ML20238C633

Forwards marked-up Draft Policy Statement Re 10CFR20 Concerning Disposal of Radwastes Below Regulatory Concern

ML20238C633
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/21/1986
From:	Wigginton S NRC
To:	Shelton B NRC
Shared Package
ML20238C622	List: ML20238C621 ML20238C633 ML20238C647 ML20238C657 ML20238C676 ML20238C683 ML20238C687 ML20238C700 ML20238C736 ML20238C742 ML20238C747
References
FOIA-87-506 NUDOCS 8709100263
Download: ML20238C633 (45)

Text

Dete ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP 4/21/86 TO: (Name. omco symbol, room number, initials Date building, Agency / Post)

3. BRENDA SHELTON W-548 1

~

2.

3.

4.

Action IFue Note and Return Approval ' 'or

• Clearange Per Conversation As Requested Fo.' Correction Prepare Rept,L Circulate For Y9ur information See Me Comment investigate Signature Coordination . Justify REMARKS Attached is a copy of the Policy Statement regarding disposal of Radioactive Wastes that are "below regulatory concern"'that John mentioned to you in his telephone conversation. I was mistakenly under the impression that we had already sent a copy over to you. Apparently, I mis-took it for another of several that I have bean sent recently. At any rate, l ~~~e-e?.~ you will have to excuse all the markings .= :;t - =.m. - -

on this copy. We have just completed most of our review on it.

Do NoT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions .

l FRoM:(Name org, symbot Age cy/ Post) Room No.-Bldg.

Sarah Wigginton, RPB

['. annn MNRR Phone No.

17752 l 8041-102 OFTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)

• e i 1982 o - aat-s s m2) FPu lYcN-11.206

\

8709100263 870904 PDR FOIA DLSONB7-506 PDR.

f g

e

'. ?.6 : 7 o i

i 1

3 tqlth t 90 d i

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; f $b&mh AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i ACTION: Policy [tatement.

l SUMARY: Thispolicystatementpresentstheproceduresandstandardsthe/Vucitsd Commission will use in considering and acting on petitions for rulemaking to Oph y ;

j i

gou.sWE exempt specific radioactive waste streams from regulation due to the presence

w. h o%

i of radionuclides. .The waste streams must contain sufficiently low l b, b p - 1 l

5cb*4 concentrations or quantities of radionuclides as to be below regulatory concern j es I from a public health and safety point of view. The statement describes the l

P(<hilinformation petitioners should file, decision criteria the Ocmission will use, This statement '

andtheadministrative$rocedurestheCommissionwillfollow.

r:* \

fulfills the mandate in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 to establish such standards and procedures.

O EFFECTIVE DATE: 45daysafterpublication]  :

, ADDRESSEES:

@m .

Send any written comments or suggestions to the Secretary of the l

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of cnmments received by the l

~

I l

l c \;

, [7590-01)

I Commission may be examined W1 fu G

• h 7 at the PRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street + %, j Washington, DC 20555. k (T I

j l

l l

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty S. Dragonette, Division of Waste l 1

Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 427-4300. J l

l 1

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

\

$c.LSL b I. Introduction and Purpose II. 01scussion ky III. Standards and Procedures vf A. Information Required to Support Petitions

1. General l l

2. Waste Characterization l l

3. Management Options

4. Analyses

5. Implementation

6. Suggested Rule Change l

B. Decision Criteria C. Administrative Handling

1. Internal Procedures

2. External Requirements 1

1 L

i l

. 1 I

l 8

' [7590-01] l 1

IV. Agreement States J V. Other Petitions VI. Future Action 1

1 I

l f

1 l

1 1

, , [7590-01)

I. Introduction and Purpose --

The Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (the Ac+)

(P.L.99-240)Awas enacted January 15, 1986. Section 10 of the Act states:

Ub.

"Sec. 10. RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN.

(a) Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Low-Leve' Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, the Commission shall establish standards and procedures, pursuant to existing authority, and develop the technical capability for considering and acting upon petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from regulation by the Commission due to the presence of radior.uclides in such waste streams in sufficiently low concentrations or quantities as to be below regulatory Concern.

(b) The standards and procedures established by the Commission pursuant to subsection (a) shall set forth all information required to be submitted to the Commission by licensees in support of such petitions, including, but not limited to -

(1) a detailed description of the waste materials, including their origin, chemical composition, physical state, volume, and mass; and

i

, , (7590-01]

]

5-i (2) the concentration or contamination levels, half-lives, and I identities of the radionuclides present.

Such standards and procedures shall provide that, upon receipt of a I petition to exempt a specific radioactive waste stream from regulation by

]

the Commission, the Commission shall determine in an expeditious manner whether the concentration or quantity of radionuclides present in such waste stream requires regulation by the Commission in order to protect the public health and safety. Where the Commission determines that regulation l

of a radioactive waste stream is not necessary to protect the public health and safety, the Commission shall take such steps as may be necessary, in an expeditious manner, to exempt the disposal of such radioactive waste from regulation by the Commission."

l .

l The purpose of this statement is to establish the standards and procedures j called for in the Act.

Virtually all materials in the environment are and have been radioactive.

1 Radioactivity is present because of naturally occurring radionuclides (e.g. , Ra-226, K-40, C-14) and in more recent times from artificially produced radionuclides (e.g. , from nuclear weapon testing fallout or mankind's  !

