[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17562]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 61
RIN 3150-AE88
Land Ownership Requirements for Low-Level Waste Sites
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is
withdrawing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that presented a
possible change to the NRC Federal or State land ownership requirements
for low-level waste (LLW) facility sites. The Commission has decided
that a rule change to allow private ownership of a LLW site is not
warranted or needed. The basis for this decision is that States and
compacts have generally indicated that they do not need, nor would they
allow, private ownership, and that this rule change could be
potentially disruptive to the current LLW program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 3, 1994 (59 FR 39485), the
Commission published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
to consider amending its regulations to allow private ownership of LLW
facility sites as an alternative to the current requirement for Federal
or State ownership. In the ANPRM, the Commission requested information
on specific questions that dealt with (1) the potential use of this
alternative, (2) impacts to public health and safety or the
environment, and (3) liability considerations.
The 60-day comment period was extended another 60 days at the
request of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (October 20,
1994; 59 FR 52941). The comment period expired on December 2, 1994. The
Commission received 49 comment letters: 19 commenters were from States,
compacts, or their representatives; 12 were from public organizations;
11 were from commercial/industrial organizations or their
representative; 4 were from individuals; and 1 each were from a Federal
agency, a national laboratory, and a professional organization. Most of
the commenters took a definitive position regarding whether to initiate
a proposed rule. For the most part the commenters, at a ratio of about
4 to 1, were against developing a generic rule. The Commission prepared
a detailed summary of the comments received. Copies of the summary are
available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public
Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington DC; the
PDR's mailing address is US NRC, Mail Stop LL-6, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone (202)634-3273; fax (202)634-3343.
As noted in the ANPRM, the purpose for making a generic rule change
would be to facilitate the objectives of the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended. Therefore, as noted in the ANPRM,
the NRC was particularly interested in determining whether Agreement
States or compacts would use a provision allowing private ownership of
the land for a LLW facility. The Commission believes that if there did
not seem to be a significant interest or need for such a provision,
addressing private ownership issues through appropriate exercise of
exemption authority would be sufficient.
The Agreement State and compact commenters generally indicated that
they would not allow private land ownership, and in many cases, State
ownership of the land is required by State law or regulation. Of the 19
comments from States, compacts, or their representatives, only Nebraska
indicated a desire to actively consider changes permitting private
ownership. Nebraska and the Cortland County, New York, Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Office stated that there is not an adequate basis for
requiring Federal or State land ownership, which therefore would
support private ownership. The Commission believes there is adequate
statutory authority for the NRC to require Federal or State land
ownership. Moreover, because Nebraska is the only additional State
considering changes permitting private ownership, the Commission
believes assisting Nebraska on a case-specific basis, if requested and
appropriate, is preferable to developing a generic rule change.
Many commenters, including States and compacts, also believe that
this type of change to 10 CFR part 61 is not only unnecessary but would
be a significant disruption to the current siting and licensing
process. As one commenter noted, this would have a negative impact on
public health and safety because it would affect the timely development
of new LLW disposal facilities needed to reduce on-site storage at
thousands of licensee sites throughout the country. The Commission
believes that these comments have merit. The Commission believes that
the potential negative impact of disrupting the current process far
outweighs any potential benefits that might be derived from making a
generic rule change at this time.
This change could also generate significant public misunderstanding
and unwarranted public concern about the potential rollback of other
LLW disposal requirements. The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory's
National Low-Level Waste Management Program summarized this issue,
stating:
For over three decades the public has been led to believe that
all LLW disposal sites would necessarily be owned and controlled by
either a Federal or State government. This, we believe, has been an
important factor in convincing many proponent groups and State and
local LLW advisory groups that LLW can and will be disposed of in a
safe manner. To now try and convince these groups that Federal or
State ownership of LLW disposal sites is not required, may be
difficult and generate a significant credibility problem.
The Commission has not objected to private ownership of the
Envirocare site under Agreement State authority in the State of Utah
because of special reasons and provisions applicable to that site. The
Commission believes that if any other State desires to use an exemption
provision, a case-specific evaluation would be conducted, as was done
for the State of Utah. Any evaluation would consider whether the
underlying purpose of governmental ownership, assuring the existence of
a responsible entity for long-term care and monitoring of the site, can
be achieved.
For the reasons discussed, the Commission is withdrawing the ANPRM.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of July, 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-17562 Filed 7-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P