construction of the disposal facility.
Proof of the
~
5-52
_.-,,.---e.
financial qualifications of applicants is not currently required by Parts 30 and 40.
Requiring such financial qualification in the Part 61 rule will help assure that resources are not expended on projects without adequate ba~ cking and should minimize the potential for early default or the abandonment of the site by the operator.
The NRC has received strong public interest concerning the issue of financial responsibility for closure of a disposal site.
Numerous written comments were made on this portion of the preliminary draft regulation, and the issue was also raised at all four workshops held to review this regulation. Many com-menters felt that the licensee should be held responsible for the full costs of closure of a disposal site, and that the license should not be terminated and the land returned to custodial government authority until the licensee has completed satisfactory closure.
CommentsontheproposedPart61regulationanddraftEISalsoindicatedcon-siderable public concern regarding financing for closure (and for long-term care).
Commenters mentioned that the existing history of LLW disposal sites revealed a strong need to require licensees to demonstrate evidence of finan-1 cial responsibility so that the public health and safety were protected and also so that potential liabilities do not rest with state taxpayers.
There are a variety of short-term financial assurance mechanisms that could be j
used by a low-level waste disposal facility operator to assure that sufficient funds are available for closure and post closure care.
Short-term financial assurance mechanisms considered by the staff included the following:
1.
Surety bonds, obtained from a surety company; 2.
Escrow arrangements between a bank, the government, and the licensee; l
3.
Trust funds, arran and the licensee; ged between the government, a financial institution, 4.
Certificates of deposit to a state or federal agency; 5.
Cash deposits to a state or federal agency; 6.
Deposits of securities to a state or federal agency; 7.
Secured interests in the disposal operator's assets; 8.
Letters of Credit from a financial institution; 9.
Self-insurance by the low-level waste disposal facility operator; 10.
Financial tests of the operator or his holding company; 11.
Development of a sinking fund based on receipts from surcharges on received wastes; and 12.
Development of a closure assurance pool.
5-53 w
w--
m 0
g These types of financial assurances are standard commercial law arrangements currently being used by state and federal government agencies for the chemical miningindustrIes.aniummilling, low-levelwastedisposal,andsurfacecoal waste disposal ur The staff considers these to be reasonable alternatives.
The primary criterion considered by the staff in evaluating these alternative financial mechanisms was the degree of assurance provided by each method to ensure that funds are available to close the disposal site and to provide for all necessary activities to protect the public's health and safety.
Other criteria considered by the staff included the following:
o The degree of security (or level of difficulty) in obtaining funds in case of default.
The administrative time and expense required 'by the regulatory agency to o
implement and. monitor the~ financial assurance mechanisms.
The cost to the licensee 'f utilizing the financial assurance mechanism.
o o
Conclusions Based on the review of the alternative financial assurance mechanisms, the staff concluded that a number of mec'hanisms exist that will provide adequate assurance of funds for closure and post-closure in the event that the site operator defaults or unforeseen site conditions require early closure of the site. These requirements are set forth in section 61.62 of the final Part 61 rule. The alternatives that the staff finds generically acceptable for a disposal facility licensee are:
i o
surety bonds o
trust funds o
escrow arrangements o
cash deposits o
certificates of deposit o
deposits of government securities o
irrevocable letters of credit o
combinations of the above These alternatives were all fo'und to be acceptable because they did not impose a significant economic burden on the license, they did not impose an admini-strative burden on the staff, and yet they each could be structured to ensure a high degree of confidence that funds would be available to ensure proper closure. The staff has also concluded that approving a range of satisfactory financial assurance alternatives allows the operator flexibility in selecting the mechanism that best suits his needs.
Some commenters on the proposed Part 61 regulation and draft EIS observed that at present no commercial market exists to provide surety bonds of the type required in the Part 61 rule.
In drafting the EIS and developing the rule, NRC staff were well aware that surety bonds of the type required in the rule may be currently unavailable. -The staff included this alternative in the rule and EIS, however, since it does provide the necessary assurances and may become available in the insurance market at a later date.
i i
5-54 l
1i
-. r-2
y w
While the other financial assurance mechanisms discussed earlier may be accept-atle in certain isolated cases, they are not acceptable to the staff on a generic basis.
