[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 151 (Monday, August 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40117-40118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19358]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; Announcement of extension in schedule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing an
extension in the schedule for the final rule on radiological criteria
for decommissioning. The reason for the extension is to allow the NRC
to more fully consider public comments received on the technical
information base supporting the proposed rule and to develop the
implementing regulatory guidance to be issued with the final rule. It
is expected that the final rule will be issued in early 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John E. Glenn, (301) 415-6187, or
Frank
[[Page 40118]]
Cardile, (301) 415-6185, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 22, 1994, the Commission issued a
Federal Register notice (FRN) (59 FR 43200) requesting public comment
on a proposed amendment to its regulations which would provide specific
radiological criteria for the decommissioning of lands and structures
at NRC-licensed nuclear facilities. The FRN announced that the public
comment period was to close on December 20, 1994. Subsequently, the
public comment period was extended to January 22, 1995. To date, 101
comment letters have been received. The comments contained in these
letters are being characterized and considered in the development of a
final rule.
The preliminary schedule of the final rule anticipated issuance of
a final rule in the summer of 1995. However, the NRC has decided to
extend the date for issuance of this rule to allow it to more fully
consider public comments received on the technical information base
supporting the proposed rule and to develop the implementing regulatory
guidance to be issued with the final rule. The rationale for the
extension is discussed more fully below.
Characterization of the comments on the proposed rule and the
supporting technical basis has indicated that a number of comments were
received regarding the adequacy of the risk and cost analysis
supporting the proposed criteria in the rule. One particular area
questioned was whether the reference facilities used in the Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement DGEIS (NUREG-1496) as a basis
for the analyses adequately model the complex contamination situations
occurring at nuclear facilities. The intent of the analysis in the
DGEIS was to employ reference sites and to perform screening analyses.
In support of this effort, the NRC staff used site data, where
available, supplemented by engineering judgment and theoretical
analyses.
However, the NRC staff believes that the supporting information
bases for the final rule will be significantly improved by including an
evaluation of addItional data from site characterizations and
decommissionings. Although the real world data are not as complete as
might be wished, there are data on total costs, volumes of waste,
survey costs and concentrations left at release that the staff believes
can be useful. The information generated through this evaluation will
be used in considering how to resolve public comments on the proposed
rule including the appropriateness of the 15 mrem/yr limit for release
of a site for unrestricted use contained in 10 CFR 20.1404(a) and the
criteria for allowing restricted release contained in 10 CFR 20.1405.
In addition to its further analysis of public comments, the NRC
staff has decided that, prior to release of a final rule, it would
assess its planned regulatory guide implementation model to provide
assurance that the model is an adequately conservative screening tool
and is capable of incorporating more realistic scenarios than those in
the basic screening version. In particular, this assessment would
include a sensitivity analysis of the NUREG/CR-5512 modeling
methodology to determine the acceptable range of parameters for
screening analyses. The NRC staff is considering holding a public
meeting in September 1995 to address specific issues associated with
development of regulatory guidance implementing the final rule. More
detailed information about that meeting will be provided in the near
future.
Based on the activities discussed above with regard to the
assessment of the supporting analysis, and the further development of
the regulatory guidance, the staff expects to provide a final rule to
the Commission during December 1995, and to issue a final rule in early
1996.
Separate Views of Commissioner de Planque: I agree with the
Commission's decision to allow staff additional time to consider public
comments on the proposed final rule on radiological criteria for
decommissioning. I have read virtually all of the public comments and
conclude that two major issues not specifically identified in this FRN
need to be carefully considered by the staff before proceeding to
finalize the rule. These are: (1) Is there an adequate technical basis
for selecting a dose criterion of 15 mrem in contrast to a 25 or 30
mrem value that would be consistent with the recommendations of
international and national organizations for radiation protection?
Staff's examination of this issue should consider the cost/benefit
basis for selecting a value. (2) Are the fundamental, underlying
assumptions used in the models, in particular, the assumption of a 70-
year residence and significant subsistence farming on a decommissioned
site, realistic and appropriate to apply to decommissioned sites in the
U.S.? Unnecessarily conservative assumptions will lead to cleanup of
radioactivity to levels so low that it will be difficult, if not
impossible, to determine compliance and the effort will be extremely
expensive for licensees.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19 day of July, 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 95-19358 Filed 8-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
