ML20011F056
| ML20011F056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/12/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Lash T ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011F057 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002280022 | |
| Download: ML20011F056 (17) | |
Text
y
{
- b
- y 6
UNITED STATES -
i, eM M
' NUCYEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
'[
' WASHINGTON, D C. 20666 -
[
t February 12,:1990-CHAIRMAN i
-Mr. Terry R. Lash, Director Department of Nuclear Safety.
State of Illinois 1
1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield Illinois 62704 i
Dear Mr. Lash:
I am replying to the concerns you expressed in your letters of December 11 1989, and February 1, 1990, about a Commission policy that would exempt certain-radioactive materials from regulatory control.
In both letters, you specifi-cally raise objections to the disposal of below regulatory concern (BRC) low-level' radioactive waste (LLW) at sites other than licensed LLW disposal facilities.
I-plan to address your February 1,1990 request for ' assistance in implementing the NRC's Fitness-for-Duty rule by separate letter in the near future.
1 The. Commission's proposed exemption policy is intended to provide a consistent basis:for all-our decisions that allow radioactive material to be exempt from regulatory control._ Thus, the policy, although applicable to BRC waste disposal, would also provide the basis for decomissioning decisions involving the release of. lands, structures, or recycled materials for unrestricted use as well as decisions regarding consumer product exemptions. We believe the' nation's best' interests are served by a policy that establishes a_ consistent risk framework within which exemption' decisions can be made with assurance that a
human health and the environment are protected. Such a policy will also
- contribute to focusing limited national resources on those risks with greatest potential: impact on public health and safety.
- We disagree'with your view that State and-regional compact efforts to site new
- facilities for disposal of these wastes could be irreparably damaged by applying =the BRC policy to LLW disposal. Our view is consistent with Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste _ Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240),
E which directed the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) to establish ' standards and procedures to consider and act upon petitions "to exempt specific radio-o" active waste streams from regulation... due to the presence of radionuclides
... in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities to be below regulatory concern." In 1986, in compliance with the Act, we adopted a policy that l
established the standards and procedures that will permit us to act upon any p
BRC petitions we might receive (Enclosure 1). We believe that current Commission efforts to establish a consistent risk basis for all decisions on the release of radioactive materials by developing a broadly applicable exemp-tion policy (Enclosure 2) is in consonance with the intent of Congress under the Act. As you are aware, this policy development has been conducted in a l
3 h 9[
9002280022 900212 PDR COMMS NRCC dg PDC gu
\\
E l
Mr._ Terry R. Lash ~
2 very open manner over the last three years, and we intend to continue-to act in
' concert with State and regional compacts in their efforts to-site the new LLW facilities required by the Act.
With respect to your view that there is no need for a BRC policy because of the development of new LLW disposal facilities and the adoption of volume reduction methods, the Commission's decision to proceed with a BRC policy not and should not be based solely on_the real or potential availability or unavailability) of licensed LLW disposal capacity.
Regulation of very low-l level radioactive waste is unnecessary because it does not provide a signifi-cant public health and safety benefit that is commensurate with the resources i
expended.- We believe this view is shared by a number of States, such as the State of Texas, which has already successfully implemented a BRC program for waste containing low levels of radionuclides with short half-lives.
l Regarding the fiscal implications of a BRC policy on LLW generators, our
-regulatory responsibility is to establish the health and safety framework within which exemption-decisions can be made. The Comission is confident that waste exemption decisions made in accordance with this policy will be adequate to ensure protection of the public health and safety. Separate from this decision, fiscal decisions will be made by the facilities that generate the wastes. Despite uncertainties about the impact of the exemption policy on disposal costs, our understanding is that waste generators, including hospitals and research institutions, are interested in pursuing BRC exemptions, i
Finally, in your December 11 letter, you challenge the appropriateness of our adopting the 10-millirem per year value as the individual dose criterion in the exemption policy on the basis that it would be difficult to implement a BRC standard that permits greater exposures at unregulated facilities than could be permitted at Illinois' licensed LLW disposal facility.
In this regard, your adoption of the 1-millirem per year release standard for the Illinois LLW facility has not been accepted as a compatible regulation by the NRC. The 1
May 23, 1989 letter to you from Mr. Vandy Miller of our State Programs Office noted that the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) proposed Regulation 606.30 establishes an individual dose limit of 1 millirem per year, for which L
NRC does not have an equivalent standard.
In that this limit would be more 4
stringent than the 25-millirem per year perfomance objective in 10 CFR Part i
L 61, we are still awaiting your description of how IDNS plans to implement and l
enforce the 1-millirem per year standard and how this standard relates to the 25-millirem per year performance standard in IDNS Regulation 610.190.
The Commission is aware of a range of views on the magnitude and application of dose criteria within the context of a BRC policy (e.g., the examples raised in your letter to the Office of Management and Budget). As a result, the Comission has attached considerable importance to its rationale for selecting the numerical values within its exemption policy.
The Comission intends to develop a unifying risk basis for the dose criteria in the policy statement.
The relationship between risk and dose is derived from cautious extrapolations i
1
~
t:
f.
Mr. Terry R. Lash 3
~
of the most recent data available from studies of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and other individuals that have received.large doses of radiation.
The criteria are also compared to variations in background exposures received by. individuals in the United States and the increased exposures received from comonplace activities, such as cross-country airplane flights. The individual dose criterion, however, does not stand alone, but is coupled with a collective dose criterion and other constraints that, taken together, establish a sound basis for specifyin achievable" (ALARA)g a reasonable. lowe.r threshold for the "as low as reasonably principle.
In the broadest sense, our goal is to use our resources in a manner that provides the greatest assurance that no member of the public is likely to receive an exposure from exempt and licensed practices that approaches a significant fraction of the existing public dose limits.
We believe an NRC exemption policy has considerable merit in enhancing protec-tion of the public. The Policy Statement will serve as a framework for decisionmaking and will not, in itself, exempt any radioactive material from regulatory controls. As the rulemakings to implement this policy are deve-loped, we intend to continue to work closely with the Agreement States and regional coupacts to develop a consistent and appropriate regulatory framework' for exemptions and, to the extent practicable, minimize differences on these policy considerations.
Sincerely,
...abc%.. b Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosures:
1.
Policy Statement, Part 2 2.
Advance Notice of Policy Statement l
h l
l l
- ~- -
- - - ~
[
.;y APP MX)
~ App.B PART 2 e RULES OF PRNCTICN FOR DOMEST1C LICFNSING PROCEEDINGS :
I l
w 1 i j
i Appendia B to part F-Ceneral Stateswat limplementing liv generel appmesh authmed e
of pelley and preeedores E -..,
in shis policy etetement. Although eleff may -
,' petit.eas pwevent to i 3 aat ler Dupesel of hovise it fresa time to tiew me espertones le u ~
~ '
ned.oecun www suvene annow seined in prese pettuone, she pian.
L Reguletery Coneers.
'outhneeeevesene beew for essemphahing Llatroduction and pwpese the appreeclL Steflie to pubheh rev6stess se -
n.Standerde and precedwu NUREC documents and nouse the til Agrument sieles enilability of the mvisione in the Fedesel.
I; IV. Future Asuse Regleest.
As e precueel nietter, die primary j
L latoducWee and purpsee geformation for justifylag and supporting c
The law 4evel Radieestive Weele pokey poteelene must be supphed by the peeleiener W Amendments A41 etless (the Aet)(43 UAC to Comsatseien le to ese la en sapedleed anft h et seq.) wee enacted lemmary 16. Seegs meaner. lf the posaiener weehes to eesure Secues to of Ihe Act addresees despoest of supedited semen. to supporting ladesmetten wuwe termed below mguisiery esmeern-eheeld be sempiele sameh as that -
that would not need to be oublest to Comminies ecues is petaevey limited le regulatory control to seeere adequate independent evolusties and seminianegve
.1 secuen of the public heehh and safety preseming.
l S
ese of 6eir redensstive sentent.The geel Oseleien arttwee for Judelas geboter to of 61s escusa of the Act le ler to great a petellen involve to oveseR heposes of.
1 rwW-- te make pe eusal end thaely the propend esinen weses and.
decaiwu se deurman when wutu and asi
- -780ea of a.
- ensapesa, I
go to e henneed low level weste site.
% feBowles ersterte address tese emes.
l.
I nem doctoiens willbe empressed penenens which demoneerste that tese l
rulemaking. Ahermetive shepeast would artterte em met should be essneble der esaurve spear in the saiseng sites whee expedited ession.
I:
I mew elles en established one sedues to 1 Disposal and emetmeal of he westes es esew of disposal.Rulemaking petitions may specined la the postles wlR soeuk is no a
play a role in the national low sevel weste sipinsent impecs en the quality of die -
t
, stre euthned by the Ast h Act husman envimameal, 8
1 that the Commission estabheb 8 N monimum esposted eIIeeuw dose precedures for acting empeditieuely en equivalent to es ladiv6 dual member of the pesuses to esempt speedhe seabeessve pubhc dose est enesed a feiw adhsem per.
R weste streens tres the Commission's yur let mennel spentlene and emesipated I soeuleuene.
eveses..
g.The sabesgos desse to to misleal
! e. The purpose of thee statement eng scompen implementation pies is to
$popuiemen andgeneral een are emeR.
membhah eundade and preeedwu that 4.h pomamel eensequenses
- wGI permit the Commission to set spea
- etsessdeau er equipment rulemaking petitiene in en espechtless inwivtag te wutu and leerusies hee menaer se celled letla the Act.This pebey.
ahepeest ettee afwrless of normal statement does met sequhe peUUeam to hettunenal eenwale em not elpiteemt.
pneemt all the informauen outlaned er L The esempuse wlR moukin a elplReast demonstrale that the decision erteerts Ier.
nducuen,em asetetaloests, expedited handhas aan be met,if such
& The weste le sempenble with te supedated handhns 6e not wested.For propend trunnent and opuses.
esseple. peutione requesting esemption of y.The esempties is se e actional eencontreuens of r=A-a=** that might seale. l.a it is hkely to be need by a estegory
~ result la ind6viEl espesures higher than -
of heensees er et leset e espibeest parties of thou recommended in the densaan entene e estegory, may be submitted het espedated headisas gL The redselegical propertise of the Weste cannet be seawed.
sween ben been skuesterised en e amuses!
