ML20202E422
| ML20202E422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/14/1997 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Collins S, Galante A, Paperiello C NRC, NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202E418 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-2 NUDOCS 9712080034 | |
| Download: ML20202E422 (27) | |
Text
.- -. - - - . . _ - - . .- -- - . - -
~
y y.:..,k UNITED STATES p } NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20046-ctat 2
is i
- November 14, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Carl J. Paperiello, Director Omce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Anthony J. Galante, Chief Information Officer Jesse L. Funches, Chief Financial Officer Thomas T. Martin, Director Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Opc. rational Data William J. Olmstead, Associate General Counsel for Licensing and Regulations Office of the General Counsel Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs FROM: Malcolm R. Knapp, Acting Directo 'l N Ol*l Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR SETTING STANDARDS ON CLEARANCE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT HAVING RESIDUA.
RADIOACTIVITY Your concurrence is requested on the attached Commission paper. The following is a summary of this request:
- 1. TITLE: Regulatory Options For Setting Standards On Clearance of Materials and Equipment Having Residual Radioactivity.
- 2. RES Task Leader. Robert A. Meck (415-6205)
- 4. BagunatedAction: Review, comment and provide office concurrence
- 5. Reauested Comoletion Date: Two weeks from date of this memorandum 9712090034 971201 PDR WASTE PDR WM-2 ;
a C. Paperiello et C1 2
- 6.
Background:
This Commission paper requests Commission guidance on the regulatory options that the staff should pursue with regard to clearance. The status of the technical
, bases is briefly summarized, and the advantages and disadvantages of the options and some of their implications are presented.
Attachments: Commission paper /w encl.
cc w/atts..
W. Beecher . PA D.K. Rathbu,1, CA H.T. Bell, OlG J, Lartins, ACF'.S & ACNW H. Miller Regi>n I/ ORA L. Reyes, Region ll/ ORA A. Beach, Region Ill/ ORA E.W. Merschoff, Region IV/ ORA
1 h
1 COMMISSION PAPER
.* I EQB: The Commissioners :
- ESQM
- L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Ope,ations i
! SulLIECT: REGULAToltY OPTIONS FOR SETTING STANDARDS ON - !
- CLEARANCE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT HAVING RESIDUAL l' RADIOACTIVITY I.
PURPOSE: '
I ' To request Commission direction on regulatory options for setting standards on clearance of ;
p materials and equipment having residual radioactivity. j1 CATEGORY: l
[y !
l ' This paper covers policy issues requiring Comm;asion consideration. ;
j- BACKGROUND: ;
In a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 10,1994 (COMFR-94 001), the - ?
i Commission directed the staff to develop a plan and schedule for a rulemaking that would ~ j
!- estatnish radiological criteria for the release of slightly contaminated equipment and material from licensed nuclear facilities, in reply, the staff provided an action plan in SECY-94-221 !
p l (August 19,1994). The staff recently updated the Commission on the status of the plan in l SECY-97-119 (June 5,1997). That update noted that the staffs contractor planned to ._
t complete its draft analyses of dose modeling by August 1997, and that when final, the dose
! modeling rtport would serve as the technical basis for evaluation of regulatory altematives in a !
E <
Generic Environmental impact Statement (GEiS) and a Regulatory Analysis, in addition, !
i- SECY-97-119 stated that an effort was underway to coordinate NRC and EPA' contractor efforts (the current status of that effort is described in Sections 1,4.1 and 1.4.2 of the enclo"ure to this-p CONTACT:' NQIE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE i L -- . Robert A; Meck, RES - - \WlEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE - !
i' L 415-6205 ;
i ?
3 .
t- '
3
_ _ _ - , , , . _ _ _ _ a_ , _ _ ..u. __._ _ ca . . _ . _ , . _ - . . - , . . ~ _ . . . - . . , . _ . . , - - , . . . _ _ _ ..
~
The Commissioners 2 paper). SECY-97119 also noted that the EPA had begun development of a pre-proposed rule, and that the NRC staff planned to provide the Commission with a paper soliciting Commission direction on NRC rulemaking options in the fall of 1997. This paper is intended to present and discuss those options. The current status of NRC guidance and practice is briefly stated below. l Clearance of radioactively cc- winated solid materlats by NRC licensees is presentiv carried out in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.86 - Termination of Operating Licenses i for Nuclear Reactors. RG 1.86 addresses only clearance of solid material having surface contamination. There is currently no NRC regulatory guidance for clearance of materials with volumetric contamination. While the values used in Table 1 of RG 1.86 were dose based, no quantitative dose analysis by pnthway was conducted as a basis for the guidance.
l The Commission's rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination published on July 21, 1997 (62 FR 39058), does not address the clearance of material or equipment from decommissioned nuclear facilities. In its response to public comments on the propor ed rule, the Commission stated that it "has a separate consideration underway of the issues ;olated to cases where the licensee proposes to intentionally release material containing residual radioactivity that could become available for reuse or recycle."
DISCUSSION:
The staff has developed three general regult tory options for the Commission's consideration.
These are described in detailin the enclosure and summarized here as follows:
Option 1 - Continue with regulatory guidance; do not conduct an NRC rulemaking.
Option 2 - Support EPA promulgation of a standard and issue conforming rules and/or guidance.
Option 3 - Proceed independently to promulgate a dose-based regulation for clearance.
The staff requests Commission direction regarding the three options. The options and their advantages and disadvantages are briefly summarized below.
Ootion 1 Continue with reaulatory auldance: do not conduct NRC rufemakina.
Under this option NRC would not chenge its regulations. Option one has two suboptions as follows: (1) Under suboption 1 A there would be no change in the guidance, i.e., RG 1.86 values would continue to be used to determine if materials and equipment with a surface radioactive contamination could be released. (2) Under suboption 18 the guidarice would be changed in two ways: 1) RG 1.86 values for clearance of a surface contaminated materials would be revised to be on a consistent dose-basis, and 2) dose-based activity concentrations to cover 4
volumetrically contaminated materials and equipment would be added.
