ML19280A259
| ML19280A259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/21/1980 |
| From: | Jim Hickey NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19280A256 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-43FR56677, FRN-45FR71761, RULE-PR-20 SECY-80-392, NUDOCS 8009100228 | |
| Download: ML19280A259 (32) | |
Text
-
VALUE-IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND REPORT JUSTIFICATION FOR DELETION OF 10 CFR 20.304 (Burial of small quantities of radionuclides)
Task Leader:
John W. Hickey Environmental Protection Standards Branch Office of Standards Development Telephone:
301-443-5966 Enclosure "C"
.8009100 228
CONTENTS I.
Summary II.
The Proposed Action A.
Description of Proposed Action B.
Need for Proposed Action C.
Value/ Impact Assessment of the Proposed Action 1.
Industry 2.
NRC and Agreement State Operations 3.
Other Government Agencies D.
Decision on the Proposed Action III. Alternatives to the Proposed Action A.
No Action B.
Modification of 5 20.304 IV.
Statutory Considerations A.
NRC Authority B.
NEPA Assessment V.
Relationship of Proposed Action to Other Regulations and Policies A.
NRC Staff Positions B.
The States VI.
Discussion of Public Comments A.
Introduction B.
General Comments C.
Specific Comments VII. Conclusion 1
Enclosure "C"
I.
Summarj 1.
The proposed action is to delete Secdon 20.304 of 10 CFR Part 20.
This section allows licensees to burj small quanti-ties of radionuclides without the prior approval of NRC.
Deletion of 10 CFR 20.304 would result in improved records regarding amounts and locations of buried radioactive materials, and provide greater assurance that burial material will not present a health hazaro at a later date.
2.
The alternatives to the proposed action are (a) to maintain the status quo and (b) to modify 10 CFR 20.304 to make it more restrictive without actually deleting it.
These alternative were rejected as explained in Section III.
3.
A proposed rule to delete
) CFR 20.304 was published for public comment (43 FR 56677, D Gember 4, 1978).
A detailed discussion of the public comments received is included in Section VI.
All of the issues raised in the comments were anticipated and considered by the Commission staff when it originally recommended deletion of 10 CFR 20.304.
Therefore, having considered the public cccments, the Commission maintains that 10 CFR 20.304 should be deleted.
4.
The Commission staff estimates that less than 100 out of 20,000 NRC and Agreement State licenseer are performing burials pursuant to 10 CFR 20.304, and that the i.npact of deletion of 10 CFR 20.304 on these licensee will be small (see Section II-C).
2 Enclosure "C"
II.
The Proposed Action A.
Description of Proposed Action The proposed action is to delete Section 20.304 of 10 CFR Part 20.
Section 20.304 illows licensees to bury small quant. ties of radionuclides without a burial license and without notifying the NRC or its Agreement States.
The effect of the proposed action would be to require licensees planning to dispose of small quantities of radionucI: des to apply for NRC approval under 10 CFR 9 20.302, or use alternative disposal methods such as transfer of waste to licensed commercial burial grounds.
(Section 20.302 has already been cleared by the Government Accounting Office.
This paper deals only with the impact of placing additional licensees under Section 20.302).
B.
Need for the Proposed Action The Office of State Programs has requested the Office of Standards Development to implement the proposed action.
The Agreement States, the National Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and many individual State agencies are on record in favor of the proposed action.
The reasoning used by State representatives favoring the proposed action is as follows:
3 Enclosure "C"
1.
Licensees may now bury radionuclides in accordance with 6 20.304 without notifying NRC or the Agreement States.
2.
The locations of such burials may be fogotten because records may be lost, licenses terminated, land sold, etc.
3.
Following burial, people may be using the land who are unaware of the radionuclides present.
4.
In fact, at least one incident has occurred (in Hawaii) where land was taken over by the owners who did not know about radionuclides buried there until the last minute.
It then became difficult to assess the hazard associated with the radionuclides.
5.
Therefore, greater control should be exerted over the burial of small quantities of radionuclides.
C.
Value/ Impact Assessment of the Proposed Action 1.
Industry a.
Impact Licensees wishing to continue burisis would have to complete applications for NRC or Agreement State approval prior to burial of radioactive material.
