ML20044A723
| ML20044A723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Panetta L HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9007020139 | |
| Download: ML20044A723 (3) | |
Text
.
/
?,.[,,-.,h UNat0 STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULA10RY COMMISSION wwowmN D. C. POW
'b.),$. !,
May 7, 1990 The Honorable Leon E. Panetta United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Panetta:
I am responding to your letter of April 13, 1990, which requested our consideration of issues raised by you and your constituent Barbara L.
Clutter, M.D.
Theseconcernsinvolvethedisposaloflowlevelradioactive wastes and, in particular, those wastes characterized as "below regulatory concern" or "BRC."
I would first note that the Nuclear Regulatory Consission (NRC) has not published an waste (LLW) y proposed regulations which would allow disposal of low level under the BRC provisions of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendnents Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240).
However the Act directed the NRC to
... establish standards and procedures... an,d develop the technical capability for considering and acting upon i
radioactive waste streams from regulation. petitions to exempt specific
.. 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 the legislation, NRC develo)ed and published in 1986, a Statement of Policy and Procedures which 1
outlines tis criteria for considering such petitions.
I have enclosed a copy of the statement which you may find informative and useful in responding to Dr. Clutter (Enclosure 1).
Besides this 1986 policy, the Consission continues to be active in pursuing the development of a broad policy that would identify the principles and criteria that govern Connission decisions which could exempt radioactive material from.
some or all regulatory controls. This broad policy, the. subject of the enclosed advance notice (Enclosure 2), would apply not only to BRC waste disposals but also to other decisions which would allow licensed radioactive material to be released to the environment or to the general public.
Thus, with regard to Dr. Clutter's concerns listed under Items 3, 4, and S in her letter, the policy would provide the basis for decisions regarding acceptable limits on the type and concentration of radioactive materials that would be in consumer products, including the Commission's rationale on whether radioactive material, at any level, is permitted in items such as children's toys.
The policy would also provide the framework for developing guidance on what quantities and concentrations of radioactive material could be subjected to incineration processes. And with regard to the contaminated sites, rather than preventing cleanup, the -policy would provide the basis for determining if the necessary degree of cleanup has R)aTEU M 9007020139 900507 1
FR49806 PDC dv (\\
c
\\
i The Honorable Leon E. Panetta O
been achieved which would :llow these sites to be released for public use.
We believe the nation's belt interests would be served by a policy that establishes e consistent risk f romerork within which exemption decisions can be made with assurance that human hetIth and the environment are protected. Such a policy would also contribute to the focusing of our limited national resources on those risks with greatest potential impact on public health and safety.
j in addressing Dr. Clutter's specific concern regarding potential BRC waste disposals, I would point out that any LLW considered to be "below regulatory concern" under the provisions of pub. L.99-240 would only involve materials i
with the lowest level of radioactivity content.
In fact, the level of radio-l activity for sonie potential CR wastes may be such a small fraction of natural i
background radiation that it n'ay not be readily detectable.
As a result, in response to Dr. Clutter's iten 2 concern, any exposures received by sanitation, transportation, and waste trettment and disposal workers would be small and not approach a significant fraction of the current public dose limit.
In response to Dr. Clutter's first concern, if any potential BRC waste disposals or other exemptions are approved by the Commission, assurance would be provided that when considered individut11y or collectively, no significant increase would occur in the background levels of radiation.
Finally, in response to Dr. Clutter's concern expresced in her item 6, the potential for multiple exempted practices, including any concentrations of BRC waste disposals at one landfill, would be an important consideration if and when such regulations are developed and promulgated.
To further understand the levels of potential exposures which could be received l
from radioactive material exempted under a BRC or exemption policy, it may be helpful to suns.arize the typical exposures which we all routinely receive from a variety of sources of radiation.
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 estimated by the National Council on Radiation Protection ano Heasurements (NCRP Report No. 93), the effective dcse equivalent received by an average individual in the United States population is about 360 millirem per year.
