[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9595-9602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4752]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 20
Rulemaking on Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials:
Scoping Process for Environmental Issues and Notice of Workshop
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Request for comments on scope of proposed rulemaking and notice
of workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is conducting an
enhanced participatory rulemaking on alternatives for controlling the
disposition of solid materials that originate in restricted or impacted
areas of NRC-licensed facilities, and that have no, or very small
amounts of, radioactivity resulting from licensed operations. The NRC
is seeking stakeholder participation and involvement in identifying
alternatives and their environmental impacts that should be considered
as part of the rulemaking. Considerable information collection effort
has been conducted in this area and the Commission is building on
existing information to focus on potential solutions. To assist in this
process, the NRC is holding a workshop to solicit new input with a
focus on the feasibility of alternatives identified in this notice that
would limit where solid material can go. The NRC has not made a
decision on the scope or details of a regulation and is continuing to
develop a solid technical basis for the rulemaking.
DATES: Submit comments by June 30, 2003. 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, a workshop to solicit comments on alternatives, with a focus
on the feasibility of alternatives identified in this notice that would
limit where solid materials can go, will be held on May 21-22, 2003
from 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. in the NRC Auditorium, 11545 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 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
You may also provide comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov (then select ``Information/Comment Requests''
from left-hand column). 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 web page,
contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 ([email protected]).
Copies of any comments received may be examined at the NRC Public
Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
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,
USNRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Specific comments on the
environmental scoping process discussed in Section VI should be
directed to Phyllis Sobel; e-mail [email protected], telephone: (301) 415-
6714; Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, USNRC,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is conducting a rulemaking to evaluate alternatives for
controlling the disposition of solid materials with no, or very small
amounts of, radioactivity resulting from licensed operations. This
Federal Register Notice (FRN) provides information on this effort as
follows:
(1) Sections II.1-II-7: These sections provide background
information about why we are conducting this effort and what are some
alternatives for controlling the disposition of solid materials.
(2) Sections III.1-III.2: These sections discuss the considerable
information collection efforts we have conducted to date in this area
and what we have learned about the alternatives.
(3) Sections IV and V: These sections discuss our current effort to
build on information previously collected in this area. The NRC has not
made a decision on any alternatives for controlling the disposition of
solid materials and invites stakeholders to present new information on
alternatives. In particular, Section IV asks specific questions about
the feasibility of alternatives that would limit where solid material
can go, and Section V announces a workshop scheduled for May 21-22,
2003.
(4) Section VI: This section announces a re-opening of the scoping
process and requests input on environmental impacts of alternatives.
To further assist stakeholders, the staff is also placing on its
website an
[[Page 9596]]
information packet which discusses ways in which stakeholders can
review the alternatives and issues involved, provide comments to the
NRC, and link to other documents (Go to http://www.nrc.gov/materials.html and select ``Controlling the Disposition of Solid
Materials.'').
II. Background
The information below in Sections II.1-II.7 has been discussed in
various NRC documents and public meetings.\1\ It is provided here in
summary form as background information on the issues involved and on
alternatives for controlling the disposition of solid materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Many of the documents, as well as summaries of public
meetings and other background information, discussed in this paper
are available via the NRC's web page at http://nrc.gov/materials.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Solid Materials Being Considered
Just as is the case for many industrial operations (or in a home),
there are ``solid materials'' that are no longer needed or useful at
facilities licensed by NRC. This can occur, for example, during normal
facility operations when: (a) Metal equipment and tools become surplus,
obsolete or worn; (b) glass, plastic, paper, or other trash-like
materials are no longer useful; or (c) concrete from a building being
renovated or soil being excavated from a site is no longer needed. This
can also occur at the end of facility operations when a licensee seeks
to terminate its NRC license. At such times, NRC's licensees seek
disposition alternatives for solid material that are protective of
public health and safety and are economical.
NRC licensees fall into broad categories that include: (a)
Academic--university laboratories and small reactors that use
radioactivity for research and teaching purposes; (b) medical--
hospitals and clinics that use radioactivity for diagnostic and
therapeutic medical purposes; (c) manufacturing--facilities and labs
that manufacture products that use radioactivity, e.g., smoke
detectors, certain types of gauges; and (d) power production--reactor
facilities and fuel cycle facilities that handle radioactivity as part
of the generation of electricity.
2. The Nature of These Solid Materials
This effort is focused on controlling the disposition of solid
materials that are present in areas in NRC-licensed facilities where
radioactive materials are used or stored. These areas of the facilities
are generally referred to as either ``restricted \2\'' or ``impacted
\3\'' areas. Despite their location in these restricted or impacted
areas, much of this solid material has no, or very small amounts of,
radioactivity resulting from licensed operations either because the
material was exposed to radioactivity in the facility to only a limited
extent or because it has been cleaned. These solid materials can
include furniture and ventilation ducts in buildings; metal equipment
and pipes; wood, paper, and glass; laboratory materials (gloves,
beakers, etc); routine trash; site fences; concrete; soil; or other
similar materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A restricted area is defined in the NRC's regulations in 10
CFR 20.1003.