Ftmelly.this pebcy statement and beeis, the eer6ebuity hee been protected, and accompanying implementeuse plea are the reage of verleden erill notlevehdete intended to facGitete handhas of rulemaking supporung enelyses.
peuhens for streens tres meluple producers e.The weew therecterleetles is based se end do not apply to individuel bcensing date en wel westes.
actions on eingle producer weste.ladmdal to.ne dupeeed Isrm of he weew hu beensees who seek opprovel for dispeul of engligible potenhet for secycle.
their uniques wastee may sentinue to submit St.uceasees een estabhsh effecuve, their disposal plans ender to CFR 30.302(a).
heemable.pd laspecuble progress for alw E Studerdund preenduree "este prior to trenefer to siemonstrate comphence.
The etendards and precedurn needed to 12.The offstie amatmwnt er dwposal handle petitione expeditiously fell into the medium le d. osaltery landfill) does not need following thrve categorles:(t)lnformation to be controDed er monitered for tedaeuen petitioners should fue in support of the protection purposes.
pentions. (2) stenderds for aseesetng the 13.The methode and proudurn used to adequcy of the proposals and providm8 manage the westes and to eseese the imoeeds petitioners insight on the decision criteris the are no different from those thet would be Comuniesion latende to we so that all opplied to the corresponding uncontaminated relevent informetienelleeves wiu be
,,g,,g,g.,
addrea sed in the petition. end (3) the internal 1e There are no resvletory or legal NRC administretive procedures for handimg obstacles to use of the proposed treatment or the petitions These three categorin are disposal methods.
eddressed in the attached staff implementelion plan. The sief! plan wes IH. Agreement Steles developed in response to Cornmission ne 1.cw.inel Radioecove Weste Policy direction to provide detailed guidance on Amendments Actof tee 5 establishes a 240 ENCLOSURE 1
n '.
'4e APP. B(lli App.B
- PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS -
national eyeiem for duhne with low len!
A. General the petitioner if the Comminion to to act weste disposel, The sysum eteigne le the 1.10 CFR Part 2 Requirements in en expedited menner. Petitions for States responsibhty let disposal cepectly for
- 2. Environmentellmpacto rulemaking should therefore be 1
low. level wutes not emceeding Close C
- 3. Economic impact on Small Entities submitted following the staffs i
westes as defined in 30 CFR st.u. Section 10
- 4. Computer program supplemental guidance and procedures of the Act encourope e mduction in volume
- 8. Scope of such wuiu e%ct is Suw mopensibiiuy S. www Cher.ciertaisen to assure expedited action.-
for desbeoel through the option of detenntning 1.Redeelegical properties
- 2. Eniironmenfolinqpocis. Peutions that certain westee need not go to esisting 2.Other Cenideretum meet enable the Commiselon to make a,
licensed disposal feefhties er new eiwe
- 3. Telels finding of no significant impact on the licensed under le CFR port 31 er
. lent
- 4. Beene quality of the human environment.Such State regulatione.lf red-I es een be
- 8. As Lew as Renonably Achievable Commisalon findings must be based on eseured.such disposal concern spece (ALAR 41 en Environmental Assessment that in the existing estes while new sites are C. Weste Menegement Optione complies with 10 CF1t 51.30 and must -
developed. and would eerw as en imponent D. Analyen meet the requirements of 10 CFR 81.32.
1.
._-,l.4pec" Thu uiremph bduk ddtmi 8 adiumet te volume reduction efiene in 8 Otherimpects meeting the wate volume allecellen limite the w b Proped scHon.
set forth in the Act.Thee. these rulemeLage
- 3. Regulatory Analysis should aid the States in fulfilles their E R iG end Reportang idenHfying elktnaHves, and secessing responibihtiu under the Act. Equity slee
- 1. Surwys the potential environmental impacte of suspels that all www generatore be able to a.Repww the proposed action and alternauves, take adventop of below neutetery eencern F.propoud Rule Consletent with 10 CFR 81.41, the opuene es part of their weste management 111. Decielee Criterie petitioner should submit the information L
ettelegies.Genetetere in Loth Agreeement IV. Administrouw Handling needed to meet these requirements and t
and een f,r r States will be sempeting
- 1. latroduction do so in a manner thei permits for space in the saleting sites and the concept.
Independent evaluation by the should be applicable nationwide.
I Section 10 of the Low Level Commission of the data and p
to :r Suns willpier animportant Radioecuve Weste Policy Amendments aw"--
used and the conclusions mie in emur6ng that alw syews works en e
- Act of1985 requires the Nuclest noched.
!~
I bes ad mee equu*
Reguletory r'a==laalaa (NRCAto
- 3. Economic /sepocf on smo#entifies,
- ve, siend-de.nd ero-res t, when a,uiemahing.ciion is iiheiy io es,te. westes ore beiew,e,uister, ee.oern and do not have to go to low. level weste expeditious handling of petitions for have a significant economic impact on a sitee.m Sutu how been veistas this view rulemaking to exempt disposal of substantial number of small entities, the for a number of years tivough forums such as radioactive waste determined to be Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that g the Conference of Radiation Control program
, below regulatory concern.The Act also g the impacts on these small entities must
, Directore. Rulemakings granting penions will
- requires NRC to idenufy information 3 be specifically addressed. (The g be made a metter of compatibihty for
- petitioners should file.The Commission
- Commission's size standard for
- t iemaking g Policy Statement provides general
! identifying a small entity is 83.5 million E
,Md hS
. guidance on how to meet the
- or less in annual receipts except for K IV.Futum Ac6en
- requirements of section10 of the Act.
private practice physicians and m Comminion will conduct a peeric outlines the overall approach to be educationalinstitutions where the
[8g*,'(','",*,",'[",,,I*"
followed. and lists decision criteria to be standard is 81 million or less in annual
,ber of factois. The factors include public commente used. Implementstion of the general receipts for private practice physicians received on the statement, the number and approach and det.lalon criteria of the and SCO employees for educational types of petitons for rulemaking receiwd. and Commission Policy Statement involves institutions. See 50 FR 80214. December how effective the statement is in enabling developing more detailed guidance end 9.1985.) For any rulemaking. the timely processing of petitione. A paenc procedures.In accordance with Commission must either certify that the rulemaking is worrented to provide a more Commission 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 accomphshing the goals reflected in Section procedures forimplementation of the small entities, or present an analysis of b$sh Commission Policy Statement.This sta'f alternatives to minimize the impacts.
w th s
le a il Furthermore, the Commission may guidance and procedures cover:(1)
Because rulemekings on below periodically review all rulemakings in order Information petitioners shoulJ file m, regulatory concern should provide relief to assure that the televant parameters have support of petitions to enable expedited from requirements for all affected not changed significantly and may ask the processing.(2) discussion of the decision entities. satisfaction of this requirement petitioner to submit updated information to criteria, and (3) administrative should be straightforward but it must be essist in the review.The Cornmission would procedures to be followed.
addressed in any rulernaking.To also have to confirm that approved facilitate ex ditious preparation of the exemptions are consistent with any general
- 11. Information to Support Petit.
ions proposed tu responding to the petition.
standards issued by EPA.
A. Cenercl the petitioner should submit en Deted at Weihington. DC this 25th day of
- 1. M CTR Porf 2 requirements. The evaluation of the estimated economic l
^"'"
codified information requirements for impacts on small entities.The l:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
petitions for rulemaking are outimed in evaluallon should include estimates of l.
Samuel l. Chilk.
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR the costs for small entities in terms of Secretary to the Commission 2.802(c). These regulations require the staff time and dollar costs. Any Editonal Note: The staff implementation petitioner to identify the problem and alternatives that could accomplish the plan will not appeet 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 supporting impact on small entities should be implementatico of Nuclear Regulatory information and rationale. As e practical presented.The evaluation should Commission Policy on Radioective rnatter, the information derronstrating include an assessment of the Weste Below Regulatory Concere that the radiological health and safety incremental recordkeeping and reporting impacts are so low as to be below cmts that would be associated with the
!i o tion to Support Petitions regulatory concern must be provided by petitioned rule change.
. - ~ - - - -
y 4,
f App. SillO App, B(II) fPART 2's RULES OF PRACTICli FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS l~
- 4. Conqputer progrom. The computer concenir.itions should also be
- 3. Tolots. A subsequent rulemaking program (IMPACT-BRC) the p'nenied For incinnation, the besed upon en eccepted petition le Commission antends to un to radioactive content of the ash and generic. and the esemption will likely be l
independently evaluate petitioners-noncombustible fraction should be used nationwide.Therefore, to the
- i casessments of impacts is based on "De described. The variability as a function entent poulble. the petitioner should Minimis Wasae impacts Analysis of Process variation and varialion estimate the number of NRC and 1
Methodel "(NUREC/CR-38as) among licensees.should be addressed A8t" ment State licensees that produes published bruary 1984.8 petitioners and bounded...
the weste, the annual volumes and are encouraged to consult NUREC/CR-
- 3. Other considerol/ons. An j
INjIennushusadumof g
g ages in order to better understand the understanding of nonradiological die of. N u n w u h W Commission's information needs.The.
properties of the weste strees is needed d 4 ewrw sim u m e IMPACTS BRC program will be to assure that they are consistent with distributed by the National Energy the proposed disposal method and to HW wthWHty ova h numa (mumbk fWm.lf b Softwere Center on floppy diskettes for evaluate the adequacy of the analysis of poped ruk &aWiu bHun h w a M w bu see on IBM-PC sad compatible the rediologicalimpacts.(NRCa than nedonal scope (eg., a state or cosaputers.The Center's address ir 970C deregulation of the radioactive conteest comput roska), dw mule shew be South Cass Avenue. Argonne Natiraal would not mileve liceneses from the estimated for the titioned ' *P A Leberatory Argonne. Illinois GN33 Se applicable rules of other agencies which conomhuca di um mW a users suide for IMpACf5-BRC will h.
cover the nonradiological properties.)
blpful holin chrwurtsing dw wem publislied as a draft Volume il of The petitioner should provide a detailed stream.Fw namph, b Huaw NUREC/CR-35ts. petitione may ductiption of the weste materials, could indicate that10E the westes evaluate the impacts of the toposed includmg their ori in, chemical faU in the range of 1-10 picocuries per 6
activity using NRCs code. I desired, ition, physical state volume,and gres;80E feu in &e 10-100 rense, and When alternate calculational u.
