ML19311C733
| ML19311C733 | |
| 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: ML19311C733 (43) | |
Text
Appendix 0 I Comment: The historic undocumented burial of nuclear waste onsite at nuclear power stations I must be investigated, surveyed and mitigated by station owners under the decommissioning I plan. As the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) May 1989 "NRC's Decommissioning I Procedures and Criteria Need to Be Strengthened" (GAO/RCED-89-119) reports in its I Executive Summary: "For almost 25 years, NRC allowed licensees to bury radioactive waste I onsite without prior NRC approval. NRC required the licensees to retain records on the I amounts and substance buried rather than provide them to NRC. In five of the eight cases I GAO reviewed, licensees buried waste onsite, but four licensees either did not keep disposal I data or the data are incomplete. In one case, NRC terminated a license and 10 years later I learned that radioactive material had been buried on the site. Also, NRC generally does not I require licensees to monitor for groundwater or soil contamination from buried waste. All five I licensees have found ground water contaminated with radioactive substances. At four sites, I some of the contamination appears to have resulted from the buried waste-the contamination I at one site was 400 times higher than EPA's drinking water standards allow. At another site, I the contamination was 730 times higher, but the source was not known." (CL-48/15)
I Response: The NRC has addressedthe issues in the GAO reportin a letter to U.S. Senator I Joseph L Lieberman from RichardA. Meserve, Chairman U.S. NRC dated, March 2002 1 (ML020250068); however, the comment does not relate to commercial nuclear reactors. 10 I CFR 50.75(g) requirespower reactorlicensees to maintain records of activities or events that I could influence decommissioning. Additionally, licensees are requiredto conduct a site I characterizationstudy to supportremediation efforts outlinedin their LTP. During the review of I the LTP, the NRC staff focuses attention on the possibility of groundwatercontaminationand I soil contamination. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement I and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: An inventory of all the radioactivity, radioactive wastes and materials from reactor I operation and decommissioning, and independently verified reporting of its disposition (whether I onsite or offsite, whether in licensed or unlicensed facilities and specifics of its storage I condition) should be a required part of the environmental review and reports. This information I must be part of the site-specific Environmental Impact Statement process and fully disclosed at I each reactor as site-specific issues, with the opportunity for formal local hearings and legally I binding input. The corporations responsible for the radioactive wastes from nuclear power I reactor operations should be required, by NRC, to keep balance sheets of the radioactivity I generated by their reactors and the decommissioning process, and track the disposition of that I radioactivity whether it is kept onsite, allowed to leak out into the air and water, or shipped to I licensed or unlicensed facilities for disposal or processing, and for possible release into I household items. (CL-48116)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-208 November 2002
Appendix 0 Response: The purpose of the Supplement provides an environmental analysisof the impacts associatedwith'the decommissioningprocess. The Supplement does not (1) establish or I revise regulations,(2) impose requirements,(3) provide relief from requirements,or (4) provide guidance on the decommissioningprocess. 10 CFR 50.75(g) requirespower reactorlicensees to maintain records of activities or events that could influence decommissioning. Additionally licensees are requiredto conduct a site characterizationstudy to support remediation efforts outlined in their LTP. During the review of the LTP, the NRC staff focuses attention on the possibility of groundwatercontamination andsoil contamination. 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: New environmental assessment documents must be required, as old assessments are outdated and have been found to be inaccurate both on and offsite. (CL-50/11)
Response:. This Supplement is an update to an existing environmentalimpact statement. In addition, NRC decommissioning regulationsat 10 CFR 50.82 require (1) -thatenvironmental issues be addressedin the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report and (2) that the licensee include a supplement to its environmental reportpart of the License Termination Plan.
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: Many questions regarding decommissioning require site-specific and reactor specific analyses. The Callaway plant, for example, here in Missouri, is located about 5.5 miles away from the Missouri River, the source of the plant's cooling water and the depository for its liquid effluent. It would seem that testing would be needed of the unusually long effluent discharge pipe in order.to determine where leakage may have occurred during the plant's operation and where soil excavation may therefore be required as a part of the decommissioning. Sediment samples would be needed where the discharge pipe releases the plant's effluent into the Missouri River. Without such site-specific analyses, a determination of the extent of the'riverbed's contamination would not be possible. (CL-51/2)
Response: This Supplement deals with the impacts of decommissioning. Identificationof onsite, contaminatedareasis an integralpart of the decommissioningprocess. Licensees are "
requiredto conduct a site characterizationstudy to radiologicallycharacterizethe site and to supportremediation efforts outlined in the LTP. One of the statedpurposes of this document is to identify andassess the impact of decommissioningactivities genericallyso that a site specific assessment is not needed. The cooling watersystem, from intake structure through the discharge structure, is an integralpartof the plant andis on owner-controlledland. It is, therefore, consideredto be onsite. NRC will not terminatean operatinglicense until the radiationsurvey and associateddocumentation demonstrate that the facility and site are November 2002 0-209 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I suitable for release in accordancewith the criteria for decommissioningin 10 CFR Part20, 1 Subpart E. 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.
I Comment: This Draft 1 references MARSSIM. In its introduction, Draft "Marssim" did not I address all sorts of things from contamination on vicinity properties through contaminated I subsurface soil, water, construction materials and on and on. All of which must be cleaned I up/have the contamination removed. They showed a lack of understanding of the groundwater I cycle, and groundwater issues JUST LIKE THIS DRAFT DOES. (CL-20/17)
I Comment: Methodology must be established to determine the extent of underground rad I waste contamination and burial. The Multi-Agency Radiological Site Survey and Investigation I Manual (MARSSIM) establishes measurement criteria for only 6 inches below the surface of I soil. MARSSIM does not address the serious problem of locating and remediating underground I contamination. Before 1980, the NRC in fact allowed the burial of rad waste onsite. A General I Accounting Office (GAO) investigation found that the routine burial of rad waste 4 feet deep at I reactor sites before 1980 occurred without adequate documentation. (CL-50/26)
I Response: The MARSSIM provides detailedguidance for planning,implementing, and I evaluating environmental and facility radiologicalsurveys conducted to demonstratecompliance I with a dose- or risk-based regulation. It was preparedby the Department of Defense, The I Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the EnvironmentalProtection I Agency and discusses contaminationof surface soil and buildingsurfaces in detail. The I MARSSIM specifically states that since other media (e.g., groundwater,surface water, I subsurface soil, equipment, and vicinity properties)are potentiallycontaminatedat the time of I the final status survey, modifications to the MARSSIM survey design guidance and examples I may be required. Identification of onsite contaminatedareasis an integralpart of the I decommissioningprocess. NRC will not terminate an operatinglicense until the radiation I survey and associateddocumentation demonstratethat the facility and site are suitable for I releasein accordancewith the criteriafor decommissioning in 10 CFR Part20, SubpartE. The I comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be I evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Nuclear reactors, through planned and unplanned radioactive releases, can create I plumes of contamination, which migrate offsite. Yankee Rowe currently has a plume, which I reached springs, feeding into the Deerfield River where residents recreate. Connecticut I Yankee has plumes of tritium and other radionuclides which have migrated into the aquifer and I the Connecticut River for decades. Accountability (i.e. remediation and/or long-term I monitoring) for plumes of contamination that have offsite consequences must be established.
I (CL-50113)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-210 November 2002
Appendix 0 Response: The purpose of this Supplement is to provide an environmentalassessment of the impacts associatedwith the decommissioningprocess. It is not the place to establish or revise NRC regulations. Proceduresfor revising NRC regulationsare found in 10 CFR, Part2. NRC will not terminate an operatinglicense until the radiationsurvey and associateddocumentation demonstrate that the facility and site are suitable for releasein accordancewith the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E. 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: Furthermore, accountability must be established for routine NRC-regulated releases, which have accumulated in the discharge pathways. Big Rock Point, Millstone Unit 3 and other reactors have identified contaminated sediment caused by such releases.
Remediation must capture such plumes both onsite and off. (CL-50/14)
Comment: Reactor contaminants in the sediments in the EPA studies included cesium-1 34 and -137, cobalt-58 and -60, manganese-54, and antimony-1 25. With evidence that these isotopes were able to bypass the liquid waste filters, it would seem probable that other fission, activation and corrosion products could have, too. And of course some reactor isotopes are, extremely long-lived. Nickel-59, mentioned above, is produced when the nickel-58 in stainless steel captures electrons. Since the EPA found corrosion products in the sediment of several metals for which they tested, is it not possible that other metals subjected to the reactor's hostile environment (repeated cycles of temperature and pressure, high neutron fluxes, harsh chemicals, etc.) may also have degraded or dissolved, and migrated out of the plant? (CL 51/3)
Comment: Could they be detected in the sediment if tested? Some of the corrosion products identified in the oxide layer ("crud") of various reactors include isotopes of iron, zinc, molybdenum, tungsten, titanium, and carbon. Nickel-59, mentioned above, is produced when the nickel-58 in stainless steel captures electrons. - Since the EPA found corrosion products in the sediment of several metals for which they tested, is it not possible that other metals subjected to the reactor's hostile environment (repeated cycles of temperature and pressure,:
high neutron fluxes, harsh chemicals, etc.) may also have degraded or dissolved, and migrated out of the plant? (CL-51I4)
Response: Nuclearpower reactorswere licensed with the expectation that there would be routine airbome and liquidreleases of radioactivityto the environment and that the releases would be detectable. The licensee is allowed to releasegaseous and liquid effluents to the environment, but the releases must be monitoredand meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part20, Appendix B, Table 2. Therefore, although contaminantsmay be present and November 2002 0-211 NUREG-0586 Supplement I
Appendix 0 I detectable offsite, the release limits have been designed and proven to be protective of the I health and safety of the public and the environment. 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.