\3\ An impacted area is defined in the Multi-Agency Radiation
Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) which was jointly
prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the NRC.
An impacted area is defined in MARSSIM as an area with a possibility
of containing residual radioactivity in excess of natural background
or fallout levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other solid materials in these restricted or impacted areas can
contain more appreciable levels of radioactivity. However, these are
separated from those materials with no, or very small amounts of,
radioactivity at the licensed facility and are required to be disposed
of at licensed low-level waste (LLW) disposal sites under NRC's
existing regulations in 10 CFR part 61. Solid materials containing
appreciable levels of radioactivity are not the subject of this NRC
rulemaking.
Solid materials not located in restricted or impacted areas, and
considered to be free of radioactivity resulting from licensed
operations, are not currently required to be part of a disposition
radiological survey program. Such materials can include furniture,
glass bottles, paper, equipment, or trash in administrative buildings
or office areas. This rulemaking does not propose to alter this
approach, and therefore, these materials are also not the subject of
this NRC effort.
The remainder of this FRN discusses those solid materials from
restricted or impacted areas of an NRC-licensed facility that have no,
or very small amounts of, radioactivity resulting from licensed
operations. For ease of reference, these are referred to as ``solid
materials.''
3. The NRC's Current Approach for Controlling the Disposition of Solid
Materials
Currently, the NRC has requirements in its regulations in 10 CFR
part 20 that require that solid materials that have been in restricted
or impacted areas be surveyed before leaving the site. Solid materials
can currently be released for any unrestricted use if the survey does
not detect radioactivity from licensed operations on the material or,
if it does detect radioactivity, the amount is below a level that is
considered to be protective of public health and safety and the
environment.
However, 10 CFR part 20 does not currently specify the level below
which the material can be released. Decisions on disposition of solid
materials are currently made using levels contained in a set of
existing guidelines that are based primarily on the ability of survey
meters to measure the radioactivity level on, or in, the solid
material.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These guidelines are discussed in the June 1999 Issues Paper
and in an All-Agreement States letter (STP-00-070), dated August 22,
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Why NRC Is Examining This ``Current Approach''
A report by the National Academies indicates that NRC's current
approach for controlling the disposition of solid materials protects
public health and does not need immediate revamping.
However, the National Academies report also indicates that the
current approach is incomplete and inconsistent and that NRC's approach
should be based more directly on a risk basis. As a result, the
National Academies study states that NRC should conduct a process to
evaluate alternatives to provide clear risk-informed direction on
controlling the disposition of solid materials.
5. Why NRC Is Conducting a Rulemaking to Potentially Revise its Current
Approach
The NRC agrees with the findings in the National Academies report
regarding the need to consider modifying its current approach to
provide specific direction on controlling the disposition of solid
materials.
The generally accepted process that Federal Agencies use to examine
or replace an approach that needs improvement is to conduct a
rulemaking to amend the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). A rulemaking
is an open process that evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of a
range of alternatives and that invites public input on the alternatives
early on and throughout the process.
6. NRC's Guiding Policy in Conducting a Rulemaking To Develop a
Regulation
NRC's overall policy, as discussed in NUREG-1614 entitled ``U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Strategic Plan, Fiscal Year 2000-2005,''
is that the nation's use of radioactive material be conducted in a
manner that protects
[[Page 9597]]
public health and safety and the environment. In carrying out this
policy, the NRC is guided by broad ``performance goals'' that include:
(1) Maintain safety, protection of the environment, and the common
defense and security;
(2) Increase public confidence in our regulatory process;
(3) Make NRC's activities and decisions effective, efficient, and
realistic;
(4) Reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on stakeholders.
As discussed in NUREG-1614, protection of public health and safety
is paramount among the NRC goals and it is likewise our principal goal
in controlling the disposition of solid materials. We also recognize
that, in considering alternatives in this area, our decision-making
process needs to provide stakeholders with clear and accurate
information about, and a meaningful role in, the process. In addition,
any requirements we promulgate in this area must not impose unnecessary
regulatory burdens beyond what is necessary and sufficient for
providing reasonable assurance that public health and safety will be
protected.
7. Alternatives for Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials
Paths by which solid materials with no, or very small amounts of,
radioactivity could leave a licensed facility fall into general
disposition categories of ``release'' or ``disposal.'' A set of
preliminary alternatives for controlling the disposition of solid
materials along these paths was first described in an NRC Issues Paper
published for public comment in the Federal Register (FR) on June 30,
1999 (64 FR 35090); these alternatives are summarized here:
A. Release: In this disposition path, solid materials could be
released into general commerce if a radiation survey verifies that
public health and safety is protected and if the materials have some
benefit in either a recycled or re-used product. Alternatives for
control include:
(1) Unrestricted use: Unrestricted use means that solid materials
could be released for any use in general commerce after a radiation
survey verifies that an allowable level has been met.\5\ Two
unrestricted use alternatives are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The term ``clearance'' is also used by various organizations
and in various documents to mean removal from regulatory control of
material that meets certain release criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1: Continue NRC's current approach (see Section II.3)
which allows unrestricted use based on existing guidance on survey
capabilities;
Alternative 2: Amend the NRC's regulations to include a dose based
criterion for unrestricted use.
