ML20029C001
| ML20029C001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/13/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Holwerk D LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER CO., INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029B990 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-90-415, FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9103220207 | |
| Download: ML20029C001 (3) | |
Text
_
- - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ -
~'
/
- o UNITED $TATES 8
'g
{.j-
.. j.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w
e W ASHINGRN, D. C. 20$$5
- ,g' u August 13, 1990 CHAIRMAN Mr. David Holverk Editorial Page Editor The Herald-Leader Lexington, Kentucky 40507
Dear Mr. Holwerk:
I want to clarify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's policy on exempting slightly radioactive materials that are below regulatory
-concern, which you address in your July 5 editorial.
The NRC's goal is to protect the public health and safety and the environment and I am confident our recent policy accomplishes our goal.
When the NRC implements this policy, we will ensure that any levels of radiation from exempted activities will be comparable to the low-levels that most of us encounter in routine activities such as the use of smoke detectors in our homes today.
NRC has been exempting very low levels of radioactive materials on a case-by-case basis for many years.
The Commission has a demonstrated track record of developing and enforcing. tough regulations to ensure the public is protected from radioactive vaste.
Our Delow Regulatory Concern Policy is an attempt to tailor the amount of regulatory control to the potential risk posed by such waste.
Let me give you a frame of reference with respect to radiation.
We each get about 360 millirem per year of radiation dose from outer space, air, food, drink, soils, building materials, and medical exams.
In fact, our policy is basically consistent with the recommendations of the National Council on Rhdiation Protection and Measurements and the latest scientific assessments on the risk of radiation by.ocientists in national and international groups, includir' the National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations Scientitic Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
For example, a recent National Academy of Sciences report noted no increase - in health effects. has been documented in populations residing in areas of high natural-radiation. I want to emphasize that most of the radiation levels used-by the eminent scientists who wrote this study as a basis for risk estimates are a thousand times higher, that is 10 ram (not 10 millirem), than the levela in the NRC's policy statement.
We are not aware of any credible studies that indicato low levels of radiation could produce measurable effects--let alone a marked increase in health ef fects.
Similarly, the estimates of health effects cited in your editorial are simply not reasonable.
9103220207 910314 PDR FOIA BECMER 90-41 S PDR
- s.
Mr. Holverk Safety is our responsibility,- and it is a' matter that we at the NRC take most seriously.
The NRC's ~ goal is to protect _the public health and-safety and we are confident that regulatory decisions based on current and sound scientific informe*4;n will do just that.
Sincerely,
\\kk Kenneth M. Carr i
l-
- - - - - * ~ ^ ~
i I'$~
HERALD-LEADER,LLExlNGTON, KYL
.gy 1:
[8 ;, A vas,. c a % c ?ooet
- }
W W RE 9)yyT - @ ?* ' -
a 3
-LEXINGT0hi KY LHERALD-LEADER i
W. 116,8 W
.S"
-144,410J 88'
--usus===am p
- Whythat landfillglowsin theldark Kentucky's failure to--halt the Under federal standards, the i
importation of garbaget became maximum acceptable radiation ex.
even more _significant last week posure is that which would produm when the Nucear Regulat Com J one cancer fatality ;mr 100,000 peo-
' mission, gaveT!Pmori clear ple. The effects of t w NRC decison I'v power mdustry its latest economic supposedl mcentive. The NRC enhaixed its standard.y would not exceed that But with this waste being image as an industry shill by decid. dumped out with. other trash all.
iing that vast quantitia of low level acrees a nation of 240 million peo c 1 radioactive waste are "below regu.. pie, 2,400. Americans could suffer '
l latory concemW fatal cancers asea result. That's
.Ij i
a'congresional reversal assuming no'one chests by puttingi of the:
actum, generators of some still regulated radioactive fn radioactive waste - nuclear power waste in with the unregulated re-plants, weapons facilities and medi-fuse, thereby adding =to the health c cal facilities - will be able to toss a hasard.
' lot of it out with the trash or f'ush it :.
down the drain.- Eventually, it will
. That also assumes that the. gov.
wind: up in landfills, inemerators emment standards are adequate, an Vand sewage treatment plants across assumption that is not supported by1 the nation, where its radioactivity some studies of nuclear socments at '
will> pose a health -hazard to an Three Mile Island, Chernobyl-and-unsuspecting public.c rthe Savannah River plant m Geor.
Kentucky, of coume, doesn't: gia. These studies mdicate that.
_l F
I
. gan d
d m
. crid. ment < plant 'and: the usual "Y f*#8-number of medical facilities gener<-
This policy is'being put in plam ating radioactive waste. If the NRC :
heielaa stands, that is more than. aimply to cut the nuclear industry's waste disposal cosa. Over the-enough for the state to worry about.:
i We ton't need the added troubles of years, the;NRC. has made little U
imported garbage from, say, New. pretense about whose' interests'it 0
, JJersey that might include the refuse serves. But this trading of lives for money may sat a new standard for-L from some nuclear power plant.
shamab. ness. It's a standard Con-p
- The-Bluegrass State's problems gress should not tolerate and one
/ aside the NRC decision is uncon-that states should move quickly to r
l 6 scionable.'
protect against.
WJ g
-m,.c,
,