p.1 

PICK-UPDATE: 3/15/2007 

BOX OF ^0 

Step 2: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE 

ONLY 

(PART B of B) 

EPA DOCKET ID: 102RQ-RN 

1) 102RQ-RN-5-16 

3) 102RQ-RN-5-18 

5) 102RQ-RN-5-20 

7) 102RQ-RN-5-22 

9) 102RQ-RN-5-24 

11) 102RQ-RN-5-26 

13) 102RQ-RN-5-28 

15) 102RQ-RN-5-30 

17) 102RQ-RN-6-1 

19) 102RQ-RN-6-3 

21) 102RQ-RN-6-5 

23) 102RQ-RN-6-7 

25) 102RQ-RN-6-9 

27) 102RQ-RN-6-11 

29) 102RQ-RN-6-13 

31) 102RQ-RN-6-15 

33) 102RQ-RN-6-17 

35) 102RQ-RN-6-19 

37) 102RQ-RN-6-21 

39) 102RQ-RN-6-23 

Step 3: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE 

ONLY 

CD: 

OA: / 

2) 102RQ-RN-5-17 

4) 102RQ-RN-5-19 

6) (lb2RQ-RN-5-2P) 

8) 102RQ-RN-5-23 

10) 102RQ-RN-5-25 

12) 102RQ-RN-5-27 

14) 102RQ-RN-5-29 

16) 102RQ-RN-5-32 

18) 102RQ-RN-6-2 

20) 102RQ-RN-6-4 

22) 102RQ-RN-6-6 

24) 102RQ-RN-6-8 

26) 102RQ-RN-6-10 

28) 102RQ-RN-6-12 

30) 102RQ-RN-6-14 

32) 102RQ-RN-6-16 

34) 102RQ-RN-6-18 

36) 102RQ-RN-6-20 

38) 102RQ-RN-6-22 

40) 102RQ-RN-6-24 

Step 1: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE ONLY p^ v 

Are there more documents for this Docket in another box? *YES// NO J 

"Fill out Continuation Sheet and go to Step 2 

Internal SFUND Box Number 36 OF 283 

Initials/Date: LDS / 3-15-2007 
P.2 

^ - n ^ ' ' NUREG-0971 

Regulation of Naturally Occurring and 

Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials 

An Update 

(U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Conunission 

Washington, DC 

Oct 84 

Sirvice 

rtusrrsTVTSsrr' "TVtWSl^S^ W 
P.3 

Regulation of 

Naturally Occurring and 

Accelerator- Prod uced 

Radioactive Materials 

An Update 

U.S. ijuciear Regulatory 

Commission 

Office of State Programs 

L. A. Boiling, J. 0. Lubenau, D. A. Nussbaumer 

•>"••""% . 

o 

•»•« • 

9PH00UC10 l» ..-.,..., - . | 

NATIONAL TECHNICAL 

INFORMATION SERVICE 

u$ DiMiiKim oi co«ni»ci 

SMinOKlD. v» ??ISI 

NUREG-C976 

aaeaf aaa-saag'aasa.... .w,-» 

.•/...>v.^.:.:';

 : .:.:•: " 
) «MC FORM xn UJ. NUCktAK R(0ULATO«V COMMIMION 

(t-MI 

mM»? BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 

U f INSTRUCTION*ONT. ..;R « 

3. TITl.t ANO SUITITV.C 

Regulation of Naturally Occurring and AcceleratorProduced Radioactive Materials: An Update 

t AUTHOMISI 

L.A. Boiling, J.O. Lubenau, D.A. Nussbaumer 

1. HK'OMMINU OROAHltAI .ON NAMf ANO MAIUNO AOOMU llataaam / • CHal 

Office of State Programs 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555 

IO. VONSORINO ORGANIZATION NAMt ANO MAIUNO AOOMUS (lacfe* / • Caaal 

Same as 7. above. 

1. Ml*OMT NUWMM tAmtaaa-*r TIDC. aa* VI. Ma. mtaa-l 

NUREG-0976 

J. LCAVi f LANK 

4. OATf AlfORT COAPLCTf 0 

MONTH 1 VIA* 

September 1984 

( OATf RMOAT ISSUf 0 

MONTH 1 TfAM 

Octrter ' 1984 

1. fMOJf CTfTAiKANOM UNIT NUMMR 

«. UN 0K GRANT NUttttR 

III . TVHO»Rt»ORT 

Regulatory 

» atRlOO CCHRCt llmUmma aaaaal 

I I SUWLf MtNTART NOTEt 

11 ABSTRACT (K>0 war*, aa mal 

- In 1977, NRC published a report (NUREG-0301) of a task force review of the need for, 

and feasibilit y of, the Federal government regulating naturally occurring and 

accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM). Since that time, the Federal 

regulatory role has not significantly changed but State calls for increased Federal 

involvement have continued. In 1983, a National Governors' Association report on the 

NRC Agreement State program recommended amendment of the Atomic Energy Act to authorize 

NRC regulation of these materials. Based on that recommendation, and with the 

cooperation of.the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., NRC staff 

undertook a review of the current status of use and regulation of NARM. This report 

contains the results of that review. >_ — 

NARM 

*.IOINTlFIIRbU*fNINOfOTIRUS 

It AVAILAtlllTY 

STATtUtNT 

Unlimited 

11MCVAITV CLASSIFICATION 

(Taaaata) 

