ML20203D359
| ML20203D359 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/27/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FACA, SECY-98-028-C, SECY-98-28-C, SECY-99-028, SECY-99-028-01, SECY-99-028-R, SECY-99-28, SECY-99-28-1, SECY-99-28-R, NUDOCS 9902160175 | |
| Download: ML20203D359 (18) | |
Text
3.......................
O t RELEASEDTOTHE PDR e
f'Q7EC,j X : M 4 l99 SfD :
3 l daie in; ills
......................ar, A...../
RULEMAKING ISSUE (Information)
January 27.1999 SECY-99-028 FOR: The Commissioners FROM: William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING PROCESS IN RESPONSE TO THE STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM FOR SECY 98-028," REGULATORY s\
OPTIONS FOR SETTING STANDARDS ON CLEARANCE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT HAVING RESIDUAL RADIOACTIVITY" PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of the staff's intended rulemaking process in response to the Commission's direction in the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated June 30,1998, for SECY-98-028, " Regulatory Options for Setting Standards on Clearance of Materials and Equipment Having Residual Radioactivity."
BACKGROUND:
In a paper dated February 19,1998 (SECY-98-028), the staff requested Commission direction on regulatory options for setting standards on clearance of materials and equipment having residual radioactivity.
In an SRM dated June 30,1998 (Attachment 1), the Commission approved Option 3 (i.e.
proceed independently to promulgate a dose-based regulation for clearance) and indicated that the rulemaking effort should begin in FY 1999.
CONTACTS: Frank Cardile, NMSS/IMNS (301) 415-6185
/
Anthony Huffert, NMSS/DWM gj//
(301) 415-6416 L T/ NI['VA 9902160175 990127 PDR SECY 99-028 R PDR
( { & 'lp7~ 2 0 x v) n-b at tn c-
The Commissioners 2 DISC SSION:
In response to the SRM directing the staff to implement Option 3, this paper discusses the rulemaking process that the staff intends to use to develop regulaticns for the clearance of materials and equipment having residual radioactivity. The paper also discusses major items impacting the rulemaking process and its schedule, and the staff's current activities and plans related to each of these items.
To expedite the rulemaking process, the staff formed a working group (WG) which includes technical staff from NMSS, RES, OGC, OSP, and NRR, and an Agreement State (A/S) representative from Texas. In addition, a steering group (SG), made up of NRC management from NMSS, RES, OGC, OSP, and NRR, and an A/S management representative from lilinois, provides continuing and direct management consultation for the WG to expedite preparation of, and concurrence in, rulemaking packages.
WG/SG staffs have discussed the Commission's plans outlined in the SRM at two meetings of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Safety (ISCORS) in September and December 1998, at the All-Agreement States meeting in October 1998, and at a Department of State (DOS) workshop in December 1998.
As directed in the SRM, the staff plans to supplement the standard rulemaking process by including an enhanced participatory process similar to that used in revisions to Part 35 that will include facilitated public meetings before drafting any proposed rulemaking language, to solicit early public input on the major issues of the rulemaking. To support the enhanced activities, the staff is preparing an issues paper, to be used as a starting point for discussions at the public meetings. These actions are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this paper.
After the period of early public input, the staff will proceed directly to preparation of a proposed rule rather than prepare a rulemaking plan. This procedure would depart somewhat from the process outlined in MD 6.3. The rationale for this approach includes: (1) the June 30, 1998, SRM provided clear direction to the staff regarding procedures for rulemaking and general rule content (i.e., proceed in a manner similar to Part 35, which did not use a rulemaking plan; prepare a dose-based standard focusing on codified clearance leve!s above background that are protective of public health and safety; etc.); (2) the WG/SG have A/S representation that will facilitate A/S comments at an early stage; (3) a dnsft of the issues paper and proposed rule will be placed on NRC's Technical Conference Forum website dedicated to A/S participation and comment on rulemakings and draft guidance of a predecisional nature; and (4) the enhanced process, including the issues paper, public meetings, and Commission briefing on the meeting results, provide input to the rule process similar to that of a rulemaking plan.
