ML20245A619
| ML20245A619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/19/1988 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| References | |
| 890419, NACNUCLE-0005, NACNUCLE-5, NUDOCS 8904250296 | |
| Download: ML20245A619 (18) | |
Text
_ __
OMtu-ddd5 ;
f1 y0 h11 m
m m)3
('pl W/f/F/
~
i G
'n a.-
1 D
W w
MINUTES OF THE STH ACNW MEETING A- / / - 5'S DECEMBER 21, 1988
- TABLE OF CONTENTS -
r PAGE I.
Proposed Revisions of.10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Pro-tection Against Radiation (SECY-88-315) (0 pen)............
1-5 Background............................................
1 Presentation..........................................
2 A.
Highlights of Discussion..............................
2-3 B.
Highlights of Discussion During Presentation on Com-mitted Dose...........................................
3-5 II.
Beloy Regulatory Concern Policy Statement (0 pen)..........
5-6 III.
Executive Session (0 pen / Closed)...........................
6-7 A.
Reports, Letters,andMemoranda(0 pen)................
6-7 1.
Comments on the Proposed Deletion of Section 20.205 From the Proposed Revision to 10.CFR Part 20
" Standards for Protection Against Radiation,"
(SECY-88-315).....................................
6 2.
Comments on Advance Notice of the Development of a Commission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts are Below Regulatory Concern.......
6 3.
Draft Generic Technical Position: Guidance for Determination of Anticipated Processes and Events and Unanticipated Processes and Events............
7 4.
Topics Raised by ACNW During the October 27, 1988, Meeting with the Commissioners....................
7 B.
Other Committee Conclusions...........................
7 1.
ACRS/ACNWStaffPlan(0 pen).......................
7 2.
A C NW By l a w s ( 0 pe n )................................
7 3.
Future ACNW Membership (Closed)...................
7 C.
Future Agenda.........................................
7 D.
Appendices............................................
Appendix I - Meeting Attendees........................
1-1 Appendix II - Future Agenda...........................
11-1 Appendix III - Other Documents Received...............
III-1 /9 IV-1 b Appnendix IV - ACNW Letters Reports......,DESIdNATED oHIGIhAL 8904250296 6154421 ig PDR ADVCM NACNUULE I
L_
000{___________ PDC Certified By_
~~
dU b
Issued: 2/9/89 W l l - 83 l
MINUTES OF THE STH ACNW MEETING J
DECEMBER 21, 1988 The 5th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste was convened by Chairman Cade W. Moeller at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 21, 1988, at 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland.
[ Note:
For a list of attendees, see Appendix I, ACNW members, Drs. Dade. W.
Moeller and Martin J. Steindler were present.
ACNW consultant, Dr. Melvin W.
Carter was also present.]
j The Chairman said that the agenda for the meeting had been published.
He also identified the items to be discussed.
He stated that the meeting was being held in conformance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the
]
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Laws92-463 and 94-409, respectively.
(
He also noted that a transcript of some of the public portions of the meeting I
was being made, and would be available in the NRC Public Document Room at the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
[ Note:
Copies of the transcript taken at this meeting are also available for purchase from the Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005.]
j I.
Proposed Revisions of 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation (SECY-88-315) (0 pen)
[ Note:
Mr.
O.
5.
Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Background
[During the November 10, 1988, NRC staff's briefing of the Commissioners on the proposed final rule on the revision of 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, Commissioner Roberts requested that the ACNW provide the Commission with its position on the deletion of Section 20.205 from the proposed revision.
This section appeared in the proposed rule 9, 1986.
However, in view of published in the Federal Register on January (NCRP) and international (ICRP) public comments, the position of national radiation protection organizations on this matter, and the publication in the Federal Register (52CFR2822) on January 20, 1987, of " Federal Guidance on Occupational Radiation Exposure," the NRC staff recommended deletion of Section 20.205, which would have allowed an exemption from the use of commit-ted dose equivalents for several long-lived radionuclides.
The approach in this section of the proposed rule appeared to place almost complete emphasis on the control of the work environment rather than on the assessment and control of radiation to the individual worker.
Thus, the NRC staff recom-mended use of the committed dose equivalent be applied uniformly to all radionuclides, regardless of half-life hence the deletion of Section j
20.205.]
l l
t MINUTES - STH ACNW MEETING December 21, 1988 Presentation Mr. Bill Morris, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), introduced the presentation followed by Mr. Harold Peterson, with the support and comments by Mr. Zoltan Rosztoczy, RES, Mr.
Richard Cunningham and Dr. Donald Cool, NMSS.
Mr. Peterson described the general principles that the staff had adopted in the revision of Part 20. These principles were based on the federal guidance cited above.
Mr. Morris led a discussion on the issue of committed dose.
The presentation was concluded with a discussion of the concerns of industry pertaining to this subject, particularly in regard to the deletion of Section 20.205.
A.
Highlights of Discussion 1.
During Mr. Peterson's presentation Dr. Moeller asked why the NRC staff wanted 10 CFR Part 20 to be compatible with the federal guidance.
Mr.
Morris and Mr. Cunningham explained that this guidance is not just for the NRC or DOE, but is also for all federal agencies that deal with worker protection.
Mr. Peterson explained that the NRC has licensees that are also federal agencies (e.g., USAF and EPA) who must comply with the federal guidance.
If the revised Part.20 was not consistent with the federal guidance, such agencies could be found to be in noncompli-ance with Part 20.
2.
Dr. Sidney Parry, ACNW staff, asked about the consistency of Part 20 with EPA regulation 40 CFR 191 [a portion of which was voided by a court order and requires revision before being repromulgated].
