ML20043C187
| ML20043C187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/06/1989 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Carr, Roberts, Rogers NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006040202 | |
| Download: ML20043C187 (8) | |
Text
4Ai unnTao STATES 07 4
f NUCLEAR RiiGULATCRY COMMISSION i
maamseston,s.c.asons j
\\.....
DEC041109 l
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Carr Comissioner Roberts Consnissioner Rogers Cossnissioner Curtiss Consnissioner Remick FROM:
. James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARDS FOR MANAGEMENT OF LOW. LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE AND NATURALLY OCCURRING AND ACCELERATOR PRODUCED MATERIALS WASTE l
1 Enclosed for Commission consideration are two letters to the Office of Management and Budget dealing with the above standards.
Both letters focus on the groundwater protection provisions of the proposed Low-Level Weste (LLW)
Standard which, in their present form era duplicative of NRC's Part 61 I'
Regulation for licensing land disposal of radioactive waste, are unnecessary to protect public health and safety, and are potentially extremely disruptive to the LLW site selection and development process being carried out by the States under the Low-Level Weste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.
The two letters present alternative approaches to resolving this issue.
, is a letter that represents a compromise, wherein the groundwater protection criteria in the EPA standard would be cast as a desifin poal, rather than as a limit.
In this case the design goal would be a numeruca criterion that implemented the qualitative 'as low as reasonably achievable" requireewnt already embodied in NRC's Part 61. Draft language implementing this approach is included as an attachment to Enclosure 1.
While we consider the differences between the proposed approach and Part 61 to be small, proposing any LLW standard at this time may cause some disruption of the siting process, and has the risk that the final standard may differ substantially from what is proposed. is a letter that requests OMB to direct EPA to' discontinue efforts to publish any standard, now or in the future, that would apply to disposal of consnercial LLW, but allows it to proceed with a standard for D0E LLW dismsal i
that would be comparable to Part 61. The reasons for this request are tsat, for i
commercial LLW disposal, the proposed standards are duplicative, unneeded and disruptive, but it allows EPA to proceed to publish a standard applicable,only to DOE LLW disposal that is comparable to Part 61. When the Commission approves the new Part 20, the staff would revise Part 61 to ado aquivalent methodology and the two would be identical.pt the effective dose l
t 9006040202 891130
$hibhFR49886 PDC I
,. -,. - ~ -. - _.
.... - ~
\\
e MJB/JMT LTR l
g i
on balance, the staff recommends the approach represented by Enclosure. 2.
Both enclosures also contain a staff reconnendation that would resolve the principal staff concern regarding the standard for disposal of naturally 1
occurring and accelerator. produced radioactive materials (NARM) waste.
In i
either case, the staff position is that efforts by EPA to develop the provisions of the LLW standard dealing with "below regulatory concern" wastes be discontinued. The staff recommends that the Commission approve transmittal of the letter in Enclosure 2 to DNB.
Criskal Signed Bys b.ns M. Taylor James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
SECY OGC
- )!STRIBUTION
- eritral F11e i RLBangart PLohaus JJSurmeier JTaylor EDO r/f JGreeves MBell
-- ;;35 Dir Ofc R/F HThompson JBlaha-PDR Yes PDR No Reason:
Proprietary CF Only i
ACNW Yes No SUBJECT ABSTRACT:
PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR NGMT OF LLRAD AND NATURALLY OCCURRING AND ACCELERATOR. PRODUCED WASTE
+
i h
- See previous concorrences.
/
,/
/2 1
/
OFC :LLR5' LLWM
- NM55
~
- DE
- E c 4,,
..... :............ :.... '........ :...... J,U //,J NM5 5r.;.......,i hmpson
....:....... 937, NAME :MBell
- RLBangart
- GArlo
- RMBernero
- 6. A,'
- HL7
- J ay r
.....:............:... 4..........
