99-16598. Release of Solid Materials at Licensed Facilities: Issues Paper, Scoping Process for Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Meetings  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 35090-35100]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-16598]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    10 CFR Part 20
    
    
    Release of Solid Materials at Licensed Facilities: Issues Paper, 
    Scoping Process for Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Meetings
    
    AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    
    ACTION: Request for comment on issues paper and scoping process, and 
    notice of plans for public meetings.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    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 early public input on the major issues associated with such a 
    rulemaking, including conducting a scoping process related to the scope 
    of environmental impacts. To aid in that process, the NRC is requesting 
    comments on the issues discussed in this notice. NRC also intends to 
    conduct four public meetings beginning in August of this year. This 
    document provides background and topics of discussion for those 
    meetings.
    
    DATES: 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 comments received 
    on or before this date.
        In addition to providing opportunity for written (and electronic) 
    comments, public meetings on the issues paper and scoping process will 
    be held as follows:
    
    August 4-5, 1999--Chicago, Illinois, 8:30 am-5 pm, Hyatt Regency 
    McCormick Place, 2233 South Martin Luther King Dr, Chicago, Illinois
    September 15-16, 1999--San Francisco, California, 8:30 am-5 pm Radisson 
    Miyako Hotel, 1625 Post Street, San Francisco, California
    October 5-6, 1999--Atlanta, Georgia, 8:30 am-5 pm, Crown Plaza Atlanta 
    Powers Ferry, 6345 Power Ferry Road NW, Atlanta, Georgia
    November 1-2, 1999--Rockville, Maryland, 8:30 am-5 pm NRC Auditorium, 
    15545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
    
    ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemaking and 
    Adjudications staff.
        Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
    between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
        You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking 
    website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site 
    provides the capability to upload comments as files (any format), if 
    your web browser supports that function. For information about the 
    interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-
    5905 (e-mail: [email protected]).
        Copies of any comments received may be examined at the NRC Public 
    Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Cardile, telephone: (301) 415-
    6185; e-mail: fpc@nrc.gov, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
    Safeguards, USNRC, Washington DC 20555-0001. Specific comments on the 
    public meeting process should be directed to Chip Cameron; e-mail 
    fxc@nrc.gov, telephone: (301) 415-1642; Office of the General Counsel, 
    US NRC, Washington DC 20555-0001.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background
    
        Unlike for air and liquid releases, the Commission currently has no 
    specific regulatory requirements regarding release of solid materials. 
    Even though the NRC does not have requirements in this area, it still 
    receives requests from licensees for release of solid materials which 
    it must evaluate on a case-by-case basis using existing guidance or 
    case-specific criteria. Solid materials include metals, concrete, 
    soils, equipment, furniture, etc., present at licensed nuclear 
    facilities. To provide consistency in its regulatory framework for 
    releases of all materials, the Commission is considering a rulemaking 
    that would set specific requirements for release of solid materials.
        The NRC is supplementing its standard rulemaking process by 
    conducting enhanced public participatory activities including 
    facilitated public meetings, before the start of any formal rulemaking 
    process, to solicit early and active public input
    
    [[Page 35091]]
    
    on major issues associated with release of solid materials. The NRC 
    will also utilize its website to disseminate information and solicit 
    input.
        As a first step, the NRC has prepared an issues paper that 
    describes issues and alternatives related to release of solid 
    materials. The intent of this paper is to foster discussion about these 
    issues and alternatives before a rulemaking to set standards would 
    begin. The content of the issues paper is contained in Section III. It 
    is noted in Section III that NRC would evaluate environmental impacts 
    of alternative courses of action in an EIS in any rulemaking conducted. 
    To assist in that process, this notice is also announcing a process for 
    developing the scope of an EIS, i.e., a ``scoping process.'' Specific 
    discussion of the scoping process is contained in Section IV of this 
    notice. The principal issues discussed in the issues paper and in 
    regard to the scoping process are the same and the Commission believes 
    that it is beneficial to seek comment and hold discussions on both at 
    the same time to best utilize and coordinate available expertise and 
    input. The discussions presented in Sections III and IV provide 
    background and topics of discussion that will be the subject of the 
    public meetings.
    
    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 in Section III and the scoping process in Section IV. 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 is holding facilitated public meetings at 
    four different geographical locations on the issues discussed in 
    Sections III and IV between August and November 1999 (see the DATES 
    heading of this notice for the dates and locations of these meetings). 
    The written public comment period will extend until after the last 
    public meeting is held.
        Based on the comments received both in written and electronic form, 
    and at the public meetings, the Commission will decide whether to 
    proceed with development of a proposed rule or take some other 
    regulatory action. If the Commission decides to proceed further with a 
    proposed rulemaking, any proposed rules will be published in the 
    Federal Register for public review and comment.
    
    III. Issues Paper on Release of Solid Materials at Licensed 
    Facilities
    
    Introduction
    
        To provide consistency in its regulatory framework for releases of 
    materials, the Commission is considering a rulemaking that would set 
    specific requirements for release of solid materials. This section 
    describes issues and alternatives related to the release of solid 
    materials and is intended to foster discussion about these issues and 
    alternatives before a rulemaking would begin.
        Section A of this section describes some general considerations 
    related to rulemaking, potential Commission actions, and the enhanced 
    participatory process. Section B of this section discusses the major 
    issues that would be associated with a rulemaking and also discusses 
    various alternatives for proceeding.
    
    A. Background
    
    A.1 Current NRC Policies
    
    A.1.1 Inconsistency of NRC regulations covering releases from licensed 
    facilities
        The NRC has the statutory responsibility for the protection of 
    health and safety related to the use of source, byproduct, and special 
    nuclear material under the Atomic Energy Act. A principal method of 
    meeting this responsibility is through the body of regulations codified 
    in Title 10, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR, 
    Chapter I). The regulations in 10 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 environmental impacts, and 
    considers factors related to paperwork reduction. Agreement States 
    administer equivalent programs applying equivalent regulations.
        The Commission's regulations that set standards for protection of 
    the public against radiation appear in 10 CFR Part 20. These 
    regulations limit the radiation exposure (or ``dose'') that a member of 
    the public can receive from the operation and decommissioning of an 
    NRC-licensed activity, and also require that doses received are ``as 
    low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA)''. The NRC has used the 
    criteria on public dose limits and ALARA requirements in Part 20 
    (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 nuclear 
    facility to the environment.
        However, unlike the regulations applicable to gaseous and liquid 
    releases from a licensed nuclear facility, there are no current 
    specific criteria in Part 20 governing releases of solid materials by 
    licensees, although there are some regulations 1 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ For example, 10 CFR 20.2005, 35.92, and 36.57(e). In 
    addition, 10 CFR 40.51 and 40.13 contain transfer or unimportant 
    quantities provisions, respectively, which are the subject of a 
    separate Commission-directed initiative on Part 40 and are outside 
    the scope of this effort.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        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 (July 21, 1997; 62 FR 39058). 
    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 license, but does not otherwise address 
    release of solid material.
    A.1.2 Solid materials potentially available for release
        Solid materials include metals, building concrete, onsite soils, 
    equipment, furniture, etc., that are present at, and/or used in, 
    licensed nuclear facilities during routine operations. Most of this 
    material will have no radioactive contamination, although some 
    materials can have radioactive contamination either on their surfaces 
    or distributed within their volumes. Contamination can be distributed 
    in the volume of materials because: (1) they are relatively porous 
    (e.g., soil) allowing contamination to spread into the material; (2) 
    they become radioactive through activation; or (3) a recycling process 
    (e.g., metal melting) can cause 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:
        (a) For most NRC licensees, solid materials have no contamination 
    because these licensees use sealed sources in which the radioactive 
    material is encapsulated. These include small research and development 
    facilities and industrial use of various
    
