ML20043C218
| ML20043C218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/21/1986 |
| From: | Cunningham R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006040242 | |
| Download: ML20043C218 (17) | |
Text
2, DI TRIBUT10N CMausshar e enc 1 ham DRChapell t/c encl.REcunning/encY/ enc 1
'a GATerry L i
LRoche../ enc 1.
FCTA R/F w/ enc 1.
1
(
w FCUF R/Fw/o enc 1.
NMSS R/F w/o enc 1.
FC Central File w/ enc 1.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert E. Browning, Director Division of Waste Management, NMS$
gpg g 120 FROM:
Richard E. Cunningham Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
SUBJECT:
POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING DISPOSAL OF RADIDACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN i
Kitty Dragonette has dene a fine job in developing a working paper on a complex subject in a very short time. Attached is my maried.up copy of the paper.
There are, however, several points of policy which need to be discussed at a meeting since they are fundamental to how we will proceed. These are:
1.
DesignationoftheDisposalSethod. The paper implies that disposal methods will be designated. This means that it will be regulated to some i
extent after it leaves the licensee.
If this is the case, the waste streams are not truly "below regulatory concern." Rather, it is simply l
an aiternative to disposal at a licensed facility. This is quite l
different than gathering information about likely methods of disposal for l
purposes of estimating health impacts.
I 2.
Relationship of the Exemption to Rules of other Agencies. The paper seems to iriply that we will control transportation and disposal in a way l
which meets requirements of other agencies. This gets very complex.
Should we do this or should we confine our decisions narrowly, i.e.,
radiation safety for exempt materials. Other agencies can exercise their i
jurisdiction as they see fit. Our exemption would not exempt compliance from rules of other agencies.
3.
The use of collective dose and cut.off levels needs to be better defined. How this is treated can make a big difference in the outcome.
A more general observation is that the paper requires information and analyses that are so complex it is very questionable that any exemptions will be granted.
I fear that through the development process, there were no constraints put on anything anybody might want to know about the waste stream.
It can probably stand a good scrubbing to make it more simple.
To accomplish this, we need to get the partiesgeperjo disguss what is essential.
Richard E. 'Canninghap)
Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
Enclosure:
As stated
,{....\\.CTA[:
FCUF FC
- FC 0FC:
FCT s...............
s..........
.. ~.
NAME:L oc.e/ks/rf:GATdqry: WTCrow :MChapell:
Cun ham:
..................../..,....;................................................
// /8N Y/51/86 : f / /86 : / /,, /86 d
DATE: '//2)/86
\\
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 60 242 89133o CHP1 33pR49886 PDC
~
__> A 7f I
[
[
g' umTto sTAtts NUCLEAR RE8ULATORY COMMISSION I
yI" q
n:
l
//-
t NOTE TO:
idia'Roche, FC d -
Don Hamon, RES Faith Brenneman, NRR Don Nussbaumer, OSP Bob Fonner, ELD e
John Buchanan, IE KittyDragonette,WMLLWTaskForceh FROM:
Dan Goode, WM LLW Task Force %
.4%
SUBJECT:
IDENTIFICATION OF NRC CONTACTS FOR LLW BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN As you may be aware, a special task force has been established in WM to respond to Congressional mandate in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. Section 10 of the act requires that NRC establish standards, procedures, and the technical capability to expeditiously deal with petitions for rulemaking for LLW Below Regulatory Concern (BRC). Current lans are to respond to Section 10 by developing a Comission Policy Statement p(see enclosed note from R. Browning and R. Cunningham to J. Davis, 21 Feb 86).
This project must be complete by July 1986.
Based on your 1revious involvement with licensing of onsite disposal, petitions for 3RC rulemaking, etc., we would like for you to act as liaison l
for the BRC project, in this role, you would be responsible for providing timely review a;.d input to the policy, procedures, and technical capability as they are developed. The enclosed milestones indicate several products and activities associated with this project. We will be in frequent contact with you to update you as to our progress / problems / decisions.
Please let us know within a week if you will not be able to perfom this function as liaison and identify our next step in establishing a liaison.
Otherwise, we will be in touch with you for specific activities as they arise.
Our phone numbers are:
Kitty, x7-4300; Dan, x7-4524.