DATE :11/28/89
- 11/28/89
- 1
/89
- 11/J /89
- ll/ 9
/89 :1
/89 : l A/ d*/ 1 UtflCIAL RECURD C(FY r
y
,,e
-..m-e m-w-----r--A
-P m
v" T
- ^'
- ^^'
-~
Uselfsp sTATas A
NUCLEAR M800LATCRY CCNWMClON l
WAttetese700s.D.C.SesOS
\\.....
James 8. MacRae Jr.
f Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator -
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management'and Budget 725 17th Street NW, Room 3236 i
Washington, DC 20503 i
Dear Mr. MacRae:
ForsometimenowthestaffsoftheOfficeofManagementand8veget(OM8),the Nuclear Regulatory Cosnission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)havebeendiscussingEPA'sdraftstandardsfordisposaloflow-level radioactive waste (Lt.W) (40 CFR Part 193) and discrete naturally occurrin and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (llARM) waste (40 CFR Part 764)g' EPA is proposing to issue these standards under its Atomic Energy Act authority to set generally applicable standards for radioactive materials in the environment.
The NRC, in response to the Low-Level Radioactive Weste Policy Act of 1980 issued regulations for licensing of LLW disposal facilities (10 CFR Part 6I) in-December 1982 that are the technical bases for all the States to develop new disposal sites. The NRC regulations are consistent in their level of health protection with current EPA standards for the nuclear fuel cycle (40 CFR Part 190). EPA estimates that with the level of protection in Part 61 only 2 to 8 health effects are predicted to eccur over a 10,000 year period.,In spite of this low level of risk, the proposed EPA standards would impose a different limit on LLW disposal by adopting a 4 mrom/yr limit on doses to individuals at t
the site boundary through the groundwater pathway only.
In that no meaningful health effects appear to be saved, that proposed limit conflicts with the LO CFR Part 61 limit of a 25 ares /yr dose to the whole body from all environmental pathways. NRC sees this proposal by EPA as duplicative of its existing regulations ( unnecessary to protect public health and safety, and potentially extremely disruptive to the site selection and development process the States are conducting under ri Amendments Act (LLWPAA)gorous schedules set by the Low-Level Waste Policy i
of 1985.
On November 17, 1988, Dr. Malcolm Knap Waste Management and Decommissioning (p, Director of NRC's Division of Low L LLWM) wrote to Ms. Ne11e Miller of OMB, documenting NRC's concerns with the draft standards.
Between November 1988 and April 1989, the staffs of NRC and EPA met several times to attempt to resolve these concerns, largely without success on the more significant issues. On April 4 1989, Mr. John Greeves. Acting Director of NRC's Division of LLWM and onApril 25, 1989, Mr. Richard Guimond, Director of EPA's Office of Radiation Programs, wrote to Dr. Arthur Fraas of OM8 to inform him that the two agencies had reached an impasse on most of the major issues.
EPA and NRC staff met again on November 9, 1989, to discuss the unresolved issues. During that n.eeting NRC staff proposed the alternative of proposing the 4 mrom/yr g'roundwater protection criterion as a design goal, rather than a safety limit. Since 10 CFR Part 61 already includes a requirement that
i L
James B. MacRae, Jr.
2 l
?. -
exposures of individuals to radiation be usintained as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), it can be argued that the aroundwater protection design i
goal would be a numerical statement of the ALARA objective. We believe this alternative has the advantage that it allows the EPA standard to be established for application to Department of Energy LLW facilities, without being unduly disruptive to the LLWPAA siting process.
(Note,however proposal of any standard applicable to comercial LLW disposal at this, that time is likely to cause some disruption.) Therefore I request that EPA be allowed to proceed with proposing this standard only,if an alternative such as that outlined above is adopted.
I have included draft language that NRC believes is an acceptable alternative in Enclosure 1.
In the Noveder 9,1989 meeting, NRC and EPA discussed alternatives that, if adopted, would resolve NRC's concerns with the NARM and below regulatory concern (SRC) portions of the standards.
