ML20141A085
| ML20141A085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1997 |
| From: | Reamer C NRC |
| To: | Kennedy J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141A056 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9706200077 | |
| Download: ML20141A085 (1) | |
Text
,
From's C.
W.
(Pill) Reame:r TWD2. TWP7 (.7EKl)
To:
Date 5/12/97 4:40pm Subjects EDO Ticket G97345, Letter re Ward Valley -Reply or concorrence with comr..:nts is our Attached for your review and concurrence, response to a letter from a private citizen regarding the Ward Valley this afternoon. The I will give the incoming to Steve and Bill R.
so I would appeciciate your comments by facility.
ticket is due Wed AM to my Director,
]
COB tomorrow at the latest.
Thank you.
I Tim the although ordinarily it's appropriate to repeat two comments:
(1) the 3d, 4th and 5th sentences of the 1st paragraph could incoming, we thought better be deleted because they are the author', assertions and they are not responded to in our letter.
agraph also could better be dropped, it's (2) the last sentence of the 2d p concerns with llw be misread to say there are significant ambiguous and might addressed by the county's proposal.
aren't disposal at ward valley that i am still working on currence through oge management.
I
/
t s
k e
9706200077 970606 PDR WASTE WM-3 PDR
I 5,3-Ps97 la:34Prt inut r i i m.-r
.e 4, u.
aw 2,.:.:,
NRC/NMSS/DUM T E'l. : 301-415-53M Ha u l '.'
- 9 /
12 : F.: No.UUY F.u2 p
, $* f Mr. Erntst Guiteln 167 Almendral Avenue Atherton. CA 94027 Road *' 4" 7 ):
Dear Mr. Goitein:
4 y a. A d,m--.Qy M. ^, )
I am responding to your letter of May 2.1997. to C <rrtan Jackson,of
- t. concerning the '-v r*
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisorkproposa' c r amending th o
As you noted. NRC comented on the proposal in a
[M.
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
- 27. 1997.
In your letter, you state letter to O S. Congressman Jerry Lewis on March that, based on statewide polling, most people in California recognize th You also state that you believe the term " low level waste" disposal facility will leak.
As a result. you ask that is misirdng because long-11vec radionuc11 des may be present.
S' wereconsidertheSanBernardinoCountyBoardofSuperviscr{ proposal.
t'e share your concerns abE the reed for safe disposal of low-levoi radioactive w However. as we noted. the proposal is based (LLW). anc puDlic conficence in LLW disposal.
on some misunderstand 1ngs of bcth the law end the facts r latec r
-.x a number of significant.
In our le. vtter to Congressman Lewis, we tion of public the proposal that could adversely affect pro
- men specific concernsp These include Ine proposal's failure to address orphan wastes that it health and safety.
would create, the fact that it 15 neither scientific nor risk-b3 sed, and its lack of a l
l cosf justi*'ication in terms of health benefits to be geiredD Our Your letter does not address any of these specific concerns with the proposal.
primary mission 15 the protection of public health and safety from the effects o radiation, and for the reasons identified in our letter, we have no reason to believe t public health and safety would not be protected adequately by disposal of On the other hand. there are significant undddressed concerns with the Valley site proposal from the County.
The Commission appr<ctates our interest in the development of rew LLW disposal capacity in the United States.
T 4 t dr % t na WA v o p 4 s 4o 1o%
c._ m a d o, % c, % p.se 4,
Sincerely.
Carl J. Paperiello. Director
J.,
UNITED STATES l.[.
[
%>g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m
,e WAsHINGTVN. D? 20555 0001 j
j e
March 27, 1997 l
k*..../
I cumnnem The Honorable Jerry Lewis United States House of Representatives i
Washington, D.C.
20515 I
Dear Congressman Lew s:
Thank you for giving the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the opportunity to j'
comment on the recommendations to amend the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Po Our coments Act (LLRWPA) of San Bernardino County Supervisor, Jon Mi proposal") faxed to the NRC by Jeff Shockey on February 4,1997.
l The proposal appears to be based on some misunderstandings of both th In the facts related to low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and its disposal.
j addition to requiring changes in the LLRWPA, the proposal would require State extensive changes to NRC and State regulations and to LLW cospacts.
j representatives have advised us that extensive changes to the legislative or 4
regulatory framework regarding LLW disposal would cause delays in their 3
efforts to develop new disposal facilities.
A brief review of the history of the LLRWPA should help to put.the proposal in Originally enteted in 1960, the Act was the result of na perspective.
concern about disposal of LLW.
studied the issue, had concluded that each state should accept primaryThe responsibility for safe disposal of LLW ger-ated within was for States to pursue a regional approach to the disposal problem.
However, in a few years, Congress adopted the Association's recommendations.it becam The Act was amended in 1985 by the low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which replaced virtually the entire substan problem.
LLRWPA with more detailed provisuns.
