ML20043C069
| ML20043C069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/25/1986 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 PR-860825, NUDOCS 9006010268 | |
| Download: ML20043C069 (42) | |
Text
g If
[7590-01) g P.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 2 Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Policy Statement Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Policy' statement, i
SUMMARY
This notice contains a policy statement and staff implementation plan regarding. expeditious handling of petitions for rulemaking to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from disposal in a licensed low-level waste afsposal facility.
For.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to grant these-rulemaking petitions, the waste streams must be sufficiently low in
. concentration or-quantities of radionuclides for the Commission to find that they may be disposed of by alternative means without posing an undue risk to
~
public health and safety.
The policy statement and plan are in the nature of regulatory guidance for implementing existing requirements for rulemaking.
petitions in 10 CFR 2.802.
The documents describe the kind of information petitioners should file to allow timely Commission review of the petition.
They also describe decision criteria the Commission will use and the administrative procedures to be followed in order to permit the Commission to act upon the petition in an expedited manner.
These documents respond to a mandate in the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and are being, published as Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2.
9006010268 891130 PDR = Pfl CHP1 53FR49886 FDC
[7590-01) g.
c
.v EFFECTIVE DATE:
october 27, 1986 ADDRESSEES:
Send any written comments or suggestions to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Comments received within 60 days would be'most helpful.
Copies of comments received by the Commission may be examined or copied for a fee at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Public Document Room,.1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kitty S. Dragonette, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone:
(301) 427-4300.
For the reasons set forth below and under the authority of_the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10_
CFR Part 2.
PART 2 - RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEDURES 1.
The authority citation for Part 2 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L.87-615, 76 Stat. 409 (42 U.S.C. 2241);
f sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.
l-L
4
[7590-01) s.--
Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68
' Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, '2133, 2134, 2135); sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871).
Sections
-2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134,2135,2233,2239).
Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).
Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs. 186, t
234, 68 Stat. 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846).
Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 59t. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554.
Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2770 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557.
Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat.
936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552.
Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29,. Pub. L.85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039).
Subpart K also issued under sec.189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec.134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154).
Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L.91-580, 84 Stat. 1437 (42 U.S.C. 2135).
Appendix B is.also issued under sec. 10, Pub. L.99-240, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.).
l~
l l
^
^
[7590-01 1
.-,1 2..
Insert the following policy statement and attached staff implementation plan as Appendix B to Part 2:
' Appendix B to Part 2 - General Statement of Policy and Procedures Concerning Petitions Pursuant to 62.802 for Disposal of Radioactive Waste Streams Below l
Regulatory Concern I.
Introduction and Purpose II.
Standards and Procedures
-III. Agreement States IV.
Future Action I.
Introduction and Purpose The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (the Act)
(42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.) was enacted January 15, 1986.
Section 10 of the Act addresses disposal of wastes termed "below regulatory concern" that would not need to be subject to regulatory control to assure adequate protection of.the public health and safety because of their radioactive content.
The goal of this section of the Act is for the Commission to make practical and timely l
decisions to determine when wastes need not go to a licensed low-level waste disposal site.
These decisions will be expressed through rulemaking.
Alternative disposal would conserve space in the existing sites while new sites are established and reduce the costs of disposal.
Rulemaking petitions may play a role in the national low-level waste strategy outlined by the Act.
The l
Act provides that the Commission establish procedures for acting expeditiously
[7590-01]
I 5
on petitions to exempt _ specific radioactive waste streams from the Commission's
. regulations.
The purpose of this statement and accompanying implementation plan is to establish the standards and procedures that will permit the Commission to act upon rulemaking petitions in an expeditious manner as call'ed for in the Act.
This policy statement does not require petitioners to present all the information outlined or demonstrate that the decision criteria for expedited handling can be met, if such expedited handling is not wanted.
For example, petitions requesting exemption of concentrations of radionuclides that might result in individual exposures higher than those recommended in the decision criteria may be submitted, but expedited handling cannot be assured.
Finally, this policy statement and accompanying implementation plan are intended to facilitate handling of rulemaking petitions for streams from multiple producers and do not apply to individual licensing actions on single
-producer waste.
Individual licensees who seek approval for disposal of their unique wastes may continue to submit their proposed disposal plans under 10 CFR 20.302(a).
l-II.
Standards and Procedures The standards and procedures needed to handle petitions expeditiously' fall l
into the following three categories:
(1) information petitioners should file 1
in support of the petitions, (2) standards for assessing the adequacy of the proposals and providing petitioners insight on the decision criteria the Commission intends to use so that all relevant informational issues will be 1
addressed in the petition, and (3) the internal NRC administrative procedures
?
i.
[7590-01]
.for handling the petitions. -These three categories are addressed in the attached staff implementation plan.
The staff plan was developed in response to' Commission direction to provide detailed guidance on implementing the general approach outlined in this policy statement.
Although staff may revise i
it from time to time as experience is gained in processing. petitions, the plan outlines a reasonable basis for acco'aplishing the approach.
Staff is to publish revisions as NUREG documents and notice the availability of the revisions in the Federal Register, As a practical matter, the primary information for justifying and supporting petitions must be supplied by the petitioner if the Commission is to act in an expedited manner.
If the petitioner wishes to assure expedited action, the supporting information should be complete enough so that Commission action is primarily limited.to independent evaluation and administrative processing.
l.1:
Decision criteria for judging whether to grant a petition involve the overall impacts of the proposed action, waste properties, and implementation of the proposed exemption.
The following criteria address these areas.
Petitions which demonstrate that these criteria are met should be suitable for expedited action.
1.
Disposal and treatment of the wastes as specified in the petition will result in no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
L l
1.
2.
The maximum expected effective dose equivalent to an individual member of the public does not exceed a few millirem per year for normal operations and anticipated events.
l l
b k
n?
[7590-01]-
3.
The collective doses to the critical population and general population are small.
l The potential radiological consequences of accidents or equipment 4.
malfunction involving the wastes and intrusion into disposal sites after loss of normal institutional controls are not significent.
5.
The exemption will result in a significant reduction in societal costs.
6.
The waste is compatible with the proposed treatment and disposal options.
~
7.
The exemption is seful on a national scale, i.e., it is likely to be used by a category of licensees or at least a significant portion of a category.
8.
The radiological properties of the waste stream have been characterized on a national basis, the variability has been projected, and the range of variation will not-invalidate supporting analyses.
9.
The waste characterization is based on data on real wastes.
10.
The disposed form of the waste has negligible potential for recycle.
11.
Licensees can establish effective, licensable, and inspectable programs for the waste prior to transfer to demonstrate compliance.
c i
e 1
[7590-01]
12.
The offsite treatment or disposal medium (e.g., sanitary landfill)
I does not need to be controlled or monitored for radiation protection purposes.
J 13.
The methods and procedures-used to manage the wastes and to assess i
the impacts are no different from those that would be applied to the
~
corresponding uncontaminated materials.
c
'14.
There are no regulatory or legal obstacles to use of the proposed treatment or disposal methods.
III.
Agreement States The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 establishes a national system for dealing with low-level waste disposal.
The system assigns to' the States responsibility for disposal capacity for low-level wastes not exceeding Class C wastes as defined in 10 CFR 61.55.
Section 10 of the-Act
.i encourages a reduction in volume of such wastes subject to State responsibility for disposal through the option of determining that certain wastes need not go to existing licensed disposal facilities or new sites licensed under 10 CFR Part 61 or equivalent State regulations.
If radiological safety can be assured, such disposal would conserve space in the existing sites while new L
1 sites are developed, and would serve as an important adjunct to volume reduction efforts in meeting ttie waste volume allocation limits set forth in y
the Act.
Thus, these rulemakings should aid the States in fulfilling their L
responsibilities under the Act.
Equity also suggests that all waste generators be able to take advantage of below regulatory concern options as part of their waste management strategies.
Generators in both Agreement and non-Agreement 1
l
P e..
[7590-01) 1.. '. States will be competing for space in the existing sites and the concept should
~be-applicable nationwide.
Agreement States will play an important role in ensuring that the system works on a national basis and that it remains equitable.
States have been encouraging findings that certain wastes are below regulatory concern and do not have to go to low-level waste sites.
The States have been voicing this view-for a number of years through forums such as the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors.
Rulemakings granting petitions will be made a matter of compatibility for Agreement States.
Consequently, rulemaking will-be coordinated with the States.
IV.
Future Action The Commission will conduct a generic rulemaking on waste streams below e
regulatory concern based on a number of factors.
The factors include public
-comments received on the statement, the number and types of petitions for rulemaking received, and how effective the statement is in enabling timely processing of petitions.
A generic rulemaking is warranted to provide a more efficient and effective means of accomplishing the goals reflected in Section 10 of the Act.,An advance notice of proposed rulemaking will be published within 90 days.
Furthermore, the Commission may periodically review all rulemakings in order to assure that the relevant parameters have not changed significantly and may ask the petitioner to submit updated information
-l a
F
[7590-01)
.-10
..i to assist in the review.
The Commission would also have to confirm that i
approved exemptions are consistent with any general standards issued by EPA.
l
[(MW A
Dated at Washington, D.C. this M day of U
, 1986.'
For to Nuclear gu' tory Commission, j
Q s
Famuel J. Chilk
~~
T j
Secretary to th Commission.
i 3
l L
(
t;.
1 r.
i
- y.. _
[7590-01)
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Staff Implementation of Nuclear Regulatory Comission Policy on-Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern I.-
Introduction II-Information to Support Petitions A.
General 1.
10 CFR'Part 2 Requirements i
2.
Environmental Impacts 3.
Economic Impact on Small Entities 4.
Computer Program 5.
Scope B.
Waste Characterization 1.
Radiological Properties 2.
Other Considerations 3.
Totals 4.
Basis 5.
As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)
C.
Waste Management Options D.
Analyses 1.
Radiological Impacts 2.
Other Impacts 3.
Regulatory Analysis i
l-
(7590-01)
E.
Recordkeeping and Reporting 1.
Surveys 2.
Reports F.
Proposed Rule III. Decision Criteria IV.
Administrative Handling i
I.
Introduction Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to develop standards and procedures for expeditious handling of petitions for rulemaking to exempt disposal of radioactive waste determined to be below regulatory concern.
The Act also requires NRC to identify information petitioners should file.
The
]
Commission Policy Statement provides general guidance on how to meet the requirements of Section 10 of the Act, outlines the overall approach to be followed, and lists decision criteria to be used.
Implementation of the general approach and decision criteria of the Commission Policy Statement involves developing more detailed guidance and procedures.
In accordance with Commission direction, the NRC staff has developed more detailed guidance and procedures for implementation of the Commission Policy Statement.
This staff guidance and procedures cover:
(1) information petitioners should file in support of petitions to enable expedited processing, (2) discussion of the decision criteria, and (3) administrative procedures to be followed.
i
4 i
[7590-01]
II.
Information to Support Petitions A.
General
\\
1.
10 CFR Part 2 requirements The codified information requirements for pet'itions. for rulemaking are. outlined in the Commission's regulations in-10 CFR 2.802(c).
These regulations require the petitioner to identify the l
problem and propose solutions, to state the petitioner's grounds for and interest.in the action,-and to provide supporting information and rationale.
As a practical matter,-the information demonstrating that the radiological health.and safety impacts are so low as to be below regulatory concern must be provided by the_ petitioner if the Commission is to act in an expedited manner.
Petitions for rulemaking should therefore be submitted following the staff's-supplemental guidance and procedures to assure expedited action.
2.
Environmental impacts.
Petitions must enable the Commission to make i
a finding of no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Such Commission findings must be based on an Environmental Assessment that complies with 10 CFR 51.30 and must meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.32.
These requirements include addressing the need for the proposed action, identifying siternatives, and assessing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives.
Consistent with 10 CFR 51.41, the petitioner should submit the information needed to meet these requirements and do so'in a manner that permits independent evaluation by the Commission of the data and methodology used and the conclusions reached.
l l
l
[7590-01) 3.
Economic impact on small entities. When a rulemaking action is likely to have a si<gnificant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the impacts on these small entities must be specifically addressed.
(The Commission's size standard for identifying a small entity is $3.5 million or less in annual receipts except for private practice physicians and educational institutions where the standard is $1 million or less in annual receipts for private practice physicians and 500 employees for educational institutions.
See 50 FR 50241, December 9,1985.) For any rulei;.:. king, the Commission must either certify that j
the rule will not economically impact or will have no significant economic impacts on small entities, or present an analysis of alternatives to minimize the impacts.
Because rulemakings on below regulatory concern should provide relief from requirements for all affected entities, satisfaction of this requirement should be straightforward but it must be addressed in any rulemaking.
To facilitate expcditious preparation of the proposed rule responding to the petition, the petitioner should submit an evaluation of the estimated economic impacts on small entities.
The evaluation should include estimates of the costs for small entities in terms of staff time and dollar costs.
Any alternatives that could acccomplish the objective of the petitioner's proposed rule while minimizing the economic impact on small entities should be presented.
The evaluation should include an assessment of the iricremental recordkeepin; and reporting costs that would be associated with the petitioned rule change.
[7590-01).
4.
Computer program.
The computer program (IMPACTS BRC) the Commission
. intends to use to independently evaluate petitioners' assessments of impacts is based on "De Minimis Waste Impacts Analysis Methodology" (NUREG/CR-3585) i published February 1984,1 Petitioners are encouraged to consult NUREG/CR-3585 in order to better understand the Commission's information needs.
The IMPACTS-BRC program will be distributed by the National Energy Software Center on floppy diskettes for use on IBM-PC and compatible computers.
The Center's address is 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439.
The users guide for IMPACTS-BRC will be published as a draft Volume II of NUREG/CR-3585.
Petitioners may evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity using NRC's code, if desired.
When alternate calculational l
methodologies are used, the petitioner should provide all the specific input needed to analyze the waste stream in the petition using IMPACTS-BRC and provide a rationale for all parameter selections.
The Commission may clarify or modify the computer code from time to time.
Petitioners choosing to use NRC's code should be sure to use the current revision.
The National Energy Software Center will provide changes to persons obtaining the program from the Center.
Users are encouraged to comment on the code so that their experience can be factored into future revisions.
5.
Scope.
The petitioner should define the geographic area to which the proposed rule should apply and the reasons supporting any area less than national in scope.
It might be possible to justify limiting the scope to a low-level waste regional compact or a state but implementation issues such as import or export of wastes outside the compact or state should be addressed in the rationale.
1 L
l l
[7590-01)
B.
Waste Characterization 1.
Radiological properties.
The minimum radiological properties that should be described are the concentration or contamination levels and the half-lives,- total quantity, and identities of the radionuclides present.
The chemical and physical form of the radionuclides should be addressed.
All radionuclides present or potentially present should be specified, including radionuclides identified as trace constituents.
The distribution of the radionuclides within the wastes should be noted (e.g., surface or volume distribution).
Mass and volume average concentrations should also be presented.
For incineration, the radioactive content of the ash and i
noncombustible fraction should be described.
The variability as a function of I
process variation and variation among licensees should be addressed and
)
i bounded.
2.
Other considerations.
An understanding of nonradiological properties of the waste stream is needed to assure that they are consistent with the proposed disposal method and to evaluate the adequacy of the analysis of the radiological impacts.
(NRC's deregulation of the radioactive content would not i
relieve licensees from the applicable rules of other agencies which cover the nonradiological properties.) The petitioner should provide a detailed description of the waste materials, including their origin, chemical composition, physical state, volume, and mass.
The term " stream" only means wastes produced from a common set of circumstances and possessing common characteristics.
It does not mean " liquid" although the stream may be in a liquid form (e.g., waste oil).
The wastes may I
be resin beads, laboratory glassware, or any other form.
Waste form includes i
1 (7590-01)
I
~
7 i
packages or containers used to manage (i.e., store, handle, ship, or dispose)
]
the wastes.
The variability and potential changes in the waste form as a function of process variation should be addressed.
The variation among licensees should be described and bounded.
Compatibility with requirements associated with the proposed management options should be carefully presented.
For example, if the petitioner proposes B
that the wastes be incinerated, the waste form should be shown to be compatible with the temperatures, flow rates, feed rates, and other operating parameters of typical incinerators that may be used.
The petitioner should identify the minimum requirements an incinerator must meet to assure adequate combustion.
The form and volume of the ash and other residue from incineration should be described.
Similar consideration for disposal at sanitary landfills or hazardous waste sites should be addressed.
For example, wastes that include components or properties that would qualify the waste as a " hazardous waste"
^
under EPA rules in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 265 should not be proposed for disposal at a municipal landfill.
The potential for recycle should be presented.
Possible treatment, such as shredding, that would reduce the recycle potential should be described.
Both the resource value (e.g., salvageable metals) and the functional usefulness (e.g., usable tools) should be addressed.
Both short-and long-term potentials for recycle are of significant concern to the Commission.
3.
Totals.
A subsequent rulemaking based upon an accepted petition is generic, and the exemption will likely be used nationwide.
Therefore, to the extent possible, the petitioner should estimate the number of NRC and Agreement State licensees that produce the waste, the annual volumes and mass, and the l
l l
[7590-01) total annual quantities of each radionuclide that would be disposed of.
The estimates should include the current situation and the likely variability over the reasonably foreseeable future.
