ML20043B959

Concurs W/Proposed Commission Policy Statement Re Exemptions from Regulatory Control,Per

ML20043B959
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/23/1989
From:	Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML20042C963	List: ML20042D061 ML20042D082 ML20042D085 ML20042D086 ML20042D112 ML20042D133 ML20042D186 ML20043B907 ML20043B911 ML20043B914 ML20043B916 ML20043B918 ML20043B919 ML20043B920 ML20043B922 ML20043B924 ML20043B927 ML20043B929 ML20043B932 ML20043B955 ML20043B959 ML20043B960 ML20043B962 ML20043B973 ML20043B974 ML20043B988 ML20043B990 ML20043B991 ML20043B992 ML20043B995 ML20043B999 ML20043C001 ML20043C003 ML20043C004 ML20043C006 ML20043C009 ML20043C035 ML20043C051 ML20043C062 ML20043C069 ML20043C075 ML20043C083 ML20043C086 ML20043C088 ML20043C091 ML20043C093 ML20043C100 ML20043C110 ML20043C116 ML20043C129 ... further results
References
FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 9006010104
Download: ML20043B959 (25)

Text

,

7

..._.~.

i

,]0 j

1 gg if MR 2 5 g

' MEMORANDUM FOR: Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:

Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

SUBJECT:

COMMISSION PAPER - PROPOSED CO MISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL We have reviewed the Proposed Comission Policy Statement on Exemption from Regulatory Control, transmitted by your memorandum of May 17, 1989, along with the Commission paper and responses to coments. MSS concurs with the Proposed Comission Policy Statement. Editorial coments and suggestions were discussed with your staff during a meeting on May 22, 1989, hk fgt.f.C r

RobertH.Bernpro, Direct Office of Nuclear Material.

Safety and Safeguards cc:

H. L. Thompson, DE05 T. E. Murley, NRR H. R. Denton, GPA W. C. Parler, OGC DISTRIBUTION:

(NMSS89-303)

IMDB r/f.

FESS r/f IMNS r/f CEstep CJenkins NRC File Center Director's Office r/f DCoo1 W KDragonette MBell

.GSjoblom A

RECunningham p5 Y

$ o.

0FC:

IP'

L

ItiN5

gN5

hMS

NM hAMEy/mk :MRagonette:M5 ell

G5 blom:RCunningham :CPapepjelio:RB@nero DATE:5/p /89 :5/p89

5/3/89:5/

9 :5/2f/89

5/t*/89

5//J 69 J

960601D104 891130 UrrALLAL McLuxu Lurf 1-bhFR49886 PDC

78 gj..

3' 1

2;.

PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY _ CONTROL i

STAFF PRESENTATION TO COMMISSION' JULY 11, 1989

=

4 e g 9

w.

'm

. V-c; q t;,

e e * :s 1.

/i.x i

=

I'!

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION j

• BkCKGROUND~

d PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION L

I u

I L

OBJECTIVE OF POLICY STATEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE:TO COMMENTS i

• 1 POLICY CLARIFICATIONS

'j D

PROPOSAL ON. MAJOR POLICY ELEMENTS' l

i

• ~

SUMMARY

KEY POLICY ELEMENTS l

• OTHER IMPORTANT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS i

4 m

l

~

1 i

e 1

9

t 3

c p,-

\\

BACKGROUND

• SRM-Nov 1987-lDENTIFY RISK LEVEL BELOW WHICH GOV'T REGULATION UNWARRANTED

• SECY 88-69, MAR 1988-CONCEPT DISCUSSION

• SRM-MAR 1988-REQUESTS POLICY STATEMENT

• iSECY 88-257, SEPT 1988-PROPOSED POLICY

• COMMISSION AUTHORIZES PUBLICATION OF ADV. NOTICE SOLICITING COMMENTS ON SEVERAL MAJOR POLICY ELEMENTS

).

2

l, e

PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION To DISCUSS REVISED POLICY STATEMENT AND THE RATIONALE FOR STAFF PROPOSALS ON KEY POLICY ELEMENTS CONSIDERING INPUTS FROM:

• THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP-OcT 1988

• PUBLIC COMMENTS RECE!VED ON ADVANCE NOTICE ISSUES (DEc 1988-APR 1989)

• PUBLIC MEETING-JAN 1989 3

- t a

OBJECTIVE OF P01.lCY STATEMENT

- TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS OR LICENSING DECISIONS-WHICH COULD EXEMPT PRACTICES FROM SOME OR ALL REGULATORY CONTROLS m

\\

h-

,. c-V i

1 POTENTIAL POLICY APPLICABILITY TYPICAL PRACTICES 1

• DISPOSAL'0F VERY LOW LEVEL RADWASTE-

• RELEASE OF LANDS AND STRUCTURES WITH RESIDUAL LEVELS OF RADIOACTIVITY j

• CON'SUMER PRODUCTS CONTAINING SMALL

!'l AMOUNTS OF' RAD 10 ACTIVE MATERIAL *

• RECYCLE AND REUSE OF RESIDUALLY CONTAMINATED MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT l

t i

-l i

5

_. 7 ACTIONS TAKEN AS A RESULT OF COMMENTS ON-ADVANCE NOTICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIZED AND RESOLVED ISSUES IN 18 SUBJECT AREAS REVISED POLICY IN KEY AREAS CLARIF. LED COMMISSION POSITIONS: IN OTHE!!

