ML20028H152
| ML20028H152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/10/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Upton F HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028H153 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9011140024 | |
| Download: ML20028H152 (2) | |
Text
.-
- ~
- ~
~
= -. - -
p t @ CICy
- g UNITED STATES
((
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGT ON, D. C. 20666 5
i g
,,/
October 10. 1990 The Honorable Fred Upton United States House of Representatives
. Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Upton:
I am responding to your August 30, 1990, letter in which you asked us to address the concerns of your constituent, Mrs. Andre Wolfinsohn, who expressed disagreement with a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) policy which establishes guidelines for the NRC staff in reviewing requests for exemptions forcertainlow-levelradioactivewaste(LLW)asbeingbelowregulatory concern or BRC.
On July 3, 1990, the Commission issued a Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement.
I have enclosed a copy of this statement together with a companion explanatory booklet for your use in responding to your constituent. The statement identifies the principles and criteria that will govern Commission decisions to exempt certain radioactive material from the full senpe 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 toes 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 rot already been established.
The policy-can be considered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.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 ce 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.,
applicable to decommissioning decisions involving the release of residua 11y-contaminated lands or structures), reflects much of the basic radiation protection approach described in this earlier Commission-policy.
The Commission,-in both actions, has acted-in the belief that the nation's best interests are served by policies that establish a consistent S
puu.WXr ASCll SCAH 9011140024 901010 PDR ORO NGPZ 1)/
i
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 agenciest e.g.,theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)andtheFoodandDrug Administration (FDA), who have formulated or are attempting to formulate similar policies for the hazardous materials they regulate, it may be helpful-to first summarize the typical exposures which we all routinely receive from a variety of sources of radiation. The exposures occur from radiation that is natural in origin as well as from sources which involve man-made uses of radioactive material.
In total, as estimated by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP Report No. 93), the effective dose equivalent received by an average individual in the United States population is about 360 millirem per year. Of this total, over 83 percent (about 300 millirem per year) is a result of natural sources, including radon and its decay products, while medical exposures such as x-rays, when averaged over the.V.S. population, contribute an estimated 15 percent (53 millirem per year). Other man-made sources, including nuclear fallout, contribute the remaining 1 to 2 percent of the total exposure. The remaining 1 to 2 percent also includes the contribution from nuclear power plant effluents.
Any low-level radioactive material associated with an exemption decision would not be expected to change this typical exposure " picture."
In responding to yone constituent's specific concerns on dispersal of BRC radioactive material in community lanoi 'l sites, I would again 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 cources are currently entering landfills.
Thus, the real issue invM ved 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"? The Commission believes that the level of radioactivity for some potential BRC wastes may be such a small fraction.of natural background radiation that it may not be readily detectable and, therefore, could not cause measurable increases in radiation levels currently associated with drinking water supplies.
As requested by your constituent, I have enclosed a fact sheet which generally describes the disposal of radioactive 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, j
AuzA Dennis K. Rathbun, Director 3
Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As Stated
.- -