ML091310156

Staff Responses to Comments Received on DG-4013 (Rg 4.1, Rev. 2)

ML091310156
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/01/2009
From:	Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
To:
O'Donnell, Edward, RES/DE/RGB, x6265
Shared Package
ML091310135	List: ML091310156
References
DG-4013, RG-4.001, Rev 2
Download: ML091310156 (29)

Text

1 Staff Responses to Public Comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4013 (Proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.1)

Public Comments NRC Response ID# Origin pp Sec. Comment Resolution/Suggestion Fin 1 NEI All All A comprehensive revision of regulations and The staff agrees that the use of several 9 regulatory guidance to consistently use current ICRP dose models should be addressed, radiation protection science would be more and this is being evaluated by the NRC (see productive. SECY-08-0197). However, only a very little Radiation protection overall would be better of RG 4.1 is impacted by such modeling served if the NRC were to revise all of the changes. Therefore, it is appropriate to regulations and regulatory guidance concurrently issue the revision to RG 4.1 without waiting to reflect the current radiation protection for the ICRP related changes to Part 20 that standard. will take several years to develop and implement.

2 NEI All All Extensive Change in Scope and Lack of a The staff agrees that DG-4013 originally 2 Meaningful Backfit Analysis contained an excessive amount of The NRCs Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons information on (1) on-site monitoring for Learned Task Force Final Report (Sept. 1, 2006) members of the public, (2) decommissioning section 3.2 discusses extensively the existing and remediation, and (3) reporting direct regulations that require control of radioactive radiation using dosimetry typically controlled effluents, on-site surveys and monitoring for by the radiological protection program.

radiation protection, and the role of the The document was revised, and almost all radiological environmental monitoring program references to these items were removed.

(REMP) to evaluate the potential impacts of the Two items, related to REMP, were retained facility on the environment and public exposure. as listed below.

This NRC taskforce concluded: Although there (1) NUREG-1301/1302 include groundwater have been a number of industry events where and drinking water monitoring if the water is radioactive liquid was released to the likely to be affected.

environment in an unplanned and unmonitored (2) If an on-site leak or spill occurs, it could fashion, based on the data available, the task affect the REMP (via NUREG-1301/1302, force did not identify any instances where the Control 3.12.2, Land Use Census, Actions health of the public was impacted.

a and b).

June 1, 2009

2 Draft revision to RG 4.1 (section 2) greatly RG 4.1 contains guidance on these 2 items expands the scope of current guidance for the as they relate to the REMP.

REMP into control of radioactive material, control of radioactive effluents, remediation, record-A backfit analysis is not required for keeping for decommissioning, site regulatory guides since they provide characterization, and notification of the NRC, guidance and are not regulations.

among other things. The proposal for an extensive on-site monitoring program, including that for ground water, does not consider whether The staff agrees that there have been no there is a credible exposure pathway to the instances where the health of the public was public, and, as such, is not risk-informed. No impacted.

justification or backfit analysis is provided for this significant expansion beyond the scope of environmental monitoring.

3 NEI A 2 Introduction - Although the major sections are The NRC agrees with this comment. A table 64 listed, a more formal and extensive Table of of contents was provided in the initial draft 24 Contents would be useful. and that table will be expanded.

4 NEI All All [This RG provides] duplicative and potentially The staff agrees that DG-4013 originally 12 7 2.3.2 conflicting guidance on radiation protection contained an excessive amount of 87 programs for workers and on-site members of information on (1) on-site monitoring for the public - monitoring, contamination control, members of the public, (2) decommissioning and remediation. and remediation, and (3) reporting direct The draft RG 4.1 imposes duplicative radiation using dosimetry typically controlled requirements for on-site monitoring to protect the by the radiological protection program.

10 CFR 20 member of the public; on-site The document was revised, and almost all monitoring is already being performed under references to these items were removed.

existing radiation protection programs. The Two items, related to REMP, were retained requirements for licensees to perform surveys as listed below.

and monitoring under 10 CFR 20.1501 to (1) NUREG-1301/1302 include groundwater demonstrate that the on-site member of the and drinking water monitoring if the water is public does not exceed the 100 mrem/year limit likely to be affected.

ensure adequate protection; duplication of effort (2) If an on-site leak or spill occurs, it could under an expanded REMP will not result in affect the REMP (via NUREG-1301/1302, additional protection for those individuals.

Control 3.12.2, Land Use Census, Actions Similarly, remediation to control contamination is June 1, 2009

3 already performed under existing radiation a and b).

protection programs. This revision to RG 4.1 RG 4.1 contains guidance on these 2 items inappropriately proposes that the REMP program as they relate to the REMP.

serve as the basis for decision making on remediation. Licensees are required under 10 CFR 20 to control radioactive material; RG 8.8 provides additional regulatory guidance on control of contamination. The radiological protection program, not the environmental monitoring program, is the appropriate programs to control radioactive material. This includes the mechanisms for the licensee to identify and plan any remediation activities that are necessary.

If the NRC intends to provide additional guidance on demonstration of compliance with 20.1301 for onsite members of the public, such guidance should be in a new Section 1 Regulatory Guide (RG). Section 4 of the Regulatory Guides is related to Environmental guidelines. Further, if the NRC insists on proceeding as proposed, the NRC should, as a minimum, allow the licensee to reference the existing programs and controls to demonstrate satisfaction of the new, expanded requirements in RG 4.1 to avoid duplication of effort 5 NEI All All The NRCs Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons The staff agrees DG-4013 contained too 7 2.3.1 Learned Task Force Final Report (Sept. 1, 2006) much emphasis on on-site ground water concluded: monitoring. The document was revised, and Although there have been a number of industry almost all references to ground water events where radioactive liquid was released to monitoring were removed. Two items, the environment in an unplanned and related to REMP, were retained as listed unmonitored fashion, based on the data below.

available, the task force did not identify any (1) NUREG-1301/1302 include groundwater instances where the health of the public was and drinking water monitoring if the water is impacted. likely to be affected.

