| |
Search Options | |||
| Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us | |
|||
No. 97-032 February 26, 1997
NOTE TO EDITORS: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has responded to a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency concerning a regulation that the NRC is developing on radiological criteria for decommissioning. The text of the NRC letter is enclosed.
The Honorable Carol M. Browner Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Browner:
I am writing in response to your letter of February 7, 1997 in which you expressed concern over positions that NRC may be taking regarding groundwater remediation and cleanup levels in its final rule on radiological criteria for decommissioning. In particular, you indicated concern over the possibility that NRC would increase the 15 mrem/yr dose criterion for license termination as contained in NRC's proposed rule to up to 30 mrem/yr, and that NRC might delete the separate groundwater requirements of the proposed rule.
To begin, the Commission believes that the nation deserves a uniform approach to radiation regulation which protects people from significant hazard regardless of the source, whether it is Atomic Energy Act materials, naturally occurring materials, or other materials, and which focuses regulatory resources on the most significant hazards. Further, below an upper safety limit, cost-benefit considerations must apply in site specific implementation of the radiation protection standards.
The NRC staff is currently engaged in preparing a final rule for Commission consideration. The Commission wants to assure you that it will give careful consideration to EPA's views in reviewing the NRC staff's recommendations for finalizing the rule, particularly in the matters cited in your February 7 letter. Nonetheless, as you are aware, the NRC staff has previously briefed the OMB, and I have previously written to Sally Katzen of OMB, providing the Commission's preliminary view that the separate groundwater protection requirement may be deleted, and that the appropriate dose criterion is in the range between 15 and 30 mrem/yr. Consequently, there is a possibility that in the final rule, when promulgated, the NRC approach may differ from what EPA is recommending. However, the Commission believes that its position on these matters will be consistent with the above principles, as well as with the proposed Federal Radiation Protection guidance.
In your letter you refer to certain problems with consistency posed by two existing NRC guidance documents, the Branch Technical Position "Disposal of On-Site Storage of Thorium and Uranium, from Past Operations," 46 FR 52061, October 1981, and Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23, "Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of License for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material License," August 1987. The Commission recognizes the importance of consistency, and its views and concerns on this matter are discussed further in the enclosure to this letter. We will prepare updated regulatory guidance which reflects the final rule and delete, as appropriate, reference to guidance that is no longer applicable.
We appreciate being made aware of the possibility that if the EPA recommendations are not incorporated into our final rule, EPA would reconsider its policy on exempting NRC sites from the National Priorities List (NPL). The Commission will certainly take this into consideration in its deliberation on the final rule.
I also appreciate the offer of continued exchange between the EPA and NRC staffs. As you know the two staffs have been engaged in continuous dialogue on the difficult issues related to this rulemaking for some time, and the Commission believes that a thorough exchange of views at the staff level has already occurred without progress on reaching a mutually agreeable approach to risk harmonization. However, if you would find it useful, I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss general EPA-NRC interface issues. In the event that we agree that legislation is needed to achieve risk harmonization, as contemplated in our 1992 MOU, I am prepared to discuss that option.
Sincerely,
/s/ Shirley Ann Jackson
Shirley Ann Jackson
| |||||||
