ML20248B334
| ML20248B334 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/21/1989 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Lafalce J HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248B339 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 8908090201 | |
| Download: ML20248B334 (9) | |
Text
y p
a nary'o UNITED STATES
~g
~!"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 21, 1989 The' Honorable John J. LaFalce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman LaFalce:
Your letter of June 15, 1989, requested a full review of radioactive waste disposal issues raised in correspondence from Mr. Richard M. Tobe Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning. Mr. Tobe expressed concern that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is changing its regulations to allow a nuclear waste generator the opportunity to apply for anHe exemption from compliance with existing NRC regulations for waste material.
stated his belief that no radioactive waste should be disposed of at sanitary landfills or through incineration, and that radioactively contaminated materials should only be recycled under very controlled circumstances.
I would first point out that the Commission is not proposing to change the policy statements and regulations cited in Mr. Tobe's letter. Rather his concerns appear to be founded on a Federal Register Advance Notice (Enclosure), published on December 12, 1988. This notice discussed the
- NRC's intention to develop a broadly applicable policy that would identify the principles and criteria that govern all Commission decisions related to the exemption of radioactive materials from some or all regulatory control, and is being put forward as a " Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory
'This policy is intended to provide the public health and safety Control."
framework that would apply to the development of appropriate regulations for both (1) the disposal of very low-level radioactive waste at locations other than licensed low level waste disposal sites and (2) the potential for recycling of radioactive 1y contaminated equipment or materials referred to by As a key step in the development of this policy, the Commission Mr. Tobe.
issued the December 1988 Advance Notice upon which it received over P25 comment letters. The NRC staff has analyzed these comments, which include those submitted by Mr. Tobe, and has presented a revised proposed policy statement to the Commission for their consideration.
The broad policy development effort is, however, only one of several NRC actions which have evolved as a result of passage of the Low-Level Radioactive In 1986, in compliance with Waste Policy Amendments Act c,f 1985 (P.L.99-240).
the Act, the Commission adopted a final policy that established the standards and procedures that will permit us to act upon any "below regulatory concern" (BRC) rulemaking petitions that we might receive. On December 2, 1986, we also published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that solicited public comments on the issue of BRC waste disposal.
FULL TEXT ASC-Il SCAN tg 8908090201 890721 PDR C g gg g FDC
l Honorable John J. LaFalce 2
l To complete the current " picture" regarding activities on the issues raised by l
Mr. Tobe. I would note that the NRC is aware that the nation's nuclear l
utilities are funding research to determine, in their view, what low-level radioactive waste could be potentially classified as "below regulatory We have been informed that the utilities are working through their concern."
research institute and management council and that they intend in the near future to submit a petition for rulemaking to the NRC under provisions of P.L.99-240 and the Commission's 1986 policy.
~
I want to assure you that public comments received on the issues raised by Mr. Tobe, and other issues associated with BRC waste disposal, will be carefully considered by the Commission. Any proposed exemption decisions or l
proposed rukmakings resulting from the development of the Commission's broad exemption policy will receive similar consideration.
l Sincerely, l
- g3
\\
VWtorStello, f.,
i TxecutiveDirec for Operations
Enclosure:
l Federal Register Advance Notice.
i Dated December 12, 1988 l
}
l l
l l
\\
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules 49886 ENCLOSURE 1
i 4
l NUCJAR REQULATORY COMMIT $10N 10 CFR Ch.I Polley Statement on Esemptions From Regulatory Control attwcy: Nucleat Regulatcry Commission.
