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

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: [email protected], 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

[email protected], 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