ML20043C204
Text
-.
T s
..y s
y JAN 3 0 gg
~~
J p.
{
NEMORANDUM FOR:
Chainnan Carr.
Corsnissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commistioner Remick FROM:
James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN REGARD TO SECY-89-360 On January 4,1990, Commissioners Rogers and Remick requested that the staff members who had briefed them on January 3.1990, provide a written rationale and proposed wording for possible changes to the policy statement on Exemptions From Regulatory Control (SECY-89-360). The three areas that were to be addressed were:
1.
A guiding principle for este :ishing cutoffs for specific applications in L_
lieu of including a fixed collective dose cutoff.
2.
Replacement of the 10 mrem /yr individual dose criteria with a less precise-term, such as "few."
y l
3.
Discussion regarding the three radiation protection principles to tie in
_i with.the paragraph on justification of practice proposed in SECV-89-360, page 4..
l l-The ratiunale and proposed wording for each area have been prepared by those individuals and are enclosed.
Regarding areas 1 and 2 above, I continue to support the 0.1 mrem /yr collective dose cutoff and the 10 mrem /yr individual dose criteria recontendation in SECY-89-360. The discussion of area 3 above further supports the justification of practice position proposed in SECY-89-360.
Original Signed By:
James M. Taylor James M. Taylor-Executive Director for Operations L
Enclosure:
L.
As stated 1
cc: SECY OGC GPA See next page for Distribution
- See previous concurrences p
-0FFC:RPHEE:DRA* :RPHEB:DRA*:RPHEC:DRA*:DD:DRA*
- NRR*
NMSS*
- D:NMSS*
V
- RCurningham:RBernero*J ay p)0 NAME:Dcool:dm BMorris
- TSpeis
- EPeckju d :FCongel
- 01/18/90
- 01/18/9
/
DATE:01/18/90
' :01/19/90 :01/19/90 :01/19/90 :01/18/90 f jd 9006040224 691130 OG
@l 5FR49886 PDC pp 01/11/9C OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
lI sk md f.
Og...
1 v
1.
A guiding principle for establishing cuteffs for specific applications in lieu of including a fixed collective dose cutoff (such as the 0.1 mrom/yr currently proposed),
i Rationale:
During the development of the policy statement, the staff-considered the use of, a cutoff for the collective dose criterion..The staff recognized that the collective dose has almost always been truncated in some manner and that the
. specific method of truncating the dose depended upon its relationship to the g
particular action that was being considered at the time.
In various analyses, t-a cutoff in time (e.g..'10,000 years), distance (e.g., 50 miles), or dose has -
L N been used.
In all such cases, the cutoff was made for analytical convenience, with-a reasonable assurance that significant impacts were not being ignored.
The staff recomendations in SECY-89-184 and SECY-88-256 did not contain a l
recomendation for;a specific collective dose cutoff. SECY-88-256 stated:
(
" Truncations in time and space have been used in the past and could be used in situations where a choice between alternatives is not further clarified by unbounded collective dose assessments. Ar. individual dose cutoff could also be considered on the basis that smeII individual doses L
(e.g., less than 0.1 mrem per year) represent an insignificant risk and that the collective impact from the sumation of these individual exposures will be very small.
Finally, varying monetary values could be i
e assigned to components of collective dose, e.g., $1,000 per person-rem for collective dose composed of individual doses in excess of 1 mrom per year and $100*per person-rem for individual doses less then this value. At this time, the staff believes that the use of any or combinations of the above approaches could be appropriate depending on the practice under consideration fcr exemption. The ACNW supports the concept of s graduated monetary weighting of the individual dose contributior', to ' en ive dose."
Although the use of a case specific approach to collective dose cutoff would appear to result in inconsistent truncation results, during the January 3, 1990, meeting with Comissioners Rogers and Remick, the views presented contended that an underlying censistent approach was, in fact, present in previous cutoff decisions. This underlying consistency is based upon the principle of always calculating and assessing collective dose up to the point where further refinement of the collective dose assessment is no longer useful in characterizing the societel impact of_the exemption or differentiating between the options available for the decision.
This has sometimes been know as~" cutting off the tail of the distribution" and was expressed in.
Y-88-25 as the point where "a choice between alternatives is not further +
- ified by unbounded collective dose assessments."
L:
i L
During the January 3,1990, meeting with Comissioners Rogers and Remick, it w.s-noted thut the a pricri use of a fixed cutoff value of 0.1 eram could, at least hypothetically, result in the elimination of collective dose 1
infomation which could be useful in differentiating between exee@ tion decision options. This problem is compounded by the narrow latervel between the interim individual dose criterion of 1 mrem for products of widespread distribution to r
s mesters of the public and the 0.1 mrea cutoff value for ecliective dose. For example!econsums; rodoet could be considered for s emption and the specific chemica and physica form of the material could ba options within the exception decision (i.e., use of a plated versus scaled source in a smoke detector). In 6
such a situation, the mjority of the collective dose would likely W below 0.1 L
arem and the use of a different chemical or physical form could ch6 age the collective dose without significantly changing that part of the distribution above 0.1 mrem.