1 0.4.7 License Termination Criteria I Comment: Can you explain what the differences are between the actual impacts on a I population of say 10,000 for the two options of non-restricted use and restricted use at the end I of the decommissioning. And number two is what are the two levels of acceptable risk for the I two options of leaving the site-leaving the site really clean, which is unrestricted use, or I leaving the site restricted? (AT-B/2)
I Comment: The question was 25 millirems where? (for unrestricted release) (AT-B1/3)
I Response: The criteria for license termination are discussedin Section 2.2.2. Forsites that I have been determined to be acceptable for unrestricteduse, there are no requirements for I further measurementof radiation. Forsites that have been determined to be acceptable for I license termination underrestrictedconditions, additionalmeasurements of radiationare I requiredfor sites that have residualradioactivityin excess of 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr), but less I than 5 mSv/yr (500 mrem/yr). These measurements are to be made by a responsible I government entity or independent thirdparty, including a governmental custodian of a site. The I measurements are to be carriedout no less frequently than every 5 years to ensure the I institutionalcontrols remain in place as necessary to meet the criterionof 0.25 mSv/yr I (25mrem/yr) to an average member of the criticalgroup. 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.
I Comment: I also utterly oppose defining decommissioning, in part, to include the "release of I property for unrestricted use" and the "release of property under restricted conditions"-in other I words, releasing radioactively contaminated materials into daily consumer use and commerce I and unregulated disposal. How can you contemplate such a thing!ll!!!!!!!!!!!! (CL-33120)
I Comment: I am opposed to the following change to NUREG-0586: In Supplement 1 to the I Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning: NRC defines decommis I sioning, in part, to include the "release of property for unrestricted use.." and the "release of I property under restricted conditions." (CL-43/14)
I Comment: I am opposed to NRC regulations pertaining to Decommissioning which would I allow NRC to define decommissioning in part, to include "the release of property for unrestricted I use.." And the "release of property under restricted conditions." It is entirely inappropriate and NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-212 November 2002
Appendix 0 scientifically ludicrous to allow "release" of highly radioactive contaminated materials into daily consumer use and commerce, or unregulated disposal, or the recycling of such materials into any form which causes public exposure with radioactivity contaminated materials. (CL-44/13)
Response: The criteria for license termination are describedin Section 2.2.2. The release of the property occurs only after the license terminationcriteria are met. The purpose of this Supplement is to provide an environmentalassessmentof the impacts associated with the decommissioningprocess. The Supplement does not (1) establish or revise regulations, (2)impose requirements, (3) provide relief from requirements,or 4) provide guidance on the decommissioningprocess. 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: I am opposed to the following change to NUREG-0586: In Supplement 1 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning: NRC states that the portion of the decommissioning regulations (10 CFR 20 section E and its Environmental Impact Statement, NUREG 1496) that set the 25, 100, and 500 millirems per year allowable public dose levels from closed, decommissioned nuclear power sites, are not part of the scope of the Supplement. (CL-43113)
Comment: I am opposed to NRC regulations pertaining to Decommissioning which would allow NRC to assert that the portion of decommissioning regulations (10 CFR 20 section E and its EIS, NUREG 1496) set the 25, 100 and 500 millirems per year allowable public dose levels from closed, decommissioned nuclear plants sites,- and are not part of the scope of the Supplement. I disagree, and consider the inclusion of exposure from closed decommissioned plants a necessity to develop an accurate and realistic analysis of cumulative impacts. (CL 44/12) - I Comment: NRC states that the portion of the decommissioning regulations (10 CFR 20 section E and its Environmental Impact Statement,'NUREG 1496) that set the 25, 100 and 500 millirems per year allowable public dose levels from closed, decommissioned nuclear power sites, are not part of the scope of this Supplement. (CL-48/48)
Response: Chapter1, Introduction,addresseshow the scope of the Supplement was determined. Regulationspertainingto restrictedor unrestrictedrelease of a site were promulgatedas partof the 1997 rulemaking on radiologicalcriteriafor license termination of NRC-licensed nuclearfacilities. The rulemaking relied on by the "GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on RadiologicalCriteriafor License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,"NUREG-1496,"July 1997. Site releasecriteria are outside the scope of this Supplement. The Supplement does not (1) establish or revise regulations, I (2)impose requirements,(3) provide relief from requirements,or (4) provide guidance on the November 2002 0-213 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 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: The trans-solutional problem of complete site decontamination is here evident: the I NRC does not require the return of a decommissioned facility and site to its preoperational I radiation level. (CL-52/14)
I Response: Naturallyoccurring radioisotopesin the building materialswould make such a I standardimpossible to achieve. For those facilities in which soil or building contamination I exists, it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that an objective of "returnto background" I had been achieved. In addition, the removal of soil or concrete to "pre-existingbackground" I levels is generallynot desirable from the perspective of risk to public health and safety and I protection of the environment. For example, at some point, the removal of increasinglylarger I volumes of concrete andsoil would also result in a greaternet risk from transportation I accidents. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will I not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: It really may matter to you, Ms. Hickey, that the license termination document I details one level of exposure while the draft EIS on decommissioning details another level of I exposure. (AT-B/6)
I Response: The comment is not specific and the staff is unable to respond. The comment did I not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The I comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Twenty-five millirems additional per year of exposure added to an increasing I background, which is certainly manmade-and I say manmade. I mean women had very little I to do with the decision making that went into increasing the background radiation that all of us I are exposed to. But 25 millirems per year additional exposure is way too much ....This is a I roulette game. So the dose is way out of line for the restricted use, not to even mention the I unrestricted use, which I'll get distressed if I do, so I won't. (AT-B/15)
I Response: The NRC's regulatorylimits for radiologicalprotection are set to protectworkers I and the public from the harmful health effects of radiationon humans. The limits are based on I the recommendations of standards-settingorganizations. Radiation standardsreflect extensive I scientific study by nationaland internationalorganizations(the International Commission on I RadiologicalProtection[ICRP], the NationalCouncil on Radiation Protectionand I Measurements[NCRP], and the NationalAcademy of Sciences [NAS]) and are conservative to I ensure that the public and workers at nuclearpower plants are protected. The NRC radiation I exposure standardsare presentedin 10 CFR Part20, "Standardsfor ProtectionAgainst NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-214 November 2002
Appendix 0 Radiation,"and are based on the recommendationsin ICRP 26 and 30. The purpose of this Supplement is to provide an environmentalassessment of the impacts associatedwith the decommissioningprocess. The Supplement does not (1) establish or revise regulations, (2) impose requirements, (3)provide relief from requirements,or (4) provide guidance on the decommissioningprocess. The acceptabilityof the site release criteria is outside the scope of the Supplement (see Section 1.3). 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: I think the one other question I had was as I recall when the first statement was issued, there was a discrepancy between the NRC radiation exposure floor, threshold level, and I the EPA level. Is that still out there? I think yours is 25, theirs is 4 to 15 or something for the I same exposure. (AT-C/5)
Response: NRC continues to rely on the findings from two internationalorganizations,the InternationalCommission on Radiation Protection(ICRP)and the National Council on Radiation I Protectionand Measurements (NCRP). Both organizationshave acknowledged the difficulty in I setting acceptable levels of risk for the public; however, both ICRP and NCRP have established I a dose of 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr) to an individualmember of the public as the level that is I acceptable for exposure to radiationfrom sources other than medical procedures. The ICRP I and the NCRP further establishedthe need to reduce this annualdose rate by using the principle of "optimization,"consideringthe cost-effectiveness of additionaldose reduction.
Following these recommendations, the NRC adopted a level of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) as the value for residualradioactivityat a site under considerationfor license termination. EPA 's radiationdose limit of 0. 15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) results from a different technical analysis for establishingan acceptablerisk to the public and-a value for residualradioactivityother than that I of NRC where radiationis the only contaminantconsidered. In addition, the NRC also has a I "cleanup"requirement of "As Low As ReasonablyAchievable" (ALARA). The use of the ALARA j1 requirement usually results in a site that is below the EPA's requirementsas well. Nuclear reactorsare licensed by the NRC, and the NRC is responsible for making the safety and environmentaldetermination for terminationof the license. Therefore, licensees are required to I meet the NRC's requirements for residualradioactivity. However, since the NRC value of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mremlyr) is a limit, a licensee can choose to furtherreduce the value of residualradioactivityat a site to achieve annualdose values less than 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr). 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.
Comment: THERE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE PROPERTY EVER. THE ADDITIONAL EXPOSURE IS TOTALLY INSANE (CL-20/12) I November 2002 0-215 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Response: Unrestricteduse is describedin Section 2.2.2. The purpose of the Supplement is I to provide an environmentalassessment of the impacts associatedwith the decommissioning I process. The 1997 rule establishingsite release criteriaallows for terminationof the license I without continued restrictionson the site. The Supplement does not (1) establish or revise I regulations,(2) impose requirements,(3) provide relief from requirementsor (4) provide I guidance on the decommissioningprocess. 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: I am opposed to the following proposal(s) in the EIS: NRC ignores radiation I exposures to children and other vulnerable members of the population and creates a fictitious I highest exposed "critical group" based on unsubstantiated assumptions. (CL-26/6)
I Response: The staff believes the authorof the comment is referring to the effects of radiation I exposures to the public from the site following license termination. The acceptability of the site I releasecriteriais outside the scope of the Supplement. However, the dose models that were I used to develop the site release criteria evaluate the persons receiving the highest dose as the I maximally exposed individuaL This person is a residentfarmer. Doses were calculated to I children and other vulnerable members of the population;however, their doses were lower I because of the types of activities they were involved in. 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 0.4.8 Beyond License Termination I Comment: There are still radioactive dangers after decommissioning. (CL-29/1)
I Comment: I am opposed to the following change to NUREG-0586: In Supplement 1 to the I Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning: NRC ignores radiation I dangers after decommissioning is done and utility is relieved of liability. (CL-43/4)
I Comment: The proposed rules ignore radiation dangers after decommissioning. (CL-25/7)
I Comment: I am opposed to the following proposal(s) in the EIS: NRC ignores radiation I dangers after decommissioning is done and utility is relieved of liability. (CL-26/5)
I Comment: I utterly oppose ignoring radiation dangers after decommissioning is done and I utility is relieved of liability. (CL-33/9)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-216 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: The nuclear facility's land, even after decommissioning, must not be allowed to revert to public or private use, even if the NRC believes that the radioactivity on the land is less than 25 millirems per year. Additionally, in no circumstances should future buildings, structures, etc. be built atop the former nuclear site. The draft GElS mentions that tourism activities are planned for the Trojan nuclear plant in Oregon after decommissioning. Under no circumstances should that be allowed at any of these sites. Bringing tourists or school groups to nuclear plants that are running now is not acceptable. It's dangerous. I was just in Oregon for my honeymoon, and I just can't imagine going and touring that site. There are a lot of beautiful things in Oregon but the Trojan plant ain't one of them. (AT-A/39)
Comment: The nuclear facility's land, even after decommissioning, must not be allowed to revert to public or private use even if the NRC believes that the radioactivity on the land is less than 25 millirems per year. Additionally, under no circumstances should future buildings, structures, etc. be built atop the former nuclear site. (CL-08/24)
Comment: Even after all fuel is removed from the site and the entire structure is removed, the site will still be radioactive forever and still need a security person, basic maintenance person.
