ML19311C731
| ML19311C731 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/2014 |
| From: | Public Watchdogs |
| To: | Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs |
| Cruz Z | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19311C699 | List:
|
| References | |
| Download: ML19311C731 (44) | |
Text
Appendix 0 I companies. These differences are compounded when it comes to decommissioning as the I different work plans for each plant may have considerably different impacts on workers onsite I and the public offsite. (CL-40/1)
I Comment: Labeling certain issues "generic" and making them unchallengable is a disservice I to those communities and citizens around the country who may be exposed to radioactive I waste during the transport and disposal process. (CL-45/3)
I Response: The NRC establishedan envelope of environmentalimpacts resulting from I decommissioning activities, identified those activities that can be bounded by a generic I evaluation, andidentified those that requirea site-specific analysis. The NRC concentratedthe I environmentalanalysis on those activities with the greatestlikelihood of having an I environmentalimpact. Even for those impacts that have been determined to be generic, a I licensee is requiredto do a site-specific analysis to determine whether the impacts fall within I the generic envelope. If they are outside the bounds of the generic envelope then the licensee I must seek approval from the NRC. The comments did not provide new information relevant to I this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comments did not result in a change to I the Supplement.
I Comment: Reactor sites are often contaminated to the extent that the location is made I undesirable and unsafe for future economic development. As we stated at the public meeting I in Atlanta, Georgians for Clean Energy urges that site-specific studies be conducted. For I example, the economy of rural Georgia is much different from that of urban New York. How I can these impacts be treated generically? Some nuclear power plants are in urban settings I where economic impacts could be much different that in rural areas that have little or no other I major employer in the region. (CL-08/26)
I Response: In evaluating the environmental impacts from decommissioning activities, the staff I took into considerationthat there are wide varieties of types of plants, for example, size and I location of plants, operatingconditions, and levels of contamination. Even for those issues that I are consideredgeneric, each licensee, before they conduct a decommissioningactivity, must I determine that they are within the envelope of those environmentalimpacts. Most impacts I were determined to be of SMALL significance, which meant that the impacts were not I detectable in the environment or were so minor as not to destabilize or noticeably alter an I importantattribute of the environment. The comment did not provide new information relevant I to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to I the Supplement.
I Comment: Any work on or removal of an intake/outfall structure should trigger site-specific I analysis. Indeed, the Draft GElS explains that the removal of near-shore or in-water structures I could result in the establishment of nonindigenous species to the exclusion of native species.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-120 November 2002
Appendix 0 DGEIS, 4-17. It also explains that in some cases wetlands will develop in areas where the construction of the facility alters surface drainage patterns. DGEIS, 4-18. The Draft GElS suggests that site-specific analysis is appropriate in certain circumstances when the impact is beyond the previously disturbed area and when there is a potential to impact the aquatic environment. DGEIS, 4-19. The above examples of establishment of nonindigenous species or wetlands are exactly the types of impacts that require site-specific analysis. Yet, the site specific analysis recommended may not cover these examples because they may occur within the previously disturbed area. (CL-11/7)
Response: The comment resulted in a change to the Supplement. Sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 were revised. -Intake/outfallstructuresand other SSCs that will be removed after operation is discontinuedare not expected to detectably change or destabilize the aquatic environment. As statedin Section 4.3.5.2, impacts associatedwith removal of the intake and outtake structures are not expected to adversely affect the aquaticenvironment. The staff concluded that the impact to the aquaticenvironment for these decommissioning activities is SMALL and of short durationand no further mitigationis required. A site-specific analysis is requiredif there are disturbancesoutside of the security fences (protectedareas)or the adjoininggravel, the paved or maintainedlandscapeareas,or the intake or discharge structures (see revised Section 4.3.5 and 4.3.6). The issue of non-indigenous species, and creation of wetlands is a valid concern.
The assumption in this analysis is that licensees would use best managementpractices to mitigate for potentialimpacts to areas adjacent to the intake/dischargestructure.
Comment: The evaluation of each nuclear plant site for radioactive contamination can only be done on a site-specific basis. Data of site contamination from Shoreham with zero years of1 operating experience cannot be compared with 33 years of operation at Big Rock Point and either of those sites can not be compared with a potential 120 years of Calvert Cliff operation or a potential 180 years of Oconee operation. Stating that, generically, all impacts of radioactive contamination from all sites are similar (P. 4-28), is simply wrong. The important concept underlying the Environmental Impact Statement for decommissioning nuclear plants is the health and safety of the public. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (NRC) is writing an EIS based on an unsupported assumption. The impacts of a nuclear plant site contaminated with radioactivity can be SMALL or MODERATE or LARGE, but the impacts are site-specific and are not similar nor generic. (CL-1411)
Comment: The evaluation of each nuclear plant site for radioactive contamination can only be done on a site-specific basis. The liquid low-level radioactive waste dump for St. Lucie 1 and 2 is the Atlantic Ocean, whereas the dump for liquid low-level radioactive wastes at Turkey Point 3 and 4 is a closed cooling canal system. The northern end of the canal system, Lake Warren, is the designated dump. If the sediments of Lake Warren and the cooling canals contain levels of radioactivity above those levels that are deemed safe for unrestricted human activity, then Lake Warren is one of the "safety-related structures, systems, and components" that needs to November 2002 0-121 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I be decontaminated and dismantled. Lake Warren and the canals are also safety related as I they function to mitigate the effects of a design basis accident by collecting and concentrating I radioactive spills, dumped liquids, leachates, and site runoff. Other nuclear plants that dump I their liquid radioactive wastes into closed waters will also require site-specific evaluations.
I (CL-1 4/2) 1 Comment: The evaluation of each nuclear plant site for radioactive contamination can only be I done on a site-specific basis. In NUREG-0743, page 4-11, Turkey Point units 3 and 4 1 averaged 340 curies of radioactive solid waste per year. Twenty two years later NUREG-1437, I Supplement 5, page 2-12 states that in 1999, units 3 and 4 shipped solid waste containing I 834.3 curies per year, an increase of 145%, yet Turkey Point is only 47% through its potential I operational life. Projections concerning the amounts of radioactivity in solid waste, gaseous I waste, liquid waste, and site contamination appear to be pure guesswork with a potential I operational life of 60 years per unit. For the NRC Staff to conclude that site contamination for I all nuclear plant sites is generically similar and that the impacts to the human environment are I SMALL, has no basis in fact. The NRC Staff needs to present the reasoning behind its I projections to the scientific community for scientific scrutiny. (CL-14/3)
I Response: NRC staff recognizes that there is wide variabilityamong nuclearpower plants in I the quantity and distributionof radioactivecontaminationat a specific site. One of the primary I purposes of decontaminationis to reduce residualactivity to levels permitting termination of the I license. The NRC regulations(CFR 50.82) require a site-specific license terminationplan to be I submitted by licensees for NRC review and approval Partof the license terminationplan I submittal is a detailed site characterizationstudy that characterizesremainingradioactive I contamination. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and I will not be evaluated further. The comments did not resultin a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Surface and groundwater quality, p.4-12, should NOT be considered a generic I decommissioning issue - climate zone can also create unique problems, terrain likewise, it I should be site-specific. (CL-20130)
I Response: Variablessuch as climate zones were consideredin evaluating environmental I impacts on groundwaterfrom decommissioningactivities. The NRC concentratedthe I environmentalanalysis on those activities with the greatestlikelihood of having an I environmentalimpact. Even for those impacts that have been determined to be generic,a I licensee is requiredto do a site-specific analysis to determine whether the impacts fall within I the generic envelope. If they are outside the bounds of the generic envelope, the licensee must I seek approval from the NRC. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-122 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: I support the designation of environmental justice and endangered species issues as site-specific, NOT generic. (CL-24/3)
Comment: I support the designation of environmental justice and endangered species issues as site-specific (not generic) and designation of rubblization as site-specific. (CL-25/6)
Response: The comments are supportive of conclusions in the Supplement. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further.
The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: ... what a sham it all is, and how industry writes it's own ticket. For example, p. xii,
[xiii] the Commission has concluded (says the Commission) that impacts that do not exceed permissible levels inthe Commission's regulations are considered small. (CL-2015)
Comment: Two site-specific environmental issues were identified, threatened and endangered species and environmental justice, with four other issues listed as quote, conditionally site-'
specific. That is ludicrous. (AT-A/21)
Response: The comments are not specific, did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: I also utterly oppose making most aspects of decommissioning "generic" rather than site-specific, so they cannot be legally reviewed or challenged at individual sites. (CL 33/14)
Comment: I am opposed to the following change to NUREG-0586: In Supplement 1 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning: NRC rmakes most aspects of decommissioning "generic" rather than site-specific, so they cannot be legally'reviewed or challenged at individual sites. (CL-43/8)
Response: There are several methods by Which the public can formally raise issues related to decommissioning. If the licensee has requestedan action requiringa license amendment, then the process for intervening in this action is by requesting or participatingin a hearing. The process is set forth in NRC's'regulationsin 10 CFR Part2, Rules or Practiceof Domestic Licensing Proceedingsand Issuance of Orders."lf the action of concern does not involve a license amendment, a-ny-member of the public maj'araisepotentialhealth and safety issues in a petition to the NRC to-take specific enforcem'ent'actionagainsta licensed facility. This provision is containedin the NRC's regulations'nd is often referredto as a 2.206 petition in reference to its location in the regulations(Chapter2, Section 206 of 10 CFR). Additionally, the November 2002 0-123 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I licensee is requiredto submit a license terminationplan (LTP) for NRC review and approval I approximately two years before anticipatedlicense termination. The LTP is submitted as an I amendment to the facility license. As such, interested members of the public can request I intervention in the amendment process. The request for intervention could lead to an I adjudicatoryhearing. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: "Site specific" issues are of vital importance, especially at San Onofre Nuclear I Generating Station (SONGS) where Unit 1 is currently being decommissioned. It is imperative I that NRC evaluate and analyze SONGS Decommissioning on a "site-specific" basis instead of a "I "Generic" basis, due to the very unique physical site characteristics at SONGS, which other I existing nuclear plants in United States do not possess. The distinctions, and physical I characteristics which make conditions at SONGS so different and unique are vitally important, I and are of utmost importance in any analysis of Decommissioning at SONGS, in order to I ensure the level of public health and safety will be assured, and provided without compromise I to citizens in communities surrounding SONGS. As SONGS Unit 1 is currently being I Decommissioned, the site-specific analysis must include both short-term and long-term effects, I and must also analyze effects of offsite contamination, effects of cumulative contamination and I exposure, and must provide realistic mitigation measures. A Summary of the "site-specific" I physical characteristics and conditions at SONGS, which should justify "site-specific" analysis I (as opposed to a Generic E.I.S. Supplement) include the following: - SONGS is located in a I highly populated area, with dense populations in both Orange County and San Diego County, I where citizens may be exposed to potentially significant offsite effects. - SONGS is located in I a highly active seismic zone, where seismic activity is speculated by some geological experts to I generate quakes up to 7.6 Magnitude on the Richter Scale (by new evidence of local off-shore I blind thrust faults, which cause a greater extent of groundshaking and acceleration than the I manner in which quakes are traditiorially studied). SONGS was only designed and constructed I to withstand a maximum quake of 7.0 Magnitude. - SONGS is located in an area immediately I on the southern California coastline, with most facilities elevated only to a level of 20 ft. above I mean sea level. These facilities are highly exposed and vulnerable to effects of rising sea I levels, and tsunamis, and are insufficiently protected. (CL-44/3)
I Response: NRC staff recognizes that there is wide variabilityamong nuclearpowerplants.
