ML20042C960
Text
-_
l.
g, 4
s
/
...,3q, UMTED1Titts y
og NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(.... + /n me arow.o.c.a a
. # R - g SB6 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert E. f.lexander, RES John Buchanan. IE Faith N. Brenneman, NRR Frank-A. Costanzi, RES
- 7 Richard E. Cunningham, FC Robert L. Fonner, ELD Donald A. Nussbaumer, SP John Philips, DRR FROM:
Robert E. Browning. Director
~
Div1sion of Waste Management, HMSS
SUBJECT:
POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE ' ASTI A
BELOW REGttATORY Enclosed for you information anc review is a Commission paper concerning petitions 'o' miemaking on cisposal of radioactive waste below regulatory
-concern. Ar you are aware, Section 10 of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 requires the Comission to estabitsh standards, procedures and the technical capability to expeditiously deal-with such petitions. The Act-imposed a 6-month time frame on the Commission. The purpose of the Comission paper is to obtain Commissien approval of a policy statement that provides' guidance on imolementing the mquirements in 10 CFR
- 2.802 in an expeditious manner as required by the Act. The guidance provided includes information needed to support petitions, decision criteria, and administrative procedures. The paper also indicates that the technical capability aspect of the Act is being addressed separately.
t A copy of the proposed cover memorandum for Mr. Stello is also enclosed.
It shows either a concurrence or coordination role for your organization on the.
paper. To concur, or if you have questions.or coments, please call Kitty Dragonette (427-4300) directly. Your response is requested no later than 2 weeks from the date of this memorandum. Timely agreement on the policy is needed to get the policy to the Commission and to make sum that work on the technical capability is proceeding in the right direction.
\\
?' --
,s u
Robert E. Browning. Directok Division of Waste Management, NMSS
Enclosures:
1.-
Memorandum fer Stello 2.
Comission paper 1
o
. Y
?
- _ =- 4,a _
- 2..n r
l;.7.;,
%rf._
.Q.
4
'u'
~
ENCLOSURE i e
4 e
F E
uj
ll e
- a s.
~x.
~
nm 207.6/KSD/86/04/03/2 1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stallo, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Johr. 3. Davis. Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN Enclosed for your concurrence and signature is a Commission paper concerning petitions for rulemaking on disposal of radioactive wastes below regulatory concern.
Section 10 cf the Low. Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 recuires the Commission to establish standards, procedures, and the technical capability to expecitiously deal with such petitions. The Act imposed a 6-month timeframe on the Commission. The purpose of the Commission paper is to obtain 'Cemission approval of a policy statement that provides guidance on implementing the recuirements in 10 CFR 2.802 in an expecitious manner as required by the Act. The guidance provided includes information needed to support petitions, decision criteria, ano administiative procedures. The pacer also indicates that the technical canability M Dect of the Act is being addressed separately.
You should be aware that the administrative procedures in the policy statement directly involve the EDO. The procedures call for the ECO to publish the.
- 0FC :
NAME :
-DATE :86/04/03 I
4
pf Q if f
}
G w
207.6/KSD/86/04/03/2 2
proposed and final rules. Your approval ~of the policy statement ccnstitutes your approval to act on any petitions that can be processed in accordance with the statement. Recuesting EDO approval for each oetition would add months tc, the time required to act on the petition. A key element of the proposec w-
['
'# expedited processing is to place the burden for supporting and justifying the
[
proposec rule on the petitioner. Staff resource demands have been reduced to a-
. /*
bare minimum. The purpose of the rulemakings'will be to relieve licensees from c:
the need to dispose of certain wastes in licensed low. level waste sites.
In view of these factors and the mandate in the Act, we conclude that your prior
- ./
- approval would be justified. We also conclude that the enclosed paper and the-E
' follow on status report described in the paper provide a sufficient tasis for p
'your approval..
This Comission paper has been coordinated with the Division of Rules and Records and the Offices of Research and Inspection and Enforcement. The Executive Legal Director has no legal objection. The Offices of State Programs and Nuclear Reactor Regulation concur. The Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety also concurs. No significant disagreements cr issues have been identified.
John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Naterial Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
1.
Comission Paper "0FC
.NAME :
DATE :56/04/03-
--ami-i -- - - -
7 i $ l..
- 4..
f3 i F
f N Wlk' ?..
,8, e-f3,
=j.
e y 47%
.. 4 +,
~ ;s.,
. k%
I 4
h t
ENCLOSURE 2 9
6 4
e t
I J :
e
'.c
_ p
- {
f.<
h 9
f,gr:
The Cemmissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Acting Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON RADICACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN Pur ose:
To request Commission approval to publish a policy statement which establishes standards and procedures for petitions to exempt waste streams.
Background:
Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Weste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-240), requires that NRC " establish standards and procedures, pursuant to existing authority, and develop the technical capability for considering and acting upon petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from regulation by the-Commission due to the presence of radionuclides-in s'uch waste streams in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities as to be below regulatory concern." Action no later than 6 months after dnactment (i.e., by July 17, 1986) is speo 'ied in the Act. A copy of Section 10 is ine.luded as Enclosure A.
The Act also directs NRC to act in an expeditious manner on the petitions.
Contacts:
K. Dragonette, NMSS 427 4300 R. Fonner, ELD 492 8692
-i
__.M
-l.'-.
ia i
),,
D g-KSD/86/C3/12 T
2 Discussion:
There are two ways to meet the requirements in Section 10 to establish standards and procedures for r
considering and acting on petitions for exempting waste streams. One way is to issue a Comission policy statement in the nature of regulatory guidance for expeditious action on individual petitions. The second way is to. undertake a generic rulemaking on substantive issues, such as.de minimis health standards, that would reduce the issues to be considered in the individual rulemakings on petitions.
A policy statement is feasible in the 6-month timeframe.
A' generic rolemaking would tike 2 years or more. Swift action to meet the 6-month Congressional. timeframe in Section 10 dictates that the Commission proceed with a policy statement.
(See the discussion of pros and cons of eachapproachinEnclosureB.)
The policy statement also allows NRC-to accumulate experience with individual petitions. At the present, we have only two pending petitions that could be accomodated under a policy statement. The cuestion of-generic rulemaking can then be decided later. The decision on generic rulemaking depends in part on the number of petitions filed.
It also depends on how effective the guidance and procedures are in enabling timely processing.
Staff is acdressing the mandates in the Act in two parts.
The policy statement-enclosed r approval (see Enclosure C) would establish..=ros and procedures for expedited action on petitions. Work on the second part requiring development of technical capability is being done in parallel.
The enclosed policy statement describes the infonnation petitioners should file, decision criteria the Cem.issicn
[*,1 N,-
gg 7;;{,
c p
14' i G ql[ /,J,,
o KSD/86/03/12 3y 'tkl*
, g., '8,.
," 4.a will use, and the administrative procedures the Comission will follow. The basic goal is to identify and describe key properties of waste streams that will permit expedited handlingofthepetitionsandtoputtheburdenbnthe-petitioner to develop the neeoed information. The type of petioners likely to be able'to respond are trade groups and
~
licensee or professional organizations.- The concept of below regulatory concern includes restrictions on the method-of disposal (e.g., acceptable if sent to a municipal landfill).: Rulemaking should be limited to wastes common to multiple licensees.
Individual licensee proposals will centinue to be processed on a case basis under 10 CFR 20.302. The decision criteria are based in part on
? international practices and staff understanding'of ongoing EPA stanoards development work. Rulemakings on individual,_
waste streams will be made a matter of compatibility for Agreement States.
