ML20043C003

Notation Vote on SECY-89-184 Re Proposed Commission Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control

ML20043C003
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/14/1989
From:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20042C963	List: ML20042D061 ML20042D082 ML20042D112 ML20042D133 ML20043B907 ML20043B911 ML20043B916 ML20043B918 ML20043B919 ML20043B920 ML20043B922 ML20043B924 ML20043B927 ML20043B932 ML20043B959 ML20043B960 ML20043B962 ML20043B973 ML20043B974 ML20043B988 ML20043B990 ML20043B991 ML20043B995 ML20043B999 ML20043C001 ML20043C003 ML20043C006 ML20043C009 ML20043C035 ML20043C051 ML20043C062 ML20043C069 ML20043C075 ML20043C091 ML20043C093 ML20043C100 ML20043C110 ML20043C129 ML20043C132 ML20043C140 ML20043C141 ML20043C154 ML20043C155 ML20043C188 ML20043C190 ML20043C193 ML20043C198 ML20043C203 ML20043C204 ML20043C206 ... further results
References
FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006010173
Download: ML20043C003 (19)

Text

.

~

(D 7 3

N' O T'A T I O N V0TE RESPONSE SHEET c g. g _

Y Morris eCool TO:

SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Lahs File i

FROM:

COMMISSIONER CARR

SUBJECT:

SECY-89-184 - PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM PIGULATORY CONTROL 4

1 APPROVED DlSAPPROVED - 'ifIcement ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:

see attached comentsk 1

.9 l

l

_UMAW0&

SIGNATURE jgg6cgi7s891130 EWM

(

CHP1 53FR49886 PDC DATE

'7 0# 6 0 / u / l )

ENTERED ON "AS"

////

NRC-SECY FORM MAY, 1987 l

[!

l, e

l3 Chairman Carr's comments on SECY-89-184:

l 1.

PRC Policy-After thorough consideration of the staff's proposed policy statement on exemptions from regulatory control. I have decided that the policy needs to l

be revised to ensure that it addresses the following objectives and can be The policy statement is sorely reeded to provide i

practically implemented.(1) a threshold for terminating reg 61 story control whe not result in commensurate improvement in the protection of human health and i

the environment and (2) a consistent risk basis for the Comission's Based on ey analysis, the existing and future exemption cecisions.

Comission's policy for exemptions should be composed of the following elements:

A.

Below Regulatory Concern l

The NRC will exempt from further regulatory control a practice NT.C may conduct that satisfies the criteria listed below.

research on a periodic basis to assess the effectiveness of the implerentation of the Comission's exeration policy.

B.' Indivious) Dose Criterion The average individual cose to typical individuals in the-critical group should be less than 10 mrem /yr for individual An interim individual dose limit of 1 mrem /yr for practices.

practices which result in exposures to large populations (e.g.,

consumer products) should be established until the Commission gains more experience with the potential for individual Dose will be exposures resulting from multiple practices.

considered in terms of effective dose equivalent.

e C.

ALARA Collective doses resulting from exposure to a practice should be as low as reasonably achievable (A. ARA). Annual collective doses less than or equal to 1000 person rem will be deemed to satisfy the ALARA criterion. The calculation of collective dose does not need to consider individual doses less than or equal to 0.1 area /yr.

D.

Other BRC Exemptions The NRC may exempt practices that do not meet the individual dose criterion on a case specific basis if the Commission determines that doses to the public are ALARA and regulatory control is not justified by further reductions in individual and collective doses.

The 10 mrem /yr individual dose criterion would apply to specific practices with a limited exposed population, such as releasing a decomissioned site for unrestricted use or exempting a low level radioactive waste stream.

. _ _ ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

y-Y, 2-Although there is a considerable amount of uncertainty with risks associated with such low doses and dose rates, this dose would increase an individual's risk of fatal cancer by about 7E-7 to 4E-6 annually and SE-5 to 2E-4 over a 70-year lifetime (assuming a risk coefficient of between 7E-S 'and 3.5E-4These fatal cancers per rad based on UNSCEAR 1988). levels of risk th In addition, such low doses from natural sources and human activities.

represent a small fraction of an individual's annual dose from natural l

background radiation and variation in doses caused by locational differences Further, the conservative nature of the dose in background radiation.

calculations that will be used to assess conformance to this criterio provides additional assurance that the risk resulting from actual exposures Because it is unlikely that an indiiridual will be less than caleviated.

would be exposed to several exempted practices with small exposed populations, there is reasonable assurance that an indi with natural background under normal conditions will not exceed the 100 arem/yr reference level for members of the public contained in the proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 20. NRC's review of applications submitted in response to the Comission's Policy Statement on Below anticipated exposure pathwar and the characteristics of critical groups.