4
.=~------------
' The Commissioners 3-
- Advantages
- 1. Continued use of regulatory guidance would allow more flexibility for licensees in that attemate approaches could be proposed by licensees and considered by the NRC staff.
- 2.- No resources for rulemaking would be W. y)
' Disadvantages: j
- 1. Extensive staff resources would r;ontinue to be needed to perform case-r.pecific reviews.
i
- 2. The flexibility permitted by the continued use of regulatory guidance for clearance of materials and equipment on a case-by-case basis could lead to different, clearance iavels for materials entering general commerce.
3.- With suboption 1 A, RG 1.86 values would still not address volumetric contamination nor would there be a uniform dose basis for clearance.
- 4. With suboption 18, staff resources would have to be committed to modify and update RG 1.86, in particular to revise surface contamination levels on a uniform dose basis and to
. add consistent dose-based volumetric contamination levels.
Option 2 Snanart EPA oromula=* ion of a standard and i**na conformina rnias and/or anMance EPA is currently considering issuance of standards for clearance of materials under its Atomic Energy Act authority.' The EPA staff has indicated that EP_A is currently attempting to address concems raised by several public interest groups on the need for a standard and has not developed a formal schedule for proceeding with this rulemaking. Following issuance of am EPA standard, NRC could it, sue a conforming regulation and regulatory guides, or perhaps just :
~ update RG 1.86.-
Advantages:
'i. This option might require less expenditure of NRC resources than an independent rulemaking by NRC.
- 2. - ThL option likely would ensure compatibility between the EPA standard and NRC regulations.
Disadvantages:
- 1. There is presenly no EPA standard and there is no certainty that EPA standards, when promulgated, will be acceptable to the Commission as a basis for NRC rulemaking.
- 2. It appears from EP/, studies that their standards may be too limited M scope to be useful for all activities licensed by NRC, in t*iat they have not addressed clearance of non-metals and equipment.
i
. l I
I j The Commissioners 4- ;
- 3. NRC's schedule for rulemaking or guidance revision would depend on EPA's rulemakingl-1 schedulei 1 i
- i. Ophon 3 Proceed _ladegandantiv to oromulante a dose-based reaulation for clearance ,
L l Under in this option. NRC would proceed with a rulemaking independent of EPA and develop ,
uniform, dose-based regulations for the clearance of materials and equipment having residual
- ' - radioactivity.-
4 LAdvantages:
- 1. . An NRC rule would meet W,c NRC regulatory needs t
[
- 2. This option could lead to an earlier cumpletion of the final rule than would waiting for an :
EPA standard.
) Disadvantages:
Y
- 1. This option may require more resources and more time for NRC to complete'an-L w independent rulemaking rather than relying on EPA's results.
j_ 2.- This ophon may result in different criteria in an NRC rule as compared to an EPA standard, f : thus raising finality issues.
If the Commission directs the staff to proceed with Suboption 1B or Option 3,' there are several--
issues regardmg the NRC rulemaking process.and the specific details of a regulation, that need to be addressed. The principalissues ara:
[
4 fl _1. What types of regulatory controls are necessary prior to clearance, should there be .
restricted release?-
l 3
- 2. What types of materials should be included in the regulatory action, e.g., specific metals
^
1 and ccreete?
~
i-
- 3. What process should be used to obtain public comment in the rulemaking or revision of p
- -. guidance (e.g., solicit comments in Federal Register notices, or provide enhanced
- participation through workshops, increased use of electronic media or as planned in SECY-l
- 94-221)?.
! These issues, and their advantages and disadvantages, are described in Section 4 of the enclosure.
,4 COORDINATION-The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has
~r + - .- -- .n . _ _ ,_ __
! The Commissioners 5
no objections. The Office of the Chief Information Officer has reviewed this paper for information technology and information management implications and concurs in it.
RECOMMENDATIONS-That the Commission:
i 1. Provide direction with rejard to Options 1,2, and 3 i
' 2. if the Commission selects Suboption 1B or Option 3, orovide directior: with regara to the rulemaking issues noted above, j l
i i L. Joseph Callan >
Executive Director -
for Operations
Enclosure:
Options Paper
6 l l l
ENCLOSURE
- DISCUSSION OF BACKGROUND, REGULATORY OPTIONS, AND ISSUES ON CLEARANCE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT y
4 . .
e
.- )
DISCUSSION OF BACKGROUND, REGULATORY OPTIONS, AND ISSUES ON )
, NRC CLEARANCE OF MATERIALS AND EQUlPMENT L1.0_
INTRODUCTION -
1.1 L Purpose The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe the background, potential regulatory options -
- (with their associated advantages and disadvantages), and issues on clearance of slightlyL
> contaminated materials and equipment.
1.2 Definition of Clearance Clearance is a term used by the international community and is defined as the release of_ _
radiation sources from all nuclear regulatory control (see IAEA-TECDOC-855, Interim report for comment, pg.1). - Note that clearance of materials and _ equipment may result in their release for p reuse or recycling in commerce or disposal, t-l = 1.3 Current Clearance Practices t
NRC licensees presently release materials and equipment for clearance during facility operations and outages. - In practice, such clearance is carried out consistent widi the values -
for surface contamination found in Table I of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.86,- Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors, dated June 1974. The same radiological criteria for 1 surface contamination are set for materials licensees by a fuel cycle directive (Guidelines for-Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or -
Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material, Policy and -
Guidance Directive FC 83-23,~ Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, November 4, 1983.).
NRC regulations applicable to nuclear power reactor licensees do not contain radiological criteria for the release of materials for unrestricted use that are known to be radioachvely-contaminated at anylevel. For small items and small areas, surveys are conducted with instrumentation capable of detecting the average values from RG 1.86, namely,5000 dom /100 cm' total and 1000 dpm/100 cm2removable beta / gamma contamination. There is a subtle difference in practice for materials licensees. FC-83-23 permits clearance of materials and equipment that are known to be contaminated below specified levels consistent with RG 1.86.