- 1. Issues associated with the rulemakina process a) Enhanced Particinatory Process - Issues Paper and Facilitated Public Meetinas in response to the SRM, and in a manner similar to the Part 35 process, the staff's plan for enhanced public input willinclude use of NRC's Rule Forum website. In addition, the staff will convene facilitated public meetings in four different geographical locations (Chicago, Atlanta,
t The Commissioners 3 San Francisco, and Washington, DC). These public meetings will provide a forum by which NRC can obtain input and rationales from a variety of viewpoints on major issues related to rulemaking on clearance, although they will not attempt to reach a consensus on the issues.
These facilitated public meetings will also satisfy the requirements of the scoping process for preparation of an environmentalimpact statement (EIS) as required by 10 CFR 51.26-29. Two key components of the enhanced process are preparation of an issues paper for use at the public meetings and the use of a facilitation process for the meetings.
- 1) Issues oaoer - An issues paper will be made publicly available, before the public meetings, to provide background for discussion of major issues. A similar process was used successfully for the public meetings for the recently issued license termination rule.
It is anticipated that the issues paper will discuss, in a broad way, whether NRC should proceed with rulemaking on clearance; and if a rulemaking does proceed: (a) what materials should be covered; (b) how should health risks, economic factors, and other existing intemational and national criteria be factored into decision-making; (c) should some form of restrictions on future use of material be considered; and (d) should criteria be stated in terms of risk, dose, or activity. The issues paper will provide the pros and cons of each option, as well as specific items for discussion under each issue.
The staff will provide an information copy of the issues paper to the Commission in March 1999, before announcing its availability in the Federal Reaister.
- 2) Facilitation of Public Meetinas - Staff experiences with both the license termination rule and the Part 35 rulemaking indicate that public meetings are more productive if they are facilitated. A facilitator's role is to broaden participation in the meetings to include a range of groups and a variety of viewpoints, and to aid in conducting the meetings so that those viewpoints are heard. The role of facilitator could either be filled by persons extemal to NRC (and under contract to NRC) or intemal to the Agency (NRC staff). The staff has determined that it would be most productive and cost-effective to use a combined extemallintemal team approach to facilitation. The staffis proceeding to place the contract for the extemal facilitation aspects.
b) Devetooment of Technical Basis Needed for Proposed Rule As discussed in SECY-98-028, technical basis development consists of severalimportant components needed to support a proposed rule on clearance. These components (which include a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, a regulatory analysis (RA), and an implementing regulatory guide to be issued concurrently with the proposed rule), and the technical bases needed for each component, are described in Attachment 2 and noted as follows:
l
- 1) Preliminary technical basis report To provide the needed baseline input to the NEPA analysis, RA, and regulatory guide, a draft NUREG/CR has been prepared which provides dose factors for individuals exposed to specific cleared items, through a wide variety of scenarios. The materials addressed in this technical basis include scrap steel, 1
l
~ -. -.. -. - - . - - - , . - _ - - . - - . - -- . --
The Commissioners 4 copper and aluminum, and concrete rubble, as well as tools for reuse. This report has been peer-reviewed by an NRC contractor, updated to consider probabilistic exposure scenarios, and
- compared with a technical basis document prepared by EPA. Currently, this report has been reviewed by NRC staff and will be published for public comment in January 1999 so that it is available as background for the public meetings.
- 2) NEPA analysis and RA: It is necessary to consider and weigh the environmentalimpacts of rulemaking attematives in an EIS or environmental assessment (EA) to satisfy NEPA requirements. It is expected that, given the breadth of issues and impacts associated with clearance, an EIS will be prepared similar to that prepared for the license termination rule in NUREG-1496, " Generic Environmental impact Statement in Support of Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities '
NUREG-1496 evaluated both radiological and non-radiological impacts associated with attemative dose criteria for release of lands and structures for unrestricted and restricted use. It will also be necessary to assess the cost-benefits of rulemaking attematives in a regulatory analysis.