305 in the M6-Moo mage.Such me&odologies are used, the petitioner The term " stream" only means wastes distribution would permit som realistic should provide all the specific input produced from a common set of aueusent ofimpacuin addiuon w aseded to analyse the weste stream in circumstances and posuosing cosmmon conservative boundmg estimates using the petition using IMPACTS-BRC and characteristics.it does not mean maximum valuu.in any een,he provide a rationale for all parameter
" liquid" although the etmas may be in a typical quantides produced per selectises.The Commission may clarify liquid form (eg, weste oil).The westes generator and an eeumete of the 3 or modify the computer code from time g may be main buds. laboratory g eographic distribution of the generators g
f essware, or any other form.Weste l
to time. petitioners choosing to use I NRCs code should be sure to uw the
'ormincludu packaan or contaiws l should be described.
t Sosis.The basis for the www a current revision. The National Energy g used to manage (i.e., atore, handle, ship.
et stream characterization should be I Software Center will provide changes to or dispon) the westes.The variability i provided N buis for charecurisauen
" persons obtaining the program from the a and pounhal changu in se wnu form a of the wastes and the total quantities
~ Center. Users are encouraged to as a function of procou varianon should produced should be described.
comment on the code so that their be addmssed.The verlation among Monitoring, analytical data, and licensees should be ducribed and calculauone should be specified. Actual capwience can be factond into future bounded.
measurements or values that can be mis;ons.
Compatibility with requirenwnts related to awasumments to confirm
- 5. Scape,The petitioner should define emociated with the propoud calculations am important.h the geographic area to which the management options should be carefully descripuon of the bases should include proposed rule should apply and the pruented.For example,1f the peutioner reasono supporting any area less than proposes that the wastes be incinerated, hunlity assurance aspects. For example, petitioner should describe the nationalin scope it might be possible to the waste form should be shown to be number of umples sansund,the justify limiting the scope to a low level compatible with the temperatures, flow repmuntativenen of the samples,and waste regional comoset or a state but rates, feed rates, and other operating the appropriateness of the instruments implementation issues such as import or parameters of typicat incinerators that uud.The statistical c'onfidence in the export of westes outside the compact or may be used.The petitioner should estimates should be evaluated.lf the state should be addressed in the identify the minimum requirements an petitioner conducted a'rty sprveys of rationale.
incinerator must meet to assure licennes or relied ori surveys by others adequate combustion.h form end to help quantify the amount and content
()-
B. Weste Chorocterimotion volume of the ash and other residue of wastes.they should be described.
1 from incineretion should be ducribed-Market information might be useful in 1.Rodiologico/ properties. The Similar consideration for disposal at characterizing weste generation on s minimum radiological properties that unitary landfills or hazardous waste national basis. Designation as a
- trace
- shield be described are the sites should be addressed. For example, concentration" should be related to cencentration or contamination levels wastes that include cornponents or specified detection limits, but detection and the half. lives. total quantity, and properties that would qualify the waste limits themselves are not sufficient identities of the radionuclides present.
es a " hazardous waste"under epa rules te ason to dismiss trace concentrations The chemical and physical form of the in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 265 should when methods exist to infer radionuclides should be addressed. All not be proposed for disposal at a concentrations, radionuclides present or potentially municipallandfill.
For estimates of the radionuclide present should be specified. including The potential for recycle should be content of the weste stream, the radionuclides identified as trece presented. Possible treatment, such as petitioner may take advantage of constituents.The distribution of the shredding, the would reduce the recycle licensee experience in classifyi radionuclides within the westes should potential should be described. Both the wastes for disposal at low levefweste be noted (e.g. surface or volume resource value (e.g salvageable metals) sites. For example, the transuranic l
distribution). Mass and volume average and the functional usefulness (e.g radionuclide content of the westes usable tools) should be eddressed. Both would likely be below detection limits.
short. and long. term potentials for but licensees have already established
- r men a ud et on.ct' ndo ma mMuMihnma ammam ca 60
,y l
4 App. B(lli APP. Billi PART 2_e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS l.
b complying with 10 CFR Part 31 wule be considered in selecting acceptable Petitioner's enelysis should addren the clonification requirements. Weste
- options, basis for parameter selection and cWectere h exped Pah 4 generators use generic scahng factors p,33,fy,,, _
indicate how likely the entreme case and factors established for their specific L
westes through sophisticated analyses.
To support and justify the submittel, iney be). In addition. the petitioner's ne scaling factors are used to infer the each petitioner sho64 include analyses analysis should also address potential presence and concentrations of many of the radiologicalimpacts associated exposures from handling and transport radioAuclides based on measurement of with handling. transport, and dispoul of accidents.The petitioner's analysis of only a few nuclides.The classification the specific wasus. Any incremental occidente should ir.clude all t
schesne in 10 CF1L Port 61 has been in nonradiologicalimpacts should be assumptions, data, and results to j
effect since December less, essessed. Also the petitioner should use facilitale review.The potential for Considerable data and experience the analyses to prepare and submit a shipment of the entire weste strea'n to ehould be avellable to allow detailed rephtory analysis with the one or a few facilities should be l
characterizing the rediological content petition..
assessed. Die scenario currently exists and composition of the weste stream
- 1. Radiologicol/mpoets.W for to CFR 20.30s exempted liquid being addreened in the petition.De evaluation of;ediologicalimpacts scintillation wastes and might result same principles outlined in to CFR should distinguish between empected from very limited numbers of treatment 41.55(a)(g) may be applied. i.e. values and potential expotures and events.
facilities or decontamination services.
l-based on direct measurements. indirect impacts should be awessed for the ne analysis of impacts for transport.
I snethods related to measurements, or expected concentrations and quantities handling. and disposal should include material accountability.
of radionuclides.De petitioner should evaluation of this potentialcircumstance
- s. As low as is reosonobly ochievoble quantitatively evaluate the impacts from unless it can be clearly ruled out.
//LARA). The Commission's A1. ARA the proposed weste for each option As suggested in Paragraph gg on page te tuirement in to CFR 20.1(c) applies to requested. The petitioner should clearly 20ofICRPPublication46 :
efforts by licensees to maintain relate the analytical findings to specific Eacephen from regulation and radiation exposures and releases of )
provisions in the recommended rule menieements en these bases should not be radioactive materials in effluents to changes. For enemple, the basis for each mud to snake it ponible to depen of lorse unrestricted areas as low is reasonably recommended radeonochde limit should quanutes of redsoectm mewfielin dilowd achievable.10 CFR Part 50. Appendix 1.
be clearly explained.
I* 8'I" di'id'd Ptions. sassing (L
describes A1. ARA for radioactive N radiologicalimpacts included in
[id u$ d "uw" materials in light water reactor effluents.
NUREC/CR-asg5 and in NRC's many smelt doses to individuals. Nor should Licensee compliance with 10 CFR 30.1(c) -
computer program (IMPACTS-8AC) they be wed te enempt octivisin that. by is a precondition to acceptance by NRC cover exposures to weekers and isolation er treatment. how been made 3; of any waste stream as enempt.
indwidual members of the public and wapwerily hermien but that imply lerne g herefore, a description should be 2 cumulative population exposures.The 1
l pownhal for releen and could am rue to a provided of reasonable procedern that I program calculates both externaldirect k'8 I"d'vidal dom w high collectiw dous.
5 weste generators would be espected to
, gamma exposures and esposures from 8
he analysis of expected radiological a
l use to minimise radiation exposures g ingested or inhaled radionuclides. NRC's
- impacts should clearly address:
- resulting from the disposal of the a computer program can be used to
- -The maximmn individual exposures.
exempt waste, e.g., removal of surface calculate the espected radiological
-ne critical group exposures contamination.These procedures are impacts from generetot activities.
-The cum.ulative population assumed to apply prior to characterizing transportation treatment. disposal esposures.
the waste to be enempted.
uin ratinna. aiul mi t.iliquesal inputs.
The maximum individualexposure i
i C. Waste Monogement Options U"' I""8'd"' d " d'."I" d "I'I" 'd"M" evaluation should include exposures to
)
os m.uugena nt optuni ein:huhng all members of the pubhc who may be l
The management options that the unute treatnu ni anil diyunal in the exposed beginning with the initial Commission can deal with empeditiously urnerator. shionn nt hi nmni ipal uaste handling at the generator's facility are those described in NUREG/CR-3535.
management facilities, and shipment to through post closure.Both internal i
Onsite options include incineration and hazardous waste management facilities.
uptake and external exposures should burial. Offsite options are municipal The pengram covers impacts beginning be included.De individual may be a waste disposal facilities (sanitary with initial handling and treatment by member of the general population (e.3, landfills). municipal waste incinerators.
the genera tor through i nel disposal of consumer of coryarrt nated ground i
hazardous disposal f acihties,and all the radionuclides contained in the water) or a person tieceiving the hazardous waste incinerators.
weste stream Sequentialtreatment.
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 facilities can a radiation worker should be considered materials. is a potential adjunct to either be assessed. Disposal of resulting ash a member of the pubhc.For example, a onsite or offsite options. Combinations 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 include commercial trash truck driver would not For example, wastes may be incinerated releases due to intrusion. ground water be a radiation worker.However, on site and the ash shipped to a sanitary migration, erosion. and teachate unpational exposures to radiation landfill.The favored disposal options accurnulation The program thus workers should be evaluated and should be identified and fully described.
addresses both expected and potential considered in the cost / benefit analysis The petitioner should evaluate a full post.disposalimpacts.
of the incrementalimpacts between range of options.The practicahty of the The petitioner's analysis of transport disposal at a licensed facihty and the proposed option (s) should be presented.
impacts should be based on a requested disposal options.
Waste carapatibility discussed earlier is reasonably expected spacial distribution The total population exposures can be one aspect.The national availability of licensees and waste treatment and estimated end summed in two parts.
and distribution of the opticais another.
disposal facilities which will accept the One part is the smaller critical group Updates on national regulations and wastes. The petitioner should address (usually the occupationally exposed laws pertaining to the proposed option parameters such as average and population) where potential exposures should be described and might have to extreme transport distances.The i
m
m APP B(II)
-App, g,i, KART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS-may be higher on en indnidual basis but end constreints are discussed more fully to implementation. For most radioactive a
the exposures and the number of of er this listing of topics.
meterials, the general DOT threshold.
F 1
caposed indwiduals are more (4) Decision totionale. This topic is a limits of 0.002 microcuries per gram l5 predictable and the exposures are short.
conclusions statement ht emplains why.
apply.However.h DOT inwd a final term.The critical group should be
- the preferred alternatiw(s) should be tvie on june 3.1985 (to FR 23811) that segment of the population most highly adoped.
amended 43 Cm part U3 to enempt low caposed exclusive of radiation workers, p)Japlementation. This topic covers specific activity westes as described in The other part is the general population the swps and echedules for actual NRC's rules in 10 CFR 30.306. (Note that imp mentation of the propowd rule.
