ML20195H299

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

ML20195H299
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/07/1999
From:	Mcgaffigan E 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 9906160323
Download: ML20195H299 (37)

Text

-

(; 4 f

NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: Annette Vietti-Cook,' Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONnR MCGAFFIGAN

SUBJECT:

' SECY-99-098 - PUBLICATION OF AN ISSUES PAPER ON l - RELEASE OF SOLID MATERIALS (CLEARANCE), IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND FOR USE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS

' Approved Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:

See attachsd comments and edits.

1 i

l d

.f h 1 l e ,

SIGNATURF. [@U()

@%V 7, tm DATE Entered on "AS" Yes No na'2 eda. Tat

CORRESPONDENCE PDR L .49o6/Go323

W - ,

e ,

l Commissioner McGatfioan's Gomments o SECV-99-098 m ,

[' 11 approve publication of the draft Endetal Reaister on release of solid materials from .

L licensed facilities for public comment and I offer the following for the staffs

. consideration.

, , For completeness, the staff should consider amending the draft FRN to indicate that there is' separate;Commissionidirected initiative underway tof re-evaluate existing Part '

f 40 solid material release mechanisms such as the transfer (10 CFR 40.51) or.

un'important quantities (10 CFR 40.13) provisions. For example, the. footnote on page 6 of the draft FRN could be' revised to briefly mention the Part 40 initiative. I,believe that famending the FRN in this manner'will help define the scope of this rulemaking and

~

. focus the discussions at the facilitated ' pubic workshops scheduled for later this year.

Al's'o , I offer several editorial comments to the draft FRN and press' release as indicated on the attached pages.

(2 I

t b

r 1

l t

t

f

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

10 CFR Part 20 -

Issues Related to Release of Solid Materials at Ucensed Facilities AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering a rulemaking that would set specific requirements on releases of solid materials in order to establish a regulatory framework more consistent with existing NRC requirements on air and liquid releases. The NRC is seeking esity public input on the major issues associated with such a rulemaking. To aid in that process, the NRC is requesting comments on the issues discussed in this notice. A. K DATE: Submit comments by November 15,-1999. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for cornments' received on or before this date. /

/

/

/

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

Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications staff, y-Vmeso,am.w % pu -a:y h.g., :. s . g ., ,s n ,

q~ om u 3a -.,e w ca-aA c,. p ,. o.: ume I f w,l.i % ,,n a &&[4.ys Jc smsk

v. s, as i

2'...

Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

You may provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page Mtto://www.nre cov). This site provides the capability to upload comments as files (any format), if you'r web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5095 tt-mail:CAG(&nrc.oov).

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

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

fpc@nrc. gov,0ffice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, USNRC, Washington DC 20555-0001, SUPPLEMENTARY lNFORMATION:

1. Background

W ega.l eles (, o >< h b te leo e <~-

f e a s, . i, . e. s e 6.stis w . 9 %sM Unlike for air and liquid releases, the Commission currently as no specific requirements ,.g e

~

regarding release of solid material I Solid materials include metals, concrete, soils, equipment, 1

4 g,,, , j y"$'

fumiture, etc., present at licerksed nuclear facilities. To provide consistency in its regulatory chlc elu l

1 l

l

N .

.i.  ;

3 l

. . . . . u framework for releases of all materials, the Commission is considering a rulemaking that would  !

' set specific requirements for release of solid materials.

I The NRC is supplementing its stan'dard rulemaking process by conducting enhanced

public pa'rticipatory activ including facilitated public meetings, before the start of any formal X rulemaking process, to solicit'early and active public input on major isstues associated with -

release of solid materials.- @ M M5' " N ' #* *

, d % % M .s .i. 4 la (d. l 1

' As a first step, the NRC has prepared an issues paper which describes issues and altematives related to release of solid materials. The intent of this paper is to foster discussion l i

about these issues and attematives before a rulemaking to set standards would begin. The l 1

content of the issues paper is contained in Section Ill.

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

.The NRC is soliciting comments on the items presented in the issues paper. Comments may be submitted either in writing or electronically as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. In addition to providing an opportunity for written comments, the NRC plans to hold facilitated public meetings later this year on the issues discussed in the paper. The NRC 1 anticipates holding four public meetings in four different geographical locations, beginning in August 1999 and extending through early November. The dates and locations of these meetings will be announced in a later Federal Register notice. TK, issues paper provides

. backgroun'd and topics of discussion on the major issues that will be the subject of the public o

p 6:9 fi /

{ i. x c

^

J, S.

m . _ . .

s i A.L. : BACKGROUNDL m n ,  !

