ML20042D061
| ML20042D061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/17/1988 |
| From: | Morris B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Congel F, Cunningham R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C963 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 NUDOCS 8807110446 | |
| Download: ML20042D061 (2) | |
Text
/Y j<-
ie_-
g UNITED 8TATES r
NUCLEAR REGULATORY Colpil8810N
~ c
[
maammstoni.e. c. asses
(.....
MlY t 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard Cunningham, Director Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS Frank Congel Director DivisionofkadiationProtection and Emergency Preparedness NRR FROM:
Bill M. Morris, Director Division of Regulatory Applications, RES
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM 0F MARCH 30, 1988 g
The Commission, in the subject SRM directed the staff to submit, for Comission consideration, options for a Commission policy which establishes a generic number for exposures that are below regulatory concern. Commissioners Roberts and brnthal requested that the "... options paper should explicitly identify the undergirding assumptions and projected risk estimates, both societal and individual, used in establishment of such BRC limits appearing in NRC regulations.' The five points to be specifically addressed can be found in the attached copy of the SRM.
As indicated in the margin, I would appreciate your help in addressing those points with which, I believe, you have familiarity.
You are certainly welcome to submit responses or inputs to other questions, for example, number 3.
'7
- %)*/ P1/1}eAw Bill M. Morris, Director Division of Regulatory Applications, RES cc:
R. Bernero, NMSS L. Rouse, NMS$
F. Gillespie, NRR K. Dragonette, NMSS 8667 lloM96 /
J 41
~^
NUCLEAR REUULATCRY COMMISSION'
/h/[
~
~
]
E
[
r, s[
y caswewatow,04.senes ACTION - Becidord, RES
]
\\,,,,,
March 30, 1988 Cyst
$tello 4
,g);// y.S,
gc r
~.
- e.... e.,.
/
.m_,
seca,Tany bg,J
/)"
Murley, NRR l
[7 # '
t Murray. 0GC
$Neuder RES MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
\\
Executive Director for 0l tions
\\
FROM -
Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta i
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRI EF44G ON THE STATUS OF EFFORTS TO DEVELOP A DE MINIMIS POLICY, 2iOO P.H., MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1988, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) e f
f The Commission was briefed by the staff on the status of efforts to develop a Commission policy statement identifying a i
level of radiation risk or dose below which government regu-i i
lation would be limited or unwarranted, The Commission. requested and the staff agreed to submit for A
Commission consideration options for a Commission policy whic}i establishes a generic number for exposures that are below
\\
regulatory _ concern.
The paper should discuss the~ uncertainties-in our data base regarding radiation risk and should include the supporting scientific and legal rationale for all proposal)a.
l-Consideration should be given to the assumptions made in
)
establishing de facto BRC levels that appear in current NRC i,
g regulations.
The staff should also discuss the approach for i
implementing such a number for multiple sources or licensed 1
t activities which does not require justification by individual licensees.
This options paper is to be acted upon by the Commission prior to the sts.fignesting with international groupsi on this subject.
WpH (RIS)
-f8Ect-suspenser--9/W884- (EDO Suspense:
2
,, moo)/if'
'8//
Commissioner Bernthal requested the staff to provide him the bases and analytical techniques used by other agencies (e.g.,
EPA and FDA)'in developing a de minimis policy / regulation on toxic waste (e.g., did they use a linear hypothesis */).
45904-(RES)
(SECY Suspense 4/29/88)
(
L L
l (oc'd Off. DO 3, 30 - % \\,
y Ll o I OM G W aw
c 1
. Subsequent to the meeting, Commissioners Roberts and Bernthal
(
requested that the staff's options paper should explicitly I
identify the undergirding assumptions and projected risk estimates, both societal. and individual, used in the establish-ment of such 3RC limits appearing in NRC regulations.
Specific points staff should address include:
1 l
In 1981, the Commission revised part 20 to permit disposal L
ofscintillationcocktai}4and aginal carcasses containing trace concentrations of C or H without regard for their 4
radioactivity.
Also, specified curie Saounts of both isotopes may be released annually into the sewerage
]
system.
some regulatory control remains (e.g. record-
- M35 keeping and limitation on use of contaminated carcasses)
"'~~
but in effect, once released to the environment NRC exerts
)
no further control, thereby setting a floor to ALARA for these specific isotopes and applications.
What calcu-
]
lations of societal and/or individual risk were employed in determination of these exempted levels?
Were the models and assumptions the same as those used to arrive at
{
. tables of exempt quantities elsewhere in NRC regs?
Staff raises the question on page 4 of SECY-88-69 as to whether a definition of ' radioactive" can be usefully established.
Not mentioned in Enclosure 2 is the fact that DOT regulations do precisely that (4 9 CFR 173. 403).
((}
For purposes of transportation, a radioactive materiL1 is gggi defined as a material having a specific activity of 2 nCi/g or greater.
This definition is incorporated in NRC regulations (10 CFR 71.10) not as a definition per se, but as an exempt quantity under NRC transportation regulations.
i What is the origin of this 2 nci/g limit?
Given that a limit on total specific activity limit applies to any and all isotopes what assumptions were made regarding chemical form, pathways to the environment, critical organs, etc.?
For purposes of enforcing the many de facto BRC limits (Recall,dE2I -
i which exist in NRC regulation what explicit allowance is made for instrument and measurement uncertainties?
that the Commission only just recently promulgated require-ments for some measure of QA for dosivetry processors.)
Acceptable levels of residual surface contamination are
/
designed in Reg. Guide 1.86.
Facilities with surface A#'SI/AM 1
g contamination levels below those specified may be released
-~~~~'
for unrestricted use.
How many and what types of licensee 1
facilities have been decommissioned using these criteria?
-e
---w
..--m
_.,em_
- +. -,, -...,.,.,,,. -
y-
...4 2
c L
3 The Commission was recently made aware of some of the history behind the licensing of 3M static eliminator devices.
The general license for these devices allowed up # Mil to 5 nci of removal activity without any action be'in required on the part of the general licensees.
Do a milar provisions exist in other licenses?
What is the origin of the 5 nci allowable leakage rate?
What assumptions of risk were made to justify this number?
cc:
Chairman tech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers OGC (H Street)
- =
GPA
.{
PDR - Advance DCS - 016 Phillips e
I t
l l
l 9
4 l
I l
('
~
$e b-i hr }
o h'
s.
"4*=
et
= + = *.
9 R u s s d. s /90 IJ uw-RCO t
e l
,y p n/e9
'Ec%-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
L deArmt $$/dd N
7(({gl BRIETING ON POLICY STATEMENT ON RULES FOR j
Y CONTROL EXEMPTION u
.c.
pv 2
qq s,.. -
4 d
Locatic;:
R0cxviu t p o
f*
s Date:
m 2 2.19C pgggg; 65 PAGES NEALR.GROSSANDC0',,INC.
l covet erroettes ano teasscenesas
+
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest e
Washington, D.C.
20005
/
(202) 234-4433 67eAD f7
-ae
,-.n.
,.,n..,.-
-,~.,.,m.
-~----,r e-
4 y
.t
- 4-i DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript'of a meeting of l
thei United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 1
Juw 11, 1989, in the commission's office at one White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was
'open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and.it may
- lcontain inaccuracies, i
The transcript is intended solely for - general i
informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of
'the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion.in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission. in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained'herein except as the Commission may authorite.
l NEAL R. GROSS Cout? AtooRTER5 AND TRAN5CRlllR$
1323 RMoDI ISLAND AVINUI, N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 10005 (202) 232 6600 (202) 234-4433
3, f f./
', f, f O.)
1-
.t
.c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
um en er, e BRIEFING ON POLICY STATEMENT ON RULES FOR EXEMPTION FROM REGULATORY CONTROL I
i PUBLIC MEETING t.
l l
J I-l.
Nuclepr Regulatory Commission 0:,e White Tlint North l-l Ecekville, Maryland lt I
Tuesdey,. July 13, 1989 ll' i
1 r-
'The Commission met,in'open session, pursuant-j tp not5ce, at 2:30 p.m.,
Kenneth.M. Carr, Chairman, 1;
presiding, f
COMM!SSIONTRS PRESENT:
KENNETH M.
CARR, Chairman of the Commission THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Commissioner t
- l KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISS,-Commissioner l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE N W l (2C2.2M WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232 4600
E. i-t.;
y
.g e"Ar? AND PRESENTERS SEAT $D AT THE' COMMISSION TABLE:
~
l F AMur.', J. CHILT, Secretary t?iLLIAM-C. PARLER, General Counsel i
\\
F.0EERT F.ERNEF.C, NMSS t
JAMF.F TAYLOR, Deputy Executive Director for Operations d
Thf"^* 'PETE, RES 1:"*,"J A1: MORT.7T. RT F.
5-**'LAEr..
FEr' 1-l l
1.
l-l l-e i-l:
i 1
L f
i; -
i 1:
- i t.--.
L i
I ll i
n 1
l,i NEAL R. GROSS c
COURT REPORTER 3 AND TRANSCRIBERS U
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W h(202,thua:
WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232m a
a-3' P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1,
1:33 p.m.
7 i
CHA*RMAN CARR:
Good afternoon, ladies and 4
_gentlems.n.
l Th5 purpose of today's zeeting is f or - the-t f.
Mnr staff to brief the Commission on the revised i
'7 po; icy statement on exemptions - f rom regulatory i
F r c: t ro:. which is the subject of SECY-89-184, c
Tbs staff has revised the policy statement 1m e d en irdermation paitied from an international wiksher ::. exemption for regulatory control held in T
14 -
'QFF.
Public comments on an advanced notice
~'-
- b froposed policy statement issued in December
- 1
'S! and a pub]ie meeting held in January 1989.
F Copies of the presentation slides should be
- f avai;.b2e at the entrance to the meeting room.
1" Dc y fellow Commissioners have any opening 18 ;
co. ment?
If not, you may proceed, Mr. Taylor.
I 19 1.
MR. TAYLOR:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
The policy statement discussed today can 20 g
- 2 'l j have a significant and positive. impact on the way the U
22 resources of both. licensees and the agency are used.
b, 23 i!
Specifically the staff believes that the policy 1
24 estnb:ishes a basis for assuring that these limited 2'
rescorces are not directed toward elimination of small NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RNODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202)232 6 q (202 2%443:
v 4
u '-
1-fsks from Tow l levels'of radioactivity when they could h.
br.tter spent in reducing risks for larger q.A t< tie.s of material, of radioactive material, or in 4L ctherwise enhancing public health and safety.
5 There 's been significant public interest in 6
the proposed policy and a range of views on what the 7
po3 icy sh'ould say in its specific elements.
This is de: r::Ft rnt ed by the large number of comments you will e
h.t n ah-r*
today and the diversity of views expressed y; ih+ co rei.tcrs.
There have been numbers of letters a
r rer s ats. cnd county officials and from Congressmen j
<
- 2,yf r,:; questi::ns or concerns -f rom constituents.
1-With that introduction, I'll now turn it
- ?. 4 ev,: 1: Dr. Speis to commence the detailed briefing.-
5 EF.
SPEIS:
Thank you, Mr.
- Chairman, 1
1 cor-i n f or,ers.
i t
1" P.efore I turn it over to-Billy Morris-who l
1s vill de the main part of the ~ presentation, I would So 3ike to say that the challenge to us has been to 20 assess this divergent views discussed by Mr. Taylor, l-
?; ;
taking into account the relevant technical information 4
and develop a policy which achieves the resource 22 j
i 23 ut$14:6 tion goal mentioned earlier but also assures 24 t h.- * *ht he:01th and safety of the public is protected.
oc The st af f. has now proposed resolutions to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W WASHtNGTON D C 20006 (202) 232M in? ?>443.
L.
y,
+%.
eignificant. issues related to.this policy 5 e s t..in t in the Commission paper SECY-89-184,. which t
it f.n-front ef you for your consideration, of course.
4, The presentation today will provide an 5
nrr~ t tmi t y to focus on these issues; issues such as-f.
vt,ther justification of practice and a collective i
I dese criteria should be ' part of the policy, and' the. !
7 i
d?'ftret.t views of EPA on some key elements of the 5
r-y such as the individual dose criteria.
A=
snid already, Billy Morris, of the
- e. f Resource will make the presentation.
He v
ascisted by Bi)) Lahs, sitting next to him.
nc been the task leader for the policy ve 5
G.< opnent.
A3so we have - with us Don Cool sitting back-t, if 1.er.1, who has recently been appointed as Chief of the
{
- ~1 h:M At d oti Protection and Health Effects Branch.and he 18 w;11 a3se be available to answer some of your l
10
' questions.
20 I-would a3so like to recognize others who-2; '
hava played a significant role in the development of-22 h this policy from the other offices, especially Mr.
H 23 h, Bernere from NMSS and Frank Congel from the Office of-
.N NFT.
And also sitting back here Dick Cunningham from Oc t h.- ^ ice of NMSS.
[
NEAL R. GROSS 2
COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSORIBER$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE.N W (202i 2%d.4n WASHINGTON. D C 20006 (202) 232 4600
6-
... s I
i
.I wii' nov turn - the presentation over to s
- * * ;. M'4*
M.
Chairman.
"S.
MSFFT.ti During the presentation this 4
. t.,f u r r.e c o
'; will be generally following the outline 8,
sh rn er th< first page of~the handout.
We'll briefly f.
F b r '. n r $ r 0
- h.
hetiv$ ties which culminated in issuance t
Of the advanced notice of policy development-last F
peremhet i. ^ t he rore recent milestones which led to.
o 4te-
- c5rt prop; sal for a revised policy.
i v
er.! y briefly review the objective of
+?.
r- *.;
.S
- c ' r: c r t and examples of practices - f or
- Le po3iey can be applied, but then t
- 9-
- :.- s nere detail the basis for the-' staff's v
c.r.
the major 35cl i cy elements and ai N...ic
' '::?;rs t h e. Commission should be aware of l
?. '
r4 : lt
- :.s i d e r t-how it wishes to proceed.
The sEcend pagc of. the handout shows. the if ps-r t i n e n t chronology of events which have led.us to lo i wh s. :
w-stand today.
