ML20245D510
| ML20245D510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/06/1989 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dingell J HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905010026 | |
| Download: ML20245D510 (11) | |
Text
,
a
.[:
[f" UNITED STATES
/)
4 o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
n h
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 a
April 6, 1989
,,g
' CHAIRMAN The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Your letter.of February 22, 1989, expressed your concerns and those of your constituent, Mr. Ken Russell, regarding the public health risks associateo with the exemption from regula-tion of radioactive wastes of sufficiently low concentrations to be below regulatory concern (BRC)Las authorized under the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (P. L.99-240).
The Commission recognizes that there are complex technical issues related to public health and safety that must.be resolved before final action is'taken to implement the provisions of P. L.99-240 with respect to BRC wastes.
Our goals in_ developing our regulatory program in this area are to ensure that public health and safety considerations receive priority attention in considering alternative disposal options and to encourage and provide ample opportunity for the public to participate in the process.
To date, the Commission has not published any proposed regula-tions that would allow disposal of low-level waste as mandated under the BRC provisions of_P. L.99-240.
In 1986, in com-pliance with the Act, the Commission adopted a final policy that established the standards and procedures that will permit us to act upon any BRC rulemaking petitions that we might receive.
On December 2, 1986, we published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that' solicited public comments on the issue of BRC waste disposal.
More recently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has been in'the process of developing a br adly applicable policy that would establish the principles'and criteria that govern all Commission decisions related to the exemption of radioactive materials from regula-l tory control.
The policy is intended to provide the public health and safety framework that would apply to the development of appropriate regulations on such issues as disposal of very low-level radioactive waste at locations other than licensed low-level waste disposal sites.
As a key step in this initiative, the Commission issued for public comment the enclosed notice on December 12, 1988.
Thus far, we have l
received almost 200 comment letters on this notice.
V[0h x
8905010026 890406 l}
PDR COMMS NRCC 4
CORRESPONDENCE PDC
.l
. With respect to Mr. Russell's specific comments, the NRC is aware that the. nation's nuclear utilities are funding research to determine, in their view, what low-level radioactive waste could be potentially classified as "below regulatory concern."
We have been' informed that the utilities are working through their research institute and management council and that they.
intend to submit a petition for rulemaking to the NRC within the next few months.
As you emphasized in your letter, we will require BRC petitioners to carry the burden of showing that public health and safety are protected adequately.
The'NRC dons not believe that there is a need to reclassify Class C low-level nuclear waste as high-level waste, as Mr. Russell suggests.
Section 3 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1985 supports our view.
However, the Commission has published a proposed rule (53 FR 17709, May 18, 1988) that addresses disposal of low-level waste ' a t 'is greater than Class C.
A copy of that rule is enclosed.
'he rule would require greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste to be disposed of in a deep geologic repository unless the Department of Energy proposes an acceptable alternative for NRC's approval.
I want to assure you that public comments on these and other issues associated with BRC waste disposal will be carefully considered by the Commission.
In that connection, I have forwarded both your letter and Mr. Russell's. to the appropriate NRC staff so that your views may be further considered in the development of Commission policy on this matter.
i Sincerely, j
l rl DJ, m.
LandoW.Zeh,Jq
Enclosures:
1.
Federal Register Advance Notice, dated December 12, 1988.
2.
' Federal Register Notice of
~
Proposed Rulemaking, dated May 31, 1988.
l
~
i.
?
49886 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules 1
1 I
NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Ch.I Policy Statement on Exemptions From Regulatory Control Astucy: Nuclear Reguletory Commission.
ACTION 5: Advance Dolice of proposed statement and meeting.
i suuuany:The NRC is in the process of i
developing a broad policy on exemptions from regulatory control for practices whose health and safety i
impacts could be considered below I
regulatory concern.This policy l'
statement would provide for more efficient and consistent regulatory actions in connection with exemptions from various specific Commission i
requirements.The Commission. in formulating this Advance Nc,tice.is seeking public input on some specific I
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 38 / Monday. December 12.1988 / Proposed Rules 49887 questions which are key considerations country's border. !t is hoped that Commission may initiate the in developing such a policy.The NRC exchanges of ideas and information development of appropnate regulations staff will conduct a meeting to inform such as occurred at the international or make licensing decisions to exempt the public of its intentions, specifically workshop will besides providing one from regulatory control persons who to clanfy and answer questions avenue ofinput to the Commission's receive, possess. use, transfer. own. or t
concernmg the advance notice. and to actions, lead toward a greater degree of acquire certain raboactive matenal.
hear preluninary views conceming a consistency in such exemptions world-policy for exemptions with emphasis on wide. At the international workshop, the nis policy is directed principally toward rulemaking activities. but may the specific quescons raised by the
" Advance Notice of the Development of be applied to license amendments or Commission.
a Commission Policy on Exemptions oaTes: Meeting to be held on January from Regulatory Control for Practices license applications involving the 12.1989. Written comments should be Whose Public Health and Safety release of licensed radioactive material submitted by January 30.1989.
Impacts are Below Regulatory Concem", either to the environment or to persons Comments received after this date will presented in this notice,was made who would be exempt from Commission be considered ifit is practical to do so, available for discussion.The transcript regulations. it is important to emphasize but assurance of consideration can only of the intemstional workshop which that this polciy does not assert an be given as to comments received on or includes all the papers presented at the absence or threshold of risk but rather before this date.
meeting may be examined and copied establishes a baselme where further AppRessts:Meetmg will be held at the for a fee at the NRC Public Document government regulations to reduce nsks Holiday Inn. 8120 Wisconsin Avenue.
Room at 2120 L Street. NW.,
is unwarranted.
Bethesda, MD 20814 (4 blocks north of Washington. DC.
He c neept of ngulaton nempties the Bethesda Metro Station). Telephone:
is now new. For example,in 1960 and (301) 652-2000.1-800-465-4329. Mail Advance Notics of the Development of a 1970. the Commission promulgated Commi== ion Policy tables of exempt quanaties and wntten comments to: Secretary. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Intmduction andPurpose concentrations for radioscuve material Washington.DC.20555. Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Over the last several years. the t n es e d reci ve possess.
Comments may be delivered to 11555 Commission has become increasingly
- fe " # '"
h aware of the need to provide a general Rockville Pike.Rockville MD between policy on the appropnate criteria for 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.
release of radioactne metennis from
,t 7 er 5iR 2 p
22.
Copies of the comments received may be examined and copied for a fee at the regulatory control. To address this need.