- NRC regulations also currently do not set out criteria for clearance of solid materials (e.g.,
metals) or equipment containing low levels of radioactive contaminatum as an integral, non-surface part (i.e., volumetric contamination). Therefore, materials and equipment volumetrically -
contaminated by activation or penetration (e.g., absorption) at nuclear facility sites are either stored by licensees on site or shipped to licensed Low Level Waste (LLW) facilities.
Furthermore, the absence of regulations or guidance oa an acceptable limit for volumetrically 1
s
L cor taminated materials inhibits industry from processing both surface and volumetrically contaminated materials and equipment in ways that would lead to utilization of valuable resources.
U 1.4 Recent technical information from NRC and EPA
- 1.4.1 NRC Contractor Draft Reoort: Radiolooical Assessment for Clearance of Material and Eauioment from Nuclear Faciliiles The draft report, by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC),' dated - __
- September 23,1997, provides dose assesaments for clearance and is currently under technical review by the staff. When final, it will serve as the foundation for the technical bases documents, e.g., a Genedc F.nvironmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and Regulatory Analysis (RA) for rulemaking on clearance of materials and equipment.'. Clearance scenarios addressed iin the report include reuse of surface contaminated equipment and recycle or disposalinto a landfill of volumetrically-contaminated scrap materials.
Dose factors were calculated as the annual individual dose per unit activity for a mass or area
, of scrap. The draft report contains dose factors for 84 nuclides likely to contaminate steel, l aluminum, copper, or concrete, applied to over 40 scenarios ranging over the reasonable fates of materials or equipment from transportation to processing, consumer use and disposal.' The
- pathways analyses conducted are best estimates of the potential total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) that a member of the critical population group could receive and ara presented with -
their associated uncertainties. Almost all the limiting scenarios involve process workers, e.g.,
+
slag pile worker, as opposed to the consumer of a product.
?
1 The approach to dose assessment of material recycle was conceptually divided into two parts:
e material-specific scrap model (material flow model and nuclide partitioning), and scenario dose assessment models. The conceptual material flow models were used to develop -
exposure scenarios and serve as tools to identify points of potential exposure. Exposure. _
scenarios were _ initially developed for the steel recycle evaluation; these served as the basis for the evaluation of the other three materials (copper, a!uminum, and concrete).
A radionuclide-specific TEDE was calculated for an average memtwr of the entical population -
group in the reuse scenarios. Calculated dose factors for reuse scenarios were based on a unit level of residual surface contamination and were expressed in normalized units of pSv/a per Bq/cm2 (mrom/y per pCi/cm2). Since the contamination was assumed to be on the surface, dose factors for reuse were independent of material. They ranged from a high of 380 pSv/a per
' Bq/cm2 (1.4 mremly per pCi/cm2) for Ac-227 down to much kss than 0.01 pSv/a per Bq/cm2 Most of the eighty-four radionuclide-specific dose factors (approximately two-thirds) were less than 10 pSv/a For Bq/cm2 (0.04 mremly per pCi/cm2).
'As a comparison of complexity, the dose ascessment model that served as the technical basis for the rule on Radiological Criteria for Ucense Termination, NUREG/CR-5512,
- only analyzed 4 scenarios for lands and structures.
2
=;---.-----------
Calculated TEDE dose factors for recycle scenarios were based on a unit level of volumetric -
contamination in the scrap. The highest dose factor for most nuclides was found in a steel scenario. For steel, occupational doses associated with refinery faci!ities and transportation -
most commonly produced the limiting dose factors. Similarly, for copper, product use scenarios
. did not result in limiting dose factors for any_ radionuclide.L Unlike the steel and copper '
evaluations, dose factors associated with the use of refined aluminum products most commonly -
. produced the limiting dose factors. Occupational doses associated with concrete reuse in road - 1 construction activities and processing concrete for reuse most commonly produced the' limiting -l
. dose factors.
The draft SAIC dose factors were compared with values published by the Intemational Atomic --
Energy Agency (IAEA), RG 1.86 values, and NUREG-1500 values. The report presents derivud clearance levels (Bq per g or cm8 scrap) based on both surface and volumetric contamination normalized to the trivial annual dose established by the IAEA, namely,10 pSv/a l L 1(1 mrom/y). The recycle (volumstric) clearance levels in the draft report were based on the L limiting dose factors across the four materials examined (steel, copper, aluminum, and i concrete). As a result, the currently used RG 1.86 values for 2 radionuclides were less -
restrictive than SAIC reuse results for surface contamination (viz., Th-229. Th-232),18 were -
restrictive (e.g., H-3, Ni-63, Ra-226).
1.4.2 Environmental Protection Agency 1.4.2.1 : July 1997_ EPA Contractor Report Draft Technical Support Document -
Evaluation of the Potential for Recycling of Scrap Metals From Nuclear Facilities The purpose of this document is to: (1) characterize potential scurces of scrap metal that may be available for recycling; (2) estimate potential normalized annual dose and lifetime risk to the reasonably maximally exposed individual (RMEI) associated with recycle; (3) estimate the >
. potential normalized collective dose and risk to the exposed population; and (4) estimate the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) of radionuclides contained within or on the surface of-scrap metal.
The scope of the analysis covers management and_ recycle of scrap metal from 11 large DOE facilitias and from 123 NRC-licensed commercial nuclear power reactors. The approach is theoretscal and employs a number of simplifying assumptions that appear to be conservative in terms of assessicg potential doses and risks but optimistic in terms of ability to measure surface ind volume contamination on scrap metal in the field.
The document is primarily a compilation of data to support other analyses. It appears that this data was used to develop the conclusions in the June 1997 EPA contractor report Preliminary e Cost-Benetit Analysis and Radiation Protection Standards for Scrap Metal-(discussed below).