Unclassified 

ITaaaaean) 

Unclassified 

i>. NUMttRor FAG IS 

l( FRICI 

^^y^mm^^^^ 
P.5 

NUREG-0976 

Regulation of 

Naturally Occurring and 

Accelerator-Produced 

Radioactive Materials 

n\ 

An Update 

4J|j 

Manuscript Completed: September 1984 

Date Published: October 1984 

L. A. Boiling, J. 0. Lubenau, D. A. Nussbaumer 

Office of State Programs 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20655 

^

M * \ 

••••• 

*iri 

s~K3 

•rtmStXit •i \M r^^HittW0

^^^^ 

_J 
PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS 

RELATING TO THIS REPORT 

D.A. Nussbaumer, J.O. Lubenau, W.S. Cool, L. J. Cunningham, J.R. Mapes, 

S.A. Schwartz and D.A. Smith, "Regulation of Naturally Occurring and 

Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials, A Task Force Review," USNRC 

Report NUREG-0301, July, 1977. Available for purchase from National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

%.. 
P.7 

ABSTRACT 

In 1977V NRC published a report (NUREG-0301) of a task force review of 

the need for, and feasibility of, the Federal government regulating 

naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials 

(NARM). Since that time, the Federal regulatory role has not 

significantly changed but State calls for Increased Federal Involvement 

have continued. In 1983, a National Governors' Association report on 

the NRC Agreement State program recommended amendment of the Atomic 

Energy Act to authorize NRC regulation of these materials. Based on 

that recommendation, and with the cooperation of the Conference of 

Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., NRC staff undertook a review 

of the current status of use and regulation of NARM. This report 

contains the results of that review. 

111 

•*•'.; *m 

,1^j!ll? 

rait III imi^Ua*" H I •>• •**£<•; p\ 
CONTENTS 

PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS -H 

ABSTRACT ,]] 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ' ! JJJ 

1. BACKGROUND J 

2. SCOPE OF REVIEW ' ' Z 

3. RESULTS .' * ,' 3 

3.1 State Regulation of NARM-Status. !!!!!! i 

3.2. NARM Usage I 

3.3. NARM Incidents J 

3.4 New Applications of NARM ! ! I 

3.5. NARM Wastes I 

4. CONCLUSIONS 5 

5. APPENDICES !..!!.'. I ' * ' a 

5.1. Appendix A-NARM Questionnaire o 

5.2. Appendix B-Results of NARM Survey 

Agreement States 9 

5.3. Appendix C-Results of NARM Survey 

Non-Agreement States 10 

5.4 Appendix D-Analys1s of State Survey 

Data on NARM Use n 

6. REFERENCES 12 

Preceding page blank 

^-J-S 

MiiVximf'j-^i^. 
P.9 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The cooperation of the State radiati'n control program directors and 

their staffs 1n developing data on wurrent NARM usage and regulatory 

programs was essential to this review and is gratefully acknowledged by 

the authors. The assistance of the Conference of Radiation Control 

Program Directors, Inc., particularly that of U s Executive Secretary, 

Charles M. Hardin, in assembling the data is al ;o appreciated. 

.V 

Preceding page blank 

V11 

K »•>*»« *OlHHr«— T ammmt il»«M> 
REGULATION OF NATURALLY OCCURRING AND 

ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS 

An Update 

1. BACKGROUND 

P.10 

Following the October 1974 meeting of the Agreement States 1n Bethesda, 

Maryland, the Agreement States developed several requests and 

recommendations for NRC (then AEC) to bring accelerator-produced and 

naturally occurring radioactive material (NARM) under Its regulatory 

jurisdiction. On May 8, 1975, the Executive Committee of the Conference 

of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) met with the Commission. 

One of the points discussed at the meeting and also summarized by the 

CRCPD 1n a letter to then Commissioner Kennedy was the need for Federal 

control of radioactive material not being regulated by the non-Agreement 

States or the NRC. The Agreement States were including NARM under the 

same regulatory control as materials coming under the Atomic Energy Act 

when these agreements were signed. It was recognized by the then 25 

non-Agreement States that there was a definite gap existing 1n the 

proper control of these non-agreement materials. 

In response to these requests, in January, 1976 NRC established a task 

force to review the matter of regulation of these materials. 

Representatives from the Offices of State Programs, Inspection and 

Enforcement, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Executive Legal 

Director and Standards Development were appointed. Resource persons 

representing Agreement and non-Agreement States and Federal agencies 

also participated. The scope of work and conclusions reached by the 

task force were detailed 1n NUREG-0301, "Regulation of Naturally 

Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive Materials" (Ref.l). 

The ClBC^&gi&VTif^ ^ were: -

"1. p e regulation of naturalIv occurring and accelerator-produced 

radioactive material (NARM) was fragmented, non-uniform and ^ 

Incomplete at both the Federal and State level. Yet these 

radioactive materials are widely used—excluding those who 

would be exempt from licensing, about 30% of all" users of 

radioactive material use NARM. There are an estimated 6,000 

isers of NARM at present. The use of accelerator-produced 

>d1o1sotopes, particularly in medidne, 1s growing rapidly.,, 

One NARM radioisotope -

of radioactive materials. 

