ML20043C009
| ML20043C009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/22/1989 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006010179 | |
| Download: ML20043C009 (7) | |
Text
.
f9) o h
MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor, Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director, RES L
SUBJECT:
FINAL POLICY STATEMENT ON " EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL The enclosed Consnission paper includes the subject policy statement which the staff has prepared in response to the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) of I
October 13, 1989.
J l
l The policy statement contains five sections as directed in the SRM. The introduction (Section 1) contains a description of the policy's purpose; cites exemptions codified in existing NRC regulations and briefly discusses similar activities by other Federal agencies; and provides an overview of the content of the remainder of the policy statement.
In this introduction, it is pointed out that.this policy supersedes the Cosnission's March 16, 1965, policy statement on the use of byproduct and source material in consumer products.
)
l Section 11 is a new section which includes definitions of policy terms and concepts.Section III discusses the basic elements of the policy as defined Section V has been entitled, general discussion on policy implementation while in the SRM.Section IV is a information to Support Exemption Decisions" which the staff believes captures the information called for in the SRM under the heading, " Standard Format and Content." Much of this last section I
reflects thoughts expressed in the implementation plan which was developed in I
support of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix B.
The Offices of NRR, NMSS, GPA, and ADM have concurred that the policy meets the Commission's requirements as stated in the SRM. 0GC has expressed no legal l
objection. Within the time constraints allowed, the policy has also been reviewed j
by technical editors for the purpose of snaking the discussion more understandable to the average lay person. Enclosure 3 of the Commission paper provides a sunnary of the. policy statement for use in discussions with the public. GPA/PA and GPA/SLITP have provided a number of questions related'to the policy and its implementation. Answers to these questions will be provided separately.
Note that the Commission paper also discu'sses the staff's actions and future plans to develop interim standards on residual radioactivity.
Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research L
Enclosure:
Final Policy Statement DISTRIBUTION:
bec: ESBeckjord BMorris DCool IU Files TSpeis ZRosztoczy Wlahs RPHEB Subj/RF DRA/RPHEB EB DRA/DD ORA RES/DD/GI RES Wlahs:jmm ZRosztoczy BMorris TSpeis EBeckjord 11/21/89 11/2L/89 11/ /89 11/./89_11/ /89 11/ /89 60 17p 993339 CHP1 5:3FR49886 PDC
//5 '
- h9 RAFT.
]
r..
e
NRC ISSUES POLICY STATEMENT ON RADIATION LEVELS BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN kmM2 ds4ms:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has adopted a policy that[ sets forth a
+ www very low level of risk from NRC-licensed activitie{where further efforts to reducejaiiation exposures are not warranted.
The policy will be used for future agency licensing decisions and regulations involving requests to exempt activities or products from regulatory control.
Inthepast,theCommissionhasexemptedtheuseorrelease$fsmall
]
amounts of radioactive material from regulatory control on a case-by-case basis.
Now the Commission.has decided to issue ahroad) policy statement that f
provides a framework for considering these matters.
l.
l The. Commission has'always recognized that the use of radiation or e
radioactive materials, like many of the activities society engages in, involves some small risk. Thus, the Comission has traditionally strived to l.
ensure that any radiation dose received by workers.or members of the public is l.
reduced to levelf that 0irejas low as,is s.
or Ho ew, g
reasonably achievable. /s the level of er esss this risk becomes very small, the expenditure of resources needed to reduce I'
the risks reaches a point where the costs of such efforts far outweigh the small benefits that may result. The Comission believes that its effdrts, aA 4W rM) should be directed toward more important health and safety issues.
l In its policy statement the Commission said that reduction of the risks from a given licensed activity is unwarranted if the annual risk from the activity or product is small both in an absolute sense and in comparison with 1
other risks that people encounter in their everyday lives.
y
=
sRAFT 2
j 4 4 for individuals, the Comission has decided that the radiation exposure from an activity or product is below regulatory concern if it results in an annual risk of cancer fatality of no more than I chance in 200 thousand.
(The risk of dying from all other causes of cancer is 2 chances in 1000.) This 1evel corresponds to a radiation dose of approximately one-tenth of the 100 millitrem dose received annually from naturally occurring sources such as cosmicradiationandradioactivematerialintheearth(excludingradon).
Individuals are exposed to radiation doses of similar magnitude when taking a
^
single round trip cross-country airplane flight (about 5 millirems per flight) or when they choose to live in brick rather than frame houses (a difference j
that can exceed 10 millirems per year).
Taking into account these risk perspectives, the Commission has determined that an individual dose measure of less than 10 millirems per year is appropriate for use in exemption decisions.
However, the Comission recognizes that some situations could develop where an individual could receive a radiation dose from several different exempted activities. As an added conservative measure, for radioactive materials or products that are used by the general public, and hence likely to expose large numbers of people, the Comission has decided to apply an interim individual dose criterion of 1 millirem per year until the Comission gains e te experience with the potential for individual exposures from multiple activities or products.
