ML20206H738
| ML20206H738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/19/1986 |
| From: | Kerr G NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206H509 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606260279 | |
| Download: ML20206H738 (16) | |
Text
I~
t G
OVERVIEW OF NRC ACTIVITIES G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Before the Eighteenth Annual National Conference on Radiation Control Charleston, West Virginia May 19, 1986 8606260279 860619 PDR MISC 8606260147 PDR
OVERVIEW of NRC ACTIVITIES G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Before the Eighteenth Annual National Conference on Radiation Control I am pleased to be here to address the annual meeting of the Conference.
I appreciate the efforts of the West Virginia staff for hosting this meeting.
My remarks today will focus on several ongoing rulemaking efforts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), materials licensing and regulation activities, low-level waste, and a variety of other items of interest.
At the outset, I would like to note that Iowa became an Agreement State on January 1 of this year, becoming the 28th Agreement State. We are seeing significant new interest in Agreement State status.
Low-level radioactive waste management and disposal iss ues seem to be the main stimulus.
We have reviewed and commented on a draf t proposal from Illinois.
Massachusetts is considering legislation that would provide for full Agreement State status and we have held discuscions and provided information about the program to Maine, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
By letter dated March 18, 1986 Governor Anaya of New Mexico requested that the NRC reassert its authority over uranium milling and mill tailings in New Mexico. The Governor stated that because of severe budget constraints, as well as other compelling reasons, the State can no longer assume regulatory responsibility for uranium mill tailings.
These reasons relate to (1) difficulties in attempting to enforce EPA regulations in 40 CFR 192 directly, (2) difficulties anticipated in upgrading the New Mexico regulations to be compatible with revised 10 CFR 40 Appendix A, (3) inability to upgrade mill surety arrangements under State law and (4) high staff turnover.
In 1981, following consultation with the States and public participation, the Commission approved a Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State programs for adequacy and compatibility which included a number of program indicators and guidelines relating to program performance.
We are currently in the process of ~ revising the review guidelines and expect to complete that task in early 1987. NRC will be furnishing the Agreement States a draft of the revisions in the near future but we do not anticipate major changes.
I i
Memoranda of Understanding are being actively negotiated with three States; PA, OH and VA.
The PA, OH and VA MOUs will be patterned af ter.
the Illinois MOU signed in 1984, which allows the State to inspect waste packaging and shipping procedures on the premises of NRC licensees.
This MOU was developed in response to potential host States' needs during LLW Compact negotiations, to have party States assure compliance with host States' packaging and shipping requirements.
STATUS OF RULEMAKING Turning to rulemaking activities, the revised Part 20 (Radiation Standards) was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 1986 with comment period expiring May 12, 1986.
We have mailed copies to all the States and are providing copies to those Agreement States who wish to distribute them to their licensees.
I would note that there is a session on the revised Part 20 on the meeting agenda.
The joint NRC-State Steering Committee on Industrial Radiography Radiation Safety met in January, 1986 to finalize its conclusions and recommendations on radiography. I am pleased to report that one product is an NRC contract with Texas (to be finalized soon) to develop a bank of questions that may be used to examine candidate radiographers for their knowledge of radiation safety.
The Committee also reached a consensus on other radiography radiation safety issues including radiographer equipment performance standards.
NRC staff's disposition of these recommendations has not been finalized as yet.
Preparation of the final version of Part 35 (Medical Licensing) is nearing completion by the staff for transmission to the Commission. The Commission will be informed of the concerns of the Agreement States over certain parts of the revision.
As you may recall, radiation safety procedures would be required to be submitted with the initial j
application and these would. be reviewed for adequacy by the staff or alternatively the standard procedures in Regulatory Guide 10.8 could be referenced.
The licensee could then change the procedures, including certain f acilities and equipment, without a license amendment provided specified internal review procedures were followed. The freedom to make changes in procedures and program is the controversial aspect of this revision.
The proposed rule on Well Logging, Part 39, was published for comment on April 8, 1985. About 100 comments were received. A draft of the final rule was sent to all Agreement States on January 9, 1986. On April 15, 1986 a working group met to discuss and resolve outstanding t
issues which Ronnie Wascom attended. Matters of compatibility are being worked out and will be coordinated with Mr. Wascom.
