ML20043B962
Text
-_ - __
((
Ij, a neg(.
j
- o UNITED 8TATEs NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION-g
(.
n m e m oiou.o.c.n m g
.).
- n g' %
j, JAN 211988 HEI'ORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Hugh L. Thompson, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards William C. Parler, Director Office of the General Counsel 9
FROM:
Eric'S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nucita'r Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
OFFICE CONCURRENCE REQUEST: STATUS REPORT /0PTIONS PAPER ON REGULATORY USE OF BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN AND DE MINIMIS C0hCEPTS Your-concurrence is requested on the enclosed Comission paper (Enclosure 1).
The paper responds to the_ Staff Recuirements Memorar.dum of November 24, 1987 (Enclosure 2) which requested longer-tem development of'a policy statement identifying a level of radiation risk below which. government regulation betones unwarranted and development of the subject status report / options paper by January 29..1988.
Bill M.' Morris, Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, RES, transmitted
.4 first draft of this paper to the cognizant individuals on December 31, 1987.- On January 7,1988, a meeting was held with the EDO at which time the decision was made to convene a symposium for.the purpose of soliciting and documenting the views of national and international' regulatory authorities on the subject. The proposed content of the status report / options paper was also discussed.
The revised paper (Enclosure 1) focuses attention on a common definition and understanding of the de minimis and below-regulatory conectn (BRC) concepts, the current use of these concepts, the status of relevant national and
-international activities. and plans for policy development and the convening the aforementioned symposium.
I would appreciate your assistance in expediting y"
- the review of the enclosed Comission paper.
The following apply to this review and concurrence request:
'1.
Title:
Comission Paper "De minimis, Below Reculatory Concern, Residual Contamination Limits, and Dose Limitation Framework Concepts:
Their Current and Potential Applicability to Comission Policies" i
g60g11089113o n
CHP,1'53FR49886 PDC 4
- c..
' L p
Jc 3..
2.
RES Task tender: 'StanleyM.'Neuder,RPHEB,(492-3'37)
- 3..
Coonirent Individuals: NM55 - R. Cunningham M. Knapp F. Congel' NRR F.'Gillespie OGC R. Fonner 4.'
Recuested Action:
Review of, and concurrence in, Comission Paper.
R.euested Completion Date: January 26, 1988 5.
f Eric 5. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
~ t e
i
_m_mm
_______________._______._______m_
_____m-
Action? Beckjord> RESL
!.' I jy, cic*f4 UNITED STATES Thompson, NMSS t
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cys:- Stello
. Bird, OP pj M 'N ]
wasmoton.o.c n555 -
Taylor Regions 1-V
?k
'f Rehm Hickey,NMSS
[,i k y
/
November 24, 1987 Marley, NRR 4...'
Jordan -AEOD cinct o' im Murray, OGC/B sicattaav Ebneter. OSP NIEk'Ah.
MEMORANDUM FOR:-
Victor,Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations FPOM:
h d'r L. Bates Acting Secretary SUBilECT:
SECY-87 186A - DISTRIBUTION OF RADICACTIVE GEMS 1RRADIATED IN REACTORS TO llNLICENSED PERSONS (FOLLOW-llPTO-SECY-87-186)
This is to advist you that the Comission (with Comissioners Roberts, Bernthal, Carr and. Rogers agreeing) has approved Option 3(b) which would
~
allow issuance of interim-licenses for distribution of irradiated gemstones pursuant to 10 CFR 32.11, with an exemption from that portion of Sectinn 32.11(c) which prohibits application of products to a human being.
Meanwhile, staff is directed to develop a proposed Comission policy statement that will identify a level of radiation risk below which
-government regulation becomes unwarranted.
Implementation of this policy would be accomplished by specific regulations fo,r the various. classes of-materials, including gemstones.
Appropriate resources should be devoted to accomplish this task with consideration given to the framework which RES currently has under development.
In coordinating this " fresh look" at the de min'imis. or below regulatory concern question, staff should ensure participation of all affected offices.
A status report / options paper on this issue should be provided for Comission review by January 29, 1988, in order to facilitate the consistency of this policy and implementation for consumer products with other related activities, the paper shnuld address the status of the ANPR on "below regulatory concern" LLW, residual contamination limits, and the many "de facto de minimis" levelt already in effect. A Comission briefing on this paper will be scheduled for February (SECY SUSPENSE:
1/29/88) 4 04).
(RES)
Also, to ensure that there is no confusion among licensees about the Commission's position on this matter, the staff should comunicate the need for license authorization to licensees.
(6004 (SECY SUSPENSE: 12/21/87)
(NMSS)
Chairman'2ech approved Option 2(b) unless the sta'f is highly confident that
.the rec'istion. associated with consumers' use of irrediated gemstones will not exceed any de minimis level which the staff expects to establish, if the staff hBI this confidence, then he would support Option 3(b) and agree with the coments noted above.
/ Enclosure 2)
Reed OH EDO,
Date a.w
=
e b
Tune --
P70Ft1
- .J '
s
. V The staff is also directed to expedite consideration of NRC policy options
'c with respect to regulation of naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM).
