[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