ML23151A389

PR-002 - 51FR30839 - Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern: Policy Statement

ML23151A389
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/29/1986
From:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
To:
References
PR-002, 51FR30839
Download: ML23151A389 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 08/29/1986 TITLE : PR-002 - 51 FR30839 - RADIOACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN : POLICY STATEMENT CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-002 51FR30839 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAICING PROPOSED RULE: PR-002 RULE NAME: RADIOACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN: POLICY STATEMENT PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 51FR30839 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 08/29/86 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 13 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 10/27/86 EXTENSION DATE: I I FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 51FR30839 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 08/29/86 NOTES ON ISSUED AS FINAL POLICY STATE. COMMENTS REQUESTED BY THE EFFECTIVE STATUS POLICY DATE (10/27/86). SEE ALSO PR-2,20 (51FR43367) FILE LOCATED OF RULE ON Pl.

0 FIBI) THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAICING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-002 ROLE TITLE: RADIOACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN: POLICY STATEMENT PROPOSED ROLE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE ECY *APElil: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 08/25/86 FINAL ROLE FINAL ROLE DATE FINAL ROLE SECY PAPER: 86-204 SRM DATE: 08/12/86 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 08/25/86 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: KITTY DRAGONETTE MAIL STOP: 623-SS PHONE: 427-4300 CONTACT2: ROBERT FONNER MAIL STOP: 9604MNBB PHONE: 492-8692

DOCKET NO. PR-002 (51FR30839}

In the Matter of RADIOACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN: POLICY STATEMENT DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 08/25/86 08/25/86 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 09/1 /86 08/08/86 COMMENT OF ACRS WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE ( l}

09/29/86 09/25/86 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON (N. WANDKE} ( 2}

10/21/86 10/17/86 COMMENT OF MARVIN LEWIS ( 3}

10/27/86 10/27/86 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE (DIANE D'ARRIGO} ( 4}

10/27/86 10/23/86 COMMENT OF TX LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL (CHRISTINE G. POLLARD, C.H.P.} ( 5}

10/29/86 10/26/86 COMMENT OF ECOLOGY/ALERT (E. NEMETHY} ( 6}

10/29/86 10/29/86 COMMENT OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE (JOHN J. KEARNEY} ( 7}

11/14/86 11/11/86 COMMENT OF CAROLINA POWER l LIGHT COMPANY (S.R. ZIMMERMAN) ( 8}

11/20/86 10/27/86 COMMENT OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DAVID K. LACKER} ( 9}

02/27/87 02/25/87 COMMENT OF MICKEY W. SMITH ( 10}

03/03/87 03/01/87 COMMENT OF TOLEDO COALITION FOR SAFE ENERGY (DINI SCHUT} ( 11) 03/11/87 03/01/87 COMMENT OF JIM PLANCK ( 12}

04/07/87 03/28/87 COMMENT OF HAP CLEARY ( 13}

/narr,11  ?-<I 178'7 J)t) COJVcorc{ $ f-reF DOCKETED US NRC f}orf fa,,,J lvltt,iv~ O</~J

/

"87 APR -7 P2 :55 OFfit;E or 2tLt-. t1i:. ,Y DOCKET ING SE VICf.

BRANCH fo a./( Sa,,vc6 I /1/<<cl,,,y-fJ~ CL.Jj?e.-f I A ,U.,,:!e,.,-

IN rrve -i/,5 le#'-er Sert',Jt.~J

/,Ue..

,'.;,a(_ f ru.fy S ef/.;,.,J' 4V or,_,-

\

\

l.1,

• s. 'MIOOlff' ~ !C(;LJLATORY CC>'M'MrssfdN

~ ETING & SERVI CE SECTION

<OFFIG OF THE SECRETARY OF Tl:[ COMMISSION Postmark D* *A

\ .... ..

March 21, 1987 120 Concord Street Portland, Maine 14103 Secretary Samuel Chilk United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Am writing in response to the Commission's ruling last August to disregard nuclear waste streams as long as the waste streams do not expose any more than the naturally occurring b ckground doses from cosmic and terrestrial sources, on the grounds that they are too low to justify significant concern. This decision represents a better understanding of the financial concerns of the producers of low level radioactive waste than it represents an understanding of the actual radioactive waste. This is said with two observations in mind. The first is that the Department of Energy's allocation of space at existing low level waste facilities will not accommodate all the waste generated if the figures for the state of Maine are a reflection of the nation. 1 The second observation is the lack of attention paid to the chemical nature of the sources of radiation of many radionuclides is seriously understated or simply not considered in accordance with our knowledge of the biochemical behavior of these nuclides. This is particularly true of low level radioactive waste which is classified by curies with a reference to the type of radiation and no mention of the elemental nature of the waste. When determining safety standards an understanding of the behavior of each specific nuclide is necessary.

I hope to demonstrate this necessity by comparing the position of radiation sources with the position of biologically significant elements as they occur on the periodic table. This comparison is by no means absolute nor conclusive. However, i t should point out that man's activities with radioactive i sotopes are exposing people and the biosphere in general to a much wider range of radiation sources. Many of these sources do not exist naturally; many are quite long lived; and each has unique chemical properties.

The range of elements produced by nuclear fission is essentially the whole spectrum of known elements. It is much more a question of in what quantities do they occur than do they occur. The same can be said of the elements found in different life forms. Consequently, the elements considered will be the ones that occur in sufficient quantities to be considered significant by the various sources used.

The information is oriented toward the effects on people but because of shared biology the data will apply to other life forms as will. Many of the designations used in the following tables are notable arbitrary.

This is also true of some of the sources used. However, this is not of paramount importance because of the conceptual rather than statistical nature of this letter.

1 Based on information from the State of Maine Advisory Commission on radioactive waste.

Explanation of Tables Table One 2 This table represents the essential dietary elements and building blocks of organic life and the trace el e ments found on organic life forms. The actual breakdown of elements is a reflection of the views of nutritionist Bernard Jensen, Ph.D.

Table Two 3 This table represents the radionuclides considered to be of significance with regards to natural sources form cosmic rays, terrestrial sources, and the decay of uranium, thorium, and actinium; man made nuclides from bombs and nuclear reactors; and isotopes isolated by man for research and medicine.

Table Three This table is a composite of the overlapping elements from Tables One and Two.

Table Four 4 Here the heavy alpha emitting nuclides are included with the biologically significant radionuclides because of the strong affinity the alpha emitters have for bones. These two groups are then compared to radionuclides that have shown a tendency to accumulate in the body.

Table Five~

The results form Table Four are reviewed with regards to the source of the nuclide. Is the isotope man made or natural? If natural, is one ' s exposure to i t enhanced by man's activities. The radionuclides are also reviewed with respects to the length of time i t takes them to decay to one percent of their original radioactivity as compared to a lifespan of eighty years .

2 Lenhinger. Principles of Biochemistry. p.45 . Jensen. Chemistry of Man. p.73 , 373- 379.

3 Center for Bio Monitoring, Maine Yankee Review, p.6.

Eisenbud, Environmental Radiation, pp.122-124, 220-221, 405-424.

Horne, Chemistry of Environment, pp. 203, 209, 210 .

4 Clamshell , Ionizing Radiation.

Eisenbud, Environmental Radiation, pp. 405-424 .

~Data from previous tables checked against CRC Handbook table of isotopes.

8\OLOG\CA LL Y VFf'Al

~

..- 0 VIIIA ELE'M EI\Jt .S 1AB>Lt ONE.

I II

• LI

• I\,

IIA IIIA IVA VA VIA VIIA

..,. I 8

I H

_.,_ 0 It

..... II ti* 0 (\)EC E" SSA R \( TR/\CG"

.~ "~'" ,.

1 ...... , Ulllt I'll.la\

t*1*1

. . ... . ,~ * "....... * ...,, . c.., . * . ., "",,.......,i. . . -. * . ......... ...... . ......... 0 TRACE

--* -** --- . ** jj II ti, " 81 '" I "a Ar E"lE N\£tvTS

,. M1 Uln 1118

" c,... " . ,..,, " .,,.

IVB u

VB VIB VIIB VIIIB Ill 118 Al u

Mt!..1 II Sc Tl V Cr Mn F, HI G1 Ge A Bo Br l<r I(

Co in EL£ME"IVT5 lt Ill MIU

. . uau tl .."it HHII y " Tt Rb uu Sr 1111 tr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd A1

,nu, Cd 111 tn In IIUI Sn Ill It

. Sb 11111

, I Xe IJI .Jlt OF VARYl'N G 1

i,

• ,,c, lllto\

Fr 1111 161 B

Ra IUl!of II Lo 11411 Ac Ulll 11 Ill 11 T

1-.*o w

lk11L\ ,... ,-.*

Re O Ir 1111 Pl 111*

Au an ..

II TI IIM.J1 .,,,

Pb

-- Bl ..,. ...

Po At Rn lnJ SlGtv\~\C..\\NCE"

. "'""' ....u ,. .,""' . "u,... . Bk " ,. ,., '"' '"'.,. ,

I Ct Pr tld Gd DJ tit.It Tm IMI.U Yh " Lu IMU 110 1r*.1!1 U1 .U l!.IIIU Ill.An IMtlft IU04 11 N Th Pl tip Pu Am Cm Cl Eo Fm Md Ho Lw l-111\'UI IIH UIJI: IUll Utll t1n1 UHi 11!.I 0!.-4 UUJ 9lOLO G \ CA Ll Y E LE IV\E"NTS IA VIIIA TABLE 1-WO IIIA IVA VA VIA VIIA I

11. SOl\t<(.E"S B C H 0 UfflC F

II ti*

1'1111.1 0 COS N\ IC RAYS

• ----.....:... u 11"111

{lJ TERRt:S1R\AL II "Mc Al SI 8 " Cl II Ar a

ti*

UHU II I(

. ". ,~

UJU C

1118 Sc n

IVB Ti u

VB V

. VIB VIIB Cr VIIIB 1B 11B ,. . . 0 "G1..... 11 Ge

,Wllf:t,l A "St r,4:..,

Br Ki 0 DE"CAY 0 {=

'ti Ill Rb Sr y tr Nb

. Mo 11 u )

Th ) A~ c.

.--- ,,... ,".. ,u "...,u LI 11 1111 HI 1

T1 w D f:' l SS l 0f\J PRoOu.cTS

. , 11 ti A~1£R '\S-0 DI\Y-5 nn 112,, ,nn ,. . . ,.

. ",..... ,u..... .,...,,,, . ...... ...... . ....,.,,~ " BolM&.S II Cc Pr Nd

. ,.,Md Yb Lu

.~.

ttllll

, fMtU 111.fM IUlf ""

n u Th P Np P*

t !,

A111 ttu1 Cm Bk Cl IIM Fm '"'Ho '"'L*....

llJll\.11 UH t*u fl41 1141) 11!\JI ft!A) Cr.o4 RAD\ 0 I\} UC.l\ ors (\ND lV\f\N M I\DE'

- IA Tf\&Lt 1HRtF VIA VIIA VIIIA I

lie 0 l'AAN

• N\ AD~

fSJ NATURAL

• lfI OLOG IC A LL Y 1 Ra Ac SlGNlf:"\CANT AtJO nu nu, 11111 V

Ct

~

Pr WI tld Er I

1m Yh II Lu PO..T,SNT.\ ~LL y IMU Th tftltnl IU.U II P1 11 U Cl 1'4lln "t:.o *;.,,

lltlt 111,111,.u 11 Md "'J~o llJM I

IHIJ Lw R liOIO Ac..TIVE° lll&1'1 II.J I t.ll.l: ll!A 1"4 1111 NATU~AL AI\JD tv\AN M~DE GlOLOGIC.ALY S I ~ \\l \ t= \ CA tJT RAD\0 Nl\C.L\DES

- .,,IJ t -

VIIIA I

I I tlOltl LI

,u,

. IIA n.

• TABLF ~OU.~ I IIIA IVA

,II ,, ltt~II! ' H..,.,

VA VIA VIIA

• 0 lie

.., ,.*~*"'* ,..r.... ,. Ea C.OMPOS \TE" OF I

Ne ti, i-!.!!1'

" Mr 1118

---

*- ,t Al "......

81 ti s..

t1 Cl llt.tll1 Ar

,._,.,. 'fA8Lt THREt

..... c,.... ,.. ,~ ".. . . ~,n c, ... ,,.-~ .. .,.-" * - ,.,_

""'" ,. ttJU IVB VB *v19 Vll8 VIIIB Ill 1111

'"""' :KtM ii-

'K .

It Sc Tl OJ<!

V

!It .ft<<

~n Ce NI Y .U n

C* 1.,....

. Ge

..... .. 0.

u A.

tl.Y H .ffll

" ~

l !'

,.... ,._.., ).1

. B*

0 ~\tl\VY CX £N\\l\\\\k;

..... ..... . '"' ,,,..... ...... ,..... ,.,_,.,,, . __ . ,... "'*" . .,,.., :. .t.. "'x.

JI a" Rb s, y tr ti!, " Mo ,, Te R* "J " I'd " Ac c.! In Sn " ffl, " Tt HO i i - ;;;,;..!!.,!!

11 .tt tUt tH.H tll .H ISIJM \\) UC. L \D~ S

• ,,.c,... ,n_.. "" . ,,.,, ,..,.. ,. ,_., ,.....

Cjj

" IA " Ill 111 ff

" T* w " Re 0.

IM.t

" Ir IH.I

" l't "

..... ,..... Au 111 It

... ., ".!:!-J --- ....

11 l!I ~ At ltn llffl 0 I\JUCLl O£S CAP/\ G'L..~

7 r, un Ila

,no, Ac nu,

~

\t

~

M I *t

~

,1 IL.f

~

ll.\ t

~

f

~

!If

~

~I

~

'1t

~

ll

~

or Cl C( *u. M lA LAT\ ,ve:,

..11, IM.U .....,

"1'1

.. u 91

"" 1~41..1!'

Np ",,, ..,.,. "cm h

u,... "'*" ,~_.,.

"s*

Th 111.1ft IM .t.lft Cf "r.. 'rm

,.,_,. IMI.U 10 Md "1o "t..

tn.. . nu,

, lV lrlEl GoDV I .If IIJI ta ,..,, 41ft) ...,. nn 11flt 11!\t ,r..u lts.Jt fr.I IN '"'

BlOLOG.ICAL'f SIGN\F\CANT l'VUC.L\DES C.Off\PARED TO NUCL \ DtS CAP ABLE" 0 ~ COtvCE"NYRA,TI \\Jt, lt\J \Ht GbDY I

IA TABLE F\VE * ' .......

ftltA f~~suLTs ~ T A?Lr Fex-\ R -

I ,~,., IIA t

Li

. n.

IIIA IVA 8

te.att VA VIA VIIA

. tunn u.,,, ,._,,.,

11*

tJ MAN - MADE

• • - - - - . - It U 11

!~ ,.:,.. .~,.. ;',~, !~

II If II D Ex' POSER EN 1-\J\\\JCf"D

, ,o D

tt Sc n

TI u

VB V

u VIB VIIB D

n

~

H

~

VIIIB tt

~

II W

tt

~

19 119

~

11

..A!,.

~

~

n M

u

~

i!I

~

~

.ev MAN to.\

,e .

~

tt.lJ u

m tUnA n

~

tUt n

~

tN,

~

o m

N tftll .1 o ,.

~

Ut.t!'

u

~

tlf.

0 NI\TURAL SO~lRC.f:

JI U b

H W

, ..., .* ~

H

~

JI 0.

n Ir JI h

H M

ltn

,m NucL 1D~.s Nor

, .. *** **** '"'*' ' "*' "' 111*

• I\IEU.T R AL I 2ED 10 l Ii oo-fl

=-

.* --.,,-,--,- , = - - . , . - - , . , - , - - , - - - ~ ~ . . . . , . . - - , - ,-

Dy !lo Er

..- . ...........- , .- ..~

~ YI, Lu

~

l N °0 O

\./r::-1\ R ('

l" c;; r, ...>

111.M tM .t .'111

, Cf,.., "r..,...,'rm Md tit.ti IIIM t .1f ltt.M tH.17 10 11

,.,.. No'"" t.,.., t1CJ\1

~

~) "OO l IV o yr:-Ac c I\

s RESULTS OF TABLE FOLlR CON\PARE"D TO ~f\DlJ\TIOtJ SOURC..ES AN\) T\t'l\t- 10 DECAY 10 \/100-ttt \'.>OTEI\JCY

~ TA8Lt.- SlX -*"*

VIIIA s*ouRc£s OF l\JUCL\D E1.

