ML20237J522

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards 860829 Fr Notice on Policy Statement Re Petitions for Rulemaking to Exempt Specific Radwaste Streams from Regulation (Ref 10CFR2).Trade or Prof Organizations May Be Encouraged to Submit Petitions.Comments Requested
ML20237J522
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/05/1986
From: Knapp M
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20237J504 List:
References
FOIA-87-506 NUDOCS 8708260205
Download: ML20237J522 (11)
v • d • e


Text

. _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -

  1. a asog'o UNITED STATES

[" ~ F ,,p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...../

September 5, 1986 i

ATTENTION: Commission L1censees l

SUBJECT:

POLICY STATEMENT ON RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN A Commission policy statement concerning petitions for rulemaking to exempt specific radioactive waste streams f rom regulation was published in the Federal Reaister on August 29, 1986. A copy of the published policy statement and accompanying staff implementation plan is enclosed for your information.

As a licensee, you may wish to encourage your trade or professional organizations to submit petitions following the guidance provided. You also may be contacted by such groups to help collect data or information to support petitions.

Any conenents or suggestions you may have concerning the policy statement or implementation plan would be welcome.

[

Malcolm R. Kn p, Chief Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management

Enclosure:

FR Notice dtd 8/29/86 pga me G7082%-[

x

/%

Federal Register / Vol. 5t No.168 / Friday, August 29. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 30839 The documents describe the kind of Pub. L 97-415. 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

information petitioners should file to Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs.

allow timely Commission review of the 186. 234. 68 Stat. 955,83 Stat. 444, as amended petition. They also describe decision (42 U.S.C. 2236. 2282); sec. 206. 88 Stat.1246 criteria the Commission will use and the (42 U.S.C. 5840). Sections 2400-2.006 also issued under sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat.

administrative procedures to be 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections followed in order to permit the 2.700a 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554.

Commission to act upon the petition in Sections 2.754. 2.760. 2770 also issued under 5 an expedited manner. These documents U.S C. 557. Section 2.790 also issued under respond to a mandate in the Low. Level sec.103. 68 Stat. 936, as amended (42 U.S.C.'

Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 and

)

Act of 1985 and are being published as 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2. 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and sec.

29. Pub. L 85-256. 71 Stat. 579, as amended EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27,1980 (42 U.S.C. 20391. Subpart K also issued under

} ADDRESSES: Scnd any written comments sec.189. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec.134, or suggestions to the Secretary of the Pub. L 97 425. 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.10154).

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appendix A also issued under sec. 6. Pub' L Commission, Washington. DC 20555;91-580,84 Stat 1437 (42 U.S.C. 2135).

Attention: Docketing and Service Appendix Dis also issued under sec.10. Pub.

Branch. Comments received within 60 L 99-240. 99 Stat.1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021b et days would be most helpful. Copies of 889 1 comments received by the Commission 2. Add the fol. lowing policy statement may be examined or copied for a fee at as Appendix B to Part 2:

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appendix B to Part 2--General Statement (NRC) Public Document Room,1717 li of Pokcy and Procedures Concerning Street NW, Washington. DC 20555. Petitions Pursuant to i 2.802 for Disposal of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Radioactive Waste Streams Delow Kitty S. Dragonette. Division of Waste Regulatory Concern:

Management. Office of Nuclear Material . I. ! introduction and Purpose Safety and Safeguards. U.S. Nuclear II. Standards and Procedures Regulatory Commission Washington, 111. Agreement States DC 20555, telephone: (301) 427-4300. IV. Future Action SUPPLEMENT ARY INFORM ATION: 1. Introduction and Purpose

~

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part g The Low. Level Radioactive Waste Policy Adm.ims . trative practice and

. Amendments Act of 1985 (the Act)(42 U.S.C.

2021b et seq.) was enacted January 1$.1986.

procedure, Classified business section to of the Act addresses disposal of NUCLEAR REGULATORY inf rmationJreedom ofinformation. wastes termed "below regulatory concern" Flazardous waste, Nuclear matenal, that would not need to be subject to COMMISSION Nuclear power plants and reactors, regulatory control to assure adequate 10 CFR Part 2 Penalties. Sex discrimination. protection of the public health and safety For the reasons set forth below and because of their radioactive content.The goal undu the authority of the Atomic f thir section of the Act is for the Radioactive Weste Below Regulatory Commission 1o make practical and timely Concern; Policy Statement Energy Act of1954 as amended, the decisiens to determine when wastes need not Energy Reorganization Act of1974. as go to a licensed low. level waste disposal site.

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is These decisions will be expressed through Commission, adopting the following amendments to rulemaking. Alternative disposal would ACTION: Final rule: policy statement. 10 CFR Part 2. conserve space in the existing sites while new sites are established and reduce the

SUMMARY

This notice contains a policy PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR costs of disposal. Rulemaking petitions may statement and staff implementation plan DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEDUREG play a role in the nationallow. level waste.

regarding expeditious handling of strategy outlined by the Act.The Act petitions for rulemaking to exempt 1. The authority citation for Part 2 is provides that the Commission establish specific radioactive waste streams from revised t read as follows: . procedures for acting expeditiously on disposal in a licensed low level waste Authority: Secs. 161.181. 68 Stat. 948. 953, petitions to exempt specific radioactive disposal facility. For the Nuclear _ as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201. 2231); sec.191. as waste streams from the Commission s amended. Pub. L 87-615,76 Stat. 409 (42 regulations.

