ML20029B989

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Development of Below Regulatory Concern & Exempt from Regulatory Control Policies.Forwards Documents Listed in App H
ML20029B989
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/14/1991
From: Grimsley D
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To: Becker J
Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project
Shared Package
ML20029B990 List:
References
FOIA-90-415, FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9103220127
Download: ML20029B989 (7)
v • d • e


Text

'..

V A. tvUGLL AM titbOL A 4 E.

wvedMthbluth NggF m A M agt:,1 N W M sty

,l a> 'y FOIA 90-415

.,'g.

MS8'ONSE TY(t j

r

[

INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST DATE I

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF I FiNat I Xl r^ati^'

..\\.e...

lMR141991 DOCAti NVM8t N$1(tr ppt,cao/f/

a RE QUE S1 t R Jonathan Becker PART 1.-AGENCY RECORDS RELE ASED OR NOT LOCA1ED (See checkedboxes/

No agency records subject to the request have been located.

No additional agency records subject to the request have been located.

Requested records are ava;1able through another public distribution program. *,ee Comnwnts section, Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es) are already available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L street, N.W., Washington, DC.

Agency records subjart to the request that are identified in Appendix (es)

H are being made available for public inspection and copying 5 ct the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC,in a folder urwt 'his FOI A number.

I The nonproprietary version of the prnposal(s) that you agreed to accept in a telephorv cc,nversation with a member of my statf is now being made available for public inspectio ' and copying at the NRC Pubhc Document Rcom,2120 L Street,. ' W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this Fol A number.

Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es) may 2e inspected and cooicd at the NRC Local Public Document Room identified in the Comments section.

l Enclosed is inf ormation ora how you may obtain access to and the charges for copying records located at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

y Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.*

Records subject to the request have been referred to aaother Federal agency (ies for review and direct response to you.

l.

Fees You will be billed by the NRC for fees totaGng S f

You will receive a refund from the N RC in the amount of S l

l-In view of N RC's response to this request, no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated

, No.

PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC OlSCLOSURE Certain information in the r* Quested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the e comptions described in and for the reasons stated X

in Part II, B, C, and D, Any released po<tions of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public inspection end copying in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC in a folder under this FOI A number, L

COMMENTS

  • Agency records subject to your FOIA request that are identified on the enclosed Appendix

?

H are enclosed.

The NRC is continuing to review records subject to your request. We will notify you upon completion of the review.

-r S

N TUR E, DIRE C R, Oly S N OF F REEDOM OF INFORMATION ANO PUBLICATIONS SERVICES A v /t/t 1A "m -

.,@..z v g,f ;qw y '

,s

~

qL&.L, - ;

J 3-

%g s

~.

b' d?., e.'

- 4 m

y T

9103220127 910314

'3d PDR FDIA BECKER90-415 PDR.

J g

m -,,in.m>

f OtA M.Nsinisk DAtt RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF k

INFORMATION ACT (FOI A) REQUEST FOIA 90-415 g 34 g (CONTINUATION)

PARTli* Ae'PLIC ABLE E XEMPTIONS I

Records subject to the request that are described in the enclosed Appendialesi

_ are being withheld in their entirety of in part under the Excmption No.(s) and for the feason(s) given below pursuant to 6 U.S C. 652(b) and to CF R 9.U(a) of NRC regulations.

1, The withheld informaten is property classified pursuant to Enocutive Order. (Enemptioh 1)

2. The withheld mformation relates so4ely to the mternal personnel ru6es and procedures of NRC. (Enemption 21 3 < The withheld mformation es specifica t, exempted from put>lic disclosure by statute mdicated. (Enemation 3) n Sect.pos 141146 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restrcted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.5 C,21612165).

ug Section 147 of the Atomec Energy Act,which prohibits the declosure of Unclawfied Safeguards Information (42 U.S C. 2167).

4. The withheld mfoemation is a trade sectet or commerceal oe financial m'oemet.on that is being withheld tne the reasontsi 6ndicated. (Enempton 4) i s'i%

7 The mfoemation is consideted to be confidential business (peoprietaryt elfosmation

++g,

9.e.

jp The info <ma'icn rs considered to be proprietary otormation puesvant to 10 CT R 2 790sdH 11 m,.

The mformation was submitted and received in ;onhdence nursuant to 10 CFR 2 790tdH2) sl 4

a n X

6. The withheld mfermat on cons <sts of mteragency or a traage,4, tecoeds ttu t aie not avadat>ie meoog% discovet, duemg htigat.on (L uemption 6), Applicabte Privilege:

Delsberative Process Dis *losure of psedec.sional sedmh wuiM ter'd to enhtt4 the open and leank eschange of iocas essential to the deliberative process

.

