ML20238E044
| ML20238E044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/07/1986 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238E005 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-506 NUDOCS 8709140079 | |
| Download: ML20238E044 (19) | |
Text
-___
DISTRIBUTION:NMSS#860799 *w/ encl.
207.6/KD/86/10/07
- WM s/f WriLU r/f NMSS r/f
- C Jenkins RE Browning MJ Bell J0 Bunting D Mausshardt i
J Davis
- K Dragonette MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
M Knapp S Gagner Executive Director for Operations J Philips l
R Cunningham FROM:
John G. Davis, Director F Brenneman Office of Nuclear Material Safety H Denton I
and Safeguards J Sniezek R Fonner
$UBJECT:
ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING REGARDING R Alexander RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN C Bartlett Enclosed for your' concurrence and signature is a paper to request Commission approval to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on disposal of radioactive waste below regulatory concern.
In the staff requirements memorandum to you dated August 12, 1986 responding to SECY-86-204, the Commission requested that the staff prepare an ANPRM to be forwarded for publication.
The Commission approved a policy statement for publication and use that included a commitment to issue an ANPRM within 90 days.
The policy statement was published as Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2 on August 29, 1986 (51 FR 30839).
The staff requirements memorandum did not include any explicit direction or questions to be proposed in the ANPRM.
We have listed questions to address the issue very broadly as suggested by some of the Commissioners' comments on the notation vote response sheets for SECY-86-204.
This Commission paper has been coordinated with the Offices of Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Research, State Programs, Public Affairs, and Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.
No significant, disagreements or issues have been identified.
John G. Davis, Director 8709140079 870909 Office of Nuclear Material Safety
$D P
and Safeguards 506 PDR
Enclosure:
As stated OSP NRR NMSS NMSS DMausshardt JG Davis 86/10/
86/10/
86/10/
86/10/
OFC :WMLU n
- FC
- WM
- OGC
- ADM
- RES
- PA
- - - - - : - - - - M/- - - - : - - - - - - - - - - - : RE Browning.
NAME :Dragbnette
- RCunningham :MJ Bell DATE:86/10/07
- 86/10/
- 86/10/
- 86/10/
.86/10/
- 86/10/
- 86/10/
x T; u 4
~ ;
4 y
. a
'e V
G i
L, r
s
.t s
i J
)\\
L
.r.
L/
I
,;/f
.I t
j I,
r j
d 3
. f
?
Y t
2 i
I L
a M
For: 1
^
The Commissioners 3
- 1 From:
Victor Stelle, Jr.
Executiva Director for Operations
,7 ADVANCE NOTICL'0F PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON RADI0 ACTIVE
~~M:
Suh
' WASTE BELOW REGULAMRY COEERN o
Pursose.
To request Commission approval!to publish an advance
~ ~ ~ ~
notice of proposed rulemaking jegarding generic ruleniaking on radioactive wastes that are'celow regulatory concern.
s
[ deckce'ound.
Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Pclicy Amendments At;t of 1985 (Public Law 99-?40) requires the'NRC to establish 5 standards and procedures for considering and acting upon ptitions to exemot specific radioactive waste-streams from yegulation if the radioactive content'is below i
regulatory concern... Id order <to satisfy this requirement, a policy statement.and staff implementat*:ra plan 1
(EECY-86-204) were forwarded to the Commission for approval on' July 13, 1986.
In the staff requirements memorandum dated August 12, 1986, in response to SECY-86-204, the CommisSicn expressed its desire to publish an advance 1
notice 6f;preposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in addition to the y
policy statement.
In accordance with the Cousiission's i
cequert, the policy statement was amended to adicate that s.,1' an ANPkM would be published within 90 days.
The policy statement and staff implementation plan were published in Contacts:
K Dragonette, NMSS 427-4300
'l R Fonner, 0GC 492-8692 3
i 4
i
. w Federa Register on August 29, 1986 (51 FR 30839) as
/
Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2.
I Discussion:
An ANPRM is enclosed for your approval as Enclosure A.
The notice requests public comment on whether the NRC should proceed with a generic rulemaking on the issue of radioactive wastas below regulatory concern and, if so, how f
Ghould{thanWednesday, November typroceed.
The ANPRM wowM have to be published no v
g;g later 26, 1986 to meet the Commission's 90-day publication commitment.