4 4 ,

( j l '

_ , lY ,

A,1 i Current NRC noticles -

n w

O id.1.1' inconsistency of NRC reaulations covenna releases from licensed f=Miam J

i The NRC has the ' statutory responsibility for the protection of health and safety related to the use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material u'nder the Atomic Energy Act. A l 1

~

principal method of meeting this responsbility is through the body of regulations codified in Title :

10, Chapter 1, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR, Chapter 1).1 The regulations in -l c10 CFR, Chapter I, have been developed using a rulemaking process that provides the

opportunity for public review and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act and includes

' the analysis of costs and benefits and environmentalimpacts, and considers factors related to' paperwork reduction. Agreement States administer equivalent programs applying equivalent -  :

. regulations. > q

+

I

. The Commission's regulations that set standards for protection of the public against

radiation appearin 10 CFR Part 201These regulations limit the radiation exposure (or " dose") l that a member of the public can receive from the operation and decommissioning of a nd NE-  !

tirm el and also require that' doses received are "as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA)" e Gv iThe NRC has used the criteria on public dose limits and ALARA requirements in Part 20 (Sections'20.1301 and 20.1101, respectively) to establish limits in Table 2 of Appendix B of Part

' 20 on the amount of radioactivity in gaseous and liquid releases that may be released from a anuclear facility to the environment;

6

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

+

licensed nuclear facility, there afe no current specific criteria in Part 20 governing releases of solid materials by licensees, although there are some regulation's' 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 guidance, 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 l

' 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

'y. : license, but does not address release of solid material; l

.A #,a l

EA.1.2 Solid materials notentially availabig for release.

^

l l

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

L .

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

'. this material will have no radioachve contamination, although some materials can have

. radioactive contamination either on their ' surfaces or distributed within their volumes.' j Contamination can be distributed in the volume of materials because: (1) they are relatively i

~

~ rorous (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  ;

C 1 0 g 'For example,10 CFR 20.2005,' 35.92, and 36.5 h(e).

3 $ 2[

r~

7 contamination that was previously on the surface of a piece of equipment to become distributed throughout its volume. The amount of contamination that a material has, if any, depends largely on the type of licensee involved and its location in the facility: l 1

l a) For.most NRC licensees, solid materials have no contamination because these licensees use sealed sources in which the radioactive material is encapsulated. These include small i research and development facilities, paapla M.e cee l;sn-j gaugea ;n i; L- =,e; , etc.I y Ag ., gu p,a u t, g vmy, gege,s ;,ct,A;. ec ,

m ea sd de + r o , A raMogqk] -

b) For other licensdes (which includes nuclear reactors, manufacturing facilities, larger j hedhe ho k et .uluG educational or h :str^' laboratories, e .), material generally falls into one of three groups based X on its location or use in the facility:  :

fehd

1) Clean or unaffected areas of a facility - the material in these areas would likely have 7

. no radioactive contamination resulting from licensed activities. Such areas could include  !

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

control room of a reactor facility.

l

. 2) Areas where licensed radioactive material is used or stored - the material in these areas can become contaminated although the levels may likely be very low, or it may have none, because of contamination control procedures required at facilities licensed by the NRC.

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

f

e J 1

!" 8 : . ..

~

3) Malenal used for radioactive service in the facilitv. or lar=*ad in cent-minated areas or L in areas where achvation can occur - These materials generally have levels of contamination l

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

' A.1.3 Current NRC case-bv e==e< review of licensee reauests for reles== of solid material Even though the NRC does not currently have specific criteria in Part 20 covering -

I release of solid materials' licensees have made, and will likely continue to make, requests for release of solid material when it becomes obsolete or defective or when their facility is

- 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

.O ee...W ~. L i .ecu-m.m. vi " .". 20 evaluathequests for release on a case-by-case basis using either Regulatory Guide 1.86, " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear y '

Reactors," or other case-specific hQu" d'b b 10 "{#' .;

l

. (a)f Reaulatorv Guide 1.88. 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 contaminsbon levels are stated in terms of meacurable radioactivity levels '

(observed disintegrations per minute por 100 square centimeters of surface area), the values of -

- khuhen n ~Y ,

which were based pnncipally on theppabilities of readily available instrumentation at the time l the guide was devel Regulatory Guide 1.86 does not contain dose criteria. For some j situations, the NRC willinco rate the vaiues in the table in Regulatory guide 1.86 into the

' license coriditions of a facility.

g /). ( o/u b/ dofe k n A 4 ddu J #

• n.,m m .% 9 a a m ,s s H-vL o

u ari, J,- c L f .) A we -* u&~WbLM (E s

k whR K

1 9

~ ~ ~

L . . .

E . (b);i Allowance of release if there are no haa levels of radiaardive contaminatian from  ;

J licensed activities above b=euidund in the material. Regulatory Guide 1.86 only addresses j

materials having' surface contamination; it does not cover volumetric contamination. For some

, . situations, the NRC allows release of volumetrically contaminated solid materialif survey H cinstrumentation does not detect radioactivity lesels above background. This does not mean that 1

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

. detectable with appropriate survey instruments.- This method provides inconsistent and -

-l

. generally unsatisfactory licensing guidance because different survey instruments have different - )

levels' of detection.: This can lead to dis'agreements and confusion over permissible levels of release and nonuniform levels of protection. '

L(c); Use of 10 CFR 20.2002. Licensees may request specific approval to dispose of i

! materials containing low levels of licensed material in other than a licensed low-level waste - i

. \

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

. licensees to describe the material to be released and evaluate the doses that would result. Use of this approach requires case-specific NRC review and evaluation of the situation j This

approach would likely not be appropriate for evaluating the increased amounts of ~ aterial that j could be available for release during decommissioning, pj us ocdhi le W $'^

krelasc< d mma

?

w..M m,k.,J .

r I-l .:

3 1

~ 10 A.2 NRC actions to =dd ess 'r-:c_ * ^ r.cv in release stand =@ tw cer-E'-MEir.e tr'- =Mee on release of ee!!d materi=8=.

