ML20042F716
| ML20042F716 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/07/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Geoffrey Miller HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042F715 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, MILLER-900207, NUDOCS 9005090299 | |
| Download: ML20042F716 (2) | |
Text
e QUESTION 1.
Please' provide any and all documents dated subsequent to January 1,1986, concerning the selection of numerical criteria for the Commission's BRC policy and/or the acceptable magnitude of individual dose for this policy.
I i
i ANSWER.
i As we indicated in the December 12, 1988 advance notice, there was a wide-i range of values considered in selecting the numerical dose criteria for the I
exemption policy.
In part, the range of values came about as a result of the broad spectrum of views of NRC staff members who were specifically asked to contribute to the formulation of the exemption policy. The-extent to which different viewpoints were sought is reflected in the breadth of NRC staff attendance at a two-day staff meeting held in Baltimore, Maryland, on i
June 9-10, 1988, and at a follow-up staff meeting held on July 7, 1988; the I
international workshop held on October 17-19, 1988; and the public meeting held on January 12, 1989. The proceedings of the Workshop and the transcript
~ ~ -
from the public' meetin~ are inclu~ded in documients Recors Nos.'15'O and 151.
~
~
g
~
~
~
~
~~ ~
4 The most important issue affecting selection of the numerical values of the individual and collective dose criteria was the selection of the basis for the i
criteria. One approach was to set the criteria at a risk level that could be
{
considered "de minimis" or " trivial," 1rrespective of the activity being considered for exemption and independent of the regulatory resources available for risk control or reduction. This is the basis used by the Food and Drug.
9005090299 900430 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC
+
1 s
Qu'estionl'(Continued) t
-4 Administration (FDA) in decisions involving acceptability of trace contaminants in certain food products. Another approach was to. define a level of risk that -
together With 'other constraints or conditions',' would allow a regulatory agency.
to decide when its resources,'and those of the regulated community it' oversees.
.are better directed to more-significant public health and safety concerns. The Comission's current exemption policy is based on~ this latter approach.
Among the NRC staff and the-Commission, there was, and remains, general j
agreementthatanyselecteddosecriterionshouldbeL(1)small-intermsofreal I
or calculated risks in comparison to other-voluntary and involuntary risks I:
that people routinely accept without spending resources to avert or-reduce -
.them; (2) a small fraction of existing. acceptable public dose limits; and (3) comparable to those exposures that people receive from natural background radiation during routine human activities (e.g., the 5 millirem dose that an individual could receive during a round trip, coast-to-coast, aircraft flight).
^
With regard to the. individual dose criterion, consideration was given to values
/
ranging from 0.1 to 20 millirem per year, with the most. serious deliberation.
given to values between 1 and 10 millirem per year. The documents transmitted to you include two which document and resolve the views of staff who strongly i
supported selection of 1 millirem per year as the individual dose criterion value (Record Nos. 124 and 127). Additional views of the NRC's Advisory Conunittee on Reactor Safeguards and Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Waste are also included in the transmitted documents (Record Nos. 105, 155, 40, 54, 126 and201).
.