June 1, 2009

4 Draft revision to RG 4.1 (section 2) greatly (2) If an on-site leak or spill occurs, it could expands the scope of current guidance for the affect the REMP (via NUREG-1301/1302, REMP into control of radioactive material, control Control 3.12.2, Land Use Census, Actions of radioactive effluents, remediation, record a and b).

keeping for decommissioning, site RG 4.1 contains guidance on these 2 items characterization, and notification of the NRC, as they relate to the REMP.

among other things. The proposal for an See also the response to NEI question #9.

extensive on-site monitoring program, including that for ground water, does not consider whether there is a credible exposure pathway to the public, and, as such, is not risk-informed. No justification or backfit analysis is provided for this significant expansion beyond the scope of environmental monitoring.

6 NEI 5 B.2.5 10 CFR 20 Subpart E establishes the criteria for The staff agrees that decommissioning 7 C.2 license termination (decommissioning). should not be an objective for the REMP, Regulatory guidance on decommissioning and as a result, B.2.5 was deleted and the 8 C.2.3.3 surveys already exists in NUREG-1757. In references to decommissioning (as part of addition, typically after an event such as a leak or the REMP objectives) were deleted from spill, surveys are performed (1) to ensure control C.2. Additionally, the entire section C.2.3.3 of contamination and worker protection under the was deleted.

10 CFR 20 radiation protection program and (2) to obtain information for decommissioning planning purposes in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(g). The expanded scope for REMP is redundant and will require significant resources to obtain information that will have very limited usefulness at decommissioning.

7 NEI All All Many of the items added to RG 4.1 are The staff agrees in part with the comment duplicative of existing, more detailed guidance in regarding some duplication. Where NUREG-1301 and 1302. A more appropriate possible, duplication will be avoided; action would be to update and improve NUREG however, some duplication may be 1301/1302 and delete RG 4.1 as being necessary to establish the correct context redundant. See other comments and to ensure consistency between guidance documents.

June 1, 2009

5 8 NEI 5 2 10 CFR 72 requires an Environmental Monitoring The staff agrees with this comment and has program for dry fuel storage facilities. These included information regarding REMPs other facilities are often co-located at the nuclear than those associated with, and required by, power plant site. For such co-located facilities, a 10 CFR Part 50 license.

the licensee typically takes credit for the existing nuclear power plant REMP to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 72. Augmentation of the existing program, such as new direct dose TLD locations at the site boundary in proximity to the dry fuel storage facility, may be implemented.

The RG should be revised to recognize the 10 CFR 72 requirements and specify how the 10 CFR 50 licensed program can be used.

9 NEI 6 2.3 [There is] no regulatory requirement for onsite The staff agrees no routine on-site environmental program and groundwater environmental monitoring is required for monitoring. potential leaks. However, surveys (e.g., on-The NRC Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons site groundwater monitoring) may be Learned Taskforce Final Report concludes that required once a leak or spill (of radioactive no regulatory requirement exist for the monitoring material) is detected. This is addressed in of groundwater onsite exists { there are no RG 1.21 from the perspective of measuring, specific regulatory requirements for licensees to evaluating, and reporting effluents.

conduct routine on-site environmental surveys The LLTF statement refers to monitoring for and monitoring for potential abnormal spills and potential leaks. Once leaks are known to leaks of radioactive liquids page 19 LRRLLTF exist, the monitoring requirements of 10 CFR report}. 20.1501 specifies licensees shall makesurveysthat may be necessaryandreasonableto evaluatethe magnitude concentrations and the potential radiological hazards.

Licensees should assess the hazard (or impact) from spills and leaks. Part of this assessment includes the impact on the REMP. For RG 4.1, an on-site leak or spill may affect the REMP (e.g., sample media, receptor, or receptor location) as outlined in June 1, 2009

6 NUREG-1301/1302 Control 3.12.2 regarding the Land Use Census. RG 4.1 contains guidance in this regard. See also the response to NEI question #5.

10 NEI 4 2.4 [There is] Unjustified Emphasis on Ground Water See the NRCs response to NEI comment #5 Monitoring and [the] Expanded Scope [is] not and #9 above.

Risk-Justified.

The emphasis on on-site groundwater monitoring for inadvertent subsurface contamination from leaks and spills is unjustified given that the NRCs Liquid Effluent Releases Task Force Lessons Learned Final Report issued September 1, 2006 stated, The most significant conclusion of the task force regarded public health impacts.

Although there have been a number of industry events where radioactive liquid was released to the environment in an unplanned and unmonitored fashion, based on the data available, the task force did not identify any instances where the health of the public was impacted.

11 NEI All All [There is] Duplication and potential conflict of The staff agrees the NRC has issued, or has

[with other] Regulatory Guidance. The NRC has plans to issue, regulatory guides on a now generated several guidance documents on number of aspects related to ground water, the same subject of groundwater monitoring that but each regulatory guide provides guidance are duplicative and are likely to have the for different purposes. For example, unintended consequence of resulting in Regulatory Guide 4.21 was issued to provide conflicting guidance. These include Regulatory guidance to new license applicants to Guide 4.21, Regulatory draft Regulatory Guide minimize contamination. Similarly, RG 4.22 4.1 and the Draft Guidance to Implement Survey will be issued to provide guidance to existing and Monitoring Requirements Pursuant to licensees on minimizing contamination and Proposed Rule Text in 10 CFR 20.1406(c) and ensuring sufficient decommissioning funding.

10 CFR 20.1501(a) that supports the RG 4.1 (scheduled to be issued 2009)

Decommissioning Planning Rulemaking. All of addresses environmental monitoring, the proposed guidance documents should be including ground water with respect to June 1, 2009

7 withdrawn and, if risk-justified, a single guidance environmental programs at operating reactor document provided. These all claim to be sites. RG 1.21 (scheduled to be issued in implementing the same regulatory requirements 2009) provides staff guidance on sampling, but with different guidance. To say the least, the monitoring, evaluating and reporting ground multiple regulatory guidance documents create a water results in the annual report. Each high likelihood for conflict and confusing document has a different scope and ground licensees. water monitoring is only a small, but integral, portion of the entire document. The NRC considers guidance in each of these documents to be important in each of the respective areas.

12 NEI 5 2(6) [There is] Inappropriate Constraint on The staff agrees that some of the wording in 5 2 Regulations through Regulatory Guidance. section 2(6) was unclear and as such could As part of the site license, plants are allowed to be misapplied to decommissioning. The release activity to the environment through unclear wording was removed, and the intent permitted releases. In fact, Regulatory Guide was clarified (so it relates to the objectives of 1.109 even assumes some level of buildup in the the REMP).

environment from such releases. Given that ODCM-permitted releases are assessed as well below ALARA objectives established in 10 CFR 50, the proposed expansion of REMP to decommissioning is not risk-justified.

