ML19332E238

Responds to 891018 Request for Comments Re Low Level Radwaste Disposal,Per Constituent E Lewis Concerns.Nrc Did Issue Final Policy (10CFR2) Which Established Stds & Procedures to Allow NRC to Act on Rulemaking Petitions

ML19332E238
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/09/1989
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Vander Jagt G HOUSE OF REP.
References
FRN-51FR30839, RULE-PR-2 CCS, NUDOCS 8912060406
Download: ML19332E238 (14)

Text

hc. -

r q

f

'):* **0%

Ni UNITED STATES

, -8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.

.n

((

tf~

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655

' M e * + +,of h

.r November 9, 1989 1

h[ ^

The Honorable GuyLVander JagtL

~ United States House of Representatives -

)

Washington,'DC-205151

Dear Congressman.Vander Jagt:

I am responding.to'your letter of October 18, 1989, which asked,us for our

viewsLon the matters pertaining to low-level radioactive waste disposal raised by your constituent, Mr. Eric Lewis. Mr. Lewis is one of-several Michigan citizens who have conveyed their concerns on this subject to their Congressional representatives.. Specifically, Mr. Lewis' concerns are directed at Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) activities to exempt specific weste from further regulation if its radioactivity content is sufficiently _ low as to be "below regulatory concern (BRC)." The BRC' terminology reflects a class of material

-described in P.L.99-240, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act of 1985.

y L

In response to Mr. Lewis' concerns, I would first note that the Nuclear b

Regulatory Commission-(NRC) has not published any proposed regulations which L

-would allow disposal of low-level waste under the BRC provisions of P.L.99-240.

}

.Howeveri in-1986 we did issue a final policy (Enclosure 1, 51'FR 30839),

~

f which established-the standards and-procedures that will permit the NRC to act I-upon "BRC" rulemaking petitions in an expeditious. manner, as called for in'the Act.-

The NRC has also initiated the development of a broadly applicable exemption policy.- The policy would publicly express the principles and criteria that Lunderlie~ Consnission exemption decisions ~ including those related to BRC waste disposal.- The. policy is intended to provide the public health and safety framework which would apply to the development of regulations, such as those L

which may' allow disposal of very low-level radioactive waste at other than L

licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal sites. As a key step'in this policy development effort, the Commission issued the advanced notice (Enclosure

2) in:the' Federal Register on December 12, 1988, and solicited public comment.

The NRC received, and-is continuing.to receive, comment letters responding to

~this advance notice. Over 250 letters have been received to date. Many of ithese commenters have expressed views similar to those of Mr. Lewis. We understand the importance of these issues to concerned citizens and will be addressing them in the Commission's final exemption policy which we currently expect will.be issued in late 1989 or early 1990.

ggy;T ASCil SCAN gj2oggo6 age CC9

\\

PDC

~ ~

re,-

g,.

q s

i

]

=

..r

-e :

c.

1The ' Honorable. Guy Vander Jagt-2 i

g-I.want-to assure you that we' take our mandate to protect the health In. closing, f. the public very seriously. As a result, the concern expressed by I'

and safety o

- Mr. Lewis is one'that we must carefully consider and address as'we carry out 6

our regulatory mission.

Sincerely,

^ /

m J

s M.

ting Executive Director for 0perations:

Enclosures:

As stated f

1

(

r l~

(-

l'. Q

~-

e-ee s'-

m e+

--*me

-e m-m

[

i 3

+

i

e c"

3 -

'J

!The _ Honorable Guy Vander Jagt-2-

i:

~

. In' closing, _I~ want to assure you that we take our_ mandate to protect the health -

i; and safety o0 the public very seriously. As a result, the concern expressed by_

Mr. Lewis is.one that we must. carefully consider and address as we carry out

-our regulatory mission._

l Sincerely, i-Original Signed Bis

=

James M. Taylor James M.. Taylor Acting Executive Director yc

~^

for Operations l

Enclosures:

As stated

-i See next page for Distribution *See attached for previous concurrences.

i i

t

s, p

LL

.r.

I :

1 -

OFFC:RPHEB:DRA-l:RPHEB:DRA :DD:DRA

D:DRA

DD/GI:RES :D:REs

AE NAME:WLahs:*

DCoo1*

ZRosztoczy:BMorris*

TSpeis*

EBeckjord*:JA o

/89

'DATE:10/30/89

11/02/89 :

/ /89 :11/03/89 :11/3/89

11/3/89

1 7

!~

0FFC

0CA f 3

<NAME:

A P

.DATE:M'/--/89-0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

---w-

,--,,e, w

e

,---,ns-

---

,,-s.,-,

,,,---.a, e -,,

,,v-ew----w..

,a-v,.-,

e a

e e rw nm

{

~

+

,s J

% M4 App, s C PART 2 O RULES OF PRACDCE FOR DOMESMC UCENSING PROCEEDINGS

,I En i

t Appendia B to Port 2-Cenerel Sietement ~

l implementing the generet approach authned I

4

[

I t

of Pehty eng Procedures Concerning iln this pohc) statement. Although staff eney y,

'pehtions Purount to i 2.e02 for Depoul of

!nvise it from time.to time se emperience le Redioettive Weste Stnains Selow

geined in proemirq putions, the plan y

Regulatory Concern-outhres e reasonable beeis for accomphshing

~'

1 Introduction and Pwpon the approach. Stoff is to pubheh revisions es 1

F Il Stenderde and Procedwes -

NUREC documente end notice the 111. Agreement States ovellability of the avisione in Abe Fedesel m

IV Future Action Regleter.

As a procucal matter.the prbnery LletmducGu and Purpeas

'e Information for lutifying and supportme he 14w4evel Redioective Weste Pohey Petsuono must be suppled by the petitioner if Amendmente Act ofless(the Act)(4W.S C.

the Commleelon le to act in en sapedited 3021b et seg ) wee enacted January 16.13e4. '

manner.If the petitioner wishes to assute Section 10 of the Act addruees depoul of expedited action, the evpporting informauen westes termed "below reguletory concern- -

should be complete enough so that

- that would not need to be sub>ct w Commlulon schen is primaruy lunited to reguletory control to emure adequate independent evalueuct and administretive.

protection of the pubhc huhh and eefety -

prece**lms-j because of their radioecuve centent.De geel Decleion criterte for judging whether to

'=

of this section of the Act is for the grant e petihon involve the overellimpacts of I

Commiulon to make proctical and thnely the proposed action,weste properbes and s

I deciesens to determine when weetu need not '

implemenistion of the propeeed enemption.

I ao to a heennd low lent wuie de 1 ette, h following criterte eddrus thou etees.

3 Thou decisions will be emprused petitions which demonstress that these erlierie are met should be seitable for rulemakirg Aherneuve disposalwould eeneerve space in the emisung sites while sapedited action.

1 new alles are estebhehed ens reduee the 1.Dispoul and treatment of the westee se

. esota of disposal Rulemaking peutions sney specified in the peuben will smit in so play a role in the nationellow level weste sientricant impact en the quehty of the bumen environment.

I strategy outhned by the Act he Act L he meatmum espected effective dose provides thet the Comminion establmh equivalent to en indmdat member of the procedures for acting expedihomely on pubhc does not exceed a lew milhrem per petitione to esempt specific tedioactive R weste streams from the Comminion's Er#r for n*rm*1 opetsuono and enticipated

{ segulations..

geunte3 De collective desse to the arttical N purpou of this statement and

. ! accompanytag implementetion plan is to

[tpopulation and genere! population m emell.