' Commissioners Roberts and Carr also note 'that the key issue in this case is the staff's conclusion that the product pos?!s an acceptably-small: radiological hazard and that there is minimal or no risk to the public health and safety; ~not because this " approach would be to allow an established, multi-million Bollar industry to continue operations..." as suggested in SECY-87-186A.
4 Additional comments of Chairman Zech and Commissioners Roberts, Bernthal, Carr
.and Rogers were provided to you with their vote sheets. '
Copies:
Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts-Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers OGC GPA l
L L
L 1
l l
lI l-l l
- 4. = -
L
.g, JAN 21 ges y
Y For:
The Commissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations-
Subject:
"DE MINIMIS " "BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN," RESIOUAL CONTAMINATION LIMITS, AND DOSE LIMITATION FRAMEWORK CONCEPTS:
THEIR CURRENT AND POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY TO COMMISSION POLICIES To define and discuss the below-regulatory-concern and
Purpose:
de'minimis concepts and to inform the Commission of the status of staff efforts-to develop a proposed policy statement identifying a level of radiation risk below which government regulation becomes limited or unwarranted.
This information paper defines-and discusses the Summary:
concepts of de minimis, below-regulatory-concern (BRC),
and residual radioactivity.
A summary of de facto BRC levels in current regulatory practice and the status of related national and international activities is provided.
Interagency efforts to develop Presidential guO nnce and a dose-limitation framework applicable to-public radiation protection are discussed in an enclosure.
Staff plans for development of a proposed policy to identify a level of radiation risk below which government regulation becomes limited or unwarranted are also discussed.
11/05/87
s x '
f,.
['
The Cosissioners 2
- s '
Background:
The staff requirements memorandum of November 24, 1987
' directed that a proposed policy statement be developed which would "... identify'a level.of radiation-risk below which government regulation becomes unwarranted."
In this memorandum, the Commission requested a status
. report / options paper on the current and potential uses of the-de minimis and BRC concepts in the formulation of the desired policy.
Previously, in a staff requirements 9
memorandum-of February 5, 1987, the Commission had requested advice on how existing and proposed de minimis, below regulatory concern and residual radioactivity standards are related and how consistent release standards for all NRC licensed activities are to be achieved.
Discussion:
The discussion which follows is divided into three major sections which provide:
(1) definition of terms and-concepts, (2) a description of current and recent activities involving de minimis', BRC, and residual radioactivity issues, and (3) plans for policy
~
development, including resource sc}edules,andthe staff's intention,to convene a symposium of appropriate regulatory-authorities. ' Enclosure 1 contains a br_ief summary of the existing dose limitation system applicable to public protection and a discussion of the interagency activities-to develop Presidential guidance for publici radiation protection policy. contains;a list of de facto BRC levels already in effect.
An estimate of resources required to develop a Commission policy and other de minimis/BRC criteria is provided in Enclosure 3.
1 11/05/87 SMN
- C i#
The Commissioners 3-
\\;
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AND CONCEPTS Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) u In recognition of the existence of radiation risks that are sufficiently low to warrant only limited government-f da regulation and attention, Federal and State agencies are k
attempting to define appropriate BRC thresholds.
The 44 e3 risks associated with BRC thresholds are not necessarily
$/
trivial. ' However, regulatory requirements for ALARA practices would cease below these thresholds.
A BRC threshold or level inay be specified in terms of risk, dose, dose rate, radionuclide quantity or radionuclide concentration.
Current NRC regulations include several instances of the use of implied or-de facto BRC levels, although they are seldom referred to as such.
Examples include exempt ~ quantities and concentrations in various consumer and industrial products (Part 30), exempt concentrations of tritium and carbon-14 in animal carcasses and scintillation fluids
.k7 (520.306), and exempt quantities of soluble or gf84 dispersible radioactive material for release into 67 sanitary sewer systems (620.303).
These exemptions were g
jy
,4 A-promulgated by revious Commissions, not because they are p. gg.{' M rn w be.Lieved to be r k free but because the degree of risk "g
is too small to justify the cost of additional regulatory constraints beyond those required to control the releases under prescribed condition'h In almost all instances of de f acto threshold levels in the regulations,. limited
]
government controls remain in effect whereby the licensee is required, for example, to perform surveys, maintain 7/g,g,,k g g,, g/ &
records, and afford to the Commission opportunity to d W M - c4 conduct inspections.
A +~4..+.
1 & p /~ d-
\\
11/05/87
%; /~:~ c- -M J sf-~~ O SHN
""n f wM ep q g,ag
+
g
(
i.
'The Commissioners
'4
.c N
The concept of BRC is based on an acceptable or justified-risk as opposed to a de minimis or negligible risk (see below).
Costs, benefits and risk reduction are factors which may be considered in establishing a source-specific BRC level. Once the conditions-for release of material are defined and incorporated into practice through k
license restrictions, additional measures to further-reduce risks would be voluntary.
De minimis This term is usually used in reference to risks considerably lower' than ORC levels, i.e., risks so low that they should be below personal interest.