- A.2.1 Cerr,rii;.e;er, d...dicri to cone!dar rulemakina -

))y Ainassd fedwIy )

?: ..d.J in b- A. i.3, wuy- - = ..d..,;a; =::;;;, ;;t."c r d o,tiv. vipubuc i M:5. id :_ ^J.y, can et== irn,v,-_ --C; :..?sc&e% 72 ;,% g-:-tort':' fr increrr:1 Metrier r- ;- :::: f;. if - : sf.v;;d vider;ei. .nv. fe 2-;:e; r.n.tc.r?:9 ni he y Commission, on June 30,1998, directed staff to consider rulemaking to establish a dose-g based standard for release of solid materials so that licensee considerations of and NRC review l pu '

%  : o[ disposition of slightly contaminated solid materials are conducted in a consistent manner that )

protects public health and safety. The Commission also directed the NRC staff to include an opportunity for enhanced public participation, including use of NRC's intemet home page to solicit comments. This issues paper is the first step in soliciting views on major issues in this area.

' A.2.2 Potential Altematwe Courses of Action 1

Prior to conducting a rulemaking, the NRC generally considers attemative courses of 1

action.~ Two broad attematives that the NRC could consider are not doing a rulemaking

' (i.e., continue with the current practice of case-by case reviews) or developing a rulemaking for release of solid materials, if the NRC' decided to proceed with rulemaking, it cou'id:

gp, ,

i3 '

- (1); . Permit release of solid materials for unrestricted use if the potential doses to the public from unrestricted use of the material were less than a specified level determined during the  !

~

, rulemaking process. Unrestricted use could result in recycle or reuse of the materialin J consumer products or industrial products, or disposal of the material as waste in landfills.

Release of solid materials for unrestricted use is also referred to as " clearance", but for the

~(d purposes of this issues paper, the term "jp unrestricted thse use" is ' generally used.

I 1

i

. (2)' Restrict release of solid materials to only certain authorized uses. For example, future  !

use of the material could be restricted to only certain industrial uses where the potential for 1

public exposure is small.

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

. service in the facility or had been located in an area where radioactive material has'been used  !

- or stored, and instead require all such materials to go to a licensed low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility.

i i

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

environmental impacts and economic aspects associated with each aitemative. 1 4

' A.3 Current Policies of International Aacacies. Other Federal Aaencies. and State Governments Renardina Releases of Solid Materials In considering rulemaking attematives, the NRC would consider policies and precedents set by other nations and intemational agencies, by other Federal agencies and by States.

4 u.

12~

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

~

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

Consistency with standards set by other nations and intemational agencies is important because materials can be both imported and exported between the U.S. and other countries and differing i

standards could create confusion and economic disparities in commerce.

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 intemational implications. The NRC,lEPh, and DOh generally provide input and l review in development of lAEA standards. uem b4k kk J ua p 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 published in draft in January 1996 for a three-year trial use by the IAEA's member countries.

- This report contains levels of radionuclides in solid materials that may be released for  ;

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

0.0\ mt\l.hwk(mSt)An 4~c .y a on A v J.A constraint milliyr year)(m1p,#of exposuregmemberi of the public from 'likely' tm o.\ s \

> exposure scenarios and 0 mre m 'unlikely' scenarios, i

Lone intended application of IAEA's proposed clearance levels is related to intemational i

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

I

pw p

3 U.S. Envireninentel Pin +%n Aaency PAL 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 particulsr area, for example in the area of release cf 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 issue:

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

In addition, as noted later in Section B.1, the EPA has completed studies on i environmentalimpacts of clearance of materia's. I 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, whi:e minimizing duplication of effort. Accordingly, the EPA will not only be an important participant in the NRC rulereaking workshops, but the NRC also plans to consu)  ;

extensively with EPA throughout the rulemaking proces[4L lus dibd - t?PA lo ha ^ e'Ou

• h WQt er6 - gre y in setting generally applicable environmental standards, EPA sets standards for a wide range of materials, including those which contain naturally occurring radioactive materials that have been enhanced as a result of man-made processes. For example, the ash from buming of 9

coal in power plants has concentrated levels of uraniurrg This coal ash is generally permitted to X !

be used in building materials; the concentrated uranium in e coal ash can result in small i radiation' doses to the general public as a result of its use. is EPA standard could be viewed as a precedent or benchmark for possible NRC release levels. N0 0" d "N M '" '

l ,

ki

m l

14 EPA is currently active in the development of standards for import into the U.S. of materials cleared in other countries. EPA has been working with the Intemational Atomic p~ ' Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.S. Department of State in these efforts. /E 6  ;

ahjQ .M is . piWp h $ h D ese Medb.

U.S. Desesi,i,ent of Enerov (DOE). The DOE operates a number of nuclear facilities.