In the case of NARM, NRC suggested modification of the definition of a " regulated low-level waste disposal facility' to include EPA permitted disposal facilities for discrete NARM. By permitting disposal of comercial discrete NARM wastes at sites other than an Atomic Energy Act our primary concern with 40 CFR Part 764 is licensed low level waste sites, low regulatory concern" wastes EPA expressed th
- resolved, in the matter of 'be willingness non to proceed with issuing this portion of 40 CFR Cart 193. The NRC agrees t R the BRC standard should not be issued.
Since NRC and EPA staffs have not agreed on precise language to resolve these concerers, NRC would appreciate the opportunity to review the text of any revised regulation before it is published. NRC wculd be pleased to meet with you to discuss these comments, if you desire.
Pleasecontactav(492-3352)or RichardBangart(492-3340) Director of NRC's Division of LLWM, if you have questions or to arrange a meeting.
Sincerely, i
r Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated i
i i
L
-v a-m
a
-,<o---
--v
>w
DRAFT Subpart C Ground Water protection t
2 Sec 193.21 Applicability.
r This Subpart applies to any facil'ity regulated by Subpart A or Subpart 8 of this part.
l Sec 193.22 Definitions.
l Unless otherwise indicates in this Subpart, all terms shall have the same meaning as in Subpart A or Subpart 8 of this part.
1 (a) *Greund water" means water belov the land surface in a zone 'of saturation.
t e
(b) 'ALARA' (acronym for "As low as is reasonably achievable') means j
seking every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits as is practical consistent with the purpose for which the activity is undertaken, taking into account the state of l
technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to l-the public health and safety, and other societal anc socio-economic considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and L
radioactive materials in the public interest.
L Sec 193.23 Design anc Operational Objectives for Ground Water Protection (a) Any facility regulated by this Subpart shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that the standards and objectives in this Subpart will be me.t. Nothing in this paragraph affects the requirements and objectivesinparagraphs(b)through(d)ofthissubpart.
(b) The management anc cisposal of low-level radioactive wastes and NARM, as defined in 40 CFR 764, shall be conducted in a manner to keep i
4 i
e,,
w,
.y.
e-..,
,m..
n
~
r releases of-radionuclides to ground water ALARA. For purposes of this
(
-Subpart, ALARA objectives are:
(1)Releasesofradionuclidesotherthanradiumfromthe management and' disposal of wastes shall not result in a member of the public in the general environment receiving mort than 4 millires annual committ*# effective dose equivalent from drinking two liters per day of affectet @rnd water, and (2)Releasesofradiumfromthemanagementanddisposalofwastes shall_not result in an increase of more than 5 picocuries of alpha-activity per liter in the'affected ground water.
' (c)ReleaseshigherthantheALARAobjectivesinparagraph(b)wouldbe permissible if-a specific analysis demonstrating ALARA for the levels is performed.
In no case shall the management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste and NARM, as defined in 40 CFR 764, result in releases of radioactivity to ground waters such that an individual member of the public can receive'more than 25 millirem annual committed effective dose equivalent from all routes of exposure.
(d)AsafurtherALARAobjective,managementanddisposalsitesshould be located so as to not impact ground waters that are of unusually _ high value including irreplaceable sources of drinking water or ecologically vital sources.
EWlG0ure 2 UNITED STATES
- 't
[
NUCLEAR RE;ULATORY COMMISSION -
a wasumotom.o.c.soses 7'
k....
e James B. MacRae, Jr.
Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator Office of =Information and Reguletory Affairs Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street NW, Room 3236 Washington, DC'20503 Dear Mr. MacRaei ForsometimenowthestaffsoftheOfficeofManagementandBudget(0MB),the Nuclear Regulatory Comission-(NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been discussing EPA's draft standards for disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) (40 CFR Part 193) and discrete naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARH) waste (40 CFR Part 764).- Subpart A of Part 193 deals with radiation exposures during operation, Subpart 8 deals with exposures due to disposal, and Subpart C deals with grounowater protection. EPA is proposing to issue these standards under its Atomic Energy Act authority to set generally applicable standards for radioactive materials in the environment.
