ML20059E989
| ML20059E989 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/08/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Coughlin L HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059E992 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009110054 | |
| Download: ML20059E989 (3) | |
Text
_.._
/
~ \\,
UNITED STATES f"
7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
r,,,
j W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20bb6 q
August 8, 1990 f
The Honorable Lawrence Coughlin United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Coughlin:
)
I am responding to your July 3,1990, letter in which you requested our consideration of issues raised by several of your cunstituents, including Ms. Virginia Cameron.
As you may be aware, on July 3,1990, the Comission issued a Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) Policy Statement.
I have enclosed a copy of this statement and an explanatory booklet for your information and use (Enclosures 1 and 2).
I would point out that the policy is not self-executing and does not, by itself, deregulate any low-level radioactive waste. Rather, the policy states the principles and criteria that would apply to Comission decisions which would allow licensed radioactive material to be released to the environment or to the general public. Any specific exemption decision would be accomplished through rulemaking or licensing actions during which opportunity for public comment would be provided in those situations where generic exemption provisions have not already been established.
Furthermore, the policy has -implications beyo9d waste disposals in that it would also provide the basis for decomissioning decisions involving the release of lands, structures, or recycled materials for unrestricted use as well as decisions regarding consumer product exemptbns.
This policy can be considered an outgrowth of the concept articulate 6 in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L 90-240).
That Act (i.e., Section 10) directed the Nuclear Regulatory Comi,sion (NRC) to establish standards and procedures... and develop the technical capability-for considering and acting upon petitions to exempt specif 4 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." The Comission, in its more broadly applicable BRL policy, has acted in the belief that the nation's best interests is 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.
In i,
this regard, we believe our actions are consistent with those of other Federal agencies, e.g., the Environmenta! Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who have formulated or are at'.a.,pting to formulate similar policies for the hazardous r.aterials they regulata 1 slso believe our policy will contribute to focusinr, our radiation procedit c resources on those risks with greatest potential imaact on public health and safety.
9009110054 9oosos PDR ORG NE ED PDC 7
The Honorable Lawrence Coughlin 2
With regard to Ms. Cameron's specific concerns, I can assure you that any low-level waste that could be considered for BRC classification would involve only materials with the lowest levels of radioactivity content. In fact, the level of radioactivity may be such a small fraction of natural background radiation that it may not be readily detectable. As a result, any exemption granted through the provisions of the BRC )c' icy is not likely to cause any significant or measurable exposures throup,i ground water contamination.
Likewise, if recycle of any contaminated sterial is permitted, any potential exposures to the public would need to be rigorously evaluated and be shown to comply with all BRC policy provisions, in conclusion, I believe our BP.C policy is in concert with our mandate to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment.
I hope these views and the enclosed information will prove useful in responding to your constituents and will responsibly expand the dialogue on this controversial and technically complex issue.
1 Sincerely, 1
s M. Tay r i
Ex utive Di ector j
for Operations i
Enclosures:
l 1.
BRC Policy Statement 2.
BRC Explanatory Booklet i
l i
l l
1 CONGRESSIONAL COAMSPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PREPARATION CNECRLIST This checklist is to La submitted with each document (or group of Gs/As) sent for entering into the CCS.
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOC!iMENT(0) b
-# n ba v b f r'v1-
/
I
)
8.
T'tFE OF DOCUMENT Correspradense Bearings (Qs/As)
/
3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (NRC Only)
Won-Sensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUSCOMMITTEES (if applicable)
Congressional committee subcommittee i
i 5.
SUMECT CODES (a)
(b)
(e) s.
s0URCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5530 (document name (b) an.
(c)
Attachments l
(d)
Rekey (e)'
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES (a)
- 4 Date 0CA sent document to CCS (b)
.Date CCS receives document i
(e)
Data returned to OCA for additional information (d)
Date resubmitted by OCA to CCS (e)
Date entered into CC4 by (f)
Date OCA notified that document is in Ces 8.
COMMENTS i
l
.,-,n.,-v
n,-,--
.,.n-
--