ML20029B994

Forwards First Set of Below Regulatory Concern Steering Committee Approved Slides & Questions & Answers,For Info

ML20029B994
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/21/1990
From:	Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Bilhorn S, Federline M, Lopezotin M NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20029B990	List: ML20029B989 ML20029B991 ML20029B992 ML20029B993 ML20029B994 ML20029B995 ML20029B996 ML20029B997 ML20029B998 ML20029B999 ML20029C000 ML20029C001 ML20029C002
References
FOIA-90-415, FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9103220155
Download: ML20029B994 (70)

Text

...

4. _ _ _.. _ _ _.- _ _. _ _ _. ___._.. _._....._-_.__ _ _ _. _ _ _.- _ ___. _ _,

i 1-

. ps too 4=

l

~9,,

UNITED STATES

+

((

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+

a s,-

f wAsmuotos, o. c. rossa

%,e..../

June 21, 1990 NOTE T0: Margaret Federline, Technical Assistant Office of Chairman Carr Maria Lopez-Otin, Technical Assistant Office of Comissioner Roberts j

Susan Bilhorn, Technical Assistant Office of Commissioner Rogers Joseph Gray, Executive Assistant Office of Connissioner Curtiss Rob-MacDougall, Technical Assistant Office of Commissioner Remick FROM:

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Chairman i

BRC Steering Connittee SUCJECT:

BRC BRIEFING M*.'CRIAL

[

}

- Enclosed are. the first set of BRC Steering Comittee approved briefing slides and Qs & As for your information.- Also enclosed is the current version of the Risk Connunications Guidance.

(

ig L.

homp n

.,-Chairman B

Steerin o

ttee

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

J. Taylor SECY-

-f h

r

'9iO3220155 910314'

-PDR FOIA

-BECKER90-415 PDR L?$ -,. -.. -,.,.

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

O 8

4 J

<CE O

C O

00 F-

^

O l

~

i EXAMPLES OF NATURAL i

RADIATION EXPOSURE FROM THE SKY - About 30 millirems per year from cosmic radiation.

FROM THE AIR THAT WE BREATHE - About 200 miliirems per year; including radon.

j 9

FROM OUR FOOD AND DRINK - About 40 m!!Iirems per year from natural radioactive materials such as potassium-40.

FROi?. SOILS AND BUILDING MATERIALS - About 30 millirems per year from natural radionuclides such as uranium.

P-1 s,rI

.I4-

?

CONTR;B,UTION OF VARIOUS RADIATION SOURCES TO THE AVERAGE RADIATION DOS; IN THE U.S. POPULATION

• Inte d TerresMai 11 %

Medical l

X Rays Nuclear

/ 1 1 /*

Medicine l

Cosmic

\\

i 8%

4%

Consumer Products 3%

Natu

]

02%

g Other <1%

I Ovupational 0.3 %

Fallout

<0,3%

Nuosar I;u,n Fuel Cycle 0.1 %

, y, Miscel!aneous 0.1 %

t

• Used 2:ith permission of the flational Council on Radiation Protection and Measuremen s P-2

~

~~

W' COMPARISON OF BELOW REGULK DRY CONCERN DOSES TO DOSES FROM SELECTED OTHEFi RADIATION SOURCES 0

Denver,'CO vs. Washington, DC 10 Brick vs. Wocd Home g

5 Aound-trip Cross-Country Flight BRC Practice Affecting 10 Limited Number of People BRG Practice Affecting,

1 j

l Large Number of People j 0

1 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Radiation Dose (mrem)

P-3

N

<m COMPARISON OF BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN DOSESTO DOSES FROM SELECTED OTHER RADIATION SOURCES 70 Denver, CO vs. Washington, DC

/

g 10 Brick vs. Wood Home 5

Round-trip Cross-Courdry Flight Um te Numbe o P p

BRC Practice Affecting 1

Large Number of People 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Radiation Dose (mrem)

P-3

21 %

?

PRESENTATION ON THE NUCt EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S 4

T.: LOW REGULATORY CONCERN POLICY STATEMENT 6

Y

- +....

0 l Outline.of Presentation a

1.-

/ Congressional Direction

/Below. Regulatory Concern b

/Past Practices ~

I

/ Objectives JRevision of 10 CFR 20 J Applications--

/Public Participation t

/Bersefits

/BRC Dose Criteria

' / Comparison to-Other Sources of Radiation

/ Basis..for Dose ' Criteria:

- / Implementation

.'/Conclu'sion 1

t y

+

4

=

~

-m

w 1

LC'ongressional Directive 7

Section 10 ofLthe Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy l.

h Amendments-Act of 1985 directed.the Commission to.' develop

/

standards and procedures and to act upon petitions to:

" exempt specific. radioactive waste streams from regulation...due to the presence of radionuclides...in

~ sufficiently low concentrations or quantities as to be below regulatory concern" 29,1986, provided A Commission! Policy Statement.ofi August

/ procedures for expeditious resolution of petitions to.

j i

i dispose of such wastes i

2 l

J 4

~

Below Regulatory Concern 1

- / The NRC is:now publishing a policy; statement to set a basis.

for radiation protection standards and to-expand the concept 4

of "below regulatory concern" to a broad range of activities

/The term "below regulatory concern " as used in the new Policy Statement, means that for. certain uses of radioact.,e materials, the risks 'are so low that to require expenditure c.

of^ resources to reduce them further or to impose regulatory l

controls is not necessary 4

5 t

3 i

t

7 7

p c.:

=

l Past Practices i

~

MPastiexemptions under the' Atomic Energy Act include:

i.

Release' of consumer products 'such as smokeL detectors

[

Release of decommissioned sites Disposal of waste. generated by. medical treatment.

/Past-exemption decisions were made on a case-by-case basis.

/There1was no. Commission policy.which provided a b'roadly-Lapplicable and consistent risk basis.for exemption de.cisions

.i g

i

' 4

.. l i-l e

,_.1 c.

.. ~. + '

"'t i

Objectives

[

~

l

[

f /The" overriding. objective' ct. the Commission continues to-be i

ito-. assure that there is adequate protection of the healthL L

Land safety of. allimembers ef the public i

VThe. objectives of the.polic'r are:

i I

Tol establish a. broadly. applicable risk-based framework

[

to ensure consistency in future rulemaking and.licerning l

decisions and for review of existing exemptions j

-ToiallowLthe NRC, Agrsement States, and licensees to 1

focus their resources on reducing'the most significant-l radiological risks under NRC jurisdiction g

i 4

I

l:

Revision of 10 CFR 20 I

/C'ommission is finalizing a major revision of its standards U

L forEradiation protection

/ Adopts! scientific basis for calculating radiation dose l

endorsed in Federal Guidance on Occupational Radiation L

Protection. signed by;the President in 1987-VLowers the radiation dose limit for members of the. public j

j

from 500 millirem to.100 millirem a

/TheIBRC Policy is compatible with these provisions j

t 6

4 1

(

.+

r 4

Framework:to Develop Regulations & Guidance on...

!/ Cleanup of: contaminated sites

/ Consumer. Products containing small-amounts of

.+

radioactive ' material

/ Disposal of very low-level radioactive waste

/ Recycle or reuse of equipment and materials r

i t

i i

7 i

3 >

c p

I PublicLParticipation

/ Policy itself does not-authorize BRC activities

/ Opportunity will be.provided for:the public to comment on each regulation proposed by the Commission to implement the BRC Policy

/ Licensing-actions that implement the BRC policy will be-noticed in the Federal Register when.they deviate from existing Tprovisions I

8

.mr-

. Benefits f

Timely and consistent cleanup of contaminated sites

/

Increased assurance of adequate funds for~ cleanup

/

/ Waste management practices commensurate with potential riske i-

/ Consistent level of safety for consumer products i

1 i

i 1

9 i

(.

e

.,+._w-t

BRC DoseHC.riteria

/ Individual Dose Criteria

-- 10 niillirem/yr o

j 1: millirem /yr interim ' criterion when widespread distribution of radioactive materials such as consumer products is involved.

/ Collective Dose.. Criterion l

- 1000 person-rem /yr j

[

Doses less than 0.1 millirem /yr excluded l

i j

,?

.- 10

.I.

.m..

