ML20033F861
| ML20033F861 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/19/1990 |
| From: | Weber M NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Fouchard J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033D930 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004030270 | |
| Download: ML20033F861 (4) | |
Text
I I
UNITED $TATES
[
NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMI:210N WASMlleGTON, D. C. 39608 I
oerics or rwa CHAIRMAN Note to:
Joe Fouchard, PA
'D TRAMEWCKK FOR MAKING
~ l $E Mike Weber, OCM/KC/li /r,)/
t i
From:
. CLEAN" AND ENCOURAGE i
Attached for your information please find NSURE THAT DECOMMISSIONING talking points that the Chairman recently FOR CLEANUP provided to Mr. Stan Schneider.
Please contact me if you have any questions about DEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM ACTIVE MATERIALS WITHOUT the points.
TRADE AND INTERSTATE
Attachment:
BRC Talking Points ING ON PETITIONS TO EXEMPT AT ARE "BELOW REGULATORY i
THE LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE CES ON THE MOST THE ENVIRONMENT i
PT3MIZATION AND ALARA l
N NO LONGER JUSTIFY THE l
l
(
DI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS AND l
HAT WE CAN JUSTIFY THE ROM BRC1 DDUCTS CONTAINING l
TO MEET APPROPRIATE DF CONTAMINANTS TO THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO l
ILITIES
- INLiuAda.D AbbuMANW THAT TAX DOLLARS WITHIN NRC'S AUTHORITY ARE., SPENT PRUDENTLY FOR OPTIMAL BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC
- POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS IN MEDICAL TREATMENT AND OTHER SERVICES THAT USE RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AS A RESULT OF BETTER USE OF RADIATION PROTECTION RESOURCES III.
WHAT WERE THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES IN SELECTING BRC CRITERIA 7
- ENSURE ADEQUATE PROTECTION
- ENSURE CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION
- ENSURE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION 9004030270 900316 PDR ORG NGPZ
l 0'
d BRC TALKING POINTS
[
I.
j
- TO ESTABLISH A CONSISTENT, RISK-BASED FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING EXEMPTION DECISIONS
- TO ANSWER THE QUESTION "HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN" AND ENCOURAGE CLEAN UP OF CONTAMINATED SITES: TO ENSURE THAT DECOMMISSIDNING FUNDING PLANS PROVIDE ADEQUATE FUNDS FOR CLEANUP
- TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS BEING ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS WITHOUT L
UNNECESSARILY INTERFERING WITH FREE TRADE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE
- To PROVIDE DECISION CRITERIA FOR ACTING ON PETITIONS TO EXEMPT VERY LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES THAT ARE "BELOW REGULATORY I
CONCERN," AS REQUIRED BY CONGRESS IN THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1985 i
- TO FOCUS NRC'S AND LICENSEFS' RESOURCES ON THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RISKS TO THE PUBLIC AND THE ENVIRONMENT
- TO ESTABLISH A RISK-BASED FLOOR TO OPTIMIZATION AND ALARA ANALYSES WHERE POTENTIAL BENEFITS CAN HO LONGER JUSTIFY THE COSTS
- TO REVIEW EXISTING EXEMPTIONS FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AND ENSURE THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT OR THAT WE CAN JUSTIFY THE INCONSISTENCIES II.
HOW WILL THE AVERAGE CITIZEN BENEFIT FROM BRC7 1
- INCREASED ASSURANCE THAT CONSUMER PRODUCTS CONTAINING L
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS ARE SAFE l
1
- TIMELY CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATED SITES TO MEET APPROPRI ATE l
STANDARDS THUS REDUCING THE SPREAD OF CONTAMINANTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT; ASSURANCE THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO DECOMMISSION CURRENTLY OPERATING FACILITIES
- INCREASED ASSURANCE THAT TAX DOLLARS WITHIN NRC'S AUTHORITY ARE SPENT PRUDENTLY FOR OPTIMAL BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC
- POTENTI AL IMPROVEMENTS IN MEDICAL TREATMENT AND OTHER SERVICES THAT USE RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS AS A RESULT OF BETTER USE OF RADIATION PROTECTION RESOURCES III.
