ML20005F287
| ML20005F287 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/22/1989 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Eckart D HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005F288 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9001160135 | |
| Download: ML20005F287 (2) | |
Text
%.
1 i
4 p.
?4 M m
. g ne, :
hih j
UNITED STATES '
e
.8 1
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
m[
- wAsHWGTON, D. C,20666
~
s,,,,
. December.22, 1989
~
W-CHAIRMAN
- ,j-
- v.
9 The Honorable Dennis' E.'Eckart i
United States; House of Representatives.
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Eckart:
I am responding to your letter of November.20, 1989, in which you
. expressed concern regarding potential exposures to residents of Lyour district.from low-level radioactive waste and requested an update on-Commission activities to redefine and deregulate this
'q waste.
'The activities tc which you refer are a result of Section 10 of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of.1985 j
(Pub. L.99-240) which directs us to consider the merits of-'".
[ exempting] specific radioactive-waste streams from regulation.
j
.. due to the presence of radionuclides..-. in sufficiently low q
concentrations or: quantities as to be below regulatory concern."-
In-1986 in< compliance with the Act, the Commission adopted a
- policy' that established -.the standards and procedures that will permit us to act upon any "below regulatory concern:(BRC)". peti-
--tions that we may receive (Enclosure 1).-
Exemptions of specific waste streams inLaccordance with the policy would occur.through a formal rulemaking and provide opportunity for public comment.
As of this writing.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not yet received a-petition to' exempt radioactive waste under-the 1986 policy statement, i
More recently, we have been developing a generic policy that would establish the principles and criteria that will govern all our decisions related to the exemption.of radioactive material from-some. or ' all regulatory controls.
As a key step in this initia-l~
tive, we issued for public comment the enclosed Federal Register
. notice on-December'12, 1988 (Enclosure 2).
We have receTve3, and continue'to receive, responses to this notice, which now total approximately 250 letters.
The issues raised in these letters have been considered in developing our final exemption policy statement, which we anticipate issuing early next year.
These and other related activities have been given a high priority, reflecting our strong support for the concept embodied in the Act.
l I.balieve that the BRC concept is necessary to optimize the use of our resources in protecting the public health and safety.
L FULLTEXT ASCll SCAN e,1222 t
[ghSEE'ecc 3/
o
n i,
The' Honorable Dennis E. Eckart 2
We estimate that about 60 percent of the low-level waste disposed of at the three licensed low-level waste sites originates from nuclear power plants.
Of this. material, both the Environmental Protection Agency and the nuclear industry have-estimated that about 30 percent (by volume) may be appropriate for "BRC" con-sideration,. including clothing, rags, paper, wood, and plastic that have been used in radiation areas within nuclear power plants.
The level of radioactivity contained in some of these materials is often such a small fraction of natural background radiation that it is not readily detectable.. The total amount of radioactivity in potentially exempt low-level waste is expected to represent only.about 0.01 percent of that contained in all low-level waste generated at these sites.
Thus, I would emphasize that the vast majority of radioactivity associated with the low-level waste would continue to be disposed of only at licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facilitiei.
4 In closing, I.want to assure you that we take our mandate to protect the health and safety of the public very seriously.
Our goal is to resolve the issue of low-level radioactive waste dis-posal, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the Congress, by implementing and enforcing requirements thet protect the public 1
health'and safety and the environment while using the nation's resources in an optimum fashion.
Sincerely, Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosures:
As stated
g=
1
.c3 :..
m.
g s
., C
,Y,,
yn ntry.
Q 1**
c
.y
. ' UNITED STATES j
3.s m"
1 J
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W
>{'
' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666
. December 22,'1989 4
CHAIRMAN U c
[
g
- TheSHonorable Dennis E. Eckart i,'
United. States House'of. Representatives.
i Washington ~,'D.C.
20515c
Dear. Congressman Eckart:
?
.Iiam responding to your let.ter'of November 20, 1989,- in which you s
expressed concern.regarding potential exposures to residents of your district from low-level radioactive waste and requested an update;on= Commission, activities to redefine and deregulate this 4
gyfg
-waste.;
7
+
The' activities.to which you: refer are a result of Section 101of
'i the-Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
-(Pub'.3L.--99-240),Jwhich. directs us'to consider the merits of ".
L.p[ exempting]; specific radioactive-waste streams-from regulation.
. due to the presence: of radionuclides... in sufficiently-low
.1 L *..
concentrations Kor. quantities as to berbelow regulatory concern."'
InJ1986, in compliance'with the-Act,.the Commission adopted a
/c policy:thatJestablished the standards'and procedures that will
~
permit us to act upon any "below regulatory concern-(BRC)". peti-
!tions thatVwe-may receive (Enclosure 1).
Exemptions of specific 3
waste-. streams,intaccordance with the policy would occur through a
~
Lformal rulemaking and provide opportunity. for public comment.
As
-of:this writing ^the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has -not
'yetLreceivedca' petition to exempt radioactive waste under the 1986 a
policy statement.
E
'More recently, we have been developing a generic policy that would establish. the' principles and criteria that will govern all our i
decisions'related to the exempti'on of radioactive material from someLor all. regulatory: controls.
As a key step in this initia-
.tive, we issued.for public comment the enclosed Federal Register g
notice 7en December 12, 1988 (Enclosure 2).
We have receiveU, and continue to' receive, responses to this notice, which now total approximatelyf250 letters.
The issues raised in these letters have been-considered in developing our final exemption policy statement, which we anticipate issuing early next year.
These and 4
other related activities have been given a high priority, reflecting our strong support for the concept embodied in the Act, f,
I'believe that the BRC concept is necessary to optimize the use of our' resources'in protecting the public health and safety, r
1
/
hh 9
e a
A si 1
LThe Honorable Dennis E. Eckart 2
We estimate that'about 60 percent of the low-level waste disposed of at the. three licensed low-level waste. sites originates from nuclear power plants.
Of this material, both the Environmental
' Protection Agency (and the nuclear industry have estimated that about 30 percent by volume) may be appropriate for "BRC" con-sideration, including clothing, rags, paper, wood, and plastic that have been used in radiation areas within nuclear power J
plants.
The level of-radioactivity contained in some of these materials is often such a small fraction of natural background radiation that it is not readily detectable.
The total amount of radioactivity in potentially exempt low-level waste is' expected to represent only about 0.01 percent of that contained in all Llow-level waste generated at these sites.
Thus, I would emphasize that the vast majority of radioactivity associated with the low-level waste would continue to be disposed of only at licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities!
In closing, I want to assure you that we take our mandate to protect the health and safety of the public very seriously. _Our goal is to resolve the issue of low-level radioactive waste dis-posal, in.accordance with the expressed wishes of the Congress.
by implementing and enforcing requirements that protect.the public health and safety and the environment while using the nation's resources in an optimum fashion.
-Sincerely, w%.
'Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosures:
As stated t
}
.., J $
- n f,'
g
-1.
f iApp. A(X):
PART 20' RULES'0F PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS App, 3 a
- g-i G Appendia 9 to port 3-Ceneral Statesient psmpleewnung the generel appruch audmed
- of policy end procedwee Conseming a
)in th4 pokey outement. Ateough egg any pvhuone purewns se I a eat tw Dupml of
,evin a from une a usw u empownee le
= ;
.med eeiive weste Si,e.as asiew.
. euuinee e%,been for mhas g
- g. ired in entiene. u. pi.n Regulatory Conserik reeeesence
' '!L 1 Intiosluction and pwpese the approoch. SteRis to pobhen revie6ene se V,
R.Stenderde and preesduree PfUaEG desumente and nouse the III. Agrusent States ovellebility of the avisione in the Fedent 1
IV.FutwoAsWen Realster.
As e precueelsener en primary e
I.lsueduedes and pwpeos tafereistion ser katifylg and supperung g
^
The Lew4evel Aediesetive Wute pohey -
petstiene out he suppled by ne peuelener N I-Amendmente Act ofless (the Am)let U.S.C.
the Cosimission is to est in en empeeeed sortb et seq.) was enested January is, tees, -
meaner. If Go petitioner weehes to esame.
Secuen to of the Act addresees dispeest of expedited oction. es supperung infomenes
- wwwe tereied 'imlow regulatory eenown ebeeld be esaplete ensigh et that.
a that would set need to be subioet to Commission esties is primerGy hained to seguletory eentrol to seeere adequate -
ladopendent evoluetees and administeeve eestion of the pubhc heele and eefety pusseeig.
{
ese of Iheir redaestuw sentent.The geel Duloien esteerte Ber ledging wheter to
- j of this aestion of the Act to for es get a petitlen involve the overeR haposee of li l
Commiselon to snake preetteel and timely esties.weste properties.ead decisions to determine when westes esed not fouewing erHele eddrese these armes.
snentation of the proposed ensarten.
go to e lieeneed low level essete she.
I These desielens wlU be empreened peutions which demoneesis lhet esse rulemektes Aleemeuwthopeaslwoung artierte em met should be setentle Ier eeneerve spese in the eatseng estes widle expedited estion.
{
mew shes are established one eedues ee.
- 1. Disposal and treeteent of the weetse se seen of disposal. Rulemaking pennens specahed in the pulsion will soeuh la as play a reie in the notaenallow-level we.may signifieent impact en the quakty of es e
I(
l stratesy euthned by the Aet.The Ast.
human envissunseL provides that the Commission establah
- 8. The mealseum esposeed effecuve dee, i.
procederse for acting tapeditieuely en equivalent to en inevidual member of the peupone to enempt specine reeescuve pubhc done not enseed a fe'w mithree per l:
R weste streams bem mee==w-=*e
.ym for namel operations and enheapeted l.
{
lettene.
egents.
purpeee of thle statesment and S.The eeMeeuw desse to es erhical f mesempanying implemoetesen mies is to
[ population and sneeral een ese ames.
i.
= estebbeh the elendethd p.mJwee that 4.The peWadel genesquensee
- wul puent the
===a=='== to est upon
- ef assidente er equipment malfunetten c
tulemaking peudens in en expoettees hwelving the weeus and intrusion toes menner u seued for in the Act. This peboy desposaleine sherless of esmal statement dose nr.t seguire peussenere to instemessel uneele em est alpitheast.
t l
present all the inforestion authned e, s.The seampuse we seseh to e algelteemt demoeswete that the desielen artierte for educuen in sosiaalases.
