Author: Andrew J. LeiterPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Radioactive waste disposal
Languages : en
Pages : 104
Book Description
Economic Impacts of 40 CFR 191
Author: Andrew J. LeiterPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Radioactive waste disposal
Languages : en
Pages : 104
Book Description
Economic Impacts of 40 CFR 191
Author: Andrew J. LeiterPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Radioactive waste disposal
Languages : en
Pages : 91
Book Description
Economic Impact Analysis for Amendments to Epa's Radioactive Waste Standards (40 Cfr Part 191)
Author: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Publisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781724263780
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 30
Book Description
Economic Impact Analysis For Amendments To Epa'S Radioactive Waste Standards (40 Cfr Part 191)
Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, 40 CFR Part 191
Author: Economic Impact Analysis for Amendments to EPA's Radioactive Waste Standards (40 CFR Part 191)
Author: United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Radiation Programs and Indoor AirPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Environmental policy
Languages : en
Pages : 25
Book Description
Economic Impacts of 40 CFR 191
Author: Andrew J. LeiterPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Radioactive waste disposal
Languages : en
Pages : 98
Book Description
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, 40 CFR Part 191
Author: United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Radiation ProgramsPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Environmental policy
Languages : en
Pages :
Book Description
Criteria for the Certification and Re-Certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the 40 Cfr Part 191 Disposal Regulations
Author: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Publisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781724256140
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 44
Book Description
Criteria for the Certification and Re-Certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance With the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations: Economic Impact Assessment Analysis for 40 CFR Part 194
Response to Comments for Amendments to 40 CFR Part 191
Author: United States. Environmental Protection AgencyPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Radioactive waste disposal
Languages : en
Pages :
Book Description
A Review of the Methods Used by the US Environmental Protection Agency to Assess the Financial Impacts of the Repository Regulations
Author: Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 24
Book Description
All Federal agencies must consider the financial impacts of their regulations. When costs significantly outweigh benefits, the Office of Management and Budget can recommend that Congress not provide the funds needed to implement the regulation. Without funds, the agency is forced to either revise or retract the regulation. This has happened previously with a regulation on uranium mill tailings proposed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and it could happen again with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that govern the disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW). The EPA (1985, 1992) claims that its regulation: ''Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste'' (40 CFR Part 191 or standards) does not increase costs above what the US Department of Energy (DOE) would spend anyway or, at most, what the DOE would spend to comply with 10 CFR Part 60: a regulation promulgated by the NRC. This report reviews and disputes the EPA claim. In Chapter 2 a summary of the basis for the EPA claim is presented and in Chapter 3 a critique of the basis of the claim is presented. This critique finds the EPA basis unrealistic, incomplete, and misleading. According to the EPA, a repository at Yucca Mountain would easily meet 40 CFR Part 191 even without the use of special engineered barriers. Because the NRC regulation (10 CFR Part 60) requires engineered barriers, the EPA places the onus for regulatory costs on the NRC. We disagree; the EPA standards drive regulatory costs as much as NRC regulations. The EPA has the higher responsibility for setting the overall standard for safety while the NRC can only implement this standard.