2 beneficial use of radiation). jo?'4d*** * " ' b % "#

y c. cut <. s%9, G ~L A. yM 4% 4. "A e th hT % 7 p The concept of ode minimis risk or dose is a generic principle which may eventually be es for broad application to all decisions involving n.+

h

\, 4

, s [7590-01]

exposure to ionizing radiation. Until such generic principles are established, practical decisions are made on when regulatory control is needed over environmental radioactive materials. -On the other hand, use of artificially produced radionuclides has .been regulated since its have.

inception and so has the wastes from their use regardless of radioactive content. Section 10 of the Act recognizes this fact. The implied' goal is to make some practical decisions on when wastes need_not go to_a licensed low-level waste disposal site. This policy statement is' directed at this implied goal only and is not directed at the more fundamental decisions associated w1ge minimis risks or doses. Use of the term "below regulatory concern" by Congress and the Commission emphasizes the narrow application.

4

' ' [7590-01) 7 r

11(yDiscussiop,

~

G-

% bC [i A

s e

VAif4 g -

g[Q k Wr.r~ e s.vt &

%sa .g c@ "

ish There are two ways to meet the requirements in Section 10 to estab)%\

& Asrgl standards and procedures for considering and acting on petitions a gexempt%  !

waste streams. One is to issue a Commission policy statement setting out only guidance and procedures for rulemaking on individual petitions. The second way  !

is to undertake a generic rulemaking up front that would reduce the issues to be considered in the individual rulemakings on petitions. The policy statement ap ach can be done in about six months. The generic rulemaking up front would take 2 years or more. Swift action to meet the six month Congressional V A

timeframe in Section 10 dictates that the Commission go with the policy statement approach.

l Qq O *% 3 OY U ' Mn y.

ww - JLGAsantL, vya% a a

( gg % m afMcL/?) ' l 1

W54 L l M 4* )a L 4

puSww S sub% 3C h Q o.%s.& nL-uA  ;

4akAn sayA pa w w n.qvf. C- l W ayJM fL L a g w, % % % ns k b~4 *'4  % a A

w j ,  % % % . 2a uuJ b- bk L sp bA A ph s b g#M duh.

L

[7590-01)

III. Standards and Procedures ~d The standards and procedures needed to expeditiously handle petitions fall into three categories. The Act explicitly calls for identifying the information required of petitioners in support of the petitions. Secondly, ,

standards are needed for assessing the proposals and providing petitioners I insight on the decision criteria the Commission intends to use. The third I category deals with streamlining the administrative handling of the petitions .,

consistent with law and existing Commission regulations and internal l proceduros. These three categories are addressed individually in the following  ;

1 discussion.

l Two fundamental strategies were used in developing the standards and procedures. As a practical matter, the burden of proof must be on the l petitioner and the waste stream proposed for exemption must involve as little

! controversy as possible. Congress recognized the need for detailed information from petitioners in the Act and also recognized the need for NRC guidance on the nature of the information. Minimizing controversy means dealing with well defined and understandable wastes and waste management options. Other factors expected to contribute to public confidence and acceptance include monitorability, negligible potential for recycle, small potential public exposures, and findings based on data and measurements, not just theoretical calculations.

, , [7590-01]

A. Information Required to Support Petitions

1. General

a. The minimum requirements for petitions for rulemaking are g Crrnmv&

- outlined in the Nuclear Ewwulaterytumussion's (nm.) ~=

I- regulations in 10 CFR 2.802(c). These regulations require the

".& , petitioner to identify the problem and propose solutions, to C4 . (

hp state the petitioner's grounds for and interest in the action, j 3

}. s $s and to provide supporting information and rationale. The f supporting information requirements listed are general but-y i e include the option for technical and scientific data and '

c specific cases of undue burden. The petitioner should include an introduction or overview that demonstrates that the petition meets 10 CFR 2.802(c).

I

b. The minimum environmental requirements for petitions such as those addressed in this statement involve a Commission finding of no significant impaci. on the quality of the human environment. Such Commission findings must be based on an Environmental Assessment that complies with 10 CFR 51.30 and must meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.32. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.41, the petitioner should submit the information I needed to meet the envi"o ntal requirements and do so in a l manner that permits independent evaluation by the Commission.

l 1

, i [7590-01)

The environmental assessment requirements are basically to address the need for the action, alternatives, and environmental impacts of the proposed action and alterr.atives. The l information can be factored into the material proposed in.

response to the following specific topics or submitted j separately. If the information is diffuse, an overview would be helpful.

l

c. Section 10 of the Act includes minima information 4

requirements on the wastes. These minimum requirements are included in the next section. The Act requires the Commission )

1 to determine whether or not regulation of the contained i radioactivity is required to protect the public health and safety. The Act does not include any specific bounds or limitations on the determination. Thus, the Commission is free to use its best judgment and consider any relevant factors the l petitioner wishes to identify.

d. The petitioner should submit three copies of the petition and supporting information. The copies should be clear and legible and suitable for photocopying. No special format must be followed provided all the information is cover,ed. Tables of f p1JL00A g g Jontent and overviews such as those discussed inza. and b. above are encouraged to facilitate review. A summary discussion which i

i w_-_--.-_____-_-----__-_ - - - -

l l

, , [7590-01]

MM4 shows how the decision criteria in Section 8 below s are met is

.J also encouraged.

e. The methodology the Commission intends to use to independently verify petitoners assessments of impacts is l generally described in "De Minimis Waste Impacts Analysis q

\

& (

Methodology" (NUREG/CR-3585) published February 1984.i This l _ _ _

methodo.l.o.gy is being made publically available.