Mr. Peterson said that the NRC is attempting to revise Part 20 so that the final product will be compatible with the anticipated final wording of 40 CFR 191.
3.
Mr. Peterson defined the committed dose equivalent as the total dose that is projected to be received during the next 50 years from radioac-tive material that has been incorporated into the body.
This dose will depend on the quantity of radioactive material deposited in the body, and on biological clearance, radioactive decay, and other factors.
l 4.
Mr. Peterson also stated that one of the new concepts in the revised Part 20 is the effective dose equivalent, which is the weighted sum of organ doses (rather than the sum of doses to individual organs).
The weighting factor for doses to individual body organs is assigned on the basis of the dose to the whole body that would carry an equivalent risk of death.
5.
Dr. Steindler asked what is the quality of the data upon which the weighting factors are based. Mr. Peterson answered that they are based on the best available estimates of biological risks.
The way the weighting factors are used is relative rather than the use of absolute 1
MINUTES - STH ACNW MEETING December 21, 1988 numbers.
The biological effect data could probably be in error by a factor of 2.
6.
-The present Part 20 allows a worker to receive a whole body dose of up i
to 3 rem per quarter, i.e., 12 rem per year.
.The proposed new rule l
limits the total effective dose equivalent to 5 rem per year, weighting all the organs and summing the weighted doses to them, wii.h a 50 rem capping dose on any organ in one year.
This is a nonstochastic dose limit. The purpose is to control acute damage to any organ.
7.
For members of the public, the new rule has an explicit limit of 0.1 rem per year, as contrasted with the present rule, which has an implicit 0.5 rem annual dose limit.
8.
Both medically prescribed and natural background radiation doses are exempt from Part 20.
Also, the new Part 20 has lower emission limits-based on EPA standards, and on airborne emissions in accordance with the EPA Clean Air Act.
9.
In regard to the treatment of ALARA in the new rule, it requires that licensees have a radiation protection program in place that includes elements that shall, as contrasted with the present rule which requires that licensees should, maintain radiation exposures ALARA.
B.
Highlights of Discussion During Presentation on Committed Dose (Given by Mr. Morris) 1.
Proposed Section 20.205 permitted the use of an annual dose accounting approach in addition to the preferred committed dose accounting ap-proach.
However, during preparation of the final rule, Section 20.205' was deleted due to the reasons cited above and to potential problems with the future employability of workers.
2.
' Industry representatives requested reinstatement of Section 20.205 for i
the following reasons:
I a.
Dose assessment would be based more on measurement.
b.
Calculations would be simplified.
c.
Industry would benefit from the change.
1 d.
Safety of individuals would be assured.
j e.
Implementation of Part 20 would be less costly.
i MINUTES - STH ACNW MEETING December 21, 1988 3.
The committed dose accounting approach was chosen by the NRC staff (rrr,ulting in the deletion of Section 20.205) for the following reasons:
a.
Because accounting is started anew each year, independent of previ-ous exposures, job changes penalize neither the worker nor the new employer.
b.
Doses resulting from an intake are charged against the licensee causing the intake.
c.
Implementation may be based on air sampling or bioassay (including, for example, urinalysis, whole body counting, etc.).
4.
As a result of its consideration of the two approaches, the NRC staff recommended that the committed dose approach should be continued (it has been in use for the past 30 years) to assure that:
a.
Control of doses is based on the total risk from long-lived radio-nuclides.
b.
The licensee responsible for exposures deals with them rather than passing this responsibility on to future employers.
c.
The worker's future employability is not' jeopardized.
5.
In response to a question by Dr. Moeller asking what DOE said about the rule, Mr. Peterson answered that DOE said that the proposed rule will not implement the approach that they preferred, which is essentially what industry wants also (see above).
6.
Dr. Carter noted that either the annual dose approach or the committed dose approach is acceptable, depending on how you go about it.
Mr.
Norris said that the whole issue depends on the prospect that workers will be changing jobs and that is the key to all M the implications he mentioned during the discussion -- the bottom line is that the worker's future employability is not jeopardized if the committed dose approach is used.
7.
In regard to the Federal Guidance document, Mr. Robert Alexander, Office of Governmental and Public Affairs (and President of the Health Physics Society) explained that Recommendation 3 therein was included primarily for DOE's benefit, since they had problems with Recommendation 4.
Recommendation 3 specifies that the 5 rem effective dose equivalent (representing the sum of the internal and external dose), would be based on the annual dose approach.
In Recommendation 4, however, the commit-ted dose approach (based on the 50-year integrated dose), is required.
This constitutes the basis for the new Part 20.
He added that it is not necessary for the NRC to require a dose calculation or dose recording of any kind.
NRC's prime responsibility is to assure safe working condi-tions and that the employer does not exploit the worker.
a
MINUTES - STH ACNW MEETING December 21, 1988 8.
Dr. Carter asked whether the deletion of Section 20.205 might lead to its being re-proposed later. Mr. Peterson answered that since it wasn't in the present rule, the NRC has no obligation to repromulgate that section and does not plan to do so.
As a final wrap-up to the discussion, Dr. Moeller presented the following four scenarios outlining conditions that would exist under various applica-tions of the arnual and committed dose-approaches (see Appendix III).
The scenarios are:
1.
Annual dose limitation.
2.
Committed dose approach.
3.
Control based on existing 10 CFR Part 20 4.
Control based on proposed Section 20.205 Of the above, Dr. Moeller concluded that the use of the committed dose concept #2 for radionuclides with long effective half-lives is preferable.
II. Below Regulatory Ccncern Policy Statement (0 pen)
[ Note:
Mr.
