ML20195H286

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 Meeting

ML20195H286
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/14/1999
From:	Dicus G 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 9906160319
Download: ML20195H286 (21)

Text

- ,

NOTATION VOTE' RESPONSE SHEET TO: . Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER DICUS

SUBJECT:

. SECY-99-098 - PUBLICATION OF AN ISSUES PAPER ON

~'

RELEASE OF SOLID MATERIALS (CLEARANCE), IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND FOR  !

USE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS  !

Approved Y Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS: MjM f p 4.-ct JcM.

e fh Mo D,a,n

@TUkE'V w M ms '

DATE /

Entered on"AS" Yes [ No

Z8'2e8?#s7J8825 '

CORRESPONDENCE PDR .

9 906 /L,03/ )-

r- ,

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

' 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. .

J You may provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the l l;

NRC home page aittoE/www.nrc.aov).~ This site provides the capability to upload comments as l files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5095 h- i mail.CAGdhnrc.aov).

Copies of any comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FU"THER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Carcile, telephone: (301) 41 %185; e-mail:

fpc@nrc. gov,0ffice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, USNRC, Washington DC

-20555-0001, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

/

l. Background  ;

Unlike for air and liquid releases, the Commission currently has no a ' guire ents regarding rolesse of solid materials. Solid materials include metals, concrete, soils, equipment, fumiture, etc., present at licensed nuclear facilities. To provide consistency in its regulatory 4

S-n 14

W  ; ,f

.. T O!' s ll ,

6- :'

l , However, unlike the regulations applicable to gaseous and liquid releases from a

~

i licensed nuclear facility, there are no current specific criteria in Part 20 goveming releases of -

-- solid materials by licensees, although there are some regulations that cover the release of

certain materials. Therefore, if a licensee requests approval of release of solid material, the NRC must consider the request on a case-by-case basis using existing regulatory guidr.nce, license -

, conditions, NRC Branch Technical Positions, etc.

The Commission recently amended its regulations in Part 20 (Subpart E) to establish criteria for unrestricted use of facility structures and 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 g license, but does not btherwisje address release of solid material. #

7 A.1.2 Solid materials ootentially av "-Na for release.

l.

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

. that are present at,'and/or used in, licensed nuclear facilities during routine operations. Most of 3 this material will have no radioactive contamination, although some materials can have radioactive contamination either on their surfaces or distributed within their volumes.

Contamination 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) they become radioactive through activation; or (3) a recycling process (e.g., metal melting) can cause v,

2For:exa'mple,10 CFR 20.2005,' 35.92, and 5- n -19 l

s +

8-

3) Material used for radioactive service in the facility. or IWad in crid-min =t+1 areas or w

I lin areas where activation can occur - These materials generally have le' vels of contamination i

. that would not allow them to be candidates for release unless they are decontaminated. ,]

A.1.3 Current NRC case-bv case review'of licensee reouests for release of solid matarial -

, . j i

^

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

- . release of solid material when it becomes obsolete or defective or when their facility is  !

4 ; decommissioned.' For material from clean or unaffected areas, knowledge of site radiological

' history is an important factor in determining whether the material is contaminated. The NRC >

' complies with the requirements of Part 20 by evaluating requests for release on a case-by-case  ;

basis using either F Regulatory Guide 1.86 <

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

1 (a) Reaulatory Guide 1.86. This guide, which was developed by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1974, provides a table of Acceptable Surface Contamination Levels for various

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

These surface contamination levels are stated in terms of measurable radioactivity levels (observed disintegrations por minute per 100 square centimeters of surface area), the values of which were based principally' on the capabilities of readily available instrumentation at the time

- the guide was developed. Regulatory Guide 1.86 does not contain dose cliteria. For some situations, the NRC will incorporate the values in the table in Regulatory guide 1.86 into the license conditions of a facility.

u 5-n-11 m

a-

)

.-. l l(b) ~ Allowance of release if there are no da*Mahlt levels of radiandive coni.Tiinetion from

' licensed activities above backaround in the matenal, Regulatory Guide 1.86 only addresses

. ,1 materials having surface contamination; it does not cover volumetric contamination. For some situations, the NRC allows release of volumetrically contaminated solid material if survey  ;

instrumentation does not detect radioactivity levels above background. This does not mean that i 1

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 i i

detectable with appropiiate survey instruments. This method provides inconsistent and l l

3 generally unsatisfactory licensing guidance because different survey instruments have different

?

