ML20059N651

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Addressing Concerns of Constituent, Rh Goodwin Re NRC Policy on Below Regulatory Concern. Low Level Waste That Would Be Considered Would Involve Only Matls W/Lowest Levels of Radioactive Content
ML20059N651
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/12/1990
From: Taylor J
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Dodd C
SENATE
Shared Package
ML20059N652 List:
References
FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9010170086
Download: ML20059N651 (2)


Text

_

,,-7.-a.-

- + - ~ '

' ~ ~ ~ ^

^

+

t l

.g

M*%

I UNITED STATES -.

' Y. -

~y

~h-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lt j

WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555

=.

k... - [,

September 12, 1990 l

3 The Honorable Christopher L Dodd

'f United States Senate Washington, D.C.

20510

Dear Senator Dodd:

I am responding.to your August 2, 1990, letter in which you asked us to address-

['

the concerns of your constituent, Mr. Richard H. Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin expressed q

- his distress over the development:of, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission. policy which could be used to classify certain low-level radioactive waste (LLW) as below.

i regulatory concern 'or BRC. -

As you may be aware,: on July 3,1990, the Commission issued a-Below Regulatory d

Concern Policy Statement.. I have enclosed a copy of-this: statement together with) a companion' explanatory _ booklet:(Enclosures 1 and 2)-for'your' information.and use -

.t in responding to Mr. Goodwin. The statement identifies the principles and criteria that will govern Commission decisions'to exempt certain radioactive material-from-1 the full' scope of'regul6 tory controls. Thus the policy could apply,. but would not be limited, to potential:BRC waste determinations.

I would emphasize that-the; policy is at self-executing and!does not, by itself, deregulate any LLW..Any

~

specific earption decisio'ns would;be accomplished through rulemaking or' licensing actions during which '.aportunity for public coment would be provided in,those =

rituations wherc gmeric exemption provisions-have not already been established.

4 The policy can'be considered an-outgrowth of the concepts articulatednin the L

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub.,L.99-240).-cThat 1.

l-Act ( ~ r., Section 10)' directed 'the"NRC to " establish standards and' procedures...

I L-and 3 val.,p theLtechnical capability for:considering and acting-upon petitions to l

exempt specific radioactive. waste streams from regulation...due toithe presence of i

radionuclides in such waste streamscin sufficiently low concentrations"or quan-C L

tities-as to be below regulatory concern."

In response to the legislation, NRC.

'l developed and published in-1986 a Statement of Policy and Procedures which outlines i

iss J

the criteria for considering such pntitions. Our recently(e.g.ued broad policy-l' statement, which hassimp11 cations beyond waste disposals

, applicable to or structures)g decis_ ions; involving.the release'of residua 11y-contaminated'1 an decommissionin in this-earlier Comission' policy. The Commi.ssion,;in both; actions, has acted in-1 the belief that the nation's.best; interests are served-by policies that establish

.i a consistent risk framework within~which exemption decisions 1can be made with.

i assurance that human 1 health-and the environment are protected.

In this regard, p

we:believe our. actions a're. consistent with those of other Federal agencies; e.g.,

1

'the EnvironmentalfProt'ection Agency (EPA) Land the Food and Drug Administration.

(FDA), who'have formulated or are attempting to formulate similar-policies for the hazardous materials they regulate.-

InrespondingtoMr.Go$dwin'sconcernwiththedifficultyinmonitoringthe disposal of deregulated radioactive waste and enforcing standards for radiation a

exposure, I' can assure you that any low-level waste that would be to g

~

S 9010170086 900912 PDR ORG NE ED PDC 49_

% 44

(%

~'"

1

.t (

j 4'

)

Horiorable Christopher J. Dodd '

for BRC classification would involve only' materials withithe lowest-levels of

- radioactive content.

These= levels are generally so low.that' they -are difficult to distinguish from naturally-occurring background radiation. That is, any increase in radioactivity would be comparable to natural variations in background

]

radiation. On the matter of enforcement,' I would point out that' prior to granting i

an exemption for a given practice, the NRC will conduct a thorough technical review and will establish the necessary conditions, constraints, or requirements-to. assure,

that the practice continues to meet the principles and criteria of the policy -

stateent.

If an exemption is granted, a licensed activity producing an exempt material will continue to be subject to the full range-of-regulatory, oversight, m

inspection, and enforcement actions up to and including the point of transfer to exempt status.-

Mr. Goodwin's concern regarding the potential health and environmental risks from low-level radiation would seem to be based on a report of recent estimates.by the National Research Council's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation'(BEIR) and perhaps also thel estimates recently(made.by)the United N Scientific Committee on the Effects of. Atomic-Radiation UNSCEAR.

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 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 Japanese atomic. bomb: survivors.

We'have used this:most recent information in the formulation of the BRC'polic It should be noted, however, that the recently-issued BEIR V report, entitled "y.Health' Effects 3

of Exposures to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," states that the possibility cannot be ruled out that there ma be no risks from exposures; comparable to external natural background radia ion.

l In closing, I can assure you that we take our mandate to protect the health and L

safety of the public very seriously.

As a result, we will. continue to do our best 0

in carefully and clearly responding:to the issues and questions raised by l<

Mr. Goodwin and other concerned citizens.

1.

L Sincerely,

/

^

_NV

.Tay[

N' imes xecutive Difector y

for. Operations

Enclosures:

1.

BRC Policy Statement l,

2.

BRC Explanatory Booklet l'

3 f

'.E--

.,, ~,

3