    [[Page 35092]]
    
    devices including gauges, measuring devices, and radiography.
        (b) For other licensees (which includes nuclear reactors, 
    manufacturing facilities, larger educational or health care facilities 
    including laboratories, etc.), material generally falls into one of 
    three groups based on its location or use in the facility:
        (1) Clean or unaffected areas of a facility--The solid material in 
    these areas would likely have no radioactive contamination resulting 
    from licensed activities. These areas could include hospital waiting 
    rooms, university office space in a laboratory, or metal ventilation 
    ducts in the control room of a reactor facility.
        (2) Areas where licensed radioactive material is used or stored--
    The material in these areas can become contaminated although the levels 
    may likely be very low, or it may have none, because of contamination 
    control procedures required at facilities licensed by the NRC. This 
    could include material in certain laboratory areas in a university or 
    hospital, or in certain buildings of a reactor facility.
        (3) Material used for radioactive service in the facility, or 
    located in contaminated areas or in areas where activation can occur--
    These materials generally have levels of contamination that would not 
    allow them to be candidates for release unless they are decontaminated.
    A.1.3 Current NRC case-by case review of licensee requests for release 
    of solid material
        Even though the NRC does not currently have specific criteria in 
    Part 20 covering 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 evaluates requests for 
    release on a case-by-case basis using either the table of surface 
    contamination criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.86, ``Termination of 
    Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors,'' or other case-specific 
    criteria for compliance with Part 20 requirements.
        (a) Regulatory Guide 1.86. This guide, which was developed by the 
    Atomic Energy Commission in 1974, provides a table of Acceptable 
    Surface Contamination Levels for various radionuclides, including 
    natural and enriched uranium, transuranics, and fission products. These 
    surface contamination levels are stated in terms of measurable 
    radioactivity levels (observed disintegrations per minute per 100 
    square centimeters of surface area), the values of which were based 
    principally on the detection capabilities of readily available 
    instrumentation at the time the guide was developed. The surface 
    contamination levels were not based on the potential dose to an 
    individual that may result from coming in contact with the released 
    materials although such exposure is estimated to be low. Regulatory 
    Guide 1.86 does not contain dose criteria. For some situations, the NRC 
    will incorporate the values in the table in Regulatory Guide 1.86 into 
    the license conditions of a facility.
        (b) Allowance of release if there are no detectable levels of 
    radioactive contamination from licensed activities above background in 
    the material. Regulatory Guide 1.86 only addresses materials having 
    surface contamination; it does not cover volumetric contamination. For 
    some situations, the NRC allows release of volumetrically contaminated 
    solid material if survey instrumentation does not detect radioactivity 
    levels above background. This does not mean that the material is 
    released without any radioactive contamination present on or in it; 
    instead, it means that the material may be released with very low 
    amounts of contamination that is not detectable with appropriate survey 
    instruments. This method provides inconsistent and generally 
    unsatisfactory licensing guidance because different survey instruments 
    have different levels of detection. This can lead to disagreements and 
    confusion over permissible levels of release and nonuniform levels of 
    protection.
        (c) Use of 10 CFR 20.2002. Licensees may request specific approval 
    to dispose of materials containing low levels of licensed material in 
    other than a licensed low-level waste disposal site in accordance with 
    requirements in 10 CFR 20.2002. Section 20.2002 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, which in the past has been used to 
    authorize various releases of contaminated material.
    
    A.2 NRC Actions To Address Inconsistency in Release Standards by 
    Considering Rulemaking on Release of Solid Materials
    
    A.2.1 Commission direction to consider rulemaking
        Based on the issues and concerns described in Section A.1, the 
    Commission, on June 30, 1998, directed the staff to consider rulemaking 
    to establish a dose-based standard for release of solid materials so 
    that licensee considerations and NRC review of the 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 Internet 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 Alternative Courses of Action
        Before conducting a rulemaking, the NRC generally considers 
    alternative courses of action. Two broad alternatives 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 could:
        (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 
    material in consumer products or industrial products, or disposal of 
    the material as waste in landfills. Release of solid materials for 
    unrestricted use is also referred to as ``clearance'', but for the 
    purposes of this issues paper, the term ``release for unrestricted 
    use'' is generally used.
        (2) Restrict release of solid materials to only certain authorized 
    uses. For example, future use of the material could be restricted to 
    only certain industrial uses where the potential for public exposure is 
    small.
        (3) Do not permit either unrestricted or restricted release of 
    solid material that has been 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.
        In evaluating these alternatives, the NRC would consider potential 
    human health and environmental impacts and
    
    [[Page 35093]]
    
    economic aspects associated with each alternative.
    
    A.3 Current Policies of International Agencies, Other Federal Agencies, 
    State Governments and Other Standards Setting Bodies Regarding Releases 
    of Solid Materials
    
