ML20149H240
| ML20149H240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1997 |
| From: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Mikels M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149H242 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9707240292 | |
| Download: ML20149H240 (9) | |
Text
.
- l. Q g
+
l It UNITED STATES y"
l.-
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 g
%, *,, s #
June 18, 1997 l
Ms. Marjorie M. Mikels Attorney at Law 201 N. First Avenue Upland, CA 91786-6061
Dear Ms. Mikels:
I am responding to your letter of May 21, 1997, to the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, concerning your views on a San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors * (the Board) proposal for amending the Low-Level i
Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).
In your letter, you state that the Board's proposal, whilF it has given attention to what you believe to be a " deceitful classificatior, system" for " low-level" radioactive waste (LLRW) and the "primiti"e disposal method now permitted by federal law "
you also believe that it does not go far enough.
With your letter to the Chairman, you enclosed a May 20, 1997, letter that you sent to the Board.
In the letter to the Board, you identified specific concerns regarding the Board's proposal, and stated that you believe that the LLRW law should not be simply amended, as the Board has proposed, but repealed, and a Blue Ribbon Commission established to examine nuclear waste disposal issues and to develop i
new solutions. Although we have significant misgivings regarding the likely outcome of your suggestions, we share your view about the need for safe i
disposal of radioactive waste.
NRC commented on San Bernardino County Supervisor Jon Mikel's proposal for amending the LLRWPAA (which was adopted by the Board on February 4. 1997) in a March 27, 1997. letter to U.S. Congressman Jerry Lewis. We noted a number of significant, specific problems inherent in the proposal that could adversely affect protection of public health and safety. These include the pro)osal's failure to address the orphan wastes that it would create, the fact tlat it is neither scientific nor risk-based, and its lack of a justification in terms of health benefits to be gained versus costs. A copy of cur letter to Congressman Lewis is enclosed.
Although your letter notes, as our letter to Congressman Lewis did, that the Board's classification scheme is deficient, your letter also raises many i
issues that remain unanswered, such as the effect repeal of the LLRWPAA would
/
have on existing LLRW compacts. As we noted in our letter to Congressman Lewis, any problems that remain to enable California to effectuate development of a LLRW disposal facility are not the result of any problem inherent in the g,llf l
l LLRWPAA.
In addition, as with the Board's proposal, given the magnitude of the consequences that could result from the repeal of the LLRWPAA, it would hvA.3 seem important to provide some justification in terms of estimated health benefits to be gained and at what cost, g
9707240292 970618 PDR WASTE WM-3 PDR MECOPYb7Jr h4 Ac %
J-i
O t
a M. Mikels June 18, 1997 With respect to your views on NRC's LLW classification system and shallow land disposal. NRC addressed both of these areas when it issued standards for dis 30 sal in 10 CFR Part 61.
These regulations address acceptable levels of risc to the general population from LLW disposal.
In developing Part 61. NRC sought public comment on the proposed rule, and provided extensive information on the assumptions. analyses, and proposed content of the regulation for review.
NRC received and considered extensive public input.
Four regional workshops were held, and 107 persons commented on the draft rule.
- Thus, contrary to your assertions, the Part 61 rulemaking process was open and well-documented, and not " deceitful." NRC believes that shallow land disposal of LLW can be conducted in a manner that adequately protects the public health and safety.
For the reasons identified in our letter to Congressman Lewis we have no reason to believe that public health and safety would 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.
I trust that this reply clarifies our position.
Sincerely.
(Original signed by M. Knapp for)
Carl J. Paperiello. Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION: EDO G97410 Central File DWM r/f MBell MFederline NMSS r/f SFonner SSalomon EDO r/f CPoland PTressler THarris DWM t/f LLDP r/f PNorry SBurns KCyr DGauch BReamer SECY (CRC-97-0542) NMSS Dir. Off. r/f HThompson
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE fD Path & File Name:
A:MIKELS.ltr ce<paaorto/aust 17. 1997 0FC LLDP*
LLDP*
LLDP*
OGC*
DWM*
NMS)l/(,t C k b lo NAME JKennedy/cv RNelson JHickey sFonner/DGauch MFederline M //997 DATE 6/06/97 6/11/97 6/12/97 6/12/97 6/16/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY I
PUBLIC:
YES X
NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only ACNW:
YES NO X
IG:
YES NO X
Delete file after distribution:
Yes No l
DD GWV a? (" &walmdi CDPyr
.o 3
M. M,ikels June 18, 1997 With respect to your views on NRC's LLW classification system and shallow land disposal. NRC addressed both of these areas when it issued standards for dis)osal in 10 CFR Part 61.
These regulations address acceptable levels of ris; to the general population from LLW disposal.