Plans for alternative financial assurance mechanisms not discussed here would be evaluated and approved by the staff on a case-by-case basis.
Comments on the proposed rule and draft EIS revealed strong interest in other financial mechanisms-particularly in regard to self insurance.
Several commenters felt that self-insurance would not satisfy the surety requirements, and they recom-mended that licensees should be required to place specific funds in escrow to cover costs of decontamination, closure and stabilization.
Another commenter suggested that self-insurance be based on an annual submittal of financial reports, i.e., a financial test.
t The Commission rejected the use of stand alone "self-insurance" as a result of discussions with state officials with prior experience with LLW disposal sites.
They expressed the need to have tangible funds available from the licensee for site closure, so the State as landowner would not be left financially responsible.
While not specifically allowing its use on a generic basis in the rule, the Commission will evaluate the use of financial tests proposed by licensees on a case-by-case basis.
Additional information regarding criteria by which acceptable short-term finan-cial assurances will be judged by NRC is provided in a draft Branch Technical Position on Funding Arrangements for Closure and for Long-term Care of a LLW Disposal Site.
(Ref. 9)
Requirements for Long-Term Financial Assurances for Institutional Control Based on a review of the operating history at existing LLW disposal sites, the staff finds that financial responsibility for active institutional control should be Estanhshed._orior to issuance of tee ~ disposal faciTity license. A
~
revieiiof the history of commercial low-level waste sites in this country indi-cates that there has been continuing concern oy the_public.and.by ragmatory authorities ~6ver 16Tig term financial responsibility for low-level waste disposal sites.Mn addition to7Ueitions 6verthe equity issues of who pays._foFhctive fiistitutional control over the site, the government and the public are concerned thaCTunds be readily available for postoperational activities to ensure that l
the public's health and safety are continuaWy'pFotRted.
Financial assurances for active institutional control involve the financing of any required activities at a low-level waste _ site _af_ter_ transfer of the_di_sposal s
facility license to the site owner.
These funding assurances would cover sur-veillance, monitoring, and any necessary maintenance to ensure that the stability andl ntegrity of the site are maintained and that the_re_ar.e__no_ disruptive _ human acfivities at the site for up in 1no years.
The requirements do not cover unan-ticipated cont ~ihgencies that may occur at the site.
Based on these considera-tions, the Commission staff concluded that requirements for financial guarantees for active institutional control should bei ncluded in tne finas rart el reguia-tb.
A review of the various financial assurance mechanisms commonly used in the commercial law area (see Section 9.3.3 of Volume 2 of the draft EIS) revealed that few, if any, of these mechanisms are suitable for the long-term nature of a long-term financial assurance mechanism.
The extended time period (100 years) means that few financial institutions are willing or able to handle that type 5-55 l
7 j -
There are, however, several other alternative of long-term financial assurance.
long-term financial assurance mechanisms that can be used for active instit tional control at a disposal site.
the adequacy of alternative financial assurance mechanisms for active institu-The staff considered that the most important consideration tional control.
for long-term financial assurances was the extent to which they were able to provide a. uarantee.thaLihe necessary fundsavould be_pronucan ny m sible es. existed to allow the Commission staff to require a specific ing authori financial assurance mechanism. :Several of the financial assurance mechanism proposed by various parties would reouire enabling legislation that is currently lackina at the federal leum1.7inencial assurance mechanisms reviewed by the staff Included a sinking fund funded by a surcharge recovered from disposal facility customers, an LLW disposal "superfund," and a lease or a legally binding arrangement.
+
Conclusions The staff has determined that all low-level waste disposal site operators must establish evidence of financial' responsibility to provide for long-term careFifiancial responsi-of'the site durina the active incHtutinnal control period.
biDtffor long-term care must be demonstrated prior to the issuance of the facility license, including costs for all required and necessary activities at States the site, including surveillance, monitoring, and required maintenance.
regulating existing commercial low-level waste disposal sites have traditionally required licensees to establish sinking funds based on surcha the operator specifying financial _resnonsibility for lona-term care of the site The staff is aware of theT enefits of requiring disposal operators to require a surcharge on waste generators which is consequently deposited into a sinking fund and then invested.