1.4.2.2 June 1997 F?A Contractor Report Preliminary Cost-Benetft Analysis and Radiation Protection Standards for Scrap Metal 3
- ____m _._.
i- The purpose of this document is to support EPA development of preliminary draft regulations on
' rele64e standards for scrap metal from nuclear facilities. Regarding its scope, this cost-benefit 4 U analysis would apply to management ot' scrap metal from DOE facilities and from facilities
- j. licensed by the NRC. However, the only NRC licensees included Mbe analysis are nuclear
- power plants, A footnoto in the analysis states that EPA may addren. additional Federal and
- nonfederal sources of scrap metal in future analyses. - Neither this document nor the Technical
!- Support Document discussed above address clearance of equipment.
The approach taken in the cost-benefit' analysis is as follows: (1) identify and characterize potentially a*ected scrap metal from 11 major DOE facilities and 123 NRC-licensed commercial j' nuclear power reactors; (2) predict baseline disposition costs and_ cancer incidence assuming maximum release at RG 1.86 and DOE Order 5400.5 levels; (3) predict disposition costs and ,
l_
cancer incidence assuming maximum release at levels which would expose the reasonably -
a maximally exposed individual (RMEI)2 to 0.1,1 and 15 mremly; and (4) estimate impacts on L . scrap metal management costs and cancer incidence of each approach. The analysis considers other !mpacts (e.g., effect on waste disposal capacity, demand for virgin materials, and ecological impacts) in a qualitative manner, and concludes that they are minor compared to cancer incidence. Restricted recycling (soe nection 4.1) is not addressed. The cost of low-level waste disposal (at about $400/ft*) is not explicitly addressed.
The principal conclusions offered in the EPA report are as follows: Under the 1 mremly -
standard, scrap metal management costs would remain relatively unchanged while cancer
- incidence would decline. _ Under the 15 mrem'y standard, costs would decrease while cancer
' incidence would increase. Under the 0.1 mremly standard, costs would increase while cancer -
incidence would decrease.
2.0' - STATEMENT OF PROBLEM lt_is anticipated that future decommissionings will result in more material and equipment potentially available for clearance. One rationale for establishing clearance criteria is avoidance of the cost for commercial disposal of LLW. In 1997 the cost is about $300 per cubic foot. In -
. addition to such economic costs, replacement of metals requires many energy consuming steps ,
(mining, milling,- smelting, etc.),' that result in at least some environmental degradation,' as well as risks to workers. .,
Cleared scrap and equipment may enter freely the stream of general commerce. For
- perspective, it is important to realize that NRC and Agreement State licensees are only one of
. several potential sources for clearance of radioactively contcminated materials and equipmtent.
Naturally-occurring and acce;arator-produced radioactive material (NARM) sources, DOE facilities salvage, and imports are potential other sources for radioactivity in general commerce.
2 The reasonably maximally exposed in'div; dual (RMEI) is defined as the individual who has the potential to receive the high4nd exposure (e.g.,90* percentile). See EPA contractor's July 1997 draft Technical Support Document - Evaluation of the Potential for Recycling of Scrap Metals from Nuclear Facilities, p. ES-5.
4
_i
Thus, both the impacts of regulatory actions on clearance by the NRC and their relative impacts compared to clearance from all sources are relevant to consider. A discussion of non-NRC related clearance and intemationalinitiatives regarding clearance is contained in Appendix A.
The scope of these concerns with radioactive scrap metal can be illustrated using iron and steel as an example. The amount of scrap steel that may be available from commercial nuclear power plants, DOE facilities, and the U.S. steel market are illustrated in the following table:
- Amount of Steel. .Value :
8'"'**
4 l l(Metric T.onnss)l . > (Millions $)1 Nuclear Power Plants 610,000 134 Total DOE Sites 1,300,000 280 Total U.S. Annual Production 100,000,000 22,000 per year Although the values in this table are approximate, they illustrate the point that while the total mass of slightly radioactive steel to be reused / recycled is only a small fraction of the annual production of steelin the United States, the quantity and value of the materialis nonetheless significant. Furthermore, the value of avoided costs of disposal in a LLW facility are not included in the value estimate.
2.1 Lack of a Uniform Reaulatorv Basis for Clearance of Materials Presently, there is no regulation on radiological criteria for clearance of slightly contaminated solid materials by NRC licenses. As noted above, clearance of materials is presently carried cut consistently with guidana in RG 1.86. RG 1.86 provides a table of Acceptable Surface Contamination Levels for various radionuclides, including natural and enriched uranium, transuranie.s, and fission products. These surface contamination levels are stated in terms of measurable quantities (observed disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimetors), the values of which were based on the capatilities of readily available instrumentation at the time the guide was published in 1974.
RG 1.86 does not contain specific dose critaria. However, IE Circular No. 81-07, " Control of Radioactively Contaminated Material," states that even if numerous accumulated items were uniformly contaminated at levels of 5000 dpm/100 cm2 (beta-gamma activity from nuclear power reactors) [the RG 1.86 levels), the potential dose to any individual would be significantly less than 5 mremly. Further, RG 1.86 addresses only clearance of solid material having surface contamination. There is no NRC regulatory guidance for clearance of materials with volumetric contamination.
5
. I l
2.2 Present NRC Reaulations en Radiolooical Criteria for License Termination Do Not Address Clearance of Material and Eauioment The final rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination published on July 21,1997 (62
- FR 39058), codifies acceptable criteria and methods for decommissioning. This rule focuses on protection of persons entering and using a decommissioned site, but does not address the clearance of material and equipment for release from a site to the public sector. in its response to public comments on the proposed rule, the Commission stated that it "has a separate consideration underway of the issues related to cases where the licensee proposes to intentionally release material containing residual radioactivity that could become available for reuse or recycle" (62 FR 39085, G.7 Recycle).