If the petition is for a proposed rule that will be limited to less than national scope (e.g., a state or compact region),
the totals should be estimated for the petitioned scope. A concentration distribution would be a helpful tool in characterizing the waste stream.
For example, the petitioner could indicate that 10% of the wastes fall in the range f
of 1-10 picoeuries per gram, 60% fall in the 10-100 range, and 30% in the 100-1,000 range.
Such distribution would permit more realistic assessment of impacts in addition to conservative bounding estimates using maximum values.
In any case, the typical quantities produced per generator and an estimate of the geographic distribution of the generators should be described.
4.
Basis.
The basis for the waste stream characterization should be girovided.
The basis for characterization of the wastes and the total quantities produced should be described.
Monitoring, analytical data, and calculations should be specified.
Actual measurements or values that can be related to measurements to confirm calculations are important.
The description of the bases should include quality assurance aspects.
For example, the petitioner should describe the number of samples measured, the representativeness of the samples, and the appropriateness of the instruments used.
The statistical confidence in the estimates should be evaluated, if the petitioner conducted any surveys of licensees or relied on surveys by others to help quantify the amount and content of wastes, they should be described.
Market information might be useful in characterizing waste generation on a national basis.
Designation as a " trace concentration" should be related to
p
[7590-01) specified detection limits, but detection limits themselves are not sufficient reason to dismiss trace concentrations when methods exist to infer i
concentrations.
For estimates of the radionuclide content of the waste stream, the petitioner may take advantage of licensee experience in classifying wastes for disposal at low-level waste sites.
For example, the transuranic radionuclide content of the wastes would likely be below detection limits, but licensees have already established scaling factors for estimating the transuranic content of wastes at part of complying with 10 CFR Part 61 waste classification requirements.
Waste generators use generic scaling factors and factors established for their specific wastes through sophisticated analyses.
The scaling factors are used to infer the presence and concentrations of many radionuclides based on measurement of only a few nuclides.
The classification scheme in 10 CFR Part 61 has been in effect since December 1983.
Considerable
'i data and experience should be available to allow characterizing the radiological content and composition of the waste stream being addressed in the petition.
The same principles outlined in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(8) may be applied, i.e., values based on direct measurements, indirect methods related to measurements, or material accountability.
5.
_As low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).
The Commission's ALARA requirement in 10 CFR 20.1(c) applies to efforts by licensees to maintain radiation exposures and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, describes ALARA for radioactive materials in light water reactor
[7590-01) i effluents.
Licensee compliance with 10 CFR 20.1(c) is a precondition to acceptance by NRC of any waste stream as exempt.
Therefore, a description should be provided of reasonable procedures that waste generators would be expected to use to minimize radiation exposures resulting from the disposal of the exempt waste, e.g., removal of surface contamination.
These procedures are assumed to apply prior to characterizing the waste to be exempted.
C.
Waste Management Options The management options that the Commission can deal with expeditiously are those described in NUREG/CR-3585.
Onsite options include incineration and burial.
Offsite options are municipal waste disposal facilities (sanitary landfills), municipal waste incinerators, hazardous waste disposal facilities, and hazardous waste incinerators.
Pretreatment, e.g., shredding of otherwise potentially recyclable materials, is a potential adjunct to either onsite or offsite options.
Combinations of these options can also be evaluated.
For example, wastes may be incinerated on site and the ash shipped to a sanitary landfill.
The favored disposal options should be identified and fully described.
The petitioner should evaluate a full range of options.
The practicality of the proposed option (s) should be presented.
Waste compatibility discussed earlier is one aspect.
The national availability and distribution of the option is another Updates on national regulations and laws pertaining to the proposed option should be described and might have to be considered in selecting acceptable options.
[7590-01).
D.
Analyses To support and justify the submittal, each petitioner should include analyses of the radiological impacts associated with handling, transport, and
+
disposal of the specific wastes.
Any incremental nonradiological impacts should be assessed.
Also the petitioner should use the analyses to prepare and submit a detailed regulatory analysis with the petition.
1.
Radiological impacts.
The evaluation of radiological impacts should distinguish between expected and potential exposures ar,d events.
Impacts should be assessed for the expected concentrations and quantities of radionuclides.
The petitioner should quantitatively evaluate the impacts from the proposed waste for each option requested.
The petitioner should clearly relate the analytical findings to specific pro /isions in the recommended rule changes.
For example, the basis for each recommended radionuclide limit should tee clearly explained.
The radiological impacts included in NUREG/CR-3585 and in NRC's computer program (IMPACTS-BRC) cover exposures to workers and individual members of the public and cumulative population exposures.
The program calculates both external direct gamma exposures and exposures from ingested or inhaled radionuclides.
NRC's computer program can be used to calculate the expected radiological impacts from generator activites, transportation, treatment, disposal operations, and post-disposal impacts.
The program can analyze a wide range of management options including onsite treatment and disposal by the generator, shipment to municipal waste management facilities, and shipment to ha:ardous waste management facilities.
The program covers impacts beginning with initial handling and treatment by the generator through final disposal of
a I
.I (7590-01) (
all the radionuclides contained in the waste stream.
Sequential treatment, sorting, and incineration onsite and at municipal and hazardous facilities can be assessed.
Disposal of.resulting ash and residue is included.
Post-disposal
)
s impacts that can be calculated include releases due to intrusion, ground-water j
i migration, erosion, and leachate accumulation.
The program thus addresses both expected and potential post-disposal impacts.
The petitioner's analysis of transport impacts should be based on a reasonably expected spacial distribution of licensees and waste treatment and disposal facilities which will accept the wastes.
The petitioner should address parameters such as average and extreme transport distances.
The petitioner's analysis should address the basis for parameter selection and characterize the expected patterns (e.g., indicate how likely the extreme case may be).
In addition, the petitioner's analysis should also address potential exposures from handling and transport accidents.
The petitioner's analysis of accidents should include all assumptions, data, and results to facilitate review.
The potential for shipment of the entire waste stream to one or a few facilities should be assessed.
This scenario currently exists for 10 CFR 20.306 exempted liquid scintillation wastes and might result from very limited numbers of treatment facilities or decontamination services.
The analysis of impacts for transport, handling, and disposal should include evaluation of this potential circumstance unless it can be clearly ruled out.
As suggested in Paragraph 89 on page 20 of ICRP Publication 462 Exception from regulation and requirements on these bases should not be used to make it possible to dispose of large quantities of radioactive P
S
[7590-01) material in diluted form, or in divided portions, causing widespread pollution which would eventually build up high dose levels by the addition of many small doses to individuals.
Nor should they be used to exempt activities that, by isolation or treatment, have been made temporarily harmless but that imply large potential for release and could give rise to high individual doses or high collective doses.
The analysis of expected radiological impacts should clearly address:
The maximum individual exposures.
The critical group exposures The cumulative population exposures.
- The maximum individual exposure evaluation should include exposures to all members of the public who may be exposed beginning with the initial handling at the generator's facility through post-closure.
Both internal uptake and external exposures should be included.
The individual may be a member of the general population (e.g., consumer of contaminated ground water) or a person receiving the exposure from his or her occupation.
Anyone who may be exposed and is not a radiation worker should be considered a member of the public.
For example, a worker at a sanitary landfill or a commercial trash truck driver would not be a radiation worker.
However, occupational exposures to radiation workers should be evaluated and considered in the cost / benefit analysis of the incremental impacts between disposal at a licensed facility and the requested disposal options.
i The total population exposures can be estimated and summed in two parts.
One part is the smaller critical group (usually the occupationally exposed
{
i (7590-01) 14 i
population) where potential exposures may be higher on an individual basis but the exposures and the number of exposed individuals.are more predictable and the exposures are short-term.
The critical group should be the segment of the population most highly exposed exclusive of radiation workers.
The other part is the general population where the expected exposures and size of the exposed population are less predictable, potential individual exposures are probably much smaller, and exposures may extend over longer timeframes.
Presentation of the population exposures in these two parts should contribute to a more meaniogful cost / benefit analysis.
2.
Other impacts.
The NRC action to exempt the radiological content of the wastes would not relieve persons handling, processing, or disposing of the wastes from requirements applicable to the nonradiological properties. The petition should demonstrate that the nonradiological properties of the radioactive waste are the same as the nonradioactive materials normally handled and disposed of by the proposed methods.
If the nonradiological properties are similar and the volumes of exempted waste would not impact the normal operations, there should be no incremental impacts.
If the petitioner is aware of other impacts which should be considered for the specific wastes in the petition, the petitioner should also address the additional impacts.
3.
Regulatory analysis.
In order to expedite subsequent rulemaking if the petition is granted, the analysis should also address the topics NRC must address in a Regulatory Analysis (e.g., see NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 1,
" Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission").1 Following the Regulatory Analysis format will structure the analytical
4,
[7590-01) findings, present the bases for decisions, and address the environmental assessment requirements.
The topics are:
(1) A statement of the problem.
This topic is the need for determining which wastes may be safely disposed of by means other than shipment to licensed low-level waste sites.
4 (2) Alternatives.
All reasonable alternatives to the proposed action j
should be described.
The no, action or status quo alternative should always be included.
l 4
(3) Consequences.
This topic calls for an analysis of the impacts of each alternative described.
The factors the petitioner should address include costs and benefits and practical or legal constraints.
Cost / benefit considerations and constraints are discussed more fully after this listing of topics.
(4) Decision rationale.
This topic is a conclusions statement that explains why the preferred alternative (s) should be adopted.
(5) Implementation.
This topic covers the steps and schedules for actual i
implementation of the proposed rule.
The petitioner should address the topic from the waste generator's perspective and include surveys discussed under Topic Ill.A.S. Recordkeeping and Reporting.
A cost / benefit discussion is an essential part of both environmental and regulatory impact considerations and is, therefore, essential to expedited l
'i
[7590-01)
,.j handling. The discussion should focus on expected exposures and realistic concentrations or quantities of radionuclides.
The cost / benefit discussion should include the differential exposure and economic costs between disposal at a licensed low-level waste disposal site and the proposed option (s).
It may also include qualitative benefits.
Reduced hazards from not storing hazardous or combustible materials might be a benefit.
Elimination or reduction of the hazardous properties (e.g., by incineration) could be another.
Detrimental costs might also be qualitative such as loss of space in municipal or h'azardous waste sites.
The economic impact on the licensed site operations (i.e., loss of income from diverted wastes) and its potential effect on the availability of economic and safe disposal should be addressed.
Costs of surveys and verifying compliance discussed under Topic II.E.
Recordkeeping and Reporting should also be covered.
The cost / benefit should also reflect ALARA considerations.
Radiation worker exposure, public exposure, and environmental releases might be appropriate in ALARA considerations.
In weighing the exposure costs and economic costs for light-water-cooled nuclear reactor wastes, the petitioner could use, for perspective, the $1,000 per person-rem guideline in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, for effluent releases from these facilities.
The petitioner should identify any legal or regulatory constraints that might impact implementation of the petitioned change.
The compatibility of the the waste with the proposed method of disposal was discussed under Topic II.B.2.
Other constraints might stem from Department of Transportation (00T) labeling, placarding, and manifesting requirements for radioactive materials.
Since the receiving facility will not be licensed to receive radioactive materials, this could be an impediment to implementation.
For most radioactive materials, the general 00T threshold limits of 0.002 microcuries 1
i
(7590-01) per gram apply.
However, the DOT issued a final rule on June 6,1985 (50 FR 23811) that amended 49 CFR Part 173 to exempt low specific activity wastes as described in NRC's rules in 10 CFR 20.306.
(Note that DOT emphasized-thatthewastesremainsubjecttotheprovisionsrelatedtootherhazards;see 49 CFR 173.425(d).)
E.
Recordkeepino and Reporting.
I'.
Surveys.
Existing regulations in $10 CFR 20,201 establish general NRC requirements for performing surveys as necessary to comply with Part 20.
Licensees would have to conduct surveys of the waste properties prior to release for exempt disposal to verify that the waste meets the prescribed limits.
Such survey programs might consist of (1) fairly comprehensive initial sampling and analysis to confirm that the licensee's wastes will fall below the limits, (2) periodic analyses as part of a process or quality control program to confirm the initial findings, and (3) a routine survey program prior to release of wastes to monitor for gross irregularities.
To show that licensees can be expected to conduct compliance surveys prior to waste transfer, the l
petitioner should describe a sample survey program.
The three components just discussed should be included, if appropriate, for the waste stream.
Records of the surveys would be maintained for inspection.
l 2.
Reports.
The petitioner should assume that annual reports on disposals will be required and that associated recordkeeping to generate the reports will be imposed.
Minimum information in the annual reports initially might include the type of waste, its volume, its estimated curie content, and l
l the place and manner of disposal.
Increased recordkeeping and reporting l
L I
o
l
[7590-01]
requirementswouldaddressuncertaintiesinprojectingfuturevolumesor amounts of wastes and NRC's responsibility to consider the cumulative impacts of multiple exemptions.
When these requirements are proposed, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is required.
To facilitate NRC filing for OMB approval, the petitioner should include any duplicating or overlapping reporting requirements, the number and type of expected respondents, suggestions for minimizing the burden, estimates of the staff hours and costs i
to prepare the reports and. keep the records, and a brief description of the basis for the estimates.
The petitioner should also address whether changes in technical specifications or licenses may be needed.
J F.
Proposed Rule.
The petition should include the text for the proposed rule (see 10 CFR 2.802(c)(1)).
The proposed text should cover at least the following:
(1) The quantity and/or concentration limit for each radionuclide present (trace radionuclides could be lumped together with a total limit);
(2) A method to deal with radionuclide mixtures; (3) The nonradiological specifications necessary to adequately define the waste; and (4) The specific method (s) of exempt disposal.
If practicable, and if the supporting information indicates the need, the text should also address other features such as annual limits on each generator
l (7590-01) 19 in terms of volume, mass, or total radioactivity, and administrative or procedural requirements including process controls, surveys, etc., that have been discussed.
The text should not include the various dose limits used to justify the proposed radionuclide limits.
III. Decision Criteria The Commission policy statement establishes that the following criteria should be used by staff as guidelines for acting on a petition.
Each criterion is repeated and staff views on implementation are discussed.
1.
Disposal and treatment of the wastes as specified in the petition will result in no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Discussion:
Unless this finding can be made using information submitted
~
by the petitioner, the Commission must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to more fully examine the proposed action, alternatives to the proposed action, and associated potential impacts of alternatives.
Preparation would likely involve contractual support and would likely take 2 years or more to complete.
The Commission could not act on the petition in an expedited manner.
2.
The maximum expected effective dose equivalent to an individual member of the public does not exceed a few millirem per year for normal operations and anticipated events.
l Discussion:
The effective dose equivalent means the ICRP Publication 26 3
and 30 sum of the dose from external exposure and the dose incurred from that l
l
'1
[7590-01]
year's intake of radionuclides.
While a range of 1-10 milliten per year might be acceptable, a one millirem dose would facilitate expedited processing.
Higher doses may require more extensive justification.
Based on a mortality j
risk coefficient for induced cancer and hereditary effects of 2 x 10'4 per rem (ICRP Publication 26), radiation exposure at a level of 1 millirem per year would result in an annual mortality risk of 2 x 10'7 (i.e., 2 x 10'4 effects / rem x 10'3 rem / year).
The EPA is developing criteria for identifying low-level radioactive waste I
that may be below regulatory concern as part of that agency's development of general environmental standards for low-level waste disposal.
The EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 31, 1983 (48 FR 39563) and currently hopes to publish proposed standards in early 1987.
Other EPA standards that the doses can be compared to are the Clean Air Act radioactive release standard of 25 millirems per year in 40 CFR Part 61 and the uranium fuel cycle annual whole body limit of 25 millirems in 40 CFR 190.
One millirem is very small when compared to naturally occurring background doses from cosmic and terrestrial sources.
Background doses in the United States are typically in the 100-200 millirems per year range exclusive of the lung doses from radon.
One millirem is also small when compared to the annual 500 millirem dose limit for individual members of the general public in Federal Radiation Council guidance.
An important feature is that doses of up to 1 millirem from an individual petition should minimize concerns over exposure to multiple exempted waste L
i (7590-01)
. 1 i
streams.
ICRP Publication 46 addressed individual dose limits and other issues related to exemptions and stated, in paragraphs 83 and 84 on page 19:
i Many radiation exposures routinely encountered in radiation protection, particularly those received by members of the public, are very small by comparison with dose limits or natural background, and are well below dose levels at which the appearance of deleterious health effects.
has been demonstrated.
In individual-related ai,sessments, it is widely recognized that there are radiation doses that are so small that thev involve risks that would be regarded as negligible by the exposer individuals.
Studies of comparative risks experienced by the pt.;J, tion in various activities appear to indicate that an annual probability of
-6 death of the order of 10 per year or less is not taken into account by individuals in their decisions as to actions that could influence their risks.
Using rounded dose response factors for induced health effects, this level of risk corresponds to an annual dose of the order of 0.1 mSv
[10 millirem).
However, in most practical cases, the need for exemption rules arises in source-related assessment, to decide whether a source or waste stream should be subject to control.