I N~ ' Althoughj not licensed by the NRC, the DOE faces issues conceming the disposition of materials '

from its facilities similar to those faced by NRC licensees.

gebaY :

In response to these needs, DOE has developed criteria for release of solid materials. j 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 revised 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 fy b Do6 y 'would have to be made as to whether DOE would adopt the standards in the NRC regulation.

State covemments. Thirty States have entered into Agreements with the NRC to ,

~

assume regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and small quantities of special nuclear -

material.i" Agreement States" generally use NRC guidance such as that contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86 or similar guidance, in their regulatory programs.

,qg h-tde ehh; in Pau */5 '

d@ ,A ]

l 1

1 15-in a related matter Section 2901(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Section 276(a) of' the Atomic Energy Act) grants State govemments (Agreement and non-Agreement States alike) the authority to regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste if the NRC exempts such

' waste after the enactment of Act. 'Several States and locales have, both prior to and subsequent to, passage of the Act established proh'ibitions against the disposal of radioactive:

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

. AN Previous Commission Efforts to Address Release of Solid M*arials p( aa. m 9m pouL NLC 5 aoa.i n s "

6grc,e t A h A d. L. w le n 1

• sit D.c hn-The Commission prev' usly sought to address considerations related to release of solid D'*

1 materials as a part of its issu nce of a Below Regulatory Concem (BRC) Policy Statement on 1 4

.- July 3,1990 (55FR 27522) NThe BRC Policy was a general statement of Commission policy and was intended to provide's broad decision framework for formulating rules or making l licensing decisions to exempt from regulatory control certain practices involving small quantities  ;

of radioactive material. The BR'C 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 baneficial 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.

t 4

x

p

!M 16-4 - The NRC's current efforts differ from th associated with the BRC Policy in several ways.l Unlike the broad policy-setting approach of the BRC policy, the NRC's current effort is focused on conaxiering establishment of specific requiiements for release of solid materials,

. which protect public health and safety, consistent with the existing fisc.M of requirements in Part 20 for gaseous and liquid releases. Also, unlike the BRC Policy which was issued without detailed technical basis or public comment, the procedure for a rulemaking on release of solid i

materials would be carried out under all the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures 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 attemative approaches. In addition, as a supplement to the l 4 normal APA process, the NRC would enhance participation in the rulemaking process through

]

workshops for interested parties. Any decisions made regarding release of solid materials at T this time would be made brough rulemaking& not through a policy statement.

A.5 Potential NRC Actions, Enhanced Public Participation and Public Meetings, and Preparation oflasues Paper Generally, NRC's procedure in rulemaking is for the NRC staff to develop a proposed rule or Commission consideration,' publication of the proposed rule for public comment, consideration of the comments by the NRC staff, preparation of a final rule for Commission approval,' and publication. of the final rule. As directed by the Commission, the NRC staff plans to' enhance public participation in this process by conducting workshops for interested parties

, ' before any rulemaking would begin. The workshops are planned to elicit informed discussions of

' options and approaches and the rationale for them. Although these workshops are not designed 8

u 20 s . ,

capability of instrumentation, and certain specific rule sections, in its evaluation of requests for

- release of solid materials.

- (2) Develoo a Proposed Rule.

'In'this option, the NRC would proceed with rulemaking to supplement its gaseous and

. liquid release standards in Part 20 by developing dose-based regulations limiting releases of solid' material to provide a consistent regulatory framework protective of public health and safety.

_ This would involve conducting a rulemaking under the Administrative' Procedures Act, and

}. .

developing, as regulatory bases, an environmental under NEPA and an analysis of costs and benefits in a Regulatory Analysis. Based on Commission direction discussed in Section A.2.3, a rulemokbg would use an enhanced participatory process involving early public input and website access to rulemaking documents.

Specific items for Discussion:

Should the NRC continue with the current practice of making decisions on a case by-case basis, or should it proceed to develop a proposed rule that would establish generic criteria for release of solid materials? What are the considerations that should go into making such a decision?

(1) Does the current system of NRC case-by-case decisions on release of solid materials, using existing guidance, provide an adequate regulatory framework? Can volumetric contamination in small amounts' be released in a manner similar to that done for small amounts

22 _ _ _

Issue No. 2 -if NRC MW to Dev=lan a Praa- ed Rule. What are the Princloal Alternatives for Rulerp=hina that Shee!d be Cor=!dered. and What Factors Should be Used in Makina Decisions Between Alternatives?

If the answer to issue #1 is to conduct a rulemaking to include requirements in Part 20 on release of solid material, a rulemaking process (including the development of technical basis -

information, evaluation of environmental impacts and cost-benefit analyses, and the public review and comment process) would be conducted to evaluate potential rulemaking attematives.

