ML20195H278

Notation Vote Approving with Comment SECY-99-098 Re Publication of Issues Paper on Release of Solid Matls (Clearance),In Fr,For Public Comment & for Use at Public Meetings

ML20195H278
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/26/1999
From:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20195H262	List: ML20195H257 ML20195H278 ML20195H286 ML20195H292 ML20195H299 ML20195H307
References
SECY-99-098-C, SECY-99-98-C, NUDOCS 9906160318
Download: ML20195H278 (43)

Text

.

NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET

-TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM: CHAIRMAN JACKSON

SUBJECT:

SECY-99-098 - PUBLICATION OF AN ISSUES PAPER ON RELEASE OF SOLID MATERIALS (CLEARANCE), IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND FOR I USE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS w/ comment Approved X- Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:

SEE ATTACHED COMMENT (w $4 '

SIGNATUAE April 26, 1999 DATE Entered on "AS" .Yes - No "a"eJ!,llUn" CORRE3PONDENCE PDR a 9"j o L i b 63I

m  :

. a. ,

h i

'\

CHAIRMAN JACKSON'S COMMENTS ON SECY-99-098 '

r.

I approve of the staff proposed publication in the Federal Reaister of an issues paper to be used

]

as a starting point for public discussion on a dose-based regulation for clearance (or i unrestricted release) of materials having residual radioactivity. The staff should make minor 1 revisions to the paper based on the edits provided in the attached markup.

i l

1 i

l i

., 1 1

r

,f 1

s

pw

[7590-01-P) .

L.

LNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'10 CFR Part 20 1:

Issues R' elated to Release of Solid Materials at Licensed Facilities s AGENCYi Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION

Request for comment.'

,s

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering a rulemaking that would

set specific requirements ori releases of solid materials in order to establish a regulatory  ;

i

. framework more consistent with' existing NRC requirements on air and liquid releases. The i

NRC is seeking early public input on the major issues associated with such a rulemaking. To  :

l aid in that process, the NRC is requesting comments on the istucs discussed in this notice.

1 DATE: Submit'comrnents by November 15,1999. Comments received after this'date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only l l

for comments received on or before this date..

- ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Reguitory Commission,

) Washington, DC 20555.' Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications staff. l

/

l7

+

e

^

( .

, . w: ,

A s -

~

Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and

. 4:15 pm on Federal' workdays. ,

s.t

'r *

. You may provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the TNRC home page (htto:#www.nrc.oov); This site provides the capability to upload comments as -

- files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-50g5 tt-l 1 mail:CAGanre cov).

I i

. Copies of an'y comments received may'be examined at the NRC Public Document l 1

I

' Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. y i

i

' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Cardile, telephone: (301) 415-6185; e-mail: i

.j fpc@nrc. gov,Omce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, USNRC, Washington DC -

120555-0001,-

. . . , i SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background l

, a Unlike for air and liquid releases, the Commission currently has no specdic requirements

.regarding release of solid materials.. Solid materials include metals, concrete, soils, equipment, furniture, etc., present at licensed nublear facilities. To provide consistency in its regulatory

."[ .

v  :

(p

4 j i -

framework for releases of all materials, the' Commission is considering a rulemaking that would

- set specific requirements for release of solid materials.

The NRC is supplementing its standard rulemaking process by conducting enhanced public participatory activities, including facilitated public meetings, before the start of any formal .j rulemaking process, to solicit early and' active public input on major issues associated with -

release of solid materials.

As a first step, the NRC has prepared an issues paper which describes issues and j alternatives related to release of solid materials. The intent of this paper is to foster discus'sion

. about these issues and attematives before a rulemaking to set standards would begin. The j content of the issues paper is contained in Section lil, d l

1

' II. Request for Written and Electronic Comments and Plans for Public Meetings l j

l 1 i

The NRC is soliciting comments on the items presented in the issues paper. Comments I may be submitted either in writing'or electronically as indicated under the ADDRESSES  !

.i heading. In addition to providing an opportunity for written comments, the NRC plans to hold j facilitated public meetings later this year on the issues discussed in the paper. The NRC anticipates holding four public meetings in four different geographical locations, beginning in

~

i August 1999 and extending through early November. - The dates and locations of these meetings will be announced in a later Federal Register notice. This issues paper provides I

, backgroynd and topics of discussion on the major issues that will be the subject of the public

m=. .

. '4 meetings. The written public comment period will extend until after the last public meeting is -

- held.

Based on the comments received both in written and electronic form, and at the public f

- meetin0s, the Commission will then be in a position to evaluate whether to proceed with development of a proposed rule or take some other regulatory action. If the Commission

- decides to proceed further with a proposed rulemaking, any proposed rules will be published in .

the Federal Register for public review and comment.

Ill. Issues Paper on Release of Solid Materials at Licensed Facilities ,

i 1

- INTRODUCTION J

To provide consistency in its regulatory framework for releases of materials, the Commission is considering a rulemaking that would set specific requirements for release of solid materials. This paper describes issues and attematives related to the release of solid materials

and is intended to foster discussion about these issues and attematives before a rulemaking would begin.

Section A of this issues paper describes some general considerations related to rulemaking,' potential Commission actions, and the enhanced participatory process. Section B of the paper discusses the major issues that would be associated with a rulemaking and also ,

discusses various attematives for proceeding.

u,

U y

p

• l .-

l A. BACKGROUND A.1 Current NRC dol @iff A.1.1 inconsistency of NRC reaulations coverina releases from licensed facilities

. The NRC has the statutory responsibility for the protection of health and safety related to the use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material under the Atomic Energy Act. A principal method of meeting this responsbility is through the body of regulations codified in Title 10, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR, Chapter 1). The regulations in

- 10 CFR, Chapter 1. have been developed using a rulemaking process that provides the opportunity for public review and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act and includes the analysis of costs and benefits and environmentalimpacts, and considers factors related to l

paperwork reduction. Agreement States administer equivalent programs applying equivalent regulations.

l The Commission's regulations that set standards for protection of the public against radiation appear in 10 CFR Part 20. These regulations limit the radiation exposure (or " dose") I that a member of the public can receive from the operation and decommissioning of a nuclear j facility, and also require that doses received are *as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA)".

. The NRC has used the criteria on public dose limits and ALARA requirements in Part 20 l (Sections 20.1301 and 20.1101, respectively) to establish limits in Table 2 of Appendix B of Part j l

20 on the amount of radioactivity in gaseous and liquid releases that may be released from a j I

nuclear facility to the environment, l

)

1

l L6 .

-. However, unlike the regulations applicable to gaseous and liquid releases from a F

flicensed nuclear facility, there are no current specific criteria 'in Part 20 goveming releases of i isolid'materiali by licensees,; although there are some regulations' that cover the release of

+

certain materials, Therefore, if a licensee requests a'pproval of release of solid material, the NRC

.+ , . ,u . .

must consider the request on a case-by-case basis using existing regulatory guidance, license

' conditions, 'NRC Branch Technical Positions, etc.'