The NRC staff is expecting publication of the final rule in August 1986.
j The staff has proposed four rulemaking actions to revise its High-Level Waste rule, 10 CFR Part 60.
The first deals with procedural amendments regarding State Government and Indian Tribe participation pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).
The second
(
-e
~
~
?
., deals with the definition of.high-level waste.
The staff is re-evaluating its proposed recommendations on definition of HLW because i
of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which i
requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of low-level radioactive waste with concentrations greater than Class C.
The third deals with conforming Part 60 to the Environmental Protection Agency Standards.
The fourth and final rulemaking action deals with the conformance of 10 CFR Part 51 (the Commission's NEPA regulations) to the NWPA.
NRC staff has submitted to the Commission ~a proposed rulemaking concerning emergency preparedness requirements for large materials licenses. The proposed rule would codify requirements imposed by order in 1981 on 62 fuel cycle and material licensees. The recent incident at the Kerr-McGee Sequoyah plant in Gore, Oklahoma has focused attention on this aspect of licensing large fuel cycle and materials facilities as well as the responsibilities of - the various agencies over chemical hazards. I trust all of the Agreement States with State licensees large enough to meet the criteria for radiological contingency. plans are implementing requirements similar to ours and are inspecting for compliance.
If and when a final rule on this matter. is approved, it will become a matter of compatibility for the Agreement States. Another aspect of the Kerr-McGee incident being addressed is the respective j
jurisdictional responsibilities of NRC, OSHA, and EPA.
I MATERIALS LICENSING AND REGULATION The NRC and most Agreement States must rely upon licensee resources l
backed by sureties or parent company guarantees for funding necessary to j
accomplish decontamination, decommissioning and reclamation of mill
- sites, low-level radioactive disposal sites and other licensed activities.
Commission regulations specify that surety bonds, cash i
deposits, certificates of deposits of government securities, irrevocable letters or lines of credit and any combinations of the above arrange-ments are acceptable.
Self insurance is not acceptable.
NRC legal i
staff recently gave the opinion that a corporate or parent - company guarantee coupled with a financial test, such as the EPA financial test j
specified under RCRA 40CFR 264 and 265, would not constitute self insurance and would therefore be acceptable.
There are several areas of concern with sureties, particularly uranium mill sureties, which include: the amount - of the surety, the reliability of the bonding company or bank where these types are used and the procedure for obtaining the funds in case of forfeiture.
In
]
view of our dependence on sureties, the NRC staff is planning a study to evaluate the various surety mechanisms, methods for-calculating dollar amounts and methods for surety program administration.
NRC staff is hopeful that the results of such a study will provide NRC and the Agreement States with the technical basis for considering any changes in requirements and methods of implementation.
l On August 27.- 1985 a truck loaded with 53 ' drums (about 45,000 i
pounds) of uranium ore concentrates (yellowcake) collided with a train i
I s
_.-,u
, -. ~....
. crossing U.S.
Highway 52 about 12 miles south of Fessenden, North Dakota.
In the - accident, - the truck driver was killed, the train derailed without injury to anyone about, and most of the 53 drums were ruptured, spilling the dry yellowcake about-200 feet along the track.
Approximately 10 tons of yellowcake spilled, contaminating the tractor and trailer, the truck driver's body, the train engine and an area along the highway and railroad track.
The ground was decontaminated to natural background levels and l
repairs to the rail and highway were completed by September 17, 1985.
NRC representatives provide technical assistance in connection with the emergency response and cleanup operations from August 29 through September 12.
The competence and thoroughness of the North Dakota emergency response team was commented upon by many of.the observers.
Since 1983, we have become aware of seven incidents involving radioactive steel that was either contaminated in steel mills in the U.S.
or imported into this country.
In the majority of instances, radioactive sources mixed with scrap feed caused the contamination.
In Canada, the Atomic Energy Control Board published a 2x3 foot poster for distribution to scrapyards to warn them of hazardous radioactive 4
in January, 1986 a small radium gauge was sources.
It works i
inadvertently mixed with scrap from an American plant and shipped to a l
Canadian scrapyard where an employee recognized it' and alerted his supervisors. The source was successfully recovered.