(CL-20/42)
Response: The acceptabilityof the site release criteriaand its potential for affecting public health and safety and protection of the environment after license terminationis outside the scope of the Supplement (see Section 1.3). Potentialradiologicalimpacts following license termination are covered by the "FinalGeneric EnvironmentalImpact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on RadiologicalCriteriafor License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,"NUREG-1496,which supported the development of 10 CFR Part20. Currentcriteria I for license termination,given in 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E, and shown in this Supplement in, Section 2.2.2, stated that the Commission has establisheda 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) total effective does equivalent to an average member of the criticalgroup as an acceptable criterion I for release of any site for unrestricteduse. This Supplement does not (1) establish or revise regulations, (2) impose requirements,(3) provide relief from requirements,or (4) provide, guidance on the decommissioning process.. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this'Supplementand will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
Comment: The NRC must continue to monitor sites FOREVER after license termination in case of sudden increases in radiation levels from a source on the site no one had either considered or knew was there. (CL-20/88)
November 2002 0-217 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Comment: What agency or governing body is responsible for monitoring the site after the I decommissioning is deemed "complete"? How do the licensee and a government agency, such I as the NRC, which is mandated to protect the public health, allowed to walk away from a site I that will essentially remain radioactive forever? (CL-08/31)
I Response: Structures, systems, and components onsite will be surveyed during the final I radiationsurvey and contaminationlevels will be reduced to the level necessary for termination I of the license. All structures,systems, and components that have radioactivecontamination I that could exceed the criteria would be decontaminatedor dismantledand shipped to a low I level-waste disposalsite. The licensee must keep records of information during the operating I phase of the facility that would be used to identify where any spills or other occurrences I involving the spread of contaminationwould be located. In addition, because the radioactive I material will have been removed from the site, there would be no mechanism for further I contaminationor radiologicalreleases,and any radiationlevels would only be reduced over I time due to naturaldecay. Therefore, there would not be any significantincrease in onsite I radiationlevels some time in the future. The comments did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did not resultin a I change to the Supplement.
I Comment: For a site decommissioning that results in a license termination for unrestricted I use, the long-term radiological impacts to the public may well be within acceptable limits.
I However, for a decommissioning that results in a license termination with restricted site use the I potential exists for long-term radiological impacts to the public to be far above acceptable limits.
I The draft Supplement does not consider this potential. While narrowly focusing the radiological I studies to the decommissioning process, the NRC does not consider those potential long-term I impacts to the public. (CL-1713)
I Response: Licensees are allowed by regulations in 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E, "Radiological I Criteriafor License Termination," to release the site for restricteduse. The impacts following a I restrictedrelease license termination will not be consideredby this Supplement because the I impacts are highly site-specific and would requirea site-specific analysis. The site-specific I analysis would be included in the License TerminationPlan submitted to the NRC for review I and approvalby the license amendment process. The comment did not provide new I informationrelevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not I result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: To allow utilities to have no liability after decommissioning is done when the I proposals are seen as "generic" does not provide any protection to local citizens. Accountability I for our actions is important and utility companies should not be exempt from that. (CL-3914)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-218 November 2002
Appendix 0 Response: The considerationof liabilityis outside the scope of this Supplement. The criteria for license terminationare discussed in Section 2.2.2. -Termination of the NRC license does not eliminate the utility's liability. The missions of the NRC include the protection of public health andsafety and protection of the environment. 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: Decommissioning should never be deemed to be complete until the entire site is no longer radioactive. We understand that this means extremely long-term oversight of the reactor I sites. Some of the decommissioning wastes, such as the nickel compounds, have extremely long half-lives and remain dangerous for millennia. Liability for the site needs to remain with the I utilities and the NRC must retain regulatory control over the entire site. (CL-40/3)
Response: For those sites in which structuresor buildings are left it would be extremely difficult or impossible to demonstrate a "returnto background"or that the site is "nolonger radioactive." Naturallyoccurringradioactive materialsin the building materials,soils, the presence of radon gas, and cosmic rays would make such a standardimpossible to achieve.
Termination of the license does not eliminate the licensee's liability for the site. The criteriafor I license termination are described in Section 2.2.2. The release of the property occurs only after I the license terminationcriteriaare met. The purpose of this Supplement is to provide an environmental assessment of the impacts associatedwith the decommissioningprocess. The I Supplement does not (1) establish or revise regulations,(2)impose requirements, (3) provide relief from requirements or (4) provide guidance on the decommissioningprocess. The considerationof liabilityis outside the scope of this Supplement. 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.
Comment: Residual contamination left at a site whose license was terminated for unrestricted I use could be perceived as disposal of low-level radioactive waste. (CL-1 7/6)
Response: The material that remains at the site after the license has been terminated must meet the license termination criteriain 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E, or it can not have been left I at the site. Material that cannotmeet these criteria would have been consideredto be low-level I radioactive waste and would have to have been disposed at a licensed LLW facility before the license could be terminated. Therefore, any low-level radioactivewaste left on site after license I termination would not be consideredas radioactive waste. 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.
November 2002 0-219 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Comment: Since the NRC would no longer have regulatory authority over the site, what I governmental institution or corporation Would be entrusted with the long-term collection, I monitoring and analyses of the groundwater samples? (CL-51116)
I Comment: Okay, so who's responsible then for a site that has restricted use. Because I I couldn't quite tell. Who would actually protect the public? (AT-B/4)
I Response: For sites that have been determined to be acceptable for license terminationunder I restrictedconditions, additionalmeasurements of radiationare only requiredfor sites that have I residualradioactivitybetween 1 and 5 mSv/yr (100 and 500 mrem/yr) to the average member of I the criticalgroup. These measurements are to be made by a responsiblegovernment entity or I independent thirdparty, including a governmentalcustodian of the site. The institutional I controls remain in place as necessary to meet the criterionof 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to an I average member of the criticalgroup (Section 2.2.2). The licensee is responsible to provide I sufficient funds to carry out responsibilitiesfor control and maintenanceof the site (Section 1 2.2.2). The NRC regulationsdo not specify the institutionalcontrols. The institutionalcontrols I are establishedduring the NRC staff review of the license terminationplan (LTP). The LTP is I incorporatedinto the license by amendment so an opportunity to request a hearing would be I provided. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will I not be evaluatedfurther. The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Who would determine if remediation were needed; who would be liable for the I costs of offsite contamination or other accidents? (CL-51/17)
I Response: Forsites that have been determined to be acceptable for unrestricteduse, there I are no requirements for future measurement of radiationlevels. It is not expected that these I radiationlevels would change, other than to be reduced over time, because the radioactive I material will have been removed from the site, and there would be no mechanism for further I contaminationor radiologicalreleases. Forsites that have been determined to be acceptable I for license terminationunder restrictedconditions, additionalmeasurements of radiationare I only requiredfor sites that have residualradioactivitybetween 1 and5 mSv/yr (100 and 500 1 mrem/yr) to the average member of the criticalgroup. These measurements are to be made by I a responsible govemment entity or independent thirdparty,including a governmental custodian I of the site. The institutionalcontrolsremain in place as necessary to meet the criterion of 1 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to an average member of the criticalgroup (Section 2.2.2). The I licensee is responsible to provide sufficient funds to carryout responsibilitiesfor control and I maintenance of the site (Section 2.2.2). The comment did not provide new information relevant I to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to I the Supplement.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-220 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: Who would be responsible to protect against the inadvertent recycling of radioactively contaminated building rubble and soil into new construction or as fill, a possibility mentioned but basically discounted in SECY-00-0041, a letter about rubblized concrete dismantlement, from William Travers, NRC Executive Director for Operations, to the Commissioners (February 14, 2000). (CL-51118)
Response: During the decommissioningprocess for power reactors,materialsmay not be released,recycled, or reused if there are detectable levels of licensed radioactive material present. These materials are carefully monitored and controlled before release. If contaminatedequipment or debris is inadvertentlyreleasedfrom the site and it presents a riskI to public health and safety ora risk to the environment then the materialwould be recovered and disposed of in a licensed disposalfacility. Responsibilityfor recovery of the materialwould be determined on a case by case basis. 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 I the Supplement.
Comment:-The transformation of the nation's abandoned nuclear power plants into de facto waste facilities is worrisome from environmental, safety and national security standpoints.
(CL-51/23)
Response: Nuclear power plants will not be abandoned.NRC oversight at the facility will continue until the license terminated. There are two categoriesof uses for the facility after=
license termination: unrestricteduse and restricteduse. Forsites that have been determined I to be acceptable for unrestricteduse, there are no requirements for further measurement of radiationlevels. It is not expected that these radiationlevels would change, other than to be reduced over time,-because the radioactivematerialwill have been removed from the site and I there would be no mechanism for further contaminationor radiologicalreleases. For sites that I have been determined to be acceptablefor license termination under restrictedconditions, additionalmeasurements of radiationare only requiredfor sites that have residualradioactivity between 1and 5 mSv/yr (100 and500 mrem/yr) to the average member of the criticalgroup.
These measurements are to be made by a responsiblegovernment entity or independent third I party, including a governmental custodian of the site. The institutionalcontrols remain in place I as necessary to meet the criterion of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to an average member of the criticalgroup (Section 2.2.2). The licensee is responsible to provide sufficient funds to carry out I responsibilitiesfor control andmaintenance of the site (Section 2.2.2). 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:. THERE NEVER SHOULD BE A LACKOF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL EITHER.