- esiebbeh the stenderde end precodme that

4. The potenuel radiological consequences e of accidents or equipment malfuncuen

• will permit the Commluion to act upon involving the westes and intrusion lato rulemaking pW 2ne in en expeditious dispoul sites after low of normal mennerascs i for in the Act.The pohey institutional controle are not signiheent.

nietegnent de*

.ot voquire peutionere to es The enemption will resuh to a espificant a^

pruent all the Mormation euthned or

'eductionjn societal esote.

demonstrate that the decision critene for expedited handhas can be met. lf such 6.De weste le compeuble with the expedited handhng te not wanted. For

, proposed trutment and dapoeal options.

enemple, petitione requuung enemption of 7.no esemption is useful on e asuonal

, concentrations of radionuchdes that might scale. i.e it is hkely to be used by a estegory usuh in indmsTiel eapoems higher then of heeneen or et least e significant poruen of those recommended in the decision criterte 4 estegory.

unay be subinetted, but sapedited handhng g De radiologicalproperties of the weete tennot be enured. -

etream have been cherectorised on a seuenal Irinelly, this pchey statement and basis. the variebihty het been propcted. and eccompanying implementation plan are the tense of verteuen will not levehdate intended to facihtets handhng ef rulemandag supporung onelyou.

peutions for streams from mulupis producers

- 9.The weste charactertsetica is beeed on and do not apply to individual hcensing date on veel westes actions on eingle producer weste. Indmdual to De deposed form of the weste has hcenees who seek opproval for disposal of meshgible potenballer recycle.

their uniques weetu may continue to submit -

11.1Jeansees een establah effecuve.

- their disposal plans under to CPR 30.802(e).

licenuble. and inspecteble programs for the meste pnor w nonsfer to demonstrou II. Standards and preesdusse comphence.

De ofenderds and procedures needed to 11 The offette treatment or dispoul handle petitions expedihously fellinto the medium (e4. eenitary landfill) does not nad following three cetesones-(1)Informebon to be controlled or monitored for redieuon petitionere should fde in support of the protection purposes.

pehtions. (2) standards for seeessing the -

13 he methods and procedures used to edequacy of the proposele end providing manage the westes and to asues the impacts peuuoners insight on the decision critene the are no different from those that would be Comminion intends to use so thet all opphed to the corruponding unconteaunsted relevent informationalissues will be

,,,,gg, eddrened in the petition. end (3) the internal 14 Thue are se reguletory or legal NRC edministrouve procedures for handhng obstaclu to uw of the propoud treetanht or the peutions Then three cetesones are disposal methods.

addrewed in the etteched etsf!

implementation plan The staff plan was Ill. Agreement Seesse developed in ruponse to Commission De W.!mel Radioactive Weste pohey direction to provide detailed guidance on Amendments Act of19e5 estabhshes a 240

~

~

-.~

, n.

4 APP. 8(III M So App.8 cAnn o mutas er enACnCE pon ocur.snC UCENSING Pn0CEEDINGS national ey'siem for deshng with lom. level A Generel -

the petitioner if the Commission is to act wasie disposal.The system assigns to the.

1.10 CFR Part 2 Requirements in en expedited menner. Petitions for Sietes responsibht) for disposal capacity for 3

- 2 Environmentallmpacts rulemaking should therefore be low. level westes not emceeding Class C 3 Economic Impact on Smelt Entities submitted following the staffs westes as defined in 10 CFR 3146 Secuen 10 4 Computer Program supplemental guidance and procedures of the At. encourages e reduchon in volume 5 Scope to esture expedited action.

i of such mestes subject to State res onsibhtiy -

B Weste Characterisation -

2. Eniironmento/ impacts. Petitions for diabooelinrough the option of termining

1. Radiological Properties must enable the Commission to make e.

that certem westes need not go to esisting 2 Other Considerations heensed disposal fecihties or new sites.

3 Totals imdmg of no significant impact on the heensed under 10 Cf1L port 31 o equivalent 4 Besis quality of the human environment.Such Siete regulations If radiologicet safety can be

& As Low as keesonably Achieveble Commission findings must be based on assured. such disposal would conserve space (ALARA) en Environmental Assessment that M

in the entsting sues while new sttes are C. Weste h4anagement Options complies with 10 CFR 51.30 and must developed, and would serve as en 1.nportant.

D. Analyses meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.32 adjunct to volume reduchon efforts in

1. Radiologicalimpacts These requirements include addressing' i

- meeti the m este volume ellocenon hmits

2. Other impacts the need Ior the proposed action,

. set for in the Act.Thus. these rulemok;ngs 3.Reguletory Analysis identifying alternatives, and assessing should aid the Stotes in fulfilhng their E. Recordkeepmg and Reporting responsibihties under the Act. Equity also.

1. Surveys the Potential environmental impacts of suggests that all weste generators be able to 2 Reports the proposed action and alternatives.

. take advantage of below regulatory concem F. Proposed Rule Consistent with 10 CFR 5141 the options as part of their wasie monogement Ill. Decicion Cnierie petitioner should submit the information otrategies Generetors m both Agreeenwnt IV. Administrouve Handhng needed to meet these requirements and and non-Agreement States will be competmg -

g, gag,,gggggo, do so in a manner that permits 6

for space in the esistmg sites and the concept independent evaluation by the should be opphcable nehonwide.

Section 10 of the 1,ow. Level Commission of the data and i

,,3,'[,,,

',8[, play,,nj Radioactive Weste Policy Amendments methodology used and the conclusions e"

on Act of 1985 requires the Nuclear reached.

national basis and that it remains equitable.

Regulatory Commission (NRC) to

3. Economic impoet on smallentitiet States have been encouraging findmes that certam westes are below regulatory concem develop standards and procedures for When a rulemaking action is likely to and do not have to go to low. level weste expeditious handling of petitions for have a significant economic impact on a sites The Sietes have been voicing this view rulemaking to exempt dispo6al of substantial number of smell entities the for a number of years through forums such as radioactive waste determined to be.

Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that below regulatory concern.The Act also g the impacts on these small entities must g the Conference of Radiation Control Program g

s Directors Rulemakings grantmg petitons will requires NRC to identify information g be specifically addressed.(The petitioners should ble. The Commission Commission's size standard for

'a et tes eequ 11 rulemakms g Policy Statement provides general

! identifying a small entity is 83.5 million C will be coordmated with the States guidance on how to meet the

- or less in annual receipts except for g gg py,,,, 4,,i,,

• requirements secti n 10 of the Act.

• private practice physicians and The Coremission will conduct a generic outlines the overall approach to be educationalinstitutions where the rulemaking on waste streams below followed, and lists decision criteria to be standard is $1 milhon orless in armuel regulatory cos.cern based on a number of used. Implementation of the general receipts for privaH practice physicians lt

' factors The factors include pubhc comments

. received on the staiement. the number and approach and decision criteria of the and 500 employees for educational typt s of peutons for rulemakmg received, and Commission Policy Statement involves institutions. See 50 FR 50214. December L

l how effective the statement is in enabime developing more detailed guidance and 9.1985 ) For any rulemaking. the

- timely processing of petitions. A generic procedures. In accordance with Commission must either certify that the -

L rulemakmg is warranted to provide a more Commission direction. the NRC staff has rule will not economically impact or will l-efficient and effective means of developed more detailed guidance and have no significant economic impacts on y','Mg *8[,8f,I',$,'[,7,y,*p s d.

procedures forimplementation of the small entities, or present an analysis of h

Commission Policy Statement.This staff alternatives to minimize the irnpacts.

rulemakmg will be pubbshed withm ao days.

guidance and procedures cover:(1)

Because rulemakings on below Furthermore, the Commission may penodically review all rulemakings in order Information petitioners should file in regulatory concern should provide rehef to assure that the relevant parameters have support of petitions to enable expedited from requirements for all effected L_

not changed sigmficantly and may ask the processing. (2) discussion of the decision entities. satisfaction of this requirement pehtioner to submit updated information to criteria, and (3) administrative should be straightforward but it must be assist in the review.The Commission would procedures to be followed.

addressed in any rulemaking To also hane to conhrm that approved facilitate ex editious preparation of the enemptions are consistent with any general II. Information to Support Petitions proposed ru e responding to the petition, standards issued by EPA' A. General the petitioner should submit an Dated a Washington.DC this 25th day of g

evaluation of the estimated economic c i i

s e aluation shouldin lude timates of

- For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

gt te aki a e ut n d in the costs for small entities in terms of Samuey Chilk,:

the Commission's regulations in to CFR staff time and dollar costs. Any Secretary to the Commission.