Enclosures:
As stated cc: RCunningham, FC RAlexander, RES EButcher TAPMG 1
l 4
i
,6 ggq
.o jgy:-'
1 RADICACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN MILESTONE Commit ~
Policy Statement Draft complete 2 Apr Office review complete 16 Apr Final package to EDO 7 May j
Final package to Commission 21 May Petition Handbook - generic, entire rulemaking process Draft complete 7 May Office review complete 21 May Final 11 Jun Technical Canability
' Methodology available in house 26 Mar Inhouse petitions tested 23 Apr Status report draft 4 Jun Office review complete 11 Jun Status report to NMSS 18 Jun Status report to EDO 25 Jun Status report to Commission 2 Jul i
l t
e i
e' l
L: & B 27" N
h M V'm @" g?.
j
'd UNITED STATES
- {
[
NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION
/
WASHilv0 TON.D. C,3000s
)
g C.6 )7
[Me#,
s Ai I
&MJG
/dr5
)
\\
l MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert E. Browning. Director Division of Weste Management FROM:
Michael S. Kearney. Leader Low-Level Waste Task Force. WM
SUBJECT:
RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTING THE NRC REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1985. SECTION 10 CONCERNING RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN As requested in your memorandum to me dated February 13. 1986. I as providing responses to each of the four listed items for the below regulatory L
concern task.
)
[
L Michael S. Kearney, Leader Low-Level Waste Task Force. WM t
Enclosures:
Responses to Items 1-4 i
cc:
RE Cunningham, FC w/ response to Items 1, 2, and Incoming l
4 i
S70 1-4 e,.
l
.w e
v,
=$4.
8*
.s.
4 j
60
. i I
l d
l i
J 1
i i
l i
I l
ii 1
J O
J f
l e
i ITEM 1 l '
l l
l 1.
l l
l i
l l
1 I
1'i '
1l' 5
v.
m a
?.
Description of the Strategy for the Task on Radioactive M
Waste Below Regulatory Concern Puroose: Meet the requirements of Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (copy enclosed) for processine rulemaking
. petitions to exempt specific wastes from regulation.
Summary: This task will be met in two parts.
Part I will establish standards and procedures within the 6 months' timeframe in Section 10 by means of a i
Commission Policy Statement.
A discussion of the pros and cons of this approach and why it was chosen is enclosed.
Part II will establish the agency's technical capability to act on petitions.
P drI: The policy statement will describe the information petitioners should T le. decision criteria the Connission will use. and the administrative
^
procedures the Commission will follow. The basic goal is to identify and describe key properties of waste streams that will pemit expedited handling of the petition and to put the burden on the petitioner to develop the needed information.
Completed work in NUREG/CR-3585 "De Minimis Waste Impacts Analysis Methodology" will be referenced as an acceptable analytical approach.
The concept of below regulatory concern may include restrictions on the method of disposal (e.g.. acceptable if sent to a municipal landfill).
Rulemaking will be limited to wastes common to multiple 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 on international practices and staff understanding of ongoing EPA standards development work.
The. Low-Level Waste Task Force will prepare the initial draft policy statement and Commission paper.
Review and input from FC. NRR. ELD. RES. SP and WMLU will be obtained.
Informal input from EPA will also be obtained.
Part II: 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 NRC documentation needed to. process the petitions.
The second effort involves testing the review plan and the validity of out in-house capability by applying the policy statement to two pending petitions for exempting waste streams. The petition from the University of Utah (Docket No. PRM-20-14) asks for exemption for additional waste foms containing carbon-14 and tritium to supplement the existing biomedical exemption in 10 CFR 20.306 and exemption of wastes containing radionuclides with short half lives. The petition from the Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (Docket No. PRM-20-15) asks for exemption for waste oil at nuclear power plants..We will provide the Commission a status report on staff capability and plans for using and maintaining the capability 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 scif-explanatory. step-by-step procedure.
It may include project management.
___,_._._.___.-_-_w,
--e-
. e m
..s m
..m
2
- W
- y..
'D 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 maintaining 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 Itkely 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.
i
Enclosures:
l 1.
Section 10 2.
Strategy basis I
1 9
1 1
4 3
m
N O-
[.'.
'WBt tS R&D80ASTE WAff5 OROW A881&6918T SDBCEDI, dina 6 the ofgg
.a ar-ee.EP,.,
.ms.l'!5
,F e
- 7 e"s ".
