ML20148C494
| ML20148C494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/08/1988 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-PICM, TASK-SE SECY-88-069, SECY-88-69, NUDOCS 8803220410 | |
| Download: ML20148C494 (23) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
1
?p Kecg%' s uy i'
~ -l
(%* .. /
POLICY ISSUE March 8, 1988 SS Gebh SECY-88-69 For: The Commissioners From: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
CURRENT AND POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY OF "DE MINIMIS" AND "BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN" CONCEPTS TO COMMISSION POLICIES
Purpose:
To discuss the de minimis and below regulatory concern concepts and inform the Commission of the status of staff efforts to develop a proposed policy statement identifying a level or radiation risk below which government regulation would become limited or unwarranted.
Backaround: The staff requirements memorandum of November 24, 1987, directed that a proposed policy statement be developed that would "... identify a level of radiation risk below which government regulation becomes unwarranted." In this memorandum, the Commission requested a status report / options paper on the current and potential uses of the de minimis and below regulatory concern (BRC) ccncepts in the formulation of the desired policy. Previously, in a staff requirements memorandum of February 5, 1987, the Commission had requested advice on how existing and proposed de minimis, BRC, and residual radioactivity standards are related and how consistent release standards for all NRC licensed activities are to be achieved.
Discussion: The term "de minimis" is a short form of a phrase which is supposed to read "de minimis non curat lex", i.e., the law is not concerned with trivialities. As used in radiation protection, however, the term has no legal connotation, and has been used in a variety of ways. In particular, "de minimis" has been used at various times to mean both the general region of low dose levels which an individual would consider to be trivial end the larger region of low dose le/els in which regulation to further control dose and risk is unwarranted. To reduce the potential confusion created by niultiple usaces of the same term, the staff will reserve the term "de minimis" for dose levels which an individual would consider trivial, i.e. not take action to reduce, and use the term "below regulatory concern" to represent dose levels at which some types of regulation might be unwarranted.
Contact:
Stanley M. Neuder, RES 492-3737 8803220410 880308 PDR SECY '08-069 PDR
~
h The Comissioners . -
The framework for radiation protection consists of three fundamental principles. The first of these is whether a particular usage of radioactive material is justified, i.e. whether there is some net benefit be be gained from the use of radioactive material. For example, the 1965 Commission Policy, Statement on the use of radioisotopes in consumer products draws a line between justified and unjustified uses. The second principle is dose limits, which establish the boundary between tllovable i and unacceptable exposures to individuals. These limits are ccmtr.ined in 10 CFR Part 20 and establish adequate protection f,r public health and safety. The revision of 10 CFR Part 20, currently under preparation by the staff, establishes a lini.t for members of the public of 100 nillirem per year. All sources cf exposure and practices involving radioactive ,
material must meet teese basic principles.
Within the region of potential acceptable exposures, i.e. within the dose limits, exposures are further limited by application of the third principle, ALARA. Doses are reduced by licensees, under the review of the NRC, to levels that are As low As Reasonably Achievable, taking into account economic and social factors. Also within the region belcw the basic dose limits are other limits' imposed by both the NRC I and other agencies such as EPA which further restrict the dose levels from some licenseas such as nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel cycle facilities. These levels have been established, at least in part, en the basis of what is achiavable given the current state of technolog.y.
At the lower end of the ALA U region of doses, well below tha basic ,
dose limits re.ntioned above, the corcept of below regulatory concern comes into play. BPC connotes levels of r'sk or dose that may be considered trivial from a regulatory standpoint, i.e., individual and collective doses that warrant limited gcvernmant attention tak'ng into acccunt the cost o' further regulation and the likal450cd that such regulation would sienificantly alter the resulting cose. A source of axposure could ha considered as a candidate for reduced regulatory
' recuirements if certain specific conditions wara met. The conditions for BRC consideratic.n night include reauiremonts such as additional controls on the source of exposure not resulting ir additional l
reductier in the dose received; er the costs of aeditional regulatory controls nct being balanced by.tha benefits of dosa reductier that eculd be achieved.
Establishment of a BRC level for a particular practice or source of exposura would not imply that the dose would be considered as trivial by irdividuals. Under the linear non-threshold dose affect relationship assumption, any dose will have a corresponding risk.
l
- a. . . . , - - -
The Comissioners . The region of dose levels that would be low enough for the assumed risk to be considered as trivial by an individual, i.e., "de minimis",
is a subset-of the BRC dose region, and could be on the order of a few millirem. The choica of a specific value requires subjective personal judgements, and will be different for each individual. The relationships between dose limits, ALARA, BRC, and da minimis are illustrated in Enclosure 1.