Rulemakina Alternatives:

Potential attematives for rulemaking in this area are:

. (1) Permit release of materials for unrestricted use if the ootential dose to the oublic from the material are less than a soecified level determined durina the rulemakina process - In this attemative, a licensee could release for unrestricted use (' clearance *) material that meets the permissible levelin the standards. Potential alternative dose levels resulting from unrestricted 0.\ eSq/f 0.ol m% l 0.00 ~Sv 4 _ use of the material could include doses of(10 mrem /yr', mremly , and .1 mre/V )above mlyr background, as well as no dose above background. To provide come perspective on these levels: (a) the dose from natural back0round to people in the U.S. can vary widely based on the M /1 E-area of the country where people h.M9've and is on average ab 4r<& 'A L ' dose limitis300 m/yrem/yr)(c) the dose from use of recycled 0.14 f a -

y. permitted oy EPA can be about 3% of natural background (about 10 mlremlyr), (d) a DlMV i i receives O mrom)on a round-trip coast-to-coast flight, and (e) 1 mremlyr is a level which the

p .

1

)

4 h uw ueds .

' National Council of Radiation Protection CRP) considers a trivial risk. A 1 mrem /yr value is X L

also the level being considered unrestricted use (or " clearance") in the European community.)(

A

&nk, s l

(2) Restrict release of so'id materials to only certain authorizM uses (see more detailin issue 1 l

' No. 3).-

ka s

. (3) Do not oermit either~ unrestricted or restridad raleese of solid material that Md l g-Y ti:9: re~!ce b tb f;;.;L e been in an area where radicadive material has been used or stored - In this altemative, all such materials in the ' facility would be required to go to a licensed 3

LLW disposal facility.

l y g.A it Wn u cu s p, k J -b h W4 eM od - '

-(4) Other attemativgto be determined during the rulemaking process. l 7

Factors in decision makino:

Principal factors [ making decisions regarding the attemative nelude human I f

health and environmental impacts, cost-benefit considerations, the capability to survey the l

material to assure that it meets permissible levels, existing intemational, national, and State standards, and other factors raised during the rulemaking process.

Human health and environmentalimoacts: In assessing potential rulemaking t

> attematives, NRC would consider a broad range of possible impacts, botn radiological and non-  !

radiological. These could include evaluation of radiation dose to individuals from release of solid materials, assessment of collective doses to different population groups from the release, i

J-

p l^

24 o tranepud4;vn,' processing and disposal impacts, impacts on biota, land use impacts, and l

i societalimpacts. 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 those non-radiologicalimpacts associated with mining and tnansport of fresh metal to replace that sent to a LLW disposal site. Because these impacts would take place over different time periods an expose different populations, a precise comparison is difficult. Nevertheless, the decision-making process could consider these impacts separately and also consider the net collective impact for these disparate factors.

. 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

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

had been released for unrestricted use (or " cleared") from licensees (" Radiological Assessment for Clearance of Equipment and Material from Nuclear Facilities", NUREG-1640, February 1999). The report contains an analysis of material flow models based on an evaluation of the

- recycle / reuse industry in the U.S. and of potential scenarios by which a member of the public could reasonably expect to be exposed. . dolid materials that are candidates for release that are

. .' evaluated in the report include iron / steel, copper, aluminum, and concrete. The EPA has issued a similar report which is accessible on EPA's website at

http://www. epa. gov / radiation /cleanmetals/ publications.htm. While some'of the analysis M d i approaches the EPA report are different from NRC's report, the overall results from the EPA and the NRC reports are similar,

p p

N -

25

,  : Cost-benefrt consideretions: Executive Order 12291 contains provisions requiring that,

in thsir rulemakings, Federal agencies consider cost-benefit evaluations of attemative courses of I l . .

i action. ' Consistent with Executive Order 12291, NRC has established guidelines for preparing regulatory analyses of attemative courses of action in support of its rulemaking decisions ' 9 4

(NUREG/BR-0058). Benefits would generally derive from the net reduction in environmental impacts discussed above.: Costs which could be included in a regulatory analysis could include: I

' (1) the costs of altemative courses of action, including' surveys at nuclear facili o verify .

V H cd uem,,3 i

'that permissible' release levels have been met; (2) the potential for having to respond to "fale# h4 bio -1 l

FL[ alarms at scrap facilities, (3) economic impact on recycle / scrap / manufacturing #d M

d. h tsw -

processes; (4) replacement metal production; and (5) attemative options for disposing of the <*b'a bM

material.

Imolementation considerations: A potential concem with implementation of a proposed rule is the capability to measure radioactive contamination corresponding to the very low.

attemative dose levels discussed above. In particular, a ru!emaking attemative which would require survey instrumentation to verify that there is nLo dose above natural background could be extremely difficult to implement because of the variation in natural background ardhe capability X of survey instruments to detect such low levelg M, .'g, d l.r,diden , e g , h e b-seesuc ge .

Other intemational. national. and State standards: In considering rulemaking I

= attematives, the NRC would also consider policies and precedents set by intemational agencies, '

u other Federal agencies, or States. Consistency with standards set by other countries and

{

[-a ' intemational agencies is important because materials can be both imported and exported i

}.

., I i

l i

. 25 between the U.S. and other countries and differing standards could create confusion and

. economic disparities in commerce.

ltems for discussion:

(A) Human health and environmental imoacts:

if luk p (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 0,I , ' O.0 8 ew D .W *G .z

y. IO dose level (for example,[q ,1.0, or 0.1 mremlyrJsor

< no dose, above background (or other dos which is established in rulemaking based on a balancing of risks from various attematives? Or, m febcli ' uoA.a4 </ b W *Je d W., should release of solid materials not be permitted if they ive Or;!:e t i ar haan la err ;;h: . icensed radioactive materia ;;:: =:d w sumu?