' levels of detection. This can lead to disagreements and confusion over permissible levels of j release and nonuniform levels of protection.

1 1

(c) Use of 10 CFR 20.2002. Licensees may request specific approval to dispose of materials containing low levels of licensed material in other than a licensed low-level waste  :

disposal site in accordance with requirements in 10 'CFR 20.2002. Section 20.2502 requires l

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

gA d.

' of this approach requires case-specific NRC review and evaluation of the situation,-This /

1 eff OL-:-h ^ ^0dd '.'h;I,^ et 50 espieg.;t;107 ;^.Gk;&t';,[, the ', .0.Z :i a o0; ,I; 07 -.;* . '. that

__..ou__._.._<._,____.____mm_ 2______,__,_ .

~ e- -=**"

m my -

• h, j --- _. _ 2 _ 5 g,;,3 g ges exemptionp1 h - a wb. - ,

j

@J.  :

5- M-TT -

l..

4

& -r

, l l

{~' >

Intemational Efforts.1There is considerable ~ effort by other nations and by intemational

agencies, such as the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to set standards in this area. I

. Consistency with standards set by other nations and intemational agencies is' important because j

!' 1 L . materials can be both imported'and exported between the U.S. and other countries and differing .

standards could create confusion and economic disparities in commerce. l 1

l The IAEA is an agency of the United Nations made up of member states from a number -

- of countries which develops, by consensus,'various broad radiation standards for matters where

- there are intomationalimplications. The NRC,M_nggal pen ,and

. the]DepTirtirl@GiffdlWD990E generally provide input and review n dd$relSpment of IAEA standards.

The generally accepted term in the intemational community for release of materials for unrestricted use is " clearance." The'IAEA is currently in the process of revising its report on

~

clearance levels for publication as Safety Series guidance for its member states (IAEA-TECDOC-855, Clearance Levels for Radionuclides in Solid Materials). This report was i

published in draft in January 1996 for a three-year trial use by the IAEA's member countries.

2 This report contains levels of radionuclides in solid materials that may be released for unrestricted use, or." cleared." The basis for the proposed clearance levels is a level of constraint of 1 millirem per year (mrom/yr) of exposure of members of the public from 'likely'

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

sn. n l

p

' One intended application of IAEA's proposed clearance levels is related to intemational trade, for ex pl the import and export of scrap metals.S tiona.lyfforts? ./

' CEC 5 i

Europea . ,_.,_]21hdyldDalyborl tries?)

L_pgb

, gc La. M, pq q SATauo= 4 MK 0 [pn E'M [ .

U.S. Environmental Protection Aoency (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.

M ia b l ~

in addition, as noted lateri ctionh the EPA has completed studies on environmentalimpacts of clearance of materials. The NRC and EPA have, and plan to continue 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 jfM 5 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 4crue_

- range of materials, including Aces which contain naturally occurring radioactive materials that have been enhanced as a result of man-made processes. For example, the ash from buming of S-N- 91

om - ,

1 I

^ . .: . '

. q '

h 1 .

i

. \

> coal in power plants has concentrated levels of uraniumgggagergggpgggggg,jglgsj(Eg!,-

[pjdhm? HEN. .This coal ash is generally permitted to be used in ,

l

. building materials; the 3digectig!Niglatialeoneentrated wrenium in the coal ash can result in )

I small radiation doses to the general public as a result of its use. This EPA stanclardlglj,a t  ;

standard?] could be viewed as a precedent or benchmark for possible NRC release levels; j

' EPA is currently' active in the development of screa nim f f A

./ himEA'inal~ o theMU.S.? uua.

' materials cleared in other countries.' EPA has been rking withilligalR9reeN q

.i._n s m i =_..nariv- e oe m.z~-  : =--- + d

~;iA JB usNI , U [,

s e.-

% 20: 3.La l[ , .

i.}lmmatpywyc , a,p U.S.' Deoartment of Enemy (DOE). The DOE operates a num y4ae,,m p 4

. j d .& w

' Although g~ eborally not licensed by the NRC, the DOE faces issues conceming the disposition of d.,

in N

materials from its facilities similar to those faced by NRO licensees.

