ML20059F548

Responds to Requesting Consideration of Issues Raised by G Fisher on Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement

ML20059F548
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/16/1990
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Hollings E SENATE
Shared Package
ML20059F551	List: ML20059F548 ML20059F553
References
FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009110249
Download: ML20059F548 (4)

Text

Q

., ~

o y,

j, (-e* *torg),,

j 's

'[

UNITED STATES-g

' NUCLEAR REGU8.ATORY COMMISSION

5

j WASHINGTON, D C. 20605 g

J.

h, l

....+

August 16,1990 l

1 i

l The Honorable Ernest F; Hollings United States Senate y

Washington, D.C.

20510

Dear Senator Hollings:

i I am responding to your July 27, 1990 letter in which you requested our consideration of issues raised by your constituent, Mr. George Fisher.

Mr. Fisher's concerns are directed at the Comission's recently issued Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) Policy Statemmt which he believes will result in i

the arbitrary reclassification of low-ltvel radioactive waste (LLW) as ordinary i

trash.

lj n.

The Comission issued the aforementionec policy statement on July 3,1990.-

l p

I have enclosed a copy of both this statuent and a companion explanatory

^

L

, booklet (Enclosures 1 and 2) for your.inf rmation and use in responding to L

Mr. Fisher.

I would point out that the policy is not seif-executing and' L

does not, by itself, deregulate'any LLW.

Rather, the policy states t a k'

principles and criteria that would apply to Commission decisions'which could allow licensed radioactive material to be released from the full scope of regulatory controls. Any specific exemption decision would be accomplished

-j i

L

- through' rulemaking or lic.ensing actions -during which opportunity for-public

'j L

comment would be provided in those situations where generic _ exemption l

provisionshave-notalreadybeenestablished.

The policy can be considered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated in the l

. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240).

L

That Act (i.e., Section 10) directed the NRC to "... establish standards and 1

procedures...:nd develop the technical capability for considering and acting-j upon petitions-to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from 4

L regulation...due to the presence of radionuclides in such waste streams in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities as to be below regulatory,

4

' concern.."' In response to the legislation, NRC developed and published in 1986 l

a Statement of Policy and Procedures which outlines the criteria' for considering such petitions. Our recently issued bred policy statement i

has implications beyond waste disposals in that it nuld be 9pplicable to' a range of potential exemption activities, including decommissioning decisions involving the release of residually-contaminated lands or structures for unre:;tricted public use. Nevertheless, the broad policy reflects much of the basic _ radiation protection approach described in the 1986 Commission policy.

The Commission, in both actions, has acted in the belief that the nation's best interest 3 are served by policies that establish a consistent risk framework within which exemption decisions can be made with assurance that. human health 900911J249 900816 i

M,[$ ggg PDR ORG NE E l

b&v a N1 1

4

O f

-)

1 j

2 The Honorable Ernest Hollings~

f and the environment are protected.

In this regard, we believe our. actions are consistent with those of other Federal agencies, e.g.. the Environmental L

ProtectionAgency(EPA)andtheFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA),whohave formulated or are attempting to formulate similar policies for the hazardous materials they regulate.

i

-In responding to Mr. Fisher's concern regarding the " threat" posed by radiation, it may be. helpful to first summarize the typical exposures which we all routinely receive from a variety of sources of radiation.

These exposures occurefrom radiation that is natural in origin as well as from sources which involva man-made uses of radioactive material..In total, as estimated by the Nat+onal Council on Padiation 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 L

i percent (53 millirem 1er year). Other man-made suurces, including riuclear fallout, contributettle 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 waste that could be considered for BRC classification or, for that matter, any radioactive material associated with an exemption decision, would not be expected to change this typical exposure

,,.cture."

In fact, the level of radioactivity for some potential BRC wastes my be such a small fraction.of natural background radiation that it may not be readily. detectable.

In closing, I can 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 tne issues and questions raised by your constituent and other concerned citizens.

Sincerely,-

/

N =W

\\

J es M. Tay r-xecutive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

BRC Policy Statement 2.

BRC Explanatory Booklet i

h t

-r

....-~...

w

.j;;veo :1 t4 '

!-f i'

4

The Honorable; Ernest.Hollingsi 3-

+ Distribution: [COM1673]-

RPHEB R/F. - -DCool; circ-chron

'EDO R/F' JTaylor, EDO-HThompson, DEDOL MBridgers(EDONo.5706)

SECY-(No. 90-0804)-

Scinto, 0GA RBernero, NMSS ESBeckjord CJHeltemes; BMMorris-FACostanzi

RMeck WLahs ASumerour -(RES' No; 900297)

~

TCombs, OCA c0CA k

.i yi

+

f 1

'cSee previous concurrence-20ffe:;?RPHEB:RES~,RPHEB:RES RPHEB:RES

' DD:DRA:RES D:DRA'RES ~DD/GIR:RES D:RES

'Name:--Wlahs*

-RMeck*

DCool*

Costanzi*

BMMorris*

CJHeltemes* ESBeckjord*

-Date:-

-/ /90

/ /90 L/- /90

/ /90

/ /90

/ /90

- / /90

' /:'2-

~0ffe: E N

CA Name cJ' s Tbr DRa un' 1

.Datet c8J 90

- 8///, /90 -

~

O 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 1

I.

g

-} ;;. g!

's i

. ~ - "--

..s

.,e er

)

CONGRESSIONRL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PREPARRTION CHECKLIST This checklist is so be submitted with each document (or group of

- Qs/As) sent for entering into the CCS.

i l'.

-BRIEF DESCRZPTION OF DOCyMENT(S)

1. d h,

/89fR_

8.-

TYPE OF DOCUMENT Correspondence Bearings (Qs/Ar)'

3.

DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (NRC Only)

Sensitive.

a 4

CONGRESSIONRL COMMITTEE and SUSCOMMITTEES (if applicable)

Congressional Committee i

Subcommittee i

5.

SUBJECT CODES 1.

(a)

(b)

(c)-

6.

SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name.

V

^

(b)

Scan.-

(c)

Attachments (d)

Rekey (e)

'Other 7.

SYSTEM K0G DRTES (a)-

7 4D Date OCA sent document to CCS 1

(b)

Date CCS receives document (c)

Date returned to OCA for additional information (4)

Date resubmitted by OCA to CCS (e)

Date entered into CCS by (f).

Date OCA notified that document is in CCS 8.

COMMENTS u.

.