~
espediwd handhne een be met.If such iThe weew le sempenble with the -
{'
e.am,*,.andhng to est.weawd per.
sapeetedh proposed treemment sad Ispuene.
iu.no re,ves o.s.,nen e,
. Time e.empois
.. n le.ei 1-
,sencentretsons of reeenushdeo that adsht seale.Le it le likely to be seed by a estegory mula in inevi3iel espesures higlwr then of licensees er et leest a signissent perman of these recommended in the desesses enterte e estegory.
may he subenitud. but espeeted headhng.
et The redselegical properties of the weste sennottwemured.
etwa beve bue ehemeterised en e matienal l
Finally. this pebey statement and.
basis, the vensbuity hee been projected. and D
secompanying implementeuen plan are the resige of varieteen wiu met invahdow lL Intended to facGitets handhas of sulemaking supporung enelyses.
l peutions for strums fruai muluple producere s.The wece cherectoriseuen is beoed se and de not apply to individul hcensing..
date on reel westes.
estions on eingle producer weste.Indmdual 10.The dwpond form of the wate hu l
hcenme who seek approval for shepoeal el segheibh potentalfor recycle.
their uniques wastes may contanu to subedt St.IJeenun sen umbhsh effective.
their dispoul plans under 10 CF1t 30.302(e).
hceamble, and inspectable programs for tlw II.Sienderdi eed precedwee drasu pnw w #ensin to desastuu j
comphence.
The standards and procedures nuded to 12.The e6 site trutment or disposal j;
handle petitions expeditiously fellinto the awdium (eg. eenitary landfill) does not nud following three causenes:(1)Informehon to be controlled or monitored for redmuon pehuoners should file in support of th*
protection purpone.
petiuons.12) standards for essessing the 13.The methode end procedures used to edequecy of the proposale and providing manage the westes and to asun the impacts peutsoners insight c,n the decuion entene the are no different from those that would be Comsnission intends to use ao that all opphed to the corruponding uncontanunated relevant informationellesues willbe
,ugn g.
addre s sed in the 34tibon. and (3) the inte rnal 14 Then are no ngulator) or legel NRC administrative proceduree for bandhng obstacles to use of the proposed treatme.nt or the petitions These three catesones are disposal methods.
eddreened in the eisached staff implemenistion plan The staf! plan was III. Agrument States developed in response to Cornmission The W.I.evel Radioactive Wute Pohey direction to provide detailed guidance on Amendments Act of1865 estabhshes e 240 ENCLOSURE 1
=
m
,n APP.B -
PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS APP. Billi national system for deshng with Iom.lewl -
' A General the Petilioner if the Commission is to act weeie disposel The eyelem ewapne to the '
1 to Cf1t Port 2 Requiremenis in en espedited manner. Petitions for States responsibhty for disposal cepectly for 2 Environmentellmpacts rulemaking should therefore be low. level wates nel escuding Class C 3 Economic impact on Small Entities submitted following the staffs weeta es defmed in to CFR 81.65 Secteen to 4 Compuier Program supplemental guidance and procedures of the Act encourages e reductionin volume :
S Scope of such westes evbject to Siete reopensiblitly 8 Weste Cherectertsetion to assure expedited action.
' for dishooel through the opteen of deteraming
- 1. Radiological properten
- 2. En ritcamenselimpoets. Petitions that certeen westee need not go to esteting -
- 2. Othet Considerations must enable the Commission to make a licensed die I facilities or new sing 3 Totals Imding of no significant impact on the licemed r to CfR port et or etteevelent 4 Sule quality of the human environment.Such State regulations. lf red' I selety ten be
- 6. As Low as Reesonably Achieveble Commission findings must be based on assured.such disposal-conserve space IALARA) en Environmental Assessment that en the enisting ettee while new sites are C. Weste blenagement Options complies with 10 CFR 81.30 and must I
developed. and would serve as se importent D. Analysee meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.32.
adlunct te volume reduct6on efforte in 1.Reoiologicalimpacto meeting the waste volume ellocation halte
- 3. Other impacto These requirements include addressin set forth in the Act. Thus, these rulemok.ngs
- 3. Regulatory Anelysie th' noed Ior the Proposed actior r
should aid the States in fulfdhng their E.Recadkwpmg and Reporting identifying alternatives. and sesewing tnponsibihtees under the Act.squity eleo
- 1. Surveys the Potential environmental impacts of suggeste that au wate genesotore be able la 2.Reporw the Proposed action and alternatives.
take adventose of below seguietory eencem F. proposed Rule Consistent with 10 CFR 81.41. the optsons se part of their weste management Ill. Decision Criteria petitioner should submit the informelion strelegies.Generetore in both 4 -
IV. Adminstretsve Hendhns needed to meet these requirements and and non.Agrument States will be esapeting
- 1. latroduction do so in a manner that permits for space in the suisting sites and the concept independent evaluation by the should be applicable nationwide.
Section 10 of the Low.Lsvel Commission of the data and
)
Agreement Sie tes will play en importent Radioactive Weste Policy Amendments methodology used and the conclusions role in ensunne that the system works on e Act of 1985 requires the Nuclear
- reached, national beeis and that it remains equitable.
States have been encouraging fuuhngs that Regulatory Commisalon (NRC) to
- 3. Economic impoet on smcllentitiet.
certain weetu m below regulatory eencem develop standards and procedures for When a rulemaking action is likely to and do not have to go to low. level weste
- Peditious handling of petitions for have a significant economic impact on a i
sites. The Sieles have boea weeans this view rulemaking to exempt disposal of substantialnumberof smallentities the fee a nwnber of years through forunn oud as radioactive waste determined to be Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that -
g the Conference of Radiation Control program g below reguletory concern.The Act also g theimpacts on these smallentities must Directors. Rulemakings ponting petilens wiu I requires NRC to identify information 3 be specifically addressed.(The
- ! Ast'ie t"/s?C."""l"t,*,7eme6 n, aa'oa'r"ho=id riie The com=i' ioa Commis. ion e eise.iandard for tw will be coordmeted with the States.
g Policy Statement provides general
! identifying a small entity is 83.5 million E IV.Festure Acties
. guidance on how to meet the -
- or less in annual receipta except for a requirements of section 10 of the Act.
- pnvete practice physicians and
, The Commission will conduct a genene outhnes the overall approach to be educationalinstitutions where the i
',",I',[yk,',""@*"',
og followed. and lists decision criteria to be standard le 81 million or less in annual factors The factors include pubhc comments used. implementation of the general -
receipts for private practice physicians received on the statenwnt, the number and approach and decision criteria of the and 500 employees for educational i
types of petitons for rulemaking received.and Commission Policy Statement involves institutions. See 50 FR 50214. December i
how effective the sistement is in enebhng developing more deteiled guidance and 9.1965.) Fnr any rulemaking, the l
timely processing of petitions A genene procedures.In accordance with Commission must either certify that the i
' rulemaking is warrented to provide e more Coramission direction, the NRC staff has rule will not economically impact or will
' efhcient and effective means of developed more detailed guidance and have no significant economic impacts on of h A t An ad enc ce o p o d
pr s r mp mentation d b smaH Mtses, or pusent an anaWs of rulemaking will be published withm so days.
Commission Policy Statement. This staff alternatives to minimize the impacts.
Furthermore, the Comnussion may guidance and procedures cover-(1)
Because rulemakings on below periodically review all rulemakings in orde, Information petitioners should file in regulatory concem should provide rehef to assure that the relevant parerneters have support of petitions to enable expedited from requirements for all affected not chang-J segruheently and may ask the processing.(2) discussion of the decision entities, satisfaction of this requirement petitioner to submit updated information to criteria. a nd (31 administrative should be straightforward but it must be essist in the review. The Commission would procedures to be followed.
addressed in any rulemaking. To also have to conbrm that opproved facilitate ex editious preparation of the enemptions are consistent with any general ll. Information to Support Petih.ons proposed ru e responding to the peldton, standards issued by EPA-A. Cenero/
the petitioner should submit an Dated at Washington. DC this 25th day of g
evaluation of the estimated economic "8# '
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
codified information requirements for impacts on small entities.The g
evaluation should include estimales of Samueil Chilk.
the Commission's regulations in to CFR the costs for small entities in terms of Secretary to the Commsssion 2 802(c) These regulations require the staff time and dollar costs. Any Editonal Note:The staffimplementation petitioner to identify the problem and alternatives that could accomphsh the plan will not appear in the Code of Federal propose solutions, to state the objective of the petitioner's proposed Regulation.
petitioner's grounds for and interest in rule while minimizing the economic Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff the action, and to provide suppntting impact on small entities should be implementation of Nuclear Regulatory information and rationale. As a practical presented. The e aluation should include an essessment of the Commission Policy on Radioactive matter. the information demonstratmg Waste Below Regulatory Concern that the radiological health and safety incremental rec rdkeepmg and reportmg impacts are so low as to be below c sts that would be associated with the f rn t on to Support Petitions regulatory concern must be provided by petitioned rule change.
w
l w
j A-App. et110' App. B(II) t
[PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOF< DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS concentrations should also be
- 3. Totals. A subsequent rulemeking i
1(1 PAC SRC) he prnented. For incineralion. k bued upon en accepted petition is sion miends to use to radioactive content of the ash and generic, and the enemption willlikely be I
"*'$$*$$[:E'd
. s:""fe d fimt"c! M -oe "Ac'Ud#e'*J'U$d'fsca i
ta Millmis Wasse impacts Analysis of process veristion and variation Methodologt"(NUREC/CR-3846) among licensees should be addresse published February 1964.8 petitionere -
and bounded.
g cre encouraged to consult NUREG/CR-2.Otherconss.derotions. An mus. and the total annual quantitles of each radionuclide that would be asas in order to better understand the understandmg of nonrediological die of.ne estimates should Commission's informetion needs.De properties of the weste stream le needed ude the current altuation end the IMPACTS-BRC program will be -
to assure that they are consistent with distributed by the National Energy -
the proposed disposal method and to libly vedebnity ovu h puonably 1
software Center on floppy diskettes for evaluate the adequacy of the snelysis of fomweeble future. If the petition is for a proposed rule that will be limited to leos use on IBM-pC and compatible the radiologicalimpacts. (NRC's then national scope (e.g., e state or computers.ne Center's address is 9700 deregulation of the radioactive content compact region), the totals should be south Case Avenue. Argonne National '
would not relieve liconeses from the Laboratory. Argonne. Illinois 00430.The opphcable rules of other agencies which estimated for the petitioned scope. A
^
concentration distribution would be a 1
users suide for IMPACf$-BRC will be -
cover the nonrediological properties.)
hipful 201in chwecurising h www blished as a draft Volume !! of The petitioner should provide e detailed stream. For exemple.The petitioner ICR-3546. petitioners may desenption of the weste meterials, could indicate that 10s of the wastes evoluete the impacts of the proposed includmg their origin chemical fallin the range of 1-10 picoeuries per activity using NRCs code,if duired.
composition, physical state, volume, and gram, con fall in the 10-100 range, and h
When ellernate calculational mass.