.... . tJ

, ,,,, 11 IIA IIIA IVA VA VIA VIIA

,.*-- LOW LEVEL

...8... C ' ', H ,

I

n. ',..r.... "'_

WAS. E' ( PvWER PLANTS)

I LI

,u, 0 Ne

-, i;-

,i p-,

I! "ct II A.. " SI II II I

3 Ht Mr 1118 IVB Ar

,.H JU II VB VIB VIIB

, ,. Fr..,~

VIIIB 18 118 ,. .. ,!\ JflttJII J!l't~.., ,,_ (3 fV\EOlCAL /RESE~ Rl1l' u

f " I< Sc "Tl ,,., V "c, Mn re " ~ "A."' "~-, ,.Br_ Kr :t!\

..... c.~-" "Zn..... ,..o, , .". 0.,._klSI,

Tl C*

Hot

,. uy., ...... . "~,o .,II.MA ., ,-,,

.. . .!l'\.141 ~ t.\11

" HI U .Hfl ..... ..,_.

~ SMOKt ALARMS

.... . ~.

,u a ~"" ,I'(~.

., , tt ,, ,. " f"t ** "'*., '"'-~ ...., ,.,.... ,. , u .n n , u HUii '"-*

" "Ac"!

. .... " x.

• ~..

tr tll, Mo Tc In Sn ii tl.l1 ttJNII H .lf

"" "" "' " " " . c.! Tt

. . Ul.3'1 N UCLI DES LAST\NG(~ )

"",. ..-- UI.H t*.ttl tat.al t*.I '"'*' '"*' -- ......, ....

,,,_ l..a Ill T* W Re 0. Ir l't Au

"*.. -~

"11"'  !!'.. l!I l'o

.... n,,

At J21 ONE' L \ \:E T\ W\t ~

1 r, nn "n.,

IIJCt Ull1 Ac llltt

... "" t " .., -~ t q

-- Htl 11ft

( ~o YE'ARS)

~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ n b

~ Tft\J L\ FE" 111¥\E"S M ll.f.t.'llft tit." tM.l.14 Ut.lN tTU 11

'No 'tw 1 IIS4 tlH

( <a'OO VE:ARS)

SOME POTENTIALLY UN M0N\T0liED RADIONUCL\DES COMPARED TO LONGLIV~D BiOLOG\CALLY SlGNlF\-

CANT RAD\01\JUC..L\DES ( DEC.AYtO TO l/lW~ POTEIVC.Y)

Table Six 6 The radionuclides that are biologically significant, long lived, and are refined from nature or actually made by man are here compared to some of the nuclides used by various industries and could be subject to random unmonitored release into the environment because of the Nuclear Regulatories Ruling of August 29, 1986.

Comments The information in Table Two shows man to have increased the elemental range of radiation sources by producing new radionuclides. Man has also increased his exposure to existing radiation sources through uranium, coal, and phosphorus mining and through the production of radionuclides that already occur naturally. The actual increase in radiation exposure to the environment at large resulting from man's activities is relatively small in curries, but now the less significant because the negative effects of low level radiation are considered to be directly proportional to the exposure level. 7 Table Three shows many of the radionuclides to be biologically significant. This is of importance because organisms concentrate consumed elements. Moving up the food chain the ratio between an element and its environmental availability compared to the final biological concentration can be quite high. This biomagnification has been observed with man made radionuclides such as plutonium, cesium and zinc. 8 This phenomenon is the justification for the fourth table.

The highlighted elements in Table Five are those radionuclides most prone to biomagnification. A heightened concentration of radiation sources within the body is of particular significance because these nuclides will essentially render a direct hit each time. An element's distribution within an organism can vary from an even distribution over the body as with tritium or, may spread over a specific local such as the bone surfaces as with thorium or, concentrate in one area as radium will on bones or the nuclide may concentrate within a particular metabolic function as iodine does with thyroid hormone production or iron does with hemoglobin. 9 Each element has a potentially different distribution necessitating an understanding of the metabolic pathway of each isotope before real safety standards can be established.

Many radionuclides have extremely short lives. A short period of isolation will render them harmless. However, many radionuclides, 6

Center for Bio Monitoring, Maine Yankee Review, p. 48.

Eisenbud, Environmental Radiation, pp. 233-240.

Stine , Applied Chemistry, pp. 37-45.

Women Voters, Low level waste.

7 Eisenbud, Environmental Radiation, pp.9-29.

8 Respectively: Eisenbud, Environmental Radiation, p. 106; Hanson, Transuranics, numerous references testifying to biomagnification throughout text; Horne, Chemistry of the Environment, p . 291.

9 Eisenbud, Environmental Radiation, pp . 405-424.

particularly the heavy alpha emitting ones, have life expectancies extending many thousands of years. These waste products need to be treated with extreme care because of our general ignorance as to their long term effect. Because of their long life it is quite reasonable to expect a considerably large amount of these nuclides to eventually work their way into the biosphere. The understanding required to model the behavior of these radionuclides is monumental. The significance of accidents, technical short comings, weather changes, biomagnification, minor genetic damage and human error extended over a period of tens of thousands of years is simply unknown.

When calculating the long range effects of the radiation increase caused by new man made elements the whole biosphere must be considered.

Numbers that usually can be ignored take on new meaning over a period of thousands of years . For example , in a remote location plutonium and other transuranic elements are absorbed by the food chain from sediments where the waste settled as i t slowly leaked from containment.

Over thousands of years the alpha radiation causes just enough genetic damage for simple organisms to start producing abnormal biomolecules.

Moving up the food chain the radiation source undergoes biomagnification. The higher organisms are subjected to internal radiation and the new task of digesting a new potentially toxic biomolecule. What will be the ultimate effect of this alteration man has made on the environment? The predictions range form nothing more serious than a few more millirems, well within the bounds of all organisms survivability, to a steady and gradual decrease in vitality in the form of genetic damage and cancer that will ripple through the biosphere causing the extinction of all life. The different projections could not be more polar.

However, it is safe to say the side effects of these radionuclides are not beneficial. The small waste streams designated insignificant by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission might actually become significant if a number of people use the same disposal facility. Over a period of time the long lived nuclides can accumulate in the food chain, possibly in a quite unlikely place. Pesticides and P.b.c.s have shown us that man made chemicals have a global distribution that often concentrates in remote corners of the food chain like penguins. There is no reason to expect these long lived radionuclides to be any different.

Long lived radionuclides capable of biomagnification are included in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's August decision.

If safety standards are to have validity the standards need to reflect the unique chemical properties of each radionuclide because:

1. Each radionuclide has essentially a unique metabolic pathway.

2. Radionuclides often will concentrate in living organisms A. as one moves up the food chain B. in specific locals and organs 3 . The long range effects of long lived radionuclides ~te not adequately understoodo I hope you will seriously consider safety standards that mare closely reflect our understanding of chemistry.

SOURCES Center for Biological Monitoring, A Review of Radiological Surveillance, Reports of Waste Effluents in Marine Pathways at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company at Wiscasset, Maine, 1970-1978.

Pennywheel Press, Hulls Cove, Maine.

Clamshell Alliance. Ionizing Radiation. October 1976, Seabrook, New Hampshire.

Merril Eisenbud. Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, Industrial and Military Sources, third edition, 1987, Academic Press Incorporated, Orlando.

W.C. Hanson, editor, Transuranic Elements in the Environment. U.S.

Department of Energy/TIC 28800, 1980.

R.A. Horne. The Chemistry of the Environment. 1978, Wiley Interscience

- Pub 1 ica tions, New York.

Jensen, Bernard. The Chemistry of Man. 1983, Bernard Jensen, Escondido, California.

League of Women Voters of Maine. Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal in Maine, October, 1985.

Lehninger, Albert. Principles of Biochemistry. 1982, Worth Publishers Incorporated, New York.

State of Maine Advisory Commission of Radioactive Waste, February 1987 update.

Stine, William, R. Applied Chemistry. Second edition, 1981, Allyn and Bacon, Incorporated, Boston.

Weast, Robert, editor. Chemical Rubber Company Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 1969, Chemical Rubber Company, Cleveland.

March 1, 1987 .....

P.O.Box 943 Tannersville, NY 12485 OOlKETEQ USHRC Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '8? t\~ \l p2 :33 Washington, D.c., 20555 Att: Docketing & Service Branch To Whom It May Concern :

The following are my comments on the :r:uling detailed in the August 29 1 1986 Federal Register permitting petitioners to have their radioactive waste st-reams considered "below regulatory concern."

1) This ruling is not in the best interests of either the general public or the nation's

'1virorfnfent , but seems to have been derived solely as a means for nuclear waste generators to avoid the rising costs of dumping at authorized sites . I do not view this as a "significamt reduction to societal costs . " Rather , it will demand costly remediation measures of present and future generations while simultaneously exacting an injurious , if not deadly , price from the health of citizens throughout the nation . "When t he economic and expasure costs associated with the exemption" are truly analyzed from a non- biased position , it is clear that these will costsAfar exceed those of "dispasal at a low-level waste site . "

2) This ruling is not in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

eie statement that the ruling "will result in no significant im:r;act on the quality of the human environment" is purely an ad hoc decision1based entirely upan a desire to decrease the quantity of low-level waste that must be legitimately dispased of. The ruling ' s pasition that r,wst-a waste streamAcom:r;are favorably with the "natuzally occurring background doses from cosmie exemption and terrestrial sources" in order to be eligible for 1 1 I* does not address the cumulative effect upon both humans and the environment of waste streams being dispased of in either the same place on a repeated basis) or future raised "background" levels from unregulated dispasal.

Especially important is this ruling's failure to provide for any accountability or tracking of these low-level wastes. I am in agreement with Dr. Judith Johnsrud, co-director of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power's statementsJ that this ruling does not assess the impact of "the thickening of the radiation environment" and that "no one is totaling the env-ironmental loading."

Ackaowle'filed by rd . . * **~ ~.. lt,._,

... ft I.J. S. NUCLEAR REGUl-ATORY COMMISSIO.S DOCKH 'G & St VI CE stCTK>li O~FICE ( ) f T *JC -,-~ TA"l c:: ." l Postll'l::sr~ ~ _

Copic, * ,

Add 'I c

~

j **

• 2 Planck J) This ruling may be trying to reduce the volume of waste that has to be cared for,

~ ~pears to ~nc.y has but it certainly isn ' t achieving that. Insted.';1L;"/ 'f*educe

• the volume that your A - - to that account for by shifting the respansibility ofAmonitoring to the general public. To initiate a dangerous and poorly thought-out pclicy simply for the expediency of bottom* line economics is no policy, but simply rash action. This ruling should be revoked or otherwise negated.

It is not appropriate to use increased millirem thresholds of allowable unregulated waste

• '1n nee.cl df' to effect the illusion of~decreased waste volum~)f 2* g regulated dispasal. Please change this ruling to one that is protective of both humans and environment, because this one is a mockery of environmental concernsJ and a tragedy to the health of our nation ' s papulace.

Thank you for reading this.

Respectfully,

s \~~\ ~(, \<._

Jim Planck

( fl F£ 3d?.3V Toledo Coalition or;,r\<Sale Energy P.O. Box 4545, Toledo, Ohio 4362Q 7 l1litll~ph~Pl.e=(419) 535-b92.0 March 1, 1987

. OCKEI . p y~~1~@.

[51  ;=£_~ r}Gz) '- - ~

Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C, 20555  :::

r

<j;.

Comments of the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy (TCSE)~ ..

"Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Generic Rul~~ki~", Fed.

k g. 43367 Dec 2,1986 and Fed, Reg. 30839 Aug 29,1986, The above - mentioned notices address regulations concerning the "disposal of radioactive wastes that contain sufficiently small qu~n_tities or low concentrations of radionuclides that their disposal does not need to be regulated as radioactive . "

The TCSE opposess such uncontrolled and free disposal of radioactive waste into the environment on the grounds that:

-Such disposal cannot guarantee that an undue risk to the public will not occur . There is current disproof of a safe threshold dose of radiation for carcinogenesis. (Dr. John Gofman's report"Assessing Chernobyl's Cancer Consequences:Application of four "laws" of Radiation Carcinogenesis")

-The basis for radiological damage to the body through low-level radiation has been grossly underestimated, possibly as much as 16-fold.See the aforementioned Gofman report.

-The cumulative effects of low-level radiation on future generations-birth defects,cancers, infertility-are unknown and could threaten the survival of the human race.

-To include the cost/benefit factor ignores human health costs, the latter cannot be traded by a$ amount.

-The uncontrolled and free disposal of certain "small" quantities or low concentrations of radioactive waste do not allow for day to day control over human errors or carelessness, and could result in unknown releases of larger amounts or higher concentrations of radioactive waste.

-The TCSE objects to the release of man-made radiation that has and is already occurring of radioactive waste into the Toledo sewage system by the areas'research and medical facilities, and the routine emissions into the air from the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant.

-The TCSE urges the NRC to ensure that disposal of all radioactive waste, no matter how low in concentration or amount be disposed of in above-ground leakproof containers until a safe permanent disposal storage method can be found.

Sincerel_y I J i>Etu~ud-Dini Schut TCSE spokesperson Acknowl

U, s. N J";LEhR REGULATORY co:;*1ISSI ON D -'< T 1 N-, & .::>~R.ICE [,,., I CH 0 Fir.; 0F T l-<E S~CF' "R'f Or I HE CO , I* I ,l Do t.:'li. s* . s s!m 'k C " /3Xif1/2.t ~ ~ 3 /2,/4 7

-, ICS fl _ /

d C

February 25, 1987

• 37 FEB 27 P3 :09 FROM Mickey W. Smith Building 406, Box 682 Fort Myer, Virginia 22211 TO Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Docketing & Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear NRC:

This letter is being sent as comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ruling on low-level radioactive waste (Federal Register, August 29, 1986).

As a registered voter, concerned citizen, and a SGT in the U.S.

Army, I do not wish to see low-level radioactive waste to be considered "below regulatory concern". Allowing ANY radioactive waste to be dumped into landfills, municipal dumps, and sewers would be ignorant.

Determining that this low-level waste would not be harmful is just as amazing, especially when considering that all this waste could possibly be deposited in the same place. Imagine what level of radiation which would be put out in a case like this.

Obviously the NRC is not taking into consideration the effects this would have on this and future generations. When hearing this plan, one must believe that making money is more important than the safety of people in this country or world. Although we live in a capitalist society, we must draw the line at some point; and allowing low-level radioactive waste to be deposited into "sewers" is definately crossing that line.

I challenge the NRC and these "Profiteering" corporations to con-sider the safety impacts of this plan, not just the monetary aspects.

Sincerely, Mickey W. Smith CA Registered Voter SGT, US Army

~6. MIP,EAR REGULATORY C6MM(S51CN t>OCKET 'G & SERVICE SECT IO OHIO OF THE StCRETAllY THt COM' ISSI .

-

PR~ &

~ (51A ~ ~?)

0 WM 8F~i'~~partment of HeaH:h Robert Bernstein, M.D., F.A.C.f,S6 .86 NOV 20 ~1bert'

• 1 nA. Maclean, M.D.

Commissioner No v -3 Pl2 :1/fustm, 111<:>0 West 49th Street Texas 78756-3189 Deputy Commissioner

. (512) 458-7111 OFF IL.: __ _ P~ofessional Services OOC KETINli .,_ *-.~ erfmas L. Miller Radiation Control ANU1 Deputy Commissioner October 27, 1986 (512) 835-7000 Management and Administration WM Record Fi Malcolm R. Knapp, Chief Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery c-217 -6 Projects Branch Division of Waste Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Knapp:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Policy Statement on .Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern. Staff of the Bureau of Radiation Control have reviewed the document and offer the following comment:

Since the U. s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has looked at many waste streams in order to establish a limit for "bel ow regulatory concern",

they have determined that waste streams causing less than one millirem dose per year to a population would result in less than one health effect in 10,000. At this dose level, approximately 28 percent of current waste streams could go to an ordinary landfill. The NRC should coordinate its efforts with EPA to develop a usable rule in this area.

- The Bureau of Radiation Control has drafted rules which wo uld allow certa i n concentrations of short-lived radionuclides to be disposed in sanitary landfills. The rules are based on a study and modeling that limited doses t o t he most exposed individuals to one millir em per year. Pr o posal of t he rule for public comment is expected to occur in t he next t wo months. We encourage the NRC to pursue similar rulemaking activ i t i es.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact us.

