ML20043C056
| ML20043C056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/22/1989 |
| From: | Fouchard J NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006010249 | |
| Download: ML20043C056 (3) | |
Text
_. _ _ _ _
~
neog#g
[/$f 'S
.,' (*
UNITED STATE 8 y
[
NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION s
wAmewovon.o. c. mees N.....
e September 22, 1989-
} )Y NOTE FOR JIM TAYLOR, EDO i
The nuclear industry has alerted its members to a forthcoming petition concerning the issue "Below Regulatory Concern."
I thought you would be interested in the infonnation the industry is l
providing to its clients.
q(
t s:. s...
Joseph J. Fouchard Director of Public Affa v
3
.... :....a Enclosure.
/)s
.. w e u.-
.8 it.g wg gt
.'i..,;,$ d',Y.
ci:: Dennis Rathbun J
v.ri, wney.f si
~ ~ ~
.A. n pre:...h a.
i ir et ix..
'sify
.. - q
- .g.,
3.
. =, s.,
s-n-
ca)
L
.m t;.
n.-
...... r
, 'l '
e
..}
.n.
.e 9006010249 691130 FR49886 FDC 1
r
+.
g e
-r e
.q y
w.
v
[.-
gy g
y.
l t
tot A11*!,nfovire Subscribers (#49-54)
September 15, 1989 1:35 p.m.
SU5 JECT: INDUSTRY ALERT ON "SELOW REODLATORY CONCERN" WASTt The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUNARC) and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), en behalf of the U.S. nuclear industry, is planning to file a petition in late September er early October with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting a rule change concerning certain vastes from aucidar power plants.
Basically, the industry is seeking more accurato definition, and note appropriate handling, for nuclear power plant vaste materials that present no public health concern.
Even so, the filing is likely to generate media interest, particularly at the local level.
The industry's proposal is consistent with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which directed the NRC to make decisions concerning alternative disposal of certain 1
waste materials that could be con:Adered "below regulatory concern" (IRC).
i The industry petition concerns only those vastes designated as "below regulatory concern" and requests that the NRC issue a tulo 3
authorising alternative handling and disposal of non-hasardous vaste from nuclear power plants.
Current NRC regulations require that virtually all nuclear vaste, except spent fuel, be shipped to licensed low-level radioactive vaste disposal facilities.
Novever, some of those materials l
contain virtually no detectable radioactivity and are not i
hasardous.
It is that vaste mostly in the form of rags, paper, cloth, wood and plastic -- that a new NRC rule would affect.
These are the same types of materials that are notaally sent by other industries to ordinary sanitary landfills.
Ctilities electing to use the "5RC" rule would be required to establish compliance programs that would be regulated and monitorea by the NRC.
In addition, utilities would remove any materials that might be recycled before disposing of "3RC" waste.
The volume and radiological impact of "BRC" waste is estimated as follows:
-1.
The estimated annual volume of "BRC" waste is approximately one-ten-thousandth of the volume of solid vaste from other sources that is disposed of at sanitary landfills within 25 miles of a nuclear power plant.
2.
An individual living within a mile or two of a disposal site vould receive a radiation dose of less than one-tenth millitem annually from the disposal of "BRC" waste.
In comparison, an individual receives an average cose of about 200 to 300 millitem i
each year from background radiation occurring naturally in the air, food, vaste, and soil (including radon gas).
}n ay,e<n
....ee
" ~ "'^*'"
Oct PAR 430-4661-008-608 15 027 1888 18:48 333 yAgg 1 0F 1 I,
Pre 3: U.S. COUNCIL POR ENERGY AWARENESS I
To FAR 1-91673t6105 lk its contents would be acceptable for transporta8&on as men-radioactive asterial under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations.
!aplementation of the rule would conserve disposal capacity at licensed lev-level waste facilities and regulatory resources new expanded on very low-level radiosetive waste seule bocese available to seal with other risks.
I The filing of the petition with the NRC is expected to generate j
media attention and negative ceanents by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which has already gene en record opposing i
action en "8RC."
