ML20058Q069

Responds to Expressing Opposition to NRC Proposed Deregulation of Certain Low Level Radwastes Classification of Below Regulatory Concern. NRC Actions Consistent W/ Other Federal Agencies

ML20058Q069
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/10/1990
From:	Remick F NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Schneider C HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20058Q073	List: ML20058Q069 ML20058Q075
References
FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9008210065
Download: ML20058Q069 (11)

Text

gr

(

(,

og

_ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES -

e n

WASHINGTON, D, C. 20665

\\.....

August 10, 1990-CHAIRMAN The Honorable Claudine Schneider United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

20515

Dear Congresswoman Schneider:

I am responding to your letter of June 1,1990, in which you expressed your strong opposition to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's) proposed-deregulation of certain low-level radioactive wastes (LLW) to a classification of "Below Regulatory Concern" or BRC. As you may be aware, on June 27,-1990, the Comission' issued 'a Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement.. I have enclosed a copy of this statement and a booklet for your information (Enclosures 1 and 2).

-I would' point out that the policy is not self-implementing and does not,'by-itself, deregulate any LLW. Rather, the policy sets forth the principles and criteria that would apply to Comission decisions which would exempt small quantities of radioactive material from the more comprehensive regulations that are imposed on more hazardous material. Any specific exemption decision would be accomplished through rulemaking-or licensing actions. Opportunity for.public coment will be provided with each rulemaking.and each licensing action where generic exemption provisions have not already been established.

Furthermore, the policy has applications beyond waste disposal in tha't it _would also provide the basis for decomissioning decisions involving the cleanup and release of lands and structures for unrestricted use, as well as decisions-~regarding-consumer product exemptions.

This policy is a direct outgrowth of the concepts articulated in the Low-Level RadioactiveWastePolicyAmendmentsActof1985(Pub.L.99-240).-Section10 of.that Act directed the NRC to "... establish standards and procedures...-and develop the technical capability:for considering and acting upon petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from regulation... due to the presence of radionuclides in such waste streams in sufficiently low.

concentrations or quantities as to be.below regulatory concern."

In response to the legislation, NRC developed and published in11986-a Statement of Policy and Procedures which outlines the criteria for considering such BRC waste petitions (Enclosure 3). Our recently issued BRC policy statement builds upon this earlier policy to provide a more comprehensive framework for making exemption decisions.

In issuing these two policy statements, the Comission has acted in the belief-that the Nation's interests are best served when-exemption decisions are made on a uniform basis which assures that human health and the environment are protected.

In this regard, we believe our actions are I

O v 1 v 'n nw

-J y{

9008210065 900810 4

PDR COMMS NRCC

. CORRESPONDENCE PDC j

4 5

1 i

The Honorable Claudine Schneider 2

i consistent with-those of other Federal-agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which have formulated or are attempting to formulate similar policies for the activities they regulate. We also believe our policy will contribute to. focusing the-4 Nation's radiation protection resources on those risks with greatest potential impact on public health and safety, 1

The Commission is aware of the sizable number of resolutions passed by cities and counties across the country that prohibit the disposal of radioactive material-in their connunities. We have found that many of these-resolutions are based on misleading or erroneous premises, which we have attempted to explain in our responses to the appropriate local government authorities.

t contains our responses to specific issues you raised in your

.i letter, some of which have also been identified in various city and county l

resolutions.

The Commission carefully considered these and other issues prior to issuing our BRC Policy Statement and continues'to believe that the implementation of the BRC policy will adequately protect the public' health and safety and the environment.

I hope our comments will help resolve your concerns atout the

. objectives and potential impact of our policy statement.

L Sincerely, L

for

. Remick l

l A

Chairman

Enclosures:

1.

BRC Policy Statement 2.

BRC Explanatory Booklet 3.

Appendix B to Part 2 4.

Response to BRC Concerns 1

E ENCLOSURE'

'3-i PART 2 o RULF.S OF PRACTICE FOR' DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS

' App, y -

W -ApglA(X)-

I

+

i limplementing the generel opproach outimed j

Appendia 3 to part 2-General Stotement hn this policy statement. Although etsff may.

4 of pohey and Procedme Conceming -

i

'pehtione pursuant to i 1302 for Dwpenal of a vies it from time,to time as empenence le

.Re&oecuve Weste Steeme Selow

' seined in processing pet hens, the plan Regulatory Concern:

outlines e reasonabie beeis for accompheking.

!. Introduction end pwpue the approach. Steft is to publish reviesens se.

Il Sienderde and precedures NUREG documente end notice the

[

Ill. Agrument Stales ovellebility of the revisione in the Fedesel -

-l

!Y.Futum Asuee Repletorc i

I As e procucal metter.the prhnery

1. leveducNee and purpees informehen for lustifytse end supportmg

[

e g

The 14w4 ant Radioactive Weste policy petitlene meet be suppled by 94 peutkner if l

l

~-

l Amendments Act of tee 6 [the Act)(42 U.S C.

the Commleelen le to est in en eapedited 3021b et seq.) was staected January SA tees.

menner. lf the peutioner wtehee to sesum i

Section to of the Act oddmues dispoul of empedited action the supportseg informouse i

westes termed "below regulatory concern should be templete enough so that a

thei would not swed w be ubiect to

^--* uuee is primercy haswd to.

reguletery eentrol to eseum edeguate

ladopendent evalueues and administrouve testion of the pubhc beehh and aslety.

pressesing.

use of their reessetive sentent.The geel.