Developing the technical capability involves two staff efforts. One is the development of a review handbook. The-
' handbook will cover project management, identity of analytical _ tools and references, and the type of review
- f,.
netoed. It will also describe the type of NRC J
The second-
- b, Amentation needed to neccess_the_ petitions.
d,#
effort involves testina the review handbook and the validity of our in house capability by applying the policy statement to a pending petition. The Edison Electric y+
Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group have g1 jointly petitioned for exemption of waste oil disposal at E
nuclear power plants (Doc'ket No. PRM-20-15). We will p
h
[,,/
provide the Comission a status report on our capability 1
within the 6-month timeframe.
If practicable, we, will also p
forward a proposed rule on westelil within the 6 months.
/f
), v. l'I, tj *
>,.y\\ 5. a
- g,,..
32 o
~
6,
.g
'~
'~
I (,,,, + 4- :p
'g
". D,, M '" f p c.
.y, KSD/86/03/12
' f., g... t.,p. a,,o,
.. 4 3
-4
, j.
The policy statement incluces. generic approvals to process petitions. By placing the primary burden on the petitioner, the NRC resource requirements are minimized.
x However, some reprograming might be necessary if a large number of petitions are filed. Resour.e f.ontiderations and contingency plans will be addressed to the extent possible in the status report on our technical capability.
- c Recomendation:
That the Comission promp,tly approve publication of the policy statement in Enclosu,re C.
Publication no later than July 17, 1986 is required to meet the 6 month mandate.
NOTE:
c.
The issuance _of information and procedural documents,
for implementing existing recuirements is described in
~ categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(16). Therefore neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has baan prepared.
b.
That the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Comittee on Environment and Public Works, the -
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the Subcomittee on Energy and Power of the House Comittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and the Subcomittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations will be-infomed by a letter similar to.
c.
That copies of the notice will be distributed to all Comission licensees and provided to Agrettment State regulatory officials.
s.
r
- g
- ~~
H 1.-
l
.1 1,
lKSD/86/03/12 s..
d; That copies of the notice will be distributed to low-level waste compact contacts.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A.
Section 10 of'the LLRWPAA B.
Basis for Commission Policy
.i Statement...
e C.
Policy Statement-
'O.
Oraft letter
'i e
e e
e
- 9..e
..1
'&Q1
+,
~^
=.u J
6 ENCLOSUP.E A
-stC. ts. RADIOACTIVE WASTE BE14W RSCL'LATORY C008CERN.
"(a) Not later than 6 months aAer the date of onestment of the
- 14w. Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act c(1985, the Commission shall establish standards and procedures, pursuant to existing authority, and develop the technioni ca ility for consader-ac redacective waste ing and actag upon petitions to esempt,sn===on due to the pressaos of streams from regulation by the radionuclides in such waste streams in sufReiently low coceantra-tions or quantities as to be below regulatory concern.
"(b) The standards and procedures established by the nemmianian e
pursuant to subsection (a) shall est forth allinformation required to be submitted to the Commission by licensees in support of such
.but not limited to-petitions. inclu
"(1) a de ' ed description of the waste materials, including their origm. chemical composition, physical state, volume, and mass: and.
"(2) the concentration or contamination levels, halflives, and Health.
Identities of the radionuclides present..
. sai Such standards and procedures shall provide that, upon recei of a petition to esempt a specine radioactive waste stream from a-tion by the Commassion, the Commission shall detertaine an
, expeditious manner whether the concentration or quantity of radionuclides present in such waste stream requires regulation by the Commission.in order to protect the public health and safety.
Where the Commission determines that regulation of a radioactive -
- wasta stream is not to protect the public health and such steps as may be neccesary,in safety, the Commission shall an expeditious manner, to esempt the dis,posal of such radioactive waste from regulation by the Commission.'.
9
e.,
2,g
~
ENCLOSURE B REVISION 1 Basis for Commission Policy Statement as Strategy for Below Regulatory Concern Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 requires NRC to establish standards and procedures for dealing with petitions for rulemaking to exempt waste streams whose radioactive content is below regulatory concern. This mandate can be met in two ways. One is a policy statement and the other is through generic rulemaking. The policy statement approach is recommended but both ways have merit and staff support. The following discussion outlines some of the pros and cons of each approach.
Policy Statement.
-As a practical matter, the 6 month deadline in Section 10 orecludes any
-substantive-rulemaking. A policy statement is the only hope of being responsive to the deadline.
g The statement approach places the primary burden on the petitione EPA is developing standards for wastes below regulatory concern as part of d the' low-level waste standards effort. A policy statement would not duplicate this EPA. work but would provide an interim way to deal with fy petitions. EPA staff have indicated that proposed rules are scheduled for 4
, nuclication by the end of the calendar year after the July NRC deadline.
g p*, / Mi p Coorcination with EPA can _ assure that the statement approach is compatibleA i
with current EPA thinking. EPA is not required to issue such standards no
,,u
/,.
and Section 10 does not require NRC to base-its actions on anything but ZLo s its own Judgment, yj g-8 9'-
The final language in Section 10 does not require that procedures and Md*M e"
standards bt gsggjishelptraygtttq] pea.tj.ng. Earlier versions did call il M tror rulemaking. Thus a statement seems consistent with Congressional' ig
, f, iftentbyworcingandtiming, g
/.#
- b #The statement and subsequent experience with petitions can be codified by
' f*t rulemaking later.if EPA does not issue standards or if experience t
i
~,e@'
indicates it is necessary. Kone of the statement work would be^ wasted.
Dealing with.the cumulative impacts of the individual petitions will be somewhat more difficult following the statement approach but it can be addressed through the decision criteria and environmental assessments.
Both the statement and rulemaking approach involve subsequent rulemaking u
on each individual petition. The statement approach leaves more issues f
opwn for debate in each individual rulemaking. Relying primarily on each C'
petition has the advantage of focusing public attention on specific wastes that the public can relate to and understand.
For example, the public is likely to understand burning oil in an on-site boiler better than philosopnical arguments on raciological protection concepts.
I
L P-z;s
~
2-d?
0" The ce:isicn criteria in the poli.cy statement can require petitioners t'o ac:ress.est of sne same issues that would be addressed in rulemaking.
Rulemakino Generic rulemaking up front would minimize the issues which could be debated each individual rulemaking on specific waste-streams.
~~
Comprehensive generic rulemaking up front would establish the regulatory framework based on public review and acceptance of current and developing
~
radiological protection philosophy.-
Rulemaking would provide the strongest method of recuiring compliance &(*-
L f ~
Rulemaking would provide the most comprehensive method of addressing the~~~
national picture and dealing with the cumulative impacts.
Rulemaking would place,the primary burden on NRC and involve significant additional resources.
Rulemaking could be highly controversial an $ ant to address public take.several years. Even then, resolution is uncertain.' EPA is reluc exposures in a completely generic fashion and is developing separate standards _for resicual activity in buildings and soils, recycle of materials and ecuipment in the public domain, and wastes with no manifest-potential usefulness that have radioactivity levels below regulatory _
concern. (Reference SECY-85-373, November 25, 1985, and enclosed correspondence with EPA.)
Generic rulemaking might not be necessary if request for exempt waste-streams is relatively r, mall.
- 1 r
g e
i
---===========isa==i un i
mi w=mysy
- g' 6 8 1-i g:,
g-
.e p
a*
z..
Wy *i A 4 '
y.'
)4U...