Burials would not be prohibited; rather prior approval would be required.
4 Enclosure "C"
b.
Number of Licensees Affected Since license s can now bury radionuclides under 5 20.304 without notifying NRC, exact information on the number of licensees who would be affected is not available.
The staff has made a preliminary survey which is summarized in Tables I and II.
The staff contacted NRC officials in Regions I and III, which include most non-Agreement States and 75% of NRC material licenses.
In addition, officials from nine Agreement States were contacted, covering 60% of all Agreement State licensees and the four Agreement States with the largest numbers of licensees.
5 Enclosure "C"
TABLE I IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION ON LICENSEES (Source:
NRC Inspectors and Agreement State Officials)
States Surveyed Total Material Licensees Acorox. Number Affected Region I (11 states) 2300 (non-agreement) less than 5%
Region III (8 states) 2900 (non-agreement) less than 25 California 1700 5
Texas 1310 10-15 New York 1000 none Florida 700 none South Carolina 151 none Oregon 170 none Arkansas 248 1
New Hampshire 59 2
Kansas 207 3
Note:
There will be no impact in N.Y., Fla., S.C., and Ore. because there have been no unlicensed burials in these states for several years.
6 Enclosure "C"
TABLE II
SUMMARY
OF SURVEY States surveyed:
16 non-agreement, 9 agreement Total states:
25 non-agreement, 25 agreement
% states surveyed:
64% non-agreement, 36% agreement Licensees surveyed:
5200 non-agreerent, 5600 agreement Total licensees:
6900 non-agreement, 9300 agrement
% licensees surveyed:
75% non-agreement, 60% agreement Approx. number affected:
25 non-agreement, 25 agreement Projected maximum number of all licensess affected:
0.5% or about 35 non-agreement, 45 agreement 7
Enclosure "C"
Based on estimates made by the officials contacted, as presented in Tables I and II, the staff estimates that a maximum of about 0.5% of a total of 16,000 licensees will be affected by the deletion of 5 20.304.
This would amount to a maximum of about 35 NRC licensees and 45 Agreement State licensees.
The impact will vary from state to state.
Some Agreement States already prohibit unlicensed burial, and these states will be unaffected.
In Texas, it is projected that several licensees could be affected.
Copies of the proposed amendment to delete 6 20.304 were sent to all NRC licensees.
Only 10 licensees wrote back identifying themselves as using 6 20.304, which tends to confirm the staff's original estimates.
c.
Man-hours Expended The staff estimates that each affected licensee will have to expend 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to prepare an application for approval of burials.
Assuming that no licensees choose an alter-native disposal method, the total combined expenditure will be a maximum of about 2000 man-hours.
8 Enclosure "C"
Not all licensees are expected to submit applications in the first year, due to the fact that it will take some Agreement States several years for implementation.
Assuming the applications are spread over three years, the impact will be maximum of about 700 man-hours per year for three years, with decreasing expenditures in subsequent years.
d.
Alternative Sources of Application Information Only the licensees prcposing burial of radionuclides can provide the information required in the application for approval.
2.
Impact on NRC and Agreement States About 80 applications would have to be received over three years, with smaller number of applications expected in subsequent years.
In the past, staff review has involved a few man-hours per application for burials of small quantities of radionuclides as provided in 20.302.
Therefore, a maximum of a few hundred man-hours will be involved in reviewing applications.
9 Enclosure "C"
3.
Other Government Agencies These will be affected.aly to the extent that they are licensees.
D.
Decision on the Proposed Action Section 20.304 of 10 CFR Part 20 should be deleted.
III. Alternative to the Proposed Action A.
No Action The first alternative is to leave 10 CFR S 20.304 unchanged, that is, continue to allow licensees to bury small quantities of radionuclides anywhere without notifying NRC or the Agreement States.
This alternative was rejected because the NRC staff recognizes the need to maintain better records of burials and provide greater assurance that buried radioactive material will not present a health hazard at a later date.
B.
Modification of 5 20.304 The regulation could be modified rather than deleted.
One modification would be to require burials to be in restricted areas, with removal of radioactive material prior to license 10 Enclosure "C"
termination.