O.
- 5. Merrill was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]
Hr. William Labs, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), briefed the ACNW on the proposed policy on exemption from regulatory control.
His presentation was based, in part, on SECY-88-315, which gives a proposed schedule for the development of the Commission Exemption Policy.
The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research expects to submit the proposed policy to the
' Commission by April 28, 1989, with one or possibly two, reviews by the ACNW prior to that time.
The principal topics discussed were the individual dose limit, the collective dose limit, and ALARA.
[Mr. Lahs referred to the graph entitled, " Proposed Exemption Policy Schematic," as the basis for the discussion.]
The original figure identified an upper individual annual dose limit of 10 mrem and a collective dose limit of 100 person-rem. Within the boundaries of the " box" (defined by the letters A, B, C, D), the staff maintained that any j
combination of arnual dose and collective dose is " clearly exemptible;" and that ALARA'is also already achieved.
In a vertical direction up to 100 iremannualdose(pointe)andtotheright of the " box" to no indicated max. mum collective dose is considered "possibly exemptible." Above the 100 mrem public dose limit is considered " clearly not
{
exemptible" i.e., a practice, source, or device giving an annual dose in excess of the 100 mrem value could not be exempted.
j
PROPOSED EXEMPTION POLICY SCHEMATIC S TA FF PROPOS hl.
[OMM /SS /ON MODiflCATIObl EN\\\\\\\\
1000 s
s s CLEAR _Y h OT EXEN 7 ABJ_E
- \\\\\\\\N \\ X NN PUBLIC DOSE LIMIT 100 jE
)
p' c'A
~O 8(h 10
~"-
~-~~~~
2="^5
.' (\\
he i
5 ~E l
4 1 i$
\\
8(p
~
ii!. CLEAR LY 7
\\\\
(Mona&
1 O.1 I
E EXEMPTABLE!
\\
?
\\
I COLLECTIVEDOSE(PERSONyEM),
,,,,,,,, m,,,,.....
(. P......
j.
I 100 10,000 Y
MINUTES - STH ACHW MEETING December 21, 1988 Superimposed by double-dashed lines. on the basic figure is a different envelope proposed by Dr. Moeller which illustrates a modification to the original figure.
It is defined by points A, B', C',
and D', that allows an individual annual dose of up to approximately 20 mrem and also allows the collective dose for annual dose values less than 20 mrem to exceed the 100 j
person-rem value defined by the original box. The shape of line C'-D' is, of course, only representative, its actual shape being unknown.
It represents the combined annual dose and corresponding collective dose values that could be allowed, i.e.,
the lower the individual annual dose, the higher the permissible collective dose and, correspondingly, the larger the population group that would be receiving the lower annual dose.
Dr. Moeller also suggested that " clearly exemptible" on the original figure be changed to "possibly exemptible."
This modification appeared to be acceptable to the NRC staff as evidenced by the discussion and by the question marks along the vertical line C-D at 100 person-rem in the original figure.
However, Drs. Moeller and Steindler were of the opinion that no consideration need be given to ALARA and that, for the next few years, each case be considered for exemption on an individual basis.
Ms. Lynne Fairobent, NUMARC, explained that Part 20 has a requirement that says one must do everything to reduce dosage to ALARA, hence an applicant for an exemption would still have to do an ALARA analysis to show that the need to go below those numbers does not exist.
She added that an applicant does not have to do any further analysis to justify a combination below 10 mrem and 100 person-rem as being ALARA.
III. Executive Session (0 pen / Closed)
A.
Reports, Letters, and Memoranda (0 pen) 1.
Comments on the Proposed Deletion of Section 20.205 From the Proposed Revision to 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation," (SECY-88-315)
(Letter to Chairman Zech dated December 30, 1988)
The Committee recommended that annual doses arising through the intake of long-lived radionuclides be limited to a dose commit-ment no higher than the annual dose limit specified in Section 20.201.
The Committee concurred with the NRC staff in the deletion of Section 20.205.
2.
Comments on Advance Notice of the Development of a Commission i
Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts are Below Regulatory Concern (Letter to Chairman Zech dated December 30, 1988) 1 The Committee responded to several questions contained in the proposed Policy Statement on BRC and on which the NRC staff had requested specific comments.
The Committee also offered I
1
)
MINUTES - STH ACNW MEETING December 21, 1988 comments on the justification of practices, dose limits and collective dose criteria, the - role of the ALARA criterion, designation of exemption levels, and exposures to multiple practices.
3.
Draft Generic Technical Position: Guidance for Determination of Anticipated Processes and Events and Unanticipated Processes and Events (Letter to Chairman Zech dated December 30, 1988)
The Committee recommended that more clarity be provided in the definitions of anticipated and unanticipated processes and events.
4.
Topics Raised by ACNW During the October 27, 1988-Meeting with the Commissioners (Memorandum for Stello from Moeller dated January 4,1989)
Chairman Moeller summarized for the Executive Director for Operations the topics and items that were raised during the meeting with the Commissioners.
B.
Other Committee Conclusions 1.
ACRS/ACNW Staffing Plan (0 pen)
The Committee discussed the draft ACRS/ACNW staffing plan that Mr. Fraley will submit to the Commissioners by January 15, 1989.
The Committee endorsed the proposed memorandum that recommends the 1se of an integrated ACRS/ACNW staff during FY 1989.
The Committee recommended that this subject be placed on the' agenda for the next meeting with the Commissioners.
2.
ACHWBylaws(0 pen)
The Committee agreed to review the revised ACNW Bylaws.
The revision will be discussed during the January 1989 meeting.
3.