Consideration should be given to the need for any optimization of radiation protection and to the possibility that many practices and sources of the same kind could combine now or in the future so that their total effect may be significant, even though.each source causes an annual individual dose equivalent below 0.1 mSv
[10 millirem) to individuals in the critical group.
This may involve assessments of dose commitments and of the collective dose per unit
t
[7590-01) practice or source, in order to ensure that the individual dose requirement will not be exceeded now or in the future.
It seems almost certain that the total annual dose to a single individual from exempted l
sources will be less than ten times the contribution from the exempted source giving the highest individual dose.
This aspect could, therefore.
be allowed for by reducing the annual individual dose exemption criterion from 0.1 to 0.01 mSv [10 to 1 millirem).
l The NRC staff recognizes that at times, human reactions are not so strictly governed by quantative considerations as the ICRP excerpt suggests.
-6 Nevertheless, the 10 per year value seems about as low as practicable, seems too low to justify significant concern, and so seems acceptable.
The United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board has issued generic guidance on de minimis dose levels (ASP-7, January 1985)4 that has status similar to Federal Radiation Guidance issued by the President in this country.
The Board identified f.ffective dose equivalents of 5 millirem per year as insignificant when members of the public make their decisions, The 5 millirem limit represents the total dose contribution from all exempted practices.
For individual practices, the Board divided by 10 (i.e.,
0.5 millirem per year) to account for exposures from multiple practices.
These limits are applied generically.
Less conservatism under the well defined i
circumstances associated with specific waste streams and disposal options envisaged in this NRC state ntseemsjustified.
In a proposed policy statement dated May 6, 1985,5 the Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board specifically addressed disposal of specific wastes that are of no regulatory
T' O
[7590-01)
. concern. An individual dose limit of 5 millirems per year was proposed for this limited application.
A maximum individual e::posure of 1 millirem per year is also consistent with Appendix I to 10 CfR Part 50.
Appendix ! specifies design objective doset for operational light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents.
These design objectives include annual total body doses of 3 millirems for liquid effluents and 5 millirems for gaseous effluents.
If onsite incineration at reactors is petitioned for as a specified disposal option, the petitioner should address how the proposed activity, combined with all other effluents from the sites, would not exceed the design objective doses in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
3.
The collective doses to the critical population and general population are small.
Discussion:
An additional advantage when individual doses are no more f
than 1 millirem per year is that the collective doses are then summations over very small exposures.
The collective dose evaluation is primarily for information purposes, cost / benefit considerations, and to confirm the finding of no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
This determination will be made based on information available during the review of each petition in concert with criterion 5.
Staff notes that the United Kingdom policy on individual dose limits includes an associated collective dose criterion.
(The collective dose criterion must be met in addition to the individual limits).
In ICRP Publication 46, a similar criterion is stated.
4.
The potential radiological consequences of accidents or equipment malfunction involving the wastes and intrusion into disposal sites after loss of normal institutional controls are not significant.
[7590-01)
Discussion:
Potential doses from accidents or intrusion should be well within public exposure limits and take into account the probability or possibility of such events.
In a statement dated April 26, 1986,6 the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) stated that the ICRP's present view is that the principal dose limit for members of the public is 100 millirems in a year.
The ICRP further stated that the 500 millires limit from ICRP Publication 26 could be used as a subsidiary limit provided the lifetime average does not exceed the principal limit.
Consequently, potential exposures from accidents or unexpected events would be more easily justified if they are well below 100 millirem per year principal limit.
5.
The exemption will result in a significant reduction in societal costs.
Discussion:
When the economic and exposure costs associated with the exemption are compared to disposal at a licensed low-level waste site there should be a significant reduction in costs.
6.
The waste is compatible with the proposed treatment and disposal options.
Discussion:
This criterion relates to the nonradiological properties of the wastes.
For example, disposal of radioactive wastes that also qualify as a nonradiological haza-dous material should be proposed for disposal methods in accord with EPA regulations (e.g., incineration or disposal at a hazardous waste facility).
Also, wastes proposed for incineration should be combustible and wastes proposed for landfills should be appropriate for disposal in typical landfills anywhere in the nation.
1
F
\\
[7590-01)..
7.
The exemption is useful on a national scale, i.e., it is likely to be i
used by a category of licensees or at least a significant portion of a category.
Discussion:
Rulemaking is usua,lly not warranted for wastes involving a single licensee, whether a continuing disposal activity or a one-time disposal.
Such proposals by individ'ual licensees are norectly processed as licensing actions under 10 CFR 20.302(a).
8.
The radiological properties of the waste stream have been characterized on a national basis, the variability has been projected, and the range of variation wii' not invalidate supporting analyses.
Discussion:
One of the merits of dealing with specific waste streams is that the actual properties of the waste stream can be relied upon in estimating impacts rather than conservative bounding parameters.
The specific pathways that must be considered can be limited to manageable numbers.
The expected fate can be credibly limited based on the properties.
9.
The waste characterization is based on data on real wastes.
Discussion:
Actual data on real waste provide reasonable assurance that the waste characterization is accurate.
10.
The disposed form of the waste has negligible potential for recycle.
Discussion:
Eliminating the uncertainties associated with recycle is necessary to expeditious handling.
Specifying specific wastes and specific methods of disposal narrows the pathways and timeframes to manageable numbers.
11.
Licensee: can establish effective, licensable, and inspectable T
programs for the waste prior to transfer to demonstrate compliance.
Discussion:
Survey programs and quality control programs will be needed tc provide reasonable assurance that actual wastes disposed of under an l
(7590-01).
I exemption rule meet the specified parameters.
Since disposal would be exempted basedonbothestablishedandprojectedwastecharacteristics,reportingonthe wastes actually transferred for below regulatory concern disposal will be important and should be practical.
12.
The offsite treatment or disposal medium (e.g., sanitary landfill) does not need'to be controlled or monitored for radiation protection purposes.
Discussion:
The evaluation of expected exposures should provide the basis-for meeting this criterion.
However, this is an area where NRC will have a continuing responsibility as multiple petitions are processed.
Reporting on actual disposals will help NRC address this responsibility and monitor the 1
adequacy of the limits included in the exempted disposals.
13.
The methods and procedures used to manage the wastes and to assess the impacts are no different from those that would be applied to the corresponding uncontaminated materials.
Discussion:
Since the receiving facility will not be licensed for radioactive materials, special handling or measures should not be required at the processing or disposal sites because of the radioactive content of the wastes.
This criterion also means that realistic assumptions about the disposal methods have been made in estimating exposures.
14.
There are no regulatory or legal obstacles to use of the proposed treatment or disposal methods.
Discussion:
To have practical use, the disposal option must be available.
For example, if all hazardous waste facilities that accept offsite wastes are closed or are not reasonably distributed, the practicality of an exemption to allow disposal at such sites is questionable.
Since the receiving facility o
will not be licensed for radioactive materials, shipments to landfills or
1 (7590-01]
~
27 hazardous waste facilities should not require identification as radioactive materials.
F IV.
Administrative Handling i
Agency procedures for expeditious handling of petitions for rulemaking were initially published in 1982 in NUREG/BR-0053, " Regulations Handbook."1 The procedures are contained in Part 11 of the Handbook and were j
most recently revised in September 1985.
Because of resource limitations and other factors, these procedures have not been fully implemented.
Petitions for
)
rulemaking submitted in accordance with the Commission's policy statement and this staff implementation plan will be processed in full compliance with these procedures.
These procedures coupled with agency policy to complete all rulemakings within 2 years will provide expeditious action on tha petitions.
In addition, the Handbook notes general scheduling advice that proposed rules to grant petitions should be published in 6-12 months after acceptance and 4
publication for comment.
Proposed rules will be forwarded to the Commission on a 6-month schedule to the extent permitted by resource limits, the nature and extent of public comments, and internal Control of Rulemaking procedures.
Rulemakings involving power reactors must be reviewed by the Committee on Review of Generic Requirements prior to publication.
Proposed rules involving reactors will therefore be forwarded to the Commission on a 7-month schedule to the extent permitted by resources, comments, and approval procedures.
In both cases, every effort will be made to publish proposed rules no later than 12 months after noticing for public comment.
_y..
O t
(7590-01]
l Although the procedures in Part 11 of NUREG/BR-0053 include fast track processing, the nature of the anticipated petitions do not fully comply with the decision criteria to follow this alternative.
Some of the key features of the handling procedures include the following steps for complete and fully supported petitions.
1.
Petitioners may conter on procedural matters with the staff before filing a petition for rulemaking.
Requests to confer on procedural matters should be addressed to:
The Director, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch.
2.
Petitions should be addressed to:
The Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketin'g and Service Branch.
In keeping with 10 CFR 2.802(f), petitioners will be promptly informed if the petition meets the threshold requirements for a petition for rulemaking in 10 CFR 2.802(c) and can be processed in accordance with this implementation plan. Ordinarily this determination will be made within 30 days after receipt of the petition.
3.
Following this deterndnation, the petition will be noticed in the Federal Register for a public comment period of at least 60 days.
4.
The petitioner will be provided copies of all comments received, l
scheduling information, and periodic status reports.
1 The procedures in NUREG/BR-0053 also include the process for denial and 1
i L
withdrawal of petitions.
]
i l
L l
L
.s l
1 E.
[7590-01]
j
. gg.
Footnotes:
1.
Copies of NUREG/BR 0053, NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3585 may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing office, P.O. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20013-7082.
Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5185 Port -
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
Copies are available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H i
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.
2.
ICRP Publication 46, " Radiation Protection Principles for the Disposal.of Solid Radioactive Waste," adopted July 1985.
3.
ICRP Publication 26, " Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection," adopted January 17, 1977.
ICRP Publication 30,
" Limits for Intake of Radionuclides by Workers," adopted July 1978.
4.
Copies of the United Kingdom's document are available for inspection as enclosures to SECY-85-147A (relating to 10 CFR Part 20) dated July 25, 1985 in the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW Washington, DC 20555.
TheUnitedKingdomdocumentsareavailableforsale from:
Her Majesty's Stationery Office, P.O. Box 569, London SE1 9NH, United Kingdom, as Advice document ASP-7 and a related technical report, "The Significance of Small Doses of Radiation to Members of the Public,"
NRPB-R175.
5.
Copies of the Canadian document are available for inspection as an enclosure to SECY-85-147A (relating to 10 CFR Part 20) dated July 25, 1985 in the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20555.
The Canadian document was issued as Consultative Document C-85, "The Basis for Exempting the Disposal of Certain Radioactive Materials from Licensing" by the Atomic Energy Control Board, P.O. Box 1046, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, KIP 559.
6.
ICRP/85/G-03, " Statement from the 1985 Paris Meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protect," 1985-04-26.
I
/
I i
i UNITED STATES
. met em anna NUCLEAR REGULATCOY COMMIS$40N
- a' a# "
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066
== e c.
1 esnem em se OFFICIAL SUSWESS l
PINALTY FOR PRtvATE Ult,4300 i
i 120555063585 1 1CZ US NRC RES-01V REGULATORY APPL I C AT I ON DIRECTOR NL-005 WASHINGTON DC 205t5 l
1 I
h i
L 4
4 i
7
.-_...--..---.,s~
-<,m-
+
ee.,
c,. m ace g,g gecommendations for Radioacthe Waste Reduction la
- 2. Lont loed isotopes. De minimis and "below reguleury Bloswdical/ Academic lastitutloas concern"(BRC) levels for these wastes should be sought tous the NRC or regulatory authonty, since the total amount of m-( Aercived23 Ane 1988) dioactivity is now and its epocinc activity is comparable to ear.
tently deregulated wesie. At present, 'H/"C waste and waste prar Editors:
from other isotopes with half lives grwur than 90 d should be ArrtR RtvitwiNo the 6 eld of low level radioactive waste compacted and shipped to a comnwrcial esp =al facility lab.
(LLRW) for the Annual Review Of Public Health,it is apparent oratory waste can be compacted at an averese ratio of 6 to I that saaey academic, biomedical, governmental and industrial with a 9.5 aos drum compactor to reduce tk volume of wesee lastitutions do not characterue their LLRW aulheiently to
. shipped.
achieve maaimum volume reduction and waste minimisation.
Most of the biomedical / academic LLRW does not have to, and M waew conmins more the 9% of the mdsoactivity should not, be buned. A careful analysis of the biomedical waste disp =ad. It should be collected in pol ethylene bottles (4-201.
3 stream at this university has shown that a reduction of greater I-5 gal) which, unlike those of glass, are unbr=kahle, produce than 95% in the volume of waste, which must be shipped for less bremsstrahlung, are impervious to most organic chemicals bunalds achievable. The decay of short lived radioisotopes on-and do not form sharp edges when compacted. Psthogenic aw site can eliminate 74% of the matenals now shipped for bunal.
terials should be inacdvamd with a bleach solution, et IM Essential to this important step is the insutution's allocation of chlorine bleach, prior to collection. Radioiodine waste should 100-200 in'(100%2000 square feet) of space in which 55 gallor be collected into bottles containing enough sodium thiosulfate drums can be stored for decay for intenm periods pnor to dis.'
to bind free I(0.1 M Enal concentration).
i posal of the materials as non radioactive liquids and trash. Most
- 1. Apeous holds should have a pH between 6 and 9. The of the following practices bas e been implemented at The Rocke-individual generator has the responsibihty for adjusting the pH feller Unisersit). The combination of segregation, compaction, of the waste. The pH is ven6ed upon collection.
decay of short lived isotopes and regulated sewage disposal rep-(a) Short hved isotopes should be poured in plastic drums, resented a 96% reduccon in volume of radioacuve waste shipped, a growth retardant added (e s.,4 mL chloroform,0,93 g sodium i
a saving of 5271,000 in 1987. Detailed companson of the re-dodeeyl sulfate,0.33 mL methanol per sn!!on of msste ), umpled dioactive waste prohles of the nine major biomedicalinsutuuons for radioneuvity and held for decay. Befort disposal, the liquid l
in New York City sussests that these volume reduction steps should be sampled to venfy that it has reached background levels, are generally apphcable. Apart from the obvious reduction in Records should be kept of the initial and 6nal activities.
costs and liabilities for the generating institutions, these volume (b) lems hbedisotopes should be sampled for activity, men.
reductions have an eficet upon the waste disposal poheses now surements recorded, and released into the sanitary sewer in ac.
being drafted across the country in response to the lew level cordance with the regulations (10 CFR Part 20.303). The NRC Radioactive Waste Pohey Amendments Act of 1985. The col-allows 1.85 x 10' MBq ($ Ci) of'H,3.7 x 10' MBq (I Ci) of lec0ve action by the biomedical and academic commuruty would "C and 3,7 x 10' MBq (I Ci) per y of other isotopes to be impact the LLRW disposal problem and proside leadership cru-discarded as sewage. Reduce the number of drains used, possibly cial to assuage the public con 6dence, to only one, and choose them in locations that will minimiae the contamination of plumbing.
Waste identincation
- 2. Organic heids, belonging to the " mixed waste" category, 11 is essential that waste be segregated and labelled according should be segregated according to their chemical components, to isotope and form. Labels should contain the informabon upon e g., phenol, chloroform, methylene chlonde, and sampled for which disposal decisions will be based: department, name of radioactnity. They constitute a very small fraction of the volume i
generator, building and room number, phone number, date, and activity of the waste, therefore BRC levels should be sought.
volume of w aste, isotope, activity ( Bq, uCi or mci), form (gas.
Then they should be ineinerated under permit, treated to arparate bquid aqueous, hquid orlanic, sobd, carcass / tissue, semtillation the radioaedve from the or5anic componenia, degraded by mi-vials, other), unabbreviated chemical and biological names and croorlanisms, or held until there is an accepted outlet for this percentages of all components. All wastes contaminated with type of mixed waste even though it is illegal to hold these wastes radioactive matenals should be collected and centrally processed.
longer than 90 d or 180 d depending on the location of the nearest treatment facility.
%aste Categories Solid wasta, consisting of plastic and glassware, papers, gloves, Anhaal tissues, which may also contain pathogens and car.
spent electrophoretic gels, chromatography resins, needles and cinogens, should be incinerated to reduce the handling, the syringes, and occasionally some sealed sources, normally con-number of people exposed, and the time between generation and final destructio containing 1.85,kBq g"(0.05 s Ci g ') or less of,n. Material,s,C should be incinerate tains less than 10% of the total activity disposed. It should be H and/or packed in clear plastic bags to allow inspection of the contents.