        In considering rulemaking alternatives, the NRC would consider 
    policies and precedents set by other nations and international 
    agencies, by other Federal agencies, by States, and by other standards 
    setting bodies.
        International Efforts. There is considerable effort by other 
    nations and by international agencies, such as the International Atomic 
    Energy Agency (IAEA), to set standards in this area. Consistency with 
    standards set by other nations and international agencies is important 
    because materials can be both imported and exported between the U.S. 
    and other countries and differing standards could create confusion and 
    economic disparities in commerce. The generally accepted term in the 
    international community for release of materials for unrestricted use 
    is ``clearance.''
        Individual countries, including Germany, France, Finland, Sweden, 
    Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, have developed national guidance for 
    clearance of materials. The standards in these guidance documents 
    correspond fairly well. Two major international radiation protection 
    organizations, the IAEA and the Commission of European Communities 
    (CEC) have developed draft standards containing clearance levels for 
    individual radionuclides. The NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency 
    (EPA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) generally provide input and 
    review on behalf of the U.S. in development of IAEA and CEC standards. 
    Both sets of standards are based on a 0.01 millisievert (mSv) per year 
    (1millirem (mrem) per year) annual dose which is broadly accepted as a 
    trivial dose. Documents published by IAEA that document the development 
    of their draft standards include Safety Series 89, ``Principles for the 
    Exemption of Radiation Sources and Practices from Regulatory Control,'' 
    (1998), and IAEA-TECDOC-855, ``Clearance Levels for Radionuclides in 
    Solid Materials (Interim Report).''
        One intended application of IAEA's proposed clearance levels is 
    related to international trade, for example the import and export of 
    scrap metals.
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA, although not a 
    regulator of licensees, is responsible for setting generally applicable 
    environmental standards for radioactive materials under the Atomic 
    Energy Act. The NRC, in regulating its licensees, implements 
    environmental standards that EPA promulgates in the area of radiation 
    protection. In the absence of EPA standards in a particular area, for 
    example in the area of release of solid materials, the NRC has the 
    authority to set radiation protection standards for its licensees. This 
    can cause potential problems with the finality of NRC licensing 
    decisions if EPA later issues standards in a particular area that are 
    different from regulations that NRC has previously issued. Thus, it is 
    important for the NRC to involve EPA closely in developing its 
    standards.
        In addition, as noted later in Section B (Issue No.2, under 
    ``Factors in decisionmaking''), the EPA has completed studies on 
    environmental impacts of clearance of materials. The NRC and EPA have, 
    and plan to continue to have, coordinated efforts in this area to 
    ensure that effective and consistent release standards are established, 
    while minimizing duplication of effort. In particular, the NRC and EPA, 
    along with other Federal agencies, work together on the Interagency 
    Steering Committee on Radiation Standards to coordinate their efforts 
    on issues associated with establishing criteria for radiation 
    protection. Accordingly, the EPA will not only be an important 
    participant in the NRC rulemaking public meetings, but the NRC also 
    plans to consult extensively with EPA throughout the rulemaking process 
    and has invited EPA to be a member of the NRC working group.
        In setting generally applicable environmental standards, EPA sets 
    standards for a wide range of materials, including some which contain 
    naturally occurring radioactive materials that have been enhanced as a 
    result of man-made processes. A material that has been made exempt from 
    regulation (see 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4)) is the ash from burning coal in 
    power plants that has concentrated levels of radioactive materials 
    (e.g., uranium, radium, thorium). Under this exemption, coal ash is 
    allowed to be used in building materials; the radioactive material in 
    the coal ash can result in small radiation doses to the general public 
    as a result of its use. The dose level from use of exempted coal ash 
    could be viewed as a precedent or benchmark for possible NRC release 
    levels.
        EPA is currently active in the development of screening guidelines 
    for import into the U.S. of materials cleared in other countries. EPA 
    has been working with the NRC and other Federal and international 
    agencies. The importing of contaminated materials cleared by other 
    countries into the U.S., which does not have in place generally 
    applicable standards for this purpose, raises questions about the 
    regulatory status of these materials after they enter the U.S.
        U.S. Department of Energy. The DOE operates a number of nuclear 
    facilities. Although generally not licensed by the NRC, the DOE faces 
    issues concerning the disposition of materials from its facilities 
    similar to those faced by NRC licensees.
        In response to these needs, DOE has developed criteria for release 
    of solid materials. These criteria generally endorse the numerical 
    criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.86. The DOE criteria are contained in 
    DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the 
    Environment, dated February 8, 1990 (and 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 would have to be made by DOE as to whether 
    DOE would in the interest of consistency adopt the standards in the NRC 
    regulation, or if DOE decides to release solid materials would NRC be 
    required to authorize distribution of that material.
        State governments. States face the same issues and needs that the 
    NRC does and must also consider issues associated with release of 
    naturally-occurring and accelerator produced materials (NARM). The 
    Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), an 
    organization of state radiation agencies that develops suggested 
    regulations, has established a committee to look into issues associated 
    with release of solid materials.
        Thirty States have entered into agreements with the NRC to assume 
    regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and small quantities of 
    special nuclear material. These ``Agreement States'' generally use NRC 
    guidance such as that contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86 or similar 
    guidance, in their regulatory programs.
        In a related matter, Section 2901(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 
    1992 (Section 276(a) of the Atomic Energy Act) grants State governments 
    (Agreement and non-Agreement States alike) the authority to regulate 
    the disposal of low-level radioactive waste if the NRC exempts such 
    waste after the enactment of Act. Several States and locales have, both 
    prior to and subsequent to, passage of the Act established prohibitions 
    against the disposal of radioactive material in
    
    [[Page 35094]]
    
    landfills. The implications of Sec. 276(a) on NRC's potential 
    alternative courses of action noted in Section A.2 above are unclear 
    and may depend on the ultimate nature of any rulemaking that NRC 
    undertakes.
        Other standards setting bodies. Various other organizations are 
    involved in setting standards which can impact decisions related to 
    alternative courses of action for release of solid materials.
        One of those organizations is the National Council on Radiation 
    Protection and Measurements (NCRP). The NCRP is a nonprofit corporation 
    chartered by the U.S. Congress to review current significant studies 
    made by other health research bodies, to develop and disseminate 
    information and recommendations about protection against radiation, and 
    to cooperate with national and international organizations with regard 
    to these recommendations. The NCRP has made recommendations in its 
    report NCRP No. 116 regarding acceptable levels of radiation exposure 
    to the public, including levels considered to present trivial health 
    risk.
        In addition, various industry groups (e.g., the American National 
    Standards Institute (ANSI)) set standards regarding a variety of areas 
    including equipment design and operation, facility maintenance, and 
    contamination levels in radioactive effluents. NRC must be cognizant of 
    activities in these areas because Public Law 104-113 (passed by 
    Congress in 1995) requires Federal agencies to use technical standards 
    that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies 
    unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law 
    or otherwise impractical.
    
    A.4 Previous Commission Efforts to Address Release of Solid Materials
    
        The Commission previously sought to address considerations related 
    to release of solid materials as a part of its issuance of a Below 
    Regulatory Concern (BRC) Policy Statement on July 3, 1990 (55 FR 
    27522). BRC was an approach proposed by NRC to address a Congressional 
    directive in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 
    1985. The BRC Policy was a general statement of Commission policy and 
    was intended to provide a broad decision framework for formulating 
    rules or making licensing decisions to exempt from regulatory control 
    certain practices involving small quantities of radioactive material. 
    The BRC Policy was envisioned to have applicability in NRC rulemaking 
    and guidance in four principal areas, one of which was setting a 
    standard for release of solid materials for recycle. The Commission 
    decided that a more extensive public involvement process in 
    establishing these areas would be beneficial and hence instituted a 
    moratorium on the BRC Policy in July 1991. Subsequently, in October 
    1992, the U.S. Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992 which 
    revoked the BRC Policy Statement.
        The NRC's current efforts differ from those associated with the BRC 
    Policy in several ways. Unlike the broad policy-setting approach of the 
    BRC policy, the NRC's current effort is focused on considering 
    establishment of specific requirements for release of solid materials, 
    which protect public health and safety, consistent with the existing 
    framework of requirements in Part 20 for gaseous and liquid releases. 
    As discussed in Section A.2, this would include a full assessment of 
    potential scenarios and pathways for radiation exposure and an 
    evaluation of the environmental impacts and cost-benefit basis of 
    alternative approaches. In addition, the NRC would enhance 
    participation in the rulemaking process through public meetings for 
    interested parties. Any decisions made regarding release of solid 
    materials at this time would be made through rulemaking and not through 
    a policy statement.
    