A below regulatory concern threshold or level may be specified in terms of risk, dose, dose rata, radienuc1Me quantity, or radionuclide concentration. Current NRC regulations in-lude several instances of implied or de facto BRC levels, although tby are seldom referred to as such. These exemptions were pronulgated by previous Comissions, not because they were assumed to entirely risx free, but becausa either the degree of risk was too small to justify the burden of additional regelatory requiraments, or because there would have been little gain in risk reduction by the addition of regulatory controls.
In general, limited regulatory controls are associated with de facto BRC levels. Enclosure 2 provides a listing of some of these de facto BRC levels.
The concepts of de minimis and BRC are not new, and numerous efforts have baen made, or are currently underway in these araas. These include implementation of the low-level Radinactive Waste Policy Act by the NRC, development of public dose criteria including BRC levels i by the EPA, developrant of an "annual neglioible individua1' risk level" by the NCRP, ard development of residual radioactivity levelt for decommissioning by the NRC and EPA. A sunmary of the actions related to BRC and da minimis by various agencies and groups is provided in Enclosure 3. Enclosure 4 orovidas a dascription of a draft interagency framework being considerad by EPA for devalcoment of presidential guidance on public radiation protection.
The staff is currently forme'ating possible optiens for the policy l- statenent on de minimis and BRC risks. Some of the issues that must l be. addressed includa:
What benefit would ba realized in establishing a caneric BRC l
1evel as opposed to sourca srtcific levels (e.o., Icw level waste I
streams, decommissioned lands and structuras, recycled materials and equipa nt, consur.er products, etc.)?
Of the possible ways to evpress BRC levels (e.g., cancer risk, individual dose, collactive dose, exenoted oventities or concentrations), which are appropriate for the various sources or practices licensed by PPC?
Given the complexity of soma licensed activitias, some of which nay involve multiple contribution to public dose, what a m the most useful dafinitiens of "sources" and "practices" for which BRC cose limits woulo be develocad?
i i
l_!__
,m _
h, f Th'e Comissioners - -
- 4'- !
If cost vs risk reduction analyses are to be performed to )
establish BRC levels, what cost-averted / risk ratio (or ratios) should be used for the various licensed sourcas or practices? l What-approach should be taken to translata operational BRC levels 1 (such as individual or collective dose or exempt quantities and c'oncentratiors) into fatality or cancer risks given the absance of data correlating such levels with risk (i.e., do we use the linear non-threshold dose-response relationship at very low doses)?
Can a dose or risk be set at which radioactivity can be ignored ,
(i.e., can a definition of radioactive be usefully established)?
Staff efforts to resolve these and other issues will be conducted over the next several months. The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research has been assigned the lead in forniulating the policy options, with significant support necessary from hMSS, NRR, e d 0GC. -An interoffice steering group at the management level with representatives fren these -
offices will periodically review the progress on policy options. A preliminary estimate-of resources needed to develop the broadly-based de minimis and BRC policy statement and other BRC criteria are described in Enclosure 5.
. A Commission policy identifying a level of radiatien risk below which l
government regulation would become limited or unwarranted would have
, both national and international implications. As a' result, the staff believes that the successful devolepment of this policy wou11 be enhanced if tha. views of national and intarnational regulatcry authorities were given censideration during policy develeprent.
To provide a vehicle for soliciting and docunenting thase views, the staff is attempting, within the June-October 1988 timefrana, to sponser an international sympcsium on the regulatory use of BRC and ce mininis concepts in cooperation with the Nuclear Energy Aqerry (NEA).
The 2-3 day symposium would be attended by 20-40 appropriate national and international regulatory authorities and would focus attention and discussion on the issues implied by the de mininis and RPC concapts and the forn and magnitude of potential regulatory levels. The staff is currently workino with the NEA to arrance tha symposium and is planning- to orepare a final agenda at a mesting with NEA in March.
The staff has not yet developed a position to be taken at the symposium on the issues outlined above. However, the staff plans to prepare draft positions prior to the symposium to serve us foci.,
points for the discussion. The Commission will be notified of the arrangements for the symposium as thay ara developed, t
, ' The Commissioners '
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objections.