"'*N " *
"8 NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L the Commission is expandmg upon its e en to h gemal puMk."w e
existing policy for protection of the Street. NW., Washington. DC.
public from radiation, currently a w eleasu admacme FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COB (TACT:
expressed in existing regulations (Title matuial to h enmempave been Catherine R. Mattsen. telephone (301)
- 10. Code of Federal Regulations) and embodied in the Commission s 492-3638, or William R. Lahs, telephone policy statements (30 FR 3461 Use of "I"**"""'
(301) 492.3774. Office of Nuclear Byproduct Material and Source recen@, de b Wel Ra&ach Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear Material, dated March 16.1965; 47 FR aste Pohey Amendmmts Act of M Regula tory Commission. Washington.
57446. Licensing Requirements for Land directed the Commission to develop DC. 20555.
Disposal of Radioactive Waste, dated standards and procedures for SUPPtfMENTARY INFORstaflope December 27.1982: and 51 FR 30839' t
o sa f s[nc slightly contaminated radioactive waste International Workshop ced n Pe tio in addition to conducting this public Pursuant to i 2.802 for Disposal of material that the Commission meeting. the Commission has sought Radioactive Waste Streams Below determined to be below regulatory input from the intemational regulatory Regulatory Concem, dated August 29.
concern. The Commission responded to community through an international 1956).The expansion includes the this legislatin by issuing a pohey workshop on exemptions from development of an explicit policy on the statement on August 29.1966 (51 l'R i
regulatory control which war held exemption from regulatory control of 30839).That statement contam, ed criteria October 17-19.1988 in Washington, DC.
practices whose public health and which,if satisfactorily addressed in a
'n:e importance of such interaction safety impacts are below regulatory petitim for rulemaking. would allow the stems from the fact that many existing concern. A practice is defined in this Commission to act expeditiously in and potential exemptions involve policy as an activity or a set or proposing appropriate regulatory relief radioactive materials purposefully used combination of a number of similar sets on a " practice-specific' basis consistent in consumer products or introduced into of coordinated and continuing activities with the merits of the petition.
various products or materials through aimed at a given purpose which involve The Commission believes that these the recycling of contaminated scrap, the potential for radiation exposure.
" practice-specific" exemptions should either of which may enter intemational Under this policy,the defin!!ien of be encompensed within a broader NRC trade. Even effluents and waste disposal " practice"is a ent cal feature which will policy which defines levels of radiation can involve exposures to people in usure that the formulation of risk below which specified practices countries other than those from which exemptions from regulatory control will would not require NRC regulation based the effluent or waste originated.This not allow deliberate dilution of material on public health and safety interests.
aspect is a significant issue in the or fractionation of a practice for the For such exemption practices, the European community.Thus, some purpose of circumventing controls that Commisalon's regulatory involvement degree of consistency internationally is would otherwise be applicable.
could therefore be essentially tirrdted to I
desirable. since exemption decisions The purpose of this policy statement licensing. inspection. and compliance can affect populations outside each is to establish the basis upon which the activities associated with the transfer of y n.mmame> e. a - e n-
4g333 rederal Rey.ister / Vol S3. No. 238 / Monday. Decembee 12. 1968 / Proposed Rules the radioative matanal from a enntmHed internationalcommunity.h values Altei:nalive hypodeses have been to an exempt statua.
under cansaderataosa in thia Policy propoemd and reevaluations of the data h Commission recognizes that. If a Statament do not nar==arily agree with been at higher doses continne.h national policy on exemptions fmm those selected or under cr-Aration by Commission believes that use of the regu!atory controlis to be effective.
ather countnes.h Commission has linene noMhreshokihypothesis aUows Agreement States will pay an isnportant carsfuDy reviewed those alternata the theaeenir.al estabhahment of upper implemerstation rofe. In the past. States criteria. and daea not find significant limits on the==h== of beetlh effects have been encouraging findmys that scientific evidence that would dictate that adght accer at very low dosee cerfrin waster are below regulatory preferential selection ni any of those which are the subject of the exemptian concern cod the Commirsmn believes views eyes what is proposed in thsz policy.
that States wdi capport an expension of Policy Statement.
W risk of death to anladividual,as calculated using the linear model. is these views to all practicee invetving g,g,g,, y ca,,pyg,,g w p
showninTablei forvanous defined exempt distnbutton or releese of radioactive material.The Commission
& Commission recognizes that three levels ofindividualdona A radiation intends thet rulemakings codifying fundamental principles of radiation exposure of 10 mrma per year (u mSv regulatory control exemptions will be protection have historically guided the per year) for a lifetime corresponds made a matter of compatibihty for formulation of a system ofdose theoretically to an increase of ME of Agreement States. Consequently, any limitation to protect workers and the the individaal's annual risk d cancas rulemakings that evolve from this pokey public from the potentially harmful death.h lifetima nak is based upon willbe coordinated with the States.
effects of radiation.They are:(11 the further assumptionthat the exposure Advisory and scientdic bodies have Justification of the practice.which levelia the same for each year of a 70 offered diverse views to the Commission resparus that there be seeie met benefit year 1.rwim.
in anticipation of this Policy Statement.
resulting from the use of raiatranor in estimating the done rataato bre is not clear consensus based on radioactive matenals.(2) dose limits
- members d the publicthat might anna existing scient fic evidence or research which define the upper boundary of through the use of vanous practaces for regardmg the selection of numerical adequate protection for a member of the which exemptions are being considered.
criteria for use in this Policy Statement.
public wtuch should not be exceeded in the Commission has decided to apply Further, the Comuussion la aware that the conduct of nuclear setivities and (3) es concept M ee"effemive dose there are ddiering views within the NRC ALARA.which reqmres that radstion equivalent."This concept.which la staff on the selectionofnumerical dose he as low as is reasonably bued an a comparison d the delayed achievable econmuic and social factars criteria!for BRC.
mortality effects of ionizma radiation Ir.the alscnce of a scier.tific, bems takenintc account.W ters' Asis uposures peruuteghseed ALARA.is an acrocym for As faw weighting factors.the calculation of the consensus, it is the Commission's task to assess the diversity of views in Reasonably Achievable.The whola body dona equivalent of partihl establishing a responsible BRCpolicy.
