ML20059F584
| ML20059F584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/16/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Fascell D HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059F588 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009110265 | |
| Download: ML20059F584 (3) | |
Text
.
- b. -
/
o UNITED STATES
+
g
'i-
.8 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "l
wAsMOTON, D. C. 20$56 l
s
\\..... #,p August 16, 1990 i
The Honorable Dante B. Fascell United States House of Representatives 1
Washington, D.C.
2051C
Dear Congressman Fascell:
)
I am responding to your July 10, 1990, letter in which you requested our consideration of issues raised by your constituent, Mr. Richard N. Friedman.
1 Mr. Friedman's concerns were directed at the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC) recently issued Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) Policy Statement which he j
believes will result in the arbitrary reclassification of certain low-level radioactive waste (LLW) as ordinary trash.
The Comission issued the aforementioned policy statement on July 3,1990.
I have enclosed a copy of both this statement and a companion explanatory booklet (Enclosures 1 and 2) for your information and use in responding to 1
Mr. Friedman.
I would point out that the policy is not self-executing and
~
does not, by itself, deregulate any LLW.
Rather, the policy states the principles and criteria that would apply to Comission decisions which could allow licensed. radioactive material to be released from the full scope of regulatory controls. 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.
The )olicy can be coasidered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated in the Low.evel Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240).
That Act (i.e., Section 10) directed the MC to "... establish standards and i
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 contentrations or quantities as to be below regulatory concern."
In response to the legislation NRC developed and published in 1986 a Statement of Policy and Procedures that outlines the cr!teria for considering such petitions. Our recently issued broad policy statement has implications beyond waste disposals in that it would be applicable to a range of potential exemption activities, including decomissioning decisions involving the release of residua 11y-contaminated lands or structures for unrestricted public use.
Nevertheless, the broad policy reflects much of the basic radiation protection approach described in the 1986 Comission policy.
The Comission, in both actions, has acted in the belief that the nation's best interests are served by policies that establish 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 uur actions are in, concert with those of other Federal agencies; NO 028 fis RA1 TEXT ASCll SCAN PDC
/
f(d.b.zuw
.,$.,f.s ),
()
e i
- 6 The Honorable Dante B. Fasce11 2
e.g., the Environmental Protection A'ency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who have fot.V ated or are attempting to formulate similar i
policies for the hazardous materials they regulate.
i It may be helpful in responding to Mr. Friedman's concern regarding the hazard posed by radiation, to first 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 4
involve man-made uses of radioactive material.
In total, as estfmated by the National Council on Radiation Protecticn and Measurements (NCRP Report No. 93),
the effective dose equivalent received by an average individual in the United States p pulation 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 j
per year). Other man-made sources, including nuclear fallout, cor. tribute the i) 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 i
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 " picture."
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 and, therefore, could not cause measurable incretses in radiation levels currently associated with drinking water supplies.
In responding to the recycling issue, the Commission would assess potential public exposures from BRC waste disposals, including those that could result from any recycling. The exposure estimates would be compared with the BRC policy's individual and collective dose criteria.
In certain cases where doses approach the policy criteria or where uncertainties in dose estimates are i
sufficiently important, appropriate constraints to minimize the potential for recycle could be incorporated into the exemption decision.
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 the issues and questus raised by Mr. Friedman and other concerned citizens.
Sincerely,
)
mes M. TayMr
~
xecutive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
BRC Policy Statement 2.
BRC Explanatory Booklet
e f
e f
Th'e Honorable Dante B. Fascell'
-3 t
l DISTRIBUTION: COM1674 RPHEB R/F-- DCool Cire/Chron.
MBridgers(EDONo.5642) l 4
SECY(90-0736)
+
1 OCA j'
EBeckjord s
CJHeltemes 1-BMorris FCostanzi RMeck
.i Wlahs ASummerour(RESNo. 900299) t i
r t
q
'i
'9 CSee'prevfous concurrence.
.0ffe:
RPHEB:RES RPHEBtRES RPHEB:RES DD:DRA:RES D:DRA:RES DD/GIR:RES D:RES
[
Name:!.Wlahs*
RMeck*
DCoo1*
Costanzi*
BMMorris*
CJHeltemes* ESBeckjord*
Date: 8/6/9 8/7/90 8/7/90 8/7/90 8/08/90 8/9/90 8/9/90 Offe: k
- CA,')k Name. ' J gBflor -
DRathbun Date: 8]p'90 8/,f/90 i.
.a
0 t
CONGREssioWAL CoARESPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PARPARATION CMECRLIST This ebecklist is to be submitted with each document (or group of Os/As) seat for entering into the 008.
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (0)
/A b4~ tr'< /7 8.
TYPE OF DOCUMENT Correspondense Bearings (Qs/As) 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (WRC Daly)
" Non-sensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTER and SUBCoMMITTE88 (if applicable)
Congressional Committee subcommittee i
8.
SUBJECT CODES (a)
(b)
(e) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENT 8 (a) 5580 (document anae (b)
Scan.
(c)
Attachments (6)
Rakey (e)
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DAT 8 (a) 7 6 0 Date OCA sent document to 005 (b)
Date CCS receives document (e)
Data returned to och for additional information-(4)
Data resubmitted by OCA to CCS (e)
Date entered into 0C8 by (f)
Date OCA notified that document is in CC8 8.
COMMENT 8
.