I However, based on the results of our analysis, the impacts resulting from decommissioning are I similarregardlessof plant characteristics,including site-specific information from San Onofre.
I The NRC establishedan envelope of environmental impacts resulting from decommissioning I activities, identified those activities that can be bounded by a generic evaluation, and identified I those that require a site-specific analysis. The NRC concentratedthe environmentalanalysis I on those activities with the greatestlikelihood of having an environmentalimpact. Even for I those impacts that have been determined to be generic, a licensee is requiredto do a site-NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-124 November 2002
Appendix 0 specific analysis to determine whether the impacts fall within the generic envelope. If they are outside of the bounds of the generic envelope, the licensee must seek approvalfrom the NRC.
The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: (4.3.10.3) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of DECOMMISSIONING PERMANENTLY SHUTDOWN NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS; Costs -
Conclusions:
TMIA and EFMR object to the absence of a Conclusion in this section. (CL-02/56)
Response: As stated in Section 4.3.11, "Cost,"an assessment of decommissioning cost is not requiredby NEPA; however, for completeness the staff includedan analysis of decommissioningcost in the Supplement. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: We contend that decommissioning practices on nuclear facilities and its environ mental impacts as major federal actions must be conducted under public review with full disclosure and documentation of the amount of radioactivity, the location of residual contamina tion and the types of radioactive contamination that remain onsite and offsite and are subject to site-specific public hearings. (CL-48/3)
Response: NRC has determined that decommissioning is not a major Federalaction. NRC chose to update the 1988 GElS to further the purposes of NEPA (see Section 1.1, ,"Purpose and Need for This Supplement"). With the exception of some physical security activitiesand requirements,all NRC activities associatedwith decommissioning are conducted in a manner that assuresfull public disclosure. If the licensee has requested an action requiring'alicens I amendment, then the process for intervening in this action is by requestingor participatingin a hearing. The process is set forth in NRC's regulationsin 10 CFR Part2, "Rules or Practiceof Domestic Licensing Proceedingsand Issuance of Orders." The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be 'evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: the primary reason I am submitting tle following comments is to urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to maintain its commitment to study the operating history and resulting contamination of each reactor on a site-specific,-not generic basis " in its effort to design appropriate decontamination and decommissioning requirements for each site. Only in this way I can there be any hope of achieving the requisite, long-term isolation of the contaminants from the human environment. (CL-51/1)
November 2002 0-125 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Response: NRC takes a seriousand specific overview of the decommissioning of each site.
I The contaminationlevels of each site-are looked at on a site-specific basis by the NRC regional I inspectors throughoutthe decommissioningprocess and again during the license-termination I phase, when the licensee is requiredto submit a site characterizationshowing the amount of I contaminationthat remains on the site. See the explanation in revised Section 3.3.3. The I comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated I further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: I am very strongly opposed to the regulatory changes sought by NRC to further I relax decommissioning requirements for nuclear power reactors, as proposed by the 1998 "1 "Generic" E.I.S. on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586), with new "updated" I information on nuclear power reactor decommissioning. The Proposed regulatory changes I sought by NRC are an insult to the public interest. (CL-44/1)
I Comment: The only rules changes that I want to see until spent rods are removed to Yucca I Mountain are to stricter rules. (CL-25/2)
I Response: The Supplement does not (1) establish or revise regulations, (2)impose require I ments, (3) provide relief from requirements,or (4) provide guidance on the decommissioning I process. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will I not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
1 0.2 NRC Experience, Role and Regulations 1 0.2.1 NRC Experience with Decommissioning I Comment: We're familiar with some of the decommissioning models that they, NRC, are I using. Believe me, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee and Maine Yankee are not good I models for anyone to follow for subsequent decommissioning. (AT-B/10)
I Response: Overall decommissioning of Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Maine Yankee I and Haddam Neck have been conducted safely and without endangeringthe public. Applicable I lessons learnedat these and other decommissioned sites are evaluated for subsequent I decommissioninhg The comm-ent did not provide new informationrelevant to this Supplement I and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: And so much of what is in this document depends on the skills and the experience I level, which are lacking, because decommissioning is new, just like plutonium fuel is new. NRC I does not know what it's doing, the people who are on these reactor sites don't know what NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-126 November 2002
Appendix 0 they're doing and so if safety depends on human capability, it does too much by the way in this document, then you know, that's not very reassuring and I'm glad I've got the last word.
(AT-B122)
Response: Since the 1988 GElS was written, the NRC and the industry have gained over 200 facility-years' worth of additionaldecommissioning experience. This Supplement addressesnew decommissioning technologies and approachesthat the 1988 GElS did not address. Decommissioning work is typically done by experiencedcontractorsin conjunction with staff who have worked at the plants and are very familiarwith the facilities. The operations associatedwith decommissioning are also similarto those performed during routine maintenance or major system replacements, which have been carriedout routinelysince the plants began operating. in addition, all commercial reactorfuel containssome plutonium at the end of its life cycle, so handling the materialis not a new experience. The comment did not provide new informationrelevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: The GElS stated, "Based on the number of reactors shut down and the date that they permanently ceased operations, over 200 facility-years' worth of decommissioning experience have accumulated since the 1988 GElS." (Executive Summary,' xi). However, based on this statement, and NRC's inability to grasp the "exponential nature" of radiological decommissioning estimates, it appears that the Commission has had the same experience 200 times. Moreover, the GEIS's sophomoric tone in declaring vast decommissioning experience is similar to the NRC's rhetoric at the time of the 1988 GELS. On May 26, 1988, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the Commission confidently stated they have "considerable experience [decommissioning] with reactors that have not had a significant accident before the end of their useful lives." (CL-02/18)
Response:' The staff believes that there is significant value in 200 facility years' worth of decommissioning experience. The staff is not aware of the concept of the "exponentialnature" of radiologicaldecommissioning estimates. *Thestaff endeavoredto write the Supplement using plain language that would be understoodby a wide audience, despite the highly technical natureof the subject.- The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: The fact is that decommissioning has a long and significantly checkered regulatory history. The draft supplement to NUREG-0586 does not address or acknowledge these repeated oversight failures including numerous decommissioning experiences where licensees did not adequately decontaminate their facilities. These failures include but are not limited to:
the NRC does not know the types, amount and location of buried radioactive waste at some of its decommissioned facilities; -many licensee decommissioning records are nonexistent or November 2002 0-127 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I incomplete; -ground water contamination is higher than federal drinking water standards allow I and-the long standing failure of the responsible federal regulatory agencies to prevent and I prohibit radiation contamination that can remain after the NRC terminates a nuclear facility I license. (The Environmental Protection Agency is on record requiring more protective cleanup I levels than NRC, evidence that NRC's requirements are inadequate.) (CL-48/5)
I Response: This Supplement updates informationprovided in the 1988 GElS by considering I decommissioning experience gained since 1988 and changes in the U.S. NuclearRegulatory I Commission regulationsand, where appropriate,other agency regulations. This Supplement is I intended to be used to evaluate environmentalimpacts for facilities currently undergoing I decommissioning and those that will decommission in the future. The four "failure areas" I identified in the comment above are addressedin detailduring the licensee's site-specific, I license terminationplan review. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: While the Executive Summary of NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 claims that the NRC I and the industry have over 300 years of decommissioning experience with 22 nuclear reactor I facilities permanently shut down, the fact remains that the process is still relatively new and I NRC has yet to complete a single radiological decommissioning operation to a license I termination plan for a typical large United States commercial reactor that operated for any I significant length of time. As stated by Mr. Michael Masnik with the NRC at the Public Scoping I Meeting on Intent to Prepare Draft Supplement To Generic Environmental Impact Statement on I Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities in Boston, Massachusetts, May 17, 2000 with regard to a I question on how many license termination plans have been accepted by NRC, he responded, "I "none have resulted in a license termination." (CL-48/19)
I Response: The commenter is correctthat not a single license has been terminatedunder the I Commission's 1996 revised regulations. The NRC has, however, terminated three licenses at I three facilities: Shoreham, Ft. St. Vrain, and Pathfinder. None of the decommissioning I challenges facing licensees of reactorsthat are currently undergoing decommissioning are I substantiallydifferent from those experienced by the industry in the past 50 years. The I comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated I further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Although the NRC claims numerous successful decommissionings of nuclear sites, I few large-scale reactors that operated for decades have completed successful decommis I sioning. Decommissioning remains experimental. Resources and time required for decom I missioning a site have been routinely underestimated. More importantly, worker doses have I been repeatedly underestimated. Safe decommissioning is about radiological control and the I need to limit exposures to the workers. Nuclear corporations have failed to do this because of NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-128 November 2002
Appendix 0 inexperience and a lack of enforcement by the NRC. With over 100 nuclear reactors yet to be decommissioned in this country, cutting decommissioning exposures by 200-300 person-rem per reactor will reduce the nation's nuclear work force exposures by 20,000-30,000 person-rem.
(CL-50112)
Response: Trojan, Maine Yankee, and Haddam Neck are a few examples of large-scale reactorsthat operatedfor decades and are successfully undergoing decommissioning with worker radiologicalexposure levels at or below estimates. This is discussedin Table F-1 of this I Supplement. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will I not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: Nor does the NRC have any experience decommissioning nuclear power plants that used plutonium bomb fuel, also known as mixed-oxide fuel (MOX). (CL-08/9)
Response: None of the plants being decommissioned or operatedat this time have used MOX I fuel. The use of MOX fuel is outside the scope of this Supplement. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
0.2.2 NRC Role Comment: [There is a] discrepancy or debate between the EPA and the NRC standard for site I cleanup or license termination and I think that has been an obstacle to public understanding and acceptance of decommissioning. While it's-not unexpected, if you gave two different regulators authority over the same activity that they might develop different approaches towards I regulating that activity-Eand in fact that is the case ....The reality is, as was noted in a GAO report on the EPA and NRC standard, that the results actually are very similar, of the two approaches, that they both protect public health and safety.... In other words, you can leave more radioactivity behind under the EPA standard, by the way it's designed, for light water reactors than you can under the NRC standard. -(AT-E/2)
Comment: 'Former Senator John Glenn and the General Accounting Office announced in November 1994, that it is time for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NRC to I coordinate radiation protection standards which are based on risk-assessment. Eight years later, the agencies 'have been unable and unwilling to settle their conflicting regulatory standards. As it stands, how would the nuclear industry determine what levels constitute "Greenfield?" Worker exposures remain decidedly liberal. The Commission has already approved a 1-in-285 lifetime cancer, or 100 mR/year and rejected the Staff's recommendation I of 3 mR/year of residual radiation. (CL-02/37) I November 2002 0-129 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Response: EPA and NRC have elected to establish separateradiationdose criteria for I licensee termination. Licensees must meet the NRC criteria for license terminationin order for I NRC to terminate their reactorlicense. The NRC staff is working with EPA to resolve any I differences in site release criteria. The commenter is correctin that eitherstandardis I sufficiently protective to assure public health and safety andprotection of the environment after I terminationof the license. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: Within the same paragraph it talks about the non-radiological impacts following I license termination that are related to activities performed during decommissioning are I considered in this supplement. We are considering in this supplement the non-radiological I impacts following license termination, not the radiological impacts after a license termination.