Recommendations:
1.
That the Commission promptly approve publication of the proposed Federal Register notice in Enclosure A.
2.
That the Chairman continue to emphasize the importance of timely action on slightly contaminated waste issues in his meetings with Lee M. Thomas, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Chairman may also wish to urge the EPA to approach the issues more generically and encourage EPA to use its Federal Radiation Council authority to develop more generic guidance rather than, or in parallel with, EPA's fragmented standards.
N 0+o ',
a.
That the appropriate Congressional committees are being informed by a letter similar to Enclosure B.
b.
That copies of the notice will be distributed to all NRC licensees, low-level waste compact Commissions and other State officials, and other interested persons by the Office of Administration in coordination with the Office of State Programs.
. c.
That the Office of Public Affairs will issue a public announcement similar to Enclosure C.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A.
FR Notice B.
Draft letter C.
Draft ~ announcement l
l l
I w__ __
Wr" h
6 4
i l
i l
EfCLOSWEA
~--- __
9,
-- M :
, t-.
.m u
(q w
t i
j
.[7590-01]
"~
U.5; NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION 10.CFR.Partsi2'and 20 Radioactive. Waste.Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rulemaking
- AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I;)-
- ACTION:
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
SOMMAR : The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)'is considering amending its regulations to' address disposal of radioactive wastes that contain sufficiently small quantities or low concentrations of radionuclides that their disposal i
, does not need to be regulated as radioactive, The NRC recently published a policy ' statement that provides guidance for ~ filing petitions for rulemaking to
~
exempt specific waste streams. Generic rulemaking might provide a more efficient'and' effective means of dealing with disposal of wastes below NRC regulatory-concern.
A-generir approach could potentially reduce the burdens associated with disposal of radioactive waste by all Commission licensees.
For NRC to find what wastes may be disposed of without regard to radioactive
- content,:the disposal must not pose an undue risk to public health and safety
. or the' environment. Generic rulemaking would supplement.the earlier policy
-statement response to a mandate in Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive I
- WastePolicyAmendmentsActof1985(PubjcLaw99-240).
w.
9
.. h h dw A fA>
\\
DATE: ' The comment; period expires (90 days after' publication). Comments received.after this date will,be considered if it is practical-to.do so but 1
' assurance.of consideration may not be.given except as to comments received on
~
or before this date.
1 ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, j
s
- Washington, DC 20555; Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch' or deliver
/
comments to the NRC's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street,.NW, Washington,-DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.'m. weekdays.
'I
)
j 1
FOR'FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kitty S. Dragonette, Division of Waste 1
Management, Office..of Nuclear Material Safety and Sa'eguards, U.S.~ Nuclear f
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone:
(301)427-4300.
j SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 29, 1986, the NRC published a policy statement and staff implementation plan regarding how it plans to expedite
-j handling of petitions for rulemaking to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from disposal in a licensed low-level waste disposal facility (51 FR 30839).
The policy statement and staff implementation plan were published as Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2.
The policy statement and plan are in the nature of regulatory guidance for implementing existing requirements for l
rulemaking petitions contained in 10 CFR 2.802.
These documents describe the kind of information petitioners should ' file to allow expedited Commission review of the petition as well as the decision criteria that should enable expedited action on petitions and upon which NRC would base its judgments, i
_---a
- _ _ -. - - - = - -
i
. Commenters,should consult the August 29, 1986 Federal Register notice for assistance in formulating their comments.on this issue.
However, the decision c-iteria listed in the policy statement are repeated here for the reader's convenience.
1.
Disposal and treatment of the wastes as specified in the petition will result in no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
2.
The maximum expected effective dose equivalent to an individual member of the public does not exceed a few millirems per year for normal operations and anticipated events, 3.
The collective doses to the critical population and general population are small.
4.
The potential radiological consequences of accidents or equipment malfunction involving the wastes and intrusion into disposal sites after loss of normal institutional controls are not significant.
5.
The exemption will result in a significant reduction in societal C0sts.
6.
The waste is compatible with the proposed treatment and disposal options.
a ll,
[.
t 4-7.
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 portion of a category.
8.
The radiological properties of the waste stream have been characterized on a national basis, the variability has been projected, and the range of variation will not invalidate supporting analyses.
9.
The waste characterization is based on data on real wastes.
i 10.