At or.below the de minimis risk level, government regulation of any kind would not be warranted.
The term "de minimis" is taken from a Latin phrase often translated as "the law is not concerned with trifles." -The word " law" gives the phrase a "Below Regulatory Concern" connotatien, but the, word " trifles" disqualifies the phrase for BRC purposes because BRC risks are not necessarily negligible.
In common usage, the triviality connotation outweighs the legal connotation, and many people associate the_ term de minimis with radiation risks that are negligible'or below personal interest.
Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning Decommissioning refers to removing nuclear facilities (site, buildings and contents, and equipment associated with the licensed activity) safely from service and reducirg residual radioactivity to a level that permits release for unrestricted use and termination of license.
N 11/05/E7-
I -
4 e
i
]
The Commissioners 5
Criteria for the release of residual levels of radioactivity exist but are only applicable to surface i
contamination.
There are no criteria for acceptable levels of residual ~ contamination in soils.
Past-decommissionings have relied'on the levels for acceptable surface contamination given in Regulatory Guide 1.86, h,V and, in addition, an imposed limit on external _ gamma-
/
radiation of 5 pR/hr above natural background, measured at one meter from the contaminated surface.
The 5 pR/hr exposure rate is an imposed criterion designed to limit the dose to an individual-to less than 10 millirems per year.
CURRENT NRC, EPA AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES Below Reculatory Concern Recent Federal actions with regard to BRC include tne publication in August 1986 of NRC policy for the deregulation of radioactive waste streams with dose rates no more than a few millirems per-year (51 FR 30839).
During the latter part of 1988, staff expects to receive several petitions for rulemaking to' deregulate certain reactor waste streams under this policy.
The U.S.
Environmental Protection. Agency (EPA) is developing generally applicab'le environmental standards for land disposal of low-level radioactive waste; which include criteria for BRC wastes.
EPAisconsideringa4 mrem //yr BRC individual dose standard. These standards are expected to be proposed _in 1988.
Similar action was taken in 1985 by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada in proposing e 5 mrem /yr' criterion for exempting the disposal of low-level waste from licensing control.
11/05/87 SMN i
1 _
H e
v L';
-The Commissioners 6
The NRC published an Advanced Notice of Proposed.
Rulemaking ( ANPRM) in December. 1986 (51 FR 43367), asking.
for public comment on whether to proceed on generic 3
deregulation of slightly contaminated (BRC) wastes. The,
'NRC has recently. received a proposal from the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority in collaboration with the University of Texas,'to provide technical assistance to compile the necessary-data base, estimate the public health impacts from a variety _of disposal options and develop standards and procedures needed for a generic rulemaking. The staff is studyi_ng.
the feasibility of this project and based on the conclusions reached and the evaluation of comments on the ANPRM (93 received), a recommendation will be made to the-
-Commission for future; action.
De minimis The United Kingdom'_ s National Radiological' Protection Board (NRPB) considers that doses up to 5 mrems/yr (1A of the current annual dose limit of 500 mrem /yr for members-of the public) are insignificant as-far as the individual-
~4 is concerned.
Using a risk factor of 2 x 10 per rem,
-6 the associated fatality risk would be 10 per year.
The NRPB' describes this risk as too low to'be considered in personal decision-making processes.
The NRPB reduced.
~
this number to 0.5 millirem for individual sources to-account for potential exposures from multiple sources.
In addition, the NRPB recommends that collective doses less than 100 man-rem, comprised of individual doses less than 0.5 mrem /yr, be neglected.
Recently, the NCRP has reco'mmended 1 mrem /yr as a negligible individual risk level.
For the major revision of 10 CFR Part 20, now underway, NRC staff is proposing that doses to individual i
-11/05/87 SMN s
p... _
7
[ ; C l ';.g e
- S 7
- The Commissioners' 7
?
' members of-the public receiv.ing 1 mrem or less in a year h
be omitted in collective ~ dose evaluations to prevent an unwarranted commitment of resources for controlling or regulating exposures at levels where theoretical risks 3
-are negligibly small.
Similar' recommendations have-recently been made by the international-Atomic Energy:
f Association (IAEA).
The IAEA recommends a de minimis
- l 1evel of 1 mrem /yr to the individual, and a 100 man-rem
.q threshold for collective dose calculations.
f Radiolocical Criteria for Decommissionino The NRC published an ANPR on decommissioning.in March-1978 (43 FR 10370) requesting comments on a number of
-issues related to decommissioning, including residual radioactivity criteria.
However, radiological criteria were separated from this decommissioning rule effort in February 1983.
The proposed rule on decommissioning was published in February 1985 (50 FR 5600) and a separate
. proposed rule on radiological criteria was then developed.
However, the supporting draf t Generic Environmental Impact Statement published in January 1981 as NUREG-0586 was not-accepted by EPA on the basis that it does not include an adequate analysis of. alternatives i
for criteria for residual radioactivity.
A final rule on decommissioning and a final version of NUREG-0586 are scheduled to be published in early 1988.