.The 1 mrem /yr individual d>,e criterion for practices until NRC gains sufficient experience in the implementati I

such practices, an individual could easily be expos policy.

assurance that individual doses from all exempted pra Recognizing the. uncertainty associated with low dose 7E-8 and 4E-7 annually and 5E-6 to 2E-5 over a 70-year lifetime.

l

Instead, The effects of such low doses cannot be demonstrated In NCRP gl, the National the no-threshold, linear dose-response model.

Council of Radiation protection and Measurements concluded that such lo doses ara trivial because they result in negligible risks to individuals.

Therefore, regulation of practices with large exposed populations resultin in individual doses less than or equal to 1 arem/yr is clearly unwarranted on an individual basis because the benefits derived from further regulatio are not comensurate with resource expenditures required tc accomplish regulatory control.

w.,.. -

4 4,

3 Collective doses resulting from exposures to an exempted practice should be s

as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The 1000 person-rem ennual dose is The selected as a floor to ALARA in reviewing applications for exemptions.

value of the collective dose threshold precludes the occurrence of a statistical health effect resulting from exposure to an exempted practice in the population at large. Using a high risk coefficient of 3.5E-4 fatal cancers per rad, the collective dose threshold would allow an estimated 0.4 UNSCEAR 1988 cautions, however, that the product health effects per year.

of the risk coefficient based on the linear hypothesis and the collective

• dose limit only provides reasonable estimates of the number of health effects when the collective dose is on the order of at least 10,000 At the low individual doses and collective doses allowed for exempted practices allowed under the BRC policy, therefore, no statist.ical person-rem.

health effects will probably result from exposure of the population at large I

from an exempted practice.

The 1000 person-rem threshold value is also based on a balance between the amount of effort required to prepare and assess an ALARA analysis and the pctential benefits to be gained by further recuctions in collective dose.

Further reductions in collective dose below 1000 person-res/yr would l

probably not justify the additional resource expenditures by the applicant The additional benefits gained by such reductions would be or regulator.

disproportionate to the resources expended for analysis, design, andTherefore regulatory review of the exempted practice.

denotes a Below Regulatory Concern threshold, below which further reductions in collective dose from an exempted practice are of negligible benefit.

Individual doses less than 0.1 arem/yr do not need to be considered f

estimation of collective doses.some would argue that collective dose doses to individuals (e.g., microrem/ year).

low doses provides a false sense of the significance and certainty of the In addition, their consideration may reduce the utility of ALARA L

analyses if they account for a large percentage of the total. collective dose.

doses.

NCRP 91 recoasnended Oat collective dose assessments for a particular practice exclude inotvidual duses less than a 1 arem/yr hegligibleAs Individual Risk Level.

At 0.1 mrem /yr, the individual lifetime risk of fatal cancer of up to 2E-5.

lifetime risk is on the order of IE-6, which is consistent with risk thresholds used in regulatory programs throughout the Federal government (e.g., Food and Drug Aaministration and Environmental protection Agency)

NRC Peviously derived the 0.1 mrem /yr value as a de Although I am not proposing to adopt 0.1 mrem /yr as a

.(51FR1113).

de minimis dose to indivicuals,1 consider 0.1 arem/yr to be an appropriate truncation value for calculating collective doses.

. - - -. -. ~ -

~

.q A,f

4

2.

BRC Policy Statement The Comission's BRC Policy Statement should be rewritten and ' submitted to the Comission for review prior to publication as a final policy statement in the Federal Register in accordance with the elements described above.

j The Statement should be revised to conform to the following fonnat:

A.

Introduction Describe the purpose of the BRC Policy; cite existing exemptions already codified in NRC's regulations and those of other Federal spencies; overview the content of the Policy Statement.

f' B.

Policy Describe and justify the BRC criteria listed above (BRC, individual dose criterion, ALARA with the collective dose criterion andThe rationale truncationlevel,andaxemptionsathigherdoses).should clearl I

Ll-the criteria..

l l

C.