- 4 e. sa.
b gag ggamensmAndam
- i.eeu es a. L" ka h.
.a se suaattted to the Csemmenos by useneses la seppert et see peauses, instuding. but nos unused es-
"IU a W dessetpnos of the eene ameestals, laciedlag their a sse: @. sheensent compeemaa, phymnal mesa, velmas, saa "t21 the sensestraties or sessaadaation levels, half 4lves, and idennaies of me remonusudes pessoas.
Such standasts and prosecures sand petmde thas, essa reseipt of a penuan to pt a openSc ve esses seems treta requia.
tan try the isease, the ahd desegunne la as espeditaeus manner whether the esseestresaca or quasasy of rennenusudes presost in such weste streans u6 pes regulanon by the c==
'= m spear so presses me bes&lh and safety.
'#,ters the t'====an deserttunes that et a radAamatave 87 a
regalanea air"she weene 1
e
M y' ' "
[
Basis for Commission Policy Statement as Strategy 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 The l
approach is recommended but both ways have merit and staff support.
j following discussion outlines some of the pros and cons of each approach.
Polic.y Statement As a practical matter, the 6 month deadline in Section 10 precludes any substantive rulemaking. A policy statement is the only hope of being
?
responsive to the deadline.
The statement approach places the primary burden on the petitioner.
l EPA is developing standards for wastes below regulatory concern as part of J
the low-level waste standards effort.
A policy statement would not duplicate this EPA work but would provide an interin way to deal with petitions.
EPA staff have indicated that proposed rules are scheduled for 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.
EPA is not required to issue such standards and Section 10 does not require NRC to base its actions on anything but its own judgment.
l The' final language in Section 10 does not require that procedures and standards be established through rulemaking.
Earlier versions did call for rulemaking.
Thus a stat > ment seems consistent with Congressional l
intent by wording and timing, The statement and subsequent experience with petitions can be codified by t
l rulemaking later if EPA does not issue standards or if experience indicates it is necessary.
None of the statement work would be wasted.
l.
Dealing with the cumulative impacts of the individual petitions will be somewhat more difficult following the statement approach but it can be addressed through the decision criteria and environmental assessments.
(
Both the' statement and rulemaking approach involve subsequent rulemaking l'
on each individual petition. The statement approach leaves more issues open for debate in each individual -ulemaking.
Relying primarily on each petition has the advantage of focusing public attention on specific wastes that the public can relate to and understand.
For example the public is likely to understand burning oil in an on-site boiler better than philosophical arguments on radiological protection concepts.
The decision criteria in the policy statement can require petitioners to address most of the same issues that would be addressed in rulemaking.
370
^
a;?b.
Rulemakino Generic rulemaking up front would minimize the issues which could be 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 J
radiological protection philosophy.
Rulemaking would provide the strongest method of requiring compliance, j
Rulemaking would provide the most comprehensive method of addressing the national picture and dealing with the cumulative impacts.
J Rulemaking would place the primary burden on NRC and involve significant additional resources.
1 Rulemaking would be 'ighly controversial and take several years.
Even n
then, resolution is uncertain.
EPA is reluctant to address public I
exposures in a completely Generic fashion and is developing separate l
standards for residual activity in buildings and soils, recycle of J
l materials and equipment in the public domain. and wastes with no manifest potential usefulness that have radioactivity levels below regulatory concern.
(Reference SECY-85-373. November 25. 1985, and enclosed l
correspondence with EPA.)
1 r
I e
b 6
w----e
~n
,,-,-<e
e---
.--.wa.
1.
CnD i
y 46 4
l i
i 1
1 1
I 1
i l
?
1 1
6 i
I l
r l
1 1
)
9
+
ITEM 2 s
I 7
t
B7 Date: 46/02/21 "IM WORK PLAN e.n i
Work Plan No. LL-E
- secutive Ops Plan: Yes X No and Branch /Section:
Low-Level Waste Task Force Mask No:
PPSAS Not $411M
Title:
Commission Policy Statement on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory concern and Development of Technical Capability pescription/
Purpose:
Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Weste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 requires NRC action to prepare to review petitions to esempt particular wastes from regulation. This requirement will be met in two Part !.