L
.e i
F' 4=
.z {
e ENCLOSURE C I
d
-l.
4
'[., U. ;
3;,.
+.o -
6.5,..
(7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20
-Radioactive Waste.Below Regulatory Concern; Policy Statement-g)
AGENCY:.
Nuciear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Policy statement, 5
W
SUMMARY
- This statement presents the policy and procedures of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) for expeditious handling of petitions for rulemaking to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from disposal in a licensed'loclevel waste disposal' facility, For the Commission to act positively on sur.5 petitions, the waste streams must be sufficiently low in concentration or quantities of radionuclides for the Commission to find that they may be-disposed of by alternate means without posing an undue threat to public health anc safety. The policy statement describes the kind of information petitioners should file to allow timely Commission review of the petition.
It also describes decision criteria the Commission will use and the expedited administrative procedures the Commission will follow in order to permit the Commission to act upon the petition-in an expedited manner. This statement. responds to a mandate in the Low-Level-Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
9
[7590-01)
- ADDRESSEES: Send any written comments or suggestions to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of comments received by the Commission may be examined or copies for a fee at the U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Public Document Room,1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty S. Dragonette, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 427-4300.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATICN:
Policy Statement I.
Introduction and Purpose II. Regulatory Options III. Standards and Procedures A,
Information Required to Support Petitions 1.
General 2.
Vaste Characterization 3.
Management Options 4.
Analyses 5.
Implementation 6.
Suggested Rule Change B.
Cecision Criteria l
f *.,:
'(,
_y
?!$
(7590-01) 3 C.
Administrative Handling IV._ Agreement States V.
Future Action I.
Introduction and Purpose The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (the Act)
(Pub.L.99-240) was enacted January 15, 1986.,Section 10 ef the Act addresses petitions for rulemaking on radioactive wastes that are below regulatory C';;;;;';'achNsteswouldnotneedtobesubjecttoregulatory
+ pf7 concern. w controptoassureadequateprotectionofthepublichealtnandsafetybecause
/d { of their radioactive content. Rulemaking petitions may play a role in tne e
national low-level waste strategy outlined by the Act. The goal of tne Act is for'the Commission to make practical and timely decisions on when wastes need not go-to a licensed low-level waste disposal site. Alternative disposal-would conserve space'in the existing sites while new sites are established
~
g4gs The purpose of this statement is to establish the standarcs and procedures that will permit the Commission to act upon petitions in an expeditious manner
. h as called for in the Act. This policy statement does not require petitioners f
k o present all-the information outlined or demonstrate that the decision y
criteria for expedited handling can be met, if such expedited handling is not I wanted. For example, petitiens requesting exemption of greater concentrations Q(./
V
/
. ct=
of radionuclides than would be allowed by the crit,er a for expedited handling j-uf.
may be submittee, but expedited handling cannot tfe assured.
('iu+/.;..&nJi.,b.'And f
,p
-,.!,, n, m,.
l l
a
f,4,,,a [
~'
/
c 2, _
, p
- l :. *, t. a'? l g
o
... s
[7590-01) r g,i s-
~4-
~
Finally, this policy statement is tended to facilitate handling of yy pad.owo petitions for m 6 streams not i dividual user streams.
Individual' g
licensees who,. seek approval for disposal of their unique wastes should continue to submit their proposed disposal plans under 10 CFR 20.302(a). Proposals involving only one licensee are more efficiently handled as a licensing action rather than through rulemaking.
II._ Regulatery Options The requirements in Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy _
Amencments Act of 1985 to establish standards and procedures for considering and acting on petitions for exempting waste ritreams can be met in two ways.
One way is to issue a Commission policy statement in the nature of regulatory guidance setting out-guidance and procedures for expeditious action on in,dividual petitions. The second way is to undertake a generic rulemaking on substantive issues, such as de minimis health standards, that would reduce the issuns to be considered in the individual rulemakings on petitions. Issuing a policy statement is feasible within the 6-month Congressional timeframe in Section 10 of the Act. A generic rulemaking would take 2 years or more and would potentially conflict with an ongoing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking on low-level waste disposal standards. The short timeframe dictates that the Commission proceed with a statement in the nature of regulatory guidance describing how 10 CFR 2.802 may be implemented =...
g)-
h?5
' g,, }. ) / (7590-01) }M 4
5$ W( Mv# gj g/$
v~
/
.-M III. S,un & ds and Procedures
_2 The standards and procecures needed to handle petitions expeditiously fall into three categories: 1) information required of petitioners in support of
- the petitions, 2) standards for assessing the adequacy of the proposals and providing petitioners insight on the decision criteria the Commission intends
- to'use-so that all-relevant informational isstes will be addressed in the petition, and 3) the internal NRC acministrative procedures for handling the petitions. These three categories are acdressac incividually in the following discussion.
A.
Information Recuired to Support Petitions 1.
General a.
- The minimum recuirements for petitions for rulemaking are outlined in the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.802(c). These regulations require the petitioner to identify the problem anc propose solutions, to state the petitioner's grounds for and interest in the action, and to provide supporting information and rationale. As a practical matter, the-burden of demonstrating that the radiological health and safety impacts may be safely-ignored and she'ld be ignored must be on the petitioner.L5-u tha F *--' : : i ;; r., '. mo a c t i n a n e x ee_+ d p JY b h WI I l
is-A v
[7590-01) b..
Petitions such as those addressed in this statement must enable the Commission to make a finding of no significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Such Commission findings must be based on an Environmental Assessment that complies with 10 CFR 51.30 and must meet the-requirements of 10 CFR 51.32. The requirements include addressing the need for the proposed action, identifying alternatives, and assessing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives.
Consistent with 10 CFR 51.41, the petitioner should subm'it the_information needed to meet these requirements and do so in a manner that permits incecencent evaluation by the Commission 'f.the methodology used and o
cenclusions reacned.
c.
When'a rulemaking action is likely to have a significant economic impact en a substantial number.of small entities, the Regulatory
. Flexibility'Act recuires that the impacts on these small entities must be specifically acdressed.
(The Commission's size standard for identifying a small entity is 53.5 million in annual receipts except.for private practice physicians and educational institutions where the standard is
$1 million in annual receipts for private practice physicians and 500 emoloyees for educational institutions. See 50 FR 50241, December 9, 1
1985.) For any rulemaking, the Commission must either certify that the rule will not impact or will have no significant impacts on small entities
./ ', _or pre'sent an analysit of alternatives to minimize the impacts. Since
[ l' rulemakings contemplated in this statement should provide relief from-
)[}[.
requirements for all entities, this requirement should be straightforward Y
j.
[:.:. ;
,j;,
[7590-011
]
7 but it must be addressed. The petitioner should consult Appendix B of NUREG/BR-0058 " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission"I and submit an evaluation of the economic impacts on small entities, d.
The petitioner should submit three copies of the petition and supporting information. The copies should be clear and legible and-suitable for photocopying. Tables of Content and overviews aru encouraged to facilitate review. -The petitioner shculd contact the Commission about submitting analysis input data on computer media and other methods of electronically facilitating information transfer. The name, address, and telephone number of tne person (s) to contact for additional information should be providec.
If contractors or consultants prepared portions of I:
the information, they should be identified.
e.
The computer code the Commission intends to use to independently verify petitioners ' assessments of impacts is based on "De_ Minimis Waste Impacts-Analysis Methodology" (NUREG/CR-3585) published February 1984.1 Petitioners are enceuraged to consult NUREG/CR-3585 in order to better understand the Commission's information needs. A supplemental guidance document on NRC's computer code is available entitled Copies may be obtained from the Division of Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
' Washington, CC 20555. Petitioners should evaluate the impacts of the-l proposed activity using NRC's code, if feasible. Even if alternate L
1 Y
l o
.I.