4

6-COMPARISON OF BELOW REGULATORY-CONCERN; DOSES TO DOSES FROM NATURAL BACKGROUND AND MEDICAL EXPOSURES 00

. AllNaturalBackground'

/

//

g 50 All Medical Exams g

Natural Radioactive 40 Materials in the Body I

BRC Practice Affecting 1' 10 Limited Number of People &

l j6 Chest X-Ray BRC Practice Affecting 1

j Large Number of People j

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 i

l Radiation Dose (mrem) l a

S S v

a

Basis forLDose Criteria

.o lln!jpg

/lonizing. radiation is a part of our natural envfronmant.

l wpn m i

/Significant variations:in these exposures are experienced'by.

members:of. society without apparent. concern

/ Ability' to measure exposures

/ Commission risk assessments consistent with the National.

. Academy of Sciences (BEIR V):'

I i

=

. l.

+

t

- 12 t

c

, _____..~ - _ - _

.1

~

e

+

l..,

Implementation

/ The BRC p'olicy is not self implementing

/

Usirig the? policy as a basis, NRC staff shall:-

-- Establish residual radioactivity criteria for decommissioning

'Reevalente all existing exemptions Deal with new practices or petitions Ensure substantial public involvement l

13

x

~

g*l r

3 I

. Conclusion L

j The BRCL policy will...

Assure that there. is adequate protection of the o

healthuand safety of all members of the public Establish a broadly applicable risk based framework to-ensure. consistency ~ in. future rulemaking and. licensing de~cisions and for

-review' of existing exemptions.

To allow the NRC, Agreement States and 'iicensee a

.to focus their re. sources on rer'.cing the most-significant radiological risks un 'er NRC jurisdiction 14

wmws-me

--:a na s A

=

'.JL,--

--~a-*A-a-.-

-wu,1 rA.

A- - - -a-,

_.- -,--1-,,ex

\\

l N

S Q_

D g

M CC O

CD

<C 00 d

4

,.--.. _,.+

. ~.,.

Uses: of Radioactive Material V Generation. ofl electrical power

/ Medical diagnosis, therapy and research

/ Consumer products such as smoke detectors

/ Industrial. applications such as radiography of structures to detect flaws-

'!l l

B-1 l

I

1 Current Exempt Consumer Products Individual Dose Collective Dose-Product (mrem /yr)

(person-rem /yr)

Smoke' Detectors 0.008 800 Tritiated Watches 0.1 1200 ll Lamp' Mantles 0.2 8600 i

Electron Tubes 0.004 1000 1

I Welding Rods 16.

5000 i

Source: NCRP Report i

l No. 95,1987 1

i B-2

~

l What will NRC Do Under The Policy

/ Analyze proposals for. exemption s

/ Determine that the risks from the proposal are acceptable l

/ Establish the conditions, constraints, or requirements under which the proposal meets acceptance criteria

/ Inspect and enforce to. verify that the conditions, constraints, or. requirements of the exemption are met i

i

/ Review?the exemptions-granted to ensure that the pu' blic f

health aridLsafety continue to be protected adequately j

i B-3

+

=

1

.)

l Application of ALARA

/ A fundamental princile of NRC radiation protection policy

/ TheLALARA principle applies to= efforts by licensees to 1

maintain radiation exposures and releases of material As Low-As Reasonably. Achievabh j

VRadiation exposures and. releases of material associated with an exempted' practice should be ALARA t-

/ A practice will be considered ALARA by the Commission if i

the individual and collective dose criteria of Lthe policy i

are. met I

4 B-4 I

i

~

~

t Rationale for Policy

/The low leve.is of.' risk. posed by some uses of radioactive material do not. warrant the. same' degree of regulation y

As-other radioactive materials

/ Criteria-are necessary-to ensure adequate and

. consistent decisions on acceptable:ris.ks

/ Policy..will provide-a unifying risk framework.for decisions'about which practices can be exempted from the full scope of NRC's-comprehensive regulatory c,ontrols-

/ Criteria will allow NRC to focus. attention on those practices where regulation is necessary and appropriate to ' ensure that the public and the environment are adequately protected B-6

~

y E

to

[$

/[,

A IMAGE EVALUATION Q fq{[%

gy/o 77 %g 4)'

/

p

1. g TEST TARGET (MT-3)

%'Y f N

k

+$

s i.o

, m 23!5 !i!l12.2 U.

E RJ hikb l,l L2

'l.25 1.4 ll 1.6 ii 150mm

+

4 6"

+4+o

+%4 s

e:A, ;, y,,,4xxzz 6g z,7,g oh l

7

<!p ff

_ !* * ^ %

-'"'*~W'E.

<.,r,.

..--.~..su

Justification of Practice

/The Commission affirms the basic tenets of radiation protection (justification, optimization, dose limits) as

. appropriate.

/ Justification decisions are based on more than health and safety considerations

/ Justification should be determined by the general public and the proponent of the practice 11pl g

B-6

. 4:

h mwg ggg ggg;gy

.g

w

p 1.

Conditions for Exemption

/ Adequate.. protection of public health and safety must l

be provided.

/The application or continuation of regulatory controls on the. practice does not result in j

any significant reduction in dose received by individuals within critical groups and by the

. exposed population.

1 i

/The costs of the regulatory controls that could be imposed for further dose reduction are not l

balanced by the commensurate reduction in risk i

that could be realized.

i i

B-7 w

f e

y

+n v

s

u l

l-L Public Participation I

l l

i

/ Policy..itself does not authorize BRCLactivities

.i

/ Opportunity will be.provided:for the public to comment on l

each regulation proposed by the. Commission to implement the-a BHC Policy-

/ Licensing actions that implement the BRC policy will be noticed in:the' Federal Register when they deviate from existing provisions l

s a

i i

B-8 1

i 4

~ -

~

r I

-Quantitative Risk Perspective

/The Commission used risk assessments for low-level; radiatio j

by theLUnited Nations (UNSCEAR 1988) and by the National

~

l Academy of Sciences (BEIR V)

/The 10 millirem annual. individual dose criterion corresponds i

to an annual risk of. fatality from cancer for an individual

-of 1 in 200,000 i

/The annual risk from fatal cancer from all causeslis about i

400 in 200,000

/5ffect is not measurable within the variation of background radiation i

i

.B-9 I

i

'-e.

'4=w

~

I L

Basis for 1 millirem Criterion' i

i

/ An interim criterion while more experience is gained with exemptions involving. widespread distribution of radioactive 2

material i.

/ Examples include consumer products and recycled material t

i and equipment

/The interim criterion provides added assurance that l

individual exposures to multiple licensed and exempted practices will be well below radiation dose limits

/The annual risk of cancer fatality from an exposure of R

l 1 millirem is estimated to'be 1 in 2 million i

f l

B-10 l

i 1

1

~n f

Collective Dose Criterion

/ Collective dose is the sum of the individual doses from an exemption

/This criterion has the effect of limiting the total number of people exposed at or near the individual dose criterion

/ Added assurance that significant exposures.to r'~1iple exemptions will'be unlikely

/Not necessary to include individual doses below 0.1 millirem

-(annual risk of 1 in 20 million) in calculating collective dose B-11 I

l.

J p

3 l

i L

Interaction With State and Local Governments l

F i

l

/ Consistent; with Federal law, there should be uniformity a

l-between.NRC and Agreement State basic radiation protection' l

standards l

/The NRC!will implement the BRC policy by developing regulations, including basic radiation protection standards l

/ Agreement States-will play-an impartant role in developing and ' enforcing regulations compatibb with NRC's basic j

radiation-protection standards i

a l

/NRC will be assessing future regulations on a case-by-case l

basis to determine which should be compatible

/NRC. regulations exempting BRC wastes will not affect the i

authority of State or local agencies to regulate BRC wastes l

for purposes other than radiation. protection

]

i B-12 l

I L

l

)

L L

l Specific Actions Planned' to implement theLPolicy'

'7 Development;of proposed amendments to regulations and.

j supporting regulatory guide defining residual radionuclide l

concentrations for decommissioned lands and structures j

j

[

/ Systematic-assessment of current NRC regulations against l

criteria in policy to identify and initiate needed changes i

l

/ Resolution;of petitions to provide greater flexibility and j

j economy in disposal' of BRC low level wastes from medical 1

research

/ Publication of proposals in Federal Register over next few

[

j years j

i

[

i 3

i B-13 I

I

....s

4 t

l l

Information Required for Rulemaking i

i V A proposal for rulemaking to exempt a practice, either from l

petitionars or.the NRC staff, must be supported by an l

adequate technical analysis.

V On this basis, the Commission will consider whether the basic policy criteria have been satisfied in making its decisions.

V Technical basis-should include:

- Individual and societal impacts.

- uses of radioactive materials.

[

- pathways of. exposure.

i l

- levels of radioactivity.

I potential'for' accidents and misuse.

i i

quality assurance and reporting requirements.

constraints and conditions necessary to ensure l

the assumptions used to grant the exemption l-remain valid.

