ML20247R936

Responds to Re Constituent K Russell Concerns Re Public Health Risks Associated W/Existing & Proposed Commission Policies Which Could Exempt Certain Radioactive Matls & Practices from Regulatory Controls

ML20247R936
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/02/1989
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Levin C SENATE
Shared Package
ML20247R940	List: ML20247R936 ML20247R942
References
FRN-53FR17709, FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-61, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 8906080027
Download: ML20247R936 (12)

Text

_-

• 3pmuy.

'j

'

• hg UNITED STATES V

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 rn j

/

May 2,.1989 i

The Honorable Carl Levin United States-Senate Washington, DC 20510-

Dear Senator Levin:

Your letter of April 3,1989, forwarded correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Ken Russell, regarding the public health risks associated with existing and proposed Comission policies which could exempt certain radioactive materials and practices from some cr all regulatory controls. Mr. Russell had also sent a copy of his letter to Congressman Dingell, which has been responded to separately by NRC.

To date, the Comission has not published any proposed regulations that would allow disposal of low-level waste as mandated under the below regulatory concern (BRC) provisions authorized under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (P.L.99-240).

In 1986, in compliance with the Act, the Comission 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 coments on the issue of BRC waste disposal. More recently, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff has been in'the process of developing a broadly applicable policy that would establish the principles and criteria that govern all Commission decisions related to the exemption of radioactive materibls from some or all regulatory control. ' The policy is intended to provide the public health and safety f ramework 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 icw-level waste disposal sites. As a key step in this initiative, the Comission issued for public coment the enclosed notice on December 12, 1988. Thus far, we have received over 220 coment letters on this notice.

With respect to Mr. Russell's specific coments, the NRC is aware that the nation's nuclear utilities are funding research to determine, in their view, what low-level radioactive waste coulo 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.

Pegarding Mr. Russell's other concern, the NRC does not believe that there is a need to reclassify Class C low-level nuclear weste as high-level waste, as Mr. Russell suogests. Section 3 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1985 supports our view.

However, the Comission has published a proposed rule (53 FR 17709, May 18, 1988) that addresses disposal of low-level waste that is greater than Class C.

A copy of that rule is enclosed. The rule I.

would require greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste to be disposed of in o deep geologic repository unless the Department of Energy proposes an acceptable alternative for NRC's approval.

FULL TEXT ASCll SCAN

((

8906080027 890502 PDR ORG NE ED PDC

Honorable Carl Levin 2

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. Any other decisions resulting from the development of the Commission's broad exemption policy will receive similar consideration. Mr. Russell's letter has already been forwarded to those members of the HRC staff who are in the process of developing a broad-based exemption policy for the Commission's consideration.

Sincerely, Victor Stello, J.

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

Federal Register Advance Notice, dated December 12, 1988.

2.

Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated May 31, 1988.

~

f 49886 Federal Register / Vol. 53 No. 238 / Monday. December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules i

l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Ch 8 Policy Statement on Esemptions From Regulatory Control aatwcy: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Actiows: Advance notice of proposed statement and meeting.

suwuAsty:The NRC is in the process of developing a broad policy on exeuptions from regulatory control for practices whose health and safety impacts could be considered below regulatory concern.This policy statement would provide for more efficient and consistent regulatory actions in connection with exemptions from various specific Commission requirements.The Commission. in formulating this Advance Notice,is seeking public input on some specific l

W l

Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules ages 7 questions which are key considerations country's border. It is hoped that Commission may initiate the in developing such a policy.ne NRC exchanges of ideas and information development of appropriate reMtions staff will conduct a meeting to inform such as occurred at the intemational or make licensing decisions to exempt i

l the public of ito intentions, specifically workshop will, besides providing one from regu! story control persons who

{

13 clanfy and answer questions avenue of input to the Commission's receive, possess, use, transfer. own, or l

c:nceming the advance notice, and to actions,les d toward a greater degree of acquire certain radioactive material.

I hear preluninary views conceming a consistane) in such exemptions world-Dis policy is directed principally policy for exemptions with emphasis on wide. At the intemational workshop, the toward rulemaking activit2es, but may the specific questions raised by the

" Advance Notice of the Development of be applied tolicense amendments or Commission.

a Commission Policy on F.xamptions license applications involving the EATes: Meeting to be held on January from Regulatory Control for Practices release of licensed radioactive material 12.1989. Written comments should be Whose Public Health and Safety either to the environment or to persons submitted by January 30.1989.

Impacts are Below Regulatory Concern", who would be exempt from Cornmission Comments received after this date will presented in this notice, was made regulations. It is important to emphasize be considered if it is practical to do so, available for discussion.The transcript that this polciy does not as,ert an but assurance of consideration can only of the intemational workshop which absence or threshold of risk but rather be given as to comments received on or includes all the papers presented at the establishes a baseline where further before this date.

meeting may be examined and copied govemment regulations te reduce risks Aoonasses: Meeting will be held at the for a fee at the NRC Public Document is unwarranted.

Holiday Inn. 8120 Wisconsin Avenue.

Room at 2120 L Street.NW Bethesda. MD 20814 (4 blocks north of Washington DC.

b cacept of regulstory exemptions PmenM a g7[e[$

fs p mul e 3 65 1

29. a on P liCY tables of exempt quanuties and wntten comments to: Secretary U.S.

concentrations for radioactive material Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Inuoduction andPurpos, which a person. under certain Washington.DC 20555. Attention:

Over the last several yeart. the

• • "'E "'"'

Docketmg and Service Branch.

Corrilesion has become increasingly

"'"'I""'"'*9*

Comments may be delivered to 11555 aware of the need to provide a general emen a enn 84 Rockville Pike. Rockville. MD between policy on the appropriate critene for August 17.1960 and 35 m M26: Apr0 22.

7:30 a.m. and (15 p.m. weekdays.

release of radioscove materials from 1W Nr exem@m abng Copies of the comments received may regulatory control.To address this need.