    A.5 Potential NRC Actions, Enhanced Public Participation and Public 
    Meetings, and Preparation of Issues Paper
    
        Generally, NRC's procedure in rulemaking is the NRC staff 
    development of a proposed rule, Commission consideration, publication 
    of the proposed rule for public comment, consideration of the comments 
    by the NRC staff, preparation of a final rule, Commission review and 
    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 public meetings before any rulemaking would 
    begin. The public meetings are planned to elicit informed discussions 
    of options and approaches and the rationale for them. Although these 
    public meetings are not designed to seek ``consensus'' in the sense 
    that there is agreement on the issues, the public meetings are to be 
    conducted at a very early stage of rulemaking to involve interested 
    parties and the public with the following objectives: (a) to ensure 
    that the relevant issues have been identified; (b) to exchange 
    information on these issues; (c) to identify underlying concerns and 
    areas of disagreement, and (d) where possible, approaches for 
    resolution. The NRC staff also plans to enhance participation by 
    providing website access to this issues paper and the ability to submit 
    comments on the issues paper by e-mail.
        If, following this early exchange of ideas (including comments from 
    the public meetings and comments filed by other means such as Internet 
    responses and written comments), the Commission decides to proceed with 
    rulemaking, other rulemaking documents will be prepared. Specifically, 
    the NRC will evaluate the implications of a rule with regard to the 
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NRC will conduct these 
    evaluations as specified in 10 CFR Part 51, which contains requirements 
    on preparing environmental analyses, including the content of an 
    environmental statement and the public process involved in developing 
    the scope of an environmental statement. In addition, the NRC will 
    prepare a Regulatory Analysis to evaluate costs versus benefits of a 
    rule consistent with Executive Order 12291 and the Commission's 
    regulatory analysis guidelines in NUREG/BR-0058. The NRC will also 
    publish guidance to provide licensees with information on how to 
    demonstrate compliance with the regulation. These documents would be 
    made available on NRC's website.
    
    B. Issues for Discussion
    
        The Commission believes that the issues and alternatives discussed 
    below provide a broad look at matters related to the consistency of its 
    regulations on standards for release of solid materials from nuclear 
    facilities. Therefore, the Commission is soliciting comments and 
    information on these issues before proceeding. These issues, and other 
    relevant and substantial issues identified by interested parties, will 
    serve as the basis of discussion at the public meetings. The 
    discussions at the public meetings will be used by the NRC staff in 
    deciding upon an appropriate course of action.
    
    Issue No. 1--Should the NRC Address Inconsistency in its Release 
    Standards by Considering Rulemaking on Release of Solid Materials?
    
        As discussed in Section A.1.1, NRC generally uses the public dose 
    limits and ALARA requirements in Part 20 to establish limits on 
    releases from nuclear facilities during routine operations and 
    decommissioning. Currently, Part 20 contains specific criteria on the 
    amount of radioactivity in gaseous and liquid releases that may be 
    released from a nuclear facility to the environment. NRC also has 
    requirements in Subpart E of Part 20 on unrestricted use of 
    decommissioned lands and structures. However, NRC currently has no 
    specific
    
    [[Page 35095]]
    
    requirement in its regulations on limits for release of solid 
    materials.
    
    Alternatives
    
        The NRC has the following two broad options related to the issue of 
    inconsistency of its regulations on release standards and licensee 
    requests for release of solid materials: (1) continue the current 
    practice of handling of licensee requests for release of solid 
    materials on a case-by-case basis; or (2) include requirements in Part 
    20, as part of a consistent regulatory framework for evaluating 
    releases of all materials, that would allow it to make decisions on 
    licensee requests for release of solid materials that are protective of 
    public health and safety.
    (1) No NRC Rulemaking: Continue Current Practice of Handling Licensee 
    Requests for Release on a Case-by-Case Basis
        Under this option, no NRC rule would be prepared. Licensees will 
    still continue to make requests for release of solid materials. As 
    discussed in Section A.1.3, in order to comply with the requirements of 
    Part 20, NRC evaluates licensee requests on a case-by case basis using 
    regulatory guidance, branch positions, license conditions, etc. One 
    basis for review has been NRC staff guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.86, 
    which was originally published in June 1974 by the Atomic Energy 
    Commission (AEC). Regulatory Guide 1.86 contains a table of acceptable 
    total and removable surface levels for various radionuclides, including 
    natural and enriched uranium, transuranics, and fission products, which 
    are stated in terms of measurable radioactivity levels, but does not 
    contain specific dose criteria. Regulatory Guide 1.86 has been used to 
    evaluate unrestricted release of solid materials whose surfaces are 
    slightly radioactive; it does not cover material with volumetric 
    contamination. In addition to Regulatory Guide 1.86, Section A.1.3 
    notes that NRC also uses other case-specific criteria, such as the 
    detection capability of instrumentation, and certain specific rule 
    sections, in its evaluation of requests for release of solid materials.
    (2) Develop a Proposed Rule
        In this option, the NRC would proceed with rulemaking to supplement 
    its gaseous and liquid release standards in Part 20 by developing dose-
    based regulations limiting releases of solid material to provide a 
    consistent regulatory framework protective of public health and safety. 
    This would involve conducting a rulemaking under the Administrative 
    Procedure Act, and developing, as regulatory bases, an environmental 
    analysis under NEPA and an analysis of costs and benefits in a 
    Regulatory Analysis. Based on Commission direction discussed in Section 
    A.2.3, a rulemaking 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 
    this 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 
    of surface contamination on materials that have been released to 
    unrestricted areas under the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.86? If a 
    rule is not issued, should Regulatory Guide 1.86 be updated with a set 
    of dose-based values?
        (2) Should the NRC develop dose-based regulations on release of 
    solid material? Would a rule allow the NRC to better address volumetric 
    contamination in solid materials in an explicit and consistent 
    regulatory manner that meets both licensee needs and public concerns? 
    Would a rule also meet additional specific regulatory needs such as the 
    specific types of material to be covered, restricted vs. unrestricted 
    use, etc?
        (3) To what extent would such a rule contribute to maintaining 
    public safety, enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the NRC, 
    building public confidence, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden?
        (4) Would issuance of an NRC rule on release of solid material 
    definitively resolve licensee questions regarding finality of NRC 
    release decisions if EPA, which has authority to set generally 
    applicable environmental standards in this area, promulgates a rule at 
    a later date?
        (5) Substantial NRC resources would be needed to conduct the 
    complex safety, environmental, and regulatory analyses required to 
    support a rulemaking. Without a regulation, the NRC will have to review 
    the anticipated increase in requests for release of solid materials on 
    a case-by-case basis which could mean less efficient and less 
    consistent reviews. Would potential savings in resources by having a 
    regulation in place offset the resources spent on rulemaking?
    
