ML20141J422

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Ltr from SA Jackson,Chairman of NRC to B Babbitt of Doi,For Record of 970722 Hearing Before Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on S. 964
ML20141J422
Person / Time
Issue date: 07/22/1997
From: Rathbun D
NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
To: Murkowski F
SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES
References
CCS, NUDOCS 9708200047
Download: ML20141J422 (1)
v • d • e


Text

-

pa cacg a e

f

,?'

to

. UNITED STATES 3

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20MH001 9, f.

%,**.$* y . July 22. 1997 i

The Honorable Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman  ;

Conmittee on Energy and Natural ~ Resources United States Senate .

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am pleased to provide the enclosed letter for the record of the .Tuly 22, 1997 hearing before the Senate Energy i and Natural Resources Committee on S. 964. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1776.

Sincerely, pk a d-Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Letter dated 7/22/97 from Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman (NRC) to The Honorable Bruce Babbitt (DOI) cc: Senator Dale Bumpers (C SW g

- 1 ri q q o n iun J )

9708200047 970722 I!!{ll{h,!fkkh,!h,!

PDR ORG NRCC ,

hm

'. j##'N t

. ,y

k * . .,. + ,e# -

July 22, 1997 CHAMAN .

The Honorable Bruce Babbitt Secretary U.S. Department of Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 l

Dear Secretary Babbitt:

\

l l am writing on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to share our views related to the Department of interior's (DOI) actions regarding the proposed Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility in Califomia. In February 1996, DOI announced that it would prepare a second supplement to an environmental impact statement (SElS) for the transfer of land from the Federal govemment to the State of Califomia, for the development of the Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility. We understand that DOI has identified 13 issues that it believes need to be addressed in the SEIS DOI also stated that it would not make a decision on the land transfer until the SEIS was completed. NRC will actively serve as a " commenting agency" on the SEIS in accordance with the Council of Environmental Quality regulations in 40 CFR 1503.2, " Duty To Comment." NRC's interest in the Ward Valley disposal facility is focussed on protection of public health and safety, and many of the 13 issues to be addressed in the SEIS are related to our creas of expertise. As a commenting agency, we will review the draft SEIS, and provide comments based on the requirements in federal law and regulations, and our knowledge of policy, technical, and legal issues in LLW management. We would also be available to discuss these issues with DOI, both before and after publication of the draft SEIS.

On a related matter, it is our understanding that Deputy Secretary John Garamendi of DOI held a press conference on July 22,1996, addressing the effect of Ward Valley facility availability on the use of radioisotopes in medicine and medical research. It was recently brought to our attention that DOI distributed a document entitled, " Medical, Research, and Academic Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Fact Shwt" at the press conference. This

- Fact Sheet contains several errors and statements thM may mislead the reader. To assist DOI, we have addressed these errors and statemente in the enclosure to this letter, Some of the points contained in the Fact Sheet are useful and contributa to the dialogue on this issue; however, NRC is concemed that some of the subjective information of the document is characterized as factual. We are particularly concemed by the statement that the NRC definition of LLW "...is an unfortunate and misleading catch-all definition..." in fact, NRC's j definition is taken from Federal law, specifically the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).

Additionally, it is NRC's view that some of the information .iat was referenced or relied on in cQM v v 0 y q.

2 the Fact Sheet may not represent a balanced perspective based on facts. For example, a table of the sources and amounts of radioactive waste that is projected to go to the Ward Valley facility is erroneously attributed to NRC, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S.

Ecology, the Southwestem Compact, and the Ward Valley EIS. Raw data from the sources quoted appear to have been interpreted based on uncertain assumptions about future activities of generators to produce the figures in the table. Additionally, NRC noted that the figures in the table are identical to those in a March 1994 Committee to Bridge the Gap report.

i. With respect to the relationship between LLW disposal policy and medicine and medical research, we note that the National Academy of Sciences Board on Radiation Effects Research has prepared a Prospectus for a study entitled,"The Impact of United States Low-Level Radioactive Weste Management Policy on Biomedical Research." The study would, among other things, " Evaluate the effects of higher disposal costs and on-site storage on the current and future activities of biomedical research, including the effects of state non-compliance [with the LLRWPAA of 1985) on institutions conducting biological and biomedical research and on hospitals where radioisotopes are crucial for the diagnosis and treatment of disease." Thus, the issue of medical uses of radioisotopes and how they have been affected by the Ward Valley process is far less clear than the Fact Sheet portrays.

Finally, since there are no formal arrangements that permit NRC to review and comment on the technical accuracy of various DOI documents on LLW and Ward Valley, we may not be aware such documents exist, thus the absence of NRC comments does not imply an NRC judgment with respect to the technical accuracy or completeness of sucli documents.

I trust our comments will be helpful in your efforts to address Ward Valley issues.

Sincerely, Y

$La L

~$ 6 Shiriey Ann Jackson

Enclosure:

As stated

-ummm-. -

, NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

  • " FACT SHEET"'

i -1: The' Fact Sheet contains'a projection of LLW to be sent to the Ward Valley disposal facility over its 30-year life, and attributes the table to the Department of Energy, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Southwestem Compact U.S. Ecology, and the Ward Valley envircnmental impact statement. In fact, the figures in the table are identical to those in a table from a March 1994 Committee to Bridge the Gap report,

'are substantially different from Califomia projections, and are based on assumptions that are not identified. The actual assumptions und are contained in the Committee l- to Bridge the Gap report ar.d minimize the amov .. and importance of 'he medical

waste stream.