2.3 International Standards for Clearance of Materials and Eauioment As noted above, the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has stready published an -
interim report on clearance levels ior radionuclides in solid materials. There is a need for -
consistent intemational standards for clearance of materials and equipment having residual radioactivity and for standards for regulating imports and exports of such material and
- equipment, i
3.0 REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE CLEARANCE OF MATERIALS AND EQUlPMENT-
! There are three principal regulatory options for addressing clearance of radioactive materials.
These are:
Option 1 - Continue with regulatory guidance; do not conduct an NRC rulemaking Option 2 - Support EPA promulgation of a standard and issue conforming rules and/or guidance Option 3 - Proceed independently to promulgate a dose-based regulation for clearance
' These options along with their advantages and disadvantages are described below in Sections 3.1 through 3.3.
' 3.1 Option 1: Continue with guidance; do not conduct an NRC rulemaking Under this option, NRC would not change its regulations. Materials and equipment with surface radioactive contamination would either be disposed of in a low level radioactive waste site, or released on a site-specific basis based on the provisions of RG 1.86. Option i has two suboptions as follows:
6 i
o
1, . --r-
'(1) - Under suboption 1 A; no change in the regulatory guidance would be needed, i.e., RG 1.86 values would continue to be used to determine if materials and -
. equipment with su: face radioactive contamination could be released.~
(2) Under suboption 1B, the guidance would be chPnged in two ways: 1) RG 1.86
]
- values for clearance of surfoce contaminated materials would be revised on a consistant dose-basis, and 2) dose-based activity concertrations to cover volumetrically contaminated materials and equipment would be added.
Advantages
- 1. Continued use of guidance allows.more.fiexib hty in implementr+ ion for hcensees j 1 As guidance, case-by-case considerations can be mar.ie, thus allowing different clearance levels of activities per unit area or mass to be released. )
- 2. No resources for rulemaking would be needed This option would be considered a simple continuance ($r updating of an existing practice, 3 thus noticing and public comment particular to rulemaking would not be required. l Disadvantages' =
- 1. The flavihility normittad bv use of ouidance for clearance cf materials and mouinment on a
- case-bv c== h==i= could ta=d to different. clearance levels for matenals entering general sommerce Different operational quantities (Bq/g scrap or Bq/cm2 scrap) arising from the flexibility of-case-by-case analysis on a uniform dose basis could cause confusion after the material or:
equipment was cleared. For example, a scrap dealer who received batches of scrap with -
different concentrations of activity may have difficulty discriminating legitimately cleared y scrap from unacceptably contaminated scrap. ,
2.L Fv*nnsive staff resources would continue to be needed to nerform case-soecific reviews.
Case specific reviews would require analysis of the circumstances for clea.dnce in each case.
- 3. With Ootion 1 A. RG 1.86 va!ues still would not address volumetne contamination nor would there be a uniform dose basis for clearance Absence of a volumetric guidance level would inhibit industry from using processes that would change surface contamination to volumetric contamination, e.g., melting.
7
9.
- 4, With Ootion 1B. staff resources would still have to be committed to modify and u >date RG 1.88. in oarticular to revise surface contamination values on a uniform dose basis and to add dose-based volumetric contamination levels.
l Option 1B would require the staff's technical input for conversion of surface contamination values to a dose-based guidance and extending the application to volumetrically ,
contaminated materials. i 3.2 Opt'on 2: Support EPA promulgation of a standard and issue conforming rules and/or guidance EPA is currently considering issuance of standards for clearance of ma% rials under its Atomic Energy Act authority. The staff is not aware of whethar EPA has developed a formal schedule for an EPA rulemaking on clearance. Following issuance of an EPA standard, NRC cou;d issue a conforming regulation and regulatory guides, or perhaps just update RG 1.86.
Advantages'
- 1. This cotion mioht reauire less exoenditure of NRC resqurces than an indeoendent rulemakina by NRC.
Close cooperation with the EPA could result in the EPA bearing much of the resource expenditures for preparation of supporting regulatory documents, i.e., GEIS, RA, and compiling public input.
- 2. This ootion likely would ensure comoatibility between the EPA standard and NRC reaulations.
Close cooperation with the EPA could result in a rule with consistent criteria.
Disadvantages:
- 1. There is oresentiv no EPA standard and there is no certaintv that EPA standards. when oromulaated. will be acceotable to the Commission as a basis for NRC ruten akina .
This option would require close cooperatien with the EPA. The staff has worked closely with the EPA staff and their contractors on the details of dose assessment during the part two years. The cooperation has resulted in a convergence of the results so that the dose assessments generally agree within the uncertainties of the methods. The staffs would continue to address any remaining differences.
While the technical bases, namely dose assessments, of the NRC and EPA are essentially in agreement, there are issues that may need to be addressed. For example, the EPA may be reluctant to make surface contamination ievels for clearance less restrictive than the i levels currently in RG 1.86, even if less restrictive levels would be consistent with a regulatory dose objective.
8
(--_
- 2. ILaggars from EPA studies that their standards may be limited in scooe so as to oniv adripss clearance of metals from nuclear oower olants and DOE facilities .
Such a limited scope would provide no basis for clearance of non-metals or equipment, nor for NRC licensed ivel cycle facilities or materials licensees that have not been addressed by EPA to date.
- 3. NRC rulemakina or auidance revision would deoend on EPA's rulemakino schedule .
Conforming regulatory actions would necessarily follow the promulgation of a generally applicable standard. This schedule may not meet NRC's needs in dealing with operating or decommissioning facilities.
3.3 Option 3: Proceed independently to promulgate a dose-based regulation for clearance in this option, NRC would proceed with rulemaking independent of EPA and develop uniform regulations for the clearance of materials and equipment having residual radiation.
Advantages:
- 1. NRC rule would meet soecific NRC reaulatorv needs.
Specific needs include scope of the rule, such as types of licensed activities covered, types of materials present, and whether the rule should address restricted use vs. clearance (See Section 4.).
