ML20043C210
| ML20043C210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/1988 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006040234 | |
| Download: ML20043C210 (4) | |
Text
.
- n5%
k
". -(-
~
L 1
WO ESHOP DN RULES FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY CONTROL Overview of Major Regulatory Exemption Activities Underway at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission
]
Eric S. *-:kjord, Director Office of Ni seer Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission First of all, I would like to add wy welcome to those already given and to I personally thank all of you for your interest in attending this workshop.
i believe we all recognize both the importance and the sensitivity of the issues involved.
In attempting to define rules for exemption from regulatory control, Nietor Stello made reference to the magnitude of the resources involved and pointed out that a responsible regulatory approach requires not only a sound technical basis, but one which can be described to and generally understood by j
our national political leaders and the general public. Since the individual l
national approaches can be expected to have a degree of variance commensurate with the legitimate range of national value judgements, we, as national regulators must understand and be able to explain these differences in a
'comprehensIvefashion.
As= a starting point to the workshop this morning, I would like to present an overview of some of the major. regulatory exemption activities now underway Other agencies-in the U.S. with i
within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
relevant activities are the Environmental Protection Agency, with the responsibility for generally applicable environmental standards, and the with the responsibility for protection of the health and Department of Energy,from the operation of DOE facilities as well as for l
remedial action programs involving the cleanup of formerly utilized sites and safety of the public the control-of uranium mill tailings. A number of the ongoing relevant r
factivities concern waste disposal, where there is the greatest need for l
regulatory exemption criteria. This need has become particularly urgent L
because of the large nunter of waste-generators in the U.S. and the relatively When the NRC small number of licensed radioactive waste disposal sites.
published its regulations on
- Licensing Requirements For Land Disposal of I
Radioactive Weste* in December 1982, it expressed its view that the establishment of standards for waste for which there is no regulatory concern
)
would be. beneficial and would, among other things, reduce disposal and-long-term disposal site maintenance costs, help preserve the limited capacity of the licensed waste disposal sites for the disposal of wastes with higher l
1evels of activity, and enhance overall disposal site stability. This last
['
benefit is a result of reducing the volume of the least radioactive waste sent to the radioactive waste burial ground. The typical waste fom of this
-material has very low density, eventually resulting ~1n structural degradation.
j affecting overall stability of the site through slumping, collapse, or other f ailure of the disposal unit and thereby leading to water infiltration which j
affects ground water migration impacts, l
g60g234891130 f
CHP1 53FR49886 PDC LL-
4%
- .0 j M.
Subsequently, the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 required the NRC to develop a policy statement on 'below regulatory concern" BRC waste. That policy statement was or, what is comonly referred to as,he policy and procedures for expedited issued in. August 1986, it defines t action on petitions for rulemaking to exempt specific waste streams from regulatory control.
It contains decision criteria which, if adequately addressed by a petition for rulemaking, would allow the NRC to act expeditiously to grant an exemption to radioactive waste disposal requirements.
The NRC also published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, in December 1986, soliciting coment on the possibility of a generic 8RC rulemaking. A i
generic rulemaking might provide a more efficient and effective means of dealing with disposal of wastes which are below regulatory concern and could potentially reduce the burdens associated with disposal of radioactive waste by all NRC licensees.
Some of the 50 states within the United States are developing their own generic criteria which would allow the disposal of shorter In the meantime half-life materials in unlicensed sanitary landfills.
industry has been developing a petition for rulemaking for disposal of, specific waste streams which it intends to submit under the BRC waste policy statement, which ! mentioned previously. Our understanding is that these waste streams, all associated with nuclear power reactors, will include dry active weste waste oil, sand and soil, secondary side ion exchange resins from pressurized water reactors, and sandblasting grit from boiling water reactors.
One petition for a BRC rulemaking had been previously submitted in response to the NRC views expressed when the regulations on land disposal of radioactive waste were first published in 1982.
It sought an exemption from regulatory control for reactor-generated waste oil and proposed several alternative Although the NRC concluded that the petition did not provide disposal methods.
l enough information on which to base BRC criteria for waste oil, the NRC did l
propose a rule in August of this year which would allow onsite incineration of l
L waste oil at nuclear power plants under existing effluent limits.
In addition to waste disposal, the other area most in need of a regulatory exemption policy is the definition of residual radioactivity limits for the release of land, structures, equipment, and materials for unrestricted public Currently, criteria exist only in the form of various NRC guidance use.