Such a cost recovery mechanism directly charges tt)e benefiting parties (i.e., the waste eenerarnecy-wi;;;. : ::: :;
- ;-term h
nu-ever, snis approach cannot be recuired by the Commission, since t e care.
a inna-tem care (a) reau1re that Commission lacks the 1ecal authority to:
funa ne estaoitsnea, anc. (b) require that the operator impose a surcharge on inis lack of_ authority has been raised before Congress wavi.e generators.
several times.
Since the Commission lacks the authority to evnlicitly ranuire that a curcharge be_ imposed and a sinking fund be established, the staff considers that the next best reguiatory aiternative is to require that the operator be party to a bind-ing arrangement such as a lease between himself and the site's landowner which (Current Commission regula-establishes evidence of financial responsibility.
The tions require the state or federal government to be the site landowner.)
staff is aware of the shortcomings of such an aooroach, but considers this the mo_st viable regulatory alterna6ive oased~on the current statutory authority of i
Such regulatory requirements will help to ensure that the the Lommission.
licensee or the site owner is responsible for performing all required long-term care activities that are necessary to protect the public health and safety and These requirements are set out in Section 61.63 of the final the environment.
Part 61 rule.
e 5-56
The staff has included the costs for 100 years of active institutional control into the cost of the reference facility as well as the alternatives considered in the EIS. The actual costs of long-term care, however, will vary depending upon the level of active maintenance required under varying disposal facility conditions.
Long-term site stability will significantly reduce and possibly eliminate the need for any major maintenance and cost over the long term.
Additional information regarding the types of long-term financial assurances that NRC staff would find acceptable is provided in a draft Branch Technical Position on Funding Arrangements for Closure and for Long-Term Care of a LLW Disposal Site.
(Ref. 9)
Contingencies One of the points raised by commenters on both the proposed Part 61 rule and the draft EIS was that the proposed regulation failed to address financial responsibility for unanticipated contingencies at a LLW disposal site.
One group expressed concern that the regulations set the stage for a " tax payer funded bail-out" of poorly-run disposal sites. They felt the industry should bear these costs, and that the regulations should be written to make this explicit. Another connenter noted that the experience of the State of Kentucky with Maxey Flats emphasized the importance of making contingency funds avail-able in the event that serious problems occur.
They felt this issue should be addressed in the rulemaking. One State further noted that the rule failed to mention who would be financially responsible if problems occur at the site that cost more than were budgeted on an assumption of normal operation. These ques-tions cover such a variety of different scenarios (i.e., Acts of God, licensee
. negligence, etc.), that it is not possible to specifically respond to all of the potential contingencies. However, a general response to the overall issue of responsibility for contingencies at a 1.ow-level waste-disposal site is pos-sible. These comments cover two different time periods:
the post-closure period, when the original licensee is still responsible at the site, and the institutional control period, when the license has been transferred to the landowner of the site for a period of up to one hundred years.
In the case of the post-closure care period, the licensee would be responsible for all activi-ties at the site found necessary by the Commission to protect the public health and safety.
Financial responsibility for acti'vities during the institutional control period are a matter to be worked out between the site owner (i.e., the State or Federal Governmeiit) and the licensee in their lease or other legally binding arrangement, and it is possibic that if the site owner were a state, they would work out an arrangement whereby the site operator would collect a
'i surcharge from waste generators for the institutional control period.
The rights and responsibilities of the state and the licensee would be determined at such a, time.
One issue is the question of who would assume responsibility for a disposal site and its accompanying waste if it were to be closed prematurely by NRC due to rule violation.
In such a situation it is possible that insufficient funds will have been collected for care of the site during the institutional control period.
Responsibility for a site closed prematurely by the NRC would depend on the situation.
Additionally, closure would be a last resort of the Commis-sion, since the agency has other authorities besides closure, such as civil penalties, to require licensee compliance.