2.802tc). These regulations require the alternatives that could accomplish the Editonal Note: The staff implementation petitioner to idedify the problem and objective of the petitioner s proposed plan will not appear in the Code of Federal propose solutions to state the rule while minimizing the economic egu shon.

petitioner's grounds for and interest in impact on small entities should be Nuclear Regulatory Commiselon Staff the action, and to provide supporting presented. The evaluation should implementation of Nuclear Regulatory information and rationale. As a practical include an assessment of the Commission Policy on Radioactive matter, the information demonstrating incremental recordkeeping and reporting Weste Below Regulatory Concern -

that the radiological health and safety costs that would be associated with the impacts are so low as to be below regulatory concern must be provided by petihoned rule change-I r ti n to Support Petitions 2 61 August 29,1986

App. Still AN, B(!!)

N

PART 2 O RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS i

complying with 10 CFR Part 61 weste be considered in selecting acceptable petitioner's analysis should addren the z

besis for parameter selection and 4

classification requirements. Weste options.

characterite the expected patterns (e 3.,

generators use generic scaling factors -

p'A,,fy,,,

indicate how likely the extreme case and factors established for their specific -

wastes through sophisticated analyses.

To support and justify 'he submittel, may be) in addition. the petitioner's The scaling factors are used to infer the each pehtioner should include analysea analysis should also address potential presence and concentrations of many of the radiologicalimpacts anociated exposures from handling and transport radioAuclides based on measurement of with handimg. transport. and disposal of accidents. The petitioner's analysis of only a few nuchdes.The classification the speelhc wastes. Any incremental accidents should include all r

scheme in 10 CFR Part 61 has been in nonradiologicalimpacts should be assumptions, data. and results to effect etnce December 1983 assessed. Also the petitioner should use facilitate review.The potential for Considerable data and experience the analyses to prepare and submit a shipment of the entire waste stream to should be asallable to allow detailed regulatory analysis with the one or a few facihties should be assessed. This scenario currently exists characterizing the todiological content petition.

and composition of the weste stream

1. flodiologica/ /mpoets. The for to CFR 30.306 exempted liquid scintillation wastes and might result being addressed in the petition.The evaluation of radiologicalimpacts same principles outlined in 10 CFR '

should distinguish between expected from very hmited numbers of treatment facilities or decontamination services 61.55te)(6) may be opphed. i.e., values and potential exporures and events.

based on direct measurements. indirect impacts should be assessed for the The analysis of impacts for transport.

methods related to measurements. or expected concentrations and quantities handlms. and disposal should include

- material accountabihty, of radionuclides.The petitioner should evaluation of this potential circumstance unlesa it can be clearly ruled out.

6. As low os is reasonably ochievable quantitatively evaluate the impacts from As suggested in Paragraph to on page (ALARA/. The Commission's ALARA the proposed waste for each option 20 of ICRP Pubhcation 46 8; requirement in 10 CFR 20.1(c) applies to requested The petitioner should clearly efforts by licensees to maintain relate the analyticalImdmss to specific Exception from tesulanon and ~

radiation exposures and releases of provisions in the recommended rule requirements on then baws should not be radioactive materials in effluents to changes. For example, the basis for each used to mee it possible to dispose of larse unrestricted areas as low is reasonably recommended radior.uclide hmit should eu*"hh's of'*d'o*ct'" matenal m diluted I'"" "H" d'V'd'd P0'i'ons, causing achievable.10 CFR Part 50. Appendix 1.

be clearly explained.

describes ALARA for radioactive The radiologicalimpacts included in jd u$* hhp Ie

" *dion o ad materials in hght water reactor effluents.

NUREG/CR-3585 and in NRC's many small doses to individuals Nor should Licensee compliance with 10 CFR 201(c) computer program (IMPACTS-BRC) ihes be und to exempt acuvines that.by le a precondition to acceptance by NRC cover exposures to workers and isolanon or treatment have bun made g of any waste stream as exempt.

individualmembers of the pubhc and temporaril> harmless but that impl> large

- g Therefore, a description should be R cumulative popuhetion amposures.The 4 poienual for relene ar.d could give noe to

- e provided of reasonable procedures that

{ program calculates both external direct

{ high indmdual doses or hash collectne doses.

The analysis of expected radiological

f waste generators would be expected to

, gamma exposures and exposures from a

use to minimize radiation exposures g ingested or inhaled radionuclides. NRC's " impects should clearly address:

computer program can be used to N -The maximum indwidual exposures.

resulting from the disposal of the

. exempt waste, e g.. removal of surface calculate the espected radiological

-The critical group exposures contamination These procedures are, impacts from generator actwiues.

-The cumulatne population assumed to apply prior to characterstmg transportation, treatment, disposal exposures.

the waste to be exempted.

opeiatiims. ami po l disposal inpnt -

The maximum individual exposure Hn luoui.nu e an.mabe a u nic hmge evaivation should include exposures to

- C. Wmte Afanagement Options al management option nu huimg allmembers of the public who may be The management options that the on ne in atnn nt.nul dispo al in the exposed beginning with the initial Commission can deal with expeditiously genciat.u. hipment to muniiipal ua te handhng at the generator's facihty f

are those described in NUREG/CR 3585 management facilities, and shipment to through post closure. Both internal Onsite options include incineration and hazardous waste management facilities, uptake and external exposures should burial. Offsite options are municipal The prngram covers impacts begmning be included The indwidual may be a waste disposal facihties (sanitary with init al handhng and treatment by member of the general population (e.g..

landfills). municipal waste incinerators, the generator through fmal disposal of consumer of contaminated ground hazardous disposal facilities, and all the radionuchdes contained in the water) or a person receiving the hazardous waste incinerators.

waste stream. Sequential treatment, exposure from his or her occupation-l Pretreatment, e.g; ahreddmg of sorting. and incineration onsite and at Anyone who may be exposed and is not otherwise potentially recyclable municipal and hazardous facilities can a radiation worker should be considered materials. is a potential adjunct to either be assessed. Disposal of resulting ash a member of the pubhc. For example, a onsite or offsite options. Combmetions and residue is included Post disposal worker at a sanitary landidl or a of these options can also be evaluated.

impacts that can be calculated include commercial trash truck driver would not For example, wastes may be incinerated nicases due to intrusion. ground water be a radiation worker. However, on alte and the ash shipped to a sanitary migration. erosion, and leachate occupational exposures to radiahon landfill The favored disposal options accumulation. The program thus workers should be evaluated and

- should be identified and fully described.

addresses both expected and potential considered in the cost / benefit analysis The petitioner should evaluate a full post disposalimpacts.

of the incrementalimpacts between

- range of options.The practicality of the The petihoner's analysis of transport disposal at a licensed facihty and the proposed option (s) should be presented.

Impacts should be based on a requested disposal riptions,

' Weste compatibihty discussed eather is reasonably expected special distribution The total population exposures can be one aspect.The national availability of bcensees and waste treatment and estimated and summed in two parts-and distribution of the option is another.

disposal facihties which will accept the One part is the smaller critical group Updates on national regulations and wastes. The petitioner should address (usually the occupationally exposed laws pertainmg to the proposed option paramelers such as average and population) where potential exoosures should be described and might have to extreme transport distances. The 2 53 August 29,1986 1'

t.

.,n.-,.-

.e

...-r

- - -. - - - -,,. ~,,

3 Qld

]

t x...

% pp B(II).

APP. Billil

' PART 2 e MULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS

'eddress uhether changes in technical external exposure and the dose incurred health effects. this level of risk corresponds specificateons or licenssa may be from that year's intake of radionuchdes, to en annual dow of the order of 0.1 mSv 110 needed.

