ML20059G213
| ML20059G213 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/20/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Hamilton L HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059G214 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009120201 | |
| Download: ML20059G213 (4) | |
Text
-.
i 1..
$ C800 l
UNITED STATES -
+
3a -., [
NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION a
k W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20666 L-g.....
August 20, 1990 The Honorable Lee Hamilton United States House of Representatives l
Washington, D.C.
20515
(
Dear Congressman Hamilton:
I am responding to your July 23 and 25,1990 notes which asked for our t
consideration of views respectively held by several Board members of Save The Valley, Inc. and Ms. Linda L. Halm.
Their concerns are directed at the Comission's recently issued Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) Policy Statement which they believe will lead to casual or cheap disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW)atlocallandfills.
The Comission issued the aforementioned policy statement on July 3,1990.
I have nnelosed two copies of both this statement and a companion explanatory booklet (Enclosures 1 and 2) for your information and use in responding-to your i
constituents.
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 $pecific 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 i
provisions have not alteacy been established.
The policy can be considered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated in the i
Low-Level Radioactive War.te Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240).
That Act (i.e., Section 10) directed the NRC to "... establish standards and procedures...and develop the technical capability for considering and acting upon petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from i
regulation...due to the presence of radionuclides in such waste streams in sufficiently low concentrations 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 which outlines the criteria.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 i
interests are served by policies that establish a consistent risk framework within which exemptiun decisions can be made with assurance that human health' U S SRe? r$8*!!
FU(1TETASCilSCAN i
.v s v s <
/
M.h M4 w f
...~.
i c
b
+
i The Honorable Lee Hamilton 2
l l
i i
and the environment are protected, in this regard, we believe our actions are consistent with those of other federal agencies, e.g., the EnvironmerSal l
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who have formulated or are attempting to formulate similar policies for the hazardous materials they regulate.
In responding to your constituents' specific statements, I would emphasize that the NRC does not believe'and has not calculated that' exemptions could lead to the deaths of 2500 people annually. The Commission has estimated the hypothetical risk to individuals and populations from the individual and collective 70se criteria defined in the BRC policy. These projections of risk, which are contained in the policy, are based on estimates recently made by the United i
Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the National Research Council's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). The potential exposure levels that would be associated with BRC waste disposals would only be a small fraction of natural background exposures. On this issue, the recently issued BEIR Y report entitled " Health i
Effects of Exposures to Low-Levels of lonizing Radiation," states that the
~
possibility cannot be ruled out that there may be no risks from exposures comparable to external natural background radiation, in responding to the recycling issue raised in the Louisville Courier Journal i
article, the Commission would assess potential public exposures from BRC waste l
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 or exceed the policy.
criteria or where uncertainties in dose estimates are sufficiently important.
appropriate constraints to minimize the potential for recycle could be-incorporated into the exemption decision.
These constraints, together with others deemed to be appropriate, would be imposed on our licensees and would be subject to the Commission's inspection and enforcement program.
Finally, with regard to contamination of orinking water, I can assure you that any low-level waste that could be considered for BRC classification would involve only materials with the lowett levels of radioactivity content.
In l
fact, the level of radioactivity may be such a small fraction of natural l
background radiation that it may not be readily detectable.
Under these l
constraints, the Commission believes that any BRC waste disposals will not i
l cause measurable increases in the radiation level associated with public drinking water supplies and in any case will comply with EPA's drinking water standards.
L b
6
+
.v, e
~,. --
,,-n ne-v-
,-w_
o
- The Honorable Lee Hamilton 3
i f
In closing, I can assure you that we take our mandate to protect the health and safety o'/ the public very seriously. As a result, we will continue to do our best in carefully and clearly responding to the issues and questions l
raised by your constituents and other concerned citizens.
Sincerely, l
/
J mes M.
r xecutive '
ector for Operations
Enclosures:
i 1.
BRC Policy Statement (2) 2.
BRC Explanatory Booklet (2) l l
l 1
i f
r i
6 9
CONGREssioMAL CORAESPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PREPARAT10N CBBCRLEST This ebecklist is to be submitted with each document (or group of Qs/As) sent for entering into the 008.
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPT!op 0F DOCUMENT (8) d3 1 s, mYIb
/
8.
TYPE OF DOCUMENT Correspondence Bek'.*1ags (Qs/As) 3.
DOCUMENT CONTRCL 8ensitive (WRC Only)
Non-Seasitive 4.
coNGRE8810NAL CoMMITT88 and SUSCOMMITTE88 (if applicable)
Congressional Commit *ee Subcommittee 4
s.
SumJECT CODES (a)
(b)
(e) 6.
SOURCE or DOCUMENTS (a) 5588 (document anae
/~
J (b)
_ Scan.
(e)
Attachments (d)
Rekey (e)
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES (a)
/ d' Date OCA seat document to Cc8 (b)
Date CC8 receives document (e)
Data returned to OCA for additional in9rmation (4)
Date resubmitted by OCA to CC8 (e)
Date entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCA motified that document is in CCS 8.
COMMENTS
,