ML20028G761
| ML20028G761 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/13/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028G762 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9009040063 | |
| Download: ML20028G761 (36) | |
Text
f..
(N>l$
Y o r..c g d
f,,
UNITE 3 8ThTES f
)et g
NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION A,
f wAsHINoToN.o.c.:ones S,,',,, *#
August 13, 1990 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Edward J. Markey United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Markey:
Your letter of July 18, 1990, requested the Nuclear Regulatory.
Commission's response to a number of questions related to the Below Regulatory Concern policy for the July 26, 1990 Interior and Insulcr Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and the i
Environment hearing.
Enclosed are the responses to those I
questions.
I regret that we were unable to provide you with the responses prior to the hearing.
Sincerely, Kenneth M. Carr 1-
Enclosures:
As stated I
l
\\
~
L 02001 p9 9009040063 900813 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PNU
,/
- g, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
I waawint. tow, c. C. anses 1
s August 24, 1990 0FFICE OF TNE SSCRETARY NOTE FOR:
Document Control Desk i
FROM:
Correspondence & Records Branch The enclosed document (s) are to be entered into the OC3, An advanced has been sent to i
the Public Document Room.
l i
l-PLEASE PROCESS AS ONE DOCUMENT
\\
1
\\
i
(
l I
i 1
l 1
1 i
l i
.~
n 1
l s
1 OVESTION1(a).
The International Atomic Energy Agency recomenos a BRC limit of 1 mrem /yr per person and the U.S. EPA recomends a limit for all ERC waste exemptions of 4 mrem /yer per person. The NRC policy would allow individual exemptions under BRC to result in exposures equal to 10 mrem / year per
- person, a)
What process did the NpC follow in reviewing the 3
recommendations of the above agencies?
ANSWER.
The NRC is familiar with the recommendations of the IAEA (published in IAEA SafetySeries89)anduseddraftsoftheirguideinthedevelopmentoftheBRC policy statement.
In fact, the IAEA's view that "...the level of trivial individual effective dose equivalent would be in the ringe of 10-100psv/yr.
[1-10 mrem /yr)" was a significant factor in selecting the 1 and the 10 mrein/yr values for the individual dose criteria in the BRC policy statement, j
l The NRC solicited the views of the international comunity in a workshop, 1
I sponsored in cooperation with the Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD, which was held in October 1988.
Representatives from the IAEA and EPA were invited to, and 1
actively participated in, this workshop at which the NRC's preposals for an exemption policy were presented and discussed.
The NRC solicited coment in 1
j an advanced notice of policy development which was published in the Federal Register on December 12, 1988, and held a public meeting on January 12, 1989.
QUESTION 1(a).
(Continued) 2 EPA provided written consents and elso expressed their views at the public meeting.
In developing its policy proposals, the NRC staff directly interacted with EPA in several meetings and transmitted copies of draft documents throughout the policy development process. These views, as well as those of other commenters, were carefully considered by NRC in developing the BRC statement. With regard to EPA's 4 mrem /yr criterion for all BRC waste exemptions, the Commission believes that doses of 4 and 10 mrem /yr are practically equivalent given the nature of the decision being made (i.e., a floor for concern vs. an acceptable individual dose limit), the large uncertainties in estimating roses at such levels, and the conservative nature of the calculations which would be used to evaluate such doses.
l l
l l
l~
l i
i I
l l
4 OVESTION1(b).
The International Atomic Energy Agency recommends a BRC 2
limit of 1 mrem /yr per person and the U.S. EPA recommends a limit for all BRC waste exemptions of 4 mrem /yr per person.
The NRC policy would allow individual exemptions under BRC to result in exposures equal to 10 mrem /yr per person.
b)
What were the specific findings on which the NRC based its decision to adopt the 10 mrem /yr?
ANSWER.
i l
The 10 mrem /yr criterion was selected for several reasons.
It ensures a safe and consistent level of pro!!ction for the public.
It is more consistent than 1 or 4 mrem /yr with dose levels previously established for site cleanup and decommissioning projects and it is feasible for implementation in these applications.