/ 'f }/l[
tortStello, .
Executive Dire for Operations
Enclosures:
- 2. De facto BRC Levels in Current Regulatory Practice
- 3. Summary of Actions Related to BRC and De minimis 4 Draft Interagency Framework for Development of Presidential Guidance on'Public Radiation Protection
- 5. Resources Required to Develop the Generi: Policy Statement and Other.BRC and De minimis Criteria DISTRIOUTION:
Conunis sioners OGC (H Street)
OI ,
OIA GPA REGIGIU4L OFFICES EDO OGC (WF)
DOSE FRAMEWORK.
Basic Regulatory Dose Limit ALARA-Required Supplementary Standards Generic.BRC
' Source-Specifac 2RC Levels Voluntary Risk '
Reduction Negligible Individual Risk -
\
EriCLOSURE 1 l
f EXAMPLES OF DE FACTO BRC LEVELS IN CURRENT REGULATORY PRACTICE Disposal by release into sanitary sewerage systems (20.303).
Radionuclides may be released, in limited quantities, into sanitary sewerage systems.
Disposal of specific wastes (20.306). Limited concentrations of tritium and carbon-14 in animal tissue and scintillation media may be disposed of without regard to radioactivity.
Exempt concentrations (30.14), (30.70). Persons possessing materials and y products containing certain limited radioactive concentrations are exempt from the requirements for a license and from the regulations in Parts 35.
Certain items containing byproduct material (30.15). Persons possessing certain specific products (e.g., smoke detectors, radioactive timepieces, illuminators, compasses, etc.) are exempt from the requirements for a license and from Parts 20, 30-35.
Exempt quantities (30.18) (30.71). Persons possessing materials and products containing certain limited radioactive quantities ar3 exempt from the requirements for a license and from the regulations in Parts 30-34.
ENCLOSURE 2
l l
l l
l
'. Numerical guides for design objectives ... (Part 50, App. I). Permits
-lim;;ed exposure rates from liquid and gaseous reactor effluents released to unrestricted areas.
Acceptable levels of surface contamination (Reg. Guide 1.86). Surfaces contaminated by residual levels of radioactivity (specified in disintegrations per minute per unit. area) may be released for unrestricted use, s
4 e
i l
(
l l
Y ENCLOSURE 2 l l
f
'=+-mrw-=~e- a m+ g ,--,-i$.-+ w- .,m.w.w.-.-..m.,,,,,.,y,- - . - , -,, ,-. -,- . ,
CURRENT NRC, EPA AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES De minimis and Below Regulatory Concern Recent Federal actions with regard to BRC applications of the de minimis concept include the publication in August 1986 of the NRC policy for the deregulation of radioactive waste streams with dose rates no more than a few millirems per year (51 FR 30839), implementing Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended. During the latter part of 1988, staff expects to receive several petitions for rulemaking to deregulate certain reactor waste streams under this policy. Sandia National Laboratories will provide needed technical assistance to evaluate the merits of petitions for rulemaking expected as a result of the Commission's existing BRC policy.
The.V.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),is developing generally applicable environmental standards for land disposal of low-level radioactive waste, which include criteria for BRC waste streams. EPA is currently .
considering a 4-mrem /yr BRC individual dose criterion for waste streams. These standards are expected to be proposed in 1988.
Similar action was taken in 1985 by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada in proposing a 5-mrem /yr criterion for exempting the disposal of low-level waste from licensing control.
The NRC published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in December 1986 (51 FR 43367), asking for public comment on whether to proceed on generic deregulation of slightly contaminated (BRC) wastes. The NRC has recently received a proposal from the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority in collaboration with the University of Texas, to provide technical assistance to compile the necessary data base, estimate the public health impacts from a variety of disposal options and develop standards and procedures needed for a generic rulemaking. The staff is studying the feasibility of this project and, based on the conclusions reached and the evaluation of comments on ENCLOSURE 3
4 2 .
the ANPR (93 received), a recommendation will be made to the Commistion for future action.
The United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) considers that doses up to 5 mrems/yr (1% of the current annual dose limit of 500-mrems/yr for members of'the public) are insignificant as'far as the individual is concerned.1 -The NRPB describes this risk as too low to be considered in personal decision-making processes. The NRPB reduced this number to 0.5 mrem /yr for individual sources to account for potential exposures from multiple sources. In' addition, the NRPB recommended that collective doses less than 100 man-rems, comprised of individual doses less than 0.5 mrem /yr, be neglected.