Needles, Pasteur pipettes and other sharp objects should be NRC guidelines (10 CFR Part 20306), De mmimis and BRC placed in puncture proof containers levels for other isotopes should be obtained,
- l. Short hved isotopes. Waste from isotopes with halflives Scintillation Yinis of 90 d or less should be separated in groups accordmg to half,
- Preferentially, one should use mini vials since they bnns a life and volume and held for decay. For example,if the waste substantial sasings in the volume orcocktail needed for counting stream contains predominantly 'P '"1 and "$. divide it into as well as the volume of waste for disposal. A $$ gallon drum three groups: group I, half-hfe of I-15 d, group II, half-hfe of holds approximately 10,000 mini vials but only 3,000 mari vials; 16-65 d; group lit, half hfe of 66-90 d. Waste decayed to "back-both contain 5-10 gallons ofliquid.
ground," or to a de mmtmts lese!. should be venhed with a
- The number of counts per vial should be limited. Statisti.
surse) meter and then incinerated as laborator) waste or disposed cally, there is little reason to exceed 10,000 com per vial when as trash.
counted at high efheiency. Vials that exceed this amount should
{ I
~
l I
-c
$72 -
Heshh Physics April 1989. Volume 56, Number 4
- t
' be esgreg.ted and held for dilution of their contents with less
- Fluida biodeyedeble by municipal sewage trenunent should
(
' radioactive scintillation Avid.
be discarded as sanitary sewerage, sc, -
o Count "P without scintillation Auld by the Cerenkov
- The crushed glass and plasuc contains only a small frecuon 8"
8 snethod on the H setting of a liquid scintillation counter ( ~40%
of the radioactivity present in scintillation vials but still has a n
. etheiency). These vials should be kept separate, held for decay,-
small amount of the Guid; therefore, it should be incinerated f.-
crushed and discarded.
over a bed of ashes of at least washed with 95% ethanol. Ash E
o Count '"I without scintillation Suid in a gamma scintillation samples should be counted regularly to conarm that no radio-comer, hold for doceE and discard as non radioactive waste.
activity is present.
o Vids containing H, "C or other radioisotopes should be With present regulatory constraints. only comported long.
lived waste, mainly H and "C animal waste containing radio-cracked and the Suids collected and sampled for activity. ( An 8
inexpensive crusher which edbcsently breaks glass mani and mini 8
isotopes other than H and 't, and some sealed sourass, need vials with hard caps is the Mark 4, Balkan Ltd., England; son to be sent to a heanal site. Most of these wastes could be elim.
plasucs cannot be processed through this machme.)
insted by de minimis and BRC rulings, leaving only "muned o Flammable Guids contaming I.85 kBq g*' (0.05 pCi g*')
wastes" and some sealed sources.
of 8H and/or "C should be incinerated on site if possible or at the closest acceptable site and de mimmis levels for other radio.
E. PARTY and E. l GERsHEY isotopes should be sought, in the mean time, Rammable Auids The Aackefeller University containing 74 Sq (0.002 sci g*') of other isotopes can be dis.
1230 York Avenue posed through Quadrea HPS Inc., Gainesville, Florida.
New York, NY 10021 I
NRC, NCRP, ICRP and Recommendations on Prenatal that the recommended prenatal donc capones her unborn child
- Radiation Exposure to a risk about to times higher than is generally acceptabic.
(Received 15 Assgust 1988) gg, g.hy and Mw should substantial variations in the rate of
Dear Editors:
exposure be avoided?
The justification for the recommendation that substantia!
= U.S. NUCLEAR Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory variat ons in the rate of exposure be avoided is not given in the Guide 8.13-Revision 2, December 1987, states that the NRC Regulatory Guide. What is meant, as stated in NCRP Report has proposed adoption of the 1987 Presidential guidance on No.91,is that the fetus / embryo should not receWe a ' t stially prenatal radiation exposure. The Presidential guidance specines large fraction (s) of dose during sensitive sty an effective dose equivalent limit of 5 mSv (500 mrem) to the But, since the sensitive stages are withi : ' to ? ? M.illowi%
unborn child if the pregnancy has been declared by the mother.
conception, when a woman may not eve # c WW ;4to M The guidance also recommends that substantial vanations in nancy, the recommendation does not has a w. e im P the rate of esposure be avoided. A cntical analysis of the rec.
evance, especially if pregnancy has to be dee c N 19 ra.tnN cmmendations reveals some problems.
for the recommendation to be implemer -
To get around this problem, the Inte; ew Cu,cWE I. What is the risk to the rmbryo/fttusfrom 5 mSv ( 500 mrem) on Radiological Protection Report No, a 4W iW) r-delivered uniformly over a 9 mo period?
ommends that women not work in areas wL.i S. M mse Based on data provided by the NRC in Table I of Regulatory may exceed 15 mSv (1.5 rem).
Guide 8.13,I calculate a total risk of 14 in 10,000 as follows:
But, this restriction puts women at a disadvantage in the job-
- 1. Risk of death from childhood cancer: 3 in 10,000, market. Violations of the " equal maximum permissible dose
- 2. Risk of small head size: 7 in 10,000 (risk of 2.7 in 10,000 (MPD) for equal work" principle would have to be permitted from 50 mrem received during 4-7 wk; and a risk of 4.6 in and discrimination based on sex and fecundity status acapted 10,000 from 50 mrem received during 8-lI wk).
if I'ftil' *? men are to compete with others on an " equal footing
- 3. Risk of mental retardation: 4 in 10,000 from 100 mrem in the radsauon mdustry.
received during 3-15 wk.
Additionally, the ICRP recommendation may be unneces-sarily restrictive in view of NCRP suggestion in Report No. 91 Based on a 1986 report from the United Nations Scientific that a yearly MPD of 50 mSv (5000 mrem), in most cases.
Committee on the Efects of Atomic Radiation, the National would not result in an embryo / fetus dose of more than 5 mSv Ccuncil on Radiation Protection Report No. 9I (NCRP 1987)
(500 mrem). If the woman is working with low energy red,ation,
- states that the total risk for the embryo / fetus is about 0.2 per as would be the case for most a ray technologists in diagnostic Sv. This corresponds to a risk of 10 in 10,000 for 5 mSv (500 radiology, the mother's abdomen would provide signi6 cant at-mrem).
tenuation.
Neither a risk of 10 in 10,000 (NCRP 1987) not a nsk of 14 Before concluding. I cannot help but draw the attention of in 10,000 (NRC 1987)is acceptable if the recommendation of the readers of #calth Physics to the following statement on page NCRP Report No. 91, of a generally acceptable risk of I in 8.13-6 in Regulatory Guide 8.13:
10,000, is to be followed. Either the risks to the embryo /fdus have to be downgraded. or the recommended dose to the em.
"Actually everything is radtoactive and all human activities bryo/ fetus has to be reduced or the mother should lx informed involve exposure to radiation."
.___-____-_-___.___a
/YS8
.i
,(@h
- z..
%./
'I
'9 CG/1/31/89/NRC.EPRI MEETING
,- FEB 2 o a 1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Regis Boyle, Section Leader Regulatory Branch Division of Low. Level Waste Management and Decosmissioning, HMSS FROM:
Chad Glenn Regulatory Branch Division of Low Level Waste Management and Deconnissioning
SUBJECT:
EPRI.NRC' MEETING MINUTES 1
-On January 31, 1989, representatives of EPRI and flRC staff met to exchange information on the IMPACTS.BRC computer code. The' minutes for this meeting are
]
enclosed for your information, d
griginalSigned fy'
[
Chad Glenn L
Regulatory Branch Division of Low-Level Maste Management
('
and Decommissioning
Enclosure:
l' As. stated DISTRIBUTION:
Central File 214.5 NMSS r/f LLRB /rf PDR NUDOCS CGlenn RBoyle MBell JGreeves KDragonette
-Blahs,(RES)
DHopkins, RES l'
I.[..
!N.[...................................................
' NAME:CGlenn/ec :RBoyle L'
DATE:&//o/89 :4/ */89 :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Olhubb[h[
L L
1
s--
([
g w.
-l NRC-EPRI MEETING g'
0N
~
THE IMPACTS-BRC CODE L
la DATE:
Tuesday, January 31, 1989 l
TIME:
1:00 to 4:00 P.M.
LOCATION:
Albuquerque, NM s
ATTENDEES:
ElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI)/EPRIcontractors:
P.. Robinson, EPRI i
J. Vance, Vance & Associates y~
S. Murphy, Rogers & Associates NRC/NRC contractors:
C.-Glenn, NRC B.0'Neal,SandiaNationalLaboratories(SNLA)
C. Lee, Applied Physics Inc.
PURPOSE:
EPRI has recently completed a critical review of NRC's IMPACTS-BRC computer code.
EPRI intends to use the code to assess radiological impacts related to 1
the treatment / disposal of specific waste streams designated "Below Regulatory Concern"(BRC). The purpose of this meeting was to obtain information on EPRI's' review of the code.
DISCUSSION:
The discussion in this meeting was limited to the IMPACTS-BRC computer code.-
r NRC contractors provided a brief overview of their work concerning the development of a version 2 of the IMPACTS-BRC code. The balance of this meeting focused on the results of EPRI's review of the code.
.EPRI 1ndicated that they have spent substantial time and effort in their review of this code.
A' number of independent contractors have been involved in 1
various facets of this review including: Vance & Associates; Rogers &
Associates; Battelle; and Science Applications International Corporation.
EPRI's critique of the code examined dose pathways, model structure and assumptions, correctness of mathematical models, reasonableness in range of model parameter:;, and reasonableness of parameter values assumed for model calculations.
As part of its review, EPRI also sought to verify that the code executes, as designed, for all options and analysis modes.
EPRI presented the principal findings of their critique of the code.
In general, reviewers found the IMPACTS-BRC methodology to be complete and reasonable.
The reviewers indicated that the code was comprehensive in its treatment of pathways for assessing radiological doses.
Calculations performed by the computer code were also checked and found to agree with the original o
- l-..
~^
l
! f @h
-2~
,4 methodology documented in NUREG/CR 3585, Volume 1.
EPRI did not experience difficulties in executing the code, however they did underscore the fact that the code was not user-friendly.
While no major flaw was found in the IMPACTS-BRC code EPRI noted several potential conservatisms in the code and identified laces where they have modified the source code.
EPRI provided a handout Enclosure 1) summarizing l
areas of potential conservatisms.
In a second handout (Enclosure 2), EPRI J
identified where they have made specific modifications to the code structure.
EPRI indicated that they have used this modified version of the code to assess radiological impacts of BRC treatment / disposal.
The rationale and justification for these changes will be documented in the utilities BRC petition..
1 I
Finally}willbesubmittingaBRCpetitiontotheNRCintheMarch1989EPRI indicated that the (NUMARC l
timeframe.
I i
7
.~._
-l }&
.Q ^;'
/
ENCLOSURE 1 i
Table 2-1 P0TENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT CONSERVATISMS IN IMPACTS-BRC METH000 LOGY AND INPUT PARAMETERS Transportation Worker Dose No credit for shiel. ding provided by truck body or cab i-Time spent transporting the waste Popula_t, ion Dose From' Transportation t
i Large population densities along transportation routes I
Time required to. transport the waste I
incinerator Worker Oose Worker exposed to infinite source of external radiation Worker stays at one work station and does not rotate jobs 1
Time spent by worker near source of radiation Intruder Dose No credit for radioactive decay during operations IL-Groundwater impacts el Waste always saturated with water Constant amount of each isotope leached annually I
e 1
l l'
i 2-5
CbAE situcrwg f
< WAspifictrmdS To IW4cr5-BfC ENCLOSURE 2
/
I
.1.i Transportation Worker Oose - Subroutine READ 5 uses weight percent in several code statements where volume percent should be used to calculate the ' transportation worker dose.
For consistency, changes to the code were made so that volume-percent is used in all referehces to the percent of BRC waste transported.
I Equations in subroutine INCIMP that calculate the incineration Worker Oose
-incinerator worker dose do not take account of the finite size of the radiatio'n source to which the worker is exposed. Modifications were made to the incinerator worker dose subroutine to account for the finite size of the radiation source.
The calculation of the dose to the maximally exposed worker was modified so that this dose is calculated in the same manner as for the dose to the maximally exposed worker at the sanitary landfill.
Landfill Worker Collective Dose - Subroutine OPSIMP incorrectly calculates the collective worker. dose for sanitary landfill operations as being equal to the average dose to..an. individual worker.
The equation used to calculate the total i
dose to all the workers was modified so that it correctly calculates the collective worker dose.
i intruder Dose - The waste-soil mixing ratio, RMIT. is included in the equations in subroutine INTIMP that calculate the intruder dose for the intruder-agriculture scenario but not in the dose equations for the intruder-construction scenario.
This factor was added to the intruder-construction dose equations.
l Doses Based on Sorting Option 2 - Sorting Option 2 separates waste into a fraction l'
that is incinerated and a f raction that is not incinerated. The fraction that is incinerated is neglected in subsequent dose calculations for the intruder, the not landfill worker, and the groundwater pathways.
This results in an underestimate of these doses when Sorting Option 2 is used.
Corrections were made to code statements that calculate doses for Sorting Option 2 to include exposures f rom both the waste f raction that is incinerated and the waste fraction that is sorted and goes directly to the landfill.
Dose Calculations for Groundwater Pathways - The input data files contain five values when sets two sets of Ed values.
Subroutine GWATER chooses the wrong Kd through five are requested.
The equation for radionuclide transport was modified values would be used.
Equations that account for the 50 that the correct Kd 3-5 IL
._rm s
a 1
v
!o leaching of radionuclides by water that' infiltrates into the waste were modified so that the constant amount leech calculation -is replaced by a constant-fraction leech calculation.
Constant fraction leaching is consistent with the method of calculating leach rates.
\\
=
1 8
i
(
p
.g.
- ll l
l:
l
[
l' I
I I
I
&h
=..
<.,., um*o,.
UNITED STATES
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
g C
o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565
. [...
April 30,1990 CHAIRMAN The Honorable George Miller Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
-United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Miller:
I am responding to your letters of February 7, 1990, and March 23, 1990,.which requested documents and information on the development of the Below Regulatory Concern Policy.
Mr. Rathbun's letters of March 16 and April 9, 1990, provided a listing and copies of pertinent documents available from the Commissioners' offices.
With this letter, I am providing a brief regulatory history of the-
- development of the BRC policy statement (Enclosure 1), specific answers to the questions you asked in your letter dated February 7, 1990 (Enclosure 2), and a list of NRC staff and Commission records on the development of the BRC exemption policy (Enclosure 3).
Copies of these documents are also provided.
All of the enclosed documents, with the exception of Document No. 255 (Memorandum. to the Commission dated November 14,
- 1989, Standard in Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, A Amended....") may be released to the public.
of Document No. 255 be restricted We do ask that use Subcommittee since it contains predecisionalto members and staff of the i
legal advice and opinion.
Kennet~
rr
Enclosures:
1 1.
History of Development of Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control 2.
Q's and A's g 3.
Records on Development of
\\ 'b QcA W
Exemption Policy d
e Yh-Representative Morris K. Udall cc:
j Representative James V. Hansen U
C
' 9 0050; o@Q d
^
C
F Regulatory History of Development of Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control The Nuclear Regulatory Comission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Comission, have, for a number of years, exempted certain levels of materials and certain devices from the requirements of the regulations promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act.
Examples of these exemptions include the exempt concentrations and quantities found in 10 CFR Part 30 and the exemption for smoke detectors.
In 1986, as directed by Public Law 99-240, NRC developed and published a Statement of Policy and Procedures, which outlines 14 criteria for expedited Comission consideration of petitions for exempting certain waste streams from regulatory control. These included criteria for individual and collective dose levels, the ability to characterize these waste streams on a national basis, and demonstration of the usefulness of the exemption on a national basis.
The Statement of Policy and Procedures is currently a part of the Code of Federal Regulations at Title 10, Part 2, Appendix B.
Besides this 1986 policy, the l
Commission is developing a broader policy that would identify the principles and criteria that govern Comission decisions which could exempt radioactive material from some or all generic regulatory controls for other purposes in addition to waste disposal.
NRC staff development of the Policy Statement on Exemption for Regulatory Control was initiated in early 1988.
The first stage in the development process was a meeting of the NRC staff in Baltimore, Maryland, to discuss the various elements of the proposed policy statement.
discussed was the approach to be taken to select the dose criteria to be usedOne of in the policy. Two different approaches could have been taken and were i
discussed in considerable detail.
The approaches were to either (1) set dose criteria based upon a "de minimis" approach where the risk would be determined at a sufficiently low value as to be considered negligible to any individual or (2) set dose criteria at a level representing a detennination that further resources should not be expended to further reduce dose and risks. The second
_ approach was agreed upon by the staff in the meeting.
Following the Baltimore meeting, numerous drafts of the proposed policy
~
~
statement were Vrepared, revised, and modified as the staff from the Offices of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), and Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) reached a consensus view on the l
technical elements of the policy and draft wording to express these elements.
During this time, the individual dose criterion was proposed with a value of 1 mrem per year.
This value represented the staff consensus of the dose level appropriate for the approach agreed to during the Baltimore meeting. This level was also consistent with the emerg)ing values being developed by th International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.
l
i i After preparation of the basic draft of the policy statement, it was forwarded to senior management for review and approval. During this review and approval process, the individual dose criterion was modified to 10 mrem from the original proposal of 1 mrem. This modification was based upon a different approach to the potential problem of multiple exposures. The original approach had been to use a lower value to account a priori for the potential for multiple exposures.
The revised viewpoint was to set the individual dose criterion at a value of 10 mrem and to address the issue of multiple exposures through other policy provisions, including broad definition of " practice,"
implementation of a collective dose criterion, and requiring that practice be justified.
The draft policy statement was revised accordingly and forwarded for Office concurrence.
Initially, NMSS did not concur in the package because it did not provide sufficient guidance to address the concern of multiple On September 14, 1988, NMSS concurred in the policy statement as exposures.
being acceptable to provide adequate protection to public health and safety based on the additional provisions described above to address the potential for multiple exposures.