The most pertinent of these is referred to as Regulatory Guide documents.
1.86, which is entitled " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear 1
Reactors". The existing guidance primarily consists of acceptable levels of surface contamination. Although the NRC has recognized the need for more comprehensive criteria in this area for a long time, such as the need for volumetric contamination limits, it has been a difficult issue to resolve and a Priority has now been placed on number of problems have delayed NRC action.
establishing a complete set of criteria for lands and structures since this is what is most needed for decomissioning. Development of such criteria is being
~
actively pursued at this time and the NRC expects to publish first an interim policy statement consolidating existing guidance and current licensing This interim policy would be followed by a more comprehensive set practices.
of. criteria for the release of lands and structures for unrestricted use which is also being developed.
It is projected that these new criteria will be provided in the form of volumetric concentrations, surface concentrations, and external exposure rates and will be directly related, isotope-by-isotope, to an annual effective dose equivalent. A long range goal is to also provide similar criteria for the recycle of contaminated materials and equipment.
o 2
m 9:
t'.
All of these activities I've mentioned involve ' practice specific" criteria.
In making each of these " practice-specific" exemption decisions, we believe the primary objective must be to prevent undue risk to public health but that, once adequate protection is assured, the basis for establishing specific exemption or release criteria can be based on cost-benefit considerations. In considering the primary objective, we recognize that total exposures of people from all o' the various exempt and licensed practices must be kept within acceptable limits. This has been one of the primary considerations in the NRC's development of an " Advance Notice of the Development of a Comission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control" which has been prepared for discussion at this meeting and which will be the subject of the opening paper tomorrow morning.
It was the desire to develop this broad policy, in fact, that prompted us to plan this workshop to discuss the similarities and diversity of views among national and international regulatory agencies and advisory groups.
Ultimately, our hope is to contribute to the development of a reasonable degree of consistency internationall.y'. As we see it, this broad policy would not replace the " practice specific approach, but rather would provide a framework under which a practice specific exemption decision may be more easily made depending on the magnitude of the individual, and possibly the collective risk, associated with the given practice. The policy speci.fically preposes a numerical criterion - 10 millirem per year (or 100 microsieverts per.
year) as an individual exposure level below which an exempt practice may be considered to meet the as low as reasonably achievable or ALARA principle
'without the need for further quantitative cost-benefit analysis. The policy questions the need for a companion collective dose criterion. The policy also the discusses the potential use of the concept of justification of practice application of which could preclude some practicesfromconsiderationfor exemption from regulatory control, no matter how small the associated risks.
This proposed broad policy on rules for exemption from regulatory control has evolved from a presentation made to our Commissioners just last month.
I would emphasize that the policy is still in the formative stage and will be fomarded again for Comission approval after the NRC staff reflects on the views expressed at this workshop and considers feedback from other interested parties including industry, the Department of Energy, and, of course, our Environmental Protection Agency.
In developing this policy, we are concerned with reducing regulation and its associated costs where the health and safety considerations do not warrant continued regulatory control. But we are also aware that if we allow an increasing number of exemptions from regulatory control it may become more important to reassess our findings with respect to multiple exposures. We must also assure that the basis upon which these exemptions are granted remains valid and, as a result, that public health and safety continues to be adequately protected. Currently, the NRC is aware of potential problems with reconcentration of radioactivity from liquid effluents in sewage sludge and is l
analyzing potential population and worker exposures from such contamination through sludge incineration, soil application, and other potential pathways to the environment. These analyses Ny show the need to reconsider exemption f
limits for these types of waste streams.
As more exemptions are granted, particularly for BRC waste streams, an increasing level of effort is envisioned in monitoring the total impsets to the environment.
In conclusion, I hope that this workshop turns out to be valuable to all of you attending in formulating criteria for exemptions and that it will contribute to a better understanding l
of the various regulatory concepts, approaches, and terminologies involved.
I 3
L
k
<..,:-p_,
+
'*L.
aQ l
4p c...
V',
~0nly through such'a process can we eventually achieve a better consistency p'
among nations in this important area of radiation protection.
Of 1
Y,
- ))
i 1
4
.I s
E t
Y i
,.i
{.
1:
q l
?
1
\\
L i:
I:s i
f.
-'A
--