ML20033F875
| ML20033F875 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/16/1990 |
| From: | Stephen Burns NRC |
| To: | Parler W, Taylor J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033D930 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004040012 | |
| Download: ML20033F875 (1) | |
Text
.
. _ ~'
.,} h
. y y
L p
_ p*' " %.,
Q
-[?4,, - [ 'j UNITED STATES -
,, L o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIESION
==~j:
S,4 i j
,ce W ASHINGTON, D.C. 205b5
- e..*
4 February 16, 1990v NOTE FOR:
W. Parler
-J. Taylor Attache'd is a copy of Chairman Carr's remarks which he intends to give at the Joint Meeting of the Local Chapters of the Health-Physics Society and the American Nuclear Society.
Please submit any comments or changes you.may have.6&
Steve Burns
,2 M 'u f
I
^
9004040012 900316 PDR ORO NGPZ PDC
. i
a F
qw REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN KENNETH M. CARR U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m
AT THE JOINT NEETING OF THE LOCAL CHAPTERS OF
-THE HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY 1
AND AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY:
FALLS CHURCH, VA, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 SOME IN OUR SOCIETY BELIEVE THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE COST, OR SOCIETAL'!MPACT, THERE ARE AREAS OF HUMAN ENDEAVOR FROM'WHICH ALL '
RISK MUST BE ELIMINATED.
THE CONSUMPTION OF FOOD AND THE COMMERCIAL USES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY ARE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, TWO o
zSUCH TARGETED-ACTIVITIES.
IN THESE AREAS, IF A NEW REPORT COMES.
OUT WHICH SUPPOSEDLY UNCOVERS PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN RISKS, AN IMMEDIATE CAMPAIGN.IS LAUNCHED TO ELIMINATE THE NEWLY DISCOVERED
. THREAT--SEEMINGLY INDEPENDENT OF COST, THE SUPREME IRONY.IS THAT THOSE ENGAGED IS SUCH ACTIVITIES DON'T THINK TWICE ABOUT CLIMBING LIN THEIR CAR OR HOPPING ON AN AIRPLANE TO ATTEND THE SUMMIT L
CONFERENCE AT WHICH THESE LOFTY ISSUES'ARE TO BE DISCUSSED, TO ADD TO THE IRONY, THE MEETINGS MAY BE HELD IN SMOKE FILLED ROOMS l
0VER COCKTAILS.
1 i
y
};c 1
U
[
2-THEfRISK ELIMINATORS HAVE, OF COURSE, A-QUICK-EXPLANATION FOR THIS APPARENTIINCONSISTENCY.
TRANSPORTATION, CIGARETTES, AND ALCOHOL LARE SOMEHOW " VOLUNTARY" RISKS OVER WHICH THEY HAVE ABSOLUTE CONTROL
-THEY "CH00SEf' TO TRAVEL, SMOKE OR DRINK, AND THEREFORE THIS MAKES THE ASSOCIATED RISK " ACCEPTABLE" -- NO MATTER HOW LARGE IT f:AY BE IN RELATION TO OTHER COMMONPLACE ACTIVITIES IN SOCIETY.
WHEN IT
' IS POINTED OUT TO THEM THAT THEY ALSO " CHOOSE" TO TURN ON THEIR LIGHT SWITCH, AND THEREFORE MUST ALSO BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH~THE CENTRAL 12ED GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY, THE INCONSISTENCY ESCAPES THEM.
THE NRC CURRENTLY IS CONTEMPLATING A POLICY STATEMENT THAT ILLUSTRATES'WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.
THE ISSUE ~1S "BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN" (OR BRC), AND IT IS TIED VERY CLOSELY T0 THINKING ABOUT RISK.
QUITE SIMPLY, WHAT BRC SAYS IS THAT THERE g
1 L
ARE CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE USES OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS WHERE THE RISKS ARE S0 LOW THAT THE ACTIVITY NEED NOT BE I
CONTROLLED BY THE REGULATOR AND THAT ADDITIONAL RESOURCES NEED NOT BE EXPENDED TO FURTHER~ REDUCE THE RISK FROM THOSE ACTIVITIES.
THEREFORE THE TASK BEFORE US IS QUITE CLEARLY DEFINED.
THOSE OF US WHO BELIEVE THAT FURTHER RISK REDUCTION BELOW CERTAIN LOW-g LEVELS IS UNNECESSARY MUST CONVINCE THE REMAINDER OF SOCIETY THAT THE TENET OF "ZER0" OR TRIVIAL RISK WITH RESPECT.TO NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES AS A CRITERION FOR REGULATION IS BOTH UNREALISTIC AND
^
e
?