David K. Lacker, Chief Bur eau of Rad i at ion Control

Carolina Power & Light Company NOVll 1986 SERIAL: NLS-86-410 "86 NOV 14 P2 :25 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Carolina Power & Light Company appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Commission policy statement concerning petitions for rulemaking to exempt waste streams from regulatory concern (FR 30839).

The Company believes that the policy statement provides little, if any, relief for most waste generators for the following reasons:

• It only addresses methods to be used by multiple producers of waste and, therefore, is difficult or impossible for individual utilities to utilize.

• The cost associated with providing the information required would be prohibitive.

• It would require a utility group to expend one to three man-years of effort at a significant cost. This would necessitate a serious economic and technical evaluation to verify that the submittal would have a reasonable assurance of success and would result in a justifiable ultimate cost savings.

• The document resulting from the policy statement's multiple requirements would be massive and unwieldy. Four of the more difficult specifications are:

The exemption must be for a generic waste stream that will be useful for all generators on a national scale.

The radiological properties of the chosen waste stream is to be characterized on a national basis.

The variability of the chosen waste stream is to be projected for all of the waste produced nationally.

The disposal and treatment of the chosen waste stream must be specified on a national scale.

In conclusion, it appears that the NRC, in its haste to meet the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendment Act mandate has, in effect, eliminated "below regulatory concern" as a viable solution for a utility to pursue.

411 Fayetteville Street* P. 0 . Box 1551

• Raleigh. N. C. 27602 IIOV l ,986 7

~ledged by card . .***... * * * * * * *...-..

M-.5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SE°CTION OFF1rr 0F rue rr.rRETt.RY or E 1.:0~* * *s10N Oo~L*"lent Stat 1st ics Postmark Copes P, r Date

_ _// /Jb_____

/

-~ *~

Add' I Cop, < r<* r.-vl11ced ,</

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk NLS-86-410 / Page 2 If you have any questions concerning our comments, please call me at (919) 836-6242.

Yours very truly, S. rman anager Nuclear Licensing Section CGL/bmc (5044CGL)

lJOCt<£T NM8£11 eROf>OSED RUI.E PR - ~  ?;)

(J; JOHN J. KEARNEY, Senior Vice President (SI F~ .Jdr.3 9)

EDISON ELECTRIC DOCKE TED INSTITUTE The association of electric companies USNRC 111119th Street, NW. '86 OCT 29 P4 :16 Washington , D C. 20036-3691 Tel : (202) 828-7400 Samuel J . Chilk Secretary U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• Attention:

Subject:

Docketing and Service Branch Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group Comments on Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy Statement on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern, 51 Fed. Reg. 30839 (August 29, 1986)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The enclosed Comments are being submitted on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group (UNWMG) in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Policy Statement on Radioactive Waste Below Regula-tory Concern (Policy Statement) and to the accompanying Staff implementation plan (Staff plan) published in 51 Fed. Reg . 30839 (August 29, 1986) . EEI is the national association of investor-owned electric utilities, whose members serve 73 percent of all ultimate electric utility customers in the nation. UNWMG is a group of 44 publicly-owned and investor-owned electric utilities that provides active oversight of the implementation of the federal statutes concerning radioactive waste management.

EEI and UNWMG believe that in recognizing the concept of wastes "below regulatory concern" (BRC) , NRC has taken an impor- '

tant step . However, for all its good intentions, the Policy Statement, as interpreted in the Staff plan, will tend to create additional burdens on BRC petitioners with no guarantee that their petitions will be processed more rapidly than ordinary rulemaking petitions. Unless BRC petitions are handled more expeditiously than other rulemaking petitions, the benefits of complying with the detailed provisions of the Policy Statement may not outweigh the costs of compliance and possibly no peti-tions will be filed under the Policy Statement. In addition, we believe that the informational requirements imposed by the Policy Acknowledged by card Der 3 1 1 8

• • • • • • • • • • • **~

• s. OOCKHI NUCLEAR Gp~r:::

OFFIC

('C 1

• ..c; ~ T

'"\O y COMMISSION

<:£(TIO llY n

D 1,

~ es R fAdd' I C t,.c* I o,

~~I

Samuel J. Chilk October 29, 1986 Page Two Statement and Staff plan are much too detailed, and that a number of the decision criteria are inappropriate and represent an unwar-ranted extension of NRC regulatory authority beyond the realm of radiological safety. Our suggestions for improvement are included in the enclosed Comments.

EEI and UNWMG appreciate this opportunity to present our views to NRC. Should the Commission so desire, we would be pleased to discuss our comments in further detail.

Sincerely,

• JJK/rgp earn~

Enclosure

• Edison El~ctric lristittit~ and Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group Comme-nts 6n Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy Statement on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern, 51 Fed, Reg. 30839 (August 29, 1986)

Oct6ber 28, 1986

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. Comments on the Decision Criteria .*.....*..*.. 5 A. Environmental Impacts (Criterion 1) ...*** 5 B* Collective Dose Assessment (Criterion 3). 7

• c.

D.

Significant Reduction in Societal Costs (Criterion 5) ***.*...*.*.*...*..**.

Scope of the Exemption (Criterion 7) ..*..

9 10 E. Scope of Characterization (Criterion 8) .. 11 F. Recycle (Criterion 10) .*..*....*......*.. 12 G. Regulatory or Legal Obstacles

,(Criterion 14) . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 III. Other Informational Requirements ..**..*.*..*. 14 A. Regulatory Analysis *.********.***.*.*..*. 14 B* Economic Impact on Small Entities *.*.***. 15

c. Computer Program ..**.***.***.*.**...**.** 16 D. ALARA Considerations ...*..*.............. 16 E. Waste Management Options .......*......*.* 18 F. Non-Radiological Impacts ..*.***.***.***.* 19 G. Recordkeeping and Reporting .*.**...*..... 20 IV. Administrative Handling .....*..*..*..*.**..... 21 V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

I. Introduction The Com,missionJs Policy Statement*on Radioactive Waste*

Below Regulatory Concern was developed in response to section 10 of the "Low-Level_Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," T_i tie* I of P~b. L.99-240 (Amendments Act) * .y Section 10 requires the Commission, among other things~ to "establish standards and procedures" for the expeditious handling of peti~

tions to exempt from NRC regulation waste d~termined to be below

• regulatory concern (BRC). Section 10 also provides** that* where the Connnission finds that "regulation of a radioactive waste stream is not necessary to ~rotect the public heaith and* safety,

[it] shall, take such steps as may be necessary, in an expeditious manne*r ,' to exempt the disposal *of such -ra¢1ioactive w*aste from .

regulation by the Commission."

The-Amen~ents Act placed significant restrictio~s on generators' access to the existing licensed low-level waste disposal facilities by imposing specific volume allocations on utility generators and overall volume limits on the existing y In addition to publishing th'e Policy Statement, the Commission has expressed its intention*to conduct a generic rulema-king on waste streams below regulatory concern. EEI and UNWMG look forward to participating in the proceeding and we believe that the promulgation of a generic BRC rule is in the best interests of the public, regulators, and waste generators.

We hope that the Commission, in its consideration of the BRC concept, will apply the concept beyond the field of low-level waste disposal, and consider adoption of a comprehensive dose policy, along the lines of the one promulgated by the British in 1985. There are many areas of regulation that would benefit by adoption of a consistent approach to very low radiation exposures.

disposal sites. In adopting section 10 and requiring the .

Commission to rule expeditiously on BRC petitions (and thus to consider alternative disposal methods for such waste), Congress recognized th~ need to assist utility generators in meeting their individual disposal allocatioris and to preserve capacity at the existing disposal facilities for waste requiring ' continuing regulatory control.

In order to qualify for "expeditious" handling of a BRC rulemaking petition, *the Policy Statement and Staff plan require petitioners to meet a set of detailed informational requirements.

In addition, the Policy Statement and Staff plan establish a set of fourteen ."decision criteria" to be used b:r the Commission- in assessing individual petitions. Although petitioners may choose*

to follow the ordinary proqedures governing the submission of rulemaking petitions (10 CFR S 2.802), the Policy Statement provides that:

If' the petitioner wlshes to assure expedited action, the supporting information should be complete enough so that Commission action is primarily limited.to independent evaluation and administrative processing.

51 Fed. ggg. at 30840.

We recognize that if a petitioner desires expeditious action, the Commission should be furnished with the information necessary to enable it to assess the merits of the petition.

However-, a number of the informational requirements and decision

criteria established in the Policy Statement and Staff plan are either inappropriate, excessive, or do not bear any relationship to the merits of an individual rulemaking petition.

Moreover, the Staff plan appears to preclude "fast-track" processing of petitions submitted pursuant to the Policy Statement. We believe that fast-track pr~cedures may very well be applicable to many such petitions and should be utilized to the maximum extent possible. Our principal concern is- that,while the

• Policy Statement and Staff plan impose requirements and criter1a.

well in excess of the general requirements of 10 CFR S 2.802, there is no guarantee that BRC petitions will be processed any differently from other rulemaking petitions-.

Accordingly, we.recommend that a number ~f the specific informational requirements and decision criteria in the Policy Statement and Staff plan be deleted, modified, or cla£ified.

Furthermore, in qrder to meet the Congre"ssional mandate for expeditious action, the Commission should acknowledge the poten-tial applicability of existing fast~track procedures and state its intention to use such procedures to the maximum extent possible, or otherwise adopt new, more efficient procedures *

. Before providing our specific comments, we would like to discuss what we believe should be the general objective of the Policy Statement and Staff plan.* Section 2.802(c) of 10 CFR currently requires a rulemaking petition, amqng other things, to

- 5 -

propose a "general solution" to the perceived problem or the "substance or text" of the proposed rule, to state "the peti-tioner's grounds for and interest in the action requested," and to

[i]nclude a statement in support of the petition [setting] forth the specific issues involved, the petitioner's views or arguments with respect to those issues, [anp] relevant technical, scientific or other data . . . as the petitioner deems necessary to support the action sought.

The principal purpose of these requirements is to enable

• the Commission to understand the nature of the proposed action and to enable it to assess the technical merits of the petition.

believe that these same objectives should be used to determine We whether the provisions of the Policy Statement and Staff plan are necessary or appropriate. While we recognize that the Commission's mandate to act expeditiously necessitates that petitioners provide adequate supporting information to the Commission, provisions which do not foster those objectives should be eliminated .

II. Comments on the Decision Criteria A. Environmental Impacts The Commission's first decision criterion is:

Disposal and treatment of the wastes as specified in the petition will result in no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

51 Fed. Reg. at 30840. The Staff plan states that "[c]onsistent with 10 CFR 51.41, the petitioner should submit the information needed" to meet the requirements of 10 CFR SS 51.30 and 51.32

governing environmental assess~ents (EA). Id. at 30841. It also provides that unless a finding of "no significant impact" can be made "[using] y information submitted by the petitioner, the Commission must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to more fully examine the proposed action II Id. at 30844.

We agree that the Commission is required to dete*rmine whether the proposed action will have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, and that a petitioner is

• required under 10 CPR S 51.41 to provide "such information.

as may be useful in aiding the Commission" in complying with its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

However, the Staff states that petitioners will be required to "submit the information needed" for the Commission to prepare the EA, and thus in essence, to perform the environmental assess_me~t themselves. In fact, the Staff seems to suggest that unless the information provided by the petitioner is, in and *of itself, sufficient to enable the Commission to make a "no significant impact" finding, then an EIS is required. 51 fg_g. Reg. at 30841, 30844.

We believe that the Commission has a non-delegable duty to perform the environmental assessment and that the necessity for the preparation of an EIS is not governed by the adequacy or I/ The Federal Register notice contains an apparent typo-graphical error, substituting the word "during for "using."

.Ig. at 30844. The phrase appears to be correctly stated in the paper submitted by the Executive Director for Operations to the Commission for approval. SECY-86-204 (July 11, 1986),

Enclosure Cat 19.

extent of supporting information provided by a petitioner. 10 CFR S 51.14(a) states clearly that the Commission "is responsible" for the preparation of the EA. Furthermore, 10 CFR S 51.20 estab-lishes the criteria for determining whether an EIS is required the principal one, of course, being whether the action is a "major Commission action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 10 CFR S 51.20(b)(l3). The regulation makes no mention of basing the need for an EIS on the sufficiency of a petitioner's submission.

As prospective petitioners, EEI and UNWMG intend to provide appropriate information in support of the Commission's NEPA obligations. Nevertheless, the Staff plan should be amended to clarify that a petitioner's responsibility in this regard is governed by 10 CFR S 51.41, that the Commission will undertake the necessary environmental assessment, and that the need for the preparation of an EIS will be governed by 10 CFR S 51.20 rather than the extent or sufficiency of a petitioner's supporting analyses.'}__/

B. Collective Dose Assessment The Commission's third decision criterion is:

The collective doses to the critical popula-tion and general population are small.

y Given the nature of a BRC petition, it is difficult to imagine any reasonable petition requiring the* preparation of an EIS.

51 Fed. Rgg. at 30840. The Commission's second decision crit*erion states that the "maximum expected effective dose equivalent to an individual member of the public [should] not exceed a few millirem per year for normal operations and anticipated events." Id. The Staff plan states that "[a]n . advantage when individual doses are no more than 1 millirem per year is that the collective doses are then summations over very. small exposures." Id. at 30845.

Nevertheless, the Staff would require_collective dose information*

• "primarily for _information purposes, cost/benefit considerations, and to confirm the finding of no significant impact on the quality of the human environlnent." Id.

EEI and ONWMG believe that the establishment of a decision er i ter ion requir i*ng that the maximum ex.posed individual member of the public not receive *in excess of "a few millirem" per year provides reasonable assurance that collectiv~ population doses will be within an acceptable range and the Staff appears to recognize this principle. In general, the collect~ve dose should

~ot have to be calculated at all when the maximum individual dose is equal to or less than about one millirem per ye.ar.  !/ If the Commission desires to retain a collective dose criterion when the maximum individual dose exceeds one millirem per year, we believe

!/ The Commission is currently considering, as part of its 10 CFR Part 20 rulemaking, adoption of a regulation (proposed 10 CFR S 20.303) that would eliminate the need for collective dose assessments when the maximum individual dose to a member of the public does not exceed one millirem per year. 51 Fed.

~ - at 1133 (January 9, 1986). Our proposed approach is consistent with that criterion.

- 9 -

that it would be most appropriate to evaluate collective dose.in terms of the average individual in a defined populatiorr. ~/

Accordingly,*we recommend that the criterion* be modified to state:

For cases where the* maximum individual dose exceeds one millirem per year, the* average*

dose to an individual in the critical* popula-tion is small.

c. Significant Reductfon in Societal Costs The Commission's fifth decision criterion is:

• The exemption will result in a sign if ica.nt reduction in societal costs.

- 51 Fed. Reg. at 30840. The Staff plan elaborate*s as. follows:

When the economic and exposure costs associ-.

ated with the exemption are c_ompared to disposal at a licensed low-level waste site there should be a significant reduction in costs.

lg. at 30845. EEI and UNWMG believe that this criterion and the Staff's additional discussion are inappropriate.

As stated earlier, in adopting*section 10 pf the

• Amendments Act, Co_ngress di_rected that the Commission expedi-tiously rule on BRC petitions in order to preserve existing l9w-level waste disposal capacity. Where not required by the public health and safety, Congress directed the Commission to exempt the disposal of such waste from regulation. Those Congressional directives neither explicitly nor implicitly require the y This is consistent with the risk assessment approach adopted by the Commission in its "Policy Statement on Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants," 51 Fed. Rgg.

28044, 28046 (August 4, 1986).

Commission to grant such a petition only upon a_showing of a "significant reduction" in costs over disposal in a licensed facility.

On the contrary, we believe that Congress has already determined that alternative disposal methods for very low-level waste should be authorized so long as they are consistent with the public health and safety. For example, if a petition demonstrates that disposal of a particular waste stream in a sanitary landfill

• is consistent with the public health and safety, but would result in slightly higher overall costs than .disposal in a licensed low-level waste disposal facility, we do not believe that Congress intended NRC to deny such a petition. Furthermore, while the Commission must, of course, prepare an EA, NEPA does not require a demonstration of a "significant reduction" in costs, and there is no basis for requiring a separate and more stringent analysis.

Accordingly, we recommend that this criterion"-be deleted. At the very least, criterion 5 should be modified to require only a demonstration that the exemption will "not result in a substantial increase in societal costs."