226r RaA- Is one of the most haiardous 

"°Ra was being used by 1/5 of all 

radioactive material users. There were about 85,000 medical 

treatments using Ra each year. 

HA-

'The Agreement States' 

«L**V>m- M 
•2-

programs for regulating NARM are comparable to their programs 

for regulating byproduct, source and special nuclear material 

under agreements with NRC. But there .are 7- State? whcr 

..—_ '^~ imm®£& "~~-" 

There are no national, uniformly applied programs to 

[egulate the design, fabrication and quality of sources and? 

Jevlces containing NARM or consumer products containing NARM 

Ich are distributed 1n Interstate commerce. & 

" 4. Naturally occurring radioactive material (except source 

material) associated with the nuclear fuel cycle 1s only 

partially subject to NRC regulation, I.e., when it 1s 

associated with source or special nuclear material being used 

under an active NRC license. 

"5. Because of the fragmented and non-uniform controls over radium 

and other NARM, information on the Impact of the use of NARM 

on public health and safety was fragmentary. Thus, it was 

difficult to know, 1n an overall sense, whether proper 

protection was being provided to workers and the public. A 

number of the Incidents Involving NARM and other data, 

however, which had come to the attention of public health 

authorities give definite indications of unnecessary and 

possibly excessive radiation exposure of workers and the 

public. 

"6. Although outside the scope of the study, data and evidence 

gathered 1n support of the study showed that the regulatory 

control for radiation safety for accelerators (which can be 

used to produce NARM) may also be fragmented and Incomplete." 

In conclusion, the Task Force recommended that the NRC seek legislative 

authority to regulate naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced 

radioactive materials for the reason that these materials present 

significant radiation exposure potential and present controls are 

fragmentary and non-uniform at both the State and Federal level. 

In April, 1978 the staff briefed the Commission on the task force's 

final recommendations (Ref.2). The Commission did not take action on 

the paper but asked the staff to resubmit 1t for reconsideration after 

addressing specific questions relating to the staff's proposals. The 

staff responses to the questions were conveyed to the Commission on 

December 18, 1978 (Ref. 3) . The staff continued to recommend that NRC 

seek legislative authority over NARM. The Commission, on May 10, 1979, 

returned the paper to the staff with Instructions to (1) forward the 

report to Federal Agencies, State 6ovemors, cognizant Congressional 

committees and the Interagency Task Force on Ionizing Radiation, (2) 

discuss the matter with staffs of Congressional committees and Federal 

and State agencies and (3) offer to assist Federal and State agencies to 

further develop model NkJM control programs (Ref. 4) . The key 

Instruction was the f1rsr: (The transmittal letter) "should note that, 

while NRC could logically regulate NARM —given legislative authority — 

NRC 1s not pursuing that authority because it believes such efforts 
P.12 

-3-

should be Integrated into the larger effort to properly allocate Federal 

responsibilities for radiat ic protection." The staff prepared letters 

to forward the staff report. The Interagency Task Force recommended the 

establishment of a Federal Radiation Policy Council to, among other 

things, address the overall direction and effectiveness of Federal 

regulatory programs. The Federal Radiation Policy Council was Informed 

of the Issue by NRC staff. Howeve , 1t did not fully address the Issue 

before Its demise. 

In 1978, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 

Act (UMTRCA) (Ref. 5) . Among other things, UMTRCA amended the Atomic 

Energy Act definition of byproduct material to Include certain mill 

tailings, 1n effect expanding NRC authority to regulate naturally 

occurring radioactive material but only to the extent Lhat it occurs 1n 

mill tailings covered by Section 11.e.(2) of the Act. 

In January 1983, the National Governors' Association Issued a report on 

Its study of the Agreement State program (Ref. 6) . A number of 

recommendations were offered as a result of this study including a 

recommendation that the Atomic Energy Act be amended to authorize the 

regulation of radioactive materials not presently affected by the Act, 

that is, NARM. 

Based on this reconmendatior. NRC staff undertook a review to update the 

NRC report, NUREG-0301 "Regulation of Naturally Occrrrlng and 

Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials," published in June 1977. 

2. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW 

A questionnaire was developed for distribution to all Agreement and 

non-Agreement States. The Conference of Radiation Control Program 

Directors, Inc., assisted 1n assembling the data. The questionnaire 1s 

shown 1n Appendix A. It was designed to gauge the extent of NARM 

regulation by the State radiation control agencies as of June 1983. 

Additional Information was obtained through meetings and discussions 

with Individual State representatives. 

3. RESULTS 

3.1 State Regulation of NARM - Status 

„***.'•£&•* 

>yproduct, source and special nuclear material (agreement material).; 

;U1 Agreement States Inspect NARM users. In the 23 non-Agreement y 

!>tates, 5 States have NARM licensing programs, 2 States have voluntary 

:)r partial licensing programs ai^vllfe StatesVhave ^ ^ 

_ "_ JET There are 14 non-Agreement States with NARM 

nspection programs, 4 additional States conduct partial Inspections and 

5 States do not conduct NARM Inspections. (Individual State responses 

to the questionnaire are tabulated 1n Appendices B and C.) 

