ML20246M107

Responds to 890619 Request for Review Concerns Raised in K Quon Ltr Re NRC Implementation of Policy to Allow Nuclear Waste Generators to Dispose of Approx 30% of Waste Products in Below Regulatory Concern Category

ML20246M107
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/11/1989
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Wilson P SENATE
Shared Package
ML20246M113	List: ML20246M107 ML20246M122
References
FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 CCS, NUDOCS 8909070098
Download: ML20246M107 (10)

Text

_ - - -

V

1. h'o 4

UNITED STATES o

[

~' ~,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p,

E

' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\

August-11, 1989

-The Honorable Pete Wilson United States Senate Washington, DC 20510-

Dear Senator Wilson:

Your letter of June 19, 1989, requested a review of radioactive waste disposal issues raised in correspondence from Mr.- Kerwin Quon, Chairman of Nuclear Free Hayward. Mr. Quon expressed concern that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is implementing a policy to allow nuclear waste generators to dispose of approximately 30 percent of their waste products which fall into the category of "Below Regulatory Concern (BRC)" in lancfills, sewers, and garbage dumps.

Mr. Quon's concerns appear to relate to the NRC's intention to develop a broadly applicable p31 icy that would identify the principles and criteria that govern all Comission decisions related to the exemption of radioactive materials from some or all regulatory control. This broad policy is being put forward as a " Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control," and is intended to provide t<,e public health and safety framework that would apply to the development of appropriate regulations for several categories of Comission-licensed practices including (1) the disposal of very low-level radioactive waste at locations other than licensed low-level waste disposal sites, (2) the distribution of consumer products containing small amounts of

-radioactive material, (3) the release of residually contaminated lands and structures.for unrestricted public use, and (4) the potential for recycling of radioactively contaminated equipment or materials. As a key step in the development of this policy, the Comission issued the enclosed Advance Notice on December 12, 1988, upon which it received over 225 coment letters. The NRC staff analyzed these comments and submitted a revised proposed policy statement to the Comission. The Comission is currently considering this staff proposal.

The broad policy-development effort is ore of several NRC actions which have evolved as a result of passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (P.L.99-240).

In 1986, in compliance with the Act, the Comission adopted a final policy that established the standards and procedures that will permit us to act upon any "below regulatory concern" rulemaking petitions that we might receive. On December 2, 1986, we also published an Advance Notice of Proposea Rulemaking that solicited public coments on the issue of BRC waste disposal.

To complete the current picture regarding activities on the issues raised by l

Mr. Quon I would note that the NRC is aware that the nation's nuclear l

utilities are funding research to determine, in their view, what low-level OCD M MTMnnN o

epopoyo[fe e9ogn PDn og NE Ep 7

RDC

O i

c The Honorable Pete Wilson 2

l l

t l

i l

radioactive waste could be potentially classified as "beluw regulatory

{

concern." We have been informed that the utilities are working through their research institute and management council ano that they intend in the near future to submit a petition for rulemaking to the NRC under the provisions of P.L.99-240 and the Commission's 1986 policy.

If any Commission regulations petition, the matter of suitable disposal site (y industry, or any other. "BRC" are developed in response to the nuclear utilit s) or method (s) is one which will be considered very carefully.

Idr. Quon has also stated that, " Studies have shown that the release of low-level radiation is much more dangerous than was anticipated...." Mr. Quon may be referring to the risks associated with very high doses and dose rates (associated primarily with the Japanese atomic bomb survivors) which have recently been estimated to be greater by about a factor of 21/2 than previously thought. These estimates were made by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). The Commission is considering these views together with other information in their deliberations regarding the formulation of its exemption policy. However, the dose levels which may be associated with exempted practices are far smaller than those considered by UNSCEAR in revising the risk estimates, and in fact are only a small fraction of the natural background radiation to which everyone is exposed in everyday life. The exempted dose levels would also be comparable to variations in the natural background radiation which is encountered without concern in taking cross country airplane flights or living in brick as opposed to frame houses. Such small residual dose levels are far below the range of doses where the health and safety of the public would be threatened.

In defining the " practices" to which eFemptions from some or all regulatory controls may be granted the Commission will be striving to assure that deliberate dilution or fractionation of waste is not condoned. The nunter of practices for which exemptions may be granted is expected to be limited and will not, in our view, "...open the door...to deregulate other hazardous and/or radioactive materials... " as Mr. Quon implies. Also the quantities and half-lives of the materials which can move from a controlled to an uncontrolled status will be an important consideration in the exemption decision-making In this regard, the 30 percent of radioactive waste, to which Mr. Quon process.

refers, is most likely the industry's reported volume percentage applicable to low level radioactive waste generated at nuclear power plants. The inaustry further reported that its preliminary indications are that this volume percentage would include only abcut 0.01 percent of the waste's radioactivity content.

