[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 161 (Monday, August 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20427]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 22, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
10 CFR Part 20, et al
Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning; Proposed Rule
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72
RIN 3150-AD65
Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend
its regulations regarding decommissioning of licensed facilities to
provide specific radiological criteria for the decommissioning of lands
and structures.
The proposed criteria would apply to the decommissioning of all
licensed facilities and facilities subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction. The Commission expects to 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. For high-level and low-level waste disposal
facilities, the criteria would apply only to ancillary surface
facilities that support radioactive waste disposal activities because
criteria for closure of the remainder of the facility and termination
of the license are currently specified. For uranium mills, the criteria
apply to decommissioning of the facility but not to soil cleanup and
the disposal of uranium mill tailings. The criteria would apply to
decommissioning of nuclear facilities that operate through their normal
lifetime, as well as to those that may be shut down prematurely.
However, they would not apply to sites already covered by a
decommissioning plan approved by the Commission before the effective
date of this rule, if it is adopted in final form.
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 a site can be considered
decommissioned. The Commission believes that inclusion of criteria in
the regulations would result in more efficient and consistent licensing
actions related to the numerous and frequently complex site remediation
and decommissioning activities anticipated in the future. The
Commission has reassessed the basis for the residual contamination
levels contained in existing guidance in light of changes in basic
radiation protection standards, improvements in remediation and
radiation detection technologies, decommissioning experience obtained
during the past 15 years, and comments received from workshops held as
part of this rulemaking effort.
The NRC presently allows decommissioning on a site-specific basis
using existing guidance. However, the Commission believes that
codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning in the regulations
would 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. In addition it would eliminate
protracted delays in decommissioning which result as licensees wait for
NRC to promulgate regulatory criteria before proceeding with
decommissioning of their facilities.
DATES: Submit comments December 20, 1994. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission
is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or
Wordperfect format, by calling the NRC Enhanced Participatory
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning Electronic
Bulletin Board, 1-800-880-6091 (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. Communication
software parameters should be set as follows: parity to none, data bits
to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1). Use ANSI or VT-100 terminal
emulation. Background documents on the rulemaking are also available
for downloading and viewing on the bulletin board. For more information
call Ms. Christine Daily, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555. Phone (301) 415-6026; FAX (301) 415-5385.
Documents related to this rulemaking may be examined at the NRC
Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Many of these documents may also be viewed and downloaded
electronically via the Electronic Bulletin Board established by NRC for
this rulemaking.
Single copies of the regulatory analysis may be obtained by written
request from RPHEB Secretary, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Single copies of the draft generic environmental impact statement
(NUREG-1496): ``Background as a Residual Radioactivity Criterion for
Decommissioning, Appendix A to the GEIS in Support of Radiological
Criteria for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1501); or the
staff's working draft regulatory guidance (NUREG-1500) may be obtained
by written request or telefax (301-504-2260) from: Distribution
Services, Printing and Mail Services Branch, Office of Administration,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
The NRC requests public comment on the draft generic environmental
impact statement (NUREG-1496). Comments on NUREG-1496 may be submitted
to: Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of
Information and Publication Services, Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Hand deliver comments on
NUREG-1496 to 11545 Rockville Pike, Maryland between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15
p.m. on Federal workdays. Comments on NUREG-1496 may be submitted
electronically as indicated elsewhere under the ADDRESSES heading.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James C. Malaro, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555, telephone (301) 415-6201.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part
20 of its regulations to provide specific radiological criteria for the
decommissioning of lands and structures.
The NRC is using an enhanced participatory process for developing
the criteria. This process included a series of seven workshops held
from January through May 1993. The workshops were conducted at a very
early stage of rulemaking to enhance participation of interested
parties and the public with the following objectives: (a) To ensure
that the relevant issues have been identified; (b) to exchange
information on these issues; and (c) to identify underlying concerns
and areas of disagreement, and, where possible, approaches for
resolution. In July 1993, the NRC staff also conducted eight scoping
meetings for the development of the Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (GEIS) supporting the rulemaking.
The proposed criteria would apply to the decommissioning of all
facilities licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, and 72,
as well as other facilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (AEA) and the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974. The Commission would apply these criteria
in situations where remediation of radioactive material residues
resulting from use or possession of Source, Byproduct, and Special
Nuclear Material is undertaken. For high-level and low-level waste
disposal facilities (10 CFR Parts 60 and 61), the criteria would apply
only to ancillary surface facilities that support radioactive waste
disposal activities because criteria for closure of the remainder of
the facility and termination of the license are specified in 10 CFR
Parts 60 and 61. For uranium mills, the criteria would apply to
decommissioning of the facility but not to soil cleanup or the disposal
of uranium mill tailings, which is covered in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part
40 and Environmental Protection Agency standards in 40 CFR Part 192.
The criteria would apply to decommissioning of nuclear facilities that
operate through their normal lifetime, as well as to those that may be
shut down prematurely. However, they would not apply to sites currently
covered by a decommissioning plan approved by the Commission before the
effective date of this rule, if it is adopted as a final rule.
The purpose of the rulemaking is to ensure that decommissioning
will be carried out without undue impact on public and occupational
health and safety and the environment. The proposed amendments enhance
the existing regulatory framework by providing a clear and consistent
regulatory basis for determining the extent to which lands and
structures must be remediated before a site can be decommissioned. The
Commission believes that inclusion of criteria in the regulations would
result in more efficient and consistent licensing actions related to
the numerous and frequently complex site decontamination and
decommissioning activities anticipated in the future. The Commission
has developed the basis for the residual contamination levels in light
of changes in basic radiation protection standards, improvements in
remediation and radiation detection technologies, decommissioning
experience obtained during the past 15 years, and comments received
from workshops held as part of this rulemaking effort.
Current regulations do not explicitly address radiological criteria
for decommissioning.\1\ The NRC presently allows decommissioning on a
site-specific basis using existing guidance.\2\ However, the Commission
believes that codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning in
the regulations would 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. In
addition, it would eliminate protracted delays in decommissioning which
result as licensees wait for NRC to promulgate regulatory criteria
before proceeding with decommissioning of their facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\On June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018), the Commission published a
final rule on General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear
Facilities. However, this rule did not specifically address
radiological criteria for decommissioned sites.
\2\Regulatory guidance, criteria, and practices include the
following with emphasis on contamination levels that are As Low as
Reasonably Achievable (ALARA): ``Disposal or On-site Storage of
Thorium or Uranium from Past Operations'' Branch Technical Position,
October 23, 1981, 46 FR 52061; ``Termination of Byproduct, Source,
and Special Nuclear Materials Licenses,'' Policy and Guidance
Directive FC 83-23, November 4, 1983; ``Termination of Operating
Licenses for Nuclear Reactors'' Regulatory Guide 1.86, June 1974;
letter to Stanford University from James R. Miller, Chief,
Standardization and Special Projects Branch, Division of Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Docket No. 50-141, April
21, 1982; ``National Primary Drinking Water Standards,'' 40 CFR 141;
``Radiation Dose Guidelines for Protection Against Transuranium
Elements Present in the Environment as a Result of Unplanned
Contamination,'' 42 FR 60956, November 30, 1977. Guidance is
specified in terms of acceptable levels of residual contamination at
decommissioned sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the statutory
responsibility for protection of health and safety and the environment
related to the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special
nuclear material under the AEA. One part of NRC's responsibility is to
ensure safe and timely decommissioning of the nuclear facilities that
it licenses and to provide guidance to licensees on how to plan for and
prepare their sites for decommissioning. Decommissioning, as previously
defined by the NRC, means to remove nuclear facilities safely from
service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits
release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the
license.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See, for example, 10 CFR 40.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the AEA and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the statutory responsibility
to establish generally applicable standards for protection of the
public from radioactive material (i.e., outside the NRC licensees site
boundaries). The NRC is responsible for ensuring, through licensing
requirements and other restrictions, that activities at facilities
under NRC jurisdiction do not lead to radiation doses outside the
facility boundaries that exceed EPA's generally applicable standards.
For this reason, NRC has been coordinating closely with EPA in the
development of the proposed decommissioning standards.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by NRC and EPA in March
1992 provides a basic framework within which NRC and EPA will endeavor
to resolve issues of concern relating to the regulation of
radionuclides in the environment. Under the guidelines of the MOU, EPA
will make a determination as to whether the proposed decommissioning
standards provide a sufficient level of protection for public health
and safety and the environment. If EPA concludes that the NRC standards
are sufficient, EPA will publish its findings in the Federal Register
for notice and comment and propose that NRC licensees be exempt from
the standards developed by EPA for non-NRC licensed facilities.
Decommissioning activities are initiated when a licensee decides to
terminate licensed activities. Decommissioning activities do not
include the removal and disposal of spent fuel, which is considered to
be an operational activity or the removal and disposal of
nonradioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to
terminate the NRC license. Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste
not necessary for NRC license termination is not covered by these
regulations but would be treated by other appropriate agencies having
responsibility over these wastes. If nuclear facilities are to be
reused for nuclear purposes, applications for license renewal or
amendment, or for a new license are to be submitted according to the
appropriate existing regulation. Reuse of a nuclear facility for other
nuclear purposes is not considered decommissioning because the facility
remains under license.
After licensed activities have ceased, licensees are required to
decommission their facilities so that their licenses can be terminated.
At present, this requires that radioactivity in land, groundwater,
surface water, buildings, and equipment resulting from the licensed
operation be reduced to levels that allow the property to be released
for unrestricted use. Licensees must then demonstrate that all
facilities have been properly decontaminated and that, except for any
residual radiological contamination found to be acceptable to remain at
the site, radioactive material has been transferred to authorized
recipients. Confirmatory surveys are conducted by NRC, where
appropriate, to verify that sites meet NRC radiological criteria for
decommissioning.
There are currently about 22,000 licensees in the United States.
About one-third of these are NRC licensees, while the remainder are
licensed by Agreement States through agreements entered into under
Section 274 of the AEA. Licensees include utilities, nuclear fuel
fabricators, universities, medical institutions, radioactive source
manufacturers, and companies that use radioisotopes for industrial
purposes. About 75 percent of NRC's 6,700 materials licensees use
either sealed radioactive sources or small amounts of short-lived
radioactive materials. Sealed sources, including items such as check
sources, do not pose a contamination problem unless the encapsulation
is broken. Decommissioning of these facilities is typically simple
because there is usually little or no residual radioactive
contamination to be removed and disposed of.
Of the remaining 25 percent, certain types of facilities (e.g.,
radioactive source manufacturers, radiopharmaceutical producers, and
radioactive ore processors) conduct operations which could produce
substantial radioactive contamination in portions of the facilities. At
these sites, lands, facilities, or equipment may become contaminated
through the use of radioactive material in forms which have not been
encapsulated to prevent the spread or dispersal of material. When
radioactive material in unsealed forms is used, such as in the nuclear
fuel fabrication industry, in production of radiopharmaceutical
medicines, or in research, the equipment used to process and handle the
material becomes contaminated by the small quantities of material that
adhere to surfaces of valves, piping, etc. If material is spilled, then
the area of the spill becomes contaminated. These facilities will have
to be decontaminated to acceptable levels before they can be released
for unrestricted use and their licenses terminated. The population of
nuclear fuel cycle facilities which will require decommissioning
includes approximately 100 nuclear power plants (at 70 sites); 50 non-
power (research and test) reactors; 10 major fuel facilities (fuel
fabrication and uranium hexafluoride production plants); 50 uranium
mills; and 10 independent spent fuel storage installations. It is
estimated that about 1,800 other NRC-licensed facilities could require
significant remediation as part of decommissioning.
Essentially everything that comes in contact with radioactive
material must be considered contaminated and checked for the presence
of residual radioactive material. Areas surrounding facilities could
become contaminated by the movement of materials, equipment, and people
into and out of the areas containing the radioactive material. NRC
requires that contamination control procedures be used to minimize or
prevent the movement of radioactive materials into other areas.
Nevertheless, some areas may become contaminated over the course of
time due to breakdowns in the control procedures. Contamination may
also be spread by the movement of water or other fluids containing the
radioactive materials through or along piping, equipment, walls,
floors, sumps, drains, etc. In some cases, this has resulted in the
release of significant quantities of radioactive material into the
ground under or around buildings and facilities.
In addition to contamination, some licensed operations can produce
radioactive materials through the process of activation. In this
process, materials become radioactive when they are bombarded by
neutrons generated in certain nuclear operations. Examples of such
operations include nuclear reactors, where metal reinforcing bars in
concrete surrounding the reactor vessel may become radioactive through
neutron bombardment. These activated materials may also need to be
removed or disposed of during decommissioning.
Several hundred NRC and Agreement State licenses are terminated
each year. The majority of these licenses involve limited operations,
produce little or no radioactive contamination, and do not present
complex decommissioning problems or potential risks to public health or
the environment from residual contamination. However, as the nuclear
industry matures, it is expected that more and more of the larger
nuclear facilities that have been operating for a number of years will
reach the end of their useful lives and have to be decommissioned.
Thus, both the number and complexity of facilities that will require
decommissioning are expected to increase.
The NRC has a program underway to effect timely decommissioning of
about 50 sites, which warrant special NRC oversight either because they
have not been decommissioned properly in the past or have been engaged
in the decommissioning process for an extended period. The Commission
has established a Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP), NUREG-
1444, October 1993) for effecting timely decommissioning of these
problem facilities. Sites being handled under the SDMP vary in degree
of radiologic hazard, cleanup complexity, and cost. Some sites comprise
tens of acres that require assessment for radiological contamination,
whereas other sites have contamination known to be limited to
individual buildings or discrete piles of tailings or contaminated
soil. Many sites involve active licenses, but some sites involve
formerly licensed sites, or sites where the responsible party is unable
or unwilling to perform cleanup. These sites also vary in degree of
completion of decommissioning. At some sites, little or no
decontamination work has been done; whereas at other sites,
decommissioning is underway or license termination is in the offing.
The effort to have these SDMP sites remediated and decommissioned
has been hampered in part because licensees view the absence of
definitive radiological criteria as an incentive to defer
decommissioning pending issuance of formal NRC requirements. The
General Accounting Office (GAO), which has been critical of the
Commission's inability to effect timely decommissioning of these sites,
has recommended that the NRC enhance its decommissioning efforts by
reconsidering its radiological criteria for decommissioning.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\GAO Report to Congress, ``NRC's Decommissioning Procedures
and Criteria Need to Be Strengthened,'' GAO/RCED-89-119, May 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until new criteria are in place, the Commission intends to proceed
with decommissioning nuclear facilities on a site-specific basis
considering existing criteria coupled with the concept that residual
radioactivity be as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Case and
activity-specific decisions concerning decommissioning of sites will
continue to be made as necessary during the pendency of this rulemaking
process. Because the SDMP sites could pose unnecessary environmental
and public risks or financial burdens if they are not decommissioned in
a timely manner, the Commission's effort to effect timely
decommissioning of these sites has been proposed in the Federal
Register on January 13, 1993, (58 FR 4099). The NRC published an Action
Plan to ensure timely remediation of sites listed in the SDMP in the
Federal Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13389). The NRC does not
intend to require additional remediation of sites in response to
criteria established in this rulemaking, provided that the licensee or
responsible party has already remediated the site or was in the process
of remediating the site in full accordance with an NRC-approved
decommissioning plan at the time of promulgation.
Internationally, most efforts have been focused upon development of
criteria for waste disposal and recycle of radioactively contaminated
materials using guidance published by the International Atomic Energy
Agency. Decommissioning criteria have generally been established on a
case-specific basis. This approach is the same as the current approach
employed in the United States pending the development of radiological
criteria through formal requirements. The NRC staff is not aware of
other international efforts similar to this rulemaking to define
radiological criteria for decommissioning.
The Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking Process
The normal pattern for NRC rulemaking is the development of a
proposed rule by the NRC staff for Commission consideration,
publication of the proposed rule for public comment, consideration of
the comments by the NRC staff, and preparation of a final rule, as
appropriate, for Commission approval. As directed and approved by the
Commission, the NRC staff has enhanced participation in the early
stages of this rulemaking process through a series of workshops for
affected interests. These workshops were held from January through May
1993 in Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA; Boston, MA; Dallas, TX;
Philadelphia, PA; Atlanta, GA; and Washington, DC. The workshops
elicited informed discussions of options and approaches for developing
radiological criteria, and the rationale for options and approaches.
While these workshops were not designed to seek ``consensus'' in the
sense that there is agreement on how each issue should be resolved, the
workshops were conducted at a very early stage of rulemaking to enhance
participation of interested parties and the public with the following
objectives:
(a) To ensure that the relevant issues have been identified;
(b) To exchange information on these issues; and
(c) To identify underlying concerns and areas of disagreement, and,
where possible, approaches for resolution.
The Commission hopes that the interactions among the participants
in the workshop environment also fostered a clearer mutual
understanding of the positions and concerns of all participants. These
workshops provided a number of themes, 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 natural background, that form the basis upon
which the Commission has developed the provisions of this rulemaking.
Comments made at these ``Scoping Meetings,'' the workshops, and related
written comments were considered by the NRC staff in its preparation of
a staff draft rule as described in the paragraph below. Comments were
also used, as appropriate, in developing the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the rule.
The Commission approved an additional opportunity for enhanced
participation at an early stage of the rule development. Copies of the
NRC staff's draft rule and summaries of comments received from workshop
participants, NUREG/CR-6156, were sent to NRC Agreement States,
workshop participants, and other interested parties on January 27,
1994. A notice of availability of these documents was published in the
Federal Register, and the documents were placed on the electronic
bulletin board on February 2, 1994 (59 FR 4868). 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 and the extent to which the criteria have considered the
range of viewpoints expressed during the workshops and scoping
meetings. The comment period ended on March 11, 1994.
Concurrent with the NRC rulemaking on radiological criteria for
decommissioning, the EPA is proceeding to develop standards and
guidance for Federal agencies in the area of radiation protection,
including standards for the cleanup of contaminated sites. The EPA
National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology and
the Subcommittee on Residual Radioactivity held public meetings in
October 1993, February 1994, and May 1994 to discuss the issues
associated with the EPA rulemaking. The NRC and EPA have coordinated
their efforts in this area in order to ensure that effective and
consistent site cleanup standards are established while minimizing
duplication of effort. Accordingly, the EPA was an important
participant in the NRC rulemaking workshops and is a cooperating agency
in the preparation of the GEIS for the rulemaking. The NRC has also
consulted extensively with EPA throughout the rulemaking process. It is
anticipated that the information gathered during the workshops on the
NRC standards will also be relevant and useful to the EPA efforts in
the area of site cleanup standards. The objective of the NRC and EPA
cooperative efforts is to attempt to reach an agreement that the NRC
standards established in the enhanced participatory rulemaking are
sufficient to provide adequate protection to the public health and
safety for NRC-licensed sites. The EPA efforts could then focus on the
site clean-up standards for non-NRC licensed sites, such as DOE and DOD
facilities. This is consistent with the principles and procedures set
forth in a Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and EPA
published on November 16, 1992 (57 FR 54127), to guide each agency's
actions in areas of mutual regulatory concern.
The next two sections of this notice summarize the comments from
the workshops and the comments on the NRC staff draft rule. The purpose
of these summaries is to document the public comments and the NRC
response to these comments, and to show how the NRC approach to the
rulemaking has evolved as a result of public participation in the
rulemaking process.
Comments From Workshops
On December 11, 1992 (57 FR 58727), the Commission published in the
Federal Register a notice that it was preparing to initiate rulemaking
on establishing radiological criteria for the decommissioning of NRC-
licensed facilities. The notice listed a schedule for seven workshops
throughout the United States beginning in January 1993. The purpose of
the workshops was to solicit commentary from affected interests on the
fundamental approaches and issues that must be addressed in
establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning. Written
comments on approaches and issues also were solicited.
On June 18, 1993 (58 FR 33570), the Commission published in the
Federal Register a notice of intent to prepare a Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (GEIS) as part of the rulemaking action on
radiological criteria for decommissioning. The notice listed eight
meetings throughout the United States to be held in July 1993 for the
purpose of discussing and receiving public comment on what should be
covered in the GEIS.
Overview of Comments
Over 7,000 comments were presented at the seven Workshops, eight
scoping meetings, and in related letters. The NRC staff considered
these comments in the development of the NRC staff's draft rule which
was sent to NRC Agreement States, workshop participants, and other
interested parties on January 27, 1994. Comments were also used, as
appropriate, in developing the Draft GEIS for the rule.
NRC held rulemaking workshops in Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA;
Boston, MA; Dallas, TX; Philadelphia, PA; Atlanta, GA; and Washington,
DC between January and May 1993. The workshop comments have been
summarized in NUREG/CR-6156, ``Summary of Comments Received from
Workshops on Radiation Criteria for Decommissioning.'' This report
summarizes 3,635 comments categorized from transcripts of the seven
workshops and 1,677 comments from 100 NRC docketed letters from
individuals and organizations. NUREG/CR-6156 merely catalogues the
comments and viewpoints; no analysis or response to the comments is
included.
The comments reflect a broad spectrum of viewpoints on the issues
related to radiological criteria for decommissioning and associated
subjects. The comments show little evidence of general agreement on
issues except that most parties appear to agree that (1) the rulemaking
should proceed and (2) the Commission's activities in decommissioning
should recognize that it is not reasonable to expect all nuclear
facilities to be remediated to a level that permits termination of the
license and release of the facility for unrestricted use. While a
number of additional themes emerged from the workshops, these themes
cannot be characterized as having the general agreement of all of the
workshop and meeting participants.
Transcripts of the workshops and scoping meetings and copies of
related letters are available for inspection or copying for a fee in
the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level),
Washington, DC.
The NRC also held public meetings on the scope of the GEIS during
July 1993 in Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; Oklahoma City, OK; and
Cleveland, OH. Comments from these meetings were reviewed and comments
which differed substantially from those from the workshops are also
summarized in the body of NUREG/CR-6156. A summary of all of the
comments from the GEIS scoping meetings is included as Appendix E to
the GEIS.
Summary and Discussion of Comments
1. Need For and Scope of Rule
Comment. Almost all commenters supported the NRC's plans to develop
radiological decommissioning standards and recommended that the
rulemaking go forward expeditiously. Some commenters recommended that
the NRC consider and possibly establish both radiological and chemical
decommissioning standards. Most commenters stated that the NRC should
establish standards for both unrestricted and restricted release of
sites.
Response. The NRC is proceeding with a rulemaking which will
establish radiological criteria for decommissioning. NRC's schedule
calls for issuance of a final rule by May 1995.
NRC's authority is limited by law primarily to ensuring protection
of the public health and safety from radiological and nuclear hazards
associated with source, special nuclear, and byproduct material. NRC
has refrained from extending its reach to address non-radiological
hazards except where specifically authorized by Congress (e.g., uranium
mill tailings) or where these hazards would not otherwise be adequately
controlled because of a regulatory void. Consequently, NRC is not
proposing to include provisions in the radiological criteria to address
non-radiological hazards. Although the rule would not establish
criteria for disposition of nonradioactive hazardous and other wastes,
licensees are reminded that they must continue to meet applicable
Federal, State, and local standards for disposition of these wastes.
The proposed rule provides for both unrestricted release and restricted
termination of the license. If a licensee cannot satisfy the conditions
for license termination, the license will not be terminated.
2. Basis for Radiological Criteria
Comment. Several commenters recommended that NRC decommissioning
standards be based on and be consistent with the scientific information
and advice of such organizations as the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP). One commenter suggested that the NRC
should determine whether the standards are to be technologically-based
or politically-based; if the latter, do not waste time on technological
input.
Response. It should be noted that the NRC and its predecessor
agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, have generally followed the basic
radiation protection recommendations of the ICRP; its U.S. counterpart,
the NCRP; and the EPA Draft Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for
Exposure to the General public in formulating basic radiation
protection standards. Recommendations of the ICRP and the NCRP were
relied on in the revised ``Standards for Protection Against
Radiation,'' which was published May 21, 1991 (56 FR 233360), and
implemented by licensees on or before January 1, 1994. The proposed
radiological criteria for decommissioning continues this practice but
the proposed rule also recognizes the public's interest in and
potential for contributing to the decommissioning process. The public's
involvement through participating in the development of the criteria in
this rulemaking, opportunities for review of decommissioning plans, as
well as through participation on Site-Specific Advisory Boards as
specified in this rule are expected to aid in the conduct of a
decommissioning program that is understandable, technologically sound,
and responsive to the concerns of affected parties.
Comment. Several commenters recommended that the NRC consider
adopting a risk limit standard equating to a radiation dose of 25 to
100 millirem per year. According to two commenters, a 100 millirem per
year limit would increase the cancer risk in the population only
slightly above its normal incidence rate. One commenter believes that
radiation damage per unit of exposure may increase at smaller doses.
Other commenters stated that there may be a threshold for radiation
effects and that there may be no adverse health effects at low
radiation levels.
Response. In the Supplementary Information for the revised
``Standards for Protection Against Radiation,'' the NRC stated that the
standards are based upon the assumptions that:
(1) Within the range of exposure conditions usually encountered in
radiation work, there is a linear relationship, without threshold,
between dose and probability of occurrence of stochastic (random)
health effects such as latent cancer and genetic effects;
(2) The severity of each type of stochastic health effect is
independent of dose; and
(3) Nonstochastic (nonrandom) radiation-induced health effects can
be prevented by limiting exposures so that doses are below the
thresholds for their induction.
In the absence of convincing evidence that there is a dose
threshold or that low levels of radiation are beneficial, the staff
believes that the assumptions regarding a linear nonthreshold dose-
effect model for cancers and genetic effects and the existence of
thresholds only for certain nonstochastic effects are prudent for
formulating radiation protection standards and planning radiation
protection programs.
The NRC staff believes the dose limits and ALARA requirements of
the proposed radiological criteria for decommissioning provide a
reasonable basis for protection of public health and safety and the
environment. However, the staff has also determined that
decommissioning activities should not be allowed the entire dose limit
of 100 mrem/y for members of the public. The staff has selected a value
which is a relatively small fraction of the limit, consistent with
other decisions of both the EPA and NRC for unrestricted access to
areas.
Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC establish a risk/
dose limit on the order of the variability of natural background
radiation occurring across the United States as its decommissioning
standard. The reasons given were that no health risks are attributable
to background radiation variations and studies show that there is no
increase in cancer incidence over a wide range of background radiation
in the U.S.
Response. The NRC staff believes that the overall objective for
decommissioning should be the return of the facility to levels
approximating background. However, the NRC staff recognizes that
demonstrating that radioisotope levels at a site are indistinguishable
from background will be a complex task involving sophisticated
sampling, measuring, and statistical analysis techniques. The NRC staff
also recognizes that the difficulty of the task can vary substantially
depending on a number of factors including the radionuclide in
question, the background level for that and other radionuclides at the
site, and the temporal and spatial variations in background radiation
at the site.
Therefore, in the draft rule, the NRC staff proposed as a goal of
the ALARA process that the Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) to
the average member of the Critical Group from all radionuclides that
could contribute to residual radioactivity and are distinguishable from
background not exceed 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) per year. Demonstration of
achieving this dose criterion would be considered as the only
demonstration necessary to meet the proposed ALARA requirements of the
rule. One of the reasons 3 millirem per year was selected is because
variations of this magnitude typically are not distinguishable from the
variation of dose from background radiation. Three mrem/y is well
within the variability of natural background radiation across the U.S.
and also within those variations experienced seasonally at particular
sites. Based upon comments received on the NRC staff draft, the
Commission has decided to remove the 3 millirem per year value from the
proposed rule (see discussion under ``Comments on NRC Staff Draft'').
3. Individual vs Collective Doses.
Comment. Several comments were made concerning how risk standards
should be applied to the population who may be exposed to residual
radioactivity at a released site. Most commenters favored applying a
risk limit to individuals and believed it unnecessary to specify a
collective dose limit (i.e., a limit on the cumulative dose in person-
rem/y to the entire exposed population). One commenter remarked that if
collective dose is used, it should be applied in a comprehensive
manner. For example, in evaluating an appropriate cleanup standard, the
doses to the public from transporting material off site for disposal
should be evaluated against the doses received by the public around the
site if the material is left in place.
Response. The NRC has considered both the collective doses to
populations and the individual doses to the average member of the most
highly exposed group of individuals (Critical Group). These
considerations are reflected in the calculations presented in the GEIS
prepared in support of this rulemaking. In the scenarios considered,
the annual collective dose is quite small. Therefore, the staff
concludes that limiting individual dose to the levels specified in the
criteria will assure that collective doses will be small and that the
public health will be adequately protected. This is consistent with
past Commission practice in establishing radiological criteria.
4. Statement of Radiological Criteria
In developing the staff's draft rule, attention was focused on four
approaches: (1) establish an annual risk or dose limit for an
individual, (2) establish an annual risk or dose goal, (3) require use
of best available technology, and (4) require return of the site to
background radioactivity.
Comment. Most commenters from State governments, the nuclear
utilities, the fuel cycle industry, the medical community and non-fuel
cycle industry, cleanup contractors, and professional society/standard
setting organizations favored a risk-based or dose-based standard over
a standard based on best available technology or return to background.
Most commenters from citizen/environmental organizations and some from
other organizations favored a return-to-background standard. Many
commenters objected to a best effort/best available technology standard
for various reasons including the belief that it would be extremely
subjective.
Response. The proposed rule would establish a dose limit for
release of the site of 15 millirem per year (mrem/y) TEDE for residual
radioactivity distinguishable from background and require that the
licensee reduce this residual radioactivity to ALARA. Sites meeting
this criterion would be considered acceptable for release for
unrestricted use and termination of the license. Fifteen mrem/y TEDE is
consistent in terms of risk with the NRC release limits for low-level
waste facilities (10 CFR 61.41), is consistent with the individual dose
protection limit in the EPA Environmental Radiation Protection
Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-
level and Transuranic Wastes, 40 CFR Part 191 (December 20, 1993; 58 FR
66398), and provides a substantial safety margin below the NRC's 100
mrem/y dose limit for individual members of the public. Use of a dose
limit is consistent with long standing NRC (and AEC) regulatory
practices for protecting radiation workers and the public. The use of a
limit also provides a clear measure for determining the acceptability
of a site and a clear basis for determinations of compliance with the
regulations.
The NRC staff agrees that the objective of decommissioning should
be to reduce residual radioactivity at a site to levels that are
indistinguishable from background. Therefore, the draft rule proposed
to establish the following goal for decommissioning within the
structure of reducing exposure below the limit to as low as reasonably
achievable:
(1) Reduce the concentration of individual radionuclides which
could contribute to residual radioactivity at the site to a level which
is indistinguishable from background;
(2) Release the site for unrestricted use; and
(3) Terminate the license.
For purposes of determining when further ALARA efforts need not be
further analyzed and documented, the Commission would consider that the
ALARA requirement has been met if the TEDE to the average member of the
critical group from all radionuclides that could contribute to residual
radioactivity and are distinguishable from background does not exceed 3
mrem (0.03 mSv) per year. Three millirem per year is a small fraction
of the NRC's 100 mrem/y dose limit for individual members of the
public, typically is not distinguishable from variations in local and
national radiation background levels, and is consistent with the
10-4 level of lifetime risk used by EPA for Superfund. Dose based
criteria were selected over risk based criteria for ease of
implementation. Based upon comments received on the NRC staff draft,
the Commission has decided to remove the numerical values of 3 millirem
per year from the proposed rule. However, the Commission remains
committed to the objective of decommissioning to levels that are
indistinguishable from background.
5. Consistency and Compatibility
Comment. Many commenters urged that all regulatory agencies (EPA,
NRC, State and local governments, etc.) use the same radiological
criteria for decommissioning and that the agencies be consistent in how
they apply the criteria. Some commenters said that the NRC's adoption
of a risk/dose limit of 100 millirem per year, with a proper
application of ALARA, would result in a 10-6 annual risk and a
10-4 lifetime risk, which would be consistent with the EPA's
Superfund remediation goals. Other commenters recommended that State
and local governments be at liberty to adopt more stringent
requirements.
Response. The NRC is hopeful that the proposed criteria developed
through the enhanced participatory rulemaking process will be
acceptable to all regulatory agencies and will be consistent and
compatible with the requirements of other regulatory agencies. The EPA
and NRC have overlapping authority in the area of developing
radiological criteria for decommissioning for nuclear sites. In
addition, decommissioned sites, if not remediated properly, could later
be subject to remedial action under EPA Superfund requirements. This is
an outcome which is viewed as undesirable by both the EPA and NRC and
is considered unlikely because the proposed NRC criteria are designed
to be consistent with the risk range incorporated in EPA's Superfund
requirements. NRC and EPA are developing decommissioning criteria in
parallel rulemaking efforts. The NRC and EPA are coordinating their
efforts in this area to ensure that effective and consistent site
decommissioning standards are established while minimizing duplication
of effort. Accordingly, the EPA was an important participant in the NRC
rulemaking workshops and is a cooperating agency in the preparation of
the GEIS for the rulemaking. The NRC has also consulted extensively
with EPA throughout the rulemaking process. The objective is that EPA
will be able to make a finding that NRC decommissioning criteria
provide adequate protection for the public and the environment and will
exclude NRC licensees from the EPA cleanup standards. In addition,
State and local governments will have opportunities to participate in
certain individual decommissioning actions carried out under the
proposed regulation. Further discussion on participation may be found
in item 7, below. Agreement State compatibility is discussed briefly in
a separate section near the end of this supplementary information.
6. Finality
Comment. Several commenters stated that the NRC's decommissioning
standard should be long-lasting and provide a final solution for
decommissioning sites that are contaminated with radioactive material.
The NRC's standard should be consistent with EPA rules to assure that a
site remediated under NRC's rules will not require further remediation
under EPA rules.
Some commenters questioned whether it is possible to have finality
in decommissioning standards because of likely new information and
improved technology in the future. They stated that sites should
continue to be remediated as necessary to meet new standards. Those
opposed stated that rules should be changed only if a substantial
increase in public safety can be demonstrated.
Response. The NRC staff believes that actions taken under the
criteria in this rule need not be revisited unless, based on new
information, there is reason to believe that residual radioactivity
remaining at the site could result in significant public risk.
Therefore, once a site has been decommissioned and the license
terminated in accordance with the criteria in the rule, the Commission
would require additional cleanup only if, based on new information, it
determines the level of residual radioactivity at the site
substantially violates these criteria.
Based on the NRC's experience in the SDMP and other decommissioning
programs, it is important to provide a high level of assurance that
decommissioning actions conducted under the current criteria will not
need to be revisited in the future under potentially more restrictive
criteria. Licensees have indicated a genuine reluctance to commit the
large financial and corporate resources necessary for complex
decommissioning projects without these assurances. Uncertainty with
future criteria and the potential need for additional remediation
introduces havoc in the planning and conduct of effective
decommissioning. Without some degree of finality in the criteria,
licensees may be motivated to forestall decommissioning actions pending
development of more favorable criteria or less expensive
decommissioning technologies and waste disposal options. This approach
manifests itself in extended administrative appeals and litigation,
which often redirects licensee resources away from efforts to reduce
levels of contamination.
At the same time, the NRC recognizes that there may be legitimate
needs for additional remedial actions in the future if significant
additional contamination is discovered at a site or if the technical
basis on which the criteria are founded changes significantly,
indicating that potential future residents of the sites may be at
significantly greater risk than previously anticipated. Therefore, the
proposed criteria allow for additional remediation, if necessary, if
additional significant contamination is identified or if changes in the
risk or health basis for the criteria indicate the remediation is
necessary to protect the public against significant radiological risks.
As noted in item 5, the EPA and NRC are working together closely in
this rulemaking. Upon completion, the EPA will determine through a
formal notice and comment rulemaking whether the NRC's rule provides
adequate protection for public health and the environment. This should
minimize the risk that in the future the EPA would require additional
cleanup of a site which has been decommissioned in accordance with the
criteria in this rule.
7. Community Involvement
Comment. Many commenters recommended that the rulemaking should
provide for and ensure local citizen group participation in overseeing
the decommissioning of contaminated sites and the enforcement of
requirements. Also, the role of tribal authorities should be addressed.
Some commenters stated that the NRC should ensure citizen participation
in decommissioning from the earliest stage of cleanup.
Response. The NRC staff believes it is important for the public to
not only be fully informed of the decommissioning actions at a
particular site but also to be able to effectively participate in site
decommissioning decisions. The proposed rule provides specific
mechanisms for public participation in the decommissioning process,
where participation is important to ensuring that the public is
adequately informed about proposed decommissioning activities or that
the public and environment are adequately protected in conjunction with
reliance on institutional controls to restrict site access after
license termination. These activities are in addition to whatever
hearing opportunities are provided for a particular category of site by
the Commission's existing requirements.
Upon the receipt of a decommissioning plan from the licensee, or a
proposal by the licensee for restricted release of a site, or whenever
the Commission deems such a notice to be in the public interest, the
Commission will:
(1) Notify local and State governments in the vicinity of the site
and Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have treaty or
statutory rights that could be affected by the decommissioning;
(2) Publish a notice in the Federal Register as well as in other
media, such as local newspapers, which are readily accessible to
individuals in the vicinity of the site; and
(3) Solicit public comment on the proposed decommissioning action.
For decommissioning actions where the licensee proposes to request
license termination with land use restrictions, the licensee will be
required to convene a Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) for the
purpose of obtaining advice from affected parties regarding the
proposed decommissioning. The SSAB will function at the planning stages
of decommissioning, at the time the licensee is developing the
decommissioning plan for the facility. The purpose of the SSAB is to
provide recommendations to the licensee on:
(1) Whether there are ways to reduce residual radioactivity to the
levels that will permit release for unrestricted use which are
technically achievable, will not be prohibitively expensive, and will
not result in net public or environmental harm;
(2) Whether provisions for institutional controls proposed by the
licensee will:
(a) Provide reasonable assurance that the TEDE from residual
radioactivity distinguishable from background to the average member of
the Critical Group will not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE per year,
(b) Be enforceable,
(c) Impose undue burdens on the local community or other affected
parties; and
(3) Whether the licensee has provided sufficient financial
assurance to enable an independent third party to assume and carry out
responsibilities for any necessary control and maintenance of the site.
The licensee will be responsible for establishing the SSAB and
developing appropriate ground rules and operating procedures with the
SSAB's advice.
SSAB membership, to the extent that representatives are willing to
participate, will have to:
(1) Reflect the full range of interests in the affected community
and region and be composed of individuals who could be directly
affected by residual radioactivity at the decommissioned site, and
(2) Include representatives from the licensee; local and State
governments; workers; persons residing in the vicinity of the site;
citizen, environmental, environmental justice, and other public
interest groups; and Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have
treaty or statutory rights that could be affected.
SSAB meetings will be open to the public. The licensee will be
required to provide adequate public notice of the location, time, date,
and agenda for the meetings at least two weeks in advance of each
meeting. All records generated or reviewed by the SSAB will become part
of the decommissioning docket and be available for public inspection.
8. Stability and Flexibility
Comment. Several commenters stated that NRC decommissioning
standards are needed to facilitate long-term planning by the nuclear
industry and to provide stability against constantly changing criteria
over the years. Some commenters stated that even generic standards may
not be completely stable because they will need to be changed as a
result of newly perceived health effects and improvements in
technology.
Many commenters indicated that the rule must be flexible enough to
accommodate site differences, e.g., types of radionuclides present, the
geology and environmental surroundings, individuals who may be exposed,
and possible exposure patterns.
Most commenters favored a generic standard over site-specific
standards. While supporting the establishment of a generic standard,
some urged the NRC to permit site-specific considerations and site-
specific modeling for licensees to demonstrate compliance and to ensure
participation by local communities. One commenter stated it would be a
mistake to use a generic ALARA evaluation for all sites. Several
commenters recommended site-specific ALARA assessments. Some
commenters, particularly in the GEIS scoping meetings, suggested that
the rule only provide the process for establishing site-specific
criteria.
Response. The staff agrees that there is a need for consistent and
stable radiological criteria for the decommissioning of licensed
nuclear facilities throughout the United States. Therefore, this
rulemaking would establish a single set of radiological criteria that
would apply to the decommissioning of all sites. However, the staff
also recognizes the need for flexibility in applying these criteria
because of constraints posed by site specific conditions (e.g. geology,
hydrology, meteorology, and radiation background levels) and to provide
opportunity for meaningful participation by local communities in
individual decommissioning actions. Therefore, the rule proposed by the
staff provides for site-specific implementation of the generic
criteria. The Commission would also publish regulatory guidance along
with the rule that describes methods for site-specific implementation
of the criteria. This guidance includes conduct of site
characterization and surveys, specific radionuclide concentration and
surface activities that would be considered by the NRC staff to meet
the decommissioning limit, and modeling acceptable to the NRC staff to
develop more site-specific values of concentration or surface activity
based upon the factors unique to the activity being decommissioned. In
this regard, the NRC is working with the EPA and the DOE to develop a
Federal Government manual for the conduct of surveys to determine
compliance with decommissioning criteria. When completed, this effort
will assist in the consistent treatment of all sites requiring
remediation.
The NRC staff believes that generic criteria should be established
for decommissioning and that codifying radiological criteria for
decommissioning in the regulations would:
(1) Allow the NRC to more effectively assure protection of public
health and the environment at decommissioned sites;
(2) Result in more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources;
(3) Lead to more consistent and uniform application across all
types of licenses;
(4) Provide a more stable basis for decommissioning planning; and
(5) Eliminate protracted delays in decommissioning that result as
licensees wait for generic regulatory criteria before proceeding with
decommissioning of their facilities.
The NRC does not favor the option suggested of providing a process
based rule whereby the criteria codified would only be for the process
to be used in establishing site-specific radiological criteria. This
approach would be essentially the same as the option of remaining with
the current status quo. In general, a site-specific approach can lead
to considerable delays and increased uncertainty on the part of all
parties associated with the decommissioning. Further, this approach
would be inappropriate and burdensome for the large number of licensees
using sealed sources or radionuclides with relatively short half-lives.
9. ALARA Considerations
Comment. Under the ALARA concept, decommissioning activities are
continued beyond meeting applicable risk/dose limits in efforts to
reduce radiation exposures As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).
Most commenters recommended that the NRC's radiological criteria should
incorporate this principle. Several commenters stated that State and
local governments should be involved in ALARA determinations. However,
other commenters expressed distrust of the licensees' and regulatory
agencies' application of the ALARA process because it involves
financial tradeoffs and licensees are motivated to maximize their
profits.
Response. The proposed rule requires application of the ALARA
concept, provided that potential doses are constrained within limiting
doses under a range of conditions. NRC anticipates that many licensees,
particularly sealed source users or those who use relatively short-
lived radioactive materials, will be able to satisfy the ALARA criteria
with an analysis of projected dose levels. In these cases, extensive
additional documentation to support an ALARA determination would not be
required. State and local governments and other affected parties will
be involved in ALARA determinations through opportunities to comment on
decommissioning proposals and participation on the Site-Specific
Advisory Board in those cases where the licensee is seeking license
termination under restricted conditions. This level of involvement
provides for transparent application of the ALARA considerations and
safeguards against excessive licensee attention to cutting costs to
maintain profit margins.
Comment. Many commenters stated that for the most effective use of
resources and fairness, the NRC must consider in the risk-benefit
balance not only radiological risks to workers and the public but,
also, non-radiological risks and indirect risks associated with the
regulation of decommissioning activities.
Response. The staff agrees that all significant public and
environmental risks should be considered. The GEIS for this rulemaking
assesses both radiological and non-radiological impacts for the
proposed rule and several alternative actions, including the
alternative of no remedial action. In addition, the proposed rule would
require that the licensee, when determining ALARA for a specific
decommissioning, consider all significant radiological and non-
radiological risks resulting from residual radioactivity and from the
decommissioning process itself (including transportation and disposal
of radioactive wastes generated in the process).
In some cases, the necessary ALARA analysis will go beyond the
relatively simple cost-benefit analysis that has typically been applied
in the nuclear industry in limiting worker exposures because the types
of risks being considered are not things that can be easily quantified
or compared. For example, transportation poses immediate risks in terms
of fatalities due to highway accidents in hauling the radioactive
contamination to appropriate disposal sites. Some individuals and
organizations have suggested that these anticipated fatalities should
not be considered as having the same seriousness or likelihood as the
potential deaths at some point in the future of individuals that may
inhabit former nuclear sites after license termination. ALARA, or
perceptions of what should be considered as ALARA, may also vary
because of values placed on minimizing the number of new disposal
sites, preserving existing resources, or preserving viable industries
for jobs. Each of these factors were discussed in the workshops, and
the staff believes that these same factors may need to be considered in
determining the ALARA level for remediation at a particular site. The
NRC is developing guidance on how the ALARA process could be applied in
evaluating alternative radiological criteria for decommissioning on a
site-specific basis.
Comment. Another commenter stated that, ``there is no ecological or
conservation basis for establishing radiation protection standards
different from those * * * involved in any other health issue for which
benefits are weighed against costs.''
Response. The NRC staff agrees with this stated conclusion that, as
a guiding principle, radiation protection standards do not warrant
different treatment than those for other health issues. In this regard,
the staff has carefully considered both the criteria and the
implementation of those criteria in other environmental remediation
programs (e.g., the EPA Superfund program). The staff believes the
criteria proposed in this rulemaking are generally consistent with
those used in other environmental remediation programs.
Comment. Several commenters stated that cleaning up to any
specified level is technically achievable and is simply a matter of how
much it will cost. Some believed that decommissioning costs to return
sites to unrestricted use could be so high that the sites should be
kept under continued control and maintained as a restricted area. Some
commenters suggested that money saved on unnecessary decommissioning
activities might be used in other activities more beneficial to the
public. Other commenters stated that money saved on decommissioning
costs would not necessarily be available for societal betterment.
Response. The proposed rule recognizes that it may not be
reasonable to remediate some sites to a level that permits release for
unrestricted use. The costs involved, either in dollars or in potential
harm to the environment or people, may be prohibitive. In these cases,
the proposed rule provides for termination of the license under
restricted conditions. The staff is also aware that in some unusual
cases sites may have to remain under license indefinitely. For example,
the NRC is aware of certain sites that are so contaminated by elevated
levels of the naturally occurring radionuclides uranium, thorium, and
their decay products that it would be extremely difficult and costly to
satisfy the proposed criteria for unrestricted or restricted release.
In these cases, the staff anticipates that the sites would have to
remain under a license indefinitely until new, more efficient
technologies are developed or the financial resources become available
to pay for more complete remediation. The Commission has no authority
over expenditure of funds that might be saved by avoiding what were
termed ``unnecessary decommissioning activities.''
10. Site Remediation
Comment. Several commenters stated that, although the cost of
decommissioning could be high, remediation technologies are available
for achieving whatever level is set by the NRC. The NRC should describe
acceptable methodologies for remediation and measurement to reduce
subjective judgments and should ensure that workers who perform
remediation are appropriately trained and protected.
Response. Before the effective date of the final rule, the NRC will
provide interim guidance for use and comment on acceptable
methodologies for demonstrating compliance with the Commission's
residual radioactivity criteria. After one to two years' implementation
experience is gained from use of the interim guidance, the collected
comments will be addressed and the final guidance will be issued.
However, the NRC staff does not believe that it would be appropriate to
prescribe, a priori, the methods to be used. Licensees must be able to
take advantage of whatever safe methodologies may be available for
achieving remediation that complies with the criteria for
decommissioning.
Workers performing decommissioning must receive training in
radiation protection according to the requirements of the Commission's
requirements in 10 CFR 19.12, ``Instructions to Workers.'' Likewise,
workers participating in decommissioning activities will be subject to
all of the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20, including requirements related
to personnel monitoring, respiratory protection, occupational dose
limits, and ALARA. In this regard, the staff does not view the conduct
of decommissioning activities to be any different from other
operational activities licensed by the Commission.
11. Demonstrating Compliance
Comment. Several commenters stated that demonstration of compliance
with NRC decommissioning rules and applicable radiological limits is a
major issue. The commenters believe the NRC must provide clear
guidelines with respect to the kinds of measurements that are necessary
and the models that are acceptable to demonstrate compliance. With
respect to measurements, guidance should cover:
(1) Acceptable measurement methods;
(2) Extent of measurements needed;
(3) Use of field instruments versus laboratory instruments;
(4) Statistical sampling; and
(5) Calibration standards and measurement certification.
With respect to models and methodologies, guidance should be
provided on their use, uncertainties, and how to apply site-specific
characteristics. The NRC must make sufficient confirmatory
measurements to check that the standards have been met and NRC
should enforce the standards.
Several commenters pointed out that, whatever risk standard the NRC
may adopt, compliance will likely need to be determined by a computer
model except for small operations when contamination levels are within
specified generic criteria. Other commenters stated that
decontamination limits should be established and dose modeling should
not be relied on to demonstrate compliance. Comments were split on
whether risk limits might be needed for different exposure pathways.
Response. Before the effective date of the final rule, NRC plans to
issue specific guidance that includes conservative radiation levels,
surface contamination limits, and radioactivity concentrations for use
by licensees who elect to apply a generic model to demonstrate
compliance. Guidance on measurements covering the above listed five
subjects will also be provided. The NRC appreciates that guidance is
essential especially where the licensee must demonstrate compliance
with criteria that require reduction of residual radioactivity to near
background levels. The NRC expects to make sufficient confirmatory
measurements to ensure compliance with the criteria.
The proposed rule limits the total exposure from all pathways and,
except for the purpose of groundwater protection, does not set limits
for individual pathways. The groundwater protection requirement has
been included at the request of the EPA to ensure conformance with EPA
groundwater protection requirements. Because exposure pathways vary in
importance to public dose depending on the radioisotope involved, site-
specific parameters, and the circumstances under which the site might
be used after decommissioning, the staff believes that, as a general
rule, no useful purpose would be served by placing limits on individual
pathways. In the selection of conservative default values for use by
licensees who do not wish to utilize site-specific modeling, the most
critical pathways and scenarios of exposure are assumed to be dominant.
The absence of limits on individual pathways provides the licensee with
more flexibility in limiting radiation exposures while at the same time
providing adequate overall public protection.
12. Sites Which Cannot Be Released for Unrestricted Use
Comment. Many commenters stated that the NRC should establish
standards for both unrestricted and restricted release of sites while
others recommended that the NRC require all sites to be remediated
suitably for unrestricted use. Some commenters stated that sites should
continue to be licensed by the NRC if they cannot be reasonably
decontaminated. Also, commenters stated that the NRC should consider
the option of restricted future use of decommissioned facilities only
after a rigorous public participation process. Many commenters stated
that unrestricted release should be the goal, but that realistically,
some sites cannot be remediated suitably for unrestricted release.
Response. The proposed rule provides for both unrestricted release
and restricted termination of the license under prescribed conditions.
The requirement that the licensee convene a Site-Specific Advisory
Board early in the development of proposed decommissioning plans should
help ensure substantive public participation in decisions concerning
possible restricted termination of the license. As previously
discussed, the staff is aware of sites, such as sites with significant
volumes of thorium contamination, that will require extensively
remedial efforts to achieve the proposed requirements for restricted or
unrestricted release. If these sites cannot be remediated to achieve at
least the restricted release criteria, then the site license will
remain in effect indefinitely until technology or resources become
available to achieve compliance with the criteria. In the interim
period, NRC will ensure appropriate control of the licensed site on a
site-specific basis, including access restrictions, environmental
monitoring, personnel monitoring, posting, mitigative actions, and
other measures directed at ensuring the stability of the radioactive
material and protection of the public health and the environment.
13. Waste Disposal
Comment. Several commenters questioned whether there is enough
space at a regional disposal facility for the voluminous soils and
other materials that are expected from decommissioned sites. Other
commenters stated that irrespective of where or how wastes are
disposed, the costs of nuclear waste management will be high. Some
commenters suggested that the option of leaving radioactive wastes on-
site should be considered as a temporary or intermediate option to
permit decay of radioactive wastes and allow time for resolving long-
term waste disposal problems.
Response. The NRC staff recognizes that decommissioning to
radiation levels approaching background may produce large volumes of
low-level waste which could affect the availability of regional
disposal capacity. However, the proposed rule would require the
licensee to consider significant radiation doses and risks resulting
from transportation and disposal of radioactive wastes generated in the
decommissioning process when determining ALARA for a specific
decommissioning action. If disposal capacity were to become temporarily
limited, on-site storage and containment of wastes may be necessary
until a disposal site becomes available. However, any temporary onsite
storage and containment of radioactive wastes be done under the
provisions of an existing NRC license, and the site would not be
decommissioned until this waste had been removed from the site. The
radiological and non-radiological impacts associated with disposal of
the types of radioactive waste generated in decommissioning were
considered in NRC's development of the Environmental Impact Statement
in support of the low-level waste disposal requirements in 10 CFR Part
61. Impacts associated with extended storage of waste onsite or at a
centralized storage facility would typically be considered as part of
environmental analysis in support of issuing or renewing facility
licenses or of approving decommissioning actions at a licensed
facility.
14. Minimizing Generation of Waste
Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC discourage or
stop licensing nuclear operations that generate nuclear wastes. Several
commenters stated that environmental organizations would be willing to
talk about ways to decommission nuclear operations and to dispose of
radioactive materials only if power plants were no longer permitted to
operate. Other commenters supported the continuation of nuclear power.
One commenter urged the NRC not to take sides for or against nuclear
power and stated that the policy debate on the relative merits of
various power-generating options should be held in another forum (e.g.,
Congress). Some commenters observed that high costs of decommissioning
and waste disposal could help to minimize waste generation. Some
commenters recommended that the rulemaking should deal with source
reduction of nuclear wastes. Some commenters suggested that
decommissioning proposals should be submitted and approved at the
design stage and, consequently, newer facilities should be easier to
decommission.
Response. The NRC agrees that newly licensed facilities should be
encouraged in designing and operating nuclear facilities to minimize
the generation of radioactive waste and facility contamination. The
proposed rule would require applicants for licenses, other than
renewals, after the effective date of the rule to describe in the
application 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.
15. Radon
Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC should impose
limits to control exposure from radon emissions at decommissioned sites
because radon exposures could be a significant health problem.
Commenters in favor of NRC setting a radon standard stated it should be
possible to make a good estimate of how much radon comes from licensed
material. Commenters not supporting the NRC's setting a radon standard
stated that the need to deal with radon at licensed sites should be
considered site-to-site and that radon control should be left to local
zoning boards and housing authorities.
Response. The NRC staff believes that it is not possible to measure
or distinguish concentrations of radon which will produce radiation
doses of a few mrem TEDE/y above background using current technology.
This belief is based on:
(1) Recognition of the ubiquitous nature of radon in the general
environment;
(2) Large uncertainties in the models used to project radon
concentrations in indoor air based on soil concentrations of
precursors; and
(3) Limitations of existing measurement techniques in
distinguishing between elevated radon concentrations and radon
attributed to natural sources. Therefore, the staff does not propose to
establish a separate standard for radon. Instead, exposure to radon at
decommissioned sites would be controlled by requiring the licensee to
reduce the residual concentrations of radon precursors like uranium,
thorium, and radium to levels within the limit for unrestricted use
and, using the ALARA principle, toward levels which are
indistinguishable from background levels.
16. Environmental and Social Considerations
Comment. Many commenters recommended that the NRC develop standards
for protecting natural ecosystems in addition to standards protecting
humans. Others expressed concern for environmental protection without
recommending for or against establishing separate environmental
standards. A large number of commenters recommended that protection of
human health is sufficient to protect any known ecological system.
Therefore, only a standard for protecting humans is needed. Commenters
stated that this is the view of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection.
Many commenters recommended that case-by-case consideration should
be given for special environmental and social/cultural issues
associated with homeland, historical sites, and Native American lands
because they contain religious sites and sacred areas.
Several commenters cautioned against establishment of unnecessarily
restrictive decommissioning standards that could cause severe
environmental damage trying to clean up soil and vegetation to
background levels because these actions could totally change a site's
ecology.
Response. The NRC considered the possible need for radiation
standards specifically designed to protect the environment. This
analysis is reflected in the draft GEIS. Based on this analysis, the
staff concludes that the radiological criteria in the proposed rule
which are designed to protect public health should also provide
adequate environmental protection.
However, the NRC staff recognizes there may be environmental or
cultural issues associated with a particular decommissioning action
which require special consideration. These issues can best be handled
on a site-by-site basis as part on the decommissioning plan review
process and as part of the Commission's environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Where necessary, opportunity
for public comment and use of the Site-Specific Advisory Board will
provide a mechanism for local citizens and other affected parties to be
directly involved in addressing these issues.
17. Recycle
Comment. Comments were offered for and against whether NRC should
permit recycling of contaminated materials. Those in favor recommended
recycling to save resources. Those opposed recommended against
recycling to limit public risk. Other commenters stated that the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recommended that the
maximum dose to any individual from recycled material not exceed one
millirem per year.
Response. Although the proposed rule does not specifically address
recycle, the NRC staff believes the radiological criteria in the
proposed rule provide reasonable assurance that future inadvertent
recycle of soils or structures following decommissioning of a site will
not adversely affect public health. The analysis which supports the
rule, although it does not specifically take recycle into account, is
based on prudently conservative scenarios which tend to overestimate
expected public doses.
In cases where the licensee achieves residual radioactivity levels
that are indistinguishable from background, the potential doses from
inadvertent recycle are expected to be insignificant. In cases where
the residual radioactivity cannot be reduced to the point that it is
indistinguishable from background, the licensee will have to consider
inadvertent recycle when conducting the ALARA analysis for the site.
Therefore, steps can be taken on a site-specific basis to impose
additional restrictions if inadvertent recycle appears to pose a
significant potential problem at that site.
The Commission plans to consider separately the issues of how to
deal with cases where the licensee proposes to release material
containing residual radioactivity intentionally for reuse or recycle
either as a part of decommissioning or ongoing operations. In the
interim the Commission will continue to be review these actions on a
case-by-case basis.
Comments on the NRC Staff Draft
Overview of Comments
There were 1685 comments from the 89 docketed letters received on
the NRC staff draft. These comments were similar to those from the
workshops with respect to the wide range of expressed views. Two
subjects on which the commenters were in general agreement were (1) the
appropriateness of the rulemaking process, and (2) the significance of
not having the GEIS and the guidance documents available for review.
The commenters strongly favor the enhanced participatory rulemaking
process but said that the GEIS and the guidance documents are needed in
order to understand the basis for the rule and how it would be
implemented. The NRC staff considered these comments in the development
of the proposed rule.
Summary and Discussion of Comments
1. Need for and Scope of Rule
Comment. Commenters supported the NRC's efforts to develop
radiological decommissioning standards. However, some questioned
whether the NRC should defer to the EPA and suggested that the NRC
await the EPA's efforts to develop these standards. Several commenters
urged that the NRC reconsider and delete the exclusion of previously
approved decommissioning plans from the new requirements. Others
recommended retention of this exclusion and its expansion to cover
decommissioning plans already in the final stages of NRC review and
approval. A comment reported often was that the NRC should issue its
proposed radiological criteria for final public review and comment only
after the NRC has completed and issued the companion GEIS and other
guidance documents needed to facilitate understanding of the proposed
rulemaking.
Response. With respect to the question of whether the NRC should
let the EPA take the lead in developing radiological decommissioning
standards, the NRC will have to proceed with rulemaking in any case. If
EPA develops standards, the NRC will have to promulgate a regulation to
implement the EPA standard. Therefore, it was jointly decided that
parallel NRC/EPA efforts would be the best approach. The NRC has worked
closely with the EPA and will continue to do so. As a result of this
interactive cooperation, progress has been made that would have been
unlikely otherwise. It is believed important that both agencies
continue to work on this effort (see discussion under Item 4,
Consistency and Compatibility). With respect to previously approved
decommissioning plans, the Commission believes it is important to
encourage licensees to take timely decommissioning actions.
Accordingly, the Commission is retaining the exclusion of previously
approved decommissioning plans in the new requirements and is expanding
the provisions to include plans under final stages of NRC review.
Regarding the need for public review of the GEIS and other guidance
documents, the Commission fully agrees. The GEIS, a regulatory analysis
(RA), and an NRC staff working draft regulatory guide will be issued
concurrently with publication of the proposed rulemaking. The formal
comment period for the rulemaking will commence with this Federal
Register Notice. Further opportunity for enhanced public participation
and comment will be provided in a workshop to be held during the latter
part of the formal comment period for the proposed rule and the NRC
staff draft regulatory guide. Notification of the workshop will be
placed in the Federal Register and posted on the electronic board.
2. Radiological Criteria
Comment. Comments were divided concerning whether NRC
decommissioning standards should be based on the recommendations of
recognized national and international bodies such as the ICRP and NCRP.
Many citizen/environmental organizations continued to recommend that
the NRC should require decontaminating to a level indistinguishable
from background. They opposed setting any acceptable risk level or
radiation dose for decommissioning because they believe that any
incremental increase over background dose is unacceptable. Most
industry and other commenters recommended that the decommissioning
standard be based on technically supportable risk/dose criteria. Some
commenters urged that the proposed level be decided only after
analyzing the costs and benefits of alternative proposals.
Many commenters objected to inclusion of a quantitative goal in the
rulemaking because it could be interpreted by some as the standard that
should be achieved in most cases. Other commenters agreed on inclusion
of both a quantitative goal and a quantitative limit. Some want these
to be lower than the levels specified--TEDEs of 3 mrem and 15 mrem per
year. Many citizen/environmental organization commenters stated that,
instead of specifying a numerical goal and a limit, the regulatory
objective should be to reduce contamination to a level that is not
distinguishable from background. Other commenters stated that doses in
the range of 3 mrem to 15 mrem per year are indistinguishable from
background. Most of these commenters recommended that the dose limit
should be increased to a level between 25 and 100 mrem per year, or
possibly higher. Reasons for recommending a higher dose limit included
(1) the criteria should conform to recommendations of national and
international scientific consensus organizations; (2) a cost-benefit
analysis would support a higher limit; (3) the criteria should be based
on scientific analyses and not based on intuitive feelings; (4) there
are no practical means to demonstrate compliance with TEDEs of 3 and 15
mrem per year; and (5) efforts to comply with such levels would waste
large resources in remediating small risks with no real gain in
benefits.
Several commenters recommended that the goal be dropped from the
rule. Some of these commenters suggested the goal instead be
incorporated into the guidance that would accompany the rule. A
principal concern was that the goal would become a de facto limit. In
particular, the EPA, in presenting their comments on the goal,
indicated concern over the perception that the specification of any
value, such as 3 mrem/yr, would be construed as the actual requirement
for the decommissioning. The EPA has verbally continued to express
concerns regarding the NRC staff proposal of presenting acceptable
staff positions for ALARA documentation in the Regulatory Guide.
Some commenters requested that, because of possible failure of
institutional controls, the NRC should not place a dose restriction of
100 mrem per year on sites subject to restricted release. Commenters
were divided on the requirement that licensees base their estimates of
greatest TEDE dose on the first 1000 years. Some stated that this time
is unrealistically long while others stated that it is unrealistically
short.
Several commenters compared the proposed limits of 15 mrem/y and 3
mrem/y to risk limits/goals attributed to the EPA and suggested that
these comparisons are complicated by differences in scenarios for
exposure used by the EPA and the NRC, and by a basic difference between
a limit and a goal. A limit must always be reached. A goal is not
always reached.
Commenters requested that the NRC include alternative radiological
criteria for licensees who possess radioactive materials of a kind and
form not requiring extensive decontamination at the time of
decommissioning. They suggested that demonstration of compliance should
be possible through direct radiation measurements and not require the
use of modeling and consultants.
Response. The following responses are provided.
a. Appropriateness of 15 mrem/y TEDE.
The Commission has considered the comments in light of information
presented in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and the
Regulatory Analysis (RA). These studies show that residual
radioactivity can be reduced to levels which will result in an annual
TEDE of 15 mrem without unreasonable effort or expense for most
radionuclides and most facilities. A summary of this analysis can be
found in Sections 5 through 7 of the GEIS and Sections 4 and 6 of the
RA. In those few cases where reducing the residual radioactivity to the
levels required to comply with the 15 mrem/y TEDE limit for
unrestricted use are either not technically achievable, would be
prohibitively expensive, or would result in net public or environmental
harm, Sec. 20.1405 of the proposed rule provides the licensee with the
option of requesting release of the site with restrictions placed on
its use.
Several commenters have argued that a 15 mrem/y limit for
unrestricted release is not consistent with the recommendations of the
ICRP and NCRP and that the limit should be raised to as high as 100
mrem/y. The Commission believes that an additional margin of safety
below 100 mrem/yr is necessary because the 100 mrem/y limit is intended
to apply to doses to the public resulting from all radiation sources
(NCRP Report No. 116, Section 15; ICRP Publication 60, Section 5.5).
Therefore, allocation of the entire 100 mrem/y dose to residual
radioactivity from the decommissioning of a single facility would be
inappropriate. Using a safety margin to limit the dose from a single
source to avoid a summation of exposures approaching the dose limit is
consistent with the recommendations of both the ICRP and the NCRP.
b. Removal of Goal from the NRC staff Draft Rule.
As formulated in the NRC staff draft rule, the goal was designed to
serve two principal objectives. First, and foremost, it would clearly
articulate the NRC's objective for decommissioned sites. Second, it
would establish a dose level well below the limit at which licensees
who have little or no site contamination (e.g., licensees that use only
sealed sources or short lived radioisotopes) would be relieved of much
of the burden of analysis associated with the ALARA requirement.
The NRC staff has reexamined the goal concept based on the comments
received, and has concluded that having both a limit and a goal in the
rule can lead to confusion concerning the Commission's intent.
Therefore, in order to clarify the Commission's intent and to make it
clear that 15 mrem/y TEDE is the only limit, the Commission has dropped
the term ``goal'' from the rule. Instead the Commission has substituted
the following:
First, in order to clearly articulate the Commission's continued
commitment to the objective for decommissioned sites, the following
statement of objective has been included in Sec. 20.1402 of the
proposed rule:
The objective of decommissioning is to reduce the residual
radioactivity in structures, materials, 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 radionuclide. The Commission realizes that, as a practical
matter, it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that such an
objective has been met. Therefore, the Commission has established a
site release limit and is requiring that licensees demonstrate that
the residual radioactivity at a site is as far below this limit as
reasonably achievable.
Second, in order to provide administrative relief to licensees who
have little or no site contamination, the Commission has revised
Sec. 20.1404 of the rule to read as follows:
A site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if:
(a) the residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from
background radiation results in a TEDE to the average member of the
critical group that does not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) per year; and
(b) the residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are
as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Depending on the site-specific ALARA analysis, any dose level less
than or equal to 15 mrem/y may be considered ALARA. However, in many
situations, licensees who have little or no site contamination should
be able to readily achieve a dose level well below the limit. The NRC
will provide guidance as to how such licensees can demonstrate
compliance with Section 20.1404(b) without having to perform
sophisticated analyses to demonstrate that residual radioactivity
levels at their sites are ALARA. This should substantially reduce the
administrative burden on licensees who have little or no site
contamination (e.g., licensees that use only sealed sources or short
lived radioisotopes). There are approximately 17,000 NRC and Agreement
State licensees, many of which are small businesses, that are expected
to benefit from this guidance without any compromise to public health
and safety.
c. Time Frame.
For the reasons stated in the rationale for the proposed rule, the
Commission believes the 1000 year time frame proposed by the NRC staff
is reasonable for estimating annual doses from residual radioactivity
from decommissioned sites.
When predicting thousands of years into the future, uncertainties
become very large because of major potential changes in the
hydrogeologic regime at the site over these long periods of time. When
the potential consequences of exposure to the radioactive source are
great; e.g., as in the case of a high level waste repository, distant
future calculations may provide some insight concerning the relative
magnitude of consequences. However, the consequences of exposure to
residual radioactivity at levels near background are small and
considering the large uncertainties, long term modeling of near
background doses may be virtually meaningless. Thus, the Commission
does not believe it would serve any useful purpose to attempt to
estimate radiation doses from residual radioactivity thousands of years
into the future.
3. Individual vs Collective Doses
Comment. Several commenters stated that collective dose should be
used by the NRC to evaluate costs and benefits of alternative
radiological criteria. The Department of Energy suggested that an ALARA
analysis, based on collective dose and competing risks for certain
sites with low population exposure, might indicate that the criteria
proposed by the NRC may not be justifiable. Most commenters favored
using dose to individuals to ensure protection of the public health.
Many citizen/environmental groups disagreed with the proposal to limit
individual dose to the ``average member of the Critical Group.'' They
recommended that the goal and limit as described in the staff's draft
rule be applied to the maximally exposed individual in the exposure
group.
Response. The Commission agrees with the commenters that collective
dose should be used by the NRC to evaluate the costs and benefits of
alternative radiological criteria. In fact, this has been incorporated
in the assessment of the total risk for the respective alternatives in
the GEIS and the RA. Although these documents were unavailable for
review by the commenters, the technical analyses in the GEIS and the RA
support the criteria in the proposed rule.
The Commission considers the use of TEDE to the average member of
the Critical Group to be a more useful concept for the purposes of
decommissioning for the reasons discussed in the Rationale for the
Proposed Rule. The discussion of ``Critical Group'' in the Rationale
has been revised to make it clear that the critical group must be
reasonably homogeneous. This clarifies that the licensee cannot average
doses over a group whose members may be expected to get widely
differing doses for the purpose of ``averaging down'' expected doses to
highly exposed individuals.
4. Consistency and Compatibility
Comment. As was the case at the earlier workshops, commenters urged
that the NRC and the EPA work together to develop consistent standards.
Conservation of Federal resources and avoidance of imposing different
standards on regulated parties were considered to be important.
However, the NRC was advised not to lower its risk limit simply to
accommodate the EPA.
The commenters recommended that the degree of consistency that the
NRC will require between NRC standards and Agreement State standards be
clearly stated. One commenter suggested that the Federal standard be
set to ensure adequate protection of the public and that if a State or
local community requires a licensee to decommission to a lower standard
that does not provide a significant benefit, then the State or local
community should fund this extra effort. Agreement State commenters
requested that the statement of considerations for the proposed
rulemaking discuss the extent to which they must implement specific
provisions of the rule to maintain continued regulatory compatibility
with NRC regulations.
Response. In response to the comments concerning the relationship
between NRC and EPA standards, NRC and EPA are developing
decommissioning criteria in parallel rulemaking efforts. The NRC and
EPA are coordinating their efforts in this area to ensure that
effective and consistent site decommissioning standards are
established, while minimizing duplication of effort. Accordingly, the
EPA was an important participant in the NRC rulemaking workshops and is
a cooperating agency in the preparation of the GEIS for the rulemaking.
The NRC has also consulted extensively with EPA throughout the
rulemaking process. The objective is that EPA will be able to make a
finding that NRC decommissioning criteria provide adequate protection
for the public and the environment and will exclude NRC licensees from
the EPA cleanup standards.
In response to the question of NRC/Agreement State compatibility,
the Commission is developing a new policy on Agreement State
compatibility which will be issued for public comment in the near
future. Because the compatibility determination for this proposed rule
will be considered in light of the new compatibility policy, the
Commission believes it would be premature to propose a compatibility
determination at this time. However, to facilitate ultimate resolution
of the compatibility determination for this rule, if adopted as a final
rule, the Commission is requesting comments on whether, to what extent,
and under what circumstances, an Agreement State should be authorized
to establish more stringent requirements than those set forth in this
proposed rule.
5. Finality
Comment. Finality of decommissioning was a major issue among
commenters. Various commenters stated (1) that revisiting sites should
be based on new site-specific information and not on new evaluation
methods and (2) that the criteria for revisiting sites are too
subjective and require clarification or refinement.
Response. The Commission agrees that the wording in the NRC staff
draft was ambiguous. Therefore, Sec. 20.1401(c) has been revised to
make it clear that the Commission would require additional cleanup only
if, based on new information, it determined that residual radioactivity
remaining at the site could result in significant public risk.
6. Community Involvement
Comment. The NRC staff draft specified that the Commission will
inform the public of each receipt of a decommissioning plan from a
licensee and of each proposal for restricted release of a site. In
addition, it specified that licensees who propose to release sites
under stipulated conditions of restricted release must convene a Site-
Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) for purpose of providing advice to the
licensee.
Several industry commenters questioned the need for these
additional requirements on the grounds that:
(1) Present procedures for public participation in licensing
procedures are adequate and provide an appropriate way to deal with the
concerns of those affected by decommissioning;
(2) There is no demonstrated need; and
(3) The provisions of SSABs would put managerial, regulatory, and
financial matters of licensees in the hands of people who have no
responsibility for the consequences of their recommendations.
Most other commenters supported the proposed new community
involvement proposals and some commenters additionally urged the NRC to
require establishment of an SSAB for all decommissioning cases,
including sites suitable for unrestricted release. Others recommended
that an SSAB should be used in cases involving Native American lands,
sites surrounded by high density residential uses, ocean or waterfront
sites, or sensitive ecosystems unless the three (3) millirem per year
decommissioning goal would be met.
Additional comments on the use of SSABs included:
(1) The rulemaking should delimit SSAB roles and responsibilities;
(2) Guidelines are needed with respect to SSAB staffing and
activities;
(3) SSABs should not report to licensees or be funded by licensees
because this could compromise their effective use;
(4) Membership should be restricted to ``citizen, environmental,
environmental justice, and other public interest groups'' who reside in
the local community; and
(5) The membership should include a representative of the site to
which wastes are expected to be sent.
Response. With respect to the need for additional community
involvement, the Commission believes that the noticing requirements and
the requirements to establish and use SSABs should be implemented as
proposed in the NRC staff draft. The proposed termination of licenses
and release of sites under conditions of restricted release involve
issues (e.g., land restrictions) which could have unanticipated adverse
effects on the local community. The Commission wants to be sure it has
considered the views of affected members of the local community on
these issues before making a decision on the licensee's request. These
proposed provisions will provide an effective means to inform the
affected licensees, local and state governments, and the NRC of these
views. However, the Commission believes that an extension of the SSAB
requirement to apply to cases involving unrestricted release is
unnecessary and would impose an undue burden with little or no public
benefit on a large number of licensees, many of which are small
businesses.
With respect to delimiting the role and responsibilities of SSABs
and providing guidance on SSAB staffing and activities, the Commission
specifically requests further comment on these issues. After gaining
experience with the formation and use of SSABs, it might be appropriate
to reconsider the need for this guidance at a later date. Regarding the
funding and control of SSABs, the Commission believes that licensees
should provide the necessary funding as proposed. The proposed rule
contains safeguards to ensure that the SSABs are not subject to
licensee control. The licensee would be required to provide reasonable
opportunity for all local affected parties to be represented on the
SSAB. Meetings of the SSAB must be open to the public. The licensee
must provide adequate public notice of the location, time, date, and
agenda for the meetings at least two weeks in advance of each meeting.
All records generated or reviewed by the SSAB become part of the
licensing docket and will be available for public inspection.
With respect to restriction of the SSAB membership to the local
community, the intent of the provisions in Sec. 20.1407(c) is such a
restriction. Regarding the proposal to expand memberships of the SSAB
to include a representative of the designated offsite disposal site,
the Commission believes that the offsite disposal site is not relevant
for consideration by the SSAB, because siting of the waste disposal
facility involves a separate public process that, in part, recognizes
that wastes will be transported to the waste facility.
7. Stability and Flexibility
Comment. Most of those who commented on stability or flexibility
provided in the draft rule said that a generic standard should be
written to provide enough flexibility to account for actual risks
associated with conditions peculiar to specific sites in protecting the
public and the environment, and to select appropriate site-specific
remediation methods. Some commenters said that the imposition of strict
generic standards without flexibility might not provide an optimum
protection strategy across the range of categories of licensees. Other
commenters noted that the adequacy of flexibility provided under the
draft proposed rule cannot be decided without the necessary guidance
documents.
Response. The Commission also recognizes the need for flexibility
in applying these criteria because of constraints posed by site-
specific conditions (e.g., geology, hydrology, meteorology, and
radiation background levels) and to provide opportunity for meaningful
participation by local communities in individual decommissioning
actions. Therefore, the proposed rule provides for site-specific
implementation of the generic criteria. The Commission is publishing
the NRC staff's working draft regulatory guidance along with the
proposed rule which describes methods for site-specific implementation
of the criteria. This working draft guidance includes conduct of site
characterization and surveys, specific radionuclide concentration and
surface activities that would be considered by the NRC staff to meet
the 15 mrem/y TEDE limit, and modeling acceptable to the staff to
develop more site-specific values of concentration or surface activity
based upon the factors unique to the activity being decommissioned.
8. ALARA Considerations
Comment. Comments on the ALARA concept were much the same as
provided at the earlier workshops. Most public/environmental
organization commenters stated that they do not trust licensees to make
ALARA determinations. Industry and other commenters stated that they
support the NRC's permitting them to make ALARA determinations and
urged the NRC to continue to permit licensees to use site specific
factors in making these determinations.
Response. The Commission believes that ALARA is a fundamental
concept of radiation protection and is an important part of its
decommissioning criteria. NRC guidance being issued in support of the
rulemaking provides for the use of site-specific factors in deciding
what levels should be achieved below the stipulated radiological limit.
This guidance will be described in NUREG-1500 ``Working Draft
Regulatory Guide on Release Criteria for Decommissioning; Staff Draft
for Comment.''
9. Demonstrating Compliance
Comment. Many submitting written comments urged the NRC to complete
its guidance on acceptable methodologies criteria as soon as possible
and to publish this guidance for comment before the rulemaking is
issued for final public comment. Many commenters questioned the
technical ability to demonstrate compliance with the proposed dose
goals or limits in the staff's draft, or questioned the technical
justification for such requirements, or said that there are no
standards for demonstrations of compliance. Several others said that
demonstrating compliance to the proposed dose goals or limits is
impractical and will unnecessarily increase costs and volumes of low-
level wastes generated during decommissioning.
Many commenters said that there must be practical or objective
guidance for demonstrating compliance. Some said that this guidance
should be issued for review before the rule is promulgated. Some
commenters raised questions on who makes the final decisions on
demonstrating of compliance and by what means.
Some commenters suggested that simplified guidance (not requiring
the use of modeling or consultants) should be provided for designated
licensees who have only low levels of contamination or ``uncomplicated
situations'' in their operations. Some commenters said that the public
might more easily understand demonstration of compliance if alternative
limits to the ones proposed were used. Several commenters said that
compliance should be demonstrated by actual measurements and not just
by modeling. Some commenters also suggested specific methodologies for
demonstrating compliance.
Response. The capabilities for demonstrating compliance are
considered in the GEIS and the RA which provide the technical basis for
the radiological criteria in the rule. Guidance that is being issued
for public comment in conjunction with the publication of the proposed
rule will cover acceptable methods for demonstrating compliance, the
use of simplified methods or practical derived measurements and
measurements units, and verification by practical measurement
techniques not necessarily requiring modeling.
In response to the question concerning who makes the final
decisions on whether the licensee has demonstrated compliance with the
rule, the NRC or, as appropriate, the Agreement State will make this
determination. Where necessary the NRC or Agreement State will conduct
independent confirmatory surveys to ensure that the appropriate
criteria have been met.
10. Sites That Cannot Be Released for Unrestricted Use
Comment. Many public/environmental organization commenters stated
that licensees should not be permitted to walk away from a contaminated
site and that contamination should be removed to the extent that
radioactive materials and radiation are indistinguishable from
background. Many voiced opposition to any release of sites under
restricted use conditions. This opposition was based largely on concern
about the long term effectiveness of institutional controls to ensure
compliance with the conditions for restricted release.
Other commenters generally endorsed both the unrestricted and
restricted release of sites. With respect to restricted release of
sites, commenters:
(1) Stated that the NRC should better define the circumstances
which could qualify a site for restricted release;
(2) Recommended that the NRC give examples of acceptable
institutional controls for providing reasonable assurance that
specified dose limits are not exceeded; and
(3) Requested that the NRC publish guidance on determination of
necessary financial assurance for proper control and maintenance of a
site.
Some commenters recommended that the NRC adopt a dose level below
100 mrem per year as the upper dose limit in the event of failure of
the applied institutional controls. Still other commenters stated that
the 100 mrem per year restriction could foreclose onsite disposal of
wastes as presently permitted at uranium mill tailings sites and that
this restriction should be deleted. Several commenters requested that
the NRC better address the issue of consolidation and long-term care of
wastes at sites not suitable for restricted release.
One commenter said that engineered disposal cells might be the best
solution for sites with large quantities of slightly contaminated
soils, while another said that large volumes of slightly contaminated
soil with a few ``hot spots'' should be regarded as homogeneously
contaminated.
Response. The NRC believes that the rule should provide for both
unrestricted release and for restricted release of sites. Additionally,
there may be sites that will have to continue under license. The NRC is
issuing guidance, first in draft form for comment, on how it expects to
implement the provision for restricted release.
The 100 mrem/y restriction is designed to establish an upper bound
on the risk in the unlikely event of failure of institutional controls
or restrictions at the site. This restriction is also designed to
ensure that license termination under restricted conditions does not
result in a proliferation of de facto disposal sites. The Commission
believes that 100 mrem/y is an adequately conservative upper bound.
This dose corresponds to the maximum annual dose during the first 1000
years following decommissioning. In many cases, the peak dose occurs
during the first year following decommissioning. For these cases, the
predicted dose levels will be reduced by radioactive decay so that if
institutional controls or restrictions at the site were to fail some
time in the future the actual public dose would be substantially below
100 mrem/y in most cases. In cases where buildup of radioactive
daughter products or other conditions cause the peak dose to fall other
than in the first year after decommissioning, the predicted dose levels
are significantly below 100 mrem/y for the large majority of the first
1000 years after decommissioning.
The issue of an appropriate value for the dose in the unlikely
event of failure of institutional controls has been a key point of the
ongoing discussions between the EPA and the NRC. As noted in section
entitled ``Rationale for the Proposed Rule'' of this Statement of
Considerations, the Commission is specifically soliciting comment on
the appropriateness of this value, and the impacts associated with the
selection of other values such as 75 mrem/yr.
Disposal of tailings and soil cleanup at milling sites is regulated
under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA).
The impact of the dose limit on unique practices at uranium mill
tailings sites may require case-by-case consideration in the interest
of consistency with current regulation of tailings under UMTRCA.
11. Waste Disposal
Comment. A commenter stated that waste disposal issues must be
discussed in the EIS. Some commenters stated that the criteria do not
seem to recognize and should more adequately consider the non-linear
increase in waste volumes at low concentrations of radioactive
materials.
Several commenters stated that the NRC should consider allowing for
some decommissioning under restricted conditions with on-site
emplacement, storage, and monitoring of radioactive wastes. Several
commenters stated that previously-buried wastes should be cleaned up at
the time of decommissioning consistent with the generic cleanup
standard. Several others disagreed, saying that it is ``unfair'' or
unnecessary to include these previously-buried wastes.
Agreement State commenters were concerned over the adequacy of the
space at regional disposal facilities for the large amount of material
to be generated from the decommissioned sites. The concern was enforced
by the lack of a GEIS to review and assertion that data used in the EIS
for 10 CFR Part 61 is over 10 years old.
Response. Waste disposal issues, including matters of the
relationships between waste volumes and cleanup levels, are discussed
in the GEIS. The Commission maintains its position that public and
environmental risk is an overriding factor that requires the
consideration of the removal of previously-buried wastes as a part of
decommissioning. Even though a previous burial was carried out within
the regulatory requirements at an operating site, the potential
differences in conditions between the site as operated and as
decommissioned require such consideration. The requirements for
previously-buried wastes are consistent with the Commission's
established regulatory practice for decommissioning under the Site
Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP). The proposed rule requires an
analysis of site-specific overall risks, costs, and benefits in
deciding, for individual sites, whether or not the exhumation and
removal of previously-buried wastes is required.
12. Minimizing Generation of Waste
Comment. The NRC staff draft contained a section on minimization of
contamination. Most commenters supported the concept of minimization of
contamination, but several industry commenters preferred not to include
the proposed provisions in the rulemaking on radiological criteria for
decommissioning. Industry commenters stated that these concepts do not
need to be put in regulations because waste minimization and hence,
minimization of contamination, is commonplace in the nuclear industry
and is driven by such economic incentives as reduction of disposal
costs. Some commenters recommended that the NRC publish guidelines for
public comment on the actions that licensees are expected to take in
minimizing the production or release of contamination, and that the NRC
should similarly publish for public comment the criteria it will use to
determine if licensee proposals are acceptable.
Response. The Commission agrees that existing ALARA programs and
the cost of radioactive waste disposal provide sufficient incentive to
minimize radioactive waste. Therefore, requiring licensees to redesign
existing facilities or amend already approved radiation protection
procedures is unnecessary and would not result in any substantial
improvement in public safety. Therefore, Sec. 20.1408 (b) and (c) have
been deleted from the proposed rule. However, the Commission believes
that there may be substantial potential to reduce contamination,
facilitate eventual decommissioning, and minimize generation of
radioactive waste if special consideration is given to these issues
when designing new facilities. Therefore, Sec. 20.1408(a) has been
retained.
13. Radon
Comment. Those submitting written comments mostly agreed with not
establishing a separate standard for radon. Commenters noted, however,
that sites contaminated with radon-bearing-or-producing materials may
have great difficulty meeting the proposed dose goal and limit in the
staff's draft.
Response. The Commission believes that a separate standard for
radon is not needed and that NRC guidance being issued in support of
the rulemaking will provide licensees with sufficient information
concerning measurement problems that are associated with background
radon. Additional comments are invited with respect to the problem of
determining compliance with the NRC's radiological criteria at sites
contaminated with processed radon-bearing-or-producing materials.
14. Recycle
Comment. One commenter said that all ``radioactivity'' from
licensed use should be contained and not recycled. Another said that
recycling should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Response. The Commission believes the radiological criteria for
recycling is outside the intended scope of this rule but will be
addressed in a future rule. In the interim, the Commission will
continue to review this action on a case-by-case basis.
15. Comments Related to Definitions
Comment. There were a number of questions concerning definition of
terms used in the draft rule. There were also several suggestions for
additions, deletions, or revisions to existing definitions in the draft
rule, and there were some suggested new definitions. Questions were
raised concerning the use of terms such as, ``affected parties,''
``significant,'' ``average member,'' ``cumulative TEDE,''
``decommissioning goal,'' ``unrestricted use,'' and ``net public or
environmental harm.''
Some commenters objected to including fallout in the definition of
background radiation. Others agreed with the proposed definition or
proposed various additions, revisions, or deletions to the definition,
e.g., to change the wording starting with the current words ``global
fallout'' to ``global fallout from the testing of nuclear explosive
devices or from past nuclear accidents.''
Several commenters said that the term ``residual radioactivity''
needs clarification with respect to materials discharged from the site
in accordance with other provisions of the regulations in 10 CFR Part
20.
Response. The practical implication of these terms and others in
the proposed rule have been clarified in the guidance which accompanies
the proposed rule.
With regard to ``background radiation,'' the new definition is the
same as the existing definition except for the addition of the words
``or from past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl which contribute to
background radiation and are not under the control of the licensee''
after ``explosive devices'' in order to explicitly recognize that
radioactivity from past nuclear accidents contributes to background
radiation. Because the remaining wording has been adequate in the past,
the Commission sees no reason to further revise the definition at this
time.
The Commission agrees that the proposed definition of ``residual
radioactivity'' in Sec. 20.1003 was not clear with respect to materials
discharged at the site in accordance with other provisions of 10 CFR
Part 20. The definition has been revised to clarify the Commission's
intent.
Rationale for the Proposed Rule
Conceptual Basis
The overall conceptual basis for decommissioning, as proposed in
this rulemaking, consists of an objective to reduce the residual
radioactivity at the site so that it is indistinguishable from the
background, a limit on the dose considered acceptable for release of a
site with a stipulation that dose be as far below this limit as
reasonably achievable (i.e., ALARA), provisions in regulatory guidance
for administrative relief from performing sophisticated ALARA analyses
for licensees who have little or no site contamination, provisions for
restricted termination of a license when physical remediation
activities cannot achieve the limit, and enhanced provisions for public
participation.
The limit for release of a site is 15 mrem/y (0.15 mSv/y) TEDE for
residual radioactivity distinguishable from background. If doses from
residual radioactivity are less than 15 mrem/y TEDE, the Commission
will terminate the license and authorize release of the site for
unrestricted use following the licensee's demonstration that the
residual radioactivity at the site is ALARA.
The Commission expects the licensee to make every reasonable effort
to reduce residual radioactivity to levels that will allow unrestricted
release of the site. However, the Commission will consider terminating
a license in cases where restrictions must be imposed on the use of the
site to ensure that public doses are maintained below the 15 mrem/y
(0.15 mSv/y) TEDE limit, provided the licensee:
(1) Can demonstrate that further reductions in residual
radioactivity necessary to comply with the 15 mrem/y TEDE limit for
unrestricted use are not technically achievable, would be prohibitively
expensive, or would result in net public or environmental harm;
(2) Has made adequate provisions for institutional controls to
reduce annual TEDE from residual radioactivity distinguishable from
background to the average member of the appropriate critical group to
15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE;
(3) Has provided sufficient financial assurance to enable an
independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for
any necessary control and maintenance of the site; and
(4) Has reduced the residual radioactivity at the site so that the
TEDE from residual radioactivity would not exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) per
year even if the restrictions applied in the termination were no longer
effective in limiting the possible scenarios or pathways of exposure.
The Commission estimates that there may be several existing
licensed sites (no more than a few tens) containing large quantities of
materials contaminated with low level radioactivity where health and
environment may best be protected by onsite stabilization and disposal.
The contamination was generated over the last several decades using
practices that generally would not be found satisfactory today without
adequate plans and financial assurance for decommissioning. In some
cases, a responsible public or private entity may no longer exist or be
viable for discharging its responsibility for ensuring protection of
the public and the environment. In other cases, the contamination may
have been generated through research or development contracts with the
Federal government or given special consideration in Federal law. Due
to the unique characteristics of these sites when compared with the
much larger population of licensed nuclear facilities, the Commission
contemplates that the owners and operators of these facilities may seek
exemptions from the decommissioning criteria under the general
provisions in 10 CFR 20.2301.
Such sites, and the considerations associated with them, are not
unlike disposal sites for uranium mill tailings, and may need to be
provided with equivalent types of controls to ensure sufficient
protection. At a minimum, the Commission would require that the public
health and environmental protection requirements developed for these
unique cases be consistent with other appropriate regulatory
requirements for disposal of radioactive waste, including those in 10
CFR Part 61 ``Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive
Waste'' or 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A ``Criteria Relating to the
Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes
Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from
Ores Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content.''
Any Commission decision on such exemption requests and the
disposition of these sites would be made on the basis of a
comprehensive analysis of the risks and benefits of all viable
alternatives including remediation of the site to meet the criteria in
this rule. Proper disposition of these sites may require some type of
durable institutional control, such as placing the site under the
custody of a State or Federal agency, to ensure long-term protection of
the public and environment. For example, for a former licensed site in
West Virginia, the final disposition included action by Congress that
provided for transfer of the site to Federal custody and ongoing DOE
oversight. Such an analysis would have to consider all significant
risks to humans and the environment resulting from the decommissioning
process (including transportation and disposal of radioactive wastes
generated in the process) and from residual radioactivity remaining at
the site following termination of the license. The Commission
specifically solicits comments on this approach to the handling of
these unique cases, including proposals for alternative strategies
which could be used to assure adequate protection of public health and
the environment.
The Commission envisions that the scope of the exemption request
would be limited to the radiological criteria for unrestricted or
restricted release. Due to the unique nature of these sites and the
comprehensive evaluation necessary to support such an exemption
request, the Commission would require that a meaningful and substantial
process be used by the licensee or the NRC itself for informing and
involving the public in the decision. Consequently, the Commission
would not favorably entertain exemption requests unless they were
developed through a process consistent with the public involvement
processes required in this rule.
For any process conducted by the NRC, the Commission would solicit
participation from: the Environmental Protection Agency; local and
State governments; persons residing in the vicinity of the site;
citizen, environmental, environmental justice, and other public
interest groups; Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have
treaty or statutory rights that could be affected; and other affected
parties. For example, in reviewing proposed decommissioning actions at
two licensed sites in Ohio and New Jersey, the Commission has initiated
development of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for both sites
and recently held public meetings on the scope of the EISs with the
intent to fully explore the alternatives and potential impacts
associated with the disposal of the contaminated material. As a part of
this process, NRC is working closely with EPA, State, local
representatives, and members of the public to develop acceptable
alternatives. The site-specific process applied at these sites by the
NRC is attempting to include participation by all affected parties to
assure continued protection of public health and safety through a
viable and effective decommissioning approach.
Although the Commission recognizes there may be existing sites
where public health and the environment may best be protected by onsite
stabilization and disposal, the Commission does not believe that future
activities should result in additional sites that would not be able to
meet the criteria in this rule. Therefore, the Commission is proposing
to add a new Sec. 20.1408 to its regulations which would require that
applicants for licenses, other than renewals, describe in the
application 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.
Definitions
The following definitions already present in the regulations would
be revised:
The definition of Background Radiation (10 CFR 20.1003) would be
revised so that fallout from past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl
which contribute to background radiation and are not under the control
of the licensee are included in the definition. The Commission does not
believe it is reasonable for licensees to be required to remediate
material over which they have no control and which is present at
comparable levels in the environment both on and off of the site.
The definition of Decommission would be revised to also provide for
termination of a license and release of property under restricted
conditions. This revision was requested by a large number of commenters
at the workshops on decommissioning. Those commenters felt that the NRC
should recognize that it may not be feasible to decontaminate some
sites to a level appropriate for unrestricted use and that restrictions
on the subsequent use of such sites could be used to provide an
additional measure of public protection.
The following new definitions would be added:
The Critical Group would be defined as the group of individuals
reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual
radioactivity given the circumstances under which the analysis would be
carried out. For example, if the site were to be 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. This would include
renovation of structures, water use, and industrial, residential, and
agricultural uses of the land and structures. If the site were to be
released with restrictions, the licensee would have to assess both the
dose to the average member of the group of individuals reasonably
expected to be the most highly exposed assuming that the proposed
restrictions were successfully imposed and adhered to (the ``Critical
Group'' appropriate to this set of circumstances) and the dose to the
average member of the group of individuals reasonably expected to be
the most highly exposed if the proposed restrictions were to fail (in
essence the ``Critical Group'' for unrestricted termination of the
license).
The Critical Group, for purposes of screening dose calculations, is
defined for each scenario described in NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 1. In each
scenario, the Critical Group is an individual or relatively homogeneous
group of individuals expected to receive the highest exposure within
the assumptions of the particular scenario. The average member of the
Critical Group is that individual who is assumed to represent the most
likely exposure situation based on prudently conservative exposure
assumptions and parameter values within the model calculations. For
example, the Critical Group for the building occupancy scenario is the
group of workers occupying a building that has been decontaminated. The
average member of that group is assumed to spend 2000 hours per year
working in the building and is exposed to residual contamination via
the external, inhalation, and inadvertent ingestion pathways. A more
detailed discussion of acceptable methods for selecting the critical
group and estimating the dose to the average member of the group can be
found in Section III.G. of the draft regulatory guide.
This is a departure from the requirement in Sec. 20.1302 where, for
licensed activities, the licensee is required to assess the dose to
``the individual likely to receive the highest dose.'' However, in
contrast to licensed facilities where public doses normally result from
activities that are carefully prescribed and controlled, the public
doses from residual radioactivity at decommissioned sites may result
from a variety of activities for which the maximally exposed individual
is much more difficult to precisely define. Furthermore, in ongoing
operations licensed by the Commission, it is possible to update or keep
track of who might be likely to receive the highest exposure. In
decommissioning, there will be no ongoing mechanism that would allow
for adjustments of imposition of additional controls. Therefore, the
Commission believes it is more prudent to use the average member of the
critical group for assessing TEDE from residual radioactivity after the
license is terminated because this provides a reasonably conservative
estimate of public risk without attempting to speculate on which
specific individual may be expected to receive the highest dose.
The 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 is proposed in Section 5.5.1
of the 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP 60) and has been adopted in the current
draft of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Draft Federal
Radiation Protection Guidance for Exposure of the General Public. For
the purpose of this Subpart, the licensee would be required to estimate
the dose to the average member of the critical group from residual
radioactivity remaining at the site.
Indistinguishable from background would mean that the detectable
concentration of the radionuclide is not 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 methodology, and statistical
techniques.
Readily removable would refer to residual radioactivity, as defined
below, which is removable using non-destructive, common, housekeeping
techniques (e.g., washing with detergent and water) that do not
generate large volumes of radioactive waste requiring subsequent
disposal. This would not include techniques that produce chemical
wastes that are expected to adversely affect public health or the
environment. Readily removable would also not refer to residual
contamination dispersed in soil under conditions where removal of the
residual radioactivity could only be accomplished by moving large
volumes of soil.
Residual Radioactivity would include radioactivity in structures,
materials, soils, groundwater, and other media at the site resulting
from licensed activities at the site. This would include radioactivity
from all licensed and unlicensed sources used by the licensee but would
exclude background radiation. This term should not be confused with the
term ``residual radioactive material'' which appears in 10 CFR 40.4.
Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) would be a committee
constituted by the licensee to provide advice to the licensee on
decommissioning.
Scope
The proposed rule would apply to the decommissioning of all
facilities licensed by the Commission except for facilities or portions
thereof (e.g., waste disposal sites and uranium mill tailings) that are
already specifically covered in the regulations. It provides for both
unrestricted and restricted release of sites. The proposed rule would
not apply to sites already covered by a Commission approved
decommissioning plan if the plan was approved before the effective date
of the rule. This provision is designed to encourage licensees to
continue with ongoing and planned decommissioning.
After a site has been decommissioned and the license terminated in
accordance with the criteria in this proposed rule, the Commission
would require additional cleanup only if, based on new information, it
determines that residual radioactivity remaining at the site could
result in significant public or environmental harm.
The Commission recognizes there may be existing sites containing
large quantities of materials contaminated with low level radioactivity
where public health and the environment may best be protected by onsite
stabilization and disposal with proper restriction of the site to
prevent human disruption of the site and exposure to the radioactive
contamination. There are precedents for these cases in the
stabilization of uranium mill tailings under the Uranium Mill Tailings
Remediation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) and the DOE Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). In these cases, some type of
durable institutional control, such as placing the site under the
custody of a State or Federal agency, may be necessary to ensure long-
term protection of the public and the environment. However,
consideration of these actions would require extensive site-specific
safety and environmental analyses. In addition, input from affected
parties in the vicinity of the site would be desirable to determine
whether there are other local impacts that must be considered in
determining the best course of action and to ensure the long-term
effectiveness of the institutional controls. For these reasons, the
Commission has determined that these actions fall outside the scope of
this rulemaking in the sense that there may be site-specific
determinations using criteria other than those proposed in this
rulemaking. If, in the future, general criteria to evaluate these
actions can be developed, the Commission will consider additional
rulemaking to establish the criteria for general application.
The proposed rule would also require that all new applicants for
licenses, other than renewals, describe in the application 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.
Radiological Criteria
The proposed rule would establish a dose limit for release of a
decommissioned site of 15 millirem per year (mrem/y) TEDE for residual
radioactivity distinguishable from background. The 15 mrem/y TEDE dose
limit was selected to provide both a substantial margin of safety below
the NRC's dose limit for members of the public and an appropriate limit
for the acceptability of release of a facility which would no longer be
subject to regulatory control.
The estimated lifetime risk associated with an annual TEDE of 15
mrem/y is approximately 4E-4. This estimate was arrived at by using a
risk coefficient of 4E-4 per rem and assuming an exposure lifetime of
70 years. The 4E-4 risk factor is roughly equivalent to the 3.92E-4
risk factor in Table 6.6 of the EPA NESHAPS Background Information
Document (EPA89). Use of this value is consistent with the
calculational methods of the Environmental Protection Agency which is
also promulgating regulations in this area. The 70-year exposure
lifetime provides a conservative estimate of lifetime exposure. The
Environmental Protection Agency is using a 30-year lifetime exposure in
estimating lifetime risk from residual radioactivity at decommissioned
sites. This is 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. Using a 30-year exposure lifetime the estimated lifetime risk
associated with an annual TEDE of 15 mrem/y would be approximately 2E-
4. A more detailed discussion of estimating lifetime risk can be found
in appendix B of the GEIS.
In selecting this limit, the NRC staff took into account
recommendations of the ICRP and NCRP and those criteria promulgated by
EPA and NRC which provide acceptance criteria for areas where
unrestricted access in the vicinity of facilities is permitted, such as
generally applicable environmental standards established by EPA and the
criteria used for remediation of contaminated sites under the Superfund
(CERCLA) program. The dose value of 15 mrem/y TEDE is generally
consistent with the risks implied by those criteria and with the
remediations which have been achieved.
Several commenters have argued that a 15 mrem/y limit for
unrestricted release is not consistent with the recommendations of the
ICRP and NCRP and that the limit should be raised to as high as 100
mrem/y. The Commission believes that an additional margin of safety
below 100 mrem/yr is necessary because the 100 mrem/y limit is intended
to apply to doses to the public resulting from all radiation sources
(NCRP Report No. 116, Section 15; ICRP Publication 60, Section 5.5).
Therefore, allocation of the entire 100 mrem/y dose to residual
radioactivity from the decommissioning of a single facility would be
inappropriate. Using a safety margin to limit the dose from a single
source to avoid a summation of exposures approaching the dose limit is
consistent with the recommendations of both the ICRP and the NCRP.
In addition, the cost/benefit impact analysis in the GEIS (Chapters
5 and 6 and Figures 7-1 through 7-11) indicate that costs of achieving
a 15 mrem/yr limit would not be unduly burdensome on licensees. In
those few cases where remediation to achieve 15 mrem/yr may present an
unreasonable burden, release of the site with restrictions placed on
its use provides an alternative means for achieving this level of
protection.
The proposed rule would also require that the licensee reduce any
residual radioactivity to as close to indistinguishable from background
as reasonably achievable. ALARA considerations are to include all
significant risks to humans and the environment resulting from the
decommissioning process, and licensees are to demonstrate why further
reductions below the limit are not reasonably achievable. Depending on
the site-specific ALARA analysis, any dose level less than or equal to
15 mrem/y may be considered ALARA.
However, in many situations, licensees who have little or no site
contamination should be able to readily achieve a dose level well below
the limit. The NRC will provide guidance as to how such licensees can
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 20.1404(a)(ii) without having to
perform sophisticated analyses to demonstrate that residual
radioactivity levels at their sites are ALARA. This should
substantially reduce the administrative burden on licensees who have
little or no site contamination (e.g., licensees that use only sealed
sources or short lived radioisotopes). There are approximately 17,000
NRC and Agreement State licensees, many of which are small businesses,
that are expected to benefit from this guidance without any compromise
to public health and safety.
The Commission recognizes that demonstrating that radionuclide
levels at a site are indistinguishable from background is a complex
task involving sophisticated sampling, measuring, and statistical
analysis techniques. The difficulty of the task can vary substantially
depending on a number of factors including the radionuclide in
question, the background level for that and other radionuclides at the
site, and the temporal and spatial variations in background radiation
at the site. Therefore, in order to assist the licensee in making these
determinations, the Commission will publish specific guidance on
acceptable methods which can be used by the licensee to demonstrate
that the concentrations of specific isotopes at the site are
indistinguishable from background. The Commission will also publish
guidance on acceptable methods for estimating annual TEDE to the
average member of the Critical Group. This guidance will include a
discussion of the type of scenarios and exposure pathways which should
be considered, and computer models for estimating the annual TEDE to
the average member of the critical group. The computer models will be
screening models that employ generically derived conservative
assumptions and factors. However, licensees will be able to substitute
assumptions and factors more appropriate to a particular site if they
can demonstrate that these factors and assumptions reasonably reflect
the existing and projected conditions at the site. Licensees may also
use other models or methods for estimating TEDE, provided they can
demonstrate to the Commission that these models or methods provide
reasonable estimates for the site to be decommissioned. This guidance
is described in NUREG-1500 ``Working Draft Regulatory Guide on Release
Criteria for Decommissioning; Staff Draft for Comment.'' The Commission
requests comment on the appropriateness of the approach and the
methodology described in NUREG-1500.
As can be seen from Figures 7-1 through 7-11 of the GEIS, it
appears reasonable to expect that a number of licensees will be able to
remediate their sites to dose levels below the 15 mrem/yr limit at
reasonable cost. However, these same analyses indicate that in most
cases there are large incremental costs associated with reductions
below 3 mrem/yr, and that the incremental costs are due primarily to
the cost of demonstrating compliance rather than the cost of additional
remediation. Therefore, when attempting to achieve doses below 3 mrem/
y, costs can increase substantially with little or no additional
reduction in risk to public health or the environment. Section 7-5 of
the GEIS also indicates that levels of residual radioactivity which
produces a dose of 3 mrem/yr are generally difficult to distinguish
from natural background because they are comparable to local variations
in background radiation and substantially smaller than national
variations in background radiation. As a result, the staff draft
regulatory guide (NUREG-1500) proposes that, in order to minimize the
burden of documentation and analysis in such cases, the Commission
would consider documentation that the TEDE to the average member of the
critical group from all radionuclides distinguishable from background
does not exceed 3 mrem/y as sufficient for demonstrating compliance
with the ALARA requirement. The Commission invites comment on this
provision in the guide.
The proposed rule would broaden the definition of decommissioning
to include release for restricted use in addition to release for
unrestricted use. The underlying approach for restricted release is
that the risk for a member of the public should be limited to
acceptable levels, irrespective of whether that individual is exposed
during the conduct of some occupation or in residential or recreational
activities. Thus, the conditions for restricted release are premised on
restricting the use of the site so that average individual doses do not
exceed the 15 mrem/yr dose limit. While the circumstances of the
exposure (i.e., the duration or pathway) may thus be varied, the
underlying risk limit remains respected for any critical group of
individuals.
Licensees unable to meet the requirements for unrestricted use
would be allowed to request permission to release sites for restricted
use with subsequent termination of the license if they can demonstrate
that the following conditions have been met:
(1) Further reductions in residual radioactivity are not
technically achievable, the cost of achieving further reductions would
be prohibitively expensive, or further reductions would directly
produce environmental or public harm that is clearly excessive compared
to the health or environmental benefits achieved through these
reductions now or in the future.
The Commission has proposed this provision as the fundamental basis
for determining when a restricted termination of a license will be
appropriate. Technical achievability, prohibitive expenses, and
excessive environmental or public harm are the three areas in which the
Commission believes that alternative considerations should be examined
as part of the overall process of determining the most appropriate
action for a site. Clearly, if remediation is simply not possible given
the technological capabilities in existence at the time of
decommissioning, some other types of alternatives must be appropriate.
In terms of excessive costs, the Commission recognizes that there
may be situations where removal and disposal of large quantities of
material is simply not reasonable from a cost standpoint. An example of
this type of situation that has already been addressed is the disposal
of mill tailings, where a separate set of standards has been developed,
including provisions for institutional control. The third condition,
excessive environmental or public harm, has been included in
recognition that although remediations may be technically possible and
within the overall resources of society, the net damage, through
removal and disposal of materials, alteration of ecosystems, or
displacement of populations, could be too great to not be undertaken.
Considerations of this nature are best determined through public
participation, which is provided through provisions for a Site-Specific
Advisory Board.
The third condition also provides for the possibility that the net
environmental impact of completely remediating a site and then
constructing an entirely new site to perform a similar activity may be
inappropriate. An example of this could be the continued use of a site
for electrical power generation, where a number of existing facilities,
such as the turbine and electrical distribution system could be used
with a different energy source. This approach would need to be examined
on a case-by-case basis, and a determination made regarding the
appropriateness of remediating the site for unrestricted use vs some
type of restricted use in order to conserve environmental resources.
(2) There are adequate provisions for institutional and/or other
passive controls to provide reasonable assurance that the TEDE from
residual radioactivity to the average member of the critical group will
not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) per year. Institutional controls would
have to be enforceable by a responsible Government entity or in a court
of law in response to suits by affected parties.
This provision specifies the fundamental dose limit for
considerations of restricted termination. The core requirement is that
an individual should not be exposed to a greater level of risk than
that established for unrestricted use releases. Thus, the application
of restrictions must be able to reduce the average dose to the
appropriate critical group to the same 15 mrem/year value used as the
limit for unrestricted use. However, in the restricted use situation,
the critical group will be different from the critical group that would
need to be considered in the unrestricted situation. For example, a
restriction might be imposed that would prevent residential
applications or agricultural uses of the facility. These restrictions
would mean that critical group would have different exposure
characteristics (e.g., 8 hours per day while working in a building) and
thus, a larger quantity of radioactivity could be allowed to remain
onsite for the same dose.
(3) There is sufficient financial assurance to enable an
independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for
any necessary control and maintenance of the site. Acceptable financial
assurance mechanisms will include:
(i) Prepayment as described Sec. 30.35(f)(1);
(ii) Surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method as
described in Sec. 30.35(f)(2); or
(iii) Statement of intent in the case of Federal, State, or local
government licensees, as described in Sec. 30.35(f)(4).
This provision has been included to assure that mechanisms have
been established as necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness of
the controls that may be used to meet the dose limit. The ongoing
effectiveness of the restrictions will not necessarily be the
responsibility of the former licensee but could be vested in other
organizations, local governments, etc., which would continue cognizance
of the action. This responsibility could include periodic monitoring,
overviews of site access restrictions, or other activities that might
be necessary to support the proposed controls. Under this provision,
the amount of financial assurance that would be needed will be
determined on a site-specific basis, taking into account the proposed
restrictions, and the recommendations of the Site-Specific Advisory
Board.
(4) Residual radioactivity at the site has been reduced so that if
the site were released for unrestricted use, the TEDE from residual
radioactivity to the average member of the critical group is as low as
reasonably achievable and would not reasonably be expected to exceed
100 mrem (1 mSv) per year. This limit coincides with the NRC dose limit
for public exposure in 10 CFR Part 20.
This final condition is premised on the assumption that
circumstances could develop under which the restrictions, such as land
use or deed restrictions, might no longer be effective in limiting the
exposure scenarios. If, for example, a restriction against residential
or agricultural use were no longer effective in preventing those uses
of the land, then the assumptions about the exposure of the critical
group would no longer be valid. While this is not assumed to occur for
planning purposes, the Commission believes it is appropriate to have a
``safety net'' to prevent exposures in excess of the public dose
limits.
The development of this provision also has the effect of requiring
that some remediation be conducted at the site, rather than simply
allowing a licensee to develop a series of restrictions. The Commission
believes it appropriate that basic measures be taken to reduce the risk
and dose that could result from a site and that the public dose limits
form the minimum acceptable level of protection that should be provided
in the unlikely event that restrictions are not effective in reducing
the magnitude and scenarios of exposure.
The Commission specifically solicits public comment on the adequacy
of the 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year value as the ``safety net'' to prevent
exposures in excess of the public dose limits in the event that all
site restrictions fail. The recommendations of the ICRP and NCRP, as
well as Draft Federal Guidance being developed by the EPA, suggest
constraining the dose to members of the public from any single source
to less than 100 mrem/y as a way to ensure that the total public dose
from all sources does not exceed 100 mrem/y. The Commission has
followed this principle in establishing the dose limit for
decommissioning. However, in the case of the ``safety net'', the
Commission does not believe that fractionation would be necessary for
the following reasons:
(1) The 100 mrem/y cap, although being equivalent to the dose limit
for members of the public, represents a small fraction of the 500 mrem/
y dose that the Draft Federal Guidance suggests is acceptable for
members of the public in unusual circumstances. The Commission believes
that failure of all site restrictions at decommissioned sites is a
highly unlikely event.
(2) The 100 mrem/y value applies to the peak dose during the first
1000 years. For most radioisotopes, this peak dose occurs in the first
year and diminishes over time due to radioactive decay. This decay
provides an additional margin of safety which is equivalent to an a
priori fractionation of the limit.
(3) The 100 mrem/y value is less than the value selected for
controlling intruder scenarios for other types of facilities where some
type on institutional control (e.g. government ownership) is
contemplated.
However, the Commission is soliciting suggestions for alternatives
to the proposed safety net, including the use of some fraction of 100
mrem/y (e.g., 75 mrem/y) as the safety net. The Commission is
particularly interested in the relative merits of selecting a fraction
of the routine public dose limit in light of the required conservatism
in the calculation of the dose, and the rationale for selecting some
particular fraction. The Commission is also soliciting comments on the
relative benefits and impacts of the Commission's proposed safety net
and proposed options, including comments on the number of facilities
that could be impacted by selection of alternative values.
The Commission recognizes there may be unusual circumstances in
which the licensee may wish to seek an exemption from one or more of
the provisions of this subpart. For example, the licensee may feel it
is unnecessary to clean up a site to the requirements for unrestricted
release because the site is contained within a larger area where use
will be restricted for the foreseeable future. The Commission believes
these rare circumstances can adequately be handled under existing
provisions in Sec. 20.2301 which provides opportunity for the licensee
to request an exemption from any of the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20.
The Commission also recognizes there may be special environmental
or cultural issues associated with a particular decommissioning action
which would require more stringent implementation of the requirements
in this subpart. For example, there may be social or cultural issues
that have to be considered because the site is on or contiguous to
historical sites or Native American lands which contain religious or
sacred areas. However, the Commission believes these issues can best be
handled on a site-by-site basis as part of the licensing process and,
in most cases, would be taken into consideration when establishing
ALARA residual radioactivity levels for a site. The Commission does not
believe that further reductions in dose would be necessary to meet
social or cultural issues if the limit for unrestricted use is achieved
and ALARA has been applied. Where necessary, the provisions for public
comment and for a Site-Specific Advisory Board will provide a mechanism
for local citizens and other affected parties to be directly involved
in addressing these issues.
Public Participation in the Decommissioning Process
The Commission believes it is important for the public to not only
be fully informed of the decommissioning actions at a particular site
but also to be able to effectively participate in site decommissioning
decisions. The proposed rule will provide for public participation in
the decommissioning process through three mechanisms in addition to the
relevant NRC requirements regarding hearing opportunities for a
particular site.
Upon the receipt of a decommissioning plan from the licensee, or a
proposal by the licensee for restricted release of a site pursuant to
Sec. 20.1405, or whenever the Commission deems such notice to be in the
public interest, the Commission shall:
(1) Notify and solicit comments from local and State governments in
the vicinity of the site and Indian Nation or other indigenous people
that have treaty or statutory rights that could be affected by the
decommissioning;
(2) Publish a notice in the Federal Register as well as in other
media, such as local newspapers, which are readily accessible to
individuals in the vicinity of the site; and
(3) Solicit public comment on the proposed decommissioning action.
These provisions are designed to provide affected individuals and
organizations with both information about the proposed decommissioning
and an opportunity to provide comments on the licensee's proposal. The
Commission believes it is particularly important to provide notice in a
forum that is accessible to local individuals. This forum may vary from
site to site but would usually include providing notice to local media
for publication.
For decommissioning where the licensee does not propose to meet the
conditions for unrestricted release, the proposed rule would require
that the licensee convene a Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) as
described in Sec. 20.1407 for the purpose of obtaining advice from
affected parties regarding the proposed decommissioning. The purpose of
the SSAB would be to provide recommendations to the licensee on:
(1) Whether there are ways to reduce residual radioactivity to a
level necessary to comply with the provisions of Sec. 20.1404 which are
technically achievable, would not be prohibitively expensive, and would
not result in net public or environmental harm;
(2) Whether provisions for institutional controls proposed by the
licensee will:
(a) Provide reasonable assurance that the TEDE from residual
radioactivity distinguishable from background to the average member of
the critical group will not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE per year;
(b) Be enforceable; and
(c) Impose undue burdens on the local community or other affected
parties.
(3) Whether the licensee has provided sufficient financial
assurance to enable an independent third party to assume and carry out
responsibilities for any necessary control and maintenance of the site.
The areas in which the SSAB would be expected to provide
recommendations parallel the areas that a licensee must address as part
of its proposal for a restricted termination of license. The intent of
the provision is to provide a mechanism for early public involvement in
the development of the decommissioning plan for the site. To the extent
that local public involvement may be vital to the successful
implementation of land use restrictions, involvement of representatives
of local government, affected citizens, Native Americans, and other
interested parties in the Site-Specific Advisory Board is important to
the long-term effectiveness of the decommissioning action. In order for
the participation to be most effective, it should come during the
development of the plan, rather than as comment after the licensee has
spent significant resources to develop its proposal. Hence, the
recommendations of the SSAB are to be included in the decommissioning
plan along with the licensee's disposition of those recommendations. It
is important to note that the opportunity for comment provisions would
still be applicable even when a SSAB had been used in the development
of the decommissioning plan.
Site-Specific Advisory Board
The SSAB has been patterned after the recommendations contained in
the Interim Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration
Dialog Committee (FFERDC) entitled ``Recommendations For Improving the
Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Decision-Making and
Priority Setting Processes, February 1993,'' which is a consensus
document developed by over 40 members of a committee chartered by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The diverse members of the
FFERDC represented Federal, Tribal, State, environmental, labor, and
citizen interests. It is designed to respond to the desire expressed by
many workshop commenters that local affected parties have early and
substantive input into the decommissioning process on a site-specific
basis. The SSAB would supplement and not supplant existing NRC
procedures that provide for public input into the regulatory process.
The Commission believes that increasing the opportunity for early
public involvement in the decommissioning process is an effective way
to provide an information exchange and to ensure credible and
defensible licensing decisions, especially when the long-term
effectiveness of the land use restrictions may depend on community
knowledge and involvement in their development and application. The
Commission would emphasize that the operation of the SSAB is not
intended to usurp the traditional land use authority of the local or
State government. In fact, many of the institutional controls that may
be recommended by an SSAB to ensure the restricted use of a site will
depend on the exercise of this traditional authority by the local or
State government.
Licensee notification to the Commission of intent to decommission
in accordance with Secs. 30.36(b), 40.42(b), 50.82(a), 70.38(b) or
72.54 would have to specify whether the licensee intends to reduce
residual radioactivity at the site to levels which would allow the site
to be released for unrestricted use. If not, the licensee would be
required to submit a plan for establishing and supporting an SSAB with
the notification.
The licensee would be responsible for establishing the SSAB and
developing appropriate ground rules and operating procedures for the
SSAB with the advice of the SSAB. The SSAB would consist of about 10
members plus an ex officio representative from the Commission. This
number of members is expected to allow for adequate representation of
affected parties without allowing the group to become so large that it
cannot perform its function effectively. The licensee would be required
to provide adequate administrative support for SSAB activities and
provide the SSAB access to studies and analyses pertinent to the
proposed decommissioning.
Membership of the SSAB, to the extent that representatives are
willing to participate, would have to:
(1) Reflect the fullest practical range of interests in the
affected community and region and be composed primarily of individuals
who could be directly affected by residual radioactivity at the
decommissioned site, and
(2) Include representatives from the licensee; local and State
governments; workers; persons residing in the vicinity of the site;
citizen, environmental, environmental justice, and public interest
groups; and Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have treaty
of statutory rights that could be affected.
Meetings of the SSAB would be open to the public. The licensee
would be required to provide adequate public notice of the location,
time, date, and agenda for the meetings at least 2 weeks in advance of
each meeting. All records generated or reviewed by the SSAB would
become part of the decommissioning docket, and would be available for
public inspection.
In most cases it is expected that the work of the SSAB would be
completed after it had formally submitted its advice to the licensee.
However, there may be some cases (e.g., where the licensee's plan is
substantially altered following NRC review) in which the SSAB may have
a continuing role in providing advice to the licensee. In any case, it
is anticipated that the SSAB would be dissolved after the license has
been terminated.
The Commission is seeking comment on whether there are situations
where it might be inappropriate or infeasible to establish an SSAB
under conditions set forth in Sec. 20.1406(b). For example, are there
situations where establishment of an SSAB would be inconsistent with
other governmental regulations and statutes, or are there circumstances
in which local government officials may not be allowed to participate
in privately funded advisory groups. If so, what alternatives would be
available to satisfy the objectives of public participation and input?
Should criteria be incorporated in the regulation for granting
exemptions to the requirements of Sec. 20.1406(b) for good cause. If
so, what criteria might be appropriate?
The Commission is also seeking comment on what the content of
descriptive information on membership, size, operating procedures,
administrative support, and distribution of agendas should include, and
whether this information should be included in the rule or in a
regulatory guide or other document.
General Provisions
Readily Removable Residual Radioactivity
It is clear that some structures can easily be decontaminated to
levels well below those necessary to reduce individual doses from
residual radioactivity at a decommissioned site to a few mrem TEDE/y
above background. Past decommissioning practice has been based on the
premise that ``the licensee should make a reasonable effort to
eliminate residual radioactivity.'' See Regulatory Guide 1.86,
``Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors,'' June 1974,
pg. 3. Some previously released structures have been decontaminated to
levels below those specified in Regulatory Guide 1.86 for some
nuclides. Therefore, the Commission proposes to require that all
readily removable residual radioactivity be removed from a site before
it is decommissioned. This is considered a necessary and reasonable
step toward ensuring that doses to the public from residual
radioactivity are ALARA. For the purpose of this proposed regulation,
the Commission has defined readily removable to mean removable using
non-destructive, 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. This would
not include techniques that produce chemical wastes that are expected
to adversely affect public health or the environment. It would also not
include removal and transport of soil except when small discreet areas
of contamination can be removed by digging up a few shovelfuls of soil.
The intent of these proposed provisions is to define the basic
types of remediation that should be undertaken as a matter of good
practice regardless of whether the site meets the NRC residual
radioactivity criteria. However, it is not the Commission's intent to
require more substantive remediation without the benefit of careful
planning and ALARA considerations. The Commission specifically solicits
comments on how to best define the activities that should be included
under this provision.
Radioactive Materials Previously Disposed of at the Site
Under NRC regulations, licensees may dispose of radioactive wastes
on their own property. Before 1981, NRC regulations (10 CFR 20.304)
allowed disposal without prior approval of limited quantities of
specified nuclides under prescribed conditions. On July 28, 1981,
Sec. 20.304 was revoked because the Commission did not have sufficient
assurance that these disposals would be adequately protective. However,
onsite disposal can still be undertaken by individual licensees under
10 CFR 20.2002 (previously Sec. 20.302), provided the disposal is
specifically approved by the NRC or an Agreement State. If this buried
radioactive material is considered to be part of the licensee's total
site inventory for decommissioning purposes, some licensees will likely
be required to remove all or part of this material before
decommissioning the site. This position may be controversial because it
can be argued that materials already disposed of in accordance with
existing NRC requirements should no longer be considered part of the
licensees inventory of radioactive material. Nevertheless, removal of
the previous burials may be necessary to achieve the proposed
radiological criteria and ensure sufficient protection of the public
and environment.
In this proposed rulemaking, the Commission takes the position that
public and environmental risk is the overriding factor. Therefore all
residual radioactivity at the site, including that previously disposed
of in accordance with NRC requirements in Secs. 20.304, 20.302, and
20.2002 must be included in determining whether the licensee meets the
radiological criteria in the proposed rule. However, the Commission is
aware that the balancing of risks, costs, and benefits may be
substantially different for exhuming buried material than they would be
for decontamination of surface soils and structures. Therefore, it is
expected that before any decision is made to exhume radioactive
material previously disposed of at a site, the licensee will perform a
site-specific analysis of the overall risks, costs, and benefits of
this action.
This position is consistent with positions already taken by the NRC
on this issue. In the Supplementary Information to the Final Rule
``General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities''
(published on June 27, 1988, 53 FR 24021), the Commission states it
will ``take a hard look at the extent to which the site has been used
to dispose of low level radioactive wastes by land burial, and will
decide what remedial measures including removal of such wastes offsite,
are appropriate before the site can be released for unrestricted use.''
In the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) the NRC staff notes
that ``disposals performed under 10 CFR 20.304 have at several sites
required exhumation during the decommissioning and takes the position
that acceptability of these burials will be assessed in future
decommissioning procedures.'' See SECY-91-096, Enclosure 1 ``Site
Decommissioning Management Program, Revision 1 (January 1991)'' p. 16.
See also, the draft Regulatory Guide on ``Standard Format and Content
for Decommissioning Plans for Nuclear Reactors,'' which states that the
licensee's plan should indicate the extent of waste burial onsite and
the remedial measures appropriate before the site can be released for
unrestricted use.
Use of Actual Measurements
Although the Commission recognizes that it will be necessary in
many cases for the licensee to use modeling to estimate the TEDE to the
average member of the critical group from residual radioactivity at the
site, the proposed rule would require that estimates of the site
specific source term (i.e., residual radioactivity remaining at the
site) be substantiated using actual measurements to the maximum extent
practical. The reason for this substantiation of estimates is that
using actual measurements reduces the uncertainty associated with the
estimates and provides a greater measure of assurance that radiological
requirements are being met. It is expected that substantiation would be
carried out in accordance with the survey requirements in 10 CFR
20.1501. Information and guidance related to surveys and use of
measurement techniques have been published in draft form for public
comment as NUREG/CR-5849. An NRC staff working draft regulatory guide
is being published with this proposed rulemaking which specifically
addresses these topics. The Commission plans to publish further
guidance in draft form before the effective date of the final rule.
Time Frame
There is some difference of opinion on how far into the future
calculations should be carried out for the purpose of establishing
acceptable residual radioactivity levels for decommissioned sites.
Current NRC staff practice is to calculate projected doses out to 1,000
years in the future in evaluating radiological impacts associated with
residual radioactivity. This is consistent with current DOE practice.
See, Order DOE 5400.5 ``Radiation Protection of the Public and
Environment.'' EPA's high level waste regulations require that
cumulative releases to the environment be calculated out to 10,000
years. See, 40 CFR part 191 (Note: 40 CFR part 191 was remanded by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in July 1987, and is being
reconsidered by EPA.) However, there are some who think such
calculations should be carried out to provide estimates of potential
contamination of groundwater for tens or even hundreds of thousands of
years into the future.
When predicting thousands of years into the future, uncertainties
become very large because of major potential changes in the
hydrogeologic regime at the site over these long periods of time. When
the potential consequences of exposure to the radioactive source are
great; e.g., as in the case of a high-level waste repository, distant
future calculations may provide some insight concerning the relative
magnitude of consequences. However, the consequences of exposure to
residual radioactivity at levels near background are small, and
considering the large uncertainties, long term modeling of near
background doses may be virtually meaningless. In light of this, the
Commission does not believe it would serve any useful purpose to
attempt to estimate radiation doses from residual radioactivity
thousands of years into the future.
Although theoretical maximum doses for a few isotopic decay chains
do not occur for hundreds or thousands of years, for most radionuclides
of interest in decommissioning the peak dose occurs in less than 1,000
years. Therefore, the Commission proposes to require that TEDE
estimates be based on the greatest annual dose expected within the
first 1000 years after decommissioning. This annual dose must be
interpreted as the TEDE delivered in that year, including the committed
dose equivalent from radionuclides taken into the body during that
year. The Commission notes that a time frame of 1,000 years is also
being considered by the EPA, as indicated in the draft regulatory
language, discussed during the NACEPT Meeting in May 1994.
Risk Considerations in ALARA Calculations
A number of commenters at the workshops on decommissioning stated
that all risks should be taken into account when setting requirements
for decommissioning a site. A principal concern was that the
Commission, in an attempt to reduce residual radioactivity levels at a
site, would establish cleanup requirements which could result in an
overall risk increase, or in risk transference, rather than risk
reduction. For example, in an attempt to clean up a site for
decommissioning, the licensee may increase risk to persons along
transportation routes and at the site where the material is finally
disposed by transporting large volumes of debris from the site. In
addition, disposal of large quantities of low-level radioactive debris
at licensed low-level waste disposal sites could deplete the capacity
of existing sites and ultimately result in a proliferation of licensed
disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste.
The Commission, recognizing the validity of these concerns,
proposes to require that the licensee, when determining ALARA, consider
all significant radiation doses and risks resulting from residual
radioactivity and the decommissioning process itself, including
transportation and disposal of radioactive wastes generated in the
process. This analysis would be part of the decommissioning plan and
would be available for comment by interested parties under the public
participation provisions described earlier in this notice.
In order to ensure compatibility with EPA groundwater standards,
the proposed rule requires licensees to remediate their sites so there
is a reasonable expectation that residual radioactivity from the site
will not cause the level of radioactivity in any groundwater that is a
current or potential source of drinking water to exceed the limits
specified in 40 CFR Part 141 as they exist on the effective date of
this regulation.
Groundwater Protection
Section 20.1404(d) of the proposed rule would require that
licensees demonstrate a reasonable expectation that residual
radioactivity from a decommissioned site will not cause the level of
radioactivity in any groundwater that is a current or potential source
of drinking water to exceed the limits specified in 40 CFR Part 141.
This provision is in addition to the overall radiological criterion for
unrestricted release in 10 CFR 20.1404(a)(i) that the residual
radioactivity that is distinguishable from background radiation results
in a TEDE to the average member of the critical group that does not
exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) per year.
The Commission is soliciting comments on the proposed groundwater
protection requirement. In particular, the Commission solicits comments
on the following:
1. Is a separate standard needed for groundwater when the overall
radiological criterion of 15 mrem applies to all pathways,
2. Given that natural background is included in 40 CFR 141, and
given that for pathways of exposure covered by this rule, background is
excluded, what alternatives exist for reconciling this difference in
approach?
3. Is it appropriate to apply a drinking water standard (``at the
tap'') to groundwater in all cases.
Minimization of Contamination
Many commenters at the workshops on decommissioning expressed the
opinion that the Commission should be placing more emphasis on ensuring
that licensed facilities are designed and operated in a way that would
minimize the amount of radioactive contamination generated at the site
during its operating lifetime. The Commission is sympathetic with this
view. Therefore, the Commission proposes to require that applicants for
licenses, except for renewals, describe in their applications 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. This
provision is a prospective requirement for new licensees to examine
contamination and waste minimization early in the process of facility
design and license approval.
The Commission considers that under existing regulations it is
reasonable to expect new licensees, other than renewals, to provide for
ease of decommissioning and minimization of waste when designing and
operating facilities. However, given past experience, the Commission
believes that this new requirement is necessary to focus applicant's
attention on the type of facility design and good housekeeping
practices needed to minimize the types of problems the Commission has
had to face with problem sites like those addressed in the Commission's
Site Decommissioning Management Plan (NUREG-1444, October 1993).
Timeliness
The Commission does not want to create a situation where time
requirements for completing decommissioning would make it difficult or
impossible for licensees to safely and properly remediate large,
complex, or otherwise difficult to decommission facilities. Therefore,
the Commission is requesting comments on whether the criteria contained
in this proposed rule can be met within the time frames that were
specified in the final rule on ``Timeliness in Decommissioning of
Materials Facilities.''
In particular, the Commission is soliciting comments on whether
licensees that anticipate having to establish an SSAB should be
exempted from the generic timeliness requirements. If so, what
alternative provisions could be made to assure timely decommissioning
of the site? For example, could licensees be required to provide site-
specific decommissioning schedules during the earliest stages of
decommissioning, or during preparation for decommissioning, e.g., in
the decommissioning plan.
Relationship Between the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and
Site-Specific Decommissioning Actions
The Generic Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the
Commission on this rulemaking evaluates the environmental impacts
associated with the remediation of several types of NRC-licensed
facilities to residual radioactivity levels ranging from 100 mrem/yr
TEDE down to 0 mrem TEDE (background). The Commission believes that the
generic analysis will encompass the impacts that will occur in any
Commission decision to decommission an individual site. Therefore, the
Commission plans to rely on the GEIS to satisfy its obligations under
the National Environmental Policy Act in regard to individual
decommissioning decisions that meet the 15 mrem/yr criterion for
unrestricted use. However, the Commission will still initiate a
preliminary environmental review in regard to any particular site to
determine if the generic analysis encompasses the range of
environmental impacts at that particular site.
The proposed rule would also provide for the termination of the
license and the release of a site under restricted conditions if the
licensee can demonstrate that the use of land use restrictions or other
types of institutional controls will provide reasonable assurance that
the 15 mrem/yr limit can be met. The types of controls and their
contribution to providing reasonable assurance that the 15 mrem/yr
limit can be met for a particular site will differ for each site in
this category. Therefore, the environmental impacts 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.
The GEIS indicates that the decommissioning of 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, for these categories of licensees, the
Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 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.
Use of Land Use Restrictions or Other Types of Institutional Controls
To Allow Termination of the License and Release of the Site Under
Restricted Conditions
Although the Commission anticipates that most licenses can be
terminated for unrestricted use, the Commission also anticipates that
there may be situations where the site radiological criteria can only
be met through the use of land use or other types of institutional
controls which will restrict the site to specific uses. For example,
there may be some sites where unrestricted use for agricultural
purposes or residential uses would cause the proposed criteria to be
exceeded. However, restricting the same site to industrial or
commercial uses would enable the site to meet the 15 mrem/y TEDE dose
limit because the exposure pathways would be limited. The licensee,
with the advice of the Site Specific Advisory Board, would propose
certain types of land use or institutional controls in the
decommissioning plan submitted for Commission approval, to provide
reasonable assurance that the site would be limited to the types of
uses that would enable the proposed criteria to be met.
Examples of these controls include traditional zoning controls to
restrict the use of the site to specific uses, the imposition of deed
restrictions such as restrictive covenants or equitable servitudes to
restrict the land to certain uses, negative easements where the
licensee-landowner agrees to restrict the use of the land to specified
uses, licensee agreements to restrict the use of certain portions of
the land (for example, restricting access to a particular building), or
even some type of government ownership of the property. Whatever type
of controls are proposed by the licensee, the licensee must demonstrate
that the controls proposed have a reasonable expectation of
enforcement. A decommissioning plan that is dependent on land use or
institutional controls whose enforcement are speculative would not be
approved.
Implementation
The Commission recognizes that demonstrating that radioisotope
levels at a site are indistinguishable from background may be a complex
task involving sophisticated sampling, measuring, and statistical
analysis techniques. The difficulty of the task can vary substantially
depending on a number of factors that include the radionuclide in
question, the background level for that and other radionuclides at the
site, and the temporal and spatial variations in background radiation
at the site. Therefore, in order to assist the licensee in making these
determinations, the Commission will publish specific guidance on
acceptable methods which can be used by the licensee to demonstrate
that the concentrations of specific radionuclides at the site are
indistinguishable from background. The Commission will also publish
specific guidance on acceptable methods for estimating annual TEDE to
the average member of the Critical Group. This guidance will include a
discussion of the type of scenarios and exposure pathways which should
be considered, and computer models for estimating the annual TEDE to
the average member of the critical group. The computer models will
include screening models which employ generically derived conservative
assumptions and factors.
However, licensees will be able to substitute assumptions and
factors more appropriate to a particular site if they can demonstrate
that these factors and assumptions reasonably reflect the conditions at
the site. Licensees may also use other models or methods for estimating
TEDE provided they can demonstrate to the Commission that these models
or methods provide reasonable estimates for the site to be
decommissioned. When using modeling to estimate doses from
radioactivity remaining at the site, the licensee will be able to use
site specific parameters wherever practical. In the absence of site-
specific information, the licensee must use parameters which provide a
sufficient margin of safety that the Commission can make a finding that
there is reasonable assurance the TEDE criteria in this part will be
met.
An NRC staff working draft regulatory guide will be published
simultaneously with the proposed rule as NUREG-1500, ``Working Draft
Regulatory Guide on Release Criteria for Decommissioning: NRC Staff's
Draft for Comment.'' This publication allows licensees and interested
members of the public to provide early comment during the developmental
process. The draft regulatory guide has no official regulatory
standing. The NRC staff anticipates that the draft regulatory guide
will be published with the final rule and will incorporate public
comments and the results of continued technical development activities.
The draft regulatory guide published with the final rule will be for
interim use and comment to fulfill the rule requirements and test
implementation options. The final regulatory guide will be published
approximately 1 to 2 years after publication of the final rule and
would take into consideration comments on the draft guide as well as
information regarding experience in implementing the draft guidance.
The draft regulatory guide provides guidance on methods that are
acceptable to the NRC staff for determining the predicted dose level
(PDL) from any residual contamination remaining at a facility, that
should be compared to the numerical dose criteria specified in the
regulation. It describes the basic features of the calculational models
and the associated default assumptions and parameter values that the
NRC staff would find acceptable in calculating PDLs. Appendices to the
guide provide numerical values that are used to estimate the dose from
various residual radioactivity levels remaining at a facility. Also
included are the considerations inherent in the ALARA process for
decommissioning. Because the proposed 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E,
introduces several new concepts, a regulatory position concepts section
containing definitions and discussions is included to assist licensees
in understanding some of the philosophy underlying the rule. The
regulatory position concepts section is followed by the regulatory
position procedures section that describes actions the licensee can
take to implement the requirements of the decommissioning rule.
The Commission has also issued the following supporting documents
to provide guidance on implementation of the residual contamination
criteria in the proposed rule:
(1) ``Guidance Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in
Support of License Termination'' (NUREG/CR-5849), and
(2) Technical Basis Document, ``Residual Radioactive Contamination
from Decommissioning: Technical Basis for Translating Contamination
Levels to Annual TEDE'' (NUREG/CR-5512).
The Guidance Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys is intended
to provide licensees with specific guidance on planning, conducting,
and documenting site surveys which could be used to demonstrate that
the site has been decontaminated to a level consistent with the
Commission's criteria. The Technical Basis Document would provide an
acceptable method for translating residual radioactivity levels
(measurable quantities) to doses to individuals. Generic dose rate
conversion factors are being developed for screening. In addition, the
technical basis is expected to include a computer model which can be
used for conducting a screening scenario/pathway analyses with site-
specific parameters so that site-specific dose rate conversion factors
can be calculated. The NRC anticipates that in most cases these dose
rate conversion factors could be used to determine compliance with
criteria resulting from the rulemaking action.
The NRC staff is continuing to work with the EPA and the DOE in the
development of coordinated Federal Agency guidance on site surveys. The
Commission anticipates endorsing such guidance for use in demonstrating
compliance with the requirements of this rulemaking when it becomes
available.
Agreement State Compatibility
The Commission currently is developing a new policy on Agreement
State compatibility which will be issued for public comment in the near
future. The compatibility determination for the radiological criteria
for decommissioning will be considered in regard to the implementation
of the new compatibility policy. Therefore, the Commission believes
that it would be premature to make a proposed compatibility
determination on the radiological criteria for decommissioning at this
time. However, for the purpose of facilitating the ultimate resolution
of the compatibility determination for the radiological criteria for
decommissioning, the Commission welcomes any comments on this issue. In
particular, the Commission invites comments on to what extent and under
what circumstances should an Agreement State be authorized to establish
more stringent requirements than those set forth in NRC radiological
criteria for decommissioning.
Draft 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 draft generic environmental impact statement
(NUREG-1496) on this proposed rule. For informational purposes and ease
of distribution, Appendix A of the draft generic environmental impact
statement has been published as a separate report, ``Background as a
Residual Radioactivity Criterion for Decommissioning: Appendix A of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Radiological
Criteria for Rulemaking on Decommissioning'' NUREG-1501.
The draft 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 draft generic
environmental impact statement (NUREG-1496) or Appendix A of the draft
generic environmental impact statement (NUREG-1501) may be obtained by
written request or telefax (301-504-2260) from: Distribution Services,
Printing and Mail Services Branch, Office of Administration, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Background documents on the rulemaking, including the text of the
proposed rule, the Draft GEIS, Appendix A of the Draft GEIS, the
Regulatory Analysis, and the staff's working draft Regulatory Guide 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.
The NRC requests public comment on the draft generic environmental
impact statement. Comments on the draft statement may be submitted to
the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that
are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and approval of the information collection
requirements.
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 regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information and Records
Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0014), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this
proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of
the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft 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 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
proposed rule, the Draft GEIS, Appendix A of the Draft GEIS, the
Regulatory Analysis, and the NRC staff working draft Regulatory Guide
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.
The Commission requests public comment on the draft analysis.
Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated
under the ADDRESSES heading.
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 proposed rule would cover all 22,000 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 Section 4.5 of the Regulatory Analysis.
Although there is no indication that this proposed rule would
significantly impact a substantial number of small entities, the NRC is
seeking comments from small entities that may be impacted by the rule.
Any small entity subject to this regulation which determines that,
because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse
economic impact should notify the Commission of this in a comment that
indicates the following:
(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would
result in a significant economic burden upon the licensee as compared
to the economic burden on a larger licensee;
(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into
account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities;
(c) The benefits that would accrue, or the detriments that would be
avoided, if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the
licensee;
(d) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely
equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to
the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special
advantages to any individual or group; and
(e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still
adequately protect public health and safety.
Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does
not apply to this proposed rule and therefore, that a backfit analysis
is not required for this proposed rule because these amendments do not
involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1).
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, Incorporation by reference, 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, 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. 553; the NRC is proposing to
adopt 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 10 CFR 20.1003, ``Definitions,'' the definition of background
radiation is revised and new definitions Critical Group,
Decommissioning, Indistinguishable from background, Readily removable,
Residual Radioactivity, and Site-Specific Advisory Board 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 like Chernobyl which 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.
* * * * *
Indistinguishable from background means that the detectable
concentration of a radionuclide is not 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.
* * * * *
Readily removable means removable using non-destructive, 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 or produce chemical wastes that are
expected to adversely affect public health or the environment.
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *
Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) means a committee constituted
by the licensee to provide advice to the licensee on decommissioning.
* * * * *
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. 20.1101, 20.1202, 20.1204, 20.1206, 20.1301,
20.1302, 20.1403, 20.1405, 20.1407, 20.1408, 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, 20.2110,
20.2201, 20.2202, 20.2203, 20.2204, 20.2206, and Appendix F.
4. A new Subpart E entitled ``Radiological Criteria for
Decommissioning,'' is added to 10 CFR Part 20 to read as follows:
Subpart E--Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning
Sec.
20.1401 Scope.
20.1402 Concepts.
20.1403 General provisions.
20.1404 Radiological criteria for unrestricted release.
20.1405 Criteria for license termination under restricted
conditions.
20.1406 Notification and public participation.
20.1407 Site-Specific Advisory Board.
20.1408 Minimization of contamination.
Sec. 20.1401 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. For uranium mills, the criteria apply to
decommissioning of the facility but not to the disposal of uranium mill
tailings or to soil cleanup. (See Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40).
(b) The criteria in this subpart do not apply to sites already
covered by a decommissioning plan approved by the Commission before
[insert effective date of rule] and in accordance with the criteria
identified in the Site Decommissioning Management Plan Action Plan of
April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13389).
(c) After a site has been decommissioned and the license terminated
in accordance with the criteria in this 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.
(d) This subpart also requires that, after the effective date of
rule, applicants for licenses, other than renewals, describe in the
application 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.
Sec. 20.1402 Concepts.
(a) The objective of decommissioning is to reduce the residual
radioactivity in structures, materials, 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 radionuclide. The
Commission realizes that, as a practical matter, it would be extremely
difficult to demonstrate that such an objective has been met.
Therefore, the Commission has established a site release limit and is
requiring that licensees demonstrate that the residual radioactivity at
a site is as far below this limit as reasonably achievable.
(b) The limit for release of a site is 15 mrem/y (0.15 mSv/y) Total
Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) to an average member of the Critical
Group for residual radioactivity distinguishable from background. If
doses from residual radioactivity are less than 15 mrem/y TEDE, the
Commission will terminate the license and authorize release of the site
for unrestricted use following the licensee's demonstration that the
residual radioactivity at the site has been reduced to As Low As
Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).
(c) ALARA considerations must include all significant risks to
humans and the environment resulting from the decommissioning process.
Licensees shall demonstrate why further reductions below the limit are
not reasonably achievable. Depending on the site-specific ALARA
analysis, any dose level less than or equal to 15 mrem/y may be
considered ALARA. However, in many situations, licensees may have
little or no site contamination and should be able to readily achieve
the overall objective for decommissioning (e.g., licensees that use
only sealed sources or short-lived radioisotopes).
(d) The Commission expects the licensee to make every reasonable
effort to reduce residual radioactivity to levels that will allow
unrestricted release of the site. However, the Commission will consider
terminating a license in cases where restrictions must be imposed on
the use of the site to ensure that public doses are maintained below
the 15 mrem/y (0.15 mSv/y) TEDE limit, provided the licensee:
(1) Can demonstrate by analysis of the benefits and risks of
further reduction that residual radioactivity at the site is ALARA and
that further reductions in residual radioactivity necessary to comply
with the 15 mrem/y TEDE limit for unrestricted use are not technically
achievable, would be prohibitively expensive, or would result in net
public or environmental harm;
(2) Has made adequate provisions for institutional controls to
reduce annual TEDE from residual radioactivity distinguishable from
background to the average member of the appropriate critical group to
15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE;
(3) Has provided sufficient financial assurance to enable an
independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for
any necessary control and maintenance of the site; and
(4) Has reduced the residual radioactivity at the site so that the
TEDE from residual radioactivity would not exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) per
year even if the restrictions applied in the termination were no longer
effective in limiting the possible scenarios or pathways of exposure.
Sec. 20.1403 General provisions.
(a) When calculating TEDE, the licensee shall base estimates on the
greatest annual TEDE dose expected within the first 1000 years after
decommissioning. Estimates must be substantiated using actual
measurements to the maximum extent practical.
(b) When determining ALARA, the licensee shall consider all
significant risks to humans and the environment resulting from the
decommissioning process (including transportation and disposal of
radioactive wastes generated in the process) and from residual
radioactivity remaining at the site following termination of the
license.
(c) During decommissioning, the licensee shall take reasonable
steps to remove all readily removable residual radioactivity from the
site.
(d) The licensee shall demonstrate a reasonable expectation that
residual radioactivity from the site will not cause the level of
radioactivity in any groundwater that is a current or potential source
of drinking water to exceed the limits specified in 40 CFR Part 141 as
they exist on [insert effective date of this regulation].
(e) Licensee notification to the Commission of intent to
decommission in accordance with Secs. 30.36(b), 40.42(b), 50.82(a),
70.38(b) or 72.54 of this chapter shall specify whether the licensee
intends to decommission in accordance with Sec. 20.1405. Licensees
proposing to decommission in accordance with Sec. 20.1405 shall submit
a plan for establishing and supporting a Site Specific Advisory Board
(SSAB).
(f) Licensees proposing to decommission in accordance with
Sec. 20.1405, shall submit a decommissioning plan to the Commission.
This plan shall include the recommendations of the SSAB and the
licensee's proposed analysis and disposition of this advice.
Sec. 20.1404 Radiological criteria for unrestricted release.
A site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if:
(a) The residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from
background radiation results in a TEDE to the average member of the
critical group that does not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) per year; and
(b) The residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are
as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Sec. 20.1405 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. 20.1404 are not technically achievable, would be prohibitively
expensive, or would result in net public or environmental harm; and
(b) The licensee has made provisions for 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 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE per year.
Institutional controls must be enforceable by a responsible government
entity or in a court of law in response to suits by affected parties;
and
(c) The licensee has provided sufficient financial assurance to
enable an independent third party 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; or
(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.
(d) 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 would not exceed 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year, and is as low as
reasonably achievable. Calculations used to show compliance with this
provision may not assume any benefits from earthen cover or other
earthen barriers unless specifically authorized by the Commission.
Sec. 20.1406 Public notification and public participation.
(a) Upon the receipt of a decommissioning plan from the licensee,
or a proposal by the licensee for restricted release of a site pursuant
to Sec. 20.1405, or whenever the Commission deems such notice to be in
the public interest, the Commission shall:
(1) Notify and solicit comments from 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) Publish a notice in the Federal Register and in a forum, such
as local newspapers, which is readily accessible to individuals in the
vicinity of the site and solicit comments from affected parties.
(b) For decommissioning where the licensee does not propose to meet
the conditions for unrestricted release pursuant to Sec. 20.1404 of
this part, the licensee shall convene a Site Specific Advisory Board
(SSAB) as described in Sec. 20.1407 for the purpose of obtaining advice
from affected parties regarding the proposed decommissioning.
Sec. 20.1407 Site Specific Advisory Board.
(a) The SSAB should provide advice to the licensee, as appropriate,
on:
(1) Whether there are ways to reduce residual radioactivity to a
level necessary to comply with the provisions of Sec. 20.1404 which are
technically achievable, would not be prohibitively expensive and would
not result in net public or environmental harm;
(2) Whether provisions for institutional controls proposed by the
licensee:
(i) Will provide reasonable assurance that the TEDE from residual
radioactivity distinguishable from background to the average member of
the critical group will not exceed 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) TEDE per year;
(ii) Will be enforceable; and
(iii) Will impose undue burdens on the local community or other
affected parties.
(3) Whether the licensee has provided sufficient financial
assurance to enable an independent third party to assume and carry out
responsibilities for any necessary control and maintenance of the site.
(b) Membership of the SSAB shall to the extent that representatives
are willing to participate:
(1) Reflect the full range of interests in the affected community
and region, and be composed of individuals who could be directly
affected by residual radioactivity at the decommissioned site;
(2) Be selected from individuals nominated by organizations which
represent these interests; and
(3) Include representatives from the licensee; local and state
governments; persons residing in the vicinity of the site; citizen,
environmental, environmental justice, and other public interest groups;
and Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have treaty or
statutory rights that could be affected.
(c) The SSAB shall consist of approximately 10 members plus an ex
officio representative selected by the Commission.
(d) The licensee shall be responsible for establishing the SSAB and
the developing of appropriate SSAB operating procedures with the advice
of the SSAB.
(e) The licensee shall provide adequate administrative support for
SSAB activities and shall provide the SSAB access to studies and
analyses that are readily available to the licensee and are pertinent
to the proposed decommissioning.
(f) Meetings of the SSAB are open to the public. The licensee shall
provide adequate public notice of the location, time, date, and agenda
for the meetings at least 2 weeks in advance of each meeting. All
records generated or reviewed by the SSAB become part of the docket,
must be retained by the licensee until the license is terminated, and
must be available for public inspection.
Sec. 20.1408 Minimization of contamination.
Applicants for licenses, other than renewals, after [insert
effective date of rule], 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.
PART 30--RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF
BYPRODUCT MATERIAL
5. 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, (42
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).
6. In Sec. 30.4, ``Definitions,'' 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.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 30.35, paragraph (g)(3)(iv) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 30.35 Financial assurance and record keeping for decommissioning.
* * * * *
(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 20, subpart E, or apply for approval for disposal under 10
CFR 20.2002.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 30.36, paragraphs (c)(1)(v),(d), and (f)(3) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 30.36 Expiration and termination of licenses.
* * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
(v) 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 that the premises are suitable
for release in accordance with NRC requirements in some other manner.
* * * * *
(d) If the information submitted under paragraphs (c)(1)(v) or
(c)(3) of this section does not adequately demonstrate that the
premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements,
the Commission will inform the licensee of the appropriate further
actions required for termination of license.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) (i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates
that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC
requirements; or
(ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to
demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release in accordance
with NRC requirements.
PART 40--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL
9. 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).
10. In Sec. 40.4, ``Definitions,'' the definition of decommission
is revised to read:
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.
* * * * *
11. In Sec. 40.36, paragraph (f)(3)(iv) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 40.36 Financial assurance and record keeping for decommissioning.
* * * * *
(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 20, subpart E, or apply for approval for disposal under 10
CFR 20.2002.
* * * * *
12. In Sec. 40.42, paragraphs (c)(1)(v),(d), and (f)(3) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 40.42 Expiration and termination of licenses.
* * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
(v) 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 that the premises are suitable
for release in accordance with NRC requirements in some other manner.
The licensee shall, as appropriate--
* * * * *
(d) If the information submitted under paragraphs (c)(1)(v) or
(c)(3) of this section does not adequately demonstrate that the
premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements,
the Commission will inform the licensee of the appropriate further
actions required for termination of license.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) (i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates
that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC
requirements; or
(ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to
demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release in accordance
with NRC requirements.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
13. 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).
14. In Sec. 50.2, ``Definitions,'' the definition of decommission
is revised to read:
Sec. 50.2 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.
* * * * *
15. In Sec. 50.82, paragraph (f)(2)is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.82 Application for termination of license.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation
demonstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release in
accordance with NRC requirements.
PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC
LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
16. 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)).
17. In Sec. 51.22, paragraph (c)(19) 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) * * *
(19) 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
18. 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).
19. In Sec. 70.4, ``Definitions,'' 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.
* * * * *
20. In Sec. 70.25, paragraph (g)(3)(iv) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 70.25 Financial assurance and record keeping for
decommissioning.
* * * * *
(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 20, subpart E, or apply for approval for disposal under 10
CFR 20.2002.
21. In Sec. 70.38, paragraphs (c)(1)(v),(d), and (f)(3) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 70.38 Expiration and termination of licenses.
* * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
(v) 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 that the premises are suitable
for release in accordance with NRC requirements in some other manner.
* * * * *
(d) If the information submitted under paragraphs (c)(1)(v) or
(c)(3) of this section does not adequately demonstrate that the
premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements,
the Commission will inform the licensee of the appropriate further
actions required for termination of license.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) (i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates
that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with NRC
requirements; or
(ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to
demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release in accordance
with NRC requirements.
PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
22. 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 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).
23. In Sec. 72.3, ``Definitions,'' 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.
* * * * *
24. In Sec. 72.54, paragraph (e)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 72.54 Application for termination of license.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation
demonstrates that the ISFSI or MRS and site are suitable for release in
accordance with NRC requirements.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 94-20427 Filed 8-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