I r

1 .. . .

I

The Commission recently amended its regulations in Part 20 (Subpart E) to establish j 1'

criteria for unrestricted.use of facility structures snd lands at a decommissioned site'(Federal Register, July 21,1997). Subpart E of Part 20 is focused on protection of persons entering and

- using decommissioned structures and lands at a site after a nuclear facility terminates its NRC flicense,' but does notigtherwise address release of solid material.

I

? A.1.2 Solid materials 'potentialiv available for release?

.. . i Solid materials include metals, building concrete, onsite soils, equipment, fumiture, etc., j

~

that are present at, and/or used in, licensed nuclear facilities during routine operations. Most of

this' material'will have no radioactive contamination, although some materials can have j s  !

. radioactive contamination either on their surfaces or distributed within their volumes;

, Contarnination can be distributed in the volume of materials 'because: (1) they are relatively  ;

porous (e.g., soil) allowing contamination to spread into the material; (2) thby become radioactive through activation; or (3) a recycling process (e.g., metal melting) can cause j

-JFor " example.- 10' CFR' 20.2005, 35.92, and;36.58(e).

i l

g y< ,

a j

L. '

o .

c i

contamination that was previously on the surface of a piece of equipment to become distributed

. throughout its volume. The e.nount of contamination that a material has, if any, depends largely on the type of licensee involved and its location in the facility:  !

, l l

a) For most NRC licensees, solid materials have no contamination because these licensees use sealed sources in which the radioactive material is encapsulated. These include small research and development facilities, people who use licensed gauges in their business, etc.

I i

b) For other licensees (which includes nuclear reactors, manufacturing facilities, larger educational or hospital laboratories, etc.), material generally falls into one of three groups based i

on its location or use in the facility: -. i l

l 1

1) Clean or unaffected areas of a facility - the material in these areas would likely have

.. l no radioactive contamination result;ng from licensed activities. Such areas could include

.l hospital waiting rooms, university office space in a laboratory, or metal ventilation ducts in the {

l control room of a reactor facility. j

2) Areas where licensed radioactive material is used or stored - the material in these areas can become contaminated although the levels may likely be very low, or it may have

' none, because of contamination control procedures required at facilities licensed by the NRC.

This could include material in certain laboratory areas in a university or hospital, or in certain buildings of a reactor facility.

f i

p 1 ,

I s

U -8 ~

~ . ' 3) Material used for radioactive service in the facilitv. or located in contaminated areas or  ;

i

. in areas where activation can occur -These materials generally have levels of contamination i

.+. - . . .. , . . . .. .

.j L that would not allow them to be candidates for release unless they are decontaminated.

l LA.1.3 Current NRC case-bv case review of licensee reauests for release of solid material  :

. . i

Even though the NRC does'not currently have specific criteria in Part 20 covering l release of solid materials, licensees have made, and will likely continue to make, requests for .

l L release of solid material when'it becomes obsolete or defective or when their facility is i f decommissioned. For material from clean or unaffected areas, knowledge of site radiological history is an important factor in determining whether the rnaterial is contaminated. -The NRC '

complies witN the requirements of Part 20 by evaluating requests for release on a case-by-case i

basis using either phe'4atWgfsurfacelpoptarpinatiorfqlterlajn Regulatory Guide 1.86, ,

1

~

' " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors," or other case-specific criteria.  ;

-l e

(a)1 Raa@ tory Guide 1.86. This guide', which was developed by the Atomic Energy l 4

Commission in 1974, provides a table of Acceptable Surface Contamination Levels for various j

. radionuclides, including natural and enriched uranium, transuranics, and fission products.

L These surface contaminatior) levels are stated in terms of measurable radioactivity levels

(observed disintegrations per. minute per.100 square centimeters of surface rarea), the values of

- which were based principally (on the capabilities of readily available instrumentation at the t:me 3 1

- the guide was developed. . Regulatory Guide 1.86 does not contain dose critena. For some

' situations, the NRC will incorporate the values in the table in Regulatory guide 1.86 into the 1

-license conditions of s facility.

$ 4

.n.

E, c /1 r;. .

.. j

.g. j L- , 1 j

1 .

F N (b) ? Allowance of release if there are no detectable levels of radioactive contamination from l 1

. u . .

' licensed activities above backaround in the material. Regulatory Guide 1.86 only addresses n materials having surface contamination; it does not cover volumetric contamination. For some

, 7  ; situations, the NRC allows release of volumetrically cont'aminated solid material if survey .

Instrumentation does not detect radioactivity le'vels above background. This does not mean that i

the material is' released without any radioactive contamination present on, or in, it; instead, it means that the material may be released with very low amounts of contamination that is not -

detectabis with appropriate survey instruments. This method provides inconsistent and  !

1 generally unsatisfactory licensing guidance because different survey instruments have different k l l levels of detection. This can lead to disagreements and confusion over permissible levels of 1 i

release and nonuniform levels of protection.

.i 1

.(c) Use of 10 CFR 20.2002.s. Licensees may request specific approval to dispose of  !

i 1

- materials containing low levels of licensed material in other than a licensed low-level waste - 1 disposal site in accordance with requirements in 10 CFR 20'.2002. Section 20.2bO2 requires- i i

licensees to describe the material to be released and evaluate the doses that would result. Use  ;

I g A.ZA e

of this approach requires case-specific NRC review and evaluation of the situation,-This eppreech veed lb4 n;; M epprepd;;; f; ;;;'s.;:rg M :n; ;;nd err.;unt; . ' : ;Mt

,00W k ;d'i'; for ri:n dudig d-;;;m,rn:n:;n;rs. h;;;27 ^l23as g(&GER  !

pjoylggggggggitMh9)RFJIU)p]ggthqsggggggg[$)331NR$epapprpachopMas w~  :

p, l b .

L:

- i 7 '> JA.2 NRC actions to address inconsistency in release standards by considerina rulemakinn on release of solid materials, A.'2.1 Commission direction to consider rulemakino

'As noted in Section A..,13 case-by-case technical reviews while protective of public -

)=

health and safety, can cause inconsistencies and confusion. With the potential for increased

. licensee requests for release of solid materials as more facilities near decommissioning, the l Commission, on June 30,1998, directed its staff to consider rulemaking to establish a dose-based standard for release of solid materials so that licensee considerations of, and NRC review of, disposition of slightly contaminated solid materials are conducted in a consistent manner that 1

protects public health and safety. The Commission also directed the NRC staff to include an 1 opportunity for enhanced public participation, including use of NRC's Intemet home page to  !

i solicit comments' This issues paper is the first step in soliciting views on major issues in this i

-\

area.