!NCONSISTENT WITH PRACTICALLY ALL OTHER FORMS OF ACCEPTABLE HUMAN ACTIVITY.
THE TASK MAY BE CLEARLY DEFINED, BUT IT WILL BE
-EXTREMELY-DIFFICULT--ESPECIAll,Y SINCE THE' OPPOSITION HAS BEEN SPOTTED A CONSIDERABLE HEAD START.
THOSE IN OPPOSITION TO A BRC POLICY HAVE BEEN HARD AT WORK FOR THE i
. PAST.SEVERAL MONTHS.
THEY HAVE ATTACKED THE POLICY FROM PERHAPS THE MOST VULNERABLE-POINT, AND CERTAINLY FROM THE POINT MOST EASILY UNDERSTOOD BY THE. AVERAGE CITIZEN.
THEY WOULD HAVE THE e
AMERICAN PUBLIC BELIEVE THAT IF OUR BRC POLICY IS IMPLEMENTED, THE SANITARY LANDFILLS IN THIS COUNTRY WILL BE TRANSFORMED INTO HAZARDOUS, UNREGULATED NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPS.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
OUR SIDE OF THE BRC STORY IS OBVIOUSLY NOT BEING HEARD ON THE
. STREET YET.
SINCE IT IS THE.NRC'S' POLICY, WE ARE THE ONES THAT MUST GET OUT IN FRONT OF THE ISSUE.
SINCE WE HAVEN'T PUT THE FINAL TOUCHES ON THE POLICY STATEMENT AS YET, IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE SOMEWHAT PREMATURE TO LAUNCH A COUNTERATTACK.
HOWEVER IF WE DON'T START S0ON, SOMEWHERE, WE MIGHT AS WELL PACK OUR BAGS AND GO r
HOME.
u e
u 8
i l l. -
a
_-4 _
1 MY DISCUSSION WITH YOU TONIGHT IS AN ATTEMPT,TO "GET 0UT IN FRONT
~
OFLTHE.lSSUE".
IN A SENSE I REAll2E THAT'l AM PREACHING TO THE CHolRJ HOWEVER, THE GENERAL PUBLIC MUST HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING t
OF WHAT'BRC: J'S, AND IS NOT; EQUALLY IMPORTANT,..THE PUBLIC MUST.
i UNDERSTAND WHY' IMPLEMENTATION OF A COHERENT BRC POLICY BENEFITS SOCIETY AS-A WHOLE.
"BELOW REGULATORY. CONCERN" IS THE PHRASE THAT THE NRC HAS CHOSEN T0 USE WHEN REFERRING TO THOSE ACTIVITIES RELATED T0.THE USE OF' L
NUCLEAR MATERIALS WHERE'THE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTIVITY IS
-SUFFICIENTLY LOW SUCH THAT THE ACTIVITY NEED NOT BE REGULATED.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO DIFFERENTIATE BRC FROM "DE MIMIMIS", WHICH IMPLIES THERE IS NO RISK, OR TRIVIAL RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTIVITY.
THERE J.1 A DEFINABLE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH BRC ACTIVITIES; WHAT WE ARE~SAYING-IS THAT THE RISK IS SUFFICIENTLY LOW AS TO WARRANT NO ADDITIONAL. EXPENDITURE OF RESOURCES TO FURTHER REDUCE THE RISK.
s IN THE'RELATIVELY NEAR FUTURE, THE COMMISSION WILL ISSUE THE POLICY STATEMENT ON BRC.
THIS IS AN UP-FRONT AND OPEN STATEMENT
'0F HOW THE COMMISSION WILL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT EXEMPTIONS INVOLVING RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS.
THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT; THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION STARTED MAKING THESE DECISIONS IN THE 1960'S BY EXEMPTING CERTAIN CONSUMER PRODUCTS, APPROVING SOME VERY LOW LEVEL OF WASTE DISPOSAL AND DEFINING WHICH MATERIALS WOULD BE
l m 4 i
! REGULATED. THE NRC CONTINUED THE PRACTICE IN THE MID 1970'S BY EXEMPTING NUCLEAR MATERIALS THAT POSED VERY LITTLE HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
.THE NRC IS NOT ALONE'IN THIS PRACTICE --- OTHER FEDERAL '.ND STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES MAKE SIMILAR DECISIONS ON A. ROUTINE BASIS.
'FOR' EXAMPLE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)'USES THE BRC TYPE CONCEPT WHEN IT DEFINiS HAZARDOUS WASTE, APPROVES RESIDUAL LEVELS OF PESTICIDES AND DECIDES'"HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN EN0 UGH" IN SITE CLEANUP.
THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)*
DEFINES ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF POTENTIAL CARCINOGENS IN PROCESSED.
FOODS AND APPROVES THE USE OF DRUGS.
THE NRC'S MOTIVATION FOR FORMULATING, AND IMPLEMENTING, A BRC POLICY IS-NO Dif FERENT FROM EPA OR FDA'S MOTIVATION FOR IMPLEMENTING SIMILAR PROGRAMS.
THE GOAL OF ANY REGULATOR IS TO ENSURE'THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT EXPOSED i
TO UNACCEPTABLE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REGULATED ACTIVITY.
IN L
THE CASE OF THE NRC, THOSE ACTIVITIES INCLUDE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH,'VERY SMALL QUANTITIES OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS AT DECOMMISSIONED l
i NUCLEAR FACILITIES, CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND UNLICENSED WASTE l
E DISPOSAL FACILITIES.
s l
1 WHY DOES NRC NEED A BRC POLICY NOW7 WHY CAN'T WE JUST CONTINUE BUSINESS AS USUAL AS WE HAVE FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS?
THE ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS IS CENTRAL TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF "WHY BRC N0w!",
1 l
E
k.
' 'THE NRC NEEDS TO ESTABLISH A CONSISTENT RISK FRAMEWORK FOR EXEMPT 10N' DECISIONS.
A PRACTICE WILL BE EXEMPTED BECAUSE THE RISK IS SUFFICIENTLY LOW.
THE SAME YARDSTICK MUST BE APPLIED-IN ALL CASES.
I WILL~NOT DISCUSS SPECIFIC-RISK NUMBERS WITH YOU THIS r
EVENING --- HOWEVER I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT OUR DECISIONS ARE BASED ON RISK CALCULATIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE BEIR COMMITTEE AND OTHER EXPERT BODIES.
THOSE OPPOSED TO A 1
.i BRC POLICY WOULD LIKE THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO BELIEVE THAT THE PRIMARY REASON'THE NRC IS CONSIDERING SUCH A POLICY IS SO THAT-NUCLEAR MATERIALS CAN BE DISPOSED OF IN UNREGULATED DISPOSAL SITES I
AROUND THE COUNTRY.
CONSISTENT DISPOSAL CRITERIA ARE ONE CLEAR BENEFIT OF THE BRC POLICY, BUT IT GOES FAR BEYOND DECIDING WHAT MATERIALS MAY BE DISPOSED OF AS COMMON, EVERY DAY TRASH.
THE NRC REGULATES THE CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATED COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FACILITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY.
THIS CAN BE MORE BROADLY CATEGORIZED AS THE " DECOMMISSIONING ISSUE".
WE NEED TO ENSURE-l:
THAT THE FUNDS PUT ASIDE BY LICENSEES ARE SUFFICIENT TO GET.THE JOB DONE.
IN ORDER TO DO THIS, WE huST DECIDE ON HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN ENOUGHJ 1.E.,
TARGET LEVELS FOR RESIDUAL RADI0 ACTIVITY MUST BE DETERMINED.
THE NRC'S BRC POLICY WILL ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK FOR THOSE CRITERIA.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
THE CLEANUP MUST BE u
COMPLETED WHILE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES' RESOURCES ARE ACCESSIBLE AND THE PARTIES ARE ABLE TO PERFORM THE NEEDED CLEANUP.
L o
l L
l'
r t
s?
j
'.i THE' EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN CONSUMER PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN-RADIOACTIVE
' MATERIALS.ISLANOTHER AREA THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THE.BRC POLICY STATEMENT.
THERE IS A NEED TO ENSURE THAT CURRENT AND FUTURE EXEMPT 10NS'0F CONSUMER PRODUCTS ARE ADEQUATE AND CONSISTENT.. SOME.
DEGREE OF INCONSISTENCY MAY HAVE EXISTED'IN THE PAST WHEN EXEMPTING.
.CERTAlH PRODUCTS--THIS IS NOT. GOOD REGULATION, AND IT MUST BE
' AVOIDED IN THE FUTURE.
THERE ALSO IS THE ISSUE OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN' CLASSES OF PRODUCTS FROM EXEMPTION--0BVIOUS EXAMPLES ARE TOYS, COSMETICS, AND FOODSTUFFE.
THE COMMISSION IS STILL WRESTLING WITH THE QUESTION OF THE ADVISABILITY AND NEED FOR THAT. TYPE OF EXCLUSION.
WASTES THAT CONTAIN VERY LOW LEVELS 0F RESIDUAL RADICACTIVITY, AND
'THAT NEED NOT BE DISPOSED OF IN REGULATED LOW LEVEL-WASTE SITES ARE AT PRESENT THE-MOST CONTROVERSIAL OF THE BRC ISSUES FROM THE PUBLIC'S POINT OF VIEW.
IT-lS A FACT THAT THERE' EXISTS A LEVEL OF RADI0 ACTIVITY'IN WASTE PRODUCTS THAT DOES NOT POSE A HEALTH AND SAFETY PROBLEM FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
SOME WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT
- LEVEL DOES NOT EXIST (THESE IN ESSENCE ARE THE "ZERO RISK" PEOPLE).
OTHERS WILL ARGUE ABOUT WHERE THOSE LEVELS SHOULD BE SET.
THE l
POINT IS THAT THE NRC SHOULD EXEMPT THESE VERY LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES WHEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PLACE THEM IN LIMITED RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES TO ENSURE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC.
THE COST OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL, AND THE
l '.
i O
i O ~
CONTINUING-AVAILABILITY OF THESE; DISPOSAL. FACILITIES;0BVIOUSLY ARE-ERELATED ISSUES.
HOWEVER, THE NRC MUST ACT ON THIS ISSUE IN THE RELATIVELY NEAR' FUTURE T0 AVOID DISRUPTING STATE AND CUMPACT F
DEVELOPMENT-0F NEW DISPOSAL FACILITIES AS THEY STRUGGLE TO MEET THE CONGRESSIONAL MILESTONES OF 1993 AND'1996,
.lF WE ARE ABLE TO ESTABLISH A LIST OF THINGS THAT WE DON'T NEED-T0-
~
WORRY ABOUT, THIS WOULD OBVIOUSLY GIVE US MORE TIME TO WORRY ABOUT~
--- AND DEAL WITH --- REALLPROBLEMS.
THERE IS A PARALLEL HERE FOR THE BRC: XSSUE.. BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE IN A BUDGET SQUEEZE. -AVAILABLE RESOURCES NEED TO BE FOCUSED.ON THOSE PRACTICES WHICH POSE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH k
AND-SAFETY.
IF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES ARE IN REALITY "BELOW REGULATORY C'ONCERN"--LET'S.NOT REGULATE THOSE ACTIVITIES, IT'S A WASTE OF-TIME'AND RESOURCES.
CURRENT FISCAL CONSTRAINTS AND PUBLIC DEMANDS
-FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MANDATE A FOCUS ON REAL--NOT PERCEIVED--THREATS.
WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN TO THE MAN IN THE STREET?
WHAT WILL THIS IS AN BRC DO FOR HIM?
MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT ECONOMIC ISSUE.
THOSE OPPOSED TO A BRC POLICY WOULD LIKE YOU TO
.BEllEVE THAT BRC WILL MAKE THE MATERIALS USERS AND POWER GENERATORS RICHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO WALK AWAY FROM SOME COSTLY REGULATIONS AND THEIR OVERALL OPERATIONAL COSTS WILL DECREASE.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT UNNECESSARY
e-a l'.
t t
L 9-REGULATION AND ULTRA-CONSERVATISM IN HANDLING OF WASTES lS EXPENSIVE.
THE CURRENT DEBATE QVER THE CLEAN AIR ACT IS A-CASE IN Pol NT.. THE DEBATE IS'NOT OVER WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A CLEAN
-ENVIRONMENT,,RATHER THE DEBATE IS ABOUT HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST--AND'WHO IS~ GOING TO PAY.
-THE DEBATE OVER BRC IS MUCH THE SAME--UNNECESSARY REGULATION IS-COSTLY TO THE. CONSUMER IN TWO WAYS.
FIRST, IN THE COST OF THE SERVICES OR PRODUCTS, AND SECOND THROUGH-lNCREASED FEDERAL AND l
STATE' TAXES TO PAY FOR THE' BURDEN OF UNNECESSARY REGULATION.
.lF 1
IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS ACCEPTABLE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH A GIVEN PRACTICE, THEN WHY PAY FOR SOMETHING ONE DOESN'T NEED?
MOST AUTOMOBILES DON'T HAVE TWO REDUNDANT HYDRAULIC. BRAKE SYSTEMS--ALTHOUGH THIS WOULD REDUCE THE RISK'0F ACCIDENTS DUE TO BRAKE FAILURE.
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS AND THE PUBLIC HAVE DECIDED THAT THE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH BRAKE FAILURE lS ACCEPTABLE.
l=
THE PUBLIC IS NOT DEMANDING, AND GENERALLY WILL NOT PAY FOR l
REDUNDANT BRAKE SYSTEMS.
AIR BAGS, ON THE OTHER HAND, CAN BE H
SHOWN TO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE RISK OF INJURY OR DEATH.
THEY ARE BEING PLACED IN SOME NEW CARS.
IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHERE THE AIR BAG ISSUE HEADS IN THE COMING YEARS.
PF 4
- 10 ASil INDICATED AT THE START OF MY TALK, _THE BRC ISSUE IS-CLOSELY-TIED TO RISK.
l.HAVE AVOIDED THE USE OF'ANY NUMBERS IN MY DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.
THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOES NOT MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING RISKS BASED ON NUMBERS, BUT WILL IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE A JUDGMEN1 BASED ON COMPARISONS.
THE MAN IN THE STREET HAS NO IDEA 0F THE STATISTICAL RISK ASSOCIATED WITH A CROSS-COUNTRY PLANE TRIP--YET THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WILL'GET ON THE PLANE WITHOUT GIVING IT A SECOND THOUGHT--EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN A PLANE CRASH THE NIGHT BEFORE THAT KILLED 245 PEOPLE.
PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT RISK IF THEY FEEL A CERTAIN FAMILIARITY OR
~ COMFORT WITH THE PRACTICE--OR--IF THE MEDIA HAS REPORTED THAT AN
" INDEPENDENT" OR HIGHLY RESPECTED BODY HAS FOUND THE PRACTICE TO BE " SAFE" (1.E.,-0F AN " ACCEPTABLE" RISK).
- WE ALREADY HAVE ONE STRIKE AGAINST US.
THE GENERAL PUBLIC11SN'T
" COMFORTABLE"'WITH THE NOTION OF RADI0 ACTIVITY.
YOU CAN'T SEE, FEEL OR SMELL IT, YET IN SUFFICIENT DOSES-IT CAN KILL YOU.
-THINGS NUCLEAR CONJURE UP VISIONS OF THE MUSHROOM CLOUD.
ON THE OTHER HAND,.THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAFE USES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY WITH WHICH THE AVERAGE PERSON IS FAMILIAR.
- MEDICAL APPLICATIONS, SMOKE DETECTORS WHICH ARE INCIDENTALLY, ALREADY LEGALLY BEING DISPOSED OF IN REGULAR TRASH, AND TRITIUM EXIT SIGNS ARE COMMON USES OF RADICACTIVE MATERIALS WHICH MOST PEOPLE DON'T QUESTION.
y:
-3 y>g, -
s A
i plq v l
-- 11 4
A'WELL-CONCEIVED,'AND PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED BRC POLICY HAS A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER-0F SOCIETAL BENEFITS ASSOClATED WITH IT.
1T WILL PERMIT DECOMMISSIONING AND CLEANUP OF NUCLEAR SITES TO LEVELS WHICH.ARE ENYlRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE.
IT.WILL PROVIDE INCREASED ASSURANCE ~THAT CONSUMER PRODUCTS ARE SAFE.
IT WILL REDUCE.THE
. FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE CONSUMER BOTH FROM THE ASPECT OF LOWER
' FEES FOR SERVICES-AND A POTENTIALLY LOWER TAX BURDEN.
AND FINALLY I
IT.HAS THE POTENTI AL FOR. lMPRO/EMENTS IN MEDICAL TREATMENT AND OTHER SERVICES THAT USE RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS BY REDUCING
./
UNNECESSARY COSTS.
WE MUST GET THE WORD OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT A WELL CONCEIVED BRC POLICY DOES NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF RISK,
.y
- BUT RATHER PRODUCES DESIRED BENEFITS FOR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ENSURING ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AIID
-SAFETY.
THE NRC PLANS TO BE MORE PRO-ACTIVE IN THIS AREA.
WE ARE GOING TO DO OUR BEST IN THE COMING MONTHS TO GET OUT THE WORD ON THE " PRO-SIDE" 0F THE BRC ISSUE.
AS I INDICATED EARLIER, IT IS l
CLEAR THAT OPPONENTS ARE WAY OUT IN FRONT OF THIS ISSUE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF CATCHING UP TO D0.
IF YOU AGREE IN PRINCIPLE WITH WHAT
-YOU HAVE HEARD TONIGHT, PLEASE HELP IN ANY WAY YOU CAN.
THE
{
L; BATTLE AHEAD IS A TOUGH ONE, BUT WITH HARD WORK AND COOPERATION, I j
.