In the event it would become neces-sary to close the site for health and safety reasons, the final rule provides 5-57 i
. <. ~
37448 Federal Register /.Vol.*47' No. 24a / Monday. December 27. 1982 / Rules and Reguhtlons nunce rast REQUt.ATORY
- MEh paformance objectives for the issues to be addressed in the Part 81 COMMISSIOgg land dispueal ofwaste; technical rulemaking.nese workshope were h* j
.~.
- r n,_
^- for the siting. design.
particularly usefulla formulating our 10 CpH Ports 2,19,30,21,30,40,31. -
. operations, and closure activities for a positions on the mere tal
/
e1,70,73 and 170
.N-asamurface disposal facility; technical aspects of the rule ~
ying j
ca-
--ts concerning the weste form noeumptions (such as the length of time
- that waste generators must meet for the we should assume that active
- land disposal of waste: classi8 cation of tal controls could reasonably -
waste;insntadonal w,A mts; and rolled ook a uw
.g asesev:NuclearRegulatory' a
w.
v. : e administretive and procedural Proposed to CFR Part 81 and e
=rar,.a
,y g,g,,3,-
. :- ;. e.
forlicensing a disposal monforming===ad===ts were published
/
- en July 34.1881(48 PR 38081).he -
. foollity. A===d===*= to other are susessaary:ne Neclear Regulatory
.'==*=MiM to govern the canon,. original comment period was due to r a==Imah (NRC) is laseing regulations. and use of shipping manifests to tracit expire October 22.1981 butwu.
u
. that set outlicsoning procedures.
- weste shipments and clarify, but not
-' extended to 14.1982 to colncide l
puformance objectives and technical
- c sebstantiaDy modify, the requirements -- with the ~
connwnt period for the *
~
requirements for tie of -
' ~.af adstingiegulations. Provisions for.
supporting draR EIS (NUREG-0782).h' facGities fortheland oflow.
i consultation and participadon in licens* availability of the draft EIS was lent radioactive weste.-
tion- ~ reviews by State governments and.. : announced on October 22.1 set (46 FR Indian tribes are also included. Specinc 3177e).De propued rub wu sent to au As necessary to provide enen n.
neuenal criteria #" to the land n_
forlicensing facilities for
. disposal of radioactive wasta.nis... the disposal of radioactive wastee other. Canedulon Scans action is taken in response to the aseds than highlevelweste by alternative
.. distribotg to their b=a-and requests of the pubBc.Ceegrees.
- lend disposal amethods wiH be propoed Public comunents were received on bdustry, the states, the a==i-tan
. :la n,_ nt r=1-W== Disposal of boe b rak ad dranEIS admaybe r
and other Federal agendes for codined radioactive wastes by anladividual
====tand at the a==t= Ion's Public r
Bunseewin condnue 2 be swornedby. Document Room (PDR) focated at1717 segulations to govern the disposal of, y low-level radioactive waste. -
to CFR Part 23.
H Street NW., Washington.D.C.
Comments on the rule are available at savss:10 CFR 3Q.311 of Part 20...
~~
the,PDR Docket No.PR-2 et al. (46 FR offactive date is D=e==har 27.19e3;10.
Ock'd1978. &eca.,,,i,,,,
seces). Pa===ats on the drah EIS are *
- CFR'Part si and aB other changes
- published an Advance Notice of available at the PDR referendag Docket -
offeedu January 28.1983.
" Proposed mal===1dag (43 FR 49811) t of speciSc No.PR-61(48 FR 51778).
maa==*===- Docenants referred to in
- 7. regarding b da'sposal oflow-level. - A tota'l of 42 persons comunented on tids regulation may be====sa=d at the
.- regulations for the di
\\
r'a==i==fon's PubBc Doomment Room.
,,aw,,in watu (ILW).N
-
- the dran EIS.%ese aa===aters 1717 H Street NW., Washington. DC.
g,,,3,p,,, of thue regulanons was in represented a variety ofinterests.
M.
a"==ats were received from 21 States.
Copies of NUREG's be obtained by -
response to needs and
' s industry /stiMan. 8 Federal agencies /
, Q, by the pubBc. bests writing the Superian i of.