    Issue No. 2--If NRC Decides to Develop a Proposed Rule, What are the 
    Principal Alternatives for Rulemaking that Should be Considered, and 
    What Factors Should be Used in Making Decisions Between Alternatives?
    
        If the answer to Issue No.1 is to conduct a rulemaking to include 
    requirements in Part 20 on release of solid material, a rulemaking 
    (including the development of technical basis information, evaluation 
    of environmental impacts and cost-benefit analyses, and the public 
    review and comment process) would be conducted to evaluate potential 
    rulemaking alternatives.
    
    Rulemaking Alternatives
    
        Potential alternatives for rulemaking in this area are:
        (1) Permit release of materials for unrestricted use if the 
    potential dose to the public from the material are less than a 
    specified level determined during the rulemaking process--In this 
    alternative, a licensee could release for unrestricted use 
    (``clearance'') material that meets the permissible level in the 
    standards. Potential alternative dose levels resulting from 
    unrestricted use of the material could include doses of 0.1 mSv/yr (10 
    mrem/yr), 0.01 mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr), 0.001 mSv/yr (0.1 mrem/yr) above 
    background, as well as no dose above background. To provide some 
    perspective on these levels: (a) the dose from natural background to 
    people in the U.S. can vary widely based on the area of the country 
    where people live, lifestyle, and other factors, and averages about 3 
    mSv/yr (300 mrem/yr) but may vary from 1 to 10 mSv/yr (100 to 1000 
    mrem/yr); (b) NRC's public dose limit is 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr), (c) 
    the dose from use of recycled coal ash in concrete block as permitted 
    by EPA can be about 3 percent of natural background (about 0.1 mSv/yr 
    (10 mrem/yr)), (d) a person receives 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) on a round-trip 
    coast-to-coast flight, and (e) 0.01 mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr) is a level which 
    the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) 
    considers a trivial risk. In addition, a 0.01 mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr) value 
    is also the level being considered for release for unrestricted use (or 
    ``clearance'') in the European community.
        (2) Restrict release of solid materials to only certain authorized 
    uses (see more detail in Issue No. 3). 
    
    [[Page 35096]]
    
        (3) Do not permit either unrestricted or restricted release of 
    solid material that has been in an area where radioactive material has 
    been used or stored--In this alternative, all such materials in the 
    facility would be required to go to a licensed LLW disposal facility.
        (4) Other alternative(s)--Other appropriate alternatives may be 
    determined during the rulemaking process.
        (5) Other decisionmaking factors, (i.e., non-dose based criteria).
    
    Factors in Decisionmaking
    
        Principal factors in making decisions regarding the alternatives 
    include human health and environmental impacts, cost-benefit 
    considerations, impacts on other industries, resource conservation, the 
    capability to survey the material to assure that it meets permissible 
    levels, existing international, national, and State standards, and 
    other factors raised during the rulemaking process.
        Human health and environmental impacts: In assessing potential 
    rulemaking alternatives, NRC would consider a broad range of possible 
    impacts, both radiological and non-radiological. These could include 
    evaluation of radiation dose to individuals from release of solid 
    materials, assessment of collective doses to different population 
    groups from the release, transportation, processing and disposal 
    impacts, impacts on biota, land use impacts, impacts on radiation 
    sensitive industries, and societal impacts. 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 turn, 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 
    impacts associated with mining, fabrication, and transport of fresh 
    metal to replace that sent to a LLW disposal site. Because these 
    impacts would take place over different time periods and expose 
    different populations, a precise comparison is difficult. Nevertheless, 
    the decisionmaking process could consider these impacts separately and 
    also consider the net collective impact for these disparate factors.
        NRC recently published a draft report for comment on radiological 
    assessments for clearance of equipment and materials from nuclear 
    facilities, NUREG-1640 (2 volumes). The report provides dose factors 
    for both surficial and volumetric radioactivity and compares them with 
    results from Regulatory Guide 1.86 and from EPA values, European 
    Community recommended clearance levels and IAEA draft clearance levels.
        Most of the aforementioned policies, guidelines, recommendations 
    and standards are dose based and thus are intended to be protective of 
    public health and safety. In addition to protection of public health 
    and safety, the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, as amended, also charges the 
    NRC with protection of property. Some industries may be adversely 
    affected by materials that are cleared based upon dose based standards 
    because of sensitivity to radiation effects from the cleared material 
    e.g., the film and electronic industries and the metal recycling 
    industry which performs radiation monitoring of metal scrap to detect 
    and protect itself from radioactive sources accidentally mixed with 
    scrap.
        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. Solid materials that are candidates for release 
    that are evaluated in the report include iron/steel, copper, aluminum, 
    and concrete. The EPA has issued a report similar to NUREG-1640 which 
    is accessible on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/
    cleanmetals/publications.htm. While some of the analysis and approaches 
    in the EPA report are different from NRC's report, the overall results 
    from the EPA and the NRC reports are similar.
        Cost-benefit considerations: Executive Order 12291 contains 
    provisions that require Federal agencies, in their rulemakings, to 
    consider cost-benefit evaluations of alternative courses of action. 
    Consistent with Executive Order 12291, NRC has established guidelines 
    for preparing regulatory analyses of alternative courses of action in 
    support of its rulemaking decisions (NUREG/BR-0058). Benefits would 
    generally derive from the net reduction in environmental impacts 
    discussed above. Costs which could be included in a regulatory analysis 
    could include: (1) the costs of alternative courses of action including 
    surveys at licensed facilities, as well as surveys at non-licensed 
    facilities that may use or receive released solid materials, to verify 
    that permissible release levels have been met; (2) the potential for 
    having to respond to contamination alarms at facilities handling 
    released material; (3) economic impact on recycle/scrap/manufacturing 
    processes; (4) replacement metal production; and (5) alternative 
    options for disposing of the material.
        Implementation considerations: A potential concern with 
    implementation of a proposed rule is the capability to measure 
    radioactive contamination corresponding to the very low alternative 
    dose levels discussed above. The ability to measure radioactivity 
    depends on both the amount and type of radioactive material. In 
    particular, a rulemaking alternative that would require survey 
    instrumentation to verify that there is no dose above natural 
    background could be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to 
    implement because of the variation in natural background and the 
    limited capability of field survey instruments to detect such low 
    levels.
        Other international, national, and State standards: In considering 
    rulemaking alternatives, the NRC would also consider requirements, 
    guidelines, policies and precedents set by international agencies, 
    other Federal agencies, or States. Consistency with standards set by 
    other countries and international agencies is important because 
    materials can be both imported and exported between the U.S. and other 
    countries and differing standards could create confusion and economic 
    disparities in commerce.
    