In November of 1987 the. staff 20 '
w ri r-a s k e c' tc initiate development of a proposed policy 21 j s t, t 4. m s n + which would identify a risk level below
?? I wh5 e$ government regulation bee.cmes unwarranted.
In 2 *i l S F "' *
.e S. c e and during the related Commission meeting i
74 c:. th-yapsr. vnrious concepts and approaches and the
?"
r r... e. r. r
- issues invelved in developing such a policy NEAL R. GROSS COVA' AEDORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AMODE ISLAND AVENVE. N W 170; ty up WASHtNGTON D C 20005 (202) 232 4800
..s e
9
,x y
n 1
varr discussed.
The concept of risks which are below-l' r +..:14 t or y concern was discussed in the context' of i
- s. s t a bl i s hi ng a floor to the ALARA process and < was I -
proposed as being potentially different from the i
concepts of de minimis or negligible risks.
e
(
Staff plans for organizing an international 7
symposiu:t or workshop to be attended by national and I
t internationa regulatory authorities on this subject c
y,r, als Tresented at that time.
I 9r Fo23ow$ng that meeting the Commission asked I
fet
- he development of a proposed policy to be-acted c:
b ;.
tb cerrissio:
prior to the international rac*inc.
Th4 9 was provided in. SECY paper 88-257 in
- *z wM e h e, po:$cy was proposed which relied on adherence 1
i
- . hasi: radiation protection principles in evaluating
-I
- f exerpt$or, proposals and suggested compliance with
'7 certain dose criteria as a basis for cutting off the 1?
ALARA process.
The Commission modified that paper and-19 that policy statement and recommended that comment be 20 l sought on certain major policy provisions that were of I
21 i significant interest to the Commission.
They directed 22 the issuance of an advanced notice, which was then l
2? h published on December 12, 1988.
24 c.oing on to page three, and with this
?"
bacP7round in mind, l'11 briefly note that then the NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
'i 1323 RHoot ISLAND AVENUE. N W k (202) 2M M33 wASMiNGTON o C 20006 (202) 232 4 800
d
(.
g j - '} k :
-1 11
- rn' ; nc s o'
- cday 's pr es e'nt a t ion is to discuss the
=1*i; S t at er-nt 'as'it has-been revised based on the i r.
- e r r o *. i o r, fror the international workshop, publie I
c orr e.n t s received between December of-1988 and April
- c.
acc. proposed policy.
And finally, on the public 6
resting he)d in January of this year.
O r, pa9* 4 we just briefly note that the F-
?fortive of the policy statement is to establish 7 " ' N ', i n e s and'triteria for development of regulations o
t' 0 re :Ti:m de cisions wh$ch could exempt practices
' '. - - scr+ er cli tegulatory controls.
Such guidance, c y c., l a t i c would led to a more efficient and v'
--d e+er-decision naking process related to these-e::ar;-don proponn;s,
.t F. o r
- specifie exampl e s of how the -policy
-16 enu'd be app 3ded are indicated on page 5 of the I
hande *
'Th5se include application to practices such I
1?
as di s;ios a 3 of very low' level radioactive waste; lo }
r+1 ease of lands and structure with arall residual 20 :
'3 eve)s of radioactivity;- distribution of consumer products containing small amounts of radioactive 29 t
2 2..
mnterin0; recycle and reuse of residua 11y contaminated i
i' W
21 [
materials and equipment.
?2 1;nw,
there are various ways that either 2 ',
rni cahing or licensing decisions could be initiated.
NEAL R. GROSS COVA' REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W WASHINGTON D C 20005 2 232 6 o (222 M 2 I
s
,t 1 -
s l
r! - 5 rAgard to the first of these items on this page, l
v<
de
- s. x p e e t petitions from-the industry for
^
~ #er.ahing undar the commission policy for disposal of s
4
- $. 5 below regulatory concern waste streams which-5
-i nri er.e r t s the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy 6
Anendt.e t,t F Act of 1985.
it A0 ternate 3y, there may be applications 'f or F
' '. c e 1. F. e arendments or the action that could be c
.,..,w,a' cmi!d he a decision of the Commission or u - + 1. ' rg. that the staff would initiate and propose to t'.
c ne r i s s i t.,n.
I want to just mention that in each cf ' V er cases the focus of the regulatory decision I
t' c ; '..' he on a v.
exemption of_a practice from some or M'
regu3atory controls.
And just-because we'll be
'l
.i
.: S i n g the word time and again during -this i
I U
presentation, let me mention that " practice" is 1
17 definef. in the policy statement as an activity or a t- + t or combination of 'a number of similar sets of l i l
19,
coordinated and continuing activities aimed.at a given 20 '
purpose which involve the potential for radiation-1 21 !
exposure.
That rather involved definition is one that-1 22 k we found useful.
It is essentially from the IAEA D
r' 21 Safety Guide No. 89,
??
With this objective and these potential 28 apr'ications in mind, let me now mention, on page six NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCAiBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.AND AVEN','E. N Yv (202,234 4 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232 ee00
e i
-j
- 4.m 10
~
.. e the actions the -staff has taken to use the
'. : L '.*, r - a t i o n f r o n, the. international workshop, the.
^-
T ' t r.1 '.
,eeting and the public comments on the proposed 4
-pelicy.
We were'able-to categorize the information we' 1 c e*
collected into 18 subject areas or issues where we-f f e ?. t eith&r. we would need to be resolving or an issue a
T' c '- where we would need to communicate better to the
'?
rub 31 e what the intent of the policy was.-
We then r;"ised t h e. pelicy statement in key areas or clarified
- 0 r.-;ns!cr positions in other areas.
These were
+dthrt ir. Suded in the revised policy itself or was
-' b e responses to public comments and which
- T r.
4 thu were transmitted to the Commission SECY paper 89-l 4
55:
S o r.e of these issues were more important tho:. cthars.
And what I hope to accomplish in - the I
l 3"
r en.M in d e r of th55 presentation is to focus on-the key l-I' issvs fer which Commission decisions would' be most.
I 19,
erucia].
In the rederal Register notice, which wa:
20,
issued on December 12 of last year, there were several 1
M!
mtij or policy elements in which comments were sought.
22 These are summarized on page 7 of'the handout.
l!
21 [
One question was how should fundamental e
??
rrir iples of radiation protection be applied in
?"
estal: sh$ng an exemption policy?
Specifically, what NEAL R. GROSS Count REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS I
1323 RHODE ISuND AVENUE. N W WASHINGTON.OC 22 00h 232 6 g ir.2,2m:.
os -
- 4. -
- 13; I
should justification of. practice, dost limits and
- .a
- :t: 1 1ay in such a policy.
Y Another questiop, raised by the Commission 4
n iated to the use of the collective dose criterion in-i-
5, r,
c.blishing o floor to ALARA or a level of risk below f
w);rt further efforts to reduce doses would be 70 unwarranted.
The question.then is'whether a F
r :tet$ve dose er$terion is needed.
c Finally, ar.ong the major issues was that Y
est
' t. : (d with the potential that exposures to p i s.
practices could result in receiving
': t.' v c doses near the public dose limit even
?
't-u;F each contribution would be only'a small d -
fr r $on of that limit.
That is, how should
. c.
n-eietive effeets from multiple practices be -dealt
- F vi t '. T
- 7' 1;ow,- on page eight of the handout ' we 've 18.[
provided a diagrar which we find useful in reflecting I
19
- c. t. the policy statement and its various elements.
20-T*: 1 be continuing the discussion today along the:
27, 31),F S dndiented in suDsequent, pages of the * ~ handout,
22
- but you've been provided an extra copy so you won't 23 :
have to flip back and forth between the handout and I.
24
? P a'
- iguYG.
p r.
1.e t me first call your attention to the l
NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEN'JE N W WASHINGTON O C 20005 (202) 232 4 00
( m2P M A
i '
12 -]
j s
com s-i.
'i-s.f
+br < ip..r e. which indicates that it appliek i;
a e-r'ra pre-tices.
This brings up = onec of the'
~
. 1 r,J,e-pr.:' y issves which we discussed' earlier on page
- 4 n. r.s 'of the hondout, which.we discussed earlier.and d
a t
v'r< e -is c 1>+ ::.o r si thoroughly discussed on page nine-d
- w.
-1 Thr staff is proposing that justification of
's p-i:*
- d. c n - needed element of the current policy.
c
'r '
vn-*4 r r.t : not the precedent established by the
- n-e..
e s,e e..,
- o s r.
po;iey on consumer products.
The.
p ve'-
reki::p here is that no-practice involving r
'r.
exposure of the publi'e to ioni::ing 3; '
f-rr radf.cactive material s h o ul d -- b e
-s C
r '~' ' v.'hert a policy judgment by the Commission-
- t tt t ha v.
$r A cormensurate net benefit ' _ to__ society -
i e
v).i r i. would r^sult from that exposure.
i 3a C O M M I F F I O f; E R ROBERTS:
That's a terrible-l l o.
subjec'ivs standard.
i 39)
MR. MORRIF.:
There are a number, as we noted<
20.
tr-th*
T: c ; i cy statement and in the respon'se to l~
21 e n:-- A n t s.
This an area where a broad range of factors 22 M can b 't.-
considered - by the Commission in making - such h,,
23 po ::y judgmer.ts.
P.ut it is one that, as policy-24 mtN:
- v. ' re re. commending that you face up to.
And pc w.
p;ste limits here on what any of you might 3
NEAL R. GROSS COUAt AEPOaTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS E
1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE. N W
{
W ASHINGTON. O C 20005 (NJ) 2326 (202. 2y.u :.
a.
E<
33
..t s.
censidar,'but it does - seem to us " hat you v.,e 5 -
e
'a t
d.
- 1 d N iccMn; fer some benefit in your-minds.-that.
v-"13 jus *ity this release of radioactive ~--
J COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:.
- Well, what's a be: :'it to m is not necessarily a. benefit to somebody f
F*Fr.
7 don't p] ay golf, but if I did,.maybe I'd 1
F va-*
those funny little balls that you can. find in the c
h s g' weeds.
It would be of no benefit tb me i.-
ic vh.,
vsv4.*
but. son.e other person might think xt was a l
l p-l-
t g r r..t benefft.
i MF.
TATAF:
I believe the staff's intent
- ii' t h '. s :+ probably the-best body to make that type Nf de i e v-d :.n t d : n i n exanining the' various practices' in L
l 1
L r d-: to addrass the problem.
f
[
7 T f.
MR.
BERNERO:
And we have' had' in-the l
rgulatery arena on the issue of gemstones an example
- ~
l 1
j-18 where there's kind of a sitergitism at a very low l
l-To 7 level of radiation, it is-possible to justif y.a -
20 7 cosmetde benefit as a justifiable practice.
And the l
l 21 issur in gemstones is you can get gemstone activity so 7
1 22 i
Iow as to be almost off scale on this chart here and mr f
l.
- 21 (;
then say, "Well, is~it a reasonable justification of I
?2 practice th6: it's simp 3y an ornament?"
So that's possibir.
Eut if those golf balls, if they've, let's
^*
b NEAL R. GROSS CoV8'T AE00ATER$ ANDTRANSCRIBERS a
1323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W i (202,2N WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 l
h
g.--
o.. ! -
-.c 34 ]
4,y n-radioactive 3y tra'ced golf ball had a
- n. ore
- O; r. '. ! !. c a r, t dess. associated with it or dose rate, then
.ve*$ have to say is that modest benefit?
Can that be e,
ch -ined some other way?- Is it justified to put more e
tedicactive ma t erial into the ' biosphere for that
(
purpose?
And that's part of that 1965 policy and it's U
?
continuing.
i F
CHA7RMAN CARR:
But you're' at the point-i c
wher+ yr:'re retulating a voluntary practice.
S COMMISSIONER ROBERTsi Regulating people's chrics -
p vt t rR?:ERO :
Yes.
Yes, indeed.
1 CHATRMAN CARR:
And if we-could apply the s,, a thi n;' ; t e t obnece, we'd have it made, right?
i
- e-
+&M? FFICNU ROBERTS :
To what?
.e MF. TWLOR :
Fortunately, that's not under i
on*
Nrisdiction.
t 2F MR. BERNERO:
No.
But we have from time-to-Oc.
t ira applications for what some would call frivolous i
20,
un s, you know, luminous fishing lures, the necktie i
2; l thet glows in the dark, that sort of. thing.' And the 2; !j do))'s eyeba:lt,, another example that glow, that light 23 o ur i
24 We do justify the use of radioactive pc !:
r..a t e r. c f in exit signs under general license.
But d
NEAL R. GROSS COUAT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W
' 22i 2M WASHtNGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232460C
.I
16-1
,g 1,.
I I
i
- hr-a are other things, the radioactive fishing lure, T
v s, de not justify.
-We don't consider that a i
se'ficient justification for that distribution of 4.,
odioacti_ve material, i
e, The ' gemstones being only cosmetic; in their f
benefit, are justifled because of the extremely low a r level of radiation.
In f act,. that 's basica11y ' the -
P' qtr.:ity assurance we provide on it, that they're_down I
3cv a radiation --
C s-COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Why do you have to de c,ything r. ore than that?
l 7
FMA7RMAN CARR:
If you determine that it's 7
+ r : *. y belov regulatory concern, then you shouldn't
-l I
- a. :
h e v c. t :. justify it at all..
-i i
ME. PERNERO:
No.
But there's a difference.
- 1. -
- f TL gemstones aren't just at -10 mrem per year.
97 They're w:y belov that.
3 P. -
CHAIRMAN CARR:
Oh, no.
I know that.
19..
MR. BERNERO:
Way below that.
There-you're t
20 really arguing more a de r.inimis that it's virtually-l 2
none radioactive.
l COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Why do you have to 22 rea'.ly -introduce anything except a health and safety 23 e
24 e er.s i d e r a t i or, ?
pc ME. BERNERO:
Other than the justification NEAL R. GROSS COUAT REDOATERS AND TRANSORIBERS i;
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W WASHINGTON D C W W@6 (202. 2W32 i
~. 1
.1 st.,-
16 6:
4 l.
s
- pra,tica.
7.nean, that-is the issue.
Should t
1
?
tsdi:tici r
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, the thing I.have 4
a 2et of trouble with is this social benefit.
