ML20210N127
| ML20210N127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 02700039 |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1986 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702130055 | |
| Download: ML20210N127 (8) | |
Text
F
- s l
O Isl 5 irSI OM Yu Ct Vla 5d5 of [4ftsf g r oposofs , ,
b 1 b eis c4 osEaloy. Fu od and.hoo I ho< s W if.
p posM5 rnd cuv Lond.fions cad if any desur issus.5 exisI.
1 Ad n6i in clud, my Thru.'way fdb. (NE condiA wsw5 b6f. f)if@S v]ois (Of 0 $Ck vems ()6b Counh prop 0 Sed) g<l7 wwAx 3 2J . Illinois pwposal vi d k dang $ sep,end M 4
~
3 g b s de %+ tow 4ki sca awfdicl .
Somf La ws mo% is s +y J. st ox % on) w.,4+,;<s(J.
prOhn N VA A0 \G bok) hiS C.emp<riSan snol Yttheki k4S
+k (ni J Ard. 00 a cowc l,ssoa on o s s pIqa3 or c ac,ghel
( d Lots gg <> h of ['/!#*1
"'Wd' y,.,
, c e i ~ i~ . y a
(.tync hi N4 n U - .
WM Record File WM Pro l ct O. d.7__
____. DocketH0..___. _ _ . _
POR LP DR _ /_ ... . . ._
Distriht1;__ ____ _ _ . _ . .._
_ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _. i - - - - _ _ _ _
^
8702130055 960801 }~Retur.1 to WM. G23 SS)
~ ~ ~ ~
BpliM brdt keviw of -
USE a:xmtepayomI (6//t/sc) '
and Zginoja mosal Of(iffs)
(Ascompc4 to I, AIA C org in d 15eend;f;ons
- 1. Cav <tn + sfdf viss bas <d on more mnt bfe.)
condihon 1 -
% th gwm .
b prdtv OndHio n 1 De peoWem CondWI on 3 = % i' abc.Lwn+ 6 At h ,l3 .J;F J2si r ,.
~'
[A n nO r
~.
% pr oblem.w.1h Illj som g r e bbts with U S 6 AG= ,? % a ~ <L ,, e + A ; W a ii yroloa L!y Joe.
Q -d by AI>4 % but St4ft. a((otd [b b 4. c -
&rc5~7 -
Lws M 1 was ; a nu <es s s,d
o- t
.. u .
11, 3.E-av, Sly Od 4 marlof e4isb for 3rd gavf lisL,My /nswand '
in gepe.tety" H F,6/4 caephl,le.
UK -
( b~ho opiMon yCI KF/e/H - finanad ted des ,t.t M (2/95 unss gwdena on po&t W aay y guaronk C_en t, % n d .
Pad,l y no pekb. Jah hoppo yme susy; ie,d,c,p.n tbs q.4-4. wal due. WA 8P shff.
Conts h 5 frobles.1 CWAJ eo k u y L. m,4 mal L J f mo. ,ms dy s;m in powd- _.-
plaus kof_ p dbms Ie r.ito<irt)
Air pathway no+ Am Grouvd ude?lL fv f<i+iament. y k%d fo< c+ks, c sn h t a ts, ev. C, a,d Co k L htead
%3 wnees does od ask 6< ALARA. ALATA not by
,;_ a t.( % my w t h s)
Condi%n 6 Not M & %ck it. Staf f moJJ not gm a4eb, inska i 6) e int <mmt mon; to<i$ nw tm4 and 6-
%k sms; Cz)A w -tsytv c.w so thd can (Me sh (2.81 (insbJ d misg usic).
} Cond'tf on 7
~
4 frolokm . Posi k u s<ons nid sc y v5 4m nof 6 eactd SE migdon insdfie.iedy known.
Nortunt of Cs crJ G espesdly <s im b ,/y 4wun.
Ce d rian t ord 7
. Pw6le,_
Cover- W WI L In d y te.
~
USL proyoses to use laul muwl flat is. net +ndy a. eky.
M cq.A (o- & ,
ovig ( c.yy5 no, lal<<fixo.
E.rozicm ( <o +eek en .'n a % aej h slop s e, day a >!-J+
m,.,
fkinks thy mipt k (gfj, informdian prou; h d; huf if c>p due net ated fv, ,ck .ym eksaison .+ sh 041
Impks s%.y sloy s.} . %p do,.s r no;< abl% <-p, eVvfh%<. <-ew std%w nt 4- h<ct<. s(cys.
Oaken iE ema;n cup will k. ~ s k o g inel a y
s-Jss. Usss sbk.es 6 sw fo m of mi yA, pow.
Cort, hon 10
%h1oQtm. Clunc4 racA b m<l wN d =>1t. ,wybe
_ ed k om my ,laima e e rc .
1 ,_.
u m i . = y . -,
74
,,.m c k :, 2 = L c= J s h. :, catihh3 oryn ec s sf +wy pWh mobilr% nueS&s. % , k ar y nics 2 an m># of ~ ha w d sl,c.n redio nu elk , on a comput:v<.
- . bsn accordin$ ft, e f A Jrin king s A do h .
e u.f A l E 5f< b u m J n = R 8 sih. ma y glso k ant & h$ o ry nics A t vy L<. htobihtg e deAS.