Commission is interested in assessing body exyaures.This approachwas The authonty and responsibility to make how these pnnerples should be applied originaDy developedby the the final selection of criteria rests with in establishing appropriate criteria for the Commission. Criteria selected must release of radioactive materials from f,"d ca Pro ad was fint (1) Prorrde reasonsble assurance that regulatary control.
expressed in its P.ublication 26 issued in public health and safety will be Because of the absence of observed 1977.Since that time, ee concept has protected, and (2) consistent with such health effects below 5 rem / year (50 been reviewed and evaluated,by a ssurance. permit practices in the public mSv/ year) scientificexpertsincluding radiation pmtection organizatmns domain which involve the use of the InternationalCommission on throughout the world and has samed radioisotopes for which society Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the wide acceptanca.
t perceives a demand.
National Council on Radiation l
It is recognized that thereis a delicate Protection and Measurement (NCRP)
TAats.t r balance here. Criterie can be set make the assumption that the frequency sufficiently restrictive such that thereis of occurrence of health effecta per unit
,L8**",',,"'"
absointe assurance that health and does at low done levels is the same as at
%,w viety will always be protected, no high doses (10 RAD (M Gy)) wheft mas arm sses cerarenis n.stter what events might transpire.
health effects have been observed and
= = = eaa.
However. In doing so the regulatormay studied in humans and animala.This i
100 a'** '
sno*
sna-*
then place undue and unnecessary linear non-threshold hypothesis assumes restrictions on practices which should that the risk of radiation induced eIfects @'
7 l
be permitted because of otherwise (principally cancar)islinearly o.s._ _
ano-*
ixte*
reasonable social, economic.or proportional to dose,no matter how industiral considerations.There is small the dose might be.ne coefficient
' mik enemaem ni ano-a per== (2no-aser always the danger of over-regulation used in the rnodel as a bania for M M,%, %%"8,";,,,,,,,,.
which results in effects that are felt in estimating statistical health risk is on we cancer enre en nowces e ari noviu eqd'*,,*,*,8,",',"QQ
@Q areas where the NRC does not have the order of 1x10-* risk of fatal cances authority and responsibility.Moreover, per person-rern of radiation does mr.m tas ms.t.: si o e maart the Atc=ic Energy Act does not require (2x10" per SV).The Commission
- Qy p,N,7,,,w,,, g,j absolute assurances of safety m the use recognizes thatitis a conservative
- g.,, rn
,,n,. p..,.,,e. one,name of radioactive materialandlicensed model based upon data collected at sowve== sar sowcae enema no ** soor one em facilities.
relatively high doses and dose rates Q*,8,lg * ** ***"*** 5' *""* **
The numerica!criteriaultimately which is then extrapolated to the low selected will have significant impact on done and dose rate sesion where there ne Consmission recognizes thatitla nuclear relru!:. tion here in the United are no statistically reliable impossible to measurensk to States and potentially in the epidemiological data available.
Individuals or populations directly, and.
I Federal Register / Vol. 53 No. 238 / Monday. December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules 49889 that in most situations,it is impractical licensee's control (natural background
- 1. The application or continuation of to measure annual doses to individuals and medical exposures are excluded).
regulatory controls on the practice does at the low levels implied by exemption Because of the small risks involved. a 10 not result in any significant reduction in decisions. Typically, radioisotope mrem (0.1 mSv) individual dose enterion the dose received by individuals within concentrations or radiation levels from is proposed ae the basis for exemption the entical group and by the exposed the matenal te be exempted are the decisions based on simple analysis and population on actual measurements that can be made, judgements.ne Commission 2.ne costs of the regulatory controls cnd doses are then estimated by specifically seeks comment on the need that could be imposed for dose exposure pathway analysis combined for establishing a collective dose limit in reduction are not balanced by the with other types of assumptions related addition to an individual dose criterion.
commensurate reduction in nsk that to the ways m which people might if such a collective dose criterion is could be realized.
become exposed. Under such conditions, needed. what is the basis for this need?
For purposes ofimplementing its conservative assumptions are frequently If the Commission decides that a policy, the Commission recogmzes that used in modeling so that the actual dose. collective dose enterion is needed. what only under unusual circumstances i
4 is on the low side of the calculated dose, approaches allowing truncation of The Commission believes that this is the individual dose in calculation of would practices which cause radiation appropriate approach to be taken when collective dose or weighting factors for exposures approaching the 100 mrem per year (I mSv per year) hmit be determining if an exemption from components of collective dose would be regulatory controls is warranted.
appropnate? What attematives should considered as candidates for exemption.
Collecove dose is the sum of the be considered for assessing societal Tne Commission will consider such individual doses resulting from a impact?
circumstances on a case specific basis practice or source of radiation exposure.
- ALARA-ne ALARA principle using the general principles outlined in By assigning cellective dose a monetary generally applies to determining dose this policy statement. However as the v21ue. it can be used in cost benefit and levels below which exemptions may be doses and attendant risks to members of other quantitative analysis techniques. It granted on a cost-benefit basis.
the exposed population decrease. the is a factor to considerin balanemg However. it is the purpose of this policy need for regulatory controls decreases benefits and societalimpact.
to establish cnteria which would. in and the analysis needed to support a Considemtions in Cranting Exemptions effect.delineste achievement of ALARA proposal for exemption can reasonably be somewhat simplified.
Emm Regulatory Contml g[u lt is possfble o rInsonably The Commission is evaluating the use The following elements are being project what the dose will be from a
$onTr 8 '
c nsidered by the Commission as a practice, und then take this information b2 sis for evaluating practices which are into account in controlling regulated eved.They are:(a) A cnterion for proposed to be exempt from regulatory practices so that the dose limits are not the maximum individual annual dose c:ntrol.These practices.if approved.
exceeded. exemptions imply some reasonably expected to be received as a wruld result in products containing low degree ofloss of control.The tesult of the practice and (b) a measure levels of radioactive material being Commission believes that a key of societalimpact to the, exposed, distributed to the general public and consideration in establishing a policy for do es
.fo a g ven radioactive effluents and solid waste
,,y ssure t exemptions, and subsequently in being released to areas of the publicly-specific rulemaking orlicensing exempted practice. no individual will be cccessible environment.
decisions.is the question of whether exposed to a significant risk and that the e Justification-The Commission Individuals may experience radiation population as a whole does not suffer a suks comment on the extent to which exposure approaching the limiting signihcant impact.
sxposures resulting from any practice values through the cumulative effects of If the individual doses from a practice should be justified. As lower Icvels of more than one practice, even though the under consideration for exemption are radiation exposure are projected, should exposures from each practice are only sufficiently small. the attendant risks lower levels of benefit be required for small fractions of the limit. The will be small compared with, other practice justification? In establishing its Commission specifically seeks comment societal risks. The Commission believes exzmption policy, should the on the issue. By appropriate choices of that annual individial fatality riska -
Commission exclude certain practices exemption criteria and through its below approximately 10-'(one in for which there appears to be no evaluations of specific exemption 100.000) are of little concern to most reasonable justification? 1n considering proposals in implementing the policy.
members of society. Providing for some proposals for exemptions, should the the Commission intends to assure that it margin below this level, the Commission Commission evaluate the social is unlikely that any individual will proposes to mrem (0.1 mSv) as the level acceptability of practices? Should the experience exposures which exceed the of annualindividual exposure.The Commission determine a practice to be 100 mrem per year (1 mSv per year) incremental annual individual cancer unjustified if nonradioactive economical limit.
fatality risk associated with an exposure alternatives exist?
