ML20062D518
| ML20062D518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1990 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Sarbanes P SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062D524 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9011130281 | |
| Download: ML20062D518 (3) | |
Text
I~
'g.
_.r i
n uouq q
g, k
UNITED STATES 4.
y g
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
I WA$HINGTON, D, C. 20555 1
o October 30, 1990 q
The Honorable Paul S. $arbanes United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Sarbanes:
I am responding to your October 15, 1990, letter in which you asked us.to address the concerns of your. constituent, Mr. P. David Wilson, who expressed his disagreement with.a Nuclear Regulatory Comission-(NRC) policy which establishes guidelines for the NRC staff in reviewing requests for exemptions for certain low-level radioactive waste (LLW).as being below 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 Mr. Wilson.
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-executingLand 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 j
provided in those situations where generic: exemption provisions have'not already been established.
'l q
The policy can be considered an outgrowtn of the concepts articulated int the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of:1985 (Pub. L.99-240). That Act (i.e., Section 10) directed the NRC to "... establish-standards and procedures...and develop the technica1Leapability 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 1
and published in 1986 a Statement of Policy'and Procedures which outlines the criteria'for considering such petitions. Durirecently. issued broad.
policy' statement, which has implications beyond waste disposals (e.g.,-
applicable to decomissioning decisions involving the release.of residually-contaminated lands or structures), reflects'much of the basic i
radiation protection. approach described in this earlier Comission policy. The Comission, in both actions, has acted in the belief that the.
nation's best interests are served by policies that establish a. consistent y
9011130281 90$U M
o l
2f.
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 formulate.
l 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,-asl 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 l
year. Of this total, over 83 percent (about 300 millirem per year) is a i
result of natural sources, including radon and its decay productsc while a
medical exposures such as x-rays, when averaged over the U.S. population,-
contribute an estimated 15 percent (53 millirem per' year). Other man-mcde sources, including nuclear fallout, contribute the remaining.1 to:2-percent of the-total exposure. The remaining 1 to 2 percent alsocincludes the contribution from nuclear power plant effluents. Any.Iow-level radioactive material associated with an exemption' decision would not be expected to change this typical exposure :' picture.'"
InLfact,~the level of radioactivity for some potential BRC' wastes ~may be such a small fraction i
of natural-background radiation that it-may'not be'readily. detectable.and, t
therefore, could not cause. measurable. increases in; radiation levels currently associated with drinking water. supplies.
Mr. Wilson's concern regarding the potential health'and environmental-risks from low-level radiation would seem to be based on a-report of recent estimatec by the National Research Council's Committee-on thes 1
Biological Effects of lonizing'. Radiation (BEIR) and perhaps also the d
estimates recently made by the United Nations Scientific Coninittee 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' i
formulation of the BRC policy.
It should be noted,=however, that'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: externa!
natural background radiation.
1 1
4 4
i tj 1
1
.~
i
,3, In closing, I can assure _ you that we take. our mandate to protect _the.
health and safety of the public very seriously.
As a result :we will continue to do our best in carefully and clearly responding to the issues and questions raised by Mr. Wilson and other concerned citizens..
Sincerely, pH,
\\
TI ot Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Congressional, Affairs -.
Office of Governmental and
,Public Affairs-
Enclosures:
- 1. - BRC Policy Statement 2.
BRC Explanatory Booklet 6
b l
I L
l 4
i i
i l
l l
l L
i I
I.
l
..