Future ACNW Membership The Committee discussed potential nominees for ACNW membership and potential consultants for the Committee. The Committee will continue discussions during the January 1989 meeting.
The Committee requested Mr. Fraley to obtain references on one of the candidates.
C.
Future Agenda The Committee agreed to the tentative future agenda as shown in Appendix II.
The 5th ACNW meeting concluded at 5:25 p.m. on December 21, 1988.
4 j
ACNW:5th ACNW AGENDA i
STH ACNW COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1988 Wednesday, December 21, Room P-422, 7920 Norfolk Avenue 8:30 a.m.-
Opening Remarks Sr 8 :45' a.m.
TAB 1, Revision of 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation" Staff Presentation - H. Peterson, RES o
General Overview o
Committed and Annual Dose Approaches o
Impact on Safety Benefits JL@rrE a.m.
BREAK.
10:c7 #0:30
.(
40T30-11:30 Preparation of ACNW Report on 10 CFR Part 20 10
- Fr
- 30 a.m.
TAB 2. Advance Notice of a Commission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control for Certain Practices Phose Public Health and Safety Impacts are Below Regulatory Concern Staff Presentation - W. Lahs, RES o-Current Status and Schedule o
Response to Commissioners' Questions ll: W-!;: 4 :re..... b gs g 12t30 p.m.
Preparation of ACNW Report on Below Regulstory/ocFR Say10 II: +5
.gggc. gym w::s -l:.=0 LUNCH 4t00 p.m.
1:30 0:00 p.m.
Continue Report Preparation
'hh0 h.'m.
~
3 BREAK 3:45 p.m.
Administrative Matters o
Future schedules (see handout) o Staffing o
New Members o
Other
(
S:W g
y;'op 5:M p.m.
ADJ0 URN l
O APPENDICES I. MEETING ATTENDEES II. FUTURE AGENDA III. OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IV. ACNW LETTER REPORTS
4 APPENDIX I i
ATTENDEES l
STH ACNW MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1988 ACNW Member Attendees:
Dr. Dade W. Moeller Dr. Martin J. Steindler ACNW Constitant:
Dr. M. Carter 1
i
)
)
- -. - -.. - - - - - - -, - - - -, - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - -
m
[.
p APPENDIX I ATTENDEES STH ACNW MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1988 PUBLIL ATTENDEES NRC ATTENDEES M. Gaske,.SRA Technologies W. Morris, RES R. Waterfield, SRA Technologies
- 2. Rosztoczy, RES
'E. Fotopoulos, SERCH Licensing, Bechtel R. Grill, RES L. Fairobent, NUMARC A. Roecklein, RES F. Killan, Jr., USCEA F. Congell, NRR i
J. Murphy, Nuclear Waste News W. Cool, RES (Knox Consultant)
R. Palabrica,'Weston G. Lear, NHSS D. Cool, NMSS R. Cunningham, NMSS R. Alexander, GPA H. Peterson, RES W. Labs, RES
~,
[
5 APPENDIX II FUTURE AGENDA January 23-24, 1989 Division of High-Level Waste Management (0 pen) Estimated time: 2 hrs. - The Committee will be briefed by,the Director of HLWMD on its program plans for FY 1989.
West Valley Demonstration Project (0 pen) Estimated time:.4. hrs. - The Comit-tee.will be briefed by representatives of DOE, Westinghouse, the state of New York,.and NRC on the nuclear' waste vitrificati 7 program and other aspects of the West Valley Project.
DOE's HLW Performance Assessment Program (0 pen) Estimated time: 8 hrs. - The Committee will be briefed by the 00E's'. staff and contractors on their Perfor-mance Assessment Program, incluaing methodology, models, and data quality.
Committee Activities (0 pen)~ Estimated time: 2 hrs. - The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.
[ Chairman to meet with Commissioners' Technical Assistants on the day follow-ing the Committee meeting -- topics for discussion include:
etc.]
February 22-23, 1989 (tentative)
State of Nevada (0 pen) - The Committee will be briefed by representatives from the State of Nevada and NRC on their comments on the DOE CDSCP.
HLW Repository (0 pen) - The Committee will be briefed by the NRC staff on the status of the Yucca '40untain Site Characterization Plan and the Design Acceptability Analysis of the Exploratory Shaft Facility.
Meeting with the Commission (0 pen)
The Committee will meet with the Commission to discuss a variety of topics.
Committee Activities (0 pen)
- The Committee will discuss anticipated and proposed Committee activities, future meeting agenda, and organizational matters, as appropriate.
I
\\
APPENDIX III - OTHER DOCUMENTS RECEIVED
)
1 A.
Meeting Handouts from ACNW Staff and Presenters
-1.
REVISION TO 10 CFR PART 20 1.
Viewgraphs on Proposed. Revision of 10 CFR Part 20,-Standards for Protection Against Radiation, December 21, 1988 l
2.
An Overview of the Section 20.205 Issue, presented by Z. Rosztoczy, December 21, 1988 3.
Present, Draft and Froposed Part 20 Final Rule 4.
Viewgraphs on Committed Dose from Single Intake, presented by H. Peterson 5.
Background Information on the Annual and Committed Dose Concepts by-Dade Moeller, dated December 16,1986[MeetingHandout#1]
II. BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN 6.
Proposed Policy on Rules for Exemption from Regulatory Control, December 21, 1988, by W. Lahs 7.
Reprint from IAEA Bulletin 3/1988, on Exemption from Regulatory Control: An International Consensus by Linsley and Gonzalas 1
\\
i j
APPENDIXIII(CONT'D) i B.
Meeting Notebook Contents Listed by Tab Number TAB 1
1.