30s in the 100-1.000 range. Such i'
methodologies are used, the petitioner The serm " stream" only means westes distribution would permit more realistic
. sh uld provide all the specific input produced from a common set of euessment ofimpacts in eddition to j.
steeded to analyse the waste stream in circumstances end, possessing common conservative bounding estimates using
. the petition using IMPACTS-BRC and -
characteristics.it ones not ineen maximusi values.In any case, the provide a rationele for all parametet
- liquid" although the stroom may be in a typical quantities produced per selections, he Commission may clarify liquid form (e.g. weste ell). ne westes genweier sad an atimate of the v
I or modify the computer code from time. g sney be resin beads.laboret g eographic distribution of the generators g
to tirne. petitioners choosing to use g glasswere,oranyothelonn. saw l should be described.
I NRCs code should be sure to use the a sorm includes packages or containes
- 4. Assis.The basis for the waste
- et current revision.The National Energy -
a used to manage (i.e., etore. handle, shlP.
s stream chareeterization should be
gottware Center will provide changes to - i or dispose) the waas.The variability U pasons obtainin6 the program from the a and powntial changes in the weste form
- i. provided.ne basis for characterization of the westu and the total quantities o
u a function of rocess variation should Center. Users are encouraged a be eddressed.1fe varialion among hreduced should be decribed.
4 onitoring. analytical data, and cmp"'*"ce n be ac or d to future I***"s should be ducnbed and calculelions should be specified. Actual bounded.
measurements or values that can be revisions.
Compatibility with requirements related to measurements to confirm
- s. Scope.The petitioner should define associated with the proposed calculations are important.The the geographic area to which the snanagement options should be carefully desenption of the bases should include h
pt: posed rule should apply and the -
presented.For example.lf the petitioner quality assurance espects. For example.
(~
reasons supporting any ares less than =
proposes that the wastes be incinerated.
the petitionn should describe the nationalin scope. it might be possible to the waste form should be shown to be number of umples measured, the justify limiting the scope Io a low level
. compatible with the temperstures. flow representativeness of the samples, and L
. w ste regionalcompact or a state but rates, feed rates, and other operating the appropriateness of %e instruments
. implementation issues such as import or
. parameters of typicalincinerators that used.The statistical c'o-Jidence in the export of westes outside the compact or may be used.ne petitioner should estimates should be evaluated.lf the state should be addressed in the identify the minimum requirements an petitioner conducted a*fty sptveys of rationale.
incinerator must meet to assure leensees or relied ori surveys by others adequate combustion.The form end to help quantify the amount and content B. Weste Chorneterization volume of the ash and other residue of wastes. they should be described.
L from incineration should be described Market information might be usefulin l1 ot
- 2. Radiologico/ properties. The similar consideration for disposal al characterizing waste generation on a minimum radiological properties that unitary landfills or hazardous waste national basis. Designation as a " trace should be described are the sites should be addressed. For example.
concentration" should be related to
' concentration or contamination levels wutes that include components or specified detection limits, but detection and the half. lives, total quantity. and properties that would qualify the waste limits themselves are not sufficient L
~ idelities of the radionuchdes present.
u a " hazardous waste" under EPA rules reason to dismiss trace concentrations
- The chemical and physical form of the in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 265 should when methods exist to infer i.
~ radionuclides should be addressed. All not be proposed for disposal at a concentrations.
L
. radionuclides present or potentially municipal landfill.
For estimates of the radionuchde present should be specified, including The potential for recycle should be content cf the weste stream the radionuclides identified as trace presented. Possible treatment, such as petitioner may take advantage of constituents The distribution of the shredding, the would reduce the recycle licensee experience in classifying I
radionuclides within the wastes should potential should be described. Both the wastes for disposal et low. level waste be noted (e g. surface or volume resource value (e.g. salvageable metals) sites. For example, the transuranic sne
..e unctional usefulness (e g.
radionuclide content of the westes r
distribution). Mass and volume eserage uptde to is) should be addressed I oth would likely be below detection limits.
~
..ho. n long. term potentia (s for but licensees have already established a t o.ine.n.i.cd of arial.
ncype..= ci significant concern to the scaling factors for estimating the Comeur son.
transuranic content of wastes a rert af
[
~ App. ' B(Il l -
App. B<lis PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS complymg with 10 CFR Part 61 weste be considered in ulecting ecceptable petitioner's analysis should addrus the classification requirements. Wnte
- options, basis for parameter selection and generators use generic scahng factors p,33,fy,,,
characante h exMcW pah h and factors estabbshed for their specific indicate how likely the extreme case j
wastes through sophisticated analyses.
To support end lustify the submittel.
may be). In addition, the pelstioner e ne scaling factors are used to infer the each petitioner should include analyses analysis should also address potential presence and concentrations of many of the radiologicalimpacts associated exposures from handling and transport radionuclides bened on measurement of with handling transport. and disposal of accidents.The petitioner's analysis of only a few nuclides. The classification the specific wastes. Any incremental accidents should include all ochesne in to CFR Part et has been in nonradiologicalimpacts should be assumptions. data. and results to effect since December 1983, assessed. Also the petitioner should use facilitate review.The potentiel for j
Considerable data and experience the analyses to prepare and submit a shipment of the entire weste stream to should be avellable to ellow detailed regulatory analysis with the one or a few facilities should be characterising the radiologicalcontent petition.
assessed. This scenario currently exists and composition of the weste streem 1.Rodiologicolimpoets. The for 10 CFR 20.306 exempied liquid being eddressed in the petition.The evaluation of radiologicalimpacte scintillation westes and might result same principles outlined in 10 CFR should distinguish between expected from very limited numbers of treatment 61.55(a)(c) may be applied. i.e values and potential exporures and events.
facilities or decontamination services.
based on direct measurementa. indirect impacts should be essessed for the The analysis of impacts for transport, methods related to measurements, of expected concentrations and quantities handling. and disposal should include material accountability.
of radionuclides. De petitioner should evaluation of this potentialcircumstance
- 5. As low as is reasonobly ochievoble quantitatively evaluate the impacts from unless it can be clearly ru ed out.
i (ALARA/.The Commission's AI. ARA the proposed weste for asch option As suggested in Paragraph 30 on page requirement in 10 CFR 30.1(c) apphes to requested. The petitioner should clearly 20 ofICRP Publication se 8:
efforte by licensees to maintain relate the analytical findings to specific Exception from eesulation and radiation exposures and releases of provisions in the recommended rule requimments on then bun should not be radioactive materials in effluents to changes. For example the basis for each und to make it pouible to dispose of laree unrestricted areas as low is reasonably recommended radionuclide limit should quantaies of radioactive matenet in diluted achievable.10 CFR Part 50. Appendix 1.
be clearly explained.
I*'* '" d*ded
h*"* '* "'*8 P
describes Al. ARA for radioactive The radiological impacts included in Ndu
'P" IndN) materials in light water reactor effluents.
NURECICR-3565 and in NRC s hish d b
many small dows to individuals Nor should Licensee comphance with 10 CFR 20.1(c) computer program (IMPACTS-BRC) they be und to exempt actwines that. by is a precondition to acceptance by NRC cover exposures to workers and isolation or treatnwet. have ben made g of any waste stream as exempt.
Individual members of the public and temporarily harmine but that imply large ~
g Therefore, a description should be R cumulative population exposures.The ll ential for r*I*ne and could swe nu to a provided of reasonable procedures that 8 program calculates both externaldirect l fg'h indwidual doses or high collective waste generators would be expected to
[ gamma exposures and exposures from The analysis of expected radiological 8
a use to minimite radiation esposures g inoested or inhaled radionuclides. NRC's " impacts should clearly oddress:
- resulting from the disposal of the a computer program can be used to 7 -The maximam individual exposures.
exempt waste, e.3,removalof surface calculate the expected radiological
-The critical group exposures contamination.These procedures are impacts from generator activities.
-The cumulative population assumed to apply prior to charactenzmg transportation, trea tment. disposal exposures.
the waste to be exempted.
nn r.ui.ms. ami pist <lispesal inputv The maximum individual exposure C WesteMonogementOptions
'H"' I""8'"" ' an analve a wink range evaluation should include exposures to ut management options im Imling all members of the pubhc who may be The management options that the unsue in aism nt anil elispisal in the exposed beginning with the initial Commission can deal with expeditiously generaim.,lupmeni tu nmni. spal uasic handling at the generator's facihty are those described in NUREC/CR-35c5.
management facihties, 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 program covers impacts beginning be included. T'he individual ma> be a waste disposal facilities (sanitary woh initial handhng and treatment by member of the general population (e.g, landfills), municipal waste incinera tors, the generator through final disposal of consumer of con {arrt nated ground i
hazardous disposal facilities, and all the radionuchdes contained in the waterj or a person r4ceiving the hazardous waste incinerators.
waste stream Sequential treatment.
exposure from his or her occupation.
Pretreatment. e.g., shredding of sorting. and incineration onsite and at Anyone who may be exposed and is not otherwise potentially recyclable municipal and hazardous facihties can a radiation worker should be considered materials. is a potential adjunct to either be assessed Disposal of resulting ash a member of the pubht. For example. e onsite or offsite options. Combmations and residue is included Post. disposal worker at a sanitary landfill or a of these options can also be evaluated.
impacts that can be calculated melude commercial trash truck driver would not For example, wastes may be incinerated releases due to mirusion. ground water be a radiation worker. However, on site and the ash shipped to a sanitary migra tion. erosion. and leachate occupational exposures to radiation 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 pos t. disposal impa cts.
of the incrementalimpacts between range of options.The practicahty of the The petihoner s analysis of transport disposal at a hcensed faciht) nd the proposed option (s) should be presented.
impac's should be based on a requested disposal options.
Waste carapatibihty discussed earlier is reasonably expected spacial distribution The total population exposures can be one aspect.The national availability of licensees and wasie 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 entical group Upda tes on na tional regulations and wantes The petitioner should address (usually the occupationally exposed laws pertainmg to the proposed option par.1meiers such as averaFe and population) where potenta l exposures should be described and might have to extreme transport distances.The 2 53 Au gust 29.1986
- ;n '
y.
/.
f.6l-App, g4ll: # ART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS APP. B(ll) ms v
W may be higher on en individual basis but ;
and constraints are discuued more fully to implementation. For most radioactive the emposures and the number of af ter this listing of topics.-
materials the general DOT threshold l
exposed individuals are more
-(4) Decision refionole. This topic is a limits of 0.002 microcuries per gram -
predictable and the exposures are short.
conclusions statement that explains why '
apply.However, the DOTinued a final term. The critical group should be the the preferred alternative (s) should be rule on june as less (60 FR 23811l that segment of she population most highly; adopwd.
amended to CFR Part 173 to enempt low c
esposed emelusive of radiation workers.