The Comission paper (SECY-88-257) transmitting the draft policy statement also contained a recomendation that the proposed policy be presented for comment at a scheduled international workshop in order to obtain the viewpoints of other national and international authorities on the subject of exemptions.
The Comission agreed to the presentation, but directed the staff to cast the proposed policy in the form of an advance notice of proposed policy development so that coments could be solicited on various policy provisions.
The work-shop was co-sponsored by the NRC and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (0 ECD) Nuclear Energy Agency on October 17-19, 1988, in Washington, D.C., and the proceedings of the workshop were published as NUREG/CP-0101.
The advance notice was published on December 12, 1988 (53FR49886), and indicated that a public meeting would be held on January 12, 1989. The public meeting was held and a transcript of the meeting prepared.
During both the international workshop an.d the public meeting, differing views
~
were presented on the~ values of the individual and collective dose criteria.
Values suggested for the individual dose criterion ranged from 20 mrem per year downward to zero, the latter reflecting the view of some participants that no exemptions should be allowed.
Following the public meeting and the public coment period on the advance notice, the staff analyzed the coments received and developed a revised draft policy statement.
The revised draft was submitted to the Comission on June 16, 1989, as SECY-89-257, and the staff briefed the Com*,ssion on July 11, 1989. The staff proposed an individual dose criterion of 10 mrem per year per practice and a collective dose criterion of 500 person-rem per year per practice.
l On October 13. 1989, the Commission rejected the draft policy statement contained in SECY-89-257 and directed the staff to prepare a final policy statement according to a revised outline, which included an individual dose criterion of 10 mrem per year per practice, an interim individual dose-criterion of 1 mrem per year for practices with widespread distribution, and a collective dose criterion.
Collective doses resultino from exposure to a practice should be as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Annual collective doses less than or equal to 1000 person-rem will be deemed to satisfy the ALARA criterion.
In addition, the Commission stipulated that collective dose calculations need not consider individual doses less than 0.1 millirem per year.
The staff prepared the revised policy statement as directed and submitted it for Commission approval on December 1 1989 (SECY-89-360).
Subsequently, the staff transmitted several memoranda to the Commission which discussed (1) perceived inconsistencies of the December 1, 1989 policy statement with other regulatory policies; (2) the potential impact of the BEIR V report published by the National Academy of Sciences; and (3) additional information requested by Commissioners Rogers and Remick on truncation of collective dose calculations, the use of a "few" millirem per year for the individual dose criterion, and a discussion of the three basic radiation protection principles.
These issues are currently under Commission review.
M p
l l
l i-l
n..,
1.
s
. 00ESTION 1.
Please provide any and all documents dated subsequent to January 1, 1986, concerning the selection of numerical criteria for the Comission's BRC policy and/or the acceptable magnitude of individual dose for this policy.
ANSWER.
R As we indicated in the December 12, 1988 advance notice, there was a wide range of values considered in selecting the numerical dose criteria for the exemption policy.
In part, the range of values came about as a result of the broad spectrum of views of NRC staff members who were specifically asked to contribute to the formulation of the exemption policy. The extent to which
. different viewpoints were sought is reflected in the breadth of NRC staff attendance at a two-day staff meeting held in Baltimore, Maryland, on June 9-10, 1988, and at a follow-up staff meeting held on July 7, 1988; the
. international workshop held on October 17-19, 1988; and the public meeting held on January 12, 1989. The proceedings of the Workshop and the transcript
~~
~ ~
~ ~from~the public meeting ~ are ' included in documents R'ecord Nos. 150 and 151.
~
The most important issue affecting selection of the numerical values of the individual and collective dose criteria was the selection of the basis for the criteria. One approach was to set the criteria at a risk level that could be considered "de minimis" or " trivial," 1rrespective of the activity being considered for exemption and independent of the regulatory resources available for risk control or reduction. This is the basis used by the Food and Drug
- 2. m
Question 1 (Continued) Administration (FDA) in decisions involving acceptability of trace contaminants in certain food products. Another approach was to define a level of risk that,-
together with other constraints or conditions, would allow a regulatory agency to decide when its resources, and those of the regulated community it oversees, are better directed to more significant public health and safety concerns. The Comission's current exemption policy is based on this latter approach.
Among the NRC staff and the Commission, there was, and remains, general agreement that any selected dose criterion should be (1) small in tenns of real or calculated risks in comparison to other voluntary and involuntary risks that people routinely accept without spending resources to avert or reduce them; (2) a small fraction of existing acceptable'public dose limits; and (3) comparable to those exposures that people receive from natural background radiation during routine human activities (e.g., the 5 millirem dose that an individual could receive during a round trip, coast-to-coast, aircraft flight).
With regard to the individual dose criterion, consideration was given to values ranging from 0.1 to 20 millirem per year, with the most serious deliberation L
given to values between 1 and 10 millirem per year.
The documents transmitted to you include two which document and resolve the views of staff who strongly L-supported selection of 1 millirem per year as the individual dose criterion value (Record Nos. 124 and 127). Additicnal views of the NRC's Advisory l
i L
l Committee en Reactor Safeguards and Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste are i
also included in the transmitted documents (Record Nos. 105, 155, 40, 54, 126, and201).
t'
.-g.
QUESTION 2.
What are the BRC standards and policies-adopted or recommended by the.V.S. Environmental Protection Agency, International Atomic Energy Agency, the National Council on Radiation Protection, Canada, the United Kingdom. West Germany, France and other nations or organizations that have considered this issue? Please explain any differences between these BRC policies and the one currently under consideration by the NRC.
ANSWER.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has incorporated below regulatory.
concern (BRC) criteria in its draft proposed Environmental Standards for the Management, Storage and Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste and Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Waste, 40 CFR Part 193 and 40 CFR Part 764. The EPA's criteria are focused only on waste disposal
.s and do not address other exemption decisions in which radioactive material can
~~
be released'to the environment or to unlicensed members of the public. With regard'to.seldction of an individual dose value, EPA considered several options
- one which would require regulated disposal of all waste from regulated radioactive material, and others which would allow BRC disposals as limited by individual dose values of 0.1,1, 4, and 15 millirem per year.
After considering the results from cost-effectiveness analyses, risk levels used by other government programs, as well as other factors, EPA has tentatively chosen a maximum individual dose criterion of 4 millirem per year for potential
/
._c em9 >6o rre r
( S.
Question 2 (Continued) exposures to all BRC waste streams combined, calculated for all future time.
EPA would alsu require record-keeping and tracking of waste shipments. EPA has L
not developed any numerical collective dose criterion, but EPA would require that collective dose be considered in the BRC decision and would expect the collective dose to be small.
In addition, the criterion is included only in
[
draft waste disposal standards which EPA has not yet proposed for comment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recently issued Safety Series No. 89, which addresses the subject of exemptions from regulatory control. The principles and criteria contained in this document were the subject of extensive discussions at the NRC-sponsored International Workshop on-Rules for Exemption from Regulatory Control.
From this document, it would appear that the IAEA considers the level of " trivial" individual effective dose equivalent to be in the range of 1 to 10 millirem per year (i.e.,10-100 micro-
~ sieverts per year). To-ensure that individual exposures do not rise above this level-(i~.e., from exposure to multiple exempt practices), the IAEA recommends
~
~
that individual exposures from any single exempt practice not exceed a few millirem per year. The exemption policy now being considered by the Commission reflects many of the principles and concepts expressed in the IAEA document.
However, the NRC's BRC policy does not include the somewhat arbitrary reduction factor adopted by IAEA to account for exposures to multiple exempt practices.
a-
-c Question 2 (Continued).Instead, the Commission policy proposes a series of measures to provide assurance that individuals are not likely to exceed the 100 millirem
.s individual dose limit from exposures to all exempt and licensed practices involving the use of radioactive materials.
s 1
f in its Report No. 91, the National Council on Radiation Protection and 6
Measurementt (NCRP) has recommended a value of 1 millirem per year as a
" negligible" individual risk level. The NCRP has proposed the valee in response to "... the need for a reasonable negligible risk level to avoid excessive control actions and expenditures to reduce individual risks...."
In their view, it is not justified to attempt "... to reduce detriment to 1
levels so low or trivial as to be inappropriate in relation-to reasonable priorities for expenditure of health protection resources." Thus, the NCRP has used a negligible risk argument to achieve an objective similar to the
~~ Commission's; that-is, to avoid inappropriate expenditures'of health protection
~~ "~
NCRP'also reconnends that individual do'ses l'ss than or equal' to 1 resources.
~
e millirem per year be disregarded in asses ~ sing collective doses.
The documented positions of other nations and organizations on this issue are included in the proceedings of an international workshop (Record No.151). The differences between these positions and the provisions of the Commission's exemption policy principally involve the issues previously referred to; that
Question 2 (Continued) is, (1) the bases for risk aversion underlying the dose criteria (e.g.,
De minimis); (2)~the scope of applicability of the positions; and (3) the approach taken to address the potential for multiple exposures from exempt practices. The table below provides a concise comparison of our understanding of the various approaches either under consideration or in place for exempting radioactive materials from comprehensive regulations.
.e
Country or Individual Collective Scope Basis' Oraanization2 Dose (mr/vr)
Dose (o-R/vr)3 MRC_
1 to 10/ practice 1000 General BRC
-EPA' 4 (all waste) small Waste BRC NCRP-1/ practice General De minimis 10 (all sources)
CRCPD 4 to 5/ practice General De minimis HPS 10 to 20/ practice --
General BRC IAEA 1 to 10/ practice 100 General De minimis ICRP 1/ practice 100 General BRC
.U.K.-
0.5/ practice 100 General De minimis 5 (all sources) l Canada 5 (2 wastes) small Waste De minimis Japan 1/ waste type Waste De minimis W st Germany' 1 to 10/ practice Waste and De minimis Recycling iSweden
< 1/ practice small General (De minimis)
Finland'
< 1/ waste Waste De minimis Italy 1/ practice 100 General De minimis 1 to 10/ waste Waste
' Basis for selecting and implementing numerical criteria for exemptions; BRC = risk threshold below which societal resources are better spent on reducing more significant risks; De minimis =
risk to any individual at such low doses is trivial or negligible.
2 NCRP = National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, CRCPD = Conference of Radiation Control Program
' Directors, HPS = Health Physics Society, ICRP = International Commission on Radiological Protection, IAEA = International Atomic Energy Agency.
3Units in Person-Rem / Year
'Also uses variable activity levels for consumer products
h.,. e.
t QUESTION 3.
What analyses or assessments have been accomplished on the type of additional enforcement, monitoring and civil and criminal penalties that would be necessary to ensure full s
' compliance with NRC laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines in the event BRC exemptions are granted in the future?
l m
. ANSWER.
No special analyses or assessments are considered needed at this time because the existing regulatory scheme provides for civil penalties for violation of NRC regulations concerning the disposal of radioactive material and criminal penalties _ if a licensee willfully violates NRC disposal requirements. As stated in the Commission's draft exemption policy.. licensee programs must be defined and implemented to ensure compliance with the constraints, requirements, or. conditions associatec' 91th any specific exemption promulgated through licensing or rulemaking actions.
Regulatory guidance and infonnation notices will ~be provided to affected licensees to ensure they understand the
~
^
~
~-
requirements._ As with other NRC programs, inspections for compliance with BRC provisions will be conducted. Nevertheless, the existing enforcement and penalty mechanisms will be reviewed in conjunction with any proposed rulemaking to implement the BRC policy to ensure that our Enforcement Policy remains adequate to ensure compliance with those NRC regulations.
w i
OVESTION 4.
What correspondence or communications have taken place between NRC and the Electric Power Research Institute.(EPRI), the Nuclear Utilities Management and Resources Council (NUMARC),
the Edison Electric institute (EEI) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding BRC? Please provide any and i
all correspondence or connunications (draft and final)..
ANSWER.
Correspondence and communications between the listed organizations and the NRC staff have taken place on BRC issues. In order to allow an open exchange of information,'an exchange protocol was developed to guide NRC staff interactions with potential petitioners for rulemaking to exempt radioactive waste streams from regulatory control (Record No. 236).
In addition, the NRC staff routinely receives copies of EPRI-technical reports as well as industry papers given at technical symposiums, including those pertaining to potential BRC
~~ waste disposals. Telephone conversations between NUMARC representatives and
~~" ~ ~~ NRC~ staff have als'o~ take~n plhc'e. ~Th'e timing of the industFy's submission of
~
~
its petition, requests to brief NRC staff on the industry's BRC position, and other matters were discussed.
1.
1 EPA representatives attended and participated in the NRC-sponsored International D
Workshop on Rules for Exemptions from Regulatory Control. The EPA also submitted comments on the NRC's advance notice of policy development (issued on L.
.4 '
Question 4 (Continued)
-December 12,1988) and participated in the January 12, 1989 public meeting.
Draft copies of the proposed policy statement and responses to public coment, transmitted to the Comission in SECY-89-184 (Record No.121), were informally sent to EPA staff in the Office of Radiation Programs, and several meetings were held between EPA and NRC representatives in which policy provisions and EPA coments were discussed.
Available records documenting these comunications are included in the list of records provided as Enclosure 3.
Copies of these records are also provided.
ye
) -
.y L
1 QUESTION 5.
Please provide a list of activities already exempt from regulatory control under 10 CFR Part 30.
ANSWER.
A list of existing exemptions has been provided as Record No. 263 in'the enclosed compilation of documents.
l-l-
m~
1 l
l 0Y 1
l
V QUESTION 6.
Please provide a copy of the most recent staff draft of the exemptions from regulatory control policy.
ANSWER.
The most recent draft of the Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control appears as Enclosure 2 to SECY-89-360 (Record No. 119). This draft i
has been supplemented by information contained in three memoranda to the Comission (Record.Nos.17, 238, and 253).
i 4
E'
__-2._
t; '-
L..
QUESTION 7.
Please provide copies of all transcripts of' meetings of the Comissioners and copies of all Comissioner notation votes concerning BRC and related issues subsequent to January 1. 1988.
ANSWER.
i The transcripts and other materials were provided in our previous submissions dated March 16 and April 9, 1990.
t
,e e
m'h-e-+
'h p.
t
e~
.s w
I QUESTION 8.
Please provide any and all documents (draft and final), dated 1
subsequent to October 13, 1989, concerning the proactive program for disseminating information on the BRC policy.
l ANSWE_R.
R i
The development of the proactive program to disseminate information on the-exemption policy is in a fonnative stage.
Under a consultant's contract, i
NRC's.0ffice of Governmental and Public Affairs is developing a pamphlet on the exemption policy. A draft outline, included in the enclosed material j
(Record No. 269), was circulated for staff coment on January 4,1990. The statement-of work for preparation of the pamphlet is included as Record No. 270. A copy of the draft pamphlet has already been provided to you in our l
- response dated March 16, 1990; another copy is provided herein as Record No.
l
_s.
~ 281.
~
~
~
~
o 2
J p' <
tg3 N3.
1 i
.04/18/90 oEcceDe ON PEVELOm*ENT Oc EVEMOTTON AOL!CV
- EC DOC.
DOCU*ENT SEiro!AT?ON 1
M 1-11'30/89 MEMO-AOUTE-SLIP 'O RCUNNINGHAM, FCONGEL, JBUCHANAN, RFONNER.
"T A* LOR REQUESTING COMMENTS ON DRAFT COMM PAPER (ATTACHEO:
1 A /20/89 MATT T AYLOR ' S COMMENTS ON DRAFT COMMISSION PAPER IN RESPONSE TO DON COOL 5 11/20/89 REQUEST 11/30/89 RFONNER'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT COMMISSION PAPER IN RESPONSE-TO DCOOL'S REQUEST OF 11/30/89 c
12/05/89 HANDWRITTEN REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON ENCLOSED COMM MEMO AND POTENTIAL INCONSISTENCY (DRAFT 1) (COMMENTS ENCLOSED) 5 12/05/8C NRR STAFF : *.MENTS CN 10/05/89 VERSION OF COMMISSIO MEMO AND GOTENTIAL AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY e
12/07/89 RES COMMENTS ON 12/05/89 VERSION OF COMM MEMO AND POTENTIAL AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY 7
12/07/89 RES COMMENTS ON 12/05/89 VERSION OF POTENTIAL AR INCONSISTENCY S
12/07/89 REVISED COMMIFSION MEMO AND ENCL'OSED POTENTI AL INCONSISTENCY TO REFLECT RES COMMENTS c
12/05/8C RES COMMENTS ON 12/07/89 VERSION OF POTENTIAL AR INCONSISTENCY 12/08/89 REVISED CRArT COMMISEION MEMO ENCLOSING POTENTIAL AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY (DRAFT #2) 11 12/11/_89. EDO MARKUP OF-12/08789-DRAFT COMM' MEMO AN0r E POTENTIAL AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY 12 12/11/89 WHOUSTON'S MARKUP ON 12/08/89. DRAFT COMM PAPER AND POTENTIAL AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY 1
12/11/89 DCOOL'S MARKUP OF 12/08/89 VERSION OF COMM PAPER POTENTIAL AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY
-14 12/14/89 EBECKJORD'S MARKUP OF 12/08/89 VERSION OF POTENTIA AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY 15 12/13/89 REVISED VERSION OF MEMO TO COMMISSION FORWARDIN POTENTIAL AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY L
l
.t V
P c o ~p NO.