ACTIONS: Advance notice of proposed statement and meeting.
suwmany:The NRC is in the process of l
developing a broad pohey on
{
exemptions from regulatory control for j
practices whose health and safety tmpacts 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
Tederal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday December 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules
- 49887, questions which are key considerations country's border. it is hoped that Commission may initiate the in developing such a policy.ne NFC exchanges of ideas and information development of appropnate regulations staff will conduct a meeting to inform such as occurred at the intemational or make licensing decisions to exempt the public of its intentions, specifically workshop will besides providmg one from regu! story control persons who 1
to clanfy and answer questions avenue of input to the Commission's receive, pos sess. use, trans fer, own, or concemmg the advance notice. and to actions. lead toward a greeter degree of acquire certain reticactive material.
hear prehminary views conceming a consistency in such exemptions world-his policy is directed prmeipally policy for exemptions with emphasis on wide. At the intemational workshop. the toward rulemak ng activitaes, but may the specific quescons ts; sed by the "Advanes Notice of the Development of be applied to license amendments or Commission.
a Commission Policy on Exemptions license applications involving the oaTas: Meeting to be held on January from Regulatory Control for Practices nicase oflicensed rs6oactive material 12.19e9. Written comments should be Whose Public Health and Safety either to the environment or to persons submitted by January 30.1969.
Impacts are Below Regulatory Concem", who would be exempt from Commission Commente received after this date will presented in this nouce, was made regulations. it is important to emphasize be considered if it is practical to do so, available for &scussion.The transcript that this polely does not assert an but assurance of consideration can only of the intematiorial workshop which absence or thnshold of risk but rather be given as to comments received on or includes au the papers presented at the establishes a baselme where further before this date.
meetms may be examined and copied govemment regulations to reduce nsks acoassses: Meeting will be held at the for a fee at the NRC Public Document g,,,,,,.7,g,4 Room at 2120 L Street. NW.,
Holiday Inn. 8120 Wisconsin Avenue.
De concept of regulatory exemptions Bethesda, MD 20814 (4 blocks north of Washington. DC.
is now new.For example,in 1960 and the Bethesda Metro Station). Telephone: Advanos Notim of the Developnaent of a 1970, the Commission promulgated (302) 652-2000,1-800-465-4329. Mail Commincion Poucy tables of exempt quanuties ar,d wntten comments to: Secret ry U.S.
concentrations for ra6osctive material Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Introduction cadPurpos, which a person under certam Washington, DC. 20555. Attention:
Over the last several years, the circumstances, cold recieve. possess.
Dockenna and Service Branch.
Commission has become increasingly use transfer,own er acquire without a Comments may be delivered to 11555 aware of the need to provide a general
(
hockville Pike. Rockville. MD between policy on the appropnate critens for
,'t 17.1
'R 22.
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.
release of rs6oacuve meterials from 19 OWtherexmpons aUowing Copies of the comments received may regulatory contml.To address this need. distnbudon of consumer products or be examined and copied for a fee at tha the Commission is expanding upon its other devices to the general public. or NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L eMsting policy for protecuon of the "U "I"8 "I""' ' * **""'
Street.NW., Washington DC.
public from radianon, currently material to the environment, have been Pon PuerTwsn imponesATion coNTAcTt expressed in existing regulations (Title embodied in the Commission a Catherine R. Mattsen, tele hone (301)
- 10. Code of Federal Regulations) and "I" " U "' IO' '"*' U"'
C" 492-3636 or William R.1 s, telephone policy statements (30 FR 3462. Use of recently, the low level Radioactive (301) 492-3774. Office of Nuclear Byproduct Material and Source
- *
- M CY
- '"U AC Regulatory Research. U.S. Nucleat Material, deled March 16.1965: 47 FR directed the Commission to dtvelop Regulatory Commission. Washington.
57446.1.icensing Requirements for 1And standards and procedures for DC. 20555.