I s-14 1

1 1

M 21199g

.y -.

GUIDANCE TO NRC SF0KESPERS0h5 ABOUT COMINICATING RISK i

1-Khat are the Goals of Rist Comunications?

Explaining risk to the public in ways they can understand.

Explaining-the' risk as clearly and completely as possible.

Helping put risk in perspective.

Reassuring thelpublic that for practices determined to be below regulatory concern,-the risk is so small that no action to further reduce the risk is necessary.

These goals are straightforward in their aims, but may be difficult to realize.

Communicating risk can only be done ef /ectively by understanding how comuni-ties view risk. To achieve these gcals. learn to_ think from the audience's perspective.

11 What influences the Public's Perceptions of Risk?-

tFirst, realize the-importance of addressing people's values-and feelings.

- Techr.ical experts,-like you. view risk as _ a statistical estimate. Laypeople view n in more emotionel terms--bound up with prospects of ind.ividual suffer-

-ingLand' death.

Recognize the fears,-concerns, and emotions aroused by per-ceived health' risks-and acknowledge them. ; Remember that technical ~ experts make ' risk calculations' on' the " macro level": What will happen to -the community

=as a whole? Citizen concerns are " micro": What will happen to me and those I love?

tiet. people ~know that you're there to listen as well as to convey information. -

' Stress the importance to the-agency of audience feedback =through-question and. answer sessions-and by--other:means.

Remember that:for the public, deciding on acceptable risk is a value question rather than-a technical question. People assess risk according -to1 their own values, sense of risk, or stake in the-outcome.

III How Should You Present Risk Information?

Establish Credibility

-Ce forthripht from the cutset:

identify yourself, your organization, 6nd your credentials.

COMMUNICATING RISK 1

06/19/90

i If the public suspects Lean toward sharing more information than less.

you've withheld data, they're unlikely to be open to agency inter-pretations of the data.

Discuss data uncertainties, strengths, anc yeaknesses, identifying

--worst-case estimates, and citing ranges when appropriate, if you don't know something, say so.

Take names and addresses of e

questioners to provide f ollow-up answers.

Ajm for Understanding Rather Than Acceptance Don't confuse the two. The best you can hope for is to help people understand the issue. Leave acceptability up to them.

They niay acknowledge that, yes, the risk is low and _still not find it-acceptable.

For many people, the presence of a_ny risk, no matter how low, vill n

be seen as an invasion of privacy.

It will be a form of the "not in my backyard" syndrome.

Communicate the Multidimensional Nature of Risk Acceptability The size of the risk is only one relevant dimension people care about.

People will ask about related issues:

Have I chosen-the risk, or is it being imposed on me?

Can it be avoided?

Does everyone share the risk fairly?

Do I and others benefit from the risk?

How much control do I and others have?

-These are legitimate concerns to acknowledge and address.

Several mechanisms are available to do so.

Review and classify audience feedback.

Deal with the easy concerns first to establish trust--any stress thereby reduced is advantageous..

Deal with the tough ones, too, and even though those will take

, longer, the audience knows the-agency has a track record of responsiveness.

Explain the Risk-Assessment Process Explain how the numbers were developed so that the public understands them and has a-basis for having faith in them- "Here's the process and here's the information that-comes _out of it."

This background can help the audience overcome either/or thinking.

Note assumptions about---

Person living or working in worst location.

Linear proportions of risk to dose, even at extremely low levels.

COMMUNICATING RISK 2

06/19/90 l

.. _ y Note that_ the risk numbers can be presented in several different ways, _as appropriate:

o Quantity--amount released _

Exposure-' amount absorbed:or inhaled Concentration--6 mount per ur.it; Risk I.evel--estimated mort 6iities or effects per unittof time i

Don't' confuse these numbers when putting _ris'k in certext.-

'Use censistent terms.

'Show how-the data relate to similar data, such as radon levels or other background radiation..

Make Appropriate Risk Comparisons Used with care, comparisons are a powerful tool in risk communications.

Again... consider the value perception:-

You orouse anger by comparing an imposed risk (hazardous site) with'those people take every day of their~uwn accord (smoking).

Likewise, most people don't equate driving or sunbathing with a hazardous waste site.-

Using " homey" risk comparisons seems to trivialize the risk and may make the speaker seem uncaring'about taking the audience's fears seriously--no matter how accurate the data are,

. Try. to compare similar things The same risk at two different times

.The risk-compared against a standard 10ifferent estimates of the same risk

^

Similar data found in other locations (compare microR meter readings in several everyday locations)

EAcknowledge Uncertainty'and Disagreements Among Experts Note that-. uncertainty-is part of the process by_ which science; finds things ;

out.

. Saying "If don'_t khow" -is hard but 'important.

It avoids-the-perception that you're hiding sorlething.

L It can enhance.your credibility and boost your perception of; honesty.-

-Acknowledge-that outside experts disagree with the agency.

Do so when the uncertainty issue is.first discussed.

Don't-attuck the motives or credentials of cutside adyncacy experts.

C0fdNICATitlG_ RISK. '

'3 06/19/$0 E,, _ -.

~

_._.__..y Instead, explain the merits of your position.

~ Say that you cannot speak for the cpinons-of other people.

. Note, too, when opinions differ about value (how mutt.

protectionisappropriate)ratherthanaboutdata.

Explain-Built-in Conservative Assumptions Explain wide safety margins built into risk assessments te 6ccount for uncer tainties and to protect the public.-

Stendards are set to err on-side of health protecticre.

Avoid the tenn " conservative."

Use terms like " cautious' and " protective" instead.

. People think " conservative" means a Icw estimate, so that a-conserv-ative risk assessment procedure to them mear.s that -the agency's not regulating strictly enough by ininimizing risk rather than overcompensating for.it.

Adoress Demands for Absolute Certainty

.What's of ten behind such a demand is a question of values, not science.

People focus' on the numbers when they may perceive that the agency did not-or will r.ot listen to their concerns or involve them in i

decisionmaking.

Back up and listen to their concerns.

,1f the' agency reconnends no. action because the risk is so low, stress protective action for those:still worried rather than debating why uncertainty _is inevitable.

IV-What:the Audience.Wants to Know r

- Learn About 'the Audience Learn about the audience-and gear the presentation accordingly.

[Try-.to reet with citizens and connunity leaders.

LAt a minimum, develop al checklist.of likely concerns and questions based on similar agency experience.

Review and categorize feedback from: meetings for subsequent meetings-4 and share-this-information with other Headcuarters and Regional staff.

COMMUu!CATING RISK 4

06/19/00

_-.~.

~~

1 i

d(

'.C.

i Coo'perate with the Media Be open and accessible to reporters.

Respect their deadlines.

.l 3

provioe background information.

-Make visuals 6vailable for TV.

.. V

.How Should You Present Technical.Information to the Public?

Presenting technical information'with the utmost clarity is a threshold requirement. Clarity alone' will not guarantee an effective presentation, but without it, the presentation cannet succeed.

Establish'the Tone Assume you're cocimunicating-with an intelligent friend. unfamiliar with the subject.

Don't be condescending.

-Choose the Worcs Minimize technical terms, jargon, and acronyms.

LY.ou can simplify the-language without simplifying the content.

o

~ Tailor the Graphics Don'_t use. complex, messy graphics.

Convey only'one or two ideas in each graphic.

.Nake terms consistent between graphics and the presentation..

-Present the Numbers

.Use whole numbers and simple fractions.

6 parts'per billion" rather than "0.006 parts per million"

-~

Never use. exponential numbers orally or on graphics.

M Give~a number in.a context.

Not:

"a-risk of 0.047"..

! Eeiter: " roughly = five people' in a. group off 100 could be affected."

1 l-

'Cf,MHuhlCATING RISK.

5

'05/19/90

o' 1.

Not:-

"a cancer risk 014.7x10~6" Eitter:

" Imagine 10 cities of 100,000 people each,- all exposed to n amount of toxic substance X.

In five of-these 10 cities, prob 6bly no one wculd be aff ected, in each of the other five cities, on average:there will be one additional cancer.

Consider of fering several different estimates of the same risk.

"Our best estimate is Our cautious, worst-case estimate is The highest estimate we have heard, from the Concerned CTtizens -for a Safe Environn.ent, is Vl_

How Should You Prepare for_ the Presentation?

Identify the Crucial Informaticn Select'three or four main points and focus the presentation on them.

State the main points first, give f acts to-support them, then summarize the main points.

Don't confuse data and details with your_ main points.

Don't overwhelm people with technical details.

Bear in mind _that people do not remember much from presentations, so repetition of main points is important.

