ML20059N664

Responds to Addressing Concerns of Constituent, SA Saunders Re Disagreement W/Nrc Policy on Below Regulatory Concern

ML20059N664
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/12/1990
From:	Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA)
To:	Bereuter D HOUSE OF REP.
References
FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 9010170103
Download: ML20059N664 (6)

Text

_

l s g.

1. pmgh; UNITED STATES li -

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAssiwoToN, D. C. 20$$$

1 o.,%,..../

September 12, 1990 The Honoracle Doug Bereuter United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20515

Dear Congressman Bereuter:

I am responding to your August 22, 1990, letter in which you asked us to address the concerns of your constituent Mr. Sidney A. Saunders, who expressed his disagreement with a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) policy which establishes guidelines for the NRC staff in reviewing requests forexemptionsforcertainlow-levelradioactivewaste(LLW)asbeingbelow regulatory concern or BRC.

On July 3,1990, the Commission 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 i

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 j

have not already been established.

The policy can be considered an outgrowth of the concepts articulated in 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 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 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 which outlines i

the criteria for considering such petitions. Our recently issued broad policy statement, which has implications beyond waste disposals (e.g.,_

applicable to decommissioning decisions-involving the release of residually-contaminated lands or structures),' reflects much of the basic radiation protection approach described in this earlier Commission policy. The Commission, in both actions, has acted in the belief that the-nation's best interests are served by policies that establish a consistent g

u.g hxd~ f.s &

(If 9

CHP, 53FR49986 PDR 4

i

's:

i k f,o.,

• l e

risk framework within which exemption decisions can be made with assurance that human health and the environment are protected.

In this regard, we believe our actions are consistent with those of other Federal-agencies; e.g..-the--Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who have formulated or are attempting to fomulate similar policies for the hazardous materials they regulate.

It may be helpful to first summarize 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 equivalent received by an average individual in the 'Jnited 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 i

sources, including nuclear fallout, contribute the remaining 1 to 2 percent 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."

In responding to Mr. Saunders' specific concerns e dispersal of BRC radioactive material in community landfill sites, I would again pint out that natural radioactive material is pervasive in our environment, including the radioactivity which exists in our own bodies. As a resolt, 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 Commission 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.

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, hope the views expressed and the enclosed information will prove useful in responsibly expanding-the dialogue on this controversial and technically l

complex issue.

Sincerely, ium Dennis K. Rathbun, Directo Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs

Enclosures:

As Stated 1

-________--_-__-_-__--_______________-_-_______a

d I

Enugeras of tite Entteh 9tates i

s.

Moust 'p! Erpresentattuts Washington B.E.

1 i

............. Au g us t. 2 2. 19. 9.Q....

I l

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, return-

)

ing the enclosed correspondence with your I

answ er.

'l Yours truly, t

7 M.C '

Please send your reply tor Congressman Doug Bereuter

~2446 Rayburn~

Washington, D.C.

205.5 Attention:

Alan-Feyetherm k

l

w_

I

^

JUL 8 1 m l

1220 Walnut Street Wayne, Nebraska 68787 July 27, 1990 The Honorable Douglas K.

Bereuter House of Representatives Washington DC 20515

Dear Sir:

Today's Norfolk Daily News reports that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has decided to allow some types of radioactive waste to be dumped in ordinary sanitary land-fills and that some membcrs of Congress are considering legislation to overturn the decision.

I hope that you will give your vigorous support-to such legislation.

Biologists have established that all nuclear radiation is harmful and that the damage it does to a person is cumulative over the person's lifetime.

It ought to be the policy of our government to reduce everyone's cumulative exposure to nuclear radiation to the absolute minimum.

No decent person would even consider mingling radioactive waste with ordinary trash and

. garbage, but then there are very few decent people in the e

Reagan-Bush administration.

That administration and the.busi-nessmen who pull its strings would cheerfully give their own mothers cancer if they could make a few bucks doing it.

It is a great. pity that our laws do not prescribe the death penalty for such human scum.

That, however, is too much to hope for.

But at least Congress could (1) overturn the NRC decision (2) allow states to set standards higher than but not lower than the Federal standard, and (3) impeach the'most venal members of the NRC and remove them from office.

I close with a few remarks about sanitary landfills.

If you have not visited a landfill, you should do so.

You will see large bulldozers-and loaders at work moving, spreading, and burying the refuset which either-by splattering or by dusting, tends to get-all oicr the machines and the operators.

The men who repair the machines.often have to remove and repair parts that are caked with refuse.

What if some of.the refuse were-radioactive?

The risks 'o the operators.and the-repairmen would be enormous.

It is obvious even to the casual visitorLthat an ordinary landfill is notiequipped to handle radioactive waste.

i u

(N. N L. 4..-!;Q r. '-

l t

k

,.W.

f n

6:, W,,,

..\\.

n

. ~.- n< - '..,,

.j k

jp i' M y,? ;-'

< ?. a

,n.'i a~ '

4

2 wye s.

.,4 a, 1

i

= 9,

,.x

. t '

f'

' ff JRh n

y > <

( %[ O j '

As!you no doubt know, people even now fisht111ke ti.ers r

3 J

4 eto keep:aniordinary landfill from opening in their3neigScorhood, fl *, ',

Thinkl how much harder; they will fight if they know the c some E*

of the waste will be radioactive.

Every attempt to bpen a landfill-will polarize,the community just as the nuclear wasto

~

dump?has polarized Boyd County.

De you want +J.at?

o-4 P

1 P,,,

- Very?truly yours, e.

p

f. % ci L%c Sidney A~.-Saunders q

5

f

.. >y,-

1 L

s s t

.) I, '

y.

s i

y

\\

t t

q; v.

}

3 p:i%

?

u.

< 1 i

,I-1

.' [

7

(.

v.,

s

'l['

(

e, b

4 z.

R.

.k l

-1

.'y

.-Y--

g

'3 i

J z

m.m,E

,'O, y

4. *,

1 t

t c

50%

T)')

v\\%

t

'4

(.

1 i

. a. -R -

e f

59 4

-a p s

i e

+

7 Oi j pt gf 3

e 1

4 3,.l '

s N --

4 4

fy $;

39y- %

4 i

n r'

,.4;." 3$

-.g- ?

L I-I g

i

'kI i

i i

g +

y r

.t s

\\

f s

.i,,

}

.A i

N z

y 3

s

'..i Y

z v

h.

e.

s n, c, a.

a

,g,,

s qs _-

s s

t r m.

~.,

, '.9 = #g y-

m..:

q q

3./ p 3 r.g/. ph. ', M.

+_

.4a y

~

m s t.

a 4

+

4 v

u s

a CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM i'-

DOCUMENT PREPARATION CEECRLIST

]

This checklist is to be submitted with each document (or group of Qs/As) sent for entering into the CCS.

1.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S)

/h b MMdr f

3.

TYPE OF DOCUMENT Correspondence Esarings (Qs/As) 3.

DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (NRC Only)

" Non-Sensitive 4.

CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTE5 and SUSCOMMITTEES (if applicable)

Congressional Committee Subcommittee f

5.

SUBJECT CODES (a)

(b)

(c) 6.

SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5530 (document name

'/

(b)

Scan (c)

Attachments (d)

Rekey (e)

Other n

f 7.

SYSTEM LOG DATES (a)

M[0 /@

Date OCA sent document to CCS (b)

Date CCS receives document (c)

Data returned to OCA for additional information (d)'

Date resubmitted by OCA to CCS (e)

Date entered into CCS by (f)

Date OCA notified that document is in CCS 8.

COMMENTS

.