The final rule does not include generic guidance for: acceptable levels of residual radioactivity.
The EPA published an ANPR in June 1986 (51 FR 22264) concerning residual radioactivity in buildings and soils in which it requested cumments on several questions concerning the approach that might be taken in criteria 3
i SMN 11/05/67
o, c
- .y The Commissioners-8 v
development.
Although some progress has been made,-EPA staff. limitations have caused serious delays, suggesting-that the guidance may not be ready for at least four years.
Since there is a near-term need for guidance for current and future decommissionings of nuclear facilities, the NRC staff is proposing to develop for Commission' consideration an interim policy statement to be issued in mid-1988~which could be used until Federal interagency guidance is established.
Following the
^
pattern of the Commission's BRC low-level waste policy, the guidance would be expected to establish allowable individual dose limits and would propose a set of acceptable models which can be used to convert contamination levels into dose estimates.
The NRC staff is also developing information-which will establish acceptable limits for residual contamination at various types of nuclear facilities in terms of radionuclide. concentrations. Staff anticipates that a 10 mrems/yr (BRC) limit for release of residua 11y contaminated facilities can be met by most licensees.
However, in the case of facilities contaminated with naturally occurring radionuclides, higher dose limits may be considered based on cost-risk reduction S'
-considerations.
A Battelle PNL study is scheduled for completion at the end of FY88 which will provide a cost analysis applicable to decontamination practices and will assist with the longer-term development of acceptable radiological criteria.
The cost analysis will also be used in the development of-Federal interagency guidance.
The staff is also planning to develop specific concentration or exposure levels which mus!. be met for the recycle o' equipment and materials following
- 11/05/E7 SMN
,t-f m+
>~n
- c a
w.
The Commissioners 9
decommissioning and decontamination.
These limits'will'
'be based on studies of the mechanisms for exposure of the
'public from such activities and on the anticipated Commission policy regarding BRC risk levels.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS The staff is continuing to formulate possible options for the policy. statement on BRC and de' minimis ' risks to be proposed i.o the Commission at a future'date and is not prepared to delineate such options ~at this time.
Factors to be considered in this effort inc hde but are not limited to:
the, feasibility of establishing' source-specific or generic BRC and/or de minimis policies applicable to the diverse licensed practices ranging from decommissioning to consumer products; information and insights f rom national and int.ernational developments;.
and, specific activities and related. resources needed to implement a broadly-applicable Commission BRC/de minimis.
policy.
Staff efforts to resolve these and other issues will be conducted over-the next several months.
Although RES vill be the lead office in formulating the merits of policy options, significant staff involvement from NMSS, NRR and OGC will also be required.
An interoffice management steering group with representatives from these offices' will periodically review progress in development of policy options.
Resources needed to develop the generic policy statement and the.other BRC criteria described ir this report are discussed in Enclosure 3.
SMN
- N
.11/05/87
'5 m:
y3 The Commissioners 10 A SYMPOSlUM OF INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES ON i
THE REGULATORY USE OF BRC AND DE MINIMIS CONCEPT 5 A Commission policy directed at identifying a level of radiation risk below which government regulation becomes limited or unwarranted would have both national (e.g... EPA) and international im;,lications.
As a result, the staff believes that the successful development of this policy would be enhanced'if the views of national and international regulatory authorities were given consideration both during policy development and implementation.
To provide the vehicle through which
-these views can be solicited and dccumented,'the staff is-attempting,. at the earliest oppo ity within a June-October W 8 timeframe, to c:- $ $3Arl Ilh the Nuclear Ertrgy Agency (NEA), an international symposium on the regulatory use of BRC and de minimis conc 4 pts.
'The symposium would be attended by 20-40 appropriate national and international regulatory: authorities.
The purpose-of this 2-3 day meeting would be to focus attention and discussion on a set of issue's, not only involving the.use of either or both concepts but also on the form and magnitude of potential BRC'or de minimis hazard or risk levels.
Richard Cunningham, Director,
/
DivisifnofIndustrfalan Medical Nuclear. Safety, is currebtly orking ith t e NEAlto arrange thetsymposium and.,dillattendameetingwith'NEAinbatchtofinalize
/
the agenda.
The Commission will be notified of the arrangements for the symposium when they are complete.
i SMN 11/05/87
- A s-
- ,-[
The Commissioners.
11 This paper has been coordinated with the Of fices of' the -
General Counsel, Nuclear Material Safety _and Safeguards, and Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
-Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Draft Interagency. Framework for Development of Presidential Guidance on Public Radiation Protection
- 2.
De facto BRC. Levels in Current
' Regulatory Practice
- 3. ' Resources Required to Develop the Generic Policy Statement and Other.BRC/de minimis-Criteria a
M 4
11/05/E7 SMN
A5 i,,
g
{.
i DRAFT INTE,RAGENCY FRAMEWDRK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PRESIDENTI AL GUIDANCE ON PUBLIC RADIATION PROTECTION The Existino Dose Limitation System, ALARA, and Risk Control The system for limiting public exposure to radiation consists of two basic elements (1) regulatory dose limits, which establish maximum permissible hdosesforthepublicand(2)theALARAconcept,whichassuresreduction
,a panddistributionofindividualdosesbeneaththeselimits.