1 l

l I

A.2.2 Potential'Altemative Courses of Action

\

. Prior.to cond'ucting a rulemaking, the NRC generally considers attemative courses of j

' abion. Two broad altematives that the NRC could consider are not doing a rulemaking l (i.e., continue with the current practice of case-by case reviews) or developing a rulemaking for -

release of solid materials? If the NRC decided to proceed with rulemaking, it could:

i C

p 1.-

s J L "

.11 l: (1) Permit release of solid materials for unrestricted use if the potential doses to the public l' ' from unrestricted use of the material were less than a specified level determined during the rulemaking process. Unrestricted use could result in recycle or reuse of the materialin consumer products or industrial products, or disposal of the material as waste in landfills.

Release of solid materials for unrestricted use is also referred to as " clearance", but for the purposes of this issues paper, the term igelgesejoy unrestricted use" is generally used.

i . -

(2) Restrict release of solid materials to only certain authorized uses. For example, future-use of the material could be restricted to only certain industrial uses where the potential for public exposure is small.

(3) Do not permit either unrestricted or restricted release of solid material that had radioactive -

service in the facility or had been located in an area where radioactive material has been used or stored, and instedd require all such materials to go to a licensed low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility.'

l In evaluating these attematives, the NRC would consider potential human health and

environmental impacts and economic aspects associated with each attemative.

! - A.3 Current Policies of international Aaencies. Other Federal Aaencies. and State Governments Renardina Releases of Solid Materials L-In considering rulemaking attematives, the NRC would consider policies and precedents

- set by other nations and intemational agencies, by other Federal agencies and by States.

p E. , ,

,  ?-

g: h

[,

\" -

, - 12.-

?,, Intemational Efforts? There is considerable effort by other nations and by intemational ~ l agencies, such as the.Intemational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to set standards in this area.

C onsistency with standards set by other nations' and intemational agencies is important because

a. ,

l iaterials can be both imported arid exported between the U.S. and other countries and differing i 1 <

,n. . . . .,

st indards could create confusion and economic disparities in commerce.

1

The'lAEA is an' agency of the United Nations made up of member states from a number  ;

i

- of countries which develops, by consensus, various broad radiation standards for matters where l there are intemational implications. The' NRC, @ejiinvironmentalPjotection?A0ency-EPA, and

- the' Department,W Energp BOE generally' provide inpht and review in development of lAEA i i

standards. /  ;

. The generally accepted term in the international community for release of materials for i x unrestricted Use is " clearance." The IAEA is currently in the process of revising its report on a ..

Slearance levels for publication as Safety Series guidance for its member states 1 ,

(IAEA-TECDOC-855, Clearance Levels for Radionuclides in Solid Materials). ' This report was publish $d in draft in January 1996 for a three-year trial use by the' IAEA's member countries.

This report contains levels of radionuclides in solid materials that may be released for w- .:..

unrestricted use, or " cleared." The basis for the proposed cle'a rance levels is a level of  ;

c constraint of 1 rnillirem per year (mrem /yr) of exposure of members of the public from 'likely'

' exposure scenarios and 10' mrem /yr from 'unlikely' scenarios.

I- .L j

b .

E p.-131

, . One intended application of IAEA's proposed clearance levels is related to international 4

trade, for example the. import and export of scrap metals.gAragsspeietherJntemationalpfforts?

European 1 Union?dndividoaljcountries?)

1

, 1 U.S. Environmental Pietection Aaency (EPA). The EPA, although not a regulator of -

- ; licensees, is responsible for setting generally applicable environmental standards for radioactive materials under the Atomic Energy Act. : The NRC, in regulating its licensees, implements environmental standards that EPA promulgates in the area of radiation protection. In the

. absence of EPA standards in a particular area, for example in the area of release of solid materials, the NRC has the authority to set radiation protection standards for its licensees. .This can cause potential problems with the finality of NRC licensing decisions if EPA later issues standards in a particular area that are different from regulations that NRC has previously issued.

Thus, it is important for the NRC to closely involve EPA in developing its standards.-

In' addition, as noted later in Section B.1, the EPA has completed studies on environmentalimpacts of clearance of materials. The NRC and EPA have, and plan to continue L to have, coordinated efforts in this area to ensure that effective and consistent release standards

~

are established, while minimizing duplication of effort. Accordingly, the EPA will not only be an important participant in the NRC rulemaking workshops, but the NRC also plans to consult extensively with EPA throughout the rulemaking process.

In setting generally applicable environmental standards, EPA sets standards for a wide range of materials, including those which contain naturally occurring radioactive materials that have been enhanced as a result of man-made processes. For example, the ash from buming of m

~

I

'd.

, g- t, ,

(-

.4

. m ,

14 h, -

u y coal in power plants has concentrated levels of uranium lehdejlicactwein)stanalsje.g ,

/ y x J. 3 ,.

W radi0mXhjorhaggigildegayagghggs). This coal ash is generally permitted to be used in f.-

~

building materials; the ladioactlytimeterint eeneentrated-urenem in the coal ash can result in f-d . . , .

. small radiation doses to the general public as a result of its use. This EPA standardJwhat

, standottifl could be viewed as a precedent or benchmark for possible NRC release levels.

r f

EPA is currently active'in the development of standards for impot . Into the U.S. of f materials cleared in other countries.' EPA has been working withghjlgF,tQ, the Intemational -

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)! and the U.S. Department of State in these efforts.-

.-.)

U.S. Deoartment of Enerav (DOE). The DOE operates a number of nuclear facilities.

'/Although generally not licensed by the NRC, the DOE faces issues conceming the disposition of materials from its facilities similar to those faced by NRC licensees.

, , d

. In response to these needs, DOE has developed criteria for release of solid materials.

IThbse' criteria generally endorse'the numerical criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.86.' The DOE Sriteria are contained in DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the

' Environment, dated February 8,1990 (and revised in 1993) and in the Draft Handbook for l

ontrolling Release for Reuse or Recycle of Non-Real Property Containing Residual Ra'dioactive Material (June 1997).

I  !

. If the NRC issues's regulation containing criteria for release of solid materials, decisions  ;

i

~

. . o would have to be.made as to'whether DOE would adopt the standards in the NRC regulation. l

?

a i h>  ;

s-

- [lsJheicotollary;thegRif2 DOEjdecides@jreleasgMigto;genegilcon).me,rcWAoeslthelNRC  !

Date'to!anthorjzeyistrib0 tion 4tlyaDgate[ial))

' State aovemments.' Thirty States have entered into Agreements with the NRC to  ;

assume regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and small quantities of special nuclear material. '" Agreement States" generally use NRC guidance such as that contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86 or similar guidance, in their regulatory programs. ,

[Shouldhote:that!in%xercising3he,lrjauthorityi@p3AgreernegtjS_tatesifa,ce,the;sargelssu_es;and needs__that;NRCyoes.]

[Shouldlrtotejhejefforts*of;CRCPRNG_REandMSMElstandardisett_ing prganizations))

In a related matter, Section 2901(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Section 276(a) of the Atomic Energy Act) grants State govemments (Agreement and non-Agreement States alike) the authority to regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste if the NRC exempts such waste after the enactment of Act. Several States and locales have, both prior to and subsequent to, passage of the Act established prohibitions against the disposal of radioactive.

material in landfills. . The implications of Sec. 276(a) on NRC's potential alternative courses of action noted in Section A.2 above are unclear and may depend on the ultimate nature of any rulemaking that NRC undertakes.