?n IC n8umerproducts or 8

be examined and copied for a fee at the the Commission is expanding upon its

• 1. 83 NC' "

NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L existing policy for protection of the

'N "I"8 " '" ' dI * **I" Street. NW, Washington. DC.

public from radiation. currently matuial to h en nmenQan been FOR PusrTHER mp0assATION C00tTACTt expressed in existing regulations (Tida embodied in the Commission s Catherine R. Mattsen. telephone (301)

10. Code of Federal Regulations) and nguladons im sorne timeMon 492-3638, or William R. Labs, telephons policy statements (30 FR 3462.Use of ncendy, the Im len! Radioachve (301) 492-3774. Office of Nuclear Byproduct Material and Source Waste Policy Amendments Act of1985 Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear Material. dated March 16.1965: 47 71t directed the Commission to develop Regulatory Commission. Washington, 57446. Licensing Requirements for land standards and procedures for DC. 20555.

Disposal of Radioactive Waste. dated ta e handl of peti tons t supptassawfAmy suponsaAfiOsc December 27.1982: and $1 FR 30839, fpe 8"I General Statement of Policy and slighdy contaminated radioactive waste International Workshop Procedures Conceming Petitions natuial that de Comminion In addition to conducting this public Pursuant to i 2.802 for Disposal of determined to be below regulatory meeting, the Commission has sought Radioactive Weste Streams Below input from the intemat'onal regulatory Regulatory Concern, dated August 29, cucun.W Comminion nspgnded to community through an international 1986).The expansion includes the this legislation byissuing a pobey statement on August 29.1986 (51 FR workshop on exemptions from development of an explicit policy on the 30839).That statement contained criteria I

regulatory control which was held exemption from regulatory control of which. if satisfactorily addressed in a October 17-19,1988 in Washington, DC.

practices whose public health and The importance of such interaction safety impacts are below regulatory petition for rulemaking, would allow the stems from the fact that many existing concern. A practice la defined in this Commission to act expeditiously m proposing appropriate regulstory relie!

and potential exemptions involve policy as an activity or a set or radioactive materials purposefully used combination of a number of simI!ar 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 definition of be encompassed within a broader NRC trade. Even effluents and waste disposal " practice"is a critical feature which will policy which defines levels of radiation can involve exposures to people in assure 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.nis 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 Commission's regulatory involvement degree of consistency internationally is would otherwise be applicable.

could therefore be essentially limited to 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 6

e e

O

I*dnal Register / Vol 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12.1988/ Proposed Rsle, 4388g the radioative mate.nal from a controHed intemaHac.at community.h values Altemative hypotheses have been under rresAration in thia Poucy proposeal and reesalaatiora of the data h Commission recognizes that. If a Statzment do not wmarily agree with bene at higher dones cmticoe. m to an exempt statu.

national poncy on exemptions from those selected or under consideration by Commission beheves that nse of the regu!atory controf is to be effective.

a6er cor.stnes.The Commission haa linear noa4hresheld bypothess allow, Agreement States will pay an important carv.fdly renewed those alternate the theoretical estalkshinent of upper implementation rofe. In the past. States cnteria and does not fand sigmDeant hmits on the marmber of beach effects l

have been encouragmg findmgs that scientinc evidesce that wodd d;ctate thet udght occur atvery low dose, certan was+es am below reguf atory prefs. ret selection of any of those which are the subject of the exemption concern and the Commirnon belieres views over what is preposed in thn

policy, f

The risk af deaa to anindtridual as that States well support an expansion of Policy Stat'"'

calculated ualrig the unear modelis i

these views to all practicer f:rvoftmg Radidea Protection PrincFple, showninTabne1 forvanous denned exempt distributr:m er re(esse of The Commluion recognizes that three levels ciindividual dose. A radiat>on red oscrive rnaterfal.The Commistfon fundamental princip!es of radiation exposure of to mrera per year (ca mSv intends that rulemakings codifying protection have historically g.uded the per year) for a lifetime corresponds regnfatory control exemptxms will be ferroufation of a system of dose theoretically to an increase of Ms of made a matter of compatibihty for limitation to protec.t workers and the thdudividaali amual d d m f

Agre ement States. Consequently, any pubhc from the potentially harmful deuh.The 1 fetime riaus bued p rulemakings that evolve from this pohey effects of radiation.They are:(1) th father mphaen 6e w will be coordinated with the States.

justification of the actice, which levelis the same for each year of a 70-Advisory and scaecutc bodies have offered dn erse views to the Commission remnres that there some net be=efh y,,gg resulting from the use of raianon or In utmaths tb dose reca to in anticipation of thia Policy Statewe radioactive materials.(2) dose hmits, members of the public that might arise There is not clear consensus based on which define the upper boundary of through the une of vanous practices for existing scientific evidence or research adequate protection for a member of the

• hi'h ****E.tiona are being considered.

regardmg the select 2on of numerical pubhc whrch should not be exceeded fn th Commssaan has decided to apply critena for use in th:s Pohey Statement.

the condtet cf nuclear retvities, and (3)

'F' Further, the Commission is aware that ALARA. which reqmres that rsdation ui nt" c cept. hach ia there are dEertng views within the NRC dose be as low as is reasonably bsedm copM h and staff on the selection of numerical achievable, economic and social factors mortahty effects of innir.i^8 radiaboa o]&

criterial for BRC.

being taken mto accou st.The term.

consensus, it is the Commission's task to ALARA.is an acronym for Aslow Aais'jM In the absence of a scientific at Reasonably Achievable.The whole body dose e4uivalent of partial assess the diversity of views in Commissions interestedin assessing body exposures.This approach was establishing a responsible BRC po! Icy.