- Dose Limits and Criterion-Pimeples ofExemption level of 10 mrem per yeat (0.1 mSv per year)is about 2x10-* (two in one Individual doses from practices A major consideration in exempting million) as indicated in Table 1 and of exempted under this policy should not any practice from regulatory control the order of 0.1 percent (one in one be allcwed to exceed 100 mrem per year hinges on the general questron of thousand) of the overallrisk of cancer (1 mSv per year). This is the dose limit whether or not application or death.
for members of the public specified in continuation of regulatory controls are in evaluating the need for a collective the final revision of to CFR Part 20 necessary and cost effective in reducing dose criterion, the Commission i
l Standards for Protection Against dose.To determine if exemption is recognizes that this criterion could be Rndiation.The dose limits in the final appropriate, the Commission must the limiting consideration for practices e
revision of to CFR Part 20 apply to all determine if one of the following involving very smallindividual doses to arurces of radiatian exposure under a conditions is met:
very large numbers of people. !: is also j'
49895 rederal Register / Vol 53. No. =:a / Monday. December 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules recognized that in such cases the from applicabfe licensing requirements.
that ALARA considerations have becs coIIectrve dose criterion would, in effect. Approvalof a proposed conmmer dealt with.This approach is consistent apply the A! ARA concept to individual product depends upon an assessment of with past pracuce, e g.. conwmer l
doses less than the below regulatory exposures of persons to radiation as productsules in 10 CFR Part 30' concem level of to mrem peryear to the well as an evahtmn of the usefulnesa in evaluating proposals kr exemption individual. Conversely, where the of the product.
under this pobey, the protected collective dose ertterion would not be Certain practicea involving rarhm en exposures ta dtflerent components of limiting, it would serve no purpose. The or radioactive materials have been the exposed population wd1 be Commission requestr comments on this judged by NRC to be socially cansmiseed enth regard to the potential issue. including co=ments on what the unacceptable regardless of how trivial that sosse umhviduela may receive doses magrutude of the collective dose the resulting dose might be and, near theim mrom per year (1 mSv per enterion. tf any, should be.
therefore.have been MW fra year) limit when doses from other if the dose se Iers than the below exemption. Excluded practices include, pmetem am eiso laga h regulatory concern enterie. then the risk but are not limitad in, the intentional cassidmtM uposum fmm from a practice would be considered to introducticr. of radioactive material inta le Practices can occur wM are be AIARA without further analysis.ne toys and products intendedfos Commission stresses that adoption of ingestion. inhalation or direct significantly beyond the indh idual dose the crtteria should not be constread as e application to the skin (such as enterion (10 mrem per year (0.2 mSv per decision that smaller dosee are cosmetical.
year)), the exemption will not be granted necessary before a practice can be In addition to socia!Iy unacceptable without further analysis. As experience exempted. while doses above the uses of radioactive matenals a question is gained.this policy and its enteria would preclude exemptions. On also arises regardmg uses where there implementation will be reevaluated with the contrary, the enteria simply are clear economical alternatives, and, regard to this issue to assure that the represent a raoge of risk which the no unique beneSts exist from using exposures to the public remain well Commission bebeves is sufficiently radioactive materialWhere riaka are below 100 mrem per year (1 mSv per small compared to other individual and trivial, the regulatory prohihilion of such year).
societainska that a cost benefit analysis uses could pose an unnecessary In addition to considerations of is not required in order to make e regulatory burden by intnrning with the expected activities and pathways, the decision regarding the acceptahtlity of conduct of businesa.
Commission recognizes that anexception Pracoceenotmeerms The Comnusamn seeks enmments na* -consideration zust also be givein to the these entena may be gramma whetner practices shbuld be potential for accidents and misuse of the exemptions on a case-by.cese bas, a, categorically excluded based on the m
radioactive materials involved in the accordance with the pnnciples Commission's judgement regarding embodied within this policy.To further social acceptability or the existance of pracu.ced pmposaHor nmphon of a emphasize the Commission's recognition alternatives. An alternative to defined practice must therefore also that a rigid limitation on collective dose categorical exclusion could be a case addms: the potentials for accidents or would be inappropnate. it metes that for specific determination based on a safety misuse,andthe consequences of these some practices, such as use of smoke analysis.
exceptionalconditions m terms of detectors, appreciable benefits can only individuals and coUective dose.
be attained through extensive utilization ProposolsforExemptiarr gication ofExemphon Condtfomr and hence, with a comrnensurate A proposal for exemption must em provide a basis upon which the The r'ammission believes that the collective dose, The Conmsshmia aware that existing regulatons of the gs <
Cornmission can determine if the basic implementation of an exemption under conditior.a described above have been this broad policy guidance must be EnvironmentalProtection Agency satisfied.In general, this means that the accompanied by a suitable program to establish cnteria more reatnctive than proposal should address the individual monitor and venfy that the basic exemptions which could otherwise be dose and societal impact resulting frera considerations under which an granted under this proposed policy.
the expected activities undee the exemption was issued remain valid. In With regard to its own regulations,the exemption including the use of the most cases, the products or materials Commission will evaluata whether the e radioactive materials, the pathways of comprising an exempted practice will are exempuon criteria embodied therein exposure, the levels of activity, and the move from regulatory control to the for which modification. according to the methoda and constraints for assuring exempt status under e defined set of rinciples of this policy would be that the assumptions used to define a conditions and criteria.The monitoring erteficial practice remain appropriate as the and verification program must therefore radioactive matenals move from ExclusionsfromExemptionr be capable of providmg the Commission regulatory control to an exempt status.
with the appropriate assurance that the The Commission's MarchR196L If a proposal for exemption results in conditions for the exemption remain notice on the Use of Byproduct Material a rule containing generie requirements. a valid and that they are being observed.
and Source Matenal-Producta Intended person applying to utilize the exemption The Commission wiD gtermme for use by General Public {Ceneumer
- would not need to address justification Productal(30 FR 3462) provides the or AIARA.The Commission decision on comphance with is specine condidons basis for the Commission *z approval af such proposals will be based on the of an exemption & rough its established the use ci these materials in consumes licensee's meeting the condttions licensing andinspecuan program and products without regulatory control on specified in the rule.The promulgation will, frorn time to time, conduct s.tudies the consumer. user.This is accomplished of the rule would. under these as appropnate to mess the impact of by case-by. case exemption of the circumstances, constitute a finding tha t an exempted practice or combinations possession and use of approved litema the exempted practice is justified, and of exempted peacoces.