LOW-LEVEL WASTE The never ending saga of low-level waste is multi-faceted and.
seemingly grows more complex.
Although identified as an issue of concern by NRC during the development of the LLWPAA of 1985, mixed waste i
regulation remains unresolved.
We refer to mixed waste as that waste which contains radioactive material subject-to the Atomic Energy Act and hazardous constituents (chemicals) subject to RCRA.
RCRA explicitly exempts source, special nuclear, and byproduct material as defined by j
the Atomic Energy Act, but RCRA is silent on radioactive. waste that also contains hazardous constituents, which by themselves would be classified as hazardous waste under RCRA.
According to a NRC funded study by i
Brookhaven, only about 3% of low-level ~ waste falls in the " mixed waste" l
category'but there is the potential of not having disposal capability for it.
Hearings. have recently been held by Senator Simpson, and Congressmen Markey and Udall on the mixed waste issue in an attempt to characterize the nature of the problem-and identify options for i
resolution.
A Federal' Register notice was published-on January.30, 1986 j
highlighting NRC's technical assistance program to States for low-level waste. Letters were sent on January 22, 1986 to all radiation control program directors and compact contacts outlining the types of technical assistance available 'to these groups.
It is important to note that NRC's program is regulatory by nature and will be limited to regulatory issues for States and compacts.
i i
~.:.---..
i,
ii There are several major areas where NRC has a well defined goal under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. We l
are planning a meeting in Washington on June 24-25 with the Conference Task Force on LLW, compact representatives and a few other affected parties to discuss their implementation.
1 The NRC published in the Federal Register, March 6, 1986, a draft i
branch technical position statement on the licensing of alternative methods of disposal for low-level radioactive waste.
By asking for comments, due May 5,
the staff hopes to answer licensing questions regarding the land disposal of LLW and improve the licensing' process.
i This statement will provide answers to certain questions that have i
arisen regarding the applicability of 10 CFR Part 61 to near-surface disposal of waste, using methods that incorporate engineered barriers or and other alternatives to conventional shallow land burial structures, disposal practices.
OTHER MATTERS OF INTEREST NRC is considering the establishment of a Federally Funded Research-and Development Center (FFRDC) for waste management technical assistance 1
i and research as a potential solution to problems of conflict of interest and continuity of technical assistance. The FFRDC, entitled "The Center for Nuclear Waste Analyses " would encompass research and technical l
assistance tasks such as waste engineering systems, long-term per-formance of a geologic setting, performance of an MRS, and transporta-r
)
tion and environmental impacts. The Center would be a separate entity l
from NRC's licensing program, and would hopefully eliminate certain conflict of interest situations which may occur with contractors who are also involved in DOE's HLW program, in late 1985, during an emergency response exercise, liquid technetium-99m was used by a State employee to simulate fission product i
contamination on equipment and on a participant playing the role of an i
accident victim.
The ' use of this radioactive material was not well planned nor adequately coordinated with the other players in the exercise.
As a result, radioactive contamination of both personnel and There was also a loss of control over environmental j
property occurred.
that were " spiked."
Although the doses including - milk j
samples i
received by exposed personnel were estimated to be relatively small, this incident pointed to the need for a policy on the use of radioactive i
materials in exercises.
i NRC provided interim guidance on the use of Following this event radioactive materials during emergency exercises which was sent.to the States on March 21, 1986. I will not recount all of it at this time but several points should be highlighted.
The use of unsealed sources - such as liquids - should not be o
j
~ to " spike" samples intended for lab permitted, except analysis.
I 1
l l
i f
-If sealed sources are to be used to simulate contamination for o
i training purposes, they are to be used with gr. eat care, consistent with good health physics practice and careful.
attention to the ALARA principle.
I o
All parties responsible for managing the exercise should be 4
informed well in advance of the planned use of radioactive j
materials at appropriate levels of management, i
o These principal guidelines apply to any radiation source j
{
deliberately brought into play during an exercise irrespective i
of whether the sources are.If.censable or exempt from regulation.