Congren.
laboratories. 3 individuals and 2 broker /
r a,.===ts.UAGovernmentPrinting.
the States, the
==i=taa r
OfScs.CIB.SSOS,UCP Washington.. andotbarrederalagendesfor disposal Brms.na=====ts generally DC20401 or the NRC/GpO Sales
.,indth=uon d reguladons for h raised or echoed b sameissues raised Program.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory di=pa==1 ofI W.ne respondents to the :- --- --- the rule except that some questions on the methodologies and ra"'=lalon,W DC 20555.,
..Myanos nou.ca % supportM b 'r.i e development of speci8c -
Presentation of results were raised. A Copies of BranchT Poettions anay be obtaimd frasu the IowIAvel gr{teria and standants for the disposal of detailed analysis of the =n==nts on Waste IJcensing Branch. U.S. Nuclear now.levelwute.no ca====ts received the dran EIS willbe included as an Regulatory r'a===i==taa Washington,
.by the Comumulan on the advance.
- appandiv to the Baal EIS (NUREG-ce45) modce were used by the a==ta= ton in which is being prepared 8 D C 30 H 5.
~
5-r rest runfteest seronanavloss coesvacT:
scoping the form and content of the dran o,,g,,g /.,,,,==ats se le CFR Part Paul H.tahaus.Iow-IAvel Waste
( Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) '
gg i1--'a= Branch. Division of Wasta 3(.NUREG-0782) and the regulation..
~
Management. Of5ce of Nuclear Material Onfebruary 28.19e0. the t'a==i==lon A total of107 different persons
. Safety and Safeguards.U.S. Nuclear also published a Notice of Availability submitted comments on me proposed to Regulatory t'a==iataa W of a preliminary draft regulation, dated CFR Part al.ne commenters November 5.197s. announ represented a variety,in interests.
DC 20655, telephone (301)427-4500.
, availability of the draft for lic review Com==nts were received from:19 Suppt.aassstrany seromanaTBoot -
e and comment (45 FR13104).his was ladustrial groups.17 state groups.15
~.
done to help ensure wide distribution individuals.13 utilities, e federal c
%e NRCis===ading its regulations. and early public review and comment agendes or laboratories. 6 universities. 4, to provide specinc requirements for on the development of the rule. Copies medicalgroups 4engineeringfirms 4 Bassing the land disposal of low level of this draft regulation were distributed public interest groups. 4 professional radioactive wastes containing source, to aH of the States.
- organiutions. 3 broker / disposal firms. 2 special nuclear, or L,y..,J=.i material During the summer and fall of1980.
^
ne amendments provide licensing the Commission also sponsored four ic sinetihnenrat ybeobtainedbywrman procedures, performance objectives, and regionalworkshops to provide an we=at to th Dhi=6am of Tech =6 cal h8==asa al technical criteria for licensing facilities opportunity for open dialogue among w % *. Yn.b'"'k*'"
C for the land disposalof radioactive reptwentatives of the States, public asprime for a s etib. tote P bue oscum t j
waste. Specifically, the regulations
' interest groups, industry, and others on asom.my H sent NW.waabinston. RC.
j' l
=
.h.
O
Federal Register / Vol 47. No. 248 / Monday. Deceanber 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 57459
~.
review of Ibn laitial application as been added to the Concepts section.
In the esse ed the post. closure care
/ provided in Sebpart F of part si.
eL7.
period, the limasee would be responsible lor aH activities at the sua
^'
- Aboet twenty sammenters addrund f E I".--
?'J A
- \\
/ the _,,y.utemess of thesso yearBait ~
by the 'a==laalaa to
-'-'y two doses comunesters.found r
the mealth and asfety.
)
en lastitwelonel controle and its e5ect on responded to tbs propeeed Anancial alresponsibuity for activities
' wastes acceptable for disposal under asserance ::ogairements for closure and the ame6oes prucrbdby art s1.'AB.p N ars.In genatal. the duringilu hetitettonal sentrol period.'
p ossunenters,.__ ' support in one sammenters -r - -d for the are a matter to be worked out between e
my or anotherfordenning a time frame sele's est= Mal==* of the site owaar (i.a,. the Stsee or Federal for institutional osotrol related either to assurances for doeure and for long tenn Coossament) and the he===aa in their l 'l ii
- the hasard duredon of the waste or ears of a Lt.W d'ap==al site.
lease er otherlegeDy binding t
- assersnoe of-a--dgovernment.'