(6)lagplementorion. This topic covers specific activity westes as described in The other part is & general popuistion liv swps and schedules for actual NRC's rules in 10 CFR 20.306. (Note that i where the espected esposures and eine Implementation of the proposed rule.
DOT emphasised that the westes remain of the esposed population are less The petitioner should address the topic subject to the provisions related to other predictable,potentialindividual.
Imm ee wask generator's perspective hasards; see 40 CFR 173.426(d).)
<spoeyres are probably much smaller, and include surveys discussed under i
'and exposures may extend over longer.
Topic I,lI.A.8. Recordkeeping and -
E Accordeepisqr andAeportistr.
tieneirames. presentation of the.
RePo"ing.
population exposures in these two parts A cost / benefit discussion is en
- 1. Surveys. Esisting regulations in i 10 should contribute to a more meaningful.
essential part of both environmental and CFR 30.301 establish general NRC east / benefit analysisc regulatory impact cons;derations and is,-
requirements for performing surveys as 4
- 3. OfAerisrqpocis The NRC action to thesefore essentialtoexpedited necessary to comply with Part 30.
enempt she radiological content of the handling. The discussion should focus Licensees would have to conduct j
' westes would not relieve persons on espected exposures and realistcc surveys of the weste properties prior to j
handli. processing. or disposing of the cacentraums or quandties of please for exempt disposal to verify i
wastes rom requirements applicable to radionuclides. The cost / benefit -
that the weste meets the prescribed -
the nonradiological properties. The discussion should include the limits.Such survey programs might peution should demonstrate that the '
differential exposure and economic consist of(1) fairly comprehensive nonradiological properties of the costs between disposal at a licensed initial sampling and analysis to confirm i
radioactive waste are the same es the low level waste disposal site and the that the licensee's wastes will fall below nonradioactive materials normally Proposed o on(s).It may also m, clude the limits. (2) periodic analysis as part of handled and disposed of by the qualitative nefits. Reduced hasards a procen or quality control program to propond mesods from not storing hasardous or confirm the initial findings, and (3 a nonrediological pr'!f ee HW mawnelsa be a muune sumy program prior to m an tties are similar 6
minaHon w ucu m of ee of wasta to monhw for gma and the volumes of empted waste
- R would not impact the normal operations.. R *,*ineration) could be anohr.
irregularities. To show theI licensees
- P*P'M*8 g
[ g Pethere should be no incrementalimpacts. g Detrimental costs might also be I surveys prior to weste transfer, the can be espected to conduct compliance cfs 'o d g,gbi e que teHw such asloss of spacein a petitioner should describe a sample j g, i
~ the cific wastes in thetion,the i mu senlous wask sHw.W i surwy pmgrarn.W ene components g"
p*til ner should also add es the.
. econom c impact on the licensed site
= just discussed should be included. if operations (i.e loss ofincome from appropriate, for the waste stream.
additions 3 impacts.
diverted wastes) and its potential effect 3;Resulatoryonelysis.In order to on the availability of economic and safe Records of the surveys would be capedite subsequent rulemakingif the disposal should be addressed. Costs of maintained for inspection.
peution is granted, the analysis should surveys and verifying compliance
- 2. Reports, ~he petitioner should (loo address the topics NRC must '
discussed under Topic II.E.
assume that annual reports on disposals adduss in a Reguistory Analysis (e.3, Recordkeeping and Reporting should will be required and that associated see NUREG/BR-0054. Revision 1.
also be covered. The cost / benefit should recordkeeping to generate the reports 5" Regulatory Analysis Guidehnes of the also mflect ALARA considerations.
will be imposed. Minimum information U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission") '
Radiation worker expmure, public in the annual reports initially might Fellowing the Regulatory Analysis exposure, and environmental releases include the type of waste. its volume. its format will structure the analytical '
might be appropriate in ALARA estimated curie content, and the place findings, present the bases for decisisns.
considerations. In weighing the and manner of disposal. Increased and address the environmental exposure costs and economic costs for recordkeeping and reporting assessment requirements The toncs light water cooled nuclear reactor requirements would address are:
wastes, the petitioner could use. for uncertainties in projecting future (1) A statement of sheproNem.This perspective, the $1,000 per person rem volumes or amounts of wastes and t pic is the r.eed for determining which guideline in 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix 1.
NRC's responsibility to consider the wastes may be safely disposed of by for effluent releases from these facilities.
cumulative impacis of multiple means other than shipment tolicensed The petitioner should identify any exemptions. When these requirements low. level weste sites.
legal or regulatory constraints that might are proposed. Office of Management (2) Ahernatives. All reasonable impact implementation of the petitioned and Budget (OMB) approvalis required.
alternatives to the proposed action change.The compatibihty of the waste To facilitate NRC fihrg for OMB should be described.The no action or with the proposed method of disposal approvat the petitioner should include status quo alternative should always be was discussed under Topic II.B 2. Other any duphcating or overlapping reporting included; constraints might stem from Department requirements, the number and type of
- 13) Consequences. This topic calls for of Transportation (DOT) labeling.
expected respondents. suggestions for an analysis of the impacts of each placardmg. and manifesting minimising the burden, estirnates of the alternative described The factors the requirements for radioactive materials.
staff hours and costs to prepare the petitioner should address include costs Since the receiving facility will not be reports and keep the records. and a brief and benefits and practical or legal heensed to receive radioactive description of the basis for the constraints. Cost /beneht considerations materials this could be an impediment estimates. The petitioner should also
- AugNst 29[1@@@
E*e
,4 4
- a.
RT 2 o HULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS
,e addtess whether changes in technical enternal exposure and the dose incurred hulth effects.this levelof risk cormoponde specifications or licenses may be from that year's intake of radionuclides, to en annul dose of the order of 0.1 m$v l10 needed,-
While a range of 1-10 milbrem per year mith emi.
might be acceptable, a one millirem dose However. In mMt practic-1 casa. the need F. Prs (posed Aule would facilitate eapedited processing.
I*P,""I'"'"'""*'"Id essessment to decide whether e source er Higher doses may re.quim mom wuie streem should be subject a control.
~ The P'tition should include the test ea'ensive justification. Bued on a Consideretion should be given to the neeJ for for the proposed rule (ou 10 CFR mortality risk coefficient for indu:ed any optimisetion of redienen protect 6en and 2.902lc)(11).The proposed test should cancer and hereditary effects of 2x10" w the ponibility that many practices and cover at least the following:
per tem (ICRP Pubhcation as), redietion sources of the une kind could combme now (1) The quantity and/or concentration '
exposure at a level of millirem year or 6n the future so that their total effect may limit for each radionuclide present would usult in en annual morta ity risk be significant. even thoush och eeurce h
(trace redionuclidu could be lumped of 2x10"(l.e 2x" effects /remx*8 tem /
Q"*,*,"
,$d",*3 d',",g',9,"ji "d
, y, together with a totallimit):
yearl.
the criticalgroup This mayinvoin (2) A method to deal with The EPA is developi criteria for eueesmente of doee commitments and of the radionuclide mistums:
identifying low. level re ioactive weste collective dose per unit practice or source. 6n (3) The nonradiological specifications that may be below regulatory concern order a ensure that the individual dose necessa'I to adequately define the as part of that agency's development of moverement wili not be emceeded now or 6n neral environmental standards for the futum. It seenn elmost certa 6a that the
- w. level wasle disposal. "Ihe EPA total annual dose to a single indsvidual from (4)The specific method (s)of exempt published an Advance Notice of "empted sources will be less then ten times dispuel Proposed Rulemaking on August 31.1983
- ' ***'4'"** I" ** "** Pled source
!! practicable, and if the supporting (48 FR 39563) and currently hopes to
[o 8
t d
or at wed by i._
information indicates the need, the text publish proposed standards in early reducme the annualindividuel dose L
should also address other features such 1967.Other EPA standards that the enemption critenon from o.1 to 0.01 mSv 110 as annullimits on each generator in doses can be compared to are the Clean to 1 mithrem).
l-terms of volume. mass,or total Air Act radioactive release standard of l
. radioactivity, and administrative or 25 millirems per yearin 40 CFR Part el The NRC staff recognizes that at times' h
procedural requirements includmg
' and the uranium fuel cycle annual whole 2 uman reactions are not so strictly i
g ody limit of 25 millirems in 40 CFR 190.
[ governed by quantative considerations
.g as controls, surveys, etc., that have -
b One millirem is very small when u th ICRP encorpt sugguu.
' g en discussed.The text should not g compared to naturefly occurring er Nevertheless, the 10' per year value include the various dose hmits used to abt u kw as practicabk.
l
. ! Justify the proposed radionuclide hmits.
g background doses from cosmic and
- sums W kw Wutify significant i
terrestrial sources. Background doses in d
bl j
- Ill. Decision Criteria -
' the United States are typically in the
- @nb"d di
'sNid l:
100-120 milbrems per er range I.
The Commission pokey statement exclusive of the lung oses from redon' Rdioksical Proaction Board hs estabbshes that the following criteria One millirem is also small when issued generic guidance on de minimis should be used by staff as guidelmes for compared to the annul 500 millirem dose levels ( ASP-7. lanuary 1965)
- that acting on a petition. Each critenon is dose limit for individual members of the has status similar to Federal Radiation l
repesled and staff views on general pubhc in Federal Radiation Guidance issued by the President in this j.
Implementation are discussed.
Council guidance.
country.The Board identified effective i
- 1. Disposal and treatment of the An important feature is that doses of dose equivalents of 5 millirem per year L
wastes as specihed in the petition will up to 1 millirem from the individual as ins snificant when members of the public make their decisions.The 5 result in no significant impact on the ion should mis e c :o er millirem limit represents the total dose quality of the human environment.
t streams. lCRP Publication 46 addressed contribution from all exempted Discussion:Unless this fmdmg can be individual dose limits and other issues practices. For individual practices, the made during information submitted by related to exemptions and stated.in Board divided by 10 (l.e. 0.5 milbrem
.the petitioner, the Commission must paragraphs 83 and 64 on page 19.