Status Report on Proposed Final Revision of 10 CFR Part 20, Stan-dards for Protection Against Radiation 2.
Memorandum for Moeller, et al., from Merrill, dated December 13, 1988, re Proposed Revision (Final Rule) 10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation 3.
Memorandum for Stello, et al., from Chilk, dated November 28, 1988, re Staff Requirements - Briefing on Final Rule on Standards for Protection Against Radiction - Part 20, 10:00 a.m., Thursday, Conference Room 4.
Federal Register Notice, Vol. 51, No. 6, Thursday, January 9,1986 (51FR1132) 5.
10 CFR Part 20 Section 20.201, Subpart C, Occupational Dose Limits for Adults 6.
10 CFR Part 20 Section 20.202, Compliance with Requirements for Summation of External and Internal Doses 7.
SECY-88-315, Revision of 10 CFR Part 20', Standards for Protection Against Radiation, November 4,1988 8.
10 CFR Part 20 Section 20.205, Further Provisions -- Internal Exposure Involving Radionuclides with Very Long Effective Half-Lives 9.
Draft (#3) ACNW Letter for Zech, dated December 10, 1988, re Pro-posed Revisions of 10 CFR 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation"
- 10. 0 to SEC
.15, Staff Responses to ACRS Comments
- 11. ACRS Letter for Zech, dated June 7, 1988, re Proposed Revisions of 10 CFR 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation"
- 12. Certified Summary / Minutes of the ACRS Subcommittee Meeting on Occupational and Environmental Protection Systems May 31, 1988 (IssuedJune 20,1988) 2 1.
Status Report on Below Regulatory Concern 2.
Table of Contents
APPENDIX III, Notebook Contents, 5th ACNW Meeting
{
TAB 3.
Memorandum for Moeller, et al., from Merrill, dated December 13, 1988, re Proposed Revision (Final Rule) of 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation (Pages 2 and 9 only)-
4.
Memorandum for ACNW Members / Staff from Major, dated November 22, 1988, re Draft ACNW Letter:
Comments on Advance Notices of Develop-ment of a Commission Policy on Exemptions from Regulatory Control for Certain Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts 'are Below Regulatory Concern 5.
Memorandum for Smith and Steindler from.Moeller, dated November 13, 1988, re Proposed Response to Questions in BRC Policy Statement, with attachments 6.
SECY-88-333, Schedule for Development of a Conmission Exemption (Below Regulatory Concern) Policy, dated December 5,1988 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1.
Items for Possible Future Consideration / Action, dated Cecember 21, 1988 2.
Memorandum for Moeller from Fraley, dated December 20, 1988, re ACNW Staffing for FY 1989, with attachments
APPENDIX IV - ACNW LETTER REPORTS / MEMORANDA
)
1 The letters / memorandum listed below were issued as result of the 5th ACNW meeting and are attached.
1.
Comments on the Pro)osed Deletion of Section 20.205 From the Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 3 art 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radia-tion," (SECY-88-315)
(Letter to Chairman Zech dated December 30,1988)
The Committee recommended that annual doses arising through the intake of long-lived radionuclides be limited to a dose commitment no higher than the annual dose limit specified in Section 20.201. The Committee concurred with the NRC staff in the deletion of Section 20.205.
1 1
2.
Comments on Advance Notice of the Development of a Commission Policy on I
Exemptions from Regulatory Control for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts are Below Regulatory Concern (Letter to Chairman Zech dated December 30, 1988)
The Committee responded to several questions contained in the proposed Policy Statement on BRC and on which the NRC staff had requested specif-ic comments.
The Committee also offered comments on the justification of practices, dose limits'and criteria, the role of the ALARA criterion, designation of exemption levels, and exposures to multiple practices.
3.
Draft Generic Technical Position: Guidance for Determination of Antic-i)ated Processes and Events and Unanticipated Processes and Events
(..etter to Chairman Zech dated December 30, 1988)
The Conmittee recommended more clarity in the definitions of anticipated and unanticipated processes and events.
4.
Topics Raised by ACNW During the October 27, 1988, Meeting with the Commissioners (Memorandum for Stello from Moeller dated January 4, 1989)
Chairman Moeller Lummarized for the Executive Director for Operations the topics and ; tens that were raised during the meeting with the Commissioners.
r 4
e
$g UNITED STATES
[
"g'( '(s g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7;
e ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE g u,[
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566 0,
....+
December 30, 1988 The Honorable Lando W. Zech; Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DELETION OF SECTION 20.205 FROM THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 20, " STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION" (SECY-88-315)
During the fifth meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, December 21, 1988, we held additionel discussions with the NRC staff on the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
In response to the inquiry from Commissioner Roberts (SRMdatedNovember 28,1988), these discussions were directed primarily to procedures for the control of certain long-lived radionuclides, such as those handled at fuel cycle facilities.
As you know, the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 9, 1986 contained a new Section 20.205 which addressed the prncedures noted above.
The proposed section recommended a modified procedure that had been drafted in recognition of the difficulties in measuring (in a practical manner and with the required accuracy) air concentrations in restricted areas and the amounts of radionuclides in bioassay samples taken from werkers whose intakes had been held at or below the permissible annual limits of intake (ALI).
Although the proposed revision would have required licensees to design facilities so that air concentrations averaged over the year in restricted areas would be below the derived air concentration limits and would also have required that such facilities be operated in a manner that would ensure that any individual would be unlikely to have an intake from occupa-tional exposure in any one year in excess of the ALI value, the modified procedure would have allowed licensees to permit doses to workers in excess of the limits in Section 20,201 as long as the sum of the in-ternal and external effective dose equivalent would not have exceeded 5 rem, and the annuel effective dose equivelent from certain specified internally deposited long-lived radionuclides would not have exceeded 3 ren.
