Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee

APPENDIX B

Low Level Radioactive Waste Facility Siting Process

The statutory siting process for a low level radioactive waste disposal facility is similar to the other facility types in terms of notification requirements, public hearings, appeals and deadlines. The siting process resembles a hazardous waste siting in terms of council membership, decision making, voting requirements, application fee and municipal input. However, there are some differences in the siting process with regards to application content, local project review grant amount, host municipality compensation and incentives, siting decision criteria, and council follow up. The following summarizes the significant differences in the siting certification process for a low level radioactive waste disposal facility as compared to a hazardous waste management facility.

Application Filing. Similar to a hazardous waste facility siting, a low level radioactive waste disposal facility applicant must provide information on the provisions for mitigating the effects of the operation of the facility on public safety and the environment, closure and postclosure plans, a plan for meeting all the financial requirements of a low level radioactive waste operator/owner, applicant qualifications and experience, criminal and civil charges and enforcement actions related to low level radioactive waste, as well as the incentives offered and benefits accruing to the municipality in which the proposed facility is to be located. The additional information required by statute for the low level radioactive waste applicant includes more comprehensive description and analysis of the facility's ownership, design, method of low level radioactive waste management, construction, operation, schedule, and security. Council regulations require the low level radioactive waste applicant to demonstrate compliance with minimum distance requirements. The regulation specifies the minimum distance between active parts of the facility and a safety fence, any water supply or water table, and includes areas prohibited from low level radioactive waste disposal development. Applicants must identify all existing and planned schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and occupied dwellings within a 2 mile radius of the facility. The applicant is required to provide documentation of compliance with all local, state and federal regulations, and submit pre-site selection property appraisals of all properties within a two mile radius of the proposed facility. The Council arbitrates all pre-site selection property appraisal disputes between the property owner and the applicant. (The mandated filing requirements for each type of facility are listed in Appendix A.)

Applications for a certificate of public safety and necessity for a low level radioactive waste disposal facility must provide proof of service and notification to the Northeast Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Commission (now known as the Atlantic Compact) and the Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service in addition to the entities and individuals previously listed for energy, telecommunications, and hazardous waste facilities.

Just as in a hazardous waste siting, low level radioactive waste disposal applicants are required to apply for all local permits at the same time as filing an application with the council. Local authorities may regulate and restrict the proposed low level radioactive waste disposal facility but must do so within 130 days of the application. Local decisions can be appealed to the council. An affirmative vote of eight council members is needed to override local decisions.

The compensation package for a low level radioactive waste host community is more comprehensive than for other facility types and includes an assessment, the costs for mitigating the social and economic impact of the facility, services and incentives. The types of compensation provided by statute are summarized in Table B-1.

 

   

Table B-1. LLRW Facility: Affected Community Compensation

Assessment

Percentage of quarterly gross receipts at the following rates:

a. 10% $0 up to $1.25 million

b. 5% over $1.25 to $2.5 million

c. 2.5% over $2.5 million

Mitigation

Up to $150,000 for items such as: "greenbelt" buffer; development of open space/recreational facilities; fire equipment; road repair

Compensation

Annual payment in lieu of taxes at industrial rate; cost of full time monitor (municipal employee); annual well testing within one mile of facility; property value guarantee (difference between market value and pre-site selection appraisal) within two mile radius for up to five years after operation

A local project review committee negotiates the costs for mitigating the social and economic impact of the facility with the low level radioactive waste developer. The low level radioactive waste developer is required to provide $100,000 (versus $50,000 for hazardous waste facility development) for use by the committee. The membership of the committee is slightly different than for hazardous waste negotiations since there is no maximum number of committee members. The chief elected official of each municipality in which the facility will be located may appoint three members to the committee and the chief elected official of the neighboring municipality most likely affected by the facility can appoint one member. The Council is the sole arbitrator of disputes arising from the negotiations. The Council's decision on whether to approve or deny the siting of the facility includes the items negotiated between the parties.

Council Deliberations. During the consideration of a low level radioactive waste disposal facility, council membership is expanded to include four ad hoc voting members, three of whom are electors from the municipality in which the proposed facility would be sited and one is an elector of the neighboring municipality most likely affected by the proposed site, all are appointed by the chief elected official from their respective municipality. For low level radioactive waste facility proceedings, council actions, with the exception of the override of local decisions, require the vote of seven members.

Similar to electric transmission, generating, and hazardous waste facilities, the council is required to issue its decision on a certificate within 12 months of receiving an application, the council can extend this deadline by another 180 days with the applicant's consent.

The statutory factors governing council decisions for a low level radioactive waste disposal facility are essentially the same as those established for hazardous waste facilities, however, a low level radioactive waste disposal siting utilizes additional criteria. The council must also consider compliance with the minimum distance requirements regulations, including considerations of the health and safety of persons occupying structures within a 2 mile radius of the facility.

Follow-Up and Monitoring Phase. The compliance mechanism for a low level radioactive waste disposal facility is slightly different than for other facility types since statutes specify the follow up timeframe. Within 60 days of completing construction, a low level radioactive waste disposal applicant must file a final report, which includes certification by the operator, and engineer that facility conforms to the specifications and requirements in the development and management report, the date operations will begin, and the actual construction costs. Within 90 days of receipt of final report or notice of full time operation, the council will review the facility and issue a final approval of completion of the development and management plan. The council can make recommendations necessary for final approval. A letter of completion is issued when the council determines the facility has been constructed and is operating in accordance with certificate of public safety and necessity. The council has the statutory authority to issue cease and desist orders and to suspend or revoke any permit issued by it upon a showing of cause and after a hearing.

Return to Year 2000 Studies

Return to Table of Contents