[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 139 (Monday, July 21, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39058-39092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17752]
[[Page 39057]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
10 CFR Part 20, et al.
Radiological Criteria for License Termination; Final Rule
Radiological Criteria for License Termination: Uranium Recovery
Facilities; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 139 / Monday, July 21, 1997 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 39058]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72
RIN 3150-AD65
Radiological Criteria for License Termination
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations regarding decommissioning of licensed facilities to provide
specific radiological criteria for the decommissioning of lands and
structures. The final rule is intended to provide a clear and
consistent regulatory basis for determining the extent to which lands
and structures can be considered to be decommissioned. The final rule
will result in more efficient and consistent licensing actions related
to the numerous and complex site decommissioning activities anticipated
in the future.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on August 20, 1997.
However, licensees may defer rule implementation until August 20, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl A. Trottier, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-6232, e-mail CAT1@nrc.gov; Frank
Cardile, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-6185; e-
mail [email protected]; Dr. Carl Feldman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone: (301) 415-6194, e-mail [email protected]; or Christine M.
Daily, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-6026, e-
mail [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Overview of Public Comments
IV. Summary of Public Comments, Responses to Comments, and Changes
From Proposed Rule
A. Overall license termination approach and criteria for
unrestricted use (proposed rule Secs. 20.1402 and 20.1404).
1. Proposed rule content.
2. Criteria for unrestricted use, including total effective dose
equivalent, as low as reasonably achievable, and decommissioning
objective.
3. General comments on the dose criterion.
4. Average member of the critical group.
B. Criteria for restricted use (proposed rule Secs. 20.1402(d)
and 20.1405).
1. Proposed rule content.
2. Comments on acceptability of restricted use for
decommissioned sites.
3. Response.
4. Summary of rule revisions on restricted use.
C. Alternate criteria for license termination.
1. Codifying provisions for certain facilities that the proposed
rule suggested exempting.
2. Exclusion of uranium/thorium mills proposed in
Sec. 20.1401(a).
3. Other exemptions.
D. Groundwater protection criteria (proposed rule Sec. 20.1403).
1. Proposed rule content.
2. Use of Environmental Protection Agency drinking water
standards in NRC's regulation.
E. Public participation (proposed rule Secs. 20.1406 and
20.1407).
1. Proposed rule content.
2. General requirements on notification and solicitation of
comments (proposed rule Sec. 20.1406(a)).
3. Additional requirements on public participation (including
those for restricted use, for alternate criteria, and for use of
site-specific advisory boards (proposed rule Sec. 20.1406(b)).
4. Specific questions on functioning of site-specific advisory
boards.
F. Other procedural and technical issues.
1. State and NRC compatibility.
2. Grandfathering sites with previously approved plans (proposed
rule Sec. 20.1401(b)).
3. Finality of decommissioning and future site reopening
(proposed rule Sec. 20.1401(c)).
4. Minimization of contamination (proposed rule Secs. 20.1401(d)
and 20.1408).
5. Provisions for readily removable residual radioactivity.
6. Separate standard for radon.
7. Calculation of total effective dose equivalent over 1000
years to demonstrate compliance with dose standard.
G. Other comments.
1. Definitions (proposed rule Sec. 20.1003).
2. Need for regulatory guidance.
3. Need for flexibility.
4. Consistency with NRC's timeliness rule.
5. Comments from power reactor decommissioning rulemaking.
6. Mixed waste, hazardous waste, and naturally occurring and
accelerator-produced radioactive material.
7. Recycle.
8. The rulemaking process.
V. Agreement State Compatibility
VI. Relationship Between the Generic Environmental Impact Statement
and Site-Specific Decommissioning Actions
VII. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement: Availability
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
IX. Regulatory Analysis
X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XI. Backfit Analysis
XII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
I. Introduction
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations
regarding decommissioning of licensed facilities to provide specific
radiological criteria for the decommissioning of lands and structures.
This action is necessary to ensure that decommissioning will be carried
out without undue impact on public health and safety and the
environment.
These criteria apply to the decommissioning of licensed facilities
and facilities subject to the NRC's jurisdiction. The Commission will
apply these criteria in determining the adequacy of remediation of
residual radioactivity resulting from the possession or use of source,
byproduct, and special nuclear material. The criteria apply to
decommissioning of nuclear facilities that operate through their normal
lifetime and to those that may be shut down prematurely.
The intent of this rulemaking is to provide a clear and consistent
regulatory basis for determining the extent to which lands and
structures must be remediated before decommissioning of a site can be
considered complete and the license terminated. The Commission believes
that inclusion of criteria in the regulations will result in more
efficient and consistent licensing actions related to the numerous and
frequently complex site remediation activities anticipated in the
future. The Commission has reassessed residual contamination levels
contained in existing guidance based on changes in basic radiation
protection standards, improvements in remediation and radiation
detection technologies, decommissioning experience, public comments
received on rule drafts and public comments presented at workshops held
as part of the rulemaking effort and public comments received on the
proposed rule.
The NRC has previously applied site release criteria for
decommissioning on a site-specific basis using existing guidance.
Although site-specific situations will still occur, the Commission
believes that codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning in
the regulations will allow the NRC to more effectively carry out its
function of protecting public health and the environment at
decommissioned sites by providing for more efficient use of NRC and
licensee resources, consistent application across all types of
licenses, and a predictable basis for decommissioning planning.
[[Page 39059]]
II. Background
On August 22, 1994 (59 FR 43200), the NRC published a proposed rule
for comment in the Federal Register to amend 10 CFR part 20 of its
regulations ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation'' to include
radiological criteria for license termination. The public comment
period closed on January 20, 1995. Comments received on the proposed
rule were summarized in NUREG/CR-6353. A workshop was held on December
6-8, 1994, to solicit additional comments related to site-specific
advisory boards as described in the proposed rule. Comments received
during that workshop were summarized in NUREG/CR 6307 1. A
workshop was also held on September 29, 1995, to specifically discuss
methods for implementing the rule. Additionally, communication with the
public on the proposed rule was maintained through the Electronic
Bulletin Board system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Copies of NUREGS may be purchased from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082,
Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for inspection and/
or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Overview of Public Comments
Over 100 organizations and individuals submitted comments on the
proposed rule. The commenters represented a variety of interests.
Comments were received from Federal and State agencies, electric
utility licensees, material and fuel cycle licensees, citizen and
environmental groups, industry groups, native American organizations,
and individuals. The commenters offered from 1 to over 50 specific
comments and represented a diversity of views. The commenters addressed
a wide range of issues concerning all parts of the rule. The reaction
to the rule in general and to specific provisions of the rule was
varied. Viewpoints were expressed both in support of and in
disagreement with nearly every provision of the rule.
IV. Summary of Public Comments, Responses to Comments, and Changes From
Proposed Rule
The following sections describe the principal public comments
received on the proposed rule (organized according to the major subject
areas and sections of the proposed rule), present NRC responses to
those comments, and explain principal changes to the proposed rule
(where they occur) in response to those comments. The comments are
organized according to the following major subject areas and sections
of the proposed rule and are presented in the following subsections:
(a) Overall license termination approach (unrestricted use,
restricted use, exemptions, and alternate criteria), and specific
issues on criteria for unrestricted use (including total effective dose
equivalent (TEDE), as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA),
objective of decommissioning, average member of critical group);
(b) Specific issues on criteria for restricted use (bases for using
restricted use, reliance on institutional controls, 1 mSv (100 mrem)
TEDE cap, engineered barriers, financial assurance);
(c) Specific issues on exemptions and alternate criteria for
license termination (facilities with large volumes of low level wastes,
uranium and thorium mills, exemptions);
(d) Groundwater protection criteria (use of Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water standards of 40 CFR 141 in NRC's
regulation);
(e) Public participation (means of notification, site-specific
advisory boards (SSABs));
(f) Other procedural and technical issues (state compatibility,
grandfathering, finality, minimization of contamination, readily
removable residual radioactivity, radon, calculation of TEDE over 1000
years to demonstrate compliance with dose standard); and
(g) Other comments (definitions, regulatory guidance; timeliness
rule; wastes; recycle; rulemaking process).
The comments received from both public comment and the workshops
have been factored into the Commission's decisionmaking on the final
rule and into the technical basis for guidance documents implementing
the final rule. The description of changes to the final rule made as a
result of the comments in each of the major subject areas follows each
comment/response section.
A. Overall License Termination Approach and Criteria for Unrestricted
Use (Proposed Rule Secs. 20.1402 and 20.1404)
A.1 Proposed Rule Content
The proposed rule (Sec. 20.1402(d)) presented an overall approach
for license termination involving either of two basic methods, i.e.,
unrestricted use or restricted use of sites after license termination.
The proposed rule indicated that unrestricted use was generally
preferred, but that restricted use was also permitted because it was
recognized that there may be cases where achieving unrestricted use
would not be reasonable.
Specific requirements for use of each of these two basic methods
were presented in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule
also indicated that there may be certain licensees that would seek
exemptions from the decommissioning criteria of the proposed rule,
although it did not codify this exemption path.
Section IV.A.2 reviews in detail the development of unrestricted
use criteria; and, in doing so it also indicates, in general, how the
overall approach for license termination has been reexamined to
consider public comments. Specific issues and requirements regarding
other areas, specifically restricted use, exemptions, and alternate
criteria, are discussed in more detail in Sections IV.B and IV.C of
this preamble.
Section 20.1402(a) of the proposed rule indicated that the
objective of decommissioning is to reduce residual radioactivity in
structures, soils, groundwater, and other media at the site so that the
concentration of each radionuclide that could contribute to residual
radioactivity is indistinguishable from the background radiation
concentration for that nuclide. Section 20.1402(a) further noted that,
as a practical matter, it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate
that such an objective had been met and that a site release limit for
unrestricted use was being proposed.
Section 20.1404 of the proposed rule indicated that a site would be
considered acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual
radioactivity that is distinguishable from background radiation results
in TEDE to an average member of the critical group of 0.15 mSv/y (15
mrem/y) and has been reduced to levels that are ALARA.
Section 20.1402(d) of the proposed rule indicated that release for
unrestricted use of a facility is the preferred approach but that the
alternative of release for restricted use would also be allowed if its
use were justified (see Section IV.B).
A.2 Criteria for Unrestricted Use, Including TEDE, ALARA, and
Decommissioning Objective
A.2.1 Comments. Some commenters (including EPA) agreed that 0.15
mSv/y (15 mrem/y) is an acceptable criterion because it is attainable,
provides a margin of safety, and isn't unjustifiably costly. The
Department of Energy (DOE) agreed that 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) could be
acceptable if reasonable scenarios were considered although it
preferred 0.25 mSv or 0.3 mSv/y (25 or 30 mrem/y) with ALARA. However,
most commenters did not agree with the
[[Page 39060]]
0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) criterion. Some opposed 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y)
as being too high and preferred alternatives that reduced the
contamination level to lower levels, including preexisting background.
The majority of commenters opposed 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) as being too
low and gave alternatives that generally included increasing the limit
to 0.25, 0.3, 0.5, or 1 mSv/y (25, 30, 50, or 100 mrem/y) with further
reduction based on ALARA. The categories of reasons given by commenters
opposing 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) as either too high or too low included
potential health impacts or the lack of demonstrable health effects at
these levels, consistency with national and international standards,
effect of multiple sources, consistency with other NRC/EPA regulations,
analysis of costs vs. benefits, ability to measure, effect on disposal
capacity, effect on sites with naturally occurring radioactive material
(NORM), and responsibility for cleanup of sites.
The proposed rule indicated that licensees would be expected to
demonstrate that doses are ALARA below the proposed 0.15 mSv/y (15
mrem/y) dose criterion. Some commenters endorsed ALARA analyses in
specific cases to determine if doses should be reduced below 0.15 mSv/y
(15 mrem/y) and recommended that a value of 0.03 (or less) mSv/y (3 (or
less) mrem/y) be the ALARA objective. Some of these commenters also
requested that the NRC explicitly mandate that technical and economic
analyses be performed. Other commenters indicated that ALARA principles
and analyses should not be required to determine if cleanup should be
performed to reduce doses below 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) because the
costs are large in comparison with the small reduction in risk. Several
commenters indicated, alternatively, that ALARA should be allowed above
0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) and that the rule should allow ALARA analyses to
be used to permit a licensee to release its site at a value higher than
0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) (up to 1
mSv/y (100 mrem/y)) if ALARA calculations support this alternative.
Another commenter disagreed and recommended that ALARA analyses be
applied only to demonstrate if additional cleanup is required below
0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y). Some commenters stated that guidance should be
provided describing how ALARA should be achieved, how doses would be
quantified, how models and parameters would be selected, what $/person-
rem value would be used, how nonradiological risks would be considered,
how net risks would be evaluated, how flexibility would be
incorporated, what degree of simplification of complex models would be
incorporated, and what final criteria would be used.
The proposed rule also contained, in Sec. 20.1402(a), a
decommissioning objective of reducing residual radioactivity to levels
that are indistinguishable from background. Section 20.1402(a) further
noted that such an objective may be difficult to meet as a practical
matter. Many commenters opposed establishment of the decommissioning
objective because it is arbitrary, serves no purpose for industrial
sites, is costly and a waste of resources, is unlikely to be achieved,
and cannot be measured. Some commenters supported establishing the
proposed objective because it is reasonable from a health standpoint.
Others suggested alternative objectives such as ALARA or using a dose
that is indistinguishable from the variation in background.
A.2.2 Response. The preamble to the proposed rule described three
broad considerations as providing the overall rationale for the
proposed rule's approach to license termination. The first two
considerations were related to health and safety, i.e., level of risk
and need for a constraint or margin of safety below the 1 mSv/y (100
mrem/y) public dose limit of 10 CFR part 20 to account for the
potential effect of multiple sources of radiation exposure. The third
consideration was related to practicality and reasonableness of costs.
The preamble to the proposed rule noted that the risk implied by use of
the proposed 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) dose is comparable to other
standards and practices of EPA and NRC for areas of unrestricted access
in the vicinity of facilities, and that the proposed 0.15 mSv/y (15
mrem/y) standard provides a substantial margin of safety (constraint)
for a single source below the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) public dose limit in
10 CFR part 20 to account for the potential exposure of a member of the
public to other sources. This ``constraint'' approach was noted as
being consistent with generic constraint recommendations made by
national and international scientific bodies such as the International
Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Requirements related to
ALARA, the decommissioning objective, and restricted use were included
in the rule based on the NRC staff analysis in the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) (NUREG-1496) that showed that the
costs of reducing exposures to, or in some cases below, a 0.15 mSv/y
(15 mrem/y) criterion would not generally be unduly burdensome for most
licensees, although in those cases where the costs would present an
unreasonable burden, release of the site with restrictions placed on
its use would provide an alternative means for achieving the same level
of protection. Achieving levels of less than 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y),
including achieving the decommissioning objective, was generally seen
as not cost-effective because increasingly larger volumes of concrete
and soil would have to be removed at a greater net risk due to deaths
from transportation accidents and because more difficult survey
measurements would have to be made with little net benefit in dose
reduction.
The NRC considered alternatives suggested in public comments and
reexamined the rationale of the proposed rule. A summary of that
reexamination, along with a description of particular comments on the
rationale, is contained in the following subsections.
A.2.2.1 Level of risk and consistency with other EPA/NRC
standards. Some commenters criticized the health risk associated with a
0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) limit as too high thereby providing inadequate
public protection. In particular, they objected to the NRC's reliance
on ICRP and NCRP because recent research (including findings in the
aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl accident and in the 1990 report on
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (the BEIR V report)) showed
risks to be higher than ICRP or NCRP indicated, or suggested other
sources for limits, including a British standard and a National Academy
of Sciences statement on radiation safety. Commenters also indicated
that 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) was too high because it is higher than
other NRC or EPA standards such as those for operating reactors.
The majority of commenters criticized 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) as too
low for reasons which included that it is far below the level at which
health effects have been observed in studies, that the risks associated
with other EPA and NRC standards (including 10 CFR parts 20, 60 and 61,
40 CFR parts 190 and 191, and EPA's radon action level) are higher, and
that it is based on the linear non-threshold theory which is not
appropriate for setting such standards. These commenters also
criticized the relationship of the risks implied by this rule to those
implied by standards for chemical hazards.
In general, many commenters stated that the NRC should work closely
with
[[Page 39061]]
the EPA in developing its decommissioning regulations to assure that
there are no conflicting or duplicate requirements and that the
acceptable risk levels and associated requirements developed by the two
agencies are compatible or the same. DOE noted that a nonuniform
approach could significantly impact the DOE environmental restoration
program and that NRC/EPA regulations will have an impact beyond NRC
licensees. There was some commenter disagreement as to whether EPA or
NRC should take the lead in issuance of exposure standards. In its
comments on the NRC's proposed rulemaking, the EPA supported the 0.15
mSv/y (15 mrem/y) limit.
In response, the NRC has considered recent information and
recommendations in ICRP Publication 60 and NCRP No. 116. These
documents are developed by recognized experts in the fields of
radiation protection and health effects and contain reviews of current
significant research in radiation health effects. The NCRP is a
nonprofit corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress to develop and
disseminate information and recommendations about protection against
radiation and to cooperate with the ICRP and other national and
international organizations with regard to these recommendations. The
ICRP has continued to update and revise its estimates of health effects
of radiation since its inception in 1928. In its deliberations, ICRP
maintains relationships with United Nations health and labor
organizations.
In addition, the NRC evaluated the proposed Federal Radiation
Protection Guidance for Exposure of the General Public (FRG) as
published for comment on December 23, 1994 (59 FR 66414), in which the
EPA, under its charter, made recommendations to the President of the
United States concerning recommended practices for protection of the
public and workers from exposure to radiation.
Recent recommendations contained in ICRP 60, NCRP No. 116, and the
proposed FRG are essentially similar. Use of these sources for
formulating basic radiation protection standards is consistent with
NRC's general approach regarding risk decisions as is noted in the
preamble to issuance of 10 CFR part 20 on May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23360).
The NRC considers it reasonable and appropriate to use the findings of
these bodies in developing criteria for license termination to apply to
its licensees.
The ICRP and NCRP and EPA have reviewed current, significant
studies made by other health research bodies, such as the National
Academy of Sciences-National Research Council's Committee on the
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) and the United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and
have developed recommendations regarding limitations on exposure to
radiation. In particular, the BEIR Committee conducted major reviews of
the scientific data on health risks of low levels of ionizing radiation
in 1972, 1980, 1988, and 1990, and similar reviews were published by
UNSCEAR in 1977, 1982, 1986, and 1988. As noted in the proposed FRG,
these studies have provided more certainty about radiation risks at
high doses and dose rates. Using that information and assumptions of
linearity with low dose/dose rate reduction factors, BEIR V contains
updated risk factors.
Concerning recent information from the Chernobyl accident noted by
a commenter, there are still ongoing studies of the effects of the
accident. A report published by the principal international
organization studying health effects from the accident, the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), entitled
``Chernobyl: Ten Years On; Radiological and Health Impact,'' summarized
the findings regarding health impacts by noting that scientific and
medical observation of the population has not revealed any increase in
cancers or other radiation induced disease that could be attributable
to the Chernobyl accident. The only area where an increase was noted
was for thyroid cancer. However, these effects most likely resulted
from the release of short-lived radioiodine from the accident and the
affinity of the thyroid gland for iodine. Similar effects would not be
applicable in decommissioning because radioactive iodine is not
expected to be a significant contaminant. The report further notes
that, while studies continue on long term effects, it is unlikely that
the exposure to contaminants in the environment will lead to
discernible radiation effects in the general population. Thus, this
research does not appear to indicate that the findings of the ICRP and
NCRP will be shown to underestimate risks.
Specifically with regard to the risk level, some of the commenters
stated that the risk of fatal cancers from 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) is
too high in comparison with risk goals in the range 1 x 10-4
to 1 x 10-6 used by EPA in Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulations. Other
commenters disagreed and stated that precedents from earlier NRC
rulemakings support a level of risk significantly greater than that and
more appropriately in a range of 1 x 10-2 to
1 x 10-3 (e.g., the level of lifetime risk corresponding to
the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) public dose limit of 10 CFR Part 20, that is
NRC's basic standard for public safety, is about
1.5 x 10-3). Several of these commenters also criticized
0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) as too low because the linear non-threshold
model overestimates the risk and should not be used in the analysis. In
response to comments on the risk level, constant exposure over a 30-
year time period to dose levels of about 0.15-0.25 mSv/y (15-25 mrem/
y), results in an estimated lifetime risk of fatal cancer of about
2.3 x 10-4 to 3.8 x 10-4 which is at the upper
end of the acceptable risk range suggested by EPA in their comments on
NRC's proposed rule but lower than that in NRC's public dose
limits.2 These estimates are based on use of the linear non-
threshold model for calculating risk estimates. In response to specific
comments on use of the linear non-threshold model in estimating risk,
use of the linear non-threshold model for estimating incremental health
effects per radiation dose incurred is considered a reasonable
assumption for regulatory purposes by international and national
scientific bodies such as ICRP and NCRP. The principal international
and national radiological protection criteria, including the NRC's, are
based on this assumption as a measure of conservatism. NRC's policy
regarding use of the linear non-threshold model was stated in the
preamble to the issuance of 10 CFR part 20 (56 FR 23360; May 21, 1991)
noting that the assumptions regarding a linear non-threshold dose
effect model are appropriate for formulating radiation protection
standards. Although this matter continues to be the subject of further
consideration at this time, there is not sufficient evidence to
convince the NRC to alter its policy as part of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The risks are estimated assuming a risk coefficient of
5 x 10-4 per rem and a 30-year lifetime exposure that is
used by EPA in estimating risk from contaminated sites based on the
assumption that it is unlikely that an individual will continue to
live or work in the same area for more than 30 years. Such an
estimate is seen as providing a conservative estimate of potential
risk because land use patterns are generally such that persons
living at or near a site will not continuously receive the limiting
dose, and, for most of the facilities covered by this rule, the TEDE
is controlled by relatively short-lived nuclides of half-lives of 30
years or less for which the effect of radioactive decay will, over
time, reduce the risk significantly (e.g., at reactors where much of
the contamination is from Co-60 with a half-life of 5.3 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide some perspective on the conservatism of considering dose
criteria in the range of 0.15-0.25 mSv/
[[Page 39062]]
y (15-25 mrem/y), it should be noted that, as described in the Final
GEIS (NUREG-1496) prepared in support of this rulemaking, these levels
are small when compared to the average level of natural background
radiation in the United States (about 3 mSv/y (300 mrem/y)) and the
variation of this natural background across the United States. In
addition, although as noted above NRC is not altering its policy
regarding use of the linear non-threshold model as part of this
rulemaking, there is uncertainty associated with estimating risks at
such dose levels. This uncertainty occurs because evidence of radiation
dose health effects has only been observed at high dose levels (200 mSv
(20,000 mrem) and above) and significant uncertainty in risk estimation
is introduced when extrapolating to the very low dose levels being
considered in this rulemaking. The health effects resulting from even a
dose of 1 mSv (100 mrem) are uncertain. The BEIR Committee stated in
its 1990 report (BEIR V) that ``Studies of populations chronically
exposed to low-level radiation, such as those residing in regions of
elevated natural background radiation, have not shown consistent or
conclusive evidence of an associated increase in the risk of cancer.''