It is these reported findings, as well as the disposal of this radioactive material, which must be evaluated to assure that public health and safety are not compromised.

I want to atsure you that because it is our goal to assure that the best interest of '.he public is served and that the health and safety of the public are adequately protected, the issues raised by Mr. Quon, and other issues

y.o s.

The Honorable'Pete WilsonL 3

atsociated with BRC waste disposal, will be' carefully. considered by the Commission. This willibe also.'our objective as we consider the proposed exemption decisions or-proposed rulemakings resulting from the development of i

.the Commission's-broad _ exemption policy.

Sincerely,

/

t&

~

J.eT M. Tay r ting Executive Director for Operetions

Enclosures:

'1.

Federal Register Advance Notice dated December:12,'1988

'2 Incoming Letter from Kerwin Quon dated March 29, 1989

= _ _

-___- -_- -_a_

-___ _ _--__-_ - - __-_-__ _--_= _ _ ______ - ___________ _

v c..

/

..e 3

UNITED STATES g

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmwovow.o.c.aoses

g

,,,,,, y August 11, 1989 The Honorable Pete Wilson.

United States Senate Washington, DC 20510-

Dear Senator Wilson:

19, 1989, requested a review of radioactive waste disposal Your letter of June issues raised in correspondence from Mr. Kerwin Quon Chairman of Nuclear Free Mr. Quon expressed concern that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

' Hayward.

Comission (NRC) is implementing a policy to allow nuclear waste generators to dispose of approximately.30 percent of their waste products which fall into the category of "Below Regulatory Concern (BRC)" in landfills, sewers, and garbage dumps.

Mr. Quon's concerns appear to relate to the NRC's intention to develop a broadly applicable policy that would identify the principles and criteria that govern all Commission decisions related to the exemption of radioactive This broad policy is being put materials from some or all regulatory control.

forward as-a " Policy Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control " and is intended to provide the public health and safety framework that would apply to the development'of appropriate regulations for several categories of Commission-licensed practices including (1) the disposal of very low-level radioactive waste at locations other than licensed low-level waste disposal sites.. (2) the distribution of consumer products containing small amounts of radioactive material. (3) the release of residua 11y contaminated lands and structures for unrestricted public use, and (4) the ' potential for recycling of radioactively contaminated equipment or materials. As a key step in the development of this policy, the Commission issued the enclosed Advance Notice The NRC on December 12, 1988, upon which it received over 225 comment letters.

staff analyzed these comments and submitted a revised proposed policy statement The Comission is currently considering this staff to the Commission.

proposal.

The broad policy development effort is one of several NRC actions which have evolved as a result of passage of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy In 1986, in compliance with the Act, the Amendments Act of 1985 (P.L.99-240).

Commission adopted a final policy that established the standards and procedures that will permit us to act upon any "below regulatory concern" rulemaking On December 2, 1986, we also published an petitions that we might receive.

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that solicited public coments on the issue of BRC waste disposal.

~-

....-......-----n-r,,

a. au

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE ora (pc.f;fc/f,/

-Offc: RDB:DRA:RES DRA:RES DD/GRI:RES D:

Name: '*WLahs:cb *BMorris TPSpeis ESBeckjord J7 ry or DRathaun p/f$'

Date: -7/20/89 7/24/89 7/ /89 7/3(/89 N (89 f/6 /89

/

0FFICIAL RECORD COPP

s

~

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON 1

10 CFR Ch.t Policy Statement on Exemptions From Regulatory Ccntrol LatNCr. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTaoNS: Advance notice of proposed statement and meeting.

suuuAar.The NRC is in the process of developing a broad policy on exemptions from regulatory control for practices whose health and safety i

1 impacts could be considered below I

regulatory concern.This policy statement would provide for more efficient and consistent regulatory actions in connection with exemptions l

from various specific Commission requirements.The Commission,in formulating this Advance Notice.is j

seeking public input on some specific 1

I l

l l

f'ederal Register / Vol. 53. No. 238 / Monday. Decemoer 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules egggy questions which are key considerations country's bordur !t is hoped that Com'uission may initiste the in developing such a policy.The NRC exchanges ofideas and information development of appropnate replations staff wiu conduct a meetmg to inform such n occurred at the intemstional or make licensing decisions to exempt the public of its intentions, specifically workshop will, besides providmg one from regulatory control persons who to clanfy and answer questions avenue of input to the Commission's receive, possess, use. transfer. own. or concernmg the advance notice, and to actions. lesd toward a greater degree of acquire certain radioactive material hear preluninary news conceming a consistency in such exemptions world-his pobeyis directed pnncipally policy for exemptions with emphasis on wide. At the international workshop. the toward ru.emaking activines, but may the specific quwtaons tsised by the

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

CCt mmission Policy on Exemptions license applications involving the cavam Meeting to be held on Janury f! rom Replatory Control for Pmetioes release of licened radioactive matenal 12.1989. Wntten comments should be Whose Public Health and Safety e ther to the envirotament or to persons s;bmitted by January 30,1989.