In developing Part 61. NRC sought public comment on the proposed rule, and provided extensive information on the assumptions, analyses, and proposed content of the regulation for review.
NRC received and considered extensive public input.
Four regional workshops were held, and 107 persons commented on the draft rule.
- Thus, contrary to your assertions the Part 61 rulemaking process was open and well-documented, and not " deceitful." NRC believes that shallow land disposal of LLW can be conducted in a manner that adequately protects the public health and safety.
For the reasons identified in our letter to Congressman Lewis, we have no reason to believe that public health and safety would 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.
I trust that this reply clarifies our position.
Sincerely.
fx Ky&
Carl J. Paperiell'o. Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated I
l l
i I
J
I O
s q.
e UNITED STATES
- N f
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f f.
r t
WAsHtNGTONf D C. 20555-0001 s,
March 27, 1997
(
[
P l
CHAMMAN The Honorable Jerry Lewis United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Lewis:
Thank you for giving the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the opportunity to l
comment on the recommendations to amend the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Our comments l
Act (LLRWPA) of San Bernardino County Supervisor, A1 Mikels.
relate to the version of the recommendatirns (referred to below as "the l
proposal") faxed to the NRC by Jeff Shockey on February 4,1997.
The proposal appears to be based on some nisunderstandings of both the law and In the facts related to low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and its disposal.
l addition to requiring changes in the LLRWPA, the proposal would requireState extensive changes to NRC and State regulations and to LLW compacts.
representatives have advised us that extensive changes to the legislative or regulatory framework regarding LLW disposal would cause delays in their i
l cffarts to develop new disposal facilities.
l A brief review of the history of the LLRWPA should help to put the proposal in Originally enacted in 1980, the Act was the result of nationwide perspective.
The Natier,al_ Governors' Association, which had concern about iisposal of LLW.
studied the issue, had concluded that each state should accept primary The responsibility for safe disposal of LLW generated within its borders.
Association also recommended that the best day to achieve the goals of the Act
'tas for States to pursue a regional approach to the disposal problem.
l However, in a-few years, Congress adopted the Association's recommendations.it became clear t The Act was amended in 1985 by the low-level Radioactive Waste problem.
Policy Amendments Act, which replaced virtually the entire substance of the l
LLRWPA with more detailed provisions. The amended Act left the States free to determine what. type of disposal f acilities to build.
There continues to be l
I widespread support for the Act.
While the NRC and the Department of Energy were given some. roles to play, the central responsibility for implementation of the LLRWPA's goals was given to Significant incentives were provided for States to carry out this the States.
Among other things, compacts responsibility through regional LLW compacts.
formed pursuant to the Act are permitted to exclude LLW from non-party States.
i The terms of the compacts are arrived at through negotiation between the party States, and the compacts must be approved by the respective legislatures of After State enactment. the compacts are ratified by the
(
l the party States.
This entire process easily can take several years.
For this Congress.
Enclosure CM
{
t 3 Pf'
'u
i s-l l,$
l9 reason, efforts to make substantive changes in the compacts, to comport with the proposal's recommended legal and policy changes, could take years to
- complete, Turning to the substantive changes recommended by the proposal, at their heart there appears to be a lack of understanding of the considerations j
l relevant to risk.
This approach is
" decay life," which it defines in terms of " half lives.
neither scientific nor risk-based, and it does not comport with accepted Risk is a function' of radiation dose, and the l
international views.
determination of risk depends on a variety of factors, including the type of radiation,.the concentration of radionuclides in the medium in which they are l
present, the likelihood that barriers containing the radionuclides will be i
~ fully effective to contain the radionuclides, and the likelihood of exposure i
if the radiation is not fully contained.
(The half-life of a particular In fact. the I
radianuclide also may be a factor, but it is not controlling.)
hv the proposal (visual and other type of management suggested for the v l
inspection and repackaging) could be risky for the workers involved, in redefining LLW. it i
There is another significant problem with the proposal, l
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.
category of waste would be managed or who would be responsi management.
require extensive changes to NRC and Agreement State LLW dis and guidance.
to destabilize States' efforts to develop naw disposal facilities.
It appears from the statements of background information and policy objectives suggested amendments that the primary purpose of the proposal accompanving tha In that develop ent of a LLW dnposal site ac Ward " alley.
is to pravent
...e connection, it is important to point out that California is an Agreement State (that is, it has entered into an agreement with the NRC pursuant to section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act) and is responsible for licens;ag the proposed i
Lalifornia has adopted regulations that Ward Valley LLW dispusal f acility.