Petitioners 5 - should evaluate the impacts of the a t usinJ this methodology. Othermethodologiesmaybeused(e.g.gEPA's)  ;

I6 PREST 0-BRC program) but their use does not eliminate the need to D.?Dk) % , .. /

use the NUREG methodology. If the impacts using alternate methods dif fer from those obtained using the NUREG method, the

,h petitioners should explain why. The petitioner must provide all l l

'g the specific input needed to analyze the stream in the petition and provide rationale for all parameter selections when the methodology allows choice. The petitioner should n .t.st, the nNRC U e Commission about submitting analysis input data on computor j discs and other methods of electronically facilitating information transfer. The name, address, and telephone number  ;

I of person (s) to contact for additional information should be provided. If contractors or consultants prepared portions of the information, they should be identified and contacts provided, if appropriate. If alternate calculational methodologies are used, the same information should be provided l

_ - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ a

1

[7590-01]

for each method. Only well documented and published alternative methodologies should be used. For information on use of the i

methodology, petitioners should contact  !

. The Consission may clarify or modify the code in the methodology from time to time. l Petitioners should be sure to use the current version. A supplemental guidance document on the methodology and its use is available entitled " .

Copies may be obtained from the Division of Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

hwA

2. Waste Characterization I puro As Note: The NUREG methodology discussed under the general requirements l W beve requires certain specific input for wastes, depending on the management options. The indices that may be needed cover waste j dispersibility, accessibility, packaging, and composition (e.g., percent combustible). The petitioners should deal with these requirements and the required format separately as part of the methodology input.

a. Non-radiological properties. The minimum non-radiological properties that the Commission must consider are specified in l (b)(1) of Section 10 of the Act. They are "a detailed l

description of the waste materials, including their origin, l __ __-_- -

. * [7590-01) chemical composition, physical state, volume, and mass." The wastes may exist or be treated to be in any form that does not compromise meeting the decision criteria in Section 8 below.

The term " stream" only means wastes produced from a common set of circumstances and possessing common characteristics. It does not mean " liquid" although the stream may be liquid (e.g. , waste oil). Waste form includes packages or containers used to manage (i.e. , store, handle, ship, or dispose) the wastes. The l

l variability and potential changes in the waste form as a function of process variation should be addressed. The

( Q variation among licensees should be bounded., l

/

~

(D

'h Compati ility with Department of Transportation and any EPA shipping requirements should be covered. Compatibility with requirements associated with the management options proposed should also be carefully presented. For example, if the petitioner proposes that the wastes may be incinerated on site, the waste form must obviously be combustible j but it should be combustible at the temperatures, flow rates, feed rates, etc. of typical incinerators that licensees may have on site. The waste v

form to be incinerated should be compatible with local, CState,

//

V or ederal requirements. Incineration should be "permittable" tv  ;

under these other requirements. Similar consideration for -

disposal at sanitary landfills or hazardcus waste sites shuuld ^

be addressed.

, [7590-01)

The recycle potential should be presented, including any treatment, such as shredding, likely or needed to provide a waste form that is unlikely to be recycled. Both the resource value (e.g., salvageable metals) and the functional usefulness (e.g., useable tools) should be included. The current and future potential for recycle are of concern.

The description of physical'and chemical form should include any components that would qualify as a " hazardous waste" under EPA rules in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 265, any absorbents used, and any chelating agents present. This information may be-covered in the discussion of compatibility. If not, it should be covered separately,

b. Radiological properties. The minimum radiological properties that the Commission must consider are specified in (b)(2) of Section 10 of the Act. They are "the concentration or contamination levels, half-lives, and identities of the radionuclides present." All radionuclides present or potentially present should be specified, including trace nuclides. The distribution of the radionuclides within the wastes should be presented (e.g., surface or volume distribution). Mass and volume averages should also be presented. The variability as a function of process variation 4

w

1 1

[7590-01]

L )

and variation among licensees should be addressed and bounde'd ' )

J for the radiological properties as well as the non-radiological. ]

The total quantities and concentrations should be 1

described. Concentration,s should be compared to the Department

., of Transportation threshold of 0.002 microcuries per gram.

External dose rates of packages or containers should be l estimated.

(f(MLd 6 f W.

c. Totals. RulemakingA i s generic and the exemption will likely be used nationwide. The petitioner should estimate the number of NRC and Agreement State licensees that produce the waste, the annual volumes and mass, the total quantities of,each radionuclides, and the total radioactivity. The estimates should-include the current situation and the likely variabil'ty over the next 5-10 years. If use of the proposed rule will.be limited to les[s)han national scope (e.g., a ate or compact V regica), the totals may be estimated for the petitioned scope.

d. Basis. The basis for the characterization presented in Items a.- should be provided. The details of the monitoring, analytical data, industry and licensee surveys, and calculations should be specified. Actual measurements to confirm calculations are important. The description of the basis should include the number of samples measured, the  !

l l

. q_ ,

ti,

,4

, s. M o

/ ,

[7590-01)

• L t

representativenesiofthegaioples(bothonasinglegenerator.

basis and a natiohol basis), and the appropriateness of the instruments used,. .

The statistical confidence in the estimates should be evaluated.y Market information may help define the national scope. Trace concentrations as propertier, should be related to detection limits.

I For estimates of radionuclides concentrations, particularly trace quantities, the petitioner may take full advantage of; licensee experience in classifying wastes for disposal at V.

low-level waste sites. Scaling factors used to estimate y

transuranic content is an exampig. The classification scheme in 10 CFR Part 61'has been in ef fe0t since December 1983.

Considerable data and experience should be available to draw on for characterizing t radiological content and composition of ,

I wastes. The same principles outlined in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(8) may be applied, i.e. , values'. based on direct measurements, indirect I

methods related to measurettents, or material accountability.