C'====an== mentioned that the adsting arrangement. it is possible that if the.
stabilityeremocorn.It wu generaDy historyofILW disposal sites revealed a, site owner were a stata, would aged that wastethat was tiaDy - strong md to mp*e licensees to work est an arrangement by the hazardous after the end of ammd demonstrate evidemos of Anancial
. sier operator woeld causet a sarcharge insutadonal contmis should be disposed res so that the e health from weste generatoes for the of by methods
.;dhg yeatercontrols safety were and also so institutionalcentralp= dad Derights.
and assurances"sgainstpotential
.,that p=*=a'ia11 IIHan do not rest with and responsibilitass of the State and the acpoem.nese comments m lads d to state taxpayers.
t llosasse would be d=*=rmfand at such e -
l e
88'88*I 88"""*"'s felt that tim J time.' '
4.p..*
..r.-
i support the provisions dPart.81 that t
P
- a==eA=1 requirements should prorW With regasd to meetingencies, one t.
4 p Ma=insutunonalcontmis wtth / -
more detan.no t'a===ta iaa. agrees and a====ater also asked who would.. -
~ f weste form, she chmetertsdes, and site design and operssons to provW.
has prepared a draft Branch Technical assume responsibuity for a site and its assernaces that potential exposures wGl postoon on Funding Arrangements for j waste when it was clobed J
be with aceptable Ilmits. Cass Awasta Gese and for Term Care of a f prma y by the RC.due to rule
~
that is potentiaDy accessible and -
ELW Diapa31:1 Site t provides violation. Responsibility for a site closed
'marecognizable is no lonser hazardous deSanive guidam for evalesting all penaturely by the MC would after 100 years. Special provisions for A==netal assuranas,inclueng smty on the situation. Ad&donaHy.
bonds.- -
would be a last smrt of the weste being in a =*=ht-faa= =ad la
---'a t One of the major potats raised bya
a-at-lon since the agency has other,
bGled le avna nTes or -
variety of oosenesters was that the authorities, such as civu penalties. to,.,
~unacceptab
~
,,rgggggg up to 500 yem.
regulation faBed to address require Moensee compliance. In the annetal responsibihty for eventit would become necessary to Dere were a an=hn ofsupstions unendrica'ad u -
es at a l.I.W ~
dose the site for heshk and safety ed d d " ""
n ',
disposal site.One group expressed reasons, the rule prasides that the
.,,, emm m no concern tha Bcensee continues to be r==pa==ible
,,,,, y,,,.t the regal =Han= set the,
e Dem 8PPear to lm two basic r===ana tax peyer funded bau.out" until the hcanse is turndneted. In the for &ese -
One raaman is eat of poorly.een disposal sites.ney felt event that the br==
's Snancial lasutudans such as a state ce se
.. the indestry abould bear these costs, a==h*ian desanorated so thathe was -
. Federalgoe=nn===t canssasonably be and that the regulations should be enable to maintain the site to protect the l
expected to smies formuch longer written to anska this explicit. Anathar publichealth and
, then the l
than too years. A second reason is that comunenter noted that the acperience of Commission would pro bly require the the m year ratdction oninstitudonal care affects the weste cane==* cations the S. tate ofIcentucky with h4axey Flats - site owner (either the State or Federal 2 g, ce dmaldag government) to assumeMuny at m
acceptable for disposal as cass A cositingency funds available in the event the site.
waste wHh multant higher costs to &e.