(CL-20/13) I November 2002 0-221 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Response: NRC has regulationsin place to monitorsites until license termination. At that I time, if the facility is categorized for restricteduse, the institutionalcontrols remain in place as I necessary to meet the criterionof 0.25 mSvlyr (25 mrem/yr) to an average member of the I criticalgroup (Section 2.2.2). The licensee is responsible to provide sufficient funds to carry out I responsibilitiesfor control and maintenance of the site (Section 2.2.2). If it meets the criteria for I unrestricteduse, there are no requiredinstitutionalcontrols. 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: To enforce no liability after they leave is simply criminal. (CL-34/4)
I Comment: The owner must remain fully liable. (CL-36/5)
I Response: The considerationof liability is outside the scope of this Supplement. However, I termination of the NRC license does not eliminate the utility's liability. The criteria for license I termination are discussed in Section 2.2.2. The comments did not provide new information I relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comments did not result in a I change to the Supplement.
I Comment: The federal government (the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and its progeny)
I initiated and funded the promotion of nuclear power. How, then, can it walk away from the I long-term surveillance of the plant sites, even though it will have declared the residual I radioactive contamination to be at permissible levels? (CL-51/25)
I Response: The criteriafor license terminationare discussed in Section 2.2.2. Forsites that I have been determined to be acceptablefor unrestricteduse, there are no requirements for I further measurement of radiation. Forsites that have been determined to be acceptable for I license termination under restrictedconditions, additionalmeasurements of radiationare I requiredfor sites that have residualradioactivityin excess of 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr) but less I than 5 mSv/yr (500 mrem/yr). These measurements are to be made by a responsible I government entity or independent thirdparty, including a governmental custodian of a site. The I measurements are to be carriedout no less frequently than every 5 years to ensure the I institutionalcontrols remain in place as necessary to meet the criterionof 0.25 mSvlyr 1 (25 mrem/yr) to an averagemember of the criticalgroup. 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.
I Comment: In effect, the NRC plans to wash its hands of any responsibility for the long-term I damage that may result from reactor decommissioning (and that of other nuclear licensee' NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-222 November 2002
Appendix 0 facilities and activities). It is the state or municipality and community in which a plant is located I and the residents that will be required to bear the burdens of injury and costs of further clean-up I after the NRC has vanished. (CL-52/11) I Response: -Compliance with the RadiologicalRelease criteria found in 10 CFR Part20, SubpartE, will result in protection of the public health and safety. Once the licensee can demonstrate that the RadiologicalRelease Criteriawill not be exceeded, no furthercleanup is I necessary. Therefore, the State or municipalitieswould not incur any additionalcosts. 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.
0.4.9 Ownership Comment: [In addition to the economic gash in the GElS portal, this fatally flawed document does not adequately address, acknowledge, account for, or compute a number of significant barriers related to radiological decommissioning; including:] Joint Ownership. (CL-02/9)
Response: Joint ownership of a nuclearfacility is not uncommon and is an outgrowth of anti- I trust consideration. This comment relates to nuclearpower facilities in generaland is outside I the scope of this Supplement. However, a number of p5ower facilities undergoing "1 decommissioninghave joint owners and no significantproblems in this arrangementha've been I identified. The decommissioning funds will be available for decommissioning a permanently I shutdown reactor, regardless of ownership. 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.
Comment: The most disturbing and financially bizarre component of radiological decom missioning is the relationship between a "power reactor license" and thbe "minority power reactor I licensee."f Unlike "oo0wer reactor licensees," "fractional licensees" are not subjected or I mandated by the Nu6lear Regulatory Commission to empirically verify, report or monitor record I keeping relating to nuclear decommissioning funding mechanisms. In some instances,'even Public Utility Commissions lack the ability to mandate or regulate savings levels from "fractional I licensees", e.g.,-Rural Electric Cooperatives. (CL-02i35)
Response: Although the facility may be owned by multiple owners, the licensee is a single entity and is responsible for complying with the financial assurancerequirements of 10 CFR 50.75. The comment did not provide new informa'tiondrelevantto this Supplement and I will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did niot resultin a change to the Supplement.
November 2002 0-223 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Comment: How will the facility licensee, in our case, Southern Nuclear, benefit from later sale I of the nuclear plant's land to a new owner? Also, how will the land be tracked after it's deemed "I "safe" and the licensee sells it.. .especially in cases where there may be a leak or a release of I radiation into the environment after the initial sale occurred? For instance, isn't it in the best I financial interest of the licensee, in our case Southern Nuclear, to use the fastest and least I expensive decommissioning option so that the license can be terminated and they can sell the I land before deficiencies can be found in the manner in which a plant was decommissioned?
I (CL-08/28)
I Response: Once the license is terminated, the NRC has no regulatoryauthority over activities I at the site, and the owner of the site is no longer subject to NRC regulations. If the condition of I the facility at the time the license is terminatedis such that the regulationsallow the site to be I available for unrestricteduse, then there will not be any sources of radioactivecontaminationto I result in a leak or significant releaseof radioactivematerialinto the environment. The I economic benefits to the utility after license termination are not within the scope of this I Supplement. 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: Since deregulation, numerous nuclear plants have changed hands. To "Cushion" I the transition from regulated monopoly to competitive marketplace, many states allowed"electric I utilities" to recover "stranded costs." Rate payers are saddled with paying for the industry's I uneconomical investments, i.e., "stranded costs." "Two of the most "bullish" nuclear I corporations, Exelon and PPL, recovered over $8.3 billion in "uneconomical investments." This I figure does not include the millions in savings Exelon and PPL have accrued by unilaterally I devaluing the combined PURTA and Real Estate tax assessments for their nuclear generating I stations.
I The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station is the most glaring example of a company "devaluing" I their property at the expense of taxpayers, while billing the same hostage rate payer for I uneconomical investments, and exposing this rate payer/taxpayer to further financial exposure I related to the underfunding of nuclear decommissioning.
I In the of Winter 1999-2000, PPL unilaterally devaluated the combined PURTA and Real Estate I tax assessments for the SSES. Prior to the 1998 Joint Petition for Negotiated Settlement, the I nuclear power generating units were assessed by PP&L at approximately $1 billion. PPL now I claims that the SSES is only worth $74 million or the same amount as the valuation of the I Columbia Hospital. Not only did the Berwick School District and Luzerne County experience I revenue shock, but PPL refused to pay or escrow any monies they owed to Luzerne County I and the Berwick School district while the case was being appealed.
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-224 November 2002
Appendix 0 PPL's behavior is all the more egregious in an era where nuclear plant's value on the open marker are equal to, or in excess, of fossil generating stations. For example, Entergy and Dominion resources engaged in a bidding war to purchase the Fitzpatrick and Indian Point 3 nuclear generating stations from the New York Power Authority (NYPA). The sale established a record high. (CL-02/32)
Response: The Supplementprovides an environmentalassessment of the impacts associated I with the decommissioningprocess. Discussionson the source of funds for the decommissioning trust fund are outside the scope of the GELS. Furthermore,the comment relates to operatingnuclearpower facilities and not decommissioning facilities andis 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.
Comment: The General Accounting Office has slammed the NRC for its lack of oversight of transfers and mergers in the nuclear industry and had not verified that new owners would have guaranteed access to the decommissioning charges that their affiliated utilities would collect, in some cases, plus, a host of other safety and other issues were raised, all of which are troubling. I The NRC must immediately address problems, and should demand that companies provide enough money for oversight - to include security staff, maintenance staff, nuclear engineers,,
radiation safety officers etc. - essentially forever. (CL-20/41)
Response: In a letter dated March 1, 2002 (ML-020250068), the NRC responded to the GAO I findings and elaboratedon its programsand practices. The Supplement provides an environmentalassessment of the impacts associatedwith the decommissioningprocess.
Discussion of access to the decommissioning trust funds by new owners of facilities is outside I the scope of the GELS. 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: Utility deregulation has put the ownership of these plants in hands that are not as responsible as they once were. Plymouth MA suffers financially because of the loss of tax revenue from the Pilgrim Plant - we cannot assume the additional risk these rules would place I on us. (CL-25l3)
Response: This comment relates to the power market and the effects of deregulationin generaland is outside the scope of this Supplement. Licensees are required to satisfactorily maintain the decommissioning trust fund for the facility under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.755. 1 November 2002 0-225 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I They are requiredto periodicallyreport the status of their trust fund to the NRC. The NRC has I the responsibility to review the progress the licensee is making in fully funding the trust fund for I decommissioning. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement I and will not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
1 0.4.10 Financial Assurance I Comment: Second, we're concerned about the financial viability of the companies that own I these sites. During a 60-year period, the companies may go bankrupt and that may leave the I sites unaccounted for. We're also worried about the uncertainty associated with the cost of I disposing radioactive material later. We understand that safe store is preferred because of I lower costs later, but because of Yucca Mountain and other uncertainties about disposal, we're I concerned about those hanging costs. (CH-A/6)
I Comment: But what happens to a facility that shuts down prematurely and they haven't I actually collected sufficient funds for what's necessary for decommissioning and then, they go I bankrupt? And that situation still poses a risk. (CH-A/15)
I Comment: Does any one of sound mind or body residing within the Commission really think I that a nuclear power plant can be radiologically decommissioned if the funding is inadequate I and the plant is prematurely shut down? (CL-02/12)
I Comment: Prematurely shutdown reactors place an additional financial strain on the licensee.