Disposal of Ra60setive Waste. dated supptanssNTARY ledFoAstATsoet December 27.1982: and 51 FR 30839,
[
tons tj g ex sa pe
,p9, General Statement of Policy and slightly contaminated radioactive waste laternational Workshop Procedures Concerning Petitions material that the Commission in addition to conducting this public Pursuant to n 2.802 for Disposal of determined to be below regulatory meeting, the Commission has sought Radioactive Waste Streams Below concern.De Commission responded to input from the international regulatory Regulatory Concern, dated August 29, this legislation by issuing a pobey community through an international 1986).The expansion includes the statement on August 29.1986 (51 FR workshop on exemptions from development of an explicit policy on the 30839). Dat statement contained criteria I
regulatory control which was held exemption from regulatory control of which,if satisfactorily addressed in a October 17-19.1968 in Washington, DC.
practices whose pubhc health and petition for rulemaking would allow the t
%e importance of such interaction safety impacts are below regulatory Commission to act expeditiously in stems from the fact that many existing concern. A practice is defined in thic proposing appropria te regulatory rehef and potential exemptions involve policy as an activity or a set or radioactive materials purposefully used combination of a number of simdar sets on a " practice. specific basis consistent with the ments of the petition.
in consumer products or introduced into of coordinated snd continuing activities 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" ex emptions should either of which may enter international Under Oils policy, the definition of be encompassed within a brosder NRC trade.Even effluents and waste disposal " practice" is a critical fe ature which will policy which defitnes levels of rs6ation can involve exposures to people in assure that the formulation of nok below which specified practices countries other than those from which exemptions from regulatory control will would not require NRC regulation based the effluent or weste originated.This not allow dehberate dilut:on 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 circumventmg controls that Commission's regulatory involvement degree of consistency internationally is would otherwise be opphenble.
could therefore be essentially limited to desirable, since exemption decisions The purpose of this policy statement licensing. inspection. and comphance can affect populations outside asch la to establish the basis upon which the activities associated with the transfer of e
4
N _ -I Roles Federal R@- / Vol Sa, No. 21s / h49y. NW 12.1985 /
43333 Alteensuseh enes have t n the radiostive matanal from a contro!!ad internationalconusunity.N values H
reevaluationsof thedata b.4ase at higher doses morainne.h undas monaaderation la this pebey
~
Statamsas do not necessarily agree with Commisason beheven that ame of the to an exempt status.
h Commission recognises that. If a thona malected or under consideration by lineas non.&reshold hypotbevs allom national policy on exemptions imm Mbar coentnes.N Commission has the 0 _ f-*1 estabhahment of uppee i
resuratory contro!la to be efectiva.
carefuBy saviewed those altarnata lamah on the number of bestih effects l
Agreemant States will pay an important criteria, and dass not had significant implementa tion refe. In the past. States scientisc evidence that would dictate that might aesner atvery now dosee which are the subject of the exemptaan have been encouraging findings that preferential selection d any d those j
certein wester are below regulatory views avas wbet is proposed in thus pc bcy' rink d dame ta anind Wdmias concern and the Commismon believes m
ther States will e:rpport an expension of Policy State calculated using the knaar modaLis theee Mews te all practicee invofting RmEmess PmencdosFHusipise showninTabla 1 forvanous deGned empt distribution er release cf The Commission recognfian that three levels d indindualdosa A radiataan red >oactive materialThe Commissten fundamental princ!pfes of radiation exposum d 10 mresa per yew ps, intende that rolemakings sodifying protection have historics Jy pfded the per year)for a lifetime corresponds regefawry control exemptions will be formulation of a eystem of don' theoretically to an increase of an of made s matter r I compatibihty for limitation to protect workers anaf the hindiddsara annualM d mca Ayrearment Stat es.Consegaently, any pub!k.from the potentially harmful duth.h hidma M is bund upon rulemakings th'et evolve from this pokey effects of radiation.They are:(t)h h fweer nasumptiu en b will be coordinated with theStates.
justification of the practice whic levelis the same fas each year o Advisory and esaentiac bo&es have segures est there he some art hans6 Iagg;gg,
offered &varea viewa to the Coma *ismen resulting from the use of redianan er in whating es dou eMuto in anticipation of this Policy Statsraant, radioactive materials.(2) dose limits, members of the public that might arina There is not clear consaasus based onwhich define the upper boundary of through the use of vanous practices for
- hi h being
' * " d.