Terms and Concepts Define key terms and concepts used in the Policy Statement

-(e.g., practice, dose, risk, linear hypothesis, ALARA).

J_

D.

Implementation Describe how the BRC Policy will be implemented through rulemakings and licensing actions; describe opportunities for public coment through subsequent actions; identify the need for assessment of environmental impacts for each practice; and provide guidance on how the NRC will consider applications for sxemptions (e.g., would NRC develop a general rule for exempting consumer products or for l

l specific products such as frying pans, jewelry, gas mantles).

l Standard Format and Content E.

Describe, in general terms, the format and content of exemption applications that the NRC staff would find acceptable.

The revised BRC Policy Statement should be' prepare 3.

Existing Exemptions _

The BRC Policy Statement should supersede the Commission's policy statem on consumer products dated March 8, 1965, because the BRC policy.provide consistent risk basis for exempting practices using radioactive materials Once the SRC Policy is established, NRC should from regulatory control. initiate a systematic assessment of existing exempti

.)f[....

3:.

5 As the first step in the assessment, NRC material in NRC's regulations.should identify existing exemptions and prepa NRC should conduct rulemakings, as for conformance with the BRC policy.

appropriate, to ensure that codified exemptions are consistent with the SR NRC should also develop regulatory guidance to ensure that the BRC in licensing actions ano future Policy.

-Policy is implemented consistently exemptions.

4.

Outreach Program NRC.should develop and implement a proactive program for disseminating l

.information on the BRC Policy to other Federal agencies, State and'loca As a authorities, Indian Tribal organizations, media, and the public.

-minimum, this program should include publication of an informative pamphlet on the BRC policy for widespread distribution to the general public.

5.

Research Needs In light of the great deal of uncertainty associated with very low doses and h

, dose rates, NRC needs to remain cognizant of ongoing research about t e j

nature and significance of riski at such low doses and dose rates and work with other responsible agencies to ensure that necessary research is being conducted and will provide useful results.

I J

l l=

Jof

//

g.

c..

~

+

e BRIEFING SHEET t

vor C

Time:

W p.m., Tuesday, September,5, 1989 Room:

IBth floor conference room Purpose of Briefino:

BRIEFING FOR COMMIS$10NER CURTISS ON DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES i

Attendees:

Comissioner C0rtiss Margaret Federline. OCM/KC Michael Weber, OCM/KC Janet Kotra, OCM/JC i=

Maria Lopez-Otin, OCM/TR I

I Nyron Karman, OCM/KR Susan B11 horn, OCM/KR Richard Bangart LLWM Guy Arlotto NMSS John Greeves,, LLWM i

Glen Sjoblom, HLWM Michael Bell, LLWM Don Cool, RES Carl Feldman, RES Distribution:

Hugh Thompson DEDS Robert'Bernero,, NMSS Jim Blaha, OEDO i

Enclosures:

Briefing charts 8

l.

L i

L l

i I?

1

.~

b j' ' A4

~

g -

,).

.y

' Y 4-.

4

)

'f I

.r 5

t r_

?

3

_ i 3

r I

t 4

4 w

l s

F 1, -

ll r

M N

1 i

-5 l

l '

1 -

l.

l l

l..

1 i:!-

l 6

l-s i

i i

1 l'

l l

4 6

l w

w

1.

DE00PMISSIONING RLE 2.

POIER REACTOR EC&MISSIONING ESPONSIBILITY TRANSFER 3.

POER EACTOR CASEWORK 4.

MATERIALS LICENSEE DEC&MISSIONING NO RII. FACILITIES 5.

GUIDANCE D00MNTS 6.

SPECIFIC DEC& MISSIONING ACTIVITIES 7.

FUTUE PLANS

- QN11SSION BRC POLICY i

- GUIDANCE ON ESIDUAL ACTIVITY LIMITS

~ BUILDINGS (ES) l IAOS (ES).

GR0lfDMTER GMSS)

ADDITIONAL ITEMS TIPE PERMITTING.

8.

STATUS REPORT ON PHOTOTYPE LICENSE AFRICATI0NS 9.

