[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18735]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 3, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its
regulations to allow private ownership of Low-Level Radioactive Waste
facility sites as an alternative to the current requirement for Federal
or State ownership. Information to twelve questions is requested to
assist in determining if such a change could be made without adversely
impacting public health and safety.
DATES: The comment period expires October 3, 1994. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received
on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Examine copies of comments received at: The NRC Public Document
Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555, telephone (301) 415-6196.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC regulations for licensing land disposal of radioactive
waste require that the land must be owned by the Federal or State
government (Sec. 61.59(a)). This requirement was issued to assure
control of the disposal site after closure, and thereby reduce the
potential for inadvertent intrusion, better ensure integrity of the
site, and facilitate monitoring of site performance.
However, on June 28, 1993, the NRC found acceptable an exemption to
the above land ownership requirement that was granted to Envirocare of
Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) by the State of Utah (an Agreement
State1). The State of Utah, using the exemption provision in its
regulations, issued an exemption to the land ownership requirement when
it issued a license to Envirocare on March 21, 1991, for the land
disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW). Under the exemption,
Envirocare will remain the property owner and remain responsible for
the site under the license through the 100 year post-closure period
(referred to as the active institutional control period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the
Commission has the authority to relinquish part of its regulatory
authority to a State, contingent upon making a determination that
the State's regulatory program is compatible with the Commission's
and adequate to protect the public health and safety. Twenty nine
States, under formal agreements with the Commission, have assumed
this regulatory responsibility. Negotiations with other States are
underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission initially reviewed the State of Utah's exemption in
April 1992, and determined that the State of Utah had not provided
sufficient rationale for issuing the exemption to the land ownership
requirement. Subsequently, the NRC proposed, and the State of Utah and
Envirocare agreed to, additional provisions imposed by the State of
Utah upon Envirocare.
The restrictions on the land imposed by the State of Utah were
zoning the property for industrial waste and writing a restrictive
covenant which was added as an annotation to the land record. The
covenant adds additional restrictions regarding future activities and
uses of the land to ensure its integrity, and remains in effect
indefinitely.
To provide assurance of financial surety, the State of Utah
required Envirocare to establish a trust account under the control of
the State. The disbursement of the funds from the account must be
approved by the State.
The Commission staff, in response to a 2.206 petition from US
Ecology, is reviewing whether the State of Utah is controlling
Envirocare's LLW site in a manner that provides a substantially
equivalent level of protection of the public health and safety as is
provided by Federal or State site ownership. The Envirocare site may
present a special case for private ownership. On the other hand, it is
possible that land use controls could be used at other LLW sites
without requiring government ownership; therefore, the Commission is
considering amending 10 CFR Part 61 to provide a generic basis for
allowing the use of such controls as an alternative to government
ownership.
Specific Proposal
The Commission is considering amending Sec. 61.59 to allow private
ownership of a LLW disposal site under provisions similar to those used
for Envirocare by the State of Utah as discussed above. Specifically,
Sec. 61.59(a) would be modified to permit private ownership of a LLW
disposal site, provided that the integrity of the disposal site is
ensured after closure.
Specific Considerations
Advice and recommendations on a proposed rule reflecting the
foregoing and on any other points considered pertinent are invited from
all interested persons. Comments and supporting reasons are
particularly requested on the following questions:
1. The Commission considers that an amendment to 10 CFR Part 61 as
described in this ANPRM could facilitate the objectives of the Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1985, as amended, by allowing
States additional flexibility in developing new low-level radioactive
waste disposal facilities. Would this change be useful for other LLW
disposal sites or is it likely that the Utah exemption was one of a
kind? The NRC would specifically request Compacts and Agreement States
to inform us if private ownership for any potential site in their
region is possible or is precluded by State laws or other provisions.
2. Would this change facilitate or hinder future licensing of LLW
facilities?
3. Would this change have any adverse impacts on public health and
safety and protection of the environment?
4. Would the responsible regulatory agency lose any control over
the disposal site if it is not owned by the Federal or State
government?
5. Are there valid reasons why land ownership requirements for NRC-
regulated disposal sites should be more restrictive than EPA-regulated
hazardous waste, municipal waste, and Superfund facilities, where
government ownership is not usually a requirement?
6. How would private ownership affect liability for a disposal
site?
7. Would States' concerns about assuming liability for a disposal
site be alleviated by this proposal?
8. Would deletion of the State or Federal ownership requirement
eliminate governmental liability under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) for releases
from the site and, if so, does this change have any adverse impacts on
public health and safety and protection of the environment, including
after the active institutional control period?
9. Should the NRC consider allowing a site owner to be only the
licensee, or broaden the proposal to allow other private ownership?
10. Should there be a time period after which the licensee can
request termination of the license, even though the land might remain
in private ownership?
11. If the NRC were to implement this proposal, are the surety
requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart E, sufficient?
12. Under Sec. 61.80(e), all records are to be transferred to
Federal and/or State agencies at the time of license termination. If
the license remains in effect during the active institutional control
period (licensee is site owner), would there be a need for this records
transfer?
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 61
Criminal penalties, Low-level waste, Nuclear materials, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
The authority citation for this document is: Secs. 53, 57, 62,
63, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 948, 953,
954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2201,
2232, 2233); secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5842,
5846); secs. 10 and 14, Pub. L. 95-601, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C.
2021a and 5851).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July, 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 94-18735 Filed 8-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