X Where records are withheld m their entaeiy, the f acts are sne ntric ably mteetwmed with the peedecia.onal m'ofmat on Theee aisc are e o reasonab4v se J'egabie f actua! portens because the release of the f acts wouid peemit en er.d tect inny, mto the preoecisional peace,ss of the agency "D Attoeney work product peivdege 4 Doc ornents pret>ared by an sitoenes e contieptanoa of ht1gation i Lg Attorney client privilege, (Confidential communications between an attorney and heer cleent.) 6, lhe withheld mformation is esempted from, ubhc disclosure because its declosure wosd result e 4 cleaety u eastanted mvasion of monal pnvecy (E nempuon 6) n

7. The wuhheld eformation cons:sts of records competed f oe law enforceraent pu poses and is being withheld for the reason (s) mdicated (E x emptlori 7) r Disclosurs could reasonably be espected to Interfere with an erjoecement proceedmg because it could reveal the scope, directson, and focus of E

enforcement efforts, and thus could possibly attow recipients to take action to shield poteritial wrongiomg or a eioistion of NRC requirements cy lD from mvestigators. (Enemption 7 (AH i Disciosure would constituto an unwarranted evasion of personal privacy. (Enemption 7(Cl) e;% The mfu.maten consists of names et individuais and othei mf oemaSon tne dM4Aure of which could reasonatser be espected to revealidentdies el j confidential sources (Enemption 7 (DD ~ ~ Of MLF1 PART li. C-DENYING OFFICIALS Regu ato<y Commm.cn regulatzons. it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from pro. Pursuant to 10 CF R 9 25tbl and'or 9 25lc) of the U.S Nucisar i duchon or disclosure, and that its product on ce d.sclosure is contra +v to the put hc mterest The persons respons ble for the den a are those of ficiais identifieo below as denyeng off.cials and the Director. Division of Freedom of Information and PubbcaOons berv1ces. Off.ce of Administration, foe any cen ans that may be appealed to the E xecutive D-ector for Operations tE00). APPELLATE OFFICIAL E3NYING OFFICIAL TITLE! OFFICE RECORDS DENTED

    • "^"

Assistant Secretary of the Appendix 1 X John C. Hoyle Comission i I PART 11. D-APPEAL RIGHTS The denial by EAT.h denymg o!Incial identif ed in Part li.C may be appeala! tc the Appehate Off cia ident And there. Any such appeat must be made m writmg withm 30 days of receipt s of then response, Appea's must be addressed, as approonce. to the E xecutive Director for Ope <atons. to the $acretary of the Co wm ssion, or to the Inspector General. U S. Nuciw Regulatory Lommission, Yeashmgton, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envoope and in the terter that it is an " Appeal from an inibal FOt A Decision." NRC FORM 464 (Part 2) (191) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

_-.__.m ___m a t b6l '*5 i* 1 1 Re: FOIA-90-415 ] R APPENDIX N 1 DOCUMENTS BEING PLACED IN THE PDR HUMBER. DATE DESCRIPTION . 1. - 11/09/89 Letter from Taylor-to Guy Vander Jagt j ,7 -(3 pages) i 1 s L 2. 10/31/89 Letter from Taylor to Dixon (3 pages)- L ' 91/02/90 Note to Chairman Carr (3 pages). - l 3. [2 . 4.. 04/11/99 Memorandum.from Taylor to Chairman Carr, et al (8 pages) 5.= 04/19/99. Letter from Taylor to Lautenberg-_(3 pages) L 6. ' 95/11/96 Affirmation Vote-Sheet from Curtiss- (7 pages)- . 7.. 06/21/90 Note from-Thompson to Federline,_et_al (70 pages) 8. 07/25/98 Letter from Carr to Green (1 page) 9. 97/25/991 Letter-from Carr to Partsch (1 pagw) 19. 08/13/99 Letter from Carr to Hampton (3:pages)- . 11.

08/13/90

- Letter from CarrEto Higgins (3 pages)-

12. -

08/13/90-Letter.from-Carr to_Teepen- (3 pages) +

13. - '

08/13/90 - Letter from Carr'to Schrage (3:pages) - 14.. 08/13/90 ' Letter from Carr to Holverk (3 pages)- 15. 08/13/90 Letter fronDCarr to.. Young: (3 pages) i 16.- , 09/17/99 . Remarks By James R.LCurties'- Repository l - Performance - The Regulatory-Challenge. l 1(19-pages)' 17. 10/04/90- .SECY-90-3457 Staff. Action Plan For-Implementation Of Below Regulatoryi Concern Policy? (28 pages) ~4 M"rM-V$ v wIPP'M-4 W gw e g-W -et-P 94 v4W-,-- sep,wwyswga-.. my -m-- y,g y-g ,%.e g-f 9m e.,,,, ,,,,,,9.

Re: F01A-90-415 'o APPENDIX 1 RECORDS BElHG WITHHELD IN THEIR ENTIRETY - EXEMPTION 5 1. CR-89-047 Letter f ron Rep. Hochbrueckner Concerning the Proposed Declassification of "Below Regulatory Concern" (BRC) LLW

a. Chairman Kenneth Ca rr's comments dated 3-30-89 2 pages
b. Commissioner Thomas Robert's comments dated 3-29-89 2 pages
c. Commissioner Kenneth Rogers' comments dated 3-30-89 2

pages

d. Commissioner James Curtiss' comments dated 3-30-89 3

pages 2. CR 90-003 " Letter f rom Terry Lash, Dept of Nuclear Safety, Illinois, Concerning the Exemption of Certain Radioactive Materials from-_ Regulatory Control

a. Commissioner Roberts' comments dated 2-6 1-pa9e
b. Commissioner Rogers' comments dated 2-7-90 2 pages
c. Commissioner Curtiss' comments dated 2-7-90-2 pages
d. Commissioner Remick's comments dated 2-7-90 1 page 3.

CR 90-050 " Letter to Rep. George Hiller Providing Information on NRC's Development of. a Policy Statement on l BRC" L

a. Steve Burns / Chairman Ca rr's comments dated 3-6-90 2

-pages

b. Commissioner Roberts' comments dated 3-7 1 page
c. Commissioner Roberts' comments dated 3-1-90'4'pages (revised) l d.) Commissioner Rogers' comments dated 3-6-90 1 page s
e. Commissioner Curtiss' comments ' dated 3-7-90 1 page-
f. Commissioner Remick's comments dated 3-1-90 1 page 1

4. SECY 86-204 " Policy Statement on Radioactive Waste Below L Regulatory Concern" a. For affirmation--8-5-86 from Samuel-J. Chilk 2 pages i l b. Commissioner James Asselstine's comments dated 7-31-86 1 page. E c. Commissioner Frederick Bernthal's comments dated 8-4-86 L 2-pages d. Chairman Lando Zech's comments dated 8-1-86 2 pages e. Commissioner Thomas Roberts' comments dated 8-5-86 2 pages f. Chairman Kenneth Carr's response to Commissioner James L Curtiss' views on the BRC policy statement -18 pages l

g Re: f01A-90-415 APPENDIX 1 ? 5. SECY 89-360 ' Commission Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control" a. Chairman Carr's comments dated 4-5-90 56 pages b. Commissioner Rogers' comments dated 4-30-90 29 pages c. Commissioner Roberts' comments dated 4-30-90 3 pages 6. Note to Commissioner Carr from Margaret Federline, 10-14-86 SECY-86-304 2 pages 7. Note to Commissioner Carr and his assistants f rom Margaret Federline, 7-27-88, SECY-89-198 Proposed rule on disposal of waste oil by incinerator--response to a petition from eel and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group 2 pages 8. Note to-Commissioner Carr and his-assistants from Margaret Federline, undated, recommendations on vote on_.SECY 257 Proposed commission policy statement on Bsc 1 page 9. Mike Weber notes on the response to ACNW's comments on the proposed BRC policy-20-90 3 pages l'. Mike Weber comments, 4-23-90 on routing slip to SECY-90-140 O 1 page 11. Note to. Commissioners' assistants from Michael Weber. 24-90,'below regulatory concern 20 pages 12.- Chairman Carr's comments, 5-25-90, on draft SRM fin SECY 360 61 pages 13. Margaret Federline's comments, 5-29-90 on the routing slip for draft SRM on SECY 89-360 1 page

14.

Note to-Chairman Carr from Mike Weber, 6-1-90, update on BRC 2 pages' 15. Mike Weber comments, 6-6-90 on thel routing siip for the revised draft SRM on SECY-89-360 1 page 16. Chairman Carr's comments, 6-8-90, on the-revisec draft SRM on SECY-89-360 56 pages 17. Memorandum to Chairman Carr from Commissoner Rogers, 6-13-90, part 20 revisions and BRC policy statement 1 page-

5 Re: F01A-90-415 APPENDIX ~1 18. Note to Chairman Carr and his assistants from Mike Weber, 7-3-90. improvements to NRC's regulatory oversight of generally-licensed devices SECY 90-175 6 pages 19. Chairman Carr's notation vote, 7-18-90 SECY-90-175 2 pages 20. Mike Weber comments, 8-6-90 on routing slip to the James Taylor memorandum to Chairman Cerr and the commissioners dated 8-3-90 1 page 21. Note to Dennis Rathbun from C. G. Jones, 9-21-90 Specific comments f rom Re ). Geor development of tie NRC'ge Miller's " chronology of the s BRC" policy and related events 10 pages 22. Carol Peabo'dy's comments, 10-9-90 on routing slip to-SECY-90-339 1 page 23. . Memorandum for Samuel Chilk from Carr,- 12-22-89, COMSECY-89-5, response to OMB on EPA's standards for management of LLW and discrete NARM waste 4 pages 24. March 1,1990 Note to D. Rathbun f rom Joe Gray: Documents responsive to Congressman George Miller's request on BRC (CR-90-050) 29 pages 25. April 6, 1990 Memorandum for D. Rathbun from J. Gray: March 23, 1990 Miller request _17 pages 26. May 2,1990 Note to Jim f rom Janet: Outline of BRC policy considerations 2 pages 27. May 2,1990 Note to Jim, Joe, Janet from Kitty: BRC policy 9 pages 28. May 10, 1990 Note'to Jim from Janet: Specific BRC recommendations-2_pages-R2 9. June 8, 1990 Notes on BRC issues addressed in additional views 2 pages 30.- Undated -Numerical -values for lifetime rlsk estimates 1 page 31. Undated -Comparison of individual radiation risk levels 1 page 2 x _

Re: F01A-90-415 APPENDIX 1 32. Hemo from B. W. Jones to Commissioner Remick dated 12-20-89 re SECY-89-360 Commission policy statement on exemptions from regulatory control 1 page 33. Memo from R. HacDougall to file dated 3-8-90 re March 5 meeting with ACNW Chairman Dade Hoeller on SECY-89-360 6 pages 34. Note f rom R. MacDougall to Commissioner Remick dated 4-23-90 re SECY-89-360 6 pages 35. Note from R. HacDougall to Commissioner Remick dated 10-16-90 re SECY-90-345 -Staf f action plan for implementation of BRC policy 2 pages 36. Note from Commissioner Remick to R. MacDougall and S. Crockett (undated) re draft vote on SECY-90-345 1 page 37. Memo f rom Susan Bilhore and Gail H. Marcus to Commissioner Rogers datd 5-29-90, suSj; BRC policy statement 1 page 38. Hemo f rom Susan Bilhorn and Gail Marcus to Commissioner Rogers dated 5 25-90, subj; BRC affirmation 1 page 39. Hemo from Susan Bilhorn and Gail Marcus to Commissioner Rogers dated 4-30-90, subj; SECY-89-360 2 pages 40. Hemo from Gail Marcus to Commissioner dated 7-11-90, subj; Background information for congressional hearing on commission development of BRC policy 6 pages l I l w.

op % t}1 07) g] Fr1{r-1 g j e, g-3 t m y a e y f \\ v L ~ . V '. 4 y . W i .3 s br db ebe ab ' d e c Buprs Up : Cens Wohh C Cn:ical %n C Hx::h kvm h Cn>.p : Ltption Crxp Septenber 14, 1990 l pi!00'.1 OfINiOM. 0 0t Donnie H. Grinsley A;! EUEM Freedon of inf ornation Act Of fice ~~ C.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission f ~~ Wa sh i ng t o n, De 20555 ~ db Ret Freedon cf Inf ornation Act Request

Dear Mr. Grirsley:

Pursuint to t he f ederal Freeden of I nfor r 3t ion Act, as anended, 5 U.S.C. S 552, Public C2 t i zen's Critical Mass Energy Project hereby requests cepies cf any and all records that previde: a I l (1) int ernation on t he develepnent of the Belew Regulatory Ccncern (BPCI and Exenpt f ron Regulatory C;nt rol (ERC) policies, including, 1 ut net linited to, staff analyses, staff 2 r plerent at ion plans, t ranscript s of neetings, SRC papers, and speeches by NRC enplcyees; (2) NRC star.iards for acceptable risk, as applied to BRC, ERC, and other rules, policies, guadelines, and other decis2cns, e>:luding inf orrit ion a l ready p; tl a shed (e.g., "Radioact 2ve Waste Belcw Regulat ory Cent r ol," rederal,l Pe3 ister, Yel. 51, Nc. 168 (A; gust 29, 19M), pp. 30839-30847; " Policy Statenent on E senpt iens fron Regulatory 1 Control," rede ra l RegLst e r, Vol. 53, Sc. 238 (Decenber 12, 1988), pp. 49886-49891; "Belcw Regulatory Concern; Policy state.ent," rederal Reister, vol. 5 5, No. 128 (July 3, 1990), pp. 27522-27537; .(4) NBC's cu r rent estinate of the health risk (including cancer f atalities and other health effects), environnental harm, and necessary safeguards with respect to radiation expcsure, including the presence or absence of a dose threshold and the relative ef f ect of Icw doses of radiation, inf o rna t ion en hew that estinate was fornulated, and relevant con. unication with other f edera l and state agencies. This request excludes previcusly published infornation, including these sources cited above; l 21$ Penr.syhania Ase. SE C Washirgton. DC 20003 D l202) st6 4996 h fguwQf. ! ifh-l l R:,', f y( 6 +

.n g t' (5)= Connunicat ion between the SRC and the Departnent of Energy, Environnenta l Protect ion Agency, Depa r tnent of . T r a n s po r t a t i o_n, Depa r tner of Defense concerning rules, . policies, guidelines, and other decisions regarding radioactive naterials deregulation; (6) Connunie4t ion between the NRC and-the Nat ional Acadeny of Sciences concerning the health risk (including cancer i fatal > ties and other health effects) and necessary safeguards with respect to esposure t o radiat ion. ^ This request pertains t o all records in t he possess icn. of. -the NRC, its contracters or l i c e r.s e e s. In this request, "reecrd' includes, but is not.linited to, databases which contain the requested infornation or a ny ot'her nencr anda, r epo r t s, studses, revi ews. - 'let t e rs, conput e r nenor ies and pr int out s, aud10.and video.t apes, novi es and ' other f or ns of et nnonicat ion, in the possession of any individual-or of fice in the SRC, whether generated by t he SPC, it s cent ractort or any other seurce. Public Cit i zen's' Crit ical mss Energy Project is a nat ionally knewn ncn-profit public interest organizat ien f, unded in 1974. We will use these doeur.ents in writing a study we are - cur rent ly -Fret aring on t he SRC's Below Ftjulat ory Cen:e rn p: 12 ey. - ; We - p'J an t e _ bre a dl y di s s eni na te t he i nf e rrat ion c ont a ; r.e d -'i n - t he se repq r t s _ t r'_ t he pr e s s _ a nd - t he gene ra l-put : 2 e. Our past pub)icat icns have at t racted ~att ent ion in :he local. ~ -na t ional - a nd. t ra de ned: a. sone.have addressed radicact :ve waste deregulation, specifica!!y BRC.- Thousar.is oi;eepies of the report s1have been sold c r d i st ribut ed t o nenbers Lof.Lt he publie, indust ry, and ? cit i z en g roups. Since 'f urni shing thesel docunent s-i"will._ significantly cont ribut e to public underst anding ef' _ gove r nnent-epi nions or act ivit ies" we ~ repest a conplete waiver e of any: prceessing or duplicat ing cost s -you-night incur in. providing these records _to us.- If you rule otherwise, please ~ notifyous before1fi11ing the request. ~ .If all1or any parts of this-request a re - denied,- pl ea se ^ c i t'e the : specific exenptions' on which you rely -in refusing toirelease- '-a the docunents.- e If in sone way thi's - request requires cla rificat ion or add i t iona l deta i l',- pl ea se. contact us. D SW 4 -~ -+- ~,

s Further, since the Freedom of Information Act provides t hat the rer.airider of a file rust be released i f onl y por t ions a r e exerpt from disclosure, we request that we be provided with all non-exerpt portions which are reasonably segregable, of course, we reserve our right to appeal the wit hholding or deletior, of any i n f o r r.a t i on, f As provided in the Freedon of Infornation Act, we w 1ll-i e>pect to receive the requested records er a fina l de t erninat ion with n t en we rt ing d ays. If your office is unable to f ully resr 1 to this request in t hat t2ne, please s end "c a writ t en est a r 3t e of wht n the request wi)) be cor plet ed. If you have any quest iens about this request, pl e ci s e t e l ephe r.c r.e a t 202-540-4996. Thank you f or your attent >cn to this request. S i r.c e r e l y, fd Yv.s 4 % Jonathan Becker Nuclear haste Foiicy A r. 3 ) y s t Critica) Mass Energ) Froject cf Put':e C:t.ren t .:9,3.:n, _' ' (f $, g-VW.'s &

'1 ?n-cua; / UNITED ST ATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '{ W Asm NG TON, 0. C. 20555 o, a ./ h0/ 0 31989 The Honorable Guy Vander Jagt United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congrescman Yander Jagt:

I am responding to your letter of October 18, 1989, which asked us for our views on the matters pertaining to low-level radioactive waste disposal raised by your constituent, Mr. Eric Lewis, Mr. Lewis is one of several Michigan citizens who have conveyed their concerns on this subject to their Congressional representatives. Specifically, Mr. Lewis' concerns are directed at Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) activities to exempt specific waste from further regulation if its radioactivity content is sufficiently low as to be "below regulatory concern (BRC)." The BRC terminology reflects a class of material. described in P.L.- 99-240, the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendmentf Act of 1985. In response to Mr. Lewis' concerns, I would first note that the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) has not published any proposed regulations which 'I would allow disposal of low-level waste under the BRC provisions of P.L. 99-240. However, in 1986 we did issue a final policy (Enclosure 1, 51 FR 30839), which established the standards and procedures that will permit the NRC to act upon "BRC" rulemaking petitions in an expeditious manner, as called for in the Act. The NRC has also initiated the development of a broadly applicable exemption policy. The policy would publicly express the principles and criteria that underlie Comission exemption decisions including those related to BRC waste disposal. The policy is intended to provide the public health and safety framework which would apply to the development of regulations, such as those - which may allow disposal of very low-level radioactive waste at other than

licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal sites. As a key step in this policy development effort, the Comission issued the advanced notice-(Enclosure
2) in the Federal Register on December 12, 1988, and solicited public coment.

~ The NRC received, and is continuing.to receive, comment letters responding to this advance notice. Over 250 letters have been received to date. Many of these comenters have expressed views similar to those of Mr. Lewis. We- \\ understand the importance of-these issues to concerned citizens and will be \\ addressing them in the Commission's final exemption policy which we currently expect will be issued in late 1989 or early 1990. s E 's I 9 \\ L s _q wwL-3 gfy c { . _d

'a >The: Honorable Guy Vander Jagt 2 In closing, I want to assure you that we take our mandate to protect the health and safety:of the public very seriously. As a result. the concern expressed by Mr. Lewis is one-that we must carefully ccns'Jer and address as we carry out our regulatory mission. Sincerely, Original Signed Bys. James M. Taylor James M. Taylor Acting Executive Director - for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated See next page for Distribution '*See attached for previous concurreness.

I .0FFC:RPHEB:DRA :RPHEB:DRA :DD:DRA

D:DRA

.:DD/GI:RES':D:REs

AEh
DCoo1*-
ZRosztoczy:BMorris* :TSpeis*

- :EBeckjord*:JAj a o '%ME:WLahs :*..:11/02/89 -: / /89 :11/03/89 :11/3/89

11/3/89

~TEi10/30/89-1"7/89 0FFC:DCA -NAME: DATE:11/ /89 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY w r-s. -,-,-,rw--- 3-e p -,, - - + - -

c- - g 'i r t ~. The-Honorable Guy Vander Jagt 3 DISTRIBUTION: RPHEB R/F - 0C001-Circ./Chron. EDO R/F: -NBridgers #0004051-SECY(CRC-89-U53)' OGC DCA s RBernero,-NMSS / .$Bahadur EBe'kjorrt Trpeis. ' Morris 2Rosztoczy 4 blahs 1 - s PDors,-RES890430 p 5. { 'f i - ~ i,. --,I 4' ,i.*f~- 9 ~- '-*: _]

j - A F-F I R H A T-I- 0 N V 0_T_E RESPONSE SHEET T0: - SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C0l+1ISSION FROM: C0ffilSSIONER CURTISS

SUBJECT:

SECY-89-360 - 00ffilSSION POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULAT0F.Y CONTROL X APPROVED - in part OISAPPROVED gpart ABSTAIN X NOT PARTICIPATING REQUF.ST DISCUSSION -:C0l+1ENTS: 4 See attached camments, rMM /v SIGNATURE 05/11/90 l DATE I, ENTERED ON "AS" YES _X_ NO 33pf/464D

x_8 f Commicoloner Curtins' comments on SECY-89-360: I strongly endorse going forward with a comprehensive policy that will establish a disciplined and consistent framework within wh ..e Commir' m can define those practices that, from the sts..sint of * . dogical risk, we consider to be below regulatory conces. .BRC). The principal ar*- itage of such a policy, in my view, is that it will bring n.s 1-needed discipline and technical coherence to the patchwork of o a regulatory r decisions that have beer, ondered to date, p;x viding a clearly-articulated, risk-based 1Feroach for reaching these decisions in the future. Areor dingly, I strongly siipport this initiative. With the foregoing ccaments by way of general background, e endorse the chairman's revisions to the policy statement, I to the following comments and modifications: subject Tndividual Dose Criteria I support the individual dose criteria of 10 millirem / year for pract4ces involving potential expc ares to limited numbers of the publi. and 1 millirem / year for wideauread practices that involve potential exposures to large numb.vts "f the public. In view of the potential for multiple exposures trom widespread practices, however, snd in the interest of administrative finality it would be prudent to establish the 3 mrem criterion as, I think criterion, rather than an interin vaxue. a final On the question of which Activities fall within which category (itat, limited populations subject to the 10 mrem standard vs. widespread populations subject to the 1 mrem standard), I would recomniend that we direct the staf f to develop more detailed guidance to address this question. The guidance should be draf ted in a manner that will enable thoso responsible for implementing this policy to sort thrcugh the complex situacions that might arise. To take one example, it is not obvious under the Policy Statement how we would approach a decommissioning action that involves some pathways that affect only a few people (e192, fixed residual radioactivity affect large numbers of people (e.g)., with others that might , majcr ground water sources). To address this and other similar situations that might arise, the guidance should focus on defining what types of cited where appropriate. activity fall within which category, with representative exam Finally, while it is conceivable that the need may arise on a l case-by-case basis to permit exemptions where doses exceed the levels established in the Policy Statement, it is not clear to me what the basis is for designating the level of 100 mrem / year. Since these decisions will to based on the merits of specific cases and since it is difficult to project what dose levels above 1 or lo mrem is necessary/ year might be appropriate, I do not believe that it to explicitly reference doses up to 100 mrom/.' sear.

f A_ . Accordingly, I would delete the reference to 100 mrem from the Policy Statement, leaving the decision to be made on a case-by-case basis. the rare excep(tion, rather than the rule. )I do endorse the notion that such cas Ocs lective Dose criterion I would support a collective dose criterion of 100 person-rem. A collective dose criterion of 1000 person-rem is an order of magnitude higher than the level recommended in IAEA Series No. 89, as well as the level zecommerded by most other international groups. Furthermore, it is ar. order of magnitude higher than the 1936 collective dose to members of the public due to effluents from all operating reactors to the Commission, December 14,(Egg Memorandum from James M. Taylor 1989). Finally, if the collective dose criterion is to be defined as the floor to ALARA (as I would propose below), a more conservative approach to establishing a collective dose criterion seems to be warranted in view of the fact that doses may be truncated in the calculation of collective dose; additionally, the collective dose critorion may be applied to single licensing actions. For these reasona, I am not comfortable with a collective dose criterion of 1000 person-rem. In view of what appears to be the prevailing technical view en this matte criterion of 100 p-~9on/ rem.{, I would endorse a collective dose ALARA Iwoulddefinetpeindividualandcollectivedosecriteriaas floors to ALARA. If we intend to say, as I think we do in this Policy Statement, that those practices that fall within the individua:* and collective dose criteria established in the policy can be designated below regulatory concern, we only contose our intention (as well as our conviction) on this matter by nevertheless going on to say that we expect certain steps to be taken to keep exposures ALARA. This is not to say that I object i I would point out that the Policy Statement allows higher collective doses if analyses show that the. collective dose is ALARA for a given practice. Therefore, adoptir,n of the lower IAEA value of 100 person / rem based on dollar estimates of resources to do detailed ALARA analyses would not eliminate the option to approve practices such as smoke detectors that involve large numbers of potentially exposed members of the public. 2 By " floor to ALARA", I mean that the petitioner and the staff are relieved from the regulatory obligation to perform further ALARA analyses below these levels if individual doses are 1 mrem and the collective dose is 100 person-rem. i

. to the ALARA concept. I support the notion that collective done and ALARA analyses should be performed in a manner that is consistent with basic national and international radiation protection principles. But to say on the one hand that the individual and collective dose criteria reflect levels below which no regulatory resources should be expended, while at the same time encauraging voluntary ALARA efforts to achieve lower doses strikes me as regulatory equivocation. For the sake of regulatory clarity, I would treat the individual and collective dose criteria as floors to ALARA. Justification I endorse the language proposed by the staff in SECY-89-360 on justification of practice. While I concede that the principle of justification of practice calls upon the Commission to make decisions involving so-called questions of " societal value", that ~ is not a sufficient reason to step back from this widely-accepted health-physics principle. Indeed, we already take such ca.msiderations into eccount, either explicitly or implicitly, in many of the decisions that we render. With regard to the alternats approach suggested by the Chairman for addressing those practices involving children, it seems to me that this approach poses the very real potential that we could, on the one hand, reject a practice involving children (1,gt, baby food, pacifiers, and the like) on the ground that the risk posed by such a practice is too high, yet authorize a practice directed at the general public that could, coincidentally, expose an even greater number of children, even though the practice itself is not specifically directed at children. For those reasons, I would retain the justification of practice ppinelple recommended by the staff in Alternative 2 of SECY-89-360 Truncation. I support the truncation of collective dose-summations at 0.1 millirem / year. I am sympathetic, however, to the staff's concerns that truncation at'this level may result in the loss of some information that might be useful in differentiating between options. Accordingly, the Policy Statement should be sufficiently flexible on this point to' accommodate those rare occasions where there may be a compelling need to sum doses below this truncation value in order to make a specific decision. 3 Such an-approach, if adopted, would superceJe the approach set forth in the 1965 Policy Statement on Consumer Products. l __s,,--_-a--a

-4 Preemption / Compatibility I do not believe that we should take the position in this Policy Statomont that the approach that we have established will be considered a matter of compatibility for Agrooment States in the aren of low-level waste disposal; nor do I believe that we should take the position that we consider the approach set forth in this Policy Statement to be preemptive on matters involving low-IcVel waste disposal. My concern with such an approach is twofold: First, I am not aware of any public health and safety rationale involving low-level waste disposal that has been advanced as a basis for the NRC to insist that the Commission's position on BRC should be a matter of compatibility for Agrooment States and, in a more general way, a matter of preemption. The argument, as I understand it, for making the Commission's position a matter of compatibility (and preemptive) is that States should be foreclosed from departing in any way from the approach established by the commission. To take the most visible and controversial example that has arisen to date, this would lead to the result that a Stato could not require that low-level waste streams designated BRC by the Commission nevertholoss be disposed of in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. indicated above, I am at a loss to understand the health and As I safety basis for taking this position. One hears the anecdotal information about reducing exposures to truck drivers by allowing BRC waste streams to be disposed of in local landfills, rather than requiring such waste to be trucked across tha country to a licensed low-level waste disposal facility. If examples such as this constitute the basis for declaring that we have a healtn and safety concern that, in turn, requires us to prohibit a State from requiring such vaste to be disposed of in a licensed low-level waste disposal facility, then we need a more disciplined case.ptation of the argument. To date, I have yet to see such a prese In the absence of a health and safety concern, it strikes me as incongruous to say that the risk from a particular waste stream can be so insignificant as to be "below (NRC's) regulatory concern", but at the same time insist that we nevertheless have a suf ficient interest to dictate how a State might otherwise wish ' This kind of information may well be a part of the waste stream petition that the nuclear utilities are reportedly preparing for submission. If so, I would hold open the option of revisiting this question if and when the petition is filed. But at this point, I have yet to see a health and safety justification that would support a decision on our part that States should be preempted from the option of requiring waste streams designated BRC under this Policy Statement to be disposed of in licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities.

a. . to handle that waste stream.5 Second, as the General Counsel has pointed out, we cannot resolve the compatibility /proompHen issue in a legally-binding way through a policy Statement such as this. That can only be done through rulemaking. Acm rdingly, I see nothing to be gained by addressing the compatibility / preemption issre at this stage, if our actions here have no binding effect. But beyond that, there is a considerable disadvantage to raising the issue now The question of whether a State or locality will be able to prohibit BRC waste streams from being disposed of in local landfills and, instead, insist that such waste be disposed of in licensed low-level waste disposal sites is parhaps the singlemost controversial concern that the general public has about our BRC policy. If we take that issue on at this stage, it will inevitably become a lightning rod fcr criticism, further hampering our efforts to communicate with the general public on the broader rationale for going forward with a BRC Policy Statement. For the foregoing reasons, I would delete any discussion on the 5 Beyond the health and safety concern, the argument has been made that permitting States the option of requiring BRC waste streams to be disposed of in licensed low-level waste disposal facilities would use up scarce disposal capacity and otherwise have an adverse impact on the compacting process. Indeed, this appears to have been one of the principal concerns advanced in the Commission's 1986 Policy Statement on BRC, wherein the commission expressed the view that low-level waste generators would "be competing for space in the existing (LLW disposal) sites and the (BRC) concept should be applicable nationwide" in order to ensure "that the system works on a national basis and that it remains equitable." It was in part for this reason that the commission declared in the 1986 policy Statement that future "(rjulemakings granting petitions (on BRC) will be made a matter of compatibility for Agreement States." (Policy Statement, 51-Fed.Rea. 3n839, 308%0 (August 29, 1986)). Whatever merit that approach might have had at the time, I disagree with it for two reasons: (1) Congress has vested States with the responsibility for developing and managing disposal capacity for low-level waste and, in view of this, decisions about how best to proceed, including decisions about whether States prefer to require BRC vaste streams to be disposed of in licensed low-level waste sites rather than sanitary landfills, are best left to the States. (2) There is an abundance of disposal capacity under development at the present time and, for this reason, the concern about husbanding limited disposal capacity no longer appears to be relevant. Indeed, if anything, States are concerned that there won't be enough waste to make it economically feasible to develop disposal sites.

. compatibility / preemption issue from the proposed policy statement. 1986 BRC Policy While the 1986 Commission policy on vaste petitions is not explicitly superceded by tnis Policy Statement, its status should be addressed. Where any inconsistencies exist, it should be made clear that the new generic policy constitutes the relevant Commission guidance. Compatibility is the only provision that I would obviously take issue with. Publio Information Campaign I strongly concur with the recommendation of the Chairman and Commissioner Rogers that a comprehensive public information program should be in place prior to the release of this Policy Statement. In this regard, I would place special emphasia cn internal workshops for those NRC staff (including Commissioners and Assistants) who will be called upon to address questions and concerns from the general public and others regarding the philosophy behind-this Policy statement, as well as the more detailed questions concerning implementation of the policy. Beyond-the development of the BRC pamphlet and Qs and As, consideration should also be given to the-production and use of video materials, as well:as the use of videoconferencing, as a means of ensuring widespread dissemination of information to the general public and other interested parties. A supply of briefing materials (322A, slides and vugraphs) should be developed for use in making presentations, with coecial care taken to ensure that such materials are distributed to those who will be speaking for the agency on this matter. Conclusion I-recommend that the policy Statement be returned to tho' staff for modification and editing, along the' lines reflected herein, and then resubmitted for Commission approval. In the interim, the public information campaign should be pursued.as a matter of high priority and should be submitted for the commission's review and approval as soon as possible. -.. : T . -. -..}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20029B989&oldid=4608565"