WHAT WERE THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES IN SELECTING BRC CRITERIA?
i
- ENSURE ADEQUATE PROTECTION
- ENSURE CONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION
- ENSURE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION
e VBATISTHEBASISLFORTHEBRCCRITERIA7(RISKBASIS'CONSISTE
-IV;-
. ITH UNSCEARe 1988'AND BEIR V, 19891 W
- INDIVIDUAL DOSE CRITERION
-10 MREM /YR -- APPLIES L TO PRACTICES WITH LIMITED-EXPOSURE ~
(E.G., DECOMMISSIONING,. WASTE EXEMPTIONS)
CORRESPONDS TO ANtl4AL RISK OF ABOUT ONE IN A
'MILLION-(ACTUALLY $ IN A MILLION)
COMPARABLE TO OTHER INVOLUNTARY RISKS THAT-MOST PEOPLE ACCEPT
+
COMPARABLE TO VARIATIONS IN NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION PRACTICAL LEVEL THAN CAN-BE IMPLEMENTED 1 MREM /YR -- APPLIES TO PRACTICES WITH LARGE EXPOS D POPULATIONS (E.G., CONSUMER PRODUCTS)
CORRESPONDS TO ANNUAL RISK OF ABOUT ONE IN TEN MILLION-(ACTUALLY 5 IN TEN MILLION)
HAS ATTRIBUTES OF 10 MREM /YR CRITERION PROVIDES ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE THAT PUBLIC-EXPOSURE FROM ALL EXEMPTED PRACTICES WILL REMAIN BELOW PUBLIC
-DOSE LIMIT OF 100 MREM /YR CONSERVATIVE ANALYSES USED-TO EVALUATE. EXPOSURES UNDER NORMAL AND ACCIDENT / MISUSE SCENARIOS WILL ASSURE THAT ACTUAL DOSES ARE~SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE CRITERIA
- COLLECTIVE DOSE: CRITERION REQUIRES COLLFCTIVE DOSE (SUM OF ALL INDIVIDUAL DOSES) TO BE AS LOW AS REASONABLY ACHIEVABLE (ALARA)
FLOOR TO ALARA AT 1000 PERSON-REM /YR PREVENTS ANNUAL OCCURRENCE OF A HYPOTHETICAL HEALTH EFFECT FROM EACH EXEMPTED PRACTICE (0.5 EFFECTS /YR) r WITH LARGE UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH DOSES, MAY NOT RESULT IN ANY HEALTH EFFECTS (BASED ON UNITED NATIONS SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS OF RADIATION, 1988)
DOES NOT OVERLY CONSTRAIN PRACTICES WITH VERY LARGE DISTRIBUTION (E.G., SMOKE DETECTORS AND RADI0 LUMINESCENT WATCHES)
AVOIDS COMMUNICATING A FALSE SENSE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE l
x
~T OR CERTAINTY OF, VERY LOW HYPOTHETICAL DOSES TO-THE PUBLIC-
- THREE FUNDAMENTAL TENETS OF RADIATION PROTECTION I
(JUSTIFICATION, DOSE LIMITS, ALARA)
POLICY STATEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TENETS
- DOSE-LIMITS AND ALARA INCORPORATED EXPLICITLY LESS CLEAR ON JUSTIFICATION OF PRACTICE 9
-- CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY-AGENCY POSITION THAT JUSTIFICATION DECISIONS ARE BROADER THAN RADIATION PROTECTION-ALONE
-- JUSTIFICATION DECISIONS INVOLVING SOCIAL AND CULTURAL VALUE JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE MADE BY AFFECTED 4
PARTS OF SOCIETY
-- COMMISSION WILL NOT APPROVE CERTAIN PRACTICES, SUCH i
AS THE USE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN PRODUCTS To-1 BE USED OR CONSUMED BY CHILDREN, BECAUSE OF GREATER J
RISKS V.
. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BRC POLICY
- NOT A FINAL ACTION; WILL BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH RULEMAKINGS AND LICENSING ACTIONS
-- COMMISSION WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON RULEMAKINGS, WHICH WILL ALSO INCLUDE APPROPRI ATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS-i
- LICENSED ACTIVITIES PRODUCING EXEMPT MATERIAL SUBJECT TO FULL i
RANGE-OF REGULATORY OVERSIGHT, INSPECTION, AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS UP TO AND INCLUDING POINT OF EXEMPTION I
- MATERIAL WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO EXEMPTED STATUS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY SPECIFIC SOURCE CONTROLS AND CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE EXEMPTION REGULATIONS (E.G., LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS SO CONSUMERS CAN MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS)
- NRC WILL ALSO CONDUCT PERIODIC RESEARCH TO EVALUATE AND i
I CONFIRM THE SAFETY BASES OF THE EXEMPTIONS
- THIS COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE KIND OF
" UNCONTROLLED DUMPING" THAT SOME GROUPS CAUSE THE PUBLIC TO FEAR
P 3
s i
b
+#
UNI ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\
" DVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE
\\..... p[
o WASHINGTON. O.C. 20038 January 30, 1990 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Carr:
SUBJECT:
' COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGUIATORY CONTROL During its 16th
- meeting, January 24-25,
- 1990, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste reviewed the above subject report (SECY-89-360).