STATUS OF UR ACTIVITIES 1

. i e

4 4

2

~._._____--__________________-_;_-________________---___. __ _.-_ -

_ -~ --,... _. -

-. ~ - -

.~

~

~

D00[PPIISSIONING RLE EQJIREPENTS o

RULE PR[FILGATED JtE 27,1988; EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS LATER o

FACILITIES UNERED PWER REACTORS RESEARG & TEST REACTORS MATERIALS LICENSEES o

FACILITIES NOT GWERED LLW Am EW DISPOSAL SITES URANIlPI MILL TAILINGS SITES o

AEAS COERED BY EQJIENNTS PLANS FOR ECOPPIISSIGIIE FINANCIAL ASSlRANT FOR DEC0hlSSIONING ECDRDKEEPING TO FACILITATE IODPPIISSIONING LICENSE TEMINATION PROCEDlES o

AEAS NOT COERED BY EQJIRENNTS ECGITAMINATION CRITERIA FOR IMRESTRICTED USE 3

l.

~

i y;

s g

asi E

h k

!w R

ag g

g c

E d

E g

-E E E W

!lil

~

g a

g g

BF

!!! ie B

e h-s,$

"I 5

i a

=

,\\

w n

8 g

g g

lmEs E

E 9

ei i

i i

.m

...x

.. un.

^

POER EACTOR CASENORK SIUIDOWN FEL APPMWED DATE E FACILITIES REGim ORRENT STATUS ONSI'E POL DEGFIPUW TRANSFER IIFBOLDT BAY 3 V-IN SAFSTOR YES YES YES 19tY 89 INDIAN POINT 1 1

AWRITING E UPIOK YES YES E

ALE 90

[

VALLECITOS V

IN SAFSTOR..

NO YES YES.

MRY 89' DRESDEN 1 III IN D00(FI EVIEW YES YES NO NOV 89 LA GOSSE III IN EGM EVIEW YES YES

-10 EC 89 FEPMI 1 Ill IN SAFSTOR NO YES YES

' Jll 89 RACH BOTTCPI 1 I

IN SAFSiOR ND YES YES

.DEC 89 PATIFIEER*

IV

.IN SAFSTOR E

YES YES NA R)RT ST. VRAIN IV (FERATING, PRELIM EC(FI YES 10 NO TBD PUIN LM)ER EVIEW RANCHO SECO V

PLANS TO FUT IN SAFSTOR YES NT NO TE SHOREHAM I

(MCERTAIN TMI 2 1

ACCIDENT EGNERY HAS BYPRODUCT MATERIALS LICENSE 5

J'...;.

EC0PMISSIONING RE IGUllBOUS MRTERIALS LI&NSEES BY Jll.Y 27,1990, BASED ON netsSION LIMIT / EXISTING LICENSEES o

PUST SlEMIT EITER:

CATEGDPJ A: FINANCIAL CERTIFICATION IN IEESCRI E AElNT A10 DEth1 LED KC(PI FlfEING PU51 AT EXT EUAL CATEGORY B: FINANCIAL CERTIFICATION IN ITESGIED AM0lMT (E00M RROING PLAN WITH CUST ESTIMRTE IS OPT 10 5 L)

CATEGORY C: NO FINRNCIAL ASStRANE 11ERJIlU1ENT NEW APPLICANTS HAVE-NO 2-YEAR NME PERIOD, PUST PEET o

DE00MISSIONING RE EQUIEPENTS AT LICENSE ISSUKE 6

...,~

';[

~-

DECOPPIISSIONING GUIDMCE---REACTORS GUIDANE INER DEVELOFPENT ITEPl TIRE STATUS DRAFT EV., RG 1.86 1DrilNATION OF NUCLEAR EAC10R LICENSES ONf()LD DRAFT RG DG-1005 ACCEPTABLE PETHODS OF FUl0 LNG EACTOR ISSUED 5/89 DEOPPIISS10NING DRAFT RG DG-1005 FORPRT Alt CONTENT OF NUCLEAR REACTOR ISSUED 9/89 DE0]PfilSSIONING PLANS DRAFT RG DG-1006 E00RDS IPPORTANT FOR DEC&PilSSIONING

'ISSLED 9/89 f0 CLEAR EACTORS SRP SRP RR EACTOR EC@PilSSIONING PLANS DRAFT IN EVIEW.

