ML20043C216
Text
N' j
L
((g 3gg D!$TRIBUT10N: NM$586017L,
WM s/f um.U r/" -
207.6/K5D/86/02/26 WMPC r/f RE Browning.. MJ Bell JO Bunting.%1 wdragonette M Keamey C Cudd B Palmer R Cunningham.
NMSS r/f
[
i t
Note to:
John G. Davis. NM55 From:
Robert E. Browning. WM Richard E. Cunningham. FC
Subject:
RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE SELOW REGULATORY CONCERN We have considered the strategy proposed in your note dated February 20. 1986' on Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Weste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The enclosed description indicates how we plan to proceed over the l
near-tem.
It outlines plans to develop a policy statement setting forth guidance and prbcedures for early consideration of petitions as indicated in-your note.
It also addresses the option to consider generic rulemaking later.
based on the experience gained with the statement, public response, and actual ~
petitions.
This strategy to proceed with a policy statement and to defer a j
decision on generic rulemaking is acceptable to both of us.
We would be happy.to discuss the matter with you if you have questions or comments.
f [E. Browning;=_ O =A Robert
/s/ Richard E. Cunningham Richard E. Cunningham
Enclosure:
Description of the Strategy for the Task on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern
- WMPC WM FC 0FC :WMLU *.....................gng. :.a...... j:.........
KDre; nette :MKearney RBrown REdunningfiam :
NAME :
DATE :86/02/26
- 86/02 %
- 86/02/ 2 4 86/02/ 2 7 9006040240 891130 PDR PR
~CHP1 53F.R49886 PDC w-m.,..,.-.,,..,.,.,_,m,,,
)
4 Y
(gg g, g,3 D:5TRIBUTION: 1pt15860172 I Wil s/f WMLU r/f 4
207.6/KSD/86/02/26 WMPC r/f RE Browning s..
, MJ Sell J0 Bunting
?'
e#6ragonette M Kearney 1
C Cudd 3 Palmer R Cunningham NM$$ r/f I
Note to:
John G. Davis, iets$
From:
Robert E. Browning. WM l
Richard E. Cunningham. FC
)
Subject:
RADIDACTIVE WA$TE SELOW RESULATORY CONCERN i
i We have considered the strategy proposed in your note dated February 20. 1996 on Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste policy Amendments Act of 1985.
The enclosed description indicates how we plan to proceed over the i
near term.
It outlines plans to develop a policy statement setting forth guidance and pr6cedures for early considerttien of petitions as indicated in your note.
It also addresses the option to consider generic rulemaking later.
based on the experience gained with the stateerent. public response. and actual l
petitions.
This strategy to proceed with a policy statement and to defer a decision on generic rulemaking is acceptable to both of us.
i We would be happy to discuss the matter with you if you have questions or comments.
l.
f [E. Browningh== J 3 Robert i
/s/ Richard E. Cunningham Richard E. Cunningham l
Enclosure:
Description of the Strategy for the Task on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern i
...,.................gng.,
..... 4:........... :,............ :......
- WMPC WM FC OFC :WMLU, <
nette :MKearney RBrown REdunningiam :
NAME : KDra 8
DATE :86/02/26
- 86/02 %
- 86/02/ 2 4 : 86/02/ 2 7
M n-P
.c i
fg
REVI$10N 1 Description of the strategy for the Task on Radioactive Weste Selow Regulatory Concern purpose Meet the requirements of lection 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive i
Weste policy Amendments Act of le8t { copy enclosed) for processing rulemaking petitions to exempt specific wastes rom regulatten.
l Discunnion: There are two ways to go to meet the requirements in Section 10 to
.* pendards and procedures for considering and acting on petitions for estab' 1
esempting waste streams. One is to issue a Commission policy statement setting out only guidance and procedures for rulemaking on individual petitions. The i
second way is to undertake a generic rulemaking up front that would reduce the issues to be considered in the individual rulemakings en petitions. The policy statement approach c'an be done in about sin conths. The generic rulemaking up front would take 2 years er more.