DOT emphasized that the westes remain i
where the espected esposures and size of the exposed population are new The petiuoner should address the topic subject to the provisions aleted to other predictable, potentialindividual ime the waste omretorfs perspective hasards: see 49 CFR 173.438(d).)
(spoeyms are probably much smaller, and include survtys discussed under
'and esposures may extend over longer Topic tilA.S. Recordkwping and E AecortfAsepig andAaportig.
"" ',7 p,*,'"
A cos onefit discuelon is en
- 1. Surveys. Esisting regulations in i 10 two parts contribute to a more meaningful essential part of both environmental and CFR 30J01 establish general NRC oost/ benefit analysis.
Ngulatory Impact considerations and is, requirements for performing surveys as
- 3. Otherinpoets. The NRC oction to thesefore, essential to expediiad necessary to comply with part 30.
caempt the radiological content of the handling.The discussion should focus I.li ensees would have to conduct on espected exposures and e
,e esse,of the weste properties pr,ior to w:ste,in{'proceu,ns. or dispains o,,e c-eni,.uons o,,vanooes,valistic s m eys ha, s would not relien persons o,.nem,iu ai to ve,,
redionuclidu.The cost / benefit that the weste meets t prescribed j'
bPP discusion should include the limits.Such survey programs might did i T
P'tition shoulfdemonstrate that the Mmnual expmum and econmic consist d(1) fairly compmhensin costs betwwn disposal at a licensed initial sampling and analysis to confirm nonrod.iological properties g the low.leve,l waste disposa! site,,an,d,the,,
that,the, lice,nsee',s westes,will fall below
,wio.
e wesie se so-.s *
,,,,o,, *too,(,).,,,,y,,,,,
a - o,,uait cent,oG,r,o,,,e,m,,te
),,,,,,,,
g g,,=p m *d, pbyga t
r swateuw e nt Raucu %,de from not storing hasardous or conflee the initial ings, and (3 e com6uso * - i is mighi be a
,ouone so,vey -m,rio, to,eles.
.nonrediolog-P-* =0*pgt,,,,,,,,d,
benefit. Elimination or reduction of the of wastes to monitor for groes and the volumes of enempted waste hasardous properties (e.g., by irregularities.To show that licensees would not impact the normal operations, o incieradon) could be embr.
E can be expected to conduct compliance
. { there should be no incrementalimpacts. I Detrimental costs might also be I surveys prior to waste transfer, the Eim E """*" E' or ***rd " * " "
- g petiti wr should describe a sample 9
e h shou d red for Suf"Y Pmgram. The three components
- e the eP'cific wastes in the P'Ution, the
. economic impact on the licensed site just discuued should be included if petitioner should also address the operations (i.e loss ofincome from appropriate. for the weste stream.
=
additionalimpacts.
diverted westes) and its potential effect Records of the surveys would be 3.Regulatoryonelyss. Inorderto on the availability of economic and safe maintained for inspection.
s.
I expedite subse,uent rulemakingif the disposal should be addressed. Costs of
'I petition is granted, the analysis should surveys and verifying compliance 2.Jteports. %e petitioner should l
also address the topics NRC must discened under Topic it.E.
assume that annual reports on disposals i
address in a Regulatory Analysis (eg, Recordkeeping and Reporting should will be mqvired and that associated 1
see NUREG/BR-0056. Revision 1.
also be covered.The cost / benefit should mcordkwping to generate the reports
" Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the also mflect ALARA considerstions.
will be imposed. Minimum information U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *) '
Radiation worker exposure, public in the annual reports initially might Fdiowing the Regulatory Analysis exposure, and environmental releases include the type of weste. its volume. its I
format will structure the analytical might be appropriate in AIARA estimated curie content. and the place findings present the bases for decisions.
considerations. In weighing the and manner of disposal. increased and address the environmental exposure costs and economic costs for recordkeeping and reporting assissment requirements.The topics light water cooled nuclear reactor requirements would address are:
wastes, the petitioner could use. for uncertainties in projecting future (1) A statement of theproblem.This perspective the 31.000 per person. rem volumes or amounts of wastes and tipic is the need for determining which guideline in to CFR Part 50. Appendia l.
NRC's responsibility to consider the westes may be sefely disposed of by for effluent releases from these facilities.
cumulative impacts of multiple means other than shipment to licensed The petitioner should identify any exemptions.When these requirements IIw. level weste sites.
legal or regulatory constraints that might are proposed. Office of Management (2) Alternatives. Allreasonable impact implementation of the petitioned and Budget (OMB) approvalis required.
ellernatives to the proposed action change.The compatibility of the waste To facilitate NRC filing for OMB sh:uld be described.The no action or with the proposed method of disposal approval. the petitioner should indude status quo alternative should always be was dneussed under Topic II.B.2. Other any duplicating or overlapping reporting included.
constraints might stem from Departmerrt requirements, the number and type of (3) Consequences. This topic calls for of Transportation (DOT) labeling.
expected respondents. suggestions for an analysis of the impacts of each placarding. and manifesting minimizing the burden. estimates of the alternative described The factors the requirements for radioactive materials.
staff hours and cests to prepare the petitioner should address include costs Since the receiving facility will not be reports and keep the records and a brief end benefits and rectical orlegal heensed to receive radioactive desenption of the basis for the canstraints. Cost enefit consioerations materials, this could be an impediment estimates.The petitioner should also
a
.g.
RT 2 e-HULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS addsess whether changes in techmcal enternal exposure and the dose incurred heehh effects, this level of risk corvoeponde specifications or licenses may be from that year's intake of radionuclides.
to en ennul dou of thurder of 0.1 en6v (to needed.
While a range of 1-10 millitem per year millirem l.
might be acceptable, a one mdlitem dose However. in meet practical cou, the need -
F. Prifp,osed Aule wuuld facilitete expedited processing.
I "'*P*'" '"I" ' " '" "* '"I* *d essenment,to decide whether e source er
'h'rd****F9"i" ***
www suwe shovid be embiect to sentrol.
- ne P'tition should include the tent eatensive justification. Bened on a c.,,64,,eisen she.id be sian a ne need for or Iw p ru (sw 1 mortality risk coefficient for induced any optimisation of rediation protection and 3.a021cM1l1.The proposed tent should cancer and hereditary effects of 1x10-*
w the pou6bility thet many precitees and l
cover at least the following:
per rem (ICRp Publication as) radiation sources of the same kind could ammbene new (1) The quantity and/or concentreti,,n exposure et.a levelof millirem year er in alw futum w that their total diest my limit for each radionuclide present would result in an annual morta ity risk be sign &Gcant.even though each eewee j
g["L,,",*",g*[,'y*d,'d",I 8',",'9
- ['"y _
(trace radionuclides could be lumped of 2x10"(i.e 2x"effectsfrema-'mm/
,, g together with a totallimit):
yeer).
,,33,,,,,,,yg,,
(2) A method to deal with The EPA is developi criteria for umeinente d dose commiunessu and W ee radionuclide minfores:
identifying low. level to soactive waste collective dew per unH practice or eeures. 64 (3) The nonradiolog' cal specifications that may be below regulatory concern order w ensure thei che indiv6deldeu necessary te dequately define the as part of that agency's development of eequirement will not be neceded new or in neral environmental standards for the future,it seems almeet certain that the
- " * '"d ow. level weste disposal.The epa towl annel due w a e6nsle ind6vidal imm l
(4) The specific method (s)of exempt published an Advance Notice of
- pted eeurces will be ises then ten temos disposal.
Proposed Rulemaking on August 31.1983 he contribut6on from the pompwd source
((,'I"8 lf practicable,andif the supporting (48 FR 39563) and currenti hopes to be allowe b
information indicates the need, the text i publish proposed standa in earlF ns the annulladividal dose i
should also address other features such 1967.Other EPA standards that the eumption ertwrien from 0.1 to em m$v lto as annuallimits on each generator in doses can be compared to are the Clean a mdhreml.
terms of volume, mass,or total Air Act radioactive release standard of ne RC stehcognian est emnes, radioactivity, and administrative or 25 millitems per year in 40 CFR Part e1 2 uman medions em nd to strWy h
procedural requirements includmg and the uranium fuel cycle annual whole g ody limit of 25 millitems in 40 CFR 130.
[ governed by quantative consideratione 3;
se controls. surveys, etc., that have b
g include the various dose limits used to g One millirem is very small wtwn
,h'j d '
discussed.The text should not 4
a compared to naturally occuning
' seems about as low as practicabk' i justify the proposed radionuclide limits.
e background doses from cosmic and
,,,,,,, g,,,, g,,,jg,g,,gg;,,,,
y tenestrial sources. Background doses in
- y'$$"gygg[',y,Qbl '
d
- III. Decision Crheria
' the United States are typically in the 100-120 millirems per year range Radiol'8ical Protection Board has The Commission policy statement exclusive of the lung doses from redon.
issued generic guldence on de minimis estabbshes thei the following enteria One millitem is also small wiwn should be used by staff as guidelines for compared to the annual 500 millitem
'f' g,
P n
at acting on a petition. Each criterion is dose limit for individual members of the Guidance issued the President in this repesied and staff views on genere! publicin Federal Radiation country %eBoa identified effective implementation are discussed.