.•laajaarailMtUma 
P.13 

-4-

3.2 NARM Usage 

Analysis of the State data shows that since 1977, overall use of NARM 

has not changed significantly (See Appendix p);_ 

Discussions with State staffs suggest that accelerator produced 

materials used 1n medical diagnosis have Increased, but earlier 

predictions of a very rapid growth 1n this area apparently did not 

occur. Counter balancing this has been a gradual decline 1n the use of 

radium as medical and Industrial sealed sources are replaced by other 

Isotopes. , . •y-yy ^ &•:-*..*• .-., 

The overall figure of 5.6% for NARM only users as a fraction of all 

licenses 1s close to the figure of 5* c1t1edN1n NUREG-0301 Indicating 

little, If any, change has occurred since 1977. More striking, however, 

1s the disparity between the figures for Agreement and non-Agreement 

States: 2.6X vs. 10.OX. This breakout was not available for the 1977 

report. It supports the notion that when strong regulatory programs 

(typically Including licensing) are Implemented, a significant number of 

NARM only users who have no strong incentive to retain their sources 

elect to dispose of these sources. t 

3.3 NARM Incidents 

Since the NARM task force report, NUREG-0301, was Issued 1n 1977, there 

continue to be numerous NARM Incidents. The numbers of incidents 

reported to State agencies Involving NARM (both medical and Industrial 

users) range from 30 to 50 per year. 

As recently as 1981, a large number of.radioactive contaminated gold 

Items were discovered 1n the Northeast*. Four shipments of radioactive 

gold were Identified as having originated from one gold reprocessor 1n 

1982. An Investigation by one State agency revealed that between 1977 

and 1981 a former radon plant lost 2.3 kg. of gold from its Inventory. 

The disposition of the gold Is unknown but one cannot rule out the 

possibility that it has entered the gold market. 

*Radon-222, a short-lived (3.8 day) noble gas daughter of Radium 226 can 

be collected Into and sealed 1n gold seeds which can be permanently 

implanted 1n tissue. After decay of the radon and Its Immediate short 

lived daughters, collectively a strong gamma source, the residual 

activity 1s from Pb-210 (22 year half-Ufe) and Its daughters (Bi 210 

and Po 210). This chain 1s often termed "Radium DEF." Two of these 

Isotopes are beta emitters and one 1s an alpha emitter. These emissions 

are contained by the gold. Gamma and bremsstrahlung emissions are 

relatively Insignificant. Therefore the seeds can be left permanently 

1n place. If the seeds are subsequently removed or 1fNunused seeds are 

collected and these recycled Into the gold market; the resulting gold 

will be contaminated. The activity, no longer contained Inside the 

seed, but Intimately mixed with gold, 1s now an exposure source, 

particularly 1f placed adjacent to skin as 1n rings. 

''

 FV.'!'»^fTjr? 

H&!^*&ift&fi 
- 5-

The States have reported other HARM Incidents such as improper:packaging 

/.'. for air transport and wide-spread contamination at an electronics plant 

'where'radium painted aircraft gauges-were being refurbished. •'"-"• 

It'' ta-., 

r

t'/r.x 

:3.4" New Applications of NARM - '•*? T>TM':- ...? •}?>•,> 

• -Fy ±:<. '\yyy-- •-••.-••• -?=-•'• ••—

: :--.$«*??> ^'i5^|M i 

A new'appTibationVof HARM 1n the United^^ States: has occurred since the 

last NRC review of NARM; lightning rods containing radium are being 

Imported and distributed 1n the United States. .The utilization of 

radloactlvVsources; to 'enhance the performance'of Tightening; rods Wasreported at i: symposium on radlbactlvityMn*consumer products in

 ; 

Atlanta, Georgia 1n'l977v(Ref.7)V/t'Altho'ughrthere appeared to be some 

controversy over the effectiveness of radioactive'sources for this 

purpose; evidently their use 1s permitted'1n atplfast some2European 

countries. The Isotopes that are utilized-ara.f Am and Ra. NRC has 

never received an application5for the use of *-Am for this purpose and 

the 1977 study of NARM did not disclose domestic utilization of NARM for 

this purpose. Since 1977;*however,'1 a New York firm has been importing 

from Great Britain and distributing lightning rods containing Ra. 

Four models are available containing between 7.5 to 80 microcuries of 

radium per unltv The State 'licensing agency imposed a license "condition 

upon the distributor limiting transfers tolease arrangements^only and 

prohibiting sales of the sources^ -TheMrttent is to' help assure that 

when the sources are no longer used-they will be returned to the 

distributor for dlsnc^a" :'• •••'• -y^'-. :'.*.-••,*».••'.y:.v »<} ;:•..—.-•• 

Under the Atomic Energy Act, as; amended, the NRC regulates the import of 

source,' by-product and special nuclear materials (see'Sections 53., 

57.a.; 62.riand 81.) (Reif. 5).;"'This authority 1s reserved to the NRC 

where section 274.b. agreements have been entered into with States (see 

Section 274.c:(2)) (Ref. 5);'^ Implementing regulations are contained in 

10 CFR Part 110 and essentially require prior approval of possession by 

the Commission or an Agreement State for nuclear equipment, source or 

byproduct material. No such requirement, of course, exists 1n NRC 

regulations for radium or other NARM. ' - <•.'-••'• 

v- ,'. '•'•••v. ...

