ML19351F049
| ML19351F049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/15/1980 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351F048 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-CC, TASK-SE SECY-80-384, NUDOCS 8012290009 | |
| Download: ML19351F049 (8) | |
Text
,
om o
r UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Aucust 15, 1980 W ASHINGTON, D. C. 2c555 SECY-80-334 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM For:
The Commissioners From:
Robert 3. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development
& d Thru:
Acting Executive Director for Operations V'
Subject:
CONTAMINATED SMELTED ALLOYS:
COMMISSION RESPONSE TO ERDA (COE) REQUEST
_TO_ EXEMPT.
Purcose:
To cotain Commission approval of a Federal Register notice to respond to ERDA's (DOE) re. quest _ for rulemaking.
Catecorv:
This paper covers a minor policy matter requiring Commission considera-tion.
Issue:
Should the Commission acorove publication of proposed exemotions from licensing requirements for smelted alloys containing technetium-99 and low-enricned uranium as residual contamination?
Decision Criteria:
1.
The Commission's authority to exemot certain kinds of uses or users of special nuclear material under section 57 of tne Atomic Energy Act wnen it makes a finding that tne exemotion would not be inimical to the common defense and security and woulc not con-stitute an unreasonacle risk to the health and safety of the public.
2.
The Commission's autnority to exempt certain kinds of uses or users of byproduct material uncer section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act when it makes a finding that the exemption will not consti-tute an unreasonacle risk to the common defense and security anc to the health anc safety of the puolic.
3.
The long-standing exemption in 10 CFR 40.13(a) for source material in any alloy in whicn the source material (uranium) is by weignt Icss tnan one-twentieth of 1 percent (0.05 cercent) of the alloy.
J.
The relative arcolems anc assurances offerec Dy general licenses and scecific licenses.'
^5cecific itcenses are issued to namec cersons ucon acciications filed sith the Ccmmission.
A general license is effective witnout' tne filing of an apolication with the Ccmmissica or the issuance of a licensing cccument oc a ;: articular aerson.
Ccatact:
James J. Henry, 50 J23-6946 3012290 009
//
s.
The Commissioners 2
5.
The total net dollar benefits and the radiological risks result-ing from converting radioactively contaminated metal scrap into salable smelted alloys containing residual contamination.
Alternatives:
1.
Maintain the status quo, i.e., continue to require specific licenses for technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium.
2.
Establish general licenses for technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium as residual contamination in smelted alloys.
3.
Establish exemptions for technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium as residual contamination in smelted alloys.
Discussion:
Under current NRC regulations, no person may possess, use, or transfer technetium-99 or low-enriched uranium (defined in 9 70.51(a)(2) as that uranium whose isotope content is less than 20 percent uranium-235 by weight) as contaminants in metals except as authorized in a specific license issued by the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 or 70.
- Note, however, that smelted alloys already contain uranium, radium, cobalt-60, and other radioactive materials at extremely low concentrations as the result of natural background and the introduction of radioactive materiale during metallurgical processing.
The Department of Energy has underway Cascade Improvement Programs and Cascade Upgrading Programs begun by the AEC at all three U.S. uranium enrichment plants - Oak Ridge, TN, Portsmouth, OH, and Paducah, KY.
In the early 1970s, an AEC market survey showed that no scrap dealers or processors would purchase any of the metal scrap generated by the pro-grams if their customers would be required to hold specific licenses to possess or use technetium-99 or low-enriched uranium in recycled metal.
Sizeable quantities of enrichment plant scrap will be generated by 1981 - 31,800 metric tons of iron and steel, 8,400 metric tons of nickel, and 1,600 metric tons of copper.
If the metal scrap must be considered as radioactive waste, it will cost over $1.8 million to bury
-- the 42,000-metric tons in 50,000 cubic meters of space available in low-level waste disposal facilities.
l If the metal scrap could be converted into salable smelted alloys, it would have a total net benefit of $41.6 million, including burial costs avoided, plus more than 800 million megajoules of energy (equivalent to about 170,000 barrels of crude oil or 30,000 metric tons of coal) saved by recycling scrap instead of producing virgin r..etal.
Based on these and other factors, the Director, Division of Waste Management and Transportation, AEC, by memorandum dated February 12, 1974, requested the assistance of the Director, Directorate of Regula-tory Standards, AEC, in establishing a de minimis quantity for enriched uranium in scrap metal.
The memorandum of response dated March 28, 1974, noted impending legislation to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to authorize AEC to exempt special nuclear material and suggested
O Tho Commissioners 3
coordination so that language of any proposed exemption would be con-sistent with the legislation.