I'm sure you will agree that when we, who are responsible for 1
i regulating radioactive material for safety, use such material, we must j
do so in an exemplary fashion.
i l
A' task force established by the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations, (a Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation i
& Development's Nuclear Energy Agency) assigned to review source term i
research, has informed NRC that they believe enough information now exists for NRC to begin applying the findings to re-evaluate.regula-tions.
The task force found that in general, for most accident
]j sequences, there has been a reduction in source term.
NRC staff will develop a revised regulatory framework for reviewing regulations based I
on the use of consistent, realistic source terms and will forward its recommendations to the Conunission in May.
Baltimore Gas and Electric ~
made a request for an exemption from NRC's emergency planning zone (EPZ)
{
requirements, under which Calvert Cliff's EPZ would be reduced from a
{
ten-mile radius around the plant - to a two-mile radius.
Because the entire source term situation is still in a state of flux, however, NRC has notified BG&E it will not make a decision on their request until the source term is thoroughly reviewed and identified, most likely not until late 1987.
4 FEMA, at NRC's. request,. conducted an exercise of the LILCO emergency plan for the Shoreham plant on February 13, 1986.
The i
exercise was conducted by LILCO's Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) who simulated the State and local roles' except where there was a legal ' question.
However, ' they made no decisions or took any action which is a State or local function.
In a few key areas, Federal '
officials simulated off-site actions and provided controllers. FEMA has provided NRC a report with five deficiencies. The report has been sent j
to LILCO who is to provide a schedule for remedial action.
l In our efforts to communicate and ' interact more effectively with
]
States and Indian Tribes during NRC's role in the HLW licensing program, our ' office has noted there is a lack of any compiled information on State / indian response. to accidents on Indian reservations.
Our understanding in the past has been that in some States, if an ' accident -
occurs on an Indian reservation or impacts on an Indian reservation, the l
State may.not respond.
We will be following up this issue with more i
i i
l l
i
_7-i If the above is detailed questions for you sometime in the near future.
true, it could have a significant impact on EP response, particularly for transportation accidents.
There are three legislative proposals currently before the Congress that are being actively examined for Price-Anderson modification.
Although a number of issues related to Price-Anderson are being debated such as the statute of limitations and coverage of DOE HLW facilities, the biggest issue is the amount of funds to be available in the event of an accident and the method of obtaining those funds.
There is great doubt if Congressional action will be taken this year and the current Act expires August 1, 1987.
I hope this brief summary of a number of NRC and other Federal -
activities give you an indication of the significant actions underway.
Best wishes for a successful meeting.
2 4
l 9
i i
i
I OVERVIEW OF NRC ACTIVITIES G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Before the Eighteenth Annual National Conference on Radiation Control.
Charleston, West Virginia May 19, 1986
, sitt -
g +
f
q t
OVERVIEW of NRC ACTIVITIES G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Before the Eighteenth Annual National Conference on Radiation Control I am pleased to be here to address the annual meeting of the Conference.
I appreciate the efforts of the West Virginia staff for hosting this meeting.
My remarks today will focus on several ongoing rulemaking efforts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), materials licensing and regulation activities, low-level waste, and a variety of other items of interest.
At the outset, I would like to note that Iowa became an Agreement State on January 1 of this year, becoming the 28th Agreement State. We are seeing significant new interest in Agreement State status.
Low-level radioactive vaste management and disposal issues seem to be the main stimulus.
We have reviewed and commented on a draf t proposal from Illinois.
Massachusetts is considering legislation that would provide for full Agreement State status and we have held discussions and provided information about the program to Maine, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
By letter dated March 18, 1986 Governor Anaya of New Mexico requested that the NRC reassert its authority over uranium milling and mill tailings in New Mexico. The Governor stated that because of severe budget constraints, as well as other compelling reasons, the State can no longer assume regulatory responsibility for uranium mill tailings.
These reasons relate to (1) difficulties in attempting to enforce EPA regulations in 40 CFR 192 directly, (2) difficulties anticipated in upgrading the New Mexico regulations to be compatible with revised 10 CFR 40 Appendix A, (3) inability to upgrade mill surety arrangements under State law and (4) high staff turnover.