. ),
=g (7590-01) 8-calculational methodologies are used, the petitioner should provide all the specific input needed to analyze the waste stream'in the petition using NRC's methodology and provide a rationale for all parameter selections when the methodology allows a choice. For further information -
on input needs and use of NRC's code, petitioners should contact (301) 427-The Commission may clarify or modify.
the computer code from time to time.
Petitioners should be sure to use the current revision.
2.
Waste Characteri:ation a.
Nenradioleeical crecerties. An understanding of nonradiological propecties of the' waste stream is neeced to assure that they are consistent with the proposed disposal method and to evaluate the adequacy of the analysis of the radiological impacts. (NRC's deregulation of the racicactive content would not relieve licensees from the applicable rules of ether agencies which cover the nonradiological properties.) The petitioner should provide a detailed description of the waste materials, including their origin, chemical composition, physical state, volume, and mass. The wastes may exist or be proposed for processing to be in~any form that does not compromise meeting the decision criteria in Section III B.
The tenn " stream" only means wastes produced from a common set of circumstances and possessing common characteristics. It does not mean "liquic" although the stream may be in a liquid form (e.g., waste oil). The wastes-may be resin beads, laboratory glassware, or any other uc..y e!!. A
.g3 1 3,:, -
M.
T.
Nk w
W...
[7590-01)
Tfe 9
form.. Waste form includes packages or containers used to manage (i.e., store, handle, ship,ordispose)thewastes. The variability and potential _ changes in the waste form as a function of process variation should be addressed. The variation among licensees should be described and bounded.
Compatibility with requirements associated with the proposed management options should be carefully presented. For example, if the petitioner preposes that the wastes be incinerated on site, the waste form should be'shown to be comoustible at the temperatures, flow rates, feed rates, and other operating parameters of typical incinerators that licensees may have on site. The petitioners should identify the minimum requirements the incine-ator must meet to assure adequate combustion. The
.,k j
waste form to be incinerated should be compatible with other local, State,
(
or Federal recuirements. -Similar consideration;for disposal at sanitary
[.-
! [
landfills or ha:arcous waste sites should be addressed. For example, wastes that include components or properties that would qualify the waste as a "ha:ardous waste" under EPA rules in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 265 should not be proposed for disposal at a municipal landfill.
//
The potential for recycle should be presented. Possible treatment, such-as sh,redding, that would reduce the recycle potential should be described. Both the resource value (e.g., salvageable metals) and the functional usefulness (e.g., usable tools) should be addressed. Both
4
- r..
jg,-
..y (7590-01) m
= 10 -
short-and long-term potentials for recycle are of significant concern to the Commission'.
- i
.b.
Radiolooical properties. The minimum radiological properties that' af should be described are the. concentration or contamination levels, jg,.,n.e./' 7,
/
/-
half-lives, and identities of the radionuclides present. The chemical and pnysical form of the radionuclides should be addrassed. All radionuclides present or potentially present should be specified, including nuclides icentifisc as trace constituents. 'The distribution of the radionuclices within the wastes should be noted (e.g.,' surface or volume distribution).
Mass and volume average concentrations should also be presented. The variacility as a function of process variation and variation among licensees should be accressed and bounded for the radiological as well as the.nonradiological properties, c.
Totals. A subseouent rulemaking based ucon an accepted petition is generic, and the exemption will likely be-used nationwide, V -. 1 ;--d tra- ::'r :U.y.
Therefore, the petitioner should estimate the number of NRC and Agreement State licensees that produce the waste, the annual volumes and mass, and the total annual quantities of each radionuclide that would be disposed of. The estimates should include the current situation and the likely variability over the next several years.
If the petition is for a proposed rule that will be limited to less than national se:ce (e.g., 5 State or compact region), the totals should be estimated for the petitioned scope. A concertration distribution would be a helpful ll
$ & c-h M
s/&
s e p & L a L 2-f r' a c'e ;" 7 m5 T AR 1
w~
,s A,O 'n a J r t.9f
4
" o f <,-
x;;g.:
X "i
[7590-01]
. II..
tool in characterizing the waste stream. For example, the petitioner
- ould indicate that 10*. of the wastes fall-in the range of 1-10'picoeuries per gram, 60*. fall in the 10-100 range, and 30% in the 100-1.000 range.
Such distribution would permit more realistic assessment of impacts in adcition to conservative bounding estimates using maximum values, d.
Basis. The_ basis for the waste stream characterization should be provided. Monitoring, analytical data, and calculations should be speci fi ed'.
If the petitioner conducted any surveys or relied on surveys by _ others, they should be described. Actual measurements or valuts that can be relatec to measurements to confirm calculations are important. The description of tne bases should include quality assurance aspects.
For example..the petitioner snould describe the number of samples measured,
~
the representativeness of the samples and the appropriateness of the-instruments used. The statistical confidence in-the estimates should be evaluated. Market information might be useful in defining the national scope. Cesignation as a " trace concentration" should be related to specified detection limits but detection limits, themselves, are not sufficient reason to dismiss trace concentrations when methods exist to infer concentrations.
For estimates of the radionuclide content of the waste stream the petitioner may take advantage of licensee experience in classifying wastes for disposal at low-level waste sites. For example, the transuranic radienuclide content of the wastes would likely be below detection limits 1
+
l
- F
't jg wy.
v..
(7590-01) but licensees have established scaling fatters for estimating the transuranic content of wastes as part of complying with 10 CFR Part 61 classification requirements. The scaling factors are used to infer the presence and concentrations of many radionuclides based on measurement of only a few nuclides. The classification scheme in 10 CFR Part 61 has been in effect since December 1983. Considerable data and experience should be available from licensees for the petitioner to draw on for characterizing the radiological content and comoosition o,f the waste stream being adcressed in :ne petition. The same principles outlined in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(B) may be acolied, i.e.,' values based on direct v
y*/
f r y )g U accountability.fmeasurements,indirectmethodsrelatedto f
_ pp3 l'g.. y x g4 g
p g (.1,
,., j,.,.y, r-
/
J e,
As low as reasonaoly achievable (ALARA). The Commission's ALARA principle in 10 CFR 20.1(c) applies to all releases and exposures. The activities'and processes which produce the waste should be evaluated to
- h identify potential procacures that can be used to minimi:e the presence of y,
removable contamination on both internal and external surfaces of waste 7~
i materials. Reasonable measures to reduce the waste volume should also be f }.) S)} Y Y V Y W C*** Yf consicered.
Aaw =< = y '
Qg.g,JX/4y~W y. c;y 3.-
Management Options The management cotions that the Commission can deal with expeditiously are snose described in NUREG/CR+3585. On-site options include incineration and
[7590-01)
Cyj-
.- burial. Off-site options are municipal waste disposal facilities (sanitary landfills and dumps), municipal waste incinerators, hazardous waste disposal facilities, and ha:ardous waste incinerators. Combinations of these options can also be evaluated. For example, wastes may be incinerated on site and the ash shipped to a sanitary landfill. The favored disposal options should be identified and fully described. The petitioner should evaluate a full range of options. The practicality of the proposed option (s) should be presented.
Waste compatibility discussed earlier is one aspect. The national availability and distribution of the option is another. Updates on national regulations and
' laws pertaining.to the proposed option should be described and might have to be consicered in selecting acceptable options.