Regulatory Commission (NRC) to grant U.S C. 22411: sec. 201,88 Stat.1242 as The purpose of this statement and these rulemaking petitions, the waste amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552. accompanying implementation plan is to streams must be sufficiently low in Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53. 62, establish the standards and procedures that concentration or quantities of 63. 81.103.104,105. 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933. 935, will permit the Commission to act upon radionuclides for the Commission to find 936.937.938.as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, rulemaking petitions in an expeditious that they may be disposed of by 2092. 2093. 2111, 2133, 2134. 2135); sec.102, manner as called for in the Act.This pohey alternative means without posing an Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 statement does not require petitioners to U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, os Stat.1248 (42 U S.C. present all the information outlined or undue risk to Eublic health and rafet . demonstrate that the decision criteria for The policy statement and plan are in the 5871). Sections 2.102. 2.103.2.104. 2 105. 2.721 )

also issued under secs. 102,103.104.105.183, expedited handling can be met. if such 1 nature of regulatory guidance for 189. 68 Stat. 936,937. 938,954,955 as expedited handling is not wanted. For implementing existing requirements for amended (42 U.S.C. 2132,2133,2134. 2135, example, petitions requesting exemption of rulemaking petitions in 10 CFR 2.802. 2233,2239). Section 2.105 also issued under concentrations of radionuclides that might S-074999 0005(00)(28-AUO-86-10 $ O44 i

F4700.FMT...[10,30].. 445-86 l

30840 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.108 / Friday, August 29, 1986 / Rules and Regulations result in mdividual exposures higher than 6. The waste is compatible with the it Future Action

  • those recommended m the decision criteria proposed treatment and disposal options. The Commission will conduct a generic may be submitted but expedited handling 7.The exemption is useful on a national cannot be unsured rulemaking on waste streams below scale, i e, it is likely to be used by a category regulatory concern based on a number of finally, this puhey statement and of hcensees or at least a significant portion of accompanying implementation plan are factors. The factors includepublic comments a category. received on the statement, the number and intended to facilitms handhng of rulemaking a. The radiological properties of the waste petinons for streams from muliiple producers types of petitons for rulemaking received. and and do not apply to m, dividuid licensin8 stream have been charactenzed on a national how effective the statement is in enabhng basis. the variabihty has been projected. and timely processing of petitions. A generic actmns on single producer waste. Individual the ruge of variation will not invahdate hcensees who r.eek approval for disposal of rulemaking is warranted to provide a more supportmg analyses. efficient and effective means of their umques wastes may continue to submit U.The waste characterization is based on accomplishing the goals reflected in Section their disposal plans under to Cl R 20.302(a) data on real wastet 10 of the Act. An advance notice of proposed it Standards and pnxedures 10. The disposed form of the waste has rulemaking will be published within 90 days.

The standards and procedures needed to ne8 8 eP ndal r recycle- Furthermore. the Commission may

11. Licensees can establish effective, penodically review all rulemakings in order handle petitions expeditiously fall into the followmg ihree categones:11)Information hcensable, and inspectable programs for the to assure that the relevant parameters have petitioners should file in support of the waste prior to transfer to demonstrate not changed significantly and may ask the compbance petitioner to submit updated information to petitions. (2) standards i 'r assessing the (

adequacy of the proposals and providing 12. The offsite treatment or disposal assist in the review.The Commission would pentmners insight on the decision crnena the medium (e.g.. sanitary landfill) does not need also have to confirm that approved Comnussion intends to us.s so that all t be controlled or monitored for radiation exemptions are consistent with any general relevant informational issues will be pr tg n purp ses. standards issued by EPA.

addressed in the petitmn. and (3) the internal 131he methods and procedures used t Dated at Washington DC this 25th day of NRC udministrutise procedures for handhng manage the wastes and to assess the impacts A ugu s t.1986.

udd t iin I at h PPI edt orre pon ng u con m nated For the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

implementation plan The staff plan was matenals. Samuel L N developed in response to Commission 14. There are no regulatory or legal Secretory to the Commission.

direcimn to provide detailed guidance on obstacles to use of the proposed treatment or Editorial Note: The staff implementation implementing the generai approach outhned disposal methods.

plan will not appear in the Code of Federal in this pohcy statement. Although staff rnay  !!!. Agreement States Regulation.

a eI n roce ing ti s he b"n The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff authnen a reasonable basis for accomplishing Amendments Act of1985 estabhshes a implementation of Nuclear Regulatory the approach Staff is to pubbsh revisions as nati nal system for dealing with low. level Commissica Policy on Radioactive NUREG documents and notice the waste disposal. The system assigns to the Wast ~selow r Regulatory Concern availabihty of the revisions m the Federal States responsibility for disposal capacity for p,gi,,ie,. Iow level wastes not exceeding Class C 1. Introduction As a pratical matter the pnmary wastes as defined in 10 CFR 61.55. Section %  !!. Information to Support Petitions information for tustifying and supportmg i the Act encourages a reduction in v6me A. General petitmns must be supphed by the petitioner if f such wastes subject to State responsiblitiy 1.10 CFR Part 2 Requirements the Commission is to act in an expedited f r disposal through the option of determining 2. Environmental Impacts manner if the petitioner wishes to assure that certain wastes need not go to existing 3. Economic Impact on Small Entities expedited action. the supporting information licensed disposal facilities or new sites 4. Computer Program should be complete enough so that licensed under 10 CFR Part tu or equivalent 5. Scope Commission action is prmiarily limited to State regulations If radiological safety can N B. Waste Characterization '

independent evaluation and administrate assured. such daposal would conserve space 1. Radiological Properties -

processmg in the existing sites while new sites are 2. Other Considerations i Dean on cnteria for judgmg whether to developed, and would serve as an important 3. Totals '

grant a petition involve the overall impacts or adjunct to volume reduction efforts in 4. Ba sis the proposed action. waste properties. and meeting the waste volume allocation limits 5. As Low as Reasonably Achievable implementation of the proposed exemption. set forth in the Act. Thus, these rulemakings (ALARA)

The fol;owing criteria address these areas. should aid the States m fulfilling their C. Waste Management Options i petitions which demonstrate that these responsibilities under the Act. Equity also D. Analyses '

ontena are met should be suitable for suggests that all waste generators be able to 1. Radiological impacts expedited action. take advantage of below regulatory concern 2. Other impacts

