[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30175-30179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14820]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0257]
Notice of Public Workshop on a Potential Rulemaking for Safe
Disposal of Unique Waste Streams Including Significant Quantities of
Depleted Uranium
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public workshop and a request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to conduct
two public workshops to solicit public input on major issues associated
with a potential rulemaking for land disposal of unique waste streams
including, but not limited to, significant quantities of depleted
uranium in near-surface radioactive waste disposal facilities. The
public workshops are intended to solicit the views of representatives
of interests that may be affected by the rulemaking. Members of the
public are invited to provide written comments on the issues presented
in this notice and to attend the workshops to provide feedback on the
potential rulemaking. The public workshops will be held in Rockville,
Maryland on September 2-3, 2009 and in Salt Lake City, Utah on
September 23-24, 2009.
DATES: Members of the public may provide feedback at the transcribed
public workshops or may submit written comments on the issues discussed
in this notice. Comments on issues for the agenda should be postmarked
no later than August 1, 2009. Comments on the issues and questions
presented in this notice and discussed at the workshops should be
postmarked no later than October 30, 2009. Comments received after
these dates will be considered if it is practical to do so. NRC plans
to consider these stakeholder views in the development of a technical
basis for the planned rulemaking. Written comments may be sent to the
address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Questions about participation
in the roundtable discussion at the public workshops should be directed
to the facilitator at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section.
Members of the public planning to attend the workshops are invited to
RSVP at least ten (10) days prior to each workshop. Replies should be
directed to the points of contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
The public workshops will be held in Rockville, Maryland on
September 2, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on September 3, 2009, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and in Salt Lake City, Utah on September 23, 2009,
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on September 24, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The location of and final agenda for each public workshop will be
noticed no fewer than ten (10) days prior to each workshop on the NRC's
electronic public workshop schedule at http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for additional information on the issues proposed
for discussion at the public workshops.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Chief, Rulemaking and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop TWB
5B01M, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice, or by fax at 301- 492-
3446. Comments may also be submitted electronicallly at http://www.regulations.gov. Search on docket ID NRC-2009-0257.
Questions regarding participation in the roundtable discussions
should be submitted to the facilitator, Francis Cameron, by mail to
Mail Stop O16-E15, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-1006 or 240-205-2091, or by e-mail
at [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Priya Yadav, Office of Federal and
State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-
6667; e-mail [email protected], or Christopher Grossman, Office of
Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
301-415-7658; e-mail [email protected].
The public may examine and have copied for a fee, publicly
available documents at the Public Document Room, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents
created or received at NRC after November 1, 1999, are available
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, the public can gain
entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents.
If you do not have access to ADAMS, contact the Public Document Room at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub.
L. 99-240) sets forth the Federal policy, including responsibilities,
for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste to ensure available
disposal capacity for all classes of waste, as specified by Title 10,
Sec. 61.55, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Existing NRC
regulations in 10 CFR 61.55 specify criteria for determining the
classification of low-level radioactive waste for land disposal at a
near-surface facility. The original development of 10 CFR 61.55 did not
explicitly consider the impacts resulting from the disposal of
significant quantities of depleted uranium from the operation of a
commercial uranium enrichment facility (``Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on 10 CFR Part 61 Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of
Radioactive Waste,'' NUREG-0782, 1981, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML060930564
(vol. 1), ML060930573 (vol. 2), ML060930577 (vol. 3), and ML060930583
(vol. 4); ``Final Environmental Impact Statement on 10 CFR Part 61
Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,'' NUREG-
0945, 1982, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML052590184 (vol. 1) and ML052920727
(vol. 2)). When 10 CFR Part 61 was initially developed, there were no
commercial facilities generating significant quantities of depleted
uranium waste. As a result, the analysis only considered the types of
uranium-bearing waste streams being typically
[[Page 30176]]
disposed by the NRC licensees at the time.
