ML20042D130
Text
_
f A:
April 28, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY CONTROL As requested in your memorandum of April 19, 1989, we have reviewed the preliminary draf t proposed statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control.
Although there remain a number of drafting points and concerns, we believe that the draft is in general acceptable. A summary of our comments is enclosed. These comments, and other editorial notes have been discussed with' Mr. William Lahs of your staff.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Carl J. Paperiello for,
Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nudlear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
H. Thompson, DEDS T. Murley, NRR H. Denton, GPA W. Parler, OGC DISTRIBUTION:
(NMSS89-223)
INN 5 Central File GSjoblom IMSS r/f JFunches IM0B r/f CJenkins HMSS Dir. Office r/f CEstep NRC Center File 4 Cool-
..nW 4'/ W / 4 k l 0FC: IMDB
.4...q5
- IM
.N 5
- MM55
- RM35 NAME:
M GS m:RECu) am:CPaper lo:RBer o
... a DATE:
/8/89:04M/89:04/M/89
- 04/r#/89 1 4/)M/89 OfF1CIAL RECORD CDPY ke
4 i
N SUMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CUNNINGHAM/SJ08LOM Com ENTS ON PROPOSED BRC POLICY STATEMENT MM0R COMENTS:
1 1.
The new UNSCEAR report indicates that risk factors are generally higher than previously thought. The draft uses the new value, but does not provide a rationale for the change. The discussion could also include the possible influence of dose rate and magnitude on the risk factor.
2.
The proposed policy indicates that individuals should not experience radiation exposure approaching 100 arem per year through the cumulative effects of more than 1 exempted practice. This 100 mram limit should l
include exposure from all exempted and regulated practices. Exposure from exempt practices should be limited to a small fraction of the overall limit.
3.
Collective dose from an exempted practice will not provide the information needed to assess the cumulative doses from multiple practices. The wording on'page 13 should be reconsidered.
4.
The current draft does not come to grips with the rationale and approach
[
the staff is using for multiple practices. A clear explanation is needed on how and why multiple exemptions using an indivicual dose criteria of 10 mram will not result in any individual receiving a cumulative exposure greater than a small fraction of the dose limit for all sources and practices.
5.
The. distinctions between ALARA and justification are not clearly laid out. The text should be clarified to keep efforts to reduce dose from a justified practice separate from the rationale for how a practice is determined to be justified.
OTHER ComENTS:
1.
The presence of natural background presents practical limitations on measurements. The thought could be added that all material is radioactive and that although improvements in survey techniques have resulted in the ability to detect extremely low activities this does not necessarily imply that these new low levels are somethIng to be regulated.
2.
Have we consulted with the States in formulating this policy? If so, lets say it.
3.
The policy statement and any supporting discussions need to discuss rationale for differences with international recomendations more completely.
4 Add reference to 1987 Presidential guidance on occupational exposure in paragraph 1 o,f page 5.
Enclosure
F
-o r
Q 2
5.
What is the basis for the 40 arem per year from natural radioactivity?
This is unclear and potentially confusing.
6.
We should not suggest assigning collective dose a monetary value. A tenn like weighting factor may be more acceptable.
7.
First sentence of paragraph 2, page g indicates that ALARA for a justified practice is still required.
If it has already been judged BRC this may not be appropriate. The text should be clarified to avoid misconceptions.
8.
We may not want to guarantee compatibility with EPA at this point. (page l
14 paragraph 1).
l COMMENTS ON NRC RESPONSE TO EPA REMARKS:
1.
We indicate that we are currently considering the individual dose i
criterion to be applied. With this policy however, we are retaining thei same numbers.
( page 2, paragraph 4 and page 5, paragraph 2).
It is unclear that we nave responded to the comment.
2.
The circumstances under which truncation could be allowed need to be clarified.
9 i
l 1
I m
e-
-+
['.
e.