I This is a radiological device, a nuclear reactor. I cannot understand how that could even be in I the executive summary to describe the document which is under review. (AT-F/l)
I Response: The radiologicalconsequences occurringafter terminationof the license were I consideredin the NRC staff's environmental assessment of the rulemaking that established the I criteria for license termination. That assessment is contained in the EnvironmentalImpact I Statement found in NUREG-1496, "FinalGeneric EnvironmentalImpact Statement in Support I of Rulemaking on RadiologicalCriteriafor License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear I Facilities." No environmentalassessment of the nonradiologicalimpacts occurringafter license I terminationassociatedwith the decommissioningprocess for power reactorsexists prior to this I Supplement. Such impacts are consideredin the Supplement for completeness. Hence, post I license nonradiologicalimpacts are consideredin this Supplement, and radiation-related I consequences are excluded. See Section 1.2, "ProcessUsed to Determine Scope of This I Supplement." The comment did not provide new informationrelevant to this Supplement and I will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: In this Supplement, the NRC fails to consider whether it has the statutory or I regulatory authority to terminate a license that allows for unrestricted site use with residual I contamination present on site or to terminate the license with restricted site use in an I Agreement State. (CL-17/5)
I Comment: We request that licensees undergoing or planning decommissioning require a new I environmental assessment. (AT-A/22)
I Comment: The Final GElS should directly indicate that licensees must obtain all necessary I environmental permits prior to beginning the decommissioning process. Omitting this I information may imply that the compliance with the requirements of this GElS is adequate.
I (CL-1 1/15)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-130 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: I am violently opposed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposal to further relax its decommissioning requirements for nuclear power reactors. This is nothing but a sellout to the nuclear industry--which puts citizens at risk--with no recourse in case of liabilities.
This is wrong and dangerous. (CL-21/1)
Comment: I am appalled at the NRC's draft of decommissioning requirements for nuclear power reactors. The requirements should be made stricter not more relaxed!!!!!!!!MM!! (CL-2411)
Comment: I strongly object to the proposed changes to the decommissioning rules. We have recently become more sensitive to the rules governing nuclear power plants, even their decommissioning. Since these proposals were begun before September 11, I hope and expect that they will be dead on arrival at the Commission. (CL-25/1)
Comment: I urge you to stop any further relaxing of nuclear power reactor decommissioning requirements. (CL-32/1)
Comment: In setting requirements for decommissioning United States nuclear power reactors, please bear in mind other things besides the needs of Richard (Enron) Cheney, Halliburton Inc.,
Brown & Root, and other powers that be. (CL-33/1)
Comment: I am opposed to NRC regulations pertaining to Decommissioning which would allow NRC to redefine terms to avoid local, site-specific opportunity by public to question, challenge and prevent unsafe decommissioning decisions. (CL-4419)
Comment: I am opposed to NRC regulations pertaining to Decommissioning which would allow (with this supplement), NRC to legally justify removal of existing opportunities for '
community involvement and for legal public intervention until after the bulk of decommissioning has been completed, including activities as flushing, cutting, hauling and possible rubblization of I reactor. (CL-44/11)
Comment: In conclusion, it is with utmost disappointment to again observe with each and every new NRC rulemaking, important components of the public's existing "right to know" and the public's right of active involvement in plant processes, decisions and their methodology, on I all aspects of decommissioning activities routinely appears to be further diminished. As proposed, the EIS (Supplement 1) would eliminate all opportunities for public intervention, and I public oversight and/or intervention entirely with use of a "generic" EIS. In such cases, the loss I of public oversight and intervention on projects with a scope as large as decommissioning at I SONGS, such losses may be unparalleled, or fully understood without a site-specific issue I analysis: The citizens in local communities surrounding nuclear plants such as SONGS, deserve this entitlement, and demand this entitlement. '(CL-44/14)
November 2002 0-131 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Comment: CAN requests the NRC restore distinct categories between reactor operations and I cessation and that the Possession Only License should be reinstated. It affords citizens the I possibility for a hearing prior to reactor decommissioning. The opportunity for a hearing must I not be withdrawn by the Commission. The hearing is essential for communities to participate in I matters that vitally effect them. To offer a hearing at the termination of the license rather than I at the cessation of operations sets aside meaningful citizen participation. (CL-50/6)
I Comment: The relaxation of regulatory control is also evident throughout this draft volume.
I Decommisioning is the final chapter for the agency in its relationship to a given site and license.
I (CL-52/23)
I Comment: We also advocate for sound, systematic policymaking regarding decommissioning.
I (AT-A/9)
I Response: The Supplement does not eliminate opportunitiesfor public intervention.
I Opportunity to intervene is specified by regulationat 10 CFR Part2. This Supplement is a I Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement that evaluates impacts from the decommissioning I process. It does not (1) establishpolicy, (2) establish or revise regulations, (3) impose I requirements,(4) provide relief from requirements,or (5) provide guidance on the I decommissioningprocess. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: Surely the most surprising and disturbing pronouncement in the "Draft Supplement" I appears on page 1-7: "The decommissioning process continues until the licensee requests I termination of the license and demonstrates that radioactive material has been removed to I levels that permit termination of the NRC license. Once the NRC determines that the I decommissioning is completed; the license is terminated. At that point, the NRC no longer has I regulatory authority over the site, and the owner of the site is no longer subject to NRC I regulations." (p. 1-7; emphasis added). (CL-51/24)
I Response: The comment is not specific and the NRC staff is unable to determine what is I surprisingor disturbingabout the statement. The comment did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
I Comment: GElS does not consider the give and take between the federal government and the I agreement states as to who really has the authority to say that yes, you can entomb a reactor.
I And from the State of Illinois' perspective, it's not you folks, it's us. Because what you are I proposing in this GElS as an allowable decommissioning option is the disposal of low-level I radioactive waste. (CH-C/1 0)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-132 November 2002
Appendix 0 Response: The NRC is currently considering the development of changes to its regulations pertainingto the entombment option for decommissioning nuclearpower plants, as discussed in Section 3.2.3 of the Supplement. This comment relates to a future rulemaking process. It is consideredout of scope for this Supplement. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: This only relates to the nuclear power stations, but in previous NRC federal register I notice, they specifically asked whether or not entombment should be allowed for non-reactors as well. In terms of authority as it relates to those federal acts, you know, there's no talk here in I this GElS about consultation with regional compacts. I see your GElS as not addressing those I issues in terms of, again, authority as to who can really say something can happen. (CH-CO12) I Response: The Supplement is limited (see Section 1.1) to considering the environmental impacts of decommissioning reactorfacilities that were licensed by the NRC for commercial powerproduction. In October2001, the Commission publishedfor public comment an Advance I Notice of ProposedRulemaking (ANPR) on entombment options for power reactors (66 FR 1 32551).. The rulemaking process encouragesand involves the public and otherstakeholders, I including states, to make comments and recommendationson the rulemakingeffort. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated I further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: [In addition to the economic gash in the GElS portal, this fatally flawed document I does not adequately address, acknowledge, account for, or compute a number of significant barriers related to radiological decommissioning; including: ] Regulatory Ambiguity. (CL-02/10) I Response: Regulatoty ambiguity is outside the scope of this Supplement. The Supplement I does not (1) establish policy, (2) establish or revise regulations,(3) impose requirements, (4) provide relief from requirements, or (5) provide guidance on the decommissioningprocess. I The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement. I Comment:, The NRC, once again, has missed an opportunity to constructively participate in solving the nuclear decommissioning riddle. Radiological decommissioning requires interagency cooperation among federal, state, and local shareholders. (CL-02/15)
Response: The process followed by the NRC staff includes opportunityfor cooperation on all I levels. Public meetings are held during the decommissioningprocess to which States and local I shareholdersare invited to comment. In both cases, the NRC publishes notificationsof the meetings in the FederalRegister and in local media, and the meetings are held in the vicinity of I the power plant to encouragelocal participation. Representatives from other Federalagencies I November 2002 0-133 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I and State and local governments are invited to attend. Amendments to the license also require I NRC interactionwith State officials. Comments and questions may also be submitted in writing I to the NRC project managerof the facility. The comment did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
I Comment: What legislation or regulations are in place to compensate communities, such as I fisheries, farmers, etc. in cases of releases or accidents during or after decommissioning? (CL 1 08/30)
I Comment: If the NRC is confident--as its supplementary changes to NUREG-0586 suggest-I that onsite and offsite radioactive contamination during decommissioning and afterward will be I minimal, why does it seek to remove all liability from the owner even before the process is I complete? (Ifthe NRC is wrong, who will pay?) (CL-36/2)
I Response: Licensees are requiredto maintain insurancecoverage as part of the Price I Anderson system in the event of accidents. The level of coverage is commensurate with risk I and risk changes as the plantstatus changes from an operatingstatus to a permanently I shutdown status. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement I and will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: The NRC should be required to expressly approve a post-shutdown I decommissioning activities report ("PSDAR") before a licensee initiates decommissioning I activities. Otherwise, the licensees have little incentive to perform a rigorous analysis of I whether their decom-missioning activities fit within the envelope of environmental impacts set I forth in the GELS. Instead, they will likely assume they fit within the guidelines when they I prepare their PSDAR. Moreover, a formal approval process should incorporate more I opportunity for public input. (CL-11/14)
I Response: The primarypurpose of the PSDAR is to inform the public and the NRC of the I licensee'splans for facility decommissioning. NRC staff conduct an inspection to verify the I licensee's basis for concluding that the potential impacts of the proposed decommissioning fall I within the bounds of previously issued environmentalassessments. The results of that I inspection are included in an inspection report, which is available to the public. However, the I regulationsdo not require the NRC to review and approve the PSDARs. The comment did not I provide new informationrelevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The I comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-134 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: The NRC should reevaluate their legal standing in deciding what radioactive material would remain at a reactor site located in an Agreement State and whether their proposed action would be contrary to the waste management policies of the applicable compact. (CL-17/12)
Response: Low-level waste would not be left behind after license termination. Any radioactive contaminationleft behind after license terminationmust meet the License Termination Criteria given in 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E. Mateiials that cannot meet these criteriaare consideredto I be low-level Waste and would have to be disposed of at a licensed low-level waste facility before the license could be terminated. Therefore, any radioactivematerialremaining onsite after license termination would not be consideredradioactivewaste. This Supplement does not I (1) establishpolicy, (2) establish or revise regulations,(3) impose requirements, (4) provide relief from requirements, or (5) provide guidance on the decommissioningprocess. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated I further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: The NRC should add a 10% surcharge to any calculated fees for decommissioning I to help cover those costs that are unforseen which may arise.[It is absurd that NRC states that I "decommissioning activities do not include the maintenance, storage or disposal of spent - I nuclear fuel, or the removal and disposal of nonradioactive structures and materials beyond that I necessary to terminate the NRC license ..... they are not considered as a cost impact because the licensees are not required to accumulate funds for these activities." (See p.4-42).The licensees must be held responsible and accountable for everything about and on the site and generated by the site past, present and future.] (CL-20/44)
Response: NRC's role is not to levy taxes on licensees. The NRC's regulationsrequiring establishmentand funding of the Decommissioning Trust Fund (10 CFR 50.75) provides adequate funds necessaryfor the safe radiologicaldecontaminationof the facility. NRC's responsibilitiesare limited to the radiologicaldecontaminationof the facility.- The oversight of any onsite surplus structures, after the terminationof the license, is clearly outside the scope of I this Supplement. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not resultin a change to the Supplement.