2 04/18/C0 CFCOore ON-Of'.JPMFNT OF EYEMATION POLICV AEC DOE'"ENT D e c,,;,P l !,D "
NO.
"ME lb
- 14/89 MEMO FOR CC'Mir'.. '!NEPS REGARDING COMMISSION FOLICY STATEMENT ON EAEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL W/ ENCL (POTENTIAL AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY) 17 11/20/89 NOTE TO D.
COOL PEGARDING CONCERNS WITH SUBMISSION TO COMMISSION -
THE DROPOSED POLICY INCONSISTENCIES IN EXEMPTION 18 10/07/89 OFFICE COMMENTS ON 12/05/89 VERSION OF DR FORWARDING POTENTIAL AREAS OF INCONSISTENCY 19 Cc/03/86 AGENDA FOR INTEROFFICE MEETING TO DEVELOP STAFF CONSENSUS ON BROAD-BASED BRC POLICY STATEMENT 20 12.??/e9 MEMC-DOUTE-SLIP TO OCOOL RE RIS OF 50-MILE DOSE CAOM ACCIDENTAL RELEASE OF RADIONUCL!CES SY INTERNAL INITIATED EVENTS N NUREG-1150 PLANTS
- 1 Oe/09/88 DRAFT PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICY ON RULES FOR EXE FROM REGULATORY CONTROL-CRITERIA FOR APPROVING EXEMPTION...BRC 22 06/10/88 '2ND DRAFT PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICY ON RU EXEMATION FROM REGULATORY EXEMPTIONS...BRC CCNTROL-CRITERI A COR APPROVING C6. ;o/95 NOTE TO BILL LAHS REGARDING PRINCIPAL JUST:r! CATION 24 06/ :1/88 3RD DRAFT PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICY ON AULSE FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY EXEMPTIONS...BRC CONTROL-CRI TERI A FOR APPROVING
-1 25 06/ 23/88. DRAFT 21
-POLICY-STATEMENT '
^
26 06/24/88 DRAFT 2 - POLICY STATEMENT 27 06/23/88 DRAFT STATEMENT OF POLICY MARKED UP 28 06/27/88 DRAFT PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICYON REGULATCRY CONTROL EXEMPTIONS FOR PRACTICES WHOSE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS ARE BRC 29 06/ !/88 ENCLOSURE 3 - OPTIONS PERTINENT POLICY AND DISCUSSION OF THE UNCERTAINTIESTO P BASE REGARDING RADIATION IN THE DATA RISK 30 06/15/88 DRAFT COMMISSION PAPER FOR PROPOSED COMM POL!CY STATEMENT ON REG CONTROL EXEMPTIONS
s s.
-Page No.
2 04/15/ CO cre ene my apoeimewgqv.r e rygmottcy cOLtcv
- EC DDC.
D? ?' ~FN'
?EEC !**'OY igL OcTE 21 07/05/88 DRACT IV COLICY STATEMENT
- EXEMPTION OF RADIOACTIVE MATE:!ALS FACM CEGULATORY CONTFOL 22 07/05/88 MEMD FOR MULTIPLE PE SEVISION OF DRAFT CONCERN" oOLICY "BELOW REGULATORY 33 08/24/08 DRAFT ENCLOSURE 2 - PROPOSED COMM POLICY ON EXEMPTIONS FROM PEGULATORY CONTROL FOR PRACTICES WHOSE PUBLI HEALTH AND SAFETY !McACTS ARE ERC 34 08/24/88 NMSS SRC COL CN
!S 09/15/89 REWRITE OF TAIVIAL IND VIDUAL RISV PORTION OF FOL:Cr STATEMENT 36 05/08/88 MEMO COOM SECKJCFD TO STELLO RE COMM PAPER AND PROPOSED AOLICY S' ATE ~ENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY (BELCW AEGULA'ORY CONCERN)
CONTROL 27 09/08/88 MEMO FFOM B.
MORRIS TO R.
FRALEY 1RANSMITTING DOCUMENTATION FOR ACNW REVIEW Oe
-09/1!/88 ACNW PRESENTATION AND NOTES 29 09/15/88 1) POTENTIAL METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 2) LIM COLLECTIVE DOSE COUPLED W/ INDIVIDUAL DOSE THDESHOLD !)
NEED FO: ASSESSING IMPACT OF POLICY sco 09/15/88 ACRS MEMO TO CHAIRMAN :ECH. SUSJ.:PROPOSED POLICY
. STATEMENT ON EELOW REGULATORY CONCERN 41 09/16/88 SCHEDULING, NOTES.FOR
- DEVELOP ~ A - BELOW REGULATORY CONCERNBRIEFING ON-STATUS
_r POLICY 42 09/16/88 COMM BRIEFING ON GENERIC BRC (TOM TIPTON, NUMARC, DRAFT SPEECH)
- 43 09/08/88 MEMO FROM HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY TO COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE SYSTEM OF DOSE LIMITATION IN REGULATING RADIATION EXPOSURES 44 09/16/88 COPY OF SLIDES USED AT THE SEPT. 16, 1988 STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION ON PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTION OF PRACTICES WHICH ARE BRC 45 09/23/88 FAX TO W, LAHS COMMENTING ON INTERNATIONAL BRC WORKSHOP
'Suomittee witn Maren 16; 1990, letter.
h.
C -- -.
1
.~...
i i
' igd Nc.
O 04/19/90 g
ee~~e e n
- ei,ei mewe n.-
me evructeme actecv EC DOC.
S S E L'* r " ' ' F E ~ f :' ' S'i NO.
Sate ce oce29/EB NRC/NEA WORKSHOP CN RULES FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY CCNTROL WITm ENCLE lt:-ccELIM AGENDA FOR NRC/NEA WORKSHOP t TENTATIVE LIST OF NRC ATTENDEEE s47 09/09/98 SRM ERIEe!NG CN STATUS OF EFFORTS TO DEVELOP A BRC POLI:Y e48 09/30/80 SRM SUEJECT:
SECY-98-257 WITH ENCLOSURE 49 10/13/08 PCEEENTATION FOR ERC WORKSHOP W/ ENCL
!O-11/09/08 MEMO COR EILL MORRIS REGARDING ERC PETITION COORDINATION WIT-ENCL-ROPOSEO COMPAEEEED SCHEDULE 51 11/20/95 NCTE ::: v5TELLO PORWARDING 11/09/E9 MEMOS FROM EEECrJOAD *O VETELLC AND ENCLO5URES (1-COMM PAPER ON DEVEL ="ENT OF ERC POLICY AND
-FRN ON PS & MTG) 52 12/10/88 PRESE RELEASE =0E-174 ANNOUNCING PUBLIC MEETING O EXEMPTING CERTAIN PRACTICES FROM REGULATORY CONTROL 52 12/12/88 FRN CN POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REG CONTAOL (5;FPN49006) 354 12/20/09 ACRS MEMO TO CHAIRMAN ZECH. SUBJ.: ADVANCE NOTI COMM COLICY ON EXEMATIONS FROM AEGULATORY CONTROL PRACTICE 5 WHOSE... IMPACTS ARE ERC 55 01/12/99 AGENDA POR UELIC MEET!NG ON POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL SCHEDULED FOR 01/12/99
~ ~
~
~
5e 01/1'2/89 HANDWRITTEN NOTES FOR PUBLIC MEETING ON POLICY ST ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL 07 01/12/89 STATEMENT ON THE NRC'S PROPOSED POLICY FOR EXEMPT FROM REGULATORY CONTROL PRESENTED BY RICHARD J.
- GUIMOND, EPA Os 12/29/98 DRAFT SPEECH BY B.
LAHS FOR PUBLIC MEETING ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL 29 10/27/88 MEMO FOR WPARLER, HTHOMPSON, AND TMURLEY REGARDING PUBLIC MTG ON POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR EXEMPTIONS FRO REGULATORY CONTROL W/ ENCL-FRN 60 01/04/89 MEMO FOR EBECKJORD RE PUBLIC MEETING ON POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY COWTROL
'Submittea with March 16, 1990 letter.
4 cg3 N3.
3
^4/1E/90 CECCDD* PN TEVELCC"FNT CF E*E*DTTON COLIOv
- EC ODC.
S O C'J"# N T TEET*?"**CN
- C.
Sa*~
- 1
'1/15/89 AGENDA F5 NSC/E:A MEETING-JANUAAY 25. 19EC EUBJECis DISCUSSION CF EA COMMENTS ON AGCFOSED POLI:Y ON EXE*P'!NS ::C" "EGUL ATCRY CONTROL i
02/15/09 MEMO TO ETELLO-EEE PLANS FOR DEVELOPING P POLICY AND FCR CEEPONDING TO EPA'S LTR iCTO O2/02/99 ATTACHED :ECCRD ee) W/ENCLS.
=2 02/02/89 LETTER AND OETAILED COMMENTS ATT' D ON POLICY STATEMENT FOR EXEMP': ON FCOM REGULATORY CCNTROL
- 4 02/14/B0 "EMO TO E"Occ ! E PE COM"ENTS ON INTERIM AOL!CY STATEMENT ON AEE! DUAL A ADICAC'!VE CONTAMINATION LIMITE rOR OECOM"!ESN!NG t0 ETA: LED COMMENTE ENCL)
- t 0;/02/99 NRC-NUMARC PEE f 1 NG M I NUTdE W/ ENCLOEL'FE tRECORD e9)
- =
02/r /89 NRC-NUMA7: *EETING ON CONTENTS OF BRC cETITION 27 02/14/80 COPIES OF ELIOEE ON THE BELOW REGULATORY CO DEVELOPMENT PCESENTED BY RES AT EES CONFERENCE es 01/15/09 ORIGINAL ELIOES/ NOTES FOR PUBLIC MEETING ON E GOLICY 29 04/09/89 PROPOSED COMM POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTION FR PEGULATCcv CONTPOL W/SUMMAAY CF SIGN!rICANT CUNNINGHAM/SJOBLCM COMMENTS ATTACHED 04/04/89 HANDWRITTEN NOTES IN PREPARATION FOR ACNW M 26-29, 1999
- 1 04/8/89~ TENTAT IVE-SCHEDULE ' AND. QUTLINE -FOR APRIL 26-28
~
1999 ACNW MEETING 1
72 04/09/89 COPY OF SLIDES USED AT ACNW MEETING ON PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL APRIL 29. 1999)
(HELD ON 37:
05/03/09 LETTER TO CHAIRMAN ZECH REGARDING PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICY ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL 7a 05/14/89 MEMO FOR MURLEY/BERNERO/DENTON/PARLER REQUESTING COMMENTS ON COMM PAPER - PROPOSED COMM POLICY STA ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL TS 05/03/89 MEMO TO E5BECKJORD RE NMSS CONCURRENCE ON PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL LSamitea witn Maren 16, 1990, letter.
4 D093 NA.
O Q4/15/ 0 0
err ene en e>>Fieewget ce gvguertoy cottrv CE 000.
S S E'_~ r "'
- E E T : ! c -
- N "n
- r 76
/06/E9 MEMO 'O MUL' CEGA: DING NUMARC-NRC MEETING MINUTES 7
PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATOR CONTROL 7e 07/19/E9 SRM ERIEFING ON FCLICY STATEMENT ON RULES CCR EXEMAT!ON F:OM AE3RLATORY CONTROL. 07/11/95 so 09/05/96 NOTE TO COMMISE! N LICENSEEE FORWARDING POLICY STAT ON RAD::AC * :.'E WASTE EELOW AEGULATORY CONCE:N El CE/09/Se RAN 4DICACTlVP. eAETE EELOW REGULATORY CONCERN:
AOLI i ETATEMENT
!! se:N :LE 9) 1 6:
1 / 1/E7 MEMO FO; GILLEEc:E. KNAPA. CUNNINGHAM, CONGEL. SUBJ.: DE MINIMIS. ERC. AND RESIDUAL RADICACTIV!TV RELEASE STANDARDS-FEPORT/ PT!ONS PAPER W/2 ENCLS e3 11/04/97 MEMO FOR VSTELLO r CM A.
BATES RE SECY-97-196 A-DI ST A!BUTION OF R ADIOACTIVE GEMS IRRADIATED IN REACTORS TO UNLICENSED PERSONS (ENCL 1 TO RECORD 8 54 11.05/57 COMMISSION REGUE5'ED REPORT /CPTIONS FAAE -CE M!N! MIS, ERC. RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION LIMITS, & DOSE LIMITATION FRAMEWORK CONCEPTS,..(ENCL TO RECCRD EC)
-95 01/01/89 MEMD FOR MURLEY/ THOMPSON /PARLER REQUESTING OFFICE CONCURRENCE ON STATUS REPORT / OPTIONS PAPER ON REGULAT
'USE OF BRC AND DE'MINIMIS CONCEPTS-W/ ENCL'
~
86 03/01/88 COPY OF SLIDES FOR EDO BRIEFING ON MARCH 1.
1999-SUBJ REGULATORY CUTOFFS-APPLICATION OF BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN AND DE MINIMIS CONCEPTS 4
87-03/14/98 COPY OF SLIDES FOR COMMISSION BRIEFING - MAR.
14, 1989-REGULATORY CUTOFFS - APPLICATION OF BRC AND DE MINIMIS CONCEPTS -- STATUS REPORT es 0;/09/88 MEMO FOR H.
THOMPSON FROM R.
CUNNINGHAM,
SUBJECT:
INTERNATIONAL GUIDANCE ON THE DE MINIMIS ISSUE W/ ENCL.
09 03/01/99 DRAFT EXEMPTION OF RADIATION SOURCES AND PRACTICES FROM REGULATORY CONTROL IAEA/NEA EXPERT GROUP - MARCH 01-25, 1989 (ENCLCSURE TO RECCRD E9)
- Suomittea,,itn March 16, 1990, letter.
c.
7 P og Nc.
04,le,.O cFCO*DS TN ! EVE L C o"'E N T Te EVE *cT?ON AOL!CV L-REC l00.
DOCU 'E' ' :-EEO:1p*?ON NO.
2/TE e
eso
,0 / 20/ 95 NRC / NEl-WORKSHOC ENCLCEE:
ON DE MINIMIS WITH MARKED UP AGENDA l'
91 02/!O/S5 SRM -
{_
SRIEFING ON THE ETATUS CF EFFORTS TO DEVELO MINIMIS COLICY.-MAACH 14, 1960 I'
90 04/29/88 MEMO FOR COMM EERNTHAL SUBJ.: BASES FOR DE MINIMIS POLICY OEVELOPMENT BY OTHER AGENCIES t
93 05/04/00 PRESENTATION SCHEDULE - ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WAST MANAGEME'n TOPIC:
E MINIMIS AND SELOW REGULATORY CONCERN
.94 05/0a/S5 ACNW CN "E MINIM!S AND RELOW REGULATORY CONCERN OS 05/04/E9 COcv ':e EL DES FO7 MAv /.. 1996 ACRS (ACNW) ERIEFING CN CE "!N!.*!5 AND BELOW FEGULATORY CONCERN POLICY OEVE:OP"ENT 96 07/15/97 OVERVICW CF NRC'S RESPONSE TO SECTION10 OF THE LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE POLICf 1995 AMENDMENTS ACT OF 97 04/2C/95 ACRS MEMO TO MOELLER. REMICK, ST'EINDLER. CARTER. PARK FOSTER RE STATUS REPORT FOR MEETING OFTHE ACRS SC ON WASTE MANAGEMENT ON 05/04/98 99 05/03/88 MEMO FOR ACRS MEMBERS RE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS ON TWE DE MINIM!! !SSUE tW/ENCLS) 4 99 05/11/89 MEMO TO V. STELLO REGARDING BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN AN DE MINIMIS CONCEPTS
-.. ~
~~
. ~;
100 05/15/98 UNDATED / UNSIGNED COPY OF MEMO FOR FRALEY REGARD SL'ECOMMITTEE REPORT ON "DE MINIMIS" CONCEPTS "BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN" AND 101 05/05/08 MEMO FOR BERNERO/CONGEL/TREBY REGARDING INTERO MEETING TO DEVELOP STAFF CONSENSUS ON BROAD-BASED BRC POLICY STATEMENT 102 08/03/99 SRM RE SECY-99-199 - PROPOSED RULE. 10CFR20. " DISPOSAL
-CF' WASTE OIL BY INCINERATOR" - RESPONSE TO PRM FRO AND THE UTILITY NUCLEAR WASTE MGMENT GP 103 09/15/B9 COPY OF CONTROL TICKET 8800453 WITH NOTES
'Submittea witn March 16, 1990, letter, s
I-
F:
v DCgo No.
9 04/1S/90 AECCCDS ON DEVELOPMENT CF EXE**TTON POLICY
- EC OCC.
DOCU~ENT DESC: Int!ON NC.