The authonty and responsibility to make how these pnnctples should be applied originaDy developed by the the fmal selection of criteria rests with in establishes appropriate entena foe Cc i

the Commission. Cnteria selected must release of radioacuve matenais from te[g

,, g, 9

regulatory control.

expressed in its Pubhcation 26 issued in (1) Provide reasonable asrurance that Because of the absence of observed 1977. Since that time, the concept has public heaf th and safety wiD be health effects below Srem/ year 50 bun rmewed and evaluated by protected and (2] consistent with such mSv/ year), scient;fic experta including radiation protection organfrations assurance, permit practices in the public the international Cortmission on throughout the world and has gamed domain whrch involve the ese of Ra diological Protection (ICRP) and the wide acceptance.

radioisotopes for which soetery National Council on Radiation perceives a demand.

Protection and Measueemects (NCRP)

TmL1 r it is recognized that there le a delicate make the assumption that the frequency balance here. Cnterie can be set of occurrence of health effects per unit L9.;w",,'*i, sufficiently restrictive such that there la does at low dose levels is the same as at absolute assurance that health and high doses (10 RAD (0.1 Cy))where ar e

.nn eau *==

safety will always be protected, no health effects have been observed and matter what events might transpire.

studied in humans and animals This too ar** '

m :ra ms" However in doing so, the regulator may linear non threshold hypothesis assumes ff',*'" '-

i then place undue and unnecessary that the nsk of radiation induced effects Q.

moa restnctions on practices which should (principauy cancer)is linearly moa c.s,.,e=

be permitted becacse of otherwise proportional to done,no matter bow reasonable social.econocuc.or sma11 the dose might be. The coefficient S@,gj$jaymy" per ea (mo" se

' Ank coenc= os mo

.jcfl, industiral considerations.There is used in the model as a basis for always the danger of over-regulation estimating statistical bealth rist is on en ro~o os gr env *wi en soom =mg which ruults in effects that are felt in the order of 2x10" risk of fatalcances gs, my areas where the NRC does not have per person rem of radiation doea

,n,,n m nse. : c one,,e a umens oe=*w roc.staa re emen.on or authority and respocaibihty.Moreover.

(2x10-8 per SV).The Commission the AtomicEnergy Act does not regnite recognizes that itis a conservative

$.am,*e"n,f'E",%*? [,", j ',', ff' 5

tar noces wa-w to rne e,oor ano re absolute assurances of safety in the use model based upon data collected at

""*d

• "" ao" ** vee kr savus a of radioactive material and hcensed relatively high desta and dose rates facihties.

which is then extrapolated to the Icw The Commission recogrJzes thatitis The numerica! criteria ultimately dose and dose rate region whera there impossible to measure nsk to selected will have sigmficant impact on are no statistically rehable nuclear regulation bere in the United epidemiological data available.

indwiduals or populations directly, and.

States and potentially in the

T'ederal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12. 1988 / Propos2d Rules 49889 that in most situations, it is impractical licensee's control (natural background 1.ne application or continuation of t) missure annual doses to individuals and medical exposures are excluded).

regulatory controls on the practice does et the low levels implied by exemption Because of the small risks involved, a 10 not result in any significant reduction in decisions. Typically, ra dioisotope mrem (0.1 mSv) Individual dose criterion the dose received by individuals within i

conc:ntrations or radiation levels from is proposed as the basis for exemption the entical group and by the exposed 1

the material to be exempted are the decisions based on simple analysis and population or; cetual measurements that can be made, judgemer ta. The Commission 2.The costs of the regulatory controls cnd doses are then estimated by specifically seeks comment on the need that could be imposed for dose sxposure pathway analysis combined for establishing a collective dose limit in reduction are not balanced by the with etber types of assumptions related addition to an individual dose criterion.

commensurate reduction in nsk that t) the weys ac which people might if such a collective dose criterion is could be realized.

beceme 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 criterion is needed.what only under unusual circumstances is en the low side of the calculated dose. approaches allowing truncation of would practices which cause radiation The Commission believes that this is the individual dose in calculation of exposures approaching the 100 mrem per appropriate approach to be taken when collective dose or weighting factois for year (1 mSv per year) tunit be det:rmining u an exemption from components of collective dose weald be considered as candidates for exemption.

regulatory controls is warranted.

appropnate? What alternatives sht.uld The Commission will consider such Collecove dose is the sum of the be considered for assessing societal circumstances on a case specific basis individual doses resulting from a impact?

using the general principles outlined in practice or source of radiation exposun.

• AIARA-The AIARA principle this policy statement. However, as the By assigning collective dose a monetary generally applies to determining dose doses and attendant riska to members of value, it can be used in cost benefit and levels below which exemptions may be the exposed population decrease, the eth;r quantitative analysis techniques. it granted on a cost benefit basis.

need for regulatory controls decreases is a f:ctor to consider in balancing However. it is the purpose of this policy and the analysis needed to support a benefits and societalimpact.

to establish criteria which would. in proposal for exemption can reasonably effect. delineate achievement of AIARA be somewhat simphfied.

Considemtions in Cmnting Exemptions ghitis possfble o asonably ftw numerical criteria in defining the ne Commission is evaluating the use Emm Regulatory Contml th The following elements are being project abat the dose will be from a regi n where AIARA has been practice, and then take this information n'

considered b the Commission as a b: sis for evafuating practices which are into account in controlling regulated

• ',h g

m ind ja nua! dose proposed to be exempt from regulatory practices so that the dose limits are not reasonably expected to be received as a control. These practices. t' approved.

exceeded. exemptions imply some result g ge practice and (b) a messure would result in products containing low degree ofloss of control.The of a cietalimpact to the exposed levels of radioactive material being Commission believes that a key distributed to the general public and consideration in establishing a policy for [,,u kt assure t t.fo$ a g ven re radioactive effluents and solid waste exemptions and subsequentlyin exempted practice. no individual will be being released to areas of the publicly-specific rulemaking or licensing e* Posed to a si ". ificant risk and that the 8

eccessible environment.

decisions. is the question of whether

• justification-The Commission individuals may experience radiation population as a whole does not suffer a signficant impact.

seeks comment on the extent to which exbosure approaching the hmiting va es through the cumulative effects of if the individual doses from a practice 6xposures resulting from any practice abould be justified. As lower levels of more than one practice. even though the under consideration for exemption are radiation exposure are prcjected. 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 societal risks.The Commission believes practice justification? In establishing its Commission specifically seeks comment exemption policy. should the on the issue. By appropriate choices of that annualindividia! fatality risks 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? In considering proposals in imp!tmenting the policy.

members of society.Providing for some l

proposals for exemptions, should the the Commissiotiintends to asaure that it margin below this level, the Commission Commission evaluate the social is unlikely that any individual will proposes 10 mrtm (0.1 mSv) as the level acceptabihty of practices? Should the experience exposures which exceed the of annualindividual exposure. The incremental annual individual cancer Commission determine a practice to be 100 mrem per year (1 mSv per year) unjustified if nonradioactive economical limit.

fatality risk associated with an exposure I

level of to mrem per year (0.1 mSv per l

alternatives exist?