Council guidance, dose equivalents of 8 millisem year
- 1. Disposal and treatment of the An imponeM futum is that dows of wastes as specified in the petition will up to 1 mi!!irem from the individual as insignificant when members the public make their decisions.The 8 result in no significant impact on the Petition should miumise concerns over milli H reptemW W1 dm quality of the human environment.
ex]s" contribution from all exempted ms I licall ad essd practices. For individual practices, the Discussion: Unless this findmg can be individual dose limits and other lesues Board divided by 30(i.e 0.5 millirem made during information submitted by related to emmptions and stated.in per ear) to account for expmum imm the petitioner, the Commission must paragraphs 83 and 84 on page 19, mut iple practices.These limits are prepare an EnvironmentalImpact M*"Y '* d
8 Poeures rout nely applied genericall. Less conserveilsm
',M','i ik",'*',",
"c'h",pr et o" M ne ""d th' "'tl d'
"'d #i'""**t*""'
Ststement io more fully examine the proposed action, ehernatives to the 3
y m associated with specific weste streams
~
proposed action. and associated public.are very small b comparison with potentialimpacts of alternatives.
dose hmits or natural ekstound.and are and disposal options envisaged in this Preparation would likelyinvolve well below dose levels at which the NRC statement seems justified. In e -
contractual support and would likely appearance of deletenous heelth effects has proposed policy statement dated hiay 6.
been demonstrated. In individual.related 1965.' the Cenadian Atomic Energy take 2 years or more to complete.The Commission could not act in the petition essessments. It is widely recognized that Control Board specifically addressed
- "'ney 'n*wohe noks that would be disposal of specific westes that are of no m ddli n d** th*' m
- Small in an expedited manner.
nat i
regulatory concern. An individual does
- 2. The maximum expected effect Ye regarded as neghgeble by the esposed limit of 5 millitems per year was dose equivalent to an individual individuals stud es of comparsine noks proposd for this limited application.
member of the public does not exceed a empenenced by the population in various A maximum individual exposure of 1 at to i d at at an enn few millitem per year for normal v6tys ap d
hhwhe operations and anticipated events.
year or less is not taken into account by Appendix l to 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix Discussion:The effective dose individuals m their decisions as to actions I specifies design objective doses for equivalent means the ICRP Publication that could influence their risks Using operational light-water. cooled nuclear 26 and 30
- sum of the dose from rounded dos, response factors for induced power reactor effluents. nese design
~. -.
l
.e App.. Bilit i App. B(IV)
PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS I
objectives include annual total body e.ne weste is compatible with h and projected waste characteristics.
dows of a millitems for hquid effluents proposed trutment and dispoul nporting on the wastes actueuy and 4 millireme for geoeous effluente. lf options.
treneferred for below regulatory concern ensite incinbration et reactore le Discussion:nle criterion nlates to disposal will be important and should peutioned for es e specified disposal the nonradiological properties of the be practical.
opuon. the petitioner should address wasta. For saample, dispoul of 13.no offelu treatment or disposal how tlw propowd activity, combined radioactive westes that also qualify se a medium (eg., sanitary landfill) does not with all other effluente from the sites.
- "'ediological hasardous material need to be controlled or monitorvd for would not exceed the des' objectiv, should be proposed for disposal redieuon protection purposes.
'I doses in Appendix ! to 10 Port 80.
me& ode in acconM M mgulations Disesssienth evaluenon of s.h collective doses to g,,gg,,,
le4 incinereuen or disposal et a expected exposures should provide the population and general population m' hasardous waste facility). Also, wastes basis for meeting thle criterion.
small.
proposed for incinereuen should be Howewr, this is an area where NRC combusuble and wastes proposed for will ha e a continuing responelbility as Descussion: An additional advantage landfius should be appeopriate for muluple petitions are processed.
when individual doses are no more than disposal in typical landfille anywhere in Re on actual disposale willhelp 1 millitem per year le that the collective the netton.
NRCa e thle responelbility and doses are then summations over very -
y.h exemption le useful on a snonitor the adequacy of the limite emell exposuru.h collective dose national scale. l.e it le likely to be used included in the exempted disposale ev:1uation is primarily for information by a category oflicensees or et least a 13.ne methods and procedures used purposes. cost / benefit considerations,
.significant portion of a category.
to manage the weetes and to assess the and to confirm the (mding of no
! Discussion: Rulemaking le usustly not impacts are no different from those that t
significant impact on the quality of the wervented for wastes invol a single would be applied to the w ;--M human environment.nle determination licenses,whether a continui posal uncontaminated materials.
l.
win be made beoed on talermetion activity or a one time die Such Discussion: Since the receiving facility cvanable during the review of each propeeste by individual licensees are will not be licensed foraedioecove petiuon in concert with criterion 5. Staff normally processed as licensing actione materiale, special handling or measures notes that the United Kingdom policy on under to CF1t 30.303(a).
ebould not be required et the processing individual dose limite includes an 4.& radiological properties of the or disposal altee because of the associated collective dose criterion.
waste stream have been characterized radioactive content of the westee.nis 3 (W collective dou criterion must be on a national basis. the variability has criterion also means that realisuc l
3 nwt in addition to the individuallimite).
R been projected, and the range of g essumptiene about the disposal methode l.
- In ICRP Publication 46, a similar I variation will notinvalidate supporting g have been made in estimating
{ criterion is stated.
e analyses, t
a exposurn.
Discussion:One of the merite of a
4 ne potentialradiological
=
14.nere are no regulatory or legal
" consequences of accidents or equipment ;; dealing with specific weste streams le
" obstacles to use of the proposed malfunction invohing the wastes and that the actual properties of the waste
- treatment or disposal methods.
l intrusion into disposal elies after loss of etnam can be tel ed upon in estimating Discussion: To have precucal use, the norma. l institutional controle are not impacts rether than conservative disposal option must be available. For
'I "Ig'***b bounding parameters.no specific example.if allhasardouswaste 8
Discussion: Potential doses from
[thways that must be considered can facilities that accept offeite wastes are limited to manageable numbere.ne closed or are not reasonably distributed.
accidents or intruolon should be we within public exposure limite end lage expected fate can be cmdibly limited the practicality of an exemption to allow based on the properties.
disposal et such sites le questionable.
lato account the probabilit or 9.ne weste characterization is based Since the receiving facility will not be possibility of such events. a statement on date on real westes.
licensed for radioacuve meteriale, dated April 26.19e6.* the Intemational Discussione. Actual dets on real waste shipments to landfille or hasardous l
Commiselon on Radiological Protection provide reasonable assurance that the waste facilities should not require (ICRP) stated that the ICRP's present waste characterization to accurate.
Identification as radioactive materiale.
I view is that the principal dose limit for 10.The disposed form of the waste members of the public le too millireme in has negligible potential for recycle.
IV. Adelaistrative Handling a year.The ICRP further stated that the Discussion: Eliminating the Agency procedures for expeditious 600 millitem lireit from ICRP Publication 36 could be und as e subsidiary limit -
uncerteintier aesociated with recycle le handhng of petitlone for rulemaking necenary to e3.wditious bandling.
were initially published in 1982 in L
provided the lifetime average does not Spec lying specific westes and specific NUREC/BR-0053. "Regulatione exceed the principallimit.
methods of disposal narrows the Handbook."8 ne procedures are Consequently, potentiel exposures from pathways and timeframes to contained in Part 11 of the Handbook accidents or unexpected events would manageable numbert and were most recently revised in be rnore easily justified if they are well
- 11. ucensees can establish effective.
September 1985. Because of resource below 100 millirem per year principal licensable, and inspectable programs for limitations and other factore, these J
limit.
the waste prior to transfer to procedures have not been fully
- 6. The exemption will result in a demonstrate compliance.
Implemented. Pettuons for rulemaking significant reduction in societal costs.
Discussion: Survey programs and submitted in accordance with the Discussion:When the economic end quahty control programs will be needed Commission's policy statt. ment and thle
~
exposure costs associated with the to provide reasonable assurance that staffimplementation plan will be exemption are compared to dispvsal at e actual wastes disposed of under an processed in full comphance with these licensed low. level weste site there exemption rule meet the specified procedures. These procedures coupled should be a significant reductionin parameters. Since disposal would be with agency policy to complete all
' ccets.
exempted based on both estabbshed rulemaking within 2 years will provide
(
P
-e c
y
' (.'
i T
App. c(II):
'A App.a(IV)-
PART: e MULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCE{ DINGS Ew Festestes.
p p; s espeditious action on the petitions. in,
eCopies of NUREC/BR eo63.NUREC/BR-cddition, the Handbook notes general '
eene and NURec/CR-ases mer be purcheeed E
L oct.eduling advice that proposed rules to = _ sowough the UK cowenment Printing omes -
grant petitione should be published in 6-by camas laerl ers-sono er by wening # da P
l 32 months efter ecceptance and UA G**ernewat Prinung omes. P.O. tu.
- aan Weem ta.DC se 6-mu Cepke.
l1 s
publication for comment. Proposed rules de uenal wul be f6rwarded to th.e Commission en
.y debey,rehmd e
g De,or, men,,,,Commeree.,m,,,,e,or !
e mon echeduie io e e. ni permitted by resource limite, the asture -
need, sp,tig leid, yA gries. Copies eneveineble for taepeci.en endler empytes Ier a g g
and extent of public esamente, and -
laternel Control of Rulemakines fee la the NRC Public Deeumont Room. IFl? I procedures.Rulemakings invoi
~
H Sweet.NW.Weeksten.DC so6n l,
sower reactore must be reviewed the 88CRP Mheeuen a wieum -
Pmiseum Principla ler 8. Du dSehd Committee on Review of Generic N
"'n" m. 1
]
Seguiremente pr6er to publicellen.
. ere in.,,eue g cem.ienise se h
une proposed ruin involving reestors wGl.
therefore be forwarded to the Red. ele nesi Praecuen. edepud ienoory tr. -
r===taa'-i on a 7. month schedule to terr. ickr Pubheauen a simiw ler inieke eenumente, and approval procedures. la
- 3e8E jl j
the extent permitted by resources, of Re"8% by Werken."adspeed July l (-
both cases, every effort will be mode to -
- Copies of the Uniwd Eigdea's dummet
- "*""*I*'8"*P"""""*'""""
publieb d rules no later then 12 SgCV e6-147A leeleting to 10 CFR Port a'p) a I
months ter noticing for public -
deced Idy n sees in the 'ami- 's -
r Public Document Room. trt? H Sweet NW.
esament..
the procedures la Part t1 of I Weehington. DC asan The United Kingdom NUREG
-00s3 incinde feet treek documents we oveliable for sale frese Her processias.t!* netwo of the enticipated
. misety a Sieuenery omes p,o. sea see, petitione do not fuDy comply with the landen Ses eNH. United Kingdom u Advies deament ASP-7 and a mised Wehnical decialen eriteria lo fouew this.
@ The Signincence of SeeB Deen of -
alternetive I
Ii Solee of the key features of the ggyg
' l bandlirig procedums include the
- Copies of the Cenedian document em n foRowing steps for complete and fully..
avalieble for inspection as en encleeum to.
em supported petitions.
SgCY 46-147A trelating to 10 CFR Port 30)
' C L Petitionere may eenfer on -
dated luly a sees in me Commaneien's~
ural matten with dw stoff before Pubhc Decewnt Rum.17t? H Stree NW.'
Weem ta.DCaesnTheCasedian-s a petition for rulemaking R d " C'"*"I""
to ennie' "" Procedural metters bueste d'*"" *" '.'"*"*he Buis Ier F.nempung the !