1. Disposal and treatment of the wastes as options as part of their waste management 3. Regulatory Analysis specified in the petition will result in no strategies. Generators in both Agreecment E. Recordkeeping and Reporting sigmficant impact on the quality of the and non-Agreement States will be competing 1. Surveys human environment for space in the existing sites and the concept 2. Reports
2. The maximum expected effectise dose should be applicable nationwide. F. Proposed Rule equivalent to an individual member of the Agreement States will play an important IIL Decision Criteria public does not exceed a few milbrem per role in ensuring that the system works on a IV. Administrative Handling year for normal operations and anticipated national basis and that it remains equitable.
events, States have been encouraging findmgs that 1. Introduction 3 The collective doses to the critical certain wastes are below regulatory concern population and general population are small. Section 10 of the Low-Level and do not have to go tn low-level waste 4 'Ihe potential radiological consequences sites. The States have been voicing thm, view Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments of accidents or equipment malfunction for a number of years through forums such as Act of1985 requires the Nuclear involving the wastes and intrusion into the Conference of Radiation Control Program Regulatory Commission (NRC) to disposal sites after loss of normal Directors. Rulemakings granting petitons will develop standards and procedures for institutional controls are not mgrJficant. be made a matter of compatibihty for expeditious handling of petitions for 5 The exemption will result in a significant Agreement States. Consequently, rulemaking rulemaking to exempt disposal of reduction in societal costs. wdl be coordinated with the States. radioactive waste determined to be S -m4999 (no400MM- AUG 46-10 $ 146) l F4700.FMT...D 6.30).. 415-83 I

I

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.168 / Friday. August 29, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 30841 below regulatory concern. The Act also When a rulemaking action is likely to When alternate calculational requires NRC to identify information have a significant economic impact on a methodologies are used, the petitioner petitioners should file. The Commission substantial number of small entities, the should provide all the specific input policy Statement provides general Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that needed to analyze the waste stream in guidance on how to meet the the impacts on these small entities must the petition using IMPACTS-URC and requirements of section 10 of the Act, be specifically addressed. lThe provide a rationale for all parameter outlines the overall approach to be Commission's size standard for selections. The Commission may clarify

{ followed, and lists decision criteria to be identifying a small entity is $3.5 million or modify the computer code from time

/ used. Implementation of the general or less in annual receipts except for to time. Petitioners choosing to use approach and decision criteria of the private practice physicians and NRC's code should be sure to use the Commission policy Statement involves educationalinstitutions where the current revision. The National Energy developing more detailed guidance and standard is $1 million or less in annual Software Center will provide changes to procedures. In accordance with receipts for private practice physicians persons obtaining the program from the Commission direction, the NRC staff has and 500 employees for educational Center. Users are encouraged to developed more detailed guidance and institutions. See 50 FR 50214. December comment on the code so that their procedures for implementation of the 9.1985.) For any rulemaking, the experience can be factored into future Commission policy Statement. This staff Commission must either certify that the revisions, guidance and procedures cover:(1) rule will not economically impact or will 5. Scope. The petitioner should define Information petitioners should file in have no significant economic impacts on the geographic area to which the support of petitions to enable expedited small entities, or present an analysis of proposed rule should apply and the processing. (2) discussion of the decision alternatives to minimire the impacts' reasons supporting any area less than criteria. and (3) administrative Decause rulemakings on below nationalin scope. It might be pouible to procedures to be followed. regulatory concern should provide relief justify limiting the scope to a lowlevel

11. Information to Support Petitions fft ti #8" eg a com a a "

ts tio f t is equi ement ;g ,

p; , as or l A. General should be straightforward but it must be export of wastes outside the compact or 1.10 CF/l Part 2 requirements. The ki yed a"b d " re a"8 on of the state should be addressed in the codified mformation requirements for rau na k petitions for rulemaking are outlined m. roposed rule responding to the petition, E h the Commission's regulations in to CFR 'g[a R ade aracterhodon 2.802(c). I'hese regulations require the .

o the economic petitioner to identify the problem and unpacts on small entities. The 1. Radiological / properties. The evaluation should m, clude estimates of propose solutions, to state the minimum radiological properties that petitioner's grounds for and interest in the costs for small entities m terms of should be described are the the action, and to provide supporting staff Ome and douar costs. Any concentration or contamination levels information and rationale. As a practical abnadves that couM accomplish the and the half lives, total quantity, and matter, the information demonstrating objective of the petitioner s proposed identities of the radionuclides present.

that the radiological hecith and safety rule while minimizing the economic The chemical and physical form of the impacts are so low as to be below - impact n small entities should be radionuclides should be addressed. All regulatory concern must be provided by presented.1he evaluation should radionuclides present or potentially the petitionerif the Commission is to act include an assessment of the present should be specified, including in an expedited manner, petitions for incremental recordkeeping and reporting radionuclides identified as trace rulemaking should therefore be c sts that would be associated with the penti ned rule change. constituents.The distribution of the submitted following the staff's radionuclides within the wastes should supplemental guidance and procedures 4. Computerprogram. The computer be noted (e.g., surface or volume to assure expedited action. program (lMpACT-BRC) the distribution). Mass and volurae average nrnism, n inunds to use t

2. En vironmentalimpacts. Petitions concentrations should also be independently evaluate petitioners, presented. For incineration, the must enable the Commission to make a finding of no significant impact on the "88"""*"u".ts of impacts is based on ,,Deradioactive content of the ash and quality of the human environment. Such ninus aste impacts Analysis noncombustible fraction should be t o ,, R R-Commission findings must be based on pe des ribed. The variability as a function an Environmental Assessment that ners f pr cess variation and variation cmnphes with to CFR 51.30 and must are encouraged to consult NUREG/CR-um ng licensees should be addressed meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.32. 3585 in order to better understand the " ""

Commission's information needs. The 1hese requirements include addressmg 2. Other considerations. An the reed for the proposed action, IMPACTS-DRC program will be distributed by the National Energy understanding of nonradiological identifying alternatives, and assessing pr perties of the waste stream is needed Software Center on floppy diskettes for the potential environmental impacts of t assure that they are ccnsistent with the proposed action and alternatives. use on ibm-pC and compatible computers. The Center's address is 9700 the proposed disposal method and to Consistent with 10 CFR 51.41 the evaluate the adequacy of the analysis of petitioner should submit the information South Cus Avenue. Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne. Illinois 00439. The the radiological impacts. (NRC's needed to meet these requirements and deregulation of the radioactive content users guide for IMPACTS-URC will be do so in a manner that permits would not relieve licensees from the published as a draf t Volume !! of mdependent evaluation by the applicable rules of other agencies which NUREG/CR-3585. petitioners may Commission of the data and cover the nonradiological properties.)

methodology used and the conclusions evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity using NRC's code,if desired. The petitioner should provide a detailed reached. description of the waste materials.