that serises problems occur.ney felt t Regardless of who aamuned waste generator.Wuh asspect to the this lasse should be addressed in the responsibihty for a prematurely closed first season, the 'a-minalan feels that it rulemaldag. One State further noted that site, the rules require tbst a Econsee r
is not a question of howlong the the r de failed to mention who would be gover====t can survive, but how long EmanciaDy respons!W if proWam occur ~beve evellable at all times she Efa, sumelent na==rimi guarantees
.should they be expected to provide et the site that cost more than wm to ensure that sufficient funds are s
custodial care.Besed on work done bY budgeted on an assumption of nonnal available for site closure and EPA. public comments on a prelisninary opmdon.new quadens whch a dea===l==ioning. nase funds would be draft of Part at and an advanced notice of &Nmat scenado@ Acts avaHsW for pro y maln'afning ee of prDPosed rul making andiour of licensee seghgence. etc.) that it siteif the '
lic==== were unable
/
agional wnd= haps, a clear consana=*
le not possible to specificaDy respond to to do so.
was developed which supported the m all of the potential' contingencies.
Several comunesters considered that
! s yearlimit.no t'a== lesion has not seert & wever a general response to the the rule should resolve the issue of any compeBing===aa= to change its overeB issue of ibHity for na==ei=1 responsibthty for contingencies view on the m yearlimit-contingencies at a
-level waste by requiring liability insurance or Some eaan===*== expressed the view disposal site is possible.Dese l specific language that licensees would that the government landowner should co===nta cover two different time be required to indemnify property
- have flexibuity in controning site access periods-the post-closure period, when owners in ca.e of off-site migration.
during the institutional contr61 period
. the originallicensee is stiu responsible Although not proposed in the origins!
rule, the staff evaluation of these pubbo and that productive uses of the land at the site. and the institutional control -
which would not affect site lategrity period, when the license has been comments indicates there is a need for should be permitted.ne Co==iinston transferred to the landowner of the site lie===ees to provide financial 1
agme and words to that effect have for a period of up to one hundred years.
responsibiLty for liability coverage for 9
g g.
- c_
.57460 Federal Resister / Yhl'47. N2. 248 / Monday. December 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations eff.eite bodily injury and property misvanable at this time. However, the discussion with the State or tribal damage.h Commission thinks the Commission included this alternative in body. At the request of the public health and safety and the -
the rule in the event that this type of t of the Interu, a statement
)'
environment would be protected fraca severage becomes avaGable in the was added to l 2.1eL to indicate that the
/
amanticipated contingencies by such lasurance market at a later thne.
Cominission wlB inform the U.S. Bureau esvers as well as eastating the States Commenters were also divided about ofIndian A5 airs when tribes have been in esta disposal sites. Four
. whetherthe
==t-w hould allow motiSed of the Bling of an appIlcation. -
r s
existing LLW disposal fedlities.-
self-insurance as a samaelat assurance ne -=laak has been==- ' '==
e surreauy carry this type of liability
- for closure. Several commenters felt that ways by which the licensing process can
' Cr
. and several other State and self.insur9 ace would not satisfy the be shortened in thne. One way is to -
F agencies, including IPA have surety n ts, and they conduct activities in parallel where
/
hnposed shallar. -4 ta for secommended that licensees should be poselble, rather than sequentiaDy. One.
l hasardous andmadio ective' waste.
.gequired to place spectSc funds la such area is in the submittal and -
1 facilities in order to protiet the public
- esceow to enver easts of.
evelaation of le by States and health and safety and the environment.. deccatamination, closure and Indian tribes participationin the However, at the present thna, the stabGisation. Another comunenter NRClicense review, as provided by r==i=w's only statutory framework
~ _ _f that self. insurance be based Sobpart F. As proposed,8 81.72 would for establishing such a requirement is en an annual subadttal o( Annandal provide up to sao days after an Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act.
reports. l.a., a Aaaaetal test.