Document C 45 T r
.be addressed to: The Director. Division Depeal of Cermin Radientive manale
.of Rules and Records. Office of tem usensine by the Asemic Energy Adelaistration. US. Nuclear Regulatory Centrol Beeraf."PA tem tees. 0tuwe.1 t%==Imaion. Washington. DC 30586.
ontene.Cenede. KIP 50s.
' Attention: Chief. Roles andProceduree
'ICRPles/c es. " Statement from the sees Branch.
Parte Weting of ein international Comminia a Redwiegical Preut."sm6-
- 2. Petitions should be eddressed to:
The Secretary. US. Nuclear Regulatory Comenisalon. Washington.DC 20685.
' Atiention: Docketing and Service Branch. In keeping with 10 CFR 2A02(f).
D petitioners will be prompdy informed if l'
the petition meets the threshold rottuitemente for a petition for rulemaking in it CFR 2.802(c) and can be processed in accordance with this implementation plan.Ordineruy this determination will be made within 30 days after receipt of the petition.
- 3. Following this determination, the petition will be noticed in the Federal Register for a public comment period of
. et least 60 days.
l 4.The petitioner will be provided copies of all commente received.
. ocheduling information, and periodic l
status reporte.
The procedures in NUREC/BR-0053 also include the proceu for denial and 1
withdrswel of petitions.
w.
s v
- ~-
- 9 y
4
~!
49086 Federal Register / V01. 53, No. 238 / Monday December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules f
~
1 1
I l
i l.
'l l
l l
l
~ _ -.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY.
COMMISSION 10 CFR Ch.I p
' Policy Statement on Exemptions From i
Regulatory Control Asancy:NuclearRegulatory.
Commission.
Ac1 nows: Advance notice of proposed statement and meeting.
l l
suwwany:The NRCis in the process of developing a broad policy on exemptions from regulatory control for practices whose health and safety impacts could be considered below I
regulatory concern. Dis policy I
statement would provide for more l
efficient and consistent regulatory actions in connection with exemptions from various specific Commission requirements.%e Commission. in formulating this Advance Notice,is seeking public input on some specific ENCLOSURT 2
I
- Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules dese7
' questions which am key considerations country's border it is hoped that Commission may initiate the l
in developing such a policy.ne NRC exchanges ofideas and information development of appropriate regulations staff w 11 conduct a meeting to inform such as occurred at the intemational or make licensing decisions to exempt E
the public of its intentions, specifically workshop will, besides providing one from regulatory control persons who -
ti clarify and answer questions
. avenue ofinput to the Commission's receiva, possess, use, transfer, own, or l
L concoming the advance notice, and to actions, lead toward a greater degree of. acquire certain ratioactive material, u
. bear prehminary views concoming a consistancy in such exemptions world.
%Is poheyis directed principally policy for exemptions with emphasis on wide. At the intemational workshop, the toward rulemaking activities, but may t
the specinc qumtions raised by the
" Advance Notice of the Development of be applied tolicense anwndments or Comedesion.
a Commission Policy on Exemptions license applicationsinvolving the i-oAvst Meeting to be held on January from Regulatory Control for Practices release of licensed radioactive material.
i 1
- 12,1989. Written comments should be Whose Public Health and Safety either to the environment or to persons submitted by January 30,1989.
Impacts are Below Regulatory Concem", who would be exempt from Commission Comments received after this date will presented in this notice,was made regulations,it is important to emphasize -
be considered if it is practical to do so, available for discussion. The transcript that this polcly does not assert an but assurance of consideration can only of theintemationalworkshop which absence or thmshold of risk but rather 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
['""
splaum to aduce deks Aconessat Meeting willbe held at the for a fee at the NRC Public Document g,
Holiday Inn,8120 Wisconsin Avenue.
Room at 2120 L Street, NW.,
Bethesda, MD 20814 (4 blocks north of Washington, DC.
De concept of regulatory exemptions the Bethesda Metro Station). Telephone: Advance Notics of the Development of a 197[th uls (301) 652-2000,1-8004654329. Mall rs i
p gcy bke d d
E jf introduction andPWpose concentt one o tive material a
w ic a pmon,undacedain Washington,DC,20555 Attention:
Over the last several years, the circumtances, could scim,pams, Docketing and Service Branch.
Commission has become increasingly use, transfer,own, w acquim went a Comments may be delivered to11555 aware of the need to provide a general mquimmoda a Ucense(25 57875:
Rockvule Pike, Rockville, MD between policy on the appropriate criteria for August 1.1980 and 35 m 6426:Apdl 22.
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.
misase of radioactive materials from 1
the mmpdm aHowing Copies of the comments received may regulatory control To address this need, be examined and copied for a fee et the the Commissionis expanding uponits distribution of consumer products or NRC Public Document Room at 2120L existing policy for protection of the other devices to the geral public, or au mleam Mradioacun Street, NW., Washington, DC, public from radiation, currently materia to the environment, have been
. pon puertwas peronesATmes costrAc'r:
expremdin exW replauMTitle embodiedin the Commission s Catherine R. Mattsen, telephone (301) 10 Code of Federal Regulations) and licy statements (30 FR 3462.Use of "8"I'U", the law level Radioactive I" **" U" M" 492-3638, or William R. Labs, telephone (act)492-3774. Office of Nuclear hypmduct Materialand Source recently Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Material, dated March 16,1985:47 FR Weste Poucy Annendants Act M1985 Regulatory Co==laaion, Washington, 57446, IJcensing Requirements for land dimeted the Commission to develop DC,20555.
Disposal of Radioactive Weste, dated standards and procedures for l
supptmeattrARY NfPORetATBoet December 27.1962: and 51 FR 30839, expeditious handling of petititons to GeneralStatement of Policy and exempt from reguladon the disposal of InternationalWorkabop Procedums Concoming Petitions slighuy contaminated radioactive waste material that the Commission in addition to conducting this public Pursuant to i 2.802 for Disposal of meeting, the Commission has sought Radioactive Weste Streams Below detamined to be below mgulatory input from the international agulatory Regulatory Concern, dated August 29, concern.De Commission msponded to community through an intemational 1986).The expansion includes the thislegislauon byissuing a policy l
workshop on exemptions from development of an explicit policy on the statement on August 29,19e6 ($1 FR regvlatory controlwhich was held exemption from regulatory control of 30839).Dat statement contained criteria October 17-19,1986 in Washington, DC.
practices whose public health and which,1f satisfactorily addressed in a De importance of such interaction safttyimpacts are below regulate -
peution for rulemaking, would allow the stems from the fact that many existing concem. A practice is defined it nis Commission to act expeditiouslyin and potential exemptions involve policy as an activity or a set or proposing appropriate regulatory relief radioactive materials purposefully used combination of a number of similar sets on a rectice specific" basis consistent in consumer products or introduced into ' of coordinated and continuing activities with merits of the petition.
various products or materials through aimed at a given purpose which involve ne Commission believes that these thz recycling of contaminated scrap, the potential for radiation exposure.
" practice. specific" exemptions should either of which may enter internauonal Under this policy, the definition of be encompassed within a broader NRC trade. Even effluents and waste disposal " practice"is a critical feature which will policy which defines levels of radiation can involve exposures to people in assure that the formulation of risk below which specified practices countries other than those from which exemptions from regulatory control will would not require NRC regulation based the effluent or waste originated. Die not allow deliberate dilution of material on public health and safety interests.
aspect is a significant issue in the or fractionation of a practice for the For such exemption practices, the European community,%us, some purpose of circumvet, ting controls that Commission's regulatory involvement degree of consistency internationally is would otherwisn 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
l desas l'ederal Rept- / Vol S3. No. 23a / Monday, Deceinbec 12. naa / Proposed Roles the radioative materia 1 from a controDad international ~~~=hy.m values Alternativeh eens have beem under cannularation la elsPobey propoemd reeval ations of thedata to an exempt statua.
The Commission recognizes that. If a Statamant do not nacataarily agree with been at higher doses continae.N netional policy on exemptions from those selected or under consideration by Commission believen that noe of the regulatory controlis to be effective, other countries.h Commlssion has linem noMhreshold hypoks!e aUows Agreement States will pay an importani care.funy reviewed thoea alternata the theestacal establishment of upper i
implementation role. In the past. States criteria, and does not find significant kahta on h sunbar of beatlh effecta have been encouraging findings that
-a.mn, evidence that would dictate that smight occur eLwwy low dosee i
certain westes m below regulatory preferential selection at any of those which are the subject of the exemptaan concern ered the Commission believes views oves wbstis proposed in this policy" risk of daae to am (adhideal. u j
that States will support an expension of Policy StatemenL h
i calculated using the1maar modella i
)
thm views te sU practiew lavehing Radiados Petecdos P4sciplee abowninTablat forvanous defined 4
"*Pt distribution or release of The Comadesion recognizes that tiuse levela et individual does A radiation 2
radioective materfatne Cornmission intends that ruismakings eodifying fundamentalprindpies ofradiation azposum dM anos per yew M mSv rotection have historicaUy guided the per year)for alifetime nde j
regslatory control exemptions wiD be gonnulation of a system of dose theoreticahy to an incre a of j
i made a metter of compatibihty foe limitation to protect workers and the hindividsal'a annual dak d cancas r
Agreenwat States. Consequently, any rulemakings th'at evolve fmm this pokey public from the potentially harmful death.hlifetimarisklabased upos 1
will be coordinated with the Statea.
effects of radiation.My are:(1) tien eat Waame b furear auumfee each year of aM.
Advisory and scientific bodsea have justification of the practice,which levelis thesame I
offered divarea views to the Commission requires that there be some net benefit year tirah i
resulting from the use ofradiation or in numating en dou estaato in anticipation of this Policy 14stament tedioactive materials.(2) dose limits.
members of the publicthat might arisa bre is not clear comeassue tamed on which define the apper boundary of eroughes miwien prukes fw 1
existing scientific evidence or research, edequete protection for a snember of the I
hich bei d
regardibthe selectionof numericaluse in this Policy Statament.
public which should not be exceeded in hCo has decided
- Pp F
)
criteria Furthw the Commission la aware that the condact of nuclear activities and (3) g i
there ase differing views within the NRC ALARA whichreqmrosthatredation g,,,,,d,, og g,,ggDia ""**P' whih
'9gjy,g 8
staff on the selectionofn-a*al dose be aslow asis reasonably beandona comparison of the delayed y
ar.hievable, samamic and social factors mortality effects of ionizing radiation criteria!for BRC.