Statements in this draft RG and in other draft revisions to other RGs to the effect that remediation is warranted or would be required at decommissioning to meet unrestricted release of the site and screening DCGLs in NUREG 1757 effectively foreclose the existing option under 10 CFR 20 Subpart E for restricted release of the facility. It is inappropriate for RGs to be used to change or modify existing regulations 13 NEI 7 2.3.1 Section 2.3.1 needs to clearly state the The staff agrees that the applicability should 1 applicability of the on-site environmental be clearly specified. A section on monitoring program for the existing as well as applicability was added to section A of the new plants. document.

June 1, 2009

8 14 NEI 6 2.3 Section 2.3 should be removed in its entirety or, The staff agrees Section 2.3 should be as a minimum, significantly edited to only cover reduced. Verbiage was added regarding monitoring of ground water if a credible exposure monitoring ground water and drinking water pathway exists at the site. It should not discuss is there is a suspected impact (as outlined in remediation or leaks and spills unless the result NUREG-1301/1302 for REMPs).

in inadvertent contamination of the environment.

15 NEI 6 2.1 The draft RG does not distinguish between The staff agrees that verbiage should be 10 release pathways and exposure pathways and clear and unambiguous. All instances of 20 hence makes confusing statements such as the exposure and release were checked to 63 need to evaluate the existence of other ensure proper usage. The concepts of exposure pathways. An incident or spill, or a release point, dispersion pathway, exposure 66 plant redesign may result in a new release pathway and route of exposure have been pathway or direct dose pathway, and could refined and clarified.

impact the critical locations, but it will not create a different type of exposure pathway. Changes in release pathways could result in changes in the locations sampled or analyses performed.

The term new exposure pathway in the 3rd The staff agrees with the comment, and has 5 C.1 sentence is misleading. For example, if a new incorporated the comment into the cow farm results in a higher dose, it is not a new document.

pathway if the cows milk pathway previously existed, but it is a new critical location.

Additionally, the annual census results are not the only potential reason for updating the program. Changes in station design, such as relocating a solid radioactive waste storage facility, during the preoperational phase may also dictate the need for a REMP program revision such as a new TLD location. Recommended the sentence read: The preoperational program should be updated when new pathways or critical locations are identified.

16 NEI 6 C.2.1 Are all the primary pathways listed required? All The staff agrees with this comment. 26 of the exposure pathways will be not applicable Additional guidance has been added June 1, 2009

9 at many sites. If they are required, how does a regarding these exposure pathways. 38 site take exemption to these pathways? 70

[Include additional guidance in RG 4.1 to address 72 the questions above.]

73 17 NEI 6 2.1 The principal exposure pathways listed in C.2.1 The staff agrees with this comment. Some 6 2.1.c.iii for waterborne radioactivity are not properly information has been removed and other characterized - surface and subsurface water guidance has been added regarding these 10 2.4.c and sediment are not in themselves exposure exposure pathways (and routes of 19 Glossary pathways. Revise the listing to c.i. drinking exposure).

water; c.ii irrigation of foodstuffs; c.iii immersion (recreational)

Subsurface water is listed as principle exposure pathway without listing a definition for subsurface water. Ground water is defined; subsurface is not.

as applicable should be added to the end of this sentence since each item does not necessarily represent an exposure pathway at all plants.

See comment below on definition of Drinking Water 18 NEI 6 2.1 At what distance do these sampling requirements The staff agrees with this comment and the 27 6 2.2 apply? In Section 2.1 there is an example that use of proximity in RG 4.1 has been says no milk animals in proximity. Where is eliminated. To eliminate duplication in 10 2.4 proximity defined? For milk, NUREG-1301/2 regulatory documents, RG 4.1 refers to states to sample at 3 locations within 5 km, and if NUREG-1301/1302 for information none exist that close, sample between 5 and 8 specifying the distance over which the land km if the projected dose exceeds 1 mrem. It is use census should be conducted.

likely that no sites projected dose beyond 5 km exceeds 1 mrem. As mentioned earlier, it would be better to only have one set of guidance (e.g.

NUREG-1301/2) on this and other information in this RG.

19 NEI 6 2.1 Specific guidance is needed. In Section C.2.1, The staff agrees with this comment. As far June 1, 2009

10 under food products, the parenthetical phrase (if as compliance with NRC regulations is used as a local, common food product) is only concerned, monitoring is only required if an included next to invertebrates. Must all other evaluation of the exposure pathway indicates listed food products be sampled if they exist, (1) the sample media (associated with the even if not used as a food product? Should this applicable route of exposure) exists, and (2) section also include the statement that only those there is sufficient sample media (associated exposure pathways need to be monitored if the with the applicable route of exposure) to pathway is considered significant satisfy the usage factors in RG 1.109.

Licensees may choose to monitor any exposure pathway, regardless of the significance of the exposure pathway, if the licensee chooses to do so (e.g., for continuity in the REMP, or for local interest).

20 NEI 6 2.1 Does meat in Section C.2.1 mean just The formulas in RG 1.109 include a usage 28 commercial meat production facilities? If not, factor (e.g., kg/year) and the importance of a 73 why is hunting listed in C.2.2.c as an additional food product is based on the usage factor.

pathway (if of local interest). If meat is not just For example, a garden census (if conducted) commercial, but also includes individual use, is only required to include gardens over 50 hunting could be a baseline meat pathway? Are square meters because it takes a garden of any of the listed food product pathways that size to satisfy the usage factor.

considered as principal exposure pathways only Consumption of meat would not be if commercial facilities exist? significantly different. If an individual consumed locally raised meat, and there was sufficient local meat to satisfy the usage factor (whether from a local commercial packing house or from hunting), a licensee with such knowledge should evaluate the exposure pathway to determine if it is significant.

Conversely, sampling commercial meat production may not be representative of local conditions (depending on the fraction of locally grown meat animals included in the final product). Sampling of locally raised meat or meat from hunting may be, in some June 1, 2009

11 cases, more useful than sampling meat from a commercial packing facility.

The licensees land use census is responsible for identifying that combination of food sources (i.e., sample media),

receptors, and receptor locations that together comprise the important exposure pathways.