A.4 Previous Commission Efforts to Address Release of Solid Materials The Commission previously sought to address considerations related to release of solid materials as a part of its issuance of a Below Regulatory Concem (BRC) Policy Statement on July 3,1990 (55FR 27522) . The BRC Policy was a general statement of Commission policy and was intended to provide a broad decision framework for formulating rules or making

l l

\

licensing' decisions to exempt from regulatory control certain practices involving small quantitie-l of radic ctive material. The BRC Policy was envisioned to have applicability in NRC rulemaking and guidance in four principal areas, one of which was setting a standard for release of solid materials for recycle. The Commission decided that a more extensive public involvement process in establishing these areas would be beneficial and hence instituted a moratorium on .

the BRC Policy in July 191:ri. bubsequently, in October 1992, the U.S. Congress enacted the

. Energy Policy Act of 1992 which revoked the BRC Policy Statement.

)

i The NRC's current efforts differ from those associated with the BRC Policy in several

ways. Unlike the broad policy-setting approach of the BRC policy, the NRC's current effort is 4

focused on considering establishment of specific requirements for release of solid materials, which protect public health and safety, consistent with the existing framework of requirements in Part 20 for gaseous and liquid releases. Al;;, ual1; th CP,C re;;;y whkh w;; b;u;d without i

t d;t;ibyechabe: beob er pub lZ ;;mment, the gesedur; for ; rubmekla;; en r;b;;; cf .;;lld matcrbb would be cenied out under a!! the gecedurai rcqu;rcmcat; cf the Adminbtreuv; Precedure; Act (APA). As discussed in Section A.2, this would include a full assessment of potential scenarios and pathways for radiation exposure and an evaluation of the environmental impacts and cost-benefit basis of alternative approaches. In addition, as a supplement to the normal APA process, the NRC would erihance participation in the rulemaking process through

' workshops for interested parties. Any decisions made regarding release of solid materials at this time would be made through rulemaking $milioerJsinginations, not through a policy statement.

p i

l. .

A.5 Potential NRC Actions, Enhanced Public' Participation add Public Meetings, and Lx Preparation ofissues Paper-u Generally, NRC's procedure'in rulemaking is fe he NRC staff 4e development of a -

proposed rule! for Commission consideration, publication ~of the proposed rule for'public

- comment, consideration of the comments by the NRC staff, preparation of a final rule,-for -

- Commission reviewand' approval, and publication of the final rule. As directed by the Commission, the NRC staff plans to enhance public participation in this process by conducting workshops for interested parties before any rulemaking would begin. The workshops are .

planned to elicit informed discussions of options and approaches and the rationale for them.

~

Although these workshops are not designed to seek " consensus" in the sense that there is Jagreement on the issues, the workshops are to be conducted at a very early stage of rulemaking

- to involve interested parties and the public with the following objectives: (a) to ensure that the relevant issues have been identified; (b) to exchange'information on these issues; and (c) to identify underlying concerns and areas of disagreement, and (d) where possible, approaches for resolution? The NRC staff also plans to enhance participation by providing website access to  !

L this issues paper and the abiiity to submit comments on the issues paper by e-mail.

l

' if, following this early exchange of ideas (including workshop comments and comments i

i filed by other means such as intemet responses and written comments), the Commission decides to proceed with rulemaking, other rulemaking documents will be prepared. Specifically, the NRC would evaluate the implications of a rule with regard to the National Environmental

- Policy Act (NEPA)'.' NRC conducts these evaluations as specified in 10 CFR Part 51, which

. contains requirements on preparing environmental analyses, including the content of an

h u p,.

1-t . environmental statement and the public process involved in developing the scope of an i

environmental statement. In addition, the NRC would prepare a Regulatory Analysis to evaluate costs versus benefits of a rule consistent with Executive Order 12291 and the Commission's

, regulatory analysis guidelines in NUREG/BR-0058. The NRC would also publish guidance to provide licensees with information' on how to demonstrate compliance with the regulation.

i These documents would be made available on NRC's website.-

p

~

. B. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION i

The Commission' believes that the issues and alternatives discussed below provide a .

broad look at matters related to the consistency of its regulations on standards for release of solid materials from nuclear facilities. Therefore, the Commission is soliciting comments and information on these issues before proceeding. These issues, and other relevant and substantial t issues identified by interested parties, will serve as the basis of discussion at the public workshops. .The workshop discussions will be used by the NRC staff in deciding upon an -

' appropriate course of action.

Issue No.1 - Should the NRC Address inconsistency in its Release Standards by Considering Rulemaking on Release of Solid Materials?

l As discussed in Section A.1.1, NRC Donerally uses theenteneen public dose limits and L ALARA requirements in Part 20 to establish limits on releases from nuclear facilities during b

L routine operations and ' decommissioning.;. Currently, Part 20 contains specific criteria on the

. 1 r '

1

1 i

l Jl

,y . 7

] 1 amount of radioactivity in gaseous and liquid releases that may be released from a nuclear - e facility to the environment. NRC also has requirements in Subpart E of Part 20 on unrestricted . j h

J use of decommissioned lands and structures.- However, NRC currently has no specific 1 requirement in its regulations on limits for release of solid materials. .;

'+ ,

~ Alternatives: j The NRC has the following two broad options related to the issue of inconsistency of its

, 1

. regulations on release standards and licensee requests for release of solid materials: (1) continue the current practice of handling of licensee requests for release of solid materials on a l \

case-by-case basis, or (2) include requirements in Part 20, as part of a consistent regulatory j framework for evaluating releases of all materials, that would allow it to make decisions on  ;

I licensee requests for release of solid materials that are protective of public health and safety- I 1

[Considergisiternsth3MMaWagjDebergilyhtstq!@gisMRPAnnd

+  !

, ' then]mplement.] .

1.

(1) No NRC Rulemakina: Continue Current Practice of Handlina Licensee Reauests for

( Release on a Case-bY-Case Basis.

1 Under this option, no NRC rule would be prepared. Licensees will still continue to make requests for release of solid materials.- As discussed in Section A.1.3, in order to comply with the requirements of Part 20, NRC evaluates licensee requests on a case-by case basis using regulatory guidance, branch positions, license conditions, etc. One basis for review has been

U NRC staff guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.86, which was originally published in June 1974 by

the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Regulatory Guide 1.86 contains a table of acceptable

total and removable surface levels for various radionuclides, including natural and enriched uranium, transuranics, and fission products, which are stated in terms of measurable

- radioactivity levels, but does not contain specific dose criteria. Regulatory Guide 1.86 has been

- used to evaluate unrestricted release of solid materials whose surfaces are slightly radioactive; it does not cover material with volumetric contamination. In addition to Regulatory Guide 1.86, Section A.1.3 notes that NRC also'uses other case-specific criteria, such as the detection capability of instrumentation, and certain specific rule sections, in its evaluation of requests for

- release of solid materials.-

(2) Develop a Proposed Rule._

in this option, the NRC would proceed with rulemaking to supplement its gaseous and liquid release standards in Part 20 by developing dose-based regulations limiting releases of solid material to provide a consistent regulatory framework protective of public health and safety.