DRAFT RG X.XX FACILITATION OF EAClDR EC&PilSSIONING PLAIMD

.7-

.~

~

K00PPIISSIGIING GUIDANE IN1ER DEVELORUT--PIATERIALS LICBESEES TIllE

' STATUS ITEM FORPRT AIO CONTENT OF DEDPPIISSIONIE PUUIS ISS E 8/89 FINAL RG 3.65 FOR PART 30,110, AIO 70 LIGNSES FOR%T APO 00NTENT GUIDE FOR FINANCIAL '

ISS E 7/89 NUREG-133G, EV.1 ASSURANCE MECHANISMS NURECr1337, EV.1 STAl0ARD EVIEW PLAN FOR FINANCIAL ASSURANCE ISS E 7/89 NCHANI9tS FORMAT A10 CONIENT OF DEC0filSSIONING RMDING RESI)EVELOPING DRAFT RG X.XX FLANS AIO FINANCIAL ASSURANCE CERTIFICATIONSFRTI PrtSS IIFUT

~

(TO INCLit)E GUIDANE ON ACCEPTABLE FUl0 LNG ARRANGEENIS)

ACCEPTARE ETES OF ESTIPRTING COSTS OF RES DENELOPilE DRAFT RG X.XX NONEACTOR FACILITY DEOPMISSIONING 8

Nd

-, =,

,t

~

DEC&MISSIONING GJ1 DAN & If0ER DEVELOFPENT-MATERIALS LIGNSEES (CONT'D)

~"

ITEM TITE STATUS DRAFT RG DG-3001 ECORDS IITORTANT TO DE00PMISSIONING OF ISSLED 7/89 IDEEACIOR MX1 EAR FACILITIES DRAFT RG X.E TUPIINATION OF LIENSES ON NONREETOR ES DEVELOPING NUCLEAR FACILITIES l

l DRAFT RG X.E FACILITATION OF DE0T MISSIGNING OF NON-PUNED l

EACTOR MILEAR FACILITIES 9

9

$j 1,

t l

e l

L M.

p

-8 a

-6 m

E M

y W_-

u.

5gEa ma

=

=

2 2

8 5

I I

I I

I I

//

d3J 3

s

's

\\,

..M,.*-

e j

e

T!'

I e

'g

_Oi'

' bIl#I~

0-s 3

m m

M E

s 4

iD g

g

l 9

g l l

s s

e g

e L

b 5

E 5-g e

e Y

O O

O O

O l

1.

i

=

l t

i 1

b t

2 L ---.-

i as 5

ma e

W 8

k b

d W

$9 2

5 kge g

U g

b g t!s.

A E

U 58 hh!

a W

ag$

g e

m 8

e

=!n

=

B 2-E-

B

$3M i

i O

O O

O E

i.

e g

t t

ACTION - Beck,4crd, RES

- UNITED STATES

.Cys: Taylor NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thompson

,C wasumoTow.o.c.aoses Blaha v

Bernero, NMSS Murley. NRR n ~ So***

Scroggins. OC i

owes onna October 13. 1989 i

James M. Taylor l

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Acting Executive Director for Operations f

William C. Parler, General Counsel I

Harold R. Denton, Director, GPA.

[

1 J.-Chilk, Secretary FRON:

. STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-89-184 - PROPOSED SUR7ECT3 COMMISSION POLICY' STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS

.l FROM REGUIATORY CONTROL This is to advise you the tha Commission, with all Commiss.ioners agreeing,' has disapproved your recommendation on

.a proposed Commission Policy Statement on Exemption from

/

l Regulatory control.

i

-The Commission requested the staff to submit for Conaission approval a final policy statement which incorporates the L

'following elements:

a A.

BEIDW REGUIATORY CONTROL.

NRC will exempt from further regulatory control a h

.T e -

practice that' satisfies the. criteria listed below.

1 B.

INDIVIDUAL DOSE CRITERION The average individual dose to typical individuals in L

'the critical group should be less than 10 arem/ year-An interim individual dose for individual practices.

1 limit of 1 ares /yr for exposures resulting from m

materials and products'used by the general public should be' established until the' Commission gains more experience.with the potential for individual

~

The exposures resulting from' multiple practices.

, staff should be clear arid precise in defining anappr to each of these dose limits.

Dose will be considered in terms of effective dose equivalent.

i I

l

• D C'd hi(. w s Dete -.

/o- /g -7 9 k

l'30 4-

~

[/fof g jy l

. - ---. h

--"------_._s__

i._ ;.

4 1;,,

C.'