21 NEI 6 2.1.e There is no difference between C.2.1.e and The staff agrees with this comment. Both of Section C.2.2? Suggest deleting C.2.1.e. these sections were revised significantly.

22 NEI 7 2.3.1.e Section C.2.3.1 (if this section is not deleted) - The staff agrees that the on-site monitoring Does the list of Program Considerations in program in DG-4013 was too prescriptive section C.2.3.1.b mean these items must be and all encompassing; covering some topics included in the Annual Radiological that were beyond the objectives of a REMP.

Environmental Operating Report? The majority of Section C.2.3.1 was deleted Activity released under the effluent control and the remainder was significantly revised program is reported in the Annual Radiological and reorganized.

Effluent Report. These requirements are more appropriate for DG-1186 (or another Section 1 RG 23 NEI 7 2.3.1.h RIS 2008-03 clarified that previously discharged The staff agrees that the RIS should be radioactive materials in gaseous or liquid included in the bibliography. Section 2.3.1.h effluents that are returned from the environment was deleted. The staff agrees with the to an operating nuclear power facility are no conclusions of RIS 2008-03 that effluents longer required to be controlled as licensed returned to the on-site environs are no material. Under the existing effluent control longer treated as licensed material provided program, potential dose impacts to the public are the conditions of the RIS are satisfied (e.g.,

already evaluated and reported to the NRC. [RIS the effluents were properly released, 2008-03] should also be added to the references. properly reported, etc).

The list of on-site samples to be considered in The staff agrees that rain-out of properly 2.3.1 is not justified. This includes the re- discharged effluents is an example of capture of airborne effluents in equipment/HVAC recapture as identified in RIS 2008-03. The condensation or through rain-out, or by re-use of list of on-site samples mentioned in this the receiving water body for liquid effluents does comment has been deleted.

June 1, 2009

12 not represent an exposure pathway from licensed material.

24 NEI 8 2.3.3 Ground water characterization is already The staff agrees that the on-site monitoring required as part of site characterization and is program in DG-4013 was too prescriptive included in the UFSAR. The draft imposes and all encompassing. The majority of duplicative requirements, including an evaluation Section C.2.3 was deleted and the of plant systems and components that is well remainder was significantly revised and outside the scope for an environmental reorganized.

monitoring program.

25 NEI 9 2.3 The notification of the public is described in detail The staff agrees that the on-site monitoring in NEI 07-07 INDUSTRY GROUND WATER program in DG-4013 was too prescriptive PROTECTION INITIATIVE - FINAL GUIDANCE and all encompassing. The majority of DOCUMENT issued August 31, 2007. There is Section C.2.3 was deleted and the no regulatory basis for the inclusion of such a remainder was significantly revised and requirement by the staff in this regulatory guide. reorganized. Notifications are no longer We believe this to be good practice and would described in DG-4013.

continue to do so as a part of the GPI. This guidance should be removed from the regulatory guide.

26 NEI 9 2.3.3 The proposal that reporting other ground water The staff agrees to change the reporting sample results that are not part of REMP should guidance.

be in the AREOR unnecessarily conflicts with NEI 07-07 Objective 2.2 acceptance criterion b that requires non-REMP samples be included in the ARERR. Delete the last sentence of the paragraph that begins at the end of page.

27 NEI 10 2.4.b In discussion of monitoring downwind sectors The staff agrees with this comment.

with highest annual average deposition does not specify the number of sectors. Should refer to NUREG 1301 or 1302.

28 NEI 10 2.4.c Add if applicable at the end of the sentence. The staff agrees that the REMP does not Many sites do not have drinking water pathways, need to contain routine drinking water but this item requires reporting them. samples for sites that do not have drinking water. The document was changed.

June 1, 2009

13 29 NEI 10 2.5.b Does this requirement mean that plants now Sampling is outlined in NUREG-1301/1302.

have to analyze for Sr-90 and other hard-to- The wording was clarified regarding which detect nuclides in REMP samples and pathways, samples are required.

even if such nuclides are not detected in effluents?

30 NEI 11 2.6 The use of a tritium LLD of 300 picocuries/liter The staff agrees to remove the 300 pCi/l does not appear to be technically justified. This enhanced detection capability.

low LLD would place an additional burden on licensees without any commensurate benefit in public health and safety.

What are the ramifications if a licensee does not meet the level of 300? Does the licensee have to report not achieving the LLD, even though its not required?

Citing early detection as the basis for this change is without merit since the samples being referred to are off-site. Properly placed sentinel wells positioned near potential leaks on site as discussed in NEI 07-07 provide better indicators.

31 NEI 11 2.7 Changes to the REMP are currently allowed if The staff agrees and additional clarification they do not reduce the overall effectiveness of was provided.

the program. Due to the subjective nature of the language, a licensee could demonstrate through historical monitoring results and Regulatory Guide 1.109 calculations that there is no potential for detecting activity in that exposure pathway. However, other individuals could view the pathway as being important just because it once had been in the REMP.

32 NEI 11 2.7 There needs to be a clearer definition of a The staff agrees and additional clarification sample deviation and contingent actions when was provided.

dealing with equipment failures of continuous /

composite samplers (i.e. air, surface water, drinking water).

June 1, 2009

14 33 NEI 12 2.8 There are a number of inconsistencies between The staff agrees eliminate the unnecessary the RG 4.1 requirements for a Land Use Census duplication and include a reference to and those found in NUREG-1301. For example, NUREG-1301/1302.

NUREG-1301/1302 states that in lieu of performing a garden census, broadleaf vegetation may be sampled at the site boundary.

The current draft does not allow for that option; instead it requires the licensee determine drinking water supplies and feeding characteristics. The inconsistencies between this draft and existing programs or regulatory guidance to control radioactive effluents needs to be resolved.

34 NEI 13 2.10 The second sentence refers to direct radiation The staff agrees with this comment.

levels Recommend measured radiation Comment incorporated.

levels 35 NEI 13 2.10 Table 1 should be removed from RG 4.1. This The staff agrees with this comment. The duplicates the table already in the NUREG- table was removed.

1301/1302. There are also the following problems:

• Differs from the table in NUREG-1301/1302

• Footnote (a) for tritium in water is missing

• The values for milk appear to be those for broadleaf vegetation

• The column for broadleaf vegetation is empty If this table is included in RG 4.1, either duplicate the table from NUREG-1301/1302 exactly, or reference the NUREG itself.