Provide handouts for people wanting mere technical information.

Rehearse the Presentation-

-Videotape and-_ review a: dry run.

Role play.-

It can _ flush out pat, unresponsive material.

j' It helps identify presenters not able to cope with anger or hostility.

l Hold a Q&A Period During Meetings to Promote Audience Participation find out what people want to know.

Learn'what:they don't understand.

When-they. surf 6ce, take the more emotiona l issues first.

End the Q&A. period with a sutinary.

Try to leave on a positive note by repeating any positive points made.

Keep lists of questions to fine-tune subsequent presentatiens and to share with the other agencies. (see belcw).

en.n - r - >, n x

-v <m-pro nion

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

t 6

Critique All Meetings Afterwaros Have an egency observer at all meetings:

To take notes on the presentation To record audiente questions, concerns, reactions videotape all neetings, if possible.

Transcribe all meetings for review if they are riot videoteped.

4 Ara g BRC Qs & As 1.

What is the BRC or Exemption Policy?

- Upfront and comprehensive statement;of how the Commission will make decisions about exempting radioactive materials from the full secpe of NRC's comprehensive regulations

- Intended to ensure that the public is not exposed to unacceptable risks associated with nuclear materials at decommissioned nuclear facilities, in consumer products, and with unlicensed waste disposal facilities; also intended to ensure that exemption decisions made by the Commission are-based on a uniform technical basis

- Nothing out of the ordinary; the AEC made these types of regulatory decisions since the 1960's (e.g., exempting consumer products, approving waste disposal, defining the material it regulated)

- NRC has continued the AEC regulatory practice of exempting nuclear materials that posed no undue hazard to public health and safety since its formction in the mid-70's

- Other Federal and State regulatory agencies make similar decisions on.a routine basis; for example

- EPA - defining hazardous waste, approving residual levels of pesticides, deciding how clean is clean enough in site cleanups, threshold for drinking water treatment

- FDA - regulations of animal drugs, food contaminants, and trace constituents in food additives

--DOT - classification of materials for transportation J

- Texas - defining BRC levels of radioactivity for short-lived radionuclides in waste

. 2.

Taiy does NRC need a BRC policy?

- To enable the Nation to better focus resources on those practices under NRC's control that pos( che greatest radiological risks

- To establish a consistent risk framework for exemption decisions-l L

i t

)

- To facilitate cleanup of contaminated nuclear facilities

- To help assure the funds put aside to cleanup nuclear facilities will be adequate by establishing a basis for better' estimating cleanup _ costs-

- To ensure the public is being adequately and consistently protected from the risks associated with the use of nuclear matericls in consumer products

- To reduce costs and overall risks to the public from managing certain types of slightly radioactive waste in a manner commensurate with their low radiological risk 3.

Why does the Commission need the BRC policy now?

- Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 directed NRC to develop standa 5 and procedures for handling petitions to exempt ' rom regulation the disposal of LLW that the Commiss on determined to be below regulatory,ancern.

- In-its review of issues related to licensing the distribution of irradiated gemstones, the Commission recognized the need for a consistent basis for all exemption decisions on quantities or concentrations of radioactive material.

- The need for BRC criteria was further sharpened by the need to get=on with decommissioning and cleanup of licensed facilities prior to release for unrestricted use.

- These considerations, along with the need to focus NRC's limited resources on those areas which pose the

.7 most significant risks,~are_the primary ~ reasons for issuance of a BRC policy at this time.

4.

How will the average citizen benefit from the BRC policy?

- Increased assurance of an acceptably low and R

consistent-level of risks associated ~with consumer products

- Enhanced protection of.the public and environment through timely _and adequate cleanup of contaminated facilities

- Increased assurance that tax dollars within NRC's authority are being spent prudently for optimal protection of the public

- Enhanced understanding of potential risks associated with 2

l

slightly contaminated materials and radiation in ganeral 5.

Will the public have an opportunity to comment on exemption decisions?

,- Opportunity for public comment will be provided with each rulemaking and each licensing action where generic exemption provisions have not already been established.

- Public comments on exemption rules for specific practices will be helpful to the Commission in identifying specific public concerns about the exemptions; these comments will be constructive because the public will be able to focus on applications of the BRC policy to specific practices

- The Commission will also conside~ the public comments to decide on the need for-specific controls or conditions for exemptions 6.

When and how will the policy statement go into effect?

- The policy will be implemented through rulemakings and licensing actions over the next several years; the policy is not sel.f-executing and is not a rulemaking

- Prior to completion of specific rulemakings to implement the policy,. provisions of the policy may also be implemented through site-specific licensing actions in accordance with existing regulations 7.

Does publication of the BRC policy mean that BRC waste can be disposed-of in the local landfill immediately?

Does it mean a retailor can sell radioactive consumer goods immediately?'

--No;-the policy does not, by itself, exempt anything from regulatory control 8._

If a practice meets the criteria of the policy statement for individual and collective dose, will it be automatically

- permitted for unrestricted _ release?

Or is there some other requirement-for' approval?

- The individual and collective dose criteria constitute the basic criteria under which decisions can:

be made, through rulemakings or licensing actions.

- However, a licensee must also demonstrate that potential impacts from misuse or accidents-involving the exempted material are not significant.

- Exemptions will also include the restrictions necessary to assure that those dose criteria continue to be met after the 3

b w

.,rr - o y-

>--ee

• -,e

+-

e-y,-

4 w

y.--e-m-ve,Sr.m=-e,--

=wem--

w-

=,

g

-+ - -=

exemption is granted.

9.

What are the criteria in the Commission's BRC policy?

- Final-BRC policy includes the following criteria:

Individual Dose 10 mrem /yr - average individual dose to members of the critical group for practices which expose a limited number of people (e.g.,

decommissioning) 1 mrem /yr interim average individual dose to members of the critical group for practices with widespread application (e.g., consumer products)

The critical group is the group of individuals likely to receive the highest doses Collective Dose Collective doses should be ALARA Commission will not require collective doses to be reduced below 1000 person-rem /yr/ practice Calculations of collective dose may exclude individual doses less than 0.1 mrem /yr 10.

The BRC policy uses a collective dose criterion of 1000

-person-rems per year.

What does " collective dose" mean?

--Collective dose is a term which refers to the sum of all of the individual doses.in the exposed population.

Thus, if 100,000. people were exposed as a result of a particular practice-involving radioactive material, and each one of those people received 10 millirem of radiation in that year, the collective dose would be 1,000,000 person--millirem or 1000 person-rem.

11.

Howfwere the criteria selected?

- The magnitude of the criteria for the BRC Policy Statement were selected on the basis that.the risks from doses to individuals from a practice should be l

comparable to other voluntary and involuntary risks 4

i l

f.

4 which are commonly accepted by those same individuals without significant efforts to reduce them.

- The criteria are considerably less than average amount doses from background radiation.

In addition, l

they were on the same order of.nagnituda as the variations in background levels 'J dose that are commonly accepted by members rd the pablic.

- The criteria are practical considering technological capabilities for monitoring and assessment.

12.

What risks do these criteria correspond with?

- Using a risk factor of 1 fatal cancer per 2000 person-rem, which is consistent with BEIR V:

10 crem = 5 in 1,000,000 risk of fatal canceri 10 crem/yr for life = 4 in 10,000 lifetimo risk 1 mrem = 5 in 10,000,000 risk; 1 mrom/yr for life

=4 in 100,000 lifetime risk 1000 person-rom /yr = 0.5 fatalities /yr among people exposed which could be on the order of 1,000,000 persons 0.1 mrem = 5 in 100,000,000 risk; 0.1 mrem /yr for life = 4 in 1,000,000 lifetime risk 13.

Why did the Commission choose fatal cancer as the effect for development of risk estimates, when other effects, such as genetic effects and morbidity, can also occur?

What about effects upon the embryo / fetus, or upon young' children?

- The Commission has based its risk estimates upon fatal-cancer induction because this effect is both the most common effect and the most severe.

- Genetic effects from radiation, although severe in terms of effect to the individual or society, have a much lower probability of occurrence for a given dose of radiation.

- Cancers which are not fatal are also known to occur, although there is limited data upon which to base any conclusions on their frequency.

Scientific bodies such as.the National Academy of Sciences in their BEIR V report have focused upon fatal cancer, and thus the commission believes that fatal cancer is the appropriate health effect to focus on to characterize 5

7 risks.

- 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 estimate used by the Commission is a value for a population that includes all ages, not just adults.

If the Commission is examining a practice in which young children were particularly at risk, then the increased risk estimates appropriate for that exposed population would be considered.