AIARA

Collective doses resulting,from exposure to a practice should be as' low as reasonably achievableAnnual

,,to 1000 person-ren will be deemed to satisfy theThe calculation of co (AIARA)..

~

AIARA criterion.

'does not'noed to c'onsider individual doses less than

'or equal to 0.1 area /yr.

OTHER-BRC EXEMPTIONS D.

The NRC may exempt practices that do not meet thein the Cormaission determines [that doses to the publica further reductions-in individual and collective' p

doses.

final policy statement should be, written in terms underst6od by the, average lay person and the discussions of the

.The i k above criteria should be explained in the context of the r s s that the ordinary individual faces in his or her everyday life.

The policy statement should also be consistent with the following formata 1.

INTRODUCTION-Describe the purpose.cf the BRC Policy; cite existing exemptions.already codified in NRC's regulations a m

of the Dolicy Statement.-

2.

TERMS AND CONCEPTS Define key terms and concepts used in tae Policy Statement (e.g., practice, dose, risk, linear hypothesis, AIARA).

=

3.

POLICY Describe and justify.the BRC criteria listed above (BRC, individual dose criterion, AIARA with-the collective dose criterion and truncation level, and

'The rationale should exemptions at higher doses). clearly describe the unifying risk ba establishing.the criteria.

=

j

i,:..

.M 3

1 4.

IMPLEMENTATION

. Describe'how the BRC Policy will be implemented

.through rulemakings and licensing actions; describe opportunities for public comment through subsequent y

actionst' identify the potential need, if any, for asse'ssment 'of environmental impactst provide

' guidance on'how the NRC will consider applications for exemptions (e.g., would NRC develop a general-rule for exempting consumer products or for specific

' ' products such as. frying pans, jewelry, gas-mantles,and de etc. ) :

exempted. practices to ensure that the-assump. ions made were appropriate.

STANDARD FORMAT AND CONTENT 5.

Describe, in general terms, the format and content of exemption applications that the NRC staff would find acceptable.

l comments are provided in the Commissioners' vote ii

-Add t ona

- sheets.

The BRC~ Policy Statement should supersede the Commission's policy statement on consumer products dated March 8, 1965, l

'because the.BRC policy provides a consistent risk basis for L

' ' exempting practicessusing radioactive materials from regulatory I

control.

87006 N

-(E M _(RES)

(SECY Suspense:

11/30/89)

The Gen'eral Counsel should examine the treatment of the issue Lof Agreement State compatibility under the policy Statement, focusing on the question of whether we have the authority to l require Agreement States to adopt criteria that are identical to.those set forth,in the Policy, Statement (i.e., Agreement State BRC criteria can be neither less stringent nor more f

stringent than the-criteria. established by the Commission).

(SECY Suspense:

11/30/89)

(OGC)

The Commission requested the staff to submit a plan, schedule, and resource requirements for the following activities:

Initiation of a. systematic assessment of existing exemptions for radioactive materials in NRC's a.

As the first step in the, assessment, l

regulations. staff should identify existing exemptions and prepare a plan for evaluating them for conformance with the BRC policy, i

e,w.,

4 '.

'[y

4..

l ",

3 e *

'j i

to ensure that

.Rulemaking activities, as appropr ate,' codified exemptions a b.

policy.

Development of a regulatory guidance to ensure that-the BRC Policy is, implemented consistently in c.

licensing actions and future exemptions.

proactive program for disseminating information on

,the SRC Policy to other Federal agencies, State and

,d.

~ local authorities,. Indian Tribal organisations,"This' program shou media, and the public.

public.ation of an.' informative pamphlet on the SR public'in terms understood by the lay person.

-Program for assuring that staff remains. cognizant of-'

ongoing health effects research about the nature and e.,,

' significance of. risks at low doses and dose-

' rates', as well as. working with other responsible-y agencies to ensure that necessary research is being

, conducted and wi11' provide useful results.

consideration should-be given for the need to conduct appropriate health' effects research, on a periodic

' basis, on the effectiveness of the implementation of the commission's exemption policy., 01/30/90) f,fgO /Q

'RES S B0/GPA))-

(SECY Suspense:

(E00 Suspense: 01/16/00) cc:

chairman carr Commissioner Roberts commissioner Rogers commissioner curtiss ACRS' ACNW ZG D

l l

I-l:

ww w

e s

---