Decision criterte for judging whether to

-(

I of this secties of the Act is for the..

great e peut 6en involve taw overes imposte of.

I Commweien to make proctical and thnely the d eeuen, weste rties,and =

I deciesens to determine when westee need not menteuen of the pr esempuen.

I so to a licensed low. level weele ette.

The following cruerte addrue these emes.

I thou dec6slens will be empruesd petit 6eas wtuch demonsuele that these

'y rulemaking Ahernetive 6eposal wouhl eriterte are met should be suitable for 4

eeneerve spese in the emie estee while :

empedited action.

~l mew estos are established redueethe 1.Dispoul and treatment of the westee u easte of deposal. Ralemaking peut 5ne may '-

epectred in the peuuen well reouh in no

'I play a role in the neuenellow. level weete.

sign $ cent kapest se the quehty of the i

I stre authned by the Aet.The Act human savtromment.

pre lhet the Commission establish -

& The monimum esposeed ellective dose I

procedures for acting espe 646euely on equivaleet to se in&vidual member of the pectione to esempt specine reheestive puhhc does set enesed a few milbrem per R wate streams trem the Commase6ee's -

% year for mesmal operouses and entacipated g "Otiene.

gbevente.,.ne ssuu.ve doen

.e ari si see.f ie statement end

. E accompan,,ying haplementeuen plan le to,.

~ [ipopelet6en and general ben are small

- estabheh the stendeeds and A.. f - that

. 4.De potenuelre isomesqueness

• wiu permit the Ceaunteesen to act upon

• o(accidente er equipment malfunctaen rulemaking pemens in en expeditieue tavelv6ag the westes and inwueien inte menneres ce i let la the Act. This pehcy -

6epenal alwo after lese of nerowl taeutut6onal sentrole are est espencont.

statement de t.ot require peuheswee to pneent all the alenneuen authned or

4. He enemption wtB mesh to e espdassat demonstrete that the decision artierte for mdueuen,in societal esote.

expedewd handhes een be owl if such 4.The weste le sempeuble with the expedated handhne 6e not wanted. For

, propeeed treeasent and daspeesi optione.

exemple, peutione requeoung enemption of.

y.The esempues to usefulen e sehemel concentrohens of redienuchees that might.

ocale. lA. it le hkely to be used by a category neult in indmiu'l suposuru higher then of licensen er et leest e signmcent peruen of those scommended a the decwien entene e category;,.

may be submitted but expe&ted handhng

4. De tediological properties of the wate cannot be suured.

stream han been cherectensed on a metassel Finally, this pohey statement and basis, the venobihty hee been protected, and accompanytag implementation plan are

. the range of verseuen wiH not invahdete intended to facdaste hendhng of rulemeking supperung onelyses.

peuhone for streams from muluple producere s.The weste ehereciertseties is beoed on and do not apply to individul heensme dela en real westes..

ections en eingle producer weste.indmdual-t to ne dispued form of alw www bu heeneen who seek opproval for dispoul of teshgible potenbal for recycle.

their un6 ques westes may contmue to submit it.ucensen een utebheh effective.

their esposal piene under 10 CP1t 30.302(a).

licensable, and inspectable programe for the II. Stoodards and Preendume

' *eete pner to trenefer to demonstrete compliance'Istte treatment or dwpoul The etenderde and proceduru sweded to 12.Theof indle peuhone exped hously fellinto the sw&um les, eenitary landfull does not need followmg three categorwe Olinformehon '

to be controlled or monitored for redieuon -

pettuoners should fde 6n support of the.

9,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,The methods and procedures used to pehhons. (2) stenderde for eseesema the.

13.

edequacy of the proposals and providmg manage the westes and to eseess the unpecte peuhonors insight on the decision entene the

. are no different from those that would be Cornmission latends to use so that all nphed to the cormepondmg unconteenneted relevant infonnetionalissues will be '

addressed in the peuton, and (3) the inwrnal

"*f"hj g

re are doory or Iml '

NILC edmmistrative procedume for handhng obstacles to use of the propoud meetment or the peuuons Thou thru cetesona are -

gP"'i 8"g' addressed in the etteched staff.