Who is-I cc't.7 to-judes. a' social benefit?
fy MR. BERNERO:
Absolutely.
}
(
7 t!
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And what's ny concept
?
c' t sordM benefit might be somebody else's concept c
,f a
Sociai disease.
And I think that it is nfjs.rtsve it's culturh].
MF. PERNU 0:
It is.
T COMMIT.SIONER ROGERS:
It's'not absolute and E-
't sea why we have to interject this into the 9.:
process if we can properly pay-at*tention to the health _
c... ' ' S o f o t y' a spe c t s,
f MR, BERNERO:
Okay.
But you.see, we*re I-37 deo'.ing with radiation exposure, which by definition, we con s: $ d+ r harr.ful and under the linear hypothesis we 19 i-consider it harmful even down into undetectable
- 20 L 3evais.
And we say it'is ALARA, it is as low as t
21 ;
reasonably achievable considering the radiation i
22 !;
exposure, which is a cost, and the-benefit of - the 23.i practica, whatever it'is.
Whether it be a gemstone or P4-it be
- s. nuc3ent power plant or x-ray --
~
?8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But we can't avoid NEAL R. GROSS COURT AEPoRTERS AND TRANSCR$EFS 1323 RMODE ISL.AND AVENUE. N W m2; 2M2 WASMiNGToN. O C M05 f202) 232 4600 iiius-in i. ii siii ir n
iiiii-i i im ii,iiis.
si i
.,isi in.i isi i i i i si
.iis ii iimi.
iai iia ni m i iu i
n= isn-o ii iiin i sn-a ii -
1-g l-s j
'. v* d.o di n.
We're being exposed right here as we sit kevs.
1.'s know t ha t.
i MR, BERUFRO:' Certainly we know that.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: lAnd, you know, there's t.
pi.y te hr a certain arbitrariness in this whole-c ic iner# u your who3e policy statement illustrates.-
N You can't really be sure, so you have a couple of 7
F
- " ' f o r e n t criter$a that you're going to apply.
And c;
ir v. c r + ', n g n social benefit, to me, is a very r
- .e i 5 era.y.: c kind of area for us to get into.
can see strong concern for any kind of
- a ni-l 5,,fety question.
We're jumping the gun, car v e r. questions about toys and cosmetics and r
b at t!
,c of t h t. t sort, things you ingest or rub on your Eut enes you put into the hands of a collection
- r s i-peeple such as us who have no special claim to
,f re
?
dit*d.netien in' this business a -- judgment of social k
- t tu efit, think we're out of our depth, frankly.
And i
. 19 !
! can see
- a. strong concern for health'and safety.
I
- 20 s +- - ebsolutely no justification for adding on to thit 21 s _cytr a judgment of social benefit.
22 MR. TAYLOR:
That may be an element that the 2'
0 c'errission directs the staff to revise.
It still N
d*,s nerete the atte=pt of the staff to set what is pc c,
- eptog..
NEAL R. GROSS o
COURT REDOATERS AND TRAN$0RIBER$
]
W RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W h,, (2C2,29.un WASHINGTON O C 20006 (202)232 6
'i
w i- :n 8
gg. l 1
s-e v A F M At! CAPP:
7 t 's one of those - Policy-sausi that's right.
e
'i MF. EERlERO:
It is a itajor policy issue.
z-CHA7RMAt CARR:
Okay, then let's proceed.
s c-et eu-e:
What we have mentioned here
~
-f v:R :1 bi-that whn* a decision'by the Commission to do 9
o--r t F ing 'di f f e rent than the earlier. precedents would r
F.
c.
- r. f t '. < f
- a. :.
- o ra.
And I would call to the m=
c
- r r ?My?.e r r n!!TF ROPERTS:
But that's why we're the 1965 policy. statement 7
Mr MrTF-c-
- n
- >r
( 0.* ? ThC*
=-
SMMi e T 701:FF ROBERTS:
"I don't want to hear-ti.
- oi c pclicy statement.
This is 1989..
.c
- r. i ap Mr. MnRF7e.:
Understood, sir.
But it still 1 *'
iv ' h a i r. and it esy be that you would want.to look at f
i
- 3.c.
t t. s. t a t s. t u r e r::
again and. decide ' whether - it was t-Io se-= thing you wanted to' change or not.because it does 20 htve erbodied within it this concept of justifik:atiori 21.
cf tractice, even for very-low risks for certain kinds
?. ?
cf uses.
And that's the reason we have called it to i
23,
y.::- nitentior, here.
I p;
MF. LAHr:
Well, but you may point out also l
l
- c, '
the-i t,
- t. h t. Presider.tici guidance that is on the books NEAL R. GROSS I
Coup' AEDORTERS AND TRANSOR18ERS 1323 RHODE ISJND AVENVE N W WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 6 i
(2.2 2M
a 1
19-
- i;M nnv1and-alse the Presidential guidance ubich-is
_. t r. : proposed for the public also has justification
)
3 er practier. principle embodied within it.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well,= you can j w i'4.ca+ ion of practice without necessarily basing _
8 A
that on e socih3 benefit.
MR. 1.AME:
But didn't you raise _ bef ore in-
"7 F
y.or mind ycu sn$d wel3 there would_be certain things 9
t h e._t y o n v.u34 -- in teys.
You just made,that I
d e ' ' nr. r i gh *. there.
COMM SSIONER ROGERS:
Sure.
r ME. 17.H F :
And that's what we're saying we a'
s) -M M cer'inue to de.
COMM;Fr!ONTP. ROGERT:
B'ut I would make it on t h r-basis of we-don't know enough to be able to ensure I
if that there isn't a negative health _ ef f ect.
Not I
17 because-it hos some other abstract benefit.
If -you 18 esi. conneet it to hea] th, and safety, then I'm happy.
19 T f you cinn ' t. I'm not very happy.
20 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Some of those policy things 21 '
we have to look at.
Let's proceed.
22 ME. MORRIE:
The next issue on page 10 is l
23 p whether a collective dose criterion should be included pt ir t v. r< poli cy and be coupled with an individual dose 05, criterien as a pair of criteria to define a floor to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
[
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W li (202,234W WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202)232 4 00 o
e n.
+
20 4
A ALARA process.
Referring back to the figure, what
.a n:v proposs. in the policy is a 500 person-rem ~ per
?
y, c, v prr pract'.ce of value for this purpose.
We 4
be;ieve that such a criterion is important and should i
e, b( ine'uded fer several reasons.
i
(
The ec31ective dose has been - commonly used t
7' by regulatory bodies, including the NRC, as a sensure f
of F003 Eta) detriment in ALARA or optimum assessments.
o cHA:RMAt: cARR:
Is it really a sensure-of re-ictn'.
d.- t r i me n t or has it not been what I would a'
- . i e e '. ' e so9:y factor, a fudge factor?
We den't know i
17 v).
t o'.t herpet., so let's pick a number and hope I
'?
t h.1 ' 's it.
Mt MORRIT:
tio, I think it has been the-Inrrar rathet than the latter.
.1
- 6.
CHAIRMA!! CARR:
What if I had 510 or 490?
]
MF.
MORF.I S :
Yes.
Understood that what it, wr're te3 king about in this policy statement are 19 criteria to assist us in judging exemption proposals.
20,
They are not limits.
And if a proposal came in and' 22 the analyses said, well the collective dose'is Slo, or any number above this criterion, doesn't mean that the 20 (l' 21 [
proposa3 would be denied.
It would simply mean that
'i a '
y:'
wnu24 3cok at whether there are ways to
?;
rra**i in11y reduce that dose in a cost effective i
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTER $ ANDTRANSCRIBER$
1323 A*IODE l$uND AVENUE. N W l}I (202)2M2 WA$*4tNGTON O C 20006 (202) 232460C t
f l'
..g
?.
21 l-I mner.
And if you found out there were none,.this t
y,-; icy wou3d not prohibit the exemption being' granted a
.- r - that basis.
4 And what it does do_is, you know, if you w a 1 *.,
referring back to the ' 1965 policy-t
'..c h f.
r, t a t e. e n t and tci the 1986 policy statement.
Each of f
7I these policy statements refers to an assessment. of cl 3 e c tive dose as a factor in the assessment.
And c
- r. e '. t h e r one of ther, however, gives any criteria for v.-
'= a sma?) enough collective dose that'you need s
- .-- F.- t h s.
- with further efforts to reduce-these_ doses
- ev4..
Ar.d so, what the criterion would do would
- 7 n: -,
te t.-cfford a method to truncate that ALARA process.
.4 1:.d thnt ' F the way we envision it*being used, too.
-i s CHAIRMAN CARR:
When you add this in, it f.
- e n:..'
that nothing is below regulatory concern because
- a you havA to look at everything.
3P MR.
MORR75:'
Well, we believe you should 19 look at everything that you're considering exempting 20
- anyway, i
21 CHAIRMAN CARR:
But then the term "below 22 Il regulatory concern" means nothing.
b 23 i:
MR. MORRIS:
Well, we are in this policy
'l T'
s '. e t e r 5 h t somewhat diminishing the use of the ter
^
T5
" h ' *. regulatcry concern" because --
NEdL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS u
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEN'JE. N W (2024 2MM WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600
_=
.u J
+
.22_
- ~
CH7 TRMAN CARR:
But that doesn't-seem to be
-whc we asked you to do,.though.
i MF. LAHS:
It 's really creating the basis 4'
fr-when we can allow radioactive material to be.
E ftons' erred from control, - f rom control of our 6
04rensees to sorep3 ace where.i t is not under our 3
E cor t rol - of our-licensees.
Isn't' that what we're
-F deine' 7 sean, the consumer products for low level 9-we e - d i s po s t '. in other than licensed sites when we ar-v'enso r. faef: Sty that's been contaminated, you know, vhic' has sent residual contamination' on the walls.
- T m'.
S v e n t t.t.: : y going to terminate the license and v- 'k cway fror it.
We ' r e. trying to. set up' the 14 cr:*eric: ef which you're going tb make those types of
.fud; ents. ' Remember that the --
i'
'f CHA!RMAN CARR:
That's what you're trying to de.
I
' ; F.,
MR. LAHS:
Yes.
I 1
19 !
CHAIRMAN CARR:
But what I'm trying to do is 1
20 i
-to find some level of radioactivity that I'm not going 4
21 tc worry about.
22 MR. LAUS:
Well, that's what we discussed L
i 23 with you, you know, as Bill sentioned in the earlier o
?4 di scu:ss 5 cr.s we ' ve had.
And that's why --
?c CHATRMAN CARR:
Yes.
{r NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W j (202. TM43.
WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232 4600
i 23 i,.
Mr, LAHS:
-- he was saying in a way you're
.:"1ing --
i CHAIRMAtl CARR:
We 're ' still looking ior 4
t h e.
' you 're grasping for the de 6-PE.
LAHS:
6 r::,1r.js or negligib3e risk.
And when - we went into h
this, if we tried to go that way, I think we'd fight a
?
S-c' batties, but I think you'd find 'out we'd be 9
t a". kin; abou t negligible risk which would involve P
.d '. v ; d;.a: doses that are in the micro-rem range.
I EPA, FDA talk about negligible risks u s. ' d be
?
4 r
.g ten to the minus 6,
lifetime risk.
Whether V
y-
. c 7
- e. s with that or not, if you think that--
3 1-r+ $ 4 a fot of people, including myself, feel-that-c
-,-M-is too small.
And when you translate that back
,6 c.
individua) doses you're talking about small r.u-be v s, not 10 mrem.
- t '
COMMI S SIOliER ' kOGER S :
Well, I understand- {
19 vhat you're trying to do and I'm somewhat sympathetic 20
.it.
P.ut the problem I have with the collective 21 :
dose is how you really determine it, because le w f ar
-22h do you trace these things out into possible avan'.uclities bef ore you give up?
And the multiple 23[:
all these questions.
It seemed to me T
Tr t the l
^
75 !
th.-- :- '15cds you inte something that you really can't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
i 1323 Ra400E ISLAND AVENUE N W WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 232 4 100 m2,2g
j 24 l-
. -.c
[
s.
i L
v ' * *. y vi' s abnut in every case..
Maybe. i n s orr.e.
3
,o
<- that
't right be a useful number guide in e n..t l er a A r.d in others, almost ' hopeless to s
4 4-ysv a t.-
n,e c-Mt
'Avre That's probably true.
I mean, a ynu Ser saying is true. -What we're'trying-(.
T v2 '
-i.
dr c-t 5:i t ec;1*-tive dose criterion, as we brought f
?
t
- r-t t i.1 f r.
j vr'comrrents the-last time we put the'.
y y-
- - rea12y to develop that eriteria-e ertrates practices into two major
- y c
i
- e-0.*
those practices such as walking away-S vi th residual contamination or' low v.,s e ?d.spnse.1 ar.d specifie sanitary land fills,.
l cpporad to those ' practices where you'd-2.
.- a v.. - r ; e o,
i 1
., c, 1.
t r. : F
- r. -
n t.e u t' videspread distribution of 9(
rodir-t5vty tc :arge numbers of people.
Consumer l
I li-prnaus+.,
" va ever get into things like recycle of 1P cr. tar: *. i + ? reterials or.equ'ipments.
l-S o.
S e - f r cr: what I've seen, a number in the
?.0 'i range of 500, a 1000, you 'know, 'you can vary that i-21 I nurb5-ur high probably in. order of rsgnitude.
You're i
??
I ren ?>
-- what you're doing is really creating a found l
??
- vhi-b ree21y applies to the practices involving 72 v'<sspread distr $bution of radioactivity.
And for the oc,
Tr.
'_ t " r. : w a s : s.
disposal and for terminating the NEAL R. GROSS COJAi REPoATERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISuND AVENUE N W l; (2C2,2Wur WASHINGTOh D C 20005 (202) 232 6 j
e
,4 -
y
?. '
25 l
-l
- t s
- nsa, en eentaminated facilities you're going.to t
f i t.6 you're talking about collective doses-that are, y-u knev less than 10 person-rem per year per s
I 4
package.
8 MF, MORRIS:
With regard to the concept that f.
y r. t ' r t-discuss $ng here, we had looked at-in the.
previnus versinn-of this the idea of setting up some a
rr$te-ico. in the po)$cy for truncating the calculation
~
i I
9 c'
- 11ectivs. dese.