Impacts a.Welow Regulatory Concern", who would be exempt from Commission Comments received after this date win presenwd Y his notice,was made replations. it is important to emphasire be considered if it is practical to do so, available f.w discussion.The transcript that this polciy does not assert an but assurance of consideration can only of the intemational workshop which absence or thrnhold of risk but rather be given es to comments received on or includes all the papers presented at the establishes a buelme where further before this date.

meeting c ey be examined and copied

([a(t Aeonessat Meeting willbe beld at the for a Ice it the NRC Pubbe Document Holiday inn. 8120 Wisconsin Avenue.

Room at 2120 L Street.NW.,

Bethesda,MD 20814 (4 blocks north og Washington. DC.

%e concept of repletory exemptions the Bethesda Metro Station). Telephone: Advamos Notice at the !tevelopesset of a 19[th is io iomu!g e (3711652-2000.1-404 a65-4329. Mail e w w p3geY tables of exempt quanuties and written comments to: Secretary. U.S.

concentrations for rs&oactive material Nucleat Replatory Commission, latroduction andPurpos, which a person, under certain Washington DC.20555. Attention:

Over the last several yeara the ciret.mstances, cou d recieve, possen.

Docketmg and Service Branch.

Commissi.n has become incrnsingly

"** ' """I '*** ' C G"I"m** *M h*"I "

Comments may be dehvered to 11555 aware of the need to prende a general

@ement im a noe (25 Rockville Pike. Rockville. MD between policy on the appropnate entens for Aupou.1 and 35 h6; Apd 22.

720 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.

release of radioactve metenals from W Other emnnpuons aDowing Copies of thS commen's received may r,gulatory control. To addrus this need, distnbution of consumer products or be examined and copied for a fee at the the Commission is expanding upon its other devices to the general public, or NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L existmbpolicykrprotecuanof the aHoyia de ennmnment,han bnn leasu of ndiactin Stroet. NW, Wuhington.DC.

pubhc m radiation. currently matu Post rusrfusa mecassarioss costrAcTt expensed in existing regulations (Title embodied in the Commission's Catherine R. Matteen. telephone (301)

10. Code of Federal Rep!ations) and ngulations im some hmeMom 492-8638 or William R. Laha, telephone licy statements (30 Til 3462.Use of (301) 492-3nt. Office of Nuclear hproduct Material and Source recently, the Law Level Radioactive Wute Pohey Amendments Act of 1985 Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Ma terial, dated March 16.1965: 47 F1t Regulatory Commission. Washington.

57646. Licensi.. Requirements for Ltcid directed the Comminion to develop l

DC. 20555.

Dispos'alof Ra onctive Weste, dated standards and procedures for suPPtaastarf aar sosponsaatiose December 27.1962: and El TR 30539, expeditious handlms of peutitons to General Statement of Policy and

• • 'mPt imm nplauon the disposal of slightly contammated radioactive waste laternational WorkaboF Procedures Conteming Ps titions material that the Commission In addition to conducting this public Pursuant to i 2.802 for Disposal of meeting.the Commission has sought Radioactive Weste Streams Below determined to be below regulatory input from the intemational regulatory Repletory Concem. dated Aupst 30.

encemae Comminlon responded to community through an international 1986).The expansion includes the this legislation by inumg a policy workshop on exemptions from development of an explicit policy on the statement on August 29.1986 ($1 TR I

replatory control which was held exemption from regulatory control of 30639).That statement contained criteris l

4 October 17-19.1986 in Washington. DC.

practices whose pubhc health and which. if satisfactorily addressed in a ne importance of such interaction safety impacts are below replatory petition for rulemaking. would allow the l

stems from the fact that many existing concem. A practice is defited in this Cornminion to act expeditiously in cnd potential exemptions involve policy as an activity or a set or proposing appropriate regulatory rehef combination of a number of similar sets on a " practice. specific" basis consistent rs&oactive tnaterials purposefully used of coordinated and continuing activitieg with the merits of the petition.

in consumer products or introduced into ~

various products or materials through aimed at a given purpose which involve The Commission beheves that these i

the recycling of contaminated scrap, the poter.lial for rs&ation exposure.