- 3) Reaulatory cuidance: To support implementation of the rule, the staff will be preparing a regulatory guide on measurement methods for low concentrations of volumetrically contaminated material that may exist in various equipment and material types, shapes, and sizes that are anticipated to be available for clearance. It is expected that analyses similar to that prepared for the license termination rule in NUREG-1505, "A I Nonparametric Statistical Methodology for the Design and Analysis of Final Status Decommissioning Surveys," will be prepared to support a clearance regulatory guide.
The staff is currently preparing statements of work for the specific technical information identified in Column 3 of the table in Attachment 2. The additional technical basis development needed for this rulemaking will be conducted by RES, in accordance with Commission direction in response to SECY-97-220, " Implementation of DSI 22." NMSS will continue to lead the.
associated rulemaking efforts.
c) Scope of Materials Covered by Rule The June 30,1998, SRM stated that all metals, materials, and equipment, including soil, should be covered in the rule, although it indicated that a narrower scope could be justified based on problems with applying the rule to certain categories of materials. The staff's current plans for the scope of the rulemaking are as follows:
- 1) The current technical basis includes a set of materials and equipment that makes up the large majority of material that would likely be considered for clearance at licensed NRC facilities. These materials would be included in the rulemaking.
- 2) in addition, it is clear from staff experience and from information received from licensee groups that it is important that the rulemaking also covers clearance of soil. Although the technical report referred to above does not include soil, work done previously for the f
d The Commissioners 5 license termination rule in NUREG-1496; NUREG/CR-5512, " Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning;" and NUREG-1549, " Decision Methods for Dose Assessment to Comply with Radiological Criteria for License Terminatirm " provide baseline technical information on individual dose factors and cost-benefn analysis for soil that the staff plans to adapt for use as part of this rulemaking. Thus, it is planned that the scope of the current rule willinclude soil.
- 3) The current technical report does not include sludges, resins, glass, and wood products, etc. Although the staff proposes to expand the technical analysis to include these materials, this would require additional time to complete. Therefore, the staff recommends not including them as part of this rulemaking. Licensing reviews of these materials would continue using, for example, the dose based criteria of the rule as a reference, and applying on a case-by-case basis the analysis necessary to demonstrate impacts and compliance. However, it is planned that an item in the issues paper will be the materials that should be considered in the rule.
d) Schedule of Rulemakina Steps in FY 1999 The activities described above in items ia,1b, and ic are rulemaking-related activities that precede the actual preparation of the Federal Reaister (FR) notice for a proposed rule. The staff's plan and schedule for conducting these activities are shown in Attachment 3 and includes: issuing the necessary contracts as expeditiously as feasible; convening appropriate parties as part of the facilitation process for the public meetings; announcing the EIS scoping process in the FR; issuing the issues paper for public comment; and conducting four public meetings. After the public meetings, the staff will provide the Commission with a paper and briefing summarizing the results of the public meetings and indicating the next steps in the fonnal rulemaking process.
- 2. Coordination with EPA and Intemational Efforts The June 30,1998, SRM directed the staff to notify EPA of the planned rulemaking action. The staff, in a letter from Carl Paperiello, NRC, to Lawrence Weinstock, EPA, dated August 20,1998 (Attachment 4), described NRC's plans for rulemaking, acknowledged EPA's past work on technical underpinnings on charance, and suggested seeking further input from EPA in an advisory capacity during NRC's rulemaking. The staff will continue to involve EPA, as well as other Federal agencies, in its rulemaking efforts through the ISCORS process and other means, as appropriate.
