[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3221-3223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-812]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. PRM-20-27]


George Barnet; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition 
for rulemaking (PRM-20-27) dated July 11, 2007, submitted by George 
Barnet (petitioner). The petitioner requested that NRC amend its 
regulations that govern standards for protection against radiation to 
broaden the scope of the requirements pertaining to approval of 
proposed disposal methods to include recovery of material for 
recycling. The NRC is denying the petition because the issues raised by 
the petitioner fall within the scope of the rationale for a recent 
Commission decision to not conduct rulemaking in the area of setting 
radiological criteria for controlling the disposition of solid 
materials. The rationale for the Commission decision was that the 
current NRC approach for disposition of solid materials is fully 
protective of public health and safety, and that NRC is currently faced 
with several high priority and complex tasks.

ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this petition may be 
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy 
documents for a fee.
    Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are also 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 or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Cardile, Office of Federal and 
State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: 301-415-
6185 or Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642, or e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Petition

    On July 11, 2007, the NRC received a petition for rulemaking 
submitted by George Barnet (petitioner). The petitioner requested that 
NRC revise its regulations in 10 CFR Part 20, ``Standards for 
Protection Against Radiation.'' Specifically, the petitioner requested 
that 10 CFR 20.2002, ``Method for obtaining approval of proposed 
disposal procedures'' be amended by broadening its scope to allow for 
the recycling of materials. The NRC determined that the petition met 
the threshold sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking 
under 10 CFR 2.802. The petition was docketed by the NRC as PRM-20-27 
on July 25, 2007.
    The petitioner states that the current provisions at Sec.  20.2002 
are adequate for licensing waste disposal methods that can be 
demonstrated to be safe to the public. However, the petitioner states 
that Sec.  20.2002 does not provide for a similar method to demonstrate 
that materials can be recycled after being decontaminated. The 
petitioner states that it is environmentally unsound to not allow for 
reasonable and safe recycling options for recoverable materials.
    In support of the petition, the petitioner notes that equipment and 
materials are routinely decontaminated and monitored for reuse for 
unlicensed applications under license-specific monitoring requirements 
for surface decontamination. The petitioner states that because no 
specific regulation currently exists to permit these license-specific 
recycling and reuse activities, most unwanted potentially contaminated 
lead is buried as waste. The petitioner also notes that the most 
economical method for licensees to get rid of unwanted lead is to send 
it to a licensed mixed waste processor for macro-encapsulation, and 
then dispose of it at a licensed mixed waste site. The petitioner 
states that this is both environmentally and economically unsound 
because the potentially contaminated lead is a valuable resource that 
is not being conserved or recovered under NRC's current regulations.
    The petitioner states that the company at which he is a 
Radiological Safety Officer, the Toxco Materials Management Center 
(TMMC), has developed a more economical and environmentally sound 
method for the processing of potentially contaminated lead that has 
been in contact with radioactive materials. The petitioner explains 
that this method separates contaminated materials into the lead oxide 
layer of slag that forms on top of the melted lead. The slag is only a 
very minor percentage of the total quantity of lead processed and can 
be macro-encapsulated and disposed of as mixed waste. The petitioner 
states that the remaining lead exhibits little or no detectable 
radioactivity.
    The petitioner also explains that TMMC developed volumetric 
clearance criteria to show that no person who came in contact with the 
decontaminated lead would exceed the 1 mrem/year limit in its Agreement 
State license with the Tennessee Division of Radiological Health 
(TDRH). The petitioner states that these criteria and their bases were 
submitted to TDRH as part of a license amendment request to permit 
decontaminated lead to be recycled as cleared materials exempt from 
licensing requirements. The petitioner further states that TDRH 
requested that TMMC refer the request to the NRC based on ``a lack of 
regulatory precedent at the [Federal] level for recycling of metals.''

II. Reasons for Denial

    NRC is denying this petition because the issues raised by the 
petitioner's request fall within the scope of the rationale for a 
recent Commission decision to not conduct rulemaking in the area of 
setting radiological criteria for controlling the disposition of solid 
materials. The Commission's decision was made in response to a draft 
proposed rule provided to the Commission by the NRC staff (SECY-05-0054 
``Proposed Rule Radiological Criteria for Controlling the Disposition 
of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18)''; March 31, 2005: ADAMS Accession 
No. ML041550790). In its June 1, 2005, response to that proposed rule 
(Staff Requirements Memorandum SRM-SECY-05-0054; ADAMS Accession No. 
052010263), the Commission indicated that it was disapproving 
publication of the draft proposed rule and deferring

[[Page 3222]]