(2) Conditional use (Alternative 3): In this alternative, solid
material could be released but its further use would be restricted to
only certain authorized uses with limited public exposures such as use
in controlled or low exposure environments. Examples might include
industrial uses such as metals in bridges, sewer lines, or industrial
components in a factory, or concrete in road fill.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Other terms have been used for this alternative, including
``conditional clearance'' and ``restricted use.'' However, the term
``Conditional use'' is deemed more appropriate and is used
throughout the remainder of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Disposal: In this disposition path, solid materials would be
prohibited from general commerce and isolated from the public.
Alternatives \7\ for control include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Other terms have been used for this alternative, including
``prohibition'' and ``no release.'' The alternatives listed here are
considered to be clearer in that they provide more information as to
the destination of the material and hence are used throughout the
remainder of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Landfill disposal (Alternative 4): In this alternative, solid
material would be prohibited from general commerce by requiring it to
be placed in an EPA-regulated landfill;
(2) NRC/Agreement State (AS)-licensed low-level waste (LLW)
disposal site (Alternative 5): In this alternative, solid material
would be prohibited from general commerce by requiring it to be placed
in an NRC/AS-licensed LLW disposal site and regulated under the NRC's
regulations in 10 CFR Part 61.
III. Summary of Efforts to Date and What NRC Has Learned About
Alternatives
1. Efforts to Date To Examine Alternatives
The NRC's Issues Paper, published in the FR for public comment in
June 1999, indicated that NRC was examining its alternatives for
controlling the disposition of solid materials. To provide further
opportunity for public input, NRC held a series of four public meetings
during the fall of 1999.
The NRC received over 800 public comment letters from stakeholders
representing the metals, metal scrap, and concrete industries; citizens
groups; licensees and licensee organizations; landfill operators;
Federal and State agencies; and Tribal governments. Comments were also
received from stakeholders at the four public meetings. Comments were
sharply diverse in the views expressed, and there was support and
rationale provided by commenters for a range of alternatives for
controlling the disposition of solid materials.
On March 23, 2000, the NRC staff provided the Commission with a
paper (SECY-00-0070) on the diversity of views expressed in public
comments received on the Issues Paper. Attachment 2 of SECY-00-0070
provides a summary of views and comments received; summaries of the
comments can also be viewed in NUREG/CR-6682, ``Summary and
Categorization of Public Comments on the Control of Solid Materials''
(September 2000). SECY-00-0070 also provided the status of the staff's
technical analyses being developed as support for making decisions in
this area and noted the related actions of international and national
organizations and agencies that could be factors in NRC's decision-
making.
To solicit additional input, the Commission held a public meeting
on May 9, 2000, at which stakeholder groups presented their views and
discussed alternatives for controlling the disposition of solid
materials.
On August 18, 2000, the Commission decided to defer a final
decision on whether to proceed with rulemaking and directed the staff
to request that the National Academies conduct a study of alternatives
for controlling the disposition of solid materials. The Commission also
directed the staff to continue to develop technical information and to
stay informed of international and U.S. agency activities in this area.
The National Academies study of alternatives for controlling the
disposition of solid materials was initiated in August 2000. As part of
the study, the National Academies held three information gathering
meetings in January, March, and June of 2001, at which it obtained
input from various stakeholder groups similar to those that presented
information to the NRC earlier. Based on these meetings, and on its
deliberations on this topic, the National Academies submitted a report
to the NRC in March 2002. The report contains nine recommendations on
the decision-making process, potential approaches for controlling the
disposition of solid materials, and additional technical information
needed. In particular, the National Academies report indicates that
NRC's current approach for controlling the disposition of solid
materials protects public health and does not need immediate revamping.
However, the National Academies report also states that NRC's current
approach is
[[Page 9598]]
incomplete and inconsistent and concludes that NRC should therefore
conduct a process to evaluate a broad range of alternatives to provide
clear risk-informed direction on controlling the disposition of solid
materials. The report notes that broad stakeholder involvement and
participation in the NRC's decision-making process on the alternatives
is critical as the process moves forward. The report also notes that an
individual dose standard of 10 [mu]Sv/yr (1 mrem/yr) provides a
reasonable starting point for the process of considering alternatives
for a dose-based standard. A summary of the National Academies report
can be found in an NRC staff paper, SECY-02-0133, and a link to the
National Academies report, itself, is contained in the Background
section of the NRC's web page.