AREAS 6

l

s L'

..r.

i i

l i

POLICY' ELEMENTS ON WHICH COMMENTS SOUGHT L

HOW SHOULD FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF-RADIATION PROTECTION BE APPLIED?

y L

(JU$TIFICATION OF PRACTICE, DOSE LIMITS, AND ALARA)

• IS'A COLLECTIVE DOSE' CRITERION NEEDED?

HOW:SHOULD CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FROM i

I MULTIPLE PRACTICES BE DEALT WITH?

u-f..

p-L 7

y(,_

PROPOSED EXEMPTION POLICY FOR A JUSTIFIED PRACTICE 1000i 100 E

10

=

3 5

o y

0 Possibly Exemptable I

/

C g

Exemptable 0.1 s-5

~

.....I

.....I z

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Collective Dose (Person-rem) 8

g-

+

-PROPOSALS ON MAJOR POLICY ELEMENTS

• JUSTIFICATION OF PRACTICE" NEEDED (1)'NO EXPOSURE T0 IONIZING RADIATION PERMITTED W/0 COMMENSURATE BENEFIT (2).WIDELY-ACCEPTED RADIATION PROTECTION GOAL 9

3 4.(

4 PROPOSALS ON MAJOR POLICY ELEMENTS (CON'T)

COLLECTIVE DOSE-CRITER10N ADDED

.TO DEFINE " FLOOR" TO THE ALARA PROCESS (3) COMMONLY USED BY REGULATORY BODIES AS MEASURE OF SOCIETAL DETRIMENT IN OPTIMlZATION ASSESSMENTS

-(2) USED BY OTHER U.S.. AGENCIES & !NCLUDED IN

~

INTERNATIONAL GUIDANCE (3). ADDS ASSURANCE THAT DOSE. LIMITS NOT EXCEEDED (EXPOSURES TO MULTIPLE PRACTICES)

(ii) REFLECTS POSITION THAT INDIVIDUAL DOSE-CRITERION NOT "DE MINIMIS" 10

=

~

LV' s._

PROPOSALS ON MAJOR POLICY ELEM'TS (CONT.)

-* MULTIPLE PRACTICE ISSUE ADDRESSED BY:

(1) BROAD DEFINITION OF " PRACTICES" (2) REQUIRING PRACTICE JUSTIFICATION (3) COLLECTIVE DOSE CRITERION (4) APPROPRIATE PERIODIC ASSESSRENT (5) COMMITMENT TO CONSIDER ISSUE IN EACH EXEMPTION DECISION Il i

l

'I N

-i

~ ?

e OTHER MAJOR POLICY ISSUES

• - RETENTION OF 10 MREM ANNUAL' INDIVIDUAL DOSE CRITERION ALLOWS EXEMPTIONS WHEN AB0VE_ NUMERICAL CRITERIA 1

1i 4

p

+

4 i

POLICY CLARIFICATIONS

• ' CONSTRAINTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH EXEMPTION DECISIONS

• 1 NUMERICAL ALARA CRITERIA ARE NOT LIMITS

• EMPHASIS INCREASED ON NECESSITY TO DEFINE SCOPE OF PRACTICE APPROPRIATELY

• REFERENCE T0 "BRC" RESERVED FOR WASTE DISPOSALS UNDER LLRWPAA 0F-1985 4

e S

e l

1

4-OTHER IMPORTANT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS DIFFERING VIEWS ON MAGNITUDES OF t.

EXEMPTION DOSE CRITERIA

--EPA, ACNW, AND lNTERNATIONAL

COMPARABILITY OF EXEMPTION DOSE CRITERIA AND " ACCEPTABLE" DOSE STDS.

• TREND IN RISK COEFFICIENTS DEVELOPED FROM EXPOSURES AT HIGHER DOSES 14

1

~i "i;

l

+

.i l

q v

. i l

- r d

SUMMARY

- KEY POLICY ELEMENTS REQUIRES PRACTICE JUSTIFICAT.10N AS BASIC POLICY ELEMENT

-PROVIDES CRITERIA FOR " CURTAILING" ALARA "0PTIMAL" RESOURCE USE l

INCLUDES FEATURES TO ADDRESS THE

" EXPOSURE TO MULTIPLE. PRACTICE" ISSUE PERMITS EXEMPTIONS BASED ON DEMONSTRATION OF ALARA-IF NUMERICAL CRITERIA NOT MET 1

15

..C-

.. g.

o 2

i s

INTERACTIONS WITH EPA-STAFF PROPOSES THAT RESOLUTION OF ANY RESIDUAL DIFFERENCES WITH EPA cAN BEST BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL GUIDANCE BY AN

~

INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.

4 16 m_..____ _. - __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_m__m_m________._

-: 6; 1,,,.

1

' '.t 1

d 4

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE:

(1) PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED POLICY AND RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.

(2) CONTINUING STAFF EFFORTS T0 WORK WITH EPA TO PLAN FOR. DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL GUIDANCE.

17

1

-l g

.e' S ~

o g

s e

+

+

I gor'sID:

9 AuncR's NcE Com hBRIEFING

?

3 i

O b

)

e t

f 4

-. _.--.~ -..