That's the issue.
How far out do l
yne e, her S ong.it. ti e do you ca3culate, how small'a; d ro - d.- you chase in time to do these very elaborate:.i c
- ..tiens.
And we bel $ eve that later on in the-irr '.er,e r.* -
- i or. ph a s e of the policy we would want to go a$
1ArP t-t h 6 *. issue.
But at this' time -- which would u 1
- i r ' t s ' ', be one of what's practical to do, what's j
- f.
possib3
- to do in pract$ cal terms that would allow us rn distinguish between alternatives. or make resource i
3t
.nitd ' ret $on ca3eu3at$ons.
I 19 -
At this stage of the policy development, we 20 -
think we have focused on the major policy issues; I
23 whether you should have a criterion in mind as you go.
22 forward.
And really not --
I i
21 i COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I'll tell you T4 what w 're trying to do is map out some kind of a
? c.
boundar;. that NEAL R. GROSS COgat REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RMCOE ISLAND AVENVE. N W f - (202i 2M,
WASHINGTON O C 20006 (202) 232 6600
26 y.
MR.-TAYLOR:
That is' correct.
COMMTSS'tONEF' ROGERS:
-- gives us a guide es-a i
t-wW '- t c innk very hard and where'not to'look so 4
very hard, 8
MF. TAYLOR:
If you can't show it as being f.
wi t h $ 1,. that boundary, then it lies outside.
I mean, 7.1 ye'. have to have sufficient inf ormation to establish-16*
<t fu:'ls within that former --
y t
o COMM ESIONER ROGERS:
These are really aids,
- >- t s e r. $ s, tc MF TAYLOR
That's correct.
in administering at COMM Fr!ONTR ROGERE:
- i itt relicy and not absolute measures in their own t
y l y '. * ?
e MF.
TAYLOR:
If there's not ' a reasonable
- f basis i t-s h.-w
- hat, then it would not fall within-the j
i 17 exerpt entegory, right-Bill?-
'l i
Ic MP. MORRIS:
Yes.
Now, what we're saying is I
f 39 [
th6t if you --
20.
CHAIRMAN CARR:
But nothing is.
t cannot fall within this box MR. MORRIS:
?1 i
22[
her5 that you would then simply do a more elaborate
?3 t
ce3 eulati on.
?t CHAIRMAN CARR:
Right.
Nothing is going to
?*
jus
- fan within the exempt category.
We're going to
'NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISuND AVENUE. N w (2c2i 2m?
WASHINGTON OC 20005 (202) 232m j
. g y-4..
i i-h a v r.
tn look at-everything.
MP MORRIS:
Yes.
' ?
CHAIRMA!! CARF:
And it's all going to be a
.e L4 cas+ basis.
So there is nothing that is BRC.
)*1 8
MP.
MORRIS; I believe that's one of the 4
F.
rsneonA we fe)t that. i t might be appropriate not to
-l
- / 'i tecue en that tern in this policy.
And it gives a.
t y
?
s $ gnM to the puMie that there.would be -- you know, I
1
?
- b.v f nt instance, licensees - would be making these hedefen.
' CHAIRMAN CARR:
But' I personally think t
- :9 wrong signal and that I happen to be one'of L
t o.r r guys thet don't necessarily believe that a l
9.
r 4
- :
- t '. 4 r o d. 4. o t i. on L i s harmful becabse - I.. live in-it.
I O
rytside.
I wouldn't hesitate a minute to move to U
N nve T and you - would argue that I really ought to j
f l
cenudder-thet.
.i 1E MR. MORRIS:
No.
What we're saying is that j
-l 19 I o lit tle.more every time you add a bit. more 20 [
radikt5cn to the environment and you. keep on doing j
21 that, then eventually what you could add up to is 1
4 20 i
soneth$ng that is comparable to the. radiation I
1 23 d background we live in.
Double it or-comparable to it i
??
sc yer have nn extre element.
? c, CHAIPMAf CARR:
But background, as I
~
NEAL R. GROSS COVAT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
[
1323 RHOQE t$ LAND AVENUE. N W W^ssiNcTos oe soms (202)2324soo y m2,2 m l
1
L i
28 l
)
o i
I o r ! < * * *. a n d varies son.ewhat --
?
M F., MORRIS:
Yes, it does.
CHATRMAtt CARP:
-- doubled for certain parts A
- ' the world.
And if 2 fly in the Concord all the 8
t i-
- instr.ad of a Cessna, why I'd probably get more f-rediation.
But 7 don't want to alarm the public that I
- /
they should always not ever fly the Concord.
I don't f
i
$ f :a: thot's the =essage 7 want to sand.
O MF. MOF.R T F :
We de not either.
THA7PMAU CARP:
No matter how small it is, 1 *.
. ;. increment of radiation is bad for you.
]
'T U.
LAHT:
- Well, what you're really
' ' e. g i e. ;.
L.e certainly a lot of people do, is c^t!!cngin; the low threshold hyp'othesis.
l CHA!RMAN CARR:
Well, it considerably rates
- 8 Ndir' ch6 Senged because nobody's brought any data out i
I
.i l
to trove it's otherwise.
I I*
If MF. L AN T. :
That 's right.
That's right.
So i
1 i
i 19 '
it's either way.
l f
20 CHAIRMAN CARR:
So you can really defend the l
argument th'a t you ought to use it just per so.
2:
??
MR. MORRIS:
But neither can you Qismiss it easily either just because --
?.*
h 74 CHAIRMAM CARR:
7 wouldn't dismiss it r
I
? *. '
easi;y, but I n.ight dismiss it.
NEAL R. GROSS H
CouRTREPoRTER$ ANDTRANSCR@ER$
132) R'9DD( ISuND AVENVE N W (M2. 2M33 WA$atiNG oh D C 20005 G02) 2324000
p 29 i
I MF. LANS:
We've been asked that question a 6
i r. t+2 of times and i think I would be willing to lay t
r, wncar, I don't knov if I'd win it, but I believe if 4
yr locked at most of the people that deal in 9
- v-Onnting the possible cancer from radiation f
en c+urr, eve:4 chemicals for that matter, I.think 7
yee're going to find the vast majority of people f
'4 *' ave there's more suppert for the no-threshold
';: **hP51$ than there is against it.
- O CHA7RMAN CARR:
But not measurable.
MF.. LAME:
Pardon me.
CHA7kMAN CARR:
Not measurabl y.
They admit aren't going to be able to determine that they the additional number's of cancers.
- 4 n asure M F.. LAHE:
Yes, that's correct.
But, I S f.
+m if I'r going to add ten mrem or 20 mrem on to j
w h.. ' you're getting now, say 300 = rem, am I really l,
l..
3r S e mn r17 If we believe that that little delta can t.
le ieci te an increased probability of 'someone getting l
20 c 6:,t e r, shouldn't we be concerned about that?
2 *.
CHAIRMAN CARR:
That's why you're here.
I 22 f do:,'t it's a policy statement.
41 Let's proceed.
Yes, sir?
'N M F.. MORRIF.
Well, along this same line, we d'
v0r*
to p0 int out additional factors that are in NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT RE YRTER$ AND TRANSORittm$
13?3 RHODE ISJND AVENJE N W 6
(M2, FM3;.
WA$wiNGioN D C 30005
( m rp.egoo
~-
30 j
4 a
- r.. -
in ts w v5 rrepose this to you.
Other agencies f
e.
.n.4 h.
r. r. r e ; ' c.f collective doses, some other the criterion of t
e < >. r i t.
- c. f sceia ci detriment 4
r * *. <, r t i v.- dens inc3uded in the recent international p. H a t. t r v 5. '.
- h ! mentioned earlier, which addresses f.
t ?.! e S d f e r" r;f exenpt$ons, that's IAEA Safety Guide l
b 7:i.
F. 9, w h '. 5 uses 100 person-rem.
Ft *t $.c rrere, the use of the collective dose
.: d. e r p r e v i d e r.
added assurance that the public c
+-
nrem wi33 not be
- 0 e>
- d*
- r ef 00 person-rem n.. + de d be c a u n of the exposures to --
- : r$':*: CAFF:
How does it do that?
I
[
e*'-
figure out
- t. way'to dn that.
Mt M SF P.! ? :
For instahec, if you took the
.e-n.,..
3.,.y p,cple would be exposed to 10 mrem at vt
.e +." t i.
- 500 person-rem criterion as opposed
- 3 te n.- c r i t e r '. cr.
If you use no criterion, the entire f
3F l'. F., pept1 eti or. cou3 d be exposed to a level of 10 mrem l
i 19 l f c' eny given practiec we night exempt.
L 20 i If yeu use something like 500 person-rem, or Oil.
othe- -- maybe larger number, you would be moyb sore 1
22-l raki:.; e 3 imitation of the number of people that would c
l li 1
23 /
p r. ' cr. cxposure nect that level.
1:
72 7n the east of 500 person --
?*
CHA!P.MA! C AF F. :
How would you limit?
Where NEAL R. GROSS COVai rep 0s:TERS AND TRANSORIBERS i
1323 RHODE l$3ND AVENVE N W i in2,234-64U w ASHINGToN D C 20001 (202) 23246:C l:
I 31 l
r i
'* '0 4 yet:
- a t.!
that?
How do you --
MF. MOF.RIS:
7t would just be --
You'd say,
Ok a y, you can't 4
rut 30 in that pr a c t i ce ?
MF. MORRIS:
When you assess the collective C
d e. s t, you wou3 d determine whether or not you were vdthin or without the box on the figure.
And --
CHA!RMAf: CARR:
But that's only for one t
ry ?-* f et o
MF. MDFF!F:
YeF.
CHATRMA! CARE:
Now, how does that assure F.e t
(
w :.*. ' t be exposed to n. ore than one practice and t'
cve*
thc' nurber?
I don't understand the added
.., r.: - :. e c.
- 8 M5 MORE!E:
The likelihood of being exposed i
j to be exposed to more than one te rore than p r is e *. $ n in suff$cient number of practices at or near 19 the 10 r.rer level is certainly truncated or limited I
i i
39 by the co33ective dose figure.
As I said, 50,000 00 people would be the total number that would be exposed
?*
for c given practice.
50,000 is a small fraction of 22 I
the totr.1 population of the country.
2 *d CHA7RMAM CARR:
So you wouldn't approve it l
24 i'
-nre than 50.000 were going to get that see i
i T'
.nr e t '.i:;p t hn t 's n --
NEAL R. GROSS Count REPoATERS AND tmANsDmistR$
l 13n pHDDE ISLAND AVENVE. N W
. [ cm.:w;.
wisectoN.o e ame
<mi nr.nz
7.
l 3
32 i
6 l
MF. M0F.RTrt But at least you're taking the 1
i doing the cross benefit e>r of look$ng at the 1
em'~u3atien tr. determine whether you could reduce that
't dose effset.vely somewhat, to a somewhat lower value.
d 4
.CEA!RMAt! CARR:
So do I know have to say, 1
f ern-ina t hrit save 50,000 people for the next practice
'l t
te enke sure*
- I we could MF. MORR7F.:
One of the things 9
- r.. ' go ths' f a r'.
b st we could --
'r cM A RMAt: CARE:
Really this doesn't make i
i
$r e * :-
r* that it adds assurance because the dose
- 7
's i e, : 'i the aFsuranCE<.
i MF. MORFIS:
I think it has to do --
'4 CHAIRMAt CARF:
You're 'just nu3tiplying dose tiree the number of people that right happen to j
' d.
If g r. t e >:pe's e d ie it.
1 i
1 *'
MF. MORR75:
Put by doing that, what we're s
I It deing $5 shy $ng thest the probability of being exposed I
i to ruitiple practice is somehow relcted and it isn't a lo
?0,
tight relat$onship, there's no formula that I can i;
21 provide to you.
It's somehow related to the i
??
I co33ert$ve dose criterion and the zaximum number of I
I 23 ;
pe e;.15 exposed.
I
?L CHAIRMAt: CARR:
It's that somehow I'm trying i
1
)
i, L
Ot te ;? to ths. bottom of.
NEAL R. GROSS g
covat acetras ANomNsenisens 13N a*400t ISLAND AvtNut. N W I
WAs'4tNGroN O C 70006 002) We Z 2423&d43' l
.e 33 l
3
, +
t i
MR. MORRIS:
It is a qualitative judg7nent r ud ^*- *hs likelihood of being exposed to_ multiple
^
rtn+*icas add-on year, a number such as 10 arem.
4 CHAIRMAli CARR:
Let's proceed.
You're not
- i r.;
- n s ci v e.
ry problem.
i F
MR. MORRIS:
And we had to make the point b
ecr11er and in the paper that the collective dose 7
criterion does seem to us to be indicated because the 9
indid duo' dose criterien in the policy is not claimed
- ^
'o lie a de rir. iris or neg3fgible risk level.
10 mrer.
is e ve'.uc chosen en the basis of resource utilization 1
'.* t ?.o a
F.t aterent that it's a trivial dose to I
- *e-ate And so that is an added feature, in our that has persuaded us to
~4 M nkia.t:,
thet would r" pns. te ye'. *.he ecilective dose criterion.
- F Let er go on.
On page 11, we discuss a i
thdri pelicy element, the issue of multiple l
3P,
' e r.; e s e r.
.d ch we were "just talking about a moment I
L l
i l
39,
ago, of course.
Referring back to the figure, yes, I M.
apret, the likelihood or the possibility of being 2 *. I er. posed to multiple practices to the extent that you l
0? l cou3d get a total cumuletive dose up n e r.r the dose is certainly
?)
lirdt at 100 mre= is somewhat l
P4 der:ndnt on what the maximum individual exposure is.
1
?'
And i t.
addition, we note that in the policy we state e
NEAL R. GROSS CoVat RE*oRTER5 AND TRANSORIBER$
[
133 RHODE ISuND AVENVE N W WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202 232 4 800 ggy, gpg, 1
e L
i 34 l
t t..e in de'd.ning practice we will be doing this in a Pread
- sense, which will avoid what is called frrctionation of practice.
And this way the number of 5
H 4
prtential exemption decisions will be limited so we wonio not have a proliferation of practices of a f
siniint unture, but rather they would be lumped i
i together in an assessment under the policy.