The NRC issued licenses for two commercial uranium enrichment
facilities in 2006 and 2007, which are expected to generate significant
quantities of depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is source material, as
defined by Section 11(z) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
and if treated as a waste would fall under the definition of a low-
level radioactive waste under 10 CFR 61.55(a). The NRC reaffirmed this
waste classification in Memorandum and Order CLI-05-20 dated October
19, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052930035). Consistent with its policy
to increase the use of risk-informed decision-making in all regulatory
matters (``Staff Requirements--COMSECY-96-061--Risk-Informed,
Performance-Based Regulation (DSI 12)'', April 15, 1997, ADAMS
Accession No. ML003671740), the NRC considered in a screening analysis
(``Response to Commission Order CLI-05-20 Regarding Depleted Uranium,''
SECY-08-0147, October 7, 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML081820762) whether
quantities of depleted uranium at issue in the waste stream from
commercial uranium enrichment facilities warrant amending the waste
classification tables in 10 CFR 61.55(a) or amending 10 CFR
61.55(a)(6). The NRC decided to pursue a limited rulemaking to specify
a requirement for a site-specific analysis and associated technical
requirements for unique waste streams including, but not limited to,
the disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium (``Staff
Requirements--SECY-08-0147--Response to Commission Order CLI-05-20
Regarding Depleted Uranium,'' SRM-SECY-08-0147, March 18, 2009, ADAMS
Accession No. ML090770988). In pursuing this limited rulemaking, the
NRC is not proposing to alter the waste classification scheme. However,
for unique waste streams including, but not limited to, significant
quantities of depleted uranium, there may be a need to place additional
criteria on its disposal at a specific facility or deny such disposal
based on unique site characteristics. Those restrictions would be
determined via a site-specific analysis that satisfies the requirements
developed through this rulemaking process.
In advance of this planned rulemaking, NRC will conduct public
workshops inviting representatives of the stakeholders affected by the
rulemaking in a ``roundtable'' format. At these workshops, NRC plans to
discuss with stakeholders the issues to be considered in the rulemaking
and the technical parameters of concern for a site-specific analysis
associated with the disposal of unique waste streams, including
significant quantities of depleted uranium. NRC plans to consider these
stakeholder views in the development of a technical basis for the
planned rulemaking.
In order to have a manageable discussion, the number of
participants around the table will, of necessity, be limited. The NRC,
through the facilitator of the workshop, will attempt to ensure broad
participation by the spectrum of interests affected by the rulemaking,
including citizen and environmental groups, nuclear industry interests,
state, tribal, and local governments, and experts from academia and
other federal agencies. Other members of the public are welcome to
attend. Those not seated at the tables, including individual members of
the public, will have the opportunity to provide feedback on each of
the issues slated for discussion by the roundtable participants.
Questions about participation in the roundtable discussion may be
directed to the facilitator.
Section II describes issues associated with disposal of unique
waste streams in general, while Section III describes specific issues
associated with technical parameters for a site-specific analysis for
disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium that were
identified from the screening analysis (SECY-08-0147, October 7, 2008).
II. Issues With Disposal of Unique Waste Streams
This section discusses issues associated with a regulatory
definition of unique waste streams that should be considered before
commencing regulatory activities related to technical requirements for
a site-specific analysis for land disposal of unique waste streams in
the near-surface. Each issue is assigned a number, a short title, and a
list of questions and factors for consideration. These issues,
questions, and factors are not meant to be a complete or final list,
but are intended to initiate discussion. Interested stakeholders are
welcome to recommend additions, deletions, or modifications to the key
issues for consideration. These issues and factors will focus the
discussion at the public workshops. All public feedback will be used in
developing options for NRC consideration.
Issue II-1. Definition of Unique Waste Streams
The NRC plans to propose a rulemaking in 10 CFR Part 61 to specify
a requirement for a site-specific analysis for the disposal of unique
waste streams including, but not limited to, significant quantities of
depleted uranium. As part of this planned rulemaking, NRC will solicit
stakeholder views on considerations for a regulatory definition for
unique waste streams requiring a site-specific analysis.
Question II-1.1--Should the NRC propose a regulatory definition to
(a) specify general criteria that would capture both current and
foreseeable unique waste streams; or (b) limit the definition to a
known set of current unique waste streams including significant
quantities of depleted uranium? What characteristics should NRC propose
as defining for unique waste streams?