" practice.rpecific" exemptions should cither of which rcsy enter intemational Under this policy, the defmition of be encomponed within a broader NRC Cade.Even effluents and waste disposal " practice" is a entice! feature which will policy which defines levels of rs&ation can involve exposures to peop!: in assure that the formulation of nok below which specified practices g

countries other than those from which exemptions from regulstory control will would not require NRC replation based the effluent or waste origineted.This not allow debberate dilution of material on public heahh and safety internts.

cepect is a significant issue in the or fractionation of a practice for the Tor such exemption practices.the European community.Thus, some purpose of circumventir g controls that Commission's regulstory involvement degree of consistency internationally is would otherwise be apphesble, could therefore be essentially hmited to desirable, since e xemption decisions The purpose of this policy statement hcensing,inepection, and comphance can affect populations outside each is to estabbah the basis upon which the activities snociated with the transfer of

r redess aestster / Vol sal No. 2as / Monday Daember 12. Sees / Propneed Rebe

. aussa h7dr r have been Alteamstierdseevelmations of the data the radioative matanalfson a contreBad intetnationale-mity.h values bg M arase at higher dosso sentinue.N under sensaderatiam in thia Policy

- to an exempt status.

The Commission recognises that. Ea Statsmane do not munasarily agree with nationalpolicy on exemptions from those selected or under canaideration by Comminaian believen theit nae of the -

regulatory controf fs to be effectiva.

ather comunes.De Canumiaaionhan linees non thsehold bypothes's allows Agreement States will pay an importaat carefuDy reviewed those altarsta the thesehcal entabbahment of upper i

implementation rofe. In the past. Stafee estarm and does not Gad significant lumim en the -==h== of heatlh effects have been encouraging findtngs that acientdic evideoca that would dictate that might ateur atvery low dosee i

certain wester are plow regulatory preferemba! selection at any at those which are the subject of the exemptasa concern and the Commismon believee views ave whatis proposed in tima policy" kesdambtoasladendaal.u D e ris that States will support an expension of Policy Statement.

calculatedusing thelinear modal in i

these views to all practices invoteing m.a.m ywe,eg,, pg,,gp,,

showninTable s forvanous defined g

exempt estribuWon er mieese of The Commission recognisen that three levals ofindividuald6am A radiauen radioactive materiel.h Cbemfsetos funds anental principles of radiation

,,,,,, g g,,,, y,, p, gg ag, intende that rolemokings sedifying protection have historically guided the y,, p. u)Iw a Weune cerrapone regniatory control exemptions will be fonnulation of a system of dose theoretically to anincrease of us of made a matter of compatibihty for limitation to protect workers and the hindividmars annulM d cucas Agreereset States. Consequen95, any rulemakings thht evolve from this pokey public from ti.e potentiaUy harmfu!desh.h Webma nak kWed ups g

gg g,,

effects of radiation.ney are:(1]

g y,g,,,," fee;,e,uh pu d a 4 win be coordinated with the Statee, justification of the practice.which hulia h name Advise 7 and scientific bodses have offered daarna views to the Commission seguires that there he some met benefit pulifahme.

In anticipation d this Policy Statemast, resulths from the use of rediatum er in hung es dom MMa There is not clear sonessous based on radioactive materials. (2) dose limits

• members d the publicthat might arina which define the upper boundary of erough b une d veine practica foe existing s:ientific evidence er research adequate protection for a member of the which exemptions are being considered.

regar&ns the selection of numerical public whrch should not be exceeded in se Coeninia W duidd Wy critaria for use in this Policy Statement, the conduct of nuclear activities, and (3) g,,,,,p g g, df& dou Furtha,the Comanssion is aware that ALARA which reqmres that redation equivalent? This concept.whichin there are differing views within the NRC dose he as low as is reasonaWy bad ana compuison d es dehyd staff an the selection of numerical aduevable, economic and socidactos moetehty effects of ioniaa"8 ra&ation criteria!for BRC.

bems takeninto account.ne term.

epsuna pannho&rmshnoed inthe absence of a scientific consensus. It is the Commission's task to ALARA is anacracymfor Aslaw Asis weighting iactors, the calculation d the assess the diversity of viewa in Resoonably Achievable.The whola body done equivalent of partial establishing a res onsible BRC policy.

Comrnission is interested ia asesseing body exposures.This appeoech was The authonty an responsibility to mal 6e how these principles should be applied onginaDy developedby the the final selection of criteria rests with ta establishes appropriate criterna foe InternationaMomrnission en the Commission.Cnteria selected must release of radioactiv;r materials frosa Radiological Protection and was fat l

expressed in its Pubhantion 26 laausd in tebatory control.ase of the absence d observed 19n.Since that time, the concept has (1) Proefde reasonable assurance that public health and safety willbe health effects below Evan/ year (50 been reviewed and evaluatedby f

protected, and (2) consistent with such mSvlyear), scientific experts incloding todiation protection organizations assurance. permit practices in the public the International Commission on throughout the world andhas gamed domairt which invoh e the see of Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the wide acceptance.

radioisotopes for which society NationalCouncil on Radiatica perceives e demand.