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 Stat While we have not made detailed findings on all the technical issues, we have no reason to believe that public health and safety would not Program.
be protected adequately by disposal of LLW at the Ward Valley site, l
California is also a member of a LLW compact -- the Southwestern Compact --
This i
and California has been designated as the host State of the compact.
l means that the State has undertaken to provide LLW disposal facilities for l
itself and other compact members. With respect to the appropriateness of l
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 l
What problems may remain to enable government and considerable litigation. California to effectuate this un inherent in the LLRWPA
3 10 C.F.R. Part 61 is consistent with generally accepted international criteria 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 The determint. tion disposal of LLW is prohibited by international standards.
of what is an appropriate facility depends to a large extent on site-specific environmental and other factors.
Area, such as Ward Valley are vastly different from those surrounding many engineered facilities developed in other In particular, there are significant environmental differences in countries.
terms of amount of rainfall and humidity, depth of water table, density of population, and agricultural usage in the surroundings.
1 Under the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC is the licensing body in States that have not chosen to become Agreement States.
The NRC also conducts periodic formal reviews of Agreement State programs to de'. ermine their adequacy to protect the public health and safety. The Atomic Energy Act recognizes the need for compatibility between NRC and Agreement State regulations, and the NRC has
[
San established a policy to define the necessary degree of compatibility.
Bernardino County Supervisor, Jon Mike:s' proposal however, would allow local i
governments to regulate the packaging, treatment, and storage of LLW and to i
set limits for the amount of waste that would be permitted in aa " engineered i
storage facility.' Clearly, such a system would need to be examined closely with a view toward avoiding duplication and conflicts in the regulation of LLW j
j disposal.
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 redefinition of LLW and the restriction to engineered storage-to-decay LLW Given the magnitude of the policy changes proposed, it would seem disposal.
important to provide some justification in terms of estimated health benefits to be gained and at what cost.
Again, thank you for ;he opportunity to review this proposal.
Sincerely, Y
i
, M. Mikels sought public comment on the proposed rule and provided extensive information on the assumptions. analyses. and proposed content of the regulation for review.
NRC received and considered extensive public input.
Four regional workshops were held, and 107 persons commented ori the draft rule.
- Thus, contrary to your assertions. the Part 61 rulemaking process nas open and well-documented. and not " deceitful." NRC believes that shallow land disposal of LLW can be conducted in a manner that adequately protects the public health and safety.
For the reasons identified in our letter to Congressman Lewis. we have no reason to believe that public health and safety would not be protected adequately at the Ward Valley site.
The Commission appreciates your interest in the development of new LLW disposal capacity in tbs United States. 'I trust that this reply clarifies our position.
Sincerely.
Carl J. Paperiello. Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION: EDO G974M Central File DWM r/f MBell MFederline NMSS r/f SFonner SSalomon EDO r/f CPoland PTressler THarris DWM t/f LLDP r/f PNorry SBurns KCyr DGauch BReamer SSalomon SECY (CRC-97-0542) h.Thepwn
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Path & File Na e:
A:MIKELS.ltr d
_OFC LLDP*
/
LLDP*
LLDP / //
.OGC I DWM NMss NAME JKennedy/c4 RNelson Jhkey sNonner/DGauch N1 CPaperiello DATE 6/06/$7 6/11/97
[/e/97 6/ N97 b N97
/ /97
/
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY g
PUBLIC:
YES X
NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only _. _
ACNW:
YES NO X
IG:
YES NO X
Delete file after distribution:
Yes No l
.s.
9 M. M,ikels,
The Commission appreciates your interest in the development of new LLW disposal capacity in the United States.
I trust that this reply clarifies our position.
Sincerely.
Carl J. Paperiello Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION: EDO G97410 Central File DWM r/f MBell MFederline NMSS r/f SFonner SSalomon EDO r/f CPoland PTressler THarris DWM t/f LLDP r/f PNorry SBurns KCyr DGauch BReamer SSalomon SECY (CRC-97-0542)
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Path & File Name:
A:MIKELS.ltr 0FC LLDP*
LLDP*
LL V 6 OGC*
DWM NMs5
}N'ennedy/cv RNelson
.lhckey sFonner/DGauch CPaperiello NAME D TE 6/06/97 6/11/97 d / /97 6/11/97
/ /97
/ /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY PUBLIC:
YES X
NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only ACNW:
YES NO X
IG:
YES NO X
Delete file after distribution:
Yes No l
9 l
w
. s.
I e
, M. Mikels.
The Commission appreciates your interest in the development of new LLW disposal capacity in the United States, I trust that this reply clarifies our position.
Sincerely.
Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety i'
and Safeguards
.e
Enclosure:
As stated
'l 3 -.