3. Economic impact on small entitie; ' roninmes ai end of arucle including their origin chemical S 074999 (W7(00V8 AUG.rA103149)

F4700.FMT. 416.30j.. 4-15-80

30842 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.168 / Friday, August 29, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 4

composition, physical state. volume, and estimated for the petitioned scope. A Considerable data and experience mass.

concentration distribution would be a should be available to allow The term "atream" only means wastes helpful tool in characte-izing the waste characterizing the radiological content produced from a common set of stream. For example, the petitioner and composition of the waste stream circumstances and possessing common could indicate that 10% of the wastes being addressed in the petition:The characteristics. It does not mean fall in the range of 1-10 picocuries per same principles outlir.ed in 10 CFR

" liquid" although the stream may be in a gram,60% fall in the 10-100 range, and 61.55(a)(8) may be applied i.e., values liquid form (e g., waste oil). The wastes 30% in the 100-1,000 range, Such based on direct measurements, indirect may be resin beads, laboratory distribution would permit more realistic methods related to measurements, or glassware, or any other form. Waste assessment ofimpacts in addition to form includes packages or containers material accountability.

conservative bounding estimates using 5. As low os is reasonobly ochievable used to manage (i.e. store, handle. ship, maximum values. In any case, the or dispose) the wastes. The variability (ALARA/. The Commission's ALARA typical quantities produced per requirement in 10 CFR 20.1(c) applies to and potential changes in the waste form generator and an estimate of the efforts by licensees to maintain as u function of process variation should geographic distribution of the generators radiation exposures and releases of be addressed. The variation among should be described.

licensees should be described and radioactive materials in effluents to

4. Basis. The basis for the waste unrestricted areas us low is reasonably bounded. . stream characterization should be Compatibility with requirements provided. The basis for characterization achievable. to CFR part 50. Appendix 1.

associated with the proposed of the wastes and the total quantities describes ALARA for radioactive management options should be carefully produced should be described. materials in light water reactor effluents.

presented. For example,if the petitioner Monitoring, analytical data, and Licensee compliance with 10 CFR 20.1(c) proposes that the wastes be incinerated, calculations should be specified. Actual is a precondition to acceptance by NRC the waste form should be shown to be of any waste stream as exempt.

measurements or values that can be compatible with the temperatures, flow Therefore, a description should be related to measurements to confirm rates, feed rates, and other operating calculations are important. The provided of reasonable procedures that parameters of typicalincinerators that description of the bases should include waste generators would be expected to may be used. The petitioner should use to minimize radiation exposures quality assurance aspects. ,For example, resulting from the disposal of the identify the minimum requirements an the petitioner should desenbe the incinerator must meet to assure number of samples measured, the exempt waste, e.g., removal of surface adequate combustion. The form and representativeness of the samples, and contamination.These procedures are volume of the ash and other residue the appropriateness of the instruments assumed to apply prior to characterizing from incineration should be described. the waste to be exempted.

used. The statistical confidence in the Similar consideration for disposal at estimates should be evaluated. If the sanitary landfills or hazardous waste C. IVaste Management Options elitioner conducted any surveys of sites should be addressed. For example, icensees or relied on surveys by others The management options that the wastes that include components or to help quantify the amount and content Commission can deal with expeditiously properties that would qualify the waste of wastes, they should be desenbed. are those described in NUREG/CR-3585.

as a hazardous waste under epa rules Market information might be useful m. Onsite options include incineration and in 40 CFR parts 200 through 265 should characterizing waste generation on a burial. Offsite options are municipag not be proposed for disposal at a national basis. Designation as a " trace waste disposal facilities (sanitary municipal landfill. landfills), municipal waste incinerators.

concentration" should be related to The potential for recycle should be specified detection limits, but detection hazardous disposal facilities, and presented. possible treatment, such as q limits themselves are not sufficient hazardous waste incinerators.

shredding, the would reduce the recycle reason to dismirs trace concentrations Retreatment, e.g., shredding of potential should be described. Both the otherwise potentially recyclable when methods exist to infer resource value (e.g., salvageable metals) concentration. materials, is a potential adjunct to either and the functional usefulness (e.g., For estimates of the radionuclides onsite or offsite options. Combinations  ;

usable tools) should be addressed. Both content of the waste stream, the of these options can also be evaluated. <

short and long-term potentials for petitioner may take advantage of For example, wastes may be incinerated recycle are of significant concern to the licensee experience in classifying on site and the ash shipped to a sanitary Commission. wastes for disposal at low-level waste landfill. The favored disposal options

3. Totals. A subsequent rulemaking sites. For example, the transuranic should be identified and fully described.

based upon an accepted petition is radionuclides content of the wastes The petitioner should evaluate a full generic and the exemption will hkely be would likely be below detection limits, range of options. The practicality of the i used nationwide. Therefore, to the but licensees have already established proposed option (s) should be presented.

extent possible, the petitioner should {

scaling factors for estimating the Waste compatibility discussed earlier is estimate the number of NRC and transuranic content of wastes as part of one aspect. The national availability Agreement State licensees that produce complying with 10 CFR part 61 waste and distribution of the option is another.

the waste, the annual volumes and classification requirements. Waste Updates on national regulations and miss, and the total annual quantities of generators use generic scaling factors laws pertaining to the proposed option each radionuclides that would be and factors established for their specific should be described and might have to disposed of. The estimates should ,

wastes through sophisticated analyses. be considered in selecting acceptable j include the current situation and the The scaling factors are used to infer the options.

likely variability over the reasonably presence and concentrations of many i

foreseeable future, if the petition is for a D. Analyses I radionuclides based on measurement of proposed rule that will be limited to less only a few nuclides. The classification To support and justify the submittal, than national scope (e g , a state or scheme in 10 CFR part 61 has been in compact region) the totals should be each petitioner should include analyses i effect since December 1983. of the radiologicalimpacts associated i b 074990 (XM(ntn(28- A UG 86- 10 $ 152)  !

i F4700.FMT...[16,30].. 4 15-86 i i

_- k

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.168 / Friday, August 29, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 30843 with handhng. transport, and disposal of indicate how likely the extreme case may be higher on an indwidual basis but the specific wastes. Any incremental may be). In addition, the petitioner's 'he exposures and the number of nonradjological impacts shouM be analysis should also address potential exposed individuals are more ascessed. Also the petitioner should use exposures from handling and transport predictable and the exposures are short.

the ar.alyses to prepare and submit a accidents. The petitioner's analysis of term. The critical group should be the detailed regulatory analysis with the accidents should include all segment of the population most highly petition. assumptions, data, and results to exposed exclusive of radiation workers.

