ML20028H148
| ML20028H148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/10/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Callahan S HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028H149 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9011140016 | |
| Download: ML20028H148 (3) | |
Text
<
([pS 88%g 0
UNITED STATES
- p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-5 j~
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
%...../
October 10, 1990 The Honorable Sonny Callahan United States _ House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Callahan:
I am responding to your September 24, 1990, letter in which you esked us to address the concerns of your constituent, Ms. Sandra Gekler, who cypressed.
her disagreement with a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) policy)which could be used to. classify certain low-level radioactive waste (LLW as being below regulatory concern or BRC.
On July 3,1990, the Commission issued a Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement., I have anclosed a copy of this statement together with a companion-explanatory booklet for your use in responding to Ms. Gekler. -
The statement identifies the principles and criteria that will. govern-Commission decisions to exempt certain radioactive material from the full scope of regulatory controls. Thus, the policy could apply, but would not be limited to potential-BRC waste determinations.
I would emphasize that
'the policy is~not self-executing and does not, by itself, deregulate any LLW. Any--specific exemption decisions-would be accomplished through rulemaking or licensing actions during which opportunity for public comment would be
-provided in those situations where generic exemption provisions have not already-been established.
4 The policy can be considered an outgrowth'of the concepts articulated in the' Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985_(Pub. -L.
1 99_-240). That Act (i.e., Section 10) directed the.NRC to "... establish-standards and-procedures...and develop the technical capability for' considering and acting upon' petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from regulation...due to _the presence of radionuclides in such-waste streams.in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities as to be-below regulatory concern."
In response to.the legislation, NRC developed and published in_1986 a Statement of. Policy and Procedures which outlines
_the criteria for considering such petitions. Our recently-issued broad-policy statement, which has implications beyond waste' disposals (e.g.,-
u applicable to decommissioning decisions involving the release of-
~
residually-contaminated lands or structures),-reflects much of the basic radiation protection approach described in this earlier Commission l
policy.
The Commission, in both actions, has acted in the belief that the L
nation's best interests are served by policies that establish a consistent' D
J
'b
+ou m xus m oto PDR ORG NOPZ gg ggg
2 risk framework within which exemption decisions can be made with assurance that human health and the environment are protected.
In this regard, we believe our actions are consistent with those of-other Federal agencies; e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who have formulated or are attempting to formulate similar poli:ies for the hazardous-materials they regulate.
In responding to the specific concern on dispersal of BRC radioactive material in community landfill sites, I would point out that natural radioactive material is pervasive in our environment, including the radioactivity which exists in our own bodies. As a result, very low levels of radioactivity from both natural and man-made sources are currently entering landfills.
Thus, the real issue involved in radioactive material disposals is, "What level of radioactivity can we allow to be disposed of at speCifically defined non-licensed disposal facilities without compromising public health and safety or the environment"? On this point, Section 10 of the Act focuses on the concentrations or quantities of radionuclides which could be disposed of at other than licensed low-level radioactive waste sites.
It is this question, among others, to which the Commission's BRC policy is directed.
With regard to the concern regarding recycling, the Commission would assess potential public exposures from BRC waste disposals, including those-that could result from any recycling. The exposure estimates would be compared with the BRC policy's individual and collective dose criteria.
In certain cases where doses approach the nolicy criteria or where uncertainties in dose estimates are sufficiently important, appropriate constraints to minimize the potential for recycle could be incorporated into the exemption decision. These-constraints, together with others deemed to be appropriate, would be imposed on our licensees and would be subject to the Commission's inspection and enforcement program.
Ms. Gekler also asserts that a significant portion of the waste material
' from nuclear power plants may be reclassified.
This statement may originate from a view expressed by the nuclear power industry and the EPA that 30 percent of the low-level radioactive waste generated-by volume (at nuclear power facilities) may be considered for BRC waste classification.
The nuclear power industry has estimated that this -volume of material would contain approximately 0.01 percent of-the radioactivity contained in all their low-level radioactive waste. There-are other industries such as hospitals that also produce low-level waste.
In closing, I want to assure you that the Commission takes its mandate to protect the health and safety of the public very seriously.
I, therefore, hope the views expressed and the enclosed information will prove useful in responsibly expanding the dialogue on this controversial and technically complex issue.
Sincerely, 1%
JW1
..A 3
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As Stated