It just I
f (1. t 5 down the r. umber of practices.
I 9
C W ittIONFF ROGERS:
Just in a practical I
l we;
- 5. s wou]d you do that, though, if a practice is
- e. :.: o r '. n u i and just barely zeets both your criteria of j
t'.
rrer and 500 person-rem?
And then a few years
- Mm
- rer.ebedy else comes along and wants to do the i
l l
l l
4 tr*t thing.
What do you tell th'em?
You can't do it 1
l l
becaus-w+'re saturated?
l M S., MORRIS:
Well, we're not setting any
- 7 heti criteria on how you would do that.
1
- F COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
How would you envision i
19 l dealing with that situation?
PC MR MORRIS:
What we have said that we would i
21,
do in the policy is we had to continue.
Every time a 22 l
new subm'i t t al or a new ' proposal for exemption comes 23 in, we need to look at this issue of whether we I
74 be35sve there hre similar practices which could
?'
invcivt or impact on the same set of people in a way NEAL R. GROSS Couset mEPositER$ AND TRAN$rA!BER$
1373 RNODE ISLAND AVENVE N W mp, ym WASHINGTON DC 20005 (202 232m 4
i 35 o
t $. c y would be curulative doses built up.
And j
i i
v.'Il have to do that on a case-by-case basis, as we 1
i
(:
'. n r exemption proposals case-by-case.
4 When we have the opportunity to look at a
"'tister of sirilar activities so that we can put then, I
(
y w know, consider them as a single' practice, we would i
i i
toka advantage of that.
In looking at waste streams l
E'
'- r reerters, 7 believe, we're going to take a.hard '!
-t 4
o
'- 't et how that weuld be considered to be a single I
rt tr er whether there would be potential
'irr.ation of practice, j
- T COMM;ESIONFE CARR:
- Well, I
read
?"iratien os not permitting the guy to dilute t'.. Strear so he can meet the criteria.
[
l
- r MF. MORRIS:
- Yes, f
- f MR. LAHF:
The other example, that would be i
for example, you could talk about l
1 *7 >
ir vaste streams i
3?'
d :' s p n n t,M e dry active waste from a reactor as one IC' we4te stream.
And then you could consider another PC vestt stear as being contaminated sand or, you know, 2 *.
you could come up with three. or four waste streams 22 lJ fror a power plant in the submission.
The submission 23 we'!
be getting, I believe, from NUMARC had to do 74 wi t' vt.ste streams from power plants.
That's going to Q
- A considered a single practice.
In other words, all.
l 7
l NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANS0418ERS 1323 A*toDE ISLAND AVENUE.N W WA$atlNGToN D C 20006 000 232 400 i gppy, gpg.
s 36 v-e
- r a.-- t el vaste coming out of power plants
.i
).
- r
..*> : at a practice.
4 Cy t* F Mit: CARR:
But it seems the objective 4
.t t he wh.1 < thing is to find something that we don't h.* v e Im1 o*.
Yeu're still having to look at I
f.
ev rything.
MF. LAMF:
Well, 7 guess that's, correct.
If v.:: havt to look at it to determine, you.'
e v.
e...
g
'r. geing te establish a level below which o
j y--
c-cllow this raterial to go to a
+-
- .:N ' * ;, certainly you have to look at it.
6:
O f i t.4 what that level is.
- 1 CW1 *
- u A?: CAFF:
Yes, that's what I'm trying Mt.
E FE! FFO:
But that's exactly it.
If w
I
- t.
- 'r a*.~rie anar;i --
j 3"
I only want to look at it l
- 1..
i C
en.
ME. F.ERf!FF.0 :
But if it's Atomic Energy Act, f
19 i
20 l radicactivity, you have to look at it once.
Now, it l
?!
may be de-ene t rat $ vely exemptible.
It may be in that n
i 22 or., a ccP it's demonstrably well below 10 Erem per year
?3 !
ind:vid a0, 500 person-ren---
0.
CK1:F F.11: CARE:
I'd want to generically then j'
?* l st; I
NEAL R. GROSS Cop REPORT [R$ AND TRAygORlg[R$
13n AMODE ISJND AVENVE N W WASaiN~, ton D C 20005 (202,232m ty;2, g,..u37 I
I i
37 e
1 ME.
BERNERO:
And you say, yes, but you l
l l
n 9
.t.a4 a*
4t.
is it within tha't box, i
CHAIRMAN CARR:
9 l
'i..
1 MP.. BERNERO:
But you looked at it, sir.
6 CHA7RMAN CARR:
I only 3 coked at one case.
t
- / i i didn't look at every case.
M*,
MORRIF.:
I think the way this would be c
irpierented would be that would happen would be in v s ' ' */ tuse criteria the staff would, based on r
p se.15 fror.
the licensees or others, would go
'i-r " ta v?e-akin;r and during the rule:r.aking they v - " * :' aster 11st detailed exer::ption criteria based on
,t-s<
b r n s.d pcG i ey criteria that would be in the i
1 t
-r
...a..
- f F:.r i ns t ar.ce, a set of volumetric or surface 1
L cents-ination levels for different isotopes could be I
It estab:ished as the basis for decommissioning a r
1 l
10 structurc, a soil.
And having done that, that would 20 be dont one time, those concentrations would be placed 0*
i in the regulations for a category of practices or n 2?
pract$te, and would then allow the licensee to proceed 21 te clean up that site to the point that he reached 24
- t h e.u Jevels.
And then all that would be left would
'? '
be the reecrd keeping or the things he would have to NEAL R. GROSS Count REPORTER $ AND TRANSORIBER$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE. N W -
II tp 26 234an WASHINGTON DC 2000!
(202)232 4 630 1'
t 38 l.
l
~
4 t
a-te demonstt ate that he liad complied with that.
f M 7 betteve your objective would be set by s
tb<
way we envision implementing the policy by that's a second tier criterion.
l 4
establishing those
" wnuld be established based on the risk levels that 4
vt"?d core fror the policy.
Those specific con t ar.i n o t t en levels would be determined as levels
- /
t F
v1.:, e', would deror.strat e that the risk objective of the c
rd d ' 1 State-en* had been wet.
And that will be the P
v+; yru we'Qd --
N A7F.MA1; CARR:
Then I guess what I don't n'
4 '. c n ! is why we need a two step process.
If we cm d r.
t h ri t, why don't we just do it now*/
4
- 4 MF. MOF.F. I F :
Well, we could.
At one time wo s p:.h t t<
the Commission about this. policy, one
- f er*.n that was available and still would be f
1 *1 a v. ; ; tM r. would be to do those rulemakings on a case-t-
19 by-case basis'.
What the policy would provide would be
{
19 6 consistency so that for, say, if we compared a P
20 6 decorrissioning rulemaking step to one involving
.?2 j
di s t ribut $ or, of recycled material or to one involving i
22 low level waste streams, the same risk criterion or 23 the sare how you determine the low regulatory concern 24 criterie cf 10 mrem or 500 person collective dose
? *- I wou:0 be apr2ded to each of those exemption decisions.
NEAL R. GROSS i,
cove acetras *ND tuNsenistas 13?)aHODE ISuND AVeNur NW WASHINGTON D C 20006 (2023 r324e00 (M2 2M443:.
t 1
39 i
w Sc this would be guidance that the staff would then l
l
.v-te oc and devclep-the rulemaking decision.
It could, be done without the intermediate 4
s
- e ;- ef making the policy decision.
But I think the 4
lu*tcy decision wculd provide very useful guidance on f
how terth tbe ~
proposers of these exemptions' and the
- ' I sto'f would deel with this.
And it would lay-out the
?
- *' 3 P frar.ewerk ior how this could be done.
CHATRMAt: CARR:
Okay.
Let's proceed.
MF.
MORR7S:
Okay.
Going on to page 12, w 're net proposing a change in the individual dose
- ?
'. thet was recommended earlier in the previous
't r * *. ' ;-
statement, which would be 10 are= a'nnual
'.'s!c1 v.3 dose.
There were,' however, comments
- E r a b ', r.
to beth higher and lower values, including l
L
- 3 FP:'s corrent that this value is too high as a generie j
3 3 *'
criterien.
However, as we point out in the policy, 3?
1As+d on two prospectives, that is_ that' most l
le individuals would not spend resources to avoid the 1
1
.! 0 risk associated with this dose level and, furthermore, 2*
st's comparability with variations in background 20 l
radiatier, which were tolerated by most people without l
??
eeneerr we believe this value should be retained.
?
Si r.il a rl y, the policy still provides, as I T'
rs r i1. ne d earlier, fer the possibility of Commission NEAL R. GROSS Cogni RE*oRTER$ AND TRANSORIBERS im RHoDE ISLAND AVENUL N W
{
i Z 2,2M u3;.
WA$mNGToN D C 20005 (202) 232.edKC
c=m;g 40 t
<-.r.i deration of exemptions and practices in which the i
I l
-eric criteria are exceeded.
This policy is I
i 9
d r.di c a t e d on the figure in the cross hatched area as r
being possibly exemptible.
However, in clarifying t'.**
!*in' in the revised policy, we've emphasized I
f t h. t e>:er r t i ons for such preetiees would be relatively
'7 '
rare and wa. vould look at them fairly carefully before F
(: * *. '4 ft.c the.
[
c The-Co: mission paper indicated that this is l
reint ef sore concern with EPA. the issue of v' s t '.s
- r.r not these criteria should be thought of as whether we should allow exemptions in the
'f i
t rat.P
- , the crot e hatched area.
And we believe this i
he-b e e. r.
somewhat alleviated by 'the clarification I i
- 9. s : : e r.t i or,e d,
te I wou]d point out also that the Advisory l
Cer-4*tes on_Nurlear Waste has suggested establishment f
If cf variab]e what they. call limits on individual and 19 cc11ertive. dost or any exemption.
In that case what 20 they would propose would be a-kind of a sliding scale i
2; !
i r.
which the collective dose that would be in the
!j eri t e rior, would be variable with the individual dose.
22 l
23 i
But they would view that line that they would draw, 1
N whirt wou]d not be a simple square but a more cor. plex
?"
n curve.
a=
a limiting line.
- However, we are i
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REDoATER$ AND TRAN$0RIBER$ 1323 R*4DDE ISLAND AVENUE N W @ 2 234 4432 WA$*41N3 ton D C 20005 (202) 232 0800
42 i-c tr trrending that flexibility be retained in the .sy, Turning now-to page 13, we indicate four 4 oreos where wa felt some clarification would be useful i .)etter corn.unicating the intent of the policy. F T :.- a-comrents which were opposed to the exemption t-Micy believe the Commission was giving cart blanche r
- ).
3 4 reraees. to implement the exemption policy. t c v .s. r any nuclear utility comments fully ,n. r s ' t t.e t monitoring, record keeping on their > + - cnd perhaps ir:spections occasionally by the NRC, w i r.eer==ary parts of the process of assuring i d i - s fi cart ive material will be transfhTred from. c
- i
- 3 s <1 te. an. ut. cont ro21ed stal.e in a proper way.
I L The policy now emphasized that there would I 1
- C la es kinds of conditions associeted with exemption j
17 de 'fiens with which licensees would have to comply. l 'i r A- +xamp3 e of that would be the surface contamination L l 19 l e v s. I s of the volumetric contamination levels that 1 L L 20 wor 3d be exar.ined as material went out of a site. i ?* A second point is that the intent of the ?? h pc3'ey is to make it clear that the numerical criteria t l' 21 l curtailing incremental class with ALARA are not T4
- ' t I've n3 reedy discussed that.
I won't refer ?* nr.y fuv*her. NEAL R. GROSS Covat atPomTERS AND TRANSORIBf R$ i 13n mat 0DE t$JND AvtWE. N w h im tu.ur w ASHIN3 ton. O C 20005 (202) 2 4 30
48 1 L
- 4 r.
- is to emphasize the inportance 3,
, r. rer<
- r.
dafining what constitutes a s 7<<. sy O *' dn tractices broadly, the sultiple
- e. v eout* $$ aditessed by reducing the number of vu -'. exraptions would be considered.
7 e r A r r' < < :,.; ; y, es I nentioned earlier, we are v ;;r.stit.;
- tt' tha reierence to the tern below a '
r .- be reserved for the possibilities i a v: re*s under the Low Level Radioactive c
- . ;- r
- .dr e r.u Ac t of 1985 and suggesting by t
1:
- t:-
t;;1 y t t.: that
- tern, BRC, to a policy f-e r e t ' r u-of possible exemptions has r
cr.engcob.nentors. e t- - ' :: 4 r -
- s
- r. pp.
t4.
- just want to point out --
MM: F r io::!* ROBERTS: Well, wait a ninute. I 1
- (
F r. .c i' MF. MSF t.I F : Yes, sir. 3F
- 0MM*SF?r!!Tt ROBERTS:
I think you short 1 i 19 - ch..;rd tra laSt bullet. PD, MP. MORRIS: Page 13. i COWTE!!OfEP. ROBERTS: How does that square i ?? r e t:M 1;p frnt the SECY paper, 88-69 of March 8, li M' ro;- se end pcragraph-Current NRC regulations .4 f i,: :.. s > > n i.: 1 2.s t e n c e s of implied or defacto BRC ~ ae .r.
- s.. a ; ' th*y art seide referenced to as such.
NEAL R. GROSS co.m areo nas aNewNscaistns 1323 R CDE tsJND aVtN'Je N W { (202. 234.us! W AsHINGToN D C 202 (702:232 4800
m k i i. 43 i
- t.-
- her*'s on enclosure which lists these inplied or I
d 4 ' r + r. u," 1*vals which include things other than v. s '. r. di spose: S under what you cite. Now, is there-- 4 M F.. LAHS: That's right. At that time ny { i h 'tsion, VMch probably was wrong at the time, we t ' e :1 to ukf t. terr $no3opy that was used in the Low LR v e. ') Radicartive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which l v4 w po$ nt' nc t oward waste disposal practice. And I e thars Ny talk about waste streams that were below rep :r,ter) con e t *:.. And so, in trying to carry that i i -~*Mrt evt: into this exemption policy at tnat time
- $e-r :-- f n si or, paper was written, we used that
- T
- svr Vc talked about exe=ptions from regulatory I
- /
- " -r:
t h$::h vc said for practices whose health l an? vafety significance were below regulatory concern.