- 2. This notion could lead to an earlier comotetion of a final rule than would waitina for an EPA standara.
Informally, EPA staff have anticipated the issuance of a " pre-proposed" rule at various times over the past year. At present, their schedule is unknown to NRC staff.
Disadvantages
- 1. This cotion may recuire more resources and more time for NRC to comolete an indeoendent rulemakina than relvina on EPA's results.
Unlike an independent analysis of EPA technical basis and cost / benefit analysis, an independent NRC rulemaking would require preparation of supporting documents and solicitation of public comment. These additional requirements require both resources and time.
9
.. 1
' 2. T_ his natian may result in different criteria in an NRC rule as comoared to an EPA standard. 4 thus raising finality issues.
NRC rulemaking actions would not preclude EPA's ability to promulgate a rule on clearance.
Completely independent rulemakings by the two agencies could lead to dual regulation.
~
- 4.0 - NRC RULEMAKING ISSUES IF SUBOPTION 1B OR OPTION 3 IS CHOSEN
- If Suboption 1B, or Option 3 is selected, there sie additional issues related to consider. These issues include:
- 1. What types of regulatory controls are necessary prior to clearance; sitould there be' restricted release.
- 2. What types of materials should be induded in the regulatory action, e.g., specific metals and concrete;
- 3. What process should be used to obtain public comment in the rulemaking or revision of guidance (e.g., solicit comments in Federal Register notices, or provide enhanced
- participation through workshops, increased use of elsctronic media or as planned in SECY-
- 94-221).
l; These issues and their advantages and disadvantages are described in Sections 4.1 through 4.3 which follow.
4.1 Clearance By Generators vs. Restricted Release By Generators Clearance is defined as the release of radiation sources from all nuclear regulatory coritrol.
Restrictions placed on the disposition of materials or equipment as a result of their radioactive content or contamination are taken as a form of regulatory control, and the disposition is not -
clearance. However, it is apparent that gradations of regulatory control prior to clearance may be practical for both the generator of contaminated materials or equipment and the recipient.
It appears reasonable to assume that materials and equipment, well-characterized by a
- licensee for clearance, could be occasionally co mingled with " orphaned
- or improperly -
disposed sources, NARM, or imported material cor.taining cleared radioactivity. Expensive-clean-up of accidentally melted sources has prompted the industry to install monitors.
However, these monitors cannot easily distinguish between a strong source shielded by masses of metal and uniformly contaminated metal at low levels. As a consequence there is an -
aversion in some sectors of the industry to accepting any detected radioactivity in materials or
. equipment. Quality assurance and control and liability of cleared materials and equipment are
, , issues that might be addressed by graded control. Alternatively, the levels of clearance could be set to levels that are both an adequate level of protection of public nealth and safety AND generally indistinguishable from background radiation.
Graded regulatory controls could include NRC issuance of licenses to handlers and processors of scrap to a given point in the handling of the materials or equipment, or permitted first use, or 10 1
restrictions limiting reuse or recycle to the licensed community. The Commission could use an enabling rulemaking approach and simply enable industry to set its own controls to distinguish between cleared materials and equipment and shielded " orphan" sources. Alternatively, the rule could prescribe regulations for various handling and process restrictions prior to clearance from a licensed system. For example, the Commission could prescribe that scrap from a nuclear facility could be transported to a licensed melter and the melter could clear volumetrbally contaminated ingots at prescribed levels or for prescribed uses.
An example of a restricted 'elease scenario might involve melting radioactive scrap metal at a licensed facility (a licensed fumace), and subsequantly releasing the metal for a specific, "first use." This designated initial use most probably would be in heavy industry, such as for bri fge supports, locomotive parts, structural supports for large buildings, or for a military application.
Radioactive scrap material having very low radioactivity might be used for consumer products such as automobile engine blocks. Since restricted first use is amenable to controls and inspections, exposure rates of workers and the public could be controlled, and maintenance of an inventory is possible. The products of such first use of recycled metals could be labeled, much as irradiated produco is labeled.
There can also be " closed" recycling of material in which the radioactive material never leaves the licensed system, and hence connot be defined as ' cleared." No changes to NRC regulations are necessary to cover tids situation Under current regulations, a fumace operator
, must have a license to receive any radiologically contaminated metal to be melted and blended with other non-radioactive metal. The licensee must conform to all applicable regulations in its operations, including those of the NRC, as well as Federal, State, and local environmental protection agencies. This closeo cycle recycling (licensee to licensee) of slightly radioactive iron and carbon steel is currently being conducted on a moderate scale at selected DOE
- facilities. Another example is the State cf Tennessce which has licensed a fumace operator to melt and process carbon steel being recycled in ORNL's pilot program.
The advantages and disadvantages of both clearance by the generator and restricted release
}
by the generator are described in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.
/.1.1 Restricted Release Bv Generators Before Clearance As noted above, under this issue, the NRC could extend regulatory control of the disposition of radioactively contaminated materials and equipment beyond the generator. In this case, the radioactive material would be partitioned and processed into one or more specific products that would be at low enough levels to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety in their commercial use,. The partitioning and processing would be done under a specific licenses issued by the NRC.
Advantages:
- 1. Quality Control, quality assurance and liability could be inspected and enforced in a direct manner.
11 I
1 1
_w
h~4 '
- 2. .Some materials contaminated by nuclides having a relatively shori half-life could be .
} controlled with adequate protection to public health and safety until they decayed to a level significantly below background radiation within the expected use lifetime for the use or structure in which it is placed. .
Disadvantages
- 1. This issue implies a potential for an increased number of licenses and their associated
- regulation.
! 2.- Public outreach and education efforts may require significantl.v more resources.
4.1.2 Clearance Under this issue, the NRC woe!d speafy stan ddar s and criteria forthe release to general- . i
~ commerce of very low levels of radioactive contamination in or on _ materials and equipment by the generators. For materials and equipment that met the standards, a licensee could sell or otherwise dispose of the material or equipment without any license restrictions.