Because this has been a matter of continuing interest to the Committee, we take this opportunity to offer the following t
comments.
- 1..
We believe that expressing the Policy Statement in terms of " Exemptions from Regulatory Control" is a positive step.
We have, for some time, believed that the term, "Below Regulatory Control," was a misnomer.
In fact, for l
the case of low-level radioactive wastes, the objective is to develop a system for granting approval for certain i
L (exempted) wastes to be disposed of in facilities not licensed by the NRC.
2.
We agree that the Commission is wise to be conservative in the selection of applicable dose rate limits until
. such time as more experience is gained relative to l:
assessing the potential for individual exposures from multiple practices.
However, we believe that the. limits of 1 arem/yr for -individual dose rates and 0.1 mrem /yr for the truncation of collective doses are too low.
l Neither would be directly measurable and both would have large accompanying uncertainties.
From our perspective, it appears that the Commission would need to take experience into account only in the establishment of an annual dose limit for individuals.
Even so, a limit of 3 to.5 mram/yr for each individual source or. practice would not appear to be unreasonable.
In the selection of a limit for truncating collective dose calculations, we suggest that the Commission adopt the 1 mrem /yr value being used by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
m 2/1 Q,To EDO for Appropriate ActionD.Cpys to:
RF, Chairman l
90-0091 lL l
.NMAAMAM
. man w
~
e u
F l
The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr 2
January 30, 1990 3.
As stated in our letter dated December 30, 1988, we believe that the collective dose limit should be variable.-
Following this
- approach, higher annual
- collective dose limits would be permitted for exempted practices that contribute smallir dose rates to individuals.
It should be noted that the suggested collective dose rate limit of 1000 person-rea/yr may require the Commission to reconsider existing exemptions, such as those that permit the incorporation of licensed materials in smoke detectors and in luminous watches and clocks.-
Both of these applications appear to yield annual collective doses exceeding the proposed limit..
We believe the NRC staff is correct-in urging that the 4.
Policy Statement include recommendations to _ discourage
" frivolous" uses of radioactive materials.
Although which practices constitute such uses may be subject to interpretation, most people would agree that exemptions should not be granted for the purposeful introduction of radioactive materials into food or toys, regardless of how low the associated dose rates might be.
We' hope these comments will be helpful.
Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman
Reference:
SECY-89-360, Commission Policy Statement on Exemptions From Regulatory Control, December 1, 1989 (Predecisional)
~
k Q' L/'p, b o [f umTED STATES Eg,
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION;
~
j' n
y N*
J' i
wAsMiseGTON, O. C. 20555 -
t
[=
' o, 2
e
.:,,7..... j ~
February 12, 1990 o
- cwAmuAu p
[
-i Mr. Terry R. Lash, Director Department of Nuclear Safety State of. Illinois 1035 Outer' Park Drive
. Springfield. Illinois-62704
Dear Mr. Lash:
I-am replying to the concerns you expressed in your letters of December 11,
~
1989, and February 1,1990, about a Comission policy that would exempt certain radioactive materials' from regulatory control.
In both letters, you specifi-1 cally. raise objections to the disposal.of below regulatory concern (BRC)-
R low-level radioactive waste (LLW) at sites other than licensed LLW disposal' facilities. 'I plan to address your February 1,1990 request for assistance in i
E implementing.the NRC's Fitness-for-Duty rule by separate letter in the near k
future.
1 The Comission's proposed Lexemption policy is intended to provide a consistent basis. forJa11. our decisions that allow radioactive material to be exempt from regulatory control. Thus, the policy, although applicable to BRC waste-disposal. would also provide the basis for decomissioning decisions involving the release-of.-lands, structures, or recycled materials for unrestricted use as well as decisions regarding consumer product exemptions. We believe the nation's best-interests are served by a policy that establishes a consistent risk framework within which exemption decisions can be made with assurance:that-4 human health and the environment are protected.- ' Such a policy will.also contribute to focusing limited national resources on those risks with greatest
. potential impact on public: health and safety.
.)