Comment: And of course they must pay for the "spent" deadly radioactive fuel storage at the sites, whether in pools or casks at ISFSI's and the maintenance and upkeep and security and waste handling and fire prevention and similar. -This MUST be addressed as past as part of this I decommissioning, it must be incorporated. (CL-20/45)
Response: All issues related to spent fuel maintenance and storage, including costs, are outside the scope of this Supplement (see Section 1.3). Appendix D provides additional November 2002 0-'135 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I information on spent fuel. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: NRC seems to have ignored it in this Draft also. This is an important health and I also environmental issue that cannot be ignored.[NRC MUST MAKE LICENSEES, I CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS AND ANYONE WHO WORKS ON I DECOMMISSIONING TAKE THE EFFECTS OF RADIOACTIVE "DAUGHTER" PRODUCTS I INTO CONSIDERATION AS THEY MAY HAVE VERY DIFFERENT PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL I AND RADIOACTIVE PROPERTIES THAN THE RADIOACTIVE "PARENT." THIS MUST BE I PART OF DECOMMISSIONING STANDARDS.] (CL-20/53)
I Response: Decayproducts ("daughter"products) are included in the dose assessments. The I comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated I further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: HOW ABOUT TESTS BEING RUN BY THE NRC ON THE SITE. HOW ABOUT I INTERVIEWS WITH LONG TIME STAFF CONCERNING PAST PROBLEMS THAT COULD I BE ENCOUNTERED? (CL-20/66)
I Response: Radioactive contaminationwill be detected during the final radiationsurvey and will I be reduced to the level necessary to allow license termination. NRC staff will either oversee the I final radiationsurvey or conduct independent surveys of the site and environs. The licensees I are requiredby 10 CFR 50.75 to keep records of information during the operatingphase of the I facility that would be used to identify where any spills or otheroccurrences involving the spread I of contaminationwould be located. During site characterization,licensees routinely interview I former and currentstaff to uncover any past occurrence of radioactivespills, contaminants,or I other events that may affect decommissioning. The comment did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
I Comment: You must not remove license amendment requirements when changing from an I operating license to a nuclear materials possession-only license. (CL-25/10)
I Comment: There should be a requirement for a license amendment when a utility changes I from being a nuclear power operating license to a nuclear materials possession-only license.
I (CL-39/5)
I Comment: The NRC must retain regulatory control of the entire site. The NRC must require a I LICENSE AMENDMENT when an owner is granted a change from an operating license to a I materials-possession-only license. (CL-36/4)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-136 November 2002
Appendix 0 Response: The regulationsdo not allow the reactorlicensee to have a "materials-possession only license." The operatinglicense is maintaineduntil decommissioning is complete and the criteria for license terminationare met. The NRC retains regulatoryauthorityover the licensee and site as long as the licensee possesses a license. This Supplement does not establish or revise regulations,impose requirements,provide relief from requirements, or provide guidance on the decommissioningprocess. The NRC staff believe that these comments are in fact directed at rule changes that occurredin 1996 in which the NRC revised its regulationsby the Commission's notice and comment rulemaking process. The public had several opportunities during the rulemakingprocess to comment on andinfluence the development of the revised regulations. The basis for the current regulationsand a summary of the current regulationsare given in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Supplement. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: I am opposed to the following change to NUREG-0586: In Supplement 1 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning: NRC is removing the requirement for a license amendment when changing from a nuclear power operating license to a nuclear materials possession-only license. (With no license amendment, there is no opportunity for public challenge or adjudicatory processes.) (CL-43/11)
Comment: I also utterly oppose removing the requirement for a license amendment when changing from a nuclear power operating license to a nuclear materials possession-only license, thereby eliminating the opportunity for public challenge or adjudicatory processes. (CL- I 33117)
Comment: NRC is removing the requirement for a license amendment when changing from a I nuclear power operating license to a nuclear materials possession-only license. (With no license amendment, there is no opportunity for public challenge or adjudicatory processes.)
(CL-48/46)
Comment: I am opposed to the following proposal(s) in the EIS: NRC is removing the requirement for a license amendment when changing from a nuclear power operating license to I a nuclear materials possession-only license. (With no license amendment, there is no opportunity for public challenge or adjudicatory processes.) (CL-26/13)
Response: There are two public meetings requiredby the regulationsduring the decommissioningprocess. The first occurs before the major decommissioning activities begin, I when the post-shutdown'decommissioningactivities reportis submitted. The second takes place-when the licensee submits a license-terminationplan, which describes how the site will I be returnedto a condition that makes radiologicalcontrols no longer necessary. In both cases, the NRC will publish notifications of the public meetings in the FederalResisterand in local November 2002 0-137 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I media. The meetings are held in the vicinity of the power plant to encourage local participation.
I Normally, a license amendment request allows for an opportunityfor a request to intervene, I which could lead to a hearing. However, the regulationsdo not allow the reactorlicensee to I have a materialspossession-onlylicense. Therefore, there has not been, nor can there be a I license amendment. The comments did not provide new informationand will not be evaluated I further. The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Decommissioning should not be a final opportunity for the nuclear industry to "take I the money and run" - be it to make a profit from inadequate cleanup and monitoring, or to limit I losses from costs that had been underestimated for decommissioning throughout the operating I lifetime of the nuclear reactor. (CL-47/8)
I Response: The missions of the NRC include the protection of public health and safety and I protection of the environment. The NRC's regulationsensure that decommissioning of all I nuclearreactorfacilities will be accomplishedin a safe and timely mannerand that adequate I licensee funds will be available for this purpose (10 CFR 61.61). It has regulationsregarding I the methods used to reasonablyensure that funds will be available to decommission the facility, I but it does not regulatehow the funds'are to be raised. The particularlicensee that holds the I license for the facility pays for the decommissioning. Disposition of remaining funds after I license terminationare outside the scope of this Supplement and NRC's purview. The I comment did not provide new informationrelevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated I further. The comment did not resultin a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Our organizations continue to assert that NRC is deferring its regulatory I responsibility of radiological decommissioning to facilitate a cost driven utility self assessment I through an expedited decommissioning licensing process and by restricting a duly promulgated I public hearing process for affected communities as embodied under the 1988 law. (CL-48/2)
I Response: The missions of the NRC include the protection of public health and safety and I protection of the environment. The NRC's regulations ensure that decommissioning of all I nuclearfacilities will be accomplishedin a safe and timely manner. The decommissioning I regulationspublished in 1996 supercede those promulgatedin 1988. The changes in the I regulationswere made through an establishednotice and comment rulemaking process, which I allowed for public participation. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: CAN believes that streamlining the process for nuclear corporations and setting I aside NRC requirements abdicates the responsibility to protect the health and safety of the I workers, the public, the environment, and violates citizen due process. Nuclear power NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-138 November 2002
Appendix 0 generators should not be given broad discretionary powers to regulate themselves, which this Draft proposes. Protecting public and worker health and safety and the environment must remain the NRC's mission. (CL-50/5)
Response: The mission of the NRC is to regulate the nation's civilian use of by-product, source, and specialnuclearmaterials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security,and to protect the environment. To accomplish this mission; the NRC staff must ensure that the decommissioning of all nuclearreactorfacilities I is accomplishedin a safe and timely mannerand that adequate licensee funds will be available I for this purpose. The NRC has promulgatedregulationswhich must be followed by licensees in I the construction, operation,and decommissioning of power reactors. The licenses for power reactorsin the United States continue throughoutdecommissioning, andlicensees must comply I with the NRC regulationsand conditionsspecified in the license. In 1996, the NRC changed.
the regulationspertainingto the decommissioning of power reactors. The NRC revised its regulationsby the Commission's notice and comment rulemaking process. The public had severalopportunitiesduring the rulemaking process to comment on and influence the development of the revised regulations. The NRC did not, as the commenter suggests, set aside NRC requirements,abdicate its responsibilityto protect health and safety and the environment, and violated due process, but insteadadoptednew regulationsafter the appropriatenotice and comment rulemaking. Supplement 1provides no licensees of power reactorswith "broaddiscretionarypowers to regulate themselves." The Supplement does not establish or revise regulations,impose requirements,provide relief from requirements,or provide guidance on the decommissioning process. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not I result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: Given the repeated and serious exposure of workers during decommissioning of reactor sites, an onsite NRC inspector should be required throughout decommissioning to I protect worker health and safety. (CL-50/22)
Response: -The NRC disputes the statement that there have been repeatedand serious worker radiationexposures during decommissioning of reactorsites. Worker contaminationhas I been infrequent and individualworker doses have been well within Federalstandards. Rather I than stationinga resident inspectorat the site during the entire decommissioningprocess, the I NRC will provide subject-matterexperts to cover specific activitiesoccurringat the site. For example, if the licensee is planning to remove a large component, the NRC might send, at appropriatetimes, an expert in radiationprotection, an expert in heavy lifting andpolar cranes, I and an "expertin packaging radioactivewaste. Inspections are performed by the NRC headquartersstaff andNRC regionalpersonneL ' The comment did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a I change to the Supplement. I November 2002 0-139 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Comment: Concerns and unknowns about the decommissioning of nuclear power plants I started many years ago. In'January 1975, for example, Sheldon Meyers, as director of the I EPA's Office of Federal Activities, included the following observation about the Callaway plant's I draft environment statement: 'The section in the draft statement regarding decommissioning of I the plant indicates the plant site may require long-term surveillance after being shut down. This I section should be expanded to provide an estimate of the length of the surveillance time and I the length of time the land must stand unproductive. It should also identify who will be I responsible for the surveillance activity and who will incur the cost." (Published by the NRC in I March 1975; p. A12, emphasis added.) Why has no one answered these concerns prior to I now? Or are there no credible answers? (CL-51/26)
I Response: Currentregulationsrequire continued surveillance at commercialpower reactors I after permanent cessation of operation. Such requirementsare similarto those at operating I plants. The NRC's environmentalimpact statement, NUREG- 1496, "FinalGeneric I EnvironmentalImpact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteriafor License I Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,"was preparedin support of the rulemaking I effort that establishedthe site-release criteria. The comment did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not resultin a I change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Failure of NRC regulatory control to require that the radioactively-contaminated I materials and wastes remaining at a reactor site post-closure will not be released into the I biosystem - as described in this document and in NRC regulations-constitutes a serious I violation of the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, Chapter 1, and of the I National Environmental Policy Act. Any such decisions by the NRC are therefore arbitrary and I capricious, and contrary to both the AEA and NEPA. (CL-52/4)
I Response: The missions of the NRC include the protection of public health and safety and I protection of the environment. The NRC reviews and inspects the environmentalprograms to I ensure that the requirementsrelatedto radioactivereleasesinto the environment are consistent I with the regulations. Any remaining onsite radioactivematerialattributableto plant operation I and decommissioningmust meet the stringent site-releasecriteria set forth in 10 CFR Part20, 1 Subpart E. The staff has determined that any remainingradioactivematerialafter license I termination will not pose a threat to public health and safety. The staff's analysis is presented I in NUREG-1496, "FinalGenericEnvironmentalImpact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on I RadiologicalCriteriafor License Terminationof NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,"preparedin I supportof the rulemaking effort that establishedthe site-releasecriteria. The comment did not I provide new informationrelevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The I comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-140 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: In practice, in the decommissioning of reactors the NRC's Decommissioning Rule has both allowed release into the environment of radioactive materials and wastes and disallowed members of the affected public from an opportunity for adjudicatory hearings in advance of decommissioning activities. (CL-5215)
Response: Nuclearpower plants were licensed with the expectation that there would be routine releases of radioactivematerial to the airand water due to normal operations. The releases are limited to levels that ensure public health and safety. There was never the expectation that this materialwould be completely removed from the site or surrounding environment prior to license termination. Any radioactivematerialsremainingonsite that are attributableto plant operation or decommissioningmust meet the stringent site release criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.20, Appendix E. The staff has determined that any remainingradioactive I materialafter license termination will not pose a threat to public health andsafety and , I protection of the environment. The staff's analysis is presentedin NUREG-1496, "FinalGeneric I EnvironmentalImpact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on RadiologicalCriteriafor License I Termination of NRC-Licensed NuclearFacilities,"preparedin support of the rulemaking effort that establishedthe site-release criteria. The licensee is requiredto submit a license terminationplan (LTP) for NRC review and approvalapproximatelytwo years before anticipated I license termination. The LTP is submitted as an amendment to the facility license. As such, interestedmembers of the public can request intervention in the amendment process. The request for intervention could lead to an adjudicatoryhearing. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: What happens in the real world is different from your idealistic presentations and your idealistic views of what ought to be happening. And we have such things as the nuclear waste train carrying Yankee Rowe waste coming into the town of Roanoke at 9: 00 on a Friday I evening with a street festival going on and you know where the railroad track goes in Roanoke, it comes right into downtown. And all of the highways were blocked off for the festival, there were thousands of people there, having come into the county for this festival. And that train sat I there for hours. And if they were really only emitting 10 millirem per hour at six feet-and I believe me, people were closer than six feet, a bunch of them ran up to it, although our people I who were there tried to stop them and get the crowd to move away from the train. There was nobody there who was doing that function except us. And so, you know, in the real world, what-the decisions that you make come down-to people's communities and so I don't need to I preach at you-well, yeah, I do. You've got to do better, you've got to make assumptions that I are way more conservative than what you're doing. And you've got to assume human failings. I (AT-B/21)
November 2002 0-141 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Response: The regulationsapplying to transportationof radioactivematerials are provided by I the U.S. Departmentof Transportation(DOT)and cited in 49 CFR Parts 171-177. NRC I regulationsare cited in 10 CFR Part 71 and discussedin this Supplement in Section 4.3.17.