: .»;.. . ..•i-^y^;: .-• • £-••:...' • 

The only presently known importer and distributor of radioactive 

lightning rods 1s located In an Agreement State. Thus, in this case, 

there is existing authority to require prior approval of possession 

through licensing of the distributor and by license condition Impose 

controls on distribution. This case Illustrates the point that since 

only the 27 Agreement States and a few non-Agreement States have 

implemented licensing programs for NARM*, effective regulatory controls 

over distribution of radium or other NARM for radiation protection 

purposes will not always be assured but rather will be an accident of 

location of the place of business of the distributor. With respect to 

control of-importation of NARM, notwithstanding Individual State 

efforts, it can be argued that this 1s more properly the responsibility 

of the Federal government. 

i 

i 

•Non-Agreement States reporting Implemented licensing programs are 

Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia. See . 

Appendix C.; ••••'• < -- ; ^y;:^ . • ••> 

: . .-^v*»4*M^ii£iifi3& iH-imSm. 
-6-

P.15 

3.5 NARM Wastes -. ,• 

Data from the Center for Devices.and Radiological Health of the Food and 

Health Administration Indicate that 1n 1968 there were 50,000 radium 

sources totaling 330 curies. Since 1965, about 10,000 sources totaling 

95 curies have been shipped for disposal. 'Based on this data there 

remains,about 40,000 sources with a total activity of about 235 curies 

1n use or storage. •i :t . V > i • y 

.• .M.-. :-*i'i,i: - ..•.,•:'" ..:;..t' '••'•'.'' . 'j '•;• iv.t •.';•'.' •, •••;. .• ... 

Assuming, that:50X of this.material will be.disposed of,by the year 2000, 

this results In,an estimated annual rate of about 7 curies per year, 

(about 1200 sources per year) of radium sources, that will need disposal. 

Due to the closing and decommissioning of the, EPA radium storage , 

facility at Montgomery, Alabama, there have been.extensive problems and 

uncertainties with the disposal of radium waste. At present, there are 

.only two licensed disposal sites accepting radium waste (in Beatty, 

Nevada and Hanford, Washington). ,The NRC staff, at the request of the 

States, is developing limits for sha11ow;land burial of radium using the 

methodology for establishing radioisotope limitations in 10 CFR 61. 

j < 

Since. NRC's last examination of NARM regulation, a. significant new 

development has arisen Involving possible dual regulation, of low-level 

radioactive waste burial sites by. NRC and .,EPA. v! Presently, at low-Tlevel 

radioactive waste burial sites, NRC and-the .Agreement States regulate 

materials covered by the Atomic Energy Act and the States regulate NARM 

disposal. In a letter dated August 17, 1983 from EPA to US Ecology EPA 

stated "We have concluded that the wastes and disposal facilities which 

you discuss are not completely,exempt, from regulation under RCRA". (Ref. 

8 ) . US Ecology was advised to-submit permit applications to EPA.; The 

US Ecology request which prompted this response pertained,to disposal of 

NARM and to toxic wastes contaminated with radioactive material. : The 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA/.^which EPA administers, 

exempts byproduct, source and special nuclear material but not NARM.. 

The principal difficulty created by the dual regulation is that the 

basic regulatory approaches are different. EPA regulations under RCRA 

permit no degradation of, ground water from^the buried materials whereas 

NRC regulations under the. Atomic, Energy Act specify limitations on 

concentrations of radioactivity and.performance objectives in terms of 

radiation dose limits. . Dual regulation under such different 

philosophical approaches would be counterproductive. A more detailed 

discussion of this problem is contained 1n Chairman Palladino's letter 

to Congressman Udall dated March 16, 1984 (Ref. 9) . Adding NARM to NRC 

authority (e.g., by adding another category to the definition of 

byproduct material) would eliminate this problem and provide a uniform 

standard for low-level radioactive waste disposal, while leaving EPA its 

traditional role of developing generally; applicable environmental 

standards for disposal of radioactive wastes; :;;> 

The S&^BlliiPt that must be resolved to make the regulation and 

management of radium and other NARM wastes consistent with that of other 

low-ievel radioactive wastes are $9EII^S?lSEellcl|^ 

'

v vft^2p ^ 

Fragmentary controls, or in some jurisdictions a 

total lack of control over NARM, pose a potential threat to public 

health and safety. 

1'V: 

..f^ifflsftE^sft^^y r-v«W»tf fW, v. 
P.16 

-7-

••.'..-." ' •-s.-.Ji'VF-VtA y' y 

4. CONCLUSIONS 

.-.,.•, tlly*!&k. *'? :-

:

- "•'.. 