Per year) to account for exposures from prepare an Environmentallmpact multiple practices.These hmits are Statement to more fully examine the b'*"Y d'0" posures routmely apphed generical.Less conservatism
}
toposed action alternatives to the
'"'**"'"'d '" '* d o n Ph'"-
under the well de ned circumstances
'" '" I '
proposed action $ and associated h*u'icarve associated with specific waste streams b
sm l c rnp s n with potentialimpacts of alternatives.
dose limits or natural background. and are and disposal options envisaged in this Preparation would likelyinvolve well below dose les els at which the NRC statement seems justified. In a contractual support and would likely appearance of deletenous health effects has proposed policy statement dated May 6.
take 2 years or more to complete. The been demonstrated. In individual.related 1985.* the Canadian Ato,mic Energy assessments tus widely rec snized that Control Board specifica 'a addressed C. ommission could not act in the petibon there are radiation doses that are so small disposal of specific west a that are of no m an expedited manner.
mat eey mvehe noks that would be regulatory concern. An individual does
- 2. The maximum expected effective regarded as neglipble by the esposed limit of 5 millirems per year was dose equivalent to an individual mdaiduals Studies of comparatise niks exper enced b the population m various proposd for this hmited application, member of the public does not exceed a 3
A maximum individual exposure of 1 few millirem per year for normal oc sapp a oi d a t as an s".
millitem per year is also consistent with d
pt,o operations and anticipated events.
ear or less is not taken into account by Appendix l to 10 CFR Part 50. Appenda Discussion:The effective dose mdaiduals in their decisions as to sciions I specifies design objective doses for equn alent means the ICRP Pubhcation that could mfluence their niks Usm operationallight water. cooled nuclear 26 and 30 8 sum of the dose from rounded dose response factors for induced power reactor effluents. These design
~~-
. JML
.. A w =an sa. w w.
a-5 y
g.
v
~ App ettili
' APP B(IV)
~
PART 2 e-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS obketives include annual total body -
3.ne weste is compatible with the and proketed weste characteristes.
.t doen of a millireme for liquid effluents proposed treatment and disposal nporting on the wastes actually.
end 8 millitems for gaseous effluents. l!
options.
transtnred for below regulatory concern onsite incinkretion et reactors is Discussion:his criterion relates to disposal will be important and should petitioned for es a specified disposal the nonrediological properties of the be practical.
option, the petitioner should address.
westes. For example, disposal of 12.ne offsite treatment or disposal how the posed activity. combined radioactive westes that also quali as a medium (e4 eenitary landfill) does not r
i with all o effluents from the sites, nonrediological hasardous materia need to be controlled or monitorud for would not exceed the da objective -
should be propowd for disposal radiation protection pu e.
doess in Appendix ! to 10 part 80.
methods in accord with EPA regulations Discussion:ne evel tion of 3 % collective doses to the critica] -
le4 incineration or disposal at a expected exposurn should provide the 3
population and general population are hasardous waste facility). Also, westes basis for meeting this criteilon.
emell.
proposed for incineration should be However, this is en eres where NRC
'Discusss.on: An additional advantage combusuble and westes proposed for,
will have a continuing responalbility as when individual doses are no more than landfills should be op aie for multiple petitions are processed.
b disposalin typicalla e anywhere in Reporung on actual disposals will help 1 millirem per year is that the collective -
the nation.
NRC address this responsibility and doses are then summations over verY
- 7. h exem emell esposures. The collective do" -
national scale.ption is useful on a monitor the adequacy of the limits l.e.,it is likely to be med included in the exempted die is.
3 evaluation is primarily for information by a category of licensees or at least a 13.ne methods and proce ures used purposes. cost / benefit considerations, significant, portion of a colegory.
to manage the westes and to assess the r nd to confirm the imding of no -
Discussson: Rulemaking is usually not impecis are no different from those that significant impact on the quality of the warranted for wastes involving a single would be applied to the corresponding human environment.This determination
' licensee. whether a continui disposal.
uncontaminated materials.
will be made based on information activity or a one. time disposa. Such -
. Discussion: $1nce the mceiving facility evallable during the review of each proposals by individual licensees are will not be licensed for radioactive peution in concert with criterion 5. Staff normally processed as licensing actions materials, special handling or measures notes that the United K rslicy on under to CFR a).
should not be reeutred at the processing individual dose limits udn an a.N radiologi properties of the or disposal sites because of the casociated collective dose criterion; weite stream have been charactertred radioactive content of the wastes.%is -
~ R (N Collective dose crtierion must be.
en a national besis the vertability hw criterion also means that malistic g met in addition to the individuallimits).
R been proiected, and the range of g auumptions about the disposal methods
- in ICRP publication 46, a similar -
[ variation will not invalidate supporting have been made in estimating at
'. critetton is atated.
, analyses.
exposures.
Discussion:One of the merits of a 14.nem are no ngulatory or legal 4.N potential radiological m
- consequences of accidents or equipment ; dealing with fic weste streams is I obstacles to use of the proposed malfunction involving the westes and _
that the actus rties of the waste
- tmstment or disposal methods.
intrusion into disposal sites after loss of stream can be re upon in estimating Discussion:To have practical use. the normalinstitutional controls are not impacts rather than conservative disposal option must be available. For si8"ificant'-
bounding parameters. The specific example.if allhazardous waste Discussion: Potential doses from athways that must be considered can facilities that accept offsite wastes are cecidents or intrusion should be we; lim ted to manageable numbers.h closed or are not reasonably distributed.
- within public exposure limits and take expected fate can be credibly limited the practicality of an exemption to allow
~
into account the robability or kesed on the p rties.
disposal at such sites is questionable.
possibility of su events.In a statement.
9.ne weste c aracterization is based Since the receiving facility will not be on date on real westes.
licensed for radioactive materials, dated April 28.1986.* the International Commission on Radiological Protection
. Discussion. Actual data on real waste shipments to landfills or hasardous (ICRP) stated that the ICRP's present provide reasonable assurance that the waste facilities should not require
. view is that the principal dose limit for weste characterization is accurate.
identification as radioactive meteriale.
members of the public is 100 millirems in 10.The disposed form of the weste l
a year.The ICRP further stated that the has negligible potential for recycle.
E Administrouve Hanang 500 millirem limit from ICRP Publication Discussion: Eliminating the Agency procedures for expeditious
' 26 could be used as a. subsidiary limit uncertainties associated with recycle is handhng of petitions for rulemaking provided the lifetime average does not necessary to expedillous handling.
were initially published in 1982 in t
exceed the principal limit.
Specifyin specific westes and specific NUREC/BR-0053. " Regulations methods f disposal narrows the Handbook."' The procedures are Consequently, potential exposures fror.'.
pathways and timeframes to contained in Part 11 of the Handbook L
accidents or unexpected events would manageable numbers.
and were most recently revised in L
- be more ea sily justified if they are well
- 11. Licensees can estabbsh effective.
Septernber 1985. Because of resource l.
below 100 millirem per year principal licensable. and inspectable programs for hmitations and other factors, these i.
- limit, the waste prior to transfer to procedures have not been fully j
p
- 5. The extunphon will result in a demonstrate compliance.
implemented. Petitions for rulemaking l
significant C duction in societal costs.
Discussion: Survey programs and submitted in accordance with the I'
Discussior.: When the economic and quahiy control programs will be needed Commission's policy statement and this l
exposure costs associated with the to provide reasonable assurance that staffimplementation plan will be exemption are compared to disposal et a actual wastes disposed of under an processed in full compliance with these licensed low. level waste site there exemption rule meet the specified procedures.These procedures coupled should be a significant reduction in parameters. Since disposal would be with agency pohey to complete all costs.
exempted based on both estabhshed l
rulemaking within 2 years will provide
.n u 4 m, m
(
<!)
APP. C(!!)
-(App. B(IV)!.
' PART 2 o' RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS g
j N
Foseneses, s
W empeditious actiors on the petitions. In -
1 t copin of NUREctBR coss.NUREC/BR.
eddithm, the Handbook taotes general eens and NUREC/CR-ases may be purcheced scheduling advice that proposed rules to throush h U.S Covemment Printing Omce grant petitions should be published in 6-.
by calung gaarl a76-seso er by wetiing to the 12 months after acceptance and UK C*vemment Printing Omes. P.O. teos 1
publication for comment. proposed rules.
' stus, wnhington. DC acetween. Copin l 1
mer else be purchaud from the National l
,will be Iorwarded to the Cosimission en.
. Technicalinformetion Servies.U.S.
I M'
e 6 month schedule to the entent Department of Commeres, stes Port Reyel g g permitted by resocce limits, the nature geog,s,,r;eig,yA gas,3 ce,6e,,,for inspection endler espying for a ! -
end extent of public comments, and:
eveneb Internal Control of Rulems fee in the NRC Public Document Room.1717 '
H Sunt. Nw.Weehington.DC aossa, precedures.Rulemakings invo
..the
'ICRP Publication es. *Rediation.
reactors must be reviewed the on Review of Generic Prowstian Prinsipin for the Disposal of Sohd Requirements prior to publication.
"*$ y*l,"6;,d* SP" ",,,
y" Pro,o.w r*s w *=g macar. win e,.e in,emen.nei C.mmiselen en.
theredose be formersled to the Red eleeical Protectient edepted lemmary it.
f*aamminaia's on a 7 month schedule to terr. lChP Pubhcotion 30.
- unite Ier intake i
of Bahl ies by Werbefe* edepted luly the extent permitted by resources, H
comments, and approval precedures. In tem s
both cases, every effort wiu be made to~
' Copies of the United Kingdom's document pubheh-
" rules no later than 12 ~
- '* 8"neble for inspecuen es eclosurn se months Nr noUcing for public
""8
- i wd de Wi n e comment. '
Pubhc Document Room.1717 H Suset NW.
' Al h the procedures in Part 11 of weehington. DC aosss. The United Kingdom NUREC
-0063 include fast track documente are evettable for sole from: Her
')
Mainty's Stelionery Omce. P.O. Boa tee.
proceseitig, the nature of the enticipated ^
lAndon Stt SNH. United Kingdom. as Advies i
li petitions do not fully comply with the ;
l-decision criteria to follow this -
document ASP-7 and a related technical.
= port. The Signmcena of SmellDeen of
.gg,,,g,,
. Some of the key feetwo of the hdeum a Membem of he Pubhc
- m l! handling procedoms include the -
ecopi gthe c eegie, gee,,,,,,,e I
.er fouowing steps for complete and fully emilable for impection u en enclosun to l
6 supported petitions. -
- SECY-es-347A greletms to to Cm Port 30)
Y,
, E t Petitioners may confer en deled luly 38.1886 in the f'a==dadaa's
(
l I matters with the staff before Pubhc Document Room.1717 H Street NW..
l1 a petitlan for rulemaking.Rhueste 4
Wakingtm DCauss.TheCanadian document was issued as Comeuhauve g"
,y "*'"
Pe,a,,d e;"R**',e Di ec."Ai. ion
- ,:::,atTcea,'t;;t.e'r4m**
4 n
of Rules and Records. Office of
. I,em Ucensing" by the Atomic Enesty :
Administration. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory.