While e ran30 of1-10 milbrem per year mHhrem)

However,in most practical cases. the need might be acceptable, a one milbrem dose I ' * P' " " i"' I" "'"I' d i

E pr4 posed Aule would lecihtate expedited processing-

• ""'*'""'8"'d'"h'*"*""

H'8 er d0"' "'I 9 **

weste stream should be subtect to control h

The petition 'should include the text

'"I'n8IV' lu8tIIiC* lion B88'd on

• Considershon should be given to the need for for the Proposed rule (see 10 CFR mortality risk coefhcient for induced any optimisation of radieuon protect 6:,n and 2.002(c)(1)) The proposed text should cancer and hereditary effects of 2x10" to the ponibihty that man > practices and cover at least the following:

per rem (ICRp Publication 26), radiation sources of the some kmd could combine now (1) The quantity and/or concentration exposure at a level of millitem per year or in the future so that their total effect may hmit for each radionuclide present would result in an annual mortality risk be sign 16 cent.even though each source causes an annual Individual dose equnalent (trace radionuclides could be lumped of 2x104(i.e.,3m" effects /remC' rem /

below 01 mss l10 milhrem) to indmduals in together with a total hmit);

y.

the crihcal group This may insolve (2) A method to deal with

,T epa is developing criteria for euenments of dose commitments and of the radionuclide mixturest identifying low level radioactive waste con,ctive dose per unn prochee or source. m (3)The nontediological specifications that may be below regulatory concern order to ensure that the individual dose necessary to adequatel) dehne the as part of that egency's development of requirement will mot be eaceeded now or in eneral environmental standards for the future it owms almost certem that the g

ow level waste disposal The EPA total annu*I do** to * **8 8 tad'vidual from 1

(4)The specihc method (s) of exempt published an Advance Notice of exempted sources will be less then ten hmes the contribution from the exempted source disposal.

Proposed Rulemaking on August 31.1983 if practicable.and if the supportmg (48 FR 39563) and currently hopes to i c,',N,$,d're b[eloYe'd oYby

'h Information indiceles the need. the text publish proposed standards in early reducing the annualinMviduel dose I..

should also address other features such 1987. Other EPA standards that the exempuon cruerton from o 1 to 0.01 mSi Ito as annuallimits on each generator in doses can be compared to are the Clean to t mithrem).

terms of volume, mass, or total

' Air Act radioactive release standard of The NRC staff recognizes thet at times, p

- radioactivity, and administrative C 25 millirems per year in 40 CFR Part 61 human reactions are not so strictly j.

procedural requirements inclu6ma and the uranium fuel cycle annual whole R

{ governed by quantative considerations

), process controls, surveys, etc., that, ave - g body limit of 25 millirems in 40 CFR 190 as the ICRP excerpt suggests.

n E

g been discussed The text should not -

g One millirem is very small when a Nevertheless, the 10'* per year value

_ include the various dose limits used to a compared to naturally occurrms

" seems about as low as practicable, dustify the proposed radionuclide limits.

8 background doses from cosmic and 7 seems too low to justify significant terrestrial sources Background doses in concem. and so seems acceptable.

y Ill. Decision Criteria the United States are typically in the The United Kingdom's National 200-120 milbrems per year range Radiological Protection Board has The Commission policy statement exclusive of the lung doses from redon. -

Issued generic guidance on de minimis estabhshes that the followmg criteria One millirem is also small when dose levels ( asp-7 january 1965)

• that should be used by staff as guidelines for compared to the annual 500 millirem has status similar to Federal Radiation acting on a petition. Each criter;on is dose hmit for mdividualmembers of the Guidance issued b the President in this repeated and staff views on general public in Federal Radiation country.The Board identified effective Implementation are discussed.

Council guidance.

dose equivalents of 6 milhrem per year 1.Disposaland treatment of the An important feature is that doses of l as insignificant when members of the l

wastes as specified in the petition will up to 1 milhrem from the individual public make their decisions.The 5 result in no signihcent impact on the petition should minimise concems over milbrem hmit represents the total dose exposure to multiple exempted waste contribution from all exempted quality of the human environment.

streams. ICRP Publication 46 addressed practices For individual practices, the Discussion Unless this fmding can be

'heriss

made during information submitted by "j",*, (",'

Board divided by 10 (i.e. 0.5 milbrem

,n s,,

, n the petitioner, the Commission must paragraphs 83 and 64 on page 19 l

Per year) to acebun or exposures from multiple practices. ese hmits are prepare en Environmentallmpact Many radiation exposures routinely apphed generically. Less conservatism Statement to more fully examine the

'"C""'*d in '8d'*ho" ProChon-under the well defined circumstances proposed action. alternatives to the

'h' proposed action. and associated hy,'cfar r smafiYy'c mp n'so associeled with specific waste streams n

end disposal options envisaged in this potentialimpacts of attematives.

dose hmits or natural background. and are NRC statement seems justified. in a Preparation would likely involve well below dose levels at which th, contractual support and would likely appearance of deleienous heshh effects has Proposed policy statement dated May 6.

been demonstrated In individual.related 1985.' the Canadian Atomic Energy take 2 years or n. ore to complete.The enusments. H to widely recognized that Control Board specifically addressed Commission could not act in the petition

'h'" '*d'eti n d ses that are so small disposal of specific wastes that are of no in an exped9ed menner.

that they mvolve noks that would be regulatory concem. An individual does

2. The maximum expected effective regarded as neshgable by the esposed limit of 5 millirems per year was e

dose equivalent to en individuel indniduals studies of comparatne noks propoed for this hmited application.

member of the public does not exceed a emperienced by the population in various A maximum individual expDsure of 1 ec vgap a to n, that on,a"E millitem per year is also consistent with d

g

. few millitem per year for normal

,rc Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix operations and anticipated events.

ynr or less is not taken into account by Discussion:The effective dose andmduals m their decisions es to actions I specifies design objective doses for equivalent means the ICRP Pubhcotion thai could 6nfluence their nsks Usins operational hght. water cooled nuclear

. 26 and 30 sum of the dose frcm rounded dose response factors for mduced power reactor effluents These design 2 55 August 29,1986

^

^

3-

. App, C(II) -

j I

~yp, g(g%' P' ART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEyDIN

n l',

.. + ".. -

Festmeine f

i V

'supeditious action on the petitione. In

• Copin of NUREC/3R eo63. NUREC/3R.

' addition, the Handbook notes general-ease end NUREC/CR.Ha5 may be purchewd scheduling advice thei proposed rules to throuah the U.S covernment Prmtme ffice o

grant petitions should be published in g.

by colhng 13o2) tr6-soe0 or by wrtung to the U S Govemment Printing Offim.P.O. Son 12 months after acceptance and :

'; stes25eshington,DC somos2 Copies i

, ill be forwarded to the Commission on yhn celYnf$r'm InYev$oe U.S f

publication for comment. Proposed rules w

a S month schedule to the extent Department of Commerce. Stal Pwt Reyel permitted by reeource limits the neture

. Road. Soringfield, V A 321 1. Copies ese -

. evenet4 for inspecuan end/w espying tw a !

and extent of public commente, and I

~ H Street. NW, Washington. DC 30666. lee in the NRC Pubhc Document Room.1r17 l.

internal Control of Rulemakings procedures. Rulemakings involving

• )CRP Pubhcehon 46. *Redeouon gower reactore must be Nviewed by the Protection Prmelples for the Disposal of Solid Committee on Review of Generic.

d Requirements prior to publication.

I*dio(cu e,te "

eg p 9

i Propowd rulu involving reactors will of me intemeuonel Commission en therefore be forwarded to the -

Radiological Protection." edopted lenuary tr.

Commission on a 7 month schedule to

- sen. lCRP Pubhcotion an. *l.imite for lateke the estent pertnitted by resources, of Radienschdes by Workere." edopted July esaments, and approval procedures. In <

sers..

• Copin of the United Kingdom's desument both cases, every effort will be made to

, en avenoble fn inopuuon as minoru to publish proposed rules no later than 12 eu CFR Pe 30 months after noticing for public -

$C.

n i

Pubhc Document Room.1rtr H Street NW, j;

comment.-

NUREG/gh the procedures in Port 11 of -

- Althou Wuhington DC sossa.The United Kiandom 3R 0053 include feet track -

documents en ovellebte for ule from: Her processing. the nature of the enticipated Mainty's Stenonery Offge, P.O. Son age. ~

landon SE1 eNH. United KJngdom. se Advice petitions do not fully comply with the '

document ASP-r and a related technical LW decision criteria 10 follow this report.% Sisnificance of Small Doon of.

dernetlw i L - Some of the key featurn of the N,dfeuon to Membem of he Me," NRN l handling procedurn include the -

• Conin of the Canadien document am H

., f:llowing steps for complete and fully:

. evelle61e for impection es en enclosun to SEChab-14rA (relstmg to 10 CFR Port 30) i F

a supported Petitions.

deled luly as. tees in the Commise6on's L

- L

1. Petitioners may confer on.

Pubhc Document Room.1 rte H Street NW, procedural matters with the staff before :

Washington. DC 30655. The Genedian l

Sling petitionforrulemaking.Re ueste document was luud as Comuhouve i

l-13 con er on procedural matters sh uld.

