ML20043C155
| ML20043C155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1988 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Miller N OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006040133 | |
| Download: ML20043C155 (6) | |
Text
-
' n y g.
t L
17 NOV W "p
MK25 1
i Ms. Neile Miller Budget Examiner 4
l Off<ce of Management i
and Budget Washington, D.C.
20502 1
Dear Ms. Miller:
As requested, enclosed are the NRC staff's preliminary views on the EPA's proposed 40 CFR Parts 193 and 764 These comments are those of the staff only, dRd may differ from the Cosmission's eventual position on these matters after it has considered the issues fully.
{
The staff's bottom line is that EPA should not promulgate the LLW standard, l
that EPA should pursue BRC issues by supporting the development of Presidential guidance on the subject, and that EPA should defer proposing the NARM standard until after the Cosmittee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC) makes its reconsendations on NARM regulation. These views are consistent with applicable positions taken by the Commission in response to EPA's 1983 advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
Sincerely.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division.of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated
)lSTRIBUTION:
.entrai rile NMSS r/f LLR8 /rf KDragonette R8cyle MBell J6 reeves MKnapp JSuroeier PLohaus M'
c ;LLum
...:...... H....:.............:............:............:............:............:...........
ME :MRKnapp/ec :
iTE:11/q/88-OFFIGIAL MEGORD CUPT 9006040133 891I30 bhihhFR49886 PDC
.,.-,--.c-..
........-m-
1 I
V
!ssuesforOfficeofManagementandBudget(OMS)Considerationon Proposed 40 CFR Parts 193 and 764 SUMARY The proposed regulations at.oress disposal of three types of radioactive waste:
and 3) neturally occurring and accelerator produced radioactive materials i
(NARM). The NRC staff considers that EPA should not promulgate the LLW standard, that EPA should pursue BRC issues by supporting the development of Presidential guidance on the subject, and that EPA should defer proposing the NARN' standard untti after the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and i
Policy Coordination (CIRRPC) makes its recomendations on NARM regulation.
These views are consistent with the applicable positions taken by the Cosmission in response to EPA's 1983 advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The comments below reflect the major concerns of the NRC staff resulting from preliminary review of the 7/27/88 draft of the proposed rule. The staff expects the NRC as an agency to provide further, more detailed coments, should EPA proceed with publication.
C GENERAL 085ERVATION The health effects comparisons contained in the Supplementary Infomation so not appear to justify the rulemaking itself or the impacts of the rule. For example, EPA estimates that the cost of requiring the Department of Energy (D0E) to meet criteria equivalent to NRC's LLW disposal regulations (10 CFR Part 61) would increase D0E's disposal costs by about $155 million over 20 years, yet result in prevention of only 3 potential health effects over the next 10,000 years (see p.169).
In another case, EPA offers an option that would limit radioactivity in certain groundwaters to reduce health effects by 13 over 10,000 years at a potential cost of $2.5 billion (see p.175). These examples result in costs of about $50 million and $200 e1111on per health 3
effect averted, respectively. The NRC staff therefore considers that the
1
);L cost / benefit' justifications for developing th0 standards and for the standards themselves need to be more carefully considered.
LOW-LEVEL WA$TE In enacting the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 1.
(the Act), Congress explicitly included the was.te classification system from NRC's low-level waste regulation (10 CFR Part 61), and thereby implicitly endorsed the radioactivity release limits in that regulation, upon which the classification system is based. A major factor in Congress' decision was EPA's testimony that its LLW standard, when promulgated, would not be substantially different from NRC's regulation. The 4 millires per year dose limit for groundwater in EPA's proposed rule is a significant departure from 10 CFR Part 61, and is potentially disruptive to the Compacts' and States' implementation of the Act.
Because of this potential, EPA should be required to provide an analysis of the potential impact of even proposing a LLW standard on L
implementation of the Act, t
2.
The staff did not find a rationale that justifies the dual dose limits introduced by the groundwater protection portion of 40 CFR Part ig3.
EPA has not demonstrated why it is reasonable for a LLW disposal facility to release 25 millirem per year to an individual for all pathwgys excepting groundwater, but only 4 milliram per year through groundwater. Further, since groundwater pathways must be considered in meeting the 25 millires limits for both the operational phase and post-disposal phase, the need for a separate groundwater protection section is not adequately justified.
3.
The staff notes that EPA's authority is limited to establishing offsite standards and anticipates that the Cosmission will object femally to any proposed implementation guidance addressing onsite matters.
