ML20055D101
| ML20055D101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/06/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Moynihan D SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055D102 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9007030215 | |
| Download: ML20055D101 (3) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, ,,,, - r Q9 Mo r uq%* UNITED sT ATES !\\ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n \\..'.. + [,i -{c WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 June 6, 1990 The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Moynihan:
I am responding to your note of May 15, 1990, which asked for our considaration of letters received from Assemblyman Paul D. Tonko and Mayor Gilbert Shapiro. Both of these elected representatives opposed deregulation of radioactive waste into the status of below regulatory concern and both opposed the l Section 10 provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-240). We have received several similar letters from e local governmental entities throughout the United States. I would first note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not published any proposed regulations which would allow disposal of low-level i L waste (LLW) under the BRC arovisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pu). L. 99-240). In response to the legislation, NRC developed and published in 1986, a Statement of Policy and Procedures which outlines the criteria for considering rulemaking petitions for such disposals. L I have enclosed a copy of the statement which you may find informative and l useful in responding to Assemblyman Tonko and Mayor Shapiro (Enclosure 1). Besides this 1986 policy, the Commission continues to be active in pursuing the development of a broad policy that would identify the principles and criteria that govern Commission 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 ,ce disposals but also to other decisions which would allow licensed .-adioactive material to be released to the environment or to the general public. Thus, the policy would also provide the basis for decommissioning decisions involving the release of lands, structures, or recycled materials for unrestricted use as well as decisions regarding consumer product exemptions. We believe the nation's best interests would be served by a policy that establishes a consistent risk framework within which exemption decisions can be made with assurance that human health and the envircnment are protected. Such a policy would also contribute to the focusing of our limited resources on those risks with greatest potential impact on public health and safety. In further addressing the subject of potential BRC waste disposals, I would point out that LLW considered to be "below regulatory concern" under the provisions of Pub. L. 99-240 would only involve materials with the lowest levels of radioactivity content. In fact, the level of radioactivity for some potential BRC wastes may be such a small fraction of natural background radiation that it may not be readily detectable. mmTan xs M# MR7#222"' '6 CHP1 53FR49886 PDC l
e 4 i ?. The' Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan 2 l In interpreting the radiological significance of potential BRC disposals, it may be also. helpful to consider the typical exposures which we all routinely receive from a variety of sources of radiation. These exposures occur from l radiction that is ratural in origin as well as from sources which involve man-made uses of radioactive caterial. In total, as estimated by the l National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP heport No. 90), l the effective dose eouivalent received by an average individual in the United States population is about 360 millirem per year. Of-this total, over 83 percent (about 300 millirem per year) is a ruult of natural sources, including radon and its decay products, while medical exposures such as x-rays, when l uveraged over the U.S. population, centribute an estimated 15 percent (53 milliterr per year). Other man-made sources, including nuclear fallout, l contribute the remaining 1 to 2 percent of the total exposure. The remaining 1 l to 2 percent also includes the contribution fron nuclear power plant effluents. 1 am presenting this total exposure " picture" to provide a perspective on the hypothetical risks which may be associated with potential BRC waste disposal practices. This perspective is one of several that the Commission believes are L relevant to its cecisions involving regulatory resource allocations to control the potential radiological risks associated with the use of radioactive materials. l In addressing the specific concerns raised by Assemblyman Tonko and Mayor Shapiro, I have addressed each of the underlying premises contained in their letters with the hope that such an approach will best enhance the dialogue on this BRC i issue. These responses are included in Enclosure 3. However, I believe there may be-a misunderstanding in both letters which is most critical and requires special emphasis. This misunderstanding relates to the presumption that the { U.S. Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have approved the concept of deregulating "... radioactive waste to the status of non-radioactive. waste." Although this statement contains elements of fact, when taken as a whole, I believe it misrepresents, in two critical ways, the views of the parties l concerned. First, it appears to convey the erroneous impression argued by some r groups that a class of hazardous material is being considered non-hazardous. 1 Section 10 of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments of 1905 1 (Pub. L. 99-240) directs the Commission to consider exemption of waste streams from regulation "... due to the presence of radionuclides in such waste streams i in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities to be below regulatory concern," and where "... regulation... is not necessary to protect the public health and safety.... " Second, any implementing regulation allowing BRC waste disposals from NRC licensed facilities would include record keeping and the possibility of other appropriate controls or constraints against which inspections, compliance determinations and enforcement actions could be taken. I
- 7..
o - The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan 3 i I hope these views will prove useful in responsibly expanding the di6logue on this controversial and technically complex issue. In conclusion,~I waet 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 concerneo citizens end their elected representatives. Sincerely, V 'r da 's . Taylor /j4 Exe ive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1. Final Policy (51 FR 30838) 2. Federal Register (53 FR 49886) 3. Responses to BRC Concerns 4 Package Incoming Material}}