ML20059F962
| ML20059F962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/08/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Damato A SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059F964 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009120071 | |
| Download: ML20059F962 (5) | |
Text
_
,, E
-[
(0,,
UNITED STATES
,8 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,,
j wassiwoTow. o. c. rosss August 8, 1990s
+
The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato United States Senator Leo O'Brien Federal Building L
Room 420 Albany, NY 12207
Dear Senator D'Amato:
I am responding to your letter of June 7,1990, which asked us to consider a; resolution passed by the Towa of Root, New. York. The resolution opposes'
-deregulation of radioactive wecte and prohibits the acceptance lof below.
regulatory concern (BRCl ad%ctin waste at any county solid waste facility or recycling center.
As you may be aware, on JLly 3,1990, the Commission issued a Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement. This policy has been the subject of my previous.
letters to you, dated June 4 and 20, aiJ March 5,1990.
I have enclosed a copy-of the policy statement and a companion explanatory booklet for your information (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, i
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 l
for public comment would be provided in those situations where generic exemption i
provisions have not already been established.
Furthermore, the policy has i
i implications beyond waste disposals.in that it would also' provide the basis for decommissioning decisions involving the release of _ lands, structures, or recycled-1 materials for unrestricted use as well as decisions regarding consumer product i
exemptions.
In analyzing the Town of Root's resolution, I have addressed each of its i
i underlying premises in Enclosure 3.. You may recognize that these responses are f
identical to views enclosed in my June 4,1990 letter which addressed a similar i
resolution passed by the Montgomery County, New York, Board of Supervisors.
l 4
I hope these views and the enclosed information will prove useful in responsibly expanding the dialogue on this controversial and technically complex issue.
i s
Sincerely, j
i i
/
W l-9009120071 googog PDR ORG NE ED a
s M. Tay PDC ecutive Director t
for Operations j
iicy Statement
- 1. TEXT ASCll SCAN i
2.
BRC Explanatory Booklet
[
3.
Underlying Premises 6l-O;;244e J L.u{
1
(
t Response to Resolution Premises The following discussion responds'to premises included in the Town of Root, i
New York, Resolution No. 27.
Premise 1 This premise states that "...the U.S. Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory -
Comission-(NRC) and the Enironmental Protection Agency (EPA) have approved the concept of deregulating... radioactive waste to the status of non-radioactive waste." Although this premise contains elements of fact, when taken as a whole, i
it misrepresents, in two critical ways, the views of all parties concerned.'
First it ap> ears to convey the erroneous impression that a class of hazardous materlalis>eingconsiderednon-hazardousbydeclaration. 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 wast (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 i
l' 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.
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 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 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 safety?" 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 Commission's BRC policy is focused.
Premise 3 The premise points out that certain deregulated materials could be recycled I
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,
. ~ +
m---,
,,. - - +.. -.
o incandescent gas mantles, thoriated tungsten welding rods ophthalmic lenses, l
and other useful items which contain very small amounts of radioactivity, but yet can certainly find their way into our disposal facilities.
Premise 4.
The fourth premise in the :esolution 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 )remise may originate from a view expressed by the nuclear power industry and tie 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 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 6 This premise suggests that evidence is growing 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 Nations Scientific Comittee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the National Research Council's ComitteeLon the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. This latter Comittee has recently issued a report,
" Health Effects of Exposures to Low-Levels of Ionizing Radiation," comonly.
referred to as the BEIR V report. The estimates were based primarily 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 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 oc,.aational workers and the public, international and national regulatory booles, including EPA and NRC, have used the health effects information from various scientific comittees, 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 Comission has used this most recent information in the formulation of its 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 2
l 1
.._,a..
j 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 sumarize-the typical exposures which we.
all routinely receive from a variety of sources of radiation. These exposures occur from radiation 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 Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP Report No. 93, the effective dose equivalent' received by an' average individua1'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 4
year). Other man-made sources. including nuclear fallout,. contribute the I
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 1
(conservatively estimated at less than 0.1 percent). To the best of our knowledge,_
synergistic effects have not been identified at the low exposure levels associated-with variations in natural-occuring 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.'
1 i
i 3
m
CONGRESSIONAL 00RRESPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PREPARATION.CEECKLIST This 'ehacklist is to.be submitted with each document (or group of Qs/As) sent.for entering into the CCS.-
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION.0 NT(8) fd
)
B.,= TYPE OF DOCUMENT Correspondence -
Wearings (Qs/As) 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensit*ve (WRC Only)
Non-Sensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE Lod SUBCOMMITTEES-(if-applicable)
Congressional Committee-Subcommittee i
s.
SUBJECT CODES (a)
(b)
(s) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENT 8 i
(a) 5520 (document name (b) dan..
(c)
/ / Attachments (d)
Rekey (a)
Other.
~7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES 4!fdDateOCAsentdocumentto008 (a)
(b)
Date CC8 receives document (a)
Data returned to oCA for additional information l
(4)
Date resubmitted by oCA to CCs (e)
Data entered lato CCS by (f)
Date OCA notified that document is in CCS 8.
~ COMMENT 8 1