1 These regulationsare adequate to protectpublic health and safety and take into account public I presence in the vicinity of waste shipments. Specific details relatedto the shipment described I above are outside the scope of this Supplement. However, the comment has been forwarded I to the appropriateNRC office for follow up. The comment did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Now my point in bringing this up is that the NRC cannot continue to allow I rulemaking to be driven by exemption as it has been done in the past. It lowers the bar for all I subsequent actions every time an exemption is made. (AT-F/5)
I Response: The comment is not specific. The grantingof exemptions to the NRC regulationsis I allowed under 10 CFR 50.11. This Supplement does not (1) establish or revise regulations,(2) 1 impose requirements,(3) provide relief from requirements,or (4) provide guidanceon the I decommissioning process. -The comment did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: The Atomic Energy Act allows states to assume regulatory authority over the I disposal of low-level radioactive waste in their state. In an Agreement State it is the Agreement I State not the NRC that has the jurisdiction over disposal of low-level radioactive waste at I reactor sites. (CL-17/8)
I Response: The "Low-Level Radioactive Waste PolicyAmendments Act of 1985"gives states I the responsibilityto dispose of low-level radioactive waste generated within their bordersand I allows them to form compacts to locate facilities to serve a group of states. The Act provides I that the facilities will be regulatedby the NRC or by States that have enteredinto Agreements I with the NRC under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act. This comment is in reference to I entombment, which is the subject of future rulemaking, as discussed in Section 3.2.3. Such I future rulemaking on entombment will address the issue as to what role Agreement States will I play in the entombment process. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: It always amazes me how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission INVENTS its own I laws and standards - its own regulations, its own definitions (such as "decommissioning" see I p. xii) (CL-20/4)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-142 November 2002
Appendix 0 Response: The NRC does not pass laws; that is the role of Congress. Under its authorizing legislation, the NRC does develop implementing regulations. The definition of "decommissioning"in the NRC regulationswas establishedby the NRC rulemakingprocess.
The rulemaking process encouragesand involves the public and other stakeholders to make comments and recommendations. Information about this process can be found in NRC regulationsat 10 CFR 2, Subpart H, and on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: HOW ABOUT THE NRC ACTUALLY READING THE INSPECTION REPORTS AND VIOLATIONS ETC. ON THE DOCKETS OF EACH FACILITY AS I SAID EARLIER. (CL 20/65)
Response: The NRC staff writes, reviews and issues the inspection reports and the violations I placedon the dockets. All dockets that dealt with the nuclearfacility must be reviewed prior to decommissioning to ensure that all previousproblems or concerns with the site are taken into accountand are addressedproperlyand thoroughly in decommissioning plans. The comment I did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further.
The comment did not resultin a change to the Supplement.
Comment: NRC should take its own independent samples of offsite water and sediment and soils, as well as onsite. The NRC must not go by the original Offsite Dose Calculation Manuals as what was allowed in them. (CL-20/67)
Response: During the License Terminationphase of reactordecommissioning, the NRC staff conducts its own independent, confirmatorymeasurements. The NRC may also observe, perform, or collect side-by-side surveys or samples with licensees during the final site survey.
The results of these confirmatory surveys are publicly available. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement. I Comment: Often the plants DO NOT HAVE TO REPORT THEIR RELEASES UNTIL THOSE RELEASES REACH A CERTAIN LEVEL, IT DEPENDS WHAT THEIR LICENSE STATES.
(CL-20/95)
Response: The site is carefully monitored and regulatedprior to license termination, and is only releasedfor unrestricteduse under carefully monitoredconditions (Section 2.2.2). - I Gaseous effluent and liquid releases from all licensed light waterpower reactorsites are monitoredin accordance with the licensee's Offsite Dose CalculationManual (ODCM) and releases must meet the requirements in 10 CFR Part20, Appendix B, Table 2. ýThe licensee is requiredto submit an effluent release report to the NRC on an annualbasis that summarizes November 2002 0-143 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I radioactivereleases over the previous 12 months. The proceduresand results of the I monitoringprograms are inspected and reviewed by NRC staff to ensure that all requirements I are being met. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and I will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: In the name of humanity and morality, you should all leave your jobs now in I righteous protest at what you're being asked to do. Walk out. Say goodbye. Go work at Wal I Mart if you have to. But don't recklessly endanger the health of this nation by acquiescing in I these evil plans. (CL-33/6)
I Response: The comment is not specific to the Supplement, however, the missions of the NRC I do include the protection of public health and safety and protection of the environment. The I mission of the NRC includes ensuring that decommissioning of all nuclearreactorfacilities will I be accomplishedin a safe and timely manner and that adequate licensee funds will be available I for this purpose. Regulationsare in place to ensure that the health and well-being of our nation I is protected (see 10 CFR Part20 and NUREG-1496). The health and safety of the public is a I top priority and the staff takes this matter very seriously. The comment did not provide new I information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not I result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: The regulations are in violation of the appellate court decision in CAN v NRC. The I court ruled that decommissioning remained a "major federal action" requiring National I Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. CAN strongly urges the NRC to enforce NEPA I compliance and require decommissioning reactors to undertake site-specific Environmental I Impact Statements (EIS). In addition CAN requests the Commission withdraw the proposed I draft and revise it so that it complies with the ruling of the court decision. (CL-50/1 and I CL-50/2)
I Response: The appellate court did not rule (59 F.3d 284 [1st Cir 1995] that decommissioning I was a "majorFederalaction." In fact, the decommissioning of power reactors was never I considered a major Federalaction. The appellate court did rule that the NRC had not followed I its own regulations[the 1988 revision to the regulations]in allowing the licensee of the Yankee I Rowe NuclearPlant to remove major components before the completion of the review and I approval of the Decommissioning Plan. Since then, in 1996, the NRC has revised its I regulationsby the Commission's notice and comment rulemakingprocess. The public had I several opportunitiesduring the rulemaking process to comment on and influence the I development of the revised regulations. By regulation, the NRC staff no longerhas to review I and approve a decommissioningplan for power reactordecommissioning. Supplement 1 to I NUREG-0586 is consistent with the currentNRC regulationsfor decommissioningof power I reactors. The purpose and need of this Supplement are to provide an analysis of I environmental impacts from decommissioning activities that can be treatedgenericallyso that NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-144 November 2002
Appendix 0 many of the decommissioning activities for commercial nuclearpower reactorsconducted at specific sites will be bounded, to the extent practicable,by this andappropriatepreviously issued environmentalassessments. Supplement 1 is not the proper forum for challenging the NRC regulationson decommissioning. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. -The comment did not result in a change to I the Supplement.
Comment: What the NRC decides to do concerning decommissioning, is what the following generations of children, women, men, plants, animals, insects, birds, fish - all life, is going to I suffer from, and die by. A small bunch of (mainly) men in an office complex inWashington, I along with a few cohorts elsewhere, plus an immoral multinational polluting industry (in the business for money only) are seemingly setting a set of criteria that will impact the whole world I to no good end and cause great misery. (CL-20/107)
Comment: You need to start doing what is safest and in the best interest of the people of the I United States and its land, NOT what is going to relieve the nuclear power companies of their I responsibility to what they have created and profited off. (CL-24/6)
Response: The comments are not specific and did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comments did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
Comment: The NRC has a statuatory obligation to do a better job. (CL-52/24)
Comment: Because of deregulation, the United States public must rely more than ever upon the NRC to maintain its authority and responsibility to identify, assess and regulate the full range of potential high-risk impacts of every commercial reactor - before, during and following its decommissioning. The NRC is our only option. (CL-51/20) -I Comment: I fail to see any moral difference between terrorists who fly planes into buildings, and bureaucrats who are perfectly willing to expose whole populations to additional dangers from radiation. (CL-33/5)
Comment: The present openness is most welcome, and a nice change, but past history hangs I over NRC like a dark cloud. (CL-10/2)
Comment: -The most formidable governmental regulations facing nuclear related industries is I conflicting regulatory authority. Uncertainty is the enemy of the electric industry. This is most I clearly evident in the decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear power plants.
(CL-02/38)
November 2002 0-145 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Comment: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission can no longer evade its responsibilities and I duties without considering the practical consequences, financial limitations, and political I realities. (CL-02111)
I Comment: The reactors must be decommissioned in a prudent manner that will seek to I protect the health and safety of the workers and the public. In the United States we must rely I on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its knowledge, guidance and surveillance. I hope I that trust is warranted. (CL-51/28)
I Response: The missions of the NRC include the protection of public health and safety and I protection of the environment. Thd NRC staff takes this responsibilityseriously. The I reputationsin place and the actions and activitiesof the NRC staff provide adequate oversight I of the industryto assure public health and safety. The comments did not provide new I information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did I not result in a change to the Supplement.
I0.2.3 Decommissioning Duration and Options 0.2.3.1 Decommissioning Duration I Comment: On page 1-6 of the document, it references that, there's literature saying that I materials can be stored safely for 30 years, yet safe store can go on for 60 years. And I don't I understand how you can recoricile that. There may be a way but I just don't understand it from I the document. There may be a way that you can make that more clear in the document.
I (CH-Ni 2) 1 Response: The refeience on page 1-6 of the draft Supplement refers to spent fuel storage and I the second reference is related to permissible time the facility has to complete decommis I sioning. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not I be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: I understand that spent fuel is dealt with in a different GELS. But I think I raised this I concern during the scoping. The 60-year period presumes a lot of things. (SF-B14)
I Response: Although long-term storage of spent fuel is not within the scope of the Supplement, I as describedin Section 1.3, the staff is committed to ensuring that both spent fuel and low-level I wastes are safely storedto protect the public. The comment did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-146 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: What was the technical basis for establishing a 60-year period? And is it still appropriate? (CH-AI14)
Response: The basis was that major dose reduction via decay of cobalt-60 would occur in approximately30 years, 'andmajor contaminant volume reduction would occur in approximately 50 years; also, detailedengineering considerationsestimated thatprompt dismantlement could require as much as 6 years to complete. Thus, an estimate of 50 years for significant contaminant waste reduction was used. Adding the time needed for dismantlement of 5-6 years and rounding up resultedin the 60-year time period for permissible storage delay given in the final rule. -The staff currentlyfinds the 60-year time period to be appropriate. The 60-year time includes the time requiredfor terminationof license by the NRC. A licensee of a power reactorhas 60 years to complete decommissioning. Additionally, the regulationsallow for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years, but only by approval of the Commission when necessary to protect the public health and safety. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not resultin a change to the Supplement.