" p. g' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFER To:

M8907113 p +i 5;&lt41080 fen,94.306tl Cys: Stello

\\h**'/

July 18, 1989 h2 Thompson Taylor i

on:: or tus Blaha seenstany M ord, RES ternero. NMSS Lahs, RES Ross Spets MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD q

FROM:

Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta'

,;y D e

i

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRI EF NG ON POLICY STATEMENT ON RULES FOR E ION FROM REGULATORY CONTROL, 1 30 P.M.,

TUESDAY, i

JULY 11, 1989, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE i

Ro0M, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCXVILLE, l

MARYLAND (OPEN To PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I I

The Commission was briefed by the staff on a proposed policy statement on public use of radioactive materials whose activity is sufficiently low that it does not warrant expenditure of Commission resources for stringent control.

There were no requirements placed on the staff at this meeting.

i l

l l

L cc:

Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers comrissioner curtiss l

OGC l

EDO GPA PDR - Advance DCS - P1-24 l

g 9

0

/0 g.

. ~ - -. -. -

b Fed.tel Rystet / V:1. St. No. t*3 / Fridey. Aufst D.1980 / R"les and Rpettens the d.comen. deos,.e.e w,,d.f

.u t.. ors v.C spi.

teenene s.aska.ase else leend under een.

i irdormation peution6te thould file to SE 3M.as64t na u Stat.ees.usmented allow timely Comt.lselon teview of the les U.S C asas assal. ses am as set. taes petition.Wey also deseribe dec(eton lesUSCassetteouses sase assealw stHene the Comminion willuse and the lund undet we.SE pub Wet 83 84L adminisitative procedures to be es,3. as emended (et US C estal Sect *ne g ebs.3.ftedu mend poet 6UA C.$N.

followed itt order to permit the Commiselon to act upon the petitionilet toeuene a,.tes. a.fm. arte else leased undet 6 an expedlied manner,These documente USC est.Seeuen &tes etw teemed under toeporJ to a mandate in the Law. Level sec. te. se set. ast. n amended let US C.

1 81881 and 6 US C 888.Seemene same end Radioscuve Woote Policy Amendmente

&me also leaved undet 0 US C tea. Secuen j

Act of1965 and ate being published as A.ese eles teamed uneet 6 U.S C tu and ut.

Appendia S le 10 CFR Part 1.

m. Pub. L et ast. 71 Seet. Opt. es amended GPre87syg 9Att: Octobet If'lett' let UAC. Esset tubpeft K else loomed undet i

ADemaaste: Send any written commente eso sm. as tut. e6e let UAC saset we. tH.

or suggesuem to the Seerotary of the pub.L et ess.se set, asse N UA C totM).

i Commtesion. U.S. Nucleat Regulatory Append 6a A else toeved under sec.4. Putr L

+

Committion.Washingtort. DC 30666:

et-seo.es sist, test (as UAC stan).

Appadia 9 es slee noemed under eso.10. puh Attehtion: Docketing and Service L s>.aen se siet. test tot UAC seatb et -

Stanch Commente received within to

1. 44 deye would be moet helpful. Copies of commente received by the Commiselon

t. Add the following policy statement may be enemined et topled for a fe' *1 se 4pendia S to Port 2:

ihe u2. Noies, Re,*io,y C.mweeios, (NRC) Public Document Room.1"17 Hg%8',",,8M,",,84*"

, c.,

'i 5tteet NW.% sphington DC 306L6.

Peuum Purownt u 6 3.ut fw Deput M pon PWAYesta tes#9Assafetof $9ertefM had6eseUve WeeleSweemstelo.

e 10 tty S. Dragonette. Divleton of Weste Regulatory coneem:

Management.Off to of Nuclear Material

1. Intredwuen and Purpow I

l Sefety and Sefeguarde.U.S.Nucleet

!!.standede ud Procedoen i

l Regulatory Commiselon.Washinston.

III. Asmmat Stein IV.Fut m Acuen DC 30666. telephone: (301) 427-4300, l

suppi.testettany esopoematseen:

1.lawedueese and Pwpees Th Lew. tant Radiosettu Wuw Pehty List of Subjecte la 13 C[R Part 3 Amendmente Act of test (the Act)(42 U.S C Adminlettative practice and sottb oueti wp enaswd knury H. Wee.

procedure. Cluelfied businese

$ccuen 10 el the Act addenne depent of i

informstion. Ftwdom of informstion, weein wemed % low regulemry sonum

NUCL' EAR RS.ULATORY Heutdous weste. Nuclear ma'etial, not wnld not and a to emb>cs w reguletery control to seem odeoute COMMIS$10N Nuclear power plante and teactote, Prowchen of the pubhc heetth end oefety

1. 588H'IS*r*dP"a"r#**"LT Penalties. Som discrimination.

U 10 CPR Part 3 For the reasono set forth below and g*n='"*2a' nd nmi, undet the.utho.riiy of the ^iomic w.

. R....,y ci of2 66.e mended.the do,.,en,e to dele,mm,when.,ee need n,,o enetsy ^Roo,ganionen 4ci.f me. as e

ee,,,ed i,..l i we,,, d,s eei, s.