The risk associated with a dose criterion in the range of about
0.15-0.25 mSv/y (15-25 mrem/y) is generally consistent with the risk
levels permitted in the performance objectives for low-level waste
facilities in 10 CFR 61.41, and for fuel cycle facilities and for spent
fuel and high level waste in EPA's 40 CFR 190 and 191. In addition,
doses in the range of 0.15-0.25 mSv/y (15-25 mrem/y) are comparable to
current NRC practices for decommissioning of reactors and certain
materials facilities and fuel cycle facilities. Specifically, reactors
have been decommissioned in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.86 and
with an NRC license termination letter to Stanford University (April
21, 1982, Docket No. 50-141). Materials facilities have been released
in accordance with the levels for external radiation for beta/gamma
exposure in NRC's Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23. In addition,
a dose criterion in the range of 0.15-0.25 mSv/y (15-25 mrem/y) is
generally at the low end of the range of values estimated for Option 1
of the 1981 Branch Technical Position (BTP) for sites with uranium and
thorium and used for Ra-226 in 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, for uranium mill
contamination.
A.2.2.2 Effect of multiple sources and margin of safety below 1
mSv/y (100 mrem/y). Some commenters suggested that 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/
y) is too low and indicated that the NRC limit was inconsistent with
ICRP and NCRP especially with regard to considerations of multiple
sources of exposure, and that it would be unusual for an individual to
be exposed to multiple sources approaching the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y)
limit. These commenters suggested that 25-30 percent of 1 mSv (100
mrem) is an adequate margin to account for multiple sources.
In response, and by way of background, it is noted that the NCRP in
its publication No. 116 (Chapter 15) recommends that, for continuous
exposure, the effective dose to members of the public not exceed 1 mSv/
y (100 mrem/y) from all man-made sources, other than medical and not
including natural background sources. Similarly, ICRP, in Table 6 of
ICRP Publication 60, recommends a limit of 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) as the
dose limit for the public, and recommendation No. 3 of the draft EPA
Federal Radiation Protection Guidance (FRG) indicates that the combined
radiation doses incurred in any single year from all sources of
exposure (excluding medical and natural background) should not normally
exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem) and that continued or chronic exposure of an
individual over substantial portions of a lifetime at or near 1 mSv/y
(100 mrem/y) should be avoided. Consistent with these bodies, the NRC
issued 10 CFR part 20 (56 FR 23360) in 1991 that established a public
dose limit of 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) in 10 CFR 20.1301.
These national and international bodies also note and agree that,
although the limit for the public dose should be 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y)
from all man-made sources combined, it would seem appropriate that the
amount that a person would receive from a single source should be
further reduced to be a fraction of the limit to account for the
possibility that an individual may be exposed to more than one source
of man-made radioactivity, thus limiting the potential that an
individual would receive a dose at the public dose limit.
Recommendations from these bodies, as well as from the NRC's Advisory
Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW), regarding what the fraction from a
source should be are:
(a) NCRP No. 116, Chapter 15, notes that no single source or set of
sources under one's control should result in an individual being
exposed to more than 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y). This fraction was
presented as a simple alternative to having a site operator (where a
site could expose individuals to levels greater than 0.25 mSv/y (25
mrem/y)) investigate all man-made exposures that an individual at the
site would be exposed to so as to demonstrate that the total dose does
not exceed 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y). The clear implication in this simple
alternative is that, if individual sources are constrained to 0.25 mSv/
y (25 mrem/y), NCRP believes it likely, given the low potential for
multiple exposures, that the public dose limits will be met. Further
reductions considering ALARA would still be considered by NCRP No. 116.
(b) ICRP 60, Section 5.5.1, in discussing the principles of
constraints and limits, notes that it is appropriate to select dose
constraints applied to each source to allow for contributions from
other sources so as to maintain doses below the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y)
limit. ICRP 60 does not contain numerical guidance on dose constraints
for particular practices, but notes that cumulative exposures to
individuals from existing sources near 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) are rarely
a problem primarily because of the widespread use of source-related
dose constraints.
Further explanation of the fundamental concepts of ICRP 60 are
contained in the paper, ``The ICRP Principles of Radiological
Protection and Their Application to Setting Limits and Constraints for
the Public from Radiation Sources,'' by Professor Roger Clarke,
Chairman of the ICRP (January 12, 1995; a copy is available in the file
for this rulemaking in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC). The paper notes that the constraint
approach derives from the optimization principle of radiation
protection in which, for any source, individual doses should be ALARA
and also be constrained by restrictions on doses to individuals (i.e.,
dose constraints). The paper further notes that a constraint is an
individual related criterion applied to a single source to ensure that
the overall dose limits are not exceeded, and that a dose constraint
would therefore be set at a fraction of the dose limit as a boundary on
the optimization of that source. Based on the principles presented in
the paper, the constraint recommended in the paper for a decommissioned
site is 0.3 mSv/y (30 mrem/y) and that further optimization through the
ALARA principle is appropriate. As is the case for NCRP No. 116, the
implication of the paper and ICRP 60 is that the constraint level is a
boundary on the dose from this source and is sufficient to assure that
members of the public are not exposed to levels in excess of the public
dose limit. The rationale for this is expressed in Section 5.5.1 of
ICRP 60 where it is noted that the critical group
[[Page 39063]]
is not normally exposed to the constraint level from more than one
source although it may be exposed to some dose level less than the
constraint level from more than one source.
(c) The proposed FRG in recommendation No. 4 indicates that
individual sources should have ``authorized limits'' set at a fraction
of the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) limit for all sources combined. The draft
FRG notes that the basis for this recommendation is the various
categories of activities using radiation that can lead to exposure to
members of the public, and also notes the need for broad assumptions
about future activities involving radiation use.
The draft FRG does not recommend a level for any one source
although it does note that setting such a fraction will necessarily be
a broad judgment based on a general observation of the characteristics
of existing activities, projections for continuing those activities in
the future, and the potential for other uses in the future that can be
identified now. Thus, the draft FRG notes that, in the case of
authorized limits for broad categories of sources, the judgments will
often necessarily be broad and may lead to somewhat higher values, with
further implementation of the ALARA process left to management of
individual sources within a category. The draft FRG does not indicate
how this judgment is to be made although it cites authorized standards
for certain sources that currently exist, including 40 CFR part 190 for
the nuclear fuel cycle, Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50 for power
reactors, 10 CFR part 61, and 40 CFR part 141. All of these set
authorized fractions at 25 percent or less of the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y)
public dose limit. NRC, in its comments on EPA's draft FRG, questioned
what was the appropriate fraction of the public dose limit in 10 CFR
part 20 that should be used in setting constraints that would become
``authorized'' limits.
(d) In its review of how the principles and recommendations of the
ICRP, NCRP, and FRG are relevant to the proposed NRC rule, NRC's
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) noted that 0.15 mSv/y (15
mrem/y) represented an unnecessarily conservative fraction of the 1
mSv/y (100 mrem/y) annual limit. The ACNW agreed that the need to
partition the annual recommended dose limit among several sources to
which a person is likely to be exposed appears justifiable and noted
that no explicit guidance from the various national and international
bodies on this subject exists. ACNW stated that a constraint of 25
percent or 30 percent of the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) limit appears more
justified and appropriate based on the likelihood that no more than 3
or 4 separate regulated sources will affect the critical group at any
instance. ACNW further noted that the selection of 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/
y), that represents about \1/7\ of the annual limit, assumes that a
person will encounter a simultaneous dose from seven different
regulated sources and that this appears to them to be unjustified,
particularly because the ALARA principle accompanies all such NRC
regulatory actions.
The recommendations of the previously cited organizations can be
summarized as suggesting that a constraint value should be set as part
of the process of optimizing the dose from a particular source and that
this constraint value should be set as a boundary value below which
further optimization or ALARA principles should be employed. The
recommendations also appear to suggest that setting a source constraint
of 25-33 percent of the annual dose limit of 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) is
appropriate and adequate to ensure that the dose limit is met, and do
not tend to lend support to 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) as the appropriate
fraction to which to constrain the dose from an individual source
because it is not likely that a critical group will be exposed to as
many as seven sources. Thus, the recommendations appear to indicate
that the constraint value should be set using a more reasonable
approach.
In discussing the bases for the 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) dose
criterion in the proposed rule, the Commission noted in the preamble
(at 59 FR 43219; August 22, 1994) that 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) would
provide a ``substantial'' margin of safety and be appropriate for
decommissioned facilities. As part of its review of the public
comments, the Commission considered the recommendations of the
standards-setting bodies previously cited. Further, in making a
judgment on the appropriate value of the fraction, the Commission also
considered principles of optimization, numbers and types of sources,
potential for exposure of critical groups to more than one source at
the constraint value, and assumptions regarding the manner in which a
critical group would be exposed. NRC reviewed the assumptions of the
Draft and Final GEIS regarding exposure pathways and also NUREG/CR-5512
upon which the Draft and Final GEIS are based. NUREG/CR-5512 provides
an analysis of exposure pathways for critical groups at decommissioned
facilities. The principal limiting scenarios include: (a) Full time
residence and farming at a decommissioned site, (b) exposure while
working in a decommissioned building, and (c) renovation of a newly
decommissioned building. These principal limiting exposure scenarios
are intended to overestimate dose and also tend to be somewhat mutually
exclusive; i.e., a person living near a decommissioned nuclear facility
would only receive a dose near the constraint level if his living
pattern includes full-time residency and farming at the site. This
living pattern would make it difficult for the member of this critical
group to also be a member of the critical group from other licensed or
decommissioned sources. Conversely, a person having less residency than
a full time farmer (e.g., apartment dweller, homeowner who works away
from the site) might receive doses from other sources but would receive
less than the constraint value from the decommissioned site because the
exposure time and the number of pathways would be reduced. Thus, given
the assumptions regarding living patterns made in evaluating compliance
with the constraint level, it is difficult to envision an individual
receiving levels approaching constraint levels from more than one
licensed or decommissioned source. It is also likely that individuals
at a decommissioned site will actually be exposed to doses
substantially below the constraint level because of ALARA
considerations and because of the nature of the cleanup process itself,
i.e., the process of scabbling of concrete removes a layer of concrete
which likely contains a large fraction of the remaining radioactivity,
and the process of soil excavation is a gross removal process that is
also likely to remove large fractions of the radioactivity. For
example, the Final GEIS indicates that, for the reference cases
analyzed, removal of a layer of concrete by scabbling will result in
doses at levels from 2 to more than 10 times lower than a constraint
value. In addition to consideration of decommissioned sources, it is
also difficult to envision that an individual could come in contact
with more than a few other sources as part of normal living patterns.
For example, the NCRP in NCRP No. 93, ``Ionizing Radiation Exposure of
the Population of the United States,'' September 1987, reviewed likely
radiation exposures to the public from consumer products, air
emissions, and fuel cycle facilities (including nuclear power plants)
and found that, in general, exposure to the public is a small fraction
of 1 mSv/y (a few mrem/y). Recent experience on
[[Page 39064]]
nuclear power plant emissions and dose commitments (NUREG/CR-2850)
tends to support the conclusions of NCRP No. 93 about power plant
exposures.
NRC's generic evaluation of uses of and doses from various sources,
including decommissioned sources, supplemented by the recommendations
of the standards setting bodies and advisory committee noted above,
suggests that the substantial added margin of safety provided by the
0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) value may be too restrictive for its intended
purpose of constraining doses from this category of sources in
establishing an appropriate boundary constraint. Rather, the evaluation
leads NRC to conclude that 25 percent of the public dose limit is a
sufficient and ample fraction to use as the limitation for
decommissioned sources.
Thus, the Commission concludes that a generic dose constraint or
limitation for decommissioning sources of 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) for
unrestricted release of a site is reasonable from the standpoint of
providing a sufficient and ample margin of safety for protection of
public health and safety. It is recognized that this conclusion
reflects a judgment regarding the likelihood of individuals being
exposed to multiple sources with cumulative doses approaching 1 mSv/y
(100 mrem/y) rather than an analysis based on probability distributions
for such exposures. However, considering the kinds of occupancy time
typically assumed for the average member of the critical group at a
site, it is highly unlikely that individuals could realistically be
expected to experience exposures to other sources with a cumulative
effect approaching 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y).
A.2.2.3 Cost and practicality of standard. Comments received on
cost and practicality were analyzed to determine whether such an
analysis can provide additional information related to the criteria of
this rule. This analysis includes how, and to what level, ALARA efforts
should be made, how the proposed decommissioning objective of returning
a site to background should be applied, and what provisions should
there be (e.g., restricted use) for sites where it is unreasonable or
unwise to attain the unrestricted dose criterion.
Some commenters criticized the proposed rule for including
considerations of cost-effectiveness, objecting to using cost in
decisionmaking. Other commenters criticized the rule because, although
they favored use of cost-benefit analyses in decisionmaking, they
believed that the cost-benefit analysis in the draft GEIS and draft
Regulatory Analysis (RA) was inadequate to justify a 0.15 mSv/y (15
mrem/y) dose criterion because it used an improper approach (i.e.,
combining the building and soil analysis). They also believed that it
underestimated the amount of contamination at reference facilities, as
well as the costs of remediation and final site closeout surveys.
The Commission considered the concerns of commenters who criticized
inclusion of cost as a consideration in decisionmaking. NRC methods and
policy regarding cost considerations are stated in NUREG/BR-0058, Rev.
2, and call for preparation of an appropriate regulatory analysis in
support of regulatory decisions. NUREG/BR-0058 does note that costs
cannot be considered for regulatory actions necessary to ensure
adequate protection of the health and safety of the public; however, it
further notes that costs can be a factor in those cases where there may
be more than one way to reach a level of adequate protection. Thus, the
analysis in the GEIS and RA was prepared in support of the rulemaking
to provide additional information to decisionmakers about the rule
criteria being considered.
The Commission has also considered the concerns of those commenters
that criticized the analysis of costs and risks as incomplete and
inadequate and reviewed information submitted in support of those
comments. In general, some of the major comments suggested, and
provided data on, the following:
(a) Additional data from actual decommissionings should be included
that would consider variations in site contamination characteristics,
including the concentration and volume of contamination and the profile
of the contamination with depth;
(b) Reevaluation of remediation and survey costs should be
conducted, including consideration of variation in waste burial
charges, remediation methods, and survey procedures;
(c) Separate analyses of the cost-effectiveness of soil removal and
building removal should be performed. A commenter illustrated that
separate analyses would clarify differences between costs and impacts
of cleanup of soils and structures that were not obvious in the Draft
GEIS. Commenters also suggested deleting the ``knee-in-curve'' approach
as not clearly illustrating the information regarding costs and impacts
for cleanup of both soils and structures; and
(d) Potential alternative uses of the site lands and facilities
should be considered to provide a higher level of realism in the dose
estimates. These alternative uses can result in variations in direct
exposure and ingestion pathways and in the number of persons exposed
and thus the collective exposure and net health effects.
Based on the comments and information received, additional
information has been added to the GEIS. Data on contamination submitted
by the commenters were reviewed, compared with other existing data,
including that in the Draft GEIS, and incorporated into the Final GEIS
as appropriate. The Final GEIS thus considers additional soil
contamination data as well as soil and building contamination
comparable to that in the draft GEIS. It also considers the range of
disposal costs and survey methods and costs presented in the Draft
GEIS, as well as those suggested in the comments. The Commission agrees
with the commenters that consideration of soil and buildings separately
can provide added information. Thus the Final GEIS has used the
analysis of the Draft GEIS, that contained the data for performing
separate analyses, and has presented the data more clearly in revised
tables. In addition, the ``knee-in-curve'' figures, that provided
general information about behavior of costs and impacts associated with
cleanup, have been replaced with a simpler set of tables similar to the
presentation in the Draft Regulatory Analysis, in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.
In response to comments suggesting that the Final GEIS consider more
realistic post decommissioning uses, the Final GEIS considers a range
of possible uses, including residential farming, denser residential
use, industrial/office use, and higher building occupancy rates.
Given the range of possible parameters, scenarios, and site-
specific situations, the Final GEIS concludes, in a manner similar to
the Draft GEIS, that there is a wide range of cost-benefit results
among the different facilities and within facility types and that there
is no unique algorithm that decisively produces an ALARA result for all
facilities. Despite these difficulties, the Final GEIS and RA provide
the following results that can be helpful for gaining insight in making
decisions regarding ALARA, the decommissioning objective, and whether
restricted use should be permitted:
(a) Achieving, as an objective of ALARA, reduction to preexisting
background. The objective of returning a site to preexisting background
conditions is consistent with the concept of returning a site to the
radiological condition that existed before its use. However, the
question of whether this objective, as a goal of ALARA, should be
codified by rule depends on a variety of factors,
[[Page 39065]]
including cost, practicality (e.g., measurability) of achieving the
objective, and the type of facility involved.
As noted in Section 7.3.1 of the Draft GEIS, decommissioning is
expected to be relatively easy for a certain class of non-fuel-cycle
nuclear facilities (i.e., those that use either sealed radioactive
sources or small amounts of short-lived nuclides), because there is
usually no residual radioactive contamination to be cleaned up and
disposed of, or, if there is any, it should be localized or it can be
quickly reduced to low levels by radioactive decay. Decommissioning
operations will generally consist of disposing of a sealed source or
allowing licensed short-lived nuclides to decay in storage, submitting
Form NRC-314, and demonstrating (either through radiation survey or
other means such as calculation of reduction of the contamination level
by radioactive decay) compliance with the requirements for license
termination. Because contamination at these facilities is expected to
be negligible or to decay to negligible levels in a short time,
achieving an objective of returning these facilities to background
would not appear to be an unreasonable objective of ALARA.
However, in general, for those nuclear facilities where
contamination exists in soils and/or structures, the Final GEIS
analysis shows, in a manner similar to the Draft GEIS, that achieving
an ALARA decommissioning objective of ``return to a preexisting
background'' is not reasonable as it may result in net detriment or
because cost cannot be justified because detriments and costs
associated with remediation and surveys tend to increase significantly
at low levels, while risk reduction from radiation exposure from
criteria near background is marginal.
(b) ALARA analysis for soil contamination. Soil contamination can
exist onsite at nuclear facilities because of a variety of reasons
including spills or leaks, deposition from airborne effluents, or
burial or placement of system byproducts or other waste materials in
onsite soils. The level of soil contamination for the large majority of
NRC-licensed facilities (>6000) is either zero or minimal (it is
expected that the large majority of Agreement State licensees would
have similar contamination). Certain facilities (e.g., power reactors,
fuel facilities, industrial facilities) may have greater soil
contamination, and certain of these facilities have been identified as
having extensive soil contamination (albeit generally at relatively low
levels) and have been placed in the Site Decommissioning Management
Plan (SDMP) (see NUREG-1444, October 1993). These sites warrant
specific NRC attention regarding their decommissioning.
For the generic scenarios considered, the results of the Final GEIS
evaluation indicate that there is a wide range of possible cost-benefit
ratios. Nevertheless, there appears to be a strong indication that
removing and transporting soil to waste burial facilities to achieve
exposure levels at the site at or below a 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y)
unrestricted use dose criterion is generally not cost-effective when
evaluated using NRC's regulatory analysis framework presented in NUREG/
BR-0058 and NUREG-1530. Further, even for a range of cleanup levels at
or above a 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) criterion, there can also be cases
where costs are unreasonable in comparison to benefits realized.
(c) ALARA analysis for structures containing contamination.
Building floors and walls at nuclear facilities can be contaminated for
a variety of reasons, including system leaks, spills, tracking, and
activation. The large majority of NRC licensed facilities have zero or
limited building contamination. Generally, contamination does not
penetrate the surface of concrete and can be readily removed by water
jets or concrete scabbling. If the building is reused for some new
industrial, office, or other use after license termination, persons can
be in direct contact with the decommissioned floors and walls.
For the range of generic situations considered, the results of the
Final GEIS evaluation indicate that there is a wide range of possible
cost-benefit ratios. It appears that cleanup of concrete to levels at
or below 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) can be cost effective, depending on the
number of individuals projected to be occupying a building, when using
the decisionmaking guidelines of NUREG/CR-0058 and NUREG-1530.
A.2.3 Conclusions regarding overall approach to license
termination and unrestricted dose criterion. Based on the above
discussion, the Commission has concluded that the overall license
termination approach of this final rule should include:
An unrestricted use dose criterion of 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/
y) applicable on a generic basis without site-specific analysis;
Considerations regarding ALARA, including the
decommissioning objective;
A tiered approach of unrestricted use and allowing
restricted use if certain provisions are met; and
Codifying alternate criteria in the rule to alleviate the
need for exemptions in certain difficult site-specific circumstances.
The reasons for these conclusions are discussed in the following
subsections.
A.2.3.1 An unrestricted use dose criterion of 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/
y) applicable on a generic basis without site-specific analysis. For
the reasons described above, the Commission is establishing a dose of
0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) as an acceptable criterion for release of any
site for unrestricted use without further analysis of the potential for
exposures from other man-made sources excluding medical. The Commission
concludes that a generic dose constraint or limitation for
decommissioning sources of 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) for unrestricted use
of a site appears reasonable from the standpoint of providing a
sufficient and ample margin of safety in protection of public health
and safety. This conclusion reflects the Commission's judgment that the
likelihood of individuals being exposed to multiple sources with
cumulative doses approaching 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) is quite small. This
conclusion is based on consideration of the kinds of occupancy times
generally expected for the average member of the critical group at
typical decommissioned sites and the low probability that individuals
could realistically be expected to experience significant exposures to
other sources, particularly with a cumulative effect approaching 1 mSv/
y (100 mrem/y). In view of these perspectives, the Commission believes
that a generic dose criterion of 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) provides a
sufficient and ample, although not necessary, margin to protect the
public.
A.2.3.2 Considerations regarding ALARA, including the
decommissioning objective. The ICRP, NCRP, and draft FRG all suggest
that, in addition to setting a constraint value for an individual
source, achievement of exposures that are ALARA should continue to be
considered as a means of optimization. For this reason and because the
generic analysis of the Final GEIS tends to indicate that achieving
doses below 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) may be ALARA for some cases, the
rule continues to require an ALARA evaluation below the unrestricted
dose criterion.