• 4 gy( {

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

These criteria generally endorse the numerical criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.86. The DOE

. criteria are contained in DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the

~ Environment, dated February 8,1990 (and ravised in 1993) and in the Draft Handbook for

/

Controlling Release for Reuse or Recycle of Non-Real Property Containing Residual

Radioactive Material (June 1997).

. If the NRC issues a regulation containing criteria for release of solid materials, decisions WHLL dust d emk

. would have to be made. as to whether DOE would adopt the standards i n the NRC: regulation.

A 5-H-%

t-

y j-l

n.  ;

4 4

1. i[1,s'therotirollgy m 1/c o w : < ;.7 ..4:  ; # ., 3 M a s w , E m s F

/  ;

hagp[a0piorfW ]

I State govemments. Thirty States have entered into Agreements with the NRC to l

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

. IM.ngle3hatLin ~3amelissuesland [

Ogi[dithat:NBC:46fg g gg y, +

IS18Leidlt.!FJ9_ stsJggglgglgg]Q1rgarLi!_La l  ! I l![tsM 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 l

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 attemative courses of action noted in Section A.2 above are unclear and may depend on the ultimate nature of any rulemaking that NRC undertakes. p 5mse/~NJ:fyt A.4 Prnious Commission Efforts to Addregs 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 6-N-17

rv ,

' [fA .

t NRC recently published a draft technical rt for comment on radiological assessments for clearance of equipment and materials from nuclear facilities, NUREG-1640 (2

volumes).R The report provides dose factors for both surficial and volumetric radioactMty and ,

~

~

. compares them with results from Regulatory Guide 1.86 and from EPA values, European '

~ Community recommended clearance levels and IAEA draft clearance levels.

. - Most of the afdementioned policies, guidelines, recommendations and standards are'-

- ? dose based and thus are intended to be protective of public health and safety, in addition to

. : protection of the public health'and safety, the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, as amended, also l

charges the NRC with protection of property, in this regard, some industries may be adversely affected by ma_terials that are cleared based upon dose based standards because of sensitivity to radiation effects from the c' eared material, e.g., the film and electronic industries and the metal recycling industry which performs radiation monitoring of metal scrap to detect and

- protect itself from radioactive sources accidentally mixed with the scrap.

L 0

~

.i Y

f-!H9 j

\

i i

l

.-e l

licensing decisions to exempt from regulatory control certain practices involving small quantities I of radioactive 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 1991. Subsequently, in October 1992, the U.S. Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992 which revoked the BRC Policy Statement.

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 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. A::c, ual:k; th; Or,C I;llcy ihlch w;; ::;ued wlthout dete:l:d t;;ha;;;l b;;;; er pub ll; ;;mment, the pres;dur; f;r ; n;lem;;dag en r;;;;;; cf ;;iid m;;;-l:l: would b; ;;rrlcd cut under ;" the pree;dur;l r;quirement; cf th; AdEa etratlv; Precedur;; 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, ::; ;ur yL. nom w eo ,

" A~' ". ;n:::;, the NRC would enhance participation in the rulemaking process thf ough workshops for interested parties. Any decisions made regarding release of solid materials at this time would be made through rulemaking .._ Z";C.IM--J, not through a policy statement.

i L

L gL 6-/M7

I amount of radioactivity in gaseous and liquid releases that may be released from a nuclear {l i

facility to the environment. NRC also has requirements in Subpart E of Part 20 on unrestricted use of decommissioned lands and structures. However, NRC currently has no specific requirement in its regulations on limits for release of solid materials.

i l

' Alternatives:

l 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 case-by-case basis, or (2) include requirements in Part 20, as part of a consistent regulatory framework for evaluating releases of all materials, that would allow it to make decisions on licensee requests for release of solid materials that are protective of public health and safety:

[C9psid_eQ*:[a!tepth133!M ;Z,_l!93p@gbleWrWitoline'rit@!!andardWronfE.Jg .and y, [puw.e4wn A lsMr% $ h eNL wae_ >

talfLMP3m.. yn.. t.]