For the major revision of 10 CFR Part 20, published as a proposed rule on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 1092), NRC staff proposed that doses to individual members of the public receiving 1 mrem or less in a year be omitted in collective dose evaluations to prevent an unwarranted commitment of resources for controlling or regulating exposures at levels where theoretical risks are negligibly small. Similar proposals have recently been made by the NCRP and are being considered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The NCRP recommends 1 mrem /yr as a threshold level "below which further effort to reduce radiation exposure to the individual is unwarranted." The IAEA is considering exemption of sources and practices provided that the annual dose to individuals does not exceed 1 mrem and the collective dose is of the order of 100 man-rems or less.
l 1 For a large population the fatality risk would be 10 6 per person per .
year. This calculation, however, presumes that a risk factor of 2 x 10 4 per person-rem is valid for such low doses.
ENCLOSURE 3 g
. 3
, Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning Decommissioning includes reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits _ release for unrestricted use and termination of license. Criteria for the release of residual levels of radioactivity have been issued in a Regulatory Guide but are only applicable to surface contamination. Specific criteria for acceptable levels of residual contamination in scils are not codified. When required, past decommissionings have typically relied on a draft technical position for uranium and thorium in soils or on surface contamination limits listed in Regulatory Guide-1.86. In addition, a limit on external gamma radiation of 5 pR/hr above natural background, measured at one meter from the contaminated surface has been imposed for the release of decommissioned reactor facilities. The 5 pR/hr exposure rate is ar, imposed criterion designed to limit the dose to an individual to no more than 10.mrems/yr, taking into. consideration residence time and shielding effects.
The NRC published an ANPR on decommissioning in March 1978 (43 FR 10370) requesting comments on a number of issues related to dec:,mmissioning, including residual radioactivity criteria. A supporting draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement was published in January 1981 as NUREG-0586. In February
, 1983, a decision was made to separate the issue of residual radiological criteria from the other issues principally involving decommissioning alternatives and assurance of adequate funding. These latter issues were the subject of a proposed rule published in February 1985 (50 FR 5600) and a final rule scheduled for publication in early 1!I88.
Separate activities W re undertaken in 1933-1984, both at EPA and NRC, to consider the appropriate radiological criteria for residual contamination.
Although a draft proposed rule was developed at NRC,.it failed to gain a staff consensus and the task of defining residual radioactive contamination limits was channeled to a Federal Interagency Working Group organized by EPA. The EPA published an ANPR in June 1986 (51 FR 22264) concerning residual radioactivity in buildings and soils in which it requested comments on several questions concerning the approach that might be taken in criteria development. Since ENCLO5Uf6 3
4 j
i that time, some progress has been made by the Interagency Working Group but EPA staff limitations have caused serious delays, suggesting that the specific guidance (a part of the new Presidential guidance to Federal agencies on protection of the public from all sources of radiation subject to. government control) may not be ready for at least four years.
Because there is a near-term need for guidance for current and future decommissionings of nuclear facilities, the NRC staff is proposing to develop for Ccmmission consideration a source- or practice-specific interim policy statement to be issued in mid-1988 which could be used until Federal interagency guidance is established. Following the pattern of the Commission's ,
1 BRC low-level waste policy, the guidance would be expected to establish allowable individual dose levels generally applicable to residual radioactivity on lands and structures and would propose a set of acceptable models which can be used to convert contamination levels into dose estimates. F'or certain license termination cases, higher dose levels may be justified on ALARA principles. A Battelle PNL study is scheduled for completion at the end of FY88 which will provide analysis which will assist with the longer-term ,
development of acceptable, measurable limits on contamination consistent with the established dose limits. This cost analysis will also be used by EPA in the development of Federal interagency guidance.
The staff is also considering development of specific concentration or exposure levels which must be met for the recycle of equipment and materials following decommissioning and decontamination. These limits will be based on studies of the mechanisms for exposure of the public from such activities and on the anticipated broad Commission policy regarding BRC/de minimis risk levels.