13
,r Y
l
'Y $N$ $
f'd
$ {',
h$ h $
- llO c
d$ f g'
e
- e 9
/
e oi?Iuo
/44 /0 tdeopf t*N fls f 4/Ag alt l %'# Ast.6u6 9 U &-
UMO*
7 mL
<a %
Zde r
.e/dA '
Mo. p@
af 14 <wswa :4 4 a;-
.,Et, dir e,; <gu
- (v o.rfn.
Ya twan t
As.44:s 3 Cw.d4
<u fe,<J <, pu,., u.ea a.u '
f U d'tt4A,
i*.Yb j.? to s 4 e'
ft< < 4 (s44 Ittv ey tu adt;< N' g
'A Y ' s4 5b 4444U DAY
/f 4
- lfe f 44040*
6CTh 44LpC44Y d
'(O n s-ver s s ?,
a b
re. is, L e s'.
aao,,<s xi,r y rs,= ~ <i n 4 ans~ su ru Lru,,y sfu.a tsw' riw as e zwaats u
. w es.
,: m sa a.
.a ~< t. t:.- aa<a, << x uu. p v aw
$&Ad $'s>,
?Etted!s* 4U**
l44 Kof?~
(. t r ! J' '& Z
<*44s
,e p ::tcas< e rs 76 Auuaat if tre sue sa 24. p;fus.
L/ p:/0*
- tr 44*4*e/, J u w V.41
+44J I' e
.*a#l/ ('Ht r 0ts r'-
f g
fi. tc'o.' ki fiUT.
// y: /g%
a fd XL ' W4 wY a &
dad.trwf/
[2av.o'Au tt
. una<1 a.y 7b*
za.u &3 & s1 ssd a 9 4:?/ u u t of u s ss,,etidw!
T
%b pess.T ff tt44*&ok, b 6eru W Lars N $4rf&
t< *sNd ev*ik fu nllo*
n' On Al**
X4 kV l %4 uunar Au tb af4 ace <a%7 au e
b b
[, i q
... _ o c
)
.\\
- }$ p.m.
7.
DisposalofMixedWaste(DSM)(0 pen) p:45 p.m.
- BREAK *
- 3:00 p.m.
8.
Status Report, Sumary(of the SCP Review and Production of the SCA 5JSP)(0 pen) 1 4:00 p.m.
9.
ExecutiveSession(0 pen)
Preparation of ACNW Reports l
S:00 p.m.
- RECESS *
- Friday:
7 pro 08, itF9. Roon p-310, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland S:30 a.m.
- 10. Below Regulatory Concern (OSM) (0 pen) a.
Update on the BRC Policy Statement b.
Procedures for the expedited handling of petitions for the disposal of radioactive waste streams that are below regulatory concern.
l 10:15 a n.
- BREAK *
- 10:30 a.m.
- 11. Licensing Support System for the High Level Weste Repository (Ostt) (0 pen)
- LUNCH *
- 12:00-1:00 p.m.
1:00-2:30 p.m.
- 12. Administrative Session:
i Anticipated and Proposed Comittee Activities, Future Meeting Agenda, and organizational matters as appropriate 2:30 p.m.
- BREAK *
- 2:45 p.m.
- 13. Executive Session (0 pen)
Completion of ACNW reports considered at this meeting.
4:30 p.m.
ADJOURN l
L I
g t
e en e. e em + e e mee * *
-,,n
--,-,, - ~,,.
4 74 7l
. (TENTATIVE)
SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR D15CUS$10N 9TH ACNW MEETING APRit 26-28. 1989 BETHE5DA, MARYLAND Wednesday:
i April 25, 19P9, Reor. P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 8:30 - 8:40 a.m.
1.
Chairman'sComments(0 pen) 1.1 Opening Remarks 3.2 Items of Current Interest E:40 - 12:00 Noon 2.
Technical Position on Post Closure Seals in an Unsaturated Media (DSM) (0 pen) 10:1510:30 a.m.
- BREAK **
- LUNCH **
12:00 1:00 p.m.
1:00 - 3:15 p.rt.
3.
Preliminary Findings of the Weste Confidence Review Group (SJSP) (0 pen)
- BREAK **
3:00-3:15 p.m.