the rulemaking for the time being. The Commission's rationale for its 
disapproval included the fact that the NRC's current approach to review 
specific cases on an individual basis is fully protective of public 
health and safety, and that the NRC is currently faced with several 
high priority and complex tasks. The petitioner has not provided 
additional material not considered in a general manner by the 
Commission in reaching its decision not to pursue rulemaking in this 
area.
    Additional background on the NRC staff rulemaking activities and 
the Commission decision disapproving the rulemaking, and the 
implication of those actions related to this petition, follows in this 
section. NRC's current approach to reviewing specific cases is provided 
in Section 2 of Appendix B of the draft Generic Environmental Impact 
Statement (GEIS), prepared with the rulemaking, and in Section 
15.11.1.2 of Volume 1, Revision 2 of NUREG-1757. Agreement State 
approaches are described in Section 3 of Appendix B of the draft GEIS.
    Prior to June 1, 2005, the NRC conducted a rulemaking to amend 10 
CFR Part 20 to include radiological criteria for controlling the 
disposition of solid materials that have no, or very small amounts of, 
residual radioactivity resulting from licensed operations, and which 
originate in restricted or impacted areas of NRC licensed facilities. 
In conducting the rulemaking, NRC noted that its existing regulations 
contain a framework of radiation standards to ensure protection of 
public health and safety from the routine use of materials at licensed 
facilities. These standards include a public dose limit in Part 20 and 
dose criteria for certain types of media released from licensed 
facilities. However, the NRC also noted that Part 20 does not contain a 
specific dose criterion to be used to verify that solid materials being 
considered for release have no, or very small amounts of, residual 
radioactivity. Instead, NRC's current approach was (and is) to make 
decisions on disposition of solid materials by using a set of existing 
guidelines based primarily on measured radioactivity levels of 
material, rather than on a dose criterion. In a report (``The 
Disposition Dilemma; Controlling the Release of Solid Materials from 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Facilities''; National Research 
Council; 2022) reviewing NRC's current approach, the National Academies 
indicated that this current NRC approach is ``sufficiently protective 
of health and safety that it does not need immediate revamping.'' 
However, because the current approach does not derive from a specific 
regulation, NRC decisions in this area tended to be inefficient because 
they lacked an overall risk basis, consistency, and regulatory 
finality. Thus, the intent of NRC's rulemaking was to improve NRC's 
regulatory process by incorporating risk-informed criteria directly 
into the NRC's regulations.
    During the rulemaking, NRC engaged in several information-gathering 
activities to seek stakeholder participation and input on alternate 
disposition approaches, and the issues involved with them. These 
activities included several public meetings, as well as the opportunity 
for the public to comment directly on two Federal Register notices, 
published on June 30, 1999 (64 FR 35090) and February 28, 2003 (68 FR 
9595), containing a discussion of the alternate approaches. In 
addition, the NRC staff reviewed various related reports prepared by 
recognized national and international organizations such as the 
National Academies, the National Council on Radiation Protection and 
Measurements, the American National Standards Institute, and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency. In particular, the National 
Academies undertook an extensive review of NRC's current approach from 
the standpoint of whether it is protective of public health and safety, 
effective and efficient, and adequately able to be implemented using 
NRC's analysis methodology. The National Academies also looked at how 
the public had been involved in the rulemaking process. As a result of 
its review, the National Academies made nine recommendations in its 
final report, including an overarching finding that, although NRC's 
decision process for review of the disposition of solid materials has 
shortcomings, it was workable and sufficiently protective of public 
health and safety that it did not need immediate revamping.
    The NRC staff also completed several technical studies to evaluate 
alternatives for controlling the disposition of solid materials, 
including preparation of a draft of a Draft Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement as part of SECY-05-0054.
    Based on this effort, on March 31, 2005, the NRC staff provided to 
the Commission a draft proposed rule contained in SECY-05-0054. The 
draft proposed rule would have amended 10 CFR Part 20 to include a dose 
criterion for disposition of solid material and provisions for allowing 
certain limited disposition paths for solid materials. The proposed 
draft rule also contained provisions for allowance of other disposition 
paths, if supported by a case-specific analysis and approval of 
proposed procedures, including case-specific requests for soil 
disposition and metal recycle. Solid materials originating at licensed 
facilities in restricted or impacted areas, and considered as part of 
the draft proposed rulemaking, included metals in various components 
and equipment, individual tools, concrete; soils, laboratory materials, 
process materials, trash, etc.
    Following submittal of SECY-05-0054, the Commission conducted a 
review of the provisions of the staff's draft proposed rulemaking 
including potential alternate approaches, one of which would be to take 
no action towards issuing a proposed rule in this area. In its review, 
the Commission also considered the wide range of other activities which 
NRC is engaged in. These activities include efforts towards increasing 
security at all licensed facilities, i.e., at both reactors and at the 
wide range of materials facilities which possess radioactive materials 
for use in medical applications, research, industrial measurement 
gauges, etc. Other significant NRC actions include efforts to prepare 
to review planned applications for new reactors, waste disposal 
facility considerations, fuel cycle facility management, 
decommissioning of facilities, etc. In each of these areas, and 
especially in the area of security and new reactors, there is a need to 
establish criteria in those areas where none exist now or where they 
may need updating. The Commission balanced those considerations against 
the purpose of the rulemaking on disposition of solid materials and 
decided, on June 1, 2005, to defer the rulemaking for the time being 
because NRC's current approach in that area was fully protective, and 
the other high priority and complex tasks were occupying its attention 
as well as the attention of the whole agency.
    The petitioner's request essentially fits into the general 
considerations that the Commission already considered in deciding to 
defer the rulemaking on disposition of solid materials. The origin and 
nature of materials similar to those being considered in the petition, 
as well as considerations regarding their potential intended 
destinations, were all considered and reviewed as part of the 
rulemaking process leading to the draft proposed rule in SECY-05-0054 
and the Commission decision to defer the rulemaking in June 2005. The 
petitioner has not presented information or considerations 
substantially different from those reviewed in the rulemaking process. 
Therefore, NRC is denying this petition for the same reasons that the 
Commission, on June 1, 2005, deferred

[[Page 3223]]

the rulemaking on disposition of solid materials.

III. Conclusion

    The NRC is denying the petition because the issues raised by the 
petitioner fall within the scope of the rationale for a recent 
Commission decision to not conduct rulemaking in the area of setting 
radiological criteria for controlling the disposition of solid 
materials. The rationale for the Commission decision was that the 
current NRC approach for disposition of solid materials is fully 
protective of public health and safety, and that NRC is currently faced 
with several high priority and complex tasks.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes,
Executive Director for Operations.
 [FR Doc. E8-812 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P