As noted above, the NRC has been conducting technical studies to
provide additional analyses to better understand and evaluate the
alternatives for controlling the disposition of solid materials. These
studies are examining potential impacts of alternatives on human health
and the environment; costs to licensees, other industries, and the
public resulting from the alternatives; and the ability of radiation
detectors to verify the radioactivity level on any solid material so
that a licensee can verify compliance with an alternative. The results
of some of these studies have been issued for public comment and are
available on NRC's web page; additional results will be provided for
public comment when they are available.
In addition to NRC efforts in this area, other scientific
organizations are engaged in similar processes. Recognized radiation
protection standards organizations like the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), International Commission
on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) have issued findings about possible criteria for
controlling the disposition of solid materials. The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
on alternatives for disposition of DOE scrap metals. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets radiation protection
standards in the general environment although they do not currently
have a program on controlling the disposition of solid materials from
licensed facilities. International agencies (such as the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the European Commission) as well as other
individual nations, are in the process of establishing standards for
controlling the disposition of solid materials. These efforts are
significant for the NRC because inconsistency in standards between the
U.S. and other nations can result in confusion regarding international
trade, in particular if materials released under other nations'
regulations arrive as imports in the U.S.
2. Summary of Information and Comments Received to Date on Alternatives
As discussed in Section III.1, NRC has obtained information from
public comments, from efforts by scientific organizations, and from
various technical studies, including that done by the National
Academies. The following sections summarize the information and views
obtained about potential alternatives for controlling the disposition
of solid materials, as well as the process for examining our approach.
This material reflects the NRC performance goals noted in Section
III.6, above.
A. Alternative 1--No Action: Retain Current Approach of Allowing
Unrestricted Use Using Measurement-based Guidelines
All rulemakings include consideration of a no-action alternative
that would continue NRC's current approach. As discussed in Section
II.3, above, Alternative 1 permits solid materials that are in
restricted or impacted areas to be released for unrestricted use if a
radiation survey does not detect radioactivity from licensed operations
on the material or, if it does detect radioactivity, the amount is
below a level that is considered to be protective of public health and
safety. NRC's regulations do not specify the level below which the
material can be released; decisions are currently made using levels
contained in a set of existing guidelines based primarily on the
ability of survey meters to measure the radioactivity level on, or in,
the solid material.
The advantages and disadvantages of Alternative 1 were discussed in
SECY-02-0133 based on the public comments received on the June 1999
Issues Paper and on the National Academies report. As discussed in
SECY-02-0133, advantages of Alternative 1 are that NRC's current
approach: (a) Is sufficiently protective of public health and does not
need immediate revamping; (b) is workable and familiar to licensees;
and (c) requires no staff resources to amend regulations at this time
which would allow NRC to focus on other higher-priority safety issues,
whereas decommissionings on a large scale are not expected for some
time. Disadvantages of Alternative 1 include: (a) Lack of an overall
risk basis or consistent approach; (b) use of outdated measurement
bases; (c) international consistency issues; (d) issues of regulatory
finality caused by lack of regulation as the basis for the current
approach; (e) licensees problems using the current approach when
dealing with materials day-to-day, and (f) expenditure of NRC staff
resources on case-specific reviews under the current approach, which
are anticipated to possibly increase due to expanded use of radiation
monitors for detecting solid materials with small amounts of
radioactivity outside NRC-licensed facilities.
B. Alternative 2: Dose-Based Regulation on Unrestricted Use
As noted in Section II.7, Alternative 2 would allow solid materials
to be released for use in general commerce if a radiation survey
verifies that the level of radioactivity is protective of public health
and safety and if there is some benefit in the materials' recycle or
re-use. The June 1999 Issues Paper discussed a range of potential
options for values for an allowable dose level, including 0, 1, 10, and
100 [mu]Sv/yr (0, 0.1, 1.0, and 10 mrem/yr). The National Academies
recommended in their study that a value of 10 [mu]Sv/yr (1 mrem/yr) was
a good starting point for discussion for a dose-based release standard.
(1) Summary of information from scientific organizations on the
unrestricted use alternative:
A number of scientific organizations have provided information
indicating that 10 [mu]Sv/yr (1 mrem/yr) presents a negligible level of
risk to the public and is therefore protective of public health and
safety. The National Academies report indicates that 10 [mu]Sv/yr (1
mrem/yr) is within the acceptable range of values used in U.S. health-
based standards, is a small fraction of natural background, and is
accepted by recognized national and international organizations. The
NCRP and the ICRP both indicate that a 10 [mu]Sv/yr (1 mrem/yr) level
poses a negligible risk. The Health Physics Society notes that 10
[mu]Sv/yr (1 mrem/yr) is well below doses received in routine
activities without discernable health effect. EPA radioactive effluent
standards in similar areas have safety goals that are comparable to 10
[mu]Sv/yr (1 mrem/yr). ANSI has concluded that a value of 10 [mu]Sv/yr
(1 mrem/yr) is an appropriate criterion for release of solid materials
and has published its findings in a standard entitled ``Surface and
Volume
[[Page 9599]]
Radioactivity Standards for Clearance,'' N13.12-1999, August 1999; it
is noted that the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 requires Federal agencies to consider this type of technical
standard in rulemakings in pertinent areas.