, application was docketed for a State or also known as the "P6 Anderson" ne %==a=6 rejected the use of tribe to submit a proposal for
~ "
r Act.nis type of coverage is designed to,. stand alone "self-insurance" based on participation.no thne from initial nover " catastrophic events
- prhnaruy r
the %==8aaw's lack of aanAntan= la submittal of the application untD it has.
for nocle.ar reactor than=== and the tids method to provide adequate be'en docketed is estimated to be so.
r i-w feels this soverage would assmances.Further, state ofBelats have de or more.nas, there is a potential be in excess of the risk at a low-level informany expressed the need to have of tao days between the time NRC weste faculty.nerefore,the <,
tangible funds available friim the receive a proposal and could b*
t-=I= ton has not established a third Bcensee for site closure, so the State as begin the serious consideration of the party liab0ity requirement in this landowner would not be left Ananel=11y proposal Until resolution were reached segulation.h r--lamian wiB responsible.While not spectBeaHy on the role a State or tribes would play
)strongly encourage licensees to cointinue eBowing its ase on a generic basis in the in the review,the NRC's review of the to carry third party liability insurance rule, the f'-I-wwill evaluate the application could be =5ia--atly.
eoverage through the conventional use of Anaariat tests proposed by.
, hampered.
hourance market..
Ile=an=== on a case.by. case basis..
De LowInvelRadioactive Weste
~
A variety of comments were received r%===aters also support Policy Act of1sso clearly states that it is "s
concerning the short term Anancial
. -for the need to have a term care -
a State's responsibuity to provide for the.
)
assurances required for closure and
- fund established at.the thne a license is - disposal oflow level waste.ne Act
,y A
"; Several aa==ane=s.
Issued. Some -ters wanted the also provides for tfie formation of
- supported the rule's use of a variety of
-rule to explicitly require the licensee to hterstate aa par += for this purpose.
..- strerent options for closure. noting that set asidefundeforlong-term care.
subject to Congressional approvat Hus.
Aavihility was crucialif the proposed However, the %==t=w currentl any. application for a disposal facility r
lacks the a="'% w.-... a = y license wH1have had State or compact rule was to function in s r==aaaahta manner.
to estatlish a fund to provde forlong-__
participation and backing for a d - Other aa-a== tare expressed support term care or tne site after the license is miralArmat penod of time before ' -
for the rule's provialon requiring that the terminataa. Ipstead, the r_
submittalDuring this time, the amount of surety Babuity change with.
can only require a Ilconsee to provide th=I=w beheves that the State wul changes la cost eslhnates.9ne.
evmanca or entertas into a lease or have hadample ai+,.^ Jty to somumenter also was concerned that the other Dinding arrangement with the site
' determine what role it wants to play in
- Anan, sal surety arrangements incsease owner : - :======== a a parties
-the review of the application.nis also la vahiie over thne to comp===te for the have establishel a-=_-91 melbility holds tree for other States that are effects ofinflatiour.no rule aDows the for long-tenn care between themselves.
parties to anlaters:ste compact.
thaa.I=laa to periodically assess the l With regard to the lack of authority, one nerefore. I 81.72is being changed to amount of funds collected for both person suggested that the Commission
. require that a 1 from the State in and post <:losure care of the site ask Congress for authority to require which the ty is proposed, or from if necessary, the %n= lank could Ansacial assurances for licensees for the any State involved in a compact with r
l the Anancial assurances to be active lastitutional control period. no the State, must be submitted within 45 lucreased to account forinDation.
NRC has raised this laaue with c
_=,ess days after the, application has been enforeseen problems, and namaticipated both in testimony and in a letter tendered.However, the Commission
- === an - __-te I-=i=Istion.
notes that a more prompt submittal by costs.
r%=-ters
. _ _ _ M support for SubporteMarticipation byState the State would help reduce delays. -
I the variety of alternatives allowed to Coretrunents eruf fndian 7ribes. Many Al it is to be hoped that the demonstrate short term Aaaacial of the comments on Subpart F were States informladian tribes of plans I
sosponsibility. However, several concerned with laterpretations and for disposal facilities and provide them commenters mentioned that no clari5 cations.nese nave been with sufEcdont information to permit eesimercial market exists to provide
, answered in the detailed analysis of them to make a proposal at an early
- serety bands of the type mentioned in comunents.Two noteworthy changes time, there is no way of ensuring this.
l the rule.In developing the rule, the were made. In I s1.71. a change was Herefore. Indian tribes and States not r==8-ion is aware that surety bands made to ensure that the Director shall covered above will be given 120 days of the type proposed in the rule may be make Commission staff swallable for from the tendering of an application to g
g a
o 9
e e
_-.m..
__ _ _ _ _