    Items for Discussion
    
    (A) Human Health and Environmental Impacts
        (1) What individual 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 dose 
    level (for example, 0.1, 0.01, or 0.001 mSv/yr [10, 1.0, or 0.1 mrem/
    yr], or no dose, above background (or other dose)) which is established 
    in rulemaking based on a balancing of risks from various alternatives? 
    Or, should release of solid materials not be permitted if they are 
    potentially contaminated from the use of licensed radioactive material?
        (2) How should environmental impacts be balanced and what types of
    
    [[Page 35097]]
    
    impacts should be considered in decisionmaking?
        (i) In considering radiological impacts from materials released for 
    unrestricted use in the public sector, what pathways of exposure to 
    people, such as 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 
    evaluation of the recycle/reuse industry in the U.S. and of potential 
    scenarios by which a member of the public could reasonably be exposed.
        (ii) In considering other environmental impacts, what impacts, both 
    radiological and non-radiological, should be considered? Such impacts 
    could include mining of new metals to replace metals that could be 
    potentially released but which are sent to a LLW disposal site, 
    production of metal products, transportation of materials, etc.
        (iii) How should net environmental impacts from all the 
    radiological and non-radiological impacts be balanced?
        (3) What is the potential for exposures to multiple sources of 
    material released for unrestricted use, and what are ways in which 
    persons could be exposed to multiple sources? How should potential for 
    exposure to multiple sources be considered in setting an acceptable 
    dose level? To what extent is there a potential that a single scrap 
    facility would handle inputs of released solid materials from several 
    different licensed facilities?
        (4) What societal impacts should be considered and how should they 
    be factored into the 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.
        (5) How should the impacts upon industries that have special 
    concerns about the presence of radioactivity in materials, e.g., film, 
    electronic, and metal recycling, be considered and factored into 
    decisionmaking?
    (B) Cost-benefit Considerations
        (1) As noted above, Executive Order 12291 requires Federal Agencies 
    to consider cost-benefit in its consideration of rulemaking 
    alternatives. NRC uses NUREG/BR-0058 as its guideline in analysis of 
    the cost-benefit of regulatory alternatives. In using NUREG/BR-0058:
        (i) How should economic factors be incorporated into rulemaking 
    decisions, including costs of survey methods and appropriate 
    instruments to measure very low levels of volumetrically 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 radiation survey at 
    that point? What means could minimize such economic risks?
        (5) What is the potential for buildup of radioactivity in commerce 
    as a result of continued release of solid material for unrestricted use 
    over time? How should such a buildup be estimated? What is the 
    potential that this buildup could contribute significantly to either 
    the net environmental impact, to economic impacts on general commerce, 
    or to public concern?
    (C) Implementation Considerations
        (1) What is the capability of surveying 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? Are these survey capabilities readily available to licensees? 
    Should there also be provisions for survey capability at receiving 
    facilities and what should be the nature of those provisions? What 
    economic impact would the use of different or advanced survey 
    techniques have on the facilities releasing the material and the 
    facilities accepting the material for reuse or recycle? How can surveys 
    be designed to prevent releasing material in excess of permissible 
    levels? Over what volume or mass of material should surveys be 
    performed in assessing compliance with release levels? Should materials 
    of varying concentration levels be combined, and, if so, how?
        (2) What different survey methods should be used for assuring that 
    materials from different areas of a facility, and having different 
    potential for contamination, meet the criteria of a dose-based 
    standard? For example, should the survey of solid materials from areas 
    known to be free of contamination rely upon knowledge of facility 
    radiological history and knowledge of plant processes, and, if so, how?
        (3) How should criteria for release of solid material be 
    incorporated into NRC's regulations, i.e., should they be expressed as 
    a dose criteria and/or be expressed as concentration values in 
    different media based on specified dose objectives and standard models 
    for exposure?
    (D) Other considerations including international, national, and State 
    guidelines
        (1) With regard to international, national, and State standards:
        (a) How should guidelines on unrestricted release, or 
    ``clearance,'' set by international standards-setting bodies such as 
    the IAEA and International 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 EPA to set import screening 
    guidelines be considered?
        (b) How should guidelines of other U.S. agencies, e.g., DOE and 
    EPA, be considered? To what degree should standards set by NRC be 
    consistent with other EPA standards, such as those for recycled coal 
    ash (see Section A.2.2.3)? With regard to issues of finality of NRC 
    licensing decisions, what potential problems could occur if EPA later 
    issues standards for release of solid materials different from an NRC 
    regulation?
        (c) How should recommendations made by U.S. standards setting 
    bodies, such as the National Council on Radiation Protection and 
    Measurements (NCRP), be considered?
        (d) How should standards set by U.S. industry groups, such as the 
    American National Standards Institute (ANSI), be considered? Are 
    industry standards currently available, or anticipated during the time 
    frame for this rulemaking, that could be adopted in lieu of or in 
    addition to NRC requirements on release of solid materials?
        (e) Should NRC simply adopt the standards in 1(a), 1(b), or 1(c), 
    and their associated health risk level, rather than conduct analyses of 
    its own?
    
    [[Page 35098]]
    
        (f) What are the economic and other impacts of having NRC standards 
    different from standards that may be set by international agencies, 
    EPA, or other national bodies?
        (g) What compatibility categories, as described in NRC's ``Policy 
    Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs,'' 
    published September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), and 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 the extent to which Agreement State 
    radiation control programs are consistent with NRC's program for the 
    regulation of Atomic Energy Act radioactive materials to ensure that an 
    adequate and coherent nationwide effort is collectively established for 
    regulation of such materials.
        (2) Should existing NRC standards, including the public dose limit 
    of 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr) in 10 CFR 20.1301, and Subpart E of Part 20 
    which contains a dose criterion of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) for release 
    of 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 
    circumstances between Subpart E and the issues being discussed in this 
    paper. For example, Subpart E limits the dose from the single release 
    of structures and land at a site to 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr). 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 rulemaking.
    
    Issue No. 3--If NRC Decides to Develop a Proposed Rule Containing 
    Criteria for Release of Solid Materials, Could Some Form of 
    Restrictions on Future Use of Solid Materials be Considered as an 
    Alternative?
    
        As discussed in Section A.2.2, release of solid materials for 
    unrestricted use would allow them to be recycled or reused in consumer 
    products or industrial products, or be disposed of in solid waste 
    landfills. A potential alternative could involve limiting release of 
    solid materials by restricting their future use to some authorized use.
    