The following wording would allow the Commission the flexibility to considar g
different sachanisms of truncation for collective dose assessments within the y
poHcy statement.
[
1.
Replace the last sentence of the definition of " Collective Dose" on page 9 of the policy statement with the following:
Note: The calculated collective dose used to determine compliance with the criterion of this policy need not include i:idividual dose
=
E contributions received at a rate of less than 0.1 ares per year, so long E
as the collective dose assessment includes those components necessary to appropriately characterize the cocietal impact of the exemption and is carried out to the point where a choice between decision options is clear.
2.
Replace the paragraphs on pages 17 and 18 discussing the collective dose cutoff with:
The Commissior notes that the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements recommends in its Report No. 91 that the collective dose assessments for a particular practice should exclude those individuals whose annual effective dose equivalent is less than 1 mrom per year (0.01 mSv per year). EPA an guidelines, used a 10"g FDA, in their sensitivity-of-measure, risk-based lifetime risk 0f cancer as a quantitative criterion of insignificance. The 10'6 lifetime risk value is approximately the risk that an individual would hypothetically incur from continuous lifetime exposures of 0.1 mrom (0.001 mSv) per year.
The Commission believes that the assessment of the components of total collective dose must be made to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act requirements.
However, when used for cost-benefit analyses or for evaluation against the collective dose criterion proposed in this policy, several alternative approaches to.he truncation of collective dose could be applied.
Taking into account the uncertainties in dose estintion and exposures to multiple practices, the Commission concludes that a dose value of 0.1 mrem per year is an appropriate risk based criterion for collectiu dose c" toff.
However, the collective dose should siways include those con.jonents necessary to apr -iately characterize the sesietal irract and be calculated to the, int where a choice between 'the options for a cecision is clear, even if this requires the inclusior, of 2
7 2
4 A
some dose rates below the 0.1 mrem per year value. The Commission also recognizes that a truncation in time and/or space may be a more practical approach than the strict cutoff in dose.
Such an approach would be' acceptable, so long as the risk basig for auch a cutoff is consistent with a lifetime risk of approxistutely 10' and the choice between opt' ions is clear.
2.
Replacement of the 10 arem/yr indiv1 Gal dose criteria with a less precise term, such as "few."
Ration &lo:
During the discussions with Commissioners Rogers and Remick on,lanuary 3,1990, a anaber of the staff suggested that expressing the individual dose criterion in tems of "a few mrem per year" would ba more appropriate then the values of 1 or 10 mrem per year as contained irr SECY-89460, so long as the "few mrom per year" is within the cap of 10 mrem per year. This typa cf suggestion has some precedent, both in international recommendations, and in the NRC's own policies and regulat%ns.
For example, the Ifiterrittional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safet) Series 89, ' Principles for the Enemption of Rhdiation Sources and Pra'tices from Regulatory Control," states that an individual radiation dose is microsieverts (garded as trivial if it is of the order of sent tens ofIn Appendix b,, 10 CFR P likely to be re uSv) per year (10 USv = 1 mrom).
Getterol Statement cf Policy ar.d Procedures Concerning Petitio3s Pursuant to Section 2.802 for Disposal of Radioactive Waste Streams Below Regulatory Concern, dated August 29, 1980, $1 FF 30339, decision criterion 2 stated that "The maximum expected effective dose cat:1 valent to an individual member of the public does not exceed a few millirein per year for nottal operations and anticipated events."
An imprecise term was also used in 10 CFR Part ?3.1(n)(2) where the des:gn tesis for threat or diversior of strategic special nuclear material is "A detemined, violent, external assault,... by a small group..." Such tems are usuelh adopted when a convincing rationaln for a more precise term catenot be developed or when the Agency desires to comey an interit of being somwhat flexible.
One reason that i less precise term niight be advantageous is the potential problem of a lack of finality in deccennissioning of fac111tiss using a 10 mran criterton. Such a lack of finality could ratuit if the Envirconental Protection Agency (EPA) wet e to pronulgate note criteriots lower than 10 mrem, such as a value of 4 mrem which has been discussed. The perception that an individual dose criterion of "a few" arer would reduce the likelthced of future reopening of decommissioning actions is based up<m the likelihcod that 'a few" would be construed as equivalent to an EPA value of 4 inrem, sine.e it is within the range of our ability to estimate dose to a critical groxp with any accuracy.
Ccnversely, the use of an imprecise term has certain disadventoges, mcluding the iact that licensees and thE PVblic wou h not h8ve a Clear iced of the level of dose thet was judged to be acetotable for the decommissioning actico.
Furthermore, there coult' t4e a greater likelihou that deco'missioning actions would be challenged in the coarts.
3
}
e
~
A e.