'a.
' Analyses The raciological impacts included in NUREG/CR-3585 and in NRC's computer code basedc$itaresummarizecinthefollowingtablefromtheNUREGdocument:
4 I
ca Wt i h
~di- '
4, a
-=
I (7590-01)
~@k A --
a n -
.-}(.
p r
m Off-$1te Excesures Site Exoos M
Maximum A
entruder Incividual Population Wo.*ker Workers Exposures On-Site Generater Incineration x
x Disposal by Landfill x
x Post-disposal x
x x
Municipal Waste Diseesal Transportation x
x x
sorting / Recovery x
x Recycle (optional) x x
Incineration x
x x
x Disposal by tardfill x
x x
x Post-disposal x
x x
Wa:ardous 'daste Disposal Transportation x
x x
Recycle (opticN 1) x x
Incineration x
x x
x Disposal by Landfill-x x
x x
Post-cisposal x
x x
The reper; anc code can be used to calculate the radiological impatas from operations, transportation, treatment, anc disposal operations.- Posedispos61 impacts incluce releases due to intrusion, ground water migration etcaton, and
'l 1eachate accumulation.
Limited recycle of metal drums and sorted glass and
{
metal is includec but some of the associated assumptions are currently very conservative and may not reflect reasonably expected impacts. The petitioner
'should quantitatively evaluate the indicated impacts from the proposed waste for each option - *sested.
If the petitio'ner is aware of other impacts which should be consi' id for the specific wastes in the petition, the petitioner should also a ess the additiona1 impacts. The analysis of expected impacts-should clearly dcress:
. p _ ~ C M f~
/7e*=y M /.
y-r,AL d
3isp
-~ ~
.._ % a # G 9 W ~
i2
ll; 54 I
..g
'+
g_
M*
1 vx (7590-01)
/3
[
15 The maximum individual expesures.
/
Thecriticalpopulationexposures(e.g.,themunicipallandfillworker i
!.s#
exposures),
The cumulative population exposures.
.lr.
The petitioner's analysis shovid also address potential exposures from handling and transport accidents and from intrusion or loss of institutional control at municipal or ha:ardous sites sooner,than the normal controlled lifetime of suen facilities (e.g., 30 years of post-closure control of hazarcous sites). Accidents were not expressly included in NUREG/CR-3585. The
.p petitioner's analysis of accictats should include all assumptions, data, and 2 - 2M ~. jM." I results to facilitate review.
r hh*
!)
I The analysis of expected and potential xposures from the transport of the y
'h
/(
wastes should clearly comonstrate that transport of the wastes can be safety exempted from Department of Transportation (00T) radiological shipping requireme[e Department of Transportation issued a final rule June 6 I
1985 (50 FR 23S11) that amended 49 CFR Part 173 to exempt low specific activity wastes as cescribed in NRC's rules in 10 CFR 20.306. The 00T relied on NRC's supporting analyses to exempt the wastes from DDT requirements " pertaining to racioactive materials when offered for transportation for disposal or recovery." (Note that DOT emphasized that the wastes remain subfect to the provisions relatec to other hazards; see 49 CFR 173.425(d).) The 00T recognized in the rulemaking notice that NRC may add additional wastes to '
10 CFR 20.306 and provided flexibility for additional wastes to be 1
l i
--?-----.----
[. *-
4.ig 4g (7590-01) 4 automstically exempted. However, DDT is relying on NRC to evaluate the transpert impacts of any exempted wastes added to 10 CFR 20.306. The Commission intends to coordinate any rulemakings with 007 when they would add to the exemption in 49 CFR 173.425(d).
The analysis of transport impacts should be based on a reasonable special distribution of licensees and waste treatment and disposal facilities which will accept the wastes. The peitioner should address parameters such as average anc extreme transport distances. The petitioner's aralysis should accress the basis for parameter selection and 'characterice the expected patterns (e.g., indicate how likely tne extreme case may be).
h" osY 'S Y W Y b
hW J
$ ipment of the entire waste stream to one or two facilities should be assessed in the analysis. This scenario currently exists for exempted liquid scintillation wastes. The analysis of impacts for transport, handling, and disposal should reflect this circumstance.
The petitioner should clearly relate the analytical findings to the specific provisions in the recommended rule changes.
For example, the basis for each recommended radionuclide limit should be clearly explained. The analysis of impacts may show that limiting concentrations of individual radionuclides will assure that exposures to individuals, groups, and the general population will be small. However, for certain radionuclides and exposure pathways.[ site inventeries or volumes magnetLto bt.l.imited..to.. keep ootentialexoosures,,,sman.(e.g.,theanalysismayshowthatmorethan100 f
1,a 4 a l a n A e D *'
Q&
.+....p
. g. -
pan
,aw a 3 se.,...m.w. c j.jp.
- i. j',iw L,t{,,-.;
er *,
\\
=.
_, s 4..
[7590-01)
, mil 11 curies of a radionuclide in a single landfill could result in potential individual exposures from the ground water pathway of more than one millirem
/[4#8' j
j l
(, 3.,t,f ". u. /<
peryear).
.e j
Nonradiologica twe.s normally need not be specifically addressed other
{
than to demonstrate ti.~
the nonradiological properties of the waste are the same as the nonradioactiva materials normally handled under the option.
If t6e properties are simtlar and the volumes of exempted waste would not impact the normal operatiens, there should be no incremental impacts.
ln orcer to expedite subsecuent rulemaking if the petition is adopted, the i
l ant,1ysit should also accress the topics outlined for a Regulatory Analysis in NUREG/BR-00ES I Revision 1, " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission." The topics are:
I i
1)
A statement of the problem. This topic is the goal of determining i
which wastes may bt safely disposed of by means other than shipment to licensed
,j 4 g
,p y.
./,'f ((0 f, /A# m, low-level waste sites.
/
A ],J IOv sll54Y'C l
} 1 ter JYd!s,s Y i
2)
Alternatives.o Reasonable alternatives to the proposed action should 9
be listed.
l D
1.'
j
,,tC 3)
Consequences. This topic calls for an analysis of each alternative g,.#
1
?
y' A ' f sted.
li The factors the petitioner should address include costs and benefits A
t g 'r#
,anc practical.,,or, legal constraints.
g g' e
,d h,'"
t r, ", 33.s " 'y
.C' t
yt
'e.40
s'
- i' s
a o
(759.11) l c
i 4)
Decision rationale. This topic is a conclusions statement that j
explains why the preferred alternative (s) should be adopted.
+
N ls j (. iu A { :tVth'*
l 5)
Implementation. The petitioner will have addressed this topic under the implementation tooic below. A summary and reference sheule be provided that addresses the topic from the licensee's perspective.
The "no action" alternative should always be incluced. A cost / benefit I
ciscussion is an essential part of both environmental and regulatory impact consiceratiens anc is, therefore, essential te expedited handling. The cost / benefit discussien should include the differential exposure ana economic costs between ciscosal at a licensed low-level waste disposal site and the
{
preposed eption(s).
It may also include cualitative benefits. Recuced ha:ards from not storing hazar cus or combustible materials might be a benefit.
Eliminatien or reduction of the hazardous propert.ies (e.g., by incineration) could be another. Detrimental costs might also be qualitative such as loss of 4
space in municipal or ha:ardous sites. Costs of surveys and verifying como11ance (ciscussed in the next section) should also be covered. The cost /tenefit should also reflect ALARA considerations. Radiation worker exposure, public exposure, and environmental releases might be appropriate in l
ALARA considerations.