Currently, there are a wide variety of IAEA, EPA, and DOS efforts ongoing. One specific area involves the development of import standards for cleared materials. The clearance rulemaking activities outlined in Attachments 2 and 3 will proceed with parallel staff efforts to remain cognizant of other ongoing activities so that this information can be factored into the NRC rulemaking process.
COORDINATION:
This paper has been coordinated with the Office of the General Counsel which has no legal
E l
The Commissioners 6 objection. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission Paper for resource impacts and has no objection. The Office of the Chief Information Officer has reviewed the paper for information technology and information management implications and concurs in it.
IM William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations Attachments:
- 1. SRM Dated June 30,1998
- 2. Technical Basic items Needed
- 3. Rulemaking Steps in FY 1999
- 4. Letter to EPA Dated August 20,1998 DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA CIO CFO EDO REGIONS SECY l
l
l l
l i
t 1
ATTACHMENT 1 l
SRM Dated June 30,1998 l
l l
l l
i
r t
i June 30,1998 MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations i FROM: John C. Hoyle, Secretary /s/
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-98-028 - REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR SETTING STANDARDS ON CLEARANCE OF i MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT HAVING RESIDUAL ,
RADIOACTIVITY i i
l The Commission has approved Option 3 to proceed independently to promulgate a dose-based l regulation for clearance of materials and equipment having residual radioactivity. The staff I should notify EPA of the planned actions in this regard. This effort should begin in FY 1999. !
l The staff should pursue an enhanced participatory rulemaking process similar to the Part 35 revision process, including use of the Internet home page to solicit comments prior to start of I the formal rulemaking process with particular emphasis on enhanced early Agreement State input. The proposed standard for clearance should not be a detectability standard, but should draw from the IAEA's interim report and the SAIC analysis. It should also draw from ongoing
, practice with regard to NORM and NARM (such as the encouragement for coal ash to be j recycled in building materials). The rulemaking should focus on the codified clearance levels l
above background for unrestricted use that are adequately protective of public health and safety. This level should be based on realistic scenarios of health effects from low dos,es that still allows quantities of materials to be released. The rule should be comprehensive and apply to all metals, equipment, and materials, including soil. If prob!sms that would delay completing the rulemaking arise in certain categories of solid materials, then a decision can be made to i narrow the scope of the rule.
l l
l l 1 SECY NOTE: THIS SRM, SECY-98-028, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD
$ CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE f
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
I
. . . . . . . . . . - , . . . . . _ . . ~ - . _ - - - . . . - . . - . . - - - . - . - . - _ - . . . .
l l.
l I cc: Chairman Jackson l Commissioner Dieus ,
Commissioner Diaz !
Commissioner McGaffigan _
L OCA -!
OlG i
! Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
1-l l
l l
i i
i 4
- . SECY NOTE
- THIS SRM, SECY-98-028, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD j - CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE j PUBLICLY AVA!LABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
1 1
1-i
l l
l l
l l
I
! i l
l l
l ATTACHMENT 2 Technical Basis items Needed l
l l
l i
l l
l l
1 t
Table 1 - Technical Basis Critical Path items Needed for a Proposed Rule Component Need to Satisfy Technical Analyses Needed for EIA and RA NEPA analysis 10 CFR 51.70 & 51.71
- a. Individual dose factors for 4 materials (steel, Al,
- Must consider and weigh environmental Cu, and concrete) - draft NUREG/CR complete 1/99 impacts of proposal and attematives
- b. Individual dose factors for exposure to multiple
- Should consider technical, economic, other sources of cleared material benefits and costs of proposal and attematives c. Collective dose'#
Should consider other interests relevant to d. Calculation of costs for scenr% analyzed'8 proposal
- e. Buildup of recycled material commerce or
- Must quantify the factors considered environment
- 10 CFR 51.26 - 51.29 f. Evaluation of net risks and cost-benefit of proposal and attematives
- If EIS is prepared, use of scoping process as !