D. Scope of t_he Exemption The Commission's seventh criterion is:

The exemption is useful on a national scale, i.e., it is likely to be used by a category of licensees or at least a significant portion of a category.

51 Fed. Reg. at 30840.Section II.A.5 of the Staff plan refers to the possibility of limiting the scope of a rule to a specific geographic area, like a compact region or a state. Id. at 30841.

Criterion 7 seems inconsistent with that approach. Although we do not believe that the Commission intends to preclude expedited handling of BRC petitions which affect a number of generators, but which may not be truly "national" in scope (such as a petition submitted on behalf of the generators in a specific

• compact region), the Staff plan should clarif¥ this point.

state:

Therefore, we suggest that criterion 7 be revised to The exemption is potentially useful to more than one licensee.~/

E. Scope of Characterization The Commission's eighth criterion is:

The radiological properties of the -waste stream have been characterized on a national basis, the variability has been projected, and the range of variation will not invali-date supporting analyses.

Furthermore, although the Policy Statement addresses only BRC rulemaking petitions, Congress' intent in adopting section 10 was not so limited. Section 10 refers to "petition[s] to exempt a specific . . . waste stream" from regulation and does not refer explicitly to rulemaking petitions. Given its desire to assist generators in reducing the volume of waste to be shipped to licensed low-level wast~ disp~sal facili-ties, we believe that Congress intended the Commission to expeditiously process any request for BRC treatment, regard-less of its procedural form. While the specific criteria and requirements of the Policy Statement would be excessive for individual BRC requests, we recommend that the Commission's BRC policy reflect the commitment to process 10 CFR S 20.302 petitions and 10 CFR S 61.8 exemption requests as expedi-tiously as possible.

51 r_gg. Reg. at 30840. As discussed in the context of criterion 7 above, it should not be necessary to demonstrate that the proposed exemption has national application. All that should be*

required is that the scope of the characterization be consistent with the scope of the proposed exemption. Thus, we suggest that the first clause of criterion 8 be-revised as follows:

The radiological properties of the waste stream have been characterized on a basis consistent with the scope of the proposed

• F.

exemption, * *

• Recycle The Commission's tenth criterion is:

The disposed form of the waste has negligible potential for recycle.

51 Fed.~- at 30840. We do not believe it is necessary for NRC to impose a blanket prohibition on BRC consideration of any waste that has more than a negligible potential for recycle. The petitioner should be permitted to present a well-supported case

• that although the potential for recycle of the waste may not be negligible, the risk posed by recycle is negligible. Therefore, we recommend that criterion 10 be revised as follows:

If the waste has a potential for recycle after disposal, the resulting exposure to the affected population will entail a negligible risk.

G. Regulatory or Legal Obstacles The Commission's last decision criterion states:

There are no regulatory or legal obstacles to use of the proposed treatment or disposal methods.

51 Fed.~- at 30840. The Staff elaborates, in part, as follows:

To have practical use, the disposal* option must be available. For example, if all hazardous *waste facilities that accept offsite wastes are closed or are not reason-ably distributed, .the practicality of an exemption*to allow disposal at such sites is questionable. *

!g. at 30846. We believe that the Commis.sion' s er i ter ion and the Staff's discussion are unnecess~ry-arid may be count~r-productive *

• The fact that a disposal site is not available at the time a BRC petition is submitted for c~nsideration should not prevent NRC from granting the proposed exemption. Disposal site

• developers may ~ant to see a rule in place authorizing the proposed disposal method before they-make *new facilities avail-able. Furthermore, after-NRC has authorized the exemption, other agencies may amend inconsistent rules, as the Department of*

Transportation did for transportation of medical wastes exempted pursuant to 10 CFR S 20.306. There is no reason why NRC cannot

• grant the proposed exemption, even though it cannot be immedi-ately implemented.

UNWMG and E~I belieye that.the "practicality" of the proposed disposal methpd should be judged py the petitioner, who will expend significant resources to develop the petition. While we recognize that the Commission will also devote*substantial resources to ruling on the petition, in the absence of an obvious and insurmountable obstacle to the use of the proposed disposal method, the Commission should leave this judgment in the hands of

the petitioner. Subjective determinations of "practicality" have nothing to do with the merits of the proposed BRC exemption.

Accordingly, we recommend that this criterion be deleted.

III. Other Informational Requirements A. Regulatory Analysis In addition to the specific decision criteria in the Policy Statement, the Staff plan requires petitioners to submit a cost-benefit analysis unrelated to NEPA requir_ements.Section II.D.3 of the Staff plan calls for petitioners to prepare a "regulatory analysis" addressing the topics in NUREG/BR-0058 ,. Rev.

1 "Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission." 51 Fed. Reg. at 30843. The purpose of the NUREG/BR-0058 Guidelines is to "ensure that NRC regulatory decisions are based on adequate information concerning the need for and consequences of a proposed r~gulatory action," and to ensure "cost-effective" regulatory actions. NUREG/BR-:-0058 at 1 *

• The Guidelines ordinarily require the Staff itself to identify alternatives to the proposed action, to assess the consequences of the various alternatives, and to perform a cost-benefit analysis -- yet the Staff plan places this obligation on the petitioner. In particular, it calls for petitioneis to discuss the "differential exposure and economic costs between disposal at a licensed low-level waste disposal site and the pro~osed option(s)." J.g_. at 30844.

While the NOREG/BR-0058 Guidelines may require the Staff to prepare a regulatory analysis," petitioners should not be required to perform that analysis. The cost-effectiveness of Commission administrative actions (except to the extent relevant to NEPA) should be addressed exclusively by the agency itself and should not be delegated to private petitioners., Such analyses bear no relationship to the merits of a BRC petition. Thus, to the extent that the Staff-plan requires petitioners to engage in

• cost-benefit analyses in excess of their obligations under 10 CFR

_.Part 51, it imposes an unnecessary and inappropriate requirement.

B. Economic Impact on Small EntitiesSection II.A.3 of the Staff plan addresses the Regulatory Flexibility Act which requires federal agencies to assess the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities.

51 Fed. Reg. at 30841. The Staff plan requires petitioners to submit "an evaluation of the estimated economic impacts on small

• entities" including costs associated with "staff time" and incre-mental recordkeeping and reporting costs." Id.

Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements are a purely administrative responsibility of federal regulatory agencies and should not be delegated to private petitioners. Furthermore, this aspect of the Staff plan is a classic example of an informational requirement which bears no relationship to the merits of any proposed BRC petition. UNWMG and EEI believe that it is entirely inappropriate for the Commission to delegate this responsibility

to prospective petitioners. Futhermore, we do not believe that the conduct of the necessary economic impact analyses should appreciably affect the Commission's ability to process a BRC petition in an expeditious fashion. Accordingly, we recommend that this aspect of the Staff plan be deleted.

c. Computer Program Section II.A.4 of tbe Staff plan describes the-

• IMPACTS-BRC computer program which the Staff intends to use to evaluate petitioners' assessments of radiological. impacts.

believe that the availability of such a tool to both petitioners We and NRC reviewers repre!3ents a po,si ti ve development. We do have some conce~ns, however, about the changes that have been made to the IMPACTS Code to make it more "conservative," though we have been unable to review, it, sin_ce it is not yet available from the source cited in the Staff plan.

• EEI and UNWMG would like to work *with NRC to ensure

• that the IMPACTS-BRC Code is.easy to understand and to use, and represents as realistic a model as possible, supplemented by reasonably conservative assumptions in areas of uncertainty.

Until the Code becomes available, it is* impossible to comment on its_parameters or its application to BRC exemption requests pursuant to the Policy Statement.

o. ALARA considerationsSection II .'B. 5 of the Staff plan discusses ALARA requirements. In particular, the Staff plan states:

Licensee compliance with 10 CFR 20.l(c) is a precondition to acceptance by NRC of any waste stream as exempt. Therefore, a description should be provided of reasonable.procedures that waste generators would be expected to-use*

to minimize radiatio~ exposures resulting from the disposal of the exempt waste, e.g.,

removal of surface contamination. These procedures are assumed to apply prior to characterizing the' waste to be exempted.

• Section 20.l(c) of 10 CFR requires NRC licensees to "make every reasonable effort to- maintain radiation exposures, and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, as low as is reasonably achievable taking into accou~t [among other things] the economics of improvements in relation*to*benefits to the public health and safety . ** II It is not at all.clear how Section 20.l(c) is to be applied to BRC waste.

While ~wer reactor licensees currently have*ALARA programs (and we do not questton the continued desirability of such programs), once a petitioner determines that the proposed

• disposal method will result in exposures within the range conside-r,ed to be acceptable by the Staff (a maximum individual dose of 1-10 millirem per year), there is no reason to continue to apply ALARA considerations *and no measures should ~e required to further reduce exposures from such waste. Furthermore, if a waste stream is determined to be below regulatory concern, it. is difficult to imagine reasonable ALARA measures which would result in health and safety benefits that outweigh the corresponding costs. Therefore, we believe that ALARA considerations should

not be applied to waste once it is determined to be below regulatory concern, and that the Staff plan should be clarified accordingly.

E. Waste Management OptionsSection II.C. of the Staff pla~ requires petitioners to

~evaluate a full range of [waste management] options including onsite and offsite disposal ovtions and to provide an update of "national regulations and laws pertaining to the proposed option. * " Id. at 30842. Requiring a petitioner to evaluate a range of disposal options other than those sought in the petition is unnecessary and irrelevant to the Commission's judgment on the merits of the proposed disposal method. This aspect of the Staff plan appears to require an additional cost-benefit analysis which is neither required by applicable statutes and regulations nor appropriate in light of Congressional intent.

If a petitioner proposes a method of disposal for a

• particular waste stream and demonstrates its acceptability, it should not be necessary to demonstrate that the proposed option is the best available alternative. Nothing in section 10 or in any other applicable authority would require the Commission to make such a finding. Accordingly, the Staff should not require petitioners to engage in analyses of disposal alternatives which are not the subject of their petitions as a precondition of expeditious handling.

Furthermore, the requirement to provide an academic discussion of other applicable laws and regulations governing the proposed disposal option is unnecessary. If statutes and regula-tions not administered by the Commission impact or prohibit the proposed disposal option, parties disposing of such waste will, of course, be required to comply with those requirements. No rational purpose is served by requiring petitioners to provide such information to the Commission *

• F. Non-Radiological ImpactsSection II.D.2 of the Staff plan states:

The NRC action to exempt the radiological content of the wastes would not relieve persons handling, processing, or disposing of the wastes from requirements applicable to the nonradiological properties. The petition should demonstrate that the nonradiological properties of the radioactive waste are the same as the nonradioactive materials normally handled and disposed of by the proposed methods.

51 Fed. Reg. at 30843. In another portion of the Staff plan, the

• Sta~f appropriately recognizes that "[a]n understanding of [the]

nonradiological properties of the waste stream is needed to assure that they are consistent with the proposed disposal method II and therefore requires petitioners to provide a "detailed description" of the "chemical composition" of the waste. Id. at 30841-42.

While we agree that the non-radiological properties of the waste should be identified in a petition to the extent that they may adversely affect the ability of the proposed disposal

method to protect the public from radiological impacts, it is not clear what the Staff intends to achieve by requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that the non-radiological properties of the waste are the same as non-radioactive materials disposed of by the proposed method. In approving a petition, the Commission would be determining only that the radiological risk of the proposed disposal scenario is below regulatory concern. While parties disposing of waste would be required to comply with other applic-

• able environmental requirements, it is inappropriate for the Commission to impose additional limitations on disposal which are unrelated to radiological risk. Accordingly, we recommend that section II.D.2 of the Staff plan be deleted.

G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Section II.E.2 of the Staff plan appears to require petitioners to provide the information necessary for the Commission to obtain Office of Management and Budget (0MB)

• approval of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associ-ated with the proposed rule. 51 Fed. E,gg. at 30844. Petitioners should not be required to perform those purely administrative tasks necessary for 0MB clearance of new recordkeeping or reporting requirements. Such a requirement is unrelated to the merits of the petition and should remain a function performed by the Commission itself. We do not believe that Commission retention of the responsibility to develop the information necessary to obtain 0MB clearance should significantly impact its ability to act expeditiously on a petition.

IV. Administrative Handling Section IV of the Staff plan describes the procedural process which the Staff intends to utilize* to implement the Congressional mandate for "expeditious handling" of BRC peti-tions. In particular, the Staff plan states that such petitions will be*processed "in full compliance" with the Commission's existing policy "to complete all rulemaking within 2 years . II as set forth. in NUREG/BR-0053 "Regulations Handbook." 51 Fed *

• Reg. at 30846. Al though NUREG/BR-0053 *authoriz~s a II fast-track II Staff review process for cer_tain rulemaking petitions, the Staff plan states that "the nature of the anticipated [BRC] petitions*

do not fully comply with the decision criteria to follow this alternative." Id.

It is not at all clear, however, that no BRC petition will qualify for fast-track processing., NUREG/BR-0053 states, in part, that a petition is eligible for fast-track processing if it:

• (1) Proposes action granfing or reqogn1.z1.ng an exemption frqm * *

• 10 CFR Chapter I or granting relief from restrictions while not imposing additional burdens upon or, increasing the risks to, the health and safety of any segment.of industry or the public; -

(4) Proposes action involving*-- (iii) a reduction in the regulatory burden on licen-sees; [or]

(6) Proposes other action that is clearly meritorious and will not adversely affect the rights of other licensees or persons.

NUREG/BR-0053 at 205-06.

1 EEI and UNWMG believe that BRC peti-tions may very well satisfy these criteria.

Furthermore, NOREG/BR-0053 also states that the NRC will not "normally" consider a petition eligible for fast-track processing if the proposed action will:

(1) Require the preparation of an [EIS];

(2) Impose new or increased reporting, application, or recordkeeping require-ments subject to [0MB] -clearance;

• (3)

(4)

Have a significant economic {mpact on *a substantial number of small entities * * . ; -

Have a significant impact on NRC staff and resource commitments; or (5) Result in denial of the petition for rulemaking.

Id. at 206-07. None of these criteria appear to preclude all BRC petitions. In fact, EEI and UNWMG believe that petitions they may file in the future would be likely to. satisfy the applicable criteria. Furthermore, even if one or more of the criteria of

• NUREG/BR-0053 were not satisfied, the Staff should exercise its discretion and initiate fast-track procedures even if it would not "normally" do*so. Given the mandate of section *10, the Commission should apply fast-track procedures to the maximum extent possible.

Furthermore, since Congress instructed the Commission to "develop" procedures for expeditious action, the Commission should not feel bound to limit itself to existing provisions and should develop whatever new procedures may be neces.sary to ensure

expeditious processing of BRC petitions. We believe that simply -

stating the Staff's intention to process BRC petitions consistent with an existing Commission policy which has "not been fully implemented" in the past (Id. at 30846) does not full_y respond to the Commission's Congressional mandate. In the absence of a strong commitment to apply fast-track or other comparable proced-ures, the benefits of complying with the detailed provisions of the Policy Statement may not outweigh the costs of compliance .*

v. conclusion In recogni~ing the c6pcept of wastes below regulatory concern," NRC has taken an important step. We look forward to additional Commission initiatives in this area. However, we believe that both the Policy Statement.and Staff plan should be reexamined in order to evaluate whether their provisions will further the Commission's ability to assess the merits of BRC petitions and whether conditions have been imposed which exceed

• or are inconsisten~ with Congressional intent. In general, it is our belief that the effect of the Policy Statement and Staff plan, as presently drafted, create additional burdens on BRC petitioners with no guarantee that their petitions will be handled any differently from ordinary rulemaking petitions.

ECOLOGY/ALERT BL001*, ;Sfo UP.G 178 l 5 Oct 26 -86 E NEmethy, Sec 'y Re : Fol icy St a te m§oL"K(~rRadio active Waste Below Reg~m* ory Concern Sec'y - :N RC Fed Reg - Aug 28- 6 Wash, DC 20555

'86 OCT 29 p3 :22 ATT: roCKETI NG & SERVICE BRANCH Gentlemen = OFF1cr: m ",, .

DOCK[T11. :1 G*;: ;fr'*v)r:r This nro <posal leaves a number of questions unansweJl-d~ CY 1 - Does the NRC staff have plans to verify that the levels, quan-tities and types of radionuclides submitted by a petitioner are, in fact, true and complete?

Or will they satisfy themselves simply by sitting down and noodlin g with t heir I MPE.CT- BRC computer program?