Protection and Meesuremecs(NCkP)

TAEA1 '

It (s recognized that there is a delicate balance here.Criterie can be set mrke the assu% tion tat 6 frequency of occur.ence of hesithe!!seta pas unit sufficiently restric insuch thef 4,herele does #11mm dope 'evels is the name as at

' L8",",* a*

a l-a absolute assaronce that health sm high comesits RAD IM Cy))wher*

as

, anrum em awwurs same asm enfety wiD always he protected, r.n heal:h #ects have been obeemd an!

~

~~~

H metter whet events might transpire.

~

stur.ied nraumaraa and animala This

?

K8ar***

w 20" l

However,in doing rs Ge reg !stor may linear non threshold bypotesis assumma

• hen place vndue rad tonnecessary h the tsak of redisuon inked effecte

'M*," 'H %

ww*

l.

mstrictivra on pr:mtices whid, shoult (pnWp:ly concer)islinearly e.s J retr *

~~

be permitsubetuse dothawise proportional to dosa,so sianor hew

. W cows se trio" se % wouse teaenr.able socDA 6t mmate,se smauthe dou mistAbe.Ttie toeincient 7 M8, %,,,,,

%. 7 3.,er$*w.cas,nonee inderalmusidtm'cwbreis und h t}4 mcdel sunasks for alwsyn the danger of r.,vmegulatkn istimeting stat' tsalbealth ristis on a

e* 'd e t a f** mann.o,w ne = en which resuhe in aflects ths,t are leh la da arden!2x1tr* risk of fatalcancas fM#,8@,'".*/I E'" "**" **r

' areas where the NRC does not havt per personavn of rahtion does wem er==*e **=*ea ce wereuen e authority and responsibility.Marecese, (2x1G's per SV).N CsJniasion f 4** "'y, % *," M I,"l %,',",

D the AtomicEnergy Act doesnotregaire recograises that it is a conservative absolute easurances of safety in the usa model based upon dr.te collected at som ewsis,som m earns = e noer are =

"""""'*8 '"ma* ene esamen er woes sw of radioactive material and hcanned relatively high doses and done rates facilit e2.

which is then extrapolated to the low ne Counmissianrecogrdnes thatit is The numerica!critariauhlmate)y done and cose rete region whose there selected will have significantimpact on are no statisticaUy rehable impossible toinesone nak to l

nuclear regulation bara in the Unitsd epidemiological data available.

in&viduais or populations directly, and.

States and potentially in the l

e I'ederal Register / Vol. 53. N;. 238 / M:nd:y Dec:mber 12. 1988 / Prep::s:d Rul:s 49889 I

that in r,% situations. it is impractical licensee's control (natural background 1.ne application or continuation of to meespc annual doses to individuals and medical exposures are excluded).

reguistory controls on the practice does

)

c t the low levels implied by exemption Because of the small risks involved, a 10 not result in any signincant reduction in l

decisions. Typically, radioisotope mrera (0.1 mSv) individual dose critenon the dose received by individuals within concentrations or radiation levels from is proposed as the basis for exemption the critical group and by the exposed the material to be exempted are the decisions based on simple analysis and population or; l

actual measurements that can be made.

Judgements.The Commission 2.The costs of the regulatory controls I

cnd doses are then estimated by specifically seeks comment on the need that could be imposed for dose cxposure pathway analysis combined for establishing a collective dose limit in reduction are not balanced by the l

with other types of assumptions related addition to an individual dose criterion.

commensurate reduction in nsk that to the ways an which s,eople might If such a collective dose criterion la could be realized.

l become exposed. Under such conditions. needed, what is the basis for this need?

For purposes ofimplementing its I

conservative assumptions are frequently if the Commission decides that a policy the Commission recogmzes that l

used in modeling so that the actual dose, collective dose criterion is needed, what only under ur. usual circumstances I

I h on the low side of the calculated dose. approaches allowing truncation nf would practices which cause radiation ne Commission believes thut this is the individual dose in calculation of exposures approaching the 100 mrem per appropriate approach to be taken when collective dose or weighting facton for year (1 mSv per year) hmit be i

determining if an exemption from components of collective dose would be considered as candidates for exemption.

regulatory controls is warranted.

appropriate? What alternatives should The Commission will consider such Collective dose is the sum of the be considtred for assessing societal circumstances on a case specific basis individual doses resulting from a impact?

using the general principles outhned in practice or source of radiation exposure.

• ALARA-The ALARA principle this policy statement. However, as the By assigning collective dose a monetary generally applies to determining dose doses and attendant riska to members of va.lue. it can be used in cost benefit and levels below which exemptions may be the exposed populatica decrease, the other quantitative analysis techniques.It granted on a ecst benefit basis.