In acoition to these risk criteria that apply to the individual, the Comission also has established a risk criterion that will apply to the collective dose (the sun of all of the individual doses) associated with an
j:
3
,,/AAFT v-activity or product proposed for exemption. The Commission believes that if e
the collective dose resulting from an exempted practice is less than 1000 person-rems per year (equivalent to 100,000 indiviouals receiving 10 millirems per year or 1,000,000 individuals receiving 1 millirem per year), the resources of the Commission and its licensees would be better expended to f
address more significant health and safety issues.
4, % aie A m 6.A eA 7lsa <<SA ^~ *
-yc u.c4.Z '<&v, y &, a,,.
ofA.x
- u e,Im.
w %.A..< e v e tha.
/s,, / an
. l*
y.7;Eneral y(outhe collective dose is calculated by multiplying the number of e
je' ?
/
a ' 8 et **'f A, people x'pected to' e exposed'to certain doses times their exposure levele **'bb*
Q ru o l4.,3 <* *
/
/
- Mh,14 Howe er, theiomission h$s determined that individual doses of less than I).1
~
l,/,,/
eve gou4. b d3 iw sipi e t taak e A
,,, J ju
/mjllirem per year need not be considered in calculating the collective dose.
g r-For example, if a radioactive product is to be transported, the radiation dose
/
to per' sons along the h)ghway would li ely be far'below 0.1 millirem, so it would not be necessdy to include n calcu)[ ting the collective heir dose rivers, war /
/
ehouse perhonnel and users ight dose. But the, ose to truck expected to'be above 0.1 millirem,,H their dose would be, included'in thy
/
i calculation.
.gs O Thus, if radiation exposure from afproduct or activity)will result in both (1) a dose to individuals of less than 10 millirems per year or 1 i
millirem or less per year for materials used by the general public and (2) a collective dose of 1000 person-rems or less per year, the Commission M i
s s h o=) **tes l
decide to grant an exemption from regulatory control for the product or i
activity. Other specified conditions also must be met, such as lack of
'"'4""'**
t'"'
significant risk from accidents or misuse.
~~ 5"d f w WR *
... G o z i. tc % A<
s
,,, A (;;, p,
~& A/ rw C y
- L'A* /5 5. *'
- , $ j;p om A 4 + Y&
f
,,,:: w n.y
,c sff.11t*t t* **y Msa-
,, m j.o une! m - w W
T p. b QW W s *
^ O ',*',, y,y 4, L
- g, y a,,, e.,
<f a s. Y r o'r c
t
i M
4
,., -[~
. /
t.
,f The Comission emphasized that the policy statement does not constitute a decision to exempt any specific consumer product, waste or other materials from regulatory control.
It is instead a general guideline for such t
exemptions.
Before any specific exemption from the regulations is granted, an announcement will be published in the Federal Register to clearly explain the details and particular circumstances associated with the proposed exemption.
The public will have an opportunity to comment on these proposed exemptions, i
and the comments will be considered before the Comission makes its final decisio
[p.-
Examples of exemptions that have already been granted by the Commission over a number of years on a case-by. case basis include consumer products such A
as smoke detectors, as well as veep low level radioactive discharges from hospitals, research institutions and nuclear rower plants.
t i
Based on information currently available, exemption proposals within the next few years are most likely to involve disposal of very low level f
radioactive waste from medica 1 @d]research institutions and nuclear power 3
plantsandthe@erminationoflicensesandreleaseforunrestrictedpublicuse ofdecommissionedanddecontaminatedfaci$ities.
h 1
o l
6 g 4 %, fl. (s -. r - <im k
U XM e4N s se?<Q M
o g e / w & d eod 4 'r rc " A "' h ^ *#
\\
w el, u
./6 w p& u *(
fs.:/* 4Aw It. *., Ytvc ) isv< V " :: ^
vr' 0' 6 At 4 q
y, p s
cr.<, i. 7<<v.
y.< ' d..yt'e d * " '
N,a4,,(i y it' wg-
,i
{
t
/d
//6 J
,t
> cI g<
TELEPHONE /IN PERSON Sheet
_o CONFERENCE MEMOR ANDUM Mit h INCOMING h OUTOOING
] IN PERSON t Amto ton atpatstutmoi 1*LMVf AoAetc 1 MJcLfort L1 eJt t M.
t.
t.
ButJtCT: Esrgarriod rau C y COPits To: R #fdCN TIME O. C.ne to I
- a. ee ae.s co*T 1
H&dfA CHknot
+.
t Details of Conference:l'kbWet> Sin /fd4 A DrA/4 nht et v tinTVAo A1Jr st o4ULF o
/
a fx fia raff VMn f f xs m pfter! Poe.rt Y pn.ovrevs rar ggstfArn 6
/%teHL 99tfd
- A,00f A adMe tH (Jre@6*Pfr e rIJ mnv sde tieurto 7Wa rs,sg at AVLdM Akod$.f 9 A.