The two
._ /, h components work together to control and maintain individual and population.
/
.' (collective). radiation dose at acceptable levels, i.e., as far below the r
dose limit as is reasonably achievable.
The criterion under which the-(,ly
,p ALARA concept is implemented involves _the use of a conservatively-selected 7
~
value of $1,000 dollars-per personrem which balances the costs of-radiation control' systems against the savings in population dose.
The EPA has the_ responsibility for establishing" environmental and public protection standards for protection against radiation.
The EPA carries out this responsibility by issuing generally applicable _ regulations and developing-Presidential guidance for Federal agencies (Federal guidance).
Federal guidance, which limits health risk and applies to exposures f rom all sources of radioactivity except background or medical exposures, has usually been developed by consensus among affected Federal agencies and is signed by the President.
EPA regulations. impose limits on radiation exposures to the public; these are usually more restrictive than federal guidance limits.
Examples include (1) 40 CFR Part 190 which applies to' effluents and external radiation from uranium fuel cycle facilities and (2) 40 CFR Part 61 which applies to airborne effluents from all licensees.
Both of these regulations impose dose limits which in magnitude are a small fraction of Federal guidance limits.
Appendix 1 of 10 CFR Part 50 also establisnes annual whole body and thyroid dose equivalent design objectives lower than the EPA-established limits.
ENCLO5URE 1
^
p
~4 2
c To'date, the EPA, NRC, DOE, 00D, DOT, State agencies and others have established and enforced standards applicable within their mandated jurisdictions, There has been a tendency to develop-specific standards on-
- the basis of. cost-risk reduction analysis that considers only the source under study.
However, no coordinated action has been initiated to establish an acceptable level of collective risk for public exposure to multiple sources of ionizing radiation or to allocate, appropriate fractions of this risk to each contributing source.
A Federal interagency committee has been formed under the lead of the EPA to prepare new Presidential guidance to Federal agencies on protection of the public from all sources of radiation subject to goverr. mental control.
An objective of the guidance is to assure consistency throughout the nation in the control of these sources, which include facility effluents, radioactive waste, transportation, decommissioned lands and structures, unrestricted release of materials and equipment, and radioactivity in consumer products, among others.
~The NRC staff is participating in these standards development activities with EDA on several levels: the Federal interagency committee, the NRC-EPA Interface Council which is responsible for overall coordination between the two agencies, and direct staff contacts.
Within the NRC, coordination is ongoing between the Offices of RES, NRR and NMSS.
Several meetings of
.the interagency committee have already been held.
A logical framework for radiation protection standards for the public has been proposed for the working group's consideration and is also being reviewed by the NRC staff as a starting point for the possible development of a more consistent overall policy for radiation protection criteria.
A Proposed Framework For Consistent Radiation Protection Standards As with recently-issued Presidential guidance for occupational protection (January, 1957), subsequent Presidential guidance will establish a limit For on the acceptable annual risk level for members of the public.
1 i
ENCt.050FE 1 I
l example, an annual dose limit of 100 mrems/yr is being considered.
This
. level would correspond to a dose limit that any individual may receive from all-combined sources subject to regulatory control.
The ICRP, for example, currently recommends 100 mrem /yr.
The ICRP also recomn. ends 500 mrems/yr if the lifetime average does not exceed 100 mrem /yr.
These are upper limits'for combined sources Smaller dose limits for specific sources and ALARA practices are also considered necessary to further reduce risks.
A' framework has been proposed to account for doses from multiple sources l
of. exposure and which could include the concept of de minimis~or ERC risk levels.
Multiple sources of exposure include, for example, liquid and
?
gaseous effluents from nuclear facilities,: shipments of radioactive 1
material, waste disposal operations, decommissioned lands and structures,-
recycled materials and equipment, and radion:tivity in consumer products.
For each one of these sources, an upper limit of one-fourth the annual f
dose limit would be established.
This is based on-the assumption that the probability of exposing an individual to multip'le sources in a manner to f
E exceed the aggregate limit is very small.
In terms of the example above, i
each source would be assigned an upper dose. limit of 25 mrem /yr.
This L-would be consistent with existing regulations as, for example, 25 mrems/yr j
from waste disposal operations (10 CFR Part 61), 25 mrems/yr from fuel i
cycle facilities (40 CFR 190), and 25 mrems/yr from other types of f acilities (Clean Air Act). In addition, ALARA taeasures (e.g., Appendix I, l
l 10 CFR Part 50) would be required for each source.
'j A generic BRC level applicable to every individual source, if developed, would be expected to be of the order of a few (e.g., 5-10) mrems/yr.
This 1
would be a small fraction of the annual dose limit to the individual (100
[
mrems), is less-than the standard deviation in the natural background level, and is a very small fraction of the average annual dose to the-individual from natural background and man-made sources (360 mrem).
f ENCLOSURE 1
y 3
...r, 4
Regulatory decision criteria to accept or reject the risk associated with possession,.use, transfer or disposal of radioactive materials would generally be based on the inferred impact on public health and safety and the environment and on cost-risk reduction considerations.