Centrol soord.Pn som goes, oitswe, Coaunission. Washington, DC 3D655.
Ontano. Caude. KIP $88.
j Attention: Chief. Rules and Procedures -
'ICRP/ss/G os. *Statenant from the less Branch.
Pers' M" tag of the Intemational
-1. petitions should be addrused to:
Comminion a Radiological Protect? tess-
'the Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory.
s Commission. Weshington. DC 20555.
l-Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. In keeping with 10 CFR 2.802(f).
petitioners will be promptly informed if
- the petition meets the threshold requirements for a petition for rulemaking in 10 CFR 2.802(c) and can be processed in accordance with this implementation plan.Ordinarby this,
i determinelion wiH be made within 30 l
days after receipt of the petition.
- 3. Following this determination, the petition will be noticed in the Federal Re$ eter for e public comment period of l
l at least 60 days.
' 4.De petitioner will be provided copies of all commente received.
scheduling information, and periodic etetus reporte.
The procedures in NUREG/BR-0053 i
also include the process for denial and withdrewel of petitione.
. ~ - -
~ ~ - -
~
g:.,
.gu f f 7
i 3..
m 9-.
_f
%. i.
t M N y;t 4g333 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules j
4 s-i 4
i i p i, l
l j;,
t, O\\
y
.y D
?$
[y
.j
,' y l
e k
.... _ _... _ ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
10 CFR Ch.I
/.
Policy Statement on Esemptione Pfem Regulatory Control Acancy: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
actions: Advance notice of proposed statement and meeting.
svuuany:The NRCle in the process of developing a broad policy on er,emptions from regulatory control for practices whose health and safety impacts could be considered below regulatory concern.This policy statement would provide for more eflicient a..'
onsistent regulatory actions in corinection with exemptions from various specific Commission requirements.*Ihe Commission. in formulating this Advance Notice.is seeking public input on some specific ENCLOSURE'2 3-
j.
.u
+
l
(.< u-a,
,%'s
= Federal' Register / Vol. 53, No. 238 / Monday, December 12,~ 1988 / Proposed Rules.
dgagy
. questions which are key considerations country's border,it is hoped that Commission may initiate the in developing such a policy.%e NRC exchanges ofideas and information development of appropriate regulations a
staff will conduct a meeting to inform such as occurred at the international or make licensing decisions to exempt
, the public of its intentions, speciacally workshop will, besides pmviding one from regulatory control persons who I;
' to clarify and answer questions.
.svenue ofinput to the Commission's
- receive, possess, use, transfer, own, or ooncoming the adysace notice, and to actions, lead tow'ard a greeter degree of acquire certain ratioactive meterial.
bear preliminary views concoming a consistancyin such exemptions world'. His policyis directed principally policy for exemptions with emphasis on wide. At the intemational workshop, the l toward rulemaking activities, but may the specinc questions raised by the
" Advance Nouce of the Development of - be applied to license amendments or
!{-
P== lad =
a Commission Policy on Exemptions license appucations involving the y
from Regulatory Control for Practices release of licensed radioactive material 1
i
~
. sa,es: Meeting to be hdd on January 12.19ee. Written comments should be
. Whose Public Health and Safety either to the environment or to persons i
submitted byJanuary 30,198s.
Impacts are Below Regulatory Concern", who would be exempt from Commission twn==ts received after this date wul presented la this notics, was made
! be considered if it is practical to do so, available for discussion.De transcript regulaGons. it is important to emphasize
^
that this polcly does not assert an but assurance of consideration can only of theintemationalworkshopwhich -
abamos a enshdd ddek but ratha be given as to comments received on or includes all the papere presented at the establishes a baseline where further before this date.
meeting may be examined and copied
. me.assese: Meeting will be held at the for a fee at the NRC Pubbe Document
,,,,[tions to mduce risks t
. Holiday Inn, e120 Wisconsin Avenue. -
Room at 2120 L Street NW.,
. Bethesda, MD 20814 (4 blocks north of Washington, DC, ne concept of mgulawrymmptions
~
le now new.For example,in 1960 and 7 the Bethesda Metro Station). Telephone: Advanos Notice of the Development of a 1370, the Commission promulgsted I.
(301) 853-2000,1-404466-432s. Mall rwn-i 1-policy tables of exempt 9uantitles and written comments to: Soestery, U.S..
Introduction ondPwpose concentrations for radioactive material 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, w
8p a n,undw w ain LWashington,DC,20555, Attention:
Ovw the last severalyears, the h
4 Docketing and Service Branch.
Commission has becomeincreasingly circumstances, could recieve. possess, Comments maybe ddivered to11585 aware of the need to provide e general use, transfer, own, or acquire without a l'
Rockville Pike, RockvGle, MD between policy on the appropriate criteria for mquimment fu a Ucme (25 m M y.30 a.m.and 4:15 p.m. weekdays, release of radioactive materials from
. August 17.1000 and as m 6426:Apr0 22, Copies of the comunents received may regulatory contml. To address this need. 1970).Other exemptions allowing
' be examined and copied for a fee at the the Commissionis expanding uponits
$str6uhn dcmumwpmducts w L.
NRCPublic Document Room at 2130L exis poucyforprotectionof the o&er dwices to &e geralpub!!c,or L'
Street, NW., Washington, DC.
aBogame sofreeosedu telease pubhc
.x,res.ed radiat. ion, currently exis sreguia ns mde embodied in he Commissb+a s
-t
-se n - to,e.a s,
L Catherine R. Matteen, telephone (301)
' to, Code of Federal Regulations) and Ucy statements (30 FR 3482 Use of mgulaum fw some Hme. Mom
[<
492-4638, or William R. I4hs, telephone 301)492-8774 Office of Nuclear hyproduct Materialand Source recently, the law Level Radioactive tory Research,U.S. Nuclear Material,datedMarchte tee 5:47m Waste PoHey Arnendments Act M1985 L
R gulatoryCommission. Washington, 57446, Licensing Requirements for land encud he Caunission w develop l!
DC,20555..
Disposal of Radioactive Waste, dated standards and procedures for suertaesserrany ese.assa,s.se December 27.1982: and 51 FR 30839, expe&hus handing d peuutons to GeneralStatement of Policy and
'x*mPt from regulauon the disposal of
. InternationalWorkshoP Pmcedures Conceming Petitions allahuy contaminated radioactive waste in addition to conducting this public Pursuant to i 2.802 for Disposal of materialthat the Commission meeting,the Commission has sought Radioactive Weste Streams Below determined to be below regulatory
- input from the intemational regulatory Regulatory Concern, dated August 29, concern.The Commission responded to community through an international 1986).The expansion includes the.
this legislation byissuing a policy
. workshop on exemptions from development of an explicit policy on the statement on August 29,1986 (51 m regulatory controlwhich was held exemption from regulatory control of 30839).That statement contained criteria October 17-19.1988inWashington DC.
practices whose public health and which. if satisfactorily addressed in a The importance of such interaction safety impacts are below regulatory petition for rulemaking would allow the stems from the fact that many existing concern. A practice is defined in this Commission to act expeditiously in i
l:
cnd potential exemptions involve policy as an activity or a set or Proposing appropriate regula tory relie!
' radioactive materials pv*posefully used combination of a number of similar sets on a " practice. specific" besis consistent Q
. in consumer products or introduced into ' of coordinated and continuing activities with the merits of the petitbn.
various products or materials through aimed at a given purpose which involve The Commission believes that these ths recycling of contaminated scrap, the potential for radiation exposure.
"precuce specific" exemptions should
. either of which may enter international Under this policy, the definition of be encompassed within a broader NRC
- trade. Even effluents and waste disposal practice" is a critical feature which wiu policy which defines levels of radiation l.
can involve exposures to people in assure that the formulauon of risk below which specified practices L'
countries other than those from which exemptions from regulatory control will would not require NRC regulation based I.
the effluent or waste originated.This not sllow deliberate dilution of material on public health and safety interests, i
aspect is a significant issue in the or fractionation of a practice for the For such exemption practices, the European community,Thus, sore purpose of circumventing controls that Commission's regulatory involvement l
degree of consistency Internationally is would otherwise be applicable, could therefore be essentially limited to
, desirable, since exemption decisions The purpose of this policy statement licensing. inspection. and compliance can affect populations outside each is to establish the basis upon which the activities associated with the transfer of
.w-w
9 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 2'ha / Monday. December 12. 1908 / Proposed Role, 498ag the radioauve matarialfrom a controDad international com=mmity.ne values AlturnsLive hypodeses have been undar sensaderation la thia Policy proposed and reevalsations of the data bene at higher doses sonunne.h to en exempt status.
The Commission recognizes that.if a Statament do not necessarily* agree with thoaa selectad or under en=
rah by Commissionbebevea ht noe of the netional policy on exemptions from regulatory controlis to be effective, other countries.ne Commissionhas lineer non-thrubold hypothes!s allows Agreement States wul pay an important carsfully nyiewed thoes alternata the theoreheal antablishment of upper implementation role. In the past. States criteria, and does not Gad significant limits on b sunbar of bestih effecta i
have been encouragingfindings that M-wine evidence thatwould dictast that mighs accer atvery low dosee i
certain westre are below regulatory pretsrvatialselectionof any of those which are the subject of the exemptana
+
concer's and the Commission belleres viaws over wbstis proposed in this
- policy, De risk of deathto anladividual,as i
that States will support an expension of Policy StatemenL calculated using the linear model. la i
thewviews to all r Ainvdving Raaseos Protecdos Priedphe showninTablat forvanous defined
~ exempt distribution or release of
%e Commission r* a af+== that este levela ofindividua1does A radiation radioective material.The Conuniselos fundamental principles of radiation
..paam d10 neum per year @.imSv intends that rolemakings codifyfry protection have historically guided the per year) for alifetime corresponde regulatory controi exemptions wlIl be fonnulation of a system of dose theoretically to anincrease of M% of j
made a matter of compstibihty for limitation to protect workers and the hindanal's annud thk d cancas t
Agrearment States. Conasqasntly, s ny public from the potentially harmful dd%slifedmanokkbased upaa i
rulemakings th'at evolve from this pokey effects of radiation.They are:(1) the further assumntion that the exposun will be soordinated with the States, justification of the practics, which kvdla se samefee each yur of a4 Advisory and scieaulicbodies have offered diversa views to the Commission seguires that there be some met benefit yurlifaume.
i in anticipation of this Policy Statement, resulting from the use of radiation or in uumaung es done estaab There la not clear consensus based on indloactive materials.(2) dose limits
- members of the publicthat might arisa 1
existir.g scientific evidence or research which define the opper boundary of through the use of various practices for I
regarding the selection of numerical edequate protection for a mornber of the which exemptions are being considered.