required in 10 CFR 51.26-29 g. Soil will be included using approach from cleanup r rule Regulatory - Executive Order 12866 & 6/30/95 SRM h. Examination of economic impact (costs vs benefits) of attematives Analysis (SECY-95-028) i
- i. Potentialimpact on commerce Draft Regulatory - Practicalimplementation methods j. Analysis of survey capabilities of volumetrica!!y Guide contaminated equipment and material 5 Public Participation - 6/98 SRM: Enhanced participatory process k. Issues paper (draft complete 12/98)
- 10 CFR 51.26 - 51.29, public meetings for 1. Public workshops EIS scoping process For Footnotes 1-5, see following pages l
Footnotes to Table 1
- 1. Source term for analyzina doses and costs Estimates of quantities and activities of equipment and material associated with clearance rulemaking attematives (i.e., the amount of material that would be available to be cleared for different potential dose criteria (e.g.,10,1,0.1 mrem)) need to be developed. Previous analyses prepared in NRC contractor reports by Pacific Northwest National Lab assumed that all metals would go to low-level waste (LLW) burial and, therefore, the quantities of equipment and material per activity level were not estimated. This information will be used in analysis of clearance to estimate volumes of materials cleared at attemative dose criteria and available for potential use. As such, this information is needed to estimate population doses, non-radiological risks, and costs associated with different potential dose criteria. EPA did not estimate volumes with associated activities in its clearance analysis.
- 2. Collective dose /non-radioloaical risk calculations
- Additional scenarios for non-critical individual dose scenarios that may be important for estimating collective doses to population groups need to be developed. These scenarios need to be added into the overall analysis of collective dose; associated costs under these scenarios will have to be developed. The current NUREG/CR only deals with those groups that are limiting for individual dose, not those other groups that may also contribute to collective dose in a significant way. The experience of the cleanup rule was that additional groups should be analyzed.
- Population usage pattems for exposure to recycled / reused material to calculate exposures to populations from cleared material need to be developed. Probability of numbers of persons both processing the cleared material from scrap to manufacture and also the number of persons using the cleared material depends on the likelihood of different population groups using the material. Currently, the NUREG/CR only calculated a maximum dose assuming one particular critical group is exposed to the material.
- An evaluation of non-radiological risks associated with clearance altematives (e.g., the more material sent to LLW, the higher the risk of non-radiological traffic fatalities from transport) needs to be includociin the overall analysis of collective risks. These types of non-radiological risks were included in the GEIS for the cleanup rule MUREG-1496), however this information has not yet been evaluated for the clearance rulemaking attematives
- 3. Cost estimates
- Cost estimates need to be developed for. (a) the variety of recycle / scrap / manufacturing processes associated with clearance of materials and equipment; (b) specific actions which may occur including costs resulting from unnecessary triggering of alarms at scrap facilities, as well as other potential impacts on commerce; and (c) surveys at clearance rulemaking attemative dose criteria (information on survey costs does not presently exist at the doses being considered for clearance and for the large quantities and varied shapes of cleared material at decommissioning and during operations).
- 4. Builduo of material
- Collective doses and costs of recycle / scrap / manufacturing which may arise due to the buildup of recycled material into commerce or env;ronment need to be developed
- 5. As input ic Reaulatory Guide I
- Measurement methods for low concentrations of volumetrically contaminated material that exist in various shapes and sizes need to be developed
- Criteria for making decisions on selection of samples for surveys need to be set both for making measurements in the field and in laboratory settings.
I 1
l l
l l
l l
l I
i i
! ATTACHMENT 3 Rulemaking Steps in FY99 t
I l
L i
i 4
I
-. - - , - _ . -.. - _~_ . . . - - - -- . _ . . _ -- .- - - . . . - . -
t Rulemaking Steps Beginning in FY99 .