After further consideration and data collection, ERDA ( a successor of AEC) by letter dated September 8, 1976, transmitted to NRC an environmental impact assessment in which ERDA proposed:
(1) An exemption of smelted metal contaminated with uranium enriched up to 20% uranium-235 providing the total uranium content in the metal does not exceed 17.5 parts per million;,and (2)
The addition of technetium-99 at a concentration of 8.6 x 10 2 micro-curies / gram (equivalent to 5 parts per million) to Column II, Schedule A, 10 CFR 30.70, " Exempt Concentrations." Copies of the cited correspond-ence are attached as Enclosure 1.
The staff has evaluated in a draft environmental impact statement the widespread distribution of iron, nickel, and copper in a variety of products (frying pans, coins, belt buckles, bracelets, implanted bone pins, and pharmaceutical iron compound) and has estimated that less than one health effect would result from 0.01 person-rem from scrap smelting and 80 person-rems in the worst-case scenario of transport, manufacture, distribution, and use of enrichment plant scrap.
The decomr'ssioning of uranium enrichment plants, nuclear power reactors, uranium hexafluoride plants, and fuel facilities would, under present regulations, be a major Federal action requiring the preparation of environmental impact statements to evaluate, among other things, the environmental, economic, and radiological health impacts of smelting scrap and transferring smelted alloy.
About 12 commercial nuclear power reactors may be candidates for decom-missioning by the year 2000.
They would generate about 84,400 metric tons of steel and 2,600 metric tons of copper.
It is not known what fraction of this metal would be contaminated with technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium.
Even if all of the reactor scrap were converted to smelted alloys and distributed for exempt use, the total health effect would still be less than one from the population dose of exposed persons.
In the imaginary cases of a copper bracelet worn 50 years and a steel bone pin implanted 50 years, the localized doses of individuals are 15 rems to the wrist and 20 rems to the bone, respectively.
The staff evaluation also has shown that environmental values may be protected by making the specific licensee initially transferring smelted alloys responsible for providing such alloys that meet speci-fications for low concentrations of technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium as residual contamination in the smelted alloys.
In considering regulatory control over technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium as contamination in recyclable metal, there are three alternatives:
O The Commissioners 4
Alternative 1.
Maintain the status quo, i.e., continue to require specific licenses for technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium.
Pro: Essentially no increase in public exposures or contamination of metals because specific licensing of users is known to be equivalent to prohibiting use.
Con: (a) Stifles the market for potentially recoverable resources.
(b)
Requires land for storage and burial of contaminated metal scrap.
(c)
Requires manpower and money to bury contaminated metal scrap in Federally-owned or NRC-licensed radioactive waste disposal facilities.
Alternative 2.
Establish general licenses for technetium-99 and low-enricned uranium as residual contamination in smelted alloys.
Pro: (a)
Incremental dollar benefits from converting contaminated metal scrap to salable smelted alloys.
(b) Would simplify licensing because NRC and Agreement States would not have to review applications filed by, named individuals to use technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium as
.usidual contamination in smelted alloys.
(c)
Recycling would be limited to commercial and industrial uses of smelted alloys to prohibit abandonment or disposal in ways that could lead to uncontrolled uses of the smelted alloys.
(d)
Less energy required to recover scrap metal than to produce virgin metals.
Con: (a)
Incremental small radiation risks to users of smelted alloys contaminated with technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium (includes foundry workers, commercial and industrial product fabricators, and persons in commercial and industrial areas).
(b)
Low-level contamination of commercial and industrial products made from contaminated smelted alloys.
(c)
Low-level contamination of foundry furnaces, furnace linings, slag, manufacturing equipment, and other materiais coming in contact with contaminated smelted alloys.
(d)
Incremental administrative and enforcement costs to NRC to monitor general license program.
(e)
Eventually, will require land and money for storage and burial of commercial and industrial products made from contaminated I
smelted alloys, t
The Commissioners 5
Alternative 3.
Establish exemptions for technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium as residual contamination in smelted alloys.
Pro: (a) Maximum dollar benefits from converting contaminated metal scrap to salable smelted alloys.
(b) Would greatly simplify licensing program.
Users of smelted alloys would not have to be licensed.
(c) Maximum utilization of recyclable resources in all types of products made from smelted alloys.
(d)
Less energy required to recover scrap metal than to produce virgin metal.
(e) No land or money needed for storage and burial of scrap metal contaminated with technetium-99 or low-enriched uranium.
(f) Consistent with existing exemption in 10 CFR Part 40 for unimportant quantities of uranium (source material) in any alloy.
Con: (a)
Incremental small radiation risks to users of smelted alloys contaminated with technetium-99 and low-enriched uranium (includes foundry workers, product fabricators, and the general public).
(b). Low-level contamination of products made from contaminated smelted alloys.
(c)
Low-level contamination of foundry furnaces, furnace linings, j
slag, manufacturing equipment, and other materials coming in contact with smelted alloys containing residual contamination.
t (d)
Requires conforming amendment of 10 CFR 150.15(a)(6) to l
continue Commission regulatory authority in Agreement States i
over the transfer of possession or control by the manufacturer, l
processor, or producer of any commodity or product containing l
special nuclear material whose subsequent possession, use, I
transfer, and disposal by all other persons are exempted l
from licensing and regulatory requirements of the Commission l
under 10 CFR Part 70.
l l
Comment:
The staff believes that the loss of dollar benefits under i
Alternative 1 and the administrative and licensing burdens of Alternative 2 exceed the small personal and contamination risks of Alternative 3.
Further, the staff believes that Alternative 3 is responsive to the ERDA proposals of September 8, 1976.
The proposed action involves no new resource requirements.
The Commissioners 6
Recommendation:
The Commission:
(a)
Find that an exemption for persons receiving, possessing, using, or transfe.rring low-enriched uranium as residual contamination in any smelted alloy would not be inimical to the common defense and security and would not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public.
(Alternative 3)
(b)
Find that an exemption for persons receiving, possessing, using, or transferring technetium-99 as residual contamination in any smelted alloy will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and security and to the health and safety of the public.
(Alternative 3)
(c) Aporove the notice of proposed rulemaking (Enclosure 2) which woula amend 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, 70, and 150 to establish exemp-tions for persons receiving, possessing, using, or transferring technetium-99 or low enriched uranium as residual contamination (1) in any smelted alloy in which the technetium-99 and low-enriched uran "o would be minor constituents less than 5 parts per n
callion and 1! i parts per million, respectively, of representative samples of sycited alloy products, or (2) in any material into which such smeltid alloy or its constituents may have been con-verted.
(Devebpment of the full text of the proposed rules is discussed in Enclosure 3.)
(d)
Note 1.
The amendments would be published in the Federal Register allowing 45 days for public comment; 2.
If after expiration of the comment period no significant adverse comments or significant questions have been received and no substantial changes in the text of the rule are l
indicated, the Executive Director for Operations will arrange for publication of the amendnents,in final form.
If significant adverse comments or significant questions have been received or substantial changes in the text of the rule are indicated, the revised amendments will be submitted to the Commission for approval; 3.
The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, the Subccmmittee on l
Energy and Power of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce l
Committee, the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources of the House Government Operations Committee, and the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works will be informed by a letter such as Enclosure 4; i
The Commissioners 7
4.
A public announcement such as Enclosure 5 will be issued when the proposed amendments are filed with the Office of the Federal Register; 5.
There are two new reporting requirements included in the amend-ments (see Enclosure 6 for a Report Justification Analysis) but GA0 review of the reporting requirements will not be obtained because there will be no collection of information within the meaning of NRC Bullentin No. 0210-9, i.e., no soliciting or obtaining of facts on an identical item from 10 or more persons.
6.
A draft environmental impact statement (Enclosure 7) has been prepared.
It will be circulated to CEQ, EPA, and other interested agencies and persons for review and comment, and will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room; 7.
Affected licensees and other interested persons will receive a copy of the proposed amendments by direct mail; and 8.
ERDA (DOE), the requestor of this rulemaking, will be informed of the proposed amendments to Parts 30, 32, 70, and 150.
Coordination:
The Offices of Nuclear Material Safety'and Safeguards, State Programs, and Inspection and Enforcement concur in the recommendation of this paper.
The Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal objection.
The draft public announcement was prepared by the Office of Public Affairs.
f I
e W,f
/
Rober B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development
Enclosures:
s-1.
AEC/ERDA/NRC Correspondence of 1974/1976 2.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 3.
Development of the Text of the Proposed Exemptions and Specific License Conditions 4.
Draft Congressional Letter 5.
Draft Public Announcement 6.
Report Justification Analysis 7.
Draft Environmental Statement (because of its bulk, the DES has been distributed only to the Commissioners and the Secretary of the Commission)
8 Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, September 3, 1980.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT August 26, 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheudled for consideration at an Open Meeting during the Week of September 8, 1980.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Acting Exec Dir for Operations ACRS Secretariat i
i h=
f' O%q,"g UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION QQ.
-.i i
g, /
WASHINGTON. O.C.
20545 FEB 12 1974 Lester Rogers, Director, Directorate of Regulatory Standards REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO ESTABLISH A DE MINDiUS QUANTITY OF ENRICHED URANIUM IN 10 CFR 70 A study for the disposal of uranium contaminated ferrous scrap is being performed by OR for WMT.
The quantities of ferrous scrap generated and anticipated from the cascade improvement and upgrading programs (CIP-CUP) by 1980 are approximately 34,000 tons and would be worthwhile conserving.
A large part of the ferrous scrap inventory at OR contractor sites will be contaminated with uranium enriched from 0.3% up to a maximum of 6.0%.
Additional quantities of ferrous and non-ferrous metals contaminated with enriched uranium can be expected to be generated AEC-wide as excess facili-ties are decontaminated and decommissioned.
A primary concern to the recovery of this type of scrap is the fact that in 10 CFR 70 no de minimus quantity has been established for enriched uranium.
As a result, this prohibits anyone from processing unimportant or negligible amounts of special nuclear material without a license and prevents the unrestricted sale of a smelter or foundry product, regardless of the enriched uranium content.
We, therefore, would appreciate your assistance in attempting to establish, by means of a proposed amendment to 10 CFR 70, a de minimus quantity for enriched uranium in scrap metal.
If this can be done, it will greatly contribute to the feasibility of salvaging metals contaminated with low uranium enrichment.
Mr. R. F.
Barker of your staff has had discussions with WMT staff on this subject.
Enclosed for your information and use is a proposal prepared by W. E. Shaw, NLO, for a de minimus quantity of enriclied uranium along with an explana-tion of its methods and rationale. WMT has reviewed the proposal and favors the constant U-235 method.
W
~
D
,e L=J u
kl j(T3 %Ohhb
- .nclosure 1
[d r
w
Lester Rogers Preliminary discussions with RRD and NR personnel indicate that they would not be opposed to the proposed de minimus quantity conce
.s F. K. Pittman, Director Division of Waste Management i
and Transportation Enclosure As stated cc:
J. L. Schwennesen, PMM T. A. Nemzek, RRD R. H. Steele, NR J. A. Lenhard, OR M. B. Biles, OS J. Swinebroad, DBER l
2
I J
g UNITED STATGS
[f i
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
% '*/*
d wAssincron, o.c. zosc g
/
4Tig 4%,
!AAR 1 8 374 F. K. Pittman, Director Division of Waste Management and Transportation ESTABLISHMENT OF A DE MINIMUS QUANTITY OF EURICHED UPANIUM As requested in your memorandum of February 12, 1974, we are pre-pared to consider an amendment of Part 70 to establish a de minimus quantity for enriched uranium in scrap metal.
In this area of interes t, OMB clearance is being sought for legislation to a=end the Atomic Energy Act to permit the AEC to exempt certain classes or quantities or kinds of uses or users of special nuclear material from licensing requirements.
I believe it will be in the best interests of the AEC if preparation of a staf f paper is coordinated with enactment of the impending legislation so the language of any proposed exemption is consistent with the authority to establish the exemption.
Mr. R. F. Barker.is Regulatory Standards' contact in this matter.
He will meet with WMT staff on April 8,1974, to discuss the scheduling of our respective tasks to assess the impacts of the proposed action on the environment and the health and safety of the public.
I Leste Ro Director Regulatory Standards D
D M[f o R
&W ik WR f
M)-
'k h b S'
I t
. r s
3
s
.u
! ;*#h,,,,'7'* g UNITED STATES ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTR ATION i3 -y l' OAK RioGE OPERATIONS OAK RioGE. TENNESSEE 37830 t$tY[ceN2seti September 8, 1976 Mr. James Henry Transportation and Product Standards Branch Office of Standards Development United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Henry:
TRANSMITTAL OF " ENVIRONMENTAL IM/ACT ASSESSMENT" Reference is made to the January 28, 1976 meeting held in your office regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment for " Proposed Rulemaking Exemption for Licensing Requirements for the Sale and Use of Metal Scrap Homogeneously Contaminated with Enriched Uranium Below a Specified Concentration."
At the referenced meeting, we agreed to make an intensive rewrite of our original EIA document and to furnish NRC with an acceptable EIA by June 30, 1976.
We are enclosing 10 copies of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment.
According to schedules developed at the January 28, 1976 meeting, the following scheduling now occurs:
i l
4.
NRC to perform a review either in-house or in conjunction with Battelle or Argonne.
5.
Review in-house by NRC staff 6.
Review in-house by NRC and draft EIS for t change.
Obtain ot problems.
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT 7.
Resolve satisfacto Entire document previously 8.
Issue final EIS an entered into system under:
ANO N D D h b M b 3 { {'.
D uo mu Jllt b
No. of pages:
NMi)e Y
w /
</
al g- @ ( cd /[
N.
q[
_:nclosure 1 g
_