Another case of inconsistencies with the NUREG. For example, NUREG 1301 and 1302 more clearly state that Table 1 reporting criteria only apply if the activity is plant related. Such a caveat is missing from the draft RG.

June 1, 2009

15 36 NEI 13 2.10 Table 2 should be placed after page 16, where The staff agrees with this comment. The the table is first discussed. This table should table was removed and the text references include all nuclides for which there is a required NUREG-1301/1302.

LLD in NUREG-1301/1302 or, preferably, it should reference NUREG-1301/1302 for the complete list.

37 NEI 16 2.12 Recommend that a map of all sampling The staff agrees with this comment.

locations be revised to state a map of all indictor sampling locations While control locations need to be listed, it is not always necessary to show these locations on the map.

38 NEI 16 2.11 This is really only applicable if REMP results are The staff considers some evaluation of the readily detectable in the majority of samples relationship between quantities of radioactive collected. It is difficult, and meaningless, to material released in effluents and the compare non-detectable (<MDC) analytical resultant radiation doses to individuals from results to predicted concentrations that are also pathways of exposure is an important part of below the target LLD. If the predicted the REMP. If the program indicates effluents concentrations are much less than achieved are not detectable in the environment, and LLD, one cannot validate modeling assumptions no radioactive materials are detected as part with most REMP data, which are also <LLD. of the REMP, this comparison validates the This argument also applies for ground water effluent data. The staff agrees that it is not monitoring, in which the projected concentration necessary to trend results that are not would be below the LLD. detectable and that such comparisons may be summarized in the text of the report if needed. The staff has clarified that trending results over time may be limited to those cases where plant related nuclides are detected in the environmental samples or where plant-related direct radiation is readily observed (e.g., where radiation levels are increasing around ISFSIs due to loading spent fuel). The document was changed accordingly.

39 NEI 16 2.12 Per some Technical Specifications, the annual The staff agrees with this comment and report is submitted to the NRC Document Control additional clarification was provided.

June 1, 2009

16 Desk, with a copy to the Regional Administrator.

Some plants must submit by May 1 per the TS.

Delete the details on actual submittal dates and defer to clear TS requirements.

40 NEI 16 2.12 This section refers back to Table 2. Is the format The staff agrees with this comment. Table 2 presented in Table 2 required, or only an has been deleted example of a suggested format? If it is only an example, and not a requirement, then this needs to be stated as such.

41 NEI 19 Glossary Terms in the glossary need to be consistent with The definitions for a priori; abnormal release; existing regulations, regulatory guidance, and effluent discharge; impacted areas; lower proposed revisions to regulatory guidance limit of detection; monitoring; restricted area; (including draft Regulatory Guide 1.21 and significant exposure pathway; significant Regulatory Guide 4.21). For example: a priori; residual radioactivity; site environs, and abnormal release; effluent discharge; impacted unrestricted area were revised. Other areas; lower limit of detection; monitoring; definitions were checked for consistency.

restricted area; significant exposure pathway; significant residual radioactivity; site environs; sub surface water, unrestricted area. See below for additional details 42 NEI 19 Glossary Drinking water - for the purposes of REMP The staff agrees that the definition of compliance, drinking water is not the same as drinking water could be improved.

potable water as implied in the definition. To be The staff agrees that EPA jurisdiction considered drinking water, the water supply must regarding safe drinking water does not apply be physically used to supply public drinking to individual wells (i.e., less than 25 persons water, and not just considered satisfactory for or 15 service connections). However, human consumption. although EPA regulations may not apply to individual wells, this does not eliminate NRCs jurisdiction with respect to REMPs at commercial nuclear reactors. The staff concludes the REMP should address the exposure to an individual member of the public as outlined in RG 1.109. This includes all significant exposure pathways (and associated mechanisms of exposure),

June 1, 2009

17 including drinking water if that route of exposure is present at a site. It would be inconsistent to estimate exposure to the maximum exposed individual for all routes of exposure except drinking water from private wells.

43 NEI 20 Glossary Realistic exposure is not appropriately included The staff agrees with this comment. SECY-in environmental monitoring requirements. If the 03-0069 was added to the bibliography.

NRC proceeds as currently proposed, SECY 0069 should be added to the list of references.

44 NEI 20 Glossary Significant Exposure Pathway: Clarify if the The staff agrees with this comment. The use use of total public dose applies to the maximum of the terms significant exposure pathway exposed individual, realistic exposed individual, and total public dose were removed from or population dose. the document.

45 NEI 20 Glossary Significant Residual Radioactivity: This The staff agrees to delete the definition of definition states would later require Significant Residual Radioactivity.

remediation during decommissioning. As discussed earlier, this effectively precludes restricted releases as currently allowed under 10 CFR 20 Subpart E.

46 NEI 21 Glossary Unlicensed material Add reference to RIS The staff agrees to add the RIS to the 2008-03 for last sentence. Consider including bibliography.

the last sentence in this definition in the definition for Effluent Discharge 47 NEI 22 B.1 Add RG 1.109 to references and to B.1 since The staff agrees to include references to RG NUREG 1301/1302 rely heavily on this document 1.109 and include RIS 2008-03 in the and it contains the usage factors. bibliography. Information on Suggest adding RIS-2008-03 to the list of decommissioning surveys and screening references. criteria were eliminated.

If the NRC proceeds to inappropriately expand the REMP to include decommissioning surveys and screening criteria, NUREG-1757 should be referenced with regards to significant residual June 1, 2009

18 radioactivity.

48 NEI 24 Ref 19 ANS/ANSI 2.17 is unpublished and therefore it is The staff has deleted most of the information inappropriate to reference it. related to on-site monitoring of ground water, and the reference to ANSI 2.17 was deleted in the process.

49 NEI 3 B.1 Clear statements of applicability should be This is a duplicate of NEI comment #13 provided including the application to existing above. The staff agrees that the applicability plants as well as new plants. Current licensees should be clearly specified. A paragraph on should be given the option to continue using the applicability was added to the document.

current version of R. G. 4.1, as referenced by licensing documents.