Swift action to meet the sis i
month Congressional time frame in Section 10 dictates that NRC 39 with the policy statement approach. (See tKe enclosed discussion of pres and cons of eachapproach.)
l The statement approach also allows NRC to establish an interia framework and i
accumulate experience with individual petitions. At the present, we have only the twc petitions identified below that could be accommodated under a policy statement. The question of generic rulemaking can then be decided later. The decision on generic rulemaking depends in part on the number of petitions filed I
in response.
It also depends on how ei'fective the guidance and procedures are in enabling timely processing. The discussion which follows outlines how we l
will approach the policy statement, j
l-Summary: This task will be met in two parts, part I will establish standards i
and procedures within the 6 months' timeframe in Section 10 by means of a Commission Policy 5tatement. A discussion of the pres and cons of this approach and why it was chosen is enclosed. Part !! will establish the agency's technical capability to act on petitions.
i port I: The policy statement will describe the information petitioners should l
f'le, decision criteria the Ceanission will use, and the administrative procedures the Consission will follow. The basic goal is to identify and describe key properties of waste streams that will perett espedited handling of the petition and to put the burden on t'e petitioner to develop the needed n
information C m leted work in NURES/CR-3545 'De Minimis Waste !spects Analysis Methodslogy' will be referenced as an acceptable analytical approach.
The concept of below regulatory concern may include restrictions on the method ofdisposal(e.g.,acceptableifsenttoaevnicipallandfill). Rulemaking will be limited to wastes common to a.ultiple licensees.
Individual licensee proposals will continue to be processed on a case basis under 10 CFR 20.302.
The decision criteria will be based in part en international practices and staff understanding of ongoing EPA standards development work. The notice announcing the policy statement will include a statement that if there is a large demand for Connission action on petitions, the Consission will consider
- I t
-a-3 s
generic rulemaking to provide a more efficient and effective means of
,9 accomplishing the provisions of Section 10.
The Low-Level Waste Task Force will prepare the initial draft policy statement and Connission paper. Review and input from FC, NRR, ELD, RES, SP and WMLU will be obtained. Informal input from epa will also be obtained.
part 11: Developing the technical capability involves two staff efforts. One is the development of a review plan. The plan will cover project management, identify analytical tools and references, and the type of review needed.
It will also describe the type of MRC documentation needed to process the petitions. The second effort involves testing the review plan and the validity of our in-house capability by applying the pe icy statement to two pending petitions for esempting waste streams. The petition from the University of Utah (Docket No. PRM-20-14) asks for enemption for addittenal waste forms containing carbon-14 and tritius to supplement the saisting biomedical esemption in 10 CFR 20.306 and esemption of wastes containing radionuclides with short half Itves. The petition from the Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (Docket No. PRM-10-15) asks for exemption for waste oil at nuclear power plants. We will provide the Commission a status report on staff capabiliti and plans for using and maintaining the capaht11ty within the 6 month timeframe.
The Task Force will prepare the initial draft of the review plan.. Input from reviewing the petitions, the draft plan, and comments received on the Commission policy Statement will be used to help make the plan more useful.
The review plan will track the policy statement and should be a self-explanatory, step-by step procedure. It may include project management, references, sample documents, and explanation of the type of confirmatory review and analysis needed. It should be a discrete division document but need not be published as a NUREG.
The plan for using and m&intaining the capability to process petitions will involve predicting caseloads and defining continuing office and division commitments.
It should also address contingency plans for dealing with multiple petitions submitted over short timeframes. This plan would likely be only a few pages and should be included as an enclosure to the status report to the Commission. The status report should be a brief information paper of only a few pages also. The review plan would be described and referenced. The status report would not include recommendations on the two petitions. Action on the pending petitions will be taken separately. Work on the petitions used in developing the policy statement, review plan, and use plan that would be useful in resolving the petitions should be documented and provided to RES.
Enclosures:
1.
Section 10 2.