We believe that such a modified procedure is unacceptable.
First, it would not be in accord with what we understand are the recommendations l
of either the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP Publication 26, 1977) or the National Council on Pediation Protection and Measurements (NCRP Report No. 91, 1987).
In addition, it is our interpretation that such a position would not be in conformance with the requirements outlined in the " Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal 1(8
3 I
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. December 30, 1988 Agencies for Occupational Exposure," approved by President Reagan on January 20, 1987.
l Based on our review of this issue, we recommend that annual doses arising from the intake of long-lived radionuclides be limited to a dose commitment no higher than the annual dose limit of proposed Section 20.201. To make an exception for any specific group of radionuclides or licensees would, in our opinion, be inappropriate.
Hence, we concur with the NRC steff's recommendation te delete Section 20.205.
i In addition, we recommend that the NRC encourage licensees to follow the l
guidelines contained in the Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies referred to above; namely, that record keeping include data on both the annual and committed effective dose equivalent, as well as on the cumulative (lifetime) dose.
We here these additional comments will be helpful.
Sincerely, 9s%
Dade W. Moeller Chairman
References:
1.
SECY-88-315 dated November. 4, 1988 for The Commissioners from Victor Stello, Jr.,
Subject:
Revision of 10 CFR Part 20, "Stan-dards for Protection Against Radiation."
2.
Staff Requirements Memo dated November 28, 1988 for Victor Stello, Jr., EDO, W. C. Parler, OGC, and D. W. Moeller, ACNW, regarding Briefing on Final Rule on Standards for Protection Against Ra-diation in Part 20.
efS?h 4
k UNITED STATES p g.
- s p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE k,
WASHINoTON, D.C. 20066 3% /
...+
December 30, 1988 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMISSION POLICY ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL FOR PRACTICES WHOSE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS ARE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN During the fifth meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, December.
21, 1988, we discussed the "Advence Notice of the Development of a Commission-Policy on Exemptions From Regulatory Control ~ for Practices Whose Public Health and Safety Impacts Are Below Regulatory Concern."
This subject was also discussed with you and your fellow Commissioners during our meeting with you on October 27, 1988. We had previously submitted several written reports
~
on this matter to you.
The purpose of this report is to provida you.with our responses.to the several questions on which the proposed Policy Statement requested comments and to offer our comments on selected positions and/or premises outlined in the Policy Statement.
1.
Justification of Practices In establishing its exemption policy, should the Commission ex-clude certain practices for which there appears to be no reason-able justification?
In considering proposals for exemptions, should the Commission evaluate the social acceptability of prac-tices?
Response
The ACNW believes that practices for which there appears to be no reasonable justification, particularly those that are considered to be of a " frivolous" nature, should be excluded from exemption.
We concur with the staff in the examples that they cited for this category.
At the same time, however, we would urge that the Commission recognize that what may be considered to be unjustified by one group may not be simi-larly regarded by others.
We continue to believe that the Commission should exercise considerable care in reaching judgments on this matter.
2.
Dose Limits and Criteria The Commissicn specifically seeks comment on the need for estab-lishing a collective dose limit in addition to an individual dose YWkWW{
E
l The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. December 30, 1988 criterion.
If such a collective dose criterien.is needed, what'is
~
l the basis for this need?
If the Commission decides that a col-1ective dose criterion is needed, what approaches allowing trunca-tion of individual dose. in calculation of collective dose. or weighting factors for components of collective dose.would be appropriate? What alternatives should be considered for assess-ing societal impact?
Response
a.
Collective Dose Criterion We continue to believe that a collective dose exemption level (or criterion) is necessary, but we also' recognize that some flexibility should be allowed in setting that criterion.
It is important to recall that annual doses to individual members of the public arising from en exempted practice will be estimated by use of models and essuned scenarios.
These models will not be, and prcbably cannot -
be, validated.
As a result, dose estimates derived through the application of such models will contain potentially important uncer-tainties.
Further, exemption from controls also increases the range of possible exposure scenarios that can take place.
This will add
.to the uncertain nature of the calculations.
Although we are aware that estimates of collective population ' doses and determination of compliance are plegued by the same kinds of uncertainties, the additional constraints imposed by collective dose exemption levels should provide some further assurance of the continued acceptability of a practice that has been exempted.
We believe that the magnitude of the collective dose criterion should depend on the associated dose rate to individual members of the public. As one possible approach, the Commission might consider that, for sources, practices, and/or devices that result in a dose rate as high as 10 mrem per year to individual members of the public, the collective dose criterion should be no greater than several bundred person-rem per year.
For activities that result in dose rates well below 1 mrem per year, a collective dose criterion of several thousand person-rem per year might be considered.
b.
Truncation of Collective Dose Although a number of groups (such as the National Council on Ra-dktion Protection and Measurements) have pro rates (for example,1 mrem per year or less) posed individual dose at which collective dose calculations should be truncated, we believe that such an approach would be strongly opposed by many groups within the public.
We recommend that those responsible for calculating the impacts associated with a given practice being considered for exemption be required not only to provide an estimate of the total collective dose but also to provide data on the number of people within each
The l'onorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. December 30, 1988 dose rate range.
Following this practice, all interested parties would be provided with detailed information on the contribution to the total collective dose by population groups in all dose rate ranges, including those in the extremely low ranges, and the Com-mission could take this information into consideration in deciding whether to exempt the practice.