I (CL-02/42)
I Comment: There's a financial assurance gap here, I feel, and this has been mentioned several I times tonight. I'll say two syllables -- Enron .... And I could be wrong about this but I thought the I money was somewhat linked t6 the rate base and all these plants are not operating for their I design life. And so I'm real concerned that the fund was never-the goal was never set I correctly to begin with and that we would fall short on raising the money, it may not be I enough ....Is there assurance or something for a corporation a couple of generations removed I from the corporation that actually originally licensed and built the plant? (AT-G/3)
I Response: If a facility shuts down prematurely before the decommissioning trust is fully I funded, or if it unexpectedly finds itself having to shift to a more costly decommissioningoption, I the facility license holder is still obligated to fund the entire cost of decommissioning. Most I power generatorsare diversified and are able to continue to add funds to their I decommissioning trust fund. To date, none of the license holders of prematurelyshutdown I power reactorfacilities have defaulted on their decommissioning funding obligation. Bankruptcy I does not necessarilymean that a power reactorlicensee will liquidate. To date, the NRC's I experience with bankruptpower reactorlicensees has been that they file under Chapter 11 of NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-226 November 2002
Appendix 0 the Bankruptcy Code for reorganization,not liquidation (for example, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, El PasoElectric Company, and Cajun Electric Cooperative). In these cases, bankrupt licensees have continued to provide adequate funds for safe operationand decommissioning,even as bondholders and stockholders suffered losses that were often severe. Because electric utilities typically provide an essentialservice in an exclusive franchise area, the NRC staff believes that, even in the unlikely case of a power reactorlicensee liquidating,its service territoryand obligations,including those for decommissioning,would revert to anotherentity without direct NRC intervention. -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: However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has steadfastly refused to address the fundamental problem that has created and perpetrated financial gaps between "target" (2) decommissioning funding and actual assets on hand to complete radiological I decommissioning (3). In fact, the Commission has no statutory authority to compel "electric utilities" to physically raise, maintain, secure and account for radiological decommissioning funding. The NRC can authorize and mandate a preferred "mode of decommissioning", but the I Commission lacks the ability to ensure the existence of adequate funding levels. i.e. accretible I external sinking funds. 1 The NRC's GENERIC Environmental IMPACT STATEMENT (GElS) on DECOMMISSIONING of NUCLEAR FACILITIES-NUREG-0588: DRAFTFSUPPLEMENT DEALING WITH DECOMMISSIONING of NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS does not adequately factor the I financial disconnect between NRC "Funding targets" and actual and realized funding pools I accrued by "electric utilities." Moreover, there remains a chronic shortfall between "targeted" funding levels and actual costs for nuclear decommissioning: (4) (CL-02/2)
Comment: The GElS failed to address the issue of nuclear plant "devaluation" and revenue shock. (CL-02133)
Response: While the process for decommissioning nuclearpower facilities is now well established,the cost of decommissioning varies from one nuclearfacility to the next. The variabilityis due to the major factors listed in the Supplement (Section 4.3.11.2). Cost estimates (at the time of licensing,5 years before anticipatedshutdown, with the Post Shutdown DecommissioningActivities Report submittal,2 years following shutdown, and 2 years preceding the anticipatedterminationof the license) are site-specific, andprovide a method of re-evaluatingthe decommissioning costs at various times and stages in each facility's life. The regulations to ensure the availabilityof decommissioning funds were originally I establishedin 1988, andsite-specific decommissioningcost estimates are requiredas provided I in 10 CFR 50.75 and 10 CFR 50.82. Failure to comply with NRC regulationsis a violation of I the facility license and the NRC could take enforcement action to compel the licensee to comply I November 2002 0-227 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.7. The comments did not provide new information relevant to I this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The comments did not result in a change to I the Supplement.
I Comment: Funding targets to bring a site back to "Greenfield' are set by the Nuclear I Regulatory Commission and do not include spent fuel disposal or non-radiological I decommissioning. However, the NRC has no rate making authority and electric utilities must go I before state utility commissions to recover funding levels "suggested" by the NRC. But the I Companies are not mandated by the federal government to submit detailed funding plans until I two years prior to site closure. In addition, if a utility has been saving for DECON, but I SAFSTOR is necessitated, the funding package becomes grossly inadequate. (CL-02/39)
I Response: Radiological decommissioning activitiescontinue until the licensee requests I termination of the license and demonstrates that radioactivematerialhas 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 thatpoint, the NRC no longer has I regulatoryauthorityover the site, and the owner of the site is no longer subject to NRC I authority. As a result, activitiesperformed after license termination (to meet other I requirements,e.g., additionalstate requirements such as additionalradiological I decontamination,removal of structures,site grading, etc.), and the resulting impacts are I outside the scope of this Supplement. These activities may include site restoration. The return I of the site to Greenfieldconditionsis specifically stated to be out of scope of the Supplement I (Section 1.3, "Scope"). Experience to date has shown that licensees have been able to change I decommissioning options (such as DECON to SAFSTOR) without significantfinancial I difficulties. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will I not be evaluated further. The comment did not resultin a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: As of this filing, no commercial nuclear power plant has been decommissioned, I decontaminated, and returned to free-release. Nuclear decontamination and decommissioning I technologies are in their infancy and several identifiable industrial trends are apparent when I reviewing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's treatment of prematurely shutdown reactors:
I There is a reluctance to undertake, initiate or finance decommissioning research. (CL-02141)
I Response: The statement is not true; two commercial nuclearpower plants (Shoreham and Ft.
I St. Vrain) have been decontaminatedand decommissionedand the sites releasedfor I unrestrictedaccess. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)has funded significant I decommissioning-relatedresearch over the past 10 years. 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 0-228 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: Georgians for Clean Energy does not believe that the GElS adequately addresses I decommissioning costs. --Though assurances were made at the public meeting in Atlanta that decommissioning funds are adequate, real-world examples have proved otherwise. For instance, in the current world of mega-mergers of electric utilities and sudden dissolution of energy giants such as Enron, there is little guarantee in place that companies will be able to pay I for the full costs of decommissioning. Additionally, we are concerned that the method of decommissioning a nuclear power plant is determined more by the cost implications to the licensee than the overall ramifications of leaving a contaminated site for the local communities. I (CL-08/110)
Response: NRC staff would not speculate on how the financial collapse of one corporation affects the financial soundness of power generatorsas a whole. There is, in fact, reasonable assurancethat utilities will have the resources to fund decommissioning. Industry experience to I date has not revealedproblems in securing adequate funds in the decommissioning trust fund I to complete decommissioning. 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 I Supplement.
Comment: Furthermore, a report issued this December by the U.S. Government Accounting Office, "NRC's Assurances of Decommissioning Funding During Utility Restructuring Could Be I Improved--GAO-02-48," brings to light many concerns about the lack of adequate funding available for decommissioning activities. The following statement by the GAO makes it apparent that the.NRC needs to improve, "However, when new owners proposed to continue relying on periodic deposits to external sinking funds, NRC's reviews were not always rigorous I enough to ensure that decommissioning funds would be adequate. Moreover, NRC did not always adequately verify the new owners' financial qualifications to safely-own and operate the ,1 plants. Accordingly, GAO is making a recommendation to ensure a more consistent review I process for license transfer requests." (CL-08/12)
Comment: Georgians for Clean Energy requests that this extensive report be thoroughly reviewed by the NRC staff, be printed in it's entirety as an appendix in the final GElS as the I report did not come out before the draft GElS was issued, and that the recommendations by the I GAO be studied and incorporated into the final GELS. -Additionally, the public participation I process should be extended to allow for proper review of this important report. (CL-08/13)
Comment: Additionally, ownership of nuclear facilities has changed for more than half of the nuclear power plants in the United States through mergers and transfers. This shuffling of ownership has raised much uncertainty about the availability of adequate funds for the eventual I decommissioning of the nuclear facilities. As reported by GAO December 2001 "NRC's I Assurances of Decommissioning Funding During Utility Restructuring Could Be Improved" NRC I reviews of financial arrangements exchanged in these transfers and mergers "were not always I November 2002 0-229 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I rigorous enough to ensure that decommissioning funds would be adequate. Moreover, NRC I did not always adequately verify the new owners' financial qualifications to safely own and I operate the plants." (CL-48/23)
I Response: In a letter dated March 1, 2002 (ML-020250068), the NRC responded to the GAO I findings and elaboratedon its programs and practicesrelatedto licensee financial qualifications I and decommissioning funding assurance. Based on the industry experience to date and the I decommissioning funding requirements in 10 CFR 50.75, the NRC staff has no reason to I believe that the decommissioning trust funds are inadequate. 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: The NRC needs to pay attention to decommissioning costs proposed by Georgia I nuclear utilities during rate cases and other proceedings so there is not a situation created I where much needed monitoring and maintenance is ignored simply because there was no I regulatory attention to the real cost of decommissioning. (CL-08/16)
I Response: Decommissioning activities continue until the licensee requests terminationof the I license and demonstratesthat radioactivematerialhas been removed to levels that permit I termination of the NRC license. Once the NRC determines that the decommissioningis I completed, the license is terminated. At that point, the NRC no longer has regulatoryauthority I over the site, and the owner of the site is no longer subject to NRC authority. As a result, I activities performed after license termination (to meet other requirements,e.g., additionalstate I requirements,not subject to NRC authority) and the resultingimpacts are outside the scope of I this Supplement. These activities may include any other than NRC-requiredmonitoring, I including site restoration. The return of the site to Greenfield conditions is specifically stated to I be outside the scope of this Supplement (Section 1.3, "Scope'). Most powergeneratorsare I diversifiedand are able to be flexible in case of a change in plans (such as a change in I decommissioning method). 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: How is the funding of decommissioning costs guaranteed to be met by a company I in a day and age where gigantic utility companies can collapse at any moment, as has recently I happened with Enron? (CL-08/29)
I Response: NRC staff would not speculate on how the financialcollapse of one corporation I affects the financialsoundness of power generatorsas a whole. There is, in fact, reasonable I assurancethat utilities will have the resources to fund decommissioning. Furthermore,the I decommissioning tiust fund is specifically set up to prevent licensees from accessingthe fund I for money other than for decommissioning. To date, none of the license holders of prematurely NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-230 November 2002
Appendix 0 shutdown facilities have defaulted on their decommissioning funding obligation., Bankruptcy does not necessarilymean that a power reactorlicensee will liquidate. :To date, the NRC's experience with bankruptpower reactorlicensees has been that they file under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for reorganization,not liquidation (for example, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, El PasoElectric Company, and Cajun Electric Cooperative). In these cases, bankruptlicensees have continued to provide adequate funds for safe operationand decommissioning, even as bondholdersand stockholders suffered losses that were often severe. Because electric utilities typically provide an essentialservice in an exclusive franchise area, the NRC staff believes that, even in the unlikely case of a power reactorlicensee liquidating,its service territoryand obligations, including those for decommissioning, would revert to anotherentity without direct NRC intervention.- Additionally, an NRC licensed facility undergoing decommissioning or a site that is not under license but is undergoing decommissioning under NRC's regulationalso warrantremediation under CERCLA as a Superfund site. These statutoryprovisions might become particularlyrelevant at sites for which I funding is inadequatefor cleanup. 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: As a result of electric utility deregulation where a competitive market has replaced I regulated rates, traditional methods of amassing decommissioning funds through imbedded utility rates have been replaced with by competitive electricity rates. (CL-48122)
Comment: Costs: Because of current efforts to restructure and deregulate the electric power I industry, decisions about decommissioning could be driven by economic considerations, not by I safety --by efforts to cut costs in order to stay competitive. I believe the electric utilities should I not be relieved of liability for their decommissioned reactors. (CL-51119)
Response: The NRC has published a finalpolicy statement in the FederalRegister (62 FR 44071) regardingthe adequacy of decommissioning funds. Because of deregulationin the power market, some licensees would cease being an "electricutility," as defined in NRC I regulations. Should this occur,periodicdeposits to an external sinking fund would no longer be allowed; rather,the NRC requires that a licensee provide funding assurancefor the full.