2 - "De ci si on Criterion " #3 ( p 30840) provides that collective doses to t he populati on are "small ". "Small" needed defining

• 3 - Decision Criterid>n #12 s ays the sanitary landfill need not be controlled or monitored .

a) This provision is an open invit a tion to abuses - midnight dumpers, etc.

b) Even assuming vadioavtive levels are as low as 1-10 pico-curies/gram, wouldn't there be a cumulative effect, once tons and tons of the stuff have been dumped, incre a sing the exposure to workers a t the dump, and members of the public living a mil e or two away?

c)And shouldn't the manager of the dump be provided with Gem ger counters, or simi la r devices , to ensure radioactive levels are kept within bounds?

4 - Incinera tion is discus s ed . We think this would certainly be a logical way to reduce the quantities of wa ste - PROVIDED

• the incinerator is equi pped with a filtering system to keep radiation from escaping into the air .

In line wi th this, we'd recommend that scintillation media be incinerated. (See enclosed Letter t o the Edi tor of Jan 16-81)

..1-1.cdfordin g t o NRC' s proposal ot Oct 8Q80, these media - some 200-400 thousand gallons a year , used by labs and hospitals -

would simply be flushed into sewer systems, provided the quan-tity of tritium not eYceed 5 curies a year .

( How blind and trusting can you get? ) of 11 The media were described as flammable and suspe cted/:xoc leach-ing radioac t ive materials out of burial trenches .** chemic al ly toxic and sus pected of being carcinogenic **. "

If there 's a safe way to burn it - burn it!

17,~ _ OCT sl \98b Acknowledged by card *** , , , , , , , , '" , *

• olit

U.l AR EGth.ATC>ttY COMMISSION DOCKET G & SfRVICE SE'crlOH OFFICE OF THE 'SECRETARY THE COMMISSION

,- r,t . Statist icl

~Roo, l /~~

r.\dd' I Co ?d u d ,1*

~s vdd/lr;~I~ ~

,i

--;;~;;-;-;;;,;~~; .,_,*c*>*,

-.lexotici ch,illre1., __ _. 1 Dear Editor; \ \ l9 ~\ . *

• Exciting -*ne : . Las w~ek we 0

,,received a December newsletter

.from Susquehanna Alliance, Lewis-burg, Pa. And guess which Federal

~cy is expressing an interest in economy -,-and recycling? The Nuclear_Regulatory Co_mmission! - .

Their first proposal appears in the *.

Federal Register, Oct. 8, 1980, page 67018. If adopted it could save hospi-tals and research labs about $16 million a year, in disposing of liquid J;cintlllation media, and animal car-casses contaminated with same .

scintillation media contains quantities" of tritium and

• -14 in a toluene solvent. Ttie

• al notes: "Liquid scintillation

. media are flammable and -are sus- .

pected of leaching

• radioactive chemicals out of the burial trenches

... (they) are chemically toxic and are suspected of being carc1:n<>genic

. The hospiials

• and labs now use

• between 200-400 thousand gallons of Uie stuff each year;*whlch ~

about 400,000 cu. ft of spaceaa radioactive waste burial ground. .

The NRC's solution to the problem is simple. Instead of shipping used media to a radioactive waste burial ground, licensees would dump it in sanita sewerage systems - m:2:.

111

~vided e quant~ of tritium does

_not exceed one c e per year. (This limitabon seems unrealistic,

• even

• minatory. In February, 1980, r Stello, Director of the NRC e of Inspection aml Enforce-

' said a normally operating atomic reactor releases an. average 1000 curies per month to the atmos-phere. But the NRC's NUREG 0367

- a report on emissions by operat-ing reactors - shows in 1976 the Millstone Point I reactor released an average 42,000 curies per month.

The Dresden I reactor released an average 37,000 curies per month.

Doesn't it seem

• unrealistic to expect hospitals and labs to limit .

themselves to dumping less than 5 curies of tritium a year .into the sewerage systems?) ' j

• The NRC's second proposal con- *1 cerning recycling is in the Federal

- \ *~-.": .**. '

,* *, .'* * . , .* . I .

~ : ~7' ~-~ ~-~ **::* :.:, .

DOUffH -,

lJSNRC

.86 OCT 27 Pl2 :38 Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority OFFI CE u~ ~* . ' f: ,. r OOCKET ING-:. :,::_ iv1 u Lawrence R, Jacobi, Jr. 7703 North Lamar Blvd. Members of the Board BR AN C1-i General Manager Sulte300 John E. Simek, Chairman Austin, Texas 78752 Elbert B. Whorton , Ph.D ., Vice Chairman (512) 451-5292 Jim R. Phillips, Secretary James P. Allison Robert L. Clement, M.D., F.A.C.S.

William L. Fisher, Ph .D.

October 23, 1986 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority staff has reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 10 CFR Part 2, Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern; Policy Statement, published August 28, 1986.

The Authority supports the Commission's efforts to begin defining waste streams below regulatory concern. The policy statement is a good first step. The policy statement is definitive and generally reasonable. The emphasis on defining waste streams on a national scale might discourage persons from analyzing waste streams. The mention of wastes from an Agreement State program or a compact region is present, however, the Commission should clarify that these waste streams will also be con-sidered for below regulatory concern rulemaking.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely, i~~.~J_

Christine G. Pollard, C.H.P.

Health Physicist CGP/sz cc: L. R. Jacobi, Jr., P.E.

OCT 2 9 1986

\cknowted~d by card .....******* .-.--a

. NUCLEA~ REG\11 Alt'.1RY COMMISSION.

DOCKET! G ~ - r o r~ *

,r- '"ECTION y

r, N srma r' r op1c.

del' I (

DOLKETEl

• USNHC Nuclear Information and Resourci! ~irYfcfP 1616 P Street, N.W., Suite 160, Washi11gton, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-0002 PreJ.:1m1nary Comments on OFF ICE OJ- ::;r_._,,

• ht<' ,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy Statemiflltr< E.o ttH.i &,d i'* VICL Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern BRANc The Deminimus Concept 10 CFR Part 2 October 27, 1986 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has adopted, in final form, a policy which will allow radioactive waste to be deregulated. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has serious problems with this policy and reserves the right to submit more detailed comments on the policy.

Some of the main areas of concern are with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's encouragement of generators to petition to have their waste deregulated and with the NRC's lack of public involvement in the development of such a concept. The NRC uses vague and arbitrary language for unsubstantiated assumptions.

There is no place where serious citizen concerns can be voiced against the entire concept of greater radiation exposure.

NIRS questions the risk assumptions and the use of millirems rather than more concrete units such as curies or disintegrations per second which can be measured and enforced.

The message is clear. The public does not accept the NRC's "acceptable" levels of exposure and request the policy to be rescinded *

.*e There are many other organizations which agree with these concerns and will be commenting or otherwise expressing their displeasure in the near future.

~ Co Diane D'Arrig ~

Regulatory Oversight Coordinator

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtSSlOH DOCKETING & SFRVfCE SECT 10 .

orrrE (' i r rnn*~y

..... 1 Po *~

DOlKElC:

BEF DRE THE NUCL E AR REG.- UL ATDRY CDMM I S S I DN US NHC RE:

~~~8~~i~R~N c~~~~~ ~~~~/P~~~~~A~i!~~M~~~T~N~~ag]lJOCT 21 Pl :Q2 NUREG /CR 3585 Volume 2 De Minimus lJaste Impacts Analysis ~lethodology. OFF IC'- Cf ..:.:Li*. !A, y DOCKET! G & ~:::il's'i Cf'.

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION. BR ANCH Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement was released for publication on 8/28/28 with a two month comment period. NUREG/CR 3585 was released for publication in July 86 with an unspecified comment period. Since Nureg /CR 3585 and the Policy Statement relate intimately with each other, they will have their comments presented together below.

The authority for this policy statement derives from the Low Level Wastes Policy Amendment of 1985(42USC2021~)

The definition of the term "below regulatoryconcern" is "that which would not have to be subject to regulatory control to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety because of their radioactive content." These are highly subjective words in the definition. Also the definition doesn't contain any numbers or scientific basis or any definite , concrete handles to guide the regulator or the public . The 14 criteria that the NRC proposes in the Policy Statement lack numerical specificity or any real numbers. the 14 criteria proposed by the NRC contain insubstantial directions such as Criteria 1. no significant impact

2. few mrem per year

3. small

4. not significant

5. significant reduction in societal costs

6. compatible

7. significant portion . of a category

8. range of variability will not invalidate

9. based

• on data on re *a 1 wastes (on sic)

10. negligible potential for recycle

11. effec tive , licensable and inspectable

12. does not need to be controlled or monitored

13. corresponding uncontaminated wastes

14. no regulatory or legal obs t acle s .

Does 14 mean that a Court suite would require an i mm ediate ban to using that site?

boes 13 mean that even if the wastes are contaminated with toxics other than radioactives,the to x ic contamination may now be ignored? How much is small in 37 What's a few in 27 The above criteria are meaning-less , and serve to confuse rather than to protect health and assure public or worker safety.

OCT 2 2 1986 AeknOWledged by card.*

r ..,

.11 :.J 2*

The entire section of the Policy Statement headed,"III.Agreement States" e ncourages the use of BRC to reduce the use of Llw s i tes and to promote the nuclear industry."States have been encouraging findings."

, ~ whether or not the regulated encourage a certain finding should never be of concern to a regulator whose charter does not specifythat agency as a promoter. The NRC was set up as a regulator in the Act which gave it birth. The NRC speaks inappropriately whenever it allows encouragement from the regulated to guide its policy instead of concern for the health and safety of the public. Eventually listening and acting upon the encouragement of the regulated would lead to unsafe and inadequat e regulation. The many leaks and spills of the past from l ow lev e l waste sites su c h as Oak Ridge andwest Valley would sur e ly be repeated. The contamination from low level radioactive waste loosed into the air and water has the potential to kill millions. Adequate regulation requires definite numerical design objectives not nebulous concepts such as small, few, or not significant.

The NRC bring s up the issue of exemptions in the Policy Statement . Ther e seems to be three types of BRC actions referred t o in the Introduction and Purpose.

1. action on rulemaking petitions

2. exemptions and 3 . ind i vidual licen s ing actions .

3. doesn't relate to thi s Poli c y Statement and is handled under 10CFR 20 . 302(a). The re l ation s hip between one and two is very vague . will all petitions be handled as exmptions or do

• only petih ns that fail some criteria need be handled as an exemption? How broad and well defined will the rulemaking asse s s the waste form and content?

If a very sm a ll amount of the waste falls outside of the BRC crit e ria, wi ll an exemption still be allowed?

How small is small?

Can the staff implementation plan be revised by the staff without the perus~l arid cohcurr~nce of the Commission?"st.cff may revise it(staf*f impleme.ntation plan. )"(SeePartII.)

Since the implementation plan is part of the policy statement, the staff now has the power to revise a policy statement of the Commission ad lib.

Considering that the Policy statement and the Staff Implementation Plan are effective while the comment period proceeds, the Commission has been remiss in omitting redress for those petitions granted in error during the comment period. The relief should be that petition must wait for the end of the comment period and the generic rulemaking before any considerations are forthcoming from the Commission.

3.

Comments on Staff I mplementation Plan.

3. Economic Impact on Small Entities.

Eventually some leaching will occur . A small amount of material will get into the food and water.

the statistics forecast that one or more people will die. Lle do not know who that person is. A person fits the definition of a small entity. Death has an economic impact. Th e analysis presented in the Staff Implementation Plan is totally wrong by ignoring the economic imact of the deaths and injuries to individuals from the emission s of LLLl sites that are BRC.

The SIP must include the economic reality of these statistical deaths and injuries from the deregulation of wastes that are below regulatory concern.

4. Computer program.

The computer program was issued as part of NUREG/CR 3585. the computer program requires an IB M PC with a 128 character printer. IBM PCs are common.

12 8 character printers are rather hard to find and e x pen s ive.

This puts this computer program for away from th e public as far as running it and proofing or verifying it. The public is therefore asked to comment on a pig in a po k e.

Lle are asked to comment on the unseen and the hidden.

This requirement for a 128 character printer is not mentioned in the SIP which is totally unfair. A commenter orders the flopp y dis k only to find that his printer is una b le to run the program.

Many other and more serious deficiencie s will be discussed in my comments on the Nureg/cr 35 8 5VII.

5 .Scop s . Ap p arentl y sc op e refer s to" g e og r ap hi cal ar e a ." I sug g e s t that scope include a ffected po p ul at i o n, impacts of accidents, costs of p u r po seful mishandlin g such as imp2ct o f the wa s t e falling into the hands of a midni g ht dum p er, and any other possible misadventur e s s u c h as bankruptcy of the waste bro k er.

B. Ll a ste Characterization and C. Wa s t e Ma nagement O~ t i o0~ will be discussed as part of the comments on the Nureg /er 3585VI!.

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting.

Many segm~nts ~f t~e wa~te handling industr y have shown a unremitting disregard of regulation. Past performance of the firm, the principles of the fir m ,

and the individual workers must weigh upon the decision concerning an y petition. Pa s t performance does not se em to e x ist within the SIP or t h e Po li cy statement . I t needs to.

4.

F. Proposed Rule.

The proposed rule must contain a statement to the effect," under all circumstances , the waste must be cared for in the manner prescribed for the most stringent component of the waste."

If the toxics require more exacting handling than the radioactives , the handling required for the toxics must be those followed. If the biological wastes require more and tougher rules for handling than the radioactives , than the rules for handling biologicals must be followed. and so on.

The composition of the waste stream as far as toxics, hazards, and biological contamination must also be completely defined so as an informed decision on the danger and handling needed by the waste stream can be made. For instance if the waste is 50% dynamite with only one or two~curies of tritium, the waste still cannot be allowed i~ a sanitary landfill.

III.Decision Criteria.

At first glance the decision criteria in the SIP seems to be one millirem. At closer reading the decision criteria is one millirem for each waste stream. A generator may have many waste streams. Considering every hospital, mining facility for uranium and phosphate, LLLl radwaste handler, and laundry that handles nuclear industry duds is a potential generator within brc and they all can have an unlimited number of waste streams the one millirem has an awfully large and undefined multiplier.

Assume 1 ,ODO generators with 100 waste streams each brc.

1,000x100x1 equals 100,000millirems or lOOrems for each person in the USA just from waste below regulatory concern. Considering this scenario some cap is needed for the total millirems per individual and the total manrems which will be allowed from the exposures due to wastes below regulatory concern.

The only control in the policy statement is that each waste stream does not expose any individual above l millirem. Obviously t~ere ~ust ' be s~me control on the total exposure of the tndi~iduat and the population to the radioactive exposures below regulatoiy concern.

Also some clarification is needed as to how the summing for population and individual is accomplished. Also a statement is needed that the 1 millirem limit refers to only one waste stream and not the total exposure for the entire emissions from the industry for wastes below regulatory concern.

Th~ s~a~ement , "doses of up to 1 millrem per year_fr~m an individual petition" is difficult to understand.

Clarifying language such as ," each petitiona nd each w~st~ s~r~am can allow 1 millirem per year nominaly to

~ne _i~dividual exposure. There is no limit on the total individual exposure or the total population exposure."

. Al$ the 1mrem per year is a number that is required in the petition . Operations must cease upon reciept to the NRC that this limit of 1 mrem per year is exceeded.

5.

Comments on NREG/CR 3585 Volume 2.

These comments on Nureg/cr 3585 are in addition to any comments on the NUREG in the preceeding pages.

The Policy Statement and the SIP relate intimat ely to thisNureg . The Nureg is still out for comment. A policy stateme nt has issued on a report that has not completed its comment period . This is real cart before the horse thinking and most premature. At the very least, documents that form a basis of a policy statement should have completed the entire comment route . Some very obvious errors are often discovered in the commenting period .

There are some very serious omissions in the Nureg.

there is no mention of bioaccumulation , bioconcentration or accumulation effects .

1 . bioaccumulation ften organic creatures will garner a mineral , and then die . Coral rock is a bioaccumulation of insoluble salts left by dying coral. Some organic creatures do the sae with uranium , strontium, and phosphate .

Childr en are known to accumulate radioactive strontium in their bones, andlead in their teeth and brains.

2 . bioconcentration fish concentrate phosphate in the water into their bones as much as 5000 times that found in the wat er . This is an excellent way to concentrate phosphates that are radioactive which are a byproduct of mining operations . some plants can do the same with thorium .

3 . accumulation effects. Gold flakes come out of fast moving streams in bends and eddies where the water slows .

This is also how "panning for gold" works . There are many physical processes that cause concentration effects .

One of the more obvious concentrations effects is seen on cars where concentration of salt on spots or local areas of cars cause corroded areas or "cancer . "

All of the above and m6 re dan l~ad t6 con ce ntrations of nuclides that invalidate the calculations in the Nureg, but they are not even ~entfoned ' and ~ompletely ignored .

Table 1. Input data is very limited . Only two types of permeability is listed : high and low with no numerical values . Many inputs will be guesses and not controlled by law or finances such as time to loss of institutional control .

Most of the input cards re quire only boilerplate numbers which may or may not be related to the reality of the site and waste stream .

fhe Nureg /CR 3585 Volume 1 and 2 give very few clues to the calculations upon which the program totters.

Although the program can be verified as able to run ,

the data cannot be verified as to actually predicting any real situation . A real waste site must be set up and run on the computer with this program . Then data needs to be gotten from the experimental site and compared to the predictions from the computer program .

6.

The computer program apparently was never compared to real data for an experimental site. Ths . data already exists with the leaching that has occurred at Llest Valley, Fernald , Oak ridge and many others to numerous to type in here .

Considering all the above, I suggest and request that the entire BRC consideration including rulemaking be held in abeyanse. Cease and desist all consideration of BRC and ae minimus until and unless some sense can prevail in this pro gram.

Event ually our progeny will curse us in our graves or even while we are alive for loosing all these menaces upon them: radiation, toxics, hazardous waste, and the purposeful destruction of our Earth.

Let's wake up ,please.

I wish that I could say respectfully submitted,

/21 -

~/ A/ / /--

MARVIN LEWIS .. . : " ::

7801 ROOSEVELT BLVD. #62 PH ILA., PA 19l.'i 2 (215) 624 1574

Jut:i<iI NUHiH e Commonwealth Edison IIPfAIW IW.i One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 - 0767

/ ~/

l_d ,

~ /)

PR-~

r/r::..,_ Jc/, ~ c}

I::!/ /

WQ oocKETEt' USNRC

• AA SfP 29 P3 :26 September 25, "T98o Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Policy Statement on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatorx_fQnce_r_n_________

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This presents Commonwealth Edison Company's ("Edison")

comments on the subject policy statement. The statement establishes standards and procedures which will enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or "Commission") to act expeditiously on petitions for rulemaking to treat as below regulatory concern ("BRC") certain streams of radioactive waste which are common to several users. Although these expedited procedures may partially ameliorate current problems with the disposal of large volumes of slightly contaminated materials, Edison believes that this policy statement does not fully implement the statutory directive in Section 10 of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1985 ("Waste Policy Act").

The Waste Policy Act directed the Commission to act upon petitions to exempt specified radioactive waste streams from regulation . The proposed policy statement does not implement this directive. Rather, the draft policy statement establishes a new regulatory scheme for certain very low-level radioactive wastes. This has resulted from interpreting the phrase "would not need to be subject to regulatory control" to mean "need not go to a licensed low-level waste disposal site." Edison believes that this limited deregulation does not implement fully Congr ess' intent. The Commission should implement that intent by either a further policy statement or a rule to exempt from any regulation the disposal of certain

a.s. NUc(EAR P ,, ' 1" DOCKFTI ,,.. .

, -~--

0 rr Postr1ar' r Co;,i0 tft I -

Add'I ,

pecial /;~1)),jiu/ti ,

~~t7~

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 September 25, 1986 low-level radioactive wastes ("LLW") by declaring them to be below regulatory concern.

Sincerely,

@ f!V~

N. Wandke Assistant Vice President Nuclear Services

~ ,...,.PR - (a r,e .Ji3,tF (j)

&8QP1llffl &UL&

• I

($/

DOC..K ET Er Augusl 5l;{C1986

.86 SEP 11 AlO :46 Report No. 6 ACRS Waste Management Subcommittee Comments On NRC Staff Policy Statement And Implementa 'f()frf~CE 0' :>~ -/.:-\~*J*f,c:r 1

Y of NRC Pol icy on Radioactive Wastes lJO'CKET~~1~dr 1 '

• Below Regulatory Concern July 21-23, 1986

1. In general, we believe the decision criteria being developed by the NRC Staff for judging whethe r to gra~t a petition for des i gnating radioac-tive wastes as "below regulatory *concern" (BRC), thus permitting them to be disposed of by conventional means, are good. However, we have the following suggestions and comments:

a. Before the criteria are confirmed, it would be useful to use -them to evaluate a ra nge of potential was t e candidates to determine if any would be found to be "below regulatory concern. " We are concerned that the dose equivalent limit to an individual member of the public is so low that successful appl ication of the criteria may prove to be rare.

. b. We believe that the models to be used for calculating doses to individual members of the public resulting from the disposal of radioactive wastes should be specified. lncluded should be a statement relative to the uncertainties acceptable in such models.

c. The computer code proposed for use in judging the impact of handling wastes containing radioactive materials in quantities or concentrations "below regulatory concern" is said to be conserva-tive. The amount of conservatism, however, is unknown. Because of the small dose equivalent that will be acceptable, and because the inclusion of conservatism in modeling will produce unidentifiable distortions of the calculated results, we recommend that the calculational methods be designed to give best estimate results insofar as is feasible.

d. Although we endorse the efforts of the NRC Staff to develop suit-able dose estimation models for evaluation of proposals submitted by petitioners, we believe that greater use might have been made of the methodology described in earlier reports on this general subject prepared by Ford, Bacon, Davis, Utah, Inc.

2. The Policy Statement (Reference 1) recommends that evaluations be based on effective dose equivalents. We suggest that this same system be used in comparing doses from various radiation sources. For example, the effective dose equivalent from the natural radiation background should include the lung dose contribut i on from radon .

U.S. NUCLEA REGUL/ TORY COMMISSI DOCKETING & . VICE sccTION OFl=I'" Y

(

=

Postm Copi * , /

AddlC 1:..

Spec id Dis r *: ~/ 05; P-Ldl/d"l.Je'/te, 1

{t@-;-tft/H!J~~ -

Waste Management 2

3. One of the exampJes cited as providing perspective is the EPA limit for radionuclides in drinking water, which permits members of the public to receive a maximum dose of 4 mrem per year to an individual organ. This is a dose limit and we believe it is incorrect to cite it as representa-tive of a dose considered to be "below regulatory concern."

4. We are encouraged to note the use by the NRC Staff, in the development of this Policy Statement, of several publications of the International Commission on Radiological Protection;

References:

1. SECY-86-204, Policy Issue {Affirmation), Policy Statement on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern, V. Stello, EDO, to the Commissioners, dated July 11, 1986

'i ..

~-.::,PR-/4/

{51 Fi e3tl39 DOCKET(()

U5NRC

[7590-01]

-86 AUG 25 P3 :12 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Off IC._ o:: SF 1.,F t:. /,K ..

10 CFR Part 2 DOCKET IN * ... St RV/(; f BRANC l-l .

Radioactive Waste Below Regulato ry Concern; Policy Statement AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Policy statement.

SUMMARY

This notice contains a policy statement and staff implementation plan regarding expeditious handling of petitions for rulemaking to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from disposal in a licensed low-level waste disposal facility. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to grant these rulemaking petitions, the waste streams must be sufficiently low in concentration or quantities of radionuclides for the Commission to find that they may be disposed of by alternative means without posing an undue risk to public health and safety. The policy statement and plan are in the nature of regulatory guidance for implementing existing requirements for rulemaking petitions in 10 CFR 2.802. The documents describe the kind of information petitioners should file to allow timely Commission review of the petition.

They also describe decision criteria the Commission will use and the administrative procedures to be followed in order to permit the Commission to act upon the petition in an expedited manner. These documents respond to a mandate in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and are being published as Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 2.

[7590-01]

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 1986

-ADDRESSEES: Send any written comments or suggestions to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CoR111ission, Washington, DC 20555; Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Comments received within 60 days would be most helpful. Copies of coR111ents received by the Convnission may be examined-or copied for a fee at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty S. Dragonette, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 427-4300.

For the reasons set forth below and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as ame'nded, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 2.

PART 2 - RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEDURES 1~ The authority citation for Part 2 is revised to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L.87-615, 76 Stat. 409 (42 U.S.C. 2241);

sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.

I I, "\ l

[7590-01]

Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs. 186,

-- 234, 68 Stat. 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2770 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5~7. Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat.

936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L.85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039).

Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L.91-580, 84 Stat. 1437. (42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix Bis also issued under sec. 10, Pub. L.99-240, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.).

[7590-01]

2. Insert the following policy statement and attached staff implementation plan as Appendix B to Part 2:

Appendix B to Part 2 - General Statement of Policy and Procedures Concerning Petitions Pursuant to §2.802 for Disposal of Radioactive Waste Streams Below Regulatory Concern I. . Introduction and Purpose

-- II. Standards and Procedures III. Agreement States IV. Future Action I. Introduction and Purpose The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (the Act)

(42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.) was enacted January 15, 1986. Section 10 of the Act addresses disposal of wastes termed 11 below regulatory concern 11 that would not need to be subject to regulatory control to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety because of their radioactive content. The goal of this section of the Act is for the Commission to make practical and timely decisions to determine when wastes need not go to a licensed low-level waste disposal site. These decisions will be expressed through rulemaking.

Alternative disp?sal would conserve space in the existing sites while new sites are established and reduce the costs of dispospl. Rulemaking petitions may play a role in the national low-level waste strategy outlined by the Act. The Act provides that the Commission establish procedures for acting expeditiously

[7590-01]

on petitions to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from the Colllllission 1 s regulations.

The purpose of this statement and accompanying implementation plan is to establish the standards and procedures that will permit the Commission to act upon rulemaking petitions in an expeditious manner as called for in the Act.

This policy statement does not require petitioners to present all the information outlined or demonstrate that the decision criteria for expedited handling can be met, if such expedited handling is not wanted. For example, petitions requesting exemption of concentrations of radionuclides that might result in individual exposures higher than those recommended in the decision criteria may be submitted, but expedited handling cannot be assured.

Finally, this policy statement and accompanying implementation plan are intended to facilitate handling of rulemaking petitions for streams from multiple producers and do not apply to individual licensing actions on single producer waste. Individual licensees who seek approval for disposal of their unique wastes may continue to submit their proposed disposal plans under 10 CFR 2Q.302(a).

II. Standards and Procedures The standards and procedures needed to handle petitions expeditiously fall into the following three categories: (1) information petitioners should file in support of the petitions, (2) standards for assessing the adequacy of the proposals and providing petitioners insight on the decision criteria the Commission intends to use so that all relevant informational issues will be addressed in the petition, and (3) the internal NRC administrative procedures

[7590-01]

for handling the petitions. These three categories are addressed in the at~ached staff implementation plan. The staff plan was developed in response to Commission direction to provide detailed guidance on implementing the general approach outlined in this policy statement. Although staff may revise it from time to time as experience is gained in processing petitions, the plan outlines a reasonable basis for accomplishing the approach. Staff is to publish revisions as NUREG documents and notice the availability of the revisions iri the Federal Register.