14.

How much will risk to the public increase as a result of NRC's BRC policy?

- The Commission expects that implementation of the BRC policy should indirectly decrease risk to the public over the long term by focusing resources on more significant radiological hazards.

- We certainly do not expect any measurable increase in s

public risk from implementing the BRC policy.

The individual: dose criteria in the policy are only a small

-fraction of the-doses from natural background radiation to which we are exposed everyday.

Further, they are somewhat less than or comparable to variations in background doses' which are also part of our everyday experience, such as where we live (70 millirem / year Denver vs.-Washington; 10 millirem / year brick vs. wood home)'or how we live (5 millirem per a single roundtrip cross-country airline flight).

15.

What is:the impact of-the National Research Council's BEIR V

. report's findings on the Commission's BRC policy?.

- Based on our review of BEIR V, the report's findings will have no impact on the BRC policy; NRC used a risk coefficient consistent with BEIR V.

- The risk estimates are generally consistent with estimates used by other expert groups such as the Environmental Protee.lon Agency, National Council.on-Radiation Protection.

and M?asurements, International Commission on Radiological Protection, International Atomic Energy Agency,-and United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

16.

Will.BRC waste be disposed of in local town dumps?

How will the public know it is there?

- Public would not know that BRC waste is in the landfill; from a practical view, for example, it would 6

.s v.

4 be difficult, if not impossible, to detect certain BRC-type wastes with conventional radiation monitoring equipment (a continuous exposure of 10 mrem /yr gamma =

1 microR/hr; background gamma averages 5 to 7 microR/hr

.with typical variations up to +/- 3 microR/hr at any spot)

- NRC will exempt BRC wastes through rulemaking.or specific licensing actions that will establish conditions for limiting the radioactive content of the waste and for specifying acceptable vaste disposal methods; once exempted, BRC waste.could be disposed of in local landfills with minimal controls.

- BRC wastes will be similar to and indistinguishable from the non-radioactive'wastos entering the landfills; a BRC finding by the Commission means that the wastes will pose t

sufficiently low risk-that specific regulation of the landfill, incinerator, or hazardous waste site for radiological protection is unnecessary

- Some BRC-type radjoactive wastes are already allowed to be disposed of in sanitary landfills and no problems with such-disposal ~have been identified to date (wastes containing

~

ismall amounts of tritium and carbon-14 under-10:CFR 20.306, smoke detectors, other consumer products) r

- public. assurance will be-prov'ided=by radiological surveys-and process controls required of the waste generators before the BRC waste is released-for unlicensed disposal

17..Once the policy: statement takes effect, how will the public know:there are some more things around'them with BRC radiation levels?

How will we'know if our town dump is radioactive, or our frying pan?.

-- In each-rulemakingfdecision to exempt material from regulatory control, opportunity for public comment will be-provided.

.The rulemaking decision'would establish appropriate Lconstraints on_the practice.

q

- In most situations, once the decision has been made :to exempt the material from-regulatory control, further notification-would will not be required.

--Thus, in most er es,'it will not be possible to determine 1

such as a frying pan, does or does not if aLparticular

-n contain materia-sa has been exempted from regulatory __

control.

7 q

l

\\

. ~,

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

18.

Will the BRC policy allow introduction of radioactive materials into toys, cosmetics, and foods?

- The policy statement does not-preclude such practices.

However, they will obviously have to ba looked at quite carefully.

i 19.

What allowance is given for exposures to multiple exempted products?

- The commission is committed to ensuring that total annual dose to members of the public from exempted and licensed i

activities does not exceed a small fraction of 100 mrem /yr

- Consequently, the Commission has considered the potential f

for multiple exposures to exempted practices in selecting the individual and collective dose criteria

- The 10 mrem /yr criterion would apply to practices with a limited exposed population (something that is not a widespread practice and will have to be I.D.

on a case by case basis), such as at a decommissioned facility; NRC anticipates that individuals would be exposed to no more than 2 of these practices -- most people would not be exposed to these types of practices

- The 1 mrem /yr interim criterion is for prcctices with broader distributions (e.g., smoke detectoro); NRC anticipatos that individuals would not be exposed to more than about 10 of these practices

- The 1000 person-rem /yr criterion and the bread definition of practice provide additional assurance that doses to members of the public exposed to exempted practices will not exceed a small fraction of the public dose limit in Part 20 (new part 20 will establish at 100 mrem /yr total dose)

- Each practice proposed for exemption will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to evaluate potential doses; as a practical matter, actual doses associated with exempted practices are expected to be considerably less than the criteria

- In addition, the Commission plans to conduct periodic research to evaluate the effectiveness of the BRC policy and to ensure that exposures from licensed and exempted practice do not exceed 100 mrom per year to individual members of the public.

20.

.How will the BRC policy affect background radiation?

Will it result in a general increase in radiation?

8

~ __

- According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the average annual dose to a member of the U.S.

population is about 360 mrem

- of this average, 82% is from natural sources (55% radon, 8% cosmic radiation, 8% terrestrial radiation, and lit from within the human body) - See chart below from BEIR V

- Although the exact amount of the increase in average background dose depends on the number of exempted practices, the Commission does not expect average background dose to increase measurably.

- The amount of the increase will be kept low because most people will probably not be exposed to exempted practices or will be exposed at such low doses that they will-not appreciably increase the average annual dose

- such an increase, if it occurs, is insignificant compared with the natural variations in background radiation from place to place (e.g.,

60-70 mr/yr difference in background radiation between Washington, D.C.

and Denver, Colorado) or associated with lifestyles (e.g.,

5 mr dose from a single round-trip airline flight across the U.S.)

21.. Are radioactive-materials purposefully introduced into consumer products now?

- Yes.

There are a number of consumer products that purposefully contain nuclear materials (i.e., materials have been introduced into the products for a specific purpose)

- NRC, and its predecessor agency (the Atomic Energy Commission), exempted from more comprehensive requirements the distribution, use, and disposal of these products,

-including luminous watches, gas lamp mantles, smoke detectors, static eliminators,-welding rods,. electron tubes, and lamp starters 22.

How will NRC ensure that exempted practices _ continue to meet the criteria-in the BRC policy?

only licensed activities will produce products and radioactive material eligible for exemption

- NRC will use its comprehensive licensing, inspection, and enforcement program to ensure that licensees comply with u

exemption criteria and conditione up to the point that the material is transferred to an exempt status t

- Licensees may also be required to test products periodically and maintain records that will be inspected by l

9 l

.t wtrm tis w

moon T18tAE$tmlAL og

% ase vocat x,

,,g h: ' ' <

cosuc es-s p ape )

N

,NQ e

.y$ $lJf ?

' NUCGAM M M

\\

t

+

',,',\\, i

,iefhhhMhI a suuem

,,gg jeb

,.,4 g m ovets n

-o oTHan<ts-n:==

un Fened

<03%-

RADON Mt weseer M oyees 41%

u wesen. owe ats

%w_

Sources of-Radiation Exposure to. Individuals in the United States (from BEIR V) 10 I

l

e d

NRC to ensure conpliance with the exemption criteria and conditions

- Specific implementation details depend on the exempted practice; for example For decommissioning - NRC will ensure compliance through licensing reviews, close'~out surveys, and independent verification surveys to ensure compliance with the residual radioactivity criteria For new consumer products - NRC will perform safety reviews of the product design; license and inspect the manufacture and initia? distribution of the product to ensure adherence to the exemption criteria and conditions; and inspect records of the performance and testing of'the products For waste exemptions - NRC will license the facility generating the vaste, inspect records of the characteristics of the waste and other conditions imposed on the exemption, and conduct periodic research on the effectiveness of the exemptions

- As with other licensed activities, the NRC will also pursue allegations by licensee employees, government agencies, and members of the public regarding violations of NRC requirements 23.

Will NRC's BRC policy and implementing regulations preempt States from setting more restrictive criteria for waste?

- Commission considers the BRC policy and implemenfling regulations rules to be integral to-the commission's radiation protection regulatory framework.

Histor ically, Agreement States have been required by NRC to adopt compatible basic radiation protection standards

- Although decisions on compatibility will be marie on a case-specific basis for-each rulemaking, the Comnission currently expects that States will be required to adopt compatible BRC regulationu.

- The Commission is concerned that inconsistent regulatien of BRC waste'could, in fact, undermine State and Federal efforts to manage LLW safely and to ensure timely decommissioning of nuclear facilities 24.

What is the relationship between NRC's BRC criteria and EPA's draft BRC criteria?