4 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. Decembtr 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules 4g891 TentatierMestairgAgendo ence to e fracten of the everall
- 1. Introduction and Summary NRC StaH
- 2. "" tho7s
- 11. Discussion of Specific Questions-Bnet m
exempted sources NRC Staff summary and presevisations or would be expected to tnrofve indmd-questions from acheduled parncipants.
mal doses which are e email fraction of the overall hmet, should flexibihty A. Apphcotion of pnnerple of justificatan be saintained by considenng exemp-includmg the quesuona:
cons on a cost beneht basis above to
- 1. As lower levels of radiation exposure, mrem /yeart are protected should lower levels of
- 3. Is the evaluation of couective done benefit be required for lusuficanon of important in considerms the multiple a practice whd is a candidate for exposure issuet exemptionf
& Will the apphcation oflesaficanon of
- 2. la establishing enemption policy.
pruenor help to maintain a smaller should the ("ammeneson exclude one.
numbe of ooerces making et essaar to tala practscos for which there appear, control erwrall exposurest to be ao reasonable jusuficationf E. How important is monitonna to main-
- 3. In considenng proposals for exemp-tsining amurance that individual ex-tion. should the Commission evaluate posume do not exceed to the overall social acceptabihty of the practicer lamitt
- 4. Should the Commission determine a IIL Ceneral h- - -- /Queenom Period-cace to be anrustified if non redio.
Comments or questions by scheduled par-
' cal economical ehernsoves exist?
ticipants. Open to the floor se tune per-IL Individual dose entenon for deteremmg
""88-echis.vement of the *as low as reason-
'! hose members of the pubhc who wwh to ably achievable" (ALARA) pnacaple in partcapste by speakmg at the sneeting exemption decision-making:
should moufy one of the contacts listed
- 1. la the to mrem / year enterion pro-
O'I **"
I" g,
posed by the Commission appropnate?
- 2. le the appropnateness of this number Deted in Rockvilla, hiaryland, this 1d day effected by the decision regertiing of December tees.
whether a collective does trisenon abanid be used wish the indwideal % gg I'*
done entationy E,secutint Directorfbr Openttiotts.
- 3. Should the indmdual dose entence [FR Dor as-assel Filed 12-6-se. &45 am) be choses on the basis of neghgible an.uus anna ress.es es risk as is done internationally (i.e.,
IAEA Safety Series No. es) or can a somewhat higher number be used based on a Comuussian policy deci-aion regardmg a level of individual risk for which expenditure of re-sources is not warranted?
- 4. How important is international con-eistency in choosmg an individual does entenoat C, Use of a collective dose criterion for determining achievement of the AIARA principle in esempnon decision making-
- 1. Is a collective dose criterion needed in addition to an individual dose ente-rion?
- 2. If so, what is the beeis of that need?
. 3. If the Commission decides a collective does entenon should be used, what should its magmtude be?
- 4. What alternative to a collective done criterion should be considered for en-sensing societalimpact?
- 5. In calculating collecuve done what approaches allowing truncation of in-dividual doses or the use of weighting factore for components of coDective does are appropriate?
D. Approaches for esserms total expo-serve of individuals from autiple pree-tions will not exceed the 100 anrem/
year limit.
- 2. Is the appraech of generally limiting individuals dosse from each sourse er
PART 61 o PROPOSED RULE MAKING specifically idIntifin draft QA guglince Advance Nitice tf Propused cf ev:ilible tschnicalinformsuin i
l for the design, construction. and Rulemaking (ANFRM)(51FR 59921 related to weste classification and operat on of those structures. systems.
announcmg its intent to revise the "interme&ste" disposal facihties and
)
and components as well as for site definition of the term "high-level review of relevant statutory proposes, characterization activities.
rs&oscrive waste" (MLW1 that appears the Commission has deternuned that it in Cf3 Part 60. In the ANPRM. the would be best to proceed quite Dated at silver spring. Maryland. this eth day of Decesiber.1957.
C mmitti n reviewed the previous differently from its origmal suggestion For the Wclear Regulatory Commission.
statutory and regulatory uses of the term put forth in the ANPRM.
"high-levelradioacuve waste." the m egg.g,,,,,,
NRC's current regulations related to A8Processity Wostas chief. Argulatorysronch.Divisionoftow.
waste classincanon and disposal and Leiw/ Waste Afonopementand the pertment provisions r,f the Nuclear he NWPA first labels as EW. under Decommissionmg. Office of Aclear Afoictral Waste Policy Act of 1982. Pub. L s"-4:5 Classe (A) the " highly radioactive So,tr cadSofeguards.
42 U.S.C.10101 et seg. (NWPA). As matenal" resulting from the r
indicared in b ANPRM. the NWPA reprocessing of spent fuel,includmg not 1
includes a specific definibon of"h!gh-only the liquid wastes but also any solid i
,>dE3 FR 17709 level radioactive waste" and the metenal denved from such liquid waste
$Mm "#',U',,,,, yn g',,,-
Commission was considenna e change that contains fission products "in l
to its own n.les to confonn to that suffident concentrations," Clause (A) de ition.
wastes have little significance for 10 CFR Part 61 in the ANPRM. the Commission purposes of NWPA. since the Federal l
Govenunent was already responsible Disposalof Ramosctive Westes t in g talwoul a p y th sotwev: Nuclear Regulatory high-level radioacave waste" to wes t
e te Commission.
materials in amounts and passed (The only commerdaLy-acnow: Proposed rule.
c neentnhas excee&ngnumuical generated reprocessing wastes were values that would be stated explicitly in made a Federal Government suussany:ne NRCis publishing the form of a table.Dus.HLW would responsibility in 1980 pursuant to the proposed amendments which require be charactenzed by the kind of hazard West Valley Demonstration Project Act.
esposal of " greater.than-Class-C" low.
that could only be guarded agamst by Pub. l.96-868. 42 U.S.C. 2021s note.) In level radioactive wastes m a deep esposalin a geologic repository or l@ d tMs fact, the Commusion geologic repository unless &sposal equivalent facihty. nose wastes that believes that the preferable construction elsewhere has been approved by the could be disposed of safelyin an dh stake h a codorm to b
. sditional definition.Under this Commission. The proposed amendtnenta intennediate disposalfacility would e
obviate the need for altermg existing contmus to be classified as low level
- wach, materials that are HLW for classifications of radioactive wastes as radioachve waste rather than as EW.