It would be useful if the analyses in the Final GEIS could have
arrived at a value of ALARA for all facilities or classes of facilities
so that no further estimate of ALARA would be needed in site-specific
cases. However, it was not feasible for the Commission to use the
[[Page 39066]]
results of the Final GEIS to determine a generic optimum ALARA dose
because of the variety of possible scenarios, assumptions, parameters,
and site-specific conditions that could exist. Nevertheless, the Final
GEIS does contain information about certain trends in impacts and costs
of decommissioning that can be useful in preparation of regulatory
guidance supporting site-specific ALARA provisions. In particular, it
is clear from the Final GEIS that removal of soil to achieve dose
levels below the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) dose criterion is generally
unlikely to be cost-effective, whereas it may be for concrete in
certain cases. It is also clear that removal of soil or concrete to
``pre-existing background'' levels is generally not cost effective.
Thus, for those facilities where soil or building contamination
exists, it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that an
objective of return to background had been achieved. Therefore it is
concluded, as was previously done in the proposed rule, that for these
sites use of the unrestricted dose criterion with appropriate ALARA
considerations would be appropriate. For restricted use, the Final GEIS
suggests that although removal of soil to achieve dose levels below
0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) may not be cost-effective, other simple and less
costly measures to restrict the use of the site such as fencing or
barrier plantings may be cost-effective and should be considered as
part of the ALARA process. For groundwater contamination, as discussed
later in Section IV.D, ALARA considerations should consider the
situation where populations use groundwater plumes from a facility as
drinking water.
In actual situations, it is likely that, even if no specific
analysis of ALARA were required for soil and concrete removal, the
actual dose will be reduced to below 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) because of
the nature of the removal process. For example, the process of
scabbling of concrete removes a layer of concrete that likely contains
a large fraction of the remaining radioactivity, and the process of
soil excavation is a gross removal process that also is likely to
remove large fractions of the radioactivity.
To clarify the concept of ALARA, the regulatory guidance to be
prepared will refer to the existing requirements of Secs. 20.1003 and
20.1101 where ALARA is defined to include considerations of the state
of technology, economics of improvement in relation to the state of
technology, economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the
public health and safety, and other societal and socio-economic
considerations. Although preparation of guidance is in a preliminary
stage, it is anticipated that this guidance would likely indicate that
ALARA during decommissioning should include typical good practice
efforts (e.g., floor and wall washing, removal of readily removable
radioactivity in buildings or in soil areas), as well as ALARA analyses
for buildings to levels less than 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) based on the
number of individuals projected to be occupying the building, but that
an ALARA analysis below 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) for soil removal would
not need to be done. It is expected that use of the dose criterion of
the final rule and the regulatory guidance on ALARA would achieve
consistency with current practices where it is cost-effective to do so.
The Commission also believes that, in any ALARA analysis conducted
to support decisions about site cleanup, all reasonably expected
benefits and detriments resulting from the cleanup activities should be
taken into consideration in balancing costs and benefits. An example of
such a detriment would be transportation deaths that might occur as
contaminated waste is transported away from the site.
A.2.3.3 Tiered approach of unrestricted use and allowing
restricted use if certain provisions are met. It appears reasonable to
retain the basic structure presented in the proposed rule and allow for
both unrestricted and restricted use of sites. Allowance of restricted
use is appropriate because there can be situations where restricting
site use can provide protection of public health and safety by reducing
the TEDE to 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) in a more reasonable and cost-
effective manner than unrestricted use. This protection is afforded by
limiting the time period that an individual spends onsite or by
restricting agricultural or drinking water use. For many facilities,
the time period needed for restrictions can be fairly short; i.e., long
enough to allow radioactive decay to reduce radioactivity to levels
that permit release for unrestricted use. For example, at reactors,
manufacturing facilities, or broad scope licensees, where the principal
contaminants can have half-lives of 5-30 years (e.g., Co-60, Cs-137),
restricting site use for about 10-60 years can result in achieving
unrestricted use levels. Thus, it continues to be appropriate to allow
restricted use if accompanied by provisions that ensure the
restrictions remain in place to achieve a dose of 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/
y). Considerations for assuring that restrictions remain in place and
that public health and safety is protected are discussed further in
Section IV.B. In addition, because restricting site use can affect the
local community, Sections IV.B and IV.E indicate that licensees should
seek advice from such affected parties and, in seeking that advice,
provide for: (1) Participation by representatives of a broad cross
section of community interests, (2) an opportunity for a comprehensive,
collective discussion on the issues, and (3) a publicly available
summary of the results of all such discussions.
A.2.3.4 Codifying alternate site-specific criteria in the rule to
alleviate the need for exemptions in special circumstances. The
preamble to the proposed rule recognized that there could be certain
difficult sites presenting unique decommissioning problems where
licensees would seek exemptions from the rule's requirements. However,
as noted in Section IV.C below, because the Commission finds that it
would be preferable to deal with those facilities under the aegis of a
rule rather than as exemptions, the Commission has included in its
final rule a provision under which the Commission may terminate a
license using alternate criteria in certain specific cases. In allowing
such a provision, it is nevertheless the Commission's judgment that:
(1) It is generally preferable for sites to reduce doses to 0.25 mSv/y
(25 mrem/y) due to the uncertainty over the number of sources where
nuclides may be present for a long time-frame; (2) the large majority
of sites can reduce doses to less than 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) through
restricting site use; and (3) permitting large numbers of licensees to
propose alternate criteria is not advisable because it would be
contrary to one of the goals of this rulemaking to achieve more
efficient and consistent licensing actions. Therefore, the Commission
has limited the conditions under which a licensee could apply for
alternate criteria and expects that its use would be rare. A licensee
proposing to terminate a license at a site-specific level above 0.25
mSv/y (25 mrem/y) would be required to:
(a) Provide assurance that public health and safety would continue
to be protected by means of a complete and comprehensive analysis of
possible sources of exposure so that it is unlikely that the dose from
all potential man-made sources combined, other than medical, would
exceed the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) public dose limit of 10 CFR part 20;
[[Page 39067]]
(b) Employ, to the extent practical, restrictions on site use for
minimizing exposures at the site using the provisions for restricted
use outlined in Section IV.B, below; and
(c) Reduce doses to ALARA levels.
(d) Seek advice from affected parties regarding this approach and,
in seeking such advice, provide for: (1) Participation by
representatives of a broad cross section of community interests who may
be affected by the decommissioning, (2) an opportunity for a
comprehensive, collective discussion on the issues, and (3) a publicly
available summary of the results of all such discussions, and
(e) Obtain the specific approval of the Commission. The Commission
will make its decision on allowing use of alternate criteria in
specific cases only after consideration of the NRC staff's
recommendations that will address any comments provided by the
Environmental Protection Agency and any public comments submitted
regarding the decommissioning or license termination plan.
A description of these circumstances and potential resolutions on a
site-specific basis, short of exempting a facility from this rule,
appears in Section IV.C.
If license termination still cannot be met even under alternate
criteria, it may be necessary for the site (or a portion thereof) to be
kept under license in order to ensure that exposures to the public are
appropriately monitored. The evaluation of the maintenance of a site or
a portion thereof under a continued license is outside the scope of
this rulemaking because this rule contains provisions addressing
radiological criteria that apply to termination of a license.
A.2.4 Summary of rule revisions on unrestricted use and plans for
implementation. The final rule has been modified to indicate that the
dose criterion for unrestricted use is 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y).
Requirements that a licensee consider how the ALARA requirements of 10
CFR part 20 can be applied to achieve a dose below the dose criterion
have been retained.
Regulatory guidance is planned on how to meet these existing ALARA
requirements. In addition, to assist in implementing the dose
criterion, regulatory guidance will also be issued to provide clear
guidance to licensees on how to demonstrate compliance with the dose
criterion by using either:
(a) Screening analyses that use relatively simple approaches for
demonstrating compliance; or
(b) Site-specific modeling for more complex sites and
contamination. Regulatory guidance will also be issued to provide clear
guidance on statistical tests and survey methods available to licensees
for demonstrating compliance.
The Commission is retaining the distinguishable from background
provision in the final rule to allow release of sites when residual
contamination, if any, cannot be distinguished from background on a
statistical basis using proper survey techniques. In particular, at the
levels of the dose criterion, concentrations of uranium and thorium in
soil are extremely low and may not be distinguishable from background
on a statistical basis even when using proper survey techniques.
A.3 General Comments on the Dose Criterion
A.3.1 Comments. Comments were received on the 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/
y) dose criterion that questioned its effect on disposal capacity, the
relationship to naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), and
the issue of fixing the responsibility for cleanup.
A.3.2 Response. Some commenters were concerned about the effect of
0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) criterion on disposal capacity. As noted in
Section IV.A.2.2, several of the assumptions, models, and approaches in
the GEIS and Regulatory Analysis have been revised to include
additional data and alternate waste disposal costs. A complete
discussion of these revisions and analysis of disposal capacity is in
the Final GEIS and the Regulatory Analysis.
Some commenters questioned the relationship of this rule to NORM.
In response, the criteria of this rule apply to residual radioactivity
from activities under a licensee's control and not to naturally
occurring background radiation. Issues related to NRC-licensed sites
containing materials that occur in nature are discussed in Sections
IV.B and IV.C.
There is a wide variety of sites containing NORM subject to EPA
jurisdiction and not licensed by the NRC. The extent to which criteria
in this rule would apply to these sites would be based on a separate
evaluation although certain aspects of the rule, for example control of
sites with restrictions imposed, could be similar. For further
discussion, see also Section IV.G.6.
With regard to responsibility for cleanup, several commenters
stated that the 0.15 mSv/y (15 mrem/y) limit is too high because
licensees should have to clean up contamination that they created.
Because these are final licensing actions before releasing the site to
the public, they stated that only a lower criterion such as return to
background would adequately protect the public. In response, the NRC
agrees with the need to fix responsibility for decommissioning of
licensed sites. The planning and financial assurance requirements
adopted June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018), recognized the responsibility of
licensees to plan for the cleanup of their sites and to provide
adequate financial assurance for that cleanup. Similarly in this
regulation, licensees are not permitted to release a facility for
unrestricted or restricted public use unless the dose criteria
stipulated in the rule have been satisfied. As noted in the Final GEIS,
further cleanup to levels such as background is not generally
reasonable because it results in very little additional health benefit
with very large costs incurred and could result in an increase in the
overall risk associated with cleanup of a particular site when all
factors (e.g., estimated fatalities due to transportation accidents
during transport of radioactive wastes) are considered. Therefore, for
the reasons discussed in Section IV.A.2.2, the criteria in the final
rule are considered appropriate to protect public health and safety and
to permit release of the sites and termination of license.
A.4 Average Member of the Critical Group
A.4.1 Comment. Some commenters agreed with provisions of the rule
that would apply the dose limit to an average member of the critical
group rather than to the ``reasonably maximally exposed (RME)
individual'' because it is consistent with ICRP and provides an
appropriate protection standard. Other commenters objected to use of
``an average member of the critical group.'' These commenters favored
applying the dose limit to the most exposed person rather than to an
average person. They asserted that this would be consistent with the
approach used for other licensed activities and environmental
protection.
A.4.2 Response. Section 20.1003 of the proposed rule defined the
term ``critical group'' as the group of individuals reasonably expected
to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any
applicable set of circumstances. For example, if a site were released
for unrestricted use, the critical group would be the group of
individuals reasonably expected to be the most highly exposed
considering all reasonable potential future uses of the site. As noted
in the preamble to the proposed rule (at 59 FR 43218; August 22, 1994),
NUREG/CR- 5512 defines the critical group as an individual or
relatively homogeneously exposed
[[Page 39068]]
group expected to receive the highest exposure within the assumptions
of a particular scenario and the dosimetric methods of 10 CFR part 20.
The average member of the critical group is an individual who is
assumed to represent the most likely exposure scenario based on
prudently conservative exposure assumptions and parameter values within
model calculations. For example, the critical group for the building
occupancy scenario can be the group of regular employees working in a
building that has been decontaminated. If a site were converted to
residential use, the critical group could be persons whose occupations
involve resident farming at the site, not an average of all residents
on the site.
Although the terms ``critical group'' and ``average member'' are
new terms in NRC regulations, they are consistent with ICRP practice of
defining and using a critical group when assessing individual public
dose from low levels of radioactivity similar to those expected from a
decommissioned site. ICRP recommends that such analyses should consider
exposure to individuals representative of those expected to receive the
highest dose using cautious but reasonable assumptions. This approach
has been adopted in the proposed FRG and is also consistent with the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences on the Yucca
Mountain Standards (August 1995).
A.4.3 Summary of rule revisions. Based on this discussion, the
proposed rule has not been changed.
B. Criteria for Restricted Use (Proposed Rule Secs. 20.1402(d) and
20.1405)
B.1 Proposed Rule Content
As described in the proposed rulemaking and restated in Section
IV.A.2.2, there are potential situations under which termination of a
license under restricted conditions could be used in the
decommissioning of a site. Proposed Sec. 20.1405 indicated that a site
would be considered acceptable for license termination under restricted
conditions if the licensee:
(1) Made provisions for institutional controls that provide
reasonable assurance that the TEDE to the average member of the
critical group would not exceed the unrestricted use dose criterion;
(2) Reduced residual radioactivity at the site so that, if the
controls were no longer in effect, there is reasonable assurance that
the TEDE would not exceed 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y);
(3) Demonstrated that complying with the unrestricted use dose
criterion would be prohibitively expensive, result in net public or
environmental harm, or not be technically achievable;
(4) Obtained advice on the restrictions from the affected community
by convening a site-specific advisory board, and;
(5) Provided financial assurance to ensure the controls remain in
place.
B.2 Comments on Acceptability of Restricted Use for Decommissioned
Sites
A variety of comments was received on the restricted use option.
The major comment categories are listed below. Although the comment
categories address somewhat separate issues, they are listed and
answered together to develop a unified response on the issue of
restricted use.
B.2.1 The general concept of restricted use. Some commenters
agreed with the proposal to permit restricted use of decommissioned
sites because it may be financially impractical to reach unrestricted
levels, especially if health and safety considerations do not warrant
it and because restricted release allows realistic land uses to be
considered. Some commenters opposed the concept of any planned
restricted release of decommissioned sites because of concerns over the
durability and effectiveness of institutional controls, and because
license termination should be a final action with full licensee
responsibility for site disposition and cleanup costs previously
considered.
B.2.2 The need for licensees to demonstrate that restricted use is
appropriate for their sites. In allowing restricted use, the proposed
rule would have required licensees to demonstrate the appropriateness
of restricting site use for their particular situation by showing that
it would be ``prohibitively expensive,'' ``technically unachievable,''
or cause ``net public or environmental harm'' to achieve unrestricted
use (proposed Sec. 20.1405(a)). Some commenters supported the
restricted use of sites but indicated that the proposed requirements
for demonstrating its appropriateness were unreasonably restrictive.
These commenters stated that the provisions in proposed Sec. 20.1405(a)
were structured so narrowly that few sites would be able to qualify for
license termination under restricted conditions. Commenters stated that
these terms should be explained, deleted, or replaced with a less
onerous requirement allowing restricted use if justified by an ALARA
analysis or if there were continued ownership and industrial use of the
site.
B.2.3 The durability of institutional controls. Several commenters
opposed or expressed concern about the ability of institutional
controls to provide needed protection of public health and safety at
decommissioned sites because they cannot be enforced indefinitely into
the future and can be struck down or become ineffective. Other
commenters favored reliance on more flexible institutional controls and
recommended that the rule should not assume that they will eventually
fail. Approaches for using institutional controls were suggested
including Federal Government ownership of sites or legislative
solutions for complex sites similar to the National Waste Policy Act
(NWPA) of 1982.
B.2.4 The 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) cap if institutional controls fail.
Some commenters stated that the proposed 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y)
restriction is unreasonably low when used to assess the worst case
scenario. They recommended that the rule should not stipulate that a
licensee must assume that all institutional controls will eventually
fail. Alternatively, they recommended that a 5 mSv/y (500 mrem/y)
backup limit be allowed if restrictions such as institutional controls
or engineered features fail. The commenters believed that a 5 mSv/y
(500 mrem/y) limit is consistent with other regulations, since
residential use of an industrial site is unlikely, and failure of
controls is speculative. Several commenters objected to the last
sentence of proposed Sec. 20.1405(d), that stated that licensees may
not assume any benefits from an earthen cover, other earthen barriers,
or engineered controls in complying with the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) cap
unless specifically authorized by the Commission and recommended that
the sentence be deleted. Some commenters recommended that the rule
specify the extent to which licensees may take credit for engineered
barriers. Other commenters stated that 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) is too high
and that a lower value (e.g., 0.15, 0.3, 0.5, 0.75 mSv/y (15, 30, 50,
or 75 mrem/y)) should be applied because institutional controls are
uncertain, concerns over health effects would exist, and doses in
excess of 40 CFR Part 190 are unreasonable. Some commenters agreed with
establishing a maximum TEDE of 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) in the event
institutional controls are no longer in effect.
B.2.5 Financial assurance for restricted use. Some commenters
questioned the need for financial assurance provisions and suggested
that more flexibility be provided for
[[Page 39069]]
licensees. Other commenters questioned whether the financial assurance
provisions were adequate. One commenter stated that there should be
more detail on financial assurance provided in the rule.
B.3 Response
B.3.1 The general concept of restricted use. Current NRC
regulations pertaining to decommissioning, issued on June 27, 1988 (53
FR 24018), do not contain provisions for release of a facility for
restricted use but limit a licensee's options in decommissioning to
release of a facility for unrestricted use. Experience with
decommissioning of facilities since 1988 has indicated that for certain
facilities, achieving unrestricted use might not be appropriate because
there may be net public or environmental harm in achieving unrestricted
use, or because expected future use of the site would likely preclude
unrestricted use, or because the cost of site cleanup and waste
disposal to achieve unrestricted use is excessive compared to achieving
the same dose criterion by restricting use of the site and eliminating
exposure pathways. The input received from the rulemaking workshops
held from January through May 1993 confirmed this experience and
indicated that restricted use of a facility, if properly designed and
if proper controls were in place, was a reasonable means for
terminating licenses at certain facilities.
Current NRC-licensed sites that might request restricted use are
largely industrial sites. It is reasonable for them to remain
industrial because of their locations and previous siting
considerations. Nevertheless, there may be instances where, if a site
had high cultural value, such considerations would be presented as part
of the public input that is part of the process of restricted use (see
Section IV.E) and could be considered as a socioeconomic effect under
the ALARA process.
The proposed rule thus provided for both unrestricted and
restricted use of sites. Both the Draft and Final GEIS provide
discussions of the environmental impact of decommissioning for the
reference sites and of the costs related to decommissioning. From this
it may be concluded that release of certain facilities for restricted
use is an appropriate option assuming the presence of the specific
provisions described below to ensure that appropriate controls are in
place so that the restrictions on use remain in effect.
B.3.2 The need for licensees to demonstrate that restricted use is
appropriate for their sites. As described in Section IV.B.3.1, the
proposed rule allowed restricted use because release of a site under
restricted conditions can be an appropriate method of decommissioning
from both health and safety, and cost-benefit bases, especially for
certain facilities with soil contamination. Nevertheless it did so
under the philosophy (stated in Sec. 20.1402(d)) that, in general,
termination of a license for unrestricted use is preferable because it
requires no additional precautions or limitations on use of the site
after licensing control ceases, in particular for those sites with
long-lived nuclides. In addition, there may be societal or economic
benefits related to future value of the unrestricted use of the land to
the community. Thus, Sec. 20.1405(a) of the proposed rule stated the
provisions the NRC would consider in evaluating a request for
termination of a site under restricted conditions, including that it is
``prohibitively expensive'' or there is ``net public or environmental
harm'' in achieving unrestricted release.
The Commission continues to believe that unrestricted use is
generally preferable for the reasons noted. However, the NRC has
reexamined the provisions for allowing restricted use because of the
potential benefits. In explaining the provision of ``prohibitive''
cost, the proposed rule noted (at 59 FR 43220) that costs to achieve
unrestricted use may be ``excessive,'' indicating that this means there
may be situations where removal and disposal of large quantities of
material is simply ``not reasonable'' from a cost standpoint.
Consistent with this, the proposed rule noted in Sec. 20.1402(d) that
the Commission expected licensees to make every reasonable effort to
achieve unrestricted release. The specific cost that would be
considered excessive, not reasonable, or prohibitive was not included
in the proposed rule. This value depends on costs of unrestricted and
restricted use, and on an evaluation of these alternatives using the
regulatory analysis framework presented in NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG-
1530. NUREG/BR-0058 provides a decisionmaking tool for deciding between
regulatory alternatives. As noted in the discussion below, restricted
use with appropriate institutional controls (accompanied by sufficient
provisions for ensuring their effectiveness) can provide protection of
public health and safety because the dose level will be reduced to the
same 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) criterion as for unrestricted use. Thus,
use of the guidelines in NUREG/BR-0058 is appropriate for determining
whether restricted use should be permitted. Therefore, the Commission
has modified the rule to incorporate an ALARA standard rather than
prohibitive costs as the basis for selecting restricted use. To support
a request for restricted use, a licensee would perform an ALARA
analysis of the risks and benefits of all viable alternatives and
include consideration of any detriments. This could include estimated
fatalities from transportation accidents that might occur as the result
of transport of wastes from cleanup activities, and societal and
socioeconomic considerations such as the potential value to the
community of unrestricted use of the land.
The proposed rule also noted that because the net public or
environmental damage through removal, transport, and disposal of
materials could be larger than the benefit in dose reduction at the
site, it may be more reasonable for the material to remain onsite. The
Final GEIS illustrates when it may be inappropriate, when considering
such relative impacts, to completely remediate a site to an
unrestricted level that assumes activities such as farming or
residence, and then, as would be the case for a number of currently
licensed sites, actually employ a commercial or industrial use that
would eliminate significant pathways of exposure. Specific examples
include reactors or other materials facilities where the dose is
controlled by relatively short-lived nuclides (e.g., Co-60 and Cs-137
with half-lives of 5.3 and 30 years, respectively) that will decay to
unrestricted dose levels in a finite time period of institutional
control (e.g., about 10-60 years). For these facilities, there may be
net public or environmental harm from removing and transporting soil to
achieve unrestricted use compared to restricting use for a period of
time associated with a reasonable decay period (see the Final GEIS,
Chapter 6). Thus, the consideration of potential detriments from
cleanup activities and the possibility of net harm have been retained
in the final rule. Both terms, net public harm and net environmental
harm, are retained in the final rule to indicate that a licensee's
evaluation should consider the radiological and nonradiological impacts
of decommissioning on persons who may be impacted, as well as the
potential impact on ecological systems from decommissioning activities.