Fragmentary control of NARM, as is currently the case, leads to 

confusion on the part ofi theJ.1censees?end a.real potential for 

excessive radiation exposure to workers and the public. The regulation 

of NARM should'be^unlform^the reSpbnslblllty^of a single Federal 

agency which would set national standards to be followed by the other 

Federal agencies;'-'the Agreement-Sta tes'and the'licensees:' That agency 

would regulate the design.and fabrication of sealed sources and the 

processing, use.and disposal of NARM; The NRC and the Agreement States 

are already conducting slmllar^programs'for*the regulation of 

reactor-produced radioactive material. '•• :-'F.h-i-.-M 

An Important issue to be considered'1n any proposal to add NARM to NRC 

regulation is the'matter of how to recognize existing State'regulatory 

programs for NARM. For example, Agreement States and a few 

non-Agreement States currently regulate'NARM in-the same fashion as 

agreement materials. (In the Agreement States, NARM 1s Incorporated 

Into the Agreement State program. 

Five non-Agreement States report they have Implemented similar licensing 

programs for NARMl) Thus, 1f NRC were to receive'authority over NARM, 

NRC staff believes Agreement States should be allowed to continue to 

regulate NARM without Interruption subject to the-same Commission 

Policy for review that is currently applied to their.Agreement material 

programs (Ref. 10). Amendment of the 27 Agreements should not be made 

necessary.- With respect to the other licensing - States ;;.-1t would be 1n 

the NRC's interest (to conserve resources) to take into account their 

programs;*provided they met applicable criteria for demonstrating they 

are adequate to protect public health and-safety and are compatible with 

NRC's program. 

\ c.x; ;<(**• [.xi\ 

:.' y.yj"!Cj-:n«v.v; 

:

:'

:

: C'i\ 

r-. 

'•',) .-•ibtT:!*.-.: ':. . • 

: i: !•:• '»•" "L'"jj:.J')Ut--V. :' 

•-.'•• -ir :>:. •icia , r • < F- •: 
yy~"- • :~*.V".'. 

-.•,. ' • *t. . 

' I . APPENDICES 

5.1 Appendix A 

?2 Vi ? •irA. 

•'..:•: ;.. NARM Questionnaire* : , 

,-:M: :,..M yyr ;:.;• .'. •'..••• v : " (••••; ?'»*^>-.rv^ -ii; 'i"\yy:- ••••• 

As of dune: 3p,; 1983, does your State o n Territory., have: 

'"-,i : <y '.vtrj.,'-•.; nr.v-.••' y' f •:•':. ':•;:.•: :•:;<•"> J-" i o«vo.; ;*:/

 v

-.--. •. .. • 

v:,li •.•* Enabling legislatio n t o regul ate-radiation sources, 

"•••..,-;':i ^Including NARM?;: y ; .-i;.yy Y e s y;Vi -^'••-.•.-> No. ; 

;«•;••' ••::-ftfe-,^'ftff!>l-. ::•!''':•• ^•v '.'#»• -y.F '' F^W iy-Fiyy^ •: ; ••:•",!: . ::. 

Comprehensive Regulat1onsr,forl-iRad1ationVProtect1o.n, 

including NARM ••'•:; y^Yes.:.'--. .-j;.* v ••: No •• y -

2. 

3. Requirements for Registration , v, 

• - OfNARM? ; ••'. i'r."'j::a ;• Yes > 

• •..:•.-'• ' ':••• • ••. .' • .-•''.:••>•••/'.:•:' . . + '»•:.: 

4. Requirements for Licensing,cf , 

.: ,-:-,NARM? v, *• •, .:,•,.;._>. Yes ... 

5. An Implemented program for 

licensing NARM? . Yes 

•:• • ... ••'... . :• >• • ••)••' : *v.- 1 '-:. . .-.' • " >-: . - .-:• • . 

6. ; A NARM Inspection Program 

licensing NARM?•.•< ••• Yes.., 

No 

No 

No 

Nol Partially 

7. How many NARM only users are located In your jurisdiction? 

f8i ,'What proportion of licensees.in. youiv.State;or. Territory, who are 

. i,v. licensed to use source, < byproduct or special nuclear material also 

use NARM? .:,-.,..v9. Do you support the regulation of NARM by NRC (assuming provisions 

are made for recognizing existing State programs which meet the 

same guidelines, as appropriate, that Agreement State Progress must 

meet)? 

Any additional comments you may have on NARM regulation would be 

appreciated. 

*NARM, as used for this questionnaire, does not include naturally 

occurring radioactive materials (NORM) except for activities where the 

concentration (or introduction into product) of NORM 1s deliberate and 

has as a purpose utilization of its radioactive properties. 
'» '-.fr-.'-S'•':•':'.. ;'<,-. -'.'v.-

V-9T 

5.2 Appendix B 

.i^£l^y^l^-.r.':V.J..'.:': - -'" 

Results of NARM Survey 

Agreement States 

State ii ^ ,; 