As a practical matter,- the primary information for justifying and supporting petitions must be supplied by the petitioner if the Commission is to act in an expedited manner. If the petitioner wishes to assure expedited action, the supporting information should be complete enoughs~ that Commission action is primarily limited to independent evaluation and administrative pr9cessing.

• Decision criteria for judging whether to grant a petition involve the overall impacts of the proposed action, waste properties, and* implementation of the proposed exemption. The following criteria address these areas. Petitions

- which demonstrate that these criteria are met should be suitable for expedited action.

1. Disposal and treatment of the wastes as specified in the petition will result in no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

2. The maximum expected effective dose equivalent to an individual member of the public does not exceed a few millirem per year for normal operations and anticipated events.

[7590-01]

3. The collective doses to the critical population and general population are small.

4. The potential radiological consequences of accidents or equipment malfunction involving the wastes and intrusion into disposal sites after loss of normal institutional controls are not significant.

5. The exemption will result in a significant reduction in societal costs.

6. The waste is compatible with the proposed treatment and disposal options.

7. The exemption is useful on a national scale, i.e., it is likely to be used by a category of licensees or at least a significant portion of a category.

8. The radiological properties of the waste stream have been

- characterized on a national basis, the variability has been projected, and the range of variation will not invalidate supporting analyses.

9. The waste characterization is based on data on real wastes.

10. The disposed form of the waste has negligible potential for recycle.

11. Licensees can establish effective, licensable, and inspectable programs for the waste prior to transfer to demonstrate compliance.

[7590-01]

12. The offsite treatment or disposal medium (e.g., sanitary landfill) does not need to be controlled or monitored for radiation protection purposes.

13. The methods and procedures used to manage the wastes and to assess the impacts are no different from those that would be applied to the corresponding uncontaminated materials.

14. There are no regulatory or legal obstacles to use of the proposed treatment or disposal methods.

III. Agreement States The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 establishes a national system for dealing with low-level waste disposal. The system assigns to the States responsibility for disposal capacity for low-level wastes not exceeding Class C wastes as defined in 10 CFR 61.55. Section 10 of the Act encourages a reduction in volume of such wastes subject to State responsibility for disposal through the option of determining that certain wastes need not go to existing licensed disposal facilities or new sites licensed under 10 CFR Part 61 or equivalent State regulations. If radiological safety can be assured, such disposal would conserve space in the existing sites while new sites are developed, and would serve as an important adjunct to volume reduction efforts in meeting the waste volume allocation limits set forth in the Act. Thus, these rulemakings should aid the States in fulfilling their responsibilities under the Act. Equity also suggests that all waste generators be able to take advantage of below regulatory concern options as part of their waste management strategies. Generators in both Agreement and non-Agreement

[7590-01]

States will be competing for space in the existing sites and the concept should be applicable nationwide.

Agreement States will play an important role in ensuring that the system works on a national basis and that it remains equitable. States have been encouraging findings that certain wastes are below regulatory concern and do not have to go to low-level waste sites. The States have been voicing this view for a number of years through forums such as the Conference of Radiation Con~rol Program Directors. Rulemakings granting petitions will be made a matter of compatibility for Agreement States. Consequently, rulemaking will be coordinated with the States.

IV. Future Action The Commission will conduct a generic rulemaking on waste streams below regulatory concern based on a number of factors. The factors include public comments received on the statement, the number and types of petitions for rulemaking received, and how effective the statement is in enabling timely

- processing of petitions. A generic rulemaking is warranted to provide a more efficient and effective means of accomplishing the goals reflected in Section 10 of the Act. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking will be published within 90 days. Furthermore, the* Commission may periodically review all rulemakings in order to assure that the relevant parameters have not changed significantly and may ask the petitioner to submit updated information

(7590-01]

to assist in the review. The Commission would also have to confirm that approved exemptions are consistent with any general standards issued by EPA.

Dated at Washington, D.C. this :;J,j

~

day of _ _ _ _ 45(

____ , 1986.

ry Commission.

Commission.

[7590-01]

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Implementation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy on Radioactive Waste Below Regulatory Concern I. Introduction II. Information to Support Petitions A. General

1. 10 CFR Part 2 Requirements

2. Environmental Impacts

3. Economic Impact on Small Entities

• 4. Computer Program

5. Scope B. Waste Characterization

1. Radiological Properties

2. Other Considerations

3. Totals

4. Basis {J*,

5. As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)

C. Waste Management Options D. Analyses

1. Radio l ogi cal Impacts

2. Other Impacts

3. Regulatory Analysis

[7590-01]

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting

1. Surveys

2. Reports F. Proposed Rule III. Decision Criteria IV. Administrative Handling I. Introduction Section 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 requjres the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to develop standards and procedures for expeditious handling of petitions for rulemaking to exempt disposal of radioactive waste determined to be below regulatory concern. The Act also requires NRC to identify information petitioners should file. The Commission Policy Statement provides general guidance on how to meet the requirements of Section 10 of the Act, outlines the overall approach to be followed, and lists decision criteria to be used. Implementation of the general approach and decision criteria of the Commission Policy Statement involves developing more detailed guidance and procedures. In accordance with Commission direction, the NRC staff has developed more detailed guidance and procedures for implementation of the Commission Policy Statement. This staff guidance and procedures cover: (1) information petitioners should file in support of petitions to enable expedited processing, (2) discussion of the decision criteria, and (3) administrative procedures to be followed.

[7590-01]

II. Information to Support Petitions A. General

1. 10 CFR Part 2 requirements. The codified information requirements for petitions for rulemaking are outlined in the Commission 1 s regulations in 10 CFR 2.802(c). These regulations require the petitioner to identify the problem and propose solutions, to state the petitioner 1 s grounds for and interest in the action, and to provide supporting information and rationale.

As a practical matter, the information demonstrating that the radiological health and safety impacts are so low as to be below regulatory concern must be provided by the petitioner if the Commission is to act in an expedited manner.

Petitions for rulemaking should therefore be submitted following the staff's supplemental guidance and procedures to assure expedited action.

2. Environmental impacts. Petitions must enable the Commission to make a finding of no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Such Commission findings must be based on an Environmental Assessment that complies with 10 CFR 51.30 and must meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.32.

These requirements include addressing the need for the proposed action, identifying alternatives, and assessing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.41,_the petitioner should submit the information needed to meet these requirements and do so in~ manner that permits independent evaluation by the Commission of the data and methodology used and the conclusions reached.

[7590-01]

3. Economic impact on small entities. When a rulemaking action is likely to have a significant economic im~act on a substantial number of small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the impacts on these small entities must be specifically addressed. (The Convnission 1 s size standard for identifying a small entity is $3.5 million or less in annual receipts except for private practice physicians and educational institutions where the standard is $1 million or less in annual receipts for private practice physicians and 500 employees for educational institutions. See 50 FR 50241, De~ember 9, 1985.) For any rulemaking, the Convnission must either certify that the rule will not economically impact or will have no significant economic impacts o~ small entities, or present an analysis of alternatives to minimize the impacts. Because rulemakings on below regulatory concern should provide relief from requirements for all affected entities, satisfaction of this requirement should be straightforward but it must be addressed in any rulemaking. To facilitate expeditious preparation of the proposed rule responding to, the petition, the petitioner should submit an evaluation of the estimated economic impacts on small entities. The evaluation should include estimates of the costs for small entities in terms of staff time and dollar costs. Any alternatives that could acccomplish the objective of the petitioner 1 s proposed rule while minimizing the economic impact on small entities should be presented. The evaluation should include an assessment of the incremental recordkeeping and reporting costs that would be associated with the petitioned rule change.

[7590-01]

4. Computer program. The computer program (IMPACTS-BRC) the Commission intends to use to independently evaluate petitioners' assessments of impacts is based on 11 De Minimis Waste Impacts Analysis Methodology" (NUREG/CR-3585) published February 1984. 1 Petitioners are encouraged to consult NUREG/CR-3585 in order to better understand the Commission's information needs. The IMPACTS-BRC program will be distributed by the National Energy Software Center on floppy diskettes for use on IBM-PC and compatible computers. The Center's address is 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439. The users guide for IMPACTS-BRC will be published as a draft Volume II of NUREG/CR-3585. Petitioners may evaluate the impacts of the proposed ?ctivity using NRC's code, if desired. When alternate calculational methodologies are used, the petitioner should provide all the specific input needed to analyze the waste stream in the petition using IMPACTS-BRC and provide a rationale for all parameter selections. The Commission may clarify or modify the computer code from time to time. Petitioners choosing to use NRC's code should be sure to use the current revision. The National Energy Software Center will provide changes to persons obtaining the program from the Center. Users are encouraged to comment on the code so that their experience can be factored into future revisions.

5. Scope. The petitioner should define the geographic area to which the proposed rule should apply and the reasons supporting any area less than national in scope. It might be possible to justify limiting the scope to a low-level waste regional compact or a state but implementation issues such as import or export of wastes outside the compact or state should be addressed in the rationale.

[7590-01]

B. Waste Characterization

1. Radiological properties. The minimum radiological properties that should be described are the concentration or contamination levels and the half-lives, total quantity, and identities of the radionuclides present. The chemical and physical form of the radionuclides should be addressed. All radionuclides present or potentially present should be specified, including radionuclides identified as trace constituents. The distribution of the radionuclides within the wastes should be noted (e.g., surface or volume distribution). Mass and volume average concentrations should also be presented. For incineration, the radioactive content of the ash and noncombustible fraction should be described. The variability as a function of process variation and variation among licensees should be addressed and bounded.

2. Other considerations. An understanding of nonradiological properties of the waste stream is needed to assure that they are consistent with the proposed disposal method and to evaluate the adequacy of the analysis of the radiological impacts. (NRC 1 s deregulation of the radioactive content would not relieve licensees from the applicable rules of other agencies which cover the nonradiological properties.) The petitioner should provide a detailed description of the waste materials, including their origin, chemical composition, physical state, volume, and mass.

The term 11 stream 11 only means wastes produced from a common set of II circumstances and possessing common characteristics. It does not mean l i qui d11 although the stream may be in a liquid form (e.g., waste oil). The wastes may be resin beads, laboratory glassware, or any other form. Waste form includes

[7590-01]

packages or containers used to manage (i.e., store, handle, ship, or dispose) the wastes. The variability and potential changes in the waste form as a function of process variation should be addressed. The variation among licensees should be described and bounded.

Compatibility with requirements associated with the proposed management options should be carefully presented. For example, if the petitioner proposes that the wastes be incinerated, the waste form should be shown to be compatible with the temperatures, flow rates, feed rates, and other operating parameters of typical incinerators that may be used. The petitioner should identify the minimum requirements an incinerator must meet to assure adequate combustion.

The form and volume of the ash and other residue from incineration should be described. Similar consideration for disposal at sanitary landfills or hazardous waste sites should be addressed. For example, wastes that include components or properties that would qualify the waste as a "hazardous waste" under EPA rules in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 265 should not be proposed for disposal at a municipal landfill.

The potential for recycle should be presented. Possible treatment, such as shredding, that would reduce the recycle potential should be described.

Both the resource value (e.g., salvageable metals) and the functional usefulness (e.g., usable tools) should be addressed. Both short- and long-term potentials for recycle are of significant concern to the Commission.

3. Totals. A subsequent rulemaking based upon an accepted petition is generic, and the exemption will likely be used nationwide. Therefore, to the extent possible, the petitioner should estimate the number of NRC and Agreement State licensees that produce the waste, the annual volumes and mass, and the

[7590-01]

total annual quantities of each radionuclide that would be disposed of. The estimates should include the current situation and the likely variability over the reasonably foreseeable future. If the petition is for a proposed rule that will be limited to less than national scope (e.g., a state or compact region),

the totals should be estimated for the petitioned scope. A concentration distribution would be a helpful tool in characterizing the waste stream. For example, the petitioner could indicate that 10% of the wastes fall in the range of 1-10 picocuries per gram_, 60% fall in the 10-100 range, and 30% in the 100-1,000 range. Such distribution would permit more realistic assessment of impacts in addition to conservative bounding estimates using maximum values.

In any ca~e, the typical quantities produced per generator and an estimate of the geographic distribution of the generators should be described.

4. Basis. The basis for the waste stream characterization should be provided. The basis for characterization of the wastes and the total quantities produced should be described. Monitoring, analytical data, and calculations should be specified. Actual measurements or values that can be related to measurements to confirm calcula~ions are important. The description of the bases should include quality assurance aspects. For example, the petitioner should describe the number of samples measured, the representativeness of the samples, and the appropriateness of the instruments used. The statistical confidence in the estimates should be evaluated. If the petitioner conducted any surveys of licensees or relied on surveys by others to help quantify the amount and content of wastes, they should be described.

Market information might be useful in characterizing waste generation on a national basis. Designation as a 11 trace concentration 11 should be related to

[7590-01]

specified detection limits, but detection limits themselves are not sufficient reason to dismiss trace concentrations when methods exist to infer concentrations.

For estimates of the radionuclide content of the waste stream, the petitioner may take advantage of licensee experience in classifying wastes for disposal at low-level waste sites. For example, the transuranic radionuclide content of the wastes would likely be below detection limits, but licensees have already established scaling factors for estimating the transuranic content of wastes as part of complying with 10 CFR Part 61 waste classification requireme~ts. Waste generators use generic scaling factors and factors established for their specific wastes through sophisticated analyses. The scaling factors are used to infer the presence and concentrations of many radionuclides based on measurement of only a few nuclides. The classification scheme in 10 CFR Part 61 has been in effect since December 1983. Considerable data and experience should be available to allow characterizing the radiological content and composition of the waste stream being addressed in the petition. The same principles outlined in 10 CFR 61.55(a)(8) may be applied, i.e., values based on direct measurements, indirect methods related to measurements, or material accountability.

5. As low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). The Commission 1 s ALARA requirement in 10 CFR 20.l(c) applies to efforts by licensees to maintain radiation exposures and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, describes ALARA for radioactive materials in light water reactor

[7590-01]

effluents. Licensee compliance with 10 CFR 20.l(c) is a precondition to acceptance by NRC of any waste stream as exempt. Therefore, a description should be provided of reasonable procedures that waste generators would be expected to use to minimize radiation exposures resulting from the disposal of the exempt waste, e.g., removal of surface contamination. These procedures are assumed to apply prior to characterizing the waste to be exempted.

C. Waste Management Options The management options that the Commission can deal with expeditiously are those described in NUREG/CR-3585. Onsite options include incineration and burial. Offsite options are municipal waste disposal facilities (sanitary landfills), municipal waste incinerators, hazardous waste disposal facilities, and hazardous waste incinerators. Pretreatment, e.g., shredding of otherwise potentially recyclable materials, is a potential adjunct to either onsite or offsite options. Combinations of these options can also be evaluated. For example, wastes may be incinerated on site and the ash shipped to a sanitary landfill. The favored disposal options should be identified and fully described. The petitioner should evaluate a full range of options. The practicality of the proposed option(s) should be presented. Waste compatibility discussed earlier is one aspect. The national availability and distribution of the option is another. Updates on national regulations and laws pertaining to the proposed option should be described and might have to be considered in selecting acceptable options.

[7590-01]

D. Analyses To support and justify the submittal, each petitioner should include analyses of the radiological impacts associated with handling, transport, and disposal of the specific wastes. Any incremental nonradiological impacts should be assessed. Also the petitioner should use the analyses to prepare and submit a detailed regulatory analysis with the petition.

1. Radiological impacts. The evaluation of radiological impacts should distinguish between expected and potential exposures and events. Impacts should be assessed for the expected concentrations and quantities ~f radionuclides. The petitioner should quantitatively evaluate the impacts from the proposed waste for each -option requested. The petitioner should clearly relate the analytical findings to specific provisions in the recommended rule changes. Fo~ example, the basis for each recommended radionuclide limit should be clearly explained.

The radiological impacts included in NUREG/CR-3585 and in NRC 1 s computer program (IMPACTS-BRC) cover exposures to workers and individual members of the public and cumulative population exposures. The program calculates both external direct gamma exposures and exposures from ingested or inhaled radionuclides. NRC 1 s computer program can be used to calculate the expected radiological impacts from generator activites, transportation, treatment, disposal operations, and post-disposal impacts. The program can analyze a wide range of management options including onsite treatment and disposal by the generator, shipment to municipal waste management facilities, and shipment to hazardous waste management facilities. The program covers impacts beginning with initial handling and treatment by the generator through final disposal of

[7590-01]

all the radionuclides contained in the waste stream. Sequential treatment, sorting, and incineration onsite and at municipal and hazardous facilities can be assessed. Disposal of resulting ash and residue is included. Post-disposal impacts that can be calculated include releases due to intrusion, ground-water migration, erosion, and leachate accumulation. The program thus addresses both expected and potential post-disposal impacts.

The petitioner 1 s analysis of transport impacts should be based on a reasonably expected spacial distribution of licensees and waste treatment and disposal facilities which will accept the wastes. The petitioner should address parameters such as average and extreme transport distances. The petitioner 1 s analysis should address the basis for parameter selection and characterize the expected patterns (e.g., indicate how likely the extreme case may be). In addition, the petitioner 1 s analysis should a_lso address potential exposures from handling and transport accidents. The petitioner 1 s analysis of accidents should include all assumptions, data, and results to facilitate review. The potential for shipment of the entire waste stream to one or a few facilities should be assessed. This scenario currently exists for 10 CFR 20.306 exempted liquid scintillation wastes and might result from very limited numbers of treatment facilities or decontamination services. The analysis of impacts for transport, handling, and disposal should include evaluation of this potential circumstance unless it can be clearly ruled out.

As suggested 1n Paragraph 89 on page 20 of ICRP Publication 46 2:

Exception from regulation and requirements on these bases should not be used to make it possible to dispose of large quantities of radioactive

[7590-01]

material in diluted form; or in divided portions, causing widespread pollution which would eventually build up high dose levels by the addition of many small doses to individuals. Nor should they be used to exempt activities that, by isolation or treatment, have been made temporarily harmless but that imply large potential for release and could give rise to high individual doses or high collective doses.

The analysis of expected radiological impacts should clearly address:

The maximum individual exposures.

The critical group exposures The cumulative population exposures.

The maximum individual exposure evaluation should include exposures to all members of the public who may be exposed beginning with the initial handling at the generator 1 s facility through post-closure. Both internal uptake and external exposures should be included. The individual may be a member of the general population (e.g., consumer of contaminated ground water) or a person receiving the exposure from his or her occupation. Anyone who may be exposed and is not a radiation worker should be considered a member of the public. For example, a worker at a sanitary landfill or a commercial trash truck driver would not be a radiation worker. However, occupational exposures to radiation workers should be evaluated and considered in the cost/benefit analysis of the incremental impacts between disposal at a licensed facility and the requested disposal options.

The total population exposures can be estimated and summed in two parts.

One part is the smaller critical group (usually the occupationally exposed

[7590-01]