DATE
- 107 08/14/89 RESPONSE SHEET FOR NOTATION VOTE FROM COMMIES INDICATING A DIS APPADVED W/CCMMENT VOTE 105 09/0e/89 BRIEF!NG EHEET FOR COMMISSIONER CURTISS ON DECCM*!SS:ONING ACTIVITIES AND COPY CFSLICES
- 100 10/12/90 SAM SECY-9'-1E4
- AAOPOSED COMMISSION POLICY CTATEMCNT ON EXEMa!!CNS FAOta REGULATORY CONTROL
- 1D 10/24/89 NOTE TO CCOOL REQUESTING INCLLSIDN OF BRIEF OF BASIC CONTENT AND RATIONALE FOR POLICY STATEMENT FORWARDED IN THE COMMIS$!CN PAPER ON BRC 111 11/01/B9 OFFICE REVIEW REQUEST
FINAL POLICY STATEMENT ON
" EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL "
112 11/13/09 MEMO TO E.
SECKJORD RE OFFICE CONCURRENCE:
FINAL POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPT!CN FRCM REGULATORY CONTROL 110 11/17/Be MEMO TO E.
EECKJORD RE POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS F:CM REGULATORY CONTROL 114 11/15/89 UNSIGNED COPY OF A. MEMO FOR JMTAYLOR REGARDING FINAL
~ POLICY STATEMENT ON " EXEMPTIONS FROM' REGULAT 115 12/15/89 NRC ISSUES POLICY STATEMENT ON RADIATION LEVELS BEL REGULATORY CONCERN (UNDATED) i 116 01/04/90 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BETWEEN BILL LAHS.
NRC. AND DAVE AIROZO.
NUCLEONICS WEEK 117 12/11/89 BRC/ EXEMPTION TALKING POINTS 115 01/30/90 LETTER TO CHAIRMAN CARR RE NRC PROGRAM ON LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
- 119 12/01/S9 COMMISSION PACKAGE - SECY-99-360 v5uomittea witn March 16, 1990, letter.
Ocg3 No.
9 04/12/90 RECORDE IN OEVELO:"ENT OF EXEMot:ON POL! Y
- EC 200.
SOCL~EM-TEE :?c-* N NO.
DATE si;;
12/14/90 MEMO *: C:"M!EE!ONEOS CE COMMISSION POLICY ETATEMENT ON EXEMc"!!NE ::OM :E3ULATORY CONTROL (W/ ENCL) 1:1 Ce/16/E9 COMM!EE!CN :ACKAGE - SECY-89-104 (REIEEUED) 10:
07/11/89 COPIEE CF IL::EE F:OM THE STAFF PCEEENTATION TO COMM15EION ON THE PmOPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONE #cOM PEGULATORY CONTROL HELD ON 07/11/89 sir; 09/09/89 COMMISSION ACKAGE - SECY-90-257 10A 09/14/09 MEMO TO V.
ITELLC CE NMSS CONCURRENCE ON THE BRC POLICY ETATEMEN' 12" 02/09/08 COM".5E::N CACLAGE i
EE;Y-EE-ec
- 1:6 03/1!/o0 MEMO TCP u.: <
H-TEE E COMMl!NTS AND/Ch EUCGEETIONS RELATIVE *:
- C; icy STATEMENT ON "EXErpT!QNS FROM REGUuATORY : NTRCL" WITH ENCLOSU84E E j
1 31:7 09/08/08 Basis TOR NCNCONCURRENCE DY NMSS ON PORTION OF SR l
FOulCY STATEMENT.aMICH DISCUSSES THE APPLICATION O MREM PER YEAR DOSF LEVEL Is 07/20/90 MEMO FOR CM0ELLER AND WPARLER RE SRM lN!!IAL BRIEFING BY ACNW. JUNE 29, 1999 1
109 03/15/BB PROJECT APACAISAL - ARTICLE BY MILLER SPANGLER RE SAFETY-REGULATICN - ;E MINIM!S AISK CONCEPTE :N UENAC - USES IN WASTE "GME!.T & UR M NES & MILLS
- 30 12/15/97 ARTICLE BY " ILLER SPANGLER IN. PROJECT APPRAISAL SAFETY
_ REGULATION
- DE MINIMIS -RISK CONCEPTS IN'USNRC:
AL' ARA 4
1:1 12/15/87 ARTICLE BY MSPANGLER ON THE NEED FOR DE MINIMIS RISK STANDARDS
!N REGULATORY DECISIONMAKING:
AN INDIVIDUAL OR A SOCIETAL RISK CONCEPT I
i 10:
11/29/88 MEMO FOR STELLO RE ADVANCE NOTICE AND DUBLIC MEETING POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL W/ ENCL 13 09/15/99 MEMO TO MURLEY, THOMPSON, DENTON, PARLER RE OFFICE CONCURRENCE REQUESTt PROPOSED COMM PS ON REGULATORY CONTROL EXEMATIONS FCR... IMPACTS...BRC W/ENCLS l
l 134 09/22/89 NOTE FOR JIM TAYLOR. EDO, FORWARDING " INDUSTRY ALERT ON "BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN" WASTE W/ ENCL (RECORD 12 4eomittea witn March 16, 1990, letter.
"hbmitted with April 9,1990, letter.
!t Pcgg 40, 10 04/;Ec:S AECO*DE ON SE'S _.L c"EN T OF "rEMATION DOL!CV CEC D O C'_"* E N T DESC*!:'!ON NO.
- .?E
- 5
/99 ENCL TO RECORD 1:4 INDUETRY ALERT CN "EELOW PEGULATCRv CONCE:N" WASTE 126
- 5/0e/89 MEMO FCR E.
S.
EECLJORD RE RULEMAKING ON REEIDUAL RADIOACTIVITY GELEASE CF NUCLEAR FACILITIES FOR UNREETRICTED USE 3137
- .7/05/89 LTR TO CHAIRMAN TO EXEMATIONS F4CM REGULATORYECH RE CRCPD' CONTROL W/ROSITION ATTACHED 12G 05/17/98 MEMO FOR FCONGEL AND RCUNNINGHAM RE RESPONSE MARCH 20. 1999 (ENCLOSED WITH MARKS) (SEE E
- ORD 91)
- 9
,' ' '11/89 *RANEC:ICT CF Ec:ErING ON POLICY ETATEMENT ON RULES FOR E T E'90' ? ON CROM SEGULATORv CONTROL 140 Ot/15/97 NOTE TO ECE ALEAANDEC FORWARDING REPORT BY OR
-MARK TO ACPE MEMEERS ON VARIABILITY DE NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION 141 06/15/97 REPORT TO ACriS MEMBER 3 Sv ' CARSON MARK" VARIABILITY (#
NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION" 14
- ../01/e9 MEMC POUTE SLIF FROM GUE GAGNER/GPA-CA, TO EILL L/4Hb, RES. ENCLOCING DRAFT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT ON CC_I"Y STATEMENT CN F.ADIATION LEVELE BRC 14; O'.'09/89 ERC VG BACKUP - ccCPOSED EXE*cTION COL:Y c': A JUSTIFIED PRACTICE 144 05/09/86 PHESS RELEASE - POLICY. STATEMENT ON RADIOACTIVE WAS
~
EELOW REGULATORY CONCERN
~
~
~ ~'
145 02/10/89 MEMO FOR REGIS BOYLE RE EPRI-NRC MEETING MINUTES W/ MINUTES ATTACHED
- 146 01/30/90 LETTER TO CHAIRMAN CARR REGARDING' COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL 147 01/27/89 MEMD FOR REGIS BOYLE RE EXTENSION OF SNLATECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONTRACT FOR BRC WORK 140 07/01/B8 MEMO FOR DON COOL RE FACILITY W/ ENCLOSURES RELEASE CRITERIA 149 05/05/88 ENCLOSURE TO RECORD 148 -- REPORT OF MEETING OF THE AC SC ON WASTE MANAGEMENT - MAY 4,
1989
- Suomitteo itn March 16, 1990, letter.
ww v.
o
.. ~.. - -.
+
Ngg No.
11 04/18/*O
__EC::DE :N CEVELOPMENT Cr EXEMDTION AOLICY c
DEC 000.
DO ' '"F NT "EETc!c*i'N LA.'.E.
!!O c /12/eo T:ANSCRICT OF PUBLIC MEETING ON THE POLICY STATEMCNT EXEMSTCN ccOM AECLLAT :- CONTROL igi 10/17/e9 NUPEG/CP-0101 - AROCEEDINGS OF THE WORK i:
Er.EMATI ON FROM REGL'L ATCPV CONTROL 150 03/15/90 ERIEF NOTES ON MEETING w'lTH MOELLER ON 03/05 15:
03/05.'00 TAANSCRIPT OF MEETING WITH MOELLER. ACRS. ET AL 154 0 /05/97 ME*O TO ETELLD/PARLER cE s AcF REQUIREMENTE -
AFCIRMA* ION /0!ECUSE!ON AND VOTE - 01/2c/E7 1SE 11/10/E7 ACFE E~TER TO CHAIRMAN :ECH RE ACRS COMMENTS ON t
des E..CP *E N T CF AADI ATI;t' ACOTECT ON ETANDArDE
- 156 OL CO/SS MEf*C FOR E*ELLO Ff. '! T M c s;;TUE OF E;rOR TS TO LE','ELOPACOUIRE!'*LNTE - BRIEFING ON THE A DE MINIMIE COLICY 02 c 14 /1i35 (02/30/89 MEMO R CHILK GTT'C) i 157 05/Ge/EE ME"O TO MOELLZR RE DECIE:ONt%K7f4G FOR BELOW CONCERTI FEGULATORY 150 C6/;7/09 f".EMC T3 F,
rRALEY AE Ar,gg g; ;EPORT ON "EELOW REGULATOF,y
?
CONCERN" AND "DE MINIMIS" CONCEPTS 1$9 10/00/67 LETTER TO R.
ALEXANDER REGARDING "BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN" AND "DE MINIMIS"
_160 06/2c/BB LETTER TO BYRON LEE. NUMARC RE BRC t
^ ~ ~ ' '161 10/20/08 ARTICLE ENTITLED-COMMENTS ON' VAR 10US VIEWS ON T CONCE"T'OF~DE MINfMIS '
[
162 05/19/08 ACRS U MO TO D.
W.
MOELLER RE ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM tWETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WASTE MANAGEMENT, MAY 4,
1988 W/ ENCL 163 05/17/80 MEMO FOR OWEN MERRILL RE CCRRECTION TO STATEME MAY 4 1988. ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING (ENCLOSURE TO RECORD 162) 164 09/23/88 NOTATION VOTE ON SECY-98-257 ATTACHED)
(APPROVED WITH COMMENT s165 06/23/89 LETTER TO LOCAL HEALTH OFFICERS FROM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA RE BRC
% bmitted with March 16. 1990, letter.
Tl l
3 Fo99 Nb.
12 04/1&/90 AE;CRDS ON DEVELOPMENT OF EXEMPTION AOLICY REC OCC.
DOCU"ENT DESC2IATION NO.
DATE i
lee CO/1C/99 DRAFT MEMO TO V.
PRCPOEED EXEMPTION POLICY STATEMENTSTELLO AND FOR RESPONDING TO E:A E LETTED TO CHILV/SECAJORD W/ NOTES 167 05/01/89 MEMO FOR E. SECKJORD RE PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY CONTROL les 04/19/89 MEMO FOR CFFICE DIRECTORS REQUESTING CCMMENTS/ CONCURRENCE ON PROPOSED COMMISSION POL STATEMENT ON EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY CONTROL 169 05/04/89 MEMO TO E. EECKJORD PE GPA CONCURRENCE ON PROPOSED COM"!ES!ON POLICY CONTACL STATEMENT ON EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY 170 04/25/G9 MEMO 'O E.
EECKJORD RE GPA'S COMMENTS ON PROPOSED COM"ISSION POLICY CONTAOL STATEMENT ON EXEMPTION CROM REGULATORY 171 0 4 <.'2S / 89 MEMO F C9 E. SECKJORD COMMENYING ON PROPOSED COMMISSION PDLICY OTA*EMENT ON EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY CONTROL g
(W/COMMENTE ATTACHE 0)
- 170 C9/16/88 NOTATION VOTE CN SECy-89-OS7 (APPROVED W/COMMENTE ATTACHEC) vi?C 09/27/e8 NOTAi!ON VOTE FOR SECY-88-257 (APPROVED W/ COMMENTS)
- 174 09/16/88 NOTATION VOTE FOR SECY-88-257 ATTACnED)
(APPROVED W/ COMMENTS 175 09/19/88 DRAFT MEMO FOR COMMISSIONERS RE COLLECTI' E DOS
~
V
, -AND ; PERCEIVED ' IMPACT.ON PROPOSED COMMISSION EXEMPTION.-
POLICY
-176 07/22/88 OECD CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE EXEMPTION OF RADIATION SOURCES AND PRACTICES FROM REGULATORY CONTROL 177 12/16/88 LTR TO BMORRIS RE WORK GP CHAIRED BY EPA ESTABL PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF RESIDUA RADIOACTIVITY AT DECOMMISSIONED FACILITIES 178 01/25/89 MARKED UP AGENDA FOR NRC/ EPA MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 01/25/09 179 06/07/88 MEMO TO BILL M.
MEMO OF MARCH 20, MORRIS RE RESPONSE TC STAFF REQUIREMENTS 1988 W/ ATTACHMENTS
$$ubmittea witn March 16, 1990, letter.
i Ocg3 No.
13 04/15/ SO AECOADS ON !EVELCOMENT OF EXE**T!ON COL!CV
- EC 000.
DOCU"ENT ?EEC
!*ON NC.
DaTE
- 50 04/09/99 CCMMENT LET'ER ADDRESSED TO WILLIAM R. LAHS 151 01/07/99 NOTE TO C. MATTEEN REQUESTING EXTENSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT RERIOD FOR BRC 182 12/02/98 LETTER TO C.
MATTEEN AND B. LAHS AROM D. D'ARRIGO. D.
RE!CHER.
H.
COLE.
S.
ESKIN.
R.
GILLESPIE REQUESTING 90-DAY EATENS!ON ON COMMENT PERIOD FOR BRC 193 01/OS/E9 LETTER TO EILL LAHS COMMENTING ON ERC POLICY STATEMENT
- S4 01/21/09 LETTER TC E!LL LAHS W/ ATTACHED COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN MINING CON 3 ESS ON T-E ADVANCE NOT CE OF PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT CN EiEMoTICNS 155 01/24/Bc COMMENT LET'.E4 CN ERC W/ PETITIONS ENCLOSED
- se 02/04 /S9 MEMO ROUTS ELIP ADDRESSEC TO BILL LAHS ATTACHING MISDIRECTI CC".FEWT LETTER FROM T.
COCHRAN ON POLICY STATEMEN' 2'N EXEMPTIONG FRDM REGULATORY rONTROL
- a7 02/14 /89. COMMENT LI'TER ADDRESSED TO STAN NEUDER F2 CXMM FROM REGULA'03v CONTROL POLICY STATEMEFi 'ATTACHM?N RECORD 270) les 01/12/89 C.OMMENT LETTE9 ADDRESSED TO CHAIRMAN ZECH CO 159 03/17/69 FUSLIC CCMMENT ADDRESSED TO KITTY DRAGONETTE AND NR EXPRESSING CONCERNS WITH SRC
.-190 02/06/90 COMMENT LETTER TO COMMISSIONER CARR REGARDING BRC CONCERNS
~
191 01/31/89 COMMENT LETTER FROM HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY ON THE N POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY CONTR 192 01/26/89 LETTER TO KITTY DRAGONETTE REGARDING BRC 193 10/16/99 NOTE FOR EILL LAHS FORWARDING COMMENT FROM MS.
SCHRENK ANNA 194 09/25/89 COMMENT LETTER REGARDING BRC (ATTACHED TO RECORD l
195 11/10/89 COMMENT LETTER REGARDING BRC 196 07/15/B8 AGENDA FOR SECOND INTEROFFICE MTG TO DEVELOP BROA POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL FROM REGULATORY CONTROL (W/ MARKS) l l
f Pcg] No.
14 Q4/16/ 0 CECOCDe TN DEVELOn"ENT cr gygMpTION AOLIOV REC OCC.
DOCU"ENT TEEC !:'!ON NO.
CATE ica
.'E/:o/es MEMO FOR V.
STEL.O. JR. RE PROPOSED COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT CN ErEMCTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL 19e Ot:/27/98 NOTE FOR BILL LAHS RE POLICY ON REGULATORY CON EXEMPTIONS 199 03/16/88 MEMO FOR HAROLD OENTON RE MARCH 14 COMMISS ON DE MINIMIS POLICY 000 11/18/08 MEMO FOR D.
W. POELLER RE BACKGROUND ON ERC W/ ENCLOSURES 201 11/17/88 LETTER TO MS.
NE!LE MILLER REGARDING NRC STAFF'S PRELIMINARY VIEWS CN 764 (COMMENTS A7TACHED) EPA'S PROPOSED 40 CFR PAR 202 04/04/89 LETTE: TO OR. AAT FAAAS CONCERNING EPA'S PaOPOSED 40 CFR FARTS 1C2 AND Te ENCLOSURES
[
a W/;
203 10/06/S9 MEMO FOR CCMMISE!ONERS ele PROPOSED EPA STDi AGR P1ANAGEMENT OF LOW-LEVEL RADIDACTIVE & NA?URALLY OCCURRING AND ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED MATER!aLS WAST 00s 10/11/8ci hEMO FOR S.
