ML20059G409
| ML20059G409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/29/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Gradison B HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009120293 | |
| Download: ML20059G409 (5) | |
Text
- _ _ _
l' i
'l l
- - * [pSen%jo o
y UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
usmorow. o. c. asss August 29, 1990 f
j The Honorable Bill Gradison l
United States House of Repr?sentatives j
Washington, D. C.
20515 i
i
Dear Congressman Gradison:
l James D. Watkins has been Your May 9,1990, letter to Secretary of Energy (NRC) for response.
referred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I will address the concerns that your constituent, Ms. Heather Birkley, expressed with a policy which could be used to classify certain low-level radioactive waste (LLW) as below regulatory concern or BRC.
j By way of background, on July 3,1990, the Commission issued a Below f
Regulatory Concern Policy Statement.
I have enclosed a copy of this statement i
together with a companion explanatory booklet for your use in responding.to i
Ms. Birkley. The statement identifies the principles and criteria that will govern Commission decisions to exempt certain radioactive material from the i
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 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 have not already been established.
l A response to each of the premises raised in the petition forwarded by l
Ms. Birkley is enclosed.
I hope that this fully _ responds to her concerns, t
Both your letter and Ms. Birkley's have been forwarded for inclusion in the i
public record.
i t
In closing, I want.to assure you that the Commission takes its mandate to i
protect the health and safety of the public very seriously.
I, therefore, i
hope the views expressed and the enclosed information will prove useful in I
responsibly expanding the dialogue on this controversial and technically complex issue.
l Sincerely,
_,/
l l,)w-f/fW </.-
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director i
Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and 0 E.9 Public Affairs i
Enclosures:
[
As Stated 6@
FULL TEXT ASCll SC eoomom,oom PDR ORO NGPZ PDC I
t-f-
+.
Response to Resolution Premises The following discussion responds to premises included in a Resolution from the Citizens and Businesses of Batavia Township-Clermont County, Amelia.
Premise 1 This premise states that "...the U.S. Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have approved the concept of deregulating radioactive waste to the status.of non-radioactive waste." Although this' premise contains elements of fact, when taken as a whole, it misrepresents, in two critical ways, the views of all parties concerned.
First, it appears to convey the -
erroneous impression that a class of hazardous material is being considered non-hazardous by declaration. A full reading of Section 10 of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub.L.99-240) substantiates a different view. The Act directs the Commission to consider exemption of waste streams from regulation "...due to the prtsence of radionuclides in such waste streams in sufficiently low concentrations er quantities to'be below regulatory concern " and where "... regulation...is not necessary to protect the public health and safety..." Second, the wording of the premise does not convey the fact that any implementing-regulation allowing BRC waste disposals from NRC licensed facilities would include record keeping and the possibility of other appropriate controls or constraints against which inspections, compliance determinations and enforcement actions could be taken.
Premise 2 This premise states that "... deregulated radioactive waste will go to
...facil ties...which are neither designed nor intended to take radioactive waste." Since natural. radioactive material is pervasive in our environment-including the radioactivity which exists in our own bodies, low levels of radioactivity from both natural sources and man-made sources are consequently entering landfills. Thus, the real issue involved in radioactive material disposals is, "What level of radioactivity should we allow to be disposed'of at specific non-licensed disposal facilities without compromising public health and safety?" On this point, the Act focuses on the concentrations or quantities of radionuclides which could be disposed of at other than licensed low-level radioactive waste sites.. It is this question upon which the Commission's BRC policy is focused.
Premise 3 The premise points out that certain deregulated materials could be recycled -
into new materials or consumer products. Here again the issue involves establishing acceptable levels of contamination for rcdioactive material or other types of contamination. Otherwise, the alternative is to preclude any recycling. For radioactive contamination, this option could lead to a prohibition on products such as smoke detectors, radioluminous timepieces, t
_4
l incandescent gas mantles, thoriated tungsten welding rods, ophthalmic lenses, an:t other useful items which contain very small amounts of radioactivity, but yet can certainly find their way into our disposal facilities.
Premise 4 This premise may originate from a view expressed by the nuclear power industry and the EPA that 30 percent of the low-level radioactive waste generated by volume (at.nuclea' power facilities) may be considered for BRC waste classification. The nuclear power industry has estimated that this volume of material would contain soproximately 0.01 percent of the radioactivity contained in all their low-level radioactive waste.
There are other industries such as hospitals that also produce low-level waste.
Premise 5 1
This premise suggests that evidence is growing that exposures to low-levels of ionizing redistion have greater negative health effects than previously assumed. This statement may be based on estimates recently made by the United Nations Scientific Comittee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the National Research Council's Comittee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. This latter Comittee has recently issued a report,
" Health Effects of Exposures to low-Levels of lonizing Radiation " commonly referred to as the BEIR V report. The estimates were based primarily upon the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors, and pertain to the high doses and dose rates associated with those exposures because there is no direct evidence of health effects from radiation at low dose levels. The potential exposure levels which would be associated with BRC waste disposals are significantly smaller than those received by the bomb survivors and, in fact, would only be a small fraction of natural background exposures. On this issue, the BEIR V report states that the possibility cannot be ruled out that.there'may be no risks from exposures comparable to external natural background radiation.
- However, for the purpose of prudently establishing exposure limits for occupational workers and the public, international and national regulatory bodies, including EPA and NRC, have used the health effects information from various 4
scientific committees, including UNSCEAR and BEIR, to estimate risks at low -
doses and dose rates based on extrapolations from the risk estimates applicable to the bomb survivors. Specifically, the Comission has used this most recent information in the formulation of its BRC policy.
Premise 6 This premise points out that there may be synergistic effects between chemicals and radiation. Certainly, synergisms have been identified in animal studies between various chemicals and between chemicals and radiation when exposure to these agents are at high exposure levels. The National Council on 2
l'4 1
Radiation Protection and Measurements has discussed this subject in their report No. 96, " Comparative Carcinogenicity of lonizing Radiation and Chemicals," issued in March of 1989. However, in considering the importance of this premise, it may be helpful to summarize the typical exposures which we dll routinely receive from a Variety of sources of radiation. These exposures occur from radiation from a variety of sources of radiation. These 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 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, contribute an estimated 15 percent (53 millirem per year). Other man-made sources, including nuclear fallout, contribute the remaining i to 2 percent of the total exposure. The remaining 1 to 2 percent also includes the contribution from all nuclear fuel cycle plant. effluents (conservatively estimated at less than 0.1 percent). To the best of our knowledge, Synergistic effects _ have not been identified at the low exposure levels associated with variations in natural-occuring radiation in our environnent. As a result, we believe that synergistic effects are not significant at the noch lower exposure levels associated with potential BRC waste disposals.
i i
3
CONGRESSIONAL CORMSPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PREPARATION CNECKLIST This checklist is to be submitted with each document (or group of gs/As) sent for entering into the 008.
M [f (t
If &i 1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (8) s.
TYPE OF DOCUMENT rrespondense Bearings (Qs/As) 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL 8ensitive (NRC only)
Non-Sensitive 4.
CONGRE8810NAL COMMITTEE and SUBC0KAITTE58 (if applicable)
Congressional comaittee Subcommittee i
5.
SUBJECT CODES (a)
(b) i (c)
L 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENT 8 l
(a) 5530 (document maae 1
(b) dan.
(c)
VAttachments (4)
Rekey (e)
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATE8 (a) d Late OCA sent document to CCS (b)
Date CC8 reesives document l
l (e)
Date returned to OCA for additional information
~
(d)
Date resubmitted by OCA to 008 (e)
Date entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCA motified that document is in 008 8.
COMMENTS l
]