ML19289E121
| ML19289E121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/13/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904020240 | |
| Download: ML19289E121 (8) | |
Text
'
[pnroo4, UNITED STATES 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3"
{i M
y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
(..O MAR 131979 Manager Waste Environmental Standards Program (ANR-460)
Office of Radiation Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460
Dear Sir:
This letter provic'es the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff comInents on EPA's proposed Criteria for Radioactive Wastes, published for comment in the Federal Register on November 15, 1978.
It is our intention to coordinate closely with your staff in order to uti-lize your guidance effectively, and to implement generally applicable environmental standards for waste management as they are developed.
We have substantive concerns with the proposed criteria which we believe should be resolved before the criteria are made final.
In view of these considerations, we have developed the enclosed comments which we hope can be accomodated by EPA to assure that, from the beginning, problems due to lack of ccordination are avoided.
Our major comments are summarized below:
1.
Criterion #1 provides a very broad definition of radioactive wastes, and criterion #2 calls for " complete isolation" as the fundamental goal for disposal of these wastes. The discussion of criterion #1 precludes the establishment of any "de minimis" level below which material should not be considered radioactive waste.
Yet criteria
- 3 and #4 seem to allow for risk assessment in determining disposal options.
NRC allows certain radioactive wastes to be disposed of by methods other than " complete isolation"; for example, by discharge to the environmer.t or by shallow burial of high-volume, diffuse radio-active wastes such as uranium mill tailings. Also, certain radioactive sources (such as consumer products) have minimal restrictions on dis-posal.
The flexibility allowed by regulatory agencies in determining the types of wastes requiring control or'. isolation needs to be claci-fied.
For example, eleboration should be provided on the statement that " usual methods for control of waste materials may be used for radioactive wastes as well" (p. 53264). We suggest that criterion #2 be reworded to state that radioactive wastes should be controlled to maintain sufficient isolation from the biosphere accessible to man to 790402O Nf6 my
Manager 2
MAR 131979 assure protection of the public health and safety. This would allow for specific standards, such as the residual activity standard sched-uled to be issued by EPA, to be consistent with this guidance.
2.
Criteria #3 and #4 require risk assessment,. including assessment of probabilities of adverse events.
Based on NRC staff experience in regulating nuclear facilities, we are convinced that the state-of-the-art does not permit quantitative risk assessments to bemade with the degree of certainty required for specific regulatory decisions.
Accordingly, while we agree that agencies might reasonably be required to make risk assessments in as quantitative a fashion as possible as one factor to be considered in evaluations of the risks of waste dis-posal options, we are convinced that quantitative risk assessments should not be the principal basis for radiation protection require-ments.
We suggest that criterion #3 be reworded to state that the basis for. radiation protection. requirements for radioactive. wastes
- _should include an assessment of risk, rather than "should be: based primarily on an assessment;of risk".
._ _ : 3:
3.
Certain sections of the criteria are vague. For example, criterion
~_ _ _ #2 requires complete isolation.of wastes by as many barriersv"as are necessary", and it.is. unclear how an agency should:make such a deter-
- mination.
Other examples are-discussed in3the-attached coments.. To
- 3 be-more useful to-implementing agencies, the criteria should be modi-fied so that EPA's intent is clear.
A 4.
The criteria state that insdtutional controls should not be relied upon for more than 100 years.
We recommend that more flexibility should be allowed for broader consideration in order to take into account the type of control, whether it is active or passive, the potential for loss of the control, and the potential consequences of loss. A way of achieving _this needed flexibility would.be to change criterion #2 to ai?ow up to a few hundred years for institu-tional controls, rather than 100 years,-with the recognition that some control measures would. apply to a shorter time period.
5.
We suggest that the first part of criterion #4 be reworded to state
"... more complete isolation is impracticable on the basis of tech-nical ard social considerations, including the economics and effec-tiveness of incremental control measures;..."
6.
Criterion #6, which discusses" additional procedures and techniques",
should include a statement regarding an assessment of the cost-benefit of such additional requirements.
7.
It would be useful if discussion were included concerning other cri-teria now being developed within EPA for disposal of non-radioactive
Manager 3
MAR 131979 hazardous wastes.
For example, the proposed regulations published December 18, 1978 on hazardous wastes, under authority of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, require that monitoring be continued for only 20 years.
Some of these wastes, being extremely toxic and having no meaningful " half-life" would seem to be a greater long-term hazard than some radioactive wastes.
If you have further questions about our comments, please contact Mr. Enrico Conti (443-5966).