In the dose framework, any operation associated with a risk level greater than the established acceptable annual health risk limit would not be authorized.
An operation associated with a risk level less than the acceptable annual risk,-but greater than the risk associated with a generic BRC, could be authorized based on a sound ALARA analysis, An operation associated with a' risk level less than the 'tisk associated with BRC would be acceptable andauthorizedwithoutcost-riskreductionconsiderations.[Forexample,a consumer product such as radioactive gemstones may.be exempted from certain parts of the regulations on the basis of projected annual dose being less than the BRC risk level.
Cost-risk reduction considerations would be. unnecessary in this case.
To permit a comprehensive treatment of the subject, the.de minimis risk concept could be included in the framework.
This level would be a fraction of the BRC level.
In the range between BRC and de minimis, conditions may be imposed, but government requirements for imposition of the ALARA concept is not justified and risk control is voluntary.
In the' range below de minimis, risks should be of no interest to anyone.
ENCLOSURE 1
l 0, :;
i DE FACTO BRC LEVELS IN CURRENT REGULATORY PRACTICE General statement of policy ar? procedures concerning petitions for 2
e disposal of radioactive waste streams below regulatory concern (Part 2, t
App. B).
Method for. obtaining approval of proposed disposal procedures (20.302).
Exemption from certain. parts of the regulations may be granted to licensees seeking to dispose of their specific wastes.
Disposal by release into sanitary sewerage systems (20.303).
Radionuclides may be released, in limited quantities, into sanitary sewerage systems.
Disposal of specific wastes (20.306).
Limited concentrations of tritium and carbon-14 in animal tissue and scintillation media may be disposed of without regard to radioactivity, a
Applications for exemptions (20.501).
The Commission may, upon-application by any licensee or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in Part 20.
L Specific exemptions (30.11).
The Commission may, upon application by any licensee or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in Parts 30-35.
I' ENCLOSURE 2 6
t.
' Exempt concentrations (30.14), (30.70).
Persons possessing materials and
_ products containing certain limited radioactive concentrations are exempt from the requirements for a license and from the regulations in Parts 30-35.
Certain items containing byproduct material (30.15).
Persons possessing certain specific products (e.g., radioactive timepieces, illuminators, compasses, etc.) are exempt from the. requirements for a license and from Parts 20, 30-35.
Exempt quantities (30.18) (30.71).
Persons possessing materials and
-products containing certain limited radioactive quantities are exempt from the_ requirements for a license and from the reg,ulations in Parts 30-34.
Numerical guides for design objectives... (Part 50, App. 1).
Permits-limited exposure rates from liquid and gaseous reactor effluents released to unrestricted areas.
. Acceptable levels of surface contamination (Reg. Guide 1.86).
Surfaces contaminated by residual levels of radioactivity (specified in disintegrations per minute per unit area) may be released for unrestricted use.
4 EN LOSURE 2
=
u ll Iqi
- p 41 RESOURCES REQUIRED TO DEVELOP THE GENERIC POLICY STATEMENT AND OTHER BRC/DE MINIMIS CRITERIA The, staff estimates that the task to develop the broad policy statement would
, require 4-5FTE'S over an approximate 1\\-2 year period.
Approximately 40% of these resources would be required within RES with 60% divided between NM55, NRR and OGC.
This resource commitment would include the convening of the proposed international symposium (see next section) on the regulatory use of
-the below regulatory concern and de minimis risk concepts and the staf f's consideration of the resulting viewpoints.
As directed by the staff requirements memorandum, the necessary reprogramming of resources for this task will be accomplished.
In several cases, commitments of NRC resources have already been made to include BRC concepts into NRC's regulatory framework.
The Low-Level Radioactive _ Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 dire'eted the Commission to make practical and timely decisions to determine when wastes need not go to a licensed low-level waste disposal site.
The Commission subsequently ' issued both a policy statement and advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on the disposal of radioactive waste streams below regulatory concern.
Tne policy statement established standards and procedures that will permit the Commission to act upon rulemaking petitions in an expeditious manner.
The purpose of the ANPR was to determine the feasibility of a generic rulemaking on BRC wastes.
The staff is in the process of reallocating, from existing resources, the resources (7-9 FTE years) necessary to expedit:ausly review and, if appropriate, initiate rulemakings on a minimut.. of 4 to 8 petitions expected to be. submitted by EPRI/ eel beginning in mid CY 1988: An additional 2-3 FTE years will be allocated by RES to determine the feasibility and extent of a generic BRC waste rulemaking activity.
A proposal is under review which would provide technical support for both petition evaluation and generic rulemaking tasks.
A funding for this task is estimated to be $500K over a two year period.
closely related task, a rulemaking to allow incineration of waste oil, in ENCLOSURE 3
0.
l1 2
response to a previous petition for rulemaking is in progress.