Principles ofExemption year)is about 2 x10"(two in one I

• Dose 1.imits and Criterion-i Individual doses from practices A major consideration in exempting million) a s indicated in Table 1 and of I

exempted under this policy should not any practice from regulatory control the order of 0.1 percent (one in one be allowed to exceed 100 mrem per year hinges on the general question of thousand) of the overall risk 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 30 necessary and cost effective in reducing dose criterion, the Commission Standards for Protection Against dose.To determine if exemption is recognizes that this criterion could be Radiation.The dose limits in the final appropriate, the Commission must the hmiting consideration for practices revision of 10 CFR Part 20 sooly te all determine if one of the following involving very smallindividual doses to srurces of radiation exposuN under a conditions is met very large numbers of people. it is also

4 4g396 rederal Register / Vol. 53. No. ::38 / Monday. Deumber 12, 1988 / Proposed Rulea 9

=

recognized that in such cases the from a pp!;cabfe Lcensing requireme.nts.

that ALARA canaiderations have been 7

co!Iective dose critaion would,in effect. Approvalof a p>oposed consumer dealt with.This appec.ach La cocaistent I

cpply the A!. ARA concept to individual product depends upon an assess:nent of with past practice. e g., cons.nner I

d;ses fers than the below regulatory exposures of persons to rsdiation as product rules in 10 CR Part 3a concern level of to mrem peryear to the well as an evaluation of the usefulnesa in evaluating proposala for r temption individual. Conversely, where the of the product.

under this pabey the projectr 3 colleente dose criterion would not be Certain practicas involving ra diation exposures to ddierent compt eia of hmiting, it would serve no pirrpose. The or radioactive materials hava been the exposed population will be Commission requests comments on this judged by NRC to be socially carmdered with regard to the potential iss ue, incloding comments on wha t the unacceptable regardless of how tzMal that some turbriduela may receive doses magnitude of the collective dose the resulting dose mightbe end.

near the im mrem pu year D mSv per entenen tf any. should be.

therefore.have been eW from yearHim t whea dosea imm othe If the dose is less than the behw e.xes,ption. Excluded practices include, P#UC'* * * * * '"

I""

regulatory concern enteria. then the risk but are not timited to, the intentional conndwation. If exposurn fmm from a practice would be considered to introductionof radioactive materialists multiple praetices can occur which are be ALARA without further analysis.The toys and producta intended far sig ficantly beyond the individual dose Commission stresses that adoption of ingestion, inhalation or direct enterion Do mrem per year (0.1 mSv per the criteria should not be construed es e application to the akin (such as year)). the exemption will not be granted dIcision that smaller dosee are cosmetical.

without further analysis. As experience necessary before a pracnce can be in addition to socia!Iy unacceptable exempted,while doses above the uses of radioactive raaterials, a question is gained, this policy and its criteria would preclude exemptions. On also arises regarding uses where there implementation will be reevaluated with the contrary, the criteria simply are clear economical aff emativea. and regard to this isaue, to assure that the represent a range of risk which the no unique beneSta exist from using exposures to the public remain well Commission bebeves is sufficiently radioactive materialWhere riska are below 100 mrem per year (1 mSv per small compared to other individual and tnriaf, the regufatory prohibition of auch yearJ.

societalruis that a cost benefit analysis uses could pose an unnecessary In addition to considerations of is not required in order to make a regulatory burden by interfering with the expected activities and pathways, the decision regarding the acceptability of conduct of businesa.

Commission recognizes that an exemption. Practices not meetmg ne Commiuson seeks commen!s on consideration most also be given to the these criteria may be granted whether practices should be potential for eccidente and misuse of the exemptions en a case-by. case basis in categorically excluded based on the radioactive materials involved in the cccordance with the principles Commissfon's Judgement regar6cg practice. A pmpmal for exmption of a crnbodied within this policy.To further socia! acceptability or the existance of defined practice must therefore also emphasize the Commission's recognition alternatives. An alternative to address the potentials for accidents or thet a rigid limitat>on on collective does categorical exclusion could be a case misuse, and the consequences of these would be inappropnate. it metes that foe specific determination esed on a safety exceptionalconditions to terms of 5

soma practices. nach as use of smoke analysis.

individuals and coDective dose.

detectors, appreciable benefits can only Proposols krfremptier be attained throcgh extensive utilization and. hence, with a commensurate

• A proposal for exemption must The h. mission believes that the r

colleetive dose.

provide a basia upon which the implementation of an exemption undee The Commissionla aware that Cornmission can determine if the basic existing regulations of the conditions described above have been this broad policy guidance must be EnvironmentalProtection Agency satisfied. In general. this means that the accompaniedby a suitable program to establish criter a more testnctiva than proposal should address the in6vidual monitor and veefy that the basic cxamptions which could otherwise be dose and societal impact resulting frora considerations under which an granted under this proposed policy.

the expected activities under the exemption was issued remain valid. In With regard to its own regulations, the exemption,includmg the use of the most cases, the products or materials Commisston will evaluata whether there radioactive materials. the pathways of comprising an exempted practice will are exemption criteria embo6ed therein exposure, the levels of activity, and the mose from regulatory control to the for which modication, according to the methods and constraints for assuring exempt status under e defined set of rmciples of this policy, would be that the assumptions used to define a conditions and criteria. The monitonng eneficial.

