ML20059G357
| ML20059G357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/28/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Graham B SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059G360 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009120268 | |
| Download: ML20059G357 (4) | |
Text
o
- ,,)
. '.}
-- im itt
?, [ f
- opk-UNITED STATES -
e g,
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g a
WASHINGTON, D, C,20666 -
g.....)
August 28, 1990-_
The Honorable Bob Graham United States Senator P
0.. Box 3050 Tallahassee, Florida 32315_'
1
Dear Senator Graham:
I am responding to your August 9,1990.- letter in which you asked us' to-J address the concerns of your constituents, Mr. Richard N. Friedman and _
Ms. Mary Baldauf, who expressed their disagreement _with a Nuclear Regulatory.
Commission (NRC)policywhichestablishesguidelinesfortheNRC:staffin reviewing requests for exemptions for.certain. low-level radioactive waste (LLW) as being below regulatory concern or BRC.'
On July 3, 190, 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 your constituents. The statement identifies the principles'and criteria 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 noti by itself, i
deregulate any LLW. Any specific exemption decisions would be accomplished through rulemaking or licensing actions 'during which opportunity for_ public -
comment would be provided'in-those situations where generic exemption provisions
, 1 l
have not already been established.
The policy can be considered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated in i
the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.
1 99-240). That Act (i.e., Section 10) directed the NRC to "... establish standards and procedures...and develop.the technical capability for l
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 concentratics 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,whichhasimplicationsbeyondwastedisposals(e.g.,
applicable to decomissioning decisions involving the release of I
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 the belief that the a
nation's best interests are served by policies that establish a-consistent' FULLTEXT ASCll SCAN E88"88s'* R8g;2e PDC t
s'
,f 1
risk framework within which exemption-decisions can be made with assuranc.e-that human health and the environment are protected.- In.this regard, we believe our actions are consistent with those of other Federal agencias; e.g., the Environmental 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.
It may be helpful; to first sumarize:the typical exposures which we all-routinely receive from a variety'of sources.of radiation. The 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 eouivalent received by an average individual in the United; States population is-about 360 millirem per l
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 year). Other man-made r
sources, including nuclear fallout, contribute the remaining l'to 2 perce_nt of the total exposure..The. remaining 1 to'2' percent also includes the contribution from nuclear. power plant effluents. Any low-level radioactive material associated with an exemption' decision would not be:
{
expected to change this typical exposure " picture."
l in responding to the specific concerns x dispersal of BRC radioactive:
material in comunity landfill sites, I wculd again 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 radioactivity 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 compromising public health and safety or the environment"?' The Comission believes that the level of..
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.
With regard to the concern about recycling, the Comission would assess potential public exposures from BRC waste disposals.rincluding 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 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 Comission's inspection and enforcement program.
i w
-.~.
r.,- -.. _
e,-
,-..w-..
w
,,n,,,,
.,,...,aw.n,
3-In closing I want to assure you that the Commission takes its mandate to protect.the health ~ and safety of. the public very seriously.
-I, therefore, hope the views expressed and the enclosed information will prove useful'in responsibly expanding the dialogue on thisLeontroversial and technically i
complex issue.'
Sincerely,.
i Mu -
p
,4 ~
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director I
. Congressional. Affairs Office of Governmental'and-Public Affairs-l
Enclosures:
As Stated f
F
.i
?
-m.-
,m,...
s.
i l
ComoRESSIONAL CoRAESPONDENCE SYSTEM-DOCUMENT PAEPARATION CHECKLIST:
j i
l This checklist-is.to be submitted with each dooumont (or group of Os/As) sent for entering into the CCS.
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION' 0F DOCUMENT ('S) n
/ orrespondense
- Bearings. (Qs/As)
S.
TYPE OF DOCUMENT C
3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (WRC Only) ensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUSCOMMITTEES (if applicable)
Congressional Committee ais a.naittee i
5.
SUBJECT' CODES (a)
(b)
(c) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a)~
5520 (document name
/
/
(b)
S oan..
(c)
Attachments (d)
Rekey (s) other
)
7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES (a) 7k Date OCA sent document to CCS (b)
Date CCS receives documsat
.l (c)
Date returned to OCA for additional information
-I (d)
Date resubmitted by CCA to CCS l
(e)
Date entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCA. notified that document is in CCS 8.'
COMMENTS E
U
-