estimated cost of decommissioning,either through full up-front funding or by some allowable I guaranteeorsurety mechanism. Deregulationwould not invalidate the license; as a result, the I licensee will still be liable for the safe and complete decommissioning of their facilities. 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: Objective empirical data clearly demonstrate that the majority of commercial nuclear power plants will not operate through their planned operating life of forty years (40).
While the power reactor licensees are entitled to recover a portion of decommissioning funding I November 2002 0-231 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I through the rate, they are not entitled to a full and complete rebate on "stranded investments",
I and shortfalls that will certainly arise due to the under funding of nuclear decommissioning "I "funding targets." Shareholders and Board Members of electric utilities and Rural Electric I Cooperatives (REC) must assume responsibility for their business decisions. These I aforementioned entities aggressively sought to license, construct, and operate nuclear power I plants. To allow artificial definitions concerning ownership of nuclear generating stations to I insulate those who cogently made capital investments is immoral, unethical, and an I endorsement of corporate socialism. That is, shareholders profit from imprudent investment I decisions and are accorded relief when error of mismanagement becomes manifest. The I Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission cited Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines that I suggested five criteria for evaluating alternative financing mechanisms for nuclear I decommissioning. One of the components of was titled "Intergenerational equity - that the cost I of decommissioning be spread equitably to all rate payers throughout the life of the facility."
I Unless a more equitable funding formula for nuclear decommissioning is established, rate I payers and taxpayers who received little or no direct electrical benefit from nuclear generating, I will be financially exposed. The nuclear industry must assume responsibility for their I investment strategies. Creating and perpetuating intergenerational debt is reckless and I fundamentally inequitable and undemocratic. Future generations may be exposed to gross rate I payer inequity if adequate decommissioning funding based on realistic estimates (and not I "funding targets") are not assured. The solution should not be a financial safety net provided by I hostage rate payers and taxpayers excluded from internal corporate decision making. "Electric I utilities" must assume financial responsibility for their decisions to invest in nuclear power which I necessarily means the shareholder should bear a substantial portion of post-deregulation I decommissioning expenses. Clearly, a formula must be established that recognizes rate payer I and taxpayer equity for the realized service that power reactor licensees provide. It is time for I the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to recognize, through its Environmental Impact I Statements, that consumers and taxpayers are human beings and not abstract, hypothetical I billing invoices. (CL-02/31)
I Response: The missions of the NRC include the protection of public health and safety, and I protection of the environment. NRC requirements establisheda framework to ensure that I decommissioning of all nuclearreactorfacilities will be accomplishedin a safe and timely I manner, and that adequatefunding will be available for this purpose. NRC does not prescribe I how the funds are to be raised. The license holder for the facility funds decommissioning costs.
I Equitabilityof investment decisionsis outside the scope of this Supplement. The comment did I not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The I comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Second, we are concerned that over the course of 60 years, the ownership of I nuclear plants, financial status of licensees, and decommissioning obligations for many plants I could change; if companies have not operated the facility long enough to accrue sufficient funds NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-232 November 2002
Appendix 0 for decommissioning, and then go into an extended SAFSTOR period, bankruptcy of the facility I owner could jeopardize cleanup at the site. The extended time of storage combined with I reduced staffing associated with SAFSTOR could mean that these sites are more likely to be subject to accident, theft of equipment, or attack. (CL-11/10)
Response: If a facility shuts down prematurelybefore the decommissioning trust is fully funded, or if it unexpectedly finds itself having to shift to a more costly decommissioningoption, the facility license holder is still obligated to fund the entire cost of decommissioning. To date, none of the license holders of prematurelyshutdown facilities have defaulted on their I decommissioningfunding obligation. Bankruptcy does not necessarilymean that a power reactorlicensee will liquidate. To date, the NRC's experience with bankruptpower reactor licensees has been that they file under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for reorganization, not liquidation(for example, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, El PasoElectric I Company, and Cajun Electric Cooperative). In these cases, bankruptlicensees have continued to provide adequate funds for safe operationand decommissioning, even as bondholders and stockholders suffered losses that were often severe. Because electric utilities typically provide an essential service in an exclusive franchise area, the NRC staff believes that, even in the: I unlikely case of a power reactorlicensee liquidating,its service territoryand obligations, - I including those for decommissioning, would revert to anotherentity without direct NRC I intervention. Additionally, an NRC-licensed facility undergoingdecommissioningor a site that is I not under license but is undergoing decommissioning under NRC's regulationsalso warrant remediation under CERCLA as a Superfund site. These statutoryprovisionsmight become particularlyrelevant at sites for which funding is inadequate for cleanup. The comment did not I provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
0.5 NEPA-Related Issues 0.5.1 Process for Developing the GElS Comment: What consideration was given to the location of the facility as a variable in I determining? (CH-B13) I I Response: Location of the facility (on the ocean,a-lake, a river, etc.) was one of the variables 1 used to determine the potentialenvironmental impacts from decommissioningactivities. 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. I Comment: I don't know if site location was included in as an Other in the variable. I'd be interested in what kind of depth of analysis went into that if it was a variable that was considered. (CH-B/4)
November 2002 0-233 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Response: Location of the facility (on the ocean, a lake, a river, etc.) was one of the variables I used to determine the potentialenvironmental impacts from decommissioning activities. Data I from sites located on the Great Lakes, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans; as well as plants I located on rivers were used in evaluating the impacts from decommissioning facilities. 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 recommend highly that in the future efforts of this sort, the communications to get I information about specific plants be with those specific plants or otherwise actions be taken to I ensure that all plants are covered. (CH-D/12)
I Response: The staff agrees that in many instances direct contact with the licenseesyields the I most accurate and currentinformation. 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: I understand that Elk River is the only United States commercial reactor that has I been completely dismantled down to its original greenfield state. It so completely disappeared, I in fact, that it is not even mentioned in the "Draft Supplement," in the tables of "permanently I shutdown plants" (for example, as pages 3-27, 4-44, and Table F-1. (CL-51/5)
I Response: The Elk River Reactor was not regulatedby the NRC. Elk River was not a I commercialreactorand not attachedto the electric power grid. It was a 58 megawatt (thermal),
I boiling water reactorthat was owned and operated by the Atomic Energy Commission as part I of the demonstrationreactorprogramproject. Therefore, it was not included in the permanently I shutdown reactorsconsideredin this Supplement. The comment did not provide new I informationrelevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not I result in a change to the Supplement.
I 0.5.2 Public Meetings and Public Participation I Comment: I am opposed to the following change to NUREG-0586: In Supplement 1 to the I Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning: NRC redefines terms to avoid I local, site-specific opportunity to question, challenge and prevent unsafe decommissioning I decisions. (CL-43/9)
I Comment: I am opposed to the following change to NUREG-0586: In Supplement 1 to the I Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning: NRC is attempting, with this I supplement, to legally justify the removal of the existing opportunities for community NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-234 November 2002
Appendix 0 involvement and for legal public intervention until after the bulk of the decommissioning has been completed. This includes such activities as flushing, cutting, hauling and possible rubbilizing of the -reactor. (CL-43/12)
Comment: While the 9/11 events may call for some more secrecy, in most cases it's a matter of "closing the gates long after the horses are gone." Instead you should adopt a policy of allowing more public participation to ensure public confidence in your process! (CL-2712)
Comment: I would like to start out by addressing the process and how it limits the ability for the I public to effectively participate in this and other nuclear-related issues that impact Georgia I communities. The technical nature of the issues and an ongoing resistance by nuclear regulators to share accurate information about nuclear threats has always made it difficult for the public to be involved in decision-making involving nuclear energy issues. (AT-N2)
Comment: We have some grave concerns about the process .... There is a real problem, I think, with public knowledge about the opportunities for input into NRC's decision making.
(AT-B/5)
Comment: My executive director asked me to express our concern for we want this process to I be transparent. Allow public accessibility to the process, knowledge of the standards., Do no harm. We represent physicians who take the Hippocratic Oath. Take no risks that can be avoided. It seems ridiculous to come in here and say to professionals "be careful." But Adele I quoted the too-cheap-to-be-metered promise and there's some credibility problems, so be careful. '(AT-H/I) I Comment: As I noted at the time, I am concerned about the silence of the draft supplement on I public participation in the decommissioning process. Commenters raised these concerns 18 1 months ago, but the draft supplement does not seem to address them. (CL-12/1) 1 Comment: As I read the supplement, its effect will be to predetermine a number of issues about decommissioning of all public-utility power reactors. This will remove those issues from examination in trial-type proceedings, where licensees' evidence or the NRC's assumptions and I conclusions could be tested and exposed to public scrutiny. (CL-12/2)
Comment: Unless the public is allowed to intervene in decommissioning proceedings and participate fully in those proceedings, it cannot be certain that trustworthy decisions will result.