This was rejected because there would still be no prior review.
For the same reason, a modification which would merely require notification of NRC after burials was rejected.
Another modification would be to permit burial of certain radionuclides without prior approval.
This alternative was rejected because it would require a detailed technical analysis by the NRC staff, involving much more effort than the proposed action.
IV.
Statutory Considerations A.
NRC Authority The proposed action involves 10 CFR Part 20 which was prcmulgated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act.
Therefore, NRC authority is clear.
B.
NEPA Assessment The proposed amendment will affect few licensees, and is not likely to have a substantial impact on the method or number of burials of radionuclides.
Therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared.
11 Enclosure "C"
V.
Relationship of Proposed Action to Other Regulations and Policies A.
NRC Staff Position In 1975, NMSS, NRR, IE, and RES all endorsed the concept of amending 10 CFR Part 20.304 to make it more restrictive.
The Office of State Programs has urged that 10 CFR 20.304 be amended as soon as possible.
B.
The States The Agreement States, the National Conference of Radiation Program Control Directors, and several individual State Agencies have urged NRC to amend 10 CFR Section 20.304.
The Agreement States Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon have alread outlawed burials which would be allowed under Section 20.304.
VI.
Discussion of Public Comments A.
Introduction The proposed amendment to delete 10 CFR S 20.304 was published for public comment on December 4, 1978 (43 FR 56677).
Thirty-eight sets of comments were received; seventeen favored deletion, fourteen were against, and seven took no clear position.
12 Enclosure "C"
All of the issues raised in the public comments were anticipated and considered by the Commission staff when it originally prepared the proposed rule.
Therefore, consideration of the comment did not change the Commission's position that 10 CFR S 20.304 should be deleted.
Ten licensees submitted comments stating that they performed burials pursuant to S 20.304 and supplied information on the burials.
These comments confirmed NRC staff estimates that less than 100 licensees are using S 20.304 and that the impact of deletion of S 20.304 will be small.
A general discussion of major comments received is included below in Section B.
Detailed discussier of each comment received is provided in Section C.
B.
General Comments 1.
Comment:
Burials pursuant to 9 20.304 do not represent a public health problem.
Response
Severci comments from institutions performing such burials provided information on their operations, indicating that their burial sites are safe because they are owned by the licensee, fenced and marked, located in areas of low risk of ground water contamination, or con-tain short-lived radionuclides in waste with low specific 13 Enclosure "C"
activity.
Nevertheless, the radionuclide quantities involved are potentially large enough to cause significant radiation exposures if they are concentrated point sources.
Therefore, the Commission has decided that case-by-case review of proposed burials is appropriate.
Prior review of buric.s will result in improved records regarding amounts and locations of buried radioactive material, and provide greater assurance that burial material will not present a health hazard at a later date.
2.
Comment:
Disposal of wastes at commerical burial grounds is too expensive, it carries its own risks, and the commer-cial sites are already overburdened.
Response
Many commenters incorrectly interpreted the proposed rule to mean that local burial would be prohibited, and tnat all waste would have to be shipped to commercial burial grounds.
The Commission is not requiring that all radioactive waste affected by deletion of 9 20.304 be shipped to commercial burial grounds.
Licensee proposals for waste disposal will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, including consideration of risk and economic costs.
This is consistent with 10 CFR S 20.1(c) which provides that licensees should make every reasonable effort to maintain radiation exposures as low as is reasonably achievable, where "as lo.s as is reasonably achievable" includes taking into account economics of improvement in relation to bene-fits to the public health and safety.
14 Enclosure "C"
Several licensees performing burials pursuant to S 20.304 commented that it would be too expensive to ship wastes to commerical burial sites, and that in any case the sites are already overburdened.
Estimates of the extra costs and volumes of waste involved ranged from $400 to $21,000 and 70 to 2000 cubic feet per year.
It should be noted that:
(1) as discussed above, the assumption that all wastes would have to be shipped to commerical burial grounds is incorrect, (2) the staff estimates that less than 100 licensees are performing burials pursuant to S 20.304, (3) until recently about 3,000,000 cubic feet of radioactive waste were being shipped annually to commercial sites, and (4) many institutions similar to those using S 20.304 are using commercial disposal sites.