.ne.,n;.ney Siti.meni se. n N oisu Reg a ior, amen u.and us.C. m me NRC a E,eee, des,eie,,e win eee,,oesed

,su,h rne,gy ihe ioiiewing amendmonie io

,uiemehm, Ai. mono d.,mi waid

.do,ii"f,ui.

c m e m e,-ein ee esieu henee m.e e

1 Commissien.

20 Cn eseie of d,e,es u ei,ed en

,,e. ones,e esie n

.e 1

..,.e.: rn.i rae:,oiity emie,neni.

4 m.we, uoene m, mT -=Ual, R.aieTietooMuf,euetum RRoet Unu

,ie, e,* m e es

.his n.u.e.onisine.,oncy oe.,ene. ievei wem y outhaed by the Act The Act si.iemeni a,,d sieff impiemu.1.un,1.n ettstefw not ne comm6mma nubheh l

togetdmg expeditious handhng of 1.he sueorHy chauen for Part 3 a ymyi pettuona for rulemaking to exempt revind to toad as follows:

precedme for ocuns emped:Hovely en AWlhMhy SH8 Hl.101.8.I48D44 ggt peHum W esempt s.pecific Fedieettin specific tedioecuve waste stresmo from wem etmeme from e Commenen e dispwal it. a licennd low. level weste se amended (61 U 5 C ason. at:

11. sec. wt. es egg,,,siet 4 gurpon of thte statement and disposallecility. For the Nuclut et ts

,g g 7

Regulatory Commisolen (NRC) to grant

[.*5 gd e

escompanyms implemnuten plan u to these tulemaking petitione, the waste emended to UAC Met).8 USC est.

establish the standards and proced tes that streams muel be sufficiently low in Secun t.W1 else leeued undet nece. 68. 42. will permit the Commiselon to act upon sofitentration et quantihee of

33. 61.103.1M. tol. N $tet. Sao. 432, tat 934, r* making pettilene in an empditmus todionuclideo for the Commiselon to find su est.s>s. es emended (48 UAC sera, mnnet u caued tw in the Act.This pohey

- that they may be disposed of by 2007. 30et 2111. 21H. 21H. 21HL pc.1oL statement does not require peuuonere to l 100 63 841 s53.se emended (at alternslive meene withoun posing 6n PA L 'n*th pc. 301. H Sist.ues tot U.S C.

prmat all the informeuen outhned et U.5 c. e demonstrene that the deemien entens lot undue risk to public health and safet.

Mit) Sectione 1.1ct 1.1o3.L1M.1.101 Lf!1 he pohcy statement and plen ate in the also ined eder one lot. 23.1&s.106.163.

espedned handhng een be met,if such upedned handhng to not wanted For

,nttute of reguletory guidance fot Me to Stat.SM est.eM.9H.9H.H esemple. petiuone requestmg esempuon of itnplementing enlettng ter,uitemente for errtendet let U.S C 2133. 21H.21H 213t t.oncentreuene of todionuchus not might rulemaking peuhone m to CFR 2K2 tut HM) Secuen a los eleo aind under

$ 014Me R$(00Xal.AUO.4e-10 $143)

FW700.FMT...[16.30)..415 66

.~_-...-,-.m.,

- ~ -,-,- --- _ - -

w --

e r.4orei Registw / Vel. 51. No.1'3 / Friday. August D.1988 / Rulee and Regulatione 80941 i

i beiow reguiaiory concem.he Act eleo When a rulemoung scuen is likely to Whu attemene uloulouonal

{

requires NRC to identify information have a significent economic impact on a methodologin are und. the petitioner peuuoners should file The Comminion substantialnumber of smallentities,the should provide all the specific input i

Pohey Statement provides general Regulatory Fletibility Act requires that anded to snelyne the weste stesem in guidance on how to meet the the impacts on thne small entities must the peution using IMPAC'fv8RC and requirements of section 10 of the Act, be specifically addresud. (The provide a rationale lot all parameter outhnes the ostroll approsch to be Comminion's site stenderd fot selections The Commlulon may clarify followed, and lists decisioti enteria to be identifying e small enuty is $3.6 milhon or modify the computer code from t6me used,implementetion of the general or less in ennualreceipts oncept for to ume, petitioners shoosing to see approach and deciolon critene of the privete proctice physiciens and NRC's code should be sure to use the Comminion paticy Statement involvo educationalinstituhone whm the screent revision.De Neuenal Snergy developint : si. i Nled guldence and standard is 31 million et nos in annual Softwon Center will provide changes to procedur..in acco see with receipts for pnvete practice phyelcione persons obtaining the pro $ rom from the Commis.a direct the NRC ete!!has and too employees for educational Conter. Users are encouroped to developt Sf> ore d siled guldence and instituuona. See 30 FR 90214. December comment on the code so that their procedure, ~r. slementatiot,of the 3.1965 ) For any rulemaking. the emperience can be factored into future Commisolo 4 sy $tatement.This staff Commission must either certify that the

,,yg gene, rule will not economically impact or will

5. Scope De petitioner should define i

puidance ent,,.Seeduree cover;(1) anformouon petitionero should file in heve no elgnificant economic impacts on tk engmphic arn 4 which the support of petitions to enable expedited small entities, or present en snelysis of propond rule should apply and the procewing.(2)discuulon of the decision ehernativu to minimtee the impacts.