- In accordance with NRC's BRC policy, the individual dose 11

criterion for BRC-type waste disposal is 10 mrom/yr average dose per practice to the critical population group (a homogeneous group likely to receive the highest exposure);

EPA's draft BRC criterion is 4 mrem /yr dose limit for any member of the public from all BRC-type waste streams

- Deres of 4 and 10 mrem /yr are practically equivalent given the large uncertainties in estimating doses at such low levels and rates and the conservative nature of the calculetions used te evaluate such doses

- The criteria also differ in terms of implementation approach.

NRC would make exemption decisions based on proposals by waste generators, while EPA would focus on what material enters a landfill.

25.

What happens if EPA issues its BRC standard for waste at 4 mrem /yr?

Will this standard supersede NRC's criteria?

- Under Reorganization Plan No.

3, EPA was delegated authority of the Atomic 2nergy Act to promulgate generally applicable environmental radiation standards outside of the boundaries of a licensed facility s

- If EPA promulgates its 4 mrem,'yr environmental radiation standard for BRC wastes, this standard would supersede NRC's BRC criteria for waste and NRC would be obligated to implement and enforce it 26.

How do NRC's BRC criteria compare with EPA's radionuclide air emission standards under the Clean Air Act?

- For most radionuclides and facilities, EPA established an emission standard under the Clean Air Act of 10 mrem / year Effective Dose Equivalent (EDE) to the maximum exposed individual; EPA also established a 3 mrem /yr EDE dose limit for radioiodine (see Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 61)

- While the criteria in NRC's BRC policy statement and EPA's radionuclide air emissions standards are numerica!.ly similar, they do not readily lend themselves to comparison.

To begin with, their purposer, are entirely different.

The BRC criteria set a cuto'.f for the application of regulatory controls.

EPA's standards, however, set a maximum level for r;dionuclides in emissions from regulated facilities.

In addition, EPA's standards cover only one pathway to

man, i.e.,

the air pathway.

Analyses to support exemption decisions under BRC rulemakings will take into account all significant pathways to man.

12 3

27.

Will the NRC prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment for exemptiens?

- Yes, the Commission will prepare appropriato environmental reviews (Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements) in support of rulemakings that exempt specific practices

- The Commission will also prepare appropriate environmental reviews in support of significant site cleanup licensing decisions prior to promulgation of decommissioning requirements that would implement the BRC criteria.

Such reviews will be prepared in accordance with our regulations that impicment the National Environmental Policy Act in 10 OFR Part 51 28.

What inpact will BRC waste exemptions have on State efforts to develop now disposal facilities for low-level rtdioactive waste?

r

- States have expressed concerns that BRC wasto exemptions ccvid disrupt efforts to develop new disposal facilities for LLW by (1) decreasing the economic viability of the facilities and (2) changing the definition of LLW to exclede BRC waste Until recently, most States have planned to charge disposal fees set on a per volume basis.

A Gignificant decrease in the waste volume caused by exem9 ting BRC waste would result in Large increases in the disposal fees since the design and operational costs are relatively fixed, if waste generators chocse to pursue the BRC waste disposal option; however, states could set their disposal fees based on activity, risk, or some alternate meanu, and many are now openly considering such changes.

Some States have also committed to the public that all radioactive wastes generated within the States will be disposed of in licensed LLW disposal facilities; changing the definition of LLW has caused some States to express the view that BRC rulemakings now could undermine the credibility of the State agencies who made such commitments

- However, some States believe that some level of BRC is necessary to avoid filling up limited and expensive disposal facilities with very low activity wastes based on assessments of current and future types and generation rates of wastes, including decommissioning wastes 13

r A

- The Commission is confident that waste exemptions decisions made in accordance with the policy will be adequate to ensure protection of the public health and safety

- Inconsistent regulation of BRC waste could result in differing levels of protection of the public through different decommissioning standards /

A uniform BRC framework and set of regulations is a

needed now to avoid disrupting State and compact development of new disposal facilities close to the LLRWPAA deadlines in 1993 and 1996; such a framework may also help resolve issues associated with mixed waste management 29.

Can a Stato ban sale of an exempted consumer product?

- Not on the basis of its radiological hazards regulated under the Atomic Energy Act.

- State concerns about the distribution of the products would be considered in developing the requirements authorizing the exempt distribution and Ln the licensing action allowing distribution in accordance with the requirements

- Decisions on restricting distribution of consumer products s

-may have to be coordinated with the consumer product safety Commission and other Federal agencies 30.

Can Agreement States exempt vaste as.BRC if NRC has not alree.$y done so?-

- Yes; provided there ic adequate protection of public j

health and safety.

However, once NRC regulations deemed to be a matter of compatibility are promulgated, the Agreement State requirenents would need to be essentially identical.

- Texas has already successfully exempted certain short-lived, low' activity BRC waste from non-reactor facilities

- Arizona has also approved a BRC-type exemption for certain types of wastes, but it has not yet been implemented because the generator of the vaste has been unable to find a receptive disposal facility i

- NRC encourages close coordination with Agreement States in promulgating waste exemption regulations to provide for national uniformity, consistency with NRC's BRC criteria, and adequate protection of_the public 14 f

l

o 31.

Some Otates and local governments have passed laws and other restrictions on BRC waste disposal?

Are these actions valid?

- The Commission anticipates that *RC rulemakings will establish basic radiation protect 1-a standards below which additional regulatory oversight is not required.

- The Commission will determine for each rulemaking which BRC requirements constitute basic radiation protection standards, for which Agreement States must adopt compatible regulations

- Non-agreement states could not impose regulatory restrictions on BRC waste disposal from the standpoint of possible radiological contamination of land or water.

The same would be true of Agreement States if HRC made BRC waste disposal a matter of compatability.

32.

What happens if someone identifies an increase in background radiation at a landfill site as a result of BRC waste disposal?

- Although NRC has not yet exempted any new wastes in accordance with its 1986 policy on weste exemptions or the proposed BRC policy, NRC considers it unlikely that new DRC wastes would result 4..

. cetectable increase in background radiation at a landfill site because of the low activities of the vaste; NRC's environmental reviews of proposed exemptions voy1d carefully evaluate such impacts of the exemptions on the environment

- If such an increase is identified above NRC's PRC criteria and confirmed as resulting from BRC waste dispoyal, NRC would review and inspect licensee activities to evaluate whether licensees violated conditionc of the vaste exemption

- If violations are identified, the Commission would take.

appropriate enforcement action in accordance with the policy and procedures in Appendix C of 10 CFR Part 2; such actions may include licensee orders to remove the waste and restore environmental conditions at the site

- If no violations are identified, NRC will evaluate the situation and take appropriate actions.

33.

What is the difference between BRC and' Exemptions from Regulatory Control?

- The term BRC,.or below regulatory concern, derivea from the use of the term in Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which requires the Commission to develop procedures and standards to act 15

- - =, = _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _.

e expeditiously upon petitions to declare wastes "below regulatory concern"

- During development of the policy, the title exemptions from regulatory control was considered because the scope of the policy includes all exemptions of radioactive material from the complete suite of the Commission's regulations, including exemptions of consumer products and decommissioned l

lands, facilities, and materials

- Commission prefers to call the policy "BRC" because (1) it has already become known to the public and interested organizations as the BRC policy, and (2) the policy establishes criteria for making exemption decisions through rulemakings that assure protection of the public health and safety yet do not require excessive and burdensome regulation 34.

What is the difference between BRC and de minimis?

- BRC is a level

• that ensures adequate protection of the public health and safety, and

• below which further reductions in risk are not justified by the amount of public and private resources needed to accomplish the reductions

- De minimis is a level below which risks are considered trivial

- De minimis levels are less than BRC levels 35.

Do any other agencies support the BRC policy?

What about public groups?

Are other countries developing BRC-type policies and regulations?

- The specifics of this policy statement have not been reviewed by other agencies and public groups at this time.

- The concept of exempting certain types of materials is supported by a number of rederal agencies, including EPA, DOE, FDA, and DOT.

However, EPA has specifically been critical of earlier versions of the policy.

- The concept is also supported by the Health Physics Society, Conference for Radiation Control Program Directors, American Huc1 car Society, Organization of Agreement States, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, International Atomic Energy Agency, and the International 16

Commission on Radiation Protection

- Public advocacy groups generally oppose the BRC concept f

- other countries and international groups are developing and implementing BRC-type policies; most of these countries and international groups have established individual and col?.nctive dose criteria based on the "de minimis" or trivisi risk concept as compared to BRC.

36.

What happens if I live adjacent to a landfill that receives BRC waste?

Under NRC's policy, how much dose could I get by drinking contaminated water and growing my own vegetables?