Comment: -Sixty years is an arbitrary and inappropriate time period to allow a nuclear reactor to remain in SAFSTOR, where the contaminated facility will largely remain intact and spent fuel may remain onsite. According to NRC staff, no technical basis exists for this 60-year timeframe. See Transcript, December 6, 2001 Public Meeting, Drake Hotel, Chicago. First, if a company waits too long to decommission, it will lose its institutional memory and familiarity with the facility's structures because current workers may be deceased or otherwise unavailable.
Such intricate knowledge of the facility is critical to avoiding radioactive releases during decommissioning. (CL- 11/9)
Response: There is a basis for the 60-yearperiod for decommissioning. The consideration was that major dose reduction via decay of cobalt-60 would occur in approximately30 years, and major radioactivecontaminant volume reduction would occur in approximately50 years.
Thus, an estimate of 50 years for significantcontaminantwaste reduction and dose reduction was used. Adding the time needed for dismantlement of 5-6 years and rounding up resulted in the 60-year time period. The staff currently finds the 60-year time period to be appropriate.
The 60-yearperiod also includes the time requiredfor terminationof license by the NRC. The possible shortageof personnel familiar with the facility at the time of deferred dismantlement and decontaminationis recognizedas a disadvantageof SAFSTOR. There are offsetting, advantages,such as reduction of worker dose and public exposure compared with the DECON option. Sections 3.2.1, DECON, and 3.2.2, SAFSTOR, explain the advantages and disadvantagesof each option. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
November 2002 0-147 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 0.2.3.2 Decommissioning Options I Comment: The Supplement incorrectly addresses the impact on the SAFSTOR scenario due I to the time gap between cessation of operations and decommissioning activities. The I Supplement expects the time gap will result in a shortage of personnel familiar with the facility I when decommissioning activities commence. Our own experiences have shown us that both I DECON and SAFSTOR decommissioning scenarios can be conducted in a safe and efficient I manner. Regarding the familiarity of the facility at the end of licensed life, whether the plant I begins decommissioning immediately or waits for some defined period - the most difficult I aspect is retrieving records from the earliest days of operation. Recently retired facilities have I taken the appropriate step of preparing a site historical assessment - documenting the I operating years of the facility. This historical assessment will guide the decommissioning I process whether it begins immediately upon retirement or 50 years later. (CL-31/5)
I Response: The text in the Supplement was meant to be generalin nature with regardto the I possible advantagesand disadvantagesof the various decommissioning options. There are I always exceptions to such generalcomments. The staff does not mean to imply that DECON is I preferable to SAFSTOR or vice versa. The comment did not provide new information relevant I to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to I the Supplement.
I Comment: In conclusion, as we have stated earlier, the methods used to decommission a I nuclear plant will affect not only the communities of today but also the livelihood of future I generations. (AT-N42)
I Response: The staff agrees with the comment. The comment did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
I Comment: If life cycle plants has the decommissioning activities out as far as 60 years, what's I the scenario that might involve? (BO-A/1)
I Response: The scenarioin which decommissioning activities extend for a period of up to 60 1 years is describedin Section 3.2.2, SAFSTOR, of this Supplement. In the SAFSTOR option, I there is an initialperiod of activity to preparefor storage, a storage period,and a period of final I decommissioningactivities in which the facility and systems are decontaminatedand I dismantled. All three periods must be completed within 60 years. The comment did not provide I new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment I did not result in a change to the Supplement.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-148 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: But, at least, in your experience, have you seen facilities--You haven't seen facilities where the only facility that's been operating has been shut down, and then they're just sitting there waiting. (BO-A/2)
Response: Table 3-2 lists the facilities that have permanently ceased operations. La Crosse is I a one-unit plant in SAFSTOR. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further.. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: It [SAFSTOR] seems like it's taking a substantial land mass out of sort of useful life I for a long period of time. (BO-A/3)
Response: The SAFSTOR option involves continued commitment of land for a significantly I longer period than the DECON option. This is one of the disadvantagesof the SAFSTOR option. Most of the plants selecting the SAFSTOR option are at multi-unit facilities where one of the facilities has permanently ceased operationand the commitment of land would continue I as a result of the otheroperatingunit(s). The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a I change to the Supplement. I Comment: First, we don't believe you should allow nuclear reactor owners under safe store to I store waste for 60 more years after operations cease. We think the document should narrow the parameters. Because we have many concerns, some of which relate to institutional memory.- (CH-N5)
Response: NRC regulations 10 CFR 50.82 require that decommissioning be completed within I 60 years of permanentcessation of operations. Amendment of NRC regulationsis outside the I scope of this Supplement. NRC rulemaking proceduresare found at 10 CFR Part2. The comment did not provide new informationrelevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated I further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: Allowing the licensee to choose the decommissioning method is not recommended, I due to the usual pressures to cut costs despite the obvious dangers. (CL-i0/10)
Comment: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD'A FACILITY BE ALLOWED THE OPTION OF CHOOSING THE METHOD OF DECOMMISSIONING IT WANTS, AS IS THE CURRENT CASE. (CL-20/61) '
Response: The licensee owns the facility andis allowed to choose the process for decommissioning consistent with NRC regulations. The comments did not provide new November 2002 0-149 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did I not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Combinations of DECON and SAFSTOR would be the best, however, under no I circumstances should SAFSTOR continue past five years. That would enable workers familiar I with the plant to be still available, but at the same time allow for the decay of some of the I radioactive contaminants which have shorter full hazardous radioactive lives prior to removal, I thus lowering worker exposure etc. (CL-20/62)
I Response: The licensee owns the facility and is allowed to choose the process for I decommissioning consistent with NRC regulations. NRC allows SAFSTOR because,in spite of I some disadvantages,there are offsetting advantages,such as reduced worker dose and public I exposure, compared with the DECON option. Under the current regulations,the licensee is I permitted to begin active dismantlementafter a 5-year storageperiodor continue to maintain I the facility in SAFSTOR provided that decommissioning is completed within the 60-yearperiod I allowed by the regulations. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: The NRC effort to approve alternate decommissioning methods constitutes I significant uncertainty and an impediment to accurately estimate the real cost of I decommissioning nuclear facilities. There is no real assurance that adequate funds will be I available to safely and properly decommission the site and provide for remediation of all I necessary cleanup. These regulatory and environmental issues do not support generic I treatment of environmental impact statements. In fact because of the economic and technical I and environmental uncertainties of the rubblization and Entombment options, they should be I subject to much more rigorous review than provided by this Supplement. This Supplement I gives only cursory attention and unsubstantiated dismissal of potentially very serious I environmental consequences of the rubblization, Entombment and Partial site release options.
I (CL-48/28)
I Response: Entombment and partialsite release are the focus of currentNRC rulemaking that I would provide furtherguidance on these methods of decommissioninga nuclear power facility.
I The staff stated in Section 1.3 that radiologicalimpacts associatedwith Rubblization would I receive a site-specific environmental assessment during the staff's review of the license I terminationplan. Additionally, providing alternativedecommissioning options to licensees does I not necessarilyintroduce uncertaintyinto the estimate of the cost of decommissioning. The I comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated I further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-150 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: And we were tacitly or directly promised a 50-year cooling period for the nuclear power plants. I can go back and drag out some of those documents if you want to see that.
And two-year cooling periods for Yankee Rowe before it's chopped up and decommissioned is unthinkable. 'You know, we will not approve of and we will fight diligently in every opportunity and arena we have a hot, quick and dirty decommissioning which violates the promise of future-safety to future generations. (AT-B/16)
Response: NRC regulationsin 10 CFR 50.82 that cover decommissioning do not requirea "coolingperiod." Amendment of NRC regulationsis outside the scope of this Supplement.
NRC rulemaking proceduresare found at 10 CFR Part2. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: Any of the methods proposed would require long time maintenance and monitoring, but keeping it in its original location would mean that the community would be familiar with it, it would be visible, and the community would be likely to care about its monitoring. In fact, involving the community in the whole process could utilize their experience and encourage their help. (CL-10/9)
Comment: The lowest possibility of releasing contamination into the environment requires entombing radioactive structures, systems and components in a long-lived substance, maintaining and monitoring it, until the radioactive level is reduced to a safe level, which would take many years. (CL-1 0/7)
Comment: Although the alternatives [decommissioning options] proposed for decommissioning'nuclear facilities all sound reasonable,' the proposal in general has one major problem, which is the NRC's lack of credibility due to past berrors and cover-ups. (CL-10/1)
Response: The comments are not specific and did not provide'new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to theI Supplement.
0.2.3.3 Entombment Comment: One of the things that your GElS did not consider is termination of a license under entombment. (CH-C/7)
Response: -The purpose of this Supplement isto'evaluate the impacts associatedwith the process of decommissioning. Issues relatedto the regulatoryprocess for terminating the license for entombment are outside the scope of this Supplement. As statedin Section 3.2.3, November 2002 0-151 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I the NRC issued an Advance Notice of ProposedRulemaking (ANPR) (66 FR 52551, dated I October 16, 2001) to solicit early public comment in developing changes to its regulationsto I permit entombment as an option in decommissioning nuclearpower plants. As statedin I Section 3.2.3 for the ENTOMB 1 option, "The Staff makes no assumptionsas to when the I license would be terminatedand whether it would be terminated under the restrictedor I unrestrictedprovisionsof 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E. These decisions would likely be I addressedas part of the staff's rulemaking effort related to entombment explained above."
I Although absent in draft Supplement 1, similarlanguage has been added to the description of I the ENTOMB2 entombment option. For this reason, the comment resultedin a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: And you said that for that restricted release use is going to need analysis on a site I by site basis. Then why are you dealing with entombment in a generic EIS? (CH-C/15)
I Response: As stated in Section 1.3, the Supplement considers the environmentalimpact of I those activities conducted during decommissioning. The Supplement does evaluate I nonradiologicalimpacts to the environment that occur after the license is terminatedbut only I those resulting from activities that were conducted during decommissioning. Some of those I impacts can be assessedgenericallyand have been in this Supplement. The Supplement does I not considerthe radiologicalimpacts that might occur after the license is terminated. Nor does I the Supplement considernonradiologicalimpacts due to activities conducted after the license is I terminated. If a licensee pursues the entombment option, there will be activitiesnecessary to I ready the facility for the entombment. The impact, during decommissioning and after, of some I of those activities are consideredgeneric by the Supplement. The site-specific assessment I requiredby a proposed restrictedrelease would naturallyfocus on radiologicalissues. The I comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated I further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Section 3.2, p. 3 defines two ENTOMB options developed specifically to I envelope a wide range of potential options by describing two possible extreme cases of I entombment. These extremes are useful in bounding an analysis, however they may be I inappropriate for analysis to support a potential rulemaking for this option. (CL-05/10)
I Response: The staff agrees with the comment. We state in Section 3.2.3, "Any rulemaking I effort on the part of the NRC staff will require an environmentalassessment (10 CFR 51.21)."