Sincerely, u
s eeN.Gossick Executive Director.
~
~
for Operations -
~
Enclosure:
As S.tated
=
g-e e
?
.me w
e e
e.
-m
- -m m.+
O
- b
e t
ENCLOSURE NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON EPA PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES MAJOR COMMENTS 1.
As discussed in our letter, EPA's' intent seems to be to allow differ-ent regulatory options depanding on the hazard of the wastes involved.
However, certain parts of the Federal Register notice seem to preclude establishment of "de minimis" levels.
Virtually all radioactive mate-rials seem to be classified as ws te, with complete isolation as the fundamental goal of disposal.
Complete isolation implies an absolute which is impracticable and inconsistent with EPA's definition of isolation.
2.
As discussed in our letter, we have found that the quantitative risk assessment approach which seems to be required in criteria #3 and #4 should not be included as the principal basis for regulatory actions.
In meetings between NRC and EPA staff, we have suggested as an alterna-tive a deterministic approach.
That is, standards can be expressed as limiting levels of meaningful parameters such as materials released or radiation dose.
Compliance would be demonstrated by showing that certain disruptive events (floods, faulting, etc.) would not result in consequences above :ertain levels.
Our staff /will be happy to pro-vide more information and assistance on this issue in additional meet-ings with EPA.
3.
As discussed in our letter and in some of the comments below, certain sections of the criteria are vague and need to'be clarified.
4.
Criterion #2: The length of time for reliance on institutional con-trols should be determined by the type of control, the potential for the control to be lost, and the consequences which would result if the control were lost.
Instead of EPA arbitrarily selecting a time limit, determination of the proper length of time should be left up to the licensing agency based on its review of the specific control proposed.
5.
General:
It would be useful if discussion were included concerning other criteria now being developed within EPA for disposal of non-radioactive hazardous wastes.
For example, the proposed regulations published December 18, 1978 on hazardous wastes, under authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, require that monitoring be continued for only 20 years.
Some of these wastes, being extremely toxic and having no meaningful " half-life", would seem to be a greater long-term hazard than some radioactive wastes.
O
2 OTHER COMMENTS 6.
Each criterion is listed twice.
However, the versions are not identical or equivalent.
Notably, the first version of criterion #1 calls for control of all wastes, while the second version calls for consideration.
(NRC staff prefers the second version.) All such discrepancies should be corrected.
7.
The definition of " barrier" should be broadened to include site char-acteristics, such as lack of hydrologic gradient, which prevent waste migration.
8.
In the definition of diffuse waste, change " natural ore bodies" to
" naturally radioactive ore bodies."
9.
Issue #1:
More discussion is needed on whether a regulatory agency may identify radioactive wastes which require no control or controls short of " complete isolation".
Consumer products and phosphogypsum wastes are examples of such materials.
10.
Criterion #1:
It should be noted that for purposes of Section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, NRC considers all spent fuel to be radioactive waste, even if not discarded. We would not regard a DOE designation of " product or resource value" as affecting our responsibilities under that Act.
11.
Criterion #1:
Wastes from fusion reactions and accelerator produced materials appear to be excluded by the first part of this criterion, although the examples appear to include them.
In any case, they should be included.
Also, discrete radium sources are not artifi-cially produced, but are " fabricated from naturally radioactive materials."
12.
Criterion #1:
Part (b) refers to " exposure to humans above that which would occur normally in pathways due to the pre-existing natural state of the area." Does the term "the area" refer to the location where the radioactive materials were originally obtained or to the area where they are disposed of? Does the term " exposure to humans" mean individual dose rates or population doses? These distinctions could be important where radioactive materials are transported away from their original locations.
It also appears that part (b) could be interpreted to apply to disposal of coal fly ash and similar slightly radioactive materials.
Is this EPA's intent?
13.
Criterion #1:
The definition of radioactive wastes should recognize that many items (e.g., contaminated equipment) do have a product or resource value, but are designated as wastes because of the hazard posed by the contamination.
e
3 14.
Criterion #1:
This criterion appears to include nuclear power plant effluents as radioactive wastes in the first paragraph, but not in the second.
Criterion #1 would be significantly improved if part (a) were reworded to read "...are human produced by nuclear fission or activation, or are fabricated from naturally radioactive materials into discrete sources, and, as a result of regulatory activities, are pro-hibited from discharge to the environment...."
15.
EPA states, in Issue #1, that "no' safe level of exposure to radio-activity can be established," and that, therefore, a general "de minimis" level cannot be established.