    Alternatives
    
        Potential alternatives for restricted use of solid materials could 
    include:
    (1) Restrict the first use of solid material to certain authorized uses
        In this alternative, the release of radioactive material would be 
    restricted to certain authorized uses to ensure that it is processed 
    into one or more specific products. For example, material could be 
    recycled for use in an industrial 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 
    alternative might be beneficial for materials contaminated by nuclides 
    having short to moderate half-lives, allowing substantial reduction in 
    contamination due to radioactive decay within the lifetime of the 
    structure in which it is placed. This alternative would probably not be 
    applicable for all materials (e.g., wood products and some metals such 
    as copper). End user certification could be difficult to enforce.
    (2) Restrict release of solid material to permitted disposal
        This alternative would restrict the release of slightly 
    contaminated solid material from nuclear facilities to disposal at 
    municipal solid waste landfills. Solid material with higher levels of 
    radioactive contamination would continue to be handled as radioactive 
    waste and be disposed of at licensed facilities. Municipal solid waste 
    landfills are issued permits by State regulatory authorities in 
    accordance with 40 CFR 258, ``Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste 
    Landfills'' as well as other State and local regulations. The rationale 
    for this alternative is that exposure pathways at landfills can be 
    fairly well defined and quantified, and that many of the pathways of 
    potential exposure associated with the recycling of metal into consumer 
    products or 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 alternative include the fact that 
    additional NRC and/or EPA rulemaking may be required to implement this 
    alternative. For example, the definitions of solid waste and/or 
    byproduct material (or associated regulations) might need to be 
    revisited to allow disposal at solid waste landfills of material having 
    residual radioactivity. Several State and local governments currently 
    have prohibitions against the disposal of radioactive material in 
    landfills which would make this alternative less feasible. An 
    additional issue is the possibility that material could be sent to a 
    landfill under a use restriction, but it could be removed from the 
    landfill and sold as scrap or reused.
    
    Items for Discussion
    
        (1) Should the NRC consider restrictions on future use of solid 
    materials as an alternative to unrestricted use (similar to the license 
    termination rule)?
        (2) If so, what types of restricted uses should be considered?
        (3) What types of controls could restrict use to assure that the 
    material would not be released for unrestricted use? Would these 
    controls be reasonable? 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 NRC? 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?
        (4) How long would the use be restricted? What radionuclides, and 
    associated time periods for radioactive decay, would be reasonable to 
    consider as candidates for restricted use? What would happen to the 
    material when it reached the end of its useful restricted life?
        (5) If restrictions were placed on future use of materials, would 
    the NRC need to be involved in continued regulation or tracking of the 
    material? Would States need to be involved? Or could a mechanism for 
    institutional control, similar to that used in the license termination 
    rule be used to assure the continued restricted use of materials? Note 
    that Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 (Section 20.1403) contains 
    requirements regarding acceptable dose levels for restricted use, 
    allowable institutional controls and financial arrangements, etc.
        (6) What type of public involvement should there be in decisions 
    concerning restricted use of materials? Should it be similar to the 
    method used in the license termination rule where licensees are 
    required to seek advice from affected parties when proposing a site for 
    restricted use? Note that Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 (Section 20.1403) 
    also contains requirements for licensees to seek advice on from 
    affected parties and also the methods to be used in obtaining that 
    advice. A potential problem in establishing a public involvement 
    process for restricted use of materials is that (unlike license 
    termination of buildings or a site where affected parties
    
    [[Page 35099]]
    
    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 and uses. Can a meaningful public involvement 
    process be developed for setting restrictions on future material use in 
    specific licensing cases?
        (7) How should considerations and predictions of future public uses 
    of materials and the restrictions on those materials be developed to 
    provide credible approaches for restricted use?
        (8) What dose should be permitted for material released for 
    restricted use? Should the same alternative dose levels as for 
    unrestricted use (see Issue No.2) also be considered for 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 structures is the same as for 
    unrestricted use, provided the controls remain effective.
        (9) What specific problems are associated with restricting 
    materials to landfill disposal?
    
    Issue No. 4--If NRC Decides to Develop a Proposed Rule, What Materials 
    Should be Covered?
    
        A rule developed by the NRC could cover selected materials (for 
    example, certain metals such as iron and steel) or could be a broad 
    rule encompassing all materials. Any alternatives chosen for 
    consideration would be dependent on information available on the 
    various materials. Currently, the NRC has developed the following 
    technical background information:
        (1) An analysis of individual doses resulting from unrestricted 
    release of steel, aluminum, copper, and concrete (draft NUREG-1640, 
    February 1999) has recently been completed. These materials were 
    analyzed because they were considered to represent those most likely to 
    become available and also to represent most of the volume of slightly 
    contaminated material available for release from NRC-licensed 
    facilities into the public sector, other than soil.
        (2) Discussions with licensees have indicated that there are large 
    quantities of soil with very low amounts of radioactive contamination 
    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 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 Termination,'' NUREG/CR-5512, ``Residual Radioactive 
    Contamination from Decommissioning,'' and NUREG-1549, ``Decision 
    Methods for Dose Assessment to Comply with Radiological Criteria for 
    License Termination.''
        (3) The NRC does not have similar analyses completed for other 
    slightly contaminated materials potentially available for release.
    
    Alternatives
    
        Alternative rule approaches could be that the rule would apply to--
        (1) only a select group of solid materials, including certain 
    metals (steel, aluminum, copper) as well as concrete and soil.
        (2) a wider group of materials to also include other materials 
    under license including sludge, sewage, wood, glass, and others.
        (3) a select group of materials (Alternative 1) and conduct 
    rulemaking on other materials in Alternative 2 at a later time.
    
    Specific Items for Discussion
    
        (1) Should the NRC proceed with a rulemaking covering all 
    materials, with the option of conducting further rulemaking at a later 
    time for certain materials if the impact to all affected parties, 
    including the regulators, is too great or the analysis too complicated 
    or time consuming?
        (i) Is it appropriate to proceed with 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, and associated analyses as described above, as 
    input to the environmental analyses and regulatory analyses? Would 
    experience gained with the rule on steel, aluminum, copper, concrete, 
    and soil be useful in evaluating requirements for release of other 
    materials later?
        (ii) Would issuing a rule now for only certain materials noted in 
    Alternative No.1 limit NRC's capability to deal effectively with 
    requests for release that could be made in the future for other 
    materials? Other similar materials, such as sludges, slag, asbestos, 
    etc., could also potentially be the subject of requests for release. To 
    help answer that question, how many and what types of materials are 
    licensees actually requesting release for today or are anticipated over 
    the next decade?
        (iii) Should the NRC perform additional analyses at this time of 
    individual doses resulting 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, and concrete?
        (2) What other materials would be the candidates for rulemaking? Do 
    analyses for these materials currently exist or are they under 
    development?
        (3) If the NRC proceeds with rulemaking limited to certain 
    materials indicated in Alternative 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 materials be 
    released under existing guidelines until the subsequent rule is 
    developed, or should the release of these materials be postponed until 
    a rulemaking is conducted? If the rulemaking establishes dose 
    objectives for release and implements those objectives through tables 
    of values for specific materials, should the dose objective also be 
    used to guide case-specific release of other materials through 
    licensing actions or exemptions?
        (4) What would be the associated costs, effective survey methods, 
    and dose impacts of the alternatives?
        (5) Should the NRC rulemaking be extended to cover materials that 
    may be released from nuclear facilities operated by the DOE?
    