Question II-1.2--What waste streams containing radionuclides listed
in the waste classification tables at 10 CFR 61.55 are currently, or
possibly in the foreseeable future, being disposed of in quantities
significantly greater than initially considered in the development of
10 CFR Part 61?
Question II-1.3--What waste streams containing radionuclides that
are not listed in the waste classification tables at 10 CFR 61.55 are
currently, or possibly in the foreseeable future, being disposed of in
concentrations or quantities significantly greater than initially
considered in the development of 10 CFR Part 61?
Question II-1.4--What waste streams that were not considered in the
initial development of 10 CFR Part 61 should be considered under the
definition of ``unique waste streams''?
Question II-1.5--Should the NRC consider waste streams that result
from spent fuel reprocessing and are not high-level or greater-than-
class C waste in the definition of ``unique waste streams''?
Question II-1.6--Are there other characteristics besides
concentration and quantity that NRC should consider when defining
``unique waste streams''?
Issue II-2. Time Period of Performance
While a period of 10,000 years was initially considered in NUREG-
0782 (1981), 10 CFR Part 61 does not specify a period to evaluate
performance of a near-surface low-level radioactive disposal facility,
in part due to the effects of site and waste characteristics on the
timing of projected radiological doses. NRC continues to consider
10,000 years a sufficient period, with some exceptions, to capture (i)
the risk from the short-lived radionuclides, which comprise the bulk of
the activity disposed; and (ii) the peak radiological doses from the
more mobile long-lived radionuclides, which tend to bound the
[[Page 30177]]
potential radiological doses at time frames greater than 10,000 years
(``A Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Facilities'', NUREG-1573, 2000, ADAMS Accession No.
ML003770778). Internationally, selection of a time frame for evaluation
of facility performance has generally considered the hazard and
longevity of the waste, the analysis framework (i.e., scenarios,
receptors, and pathways), socioeconomic uncertainties, and uncertainty
in extending models and data to times beyond those for which the
underlying assumptions can be justified (``Safety Assessment for Near
Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste'', Safety Standards Series No.
WS-G-1.1, International Atomic Energy Agency, 1999, available
electronically at http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1075_web.pdf; ``The Handling of Timescales in Assessing Post-
closure Safety--Lessons Learnt from the April 2002 Workshop in Paris,
France'', Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Nuclear Energy Agency, 2004, available electronically at http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/reports/2004/nea4435-timescales.pdf). As part of a
planned rulemaking, NRC is soliciting stakeholder views regarding a
time period to evaluate the performance of near-surface disposal of
unique waste streams.
Question II-2.1--Should the NRC (a) specify a single time period to
evaluate the performance of facilities disposing of all unique waste
streams in the near-surface; (b) specify criteria requiring the
consideration of how the hazard for each unique waste stream evolves
over time; or (c) permit a licensee to justify a period of performance?
Question II-2.2--If NRC were to specify a single time period for
site-specific analysis of facilities disposing of unique waste streams
in the near-surface, what would be an appropriate period? What factors
should NRC consider in determining a single time period of performance?
Question II-2.3--If NRC were to specify criteria requiring the
consideration of how the hazard evolves over time for each unique waste
stream, what factors should NRC consider in determining these criteria?
Question II-2.4--If NRC were to permit a licensee to justify a time
period of performance, what factors should NRC consider when evaluating
a licensee's justification?
Question II-2.5--If NRC were to specify criteria requiring the
consideration of how the hazard evolves over time, or permit a licensee
to justify a time period of performance, should the NRC consider
limiting the maximum extent of the time period considered? If so, what
factors should NRC consider when specifying a maximum period of
performance?
Question II-2.6--What other approaches might NRC consider when
specifying criteria for a period of performance for facilities
disposing of unique waste streams in the near-surface?
Issue II-3. Exposure Scenarios for a Site-Specific Analysis
Disposal of radioactive waste in near-surface disposal facilities
has several performance objectives, specified at 10 CFR Part 61,
including protection of the general population from releases of
radioactivity and protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion.