There continues to be determine what. type of disposal fae.ilities to build.
widespread support for the Act.
While the Mtt and the Department of Energy were given some roles to play, central responsibility for implementation of the LLRW Among other things, compacts the States.
responsibility through regional LLW compac+.s.
for, sed pursuant to the Act are permitted to exclud States, and the compacts must be approved by the respective legislatures After State enactment, the compacts are ratified by the the party States.This entire process easily can take several years.
For this e
Congress.
X A i i o g atcrev 3p
o
,j.-
4 i
2 4
reason, efforts to make substantivo changes in the compacts. to comport with l
the proposal's recommended legal and policy chantes, could take years to l
complete.
i Turning to the substantive changes recommended by the proposal, at their heart l
there appears to be a lack of understanding.of the considerations that are relevant to risk.
The proposal focuses on a system of classification based on decay life," which it defines in terms of ' half lives." This approach is l
neither scientific nor risk-based, and it does not comport with accepted international views. Risk is a function of radiation dose, and the l
determination of risk depends on a variety cf factors, including the type of radiation, the concentration of radionuclides in the medium in which they are i
I present, the likelihood that barriers containing the radionuclides will be fully effective to contain the radionuclide;, and tFe likelihood of exposure if the radiation is not fully contained.
(The half-life of a particular radionuclide also may be a factor, ett it a s not controlling.)
In fact, the type of management suggested for the waste by the proposal (visual and other l
inspection and repackaging) could be risky for the workers involved.
There is another significant problem with the proposal.
In redefining LLW, it makes no provision for radionuclides with a " decay life" of more than 100 The proposal does not state how this new years, thus creating orphan wastes.
l category of waste would be managed or who would be responsible for its Not only would this require statutory changes, but it also would 4
management.
j require extensive shanges to NRC and Agreement State LLW disposal regulations The uncertainty this would create for some time would be likely i
and guidance.
l to destabilize States' efforts to devel.op new disposal facilities, 8
t It appears from the statements of background information and policy objectives accompanying the suggested amendments that the prinary purpose of the proposal i
In that is to prevent the develop ent of a LLW disposal site at Ward Valley.
connection, it is impoHr to point out that California is an Agreement State (that is, it has ente M into an agreement with the NRC pursuant to section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act) and is responsible for licensing the proposed Lalifornia has adopted regulations that Ward Valley LLW disposal facility.
are compatible with NRC's regulations for land disposal of radioactive waste (10 C.F.R. Part 61), and the NRC has confidence in the State's Agreement State While we have not made detailed findings on all the technical Program.
issues, we have no reason to believe that public health and safety would not be protected adequately by disposal of LLW at the Ward Valley site.
California is also a mmber of a LLW compact -- the Southwestern Compact --
This and California has bee desiented as the host State of the compact.
3 means that the State has undertaken to provide LLW disposal f acilities for With respect to the appropriateness of j
itself and other compact members.
shallow land disposal at the Ward Valley site, this is a decision that has been arrived at by the State of California after review at all levels of State What problems may remain to enable l
government and considerable litigation. California to effectuate this underta inherent in the LLRWpA.
~
~
Io 4
3 i
l 10 C.F.R. Part 61 is consistent with generally accepted international criteria j
for LLW disposal. It is true that there are other countries that have or are building ngineered facilities, but this does not mean that shallow land i
disposal of LLW is prohibited by international standards.
The determination of what is an appropriate facility depends to a large extent on site-specific j
environmental and other factors. Arets such as Ward Valley are vastly different from those surrounding many engineered facilities developed in other l
countries.
In particular, there are significant environmental differences in terms of amount of rainfall and humidity, depth of water table, density of population, and agricultural usage in the surroundings.
l Under the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC is the licensing body in States that have i
not chosen to be:ome Agreement States. The 'RC also conducts periodic formal j
reviews of Agreement State programs to de'. ermine their adequacy to protect the i
public health and safety. The Atomic Energy Act recognizes the need for compatibility between NRC and Agreement S+$te regulations, and the NRC has established a policy to define the nece ay degree of compatibility. San i
Bernardino County Supervisor, Jon Mikels' proposal however, would allow local governments to regulate the packaging, treatment, and storage of LLW and to.
set limits for the amount of waste that t,oald be permitted in an " engineered j
storage facility." Clearly, such a syd.em would need to be examined closely with a view toward avoiding duplication and conflicts in the regulation of LLW j
disposal.
a i
Finally, we would like to point out that the proposal lacks any supporting i
estimates of health benefits or cost increases that would result from the j
redefinition of LLW and the restriction to engineered storage-to-decay LLW disposal.
Given the magnitude of the policy changes prcposed, it would seem i
important to provide some justification in terns of estimated health benefits l
to be gained and.* 4 at cost.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal.