Ma d & licensingMediction high-level or low-level.
provisions of the Energy Reorganization Comments casu: r===nt pensd expires July 18.
Act of 1974 (12tA) will also be sogarded tosa. Comments received after this date
%e Commission solicited comments as EW undaNWPGs wald include the primary reprocessing weste will be considered if it la practical to do
("
I((
streams at DOE facilities, though not the so. but the Comnussion is able to assure p
considersbon only for comments private organtzacons. and individuals.
incidental wastes produced in received on or be ore this date.
WrmaDy au commenu a h ANPRM
PC"'*8' aconssa Mail wntten comments to:
agreed with the Commission on one other wosses Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory point noe of the term "high-level Comnussion. Washington DC20555.
radioacave wasta." at least under In b ANPRM the Commission Attennon: Docketmg and Servic*
Clause (B) of the NWPA definition.
Proposed to classify wastes as EW nr Branch. Dehver comments to:1 White serves to identify those wastes which non-HLW by==-"aa" the d sposal Flint North.11555 Rockville Pike, require the degree ofisolation afforded capacility of hypothetical Rockville. Md. betwen 7:30 an and 4.15 by a deep geologic repository.However.
"ir.termediate" disposal facilities less p.m. Federal workdays.or to the NRC comments differed widely regarding the secwe than a deep geologic repository.
Public Document Room at the address specfic wastes perceived to require that Wastes which could not be safely and times below. Copies of the degree ofisolation. Some comments disposed ofin ' ach facilities would be regulatory. analysis and comments advocated classification of au classified as HLW.
received may be esammed at the NRC radioactive wastes. other than the most followmg pubhcation of the ANPRM.
Public Document Room.1717 H Street innocuous. as HLW while other a technicalreport(Kocher.D.C.and A.
NW., Washington, DC between 7:30 comments would prefer to reclassifiy as G. Croff. A Pipposed Classificotton a.m. and 4:15 pa low levellarge quantities of defense System forHigh-Leveland Other reprocessing wastes long regarded as Rodiocerere wastes.ORNL/TM-10289.
FoR F11prrHER INFonssaMoM CoerraCT:
HLW. Conspicuously absent from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.1957)
W. Clark Prichard. Division of commenta was any consensus regarding was publised which attempted to Engineering. Office of Nuclear the means to be used by the provide a technical basis for Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear Commission to distinguish HLW from classification of wastes as HLW or non.
Regulatory Commission. Washington, non-HLW. Tor example, even the basic HLW.nis report described a number of DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-38a4.
concept of a numerical definition of conceptual " intermediate" disposal suppi.ausstrany #Nronasanoac HLW as suggested in the ANPRM. was facilities which would use either
Background
criticized as an invitation to dilute or engmeered barriers or deeper burial to tractionate wastes solely to alter their provide a degree of waste isolation On February 27.1987, the Nuclear classification in light of the comments intennediate between that of shallow Replatory Commission published an received, the nemission's own review land burialand a deep geologic e
61 PR.7 May 31,1988
i PART 61 o PROPOSED RULE MAKING repository. The authors attempted an protection standards that might have exceeding the bmits established in to analysis of the waste isolation been established by the US CFR Part 61 for Class C rad osctive j
capabihty of such facihties but.
Environmental Protection Agency.
waste. in view of this development. the
)
emphasitmg the site-specific nature of Technical critena to implement the Commission perceives httle practical such analyses and the very large performance objectives and importance or significance in proceedmg uncertamties involved. concluded that environme'ntal s tandards would be with a precise definition of HLW. Te do
}
- [ alt the present time... huch developed by ele Commission after DOE so would not advance the objectives of i
facihties arej not sufficiently developed hadcompleted its conceptual design and NWPA.
to provide a basis for definmg weste classes. and &sposal of any westes selected a site fcr a specific type of facihty Proposed Amendmeots usmg Isuch facihties) must be considered on a case-by-case basis.'
The Commission considers that the In ime with the foregoing discussion, Kocher and Croff then presented an proposal presented in the notice would therefore. the Commission is proposms obviate any need to reclassify certam two changes to its existmg rules. First.
alternative approach for defining HLW CTCC wastes as HLW.The proposal by amending to CFR 61.55,it would which m essence is based solely on the short-term storage and handhng nsks follows tt e shernative approach alluded henceforth require all greater-than-associated with the heat and extemal to m the ANPRM. that the Commission Class-C weste to be disposed ofin a rad stion levels generated by a waste.
"need not exercise NWPA Clause (B) geologic repository unless an alternative The Commission could not accept this authonry in order to assure that proposalis approved by the attemative approach since it bears no radiostative wastes from heensed Commission. Second, the jurisdictional correlation to the degree of waste activities are disposed of properly"(52 reach of10 CFR Part 81 would be isolation required following disposal.
FR 5998). Many comments on the extended to cover all activities of the g ANPRM adocated classification of all Department of Energy that may be he Commission's review of Kocher CTCC wastes as HLW in order to subject to the licensmg and regalatory and Croffs study leads it to the same ensure availability of a safe disposal authority of the Commission. This is conclusion regardmg the "home" for those wastes. but this intended to reflect the policy of the low-irspracticability of waste classification based on analyses of the performance ni proposal achieves the same purpose Level Radioactive Waste Policy while leavmg open the prospect that an Amendments Act,which provides that intermediate disposal facihties. lf waste classification is to be at all reshstic.
mtermed ate disposal facihty may prove all commercially-generated weste with ettractive et some time in the future.
concentrations excee6ng Class C timits additional disposal facility development (Since the possibility of using such a shall be disposed ofin a facility bcensed must be completed which will provide a facihtv is left open. the Commission is by the Commission that the Commission supportable basis for such classification.
not now determming that the wastes, determines is adequate to protect the Such disposal facility development is even if highly radioactive, do in fact pubhc health and safety.This change more properly the responsibihty of DOE
" require permanent isolation";
would take the form os ehminating the rather than NRC. However, the very accordingly. the NWPA definition of more restnetive language regarding the small volume labout 2.000 m* through HLW does not Apply).Moreover, this Deperstment of Energy that appears in the yearto:4 of commerciahy-proposal avoids the problem of trymg to the definition of the term " Person"in generated, greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) distmFutsh HLW from non-HLW without i 61.2.
wastes may make an intermediate an adequate technical basis for doing so.
disposal facihty economically And the legal and admmistrative Environment /hnpoct: Categoncol unattractive. Because no such facihty complications identified in the ANPRM.