CHILK LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE & N/ATURALLYRE PROPO OCCURR!NG AND ACCELCRATOR ARO;u ED MATEP: ALE WASTE 0J5
. /
/ e'/ ME.MD TO S. CHILK FE COMSECY E9 RESPONSE TO O EPA'E STCS FOR MANAGEMENT OF LLW AND DISCRETE
- Qe 01/05/9C SRM TO TAYLOR RE COMSECY-89-05 PROPOSED CPA STOS FOR MGMENT OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE & NATURALLY-OCCUR AND ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED-MATLS WASTE W/ ENC LETTER TO JAMES B. MACRAE, OMB, 07 01/05/90 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STANDARDS FORW/ ENCL REGAR TAILINGS SITES INACTIVE URANIUM 208 02/15/89 MEETING NOTICE ON BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN SCHED O2/23/89 209 06/13/89 MEETING NOTICE ON BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN SCHE 06/26/89 210 07/07/89 LETTER TO MS. LYNN FAIROBENT IN RESPONSE TO NUM CONCERNS ADDRESSED AT 06/26/89 AND NUMARC MEETING BETWEEN NRC STAFF
F
'Pcc3 Nc.
IS 04/15/CO PECCCDS CN DEVELCD"ENT OF EXEMD'!CN POLICY REC DO;.
DSFJ~ m '
- SEEtc?cON NO.
Da*E 011 10/04/09 MCMD ~O MULTIPLE ADDRESSEES REGARDING NUMARC BR ERC WASTE CISPOSAL PETITION 21 10/15/89 NUREG-1251--STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR APETITION FOR RULEMAKING ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE STREAMS SELOW CONCERN 01; 01/18/89 LETTER FROM BNL TO BILL LAHS REGARDING ANPR
- 214 06/10/07 MEMO TO TMURLEY RE PROPOSED ISSUE FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT REGARDING AN "!NTEGRATED DE MINIM!S RISK POLICY" 3215 10/12/E7 PAAER c R NRC SEMINAR PmOGRAM,
SUBJECT:
"TOWARD AN INTE2 RATED DE MINIMIS RIst PCL!CY"
=> 13.02/14/EE NOTE *O COMM. CARR FROM M.
FEDERLINE RE 03/14/9G COMMISS!!N C41Ee NS LEVEL OF 91SK EELOW WHICH I
GOVE#.NMENT REGULATION IS UNWA7RMTED
'l s217 04 / 'E/E9 PAPER BY R.
C.
ALEXANDER
SUBJECT:
THE LINEAR NON1HRESHOLD FW5m eEdIS 3215 07/25 /B0 MEMO TO iTSLLO RE MATTERS OF COMMCN AND EPA IN THE REG QF RADICLQG!dAL INTEREST BETWEEN NRC HAIARDS 07/10/96 W/TRANS s21e 08/25/E0 MEMO TO J LARKINS, 9
M LOPE 2-DTIN. J SCARBOROUGH RE BRC BRIEFING s220 09/09/BB NOTE RE
SUMMARY
OF DISCUSSIONS WITH JOHN DUNSTER ON BRC
- 221
.7
^
09/13/,08 MEMO TO HAROLD DENTON RE COLLECTIVE DOSE CRITER!ON FOR
- THE BRC POLICY STATEMENT
- 222 09/14/88 BRIEFING PACKAGE FOR COMM CARR BY BOB ALEXANDE LAURISTON S.
TAYLOR SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 (W/ ATTACHMENTS)
- 223 09/29/80 TRANSCRIPT OF 09/16/88 COMM MEETING
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRIEFING ON STATUS OF EFFORTS TO A BRC POLICY
- 224 10/19/99 MEMO TO COMMISSIONERS' ASSISTANTS:
VARIABILITY OF NATURAL BACKGROUND (REPORT BY DR. J.
CARSON MARK ATTACHED)
{
- 225 07/01/89 PAPER FROM DON'T WASTE NEW YORK TO CITIZENS CONC WITH RADIOACTIVE WASTE RE RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAG CSubmittee with Maren 16,,-1990, letter
" Submitted with April 9,1990, letter.
- P/r0 N3.
10 04/19/;0.
cECC:BS CN'LEVELOPMENT Cr EiE**ttON DOLICY REC DOC.
007 t'"N SEEE*?"'?ON
_No.
DATE vr2:3 07.'07/E9 "EMC ~ ~; CHA1: MAN CARR
?. ASE;ETANTS FROM M.t WEVER RE ETar ERIEF:NG ON PROPOEED POLICYSTATEMENT ON ExEnc':CNE
- CM AEGULATCRY CONTAOL m227 07/19/e9 DRAFT CF INTERNAL MEMO CONCERNING NRC POLICY ON 5:C
- 228 08/04/09 MEMO rcOM C.
ADER/ MARIA LOPEZ-0 TIN TO COMMISSIONE ASE!ETANTS SUEJECT ERC POLICY 8229 08/07/89 MEMO TO ~OMM ESIONER' S ASSISTANTS RE REVISED POS BRC i? Fart ACSITICN ATTACHED) 220 08/10/e9 EACKC:~uNO rO; CHAIRMAN CARR CN SECY-99-194, MIKE.'EEE:
PREPARED BY v22J c6/1 39 hEMO TO MIKE WEEER REGARDING RATIO NUMEER
- 2:2 OE/11/09 JUST!FICATIDN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS LIMITE tECCY-99-1041 8222 21/13/E9 LET*ER TO COFM AFTER EXEMPTIO!'ROGERE RE LIMITAT*!ON OF ATTACHMENT
'OLICY MAS CEEN PUT TOTAL EXPOSURE IN PLACE W/DRAF'T 42 4 12/15/99
SUMMARY
- 2:5 12/19/89 NOTEE 7:CM SEC SRIEFING - JUETIFICATION, LIMIT 5 ALARA, DOSE 09/21/87 ~ EXCHANGE ON BRCLETTER TO PATRICIA J. ROBINSON, EPRI,
- ~ P,6
- 237 01/19/90 NOTE TO JOE FOUCHARD TRANSMITTING TALK THAT CHAIRMAN PROVIDED TO STAN SCHNEIDER 3229 01/20/90 MEMO TO COMMISSIONERS REGARDING PRELIMINA BEIR v REPORT
- 229 02/07/90 MEMO TO COMMISSIONERS RE OMB CLEARANCE FOR STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CO 8240 02/12/90 LETTER TO TERRY LASH, STATE OF ILL., FROM CHIARMAN CA REPLYING TO MR. LAEH'S LTRS OF 12/11/89 AND 02 CONCERNING BRC CSuomittea witn Maren 16, 1990, letter
-** Submitted with April 9.1990, letter.
gi,Pcg] N 3. '
- 17 g
~04/1S/00 nEricSE TN DEVELO9"ENT Or EVE *DT?CN COLICV i
REC DCC.
DOCU"FN' TE*C"T* TION
-Q DATE N
3241 02/20/90 REMARKS EY CHAIRMAN KENNETH M.
fkE LOCAL lHAATERE OF THE wPS AND THE AMS 3242 09/22/00 LETTER TO CHAIRMAN ZECH FPOM NUMARC THANKING NRC FOR OPoORTUNITY TO ERIEF THEM ON 09/16/88 324 07/19/89 DRAFT NRC FOLICY STATEMENT ON BELOW REGUL 3244 11/20/09 EPRI RPT
SUMMARY
NP-5673 RE BRC OWNERS GROUPt COMoARISON OF THE EPA GENERIC COST-EENEF A
w/ INDUSTRY-EFECIFIC ANALYSIS 3245 02/05/90 AGENDA FCA 02/05/
AND ROGEFE TO EFAI CFFICESC0 VISIT OF NRC COM IN PALO ALTO. CALIFORNIA 3246 09/12/90 CCRREC'!CN NOTICE TO HCLDERF OFCECY-SE-257 -
PECLACENEN? CF PAGE 9 8247 08/15/69 CCNMIce ~ c=
R Wi n: hbt$[.lfe NOTAT!ON VOTE SHEET - SECy-g9 3g4 t245 04fic/09 SECY--99-194 - AROPOSED COMPISSION COLICY EXE9710NF FROM REGJ., ATOP'/ CCNTROL STA7EMENT ON 3249 09/22/89 COMMt'dE!ONEM RGacMT3-NOTATICN uCTE SHEET - DECY-G9-194 W!TH COMMENTS
- . 30 09/2?/69 CCMMISSIONER CURT!SS' w/CCMMENTS NOTATION VOTE SHEET - SECY-99-104 3251 THIS ITEM DUPLICATED ITEM 237.
3252 02/16/90 NOTE _TO W.
-FOR 2/20/90 JOINT MTG OF ' LOCAL C
~ ~
3253 01/30/90 MEMO TO COMMISSION
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION IN REGARD TO SECY-89-260 REQUEST 254 10/26/09 MEMO TO JAMES TAYLOR FROM J.FOUCHARD REGARDING BRC POLICY 235 11/14/89 REQUIRE AGREEMENT STATES TO AD BRC FOLICY STATEMENT IDENTICAL TO (W/ENCLS) as256 12/14/69 MEMO TO HAROLD DENTON FROM J.TAYLOR RE QUESTIONS ON COMMISSION POLICY ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGU C5uomtttee wit.h March 16, 1990, letter.
" Submitted with April 9,1990, letter.
m e.eese.=.
i o i k.a '
Paso NO.
AS C4/19/90
DOCL' PENT PEECAf* TION No.
ATE i
- 57 01/04/90 MEMO - CECUEET FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIC RE SECY-99-060
!E 06/12/09 MEMO TO COMM!EE!ON RE DRAFT MINIM: S DCEE RATEE CANADIAN REPCRT ON CE 229 05/:5/EE NRC ccEEE AELEASE E-5-99 05/05/09 REMARKS BY HAROLD R.
DENTON.
60 0E/29/E8 FEDERAL REGIETER NOTICE DATED AUGUST 09 1999, VOL. 53 NO. 107 (;;#14/22919) 261 12/01/89 SECY-eo-Oe0. "
MM EE!ON POLICV ETATEMENT CN EXEMPTIONE FROM REGULATOFv CONTROL" te:
10/20/98 (LET 5 )--!NTECNATIONAL SYMoOSIUM CN DELON FEGUL NCECN - GENERAL CEEERVAT:CNE 21; cl/15/CO L ET!NG CF ErEMa'!ONS FROM REGULAT!ON
- 64 09/it/GB WORKSHOP CN RULEk FOR CXEMPTION FROM WELCOMING REMARr.S EY VICTOR STELLO. JR.
Ist 09/15/88 WORKSHOA ON RULEE FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY C OVERVIEW OF MAJOR CEGULATCRY EXEMPTION ACTIVIT!ES UNDERWAY AT NRC - E.
BECKJORD 06e 09/15/99 WORKSHOP DN RULEE FOR EXEMATION FACM PEGU_ATCRY OPENING REMARKE EY THE WORKSHOP CHAIRMAN, T.
P.
SPEIS CONTROL 47
-A PROPOSED SROAD POLICY STATEMENT BY THE NR CONTROL
~~
MORRIS AND EILL LAHS
~
~
~268 07/25'/89 LETTER TO V.
.., l T-
-~
REGULATORY CONCERNSTELLO RE INDUSTRY ACTIONS ON 269 01/04/90 NOTE TO MULTIPLE ENCLOSING COPY OF OUTLINE FO ON BRO POLICY 270 01/04/90 STATEMENT OF WORK - NRC PAMPHLET ON EXEMPTIONS REGULATORY CONTROL
- 71 12/02/Be FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - 53FR43367 - RADIOA BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN (GENERIC RULEMAKING) 272 04/28/86 MEMO FOR ALEXANDER, BRENNEMAN, COSTANZI, AND CUNNINGHA REGARDING TECHNICAL CAPABILITY FOR RADIOACTIVE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN f5uomittea u tn Maren 16, 1990, letter
So e
PCg3 NJ.
49 04/12/QO SECCPDS ON DEYELC# MENT OF EXEMPTION POLICY
~
REC DCC.
DCCL*ENT rrftstat?SN i
Wi 27; 0 c09/86 MEMO TO J.
3.
DAVIS FROM R.
EROWNING AND"R CUNNINGHAM
^
i REGARDING RADICACTIVE WASTE EELOW REGULATORY g
i
- Tc 04/11/96 MEMO FOR ROBERT EROWNING REGARDING POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING DIS *0 SAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE BRC COPY CF PAPER ATTACHED) 075 02/15/86 MEMO FROM K. DRAGONETTE AND D. GOODE TO MULT!PLE ADDREEEEEE REGARDING IDENTIFICATION OF NRC LLW BRC W/ENCLE
+
l 076 04/15/86 UNSIGNED MEMO TO R.
BROWNING REGARDING RESPf)NS!R1LITY FOR IMDLEMENT!NG TO NRC REQUIREMEtJTS UNDER i
1995 CONCERNING BRC W/ENCLS J-27T Oc e t t/S9 PaEciHMTION SY HUGH CCnF ON O ADI ATICN SPOTE:.T!ONTWDNPSOtJ AT THE IN NUCLEAR ENERMY IN E!DNEY. AVLTmf*LIA 275 OT/01/Ge MEMO TO ATTACHED PEGARDtN3 INTEROFFICE DEVELCP 3TAFF ETATEMENT CONSENSLI QN DROAD-EASED BRC POLICY O'/ 9 Oe/09/e6 r%DERAL REG!ETE9 NOTICE - APPENU!X 3 TO PARf 2-GEN ETATEMENT CF POLICY AND PROCEDURES CONCERNI PUREUANT BRC OSO O2/:9/86 NOTE TO DICK CUNNINGHAM FORWARDING PAPER CLARIFICATION ON RADIATION R!EK CONTROL CONCEPTS-(PAPER ENCLCSED)
-2B1 02/09/90 NOTE TO MULTIPLE FORWARDING DRAFT BRC PAMPHLET (ENCLOSED)
~
os262 01/01/01 PAPER BY t.
FOR RADIATION PROTECTION STANDAR "A LOGICAL FRAMEWORK 0:283 01/01/01 CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 3284 01/01/88 TAPES FROM BALTIMORE MEETING
'5ubmittea with Maren 16, 1990 letter, t01/01/01 denotes unknown date.
- l,. 3
/
t
.?C/_
m
. g,.
. ~3
\\
UNITED STATES
[
n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q,n
' '(
ADV$ohY CoMMITTit oN NUCLE AR WASTE
%...+r};!
WASHIN0 ton, D.C. 3BBBb g
January 30, 1990 The Monorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Nashington, D.C. 20L55 l
Dear Chairman carra j
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL DTeing its 16th meeting, January 24-25,
- 1990, the Advisory cont.ittee en !!eclear WM.te reviewed the above subject report (SECV-E 89 360).
Becauhe this has been a matter of continuing interest to the 4;catittee, we take this opportunity to offer the following comrents.
1.
Mc bc2inve that ey. pressing the Poli::ry statement in terms of
- Exemptions frca Regulatory Control" is a positive step.
We have, for tone time, believed that the term,
'I
- Bolow Regulatory Control," was a misnoser.
In f act, for the case of low-level radioactive wastes, the objectiva m
L is to develop a system for granting approval for certain (exempt.ed) wastes to be disposed of in facilities not licensed by the NRC.
l 2.
He agree that the Commission is wise to be conservative in the selection of applicable dose rate limits until such time as more experience is gained relative to assessing the potential for individual exposures from multiple practices.
However, we believe that the limits l-of 1 area /yr for individual dose rates and 0.1 area /yr l
for the truncation of collective doses are too low.
Neither would be directly measurable and both would have large accompanying uncertainties.
From our perspective, it appears that the Commission would need to take experience into account only in the establishment of an annual dose limit for individuals.
Even so, a limit of 3 to 5 area /yr for each individual source or practice would not appear to be unreasonable.
In the selection of a limit for truncating collective dose calculations, we suggest that the Commission adopt the 1 arem/yr value being used by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
I B &&&
^
kf l
t l
s.
The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr 2
January 30, 1990
- h. c 3.
As stated in our letter dated December 30, itse, we believe that the collective dose limit should be variable.
Following this
- approach, higher annual collective dose limits would be permitted for exempted l-practices that contribute smaller dose rates to individuals.
It should be noted that the suggested collective dose rate limit of 1000 ; person-rea require the commission to reconsider ernsting exem/yr may
- ptions, such as those that permit the incorporation of licensed materials in smoke detectors and in luminous watches and clocks.
Both of these applications appear to pield annual collective doses exceeding the proposed limat.
4.
We believe the NRC staff is correct in urging that the Policy statement include recommendations to discourage
" frivolous" uses of radioactive anterials.
Although which practices constitute such uses may be subject to interpretation, most people would age.w thAt exemptions l
should not be granted for the purpcssful f.ntroduction of reAioactive antarikis into feed or toys, regardless of how low the associated dozo raten right be.
We hopa these comments vill be holpful.
Sincerely, k
7 Dade W. Noeller chairman Reference SECY-89-360, Commission Policy Statement on Exemptions From Regulatory Control, December 1, 1989 (Predecisional) t
+
f
-.