This statement is inconsistent with part (b) of Criterion #1 which, in effect, defines the radiological risks of the natural environment as a "de minimis" level.
This statement also pre-cludes any definition of the term " hazardous lifetime of the waste" since some radioactivity theoretically persists forever.
Extension of the philosophy of part (b) of Criterion #1 to all wastes is a possible way to establish a "de minimis" level and to define the lifetime of waste.
Also establishment of "de minimis" levels would be consistent with the work plan for EPA standards described in draft TID-28817, which speci-fies a residual activity standard for decommissioning.
16.
Many radionuclides used for medical diagnosis are produced by activation in a nt. lear reactor, and, therefore, must be controlled as radioactive wastes under Criterion #1.
This will require collection of human excreta for days or weeks following a diagnostic procedure, and disposal of the excreta as radioactive waste when long-lived nuclides are involved (e.g., Tc-99). Such controls appear to be impractical and unnecessary.
17.
Criterion #2:
This criterion refers to "the hazardous lifetime of the wastes" but offers no guidance for defining this term.
However, in order + comply with Criterion #2, a precise definition is necessary.
Should some number of half-lives (e.g.,10 or 20) be used to define the lifetima? Should the radiotoxicity of the wastes be compared to other materials in the area as in part (b) of Criterion #1? Should chemical toxicity be considered? EPA must provide guidance on the meaning of this term if the term is to be used in the criteria.
18.
Criterion #2:
Consideration should be given to addressing the packag-ing of the waste.
19.
Criterion #2:
This criterion refers to complete isolation by as many barriers as are necessary, whereas criteria #4 and #5 seem to allow for practicability. More discussion is necessary to clarify the responsibility of the implementing agency.
O
4 20.
Criteria #2 and #4: Our interpretation of the EPA definition of isola-tion seems to preclude use of the terms " complete isolation" and "more complete isolation", since they imply an absolute. Also, there seems tn be an implication that wastes should be isolated prior to disposal.
This should be clarified.
21.
Criteria #3 and #4:
As discussed previously, the use of a probabilistic approach as the primary basis for radiation protection requiremer.ts is undesirable because of the uncertainties involved.
22.
In Criterion #3, the tena " predetermined models" needs clarification.
Are improvements to models precluded? What if no model for a waste type or disposal concept exists? What if the " predetermined model" is subsequently found to be in error?
23.
Criterion #3 requires an assessment of risks to individuals and popula-tions; however, these criteria offer no guidance on the relative impor-tance to be placed on each type of risk.
The choice between one large waste disposal facility versus a number of smaller facilities involves a trade-off between emphasis on total population risk and individual risks.
EPA may wish to address the relative importance to be placed on each type of risk.
24.
Criterion #4: The discussion of risk acceptability is confusing.
Terms such as "a small fraction" are subject to a wide range of inter-pretations and, therefore, offer little guidance; The term " probable events" is even more vague.
It is not clear if Criterion #4 is intended to address population risks, individual risks, or some combination of both.
25.
Criterion #4 states that risks to a future generation should be no greater than those acceptable to the current generation.
This discussion of Issue #4 is ambiguous on whether this means that current radiation protection standards should be applied to future risks.
Many people would argue that the benefits (if any) to future generations are lower than the benefits to the generation which produced the wastes, and that more rertrictive radiation protection standards should, therefore, be applied to future risks.
The criteria should be clarified on this issue.
26.
Criterion #4:
This criterion includes a condition that the current generation cannot impose risk; on any future generation greater than it finds acceptable.
We believe that Criterion 4a should be rephrased by changing "a future generation" to "any future generation" to emphasize the need to consider long-term impacts.
5 27.
Criterion #4:
The meaning of this criterion needs clarification.
Does 4a refer to risks acceptable to the current generation imposed by themselves or by prior generations? Also, 4c shot'd refer to shorter term productive tecnnologies.
Since the explanatory text is essential to clarity, it should be included with final publication of the criteria.
28.
Criterion #6:
Discussion of retrievability should make the point that this does not mean the same as " recovery" as used in the defini-tion of disposal.
Also, the definition of disposal has a typograph-ical error:
radioactivity" should be " radioactive".
29.
Criterion #6:
Consideration should be given to including monitoring beyond 100 years.
30.
Criterion #6: The superficial treatment of the retrievability issue offers no useful guidance at all.
The discussion of Issue #6 apparentTy recognizes that retrievability provisions are more likely to degrade than to enhance isolation of the wastes.
i 3
e G
.