The disposed form 1of the waste has negligible potential for recycle.
11.
Licensees can establish effective, licensable, and inspectable programs for the waste prior to transfer to demonstrate compliance.
12.
The offsite treatment or disposal medium (e.g., sanitary landfill) i does not'need to be controlled or mor.itored for radiation protection purposes.
i 13.
The methods and procedures used to manage the wastes and to assess the impacts are no different from those that would be applied to the corresponding uncontaminated materials.
14.
There are no regulatory or legal obstacles to use of the proposed treatment or disposal methods.
_______________J
I j*
A I
. t The policyL statement and staff implementation plan responded to the
- six-month mandate in: the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1935 which' required NRC to estab ish standards.and procedures for expedited
. action. on below regulatory concern waste disposal petitions.
Howevdr, the -
^
Commission' realizes that a generic rulemaking on' the issues associated with findings'that-certain wastes may.be exempted from-further NRC control-of the
-radioactive content without posing an undue. risk'to public health and ' safety
- would reduce the issues to be considered in individual rulemakings on. specific wastes.
Generic rulemaking could also address broader issues associated with the general issue of slightly contaminated radioactive l materials. LThe
- six-month mandate'in the Act effectively precluded rulemaking as an initial approach but the Commission.can now consider the matter more carefully, The policy statement and staff implementation plan will be used in'.the interim while the Commission considers rulemaking in the. area.
Publication of this.
notice should in no way discourage petitioners from making use of the' option for petitions for expedited rulemaking on specific waste streams.
The NRC requests public comment on the general question of whether and how to proceed on the matter of exempting slightly contaminated radioactive materials'from its requirements for disposal.
The NRC also seeks public comment with respect to the following issues and questions.
(In responding, commenters.are encouraged to provide specific suggestions and the basis for j
1 suggestions offered.)
/
i 1
}.
! V l
(1)
In the past, the Commission has concludec t it consideration of F
exempting wastes from regulation on a waste stream-by.aste stream basis is the O
l most practical way to preceed and will lead to exemptions most useful for v
licensees.
Staff experience has also indicated that waste characterization on a national basis is difficult for NRC to accomplish because of factors such as I
the confidential nature of individual firms' market information.
In the staff's d
"iew, waste characterization is best accomplished by the licensed community.
Assuming this course of action, what type of rulemaking would facilitate exemption of waste streams?
For example, (a) Should the decision criteria listed above from the Commission policy statement be codified as rules instead of guidance?
(b) Should the decision criteria in the Commission policy statement be quantified were possible and then codified to facilitate processing petitions?
(c) Should additional criteria be added or criteria deleted before they are quantified and codified?
(2) Should the NRC take an entirely different approach than that reflected in the policy statement? For example, (a) Should the NRC try to establish concentrations or quantities of radionuclides that are below regulatory concern regardless of the form or disposal circumstances? In the past, the Commission has concluded that such
-7
]
1 f
concentrations or quantities would be so low or small that they would be of no practical value to licensees.
Factors such as the uncertainty in potential I
' pathways and uses of the contaminated materials and the consequent conservatism i
that must therefore be considered have contributed to this conclusion.
Innovative ideas from commenters on how to deal with these uncertainties would be welcome.
(b) Should NRC develop a risk or dose value that would represent generic regulat'ory cut-off levels for an individual licensee's waste (e.g., 0.1,1, or
~
10 millirems per year)?
If so, how would a licensee demonstrate that its disposal practices do not result in members of the public being exposed in excess of the established limit? For example, can computer codes be developed that licensees would have to use to demonstrate compliance with a generic below regulatory concern risk or dose value? What survey, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements should be included in such regulations?
(3) How can NRC most effectively address the potential for exposures of l
members of the public from multiple practices or sources that are each below NRC regulatory concern? This concern has been addressed internationally and in the staff implementation plan published with the Commission's policy statement by limiting the maximum potential exposures from individual practices so that inadvertent exposure to five or ten practices would still be of no regulatory How can this aspect of below regulatory concern be best addressed in corcern.
waste stream-by waste stream or more generic approaches?
1 I
.g.
.(4) Should NRC develop additional guidance instead of rulemaking?
If so, what guidance would be most helpful?
(5) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued notices on two h
~
aspects of slightly contaminated radioactive wastes.
InitsANPRMonlow-leve~4Q wastes (48 FR 39563; August 31, 1983), EPA asked, "Are there some types or classes of radioactive waste which do not need regulatory control to protect the publ1c?" In its ANPRM published June 18, 1986 (S1 FR 22264), EPA requested comments on standards for residual activity in buildings and soils of facilities being decommissioned.
Should NRC defer entirely, or only in part, to EPA standards development in this area?
(6) Are there other national or international standards or standards development activities that NRC should encourage or support that could' negate or minimize the need for further NRC action?
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR Part 2:
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear materials, Nuclear pc.er plants and reactors, penalty, Sex discrimination, Source material,
.Special nuclear material, Waste Treatment and disposal.
u._____
..___m
~
. Cart 20:
Byproduct material, Licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear
- ower plants and. reactors, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and l
containers, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping l
t requirements, Special nuclear material, Source material, Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated at Washington, DC this day of
, 1986.
v For the Nucles Regulatory Commission Q
/
Samuel J. Chilk/p Secretary to the Commission.
V l
l l
L ___ _____
WW--,---
I l
ETCLOSIRE B
pP
)
1 e
.I c v..
y i
Dear Mr.'- Chairman:
c The U.S;LNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).is, pub 1ishing an advance notice L
- of proposed rulemaking regarding~ radioactive waste below regulatory concern.
Th'e'NRC previously. published a policy statement and staff implementation; plan in' response-to the ' requirements of Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive JWaste Policy-Amendments Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-240).
The statement and staff; implementation plan were published as Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2 on August' 29[1986;(51:FR30839).
They established standards and procedures 1for actington' petitions for rulemaking on specif.ic wastes whose radioactive
. conten_t is ~ low ~ enough to be. below regulatory concern.
The rulemaking Contemplated in'the enclosed notice may facilitate acticn on future petitions I
or may be more generic -in nature and would be supplementary.to the mandate in-
.the'Act.
The enclosed notice is being sent to the office of the Federal Register for publication.
A copy of a public announcement to be released by the NRC on this matter is also enclosed.
Sincerely, 7
John G. Davis, Director Office of Nucleaa Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
1.
Federal Register notice 2.
Public. Announcement
!I
- 4.
. 0 RAFT-q t
, NRC CONSIDERS ADOPTING RULES ON DISPOSAL 0F RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY. CONCERN The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is.considering amending its regulations to address the disposal of slightly contaminated wastes.
Because of their low radioactivity' level, certain wastes may not need to go to.a-licensed low-level radioactive waste facility.
+
On August 29, 1986, the Commission published guidance on the kinds of information petitioners should file to allow timely Commission review of petitions on this subject.
The policy statement responded to a requirement in-the. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Amendments Act of 1985.
It gave the NRC six months to establish standards and procedures for expedited action on petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from licensed facility disposal.
Amending the regulations would supplement the earlier policy statement and reduce the issues to be considered in individual rulemakings on the exemption of specific waste streams.
I The NRC would like to have public comments on the general question of whether and how to proceed on the matter of disposal of slightly contaminated radioactive materials. Other issues and questions on which the NRC is seeking comments are listed in a Federal Register notice published on s
'I w
l 2
DRAFT l
t Interested parties.Ishould submit written coments to the Secretary, U.- S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission', Washington, D. C.
- 20555, Attention:
Docketing and-Service Branch.
The coments should be received by
('90' days after publication of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking).
i f
l l
L _-
F
. 4 (p j
~
p(V.
c
\\
M( P Jg N]' Y
.\\
naim me
= = = m =. a n,," g S
6 $ N' NE%~~ ~'
j eat 1
m y&,/
1 J
j s
a.
s_ -
For cenerenee 4e Roguested per conweenassen For Cm careutete mopose Resty For vowr Informeeles see see Comment inweetleste t1 Stenseere
=
M 1
1 g
0y
&}" %
W /~-,_ w y,y A ema.
t j
([^
h
~5 /SD-O 13 C..
-r(e _94 s -_ sLA-A 9-2 c-P9 no nor ese mi s== = a g ee s aamaces, es *.
pasam m as omnet. Asener/ewo
' neem No -
- ws.
w."-
seen-ase 70MB 41 reise we cET-u.sss(flev. 7-76)
. so,i m o n -sw m n
\\
k.
5 w
.n..
.