Exclusion now exists for disposal of commercially-as well as questions sa to the retroactive The NRC has determined that this generated wastes. and because there is application of any new classification, poposed regulation is the type of a etion no assurane that one wsil ever be l
would be avoided or reduced. However.
desenbed in categoncal exclusion to constructed. the Commission beheves additionallegislation may be r:eeded by CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore neither en that an alemative. technically DOE to provide for payment of disposal enviornmental impact statement nor an conservative approach should be taken.
costs for above Class C wastes. or to environmental assessment has been The Commission proposes to require authonze recipt of such wastes for disposal of all GTCC wastes m a deep disposal at a repository.
prepared for this proposed regulation.
geologic repository unless disposal The first change. pertaining to the elsewhere has been exphcitly approve 4 The Commission also observes that defirution of " person." is corrective in by the Commission. This proposal the satutory framework for nuclear that it merely reflects the broader reflects the Comnussion a view that waste matters has changed Freatly smce junsdiction of the Cornmission under the enactment of NWPA. When that law intermediate disposal facihties may Low-kvel Radioactive Waste Policy never be available,in which case a was passed.it placed a responsibihty on Amendments Act.The modifications repository would be the only type of the Federal govemment to receive.
not substantial.
facihty generally capable of providmg manaFe. and disposal of certam wastes safe disposal for GTCC wastes. At the (HLW as well as spent nucleat fuel)in The second change. pertaining to the disposal of reater than-Class-C F
same time. the Commission wishes to geologic repositones. In that context. the avoid foreclosing.possible use of definition os the term "high4evel radioactive wastes in a geological intermediate disposal facihtles by the radioactive waste" assumed importance repository,is minor. The existmg Department of Energy (DOE). If DOE because it provided a basis for regulations in to CFR Part et already chooses to develop one or more differentiating between State and preclude disposal of GTCC in a Part 61 intermediate disposal facilities, the Federal responsibilities. This concem licensed disposal facility without further Commission anticiptes that,the was subsequently mooted by adoption review and approvalThis amendment does no more than state the acceptability of such facilities would be of the 1.ow. Level Radioactive Waste Policy Arnendments Act of1985. Pub.L Commission's conclusion that. in the evaluated in the light of the particular circumstances, considering for example 94-240. 42 U.S.C. 2021b et seg.This later absence of such an approved statute established a Federal alternative. a geologic repository is the the existing perfomiance objectives of to CFR Part 61 and any generally Government responsibility for the only currently authonzed facility acceptable for GTCC disposal without applicable environment radiation dispetal of commercially Fenerated funher review by the Commfesion. Thus, wastes with radionuchde concentrations it is a mmor chanFe to spectfy that the May 31,1988 61 PR 8
PART 61 o PROPOSED RULE MAKING 1
- more emngent" methods are to include apply to this proposed rule. and
- 3. In i 61.55. paragraph (alis amended disposal m a repository, where it is also therefore. that a backfit analysis is not by revising paragraph (a)(2)(lv) to read expresssy provided that.as before.
required for this proposed rule. because as follows:
proposals for other methods of disposal these amendments do not invovie any may still be submitted to the provisions which would impose backfits g st.ss wasts clasamcanork Commission for approval. No as defined in to CFR 50.109(a)(1).
substantial modification of existmg regulations is tivohed.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 81 (2) +..
low-level waste. Nuclear materials.
(iv) Waste that is not generally Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Penalty. Radioscuve, waste. Reportmg acceptable for near surface disposalis and recordkeepmg requ2rements. Waste waste for which waste form and na.s proposed rule does not contain a classification. Waste treatment and disposal methods must be different. and new or amended informa bon collection disposal.
in general more strmgent. than those requirement subject to the Paperwork For the reasons set out in the apecified for Class C waste. In the Reducton Act of 1980 (44 US.C. 3501 et preamble and under tbs authority of the absence of specific requirements in this seq 4 Existmg requirements were Atonue Energy Act of1954. as amended.
part. such waste must be disposed ofin approved by the Office of Management the Energy Reorgannation Act of 1974.
a geologic repository as defined in Part and Budget approval number 3150-0135.
as amended, and 5 US.C. 553 the NRC 60 of this chapter unless proposals fot is proposmg to adopt the followmg disposal of such waste in a disposal site RegulatoryAnalysis amendments to 10 CFR Part ei.
licensed pureuant to this part are The Commission has prepared a draft PART 61-UCENSING submitted to the Comnussion for regulatory analysis for this proposed REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND approval.
, regulation.ne analysis examines the DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission.The 1.The authority citation for Part 61 Dated at Rockville. MD, this 12th day of draft analysis as available for inspection contmues to read as follows:
Wesa.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Comnusem in the NRC Document Room.1717 H Authorter. Secs. 53. 57. EL 63. 65,81.181.
street NW Washington DC. Single 1st 183. es Stat. saa. est s33. s35. e4a. s53.
SaanualI. ChE copies of the draft analysis may be e54. as amended (42 U.Sc 2073. 2077. 20s2.
Secretary ofshe Commisseon. '
obtained from W. Clark Prichard.
20st 2005 aitt 22o1.22312233k secs.2o2.
Division of Engineermg. Office of 20s, sa stat 1244.124e (42 U.sc 5842. 584eh Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S.
sea. 20 and 14. Pub.1. 95 4o1. s' Stat 2951 Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion.
(42 sas1]2-2 as stat sms 7
Washmgton. DC 20555. telephone (302) amended. (42 U.SC 22?3h Tables s and 2.
492-3884.
II SL3. 81.24, SL25. BL27(a1. 61.41 through ne Conmussion requests public e1.42. e1.52, sta3. e1.55. eL56, and e Jet comment on the draft regulatory through et.e3 are usued under Sec. seth, es analysis. Comments on the drait Stat ses as amended 142 U.St 2201[bl):
ansivsis may be submitted to the NRC 15 e1.10 throush et.16. ents. and e1.no are as indicated under the ADDRESSES issueo under sec. teto. es stat. eso. as be 4 amended 142 U.SC 2 01(oD.
