ML20237J511
| ML20237J511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/21/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Sanford T SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237J504 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-506 NUDOCS 8708260201 | |
| Download: ML20237J511 (8) | |
Text
i 1
9 p
p JUL 21 1987 The Honorable Terry Sanford United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 i
I i
Dear Senator Sanford:
In your letter dated June 2,1987 to Chairman Zech, you asked for a status
{
report on the Commission's rulemaking activities relatin radioactive wastes that may be below regulatory concern.g to disposal of
)
In addition, you l
i mentioned that the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the General Accounting Office (GA0) have also indicated some concern with regard to wastes that may be below regulatory concern.
{
Enclosed for your information are copies of two Federal Register notices the i
Commission has published on this matter.
These notices were issued in response to Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
[P.L.99-240), which requires the Coninission to determine "whether the concentration or quantity of radionuclides present in such waste streams i
requires regulation by the Commission in order to protect the public health and safety."
Please be assured that as these rulemaking efforts continue, we will
{
give full consideration to the potential health hazards associated with unregulated disposals, and to concerns raised in public comments submitted. The l
Commission's primary responsibility under this Act and other statutes remains protection of the public health and safety.
i We have been unable to determine what specific issues or concerns may have been raised by the NSF and the GAO.
We have contacted staff at both the NSF and GA0 to determine whether these organizations have issued reports or expressed any i
concerns about very low levels of radioactive contaminate to be below regulatory concern.
that might be found or concerns related to below regulatory concern radioactive wastes.The NSF a We also contacted your staff to cetermine if the incoming correspondence from your constituents referenced any specific documents or concerns.
They indicated that the references to these organizations were very general ard that no sp cific issues were identified.
We are however providing below an overview of the Commission's regulatory concern rulemaking activities that contains both a status report on those activities and answers to frequently asked questions concerning wastes below regulatory concerr.
If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerel cri.
y,,
Vir* t r W t '
VictorStello,JrI Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Overview i
2.
FR notices dtd 8/29/86 and 12/2/86 8708260201 070024 PDR FOIA DLSON37-506 PDR
O l
i OVERVIEW 0F NRC'S RESPONSE TO SECTION 10 0F THE LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1985 July 1987 Section 10: Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern required the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish standards and procedures and the l
technical capability to act in an expedited manner on petitions to exempt specific waste streams from NRC regulation and to do so in six months (i.e., by' July 1986).
Q:
What has been NRC's response to date?
A:
NRC has responded with three actions.
A Commission Policy Statement and Staff Implementation Plan were published August 29, 1986 (51 FR 30839). A computer code for calculating radiological impacts from unregulated disposal was adapted for personal computer use and a draft user guide was published in July of 1986 (Volume 2 of NUREG/CR-3585).
An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published on December 2, 1986 (51 FR 43367).
Q:
What was the purpose of the Policy Statement and Staff Implementation Plan?
l A:
These two documents provide guidance to potential rulemaking petitioners.
Existing Commission rules in 10 CFR 2.802 set forth the procedures for submitting rulemaking petitions for Commission consideration.
The Policy Statement and Staff Implementation Plan provide additional guidance for those f
petitions that relate to the exemption of slightly contaminated wastes. The statement and plan establish the standards and procedures tha will permit the Commission to act upon rulemaking petitions in an expedited manner as required by Section 10 of the Act.
l Q:
Does the Policy Statement grant approval for below regulatory concern l
disposals?
l A:
No, Rulemaking on petitions is required.
Q:
What opportunities exist for public input on rulemaking petitions to exempt waste streams?
A:
Petitions will be published for public comment when received. Although the petitions will be handled in an expedited manner as required by Section 10 of the Act, any proposed rule that would grant part or all of any petition must follow the normal rulemaking procedure and be noticed for public comment.
Q:
Have any rulemaking petitions been filed in response to the Policy Statement?
~
A
(
2 l
l A:
No, but petitions may be filed at any time.
Q:
How does the Policy Statement address protection of the public health and safety?
A:
The Policy Statement sets out fourteen decision criteria the Commission expects to follow when addressing the overall impacts of the disposals, maximum j
potential exposures to individuals from routine and accidental events, and j
potential cumulative exposures.