In the absence of a sefantifIc being takeninto account.h term, "posums.pennits eroughoas d consensus, it is the Commission's task to ALARA.is an acmeym for As Law Aais wdgWng femes calcula6m of es Reasonably Achievable.The whole body dona equivalent of partial l
assess the diversity of views in Comrnission la interested la assessing body exposures.This approachwas establishing a res onsible BRC policy.
I De authority anfresponsibility to make how these principles should be appliedoriginaDy developed by the j
the final selection of criteria rests with in establishing appropriate criteria foe IntmauonalComrnission on 4
the Commission. Criteria selected must release of radioactive matedals from Rediological Protection and was first (1) Provide reasonsble assurance that regn!atary control.
expressed La its Publication 26 issued in Because of the absence of observed 1977. Since that time, the concept has public health and safety win be health effects below Erem/ year (50 been reviewed and evaluatedby protected, and (2) consistent with such mSv/ year). scientific experta including radiation protection organizations assurance, permit practices in the public domain whichinvolve the use of the International Commissian on throughout the world and has gained radioisotopes for which society Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the wide acceptance.
National Council on Radiation i
perceives a demand.
it is recognized that there is e delicate Protection and Measurements (NCRP)
TABLE.18
(
f balance here. Criterie een be set make the assumption that the frequency sufficiently restrictive such that there is of occurrence of health e!!ects per unit 18se'as 'uk absolute assurance that health and does at low dose levela la the same na at
""""e#.'**" >M M
1 safety wl!) alwsys be protected, no high doses (10 RAD (0.1 Gy)) where i
enauesease matter what events might transpire.
health effects have been observed and However, in doing so, the regulator may studied in humans and animals.This 100===*
- 10
tuo-'
then place undue and untiecessary linear non-threshold hypothesis aasumes j0 ",,,"' '
gy 7,p restrictions on practices which should that the risk of radiauon induced effecto i
\\J be permitted because of otherwise (principally cancer)lalinearly e.,
ana.e gx,,,
reasonable social, economic,or proportional to dose.no matter how sg' p* cosa. core os axio" per tazio se, induatiral considerations.mte is small the dose might be. The coeflicient pgi e
always the danger of over. regulation used in the modelas a basis for which results in effects that are felt in estimating statisucal health risk is on en teamm os
= cancer noen en newcas e
- gygg, Ng,*, i e..,n p M g areas where the NRC does not have the order of 1X10M risk of fatal cances authority and responsibility.Moreover.
per person.rern of radiauon does a,.n.,nem
- unissa omer vocaisa ine coression et
[
the Atomic Energy Act does not reqaire (1x10-8 per SV).h Conuaission f, L*E","Z",",,j*[,"/C,",,M absolute assurances of safety in the use recognizes that itla a conservative of radioactive material andlicensed model based upon data collected at emwn ear newcw enerne so a noof eno a
- """"*d *"*c" 80" "s***'" 'C' *o**"
relauvely high doses and doserates facilities.
which is then extrapolated to the low 7
He numerical criteria ultimately selected will have significantimpact on dose and dose rata region where there N Commission recognizes thatitis nuclear regulation bere in the United are no statistically reliable impossible to mensure risk to States and potentially in the epidemiological data available.
individuals or populations directly, and.
u Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules 49889
]
that la most situations, it is impractical licensee's control (natural background 1,ne application or continuadon of
- 13 me:sure annual doses to individuals and medical exposures are excluded).
regulatory controls on the pactice does et the low levels implied by exemption Because of the small risks involved, a to not result in any significant reduction in decisions. Typically, radioisotope mrem (0.1 mSv) individual dose criterion the dose received by individuals within concentrations 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 population or, cctual measurements that can be made, judgements.ne Commission Lne costs of the regulatory controls and doses are then estimated by specifically seeks comment on the need that could be imposed for dose cxposum pathway analysis combined for establishing a collective dose limit in reduction are not balanced by the 4
with cther types of assumptions related addition to an individual dose criterion.
aa=====urets reduction in risk that t3 the ways in which people enight If such a collective dose criterion is could be resumed.
become exposed. Under such conditions, needed, what is the basis for this need?
For purposes ofimplementingits conserveuve assumptions are frequently if the Commission decides that a policy, the Commission recognizes that used in modeling so that the actual dose, collective dose criterion is needed, what only under unusual circumstances is on the low side of the calculated dose, approaches allowing truncauon of would practices which cau:e radiation De Comunission believes that this is the individual dose in calculation of exposures approaching the too mrem per cpproplate approach to be taken when coUective dose or weighting factors for yur(1 mSv per year) unit be determining if an exemption from components of collective dose would be considered as candidates for exemption.
regulatory controls is warranted.
appropriate? What alternat!ves should he Commission willconsider such Collective dose is the sem of the be considered for assessing societal circumstances on a case specific basis individual doses resulting from a impact?
using the general principles outlined in practice or source of radiation exposure.
- AIARA-he AIARA princi le this policy statement. However, as the By assigning collective dose a monetary generaUy applies to determining we doses and attendant risks to members of value, it can be used in cost benefit and levels below which exemptions may be the exposed population decrease, the other quantitative analysis techniques. it grapted on a cost. benefit basis.
need for regulatory controle decreases is a f:ctor to consider in balancing Hosvever,it is the purpose of this policy and the analysis needed to support a benefits and societalimpact.
to establish criteria which would, in proposal for exemption can reasonably effect, dehnea e achimment of ALARA beh Commissionis paluaung th uw somewhat simplified.
Considerations in Croatirig Exempt /ons without cost. nefit analysis.
g
%f e$s Ifb
- II",,o 7'"wl in["ning the
.%e following elements are being pro e t w at ma basis for evafusting practices which arebrectice, and then take this information%"d"D'Y""d'IA*'Ni'"I
considered b the Commission as a to account in controlling regulated 4
the memimumindividualannualdose proposed to be exempt from regulatory practices so that the dose limits are not control.nese practices,if approved, exceeded exemptions imply some reasonably expected to be received as a would result in products containing low degree ofloss of control.ne result of the practice and (b) a measure levels of radioactive material being Commission believes that a key of societalimpact to the exposed distributed to the general public and consideration in establishing a policy for pgulation.%ne crhwie am being radioactive effluents and solid waste exemptions, and subsequently in considered to assure that, for a given being released to areas of the publicly-specific rulemaking or licensing exempted practice, no individual will be cccessible environment.
decisions,is the question of whether expmed to a significant risk and that the e justification-ne Commission individuals may experience radiation population as n' hole does not suffer a
= seeks comment on the extent to which axposure approaching the limiting significant impact.
cxposures resulting from any practice values through the cumulative effects of If the individua1 doses from a practice sh:uld be justified. As lower levels of more than one practice, even though the under consideration for exemption are radiation exposure are projected, should exposures from each practice are only sufficiently small, the attendant risks 1:wir levels of benefit be required for small fractions of the limit.The willbe smallcompared with other practice justification? In establishing its Commission specifically seeks comment societal risks. The Commission belleves exemption policy, should the on the issue. By appropriate choices of that annual individ!al fatality riska -
Commission exclude certain practices exemption criteria and t}. rough its below approximately to"(one in f:t which there appears to be no evaluations of specific exemption 100,000) are of little concern to most reas:nable justificat'ent in considering proposals in implementing the policy, members of society. Providing for some prop sals for exen9tions, should the the Commission intends to assure that it margin below this level, the Commission I
Commission evaluate the social is unlikely that any individual will proposes to mrem (0.1 mSv) as the level acceptability of practices? Should the experience exposures which exceed the of annualindividualexposure.ne Commission determine a practice to be too mrem per year (1 mSv per year) incremental annual individual cancer unjustified if nonradioactive economical limit.
fatality risk associated with an exposure alternatives exist?
level of to mrem per year (0.1 mSv per Mac. le8 OMemptio8 year)is about 2x10"(two in one P
- Dose 1.imits and Criterion-A major consideration in exempting million) as indicated in Table 1 and of individual doses from practices exempted under this policy should not any practice from regulatory control the order of 0.1 percent (one in ene be allowed to exceed too mrem per year hinges on the general question of thousand) of the overall risk of cancer (1 mSv per year).This is the dose limit whether or not application or death.
L far members of the public specified in continuation of regulatory controls are In evaluating the need for a collective the final revision of to CFR Part 20, necessary and cost eflective in reducing dose criterion, the Commission Standards for Protection Against dose.To determine if exemption is recognizes that this criterion could be Radiation.The dose limits in the final appropriate, the Commission must the limiting considerstion for practices revision of 10 CFR Part 20 apply to all determine if one of the following involving very small individual doses to s:urces of radiation exposure under a conditions is met:
very large numbers of people. It is also
,u p
1
\\l
' t
\\
l
'49800 Federal Rag
- ster / Vol. 53, No. 238 / Monday. December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rulen
=
recognized that in such cases the from applicabfe ticanning requirements.
that ALARA canaiderations have bean Te collective dose cHtarion would, in effect, Approvalof a proposed conamnar dealt with.This approach la consistent epply the ALARA concept to. individual product depends upon an assessment of with past practice, e.g., consumar
- doses less than the below regslatory exposures of persons to rediation as product rules la10 Cllt Part act l
concem level of to mrem peryear to the wen as an avahmtion of the usefulnasa in evalmaung proposala far exempties individual. Conversely,where the of the product.
undes this pobey, the projected colleettw dose criterton would not be Cartain practices involving radiation exposures to ddlerent components of limiting,it would serve no porpose. De at redloactive matarials have been h ava-al popolanen win be Commission requwts commerr's on this judgedby NRCtobe socially conssdered wth regard to be potential iss e,includingcomments on trhatthe unacceptable regardiens of how tdvial that some indieldeels anny recalve doses magnitude of the collective dove the resulting dose mightbe and.
,,, g, gg,,,,,,, y,,, p,g, p,,
crit:non, if any, should be.
brefore have been a"" fran I"**) limit when doses from *ther N thedosele kes than the below exemption. Excluded practicas include.
