ML20059L560
| ML20059L560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/29/1993 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoke M HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059L562 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9311170156 | |
| Download: ML20059L560 (3) | |
Text
.-
Of r
I A
.J (9'
l
/*
o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 !
i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j
i 5, -..... f' October 29, 1993 i
CHAIRMAN 1
The Honorable Martin Hoke United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Hoke:
The Commission has received your letter of September 14th, 1993, in which you expressed concern about radioactive contamination experienced by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District at its Southerly plant.
We welcome your comments and appreciate the suggestions you made on the generic issues involved in the concentration of radionuclides in the sludges and asa produced in vaste water treatment plants.
Our responses to your specific comments are enclosed.
I hope these commentp will be helpful to you as you pursue your interest in the safe disposal of nuclear materials.
l As we note in the enclosure, the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District has filed petitions with the NRC covering some of the issues you have raised.
We will advise you of the agency's final decisions on the petitions at the earliest practicable date.
In the meantime, if I can be of further assistance to you, please contact me.
Sincerely, Yk Ivan Selin
Enclosure:
As stated 150053 4'
9311170156 931029' g
PDR COMMS NRCC CDRRESPONDENCE PDR.
NRC'S RESPONSES TO REPRESENTATIVE HOKE'8 COXKENTS 4
Comment 1:
Twenty-four hour advance notice prior to release of radioactive material to sewer systems.
The NRC staff is conducting a review of the safety and health issues involved in the concentration of radioactive materials resulting from waste water treatment.
The suggestion of a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notice provision is part of the review since it was included in the petition for rulemaking submitted by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District.
The petition also included a request that the incineration of contaminated waste water treatment sludges be exempted from licensing.
The incineration of sludges is a common practice, and we understand the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's concern that the practice not be hindered by regulatory obstacles.
Comment 2:
Limiting liability of rate payers for remediation of radioactive releases.
Representative Hoke also expressed concern about the economic costs to the ratepayers and suggested that the NRC implement Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to require financial protection by materials licensees for public liability resulting from nuclear incidents, supplemented and supported by U.
S.
Government indemnification contracts.
Under i
Section 170, financial protection is coupled with U.S.
Governmental indemnity up to $560 million.
Periodically, over three decades, the NRC (and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission) has reviewed the extension of Section 170 indemnification to materials licensees and concluded that such extension was not warranted (with the single exception of plutonium processing plants).
More recently, the Congress specifically enacted Public Law 101.575 (1990), which added Section 193(e) to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to prohibit the NRC from applying Section 170 indemnification in the licensing of a uranium enrichment plant, which would be a major fuel cycle materials licensee possessing and processing tons of uranium.
The issue of requiring financial protection, in the form of insurance, for certain materials licensees currently is pending before the NRC staff as a result of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, August 2, 1993 request for action pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.206.
In addition, NRC staff is considering requiring materials licensees to carry environmental insurance independent of Section 170 to cover the cost of cleaning up off-site contamination.
In June of this year, the Commission instructed the staff to continue its study of the need for such a regulation.
a
. Comment 3:
Licensee responsibility for off-site remediation.
Representative Hoke also noted the apparent inequity in requiring persons in possession of licensable radioactive material to take
)
the necessary steps to protect health and safety of workers and the public when it appears that another party may be responsible for the contamination.
The mandate of the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act is to ensure that workers and the general public are protected from the undue hazards of regulated radioactive materials.
The person in possession is almost invariably the person who has real control over the material in terms of access to and legal right in the property.
Accordingly, the NRC focuses on the party in actual possession of the material as responsible for radiation safety, including site remediation, if needed.
This pattern is not invariable, but where it does vary it is generally the result of agreement or settlement among the interested and responsible parties.
The NRC believes that it has the authority under the Atomic Energy Act to order a licensee to remediate off-site contamination presenting a significant public health and safety concern and known to result from its activities.
However, under the relevant provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
556), a necessary predicate for such an order is reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that the off-site contamination is the result of the licensee's conduct of the licensed activity.
The burden of proof is on the NRC.
Thus, the question may not be lack of authority, but of the presence or absence of a proper legal basis for its use.
The question of causation is still being examined by the NRC staff in the case of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Southerly plant.
l J
]
1
=-
-- '-~~--
- " ' ' " ' '