runne supporung ny orn new thn criterio. ud (3) edmin;ctretive Decause rulemakings on below neunal m ecope. it might be poulble to procedures to be followed regulatory concern should provide relief justify limiting the scope to a leimlevel

11. lefonnation to Support peutions hn"$,",

ih,'g"tfo (t a rfquimment

" " I' " 8 " 'I " * " ' '

"I I

imp ementation issues such as import or l

A. Generel should be straightforward but it must be export of westes outside the compact et eddrened in any rulemaking To state should be addtnood it the

1. JC CM Port t reeverements. The facili ee e tiou repers on o the Nunek.

codified informouon requirements for PE

^8 P

petitions for rulemaking are outhned in

'he e on sh I eu ton g, g,,,, eg,,,,,,7j,,,j,3 l

the Commluton's reguletions in to CFR

, n h

n

,g g

utre the 2.802(c).These regulations te1em and impects on emeH enhun W

1. Aodiologicolproperties.The l

petitioner to identify the prob evolustion should include estimetn of se.inimum radiological properties that i

propose solutions, to state the the costs for smeH enutin in terms of should be ductibed are the l

peutioner's grounds for and internt in stoff time and deller coste Any concentration or contamination levels the action, and to provide supportmg alterneuves that could accompheh the and the half. lives, total quantity. end Information and rationale. As a practical oWective of the peutioner a proposed, identities of the radionuchdn prnent.

l matter, the informehon demonstrating rule while mmimisms the economic The chemical and physical form of the that the radiological health and safety impoet on emeu enuun M W redi:nuclidu should be addrened. All i

l impacts are so low as to be below prnented The evaluation should radionuclides present or potentially regulatory concern must be provided b) include en euenment of the preunt should be specified. includmg i

the petitioner if the Comminion is to act incremental recordkeeping and Mporting radionuchdes identified as trace in en expedited manner petitions for costs that would be suociated with the consutuents.The distribution of the rulemaking should therefore be peuuned rule change.

radionuchdn within the westes should submitted following the staff s

4. Computerprepom. The computer be noted le 3. surface or volume supplemental guidance and procedures program (IMPACT.BRC) the distribution). Moss and volume everage to anure espedited action.

Commission intends to up to concentratione should eleo be

2. En vironmento/ smpoets. Pe titions independently evaluate petitioners.

preunted.Forinemeration the must enable the Comminion to make e

"""'*'".ts of impacts is band on,,De radioactive content of the ash and fmdmg of no significant impact on the M*A*

noncombustible fraction should be Methodology,'.e imp 8Ct8 ^^8IY'i'(NUREG/CR-St45) decribed. The variability se a function quality of the human environment. Such Commiulon fmdmps must be besed on pubbshed February 1994. Peuunem of process variation and variation en Environmental Assessment that are encouraged to consult NUREC/CR*

emong licensees should be addrened comphn with10 CFR 51.30 and must 3!45 in order to better understand the and bounded.

meet the requirements of to CF7 51.32.

Comminkn's inknneup nnW 2.Odercorissderotions. An These tekuirements include eddresems IMPAC4BRC program will be undentendmg of nonrediological the need or the proposed eetion.

distributed by the National Energy properties of the weste stream is needed identifying ettematises and essessing S hwon Centu on km un gM to eseure that they are consistent with the potential environmentalimpects of h

PC a"d c d r[u is 9700 the reposed dispool method and to the proposed action and ehernatives.

[',*pute eve uste the adequacy of the snelysis of Th, Cen, r Consistent with 10 CFR $141. the onne National South Ceu Avenue. A7mois 40439 The the redblogicalimpacts. (NRC e petitioner should submit the informstion Wutory. Argonne,1 ulation of the radioactive content needed to meet these requirements and users guide for IMPACTS-BRC will be denfd not rebes e beensees from th wou do so in a manner that permiis g, y j gj,g independent eulust on by the h"

CfCR 3 nln may apphceble rules of other egencies which 5 peu cover the nonrediotopcel properties.)

Commission of the date and Ith eed methodology used and the conclusions

,',$,$E*gC s code.6fde red. The peudoner should provide e detailed desenption of the weste metenels.

teached

3. Economic smport on smallentitie

%wn si no of an.cw includmg theit origm. chemical 5 C14*n 000Ma,)c. ALG.ser 10 ! i en F4700 FMT...[16.30).. 416-66

e E

' Ptederal Reglet:r / Vcl. St. No.11/ Friday. August D.1986 / Rulee and Regulatione seus w-with handling. transport, and disposal of indicate how likely the entreme case re*y be higher on en 6ndividual basis but gg specihe mestes. Any incremental may be) in addition. the petitioner's th ;oosures and the number of e

nonrediologicalimpets should be snelysis should also eddress potential er# ad individuele are more oueued. Also the petitionet should use exposures from handhng and transport Wetable and the expoentes are short-iw onelyses to prepete and submit e occidents The petitioner's enelysis of term.The critical up should be the detelled regulatory enolpis with the occidents should include all ngment of the pop tion most highly essumptions. data. and results to eaposed esclusive of radiation workere.

petition.

facilitate teview.The potential for The other part is the genere! population

g. Aachelogicoltmpoets The eseluehon of radiologicalimpacts shipment of the entire weste stream to where the expected esposures and else i

should distinguish between expected one or a few facihtin should be of the exposed population are Ine end potentisi empetures and events.