practice remain appropriate as the and verification prog am mest therefore radioactive matenals move from be capable of providing the Commission Exclurent from Erentprione regulatory control to an exempt status.

with the appropriate assurance that the The Commission's March 16.196E If a proposal for exemption results in conditions for the exen ; tion remain notice on thel'ae of Byproduct Material a rule containing generie requirements a valid. and that they are being observed.

a nd Source Ma f erial-producta Intended person applyicg to utilize the exemptica The Commission wiD determme would not need to addresa justificanort compbance with tha specie conditions for use by General Public (Consumee or ALARA. The Commission der. inion on of an exemption through its established Products)(30 FR 332) providss the such proposals will be based or, the licensing andinspection program and besin for the Commission's approval ci the use of these materials in consumer licensee's mt eting the conditions will, from time to time, conduct s.tudies products without regulatory control en speciGed la S rule.The promulgation as appropriate to ast,ess the impact of f

the consumer user.This is accomphsbed of the rule wa 'i under these an eaampted practice or combinations by case-by. case eumphon of the circumstances, constitute a fmding that possession and use of approved itema the exempted practice is justified, and of exempted peaccces.

l

• ['

Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules 49891 T;ntatiee Meeting Agendo preence to e fracten of the e,erall I" '

I. Introduction and Sammary NRC StaH g, "Aftho g erempted sources ms IL Diacussion of Specific Questions-Brief would be expected to involve indmd-NRC StaU summary and presentations or mal doses which are a small fraction questions from scheduled participants.

of the overall hmit should flexibihty A. Apphcotion of prinerple of }ustificaten be maintained by sensidenng exemp-including the questions tions on a cost-beneht basis above to

1. As lower levels of radiation exposures mrem / yea rf are projected should lower levels of

3. Is the evaluation of colleenve done benefit be required for jusnficanon of important la considenne the snultiple a practace which is e candidate for exposure isevet exesnpbonf

& Will the sphcation of instification of 1 is estabhahmg examption policy.

practics help to maintain a smaller should the Comtrussion exclude car.

oumber of ooerces makang it eenier to taia practices for whidi there oppears control overall exposures?

to be no reasonable justification?

5. How important is monitonns to main-

3. In considenna preposals for exemp.

taisung assurance that in&vidual es-tion, should the Commission evaluate pesures do not exceed to the overall social acceptabihty of the practice?

lieut?

4. Should the Commission determine a III. General Discusmon/Quesham Period.

preence to be unjustified if non re&o.

Comments or questions by scheduled pet.

logical economical alternatives exist?

tacipants. Open to the floor as tune per.

smte.

C In&vidual dose cntenon for determining achievement of the "as low se reason-Those members of the pubhc who wish to chly achievable" (ALARA) pnnciple in parecipate by speakms et the snecting caemption decision making.

should moufy one of the on-*ects hated e

et they can b Mled in

1. Is the to mrem / year enterion pro-posed by the Comminion appropnate?

I le the appropnateness af this number Detad in Rockvilla. Maryland, this 24 day effected by the decision regarding of December 19sa-whether a collective dose entenon N*N'"

abould be used with the in&vidnal doee anteriony Enocutive DuectorforOperotions.

3. Should the in&vadval dose critenon FR Doc. 8646491 l'iled 12+48. 845 am) be chosen on the basis of neghgtble o w ns come m.m nok as is done internationally (i.e.

IAEA Safety Series No. Sej or can a somewhat higher number be moed based on a Commission pobey dech eion regar&ng a level of in&vidual risk for which expenditure of re-sources is not warranted?

4. How important is international con-eistency in choosing an in&vidual dose enterioo?

C. Use of a collective does criterion for determining achievement of the ALARA principle la exemption decision making-

1. Is a collective dose criterion needed in addauon to an in&vidual dose crite-rion?

3. If so, what is the basis of that need?

3. If the Commission decides a collective dose entenon should be used, what should its magrutude be?

4. What alternauwe to a collective dose critenon should be considered foe so-sessing societalimpact?

5. In calculating collective dose, what approaches allowing truncation of in-

&vidual dores or the use of weightmg factors for components of collective dose are appropriate?

D. Approaches for assurmg total expo-sures of in&viduals from mutiple pree-tions will not exceed the too mres/

year tunit.

1. Is the approach of generally limiting in&viduals doses from each source or

PART 61 o PROPOSED RULE MAKING

.a

' specifies!!y idIntifies draft QA gugiance Advance N2tice of PropIsed of available technicalinformehoe for the design, construction. and Rulemakang (ANPRM)(51fR 8382) related to weete class:Acetion and operation of those structures. s) stems.

announcing its intent to revise the and components as well as for site dermiuon of the term "high level

" intermediate" disposal fadhties, and c

charactenzation activities.

radiosetive weste"(HLW) that appears review of relevant statutory proposes.

Deled at Silver Spnne Maryland. this eth in 10 CFR Pert to. in the ANPRM. the the Cornaussion has determined that it Commission reviewed the previous would be best to pmceed gone F

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

statutory and regulatory mes of the term digre,ently from its ongmal suggestion

• high-leveltedioecDve waste.** the put fore m h ANPRM*

Miched SAeseey.

NRC's current regulations related to Reptocessig Wasser cAict. Aeruledry Aranch. Division of Lea.

weste clustlicecon and disposet and tem / Wonte Atonesementand the peronent provisions of the Nuclear De NWPA first labels as HLW.under Decommessionus of5cc e/h clect Aforene/

Weste Policy Act of 1982. Pub. L 37-4:5.