1 S wisid, isgh lsje.ed wort m.bw'sheig , CoistifNniS Merido<1 W (s ina ryrich, Se cc8 e crynics sk.uJ L mw.tuj, ona # bs, = Lvy w-La< 6 ce % h ts bu k cm(y m).
s L
\ % p <c%
F-
- t
. ,, e io pah ,
Cx&hn a Do p<4lm.
CencbNn W b o p c elo} D +1 9
froutm sa. GnLhon 5,7;10 90 ca p uty m ahn c h ut mowibig lsc$
.b$
5b4( wants on sh. Wls fu mJ y went$, pl e om W ls km plan + , p As utts ox b;A A eMsat bW LW(.4.sp. ss of s;1e. 4.<. wdu hvA sy 4 h swkf;cAQly dn.g to effecfMj deck mip fimj uso s has xb sG A s t< )
M. M_ e i a w urneow--
l y%0 7b n
.. . _ - - __. .- ~ _ . . . - - - - - . _ . - . -. _.- - -
e
- h an bby ,
1
~
- 1 NOTE FOR: Maxine Dunhman, WMLU FROM: Mary Jo Seeman, WMPC i
SUBJECT:
MY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF STATE AND COMPANY SETTLEMENT .
PROPOSALS FOR SHEFFIELD As we discussed here is my " quick and dirty" review of these documents, !
along with the December,1982 letter from Browning to Scoville discussing
! the NRC staff determinations. My review was done based on 10 CFR Part 4 61 financial assurance requirements, although that regulation is for new LLW disposal sites, and does not strictly apply to "old" disposal sites, such as the Sheffield site. I also considered the proposals in light of the i ANPRM on financial responsibility for cleanup of accidents.
I do not feel it is appropriate to get into a discussion of the merits of the settlement proposals of the two sides in the area of financial responsibility.
The state has a lease at the facility, and as the landlord, would appear to
< have the right to set terms and conditions more stringent that what NRC regulations
) or the NRC staff would find sufficient. !
Please note that this review was done on my lunch hour on August 1, and that these views are mine alone as a staffperson. They have not been concurred l in by anyone. If you require a more in-depth analysis on financial
! responsibility issues raised in these documents for the ACRS pre-hearing l conference on Sheffield in August, and/or desire WMPC input formally, I would suggest your management prepare such a request, have it ticketed, and send i it to WMPC through the regular management channels.
I would also recomend that you seek OELD/0GC's legal advice to help you g lls N in your assessment for the pre-hearing conference. They would also be able to help you assess if there is any applicability of RCRA financial Y A responsibility requirements for " mixed wastes" found at the facility. j
- 1. April 4. 1986 Settlement Position of the State
- a. II.D Legal responsibilities for transfer. At a first reading, I find '
nothing here that would appear to conflict with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 61 or the 12/82 staff determinations. .
I b. II.E. 3rd Party Insurance. -
Nothing appears to conflict with 10 CFR Part 61. It appears that conditions are likely more stringent (i.e., " maximum available third party liability insurance") than what probably would be required by that rulemaking, because at this time, staff thinking is to set maximum stated dollar figures for coverage for NRC licensees, includino LLW disposal sites.
i l
'5-
~
2 However, it is my understanding, that through the lease on the site, the State '
of Illinois has the option of being more stringent in this area than is required by federal standards. As a general note, I think it may be optimistic to
! assume that a market exists for third party liability insurance "in perpetuity.'"
- .c. II.F. Perfomance Guarantee i
Again these requirements could be imposed by the state as a lease condition.
However, to the average reader such as myself, it is unclear from the text l why the company is being asked to deposit funds into an escrow or IDNS funds to cover obligations for IIA. IIB, and IIE, and why the company is being asked 4
to IIDp(ost 2) and an(3).
irrevocable letter of language Some explanatory credit to meet in hereitswould obligations under be helpful. IIC and However, both types of assurances are acceptable under the BTP on funding arrangements .
4 for closure and post closure care of LLW disposal sites licensed under 10 CFR ,
- Part 61.
- d. II. G and H. Perpetual Care l This section appears to go beyond what is currently required in current NRC regulations found in 661.63. It apparently requires the company to provide sufficient funds to pay for post-closure monitoring in perpetuity, j while NRC regulations only state that coverage be in place during the j institutional control period. (ButI control period to last in perpetuity!) guess, Again,we it iscould define the institutional my understanding that at the landlord, the state has the right to establish such conditions.
However, any discussion regarding financial responsibility requirements during '
the institutional control period is premature, because the Comission has stated in its Regulatory Agenda to Congress that it intends to develop <
regulations in this area under the authority provided by the NWPA.
- 2. June 16, 1986 U.S. Ecology Settlement Proposal / Outline I II.E Third Party Insurance l
It would be preliminary to say that the ANI facility fom liability ;
9 policy or amount or period of coverage would be acceptable if the ANPRM .. ,
on financial responsibility were implemented. However, this type of 4 ,
policy was reviewed by the Staff in their Analysis of coments for that !
- rulemaking, j II. F/G/H Performance Guarantee /Long Tenn Care / Contingency fund Again, as previously mentioned any conclusions at this time would be preliminary, pending the NRC's rulemaking on financial responsibility for i the institutional control period. However, as a general note, the financial test suggested by the company would not appear to meet the conditions set by '
l NMSS in its December, 1985 policy guidance on parent company guarantees.
_ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ~ . U