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

to establish criteria which would, in opocal for exemption can reasonably effect. delineate achievement of ALARA Considemtions in Cmnting Exemptions somewhat simplified.

Emm Regulatory Control g"' *gh ls pos bl o sonaWy of two numerical criteria in defirung the The Commission is evaluating the use ne following elements are being project what the dose will be from a considered by the Commission as a practice. and then take this information re[on where ALARA has been Y"

"I ^ ""I'#I*" I"'

besis for evaluating practices which are into account in controlling regulated proposed to be exempt from regulatory practices so that the dose limits are not I

d be c ed s a controlThese practices,if approvei exceeded. exempticas imply some mult of the praedce and N a measun e

w uld resah in products containing low degree ofloss of cortrol The of societalimpact to the exposed levels of radioactive material being Commission believes that a key distributed to the general public and consideration in establishing a policy for population.nese criteria are being radioactive effluenta and solid waste exemptions and subsequentlyin c nsidered to assure that, for,a given being released to areas of the publicly-specific rulemaking or licensing exempted practice, no indimal will be cecessible environment.

decisions.is the question of whether exposed to a significant risk and that the o justification-The Commission individuals may experience radistica population as a whole does not suffer a seeks comment on the extent to which ex >osure approaching the limiting algnificant impact.

cxposures resulting from any practice values through the cumulative effects of if the individual doses from a practice should be justified. As lowtr levels c,f mom than one practice, even though the under consideration for exemptf on are radiation expor,tre are proyected thculd exytures from each practice ra only suYicientir small, the attendant risks l

Inw:t lescis of benefit be reaufred for email fractions of the limit.ne wMe trull compr. red with other i

societal risks.na Coumission believa I

tractice justif>.stion? In est@ah'zw its Commission specince.Ily seeks commer.g on the irsus.By appropriate choices eg th at armual individir l f3talny risks caempt)on policy. should tid o

Cornr21ssion exclurie etdaWactices exempthn erfleria and through 1:a Mow appmnimatety trs9m ic for ithich there a7percs to 1 e nu evaluatierts of cpecinc exanr.ption 1(c.000) are of litt'e concem te mort rassontbte hstificidioniin conalderbg ptoperels La ingimenting the pclicy, merr.bers of soc.ety. Providle for s,ma proposala for exemptions, shc41d the the Commission intends to sasurs that it margin belcw thl levet the CotJaniessou Commission es shiate the social is unlikely that any individual wi.!

pepenes to nrem (0.1 mSv) as the level ccreptabihty of practicett Should the experience exposures which eneed the of annualindvikalexposure.ne Cemntission determine re practi.ce to be too mrem per yev (1 trSs per wer) in.nrrmental annual 14 vidual carece-c6ustdied if nonradioactive economicil limlL fatality rish associated wiA n s rpusce citemstives exist?

level of10 cvem per yer.t 10.1 mSv per

• Dese Limits anel Criterion-hinciples ofExempud year)is cboui 2xio"(two in one Individual doses from practices A major consideration 'n exempting million) as indicated in Tsble 1 and of cx;mpted under this policy should not any practice from regulatory control the order of 01 percent (one in one be allowed to exceed 100 mrem per year hinges on the general question of thousand) of the overall risk of cancer (1 mSv per year). This is the dose limit whether or not application or death.

f:r members of the public specified in continuation of regulatory controls are in evaluating the need for a collective the final revisionof to CFR Part 20 nece:sary and cost effective in reducing dose criterion. the Commission Standards for Protection Against dose.To determine if exemption is recognizea that this criterion could be R:diation.The dose limits in the final appropriate. the Commission must the limiting consideration for practices revision of 10 CTR Part 20 apply to all determine if one of the following invoHng very smallindividual doses to sor.rces of radiation exposure under a conditions is met:

very large numbers of people. It is also

4 sage rederal Regiater / Vol. 53. No. ::38 / Monday. December 12. tasa / Proposed Rules recognized that in such caser the from apphcabfe licenair.g requireme.nts.

that ALARA considerations have been 7

co'!:ctrve dose criterion would,in effect. Approvalof a proposed consumer dealt with.This approar.h is consietect I

cpply the ALARA concept to Individua!

product depends upon an assessment of with past practica. e g.. consumer I