(2) Summary of information received in public comments:
Public comments generally fell into categories of issues related to
(a) protection of public health and safety and (b) regulatory burden:
(a) Issues related to public health and safety:
Certain commenters agreed with use of the unrestricted use
alternative for the reasons noted in the scientific studies. However,
other commenters were concerned about an unrestricted use alternative,
noting that risks associated with these solid materials are avoidable
and involuntary; long term and cumulative impacts cannot be accurately
modeled; there is a potential for exposures to multiple products; any
dose increases cancer risk; even a small risk when spread over the U.S.
population is too high; there is no justification for adding more dose
to what we receive from background; releases would not be accurately
measured and tracked; licensees and the government cannot be trusted to
assure that any releases would be carefully monitored; and a contractor
who participated in NRC's technical support analyses had a conflict of
interest.
(b) Issues related to regulatory burden:
This alternative engendered strong comment on both sides of this
issue. The metals and concrete industries opposed unrestricted use
because it would result in a large negative economic impact on steel/
concrete industries because consumers would not buy products made with
recycled solid material; the amount of steel available from licensed
facilities is small, and therefore the economic benefit of recycling is
small; and generators of the solid material should handle their own
problem and not pass it along to other stakeholders. Other commenters
were in favor of unrestricted use because the alternative of disposal
of all solid material with no, or very small amounts of, radioactivity
in a licensed LLW disposal site is costly to licensees without an
accompanying health and safety benefit; and would cause a severe
economic impact for small licensees, e.g., medical facilities,
universities.
(3) Summary: Scientific studies, including the National Academies
report, indicate that unrestricted use at a level in the range of 10
[mu]Sv/yr (1 mrem/yr) presents negligible risk and is therefore
protective of public health and safety, however there was also
significant stakeholder comment related to health impact and economic
burden issues which could make this alternative potentially difficult
to implement.
C. Alternative 3--Conditional Use
Conditional use is an alternative in which solid material could be
released but its further use would be restricted to only certain
authorized uses.
(1) Summary of information received in public comments:
Public comments received generally fell into categories of issues
related to (a) protection of public health and safety, (b) regulatory
burden, and (c) concern over feasibility of conditional use.
(a) Issues related to public health and safety:
Some commenters noted that a benefit of this alternative is that it
could limit radiation dose by permitting the solid material to be
released for only certain authorized uses (e.g., industrial products,
metal in sewer lines or bridges, concrete in construction fill) that
have limited potential for public exposure.
(b) Issues related to regulatory burden:
A benefit cited with the conditional use alternative is that solid
materials that have no, or very small amounts of, radioactivity could
be used under certain authorized conditions rather than using the more
costly licensed LLW disposal alternative.
(c) Concerns about feasibility of conditional use:
Some commenters expressed concern about the feasibility or
viability of conditional use, noting: (a) It may not be viable
economically to set up a recycling process dedicated only to the
limited quantities of solid material from licensed facilities; (b) a
regulatory system of restrictions to limit where solid material is used
would be hard to establish and enforce; and (c) it is not clear that
restrictions would work to limit where the material goes, i.e., solid
material could wind up being released for unrestricted use. Commenters
also noted that, even if a system of restrictions was set up, the
authorized use would have some limited lifetime and the solid material
might ultimately end up in an unrestricted use, and therefore that it
makes more sense to focus on establishing criteria for unrestricted
use. Some commenters indicated that the only viable conditional use
would be to retain the solid material within the NRC licensing arena or
the DOE complex.
(2) Summary: Restricting the further use or disposition of solid
materials from licensed facilities to only certain authorized uses can
have merit in public health considerations in that exposure scenarios
are minimized. However, based on the comments received in the NRC
public comment process, it is not evident that conditional use is a
technically viable way to make sure the material ends up in its
authorized use or that it is an economically feasible approach that
will work.
D. Alternatives 4 and 5--Disposal of Solid Materials in Either EPA-
Regulated Landfills or NRC/AS-Licensed LLW Disposal Sites
In this alternative, solid material would be prohibited from
general commerce. The solid material would be required to be disposed
of at an EPA-regulated landfill (Alternative 4) or under NRC's existing
regulations in 10 CFR Part 61 in an NRC/AS-licensed LLW disposal site
(Alternative 5) (see Section II.7 above).
EPA regulates municipal and industrial solid waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under RCRA Subtitle C,
the hazardous waste program establishes a system for controlling
hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its disposal. Under
RCRA Subtitle D, the solid waste program encourages states to develop
comprehensive plans for managing non-hazardous industrial solid waste
and municipal solid waste and also sets criteria for municipal solid
waste landfills and other solid waste disposal facilities. RCRA does
not address radioactive material under NRC jurisdiction.