Regulatory Flexibihty Act Certification
- 2. Ln i 81.2. theniefinition oi" person" In accordance with the Regulatory is revised in the alphsbstical sequence Flexibihty Act of 1980 (5 US.C. 605(b))
to read as follows:
and NRC Size Standards (December 9.
1985. 50 FR 50241), the Commission i e1.2 Definluona.
certifies that this proposed rule will not As used in this part:
have a significant economic impact on a substantal number of small entities. The only enuty subject to reFulation under
- Person" means (1) any individual.
this proposed rule would be the US.
cwpwauon. permership, firm.
Department of Energy. which does not association. trust. estate, pubhc or fall within the scope of the definition of pnvate institution. Froup government small eritit2es" set forth in the agency other than the Commission or Regulatory Flexibility Act. All waste the Department of Energy (except that generators, some of which might be the Department of Energy is considered classified as small entities, must pay the a person within the meaning of the costs associated with management and regulations in this part to the extent that disposal of the wastes they generate.
Its fecilities and activities are subject to nis proposed rule would not affect the licensing and related regulatory those costs since it preserves all options authority of the Commission pursuant to currently available for waste disposal.
law), any State or any political Only DOE's selection of a specific subdivision of or any political entity disposal technology from the full range within a State, any foreign government of alternatives available would or nation or any political subdivision of pc.entially have an economic impact on any such government or nation. or other small muties-entity; and (2) any legal successor.
BackfittingAnalysis representative, agent, cr agency of the The NRC hes determined that the
"*8 I"8' backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109. does not 61.P R-9 May 31,1988
_f 1
+
(
h
& awNonED FiK57 CoNGRtSS
.;-N 9 D NCELL MtCMcGAN CmamMAN 4Mf8M $Cn(sf 8 ble ec.e NonMah s ufst etw voeu 0 ",l.' a':T* o't ?
nn"." " s'o'od'AoCO'.Nia E.6. ibause of Representanues
.aMES J 8.0aio Nt*.teste Maf7Mfw J aNALoo Ngw Jansty E* Wlftl"J'"""""'
a'O.',f';"it"?. "' ""
Committee on dnergy anb Commerce 70VG WALGAEN pfNNSVLWA8MA THOMAS J taunt 50*A OC.;'i t"',t'!."
."2'".:'O'T'"O. A noom 2125. Ra:> turn Bouse erthe smame M."l".'.'d = #0f*
0 2'!'o3'o-.o mashingron. DC 20515 0 '#,',, 'o'.faJ" '""'
"F0"lJ'.i'f" I',%
- 0.U'".'!"e.
%.".*A.#"7 ln "'"
diL6 ReChAR050N htw MEsiC0 SONNV CALLAMAN ALASAMA L".U'"'o".'il,'",'!.so, A February 22, 1989
.OwN BavamT TEMAS as a e ute w G ia
- M COOPER *ENNttlif
?t### L BAUC8 ELL: Nots J AOw A0wLAamo Ggong4A TMOMAS J MANTON 40W vCent hM M6CMAEL Eff2M6LLfR $7A78 OnaECTOR The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I have received a constituent letter raising concerns about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) proposal to expand the definition of radioactive waste below regulatory concern (BRC).
I share their concern.
Under the Low Level Waste Policy Act, the Commission is required to establish standards and procedures to exempt nuclear waste in sufficiently low concentra-tions or quantities as to be below regulatory concern.
The Act specifically requires that the BRC standard protect the public health and safety.
It is important to the reputation of the Commission and that of the commercial nuclear industry that the Commission place the burden of proof on prctecting public health and safety on those who want to raise the BRC le"a1 Sin erely,
/
' JOHN D. DINGELL CHAIRMAN Enclosure 3/1...To EDO to Prepare Response f or ED0? s Signature.......
Date due Comm: Mar 14. 0CA to Ack 89-0170 1
~~ (,)
h
c-WIDMDBILE AEROSPACE AGRIClllTilRALIMPL r, :
/ AMERICA (UAW)
AMALGAMATED}x^
E LOCAL NO. 925 117 W. WALKER STREET
- P.O. BOX 129
- ST. JOHNS, MICHIGAN 48879 TELEPHONE:(517) 224 8833 Repressman0 m ee FonounDRants; SAYLoR-BEALL OFFICE & PRooUCT1oN WORKERS. FEDERAL MOGUL
[Iu $
fg SCMMEL2EhCoRPoRATioN. ST. JOHNS PUBUC School MAIN O'
February 10, 1989
Dear Sir,
[
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I have been informed that in 1986 to de-has adopted a final policy (10 CFR 2.802) radio-is currently considered " low-level" (NRC) regulate some of whata consortium representing most of the active waste.
- EPRI, is expected to apply in early 1989 nation's nuclear utilities, the nuclear power plant vaste volume to have at least a third of declared BRC.
It will become regular garbage, or, if it.contains Although this hazardous vaste.
hazardous chem). cal components, incinerators and down sewers, absolutely waste will go to landfills,no cons! %r.ation is given to the potential for synergisti and around those vaste sites.
radiac.on with the chemicals atrecycling contaminated materials of The' dangerous possibility ofThe waste could also be disposed of or left at also exists.
NRC published a Policy Statement on Exemptions From Regulatory reactor sites.
( Advance Notice of proposed Policy, 53 FR 238:4988 Control as a regulator.,
- 2, 1988) materials and practices.
NRC feels it is wrong, development, production and to unduly restrict consumer producta level of. exposure that will be marketing.
If the NRC can set it will be
" acceptable" as a continuous addition to background, used to justify allowing some manuf acturing processes, thatrecycling contamin involve radia. tion to proceed unlicensed, permitting radioactive consumerlicensing or labe metals and.other materia.ls, products to be marketed without radioactive 1.y contaminated buildings and rooms for the 115 massive nuclear reactors in the US?)Please be advised t use.
council in Lansing, MI not only oppose the deregulation of lov-waste should be reclassified as high-level so it can be Therefore we would appreciate your office getting involved of accordingly.
with th.. issue, and look forward to your support of our position.
khhl%.[3 Respaptfully yours, W
! l 2 }!d Gaem Ken Russell "I
l * ".
Capitol Area CAP Council Delegate
- q at k
United l
[@
St. Johns, MI 48879