Both short-term and long-term potential exposures from handling, transport, treatment, disposal and post disposal are to be considered. The criteria also address the need for a comprehensive understanding of the properties of any wastes proposed for exemption and the need for licensees to be able to determine that actual wastes comply with i
concentration or quantity limits that will be set.
l Q:
What methods of treatment and disposal of slightly contaminated wastes may petitioners propose as alternatives to disposal in licensed disposal sites?
A:
Petitioners may propose alternatives such as onsite burial or incineration, burial at sanitary landfill or hazardous waste facilities, or treatment or incineration at municipal or hazardous facilities.
Q:
What does below regulatory concern mean?
A:
A Commission finding that the radioactive content is below regulatory concern means that the potential radiological exposures from treatment, handling, or disposal of the wastes are so small that they do not require or warrant regulation.
For example, below regulatory concern wastes may be suitable for disposal in a sanitary landfill and the landfill operator would not need to monitor incoming wastes, keep records, or conduct environmental monitoring for radionuclides. The landfill operator would be exempt frem all regulation by NRC. However, NRC's exemption would not relieve anyone from the applicable rules of state, local or federal agencies which cover the i
nonradiological properties of the wastes.
{
1 Q:
Who is expected to file rulemaking petitions?
l A:
Staff are aware that trade or professional organizations representing groups or categories of licensees (e.g., hospitals, pharmaceutical manufacturers, or power reactors) are considering filing petitions but individual licensees or anyone can file a petition.
i 1
Q:
What was the purpose of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking?
i A:
The notice asked for public input on the general question of whether and how NRC should proceed on the matter of exempting slightly contaminated wastes.
l The Commission recognized that NRC-initiated rulemaking might facilitate processing of rulemaking petitions on individual waste streams or provide more generic cptions.
j
l, A.
4 3
l i
Q:
What issues were addressed in the advance notice?
A:
Six specific questions were asked. The Commissi'on asked if it should: (1) codify the decision criteria from the Policy Statement and continue on a' waste stream basis? (2) take a more' generic approach involving radionuclides concentrations or quantities or dose limits? (3) consider better ways to address the potential for exposures to multiple waste sources? (4) issue additional guidance instead of developing new regulations? (5) defer to the Environmental Protection Agency in this area totally or in part? or (6) rely on l
international standards and guidance?
Q:
What was the public response?
A:
Over 90 comment letters were submitted in response to the advance notice.
Commenters expressed diverse views on the merits of below regulatory concern disposal and offered a variety of suggestions.
For example, many commenters opposed the concept of any level of radioactivity being below resiulatory concern and others urged NRC to proceed promptly on generic rulemaking.
Commenters also addressed each of the specific questions raised in the advance I
notice.
Q:
What are the NRC's next steps on the generic rulemaking?
A:
NRC staff are currently analyzing the comments received on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Based on the comments and other considerations, the Commission will decide whether and how to proceed with a generic rulemaking addressing wastes below regulatory concern.
If the decision is to proceed, staff would initiate technical and environmental studies to support rulemaking.
After completion of the supportirg studies, a proposed rule would be published for comment.
i l
i
EMP/85/G--03 l
Y 1985-04-26 j
i STATENENT PROM THE 1985 PARIS MEETING OF THE l
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION l
l l
I The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 1 met in Paris in March 1985.
The Commission reviewed the work of j
its committees and task groups, and approved for future publication a report on the quantitative bases for developing a unified index of harm.
i i
'The Commission identified four topics requiring comment:
l) i DOSE LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC In the recommendation on effective dose-equivalent limits
- for members of the public, made in its 1977 Recommendations (ICRP Publication 26I), two values were mentioned.
The use of the
\\
limit of 5 mSv in a year was endorsed, but only under the con-ditions described in paragraphs 120 to 128 of ICRP Publi-l cation 26.
For other circumstances the Commission recommended
{
l that it would be prudent to limit exposures on the basis of a lifetime average annual dose of 1 mSv.
I The Commission's present view is that the principal limit is 1 mSv in a year.
However, it is permissible to use a subsidiary dose limit of 5 mSv in a year for some years, provided that the average annual effective dose equivalent over a lifetime does not l
exceed the principal limit of 1 mSv in a year.