- Analyses used to support BRC waste exemptions would consider all plausible pathways of human exposure to radiation and rac!oactive materials from the candidate waste, including 'ngestion of contaminated groundwater and vegetables by residents near landfills.

If you are an average member of the critical group you could receive a dose of up to 10 mrem /yr.

37.

How would the BRC policy affect disposal of mixed waste?

- Mixed waste is waste that contains a radiological component regulated by NRC under its Atomic Energy Act authority and a non-radiological component regulated by EPA under authority of the Resource Conservation &

Recovery Act, as amended.

- If HRC decides to exempt the radiological component of such vaste from regulatory control, such wastes would only be subject to the hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, thus eliminating dual regulat. ion of the same waste

- Bite wastes would still be subject to any applicable Federal, Stat 9, or local regulatory requirements associated with the non-radiological properties of.the vaste 38.

Why did the commission choose to make the 1 mrem per year individual dose criterion an interim value rather than a final value?

- The Commission chose to use the 1 mrem / year as an interim value until it gained more experience with the potential for individual exposures from multiple licensed and exempted practices.

This value will be applied to those practices involving widespread distribution of radioactive material in such items as consumer products or recycled material and equipment.

17 J

j.

I

+

(

l 39.

Has the NRC developed criteria for determining when the 10 mrem value should be used and when the 1 mres value should be used to evaluate an exemption under the BRC policy statement?

- The NRC has not at this point developed such

-criteria.

However, the staff will be developing such criteria as NRC undertakes rulemakings to implement this policy statement.

40.

Why did the corsaission choose a collective done criterion of 1000 person-rem, when Commissioner Curtiss and the IAEA prefer a value of 100 person-rem?

- The Commission considered two fundamental questions associated with the collective dose criterion:

(1) is there a need for a collective dose criterion, and, if so, (2) what should the value be for that criterion?

- The Commission initially questioned the need for a collective dose criterion because

• There is considerable uncertainty about the validity of risk estimates based on collective dose estimates comprised of very small doses to large numbers of people

• The individual dose criteria of 1 and 10 mram/yr, coupled with other provisions of the policy (e.g.,

broad definition of practices) were selected to ensure protection of members of the public from exempted practices

• NRC's general regulatory framework does not include specific constrainus on collective dose

• Over 75% of the public commentors, including the Health Physics Society, objected to establishing a collective dose criterion

- Despite these considerations, the Commission also recognized the benefit of a collective dose criterion in limiting the total population dose associated with excmpted practices and in assessing environmental impacts associated with exemptions; consequently, the Commission decided to establish a' collective dose criterion provided that it did not constrain exemptions without an adequate health and 1

safety basis.

- Recognizing uncertainties about risk estimates based on collective dose calculations involving small doses to a large number of people, the Commission selected the value of 1000 person-rem /yr as a valid IcVel of collective dose which 18 s

r - <rr

-vw wa---v m -

=w e

e a

e--,-m e

,s----e r--,ww--w~-

u

- + - +

v

i r

i ensures less than one fatal cancer per practice por year.

- The Commission relied on contemporary recommendations of expert national and international bodies in selecting the collective dose criterion.

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded in 1988 that collective dose calculations only provide realistic estimates of health risks if the collective dose is at 1 cast of the order of 10.000 person-rem.

UNSCEAR also concluded that the most likely outcome of collective doses on the order of a few hundred person-rom is zero deaths.

In the United States, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements similarly recommended against considering collective doses made up of small dosos (less than 1 mr/yr) to large numbers of people (NCRP Report Number 91).

- The Commission considered the magnitude of collective doses associated with exempted practices that had already found acceptable; examples of these doses are 1200 person-rem /yr from wrist watches with tritium paint; 800 person-rem /yr from smoke detectors; and 8600 person-ren/yr from gas lamp mantles (NCRP Report No. 95).

- The commission also considered the magnitude of collective doses associated with licensed activities, such as the discharge of effluent from nuclear power plants under Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50.

The commission noted that a value of 1000 person-rem /yr was generally consistent with the ALARA design objectives for effluent treatment systems that have been established in Appendix I.

The commission also noted that licensees' performance has generally exceeded that required by the objectives in reducing the collective dose associated with effluent to about 300 person-rem /yr.

- For all of these reasons, the commission selected a collective dose criterion of 1000 person-rom /yr as compared to higher or lower values for this criterion.

41.

Are the criteria to be used as a floor to ALARA, or will the Commission continue to require that additional efforts be made to reduce exposures in keeping with the ALARA principle, even if doses are below the criteria?

- The criteria basically constitute a floor to ALARA for exemption decisions.

19

- A !acensee using an exemption codified in NRC regulations would no longer be required to apply the ALARA principle to reduce doses further for the exempted practice, provided that it meets the conditions specified in the regulation.

The promulgation of the regulation would, under these circumstarecs, constitute a finding that the practice is exenpted in accordance with the provisions of the regulation and that ALARA considerations have been adequately addressed from a regulatory standpoint.

- The' Commission will issue guidance to impicment the BRC policy that will describe specific applications of the BRC policy to ALARA decisions other than those associated with exemptions.

42.

Why has the Commission chosen not to use the justification principle in its examination of practices for exemption?

- Decisions on justification of practice (i.e., whether the potential impacts of a particular practice are justified in terms of net benefits to society) involve considerations that fall outside of the Commission's primary focus and expertise for ensuring adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment from the use of nucicar materials.

- The Commission considers that decisions on justification of practice that involve social and cultural value judgments should be made by affected elements of society (namely area residents, potential customers, suppliers and members of the general public), rather than NRC.

- The Commission's position on justification of practice is consistent with IAEA's recognition that justification decisions derive from considerations outside of radiation protection alone (Safety Series No. 89).

(However, IAEA in Safety Series No. 89 says practices should de justified.)

- The Commission's position on justification should foster long-term stability in regulatory decisionmaking on potential exemptions; exemptions will be based on an explicit, objective, and rational consideration of the risks involved with practices, rather than on personal preferences of the Commission.

43.

What about all of the exemptions that are currently out thoro?

Will the Commission review these to determine if they meet the criteria in the BRC policy?

- Yes.

The Commission plans to undertake a systematic assessment of exemptions currently existing in NRC's 20

regulations to ensure that the public is e.equately and consistently protected from the risks associated with exempted practices.

- In addition, the NRC will, on a periodic basis, review the exemptions that have been granted under this policy to ensure that the public health and safety continue to be ad.p :tely protected.

44.

Will there be some recordkeeping requirements of where BRC waste is sent for disposal?

- Specific recordkeeping requirements will be determined in any rulemaking that would exempt some type of waste under the BRC policy.

- In general, the commission believes that certain conditions, requirements, or constraints might be needed to ensure that the assumptions under which an exemption decision is made remain valid.

- Requirements or specification of acceptable disposal facilities or methods, including a requirement for records, could be part of such an exemption if the commission concludes that such a requirement is necessary or appropriate.

45.

What agency will monitor the burial sites to be assured that only BRC material is being dumped into landfill areas?

- The Commission believes there will be no need to monitor, solely as a result of HRC's BRC decisions, the burial sites receiving BRC waste streams.

- The monitoring of these waste streams will take place before the material leaves a licensee's control and is transferred to an exempt status.

46.

Will BRC consumer products and wastu streams have to be labelled during transportation?

Will this require some action by the Department of Transportation (DOT)?

I

- dot has defined a threshold limit of 2 nanocuries per gram for classifying materials as radioactive.

- If consumer products containing radioactive material or BRC waste streams should exceed this limit, then the labelling, placarding, and manifesting requirements contained in 49 CFR Part 173 would apply.

47.

Could a State use this policy to establish requirements for NARM?

21 1

- Since NRC does not regulate NARM, petitions applying for BRC exemptions for these materials would not be reviewed by the NRC.

- The EPA snd the States have jurisdiction for NARN and could consider such petitions under their Authority.

48.

Could generally-licensed devices (e.g.,

exit signs) be disposed of in groups if the dose criteria are not exceeded?

- Yes.

The Commission would consider such proposals.

49.

I am building a child care center.

Can I use BRC material for landfill?

- Yes. If slightly contaminated soil is released for unrestricted public use in accordance with an NRC regulation based on the BRC policy, this material could be used for landfill.

- such use, however, must comply with other applicable Federal, State and local regulations governing any other toxic or hazardous property of this material.

50.

Hasn't the BEIR V report recently stated that risks from radiation xa several times greater than previously expected?

- Yes.

The BRC policy is founded on risk estimates based on the conclusions of the BEIR V Committee.

S1.