In considering the balance between exposure and the cost of. exposure reduction to achieve ALARA, the petitiener could consider sbr:
J s.[.....k'N
- U r);sn-remasaguideline.
(<ld.,l4.,,,. k.1;J,fi~h v &~J :
- n. UM J
,s a a,.u.,
ao 4u w.. u 4. s...,.. A
s,,,
4.
(7590-01)
- S.
Imolementation. The final test of the proposed action is whether it is I
practical to implement and verify compliance. The practical theme has been j
included in earlier discussions or defining the expected ranges of radioactive conter.t and nonradiological properties. The petitioner should show that the limits which are developed from the data and verified as acceptable through the analyses will accommodate meaningful volumes of actual streams. The. petitioner should also show that the reliance on sophisticated analysis and surveys will.
be limited and confirmatory. Otherwise the extmpted volumes might not be i
cest-effective.
Existing regulations in 10 CFR 20.201 establishes general NRC l
requirements for performing surveys as necessary to comply with Part 20.
i Surveys, which may incluce measurements, must address releases and ciscosal, i
.ic.ensees would have to conduct surveys to comply with requirements on t.W y 1-acci enal exemoted waste streams added to Part 20.
. n*,,bh jg (;.d ;
M
'i A survey pregram might consist of (1) fairly comprehensive initial q F(i sampling and analysis to confirm that the licensee's wastes will fall below the
\\
\\'
limits, (2) periodic analyses as part of a process or cuality control program
-,s) to confirm the initial findings, and (3) a routine survey program prior to
{ release of wastes to monitor for gross irregularities, t.icensees' waste classification cuality control programs and data (see 10 CFR 20.311(d)(3))
should be helpful as indicated earlier. To show that licensees can be expected to conduct needed surveys, the petitio'ner should describe a sample survey pregram. The three com;onents just discussed should be included, if
',kn~(e -! l var $lu,;.S :a 7 4,, ;.,, /.: d-u 6
a,y;,, r'
/
s 3,
. mu.
' mo -
ift (7590-01) 25 9.
t appropriate, for the waste stream.
If topical reports describing systems or methods for waste segregation and monitoring have been approved by NRC, they should be referenced in the sample survey program.
4 Otsposals uncer existing 10 CFR 20.306 are not included in the recordkeeping requirements for wastes in 10 CFR 20.401. Part 20 also contains no general reporting requirement. The only existing method for the Commission to obtain reports on disposals is semiannual ef, fluent reports which are recuired by reactor technical specifications. As they are generally worded.
I total volumes cisposed (as contemplated in this statement) would be reported in these reports. Other licensees woule not have to report any information on disposals.
ine petitioner shoulc assume that reports on disposals will be required l
l and that recorcketoing requirements will be imposed for the specific wastes in l
. Question.
Increased recordkeeping and reporting requirements would accress uncertainties in projecting future volumes or amounts of wastos and NRC's L
responsibility to consider the cumulative impacts of multiple eremptions. When such requirements are proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) aporoval l
1s required. Appendix A of NUREG/BR-0058 acdresses the information needs which the petitioner should acdress to facilitate NRC filing for DMB approval. The petitioner should also address whether changes in technical specifications or licenses may be needed.
l P
l 9
'*nt' 8ff*'
(7590-01)
. 6.
Succested Rule Chance. The' petitioner should include the p~roposed text for the suggested rule change (see 10 CFR 2.802(c)(1)). The proposed text should cover at least the following:
Aed 4
1)
The quantity,p#' concentration limit for each radionuclide present (trace radionuclides could be lumped together with a total limit);
e 2)
A method to deal with radionuclide mixtures;
~
3)
The nonradiological soecifications necessary to adecuately define the waste; and 4)
The specific management and discosal requirements, If practicable, an: if the supporting information indicates the need, the text should also adcress other features such as annual limits on each generator in terms of volume, mass, or total radioactivity, and administrative or procecural requirements, f
B.
Decision Criteria l
The Commission intends to use the following criteria as guidelines for acting on a petition.
4
-a
l-
?
r,
7,
~ 3f;-
,a (7590-01) 4.-
22 -
1.
Disposal and treatment of the wastes as specified in the petition will i
result in no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Discussion: Unless this finding can be made using information submitted by the petitioner, the Commission must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to more fully examine the proposed action, alternatives to the proposed action, and associated potential impacts of alternatives. Preparation would likely involve contractual support and tgke 2 years or more to complete.
The Commission could not act on the petition in an expedited manner.
Z;ip*~ ~ % A &.
J i
., n & -
/
p 2.
The maximum eroected effectiva dose ecuivalent to an Mvidual does not exceed.4 1ew mi.)ljtr** "ar y= a.r The effective cose means the risk weighted whole-body ecuivalent.).
// e M,,2t* [:2. as74 A t' Id Aufuf!s9,ni/h,ny*:.1l'bl/bt< Y h, '
~
M, NN '5 M/"bk Wayru, s/so.//h.*4/MJ 4!s. o,, k narJo.br e,h.
f t
Discussion: While a range of 1-10 millirem per year might be acceptable, a one millirem limit would facilitate expedited processing. Higher limits would be more difficult to justify. Based on the risk coefficient of 1.65 x 10 per rem in the proposed revision of 10 CFR part 20 (51 FR 1092, i
January 9,19E6), radiation exposure at a level of 1 millirem per year results 0
in an annual risk of 1.65 x 10~7 (i.e., 1.65 x 10 ' effects / rem x 10 rem / year). The maximum lifetime risk to the individual would be less than 1.2 x 10*I (i.e., 70 years x 1.65 x 100 effects / year). Proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 20 include a 1 millirem individual dose cutoff for collective dose L
.,smus=
evaluations based on negligibly small risks.
W
+
k
1
,i m
q..
y
,1 '. n
[7590-01) f 23 -
The EPA is developing general standards for specific wastes streams below regulatory concern as part of the agency's development of low-level waste f
standards. The EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 31, 1983 (48 FR 39563) and currently hopes to publish proposed standards in ear p l.The EPA is considering a range of individual dose limits of up todmilliremsperyear. Avoiding the upper end of the range under
~
~
- consideration by EPA should minimize having to revise any rulemakings approved under this policy should EPA issue final standards with a lower limit.
In aedition, the cose limit used by EPA for initiating action by municipal of4 mil)iremsp.er,,
.f crinking water treatment f acilities is an individual dose,y ht't.*n.'.*%M.* WW
- cfpu us,x;o, sr This crinking water criterion orovices acd'tional na-temetive eng,4AM,('f, year.
i
- , u...,..;,Li potentially at
- eeteele eeeub " " % s.
Other EPA standards that the dose
*;; _/
limit can be compared to are the Clean Air Act radioactive release star.dard of h 25 millirems per year in 40 CFR Part 61 and the uranium fuel cycle annual whole 4.b8V body limit of 25 milltrems in 40 CFR 190.
l l
One millirem is very small when comparec to naturally occurring background l
L doses from cosmic and terrestrial sources. Background doses in the L
United States are typically in the 100-200 millirems per year range. One millirem is a small fraction of the annual 500 millirem dose limit for indivicual members of the general public in Federal Radiation Council guidance l
and the NRC proposed 10 CFR Part 20 revision. The Part 20 proposed revision l
also incluces an action level of 100 millirems per year as part of assuring l
compliance with the 500 limit.