dos:s fers than the below regulatcry exposures of persons to radeanon as p aduct rulea in to CFR Part 306 concem level of 20 mrem peryear to the weH as an evaluation of the usefulness In evaluating proposala far exemption indwiduah Conversely,where the of the product.

under this pabcy, the projected c:lleenve dore criterion would not be Certain pra c".cas involving taCation exposures to different components of hmitinb. it would serve no pmpose.The or radioactive matanals hava been the expoemd peplaban wiu be C:mnuassa requests comments on thfe judsad by NRC to be socially wid with ressed to the potential issue. incleding comments on what the unacceptable regardless of how tuvial that sense indwidosta may receive doses mignitude of the collecttre dose the resulting done might be and mac the 100 mrv.s per year D mSv pi-critirion. tf any should be.

therefore. Lave been MW from Iear) Limit when doses from othee

!! the dose is less than the below exemption. Exz!uced practicas indade.

pmchs am Moo talen into regulatory concem enteria then the risk but are notlimitad to the intentional cesidention.If exposures from from a practice would be considered to introductaan of radioactive materialinto muhiple practices can occur which are be ALARA without further analysis.De toys and products intended for significantly beyond the individual dose Commission stresses that adoption of ingestion, inhalation or direct enterion (10 mrem per year (0.1 m5e per the critena should not be construed as e application to the skin (such sa ye ar)). the exemption will not be granted decision thu smaller doses are cosmetics),

n:cessary before a practice san be in addition to socialty unacceptable without further analysis. As experience cxempted, while doses above the uses ot radioactive rastenals, a question is gained.this policy and its crit:ria wodd preclude exemptioca. On also arises regarang uses where there implementation wiD be reevaluated with the cor.trary. the critena simply are clear economical attestires, and regard to this issue to assure that the represent a range of risk which the no unique benefits exist from using exposursa to the public remain well C:rnmission beheves is sufficiently rediorctive raaterialWhere riaka are below 100 mrer.: per year (i mSv per sm31) compare d to other individual and tnrial the regulatory prohibition of such year).

societainsks that a cost benefic analysis uses could pose an unnecessary In addition to considerations of

s not required in order to make e regulatory burden by intMering with the expected activities and pathways the decanon regarding the ace ptability of coniset of business.

Commission recognizes that cn caeception. Practices not meetmg ne Commisanon seeks comme fs en consideration must also be given to the these entena may be granted whether practices should be potential for accidents and misuse of the exemptions on a case-by-cese bas,s in categorically excluded based on the

,g3,,,

gggg i

ectordance with the pnnciples Commission's [vdgement regarding practice. A proposal for exemption of a c.mbodied within th:s policy.To furtbee social acceptabtfiry or the existance of defined practice must therefore also cmphasize the Commission's recognition alternatives. An alternative to address the potentials for accidents or that a rigid li:nitation on collecthe dose categorical exclusion could be a case misuse, and the consequences cf the.se would be inapprepnate,it actes that for specific determination based on a safety exceptionalconditions in terms of some practices, such as use of smoke

analysis, indwiduals and cotective dose.

d:tectors, appreciable benefits can only ADPosolsforEremptim be attained threr.gh extens.tve utilizabon cnd. hence.with a commensurst' A proposal for exemptim mtast The Commissionbelieves that the cellective dose.

provide a buia upon which b imp!cmentation of an exemptaca undae The ConhaatonIs.sware &at Commission can delt rmfre if the basic existing regulations of the cocdizions described above have been this bread policy gu* dance must be Envirornertd Proterton Agency sstished.In gerierat this irriane that the accompachd ?ry a suitable p:ogrr.m tu j

cstablink c-it s'a mera restncere than pic sal shocld addren the ind,daud monitor and tvnfy that the basie l

cvmpuous vWeh could othem ine k*

6:e and ed impo.t reMting from consideretiene under which an granted under this pgosed phry.

the espected 5.ctivities under the exempt;cn w2s iemd remain vAd.In I

with regard to its own regulations, the nernption include.2 tbg vu af the ret cases. t*w pir. ducts or materiato 1

i

/

Commission wC1 evstuate vnzther *Aere radioactive materiale..t#e pathwaya of corrp-ising an exempted ; cctice will cre e.xempton critens emoo6ed therein exposure, the inels ci activity, and the rime from regulatcay cent ol to the f

for wh;ch toodacstion accordir.g to thm.

metheda sr.d constraints for rauring erW mna cdr s ddmeil set of rincip!es,of this policy,wouldb^

that de asemptim used to dt!ine a c.g,, c.u at d r.riteria.%e monitureg eaeficia,.