Of this total, over 83 percent (ebout 300 millirem per year) is t. result of natural sources, including radon and its decay products, while medical exposures such as x-rays, when averaged over the U. 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 all nuclear fuel cycle plant effluents (conservatively estimated at less than 0.1 percent).
I am presenting this total exposure " picture" to provide a perspective on the hypothetical risks which may be associated with 1
potential BRC waste disposal practices. This perspective is one of several that the Consnission believes are relevant to its decisions involving regulatory resource allocations to control the potential radiological risks associated with the use of radioactive materials.
The Honorable Leon E. Panetta 3
in closing, I want to assure you that we take our mandate to protect the health and safety of the public very seriously.
As a result, the concerns expressed by you and your constituent are among those that we must carefully consider and address as we carry out our regulatory mission.
Sincerely,
/
\\ [Ta vaeDs or ecutive D rector for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. Final Policy (51 FR 30839) 2.FederalRegister(53FR49886)
6
. LEON E. PANETTA
- ,=o,o=w.c
... e..,y,...o.
- u..:=. g.g,y..
1 Q
WWM @ M M h s
'5..'5...'.'.E.... ',
oust.uocer c:"*""
house of Erpresentatibes
=';" a
^oa" "
MoV$l ADWNi$'4AftoN 3Eashington. DC 20515 2>'.' e 5:uct couwnn :s wuNoin "E. iE.
sigeninoAsceoucy
......u,..
vuonity.w April 13, 1990 80n THE B.0;f f 1
Mr. Dennis Ratheum Director of Congressional Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Ratheum:
I am writing on behalf of a constituent, Dr. Barbara clutter, who has informed me of her concerns regarding proposals by the Nuclear 3
Regulatory Commission to deregulate the disposal of low level radioactive waste.
As you can see from the enclosed correspondence, I have included a copy of Dr. Clutter's letter to me for your reference.
I believe Dr.
Clutter's letter raises some very important concerns which I share.
As such, I would appreciate the NRC providing me with a response to
{
each of Dr. Clutter's concerns.
Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.
I look forward to receiving your response.
Sine ly M
C.
ANETTA emb of Congress LEP/jmp enclosure l
^
m
/
4 January 24, 1990 U.S.
Representative Loon Panetta 339 Cannon House office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Panettat Recently I have becomo aware of a new policy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Environmental Protection Agency to allow certain radioactive wastes to be classified as Below' Regulatory Coucern (BRC) and to be mixed with other regular wastes in landfills or duinped into sewage systems or incinerators or even taken to recycling centers.
The concerns I have are as follows:
1.
Mixing radioactive wasto with our other waste products will inevitably increase background radiation levels year by year and thereby likely increase risks of cancer, birth defects, and other health problems.
- 2. -Sanitation, transportation, waste treatment and disposal workers could come into daily' contact with radioactive waste without their knowledge or consent.
3.
Incinerators could start burning radioactive wastes, releasing radiation into the air and generating radioactive ash.
4.
Radioactive materials could be recycled and used in consumer products.
(Imagine having children's toys manufactured from. radioactive recycled metal.)
4%
g 3
0 8
,, )
w *i N ~
t
,o January 24, 1990 l
Tot U.S.
Representative Leon Panetta Page Two 5.
Cleanup of contaminated weapons plants, nuclear reactors, and other radiation facilities will never be completed if the Beyond Regulatory Control (BRC) policy is implemented.
Instead, the government and the utilities will simply declare these sites clean--even though radioactive contamination will continue to exist.
6.
Even though the government has reason to believe that the amount of radiation in the BRC waste is at ' present not i
worth tracking, it is.possible that such radioactive waste could be concentrated in one landfill or incinerator, etc.,
making the concentration high enough to be of considerable danger.
l I would like to see this policy to deregulate radioactive waste rescinded.
I urge you to sponsor a bill prohibiting the recla ss i f ication of radioactive waste as "Below Regulatory concern."
Sincerely, O
Cf%
W Barbara L.
Clutter, M.D.
BLC:brm 6
a we
..