In
- 1981, following consultation with the States and public participation, the Commission approved a Policy Statement for reviewing Agreement State programs for adequacy and compatibility which included a number of program indicators and guidelines relatir.g to program performance.
We are currently in the process of revising the review guidelines and expect to complete that task in early 1987. NRC will be furnishing the Agreement States a draft of the revisions in the near future but we do not anticipate major changes.
?
l 1
Memoranda of Understanding are being actively negotiated with three States; PA, OH and VA.
The PA, OH and VA MOUs will be patterned after the Illinois MOU signed in 1984, which allows the State to inspect waste packaging and shipping procedures on the premises of NRC licensees.
This MOU was developed in response to potential host States' needs during LLW Compact negotiations, to have party States assure compliance with host States' packaging and shipping requirements.
STATUS OF RULEMAKING Turning to rulemaking activities, the revised Part 20 (Radiation Standards) was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 1986 with comment period expiring May 12, 1986.
We have mailed copies to all the States and are providing copies to those Agreement States who wish to distribute them to their licensees.
I would note that there is a session on the revised Part 20 on the meeting agenda.
The joint NRC-State Steering Committee on Industrial Radiography Radiation Safety met in January, 1986 to finalize its conclusions and recommendations on radiography.
I am pleased to report that one product is an NRC contract with Texas (to be finalized soon) to develop a bank of questions that may be used to examine candidate radiographers for their knowledge of radiation safety.
The Committee also reached a consensus on other radiography radiation safety issues including radiographer equipment performance standards.
3C staff's disposition of these recommendations has not been finalized as yet.
Preparation of the final version of Part 35 (Medical Licensing) is nearing completion by the staff for transmission to the Commission. The Commission will be informed of the concerns of the Agreement States over certain parts of the revision.
As you may recall, radiation safety procedures would be required to be submitted with the initial application and these would be reviewed for adequacy by the staff or alternatively the standard procedures in Regulatory Guide 10.8 could be referenced.
The licensee could then change the procedures, including certain facilities and equipment, without a license amendment provided specified internal review procedures were followed. The freedom to make changes in procedures and program is the controversial aspect of this revision.
The proposed rule on Well Logging, Part 39, was published for comment on April 8, 1985. About 100 comments were received. A draft of the final rule was sent to all Agreement States on January 9, 1986.
On April 15, 1986 a working group met to discuss and resolve outstanding issues which Ronnie Wascom attended. Matters of compatibility are being worked out and will be coordinated with Mr. Wascom.
The NRC staff is expecting publication of the final rule in August 1986.
The staff has proposed four rulemaking actione to revise its High-Level Waste rule, 10 CFR Part 60.
The first deals with procedural amendments regarding State Government and Indian Tribe participation pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).
The second
- 6 deals with the definition of high-level waste.
The staff is re-evaluating its proposed recommendations on definition of HLW because of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of low-level radioactive vaste with concentrations greater than Class C.
The third deals with conforming Part 60 to the Environmental Protection Agency Standards.
The fourth and final rulemaking action deals with the conformance of 10 CFR Part 51 (the Commission's NEPA regulations) to the i
NWPA.
NRC staff has submitted to the Commission a proposed rulemaking concerning emergency preparedness requirements for large materials licenses. The proposed rule would codify requirements imposed by order in 1981 on 62 fuel cycle and material licensees. The recent incident at the Kerr-McGee Sequoyah plant in Gore, Oklahoma has focused attention on this aspect of licensing large fuel cycle and materials facilities as well as the responsibilities of the various agencies over chemical hazards.
I trust all of the Agreement States with State licensees large enough to meet the criteria for radiological contingency plans are implementing requirements similar to ours and are inspecting for compliance.
If and when a final rule on this matter is approved, it will become a matter of compatibility for the Agreement States. Another aspect of the Kerr-McGee incident being addressed is the respective jurisdictional responsibilities of NRC, OSHA, and EPA.
MATERIALS LICENSING AND REGULATION The NRC and most Agreement States must rely upon licensee resources backed by sureties or parent company guarantees for funding necessary to accomplish decontamination, decommissioning and reclamation of mill
- sites, low-level radioactive disposal sites and other licensed activities.
