ML20058K332
| ML20058K332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Damato A SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058K334 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9007050011 | |
| Download: ML20058K332 (4) | |
Text
_
a ang'o 1
'I
.['
y"9 4
UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
E W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555
\\*...+/
June 4, 1990 q
l' The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato United States Senator Leo O'Brien Federal Building i
Room 420 Albany, NY 12207-
Dear Senator D'Amato:
I-am responding to your letter of April 24, 1990, which asked for our l
consideration of a Resolution adopted by the Montgomery County, New York, Board i
of Supervisors. The resolution, No. 156 of 1990, opposed deregulation of radioactive waste and prohibited the disposal of below regulatory concern (BRC) radioactive waste at any county solid, liquid, or hazardous waste facility or recycling center. He have received several similar resolutions from local governmental entities throughout the United States.
You may also recall my March 5, 1990 letter that responded to BRC-related issues raised by another of I
your constituents.
In analyzing this resolution, I have addressed each of the underlying premises with the hope that such an approach will best enhance the dialogue on this BRC j
issue. These responses are included in the enclosure. However, I believe the
~
first premise in the resolution is the most critical and requires special emphasis. This premise states that "... the U.S. Congress, the Nuclear Regulatory-Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have i
approved the concept of deregrlating... radioactive waste to the status of non-radioactive waste." Although this premise contains elements of fact, when taken as a whole, I believe it misrepresents, in two critical ways, the views of all parties concerned. First, it appears to convey the erroneous impression that a class of hazardous material is being considered non-hazardous by declaration - a process certain public interest groups have deridingly referred I
to as " linguistic detoxification."
I believe that a full reading of Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240) substantiates'a different view. The Act 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 3
quantities to be below regulatory concern," and where "... regulation is not necessary to protect the public health and safety...." Second, the wording of the premise does not convey the fact that 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, en59 FULLTEXT ASCll SCAN 70 011 900604 I
j CHP1 53FR49886 PDC
The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato 2
As I indicated in my fiarch 5,1990 letter, a perspective on any potential exposures resulting from BRC waste disposals can be considered in light of the exposures we all receive from a variety of radiation sources, including the significant contribution from natural sources. This perspective is included in the enclosure in response to Premise 7.
t I hope these views will prove useful in responsibly expanding the dialogue on this controversial-and technically complex issue.
In conclusion, I want 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 you and by concerned citizens.
Sincerely,
/
8 J mes M. Ta r
xecutive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1. Response to Resolution Premises
,2. Package Incoming Material l
r:
ENCLOSURE Response to Resolution Premises The fcllowing discussion rcsponds to other premises included in the Montgemery County, New York, Board of Supervisors Resolution.
Premise 2 This premise states that "... deregulated r6dioactive waste would be deposited in... f acilities... which are not designed nor intenoed to take redioactive waste."
Since natural radioactive material is pervasive in our environment, including the radioactivity which exists in our own bodies, low levels of radioactivity from both natural sources and man-made sources are consequently entering landfills. Thus, the real issue involved in raoioactive l
material disposals is, "What level of radioactivity should we allow to be E
disposed of at specific non-licensed disposal facilities without compromising public health and safety?" 0,n this point, the Act focuses on the concentrations or quantities of radionuclides which could be disposed of at other than licensed low-level radioactive waste sites, it is this question upon which the Comission's BRC policy is focused.
Premise 3 I
This premise points out that certain deregulateo materials could be recycled into new materials or consumer products. Here again the issue involves establishing acceptable levels of contamination for radioactive material or other types of contamination. Otherwise, the alternative is to preclude any recycling.
For radioactive contamination, this option could lead to a prohibition on products such as smoke detectors, radioluminous timepieces, incandescent gas mantles, thoriated tungsten welding rods, ophthalmic lenses, and other useful items which contain very small amounts of radioactivity, but yet can certainly find their way into our disposal tacilit;ies.
Premise 4 The fourth premise in the resolution is related to the third and appears to imply that any level of radioactive contamination can jeopardize recycling efforts, a premise which is not reflected in presently accepted activities.
Premise 5 This premise may originate from a view expressed by the nuclear power industry and the EPA that 30 percent of the low-level radioactive waste generated by volume (at nuclear power facilities) may be considered for BRC waste classification. The nuclear power inoustry has estimated that this volume of material would contain approximately 0.01 percent of the radioactivity contained in all their low-level radioactive waste. There are other industries such as hospitals that also produce low-level waste.
i 1
Premise 6 This premise suggests that evioence is growing that exposures to low-levels of ionizing raciation have greater negative health effects than previously assumed.
This statement may be based on estimates recently made by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Ef tects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the National Research Council's Committee on tne Diological Effects of lonizing Radiation.
This latter Committee has recently issued a report, " Health Effects of Exposures to Low-Levels of lonizing Radiatior.," commonly referred to as the BEIR V report.
The estimates were boseo primorily upon the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors, and pertain to the high doses and dose rates associated with those exposures because there is no direct evidence of healtn effects from radiation at low cose levels.
The potential exposure levels which would be associated with BRC waste disposals are significantly smaller than those received by the bomb survivors and, in, fact, would only be a small fraction of natural background exposures. On this issue, the BEIR V report states that the possibility cannot be ruled out that there may be no ris'ks from exposures comparable to external natural background radiation. However, for the purpose of prudently establishing exposure limits for occupational workers and the public, international and national regulatory bodies, including EPA and NRC, have used the health effects information from various scientific committees, including UNSCEAR and BEIR, to estimate risks at low doses and dose rates based on extrapolations from the risk estimates applicable to the bomb survivors. Specifically, the Commission is using this most recent information in its formulation of a BRC policy.
Premise 7 This premise points out that there may be synergistic effects between chemicals and radiation. Certainly, synergisms have been identified in animal studies between various chemicals and between chemicals and radiation when exposure to these agents are at high exposure levels. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements has discussed this subject in their report No. 96,
" Comparative Carcinogenicity of Ionizing Radiation and Chemicals," issued in March of 1989. However, in considering the importance of this premise, it may be helpful to summarize 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 Raoiation 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 all nuclear fuel cycle plant effluents (conservatively estimated at less than 0.1 percent).
To the best of our knowledge, synergistic effects have not l _
been identified at the low exposure levels associated with variations in natural-occurring radiation in our environment. As a result, we believe that synergistic effects are not significant at the much lower exposure levels associated with potential BRC waste disposals.
2 i
'