Therefore, while certain licensees may wish to dispose of high-volume, slightly contaminated waste by local burial for justifiable economic reasons, in many cases, licensees could ship low-volume waste to commercial sites at reasonable cost without adding significantly to the total volume accepted at the sites.
The Commission recognizes problems associated with closures or reduced capacity of commerical burial grounds.
This issue affects all licensees disposing of low-level radio-active waste, not just burials purusant to S 20.304.
The Commission staff will, of course, take into account the status of commercial burial sites in making any licensing decisions regarding disposal of radioactive waste.
15 Enclosure "C"
3.
Comme.it:
Requirements should be specified for obtaining specific approvals for burials pursuant to S 20.302.
Respense:
As discussed in the notice of proposed rule-making, the Commission is reviewing existing policy on disposal of low-level radioactive waste and developing r.ew regulations.
These will be published in separate notices of proposed rulemaking.
Until new regulations are developed, applications for waste disposal will be reviewed according to 10 CFR S 20.302, which requires licensees to submit information describing the waste material, the levels of radioactivity involved, the pro-posed conditions of disposal, the environment of the disposal site, and procedures to be coserved to minimize the risk of unexpected or hazardous exposures.
4.
Comment:
Will Agreement States be required to modify their regulations to achieve compatibility with the deletion of S 20.304?
Response
The Commission staff has made a preliminary determination that this is a matter of compatibility, so modification of Agreement State regulations would be expected.
5.
Comment:
Section 20.304 should be deleted because it is not strict enough.
16 Enclosure "C"
Response
The Commission agrees that 5 20.304 should be deleted.
C.
Specific Comments Thirty-eight sets of written comments were received from:
Bethlehem Steel Corporation University of Missouri-Columbia Terry D. Brown State of New York Virgie L. Campbell Oklahoma State University Carroll Engineers, Inc.
Pathfinder Mines Corporation Mr. and Mrs. Ronald E. Cate Pennsylvania State University Consumers Power Company Portland General Electric Company J. W. Cure, III Mr. and Mrs. Billy Ried Eugene and Betty DiMaio Sue Rice U.S. EPA John S. Richmond Exxon Neelear Company, Inc.
Stan A. Huber Consultants, Inc.
Harvard University St. Mary's General Hospital Rocky Mountain Laboratory Rhonda and Mark Sechrest Howard Laboratories, Inc.
Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Department of the Interior Texas Department of Health Iowa State University Veterans Administration Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation John G. Wafferschmidt State of Louisiana Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mayers Farm State of West Virginia Memoric1 Hospital, Logansport, IN University of Wisconsin-Madison 17 Enclosure "C"
Copies of the comments are available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, Washington, D.C.
A few additional comments were received by telephone or personal contacts.
These are not discussed; however, they were considered in connection with the final rulemaking.
The written comments received are discussed below.
Most comments have been paraphrased to save space.
However, every attempt was made to present the comments fairly and accurately.
1.
Esthlehem Steel Corporation, January 15, 1979 a.
Comment:
Burials pursuant to g 20.304 are not a public health or environmental hazard.
Response
See general comment #1.
b.
Comment:
Obtaining prior approval for burial would involve delays resulting in increased exposures to workers from stored material.
Response
Such increased exposure would be negligible.
c.
Comment:
Disposal at commercial burial grounds is expensive and carries its own risks.
18 Enclosure "C"
Response
See general ec==ent #2.
2.
Dr. Terry D. Brcwn, January 23, 1979 Cc= ment:
The Cc==ission has not established that burials pursuant to 3 20.304 are a public health hazard.
Response
See general ec= cent #1.
3.
Virgie L. Campbell, January 27, 1979 Cc= ment:
Burials pursuant to 5 20.304 may pose a danger to the environment and the public health.
Response
See general cc==ent #1 and #5.
4.
Carroll Engineers, Inc., January 9,1979 Cc:=ent:
Favers a=endment.
5.
Mr. and Mrs. Ronald E. Cate, January 22, 1979 a.
Cc==ent:
Section 20.304 shculd be deleted.
Response
See general cc:=ent #5.
19 Enclosure "C"
+
b.