Commission regulations specify that surety bonds, cash deposits, certificates of deposits of government securities, irrevocable letters or lines of credit and any combinations of the above arrange-ments are acceptable.
Self insurance is not acceptable.
NRC legal staff recently gave the opinion that a corporate or parent company guarantee coupled with a financial test, such as the EPA financial test specified under RCRA 40CFR 264 and 265, would not constitute self insurance and would therefore be acceptable.
There are several areas of concern with sureties, particularly uranium mill sureties, which include: the amount of the surety, the reliability of the bonding company or bank where these types are used and the procedure for obtaining the funds in case of forfeiture.
In view of our dependence on sureties, the NRC staff is planning a study to evaluate the various surety mechanisms, methods for calculating dollar amounts and methods for surety program adminietration.
NRC staff is hopeful that the results of such a study will provide NRC and the Agreement States with the technical basis for considering any changes in requirements and methods of implementation.
On August 27, 1985 a truck loaded with 53 drums (about 45,000 pounds) of uranium ore concentrates (yellowcake) collided with a train
F o
- O crossing U.S.
Highway 52 about 12 miles south of Fessenden. North Dakota.
In the accident, the truck driver was killed, the train derailed without injury to anyone about, and most of the 53 drums were ruptured, spilling the dry yellowcake about 200 feet along the track.
Approximately 10 tons of yellowcake spilled, contaminating the tractor and trailer, the truck driver's body, the train engine and an area along the highway and railroad track.
The ground was decontaminated to natural background levels and repairs to the rail and highway were completed by September 17, 1985.
NRC representatives provide technical assistance in connection with the emergency response and cleanup operations from August 29 through September 12.
The competence and thoroughness of the North Dakota emergency response team was commented upon by many of the observers.
Since 1983, we have become aware of seven incidents involving radioactive steel that was either contaminated in steel mills in the U.S.
or imported into this country.
In the maj ority of instances, radioactive sources mixed with scrap feed caused the contamination.
In Canada, the Atomic Energy Control Board published a 2x3 foot poster for distribution to scrapyards to warn them of hazardous radioactive sources.
It works - in January, 1986 a small radium gauge was inadvertently mixed with scrap from an American plant and shipped to a Canadian scrapyard where an employee recognized it and alerted his supervisors. The source was successfully recovered.
LOW-LEVEL WASTE The never ending saga of low-level waste is multi-faceted and seemingly grows more complex.
Although identified as an issue of concern by NRC during the development of the LLWPAA of 1985, mixed waste regulation remains unresolved.
We refer to mixed waste as that waste which contains radioactive material subject to the Atomic Energy Act and hazardous constituents (chemicals) subject to RCRA.
RCRA explicitly exempts source, special nuclear, and byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act, but RCRA is silent on radioactive waste that also contains hazardous constituents, which by themselves would be classified as hazardous waste under RCRA.
According to a NRC funded study by Brookhaven, only about 3% of low-level waste falls in the " mixed waste" category but there is the potential of not having disposal capability for it.-
Hearings have recently been held by Senator Simpson, and Congressmen Markey and Udall on the mixed waste issue in an attempt to characterize the nature of the problem and identify options for resolution.
A Federal Register notice was published on January 30, 1986 highlighting NRC's technical assistance program to States for low-level waste.
Letters were sent on January 22, 1986 to all radiation control program directors and compact contacts outlining the types of technical assistance available to these groups.
It is important to note that NRC's program is regulatory by nature and will be limited to regulatory issues for States and compacts.
- There are several major areas where NRC has a well defined goal under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. We are planning a meeting in Washington on June 24-25 with the Conference Task Force on LLW, compact representatives and a few other affected parties to discuss their implementation.
The NRC published in the Federal Register, March 6, 1986, a draft branch technical position statement on the licensing of alternative methods of disposal for low-level radioactive waste.
By asking for comments, due May 5,
the staff hopes to answer licensing questions regarding the land disposal of LLW and improve the licensing process.
This statement will provide answers to certain questions that have arisen regarding the applicability of 10 CFR Part 61 to near-surface disposal of waste, using methods that incorporate engineered barriers or structures, and other alternatives to conventional shallow land burial disposal practices.