I o

1

e. As low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The Act requires that the waste characterization include the origin of the i

wastes. The Commission's ALARA peinciple in 10 CFR 20.1(c) j applies to all releas.cs and exposures. The activities and

] ,

processes which produce the waste shoulf be described. The current and potential procedures that can be used to minimize w-____-_-______ -

LF .. l i

% ,_ , [7590-01)

M the presence of removable contamination on both internal and

~

external surfaces should be described. Reasonable measures to reduce the volume or minimize production should be considered.

l Measures to reduce the radioactive content may also be an Al. ARA factor. Radiation worker exposure, public exposure, and  !

i environmental releases may_ be balanced in ALARA considerations and measures. 1 i

3. Management Options. The management options that the Commission .

can dea,' with expeditiously are those in the NUREG/CR-3585 i o f methodology The methodology includes on-site and'off-site options.

J On-site options are incineration and burial. Off-site options are municipal waste disposal facilities, municip'al waste incinerators, hazardous waste disposal facilities, and hazardous waste l

incinerators. It also includes some combinations and sorting options. The methodology was developed for multiple uses. For i rulemaking, generic application and national ~ impacts must be addresti%. The on-site burial option requires site specific data and l y is therefore inappropriate for generic rulemaking. If the waste is appropriate and compatible, the remaining options in the methodology may be included in the petition. The specific options should be  ;

iden.tified and generally described.  !

i i l The petitioner should evaluate a full range of options, in& ding the ALMA factors discussed above.- The practicality of the l

l f )

[7590-01) 1 18 -

proposed option (s) should be presented. Waste compatibility discussed earlier is one aspect. The national availability and

]

distribution of the option should be assessed. Any updates on i

national regulations and laws pertaining to the proposed option l should be described and may have to be factored into the methodology I j

input.

t

4. Analyses. The radiological impacts included in the l NUREG/CR-3585 methodology are summarized in the following table from the document: )

Off-Site Exposures On-Site Exposures Maximum All Intruder t Individual Population Worker, Workers Exposures 1 Om-Site Generator Incineration x x Disposal by Landfill x x i Post-disposal x x x {

l municipal Waste Disposal J

l Transportation x x x l Setting / Recovery x x Recycle (optional) x x Incineration x x x x Disposal by Landfill x x x x Post-disposal x x x Hazardous Waste Disposal Transportation x x x Recycle (optional) x x  ;

Incineration x x x x  !

Disposal by Landfill x x x x I Post-disposal x x x 4

e i s

0

( -. - - . - - -- -. - - - - - - - _ _ _ -

. / ,, i *

\

t

' - '.1 ,

. ~ o'  : { [75'10-01] j r'

,)I  ; .?

./ / 1 j

/ 1 / j.> '

, )

s

, o

, or  ;

The methodology thus covers' da'iculating thi impacts from l

operations, transpogtatica, t~e.ntment, and disposal. Post-disposal i impacts include releases dge tc intrusion, ground-water migration, ,

,. erosion, and_ leach,te etcumulation. Re$ycle. is limited'to metal drumsand' sori $dglass&nd; metal. The petitione'r should calculate f '

l ,, j

! the indicated -impacts from the proposed waste for each option f

1 i requested. ,Ihthe pbtitiuN: is aware of other impacts (either i .

radiological or non-radiciogical) w c uld be considered for the specific wasttVin the jetition, he,should also address th$ / j

. , , ,' I additional impacts. ]

The analysis of expected impacts should clearly address:  !

L ,. s j l

The maximum individual exposures.

,f The critical population exposures (e.g., the average municipal ,

'/> i landfill worker exposure times the number of such worker.c ,likely, l l

,. t to be exposed on a national basis). )

The cumulative United States population exposures. p p i , . i 5 ( s'i <

l.

J The petitioner's analysis should also address potential exposures from handling and transport accidents an'd from intrusion or loss , f ,

institutional control at municipal or hazardous . sites, sooner than.the normal 1 s. J

(

controlled lifetime.ofs such fajilities (e.g. , 30 years of post-closure control.

v I

1 of hazardous sitedj; Accidents are not currently included in the NUREG J

./ =ethodology. The petiti erkanalysisofaccidentsshouldincludeall

, * '~ , ,

r 1

} }~ , (

?

,/ iI i

1

f

[7590-01]

assumptions, data, and results to facilitate review. The petitioner can draw 1 4

on the material in the methodology (e.g. , suspension factors). I The petitioner should clearly relate the analytical findings to the specific provisions in the recommended rule changes. For example, the basis for each recommended limit should be clearly explained. For most i

radionuclides, concentrations will be limiting. However, for certain radionuclides, site inventories may be limiting rather than concentrations.

Multiple licensees may use an unlicensed facility under one or more exemptions.

The petitioner should explain how any site inventory limits have been factored into the petitioner's proposed rule.

Non-radiological impacts normally need not be specifically addressed other than to demonstrate that the non-radiological properties of the waste are the same as the materials normally handled under the option. If the properties are similar and the volumes of exempted waste would not impact the normal operations, there should be no incremental impacts. '

• i IQ.AL1W The analysis should als CAsi<.xx2-Q &

erally but explicitly address the topics outlined for a Regulatory Analysis in NUREG/BR-0058,1 1

j Revision 1, " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission." (References to other parts of the information may reduce duplication.) The topics are:

i

. . [7590-01] ,

l 1

i A statement of the Problem. This topic is the implied goal of i determining which wastes may be disposed of by less restrictive means than shipment to licensed low-level waste sites.

I J

Alternatives. Reasonable alternatives to the proposed action should be listed.

Consequences. This topic calls for an analysis of each I 1

alternative listed. The factors to cover are given as costs and i

benefits, impacts on other governmental requirements, and practical or legal constraints.