We believe the collective dose exemption approach suggested abova will be helpful in making such judgments, c.
Alternatives for Assessing Societal Impacts The Committee is not able to comment on the issues surrounding the social acceptability of a practice under consideration for exemp-tion. We urge the Commission to proceed into this area with caution owing to the extensive and potentially unproductive polemics that could easily be generated.
1 3.
Role of the As Low As Reasonably Achieveble (ALARA) Criterion In the Advance Notice of the Commission Policy, the NRC staff l
stated that, "If the dose is less than the below regulatory concern criteria, then the risk from a practice would be con-sidered to he ALARA without further analysis."
Response
We believe that this statement is confusing and that it does not repre-sent the approach that the NRC staff has indicated that it intends to follow.
In all cases, the staff has indicated that no practice would be exempted without a careful review of all details of its proposed application, that all practices will have to be justified, and that the proposed licensee will have to demonstrate that the given practice incorporates good radiation protection principles.
For those practices that are exempted, there will be periodic, subsequent reviews to assure that they are properly implemented and that they do not result in dose rates to individual members of the public in excess of what was predicted.
Rather than characterize the exempted practice in terms of the ALARA criterion, we believe it wauld be better simply to say that the practice satisfies NRC radiation protection criteria, and its impacts have been found to be so small that the Commission has deemed it acceptable for the practice to be used or for the device or source to be released to the general public.
4.
Designation of Exemption Levels In discussions on this aspect of the Policy Statement, questions have been raised on several occasions on the individual dose rates
~
The Henorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
-4 7/
December 30, 1988 that would be considered to be acceptable for exempted practices, sources, and devices.
Although the Commission did not explicitly request comments on this matter, the Committee desires to offer the following remarks.
Response
First, it is important to note that there are practices, sources, and/or devices that result in exposure to the public for which exemptions have already been granted. These include consumer products, such as luminous dial watches exempted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as items such as television sets that have been exempted by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
In addition, exposures re-sulting from the transportation of radioactive materials have been e; tempted through regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
In fact, according to studies of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP Report No. 95, December.1987), the -
average dose rate to individual members of the U.S. public arising from the use of ccusumer products (involving both radioactive materials and radiation generating machines) is currently at a level of 10 mrem per year.
In short, this is not a new field.
Second,- although the Policy Statement implies that some practices that could result in dose rates of as much as 100 mrem per -year might be considered for exemption, we believe it is important to note that 100 mrem per year is the long-term dose limit for members of the public as recommended by the Nationel Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-ments and the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
It is also the limit recommended for members of the public in the revision being prcposed by the NRC to Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation." A dose rate for individual members of the public approaching 100 mrem per year should not be viewed as an exemption level; rather, sources and prac-tices that have the potential for causing dose rates in this range would have to be regulated.
We foresee no conditions under which such sour-ces, practices, or devices can be considered for exemption.
In terms of the exemption of practices, sources, and/or devices, it is our opinion that the limiting dose rate for individual members of the public as a result of exposures from all such exemptions should not exceed a value in the range of a few tens of mrem per year.
Following i
this approach, and assuming that each person has the potentiality of being exposed to more than one such practice or source, then the exemp-tion level per practice should be in the range of, at most, I to 10 mrem per year.
We note that, in developing an exemption policy, the Com-mission is deciding how much of the 100 mrem per year dose limit for members of the public should be allocated to exempted practices, sour-ces, and/or devices.
1
_._.__7
~ The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. December 30, 1988 Since other onvernment agencies have similar responsibilities, all"such-
~
efforts should be well coordinated, and the total dose rate from all exempted practices nust he well below (only a small fraction of) the I
dose limit.
5.
Exposures to Multiple Practices The Commission seeks comment on whether individuals may experience radiation exposure approaching the limiting values through the cumulative effects of more than one practice, even though the exposures from cach practice are only small fractions of the limit.
Response
l The recommended dose rate exemption level of a few nrem per year for individual members of the public (arising from a single source, prac-tice, and/or device) should provide reasonable protection against the inadvertent accumulation of annual doses in excess of the exemption level for individuals due to exposures to several exempted practices.
Nevertheless, the Commission will need, in the long run, to guard 1
against concentrations of exempted practices in localities and should include in its rules provisions that allow it to use judgment in this matter.
6.
General Comments In addition to the comments above, the ACNW offers the following general comments.
One requirement that the Commission should consider for inclusion in the exemption regulations is that for a source, practice, and/or device to be eligible for consideration, it must be " inherently" safe. That is to say, no accident scenario can be reasonably postulated that would result in doses to individual members of the public greater than a few mrem.
The Commission should also emphasize that, even after the application of a practice has been justified and approval has been granted for its application and/or use, the situation will be reviewed periodically to ensure that the original conditions are being met and that the given practice, source, and/or device is still acceptable for exemption. This is currently a part of the Policy Statement.
It should be emphasized.
Equally important t of an exemption policy is the establishment of acco the developmentepted exposure pathway scenarios, both use of and accidents involving the practices, sources, and/or devices under consideration. This will require the development of environmental transport models and the cerivation of secondary or derived guides (for example, concentration limits for specific radionuclides in low-level radioactive wastes that should be considered eligible for exemption), as
4 The Henorable.Lando W. Zech, Jr. December 30, 1988 well as the development of laboratory <and/or field procedures for making the measurements necessary to confirm that the given practice, source, and/or device complies.with the exemption levels.
Finally, we believe that at this stage in the process one of the most important goals should be to develop a policy primarily designed for application on a case-by-case basis.
It is also clear that procedural flexibility should be explicitly maintained.