population) where potential exposures may be higher on an individual basis but the exposures and the number of exposed individuals are more predictable and the exposures are short-term. The critical group should be the segment of the population most highly exposed exclusive of radiation workers. The other part is the general population where the expected exposures and size of the exposed population are less predictable, potential individual exposures are probably much smaller, and exposures may extend over longer timeframes. Presentation of the population exposures in these two parts should contribute to a more meaningful cost/benefit analysis.

2. Other impacts. The NRC action to exempt the radiological content of the wastes would not relieve persons handling, processing, or disposing of the wastes from requirements applicable to the nonradiological properties. The petition should demonstrate that the nonradiological properties of the radioactive waste are the same as the nonradioactive materials normally handled and disposed of by the proposed methods. If the nonradiological properties are similar and the volumes of exempted waste would not impact the normal operations, there should be no incremental impacts. If the petitioner is aware of other impacts which should be considered for the specific wastes in the petition, the petitioner should also address the additional impacts.

3. Regulatory analysis. In order to expedite subsequent rulemaking if the petition is granted, the analysis should also address the topics NRC must address in a Regulatory Analysis (e.g., see NUREG/BR-0058, Revision l, 11 Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 ) . 1 Following the Regulatory Analysis format will structure the analytical

[7590-01]

findings, present the bases for decisions, and address the environmental assessment requirements. The topics are:

(1) A statement of the problem. This topic is the need for determining which wastes may be safely disposed of by means other than shipment to licensed low-level waste sites.

(2) Alternatives. All reasonable alternatives to the proposed action should be described. The no action or status quo alternative should always be included.

(3) Consequences. This topic calls for an analysis of the impacts of each alternative described. The factors the petitioner should address include costs and benefits and practical or legal constraints. Cost/benefit considerations and constraints are discussed more fully after this listing of topics.

(4) Decision rationale. This topic is a conclusions statement that

- explains why the preferred alternative(s) should be adopted.

(5) Implementation. This topic covers the steps and schedules for actual implementation of the proposed rule. The petitioner should address the topic from the waste generator 1 s perspective and include surveys discussed under Topic III.A.5. Recordkeeping and Reporting.

A cost/benefit discussion is an essential part of both environmental and regulatory impact considerations and is, therefore, essential to expedited

[7590-01]

handling. The discussion should focus on expected exposures and realistic concentrations or quantities of radionuclides. The cost/benefit discussion should include the differential exposure and economic costs between disposal at a licensed low-level waste disposal site and the proposed option(s). It may also include qualitative benefits. Reduced hazards from not storing hazardous or combustible materials might be a benefit. Elimination or reduction of the hazardous properties (e.g., by incineration) could be another. Detrimental costs might also be qualitative such as loss of space in municipal or hazardous waste sites. The economic impact on the licensed site operations (i.e., loss of income from diverted wastes) and its potential effect on the availability of economic ~nd safe disposal should be addressed. Costs of surveys and verifying compliance discussed under Topic II.E. Recordkeeping and Reporting should also be covered. The cost/benefit should also reflect ALARA considerations.

Radiation worker exposure, public exposure, and environmental releases might be appropriate in ALARA considerations. In weighing the exposure co~ts and economic costs for light-water-cooled nuclear reactor wastes,-the petitioner could use, for perspective, the $1,000 per person-rem guideline in 10 CFR ti Part 50, Appendix I, for effluent releases from these facilities.

The petitioner should identify any legal or regulatory constraints that might impact implementation of the petitioned change. The compatibility of the the waste with the proposed method of disposal was discussed under Topic II.B.2. Other constraints might stem from Department of Transportation (DOT) labeling, placarding, and manifesting requirements for radioactive materials. Since the receiving facility will not be licensed to receive radioactive materials, this could be an impediment to implementation. For most radioactive materials, the general DOT threshold limits of 0.002 microcuries

[7590-01]

per gram apply. However, the DOT issued a final rule on June 6, 1985 (50 FR 23811) that amended 49 CFR Part 173 to exempt low specific activity wastes as described in NRC 1 s rules in 10 CFR 20.306. (Note that DOT emphasized that the wastes remain subject to the provisions related to other hazards; see 49 CFR 173.425(d).)

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting.

1. Surveys. Existing regulations in §10 CFR 20.201 establish general NRC requirements for performing surveys as necessary to comply with Part 20.

Licensees would have to conduct surveys of the waste properties prior to release f?r exempt disposal to verify that the waste meets the prescribed limits. Such survey programs might consist of (1) fairly comprehensive initial sampling and analysis to confirm that the licensee 1 s wastes will fall below the limits, (2) periodic analyses as part of a process or quality control program to confirm the initial findings, and (3) a routine survey program prior to release of wastes to monitor for gross irregularities. To show that licensees can be expected to conduct compliance surveys prior to waste transfer, the

- petitioner should describe a sample survey program. The three components just discussed should be included, if appropriate, for the waste stream. Records of the surveys would be maintained for inspection.

2. Reports. The petitioner should assume that annual reports on disposals will be required and that associated recordkeeping to generate the reports will be imposed. Minimum information in the annual reports initially might include the type of waste, its volume, its estimated curie content, and the place and manner of disposal. Increased recordkeeping and reporting

[7590-01]

requirements would address uncertainties in projecting future volumes or amounts of wastes and NRC 1 s responsibility to consider the cumulative impacts of multiple exemptions. When these requirements are proposed, Office of Management and Budget (0MB) approval is required. To facilitate NRC filing for 0MB approval, the petitioner should include any duplicating or overlapping reporting requirements, the number and type of expected respondents, suggestions for minimizing the burden, estimates of the staff hours and costs to prepare the reports and keep the records, and a brief description of the basis for the estimates. The petitioner should also address whether changes in technical specifications or licenses may be needed.

F. Proposed Rule. The petition should include the text for the proposed rule (see 10 CFR 2.802(c)(l)). The proposed text should cover at least the following:

(1) The quantity and/or concentration limit for each radionuclide present (trace radionuclides could be lumped together with a total limit);

(2) A method to deal with radionuclide mixtures; (3) The nonradiological specifications necessary to adequately define the waste; and (4) The specific method(s) of exempt disposal.

If practicable, and if the supporting information indicates the need, the text should also address other features such as annual limits on each generator

[7590-01]

in terms of volume, mass, or total radioactivity, and administrative or procedural requirements including process controls, surveys, etc., that have been discussed. The text should not include the various dose limits used to justify the proposed radionuclide limits.

III. Decision Criteria The Commission policy statement establishes that the following criteria should be used by staff as guidelines for acting on a petition. Each criterion is repeated and staff views on implementation are discussed.

1. Disposal and treatment of the wastes as specified in the petition will result in no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Discussion: Unless this finding can be made using information submitted by the petitioner, the Commission must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to more fully examine the proposed action, alternatives to the proposed action, and associated potential impacts of alternatives. Preparation would likely involve contractual support and would likely take 2 years or more to complete. The Commission could not act on the petition in an expedited manner.

2. The maximum expected effective dose equivalent to an individual member of the public does not exceed a few millirem per year for normal operations and anticipated events.

Discussion: The effective dose equivalent means the ICRP Publication 26 and 30 3 sum of the dose from external exposure and the dose incurred from that

[7590-01]

year's intake of radionuclides. While a range of 1-10 millirem per year might be acceptable, a one millirem dose would facilitate expedited processing.

Higher doses may require more extensive justification. Based on a mortality risk coefficient for induced cancer and hereditary effects of 2 x 10- 4 per rem (ICRP Publication 26), radiation exposure at a level of 1 millirem per year would result in an annual mortality risk of 2 x 10- 7 (i.e., 2 x 10- 4 effects/rem x 10- 3 rem/year).

The EPA is developing criteria for identifying low-level radioactive waste that may be below regulatory concern as part of that agency's development of general environmental standards for low-level waste disposal. The EPA published.an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 31, 1983 (48 FR 39563) and currently hopes to publish proposed standards in early 1987.

Other EPA standards that the doses can be compared to are the Clean Air Act radioactive release standard of 25 millirems per year in 40 CFR Part 61 and the uranium fuel cycle annual whole body limit of 25 millirems in 40 CFR 190.

One millirem is very small when compared to naturally occurring background doses from cosmic and terrestrial sources. Background doses in the United States are typically in the 100-200 millirems per year range exclusive of the lung doses from radon. One millirem is also small when compared to the annual 500 millirem dose limit for individual members of the general public in Federal Radiation Council guidance.

An important feature is that doses of up to 1 millirem from an individual petition should minimize concerns over exposure to multiple exempted waste

[7590-01]

streams. ICRP Publication 46 addressed individual dose limits and other issues related to exemptions and stated, in paragraphs 83 and 84 on page 19:

Many radiation exposures routinely encountered in radiation protection, particularly those received by members of the public, are very small by comparison with dose limits or natural background, and are well below dose levels at which the appearance of deleterious health effects has been demonstrated. In individual-related assessments, it is widely recognized that there are radiation doses that are so small that they involve risks that would be regarded as negligible by the exposed individuals. Studies of comparative risks experienced by the population in various activities appear to indicate that an annual probability of death of the order of 10- 6 per year or less is not taken into account by individuals in their decisions as to actions that could influence their risks. Using rounded dose response factors for induced health effects, this level of risk corresponds to an annual dose of the.order of 0.1 mSv

[10 millirem].

However, in most practical cases, the need for exemption rules arises in source-related assessment, to decide whether a source or waste stream should be subject to control. Consideration should be given to the need for any optimization of radiation protection and to the possibility that many practices and sources of the same kind could combine now or in the future so that their total effect may be significant, even though each source causes an annual individual dose equivalent below 0.1 mSv

[10 millirem] to individuals in the critical group. This may involve assessments of dose commitments and of the collective dose per unit

[7590-01]

practice or source, in order to ensure that the individual dose requirement will not be exceeded now or in the future. It seems almost certain that the total annual dose to a single individual from exempted sources will be less than ten times the contribution from the exempted source giving the highest individual dose. This aspect could, therefore, be allowed for by reducing the annual individual dose exemption criterion from 0.1 to 0.01 mSv [10 to 1 millirem].

The NRC staff recognizes that at times, human reactions are not so strictly governed by quantative considerations as the ICRP excerpt suggests.

Neverthel~ss, the 10 -6 per year value seems about as low as practicable, seems too low to justify significant concern, and so seems acceptable.

The United Kingdom 1 s National Radiological Protection Board has issued generic guidance on de minimis dose levels (ASP-7, January 1985) 4 that has status similar to Federal Radiation Guidance issued by the President in this country. The Board identified effective dose equivalents of 5 millirem per year as insignificant when members of the public make their decisions. The 5

- millirem limit represents the total dose contribution from all exempted practices. For individual practices, the Board divided by 10 (i.e.,

0.5 millirem per year) to account for exposures from multiple practices. These limits are applied generically. Less conservatism under the well defined circumstances associated with specific waste streams and disposal options envisaged in this NRC statement seems justified. In a proposed policy statement dated May 6, 1985, 5 the Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board specifically addressed disposal of specific wastes that are of no regulatory

[7590-01]

concern. An individual dose limit of 5 millirems per year was proposed for this limited application.

A maximum individual exposure of 1 millirem per year is also consistent with Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix I specifies design objective doses for operational light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents. These design objectives include annual total body doses of 3 millirems for liquid effluents and 5 millirems for gaseous effluents. If onsite incineration at reactors is petitioned for as a specified disposal option, the petitioner should address how the proposed activity, combined with all other effluents from the sites, would not exceed the design objective doses in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

3. The collective doses to the critical population and general population are small.

Discussion: An additional advantage when individual doses are no more than 1 millirem per year is that the collective doses are then summations over very small exposures. The collective dose evaluation is primarily for information purposes, cost/benefit considerations, and to confirm the finding of no significant impact on the quality of the human environment. This determination will be made based on information available during the review of each petition in concert with criterion 5. Staff notes that the United Kingdom policy on individual dose limits includes an associated collective dose criterion. (1he collective dose criterion must be met in addition to the individual limits). In ICRP Publication 46, a similar criterion is stated.

4. The potential radiological consequences of accidents or equipment malfunction involving the wastes and intrusion into disposal sites after loss of normal institutional controls are not significant.

[7590-01]

Discussion: Potential doses from accidents or intrusion should be well within public exposure limits and take into account the probability or possibility of such events. In a statement dated April 26, 1986, 6 the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) stated that the ICRP's present view is that the principal dose limit for members of the public is 100 millirems in a year. The ICRP further stated that the 500 millirem limit from ICRP Publication 26 co~ld be used as a subsidiary limit provided the lifetime average does not exceed the principal limit. Consequently, potential exposures from accidents or unexpected events would be more easily justified if they are well below 100 millirem per year principal limit.

5. The exemption will result in a significant reduction in societal costs.

Discussion: When the economic and exposure costs associated with the exemption are compared to disposal at a licensed low-level waste site there should be a significant reduction in costs.

6. The waste is compatible with the proposed treatment and disposal options.

Discussion: This criterion relates to the nonradiological properties of the wastes. For example, disposal of radioactive wastes that-also qualify as a nonradiological hazardous material should be proposed for disposal methods in accord with EPA regulations (e.g., incineration or disposal-at a hazardous waste facility). Also, wastes proposed for incineration should be combustible and wastes proposed for landfills should be appropriate for disposal in typical landfills anywhere in the nation.

[7590-01]

7. The exemption is useful on a national scale, i.e., it is likely to be used by a category of licensees or at least a significant portion of a category.

Discussion: Rulemaking is usually not warranted for wastes involving a single licensee, whether a continuing disposal activity or a one-time disposal.

Such proposals by individual licensees are normally processed as licensing actions under 10 CFR 20.302(a).

8. The radiological properties of the waste stream have been characterized on a national basis, the variability has been projected, and the range of variation will not invalidate supporting analyses.

Discussion: One of the merits of dealing with specific waste streams is that the actual properties of the waste stream can be relied upon in estimating impacts rather than conservative bounding parameters. The specific pathways that must be considered can be limited to manageable numbers. The expected fate can be credibly limited based on the properties.

9. The waste characterization is based on data on real wastes.

Discussion: Actual data on real waste provide reasonable assurance that

- the waste characterization is accurate.

10. The disposed form of the waste has negligible potential for recycle.

Discussion: Eliminating the uncertainties associated with recycle is necessary to expeditious handling. Specifying specific wastes and specific methods of disposal narrows the pathways and timeframes to manageable numbers.

11. Licensees can establish effective, licensable, and inspectable programs for the waste prior to transfer to demonstrate compliance.

Discussion: Survey programs and quality control programs will be needed to provide reasonable assurance that actual wastes disposed of under an

[7590-01]

exemption rule meet the specified parameters. Since disposal would be exempted based on both established and projected waste characteristics, reporting on the wastes actually transferred for below regulatory concern disposal will be important and should be practical.

12. The offsite treatment or disposal medium (e.g., sanitary landfill) does not need to be controlled or monitored for radiation protection purposes.

Discussion: The evaluation of expected exposures should provide the basis for meeting this criterion. However, this is an area where NRC will have a continuing responsibility as multiple petitions are processed. Reporting on actual disposals will help NRC address this responsibility and monitor the adequacy 9f the limits included in the exempted disposals.

13. The methods and procedures used to manage the wastes and to assess the impacts are no different from those that would be applied to the corresponding uncontaminated materials.

Discussion: Since the receiving facility will not be licensed for radioactive materials, special handling or measures should not be required at the processing or disposal sites because of the radioactive content of the wastes. This criterion also means that realistic assumptions about the disposal methods have been made in estimating exposures.

14. There are no regulatory or legal obstacles to use of the proposed treatment or disposal methods.

Discussion: To have practical use, the disposal option must be available.

For example, if all hazardous waste facilities that accept offsite wastes are closed or are not reasonably distributed, the practicality of an exemption to allow disposal at such sites is questionable. Since the receiving facility will not be licensed for radioactive materials, shipments to landfills or

[7590-01]

hazardous waste facilities should not require identification as radioactive materials.

IV. Administrative Handling Agency procedures for expeditious handling of petitions for rulemaking were initially published in 1982 in NUREG/BR-0053, 11 Regulations Handbook. 111 The procedures are contained in Part 11 of the Handbook and were most recently revised in September 1985. Because of resource limitations and other factors, these procedures have not been fully implemented. Petitions for rulemaking submitted in accordance with the Commission 1s policy statement and this staff implementation plan will be processed in full compliance with these procedures. These procedures coupled with agency policy to complete all rulemakings within 2 years will provide expeditious action on the petitions.

In addition, the Handbook notes general scheduling advice that proposed rules to grant petitions should be published in 6-12 months after acceptance and publication for comment. Proposed rules will be forwarded to the Commission on a 6-month schedule to the extent permitted by resource limits, the nature

• - and extent of public comments, and internal Control of Rulemaking procedures.

Rulemakings involving power reactors must be reviewed by the Committee on Review of Generic Requirements prior to publication. Proposed rules involving reactors will therefore be forwarded to the Commission on a 7-month schedule to the extent permitted by resources, comments, and approval procedures. In both cases, every effort will be made to publish proposed rules no later than 12 months after noticing for public comment.

[7590-01]

Although the procedures in Part 11 of NUREG/BR-0053 include fast track processing, the nature of the anticipated petitions do not fully comply with the decision criteria to follow this alternative.

Some of the key features of the handling procedures include the following steps for complete and fully supported petitions.

1. Petitioners may confer on procedural matters with the staff before filing a petition for rulemaking. Requests to confer on procedural matters should be addressed to: The Director, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch.

2. _Petitions should be addressed to: The Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. In keeping with 10 CFR 2.802(f), petitioners will be promptly informed if the petition meets the threshold requirements for a petition for rulemaking in 10 CFR 2.802(c) and can be processed in accordance with this implementation plan. Ordinarily this determination will be made within 30 days after receipt of the petition.

3. Following this determination, the petition will be noticed in the Federal Register for a public comment period of at least 60 days.

4. The petitioner will be provided copies of all comments received, scheduling information, and periodic status reports.

The procedures in NUREG/BR-0053 also include the process for denial and withdrawal of petitions.

[7590-01]

Footnotes:

1. Copies of NUREG/BR-0053, NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3585 may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Convnerce, 5185 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.

2. ICRP Publication 46, "Radiation Protection Principles for the Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste, 11 adopted July 1985.

3. ICRP Publication 26, "Recommendations of the International CoD111ission on Radiological Protection," adopted January 17, 1977. ICRP Publication 30, "Limits for Intake of Radionucl ides by Workers," adopted July 1978.

4. Copies of the United Kingdom 1 s document are available for inspection as enclosures to SECY-85-147A (relating to 10 CFR Part 20) dated July 25, 1985 in the Commission 1 s Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20555. The United Kingdom documents are available for sale from: Her Majesty 1 s Stationery Office, P.O. Box 569, London SEl 9NH, United Kingdom, as Advice document ASP-7 and a related technical report, 11 The Significance of Small Doses of Radiation to Members of the Public, 11 NRPB-R175.

5. Copies of the Canadian document are available for inspection as an enclosure to SECY-85-147A (relating to 10 ~FR Part 20) dated July 25, 1985 in the Convnission 1 s Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20555. The Canadian document was issued as Consultative Document C-85, 11 The Basis for Exempting the Disposal of Certain Radioactive Materials from Licensing" by the Atomic Energy Control Board, P.O. Box 1046, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, KIP 5S9.

6. ICRP/85/G-03, "Statement from the 1985 Paris Meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protect," 1985-04-26.