(1) No NRC Rulemakino: Continue Current Practice of Handlino Licensee Reouests for ' ,

Release on a Case-by-Case Basis.

Under this option, no NRC rule would be prepared. Ucensees will still continue to make requests for release of solid materials. As discussed in Section A.1.3, in order to comply with  ;

l 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 S-N-0

j x-E c ..

, . 23 :

~ (1) Permit' rata === of materials for unrestricted use if the notential dose to the oublic from the . I material is are la== than a specified level determined durina the rulemakina Dicc.es - In this ]

l attemative, a licensee could release for unrestricted use' (" clearance") material that meets the

~

l i

' permissible level in the standards. Potential altemative dose levels resulting from unrestricted .

i use of the material could include doses of 10 mram/yr,1 mrem /yr, and 0.1 mrem /yr above background,' as well as no dose above background. 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 live}]ifestpimnlieithpirJgqgg,,andie1m averages about 300  !

E

. %d m od4 h ICO>f5.'h 000 w rw/%rv ,

i p mrom/yr; (El) NRC4 public dose limit is 100 mremlyr, (c) the dose from use of recycled coal ash i

A i

E  : in concrete block as permitted by EPA can be about 5% of natural background (about 15 mremlyr), (d) a person receives 10 mrem 16 on a round-trip coast-to-coast flight, and (e) 1 mrem /yr is a level which the National Council of Radiation Protection land

_regpMs (NCRP) considers a trivial risk. A 1 mremlyr value is also the level being

. considered llLNr'518HMf6r unrestricted use (or " clearance") in the European community.

1 L(2) Restrict release of solid materials to oniv'certain authorized uses (see more detail'in issue .

No. 3). j l _ (3) Do not oermit either unrestriread or restridad release of solid material thattime hed

=

l l 7-99: s.f/ .;. E.A.;. " ' "; ; haan in an area where radiam-+ive material has been used or  ;

g

.a c. .c.... .....:......m...ma.

. . e - In this altamative, all such materials in ,

i j '

the facility would be required to go to a licensed LLW disposal facility. l 3

- (4) Other aW to be determined during the rulemaking process.

[r[Of1 [ Men, w ed .- 3 .c.i *b be*d 1 m.

.i -d-77 i

F:'~

4 k,

f .

.o

, . 24 Factors in decision 4nakinn:

Principal factors M in making decisions regarding the attematives could include human -

-  : health and environmental impacts, cost-benefit considerations,3g)pagts;pZn otheLk!dustrig, ,

is .5g,GC C3 the capability to survey the material to assure that it meets permissible - j i . .

levels, existing intomational, national, and State standards, and other factors raised during the {

rulemaking process.  ;

1

.4 Hupian health and environmental impacts: In assessing potential rulemaking altamatives, NRC would ' consider a broad range of possible impacts, both radiological and non-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, -

ku l b 487 I a M8*l transportation, processing and disposalimpacts, land impacts use impacts,on andbida,ti m ra i A-socetalimpacts. Some of these impacts may be competing. For example,'a lower dose criterion would result in less material available for release (and instead sent to a LLW disposal site) which, in tum, would lower the radiation dose impact to the public from exposure to that material.' However, the lower dose criterion could cause an increase in other impacts, for

. example g}e thomemen+edelegical impacts associated with miningggpBogort, and transport of  ;

fres5 metal to replace that sent to a LLW disposal site. Because these impacts would take place over 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 not collective impact for these disparate factors.

f' T

5 -/ 4 -79

r l

4 i

As a first step in' assessment of impacts, the NRC has issued a draft report for comment that provides a technical basis for determining potential doses to individuals from a wide range I

of potential scenarios by which members of the public could come in contact with material that j

had been released for unrestricted use (or " cleared") from licensees '(" Radiological Assessment

- for Clearance of Equipment and Material from Nuclear Facilities", NUREG-1640, February i 1999).' The report contains an analysis of material _ flow models based on an evaluation of the l l

recycle / reuse industry in the U.S. and of potential scenarios by which a member of the public 'j could reasonably'expe(t to be exposed. . Solid materials that are candidates for release that are i evaluated in the report include iron /s; eel, copper, aluminum, and concrete. The EPA has 1 1

- 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 i i

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

Cost-benefit considerations: Executive Order 12291 contains provisions requiring that, in their rulemakings, Federal agencies consider cost-benefit evaluations of alternative courses of .

