ML20042E951
| ML20042E951 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/02/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Levin C SENATE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005070011 | |
| Download: ML20042E951 (2) | |
Text
n
. Q o
UNITED STATE 8 E
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
f WAaHINGTON. o. C. 20606 7
March.2, 1990 The Honorable Carl Levin United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dent Senator Levin:
I am responding to your thne requests of December 21, 1989, which asked us to look into matters raised by constituent letters from: (1) Mr. Warren J. LaBeau Clerk, Monroe County Board of Comissionerst (2) Mr. Robert L. Dunbar, Clerk of
.the City of Monroe; and (3) Mr. Eric C. Lewis. All three letters objected to thepotentialclassificationofsomelow-levelradioactivewaste(LLW)as"below regulatory concern" (BRC) and the Monroe County Board of Comissioners also requested that Congress-rescind the > art of the Low-Level-Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act-(the Act) whici requires the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) to set BRC standards.
As way of background, the Act directed the Comission to "... establish standards and procedures... and develop the technical capability for considering and actinguponpetitions[emphasisadded]toexemptspecificradioactivewaste 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 this legislation, NRC developed and published in 1986, the enclosed Statement of Policy and Procedures (Enclosure 1) w;ich outlined the criteria for considering such petitions. To date, the Comission has received two petitions from the Rockefeller University related to biomedical waste.
Although these petitions have not qualified for expedited consideration under this policy, they will be fully evaluated in accordance with our regulation.
Any petitions received on this subject will be published in the Federal Register to solicit public comment.
If the hRC should determine that there is merit in an exemption regulation while continuing to provide for adequate protection of tile public health and safety, the NRC would prepare the fullrulemaking package l
tor the proposed regulation and would publish tie proposed rule for public coment. This, in fact, is the process that has been followed-in the past to promulgate the exemptions which currently exist in the Comission's regulations.
You may be assured that the NRC will fully evaluate the health and environmental concern before reaching a decision whether or not to grant such a BRC petition.
In the Act, the Comission was specifically directed to determine whether the
"... concentration or quantity of radionuclides present in such [BRCS waste stream requires regulation by the Comission in order to protect pub'ic health and safety." Thus, any exemption decision must assure that there continues to be adequate protection of public health and safety.
Our goal is to operate under policies that optimize the effectiveness of our public health and safety resources while assuring that there are no resultant unacceptable risks to the public.
In order to ensure a consistent NRC practice in evaluating action with respect
' to very low levels of radiation material, the Comission is in the process of-developing a policy statement that would identify the principles and criteria 9005070011 900302 PDR ORO NE E gg
m 'os 2
l r
that govern Consnission decisions which could exempt radioactive material from some or all regulatory controls. This policy was the subject of the enclosed advanced notice (Enclosure 2) and would apply not only to waste disposals but also to all our decisions which would allow material with a very low level of l
radioactivity to be released to the environment or to the general public. We received over 250 consnent letters on this notice, and we have given the issues 3
and questions raised in these letters serious consideration in our policy development efforts.
I b(11 eve that it is this kind of careful deliberation on the issue of exeniptions recommended by your constituents.
Finally, I would point out that, while radiation protection policies have conservatively presumed that any level of radiation exposure involves risk th recent study, lealth Effects of Exposure to Low-Levels of lonizing Radiation,e BEIR V, issued by the National Research Council, points out that "... the possibility that there may be no risks from exposures comparable to external natural background radiation cannot be ruled out." As you know, everyone routinely receives exposures from a variety of sources of radiation, including radiation naturally occurring within our cwn bodies. These 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 estinated by the National CouncilofRadiationProtectionandPeasurements(NCRPReportNo.93),the effective dose equivalent received by the United States population averages about 360 millirem per year. Of this total about 300 millirem per year (or over80percentofthetotal)isaresultofnaturalsources,includingradon and its cecay products, while medical exposures, such as x-rays, when averaged over the U.S. population, contribute an estimated 53 millirem per year. Other mar-made sources contribute the remaining 1 to 2 percent of the total exposure, i
including nuclear fallout and nuclear power plant effluents.
I am 3 resenting this total exposure " picture" to 3rovide a perspective on the hypotietical risks which niay be associated witi very low levels of radioactivity that is associated with potential LRC waste disposal practices. Any exposures from such practices would be liniited to a small fraction of the total radiation exposure received annually by any individual.
The NRC believes this relative risk perspective is relevant to its decisions to allocate its regulatory resources to control the potential radiological risks associated with the use l
of radioactive materials.
l In conclusion, I want to assure you that we take our mandate to protect the health and safety of the public very seriously.
As a result, we will continue to do our best in carefully and clearly responding to issues and questions raised by your constituents.
Sincerely,
/
es
. Tay r ecutive D ector j
for Operations j
Enclosures:
)
1} NRC Statement of Policy and Procedures
- 2) HRC Advanced Notice Policy Statement 1
_.