Comment:
Provision should be made for public participation before license conditions are granted.
Response
NRC regulates over 20,000 licensees directly and through its Agreement States.
It would be difficult to notify the public of all licensing actions.
- However, NRC does and will continue to provide for public participation in significant licensing actions.
6..
Consumers Power Company, January 19, 1979 Comment:
Commercial burial sites are already overburdened.
Response
See general comment #2.
7.
J. W. Cure, III, January 26, 1979 Comment:
Burials pursuant to S 20.304 are not a hazard, and burial at commercial sites is not a good alternative.
Response
See general comments #1 and #2.
8.
Eugene and Betty DiMaio, January 15, 1979.
a.
Ccmment:
Section 20.304 should be deleted.
20 Enclosure "C"
b.
Comment:
Provisions should be made for public participation before license conditions are granted.
Response
See specific comment #5.
9.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 16, 1979 Comment:
Deletion of 5 20.304 would not have an unfavorable impact on the quality of the environment.
10.
Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., January 2,1979 Comment:
Deletion of 5 20.304 should be delayed until more progress is made on the NRC generic rulemaking on low-level radioactive waste disposal.
Response
A delay would result in continued burials without specific approval, which is undesirable.
Deletion of S 20.304 will not affect or be affected by future changes in policy, which can be easily implemented as they are developed.
11.
Harvard University, January 16, 1979 a.
Comment:
Burials pursuant to S 20.304 are not a public health hazard, disposal at a commerical site is too expensive, and the commerical sites are already overburdened.
21 Enclosure "C"
Response
See general comments #1 and #2.
b.
Comment:
Burial of waste is preferable to incineration.
Response
NRC regulations already require specific approval for incineration of waste.
The acceptability of burial or incineration would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
12.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Rocky Mcuntain Laboratory, January 25, 1979 Ccmment:
Burials pursuant to 6 20.304 are not a public health..azard.
Response
See general comment #1.
13.
Howard Laboratories, Inc., January 3,1979 Comment:
Favors amendment.
14.
U.S. Department of the Interior, February 2, 1979 a.
Comment:
Available information on the number of licensees using 5 20.304 should be reviewed.
22 Enclosure "C"
Response
The proposed amendment was mailed to over 8,000 licensees, and only 10 identified themselves as using 5 20.304 Therefore, the Commission staff maintains its original estimate that less than 100 licenses are using 5 20.304.
b.
Comment:
In many cases, burial sites should be marked.
Response
This will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
15.
Iowa State University, January 22, 1979 a.
Comment:
Burials pursuant to 5 20.304 are not a public health hazard.
Response
See general comment #1.
b.
Comment:
Shipment to commercial sites is expensive and carries its own hazards.
Response
See general comment #2.
c.
Ccmment:
Incineration of waste or sewer dumping are not good alternatives.
23 Enclosure "C"
Response
While the NRC staff agrees that this may be true in many cases, this is not a good reason to allow continued 5 20.304 burials without prior approval.
16.
Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation, January 31, 1979 Comment:
Disposal at commercial sites is not a good alternative.
Response
See general comment #2.
17.
State of Louisiana, January 31, 1979 Comment:
Favors amendment.
18.
Mayes Farm, January 31, 1979 a.
Comment:
Favors amendment.
b.
Comment:
Agreement States should make compatible changes.
Response
See general comment #4.
c.
Comment:
Provision should be made for public participation in license decisions.
24 Enclosure "C"
Response
See specific comment #5.
19.
Memorial Hospital, Logansport, Indiana, January 5,1979 Comment:
Costs of deleting 5 20.304 would not be prohibitive.
20.
University of M'ssouri-Columbia, February 20, 1979 a.
Comment:
Burials pursuant to 5 20.304 are not a public health hazard.
Response
See general comment #1.
b.
Comment:
Burial at commercial sites is expensive, it carries 'its own risks, and the ccmmerical sites are c1 ready overburdened.
Response
See general comment #2.
21.
State of New York, January 30, 1979 Comment:
Favors amendment.
22.
Oklahoma State University, January 23, 1979 a.
Comment:
Burials pursuant to S 20.304 are not a public health hazard.