pracics remam approprias sa the arid t enhcation program mest therefrw radiesethe matenals n ove from h espble of preeidmg tLe Comnustion

{

l Ixc/crionr from Exer %smr regulate y controt to an exempt status.

with the trpapnate assurance % tie j

The Commission's March 16.195L If a proposal frr exemption teruits in cond'tkns for the exemption retn4in i

nstice on thel'se of Byroduct Material a rule containing generic requirements. e vahd. and that they are being observca and Source Ma terial-Products Intended person applyicg to utilize the exemption The Commission wiD determme ior use by General Public (Consumee would not need to address justifica non comphance with the specific condib,ons Products)(30 FR 3E2) provides the or Al. ARA.The Cornmissioo decision an of an exempbon through its established j

basis for the Commission's approval of such proposals will be based on the licensing andinspecuen program and the use of these materials in consumer licensee's meeeng the condations will frorn time totime conduct studies l

products without regulatory control on specified in the rule.The promu gation as appropriate to assess the impact of the consumer. user.This is accompbsbed of the rule would under these an easmpted practice or combinat2cr.s by case-by<ase exempton of the circumstances, consurute a fmding that possession and une of approved iterna the exempted practice is justaed. and of exempted praetices.

g}

lf.

1

_1 h

1 y

l$

Federal Register /.Vol 53. No. 238 / Monday. December 12. 1988 / Proposed Rules 4g391

fre,>weeuse w,ea.

,r.,oe to a fract.o., of..we,eu

• h*P",*

rrtpted sources

3. letroduction and Sammary-NRC Staff g

- IL Discussion of Spectic Queouone Brw!

would be expected to involve indmd.

NRC Stelf summe y and presentations or nel deems which are e small fractos spuestions frein scheduled pernespante.

of the overell hmat should flexibility 2 A. Application of principle of justaficatan.

he saintained by eeneidenne exemp-includmg the questions L mens en e onet-benefit buse above to L As lower levels of radiation exposures.

mrem /yeert are propcted, should lower levels of.

3. Se she evolusties of eeDecove done benefit be required for luettficanon of imponeet to tensidenes the multiple a practice which to e seedidate for esposure issue?

K-enemptiont :

4 Will the opphcottaa of festinastem of

1. la estabhoheng esemption policy.

process help to meisteie e uneller should the Comnuesson esclude ear.

eumber of eoernes making it messer to asia praetnoes for whide there appears control oversU exposurvet to be so reasonable jusufication?

8. Hour important le mesutonne to meia.

3. Ja seasidering propensis for esemp..

teieing soeurenee that individual eu.

tion, should the Commission evaluate poeme de not enesed to the overeu 388HLI -

escial acceptability of the procheef.

4 Should the Commission deteneme a IIL Ceeeral thecussion/ Quest 6ee-period-ce to be anivstiraed if easedio.

Comenente or queouone by scheduled per-economical ehermenvee esistf empente. Open to the floor as tune per-

"8"

. A andsv6 dual dose critenes Ier determines

. ochevosent of the "as low as reason-h sombere of ta pubhc who wish to chly actuevable" [ALARA) pnecaple la

penicapew by almakmg at the meetme enemphoe decision making should notify one of the sentacts hated I ***

= 1. As the 10 swom/ year cettenen pro-

. g, posed by the Commission appropneiet 1le the appropneteness of this number Deted in Rochvius. Maryland, this ad day effected by the decision repertiing of December sees, whether a collecuve does eritenon h Seats.N*

abould be used wash the insbvidsal deae enterhoet Knecatioe DsectorferOpemtions.

t $bould the individual dose critance [f1t Doc 06-20491 Faled 12+48,645 em) be chosee en the basis of meshgible amuses sees susse es nok as is done Internationally (i.e.

IAEA Safety Series No. 88) er ese a somewhat higher number be seed based se o Comeuemos pohey deci.

anon regardans a level et individual

' e6ek for mbch expenditure. of so-soevene is act warranted?

4. How important is trdevestional een.

s'eteory in shoosing-en ledsvidual

. tese ar terieaf C Use mi e sousetm dose artierion for detencining achieveomet of tie ALARA peindpkr le smeanputa demiolon enakirg 4

-L le e ar3tet)"e dose siterbn neeftd o

to addaues to en laittnduni dese eise.

~ ssaet:

1If es. er%alis Qhe beels af that n/At

3. If the Ca armission decides w coDec*e

' daes rasenor, *%ould ki seed, what should ite magrutade be? :..

4. What ehetmetive to e coller.sve deer critenen should be considevast for er

. amesimpacietalimpact?

' S. In towuletW ce21ecuve does, sitet e;nprasches snowird truecation of in-dsveel dosee er the see of weighting Sectors for componente of ceDective dose ese appropriate?

D. Approaches for essering total emp>

emos of individuals from outiple pree-tions will not onceed the 300 stenf yearlimit.

L la the approe$ of genersuy limieng inciaviduals doses fram each eeures er L_ _ _____

_ _ _ _ _