Standards and procedures for esemption of specific wastes free regulation will be established by means of a Commission Policy Statement which would define required information, decision criteria and administrative procedures for the petition process.
Part II. Review plan is to be developed and technical capability for review will be developed based on the pending 10CFR20 petitions already in house and being reviewed. Part II will also include l
a plan for using and maintaining the capability.
l The strategy for this task is discussed in more detail in the enclosed description.
Lead Project Manager / Phone No:
Kitty S. Dragonette/427-4300 (Part I)
Danici J. Goode/427*4524 (Part II)
Other Oraanization Inputs Required:
Part I Review and comment by TC, RES, NRR, ELD, SP, EPA Part II: Review and comment by FC, RES, NRR, ELD plus continuing role to processing petitions.
Coccurrences Required:
FC, RES, NRR, ELD. Will also involve coordination with SP, States, and EPA.
Resource Implications:
(Provide Total WM Resources for Duration of Project by FY)
TY86 TY87 TY8 TY8 SY
$K SY g
g
[K SY g
Required Resources:* 1 TBD 0.5 TBD(add on to LL'd modeling contract)
Budgeted Resources:
Source of Unbudgeted Resources (if necessary):
Impacts of Reprogranning (if necessary):
WM Coordination:
X EG GT LU RP PC i
- Applies only to Tasks that are submitted to PSB and entered into the WM Executive Operating Plan
Dates 86/02/21 MO l
P
,q
- NMSS Coordination X
?' -
+
~ * '
+
Approval:
Division Director M S Director
[
Date:
Dates Ff86 FY87 (depends on number, character and timing of petitions filed)
SY
$K SY
$K RES
.1 TBD
'o TBD t
l l
l I'
l e
l l
l l
1 l
l I
i.
" Applies only to Tasks that are submitted to PSB a:: entered into the Wrf
' Executive Operating Pian v-e,,,
f f
- ee t
'L. ~}
AcJ:,ohe ulA falov Aen *.by xeua
~
~'
Mark Plan MILESTONES / SCHEDULE Involved tranches
~ Dates lead 7[ -
PPSAS f E_ Y Milestones / FIN starr Baseline _ Current Actual g
GT g
RP I
F Aevc wl 41.'
54 II3+
F,} "T f
d,G,,,,.}
wy,3 o&fu t.c e
>:,4 ey t.v Du H yehy f WM s-J %L Fwee rav:ew c 7l,4 03/11/86
-Aei:,cJJnFF nlufts-
- IW' x ?.~ r bL P--T
{
OKee(M, ecd,Nc,F4-]
I ern-r w. Q t, geb l
F:~ { p ege S WMss Ml3elrs k
i l
t >
F:lj><ke h EDO' orlnfrs y
i h Go~e.;s.k oc)zijss F.,,, / puk.,e f
1 1 1 e u.-J i. re. ten / te,.2L osj',</a
' '" '" N' '.'*
^ h'5
)
)
j c1Ted:se,&4 nj,,yn b
i t
Check box if milestone is for Executive-level tracking (in Executive Operating Plan and Task.Herk).WI j
E-D-
Check box if'ailestone is for Division-level tracking.
Unchecked milestones are for'8 ranch-level tracking only.
4 p!
k 1
h.f M&*f F*9tN$-
kcYsoavh e YoAh be/W hJ f'
Herk Plan l
PAA T JL
^
MILESTONES / SCHEDULE I
~ Dates involved tranches Lead
.PSAS f E_ T Milestones / FIN Starf_
Baseline Cettrent_ Actual g
gy g
g y
Tf' -
- 'I 3 A Re v ;e v P/s.n ul/,Jrs y.,7/i r,..-L,,l % (+
p du,;,/ Duff G../,/
rs y
l o,-
c4&a fe<:es c. 7/d nJ.5 osb es l
X F:n. {
oQui (b st c I h.kHy f
wwessIce-was,ne$.4kg.
ofas/rc g
. 4:4 44
,1 J,,.
l X
i Pad.5 pakl.,,s fe. k) o4/s.sfts SkN, r yek +use yk b Q,'
osfafts f
e 44 <,p4 4 wM.
e6[u/rs.
l x.3 f A. "'M %
osprlrG sus, re 54b. v.yor a
st.L <<h.J-in EDDf yI* fg x x
.4 4 Co-s:ss.en
\\
p g j,
l i
Check box if milestone is for Executive-level tracking (in Executive Operating Plan and Task Mork).