. action. ? Consistent with Executive Order 12291, NRC has established guidelines for preparing regulatory analyses of alternative courses of action in support ofits rulemaking decisions (NUREG/BR-0058). Benefits would generally derive from the not reduction in environmental

' impacts discussed above. Costs which could be' included in a regulatory analysis could include:

(1) the costs of altamative courses of action, iricluding surveys atihe nuclear facilit@gBW!Ist n : $ ; w n: e- . :, & .m 03Jw %. 6;nwoex to verify that permissible release levels have been met; (2) the potential for having to respond tom positive alarms atm facilities (3) economic impact on ,

lgpsb Mb &

S-N-11

p ,

Js ,

1. s

. recycle / scrap / manufacturing processes;'(4) replacement metal production; and (5) attemative ,

(options for disposing of the material.  !

)

' Imolement. tion considef.i;cns: A potential cencem with implementation of a proposed-rule _is the capability to measure radioactive contamination corresponding to the very low l

altemative dose levels discussed above.' mmWryadioactive l meerids1hattkrnotWWt 1 i 1, . ; ,i ,e i. 'O.1 in particular, a rulemaking attemative

' which would require survey instrumentation to verify that there is.no dose above natural .j

. background could be extremely difficu;s,;~EGECH. to implement because of the variation  ;

L2J. <ti in natural background and the capability survey instruments to detect such low levels.  ;

A Other intemational. national. and State standards: In considering rulemaking altamatives, the NRC wou'Id also considerNjgss', policies; and precedents . . .

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

. by other countries and intemational agencies is important because materials can be both j imported and exported between the U.S. and other countries and differing standards could

. create confusion and economic disparities in commerce.

Items for discussion:  ;

i i

(A) Human health and environmental impacts: 1 E(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 5-/4-17

FL

. 28 l . iii) How should net environmental impacts from all the radiological and nonradiological I: .. 1 impacts be balanced? ' 1 i

i

'(3) What is the potential for exposures to multiple sources of material released for' i

. unrestricted use, an'd what are ways in which persons could be exposed to multiple sources? i I

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

~ dose level? [Fo,what_

/

l (4) What societal impacts should be considered and how should they be factored into the L environmental evaluation? For example, material released for unrestricted use from nuclear I

! facilities could result in concem, confusion, or fear if the public either does not clearly understand that 'he risk is i all,or does not accept the risk.

nepsch u pts h de, M '<A c k (Nw abt N(5)M prn,~, ud s wlmoc,49 Y % in w i e u la pm e . Silg aIec.4rwste [

. MN rydd ) k (th d d.' [ p h h (A ,

(B) Cost-benefit considerations:

a1{

i (1) As noted above, Executive Order 129221HE29EEFenpglR5] requires Federal Agencies

~'

to ' consider cost-benefit in its consideration of rulemaking altematives. NRC uses NUREG/BR-0058 as its guideline in analysis of the cost-benefit of regulatory altematives. 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 5 -l'l-19 l

L

FE ...

<+

contaminated material', economic risks associated with release of solid materials, costs of decontamination,'ALARA issues,' etc.'

.ii) How should economic impacts be ba!anced against net environmental impacts? j l

l i

(2) What are the major economic costs associated with release of solid materials into j 1

commerce?  ;

l

< (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?.

For ex..1ple, what are the risks (and associated c,osts) that materials released Irom a nuclear-facility could be rejected at a metter or scrap Y3t yardatbased utvey onWhat that' point? a$dN means could minimize such economic risks?

- (5) What is the potential for buildup of radioactivity in commerce as a result of continued j.' 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) Implementation considerations j

}

, sem ,

l

! ll

F ..

i 4

(1) With regard to intemational, national, and State standards:

~

. (a) How should guidelines on unrestricted release, or " clearance," set by intemational standards-setting t$odies such as the IAEA and intemational Commission on Radiological -

Protection (ICRP), as well as those set by other countries, be considered in setting a level for

- release of material from NRC-licensed facilities in the,U.S? Hqw shopid efforts by the tre-

..; ,,' e stwxt aithJs4 ti u.. r.d 0.,. EPA to set import considered?