existing scientific endence or resestrA adequete protection fee a member orthe pubhc which aboWd not be exceededin gh h"has decidd to Pp!
regar&bthe selection of numericalurs in this Policy Statement.,
the condnet af suelear eenvities and (3) h cace t d ee dfe&
critaria Further.h Comnussion is aware that ALARA.which regtnres that redation equivalen." This concept,which is there are ddrering views widin the NRC dose be as low as is reasonably band """ *""P""*"iains rasataos d M*)M staff on the selection of numatical asturvable. sconomic and aocial factors morta y effectsa n criteria! for BRC.
being takeninto account.h tenu.
expmum,pennM erwah nas d In the absence of a scientific ALARA.is an scracym for Asines Asis weighting factors, the calculation d the consensus,it is the Commission's task to Reasonably Achievable.The whoia body dose equivalent of partial assess the diversity of views in Comraission is interested in asseestng body exposum.This approach was establishing a res onsible BRCpolicy.
The authonty an[ responsibility to make how these pnnctples should be apphed ensina!!y developed by the in establishes appropnete criteria foe Intemational Comrnission on the final selection of criteria rests withrelene of radioactive matunals from Radiological Protection and was flint the Commission. Cnteria selected mustre ulatorycontrol.
expressed la its Publication 26 issued in (1) Proefde reasonable assurance that une of the absence of observed 1977. Since that time, the concept has l
public health and safety will be health effects below E remfyser (50 been reviewed and evaluated by protected, arid (2) consistent with such mSv/ year), scientdicarparts incloding rs&sua prokcuon orgaMzations assurance. permit practices in the public the intemational Commission on throughout the world and has gamed domain which involve the see of Radiological Protection (ICRp) and the wide acceptanca.
l radioisotopes for which society NationalCouncil on Radiation Protection and Measuremen'.s (NCRP)
TAass.t perceives a demand.
It is recognized that there is e delicate make the assumption that the frequency balance here.Criterie can be set of occurrence of health e!!ects per unit L8,*g**
sufficiently restrictive such that there le does at low dona levels is the same as as ~ ~ iiin,,,,,,
m a, wins esa awwuris absointe assurance that health and high doses (to RAD (0s1 Cy))where
= = = saa.
safety will always be protected, no health effects have been abeerved and matter what events might transpire, studied in humans and animala.This 10o *=am '
atcr*
5xio-e However, in doing so, the regulator may linear non. threshold bypothesis aasumes j' j
Q, suter*
then place undue and unnecessary that the risk of radiation induced effects ar$c" restnctions on practices which should (principally concer)islioastly cs-be permitted becense of otherwise proportional to dosa.no matter bow
' mek ansacere as mzic" our ei (2xio" ser reasonable social. economic.or small the dose might be.The coeffic:ient
'Q**ea
.,pu g
p induatiral considerations.There is used in h modeles a basis for rive-ow a gare c. anew wom e nowm.
always the danger of over.regulatico estimating statistical health risk is on which results in effects that are felt ta the order of 2x10-* risk of fatalcancas*g* Q g y,%*'*gy arcuni ms. e orie miseert areas wham the NRC does not have per person-rem of radiation does
- urumas omerem reicmen ce emessen er 0
authority and responsibility.Moreover, (2x10* 8 par SV).h Commission
%%,*E.",",,*d*dM,,,",
the AtomicEnergy Act does not reqaire recognizes thatitis a conservative wer=
emaws se sewam ene w to me n,oor****a absoluta assurances of safety in the usa modelbased upon data collected at of radioactive material and hcanned relatively high doses and dose rates facilities which is then extrapolated to the law
& Commission recognizes thatitis The numerica! criteria ult'mately done and dose rate region where there impossible to messure nak to selected will have significant impact an are no statistically rehable individuals or populations directly, and.
nuclear regulation bare is the United epidemiological data available.