Decision Rationale. This topic is a conclusions statement that l

explains why the preferred alternative (s) should be adopted.

Implementation. The petitioner will have addressed this topic under the implementation topic below. A summary and reference l 1

should be provided that deals with the topic from the licensee's perspective. ,

1 The no action alternative should always be included. The l cost / benefit discussion should include the differential costs between disposal at a licensed site and the proposed option (s). It may include qualitative benefits also. Saving space in the licensed site is an obvious benefit. Reduced hazards from storing hazardous or

l-

, i

[7590-01]

combustible materials may be a benefit. Elimination or reduction of the hazardous properties (e.g. , by incineration) may be another.

Detrimental costs may also ba qualitative such as loss of space in municipal or hazardous sites. Costs should be put in national, regional, or tate perspective. Costs of surveys and verifying compliance discussed in the next section should also be covered.

5. Implementation. The final tast of the proposed action is whether it is practical to implement and verify compliance. The practical theme has been included in earlier discussions dealing with defining the expected ranges of radioactive content and non-radiological properties. The petitioner should show that the limits which are developed from the data and verified as acceptable through the analyses will accommodate meaningful volumes of actual streams. The petitioner should also show that the reliance on sophisticated analysis and surveys will be limited and confirmatory. )

Otherwise the exempted volumes might not be cost ~ effective and the V A i public might have concerns about' continuing compliance. I Existing regulations in 10 CFR 20.201 address the general j requirements for performing surveys as necessary to comply with .{

Part 20. Surveys are to cover releases and disposal and may include i measurements. These requirements wald require licensees to conduct surveys to comply with the limits on additional waste streams added to 10 CFR 20.306. l

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ ~

3

[7590-01]

A survey program might consist of 1) a fairly comprehensive initial testing by an individual licensee to confirm that the )

licensee's wastes fall within the limits, 2) periodic analysis as I

part of a process or quality control program to confirm that the initial findings remain valid, and 3) a routine survey program for l

released wastes to monitor for gross irregularities. The licensees' waste classification quality control programs and data (see 10 CFR 20.311(d)(3))should be helpful as indicated earlier. The 1

survey program should cover both'the radiological and l

non-radiological properties. To show that licensees can be expected to conduct needed surveys, the petitioner should describe a sample 1

& lE4CM .,0 J ' I survey program. The three components %Ld ekv: should be included if appropriate for the waste stream. If topical reports describing systems or methods for waste segregation and monitoring.have been i

approved by NRC, they could be referenced in the sample survey program.

Disposals under existing 10 CFR 20.306 are not included in the recordkeeping requirements for wastes in 10 CF 20.401. Part 20 also contains no general reporting requirement. Sem - nnual effluent v

reports are required by reactor technical specifications. As they are generally worded, disposals as contemplated in this statement would be reported in these reports.

, [7590-01]

1 l

1 The petitioner should include a recommendation on whether any I reporting or recordkeeping requirements are needed for the specific wastes in question. For i< ample, this need inight be based on I uncertainties in projecting future volumes or amounts of wastes. If such requirements are nuded, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval might be required. Appendix A of NUREG/BR-0058 addresses l

the information needs the petitioner should address to facilitate NRC l '

filing for MB approval. The petitioner should also address whether changes in technical specifications or licenses may be needed.

6. Suggested Rule Change. The petitioner should include the proposed text for the suggested rule change. (Normally, the change would be an addition to 10 CFR 20.306.) The proposed text should cover at least the following:

I I

The quantity or concentration limit for each radionuclides 4 present. (Trace radionuclides could be lumped together with a collective limit.)

A partial fraction method or other means to deal with mixtures.

The non radiological specifications necessary to adequately define the waste.  ;

The specific management option (s). l The text may also cover other features such as the following if the supporting information indicates the need:

l j

, , [7590-01]

Annual limits on each generator in terms of volume, mass, or total radioactivity.

Administrative or procedural requirements to assure critical aspects of the specific management option.

B. Decision Criteria The Commission intends to use the following criteria as guidelines for acting on a petition:

1. The concentration or quantity of radionuclides present in the I waste stream does not require regulation in order to protect the public health and safety.

Discussion: This finding is the standard established by the Act.

2. Disposal of the wastes will result in no significant impact on the quality of the humanhvironment.

Discussion: Unless this finding can be made, the Commission must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Preparation would likely involve contractual support and take a year or more to complete. The Commission could not act inVa( expeditious manner.cd dest >i.keS

• hp u&uu. sh wb% pbkM.

. i

[7590-01]

-rn w

3. Theexpectedeffectivedosetothehaximumlyexosedindividual does not exceed a few millirem per year. (Tne effective dose means the risk weighted whole-body equivalent.) A range of 1-10 millirem per year may be acceptable)but one is preferred to facilitate prompt  ;

processing.

Discussion: Based on the cancer death risk coefficient of l

~4 1.65 x 10 per rem in the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20 (51 FR 1092,* January 9,1986), a one millires per year exposure results in an annual risk of 1.65 x 10~7 (i.e., 1.65 x 10~4 i

-3 effects / rem x 10 rem / year). The maximum lifetime risk to the

%, individual would be less than about 1 x 10-5 (i.e. , 70 years x

_ . - ,7

% 1.65 x 10 effects / year) . Proposed 10 CFR 20.304 " Collective Dose dQ4 a ese Evaluations" includes e millirem individual dose cutoff for collective dose evaluations based on negligibly small risks.

