[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35090-35100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16598]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 20


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment on issues paper and scoping process, and 
notice of plans for public meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering a 
rulemaking that would set specific requirements on releases of solid 
materials in order to establish a regulatory framework more consistent 
with existing NRC requirements on air and liquid releases. The NRC is 
seeking early public input on the major issues associated with such a 
rulemaking, including conducting a scoping process related to the scope 
of environmental impacts. To aid in that process, the NRC is requesting 
comments on the issues discussed in this notice. NRC also intends to 
conduct four public meetings beginning in August of this year. This 
document provides background and topics of discussion for those 
meetings.

DATES: Submit comments by November 15, 1999. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but the 
Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received 
on or before this date.
    In addition to providing opportunity for written (and electronic) 
comments, public meetings on the issues paper and scoping process will 
be held as follows:

August 4-5, 1999--Chicago, Illinois, 8:30 am-5 pm, Hyatt Regency 
McCormick Place, 2233 South Martin Luther King Dr, Chicago, Illinois
September 15-16, 1999--San Francisco, California, 8:30 am-5 pm Radisson 
Miyako Hotel, 1625 Post Street, San Francisco, California
October 5-6, 1999--Atlanta, Georgia, 8:30 am-5 pm, Crown Plaza Atlanta 
Powers Ferry, 6345 Power Ferry Road NW, Atlanta, Georgia
November 1-2, 1999--Rockville, Maryland, 8:30 am-5 pm NRC Auditorium, 
15545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications staff.
    Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
    You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking 
website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site 
provides the capability to upload comments as files (any format), if 
your web browser supports that function. For information about the 
interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-
5905 (e-mail: [email protected]).
    Copies of any comments received may be examined at the NRC Public 
Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

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