.n OFC LLDP LLDM d LLDP
- OGC '
DWM NMss NAME
'JkennIdy/cv RNebon JHickey SFonneNDGaucn CPaperiello DATE
/ '/97 h'/ll/97
/ /97
/')97
/ /97
/ /97 0FFICIAL RECORf; COPY
' DISTRIBUTION: EDO G97410 Central File DWM r/f MBell MFederline NMSS r/f SFonner SSalomon EDO R/F CPoland DMorris THarris DWM t/f SECY (CRC-97-0542)
PNorry SBurns KCyr DGauch BReamer SSalomon i
Path & File Name: A:MIKELS.ltr PUBLIC:
YES X
.N0 Category:
Proprietary or CF Only ACNW:
YES NO X
l IG:
YES N0 X
Delete file after distribution:
Yes No i
l i
M. Mikels '
sought public comment on the on the assumptions, analyses. proposed rule. and provided exte'nsive information l
and proposed content of the regulation for review.
NRC received and considereo extensive public inp,ut.
Four regional workshops were held. and 107 persons commented on the,dfaft rule. Thus, contrary to your assertions the Part 61 rulemaking process was open and well-documented. and not " deceitful." NRC believes that/ shallow land disposal of LLW can be conducted in a manner that adequately,p'rotects the public health and safety.
For the reasons identified in our Jetter to Congressman Lewis. we have no reason to believe that public health arid safety would not be protected l
-adequately at the Ward Valley site, j/
The Commission appreciates your interest,ik the development of new LLW disposal capacity in the United States. /I trust that this reply clarifies our position.
/
7 Sincerely.
/j
/
/
j Carl J. Paperiello. Director
/
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
/
and Safeguards
]
1
,1
Enclosure:
As stated L
f DISTRIBUTION:'EDO G97410-l Central File DWM'r/f MBell MFederline NMSS r/f SFonner SSalomon ED0 r/f CPoland PTressler THarris DWM t/f LLDP r/f PN6rry SBurns KCyr DGauch BReamer SSalomon SECY (CRC-97-0542)
H.l b p w n
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Path & File Name: A:MIKELS.ltr 0FC LLDP*
/
LLCD -
LLDP / //
. 0QC DWM NMss
~
l NAME JKennedy/c[
RNelson Jhkey Sbnner/DGauch N1 CPaperiello DATE 6/06/97 6/11/97
//B/97 6/lh97 b h97
/ /97
/
gg 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY PUBLIC: 'YES X
NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only ACNW:
YES NO X
- IG
YES NO X
Delete file after distribution:
Yes No l
t I
~
l t
l
[
! J-
'su 7
I.
M. Mikels -
The Commission appreciates your interest in the development of new LLW 4
disposal capacity in the United States.
I trust that this reply clarifies our,-
position.
/
/
-Sincerely,
/
/
,/
[
/
Carl J. Paperiello, Director /
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
-and Safeguards j -
Enclosure:
.As stated-i DISTRIBUTION: EDO G97410 Central File DWM r/f MBell MFederline~ NMSS r/f SFonner SSc!amon' ED0 r/f CPoland PTressler /THarris DWM t/f SSalomon SECY (CRC-97-0542)
, ' DGauch BReamer LLDP r/f PNorry SBurns KCyr
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Path & File Name: A:MIKELS.ltr OFC
-LLDP*
LLDP*
LL V O OGC*
DWM NHSS OVRInnedy/cv RNelson d[ckey /
SFonner/DGauch CPaperiello NAME DATE 6/06/97 6/11/97 8 / // [
6/11/97
/ /97
/ /97
/9 0FF CIAL RECORD COPY PUBOC':
YES X
NO Categor :
Proprietary _._ or CF Only
.ACNW:
YES-NO X
IG:
-YES NO X
D ete file after distribution:
Yes No j
/
,e s.
A.
M. Mikels -
The Commission appreciates your intcrest in the development of new LLW i*
disposal capacity in the' United States.
I trust that this reply clarifies our
- position.
Sincerely, n.
i-Carl J. Pa)eriello Director Office of iuclear Material Safety and Safeguards igy
Enclosure:
As stated c
'0FC
- WDP LLDPh LLDP 5,OI)GC DWM NMSS NAE Jkdnnedy/cv
.RNe(son JHickey SFonn b auch CPaperiello
)
b / /97 h/ll/97
/ /97 b/O97
/ /97
/ /97 U
DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
. DISTRIBUTION: EDO G97410 Central File DWM r/f MBell MFederline NMSS r/f SFonner SSalomon EDO R/F CPoland l
DMorris THarris DWM t/f SECY (CRC-97-0542)
PNorry SBurns KCyr DGauch BReamer SSalomon Path & File Name: A:MIKELS.ltr PUBLIC:
YES X
NO Category.:
Proprietary or CF Only
.ACNW:
YES NO X
l 1G:
YES NO X
Delete file after distribution:
Yes No i
l-I