In anticipation of that interest, we are preparing background information, talking points and a itet'of radiation experts for distributten to the industry.
Thess asterials will be sailed to your USCEA Public Affairs Contacts next week.
l l
FOR TIE LATEST TAPE RECORDING OF INFORMATION, CALL 202-785-1219.
l TO CONTACT A U.S. COUNCIL FOR ENERGY AWARENESS STAFFER DURING 4
WORRING ICUR8, CALL 202-238-0770..
TO CONTACT A U.S. COUNCIL FOR ENERGY AWARENESS STATTER CUT 8!DE OF WOIK!NG 50URS, CALL 202-466-0246.
O.S. COUNCIL FOR ENERGY AWARENESS 7108249602 USCEA W85 EASYLINK 62503560 I
f d
e O
e
s
,_..,_r
,-.-o.
.m....
~
t FC/88-038 MfAgig 8
Distribution: LL W 89 038 Central File G /6 (
pe NMS$ r/f LLR8 r/f FCardile TJohnson N8 ell ANeary J8 reeves R8angart Directors r/f JFunches pLohaus J5urweier p0R Yes No Proprietary ~ or CF Only /
/
ACNW Yes No SUBJECT A83 TRAC :
RULEMAKING RESIDUXE"RRD10 ACTIVE RELEASE MEMORAEUM FOR:
Eric 5. Seckjord Office of Nuclear Director Regulatory Research FRON:
Robert M. Bernero Director Office of Nuclear, Material Safety' and Safeguards
$UBJECT:
RULEMAKING ON RESIDUAL RADI0 ACTIVITY RELEASE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR UNRESTRICTED USE As you are aware, NMS$ has responsibility for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors and materials facilities.
It is important that at the time of.
decommissioning of these facilities that there be clear and consistent criteria regarding residual radioactivity limits acceptable for termination of the NRC license. In addition, it should be our objective that the release limit itself does not beceae a matter of litigation in individual licensing cases.
- Hence, NMS$ is interested in the efforts by RES to ultimately prepare regulations concerning residual radioactivity limits for decommissioning nuclear facilities.
It is our understanding that RES is developing a broad policy statement on exasptions of certain radioactive seterials from regulatory control and that this policy will be sent to the Commission shortly for issuance for public comment. Following issuance of the policy statement initiate action to develop rules and implementing reg NMSS requests that RES ulatory guidance establishing release criteria for decosnissioning of nuclear facilities.
Because there are mary issues to be considered we recommend that RES establish a task up including presentatives from NM$$ and NRR to define the issues to be i uded in the ru emaking under the umbrella of the policy statement on exemptions.
Q* Because preparation of the broad policy statement and associated rulemaking m be a lengthy process, NMSS also requests that RES issue current NRC guidelines in an interia fore, either in an interim policy statement or in regulatory guidance.
g gl We anticipate working with your staff in development of the requested -d rulemaking and-inter a guidelines.
EUA80 ADbert IL Sernero
. f I, a,/
Robert M. Bernero, Director tw
~ ~~'
g o puj W Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards W?
EE P S CONCURRENCE pQ OFC :LLRB'
- LLRB
- LL m
- LLWM
- LLWM
- nnss
- MRss N.(($$[!!!I.I((E.$."[$"[?.I!....[f.[!I*![.[. "!![..[b bk !![.![$.5$.
DATE:05/18/89
- 05/18/89:05/18/89 :05/19/89 :05/19/89 : f/6/89
- ////89
/
l
L.
~. -
/37
)
CONFERENCE OF RADIA TION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTOR l
i 71 Poemla Man. 8'* Wen, Rasmuhy asset. m arr.e4 July 5, 1989
[
t Lando Zech, Jr., Chairman US NRC Mail stop 16H-3 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Chairman tocht At the 1989 Business Mee' ting of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD) the membership adopted a formal position relative to
]
exemptions from regulatory control for practices whose
.public health and safety impacts are below regulatory concern - (BRC).
