ML20059G325
| ML20059G325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/27/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Daschle T SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059G327 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009120258 | |
| Download: ML20059G325 (4) | |
Text
s
, [} g \\'g
/
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g-g W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20556 s
J
.o#
August 27, 1990 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Tom Daschle United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Daschle:
I am responding to your letter of June 29, 1990, in which you expressed your concerns regarding the classification of certain low-level radioactive waste-(LLW) as "below regulatory concern" or BRC. As you may be aware, the Comission issued a Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement on June 27, 1990.
I have enclosed a copy of this statement (Enclosure 1) and a companion booklet (Enclosure ) for your information.
I would point out that the policy is not self-implementing and does not, in itself classify any waste as BRC or allow its unregulated disposal. Rather,-
the policy sets forth the principles and criteria that would apply to -
Comission decisinns which would exempt small quantities of radioactive material from the more comprehensive regulations that are imposed on more hazandous material. Any specific exemption decision will be accomplished through rulemaking or licensing actions, which would impose regulatory conditions for release as exempted material. Opportunity for public coment will be provided with each rulemaking and each licensing action where generic exemption provisions have not already been established.
Furthermore, the policy has applications beyond waste disposal in that it-also provides the basis for decomissioning decisions involving the cleanup and release of lands and structures for unrestricted use, as well as decisions regarding consumer product exemptions.
On the subject of safe levels of exposure to radioactivity, I would point cut that regulatory bodies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory C9 mission (NRC), pri,dently assume that, at low levels of exposure to ionizing radiation, there is a linear relationshi) between radiation oose and a potential health impact.
Consistent with t11s assumption, the Comission recognizes that the benefits of reductions in radiation dose diminish as the doses decrease. Below sufficiently small doses, application or-continuation of regulatory controls may not result in significant reductions in doses. The cost of such controls, therefore, cease to be comensurate with any benefits achieved toward the protection of humans and the environment, particularly when efforts could be more effectively spent educing more significant risks.
In keeping with this concept, Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste l
Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240) directed us to " establish standards and procedures... and oevelop the technical capability for-considering and acting upon petitions to exenipt spec fic waste streams from FULLTEXT ASCll SCAN
- gp22
,00e2, CoRREkbsibEkEPDC p
I e
e
,The Honor 6ble Tom Daschle 2
1 regulation... due to the presence of radionuclides in such waste l
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 that outlines the criteriaforconsideringsuchpetitions(Enclosure 3). Our recently issued BRC policy statement builds upon this earlier policy to provide a more comprehensive framework for making exemption decisions.
In issuing these two policy statements, the Commission has acted in the belief that the @ tion's interests are best served when exemption decisions are made on a untiorm basis i
which ensures that human health and the environment are protected.
By defining risks that should not require the full range of regulatory controls, our actions are generally consistent with those of other Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, which are faced with similar decisions involving the proper allocation of regulatory resources to control the hazardous materials under their purview.
Our BRC policy does not encourage increased production of waste. As the policy makes clear, NRC will not allow deliberate dilution of material or fraction-ation of the radiation or radioactive material for the purpose of circumventing controls that would otherwise be applicable. Any low-level waste that may be considered to be BRC would contain only the lowest levels of radioactivity.
In i
fact, radioactivity contained in some potential BRC wastes may be such a small l
f raction of natural background radiation that it may not be readily detectable.
In order to appreciate the radiological significance of potential BRC disposals, it is necessary to evaluate potential exposures relative to those we all routinely receive from a variety of sources of radiation.
These exposures occur from radiation that is of natural origin as well as man-made.
As estimated by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRp Report No.'93), the average dose received by people in the United States is about 360 millirem per year (effective dose equivalent). Of this total, over 80 percent (about 300 millirem per year) is a result of natural sources, including radon., Medical exposures such as x-rays, when averaged over the U.S.
population, contribute an additional, estimated 15 percent (53 millirem per year). Other man-made sources, including nuclear fallout, contribute the remainder of the total exposure. This total background exposure provides a perspective on the hypothetical risks that may be associated with potential BRC practices, which would generally result in doses of less than 1 millirem per year, but _may result in doses up to 10 millirem per year to the limited group of individuals likely to receive the highest exposures. Thus, a typical BRC exemption could possibly result in doses ranging from less than one-thirtieth to less than one-three-hundredth of the radiation exposures people normally encounter in their everyday lives. The Commission must consider this 1
perspective among others, when it makes any decision regarding the allocation of regulatory resources intended to control potential radiological risks associated with the use of radioactive materials.
The Honorable Tom Daschle 3
j The Commission carefully considered these and other issues prior.to issuing l
our BRC Policy Statement and continues to believe that the implementation of the BRC policy will adequately protect the public health and safety and the environment.
I hope our comments will help resolve your concerns about the objectives and potential impact of our policy statement.
Sincerely, I
\\fn c.s+
m *,,. ~n Kenneth -
- p-
Enclosures:
1.
BRC Policy Statement 2.
BRC Explanatory Booklet
- 3. -BRC Waste Policy (1986) h
'I ol
f c
)
l J
CONORESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PAEPARATION CMECKLIST t
This checklist is to be submitted with each document (or group of gs/As) sent for entering into the CCS.
h/ S 1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S) f u.
3.
TYPE OF DOCUMENT W orrespondenoo Esarings (Qs/As) l 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL sensitive (NRC Only) on-sensitive 4.
CoNORESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUSCOMMITTERS (if applicablo) 1 Congressional Committee subcommittaa i
5.
SUBJECT CODES i
(a) i (b)
(c) i 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name (b) scan.
(c)
Attachmente (4)
Rakey (e)
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES (a) 7 d Date OCA sent document to CCS
'/
/
(b)
Date CCS rootives document (e)
Data returned to OCA for additional information (d)
Date resubmitted by OCA to CCS (e)
Date entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCA motified that document is in CCS 8.
COMMEKts L
1
. -.. _, - -. - - - _, - _ _..