- f Looking back on that, that was a big mistake l
l nr ry part. 3F CHA!RMAN CARR: (I thought it was a good use. l 10 MR. LAHS: Is that right? 20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I did, too. 3 l O' MR. LAHS: The commentors we got many 0; i comrtntors fe3t this policy was only directed toward n I 0' j waste disposals. And it got very confusing in many -i T4 pecq:e's mind that this -- why this policy was ?' different than the Co: ission's '86 policy. And so we NEAL R. GROSS Cov8'T REPORTERS AND TRANSORtBERS 13,3 RHoDE (SLAND AVENUE N W i wasHisstos ec rocm em> mex ,r2 ruun
g s I .?' 44 I. 03 ways.r.s: plaining to people, "No, this is broader j ve* r t' ir renter
- c.n d we're not just talking about the i
p...-wtbility o' wcste stream as going to other than the [ t
- unsed sites, but the other exemption decision which l
n 9 ce.uld b. inve.*.ved in radioactive natorial going from a f c r::it ro13 ed to an uncontrolled status. ~ '7 h CO$"'iSSTONER ROBERTS: All right. 'i S MR. 1.AM E : So, yes, we've gone full circle I 0
- that a nd 4 * 's --
i Mr. $'0 F F. 7 F : This is really a matter of n:ru tea *ie.n2 It's not a real health and safety ' r' r i it't $ust a matter of better 4 I c r u. r e ' i r. 7 te the public is the reason for our 7 r r r v e f, s. t ' o r. i Fact te page 14, there's some other issues s
- 8 5
va.* tc j.w ' foeus on for a moment. There eere 37 v i e v <. + xpr e r.4 e d by EPA and the Advisory Comm!.ttee on IR Nue'.co-Koste and which we infer on the international l 3evr3 which are different from those that have been 10 20 expressed by the staff regarding the magnitudes of the f ?! ex*rpt $ o:. of those criteria. The Commission should be t 02 ( aware of those differences. i ?. 3 l The EP), et least in their comments, 24 documented o date, considers the value of 10 mrem too ?' h 5 0), as n $nd$vidua] dose criterion. In the IAEA NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHDDE ISJND AVENUE. N W WAS'41N3 ion D C 20006 (202)232 4 000 j (202,2m =--r----s a
p 6 45 "~ I a'e*y c.uide th. R*, this criterion is proposed as few e -+er
- And, as i r.pntioned before, the collective d.< r ari+crien 18 proposed 100 person-rem.
Although I e d-rece11 that at the international workshop there was 6 sers suppert for higher values, specifically the cusa if en terresentative noted their values as-higher. f a i 1. We believe that in the absence of any '*r5.t. fen 3 basis for 63 ternate values in the absence of t c '*ke' 'edern! guidanec or specific EPA exemption ' t e r f. i and their regul ati ons, it's the Cort.=f ssion's 'e-
- r. ohing prerogative to ' select criteria such as v < ' '. - reecreerded.
As was discussed earlier for 1$ t !.. Acm: the individua3 and collective dose criteria v a.*d fo3:ow h nore complex relationship than that I 1* r-cre M hy the staff. t F u r th e rn.o r e, compounding this issue -- this i situetinn regarding the individual dose criteria, over if the y e e r r, EPA has proposed or de" eloped several 19 standards which place numerical dose, and I'll use the 1 20 word now. 31mits on various exposure pathways or 21 sources of radiation. These include. low level waste, ?? ]' drinkirig water standard, the fuel cycle standard, and I l 21 mos* recently EPA has proposed Clean Air Act national T* e - f > r i o r. standards for hazardous air pollutants 2^
- n v r 9 v '. n g regula+ ion of radio neutrons.
These-NEAL R. GROSS coV8tt RtpoATER$ ANDTRAN$0RIBER$ 1323 R=40DE t$'.ANO AVENUL. N W p h f202,D643:- W AS**lNGT ON D C 20005 (202}232 6 j
j i 46 l -A.w d s provide dose criteria, perhaps is a better l >d i t-the range.from four to 25 tr em..per year, f e -t are viewed by n.any as establishing a bright red t
- i r. c boundary between acceptable and unacceptable dose l
i s. v e
- s.
t?e believe in our thinking that a more F 7 appropriate candidate for this hard boundary would be F tN 300 mrt: dosc linit for members of the publie
- 7.,7 :
4, d i t. 30 C FF. 20 which is shown on the figure e < *' s
- be f o r r+ r view,
- hotever, leads to an 5
'triAss'er. that the proposed exemption policy provides
- desE eriterion for curtailing compliance v;t' t *, s Ai, AF L process which is comparable to basie r.rr**or protectier. dose Jimits.
l tihile this !ssue cannot be easily resolved i' ty reasey deeitions, we believe better mutual t' understanding between the agencies could alleviate the
- P
- 5. f
- m. t n:
1 19 Furthermore, I.need to call to your 20 attention the trend 'in risk coefficients which are I l' 2* i developed from exposures at higher doses. The t 22 Cornission should know that the risk coefficient p 2 *4 deve3cped for higher doses and dose rates have 24 r e : e r, t ' ;- b e e r. re vi sed upward by the United Nations Pt .e.e1e** f e Comri t t e c on the Effects of Atomic NEAL.R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS ANDTRANSORIBERS 1323 M*1DDE l$ LAND AVENUE N W 4 w ASH!NGTDN. D C EXm (702) 232 4 000 (y;py gy 44r;
4 */ i stier i sinitar conclusion is expected to be 3
- h.d by the Natienol Academy of Sciences Comittee
~ the Pi ologi c a3 Effects of Ionizing Radiation in 4
- Leir forthcon.ing rive report.
This increase has been j t, . e e.ited in the preposed policy. There will be some' i f reviewing the policy who wou3d give significant weight I ' ten changing estinates of risk factors.
- r F
CHA7RMAM CARR: But those are only at higher j e r C d*t t? i MT. MORR F: Whst has happened is th6t they t r c. < S 4n; their estin.ates of the risk at higher ht t he r, there nre those who would projcet '.4e d e v t. inte the low dose range. And those f.*. font bre, admitted 3y, ' judgments by these '*s net denenstrated as yet by sc 'fic data, l
- py dr. represent son.e judgr.ent by expe..s in this b-i i
l l' fi.d. However. because the individual dose criterion I 1 i SF proposed $1. the policy is based on the perspective of' l 19 r et h variations in background as well as the I q..m.t i t ati ve risk prospective evolving from the risk PC 25 coefficient, the increase in risk coefficient has not i Os caused any changes in the policy. l L 23 :1 Just a minute then to sumarize on page 15. l Ti "h
- .r opon: that we've provided to you would require
?' pu i
- j'astificatinn as a basic policy element.
It NEAL R. GROSS COU8tt REPORTER $ AND TRANSORfSERS 13n mH00E ISJND AVENUE. N W rm 23M400 WASNINGToN D C 20004
- b. (702, ty.un P
p og i 3 i t p'i4 r:n r e ' i e M eriteria or. both individual and a
- tc.'.4
? -- ' + e: I s as a basis for curtailing i r c'. u d e s several f eatures we believe are i 4
- 4 ? o t. '
t-cssure that exposure to nultiple
- u
- 4ers
- 't nei result in doses near the limit for t
i p*d-exprare Fin 633y, it permits exenptions based er d r. - r 4 s t t i.
- i c t, of ALARA even if the numerical i
I; E
- - c r i t.
- t
- a
- n..
i e n.
- .3 p e
- p er the handout, we indicate that
.;....s thei in view of the-comments from 5 '-24' several concerns they had about the F*. r.' th. pr.3 icy 6nd the need to further v +v5 n' the two agencies, that the rF ' 's t r.e c s that rsmain with EPA could 1. 1. r-c;ry'. shed through the process of
- F 6-
- r;*e..
- f ft'ern3 puidance by an interagency tash
- c s.
T h *. : w:u)d be a way of following EPA's l i 25.
- rt ;at *
thatr f ormts] comment on this policy that l-l l 19 i tb tve c ; *. r.c i e s should work together. It would also ) he :1-t: *arify s er.c of those issues relating t'o the 20 i l 21 c rrcicti;ity of the EPA standards and the proposed l i L~ 0' e xe r;.t i e : triter$a that 7 was discussing a few minutes i !i l -- p M [ ag-i t ?:
- *. ' ' :. n s. ; :
on the 3ast page, the staff 2 b3 sed c r. the progress made to date in .? ", bs'"evei NEAL R. GROSS Oop atPoRTER$ AND TRANSORISER$ 13n AHDDE tSJND AVENUE N W wAswiNGToN DC 70006 (7026232 4000 (202 59 ur, 1 '
y i. 49 l i rr ~1ving the issues related to policy development, it I v r. e. i d tr crpropriate for the Corrission to approve r';Mication of the proposed policy and the response to j 4 pub;$c conn.ent in the Federal Register and the 'i ennt inuat inn M staff efforts to work with EPA to plan f or developretet of f ederal guidance. f. I-That concludes our presentation. ? CHA!RMAN CARR: Any com=ents? I 9 COMMISE10NER P.OBERTS: Not at this time. 4 W Ar.d I c hi, fix this thing. CHAIRMAN CARR: Mr. Rogers? COMMIE!IONER ROGERS:- Just picking up on jua* what yer just finished saying. You're proposing
- 2
- the po:5ey be published again for corsents.
Why? l U- - dn you expect te happen with another publication j
- r of this po3f.cy?
After all, we've done it what? mvict. ?? MR. MORRIF: No, once. 19 i COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Once is all? ?O MR. MORRIS: Only once. l l 21 ' COMMISSIONER ROGERS: But we've had quite a l ?? h bit of. comment. i I: p/ MR. MORRIS: We have had a nun.ber of public 23 i If I corrante and I believe that as this evolved and we've l I ~ ?* had O' r t t S r.c fror. congressmen reflecting, you know, NEAE R. GROSS i CoVRT *iC* OATERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 13M RNDDE ISLAND AVENVE. N W (M2,2m:- WASHINGTON D C 23X4 (202) 232m
g I of' their constituents and a i relaying the concerns l -N* c' others have been writing to us about this ^ t
- (
we hovs noted in -- these have been signed and ) t i 4 s
- 1. *, out by the agency.
We've indicated that the t y pup ie vill get another chance to look at this. I F d t.:. ' t knew thht thet commitment would preclude issuing I 7 0
- ' c.+ a final policy statement now, but it seems that in ry mind, I fee 3 that there's not a sii t h em ph 7 o
'l e ' thet vc er the staff could learn by,those new t c.r r
- 4 1 s.
be:$ eve it would give a more thorough th!s r e'L e t ively complex and controversial n:?:n:
- ?
r c' t be worth the effort to go through l '. ? ns e ster ir tha
- 4 UOMM7FT!ONFF. ROGERS:
- Well, I'm a little 1
j. en -r:rntd abot* the ertpty gestures. If we really I l 0 :. ' ' thfnk vt're Utifno to change it because we think l l ( vt've pretty we33 exhausted ourselves and the l L 3F possib11$ tie 9, then putting out for public commen is .i 19 i really a r. empty gesture. If you really don't think 1 l-20 enything is going to change as a result of that, what t 21 is cecomplished by it other than the frustration of i l' 22 heving to ser the thing.go out and then finally go 23 int-final for-without any change whatsoever after i i ?' the $ e : : n ?. fssuence for public comment */ .: ~ 0* l Se it's not clear to ne that this is NEAL R. GROSS Count REP 0aTER5 AND TRANSOR'BERS 1371 RHODE isuND AVENVE. N W W ASHINGToN. D C 20005 (2c2) 232 se00 mp, gm i
i I i g 51 i + 7 t i 3 -,-rt.avily -- i i e CH AIF.MA!! CARF: You wouldn't expect any new - - + r.t <, would yeu' i l i MF., MORRIS: What I would be hoping to see, i + ^ t.
- S '. n )*
verid be some indication that in our i ( " t. r $ f f e ri t i o n and the way we've expressed the f
- /
- reselutien of sore of these issues that a larger
+ f ser ent of theist reviewing the policy would understand c d* bettar. We could be nere coniident then that it ref nc t e boar the test of time. vs F E A ! F M A !! CARE: It might get a fewer ...... t e t Mt MORE7F: And that last point I made w ~. '. ! h tha+ it would give us some more confidence t v. h t. :. ekr.ture the best thinking of those out i t V rc l och fer any new ideas, perhaps, that could i I f 3-e ce c-in. Fntt of this is a communication effort. An f IE eftert te outreach to those who are reading this to i 19 3et th e r, understand what the Commissioner's views are 2F, and have, yes, the opportunity, perhaps -- we did not M pre judge whether you would have other questions that h you would vant to raise in another round. 22 0 23 So, that was also -- ?: CHAIRMA!! CARR: It does look like the iacts ?" Are 43: in What we're talking about now is policy. NEAL R. GROSS cove asaoaTras ANDinANseamcas 1323 awoDE ISJND AVENUE N W WA$NINGioN D C 20005 (202: 232 4000
- 1) (202 29.u23
b I f MP. MORRIS: It's policy. L MP.. TAYLOR: And the comments, there were d '. e r r s e c o mm s. n t s and it tells people how those 4 crr.ents were handled and I think to the best of the Sta* ability. That's the benefit. For a very F d ry.nr t ant pol i cy. I r i. DR. SPEIS: But at the same time, it' has l 1 re. rived intens.tve scrutiny over the last six nonths. c he t.d y nn c+ d notice, the international worksh6p, the I r"r*.i-verkshop. It's more clarification, more d i g e s t *' e. you know. I l CSMMISSIONER ROGERS: WeII, I don't think i I + ' t n. ' < uny rush on this. I don't know that there's h 1
- 4 ri:
- hing that this has to be don'e by a certain date.
L 71'= ju:t r e+.1 : y wher, do you come to closure on an
- F issua and whether there is something to be gained by re ting out ach$ n.
M7. TAYLOR: It's a judgment call and the 39 staff thought it would be better to do this. 20 CHAIRMAN CARR: It's on my hurry up list. I 25 MR. TAY1OR: Oh, I see. Okay. 22 MR. LANS: It would also give you the l' 23 q chat.ec, if you wanted to, to allow EPA to modify its 1 1.: c :ent many of which I think -- l T' CHAIRMAN CARR: I'm not sure I want to do. NEAL R. GROSS ooVRT RE*omTERS AND TAANS0m4ERS 13n RHODE t$uND AVENUL N W % ASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 0600 I?l;2. 2W3 ~
m. 53 J k i 1 I MF. L AH r. : Many of which have been nodified y; J CHAIRMAN CARK: I say want to get zy policy 1 I c' t he street before EPA does. i i MR. BERNERO: Mr. Chairman, if I could add a i 7 ' cor-ant on the priority or urgency for it. I feel r
- r:3rd to say $t's one of the rest long awaited and i
o
- 1. o d " e*ondards ef all is how clean is cl.ean enough.
S 's ar (1erenta3 part of that whole policy. I've beer. in this agency for 17 years and v' f;-si entered it, it was just around the corner i 'i ' w &cVe a standard. And it just gets dragged out
- 4 a*
(ts dragged out. l l MR. TAYLOR: It takes most of our attention. 1 i l l- .f CHAIRMAN CARR: But I'm not sure I can tell s \\ 3' t hs - hnv clean is clean enough from this. l 3F MR. PERNERO: Yes, this is a part of-that. l 10 F CHAIRMAN CARR: They won't know. They'll I. Fay, we13 we have to go and get at this issue. 20 21 MR. BERNERO: When we decons.ission a site, [. 22 l what we arr doing every day when we approved remedial l t 23.; n e t '. c n s for the renoval or stabilization of i 24 rad'rt ':vjty, this $s one part of the residual ?* act dvity NEAL-R. GROSS Copa' ptPoRTER$ AND TRANSORIBERS i, 1323 mHoDE $1,.AND AVENVE. N W w A$8:NGtoN.D C 20005 (202 232 4 000 l (M2,2MM,
i 4-54 I [ 8 rwt.**yt!! cAPT: But what's clean enough for i 1 i t-t!r :: i d di r. cf !!ebraska night not be clean r.;;* f .3 ..v, t c 4r the middle of the New York. 4 MF. E EP.NERO : Certainly. You just used a . * '. s.. t i v e, M.cu te gat that 6. . C M; 7 EM A!: CARR: And that's what you're us'n; And 'hink the two things ought to be. the r ,c : i o y' Mr F.F!! : I believe that we think that would +' t' v.- : ' i nilow fer consistent .' * ' '. :i m # two wou3d'be the sar.e. I think it de:isien on your part that this would r' syt denb3e to Nebraska and New York, 9 t. 31',
- e r.s u m e r pr6 ducts, residual
{ v:; ; ;; the 3and; instructors. So that would -r.'rs e-r4r-ifi ar.-* of your issuance of the policy. 18 cv: F.MA!! CARR: But using your collective i9 44, it v.. A d r. ' ' seer that we could do that. 39 MF. LAHr: Thet just means we would have'to 20. evc N 's a;: practices having to do with, let's'say, i 20 de
- e. r'sr f or.ing f ee$ 3 ities as we --
02 i. CHA!RMAN CARR: 'Or we would have to evaluate e b, h e.. M.. k$ds are going to play in the park in New Pi Y,' , r i. u s hv nony were going to play in the park thr - $ di' - cf Nebraska? T'
- v NEAL R. GROSS C0Jo? REPORTER $ AND TRAN$0RIBER$
'3M RdODE t$3ND AVENUE.N W WASMtNGioN D C 20005 FM)23Me00 (20.', ty.u::
I A ) i 55 l t I M5 LAES: That's right. i .) ME. EERNERO: Yes. Yes, indeed. Just like vs de for a reacter site. 2 CHAIRMAN CARR: Yes. And this is the number 8 v s.
- r s-looking fer.
\\. F COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, just touching on i I
- o. f s kind of thing.
There are the-two different F >?tuntionr, the low 3evel waste streans and the f c e n s u r.s: ? products applications of this. Are you ' ot a ? 'l y a e ? d n:. the notion that you don't want to have j sercrate levels for these two different types of
- r.. -
r.
- D:. you think that they really should be t
cant'ad up together in one policy? 1 Mt. MORRIS: I think it's the consensus of I f tb staf' that, yes, we had fully in mind that they vou?d be in this policy, yes, i-l 1 *' MF, EERNERO: It's the principle. 1' I h is MR. MORRIS: It's a risk policy principle 1 h L 19 that we're following and I don't think people would be i 20 ; concerned about whether the risk came from one l' 21 } practice or another. It's -- L 2? l MR. BERNERO: Yes, it's really a threshold h 23 of eeneern and then the secondary concern of more than i* T2 one practice piling on, you know, the multiple k ?' pra-ties issue. Nov. the collective dose, it does 3 NEAL R. GROSS Ii CoVRi REPORTER $ AND TRAN$0 RISER $ 1323 matoDE ISLAND AVENV!, h W ', (2C2 2W:. WAS*cNGToN DC 20005 (sor)rst esco
4 56 ...k-t iv,. a rMr, s* di was-said, in the consumer products 4 r P. - a u s.- they're re cr e generally distributed. The rn-tipic practice issue is such simpler in the reactor =i t 4 wast e stream. You know, do.they all go.to the same 8, tendfi13..
- f. '
The princip3e of a risk basis for a T' thresheid of concern, regulatory concern, is -- F COMM7FF70NTR ROGERS: Well, it's just that c
- * - ne t sure wa'really ha.ve such a wonderful bases-for i
-t sr nv-le-s $ r. these cases. - a TEA PMA!: CARR: It seems to me you're M e..,C ' '. c sa.a f i,
- t the threshold.
I'm for threshold, i - e P.- ec ** !ind it here, i MF. PFRf!ERO: Well, l'et me try it. The i p.i ' r d r., s e lirit that our regulations, the new part 9* 70 a d ep t t-300 mrer per year as a level of clear I u n t, e n r t a b i '. i t y. One doesn't want _ an individual 3? e>:pesed t e t h:.t. And what this exemption policy -- I f 1 19 CHAIRMAN CARR: Over background? i i 20 M R'. BERNERO: Yes. From artificial 29 radiatien. It happens to be less than or equal t o _.
- !2 background.
ATA regulated radioactivity. h 23 Now, 10 nrem per year is another threshold, 74-ye' ecu3' en32 it or a line, that below which with N cnly e n s. ether test you can say it's clearly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE N W WASHINGTON. 0 C 20005 (202 232 6 Z2. 2W.,
t 9*1 l .,7 3 ear. tabic, exemptible. A practice that produces less + h r. it mr r.r pr2 year can be set aside from'any ^ .4 i furths.r consideration -with, of course, the proviso 4 that it.'s not close to that limit and with the c. sufficiant nur.ber of people to have this population (. dosi in i t. - To exceed the population dose. b CHA!RMA?! CARR: I was with you to~a point. 7 e MR. P.ERt;ERO: Yes, I recognized you got off i o N bm a * 'h-second half of the sentence. 1 CHATRMA1; CARR: I can agree if_it's 10 MR or p. m -r n r.: going to worry about it because I'm p
- .3 v:.rr<ed ebout the 100 MR number and the odds'of g r. !- c d y ' h e v i n ; 10 of those 10 MR numbers doesn't i
l verry re. c Mr. P.TRt;RPO: When we look at the reactor t 3r vast, stream that would go to, say, a landfill and )- n i c1,t prodver an off-site dose to a handful of people i is whr live near thers down water from the landfill and i 19 - l the inputed dose is 2 mrem per year, that is a far different thing than^if NMSS gets consumer. product 20 i ) liconsing of ? mrem per year for everybody in the 01 ll United States from a new -kind of smoke detector or 22 f' 23 some thi s:p like thht. That is a very large population 1 64 d., + pq COMM7??IOt;ER ROGERS: Yes, but aren't you-NEAL R. GROSS U COURT REPORTEA$ ANDTRANSORIBER$ i 1323 AMODE ISLAND AVEN'JE N W WA$HINGTON O C 20005 (20 0 2324600 (202, 234 4 43;.
p
- e lg
[ $g l h t
- ...+- acying --
CEAIRMAN CARF: It doesn't worry ze because i cnly gettin7 2 millirens ~ 't - MR '. BERNERO: Yes,'they're very: dif ferent. 4 I-A'd this policy lets ne distinguish between those two. f MR. TAYLOR: It's a decision making. I MR. BERNERO: It lets me ' distinguish that i t th6t f9W reop3 e exposed to that one landfill practice 4 I e i,.M er,rly exemptible. But that one that's 2 mrem per ytAv r '. the TF0 r.filion people is.sor.ething I'd better l 1 1'
- Pi,P obcut.
s 'l CHA7RMAN CARP: Well, I'm more worried about tbs
- rre-discharge going to the same landfill for a
--o t i p.. Ji? A 3 *e.g pe ri od c' time and concentrating at the landfi13. I fj cN 4 L ME. BERNERO: Yes, indeed. That 's why it i /
- F b a r-t r.
be looked at. Or if we say that the practice J is t h e. recetor spent resins, the low level trash, the j. s 3? res$du* from the incinerator, etcetera, etcetera. You $y
- 3. c<,
s, ,r. 'I (19 h
- know, maybe four different streams, each of which is 20 burping the clearly acceptable limit, we license a J
21 licensed landfill, namely a low level burial ground, 22 I on a 25 mree per year limit to the critical. I I 23 y individual. So, you know, we have to look at that. i ?? COFMISSIONER ROGERS: I think I'll pass. s ME EERNERO: I'll pass out some gemstones
- r NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REpoATERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS f,
N 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W j -(m2 J W? WASMtNCToN. O C 20006 0 02) 232 4 000 C ,~.
g 11 g.- -? ~59- -l- .i i l "0"M T S S I O!!E F. CUP.TI S S : I just have one ^ 1 y a t i r. r. c r. the EPA ~ issue. If the disagreement I i 14 ' va u, t he. EPA and the Commission continues on both r ** i ntive dnse and the individual dose criteria,. I f gc as the goestion I.have is what's the consequence of ? ? I establishing a BRC policy'if the other agency here um
- t, ei t e c r d i n g.
to the paper,. has cited other. r'*cpring authority as'the basis for their standard 0-e *. ', t:r i t y, if the other agency comes in-and d d. 5 a g r e e with that and we're going to regulate- -O t-va-3evel? A33 3r favor of a BRC policy, or v' r-vr.
- r e calline it today.
And it seems to me I
- *~
- hr s i :t pl i ci t y. approach that ' the Chairman's
- : r. e d rches a good deal of sense.
It could not If r,.. - $ 8 0:. 4 ef the corp 3cxity that we-have here, but at 's i tt. ' s a r. - t '. r e if the upshot of it is - that we L t-1? deregA nts-nnd end up turning that over to EPA for 39 rr.;ulation because they disagree, I'm not sure I'm 20 much in fever of that outcome either. How do you-1 r e e r r e i l s. that disagreement? 2*'
- t ?
MT.. MORRIS: Well, I think the first point as
- 1. -
^ p 2? d we.'d rakt is that we believe that it's very important u hacit to work with EPA to develop federal N t h. - v-o g ?" p.; i d a r e that would allow us to have a uniform top man 1 NEAL R. GROSS COUAT AEPOATERS ANDTRANSOAIBERS b U 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W h an,m: wAS i~cToN oe ax nan m.esoe i s
1-3 D
- J 60_:
l 4 \\ ay- -r-+ t s ihis i ssus that not only EPA and_NRC would
- /
s e, ...t ?.. >.
- COE and other government: agencies.
m-w. t U r.h, should be a very important step. 4-If that does' not take place and if we-were t r e..- . p e t t requiotions that were based on this c. c. -;,: : (:y and FtA felt that they wanted to promulgate ? E ether reginatiens that would be more stringent, then I ? t'. toyl: 'O. Pt.r 3 t r will have to speak this,-the e re: r e c ' ' a ' ' * *. s would then obtain and it would have y<. - a 8--i
- ii2 e gesture on our part, except for a
u'.d desi with an issue on a short . s,..... .A v d..:. ' t kncv when EPA would come along i
- t on' t#.
the nc t ster. We don't know what their / .. p,. Mt ? AF.LEF : EPA _ has the authority for. s*tn w;th the ambient environment. They l r., d ' 4, 7 have hn d t h r,' c:therity since.they were created by t 1F r r - r ;. / h.; n : i 01.
- p2att, 7 think it's number three, ~ in l
Ar :1 c' 1070. And so the approach would have to be' 19 20 ; t i t h e? g e '. the law changed or ' to get toge thei-and O' rc s-- tege*her with them so that, presumably, sorrthing tht: wov'd be acceptable to both could be 22 i 23 verhe.1 r
- 74 vr L AU -
7 might point out that one of the ac E?: :- t .cnges te the advanced notice was the fact NEAL R. GROSS cogn* AEGoRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE N W l m 2.2 M. w ASwiNGToN D C 2000t (2C2A2400
? + ,a Je, 61 t (i 1 ,*3,'? t by. 'r ead that. - advanced notice that we were rt:.rmsir.; e r.*idey without a collective' dose. 'And so 5
- +,. o.vaa om cf their major arguments against the a'
p
- icy.
Well, obviously now that we'have'a. collective d m <r. the pe: icy, so certainly that's mollified them 5 -in that COMM7SSIONER CURTISS: And they -disagree R v : ? >, the rmmber nov. 9 MF. 1.AH S : 7 don't think they disagree'with', 1
- .. r.
rip 5* b-putting words in their mouth, so much with
- 't tr' r e r.c e n - r e - number as with the 10 nrca
- d.* dese number.
And they referred back to the
- ^
i:. c r i.a t ' or.r ' pree/dence, a few mrems. So we're - t r. ' M. ; ab r* ayhe a factor of 'four,'something like c .s i COMM*FFIONER CURTISS: I'm not sure I have j a: enswer t c. t h r. etuestion how you solve that problem. OF Tederni guddance, I think,. is going to postpone the IC inevitable, and that is that we're going to -- we 've 20 : worked on EPA for six or seven years in this area and 2* longer in other areas, and I'm not sure the technical i 22 L b a t-i s for a consensus exists. And I guess I.am b 23 concerned that postponing for federal guidance or e i ?4 Seev!r: .t $ 1, ti e hands of their BRC policy for low l e v e ?. / - waste er their Clean Air Act authority or ?c NEAL R. GROSS COVAT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS h 1323 RHODE ISAND AVENUE. N W (202,2y43: WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232 e800
t 1 g .a t.L ' d. 62 i ^ ? l I v' a t y r. r 'is-gning te re'sult in the two agencies I r.% s. d i n g i: th+ mat ter where we deregulate with. an 1 i. towards soying,- this isn't significant fro = the 4 F. st,ndpeint of the agency that-regulates radiation and 8 09 o ennsequence of the disagreement,- we end-up " f. tur dng over a junket of the jurisdiction-at the lower a } l I' end te' EPA, which continues to regulate on behalf-of 7 F t Ne 'ederia.governrent. i o MF. TAYl.OR: I think the staff's proposal 1.. 1' l'
- r v <-
f' we did pub 2i.=h
- again, we'd have time te
- - tr; to work with EPA.
MORR!F: That's the basis, l' CovFTFSIONFR CURTISS: Okay. I VF. T A Y l.O R :- And-7 think -i f we're l< 1 e-rcessft; in that, we ought to 't a l k-to the t ..r - i.e.s 5 c n. s l MF. MORRI F. : Also I think that. we need to i i'
- F, ral e t h.
peint that in this proposal for developing-1 ^3o l federa' guidance we would not stop our activities, l l. l: 20 that va-would propose to issue this policy. Work'with t ?? FFA on the federal guionneE and go ahead and proceed l l-2? with our rulemsking actions under this policy. And i. ?' the' revisited what the ramifications of that would be ^2 c.ftr.' ve had arrived at the federal guidance OE Conk el;T U C. NEAL R. GROSS I-00 vat REPORTERS ANO TP.ANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISuNO AVENUE N W WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202 232 4600 ] (202 2pg i I
n. 4.. 63' q ' CO!'MT S S T ONER CURTISS: In - one respect, the- .: + m t o p tha* we have ' now is that we regulate ths vo u s streers at the individual reactors, for example,. 4 f +' to take one. category. And it'seems to me that ' ).s n 's so.e basis for sahing that we ought to have a I f p:!cy th6t-addresses that, that we call BRC or f exer;tions fror regulation. But ' I'm - not sure 'the f ep sh o t-
- t. f a techndeal disagreement here where EPA
- requiotes the waste streams - at the reactors 'is an o
I~ ~ ~ ' c or. e we var i te see either. '* hat's all I have. CHAIRMAN CARR: Well, I think it's obvious s l ').'- v-the Corrission, have to do a little.getting 't-terather or. what we really want to do and provide you i l-pc.licy. I g u e s s ' r.y personal f ee".ing. is that we -e-e-I te;d you te go do something and.you came back and told i' us that ym: didn't want to, you wanted to do it the -3 ? wty it wes. 19 We d$d tell you in a different way, I guess. 20 L WS-said let's gs out and get all the comments we can ~ i 2: get and then come-back. And that's what you've done 22 and se you've done good at.doing that part of what we 23 6 esked you do. We've got a lot of comments. There's i 04 c h : P. a.s many on one side of the question that I worry ?" about u there is on the other. And so I think it's NEAL R. GROSS CoVAT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBEAS 1323 AHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202> 2M WASHINGTON O C 20005 (202) 232 6600 t
A . n. 64' ... i i l-s t* us te decide where we want to come down on this [ l- ' i r..:. m.d just c o r..c down and hand - you the policy and ^~ 3 s.y use it 4 I hope we can do that rather quickly. I'm i E r.r ? Sura that we need to put-it out as a proposed ' f.
- .cd i cy statement again.
We'll have to decide that i l whar we take a look at it and give you an SRM. You l-f
- n. y come back and say we have to if we veer it in a o
ds-tien that goes completely opposite what you've i . : v wl., cor.ented on. But I hope we won't do that. 1 And it's just one of those decisions we'll have to .l E,. vo've toyed with it long enough It's been e r. e.' off the plate for 1*/ years, Mr. A'rnero?
- i MR. EERf; FRO:
Oh, far Idnger than that. I'm i
- r. eM id.
j.<*
- c 98 CHA7RMAfi CARR:
It probably hasn't been orruid lon:ar than 1936 or so. 3 F. - MR. BERNERO: The 1965 policy ' statement 19', r.ight give you a clue. 20 CHAIRMAti CARR: So, we need to do-that and 21 se ! think it's up to us now to -- you've done your ?2 b horework. You've done a good job in presenting the 2? issues and I think it's up to us to decide where we f" ?? wm-te :::re down on it. d ?" Any other comments? NEAL 'R. GROSS n COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBER$ 'l 1323 A*400E I$JND AVENUE. N W WASHINGTON.D C 20005 (202) 232 4600
- (X,2,234
m.m, = p[ 65 i:-- -i MF.' P AP.LEP : Mr. Chairman, there's no legal 1 i 7' 2.q';ir e.r en t that this policy statement be _ put out 'for - - r -4 r. t again that ! know of. It's a policy call. '4-CHAIRMAN CARR: Thank you.. t In that case, we stan'd adjourned. f, (Whereupore, at 2:48 p.m._the public hearing j si. vai adjourned.) i f t o e a s ~ 4 a a-I i i . e i. i { \\ l c ? 1$ l 19 I -20 21 l 1 4 i 23 p i k ^C NEAL R. GROSS COVAT REPOATERS ANO TRANSCRIBEAS 1323 AMODE ISSNO AVENUE N W { (202:2WT WA$HINGTOS D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 f i
k 'CERTITICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting ~ of the t'nited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled: TITLE OF MEETING: BRIETING 05 POLICY STATEMENT ON RULES FOR EhEMPTION FROM REGULATORY CONTROL - PLACE OT MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OT MEETING: Ji'LT IIi 1989 vere transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of sy-ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing' events. j A G../ [ 6 1 M % 1 / *, /, Reportsr's name: Peter tvneh i HEAL R. GROSS CoueT ateoeflR$ AND TRAN$CRittR$ 1323 AM001 ISLAND AVtNut. M w. WASHtWCTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232 4 600 j (202) 234-4433
- ,. +.
) #D ' m e k PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT -ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL STAFF PRESENTATION TO COMMISSION -Jut.y 11, 1989
w; + i i OUT1.1NE OF - P.PfSENTAT10N -
- ' BACKGROUND-
- PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION
- OBJECTIVE OF-POLICY STATEMENT
- ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
- POLICY' CLARIFICATIONS
' PROFCSAL ON MAJOR POLICY ELEMENTS
SUMMARY
-KEY-POL 1CY ELEMENTS
- OTHER IMPORTANT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS n=__;______:_____.
4 i' f BACKGROUND-SRM-Nov'1957-IDENTIFY RISK LEVEL BELOW WHICH GOV'T REGULATION UNWARRANTED SECY 88-69, MAR 1988-CONCEPT DISCUSSION
- SRM-MAR 1988-REQUESTS POLICY STATEMENT SECY.88-257, SEPT 19EE-PROPOSED POLICY
' ' COMMISSION AUTHORIZES PUEllCAT10N OF ADV. NOTICE SOLICITING COMMENTS ON SEVERAL MAJOR POLICY ELEMENTS
r< i 5 i F d 'l'. PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION TO DISCUSS REVISED POLICY STATEMENT AND - THE. RATIONALE FOR STAFF ~ PROPOSALS ON KEY POLICY ELEMENTS CONSIDERING,1NPUTS FROM:
- IHE INTERNiTIONAL WORKSHOP-0CT-1988
' PuELic Cor.!.it,TS RECEIVED ON ADVANCE NCTICE ISSUES (DEC 1988-APR 1989) '.PustlC MEETING-JAN 1989 4 I i
4 g c-s- i OBJECTIVE OF POLICY STATEMENT TO ESTAEllSH GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS OR LICENSING DEC:i;0NS WHICH COULD EXEMPT PRACTICES FRC?' 3 CME OR ALL REGULATORY CONTROLS t 4
s u.. - -k 4 PCTENTIAL POLICY APPLICAElllTY TYPICAL PRACTICES [lSPOSAL OF VERY LOW LEVEL'RADWASTE F.ELEASE OF LANDS AND' STRUCTURES'WITH RESIDUAL' LEVELS OF_ RADIOACTIVITY CONSUMER PRODUCTE CONTAINING SMALL AMOUNTS 0F RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL. RECYCLE AND REUSE OF RESIDUALLY CONTAMINATED MATERIALS AND EQUlPMENT 5 e L
i ACTIONS TAKEN AS A RESULT'0F COMMENTS ON ADVANCE NOTICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT' CATEGORIZED AND RESOLVEDLISSUES IN 18 SUBJECT AREAS 'REvlSED-POLICY lN r.EY AREAS CLARIFIED C0_MMISSICN POSITIONS 1.N OTHER AREAS. 1 y.
v \\ ,3 n J 7 'l POLICY ELEMENTS'0N WHICH COMMENTS SOUGHT L
- HOW SHOULD FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
.j RADIATION PROTECTION BE APPLIED? (JUST!FICATION OF PRACTICE, DOSE LIMITS, Ah! ALARA) }S A COLLECTIVE DOSE CRITERION NEEDED? HOW SHOULD-CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FROM MULTIPLE-PRACTICES BE-DEALT WITH7 L o 1 1 (- ( i I l l. p l+ 7 L L
. A 'I PROPOSED EXEMPTION POLICY FOR A JUSTIFIED PRACTICE = 1000 1; m ~- Not Exemptable g} - 100 E* E-10 = 3 5 0 Possibly Exemptable o 1 r o = E E Exemptable
- 0.1 s-5 a a a nna!
aeaasa! e a n a s e e 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Collective Dose (Person-rem) 8 u.
i PROPOSALS ON MAJOR POLICY ELEMENTS JUSTIFlCATION OF PRACTICE" NEEDED (1) NO EXPOSURE.TO IONIZING RADIATION PERMITTED W/0 COMMENSURATE BENEFIT (2) WIDELY-ACCEPTED RADIATION PROTECTION GOAL O A i
( ~ l PROPOSALS ON MAJOR POLICY ELEMENTS (CON'Th COLLECTIVE DOSE CRITERION ADDED TO DEFINE " FLOOR" TO THE ALARA PROCESS (1) 00lGl0NLY USED BY REGUIATORY BODES AS EASURE O -SOCETAL DETRDGNT IN OPTDEZATION ASSESSENTS (2) USED BY OTHER U.S. AGENCES & INCLUDEiD IN INTERNATIONAL GUIDANCE '(3) ADDS ASSURANCE THAT DOSE INTS.NOT EXCEEDED (EIPOSURES TO MULTIPLE PRACTICES) (4) REFLECTS POSITION THAT INDIVIDUAL DOSE CRITERION NOT "DE MINDUS"
. ?b: i v I [' i FROPOSALS ON MAJOR POLICY ELEM'TS (CONT,) MULTIPLE: PRACTICE ISSUE ADDRESSED BY: (1) BROAD-DEFINITION ~0F " PRACTICES" -(2) REQUIRING PRACTICE JUSTIFICATION (3) COLLECTIVE DCSE CRITER10N (4 APPROPRIATE PERIODIC ASSESSP.ENT -(5) COMMITMENT TO CONSIDER ISSUE IN-EACH EXEMPTION DECISION i n t
i i 4:s .. =., n. '.4' r '1 I 4 OTHER MAJOR POLICY ISSUES o RETENTION OF 10 MREM ANNUAL INDIVIDUAL 4 r DOSE CRITERION ALLOWS EXEMPTIONS WHE', ABOVE NUMERICAL - CRITER'lA: . / l-i l e 3 ); 4 G ^ 1
9, _. c a 91 p i 7:. L 1 P J 9 POLICY CLARlFICAT10NS C0hSTRAINTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH EXEMPTION DECISIONS NU.EclCAL'ALARA CRITERIA-ARE NOT. LIMITS EMFnASIS l'. REASED ON-NECESSITY TO DEF:NE SCCFE OF PRACTICE APPROPRIATELY ' - REFERENCE TO "BRC" RESERVED FOR' WASTE DISPOSALS UNDER LLRWPAA.0F 3985-t t I I ? 9 O e-- s a
^ ?s. v i l i .e 1 ( ti OTHER IMPORTANT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS .[lFFERING VIEWS ON MAGNITUDES OF EXEMPTION, DOSE CRITERIA - EPA, ACNW, AND lNTERNATIONAL i COMPARABILITY OF EXEMPTION DOSE CF.lTERIA AND." ACCEPTABLE" DOSE STDS. j ..IREND lN RISK COEFFICIENTS DEVELOPED FROM. EXPOSURES AT HIGHER DOSES 1 .i t f 5 9 e
1 -i 6 s. _. -.
- es
) ~ T SUMMADY - KEY POLICY' ELEMENTS' P REQUIRES PRACTICE JUSTIFICATION AS BASIC POLICY ELEMENT ~ PROVIDES CRITERIA FOR " CURTAILING" L ALAP.A "0PTIMAL" RESOURCE USE lhCLUDES FEATURES TO ADDRE!S1THE " EXPOSURE TO MULTIPLE-PRACTICE *.!SSUE PERMITS EXEMPTIONS BASED ON l DEMONSTRATION'OF ALARA IF NUMERICAL CRITERIA NOT MET l-1 1. 1 l . = - 0 ~
i 4 l . s. 3 .( INTERACTIONS WITH EPA g STAFF PROPOSES THAT RESOLUTION OF ANY RESIDUAL' DIFFERENCES WITH EPA CAN BEST BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE PROCESS OF . DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL GUIDANCE BY AN Y INTERAGENCY-TASK FORCE. L ( - r l_' \\ / ,l i .f '+ l 16 r
3 t e .. e ao 4 1 o ( t RECOMMENDATIONS ' THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE: T (1) PUELICATION OF THE PROPOSED POLICY Ah; FEEPCNCE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS IN I HE FEDE;AL REGISTER.' (:; CC:.'llt, LING ST AFF EFFORT S TO, WORK WITH EPA TO PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL GUIDANCE. i t 1 l l t i 4 5 .}}