esse 66ed This sceneno currently enlete predictable, potentialindividual impacte should be esentd Ior the for 10 CFR 20.306 esempted liquid empoopres are probably much emeller, espected concentrations and quantities scintillation westes and might result and exposures may entend over longer cf radionuchdes.The petitioner should from very hmited numbers of treatment timeframes. presentation of the quantitatively evoluete the impacts from f acihties or decontamination services.

population exposures in these two ports se proposed wnte for each option The entlysis of tmpacts for transport, should contribute to e more meaningful

,, quoted The petitionet should clearly handling. and disposal should include cost / benefit analysis.

niete the snelytical findmg: to specific evaluation of thle potential circumetence

1. Other /mpoese. De NRC netion to provrione in the recommended rule unlen it con be clutly ruled out.

enempt the radiological content of the changes. Tot enemple, the basis for each Asou ested in Potograph se on page westes would not relieve persone recommended todionuclide limit should 30 of IC P Pubhestion so 't handhng. procesalng. or dispoelag of the be clearly explained:

Excepuen from reguletion and westn from requirements opphcable to The radiological impacts include d in nouimments on thne bues should not be the nontediological propertigt. The NUREC/CR-3585 and in NRC's und to make H pusible to dispnee oflarge petition should demonetrate that the computer program (IMPACTS-BRC) quonutie: of todicectin metenelin diluted nonradiological properties of the form or in dwided peruens. causm8 radioective wette are the same es the covet eEposures to werktre end ch would ennivetif nontedioactive motorists normally

• '6"P'" 8 P'Hu"'" " h'p e

6adividualmembers of the pubhc and j,cse loje p, hp jd handled and disposed of by the iuon o bu dup h cumulative population eaposurn The

,,, p proposed methode. lf the p,,,m program calculates both external direct the) be used to eumpt actwines that, by nonradiological perties are similar i

pomme exposures and eaposures from tooleuen or tnetment. hen bon med, end the volumes e exempted weste ingested or Inhaled radionuclides NRC's temporaril> hermine but that trnply lorpe computer program con be used to potennel for nieue and could gne nu to would not impact the normel operations, calculate the expected radiological high indmdual doses or high collecuse doses there should be no incrementalimpacts.

Impacts from generator activities.

The snelysis of expected radiological If the peuuonn is swan of othu impacts which should be considered for transportation, tre a tment. disposal impsets should clearly address:

the specific westes in the petition. the opernhons. and post. disposal inputs

-The maximum individual exposures.

Politioner should also addren the The proprem con analyre a wide range

-The entical roup exposures F

of manapment options includmf

-The cumulatis e population additionalimpacts.

3. Aesulofory onelysis. In order to ons6te treatment and disposal by thi-escongres.

generator shipment to munii spal unstr The mealmum individual exposure expedite subsequent rulemaking if the management facihties, and shipment to es elustion should include exposures to petition is granted the snelysis should heterdous weste management facihties.

all members of the pubhc who may be also addren the topics NRC must The program covers impacts begmrung exposed beginrang with the initial eddrus in a Regulatory Analysis (e.g.,

with initial handling and treatment by handhng at the generator's factitty en NUREG/BR 40lle Revielen 1.

the generator through fmal disposal of through post.closute Beth intemel

• Regulatory Analysis Guidehnu of the all the radionuchdn contained in the uptake and external exposures should U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission").8 weste strum. Sequential treatment.

be included The individual mey be a Following the Reguletory Analysis l

nrtmg. and incineration onsite and at member of the general population le s..

format will structure the snelytical I

munic@el and heterdous facilities een consumer cf centaminated ground fmdings.prnent the bun for decisions, be suened. Disposal of resulting ash weter) or a person receiving the and addren the environmental and ruidue is included. Post. disposal exposure from his or her occupetion.

essessment requiresiente.The topics impacts that con be calculated include Anyone who may be exposed andis not are:

releases due to intrusion. ground water a radiation worker should be considered (1) A storernent of the problem. This migration, erosion. and luchate e member of the pubhc. For exemple, a topic le the need for determinans which occumulation.The program thus worker at a sanitary landfill or a weltu may be esfely disposed of by addrenes both expected and potential commercial trash truck driver would not means other then shipment to beensed i

p:st.disponlimpacts be a radiation worker. However, low levelweste altes.

i The petitioner's anal) sis of transpert occupational exposures to radiation (2) Ahematires Allreasonable l

smpacts should be besed on a workers should be evaluated and ehematives to the proposed action nuonobly expected special distnbution considered in the cost / benefit snelysis should be dueribed.The no action or cf bcensees and weste treatment and of the incrementalimpacts between status quo alternetave should alm s)s be disponi facihties which will accept the disposal at a licensed facility and the included.

weetn The petitioner should address requested disposal options (3) Consefvences. This topic cells for parameters such as aserest and Tr.e total population exposures con be en er.el> sis cf the impets cf each extnme transport distences The estimated and summed in two parts.

ehernative docribed The factors the elitioner e snel) sis should addren the One part is the smaller entical grou petitioner should address include costs asis for parameter selection and (usually the occupationally expose and benefits and practical or legal cherectente the expected patterns (e g.