JrCEA f os!C
,0 Ct JroW$
f (2) orc vs En em onoss to a o < y
$Jf/*Leinf WWE TWMT l}& ( e.99 /11 912 Poles Jr/s~ /0f f TVMf *# )%tAttoeft b
t!MIt M c.e so L O R f & Vk X t*D RY AL e t.Y (1) sexeroLE e ZA/Oll'Aff0 YM97 /1lWAWLf C.sb W a.Y $K ell %*t.f15
- A Ali n /3 l's'f'U)( (
N) D/$A 6AffMfiJft ealo 7Fr* dn4 i
/AIDit7ATfD THAr Spn pses septin gay r prireou guy awp yy., r e
D/pfd5 f^%.[3, / N M 4 O rr6l/ 6r/>
s6e h Y A!e T' dd' T W A T* J /$ A r$*L A Aff*
f l
- Disetist en e,ssor aronran mec en wcauir rir n appvenesu e v OS rAlpes! *D on t,, coff (A s tEh rg N l
(r).rr,r.os a # coa s~s. w r r w.e A.o sc Os s,A/ (Es*n)
)
RCtrAAto Nim rs o
dkM Y $AWA g
h een-uns.
l Form $799 (Stoches) Rev 2/78 n --...,.
Ill
\\
gg i
no i
h BRC/ EXEMPTION TALKING POINTS i
SECY-89-360 POLICY STATEMENT TRANSMITTED TO COMMISSION 12/1/89 I
COMMISSION MEMO ON INCONSISTENCIES IN COMMISSION POLICY WITH REGULATORY APPROACH AT REACTORS TO EDO 12/8/89 RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION CRITERIA:
PNL WORKING ON REVISED DRAFT BASED ON STAFF COMMENT STAFF PROPOSES IN SECY-89-360 TO PUBLISH DRAFT FOR COMMENT J
DRAFT SHOULD BE READY IN LATE JANUARY FOR COMMISSION l
1 l
NUMARC PETITION ON HOLD UNTIL MARCN/ APRIL l
ROCKEFELLER PETITIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION NOW-STAFF IS PREPARING A PLAN TO PRIORITIZE DECOMMISSIONING ITEMS COMING O OF SYNAR HEARING AND DECOMMISSIONING RULE L
i l
22/12/89 1
BRC/ EXEMPTION TALKING POINTS l
}l Ch%:
ei
.A(>)U
. [/p.m A
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
n 4
4 +g ADVi&ORY COMMITTEE oW NUCLEAR WASTE WAsMINGTON. D.C. 3M05 a...*
January 30, 1990 The Monorable Kenneth M. Carr chairman '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Chairman Carrt SUBJECT NRC PROGRAM ON 14W-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES During its 16th meeting, January 24-25,
- 1990, the Advisory l
Committee on Nuclear Waste met with representatives of the Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning for a review of matters pertaining to the production, treatment, and disposal of l
low-level radioactive wastes (LLWs).
These matters had also been discussed with other members of the NRC staff on several previous occasions.
As a result of these reviews', we offer the following comments.
t 1.
While considerable attention has been given to the i
development of requirements for the siting, construction, and operation of disposal facilities, there appears to be a lack of coordination of these activities with the processes that produce the wastes. It is these processes which, in turn, determine the chemical and physical characteristics, radionuclide content, and volumes or the wastes.
In our opinion, these processes and the resulting products may have as much bearing on the protection of public health and safety as do the requirements for the disposal facilities.
We believe this is an excellent example where's systems approach could yield dividends.
Before this can be accomplished,-
however, there is a need for closer coordination of l-relevant activities by NMSS, NRR, and RES.
2.
Under the requirements of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and amendments, a number of states and state compacts are moving forward to develop plans for the siting and construction of low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. Although the NRC staff has prepared a multitude of reports containing information that would
~,
be useful to the. Agreement States and LLW facility developers, there is currently no single document arcad map" to containing comprehensive guidance or a 0
Y W
O.
t,,
s.
The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr 2
January 30, 1990 reports that pertain to this topic.
To correct this situation, we recommend that a guidance document contain-ing a summary of relevant laws and key retrulations, regulatory guides, NUREG documents, and technhcal posi-
- tions, suitably annotated and cross-referenced, be prepared.
To the extent practical, pertinent standards developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and applicable key documents developed by the U.S. Department of Energy night also be cited in this report.
3.
The committee continues to believe that a need exists for a system through which the benefits of operating ex-perience can be factored into~NRC activities related to the generation and disposal of LLW.
One contribution to this subject would be the preparation of a report based on a definitive review and digest of the experience gained at the Maxey Flats, Sheffield, and West Valley disposal facilf. ties.
4.
The Committee is concerned about the availability of adequate disposal capacity, licensed under the provisions of 10 CFR 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, to accommodate LLWs after the scheduled closure in 1992 of the currently operated Barnwell, South Carolina, and Beatty, Nevada, disposal facilities.
We urge that the Commissi6n increase its efforts to encourage the States to accelerate the process for developing suitable disposal facilities.
We hope these comments will be helpful.
Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller Chairman
.