The staf f is currently proposing that a Commission policy statement be developed to use the BRC concept to establish acceptable residual radioactivity
-l levels which would allow license terminations and release of lands and structures for unrestricted public use.
Resources required for this task are estimated at 3 FTE years (2 FTE years within RES) with technical support being I
provided through an ongoing contract.
This task would be followed by staff l
development of criteria for release and recycle of contaminated equipment and materials.
The resources necessary to further develop and implement a de minimis policy i
I are difficult to estimate without knowledge of the form of the policy and the specific implementation approach.
The extent, if any, to which existing j
prohibitions would be retained on certain uses of byproduct material (e.g.,
i material in food, beverages, cosmetics) could significantly influence.the level j
of resources associated with policy implementation.'
t i
i t
l l-l ENCLOSURE 3 1.
_e;
- ,y
~
e-I :
i.
l i
.i i
I.
' \\,
l
.l i
i REGULATORY CUTOFFS l
I r
f PTS APPUCATION OF BELOW-REGULATORY CONCERN & DE MINI l
ese sst&
.u a 1.
198a i
s r
I-
+
i e
I em.-.-,,
4, v.,-e.
e.,.,.
e.
e a.
,.m.,
L,
,,x,,
+,,,,,.w..-'
l
,m-,
n-.,_.
- c b
+
n
]
" REGULATORY CUTOFF" CONCEPTS i
-THEIR POTENTIAL USE IN' THE DEVELOPIWIENT OF q
l RADIATION PROTECTION POLICIES & REGULATIONS
[
l i
EACKGROUND j
nespesso TO consesesseoss neopeSTS To ADDRESS SSepet SPEC 0FIED l
24.11987 1
IN SHOSe OF FEBRUARY S & NOTESSSER ADVISE ON HOW. EXISTING & PROPOSED DE MINIMIS bel &W-REGULATORY CONCEl
& RESIDUAL RADIOACTIVITY RELEASE STANDARDS ARE REIATED &--HOW-I CONSISTENT ' RELEASE STANDARDS ARE ACHIEVED l
DEVELOP COMMISSION ~ POLICY STATEMENT THAT WOULD IDENTIFY. A LEVEL OF RADIATION RISK BELOW' WHICH GOVERNMENT REGULATION BECOMES UNWARRAN l
i d,
NEAR-TEROS ACT1008 STATUS REPOftT/OFTIOest PAPER WWOURSTWO 4
~
. - - - 'p
.7%
,..%,,s
.,,dar='"..i
.. =
r-v,*
- ,w+'~,'*c w. #-
5-
--mv eee' wm -v a -e 4
w~.w-+
&>w+
i.
I f
4 MAJOR TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION l
4 1
TERMS & CONCEPTS ASSOCIATED WITH REetN.ATORY CUTOFFS CURRENT NRC, EPA, & INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES POLICY DEVELOP 8SENT CONSIDERATICMS i
l PLANS POR INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSSUM PRELISSINARY RESOURCE ESTIMATES FOft 88 TOAD A SPECSP9C POLOCSES
,w
-.e.
.~
.n>---
-.-... + - - -..-,.. - -. - - - --
a.:
t i
j r
i REGULATORY CUTOFFS t
BELOW REOt#LATOEW CO90CERN f
Jeettfled SoneN Rlek frece Roseletory Standpolet l
(met eeeeeeevety zero er eegelgeble feces todtwedeset wtowpetust) 1 i
Ceasederatsee can se Oswen to Cost /steek Averesee Baseeeeng l
)
t N E G LE O GIBL E RSSet l
-Nest'9sIhEe 8selffw9 dest 5tgetrOO to 10 emmeer stek-ONeense es;;;_A
{
I i
i Condatered TMt & Cessessee#9F Aeeeptehle to Meet Weeeeeeette peopSe
{
i e
l-b i
1 t
l.
i i
4 I
I Wy ae
$r 4g - a yg-N-g$-'-
-13y p ga -,i
.N-
,6-1 i
t-I s
a 1
i i
L I
i 1,
I
{g \\
I o
\\
\\
j 1
s 1
\\
I I
k 3
u y
}
}
h$
s I
!i i
i'll h {:'k~
, i
}
8 i
i i
k.iIllIik i
i t*b>\\gii,,i, g
it 1,='p i
1.Ilst
\\
i a
v 3
a i
a;
~
a r
j i
i i
POLICY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS t
i
- s. ore.-se.eifie we e.a. ele sac 5.v.t.
i i
r m
n-.4 mac 4.s. Imts 6. nA O :.2. ; _ ;.:_ ; T :
? 5 2 2 5:r !r ""x
_: circx:: ;? friz!
l i
Role of cost-rlek tredeoffs (soloetion of conversten veleos) i Charact.rtzetion of BRC sources on nattenal teamis Diffleuttles la.etabHelsing "NegNgsble Risk" levels i
t n
[
t
W =
4 T
i PRELIMINARY RESOURCE ESTIMATES l
TASK RESOURCES SCMEDULE Broad Policy Statement on 4-5 FTEs 1 1/2-2yr-j BRC/ De minimis Review & Initiate Rulemakinge 7-9 FTEs 3- ? yrs l
j Waste Stream Petitions t
Ceneric BRC Rulemaking Activity.