! 2. The Fact Sheet is incomplete in that it provides only anecdotal evidence of the impact of not having the Ward Valley disposal facility available to medical generators.

Although its arguments about short-lived radionuclides appear to be generally true.

the Fact Sheet downplays the effects on generators that use longer-lived radionuclides. According to the Fact Sheet, there are an estimsted 53 research hospitals in Califomia, out'of some 500 hospitals overall. The Fact Sheet describes the impact at three of these research organizations and conclude: that they can manage their waste, either by disposing of it at an out-of state facility (Bamwell or Enviracare), storing it, or, for sealed sources, sending them back to the manufacturer.

The Fact Sheet concludes that there is no health and safety impact from the approach, but does not address broader issues such as the continued availability of existing disposal sites as an optbn, and the fact that transferring a sealed source to a l manufacturer does not eliminate the problem, but simply shifts it from one organization to another.

3. The Fact Sheet does not address the more complex issues concoming use.of radioisotopes in medicine, such as how medical resealth in general has.been affected by issues such as disposal and storage cost increases, and the need to switch from longer-lived radionuc9det to short-lived nuclides or non-radioactive materials. The Nationel Academy of Sciences Board on Radiation Effects Research has prepared a Prospectus for a study entitled "The impact of United States Lcw-Level Radioactive

- Weste Management Policy on Biomedical Research." The study would, among other things. " Evaluate the effects of higher disposal costs and on-site storage on the current and future activities of biomedical research, including the effects of state non-compliance on institutions conducting biological and biomedical research and on hospitals where radioisotopes are crucial for the diagnosis and treatment of disease."

Thus, the issue of medical uses of radioisotopes and how they have been affected by the Ward Velley process is far less clear than the Fact Sheet portrays.

-~.

" Medical, Research, and Academic Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRM 2act Sheet."

U.S; Department of Interior, Office of the Deputy. Secretary. Distributed at a press conference of the Deputy Secretary on July 22,1996.

f, -

3 d a

. 2

4. The Fact Sheet characterizes the NRC definition of LLW in 10 CFR Part 61 as

" unfortunate and misleading" because it includes both long-lived and short-lived radionuclides. It fails to acknowledge that this definition is contained in Federal law (the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985) and that information on the kinds and amounts of radionuclides contained in LLW for land disposal is widely available in NRC regulations and/or NUREGS, and from DOE. In developing Part 61 in the early 1980s, NRC sought public comment on the proposed rule, and provided extensive information on the assumptions, analyses, and proposed content of the regulation for review, in developing the regulations for LLW, including how different classes are defined, NRC received and considered extensive public input. Four regional workshops were held, and 107 persons commented on the draft rulemaking, for 10 CFR Part 61, which defines LLW. In short, NRC encouraged public involvement in developing the definition of, and defining the risk associated with, LLW.

- The Fact Sheet focuses on the half-life of radionuclides, but falls to discuss risk to the public from the effects of ionizing radiation and how they are affected by the half life of radionuclides. Public health and safety is measured in terms of risk, not half-life.

Risk is a function of radiation dose, and the determination of risk depends on a variety l of factors, including the type of radiation emitted, the concentration of radionuclides in the medium in which they are present, the likelihood inat barriers isolating the radionuclides will be affective, and the likelihood of exposure if radioactive materiais are not fully contained. The Fact Sheet is misleading when it states that the half-life of l* used in medicine is 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br />, and that of l* from nuclear power plants is 16 million years and that it remains hazardous for 160-320 million years. Either isotope can be a risk to the public, depending upon the other factors discussed above, and I half-life by itself does not indicate risk.

I

5. In the definition section, the Fact Sheet defines " radioactive half-life" as "The generci rule is that the hazardous life of a radioactive substance is 10-20 times its half-life."

This definition contains a new term (hazardous life) not used by the national or intemational health physics or radiation protection communities, and not defined in the Fact Sheet.

L .

CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENG SYSTEM DOCUMENT PREPARATION OfEC132ST This check list is to be submitted with each document (or gmup of Qs/As) satfor pmcessing into the CCS.--

1. BRIEF DESCRi? TION OF DOCUMENT (S) Il A l Nub}QquShY
2. TYPE OFDOCUMENT X CORRESPONDENG HE4 RINGS (Qs/As)
3. DOCUML'il CONTROL SENSITIVE (NRC ONLY) X NON-SENSITIVE
4. CONGkESSIONAL COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITIEE ({f applicable)

Congressional Committee Subcommittee i

5. SUBJECT CODES (A)

(B)

(C) ,

1 6, SOURG OFDOCUMENTS (A) 3520 (DOCUMENT NAME )

l (B) SC4N (C) ATTAWMENTS l (D) OTHER

7. S13"IF,4f LOG DATES (A) 4.115N1 DATA OC4 SENTDOCUMENT TO CCS (B) DATE CCS REGIVED DOCUMENT s

(C)

DATE RETURNED TO OC4 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (D) DATE RESUBMITTED BY OC4 TO CCS -

(E) DATE ENTERED INTO CCS BY (F) DATE OC4 NOTIFIED THATDOCUMENT15 IN CCS COMMENTS:

RELEASE TO PDR

. -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20141J422&oldid=3365066"