Clan iA). the " highly radioactive yd

,,,,;g twWung from h Sobrv ondSo/ervorus-ted in I

f A.

npmendasy spot ndueng ut 1,. mo.

includes a specific definition c f"high-only tbs Ugued wastes but also any sohd s?.=.?e.e.,. m.,

ievd,a-cuve wuis andihe m,ournal dwiv,d,be such bqu,id new

",Wa= "",o"c",jd a;' gaa sund-i.no==eamm Cia-m

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,,,,.,

c n,e

,m o deh

"**'" h*II"II8"I0**"**I*'

10 CFR Part et la the ANPRM. the Comnduion purposes of NWPA. since the Federal Disposalof Radioactive Wastes proposed to deLas HLW in a manner

• I " P'"'

.that in 8eneral would apply the term aspect Nudear Regulatory

.high-levelradioactve weste to westes at the ttee the"s"tatute wa"s c-a=-

pa m d. W od fa",'a'o'"T."e "u",,..sco

-ad -

y camerdaDy-as -== ~~

ACM088: Proposed rule

• values that would be stated explicitly in sussesAny:ne NRC is publishing the form of a table.nus.HLW would responsibility in 1980 pursuant to the proposed arnendments which require be charactenzed by the kind of hazard West VaDey Demonstration Project Act.

desposal of" greater than Clau C" low, that could only be guarded agamst by Pub. L 96-868. 42 U.S.C. 2021e note.) In level radioacuve wastes an a deep d:sposal m a geologic repository or h'ght of this feet. the Commission

' geplagic repository unless disposal equivalent facihty. nose wastes that believes that the preferable construction elsewhere has been approved by' the could be disposed of safelyin an d b sh is e coMmm W ee Commission. De proposed amendrnents intermediate disposal facility would Wed ddinida. Uda eis obviate the need for altering existing continue to be classified as low level approach, meterisle that are HLW for classificat one of rs&oscere wastes as radioactve waste rather then as HLW.

p,,,, g g 3,,ggy, g,g, high-level orlow-level.

Comments pWe M h Energy Rguinum oa's: Cos: ment period expires July 14.

Act of1978 (ERA) wiC also be regarded toes Comments received after this dete

%e Commission solidted comments es HLW under NWPA.His would will be considered if it is practical to do on severs! spec fled issues and received indude the pnsnary nprocening waste so.but the Camussion is able to usure letters from nearly 100 public agencies, streams at DOE fadlities, though not the considuabon ordy for comments prtvote organazatons, and individuals.

inddentalwastes produced in received on or before this date.

Vlrtually aD comments on the ANPRM Mprocessmg.

Aeonssa: Mail written comments c:

agred W 2e Comfusa e me mm Secretary. U.S. Nudear Reguletory pomt noe of the term "hlsh-level Coeurussion. Washington. DC 20555.

radioactve wests." at least under la the ANPRM the Cornanission Attennose Docketing and Service Clause (B)of the NWPA definition.

Proposed to classify wastes es HLW or serves to identify those westes which non-HLW by====ining the disposal Branch. Deliver comments to:1 White flint North.11555 Rockville Pike, require the degree ofisolation afforded capacility of hypothetical Rochville. Md. betwen 7:30 a.m. and 4.15 by a deep geologic repository. However.

" intermediate" disposal facilities less p.m. Federal workdays. or to the NRC comments differed widely ngarding the secure than a deep geologic repository.

Pubbe Document Room at the address specific westes percerved to require that Wastes which could not be safely avd tunes below. Copies of the degree ofisolation. Some commenta disposed of in such facilities would be resslatory. analysis and ra===ats advocated clusificaton of au classified u HLW, received may be examaned at the NRC radioactive westes, other than the most Followmg pubhcation of the ANPRM.

Public Documcat Room.1717 H Street innocuous. se HLW while other a technical report (Kocher. D. C. and A.

NW. Washington. DC.between 7:30 comments would profer to redsselfly as C. Croff. A Proposed Classification s.m. and 4:16 p.m.

!cw.levellarge quantites of delense Syster.:for Nich-Leveland Other reprocesses wastes long regarded as

/lodioacceve wastee.ORNL/7M-10280, con rustriean useonssanon coorTAct HLW. Conspicuously absent from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.1987)

W. Clark PrbhartL Division of comments was any compensus regarding was publised which attempted to Engineering. Office of Nuclear the means to be used by the provide a technicalbeals for Regulatory Research. U.S.Nudear Regulatory Commission. Washington, Commission to distinguish HLW from dessificeuon of wutes as HLW or neo.

DC20558, telephone (301) 402-3ae4-non-HLW. Tor example, even the basic HLW.nis report desenbod a number of concept of a numerical definition of conceptual "intermedisie" dJaposal svPPLassprTARY Neponesanose HLW as suggestedin the ANPRM.was facilities which would use either

Background

criticized as an invitation to dilute or engmeered barners or deeper burial to fract onate wastes solely to aher their provide e degree of weste isolation On February 27.1987, the Noclear classificataan la light of the comments intermediate between that of shallow Regulatory Commission published an received, the Commission's own teview tend burialand a deep geologic 61 PR 7 May 31,1988

PART 81o PROPOSED RULE MAKING repository.ne authors attempted an analysis of the weste isolation protntion standards that might have exceeding the hmits estabhshed in to capabihtv of such facshties but been estabhshed by the U.S.

CTR Part el for Class C radioactive EnvironmemalProtection Agency, emphasiams the site-speafic nature of Techmcalentene toimplement the waste. In view of this development, the such analyses and the very large performa sce obiecuves and Comnussion perceives httle practical importance or s:pmficance m proceedmg uncertainties mvolved. concluded that environme'ntal riandards would be with a precise definition of HLW.To do "la): the present tuna... (such developed by tt e Commission after DOE so would not advance the objectives of facihties arel not sufficiently developed had completed its conceptual desilm and NWPA.

to prende a basis for defirung weste selected a site for a specific type of classes. and disposal of any wastes facihty.

M hadmots unmg Isuch fac hties)must be considered on a case-by. casa basis."