4 critaria for use in this Policy Statement.
public which should not be exceeded in the Canunission has decided to apply Further, the Commissloo is aware that the conduct of nuclear activities and (3) h concaput b'* effective dose J'
l there are differing wiews within the NRC AIARA which requires that redation equivdmnia cacept,whi6 b l
l staff onthe selectionof numerical dose he aslow anis reasonably bud on a compenson d b dMa M schievable.===fc and social factors mortdity diech d inizi"8 rdlauan j
criterialfor BRC.
being takeninto account.De term,
[,8* pennhs arougho o(
In the absence ofa scientif!c g,,g,,
g c nofk
't i
consensus,it is the Commission's task to AIARA.is anacronymfor Aslaw Asis wholabadF one'4utvalentof "'tial
')
Reasonably Achievable.The d
P assess the diversity of views in Casumisalon is interested ia assessing body uposures.%ia appmachwas establishing a res nsible BRCpoffey.
ne authority an7tesponsibility to make how these principles abould be applied onginaDy davdopedby 6e
- 3 the final selection of criteria rests with in establishing appropriate criteria for the Commission. Criteris selected must
release of radioactive materials from
($
"g'",, g;g a
i l
expnosed in he Publication 26 lasued in j
tebatory control.use of the absence of observed 2E Sim est Ume de concept has (1) Provide reasonable assurance that public health and safety willbe heahh effects below 6 rem / year (50 beenreviewed andevaluatedby protected, and (2) consistent with auch mSv/ year), scientific experta including radiation protection orgentrations assurance. permit practices in the public domain whichinvolve the use of the International Commission on throughout the world and has gained Radiolo cal Protection (ICRP) and the wide acceptance.
radioisotopes for which society
.Nationa CouncilonRadiation i
perceives a demarid.
Protection and Measurements (NCRP)
Teau.t r
(
it is recognized that thereis a delicate befance here. Criterte can be set make the as sumption that the frequency s ufficiently restrictive such that there is of occurrance of health effects per unit L8*llga'"
absolute assurance thathealth and does at low dose levels is the same as at
~ ~ ss,,,,,
e a n im aan ea m safety will always be protected,no high dosen (10 RAD ((k1 Gy))where i
emes eau health effects have been observed and matter what events might transpire.
studied in humans and animals.This sno*
mo" However. In doing so, the regulatormay linear non4hreshold hypothesis assumes 100== e then place undue and unnecessary that the risk of radiation induced c!Iecto j0g Ef, restrictions on practices which should (principally cancer)is linearly o., -
2xio-*
m e-*
be permitted because of otherwise proportional to dose.no matter how sg' N cosacam e4 **10" per 'em reasonable social,wan-h or small the dose might be. The coeflicient pypop,,,gica eg,R, industiral considmsms.There is used in the modelas a basis for co p always the d<.4ts ci over. regulation which results in effects that are felt in estimeting statistical health risk is on mnw oe ger. cance, from en sowcas sig areas where the NRC does not have the order of 2x10" risk os fatalcancer M.m m,, g g,
o,a s
authority and respocalbility.Moreover, per person. rem of radiation does mr mse.tinon. w asgggg
- urwes o the Atomic Energy Ad does not require (2x10-8 per SV).ne Commission ebsolute assurances of safety in the use recognizes thatitis a conservative
%,,s p i,,,,.,,,.,,, in,
, oo,
of radioactive material and hcensed mode.1 based upon data collected at eomaiem er sonae enemas to the tioor ero r=
relatinly high doses and dose rates Q'd,ly'C" * " **"*** "' **'"
- i facilities.
which is then extrapolatedin the low The Commission recognhes thatit is I
The numerica!cdteria ultimately selected will have significant impact on dose and dose rate region where there nuclear regulation bere in the United are no statistically reliable impossible to measure risk to States and potentially in the epidemiological data available, individuals or populations directly, and.
- - - - - - - ~
w 5
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday, December 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules 49889 i that in most situstions,it is impractical licensee's control (na tural background 1.Ee application or continuation of
- la measure annual doses to individuals and medical exposures are excluded).
regulatory controls on the practice does At the low levels implied by exemption -
Because of the oms 11 risks involved. a to not result in any significant reduction in decisions. Typically, radioisotope mrem (0.1 mSv) individcol dose criterion the dose aceived by individuals within concentretions or radiation levels from is proposed as the basis for exemption the critical group and by the exposed the material to be exempted are the decisions based on simple analysis and populstion ort i actual enessurements that can be made, judgements.ne Commissloa 3.ne costs of the regulatory controle cad doses are then estimated by specifically swks comment ca the need that could be imposed for dose cxposure pathway analysis combined for establishing a collective dose limit in reduction are not balanced by the with other types of assumptions mleted addition to an individual dose criterion.
commensurate reduction in risk that '
i
. t3 the ways in which people might If such a collecuve dose criterionis could be realized.
' become exposed. Under such conditions, needed, what is the basis for this need?
For purposes of implementing its conservative assumptions are frequently if the Commission decides that a policy, the Commission recognizes that
' used in modeling so that the actual dose, r;ollective dose criterion is needed, what only under unusual circumstances is on the low side of the calculated dose, approaches allowing truncation of would practices which cause radiedon
. De Commission believes that this is the individual dose in calculation of exposures approaching the too mrem per cppropriate approach to be taken when ' couecove dose or weighting factors for year (1 mSv per year) hmit be determiningif anexemptionfrom components of collective dose would be considend as candidates for exemption.
regulatory controls is warranted.
appropriate? What alternatives should he Commission willconsider such
- Collecove dose is the sum of the be considered for assessing societal circumstances on a case specific basis 1
' ladividual doses resulting from a impact?
using the general principles outlined in practice or souros of radiation exposure.
- ALARA-ne ALARA principle this policy statement. However, as the by cosigning collective dose a monetary generally applies to determining dose doses and attendant risks to members of v:lua. it can be used in cost benefit and _ = levels below which exemptions may be the exposed population decrease, the ether quantitative analysis techniques. It granted on a cost. benefit basis, is e factor to considerin balancing However,it is the purpose of this policy, need for regulatory controle decreases and the analysis needed to support a
-1 benefits and societalimpact.
to establish criteria which would,in effect, delineate achievement of AI. ARA proposal for exemption can reasonably
' Consideroflonsin Cronting E.xenqptions be somewhat simplified.
i h
ery CoM without cost. benefit analysis.
%e Commission is evaluating the use e7os 11be$m of two numerical criteria la defining the ne following elements are being pro est w at ctice and then take this information on where ALARA has been
- considered b therammlesion as a beels for evafusting practices which are - So acco, unt in controlling mgulated a md.ney ande) A cdtede im-
' proposed to be exempt from regulatory precuces so that the dose limits are not the maximum individual annual dose contml.nese practices,if approved.
exceeded.exem tionsimplysome reannaWy expected to be received as a would result in products containing low desme ofloss o[controtne result of the practice and (b) a measure levels of radioactive material being -
Commission believes that a key of scietalimpacuo the exposed
' distributed to the general public and considerstion in establishing a policy for Population.nese criteria are being exem tions,and subsequentlyin considered to assure that, for a given radioactive effluents and solid waste being released to areas of the publicly-specibc rulemaking orlicensing exempted practice, no individual will be
' recessible environment.
decisions. is the question of whether exposed to a significant risk and that the e justification-he Commission individuals may experience radiation population as a whole does t.ot suffer a seiks comment on the extent to which exposure approaching the limiting significantimpact.
s Gxp;sures resulting from any practico values through the cumulative effects of If the individual doses ficm a practice
= h uldbe justified. Aslowerlevels of more than one practice, even though the under consideration for exemption are s
radiation exposure are projected should exposures from each practice are only sufficiently small, the attendant risks liwer levels of benefit be required for small fractions of the limit.The will be small compared with other practice justification? In establishing its Commission specifically seeks comment societal risks.The Commission believes sxemption polic.y. should the on the issue. By appropriate choices of that annual individial fatality risks -
Commission exclude certain practices exemption criteria and through its below approximately 20**(one in for which there appears to be no evaluations of specific exemption 100.000) are of little concern to most reas:nable justification? 1n considering proposals in implementing the policy, members of society. Providing for some proposals for exemptions, should the the Comrnission intends to assure that it margin below this level, the Commission Commission evaluate the social is unlikely that any individual will proposes to mrem (0.1 mSv) as the level a:eeptability of practir.es? Should the experience exposures which exceed the of annualindividualexposure.The Commission determine a practice to be 100 mrem per year (1 mSv per year) incremental annual individual cancer unjustified if nonradioactive economical limit.
fatality risk associated with an exposure citematives exist?
level of to mrem per year (0.1 mSv per
- Dose 1.imits and Criterion-Principles ofExeinption year)is about 2x10-*(two in one Individual doses from practices A major consideration in exempting million) as indicated in Table 1 and of exempted under this policy should not any practice from regulatory control the order of 0.1 percent (one in one l
be allowed to exceed 100 mrem per year hinges on the general question of thousand)of the overallrisk of cancer l
(1 mSv per year).This is the dose limit whether or not applic.ation or death.
=
for members of the public specified in continuation of regulatory controls are in evaluating the need for a collective i.
the final revision of to Cm Part 20, necessary and cost effective in reducing dose criterion, the Commission Standards for Protection Against dose.To determine if exemption is recognizes that this criterion could be l.