In developing the waste classification scheme in 10 CFR Part 61, NRC
performed an analysis (NUREG-0782, 1981; NUREG-0945, 1982) applying
several assumptions with respect to exposure scenarios and potential
receptors. Following the period of active institutional control, the
member of the public was assumed to engage in residential,
agricultural, or other activities at the boundary of the 100 meter (330
feet) buffer zone surrounding the disposal area that circumscribes the
disposal units. These assumed activities were consistent with regional
practices current at the time of the analysis. Additionally, the
analysis assumed that an inadvertent intruder engaged in activities on
the disposal site rather than outside the buffer zone following the
period of active institutional control. The inadvertent intruder
exposure scenario assumed the exposure via either disruption of waste
during the excavation and construction of a residence on the disposal
site (i.e., intruder-construction) or occupation of a dwelling located
on the disposal site and ingestion of food grown in contaminated soils
(i.e., intruder-agriculture) if the waste had degraded to an
unrecognizable form. As part of a planned rulemaking NRC is considering
whether to specify criteria or provide guidance for appropriate
exposure scenarios for site-specific analyses associated with disposal
of unique waste streams.
Question II-3.1--Should NRC specify technical criteria for, or
permit licensees to justify, site-specific exposure scenarios for
demonstrating compliance with the performance objective protecting
members of the public for unique waste streams? What factors should NRC
consider in specifying technical criteria or reviewing licensee
justifications for exposure scenarios associated with members of the
public?
Question II-3.2--Should NRC specify technical criteria for, or
permit licensees to justify, site-specific exposure scenarios for
demonstrating compliance with the performance objective protecting
individuals from inadvertent intrusion for unique waste streams? What
factors should NRC consider in specifying technical criteria, or
reviewing licensee justifications, for inadvertent intruder exposure
scenarios?
III. Issues With Disposal of Significant Quantities of Depleted Uranium
This section discusses major issues to be considered before
commencing regulatory activities related to requirements for a site-
specific analysis for near-surface land disposal of significant
quantities of depleted uranium, a unique waste stream. Each issue is
assigned a number, a short title, and a list of questions and factors
for consideration. These issues, questions, and factors are not meant
to be a complete or final list, but are intended to initiate
discussion. Interested stakeholders are welcome to recommend additions,
deletions, or modifications to the key issues for consideration and
propose implementation considerations. These issues and factors will
serve as the basis for discussion at the public workshops. All public
feedback will be used in developing implementation options for NRC
consideration.
Issue III-1. Definition of Significant Quantities
The NRC plans to propose a rulemaking in 10 CFR Part 61 to specify
a requirement for a site-specific analysis for the disposal of
significant quantities of depleted uranium (SRM-SECY-08-0147, March 18,
2009). As part of this rulemaking, the NRC intends to define
``significant quantities'' of depleted uranium in the regulation.
Recently, the NRC performed an analysis that confirmed that small
quantities of depleted uranium (approximately 1-10 metric tons) may be
disposed of at shallow depths and meet the performance objectives
specified in 10 CFR Part 61. This result is consistent with the
conclusions of an earlier analysis that the types of uranium-bearing
waste streams typically disposed of by NRC licensees in limited
quantities do not present a significant hazard to warrant limitation on
the concentration of this naturally occurring material (NUREG-0945,
1982). Because small quantities and lower concentrations of uranium
were
[[Page 30178]]
previously evaluated and recently re-affirmed, the rulemaking will
focus on ensuring additional disposal considerations are taken for
depleted uranium based on the quantity and concentration of material at
issue.
Question III-1.1--Should NRC specify a lower quantity limit in the
definition of ``significant quantities'' for near-surface disposal? If
so, what factors should NRC consider in setting an appropriate lower
threshold for near-surface disposal?
Question III-1.2--Should NRC specify an upper quantity limit in the
definition of ``significant quantities''? If so, what factors should
NRC consider in setting an appropriate upper threshold for near-surface
disposal?
Question III-1.3--Are there alternative methods NRC should consider
when specifying criteria to define ``significant quantities''?