This would involve conducting a rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act, and developing, as regulatory bases, an environmental evaluation under NEPA and an analysis of costs and benefits in a Regulat'o ry Analysis. Based on Commission direction discussed in Section A.2.3, a rulemaking would use an enhanced participatory process involving early public l input and website access to rulemaking documents.

Specific items for Discussion:

I

Y'.

..~

21--

. Should the NRC' continue with the current practice of making decisions on a case-by-y_ . .

t case basis,'or should it proceed to develop a proposed rule that would establish generic criteria for release of solid materials?c What are the considerations that should go into making such a

" decision?.'

(1) Does the current system of NRC case-by-case decisions on release of solid materials,

. using existing ~ guidance,' provide an adequate regulatory framework? Can volumetric -

contamination'in sm' all' amounts be released in a manner similar to that done for small amounts -

of surface contamination on materials that have been released to unrestricted areas under the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.86? If a rule is not issued, should Regulatory Guide 1.86 be updated with'a set'of dose-based values?

L(2) Should the NRC develop dose-based regulations on release of solid material? Would a

rule allow the NRC to better address volumetric contamination in solid materials in an explicit and consistent regulatory manner that meets both licensee needs and public concems? Would i a rule also meet additional specific regulatory needs such as the specific types of material to be:

covered, restricted vs. unrestricted use, etc? -

alg.Id U Je b GW a m 4

- Jegolaton@RafeM l

)-

p V

Li

p x LN,

^j. . . _ .

-22

'(-34) Would issuance of an NRC rule on release of solid material definitively resolve licensee fquestions regarding finality of NRC release decisions if EPA, which has authority to set generally applicable environmental standards in'this area, promulgates a rule at a later date? -

(45) Substantial NRC resources would be needed to conduct the complex safety,- I environmental, and regulatory analyses required to support a rulemaking. Without a regulation,

'the NRC will have to review the anticipated increase in requests for release of solid materials on a case-by-case basis which could mean less efficient and less consistent reviews. Would potential savings in resources by having a regulation in place offset the resources spent on rulemaking?

l l

Issue No. 2'-If NRC Decides to Develop a Proposed Rule. What are the Principal

. Alternatives for Rulemakina that Should be Considered. and What Factors Should be

' Used in Makina Decisions Between Alternatives?

If the answer to issue #1 is to conduct a rulemaking to include requirements in Part 20

-on release of solid material, a rulemaking process (including the development of technical basis information, evaluation of environmental impacts and cost-benefit analyses, and the public review and comment process) would be conducted to evaluate potential rulemaking alternatives.

Rulemakina Alternatives:

. Potential alternatives for rulemaking in this area are:

U .

p- i

'~

x '

. (1) Penhit release of materials for unrestricted'use if the potential' dose to the oublic from the material is are less than a specified level determined durina the rulemakina process - !n this altemative, a licensee cou'id release for unrestricted use ' (" clearance") material that meets the

~

permissible levelin the standards. s Potential attemative. dose levels resulting from unrestricted use of the material could' include doses of 10. mrem /yr,1 mrem /yr, a'nd 0.1 mrem /yr above I background, as well as .no dose above background.1 To provide some' perspective on these

levels: (a) the dose from natural background to people in the U.S. can vary widely based on the area of the country where people liveZhiestyle7andjotherh, and-ieen averages about 300 -

mrem /yr; (b) NRC's public dose limit is 100 mrem /yr, (c) the dose from use of recycled coal ash

'{

in concrete block as permitted by EPA can be about 5% of natural background (about 15 mrem /yr), (d) a person receives 10 mrem { app' e arstigtqfH6] mrem?] on a round-trip coast-to-L coast flight, and (e) 1 mremlyr is a level which the National Council of Radiation Protection?and h

measurerpents (NCRP) considers a trivial' risk. A'1 mrem /yr value is also the level being i i considered Mindamaggg unrestricted use (or " clearance") in the European community. i i

(2) Restrict release of solid materials to only certain authorized uses (see more detail in Issue L No. 3).f q3) Do'not oermit either unrestricted or restricted release of solid material thathas4ted

.th;S; ;; .h lr; h ML;; or been in an area where radio' active material has been unad or  ;

, - in this attemative, all such materials in

~t he facility would be required to go to a licensed LLW disposal facility.

L a (4) Other altemativeg to be determined during the rulemaking process.

)

. .u 4

1 Factors in decision-makina':

Principal factorsh ir! making decisions regarding the alternatives could include human

. health and environmental impacts,' cost-benefit considerations,limpacts'on;otherjndustries, -

i resouroscono6nrabon) the capability to survey the material to assure that it meets permissible .

levels,' existing international, national, and State standards, and other factors raised during the  !

~

rulemaking process. ~

l Human health and environmental imoacts: In assessing potential rulemaking attematives, NRC would consider a broad range of possible impacts, both radiological and non- ]

i

. radiological. These could include evaluation of radiation dose to individuals from release of solid i

materials, assessment of collective doses.to different population groups from the release,  ;

l transportation,- processing and disposal impacts, impacts on biota,- land use impacts, and  :

societalimpacts. ISome of these impacts may be competing. For example, a lower dose

~

L criterion would result in less material available for release (and instead sent to a LLW disposal i site) which, in tum, would lower the radiation dose impact to the public from exposure to that 'l L material.' However, the lower dose criterion could cause an increase in other impacts, for example the theee ,,e.,4ed;eles;eel impacts associated with mining $ajuJgetion, and transport of fresh metal to replace that sent to a LLW disposal site. Because these impacts would take place I

'ove'r different time periods and expose different populations, a precise comparison is difficult.

Nevertheless,~ the decision-making process could consider these impacts separately and also consider the net collective impact for these disparate factors.

L l-

c w

.- 1 t ,^

[  ; t 7 As a first step in assessment of impacts, the NRC has issued a ' draft ' report for comment - j

that provides a technical basis for determining potential doses to individuals from a wide range c of potential scenarios by which members of the public could come in contact with material that L had been released for unrestricted use (or " cleared") from licensees (" Radiological Assessment I

, for Clearance of Equipment and Material from Nuclear Facilities", NUREG-1640, February L

1999).1 The report contains an analysis of material flow models based on an evaluation of the recycle / reuse _ industry in the U.S; and of potential scenarios by which a member of the public could reasonably expect to be ex' posed. Solid ' materials that are candidates for release that are evaluated in the report include iron / steel,' copper,' aluminum, and concrete. The EPA has issued a similar report which is accessible on EPA's website at http://www. epa. gov / radiation /cleanmetals/ publications.htm. While some of the analysis ,

l approaches of the EPA report are different from NRC's report, the overall results from the EPA -j and the NRC reports are similar.

,o Cost-benefit considerations: Executive Order 12291'contains provisions requiring that, in their rulemakings, Federal agencies consider cost-benefit evaluations of attemative courses of  ;

1 Laction. Consistent with Executive OrderL12291, NRC has established guidelines for preparing regulatory analyses of altemative courses of action in support of its rulemaking decisions I (NUREG/BR-0058). Benefits would generally derive from the net reduction in environmental impacts discussed above. Costs which could be included in a regulatory analysis could include:

(1) the costs of altemative courses of action, including surveys stihe nuclear facilityleMandjet  ;

igggggggggglitle) to verify that permissible l

. release levels have been meti (2) the potential for having to respond toggggggglopfelse i i

pfsc" alarms at g!gggggikugdgggy serop facilities, (3) economic impact on

\l Y - ~

y u 7 L - O .

l  : recycle / scrap / manufacturing processes; (4) replacement metal production; and (5) alternative L

,' options for disposing of the material.

/

l Implementation considerations: A potential concern with implementation of a proposed i rule is the capability to measure radioactive contamination corresponding to the very low i

1 i

attemative dose levels discussed above, lHLeggpgggqpegiallygroblematicjorgioactive  !

c j-l materials 1 hat 8thnotismtt,6 In particular, a rulemaking alternative

..which would require survey instrumentation to verify that there is_n_o_ dose above natural - .l background could be extremely difficult,"4ffDettligpossible; to implement because of the variation in natural background and the capability of survey instruments to detect such low levels.

i l Other intemational. national. and State standards: In considering rulemaking

attematives, the NRC would also considergNgolgwgentsPguidelirles, policies; and precedents

. set by intemational agencies, other Federal agencies, or States. Consistency with standards set l

by other countries and intemational agencies is important because materials can be both -

L L imported and exported between the U.S. and other countries and differing standards could

.  ! create confusion and ' economic dirparities in commerce.

L i~

?

' Items for discussion:

t (A) Human health and environmental imoacts:

- (1) What dose level is acceptable regarding release of solid materials from licensed facilities for unrestricted use ?"Should release of solid materials for unrestricted use be permitted at a

!?,

I L

dose level (for example,10,1.0, or 0.1 mrem /yr, or no dose, above background (or other dose))

which is established in rulemaking based on a balancing of risks from various altematives? Or, should release of solid materials not be permitted if theylaypotentiallyiconta.minated fr_om the usejof h;d been u;;d for red;;activ; ;;rslce er b;;n in area; wher; licensed radioactive materia l woe u;;d or stored?

)- ' (2) How should environmental impacts be balanced and what types of impacts should be considered in decision-making?

i) In considering radiological impacts from materials released for unrestricted use in the

. public sector, what pathways of exposure to people,T1sucKas in addition to those already considered in NUREG 1640, should be considered? As noted above, NUREG-1640 contains a technical basis for determining potential doses to individuals from a wide range of potential scenarios by which members of the public could come in contact with material that had been released for unrestricted use. The report contains an analysis of material flow nkodels based on an evaluation of the recycle / reuse industry in the U.S. and of potential scenarios by which a member of the public could reasonably exp;;t to be exposed.

ii) In considering other environmental impacts, what impacts, both radiological and nonradiological, should be considered? Such impacts could include mining of new metals to replace metals that could be potentially released but which are sent to a LLW disposal site, prod'uction of metal products, transportation of materials, etc.

I l

1 l

'l i

lii) How should net environmental impacts from all the radiological and nonradiological

{

l impacts be balanced?

J I

i (3) What is the potential for exposures to multiple sources of material released for unrestricted use, and what are ways in which persons could be exposed to multiple sources?

How should potential for exposure to multiple sources be considered in setting an acceptable .

l dose level?. Towhatyxtentthouldicogsolidatedpfocessingpf clearedjtnatefal#e. considered?

t l

(4) What societal impacts should be considered and how should they be factored into the j environmental evaluation? For example, material released for unrestricted use from nuclear j facilities could result in concem, confusion, or fear if the public either does not clearly I understand that the risk is small or does not accept the risk.

l (B) Cost-benefit considerations;

, (1) As noted above, Executive Order 1292210229116ee'pg;25] requires Federal Agencies to consider cost-benefit in its consideration of rulemaking alternatives. NRC uses NUREG/BR-0058 as its guideline.in analysis of the cost-benefit of regulatory alternatives. In using NUREG/BR-0058:

i) How should economic factors be incorporated into rulemaking decisions, including costs of survey methods and appropriate instruments to measure very low levels of volumetrically

4 J

29-

. contaminated material, economic risks associated with release of solid materials, costs of;

" decontamination, ALARA issues, etc.

i 4 . . .

1 ii) How should economic impacts be balanced against net environmental impacts?

]

L ,

. n (2) What are the major economic costs associated with release of solid materials into -

commerce? -

, , - (3) What are the major economic costs associated with landfill disposal of material released

~ for unrestricted use? Would problems be encountered in this material going to a landfill?

(4) What economic risks are associated with release of solid materials for unrestricted use?

)

l For example, what are the risks (and associated costs) that materials released from a nuclear L

facility could be rejected at a metter or scrap yard based on a survey at that point? What means  !

could minimize such economic risks?

L m j i

(5) What is the potential for buildup of radioactivity in commerce as a result of continued release of solid material for unrestricted use over time?, How should such a buildup be

-' estimated? What is the potential that this buildup could contribute significantly to either the net environmental impact, to economic impacts on general commerce, or to public concem?

[(C) Imo!amentation considefations .

y- .

l

[

o j

p  ;

K

-30 . '

l l (1) What ~is the capability to survey materials (both for surface and volumetric contamination) ,

at the different alternative dose levels being considered, and what effect would that have on I setting a standard? Re3hese, survey, capabilities lreadily ayallable,tojice.nsees~and_n.on-  ;

. licensedifacilitiest What economic impact would the use of different or advanced survey techniques have on the facilities releasing the material and the facilities accepting the material

. for reuse or recycle? How can surveys be designed to prevent releasing material in excess of permissible levels? Over what volume or mass of material should surveys be performed in

. assessing compliance with release levels? > Should materials of varying concentration levels be

.: combined, and, if so, how?

- (2) What different survey methods should be used for assuring that materials from different  !

areas of a facility, and having different potential for contamination, meet the criteria of a dose-

. based standard? For example, should the survey of solid materials from areas known to be free

, of contamination rely upon knowledge of facility radiological history and knowledge of plant

' processes, and, if so, how?

4 +

.% 3 e#ective'egdgicientpoulationMhoukipwitsjemmigunaBleMpo!N!#aintsMimits7 shogdghlmheangsam!Lnsgsposcesug!pmpeelaiGGavammlistusWMisRooitiedAose as .

F +

20)t; 2

(D) Other considerations includina intemational. national. and State ouldelines:

L .

L

e

'- . Y.s 131-~

(1) With regard to international, national, and State standards: j J

< J

, - (a) How should guidelines on u' nrestricted release, or " clearance," set by international .i

. standards-setting bodies such as the IAEA'and Intemational Commission ori Radiological i Protection (ICRP),' as well as those set by other countries, be considered in setting a level for ~

? release $f material from NRC-licensAd facilities in the U.S? - How should efforts by the U.S.'

1

~

' Department of State and the EPA to set import' standards be considered?

(b) .How should guidelines of other U.S. agencies, e.g., DOE and EPA, be considered? -How sShould standards set by NRC be consistent with other go.7;.;"y app l;;;bl; EPA standards, as

for example 4; rited to those for recycled coal ash (see Section A.2.2.3)? With regard to -

issues of finality of NRC licensing decisions, what potential problems)ouldAcetir if EPA later -

issues standards for release of solid materials different from an NRC regulation?

(c) How should recommendations made by U.S. standards setting bodies, such as the ,

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), be cons!dered? l

.t '

(d) How should 'standards set by U.S. Industry groups, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), be considered? ))geligggletrygandardsyg!?ongypsvallatgejgor

.lbould6 f

l (e) Should NRC simply adopt the standards in ia,1b, or ic, and their associated health risk

' level, rather than conduct analyses of its own?

3u t

e E. m

m ,

l 1

l'  : (f) What are the economicggdytiger impacts of having NRC standards different from r.

L atandards ihaimay be set by international agencies, EPA, or other national bodies?-

. (g) What compatibility categories, as described in NRC's " Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," published September 3,1997 (62 FR 46517), and

.i

in NRC's Management Directive 5.9, " Adequacy and Compatibilith of Agreement State l > l 1

Programs," should bh assigned to any rule on release of solid materials? Compatibility refers to '

?the extent to'M!hich that Agreement State radiation control programs are consistent with NRC's -

. program for the regulation of Atomic Energy Act radioactive materials to ensure that an

adequateland; coherent nationwide effort is collectively. established for regulation of such =

i

. materials.

f(2) Should existing NRC standards, including the public dose limit of 100 mrem /yr in 10 CFR

. 20.1301, and Subpart E of.Part 20 which contains a dose criterion of 25 mremlyr for release of .

1 decommissioned structures and lands, be considered in setting allowable doses for release of

solid material for unrestricted use? - A consideration in this question is that there are different i o .

' circumstances between Subpart E and the issues being discussed in this paper For example.

Subpart E limits 'the dose from the single release of structures and land 'at a site to 25 mrem /yr.

(in contrast, unrestricted release of the materials considered in this issues paper could involve

~

T periodic releases over the facility lifetime at a dose level to be set in the rulemaking.

F

(

F 1 -'-

C y - [' y' [..' _1c r

. -'r' $

f

F

[

l-  !

L 33-Issue No. 3 -If NRC Decides to Develop a Proposed Rule Containina Criteria for Release j of Solid Materials. Could Some Form of Restrictions on Future Use of Solid Materials be' Considered as an Alternative?

As discussed in Section A.2.2, release of solid materials for unrestricted use would allow l

' them to be recycled or reused in consumer products or industrial products, or be disposed of in solid waste landfills. A potential attemative could involve limiting release of solid materials by restricting their future use to some authorized use.

Alternatives:

I Potential alternatives for restricted use of solid materials could include:

(1) Restrict the first use of solid material to certain authorized uses.

In this attemative, the release of radioactive material would be restricted to certain authorized uses to ensure that it is processed into one or more specific products. For example, material could be recycled for use in for some irdustrial product such as steel beams that wculd be designated for use in a foundation or structural support for a bridge or monument. Because

. of uncedainties related to controlling potential uses of the material after it leaves a licensee's

- facility, Lit may be necessary to require that processing of the material for the first use be done under a specific license issued by the NRC. This attemative might be beneficial for materials

. l contaminated by nuclides having shod to moderate half-lives, allowing substantial reduction in

contamination due to radioactive decay within the lifetime of the structure in which it is placed. I i

1 l

This attemative would probably not be applicable for all materials (e.g., wood products and some metals such as copper). End user certification could be difficult to enforce.

i

2) Restrict release of solid material to permitted disoosal.

This alternative would restrict the release ofpligh.tly;cjontanti.nated solid material from l nuclear facilities to disposal at municipal solid waste landfills. [ Solid eatertal;with high_er levels.of radioa_ctive)contamjgatiorL'WJ@ldjcontinuej!ojbehandled,as][arjoactn/eMaiste;and_bellisposed offat_ licensed facilities: Municipw solid waste landfills are issued permits by State regulatory authorities in accordance with 40 CFR 258, " Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," as well as othef State and local regulations. The rationale for this dtemative is thst exposure pathways at landfills can be fairly well defined and quantified, and that many of the pathways of potential exposure associated with recycle of metal into consumer products or industrial products would not be present. Additional restrictions could involve disposal at industrial solid waste facilities l rather than at sanitary waste landfills.

Issues associated with this attemative include the fact that additional NRC and/or EPA rulemaking may be required to implement tUs alternative. For example, the definitions of solid waste and/or byproduct material (or associated regulations) might need to be revisited to allow disposal at solid waste landfills of material having residual radioactivity. Several States currently have prohibitions against the disposal of radioactive material in landfills which would make this attemativo less feasible. An additional issue is the possibility that material could be sent to a landfill under a use restrictediog use, but4het it could be removed from the landfill and sold as scrap btreGaed. -

ry, ,

.n 6 e , -. ,

m . .

f items for Discussion:1 . T

{.

. '(1) Should the NRC consider restrictions on future use of solid materials as an attemative to l unrestricted use (similar to thet th:;h ;;;; du.; for the license termination rule)? .

~

[

, , (2) . If so,for what types of restricted usesgould ;;;;d the .T.;;del be considered? '

i L (3) What types of controls could ;; .;x.;b'y be pleced er, the i,rse; cf restricting use to assure that the material would not be released for unrestricted use? !Wouldjhesopontrolste

' reasonablo$ Would it be necessary to license processing of the material for the first use in i order to assure protection of pcblic health and safety? For example, if iron / steel were to be restricted to use in bridge supports, should the company processing the steel into_ bridge J supports be licensed'by the NRC? Or could suff;cient restrictions be placed on the processing company to assure that the steel went where it was supposed to without the company having an NRC license?.;

(4)~ How long would the use metenel be able to be restricted? What radionuclides, and

, associated time periods for radioactive decay,' would be reasonable to consider as candidates

-' for restricted use? What would happen to the material when it reached the end of its useful

. restricted life?