The staff requirements memorandum of October 13, 1989,ld be included in thestated that a paVr of individual dose criterion values of 1 and 10 mrem shou final policy statement. This was the staff recommendation in SECV-89-360. The staff continues to recommend numerical values to facilitate implement
- tion of a
the policy.
However, the following text describes how the term "a few" could be used in the policy statement to define the goal within the framework of the dose criterion of I and 10 mrem.
Proposed Wording:
)
Within the individual dose criterion of 10 uom, the staff expectation is that the dose to individuals within the critical group receiving the greatest exposure will be on the order of a few mrom per year and will be ALARA. This expectation is consistent with tha individual dose decision criterion contained in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 2.
L 3.
Discussion regardirg the three radiation protection principles to tie in with the paragraph on justification of practice proposed in $ECY-89460.
Rationale:
Tte control of radiation and radioactive materials has traditionally been based upon three fundamental principles of radiation protection.
These are (1) Justification of the Practice, (2) Optimitatier or ALARA, and (3) Dose Limits.
These principles have been used both nationa?ly and internationally and serve as the basis for the Commission's requirements for protection against radiation (10 CFR Part 20) and the Federal Guidance for Mcupational Exposure signed by the President in January 1987 In previous communications with the Commission, the staff has suggested that these three principles remato as the fundamental basis for the policy statement on Exemptions From Requittery Control and suggested to the Cornission that the Policy Statement acknowledge these principles.
the staff recognizes that at very low levels of dose, the " benefit" from the
.L purptreful introduction of radioactive material does not need to be large in order for the balance to weigh in favor of the practico. Furthermom, benefit may include both re.iiological and nonradiological factors, such as the societies wish for a particular type of consumer product, even though there is i
\\
some Individual or societal risk associated with the product. Thus, at very low levels of dose, the " justification of the practice" principle becoats very easy to nett for any given type of, ractice.
However, as was noted in SECY-89-3EO, the staff believes that there are certain practices that should not be approved, such as the introduction of radioactive Waterials into products to be consumed or used by children (e.g., toys), even if the radiation doses are very small, or where there are practical i
alternatires to the use of radioactive materials. A concern of the staff is that, without the Commission steting its prerogotive to deny such proposals,
/
the policy statement could become a target for unwstranted criticisms and a'
y controversy.
As a result, SECi 89-360 contains <; recontendation for a statement 7
~~
4
_. ~. _ _ _ _ -
G, y
4 y1 R
w to be added to the definition of a practice that would recognize the possibility M-that a practice would not be a likely candidate for exemption and could be denied, even if the individual and collective dose criteria of the policy statement have*been met. The Commission would make such a determination on a case-by-case basis.
A further step that the Commission could take would be to include two paragraphs within the " Policy Elements" section of. the policy statement that would clearly reiterate the Commission's continued use of the three fundamental radiation protection principles L.
Suggested Wording to be inserted on page 12 at the start of Section 111. Policy Elements:-
The Comission subscribes to three fundamental principles of radiation-g protection in formulating its policies and regulations to protect workers and the public from the harmful effects of radiation. They are:
1 L
(1) justification of the practice, which requires that there be some not 4
benefit resulting from the use of radiation or radioactive materials, l
(2) dose limits, which define the upper boundary of adequate protection for a member of the public which should not be exceedt:d in the conduct of nuclear activities, and (3) ALARA, which requires that radiation dose be i
as low as is reasonably achievable, economic ar.d social factors being l'
taken into account.
I g
)
For purposes of this policy statement, these three principles relate to an g'g
- for justificatica at the low doses relates to the Commission's determination exemption from regula1.ory control in the following manner. The requirement
-s that the purpose of the practice satisfies the intent of Section 81 of the t
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended. As a~ result, the Commission recognizes c
1 thst there may be certain practices which are not likely candidates for.
y I*f f
- exemption and, therefore, the Comission may determine that 'some proposals for exemptions are unacceptable. The dose limits define the upper boundary l
for the corbination of 411 exposures both from exempted practices and.
1 those practices which are under reg 91 story control. Any. Specific exemption b4 should thereforeTesult in exposurf s that would be only a small fraction
, 'of-the. dose limits. The ALARA principle defines the effort necessary to
]
Lg further reduce doses below the dose limits, in keeping with both r&dic1c>gical L4 and noaradiological factors.
The Commission believes that principles and S
criteria can be defined which would allow the ALAAA prctess to'be curte.illed.
i
- t
< ;, Y.
- consistent with the risk involved, and radiation protection resources J
redirected to more significant public health and safety issves.
(,0 a
f l7
?i Dv l
Nq
'5
%u.
,,i K. j.07
<s a
e
'igMyy y
~
mww 1.
- -t;glo g3g
~
![
'#}!
i The commissioners 2
O un'#"-
gryprs(5037)
??: "
2 ; 3 : 3 15 "i n @ e EBeckjord es E:U" l
g I
f 1
l 5 t
1 hj i
i j
A wammmmmmmmmmmmmwampurwwww w marra