1. Radiologico/ impacts. The facilitate review. The potential for The other part is the general population evaluation of radiologicalimpacts shipment of the entire waste stream to where the expected exposures and size should distinguish between expected one or a few facilities should be of the exposed population are less and potential exporures and events. assessed. This scenario currently exists predictable, potential individual Impacts should be assessed for the for 10 CFR 20.300 exempted liquid exposyres are probably much smaller, expected concentrations and quantities scintillation wastes and might result and exposures may extend over longer of radionuclides. The petitioner should from very limited numbers of treatment timeframes. Presentation of the quantitatively evaluate the impacts from facilities or decontamination services. population exposures in these two parts the proposed waste for each option The analysis of impact 3 for transport, should contribute to a more meaningful requested. The petitioner should clearly handling. and disposal should include cost / benefit analysis.

relate the analytical findings to specific evaluation of this potential circumstance 2. Oti7erimpacts. The NRC action to provisions in the recommended rule unless it can be clearly ruled out. exempt the radiological content of the changes. For example, the basis for each As suggested in Paragraph 89 on page wastes would not relieve persons recommended radionuclides limit should 20 of ICRp Publication 46 8: handling, processing, or disposing of the be clearly explained? Exception from regulation and wastes from requirements applicable to The radiological impacts included in requirements on these bases should not be the nonradiotogical prope*tts. The NUREG/CR-3585 and in NRC's used to make it possible to dispose of large petition should demonstrate that the computer program (IMPAC'13-BRC) quantities of radioactive materialin diluted nonradiological properties of the cover exposures to workers and f rm. or in dmded portions, causin8 radioactive waste are the same as the individual members of the public and widespre d p lluti n which would eventually nonradioactive materials normally cumulative population exposures. The build up high dose levels by the addition of handled and disposed of by the program calculates both external direct "

pr Posed methods. If the he e u ed to rnpt ie a t, gamma exposures and exposures from ,

nonradiological properties are simd, ar isolation or treatment have been made ingested or inhaled radionuclides. NRC's temporanly harmless but that imply large and the volumes of exempted waste computer program can be used to potential for release and could give nse to would not impact the normal operations.

calculate the expected radiological high indnidual doses or high collective doses. there should be no incremental impacts.

impacts from generator activities, if the petitioner lo aware of other transportation, treatment, disposal The analysis of expected radiological mpacts should clearly address: impacts which should be considered f.or operalioas. and post. disposal inputs -The maximum individual exposures. the specific wastes in the petition, the

'Ihe prngram can anah7e a wide tan" petitioner should also address the

-The critical group exposures of management options including _lhe cumulative population additional impacts.

onsite treatment and disposal by ihe exposures. 3. Regulatory analysis. In order to generator. shipment to munk ipal uaste The maximum individual exposure expedite subsequent rulemaking if the management facilities. and shipment to evaluation should indude exposures to petition is granted, the analysis should hazardous waste management facilities. all members of the public who may be also address the topics NRC must The program covers impacts beginning exposed beginning with the initial address in a Regulatory Analysis (e g..

with initial handling and treatment by handling at the generator's facility see NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 1, the generator through final disposal of through post-closure. Both internal " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the all the radionuclides contained in the uptake and external exposures should U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission").'

waste stream. Sequential treatment. be included. The individual may be a Following the Regulatory Analysis sorting, and incineration onsite and at format will structure the analytical member of the general population (e g.,

municipal and hazardous facilities can consumer of contaminated ground findings, present the bases for decisions.

be assessed. Disposal of resulting ash water) or a person receiving the and address the environmental and residue is included. post-disposal exposure from his or her occupation. assessment requirements. The topics impacts that can be calculated include Anyone who may be exposed and is not a re:

releases due to mtrusion. ground water (1) A statement of theproblem. This migra tion. erosion, and leachate a radiation worker should be considered a member of the public. For example, a topic is the need for determining which accumulation. The program thus worker at a sanitary landfill or a wastes may be safely disposed of by addresses both expected and potential commercial trash truck driver would not means other than shipment to licensed post-disposal impacts. be a radiation worker. However, low level waste sites.

The petitioner's analysis of transport occupational exposures to radiation (2) Alternatives. All reasonable impacts should be based on a workers should be evaluated and alternatives to the proposed action reasonably expected spacial distribution considered in the cost / benefit analysis should be described. The no action or of licensees and waste treatment and of the incrementalimpacts between status quo alternative should always be disposal facihties which will accept the disposal at a licensed facility and the included.

wastes. The petitioner should address requested disposal options. (3) Consequences. This topic calls for parameters such as average and The total population exposures can be an analysis of the impacts of each extreme transport distances. The estimated and summed in two parts.

petitioner's analysis should address the alternative described. The factors the One part is the srnaller critical group petitioner should address include costs basis for parameter selection and (usually the occupationally exposed and benefits and practical or legal charactenze the expected patterns (e g.. population) where potential exposures constraints. Cost / benefit considerations S-O'4994 0009(00K28- AUG-86-10 5154)

F4700.FMT...[16,30].. 4-15-86

sid,44 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.168 / Friday. August 29, 1986 / Rules and Regulations and constraints are discussed - fully to implementation. For most radioactive aodress whether changes in technical ufter this listing of topics. materials, the general DOT threshold specifications or licenses may be (4) Decision rationale. This ;opic is a limits of 0.002 microcuries per gram needed.

conclusions statement that explains why apply. llowever, the DOTissued a final the preferred alternative (s) should be rule on June 6.1985 (50 FR 23811) that F. ProposedRule adopted amended 49 CFR part 173 to exempt low

[5) /mp/ementation. This topic cos ers specific activity wastes as described in The petition should include the text the steps and schedules for actual for the proposed rule (see 10 CFR NRC's rules in 10 CFR 20.300. (Note that implementation of the proposed rule. DOT emphasized that the wastes remain 2.802(c)(1)).The proposed text should The petitioner should address the topic subject to the provisions related to other cover at least the following:

from the waste generator's perspective hazards; see 49 CFR 173.425(d).) (1) The quantity and/or concentration and include surveys discussed under limit for each radionuclides present Topic ill.A.5. Recordkeeping and E RecordAeeping and Reporting. (trace radionuclides could be lumped Reportink together with a totallimit):