Document C.45. 'The Buis for Enempung the. !

be addressed to: The Director, Diviolon Dispout of Cartein Radioactive Metenele.

cf Rdes and Records. Office of from 1.icensing" by the Atomic Energy

Administration,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Control soord. P.O. non toes. ottawa..

Commission. Wsehington, DC 30555.

Onteno. Canede. KIP $50.

• 1CRP/85/G.43 " Statement from the 1986

. Attention: Chief Rules and Procedures Pens Meetmg of the Intemational

+

Granch' ons should be addressed to!

$",, mission on Radiological Protect.* 1086-

1. Petiti

'the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Commission, Washington.DC 20555.

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. In keeping with 10 CFR 2.002(f).

petitionets will be promptly informed if the petition meets the threshold -

requirements for a tition for ll rulemaking in to 2.802(c) and can be processed in accordance with this

' implementation plan. Ordinarily this determination will be made within 30

~ days after receipt of the petition.

3.Following this determmation, the tition will be noticed in the Federal.

~

eter for a public colament period of at set 80 days..

4.The petitioner will be provided copies of all comments received, scheduling information, and periodic status reporte.

The procedura in NUREG/BR-4053 cleo include the process for denial and withdrewel of petitions.

l

_____...__-..-.,._.-.-..._..__....m

..~..m

. m

.....~

r.

n-s, s,

18/

i._.,,,

s'*

y

 : q

[!';

m,

?.an

. ~ '

'i 886

! Federal' Register / Vol.' 53 No. '238 / Monday,- December 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules -

n 43

.c

%pg s

it s

Lb, o

I, pji 4-

'V 2

..f 3

T t

i

' i, :.

I i

1 w'

,1 i

ll L

'ff g

f i

l NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSION s

10 CFR Ch.I

~j Policy Statement on Esemptions From Regulatory Control l,

aosnew Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

acnows: Advance notice of proposed statement and meeting.

+

suwmaar.The NRCisin the process of develople.g a broad policy on exemptions from regulatory control for 4-

' practices whose health and safety impeets could be considered below regulatory concern.This policy statement would provide for more efficient and consistent regulatory actions in connection with exemptions from various speelfic Commission requirements.The Commission. in formulating this Advance Notice.is seeking public input on some specific 3,

~

, Enclosure 2

~ - - - -

... =

Federst Regleter / Vol. 63. No.133 / Monday. December 12. 1968 / Proposed Rutre esegy Igundone which are key conalderatione sountry's border.It le hoped that Comminion may initiate the h developing such a policy.ne NRC enchanges ofideas and information denlopment of appropnete repletions staff wiu conduct a meeting to inform '

such as occurved at the intemational et make litenelns decisions to enempt the public of its intentione, specircally workshop will, beeldes providmg one from regulatory control persons who O clanh and onewer questione evenue ofinput to the Commission's receive, ponese, use, tranefer. own or concemmg the advance notice. and to actions. lud toward a gnatn degree of acquire certain reboecun meteriet heat paluminary views conceming e soneisteney in suc.h exemptions world.

Die pobeyle directed prmeipally pohey for enemptions with emphaels on wide. At the intemstional workshop. the toward rulemaking activibu. but may the specilhe queouono reised by the

• Advance Notice of the Development of be applied to license amendments or Commise6en.

e Commiselon polley on Esemptions brense appbcauono involving the Datte:M^ttiseto be held on january from R lotory Control for practices telette of licensed radioactive metene) l SL teet.Wntion commente abould be Whose bhc Health and SafetF either to the environment et to peruns submitted by January 30.1980, hopects are below Regulatory Concern", who would be exempt fross Commiselon Commate received after this date will presented in this nouce was made reguleuone It le important to emphasiae i

be eensidered if it le practical to do so, evellable for &sevoelon.he transcript that thle pdcly don not tunt an

- but enutence pf considereuen een only of ee intemeuonal workshop which ebeence of threshold of risk but rether be yvon es to commente received on or includes aU Ge papero prwented at the establishes a banline where further before thle date, meeting may be enemined and copied tiene to reduce risks A assese: Meetir3 willbe held at the for a fee et the NRC Pubhc Document bvernment to

,,,,,g Room et g130 L Street.NW

. Holiday Inn. 8130 Weconsin Aven.ue.

• ~a d

2

,",;.,,7, i 'ua *rr a - Pu ~

a weamgi-DC.

.e ee.ds. wD =ie.t. woas,,or

.,mgi,,, era,*,,i;,p 5

e e eede Mei,0 ietioni. reie, hone:

A,,a,,, No,le, o,,be D,,sie,m,,t e, e

>>=>==.u= ~ ~ won

~--- Poucy iswee anom,i guanmies and waat$guls los r

i Anveduction andAapose eencontreuens for radioscun material ooae.g e,,d se, mme A uenuo.:

ove,.e insi oeve,o yes,...e m etences..oundre=> vs.Popese.

wa a P== =da -tm gt on. DC..

,mh.

Com.assi.on has become ine,,esin,iy= + nin. ~ n.or.cautre wiihouie 4

Commeme map be deh,ed io sim awa,e w e need to,,oue,,ene,si

@mnt fu a Heenn 46 M6.

Rockville Pike. Rochville. MD between pobey on the appropnate critene for August 17,1000 and 35 m N26. April 32.

l y.30 a.m. and 4:18 p.m. weekdays.

poleon of redioscuve meiniale f=,

L 06n enemptions allowing

(

Copies of the commente received may

iegu! story control. To eddress th

4 n td.

U'" N 8""' PI'd"* "

be enemined and copied for a fee et the the Comminion is expending upo'..L

'0"

'" " O' 8"I*I "Dd ",

P NRC Public Document Room at g130 L pubbc bpolicy for protecbon of the existin ah nlum M Moocun Sowt. NW. Weehington. DC.

e, meted in e,as.on. currently,,,*uona moe

.=siaaa*=*o-aa=6=

a rodisti e,,- moo.esa abodied in the Comminion's C..ath.erine R Matteen.telete.ieio,ho e

10. Code of Federe,0 hladone an,d neau~ fn a-a e.u-hone (301) e Joe

..or w mie, w 493-8774. Office of Nuclear cy eieiemenis i

""d

'olicy Amendments Act of1986 F O' I#" I#"

• di'* *d" reduct Meterial and Source i

Weste p story Runtch. U.S. Nuclear aterial, deled March 16.1968: 47 m directed the Comminion to denlop R

tory Commission. Washington.

87446. UcensinkRequiremente for Land standards and procedures for 80646.

Disposal of Re oecuve Weste. dated suspi.aessertany sessenesAve.es-December 37.1982.; and 81 m 30839.

e*Pedidous bandlms of peuutone to Gerseral Statement cf policy and

• • emPt from reguleuen the disposal of laterestionalWerkebeP Procedures Concoming peutione elighuy contamInsted radioscuve waste metniel met the Camlulon in addition to conducting thle public Pursuant to i 2.802 for Disposal of meeting. the CommirSion has sought Radioactive Weste Streame selow determined to be below regulatory

. input from the intemational regulatory Regulatory Concern, deled August as, conenn.he Comminion responded to community through en intemeuonal 19e6).no exponelon includes the his legieleUon byluuing a pdicy workshop on esemptione from development of an explicit policy on the etetwnt on Auguel 39.1986 (51 m

'l

. regulatory control which wee held exemption from regulatory control of 30639).%et statement contained critorie Octobu 1719,1968 in Wuhington.DC.

practices whose public health and which. lf setiefectorily addrened in a We importance of wuch interaction safetyimpacts are below regulatory

{Ution for rulemaking. would allow the mminion to act expeditiouslyin l'

stems from the fact that many existing concern. A practice le defined in this cnd potentialenempuono involve policy se en activity or e set or propoolns appropriate reguletory relie!