In addit 1on, the ccst of dose reductions below 10 mrem /yr nay not be commenturate with the corresponding reduction in risk.
Also, the 10 mrem criterion is a small fraction of the level of and variation in natural background radiation and is comparable to other voluntary and involuntary risks which are commonly accepted by members of the public without significant efforts to reduce them, such as the incremental radiation exposure from a cross-country flight.
The distinction between exemptions at the 10 and 1 mrem / year level cannot be justified on a health and safety basis.
The level of effort required to
r~~~~
[
00EST10N 1(b)0 (Continued),
i review analyses of dose reductions below 10 mrem / year would not be balanced by the resulting decrease in H5k considering the limited number of people who might be exposed, let alone the effort reouired to assess the potential dose reductions and the actual implementation cf the dose reduction features.
In addition, the 10 mrem / year criterion is more consistent with current practices involving the safe releases of radioactive materials to the environment.
For example, the 10 mrem / year value is generally consistent with effluent release guidance established by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix !
for nuclear power reactor effluents, which was supported by a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The 10 mrem / year level is also consistent with cleanup levels used in decomissioning projects, such as the 5 micreRoentgen/ hour level established for cleanup of reactor components containing gama-emitting radionuclides (e.g., Cobalt-60).
Furthermore, it is unclear whether cleanup levels based on an individual dose criterion of 1 mrem / year could be reasonably imposed on decomissioning projects because of technological limitations in the on-site detection and implementation of such low levels, difficulties in distinguishing these low levels from natural background, large uncertainties associated with the health significance of these levels, and the large incremental increase in effort required to remove and dispose of such contamination. Translation of the 1 mrem / year or lower dose levels into the radiolcgical field parameters used to guide decomissioning (e.g., microcuries per gram or disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters) would result in values for these parameters that would be difficult to detect and, thus, difficult to utilize i
QUESTION 1(b),
(Continued)...
and verify in cleanup projects. This concern is exacerbated at sites with uranium, thorium, and radium contamination, where it nay not be faasible to attain cleanup levels less than the 10 mrem / year criterion. For perspective, EPA's cleanup criterion for radium-226 in contaminated soils at uranium mill i
tailings sitte corresponds to a level of risk that is one hundred times larger than that associated with 10 mrem / year [ EPA 520/4-82-013-2].
1 1
l I
l
r e
OVESTION 1(c).
The International Atomic Energy Agency reconwends a ERC limit of 1 mrem /yr per person and the U.S. EPA recommends a limit for all BRC waste exemptions of 4 mrem /yr per person. The NRC policy would allow individual exemptions under BRC to result in exposures equal to 10 mrem /yr per person.
t c)
The NRC policy would allow individual exemptions under BRC to result in exposures equal to 10 mrem /yr per persen.
Could the NRC change its policy in the future to allow a higher exposure of 15 mrem /yr per person or 20 mrem /yr per person?
ANSWER.
Based on changes in estimates of the risk associated with exposures to radiation at low doses and dose rates or for other substantive reasons, the NRC could make appropriate changes to its BRC policy.
These changes could incluoe either an increase or decrease in the policy's dose criteria.
l l
l'
QUESTION 2.
Please indicate whether and how the NRC incorporated the findings of the National Research Council's December 1989 report on the Biological Effects of lonizing Radiation (BEIR V) in developing its final regulations.
ANSWER.
The NRC staff had used risk estimates from a 1988 report by the United Nations Scientific Comittee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation in developing the BRC policy statement. The results from the National Research Council's BEIR Y report were analyzed by the NRC staff when the report was issued in December 1989.
Based on the BEIR V report, the NRC staff confirmed that its proposed risk coefficient of 5 X 10 fatal cancers for low dose rate, low linear energy transfer radiation was consistent with BEIR V.
This risk coefficient was used in deriving the risk estimates of the BRC policy. The Comission also considered BEIR V's statements about uncertainties associated with the health significance of low doses and dose rates of radiation in selecting the individual dose criteria of the policy.