A cost / benefit discussion is an 1. Surveys. Existing regulations in 610 essential part of both environmental and CFR 20.201 establish general NRC (2) A method to deal with regulatory Spact considerations and is, radionuclides mixtures; requirements for performing surveys as therefore. essential to expedited necessary to comply w,th i part 20. (3) The nonradiological specifications handling. The discussion should focus Licensees would have to conduct necessary to adequatel3, define the on expected exposures and realistic surveys of the waste properties prior to waste; and .

concentrations or quantities of release for exempt disposal to verify (4) The specific method (s) of exempt -

radsonur.lides. The cost / benefit that the waste meets the prescribed disposal.

discussion should include the limits. Such survey programs raight If practicable, and if the supporting differential exposure and economic consist of (1) fairly comprehensive information indicates the need, the text costs between disposal at a licensed initial samplin,q and analysis to confirm should also address other features such low-level waste disposal site and the that the licensee's wastes will fall below at annuallimits on each generator in proposed option (s), it may also include the limits (2) periodic analysis as part of terms of volume, mass, or total qualitative benefits. Reduced hazards a process or quality control program to from not stonng hazardous or radioactivity, and administrative or confirm the initial findings, and (3) a procedural requirements includ' combustible materials might be a routine survey program prior to release benefit. Elimination or reduction of the process controls, surveys, etc., , have of wastes to monitor for gross been discussed. The text should not hazardous properties (e.g., by irregularities. To show that licensees incineration) could be another. include the various dose limits used to can be expected to conduct compliance Detrimental costs might also be justify the proposed radionuclides limits.

surveys prior to waste transfer, the qualitative such as loss of space in petitioner should describe'a sample mumcipal or hazardous waste sites. The 111. Decision Criteria survey program. The three components economic impact on the licensed site just discussed should be included,if operations (tc., loss of income from The Commission policy statement appropriate, for the waste stream. establishes that the following criteria

~

diverted wastes) and its potential effect Records of the surveys would be on the atadability of economic and safe should be used by staff as guidelines for maintained for inspection. acting on a petition. Each criterion is disposal should be addressed. Costs of surveys and venfying compliance 2 & orts.

P The petitioner should repeated and staff views on discussed under Topic II.E. assume that annual reports on disposals implementation are discussed.

Recordkeeping and Reporting should will be required and that associated 1. Disposal and treatment of the also be covered. The cost / benefit should recordkeeping to generate the reports wastes as specified in the petition will also reflect ALARA considerations. will be imposed. Minimum information result in no significant impact on the Radiation worker exposure, pubhc in the annual reports initially might quality of the human environment.

exposure, and environmental releases include the type of waste,its volume,its Discussion: Unless this finding can be might be appropriate in ALARA estimated curie content, and the place made during information submitted by considerations. In weighing the and manner of disposal. Increased the petitioner, the Commission must exposure costs and economic costs for recordkeeping and reportin8 light-water-cooled nuclear reactor prepare an EnvironmentalImpact requirements would address wastes, the petitioner could use, for Statement to more fully examine the uncertainties in projecting future proposed action, alternatives to the l perspectn e, the $1.000 per person. rem volumes or amounts of wastes and propond action, and associated guideline in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1. NRC's responsibility to consider the potentialimpacts of alternatives.

for effluent releases from these facilities. cumulative impacts of multiple The petitioner should identify any exemptions. When these requirements Preparation would likely involve j legal or regulatory constramts that might are proposed. Office of Management contractual support and would likely impact implementation of the petitioned and Budget (OMB) approval is required. take 2 years or more to complete. The change. The compatibility of the waste To facilitate NRC filing for OMB Commission could not act in the petition with the proposed method of disposal approval, the petitioner should include in an expedited manner.

was discussed under Topic !!.B.2. Other any duplicating or overlapping reporting 2. The maximum expected effective constraints might stem from Department requirements, the number and type of d se equivalent to an individual of Transportation (DOT) labeling, expected respondents, suggestions for member of the public does not exceed a placardmg, and manifesting minimizing the burden, estimates of the few millirem per year for normal requ.rements for radioactive materials. staff hours and costs to prepare the operations and anticipated events.

Since the receiving facdity will not be reports and keep the records, and a brief Discussion:The effective dose I; censed to receive radioactive description of the basis for the equivalent means the ICRP Publication materials. this could be an impediment estimates. The petitioner should also 26 and 30 8 sum of the dose from  !

s.o w mww A Ua -a. io.3157)

F4700.FMT...p o.30).. 445-80

)

J l

Federal Register / Vol. 5t No.168 / Friday, August 29, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 30845 l external exposure and the dose incurred health effects. this level of risk corresponds objectives include annual total body { i from that year's intake of radionuclides, to an annual dose of the order of 01 mSv 110 doses of 3 millirems for liquid effluents I' While a ranga of 1-10 millirem per year mithremi- and 5 millirems for gaseous effluents. if might be acceptable, a one millireni dose H mu, in m st practical cases. the need onsite incineration at reactors is would facilitate expedited processing. [s s m" n to jde h- el' rce r petitioned for as a speci[ied disposal Higher doses may require mor" waste stream should be subject to control. option, the petitioner should address extensive justification. Based on a Consideration should be given to the need for how the proposed acHvity, combined mortality risk coefficient for induced any optimization of radiation protection and with all other effluents from the sites, j cancer and hereditary effects of 2x10" to the possibihty that many practices and would not exceed the design objective per tem (ICRP Publication 26), radiation sources of the same kind could combine now doses in Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50.

exposure at a level of millirem per year or in the future so that their total effect may a h sour 3. The collective doses to the critical l would result in an annual mortality risk [g';"

""8 Population and general population are of 2x10' (i.e.,2x-* cffects/remx-3 rem / f[ 8 8*

, , , '["" ;d do, equ alent j be;ow 0.1 mSv [10 millirem) to individuals in small.

yead , the %:sl group. This may involve Discussion An additional advantage

, The EPA is developing criteria for osse 3sments of dose commitments and of the when individual doses are no more than identifying low level radioactive waste collectis e dose per unit practice or source. in 1 millirem per year is that the collective that may be below regulatory concern order 'o ensure that the individual dose requirement will not be exceeded now or m. doses are then summations over very as part of that agency's development of general environmental standards for the future. It seems almost certain that the small exposures. The coHective dose I low. level waste disposal. The EPA total ennual dose to a single individual from evaluation is primarily for mformation published an Advance Notice of exemoted s urces will be less than ten times purposes, cost / benefit considerations, the contnbution from the exempted source and to confirm the finding of no Proposed Rulemaking on August 31,1983 Eivir g the highest individual dose. This (48 FR 39563) and currently hopes to significant impact on the quality of the aspect could. therefore, be allowed for by human environment. This determination publish proposed standards m early redacing the annualindividual dose 1987. Other EPA standards that the exemption enterion from 0.1 to 0.01 mSv Do w 11 be made based on in(ormation doses can be compared to are the Clean available ouring the review of each to t milbrem).

Air Act radioactive release standard of petition in concert with criterion 5. Staff The NRC staff recognizes that at times, notes that the United Kingdom policy on 25 mi rems r r m 40 CFR 1 human reactions are not so strictly individual dose limits includes an i body limit of 25 millirems in 40 CFR 190[ g v[rned by quantative ensideraties associated collective dose criterion.

as t e ICRI excerpt suggests. (The collective dose en,terion must be l One millirem is very small when Nevertheless, the 10' per year value met in addition to the individuallimits).

i compared to naturally occurring l background doses from cosmic and seems asut as lo,w as practicable, in ICRP Publication 46. a similar terrestrial sources. Background doses in

  • m8 t Wt lu8 y 818D 8nt crHerion is stated.

the United States are typically in the

" "' 4. The potential radiological

'"rbn$ted ki[gdo n's 100-120 millirems per year sange Radiological Protection Board has c nsequences f accidentsor equipment exclusive of the lung doses from radon. issued generic guidtsrne on de minimis malfuncti n inv Iving the wastes and l

One millirem is also small when intrusi n int disposal sites after loss of dose levels (ASP-7, January 1985)

  • that compared to the annual 500 rnillirem ". rmal mstHunonal cads are not has status similar to Federal Radiation doce limit for individual members of the Guidance issued by the President in this sign cant generaI pubhc in Federal Radiation

, country The Board identified effective Mscussion: P tential doses from Council guidance. accidents or intrusion should be well

. dose equivalents of 5 millirem per year An important feature is that doses of as insignificant when members of the within public exposure limits and take up to 1 millirem from the m, dividual int account the probability or public make their decisions. The 5 j petition should minimize concerns over possibility of such events. In a statement millirem hmit represents the total doae exposure to multiple exempted waste dated April 26,1986f the International contribution from all exempted streams. ICRP Publication 40 addressed practices. For individual practices, the Commission on Radiological Protection individual dose limits and other issues Board divided by 10 (i.e. 0.5 millirem (ICRP) stated that the ICRP's present related to exemptions and stated,in view is that the principal dose limit for per year) to account for exposures from paragraphs 83 and 84 on page 19: multiple practices. These limits are members of the public is.100 millirems in Many radiation exposures routinely applied generically. Less conservatism a year. The ICRP further stated that the encountered in radiation protection. under the well defined circumstances 500 millirem limit from ICRP Publication particularly those received by members of the associated with specific waste streams 26 could be used as a . subsidiary limit public, are very small by companson with provided the lifetime average does not dose hmits or natural background. and are and disposal options envisaged in this NRC statement seems justified. In a exceed the principal limit.

well below dose levels at which the Consequently, potential exposures from appearance of deleterious health effects has proposed policy statement dated May,6, 1985,* the Canadian Atomic Energy accidents or unexpected events would been demonstrated. In individual related assessments. It is widely recognized that Control Board specifically addressed be more easily justified if they are well there are radiation doses that are so small disposal of specific wastes that are of no below 100 millirem per year principal that they involve risks that would be regulatory concern. An individual does limit.

regarded as negligable by the exposed limit of 5 millirems'per year was 5. The exemption will result in a individuals. Studies of comparative risks proposd for this limited application. significant reduction in societal costs.

t es pea tofn icat t an annual A maximum individual exposure of1 D/scussione When the economic and probabihty of death of the order of 10' per millirem per year is also consistent with exposure costs associated with the year or less is not taken into account by Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix exemption are compared to disposal at a individuals in their decisions as to actions I specifies design objective doses for licensed low-level waste site there that could influence their risks. Ilsing operationallight. water cooled nuclear should be a significant reduction in I rounded done response factors for induced power reacter effluents. These design costs.

S-074999 0011(00K28-A UG-86-10 $2M F4700.FMT...[10,30)..A-15-80 l

______J

30846 Federal Regiatee / Vol. 51, No.168 / Friday, August 29, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 6.The waste is compatible with the and projected waste characteristics, expeditious action on the petitions. In proposed treatment and disposal . reporting on the wastes actually addition, the Handbook notes general options.

transferred for below regulatory concern scheduling advice that proposed rules to Discussion:This criterion relates to disposal will be important and should grant petitions should be published in n-the nonradiological properties of the be practical. 12 months after acceptance and "

wastes. For example, disposal of 12. The offsite treatment or disposal publication for comment. Proposed rules radioactive wastes that also qualify as a medium (e.g., sanitary landfill) does not will be forwarded to the Commission on nonradiological hazardous material need to be controlled or monitored for a 6-month schedule to the extent /

should be proposed for disposal radiation protection purposes, permitted by resource limits. the nature methods in accord with EPA regulations 1/

Discussion:The evaluation of and extent of public comments, and (e.g., incineration or disposal at a expected exposures should provide the internal Control of Rulemakings hazardous waste facility). Also, wastes basis for meeting this criterion.

proposed for incineration should be procedures. Rulemakings involving However, this is an area where NRC power reactors must be reviewed by the combustible and wastes proposed for will have a continuing responsibility as landfills should be appropriate for Committee on Review of Generic multiple petitions are processed. Requirements prior to publication.

disposal in typical landfills anywhere in Reporting on actual disposals will help the nation. Proposed rules involving reactors will NRC address this responsibility and then, fore be forwarded lo the 7.The exemption is useful on a monitor the adequacy of the limits national scale, i.e., it is likely to be used Commission on a 7-month schedule to included in the exempted disposals. the extent permitted by resources, bv a category of licensees or at least a 13. The methods and procedures used su n;ficant portion of a category. comments, and approval procedures. In to manage the wastes and to assess the Discussion: Rulemaking is usually not both cases, every effort will be made to impacts are no different from those that warranted for wastes involving a single publish proposed rules no later than 12 would be applied to the corresponding months after noticing for public licensee, whether a continuing disposal uncontaminated materials.

activity or a one. time disposal. Such comment.

