ML20044A716
| ML20044A716 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/21/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Mayer J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044A717 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9007020125 | |
| Download: ML20044A716 (2) | |
Text
!
}p g, 9
4
[sca aev,.
i o
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
{
\\.... + [,I wAsHINoTON, o, c. 20066
-I June 21, 1990 CHAlHMAN Mr. John A. Mayer, Jr., Chairman The Commonwealth.of Massachusetts Low-level Radioactive Waste Management Board 100 Cambridge Street Room'903 Boston, Massachusetts 02133 Dea r Mr. - Mayer:-
I am responding to your letter of flay 10, 1990, in which you expressed the concerns of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management-Board about our efforts to develop a below regulatory concern (BRC) policy.
i The Commission believes'such~a policy;is necessary to establish a-risk-based f ramework for decisions to exemptuvery low" levels of '
radioactive material from regulatory. control.
The policy's provisions would apply not only to1 potential BRC waste, as. defined by the provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy:
Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240), but also to other regulatory decisions for which we are responsible, such'as the degree of clean-up needed prior to release for unrestricted use of decommiss-loned and decontaminated land and structures or following.
an unusual event involving _the. release of radioactive' material.
We believe the nation's best interests will be served by,a1 policy that establishes a consistent risk framework within which these.
decisions can be made with assurance 1 that human health and~ the environment are arotected.
Such a. policy would also contribute to the focusing of ]oth Federal and State radiation ~ protection resources on those' risks of greatest concern.
The Commission acknowledges-the fact.that many State and local laws and resolutions prohibit any:BRC waste from being disposed of in local landfills.
Yet the: Commission is authorized byythe Atomic Energy Act, as amended, to exempt certain classes-or quantities of material-from licensing requirements when.it makes a finding that the exemption will-not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the-public.
In this regard, we recognize the importance, on the one' hand, of maintaining uni-formity in' matters a f fecting basic radiation protection standards,
/6
{0 9007020125 900621 PDR' COMMS NRCC
\\
CORRESPONDENCE PDC
.\\\\\\
i a
l l
l Mr. John A. Mayer, Jr.
2 L
l and, on the other hand, of providing the f'exibility necessary to accommodate significant but unique concerns of a particular State or locality.
The need for uniformity of basic radiation protec-tion standards, however, does not affect a state or locality's ability to regulate radioactive materials for purposes other than L
radiological protection or to choose.a site or technology when acting in a nonregulatory proprietary capacity.
I regret that the NRC was unable to participate in your forum.
Our representative withdrew because the NRC staff believed it could not authoritatively represent'the Commission's views in the-absence of Commission decisions on key aspects-of the BRC policy.
I expect that the Commission will issue its BRC policy by the end of this= month and will at that time initiate efforts to dissemi-nate information on the policy to Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local authorities, Indian tribal organizations, and the public.
The educational forum that you had proposed could be included as an element of this information dissemination effort.
I want to assure you that we take our mandate:to protect the health and safety of the public very. seriously.
Our intent is to work very closely with the States, Compact Commissions Management Boards, and others as we carry out our regulatory mission in implementing our BRC policy'as an integral - pa rt of. NRC 's regulatory framework.
Sincerely, Kenneth M. Carr i
i
,