Sincerely, 29 L%
I 1
Mr. Ernest Goitein 167 Almendral Avenue Atherton', CA 94027
Dear Mr. Goitein:
I am responding to your letter of May 2,1997, to Chairman Jackson, of' the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, concerning our views on a San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors' proposal for amending the Low-level Radioactive Waste / Policy Amendments Act of 1985. As you noted, NRC commented on the proposal in a letter'to U.S. Congressman Jerry Lewis on March 27, 1997.
We share your concerns about the need for safe disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW), and public confidence in LLW disposal. However, as de noted, the proposal is based on some misunderstandings of both the law and the facts rpIated to LLW disposal.
In our letter to Congressman Lewis, we noted a number of significant, specific concerns, regarding the proposal, that could adversely affect protection of public health and safety. These include the proposal's failure to addr,e'ss the orphan wastes that it would create, the fact that it is neither scientific nor pisk-based, and its lack of a justification in terms of health benefits to be gained versus costs.
/
Your letter does not address any of these specif1c concerns with the proposal. Our primary mission is the protection of public health and safety from the effects of radiation, and for the reasons identified in our letter, we have no reason to believe that public health and safety would not be protec(ed adequately at the Ward Valley site.
/
The Commission appreciates your interest,i'n the development of new LLW disposal capacity in the United States.
I trust that this/ reply responds to your concerns and clarifies our position.
S.i ncerely,
, Carl J. Paperiello, Director
/ Pce of Nuclear Material Safety p
/
and Safeguards (2 see previous concurrence CP[ PROOFED /MAY 16, 1997 0FC LLDP*
tLDP*
LLDP*
OGC*
TEdit*
DWM*
MAE JKennedy/cv RNelson' JHickey WReamer EKraus-MVFederline DATE 5/14/97 5/14/97 5/14/97 5/14/97 5/13/97 5/15/97 0FC NM /N DED0kt EDO OC MAM C
r lo (H,Y f JCallan SAJackson
/ffr 1/b/ N DATE
//
/ /
/
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DISTRIBUTION: EDO G97345 Central file DWM r/f MBell MFederline NMSS r/f WReamer SSalomon EDO R/F PTressler THarris JBlaha RBangart DWM t/f SECY (CRC-97-0451)
SFonner SBurns KCyr EJordon NMSS Dir. Off. r/f CPoland PNorry Path & File Name:
s:\\dwm\\lldp\\jek\\goitein.ltr PUBLIC:
YES X
NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only ACNW:
YES N0 X
IG:
YES NO X
Delete file after distribution:
Yes No
Mr. Ernest Goitein 167 Almendra] Avenue Atherton. CA 94027
Dear Mr. Goitein:
I am responding to your letter of May 2.1997. to Chairman Jackson, of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, concerning our views on a San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors' proposal for amending the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. As you noted. NRC commented on the proposal in a letter to U.S. Congressman Jerry Lewis on March 27. 1997.
]
We share your concerns about the need for safe disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW), and public confidence in LLW disposal. However, as we noted, the proposal is based i
on some misunderstandings of both the law and the facts related to LLW disposal.
In our letter to Congressman Lewis, we identified a. number of significant, specific concerns, i
regarding the proposal, that could adversely ~ affect protection of public health and safety. These include the proposal's failure to address the orphan wastes that it would create, the fact that it is neither scientific nor risk-based, and its lack of a justification in terms of health benefits to be gained versus costs.
/
Your letter does not address any of these specific concerns with the proposal.
Our primary mission is the protection'of public health and safety from the effects of radiation, and for the reasons / identified in our letter, we have no reason to believe that public health and safety wou,ld not be protected adequately at the Ward Valley site.
The Commission appreciates'your interest in the development of new LLW disposal capacity in the United States.
Vtrust that this reply responds to your concerns and clarifies our position.
Sincerely.
Carl J. Paperiello. Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety
(
and Safeguards
,Mk
.4/ dr(77 0FC LOOP [
LLDd lkftb -
A/
, H Obcl TEbit 7 %
DWM Jkh RNe on
[
ckey JhNme'r EKraus __
EU l
NAME DATE I [N D
$ /l/ @
C/M/97 k/IY/$'
3 /b
< /lf
/ /
OFC NMSs DEDO EDO OC NAME CPaperiello HThompson JCallan sAJackson DATE
//
/ /
/ /
/ /
/)
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY pIl#'
DISTRIBUTION: EDO G97345 l
Central File DWM r/f MBell MFederline NMSS r/f WReamer SSalomon EDO R/F CPoland DMorris THarris JBlaha RBangart DWM t/f SECY (CRC-97-0451)
SFonner PNorry SBurns KCyr EJordon Path & File Name:
s:\\dwm\\lldp\\jek\\goitein.ltr PUELIC:
YES X
NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only ACNW:
YES N0 X
IG:
YES NO X
Delete file after distribution:
Yes No
,