I We say further, "Thestaff is making the assumption that environmentalissues arisingfrom any I rulemaking effort will be addressedin the rulemaking and its supporting environmental I documentation." The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and I will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-152 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: The Supplement (page 3-16) indicates that ENTOMB is still considered a viable option for decommissioning. 'Section 3.2.3 notes that the Supplement includes a bounding analysis, but that any environmental issues arising from a subsequent rulemaking on ENTOMB will be addressed in that rulemaking and its supporting environmental documentation. EPA urges NRC to co'nsider in any subsequent analysis of ENTOMB theissueof residual dose and the potential need'for'sta~te approval of any de facto disposal. (CL-16/10)
Response: NRC published an Advance Notice of ProposedRulemaking on October 16, 2001 (66 FR 52551) seeking stakeholderinput on three proposedregulatoryoptions and whether entombment was a viable decommissioning alternative: The ANPR comment period closed on December31, 2001. NRC received 19 comments from: six States; eight licensees; the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI); the U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA); the Conference of Radiation Control ProgramDirectorE-24 Committee on Decommissioningand Decontamination(CRCPD E-24 Committee); the SoutheastCompact Commission (SCC); and a private individual.
Generally, the eight utilitie's and NEI stated that they w6uld like to have entombment available as a decommissioning 6ption; however, none unequivocally committed to using entombment in their decommissioningprocess. Some Agreement State commenters endorsed the Part20 dose limits, with one' State adding that a time limit to reach the dose rates should be considered. Although one State advocatedextending the decommissioning'periodbeyond 60 years, most were silent on the decommissioningregulationsin Part50. The 'staff notes that there was no consensus on a preferredoption. NRC staff has consideredthe comments received and has prepareda papertransmitting the'Staff's recommendations to the Commission. As of the date of this publication the 'Commission has not acted on the staff's recommendations.
Since the development of a proposed rule on entombment is clearly outside the scope of this Supplement, the Comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: Page 3-24 mentions the containment ceiling being lowered to the top of the pressurizeffor a PWR under the ENTOMB2 option. Appendix E, page 9 lists this action as optional. This action needs to clearly be listed as optional on pages 3-24, 3-25, and 3-31.
SCE&G believes this action should be optional as listed in Appendix E due to the extreme effort to lower the ceiling of a massive building such as thereactor building and yet maintain it intact for entombment purposes. '(CL-19/1)
Response: The scenarios for entombment are non-prescriptiveand were developed to reasonablyenvelop a typical entombment. The staff developed the scenariosbased on the November 2002 0-153 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I limited past United States experience in entombing reactorsand experience from other I countries. The commrnent did not provide new informationrelevant to this Supplement and will I not be evaluated further. However, the Supplement was revised for clarification.
I Comment: Also, on page 3-24"low density concrete grout" is mentioned. Grout is not I lightweight, but concrete can make use of lightweight large'aggregate to lower the weight per I volume. Therefore, SCE&G recommends concrete be used in place of grout on pages 3-24, 1 3-25, 3-31, and 3-33. (CL-1 9/2) 1 Response: Chapter3 was revised and the term "concrete"was used in place of "grout".
I Comment: The Supplement properly addresses the ENTOMB decommissioning option.
I Issues related to the ENTOMB option after the facility has terminated its NRC license and I entered the entombment period are outside the scope of this GELS. Power reactor entombment I is not construction of a LLW disposal facility - it is properly classified as a decommissioning I scenario, which creates an assured storage facility for radioactive material to decay in place, I until it no longer represents a hazard considering future public use of the site. The clear I distinction between entombment as a decommissioning scenario and a LLW disposal facility I may be found in the ability to reuse the site in the future for other purposes. Regulation I governing LLW-disposal facilities does not contemplate future use of the site, restricted or I unrestricted. Future use of an entombed site will be dictated by the dose-based performance I criteria found in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. (CL-31/3)
I Response: The comment is supportive of the discussion of entombment as a decommis I sioning option. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and I will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: While the Supplement addresses two entombment options stating they have I prepared as extreme cases to envelop a wide range of potential options, there should be I additional language early in Section 3.2.3 ENTOMB clarifying that utilities are likely to develop I entombment scenarios based upon their site-specific needs. (CL-31118)
I Response: Section 3.2.3 was revised to include a statement that licensees will adopt the I entombment option to fit their specific site requirements.
I Comment: So I'm really interested in this entombment rule making process and I promise you I that we will have a lot to say about that because that really is the only option for what to do with I these plants. (AT-B/17)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-154 November 2002
Appendix 0 Response: The comment is on the NRC entombment rulemaking effort, which is outside the scope of this Supplement. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
tI Comment: You need to keep it where it is and somehow seal it off, and then you have to monitor it for years and years and years because none of this goes away. (AT-D/9)
Response: - The staff makes the assumption for the purposes of developing'an entombment scenariofor this Supplement that there "would be a monitoringprogram period as long as 20 to 30 years to demonstrate that there was isolationof the contaminationand adequate permanence of the structure"(see Section 3.2.3). If isolation were not adequately demonstratedin this amount of time, it is likely that mitigation would be requiredalong with further monitoring., This comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement.
and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: I'm real happy to see entombment is coming up and getting more discussion because it is the area that we look to, the avenue that we think will yield the most protection for the public ultimately. (AT-G/l)
Response: The comment is supportive of the discussion of entombment as a decommission ing option. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: The thing that really jumped up and disturbed me was about the middle of the paragraph. It says, "All decommissioning activities were assumed to determine their potential for radiation exposures that may result in health effects to workers and the public. This section considers the impacts to workers and the public during decommissioning activities performed up to the time of the termination of the license. And potential radiological impacts following license termination are not considered in this supplement... I don't think that you can remove the I long-term radiological impacts of using entombment as a decommissioning method from this environmental impact... but if you're going to pursue entombment as a disposal option which according to your slide in the 1988 draft or '88 GElS was assumed not to be a viable alternative, you really need to look beyond license termination into the long-term radiological impacts because that stuff is going to be there forever until it decays away.' (CH-C/1)
Comment: As mentioned at the December 6, 2001 public meeting in Chicago, the scope of the I Draft Supplement is inadequate in its evaluation of long-term radiological exposure to the public I for the reactor entombment decommissioning method. (CL-17/1)
November 2002 0-155 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Response: Forlicense termination to occur, the radiologicalimpacts following license I terminationmust meet the criteriadefined in 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E. These criteria would I apply to license termination for any of the decommissioning options including entombment. If I the entombment process used did not allow the site to meet the license terminationcriteria, I then the license would not be terminated. Currentcriteriafor license terminationis given in 10 I CFR Part20, Subpart E. These criteriawere establishedby a 1997 rulemaking. The staff I evaluated the impacts of the site-releasecriteria in NUREG-1496, "GenericEnvironmental I Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteriafor License Termination of I NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities." As stated in Table 1-1, the radiologicalimpacts following I license terminationare outside the scope of this Supplement. The comments did not provide I new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments I did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: And depending upon what system structures and components you put into the I containment building, that time period of potential radiological hazard may be relatively short, it I could be really long. (CH-C/2)
I Response: The staff agrees with the comment. The comment did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
I Comment: If you take a look at the date of this NUREG-1496 being 1997, that was also in a I time frame when entombment really wasn't being talked about. NRC held their first meeting on I entombment as a viable reactor decommissioning option in December of 1999. So I doubt that I those long-term radiological impacts are assessed in this EIS, referenced in NUREG-1496.
I (CH-C/4)
I Response: NUREG-1496, "GenericEnvironmentalImpact Statement in Support of I Rulemaking on RadiologicalCriteriafor License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear I Facilities,"does not specifically discuss entombment of power reactors. It does, however, I assess the impact of specific radiologicalcriteria and long-term radiologicalimpacts that may I result following termination of the license of a nuclearfacility. The analysis clearly envelopes I the entombment concept,and the long-term impacts would be those identifiedin NUREG-1496.
1 Furthermore,if the proposedentombment was not within the bounds of the 1997 assessment, I then the assessment would not be applicable to whatever option or scenario the licensee I chose. Additionally, the radiologicalimpacts following license terminationare outside the scope I of this Supplement; as indicatedin Table 1-1. The comment did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-156 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: Entombment is basically the isolation of contaminated reactor stuff from the environment. -Now, if you, and that's just a rough estimate on a definition. But if you look at definitions of disposal, it's going to be pretty similar. (CH-C/8)
Comment: By definition entombment is disposal of low-level radioactive waste in the containment structure. (CL-17/7)
Response: As stated by one of the commenters on the draft Supplement (CL31/3), power reactorentombment is not the same as construction of a LLW disposalfacility. The LLW disposalfacility is designed and constructed to accept waste from other locationsand store it in I a manner that allows it to decay in place until it no longerrepresentsa hazard. A reactor entombment is designedto isolate waste generatedat that location in a manner that protects public health andsafety and the environment. The cleardistinction between entombment as a decommissioning scenario and a LLW disposalfacility may be found in the ability to reuse the site in the future for otherpurposes. Regulation governing LLW disposalfacilities does not contemplate future use of the site, restrictedor unrestricted. Future use of an entombed site ,
will be dictated by the dose-basedperformance criteriafound in 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E and I may allow future reuse of the site. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to I the Supplement.
Comment: -The one thing this GElS did not consider is regulatory authority as to whether or not the NRC can license the disposal or in essence allow entombment as a reactor decommissioning option in agreement states, because in agreement states, it's those states such as Illinois that has licensing authority over the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in the state: (CH-C/9)
Comment: Entombment could potentially, in the State of Illinois, create seven disposal facilities. ýYour GElS does not address the potential conflict with other state or other federal statutes as it relates to authority of the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. That being the Federal low-level radioactive waste policy act of ,1980 as amended in 1985 which specifically gave states the responsibility for providing for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated within their states. (CH-C/11)
Response: The NRC staff agrees that the Supplement does not evaluate the regulatory implicationsof an entombment of a power reactorwithin the bordersof an Agreement State.
Such a discussion is clearly outside the scope of this"Supplement."As stated in Section 3.2.3, the NRC is considering the development of changes to its regulationspertainingto the entombment option for decommissioningnuclearpower plants. The public and the Agreement I States will have an opportunity to participatein the development of the regulationsin the I rulemaking process. Since the development of a proposedrule on entombment is also I
-November 2002 0-157 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I clearly outside the scope of this Supplement, the comments did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
I Comment: So, what you're saying is you're going to set something in motion, i.e. entombment I in motion, you're going to allow a nuclear plant operator to take all the contaminated system I structures and components, put them in a containment building as part of this GElS and you're I not concerned at what's going to happen at license termination? Because that's in essence I what you just said. I mean, in terms of radiological exposure. (CH-C/14) 1 Response: The Supplement does not set anything in motion; nor does it authorize or allow I entombment of a power reactor. Foran entombment of a power reactorto occur, the licensee I either has to obtain an exemption from certain regulationsor the NRC, through the rulemaking I process, has to change the regulations. The Supplement is focused on evaluating the impacts I from activities associatedwith the decommissioningprocess. One of the decommissioning I options that historicallyhas been identified is entombment. This Supplement evaluated the I environmentalimpacts from the preparationactivities for two entombment scenarios.
I Radiologicalcriteriafor any license termination (even those granted on a case-by-case basis)
I are given in 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E. The license cannot be terminatedwithout compliance I with the site-releasecriteria. The staff has evaluated the radiologicalimpacts of meeting these I criteriaat the time of, and subsequent to, license terminationin NUREG- 1496, "Generic I EnvironmentalImpact statement in Support of Rulemaking on RadiologicalCriteriafor License I Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities." Both the future NRC rulemaking effort for I entombment and the impacts associatedwith the NRC's site-release criteriaare outside the I scope of this Supplement. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: Doesn't that set the utility up for a great risk exposure to go down the path of I entombment and find out that 40, 50 years, whatever time frame they elect when they try to I terminate their license of someone saying, no, you can't do that? I mean, because of the I radiological impacts? (CH-C/16)
I Response: For license termination to occur, the radiologicalimpacts following license I termination must meet the criteriadefined in 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E. If the criteria were I met, then the license can be terminated. The staff cannotgenericallyspeculate on the potential I for denying license terminationafter 40 to 50 years of entombment. As stated in Table 1-1, the I radiologicalimpacts following license terminationare outside the scope of this Supplement.