OTHER MATTERS OF INTEREST NRC is considering the establishment of a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) for waste management technical assistance and research as a potential solution to problems of conflict of interest and continuity of technical assistance. The FFRDC, entitled "The Center j
for Nuclear Waste Analyses " would encompass research and technical assistance tasks such as waste engineering systems, long-term per-formance of a geologic setting, performance of an MRS, and transporta-tion and environmental impacts.
The Center would be a separate entity from NRC's licensing program, and would hopefully eliminate certain conflict of interest situations which may occur with contractors who are also involved in DOE's HLW program.
In late 1985, during an emergency response exercise, liquid technetium-99m was used by a State employee to simulate fission product contamination on equipment and on a participant playing the role of an accident victim.
The use of this radioactive material was not well planned nor adequately coordinated with the other players in the exercise. As a result, radioactive contamination of both personnel and property occurred.
There was also a loss of control over environmental that were " spiked."
Although the doses including milk samples received by exposed personnel were estimated to be relatively small, this incident pointed to the need for a policy on the use-of radioactive materials in exercises.
Following this event NRC provided interim guidance on the use of.
radioactive materials during emergency exercises which was sent to the States on March 21, 1986. I will not recount all of it at this time but several points should be highlighted.
o The use of unsealed sources - such as liquids - should not be permitted, except to
s p ike'.'
samples intended for lab analysis.
c.
o If sealed sources are to be used to simulate contamination for training purposes, they are to be used with great care, consistent with good health physics practice and careful attention to the ALARA principle, o
All parties responsible for managing the exercise should be informed well in advance of the planned use of radioactive materials at appropriate levels of management.
o These principal guidelines apply to any radiation source deliberately brought into play during an exercise irrespective of whether the sources are licensable or exempt from regulation.
I'm sure you will agree that when we, who are responsible for regulating radioactive material for safety, use such material, we must do so in an exemplary fashion.
A task force established by the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations, (a Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
& Development's Nuclear Energy Agency) assigned to review source term research, has informed NRC that they believe enough information now exists for NRC to begin applying the findings to re-evaluate regula-tions.
The task force found that in general, for most accident sequences, there has been a reduction in source term.
NRC staff will develop a revised regulatory framework for reviewing regulations based on the use of consistent, realistic source terms and will forward its recommendations to the Commission in May.
Baltimore Gas and Electric made a request for an exemption from NRC's emergency planning zone (EPZ) requirements, under which Calvert Cliff's EPZ would be reduced from a ten-mile radius around the plant to a two-mile radius.
Because the entire source term situation is still in a state of flux, however, NRC has notified BG&E it will not make a decision on their request until the source term is thoroughly reviewed and identified, most likely not until late 1987.
FEMA, at NRC's request, conducted an exercise of the LILCO emergency plan for the Shoreham plant on February 13, 1986.
The exercise was conducted by LILCO's Local Emergency Response Organization (LER0T who simulated the State and local roles except where there was a legal question.
However, they made no decisions or took any action which is a State or local function.
In a few key areas, Federal officials simulated off-site actions and provided controllers. FEMA has provided NRC a report with five deficiencies.
The report has been sent to LILCO who is to provide a schedule for remedial action.
In our efforts to communicate and interact more effectively with States and Indian Tribes during NRC's role in the HLW licensing program, our office has noted there is a lack of any compiled information on State / Indian response to accidents' on Indian reservations.
Our
~
understanding in the past has been that in some States, if an accident occurs on an Indian reservation or impacts on an Indian reservation, the State may not respond.
We will be following up this issue with more i
1
, a If the above is detailed questions for you sometime in the near future.
true, it could have a significant impact on EP response, particularly for transportation accidents.
There are three legislative proposals currently before the Congress that are being actively examined for Price-Anderson modification.
Although a number of issues related to Price-Anderson are being debated such as the statute of limitations and coverage of DOE HLW f acilities, the biggest issue is the amount of funds to be available in the event of an accident and the method of obtaining those funds.
There is great doubt if Congressional action will be taken this year and the current Act expires August 1, 1987.
I hope this brief summary of a number of NRC and other Federal activities give you an indication of the significant actions underway.
Best wishes for a successful meeting.
4 I
i f
.