implementstion plan.The etef plan wse UI Agreement Stense developed in response to Commission The 14w.1svel Red oecuve Weste pohey -

direction to provide cleteiled guidance on

- Amendments Act of1g45 eetsbhshes a

,[

240

APP BfW PP.B PART 2 o RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS national system for deshng with lomlevel A General the petitioner if the Commission is to act

wesie disposal The system essians to e5.e 1.10 Cm Pan 2 Reqmrements in an expedited manner. Petitions for Sistes responsibht) for disposal caps.asy for 2 Environmentalimpacts rulemaking should therefore be Irw4ese) westes not esceedmg Cle.s C 3 Economic Impact on Small E.nuties submitted following the staff's w astes as defined in to CFR 614.8. Section 10 4 Computer Program supplemental guldence and procedures sf the Act encourages a reducurn in volume 8 Scope to assure expedited action.

cf such swastes subpect to State responsiblitiy -

8. Weste Characterisation L Emironmenfolimpoets. Petitions fit dishosal through the optica of determining

1. Radiologica,1 Properties ggg gg that certain wesies need noi go to esistmg 2 Other Considerstrons 3 Totals finding of no significant impact on the licensed disposal fecihties e e new siter -

4. Basis quality of the human environment. Such beensed under to CM Part 61 or equi, State regulehens. lf radiological safety cu oe

6. As Low as Renonably Achieveble Commission findings must be based on assured. such disposal would conserve ape.e (ALARA) an Environmental Assessment that in the esisting sites while new sites are C. Weste Management Options complies with 10 CMt 51.30 and must developed. and would eerse es en important D. Analyses meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.32.

edivnet to volume reduction efforta in

1. Radiologicalimpacts These requirements include addressing mutme the weste volume allocation hmits

2. Other impacts the need for the proposed action.

set forth in the Act. Thus. these rulemak;ngs 3 Regulatory Analysis ideMifyiq abativn and assessing should aid the States in fulfilhng their E Recordkeepmg and Reportmg the Potential environmentalimPacts of responsibihues under the Act. Equity elec

1. Surveys suggests that all weste generators be able to

2. Reports th' Proposed action and alternatives.

t:ke advantage of below regulatory concern F. Proposed Rule Consistent with 10 CFR 51.41. the opuons as part of their weste management lit. Decision Crtieria petitioner should submit the information otroiesies Generators m both Agreeement IV. Administrative Handhng needed to meet these requirements and do so in a manner that permits and non Agreement States will be competmg g gggg fre space in the existmg sites and the concept independent evaluation by the should be opphcable nahoe.w6de-Section 10 of the Low Level Commission of the data and Agreement States will piay en important Radioactive Weste Policy Amendments methodology used and the conclusions role m ensurms that the system works on e Act of 1985 requires the Nuclear reached.

' ' " ' ' ' ' " b e.

$tIhae cojr ig find ngs thj, Regulatory Commission (NRCl to

3. Economic impoet on smallentifiet n

esttam westes are below regulatory concem develop standards and procedures for When a rulemaking action is likely to -

and do not have to go to low level weste expeditious handling of petitions for have a significant economic impact on a siin The Sisies have been voicing this view rulemaking to exempt disposal of substantial number of small entities the fer a number of years through forums such as radioactive waste determined to be Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that g the Conference of Radiation Control Program

, below regulatory concern.The Act also e the impacts on these small entities must 3 e specifically addressed.(The Directors. Rulemakmes grantme psttions will O requires NRC to identify information b

g A pet li nets sh uld file.The Commission A Commission's stae standard for h Agt e ent s on u ly.

makmg

[ Pohey Statement provides general

! identifyms a small entity is 53.5 million a will be coordmated with the States

. guidance on how to meet the

- or less in annual receipts except for

IV.Futum Action

• requirements Isection 10 of the Act,

• private practice physicians and The Commission will conduct e generic outhnes the overall approach to be educationalinstitutions where the rulemaking on waste streams below followed, and lists decision entene to be standard is $1 million or less m annual regulatory concem based on a number of factors The factors melude pubhc comments used Implementation of the general receipts for private practice physicians received on the statement, the number and approach and decision critena of the and 500 employees for educational types of petitons for rulemaking received. and

. Commission Policy Statement involves institutions. See 50 FR 50214. December how effective the statement is m enabhng developing more detailed guidance and 9,1985-) For any rulemaking. the -

timely processing of petitions A generic procedures. In accordance with Commission must either certify that the l

rulemakmg is warranted to proude a more Commission direction. the NRC staff has rule will not economically impact or will developed more detailed guidance and have no significant economic impacts on l

ac o phs ngi al eted in Section prJcedures for implementation of the small entities, or present an analysis of I

10 of the Act. An advance notice of proposed Commission Policy Statement.This staff alternatives to minimize the impacts.

i rulemakmg will be pubbahed withm so days I

Furthermore. the Commission may guidance and procedures cover:(1)

Because rulemakings on below i

penodically review alt rulemakmss in order Information petitioners should file in regulatory concern should provide rehef to assure that the relevant parameters have support of petitions to enable expedited from requirements for all affected not changed sigmficantly and may ask the processing. (2) discussion of the decision entities. satisfaction of this requirement i

petitioner to submit updated information to criteria, and (3) administra tive should be straightforward but it must be i

assist in the review The Commission would procedures to be followed.