REC 0tWENDATIONS FOR LLW In 1983, the NRC recommended that EPA not pursue a general low-level waste j
disposal standard because of the potential for disrupting the Compacts and
3
.l because of the resource impacts on all federal agencies involved in developin k
ane tuplementing such a standard. The NRC staff continues to endorse this position.
Hauever, should EPA proceed to promulgate a LLW disposal standard, l
the' staff considers that the standard should simply endorse the perforesace objectives in 10 CFR Part 61 and apply them as requirements at the site boundaries for the Department of Energy sites.
In any case, the groundwater protection section should be celeted.
i NRC has no major objection to the provisions on management and storage and agrees that such facilities should meet standards similar to those for disposal sites.
Similar requirements would provide equity for States plan'ning both short and long tern storage as alternative or interim measures.
Staff notes that the EPA collective rather than per facility approach poses difficulty in demonstratingcompliancefortheseactivities(aswellasfordisposalsites).
i WASTESBELOWREGULATORYCONCERN(BRC) 1.
EPA's proposed BRC standard of 4 milliren/ year limits cumulative doses from 11), DOE, NRC, and Agreement State activities. This concept contrasts with internatioral limits of 1 to several millires/ year Rg oractice, and the limit of 10 millires per practice which NRC presently is considering as a gnneric policy.
EPA's proposal is thus more complex, and generally more restrictive.
2.
The use of any cumulative dose limit would require close coordination of numerous' Federal and Agreement State agencies, compound the difficulty of demonstrating compliance', and might well require extensive recordkeeping concerning BRC disposals.
3.
The terminology and discussion are ambiguous regarding how to implement the BRC provisions.
For example, collective dose must be " considered' but no further guidance is given on how it should be considered.
-~
-N w.
,w
--w
,1--
e.q-
-e--s-s--w
~~--e
--e<
-eww----
- - + + * - + * * ' - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4 REC 00gEISATIONS FOR BRC' Consistent with the NRC's comments made on EPA's 1983 advance notice, the staff recommends that, rather than develop a standard independently, EPA support the development of Presidential guidance on below regulatory concern matters.
including, but not limited to wastes. The guidance approach could be very effective in developing the principles involved.in making below regulatory concern decisions while allowing needed flexibility in applying these principles to develop practice specific BRC numbers.
Such guidance should be developed by consensus among the affected Federal Agencies. Examples of needed guidance include limits for residual radioactivity for unrestricted release of fac1Hties and equipment following decossissioning and IRC limits associated with recycle of materials.
The staff notes that NRC has taken steps that will address the matter on an interim basis and adequately protect public health and safety. As directed by Section 10 of the Act, NRC issued guidance for expedited action on BRC waste streams. As mentioned above, NRC is developing a generic policy for BRC and has just held a symposium to obtain international views before publishing an advance notice on that policy.
e l
NARM 1.
While the staff considers that disposal of NARM wastes at AEA facilities appears to have technical merit, such disposal raises substantive legal and t
procedural problems. For example, an EPA requirement to dispose of NARM at low-level facilities flatly contravenes 13(a)(2) of the Act. This provision of the Act expressly bars the federal government from imposing such an obligation on the states. Another example is that EPA would have NRC make NARM disposal a matter of compatibility with NRC's Agreement States, but NRC's authority to direct Agreement States is limited to materials that fall under the Atomic Energy Act.
--,,,-..J
.-~.....
.w
,_.,w...,
,,w_.,
t 5
i
'3 2.
At NRC's request, the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and g
l-policy coordination (CIRRPC) is stu@ing the fssue of federal regulation of NARM. CIRAPC is the body created to coordinate feder'al policy on radiation matters, and the NRC staff considers that it will provide useful recosmond-3 ations on the appropriate designation of responsibilities for the regulation of MARM.
3.
EPA plans do not include strong cradle-to-grave implementation. EPA expects NRC, DOE, and the States to implement the standard. NRC does not have the resources to provide uncompensated implementation assistance to EPA as EPA isrequestingundertheToxicControlSubstancesAct(T$CA).
RECOPMENDATIONS FOR NARM EPA should defer proposing the NARM standard until after CIRRPC makes its recosmondations on MARM regulation. $hould EPA not defer, it should be required to provide an analysis of the potential ispect on the Act of requiring disposal of NARM at low-level, facilities prior to proposing the standard.
Further, EPA sust provide for implementation of the MARM standard that does not rely on NRC resources.
L
,+-
e-
-