I The comment is outside the scope of this Supplement. The comment did not provide new I information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not I result in a change to the Supplement.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-158 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: On October 16, 2001, the NRC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding entombment options for power reactors. Even with that notice and this draft Supplement, the NRC has yet to evaluate the long-term environmental impacts associated with entombment of power reactors. (CL-17/4)
Comment: So, what I see happening here is you're setting yourself up with entombment.. .you're not looking at the long-term radiological impacts to the residents of the State of Illinois or the residents of Connecticut or whatever state it may be. (CH-C/5)
Response: For license termination to occur, the radiologicalimpacts following license terminationmust meet the criteriadefined in 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E. The long-term impacts would be those identified in NUREG-1496, "GenericEnvironmentalImpact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on RadiologicalCriteriafor License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities." As statedin Table 1-1, the radiologicalimpacts following license termination are outside the scope of this Supplement. The comments are out of the scope of this Supplement. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and' will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: NO WAY SHOULD ENTOMB I OR ENTOMB II BE ALLOWED. (CL-20/63)
Comment: One of the important and obvious things to be said about decommissioning nuclear power plants is that it is expensive, potentially dangerous and nearly unprecedented. We appreciate that entombment is now being considered. (CL-42/1)
Response: 'The comments are matters of opinion and are generalin nature. The comments do not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther.'
The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: I am opposed to the following proposal(s) in the EIS: NRC opens up two "entombment" options. (CL-2614)
Comment: I am opposed to the following change to NUREG-0586: In Supplement 1 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning: NRC opens up two "entombment" options. (CL-43/3)
Comment: NRC opens up two "entombment" options. (CL-48/38)
Response: As statedin Section 3.2.3, the staff evaluatedimpacts associatedwith preparing I the facility for a hypotheticalentombment. Two scenarios were developed. Considerationof "
impacts in a Supplement to a GElS resulting'from iwo hypotheticalsceniarios does not in any way allow for an "entombmentof a power reactor. Foran entombment of a poWer reactorto November 2002 0-159 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I occur, the licensee eitherhas to obtain an exemption from certain regulationsor the NRC, I through the rulemaking process, has to change the regulations. The Commission has I independentlyissued an advance notice of proposedrulemaking on entombment options for I power reactors (66 FR 32551), as discussed in Section 3.2.3, to invite early input from I stakeholders on issues related to entombment. Based on comments on the proposed I rulemaking, the staff may propose changes to the regulations. The comments did not provide I new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments I did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Just one example is letting the concrete reactors erode naturally which is extremely I unsafe. (CL-32/2)
I Response: The entombed power reactorwould likely employ numerous engineeredbarriersto I contain any radiologicalcontamination. Radioactive contaminationinside the entombed I structures would be fixed so that migration of materialin the engineeredstructure would be I minimized or eliminated. Additionally, there would likely be a monitoring programin place for I some period of time to ensure that the contamination was isolated from the environment.
I Finally, there would have to be institutionalcontrols to ensure that the structure and monitoring I were secure over an extended periodof time. Simply abandoning the site and allowing the I concrete of the containment to erode away was never consideredan option for entombment.
I The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be I evaluated further. The comment did not resultin a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: We concur with the GAO findings as reported in GAO-02-48, "NRC's Assurances I of Decommissioning Funding During Utility Restructuring Could be Improved," dated December I 2001. GAO reported the following conclusions:
"I 'The NRC staff's decision that entombment might reduce decommissioning costs is I questionable."
"I "According to NRC's staff, 'very expensive remedies' could be required if an entombment I configuration proved unable to adequately isolate radioactive contaminants over the 100-year or I longer [up to 300-years by NRC projections] time period needed for radioactive decay. Given I the length of time involved, states are concerned that they will have to pay remediation costs I should an entombment fail." (CL-48132)
I Response: The staff understandsthat additionalcosts may be incurredif decommissioning I methods do not adequatelyremove the radiologicalhazard. The cost comparison does not I include costs associatedwith the failure of any of the engineeredbarriersand a release of I radioactivecontaminationto the environment. However, the cost analyses are performed I assuming that the licensee appropriatelydecontaminates or adequatelyisolates the radioactive NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-160 November 2002
Appendix 0 contaminants during the entombment process. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement. ,
Comment: This method would be the most likely to reduce exposure to workers and the public, I and would not require workers familiar with the original construction. (CL-10/8)
Response: The staff agrees that the most likely scenarios for an entombment of a power reactorwould reduce radiologicalexposure to both the work force and the public when compared to the immediate DECON decommissioningoption. Although none of the options "require"workers familiarwith the originalconstruction, it is the staff's position that all three options Would benefit from the experience and knowledge of workers familiarwith the plant design, construction,,and operation. The comment did not provide new information relevant to I this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not resultin a change to the Supplement.
Comment: Entombment [has been] taken to an aesthetic level. You've got like contaminated I soil, maybe even mill tailings if we could figure out how to get them there-fill everything in and I just build out soil barriers, barriers, barriers, make it a pyramid, make it vast, make it huge-sell I tickets for the first few generations. And I even think possibly the geometric-the geology of this might even be an earthquake that just keeps falling in on itself. You hit it with something, it I just keeps falling in on itself. Now there's a question of subterranean-what's the subterranean I issue here and, you know, forget practicality, forget cost, which I would like to do that, I mean I I really would not like cost to be much of a factor here. We need to do what it takes. So probably you need some subterranean things, definitely a site-specific idea I've got here. And I then let's plant spider worts around it because everybody knows that spider worts are shown to-they have these little blue hairs, maybe they're called stamens or something that's the pollinator part of it, and they are like these incredible plants that-there's this perfect correlation, for the amount of radiation exposure it gets. These little things turn pink, these little hairs turn pink. And it's been like studied and it's a good correlator. So we need to plant the spider worts, I which is basically a weed and then we need to teach the people how to analyze. You know, we I can't forget the technology of microscope. That's pretty easy-lenses. And the site-specific advisory board and actually, you know, this sounds kind of corny, but I'm your artist speaker tonight-the nuclear priesthood has been talked about seriously. Religion is probably a good I model for long memory. (AT-G/5) -
Response: The issue of marking the entombed facility so that it is recognized in the future has I been discussedby scientists for years. The comment is outside the scope of this Supplement. I The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
November 2002 0-161 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 0.2.3.4 Rubblization I Comment: Because of the potential presence of highly radioactive "hot particles" in I unexpected areas through the plant, particularly in the reactor containment building, the I rubblized materials proposed for on-site disposal could be more than just "slightly" I contaminated. Contrary to the Draft Supplement, at page 1-7, for example, I think it is important I to note that the rubblization of concrete could have radiological impacts as well as I non-radiological ones. (CL-51/8)
I Response: The Supplement states that the radiologicalaspects of Rubblization on onsite I disposalof slightly contaminatedmaterialwould be addressedin a site-specific mannerat the I time that the LTP is submitted. The site-specific LTP will provide a mechanism for the NRC I staff's evaluation of the licensee'splans to dispose of rubblized concrete on site. The I radioactivematerialthat remains at the site after the license has been terminatedmust meet I the dose criteria for license terminationgiven in 10 CFR Part20. All radioactivematerial I removed from the site must be disposed of in a licensedlow-level waste facility in accordance I with 10 CFR Part 61. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this I Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to the I Supplement.
I Comment: Georgians for Clean Energy requests that the "rubblization" method of I decommissioning be removed from the final EIS. Chopping up a plant and storing it on site not I only sounds ridiculous but also is grossly negligent of the fact that there are facilities designed, I built and licensed to handle radioactive materials. A point supported by the GAO report cited I earlier in these comments. (CL-08/20)
I Comment: I think if people thought we're going to be rubblized and have a waste dump out I there, they might not have been so welcoming to these facilities. (AT-C/3)
I Comment: We concur with the GAO findings as reported in GAO-02-48 "NRC's Assurances of I Decommissioning Funding During Utility Restructuring Could be Improved" dated December 1 2001. GAO reported the following conclusions: "Aside from questionable cost benefits, I rubblization and entombment raise a number of technical issues. For instance, NRC does not I intend to require that sites where rubblized radioactive materials would be buried have I protection equivalent to offsite disposal facilities for low-level radioactive waste. Disposal I facilities for commercial low-level radioactive waste, which are licensed and regulated by NRC I or by state (under agreement with NRC), must be designed constructed, and operated I according to NRC regulations (or compatible regulations issued by the host state). In addition, I to obtain a license to build and operate a disposal facility, the prospective licensee must I characterize the facility site-arid ahalyze how the facility will perform for thousands of years.
I However, according to NRC, a rubblized site is not comparable to a low-level radioactive waste NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-162 November 2002
Appendix 0 disposal facility... Nevertheless, 10 CFR Part 61 does not differentiate between what does or does not qualify 'as a low-level waste disposal action or facility on the basis of the quantity, forms, or range of the low-level radioactive waste to be buried." (CL-48/33)
Response: In a letter dated March 1, 2002 (ML020250068), the NRC responded to the GAO findings and elaboratedon its programs and practices. Rubblization (the process of onsite disposal of slightly contaminatedmaterialin a manner to meet the site release criteria of 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E)'would not involve the quantity of radioactivity,nor the inventory of radionuclidesassociatedwith a commerciallow-level waste disposalsite. In addition, the range of waste forms are not comparable. Rubblization is considereda viable decommissioning process that is consistent with the requirements of the license termination rule and is not consideredlow-level waste under 10 CFR Part61. - The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The'comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: Pages 4-30, 4-12 and xii. The Supplement should clarify the circumstances under which rubblization is permitted. It is EPA's understanding that, to date, rubblization has only been permitted after site decontamination. Does the term "rubblization" on page 4-30 refer to the treatment of concrete or structures that have not been decontaminated? Note that page xii indicates that the continued dismantlement of structures that have been radiologically decontaminated falls outside the scope of the Supplement. (CL-16/67)
Response: The staff has clarified the use of the word "rubblization". The staff chose to use the term "demolition"to describe the process of crushingstructuralmaterialto allow for easy burial or disposal. Demolition debris can be contaminatedor uncontaminated. Demolition debris, if.
uncontaminated,can be disposed of either onsite or offsite without any additionalNRC oversight. Demolition debris that is contaminatedcan be shipped to a low-level waste site or waste processor..Slightly contaminateddemolition debris may be disposed of onsite using the.
process of "rubblization"(the process of onsite disposalof slightly contaminatedmaterialin a mannerto meet the site release criteriaof 10 CER Part20, Subpart E). Section 4.3.3.3 and 4.3.8.3 of the Supplement have been revised to reflect the above clarificationin terminology.
Comment: Delete the discussion of "rubblization" on page 1-7 and delete the term "rubblization" in the Glossary (Appendix M). Maine Yankee first utilized this term in a January 13, 2000 letter which served to submit their License Termination Plan (LTP). On June 1; 2001, MaineYankee filed revision 1ito their LTP. ,On August 13, 2001, Maine Yankee filed revision 2 to their LTP. In their current LTP, Maine Yankee does not propose to use "rubblization" and no longer utilizes the term. No licensee is currently pursuing the "rubblization" concept as described in Maine Yankee's original LTP submittal. The term which most accurately describes the approach which licensees are currently pursuing is "concrete backfill." Connecticut Yankee described the process as follows in section 4.3.1 of our LTP November 2002 0-163 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1