Issue III-2. Time Period of Performance for a Site-Specific Analysis
In addition to the issue described earlier in Section II for unique
waste streams, generally, the following questions are provided to focus
discussion on the disposal of significant quantities of depleted
uranium.
Question III-2.1--If NRC were to specify a single time period for
the site-specific analysis of near-surface disposal of unique waste
streams (see Question II.2.1), what factors associated with disposal of
significant quantities of depleted uranium should NRC consider in
determining a single time period of performance for unique waste
streams, including significant quantities of depleted uranium?
Question III-2.2--If NRC were to specify criteria requiring the
consideration of hazards for each unique waste stream evolving over
time (see Question II.2.1), what factors should NRC consider in
determining these criteria for disposal of significant quantities of
depleted uranium?
Question III-2.3--If NRC were to permit a licensee to justify a
time period of performance (see Question II.2.1), what factors should
NRC consider when evaluating a licensee's justification for disposal of
significant quantities of depleted uranium?
Question III-2.4--If NRC were to specify criteria requiring the
consideration of how the hazard evolves over time, or permit a licensee
to justify a reasonable time period of performance (see Question II-
2.1), should the NRC consider limiting the maximum extent of the time
period considered for disposal of significant quantities of depleted
uranium? If so, what factors should NRC consider when specifying a
maximum period of performance?
Question III-2.5--What other approaches might NRC consider when
specifying criteria for a period of performance for near-surface
disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium?
Issue III-3. Exposure Scenario(s) for a Site-Specific Analysis
In addition to the issue described earlier in Section II for unique
waste streams, generally, the following questions are provided to focus
discussion on the disposal of significant quantities of depleted
uranium.
Question III-3.1--What factors specific to disposal of significant
quantities of depleted uranium should NRC consider in specifying
criteria or reviewing a licensee's justification for exposure scenarios
for protection of members of the public?
Question III-3.2--What factors specific to disposal of significant
quantities of depleted uranium should NRC consider in specifying
criteria or reviewing a licensee's justification for exposure scenarios
for the protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion?
Issue III-4. Source Term Issues for a Site-Specific Analysis
Depleted uranium can have a variety of chemical and physical forms
which are dependent on enrichment and deconversion processing. For
instance, depleted uranium is commonly stored as a hexafluoride gas
byproduct material. Depleted uranium hexafluoride gas may also be
deconverted to an oxide form. Recently, the NRC performed a screening
analysis (SECY-08-0147, October 7, 2008) that confirmed that small
quantities of depleted uranium (approximately 1-10 metric tons) may be
disposed of at shallow depths and meet the performance objectives
specified in 10 CFR 61. This screening analysis assumed that depleted
uranium would be disposed of in an oxide form following deconversion.
NRC is seeking stakeholder views on modeling source terms in a site-
specific analysis for near-surface disposal of significant quantities
of depleted uranium.
Question III-4.1--Should NRC specify or permit licensees to propose
physical or chemical forms (e.g., UF6,
U3O8, metal) for disposal of significant
quantities of depleted uranium? If so, what factors should NRC consider
in specifying criteria for or developing guidance to review an analysis
of physical or chemical forms?
Question III-4.2--Should NRC specify criteria for, or permit
licensees to justify, stabilizing admixtures (e.g., grout) for disposal
of significant quantities of depleted uranium? If so, what factors
should NRC consider in specifying criteria for, or developing guidance
to review, an analysis of admixtures?
Question III-4.3--What other factors should NRC consider when
specifying criteria, or developing technical guidance, regarding waste
forms for disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium in
near-surface facilities?
Question III-4.4--Should NRC require a site-specific analysis to
capture previously disposed quantities of depleted uranium? If so, what
factors should NRC consider when specifying criteria, or developing
technical guidance, regarding previously disposed quantities of
depleted uranium?
