ML20059G254
| ML20059G254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/22/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Helms J SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059G257 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009120217 | |
| Download: ML20059G254 (4) | |
Text
-_-
b_ g 7
1
' p louq i
- 8
' ' jo UNITED $TATES j
?
- y
,y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
. {
WASHING TON, D. C, 20665 5
&*****[,
August 22, 1990 j
l-1 1
d The Honorable Jesse Helms j
United States Senate 1
Washington, D. C.20510
Dear Senator Helms:
L j
0
_-I am responding to your; July 9,1990, letter in which you aslied us' tol address.the concerns of. your constituents..Jeffrey. and, Laura Clark,=
who expressed their disagreement with a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)/
policy which establishes guidelines for the NRC staff in reviewing requests-for exemptions for certain low-level radioactive waste-(LLW)'asibeing below regulatory concern or BRC.-
l On July 3,1990, the' Comission issued a Below Regulatory Concern Policy
~
Statement.
I have enclosed.a-copy of-.this statement together with a companion explanatory booklet for your use'in responding.to the Clark's.
The statement identifies the principles and' criteria that will: govern j
Commission decisions-to exempt certain radioactive material from the full 3
scope of regulatory controls.- Thus, the-policy could apply, but would not i
be limited to potential BRC waste determinations I would emphasize that 1
the policy is_not self-executing and does not, by itself,' deregulate any.
LLW.. Any specific exemption decisions would.be accomplished through rulemaking or licensing actions during which opportunity for.public coment would be provided in those situations where generic exemption provisions have-not1 already been established.
i The policy can be considered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated!1n theLow-LevelRadioactiveWastePolicy_AmendmentsActof1985(Pub.'L.99-240). That Act (i.e., Section 10)-directed the NRC=to "... establish; -
standards and procedures...and develop the technical capability for;
,t considering and acting upon petitions to exempt'specificcradioactive waste streams from regulation...due to the presence of radionuclides ~in. ch
~
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 i
policy statement, which has implications beyond waste disposalse(e.g.,
3 applicable to decomissioning decisions involving the release of residually-contaminated lands or' structures),' reflects much of.the basic radiation -protection approach described in: this earlier Comission _.
policy. The Comission, in both actions, has acted in-theLbelief-that ther
=
nation's best-interects are served by policies that establish a consistent 0
'TA'44 4.O g g mw w*
4 1
[
.[
2;.
}
1 (f
7
~
' risk framework within which exemption decisions can be made' with assurance' that-human health and the environment are protected. _In'this regard,~we
.believe our actions are consistent with those of other Federal agencies.
Le.g., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and'the Food and Drug-Administration (FDA),whohaveformulatedorareattemptingtoformulate' similar policies for the hazardous materials they. regulate.
9 l
'It may be helpful to first summarize the typical. exposures which we all routinely receive f_ rom a variety.of sources of radiation. The exposures -
occur.from radiation that is natural in origin as well as fre? sources:
1 which involve man-made uses of radioactive material.
In total, as estimated by'the National Council'on Radiation Protection and Measurements l-
-(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, 4
contribute an estimated 15 percent (53 millirem per_ year). Other man-made.
sources.-including; nuclear fallout,; contribute the remaining 1-to'2_
percent of the total ~ exposure. The remaining 1 to 21 percent'also includes the contribution from nuclear power plant effluents.. Any low-level; J
radioactive material associated with an exemption ~ decision would;not b; _
expected to change this typical exposure " picture."- In-fact, the level of-l 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 increases in radiation levels
~
currently associated with drinking water supplies.
In responding to the Clark's specific concerns on-dispersal of BRC' 3
radioactive material in community-landfill sites, I would point out that natural radioactive material.is pervasive in our environment, including the radioactivity which exists in our own bodies., As a _ result, very low levels of radioacti + 1,' rom both natural-and man-made sources are currently i
entering landfills, ihus, the real' issue' involved:in radioactive material' disposals is, "What level of radioactivity can we allow,to be' disposed of 4
at specifically defined non-licensed l disposal facilities"without:
compromising public health and safety or.the-environment"? 0n-this point, Section 10 of the Act. focuses'on the concentrations or-quantities of
'l radionuclides which could be disposed of at other than licensed-low-level-
~
radioactive waste sites.
It is this question, among others, to which the Ll
-Commission's BRC' policy is directed, y
a With regard to the concern about recycling, the Commission would assess L
potential public exposures from BRC waste disposals, including those that-a 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 _inc q
u dose estimates'are sufficiently important, appropriate constraints to L
minimize the potential for recycle could be incorporated'into the exemption decision. These constraints, together with others deemed to be-o l
appropriate, would be-imposed on our licensees and would be subject to the Commission's inspection and enforcement program.
.l L
=
l
?
4 3
t In closing,1.want to assure you that the Commission takes its mandate to
. protect the health and safety of the public ver) seriously.
I, therefore, hope the views expressed and the enclosed infortation will prove useful in 4
responsibly expanding the dialogue on this contioversial and technically i
complex issue.
Sincerely.
[
l
,/
l Dennis K. Rathbun, Director t
Congressional, Affairs Office of Governmental and t
Public Affairs
Enclosures:
I As Stated i
i l
l r
1 L
i
_. _ -, i... :
i
.i i
l CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM l
DOCUMENT PREFARATION CNECKLIST This checklist is to be oubmitted with each desument (or group of Os/As) sent for entering into the CCS.
i 1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S) bb df a.
TvFE OF DOCUMENT rrespondense soarings (Os/As) 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (NRC caly)
W en-Sensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTER and SUSCOMMITTSBS (if applicable)
Congressional ceamittee j
Suboeamittee i
)
5.
Sus 3ECT CODES i
i (a) j (b)
(e) 8.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document anse
/
(b)
Scan..
(c)
Attachmente (4)
Rakey (e)
Other l
l 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES (a) h 0
Date OCA sent document to CCS (b)
Date CCS receives dooument l
(e)
Date returned to OCA for-additional information l
l (4)
Date resubmitted by OCA to CCS (e)
Date entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCA motified that document is in CCS 8.
COMMENTS J
3
-l