States and potentially in the wo
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules 43s89 C:ct in most situations. it is impractical licensee's control (natural background 1.% application or continuation of 1
to m:ssure e muel dous to individuals and medical exposures are excluded).
regulatory controle on the practice does ct the low levels implied by exemption Because of the small risks involved, a to not result in any significant reduction in
' decisions. Typically. radioisotope arem (0.1 mSv) individual dose criterion the dose received by individuals within concentrations or radiation levels from is proposed as the basis for exemption the critical group and by the exposed the material to be exempted are the decisions bued on simple analysis and population or.
tctu:1 measurements that can be made, judgements.ne Commission 2.The costs of the regulatory controle cad doses are then estimated by specifically seeks comment on the need that could be imposed for dose cxposure pathway analysis combined for establishing a collective dose limit in reduction are not bal:nced by the
- with other types of assumptions related addition to an individual dose criterion.
commensure'.e m':uction in nok that 12 the ways in which people might
!! such a collective dose criterion is could be realised.
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 recognizes that used in modeling so that the actual dose. collective dose criterion is needed. what only under unusual circumstances b on 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 calcula bn of exposures approaching the 100 mrem per appropriate approach to be taken when coUecuve dose or weighting f actors for year (1 mSv per year) hmit be det:rmining if an exemption from components of collective dose would be considered as candidates for exemption.
regulatory controls is warranted.
appropriate? What alternatives should The Commission will consider such Collective dose is the sum of the be considered for assessing societal circumstances on a can specific basis individual doses resulting from a impact?
using th general principlu outlined in practice or source of radiation exposure.
- ALARA-The ALARA principle this policy statement. However, as the By cosigning collective dose a monetary generally applies to determining dose doses and attendant risks to members of value. it can be used in cost benefit and levels below which exemptions may b*
the exposed population decrease, the; cther quantitative analysis techniques. it granted on a cost benefit basis.
need for regulatory controle decreases la a factor to consider in balancing However.it is the purpose of this policy and the analysis needed to support a benefits and societa impact.
to establish criteria which would, in eroposal for exemption can reasonably effect. delineste achievement of ALARA be somewhat simplified.
Considentions in Cronting Exemptions
%e Commission is evaluating the use h[ s pesdb!
From Regulotory Control o asonsWy lth ne following elements am being project what the dose will be from a of two numerical criterta in defirung the regi n where ALARA has been considered b the Commission as a practice, and then take this information acWved.ney am (a) A cnkdon for basis for evafusting practices which are into account in controlling regulated the maximum individual annual 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 if approved.
exceeded, exem[ control.Thetions imply some result of the practice and (b) a measure would result in products containing low degree of loss o of societalimped to the expond levels of radioactive material being Commission believes that a key P2puladon.nue criteria em being distributed to the general public and consideration in establishing a policy for considered to assun that, for a given radioactive effluents and solid waste exembtions, and subsequently in exempted practice, no individual will be being nicased to areas of the publicly-speci e rulemaking orlicensing exposed to a significant risk and that the cccessible environment.
decision 6. is the question of whether population as a whole does not suffer a e Justification--The Commisclon individuals may experience radiation significant impact.
aeeks comment on the extent to which osure approaching the limiting exfues through the cumulative effects of
!! the individual doses from a practice cxposures resulting from any practice va under consideration for exemption are sh:uld be justified. As lower levels of more than one practice, even though the sufficiently small, the attendant risks radiation exposure are projected, should exposures from each practice an only will be small compared with other lower levels of benefit be required for small fractions of the limit.The societal riska.The Commission belleves pr:ctica justification? In establishing its Commission specifically seeke comment ex:mption policy, should the on the issue. By appropriate choices of that annual individial fatality risks Commission exclude certain practices exemption criteria and through its below approximately to"(one in f;r which there appears to be no evaluations of specific exemption 100.000) are oflittle concem to most members of society. Providing for some reasonable justification? In considering proposals in implementing the policy, margin below this level. the Commission proposals for exemptions, should the the Commission intends tr. assure that it Commission evaluate the social is unlikely that any individual will proposes to mrem (0.1 mSv) as the level ecceptabihty of practices? Should the experience exposures which exceed the of annualindividual exposure.The incremental annual individual cancer C:mmission determine a practice to be 100 mrem per year (1 mSv per year) fatality risk sesociated with an exposure unjustified if nonradioactive economical limit.
level of to mrem per year (0.1 mSv per c!tematfves exist?