(1) Summary of information on this alternative from scientific
organizations:
The National Academies report compared disposing of solid material
in landfills and in licensed LLW disposal sites, and found that
disposal of solid materials in EPA regulated Subtitle C or Subtitle D
landfills would be substantially less costly than disposal in sites
licensed by the NRC or Agreement States under 10 CFR Part 61.
(2) Summary of information received in public comments:
Public comments generally fell into the categories of issues
related to (a) protection of public health and safety, (b) regulatory
burden, and (c) feasibility of landfill disposal.
(a) Issues related to public health and safety:
A rationale for this approach is that it would prevent solid
material from
[[Page 9600]]
licensed facilities from entering general commerce thus limiting the
potential for radiation dose to the general public. Opponents of this
approach cite the National Academies study and the NCRP which both
indicate that 10 [mu]Sv/yr (1 mrem/yr) levels are trivial for health
reasons and, therefore, a requirement for a general prohibition would
have minimal positive health impact.
(b) Issues related to regulatory burden:
A principal comment regarding Alternative 5 is that requiring all
material, even that which has no, or very small amounts of,
radioactivity but which has some economic value, to be sent to NRC/AS-
licensed LLW disposal sites would be costly to licensees, in particular
smaller entities like hospitals, without an accompanying health and
safety benefit. However, a regulation limiting disposal of these
materials to an EPA-regulated landfill would have much smaller costs
than disposal at a licensed LLW disposal site and place much smaller
economic burden on licensees for controlling the disposition of solid
materials.
(c) Issues related to concerns over feasibility of landfill
disposal:
Some commenters expressed concern about the viability of landfill
disposal, noting that a regulatory system of restrictions to limit
solid materials would have to consider NRC, EPA, and State
responsibilities. Also, it is not clear how restrictions would work to
limit where material goes, and it is not clear that landfill operators
would accept solid material released from NRC-licensed facilities.
(3) Summary--An alternative in which all material from a licensed
facility is prohibited from release and instead disposed of either at
an EPA-regulated landfill or an NRC/AS-licensed LLW disposal site would
keep additional radioactivity out of general commerce, although would
be likely more costly than unrestricted or conditional use. If all
solid material is required to be disposed of at NRC/AS-licensed LLW
sites, the economic burden imposed might be large, especially on small
licensees, and the health benefit obtained would likely be small. The
economic burden of disposing of this solid material in an EPA-regulated
landfill should not be as large. However, some of the same concerns
noted in Section III.2.C, above, would also exist for the landfill
alternative, in particular regarding whether there would be assurance
that the material would not be diverted from, or taken from, the
landfill, and also whether landfills would accept all this material.
EPA, in cooperation with the NRC, is considering a rulemaking that
could permit disposal of certain NRC regulated material in a RCRA
permitted facility subject to, if necessary, an appropriate NRC
approval process (e.g., a site-specific or general license, or
exemption). EPA is working with NRC on an EPA Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to solicit stakeholder comment on disposing of such
materials in a RCRA regulated facility.
IV. Current Status of Efforts and Request for Additional Information
As discussed in Section III.1, there has been extensive and wide-
ranging discussion of alternatives for controlling the disposition of
solid materials as part of NRC and other organizations' efforts.
Substantial and substantive information has been developed and input
received on potential impacts of the various alternatives on public
health and regulatory burden. NRC has received over 800 comment letters
and held several public information meetings on controlling the
disposition of solid materials. In addition, the National Academies
conducted a study on this subject during which they held several
information gathering meetings open to the public, and several
scientific organizations are conducting studies and/or developing
standards in this area.
Based on the National Academies report and on other factors
affecting decision-making, the NRC staff developed a set of options for
a regulatory process for examining alternatives for controlling the
disposition of solid materials and presented these regulatory options
to the Commission in SECY-02-0133 on July 15, 2002. Based on this
information, the Commission, on October 25, 2002, directed the NRC
staff to proceed with an enhanced participatory rulemaking to develop
specific requirements for controlling the disposition of solid
materials at licensed facilities. Subsequently the staff prepared a
plan for conducting this rulemaking which the Commission approved on
January 27, 2003.
In directions to the NRC staff, the Commission noted that the
rulemaking should give fair consideration to all alternatives in
developing a proposed rule so that a broad range of alternatives is
identified and can be weighed by the Commission. In particular, the
Commission indicated that the NRC staff should seek stakeholder
participation and involvement in considering alternative approaches.
The Commission noted that, in approaching stakeholders on this issue,
the staff should reiterate the Commission's continuing support for the
release of solid materials when there are no significant health
consequences. This is consistent with the NRC's agency mandate to
ensure that the nation's use of radioactive materials is carried out in
a manner that protects the public health and safety and the
environment.