The Commission considers that the In line mth the foregoms discussion, Kocher and Croff then presented an proposai presented in the notice would therefore, the Commission is proposmg attemauve approach for definmg EW obviate any need to recleasify cer*am two changes to its existmg rules. First.

which. m essence. is based solely on the CTCC wastes as mW.The proposal by amendmg to CD181.55.11 would short term storage and handhng risks follows the ehemenve approach alluded henceforth require all greater than-l associated with the heat and external to m the ANpRM. that the Commission Class C weste to be &sposed ofin a redisuon levels genersted by a weste-

"need not exercise NWPA Clause (B) geologic repository unless an alternative j

The Commission could not accept this authonry m order to assure that proposalis approved by the attemative approach since it bears no radioactive wastes from licensed Comnussion. Second. the jurisdictional correlation to the degree of waste activities are disposed of properly"(52 reach of10CDI Part'el would be isolation required following disposal-FR 5998t Many comments on the extended to cover all activitbes of the ANPRM adocated classification of all and Croffs study leads it to the same CTCC wastes as EW in order to Department of Energy that may be ne Commission'a review of Kocher i

subject to the licensms and regulatory conclusion regarding the ensure availability of a sr fe disposal authonty of the Commission. This is iniprecucabihty of waste classificauon "home" for those wastes. but this inter.ded to reflect the pohey of the bw-based on analyses of the performance of proposal achieves the same purpose Level Radmactive Waste Policy mtermediate disposal facihties. lf waste while leantig open the prospect that an Amendments Act, which provides that classification is to be at all reshitic, intermediate disposal facility may prove all commercially. generated waste with additional disposal facility development a'tracnve at some time in the future.

concentrations excee6ng Class C 11mits must be completed which will provide a (Since the possibility of usmg such a shall be d sposed ofin a facility licensed supportable basis for such classification.

facihty is left open. the Commission is by the Commission that the Commission Such esposal facility development is nn* now determming that the wastes.

deterrmnes is adequate to protect the nore properly the responsibihty of DOE even if highly radioacove. do in fact pubbe health and safety.This change rather than NRC. However, the very "reouire permanent isolation ~i would take the form on ehmmcting the accordmgly the NWPA definition of more restncuve language regardmg the small volume labout 1.000 m8throuth the year 20 0) of commercially-HLW does not apply). Moreover, this Deperstment of Energy that appears in generated. greater than Class C (GTCC) proposal avoids the problem of trying to the defirution of the term " Person"in wastes ersy make en mtermediate

&stmFuish HLW from non-MLW without i 61.2.

disposal facihty economically an adequate technical basis for doms so.

unattracnve. Because no such fat.shty And the legal and admmistratave Environmentallmpact Categoncol now exists for disposal of commercially-compheations identafied in the ANpRM.

g,gjy,,,

as well as questions as to the retroactive ne NRC has determmed that this generstets wastes. and because there is apphcation of any new classificanoa.

no assurane that one will ever be proposed regulation is the type of action constructed. the Commission beheves would be svoided or reduced. Howe"er, desenbed m categorical exclucion to that an alernative. techmcally additionallegislation may be needed by CFR 51.22(c)(2).Therefore neither an DOE to provide for payment of disposal conservative approach should be taken.

costs for above Class C wastes. or to enviornmental impact statement not an I

The Commission proposes to require authonze recipt of such wastes for environmental assessment has been disposal of all CTCC westes m a deep geologic repository unless disposal disposal at a repository.

prepared for this proposed regu;stion.

elsewhere has been exphcitly approved ne Commismiso observes that The first chanFe. pertairung to the by the Commission. nis proposal the satutory framework for nuclear delirutte of " person."is correctae in that it tr.erely reflects the broader reflects the Comnussion's view that weste matters has changed restly smce F

intermediate d sposal facihties may enactment of NWPA. When that la w lunediction of the Commission under the never be evallable,in which case a was passed.it placed a responsibihty on 14w tsvelRadioscuve Waste Policy repository would be the only type of the Federalpovernment to receive.

Amendments Act.The modifications not substanual.

facihty generally capable of providm8 manage, and disposal of certam westes safe disposal for CTCC wastes. At the (HLW as well as spent nuclear fuel)in The second change, pertaining to the same t2me, the Commission wishes to geologic repositories. In that context. the disposal ci greater-tnan-Class-C svoid foreclosing,possible use of definition of the term "high level ra&oactive wastes in a geological intermediate disposal facilities by the radioactive waste" assumed importance repository.is minor.The existmg Department of Energy because it provided a basis for regulations in to CFR Part el altesdy l

chooses to develop one(DOE).lf DOE differentiating between State and reclude disposalof GTCCin a Pert 61 ficensed disposal fa cility without further l

or more j

intermediate disposal facilities. the Federal responsibilities. This concern Commission anticiptes that the was subsequently mooted by adoption review and approval.This amendment acceptability of such facilities would be of thelaw.levelRadioscrive Weste does no more than state the evaluated in the light of the particular Pohey Amendments Act of1985. Pub.1.

Commission's conclusion that,in the circumstances. considering for example 99-240. 42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq. nts late' absence of such an approved the ex: sting performance oldectives of statute established a Fedetal alternative, a geologic repository is the to CI7 Part 61 and any generally Covernment responsibility for the

'only currently authonzed facility apphcable environment radistion disposal of commercially generated acceptsble for GTCC disposal without wastes with radionuclides concentrations f;trther review by the Commission. nus, it is a minor chitngs to specify thet the May 31,1988 61.P R.8

PART 81 o PROPOSED RUI.E MAKING '

• mote smagent" methods are te include apply to this proposed rule and

3. In i 81.58 paragraph (s)is amended

' dispoes in a repository. waere it is also therefore. that a backlit analysis is not by revising paragraph (a)(2)(lv) to read i

express,y provided thel as before, required for tius proposed rule because as foDows:

proposals for other methods of disposal these amendments do not invovie any

. may etdl be subeutted to the

- Provisions which would impose backfits gogAs wesesesaasecemos Comaussion for approvat No es defined m to CFR 50.too(a)(1).

. sut stannel modification of existmg g...

regulatanns a aavolved.,

IJat of Subjects le 10 CFR Part 81 (2) + + +

Low level waste.Nelear materials.