N - - . -

The Environmental Protection Agency] EPA lis developing standards for approving specific waste streams below regulatory concern as part of the agency's development of low-level waste standards. EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on _

August 31, 1983 (48 FR 39563) and currently to publish proposed

\

standards by the end of calendar 1986. The Agency is considering a l range of individual dose limits of 1-10 milliress per year. Meeting 1 the lower end of the range under consideration is admittedly I conservative but should minimize having to revoke any rulemakings L__ _-__ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - --

1 l

[7590-01) approved under this policy should EPA issue final standards. In addition, the dose limits used by EPA for initiating action by municipal drinking water treatment facilities ~is an indiv! dual -

of 4 millirems per year. This drinking water criterion applies to  !

potentially large populations and falls in the middle of a 1-10 range.

One millirem is also very conservative when compared to l

naturally occurring background doses from cosmic and terrestrial 4 l

sources. Background doses in the United States are typically in the )

i 100-200 millirems per year range. One miliirem is conservative when compared to the existing and proposed annual 500 millirem dose limit i

for individual members of the general public in 10 CFR Part 20.

j 1 An important feature is that a one millirem limit allows exposure to mora than one waste stream without exceeding the range generally l

) considered to involve small risks. International radiation 1

I protection bodies such as th(International Commission on l l

VCRP) l Radiological Protection 4h ave not. established specific risk or dose ]

limits which could be adopted. However the 10 -5 to 10 -6 risk levels asociated with a few millirems is recognized as a publicly acceptable range. The United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board has issued generic guidance on de minimis do  ;

4 g .

levels (ASP 7 January, 1985)2 that has status similar to Federal radiation uidance issued by the President in this country. The w- --- -- - - -

[7590-01] )

Board identified effective dose equivalents of 5 millirem / year as insignificant.for individual. decisions. The five millirem limit represents the total contribution from all practices. For individual practices, the Board divided by 10 (i.e., 0.5 millirem / year) to account for exposures from multiple practices. These limits are applied very generically. Less conservatism under the well defined circumstances associated with specific waste streams is justified.

In a proposed policy statement cated May 6,1985.y m _ _ s . the Canadians specifically addressed disposal of specific wastes that are of na regulatory concern. An A

. individual dose limit of 5 millirems per year was proposed for this limited application.

A maximum individual exposure limit of one millirem per year is also consistent with Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix I specifies dose limit design objectives for operational light-water-

^ A cooled nuclear power reactor effluents. The dose limit guides include annual total body limits of 3 millirens for liquid effluents and 5 millreas for gaseous effluents. Since the wastes from these reactors may be the subject of petitions, fairness dictates that i below regulatory concern releases from a specific waste should be its lower because of %eir exempt status and the potential for multiple waste streams.

, , [7590-01]

Advocating the use of one millicem per year for expedited petitions for below regulatory concern wastes is not intended as a precedent for any other activity. It is intended only for this specific application.

Finally, maximum doses of 1-5 millirem are practical.

h,

/- Practicality has been demonstrated through work on the methodology in 4

9 0, 7'56 NUREG/CR-3585, other work such as studies by the General Physics

(. \ 'p Corporation for the Atomic Industrial Forum, experience with

e approving individual licensee proposals under 10 CFR 20.302(a), and g

b c the pending petition for waste oil (Docket No. PRM-20-15).

4. The collective doses to the critical population and United States population are small.

Discussion: An additional advantage to using a one millires per year

'- b,6% % M

! individual doseI1D k:d is 4at the collective doses are then summations over trivial exposures. If a critical individual limit of 5-10 millirems is involved for a few occupationally exposed individuals (e.g., non-radiation worker at a municipal landfill), the critical population of occupational works may be of importance. If the maximum individual doses result from pathways involving releases to the environment, where larger numbers of persons could be exposed, the U.S. population doses could be of concern. If the preferred one millirem individua~1 limit is met, the collective dose evaluation is l

1 i

(7590-01]

primarily for information ,rurposes and to confirm the finding in Criterion in The United Kingdom policy described is the discussion under Criterion e includes a collective dose limit for individual practices equivalent to 100 person-rem. This limit is. equivalent to  !

about .02 health effects (100 rem x 1.65 x 10'4 effects / rem). In view of the generic nature of their policy and the restricted nature of the anticipated action on petitions, a higher limit may be (

reasonable (e.g. , up to one effect or about 6 x 103 per-rems if there l are substantial cost savings and other benefits). The Canadian

{

proposal is not quantitative and refers to "small" exposures. j Proposals that meet the collective requirements of these decision i

criteria should not involve significant collective doses so that optimization assessments as described in ICRP Publication 263 should not be needed. Therefore, no decision criteria on optimization is considered necessary in this statement.

5. The exemption is useful on a national scale, i.e., it is likely to be used by a category of licensees or at least a significant I portion of a category. j I

Discussion: Rulemaking is not warranted for wastes involving a single licensee whether a continuing disposal activity or a one time i

i

, , [7590-01] l disposal. Such proposals by individual licensees should continue to be processed under 10 CFR 20.302(a). l

6. The radiological and nonradiological properties of the waste stream are characterizable on a national basis, the variability can be projected, and the range of variation will not invalidate supporting analyses.

' Discussion: One of the obvious merits to dealing with specific waste streams is that the properties of the waste stream can be relied on in estimating impacts and in many cases to help minimize the impacts.

7. The waste characterization is based on statistically valid data on real wastes.

Discussion: Actual measurements and data on real waste provide reasonable assurance that the waste characterization is valid.  ;

1

8. Licensees can establish reasonable survey programs and quality

, control programs to provide reasonable assurance that individual wastes fall within the expected ranges and that the specific disposal method is followed.

i

[7590-01]

Discussion: Since disposal is being exempted based on the established waste characteristics and method of disposal, continuing )1 verification is important to maintaining confidence that the disposal remains of no regulatory concern. It is also important to public 1

acceptance.