population) where potential exposures constraints Cost / benefit considerations

$N (uhe.40.k 10 !! $4s F4700TMT...(16.30)..445 66 4

o

\\

.s e

o Feder:1 Regist:r / Vol. $1. No.168 / Triday. August 29. 1982 / Rules and Regulati:ns 30845 Caternal esposure and the dose incurted holih effects this lesel of nok corruponds obitctives include annual total body to an ann al dose of the order of 0 t m$v 110 doses of 3 milbrems for hquid effluents from that year's intake of tedionuchdes u

While a range of 1-10 milhrem per yest m'H'"ml and 6 milhrems for gaseous effluents. If

'd Cight be acceptable, e one milbrem dose g[,,,,p,',',',","(',,P'*[,'

i,"[d onsite inctneration et reactore is petitioned for as e spect(sed dispoul would facihtete expedited processing essessment. to decide whether e source e, Higher doses may require more

.ni,,,,nm should be subs ct to conirol option. the petitioner should address i

e Calensive justification Based on a Considersiion should be given to the and for how the propo6ed activity, cembined mortehty nok coefficient for induced ens opnminnon of redietion protection and with all other effluents from the sites, eencer and hereditary effects of tato" to the pessibility that many proctices and would not exceed the design objective per tem (ICRP Publication 36), redietion sources of the some kind could combine no*

doses in Appendia i to 10 CFR Part 60.

esposure et a level of milkrem per year

[' ',ap,{W,',8@he t r to may

3. The collective doses to the critical gk crould re,sult in an, annual mortehty risk uuns en ennual mdmdual don equivalent Population and general population are ofEm10 (i.e.,14 effects /rema atem/

below 0 t mlv 110 milhtem) to indmduels in small.

• 4 the entical group This may involve Discussion: An edditional advantage F*The EPA is developing entene for one.smen; og gos, commitments and of the when individual doses are no more then identifying inw. level radioactive waste collecine don per umi practice or source in 1 milhrem per year is that the collective that may be below regulatory concern order to ensure that the andmdual done doses are then summatioris over very as part of that agency's development of "Quirement will not be eaceeded now or in small esposures The coHective d06e neral environmental standards for the futun it nems almost eenem that the

w. level weste disposal. The epa total annual dou to a single indmdual from evaluation is pnmani) for informetion atempted sources will be ten then een timo purpotes cost / benefit consideretions, Eubhehed an Advance Notice of the contnbution from the esempted source and to confirm the fmding of no Proposed Rulemeking on August 31.1983 p.vig the highest mdmduel doee This signtficant impact on the quality of the (O FR 39643) and cunently hopes to espect could therefore.be ellowed for bF human environment. This determination publish roposed standards in eetly teducing the annuelindmdu Idose will be made bened on in[prmation 1D.Ot er EPA standards that the enemption entenen from o 1 to o.01 m$v 110 available during the review of esc'r doses can be compared to are the Clean to 1 milliretn]

petition in concert with entenon 6. Staff Air Act radioactive release standard of The NRC staff recognizes that at times.

notes that the United Ki dom pohey on D millireme per year in so CFR Part 61 human reactions are not so sinctlY individual dose limits in udes an and the urenlum luel cycle annual whole governed by quantative considerations associated collective dose entenon.

body hmit of 16 milbrems in 40 CFR 190 as the ICRP excerpt suggests.

(The collective dose entenon must be One mllbrem is very small when Nevertheless, the 10** per year value met in addition to the individual bmits).

compared to naturally occurnns seems about es low as practicable, in ICRP Publication 46. a similar background doses from cosmic and seems too low to justify significant entenon is stated.

terrestrial sources. Background doses in concern. and so seems acceptable 4 The potentiaIndiological the United States are typically in the The United Kingdom's National

• • "'""'"C"'I'**'"""#*'"'

l 100-130 milhrems per year sange Radiological Protection Board hes hn ifl r so em i hen

$o's*e efefs NP.$anuar 1 s

) t at compared to the annual 600 milbrem hei status similar to Federal Redistion

" '""r*' '"* ""' # " "'"

'IIDI dose hmit forindividualmembers of the Guidance issued b ' the President in this Discunionfounhal dun imm general pubhc in Federal Redietion countr).The Boar identded effective accidents or intrusion should be well Council guidance, dose equivelents of 6 milbrem per year withm pubhc exposure hmits and take j

An important feature is that doses of as insignificant when members of the into account de pmbe u

up to t milbrem from the individual Mhc make their decisions The 5 ponibihty of such events. n a statement petition should minimise concerns over milbrem hmit represents the total dose dated April 26,19963 the international l

I exposure to multiple exempted weste contnbution from all exempted Comminion on Radiological Protection streams. ICRP Publication to addrened practices For individual practices. the individual dose limits and other tuues we ed.ided by to (i e. 0 5 mithrem (ICRP) stated that the ICRP e present view is that the pnncipal dose hmit for related to eatmptions and stated. in per ) ear) to account for exposures from members of the public is.100 millitems in paragraphs 43 and H on page 19 multiple practices.These hmits are I

bien) todistion exposurn routinel>

apphed genencally. lass conservatism

'{yg ',I g"g 'y'C P cs n encountered m red.euen protection under the well defined circumstances 26 could be used as a subeldiery 1imit l*

particularly those received by enembem of the associsted with specific weste streams provided the lifetime everage does not pubtic, are very email b) comparuon with and disposal options envisa ed in this exceed the pnncipallimit.

dose limits or natural background. end are NRC statement seems justif d. In a Consquently, potenbal exposures from c: ell below dose levels et *hich the appestance of deleienous hulth effects hu proposed pohey statement dated Me). 6.

accidents or unexpected events would been demonstrated in mdmdual re sted 19B53 the Canadian AtomicI.nergy W

e ily sufied if they are well seemments. 6t 6e widely recognised thei Control Board specifically addressed below 100 mithrem per year pnncips!

there are radiation doses that are so small disposal of specific westes that are of no h*'

that they involu noks that *ould be regulatory concern. An individual dou

6. The emmption will roult in a esserded as neghgeble by the eaposed hmit of 5 millireme per year was 6ndmduals $iudies of comperstive noks propold for this hmited opphcetion.

eignificant reduction in societal costs noenented bv tu repuleboe m unoes A rneumum individual exposure of 1 D.scussion: When the econorr.a 66 esimnes appest so indic.aie that en ennwel millirem per ) ear is also consistent with exposure costs associsted with the Appendix ! to to CFR Part no. Appendix exemption are compared to disposal at a o es no tok nnto o n by andmd ai, m iheir d,cmon, e, io setion, I specifies duign objective doses for beensed low level weste site t ete thei could inrivence their heb t t.'sm, operetienal hght water. cooled nuclear should be a significant reduction in

'ov'ided dose response factors for induced rower reactor effluents These design costs W4*

Coll (00k28-AUG 66-10 $2001 FC00 FMT. 416.30). 415 86

30847 1

Federal Regletor / V:1. St. No.1:3 / Friday. August O.1986 / Rules and Regulations o,',*

?

\\

1 Pasinome 1

' Copen ef NUREC/sR.e063. NUktCIBR.

I

_ 0066 end NUREC/CR 3645 me) be Purchased 1

themagh the U.S Government Printing Office by selling (302) st6 3eno et by writing to the

. U.S Government Printing Ofhee. P.O Bos 3?882. Washington. DC 20013.t062 Copies urthosed from the National may else be Iormation nervice. U.E Technicat in Department of Commerce. 616$ Port Ro)el 1

Roed. Springtreld. Y A 22161. Copiee ote ove6lebte for enopection ond/or copying for e i

80e in the NRC Public Document Room.1717 H Street. NW Washinston. DC 30656.

'ICRP Publiestien et. "Redielion.

i Protection Principles lot the Dispopl of Solid Radioactive Weste." edopted July 1945-

• lCRP Pubhest6en st. Recommendelions of the intoenetsonalComminion on

• Radiological Protection." edopted lenuary it.

1977. ICRP Publ6estion 30. *umits Iof latek e of Radionuchees by Workers." edopted juty 1978

• Copies of the United Kingdom's document see evellable for inspection as enclosures to l

$ECY-45-14tA (teleting to 10 CFR Port 20) 1 deted luly 26.1985 in the Commission's l

Pubhc Document Room.1717 H $trut NW.

)

Washington. DC 30656 The United Kingdom documents are evenleble for sale from. Het 1

Measty's Sietienery Office. P.O. Som 669.

Landon SE1 DNH. United Kingdom. es Advice document A$P-7 and a teleted technical toport "The Significence of $mell Doses of kodishon to Members of the Pubhc.* NRPS-I R175-

• Copies of the Canadien document see ovellable for inspection as on enclosure to SECY 66-147A freisting to1D CFR Port 20) deted luly 15,1965 in the Commission e Pubhc Document R oom.1717 H Street NW.

Washington.DC 20555 The Canadion document was inued as Consultetne Document C 48. 'The Suis for Enemptmg the Disposal of Certain Redieettive Meterials from Ucensms" by the Atomic Eners)

Control Bostd. P.O Bos 1066. Otto

• s.

l.

Ontario. Canada. KIP 659 e ICRP/sSIG 03. "Sistement from the 1985 Petis Meetirig of the international Comminion on Radiological Protect." 1985-06-26 IFR Doc. e6-19660 FAled 6-26-ee. 6 45 em) esumo coes toon et w l

e l

l l

l l

P 6

).

\\

p/

93

...g#g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N e

i s-wasmwofow. o. c. mss i

\\.e...*

i September 5, 1986 l-

/

ATTENTION:

Comission Licensees

SUBJECT:

POLICY STATEMENT ON RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE BELOW REGULATORY C0hCERN J

A Comission policy statement concerning petitions for rulemaking to exempt specific radioactive waste streams from regulation was published in the

]

I federal Register on August 29, 1986. A copy of the published policy statement

)

and accompanying staff implementation plan is enclosec for your information.

=As a licensee, you may wish to encourage your trade or professional You also organizations to submit petitions following the guidance provided. ~

may be contacted by such groups tu help collect data or informat'an to support petitions.

Ar.y roments er suggestions you may have concerning the policy statement or implementation plan would be welcome.

Malcolm R. K

, Chief Low-Level Waste and Uranium P.ecovery L

Projects Branch Division of Waste Management

Enclosure:

l-FR Notice dtd 8/29/86

-0 Q 4

- ~ - - - -