ML20059G413
| ML20059G413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/29/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Bentsen L SENATE |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9009120297 | |
| Download: ML20059G413 (4) | |
Text
_
L
/
h
$* asog l
4 UNITED 5TATES t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 f
- f s.,*****/
j August 29, 1990 f
I l
l i
The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senator
(
961 Federal Building l
Dear Senator Bentsen:
I am responding to your August 3,1990, letter in which you asked us to l
address the concerns of your constituent, Mr. John B. Suenram. Mr. Suenram I
expressed his disagreement with a Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) p(olicy which could be used to classify certain low-level radioactive waste i
LLW) as being below regulatory concern or BRC.
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 Mr. Suenram.
The statement identifies the principles and criteria that will govern i
Comission decisions to exempt certain radioactive material from the full i
scope of regulatory controls. Thus, the policy could apply, but would not t
be limited to potential BRC waste determinations.
I would emphasize that i
the policy is not self-executing and does not, by itself, deregulate any i
LLW. Any specific exemption decisions would be accomplished through rulemaking i
or licensing actions during which opportunity for public comment 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.
l 99-240). That Act (i.e., Section 10) directed the NRC to "... establish standards and procedures...and develop the technical capability for considering and acting upon petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste j
streams from regulation...due to the presence of radionuclides in such waste streams in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities'as to be i
below regulatory concern."
In response to-the legislation NRC. developed j
l 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.,
1 applicable to decommissioning decisions involving the release of t
residua 11y-contaminated lands or structures), reflects much of the basic radiation protection approach described in this earlier Commission policy. The Comission, in both actions, has acted in the belief that the i
nation's best interests are served by policies that establish a consistent i
l l
kk l{97[*O0829 g'J' FULL TEXT ASCH SCAN Poe s\\t l
1
~ _. _.
..____--_.,.~..._-_.~2.-._.u_.
P 2
k i
risk framework within which exemption decisions can be made with assurance l
1 that human health and the environment are protected.
In this regard, we believe our actions are consist nt with those of other Federal agencies e.g., the Environmental Protect <on 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.
1 In responding to Mr. Suenram's specific statement, I would emphasize that the NRC does not believe that exemptions could lead to-the deaths of 2500 people annually.
The Commission has estimated the hypothetical risk to individuals and populations from the individual and collective dose t
criteria defined in the BRC policy. These projections of risk, which are contained in the policy, are based on risk estimates recently made by, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the National Research Council's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). The potential exposure levels that would be associated with BRC waste disposals would only be a small fraction of natural background exposures. On this iss'ue, the recently issued BEIR V report entitled " Health Effects of Exposures to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation " states that the possibility cannot be ruled out that there may be no risks from exposures comparable to external natural background radiation.
In responding to the specific concern on dispersal of BRC 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 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 defthed non-licensed disposal facilities without 1
compromising public health and safety or.the environment"? On this point, Section 10 of 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, among others, to whien the Commission's BRC policy is directed.
Mr. Suenram also asserts that a significant porticn of the waste material from nuclear power plants may be reclassified. This statement may originate from a view expressed by the nuclear power industry and the EPA tnat30percentofthelow-levelradioactivewastegeneratedbyvolume(at nuclear power facilities) may be considered for BRC waste classification.
The nuclear power industry has estimated that this volume of material-would contain approximately 0.'J1 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.
1 i
3 7
In closing, I want to assure you that the Connission 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 this controversial and technically complex issue.
Sincerely, j
/
./>-X g
~
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As Stated l
i
l O
l l
coMontsszoMAL conAEsPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PREPARAT!oW CNECEL!st l
This checklist is to be submitted with each dooumont (or group of gs/As)' sent for entering into the 00s.
sRIEF DESCRIPTION.0F DOCUMENT (s) b b
b A
M 1.
E.
TYPE oF DOCUMENT Correspondesse ariage.(Os/As) i 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL sensitive (NRC Caly)
Wen-sensitive 1
4.
CONGRESSIONAL CoMNITTEs and SUsCoM!!!TTEEs (if applicable) i ee...este.a1 ee-itt..
suboeamittee s.
susJEc7 cocEs
]
l (a) l (b)
(e) s.
sounct oF DoCUxtNTs (a) ssao (document anae (b)
' s ean..
(s) d tachments (d)
Rakey (e)
Other l
l 7.
system Lo DA Es (a) 9 7 9d Date oCA sent document to ocs
/
(b)
Date CCs receives document l
l (e)
Date. returned to CCA for additional information t
l (d)
Date resubmitted by OCA to Ocs
(.)
D.t.. t.r.d into ces nr (f)
Date OCA notified that desument is in ces s.
COMMENTS
'I l
l
+.