25 Enclosure "C"
.c
Response
See general comment #1.
b.
Comment:
Burial at a commerical site will be expensive and carry its own risks.
Response
See general comment #2.
c.
Comment:
Burial pursuant to S 20.304 reduces the need to dispose of waste in sewers pursuant to S 20.303.
Response
Waste disposed in sewers must be soluble in water.
Most waste buried (paper, glass, animal carcasses, plastic) would not fall in the category of soluble material.
23.
Pathfinder Mines Corporation, January 16, 1978 Comment:
Does the proposed rule change apply to mill tailings?
Response
Under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, mill tailings are licensable material, and NRC regulations have been amended to that effect (44 FR 50012, August 24, 1979).
In theory, the rule change would apply to burial of mill tailings.
However, tailings will be dis-posed in accordance with specific regulations (See 44 FR 50015, August 24, 1979) and license conditions, so there will be no effect in practice.
26 Enclosure "C"
24.
Pennsylvania State University, January 31, 1979 a.
Comment:
Burials pursuant to 9 20.304 are not a public health ha:ard, and NRC studies on waste classification are not complete.
Response
See general comment #1 and specific comment
- 10.
25.
Portland General Electric Company, February 22, 1979 Comment:
Favors amendment.
26.
Mr. and Mrs. Billy Ried, January 29, 1979 a.
Comment:
Section 20.304 should be deleted.
b.
Comment:
Agreement States should make changes compatible with deletion of 5 20.304.
Response
See general comment #4.
c.
Comment:
The public should be allowed to participate in license decisions.
Response
See specific comment #5.
27 Enclosure "C"
27.
Sue Rice, January 29, 1979 Ccmment:
Favors amendment.
28.
John S. Richmond, December 28, 1978 Comment:
Burials pursuant to 5 20.304 are not a public health hazard.
Response
See general comment #1.
29.
Stan A. Huber Consultants, Inc.
a.
Comment:
Burials pursuant to S 20.304 are not a public health hazard.
Response
See general comment #1.
b.
Comment:
Leave the decision of g 20.304 up to individual Agreement States.
Response
The issue would still remain for non-Agreement States.
c.
Comment:
Commerical burial grounds are already overloaded.
28 Enclosure "C"
~.
Response
See general comment #2.
30.
St. Mary's General Hospital, December 28, 1978.
Comment:
Favors amend =ent.
31.
Rhonda and Mark Sechrest, January 21, 1979 a.
Cocment:
Section 23.304 should be deleted.
b.
Comment:
Provisions should be made for public participating in licensing decisions.
Response
See specific com=ent #5.
c.
Comment:
Agreement States should make changes compatible with deletion of f 20.304.
Response
See general cccment #4.
32.
Tennessee Valley Authority, March 2, 1979 a.
Co= ment:
Burials pursuant to f 20.304 are not a public health hazard.
Response
See general c mment #1.
29 Enclosure "C"
4 b.
Comment:
Material could be readily disposed at commercial facilities.
33.
Texas Department of Health, January 26, 1979 Comment:
Favors amendment.
34.
Veterans Administration Hospital, San Francisco, February 1, 1979 Comment:
Favors amendment.
35.
John G. Wafferschmidt, December 18, 1978 Comment:
Favors amendment.
36.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, January 30, 1979 a.
Comment:
A "de minimis" standard should be established for disposal of low-hazard materials.
Response
The NRC staff is working on this.
b.
Comment:
It is not established that 5 20.304 burials are a health hazard, and the costs of transportation of wastes to a commercial site have not been presented.
30 Enclosure "C"
a
Response
See general comments #1 and #2.
37.
State of West Virginia, January 15, 1979 Comment:
Favors amendment.
38.
University of Wisconsin--Madison, January 30, 1979 a.
Comment:
Shipment of radioactive waste to commercial burial sites may not always be a good alternative.
Response
See general comment #2.
b.
Comment:
Disposal pursuant to 5 20.304 are not a public health hazard.
Response
See general comment #1.
VII.
Conclusion The proposed action should be undertaken immediately.
That is, 10 CFR 20.304 should be deleted.
The concerns expressed by the States justifies immediate resolution of the issue.
31 Enclosure "C"