2-3 FTEs 2-3 yrs 1
Waste Stream Disposal i
t Policy Statement-Acceptable 3FTEe 2 yrs Residual Radioactivity 14vels i
?
i t
b l
f
- - _ v.
i I
l STATUS REPORT l
l l
REGULATORY CUTOFFS I
APPtJCATION OF BELOW RESULATORY CONCEROS & DE RANHONS CONCEPTS COMMISSION BRIEFING - MARCH 14, 1988 O
N M
4 s
u
,,,s
-n.,.
..i.,e
.,~a.
n
,n..
.,n
..,~,._.,.. -.n,.w_--,
-~.s.
l
.i NOULATORY - CUTOFF" CONCEPTS I
-THEen POTENTsAL usa IN THE DEVELOPOSENT OF RAosAvsON PROTECTION POUCSES & REGULATIONS macocessousso REOWESTS TO ADOftSSS ISSUES SPECOPIED REScosep. TO I
see Sense OP PEssteNWEY e 4 900VERSSER 24,1987
. ADVISE ON HOW EXISTING. & PROPOSED DE MfMIMfS. BEtAW REGULATORY CONCERN de RESIDUAL RADIOACTIVITY REIRASE STANDARDS ARE RELATED & MOW I
CONSISTENT RELEASE STANDARDS ARE ACHIEVED l
DEVELOP COM9fT9910N POLICY FFATEMENT THAT WOULD IDENTTFY A LEVEL OF f
I RADIATION RISK BELOW WHICH GOVERNMENT REGULATION BECOtfES UNWARRANTED t
i seEnn-TEnes acTeoes l
svares napowr-ocesoseS parise WeOmaStuo i
i I
l h
l-4 i
_1-l
.s.
n..............'
-M
~
E I
of -
,l!
l I
1 8li t
E DE El 1
1 a
I I
e E
I I
N, i
l E
l
=
e 8
g hl 8
EI f
\\\\jll 2
g IIulII f
F l
1
?
A RADIATION PROTECTION FRAMEWORK 1
1 BASIC REGULATORY 10CFRio DOSE UNIT o
ALARA Required W
l 4
e i
L SUPPLEMENTARY STDs e.g._ 40 CFR 190, CAA 0 g
O POUCY STATEMENT WASTE STREAMS
[
g M
4 GENERIC BRC 3.I
_W e
I oW SOURCE o
0
~
SPECIFIC q p l
{
I L.v.i.
NEGUGIBLE INDIV.
I I RISK C
CURRENT
-O POTENTI AL.
.p,
i
.v e
l i
1 i
POLICY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
- t i
4
" SOURCE SPECIFIC" VS " GENERIC" SRC LEVELS CHARACTERIZATION OF CUTOFF LEVELS l
i CHARACTERIZATION OF SOURCES ON A NATIONAL BASIS
~
ROLE OF COST / RISK TRADEOFFS CONVERSION OF BRC DOSE LEVELS TO RISK I
DIFFICULTIES IN ESTABLISH 5NO "NEGLIGISLE RISK" LEVELS i
4-
_ereg 4
r-4-"
9 gr sry
.w w-a=r y
-p
.,e, ap' 4,+
-s7+
wW es i a-w--
-eslyr
.,i eeg-=yg.,-
e--,'gm ag-.e-w eb c
,v eg%,.m
n
. =
l 1
i i
1 r
MAJOR AUTHORITIES REGULATIONS IMPACTING i
i REGULATORY CUTOFF POLICIES i
~
l
?
EPA OENERALLY APPUCABLE ENVNNNNSENTAL RADIATNNE STA80DARDS (AEA) l 1
SAFE D9tNOK8MO WATER ACT CLEAN ant ACT l
t
)
i l
~
NRC i
RXEaSPTION AUT9MNWTY (ATORAOC ESSENOGY ACT SECT 9005S S7d, GES $1) f l
LOW-LEVEL RAD 00 ACTIVE WASTE POUCY ASSENDRAENTS ACT OP - 1985 i
I 5-4 1
y 5
.,,,mye.
4 w..y,.
.e
.w-n e.
c.,
, ~,..,
.r.,_
._...,i,+,,,.....,,...-...s..
~,. - -,.,
a w
l
.i,,
~-
i I
I i
PRELIMINARY RESOURCE ESTIMATES I
i TASK WESOtMICES SC90ESEFLE i
Broad Polley Statement on 4-5 FTEs 1 1/2-Eyr BRC/ De minimis f,
f 4
i l
Review as Initiate Rulemakinge 7-9 FTEs 3- ? yrs Waste Stream Petitions Generle BRC Rulemaking Activity.
2-3FTEe 2-3 yre Weste Stream Disposal Policy Statement-Acceptable 3FFEe 2 yre l
Reeldual Radteactivity. Levele
}
a m os 4 sraucrones, i
e
-e-
~
w,-
v-
.-n.
-r...
n.:~..e,
. - - -.