ML20058K312
| ML20058K312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/20/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Damato A SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058K315 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9007030163 | |
| Download: ML20058K312 (3) | |
Text
E r
s
- o UNITED STATES 1
I" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n.
+1 p. $
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
%.....f i
June 20, 1990 L
L The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato United States Senator Leo O'Brien Federal Building Room 420 Albany, NY 12207
Dear Senator D'Amato:
I am responding to your letter of May 16, 1990, which asked for.our consideration of issues raised by Assemblyman Paul D. Tonko. Assemblyman Tonko expressed his opposition to Section 10 of the 1985 Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act that allowed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to classify radioactive waste into the status of below regulatory concern or BRC.
' You may recall that my previous letters of March 5 and June 4,1990, responded '
to BRC-related issues raised by other of your constituents.
I will repeat elements of those responses for your use in replying to Assemblyman Tonko.
I have also addressed each of the underlying premises contained in Assemblyman Tonko's letter with the hope the.t such an approach will best-enhance the.
i dialogue on this BRC issue. These responses are included in Enclosure 1.
I believe, however, that there may be a misunderstanding in Assemblyman Tonko's letter 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 partiss concerned.
- First, it appears to convey the erroneous impression that a class of hazardous material is being considered nonhazardous. Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (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 in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities to be below regulatory concern," and where ".... regulation... is not necessary to protect the public health and safcty...." 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 would note,-as mentioned in my previous letters, that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not published any proposed regulations which would allow disposal of-low-level waste (LLW) uncer the BRC provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240).
In response to the legislation, NRC developed and published in 1986, a Statement of Policy "rULLTEXT AScil SCAN llgg7og163900620 CHP1 33FR49886 PDC
'\\
-The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato 2
and Procedures which outlines the criteria for considering rulemaking petitions for such disposals.
I have enclosed a copy of the statement which you may again find useful in responding to Assemblyman Tonko (Enclosure 2).
Besides this 1986 policy, the Comission continues to be active in pursuing the development of a broad policy that would identify the principles and criteria tht 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 3), 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, 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 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.
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, In interpreting the radiological significance of potential BRC disposalt., it may be also helpful to consider the typical exposures which we all routinely receive f om 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 and Measurements (NCRP Report No. 93),
the effective dose equivalent received by an average individual in the United States po Of this total, over 83 percent (pulation is about 360 millirem per year.about 300 millirem per year) is a result 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.
I am again 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 relevant to its decisions involving regulatory resource allocations to control the potential radiological risks associated with the use of radioactive materials.
3-
-The. Honorable Alfonse D'Amato l
I hope these views will prove useful in responsibly expanding the dialogue on this controversial and technically complex issue, In conclusion, I want to again assure.you that we take our mandate' to protect the health and safety of the public very seriously. As a result, we1will continue to do our best in carefully and clearly responding to issues and questions raised by concerned citizens and their elected representatives.
J Sincerely,
\\
s mes M.
a or xecutive rector for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Responses to BRC Concerns 2.
Final Policy (51 FR 30838)
.3.
Federal Register (53 FR'49886) 4.
Package Incoming Material
.