1. Alabama ^ • ..-•* 

2. Arizona y 3 / ' 

3. Arkansas ^ J 

4. California 

5. Colorado 

6. Florida 

7. Georgia 

8. Idaho 

9. Kansas 

10. Kentucky

 r 

11. Louisiana 

12. Maryland -' 

13. Mississippi 

14. Nebraska ••-•• 

15. Nevada 

16; New Hampshire 

17. New Mexico 

18. New York -• 

19. North Carolina 

20. North Dakota 

21. Oregon *•'* 

22. Rhode Island 

23. South Carolina 

24. Tennessee 

25. Texas ' 

26. Utah y . 

27. Washington 

fTotal 

, 1 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

. V* 

'•.€"• 

2 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

'Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Questions'from Survey 

3 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

V>H 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

^WY 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

•y 4-f 

FyYV 

* -

•' • v Y •' 

Y 

M y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

*'V: 

" F Y • 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

,. :5--

••;"vY-^ 

,"'• Y:: H 

Y 

Y 

: Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

\

:

TM 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

6 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

7 

"4 

12 v2 

10 

31 

6 

12 

30 

2 

25 

10 

17 

0 

52 

^0 

3 

20 

U 

10 

3 

U 

4 

10 

U 

8 

0 

33. 

3421 

8 

TOX 

U* 

25% 

10X 

22% -

10% 

33% 

U 

5% 

50% 

10% 

22% 

50% 

33% 

25% 

25% 

U 

75%** 

U i, 

31% 

10% 

41% 

7% 

U 

10% 

U 

U_ 

25%l# 

9 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y' 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

*U - stands for unknown. 

** Value is for New York State Health Dept. only. 

# Total for 24 States reporting 1s 304. 304 divided by 24 x 27 « 342. 

##Average for 20 States reporting. 

':1> •••" • 

•. ••' y •• :• 

•••'.J-.c-.rr, 

"V 

•.•'', •••'..'. •.-.•••'• y y;-F^y\F'y>ria-yiFyii'^ y. > .•.•.•• • '•-... 

.ww^j^rtsatfsssssEBfcs^^ iiiii. m 
-10-

State -"ST ~"i. 

1. Alaska ,c0i 

2. Connecticut 

3. Delaware v y 

4. District of: 

Columbia y ; 

5. Hawaii ;..)•:• 

6. Illinois y 

7. Indiana 

8. Iowa 

9. Maine 

10. Massachusetts 

11. Michigan .--,; 

12. Minnesotay 

13. Missouri i->y 

14. Montana . - cv 

15. New Jersey 

16. Ohio; 

17. Oklahoma 

18. Pennsylvania 

19. Puerto Rico 

20. South Dakota 

21. Vermont >;*• 

22. Virginia : 

23. West Virginia 

24. Wisconsin •< 

25. Wyoming 

#Total 

. • . 

1 

Y 

Y 

VT 

MF. 

5Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

OY 

Y 

Y 

Y 

:Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

,Y 

;

:Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

• •'. '.' F 

5.3 Appendl 

F fry it •>*>i6^ 

Results of NARM 

v<iy 

Nor 

V-i£ MAVlMt.! 

x"Cyy:,\ 

;$'fh\y*y-.F 

Surve y ••>•' 

'.fliJ-'fi»*l" 

i-Agreement StatesT" 

tiij.Z 

^.Questions 

2-

Y 

Y 

v;.Y-

•r ' 

3 

• 'T: ' 

Y 

'

!'Y.-/; 

. / 

[X-iiHi t*T2*.-; .'.'•.-•' 

-"^F y 

from Survey 

4 ' 

T ••••'• 

N 

Y 

'•' :.' 

• 5 •••;,;•: 6- " 

'•T.->.T-.\ 

N £•'••: Y- > 

yyyr" 

••>t:yVVr •• 

No Reply to Survey y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

U 

Y 

No 

N . 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Reply 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N N 

y Y 

N P* 

N Y 

N N 

N Y 

N Y 

N P 

N Y 

N N 

Y Y 

P Y 

N Y 

Y Y 

to Survey ; 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

P P 

N Y 

Y Y 

N P 

N N 

N N 

'-' 

.•''• y y . . 

.'{1 8 

*TT 5* 

v:U** 5% 

,20 33% : 

y.''. .:,)r 

"v''2 30% 

175 20% 

.75 25% 

15 20% 

3 30%, 

110 80%. 

;50 50% 

v22 24%,', 

*20 .30%', 

y U U 

,20 ;32%-

25 55% 

5 10% 

63 33%,. 

, * * • l I ' i 

0 10% 

v 0 101 

-65; 25% 

U 50% 

U U 

, 0 1% 

9 .y-,,. 

r.bT" X'•'-'' 

^,Y'< . • 

l:.,n.y. 

. ' • ; 

"•v. Y . 

Y 

Y 

,y 

y - Y 

4;. Y •• 

.:•'• H • 

, N •• • 

,-'.-;.Y;..-. 

' •.wY.,r,„:; 

undecided 

undecided 

N . 

Y 

, , • . 

"..••Y?;, •' 

Y •:: 

-.'•'li:-,: 

.-••.Yy. 

no reply 

Y, 

8821 27%## 

* P - stands for partially. 

**U - stands for unknown. 

I Total for 19 States reporting 1s 670. 

IIAverage for 21 States reporting. 

670 divided by 19 x 25 - 882. 
-11-

?:s;--v. 

P.20 

•• : y<. :•'::•./*.••::•'.';(• 5 ^^Ot^o^y^Hi M i••;•.. o<i-' 

.•••. v •»•• .r ^ v ;5.2 Appendix Dr.. -^."*•••..... ••.•?:"•.; 

i"i'* .. : Analysis of State Survey Data,oh NARM Use dJ(f. 

Agreement States Non-Agreement States 

1. NARM only users •,...- -o -. r • -..^y ^ *«,***»#<.;? .-• -..-, : , 

(no. licenses) >-?.-.342;:;... .-.**..^yj.-,»••< yyo 8 8 2 ' 

:?'" • • V- i"

 ; • y^ . • .;','.'":, •••: :-•.••. . • •'v Vyv~'v'./j.-! ".•.,,••,'} .VT. 1 ;--; - • .'.•'. 

2. NARM only users . i^- ; >, 

% of all licenses* 2.6% 10.0% 

3. % of all licenses .'. r., 

where NARM,1s also i. 

used* 25% 

ii;' 

•.*';. ' 

2 7% 

Total 

1224 

5.6 

(26%) 

4. Number of current , '.; 

. J 11 censes' where NARM"..• 

is also used**/ •'. 3250 2380 5630 

?M'.:'y:Fyy jy -

:

 '••'• 

• '•'•'• ..-i rV- . .'x.-\.-\ 

••!» • ••'.;><•• » '• . .•; 'V * • ^ . - ^ s ' • 

!.' M^..yi-:''--^y y ••' 

:F xyF, , , -.;•,-.•.,? 

? •£•••• '.•.".- ':?•'•;; - *TJ I 

:•<:'' • 

* Based on 13,ouo licenses In Ag>eement$tates and 8,800 licenses 1n 

non-Agreement States. The lattervlncludes, about 1,000 NRC licenses in 

• "» a. aaa. a. ........ . <sl » ...,... „ J sr ..—...'_" • At« s- ' • •*• I . 

Agreement States. 

• ^Obtained.by multiplying line, 3 by, 13,000,in Agreement States .and 8,800 

••«:.. M^^ n o ^ 9 r € ^

w

:

n

.

t

;

5

*

a

t e st y f *•'.<<,-»«£' r^wy^crryi'r: iVi.-iiff':».); *«. w-ii 

, '• 'T^<t!h~ ..:.-.; ; i SVC?-'I -'•'.:! .Cft '•[, f C j . C !' ,w

l

£. . f 2 7 , " .i j i • <>f <! -P-V -.7 :

 ; 

'-jtirVlS 

pSFfW ^ 

" •••*& : 
*a 1 

--12-' 

P.21 

6. REFERENCES 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

- 1 -

5r 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

io; 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Regulation of Naturally 

Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials," USNRC 

Report NUREG-0301, July,^1977.23^81 lable for purchase from 

NatlonalxTechhlcaVanformatloa^Servite^SpHngfleld, Virginia 

2216U ••••,•.-. 

••••••^•fti??--iftt»*»-'-'ii>'' 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Final Recomnendations of the 

Task Force on Regulation of Naturally Occurring'and V'•?••' • 

Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials (NARM);" USNRC 

Commission Action Paper SECY-78-211, April 14, 1978. Available 1n 

NRC PDR for inspection and copying for a fee. " -' "*.f~

; 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "NRC Action on NARM Task Force 

Recommendation," USNRC Commission Policy Session Item SECY-78-667, 

December 18, 1978. Available in NRC PDR for inspection and copying 

for a fee. •• M;'-*'i::-

: "•••' 

Memorandum from S.J. Chllk, NRC to L.V.Goss1ck,"SECY-78-667-NRC 

Action on NARM Task Force Recommendation," May 10, 1979. Available 

in NRC PDR for inspection and copying for a fee.--

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Nuclear Regulatory 

Legislation,".USNRC Report NUREG-0980, June, 1984. Available for 

purchase from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, 

Virginia 22161. 

H. Brown, Th 

National Governors 

\greement State Program; A State Perspective. 

Association, Washington, D.C , January, 1983. 

A.A. Mogh1ss1, P. Par?s, M.W. Carter and R.F. Barker, 

"Radioactivity 1n Consumer Products," USNRC Report NUREG/CP-0001, 

August, 1978. Available for purchase from National Technical 

Information Service, Virginia 22161. 

Letter from John H. Skinner, EPA to S. Y. Wright, Jr., US Ecology, 

Inc, Subject: Regulation of wastes that are both radioactive and 

hazardous, dated August 17, 1983. Available In NRr PDR for 

Inspection and copying for a fee. 

Letter from Chairman N. J. Palladlno, NRC to Congressman, M. K. 

Udall, Subject: Responses to questions concerning the orderly 

development(of low-level radioactive waste disposal sites under 

interstate; compacts,'dated March>16y 1984V Available 1n NRC PDR 

•for inspection and copying foi4; a" fee.;: '^ •-'-' - y 

'• U.SV Nuclear" Regula^ryN'Ci^^ssfo^^^EvaTuat.1bh of Agreement State 

Radiation*Control Programs; General Statement of Policy," published 

1n Federal Register. Vol. 46, No.233, pp.59341-53951, December 4, 

198T: •. .y:FF/:-MF-,y-. 

I I 

m 

w 

w 

m