ML20042F714
| ML20042F714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Geoffrey Miller HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042F715 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9005090298 | |
| Download: ML20042F714 (4) | |
Text
-
-. _.. ~ - __ - _- - - _
Y 4
, pteouq[g l
UNITED STATES 1
'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
wAssmorow, o. c, rosss l
I o
i April 30, 1990 1
CHAIRMAN i
The Honorable George Miller Subcommittee on. Energy and the. Environment Committee on Interior and Insular-Affairs United. States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515 s
?
Dear Congressman Miller:
i I am responding to your letters' of February 7, 1990, and-March 23, 1990, which requested documents and-information on the development of'the Below Regulatory Concern Policy.
Mr.-Rathbun's letters of March 16.and April 9, 1990, provided a listing and copies of pertinent documents available from the Commissioners' offices.
With this letter, I am providing a brief regulatory history of the development of the BRC policy statement (Enclosure 1), specific i.
answers to the questions you asked in,$,ur letter dated February 7,1990 (Enclosure 2), and a list of NRC staff and Commission records on the-development of the BRC exemption policy (Enclosure 3).
Copies of these documents are also provided.
j All of the enclosed documents, with the exception of Document 1
i No. 255 (Memorandum to the Commission dated; November 14, 1989, entitled "The Commission's-Legal Authority Under the Compatibility i
l Standard in Section 274 of the Atomic Energy.Act of-1954, As L
Amended....") may be-released to the public.
We do ask that use' i
of Document-No. 255 be restricted to members and staff of the Subcommittee since it contains predecisional legal advice and opinion.
Sincerely,
..m
~
r =s a-
- w%.
Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosures:
I 1.
History of Development of Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control 2.
Q's and A's-3.
Records on Development of Exemption Policy cc:
Representative Morris K. Udall Representative James V. Hansen l
9005090298 900430 h
PDR COMMS NRCC J
CORRESPONDENCE PDC 7
g
.1..
1
Regulatory History of Development of Policy Statement on 4
Exemptions from Regulatory Control The Nuclear Regulatory Comission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Comission, have, for a number of years, exempted certain levels of materials 4
and certain devices from the requirements of the regulations promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act.
Examples of these exemptions include the exempt concentrations and quantities found in 10 CFR Part 30 and the exemption for smoke detectors.
In 1986, as directed by Public Law 99-240, NRC developed and published.a Statement of Policy and Procedures, which outlines 14 criteria for expedited Comission consideration of petitions for exempting certain waste streams from regulatory control. The:e included criteria for individual'and collective dose levels, the ability to characterize these waste streams on a national basis, and demonstration of the usefulness of the exemption on a national basis. The Statement of Policy and Procedures is currently a part of the Code of Federal Regulations at Title 10, Part 2, Appendix B.
Besides this 1986 policy, the Comission is developing a broader policy that would identify the principles and criteria that govern Comission decisions which could exempt radioactive material from some or all generic regulatory controls for other purposes in addition to waste disposal.
NRC staff development of the Policy Statement on Exemption for Regulatory Control was initiated in early 1988. The first stage in the development process was a meeting of the NRC staff in Baltimore, Maryland, to discuss the Various elements of the proposed policy statement. One of the principal topics discussed was the approach to be taken to select the dose criteria to be used in the policy. Two different approaches could have been taken and were discussed in considerable detail. The approaches were to either (1) set _ dose criteria based upon a "de minimis" approach where the risk would be determined at a sufficiently low value as to be considered negligible to any individual or (2) set dose criteria at a level representing a determination that further resources should not be expended to further reduce dose and risks. The second approach was agreed upon by the staff in the meeting.
Following the Baltimore meeting, numerous drafts of the proposed _ policy..
~
F ~' ~
statement were prepared ~, revised, a'd modified as the staff from the Offices
~
n l
of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), and NuclearMaterial-SafetyandSafeguards(NMSS)reachedaconsensusviewonthe i
technical elements of the policy and draft wording to express these elements.
During this time, the individual dose criterion was proposed with a value of 1 mrem per year. This value represented the staff consensus of the dose level appropriate for the approach agreed to during the Baltimore meeting. This level was also consistent with the emerg)ing values being developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.
l l
l
w s
i
, s After preparation of the basic draft of the policy statement, it was forwarded to senior management for review and approval. During this review and approval process, the individual dose criterion was modified to 10 mrem from the original proposal of 1 mrem. This modification was based upon a different-approach to the potential problem of multiple exposures. The original approach had been to use a lower value to account a priori for the potential for multiple exposures. The revised viewpoint was to set the individual dose criterion at a value of 10 mrem and to address the issue of multiple exposures through other policy provisions, including broad definition of " practice,"
implementation of a collective dose criterion, and requiring that practice be justified. The draft policy statement was revised accordingly and forwarded for Office concurrence.
Initially, NMSS did not concur in the package because-it did not provide sufficient guidance to address the concern of multiple exposures. On September 14, 1988, NMSS concurred in the policy statement as-being acceptable to provide adequate protection to public health and safety based on the additional provisions described above to address the potential for multiple exposures.
The Commission paper (SECY-88-257) transmitting the draft policy statement also contained a recommendation that the proposed policy be presented for comment at a scheduled international workshop in order to obtain the viewpoints of other national and international authorities'on the subject of exemptions.
The Commission agreed to the presentation, but directed the staff to cast the proposed policy in the form of an advance notice of proposed policy development so that coments could be solicited on various policy provisions.
The work-shop was co-sponsored by the NRC and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (DECD) Nuclear Energy Agency on October 17-19, 1988, in Washington, D.C., and the proceedings of the workshop were published as NUREG/CP-0101.
The advance notice was published on December 12,1988(53FR49886),and indicated that a public meeting would be held on January 12, 1989. The public meeting was held and a transcript of the meeting prepared.
l During both the international workshop and the.public meeting, differing. views
[-'
were presented on'the~value f of the individual and collective dose criteria.
Values suggested for the. individual dose criterion ranged from 20 mrem per year downward to zero, the latter reflecting the view of some participants that no exemptions should be allowed.
i Following the public meeting and the public coment period on the advance notice, the staff analyzed the coments received and developed a revised draft policy statement. The revised draft was submitted to the Comission on June 16,1989, i
as SECY-89-257, and the staff briefed the Comission on July 11, 1989. The staff proposed an individual dose criterion of 10 mrem per year per practice and a collective dose criterion of 500 person-rem per year per practice.
l 1
~
~
1 l
u On October 13, 1989, the Commission rejected the. draft policy statement contained in SECY-89-257 and directed the staff to prepare a final policy statement according to a revised outline, which included an individual dose criterion of 10 mrem per year per practice, an interim individual dose 4
criterion of 1 mrem per year for practices with widespread distribution, and a collective dose criterion. Collective doses resulting from exposure to a practice should be as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Annual collective doses less than or equal to 1000 person-rem will be deemed to satisfy the ALARA criterion.
In addition, the-Commission stipulated that collective dose calculations need not consider individual doses less than 0.1 millirem per year.
The staff prepared the revised policy statement as directed and submitted it for Commission approval on December 1, 1989 (SECY-89-360).
Subsequently, the staff transmitted several memoranda to the Commission which discussed (1)perceivedinconsistenciesofthe-December 1,1989 policy statement with other regulatory policies; (2) the potential impact of the BEIR V report published by the National Academy of Sciences; and (3) additional information requested by Commissioners Rogers and Remick on truncation of collective dose calculations, the use of a "few" millirem per year for the individual dose criterion, and a discussion of the three basic radiation protection principles. These issues are currently under Commission review.
l
~
m a
a m
a i
.v
.