I E-D-
Check box if milestone is for Division-level tracking.
Unchecked ellestones are for tranch-level tracking only.
- g WW 0 l
w.:
W
'e Supplementary Direction for Dan Goode Task on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern Part !
Input needed for the policy statement includes a decision on practiceitty of use of NUREG/CR-3595 by public. identification and preparation of supplemental guidance (e.g., to make user friendly) needed for public use, and administrative details to allow public use and access. An insert for the policy statement on use of the methodology la also necessary.
]
Assistance needed also includes determining whether outside consultant or j
industry help is needed to make NUREG/CR-3595 user friendly.
Two options are
)
Joyce P. Davis an AIF contractor, under a small purchase order. (see enclosed
]
resume') and Utility Nuclear Weste Mana0ement Group (UNWMG) potential free
=
help.
The UNWMG contacts are:
J.D. Edwards (214) 979-8815 TX Utility GenCo.
400 N. Olive. Lock Box 81 Dallas. Texas 75201
)
Brian Farrell. Program Manager (202) 828-7669 Utility Nuclear Waste Managem<nt Group Edison Electric Institute 1111 Nineteenth Street. N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036-3691 (Farrell is also the contact for the waste oil petition)
Finally. the option to also list the methodology used by the Edison Electric l
Institute (EEI) for the waste oil petition or EPA codes being used to develop below regulatory concern waste standards as acceptable alternatives. needs to be examined.
If these methodologies are acceptable and can be made available by NRC. EPA. or EEI. they should be factored into the policy statement and Part II work.
A potential effort related to this work is the work being done by Joyce Davis for the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) as two National Environmental Studies Projects. As of February 19. 1986 we only have an earlier draf t of one of the reports.
Copies of talking notes on the two projects used January 16. 1986 to brief NRC's ACRS Subconnittees are enclosed.
We have been promised final copies as soon as they are printed.
If the printed copies are available on time (one was camera-ready the week of February 10). we may be able to address using them in the policy statement.
If they are available too late. we should still evaluate them. factor them into the plan for using and maintaing capability under Part II. and consider supplemental guidance for petitioners.
As discussed under Part II. experience with the pending petitions needs to be factored into both the policy statement and the review plan.
l
BW 2-1 F
Part 11 The immediate need under Part 11 is to develop 10 house familiarity with the methodology in NUREG/CR-3585 and the ability to ese the methodology.
G. Roles should be used as a consultant and advisor.
A parallel immediate need is to obtain and begin to become familiar with all the material available on the two petitions.
(Contacts are Hal Peterson (7-4354) for Utah and Don Harmon (7-4566) on the waste oil.) The petitions, supportin0 technical analyses and public comments should be included.
Hamon also has a propNd response on the oil petition hung up in NRR.
A copy of his proposal should be obtained and included in the review of petition materials.
(Copies of the FRNs on the petitions were provided earlier.)
Orag nette will
- d t a first cut of the review plan as soon as the policy statement is di-u c.
Goode will need to complete the plan workin0 with Dragonette and wing input froar e-ag it out on the petitions.
Input from other offices or d1 visions will els: ce needed since they may have the lead in processing petitions covering we w stream from activities they license (i.e..
NRR for reactor wastes and FC for fuel cycle and materials wastes).
RES input will also be needed since they may have pro, ject management responsibilities for some or all petitions.
Working out the office and division roles is a part of developing a plan for using and maintaining the capability.
A key element in this plan will be predicting how many petitions may be filed and from which sector. The enclosed talking notes identify a number of potential reactor waste streams.
Two other potential sources are industry testimony on the law (see Mike kearney) and the enclosed report prepared by the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. Inc.
NRR. RES and FC may have additional ideas.
EPA is also looking at specific waste streams and might be willing to share which ones they are looking at as long as we don't push on which ones might qualify under the standard they are preparing.
(Contact Floyd Galpin or Lew Meyer at EPA.) You should establish contacts in FC. RES. and NRR to provide early input on drafts and plan development.
(Final approval on the plan for using and maintaining 1
will be obtained by means of the status report to the Commission.)
Enclosures:
1.
Resume' 2.
Talking notes (2 sets) 3.
Conference report M
m