Principles ofExemption year)is about 2 x10"[two in one e Dose 1.imits and Criterion-.
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 allowed to exceed 100 mrem per year hinges on the general question of thousand) of the overallrisk of cancer (1 mSv per year).nis 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 Standards for Protection Against dose.To determine if exemption is recognizes that this criterion could be R:diation.The dose limits in the final appropriate, the Commission must the limiting consideration for practices revision of to CTR Part 20 apply to all determine if one of the following involving very small individual doses to a:urces of radiation exposure under a conditions is met:
very large numbers of people. it is also
rederal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules 4sasa recognind that in such caser the from applicabfe ficanning requirements.
that ALARA canaidarations have bean c:IIective dose crfterion would. In effect. Approval of a proposed conamer dealt with. This approach is cocaistent 1
cpply the A1. ARA concept to individual product dependa upaa as assess:nent n!
with past practice e g.. cansumer I
d ses less than the below regulatory exposuraa of persons to re&ation as product rules in to CFR part m in evaluating proposals far exemption concern level of to mrem peryear to the well as an avatusw of the usefulnesa undes this pobcy, the projected individual. Conversely,where the of the product.
collectve dove criterion would not be Cartain practices involving ra diation exposures to ddierent components of limiting, it woc
- me rio p:rrpose. The or radioactive mataria!a hava been the expoemd population wt11 be Ccmmission requeste commerrer on this judgad by NRC1a be socially canadered anth regard to the potential issue, incloding comments on what the unacceptable regardissa of how trivial that some todividuals may receive cbees magnitude of the collectin dose the resulting does might be and.
near the 100 annes per year (1 mSv per ente non. If any, should be.
thetefore.kave been WW from I'ar) timit when doses imm other if the dose le Jees than the below exemption. Excluded practicas include.
preh an eiso taken into regula tory concern ens ria. then the risk but are not limited to, the intentional C'"#'*** II '"P"'""' I*
from a practice would be considered to introduction of radioactive material into muhipw practices can occur which are be ALARA without further analysis.De toys and products intended for significantly beyond the individual dose Ccmmission strenes that adopoon of ingestion. Inhalation or direct enterion (to mrem per year (0.1 mSe per th2 critens should not be constreed so e application to the skin (such as year)). the encemption will not be granted decision that smslier doses are cosmetical, without further analysla. As experience necessary before a pracnce can be in addition to socia!Ty unacceptable exempted. while doses above the uses of radioactive materials. a question is gained this policy and its critena =ould preclude exemptions. On also arises regarding uses where then implementation wiH be reevaluated with ths contrary, the critorie straply are clear economical sha-ttres, and regard to this laaue to assure that the represent a range of risk which the no unique beneEta exist from using exposures to the public remain well Commission bebeves is sufficiently radiosetive rasterial.Where risks are below 100 mrem per year (1 mSv per small compan d to other individual and tnvia!.the ragulatory prohihttion of auch year).
societalnaks that a cost benefit anelysis uses could pase an unnecessary in addition to considerations of is not required in order to make a regulatory burden by (ntnfuing with the expected activities and pathways, the decision regarding the acceptahihty of conduct of business.