9. Specified disposal methods involve disposal methods which have been through a public process because of either the radiological or non-radiological properties of the waste.

Discussion: This criterion means that acceptable options should be at permitted landfills or other municipal waste facilities, permitted i hazardous waste facilities, or employ management options involving i

effluent releases within the normal scope of operations. An example of the latter is on-site incineration. Disposal on-site (i.e., in or

)

1 on the land) not requiring any other local, ktate, or Federai -

// /t approval would not normally meet this criterion due to the lack of prior public knowledge.

10. The off-site disposal medium (e.g. , sanitary landfill) does not need to be controlled for radiation protection purposes.

Discussion: The evaluation of expected exposures should provide the basis for meeting this criterion. However, this is an area where NRC

i 1 . .

[7590-01] 1

?

will have a continuing responsibility as multiple petitions are processed.

i

'l

11. When transpcrt off-site is involved, the radioactive concentrations are below the h" r ?a+ _ ' % ~ y etation thresholds for labeling and manifesting.

Discussion: For most radioactive materials, the We+=nC TranspwtattorH00T limits are 0.002 microcuries per gram. NRC rules in 10 CFR 71.5(b) impose 00T regulations on intrastate i

shipments. Since the receiving facility will not be licensed, j l

shipments to landfills or hazardous waste facilities should not j require identification as radioactive. This is important to practical implementation.

12. The waste stream results from necessary and ordinary operations and does not involve intentional dilution or significant potential for abuse by dilution.  !

Eiscussion: This criterion addresses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) concerns. The below regulatory concern rules should not provide $ means to dispose of otherwise unacceptable amounts of radioactivity. Other means of volume reduction (e.g. , segregation, alternative processes) should not be readily applicable.

[7590-01)

13. The potential radiological consequences of accidents involving the wastes and int'ahsion after loss of normal institutional controls is negligible.

1 1

Discussion: The preferred dose limit of one mill em discussed c-

nlier might not need to apply to accidents or intMsion but the J

consequences should fall within the range of 1-10.

1 J

14. The disposed form of the waste has negligible potential for recycle.

Discussion: Eliminating the uncertainties associated with recycle is necessary to expeditious handling. Specifying specific waste and specific methods of disposal narrows the pathways and timeframes to manageable numbers. Nomir.11 recycle of steel shipping drum 5and sorted glassware are included in the NUREG/CR-3585 methodology. Both of these cases can be evaluated and have realistic potential for significant dilution and would not violate this criterion. Wastes may have recycle potential because of their intrinsic composition or I because of their potential for reuse. Thus, wastes such as copper I l

wire or usable equipment or tools would violate this criterion. i

15. The methods and procedures in managing the wastes and used to i i

assess the impacts are no different from those that would be applied to the corresponding uncontaminated materials.

l

.s

, , [7590-01]

Discussion: As a practical matter, this criterion means that special l handling or measures are not required at the radiological unlicensed processing or disposal sites and realistic assumptions about the i

disposal methods have been made. j i

16. The disposal method is practically available.

I Discussion: To have practical use, the disposal option must be l available. For example, if all hazardous waste facilities that accept off-site wastes are closed or are not reasonably distributed, the practicality of an exemption to allow disposal at such sites is questionable.

l C. Administrative Handling Any Commission rulemaking is subject to a number of internal procedures and rules and externally imposed requirements. Section 10 b Ad directs the Commission to act in an " expeditious manner." The Commission and NRC staff have examined the current internal procedures and administrative rules which must be followed for routine rulemakings to determine how they may be streamlined to minimize delay. Th procedural scheme d- crib:d be % reflects the simplest scheme possible while still exe g control and reflecting agency consensus. The externally imposed requirements include the requirements of the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the i

I i

1

__--___________0

/

. [7590-01].

36 -

Paperwork Reduction Act. The discussions ~under Sections A. and B. Evve #- ~

generally reflect addressing and minimizing the impacts of these requirements. .T of external factors provides an overview and deals with these requirements explicitly for arity.

i 1

1. Internal Procedures

a. Petitions should be filed 'and will be docketed in accordance with existing procedures. Petitions should be addressed to: The Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 10555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

b. Petitioners are still encouraged to confer with the staff i l

before filing a petition for rulemaking. Requests to confer should be addressed to: The Director, Division of Rules and Records, Office 1

\

of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC l j

20555, Attention: Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch. 1 l c. Petitions meeting the decision criteria of Section 8, 4;;:

b and supported with appropriate information identified in Section A.

/

N - 2 r;; will be hand ed in accordance with the " fast' track"' procedures described in th gulations Handbook (NUREG/SR-0053).1 Under the

• fast-track procedure, a proposed rule responding to the petition is prepared and forwarded to the Executive Director for Operations-within 90 days after the petition is filed. The proposed rule is

, , [7590-01) then published for public comment instead of the notice of receipt of the petition. The proposed rule would be coordinated with and concurred in by the Offices, Divisions, or Branches appropriate to the nature of the waste stream before forwarding to the Executive Director for Operations.

d. Publication of this policy statement constitutes generic Executive Director for Operations approval to proceed with any below regulatory concern petition received. This statement also constitutes any other generic approval required at Office, Division /

or Branch level to initiate work on the proposed rules.

e. Rulemaking will be conducted at the Executive Director for Operations level in accordance with his delegated authority described in 10 CFR 1.40(d). This policy statement establishes Commission general policy guidance to be followed. The Executive Director for Operations would issue the proposed rule and the final rule if no significant adverse comments or new policy issues have been received on the proposed rule. The Commission would be notified before issuing the final rule.  ;

i

f. Unless unique circumstances occur, the proposed rule changes will be additions to 10 CFR 20.306 " Disposal of Specific Wastes."