3:15 p.m.
4 Executive Session (0 pen)
Discussion of Draft Letters on:
l 4.
L'aste Confidence b.
Post Closure Seels f
5:00 p.m.
RECESS l
t Thursday:
April 27,1989, Room P-110, 7920_ Norfolk Avenue Bethesde, Maryland 8:30 - 9:10 a.m.
5.
Review ltems to be Discussed with Commissioners (0 pen) 9:20 a.m.
TraveltoOneWhiteFlintNorth(0WFN) 10:00-11:30 a.m.
6.
Meeting with the Commissioners at OWFN (0 pen)
Topics include:
DWM - Status of the SCP/SCA Review CVS - West Valley Demonstration Project MJS - Greater-than Class-C Radioactive Waste DWM) - Division of High-Level Waste Management FY.89 Program Return to Phillips Building. Bethesda, Md.
r
Wt '.
'- r7 -
- p. 4
. m-e 1
)
1 PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL ANCW BRIEFING - APRIL 28, 1989 e
9 h
4 I
b_
T d
P V
py
-a ys'irW'-
9epiey P
y
--w*
m
=v-4-ip e
..a
-.3 w
h--
w-.'m a 1 mma m_.___a___-m___,__m.u__.
u_m.__.s,_m.m____m..m_-
i. '.,
s L
-1 O
i W
E
.U 4
H r
O Q
E LLJ CW W
E A.
U O
O E
6 J
4 W
Q c
W W
H aC:
D A
2 M
W O
M O
E H
~
E C.
~
O W
C W
J M
E sc i
W E
0 m
O M
Q.
O H
r W
D.,
W 2
W W
H W
E M
L U
~
Z E
~
J
~
E C
U O
CL C
M H
U W
W E
=
E D
W I
N O
~
M E
sc W
M W
D F
U
~
H CL M
W O
E E
H O
L O
M H
W M
7 CC E
>=
M
=
W E
L W
M H
M D
H O J
H E
H W N O
E O
J CL W
Q.
M
'M H
Q W
.5 E
W E
W l
M U
E O
C E
E A.
U
+W a'
i O
O O
U U
~
Cr
=
H O.
W M
O 4
4 W
N H
C O
~
N
~
W E
U M
1 E
'm w
W J
> U 0
VJ e
e e
4
4 CURRENT SCHEDULE PROPOSED COMMISSION PAPER TO EDO - MID MAY HIGHLIGHT MAJOR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS JUSTIFICATION OF PRACTICE CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING " FLOOR" FOR ALARA CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER " RISK" BASED STANDARDS AND f
INCREASES IN RISK COEFFICIENTS ENCLOSE PROPOSED POLI,CY STATEMENT ENCLOSE
SUMMARY
AND RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COP 9 TENTS PROPOSAL TO COMMISSION - EARLY JUNE t
/
4 4
3 v
syy v
s 4
7
-e
- w
-e w
4 w-e e-
- w
-.m~ec-g----%+
c -
e=
w-e*
+
r w
w au-
MAJOR P~ ICY IHPROVEMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS EMPHASIZE PCLICY APPLICABILITY TO EXEMPTIONS FROM SOME OR ALL REGULATORY CONTROLS - DROP REFERENCE To "BELOW REGULATORY E
CONCERN" CLEARLY STATE THAT POLICY ALSO INCLUDES CRITERIA WHICH WOULD DEFINE WHEN FURTHEP. INCREMENTAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE ALARA PRINCIPLE IS NOT WARRANTED.
CLARIFY CONCEPT OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A " PRACTICE" O
S 4
- - -. - - ~
o.
1 MAJOR POLICY ADDITIONS EXPLICITLY PEFINE NEED FOR POLICY JUSTIFICATION OF PRACTtCE IS APPLICABLE TO ALL EXEMPTION DECISIONS
- ALTHOUGH PRACTICE MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN JUSTIFIED (E.G., WITHIN LARGER PRACTICE; BY PUBLIC LAN)
DESCRIBE INFIIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE DOSE CRITERIA AS PROVIDING A TNO-PARAMETER BASIS TO DETERMINE " FLOOR" FOR CURTAILING INCREMENTAL i
APPLICATION OF THE Al_ ARA PRINCIPLE V
I.