In its direction to the staff, the Commission noted the
considerable information on controlling the disposition of solid
materials previously collected (see Section III.1) and indicated that,
rather than duplicating these efforts, the staff should build on this
existing information (including the concerns and comments expressed in
public comment) and utilize it as a starting point to focus on
potential solutions. In particular, the Commission directed the staff
to explore increased use of web-based methods for interacting with
stakeholders for issues that might not warrant additional discussion at
a workshop, and to focus additional workshops on areas where
substantial new input is needed.
With regard to Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 (no action, unrestricted
use, and disposal in NRC-regulated LLW disposal sites), the efforts
described in Section III.1 have provided substantial information.
However, NRC is interested in obtaining any additional information,
beyond that expressed earlier, that should be considered for each of
the types of materials noted in Section II.1. This includes areas
where:
(a) There has been modification of the views that have been
expressed in earlier public comments on any of the alternatives;
(b) additional scientific information is available with regard to
any of the alternatives;
(c) additional economic information is available with regard to any
of the alternatives;
(d) there are new or modified alternatives beyond those discussed
above.
In certain other areas, in particular with regard to Alternative 3
(conditional use) and Alternative 4 (EPA regulated landfill disposal),
earlier information collection efforts did not obtain sufficient
information to clearly indicate the viability or economic feasibility
of these alternatives. Although these alternatives were noted by the
National Academies report as potential methods for controlling the
disposition of solid materials, earlier public comments raised concerns
about their viability. Thus, the Commission specifically directed the
staff to explore and document the feasibility of these alternatives
and, in particular, noted
[[Page 9601]]
that the staff should have discussions with stakeholders with regard to
whether the alternatives: (1) Are effective; (2) are reasonably
possible to implement; and (3) would increase public confidence in the
process. To further consider these issues, input on the following
questions is requested for each of the types of materials noted in
Section II.1:
With regard to conditional use:
(1) The intent of the conditional use alternative is that solid
material would be restricted to only certain authorized uses and kept
separate from general consumer uses. Consideration needs to be given as
to whether this alternative can: (a) Provide assurance that solid
material goes to its authorized use and is not diverted to unrestricted
use and (b) be established and implemented in a manner that is both
practical and economical. Specific questions are:
(a) Can a scrap/manufacturing/distribution process that is not
licensed by NRC provide assurance that the material is limited to its
authorized use?
(b) Would it be necessary for NRC to maintain regulatory control by
licensing all or some portion of the process (e.g., only the scrap
process or the scrap and manufacturing process)? Could involvement by
another Federal Agency in the scrap/manufacturing/ distribution process
provide assurance that the material remains with its authorized use?
What are the feasibility, cost, and increased assurance aspects of NRC
or other Federal agency involvement?
(c) What are the feasibility, economic, and assurance aspects of a
smelter facility being dedicated to such material, either full-time or
as a portion of its process capability?
(d) What end use products could be manufactured under such a
conditional use, e.g., bridge girders, sewer pipes, industrial coils?
Would there be sufficient need for these products so that a process to
manufacture them would be viable given the magnitude of material from
NRC/AS licensed facilities and/or from other facilities having similar
material?
(e) What typical lifetimes might the conditional (authorized) uses
have, and what would likely happen to the solid material after the
lifetime was over? Could the material continue to be part of a
conditional use, or would it become available for unrestricted use?
(2) What criterion of acceptability should be used before allowing
release of solid material to a conditional use (e.g., should dose-based
or concentration-based criterion be used and what should it be?)
With regard to landfill disposal:
(1) The intent of the landfill disposal alternative is that the
solid material be isolated from the public, and not be diverted to
unrestricted use, either in transit or after disposal. Specific
questions are:
(a) Would placing the material in a RCRA Subtitle C site accomplish
the goal of isolating the material from the public? If so, what
controls are in place in a RCRA Subtitle C site to provide such
assurance?
(b) Would placing the material in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill
accomplish the goal of isolating the material from the public? If so,
what controls are in place in a RCRA Subtitle D site to provide such
assurance?
(c) What criteria of acceptability should be used before allowing
disposal of solid material at a landfill such that the public and
landfill workers are protected? In particular, should a different
regulatory scheme be used depending on the radioactivity level of the
material potentially to be placed in the landfill facility, i.e. lesser
requirements if the potential dose is lower?
(d) Is it necessary for NRC to maintain regulatory control to
achieve the desired isolation of NRC regulated material from the
public? If so, is there a need for NRC to license a RCRA landfill
either under a specific or general license, or is an exemption with
specific conditions adequate to cover material that has come from NRC-
licensed facilities?
What cost considerations need to be taken into account and what
possible additional assurance of isolation might be realized under
these regulatory approaches?
(2) If EPA and/or NRC rulemaking is developed in this area, would
RCRA Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill operators accept material which
had been surveyed and released from a NRC-licensed facility?
For either conditional use or landfill disposal
(1) As a backup, should a ``cap'' be placed limiting the dose that
would occur if the restrictions for the conditional use became no
longer effective, or if the material being disposed of at a landfill
was diverted or removed from the landfill, and the material wound up in
an unrestricted use? If so, what should the cap value be?