4 n
ENCLOSURE 3 4
e DRAFT INTERAGENCY FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL GUIDANCE ON PUBLIC RADIATION PROTECTION The Existing Oose Limitation System, ALARA, and Risk Control The system for limit.ing public exposure to radiation consists of three basic elements (1) justification of practice or activity, (2) regulatory dose limits, which establish caximum permissible doses for the public and (3) the ALARA concept, which assures reduction and acceptable distribution of individual doses beneath these limits. The last two components work together to control and maintain individual and population (collective) radiation dose at acceptable levels, i.e., as far below the dose limit as is reasonably achievable. The criterion under which the ALARA concept was implemented during Appendix I development involved the use of a value of $1,000 per person-rem which balances the costs of radiation control systems against the savings in .
population dose. This value is high compared to' international derived values which are less than $100 per person rem.
Tne EPA has the responsibility for establishing environmental and public protection standards for protection against radiation. The EPA carries out this responsibility by issuing generally applicable regulations and developing Presidential guidance for Federal agencies (Federal guidance). Federal guidance, which limits health risk and applies to, exposures from all sources of radioactivity except background or medical exposures, has usually been developed by consensus among affected Federal agencies.and is signed by the President.
EPA regulations impose limits on radiation exposures to the public; these are usually more restrictive,than EPA's Federal guidance limits. Examples include (1) 40 CFR Part 190 which applies to effluents and external radiation from uranium fuel cycle
. facilities and (2) 40 CFR Part 61 which applies to airborne effluents from all licensees. Both of these regulations impose dose limits which in magnitude are a small fraction of Federal guidance limits. Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 also establishes annual whole body and thyroid dose equivalent design objectives lower than the EPA Federal guidance.
ENCLOSURE 4
i 2
To date, the EPA, NRC, DOE, 000, 00T, State agencies and others have established and enforced standards applicable within their mandated jurisdictions. There has been a tendency to develop specific standards on the basis of cost-risk reduction analysis that considers only the source under study. However, no coordinated action has been initiated to establish an acceptable level of collective risk for public exposure to multiple sources of ionizing radiation or to allocate appropriate fractions of this risk to each contributing source. A Federal ir,teragency working group has been formed under the lead of the EPA to prepare new Presidential guidance to Federal agencies on protection of the public from all sources of radiation subject to governmental control. An objective of the guidance is to assure consistency throughout.the nation l in the centrol of these so rces, which include facility effluents, radioactive waste, transportation, decommissioned lands and structures, unrestricted release of materials and equipment, and radioactivity in consumer products, among others.
A Proposed Framework For Consistent Raoiation Protection Standards -
As'with recently-issued Presidential guidance for occupational protection (January, 1987), subsequent Presidential guidance will establish a limit on the acceptable annual risk level for me'mbers of the public. For example, an annual. dose limit of 100 mrems/yr is being considered. This level would correspond to a dose that any individual may receive from all combined sources subject to regulatory control. The _
ICRP, for example, currently recommends 100 mrems/yr. The ICRP recommendation includes a 500-mrem /yr exposure limit if the lifetime average does not exceed 100 mrems/yr. These are upper limits for combined sources. Smaller dose limits for specific sources and ALARA practices are also considered necessary to further reduce l
risks.
A framework for radiation protection standards for the public is being considered by the Federal Interagenes Committee to account for doses from multiple sources of.
i exposure and which could include the concept of BRC risk levels. As depicted in i Figure 1, multiple sources of exposure include, for example, liquid and gaseous .
effluents from nuclear facilities, shipments of radioactive material, waste disposal
! operations, decommicsioned lands and structures, recycled materials and equipment, and ,
radiocctivity in consumer products. For each one of these sources, an upper limit of i ENCLOSURE 4
~ '
3 one-fourth the annual dose limit would be established. This is based on the assumption that the prouability of exposing an individual to multiple sources in a manner to exceed the aggregate limit is very small. In terms of the example above, each sourca would be assigned an upper dose limit of 25 mrems/yr. This would be consistent with existing EPA and NRC regulations as, for example, 25 orems/yr from waste disposal operations (10 CFR Part 61). In adaiticn, ALARA measures may be considered to reduce each source below the 25-mrem /yr limit.
4 A generic BRC level applicable to every individual source, if developed, might be -
expected to be of the order of a few mrems/yr based on recent precedents. This would be a small fraction of the annual dose limit to the individual (100 mrems), is less than the standard deviation in the natural background level, and is a very small fraction of the average annual dose to the individual from natural background.
