ML20059G246
| ML20059G246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/21/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Brown H HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059G248 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009120211 | |
| Download: ML20059G246 (3) | |
Text
... -. --.-.-
.t'
/f
[tf%g
- e E
e UNITED STATES
,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
3 W ASHINGTON, D. C. 2MH August 21,1990 i
The Honorable Hank Brown United States House of Representatives.
Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Brown:
I am responding to your August 1,1990, letter in which you asked us to address the concerns of your constituents, Mariam Rosenblum and Peter Schumer. They expressed their disagreement with a Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) policy which establishes guidelines for the NRC staff
-in reviewing requests for exemptions for certain low-level radioactive waste (LLW) as being below regulatory concern or CRC.
On July 3,1990, the Comission issued a Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement.
I have enclosed a copy of this statement together with a j
companion explanatory booklet for your use in responding to fis. Rosenblum and Mr. Schumer.
The statement identifies the princip es and criteria i
that will govern Comission decisions to exempt certain radioactive material from the full scope of regulatory controls.. Thus, the policy could apply, but would not be limited to-potential BRC waste determinations.
I would emphasize that the policy.is not self-executing and does not, by itself, deregulate any LLW. Any specific exemption 1
decisions would be accomplished through rulemaking o* licensing actions j
during which opportunity for public coment would be provided in those situations where generic exemption provisions have not already been established, i
The policy can be considered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240). ThatAct(i.e.,Section10)directedtheNRC.to'"... establish standards 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.
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, which has implications beyond waste disposals (e.g.,
J applicable to decomissioning decisions involving the release'of residually-contaminated lands or structures).-reflects much of the basic radiation protection approach described ittthis earlier 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 i
FULL TEXT ASCll SCAN MR"SR5' W&
FDC h
O *'a ?
0 La_,
,aA
\\
7
j risk framework within which exemption decisions can be made with assurance that human health and the environment are protected.
In this regard we' i
believe our actions are consistent with those of other Federal agencies; i
e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and'the Food and Drug l
Administration (FDA), who have formulated or are attempting to formulate similar policies for the hazardous materials they regulate.
i In responding to your constituents' concerns on dispersal of BRC radioactive material in community landfill sites I would point out that. natural radio-active material is pervasive in our environment, including the rectoactivity j
which exists in our own bodies. As a result, very low levels of radio-activity from both natural and man-made sources are currently entering landfills. Thus, the real issue involved in radioactive material disposals.is, "What' level of radioactivity can we allow to be disposed of at specifically defined non-licensed disposal facilities without i
compromising public health and safety or the environment"? On this. point, Section 10 of the_Act focuses on the concentrations or quantities of I
radionuclides which could be disposed of at other than: licensed low-level radioactive waste sites.
It is this question, among others, to which the i
t Commission's BRC policy is directed.
With regard to the concern about recycling, the Commission would assess i
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 i
cases where doses approach the policy _ criteria or where uncertainties in l
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.
i In closing, I want to assure you that we take our mandate to protect the health and safety of the pub W very seriously.
1, therefore, hope the views expressed and the enO 94 d information will prove useful in responsibly expanding the e41ogue on this controversial and technically complex issue.
Sincerely, y
/
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director 4 Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs i
Enclosures:
As Stated I
i-i 1
j CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM l
DOCUMENT PBEPARAT10N CMECKLIST This ebecklist is to be submitted with each document (or group of Qs/As) sent for entering into the CCS..
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S) b M
h
/
3.
TYPE OF DOCUMENT
- Correspondesse Bearings-(Qs/As) 1 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (WRC only)
Non-Sensitive I
i 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SDSCONNITTE88 (if applicable)
Congressional Committee subcommittee i
8.
SUBJECT CODES (a) l (b)
(e) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name (b) d ean.
(s)
Attachments (4)
Rekey (e)
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES i
9/ /94 7
Date Den sent doeusent t. CCS (a)
(b)
Date CCS receives document i
(e)
Date returned to OCA for additional information (4)
Date resubmitted by OCA to CCS (a)
Data entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCA notified that document is in CC8 8.
COMMENTS i
_ _ _, _. _....... _. ~.,.... _, _. _ _ _ _. _ _
-