P"'U"' ** *I" **I'" I"
mgulatory concete criteria, then the risk but are not liadied ta, the intentional considemhif expmums imm from e practice woulee consideredio introduction of radioactive matedal into muldple pueden can occur which em be ALARA without fut@*r analysie.ne toys and products inlanded for significantly beyond the individual dose Commission stresses that e$cption of ingestion. inhalation or direct criterion Do mrum per year (0.1 mSv per the criteria should not be constmed es e application to the skin (such as year)), the exemption will not be granted decision that smaller dosee are cosmetica].
l necessary before a pmetice een be in addition to socia!!y unacceptable without harther analysis. As experience exempted, while doses abow the uses ot radioacuve materials, a question is gained, this pahey andts c
criteria would pmch.de exempticos. On a!so arises res uses where there implementation will be reevaluated with the contrary, the crituis simply are clear econo attarnatives, and regard to this issus to assure that the.
mpresent a nmpe of risk which tiie
- $o unique bene 6ts exist from unius s.xposures to the public esmain well Cornmie9cn bnhevee is sufficiently radioactive material.Where riaka are below 100 mromper year (1mSv per smau con:pand too%rindividuland trivial, the readotory prohlhufon of such year),
societalub that e cost benefit analysis uses could pose an unnecessary In addition to considerations of is not reg'.irediin order to make e regulatory burdes by intarfaring with the expected activitin and pathways, h decision septd!ng the acceptability of conduct of business.
Commission recognizes that c3 asemptim Practices not meetbg De Commission seeks conce. ate on considenHon moet also be glwn to b these criteria may be grantad whether practices should be potential for eccidente and misme of the exemptions on a case by. ease bas s in categorically exclodedband on the radioactive materiale involved in the tecordance with the pnnciples Commission's judgement regarding pcuce. A pmpwal for exemption of a cabod.ed within this pclicy.To faither social acceptabtfity or the existance of defined practice must therefore also tmphasize the Comtalssion's recognition alternatives. An alternatise to address the potentials for accidents or that a rigid limitation on collective dose categorical exclusion could be a case misuse, and the cnsequences of these w:uld be inappropriate,it notes thet for specific determination based on a safety exceptionalcondat!wuin terms of arme practices,such as use of smoke
- analysis, Individuals and coDective dose.
detectors, appreciable benefits can only be attained throngh antanalve utklizatkoa ProPosolefor h **P M.
y,,,y,,,,,,,,,y,,py,, g,,gg,7,,,
cnd,hence, with a coounensurata A,,,po g g,,,,,p ;,,,,,g ne Comtalsalonbelieves that the g
collective dose.
provide a besia uponwhichthe implementation of an exemption under The 'Wadonla sware that Commission can determine if the basic existing regulations of the conditions described above have been this broad policy guidance must be Environmental Pretection Agency satisfied.In general. this means that the accompaniedby a suitable program to establish criteria more restrictive than propMal should address the individual monitor and verify that the basic sxamptions which could otherwise b*
dose and societal impact resulting frorn considerations under which an granted under this proposed po! Icy, the expected activities under the exemption was issued remain valid. In With regard to its own regulations, the exemption, including the use of the most cases, the products or materials Commission will evolusta whether there radioactive materials, the pathways of comprising an exempted practice will are exemption criteria embodied therein exposure, the levels of activity. and the move from regulatory control to the for which modification. according to the methode and constraints for assuring exempt status under e defined set of in p e of this policy,would be that the assumptions used to deune a conditions and criteria.ne monitoring practice remain appropriata as the and verification program must therefore be capable of providing the Commissien N
ato e ntro o a e e status.
g! a proposal for exemption results in with the appropriate assurance that the conditions for the exemption remain
%e Commission's March %1965, n:tice on the Use of Byproduct Material a rule containing generic requirements, e valid, and that they are being observed.
and Source Material. Products Intended person applying to utilize the exemption The Commission wtB determme would not need to address justification for use by General Public (Consumer
. or ALARA.The Commission decision on compliance with h specific conditions Products)(30 FR 3E2) provides the of an exemption through its established basis for the Commission's approval of such proposals will be based on the licensing and inspection program and l
the use of these materials in consumer licensee's meeting the conditions products withnut rctulatory control on specified in the rule.The promulgation will, from time to time, conduct studies the consumer. user Thisis accomplished of the rule would. under these as appropriata to assess the impact of by case-by case extmption of the circumstances, constitute a finding that an etempted practice or combinations possession and use of approveditema the exempted practice is justified. and of exempted practices.
t
.._m m
c.:
g t
+
g-Federal Register / Vol. 53, No.' 238 / Monday December 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules 43e91 i
TentativeAreathyAsendo enee to a freetion of tho' o,,rell
~ 1. Introduosion and Samanary NRC Star Il[us[a 2.
exempted sources
- IL Discuss!on of Specific Questione Brie!.
. would be expected to involve individ-NRC Staff summary and presentations or.-
nel doses which m e emH fmh i
. quest 6ene from scheduled participants, of ee ovmu Hmit. ehould finibiluy A.' Application of principle of justification -
he enintained by eeneidering esemp-i including the questions:
siano en a cost benefit beste above to
- 1. As lower levels of radiation esposwee mrem /yearf.
I tre projected should lower levels of -
- 3. le the evolustion of couestive dose
'f benefit be regelred for juettAcetion of.
impostans in --, the multiple t
a practase which to e esadidate for esposum issuet-i esemptient
~ 4 Will the opphostion af feetthastion of-F
-1 la establishing enemption policy, practae help-te meistela e smauer -
..3 should the Ceauniessen emelude es,.
number of eseress making 44.aeier to.
tale prectices for which there appeare controloverau expoewest
. is be ao ressenable jusufication?
- 8. How important le maaltoring to mais-
- 3. In consideries proposals for esemp.
telains assuranse that ladividual en. '
ties, should the t'a==laala= evaluate Posumo de met enseed to the overall oscial acceptability of the practiset lasutt 4 ShouW the Commission determine a IIL General Discussica/ Question period.
s l3 et6ce to be aniusufied if ase redio.
Comunents or questions by scheduled par.
(
7 I economical alternatives estett tielpents. Open to the floor as time per-E Individd due criwrion for ' ~~ ~
"'888-r achievement of the "as low as reasoes : h mmbem of the pubhc who wish to p
chly achievable" (A1 ARA) prtaciple la -
pe@w by epseking at the muting J exempuen decision enaking.
eldsund mouf: one of the soetects listed e
- 1.i"* the to sarem/ year artterion pro., ge de*t **F een be m in
)
I sed by the coeumission appropriatef
?
L
- 2. le the appropriateness of this number.
Deled in Rochville. henryland. this Id day -
l-Iflected by the decision regarding. of December tasa.
,-i c whether a collective does enterion L
.hould be need wish the individeal1h Shus. I'"
does artiertoet Knecutive Directorfler Operations.
' 3. Should the ladividual does criterios (FR Doc as-264s1 Filed 12-6 48. 445 am]
- be chosen on the basis of meshgible musse eene nes es es risk as le done laternationally (i.es 7
- IAEA Safety Series No. 40) or can a.
somewhat higher number be used t
based on a Coeunteeica pobey decJ.
. sion regarding a level et individual
{
i.
. risk for which-expenditure of re-
!:L
- sources is not warranted? -
t ll
- 4. How important is internauomal con. '
L sietency in choosing an ladividual does critertent C. Use of a couective dou criterion for detenmining achievement of the ALARA principle in exemption decision-making-ll t le a collective dose criterion needed L.
In addition to en ladividual does crite- -
l; r&T-1-
L 2. If oo. w%rt le the beste of that needt
- 3. If the Commmen decida e collective O
does criterion shxid be used, what should its magnitude bet -
t t What alterneuve to a collecthe does crite ion should be considered for aw asseing societalimpact?
S. In calculating collective dose, what '
cpproaches allowing truncetion of in-dividual doses of the use of weighting factore for components of ceDective
- dose are appropriatet j
D.' Approaches for assoring total empo-eures of Individuale from mutiple prec-uces wul not exceed the too area /
yeetlimlL'
- 1. le the approach of generally limiting individuale doses from each source or l
. ~ ~
l STATE OF lLLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY l
1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE SPRINGFIELD 62704 (217) 785 4 900 WRRY R. LASH omwroa December 11, 1989 The Honorable Kenneth Carr, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 t
Dear Chairman Cart:
It is my understanding that the Comission recently considered a staff proposal regarding exempting certain radioactive materials from regulatory control. As applied to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, this proposal is usually referred to as a Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policy.
I am deeply concerned about any policy the Comission might consider that would result in the disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) at any place other than a licensed LLW disposal facility.
In my opinion, such a policy is not in r
the public interest and could cause irreparable damage'to the work being done t
by states and regional compacts to site and develop new facilities for the disposal of LLW, as required by federal law.
(
On September 19, 1988, I wrote to the Office of Management and Budget to.
express my concerns regarding a similar BRC proposal being considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(See enclosed letter.)
I stated then that the development of new LLW disposal facilities and the adoption of other volume reduction measures have made adoption of a BRC policy unnecesscry.
I also noted that, ironically, a BRC policy would " solve a problem that does not exist, the shortage of LLW disposal capacity, only to exacerbate the solid waste dispsal crisis." This observation is still valid.
Not only does disposal of LLW in landfills reduce the availability of their disposal capacity, but pern:tting disposal of LLW in such facilities would make it practically impossiole to site new landfills.
The fiscal implications of a BRC policy on generators of LLW are not immediately apparent.
While a BRC policy would probably benefit those generators who can dispose of LLW without regard to the radioactive hazard, the unit costs of disposal at LLW disposal facilities would increase, because fixed costs of facility development and operation would have to be borne among fewer generators.
In particular, the adoption of a BRC policy by the Commission would make it even more expensive to dispose of LLW wastes at the regional facilities being developed by the states and compacts.
&Q JD2pO'?D
4
[
The Honorable Kenneth Carr December 11, 1989 Page 2 Finally, adoption of a BRC policy based on an individual dose limit of 10 millirems per year is particularly objectionable.
Illinois has adopted an individual dose limit of 1 millirem per year for its low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.
Illinois would find it very difficult to implement a BRC standard that permits greater exposures than would result if the waste were disposed of at the LLW disposal facility. Not only would this be contrary to generally accepted ALARA principles, but implementation of such a BRC policy would alsc,.*esult in an unacceptable situation where radiation
~
exposures at unregulated facilities could be greater than those permitted at the licensed LLW disposal facility.
For these reasons I strongly urge you not to propose a policy statement on the subject of BRC.
The State of Illinois had strong objections to the draf t policy statement.
It does not appear that these objections have been resolved to our satisfaction. Therefore, Illinois would strongly oppose any action the Commission takes towards adoption of a BRC policy.
Sincerely, I
f l'
Terry Lash Director L
TRL:sp i
Enc.
(
l l
,