I eedioscuve nr.steriale purposefully med combinetion of a number of almtler setu sa a

• practice epecific" basis consistent l

~ la consumer products or introduced tr.io ' of coordinated and continuing activities with the muite of the pettuon.

various products or meteriale through aimed at a ginn purpose whichinvolve he Comm!ssion believes that thne l

the recycling of contaminated screp, the potential for todietion exposure.

"Proctice.epecific" saemptions should either of which oney enter intomational Under thle policy. the definluon of be encompamd within a broader NRC I

i.

Cede. Even effluente and weste disposal *precuce"le a critical feeture which will policy which defir6es levels of redietion i

aan involve exposures to people in apure that the formulation of risk below which specified practices countries other than those from which esemptione from regulatory control will would not require NRC regulation booed the effluent or weste originated.nle not allow deliberate dilution of material on public health and eefety interests.

espect le e algnificent leeue in the or fractionstion of a practice for the For such exemption practices, the European community.hus. some purpon of circumnnting controle that Commleston's regulatory involvement

' des ee of consletency intemationally le would otherwise be opphceble.

could therefore be essenually limited to duirable, since exemption decleione The purpose of this polity statement licensing. inspection, and compliance can affect populations outelde each le to establish the beels upon which the activitin apociated with the trenefor of a

f b

_- ~,.. _. _ _.. _ _ _ _

e sas "

Federal Resistar / Vol na. No. 334 / h4anday. Decembee it. Sted / Prceued Rdeo S

the ta& native matenal from a castreDad intematier.a! community.h vstues Alternetivehypoenn hau been andar easa.derstics te this pebey propoemd ard rena matior.s of the data The Commission recognian ht. If a Statsmaat do act neuasardy agree with bem at higher dosee ear.nene.The to en esercpt aterua.

netional potiry on eatmpUons from those selected or uridu canaideratic.o by Commise.se bebevea ht mee of h rervlatory controlis to be effectiva, near caer.mes.The Comansa.on has linee acinhreshcad hypothee's aliews Agreement States wiD pay an (sportant rareJ Ly nnemed bee asharnata the thewes. cal estshLahrnent of up;me implemeriration to?e. In the past. States emtenas and dans not fed e Ltant haits en the somber of beatl ef! acts l

heve been eseporeging findmge that acientaLc evidesse that w dactose that mighs tsaar et eery low dem certmn weaves m beluw regu! story prefarenLalnonection n!eny of bee wb!ch are the subject of the esempues concem and the Commierson beliewe view e aves whot is proposed in the policy'eid af daae to naidreideal.u that Statre will erprort en expensicm of Pohey StatemenL m

calculated an!n3 the kanar enodakla i

these viewe se all proctices tervehitig Reenden Protocues PHoseph, showslaTable 1lorvanous dekred enempt d,etributem et relene of W Commlaston recognises ht three levals of 6ndindualdoes A ts&aan podioactive meterfel.The Commforten intende thet rolemelrfnge so&PyIng fundamentalpinciples of radietion aaposure d to were per you N mSv regolatory eentrol enemptions wiD be protectiorsbeve historically guided 4e

,,, y,,,) p,, gg, g.,,,,,

og, mede e mattn of compatibihty for formulation of a system of dose theoretically to anincresee 15 of f

hmitstion to protect workere and de

&eind66 dad's onru.d ne d unus Agtearnest States. Consequently. any pubhc from the potentiaUy harmful deuh.h Idetima rek la based upem rulemakings th'at evolve from thle pokey will be soor&osted with the States, effects of red ation.hy are: ft)h the Firthu su@a ht h men.are Advisory and sceemt.tc bodsen have justificetionof the acuce,whic levalin the base ter each year af a 74 offered da area viewe to the Commismoe sesrires that there some act besefit yut ideuma.

5 In anticipation of this Pohry Statemens.

resulting from the use of toLatien er g3 nm gg, g g,, a g, mre is not clear samaeanw based an red osettve materials.9) dose laite.

members of the pubbc that might trina esisting scientific endence er researth which define the upper boundary of through b we M varion procuses for i

adetiuste peotection for a mernber of the which esemptions are being considered.

repr&ng the aslection of numerial pubhc whre should not be emceededin the Comminion ha.s demded to appiF entana tot use in this Policy Statement.

the condert of evelcar octritites and p) g, goMnu, g g.,g% g,,

Further,the Commiulos is aware ht dose.A. whkh tequires that tedatana

,s,,,,,,m,,,,,,,,t. which la,

qg

.,TWaconcep e A1AR there are dJerm.s views within the NRC

.. iow o is,eaoo.wy

,),

sien.n b.we a omasos achievable. econcunic and social factere

=tg>t" gf a d = a s a a t

i critanal for BRC.

be m iai.a mio m m mi. h ia,

"M'"a"s*'ra'#5"' **"8h *** *I P

3 in h absence a. eessun.

consensus,it le the Commlulon's task to is an acrocym for As Law Asis ~e m

• a* =o d **

F '**

3*"I *I P"'15"I j

Reoonow,A % swa.The

• h8'I' d

.esees h di,erony eviews a Comrelation is tcterested is assessing bod un ap ocA was ensible BRC policy.

estabbshing a res[responsibihty to make how these pnnenlas abould be opphed F V 'P'd F

t The authonry an in estabhahmg appropnate antana los intemausal Comminaios en the fmal selection of criteria rests with telease of radioactee matsnals frees Radiological Protection and was first 4

the Carxman. Cnteris selected must i

e stressed in its Publication 36 iuuad in tebstatory control.use of the absence of oboarved ten.$ince that time, the concept has (1) Preefia renonable soeurence that public health and safetr willbe protected, and (2) conehtent with auch ' hulth effects below 6 remlyest potoincJed as todiation protection organlaations j

been reviewed and evaluated by escurence. permit practices in the public mSvlyear). scientic throughout the world sad has gamed domem whkh involve the ese of the Intemations! Coro en on Re diological Protection (ICRp) and the wide ecoeptanon.

radioisotopn for which society National Council on Ramation perceives e demand.

it is recos. Tired ht there le e delicate Protectico and Measurements (NCRp)

TM8 l

befence here. Cnterte een be set make the enumpueri that the frequency outhcicotly restrictive auch that there le of occurance of health effects per unit

, L88",'* '**

absofste enurance thet health and does at low done leve!s to the same as at sw une enw high doses (10 RAD 141 Gy))where een emme som safety wift etwsys be protected, no eene health effects have beas observed and matter what evente might tronoptre.

studied in humans and entmale, This too awa '

mes moo Hewes er. In doing so, the reguleior may linear non thraebold hypothesis ensumma then pine undue and annecenery thei the risk of radiation induced effects (*7 teatnctions on proetices which should be permitted becenoe of otherwise (pritacipally concar)is lir.early e.t see aneo u ty*

erosonable social. economic.or proportiorsal to dt.sa. no matter bow 8QQ'T,,87,8y.'*g" per n teno

' nok ecewat es ano industird censidentiona.mn le small the dose might be.The coefficient

• 76,,,,,

used to the model se a beals for alwaya h dangee of over.regulaties estimeting statistical bealth risk te on

.. caw

,wno,we.

es,

h,,,{5,,* 4.,,,y,og,n,ig,,e, g which tasults in efleets that are felt la the ordee of 3x10" risk of fatal cancas areas where the NRC does not have per pereon rem of rediation does

' temas om+e **4**aa N emessen er t

r m mse n

authority and terpensibility.Moreoser.

(1x10 8 par SV).h Comtelaanon

$'M'E '0'?."," 'f',', ',*"[7,M ebe Atomic Energy Act does not regsirs recognizes thatitla a conservouve absolute esaurances of safety in b ues modej based upondata collected at seen w noean enew w n noor we re

'o""'**C**a****""*********

of radioactiva matarialandbcarsed relatively high dosas and dose retes t

fecilities.

which ts tben extapolated to the law b Comnession rewsrJees htitis m aumericalcritaria ultimately selected will have significant impact om doce and dose rate region where these suciaar regulation bare in the United are no statisucally rehable impepible to messee nak to States and potentially in the epidemiological data eveilable, individuals or populations directly, and.