Commission recognizes that ne Commission seeks commmf a on cons de-*n moet aho Wven to th an comption Practkes not meetmg whether practices should be potential for accidente and. misuse of the these enteria =*y be granted categorically excluded based on the radioactive materials W. ~t in the exemptrons on a case.by.csse basis in Commission's judgement regarding precm A pw.. bxempw d a cecordance with the pnnciples social acceptability or the existance of defined practice must therefore also crabo6ed within this policy.To further cmphasize the Commission's recopettian alternatives. An uiternative to addnes the potentials for accidents or that a ng>d limitation on collecttve does categorical exclusion could be a case misuse. and the consequences of these would be inappropnate,it actes that for specific determmation based on a ar.fety exceptionalconditiona in terms of some practices, euch as une of smoke analysis.
individuals and so!!ective dose.
detectors, appreciable benefits can only ProPosols fbr JDremptiarr be attained through extenstve utilization and.hence, with a commensurate A proposal fos exemptica must The hwtission belines that the collective dose.
provide a basis upca which the implementation of an exemption under TbsrwWonla awars that Commission can deterunne if the basic this broad policy guidance must be sxisting regulations of the conditions described above have been accompaniedby a suitable program to EnvironmentalProtection Agency satis $ed.In general this sneens that the monitor and venfy that the basic establish cnteria more restnctive than proposal should address the indivi&ral considerations ander which an exemptions which could otherwise be done and accletal impact realting frorn exemption was issued remain valid. In granted under this proposed policy.
the expected activities under the most cases, the products or materials With regard to its own regulations, tha exemption,includmg the une of the Commission will evatusta whether there radioactive materials, the pathways of comprising an exempted practice will ere exemption criteria embodied therein exposure, the levels of activity. and the move from regulatory control to the for which modification, according to the methods and constraints for assuring exempt status under e defined set of that the assumptions need to deLne a conditions and enteria.The monitonng grincipfes of this policy, would be practice remain appropriate na the and verification prog-sm mest therefore eneficial, radioactive matenals move from be capable of provi&r:g the Commission E.xclusione from Exerrprionr regulatory control to an exempt status.
with the appropriate assurance that the The Commission's March 1851911 If a proposal for exernption results in conditions for the enemption remain notice on the Use of Byproduct Material a rule containing generic requirements. s valid, and that they are bemg observed, and Source Material producta intended person applyics to utilize the exemption The Commission wiIl deteraune would not rseed to addresa fustsficahort compliance with the specinc conditions for use by General Public(Consumee or ALARA.The Commission decision ao of an exemption through its established l
Products)(30 FR 3E2) provides the such proposals will be based on the licensing andinspection program and besis for the Commission's approval cd licensee's meetmg the con &tions will, frorn time to tune, conduct studies the use of these materials in consumer specified in the rule.The promu)gation as appropriate to assess the impact of l
products without regulatory control on the consumer-user.This is accompbabed of the rule would, under these an essmpted practice or combmations circurnstances, constitute a fmdiog that by case.by<ase exemphon of the the exempted precice la justdied. and of exempted pracnces.
possession and use of approved itesos
Toderal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday December 12, 1988 / Proposed Rules 4g391 Tcatative Meathy Agendo ymence to e fraction of the everen
- 1. Introduction awl Sammary NRC Staff jh*,
P" exempted souren m
. IL Discussion of Specific Questions.8%f would be espected to involve indmd-NRC Staff summary and presentations or met doses which em a small freedon erstions from scheduled participants.
of the overall limit. should flexibikty A. Appbcation of principle of justiScatson be saintamed by sonsidenns examp-including the questions:
tions on a cost.beneht basis aben to
- 1. As lower levels of rad ation exposures mrem /yeert are projected should lower levels of
- 3. la the evolustice of collocuve done benefit be required for lusnficanon of important la ceneidenne the multipk a practice which is a candidate for exposure issuet emesipoent
& Will the opphcation of lesaficanoe of 2.
In estabhshing enemption policy, practoe help to maintain a smaller should the Commission exclude car.
number of sonras mahans it essaar to tain prectaces for which there appears costrol overal! exposurest to be no reasonable justification?
E How important le anonitc.m4 to stain-
- 3. In considertag proposala for exemp-tainang assurance that indmdaal es.
eume do not amosed to the oeefel!
tion, should the Commission evaluate fsout?
occial acceptability of the pructice?