B.3.3 The durability of institutional controls. As described in
Sections IV.B.3.1 and IV.B.3.2, use of restrictions that employ
institutional controls appears appropriate in specific
[[Page 39070]]
situations. However, an important question raised in the public
comments relates to the durability of institutional controls, i.e.,
whether the controls provide reasonable assurance that the exposure
will be limited to the dose criterion in the rule over the periods in
question.
For many types of decommissioned sites released under restricted
conditions where potential doses to an individual are caused by
relatively short-lived nuclides, the radiation exposure that could
potentially be received were controls to fail will gradually decrease
to below the unrestricted dose criterion so the restrictions on use
would no longer be necessary. Examples of facilities with nuclides of
this type include reactors or materials facilities for which the
principal dose contributing nuclides after decommissioning are Co-60 or
Cs-137 (half-lives 5.3 and 30 years, respectively), or other similarly
short-lived nuclides. The Commission has considered the effectiveness
of institutional controls for up to 100 years in similar contexts such
as low-level waste disposal sites. Because decommissioned facilities
will have minimal contamination compared to large volumes buried at
low-level disposal sites, the Commission believes that institutional
controls using relatively simple deed restrictions can provide
reasonable assurance that the TEDE will be below the 0.25 mSv/y (25
mrem/y) dose criterion with restrictions in place.
In a limited number of cases, in particular those involving large
quantities of uranium and thorium contamination, the presence of long-
lived nuclides at decommissioned sites will continue the potential for
radiation exposure beyond the 100-year period. More stringent
institutional controls will be required in these situations, such as
legally enforceable deed restrictions and/or controls backed up by
State and local government control or ownership, engineered barriers,
and Federal ownership, as appropriate. Federal control is authorized
under Section 151(b) of the National Waste Policy Act (NWPA). Requiring
absolute proof that such controls would endure over long periods of
time would be difficult, and the Commission does not intend to require
this of licensees. Rather, institutional controls should be established
by the licensee with the objective of lasting 1000 years to be
consistent with the time-frame used for calculations (and discussed in
Section IV.F.7). Having done this, the licensee would be expected to
demonstrate that the institutional controls could reasonably be
expected to be effective into the foreseeable future.
To provide added assurance that the public will be protected, the
final rule incorporates provisions (Sec. 20.1405(c)) for financial
assurance to ensure that the controls remain in place and are effective
over the period needed. With these provisions, the Commission believes
that the use of reliable institutional controls is appropriate and that
these controls will provide a high level of assurance that doses will
not exceed the dose criterion for unrestricted use.
Although the Commission believes that failure of active and passive
institutional controls with the appropriate provisions in place will be
rare, it recognizes that it is not possible to preclude the failure of
controls. Therefore, in the proposed rule, the Commission included a
requirement that remediation be conducted so that there would be a
maximum value (``cap'') on the TEDE from residual radioactivity if the
institutional controls were no longer effective in limiting the
possible scenarios or pathways of exposure. The cap included in the
proposed rule was 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y), which is the public dose limit
codified in 10 CFR part 20. Public comments on the proposed rule
suggested other values for the cap, both higher than and lower than the
proposed value. The analysis of those comments, and their potential
effect on the institutional controls used, is discussed in Section
IV.B.3.4.
The Commission believes, based on the discussion in this section on
the viability of controls and on the provisions for financial assurance
and for a ``cap,'' described in Sections IV.B.3.4 and IV.B.3.5, that
the provision for restricted use and institutional controls will
provide a high level of assurance that public health and safety will be
protected. Licensees seeking restricted use will be required to
demonstrate, to NRC's satisfaction, that the institutional controls
they propose are comparable to those discussed above, are legally
enforceable, and are backed by financial assurance. Licensees will also
be required to demonstrate that the cap will be met. The Commission
believes that the provision for restricted use should be retained in
the final rule.
B.3.4 The 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) cap if institutional controls fail.
A ``cap'' of 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y), corresponding to the public dose
limit, was proposed in Sec. 20.1405(d) of the proposed rule. Various
possible ``cap'' values were suggested by the commenters, both lower
than (e.g., values such as 0.15, 0.3, or 0.85 Sv/y (15, 30, or 85 mrem/
y)) or higher than the proposed cap.
The Commission has reviewed the comments suggesting that the
specific cap value be set at levels other than 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y).
The rationale for setting the cap at 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) presented in
the proposed rule (at 59 FR 43221) was that the value of the cap
coincides with NRC's public dose limit of 10 CFR Part 20. This value
was premised on the assumption that circumstances could develop in
which the restrictions might no longer be effective in limiting the
exposure scenarios or pathways. Although this occurrence need not be
assumed for planning purposes, a safety net is needed to prevent
exposures in excess of the public dose limits. A cap using the public
dose limits would provide an additional level of protection in the
unlikely event that restrictions were not effective. Although, as noted
in Section IV.A.2, the Commission has used a fraction of the public
dose limit in setting the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) dose limit for
decommissioning, it indicated in the proposed rule that, in the case of
the ``cap'' or ``safety net,'' it did not believe that fractionation,
i.e., setting a cap value less than 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y), would be
necessary because:
(a) The 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) cap is less than values suggested in
the proposed FRG for members of the public in unusual circumstances and
less than values used for other types of facilities where some type of
institutional control is used;
(b) The Commission believes that failure of all site restrictions
at decommissioned sites is a highly unlikely event; and
(c) Radioactive decay for relatively short-lived nuclides (e.g.,
Co-60 and Cs-137), that are the principal dose contributing
contaminants at the large majority of NRC licensed facilities, will
actually reduce the dose level over a period of time for most sites
that will provide an additional margin of safety equivalent to
fractionation of the limit.
The rationale for setting a cap value at 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y)
continues to appear appropriate. In addition, setting a cap at a lower
value does not appear warranted because: (1) It appears arbitrary to
assume that the same person would be an average member of the critical
group both near a facility where there was failure of controls and near
another decommissioned facility; and (2) the failure of restrictions
would be infrequent and therefore it is likely that the overall
lifetime risk to the critical group would still be maintained at levels
comparable to unrestricted use
[[Page 39071]]
while providing a more cost-effective use of resources.
Although the Commission did not fractionate the cap, it did include
in the proposed rule, and continues to include in the final rule, a
provision that would require exposures to be below the cap to a degree
that is ALARA. The purpose of this requirement is that licensees would
not simply leave behind contamination corresponding to the value of the
cap but would evaluate the level below the cap that is cost effective
and reduce the contamination to that level. This will provide a
requirement that will effectively fractionate the doses and result in
doses not dissimilar from those suggested by the commenters if it is
cost-effective to do so. This approach is consistent with the current
requirements in 10 CFR part 20.
Based on its experience with sites with difficult contamination
issues, in particular those sites treated in NRC's SDMP, and as
described in the Final GEIS, the Commission anticipates that there may
be sites where compliance with the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) cap could cause
impacts resulting from cleanup to that level (e.g., estimated
industrial or traffic fatalities associated with removing or
transporting waste) that exceed the benefits of averting radiation
exposure (thus causing a net detriment to public health or the
environment) or that diminish the net benefit to where costs of cleanup
would be prohibitive compared to the net benefit. Although the NRC
recognizes that it is always the licensee's responsibility to clean up
the contamination that it has caused, the appropriate course of action
should not result in net public or environmental harm from a cleanup,
and it is not clear that it is beneficial if resources are spent in a
manner prohibitive in relation to other benefits which could be
achieved, or if a licensee is put into a financial position where it
cannot continue to perform the cleanup safely.
Although a cap higher than 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) would result in
using a value in excess of the public dose limit in Sec. 20.1301(a),
existing requirements in Sec. 20.1301(c) permit levels up to values of
5 mSv/y (500 mrem/y), provided that a licensee would apply to the
Commission for permission to operate at that level, submit reasons why
it is necessary, and indicate procedures to maintain doses ALARA. The
proposed FRG, Recommendation No. 4, states that the dose from all
sources should not exceed 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) although it may be
exceeded temporarily in unusual situations that are not expected to
recur.
Based on this existing requirement, the Commission has incorporated
a specific provision in the final rule under which a licensee could
propose exceeding the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) cap in unusual site-specific
circumstances if, in addition to the normal provisions of restricted
use, it also met the following additional stringent provisions:
(a) A licensee would have to demonstrate that it cannot meet the 1
mSv/y (100 mrem/y) cap because of net public or environmental harm or
prohibitive costs by means of a site-specific evaluation of the issues
associated with complying with the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) cap. The NRC
expects that only a very few facilities (e.g., sites with soil
contaminated with naturally occurring radionuclides in small
radioactivity levels but large volumes, certain SDMP sites) could
provide sufficient rationale for seeking a higher cap. Although the
proposed rule contained a reference to the use of prohibitive cost, it
did not quantify or define these costs beyond noting that they would be
excessive or unreasonable. The Commission believes it appropriate to
consider a prohibitive cost to be one that would be an order of
magnitude greater than that contained as part of the decisionmaking
guidelines in NUREG/BR-0058, although a lower factor may be appropriate
in specific situations when a licensee could become financially
incapable of carrying out decommissioning safely;
(b) Under these circumstances, the licensee would be required to
reduce contamination so doses would be no greater than the 5 mSv/y (500
mrem/y) value currently contained in Sec. 20.1301(a). Also, the actual
dose level to which the licensee would have to clean the site would be
less than that value based on an ALARA evaluation of the site. This
provision is consistent with existing requirements in Sec. 20.1301(c)
that permit levels up to values of 5 mSv/y (500 mrem/y) for specific
cases;
(c) Durable institutional controls must be in place. These controls
could include significant engineered barriers and/or State, local, or
Federal Government control of sites or maintenance of site deed
restrictions so that site access is controlled. Under Section 151(b) of
the NWPA of 1982, the DOE has already been authorized to take
possession of waste disposal sites in certain situations. A similar
provision in Section 151(c) was used as the vehicle to transfer custody
of the Amax site from Amax to DOE;
(d) A licensee would make provisions for a verification of the
continued effectiveness of institutional controls at the site every 5
years after license termination to ensure that the institutional
controls are in place and the restrictions are working, and that there
is financial assurance to reestablish controls if the recheck indicates
otherwise. This 5-year recheck is consistent with 10 CFR Part 20 and
also with the FRG, Recommendation No. 4, that states that in some
unusual situations the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) may be exceeded temporarily
in situations that are not anticipated to recur. It is also consistent
with the approach for institutional controls used in CERCLA that allows
for release of sites without a cap providing there is continuous
checking on the status of the controls.
The NRC would retain the authority to take appropriate action in
those unusual situations when both the 5 mSv/y (500 mrem/y) cap was in
effect and the controls had failed. This action might include oversight
of actions needed to reinstate the controls and any necessary cleanup
and/or monitoring actions.
B.3.5 Financial assurance. As a second provision for ensuring that
the institutional controls provide protection of public health and
safety, financial assurance requirements were included to ensure that
funds will be available to enable an independent third party, including
a governmental custodian of a site, to implement and ensure continued
effectiveness of institutional controls. Some commenters questioned
whether these provisions were necessary while others questioned whether
they went far enough. In response, the Commission continues to believe
the proposed provisions are reasonable and adequate for their purpose.
The provisions are consistent with financial assurance requirements
currently in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 61, 70, and 72 which call for
financial assurance to provide funds for decommissioning in cases when
licensees might otherwise be financially unable to remediate a site.
Reference to an independent third party is necessary in the regulations
because after the license is terminated, the licensee may no longer be
the party ensuring the effectiveness of the controls. Because the
purpose of this provision is to provide broad requirements for
financial assurance necessary to ensure that the controls continue to
limit the dose, more specific details are not included in the rule. The
level of detail in the rule is similar to that in other similar NRC
regulations on financial assurance. As requested by a commenter, the
funding provisions include a trust fund (or similar funding mechanism)
for
[[Page 39072]]
surveillance and enforcement of the institutional controls. The
financial assurance requirements must be in place before the license is
terminated and be flexible enough to allow for the necessary site-
specific details.
B.4 Summary of Rule Revisions on Restricted Use
Based on the discussions above, restricted use has been retained in
the final rule. Based on its analyses in the Final GEIS and its
experiences with actual decommissioned sites, the Commission recognizes
that, although unrestricted use is generally preferred, restricted use
(when properly designed in accordance with the rule's provisions
discussed in Section IV.B.3) can provide a cost-effective alternative
to unrestricted use for some facilities and maintain the dose to the
average member of the pertinent critical group at the same level. Thus,
the Commission has replaced the prohibitively expensive provision for
justifying restricted use with a reasonable cost provision. The net
harm provision remains the same. The general cap value has been
retained at 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) as has the requirement that licensees
reduce the actual level of contamination to levels as far below the cap
as is ALARA, where appropriate. The rule has been modified to allow for
exceeding the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y) cap in site-specific situations and
under specific provisions. No change has been made to the financial
assurance provisions of the rule.
A number of comments were also received on public participation
aspects of restricting site use. The final rule will require that
licensees proposing to decommission by restricting use of a site shall
seek advice from individuals and institutions in the community who may
be affected by the decommissioning and that, in seeking that advice,
the licensee shall provide for: (1) Participation by representatives of
a broad cross section of community interests who may be affected by the
decommissioning; (2) an opportunity for a comprehensive, collective
discussion on the issues by the participants represented; and (3) a
publicly available summary of the results of all such discussions,
including a description of the individual viewpoints of the
participants on the issues and the extent of agreement and disagreement
among the participants on the issues. The details of the comments
received and the rationale for the public participation aspects of the
final rule are discussed in Section IV.E.
C. Alternate Criteria for License Termination
C.1 Codifying Provisions for Certain Facilities That the Proposed Rule
Suggested Exempting
C.1.1 Proposed rule content. The preamble to the proposed rule
noted that there were several existing licensed sites where public
health and the environment may best be protected by use of alternate
criteria, although these situations were not codified in the proposed
rule; rather, it was thought that these facilities might seek
exemptions (under Sec. 20.2301) from the criteria of this rule.
C.1.2 Comments. Some commenters recommended that the rule should
not apply to any facility that possesses large volumes of low-level
contaminated wastes (including SDMP sites) and should provide a
specific exemption or exemption procedures for the ``tens'' of existing
facilities for which application of the proposed criteria is
inappropriate and too restrictive. Commenters suggested that guidance
is needed on sites that should be turned over to the Federal Government
after license termination and sites that should be kept under license.
Commenters also recommended that NRC ask Congress to amend the NWPA of
1982 to allow Federal ownership of extensively contaminated sites.
Other commenters objected to exempting facilities from the proposed
radiological criteria and stated that the rule should cover all
decommissioning cases.
C.1.3 Response. For the very large majority of NRC-licensed sites,
the Commission believes that the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) unrestricted
and restricted use dose criterion in the rule is an appropriate and
achievable criterion for decommissioning.
However the Commission is concerned about the possible presence of
certain difficult sites presenting unique decommissioning problems.
Licensees of these sites who would have sought exemptions to the
proposed rule's criteria would have had to follow processes similar to
the other facilities covered by the rule. In addition, licensing
efficiency, consistency of application of requirements, and oversight
of these facilities can best be achieved by codifying application of
criteria to all facilities. Therefore, the Commission believes that it
is preferable to codify provisions for these facilities under the aegis
of the rule rather than requiring licensees to seek an exemption
process outside the rule as was contemplated in the proposed
rulemaking.
In addition, as discussed in Section IV.A, the Commission has
concluded that for any site where the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) dose
criterion is met, there will be a very low likelihood that individuals
who use the site will be exposed to multiple man-made sources combined,
excluding medical, with cumulative doses approaching 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/
y). Thus, the discussion in Section IV.A of this notice establishes
this level as a sufficient and ample, but not necessary, margin of
safety.
Based on these considerations, the Commission has included in the
final rule a provision under which the Commission may terminate a
license using alternate criteria in its final rule. The Commission
expects the use of alternate criteria to be confined to rare
situations. Therefore, for the reasons previously listed in Section
A.2.3.4, the Commission has limited the conditions under which a
licensee would apply to the NRC for, or be granted use of, alternate
criteria to unusual site-specific circumstances subject to the
following provisions:
(a) A licensee must provide assurance that, for the site under
consideration, it is unlikely that the dose to an average member of the
critical group for that site from all potential man-made sources
combined, other than medical, would exceed the 1 mSv/y (100 mrem/y)
public dose limit of 10 CFR Part 20. The Commission envisions that a
licensee proposing to use alternate criteria will have to provide a
complete and comprehensive analysis that would build upon generic
considerations such as those discussed in Section IV.A.2, and also
include site-specific considerations. To guide the Commission in its
review of such analyses, the NRC is continuing to develop generic
information on the potential for exposure to radioactivity from various
sources, including decommissioned sources, to supplement currently
available knowledge, and is planning to make this information publicly
available through publication of a NUREG report. Site-specific factors
that the Commission might review in such cases could include soil and
aquifer characteristics, the nature of the critical groups likely to
use the site, the detailed nature of the contamination patterns at the
site, and the characteristics of residual radionuclides remaining at
the site, including considerations related to whether the nuclides are
long-lived or short-lived;
(b) A licensee will employ, to the extent practical, restrictions
on site use for minimizing exposure at the site using the provisions
for restricted use
[[Page 39073]]
outlined in IV.B, above, and in Sec. 20.1403;
(c) A licensee will indicate that a comprehensive analysis had been
performed of the risks and benefits of all viable alternatives and
consideration of any detriments, such as transportation fatalities that
might occur as the result of cleanup activities, to reduce the residual
radioactivity at the site to levels that are ALARA;
(d) A licensee will seek advice from affected parties regarding
this approach. In seeking such advice, the licensee will provide for:
(1) Participation by representatives of a broad cross section of
community interests who may be affected by the decommissioning; (2) an
opportunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion on the issues by
the participants represented; and (3) a publicly available summary of
the results of all such discussions, including a description of the
individual viewpoints of the participants on the issues and the extent
of agreement and disagreement among the participants on the issues (the
rationale for these public participation aspects are discussed in more
detail in Section IV.E); and
(e) A licensee will obtain the specific approval of the Commission
for the use of alternate criteria. The Commission will make its
decision after consideration of the NRC staff's recommendations that
will address any comments provided by the Environmental Protection
Agency and any public comments submitted regarding the decommissioning
or license termination plan.
If the license termination conditions under alternate criteria
cannot be met, it may be necessary for the site (or portion thereof) to
be kept under license to ensure that exposures to the public are
appropriately monitored. The evaluation of maintenance of a site or a
portion of that site under continued license is outside the scope of
this rulemaking because this rule contains provisions, including
radiological criteria, that apply to termination of a license.
With regard to the comment on the NWPA, it should be noted that
Section 151(b) of the NWPA already authorizes ownership by the U.S.
Department of Energy, if NRC makes certain determinations. Therefore,
no further legislation is needed to grant this authority. The rule
language has been clarified to ensure that this authority may be
implemented by NRC and DOE.
C.1.4 Summary of revisions to rule on codifying provisions for
certain facilities. The rule has been modified to include the use of
alternate criteria in specialized circumstances and under the
provisions described above.
C.2 Exclusion of Uranium/Thorium Mills Proposed in Sec. 20.1401(a)
C.2.1 Proposed rule content. The proposed rule stated that, for
uranium mills, the criteria of the rule apply to the facility but do
not apply to the disposal of uranium mill tailings or to soil cleanup.
The proposed rule referred to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, where
criteria already exist (Sec. 20.1401(a)).
C.2.2 Comments. Comments on the proposed rule generally agreed
with the exclusion for disposal of mill tailings and soil cleanup.
Commenters also recommended that the rule exempt conventional thorium
and uranium mill facilities and in situ leach (ISL) (specifically
uranium solution extraction) facilities from the scope of coverage
because they stated that the decommissioning of these sites is covered
by Appendix A to 10 CFR part 40 and 40 CFR part 192.
C.2.3 Response. Currently, there are regulations applicable to
remediation of both inactive tailings sites, including vicinity
properties, and active uranium and thorium mills. Under the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, as amended, EPA
has the authority to set cleanup standards for uranium mills and, based
on that authority, issued regulations in 40 CFR part 192 which contain
remediation criteria for these facilities. NRC's regulations in 10 CFR
part 40, Appendix A, apply to the decommissioning of its licensed
facilities and conform to EPA's standards for uranium mills. At ISLs,
the decommissioning activities are similar to those at uranium mills
and consist mainly of the cleanup of byproduct material as defined in
Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Thus, applicable cleanup standards already exist for soil cleanup
of radium in 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6). Radium is the
main contaminant at mills in the large areas (20-400 hectares (50 to
1000 acres) for uranium mills) where windblown contamination from the
tailings pile has occurred, and at ISLs (in holding ponds). These
standards require that the concentration of radium in those large areas
not exceed the background level by more than 0.19 Bq/gm (5 pCi/gm) in
the first 15 cm (6 inches) of soil, and 0.56 Bq/gm (15 pCi/gm) for
every 15 cm (6 inches) below the first 15 cm (6 inches). Cleanup of
radium to these concentrations would generally result in doses higher
than the unrestricted use dose criterion of this rulemaking, although,
in actual practice, cleanup of uranium mill tailings results in radium
levels lower than the 10 CFR part 40 standards, and radium is usually
removed to background levels during cleanup of uranium and thorium to
the levels in existing NRC guidance documents.
However, in other mill and ISL site areas proximate to locations
where radium contamination exists (e.g., under the mill building, in a
yellow cake storage area, under/around an ore pad, and at ISLs in soils
where spray irrigation has occurred as a means of disposal), uranium or
thorium would be the radionuclide of concern. A difficulty in applying
10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, as a standard for uranium and thorium, is
that it does not have any cleanup standards for soil contamination from
radionuclides other than radium. Application of the decommissioning
dose criterion of the final rule to these areas (while retaining the 10
CFR 40, Appendix A, standard for radium) would result in a situation
where the cleanup standard of that small portion of the mill site would
be lower than the standard for the large windblown tailings areas where
radium is the nuclide of concern. This would result in situations of
differing criteria being applied across essentially the same areas and
would be a problem for contamination existing both in uranium mill
soils and buildings.
The Commission has considered the most appropriate means to address
requirements for cleanup at uranium and thorium mills and ISLs
(collectively referred to as UR facilities) for unrestricted release of
the site other than tailings disposal and reclamation subject to the
requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A. One way would be to include
criteria for UR facilities as part of this rulemaking. However, as
noted above, there are complexities associated with decommissioning of
these unique facilities which could cause practical problems in
applying the standards of this rulemaking to UR facilities. Therefore,
the Commission has decided to exclude UR facilities from the scope of
this rulemaking.
To allow for full consideration by the Commission and affected
parties of the issues associated with decommissioning UR facilities and
of the regulatory options listed above, the Commission is publishing a
separate notice in this Federal Register reopening the comment period
to specifically request additional comment on the regulatory options
for decommissioning criteria for UR facilities. The Commission is not
reopening the comment period for any other issue discussed in this
Federal
[[Page 39074]]
Register notice. In the interim, the Commission will continue its
current practices for decommissioning UR facilities.
C.2.4 Summary of rule revisions for uranium/thorium mills. The
Commission is excluding uranium/thorium mills from the scope of this
rulemaking and is publishing a separate notice requesting additional
comment on the specific standard for license termination of UR
facilities.
C.3 Other Exemptions
C.3.1 Comments. Commenters suggested certain other exemptions be
specifically provided for in the rule including:
(1) Licensees that possess and hold only sealed sources or limited
quantities; and
(2) Radioactive waste materials disposed of in accordance with NRC
regulations in formerly used Secs. 20.302 and 20.304 because ALARA was
applied on a site-specific basis for these facilities.
Other commenters disagreed and stated that all such waste must be
decommissioned. In addition, there were commenters who stated that
exemption procedures should be spelled out.
C.3.2 Response. No exemption from the rule for sealed source or
limited quantity users is necessary. Under provisions of 10 CFR Parts
30, 40, and 70, Secs. 30.36(c)(1)(v), 40.42(c)(1)(v), and
70.38(c)(1)(v), the licensee could provide assurance that building or
soil contamination has never occurred or demonstrate that the level of
radioactive material contamination in the facility conforms with
screening criteria.
With regard to burials, as discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the determination of whether the licensee meets the
radiological criteria of the final rule includes consideration of all
residual radioactivity at the site, including burials made in
conformance with 10 CFR part 20 (both existing Sec. 20.2002 and
formerly used Secs. 20.302 and 20.304). This is consistent with prior
Commission statements made in the preamble to the 1988 rulemaking on
general requirements for decommissioning (53 FR 24018; June 27, 1988)
and in promulgation of the final rule on timeliness of decommissioning
(59 FR 36026; July 15, 1994). More recent past burials (1981 to
present) were frequently made in conformance with guidelines defined in
``Onsite Disposal of Radioactive Waste,'' NUREG-1101, Volumes 1 through
3. This guidance was based on a maximum annual whole body or critical
organ dose of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem). Although numerically similar to the
existing low-level waste disposal criteria in 10 CFR part 61, the
Commission believes that, as a whole, the regulations applicable to
low-level waste disposal sites are much more restrictive than those
applicable to onsite burials. The pathway parameters on which NUREG-
1101 is based may not be comparable to those used to define the rule's
unrestricted release criteria. Nevertheless, case-by-case analysis of
the potential radiological impacts could indicate that leaving the
burials in place could be consistent with unrestricted or restricted
release of the affected site. For past burials that have involved long-
lived nuclides, site-specific modeling may also justify leaving these
burials in place. Thus, the Commission sees no reason to specifically
exempt these burials from consideration under this final rule but would
continue to require an analysis of site-specific overall impacts and
costs in deciding whether or not exhumation of previous buried waste is
necessary for specific sites. In addition, the general exemption
provisions of 10 CFR part 20 are available to consider unique past
burials on a case-by-case basis.
With regard to specific provisions in the rule for exemptions, the
Commission is not convinced that a significant number of exemptions to
the unrestricted or restricted use provisions of the final rule will be
necessary. The Commission believes that the options in this rule for
release under alternate criteria and the flexibility contained in the
rule including the use of realistic site-specific screening and
modeling provide licensees with sufficient latitude.
D. Groundwater Protection Criteria (Proposed Rule Sec. 20.1403)
D.1 Proposed Rule Content
The proposed rule (Sec. 20.1403(d)) indicated that a licensee must
demonstrate a reasonable expectation that residual radioactivity from
the site will not cause the level of radioactivity in groundwater that
is a current or potential source of drinking water to exceed the limits
specified in 40 CFR part 141. This groundwater requirement would have
been in addition to the proposed dose criterion for unrestricted use
and was included as part of the proposed rule on EPA's recommendation.
The preamble to the proposed rule solicited responses to three specific
questions on this proposal, including whether a separate standard was
appropriate as a supplement to an overall radiological dose criterion
that applies to all exposure pathways.
D.2 Use of EPA Drinking Water Standards in NRC Rule
D.2.1 Comments. A number of commenters disagreed with the
inclusion of a separate groundwater requirement. In response to the
specific questions asked, many of these commenters stated that a
separate requirement for groundwater was not necessary if the rule
included an all-pathways standard. A commenter also noted that
application of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) to groundwater was
inappropriate because the MCLs of EPA's drinking water standards were
based on outdated dosimetry (ICRP2) and were applicable to public water
systems rather than to groundwater directly. Other commenters supported
establishing a separate groundwater requirement as being consistent
with the EPA standard.
D.2.2 Response. As noted in Section IV.D.1, the NRC's proposed
rule included separate requirements for groundwater protection. The NRC
staff has reviewed the public comments on its proposed rule, including
the EPA comments supporting the separate requirement, has reviewed the
bases and rationale for a separate groundwater standard, and has
conducted further technical analyses of groundwater protection in the
Final GEIS.
As described in some detail in Section IV.A.2.2, there were three
broad considerations that provided the overall rationale for the
proposed rule's contents. The first two considerations were related to
the health and safety aspects, and the third was related to cost and
practicality aspects. As was done in Section IV.A.2.2, regarding the
establishment of unrestricted and restricted dose criteria, this
section reexamines these three considerations in the context of
determining appropriate groundwater cleanup requirements for
decommissioning.
With regard to the first two considerations, as described in
Section IV.A.2.2, above, this final rule contains acceptable criteria
(including the dose criterion for unrestricted use, and provisions for
ALARA, restricted use, and alternate site-specific criteria) to protect
the public from radiation from all of the pathways that they could be
exposed to from a decommissioned facility (e.g., direct exposure to
radiation, ingestion of food, inhalation of dust, and drinking water).
The bases used in selecting the dose criterion for this final rule are
stated in Section IV.A.2.
The dose criterion codified in Sec. 20.1402 of this final rule
limits the amount of radiation that a person can
[[Page 39075]]
potentially receive from all possible sources at a decommissioned
facility. Therefore, it is an ``all-pathways'' standard. Examples of
these pathways include:
(a) Direct exposure to radiation from material on the soil surface;
(b) Eating food grown in the soil and eating fish from surface
waters;
(c) Inhalation of dust from soil surfaces; and
(d) Drinking water obtained from the groundwater.
Because equivalent doses received through any pathways of exposure
would involve equivalent risks to the person exposed, NRC concludes the
following with regard to the need to set a separate standard for
groundwater:
(a) There is no reason from the standpoint of protection of public
health and safety to have a separate, lower dose criterion for one of
the pathways (e.g., drinking water) as long as, when combined, the dose
from all the pathways doesn't exceed the total dose standard
established in the rule;
(b) A standard imposed on a single pathway, such as drinking water,
may have been appropriate in the past for site cleanups when a dose-
based standard for decommissioning did not exist. It may also be
appropriate for chemical contamination when no total limit on exposure
exists. However, NRC's final rule on decommissioning would issue an
overall TEDE criterion for all radionuclides combined and for all
pathways of exposure combined, including drinking water, thus removing
the need for a single-pathway standard for groundwater. This is a more
uniform method for protecting public health and safety than was
contained in NRC's proposed rule that set separate requirements using
the MCLs contained in 40 CFR part 141. This is because the MCL
requirements do not cover all radionuclides and do not provide a
consistent risk standard for different radionuclides as will be
provided by adoption of a single dose criterion in the final rule. In
addition, the MCLs are based on a modeling approach that has not been
updated to reflect current understandings of the uptake and doses
resulting from ingestion of radionuclides through drinking water.
The Commission agrees with the commenters that exposures from
drinking contaminated groundwater need to be controlled; with the EPA's
groundwater protection principles contained in the document
``Protecting the Nation's Groundwater: EPA Strategy for the 1990's,''
212-1024 (July 1991); and with the EPA position that the environmental
integrity of the nation's groundwater resources needs to be protected.
Nonetheless, it is the Commission's position that protection of public
health and safety is fully afforded by limiting exposure to persons
from all potential sources of radioactive material by means of a TEDE
at a decommissioned facility. There is, therefore, no compelling reason
to impose a separate limit on dose from the drinking water pathway, and
the rule has been modified to delete a separate groundwater standard.
To make clear NRC's concern over the importance of protecting this
resource as a source of potential public exposure, the rule has also
been modified to include a direct reference to the groundwater pathway
in the all-pathways unrestricted use dose criterion in Sec. 20.1402.
In actual situations, based on typical operational practices of
most nuclear facilities and on the behavior of radionuclides in the
environment for the very large majority of sites, concentrations of
radionuclides in the groundwater will be well below the dose criterion
of this final rule and would be either below or only marginally above
the MCLs codified in 40 CFR Part 141 as referenced in the proposed NRC
rule. For example, because the large majority of NRC licensees either
use sealed sources or have very short-lived radionuclides, it is highly
unlikely that contamination from these facilities would reach the
groundwater. Even for facilities like reactors or certain industrial
facilities, whose major contaminants are relatively short-lived
nuclides like Co-60 or Cs-137, the migration of these nuclides through
soil is so slow that it precludes groundwater contamination of any
significance. In addition, it is not anticipated that decommissioned
nuclear facilities will be located near enough to public water
treatment facilities so that treatment facilities would be affected by
the potential groundwater contamination from decommissioned facilities.
As further described in Section IV.A.2, the Commission is basing
its decision on analyses in the Final GEIS, that consider cost and
practicality factors, to provide additional information regarding
decisions on issues such as achieving ALARA levels below the dose
criterion of Sec. 20.1402 and allowing restricted use. These analyses
also consider how these issues relate to groundwater cleanup, including
how, and to what level, ALARA efforts should be made, and if, and in
what manner, restrictions on use should be considered. The analysis of
impacts to populations and the cost of remediating those impacts is
particularly important for groundwater because this resource can be
used in a variety of public uses away from the site being
decommissioned. The Final GEIS draws from NRC's experience and the
public comments regarding contaminated sites. In particular,
considerations with regard to groundwater remediation include potential
remediation methods such as removal of soil to preclude prospective
contamination, pump and treat processes for the cleanup of existing
groundwater contamination, and the supply of alternate sources of
drinking water, as well as a consideration of administrative costs
associated with predicting and measuring levels of contaminated
groundwater.
Because of the range of possible parameters, scenarios, and site-
specific situations, Section IV.A.2 notes that the analyses in the
Final GEIS indicate that there is a wide range of cost-benefit results
and there is no unique algorithm that is a decisive ALARA result for
all facilities. This finding is especially true for groundwater
contamination where the behavior of radionuclides in soil and in the
aquifer is highly site-specific; much more so than in concrete. The
results of the overall considerations of Section IV.A.2 for all
pathways would be applicable to the groundwater component. As pointed
out in Section IV.A.2.3.2, it is intended that the regulatory guidance
to be developed to support the final rule will provide guidance on
these considerations. Although preparation of this guidance is in a
preliminary stage, it is anticipated that this guidance would likely
indicate that reducing doses to values less than the dose criterion of
0.25 mSv (25 mrem/y) is generally not likely to be cost-effective when
evaluated using NRC's regulatory analysis framework presented in NUREG/
BR-0058 and NUREG-1530, although there may be ALARA considerations for
sites with a relatively large population obtaining all their drinking
water from the site plume.
D.2.3 Summary of rule revisions on groundwater and plans for
implementation. Based on the above, the Commission concludes that
application of a separate groundwater protection limit, in addition to
the all pathways dose limit, is not necessary or justified and has
deleted this requirement from its final rule.
As noted above, regulatory guidance to be prepared in support of
the final rule will likely describe site-specific conditions under
which an ALARA analysis could identify the need to consider reducing
the dose below the unrestricted use dose criterion (e.g., large
existing population deriving its
[[Page 39076]]
drinking water from a downstream supply using a downstream plume).
E. Public Participation (Proposed Rule Secs. 20.1406 and 20.1407)
E.1 Proposed Rule Content
The proposed rule included a general requirement in Sec. 20.1406(a)
that upon receipt of a decommissioning plan or proposal for restricted
use from a licensee, the NRC must notify and solicit comments from
local and State governments and Indian nations in the vicinity of the
site and publish a notice in a forum that is readily accessible to
persons in the site vicinity to solicit comments from affected parties.
The proposed rule also contained additional requirements, in
Secs. 20.1406(b) and 20.1407, for decommissionings when the licensee
does not propose to achieve unrestricted release (i.e., instead
restrict site use after license termination). In those cases, the
licensee would be required to convene a site-specific advisory board
(SSAB) for the purpose of obtaining advice from affected parties on the
decommissioning. The Commission envisioned that the advice obtained
would address issues as to whether:
(a) There are ways to achieve unrestricted release that would not
be prohibitively expensive or cause net public or environmental harm;
(b) Institutional controls proposed by the licensee will provide
reasonable assurance that the TEDE does not exceed the dose criterion,
will be enforceable, and will not impose an undue burden on affected
parties; and
(c) There is sufficient financial assurance to maintain the
institutional controls.
Public comments received on the general requirements related to
notification and solicitation are discussed in Section IV.E.2. Comments
received on the additional requirements on public participation for
restricted use are discussed in Section IV.E.3.
E.2 General Requirements on Notification and Solicitation of Comments
(Proposed Rule Sec. 20.1406(a))
E.2.1 Comments. Several commenters supported the public
notification requirements in proposed Sec. 20.1406(a). Other commenters
stated that the proposed notification requirements exceeded
requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and that NRC
has not demonstrated a health and safety need for these requirements.
Suggestions for public participation offered by some commenters
included that the public not only be informed but be able to
participate effectively in all decommissioning cases, not just those
related to SSABs. Other specific comments addressed the type and timing
of the notification, meetings to be held, who should bear the cost of
public participation, the availability of licensee documents, NRC's
role, and the need for exemptions.
E.2.2 Response. A variety of comments have been provided on this
issue during all phases of this rulemaking from the earliest workshops
through comments on the NRC staff draft rule (February 2, 1994; 59 FR
4868) and the proposed rule, and in a workshop on public participation
aspects of the rule held in December 1994. Comments provided in these
forums have been similar to those noted above. A common theme of the
December 1994 workshop was that there are many approaches for involving
the public in the decommissioning process. Participants generally
favored exploration of site-specific alternatives as opposed to
generally mandated processes, like SSABs. Many commenters suggested
that there was merit to having a public participation plan developed by
the licensee in cooperation with interested parties so the public's
participation could be tailored to the needs of the community and the
licensee.
The Commission agrees that public participation can be an important
component for informing and involving the public. The Commission
recognizes the potential benefit for all decommissionings and site
releases of significant community concern to keep the public informed
and educated about the status of decommissioning at a particular site
and to elicit public concerns about the decommissioning process at that
site. Based on the comments received and on a consideration of current
Commission practices, the general provisions in Sec. 20.1405 that
provide for notification of the public and government entities and
solicitation of comment have not been modified although a specific
reference to notifying and soliciting comments from the EPA has been
added to Sec. 20.1405. The reason that the general provisions of
Sec. 20.1405(a) have not been modified in response to the public
comments received is because existing Commission policies and
practices, coupled with the provisions of this rule and a recent
rulemaking on power reactor decommissioning, appear reasonable by
providing for public participation in the decommissioning and site
release process. Specifically in the case of power reactors, as is
noted in the preamble to the separate final rule entitled
``Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors'' that was published on
July 29, 1996 (61 FR 39278), the Commission has held public meetings
and informal hearings for plants undergoing decommissioning, even
though limited formal requirements exist for this type of involvement.
To codify those activities, that rule requires a public meeting to be
held at the time of submittal of a reactor licensee's Post-Shutdown
Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) and requires that this
meeting be noticed in a local public forum and held in the vicinity of
the facility. The PSDAR must also be made available for public review
and comment. In addition, a licensee is required to hold a public
meeting on the License Termination Plan (LTP), that for power reactors
now replaces the decommissioning plan, in the vicinity of the facility
following notice of the meeting in a local public forum. The LTP is
also required to be made available for public comment with full hearing
rights under Subpart G or L of 10 CFR 2.1201, depending on the
disposition of the spent fuel.
Similarly, for materials facilities involving significant
decommissioning efforts, the Commission has implemented efforts to
inform and involve the public in the process. These efforts were
intended to provide early and meaningful opportunities for public
involvement in the decommissioning process. For example, the NRC staff
has initiated public information meetings at the Parks Township shallow
land disposal area and the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation facility and
conducted public information roundtables at various sites. Stakeholder
representatives are routinely invited to participate in roundtable
discussions and information exchanges on the status and issues
associated with the decommissioning project. These initiatives are
consistent with the NRC staff's public responsiveness plan in NUREG/BR-
0199. Where appropriate, the Commission plans to use these public
involvement mechanisms and other public information meetings and
involvement efforts, such as community information boards, at other
facilities in the future on a site-specific basis to address specific
needs that exist in affected communities.
Based on these considerations, current practices and procedures and
existing rule provisions are appropriate to provide for public
participation in the decommissioning and license termination process
and to provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate different
situations, and therefore the general requirements of Sec. 20.1405 on
[[Page 39077]]
notification and solicitation of comments have been retained. Sections
20.1405 (a) and (b) provide for the notification of specific government
entities and the public in the vicinity of the site when a licensee
submits a LTP or decommissioning plan for any of the license
termination approaches described in Section IV.A.2.3 or specifically
proposes to use restricted use (see Section IV.B) or alternate criteria
(see Section IV.C). The NRC will review public comments gathered by the
licensee prior to final NRC actions on the licensee's request for
license termination. A specific reference has been added in
Sec. 20.1405(a) to provide for specific notification and solicitation
of comment from EPA where the licensee proposes to use alternate
criteria. To the extent that EPA has an interest in commenting on
proposed decommissionings other than those under alternate criteria,
EPA comments would be considered under the general notice and comment
provisions of Sec. 20.1405.
Specific additional requirements for public participation in cases
where restricted use or alternate criteria are proposed by a licensee
are discussed further in Section IV.E.3.
E.2.3 Summary of rule revisions on general requirements on public
participation and notifications. No overall changes were made to the
provisions for public notification in the final rule, except to include
specific reference to notifying and soliciting comments from the EPA
where the licensee proposes to use alternate criteria for license
termination.
E.3 Additional Requirements on Public Participation (Including Those
for Restricted Use, for Alternate Criteria, and for Use of SSABs)
(Proposed Rule Sec. 20.1406(b))
E.3.1 Comments. Comments were specifically submitted on the
requirement in Sec. 20.1406(b) for the use of SSABs. These comments
were submitted both in response to the proposed rule, as well as in
connection with the NRC workshop on SSABs held on December 6-8, 1994
(see NUREG/CR-6307 for a summary of the workshop).
Some commenters supported the proposed requirement in
Sec. 20.1406(b) that would require licensees to convene a SSAB for
restricted release of a site. Other commenters objected to the use of a
SSAB in each case involving a restricted release of a site. These
commenters expressed concern that use of SSABs was inconsistent with
the timeliness rule or that exemptions or other relief from the
timeliness rule would be needed; that a need for SSABs has not been
demonstrated; and that SSABs are inconsistent with Federal Advisory
Committee Act, Administrative Procedures Act, and Atomic Energy Act
requirements. Commenters suggested alternatives to mandatory SSABs,
such as addressing the need for a board in a public participation plan
or providing more flexibility in deciding when to use SSABs. Some
commenters indicated that use of SSABs should be extended to the
unrestricted use of sites.
E.3.2 Response. One of the major issues raised by the comments and
in the workshop discussions on the SSAB was the advisability of
mandating a specific public involvement mechanism such as a SSAB as
opposed to establishing broad performance criteria that would allow the
licensee flexibility in selecting the appropriate public involvement
mechanism for a particular site. There was general agreement that
flexibility was always desirable, in establishing meaningful
performance criteria. However, it should be emphasized that some of
those who supported the use of performance criteria did so only in the
context of the expansion of the scope of licensee public involvement
requirements, including an SSAB, to cover facilities beyond the
restricted use category. An additional issue of concern to commenters
was whether it was more appropriate for the licensee to establish the
SSAB, as contemplated by the proposed rule, or whether the Commission
should establish the SSAB. The resolution of this issue depends not
only on the objectives that the Commission believes will be served by
an SSAB, but also on what the Commission's broader responsibilities are
in the public involvement area. This, in turn, relates to another issue
raised by the commenters: the scope and duration of a SSAB's
responsibilities.
In proposing a requirement for obtaining advice from affected
parties on restricted use, the Commission's objective is to involve
diverse community interests directly with the licensee in the
development of the LTP or decommissioning plan for a proposed
restricted use decommissioning. Community concerns, as well as
community-based knowledge on the appropriate selection of institutional
controls, risk issues, and economic development, can be potentially
useful in the development of the LTP or decommissioning plan. For
Commission and licensee resources to be used efficiently, the
Commission believes that this type of information should be considered
and incorporated as appropriate into the LTP or decommissioning plan
before the plan is submitted to the NRC for review. The licensee is the
appropriate entity to accomplish this.
In considering a requirement to convene a SSAB or similar group,
the Commission has considered alternatives regarding the most effective
way to ensure that the licensee considers the diversity of views in the
community. Small group discussions can be a more effective mechanism
than written comments or large public meetings for articulating the
exact nature of community concerns, determining how much agreement or
disagreement there is on a particular issue, and facilitating the
development of acceptable solutions to issues. Also, the type of close
interaction resulting from a small group discussion could serve the
licensee well in developing a credible relationship with the community
in which it is operating.
Use of public participation methods is consistent with a variety of
initiatives being undertaken both within NRC and at other Federal
agencies regarding stakeholder involvement in the decommissioning
process. Examples of community involvement at NRC-licensed sites being
decommissioned under the SDMP are described above in Section IV.E.2.2.
Similarly, several Federal agencies (including EPA, DOE, the Department
of Defense (DOD)) that make up the Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee, in their evaluation of the cleanup of
Federal facilities, have prepared a set of ``Principles for
Environmental Cleanup of Federal Facilities,'' dated August 2, 1995.
Principle No. 14 notes the need for agencies to provide for involvement
of public stakeholders from affected communities in facility cleanup
decisionmaking. It also notes that rather than being an impediment,
meaningful stakeholder involvement has, in many instances, resulted in
significant cleanup cost reductions.
The Commission envisions that a process for obtaining advice from
affected interests would provide the opportunity for public involvement
in the important issues related to restricted use of a site similar to
those described in Section IV.E.2.2. In particular, one of the
important issues would likely be the unavailability of the site for
full unrestricted public use. In its deliberations on the rule, the
Commission has envisioned that the following should occur:
(1) The licensee would present information to, and seek advice
from, affected parties on the provisions for
[[Page 39078]]
limiting the dose to meet the criteria in the rule (e.g., limiting use
to commercial/industrial use with elimination of the resident pathway),
how the restrictions would be enforced (e.g., use of deed restrictions,
engineered barriers, State or Federal control or ownership), the effect
on the community, and the adequacy of the level of financial assurance
(e.g., sufficient funds for maintenance of the deed or of fencing). In
seeking such advice, a broad cross section of the affected parties in
the community would be involved and there would be opportunity for a
comprehensive discussion of the issues by those parties. The
information presented would be similar to that which the rule would
require the licensee to prepare and submit to NRC to demonstrate the
appropriateness and safety aspects of the restrictions on site use.
As an example, in the specific case where the nuclides involved are
relatively short-lived (e.g., Co-60 and Cs-137), as discussed in
Section IV.B.3, calculations could demonstrate that it is preferable to
restrict use of the site for a finite time period to allow for
radioactive decay than it is to ship large quantities of soil. These
calculations would also show the length of time that the restrictions
would need to remain in force to allow for radioactive decay to reduce
residual levels below the unrestricted dose criterion. In addition,
these calculations could show that restricting the site to industrial
use through deed restrictions during this time period would eliminate
or decrease certain pathways and limit the dose to less than the 0.25
mSv/y (25 mrem/y) dose criteria in the rule. Finally, such an analysis
could indicate that continued use of the site for an industrial purpose
similar to its currently existing use should not adversely impact the
community. Consideration of community advice on appropriate
institutional controls for controlling access to the site during this
decay period would provide the licensee with useful information in
developing the necessary institutional controls. As part of the process
of public participation, the licensee would make public a summary of
the advice received and the results of the discussions on that advice.
For more complex cases where large volumes of uranium/thorium
contamination would remain under a form of restricted use, the long-
lived nature of these nuclides would result in the restrictions having
to remain in force in the community for a long period of time. The
information presented by the licensee would be similar to that for
shorter-lived nuclides, including the rationale for how use of
restrictions can eliminate exposure pathways (e.g., for uranium,
elimination of the resident farmer pathway greatly reduces the dose
because most of the dose received from uranium is through the
agricultural pathway); the nature of the institutional controls
expected to restrict use over extended time periods (e.g., deed
restrictions, engineered barriers such as fencing, restricted cells,
etc., and/or government control of the restricted area); and other
special provisions such as periodic rechecks of the restricted area and
the continued effectiveness of institutional controls (see Section
IV.B.3). As discussed previously in Section IV.E.2.2, because community
involvement already exists either formally or informally at a number of
complex sites, this provision would not change the situation at these
sites significantly.
(2) Following solicitation of advice from affected parties, the
licensee will include the recommendations from these parties in the LTP
or decommissioning plan and indicate how those recommendations were
addressed along with the technical basis for addressing them. The
technical basis for dealing with the recommendations would presumably
derive from the presentation made to the affected parties described
above and is the type of analysis that would be necessary to
demonstrate to the NRC the acceptability of restricted use provisions.
Based on the above, it appears reasonable to retain the requirement
for sites to seek advice from individuals and institutions in the
community who may be affected by the decommissioning where restricted
use is proposed. In retaining this requirement, the Commission has
decided to modify the rule to include general provisions that require
that such advice be sought on the fundamental performance objective of
institutional controls, namely that they function to provide reasonable
assurance that the TEDE does not exceed the dose criteria of the rule,
that they are enforceable, and that they will not impose undue burdens
on the local community. This general provision replaces the specific
reference contained in the proposed rule (Sec. 20.1406(b)) that advice
must be obtained by convening a SSAB. The rationale for this
modification derives from the discussion above on site flexibility,
protecting public health and safety, and ensuring community
involvement. Specifically, it is anticipated that these requirements
will contain the beneficial provisions of ensuring timely and
meaningful opportunity for advice from affected parties to be
considered and will allow licensees additional flexibility in
determining the best methods for obtaining that advice based on site-
specific considerations. For example, there may be situations where the
creation of a SSAB may not be appropriate as in cases where an existing
organization is already in place to assume this role, or where it is
clear that the community is willing to rely on local government
institutions to interact with the licensee. Appropriate mechanisms for
seeking advice from affected parties could include a public meeting or
series of meetings, a specific process for obtaining written or
computerized public comment by internet or web-site means, or by
convening small groups such as a SSAB. Any of these processes would
result in an opportunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion of
the issues by the affected parties. All of these approaches have been
used in prior decommissionings.
To ensure that there will continue to be significant opportunity
for public involvement in the decommissioning process, the modified
final rule has retained the principal objectives of an SSAB from
Sec. 20.1407 of the proposed rule, namely that a licensee seeking
community advice on the proposed restricted use will provide for: (1)
Participation by representatives of a broad cross section of community
interests who may be affected by the decommissioning; (2) an
opportunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion on the issues by
the participants represented; and (3) a publicly available summary of
the results of all such discussions, including a description of the
individual viewpoints of the participants on the issues and the extent
of agreement and disagreement among the participants on the issues.
Advice sought from affected parties in the manner noted above would
be considered in development of the LTP or decommissioning plan, and
the NRC will review public comments gathered by the licensee prior to
final NRC action on the licensee's request for license termination.
As discussed in Section IV.C, the Commission included requirements
for consideration of alternate criteria for certain difficult sites
because inclusion of such requirements is preferable to having these
facilities apply for exemptions. To ensure that there is full public
participation in any decision regarding such sites, licensees will be
required to seek advice regarding this approach from affected parties
in the same manner as described above for restricted use and described
in detail in
[[Page 39079]]
Section IV.C.3. In addition, use of alternate criteria will only be
considered by the Commission after review of the NRC staff's
recommendations that fully address any comments provided by the public
and EPA regarding the decommissioning or license termination plan.
E.3.3 Summary of rule revisions on SSABs. Specific text referring
to SSABs has been replaced with a requirement that licensees seek
community involvement and advice on any plans for restricted use or
alternate criteria for decommissioning through a variety of methods.
This requirement includes provisions for specifically how that advice
is to be sought and documented in the LTP or decommissioning plan.
Regulatory guidance is planned which will include criteria for
establishing and using the processes for seeking such advice, including
establishing SSABs, and for delineating those situations in which an
SSAB may not be appropriate. The guidance will discuss that the
expected starting point in providing an opportunity for public
involvement is the establishment of an SSAB; however, the provisions of
the rule provide licensees the flexibility to use other approaches
where appropriate.
E.4 Specific Questions on Functioning of SSABs
E.4.1 Comments. A number of comments were received on the
functioning of SSABs including their responsibilities, membership,
independence and support, meetings, and results.
(1) Some commenters recommended that SSABs should be given
responsibilities beyond those specified in proposed Sec. 20.1407(a).
Other commenters stated that the rule should restrict SSAB activities
to a specific mission which is advisory only and nontechnical.
(2) With regard to membership in SSABs, a number of comments
recommended specifically how the SSAB and its membership should be
constituted. Some commenters stated that many of the proposed SSAB
issues that are listed appear to require specialized expertise that
members of the general public might not have. Some commenters
questioned whether NRC and other Government agencies should be
prohibited from participating in SSABs because of conflict of interest
questions. Other commenters stated that the NRC should be officially
represented on the SSAB.
(3) With regard to independence of and support for SSABs, some
comments received stated that an SSAB should be selected and operated
independently of the licensee. One commenter stated that the SSAB would
be unique as presently proposed because it does not appear to be
accountable to its employer. Comments were received regarding how SSAB
costs would be contained and how they would be paid, including costs of
technical consultants to the SSAB or independent SSAB labs and experts.
(4) With regard to SSAB meetings and records, comments were
provided concerning frequency, advertisement and openness of meetings,
and access to licensee official documents, both those that are part of
the public docket and those that contain proprietary or other
confidential information;
(5) With regard to use of SSAB results, comments were received
concerning the actions expected to be taken by the licensee and the NRC
on the advice or comments of the SSAB. These actions include a
licensee's analysis of SSAB recommendations, the need to obtain the
SSAB's consensus on aspects of the decommissioning plan, and the effect
on time restraints of submitting a decommissioning plan reconciling
SSAB advice.
E.4.2 Response. Based on the discussion in Section IV.E.3.2
regarding the need to explore site-specific alternatives as opposed to
generally mandated SSABs, the rule contains broad provisions for
obtaining community advice and recommendations through such bodies. The
purpose of the requirements on public involvement is to obtain
meaningful public input into preparation of the plan for
decommissioning the site when restrictions on future use or proposals
for alternate criteria are planned. To allow for flexibility, Section
IV.E.3.2 indicates that the final rule has been modified to establish
general requirements for obtaining such advice while retaining the
principal objectives of an SSAB from Sec. 20.1407(b)-(f) of the
proposed rule. The details, such as specific issues of size,
membership, responsibilities, administration, meetings, and records
requested in these comments are more appropriately contained in
regulatory guidance. With regard to issues of funding public
involvement, reasonable efforts towards obtaining advice from affected
parties should be undertaken by the licensee, such as sponsoring and
holding community meetings and distributing information at those
meetings regarding the rationale for and nature of the restricted use.
Examples of these meetings are those held for reactor facilities and
those held for several SDMP sites, for example the Cushing site.
E.4.3 Summary of rule revisions on functioning of SSABs. As noted
in Sections E.3.2 and E.4.2 above, the principal objectives of SSABs
have been retained in Sec. 20.1403(d) which replaces the detailed
provisions in proposed Sec. 20.1407 (b) through (f) of the proposed
rule. The guidance that the NRC develops to implement the final rule
will include additional guidance on seeking advice from affected
parties, including establishing and using SSABs.
F. Other Procedural and Technical Issues
F.1 State and NRC Compatibility
F.1.1 Comments. Some commenters stated that States should have the
authority to demand stricter radiation protection standards than the
Federal Government. Some commenters recommended that States not be
allowed to set less strict conditions. Other commenters stated that
radiological criteria should be an area of strict compatibility and
States should not be permitted to impose more stringent standards.
Specific comments raised included questions as to which standard would
apply if there was a conflict, whether a State would need NRC approval
to require more strict standards, application of ALARA provisions, who
should pay for costs if more strict State standards are applied,
exemptions, and grandfathering provisions similar to those in Section
IV.F.2.
F.1.2 Response. The proposed rule did not propose a compatibility
determination because the Commission was in the process of developing a
compatibility policy. Instead, comments were requested on compatibility
and the comments received were divided on this issue.
The current compatibility policy categorizes rules into four
``divisions.'' Division 1 rules are those that Agreement States must
adopt, essentially verbatim, into their regulations. These rules
include provisions that form the basic language of radiation protection
and include technical definitions and basic radiation protection
standards such as public dose limits, occupational exposure limits and
effluent release limits. Division 2 rules address basic principles of
radiation safety and regulatory functions. Although Agreement States
must address these principles in their regulations, the use of language
identical to that in NRC rules is not necessary if the underlying
principles are the same. Also, the Agreement States
[[Page 39080]]
may adopt requirements more stringent than NRC rules.
Because the dose criterion in the rule is not a ``standard'' in the
sense of the public dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 but is a constraint
within the public dose limit that provides a sufficient and ample
margin of safety below the limit, it is reasonable that the rule would
be a Division 2 level of compatibility under the current policy. This
means the Agreement States would be required to adopt the regulation
but would have significant flexibility in language, and would be
allowed to adopt more stringent requirements.
The Commission has not yet approved a new final policy on
compatibility that revises the current policy, although it is currently
considering the implementing procedures for this policy (SECY-96-213
dated October 3, 1996). Until the new policy becomes effective, NRC
will continue to apply the current Agreement State compatibility
policy.
F.2. Grandfathering Sites With Previously Approved Plans (Proposed
Rule 20.1401(b))
F.2.1 Proposed rule contents. Section 20.1401(b) of the proposed
rule indicated that the criteria do not apply to sites already covered
by a decommissioning plan approved by the Commission before the
effective date of the final rule and in accordance with the criteria
identified in the SDMP Action Plan of April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13389).
F.2.2 Comments. Some commenters supported the provision of
grandfathering sites covered by a decommissioning plan approved by the
Commission (and suggested extending it to plans under review) because
it is consistent with previous NRC statements in the SDMP Action Plan.
Some commenters suggested that criteria other than those in the SDMP
Action Plan should also be used for grandfathering. Other commenters
opposed grandfathering because criteria used in those cases would be
different than those in the rule.
Commenters recommended that the rule address how the criteria would
apply to portions of sites. Some commenters recommended that the
grandfathering provision cover an NRC-approved decommissioning plan
even if it is for a portion of a site.
F.2.3 Response. The Commission continues to believe that sites
being decommissioned under previously approved decommissioning plans
should be grandfathered from the provisions of the final rule.
Similarly provisions should apply to licensees whose decommissioning
plans are in the final stages of preparation or of NRC review. From a
health and safety perspective, the NRC believes the criteria identified
in the SDMP Action Plan are reasonably consistent with the final rule's
dose criteria. The contamination levels defined in the SDMP Action Plan
are within the range of measurable values that could be derived through
the site-specific screening and modeling approaches defined in guidance
supporting this final rule. The Commission believes the grandfathering
approach will facilitate the timeliness of decommissioning and ensure
licensees that resources spent to develop and implement a
decommissioning plan are justified.
With regard to criteria other than the SDMP Action Plan, the
grandfathering provision in the proposed rule was conditioned on the
license being terminated in accordance with the criteria identified in
the SDMP Action Plan, because those criteria are consistent with the
final rule. However, the grandfathering provision does not extend to
any former decommissioning actions in general because that would not
provide assurance that such actions were adequate to protect the
public. As part of its overall upgrading of its oversight of
decommissioning actions, NRC has conducted a systematic review of a
large number of license terminations to identify sites with significant
contamination and has identified a number of sites warranting
additional NRC attention. Broadening the grandfathering exclusion in
the rule would not be consistent with the objectives of this
comprehensive agency review and is not supported by existing
information and experience.
The NRC staff anticipates that grandfathering would occur as
follows:
(1) Licensees would have up to 12 months after the effective date
of the rule to submit sufficient LTPs or decommissioning plans (if
required) in accordance with the SDMP Action Plan criteria;
(2) The NRC staff would have up to 24 months after the effective
date of the rule to approve those plans;
(3) Any plan submitted after 12 months or approved after 24 months
of the effective date would have to be consistent with the new rule;
and
(4) There would be provisions for day-for-day extension if an EIS
is required in the submittal; i.e., if development of an EIS is
required before NRC can reach a decision regarding the decommissioning,
then the 12-month window for submitting an LTP or decommissioning plan
would be extended by the same number of days required for the
Commission to issue a record of decision.
In submitting the decommissioning plan for the licensed activities
that are to cease on portions of sites, the licensee must identify the
areas associated with the ceased operations. These areas must be
remediated to achieve acceptable radiological criteria for release,
either those in the final rule or previous acceptance criteria that
would achieve comparable protection as the criteria in the final rule.
The area for continuing licensed operations could continue to contain
radioactivity above the radiological criteria. When the continuing
operations cease, the radiological criteria of the final rule would
then be required to be met for the portion of the site for which
operations had most recently ceased. The decision on grandfathering
previously released portions of the site depends on whether the
criteria previously used are still acceptable (e.g., part of the SDMP
Action Plan) and whether it can be demonstrated that these areas have
not been affected by the continued operations. NRC intends to develop
comprehensive guidance on how licensees should address previously
released portions of licensed sites in demonstrating compliance with
the dose criteria.
Not all licensees are required to submit decommissioning plans, and
instead, may submit appropriate documentation including a report of the
results of the radiation survey of the premises (see for example, 10
CFR 30.36). Because the rationale discussed above applies in general to
all facilities, these grandfathering provisions apply to all licensees,
independent of the type of documentation for license termination that
has received NRC approval.
An aspect of grandfathering is those sites that were not previously
licensed but are discovered to have radioactivity levels that are
licensable or are in excess of the levels presented here as appropriate
for unrestricted site use. These cases have arisen as part of the SDMP
and are described in NUREG-1444. It is intended that the criteria of
this rule will also apply, as appropriate, to residual radioactivity at
sites that were not previously licensed.
F.2.4 Summary of rule revisions on grandfathering. The final rule
has retained the grandfathering provision. However, it has been
modified to include facilities whose plans are in the final stages of
decommissioning plan preparation and decision.
[[Page 39081]]
F.3 Finality of Decommissioning and Future Site Reopening (Proposed
Rule Sec. 20.1401(c))
F.3.1 Proposed rule contents. Proposed Sec. 20.1401(c) stated that
after a site has been decommissioned and the license terminated in
accord with the criteria of the proposed rule, the Commission will
require additional cleanup only if, based on new information, it
determined that residual radioactivity remaining at the site could
result in significant public risk.
F.3.2 Comments. Some commenters stated that decommissioning a
nuclear facility and releasing a site should be accomplished as a final
regulatory action unless new information indicates there is a
significant health and safety risk and net benefit to future cleanup.
These commenters cited financial reasonableness, the low risk
associated with the criteria, and the incentive to complete
decommissioning. Other commenters stated that they did not agree that
these actions should be final and that the site should be cleaned up to
account for mistakes, discovery of contamination, or new health
findings. It was noted that the terms ``significant public risk'' and
``new information'' used in proposed Sec. 20.1401(c) needed to be
explained and appropriately defined.
F.3.3 Response. The wording of final Sec. 20.1401(c) states that
the Commission will require additional cleanup only if, based on new
information, it determines that residual radioactivity remaining at the
site could result in significant public risk. The low level of
estimated risk associated with the final rule's dose criteria, coupled
with the conservatisms in the methodologies that convert these dose
criteria to levels of measurable contamination in the environment,
should minimize the likelihood that new information, including errors
during the decommissioning processes, would significantly impact the
protection of public health and safety or the environment.
The Commission believes the fundamental reason for requiring
additional cleanup would hinge on the public risk associated with the
remaining radioactivity at the site. The existence of additional
contamination or noncompliance with the decommissioning plan at a level
in excess of the dose criteria but less than the public dose limits in
10 CFR Part 20 would not, by themselves, be sufficient to invalidate
the finality provision. Therefore, the wording of Sec. 20.1401(c)
captures the fundamental issue.
The Commission believes the terms ``significant public risk'' and
``new information,'' as used in Sec. 20.1401(c), do not require
specific definition or clarification. The reason lies in the fact that
under the provisions of the rule, a licensee is allowed to demonstrate
compliance with the dose criteria through use of several screening and
modeling approaches. Each approach has a degree of conservatism
associated with the relationship of the measurable level of a
contaminant in the environment to the final rule's dose criterion.
Because of the surveys required of the licensee and confirmatory
surveys routinely performed by NRC, the chances of previously
unidentified contamination being discovered would be expected to be
small. Also, contamination that would pose a significant public risk
above the levels implied by the dose criterion is expected to be
smaller still.
Another possibility is that ongoing studies will lead to the
conclusion that an increased risk associated with a given exposure to
radiation exists. Although such an increase can occur as indicated by
the continuing studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, the
Commission believes that demographic studies of populations exposed to
differing background exposure levels provide a defensible bound on the
magnitude of any increase in the dose to risk conversion factor. Taken
alone, any such increase would not be expected to affect finality
decisions.
Thus, because any challenge to finality is likely to involve some
unexpected combination of factors, the Commission believes that
attempting to specifically define what constitutes ``new information''
or ``significant public risk'' is ill-advised because the determination
would be made on a case-by-case basis.
As noted in Sections IV.A and IV.D, there are issues that have been
raised by EPA regarding the acceptability of the unrestricted dose
criterion as well as the inclusion of a separate groundwater standard.
These issues were raised during the public comment period as well as
during a public meeting held April 21, 1997 to explore differences
between NRC and EPA on certain issues in the final rule. As noted in
those sections, EPA has indicated that it preferred a 0.15 mSv/y (15
mrem/y) TEDE dose criterion for unrestricted use and inclusion of a
separate groundwater standard as were proposed in NRC's proposed rule.
At the April 21, 1997 meeting, EPA also indicated that it had concerns
with inclusion of alternate criteria and with certain public
participation aspects of the rule. For the reasons described in some
detail in Sections IV.A, IV.C, IV.D, and IV.E, the Commission has
included in the final rule a 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) dose criterion
which would apply to all exposure pathways including groundwater, an
alternate criteria provision for certain difficult cases to reduce the
need for requests for exemptions, and provisions for substantive
participation by the public, including EPA.
As described in some detail in Sections IV.A-IV.E, the Commission
believes that the overall approach to license termination in this final
rule (that includes unrestricted and restricted use dose criteria,
alternate criteria, and ALARA considerations) protects public health
and safety, and that the approach to drinking water protection in the
final rule provides an appropriate and more consistent level of
protection of public health and safety than use of MCLs. In addition,
as is further described in those sections, it is anticipated that in
the large majority of situations the combination of ALARA
considerations, the nature of the concrete and soil removal processes,
the use of restrictions on site use where appropriate, and the effects
of radionuclide decay and transport mechanisms in the environment will
result in the large majority of NRC licensees meeting the criteria
preferred by EPA. Those sections also clearly indicate that alternate
criteria will be confined to rare situations and require specific
Commission approval of the license termination in those cases. In
addition, the Commission believes that the provisions of the final rule
as described in Section IV.E provide for a substantive level of public
involvement in the decommissioning process.
Thus the Commission believes that the criteria of this final rule
provides protection comparable to that preferred by EPA and that
therefore it would be reasonable for EPA to find NRC's rule
sufficiently protective.
Licensees should be aware that if they terminate a license using
the criteria of this rule, there is some potential that the license
termination may be revisited as part of an EPA proceeding, although
such an action would not seem reasonable for the same reasons that site
cleanups noted above would not be revisited, i.e., it is not believed
that significant public risk would be determined to exist.
F.3.4 Summary of rule revisions on finality. Based on this
discussion, the rule has not been changed with regard to the finality
issue.
[[Page 39082]]
F.4 Minimization of Contamination (Proposed Rule Secs. 20.1401(d) and
20.1408)
F.4.1 Proposed rule contents. Proposed Sec. 20.1401(d) indicated
that applicants for licenses, other than renewals, would be required to
describe in the application process how facility design and procedures
for operation will minimize contamination of the facility and the
environment, facilitate eventual decommissioning, and minimize the
generation of radioactive waste.
F.4.2 Comments. Some commenters recommended that the requirements
for describing facility design and procedures for waste minimization
should apply to all license applicants and not only to applicants for
new licenses. One commenter recommended that the rule remain as
proposed and not apply to renewal licenses.
F.4.3 Response. The intent of this provision is to emphasize to a
license applicant the importance, in an early stage of planning, for
facilities to be designed and operated in a way that would minimize the
amount of radioactive contamination generated at the site during its
operating lifetime and would minimize the generation of radioactive
waste during decontamination. Applicants and existing licensees,
including those making license renewals, are already required by 10 CFR
part 20 to have radiation protection programs aimed towards reducing
exposure and minimizing waste. In particular, Sec. 20.1101(a) requires
development and implementation of a radiation protection plan
commensurate with the scope and extent of licensed activities and
sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR part 20.
Section 20.1101(b) requires licensees to use, to the extent
practicable, procedures and engineered controls to achieve public doses
that are ALARA. In addition, lessons learned and documented in reports
such as NUREG-1444 have focused attention on the need to minimize and
control waste generation during operations as part of development of
the required radiation protection plans. Furthermore, the financial
assurance requirements issued in the January 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018),
rule on planning for decommissioning require licensees to provide
adequate funding for decommissioning. These funding requirements create
great incentive to minimize contamination and the amount of funds set
aside and expended on cleanup.
Thus, current requirements require both applicants and existing
licensees, including renewals, to minimize contamination. Specific
minimization requirements contained in the proposed rule are directed
towards those making application for a new license because it is more
likely that consideration of design and operational aspects that would
reduce dose and minimize waste can be cost-effective at that time
compared to such considerations during the license renewal stage where
the existing design and previous operations may be major constraints.
The Commission continues to believe that the emphasis should continue
to be directed at such new designs and, therefore, the requirement for
minimization has been retained as proposed.
F.4.4 Summary of rule revisions on minimization of contamination.
The requirement in the proposed rule for imposition of the requirement
on applicants for new licenses has been retained in the final rule in
Sec. 20.1406 but has not been further extended.
F.5 Provisions for Readily Removable Residual Radioactivity
F.5.1 Proposed rule contents. Proposed Sec. 20.1403(c) indicated
that licensees are to take reasonable steps to remove all readily
removable residual radioactivity from the site.
F.5.2 Comments. Some commenters recommended either deletion,
modification, or clarification of the provision for readily removable
residual radioactivity.
F.5.3 Response. The provision for removal of ``readily removable''
residual radioactivity was intended to provide guidance on what
materials should be removed even if the removal would have little
effect on dose. The intent of this provision is to define the basic
remedies that are a matter of ``good practice'' such as common
housekeeping techniques (e.g., washing with moderate amounts of
detergent and water) that do not generate large volumes of radioactive
waste requiring subsequent disposal. As noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule, removal of this material is considered a necessary and
reasonable step toward ensuring that doses to the public from residual
radioactivity are ALARA. These considerations should be considered as
part of an ALARA evaluation for planning decommissioning activities in
a licensee's radiation protection program as required by
Sec. 20.1101(b).
F.5.4 Summary of rule revisions for readily removable
radioactivity. Because there is no purpose in duplicating an already
existing requirement for ALARA, the specific provision regarding
``readily removable'' has been deleted from the final rule.
F.6 Separate Standard for Radon
F.6.1 Proposed rule contents. Proposed Sec. 20.1404(a) did not
contain a separate standard for radon.
F.6.2 Comments. Some commenters indicated that the rule should
specifically include reference to radon whereas other commenters stated
that the rule should not include standards for radon or expressed
concerns about the complications introduced by these considerations and
the fact that background radon levels are so high.
F.6.3 Response. Radon is a radioactive gas formed by the
radioactive decay of radium. Radium is a member of the naturally-
occurring uranium-238 radioactive decay chain. Radionuclides from this
decay chain are found in natural background in various concentrations
in most soils and rocks. Estimation of radon dose is a consideration
for this rulemaking only at those very few facilities which have been
contaminated with radium as a result of licensed activities.
Following the approach taken in the proposed rule, this final rule
includes radiological criteria for residual radioactivity that is
distinguishable from background. Because of natural transport of radon
gas in outdoor areas due to diffusion and air currents, doses from
exposure to radon in outside areas due to radium in the soil are
negligible. Within buildings, wide variation in local concentrations of
naturally occurring indoor radon, well in excess of the 0.25 mSv/y (25
mrem/y) dose criterion discussed in Section IV.A, have been observed in
all regions of the United States. The dominant factor in determining
indoor radon levels are the design features of any structures at a site
where radium is present in the soil. Certain structural features,
including energy saving measures that reduce air exchange with the
outside, can have the effect of trapping radon gas within a building,
thus allowing buildup of radon to elevated levels. In addition, indoor
radon levels can vary significantly over time due to seasonal changes
and the rate of air flow in rooms.
Another variable in radon levels is introduced by the use of radon
mitigation techniques in buildings which can have the effect of
reducing radon levels by deliberate venting of the gas to outside
areas. In many parts of the country, local building codes have been
enacted for the purpose of reducing radon levels in homes, in
particular in areas where there are high levels of naturally occurring
radium and radon.
[[Page 39083]]
The variations in radon levels described above make it very
difficult to distinguish between naturally occurring radon and radon
resulting from licensed material. In addition, it is impractical to
predict prospective doses from exposure to indoor radon due to problems
in predicting the design features of future building construction.
Because of these variations and the limitation of measurement
techniques, the Commission believes that it is not practical for
licensees to distinguish between radon from licensed activities at a
dose comparable to a 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) dose criterion and radon
which occurs naturally. Therefore, in implementing the final rule,
licensees will not be expected to demonstrate that radon from licensed
activities is indistinguishable from background on a site-specific
basis. Instead this may be considered to have been demonstrated on a
generic basis when radium, the principal precursor to radon, meets the
requirements for unrestricted release, without including doses from the
radon pathway.
In some instances it may not be reasonable to achieve levels of
residual concentrations of radon precursors within the limit for
unrestricted use. As discussed in Section IV.B for cases such as these,
restricting site use by use of institutional controls could be
considered by a licensee as a means to limit the doses from precursors
by limiting access to the site. Under the restricted use provisions of
the rule, these doses are required to be further reduced based on ALARA
principles. In developing guidance on the application of ALARA in such
cases, the Commission will also consider the practicality of requiring
as part of controls the use of radon mitigation techniques in existing
or future structures.
F.6.4 Summary of rule revisions. No change to the final rule has
been made.
F.7 Calculation of TEDE Over 1000 Years to Demonstrate Compliance With
Dose Standard (Proposed Rule Sec. 20.1403(a))
F.7.1 Proposed rule contents. Proposed Sec. 20.1403(a) stated that
when calculating the TEDE, the licensee shall base estimates on the
TEDE expected within the first 1000 years after decommissioning.
F.7.2 Comments. Some commenters objected to the proposed 1000-year
time frame for calculating dose and wanted it lengthened to better
predict health effects over the hazardous life of each isotope. Other
commenters wanted the proposed 1000-year time frame shortened because
it is inconsistent with 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, and 10 CFR part 61
that use times of 200-500 years.
F.7.3 Response. As previously discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the Commission believes use of 1000 years in its
calculation of maximum dose is reasonable based on the nature of the
levels of radioactivity at decommissioned sites and the potential for
changes in the physical characteristics at the site over long periods
of time. Unlike analyses of situations where large quantities of long-
lived radioactive material may be involved (e.g., a high-level waste
repository) and where distant future calculations may provide some
insight into consequences, in the analysis for decommissioning, where
the consequences of exposure to residual radioactivity at levels near
background are small and peak doses for radionuclides of interest in
decommissioning occur within 1000 years, long term modeling thousands
of years into the future of doses that are near background may be
virtually meaningless. In 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A makes reference to
both a 200-year and 1000-year time frame. 10 CFR part 61 references the
design of a physical barrier rather than a calculation of exposure.
F.7.4 Summary of rule revisions. This provision has been retained
in Sec. 20.1401(d) of the final rule.
G. Other Comments
G.1 Definitions (Proposed Rule Sec. 20.1003)
G.1.1 Comments. There were comments on several definitions in
Sec. 20.1003 of the proposed rule including the following:
(1) With regard to the definition of background radiation, several
commenters opposed defining ``background radiation'' in terms of
currently existing levels and proposed defining it at the level
existing when human beings and other organisms evolved; i.e., man-made
sources of radiation should not be considered to be a part of
``background radiation.'' One commenter suggested that the term
``naturally occurring radioactive material,'' that is used in the
definition of ``background radiation,'' should also be defined. This
commenter also suggested that the word ``like,'' that precedes
``Chernobyl,'' should be replaced with the words ``such as'' to clearly
indicate that an example is being provided.
(2) With regard to the definition of decommissioning, several
commenters recommended that license termination not be specified in the
definition of decommissioning because it is a separate issue from
decommissioning. Some commenters stated that licenses should be
terminated only when sites are given unrestricted release and that
restricted use should not be permitted or included in the definition.
(3) Other comments were also received requesting clarification of
other definitions contained in the rule, including inclusion of radon
in the definition of background and the definitions of critical group,
restricted use, release of portions of sites, indistinguishable from
background, readily removable radioactivity, and SSABs.
G.1.2 Response. The only modification that the proposed rule made
to the existing definition of background in 10 CFR part 20 was the
inclusion of the phrase ``or from past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl
that contribute to background radiation and are not under the control
of the licensee.'' The reason for this modification was to further
clarify the existing requirement regarding sources of radiation and
radionuclides that can be excluded from licensee evaluation. After
review of the comments, the Commission continues to believe that the
inclusion in background of global fallout from weapons testing and
accidents such as Chernobyl is appropriate. No compelling reason was
presented that would indicate that remediation should include material
over that the licensee has no control and that is present at comparable
levels in the environment both on and offsite.
The existing definition of decommissioning in 10 CFR parts 30, 40,
50, 70, and 72 was incorporated into the regulations on June 27, 1988
(53 FR 24018). The Commission continues to believe that
``decommissioning'' is a term for a process which ultimately leads to
termination of an NRC license for unrestricted use. The only change to
the existing definition made by the proposed rule would be adding
``release of property under restricted conditions'' to the process of
termination of the license. In response to commenters who disagreed
with permitting restricted use, Section IV.B contains a detailed review
of issues on acceptability of restricted use. Based on that review, the
final rule continues to permit restricted use. Therefore, the
definition in the proposed rule is not changed.
The remaining comments on definitions reflect specific technical
concerns regarding use of the terms rather than the definition itself.
These concerns are discussed in detail in the responses to the
technical issues
[[Page 39084]]
addressed in Sections IV.A through IV.F.
G.1.3 Summary of rule revisions. The only change to Sec. 20.1003
is a change in the wording of the definition of background to replace
the word ``like'' with the words ``such as'' before ``Chernobyl'' as
suggested by a commenter.
G.2 Need for Regulatory Guidance
G.2.1 Comments. Commenters requested that additional regulatory
guidance be provided on a number of subjects including decommissioning
planning for sites and portions of sites, methods for demonstrating
compliance with the dose criteria and with ALARA, means for complying
with restricted use provisions (including SSAB operations), and
contents of a public participation plan. Specific comments were
received regarding need for guidance on modeling (including methods for
translating contamination levels to dose) and surveys (including
measurement of contamination at low levels), and clarification of
several terms.
G.2.2 Response. Regulatory guidance is being developed in the
areas requested. Regulatory guidance being prepared on dose
calculations and surveys for radiological criteria for decommissioning
describes acceptable survey methods that licensees can use. This
guidance describes methods that licensees can use to convert site
contamination to dose for the purpose of compliance with the rule
criteria and for estimating ALARA. The guidance is the further
development of NUREG-1500 issued with the proposed rule and presents an
approach for assessing dose coupled with the ability to incorporate
site-specific parameters. Further guidance on public participation and
restricted use is also being considered to support this rule.
G.3 Need for Flexibility
G.3.1 Comments. Commenters indicated that it is important to
provide flexibility in compliance with rule requirements by use of
site-specific conditions, ALARA, and exemptions in implementation of
the criteria.
G.3.2 Response. Use of site-specific conditions, especially in
calculation of acceptable contamination levels based on site-specific
parameters, contamination levels and volumes, and usage of the site, is
permitted in complying with the regulations. This will be discussed
more fully in the regulatory guidance. Furthermore, the final rule
provides for establishing alternate license termination criteria based
on site-specific considerations.
G.4 Consistency With NRC's Timeliness Rule
G.4.1 Comments. Some commenters indicated that the rule is
inconsistent with NRC's timeliness rule (59 FR 36026; July 15, 1994).
G.4.2 Response. The timeliness rule requires licensees to notify
the Commission promptly when a decision is made to permanently cease
principal activities or whenever principal activities have ceased for
24 months. Further, it requires licensees to complete decommissioning
within 24 months. The Commission may approve an alternate schedule to
complete decommissioning provided sufficient justification is provided
by the licensee.
Although this rule includes options for license termination or
transfer to another entity, licensees will still be expected to
initiate and complete decommissioning in a timely manner. If a licensee
intends to use the restricted release option, the licensee is expected
to promptly assess its site characteristics, submit a decommissioning
plan if required, provide financial assurance, and include appropriate
public participation in its decisionmaking. Because the requirements
allow licensees 12 months to submit this information to the Commission,
sufficient time should be available. The Commission may grant
additional time if the licensee demonstrates that the relief is not
detrimental to the public health and safety and is in the public
interest. If a licensee is unable to demonstrate that release of a site
would not prevent a member of the public from receiving a dose in
excess of the public dose limit, the site would not be released but
would be transferred to a Government entity or maintained under
license. These cases are expected to be rare and will be handled on a
case-by-case basis.
G.5 Comments From Power Reactor Decommissioning Rulemaking
G.5.1 Comments. Comments were received on the power reactor
decommissioning rule that was recently finalized and published on July
29, 1996 (61 FR 39278), requesting that the Commission consider the
elimination of the environmental review requirement at the license
termination stage (Sec. 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(G) and Sec. 51.53(b)) for
decommissioning to unrestricted release conditions. In response, the
Commission indicated that it would consider these comments in the
rulemaking on radiological criteria for decommissioning.
G.5.2 Response. The Commission has considered the elimination of
the supplemental environmental review requirement for a licensee that
intends to decommission to unrestricted release conditions as required
in this final rule and has decided to continue to retain this
requirement. The Commission considers this necessary for any particular
site to determine if the generic analysis encompasses the range of
environmental impacts at that particular site. The rationale for
retaining this requirement was explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule and has not changed.
G.6 Mixed Waste, Hazardous Waste, and Naturally Occurring and
Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Material
G.6.1 Comments. Some commenters stated that the rule should
address the cleanup of sites with mixed wastes. Other commenters
recommended that NRC should not regulate any nonradioactive hazardous
material beyond its authority. There was disagreement over whether
NRC's approval of a licensee's decommissioning activities should be
dependent on the licensee fulfilling other agencies' obligations,
especially where accelerator produced materials may exist. Some
commenters stated that the rule criteria are incompatible with
naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material
(NARM).
G.6.2 Response. The final rule on radiological criteria for
decommissioning applies to residual radioactivity from all licensed and
unlicensed sources used by the licensee but excludes background
radiation. As such, the NRC or Agreement State, whether acting as the
lead or cooperating agency in working with the licensee to ensure
appropriate remediation of a contaminated site, would not release a
site from its license unless the rule's radiological criteria were met.
NRC responsibility for license termination at a site with hazardous
or mixed waste onsite is principally to determine that the radiological
component of the mixed waste (e.g., contaminated soil) complies with
the rule's radiological criteria. Other regulatory agencies are
responsible for control of the hazardous constituents and must be
notified and accept responsibility for appropriate management of the
released site. The same approach would be followed in potentially
releasing a site with groundwater contamination exceeding applicable
maximum contaminant levels of nonradiological substances. Note that
under the Uranium and Mill Tailings Recovery and Control Act
[[Page 39085]]
(UMTRCA), NRC is responsible for the regulation of certain
nonradioactive hazardous materials.
With regard to NARM, NRC's legislative and regulatory authority
extends to those materials and facilities under the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, and not to accelerator produced materials or
naturally occurring radioactive material, except as it is defined as
source material in 10 CFR part 40.4. Section IV.A, notes that, although
some commenters questioned the relationship of this rule to NARM, the
criteria of this rule apply to residual radioactivity from activities
under a licensee's control and not to background radiation (that
includes radiation from naturally occurring radioactive material
(NORM)). There are a wide variety of sites containing NORM subject to
EPA jurisdiction and not licensed by the NRC. The extent to which the
criteria in this rule would apply to these sites would be based on a
separate evaluation. However, the considerations and analyses done for
this rulemaking in the Final GEIS and regulatory analysis regarding
large fuel cycle and non-fuel-cycle facilities containing large
quantities of naturally occurring nuclides such as uranium and thorium
are appropriate for certain NORM sites, and the broad provisions of the
rule (such as control of sites with restrictions imposed, use of
alternate cap values, use of alternate criteria, and public
participation aspects) may be useful in considerations regarding NORM
sites.
G.7 Recycle
G.7.1 Comments. Commenters recommended that recycling of equipment
or materials be addressed in more depth in the final rule. Several
commenters stated that recycling of contaminated materials that results
in increased exposures to members of the public is unacceptable. Other
commenters favored establishment of criteria for recycled materials.
G.7.2 Response. The proposed rule did not specifically address the
recycle of material or equipment decontaminated as a result of the
decommissioning process. The Commission has a separate consideration
underway of the issues related to cases when the licensee proposes to
intentionally release material containing residual radioactivity that
could become available for reuse or recycle.
Because current NRC regulations do not contain explicit
radiological criteria for release of equipment and materials, release
from licensed facilities is currently determined by NRC on a case-by-
case basis using existing guidance and practices. Current practices
include radiation surveys to document the absence of licensed
radioactive material, general guidance for reactors contained in
Regulatory Guide 1.86 or similar guidance issued for materials
facilities, and site-specific technical specifications and license
conditions. Although these criteria were not originally derived for the
case of recycle, they have been applied for many years in a wide
variety of contexts.
Continuation of the case-by-case procedure in the future may not be
practical because of increased quantities of material expected from
larger facility decommissionings. Also, interest in recycling slightly
contaminated material is growing both in the United States and in other
countries as a means of conserving resources by limiting the amount of
new raw materials that are necessary to produce new products and
equipment and by reducing the costs of disposing of large volumes of
slightly contaminated material that may pose very small risks to the
general public. Codifying criteria would allow NRC to more effectively
deal with these issues. Regulatory action separate from this
decommissioning action by NRC, that would provide clear, consistent
criteria in this area, is being considered. Specifically, the NRC is
cooperating with the EPA in developing the technical basis for a
recycle rulemaking. At present, the EPA is developing its plans for
such a rulemaking. The NRC will determine what course of action it will
take regarding rulemaking related to recycle after consideration of EPA
plans. Full opportunity for early public involvement and comment
regarding that regulatory action is anticipated. Because of this
background, no revision to this decommissioning rule to consider
recycling is being made.
G.8 The Rulemaking Process
G.8.1 Comments. Several commenters expressed satisfaction with the
enhanced rulemaking process undertaken by the NRC for the
decommissioning rule. Of those commenters who opposed the proposed
decommissioning standards for not being sufficiently restrictive, some
were critical of the rulemaking process and suggested that the NRC had
ignored their earlier participation. Other commenters expressed
dissatisfaction with the proposed standards because they are overly
restrictive. The DOE stated that it supported the NRC effort to issue
the rule and the joint efforts of the EPA and the NRC to coordinate
their respective rulemaking proceedings.
G.8.2 Response. The NRC has conducted what it considers to be an
extensive effort at enhancing participation in the early stages of this
rulemaking process through a series of workshops and environmental
impact statement scoping meetings for affected interests that solicited
public comment with regard to radiological criteria for
decommissioning. The extent of these meetings was discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule.
The workshops and the scoping meetings were not designed to seek
``consensus'' in the sense that there is agreement on how each issue
should be resolved, but rather to ensure that, with informed
discussion, relevant issues have been identified and information
exchanged on these issues.
Subsequent to the workshops and scoping meetings, the Commission
developed the policies and requirements that were deemed appropriate
for a rule on radiological criteria for decommissioning. Information
and concepts developed in the workshops were factored into this
process. For example, a number of themes from the workshops, such as
consideration of restricted use options, increased public participation
in the site decommissioning process, and a desire to return sites to
levels indistinguishable from background, were considered during the
rulemaking. The Commission also considered the approaches of scientific
bodies such as the ICRP and NCRP, precedents of its other rulemakings
with regard to radiation protection such as 10 CFR part 20, input from
EPA regarding appropriate risk levels, technical input from NRC
contractors regarding capability to measure at low radiation levels,
and the costs and impacts of achieving alternate levels.
Preliminary conclusions regarding this effort were contained in the
NRC staff's draft rule (59 FR 4868, February 2, 1994) that was sent to
Agreement States, workshop participants, and other interested parties.
The intent of this informal comment period in advance of a proposed
rule was to provide an opportunity for interested parties to comment on
the adequacy of the draft criteria.
Resolution of comments from the workshops and from circulation of
the NRC staff draft was discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule
published on August 22, 1994 (59 FR 43200). The preamble indicates the
evolution of the NRC's approach to this rulemaking as a result of the
workshops and the other activities noted above.
Clearly, there are a number of specific areas which remain
difficult to resolve or on which to reach a ``consensus.'' These areas
include the precise level of
[[Page 39086]]
permissible radiological criteria for decommissioning, restricted use
as a means for terminating a license, and the extent of public
participation. It is the NRC's consideration that the rulemaking
process has allowed an airing of differing opinions with regard to
these as well as other issues.
V. Agreement State Compatibility
The Commission has determined that this rule will be a Division 2
matter of compatibility. For the discussion on the basis for this
determination, see Section IV.F.1.
VI. Relationship Between the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and
Site-Specific Decommissioning Actions
The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) prepared by the
Commission on this rulemaking evaluates the environmental impacts
associated with the remediation of several types of NRC-licensed
facilities to a range of residual radioactivity levels. The Commission
believes that the generic analysis will encompass the impacts that will
occur in most Commission decisions to decommission an individual site
where the licensee proposes to release the site for unrestricted use.
Therefore, the Commission plans to rely on the GEIS to satisfy its
obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act regarding
individual decommissioning decisions that meet the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/
y) criterion for unrestricted use. However, the Commission will still
initiate an environmental assessment regarding any particular site, for
which a categorical exclusion is not applicable, to determine if the
generic analysis encompasses the range of environmental impacts at that
particular site.
The rule also provides for the termination of the license and the
release of a site under restricted use conditions if the licensee can
demonstrate that land use restrictions or other types of institutional
controls will provide reasonable assurance that the 0.25 mSv/y (25
mrem/y) limit can be met. The types of controls and their contribution
to providing reasonable assurance that the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) limit
can be met for a particular site will differ for each site in this
category. Similarly, the rule also provides that termination of the
license under alternate criteria will be considered by the Commission
in certain site-specific situations that would also differ for each
site in this category. Therefore, the environmental impacts for these
cases cannot be analyzed on a generic basis and the Commission will
conduct an independent environmental review for each site-specific
decommissioning decision where land use restrictions or institutional
controls are relied on by the licensee or where alternate criteria are
proposed.
The GEIS indicates that the decommissioning for certain classes of
licensees (e.g., licensees using only sealed sources) will not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, the Commission is amending Sec. 51.22 of the
Commission's regulations to specify that the decommissioning of these
types of licenses are actions eligible for categorical exclusion from
the Commission's environmental review process.
VII. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement: Availability
As required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR part
51, the NRC has prepared a final generic environmental impact statement
(NUREG-1496) on this proposed rule.
The final generic environmental impact statement is available for
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower
Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the final generic
environmental impact statement (NUREG-1496) may be obtained by written
request or telefax (301-415-2260) from: Office of Administration,
Attention: Distribution and Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Background documents on the rulemaking, including the text of the
final rule, the final GEIS, and the regulatory analysis, are also
available for downloading and viewing on the NRC Enhanced Participatory
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning Electronic
Bulletin Board, 1-800-880-6091 (see 58 FR 37760 (July 13, 1993)). The
bulletin board may be accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and
most commonly available communications software packages. The
communications software should have parity set to none, data bits to 8,
and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1) and use ANSI or VT-100 terminal emulation.
For more information call Ms. Christine Daily, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Phone (301) 415-6026; FAX (301) 415-
5385.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule amends information collection requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and
Budget, approval number 3150-0014.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 31.6 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments on any aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33),
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by
Internet electronic mail to [email protected]; and to the Desk Officer,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011
and 3150-0093), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
IX. Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the
alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available
for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be
obtained by written request from the Radiation Protection and Health
Effects Branch (RPHEB) Secretary, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Background documents on the rulemaking, including the text of the
final rule, the final GEIS, and the regulatory analysis are also
available for downloading and viewing on the NRC Enhanced Participatory
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning Electronic
Bulletin Board (see Section VII, above).
X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities. Although the final rule would cover all 22,000
[[Page 39087]]
licensees regulated by the NRC and Agreement States, small entities
covered by this rule are primarily licensees that possess and use only
materials with short half-lives or materials only in sealed sources.
Decommissioning efforts for these licensees are simple and require only
that sealed sources are properly disposed of or that short-lived
materials are allowed to decay. Complete details of the cost analysis
are contained in the regulatory analysis.
XI. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does
not apply to this final rule and therefore, a backfit analysis is not
required for this final rule because these amendments do not involve
reactor operations and therefore do not involve any provisions that
would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
XII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a
``major'' rule and has verified this determination with the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 20
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational and public
dose limits, Occupational safety and health, Packaging and containers,
Permissible doses, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Respiratory protection, Special nuclear material, Source
material, Surveys and monitoring, Waste treatment and disposal.
10 CFR Part 30
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Government contracts,
Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear materials, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 40
Criminal penalties, Government contracts, Hazardous materials
transportation, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Source material, Uranium.
10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact
statements, Environmental regulations, assessments and reports, NEPA
procedures, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 70
Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Material
control and accounting, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers,
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material.
10 CFR Part 72
Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety
and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures, Spent fuel.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting
the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and
72.
PART 20--STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68
stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended (2 U.S.C.
2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2236), secs. 201, as
amended, 202, 206, 88 stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846).
2. In Sec. 20.1003, the definition of Background radiation is
revised and new definitions Critical Group, Decommission,
Distinguishable from background, and Residual radioactivity are added
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 20.1003 Definitions.
* * * * *
Background radiation means radiation from cosmic sources; naturally
occurring radioactive material, including radon (except as a decay
product of source or special nuclear material); and global fallout as
it exists in the environment from the testing of nuclear explosive
devices or from past nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl that
contribute to background radiation and are not under the control of the
licensee. ``Background radiation'' does not include radiation from
source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials regulated by the
Commission.
* * * * *
Critical Group means the group of individuals reasonably expected
to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any
applicable set of circumstances.
* * * * *
Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits--
(1) Release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of
the license; or
(2) Release of the property under restricted conditions and
termination of the license.
* * * * *
Distinguishable from background means that the detectable
concentration of a radionuclide is statistically different from the
background concentration of that radionuclide in the vicinity of the
site or, in the case of structures, in similar materials using adequate
measurement technology, survey, and statistical techniques.
* * * * *
Residual radioactivity means radioactivity in structures,
materials, soils, groundwater, and other media at a site resulting from
activities under the licensee's control. This includes radioactivity
from all licensed and unlicensed sources used by the licensee, but
excludes background radiation. It also includes radioactive materials
remaining at the site as a result of routine or accidental releases of
radioactive material at the site and previous burials at the site, even
if those burials were made in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR
part 20.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 20.1009, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 20.1009 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
* * * * *
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in
this part appear in Secs. 20.1003, 20.1101, 20.1202, 20.1203, 20.1204,
20.1206, 20.1208, 20.1301, 20.1302, 20.1403, 20.1404, 20.1406, 20.1501,
20.1601, 20.1703, 20.1901, 20.1902, 20.1904, 20.1905, 20.1906, 20.2002,
20.2004, 20.2006, 20.2102, 20.2103, 20.2104, 20.2105, 20.2106, 20.2107,
20.2108,
[[Page 39088]]
20.2110, 20.2201, 20.2202, 20.2203, 20.2204, 20.2205, 20.2206, 20.2301,
and Appendices F and G to 10 CFR Part 20.
* * * * *
4. A new subpart E entitled ``Radiological Criteria for License
Termination,'' is added to 10 CFR part 20 to read as follows:
Subpart E--Radiological Criteria for License Termination
Sec.
20.1401 General provisions and scope.
20.1402 Radiological criteria for unrestricted use.
20.1403 Criteria for license termination under restricted
conditions.
20.1404 Alternate criteria for license termination.
20.1405 Public notification and public participation.
20.1406 Minimization of contamination.
Sec. 20.1401 General provisions and scope.
(a) The criteria in this subpart apply to the decommissioning of
facilities licensed under parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, and 72 of this
chapter, as well as other facilities subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. For high-level and low-
level waste disposal facilities (10 CFR parts 60 and 61), the criteria
apply only to ancillary surface facilities that support radioactive
waste disposal activities. The criteria do not apply to uranium and
thorium recovery facilities already subject to appendix A to 10 CFR
part 40 or to uranium solution extraction facilities.
(b) The criteria in this subpart do not apply to sites which:
(1) Have been decommissioned prior to the effective date of the
rule in accordance with criteria identified in the Site Decommissioning
Management Plan (SDMP) Action Plan of April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13389);
(2) Have previously submitted and received Commission approval on a
license termination plan (LTP) or decommissioning plan that is
compatible with the SDMP Action Plan criteria; or
(3) Submit a sufficient LTP or decommissioning plan before August
20, 1998 and such LTP or decommissioning plan is approved by the
Commission before August 20, 1999 and in accordance with the criteria
identified in the SDMP Action Plan, except that if an EIS is required
in the submittal, there will be a provision for day-for-day extension.
(c) After a site has been decommissioned and the license terminated
in accordance with the criteria in this subpart, the Commission will
require additional cleanup only if, based on new information, it
determines that the criteria of this subpart were not met and residual
radioactivity remaining at the site could result in significant threat
to public health and safety.
(d) When calculating TEDE to the average member of the critical
group the licensee shall determine the peak annual TEDE dose expected
within the first 1000 years after decommissioning.
Sec. 20.1402 Radiological criteria for unrestricted use.
A site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if the
residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from background
radiation results in a TEDE to an average member of the critical group
that does not exceed 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) per year, including that from
groundwater sources of drinking water, and the residual radioactivity
has been reduced to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable
(ALARA). Determination of the levels which are ALARA must take into
account consideration of any detriments, such as deaths from
transportation accidents, expected to potentially result from
decontamination and waste disposal.
Sec. 20.1403 Criteria for license termination under restricted
conditions.
A site will be considered acceptable for license termination under
restricted conditions if:
(a) The licensee can demonstrate that further reductions in
residual radioactivity necessary to comply with the provisions of
Sec. 20.1402 would result in net public or environmental harm or were
not being made because the residual levels associated with restricted
conditions are ALARA. Determination of the levels which are ALARA must
take into account consideration of any detriments, such as traffic
accidents, expected to potentially result from decontamination and
waste disposal;
(b) The licensee has made provisions for legally enforceable
institutional controls that provide reasonable assurance that the TEDE
from residual radioactivity distinguishable from background to the
average member of the critical group will not exceed 25 mrem (0.25 mSv)
per year;
(c) The licensee has provided sufficient financial assurance to
enable an independent third party, including a governmental custodian
of a site, to assume and carry out responsibilities for any necessary
control and maintenance of the site. Acceptable financial assurance
mechanisms are--
(1) Funds placed into an account segregated from the licensee's
assets and outside the licensee's administrative control as described
in Sec. 30.35(f)(1) of this chapter;
(2) Surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method as
described in Sec. 30.35(f)(2) of this chapter;
(3) A statement of intent in the case of Federal, State, or local
Government licensees, as described in Sec. 30.35(f)(4) of this chapter;
or
(4) When a governmental entity is assuming custody and ownership of
a site, an arrangement that is deemed acceptable by such governmental
entity.
(d) The licensee has submitted a decommissioning plan or License
Termination Plan (LTP) to the Commission indicating the licensee's
intent to decommission in accordance with Secs. 30.36(d), 40.42(d),
50.82 (a) and (b), 70.38(d), or 72.54 of this chapter, and specifying
that the licensee intends to decommission by restricting use of the
site. The licensee shall document in the LTP or decommissioning plan
how the advice of individuals and institutions in the community who may
be affected by the decommissioning has been sought and incorporated, as
appropriate, following analysis of that advice.
(1) Licensees proposing to decommission by restricting use of the
site shall seek advice from such affected parties regarding the
following matters concerning the proposed decommissioning--
(i) Whether provisions for institutional controls proposed by the
licensee;
(A) Will provide reasonable assurance that the TEDE from residual
radioactivity distinguishable from background to the average member of
the critical group will not exceed 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) TEDE per year;
(B) Will be enforceable; and
(C) Will not impose undue burdens on the local community or other
affected parties.
(ii) Whether the licensee has provided sufficient financial
assurance to enable an independent third party, including a
governmental custodian of a site, to assume and carry out
responsibilities for any necessary control and maintenance of the site;
(2) In seeking advice on the issues identified in
Sec. 20.1403(d)(1), the licensee shall provide for:
(i) Participation by representatives of a broad cross section of
community interests who may be affected by the decommissioning;
(ii) An opportunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion on
[[Page 39089]]
the issues by the participants represented; and
(iii) A publicly available summary of the results of all such
discussions, including a description of the individual viewpoints of
the participants on the issues and the extent of agreement and
disagreement among the participants on the issues; and
(e) Residual radioactivity at the site has been reduced so that if
the institutional controls were no longer in effect, there is
reasonable assurance that the TEDE from residual radioactivity
distinguishable from background to the average member of the critical
group is as low as reasonably achievable and would not exceed either--
(1) 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year; or
(2) 500 mrem (5 mSv) per year provided the licensee--
(i) Demonstrates that further reductions in residual radioactivity
necessary to comply with the 100 mrem/y (1 mSv/y) value of paragraph
(e)(1) of this section are not technically achievable, would be
prohibitively expensive, or would result in net public or environmental
harm;
(ii) Makes provisions for durable institutional controls;
(iii) Provides sufficient financial assurance to enable a
responsible government entity or independent third party, including a
governmental custodian of a site, both to carry out periodic rechecks
of the site no less frequently than every 5 years to assure that the
institutional controls remain in place as necessary to meet the
criteria of Sec. 20.1403(b) and to assume and carry out
responsibilities for any necessary control and maintenance of those
controls. Acceptable financial assurance mechanisms are those in
paragraph (c) of this section.
Sec. 20.1404 Alternate criteria for license termination.
(a) The Commission may terminate a license using alternate criteria
greater than the dose criterion of Secs. 20.1402, 20.1403(b), and
20.1403(d)(1)(i)(A), if the licensee--
(1) Provides assurance that public health and safety would continue
to be protected, and that it is unlikely that the dose from all man-
made sources combined, other than medical, would be more than the 1
mSv/y (100 mrem/y) limit of subpart D, by submitting an analysis of
possible sources of exposure;
(2) Has employed to the extent practical restrictions on site use
according to the provisions of Sec. 20.1403 in minimizing exposures at
the site; and
(3) Reduces doses to ALARA levels, taking into consideration any
detriments such as traffic accidents expected to potentially result
from decontamination and waste disposal.
(4) Has submitted a decommissioning plan or License Termination
Plan (LTP) to the Commission indicating the licensee's intent to
decommission in accordance with Secs. 30.36(d), 40.42(d), 50.82 (a) and
(b), 70.38(d), or 72.54 of this chapter, and specifying that the
licensee proposes to decommission by use of alternate criteria. The
licensee shall document in the decommissioning plan or LTP how the
advice of individuals and institutions in the community who may be
affected by the decommissioning has been sought and addressed, as
appropriate, following analysis of that advice. In seeking such advice,
the licensee shall provide for:
(i) Participation by representatives of a broad cross section of
community interests who may be affected by the decommissioning;
(ii) An opportunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion on
the issues by the participants represented; and
(iii) A publicly available summary of the results of all such
discussions, including a description of the individual viewpoints of
the participants on the issues and the extent of agreement and
disagreement among the participants on the issues.
(b) The use of alternate criteria to terminate a license requires
the approval of the Commission after consideration of the NRC staff's
recommendations that will address any comments provided by the
Environmental Protection Agency and any public comments submitted
pursuant to Sec. 20.1405.
Sec. 20.1405 Public notification and public participation.
Upon the receipt of an LTP or decommissioning plan from the
licensee, or a proposal by the licensee for release of a site pursuant
to Secs. 20.1403 or 20.1404, or whenever the Commission deems such
notice to be in the public interest, the Commission shall:
(a) Notify and solicit comments from:
(1) local and State governments in the vicinity of the site and any
Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have treaty or statutory
rights that could be affected by the decommissioning; and
(2) the Environmental Protection Agency for cases where the
licensee proposes to release a site pursuant to Sec. 20.1404.
(b) Publish a notice in the Federal Register and in a forum, such
as local newspapers, letters to State or local organizations, or other
appropriate forum, that is readily accessible to individuals in the
vicinity of the site, and solicit comments from affected parties.
Sec. 20.1406 Minimization of contamination.
Applicants for licenses, other than renewals, after August 20,
1997, shall describe in the application how facility design and
procedures for operation will minimize, to the extent practicable,
contamination of the facility and the environment, facilitate eventual
decommissioning, and minimize, to the extent practicable, the
generation of radioactive waste.
5. In Sec. 20.2402, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 20.2402 Criminal penalties.
* * * * *
(b) The regulations in Secs. 20.1001 through 20.2402 that are not
issued under Sections 161b, 161i, or 161o for the purposes of Section
223 are as follows: Secs. 20.1001, 20.1002, 20.1003, 20.1004, 20.1005,
20.1006, 20.1007, 20.1008, 20.1009, 20.1405, 20.1704, 20.1903, 20.1905,
20.2002, 20.2007, 20.2301, 20.2302, 20.2401, and 20.2402.
PART 30--RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF
BYPRODUCT MATERIAL
6. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 935, 948,
953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat 444, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 201, as
amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 30.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat 3123 (2
U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34(b) also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat.
954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 30.61 also issued under
sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
7. In Sec. 30.4, the definition of Decommission is revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 30.4 Definitions.
* * * * *
Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits--
(1) Release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of
the license; or
(2) Release of the property under restricted conditions and
termination of the license.
* * * * *
[[Page 39090]]
8. In Sec. 30.35, paragraph (f)(5) is added and paragraph
(g)(3)(iv) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 30.35 Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) When a governmental entity is assuming custody and ownership of
a site, an arrangement that is deemed acceptable by such governmental
entity.
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) All areas outside of restricted areas that contain material
such that, if the license expired, the licensee would be required to
either decontaminate the area to meet the criteria for decommissioning
in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, or apply for approval for disposal under
10 CFR 20.2002.
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 30.36, the introductory text of paragraph (j)(2) and
paragraph (k)(3) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 30.36 Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning
of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed
activities were carried out and submit a report of the results of this
survey, unless the licensee demonstrates in some other manner that the
premises are suitable for release in accordance with the criteria for
decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. The licensee shall, as
appropriate--
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(3)(i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates
that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with the
criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E; or
(ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to
demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release in accordance
with the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E.
* * * * *
PART 40--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL
10. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68
Stat. 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs. 11e(2),
83, 84, Pub. L. 95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234,
83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094,
2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274,
Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as
amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amended by Pub. L.
97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022).
Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123, (42
U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat.
939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 184, 68
Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued
under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
11. In Sec. 40.4, the definition of Decommission is revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 40.4 Definitions.
* * * * *
Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits--
(1) Release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of
the license; or
(2) Release of the property under restricted conditions and
termination of the license.
* * * * *
12. In Sec. 40.36, paragraph (e)(5) is added and paragraph
(f)(3)(iv) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 40.36 Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(5) When a governmental entity is assuming custody and ownership of
a site, an arrangement that is deemed acceptable by such governmental
entity.
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) All areas outside of restricted areas that contain material
such that, if the license expired, the licensee would be required to
either decontaminate the area to meet the criteria for decommissioning
in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, or apply for approval for disposal under
10 CFR 20.2002.
* * * * *
13. In Sec. 40.42, the introductory text of paragraph (j)(2) and
paragraph (k)(3) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 40.42 Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning
of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed
activities were carried out and submit a report of the results of this
survey, unless the licensee demonstrates in some other manner that the
premises are suitable for release in accordance with the criteria for
decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. The licensee shall, as
appropriate--
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(3)(i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates
that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with the
criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E; or
(ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to
demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release in accordance
with the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E.
* * * * *
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
14. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234,
83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201,
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 is also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92
Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123
(42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68
Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.
91-190, 82 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd),
and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2138).
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.
185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and
Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853
(42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec.
204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and
50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C.
2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42
U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50-81 also issued under sec. 184, 68
Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also issued under
sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
15. In Sec. 50.2, the definition of Decommission is revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 50.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits--
[[Page 39091]]
(1) Release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of
the license; or
(2) Release of the property under restricted conditions and
termination of the license.
* * * * *
16. In Sec. 50.82, paragraphs (a)(11)(ii) and (b)(6)(ii) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.82 Termination of license.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(11) * * *
(ii) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation
demonstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release in
accordance with the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20,
subpart E.
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation
demonstrate that the facility and site are suitable for release in
accordance with the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20,
subpart E.
* * * * *
PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC
LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
17. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201);
secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42
U.S.C. 5841, 5842).
Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4332, 4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041;
and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243).
Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.61, 51.80, and 51.97 also issued
under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec.
148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161,
10168). Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as
amended by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 10141).
Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42
U.S.C. 10134(f)).
18. In Sec. 51.22, paragraph (c)(20) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 51.22 Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of
licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or
otherwise not requiring environmental review.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(20) Decommissioning of sites where licensed operations have been
limited to the use of--
(i) Small quantities of short-lived radioactive materials; or
(ii) Radioactive materials in sealed sources, provided there is no
evidence of leakage of radioactive material from these sealed sources.
* * * * *
PART 70--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
19. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 948,
953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2071, 2073, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202,
204, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5845, 5846).
Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141,
Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
Section 70.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486 sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42
U.S.C. 5851). Section 70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat.
939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also issued under sec. 57d, Pub.
L. 93-377, 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections 70.36 and 70.44
also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2234). Section 70.61 also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955
(42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 70.62 also issued under sec. 108, 68
Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
20. In Sec. 70.4, the definition of Decommission is revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 70.4 Definitions.
* * * * *
Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits--
(1) Release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of
the license; or
(2) Release of the property under restricted conditions and
termination of the license.
* * * * *
21. In Sec. 70.25, paragraph (f)(5) is added and paragraph
(g)(3)(iv) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 70.25 Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) When a governmental entity is assuming custody and ownership of
a site, an arrangement that is deemed acceptable by such governmental
entity.
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) All areas outside of restricted areas that contain material
such that, if the license expired, the licensee would be required to
either decontaminate the area to meet the criteria for decommissioning
in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, or apply for approval for disposal under
10 CFR 20.2002.
* * * * *
22. In Sec. 70.38, the introductory text of paragraph (j)(2) and
paragraph (k)(3) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 70.38 Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning
of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed
activities were carried out and submit a report of the results of this
survey, unless the licensee demonstrates in some other manner that the
premises are suitable for release in accordance with the criteria for
decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. The licensee shall, as
appropriate--
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(3)(i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates
that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with the
criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E; or
(ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to
demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release in accordance
with the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E.
* * * * *
PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
23. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183,
184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953,
954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233,
2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat.
688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846);
Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-
486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.
91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Secs. 131, 132, 133, 135,
137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148,
Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153,
10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148 (c),
(d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101
[[Page 39092]]
Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168 (c), (d)).
Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.
2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154).
Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101
Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under
secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat.
2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244, (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)).
Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42
U.S.C. 10153) and Sec. 218(a) 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).
24. In Sec. 72.3, the definition of Decommission is revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 72.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from service
and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits--
(1) Release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of
the license; or
(2) Release of the property under restricted conditions and
termination of the license.
* * * * *
25. In Sec. 72.30, paragraph (c)(6) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 72.30 Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) When a governmental entity is assuming custody and ownership of
a site, an arrangement that is deemed acceptable by such governmental
entity.
* * * * *
26. In Sec. 72.54, the introductory text of paragraph (l)(2) and
paragraph (m)(2) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 72.54 Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning
of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(2) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed
activities were conducted and submit a report of the results of this
survey, unless the licensee demonstrates in some other manner that the
premises are suitable for release in accordance with the criteria for
decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. The licensee shall, as
appropriate--
(m) * * *
(2)(i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates
that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with the
criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E; or
(ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to
demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release in accordance
with the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of July 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-17752 Filed 7-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