A Policy Statement in-corporating both of these attributes can then guide the practices and, l
as experience is gained, both can be modified, if necessary, to lead to I
e more workable approach.
We hope these connents will be helpful.
Sincerely, Dade W. Moeller i
Chairman
Reference:
" Advance Notice of the Development of a Commission Policy on Exemptions From Regulatory Centrol For Practices Whose Public l Health and Safety Impacts are Below Regulatory Concern," presented at the NRC/NEA Workshop on Rules for Exemption from Regulatory Control on October 17-19, 1988.
t l
i
j r.s tro
][' g/ ;[a -
jo.,
UNITED STATES -
1 6*
(,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g*
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE
's o%, 'v f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565 December 30, 1988
/
i The Honorable Lando W. Zech,' Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
SUBJECT:
DRAFT GENERIC TECHNICAL POSITION: GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINATION OF ANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS AND UNANTICIPATED PROCESSES AND EVENTS As a follow-up to our meeting with you and your fellow Commissioners on October 27, 1988, we are pleased to provide the following comments on the subject Draft Generic Technical Position (GTP).
These written i
comments support the oral comments that we made during our meeting with you.
One of the problems we have noted with.the GTP is a lack of-clarity in the definitions of anticipated and unanticipated processes and events.
This'has led to confusion. One approach for. correcting this problem has
-been suggested by Dr. J. C.-Maxwell, one of our consultants.
It would be to classify such processes and events as: (1) expected,(2)possible but not expected, and (3) highly improbable.
This is based on our understanding that anticipated events as currently used in the draft GTP can be either expected or envisioned,' whereas unanticipated events can he envisioned but are not actually expected to' occur.
Although we realize that existing statutes and regulations may limit your flexibility in taking such an approach, a redefinition of these terns as suggested by Dr,, Maxwell may be helpful.
4 Sincerely, 9s%4 Dade W. Moeller Chairman
Reference:
Draf t Generic Technical Position:
Guidance for Determination of An-ticipated Processes and Events and Unanticipated Processes and Events, transmitted by memorandum dated February 22, 1988 from Eileen T. Tana, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to All Interested Parties.
?'5[? $Q(:0
- - ~ ~ ~ - - ~
s y
- K8cg%
UNITED STATES -
-f' g c.. -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w,(3.g 1
jf ; e.
' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE.
.g o%,..v A[ '
O WASHINCToN, D.C 20066
....+
January 4,1989 1
i ME!10RANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Dade W. Moeller, Chairman Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste
SUBJECT:
TOPICS RAISED BY ACNW DURING THE OCTOBER 27, 1988, MEETING
.WITH THE COMMISSIONERS As a follow up to our meeting with the Commissioners on October 27, the Secretary of the Comission has requested (November 8,1988) that we transmit to you topics or items thht were raised with them during our meeting but had not been documented previously in written reports to the Comission.
The following is a list of those topics:
1.
The DOE contractor staff involved with waste-related activities at the Savannah River facilities has noted some difficulty in communicating with the NRC staff on acceptance criteria for Savannah River high-level,
. solidified waste. We believe this is an' issue internal to DOE, not with
' the-NRC staff, but it should be rectified to ensure the acceptability for disposal of the Savannah River waste product.
2.
The effect of the Low-level Radioactive Weste Policy Amendments. Act of 1985 in expanding the number of LLW disposal sites may lead to a situa-tion where it-could be difficult for sonie of the sites to be economi-cally viable.
If this proves to be true, the NRC staff may want to.
monitor - the situation closely to ensure that matters pertaining to -
public health and safety in the operation of.such facilities are not neglected.
L 3.
Representatives of the state of South Carolina have suggested that the development of a national central information bank related to the l
generation end dispos 61 of LLW would be useful. Consideration should be i
given to the establishment of such a system.
l 4
The Comittee indicated its inability, because of resource limitations, to conduct a comprehensive, in-depth review of the project and research activities of either of the High-or Low-level Waste Divisions but noted that selected portions of their activities will be assessed or evaluated in connection with our review of specific technical issues.
5.
Dr. Moeller noted the revisions planned for 10 CFR Part 20.
The Com-mittee has provided additional coments to Chairman Zech regarding this matter (see ACNW. report dated December 30,1988).
U I I' loo 9[
l
~ Victo'r Stello, Jr. January 4, 1989 6.
We endorsed the desirability of requiring vendors, utilities, and disposal site operators to submit reports of unusual events related to solidified LLW.
We are pleased to note that Chairman Zech has requested an evaluation of such a requirement.
I 7.
Based on recently reported events, it appears that additional emphasis I
needs to be directed to the review, evaluation, and inspection of the processing, solidification, and handling of LLW at nuclear power plants.
We believe that this een be addressed through improved coordination between NRR and NMSS, but may require enlarging the scope of activities of either or both groups.
8.
Dr. Smith noted the problems associated with overlapping responsibili-ties between NRC and the EPA for the disposal of mixed wastes.
Concern was expressed about the possible implications of this arrangement to the disposal of high-level and transuranic wastes.
Other items on which we have commented, and which were also t ntioned during the meetirs with the Commi7sioners, included:
1.
Definition of Anticipated Processes and Events and Unanticipated Precesses and Events (see ACKW 1etter dated December 30,1988 for additionalinformationonthissubject) 2.
Below Regulatory Concern i
3.
Branch Technical Position on Monitoring of LLW Sites Dade W. Moeller Chairman cc: Chsirman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss S. J. Chilk, SECY H. L. Thompson, NMSS E. S. Beckjord, RES T. E. Murley, NRR ACNW Members / Staff y
i 1
_ _ _ _ - _ _