ML20245H518
| ML20245H518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/25/1989 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Mitchell G SENATE |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 CCS, NUDOCS 8902280359 | |
| Download: ML20245H518 (3) | |
Text
m 1.
- ' A ssu UNITED STATES o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
o
{
g,$
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 January 25, 1989 The Honorable George J. Mitchell United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Mitchell:
I am rcsponding to your December 22, 1988 letter to Chairman Zech, in which you inquired about who would be financially responsible and liable for a low-level radioactive waste disposal f acility after 100 years of _ institutional control, especially in the situation where Class C waste has been disposed of in the facility.
The responsible party would be the Federal or State government agency that owns the low-level waste disposal facility. NRC regulations, 10 CFR Part 61, (copy enclosed) require that the facility may only be located on land owned by the Federal or a State government. This requirement is intended to provids for long-term government control of the land used for disposal of low-level waste.-
In addition, two types of institutional control, termed active and passive, are associated with government land ownership.
Each is discussed further below.
Also, assuming that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act is in effect after the 100 year institutional control period, other responsible parties may be identified.
10 CFR Part 61 provides for active institutional control of a closed low-level waste facility by the Federal or State landowner for a 100-year institutional control period, after f acility closure. During that time, the regulation requires that the facility's custodial agency be licensed either by NRC or the appropriate Agreement State, pursuant to compatible Agreement State regulations. Further, the custodial agency must control access to the facility. At the end of the institutional control period, if the facility has performed satisfactorily, the license may be terminated in accordance with the terms of 10 CFR Section 61.31 (or compatible State regulation).
Beyond the 100-year active institutional control period no license is required. Passive institutional control of the site would be exercised by the government landowner through continued government land ownership and control of the site, appropriate restrictions on the property deed to restrict future land use, and the transfer of records detailing the location and quantity of wastes contained in the site to local, State and Federal agencies.
In the development of Part 61, NRC considered that active institutional controls should not be relied on after 100 years to protect the public health and l
l VQg uc07' acsw N
FULLTEXT ASCll SCAN o_
The Honorable George J. Mitchell 2
safety. After 100 years, continuing assurance of safety is provided by radioactive decay, the use of stable waste forms and barriers for higher activity wastes, and the continuance of the passive institutional controls mentioned above.
I hope that this has been responsive to your inquiry.
Sincerely,
\\
r in or Stell j J.
E(ecutive Direc r for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated l
..o, 1
On January 28, 1988, PSNH, which owns the largest Seabrook share (35.6 percent), filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy law protection with the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Manchester, New Hampshire.
On April 13, 1988, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB) requested the applicants to continue to keep the ASLAB advised on the PSNH financial qualification issue and, in particular, of relevant developments concerning the PSNH monthly contributive share payments and any other appro-priate additional matters pertaining to the PSNH payments. The applicants have since filed several separate responses.
On June 2, 1988, the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC), a Seabrook joint owner, decided to withhold further payments to the Project. MMWEC owns 11.6 percent of the project, the fourth largest share.
At the end of the quarter, the Appeal Board's decision was pending on whether a prima facie case had been made that the rule exempting public utilities from financial qualifications review should be waived.
If the Appeal Boaro decides that it has, the matter will be referred to the Commission for decision, as only the Commission may waive a rule.
(On July 5, 1988, the Appeal Board decided that a prima facie case was made. The Commission has received argument from the parties and is now considering the decision.)
.