-.sessr'

~..

w Federal Regleter / Vol. 53. No. 236 / hionday. December it.1968 / Proposed Rules deaes Cet in most altuatione. it le improctical licenwe's control (notal background 1.Se application or continueuon of

. O meaem annual doen to individuals and medical exposuru m escluded).

regulatory controle on the practice does ct the low levels hnphed by enemptien Because off the emeu riska involved, a 10 not ruult in any signifiunt reduction in decisiorn TypicaUy.redspisotope trem (0.1 mSv) individual don criterion the don received by individuele within eencontretiene or re&stion levele from is proposed se the boele for exempuon the ennett group and by the expond the metenal to be enempted are the decisions based on simple snelysis and population or:

actual measuremente thet con be mode, judgements.ne Commlulon

3. De costs of the wguletory controls 1

cnd doses are then estimated by spec $cally seeks comment on the need that could be imposed for dese exposure pathway analysie combined for estebbehing a collective doet limit in reducuon are not belanced ley the wt 3 onber types of soeumpuons related ed& tion to an in&vidual dose criterion.

oommeneurete reduct6es in rak that to the ways a which people might if such a collecuve don criterion le sould be tes'.iaod, become empowd.Under such conditions, nwded, what is the beels for tble needt For purposes ofimp!*menting ite eeneervative enumpuona are frequendy if the Comminion decides that a pohey, the Commission recosmses that used in modeling so that the actual dose, collective dose critetton is needed. what only under unuouel circumstances f3 on the low side of the calculeled dose. approaches allowing truncation of would procuces which cause radiation De Comminion believes that thle to the individual dose in ulculeuon of expoems approachina the too atom per cppropriate approach to be taken when collecuve dose et weighung factore for year (1 mSv per year) Lait be determining u en esempuon from componente of collect we dose would be considered se candidates for eaemption.

eegulatory controle is warranted.

apptopnete? What alternatives should The Commlesion willconsider euch Collocuve dose le the sum of the be conaldmd for nuessing societal entcumstances on a can spec $c bute inevidual done resulting from a impoett meing the general principles out!med la procuce or source of todieUon exposure.

• ALAM-De AIAM princi le this polic7 statwent. However, as the By seeigning collocuve dose a monetary enerally app!!es to determining ou done ens ettendant riske to mmbers of value. it can be used in cost benefit and Yevele below which enem Uone may be the exposed population decreens, the cther quenutetive snelyets techniques. It panted ori e cost. benefit ele.

seed for regulatory controle decreenes b a factor to sonalder in balancing However,it le the purpose of this policy. and the analyele needed to support a benefits and societalimpact, to estabbeh criterie which would la tropoul for enemption can reasonably effvet, delinente achievement of A1AM Im somewhat simplified.

Considerotione in Cronfiry Emenpflone

• M 'U'

"'Ol'"'D'I'-

De Commisolon la evaluating the woe i

hem Aepulatory Control Althou h it is ponible to nosonably of two numeHeal oHuria in dd@e l

De following elemente are being project w at the dose will be from a on whm A1AM bu been nfi' 'd.

. ooneidmd b ' the Comminion as a recuce. and then take this informstion beste for evefusting practicn which m fnto account in controlling tegulated u I'

the sn atrnumfnd u dwe propond to be esempt from tegulatory practices so that the dose hmate are not reasonably emP'cied to be received se a control.These practices,if approved, anceeded.enom[ control,by some neult of the practice and (b) e enruure tions im l w:uld result in products containing low degree oflon o e

levele of todioactive meterial being Commlulon believos that a key of.aocietalimpact to the esposed distributed to the general public and consideration in establishing a policy for populetonten cHaris m being Uons, and subsequendy in considered to enum that. for a given todi eetive effluents and ochd weste sumbe rulemaking or licensing emmpH procues. no indMdual wm be being releued to anos of the publicly-speci cecessible environment.

decisions,le the question of whether esposed to e significant risk and that the

• Justification-The Commlesion individuele may experience radiedos population se a whole does not suffer a seeks comment on the entent to which em oeum opproaching the limiting significant impact.

esposures neulting from any practice va ues through the cumulative effects of if the individual doses from o practice should be luotified. As lower levele of.

mm then one procuce, even though the under conalderation for esempuon are tediation esposure are projected. should esposures from each practice are only sufficiently small the ettendant riske lower levels of benefit be neutred for emell frecueno of the limit.The will be small compared with other practice justificetiont in establishing its Commluton specifically seeks comment societal riske.The Commiselon bellevee esempuon policy, should the on the inue. By appropriote choices of that annual individial fatality r6sks Commiselon exclude certain procuces esemption criterie and through its below approximately 109(one in f;r which there oppears to be no evoluetiene of specific exemption 100.000) are of little concern to most nuonable justif cationtin conaldering proposals in implementing the policy, mmbm of society,providina for some proposals for exemptions.ohould the the Commlulon intends to enum that it margin below thle level, the Commission Comminion evaluate the social is unlikely that any indMdualwill propom 10 mrom (0.1 mSv) es the level acceptabihty of practicest Should the experience esposures which emceed the of annualindMdualexposure.De C:mminion determine e practice to be too mrem per year (1 mSv per year) incremental annual individual cancer unjustified if nontedioacuve economical halt, letality risk enocleted with an esposure allematives exist?

level of to mrem per year (0.1 m$v per A'inc/ lee ofEneapilan year)is about 3 x10"(two in one P

• Dose 1.imite and Criterion-A mejor consideretion in ewempting million) es Indicated in Table 1 and of individual dosee from practices enempted under thle policy should not any practice from regulatory control the order of 0.1 percent (one in one be allowed to emceed 100 mrem per year binges on the general quntion of thousand) of the overall risk of cancer ft mSv per yest). Die le the don limit whether or not application or

death, hr members of the public specified in continuetion of regulatory controle are in evaluating the need for e collecure the final revision of to Cf1t Part 30.

mecenery and cost effective in reducing don criterion, the Commlulon Standards for Protection Agelnet dose.To determine if esemption le recognites that this criterion could be Radiation.The due limite in the fMal appropriate, the Commission must the limiting consideration for practices revision of 10 CFR Port to apply to ad determine if one of the following involving s ery emellindMdual doses to l

ocurces of radieuon exposure un6er a conditions le met:

very large numbers of people. it is also n

n-+.-

n-

,---,n, n-

-nr

a.

+

Federal Register / Vol. s2 No. Ese / Monday. Duambat u. teas / Preposed Rules 49898 22 weognised theila euch cases the from opphtable ticanning rega!romasta.

that ALAM canaidatabama bave baas 7,

4 collectrve doee critarion would, in effect. Approvalof a proposed consumes daalt with. This appreach is ceter, ant 31 with put practine, e m.. conswear Il spply the Al. ARA concept to Individual product depuds uma na unnmnt d dosee less than the below reguletory exposuru M punas.a 2 re d.a boa u producte@la to Cht part na concemlevel of to miem peryear to de weD as an avaluausa M & welulamaa in naMues proposals far exampues indwidual Conversely.where the of the product.

undes this pelry.tbe projected celleet ee dm cetterion would not be Cartain pruticas lavoleing todistina exposures to ddlereas sampanssia of

)

5 1

limiung it would erret to perpose.The at radioat.tive matanals eva beam the esposed papelnata will be Commiooma requeste opmmente en this judged by NRCla be sociM!y cariedwed wie ngard to the potatuial Csue,incloding comrwrite so what the unacceptt.hle engardless of bow trivial ht uma keenduls may nm dom magnitude of the collecttve does the ruulting dene alght be end.

,,,, g g,,,,,,, p, p,g, p, j

1 cntenen. If ewy. ohould be.

therefora.hswe beta att.haded from F*INI,9*'**I""**"

J If the dosele less then the belew exemptina, En Juded practit.as include.