1 STARS 6 2.3 This addition effectively expands the scope of the The staff agrees DG-4013 contained too codified radiological environmental Monitoring much emphasis on on-site ground water Program (REMP). Abnormal releases are monitoring. The document was revised, and already required to be evaluated. There are no almost all references to ground water requirements to backfit the REMP to include on monitoring were removed. Two items, on-site environmental monitoring program. related to REMP, were retained as listed There are many new groundwater discussions below.

and evaluations. Some aspects of the NEI (1) NUREG-1301/1302 include groundwater groundwater protection initiative (GPI) are and drinking water monitoring if the water is evident. The NRC is inspecting to NEI GPI likely to be affected.

criteria and including it in the DG-4013 revision, (2) If an on-site leak or spill occurs, it could but the requirements have not been codified. It affect the REMP (via NUREG-1301/1302, is unclear what the consequences are of not Control 3.12.2, Land Use Census, Actions meeting the intent of the changes. a and b).

RG 4.1 contains guidance on these 2 items as they relate to the REMP.

See also the response to NEI question #5 and #9.

2 STARS 11 2.6 Analytical Detection Capabilities The staff has removed all reference to the The revised LLD of 300 pCi/l is recommended for 300 pCi/l enhanced detection capability from tritium in ground water. This is considered as the draft guide.

not a regulatory requirement (if other than 300 June 1, 2009

19 pCi/l is selected as the enhanced detection capability, a written evaluation is required, using objective methodology (e.g., MARLAP). The use of such a value has no basis with regard to dose potential or decommissioning. If a ground water sample identifies that tritium is present at a concentration below 2000 pCi/l (10% of the EPA drinking water limit), there is inference that some interdiction would be necessary.

1 PPL 5 2 Certain parts of section C.2 seem to be outside The staff agrees that the on-site monitoring the intent or scope of a REMP. Specifically, see program in DG-4013 was too prescriptive section 2.3.1 which lists program elements such and all encompassing. The majority of as TLD locations for monitoring work areas Section C.2.3 was deleted and the where members of the public routinely have remainder was significantly revised and access in a controlled area. reorganized. The program elements referenced in this comment were removed from DG-4013.

2 PPL 7 2.3.2 Most if not all licensees of operating power The staff agrees that the on-site monitoring 8 2.3.3 reactors have revised programs to comply with program in DG-4013 was too prescriptive the NEI GPI. The NRC, NEI and ANI will be and all encompassing. The majority of performing inspection of each sites response to Section C.2.3 was deleted and the the implementation of the NEI GPI. This negates remainder was significantly revised and the need for all or portions of section 2.3.2 and reorganized. The program elements 2.3.3. referenced in this comment were removed from DG-4013.

3 PPL 11 2.6 The second paragraph includes a The staff has removed all reference to the recommended LLD for tritium in groundwater of 300 pCi/l enhanced detection capability from 300 pCi/l. There is discussion of the reasoning the draft guide.

or intention for the value but a basis for the 300 pCi/l is not provided or referenced.

4 PPL 12 2.8.a This section seems more applicable to RG 1.21 The staff agrees some portions are (radioactive effluent monitoring and control) and applicable to both RG 1.21 and RG 4.1. The not environmental monitoring. specific wording in DG-4013 was revised.

5 PPL 13 2.10 The first sentence below Table 1 on page 13 The staff agrees and the Table was June 1, 2009

20 should have an a proceeding it if it is intended removed.

to describe the basis for tritium reporting level in water.

6 PPL 13 2.10 The last paragraph, first sentence: Table 2 The staff agrees and the reference to the should be Table 1. Table was corrected.

G1 DOM All All The draft RG incorporates additional regulatory The staff agrees that in general, the REMP requirements and programs. The term program has been, and continues to be, an Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program offsite environmental monitoring program.

(REMP) has been consistently applied to the However, there are some aspects of the RETS/ODCM program intended to help REMP programs that may be contained on-demonstrate compliance with the Technical site as specified in NUREG-1301/1302.

Specification effluent release rate limits (based The staff agrees that the on-site monitoring primarily on 10 CFR 50 Appendix I) and the limits program in DG-4013 was too prescriptive of 40 CFR 190 (which combine the offsite and all encompassing. The majority of effluent dose consequences with the offsite direct Section C.2.3 (i.e., on-site monitoring) was dose consequences). As such, the REMP has deleted and the remainder was significantly been the offsite monitoring program defined in revised and reorganized. The RG has been the RETS/ODCM. The existing RG was limited revised to delete references to on-site to guidance on such a program. environmental monitoring program and The draft RG tries to incorporate the following verbiage related to decommissioning was programs under the umbrella of the REMP: removed.

(a) Surveillance programs used to demonstrate The staff agrees that some of this that onsite members of the public meet the 100 information did not belong in RG 4.1 and mrem/year limit of 10 CFR 20. These programs some information (e.g., Part 100 and Part are typically performed as Health Physics 50.75(g)) was relocated to RG 1.21 as procedures or analyses and are not a part of the suggested in the public comment.

REMP. They could involve the use of onsite The staff considers this revision to RG 4.1 is area TLDs, but may also be limited to other necessary to incorporate operating controls such as design calculations and stored experience and lessons learned in the 35 inventory control, or periodic surveys with years since publication of Revision 1 of this portable instruments. If the NRC intends to RG.

provide additional guidance on demonstration of See also the NRC response to NEI comment compliance with 20.1301 for onsite members of

1. 11.

the public, such guidance should be in a new Section 1 Regulatory Guide (RG). Section 4 of June 1, 2009

21 the Regulatory Guides is related to Environmental guidelines.

(b) Surveys performed based on the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(g). These surveys are performed, typically following an event such as a spill, to ensure sufficient radiological information is available to effectively and safely decommission a site. These onsite surveys are not part of the REMP, as the draft guide implies in the first paragraph of Section C.2. If the NRC intends to provide additional guidance on onsite surveys following spills or other events for 10 CFR 50.75(g) compliance, then such guidance should be removed from RG 4.1, expanded to provide some useful guidance, and incorporated as a new Section 1 RG.

(c) New monitoring programs have been employed as part of the new voluntary ground water monitoring program. These programs were established more for political reasons than for any technical basis of controlling dose to the public. They serve more of a leak detection function than a public dose consequence, although in many cases they also serve to address potential decommissioning issues. If implementation of these new ground water monitoring programs resulted in discovery at a specific site of a new dose pathway to the public, then surveillances for that dose pathway should be added to the official RETS/REMP programs.

If the NRC intends to provide additional guidance on groundwater monitoring programs, then such guidance should be removed from RG 4.1 and incorporated as a new Section 1 RG. In reality, there is already more guidance on this ground water monitoring program than it deserves based June 1, 2009

22 on the recognition that it will never result in a significant public dose consequence.

Are the above ties to 10CFR 100, 10 CFR 50.75(g) and ground water monitoring appropriate or should this guidance be located somewhere else? Assuming an agreement that this RG should only address REMP, and based on the observation that NUREG-1301 and 1302 provide more detailed guidelines than this RG on a REMP program, a more appropriate action would be to update and improve NUREG 1301/1302 and delete RG 4.1 as being redundant and hence unnecessary. It is not clear why some of the details in the NUREG were carried over into the draft RG (e.g.,

reporting levels) and other details (e.g., sampling and analysis schedule) were not. Such a carryover provides unnecessary duplication and leads to interpretation issues when there is not an exact duplication. Furthermore, it leads to potential issues in any future revisions. Examples are provided below where there are inconsistencies between NUREG-1301/2 and this draft RG.

G2 DOM All All 10 CFR 72 requires an Environmental Monitoring The staff agrees with the comment. RG 4.1 program for dry fuel storage facilities. These has been revised to recognize that licensees facilities are often co-located at the nuclear can, at their option, co-locate surveillance power plant site. For such co-located facilities, equipment (e.g., TLDs) to fulfill both Part 50 the licensee typically takes credit for the existing and Part 72 functions.

nuclear power plant REMP to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 72. Augmentation of the existing program, such as new direct dose TLD locations at the site boundary in proximity to the dry fuel storage facility, may be implemented.

The RG should be revised to recognize the 10 CFR 72 requirements and specify how the 10 June 1, 2009

23 CFR 50 licensed program can be used. Various ramifications should be addressed. For example, Although the suggestion to provide guidance if TLD locations are added, should they be stating that TLD locations should be added 2 installed two years prior to the first dry fuel years prior to dry fuel storage is a good loading to be consistent with preoperational suggestion, this specific guidance was not program guidelines? incorporated into the RG 4.1.

G3 DOM All All The draft RG does not recognize the difference The staff agrees with the comment. The RG between release pathways and exposure has been revised to specifically identify pathways and hence makes confusing exposure pathways of inhalation, ingestion, statements such as the need to evaluate the and direct radiation. The regulatory guide existence of other exposure pathways. An then provides a definition of a route of incident or spill, or a plant redesign may result in exposure to the exposure pathway. Sample a new release pathway or direct dose pathway, media are then identified for the routes of and could impact the critical locations, but it will exposure. See revised regulatory guide for not create a different type of exposure pathway. more information.

Hence, it is not just new exposure pathways that could require a change to the program, but changes in release pathways could result in changes in the locations sampled or analyses performed.

1 DOM 2 A Introduction - Although the major sections are The staff agrees with the comment, and a listed, a more formal and extensive Table of Table of Contents has been provided.

Contents would be useful.

2 DOM 5 C Section C - 1st paragraph - 2nd sentence - In The staff agrees with this comment. Section addition to providing supporting evidence on the C contained background information and this performance of effluent control systems, the section was reorganized and reworded.

information also provides supporting evidence on Some of the basic information was moved to the adequacy of controls for direct dose impact, section B as background information.

such as shielding or inventory control. As discussed above (see General Comments),

NUREG 1301 provides more descriptive information on why there is a REMP. For example, Section 6.8.4.g. of NUREG 1301 states: The program shall provide verification of the accuracy of the effluent monitoring June 1, 2009

24 program and modeling of environmental exposure pathways. Similar wording to this or that listed in 10 CFR 50 Appendix 1, Section B.2 would seem appropriate in this paragraph.

3 DOM 5 1 Section C1 - 3rd sentence - This sentence The staff agrees with this comment. The states, The preoperational program should be Regulatory Guide includes objective #3 that updated when new exposure pathways are states, determine if measurable levels of identified and characterized during the annual radiation or radioactive materials in the local land-use census. The term new exposure environment are attributable to plant pathway is misleading. For example, if a new operation, and objective #4, Determine if cow farm becomes more critical, it is not a new measurable levels of plant-related radiation pathway if the cows milk pathway existed, it is a and radioactive materials in the local new critical location. Additionally, the annual environment are commensurate with the census results are not the only potential reason radioactive effluents and plant design for updating the program. Changes in station objectives (of As Low As Reasonably design, such as relocating a solid Radwaste Achievable). A new section was added on storage facility, during the preoperational phase new routes of exposure that also clarifies may also dictate the need for a REMP program when changes are required for the REMP.

revision such as a new TLD location. It is recommended that the sentence read, The preoperational program should be updated when new pathways or critical locations are identified.

4 DOM 5 2 Section C.2 - 1st paragraph - see General The staff agrees with the comment. The comment 3 - revise second sentence. [The draft concepts of exposure pathway and release RG does not recognize the difference between pathway have been clarified. Guidance was release pathways and exposure pathways] provided for evaluating the REMP for changes in exposure pathways, receptor locations, receptors, and routes of exposure.

5 DOM 5 2 Section C.2 - 1st paragraph - see General The staff agrees with the comment. The comment 1 - delete last 2 sentences as they are sentences have been removed.

related to 10 CFR 50.75(g), not REMP.

6 DOM 6 2.1 Section C.2.1, C.2.2, and C.2.4 - The wording in The staff agrees with the comment.

6 2.2 these sections provides inconsistent and unclear Guidance on sampling low usage food June 1, 2009

25 10 2.4 guidance on what and where pathways are to be products has been clarified as dependent on monitored. the importance and usage factors. Meat (a) Are all the primary pathways (Section C.2.1) consumption has been addressed and required? In several cases, some of these examples were added. (See also the NRC pathways (e.g., nuts) will be not applicable at response to NEI comment #20).

many sites. If required, how does a site take The information provided in NUREG-exemption to these pathways? 1301/1302 (and the licensees technical (b) At what distance do these sampling specifications) is sufficient with respect to the requirements apply? In Section 2.1 there is an distance over which monitoring should be example that says no milk animals in proximity. conducted and that information was not What is proximity? For milk, NUREG-1301/2 replicated in RG 4.1.

states to sample at 3 locations within 5 km, and if Section c.2.1.e was deleted.

none exist that close, sample between 5 and 8 km if the projected dose exceeds 1 mrem. It is likely that no sites projected dose beyond 5 km exceeds 1 mrem. As mentioned earlier, it would be better to only have one set of guidance (e.g.

