George Barnet; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 3221-3223 [E8-812]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Guided Missiles Specialized Industry,
and Sighting and Fire Control
Equipment Specialized Industry; and
c. Remove NAICS code ‘‘81299’’ in
the first column and ‘‘All other personal
services’’ in the second column from the
list of required NAICS codes for the
Artillery and Combat Vehicle
Specialized Industry.
[FR Doc. E8–657 Filed 1–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. PRM–20–27]
George Barnet; Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
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
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. From this site, the public
can gain entry into the NRC’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:43 Jan 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
pdr@nrc.gov.
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: fpc@nrc.gov.
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 § 20.2002 are adequate for
licensing waste disposal methods that
can be demonstrated to be safe to the
public. However, the petitioner states
that § 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 licensespecific 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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3221
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 macroencapsulated 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
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
3222
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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 CommissionLicensed 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:43 Jan 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
case-specific analysis and approval of
proposed procedures, including casespecific 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
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Indian Gaming Commission
25 CFR Part 502
Definition for Electronic or
Electromechanical Facsimile
National Indian Gaming
Commission, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Extension of Comment
Period.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming
Commission (‘‘NIGC’’) announces the
extension of the comment period on the
proposed rule concerning the Definition
for Electronic or Electromechanical
Facsimile. The proposed rule was
published in the Federal Register on
October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60482). The
NIGC is extending the comment period
to March 9, 2008.
DATES: Submit comments on the
proposed Definition for Electronic or
Electromechanical Facsimile on or
before March 9, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to
‘‘Comments on Electronic or
Electromechanical Facsimile
Definition,’’ National Indian Gaming
Commission, Suite 9100, 1441 L Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20005, Attn:
Penny Coleman, Acting General
Counsel. Comments may be transmitted
by facsimile to 202–632–0045.
Comments may be submitted
electronically to
facsimile_definition@nigc.gov.
Comments may also be submitted
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:43 Jan 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
through the Federal eRulemaking portal
at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
R. Hay, Office of General Counsel, at
202–632–7003 (this is not a toll free
call).
Congress
established the National Indian Gaming
Commission under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2701–
21) (‘‘IGRA’’) to regulate gaming on
Indian lands. The NIGC issued a
proposed rule revising the definition for
electronic or electromechanical
facsimile, which was published in the
Federal Register on October 24, 2007
(72 FR 60482). The proposed rule
provided for public comments to be
submitted by December 10, 2007. The
NIGC extended the comment period to
January 24, 2008, in the Notice of
Extension of Comment Period,
published in the Federal Register on
November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64545). The
NIGC is again extending the comment
period on the Definition for Electronic
or Electromechanical Facsimile to
March 9, 2008. Comments should be
submitted on or before March 9, 2008.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: January 11, 2008.
Philip N. Hogen,
Chairman, National Indian Gaming
Commission.
Norman H. DesRosiers,
Commissioner, National Indian Gaming
Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–760 Filed 1–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Indian Gaming Commission
25 CFR Parts 502 and 546
Classification Standards for Bingo,
Lotto, Other Games Similar to Bingo,
Pull Tabs and Instant Bingo as Class
II Gaming When Played Through an
Electronic Medium Using ‘‘Electronic,
Computer, or Other Technologic Aids’’
National Indian Gaming
Commission, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Extension of Comment
Period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming
Commission (‘‘NIGC’’) announces the
extension of the comment period on the
proposed rule concerning Classification
Standards for Bingo, Lotto, Other Games
Similar to Bingo, Pull Tabs and Instant
Bingo as Class II Gaming When Played
Through an Electronic Medium Using
‘‘Electronic, Computer, or Other
Technologic Aids.’’ The proposed rule
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3223
was published in the Federal Register
on October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60483). The
NIGC is extending the comment period
to March 9, 2008.
DATES: Submit comments on the
proposed Classification Standards for
Bingo, Lotto, Other Games Similar to
Bingo, Pull Tabs and Instant Bingo as
Class II Gaming When Played Through
an Electronic Medium Using
‘‘Electronic, Computer, or Other
Technologic Aids’’ on or before March
9, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to
‘‘Comments on Class II Classification
Standards,’’ National Indian Gaming
Commission, 1441 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005, Attn: Penny
Coleman, Acting General Counsel.
Comments may be transmitted by
facsimile to 202–632–7066. Comments
may be sent electronically to
classification_standards@nigc.gov.
Comments may also be submitted
through the Federal eRulemaking portal
at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
R. Hay, Office of General Counsel, at
202–632–7003 (this is not a toll free
call).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress
established the National Indian Gaming
Commission under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2701–
21) (‘‘IGRA’’) to regulate gaming on
Indian lands. The NIGC issued a
proposed rule regarding classification
standards for Bingo, Lotto, other games
similar to Bingo, Pull Tabs and Instant
Bingo as class II gaming when played
through an electronic medium using
electronic, computer, or other
technologic aids, which was published
in the Federal Register on October 24,
2007 (72 FR 60483). The proposed rule
provided for public comments to be
submitted by December 10, 2007. The
NIGC extended the comment period to
January 24, 2008, in the Notice of
Extension of Comment Period,
published in the Federal Register on
November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64545). The
NIGC is again extending the comment
period on the proposed Classification
Standards for Bingo, Lotto, Other Games
Similar to Bingo, Pull Tabs and Instant
Bingo as Class II Gaming When Played
Through an Electronic Medium Using
‘‘Electronic, Computer, or Other
Technologic Aids’’ to March 9, 2008.
Comments should be submitted on or
before March 9, 2008.
Importantly, the deadline for
submitting comments on the burden,
estimates or any other aspects of the
information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., remains
E:\FR\FM\17JAP1.SGM
17JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3221-3223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://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 pdr@nrc.gov.
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: fpc@nrc.gov.
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