Advantages:
- 1. ' Codified clearance criteria could provide uniformity for reuse, recycle, and disposal of
- materials and equipment including those with volumetric contamination.
- 2. Codification could enable generators to avoid costs of radioactive waste disposal of materials and equipment that do not cause significant detriment to public health and
- safety because of the associated radioactivity.
- 3. Codification could enable the non-nuclear industry to incorporate radioactively contaminated meterials and equipment into commerce while preserving adequate protection of public health and safety, Disadvantages'
- 1. Development of a new rule with the rationale and analyses for unrestricted use would involve significant resources.
- 2. - Rulemaking might be perceived as a new practice, rather than an improvement of an existing practice (release under RG 1.86 values), thus arousing public and non-nuclear
' industry anxiety.-
4.2 Kinds of Materials and Equipment to be Encompassed in an NRC Rule NRC dose assessment is limited to volumetrically contaminated irc~ or steel, copper, aluminum, and concrete. Surface contcmination dose assessmen, .s independent of the m3dium contaminated. A rule developed by NRC could cover either iron and steel, the -
12 1 .
- materials analyzed in the dose assessment technical basis, or, perhaps, all metals, or be a 1 broad rule, for example; encompassing all equipment and materials. .j
~
Advantages andDiandvantages:
1 ; The more generic the application of the rule the more potentially usefulit would be, however, if the amount of a contaminated materialis small, then the generic approach is
- not an advantage in practice,-
l 2.- : Even if there were significant amounts of several potential materials for clearance, there may be valuable experience to be gained by limiting the rulemaking to one or a few at the
" expense of a greater overall potentia! applicability. j l
- 13. The intomat onal community restricts the material for clearance to solids, thus other matenals than those addressed in a rulemaking could be admixed in commerce and could cause confusion.
- 4.3 < What process should be used to obtain public comment in the rulemaking or
- m. _
revision of guidance (e.g., solicit comments in Federal Register notices, or
- provide enhanced participation through workshops,' increased use of y
F electronic media or as planned in SECY-94-221).
- There are considerations of public interface issues for either a regulatory guide revision or a rulemaking for clearance of mate.ials and equipment. -The staff believes that any change E should _be presented as an improvement on an existing practice, because the RG 1.86 criteria b ;
~ are intemally inconsistent from a dose or risk basis. Public awareness and interest in a
_ regulatory schon depends in part on the opportunities the public has to provide comment and in -
- ntt on factors outside the direct control of the Commission. If the. Commission pursues a rulemaking for clearance, there are saveral ways to solicit public comment.
4.4.1 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
. Publicahon of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) would provide an opportunity for early public participation and would extend the rulemaking process to about three years.
14.4.2 Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking
- A rulemaking process could involve enhanced public participation similar to the process used for the Commission's recently published Radiological Criteria for License Termination or for the
- NRC Medical Rulemaking Workshop in support of 10 CFR Part 35. In the case of the radiological criteria rule, this process included publish *mg for public comment an options paper and a draft proposed rule prepared by the staff (but not approved by the Commission) prior to
- initiating the normal rulemaking process, and also included conducting a series of public meetings to obtain public input on the staff's ophons paper. Variations on this effort could include workshops, information exchange on the world-wide-web, placement of staff draft documents on the NRC website and inviting comments, and public workshops that are video-conferenced at off-site locations.
13
4.4.3 Delayed Rulemaking The Commission could delay rulemaking actions pending the completion of other events or cetions.
Advantages and disadvantages: Normal rulemaking is administratively straightforward but limi's public input on some potentially contentious issues. An ANPRM invites additional public input early on in the process while delaying completion of the rulemaking process somewhat.
An enhanced participatory process invites additional public input beyond that routinely used.
This process provides opportunity for substantial early public input but would require additional
! resources and would probably take an estimated four to five years to complete the rulemaking process. Delayed rulemaking would maintain the status quo for licensees and industry and -
delay addressing the problems described above, but could be preferable if circumstances indicate better timing or use of resources.
l l
14
y .
.c Appendix A: Domestic and International Clearance Criteria and Approaches
' Domes 6c DOE's principal guidance for clearsace of material and equipment with radioactively contaminated surfaces is contained in DOE Oider 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public -
Jand the Enviror, ment, dated February 8,1990.- The Order adopts the NRC staffs numerical criteria in NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.86, and also adds and other criteria, including ALARA.
l The Order applies to Naturally-occurring and Accelerator-produced Radioactive Material
- (NARM) as well as Atomic Energy Act mat..iais.
- DOE has recently become more proactive in this area-inaugurating a new Policy on Recycling
- Contaminated Carbon Stool (Memorandum from Alvin L. Alm, Assistant Secretary for '
Environmental Management, U.S. DOE, September 20,1996). - This memorandum directed DOE field offices and principal contractors to survey, de, contaminate as necessary, and release for unrestricted use such material to the extent that it is economically advantageous and l - protec'ive of workers and public health. Numerical criteria for releisse of material with surface .
contamination is essentially that in RG 1.86. The memorandum directs that if decontamination .
1 for unconditional release is not econcmically feasible, then such radioactively contaminated-
- carbon steel to be recycled will be fabricated into containers for dispcsal of low-level wastes generated by the DOE Environmental Management program. Oak Ridge National Laboratories -
- (ORNL) has been selected by DOE to inaugurate a trial of this recycling initiative, in June 1997, DOE published a Draft Handbcok for Controlling Release for Reuse or Recycle
' of Non-Real Property Containing Residual Radioactive Material as an interim guide for use and to obtain comment. It also endorses RG 1.86 for surface contamination. DOE does not provide guidance for the release of material and equipment having volumetric radioactive -
contamination Agreement States Those States that have formal agreements to implement NRC's regulations (Agreement States) -
have implemented the NRC guidance in RG 1 ' .. In particular, Tennessee has licensed a fumace operator to melt and process carbon steel for recycle in ORNL's pilot program. In this instance, the radioactively contaminated carbon steel is always under control of authonzed persons (under NRC or Agreement State licenses, or DOE Orders).- This is an example of =
-"closed" recycling, for which there would be no need for a new NRC regulation because the
' material remains under regulatory control. __
i NARM is generally controFed by State regulations. Contaminated materials from the oil and gas industry are released according to the State regulations. Arkansas, Georgia, l.ouisiana,
- Mississippi, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina and Texas have specific regulations for the control of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). Several other States are in various stages of drafting NORM regulations.