. addressed in any rulemaking. To also has e 1o confirm that approved facilitate expeditious preparation of the j

enemptions are consistent with any general

!!. loformation to Support Petitions -

proposed rule responding to the petition, standards issued by EPA.

A. General the petitioner should submit an Dated a a shington. DC this Esth day of evaluation of the estimated economic 1.10 C.sW Porf 2 requiremena The c if ed i formation equireme ts for mpac on sma n s

d For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I'*

I **

the costs for small entities in terms of l

the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR staff time and dollar costs. Any Secretory to the Commission.

2.802[c).These regulations require the alternatives that could accomphsh the Editonal Note.The 6iaff tmplementation petitioner to identify the problem and objective of the petitioner's proposed plan will not appear m the Code of Federal propose solutions, to state the petitioner's grounds for and interest in rule while minimizing the economic Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff the action, and to provide supporting impact on small entities should be implementation of Nuclear Regulatory information and rationale. As a practical presented. The evaluation should include an assessment of the Commission Policy on Radioactive matter. the information demcnstrating incrementalrec rdkeeping and reporting Weste Below Regulatory Concern-that the radiological health and safety costs that would be associated with the impacts are so low as to be below l

11. Informat on to Support Petitions regulatory concern must be provided by petitioned rule change.

I Introduch n 2 51 August 29,1986

APP. B(lli Ap'p. B(lli PART 2 0 RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS 4

comp ing with 10 CFR Part 61 weste be cor sidered in selecting acceptable etitioner's analysis should address the asis for parameter selection and cla ssi ication requirements. Wa ste options.

generators use generic scahng factors D.AnoF8'8 indicate how likely the extreme case and factors established for their specihc wastes through sophisticated analyses.

To support and justify the submittsl.

may be). In addition. the petitioner s The scaling factors are used to infer the each petitioner should inclr de analyses analysis should also address potential presence and concentrations of many of the radiologicalimpacts associated exposures from handling and transport radiohuclides based on measurement of with handling. transport. and dispnsal of accidents.The petitioner's analysis of enly a few nuchdes The classification the specific wastes. Any incremental accidents should include all scheme in 10 CFR Part 61 har been in nonradiologicalimpacts should be.

assumptions, data, and results to effect since December 1963, assessed. Also the petitioner should use -

facilitate review. The potential for Considerable dets and experience the analyses to prepare and submit a shipment of the entire waste stream to should be available to allow detailed regulatory analysis with the one or a few facilities should be assessed.This scenario currently exists charactensing the radiological content petition.

and 4.omposition of the waste stream 1.Rodiologicolimpuas. 'Ihe for 10 CFR 20.306 exempted liquid being addressed in the petition.The evaluation of radiologicalimpacts scintillation wastes and might result same principles outlined in to CFR should distinguish between expected from very limited numbers of treatment facilities or decontamination services.

61.55(a)(6)may be applied.i.e values and potential exporures and events.

based on direct measurements. indirect impacts should be assessed for the The analysis of impacts for transport, methods related to measurements, or expected concentrations and quantities handling. and disposal should include material accountabihty, of radionuclides.The petitioner should evaNetion of this potential circumstance

5. As low as is reasonably ochievable quantitatively evaluate the impacts from unless it can be clearly ruled out.

(ALARAf The Commission's ALARA the proposed waste for each option As suggested in Paragraph es on page 20 of ICRP Publication 46 8:

requirement in 10 CFR 20.1(c) apphes to requested.The petitioner should clearly efforts by licensees to maintain relate the analytical fmdings to specihe Excephen from regulauon and radiation exposures and releases of provisions in the recommended rule requirements on these bases should not be radioactive rL enals in effluents to changes. For example, the basis for each used to make it possible to dispose of lorse unrestricted areas as low is reasonably recommended radionuclide hmit should quanuues of radioacun matenalin diluted fonn. or m dmded portions. causms achievable.10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 1.

be clearly explained.

describes ALARA for radioactive The radiological impacts includsd in bu hup h sh Ni th a diYon o

' P materials in light water reactor effluents.

NUREG/CR-3585 and in NRC's many small doses to individuals. Nor should Licensee comphance with 10 CFR 201(c) computer program (IMPACTS-BRC) they be used to enempt activines that. by is a precondition to acceptance by NRC cour exposures tp workers and isolauon or treatment. hase been made of any waste stream as exempt.

mdividual members of the public and temporanly harmless but that imply large

Therefore, a desenption should be A cumulative population exposures.The 4 potennel for relene and could sin r u to g

8 program calculates both external direct I hish mdmdual doses or high collective doses.

[ provided of reasonable procedures that

[ gamma exposures and exposures from The analysis of expected radiological a

waste generators would be expected to

- use to minimite radiation exposures i eneested or inhaled radionuclides. NRC's ' impacts should clearly address:

• resulting from the disposal of the e computer program can be used to

-The maximum individual exposures.

exempt waste. e g.. removal of surface calculate the expected radiological

-The entical group exposures contammation.These procedures are impacts from generator activities.

-The cumulative population assumed to apply prior to charactentmg transportation, trea tment, disposal exposures.

the waste to be exempted.

op..iainin,. amt po,i.<hsposal mpnt<

The maximum individual exposure

""' I""*"" ' d" d"db d " "h' 'o ne evaluation should include exposures to C. Waste Afonogement Options of manarnwnt option, nu Imling all members of the pubhc who may be The management options that the unsue tn.ainu ni amt ilisimal in ilm exposed begmning with the initial Commission can deal with expedinousl>

urm.iat.n sin nneni in nmni ipal wasi..

handhng at the generator's facihty.

are those descnbed in NUREG/CR-3585-management acihties, and shipment to through post closure. Both internal Onsite options include incmeration and hatardous waste management facihties.

uptake and external exposures should l

i burial. Offsite options are municipal The prngram covers impacts begmning be included.The individual may be a waste disposal facihties (sanitary with mitial handhng and treatment by member of the general population (e.g.,

landhils). municipal waste incinerators, the generator through fmal disposal of consumer of contammated ground hazardous disposal facihties, and all the radionuclides contained in the water)or a person receiving the hazardous weste meinerators, w este stream. Sequential treatment.

exposure from his or her occupation.

Pretreatment, e.g, shreddmg of sorting. and inemeration onsite and at Anyone who may be exposet and is not otherwise potentially recyclable municipal and hazardous facihties can a radiation worker should be considered materials. is a potential adjunct to either be assessed Disposal of resulting ash a member of the pubhc. For example, a onsite or offsite options. Combinations and residue is included. Post. disposal worker at a sanitary landhli or a of these opuans can also be evaluated impacts that can be calculated include commercial trash truck dnver would not For example, wastes may be inemerated releases due to intrusion. ground. water be a radiation worker. However, on site and the ash shipped to a sanitary migration, erosion. and leachaie occupational exposures to radiation landhlt The favored disposal options accumulation The program thus workers should be evaluated and should be identified and fully desenbed.

addresses both expected and potential considered in the cost / benefit analysis The petitioner should evaluate a full post. disposal impacts.

of the incrementalimpacts between range of options.The practicahty of the The petitioner's analysis of transport disposal at a licensed facility and the proposed option (s) should be presented.

impacts should be based on a requested disposal options.

Waste compatibihty discussed eather is reasonably expected spacial distribution The total population exposures can be

-one aspect. The national availability of hcensees and waste treatment and estimated and summed in is a parts.

and distribution of the option is another.

disposal facihties which will accept the One part is the smaller critical group i

Updates on national regulations and wates The peutioner should address (usually the occupationally exposed j

laws pertammg to the proposed option par.1 meters such as everage and population) where potential exposures should be descnbed and might have to extreme transport distances.The 2-53 August 29,1986

i s

App; Billli hpp. B 11)

PART 2 e MULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS f

address whether changes in technical

. extemal exposure and the dose incurred heehh effects this inel of risk corresponds I

specifications or licenses may be from that year's intake of radionuclides.

to an annual dose of the order of 01 mSv 110 needed.

While a range of1-10 millirem per year milhrem).

However. 6n most practical coees the need might be acceptable, a one milbrem dose

f. Pidposed Rule would Iacihiate expedited proceasing.

I',',',','*[,7,"j,'l,""g',*gl',"'[,',I* [,d Flisher doses may require more

...te streen should be subaci to control.

The Petition should include the text extensive justification. Based on a Consideration should be given to the need for (tr the proposed rule (see 10 CFR mortshty nok coefficient for induced any optimissi6on of radiation protection and 2.802(c)(1)) The proposed text should cancer and hereditary effects of 2x10" to the possibihty that mens prectices and cover at least the following'.

per rem (ICRP Pubhcation 26). radiation sources of the ume kind could combme now (1) The quantity and/or concentration exposure at a level of millirem per year or in the Ist ** that thional effect may -

limit for each radionuchde present would result in en annual mortality risk "II','*",t]'"j',",8[j','jl7,[,g,,,

(trace redionuchdes could be lumped of 2x10"(i.e. 2x** effects /rema. stem /

below o 1 mSv l10 milbromi to individuals 6n together with a totallimit),

year),

the critical group This may involve (2) A method to deal with The EPA is developing criseria for assessmente of doe, commitments and of the radionuclide mixtures; identifying low. level radioactive waste cotiective doe, per unti precisce or source. In (3) The nonradiological specifications that may be below regulatory concern order to ensure that the indmduel dooe i

9"*"I def** Ih' '

as part of that agency's development of requirement will not be exceeded now or in -

""'*#I F

eneral environmental standards for the futum. It wems almost certain that the ow level weste disposal. The Ef'A tot *l *aat*l d'" ' *8 ' lad *d**1 l*

1 (4)The specific method (s) of exempt pubbshed an Advance Notice of enemPted sources will be less than ten times the contribunon from the enempted source -

disposal-Proposed Rulemaking on August 31.1983 livi):the highest indmduel dose. This If practicable.and if the supportm.g (48 m 39563) and currently hopes to

,,, could. therefore, be ellowed for by information indicates the need. the text pubbsh proposed standards in early reducing the annuelindmduel dose should also address other D

.ssuch test Other EPA standards that the exemphon critenon frem o.1 to o.01 mSv 110 as annuallimits on ed ator in doses can be compared to are the Clean to 1 milbrem).

terms of volume. maw

..al Air Act radioactive release standard of The NRC staff recognizes that al times, radioactivity, and admimstrative or 25 milbrems per year in 40 CFR Part 61 human reactions are not so strictly procedural requirements includmg and the uranium fuel cycle annual whole h govemed by quantative considerations g process controls, surveys. etc., that have g body limit of 25 millirems in 40 CFR 190.

-o as the ICRP excerpt suggests.

l g been discussed The text should not g One mithrem is very small when a Nevertheless, the to-* per year value l

include the vanous dose hmits used to a compared to naturally occurring '

seems about as low as practicable,

justify the proposed radionuchde hmits.

a background doses from' cosmic and seems too low to lustify significant -

l i,

terrestrial sources. Background doses in concern;and so seems acceptable.

Ill. Decis, ion Cnteria

' the United States are typically in the The United Kingdom's National 10M20 milhrems per year range Radiological Protection Board has The Commission pohey statement exclusive of the lung doses from redon..

issued generic guidance on ds minimis estabbshes that the following cntena One millitem is also small when dose levels (asp-7, lanuary 1985)

• tha t should be used by staff as guidelines for compared to the annual 500 millirem has status similar to Federal Radiation -

actmg on a petition. Each criterion is dose hmit for individual members of the Gu dance issued by the President in this repeated and staff views on -

general pubhc in Federal Radiation country. The Board identified effective i

implementation are discussed.

Council guidance.

1. Disposal and treatment of the An important feature is that dotes of (

dose equivalents of 5 milhrem per year as insiFnificant when members of the l

wasies as specified m the petition will up to l millitem from the mdividual pubhc make their decisions. The 5 result in no significant impact on the petition should minimize concerns ove' mihirem hmit represents the total dose l

quahty of the human environment.

exposm.to multipie exempted waste ceibution from all exempted streams. ICRp Publication 46 addressed Discussion. Unless this fmding can be practices For individual practices. the mdividual dose hmits and other issues Board dwided by to li.e.,0.5 milbrem made dunns information submitted by related to exemptions and stated. in per year) to acebuntfor exposures from the petitioner, the Commission must paragraphs 83 and 84 on page 19.

multiple practices.These hmits are prepare an Environmentalimpact Statement to more full) examine the Many radiation esposures routinely appbed generically,less conservatism

}

'"""'"'dI"d'"P"'"-

under the well defmed circumstances proposed action. siternatives to the b

oh' proposed action. and associated E'$'c,',f,

','m"aYhy'compNo associated with specific waste streams h

and disposal options envisaged m this potentialimpacts of alternatives.

dose hmits or natural background. and are Preparation would likely mvolve well below dose levels at which th, NRC statement seems justified. In a contractual support and would hkely apnarance of deleienous health effects has proposed pohey statement dated May 6.

take 2 years or more to complete. The been demonstrated in Individual related 1965,8 the Canadian Atomic Energy Commission could not act in the petition 8'"ssments. n is widely recosmaed that Control Board specifically addressed there are radiation doses that are so small disposal of specific wastes that are of no in an expedited manner.

that they mvohe noks that would be regulatory concern. An individual does

, The maximum expected effect.ive regarded as neglisable by the exposed limit of 5 millirems per year was dose equivalent to an mdividual mdmduals Siudies of comparative noks proposd for this hmited application.

member of the pubhc does not exceed a empenenced by the population m vanous A maximum indwidual exposure of 1 Iew milbrem per year for normal actmises spear to Indicate that en annual

'r s Iso con is ert w h ihE'#d'1O operations and anticipated events.

d,h'Ih'0]"of10 i'

P

l Discussion:The effective dose mdmduats in their decisions as to actions I specifies design objectne doses for equn alent means the ICRP Pubhcatio:t that could influence their nsks Usms operational hght. water. cooled nuclear 26 and 30 8 sum of the dose from rounded dose resronne factors for mduced power reactor effluents These design 2 55 August 29,1986

. ~

App, C(II)

%p' g4gy) PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DDMESTIC LICENSING PROCEyDINCS Feoseotes.

expeditious action on the petitions. In iCop6n of NUREC/BR oo53.NUREC/BR-addition. the Handbook notes general cosa and NUREC/CR45a5 may be purchased schedulitig adv;ce that proposed rules to throush the U.S Govemment Pnntmg Office grant petitions should be pubbshed in 6 by caning (202) 27kao60 or by writ ne to the publication for comment. Proposed rules

. U.S Govemment Printing Office. P.O. Don i

12 months after ecceptance and

- 370a2. Wuhiogion. DC som>7aat Copies I

d m he N' will be lotwarded Io the Comminion on

• • [h

]o"r

, ee U S.'*

c ion a 6-month schedule to the extent Department of Commme. nlas Port Royal permitted by resource limits, the nature Roed Springfield. VA 221 1. Copies are eva!!able for inspechen end/or copymg for e l and extent of public comments, and I

internal Control of Rulemakinse fee in the NRC Pubhc Document Room.1717 procedures. Rulemakings involving H Street. NW. Wuhmston. DC 305ss.

l

'lCRP Pubbceuon et. "Rediehon power reactors must be reviewed by the Protecuen Principles for the Disposal of Solid Committee on Review of Generic Radioactive Weste. edopted July 1985.

Requiremente prior to publication.

e ICRP Publicebon as. **Recommendetene Proposed rules involving teaetore wil!

.g in, ini,,,,,,n,i no. ;,io,,,

therefore be forwarded to the Radeoloe6cel Protecuen.* edopted lenuary 17 Commission on a 7. month schedule to toff,ICRP Pubhcetion 3o. "1.amite for intake the extent permitted by resources.

of Radionuclides by Workers." edopted luly commente, and approval procedures. In ~

1878-

• Copies of the United Kingdom's dooument both cases, every effort will be made to en eveilable for inenetion u enciosas to publish reposed rulee no ister than 12 SECY-4bt47A (relating to 10 CF1t Part 30) minths fier noticing for public deted July 25.1085 In the Comminion's comment.

Pubhc Document Room.1717 H Street NW.

Although ^he procedures in Part 11 of Wuhington, DC aosas N United Kingdom NUREG/BR 4053 include fast track documente m eveiteble for une from: Her processing.the nature of the anticipated Meiesty's Stationery Office, P.O. Som tee, petitione do not fully comply with the landon SE1 ONH. United ungdom, se Advice document ASP-7 and a related techn6cel decielon criteria to follow thle "P'"N' 8'8"#***' 'I S**Il D'*" *I L 'lternative a

Some of the key features of the Ny[ ten to Members of the Pubhc." NRPB.

d

{ hindling procedurn include the o copin of the Cene$en docuinent m f llowing steps for complete and fully available for inspection es en enclosure to g

e supported petitions.

SECY-4k147 A ireletmg to to C71t Port 30)

2. Petitionere may confer on dated July as.1ons m the Commission's Pubhc Document Room.1717 H Street NW, procedural matters with the staff before Wuhington.DC 30655 N Canadian ruing a petition for rulemaking. Requests t3 confer on procedural matters should

,[",$*C a5.

' @e p

be addressed to:The Director Division pieposal of certem Redioactive Metenets 2

cf Rules and Records. Office of from ucenoms" by the Atomic Energy Adminiotretion. U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Control Board. P.O. Box 1o66. Ottewe.

Commissien. We shington. DC 20555, Ontano. Canede. KIP 5Se.

Attention: Chie! Rules and Procedurea

• ICRPlas/C-c3. "Sistement from the 1985 Pene Mutmg of the International Branch.

Comminion on Radiological Protect

• 1eak

2. Petitions should be addressed to:

p The Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Weshmgton, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. In keeping with to CFR 2.802(f).

petitioners will be promptly informed if j

the petition meets the threshold j

requirements for a petition for rulemaking in 10 CFR 2.802(c) and can be processed in accordance with this implementation plan. Ordinarily thle determinetion will be mede within 30 days after receipt of the petition.

3. Following this determination. the petition will be noticed in the Federal Register for a public comment period of l

st least 60 days.

4.The petitioner will be provided cmples of all commente received.

scheduling informstiert and periodic status reports.

The procedures in NUREC/BR-0053

{

also include the process for denial and withdrewel of petitions.

J

4 f

Response to Specific Concerns Raised by Representative Schneider

-l 1

Comment:

"...Under this policy, as I understand it, 30 percent or more of the low-level radioactive waste could find its way into the environment."

Pesponse:

Your reference to the environmental release of 30 percent or more of the low-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants may originate from a view expressed by the nuclear power industry' and the. EPA that 30: percent by volume ~

of the low-level radioactive waste generated at nuclear power facilities may be considered for BRC waste classification. The nuclear power industry has estimated that this volume-of material would contain approximately-t 0.01 percent of the radioactivity contained in all of,their low-level radioactive waste.

I can assure you 'that any low-level waste considered for-

- BRC classification would include only naterials with the lowest levels of radioactivity. In fact, the' level of, radioactivity nay be such a-small fraction of natural background radiation that it may not be _readily detectable.

I would point out that natural radioactive materist is pervasive in our environment, including the radioactivity which exists'in our own bodies.

Moreover, very low levels of radioactivity from both naturaliand man-made-sources are currently entering landfills. ~The real issue involved:in BRr waste disposal is "What level of radioactivity can we allow to be disposed of et-non-licensed disposal facilities while ensuring protection oof the.public health and safety and the environment?" - We believe the-BRC' policy /provides a sound framework for resolving.this issue and' making exemption. decisions.

i l

rO

2 i

Comment:

l

" Low level waste is not synonymous with low risk....According to research results released by the National Acadery of Sciences, low dose and radioactive-exposures will-cause three-to four times more fatal cancers and leukemias than previously thought."

i Response:'

Many city and county resolutions'contain the statement that there'is increasing j

evidence that exposures.to low-levels of ionizing radiation have greater i

. negative health effects than previously assumed..These statements are linked

- to estimates recently made by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the National Research Council's CommitteeontheBiologicalEffectsoflonizingRadiation(BEIR).

The BEIR Committee has recently issued a report, " Health Effects of Exposures to L

Low-Levels of Ionizing Radiation," commonly referred to as the BEIR V report.-

The estimates were based primarily upon the' Japanese atomic-bomb survivors, and 1

pertain to the.high doses and dose rates associated with those exposures (e.g.,

i 10's to 100's of Rems in a matter of minutes).

There is no direct evidence of-health effects from radiation at low dose levels'. The potential exposure-.

levels which may be associated with BRC waste disposals are thousands of times j

smaller than those received by the bomb survivors and, in fact, would only be a small fraction of natural background exposures.. On this issue, the BEIR V-report states that the possibility:cannot be ruled out that there may be no risks from exposures comparable to external natural; background radiation.

L However, for the purpose of establishing conservative exposure limits for

. occupational workers and the pubile, incernational and national regulatory bodies, including EPA and NRC, have extrapolated ~the health effects'information from bomb survivors to low doses ata dose-rates. Specifically, the Commission =

used this approach and the BEIR Y information in tho'. formulation of its BRC

.~

l policy.

l i

i i

l i-f' l

'. (

- 3.-

Coment:

t "It is unfathomable that at a time when organizations such as the Coalition of.

. Northeast Governors are engaged in developing innovative policies and practices for removing a range of hazardous and toxic materials from our voluminous waste stream....that the NRC would contemplate posing-an additional risk factor....I am most dismayed that if the NRC's' proposed policy goes into r

effect, once these radioactive wastes are deregulated there will be no records-kept on the kinds of waste disposed,'nor the location of disposal, nor the radioactivity contained in the waste."

Response

Many resolutions include the statement that the U.S. Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) have approved the :oncept of deregulating "...

radioactive waste.to the status of non-radioactive waste.".Although this.

statement contains elements of fact, when taken as.a.whole, it misrepresents, in two critical ways, the situation with respect-to potential BRC waste exemptions.. First, it conveys the. erroneous impression that a class of' hazardous material is being considered non-hazardous. -Section 10 of the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments ofL1985-(Pub. L.99-240) directs the Comission to consider exemption of waste streams from regulation "... due to the presence of radionuclides in such waste streams in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities to be below regulatory concern," and where "...

regulation... is not necessary to protect the public health and safety...."

NRC interprets this section of the Act to be an admonition that low-level radioactive waste should be handled and controlled in a manner comensurate with the potential risks it poses. Second, any: implementing regulations.

allowing BRC waste from NRC licensed facilities to be disposed in unlicensed facilities would include' recordkeeping and other-appropriate controls or-constraints against which inspections, compliance determinations and enforcement actions ~could be taken. ;In addition, the Consnission plans to-conduct periodic evaluations of the effectiveness of its BRC policy..

i i

k l

I) -

Consnent

"(the BRC Policy) may appear to be a way to cut the cost of using and.

I disposing radioactive material, but it simply. runs counter.to good. health practices ~....The hRC proposed action goes against.the flow of public policy practices that-are assessing and incorporating. the,' external cost of each energy source.... Low-level radioactive wastes also constitute a' negative environmental-~and public health effect, and these costs should be' fully reflected in their proper. disposal, rather than imposing these external costs on future generations.

Response

A benefit of implementation.of the BRC Policy Statement, insofar. as costs are concerned,'is not to " cut the cost of using and disposing radioactive L

material," but rather to focus: resources on addressing the most significant i

health and safety. issues. A major consideration'in exempting any practice from I,

regulatory control hinges on the' question of whether the control is> necessary l

for protecting the public health and safety and the environment. We believe that the granting of specific exemptions should depend. essentially. on an evaluation of whether the risks are sufficiently small' and whether further reductions in dose ~ justify the effort to: achieve them; In selecting the 8RC dose criterion, we noted that, even though there is significant uncertainty in calculating risks from low-1cvel radiation, in general these risks are better understood than the risks-of other hazards, such as. toxic chemicals. 'In.

addition, radiation from natural background 'is a fact of life; and poses-involuntary riskr< that are eouivalent to the' kinds of risk posed by nuclear materials under htC's jurisdiction. The commission;believesLthat if the risk to individuals fram a product or activity under consideration:for exemption is comparable to other risks, knmingly 'or unknowingly tolerated by individuals because of factors such as their lifestyle or.where they live, then the level of. protection from that activity should beLadequate.

.]

L i

1

-l L

.l 1

-w e

t-

,-