At these very low levels of exposure, regulatory decision criteria to accept or reject the risk associated with possession, use, transfer or disposal of radioactive materials would generally be based on the inferred impact on public health and safety and the environment and on cost-risk reduction considerations. In the dose framework, *
- no operation (e.g. , an individual licensee) would be expected to exceed a risk level I greater than that implied by the acceptable annual dose limit (25 mrems). An
- operation associated with a risk level less than the acceptable annual risk, but l greater than the risk associated with a BRC risk, could be authorized based on a sound ALARA analysis. An operation associated with a r'sk level less than the risk associated with BRC would be acceptable and authorized without cost-risk reduction I
considerations.
1
[ To permit a comprehensive treatment of the subject, the concept of a commonly accepted level of negligible individual risk could be included in the framework. This level
- might be a fraction (e.g., 1/10) of the BRC level. Risk between negligible and BRC could be considered in a range where only voluntary control is justified.
ENCLOSURE 4
e' b DRAFT' FRAMEWORK FOR DOSE LlHITATION Basic Regulatory currently- 500 mrem /yr Al.L SOURCES Dose Limit proposed - 100 mrem /yr (except medical and background) l 1 I I I l 1 Decommissioning Fuel Cycle etc. Recycle Haterial Low Level Rad. etc. Consumer Lands Facility and Equipment- Waste Stream! Products and Structures Effluents ALARA APP (ICABLE Source- %
Specific h -
BRCcLevels 7 br a
Generic BRC a few .nrem/yr n'
( ,
l w y Negligible Individual Risk or Below Personal Interest e
e Figure 1
v m
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO DEVELOP THE GENERIC POLICY STATEMENT AND OTHER DE MINIMIS (BRC) CRITERIA The RES staff estimates that the task to develop the broad policy statement on de minimis/BRC would require 4-5 total FTE's over an approximate 1\-2 year period. Currently, these resources are not specifically budgeted.
Approximately 40% of these resources would be required within RES with 60%
divided between NMSS, NRR and OGC. This resource commitment would include the convening of the proposed international symposium on the regulatory use of the ,
de minimis/BRC risk concepts and the staff's consideration of the resulting viewpoints. As directed by the staff requirements memorandum, the necessary reprogramming of resources for this task will be accomplished.
s In several cases, commitments of NRC resources have already been made to incorporate BRC concepts into NRC's regulatory framework. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 directed the Commission to make practical and timely decisions to determine when wastes need not go to a licensed low-level waste disposal site. The Commission subsequently issued both a policy statement and advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on the disposal of radioactive waste screams be. low regulatory concern. The policy statement established standards and procedures that will permit the Commission to act upon rulemaking petitions in an expeditious manner. The purpose of the ANPR was to determine the feasibility of a generic rulemaking on BRC wastes.
Approximately 7-9 total FTEs have been estimated to be necessary to expeditiously review and, if appropriate, initiate rulemakings on a minimum of 4 to 8 petitions expected to be submitted by EPRI/EEI beginning in mid CY 1988.
NMSS has budgeted 3 total FTEs for this task over FY88-90. RES has budgeted 1 FTE and both RES and NRR intend to reallocate from existing resources as necessa ry. An additional 2-3 total FTEs would be needed by RES over the FY89-90 period to determine the feasibility and extent of a generic BRC waste rulemaking activity. A proposal is under review which would provide technical support for both petition evaluation and generic rulemaking tasks. Funding for ENCLOSURE 5 i
_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .________._.______________o
~ ,
4
' 2 this task within RES has been budgeted at $500K over a two year period. NMSS has budgeted $100K in FY88 for licensing capability development. A closely related task, a rulemaking to allow incineration of waste oil, which is in response to an existing petition for rulenaking, is in progress.
The staff is currently prooosing that a Commission policy statement be developed to use the BRC concept to establish acceptable residual radioactivity levels which would allow license terminations and release of lands and structures for unrestricted public use. Resources required for this task are estimated at 3 total FTEs over 2 years (2 FTEs budgeted within RES) with technical support being provided through an ongoing contract. This task would be followed by staff development of criteria for release and recycle of contaminated equipment and materials.
The resources necessary to further develop and implemen.t a negligible: risk policy are difficult to estimate without knowledge of the form of the policy and the specific implementation approach. The extent, if any, to which existing prohibitions would be retained on certain uses of byproduct material-(e.g., material in food, beverages, cosmetics) could significantly influence the level of resources associated with policy implementation.
l l
i.
I i
i ENCLOSURE 5 l
t _.