- 4. Should the Commission determine a 1 11 General Discuse6on/Questsee period.
preence to be anjutified if noswedio.
Comments or queshone by scheduled per-logical economical alternaeves exist?
tacipants. Open to the floor as time per.
unts.
E Indavidual dou cntenom for determuung ccheevement of the *'es low as reason. nose members of the pubhc who wish to cbly achievable" (A!. ARA) pnnciple in pamapate by speakmg at the meeting enemption decision. making-.
should notafy one of the contacts hated that they can led m
- 1. le the to mrem / year criterion pro.
posed by the Commission appropnete?
- 3. le the oppropneteness of this number Dated in Rockvilla. MarylarwL thaa ad day effected by the decision regarding of December test whether a collective dose criterion. % gI,"
abauld be insed with the indavidual doee enterton?
E.secutiint Duretorfor Operations.
- 3. Should the indmdual dose critenon {fR Doc. so-244p1 nied 12-6 4a. 845 am]
be chosen on the basis of neghrble amussa came tw.es as risk as is done intemauonahy (i.e.
IAEA Safety Series No. so) + can a somewhat higher nuniber be need based on a Comanseios pobey doch eion regarding a level of individual
. risk for which expenditure of re-sources is not warranted?
- 4. How important is international con-siesency in choosms an individual does entanon?
C. Use of a collective does critanon for determining achievement of the A1 ARA principle la exemphon decision making *
- 1. la a collective dou criterion needed in addition to an indavidual does crite-riont
- 3. If oo. what to the basis of that need?
- 3. If the Commission decides a collective done entenon should be eased, what should sta magmtude be?
- 4. What alterneuve to a collective does entenon should be considered for as-sessing societal taipact?
S. In calculatmg collecuve dosa, what opproaches allowirns truncation of in-dividual doses or the use of weightmg factors for components of ceDecuve
[
does are appropriate f
D. Approaches for assuring total expo-
{
sures of Individuals from outiple prac-
}
ticas will not exceed the 100 mrom/
yest lumit.
- 1. le the approach of generally limiting individuals doses from each souros or j
i h
.,J?
'f
+
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
g E
W ASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
%.....)
July 21, 1989 The Honorable John J. LaFalce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 4
Dear Congressman LaFalce:
Your letter of June 15, 1989, requested a full review of radioactive waste disposal issues raised in correspondence from Mr. Richard M. Tobe, Commissioner of the Erie County Department'of Environment and Planning. Mr. Tobe expressed concern that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is chcnging its regulations to allow a nuclear waste generator the opportunity to apply for an exemption from compliance with existing NRC regulations for waste material.
He stated his belief that no radioactive waste should be disposed of at sanitary landfills or through incineration, and that radioactively contaminated materials should only be recycled under very controlled circumstances.
I would first point out that the Commission is not proposing to change the policy statements and regulations cited in Mr. Tobe's letter.
Rather his concerns appear to be founded on a Federal Register Advance Notice (Enclosure), published on December 12, 1988. This notice discussed the NRC's intention to develop a broadly apolicable policy that would identify the principles and criteria that govern all Commission decisions related to the exemption of. radioactive materials from some or all regulatory control, and is being put forward as a " Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control." This policy is intended to provide the public health and safety
((amgog,,ghatwopdapplyto,thedevelo,pmentofappropriateregulationsfor a
JBradburne OCA MBridgers ED0-4554 RBernero, NMSS
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Offe: RDB:DRA:RES
//
Name: *WLabs:cb Date:
6/27/89
, -)
)
Offc:
RDB:DRA DRA:RES DRA:RCS DD Ri rFifS D:RE ED OCATI -
Name:
- DCool:cb
- Ros7toczy *BMorris TP is ESBeckjord Vc llo JBradburne Date:
6/27/89 7/3/89 7/3/89 7/(/89 7/ 6 /89 7 i /89 7/f/89 0FFICIAL TECORD COPY
- - - _ _ _ _