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

i) In considering radiological impacts from materials released for unrestricted use in the public sector, what pathways of exposure to people, in addition to those already considered in NUREG-1640, should be considered? As noted above, NUREG-1640 contains a technical -

basis for determining potential doses to individuals from a wide range of potential scenarios by

~

- which members of the public could come in contact with material that had been released for unrestricted use. The report contains an analysis of material flow models based on an i

4

(C f

i l

27 l

]

L Levaluation 'of the' recycle / reuse industry in the U.S. and of potential soenarios by which a j (member of the public could reasonabl be exposed. y li) In considering other environmental impacts, what impacts, both radiological and l

nonradiological, should be considered? Such impacts could include mining of new metals to l replace meals.that could be potentially released but which are sent to a LLW disposal site,

. production of metal products, transportation of materials, etc.

i

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

impacts be balanced?.

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

. unrestricted use, and what are ways in which persons could be exposed to multiple sources?  !

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

. dose level? 1 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

' facilities could result in concern, confusion, or fear if the public either does not clearly understand that the risk is small or does not accept the risk.

l i

ra ls lt.

28..

!(B) Cost-benefit consider %s:

]

l2MI' p

~

(1)'As noted above, Executive Order 129221 requires Federal Agencies to consider cost-w i benefit in its consideration of rulemaking attematives NRC uses NUREG/BR 0058 ss its -

L guideline in analysis of the cost-benefit of regulatory attematives.- 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 contaminated material, economic risks associated with release of solid materials, costs of

- decontamination, ALARA issues, etc.

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

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

. commerce?

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

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

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

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

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

- could minimize such economic risks?

+

4

}

E 29 l; (5) What is the potential for buildup of radioactivity in commerce as a result of continued r .

L _ ' release of solid material for unrestricted use over time? How should such a buildup be o

T l 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 concern?

. (C) lmolementation considarations i

b' 'nd

.(1) What is the capability surve4 materials (both for surface and volumetric contamination)

at the different alternative dose levels being considered, and what effect would that have on setting a standard? What economic impact would the use of different or advanced survey l techniques have on the facilities releasing the material and the facilities accepting the material for reuse or recycle? How can surveys be designed to prevent releasing material in excess of i

. permissible levels? Over what volume or mass of material should' surveys be performed in i

assessing compliance with release levels? Should materials of varying concentration levels be combined, and, if so, how?-

. (2) What different survey methods should be used for assuring that materials from different areas of a facility, and having different potential for contamination, meet the criteria of a dose-based standard? For example, should the survey of solid materials from areas known to be free of contamination rely upon knowledge of facility radiological history and knowledge of plant processes, and, if so, how? .

L L

30 (D) Other considerations includino intemational. national. and State auide!!r.--l (1) With regard to intemational, national, and State standards: *

- (a) How should guidelines on unrestricted release, or " clearance, set by intemational

,. standards-setting bodies 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? How should efforts by the U.S.

' Department of Str.te and the EPA to set import standards be considered?

4 (b) How should guide!ines of other U.S. agencies, e.g., DOE and EPA, be considered?-How' c-p [ould standards set by NRC be consistent with other gc..c=!!y 2;p!!Md EPA standards,M fo%xample L5 i;:Cd t those for recycled coal ash (see Section A.2.2.3)? With regard to issues of finality of NRC licensing decisions, what potential problems terissues standards for release of solid materials different from an NRC regulation? M DW (c) How should recommendations made by U.S. standards setting bodies, such as the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measuremerits (NCRP), be considered?

'(d) How should standards set by U.S. industry groups, suen as the American National Standards lustitute (ANSI), be considered?

(e) Should NRC simply adopt the standards in 1a,1b, or ic, and their assnciated health risk level, rather than conduct analyses of its own?

, op+/. '.31 .x

, (f) What are the economic mpacts of having NRC standards different from standards that )/

' may be set by intomational agencies, EPA, or other. national bodies?

i 1(g) What compatibility categories, as described H NRC's " Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility ~ of Agreement State Programs," published September 3,1997 (62 FR 46517), 9nd in NRC's Management Directive 5.9, " Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State

- Programs," should be assigned to any rule on release of solid materials? Compatibility refers to s

' ditto '

the extent thafAgreement State radiation control programs are consistent with NRC's program y 1 for the regulation of Atomic Energy Act radioactive materials to ensure that a coherent nationwide effort is collectively established for regulation of such materials.

i f b

- (2) Should existing NRC standards, including the public dose limit of 100 mrem'yr in 10 CFR 4 f

? 20,1301, and Subpart E of Part 20 which contains a dose rcriterion release of of 25 #mrem1 decommissioned structures and lands, be considered in setting allowable doses for release of solid material for unrestricted use? A consideration in this question is that there are different  !

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

. Subpart E limits the dos' from the single release of structures and land at a site to 25 mrem /yrM0'I *

' in contrast, unrestricted release of the materials considered in this issues paper could involve periodic releases over the facility lifetime at a dose level to be set in the rulemaldng. I

]

4

.. 32 -

L L lasue No; 3 -if NRC Decides to Devalae a Pronosed Rule Containina Criteria for Release l-

~

of Solid Materials. Ca* Some Form of RM* leelens on Futum Law of Solid Materials be Considered as an Alternative?