Radiation.The dose limits in the final appropriate. the Commission must the limiting consideration for practices revision of to CG Pnt 20 apply to all determine if one of the following involving very smallindividual doses to sources of radiation exposure under a conditions is met:
very lar8e numbers of people. It is also l.
l
y
)
'49898 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 23a / Monday. December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules I
recognized that in such cases the from applicabfe !!canalng requirements.
the.t A1 ARA considerations have been n
- cellective dose criterion would, in effect. Approvalof a proposed consumer dealt with. This appenach is consistent IJ
. typly the AIARA concept to individus!
product dgends upon an assessment of with past practice, e.g., consumar E
doses less than the below regulatory exposures of persons to radiation as product rules la to CFR part 306 m
i-conorm level of to miem peryear to the wellac ansvath of the unfulasas in evaluating proposals far exeraption I
. Individual.Conwesely,where the of the product.
undes this policy,the pr@ted l
. collective dose criterion would not be '
Cartain practices involving radiation exposures to differest componenta of limiting, it would sern no porpose. Me or radioactive materials beva been
' the exposed population wulbe Commission requerts comments on this judgadby NRCtobe socia!!y canendered with regard to the potential issue, ineleding comments on what the unacceptable regardness el how trivial that some tedividuals anny acaive doses magnitude of the collective dose the resuhing done might be and, near tha 100 arem per year (1 m5v per criterion. If any, should be.
thmfore. haw been-W from I) limit when doses from 'ther If the doseis less than the below examption. Excluded practicas include.
practims em ein takw into regulatory concem enteria, then the risk but are notlladtedin theintentional emWebmIf expmurn fem from a practice would be considered to introductior.of radioactive materialinto multiple pesetices can occur which are be AIARA without further analysis.The toys and productaintandedfos significantly beyond the individual dose Coinmission stresses that adoption of ingestion.thhalation or direct criterion (to arem per year (0.1 m5e per the crtteria should not be construed as e application to the skin (such as year)), the exemption will not be granted decision that smaller dosee are cosmetical, recessary before a proctice enn be la addition to socially unacceptable without further analysis. As experience exempted, while doses abow the uses ot radioactive materials, a question is gained, this policy and its criteria would preclude exemptions. On also arises tes uses where there implamentation win be reevaluated with the contrary, the criteria simply are clear econo ahernatives,and regard to this inaue to assure that the.
represent a range of risk which the no unique benefits exist fram using amposures to the public remain well Commission beneves is sofficiently radioactive material.Where riaka are below 100 mrom per year (i mSv per aman compared to other individual and trielet, the regulatory prohlhition of such year).
nocietairinks that a cost benefit analysis uses could pose an unnecessary In addition to considerations of l
is not required in order to make a regulatory burden by interraring wah the expected activities and pathways, the o
decision agarding the acceptabuW conduct of businese.
Commission recognizes that an exemption. Practices not meeting De Commission seeks commanf a on considenha most also be ginn de these criteria may be grantad whether practicas should be potential for eccidents and misuse of the exemptions on a case by.csse basis in categorically excludedbased on the radioactive materials involved in the, accordance with the principles Commission's judgement regarding l
- embodaad within this policy.To further social acceptabi!!:y or the existance of practice. A propmal for exempdon at a s
defined practice must therefore also emphasize the Commission's recognition altematives. Anattematfee to that a rigid limitation on collecttve does categorical exclusion could be a case address the potentials for accidents or would be inappropriale, it notes that for specific determination based on a safety misuse, andthe consequences of these s:me practices, such as use of smoke
- analysis, exceptionalconditione in terms of individuals and collective dose.
detectors, appreciable benefits aan only be attained through extensive utilisatiors h0PosalsforDeepta, r Verification off.xemphon CornfiD*one and, hence, with a cammensurat*
A proposal for exemption must The Commissionbelieves that the collective de se.
provide a basis upon which the implementation of an exemption under The Comm'ssbnla swarethat Commisalon can determine if the basic existing reguh hons of the
- conditions described above have been this broad policy guidance must be Environmental Protectson Agency satisfied.In general. this means that the accompaniedby a suitable program to establish crite'ia more restrictive than proposal should address the individual monitor and vecify that the besic
(
exempt,lons which could otherwise be done and societal impact resulting frora consideratione under which an gran% under this proposed policy.
the expected activities under the exemption was issued remain valid. In L
Wit! regard to its own regulations,the exemption, including the use of the most cases, the products or materials Corr. nission wiu evaluate whether there radioactive materials, the pathways of comprising an exempted practice will are e temption critena embodied therein exposure, the levels of activity, and the move from regulatory control to the for which modification, acco g to the methods and constraints for assurmg exempt status under e defined set of incip e of this pohey,wo e
that the assumptions used to define a conditions and criteria.The monitoring l
practice remain appropriate as the and verification program must therefore l-Aclusiorrs from Exemptiorrr a,e be capable of providmg the Commission r
e mate amo om with the appropriate assurance that the The Commission's March %1965.
If a proposal for exemption results in e nditions for the exemption remain notice on the Use of Byproduct Material a rule containing generic requirements, a valid, and that they are being observed.
and Source Material-Products Intended person applyics to utilize the exemption The Commission wiD determme for use by General Public(Consumer
. would not need to addresa justification compliance with the specific condih,ons products)(30 f'R 3E2) provides the or A1. ARA.The Coremission decision on basis for the Commission's approval ci such proposals will be based on the of an exemption through its established l
the use of these materials in consumer licensee's meeting the conditions licertsing andinspection program and will, from time to time. conduct studies products without regulatory control on specified in the rule.The promulgation the consumer. user.This is accomplished of the rule would, under these as appropriate to assess the impact of l
l l
by case-by<ase exemption of the circumstances, constitute a finding that an exempted practice or combinations possession and use of approved items the exempted practice is justJied, and of exempted pescoces.
{
E
W, ag q f.l _
' {ljy ' 8 l
5 a @ i, 1
r,.*3
- 'a-w.
>. c
\\
\\
p...)Ch)
?,,),
, [.
E%
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday.' December 12. 1988 / ' Proposed Rules
'483g1 re,.niemew,Sa.
per e to a f,ectiori of ti,e ove,an
[1. Introduction'and Sammary NRC Ster e
Pn I.
th enempted sources :
- E.
- .Discuse,lon ' of Specific. Questione-Brief ~would be en c St. summer, e.d,ree.t.uone o,
..el - wed to involv,e individ-e,e e eme, rec,on
- queouses from adsduled perncipent.
of the overell limit. should floalbility -
' A. Application el prinalple el }ustincetion >
. be emintained by considering enernp ' '
i Including the questions,
tiene en a east beneht basis above SO
- 1. As lower levels of radiation esposuree '-
mrem /yeart 1 a tre projected, ebeeld lower levels of.
- 3. le the evolustion of souestive dose
' benett be for luonnection of.
Important la seneidenne the multiple.
L o prestees le e sendidate for esposum isesef
~
c esemptient:
.~ 4. Wul the a liesties of leeuAcesso ofl "S.
la establieldag enempden pehey.1
' practise he to malatein a essauer should the
%==h emelude es,,
number of soursos making it seeier to.
r
, tale procueos for wedsh there appeare costal meu exposurset i
. O be ao sessanoble jueurientient '
E How important le monitoring to meio.
+ ' SJan asesidering proposals for esemp,
teleing eseurenes that ladMdual on-i 4
n
. ties, shondd the Comedeelen evaluate de set amend to the owrau -
s 1 emelal steeptabutty of the practient :
II-J
- 4. Should the Casenniselon determine a: III. : General Disoueslan/Queettaa pened-to be emissuned if neo sedio.
Comunents or queouone by scheduled per-E eeeneminal ehematives existf ticipants. Open to the floor as thee per-8 888
~
E ladMdeel dose eritories for determudag riion'membem of inn public wem 'wish a 4ehenen at of e m low ao muo i chly acidevable" (ALARA) pneciple la.. participate by speaking at the sneeting i
Waempues desiehm se.idag-.
1should soufy one of the sentacts listed above, so that they can be scheduled in 1.- le the to swom/ year criterion pro-the egende.
p' s
posed by the Conusiesion appropnetel ' -
I h
- 3. le the appropdatenne of this number -
Deted la Rockvule. hieryland. this ad def
- cffected - by the decision regarding - of December 1 sees igehether e-eeuscuve dose asterion J should be need with the indMdeal h Shue. b -
,-e gene opggergeap.
Kancotive Directorf\\rr Cperations.
U
- 3. Should t14 ladMdual dose setterios [FR Doc.as-tales Filed 12-4Ha;445 em)
. be choses sa the besle of negligible emuus cens nos.es.m risk as le dans latessellossuy (la.
- IAEA Safety Series No. 3a) er een a somewhat p number. be used i bened en e yobey deci-sien regarding a level et individual 1 r86k for which empenditure of re.
sources is not warrested? E.
A
- 4. How important is international con '
sistency in shoosing en ledavidual.-
L dose criterient C. Llee of a ecuective does alterion for -
determining achievement of the ALARA
+ 1 principle la esemption decision making:.
i L la a couective does crherton needed W
z in addition to en individual does crite-
'=
- lrien?
s
. 3. If so, what is the beste of that need? L i
' 3. If the Commission decides a collective
' dose criterion should be used what should its magnitude be? '
14 What alternative to e enHective dose W
Ecriterion should be considered for se.
L L sessing societal hopect?...
l I C ', '
- 15. In calculating couestive dose, what Lepproaches eHowing truncation of la-g1
( dividual doses or the use of weighting
' factore.for componente of coDective
, dose are appropriate?
D.' Approaches for essoring total expo.
L eures of individuele from snutiple preo.
tions will not exceed the 100 mrom/
h
. year lindt.
L le the approach of generally limiting
' individuele doses from each source or
'.,m f:
i m
p
?
b].,
EC l DEN. is E. ECKARTJ WASHINGTON OFFICE:
{e
" - it ? DISTRICT, owiO i s
till LONGWORTH BUILDING a
W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20515 3511 h1 ;,
- M8M8th'
- (202) 225 6331 t
i coupitm ON -
. DISTRICT OFFICE:
l
~~ ENEROY b COMMERCE b
' 5970 HEISLEY RD. #220 i
cmmt ON E MENTOR, OHIO N1872 '
l lgp
. suALL sus: Ness.-
nie) s22m F: -L
,,cO"A,,
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
- ' 'a55:
'"5"
J y
' ANMRUST, DEREGULATION 6 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-PRivATizATION '
MSHMTM E M4.
L p.
DEPUTY WHIP -
.. g g
g.
gg Mr..Lando..W.>Zech, Jr.
Chairman?.
Nuclear-Regulatory Commission m
LWashington,.D.C._' 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
It. has :come. to my attention that the Nuclear Regulatory
-Commissioni has-proposed to redefine :and deregulate low-level
~
radioactive < waste. - As the Represent'ative from the lith district of Ohio, I'am:particulary. concerned about this proposal'.
]
Many of : the : residents of my district live or work ~ in - the -
I
, vicinity-lof the Perry nuclear power plant.
Furthermore, as'you-
' know, 90_ = percent. of' all low-level z waste is generated by nuclear
~
- power plants.1 Redefining or deregulating low-level. waste could result-in-dangerous' levels of exposure for my constituents and for many_others'across the country.
s 4
1 I: request that you update me on the status of the rulemaking.
1
!Thank;you.
m--
Sinc J
L o
i DENNIS ECKART a
Member of ongress l L-
' JDEE/wfm I [.
.j.
i 4/$NdybMg -f J-u-
.