Is NRC saying that there will be no impact on health and safety or the environment from all exemptions that will be granted?

- For each exemption considered, NRC would analyze exposures to individuals and society for comparison with the BRC dose criteria.

- By establishing these criteria at levels that are fractions of natural background radiation and that are comparable to variations in background, the Commission has ensured that such exemptions will not have a measurable impact on public health and safety and the environment.

- In addition, as an added measure of protection, the Commission intends to evaluate the potential for aggregated exposures from multiple exempted practices and licensed activities to ensure that such exposures remain below 100 mrom/yr.

52.

If the entire U.S. population were exposed to 10 millirem, 22

~

then 1250 would die as a result of the BRC policy.

Does the commission deny that this is the case?

- There is no reasonable way for the entire population of the U.S.

to be exposed to a 10 millirem dose as a result of exemptions made under this policy.

- The individual and collective criteria, along with other provisions of the policy, prevent this from occurring.

- At most, there would be a limited number of people exposed to doses at these levels, which are at such low doses that it would not be possible to discern or measure any adverse effects.

53.

What exposures are being received by members of the public from previous NRC exemptions and from other NRC-licensed activities?

- The National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) estimates that the average annual dose to the U.S. population from previous exemptions and NRC-licensed activities is on the order of 0.1 millirem (NCRP Reports 93 and 95).

- This can be compared with the 6 to 13 millirem / year average dose received from all types of consumer products that are not licensed or exempted by NRC (e.g., domestic water supplies, use of fossil fuels, building materials, televisions).

- The contribution to the average annual dose attributed to NRC-licensed activities is less than 0.06 millirem (NCRP Report 93).

54.

A number of possible exemptions involve consumer products and the recycle of contaminated materials.

Mov vill the public be able to express its opposition to such exemptions?

- Members of the public could express their opposition in several ways.

- For example, people could comment on exemption regulations proposed by NRC.

These comments could lead the commission to withdraw a proposed exemption or modify it in some way.

- Alternatively, the Commission might determine that special constraints should be imposed on the proposed exemption as a result of the public comments (e.g.,

labeling of a product so the public could make an informed decision about whether to purchase or use the product).

23

o j

l 55.

What is a rem?

- The rem is the unit of dose equivalent currently used in the United States to measure radiation and is the product of the energy deposited in tissue and a quality facter that depends on the magnitude of damage that a particular type of radiation produces.

A millirem is one-thousandth of a rem.

- For example, gamma or x-ray radiation produces one level of damage per energy deposited it tissue.

Alpha radiation is 20 times more effective in producing damage than gamma or x-rays.

Therefore, a quality factor of 20 is used for alpha radiation.

- The international radiation protection community uses a slightly different set of units for radiation exposure and dose.

In that system, the unit of dose equivalent is the Sievert.

Sievert la equal to 100 rem, and is abbreviated Sv.

56.

How have you factored into the BRC policy decision the new information in the Gardner report purporting to show a link between radiation exposure of fathers at the Sellafield nuclear facility in Great Britain and leukemia in their children?

- The specific information in the Gardner report of leukemia in children has not been incorporated into the BRC decision per se.

This information is preliminary in nature, and the Gardner report itself acknowledges that further research is necessary.

It should also be noted that the dose to the fathers which was correlated to leukemia was on the order of 10 rem, whic!. is considerably higher than the levels of dose in the BRC policy statement.

- The Commission has made a commitment to continue to be aware of developments in the area of radiation health effects (SRM dated October 13, 1989).

As more information becomes available, and the validity of the relationship between childhood leukemia and exposure of the father (or parents) is determined, the commission will continue to determine if changes to policies or regulations are necessary to protect the public health and safety, and the environment.

57.

Isn't it premature to issue this BRC policy statement now in view of the high incidence of cancer around'the Pilgrim nuclear power plant, when NCI is still working on its report?

- The Commission is aware of the work being done by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National 24

o ** @

Institutes of Health.

It is our understanding that their report is not yet finalized.

However, we also understand that there was apparently not a basis for finding a statistically significant increase in leukemia in the vicinity of the Pilgrim nuclear power planc.

- This is another example of the types of evidence which will continue to be developed by the Scientific community relating to the health effects of radiation.

The Commission plans to continue to be aware of these developments, and to take appropriate actions if changes to regulationn, policy statements, etc., are necessary to protect the public health and safety, and the environment.

58.. Why is.it necessary to withdraw the 1965 policy statement on Consumer Products?

- The.BRC Policy StateLent is designed to provide a consistent framework for exempting specific practices involving small quantities of radioactive material from regulatory control.

One of the specific areas covered by the policy statement is consumeT products.

The commission has determined that the BRC policy statement should supersede the 1965 policy statement because it covers the arena of consumer products, and it provides for a consistent evaluation and control of risks associated with exespted practices.

59.

How can-the public exercise its discretion in choosing whether to purchase radioactive prcducts made from recycled metals-(e.g., automobile frames) when these items cannot be labeled in an obvious way?.

- We recognize that there may be cases where labeling of consumer products or recycled materials will be impractical or ineffective in notifying the public.

However, when such exemptions are considered by the Commission there will be a vigorous effort to assure that the public is made aware of the possibility of distribution of.these products or materials.-

In particular, members of the public would=have an opportunity to. comment on proposed rules, and other mechanisms, nuch as public meetings or workshops, might1 also be considered.

- However, it should be reemphasized that the commission believes that exempted practices should constitute a very low level of risk.

In the case of widely distributed consumer products, the risk will be less than those risks that are' commonly experienced and 25

?-

. ~. -

l.. ~,

i taken for granted by society.

If a practice is granted an exemption under the BRC policy statement criteria, then the Commission has stated that the risks are sufficiently small that they are "below regulatory concern," and therefore that labeling is not necessary to protect public health and safety or the environment.

60.

How did the National Academy of Science, committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, arrive at its risk numbers in BEIR V?

- The BEIR V Committee developed its estimates of risk on the basis on the data available on the risk of ionizing radiation, mostly in humans.

The principle source of data for the Committee was the data available from the survivors of the Atomic bombs in Japan.

However, data is also available from other sources, such as the medical irradiation of patients.

- The estimates of risk are based on examination of the incidence of various effects, principally cancer, in the exposed population as compared to a control population.

In the case of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, the exposed population received a wide range of doses, all of which were orders of magnitude (e.g.,

5000 times) greater than the levels considered in the BRC policy.

The excess incidence of cancer in the exposed population is then modeled, and an extrapolation made to lower dose and dose rates.

61.

Does the NRC have any petitions related to disposal of BRC waste under consideration now?

- Yes.

Petitions have been received from Rockefeller University, the University of Utah, and Edison Electric Institute.

The petitioners requested authorization for licensees to dispose of certain very low level radioactive vastes, without regard to radioactivity, by incineration or burial in landfills.

The petitioners cite low potential hazards associated with the disposals, and cost savings, as justifications for their requests.

The NRC staff is currently evaluating these petitions, and will provide the staff recommendations to the Commission'for consideration.

62.

If-the nuclear industry submits its petition to dispose of reactor wastes as BRC, what will the NRC do?

- If the nuclear-industry petition is submitted, the NRC will consider the merits of the petition.

The receipt of the petitions-will be noticed in the Federal L

Register, and comments on the petition will be received i

I 26

o.. o and considered.

The Commission will also determine if the petition qualifies for expedited handling under the provisions of the 1986 policy statement on Enc wastes.

If it is determined that the petition has merit and meets the criteria of the 1986 policy and the BRC Policy Statement, then the Commission would propose a rulemaking in response to the petition and the public would once again have an opportunity to comment.

The Commission would then determine if a final rule is appropriate, based upon the comments received and technical analysis.

- In this process, the public will have several opportunities to comment.

Likewise, state and local

-governments will have an opportunity to comment, and Agreement states will be consulted with regard to issues of compatibility.

63.

What is the relationship between revised 10 CFR Part 20 and the BRC policy?

- The revisions to 10 CFR Part 20 will modify NRC's radiation protection standards to tL>e into account updated scientific information 'n tidJonuclide uptake and metabolism.

When Part 20 is prejulgated it will incorporate a unified approach to dose assessment as well as revised occupational and ;ublic dose limits.

- Under new Part 20, dose limits to members of the

_public will be revised downward from the current 500 mrem /yr to 100 mrem /yr.

_The BRC limits of a small fraction of 100 mrem /yr is consistent with the lower public dose limit to be incorporated into revised Part 20.

I

- In addition, in calculating doses-for BRC policy purposes, radiobiological principles and procedures of revised Part 20 will apply.

l 27

-