No regulations have yet been developed to implement the BRC policy. The Comission was aware of and considered the BEIR V report in its decision to revise the radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20, which will soon be published. based on that consideration, it was determined that no specific changes to include the BEIR Y results into 10 CFR 20 are necessary at this time. Such changes may be adopted after the recoanendations of the ICRP and NCRP have been issued and Federal guidance developed, i
J
m 1
p j
1 QUESTION 3.
The EPA has criticized the NRC's policy.
It believes waste deregulation should proceed only with substantially lower i
limits end rigid enforcement. Did the NRC consult with the EPA as it was formulating the BRC policy? Does the NRC intend to reconcile its policy with the radioactive waste I
deregulation proposal of the EPA? Does the NRC dispute the EPA's criticisms of the NRC's BRC policy? Please provide 1
all correspondence with EPA on this question.
1 ANSWER.
The Commission is aware of EPA views on the BRC policy. As discussed in the response to Question 1, the NRC staff consulted and received comment from the EPA during the development of the policy.
The inclusion of a collective dose criterion, the interim 1 millirem per year dose criterion, and many clarifications in the BRC policy were made, in pcrt in response to EPA _
concerns.
If the EPA should implement a BRC waste criterion lower than the 10 millirem per year value selected by the Comission in its more comprehensive policy, the HRC policy would not necessarily need to be changed to reflect the existence of the new EPA regulations.
However, exemption decisions applying to disposal of BRC waste streams made either through rulemaking or licensing actions will need to comply with EPA regulations.
l
OVESTION 3.
(Conttued)
-p..
EPA has not yet transmitted connents to NRC on the final BRC policy statement.
However, based on our previous review of EPA's draft BRC standaro for waste, the principal differences between the agencies' approaches to BRC are as follows:
epa is considering BRC for waste disposal - the NRC BRC policy can o
be applied to a bruad range of currently regulated activities, including waste disposal.
l EPA used e cost-benefit analysis to help derive the 4 mrem value o
under consideration - NRC used a risk-based judgment based upon the level of and variations in natural background and risks routinely j
accepted by individuals to derive the dose criteria in its BRC policy.
EPA applies its dose criterion such that no member of the public o
will receive greater than 4 mrem - the NRC policy applies the 10 mrem criterion to the highest exposure " critical group" associated i
with the practice.
In the case of waste disposal, this may be the waste site operators or transportation workers.
In such cases, exposures to the general population in the vicinity of the site would be expected to be lower, and will likely meet, or be significantly lower than, the EPA criterion.
l l
QUESTION 3'.
(Continued) 3-Given the different approaches used to cevelop the respective EPA and NRC values, the different methods of application, and given the fact that each is only a small fraction of the natural background radiation people experience in their everyday lives, the Comission does not 5:lieve the numerical difference with EPA is significant.
Copies of correspondence with EPA on this topic are enclosed.
c<1 s
4 8
( _;
i
\\;
QUESTION 4.
What process will the NRC follow in reviewing specific BRC applications under the new policy? How will the agency review specific usumptions and mathematical models used by s
applicants?
I ANSWER.
The NPC will follow normal rulemaking and licensing procedures in reviewing L
'an; g plications it T Mives for exemptions under the BRC policy.
The BRC
(
policy provides tha mnciples and criteria for consideration of. such an
. application. 'Any regulations developed from the policy would be subject to
- normal rulemaking procedures, which involve publication of the proposed regulatian for public comment and development of a final rule,.a process which 7
ll includes analysis of and~ response to the coments received. The staff will independently review specific assumptions and mathematical models used by applicants in support of their petitions.
For example, the NRC has stated
' that its reviow of any BRC waste disposal petition may include use of the l
. IMPACTS-BRC computer code, a publicly accessible code developed by the NRC which, in many cases, may be used to verify compliance with BRC policy provisions. Specific procedures for reviewing proposed exemptions, for
- example, are desciibed in the draft " Standard Review Plt.n for a Petition fnr Rulemaking on Radioactive Waste Streams Below Regulatory Concern," NUREG-1351.
,The IMPACTS-BRC code is documented in NUREG/CR-5517 Copies of both NUREG documents are enclosed.
,g b>4 6
1-6
'4 i
QUESTION 5.
Please explain what explicit actions the NRC intends to-1 take beyond current neneral regulatory efforte to assure licensee compliance with the BRC limits.
a) What documentation will be required of licensees?
b) What kind of review will the NRC undertake of the provided documentation?
c) What inspections will be made of licensees to assure compliance?
d) What penalties will the NRC impose for failure to s
j comply? What'other enforcement actions will the NRC take to-ensure compliance?
e) What types of monitoring and tracking programs will be adopteri to guarantee that specific individuals, especially E
landfill ar.d other disposal facility workers, do not receive i
exposures above the allowable limit?
f) How will the NRC calculate the exposure of populations to-radioactivity released by the BRC policy?
l g)WhattypesofenforcementmechanismsdoestheNRCintend to create to ensure that disposal facilities do not exceed allowable exposure levels?
ANSWER.
Specific requirements will be established, as appropriate, through rulemakings and-licensing actions that will implement the BRC policy.
It would be premature to speculate on the nature of these constraints and requirements
' QUESTION Sc (Continued)
.2 until after NRC has reviewed the technical and regulatory analyses, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessment, upon which the require-ments will be based.
The following information is intended to provide a.
perspective on the types of future actions that NRC may take in implementing the BRC policy based on existing practice.
a) The policy provides that licensees will be required to maintain appropriate records and to submit reports related to release of materials exempted from 1
regulatory control.
Depending on the type of exemption, examples of information that could be recorded or reported might include:
volume of exempt material; identification of isotopes; quantities of radioactivity; destination of transfer; inventories; and tests, radiation surveys, and calculations used to demonstrate compliance with applicable exemption conditions and restrictions.
- b) Reports submitted by licensees in accordance with the above requirements will be reviewed by the NRC staff to determine that licensees are in com-pliance.
Selective reviews may also be conducted to confirm that the cumulative impacts of multiple exempt practices and disposals are acceptable.
c) As part of NRC's routine inspection program, licensee facilities and records will be reviewed periodically to verify compliance with applicable conditions and rastrictions placed on transfer, distribution, or disposal of exempt naterials.
1 i
L d) The NRC will view significant violations associated with BRC reouirements to be serious matters because they may involve unreviewed transfer of l
l
QUEST 10!! 5. (Continued) -
radioactive material into the public domain.
NRC's existing enforcement policy provides that escalated enforcement action may be taken for improper i
disposal.of radioactive material. Depending on the specific circumstances, enforcement act. ions may include a notice of violation; civil penalty; an order modifying, suspending, or revoking a license; and/or referral to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Factors to be considered in deter-mining the appropriate enforcement action include the significance of the violation,.the quantity of radioactive material released, the number of items released, the degree of management involvement, an# the degree of negligence or willfulness involved, I
e) The NRC wil.1 impose appropriate conditions and restrictions on licensees who release exempt materials so that workers at landfills and other unlicensed disposal facilities would not receive exposures exceeding the BRC dose criteria.
In general, such radiation levels will be so low that it will not be possible to measure them directly.
The NRC will rely primarily on inspecting licensees to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
However, the NRC may con-1 duct supplemental studies to monitor the potential cumulative impacts of exempt materials at disposal facilities.
L
.f) The HRC staff will use apr,wriate dose models for calculating peculation doses. Models have been used for many years in performing population dose calculations for nuclear facility cperations, decommissioning, and generic rulemakings. See also the answer to question 4.
QUESTION Sc (Continued)
-4
- 9) The NRC will apply its existing enforcement policy _ to licensees _to ensure compliance. The recipients of exempt material are not expected to be subject g
to enforcement actions with regard to exempt material. We expect that any problems with exempt materials will be addressed through the licensees who are responsible for the materials up to the point where they are transferred to an exempt or unregulated status,
y-y x
s 4
OVESTION 6.
What type of materials, in what volumes, does the NRC expect to qualify for exemptions under this policy't ANSWER.
The Comission has exempted 'pecific practices on a case-by-case basis for over 20 years.
The purpose o, '+o RRC policy statement is to provide a basis for consistent exemption decisions.
Examp;es of practices and materials that the Comission might decide to exempt from some or all regulatory controls are:
a.
Release for unrestricted public use of individual decomissioned buildings or-sites which may have very small but detectable levels of radioactivity. New rules will replace existing guidance and provide j
release limits based en a consistent level of risk.
4 b.
Distribution of new consumer products which contain small quantities of
- radioactive material. Smoke detectors and luminous wrist watches are examples of products containing exempted quantities of radioactive material.
l c.
Disposal of slightly contaminated waste.
Current examples include biomedical wastes containing slightly contaminatea scintillation fluids l'
and animal tissues from medical research.
The Comission also has petitions pending which reouest authorization for disposal of slightly contaminated wastes from medical laboratories and slightly contaminated
\\
f l
f t
- QUESTION'.- (Continued).
-2.
6 F
u waste oil from nuclear power plants.
Such wastes may still be-subject to requirements associated with their nonradiological properties, d..
Recycle of slightly contaminated materials.
Limited recycle on a case-by case basis has been authorized in the past. An example is the i
recycle of calcium fluoride contaminated with very slight amounts of uraniur, generated in the manufacture of nuclear fuel which is subser,uently used in a steel production process. The proposed application of the recycled material would be considered as part of the exemption review.
The volume of material which could be exempted from the full scope of 4
regulatory controls would depend on the characteristics of the exemption under consideration, s
l, h
1 I
~
l OVESTION 7.
How much money will the NRC itself save as a result of this policy? Please provide'the source and documentation I
'to support claims of savings.
How much money will the industry save?
l ANSWER.
L In the short term, the NRC does not anticipate a savings as a result of the BRC policy because the Commission has directed the staff to conduct a systematic assessment of all existing exemptions to ensure compliance with the new policy. After NRC completes the systematic assessment and develops regulatory documents (rules and regulatory guidance) for consistent imple-i mentation of the new policy, it is'possible that a decrease in resources attributable to BRC activities may be achieved through greater consistency on
'I
- BRC decisions. We cannot now estimate the resources that might be saved by licensees and others as a consequence of the BRC policy.
Such savings would be dependent on the circumstances associated with the license for which a specific s
p exemption might be granted.-
L 1
1~
s 1
L l
q N
1,\\
~
QUESTION B.
What does the NRC estimate to be the expected annual financial savings to industry from the BRC policy? What is-the breakdown of these savings to the different industrial sectors, e.g., electric utilities, medical research, etc.?
What are industry's own estimates of their expected savings? Please provide documentation for these estimates, l
l
- ANSWER, l
We cannot now estimate the resources that might be saved by licensees and others as a consequence of the BRC policy. Such savings would be dependent on the circumstances associated with the specific rulemaking developed for the exemption or those associated with the license for which a specific exemption f
might be granted.
H
.y 1
l l
,s
p OVESTION 9.
In establishing the BRC Policy were cost-benefit analyses performed to determine the appropriate level of exposure to the population?
If so, please detail and document the
-results of these cost-benefit analyses.
ANSWER._
Because of the generic nature of the BRC policy, the policy was not based upon specific analyses balancing the potential decrease in costs resulting from exempting certain practices f rom regulatory controls against the hypothetical health consequences' associated with exemptions.
In developing the BRC policy, the Commission recognized that-there is some cost associated with evaluations-of whether low doses resulting from implementation of this policy could be further reduced and made a determination that this cost was not justified by the minimal increase in protection of the public bealth and safety.that would accrue from further dose reductions.
e
\\
i
+,
1
'~'
D OUESTION 10L Does the HRC intend to pre-empt local and state laws l
explicitly prohibiting the disposal of BRC waste in solid t,
waste facilities?
If so, please cite the basis of this authority, and list each state with an existing statute that would be pre-empted.
L I
. ANSWER.
l L
The BRC policy statement itself has no pre-emptive effect. Quite. apart from h
' the BRC policy, States and local authorities are pre-empted with limited l_
exceptions by the Atomic Energy Act from regulating in the field of radio-logical health and safety except pursuant to an agreement with the NRC under section 274 of the Act.
See, e.g., English v. General Electric Co.,
L U.S.
-(1990); Pacific Gas & Electric Co.- v. State Conmission, 461 U.S.
l 190(1983). The regulatory authority of an Agreement State could be affected Ij by future NRC rulemakings implementing the BRC policy. However, in order for L
Agreement State authority to be affected, the particular BRC rulemaking would b
have to be sufficiently important for NRC to make the rule a matter of' strict compatibility.
If this were to occur, then Agreement States would need to adopt conforming rules. The basis for requiring compatibility in Agreement State programs is section 274d(2), 2749, and 274j of the Atomic Energy Act.
Some states - notably Maine, Minnesota, Iowa, Vermont, and Pennsylvania -
have enacted laws which appear to require that waste which might be exempted 1
r
QUESTION 10.
(Continued)
-1 by NRC in accorcance with the BRC policy be disposed of only in a facility specifically licensed for this purpose or be prohibited from disposal in land-fills. Some counties and municipal governments in California, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan have adopted similar measures. NRC has no position at this time whether any of these measures may be preempted. Pre-emption depends on the purpose and effect of the measure in question, and-could depend on the outcome of future NRC rulemaking.
In any HRC rulemaking implementing the BRC policy, NRC would carefully consider the views of interested states on whether State authority in Agreement States should be limited.
. c
=,
- 4 QUESTION 11.
The concept of a " practice" is frequently cited in the NRC's Policy Statement.
What is a " practice"? Is it, for example, the waste from.one source, all waste from all sources, all of one waste stream from all sources, all recycling of radiation into consumer products, use of radiation in one consumer product? Will each decommissioned plant constitute one " practice"?
ANSWER.
ll L
The policy defines a " practice" as an activity or a set or combination of a number of similar, coordinated and centinuing activities aimed at a given purpose that involves the potential for radiation exposure.
Disposal of specified types of very low-level radioactive waste; the release for unrestricted public use of lands and structures with residual levels of p
radioactivity; the distribution, use, and disposal of specific consumer L
products containing small amounts of radioactive material; and the recycle and reuse of specific types of residually contaminated materials and equipment are g
' examples of practices for which this policy will-have potential applicability.
The-intent is to define a practice in the broadest possible manner consistent with the practical application of the exemption decision being considered.
For. example, disposal of certain very low-level waste nationwide could be
' defined as a practice.
With regard to decommissioned facilities, the NRC staff is currently working to develop recomendations for acceptable residual radioactivity levels consistent with the BRC criterie which will also address the definition of " practice" for decommissioning.
1 l
CUESTION 12.-
The NRC policy would-allow individual exemptions under BRC-to result in exposures equal to 10 mrem /yr per person.,
i
?
Could the NRC change its policy in the future to allow a higher exposure of 15 mrem /yr per person or 20 mrem /yr per person?
ANSWER.
q Based on potential new information on the health effects associated with low-levels of exposure to ionizing radiation, or other substantive and appropriate information, the BRC dose criteria could be increased or _
~ decreased.
'i 3
e f
1 P
f i
l
-i i
F
QUESTION 13.
What restrictions will there be on BRC wastes made into I
household and consumer products?
ANSWER.
Typical consumer products containing radioisotopes are not composed of BRC waste; rather, the radioisotopes are obtained from commercial suppliers, and are fabricated specifically for use in consumer products in a manner similar l
to the way they are prepared for licensed devices.
Examples include americium-241 in smoke detectors aiis tinitum in luminous watches.
- However, when NRC evaluates whether to. exempt a given type of waste, the potential end I
uses will be considered.
The primary restrictions will be to limit quantities and concentrations of radioactive materials in wastes such that the BRC dose j
criteria would be met in cases where the wastes might eventually be recycled I:
into consumer products.
In some cases, restrictions could also be placed on 1.
the method of disposal, such that recycling into consumer products would be l
unlikely.
For example, pe could require a certain type of BRC waste to be disposed only by incineration.
If scrap materials slightly contaminated with radioisotopes are to be intentionally recycled for use in cornercial products, the end uses and associated doses will be evaluated. Based on these con-siderations, appropriate constraints would be placed on the types, quantities, and concentrations of radioisotopes, and uses, and method of recycle to ensure E
the protection of.public health and safety.
\\
l l'
l 4
s QUEST 1011 14 In deciding in what consumer products radioactive materials will be used and recycled, the NRC will be making judgments about the social utility of those products.
-i a)
How will the NRC make these decisions?
b)
Will it consult with non-NRC experts?,
ANS\\tER.
4 As stated in the policy, the NRC will not consider whether a practice,- such as distribution of a given consumer proauct,, is justified in terms of societal benefit. The Commission believes that justification decisions involving social-and cultural value judgements should be made by affected elements of society and not the regulatory agency.
The NRC does not plan to consult with non-NRC experts on the issue of social utility.
However, the Commission anti-q cipates that public comment and participation will allow for additional input from the affected elements-of society during the regulatory development process.
The Commission may determine on the basis of risk estimates and associated '
uncertainties that certain practices should not be considered candidates for exemption, such as the introduction of radioactive materials into products to be -consumed or used primarily by children, t
o s'
)
m i
QUESTION 15.
Children are at higher risk from radiation exposure.
d
(
(a) What special protection and consideration will the NRC
-i l.
give to children?
l (b) During rulemaking,'will the number of children who will be exposed by a particular practice be a criterion for evaluating the petition?
1 1
l ANSWER.
[
The Commission recognizes that the embryo / fetus and young children may be at greater risk from a given dose of radiation than an adult.
The risk estimates l
used by the Commission already take this increased sensitivity into account by p
using a risk coefficient that applies to all ages, not just adults.
If the Commission examines a practice in which young children are particularly at risk, then the-increased risk estimates appropriate for exposures to that i
lL population will be considered.
i l
l' l.
u I
1 L
+
7 i
QUESTION 16.
What public coment was invited prior to the approval of 1
the final BRC policy? Will the NRC make sure that absolutely all BRC exemptions, including those made in the course of license applications and license changes, are subject to 60-day notice and public coment? Will rulemakings initiated by the NRC be treated differently?
d
- ANSWER, The Caission issued and received public coments on an advance notice of policy development, which was published in the Federal Register on December 12,178n. The NRC's analysis of and responses to these coments is available in our public document rooms.
The Comission also solicited i
v coments at a public meeting held on January 12, 1989. The Comission will provide opportunity for public coment on future licensing actions involving i
an exemption unless a generic exemption provision has already been estab-lished, the development of which was subject to public coment.
Any exemption-l decisions that may be codified in Comission regulations will be subject to standard rulemaking procedures, which includes notice (usually a minimum of 30 days) and solicitation and consideration of public coments.
1
n QUESTION 17 Disposed radioactive material tends to migrate into_ water supplies, air, and soil.. Will the NRC's review of-petitions for exemption include the radioactive exposure l
from these and other non-primary exposure pathways?
ANSWER.-
In considering' potential exposures from exempted practices, all pathways of exposure will be considerea in asses:ing radiological impacts, l
1
i OUEST1,0N 18.
' The final BRC policy statement says: "[T]he Comission may i
promulgate regulations that would require some type of i
labeling so that consun -s could make informed decisions about purchasing a produc containing radioactive material."
a) What exactly will be the nature of the labeling on products.
containing radioactive material?
b) Will it ir.clude estimates of the health risk, or just a
(
simple statement that the product contains radioactive
-materials?-
c) Will it include the international symbol of radioactivity?
d)
If the specific health risk is given, will effects other L
than fatal cancers be included?