A copy of this position is attached for your information, and consideration.
The position paper was developed, on behalf of the i
CRCPD, by Ruth McBurney, Texas, Bureau of Radiation Control. Should you have any questions on this position, please contact Ms. McBurney.
Very truly yours,-
u
!!=J W Charles M. Hardin Executive Director r
CMHies cc:
Executive ~ Board & Federal Liaisons 9
l l
l<
b A
,.,,,-.,--~,-,w...-----..,.,-f
,v.
. _ _,.. ~.,
,m-_,_,-._..,_-,...,~,,.....,_,-..,,,,,-,%,,.3-
....,-,,,__.,_,m,
L.
2s94 l
POSITION OF THE CONFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS, INC., ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL ISSUEt J
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an Advance Notice of tho Development of a Commission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts are Below Regulatory Concern (BRC).
The NRC has recognized
- that, if a
national policy on exemptions from regulatory control is to be effective, state and local radiation control programs will plan an.important implementation role.
The NRC intends that rules following the development of a BRC policy for exemptions will be a matter of compatibility for Agreement States.
Additionally, all radiation control programs could be potentially impacted by the application of the policy naturally occurring and accelerator produced materials to (NARM).
Therefore, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.
(CRCPD),
intends to provide coordinated input during the development of the policy and subsequent rulemaking.
The Conference represents all of the state and local radiation control programs in the United States.
Therefore, the pos) tion of this organization on this issue should be vital.
CRCPD. POSITION:
I. ' The Conference supports the establishment of a policy and l
rulemaking on exempting from regulatory control those practices whose public health and safety impacts are below regulatory concern.
The development of a sound, risk-based policy should establish a frame of reference below which further regulation is unnecessary.
As a result, regulatory agencies will be able to devote their time and resources, which often are limited, to radiation problems of greater significance.
II.
The Conference supports the concept of justification of practice for those being considered for exemption from regulatory control.
In order that unnecessary exposures from frivolous uses of radioactive material can be L
prevented, a
- practice, particularly one involving a
consumer product, should be justified prior to exemption.
- However, once a particular practice, s'uch as a specific consumer product or waste disposal
- method, has been justified, further justification of the same process on a oase-by-case basis should not be necessary unless it contains modifications which could alter radiatim
exposures to the p blic.
In establishing an exemption policy, the Commission should exclude certain. practices for which there appears no justification.
Examples of practices and products which should not be considered for exemption are those that come into direct contact with human beings, such as
- food, drugs, cosmetics, and
- toys, and products which are considered frivolous and/or in which the radioactive portion serves no functional role, e.g.,
lightning rods and jewelry.
III.
NRC's choice of 10 millirem (mrem) as an exemption criterion and a 100 mrem limit for exempted activities does not appear to be consistent with the exposure limits from licensed activities; e.g., the 25 mrem limit for fuel cycle facilities.
l Any exempted produce or practice should be based on the i
fact that associated individual risks are trivial.
The use of an individual dose criterion in the range of 4 - 5 mrom appears to be more appropriate in light of risk estimates, possibility of exposure from combined exempted
- sources, regulatory actions being taken with regard to licensed activities, and the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA has recommended a trivial individual effective dose equivalent l
An the range of 10 - 100 microsieverts (1 - 10 mrem)
..t year, which represents an associated risk of 10"7 to20gr,
'which most-experts hold to be of no concern.
IV.
If basic justification and dose criteria for a practice to be exempted are met, the process by which these are -
achieved would, in effect, demonstrate that the doses are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) without further cost-benefit analysis.
V.
.The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NRC l
should coordinate development of an individual dose criterion.
We must have a
general consensus among regulatory agencies on this issue.
Inconsistencies between levels established by federal agencies are difficult to justify to the public and licensees.
1 Additionally, the NRC should coordinate any ensuing rulemaking efforts with other federal agencies, such as the Department of Transportation and the Department of Energy.
L Adopted by Conference Membership:
May 21, 1989 Date fWA
,A;V V b h Executive Director t'
.