(iv) Weste thatis not genereur Paperwork Reduction Act Stosement.

Penalty. R8dioecDve, wasta. Reportug acasptable for near. surface disposalis '

and recordkeeping requirements. Wests waste for which weste form and This proposed rule does not contain a classincabon. Weste treatment and disposal methods must be different. and new or amended informanon collection disposal la general snore etnagent, than those requirement subiest to the Paperwork For the reasons set out in the speci8ed for Class C wasta.In the Reduccon Act of 1000 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et eml4 Existag requaremenu were preamble and under the authority of the absence of specific requirements in this

. approved by the OfBos of Management Atosuc Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

part, such waste must be dasposed of in and Budget approval sumher 3150 sot 38.

the Energy Reorgamsenon Act of1974..

a geologic repoeltory es de6ned in Part as amended. and 5 U.S.C. S$3. the NRC is propoems to adopt the followmg 80 of this chapter unless proposals for AarulatoryAnalysis amendments to 10 CFR Part et.

disposal of such weste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to tW Sart are De Commission has prepared a draft PART 51MNSING subapted.to the Conu..msson for regulatory analysis for this proposed REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND approval

, regulabon. De analysis examines the DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE costs and beno6ts of the ahernatives considered by the Comaussion.The

.1.De authonty citation for Part et Dated at Rockvdte. MD. this tith day of draft analysts is ava:Isble for mspection contmuu to read as follows:

. g,,,3,,g in the NRC Docuroent Room.1717 H Authwiry: Secs. s1. sr. 82. SL es. B1.181.

For the Nuclur Regulatory Comnumort street NW. Weslunston DC. Single 1et tas es stat eact est. pas.ses.osa ess.

EmelI Chilk.

copies of the draft analysis may be 854. es amended (42 UAC anrs. aorr. 2ost Seentary of the Commimon '

oblemed from W. Clark Prichard.

2csL aces. 21st saat 2231 tsst wes.act Division of Engineenng. Office of not as Stat.1244.12ee (42 USC seat sneek N,uclear Regulatory Comnussion.uclear Regulatcry Research. U.S.

eso. So and 14. Pub.1. SS-aos. id Sist 3961 N

142 USC 2021e and Sas11 Washmgtoa, DC 20555. telephone (301)

For the purposee of Sec. 2:2. as Stat saa, se 492-3864.

arc nded. (42 USC 2**3h Tables 1 and L g g pt A 32.3( p1J5. 01.27!sL stas through Tl's Commission requests public e143. st.52, ets2. et.ss. stat and e1 Jet comment on the draft reguistory through el e3 are issued under Sec, letb. es analysis.Conunents on the draft Stat sea se amended 142 USC 220tfb)l.

ansivos may be submitted to the NRC 16 81.10 throvan e1.16. 81.24. and 81ao are es indicated under the ADDRESSES issued under sec. toto. es Stat, saa es g

amended 142 USC 22ottoH.

Angulatory Flaxibihty Act Certification

2. In l 41.2 the delitubon of ** person" In accordance with theRegulatory is revised in the alphst.etacal sequence Flexibihty Act of 1980 (5 US.C. 005(b))

to read as follows:

and NRC Size Standards (December 9.

1985. 50 FR 50241). the Comnussion f 81J Defintuona.

certifies that ttus proposed rule will not As used in this part:

have e signa 5 cant econonue impoet on a substantal number of small entities. The only enney subject to regulebon under.

Person" means (1) an/ individual this proposed rule would be the U.S.

corporauon. parmenhsp. imn.

Department of Energy, which does not association. trust, estate public or fall withm the scope of the definition of private institubon, group. governrnent smaD encues" set forth in sta agency other than the Commission or Regulatory Flexibih*y Act. All waste the Department of Energy (except that generators, some of which might be the Department of Energy is considered classified as small entibes, must pay the a person wrhin the mraning of the costs assoneted with management and regulations in this part to the extent that disposal of the westes they generste.

Its facilities and activities are subject to nis proposed rule would not affect the licensing and relsted regulatory those Losts since it preserves all options authority of the Conunission pursuant to currently available for weste 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 alternauves avadable would or nation or any political subdivision of potentially have an economic impact on any such government or nation, or other smaH entnes.

entity; and (2) any legal successor.

{

BockfittingAnalyri, representative, egent. or egency of the ne NRC hee determined that the "I I"I' I

backfit rule.10 CFR 50.109. does not 61.P R-9 May 31,1988 1

i

I1' Q*,

May 2, 1989 The Honorable Carl Levin United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Levin:

Your letter of April 3, 1989, forwarded correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Ken Russell, regarding the public health risks associated with existing and proposed Comission policies which could exempt certain radioactive Mr. Russell had materials and practices from some or all regulatory controls.

also sent a copy of his letter to Congressman Dingell, which has been responded' to separately by NRC.

. To date, the,Comission has not published any proposed regulations that would allow disposal of low-level waste as mandated under the below regulatory concern (BRC) provisions authorized.under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste In 1986, in compliance with the Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (P.L.99-240).

Act, the Comission adopted a final policy that established the standards and procedures that will permit us to act upon any BRC rulemaking petitions that On December 2, 1986, we published an Advance Notice of we might receive.

Proposed Rulemaking that solicited public coments on the issue of BRC waste disposal. More recently, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff has been in the process of developing a broadly applicable policy that would establish the principles and criteria that govern all Commission decisions related to the exemption of radioactive materials from some or all regulatory The policy is intended to provide the public health and safety control.

framework that would aonly to the development of appropriate regulations on i

)

?

'[

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE s

[., OCA Offe: RDB:DRA:RESDP4:

ORA:RE ~

DD/ JTRES>41:RE '

ED s

/IS8ec 'ord VI"ello

~JBr'dburne TPSp/69 4 /,,

4 y/89 Name: *WLahs:rg ZRM

.y BMorris

~6///89 0FFICIALRECORDCOPY^[/89 4/14

.Date: 4/13/89 4/14/89 4/14/89 v

-