)

- i (5)L If restrictions _were placed on future use of materials, would the NRC need to be involved L

'in continued regulation M of the material? Would States need to be involved? Or could a mechanism for institutional control, similar to that used in the license termination rule be used ,

i

^

>l 5 3 ;E i

i

L . to assure the continued restricted use of materials? Note that Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 (Section 20.1403) contains requirements regarding acceptable dose levels for restricted use, allowable institutional controls and financial arrangements, etc.  !

- (6) What type of public involvement [should.there.be in decisions conceming restricted use of materials ;hould there be? Should it be similar to the method used in the license termination rule where licensees are required to seek advice from affected parties whenpropo. sing p'aclng a

lnic restricted use? Note that Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 ( Section 20.1403) also contains

]

requirements for regard;ng the spc;;'c arcas which licensees tomst seek adviceen from affected parties and also the methods to be used in obtaining that advice. A potential problem in establishing a public involvement process for restricted use of materials is that (unlike license term i nati on of buildings or a site where affected parties in a community can be fairly readily I l

identified for a restricted site in a community) material leaving the site could be sent for restricted use in different areas jandyses. Can this psicat;;; prob;cin bc addre;;;cd so as to laclude a rnean]ngful public involvement process beTdeyeloped for setting restrictions on future material I use in specific licensing cases?

(7) How should considerations and predictions of future public'uses t usagca of materials and the restrictions on those materials, wh;ch sculd be d;"cuit to .T.;kc, be developed-sees to provide credible approaches for restricted use?

(8) What dose should be permitted for material released for restricted use? Should the same attemative dose levels as for unrestricted use (see issue #2) also be considered for restricted use, or should some other value, either higher or lower, be considered? By way of L _

j

g comparison, the allowable dose in Subpart E of Part 20 for restricted use of released lands and structures is the same as for unrestricted usesprovided;the,controisemain effective.

(9) What specific problems are associated with restricting materials to landfill disposal?

Issue No. 4 -If NRC Decides to Develop a Proposed Rule. What Materials Should be Covered?

A rule developed by the NRC could cover selected materials (for example, certain metals i

such as iron and steel) or could be a broad rule encompassing all materials. Any alternatives . l chosen for consideration would be dependent on information available on the various materials. ,

Currently, the NRC has developed the following technical background information:

(1) An analysis of individual doses resulting from unrestricted release of steel, aluminum,  !

I copper, an'd concrete (draft NUREG-1640, February 1999) has recently been completed. These materials were analyzed because they were considered to represent those most likely to I

become available and 'also to else represent most of the volume oflslightly? contaminated i material available for release from NRC-licensed facilities into the~public sector?otherithan soil. l l

(2) Discussions with liesnsees have indicated that there are large quantities of soil with very low amounts of radioactive contamination that are available for release. Although NUREG-1 1640 does not include specific analyses for soil, work done previously for the license termination l rule provides baseline technical information on individual dose factors and environmental l l

analysis for soil which could be adapted for use for this application. This previous work includes  ;

l l

l

p

)

D NUREG-1496, " Generic Environmental impact Statement on Radiological Criteria for License

. , Termination," NUREG/CR-5512, " Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning,"

~

and NUREG-1549, " Decision Methods for Dose Assessment to Comply with Radiological

Criteria for License Termination."

(3) The NRC does not have similar analyses completed for otherislightlycontaminated 7[

materials r.;;d: .; d;; pee l::er, er.d potentially available for release.

Alternatives:

Altemat'ive rule approaches could be:

(1) , Apply rule to only a select group of solid materials, including certain metals (steel, aluminum, copper) as well as concrete and soll.

'(2) Apply rule to a wider group of materials to also include other materials under license including sludge, sewage, wood, glass, and others.

~

.(3) Apply rule to a select group of materials (Alternative 1)'and conduct rulemaking on other

. materials in item 2 at a later time.

Sepcific items for Discussion.--

n

b, [< y q)  :""

G:' , ,

'( < '4

c -

, s gg ,

,e- -

c .:- - -

L ,

"?.39 -

S N (1) Should the NRC proceed with a rulemaking covering all materials, with the option of D

q conducting y

further rulemaking at a later time for_ certainef4he materials if the impact is too great

,; or3the; analyses 5too" complicated"oMi t neMnsunjiD07 '

c w -

. +

n e 5_ }'.

1..

r

i) Is it appropriate to proceed with just certain materials, including steel, aluminum, copper, concrete, and soil, so that rulemaking can' be done in a timely manner using the information

. developed for these materials in NUREG-1640lJandNM%)sonpedsbove', .

as input to the environmental analyses and regulatory analyses, r.;ded to ; upper. ; .

culemelang? 1Would experience gained with the rule on steel, aluminum, copper, concrete, and .

d soih bE useful in ,eva@stingloquhygggtphaelgjpgpf if .; 2 other materials later?

. ii) Would issuing a rule now for only certain materials noted in Altemative #1 limit NRC's Lcapability to deal effectively with requests for release that could be made in the future for other J

materials? Other similar materials, such as sludges, slag, asbeston, etc., could also potentially

- be the subject of requests for release. To help answer that question, how many and what types y  ! of materials are licensees actually requesting release for today{ofinns] anticipated: ope @he.'.hext L decade?$

lii)I Should the NRC perform additional analyses at this time of individual doses resulting

, . ., :Y . .

J ~ from other materials potentially available for release to support rulemaking decisions for these imaterials even if it impacts the schedule for rulemaking for release of steel, aluminum, copper, and concrete? :

1

(2) What other materials would be the candidates for rulemaking? Do analyses for these materials currently exist?

(3) If the NRC proceeds with rulemaking limited to certain materials indicated in Attemative 1, how should it handle requests for release of other materials, i.e., should it proceed with a subsequent rulemaking for other materials, and, if so, how and when should it procee'd with this later rulemaking? Should the' additional materials be released under existing guidelines until the subsequent rule is developed, or should the release of these materials be postponed until a rulemaking is conducted? Mthe;rulemaliing:establisheKdoselobjectives;for release;and

' ltPPlernefits3hyse;objectivesjtgough_ tables 2obvati.s;forJpecifi.c;materialsfshould the dose objection;alsp;be;u_sedjo'guideicaseispecigcylease;oflother materials;through licensi.ng actiongor ejemptions? -

(4) "! hat are th; lmpll cat len; for,^l tem;tl;;; 1, 2, and 0, i.e., ;;What would be the

~

associated costs, effective survey methods for d;"crent m;terlal:, and dose impacts of the attematives?

. (5) Should the NRC rulemaking be extended to cover materials etthat:may bel released

[ rop 31ug[eahMolligesloperated by,ttje DOE f;;;lltlc;? If ;;, he;; ohould that b; done?

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1999.

4

,g ,

t ;

r t' '

ci 4 .

<: : 1

, S 41.. .

o ,

i >

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4

-l

'c e

s '; . William D. Travers,-

Executive Director for Operations; -

J I '

.. :3, d

i s

j

. .j l!

i l l

! i l

)

l-

,. 6 I

l i

l l

l i.

L l' f i>

l l

l g:Warek\99098mfw.wpd i

.i l

?

'.L