5
g
'l a
POLICY POSITIONS VS ACNW COMMENTS s
4 EXCLUSION OE PRACTICES FROM JUSTIFICATION NEED FOR COLLECTIVE DOSE CRITERION-TRUNCATION ALARA DESIGNATION OF EXEMPTION LEVELS EXPOSURES TO MULTIPLE PRACTICES MISUSE / ACCIDENT PROVISIONS, MONITORING, MODELING, PROCEDURAL FLEXIBILITY-'
6
PROPOSED EXEMPTION POLICY SCHEMATIC
.l gN\\\\\\
)
1000; g
s s
s CLEARLY NOT EXEMPTABLE
- \\\\\\ \\ N N N 'NN 100 g-PUBLIC DOSE LIMIT og s,'O i
\\
10 g " q ~~ ' ~ ~ ' - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '.
cA
_w
~
p%
j w
4g I j8
/
- i. CLEARLY c
!V / /
/
~
! EXEMPTABLE /
u.c 1
I
/
/
COLLECTIVE DOSE (PERSON-REM) 1 1 a 1 i til 1 i i j llill i j j i i i t il i 1 1 A i t e al e
e, e
,,,,3 1
100 10,000 l
I l
_.___..__...-..,__m.,
,-.........,......_.-._...,~.-.__,.,..,,,.,y
~\\
//4U3-7'l UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CEMMISSION Aomony comurrris on wuctsan wAm A gg w asu motom.o.c.au s
.. s -
May 3, 1989 bv/
b I
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
i Chaiman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICY CN EXEMPT 10NS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL During its ninth meeting, April 26-28, 1989, the Advisory Cosmittee on Nuclear Weste (ACNW) met with members of the NRC staff to discuss the proposed Comission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control.
We also had the benefit of the document referenced. This matter was also a subject for discussion at several of our previous meetings.
We most recently comented to you on this matter en December 30, 1988.
1 As a result of our review, we believe the latest version of the proposed l
Policy Statement has successfully addressed a number of formerly unre-solved issues.
Areas that still need to be strengthened and/or clari-fled are listed below:
1.
The Policy Statement should state unequivocally that practices (including sources and devices).that are candidates for exemption should not taking into consideration all such practices, result in an annual, dose rate crem (about 0.1 mSv) greater than a small fraction [1.e., about 10 per year) of the long-ters annual dose limit
[100 arem (1 mSv) per year) for individual members of the public, i
Although this could mean that the dose rate from individual sources might approach 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per year suitable adjustments will need to be made where a given population group might be exposed to multiple sources.
1 2.
Another important consideration, particularly in terms of releases of radioactive materials into the environment which represent an 1
1rretrievable action, is the associated longer-ters dose commitment to the affected population.
In essence, the proposed policy must take into consideration both the annual dose and the dose commit-
- ment, i
l n
3.
We continue to believe that the permissible annual collective dose
'(
limit should be reduced as the allowable dose rate to members of I
the public from individual practices increases.
We urge that this I
i approach be made a part of the Policy Statement.
NI ( 0 l l) 18 y
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. May 3, 1989 4.
Although differences in the dose rates to seabers of the public from natural background sources can be used to provide perspective, l
we believe that such differences.should not be used as a justi-fication for setting dose rate limits for practices being con-sidered for exem> tion.
The Policy $tateam1t should be modified to reflect this liettation.
. Sincerely.
T Dede W. Moeller Chairman Referencei Remorandum dated April 13, 1989 from Bill M. Morris Office of Nuclear ACRS transmitting Regulatory Research (RES), for Raymond F. FraleyIcy on, Exemptions from Preliminary RES Draft of Proposed Commission Po1 Regulatory Control
=
O i
.