    IV. Scoping Process for Environmental Impact Statement
    
        As discussed in Section III.A.5 and III.B of this notice, if the 
    Commission decides to proceed with a rulemaking, it will have to 
    consider the effect of its actions on the environment in accordance 
    with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Section 102(1) of 
    NEPA requires that the policies, regulations, and public laws of the 
    United States be interpreted and administered in accordance with the 
    policies set forth in NEPA. It is the intent of NEPA to have Federal 
    agencies incorporate consideration of environmental issues into their 
    decisionmaking processes.
        NRC regulations implementing NEPA are contained in 10 CFR Part 51. 
    To fulfill its responsibilities under NEPA, the NRC would prepare an 
    environmental impact statement (EIS) by analyzing alternative courses 
    of action and the impacts and costs associated with those alternatives. 
    In keeping with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, an EIS would 
    analyze alternatives for establishing requirements for release of solid
    
    [[Page 35100]]
    
    materials. All reasonable alternatives associated with the proposed 
    action would be analyzed to determine their impacts and costs.
        The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 51.26 contain requirements 
    for conducting a scoping process before preparing an EIS, including 
    preparation of a notice of intent in the Federal Register regarding the 
    EIS and indication that the scoping process may include holding a 
    scoping meeting. Requirements are contained in 10 CFR 51.27 regarding 
    the content of the notice of intent, in particular that it should 
    describe the proposed action and describe possible alternatives to the 
    extent that information is available. In addition, the notice of intent 
    is to describe the proposed scoping process, including the role of 
    participants, whether written comments will be accepted, and whether a 
    public scoping meeting will be held.
        Participants in this scoping process on the environmental impacts 
    of release of solid materials from licensed facilities may attend any 
    of the four public meetings indicated under the DATES heading of this 
    notice and provide oral comments on the proposed action and possible 
    alternatives. The Commission will also accept written (and electronic) 
    comments on the proposed action and alternatives from the public, as 
    well as from meeting participants, as indicated under the DATES and 
    ADDRESSES heading of this notice.
        According to 10 CFR 51.29, the scoping process is to address the 
    following topics:
        (1) Define the proposed action. The NRC is considering codifying 
    radiological criteria for release of solid materials from licensed 
    facilities. Detailed information on the proposed action is described in 
    Section III.A.2 and III.A.5 of this notice.
        (2) Determine EIS scope and significant issues to be analyzed in-
    depth. The NRC is considering analyzing the impacts and costs 
    associated with alternative regulatory approaches to establish 
    radiological criteria for release of solid materials from licensed 
    facilities. Information regarding: (a) types, and contamination levels, 
    of solid materials present in licensed facilities potentially available 
    for release is contained in Section III.A.1.2 and Section III.B (Issue 
    No. 4) of this notice; (b) pathways of exposure to solid materials 
    released from licensed facilities is contained in Section III.B (Issue 
    No. 2) of this notice and discussed in detail in the draft NUREG-1640 
    and in NUREG-1496 as referenced in Section III.B; (c) regulatory 
    alternatives and method of approach for analysis of the alternatives is 
    contained in Section III.A.2.2 and III.B (Issue No. 2) of this notice. 
    Principal factors in making decisions regarding the alternatives are 
    indicated in Section III.B (Issues No. 2, 3, and 4) of this notice.
        (3) Identify and eliminate from detailed study issues which are not 
    significant or which are peripheral or which have been covered by prior 
    environmental review. The NRC has not yet eliminated any non-
    significant issues. However, the NRC is considering elimination of the 
    following issues from the scope because they have been analyzed in 
    previous EIS's (NUREG-0586 and NUREG-1496) and included in earlier 
    rulemakings (53 FR 24018, June 28, 1988, and 63 FR 84088, July 21, 
    1997): (i) planning necessary to conduct decommissioning operations in 
    a safe manner; (ii) assurance that sufficient funds are available to 
    pay for decommissioning; (iii) the time period in which decommissioning 
    should be completed; (iv) radiological criteria for decommissioning of 
    lands and structures; and (v) the fact that consideration is not given 
    to an alternative in which a licensee would abandon material or 
    equipment without some treatment or licensed disposal.
        Analysis of the scope of environmental impacts for this effort 
    would be principally intended to provide input to decisionmaking for 
    establishing overall criteria for release of solid materials, and would 
    not involve analysis of site-specific issues which may arise in the 
    licensing process at specific facilities. The extent to which the 
    environmental analysis may be applicable to a site specific NEPA 
    process would be described in a draft EIS and draft rulemaking.
        (4) Identify any environmental assessments or environmental impact 
    statements which are being or which will be prepared that are related 
    but are not part of the scope of the EIS under consideration.
        None are being prepared.
        (5) Identify other environmental review or consultation 
    requirements related to the proposed action. The NRC has contracted 
    with ICF to provide technical assistance in the environmental analyses. 
    The NRC is also placing contracts to obtain specific technical 
    assistance regarding exposure pathways, collective doses, costs, and 
    the capability of radiation survey instruments to practically and 
    accurately detect radioactive contamination at levels near background.
        (6) Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation 
    of environmental analysis and the Commission's tentative planning and 
    decisionmaking schedule. The schedule for issuance of an EIS has not 
    been developed. The NRC staff will provide to the Commission, early in 
    the year 2000, a report on the results of the public meetings and other 
    public comments on the issues paper and the scoping process and include 
    a schedule for any further rulemaking in this area, including the 
    schedule for preparation of an associated draft EIS.
        (7) Describe the means by which an EIS would be prepared. If the 
    NRC proceeds with rulemaking in this area, it would prepare a draft EIS 
    in accordance with its regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. Specifically, in 
    accord with 10 CFR Part 51.71, a draft EIS would be prepared using the 
    considerations of the scoping process and would include a preliminary 
    analysis that considers and balances the environmental and other 
    effects of the proposed action and the alternatives available for 
    reducing or avoiding adverse environmental and other effects, as well 
    as the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits of the 
    proposed action.
        In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29, at the conclusion of the scoping 
    process, a concise summary of the determinations and conclusions 
    reached, including the significant issues identified, will be prepared 
    and a copy sent to each participant in the scoping process.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June 1999.
    
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    William D. Travers,
    Executive Director for Operations.
    [FR Doc. 99-16598 Filed 6-29-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
06/30/1999
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Request for comment on issues paper and scoping process, and notice of plans for public meetings.
Document Number:
99-16598
Dates:
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 comments received on or before this date.
Pages:
35090-35100 (11 pages)
PDF File:
99-16598.pdf
CFR: (1)
10 CFR 20