^

, . (b) How should guidelines of.other U.S. agencies, e.g., DOE and EPA, be considered?-How ephould standards set by NRC be consistent with other6 EPA standards, as for example seteletedie those for recycled coal ash (see Section A.2.2.3)? With regard to issues of finality of NRC' licensing decisions, what potential problemsRReid%5Lir if EPA later

-issues standards for release of solid materials 'differer.t from an NRC regulat;0n?

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

' National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), be considered?

(d) How should standards set by U.S. industry groups, such as the American National

"" ~ '

Standards institute (ANSI), be considered? "-~-- "-

m.& p:' 61 i e Di,iii>r4 n m . ,5 o w .cy...m ;:. m:t:.u.ma y

^

2 w :, & .~

• ~

- .> .. ; :~

n a;

. (e) Should NRC simply adopt the standards in is, ib, or ic, and their associated health risk level, rather than conduct analyses of its own?

S-N-19

V  :?.; .x >

l

% l k' .

i P

p , ,

o-34--

This attemative would probably not be applicable for all materials (e.g., wood products and j some metal's such as copper). End user certification could be difficult to enforce.- j t .j i

2) Restrict release of soisd material to permN disposal.

)

l

'e This attemative would restrict the release ofNiidlatN32811MMsti solid material from E . .

, nuclear facilities to disposal at municipal solid waste landfills. BillidMMteth!l9MHEM0her3eivel[of ' i

, ... - ,.. ,. _ . _ .. . _ _ ._ . _ ..._._ _ ._.-_._._ _ _ _ ._ _ ... _... ... _ ._-. a d(Wt]icegggtiggljig Municipal solid waste landfills are issued permits by State regulatory

' authorities in accordance with 40 CFR 258,' " Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfilly as well j

i as other State and local regulations,. The rationale for this attemative is that exposure pathways

~

at landfills can be fairly well defined and quantified, and that many of the pathways of potential' exposure associateJ with recycle of metal into consumer products or industrial products would L not be present. Additional restrictions could involve disposal at industrial solid waste facilities j rather than at sanitary waste landfills.

Issues associated with this altemative include the fact that additional NRC and/or EPA l

rulemaking may be required to implement this'altemative. For example, the definitions of solid j

. waste and/or byproduct material (or associated regulations) might need to be revisited to llow .

ool gove w uwst h l disposal at solid waste landfills of material having residual radioactivity. Several States cufrently have prohibitions against the disposal'of radioactive material in landfills which would make this altemative less feasible. ' An additional issue is the possibility that material could be sent to a

' landfill under a gg restM m, but4het it could be removed from the landfill and sold as scrap M 3 5-/ M 9 a _

p .

1

)

(2) What other materials would be the candidates for rulemaking? Do analyses for these materials currently exist? i 1

(3) If the NRC proceeds with rulemaking limited to certain materials indicated in i

Altemative 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 proceed with this later rulemaking? Should the additional matepals be released under existing guidelines i until the subsequent rule is developed, or should the rr:'ence of these materials be postponed

]

until a rulemaking is conducted? M~aldritf3BldbilRJ5tMdifWlataL'effogeieasier3nd t- -e ' r a man rv. w 1 wust - *as 79vnu ma, a-a r w ww amianammunmurammermammer ememmerrurimmuummmmm w a ,a-as -m m - *

._als_o,.'t._l.eJLisj!!gnoiMJI;33318!d!!LmioWnsi_ng .

actionsy(x6!gpgis? - 1 (4) t'#,;; ;.; the la ,,L.;;;a; for .'ta;;t;;; 1, 2, and 0, :.;., ghist would be@e associated costs, effective survey methodsfeMMferent-metenels, and dose impacts of the attematives?.

(5) Should the NRC rulemaking be extended to cover materialsNIrele~ased  !

frorn110cleaflejigiggp]33!LalggLiglLe DOEfeeilities? if ;;, how ;ha'd th;; be dene? I Dated at Rockville, Meryland, this day of 1999. '

. er -

i d I 6 /Y-17 4

l l,

% 3,-