V. Request for Comment and Announcement of Workshop
To provide opportunity to discuss the issues noted in Section IV,
we invite written and electronic comment. To supplement this request
for comment, we also plan to hold a workshop on May 21-22, 2003, at NRC
headquarters to discuss the alternatives. The workshop agenda will
afford an opportunity to discuss the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process (see Section VI of this FRN) and the alternatives being
considered, with specific emphasis on building on NRC's earlier
information collection efforts (see Section III.1). Because these
earlier efforts did not obtain sufficient information to clearly
indicate the viability of conditional use or landfill disposal, the
workshop will focus on the feasibility of these alternatives as
discussed in Section IV above, in particular with regard to the
questions raised in Section IV. The first half of the first day of the
workshop will focus on background, the NEPA process, and the
alternatives being considered for controlling the disposition of solid
materials. The second half of the first day and the majority of the
second day of the workshop will focus on conditional use and landfill
disposal. A detailed agenda will be made available in advance of the
workshop. In doing so, we will be receptive to a range of options or
scenarios for conditional use or landfill disposal to determine the
feasibility of these options that (1) are effective, (2) are reasonably
possible to implement, and (3) would increase public confidence in the
process.
VI. Scoping Process for Environmental Impact Statement
An environmental scoping process was initiated in June 1999 as part
of issuance of the Issues Paper. The rationale for combining the two
efforts was that issues raised in a scoping process and in the Issues
Paper were similar and therefore it was an efficient use of
stakeholder's time and energies to combine the two. As noted earlier,
in August 2000 the Commission decided to defer a rulemaking in this
area pending a study by the National Academies of alternatives for
controlling the disposition of solid materials. Following completion of
that study in March 2002, the Commission decided, in October 2002, to
conduct an enhanced participatory rulemaking which considers
alternatives for controlling the disposition of solid materials. Hence,
this FRN provides an opportunity to announce this rulemaking effort and
to re-open the earlier scoping process.
In a rulemaking, the Commission must 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
[[Page 9602]]
NEPA. It is the intent of NEPA to have Federal agencies incorporate
consideration of environmental issues into their decision-making
processes.
NRC regulations implementing NEPA are contained in 10 CFR Part 51.
To fulfill its responsibilities under NEPA, the NRC would prepare a
generic environmental impact statement (EIS) by analyzing alternative
courses of action and the impacts and costs associated with those
alternatives. A generic EIS would analyze alternatives for establishing
requirements for controlling the disposition of solid 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 prior to preparation of 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 controlling the disposition of solid materials from licensed
facilities may provide written or electronic comments and/or attend the
workshop indicated under the DATES heading of this notice and provide
oral comments on the proposed action and possible alternatives. Written
(and electronic) comments on the proposed action and alternatives from
the public, as well as from meeting participants, can be submitted 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 whether to
develop a regulation for controlling the disposition of solid materials
that have no, or very small amounts of, radioactivity resulting from
licensed operations.
(2) Determine EIS scope and significant issues to be analyzed in
depth. The NRC is considering analyzing the impacts and costs
associated with rule alternatives for controlling the disposition of
solid materials at licensed facilities. Information will be developed
on (a) types, and contamination levels, of solid materials present at
licensed facilities potentially available for release; (b) pathways of
exposure to, and environmental impacts of, solid materials released
from licensed facilities; and (c) regulatory alternatives and methods
of approach for analysis of the alternatives. Information is
specifically requested regarding inventory of solid materials at
licensed facilities, including quantities and radioactivity levels, and
how control processes at licensed facilities function so that materials
from different areas of a facility are kept separate to assure that
those materials with no, or very small amounts of, radioactivity do not
become mixed with those with higher levels. Information is also
requested on scenarios associated with the alternatives, and in
particular with regard to viable conditional use and landfill disposal
alternatives.
(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 issues.
Analysis of the scope of environmental impacts for this effort would be
principally intended to provide input to decision-making for
establishing acceptable regulatory alternatives for controlling the
disposition 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 by the NRC. The DOE is preparing a
programmatic EIS on disposition of scrap metals.
(5) Identify other environmental review or consultation
requirements related to the proposed action. The NRC is obtaining
contractor assistance in preparation of the generic EIS and cost
information for use in the environmental analyses. The NRC has also
placed contracts to obtain specific technical assistance regarding
material inventories, exposure pathways, collective doses, 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
decision making schedule. A draft generic EIS is scheduled to be issued
for public comment in September 2004.
(7) Identify any cooperating agencies. No cooperating agencies are
involved at this time.
(8) Describe the means by which an EIS would be prepared. As part
of its rulemaking effort, NRC will prepare a draft EIS in accordance
with its regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. Specifically, in accordance
with 10 CFR Part 51.71, a draft EIS will be prepared using the
considerations of the scoping process and will include a preliminary
analysis which 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 21st day of February 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin Virgilio,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 03-4752 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P