As discussed in Section A.2.2,' release of soiid materials for unrestricted use would allow them to be recycled or reused in consumer products'or industrial products, or be disposed of in solid waste landfills. A potential attemative could involve limiting release of solid materials by reetricting their future use to some authorized use.

,g .

Alternatives:

-i Potential attematives for restricted use of solid materials could include:

~

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

In this attemative, the release of radioactive material would be restricted to certain

~

authorized uses to ensure _ that it is processed into one or more specific products. For example, in M y. . . .

material could be recycled for u;;;; h ;;;;1ndustrial product such as steel beams that would be.

designated for use in a foundation or structural support for a bridge or monument. Because of uncertainties related to controlling potential uses of the material after it leaves a licensee's facility, it may be necessary to require that processing of the material for the first use be done under a specific license issued by the NRC. This attemative might be beneficial for materials contaminated by nuclides having short to moderate half-lives, allowing substantial reduction in contamination due to radioective decay within the lifeG ne of tne structure in which it is placed.

2

y -

g,

-h; ,

[ l ^ $. -

i

' ~,This altamative would probably not be applicable for all matenals (e.g., wood products and 1

~

some metals such as copper). End user certification could be difficult to enforce. I t

2) Restrict release of solid material to oermitted die!.

ifMiy wka,,ahL '

L This>altemative would restrict the release orsolid material from nuclear facilities to g=

i disposal at municipal solid waste landfills. Municipal solid waste landfills are issued permits by

<j..

.. T ai o

' State regulatory authorities in accordance with 40 CFR 258 "C it i fr er a or Municipal Solid Waste Landfills" as well'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 associated with recyc'e of metal into consumer products or, E

' industrial products would not be present. Additional restrictions could involve disposal at industrial solid waste facilities rather than at sanitary waste landfills.

Issues associated with this attemative include the fact that additional NRC and/or EPA rulemaking may be required to implement this attemative. For example, the definitions of solid waste and/or byproduct material (or associated regulations) might need tu be revisited to allow disposal at solid waste' landfills of material having residual radioactivity. Several States currently have prohibitions' against the disposal of radioactive material in landfills which would make this attemative less feasible. An additional issue is the possibility that material could be sent to a

.. .. l#

landfill under agstri , but that it could be removed from the landfill and sold as scrap. x

- 4, 9

m

.+ a , .

4 .

34 .

E . Items for Discussion:

1 L (1)' Should the NRC consider restrictions on future use of solid materials as an attemative to

. unrestricted use '(similar to that which was done for the license termination rule)?

(2) lf so, for what types of restricted uses could the enterial be considered?

(3) What types of controls could reasonably be placed on the process of restricting use to

' assure that the material would not be released for unrestricted use? Would it be necessary to

. license processing of the material for the first use in order to assure protection of public health

. and safety? For example, if iron / steel were to be restricted to use in bridge support, should the company processing the steel into bridge supports be licensed by the NRC7 Or could sufficient restrictions be placed on the processing company to assure that the steel went where it Was .

supposed to without the company having an NRC license? i

~

gi f- i p  ; (4)' Howlong would the be restricted? What radionuclides, and

. . i associated time periods for radioactive decay, would be reasonable to consider as candidates for restncted use? What would happen to the material when it reached the end of its useful restricted life? -

1

. i

(5)' If restrictions were placed on future use of materials, would the NRC need to be involved at Nuk.g .

L in continued regulation f the material? Would States need to be involved? Or could a j

mechanbm for institutional control, similar to that used in the license termination rule be used to i i

assure the continued restricted use of materials? Note that Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 l

l I

m .

7 .

'f

35. .

' (Sachon'20.1403) contains requirements "regarding acceptable dose levels for restricted use, l L <

allowable institutional controls and financial arrangements, etc. i i ,

l

(6) What type of public involvemegin decisions concoming' restricted use of materialsX

[ould there be'P Should it be similar to the method used in the license termination rule where  !

~

pt i.[.q &

licensees ~are required to seek Pdvice from affected parties.when pleMa site inte restricted X i l

use? Note that Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 ( Section 20.1403) also contains requirements I L' . regarding thh specific areas which licensees must seek advice on from affected parties and also  !

the rnethods to be used in obtaining that advice. A potential problem in establishing a public. i involvement process for restricted use of materials is that (unlike license termination of buildings

~

or a site where affected parties in a community can be fairly readily identified for a restricted site

.. in a community) material leaving the site could be sent for restricted use in different areas. Can

- this potential problem be addressed so as to include a public involvement process for setting l

l, restrictions on future material use in specific licensing cases?

(7) How should considerations and predictions of future public f materials and the j(

= restrictions on those materialsg%ch em.;d 6 J;;Tmuii iv ii._dbe developed so as to provide ' r credible approaches for restricted use?