• * *I*I " I"'*

P***d"h**lI '"P8'""' I**

nyule tcry eenem enterie. then the rish but are notliewed ta.k latestional

• ".iand le practices can secar which ere from a preetice would be conoidered to introduction af radioecuve materia! tata be ALARA without further analyse.n* toye and preda.t.ta intended fee sign ntly beyond the indtvidael dose C:mmission stresses that adophon of ingeouom. (nbalstion er dirut enterion D0 anm per ym (0.1 mle pu the artiene should not be senserted se e applicauon to iba skie (such as year)). the treenption will not be granted decidon that smaller dosee are cosmouca).

sieneenary before a prochee san be in addition to sociatly unacceptable without fureer analysis. As emperience enempted, while doses above the goes of radioactive meteria!s e question is gained, this policy and its i

critena would preclude esemptiona On also arises regardma unes where een impiamentation will be reevaluated wie i

the eerstrary, the erinene sireply are clest economical altataattes,and ngard to this leaue to assure that et eepresent a rasse of risk which the ao unique beneSts exist from using amposurse to the public remain well i

Cosmission behevu is enfficiently todioscuve meterial.Where einks are below100 mrom per year (1agv per F Aall costpartd to other ladwidual en4 gnetal, the wgdlory probildtion of such yur).

90eetalnnks ht e most beneht analyHe uses could pose an unnectuary in addition to conaldnetions of r

la het required in orde to make e ngulatory burden by intamfaring will the expected scuvities and patbm sys, the deciolom ressrding the acceptabihty of conduct of businesa.

Commlulon recognian ht en asempuos pracuces not meeting he Comminaion seeks commente en conddmtin most Ao k eni k k i

thue critene may be graatad whether procuces abould be potenua ucidente and misuse of ee ei.emptions on a cue.t y ceae baals kt categorically excluded band an the radioactive metenale involved in the accordance with the pnociples Commitston's Judgement regerding practice. A proposal for enempton of e enbodaed within the policy.To fartbar social acceptability t,r the asistance of defined practice must thenfore also emphasise the Commission's recepettues alternativu. Art alternaute to

• sddress the potentiale for accidents or that a ngid baitataos on collsche does categorical esclusion could be a case misune, and the consequences of thest tvould be ina;propneta, it metee that ter spec $c determinaGon bued on a safety excepUonalconditfora to terms of l

I some prectices. exh as une of armoke analyels.

individuals and coDecVve dou.

detectors, apptec.iable benefile esa only l

be attained throagh astenalve uulisauon ho#osals /brKawnpier p

l and, hence.wie a commensurata A woposalfor enemption must The Comminaionbelims that 6e collective dose.

mrovide a be6s upon wbich the implamentation of an enemption undae The Camrniados la sware that hommisMon can determine if the beste existing tvghtions of the coed:llons dnctibed above have been this bemed policy guidance mest be EnvirortmaatalProtection Agency utided.In general eis means that the accompanied by a suitable program to catablish critarla more restnetve than proposal should address the indaldval monitor and vocify ht the basic ss<mptions which could otherwise be done and societal impact aeoulting trora considereuona ander which an granted under this proposed policy, the expected acuvit ee under the esemption was leaued nesta valid.In With regard to its own regulations, the exemption,includma b une of the most casea, the products or meterials Commission will evalusta whether there radioactive materisk,the pathways of comprising an rmempted preetite will i

are asemption criteria erobodaed therein exposure, the levele of activity, and the mos e from regulatory control to the for whir.h mod & cation according to the methods and constrainte for assuring esempt status under e defined set of Qnc p e of this policy,would be that the suumptions toed to defans a conditions and e iteria.De monitonns practice remain appropriate as the and verification pro m most therefore radioactne materials move from be capable of provihg the Comrnission E.sclusion, From Enernption, regulatory control to an exempt status.

with the appropriate assurance that the The Commission's March tk198L If a proposal for etemption results in conditions for the enemption remain motice on the Use of Byproduct Material e rule containing geteric requiremente, e valid, and that they an being oboenads and Source Me terial Producta lstended person applying to utilise the esemption The Commlulon wiD determine would not riend to eddnsa justifacehon compliance with h specific conditions ior use by General Public (Consumee

~

Products) 40 FR H62) provides the or At. ARA.The Cosmission decision su, of an exemptian througe Ita established basis for the Commission's approval al such proposela will be based on the licensing and inspection progtam and the use of these materials in coceurnet licensee's meetang the conditiona will, frors time to time, conduct stad2es products without regulatory control on opecif ed in the rule.The promulgation se appropriate to anns the tropect of the consumer user.This la accompbsbed of the rule would. under these by caseby case exempt on of the circumstances, constitvts a fmding that an etempted procuce or combinations possession and use of approved stama the exempted praesice le jostaed, and of examp'ed precaces.

R

.c 48 1,

ist.'

g

~.

7..-.

3

' Federal Regletse / Volf 53. No. as / Monday. December 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules desti

.: ranweeuses, wee gm se to e.e nor, e, d,e _n 1 a',ur,,,,,m,,e,se,m,,ed

,se,s,e,e i w ndi- = tad = = maced a o s.useien of ar., on.eei.e,ne. ef

,,,id I, NRC Stat summe*y thd preeentaliene or ggg gggg,, g g,, g g g.g g,,,

gent 6ene from echeduled pomespont, of the everet lim 4 should flea 6bihty A Apphastion of prinstple of Justinenteen he eminuined by eene.dering esemp.

ansluding the quest.ense tens en a sees beneht base above le

, t. As lowet levele of fedet6en espeewee ammfyeeri are popected, obound lowet levels of 8 le the evaluaties of soUssove dose beneflt be owed for betincotion of ampenant to sananderes the multiple e pre:sene sh to e sendidate for empeous issuet esemptient -

4 Whil the applemense of teenheemse of

- presses help en saammte a miellet

& le estabhehese enemphse poissy.

should the ComnWeeien eaalude est,

. eumber of eeersse melung h assier to

. seis proeuses for which them appears oestml ownD espesumet.

to be se ressenable juoufneheat

& How imponent is monsterase to emie.

3. hi esanidenes proposals for esemp.

seieing eserense that enemdual es.

ties. should the Commiselee evolutw peeww de met send to the premil assiel eseeptability of the preesseet smitt

. 4. Should the Commiselon determine e. Ill. Genere) theeussion/Queenes poned.

as to be enivohnsd if esegedie..

Commente er quesbene by scheduled per.

I eesnamneel altersebwee ested empente. Open to the fleer as ese pee.

sea.

A ladevidaldew eriwnee ser dessamme Thew membus of the pubhc who wish to enhwwanent of the *'ee low w scenen, chly eehovable" (ALARA) pneetple to remapew try speakmg et he en i

esemphoe desnaien.mg should neuh one of me senisste n.

esheduled to

• dest mey een

- 3. As the 30 enem/ year entenen pre.

g, pened by the Commiesten apprepnewt

& Is the apprepnetenees of this numbet Deted te Rech vllie. hderyland, this ad day effected by the desioien segerihng of Desember leasL whether e sollecieve dose sesionen h tub)*

ebeuld be us dose enter 6es,ed wie the indsvideal Seesse% AsceerktWriene.

3. Should the tedividual dose settense (FR Dee. a6-sest1 Filed ue ee.646 am) be choses on the basis of neglagible same sees nomei.es

' visk se is done intemebenelly 164.

LARA Safety Sertoe No. tel e ese e

hosed et e gher number he seed -

esmewhat h emineise pelsey deel.

e6en sogardaris a level et endmdual nah for wheek empenditure of so.

eewees is met warranted?

4. How important la interneuenal een.' ~

e6esency in shoosing en iedwidi.el does entaneet C Use of e sollective dese er6terien per determining schiewment of the ALAAA

. pnnetyle in esemption doctelen.seekter

1. le a sellocuve dose erherten moeded in addikes to se indav6 dual dose artie.

neat

& If es, what is the beste of that needt.

8. If the Comminian decideo e sollecieve.

does entenen should be used what should its niegnitude bet

= 4. What ettemative to e solleceve dose aritonen should be eensidered for 4e.

eseeing escietalimpostt -

5. In solculatire eeuecuve dese, what appeenshes allowing truncation of in.

emduel dun er the en of weighta' g femere for componente af eeBeenve

dose em apprepnewt D. Appmeches for enortne total suyo.

emme of indwiduele from suuple pree.

. teens will est easeed the top ewenf peer Samst.'

1. Ar the approach of generally hedning indwiduele desse from each eswas er i

3 wm,---**.---,--$2e-ewm- *-

x,---

-,e.,

-=--r*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - * - * - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -