ML20091K887

Forwards Ltr from C Gates of Charleston,Wv Re Plant.Requests Rept on Matter

ML20091K887
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/29/1988
From:	Rockefeller J SENATE
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20091K765	List: ML20091K887
References
FOIA-95-187 NUDOCS 9508280185
Download: ML20091K887 (2)

Text

n ween JOHN C,. ROCKEFELLER IV west vincimia 3(nifeD Mlales Menals W ASH 5NGTON, D.C. 20$10 January 29, 1988 l

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Legislative Affairs 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20006

Dear Friends:

I have been contacted by Chester Gates of Charleston, West Virginia, regarding the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.

Enclosed is a copy of Mr. Gates' letter for your I

review.

I would appreciate your looking into this matter l

and providing me with a report.

If you should have any questions on this matter, please get in touch with Eric Kyanko of my staff at 224-9839.

Also, when responding, please forward a copy of the report to Eric Kyanko.

Thank you.

Si cerely, John D. Rockefeller IV Enclosure I

9508280185 950523 PDR FOIA CARVEY95-187 PDR

t e

Senator John D. Rockefeller llart Office Building Room 740 Washington, D.

C.

20510

Dear Senator:

During my wcrking life I tried to acquire sufficient savings to sustain my wife and I during retirement without the assistance of family or government.

I retired in 1979 and find that my tax The present dollars are being used against me more and more.

is the failure of the Nuclear situation I am concerned about Regulatory Commission to give the "Public Service Company of New the Seabrook lla mps h i r e " the final permissio6 to puE-~R Tine fueliar Powgx_Flantu. During construction of this power plant'I Since I am ah's'dfi~thiy met all the requirements of Government.

a stockholder of this company I am suffering from the continued delays of this commission.

Request that you take whatever political influence you final approval to start generating possess to get the NRC to give power at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.

Island accident I was without dividends After the Three Mlle for eight years from General Public Utilities, the owner of that I would hope this problem power plant, due to delays of NRC.

doesn't persist with Public Service of New Hampshire.

Your efforts will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, ht,,

Chester E. Gates, Jr.

l 1211 Summit Drive Charleston, West Virginia 25302 t

'o UNITED STATES

',i NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ "

,Me<

E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

'\\

% m.:f !

o,, -

y y AR 01 1990 Mr. Andrew Faier, President Save Our Mountains Chairman, Sumers County Solid Waste Authority P.O. Box 1286 Hinton, WV 25951

Dear Mr. Maier:

Your November 1,1989, letter to(Senator Rockefeller was forwarded to this' office for response to the issues and questions you raised regarding potential "below regulatory concern" (BRC) waste disposal practices.

As your enclosed information indicates, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240) directed the huclear Regulatory Comission (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 in 1986, a Statement of Policy and Procedures such petitions. A copy of the which outlines.the criteria for considering(Enclosure 1).

statement is enclosed for your information To date, no petition has qualified for consideration under this 1986 policy; however, we are aware that the nation's nuclear power utilities are preparing such a petition inich may be submitted to us in the near future.

Eesides this 1986 policy, the Comission is currently in the process of developing a policy that would identify the principles and criteria that govern Commission decisions which could exempt radioactive material from some or all regulatory controls. This policy, the subject of the enclosed advance notice (Enclosure 2), would apply not only to BRC waste disposals but also to other decisions which would allow licensed radioactive material to be released to the environment or to the general public. The Comission's proposed exemption policy is intended to provide a consistent basis for all our decisions that allow radioactive material to be exempt from regulatory control. Thus, the policy, although applicable to.BRC waste disposal, would also provide the basis for decommissioning decisions involving the release of lands, structures, or recycled materials for unrestricted use as well as decisions regaroing consumer product exemptions. We believe the nation's best interests are serveo by a policy that establishes a consistent risk framework within which exemption decisiors can be made with assurance that human health ard the environment are protected.

Such a policy will also contribute to focusing limited national resources on those risks with greatest potential impact on public health and safety.

k b'

wasrtow

mar 01 IM Mr. Andrew Maier 2

l The Commission has attached considerable importance to its rationale for selecting the numerical dose values within its exemption policy (e.g., the 10 millirem per year individual dose criterion) and intends to develop these I

values on a unifying risk basis.

In this endeavor, the relationship between risk ano dose is derived from cautious extrapolations of the most recent data available from studies of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors anc other individuals that have received large doses of radiation.

You will note that the indivioual dose criterion is also compared to variations in background l

exposures received by individuals in the United States and the increased exposures received from commonplace activities, such as cross-country airplane flights. The individual dose criterion, however, does not stand alone, but is coupleo with a collective dose criterion and other constraints that, taken together, establish a sound basis for specifying a reasonable lower threshold for the "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principle.

With regard to the inf ormation attached to your letter, I believe several points need to be made.

As you may be aware, virtually all materials contain radioactivity to some extent, such as carbon-14 or potassium-40.

Therefore, it is obviously impractical to treat ell wastes containing radioactive material as radioactive waste.

However, a goal worth pursuing is to define the boundary of materials that should be considered as radioactive waste.

The low-level waste that could be considered for exemption under Pub. L.99-240 would only involve meterials with the lowest levels of radioactivity content -- materials such as clothing, rags, paper, wood, or plastic which have been used in radiation areas within nuclear facilities.

In fact, for some of these materials, the level of radioactivity ray be such a small fraction of natural background radiation that it may not be readily detectable.

As your information indicates, the nuclear power industry has estimated that 30 percent by volume of its low-level radioactive waste could oualify for BRC consideration.

However, this material woulo contain only about 0.01 percent of the radioactivity contained in all the industry's low-level racioactive waste.

Second, I think it is important to understand that any BRC waste disposal activities conducted in accorcance with the 1986 Policy Statement would be the subject of NRC rulemaking action. The NRC would establish regulations for determining which wastes are "below regulatory concern" and, under its normal inspection procedures, could monitor its licensees' activities to assure ccnpliance with the requirements for transfer of such wastes from the licensees' control. One element that must be assured as part of the review is that the i

disposal f orm of the "below regulatory concern" waste must have negligible potential for recycling.

You will note that this is one of the criteria in the 1986 policy.

Because of this process and the expected " makeup" of BRC wastes, I do nc't believe that any solid waste disposal facility, much less the thousands you claim, would become future superfund sites because of BRC disposals.

Finally, I would point out that, while it is true that radiation protection l

policies have conservatively presumed that any level of radiation exposure involves risk, the most recent authoritative study, " Health Effects of Exposure to Low-Levt is of lonitir.g Radiation," issued by the National Research Council, points out that ".

the possibility that there may be no risks from exposures corcarable to external natural background radiation cannot be ruled out."

As

t l

M 01 M l

Mr. Andrew Maier 3

l l

you know, all of us routinely receive exposures from a variety of sources of radiation, including radiation naturally occurring within our own bodies.

These exposures occur from radiation that is natural in origin as well as from sources which involve ran-made uses of radioactive material.

In total, as estimated by the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (hCRP Report No. 93), the eff ective dose equivalent received by the United States population averages about 360 millirem per year. Of this total, about 300 millirem per year (or over 80 percent of the total) is a result of natural sources, including radon and its decay products, while redical exposures such as x-rays, when averaged over the U. S. population, contribute an estimated 53 millirem per year.

Other man-made sources contribute the remaining 1 to 2 percent of the total exposure, including nuclear fallout and nuclear power plant effluents.

I am presenting this total exposure " picture" to provide a perspective on the hypothetical risks which may be associated with potential BRC waste disposal practices since any exposures from such practices would be a small fraction of the total received annually by any individual.

The Commission believes this relative risk perspective is relevant to its decisions to appropriately allocate its regulatory resources to control the potential radiological risks associated with the use of radioactive materials.

I also believe this perspective indicates the unreasonable conservatisms you have used in stating that 100 West Virginians can expect to get fatal cancer during their lifetimes if BRC is implemented, and attributing this conclusion to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

In the broadest sense, our goal is to use our resources in a manner that provides the greatest assurance that no member of the public is likely to receive an exposure from exempc and licensed practices that approaches a significant fraction of the existing public cose limits. We therefore, believe an NRC exemption policy has considerable merit in enhancing protection of the public.

In conclusion, I want to assure you that we take our mandate to protect the health and safety of the public very seriously.

As a result, we will continue to do our best in carefully and clearly responding to issues and questions raised by you and other concerr.ed citizens.

Sincerely, 0%n.a cb.m uy n sav.sgos Eric S. Beckjord, Director i

Office f Nuclear Reculatory Research C]

Enclosures:

en tor John D. Rockefeller, IV 4

• App, A!X)

Ayy. 3 PART 2 e' RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC UCENSING PROCEEDINGS.

o i se,ie.enhne e p a m te,e.es a e,,d,,,d i

Aspenen e i. pen :-c wel sweews s

a -

of pocy ead proudume Cone==ias e a.e p.i.c etsiement Aleeugli ster may

' evin ai e,s.l,i une is ame o u-is peh pwou.ni t. e set f. D.,eul of astuchve w.ew swee s seiew pin.d a ""*"*de ho,e sw eene,hemme yt.t.eu.e,ge -

seguisiwy Cen.em seuinu e mo.=

inweduchen end pwpen me o wro u h siefris a puhneei,ev.i o

a sienderde and prenden 18UREC dawnene end menu se an Ap u m.nisieme m 4beiny of no =vmen in the redsel

• U"o"puhui s n. me y,,

fv.r.two A mlee.

I l'oeductee and popose gife, met.en fe, p,tay,g and suppense.

r Th Law.tavel Redisectsve Weste Pehry gentiene must he suppl.ed by the piammer W Amendmente Act of teos (the Act)(et U.S C -

the Commission to to oc in en espedened j

221h et eet l wee enacted January 18. im menner If the petchener wishes se essus sechen to of h Act addrusse deepeesi of espeited schoes te suppeni sformenee i

wuin termed "helow reguistory sens e eheutd be semplete enough as e thet would not need to be suhteet a Commission schee le pneerHy halted to meuletery sentrol to enwe edsguete endependent evolmenes and edewuoveeve proiechen of the publ c heele and eefety peamesse

{

escouee of their red eectsee sentent. The geel Desiesen erneste ter judgmg whether to of the esches of the Act ne for the psnt a petthen twelve the overall imposto of l

Commeeien is make prochsel and unely the estian weste reperbes, and decisions to deteresane when wesies need est mentation of the repened emesp 4

go to e 1.senwd low-level weste d.epesel mee.

flw fonewmg ernene address these esses.

I Thew decionene will be espevesed threich pehtaons wh*sh demenetreie est these assemokms AJternative 6epeest would suene ese met ehemid be sustehle ter seneerve spece e the easetang enes while cepedited eeuen.

t new attes em estebbehod one seduer the 1 Disposal and Weetment of the westes as seen of deepeeel Rulemskang peticene may specined in the petsben well meuh is as p!op a role a th nebenellow levelweste sipsfisant impact en the quehty of the stret out1med by the Act The Act human envwwuneet e that the Commission estabheb

& The mealsnum esposted effective dose precedures for octaig espe 6bously em equivalent es se admduel member of the petshens to esempt spectf c radioestve pubhc dose not eassed a few milhree per I weste euwame from te Comessessee's 2, year for nessiel operehens and embopened l segulatione g;evente -

Tk purpeee of this aestement and

& The eeDestvo desse to the enmeel E occompanying isnplementehen pies le to g.pepubHen and genere! populehen og egelL

- estebheh the stenderde and preesdures that 4 The potenuel red eispeel senesquences

• wnD permit the Comeusesen to set upon

• ef easidente se ognipment selfuesues -

rulemehms petshens en en espediheus myhms alw weswe and misusien tote manner se selled for a the Aet This pelsey d*peest sHm ofwr lose of aspeel sietement deee not reguwe pethenere to ineutubenal sentale em not etpaneemt present au the ofermaben outlaned er.

e The esemption wiu soeult as e eigsheest demonstrate that te decaseen testene for

'educhen,e seenstal easte espe &ted handhng een be met if such

& The weste le esapenble w6th es espe &ted handime is not wested For poposed tm unent and disposal spheme.

esemple pet tiene requestag esemption of f The enevrphan as usefer se e neuenal eencenwebene of red.enucl. des that might seale.14 H a hkely to be used by a estegory soeult e andmfel empeouse higher then of beeneses er et least e sayiansant parten of Seee recomewnded e Ilw deae.en entene a estegory may be submitted het espedaad handhag

& The redselegIcel properuee of the weets eennet he esewed stroom have hun sharecierteed en e eseeme!

Finelly. mio pebey eastement and been th verwhihty hee hun posseted and escampanyms implementation plea ese te reny of venouen wnD set teveladen intended to senhiese hendhne of nilemskans suppertag onelysee petshone for streams from muluple producere e The weeie charactertestsee le based se end de not opph to indmd el beenema deu en real weetes.

ectione en eingle reducer weste Indmduel go The e,epened form ofinn weew has beensees who ma opproveller esposal of esghgible powebelser suycle eeir uniques weetes may sentene se subew'

11. lscensees een estehheh effeenve their Leposal elene endet 13 GR B an8(e) besasable and inspectable progrene for the B. Standerde and pseendwoo

• uw pnw w tenefer w desenewsw esophence The e enderde end recediares needed to 12 Tk e6ene Westmut w desput handle yehnene esped.hevely feH enic Se

,,g,,g,y,,,na,,,i,ngr,g)g,,,,,,,,,g fellemme thru categones (1)hformet on to be centrolled er meaitseed for red.euen pet teenm should file ir, support of the.

p,,,,,,, p,,p.

petthus (2)einderde for spesome e 13 The mesede and peeedures need to n

odegacy of the proposele and pmvidmg suey h m uta ed w pme ne tapect geht.enees sne.shi en te decmon erstene th' are no d.ffmnt !=om $ew that would be Conu.:n.en intende te sw se that au appl.ed to $e corrupon&ng uncontammeled teleient eferenet onelissues will be

,,n,g add resed m the petit en end (3)the lawme?

H R eet ce no m p a bp1 NRC edminmrahve procedures for handhag e W cks w m W h pop wd pu mpet w h pehtions Thne tree seteseries are diepees' methode eddressed in $e ettec.hed staff irrplementet.or. plan The eteff plan wee III. Agresseet States deselsped an reopenee to Commisseen The 14.hel Red esetn e Wute pebey direct.en to provide dewiled guidance en Amendments Act of teen ee'ebbehee e 240 ENCLOSURE 1

APP 88833 AP B PART 2 e RULES OF PRAC71CE FOR DOMEST)C LICEN5tNG PROCEEDINGS P

neseonel og siem for dealing with lom.le.el A Cemeret the Peti'ioner of the Commission is to act

=esie d.spese! The e3 siem essions ac she 1 to CFR Port 2 Requiremente in an espedited manner Petitions for Sistes responsiblit) for disposal capaco) for 2 En=>ronmentallmpacts rufemakmg should therefore be low teiel ostes noi esteedieg Class C 3 Economic impect on Small Eniaises submitted followmg the staff e wesies es defined in 10 CFR 6184 Setison to a Computer Program supplemental guidance and procedures of the Act encourops a reduchon in volume S Scope to assure espedited schon of sect; m oeies subsect so Sisie respons,blos, 3 wesie Cherecieneenen los d sposal throwgh the opi.oe of de'erminmg 1 Radiological Properties 2Em m M 4 e Pm a that seriam mesin need not 30 to esistmg 2 Other Consideraisons must enable the Commission to make a licensed disposal facihties or new soes 3 Totale Imding of no sigmficant impact on the licensed under to CF1t Peri et or equiselent e B*sia quahty of the human etnironment Such Siete resvistiene if red.olog. col safety c.an be

& As I ow as Reasonably Achievable Commission findings must be based on escured such disposal movid conserve spece lAlARAl en Enuronmental Assessment that an the emishng ones mble nem sites are C Wesie b4enagement Options comphes with 10 CMt 5130 and must developed and =owld sene se an unportant D Analysee meet the requirements of 10 CDt $1.32 edlunet to volume reduction effono m i Radiologicalimpects methng the weste solume ellocation hmits 2 Other impacts These requirements mclude addressmg set forth in the Act Thus these rulemek.nge 3 Regulator) Analysis the need for the proEosed action-should e d the Sietes in fulfilbag their E Recordheepmg and Reporting enti7ymg aytemstnes and essessmg responsibihines under the Act E4visy slee 1 Surveys the potential environmental ampacts of suggesis that el! wesie generetors be able to 2 Reports the proposed action and alternatnes take adseniege of belom regulsior) concem F Propond Rule Consistent with 10 CFR 5141 the optione es port of their meste management Ill Decision Cntens-petitioner should submit the information strates,es Generstors in both As'eeement IV Admmistrouve Handhng needed to meet these requirements and and non Agreement 51eies will be cornpeting g, gogg,gugg;,,

do so en a manner that permits for space in she esistmg soes and the concept independent evaluation by the should be appbcable nehonwide Section 10 of the Low 1.avel Commission of the data and Ag'nment States will ple) en important Radioactive Weste Pohey Arrendments methodology used and the conclusions role in ensunes thei the system works on e Act of 1985 requires the Nuclear reached.

nd nss fhat Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 3 Economst smpoet on smol/entitiet i he e e n e co ng doelop standards and procedures for When a rulemaking action is hkely to censin mesies are belo. regv! story concem and do noi have to oc to lo..le.el =es,,

expeditious handhng of petitions for have a significant economic empact on a sites The $isies have been voicmg thee,..

rulemakmg to esempt disposal of substantial number of small entities the for e avenber of years through forums such as radioactive waste determmed to be Regulatory Flenibihty Act requires that g the Conference of Red abon Control Program g below regulator) coricern The Act else g the impacts on these small enhhes must g Directors Ruler skings rsn'ing pehtons will y requires NRC to identify mformation 3 be specifically addressed (The

. be made e metier of cornset.biliis for K petitioners should file The Commission a Commission's one standard for E = IEcIrd n [ed [h1he 5 Iie g ohcy Statement prmdes general 8 sdentifyms a small entity is 13 5 milhon

guidance on how to meet the

- or less m annual receipts encept for

IV Future Action requirements of section 10 of the Act.

• pmate practice physicians and rh estIstreams fe.f' outhnes the oserell approach to be educahonalinstitutions where the rueme followed and hsts decaion entene to be standard is $1 m:1 hen or less m annual res.leien concem based on e number of factors The factors mcl de pubhc comments used implementahon of the general receipts for praate practice ph)sicians received on the stoiement the number and approach and decision entena of the and 300 employees for educational types of peitions for rulemoning recaned and Commasson Pohey Statement mvolves mshtuhons See 50 FR 50:14. December he. effectne the sistement 4 in enabbng developmg more detailed guidance and 3.1365 ) For any rulemakmg the timel) processms of pention. A genene procedures In accordance with Commasion must either certif) that the rutemekirs is m arranied to prouse a meee Commission direction. the NRC staff has rule will not economicall impact or will 3

eftcieni and effectae mesne of developed more detailed guidance and have no significant economic impacts on accocephsine; the goats reflecied in Section procedures for impItmentahon of the small entibes, or present an anal) sis of to of the Aci An eds ence nonce of proposed Commission Pohey Statement This staff shernatives to mmimae the impacts-guidance and procedures coser (1)

Because rulemakmgs on belom r er ore e or s e>

periodically review all rulemakmss e orde, Informahor petitioners should file m regulatory contem should provide rehef to assu e ibe+ the releseni perewere he.e support of petshons to enable expedited from requirements for all affected r

not cheeged e.gmficanity and me> esh tlw processms (2)docussion of the decision entities, satisfaction of tha requirement petiboner so subtrut updeied information to criteria. sad (3) admmistrative should be straightformard but it must be ess,si m the en e. The Commini.on would procedures to be followed.

addressed in any rufen.akmg To eino heie to cor f.tvr thei approved facilitate empeditious preparahon of the esempuons are cons sieni with any general Il Information to Support Petitions proposed rule respondmg to the pehhon s'ende es iss.ed b) epa A Centrol the petshoner should submit an Devee e % estueren DC this uth det of

1. M C/R Port t re virements The esaluation of the eshmated economic codif<ed mformation requirements for impacts on small entities The For t> e Nucleer E rgu'aion Commemon n eluation should include eshmales of pentions for rulemaking are outhned m Samuell CMk the costs for smaH enhhn m tums of the Commission's reguishons m 10 CFR s

2 8Qc) These regulahons require the staff hme and dollar costs Any Secretor so #Ac Corrmissio" Ed ioriel Noie The sieff irrplernenistion pe,,,oner to identif) the problem and shunstnes that could accomphsh the p,,.

se solutions. to state the oblectne OIthe Petitioner s proposed plan

• il not appee' m trie Code of Federal g

8d*"*"

pentioner's grounds for and interest m rule while mmimisms the economic Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff the schon and to provide supportmg impact on smau enhhes should be implementation of Nucles: Regulatory informahon and rationale As a prachtal presented The etaluahon should t

include an assessment of the Commission Pohc3 on Radioactive rnatter. the informahon demonstrating Weste Below Regulatory Concern that the radiological health and safety mcremental recordkeepmg and reporties costs that mould be associated with the impacts are solow as to be below Il 1 $r regulatory concern must be provided by Petiboned rule change si of te Support pet tiene

ART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC UCENSING PROCEEDINGS concentrations should also be 3 Tors /s A subsequent rulemakmg 4 Computerprogron The computer peogram (IMP a6CT-BRC) the presented For memershon. the based upon en accepted petition is radioactae content of the ash and genene end the esemption will hkely be l

Com nisoon miends to use to w

ww ad nahonwide.Therefore. to the mdependentl> esaluate petitioners desenbed The unabihty as a function entent possible. the pentioner should essessments ofimpacts is base oe kl.nimis % awe impacts Analye s of process nahon and vanahon

hmate the number of NRC and Methedolog3 (WREC/CR-35851 emong hcensees ehouId be addressed Agreement State beensees that produce and beunded pubbshed Februar) 1984 ' Petthoners ggg j

g are encouraged to consult NUREC/CR-2 Otherconsiderotions An each radionuchde that would be 35a5 in order to betier understand the understandmg of nonradiological disposd of. Th numates should Ccmmission's information needs The properties of the weste sinam is needed include the curnnt astuohon and the imp ACTS-BRC program will be to assure that they are consistent with likely unability over the neunab disenbuted b) the Nahonal Energy the proposed disposal method and to foreseeable future if the petition is or a Sofimate Center on flopp) diskettes for essiusie the adequacy of the analysis of proposed rule that will be hmited to less use on IBM-PC and compatible the radiologicalimpacts (NRC's then national scope (e g, a state or computers The Center's address is 9700 deregulation of the radioactive content compact region). the totals should be South Cass Asenue Argonne Neiional would not reheve beensees from the estimated for the petitioned scope. A Laborators Argonne lihnois 00439 The appheable rules of other agencies which concentration distnbution would be a users guide for IMPACTS-BRC will be cover the nonradiological properties I helpful too! m charactensmg the weste pubbshed u a draft Volume 11 of The petshoner should provide e detailed stnam For example, the itioner NUREC/CR-3585 Petitioners may desenption of the weste matenals.

could indicate that 10% o the wastes es aluate the impacts of the proposed meluding their ongm. chemical fall en the range of1-10 picocunes per cetiut) usmg NRC s code. if desired cornposition physical state. volume, and gram. 80% fall m the 10100 range. and When alternate calculational mess aos m the 100-1.000 range Such methodologies are used the pehhoner The term " stream" only means westes distribution would permit more reehshe shsuld proude all the specific input produced from a common set of assessment of impacts m addition to nieded to analyze the wasie stream m circumstances and possessing common conservative boundmg estimates unmg the petition using IMPACTS-BPC and charactenstica it does not mean maximum values in any case.the provide a rationale for all parameter

-liquid" although the stnam may be in a typical quantities produced per selections The Commission may clanfy hquid form te. weste oilt The westes generator and an estimate of the may be main beads. laboratory geographic distnbution of the generators

, er modify the computer code from time g

O te time. Petitioners choosmg to use

. glassman. or any other fonn Weste

, should be desenbed I hRC e cc,de should be sure to use the 1 form includes packages or containers R 4 Josis The basis for the waste s used to manage (i e., store handle. ship-a stream charactencation should be

' cunent reusion The Natienal Energ) or disposel the wastes The vanabihty iprovided The basis for charactentation a

Scftware Center will provide changes to e and potent.at changes m the waste form a of the wastes and the total quantities P sons n g g amirom the as a function of process variation should produced should be desenbed be addressed The venatsori among Monitonng enslytical data. and I'censees should be desenbed and calculations should be specified Actual spe ene e n fac or d nio f ture bounded measurements or values that can be n naions Compatibihty with requirements related to measurements to confirm 5 Scope The petitioner should defme essociated with the proposed calculations are importent The tte geographic are. t? which the snsnagement options should be carefully desenption of the bases should melude poposed rule should apply and the presented For example.if the petitioner ahty assurance espects For example, reasons supportmg sn) ares less than proposes that the westes be inemerated.

e petthoner should describe the national e scope It might be possible to the waste form should be shown to be number of semples measured. the tushf) hmitmg the scope to e low level compshble with the temperatures flow npresentativeness of the samples and waste regional comonet or a state but rates. feed rates and other operstmg the appropnateness af the mstruments irrplementation issues such as irnport or pararneters of typicat inemerators that used The statishcal c'onfidence m the emport of ma.ies outside the compact or may be used The pennoner should estimates should be evaluated if the state should oc addressed m the identify the mmimum requirements an pennoner conducted a~rry starveys of rahonale mcmerator must meet to assure bcensees or rehed on sme) by others adequate combusbon The form and to help quantify the arnount and content B Weste CAcrocrenschon volume of the ash and other residue of wastes, they should be desenbed from mcmershon should be desenbed Market mformat on might be useful m 1 Radiolopeo/pt perhes The similar consideration for disposal at charactensms waste genershon on a mmirnurr radio;egica: propert es that sanitar) landfills or herardous waste cet,onal basis Designehon as a " trace should be describec are the seies should be addressed For example.

concentration" should be related te concenttahor. o contar inshon levels mastes that include components or specified detection hmits. but dete: hon and the half.bses tota! quanhty and properties that would quehfy the waste hmits themselves are not sufhcient identities of the radionuchdes present es e "hasardous weste" under EPA rules nason to dismiss trace concentrations The chemical and phy sical form of the in oc CFR Parts 260 through 265 should when methods exist to mfer rad.onuchder s5edd be addressed All not be proposed for drsposal at a concentrabons.

radionuchder pt>rnt or potenhally municipal landbll For estimates of the redsonuchde present should h specif.ed meludmg The potenhal for recycle should be content of the weste stream.the radionuchdes ideni hed as trece presented Possible trestinent. such as penhoner may take adiantage of conshtuents The d<stnb. hon of the shreddmg the would reduce the recycle hcensee empenence in classifymg red.onuclide, within the masies should Potential should be desenbed Both the westes for disposal at low level = este be noted le a surf ace o'sclume resource value le g salvageable metals)

,,tes For emample. the transuranic d:stribuhon) Mass and iolume aserage and the funct onal usefulness (e s.

radionuchde content of the westes enable tools) should be addressed Both would hkely be below deiechon hmits short and long term potenhals for but beensees have already estabbshed l

1 l

App Billi APP Billi PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS be coesidered in selecting acceptable Pei'i'onn s analysis should address the l compts ing wah to CTR Part 61 weste class ficaison requirements Weste options basis for parameter selection and CWN N WM W" N 8 generators use generic scahng factors g A3,fy,,,

indicate how hkel) the entreme case and factors estabhshed for their specific masies through sophisticated analyses To support and justify the submittal.

may be) in addition the petitioner e The scabr's factors are used lo infer the each petitioner should include snelyses analysis should also address polential presence and concentrations of many of the radiologicalimpoets associated esposures from handling and transport radiorichdes bued on enessurement of with h.ndhng transport. and disposal of accidents The petitioner s analysis of onl> a few nuchdes The classification the specific mastes Any meremental accidents should melude all scheme in 10 CFR Part 61 has been in nonradiologicalimpacts should be assumptions. data and results to effect since December 198J assessed Also the petitioner should use facilitate review The potential for Considerable data and emperience the analyses to prepare and submit a 8h'pment of the entire maste stream to should be available to allow detailed regulatory analysis with the one or a few facihties should be charactenzmg the radiological content pe tition essessed This scenano currently esists and compesition of the masie strum

1. Aodiologicolimpoets The for 10 CTR 20106 exempied hquid bems addressed m the petition The eulustion of radiologicalimpacts scintillation *nies and mighi result same prmeiples outhned m to CFR should distinguish between espected from very hmited numbers of treatment s1 ista)(el rnay be apphed i e. values and potentiel exporures and events f8Cthes or decontaramation serwces based on direct measurements mdirect impacts should be assessed for the The analysis ofimpacts for transport.

methods related to measurements. or espected concentrations and quantities handling and disposal should include ma terial accounta bihty of radionuchdes The petitioner should evaluation of this potential circumstance 3 As loi. os is reasonob/> ochseioble quantitatively evaluate the impacts from unless it can be clearly ruled out (ALA AA/ The Commission e ALARA the proposed m aste for each option As suggested m Paragraph as on page requirement in 10 CFR 201(c) apphes to requested The petitioner should clearly 20 of ICRP Publication 46 8 efforts by bcensen to mamtsin re ate the analytical fmdmgs to specific Encephon from regulation and radiation exposures and releases of prosisions in the recommended rule reemremen's on ihne bon should not be radicactive maienals m effluents to changes For enemple. the basis for each u"d io *d' 't possible io dispose of tarre unrrrsiricied areas as low is reasonab')

recommended radionuchde hmit should 8 """'* * *I d * C h" **

• h* I

• d'Ivd nroes able 10 CFR Part 50 Appendaa l be clearly emplamed I* in daided porhons causms h!s dr es a dQ'o"n'"of describes ALARA for radioactne The radiological smpacts include d m d

t materials in hght water reactor effluents NUREC/CR-3585 and m NRC's mp3 small dein so mdn duals Nor should Lscensee compliance with 10 CFR 30 lic) computer program (IMPACTS-BRC) in,i be used to esempt scinines that by is a precondition to acceptance by NRC cover emposures to workers and isolshon or truiment how bon made g of an3 waste stream as enempt endnidual members of the pubhc and iemporant3 harmless but that impts large

Therefore. e deschphon should be E cvmulative populehon eaposures The 2 onh81 for rel'**e erd could 86 e nu to P

prouded of reasonable procedures that

{ program calculates both enternal direct

! h'8" 'ad"' dual doses or h'gh collecine doses a

waste generators would be espected to

, gamma esposures and exposures from 8

The analysis of tapected radiological a

use to minimere rad 3ahon esposures saeested or mhaled radionuchdes NRC s

• impacts should clearly address-a

• resultmg from the disposal of the computer program can be used to i -The masimum mdn-idual exposures a

esempt maste e g remosalof surface calculate the espected radiological

-The critica' group enposures contamination These procedures are impacts from generator actanties

-The cumulaine population assumed to apply pnor to charactentmg transportation treatment. disposal espesures the waste to be esempted

.,perat.nn.

nut p... h p.i.al input.

The maximum indnidus! exposure C Waste Monogement Ophons Ih'V"**""'""'"*"""l"*'

*I'***"*h**'d*Ud**'P***'**'*

.a in.inagnicne opinen ini in.bna all members of the pubhc who ma> be The management options that the nn.a. ircoin.cni an.1 b.p..ai in iln.

esposed besmnmg with the inihal Commission can deal math expediteous!>

ee nc. i....inninens h. un,,n..pai naac handlms at the gmretor's faciht) are inose described m NUREC/CR-3585 management facihties. and shipment to through post closure. Both miemal Onsite ophons mclude incineration and hasardous *aste management facihties uptake and exiemal exposures should bunal Offsite options are murncipal The program covers impacts besmning be mcluded T'he indmdual r a) be a waste disposal facihties (sanitary with mitial handhng and treatment by member of the general populabon (e 3 landhils) municipal waste memerators.

the genersior through final disposal of consumer of cargtarr} mated ground hazardous disposal facihtees and all the radionuchdes contained in the mater) of a person r4cenmg the hazardous maste mcmeratoes maste stream Sequenhal treairrent esposure from his or her occupation Pretreatment e shreddmg of sothng and memershon ensite and at Anyone who rna) be exposed and is ne' otherwise potentiall> recyclable municipal and hazardous facibhes can a radiahon worker should be consideree materials is a poientialadiunct to either be assessed Disposal of resultmg ash a member of the pubhc For esemple a onoce or offsite opt ons Combmahons and ruidue is included Post. disposal marker et a sanitary landhll or a of these ophons can also be evaluated impacts that can be calculated include commercial trash truck dra er would noi For esample mutes may be incmersted releases due to mtrusion. ground.m ater be a radiation worker Homeser.

on site and the ash shipped to e sanita')

m grahon. erosion. and leachste occupahonal esposures to radishen landhli The fasored disposal ophons scromulebon The program thus

= orkers should be esaluated and should be ident hed end full > described adoresses both espected and potenhal considered m the cost /ber efit snelysa The pehhoner should eutuaie a full post d2spoulimpacts of the merementalimpacts between range of ephons The prachcaht) of the The pentioner's ans1 sis of transport disposal at a heensed faciht) and the 3

proposed option lsi should be presented impacts should be based on a requested disposal options Weste compet biht) discussed earber is runoea bl3 espected special distnbution The total pcpulahon espost res can be one aspect The nahonal suitabihty of bcenseen and maste treatr ent and estimated and summed in two parts and d smb hon of the op' ion is anothet disposal facihbes which will accept th, One part is the smaller crinca! g eup Upd.tes or. nahonal regu'ations and mastes The petiboner should address (usually the occupshonall) exposed law s penammg to the peeposed option parameters such as aserage and populahon1 where potential empe.*es should be described and might base to estreme transport d: stances The 153 Au gust 29, 1986

.............-...n.

App. B(ll)

APP &lIl PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS may be higher on an indiudval basis but and constramts are discussed more fully to implementation For most radioactive the esposures and the number of of er this hsting of topics matenals the general DOT threshold l

caposed irida iduals are more (4) U'C's,on toriono/c This topic is a hmits of 0 002 microcuries per gram predictabfe and the esposures are short.

conclusions statement that emplains why apply However, the DOT issued a fmal term The entical group should be the the preferred alternative (s) should be rule on June s.19a5150 FR 23811) that segment of the populaison most highly adopted amended 49 CFR part 173 to emernpt low l

esposed esclusae of radiation workers (51/mplementorean This topic covers specific activity wastes as described m The other part is the general population the steps and schedules for actual NRC s rules m 10 CFR 20 306 (Note that where the empected esposures and site implementation of the proposed rule.

DOT emphasized that the wastes remain of the esposed population are less The petitioner should address the topic sub ect to the provisions nlated to other i

predicta ble. potential individual from the waste generstor a perspective hazards. see 49 CFR 172 425(d) I esposyres are probabl> much smaller.

and include surveys discussed under and esposures may emiend over longer Topic !!! A.5 Recordkeepmg and E. Aecordeeping and Aeporfms timeframes Pnsentation of the E ' PC"'" 8 A cost / benefit discussion to an

1. Surveys Existing regulations m i 10 population esposures in these two parts should contnbute to a more meanmsful unneial part of both environmental and CFR 20.201 estabhah general NRC cost /beneht analysis "8"I'? 'mpact considerations and is, requirements for performma suneys as thvefon unntial to expedited necessary to cornply with Part 20 2 Otherimpocrs The NRC sction to handhng The discussion should focus bcensees would have to conduct esempt the radiolog, cal content of the on espected esposures and reshstic surveys of the weste properties pnor to westes would not rehese persons concentrations or quantitin of nlesu for e empt disposal to venfy processms or disposirig of the handhnfrom requirements applicable to radionuchdes The cost / benefit that the waste meets the presenbed westes discunion should include the hmits Such survey programs might the nonradiotor cal properties The differential esposure and economic consist of [1) fairly comprehensive petition should demonstrate that the costs between disposal at a bcensed mitial samphng and analysis to confirm n:nradiological properties of the kw etel waste disposal site and the that the licenne's wastes will fall below radioactive weste are the same as the proposed option (s) It ma> also melude the hmata.12) penodic analysis as part of n nredioactive matenals normally qualitahve bmhts Reduced hazards a process or quality control program to handled and disposed of by the ni ed stonns huasus or conhrm the milialimdmgs, and (3) e preposed methods if the combustible matenals might be a routme survey program pnor to release ntnradiological properties are similar beneht Ehmination or reduction of the of wastes to monitor for gross and the solumes of enempted weste hasardous properties le. by irregulanties To show that beensees R wculd not impact the normal operations. g ncmershon) could be another

. can be expected to conduct comphance

i thne should be no meremental ampacts

, Detnmental costs might also be R surveys pnor to waste transfer. the a

f h c shouId e consid red for e quahtshve such as loss of space m e petshoner should desenbe a sample pac

• municipal or hasardous weste sites The

" survey program The three componer.rs

, the specihc w asies m the petition. the

economic impact on the bcensed site

gust disevesed should be meluded. if petitioner should also address the oP"8 hon 8 h e lo8s olmcome from appropnate. for the waste stream a dditional impa cts daerted wastes) and its potential effect Records of the surveys would be 2 Aepulcrory one,3 sis in order to on the availabihty of economic and safe maintained for mspection-expedite subsequent rulemakms if the disposal should be addressed Costs of petition is granted the analysis should surveys and venfymg comphance 2 Reports ~he petshoner should also address the topics NRC must disevised under Topic II E essume that er nuai reports on disposals address m e Regulator) Analysis (e 3 Recordh eepmg and Reportmg should will be required and that associaied see NUREC/BR-0054 Reusion 1-also be covered The cost / benefit should recordheepmg to generate the reports

" Regulator) Anal) sis Guidehnes of the also reflect AIARA considershons will be imposed Mmimum mformation U S Nucleer Regulator) Commission")'

Radishon worker eaposure. pubbe in the annual reports initially might following the Regelsion Analysis oposure. and ennronmental teleases melude the type of waste. its volume its fermat mill structure the anal) heal might be appropnate in A1 ARA estimated cune content. and the p!sce findmgs present the bases for decisions.

considerations in weighms the and manner of disposal increased and address the ensironmental espasure costs and economic costs for recordkeepmg and reporting assessment requiremeris The topics hght meter cooled nuclear reactor requirements would address f

are maties the petitioner could use. for uncertamnes m ptrnectm3 uture (1) A statemem o'sbe problem This perspectn e. the $1.000 per person-rem volumes or amounts of westes and topic is the r.eed for drierminmg which guidehne in 10 Cnt Part 50 Appendix !

NRC s responsibihty to consider the I

wasles me> be safely disposed of by for effluent releases from these facihties cumulative impsets of multiple means cther than shipment to bcensed The pentioner should idennfy any enemptions. When these requirements low lesel weste soes legat or reguistor) constremis that might are proposed Office of Managment (2) Alternornes All renonable impact implementat'on of the petitioned and B dget (OMB) approvalis required abernatnes to the p*oposed action change The companbiht) of the waste To facihiste NRC fihng for OMB should be described Tr:e no action or with the proposed method of disposal approsal. the petitioner should melude status que aherna:ne should alma) be mas discussed under Topic 11 B 2 Other any duphcating or overlappmg reportmg me!vded constramts might stem from Departmerrt requirements. the number and type of

13) Co.ase cuences This topic calls for of Transportation (DOTilabehng espected respondents. suggestions for j

en anal) sis of the impacts of each placard.ng and manifestmg mmimiting the burden, estimates of the

{

ehernatne descr6ed The factors the requirements for radioactne matensis staff hours and costs to prepare the Dentioner should address include costs Since the recen mg facihty will not be reports and keep the records and a bnel and benefits and pracnca; or legal beensed to recene radioactive desenption of the basis for the constremis Cost / benefit eonsidershons snatenals this could be an impediment estimates The petinoner should also

RT 2 o MULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS address whethe changes m technical entemal esposure and the dose incurred heatih effects this lesel of fish corresponds specifications or licenses me) be from that year s intake of radionuclides to en annuel dou of the order of 01 m5 110 needed Wh'le e range of 1-10 milbrem per yest

• 51hreml might be acceptable. e one milbrem dose However m most prachcal cases the need I*P**'"*""""'''*d r Pedposed Aule would f acihiste espedited processmg Higher doses may require more

• aste stream should be subieci to control The Pehtien should include the teat entensive gust:6 cation Based on a Consideration should be given to the need for for the proposed rule (see 10 CTR mortshty nsk coefhcient for mduced any optimination of rad >ation protection end 2 802(citill The proposed temi should cancer and hereditary effects of 210" to the possibility thei many practices and cover at least the following per rem (ICRP Pubhcahon 26). radiation sources of the ume hind could combine no.

(3)The quantii> and/or concentration esposure at a level of milhrem per yeer or in the future to 'h8' their totel effeci mas hmit for each radionuchde present would result m an annus! mortahty risk be sign.facent enn though each sou ce r

(trace radionuchdee could be lumped of 2 10(i.e 2a"eflects/rema** rem /

["','," '"5 (lo' ir,enhdose eu'*'i' '

'd v

,,,, duals e together with a totsilimit).

year) g,,g,,,j,,,,, 9.his ma y mWve (2) A method to deal with The EPA is developmg critena for euessmenu of dose commitmots and of the radionuchde mintures.

idenhfyms low level redioactive weste cotiecn,, don pe, unit practic, or source. in (3) The nonradiological specihcations that may be below regulatory concem order se ensure that the mdividual done as part of that agent) s development of requirement wili not be saceeded now or m necessar) to adequatel) define the general environmenial standards for the future it seems almost certain thei the wasie. and low level weste disposal The EPA sotal annual dose to a omste mdmdual from (4) The specihc method (s) of enempi pubbshed an Advance Nohce of eH'P'ed ocurce* "'ll be leu than ten times disposal Proposed Rulemaking on August 31,1983 the conenbution from the esempted source il practicable. and if the supportmg (48 TR 39563) and currently hopes to

[

,8,',

8[,$,',

'a'Ifo7ed d

by mformation m4 cates the need the test pubbsh proposed standards in earlF reducing the annual indmdual dose should also addres6 other features such 198E Other EPA standards that the e.empt,on criienen from o t to c ol ms. tio es annual hmits on each generator in doses can be compared to are the Clean so l milbrem) terms of volume, rnass or total Air Act radioactive release standard of The NRC staff recogrutes that at times.

radioactiut). and administrative of 25 milbrems per yest m 60 CFR Part 81

, human reactions are not so stnetly procedural requirements including and the uratuum fuel cycle annual whole

gosemed by quantative considerations L process controls surseys etc.that have g body hmet of 25 milbrems m 40 CFR 100.

2 as the ICRP excerpt suggests g been discussed The tesi should not g One milbrem is very small when er Nevertheless. the 10' per yest value melude the sarious cose hmits used to a compared to naturs!!y occurnrig

" seems about as low as practicable.

a

[ justif) the proposed radionuchde hmits a background doses from cosmic and 7 seems too low to justify sigmficant

_ terrestnal sources Background doses in concern. and so seems acceptable.

Ill Decision Cntena

• the United States are typically m the The United Kingdom's Nahonal 100-120 milbrems per year range Radiological Protection Board has The Commission pohc) statement esclusne of the lung doses from radon issued genenc gu: dance on de mmamis estabbshes tha' the following criteria One milbrem is also small when dose levels ( ASP 4, lanuary 1985)

• that should be used b) staff as guidehnes for compared to the annual 500 milhrem has status similar to Federal Radiation actmg on a pention Each criterion is dose hmit for mdmdual members of the Guidance issued by the President m this repesied and staff uems on general pubhc m Federal Radiation coung The Board identified effective implemenianon are discussed Council guidance.

dose equissients of 5 milbrem per yest 1 Disposal and treatment of the An important feature is that doses of

,,,,,,,uhcant when members of the m asses as specahed in the petition will up 1 mi m o mdit ua pubbe make their decisions The 5 g,

result m no sigmficant irnpact on the milbrem hmit represents the total dose esposure to multiple exempted waste contnbution from a 1 enempted quahty of the human enuronment stre ICRP PMch 4 addrused prachees For mdindual prachces the Discussion Unless this hadmg can be indmdual dose hmits and other tasues Board divided by to b e~ 0 5 milbrem made dunng mformation submitted by related to esemptions and stated. in per year) to account for exposures from the petitioner. the Commission must paragraphs 63 and 64 on page 19 muluple practices These hmits are prepare sat Enuronmentallmpact Sisterren: to more fulh enemme the M * ") d"*" P"r** tow'$nely apphed gefientall) Less consersstis.

ocouniend in redieup protecoon.

under the well dehned circumstances proponed action abernalises to the particular13 those recened by members of th' associated W specific weste strea~s p,opos+d action and associate pub 5c are ver) small b, cornpanson with den hmiu or neie al bachgeound and are and disposal opt ons envisaged m th.s poten:.alimpacts of shernatnes r

Preparation would hkeh involve well bele= dos, lesets at.hach th, NRC statement seems justihed in a conn:tual support and would hkely appurance of deleienous healih effecis has proposed pohey statement dated Ma) 6 bon demonstrated in mdmdual related 1965? the Canadian Atomic Energy take 2 ) ears c: more to complete The Comm ssion could not act in the petinen

"""*"" a"u'e'n" doses that are so smati Control Board specihcall) addressed

'd8 '*8"' sed that there are cad disposal of specific wastes ths' are ef r.:

4 in an e xpedited manner

,ge,,gy,nsche risks that would be regulatory concern An indiud.at does 1

The tr..simum espected effectne resorded as nestsable b> ihe esposed hmit of 5 milbrems per yest was dose equnalent to en mdiudwal indmduals Sied.es of coreparatne nsks proposd for this hmited appheanon I

membe' of the pubhc does not enceed e esper.enced b3 the poputauor in ianous A maximum mdiudwal esposure of 1 fem murem per year for normal

'] 8PP{8 *',,d;'g'hC',"","

milbrem per year is also consistent wie opershons and anbopated esents se e or ien is noi taken mio sccouni by Appendis I to 10 CFR Part 50 Appenda D,scussion The effectne dos' indo dosis in the,r decisions as to eenons I specihes design obiectne doses for equa alent means the ICRP Pubhcanoa inei couid init,nce their nehs Usms operat onal hght wster cooled nuclear 26 and 30

• sum of the dose from rounded dose response factors for induced power reactor effluents These des:gn

.m

,..... s. v c.. i.,. :....c. :,...,n.,..,.,

APP BilV)

App. Bigggi PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS P

thiecta es include annual total body a The weste is compatible with the and protected weste charactenstics.

doses of 3 milbrems for hquid effluents proposed treatment end disposal reporting on the westes actually and 5 milbrems for gaseous effluents if options.

transferred for below regulatory concern Discussion This entenon relates to disposal will be important and should snaite incmkration et reactors is petitioned for es a specihad disposal the nonradiological properties of the be practical.

eption the petitioner should address wastes For example. disposal of 12 The offsite treatment or disposal f

how the proposed actmty combmed radioactive wastes that also quahiy as a medium (e g. samtery landfill) does not with all other effluents from the sites.

nonrediological hasardous matenal need to be controlled or monitorud for would not exceed the design obiective should be proposed for disposal redistion protection purposes

\\.

doses in Appendin I to 10 CFR Part 50 enethods in accord with EPA regulations Discussion: The evaluation of

3. The collective doses to the crinca3 (e 3. incineration or disposal at a espected esposures should providt S hasardous waste facihty). Also. wastes basis for meetins !b Genon.

p;pulation and general population are proposed for mcmeration should be Nr..r. tad is an eres where NRC

~

small combustible and wastes proposed 'cr will have e continuing responsibihty as Discussion An additional advantage landfills should M sprupnete for multiple petitions are processed when mdmdual doses are no more than is..i m typicallandfills anywhere la Reportmg on actual disposals will help 1 milbrem per yest is that t e rel!m.s the nation.

NRC address this responsibihty and h

dons e e than summations over very

?.The exemption is useful on a monitor the adequacy of the hmits small esposures The collectae dose national scale. i.e.. it is hkel) to be used meluded m the emernpted 6sposals.

3 or mformation by a category of licensees or at least a 13 The methods and procedures used f

evaluation is pnmanl purposes cost /beneht consideratione.

sigmficant portion of a category.

to manage the wastes and to assess the and to confirm the imdmg of no Discussion Rulemakmg is usually not impacts are no different from those that sigmficant impact on the quality of the warranted for wastes involving a smgle would be applied to the correspcndmg human ernironment This determmahon hcensee whether e continums disposal uncontammated matenals will be made based on mformation scimty or e one time disposal Such Discussion Since the meetving facility asailable durms the renew of each proposals by indmdust beensees are will not be beensed for redioactive petition in concert with entenon 5 Staff normally processed as hcensing actions metenals. special bandhng or measures notes that the United Kiegdom pohey on under 10 CML 20 302(a).

should not be requind at the processing mdmdual dose hmits includes an 8 The radiological properties of the or disposs! sites because of the associated collecine dose entenon weste stream have been charactented radioactive content of the westes This The collectae dose entsnon rnust be on a national basis. the variabihty has entenon also means that tsabstic

$ (met m addition to the mdmdual hmits)

A been projected. and the range of

, assumptions about the disposal methods a

A in ICRP Pubhcation a6. a sirmler g vanation will not mvahdate supportmg j have been made m estimatma 8 cntenon is stated analysn a esposuns.

O'scussion One of the ments of,

s 14 There are no regulatory or legal 4 The potential radiological consequences of accidents or equipment ; dealms with specibe waste streams is

. obstacles to use of the proposed malfunchon invoking the =sstes and that the actual properties of the weste

• treatment or disposal methods mtrusion into disposal sites after loss of strum can be nhed upon m estimatmg Discussion To have practical use. the normal matitutional controle are not mpacts rather than conservative disposal option must be available For

8*g* "I boundmg parameters The specific exemple. if all hazardous waste Discussion potenhal doses from pathwavs that must be considered can facihties that accept offsite wastes an be bmit'ed to manageable numbers The closed or are not reasonably distnbuted.

accidents or mirusion should be well expected fate can be credibly hmited the practicahty of an exemption to allow withm pubhc exposure hmits and take based on the properties disposal al such sites is questionable.

mto account the probabihty or 9 The weste charecJerization is based Since the recemng facihty will not be possibiht) of such events in a statement on dets on real wastes.

heensed for radioactive matenals.

dated Apnl 261966

• the Internehonal Discussion Actual data on real weste shipments to landfills or hasardous Commission on Radiological Protection provide reasonable assurance that the weste facahhes should not require (ICRP) stated that the ICRP s present waste characteriution is accurate identificehon as radioactive matenals view is that the pnncipal dose hmit for 10 The disposed form of the weste mernbers of the pubhc is 100 milbrems m hn neghgible tenus) for recycle W. Administrative Hand 11ag a year The ICRP further stated that the Docunion hminatmg the Agency procedures for expeditious SOC milbrem hmit from ICRP Pubhcahon ancertamties associated with recycle is handimg of put,ons for rulemakms 26 could be used as a subsid,ary hm>t accessary to expeditious handimg were mittally pubbshed m 1982 m provided the hfetime everage does not Speedying speciht wastes and specific NUREC/BR 4053. " Regulations enceed the pnneipa' hmit methods of disposal narrow s the Handbook?' The procedures are Consequently potential esposures fro" path =ay and timeframes to contained in Part 11 of the Handbook accidents or unempeceed esents would manneable numbers and were most recently revised m be more easily sushfied if they are we!!

M bcennes can estabbsh effectise September 1985 Because of resource below 100 milbrem per year pnncipal bcensable and inspectable programs for hmitauers and other factors these hmit the mute pnor to transfer to procedures have not been fully 5 The enemption will result m a demonstrate comphance.

implemented Petinens for rulemaking sigmficant redsetion m soc etal costs Dacuo,on Survey programs and submitted m accordence with the Discussen When the economic and quahty control prc, grams will be needed Commasion's policy statement and this enposure costs associated with the to proude reasonable assurance that staffimfementation plan will be eierepuon are compared to disposal et a octaal wastes disposed of under an processed m full comphance with these bcensed lomlesel was'e site there esemphon rule meet the specified procedures These procedures coupled should be e segmf. cant reduction in parameters Since disposal weald be with agency pobey to complete all costs enempted based on both establ shed rulemaking within 2 years will provide

l APP. C(lli As,p. 8(IV) PART 2 e RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS I

Fossesses.

empeditious action on the petitions In 8 Copin of NUREC/BR cou NUREC/39-addihon, the Handbook notes general ease end NUpEC/CR-nas may be Purchaud scheduling adoce that proposed rules to throwgh the U s conmment Prmhng ofDce grant pennons should be pubbshed in 6-by callms tac 21 st6 aceo se by -nims to se U S Coumment Prinhne OfLee p ri L 12 months afler acceptance and ston2. wohingion F Waa2 Copas l pubhcotion for comment Proposed rules Q',*gM"[*,"d["**""***I i

will be forw arded to the Commission se

,,,, y l

l s 6 month schedule to the entent Depenmeni of Commerce sits Pon Reyel l

permitted by resourra SMe, tyie nature Road Spnns eid.VA 221st Copin m n

and aw'est.,i public commente. and e,sitebie for inspechen end/or copyms for a '

taterna) Control of Rulemakings to m tre NBC P bhc Docueneni Room. m7 !

H Street NW. Washington DC ao6M l

procedures Rulemenings involving

'lCRP Pubhcahon es "Itadiehon power reactors must be reviewed by the Prowchu Pnne pin for the Dispont of Solid Committee on Review of Genenc Requirements prior to pubhcation-

"*8'y',"{bcYt

,3 to bene Proposed rulee irivolvmg reactors wil!

,r g, g,i,,,,,onal Comminion en therefore be forwarded to the Esdiological Protection? odopted lenwary 17 Commission on a 7-month schedule to syn. ICRp Pubhcaben 30. *1muts fw intake

&e entent permitted by resources, of Radionuclido by Werkers? odePted laly comments, and approval procedures. In irre

'Cepas of the Un.tedLnedom's decomment both cases, every effort will be mede to m available for inspect oh n anclooms to Iublish reposed rules no latet than 12 SECY-ab-IstA (relebag to to CTR Pen B)

E months aftet noticing for pubhc dated bly 21. Sea 3 m the Comminion's C0888 Al-hblic Document Room.1717 H Street NW.

Although the procedures in part 11 of wnhmgion. DC aosu The United onedom NURIC/BR-0053 melude fut track documents are euilable for sale from Her processing the nature of the antiepated Warnire siehonery ofrice P o som ses landon SE1 SNH. United Ongdom. es Advice petitione do not fully comply with te document A5p-f and a related technical decision cntena to follow this eepon. '"The Sigmricance of $rnal! Doees of

• g20""";T.e se, fes,u,es of.e g; "- --*~'

• a-o e

J, handhng procedures include the

• Cepin of me Canadian document m a following steps for complete and fully enilable for inspection a en encloem to a6 supported petitions SECY-45-147A trelaims to to Cnt Pan sol

1. Petitioners may confet on de'*d N'y 23 teu m the Comminion s Put hc Document Room.1717 H 5treet NW.

procedural matters with the staff befor,

""'""8'*" DC anus The Canacen ft!mg petition for rulemakmg Requeste dockrhefit was issWed e9 Conau!1stive to es er on procedural mettm should Docment C 45 The Basis br Esempus e '

s be addressed to The Director.Dmsion nepont or Cenam Radioecuve weienals of Rules and Records Ofhce of Imn bcensirt b> the Atomic Energy Adnunistretion. U S Nuclear Regdetory Centrol toerd P o Don toes. oitawa.

Cornr*.ission. Wa shmston. DC En5.

Deiano Canada KIP $5e Attentson-Chief. Rules and Procedures

• 1CRPIss/C-c3 "Sisiement from the 18a5 Pans Meenna of the latemanonal Branch' Comminion on Red elogical Proteet? 1ssS-

2. Petitions should be addressed to:

w as The Secretery. U S Nuclear Regulatory l

l Commission Washmaten DC 30555.

Attentier. Docketing and Service l

Branch In keepmg with 10 CTR 2.22(f).

i petitioners will be promptly informed if l

the petition meets the threshold j

requiremet.ts for a petition for ruletnaking tn 10 CFR 2 802(c) and can be pic:essed in accordance with this impler.entsho? plan Ordmanly this determination will be made withm 30 de> s after rece.pt of the petition 3 Follow.ng %s determinst on.the petition will be nobced in the Federal Register for a bbla c.omrnent pened of et least 80 days i

e The petitioner willbe providrd J

copies of all comments received.

schedules mformation,and penodic status reports The procedces in NUREC/BR 4053 also italude the process for derual and ethd amel of petitions.

Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules 49886 s'

?

NUCt.KAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR ClkI Polley Statement on Esemptions From Regulatory Control assNew Nucleat Regu! story Commission.

aCMONS: Advance notice of proposed statement and meeting.

suwwannThe NRCisin the process of developing a broad pobey on exemptions from regulatory control for practices whose health ar.d safety Lepects could be considered below l

i regulatory concern.This policy statement would provide for more efficient and consistent regulatory actions in connection with exemptions from various specific Commission requirements.The Commission. in formulating this Advance Notice. ie seeking public input on some specific t

i

~

Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules 49a87 questions which are key considerations country's border. It is hoped that Commission may initiate the in developing such a policy.De NRC exchanges of ideas and information development of appropnate replations staff wiu conduct a meetmg to inform such as occurred at the intemational or make licensing decisions to exempt the public of its intentions, specifically workshop will, besides providing one from regulatory control persons who 13 cienfy and answer questions avenue ofinput to the Commission's receive, posse s s. use, trans fe r. own. or concemmg the advance nouce and to actions. lead toward a greater degree of acquire censin raticactive matenal.

hear pret minary views conceming a consistancy in such exemptions world-Ris policy is directed principally t

policy for exemptions with emphasis on wide. At the intemational workshop, the toward rulemaking activibes. but may the specific quuuons raised by the

" Advance Notice of the Development of be applied to licanae amendments or Commission.

a Commission Policy on Exemptions license applications involving the l

BATES; Meeting to be held On January from Repla tory Control for Practices nlesse of licensed ra&oactive matenal l

12.1989 wntten comments should be Whose Pubhc Health and Safety either to the environment or to persons submitted by January 30.1989.

Impacta are Below Rep! story ConcerO who would be exempt from Commission Comments received after this date will presented in this notice, was made repletiona. it is important to emphastze be considered if it is pra cucal to do so, available for discussion.De transcript that this polely does not assert an but assurance of consideration can only of the intemational workshop which absence or thn hold of risk but rather be given as to cornmenta received on or includes all the papers presented at the establishes a baselme where further before this date.

sneeting may be examined and copied government regulations to reduce riska Aonessss: Meeting will be held at the for a fee at the NRC Public Document mmg Room at 2120 L Street. NW, Holiday Inn. 8120 Wisconsin Avenue'f Washington. DC.

la now new. For example,in 1960 and De concept of replatory exemptions Bethesda MD 20814 (4 blocks north o the Bethesda Metro Stanon) Telephone: Advanos Notice of the Development of a 1970. the Commluion promulgated (301) 652-2000.1-800 465-4329. Mail Commassion Policy lables of exempt quanubes and concentrations for re&oactive material introduction andAupos, c!rar Reguls omm Washington. DC. 20555. Attention:

Over the last several years, the

• $,"'c d

iv sus.

Docketmg and Service Pranch.

Commission has become inenasmaly use, transfer. own. or acquire without a Comments may be dehvered to 11555 aware of the need to provide a general

"$uln

' fo FR 1j5 Rockville Pthe. Rockville. MD between policy on the appropnate critens for gups 7 1960 6426 p 22.

7.30 a.m. and 4.15 p.m. weekdays.

release of radioscuve matenals fmm I

W" **ED.* " ' * *E8 Copies of the comments received may regulatory control.To address this need.

n n o cmumu pm e or he examined and copied for a fee at the the Commission is expandmg upon its u

cu to b gnual pu%c. or NRC Pubhc Document Room at 2120 L exJsunbpohey for protection of the "U*#^8 "I'"" "I U* * *U" St cet. NW., Washmston. DC.

pubbc m rs6ation. currently al to de m@nment, pan Mn m

p!m ruarrwta mpomuation cosef Acart expressed in existing regulations (Title embodied in the Commission s I

Cathenne R. Mattsen. telephone (301) 10, Code of Federal Regulations) and ngulaum for o me time. Mon 492-3638. or Wilham R. Labs, telephone policy statements (30 FR 3462. Use of recently. the Low Level Radoactive (301) 492-3774. Office of Nuclear Byproduct Material and Source Waste Policy Amendments Act of1985 Repletory Research. U.S. Nuclear Material, dated March 18.1965; 47 F1t directed the Commission to develop Megulstory Commission. Washington.

57446. Ucensing Requirements for Land atandards and procedures for,

DC. 20555.

Disposal of Ra6oactive Weste, dated e*Pe6tious bandimg of petititons to sureLauaartAmY ikposMADosc December 27,1982, and 51 FR 30639.

• • 'mPt from ngulauon the disposal of Cenera! Statement of Policy and slighuy centaminated radioactive waste Intucational WortsboP Procedures Conceming PeUtions matuial that the Comtalaslon in addition to conducting this public Pursuant to i 2 802 for Disposal of determined to be below mpletory meeting. the Commission bas sought Radioactive Waste Streama Below concem.ne Commission responded to input from the Lntemational regulatory Regulatory Concern, dated August 28, this legislation by issuing a pohey cominunity through an latemauonal 1986). Tbs expansion includes the statemmt on August 29.1966 (51 m workshop on esemptions from development of an explicit policy on the 30639). net statement contained criteria reguletory control which was held exemption from regulatory contml of which. if satisfactorily addressed in a October 17-10,1988 in Washington DC.

practices whose public health and The irnportance of such interaction safety impacts are below regulatory petition for rulemaking. would sHow the Commission to act expedibously in stems from the fact that many existing concem. A practice le defined in this pmposms appropriate regulatory relief and potential exemptions involve pobey as an activity or a set or ra6cactive materials purposefully used combination of a number of similar sets on a " practice. specific" basis consistent in consumer products or introduced into of coordmated and continuing activities with the merita of the peution.

various products or materials through aimed at a given purpose which lavolve The Commission believes that these the ncychng of contaminated scrap, the potential for ra6ation exposure.

" practice specific" exemptions should either of which may enter intemational Under this policy, the definition of be encompassed within a broader NRC trade. Even eff!wents and waste 6sposal " practice"is a critical feature which will Policy which defines levels of ra6ation can involve exposuns to people in assure that the formulation of risk below which specified practices countries other than those from which exemptions from regulatory control will would not require NRC regulation based the effluent or waste onginated.nia not allow dehberate 61ution of material on public health and safety intensta.

aspect is a significant issue in the or fractionstion of a practice for the For such exemption practices. the European community. Dus, some purpose of circumventing controls that Commission's regulatory involvement degree of consistency intemationally la would otherwise be oppheable.

could therefore be essentia!!y limited to desirable, smce exemption decisions The purpese of this pobey statement beensing. inspection, and comphance can effect popJetions outside each ta to estabhsh the basis upon which the activities associated with the transfer of

Td-'al Registar / Vol. S3, No. 23a / My. hamber 12.19as / Proposed Reke 49888 tha radinatha main 61 from a controDad internationalceramualty N vaben Altecastive hypodesen heve b unds: cas.derstaos ta thes Pobey propoemd and reewa!mations of the data The Commissien recognfua that,if a Statamame do amt ananaanly agree with base at h,ghet doses earmane.N to an exrept statua.

national poCcy on asemptions from those sa!, '.no or undes cana6deration by Commismen habeves ht aae of the albs cosa:nes.N Commismen has linsus mon 4resheid hypothesis nuews regdatory contro! fa to be e!Tective.

the theeresacal estabhshineet of upper Agreement States will pay an importsal carsL3y reviewed thoes alternata haita en b unabe of beach eMecta cntuia, ar.d does not Gad sigtuGcana implementation refe In the past. Stater aciant$c evidence bt wouid d.ctata that mJahs occur at swy now desee have been encouragwg En&ngs that certe n werte, ere belent regWatory pnfarea641 selection of any d those which are the subject of the examposa concern and the Comeriennon belieece views avse whatis proposedin thus pousy" tah af deaa to as ladreident u mr thet Seetes well etr; port an expension af Policy StatumsmL calculated sing tha knear modal is thcee views to aU practicer invofvirW au.a y,

,,co pg,,g,3,,

showainTabie t for vanous deaned enew;w drstributr:m er refeese of De ComminsIon recognIsaa that three levels of indivwbal does A ra&ahen radioective material.N Cormerfsefon fundamental principfes of radiation expcause d 10 seers per you $1 anSv intends that rolemokfngs so&fym* g protection have histodcaUy added the per year) for a lifetime corresponda reguialery control esemptions wiD be fonnufstion of a system of dose theoretically to an inenase of us ed mede a sieeter of compatibihty foe limitstion to protact wockere and the bindividsare anru.al nak d cancas Agn erwent State s. Consequently, eny pubhc from the potentiaUy harmful death.m litatima nak la based ussam rulemaku gs thet evohe from thta pokey effects of reestion.They are:[1]h g g,,g,,,, gg g wdi be coce&nated wnh the States, justification of the actice, whic levelia the same asch year of a4 Advtacry and acasstic bo&es have offered 6 versa viewa to the Commisason suspares b thae some net bemuret you t h==

i in anticipation of this Pobey Statement, resulting from the use of raiatum er in mating b deu estu u mre is not cjeas cansamous based on es&oactive materials.(2) dose haita*

membero d b public that might antaa which define the opper boundary of g,,ygg g,,, og,,;,,, p,gg;,,, g,,

emist ng sciectic avidence ne research adequate pectarH=i for a member a(the which exemptions are being cocaidered, reguing tha salestion of numencal pubhc which should not be exceeded in b Comminia has deded k appl critana br une in this Pohey Statement the condcct of nuclear ecavities and (3) b concapt d b Vecdn b l'urther,b Comm uion la aware that ALARA.which requires that redation quivh*' This emWhkh is there are 6fTering wiew: within the NRC dose be aslow as is reasonably bued m compadam d h detand staff an the selectina of numensal achievable, e-m*c and social factory

"*"N 'U C** #"""8 0***

a criterial for BRC.

being takeriinto acuzamt.h turs.

y,'*g

", d in the at ance of a eclecti$c consensus. tr is the Commission's taallo ALARA. la an scracym for Aalass Aals dh Reasonably Achievabla.no whola bady dosa equiva! ant of parual assess the &versity of views la Comreission is interested ia assessing body ex a appesach was estabbshing a res onsible BRC policy.

The authonty an[responsibihty to malte how these principles should be appbedI MY the final selmien of criteria rests with in establishing appropriate critana for te na the Commission. Crueris selected must roleese of radioactne maturials frosa g

(1) Proeide reasonab!c aseurence that n s! story scetrol exprsasad in its Pu% cation to inued fra use of b absence d oboarved 1977. Since that time. the coner pt has public health and safety w1!1 be heahh effects below 5 ruselyeur (50 been reviewed and evalustad t>y P

protected. and (2) corrristent with auch mSvlyeart scient&c arparts incJe&ng radauon protecton orlanfutina a u urance, permit pra eriers in the pubite the Intemstior.al Corenuaslao on throughout the world and haa gamed domam whrch involve the ese of cal Protection flCRP) and the wide acceptance.

i rethoisotopes for which ooetety Radiolof' Council on Ra&ation Nationa h

perceives a dernend.

Protection and Measurements (NCRP)

T*A 1 '

lt is enognizet! that there la e delicate make the anumptson that the frequency J

belance here. Cntene con be set of occurrence of beelth effecta pre unit L8'",,',*'""

sufficiently restrictive such that thsee le does at low done lavela la the same as at

_g l

absolute essurance thatheelth and high doses (to RAD (0 3 Cy)) where men w

L

• = sa==

nafety w di alw syn be protected, no health ettects have been obsernd and inatter what esenta might transpire.

stud,ed in human and animala Thia m o-*

sac ami e smoa f,$

Hewes cr. In doing ses the regulator may lineat non threabold hypohais assumas M.',

tw' then ptace undue and annecessary that the risk of radiataan induced effeca l8,' '

rutnctions on praclices which should (pnscipaDy concar) talinearly aned c.: see-be pumitted becease of otherwise proportional to done.no mattar how

's** ess e;-v e 2x to" ser== 12sie

• pu reasonable social.' economic er smau the dose might be. W coetlicient v

" W g, g,"7 M'.cse"-a,$ b,.

indetal censdentions.Then is used in the rnodal se a haals foe m er saaw* =

l alwan the dartget of over regu!ation an rom os w

whd ruults m effects that are felt la estimatittg statistical health risk is on the ordee of 1x10"nok of fatal rawas

'g* Q,,,, [*c,% FAT, 7, I

areaa wha.ru the NRC does not have m,tosnse.:,y m an

'yeqqQ Q*4**Q l,

authonry and teeponshhty.Marsovee.

per person-ters of raiation does the Atornic Energy Acs doea not reqairs (2x10'8 par SV),& Commisalos l

g,,,,,,g yg, w.,, e,,,.,, y o o one ab s!ute aasutamee of aafe1y m the una reccgnizea Ihat it la a conaerystive of tedioactive tr.ateltal and Lcansad modej based upon data coUncted at ear ses w emme enw-e no e* DWr ** "

• • "'""***e*'*)" * * ' ' " ' * ' " " ' " '

relath e.ly high dsau and dose rataa (a cilities.

which is then extrapolated to the law W Commission recog9ses that k is ne cumuica! critaria ultimata)y dose and desa rate resien when there impoa+ible to mansure nah to selected wdl has e signica nt impact om are no statisticaUy rehable tri&viduals or populationa directly, and.

nuclear regdation bere in tha United epidemiological data available.

Ststes and potentially in the

]

Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday December 12,1988/ Proposed Rules 49aag Cat in most situations. It is impractical licensee's control (na tural background

1. He applicadon or continustion of to measure annual doses to indmdvals and medical exposures are excluded).

regulatory controls on the practice does ct the 13w levels imphed by exemption Because of the small risks involved a 10 not result in any significant reduction in d:cisirns. Typically. ra dioisotope mrem (0.1 mSv) individual dou criterion the dou received by individuals within concentrations or reestion levels from la proposed as the basis for exemption the critical group and by the exposed the material to be exempted are the decisions bened on simple analysis and population or:

ceru:1 measurements that can be made, judgements. The Commisalon 2.The costs of the regulatory controls cnd dues are then estimated by specifically seeks comment on the need that could be irnposed for dou caposure pathway analysis combined for establishing a collective dou limit in reduction are not balanced by the w$th ether types of assumptions related adation to an individual dose criterion.

commeneurate reduction in ruk that 13 the ways m which people might if such a collecuve dose criterion la could be realized.

become exposed. Under such conditions, t.eeded what is the basis for this need?

For purposes of implementing its conservative assumptions are frequently if the Commission decides that a policy, the Comrnission recognizes that rud in modehng so that the actual dou. co!!ective dou criterion is needed. what onjy under unusual circumstances la on the low side of the calculated dose, approaches a!!owing truncadon of would practices which cause re&ation The Commission beheves that this is the individual dou in calculation of esposures approaching the 100 antem per cppropriate approach to be taken when collective dose or weighting factors for year (1 mSv per year) hmit be determming i.f an exemption from components of col!ecuve dose would b*

considered as candidates for exemption.

rerulatory controls is warrantei appropriate? What altematives should The Commission will consider such touecuve dose is the sum of the be considered for asussing societal circumstances on a can specific basis indmdual doses resulting from a impact?

naing the general principles outhned in practice or source of rs&stion exposure.

• ALARA-ne ALARA principle this policy statement. However, as the By casignir;g collecuve dose a monetary generally applies to determining dose doses and attendant riska to members of value. It can be used in cost benefit and levels below which exemptiona may be the exposed population decease, the ether quanutative analysis techniques. It granted on a cost. benefit basia.

sud for mgulatory controls decresas la a f:ctor to consider in balancing However. it is the purpose of this policy and the analysis needed to support a benefits and societalimpact.

to estabbah criteria which would. in proposal for exeroption can reasonably effect. delmente achievement of ALARA be somewhat simphfied.

Considerations in Crenting Exemptions

• E"' "'I 0'""'D'I'*

De Commission la evaluatin the use from Regulatory Control P

of two numerica criteria in derming the ne following elements am being pro e t a

e dos re['n where ALARA has bund 'I *

• practica, and then take this information considered b the Commission as a basis for evafusting practices which an into account in controlling regulated the maximum individual annual dose proposed to be esempt from regulatory pracuces so that the dose limita are not reasonably expected to be received as a tions imply some moult o e precuce and N e musun centrel.Dese pracuces,if approved.

exceeded. exem[ control. no wruld result in products containing low degree of loss o of societalimpact to the exposed levels of rs&oactive material being Commission believes that a key PopuladonMen Mtnis am being distributed to the general public and consideration in estabbshing a policy for considered to assure that. for a given radi:acuve effluents and sohd weste exemftions, and subsequently in 81empted practice, no individual will be being released to areas of the pubhcly.

speci e rulemsking or bcensing expond to a significant risk and that the cecessible environrnent.

declaions,la the question of whether Population as a whole does not suffer a i

.ma justification-The Commission individuals may experience radiation signincant impact.

caks comment on the extent to which exposure approaching the limiting If the inevidual dous from a practice cuposures resultmg from any practica values through the cumulativa effects of under consideration for exemption eis sh:uld be justihed. A lower levels of more than one pracuce, even though the sufficiently small, the attendant riska radiation exposure are projected. should exposures from each practice are only will be small compand with other 12wsr levels of benefit be required for small fractions of the limit.The societal nsks. The Comminion beliens practice justificationf in establishing its Commisalon specifically seeks comment that annual individial fatality riska exemption pobey, should the on the issue. By appropriate choices of below approximately W8(one in Commission eaclude certsin practices etemption critena and through its 100 000) are of httle concern to most f:r which there appears to be no evaluations of specific exemption snembers of society. Providing for some ress nable justibcation? In considering proposals in implementing the policy, margin below this level, the Commission proposals for esemptions s%!d the the Commission intends to assure that it Commission evaluate the social is unhkely that any in&vidual will proposes to mnm (0.1 mSv) as the level of annualin&vidualexposure.De cceeptabihty of practice of Should the experience exposures which excud the incremental annual in&vidual cancer Commission determira a practice to be 100 mrem per year (1 mSv per year) fatality risk associated with an exposure unjustified if nonra6oactive economical b.mit.

level of 10 mrem per year (0.1 mSv per i

c!tsmatives eajst' Princy. les of Exemption yur)is about 2MO*'(two in one

• Dose 1.%its and Criterior>-

Individual dosee from practices A major consideration in exemptirig milhon) as indicated in Table 1 and of cmempted under this policy should not any' practice from regulatory control the order of 0.1 percent (one in one be allowed to exceed 100 mrern per year hinges on the general question of thousand) of the overall risk of cancer (1 mSv per yest) This is the dose hmit whether or not application or death.

for members of the public specified in continuation of regulatory controle are In evaluating the need for a collective the final revision of to CFR part 20 necessary and cost effective in reducing dose criterion, the Commission Standards for Protection Against dose. To determine if exemption is recognizes that this criterion could be Ra&stion The dose hmits in the final appropriate, the Commission must the hmitmg consideration for p! doses to ractices involving very smallin&vidus nvision of to CTR part 20 apply to all detenc.ine if one of the following sources of red ation exposure under a con &taona la met:

very large numbers of people. it is also

~.

12.1934/ Proposed Rules Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 23s / Monday. December F

dagge from applicabfe ticanning requiremanta.

that A1 ARA canaiderations have basa n

recognized that in such cane the Approvalof a proposed consumet dealt with.The approach is consistant I

geflectrve dose critarion would,in effect. product depends upos sa aanessment of with past pracance.e 3., con E

cpply the ALARA concept to indwidual exposure 4 af pessoas to rediation as product rulesin to Clit Part 2a drses fees than the befew regulatory concemlevel of to mrem peryear to the we!! as an evakation of tha usefalamas in evaNating propeaals far exampues undes this pahey.the protected individual. Conversely.where the of the product Cartain practicas lawolving re& anna exposures to ddlerent componesta of esileente dove critenon would not beor radioactive matana!a have been the exposed popolanen will be hmiting. It would sern no porpose. The judged by NRC to be socia!!y comederud with regard to the potential Cemnussion requeets cannmerrte on thle issue. incloding comments on wha t the unacceptable regardless of how talvial e,,,, og,idula may main h the resuliing dosa mightbe and, amar b 100 arers per year il mSv pee magnitude of the collectrve dose brefors,have been HW from I"'p"" "w g,' g,,, '0"'

entenen if any. should be.

asemptina. Eacluded practicas include.

pudien am afso take inn if the dose is lees than the below regulatory concem enterie. then the risk but are notlimitad to the intentional een8dweno#Euposurn fmm froen a practice would be considered to introductionof radioactive materialinas amitfple pesetices can occur which are be ALARA without further onetyve.De toys and productsintandedfas signrficantly beyond the indrvidoal dose Commission stresses that adepton of ingestion. Inhalation or dirac.t criterion Do miem per year (0.1 mSv per th cntena should not be cocotroed se e application to the akin (such as y ar)). time exemption wt!! not be granted dscision that smaller doses are cosmetical, without further analysis. As amperience in addluon to socially unacceptable is gained, this policy and its ascessary befom a preence een be uses of rad osctive materials, a queadon implementation will be reevaluated with caempted, while dosas above the also arises regar&at uaea when there ngard to this lanut to assure that the critena would preclude exempt.n On are clear economical attacnatiees, and aaposures to the public tenain well the contrary the critene simply no unique beneSte exkt Aram using below 100 mrom per yur(1mSv pas represent a reop of risk which the rarticactive material.Where riaka are Commleelon beueves is safficiently amall cx:mpare d to other individual and triela!. b reguTatory prohibition of such par).

uses could pose an unnectuary in addition to considerations of sometal naka that e cost benefit analysie is act required in order to make e reguistory burden by intarfariatwith tha expected activities and pathways, the decision rosarding the acceptability of conduct of busiassa.

Commission recognises that De Commission seeks commaala os conalderation meet also be sfeen to the an exemption Practreer not meeting whether procuces should be potudal fw uciduM mieue of b these entens may be grantad exempticos on a case-by.cwee basis in catesoncally excludedbened on the radioactive materiale involved in the Commission's judgement regarding predice. A pmposal fw pemption of a eccordance with b pnocipise social acceptability or the existance of defined practice must therefore also crabo&ed withta the pohey.To fartbar altamativu. An alternative to address the potentials for accidents or smphasise the Comfrunion's recogaman that a rigid lanutauan on col)ective does categ&c determinatiac based om a safety misuse, and the conseguence oricalenclusion could be a case would be iriappropeista. it meres bt fee spec exceptionalconditionsin terms of some practices, such as use af smoke analysis.

individuals and soDective dose.

detectors, appreciable beneG6s cza only hoposola # hempe'er pg,,,.

e C do'ne

_be attained through axtenene utilisatson A proposalfes esemphon must The Ceramissionhabevu that the and hence, with a comrnensurata collective dose.

provide a besie upon wbich h implernentation of an enemption under The Comtrassion la sware that Cornmission can determine if the basic this beand policy guidance mast be emisting regulations of th*

constions deocribed above beve been accoropenied by a suitable program to EnvironmentalProtection Agency satin $ed.In general, this means that the monitor and venfy ht the besle establish criteria more restnetve than proposal should address the in&vidual considerations ander which an esseptions which could otherwise ha dose and occietal impact neslung from exemption was issued remain valid. ta granted under this proposed policy.

the espected activides undse the most cases. the products or materials With regst d to its own regulations, the exemption,incJudtrig the see of the Commission will evolusta whether there radioactive materials, the pathways of comprising an enempted practice will are exeroption criteria embo&ed thersin exposure, the levels of activity, and the move from regulatory control to the for w hich mod & cation, according to tha methods and constraints for assuring esempt status under e defined set of that the assumptions sted to defane a conditions and criterfs.De monitonng

{incipf,e of ha pohey, would bepractica remain appropriate as the and verification prog-tm most therefore radioactive matenals move from be capable of proeiding the Cornmission ne Lclusiorrs from E;temptier,,

regulatory control to an exempt statua.

with the appropriate assurance that the 11 a proposal for exemption results in conditions for the enemption remain De Commissa,an's March 13,1963.

a rule containing generic requirements, a valid. and that they are being observe &

notice on the Use of Ryproduct Material person opplying to utihaa the exemption The Commission wiD detarnuna and Source Matenal. Products Intendedwould not need to addresa tusti0 cation cornpliance with b specific conditions ior use by General Public (Consumee or AIARA.The Commission decision as of an amamptionthrough its satabbshed

)

Products)(30 FR 342) provides the such proposals will be bened on the hC'n82ng and inspecho pmgrarn and besin for the Commission's approval af licensee's meetang the condabona will, frcwa time to time, conduct sin &as the use of these materials is coosurper specifmed in the rule.The promulgstion as sppropriate to essess the isopect of products without regWatory contml on the consumer. user.This to accompbebed of the rule would, under these an esampted practice or combinataans circumstanca n, consuruta a rmding that of exempted preencas.

by cue-by-cue esemphon af the the exempied peamce in jeanfied, and possession and use of approved pena

Federal Register / Vol. 53, Nce. 238 / Monday December 12,1988/ Proposed Rules 49891 i

Tantaties Messhy 4esde preet,ce to a greegten of the,,,,eti i traussie..a Se.ne,,.une5.e.

,a J f r J a" g es,,,,,ed

,e,,,,e R Discussion of Specarse Questeorie Srief would be espected to ineolve indmd.

NRC Stelf summary and presentesierte e' ul h wh.d om e emeH hm questione from scheduled portacipens.

of the overell Init. eheuld flexiblity A Appiscation of princep's of }ustancatma be maintained by eeneidenas esemp.

tecluding the que trana; mens en a essa-beneht besse above 1g

1. Ao lower levels of radiation esposuru arem/yeart cre projected. should lower levels of

3. la the evaluation of eeueceve done benef!t be regoired for Juanficanon of 6mpoetanf is r-N the muttaple o prochee whid to e candidate for esposure issue?

4 WlU the applastles of fosansages of cr.esipeienf 1 la establishms saarnpaien policy, Procnes help a mountane a essauer should the Commisaaon esclude es,.

eumber of ooerses malung at seeier to asia procuces for whad bre oppears coetml arveraB exposumet to be se reasonable jusuficatient

5. How important le mesatoring to meio-a to aseenderung proposals for esemp, gainans esauranes that indmdeal es-sie not sessed to the overall taos, should the Commission evaluate 8tI social ecceptablity of the precance?

a should the Commasion deterreine a Ill Ceneral Dioceae6en/Questies period-preence to be enbretified if non endie.

Commente or questione by scheduled per-logscal economical ehermaeves saaett tempen* Open to the floor as ame pee-esite.

D andevidual den snience for deternmang Mose sombem of the pubhc who erish to cchuvement of the *ee low as reason-pereopete by speakes at sie meetina chly scheeveble" (ALARA) pnacaple le should neufy see si the sentesse instad caempues decas

.g

'I ***

• * *$"I'd I*

1. le the 1g mesm/ year artter6en pro-g, peoed by the Cominasion appropnalet

2. le the appropneteness of this number Deted in Rockville. ndaryland, thee ad day cffected by the decision regarding of December tees.

whether e sollective does entenes % g g*

j should be maad wish the individeal

&ecuew DimeserJhr @erstions.

done seiteneef 15bould the ladividuel dose settertee A Dec. es-34491 F*4 led 1244L 648 em) be theese se the beeis of sogligtble ename emes rose.ews risk as le done intemataon6Dy (1.a.

1AEA Sofety Series No. gel er saa a I

somewhat hasher number be need based es a Commission pobey desi.

eien vocat&ng a level of Indmdual nok for which empenditure of re-sources is not warranted?

4 How isnportant le internaheaal ses-J

==4tesency to abeesing an ledsvidual does entertes?

1 C. Use of a sellectm does artierten for determining schievement of the ALARA pnnciple in esempnen decision maknes-

1. la a cellective does critef4on useded la eddaues to as indmdi.al does artte-v6es?

1 If ee. what ts the beste of est ased?

3 If the Commission decides e eeuettive done entenon should be used, what should its enegrutode be?

4 What ettemeuve to e colleceve does entenen should be consadored der es-sessing occaetalimpact?

3. In calculating soUecuve does, wbst tpproaches elleanns truncation of in.

dmduel doses er the use of weighung factore for componente of saBeceve dose are appropriate?

R Approaches for essertng tetel Irupe-ourse of indmdvals from muttple pree-tecas wiu set encaed the 100 areef year limit.

4 1 la the appwch of generstly haises Andmde desee from each senarse er

.JOdN D..ROCKEFELLER IV wtST titCGINI A 3Cnifeb States Senate W ASHINGTON, D.C.

20510 January 25, 1990 Chairman Kenneth Carr Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Congressional Affairs 1717 H Street, NW Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Chairman Carr:

I have been contacted by Mr. Andrew Maier of Hinton, West Virginia, about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's plans.to de-classify certain nuclear wastes and declare them "Below Regulatory Concern".

Enclosed is a copy of Mr. Maier's letter for your review.

I would appreciate your looking into this matter and writing back directly to him with a report.

In addition, I am requesting that a copy of one of the letters be seat to Lynley A. Ogilvie of my office so that I can keep updated on this matter.

Thank you again for your attention to this matter.

I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Si

erely, John D. Rockefeller IV Enclosure b

f/

4Cc56qz7RA

M033Y i

1 ANSWERED NGV 12 $89 l

l C~:

~'

l

.12: 0;

'y I SAVE OUR MOUNTAINS l

Iy

,g P.O. BOX 1286. HINTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25951 11/1/89 Senator John D. Rockefeller Senate office uilding trashington, DC 0510

Dear Senator Rockefeller:

'Je have recently become aware of the Puclear Regulatory Commission's plan to de-classify certain nuclear wastes and declare them "Below Regulatory Concern". As you can see Irom the material cnac we:ve enclosed, we nave many reasons for thinking that this is a very had idea, West Virginia has a sufficiency of environmental problems. Neighboring states are poised to make our state their landfill. If our state government can't find a way to regulate out-of-state g,arbage, West Virginia could find itself getting more than its share of this new "de regulated" nuclear waste.

Ue vould like vaste that is radioactive to be treated as radioactive.iaste.

To do otherwise would threatan thousands of nolid inste c'icposal "acilities with the possibility that they will become future nuclear waste Superfund sites. When we consider that m re than one hundred West Virginians can expect to get fatal cancer during their 1.ifetimes, according to the EPA, if BRC is inplemented, we feel th f we must oppose this plan.

Please infora us of your position on this issue. If we can be of any help, pleaco do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Fincer 1y:

1 L

..rew Psier President, Save Our "ountains Chairnan, Sumers County Solid Maste Authority ec.: elected officials, media i

I

u,, ci,arsion hasem.we.nesda,. so ember i, im 5A l

Toxic waste plan deadly serious

\\

{

By Andrew Maler America's neclear industry - the folks g,g s look at those numbers. According to r

l who brought us Three Mile Island and pro-the 1984 census, West Virginia has 1,949.000 You might think that West Virginia's en-Posed making West Virginia the nation's citizens. If all West Virginians get the new -

I i

l vironment is already under attack from ev.

high-level nuclear dump - wants BRC-legal dose from BRC waste,194 of us can i

ery possible angle. You might think that They stand to make $31 million more each espect to win fatal cancer in the new BRC medical waste incinerators, a nuclear year if BRC goes through. But if this hap-lottery. Of course, EPA points out that most dump, unregulated strip mining, wetlands Pens, there's a good chance that 194 addi-people won *L get the full dose, although destruction, pesticide spraying and enough tional West Virginians can espect a fatal sone may get estra. At least there's an proposed landfills to serve the entire East. cancer during their lifetimes.

,p side to this. West Virginia's 194 new een United States would provide enough You might think I'm kidding but this is radiation victims will help the nuclear in-danger to the Mountain State's environ-deadly serious Congress passed this jewel destry achieve what the EPA calls "signifi-ment. I know I did. But that was before I in a Intle-noticed amendment in 1985. Many cast cost savings."

heard about BRC.

Congressmen didn't even know what they And a mountaineer's chances of hitting The boys at the federal Nuclear Regula. were approving. The Nuclear Regulatory the jackpot in the death lottery may in-i tory Commission and the Environmental Commission wants to implement the BRC crease dramatically in the near future. With Protection Agency must have worked late regulations in 1990.

our state being targeted by the garbage in-into the night to come up with this one.

I can understand the commission mem-destry for every tonic boogdoggle that no BRC means "below regulatory concern." bers. backing the BRC idea. Af ter all, other state wants, and with the Caperton The idea is that the government will take they've been the nuclear ladustry's obedient administration apparently unwilling to live one-third of the nation's so called " low-lev-lap dog for years. But the EPA's role in this up to its campaign promises on out-of-state el" nuclear waste and arbitrarily declare it mess is disgraceful. It's supposed to be their wastes, you can het that we'll be seeing to be safe. (" Low. level waste" is a nusnom-job to protect our environment.

plenty of the new " deregulated" nuclear er. Plenty of its highly radioactive, and R The EPA did a risk / benefit analysis on made.

all has to be isolated from the t' f_: w for the BRC plan. A risk / benefit analysis bal-It doesn't have to happen. If the governor millenia.) In Reaganese, they'll "derege-ances the risk (to our health) versus the ben-wakes up and smells the coffee - or the t

late" It. Then it can be dumped into sewage efit (to industry's profits). To do this it must approaching trainloads of garbage - we've i

systems and landfills, borned in tacteera-place a dollar value on human life, based on got a chance. If Wise, Rahall, Mollohan, F

tors, and, worst of all, recycled into new the amount of money a worker killed by Staggers, Byrd and Rockefeller hear from products like appliances, metal furniture pollution would have earned. So a man's life as about this,if West Virginians ban togeth-and children's toys.

is worth more than a woman's. A white's is er to fight the rape of our beautiful and incinerators will burn radioactive waste, more valuable than a black's. You get the healthful environment, there's still a chance spreading radioactive smoke. Sanitatio a picture.

we can save the Mountain State from the workers will be exposed to increased rau-The EPA's Office of Radiation Programs polluter and keep West Virginia as a place tion. Landfills will become radioactive haz-says that under their plan " cost savings are where we all live as a people both proud ards, while creators of nuclear waste walk high while die individual risk of contracting and healthy.

sway from responsibility for R, leaving the a fatal cancer as a result of exposure from Afaier is an environmental activist in tanpayers holding the bag.

BRC wastes is about 1 in 19,000."

Summers County.

a t

r

..m

~ ~ ~..

l

't j q f.

I Just Think:

I:

f adioactive waste may soon bc joining old g

tires, banana peels and other regubr gn.

• • 30% of nuclear power plant " low-level" w2ste 1,

bage at your local badfill. Radioactive liquids could could be dumped as ordinary non nuclear trash.

4

,t e

be nowing in your community sewers and even-p l:

tually make their way to the nation's rivers and

• Trash and hazardous waste incinerators could

. y7~

w'

.g streams. This and more will happen if the Nuclear start burning radioactive waste, releasing

.N.__.-,

Regubtory Commission (NRC) and the Environ-radiation into the air and generating radioactive

7.,

7

(

l mental Protection Agency (EPA) have their way.

ash.

i 1

1 heir policies to deregulate radioactive uste are

. Sanitation, transportation, waste treatment and ca!!cd Below Regulatory Concern, or BRC-diposal workers could come into daily contact 700 meeny dasspers alresJy sboep Nstic regard with radioactive waste without their knowledge Below Regulatory Concern means that some for #6e ernironneent Best reasoning or consent.

nucicar waste will be deregubted and treated as

,vstrictions on radioactise sneste dispasmican bc@ acrse. fissagine if this if it were not radioactive. It could be showing up

• Radioactive waste will travel over the highways, in our communities soon.

suess included nadioactfie mwstet waterways and railroads of our country with no more restrictions than those for your neighbor-BRC radioactive waste will go to:

hood garbage truck.

• locallandfdis e sewge systems

• Radioactive materials could be recycled and g {g.

• Incinerators used in consumer products. Everything from the

• recyclingcenters kitchen sink to your childs new toy could be The BRC policy is nothing more than linguistic waste ilitles detoxincation. If implemented, it inevitably wiD lead to increased radiatiore exposures to the f

• fanniand, via sludge spreading.

• 1he rationale: nuclear power plant owners will Amch @ ed then h no safe level of 5

save nacy - at the expense of human health and environmental qualky.

radiation exposure. Every exposure increases the risks of cancer, birth defects and other health problems.

Here is How k Will Work:

f

,,3,,,,,a,,,,,,,,,,,ci,,, co,,,io,,,,,,,,,

1. " I** "

lhe NRC has created an arbitrary range of radiation exposures below which no regulation is needed.

Clean up of contaminated nuclear weapons plants, The makers of radioactive waste have asked the such as Rocky Flats and Fernald, nuclear reactors;

-%,~,

NRC to agree that some of their waste is in or and other radiation facilities will never be below this range, and is thus " safe" for regular completed if BRC is implemented. Instead, the dumping or recycling.

government and the utilities will simply declare the I

sites clean - even though radioactive contamina-8 One industry petition, expected to be approved by

~

the NRC in 1990, will deregubte waste from every tion wW contMuc to exht M may save the

--- - E g enun t timey h means the shes yg 3y if a6eBRCposcyisi C

./.4 hacinerssers nudcar power plant in the United States.

she this one in Oregon coedd burn rweioncske materfafs, reinasing rudestion into #6e sir.

In addition, the NRC Intends to deregulate radioactive consumer products, manufacturing tW m % $00 HM mctors and other radiation facilhics in the United States -

pr cesses and anything else that h p@ed t cause exposures below this preset range.

none of which would be fully decontaminated

,g ifh

,,i '

t(".

!.,** = F ). {. "-

i F'

- *~ '

• ,d',

W

{".f-j-

en e

t 1st Think:

.L. ;H k.

f 7

• 30% of nuclear power plant " low level' waste K b';I could be dumped as ordinary non nucicar insh. *j

]/

.p

• Trash and haaardous waste incinerators could

g. ~ 7 " '

start burning radioactive waste, releasing N

radiatkin inno the air and generating radioactive

>T -.

'y, I,

ash.

' 4

. w rr C

=

• Sanitation, transportation, waste treatment and disposal workers could come into daily contact a

7.,,

g with radioactive waste without their knowledge for she enrironment. But remoeteg

[*

"' C"5Ca'-

restricrsons on raddoname muste 44 po fcan only neahe theproMens erorse. Imagine (fIbis

• Radioactive waste will travel over the highways

• stess incJesded radioacthe nestet

~

waterways and railroads of our country with no gg j

more restrictions than those for your neighbor-he hood garbage truck.

• Radioactive materials could be recycled and g

g used in consumer products. Everything from the g,cg kitchen sink to your child's new toy could be manufactured from ndioactive recycled metal.

lhe BRC policy is nothing more than linguistic 8Ptendesit detoumh if Whd h M@ MH mer ptodacm-lead to increased radiation exposures to the far chesper

• 1he rationale: nuclear power plant owners will American peopic. And there is no safe level of waste storage save money - at the expense of human health radinion exposure. Every exposure increases the transportation and 'sterugt'ef and envimmnental p2Hty.

risks of cancer, birth defects and other health becaning moreandmost problems.

Q)

Here is How It Win Wofx*-

N 1

Background radiation levels will continue to rise, every year, under the BRC policy.

weUSSilOfl5 1he NRC has created an arbitrary range of radiation r!

-pA exposures below which no regulation is needed.

Clean-up of contaminated nuclear weapons plants, 4

1he makers of radioactive waste have asked the such as Rocky Flats and Fernald; nuclear reactors; NRC to agree that some of their waste is in or and other radiation facilities'will never be at are the real health and environmental below this nnge, and is thus " safe" for regular completed if BRC is implemented. Instead, the

1. "'#P'"C** # "E ***I" "*8 W'M dumping or recycling.

government and the utilities will simply declare the gg, g

g N'***"-'""'

" # ***I"' ' " I**I"*~

8 One industry petition, expected to be approved by don w c ntine to exht. Es rnay save tk the NRC in 1990, will deregulate waste from every nu(lear power plant in the United States.

government smne inmey, btit it means the sn, es If communities want to monitor radiation levels' will forever be radioactive.

who willpay?

In addition, the NRC intends to deregulate ndioactive consumer products, manufacturing And there are nearly 24,000 licensed reactors and I!ow much of the nuclear industry's expenses will other radiation facilities in the United States -

be pushed off on the community by dumping this processes and anything else that is projected to tause exposures below this preset range.

none of which would be fully decontaminated.

waste in alreadycmwded landfiHs?

i What mill be done with the money the industfy C Finally, network with organizations and gmuga 7ggf I want to join NIRS.

j saves by deregulation? Will utility ratepayers Contact the potentially affected workers: truck I

receive refunds,or will the utilitics keep the money drivers, recycling center operators and sanita.

Menbership is tax dedm1dvle.

for themselves?

• tion, incinerator and hndfill workers who will I enclose $

(See rate list below) ',

I be regubtly caposed to this hazard without e

l Ilow will the public krew when radioactive waste notification or protection.

t Yr 2 Yr I

ls being burned ce dumped?

j trt o./,v-==st and public health advocates Low income Individual 8 10

$18 i

How mill abuses, such as dumping rsore radioac-know. Most are unaware of BRC Individual Membership 8 20 835 l

tive waste than permitted, be prevented when the Non-profit Safe l

NRC has not ad9ted any enforcement provisions?

o Contact NIRS if you would like more ic'orma-Energy Groups 8 25 840 don,a reschidon or hw han h Business or Association 8 50 895 8

on how to stop BRC Comprehensive BRC i

Packets are availabic for 87.00. trt us know what Sustaining 8500 l

What You Can Do:

res*o-and ume n-d.

sim, Full implementation of the BRC policy is expctted ADD E cometime during 1990. There is still time to smp AbOut Nas:

Since 1978, the Nuclear Information and Resource o Get the word out. Peopic have a ddlicult time Service (NIRS) has provided accurate, useful NNE (

)

believing that BRC is really being Impicmented.

Information and professional assistance to citizens l

In all 50 states and more than 40 foreign countrics.

cy and rrrurn to i

• Write your newspapers and seek alttime on We also testify before the U.S. Congress and state NIRS j

radio and TV stations. Contact the Safe EnergT legislatures; speak at rallies and s.'un.ces; Ble 142416th Strrct NW, Suite 601 Communication Council (1717 Massachusetts Freedom of Information Act requests; and engage Washingtbn,I)C 20036 Ave NW,11215, Washington DC 20036202 483-la legal action to protect citizen rights owr nuclear (202) 328-0002 8491) for media information and training.

power j

e o Encourage your local and state mu-s to

/

As a mernber of NIRS, you can help us continue local contact:

s and expand these efforts. You'll receive our pass resolutions, ordinances and laws against BRC radioactive waste. A sampic resolution /

i {;.

quarterly newsletter, Groundnsd. If ym have a ordinance is available from NIRi Civic, school,

. A..

computer and modem, you can access our elec.

l church, environmental and other groups may f

tronic bulletin board, NIR5 NET. And you will j

also wish to pass resolutions.

'. receivi: periodic Alerts - advance notices of j

Important legislative and regulatory actions.

e lhe state of Maine and a number of county and -

Members of NIRS can actually take concrete steps I

city smu.wiwias already have passed laws requir 7 ito help our nation end ;.aaumiy radioactive j

IIg all radioactive waste to go to licensed '.S contamination and shift to safe, clean, cost.

l radioactive waste facilides.

cnergy alternadves. Will you join us?

l e

4 i

o Write pur congressionalicy.w.,;atives. it was !

l a littic. noticed amendment to a 1985 law that j

set the whccis in motion for BRC. Many

'i.

e q

members of Congress dont even know they

(

_ f,,D e

voted for it. But only Congress can overturn the q.Q' f'"

l policy once implementation has begun.

q Huclear Information & Resource Service l

{

,*:J i

h.

'o,,

UNITED STATES

[,

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmwoTow. o. c. aosw.

y, January 31, 1990 l

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV United States Senate Washington, D. C.

20510

Dear Senator Rockefeller:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 25, 1990, transmitting correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Andrew Maier, concerning NRC's declassifying of certain nuclear wastes and declaring them "Below Regulatory Concern."

Please be assured that we are working on a response and a reply will be forwarded to you as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs

i UNITED STATES o,,

e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

O j

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666

%,*..../

June 3, 1991 The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV

-United States Senator 405 Capitol Street, Suite 608 Charleston, WV 25301

Dear Senator Rockefeller:

I am responding to your May 13, 1991, letter (Case Code: WWH) concerning issues raised by your constituent, Mr. Dick Landfried of Wm. B. Johnson &

Associates, Incorporated. Mr. Landfried's letter concerns the proposed revisions to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's license and annual fees charged to licensees to possess and use radioactive material.

Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, requires that the Comission recover 100 percent of its budget authority, less appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund, for Fiscal Years 1991.through 1995 by assessing license and annual fees.

For FY 1991, the Comission must collect approximately $445 million by September 30, 1991, through these fees.

In order to comply with the law, the Comission published proposed revisions to its fee regulations in the Federal Register (FR Vol. 56, No. 71) on April 12, 1991.

The Commission also sent copies of the proposed revisions directly to licensees seeking their coments. The comment period ended on May 13, 1991, and the Commission is currently evaluating the over 400 comments received, including the concerns raised by your constituent.

Based on the evaluation of comments, the Commission will modify the proposed rule, as appropriate, and issue a final rule by early August 1991.

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

.A a s M.

ay r E ecutive D rector for Operations l

%2m J

's JOM : ROCKEFELLE;1 IV nova o.e ce i GsNiA 406 Cd 5'2s ev

.Itt E

Casates' V25301 Enited $tates 5tnatt 200 Acaws Staset Swee a WASHINGTON, DC 20510-4802

'"y',y,2 s u s soutusam sateLute ossece 207 Ps'ests $feest May_13, 1991

'"'i','3%0."

I 1

Mr. Dennis K. Rathbun Director, Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

Mr. Dick Landfried claim #: 1133090002 Case Coder WWH

Dear Mr. Rathbun:

Recently, I have been contacted by Dick Landfried, of Ronceverte, West Virginia in regard to his concern about the amount of the proposed revision to the license fee that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will charge his company.

I have enclosed a copy of Mr. Landfried's correspondence for your review.

If you would look into this matter and provide me with a report, I would appreciate it.

When responding, please refer to the above Case Code and send your findings to my State Office at 405 Capitol Street, Suite 608, Charleston, West Virginia 25301.

Thank you, in advance, for checking into this matter for me.

Sincerely, John D.

Rockefe..ler IV Enclosure b

Y/

Olm w-t i v f SM j

i R

O Wm. B. JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

216 Edgar Ave.

P. O. Box 472 Ronceverte. WV 24970 (304) 645-6568 FAX (304) 645-2182 May 1, 1991 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULES 10 CFR 170 ON re:

LICENSE FEES

Dear Senator Rockefeller:

I represent a small manufacturer of nuclear monitoring instrumentation located in Ronceverte.

Our company was purchased by West Virginians in 1989 and moved f rom New Jersey to the Ronceverte area. We develop and employ approximately 15 West Virginians to manufacturer all of the nuclear monitoring instrumentation that our company sells world wide.

Our company currently holds 2 NRC licenses that permit us to possess a exall sealed radioactive source used to develop new instrumentation and very scall exempt quantity sources utilized to test a portable instrument that conitors the X rays for television receivers and CRT terminals.

The radioactive sources are absolutely necessary to test the instrumentation we manufacturer and to develop new products.

Without the NRC license our ability to compete would be greatly impaired.

I have received a proposed revision to the license fee the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will charge our company annually for the licenses that are required to possess these radioactive source. The proposed changes will increase our license fees to approximately $8,200.00 annually. These fees were less than $1,000.00 before and were not required to be payed except at license renewal time which was every 2 - 3 years.

Increasing the license fees to such a high level will place an extreme burden on our company and force us to consider curtailing part of our business.

I feel the fees are very excessive due to the small supervision the i

NRC must devote to companies such as Wa B. Johnson & Associates.

j We are prepared to pay a reasonable fee however the proposed increases are extreme and likely to result in the loss of competitiveness for all companies in our situation.

l k

T/ rty Years Servmg Nuclear & ScientVic Ameruca i

i The new license fees are scheduled to take effect in late M'ay or early

?

June of this year.

I will appreciate your efforts-to see that a more reasonable fee schedule is approved for small business that will encourage and not discourage new job ~ formation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at our offices in Ronceverte if you have any questions or I can be of assistance.

t Very Best Regards Dick Landfried Vice President Wa B. Johnson & Assoc. Inc.

1 l

i l

.I e