I Publish first part of technical analysis (draft NUREG/CR on 1/99 !
individual dose) ,
Develop additional technical basis needed to support rule l (collective dose,' costs, cost-benefit analysis, regulatory guidance) l 1
SOWS to DCPM 1/99 l J
Acquire contractor support for 6/99
- Public meetings
- Technical analyses for EIS/RA/ Reg guide
- EIS/RA/OMB packages
- Public meeting process First draft of issues paper to Steering Group 11/98 C Commission paper on rule plans to EDO 1/99 C Issues paper to Federal Register 3/99 Announce public meetings /EIS scoping in FRN 6/99 Conduct 4 facilitated public meetings 8/99-10/99
- Synopsis of findings:
- Send Commission Paper on results of public 2/00 meetings and Status of technical analyses to EDO l
I i
i
s i
\
I 1
l 1
ATTACHMENT 4 l Letter to EPA 1
I I
l l
l
. _ -.. . - -= - .. . - - - - - - - _ . -
3p reg
, p-2 k E UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHINGTON, D C. 206a6 0001
\ *****p# -
August 20, 1998 Lawrence Weinstock, Acting Director Office of Radiation and Indoor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 ,
I
SUBJECT:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S PLANS TO SET STANDARDS l ON CLEARANCE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT HAVING RESIDUAL l RADIOACTIVITY
? l
Dear Mr. Weinstock:
1 The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the Commission's decision to proceed with a rulemaking to set a dose-based standard on the clearance of materials and equipment having residual radioactivity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff presented a paper to l the Commission, dated February 19,1998 (SECY-98-028), that addressed this issue. A copy of this Commission Paper is enclosed for reference (Enclosure 1).
i l In a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated June 30,1998, the Commission directed the staff to proceed independently to promulgate a dose-based regulation for clearance of materials and equipment having residual radioactivity. The SRM also includes direction concerning the conduct of the rulemaking process, and the nature and scope of the standard. j A copy of the SRM is also enclosed (Enclosure 2).
We are currently developing plans to implement the Commission's direction and will keep you informed through various means. We recognize that EPA has already made substantial progress in developing the technical basis for a similar rulemaking and would like to coordinate ;
with you to optimize our Federal ef' orts. In addition, we plan to solicit input from EPA and other Federal agencies tnrough the interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards at appropriate times during the rulemaking process. We also recognize that this rulemaking will not be without controversy and, therefore, the NRC wili use an enhanced participatory process to solicit input from di stakeholders.
In a recent inside NRC article regarding NRC's effort to develop a release standard, an EPA l employee was quoted as saying that "he didn't understand why the commission was more focused on the release standard than the orphan source problem." EPA should be aware that the Commicsion is very focused on the orphan source problem and considers it to be one j important ele neat of a much broader issue - the conirol and accountability of certain generally-licensed devices and sources used nationwide. After considering two staff papers and conducting two public meetings on this issue, the Commission directed the staff in April 1998 to implement a comprehensive national regulatory program to provide increased oversight of these sources and devices. These efforts include the conduct of public meetings later this year to solicit stakeholder input on the proposed program and resource support to the Conference of Radiation Control Program Director's committee on orphan sources. We assure you that the Commission considers the orphan sou:ce problem to be equally important to, if not more than, the development of a release standard.
i i
L. Weinstock l Should you have any questions conceming this matter please call John Greeves, Director, :
l Division of Waste Management, at (301) 415-7437.
Sincerely, ,
l
~
Af '
Carl J. aperiello, Director !
l Office of Nuclear Material Safety 1 and Safeguards i 1
i
Enclosures:
l 1. SECY-98-028 dated February 19,1998
- 2. Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30,1998 cc: R. Berube, DOE J. Fitzgerald, DOE M. Schaeffer, DOD A. Roberts, DOT A. Finkel, DOUOSHA B. Wachholz. HHS/NCI M. Rosenstein, FDA N. Gonzalez, OMB B. Hartline, OSTP J. Lipoti, State of New Jersey I
'4 b
l i
L