'[7590-01)

2. External Requirements. -l 1

a. NEPA . The minimum environmental requirements were outlined

]

under Heading III..A.1.b.

1 ;

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act - When a rulemaking' action is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of i

i small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires' that the impacts on these small entities must be specifically addressed. (The j Commission's size standard for identifying a small entity is $3.5 million in annual receipts except for private practice physicians and-educational institutio'ns wnege, the standard ,is $1 m .in annual y m p<e ww receiptsA See 50 FR 50241 oo Wthe Commissi6n a-P' must f eitherDecember c.<Xi.che 9,)1985.) For 'any .rulemaking, L,kokfs/A m certify ~ that the rule will not impact or ,

will have no significant impacts on small entities or present an analysis of alternatives to minimize the impacts. Since rulemakings contemplated in this statement should provide relief from requirements for all entities, this requirement should be straightforward and information and analyses presented by the petitioner as described earlier should suffice.

]

c. Paperwork Reduction Act - Information collection requirements affecting ten or more persons or an entire category of persons _ must be approved by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Factors .

which must be addressed to obtain OMB's approval are described in i

i J

j i

.. .- ,. [7590-01). ]

I 1

l Appendix A of NUREG/8R-0058. They include the need, the use, the  !

burden, and the costs. The petitioner should provide information to 1

.i address the factors if a recordkeeping or reporting requirement is a .

I necessary feature of implementing the proposed exemption.  !

l i

1 I

u I

l 1

I I

'i I

l i

, . [7590-01]

IV. Agreement States -

,'7 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 establishes an equitable national system for dealing with low-level waste disposal. The system assigns responsibility for disposal capacity for low-level wastes not exceeding Class C waste gas defined in 10 CFR 61.55 g to the States. Section 10 Cp k plays a role in the system through the option to determine that certain wastes b@

may not need to go to existing land disposal facilities or new sites licensed under 10 CFR Part 61 or equivalent State regulations. If wastes can be safely disposed of by less restrictive means, it would conserve space in the existing sites while new sites are developed and would serve as an important adjunct to volume reduction efforts in meeting the allocation limits in the Act. Thus below regulatory concern rulemakings will aid the States in fulfilling their responsibilities under the Act.

Agreement States will play an important role in makir.g sure the system works on a national basis and that it remains equitable. States have been encouraging findings that certain wastes are below regulatory concern and do j not have to go to low-level waste sites.

The ,tates have been voicing this view for a number of years through the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors and other means. As a mimimum, when a NRC rulemaking on below j regulatory concern involves Agreement States exercising their authority, the l i

Commission would expect the States to adopt equivalent exemptions. For l

example, NRC's rule could declare certain reactor trash acceptable for unlicensed disposal at a municipal landfill. However, if the landfill is

, . . . [7590-01]

'ocated in an Agreement State, the State would have the authority to require tnat the landfill be licensed. Such licensing would essentially nullify the NRC's rulemaking.

Equity also suggests that all waste generators be able to take advantage of below regulatory concern options as part of their waste management strategies. Generators in both Agreement and non-Agreement States will be

/ competing for space in the existing sites and the concept should be applicable nationwide. I 1

The issue of compatibility will be explicitly addressed in the rulemaking l on each petition. States and the public will have the usual opportunity for involvement in the individual rulemakings.

l

4

, [7590-01] i l

V. Other Petitions - - - ~ -

-p

-I Petitions for waste streams that do not meet the decision criteria in Section III will be handled in accordance with usual agency procedures. :They will be processed as timely as possible but cannot be completed on the fasty track scheme since more extensive analyses, an environmental impact statement, .

or other matters would have to be addressed.

l l

1 l

I i

i L 2

,. . [7590-01] l VI. Future Action f6S K- /

The Commission may consider revising this p statement or conducting a generic rulemaking on waste streams below regulatory concern based on a number of factors. The factors include public comments received on the statement, the number and type of petitions for rulemaking received, and how effective the statement is in enabling timely processing of petitions. If there is a large demand for Commission action on petitions, generic rulemaking may be warr nted  !

to provide a more efficient and effective means of accomplishing the goals i

reflected in Section 10 of the Act. Furthermore, the Commission may periodically review all rulemakings in order to assure that the relevant 1

parameters have not changed significantly and may ask the' petitioner to submit 1

updated information to assist in the review. The Commission would also have to I assess whether approved exemptions are consistent with any general standards issued by EPA or whether continued use of the exemption should be modified to comply with the EPA standards.

Dated at Washington, IC this day of , 1986.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION.

9

%g Samuel J. ChilkA Secretarytoth/ Commissions

. ;r 3

+L,

, .. , (7590-01) ,

-u-Footnote to be incorporated in final document.

1 Copies of NUREG/BR-0053, NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3585 may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202)'275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Goverranent Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington,.DC 20013-7082. C; pies may also be purchased from N tional Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5 85 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection 4 i and/or copying for a fee 'in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, .

i NW, Washington, DC 20555.

'l 2 Copies of the United Kingdom's' document and the Canadian document.are available for inspection and ctpying as enclosures to SECY-85-147A dated July 25, 1985 in the Commissien'.s Public Doctment Room,1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20555. - 3 3 ICRP Publication 26, " Recommendations of the International Commission on '

i Radiological Protection," adopted January 17, 1977, i

\ )

h.

b k %-C -

% y:-

Q ,.

m.

i s.

\o

.s 5

i

?2 c h

L