4 E
=
~
-=,
v
l
'.e 49 47
[7590-01) t An important feature is that a 1 millirem limit on an individual petiti n allows. exposure to multiple exempted waste streams without exceeding the range generally considered to involve acceptably small risks.
International i
radiation protection bodies such as the Internat.ional Commission on Radiological Protection have not established specific lower limit risk or dose
-5
-6 levels which could be acepted. However the annual 10 to 10 risk levels
.am%, 4 4& ' ft i d4 42 r
associated with a few millirems is recognized as i ;d-'; ::x ; f.....,.. [
The United Kingdom's National Radiological Protecticn Board has issued generic M
- ?
guidance on gLe Mnimis cose levels (ASP 7 January,1985)2 that has status
/ v.f similar to Feceral Radiation Guidance issued by the President in this country.
The Board icentifiec effective dose ecuivalents of 5 millirem per year as L
insignificant for indivicual decisions. The five millirem limit represents the i
total contribution from all practices.
For individual practices, the Board l-diviced by 10 (i.e., 0.5 millirem per year) to account for exposures frcm l'
l multiple practices. These limits are applied generically, less conservatism under the well cefined circumstances associated with specific waste streams is 2
justified.
In a proposed policy statement dated May 6, 1985, the Canadian 1
Atomic Energy Control Beard specifically accressed disposal of specific wastes that are of r.o regulatory concern. An individual dose limit of 5 millirems per year was proposed for this limited application.
A maximum individual exposure limit of 1 millirem per year is also consistent with Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix I specifies dose Ifmit design cbjectives for operational light water cooled nuclear power reactor i
h
.l
- ~ l g
l i;
. g..
(7590-01)
- ts -
effluents. The dose limit guides include annual total body limits of 3 millirems for liquid effluents and 5 millroms for gaseous effluents.
Advocating the use of'l millirem per year for expedited petitions for below regulatory concern wastes is not intended as a precedent for any other activity.
It is intended only for the specific application of allowing the Commission to proceed on an expedited schedule.
3.
The ecliective cosas to'the critical occulatien and general population are U
Jfb Ilki[,g</pdkh'J small.
/
F
/
Discussion: An aeditional advantage to using a 1 millirem per year individual cose limit is that the collective doses are then summations over j
smaller exposures.
If the 1 millirem individual criterion is met, the l.
collective dose evaluation is primarily for information purposes and to confirm the fincing cf no significant impact on the Quality of the human environment.
The Unitec Kingdom policy on incividual dose limits also includes an associated collective cose criterion of 100 person-rem. (The collective dose criterion must be met in addition to the individual limits). This limit is equivalent to about 0.02 health ef fects (100 person-rem x 1.65 x 10*" effects / person-rem).
In view of the generic nature of.their policy and the restricted nature of the l
anticipated action on petitions, a higher limit might be supportable (e.g., up 3
to one effect or about 6 x 10 person-rems if there are substantial cost J.
savings ~and other benefits).
In any case, the cost / benefit analysis should show that the collective dose resulting from the exemption ' ::n '...... w un b &.of4 0 ro ga_.w,er e
z gl; a ts k n.
p M~-1,--
. 4 4 *M k
4 q.iG- ~ L ',, p 7 =,~ / & -
j
" L _ e :._
S s
(7590-01) g 26 -
sk Ai aca am--aa%
When the costs and exposures associated with the exemption
)
are compared to disposal at a licensed low-level waste site there shculd be a significant savings.
]
i 4
The waste is compatible with the proposed disposal options.
I
- \\
. i, Discussion: The waste should not qualify as a nenradiological hazardous W,gfmaterialifunrestricteddisposaloptionsaret,obeused, If the waste a m -
I cia 4uy, the proposed disposal method (incineration or disposal at a ha:arcous 4y.#'W h waste facility) should be in accord with EPA, State and cf U r-lp
$d Y-k p '
5.
The exemption is useful on a national scale, i.e.,
it is likely to be used by a category of licensees or at least a significant portion of a category.
Discussien: Rulemaking is not warranted for wastes involving a single l-licensee, whether a continuing disposal activity cr a one time disposal. Such proposals by individual licensees should continue to be processed under 10 CFR 20.302(a).
% d<
l 6,.
The radiologic,41 and nonradiological properties of the w'aste stream ace--
c.!.. 5 W L
cwa"aMe on a national basis, the variability can be projectec, and the range of variation will not invalidate supporting analyses.
l-Discussien: One of the merits to dealing with specific waste streamstis that the actual properties of the waste stream can be relied ueen in estimating i
I L
L a
a.,-
.o-v l
- 6. W.
p*.=
[7590-01]
- 1 i
impacts rather than conservative bounding parameters. The specific pathways i
that must be considered can be limited to manageable numbers. The expected fate can be creditably limited based on the properties.
In some cases.
addressing the nonradiological properties under other agency rules provides adequate management or at least helps minimize the impacts.
7.
The waste characterization is based on data on real wastes.
Discussion: Actual data on real waste provide reasonable assurance that the waste characterization is accurate.
S.
Licensees can establish reasonable programs to comonstrate compliance.
l l
Survey programs and quality control programs l will be needed Discussion:
+
1 to provice reasonable assurance that actual wastes continue to fall within the l.
exoected ranges and that specific requirements on disposal are followed. Since cisposal would be exempted based on the established waste characteristics and method of ciscosal, continuing verification is important to maintaining c6itfidhe that the disposal remains of no regulatory concern, f
i o
9.
The off-site disposal medium (e.g.,' sanitary landfill) does not need to be controlled for radiation protection purposes.
4 h
g dpgc.s 4,. /....ju 6 m.-& +
u
/ c-u ~ y a a y,k,, A -,., $
e - a g.c.: ~
$a ffa2.. W',an/
,1 - Q / - k A. l ~'i fL/
J~w.,% 'A s. k.,c d-; 4,,z.,s 6sa w;
g M
[7590-01)
- rs -
Discussion: The evaluation of expected exposures should provide the basis for meeting this criterion. However, this is an area where NRC will have a continuing responsibility as multiple petitions are processed.
[ 10. When transport off-site is involved, the radioactive concentrations are appropriate for exemption from Department of Transportation radioactive labeling and manifesting.
Discussten:
For most radioactive materials,'the Department of Transportation (00T) limits are 0.002 microcur'ies per gram. COT has provided a generic exemption for materials in 10 CFR 20.306. $1nce the receiving facility will not ce licensed for radioactive materials, shipments to landfills or fk a
ha:ardous waste f acilities should not require identification as radioactive p/
/
materials. The proposed waste should, thus, be appropriate for addition to the l
I generic 00T exemption.
1
- 11. The waste stream results from necessary and ordinary operations and does not involve intentional dilution of wastes normally consigned to low-level waste sites.
1 Discussion: This criterion aderesses as low as reasonably achievable i
(ALARA) concerns. The petition should not provide a means to dispose of wastes-that'should normally be sent to licensed sites. Means of volume reduction (e.g., segregation, alternative processes) should not be readily applicable.
L s
t t
1 l
l^
- 1
+
m
[7590-01) r 29 -
- 12. The potential radiological consequences of accidents involving the wastes l
and intrusion after loss of normal institutional controls is negligible.
I Discussion: Potential doses from accidents or intrusion should be well within e
[publicexposure mits)andtakeintoaccoun theprobabilityofsuc ven u.. t
? At h.:.u, w,n :' y lh wsn' %
./ sa G.c h s The disposed form of the waste has negligible potential p w Mert.q,M priu k O.),3 I
for recycle.