.(8); What dose should be permitted for material released for restricted use? Should the

'same attemative dose levels.as for unrestricted use (see issue #2) also be considered for 1 restricted use, or should some other value, either higher or lower, be considered? By way of comparison, the allowable dose in Subpart E of Part 20 for restricted use of released lands and

.structuras is the same as for unrestricted use .

l- ,

M,

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

-lasue No. 4 -If NRC Decides to Develoo a Proaased Rule. What Materials Should be Covered?

s  :

A rule developed.by the NRC could cover selected materials (for example, certain metals such as iron and steel) or could be a broad rule encompassing all materials. Any attematives l i

' chosen for consideration would be dependent on information available on the various materials.

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

l

' (1) An analysis of individual doses resulting from unrestricted release of steel, aluminum, copper, and concrete (draft NUREG-1640, February 1999) has recently been completed. These 4 Dev b Sod {

4 materials were analyzed because they were considered to reprrcsent those most likely o <

.become available and to also represent most of the volume of material available for release from NRC-licensed facilities into the public sector. 4 (2) Discussions with licensees have indicated that there are large quantities of soil with very j low amounts of radioactive contaminstion that are available for release. Although NUREG-1640 does not include specific analyses for soil, work done previously for the license termination rule provides baseline technical information on individual dose factors and environmental i analysis for soil which could be adapted for use for this application. This previous work includes -

NUREG-1496, " Generic Environmental impact Statement on Radiological Criteria for License 4

y- . Termination," NUREG/CR-5512 " Residual Radioactive Contammation from Decommissioning,*

l l

y e y, a

" ' ~

37; and NUREG-1549, " Decision Methods for Dose Assessment to Comply with Radiological 2.

. Criteria for License Termination." - .

e y

~

(3) The NRC does not have similar analyses completed for other materials needing'-

r I .

disp' osition a' n"d potentially available for release.

Alternatives:'

Altemative rule approaches could be:.

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

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

i:

L. - j (3) Apply rule to a select group of materials (Altemative 1) and conduct rulemaking on other  :

materials in item 2 at a later time.-

Soecific items for Diace== ion.

(1) Should the NRC proceed with a rulemaking covering all materials, with the option of conducting further rulemaking at a later time for certain of the materials if the impact is too K great? - &O ,

)(erl.A(46 r elu a te

,.b'q '

i

u '

, -38 y ...

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

> developed for these materials in NUREG-1640 as input to the environmental analyses and regulatory analyses, needed to support a rulemaking? Would experience gained with the rule v

on steel, aluminum, copper, concrete,' and soil, be useful in dealing with other materials later?

'li) Would issuing a rule now for only certain m'aterials noted in Altemative #1 limit NRC's y

capability to deal effectively with requests for release that could be made in the future for other materials? Other similar materials, such as sludges, riag, asbestos,'etc., could also potentially be the subject of requests for release. ;To help answer that question, how many and what types l of materials are iicensees actually requesting release for today? _

l

-)

lii) 'Should the NRC perform additional analyses at this time c' individual doses resulting i from other materials potentially available for release to support rulemaking decisions for these materials even if it impacts the schedule for rulemaking for release of steel, aluminum, copper, o and concrete?

'(2) What other materials would be the candidates for ru emaking? Do analyses for these >

materials currently ex6 7 I y de IL

. w & u elete lo p e Z

_ (3) If the NRC picds with rulemaking limited to certain materials indicated in  ;

) Attemative 1, how should it handle requests for release of other materials, i.e., should it proceed  !

. with a subsequent rulemaking for other materials, and, if so, how and when should it proceed with this later rulemaking? Should the additional mateials be released under existing guidelines a

py .

L 39 i until the subsequent rule is developed, or should the release of these materials be postponed

- until a rulemaking'is conducted? -

1 l

I (4) What are the implications for Alternatives 1,2, and 3, i.e., what would be associated -

costs, effective survey methods for different materials , and dose impacts of the attematives?

' (5) Should the NRC rulemaking be extended to cover materiars atCOE SffJa$. I should that be done? N '^^) '"'I - F wd w 6 4 L-iakA L) M

< Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of '1999. ]

I For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

William D. Travers, 1 Executive Director for Operations. l I~

l

o -

' April.6, 1999-1 D'R A F T i l

(For SECY paper)

NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ISSUES RELATED  ;

i TO RELEASE OF SOLID MATERIALS FROM LICENSED FACILITIES  ;

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on issues associated with the release of solid materials having very small amounts of residual IAN radioactivity [ dW Obl Y

sh l o @ fW 20 X

The agency is considering revising its regulationsgo establish requirements for

,;-- s release of these materials. The NRC currently $ licensee requests for release of

. tGL .

solid materials on a case-by-case basis, e thash !! r!rerJ, has release limits in Mfor x '

air and liquid emissions .h 5( N fb-faht so A

A document entitled " Issues Related to Release of Solid Materials from Licensed -

(

Facilities" will be published shortly in the Federal Register. MRC is issuing it to foster public discussion about the issues and alternatives involved before the start of any formal rulemaking process. Copies of the paper will also be available from Roberta 'l Gordon, Rulemaking and Guidance Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20555, 3011415-7555, and electronically fron. the NRC's Internet web page at htto://www.nrc.novJiRClrule.html.

i L