ML20044A724
| ML20044A724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/15/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Ortciger T ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044A725 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9007020144 | |
| Download: ML20044A724 (3) | |
Text
%lL (
l pwy
/
o UNITED STATES
?"
',0, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
WASHINGTON, D. C,20666 s
%."... + /
June 15, 1990 CHAlHMAN Mr. Thomas W. Orteiger, Director-I Department of Nuclear Safety State of Illinois 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704
Dear Mr. Ortciger:
I am responding to a letter of April 4,1990, from Mr. Terry R.- Lash, your predecessor as Director of the Illinois Department of Nuclear. Safety.
Mr. Lash's letter addressed issues involving below regulatory concern (BRC) waste disposal, the compatibility of Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) and-Agreement State radiation protection standards, and the development of State standards for low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal sites. All of these issues are of considerable importance to the Comission.
I agree with Mr. Lash's statement that the establishment of new LLW disposal sites is both a controversial and a complex task, and I can assure you that the Comission recognizes the magnitude of the tasks faced by you and other. State-authorities who are involved in the disposal site selection and llcensing processes.
I can-also assure you that the Comission understands the' sentiments
-of many members of the public on the BRC waste disposal issue. These-sentiments, however, do not obviate the obligation placed on all regulatory authorities to-develop and promulgate policies that promote responsible and cost-effective use of regulatory resources to reduce or control risks.
believe our efforts along this line are technically sound and, as I mentioned in my February 12, 1990 letter..are in consonance with the intent:of Congress as expressed in the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
Moreover, I would call your attention to the activities undertaken by others at all levels of government (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration), who are also attempting to rationally address and control risks associated with a wide range-of regulated activities.
I also belleve that Mr. Lash's statement that [BRC wastes] "... would.
now be disposed of in sanitary landfills... with no regulatory control over the radioactive materials" is somewhat misleading. As you'may be aware, current regulations allow small amounts of radioactive material to be incorporated into specific consumer products that can be disposed of as ordinary trash. Disposal of certain.other radioactive material into sanitary sewer systems is allowed if specified concentration and quantity constraints.
are satisfied, in a similar vein, any NRC-imposed BRC waste disposal' regulations would be expected to provide the necessary constraints, including the provision for regulatory inspections at the licensed facility generating the waste to ensure that the materials in question can safely be' released as 9007020144 900615 l
PDR CONHS NRCC f
CORRESPONDENCE PDC
1i-Mr. Thomas W. Ortciger 2
i below regulatory concern from a radiological standpoint.
In addition, these wastes would continue to be subject to regulatory requirements applicable to their non-radiological properties.
It should be noted here that the Comission's BRC policy will not, by itself, reouire wastes to be disposed of in landfills or require states to enforce such disposal. Our policy will establish a consistent framework within which the Comission would consider individual licensing actions or petitions for rulemaking on proposed ex<:mptions. Where the action involved rulemaking or a licensing decision for which generic exemption provisions had not already been established, there would be opportunities for participation by the interested public, including the states.
For purposes of the compatibility of Federal and State regulations, a majority of the Commission views decisions on below regulatory concern through rulemakings as establishing basic radiation protection standards below which regulatory oversight is not needed, and will e
be assessing future rulemakings for compatibility from this perspective, t
Commissioner Curtiss agrees with the majority view on the issue of Agreement i
States corrpatibility on below regulatory concern matters except those involving low level radioactive waste disposal.
L With regard to the compatibility of Agreement State and NRC standards, a majority of the Comission takes the view, which reflects the intent expressed by Congress when it adopted the 1959 Federal-State amendment to the Atomic Energy Act (Secticn 274), that uniformity of Federal and State basic radiation prefection standards is necessary to properly carry out the respective regulatory responsibilities of the Federal government and the States. When Congress enacted the Uranium Hill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, it added Section 2740 to the Atomic Energy Act to authorize States to 1
adopt more stringent standards for the control of hazards associated specif-ically with uranium'and thorium mill tailings.
However, Congress did not extend this authority to the control of hazards associated with the other categories of radioactive materials identified in Section 274b as suitable for inclusion in a Section 274b agreement.
With respect to these materials, the Comission continues to require Agreement States, as a matter of compatibility, to adopt basic radiation protection standards identical to those of the NRC.
i Comissioner Curtiss does not concur in this approach on matters involving low level radioactive waste disposal.
L Our staff is prepared to discuss several issues regarding your regulations for land disposal of low-level radioactive waste at a mutually agreeable time.
Section 601.190 of the Illinois Administrative Code appears to be identical in substance to NRC's performance objectives for land disposal of low-level radioactive waste, and any demonstration of compliance with these standards.
l must include consideration of exposures from -direct gama radiation at-the disposal site boundary.
We appreciate Mr. Lash's explanation of the genesis of the 1 millirem per year criterion in Section 606.30(d)(4) of the Illinois regulations.
If Illinois considers this criterion in Section 606.30(d)(4) of
e Mr. Thomas W. Ortciger 3
the Illinois regulations a basic radiation protection standard, it would obviously be more stringent than, and therefore incompatible with, the standard established by the NRC. This incompatibility could be alleviated, however, if the 1 millirem per year criterion were considered as a design goal for the as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) provision in Section 601.190 rather than a basic radiation protection standard. We are uncertain whether this latter interpretation is the one that the State intends to apply and would appreciate further clarification.
In addition, we have similar compatibility and technical concerns about other provisions in Illinois Administrative Code Section 606, which need to be addressed and resolved in follow-up staff discussions. These concerns include such issues as (1) the meaning of the complete containment requirements for the design and construction of a disposal facility in Section 606.30(a)(4);
(2) the practicability of meeting disposal module requirements for no structural degradation in Section 606.30(b)(6)(D) and (E); (3) the ambiguity of the requirements in Section 606.30(b)(5) for design and construction of the disposal unit to withstand all natural phenomena, including precipitation for five hundred years; and (4) the requirement in Section 606.80 that the facility be closed in a manner that requires only minor custodial care despite other requirements for active maintenance throughout the section.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your selection as the-new Director of the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, it is my hope that we can work together to ensure that the health and safety of the people of Illinois are adequately protected from the peaceful uses of nuclear materials.
Sincerely, G.w Kenneth M. Carr