13.
t4 Discussien: Eliminating the uncertainties associated with recycle is necessary to exoecitious hancling. $pecifying specific waste and specific methods of disposal narrows the patnways and timeframes to manageable numbers.
)
1 14 The eethocs ar.d procedures in managint the wastes and used to assess the impacts are no cifferent from those that would be applied to the corresponding uncontaminated materials.
49 -
Discussien: Since the receiving facility will not be licensed for
./
racicactive materials, special handl}ng or measures shjuld not be requ g,at C yu
.g the precessing or disposal sitesIThis cri rien also means that realistic
[,
assumptions about the disposal methods have been made in estimating exposures.
g#
l
- 15. The disposal method is practically available.
l Discussi:n:- To have practical use, the disposal option must be available.
For example, if all hazardous waste facilities that accept off-site wastes are e
o.
--n
r-(7590-01) wp
- l I
closed or are not reasonably distributed, the practicality of an exemption to allow disposal at such sites is questionable.
C.
Administrative Handling All Commission rulemakings are subject to a number of procedural requirements. Section 10 of the Low-Level radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 directs the Commission to act in an," expeditious manner." The Commission and NRC staff have examined the current internal procedures and acministrative rules wnich must be followed fo'r routine rulemakings to determine how they mignt ce streamlined to minimize delay. The internal procedural scheme described below provides fer expedited processing.
1.
Petitions should be filed and will be docketed in accordance with existing procedures. Petitions shculd be actressed to: The Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 7
Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20$55, Attention: Cocketing and Service Branch.
2.
Petitioners may confer on procedural matters with the' staff before filing a petition for -ulemaking. Requests to confer on procedural matters should be addressed to: The Director, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Acministration, U.S. Nuclear Regulat 13 Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch.
-~
- d. *
- dire,
[7590-01)
%)
- 3.
Adequately supported petitions meeting the decision criteria of this policy statement, will be handled in acecrdance with the " fast-track" procedures described in the $ Reculations Handbook (NUREUBR-0053).I under the fast-track procedure, a proposed rule responding to the petition should be prepared and forwarded to the Executive Director for Operations within 90 days after the petition is filed. The proposed rule is then published for public comment instead of the notice of receipt of the petition.
\\
4 Puclica, on of this policy sta*.ent onstitutes approval for the Executive Cirect r for Operati.ons to proceed with any "below regulatory i
concern" petition r 'eived t at can be processed in accordance with it.
This l
statement also constitut approval at all staff levels (i.e., Executive 5
/
Director for Operations, Off.. Division, or Branch) to initiate work on the procesed rules.
l J
n 5.
Proposed and final rules will be published by the Executive Director for Operations in accordance with his delegated authority in 10 CFR 1.40(d). The Executive Director for Operations will issue both the proposed rule and the-1' final rule if no significant adverse comments or new policy issues have been p
received on the proposed rule. The Executive Director would notify the
/
(Commission before issuing the final rule.
.h 6.
Unless unique circumstances occur, the proposed rule changes will be additions to 10 CFR 20.306 " Disposal of Specific hastes."
G e
.-- a
Ll..Q.,.
- w,
,h]
l
[7590-01) l 32
- IV. Agreement States i
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 establishes a national system for dealing with low-level waste disposal. The system i
assigns to the States responsibility for disposal capacity for low-level wasten 4
not exceeding Class C wastes as defined in 10 lFR 61.55. Section 10 of the Act encourages a reduction in volume of such wastes subject to State responsibility l
for disposal through the option of determining,that certain wastes need not go to existing licensed disposal facilities or new sites licensed under 10 CR Part 61 or ecuivalent State regulations.
If wastes can be safely disposed of by less restrictive means, it would conserve space in the existing other sites while new sites are ceveloped and would serve as an important adjunct to volume recuction efforts in meeting the waste volume allocation limits set forth in the Act. Thus these rulemakings should aid the States in fulfilling their i
responsibilities under the Act. Equity also suggests that all waste generators be able to take advantage of below regulatory concern options as part of their waste management strategies. Generators in both Agreement and non-Agreement States will be competing for space in the existing sites and the concept shou.1d be applicaele nationwide.
t Agreement States will play an important role in ensuring that the system wors,s on a national basis and that it remains equitable. States have been encouraging findings that certain wastes are below regulatory concern and do not have to go to low-level waste sites. The States have been voicing this view fer a number of years through forums such as the Conference of Radiation T
-+
a
t. g t.
y c,
t
'," f 3
U'
[
[7590-01)
- Control Pregram Directors. The Commission will expect the State's to adopt equivalent exemptions. Consequently, the Commission will coordinate its reviews with the States.
V.
Future Action The Commission may consider revising this policy statement or conducting a generic rulemaking on waste streams below regulatory concern based on a numoer of factors. The factors include public comments received on the statement, the number and type of petitions for rulemaking re' aived, and how effective the c
statement is in enabling timely processing of petitions.
If there is a large demand for Commission action on petitions, generic rulemaking may be warranted to provide a me.re efficient and effective means of accomplishing the goals reflectec in Section 10 of the Act. Furthermore, the Commission may l
l periodically review all rulemakings in orcer to assure that the relevant parereters have not changed significantly and may ask the petitioner to submit 1
(~
updated information to assist in the review. The Commission would also have to assess wnether approved exemptions are con:,istent with any general standards l
1s_ sued by EPA or whether continued use of the exemption should be modified to comply with the EPA standards.
Dated at Washington, DC this day of
, 1986.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
4 5
m.*
1 t
4,,
"i:3
... c-
~
1 i -
t:
[7590-01)
L a Samuel J. Chilk i
Secretary to the Commission 1
s i
e 9
s I
P l
h t
S l
3 i
i e
I e
l l
l l '
l l
l l
4 l-l l
?
P 1
l l
,/
r
. oy 3
.t
[7590-01)
Ns
, 1 Footnotes to be incorporated in final document, i
1.
Copies of NUREG/BR-0053, NUREG/8R-0058 and NUREG/CR-3585 may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box)37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5185 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20$55.
i 2.
Coptes of the United Kingdom's document and the Canadian document are 4
available for inspection as enclosures to $ECY-85-147A (relating to 10 CFR Part 20) dated July 25, 1985 in the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20555. The United Kingdom documents are available for sale from: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, P.O. Box 569, i
Loncen SE1 9NH, United Kingdom, as Advice document ASP =7 and a relatic 1
technical report, "The Significance of SmaH Doses of Radiation to Memeers i
of the Puolic." NRPE-R175. The Canadian cocument was issued as Consultative Document C-85, "The Basis for Exempting the Disposal of Certain Racioactive Materials from Licensing" by the Atomic Energy Control Board, P.O. Box 1046, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, KIP 5$9.
S e
4 e
O n-
! ' bM e,,,,
w i
e s
rt i
ENCLOSURE D i
Dear Mr. Chairman j
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is publishing a policy statement
]
l on radioactive waste below regulatory concern.
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-240) requires that NRC " establish standards and procedures, pursuant to existing authority, and develop the technical capability for considering and acting upon petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from i
regulation by the Comission due to the presence of radionuclides in such waste l-streams in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities as to be below regulatory concern." The enclosed policy statement is in partial response to 1
i those recuirements. We are also addressing our technical capability to process petitions.
1 l
The enclosed notice is being sent to the Office of the Federal Ksgister for publication, l
Sincerely, t
John G. Davis. Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguarcs l
Enclosure:
Policy Statement l-L
.