ML20059F241
| ML20059F241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/03/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Pease D HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059F245 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009110157 | |
| Download: ML20059F241 (5) | |
Text
/
e
' p tic
- ["
o UNITED STATES g
6 E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20b65 g
August 3, 1990 The Honorable Donald Pease United States House of Representatives washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Senator Pease:
I am responding to your June 7,1990, letter to Chairman Carr in which you submitted for our consideration two letters from concerned citizens regarding below regulatory concern or BRC waste disposals.
As you may be aware, on July 3,1990, the Commission issued its Below
, Regulatory Concern Policy Statement.
I have enclosed two copies ci 'oth this statement and an explanatory booklet for your information and use (Euclosures 1 and2).
I would point out that 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 Commission 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 beyond waste disposals in that it 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.
The policy can be censidered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendmehts Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240).
That Act (i.e., Section 10) directed the NRC to "... establish standard! 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 bg16w regulatory concern."
The Commission, in issuing the BRC policy, has acted in the belief that the nation's best interests would be served by the establishment of a consistent 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.,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who have formulated or are attempting to formulate similar policies for the hazardms materials they regulate.
I also believe our policy will contribute to the focusing of out radiation protection resources on those risks with great'st potential impact on public health and safety.
8 FULL TEXT ASCO SCAN 9009110157 900003 PDR ORG NE E
\\\\
r The Honorable Donald Pease 2
In responding to the specific concerns of your constituents, I have addressed each of the premises underlying the resolution passed by the Huron County Board of Commissioners (Enclosure 3).
I think you will find that responses 4 and 6 also apply to issues raised by lis. Schuller.
With respect to 145. Schu11er's characterization of BRC wastes as "... the most hazardous and long-lived radioactive waste known to man " I can assure you that any low-level waste that could be considered for BRC classification would involve only materials with the lowest levels cf radioactivity content.
In fact, the level of radioactivity may be such a small fraction of natural background radiation that it may %t be readily detectable.
I hope these views and tiie enclosed information will prove useful in responding to your constituents ard will expand the dialogue on this controversial and te.chnically complex issue.
Sincerely,
/
\\
W
- s M.
10 ecutive rector for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
BRC Policy Statement P., BRC Booklet 3.
Response to Resolution Premises 1
I& 5 gr
+
n 4
Response to Resolution Premises
-The following discussion responds to premises' included in the Huron County, Ohio, Board of Commissioners Resolution No.90-131.
Premise-1 This premise states that "...the U.S. Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Comelssion (NRC) have approved the concept of deregulating... radioactive waste
=
~ to the status of non-radioactive waste." Although this premise contains elements of f cct, when taken as a whole, it misrepresents, in two critical ways, the views of al parties concerned.
First, it appears to convey the erronssis impression that a class of hazardous material is being considered non-hazardous by declaration. A full reading of Section 10 of the Low-Level-Radioactive L'aste 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 ofsradionuclides 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 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 otner appropriate controls or constraints against which inspections, compliance determinations ano enforcement actions could be taken.
Premise 2
'This premise states that "... deregulated radioactive wastes-are expected to be deposited in... facilities...which are neither designed nor intended to.take radioactive waste." Since natural radioactive mata-ial is pervasive in our environment, including the radioactivity which'e.,.
'n our.own bodies, low levels of radioactivity from both natural sources anc. nan-made sources are consequently enteriq1 landfills.- Thus, the real issue involved in radioactive material disposals is, "What level of' radioactivity should we. allow to be disposed of.at specific non-licensed disposal facilities without compromising
-public health and sadety?" On 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 Coinmission's BRC policy is focused.
Premise'3 NRC has in the past exempted certain :.an-mande products (e.g., smoke detectors) from disposal requirements and unless specific meast.es were taken to, prevent thene articles from entering the Huron County Lendfill, they could be'present.
[
~'
zwm
!L Premise 4 This )remise may originate from a view expressed by the nuclear power industry and tie EPA that 30 cercent of the low-level radioactive waste generated by volume (at nuclea power facilities) may be considered for BRC waste classification. The nuclear power industry 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.
Premise 5 i
This premise suggests that eviderce is gr) wing that exposures to low-levels of
-ionizing. radiation have greater negative health effects than previously assumed. This statement may be based on estimates recently made by the United NationsScientificCommitteeontheEffectsofAtomicRadiation(UNSCEAR)and the National Research Council's Commi?.ee_ on the Biological Effects of Ionizing R6diation. This'1atter Committee has recently issued a report,
" Health Effects of Exposures to low-Levels of Ionizing Radiation," commonly referred to as the BEIR V report.
ihe estimates were based primarily upon the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors, and pertain-tu the high doses and dose rates associated with those exposures because there is no direct evidence of health effects from radiation at low dose 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 risks-from exposures comparable to external. natural background radiation. However, for the purpose of prudently establishing exposure limits for occupational workers and the pu'olic, international ~ and national regulatory bodies, including EPA and NPC, have used the health effects information from various scientific committe.s, including UNSCEAR and BEIR, to estimate risks at' low doses and dose' rat n based on extrapolations from the risk estimates applicable to thr. bomb survivors.
Specifically, the Commission t is used this most recent infr,rmation in the formulation of-its BRC policy.
' Premise 6
'Yhis premise points out that reclamation strategies could be severely hampered
.if' low-level radioactive wastes are accepted at landfilis. Here again the issue involves establishing acceptable levels of r.ontamination 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 proMbition on products such as smoke detectors, radioluminous time)ieces, incandescent gas mantles, thoriated tungsten welding rods, ophtialmic lenses, and other useful items which contain very small amounts of
- radioactivity,.but yet can certainly find their way-into our disposal i
facilities.
2 l
(, ' f ' [ '-
1/ { ' l
[ -
N*
N
..~
t
+
J CONGR':8810NAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PREPARATION CHECKLIST
- This checklist is to be submitted with'each document (or group of Qs/As)'sent for entering into the CC8.
- 1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (8)
M irs 4 3 8.
TYPE OF DOCUMENT, orrespondence Bearings-(Qs/As)-
3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL sensitive (NRC Only)
Non-Sensitive
~ 4 '. ' COHGREssIONAL COMMITTER and SUSCOMMITTEE8 (if applicable)
Congressional Committee p
i Subcommittee 8.
~ SUBJECT CODES (a)-
(b)
(c)-
6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENT 8 (a)
____5520 (document name g
(b) scan.
(c)
Attachments (4)'
'Rakey (e) other 7.
SYSTr.M' LOG DATES (a). _b 9U Dase OCA sent taocument to CC8 (b)
. Data CC8 receives document
)
(e).
Date returned to OCA for additional information (i.1)
Date resemitted by OCA to 008
.(e) -
ste entered into CC8'by Date OCA motified that document is in CC8 (f) 8.
.COMMENTE 858*h 1
b
.m
_