Discussion: Since the receiving facility Although the procedures in Part'11 of -

proposals by individual licensees are will not be licensed for radioactive ncrmally procceed as licensing actions materials, special handling or measures NUREG/BR-0053 include fast track under 10 CfR 20.302(u). should not be required at the processing processing, the nature of the anticipated

6. 'lhe radiological properties of the or disposal sites because of the petitions do not fully comply with the weste stream have been characterized radioactive content of the wastes.This decision .

criteria to follow this on a national basis, the variability has criterion also means that realistic been projected, and te range of assumptions about the disposal methods "i'7me S f.the key features of the vanation will not in {alidate supporting have been made m estimatmg handling procedures include the arealyses. exposures. follow ng steps for complete and fully Jiscussion:One cf the merits of 14. There are no regulatory or legal supported petitions.

d whng with specifi: waste streams is obstacles to use of the proposed 1. Petitioners may c,onfer on il at the actual properties of the waste treatment or disposal methods. pr cedural matters with the staff before stream can be relicil upon in estimating Discussion: To have practical use, the filing a petition for rulemaking. Requests i.r pacts rather than conservative disposal option must be available. For to conin on procedural matters should beunding parameters. The specific example,if all hazardous waste be addressed to: The Director, Division pathways that must be considered can facilities that accept offsite wastes are of Rules and Records, Office of be hmited to manageable numbers. The ,

closed or are not reasonably distributed, Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory expected fate can be credibly limited the practicality of an exemption to allow Con. mission, Washington, DC 20555, based on the properties. disposal at such sites is questionable. Attention: Chief, Rules and Procedures

9. The waste characterization is based Since the receiving facility will not be Branch.

on data on real wastes, licensed for radioactive materials, 2. Petitions should be addressed to:

Discussion: Actual data on real waste shipments to landfills or hazardous The Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory provide reasonable assurance that the waste facilities should not require Commission, Washington, DC 20555, wate characte -ization is accurate. identification as radioactive materials. Attention: Docketing and Service

10. The disposed form of the waste Branch. In keeping with 10 CFR 2.802(f),

h;a neg!igible potential for recycle. it,. Adm.mistrat.ive lland!m.g petitioners will be promptly informed if Discussio::: Eliminating the Agency procedures for expeditious the petition meets the threshold ur. certainties associated with recycle is handiing of petitions for rulemaking requirements for a petition for necessary to expediticas handling. were initially published in 1982 in rulemaking in 10 CFR 2.802(c) and can (

Specifying specific wastes and specific NUREG/BR-.0053, " Regulations be processed in accordance with this methods of disposal narrows the Handbook."8 The procedures are implementation plan. Ordinarily this pathways and timeframes to contained in Part 11 of the Handbook ma nageable numbers.

determination will be made within 30 $

and were most recently revised in days after receipt of the petition.

11. Licensees can establish effective, September 1985. Because of resource 3. Following this determination, the licensable, and inspectable programs for limitations and other factors these petition will be noticed in the Federal the waste prior to transfer to procedures have not been fully Register for a public comment period of demonstrate compliance, implemented. Petit. ions for rulernaking at least 60 days.

Discussion Survey progra ns and submitted in accordance with the 4. The petitioner will be provided 4tdity control proprams will be needed Commission's policy statement and this copies of all comments received, to provide reasonable assurance that staff implementation plan will be scheduling information, and periodic actual wastes disposed of under an processed in full compliance with these status reports.

exemption rule meet the specified procedures. These procedures coupled The procedures in NUREC/BR-0053 pt.rameters. Since disposal would be with agency policy to complete all also include the process for denial and exempted based on both established rulemaking within 2 yeen will provide withdrawal of petitions.

S-07 M N tot 2t00K28- AUG-86-10 52 0h F4700.FMT,..[10,30].. 4-15-86

0 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.108 / Friday, August 29, 1986 / Rules and Regulations ,

30847 Footnotes:

' Copies of NUREC/BR-0053. NUREC/BR-0058 and NUREC/CR-3585 may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2000 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office. P.O. Box 37082. Washington. DC 20013-7082. Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical information Service. U.S.

Department of Commerce 5185 Port Royal Road, Springfield. VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room.1717 11 Street. NW, Washington. DC 20555.

8 ICRP Publication 48. " Radiation.

Protection Principles for the Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste." adopted July 1985.

8 ICRP Publication 28 " Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection." adopted January 17, 1977. ICRP Publication 30. " Limits for intake f of Radionuclides by Workers." adopted July l 1978.

l 4 Copies of the United Kingdom's document j are available for inspection as enclosures to SECY-85-147A { relating to to CFR Part 20) dated July 25,1985 in the Commission's Public Document Room.171711 Street NVw.

Washington, DC 20555. The United Kingdom documents are available for sale from: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. P.O. Box 569.

London SE19NH, United Kingdom, as Advice document ASP-7 and a related technical report. "The Significance of Small Doses of Radiation to Members of the Public." NRPB-R175.

  • Copies of the Canadian document are available for inspection as an enclosure to SECY-85-147A (relating to to CFR Part 20) dated July 25,1985 in the Commission's Pubhc Document Room.1717 H Street NW, Washington. DC 20555. The Canadian document was issued as Consultative Document C-85. "The Basis for Exempting the Disposal of Certain Radioactive Materials from Licensing" by the Atomic Energy Control Board, P.O. Box 1046. Ottawa.

Ontario, Canada, KIP 5S9.

'ICRP/85/G-03. " Statement from the 1985 Paris Meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protect."1985-04-28.

(FR Doc. 86-19550 Filed 6-28-88: 8.45 am)

SILUNG C00E Fas4.et-M

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION nRev cuss uak l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 '0"'Sj,*juseam was .oe PERMIT No. 0 87 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 t

(

(

i I

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20237J522&oldid=3273477"