We disagree with your view that State-and regional. compact efforts to site new facil.ities for disposal of these wastes could be~ irreparably damaged by applying the BRC policy to LLW disposal. Our view is consistent with Section 10 of-the-Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240),-
which directed the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) to establish standards
~
3 and procedures to consider and act upon petitions "to exempt. specific radio-.
active waste streams from regulation... due~to the presence of radionuclides F
... in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities to be below regulatory-concern."- In 1986, in compliance with the Act, we adopted a policy that 1
established the standards and procedures that will penni.t) us to act upon any BRC petitions we might receive (Enclosure 1). We believe:, that current Comission efforts to establish a consistent risk basis f'or all decisions on the release of radioactive materials by developing a broadly applicable exemp-tion policy (Enclosure 2) is in consonance with the intent of Congress under the Act. As you are aware, this policy development has been conducted in a uOd&bvuQ~~
y
~
x-
L q
f Mr. Terry R. Lash 2
very open manner over the last three years, and we intend to continue to act in concert with-State and regional compacts in their efforts to site the new LLW facilities required by the Act.
With respect to your view that there is no need for a BRC policy because of the development of new LLW disposal facilities and the adoption of volume reduction methods, the Commission's decision to proceed with ~a BRC policy was not and sho0ld not be based solely on.the real or potential availability (or unavailability) of licensed LLW disposal capacity. Regulation of very low-level radioactive waste is unnecessary because it does not provide a signifi-cant public health and safety benefit that is comensurate with the resources expended. We believe this view is shared by a number of States, such as the State of Texas, which has already successfully implemented a BRC program for waste containing low levels of radionuclides with short half-lives.
Regarding the fiscal implications of a BRC policy on LLW generators, our regulatory r,esponsibility is to establish the health and safety framework within which, exemption decisions can be made. The Comission is= confident that waste exemption decisions made in accordance with this policy will be adequate to ensure protection of the public health and safety.
Separate from this decision, fiscal decisions will be made by the facilities that generate the wastes. Despite uncertainties about the impact of the exemption policy on disposal costs, our understanding is that waste generators, including hospitals and research -institutions, are interested in pursuing BRC exemptions.
Finally, in your December 11 letter, you challenge the appropriateness of our adopting the 10-millirem per year value as the individual dose criterion in the exemption policy on the basis that it would be difficult to implement a BRC standard that permits greater exposures at unregulated facilities than could be pennitted at Illinois' licensed LLW disposal facility.
In this regard, your adoption of the 1-millirem per year release standard for the Illinois LLW facility has not been accepted as a compatible regulation by the NRC. The May 23, 1989 letter to you from Mr. Vandy Miller of our State Programs Office noted that the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) proposed Regulation 606.30 establishes an individual dose limit of 1 millirem per year, for which NRC does not have an equivalent standard.
In that this limit would be more stringent than the 25-millirem per year perfonnance objective in 10 CFR Part 61, we are still awaiting your description of how IDNS plans to implement and enforce the 1-millirem per year standard and how this standard relates to the 25-millirem per year performance standard in IDNS pegulation 610.190.
The Commission is aware of a range of views on the magnitude and application of dose criteria within-the context of a BRC policy (e.g., the examples raised in your letter to the Office of Management and Budget). As a result, the Commission has attached considerable importance to its rationale for selecting the numerical values within its exemption policy. The Comission intends to develop a unifying risk basis for the dose criteria in the policy statement.
The relationship between risk and dose is derived from cautious extrapolations
r e.
- Mr. Terry R. Lash 3'
of the most recent data available from studies of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and other individuals that have received large doses of radiation.
The criteria are also compared to variations in background exposures received by individuals in the United States and the increased exposures received from comonplace activities, such as cross-country airplane flights.
The individual dose criterion, however, does not stand alone, but is coupled with a collective dose criterion and other constraints that, taken together, establish a sound
. basis for 's'pecifying a reasonable. lower threshold for the "as low as reasonably achievable"(ALARA) principle.
In the broadest sense, our goal is to use our resources in a manner that provides the greatest assurance that no member of the public is likely to receive an exposure.from exempt and licensed practices that approaches a significant fraction of the existing public dose limits.
1
'We believe an NRC exemption policy has considerable merit in enhancing protec-tion of the public. The Policy Statement will serve as a framework for decisionmaking and will not, in itself, exempt any radioactive material from.
4 L
regulatory controls. As the rulemakings to implement this policy are deve '
loped, we intind to continue to work closely with the Agreement States and 1
regional. compacts to develop a consistent and appropriate regulatory framework j
for exemptions and, to the extent practicable, minimize differences on these j
policy considerations.
Sincerely,
,.. M.b Kenneth M. Carr i
Enclosures:
1.
Policy Statement, Part 2 2.
Advance Notice of i
Policy Statement
- -