NUREG-1301/2) on this and other information in this RG.

(c) In Section C.2.1, under food products, the parenthetical phrase (if used as a local, common food product) is only included next to invertebrates. Does that imply that all the other listed food products must be sampled if they exist, even if not used as a food product? For example, if there are milking goats at 3 km, but that milk is not used for human consumption, does the milk still have to be sampled and analyzed? If yes, then should the same logic be applied to fish, which should be monitored if they exist even if not a local food product. If thats the case, then why does C.2.2.c state that fish may be an additional pathway if of local community interest? Should this section also include the statement that only those exposure pathways need to be monitored if the pathway is June 1, 2009

26 considered significant? However, how does this evaluation get adequately verified without being part of REMP?

(d) Does meat in Section C.2.1 mean just commercial meat production facilities? If not, why is hunting listed in C.2.2.c as an additional pathway (if of local interest). If meat is not just commercial, but also includes individual use, hunting could be a baseline meat pathway? Are any of the listed food product pathways considered as principal exposure pathways only if commercial facilities exist?

(e) There is no difference between C.2.1.e and Section C.2.2? Suggest deleting C.2.1.e.

7 DOM 8 2.3 Section C.2.3 - Based on General comment 1, The staff agrees with the comment. The on-this section should be removed from this RG. site environmental monitoring program has been removed from the RG.

8 DOM 7 2.3.1 Section C.2.3.1 (if this section is not deleted) - The staff agrees with the comment. The on-Does 2.3.1.b mean that exposure control TLD site environmental monitoring program has results which Health Physics typically handles been removed from the document, and need to be reported in the REMP report? What appropriate guidance incorporated into RG about onsite air sampling assessments? The 1.21.

onsite water monitoring described for items 2.1.3.f and 2.1.3.h will normally be reported in the Annual Radiological Effluent Report. These requirements are more appropriate for DG-1186 (or another Section 1 RG as discussed in General comment 1.

9 DOM 8 2.3.3 Section 2.3.3 - The last sentence should be The staff agrees with the comment. The deleted. It should be acceptable to document section was deleted.

long term tracking in either the AREOR or the ARERR.

10 DOM 11 2.6 Section 2.6 - The new proposed H-3 LLD (300 The staff agrees with the comment, and has pCi/liter) is quite arbitrary. What is the basis for June 1, 2009

27 this specific value? Why not 500 or even 1000 deleted the recommended 300 pCi/L.

pCi/liter? We realize we can take exception to this value based upon a written evaluation, but this sets a potentially dangerous precedent.

Performing analyses to this low level, especially onsite, is not the norm, nor should it be. This may have a significant cost impact with little or no benefits. In many cases when looking for activity especially onsite near the potential sources, such low LLDs are unnecessary.

11 DOM 12 2.8 Section C.2.8 - This Section provides another The staff agrees that the inconsistencies example of why it is not a good practice to have need to be corrected. The section on Land two documents for the same thing (NUREG- Use Census was revised with references to 1301/2 and RG 4.1). There are a number of NUREG-1301/1302.

inconsistencies between what the draft RG 4.1 specifies for a Land Use Census and what is in NUREG-1301. For example, the NUREG states that in lieu of performing a garden census, broadleaf vegetation can be sampled at the site boundary. Such an option is not provided in the draft RG. The draft RG requires the determination of drinking water supplies and feeding characteristics, whereas the NUREGs, and likely most ODCMs do not. These inconsistencies need to be resolved.

12 DOM 13 2.10 Section C.2.10 - Another case of inconsistencies The staff agress with the recommendation, with the NUREG. For example, the NUREG and has added the words plant-related more clearly states that Table 1 reporting criteria radioactivity. The Table has been deleted, only apply if the activity is plant related. Such a and this corrected the typographical errors in caveat is missing from the draft RG. This caveat the Table.

does not appear until the second paragraph The reference to the health physics regional which may cause interpretation issues. The office has been corrected.

NUREG has a value of 15 pCi/l for I-131 in water if there is no drinking water pathway and the draft RG does not. Also, the values listed under the June 1, 2009

28 Milk column should be for Broad Leaf vegetation (or should it really be for Food Products as listed in the NUREG?). Again, the best solution is to update NUREG 1301/2 and delete RG 4.1 in its entirety. The reference to health physics regional office is also called NRC regional office.

More consistent formal titles would seem appropriate.

13 DOM 16 2.11 Section C.2.11 - The two examples provided in The staff agrees that additional clarification this section are not representative of the for trends is needed, and the examples were comparisons intended by Section IV.B.2 of deleted. See NRC response to NEI Appendix I to 10 CFR 50. A typical comparison comment # 38.

that might be made is the calculated dose for the year from fish consumption based on the measured liquid effluent releases for the year input into RG 1.109 models (e.g., LADTAP) with the calculated dose based on the measured concentrations of radionuclides in REMP fish samples. The example comparison in the first paragraph discusses long term buildup trends in sediment, something that cant be compared as the effluent dose models do not calculate long term sediment buildup. The example comparison in the second paragraph compares the effluent dose calculations with the calculations performed for the design objective (the original Appendix I compliance calculations).

Such a comparison is not routinely performed, nor is there a need to do so. The two examples in this section should be deleted.

14 DOM 16 2.12 Section C.2.12 - Per some Technical The staff agrees with the comment.

Specifications, the annual report is submitted to Guidance on the annual report has been the NRC Document Control Desk, with copy to improved, and provision has been made for the Regional Administrator. Some plants must varying submittal dates that are authorized submit by May 1 per the TS. Suggest deleting based on Technical Specifications.

June 1, 2009

29 the details on actual submittal requirements as guidance is not needed on clear TS requirements.

15 DOM 19 Glossary Glossary - drinking water - for the purposes of The staff agrees that the previous definition REMP compliance, drinking water is not the of drinking water could be improved. A new same as potable water as implied in the definition was added, and it includes single definition. To be considered drinking water, the use wells (even though EPA drinking water water supply must be physically used to supply standard does not apply to single use wells).

public drinking water, and not just considered satisfactory for human consumption.

June 1, 2009