ML20058G672
| ML20058G672 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/24/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Byrd R SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058G676 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9011130342 | |
| Download: ML20058G672 (2) | |
Text
.
~ _ -,
v.
7 j f-(
"W 4
, [
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
9 j.
I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 c o,
.g....+
October 24, 1990 T
The Honorable Robert-C. Byrd United States-Senate
. Washington,-D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Byrd:
I.am responding to your October 4, 1990, letter in which you asked us to
. address the concerns of'your constituent, Ms. Lee Ann Smith, who expressed
. disagreement with a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) policy which establishes guidelines for the NRC staff in reviewing requests for exemptions
.for.certain low-level radioactive waste (LLW) as being below regulatory
. concern or BRC.
On July 3,1990, the Comission issued a Below Regulatory Concern Policy l
Statement.
I have enclosed a copy of this statement together with a
. companion explanatory booklet for your use in responding to your constituent..The statement identifies the principles and criteria that will govern Comission decisions to exempt certain radioactive material from the full scope of regulatory controls. Thus, the policy could apply, but would not be limited to potential BRC waste determinations.
I would emphasize that the policy is not self-executing and does not, by itself, deregulate any LLW..Any specific exemption decisions would be accomplished
-.through rulemaking or licensing actions during which opportunity for public comment would be provided in those situations where generic exemption provisions i
havenotalgeadybeenestablished.
The policy can be considered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated in-99-240)..That Act (i.e., Section 10)y Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.
the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Polic directed the NRC to "... establish Lstandards and procedures...and develop the technical. capability for considering and acting upon petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste 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 the legislation, NRC developed and' published in 1986 a Statement of Policy and Procedures which outlines the criteria for considering.such petitions. Our recently issued broad policy statement,-which'has implications beyond waste disposals (e.g.,
applicable to decommissioning decisions involving the release of residually-contaminated lands or structures), reflects much of the basic radiation protection approach described in this earlier Commission policy. ~The Commission,.in both actions, has acted in the belief that the l
nation's best interests are served by policies that establish a consistent 1'
("URTEXT ASCllSCAN 9011130342 901024 PDR ORG NGPZg
//>
q
.1
risk framework within which exemption decisions can be made with assurance that human health and the environment are protected.
In this regard, we believe our actions are consistent with those of other Federal agencies; e.g.,theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency-(EPA)andtheFoodandDrug Administration (FDA), who have formulated or are attempting to formulate similar policies for the hazardous materials they regulate.
It may be helpful to first summarize the typical exposures which we all routinely receive from a variety of sources of radiation. The 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 and Measurements (NCRP Report No. 93), the effective dose equivalent 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 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 nuclear power plant effluents. Any low-level radioactive material associated with an exemption decision would not be expected to change this typical exposure " picture."
In responding to your constituent's specific concerns on dispersal of BRC radioactive material in community landfill sites, I would again point out that natural radioactive material is pervasive in our environment, including
-the radioactivity which exists in our own bodies. As a result, very low levels of radioactivity from both natural and man-made sources are currently entering landfills. Thus, the real issue involved in radioactive material disposals is, "What level of radioactivity can we albw to be disposed of at specifically defined non-licensed disposal facilities withoul: compromising public health and safety or the environment"? Tne Commission believes that 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 and, therefore, could not cause measurable increases in radiation levels currently associated-with drinking water supplies.
in closing,.I want_to assure you that the Commission takes its mandate to l
protect the health and safety of the public very seriously.
I, therefore, L
hope the views expressed and the enclosed:information will prove useful in
. responsibly expanding the dialogue on this controversial and technically I
complex-issue.
Sincerely, a
'; N Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Congressional Affairs l
Office of Governmental and l
public Affairs
Enclosures:
As Stated l
l
-.