1 1
ANSWER.
l l.
L L
l Any requirements for labeling and the exact type of labeling for a given product would be determined at tl4e-time an exemption is granted.
Based on past examples such as smoke detectors, a label might include.the following:
a staterrent that the product contains radioactive material, identification of the manufacturer, identification of the radionuclide and quantity, a' statement i
that the product complies with NRC safety requirements, and a statement that is the consumer is exempt from regulatory requirements.
In the past, the NRC has i
1 not required that labels include the radiation symbol or refer to estimated health risks.
1 i
It should be noted, however, that it may not be practical to label all con-sumer products containing radioactive material.
The appropriateness of
. ;'.ing will te determinco on a case-by-case basis.
.v S-'
-J i
' QUESTION 19.
The NRC states that it is considering labeling.
This implies that people are entitled to know of increased radiation exposure from BRC exemptions.
Does that i
_ mean that for other practices, such as the disposal of radioactive waste into landfills or incinerators, that all affected citizens will be notified?
ANSWER.
At c minimum, interested citizens will be informed of proposed BRC rules, which will be published for comment as required by law, and specific BRC licensing actions that require either an environmental impact statement or assessment and public notice in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (llEPA) and implementing regulations. Also, as noted, labeling will be considered in BRC rulemakings, especially those involving consumer products. The public would certainly be notified of'any. rulemaking which could have the effect of BRC waste being disposed of in landfills or in-cinerators. Whether it is practicable or even possible to ' inform all interested persons of each disposal of BRC materials would have to be explored in each rulemaking. We should note that NRC regulations and tidance already
~
include BRC-type provisions exempting varicus materials from licensing, and that these provisions generally do not require public notice before each disposal of exempt material.
l
QUESTION 20.
The NRC has sought to justify BRC on the grounds that NRC resources can be more efficiently spent. Nevertheless, it' 1
is clear that the implementation of BRC will increase the number of fatal cancers and other health affects.
Does the NRC receive funding insufficient to enable it to meet its statutory obligation to protect public health and t
safety? How much additional funding would the NRC need to meet its health and safety obligations other than pursuing the BRC policy?
ANSWER.
Contrary.to your stated premise, the Commission believes the BRC policy will
. not have an adverse impact on public health and safety.
In developing its
_ policy, the Commission has taken into account-the views of the BEIR V Committee and other expert groups on the hypothetical nature of the calculated health effects and the large associated uncertainties at these levels.
These expert studies indicate that the health risk from exposures at or below the levels established in the BRC policy statement are extremely low.
Furthermore, the recent report of the BEIR V Committee concluded that " studier of populations
-chronically exposed to low-level radiation, such as those residing in regions of~ elevated natural background radiation, have not shown consistent or
- conclusive evidence of an associated increase in the risk of cancer."
It should be emphasized that the efficient use of resources is a secondary
- benefit from implementation of the BRC policy.
The BRC policy is needed to I
J
OVESTION20.(Continued) ensure consistency in the levels of safety for all our existing and future exemption decisions.
NRC believes the current level of agency resources provides_ adequate protection of public health and safety. The implementation of this policy will, over the long term, allow the NRC, States and licensees to devote more of their limited time, trained personnel, and funds to nuclear-related matters that are associated with higher public health risks.
l l
i OVESTION 21.
What timetable does the NRC expect to meet for implementation of BRC?
ANSWER.
. The BRC policy will be implemented on a continuing basis through licensing actions and rulemakings. Currently, the NRC has three ongoing activities which will use the principles and criteria expressed in the BRC Policy.
First, the Conunission is developing guidance for decomissioning of nuclear facilities and intends to initiate a proposed rulemaking on acceptable residual radioactivity levels in FY 1991. The Comission is also in the process of responding to a petition for rulemaking from the Rockefeller
- University which could expand _ on an existing regulation allowing exempt disposal _of specified medical waste. Finally, the Comission is reviewing the-exemptions contained in its existing regulations to assure their compliance with policy provisions. We have no basis for establishing. timetables-for other exemptions.
1