Your 1996 brochure Public Involvement in the Nuclear Regulatory Process, NUREG/BR-0215, I assures us that "the public has an opportunity to participate in NRC's decision making process 1 to decommission a facility." Public participation short of party-intervener status and review of I
- I November 2002 0-235 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I less than all issues relevant to each plant seems to me a recipe for inadequate decision I making. If your agency restricts review, I believe you will be reneging on your promises to the I public, as well as violating NRC's laws and regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act.
I (CL-1 2/3)
I Comment: I am opposed to the following proposal(s) in the EIS: NRC redefines terms to avoid I local, site-specific opportunity to question, challenge and prevent unsafe decommissioning I decisions. (CL-26/1 1)
I Comment: I also utterly oppose redefining terms to avoid local, site-specific opportunity to I question, challenge, and prevent unsafe decommissioning decisions. (CL-33/15)
I Comment: I also utterly oppose attempting to legally justify the removal of the existing I opportunities for community involvement and for legal public intervention until activities such as I flushing, cutting, hauling, and possibly rubblizing of the reactor are complete--in other words, I until the damage has irretrievably been done. (CL-33/18)
I Comment: Please increase, rather than decrease, public participation in every single aspect of I the planning, building, and running of Nuclear Power Plants. Please do this even if you don't I want to. The public, to you, may seem like a thorn in your side, something that gets in the way I of your plans. But a democratic government should not seek to shut their people out of I decisions that effect their lives. It is a very sad reflection on the state of our democracy that this I seems to be precisely the aim of your draft regulations. Don't you believe in democracy? Are I you tired of playing by democratic rules if it means you can't win each and every time? Is I democracy too inconvenient for you? If you were busy doing the "right thing" you would be I excited and proud to open your process to the public. If you were involved in an honest I process, you would be eager to engage your opponents in debate about it. You would not have I to stack the deck, hide your process, shut the people out. Shame on you! See if you have the I courage to do the right thing! --- And have the courtesy not to send one of those dummy I automatic replies! (CL-35/1)
I Comment: In keeping with appropriate medical and public policy principles, we urge total I transparency. United States citizens deserve nothing less than total transparency. (CL-46/1)
I Comment: We urge that the Commission always lead it's interactions with the public at large I by being fully open and informative about the potential dangers, the expense and the limited I experience we as a nation have with the decommissioning of nuclear reactors. (CL-46/2)
I Comment: Any and all decommissioning activities should be performed methodically and with I great caution, ensuring that the public is appropriately involved in the processes and thoroughly I protected from dangers every step of the way. (CL-47/4)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-236 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: Further, this move runs counter to NRC's "Openness" Principle of Good Regulation, wherein "Nuclear regulation is the public's business, and it must be transacted publicly and candidly. The public must be informed about and have the opportunity to participate in the regulatory processes*" and to NRC's Organizational Value of "Service to the public, and others who are affected by our work." (both found at http: //www.nrc.gov/who-we- I are/values.html) (CL-47/12)
Comment: We're concerned that the use of the proceeding may be used to eliminate site specific evaluation of local concerns. And our concern is the right of local residents will be preempted from raising concerns during the license termination plan review. (SF-D/1)
Comment: The elimination of sub part M hearings coupled with the instituting of sub part L further inhibits public participation and is a violation of citizens constitutional rights guaranteed under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act. (CL-50/8)
Comment: The PSDAR'skirts accountability and obstructs required public participation. The PSDAR does not require a clear description of the methodologies so that the public can understand what will be taking place during decommissioning. Only with a sufficiently detailed plan, can the public meaningfully research, investigate, formulate comments and questions,- I and possible objections to the decommissioning activities. A meeting does not afford citizens the level of institutional accountability necessary given the dangers of environ-toxic contamination inherent in the reactor cessation.ý Informational meetings, as experienced at Yankee Rowe, CT Yankee, Maine Yankee, and Millstone Unit 1 obfuscated, confused, and ignored the concerns of local citizens. Both the Federal District Court and the Appellate Court chastised the agency for this approach. If the community has concerns, and there is no regulatory recourse save one "meeting" with NRC, the.Commission will, in fact, create polarization between the community and regulator leading to erosion of public confidence in the NRC. -(CL-50/9)
Comment: Increasingly, no forum is available to citizens in which to exercise their rights under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. This is yet another reason that this Supplement is unacceptable and should be withdrawn. (CL-5217) .
Comment: 'These denials of access to the judicial system are currently being extended in the form of NRC's proposed Rule, "Change of Adjudicatory Process," compounding the illegalities inherent in this Supplement. (CL-52/6)
Comment: The NRC claims the agency and the industry have accumulated substantial decommissioning experience and that this is justification for hastening the generic treatment of November 2002 0-237 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Environmental Impact Statements. In effect, this eliminates meaningful public involvement in I site-specific reviews and prevents the necessary full disclosure of nuclear facility contamination I and decommissioning practices. (CL-4814)
I Comment: Why, in this same democracy that we hold up so proudly to the world, does the I NRC seek to prevent public comment on the basic issue of public health in a nuclear world?
I (CL-3611)
I Comment: Please consider my opposition to many of the proposed Supplements. The public I should not be further shut out of the decommissioning process. Nuclear waste is deadly and I it's handling should not be downgraded in any way. (CL-43/16)
I Comment: I am opposed to the following proposal(s) in the EIS: NRC is attempting, with this I supplement, to legally justify the removal of the existing opportunities for community I involvement and for legal public intervention until after the bulk of the decommissioning has I been completed. This includes such activities as flushing, cutting, hauling and possibly I rubblizing of the reactor. (CL-26114)
I Comment: CWAA supports the comments of NIRS, Public Citizen and the Critical Mass I Energy Project. We concur with these organizations that changes in the supplement designed I to limit citizen's opportunities to review or challenge decommissioning projects are I undemocratic and ill advised. It is imprudent to reduce public oversight of these projects, no I matter how much more convenient it seems. (CL-45/1)
I Comment: Alternative methods being considered by the NRC include "entombment" and I "rubblization." These involve leaving more nuclear waste onsite in an effort to reduce industry's I short-term decommissioning costs but are likely to increase long-term costs to affected I communities once the sites are abandoned after license termination. The proposed alternative I methods additionally raise significant technical and environmental impact issues and conflicts I with the permanent emplacement of so-called "low-level" radioactive waste at nuclear facility I sites not originally licensed as regulated nuclear waste management facilities. The proposed I alternative methods are tantamount to creating an unlicensed radioactive waste disposal site.
I These alternative methods must therefore be subject to review by the affected communities I with full disclosure and documentation of the amount of radioactivity, the location and condition I of all residual contamination and the types of radioactive contamination that remain onsite. On I site and offsite contamination and radioactivity and associated issues involved with extended I institutional control must all be subject to site-specific public hearings. (CL-48/27)
I Comment: NRC redefines terms to avoid local, site-specific opportunity to question, challenge I and prevent unsafe decommissioning decisions. (CL-48/44)
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-238 November 2002
Appendix 0 Comment: NRC is attempting, with this supplement, to legally justify the removal of the existing opportunities for community involvement and for legal public intervention until after the bulk of the decommissioning has been completed. This includes such activities as flushing, cutting, hauling, and possibly rubblizing of the reactor. (CL-48/47)
Response: The Supplement provides an environmentalanalysis of the impacts associated with the decommissioning process for power reactors. Comments pertainingto the decommissioning process for power reactorsas prescribedby 10 CFR 50.82 are outside the scope of this Supplement.--The current regulationswere published on July29, 1996 as part of a comprehensive rulemaking effort relatedto power reactordecommissioning. The NRC revised I its regulationsby the Commission'snotice and comment rulemakingprocess.
Section 2.2 of the GElS describes the regulatoryaspects of the decommissioningprocess as specified by 10 CFR 50.82, including the options for public participation. In addition to public meetings, the public has certain adjudicatoryopportunitiesthat are outlined in NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part2, "Rules of Practicefor Domestic Licensing Proceedingsand Issuance of Orders." If the licensee has requested an action requiringa license amendment, then the process for interveningin this action is by requesting orparticipatingin a hearing. For decommissioning reactors, the process will usually follow the regulationsin 10 CFR Part2, Subpart L,-"lnformalHearingProceduresfor Adjudications in Materialsand OperatorLicensing Proceedings"(depending on the timing of the request, the process may follow the regulationsin 10 CFR Part2, SubpartA). If the action of concern does not involve a license amendment, then any member of the public may raisepotential health and safety issues in a petition to the NRC to take specific enforcement action againsta licensed facility. This provision is contained ,
in the NRC's regulationsand is often referred to as a "2.206petition"in reference to its location in the regulations (Chapter2, Section 206 of 10 CFR). 'Licensees arepermitted to perform activities allowed under their licenses. The comments did not provide new information relevant .
to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comments did not result in a change I to the Supplement.