With this limitation on the effective dose equivalent, the non-stochastic organ dose limit of 50 mSv in a year becomes unneces-2 eary for most organs However, since the dose equivalents in
+
Th the \\ e Commission's dose-equivalent limits apply to the sum of effective dose equivalent resulting from external exposure during\\ year and the committed ef f ective dose equivalent incurred from that year's intake of radionuclides.
s~
\\
/3//
2 STATEMENT FROM THE PARIS MEETING OF ICRP I
I the skin and the lens of the eye are not included in the l
computation of effective dose equivalent for the individua1,
i 8
l organ dose limits are still needed for these two tissues.
The f
recommended dose equivalent limit for both the skin and the lens is still 50 mSv in a year for members of the public.
I l
THE VALUE OF THE QUALITY FACTOR IN THE CASE OF NEUTRONS
}
The information now available on the relative biological effectiveness (BBE) for neutrons for a variety of cellular effects in vitro, and for life shortening in the mouse, is being reviewed by the Commission.
The implications of this infor-mation will be considered as part of a larger review of recommendations to be undertaken by the Commission over the next
{
four years or so.
Meanwhile, in the case of neutrons the I
Commission recommends an increase in Q by a factor of 2.
The l
permitted approximation for Q for f ast neutrons thus changes fro-10 to 20.
l These changes relate only to neutrons, and no other changes in Q are recommended at this time.
i POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS RADIOLOGICAL PRACTICES The Commission has been informed by its Committee on Protection in Medicine of some potentially dangerous practices in the use of fluoroscopic apparatus.
Adherence to the recommendations and guidance given in the Commission's report Protection against Ionizing Radiation from External Sources Used in Medicine' could prevent such situations.
Specifically, the Commission is concerned about the introduction of fluoroscopic apparatus with over-couch tubes which can give substantial x-ray exposures to operators if they are not protected by shields.
With the operator wearing a protective apron and standing beside the patient, the dose from an over-couch screening set, compared with that from an under-couch set, can be 250 times higher to the
F 1
STATEMENT FROM THE PARIS MEETING OF ICRP 3
I hands, 100 times higher to the eyes and 35 times higher to the i
whole body.
For an operator with a heavy work load the dose to the lens of the eye can greatly exceed the Commission's
{
recommended occupational limit of 150 mSv (15' rem) in a year, and, if continued could lead to permanent damage.
I Other examples of practices causing concern, which have been reported to the Commission, include complex radiological pro-i cedures undertaken by physicians or surgeons without training in radiology and radiation protection.
The operators may feel that l
the obvious needs of the patient outweigh a future risk of radiablon injury to themselves.
occasionally this has even led i
to the removal of individual monitoring devices to avoid identification of high dose levels.
I 1
l These problems are compounded by the routine use of unnecessarily high fluoroscopic currents and unnecessarily long fluoroscopic times.
The Commission believes that the use of appropriate protective shielding and careful attention to technique, inclu-j ding the use of video storage devices, could result in a I
substantial decrease in radiablon doses to operators.
Insis-l tence on suitable training in radiation hazards, and detailed monitoring of doses to eyes and extremities, may be particularly helpful in reducing significantly these potentially dangerous I
doses to operators.
REDUCED DOSES TO PATIENTS In its publication Protection of the Patient in Diagnostic Radiology' the Commission recommended several changes of equip-ment ana technique that would reduce the dose to patients at a l
very moderate' cost.
It now appears that these changes are not being introduced as rapidly as the Commission had hoped.
The Commission therefore wishes to emphasise to manufacturers and radiological practitioners that these changes are effective and can be introduced at a cost that is much more than offset by the value of the reduction in detriment that they achieve.
j 4-STATSMENT FROM THE PARIS MEETING OF ICRP.
e In particular, the. commission recommends the wider use of rare-earth screens, and the selection'of materials with very low attenuation (such as those made of carbon fibre) for cassette
' faces, table tops and the non-opaque parts.of grids..
i REFERENCES j
1 1.
ICRP Publication 26.
Annals of the ICRP, Vol.
1, No. 3, 1977.
2.
Statement from the 1983 Washington meeting of the Commission.
1 Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 14, No.
1, 1984.
3.
Statement'from the 1984 Stockholm meeting of the Commission.
Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 14, No.
2,. 1984..
4.
ICRP Publication 33.
Annals of the ICRP,.Vol. 9, No.
1, 1982.
5.
ICRP Publication 34.
Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 9, Nos. 2/3, 1982.
i ICRP 1985-04-18 l
i l
l
.