15 b- . . . _ . .
?
s - -
International The Intemational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has published an interim report Clearance Levels for Radionuclodes in Solid Materials - Application of Exemption Principles (TECDOC-855, 1996) 8 It is intended for eventual inclus;on in the IAEA Radioactive Waste Safety Standards.
- The report proposes clearance levels for unconditional clearance (i.e., release without any constraint on subsequent use) derived from the principle that individual doses resulting from clearance of these materials be limited to 10 pSv/a (1 mrem /yr). It should be noted that the report uses phrases like "must be sufficiently low not to warrant regulatory'concem" and j
" individual dose that can be regarded as trivial."
Efforts by the intomational community to achieve consensus on relevant matters have had a focal point in a program begun in 1973 at the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).-
- State-of-the-art reports in 1983,1985, and 1986 on facility decontamination and decommissioning pointed to the need for " exempt quantity or concentration" criteria to permit unrestricted reuse /rocycle or release.
This observation led in 1988 to IAEA Safety Series No. 89 (SS-89) which outlined intomationally agreed-upon principles for developing citeria for exempting sources and practices from -
- regulatory control, including reuse / recycle. Two criteria determined exemption candidates
(1) individual risks must be sufficiently low not to warrant regulatory concem; and (2) radiation protection, including the cost of regulatory control, must be optimized by exemption. -To meet p the first criterion an individual dose considered trivial had to be defined, and for the second,
~
' optimization analysis techniques, (e.g., cost-benefit analyses) were needed.
Using two approaches-choosing a risk and corresponding dose of "no significance to individuals" and using natural background as a reference level-the IAEA concluded that a
" trivial" individual dose would be about 10 pSv/a (1 mrem /yr).t it also concluded that, using a
- minimum value of US$ 3000 per' man-Sv ($30 per person-rem), a practice-related trivial k collective dose would be a few hundred person-rem. It further suggested I:miting the contribution of an irafividual practice to one mrem per year for individual dose and a -
. commitment of 100 person-rem _ per year of practice for collective dose.
In 1996, six intemational intergovemmental agencies agreed on revised basic safety standards '
- (SS-115) which recognize that " justified" practices,- and sources within practices, may be exempted if they meet the criteria of 10 pSv/a (1 mremlyr) for individual dose and - i man-Sv (100 person-rem /yr) committed collective dose 3 Clearance levels are defined as a set uf vaknes, established by the regulatory body in a country or state, expressed in terms of activity concentrations and/or total activities, at or below which sources of radiation can be released from nuclear regulatory control.
4 The sum of all individual doses, in Sv, is called the " collective dose" and is assigned the unit," person-Sv."
16 r
_ _J
.de..
France The staff understands from recent meetings with French regulators, that the French are -
pursuing a case-by-case approach for the recycle or reuse of material having residual-
-: radioactivity. They plan to keep the materials and equipment within the regulatory structure.
- The case-by-case approach, in their view greatly reduces the uncertainties of dose assessment -
. calculations, because the character of the source, the procecses and use can be specifie<L Germany
- In December 1995, the German Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK) approved a draft -
! recommendation for unconddional clearance of material with residual radioactivity from .
regulatory control. ' As a recommmdation, it is not legally bindig, but it will be used in licensing -
procedures _to set the clearance criteria for operators wishing to clear material from radiological control. The draft recommendshon presents radionuchde-specdic volumetric clearance levels -
and allowed annual clearance quantties. The clearance criteria include: 1) meeting surface
-- contamination levels in the Radiaten Protection Ordmance; 2) satisfying the volumetric clearance levels, both on an individual nuclide and mixture basis; 3) utilizing small (< 300 - _ _ _
- - kilogram) batches br volumetric measurements: 4) satisfying the annual clearance levels, both on an individual nuc;ide and mixture basis; and d) applying appropriate transportation regulations. The allowed annual clearance quantities are no longer _ deemed necessary and will .
be deleted in the final recommendation.
?
f%
Y 17
L l c.
1.
f The Commissioners 5
} no objections. The Office of the Chief Information Officer has reviewed this paper for information technology and information management implications and concurs in it.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Commission:
- 1. Etrande direction with regard to Options 1,2, and 3
. ection with regard to the 4
- 2. If the Commission selects Suboption 18 or Option 3, orovid rulemaking issues noted above.
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Options Paper Distnbuten:(g \meckk:p10-97.004)
CTrottier/RPHEB RF Central File FCntanzi BMMorris LBRiani CAGallagher WITS 9400059 To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N* = No copy
- See previous concurrences g OFFICE RPHEB:DRA l RPHEB:DRA l D:DRA:RES l D;NMSS l D:NRR SCollins L
NAME: RMeck* CTrottier* JAMurphy CPaperiello DATE: 10/31/97 10 151 197 l 1111 197 / 19 7 / 19 7 OFFICE: D:OSP l OGc I- fAEOD l ClO l CFO l NAME: RBangart WOlmsteau TTMartin AJGalante JLFunches DATE: 1 197 1 197 / 197 1 19 7 1 19 7 OFFICE: D:RES l DEDE I EDO l l l NAME: MRKnapp AThadarii LJCallan DATE: 1 197 / 19 7 / 19 7 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY (RES File Code) RES _ _
l
._ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ ]