ML053480052

Enclosure - Review Stakeholder Comments/Observations from Annual Decommissioning Briefing - 200500260

ML053480052
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee, Trojan
Issue date:	12/29/2005
From:	Bill Dean NRC/EDO/AO
To:	David Brown, Castleman P, Hatchett G, Olivier J, Tadesse R, Thoma J NRC/OCM
Orlando D, NMSS/DWM, 301-415-6749
Shared Package
ML053630301	List: ML053480052 ML053630302
References
Download: ML053480052 (14)

Text

RESPONSE TO SRM ON ANNUAL DECOMMISSIONING BRIEFING In the Staff Requirements Memorandum resulting from the staffs annual briefing on the status of the Decommissioning Program (M051018), the Commission directed the staff to:

1.

Evaluate the lessons learned from the decommissioning of Maine Yankee and Trojan to look for ways to improve stakeholder interactions in NRCs decommissioning activities.; and 2.

Review the recommendations and observations of the stakeholders and informally provide its analysis, with recommendations, as appropriate, to the Commission.

1.

Lessons Learned from Maine Yankee and Trojan Decommissioning:

The staff has reviewed the Trojan and Maine Yankee decommissioning process to determine if there are any lessons to be learned, including ways to improve stakeholder interactions in NRCs decommissioning activities. Lessons learned from the Maine Yankee and Trojan decommissioning process are being included in the lessons learned section of the enhanced decommissioning webpage.

Lessons learned from the decommissioning of the Trojan and Maine Yankee facilities include the benefits of early interaction and agreement on future decommissioning activities, agreement on the format and content of decommissioning documents and the need for good quality control programs. Staff is also working with the nuclear industry and other stakeholders to compile and make available lessons learned for all aspects of decommissioning.

2.

Summary of Stakeholder Issues and Comments from the Annual Decommissioning Program Briefing October 18, 2005:

The staffs analysis of the stakeholder recommendations and observations from the briefing, including staff actions or recommendations regarding each of the recommendations and observations is in the table below.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

1. Operating plan inspection to reduce future decommissioning problems in legacy sites.

Its going to save - pay large benefits in the future. HAAS Staff analyzed this issue in SECY-03-0069 and the Commission approved the staff's recommendation for developing inspection procedures for operating facilities to address issues that could complicate decommissioning.

This activity is being managed under the Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan, and includes developing guidance for inspections and enforcement and for a rulemaking to prevent "future legacy sites."

None - staff is already implementing the stakeholder's recommendation.

2....continuing to improve license termination plan approval process....target of under 12 months is probably in order. HAAS Staff included a 12 month Decommissioning Plan (DP) and License Termination Plan (LTP) review target in its FY 2005 Operating Plan.

This metric is included in the FY 2006 Op Plan and will be included in all future Op plans. In addition, the staff has established a Performance measure in the FY 2007 "Blue Book" of reducing the review time for LTPs by 30% over the next 3 years.

None - staff is already implementing the stakeholder's recommendation.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION 1During FY 2005, the first Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP) was prepared for the Decommissioning Program. The IDIP documented improvements completed in FY 2004 and plans for additional improvements during FY 2005-FY 2007. The IDIP integrated three sets of improvements: regulatory improvements to resolve issues related to implementing 10 CFR 20 Subpart E; program management improvements resulting from the recommendations in the staffs 2003 Decommissioning Program Evaluation; and, improvements directed by the Commission after the October 2004 annual briefing on the status of the Decommissioning Program. The plan includes a description of each improvement and associated milestones, schedules, and staff assignments. The Operating Plan is used to track the key milestones and schedules and is periodically revised using an approach that consists of a repeating cycle of four steps: 1) assess program; 2) plan improvements; 3) conduct improvements; and 4) measure and reassess program. A revision is planned for early in FY 2006 to update plans for work during FY 2006 and FY 2007. The IDIP will also be revised in FY 2007 to reflect the results of the FY 2006 OMB PART review. The first step for assessing the program involves identifying lessons learned and staff and stakeholder recommendations for improving the program.

3. I think its important to continue to improve the final site survey process. HAAS Staff has taken several initiatives to improve the approach to the final site survey process. The staff now relies on side-by-side sampling during the licensee's final surveys and reviews of licensee's quality assurance programs in lieu of performing confirmatory surveys at the completion of the decommissioning. (This issue was discussed as a "lesson learned" in Regulatory Issues Summary (RIS) 2002-02 and the "Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance" NUREG-1757 Volume 2, and has been included as guidance in NUREG-1757, Supplement 1.) The staff has established a process whereby the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education can, on an emergency basis, perform confirmatory sampling with only 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> notice, instead of the usual 2-4 week timeframe. Finally, the staff has used State inspectors to supplement the NRC inspectors conducting side-by-side sampling.

Staff will continue to seek opportunities to improve the final site survey process. Staff is identifying "lessons learned" from all major licensing actions, including license terminations, and has a process, the Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP1), for reviewing and developing improvement actions from lessons learned.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

4....continue to improve the communication with local stakeholders. HAAS Staff has been working on improving communications with all stakeholders for the past several years. Staff developed and maintains site-and issue-specific communications plans for each materials and power reactor site. These plans provide tools that the staff uses to plan public outreach activities for each site. In 2005, the staff revised the format of the annual Decommissioning Program Annual report and will publish it as a NUREG document in even years. Staff completed several enhancements to the Decommissioning Website including providing information on the decommissioning process for materials and reactor sites, links to site specific information and documents, regulations, guidance, and other program documents. Staff also developed a decommissioning brochure for distribution at public meetings.

Staff will continue to seek opportunities to improve stakeholder communications. Staff is identifying "lessons learned" from all major licensing actions and will incorporate improvements using the IDIP process.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

5. Capture lesson learned. HAAS In 2005, staff initiated an effort to identify, record and incorporate lessons learned from ongoing decommissioning activities into current and future decommissioning projects and into the designs for new facilities. This continues work that the staff completed in 2002 and 2003 when the staff published decommissioning lessons learned in RIS 2002-02 and NUREG-1757. Staff has established liaisons with industry groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute, Electric power Research Institute and the Fuel Cycle Facility Forum and the Agreement States to coordinate and share decommissioning lessons learned. In April 2005, the staff held a workshop which focused on exchanging views on decommissioning lessons learned with NRC, industry and Agreement States.

Staff will continue to seek to capture, record and incorporate lessons learned into ongoing decommissioning activities and to ensure that lessons learned are incorporated into the designs of future facilities, including opportunities to improve the final site survey process. The staff is developing a rule to prevent future legacy sites that will include a requirement to consider decommissioning in the design of new facilities. The staff has begun listing lessons learned on the enhanced decommissioning webpage and has been, and will continue to, meet with industry and other groups to identify, record and incorporate lessons learned into the decommissioning process. The IDIP is the vehicle that the staff will use to review and develop improvements from these lessons learned.

6. Radwaste disposal options, your recent and definite deferral of rulemaking relative to low-level radioactive waste is a bit of a disappointment. HAAS The comments pertain to the recently deferred rulemaking on clearance.

None - staff does not intend to act on this observation as the Commission has instructed the staff to defer work on this activity.

7. And lastly, we can never truly be decommissioned until we can send our spent fuel offsite, spent fuel and greater than Class C waste disposal. It should be a huge priority for us, and I know that it is. HAAS This comment pertains to the high-level waste repository and is outside of the scope of the decommissioning program.

None - This comment is outside of the scope of the decommissioning program.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

8. The first lesson has to do with flexibility and interpretation of regulation and regulatory guidance. Overly conservative interpretation of regulations that trigger the license termination rule has virtually stalled the decommissioning of one of our sites, which is currently being decommissioned under the SDMP program. LUX This comment pertains to a site-specific issue about the grandfathering provisions of 10 CFR 20, Subpart E. Specifically, it was unclear if a facility that was grandfathered under Subpart E that later requested a modification to its cleanup approach would have to re-submit a DP and be subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 20.1402. NRC OGC staff worked with the licensee's counsel and determined that, in this case, the site could continue to be decommissioned as a grandfathered site.

None with respect to the site-specific issue raised by the stakeholder, as the issue has been resolved.

9. Another lesson we learned is that we need to characterize our sites with the decommissioning process in mind. LUX This comment pertains more to actions by the licensee, not the NRC staff. However, evaluation of the lesson learned will be included in the IDIP.

Staff will include this lesson learned in the lessons learned website and consider how to incorporate it into decommissioning guidance in accordance with the IDIP process.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

10. And when NRC staff reviews decommissioning plans at a very low level of detail, not only does it add a lot of time to the process, but it reduces the flexibility in decommissioning. LUX Early in the Decommissioning Program, staff recognized that the type and level of detail necessary to review and approve a DP or LTP would vary from site to site, based on the potential risks associated with the site. Staff has established a risk-informed approach to the development of DPs and LTPs in which the staff and licensees meet prior to and during the development of the DP or LTP in order to ensure that only the information necessary to ensure that the decommissioning can be conducted safely and with minimal adverse impacts on the environment and local communities is included in the DP or LTP. In addition, it relies on frequent meetings with licensees during the review of the DP or LTP to resolve technical or policy issues without requesting information via a Request for Additional Information. The approach helps focus the appropriate level of detail in the DP.

Staff will continue to use the risk-informed process to ensure that only information that is necessary is included in DPs or LTPs.

Staff will continue to review the information presented in the DP or LTP at a level of detail that ensures that the staff can conclude that the proposed activities can be conducted in a manner that is protective of the public health and safety and the environment.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

11....the use of reasonable exposure scenarios is critical. LUX This issue has been a topic of numerous discussions within the decommissioning community for the past several years. This issue was analyzed in SECY-03-0069 and the Commission approved the staff's recommendations to use reasonably foreseeable land use in lieu of more conservative (usually farming) scenarios. Staff has developed an approach to reviewing the proposed future land use which is included in the recently published (for comment) supplement to NUREG-1757, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance. This approach evaluates the potential uses of the land for decades up to 100 years (in lieu of 1000 years), includes recommendations by local land use planning authorities and evaluates other, reasonable land use scenarios in order to allow the staff to make an informed decision on the appropriateness of the proposed land use. Using this approach, the staff has been successfully approving DPs and LTPs with reasonably foreseeable land use scenarios for the past few years and will continue to use this approach in the future.

Staff will continue to implement the Commission's approved policy for licensees use of reasonably foreseeable land uses instead of the most conservative potential land use and will use its established methodology to review and approve DPs and LTPs that use this approach.

12....DCGLs should be developed for all media and should consider intermedia relationships. LUX Guidance addressing this observation has been included in all decommissioning guidance developed by the staff since the inception of the decommissioning program.

None - staff has already included this requirement in decommissioning guidance and will continue to require it to be addressed in DPs and LTPs.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

13. Regarding the NRC/EPA MOU process, the memorandum of understanding, I just beg, plead and urge the NRC to involve licensees in that process. LUX The staff has discussed this issue with representative of the Fuel Cycle Facility Forum and others to gain an understanding of their concerns. While the staff agrees that some licensees may be able to provide valuable information about their sites, the staffs responsibilities under the MOU cannot be influenced by licensees concerns or preferences regarding the manner in which the NRC staff carries out its responsibilities under the MOU, because it remains the NRC staffs responsibility to make the notifications in accordance with the processes that the NRC and EPA staffs have established under the MOU.

As appropriate, and on a case-by-case basis the staff will involve licensees in the discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency on the staffs actions under the MOU. Draft letters to EPA will be shared with licensees for factual review.

14. NRC staff should continue to attend Fuel Cycle Facility Forum meetings. LUX Staff routinely attends meeting sponsored by industry groups, societal organizations and public interest groups. Attendance at these meetings is one of the activities tracked in the staff Operating Plan and supports the Safety and Openness Goals in the Strategic Plan.

Staff will continue to participate in the FCFF meeting and continue to participate in all industry meetings, as appropriate.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

15. Also, some licensees have had portions of their sites released but were later told that the released area would have to be addressed again prior to license termination. And obviously, this causes some concerns regarding finality. LUX This observation stems from some licensees confusion regarding the scope of the dose modeling that must be performed to demonstrate that a site meets the criteria in 10 CFR 20, Subpart E. During the operational phase of the facility, portions of the facility may be cleaned up and released as a partial site release (PSR). Potential doses from residual radioactive material on these PSRs must comply with 10 CFR Subpart E. When the facility enters decommissioning at the end of the operational phase of the facility, the potential doses from all previous PSRs must be included in the dose assessments for the license termination as the PSRs and the current site constitute the site as envisioned in the regulations. If licensees were allowed to exclude PSRs from the final site dose estimates it could lead to a situation whereby multiple, contiguous PSRs, each at the 10 CFR Subpart E level, would in the aggregate, result in doses that exceed NRCs criteria.

Staff will continue to stress the need to consider the contributions from all sources of radioactivity at sites, including PSRs, during the pre-DP/LTP meetings held with licensees.

16. Finally, there is a lot of confusion among licensees regarding the disposition of licensed material at disposal facilities that are regulated by environmental regulatory agencies at non-licensed facilities, and I feel that should be cleared up. LUX Staff is evaluating the disposal of material at non-licensed sites pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002 and is developing guidance to allow the staff and licensees to use this disposal approach more effectively.

Staff will incorporate any guidance resulting from its analysis into decommissioning guidance and as appropriate will inform licensees of this guidance when it has been developed

17. A comprehensive characterization would have made decommissioning more effective and efficient. MAIERS See #9, above.

See #9, above.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

18. Another lesson is strict application of Reg Guide 1.86 and NUREG-5849 criteria would require most radiological contaminated buildings to be demolished. MAIERS NRC staff typically allows the use of the Reg Guide 1.86 values as cleanup values and the survey approaches discussed in NUREG-5849 only for those sites that have been grandfathered under 10 CFR 20 Subpart E.

Any sites not addressed under the grandfathering provisions of 10 CFR 20 Subpart E would be required to meet the 25 mrem/year, all pathways requirements in Part

20. In addition, the staff no longer endorses the survey approaches in NUREG-5849 and instead relies on the approaches discussed in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM).

None.

19. In process inspections and on-going interactions between the licensee and regulator were critical for the timely completion of this project. MAIERS See #3 and #12, above.

See #3 and #12, above.

20. I think that these community advisory panels are important parts of the process.

HUDSON Staff agrees that licensees should actively interact with and seek input from their local stakeholders. As discussed in #4 above, the staff has a process in place to ensure that local stakeholders are aware of the NRC staff actions as well as their opportunities to participate in the process. In NUREG-1757, and in draft Supplement 1 to this NUREG, the staff provides detailed information about interacting with, and obtaining public input to the decommissioning project for restricted use sites that may be useful to other sites.

Staff will continue to stress the need for licensees to interact with local stakeholders and continue to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to participate in the decommissioning process as described in the NRC regulations and staff guidance.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

21. Participating in these meetings was sometimes frustrating because I know under the regulatory process that we werent getting all the information all the time. HUDSON As appropriate, staff has worked with licensees and stakeholders to ensure that access to site information is available to any interested individuals. Staff makes all decommissioning documentation publicly available, unless the licensee can demonstrate that it should be withheld under the NRCs regulations.

However, the staff has limited capacity to compel a licensee to provide information to others.

Staff will continue to provide all publicly available information in accordance with NRCs regulations and will continue to work with licensees and stakeholders to facilitate providing information to any interested individual.

22. I really do think that advisory panels need some level to be institutionalized, but they need also to be flexible so that they can truly represent the public interest at individual sites. HUDSON The staff does not believe that it is appropriate to place specific requirements on how a site-specific advisory board (SSAB) is set up or managed. This should be controlled by the licensee and the local stakeholders, with guidance on approaches that have been successful being provided by NRC. The staff believes that an SSAB is one appropriate mechanism for local stakeholder involvement, but also recognizes that this may not be appropriate in all situations. This was discussed in the Statements of Consideration for 10 CFR 20, Subpart E, and in NUREG-1757 (in the context of the requirements for releasing sites with restrictions on future site use).

Staff will continue to provide advice and guidance on stakeholder involvement, but will not initiate the development of a requirement to form an SSAB at every decommissioning site.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

23. I think it be very worthwhile to do some additional work and put out some additional guidance on the use of the RESRAD Build model. LUX RESRAD-Build was developed by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). Both RESRAD and RESRAD-build were converted to probabilistic versions in 2000. At that time, NRC issued NUREG/CR-6697, "Development of Probabilistic RESRAD 6.0 and RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 Computer Codes," December, 2000, and NUREG/CR-6692, "Probabilistic Modules for the RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD Computer Codes, User Guide," November, 2000.

The first document describes the development of the probabilistic codes and provides the equations, assumptions, default parameter values, distributions, etc. The second document provides application guidance (i.e.,

how to make it run). In addition, NRC provides training courses twice a year (through NMSS and the TDC), one at headquarters and one in one of the Regions. The Department of Energy (DOE) also provides training. There is a RESRAD web site that can also be consulted to provide access to the guidance material and direct questions to the Argonne staff.

Currently, there are no commercial training providers for the use of RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD codes. However, licensees and people in the private sector can, for a registration fee, attend the three or four DOE and NRC sponsored and approved annual training classes.

Staff does not intend to sponsor the development of additional guidance on the use of RESRAD-Build at this time. However, through the current NRC Contract with ANL staff plans to develop web-based tutorial/training for individuals that cannot attend the annual DOE and NRC sponsored training classes. Current plans are to have ANL develop this training after the other higher priority tasks for developing the RESRAD-OFFSITE code and the methodology for probabilistic analysis of future land use scenarios for realistically conservative dose analysis are completed.

ISSUE/SOURCE (from transcript)

DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION

24. Flexibility in the interpretation application of regulations and regulatory guidance, I would place very high, as well as what I term performance-based decommissioning where the level of specificity required in the decommissioning plan can be reduced to increase the flexibility in the adapting the decommissioning process to what you encounter as you perform the decommissioning. LUX.

As discussed above, staff has been and will continue to seek opportunities to exercise flexibility in its interpretations of the Agencys requirements, while ensuring that an adequate level of safety is maintained, as discussed in the staffs recommendations from the analysis of LTR implementation issues.

As new opportunities to exercise flexibility in the decommissioning process are identified, staff will consider how to incorporate them into decommissioning guidance in accordance with the IDIP process.

25. [Regarding inspections to prevent future decommissioning problems and addressing spills at site as soon as possible.] That (a leak at Indian Point) was significant, very rapid follow-up on that. Our history has shown that when you have that kind of event happening, its going to pay you huge dividends when you get into decommissioning to make sure you tie that up very quickly. HAAS See #1, above.

See #1, above.