ML20011E000
| ML20011E000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/19/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Breaux J, Simpson A SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011E001 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9002050186 | |
| Download: ML20011E000 (4) | |
Text
..
n _
Wl
)'
I i
I
' ' [. i. =.\\.
UMTE3 STATES
~
!~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
.f wAssiwaTow, n.c.nses l
January 19, 1990 CHAIRMAN i
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson j
Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation i
Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510 i
Dear Senator Simpson:
In response to your request of January 11, 1990. I am providing i
the views of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the adequacy of our regulations to protect the public health and i
safety in light of the information on risk from exposure to radiation contained in the BEIR V report.
Our detailed responses i
to your specific questions on this issue are enclosed.
As we note in the responses, the NRC has been aware for some time of the scientific data underlying the estimates of risk from radiation exposure contained in the BEIR V report.
In fact, we have.already incorporated a significant amount of this information in ar initiative that the Commission currently has underway and that should be complete in the next few months to update and l
revise our regulatory framework to ensure that our radiation protection. regulations are based upon the most recent scientific information.
Because we have already incorporated much of the scientific data contained in the BEIR V report, the report does
.i not appear to necessitate any significant changes in the initia-tive currently pending before the Commission.
e We would emphasize in this regard that even prior to the formal l
modification.of the Commission's regulations the Commission's present regulatory framework -- which consists of the existing l=
. regulatory limits and the policy that doses be maintained as low L
as reasonably achievable (ALARA) -- has in fact resulted in L
exceedingly low doses to the public from the entire range of NRC l
and Agreement States-licensed activities.
For this reason, we I
continue to believe that our radiation protection regulations.have i
j in fact resulted in adequate protection of the public health with l
l an ample margin of safety.
With regard to the Commission's views on the Clean Air Act and the proposed amendment to eliminate dual regulation of radio-nuclide emissions, our review of the EEIR V report inoicates that the estimates of radiation risk advanced by the Commission in 9002050186 900119 t$E FULL TEXT ASCll SCAN h RE PDC h!
l
/
,4.
t.
, support of our views are consistent with the risk. estimates contained in the=BEIR V report.- In preparing comments on the EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)CleenAirActgtandards,the staff noted that EPA used a risk estimate of 4 x 10' per rem, which is generally consistent with the BEIR V risk estimate.
Thus, a risk estimate consistent with the BEIR V Report was part of the EPA and NRC knowledge when making the recommendation to Congress to eliminate dual regulation of radionuclide emissions under the Clean Air Act.
For this reason, there is no basis for changing our position as a result of the BEIR V report.
We therefore urge you to continue to move forward with the pending amendment to eliminate the duplicative regulatory scheme for radionuclide emissions contained in the Clean Air Act.
We apprec! ate A:s opportunity to provide you with our views.
Sincerely, dm h.L
^
Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosure:
As stated l
(
W V=
- i ff b
- o UNITED STATES 2
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
{
g WASHINGTON, D, C. 20066
%*..,+p January 19, 1990' CHAIRMAN Honorable John B._Breaux, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation L
Committee on Environment and Public Works i
United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to your request of January 11, 1990, I am providing the views of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the adequacy of our regulations to protect the public health and safety in light of the information on risk from exposure to radiation contained in the BEIR V report.
Our detailed responses to your specific questions on this issue are enclosed.
As we note in the responses, the NRC has been aware for some time i
of the scientific data underlying the estimates of risk from i
radiation exposure contained in the BEIR V report.
In fact, we have already incorporated a significant amount of this-information in an initiative that the Commission currently has underway and that should be complete in the next few months to update and l
revise our regulatory framework to ensure that our radiation protection regulations are based upon the most recent scientific information.
Because we have already incorporated much of the scientific data contained in the BEIR V report, the report does not appear to necessitate any significant changes in the initia-tive currently pending before the Commission.
We'would emphasize in this regard that even prior to the formal modification of the Commission's regulations the Commission's present regulatory framework -- which consists of the existing regulatory limits and the policy that doses be maintained as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) -- has in fact resulted in exceedingly low doses to the public from the entire range of NRC
.and Agreement States-licensed activities.
For-this reason, we continue to believe that our radiation protection regulations have in fact resulted in adequate protection of-the public health with an ample margin of safety.
With regard to the Commission's views on the Clean Air Act and the proposed amendment to eliminate dual regulation of radio-nuclide emissions, our review of the BEIR V report indicates that the estimates of radiation risk advanced by the Commission in
r'
~
q i
O i
I
/
r/
l 2
support of our views are consistent with the risk estimates contained in the BEIR V report.
In preparing comments on the EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)CleanAirActgtandards,the staf f noted that EPA used a risk-estimate of 4 x 10" per rem, which is generally consistent with the BEIR-V risk estimate.
Thus, a risk estimate consistent with the-BEIR V Report was part of the EPA and NRC knowledge when making the recommendation to i
Congress to eliminate dual regulation of radionuclide emissions-under the Clean Air Act.
For this reason, there is no basis for changing our position as a result of the BEIR V report.
We therefore urge you to continue to move forward with the pending amendment to eliminate the duplicative regulatory scheme for radionuclide emissions contained in the Clean Air Act.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with our views.
Sincerely, k :3W. A Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosure:
As' stated l
L l'
l 1.
I e