Strategy basis 4
s,,,,,.,,nu aw.
-s-*-- ~ - -.. = ~ - ~ -
"=="*"='*"=""""-"^**"******-***""*F"*********'"''**"^******^^*#~~**"
- * * * ' ' ' ^ ^ * * * * ' ' ~ " ' * ' ' * * ~ ^ * " " ' "
- 44 g.
- g
- lt 1
5 0
Ei,,ljs.
~
y =,
en
8 ys MnFmlCE.L;,-
3"E m m,.
madiliR'43iEEP
-a=
a
.g.
es e ses i
a e*
t
- um e,
e a
ll l
o
.g O
s,,
r-
--,--n.,,.--._-
...,e.-
N.
RJ REV!5!0N 1 I
Basis for Commission Policy Statement as 5trategy for Below Regulatory Concern Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 requires NRC to establish standards and procedures for dealing with petitions for rulemaking to exempt waste streams whose radioactive content is below regulatory concern. This mandate can be met in two ways. One is a policy statement and the other is through generic rulemaking. The policy statement approach is recommended but both ways have merit and staff support. The following discussion outlines some of the pros and cons of each approach.
Policy Statement As a oractical matter, the 6 month deadline in Section 10 precludes any l
substantive rulemaking. A policy statement is the only hope of being responsive to the deadline.
i The statement approach places the primary bureen on the petitioner.
EPA is developing standards for wastes below regulatory concern as part of the low-level waste standards effort. A policy statement would not duplicate this EPA work but would provide an interts way to deal with petitions. EPA staff have indicated that proposed rules are scheduled for l
publication by the end of the calendar year after the July NRC deadline.
Coordination with EPA can assure that the statement approach is compatible with current EPA thinking. SPA is not required to issue such standards and Section 10 doas not require NRC to base its actions on anything but its own. judgment.
The final language in Section 10 does not require that procedures and standards be established through rulemaking. Earlier versions did call I
for rulemaking. Thus a statement seems consistent with Congressional intent by wording and timing.
The statement and subsequent experience with petitions can be codified by rulemaking later if EPA does not issue standards or if experience indicates it is necessary. None of the statement work would be wasted.
Dealing with the cumulative impacts of the individual petitions will be somewhat more difficult following the statement approach but it can be l
addressed through the decision criteria and environmental assessments.
Both the statement and rulemaking approach involve subsequent rulemaking on each individual petition. The statement approach leaves more issues open for debate in each individual rulemaking. Relying primarily on each petition has the advantage of focusing public attention on specific wastes that the public can relate to and understand. For esample, the public is 1
likely to understand burning oil in an on-site boiler better than.
philosophical arguments on radiological protection concepts.
4 m.-.
.-,,-.,,.m,
s g
. s.
F The decision criteria in the policy statement can require petitioners to address most of the same issues that would be addressed in rulemaking, t
j noi.matio.
Generic rulet -king up front would miniette the issues which could be l
debated each individual rulemaking on specific waste streams.
]
Comprehensive generic rulemaking up front would establish the regulatory framework based on public review and acceptance of current and developing i
radiological protection philosophy.
Rulemaking would provide the strongest e6thod of requiring compliance.
Rulemaking would provide the most comprehensive mothed of addressing the
)
national picture and dealing with the cumulative tapacts.
i
.Rulemaking would place the primary burden en NRC and involve significant
)
additiona' resources, l
Rulemaking could be highly controversial and take,several years. Even then, resolution is uncertain. EPA is reluctant to address public l
exposures in a completely generic fashion and is developing separate standards for residual activity in buildings and soils, recycle of materials and equipment in the public doma' n, and wastes with ne manifest potential usefulness that have radioactivity levels below repulatory l-concern. (Reference SECY-85-373, November 25,1g85, and ent :esed correspondencewithEPA.)
Generic rulemaking might not be necessary if request for eneopt waste streams is relatively small.
l l
l l
~
i l
6 l
.5 9
8 i
---,,-----y- -. -.
-