Issue III-5. Modeling of Uranium Geochemistry in a Site-Specific
Analysis
The NRC plans to propose a rulemaking in 10 CFR Part 61 to specify
a requirement for a site-specific analysis for the disposal of
significant quantities of depleted uranium. Recently, the NRC performed
a screening analysis (SECY-08-0147, October 7, 2008) that confirmed
that small quantities of depleted uranium (approximately 1-10 metric
tons) may be disposed of at shallow depths and meet the performance
objectives specified in 10 CFR Part 61. The results of this analysis
noted the dependence of disposal facility performance on site-specific
geochemical conditions. Geochemical conditions were represented in the
screening analysis as epistemic uncertainty over a broad range of
disposal sites and conditions. In reality, many of these parameters may
be constrained at a particular disposal facility.
Question III-5.1--Should NRC specify regulatory criteria for, or
permit licensees to justify, site-specific geochemical parameters for
the analysis of disposal of significant quantities of depleted uranium?
Question III-5.2--If NRC should specify regulatory criteria, then
what factors should NRC consider in developing criteria for geochemical
parameters for a site-specific analysis for disposal of significant
quantities of depleted uranium?
Question III-5.3--If NRC should permit licensees to justify site-
specific geochemical parameters, then what factors should NRC consider
when reviewing a licensee's justification?
Question III-5.4--What new or alternative approaches should NRC
consider regarding the incorporation of
[[Page 30179]]
geochemical parameters in a site-specific analysis for disposal of
significant quantities of depleted uranium?
Issue III-6. Modeling of Radon in the Environment in a Site-Specific
Analysis
Over time, the uranium isotopes comprising depleted uranium decay
to multiple progeny radionuclides. Many of these progeny radionuclides
are different elements, and differ from depleted uranium in their
radiotoxicity and mobility in the environment. Among the progeny
radionuclides exhibiting these differing characteristics, radon-222 is
of particular interest because it exists as a gas under typical
environmental conditions and presents a unique challenge to evaluate in
a site-specific analysis of the performance of a near-surface, low-
level radioactive waste disposal facility. Analyzing the mobility of
radon-222 in the environment involves demonstrating a reasonable
understanding of the emanation of the radon gas from the depleted
uranium solids, and migration to the surface of the disposal facility.
Additionally, NRC anticipates that radon migration may require policy
considerations of societal uncertainties in developing appropriate
exposure scenarios.
Question III-6.1--What new approaches for modeling radon emanation,
migration, and exposure pathways, including the effects of differences
in the physical and chemical properties between radon and its progeny,
should NRC consider?
Question III-6.2--Should NRC require licensees to evaluate the
effects of radon in a site-specific analysis for disposal of
significant quantities of depleted uranium in near-surface facilities?
Question III-6.3--Should NRC specify by regulation, or develop
guidance on, the technical parameters for evaluating radon emanation,
migration, and exposure in a site-specific analysis of significant
quantities of depleted uranium?
Question III-6.4--If NRC should specify by regulation the technical
parameters for evaluating radon emanation, migration, and exposure,
what factors should NRC consider in specifying technical parameters for
a site-specific analysis for significant quantities of depleted
uranium?
Question III-6.5--If NRC should develop guidance on the technical
parameters for evaluating radon emanation, migration, and exposures to
accompany regulatory criteria, then what factors should NRC consider in
the development of guidance for evaluating technical parameters for a
site-specific analysis for disposal of significant quantities of
depleted uranium?
Question III-6.6--What societal uncertainties should NRC consider
when developing guidance for scenarios of exposure to radon gas
released from the disposal of significant quantities of depleted
uranium?
Question III-6.7--What alternative methods should NRC consider when
developing guidance on evaluating the impacts of radon gas exposures?
For instance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards at 40 CFR
Part 192 for the control of residual radioactive materials from
inactive uranium mill tailings sites specify that releases of radon-222
to the atmosphere will not exceed an average release rate of 20
picoCuries per square meter per second or increase the annual average
concentration of radon-222 in air at or above any location outside the
disposal site by more than 0.5 picoCuries per liter.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day of June, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrice M. Bubar,
Deputy Director, Environmental Protection and Performance Assessment
Directorate, Division of Waste Management, and Environmental Protection
Office of Federal and State Materials, and Environmental Management
Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-14820 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P