The NRC, in response to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 L
l 1ssuedregulationsforlicensingofLLWdisposalfacilities(10CFRPart6I)in L
December 1982 that are the technical bases for all the States to develop new l
disposal sites.- The NRC regulations are consistent in their level of health protection-with current EPA standards for the nuclear fuel cycle (40 CFR Part I
190)andwithSubpartsAandBof40CFRPart193. EPA estimates that with the level ? C ion in Part 61, only 2 to 8 health effects are predicted to occu w a 10,c'O year period due to disposal of LLW.
In spite of thi's u !wei U fisk, Subpart C of the proposed EPA standards would impose an a W -i7 n s mr/yr limit on doses to individuals at the site boundary throu-tht; mainter pathway only.
In that no meaningful health effects app, u K, b aved. that proposed limit conflicts with the 10 CFR Part 61 limy ei e 25 mosyr dose to the whole body from all environmental pathways.
NRC e 9 % pcposal of Subparts A and 8 by EPA as duplicative of its existing regulations, and considers Subpart C unnecessary to protect public health and l
sa'ety, and potentially extremely disruptive to the site. selection and L
development process the States are conducting under rigorous schedules ' set by the Low-Level Waste Policy Amenoments Act (LLWPAA) of 1985.
Dr. Malcolm Knap(p, Director of NRC's Division of Low-Level On November 17, 1988, LLWM)wrotetoMs.NeileMillerofOMB, Waste Management and Decomissioning documenting NRC's concerns with the draft standards. Between November 1988 and y
April 1989, the staffs of NRC and EPA met several times to attempt to resolve these concerns, largely without success on the more significant issues. On April 4,1989, Mr. John Greeves, Acting Director of NRC's Division of LLWM and on April 25, 1989, Mr. Richard Guimond, Director of EPA's Office of Radiation Programs, wrote to Dr. Arthur Fraas of OMB to inform him that the two agencias had reached an impasse on most of the major issues.
f James B. MacRae, Jr.
2
- _ 4 -
EPA'and NRC. staff met again on November 9. 1989, to discuss the unresolved issues.
.While some progress was made,3 principal and overriding concern is that the NRC's major concern with the draft LLW standard.is unresolved. NRC EPA's LLW standards in Subparts A and 8 of 40 CFR Part 193 are duplicative of
' NRC's re@kestents for licensing of land disposal of commercial LLW, and that the genute pretection requirements of Subpart C are unnecessary for protnuen ci public health and safety with regard to NRC or Agreement State lic@nse#dsposal of LLW FM are significantly different from NRC's regulations.
If promulgated any time in the cear future, Subpart C will be extremely
! disruptive-to the development of new LLW disposal sites by States and Compact groups under the LLWPAA of 1985.
I note that in 1984, in hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the Rocky Mountain LLW Compact, EPA testified that development of their standard would not be disrup.tive to the-i siting-and development of new LLW sites,-and that Part 61 was adequate for.
selecting new sites and would not need to be changed-as a result of the publication of the EPA LLW Standard.
EPA is under no statutory or court-ordered mandate to issue these standards, Therefore, I recomend that OMB allow EPA to publish only Subparts A and B t-applicable to facilities not regulated.by NRC, and to direct EPA to discontinue plans to issue-$sbpart C in any form.-
In the November 9, 1989 meeting NRC and EPA discussed alternatives that, if adopted,(would resolve NRC's concerns with the NARM and below r L
concern modification of the definition of a " regulated low-level waste dispusa' facility"
.to include EPA permitted disposal facilities for discrete NARM. By permitting disposal of commercial discrete NARM wastes at sites other than an Atomic Energy Act licensed low-level waste sites, our primary concern with 40 CFR Part-764 is resolved.
In the matter of "below regulatory concern" wastes. EPA expressed the willingness not to proceed with issuing this portion of 40 CFR ~Part-193. The NRC agrees thTi the BRC standard'should not be issued.
t NRC would be pleased to meet with you if you desire.
Please contact me (492-3552) orRichardBangart(492-3340) Director of NRC's Division of LLWM, if. you have questions or to arrange a meeting.
Sincerely, Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety 6
and Safeguards n
<