Comment: After the tragic events of September 11, this problem has escalated to a point where our organization believes it is highly irresponsible of our Federal government to go forward with making crucial decisions that will affect generations and generations to come. The NRC's Web site, as many of you know, was not available for a time and is currently severely scaled back, making public access to important background information very difficult or impossible. I have spoken with representatives of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.,
and they have echoed some of my concerns as they, too, have difficulty gaining information on I nuclear industry activity.,-If people like myself who have the ability to research these issues on a I full-time basis along with staff members of the regulatory agencies are having a hard time, imagine the fate of a concerned citizen who has limited time to devote ....For citizens concerned I about issues at Plant Hatch in south Georgia, unless they have a hard copy of the relicensing November 2002 0-239 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I documents, it is difficult for them to look up concerns that would be relevant to today's meeting I because those relicensing documents are no longer available online. We did have a link to it on I our Web site, but you know, we all know it's not working. (AT-N3)
I Comment: Georgians for Clean Energy remains concerned about the ability for the public to I effectively participate in this and other nuclear related issues that impact Georgia's I communities. Due to the tragic events of September 11th the Nuclear Regulatory Agency's I (NRC) Web site was not available for a time and is currently severely scaled back, making I public access to important background information very difficult or impossible. (CL-08/1)
I Comment: SLOMP is troubled by the inability of the public to have adequate access to the I NRC Web site. Prior to the censorship, the existence of the Web site had been viewed as a I giant step forward in communication between the public and the Commission. (CL-5311)
I Comment: Given the difficulty in accessing thorough and accurate information, including I potentially relevant material such as the relicensing documents on Plant Hatch in South I Georgia, we feel it is important to both extend the public comment period until these documents I can be made readily available and to provide more meeting locations to adequately gather I public comments. Since nuclear reactors will eventually be decommissioned in many states the I public should be given more than just four locations nationwide to voice their concerns. Public I meetings should'also be held in communities neighboring currently existing nuclear power I plants. (CL-08/2)
I Comment: Moreover, the NRC's public notice, as an example, that went out on November 2 of I this meeting, contained an inaccurate link to the public electronic reading room.... Well, for a lot I of people that got that link, that's all they'll do, they'll go to that link and it doesn't work and they I think they don't know how to use their computer and then they just go home. So again, the I accuracy of information that's going out right now, we have to be very aware of when there are I mistakes made. (AT-N5)
I Response: The NRC realizes that the Web site was not availableto the public for a period of I time following September 11, 2001, and has taken prudent steps to make importantinformation I available to the public as soon as practicable. The staff extended the comment periodfor an I additional30 days until January'31,2002, in part, to provide additionaltime for members of the I public to review appropriatedocuments relating to decommissioning. Currently, the NRC I website has been 're-established and the public has access to a large amount of information via I the Internet. The subject of license renewal is outside the scope of this Supplement. However, I if individuals have questions related to license renewal they should contact the project manager NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-240 November 2002
Appendix 0 of the plant of interest. The NRC website can direct an individualmember of the public to the NRC point of contact. 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: It is essential to provide more meeting locations to gather public comments. Four locations is not enough, given that we have nuclear reactors that will eventually be decom missioned in many states and the public, as I've said, has had difficulty accessing the information...have more meetings. (AT-AN7)
Comment: Once again, that's where having other meetings outside of the area could gather some useful information that may have been missed; and maybe site-specific, that wasn't addressed earlier. (AT-N20)
Comment: Thank you for holding these meetings in four locations around the country, and forI encouraging public participation. (CL-i 0112)
Comment: I'd like to invite you to come to Charlotte. We could, I think, fill up a hearing room so that you could hear from the citizens who are directly affected by your decision making that is on going. (AT-B/13)
Comment: 'Both the NRC and taxpayers would have been better served by sending the draft GElS to all individuals and groups that have demonstrated interest in safety issues at nuclear plants over the last two decades, with a questionnaire, a comment section, and a self addressed, stamped envelope. (CL-53/6)
Response: The meeting locations were chosen to provide convenient locations across the country and in each NRC region. The NRC staff identified public interestgroups and concerned I citizens in the'vicinity of all 22 power reactors Jndergoing decommissioning.' Copies of the Draft Supplement were provided to all identifiedpersonnel and organizations:Additionally, the, 'I NRC and EPA published FederalRegister notices identifying the availabilityof the Draft I Supplement. The NRC included the Draft Supplement on the NRC's Web site, issued a press I release, and made it available to members of the public through the electronicreadingroom. I Finally,any member of the public seeking to gain'a copy of the draft was provided a copy at no I charge. In response to concerns expressed by members of the public, the NRC staff extended .1 the public comment periodagain allowing additi6nalpublic input. The comments did not provide I new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comments I did not result in a change to the Supplement.
November 2002 0-241 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Comment: The GElS needs to create a chronological list of all the decommissioning activities I that accept public participation;. All public participation opportunities such as meetings, I hearings, oral comments, written comments, petitions, and interventions need to be listed. At I later times when specific dates are known, this list needs to be advertised locally in the affected I area. The licensee should also solicit public input on the formulation of decommissioning plans I well before the decisions are made. (CL-1417)
I Response: Section 2.2.1 of this Supplement provides a detailed discussion of the I decommissioningprocess and regulations. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.82 describes the process I necessary to decommission a facility and identifies instances when public participationis I afforded. Also, within two to three months of the licensee's announcement of permanently I ceasing operation, the NRC staff holds a public meeting in the vicinity of the plant to describe in I detail the decommissioningprocess. At that time the opportunitiesfor public input are I identified. NUREG-1628, "Staff Responses to FrequentlyAsked Questions Concerning I Decommissioningof NuclearPowerPlants,"providesa discussion on when andhow the public I can participate. Copies of the document can be obtainedfrom the NRC Staff. Based on the I above sources of information no additionallisting of activities that accept public participationis I necessary. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will I not be evaluated further. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: The public has not only the "right to know", but NRC and the industry has the duty I to fully disclose all related impacts, short and long-term, on and offsite, direct and indirect, as I well as cumulative effects resulting from decommissioning to citizens and members of the I public living in local communities surrounding the nuclear plants. (CL-44/15)
I Response: The NRC staff examined the impacts of decommissioning activities at NRC I licensed nuclearpower facilities for cumulative, short-andlong-term, onsite and offsite, direct I andindirect impacts. This analysis is contained in Section 4.0 of the document. The comment I did not provide new informationrelevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further.
I The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: NIRS reiterates and incorporates our previous comments and fundamental I disputes with regard to the decommissioning GElS as submitted in formal comments to NRC on I July 11, 13 and 14, 2000. Our organizations request that NRC include with this submission all I of our organizations' previous comments on this and related rulemakings (including but not I limited to the environmental procedures on BRC and those that led to the development of 10 1 CFR 20 section E, the License Termination Rule). (CL-48/1)
I Response: The comments that were received during the scopingprocess that are within the I scope of this document are discussed in Appendix A of the Supplement. Because the scope of I this document, as describedin Section 1.3, does not include Below Regulatory Concern issues NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-242 November 2002
Appendix 0 or the License Terminationprocess or relatedrulemakings,-they are outside the scope and not I addressedin the Supplement. 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.
Comment: The NRC gave 10 individuals representing 10 different environmental groups only 5 I minutes each to express their concerns. Furthermore, it is outrageous that the NRC located these proceedings hundreds of miles from the affected communities-and those who are most I concerned about the decommissioning of nuclear plants. (CL-53/5)
Response:" At each public meeting, the public is asked to sign up for 5-minute time slots at the beginning of the meeting to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to comment. After these comments are received the remaining time is allocatedfor furtherpublic comment, either from those who did not sign up or for those who wished to express additionalcomments.
The meeting locations were chosen to provide convenient locations across the country and in each NRC region. The Staff determined that meetings in additionallocations would not have provided enough added value for the expense of holding the meetings. Public meetings was only one of severalmeans for the public to share their comments with the NRC. The other means included email, mail, or hand delivery to the NRC in Rockville, Maryland. 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: I would challenge you not to lose any of the comments that have been made about security or any other issue that you consider outside the scope. And make certain that those do I surface somewhere.- (AT-BI20)
Comment: I guess I'd like to just comment that to.the public and to many non-profit organizations, generic means you may say thisyou may not say that; this is on the table; that I is not on the table. And what happens is that people do make comments that affect their communities and affect their safety and if they are indeed outside the scope of a particular process, I would truly love to believe that those~comments are not lost. But at this point, my experience doesn't lead me to be sure that's the case. (AT-B/19)
Comment: I recognize that it has probably been a waste of my time and will be ignored, therefore I am not bothering to write it again with every paragraph in the right place. (CL 201113)
Response: -All comments and questions received at the meeting became part of the transcribedrecord.-- Other comments received from three other meetings, emails andletters I were included in the record; the disposition of all public comments makes up this Appendix. I November 2002 0-243 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Comments that pertain to physical security issues have been forwardedto the appropriateNRC I office for consideration.Other issues determined to be outside the scope of the Supplement I were evaluated for theirrelevance to on going NRC actions and activitiesand forwarded to the I respective NRC office if appropriate. 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: Public participation must be instituted for the creation of the ISFSI. At present, the I creation of an ISFSI falls into a regulatory no man's land. At the NRC pre-hearing on the I Yankee Rowe LTP, the NRC administrative law judges were instructed by the commission not I to address any contentions concerning the storage of high-level radioactive waste. The I creation of the ISFSI has serious consequences for each reactor community that could last I hundreds of years. That the public can not participate in the process - give comments, request I hearings, intervene - is unreasonable and undemocratic. (CL-50/24)
I Response: The licensing of an ISFSl is outside the scope of the Supplement (see Section 1 1.3). The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be I evaluated further.' The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Each reactor community should have representatives trained in MARSSIM and I other protocols by the NRC so that they can effectively comment and express their concerns I about the adequacy of the procedures being used. (CL-50127)
I Response: Because of the highly technical nature of designing, conducting, and evaluating I final site surveys using the MARSSIM protocols, extensive trainingin statistics,health physics, I physics, and mathematics are needed. It is unreasonableto expect the NRC to provide such I training to members of the public at each facility location. Trained NRC experts are available to I answer specific questions on the design, execution, and results of the surveys. The comments I did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further.
I The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I 0.5.3 Request for Additional Comment Period I Comment: Therefore, we feel it is important to both extend the public comment period until I these documents can be made readily available.... But I think we do need to extend the public I comment period to address the inability of getting the information easily. (AT-A/6)
I Comment: There's a number of decommissioning related documents that have come out for I review. And while I appreciate the NRC has been very busy, in addition to this GElS I supplement, the entombment proposed rule making, there's also I think, I got two documents I this week regarding decommissioning cost reports and I think the cost estimate formats. If NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-244 November 2002
Appendix 0 there is any way that we could not have to get all the comments in the very short comment period, if it could be extended, I'd really appreciate it because it's going to be a very busy December for me. (CH-D/13) I Comment: This highlights the need for an extended comment period and careful analysis of this issue. For instance, I'm sure there are a number of nuclear security organizations worldwide that perhaps this draft and others within the NRC could be opened up to get their comments and maybe their suggestions of what they're doing in other countries or whatever, because we're looking at a global assault. (AT-A/13)
Response: 'The comment periodfor the Supplement was extended an additional31 days until January31, 2002. The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
0.5.4 Determination of Scope I Comment: The NRC scope is clearly associated with the radiological aspects of decommissioning. So, an issue such as rubblization, that has a radiological component, this seems clearly it's within the scope of NRC's review regulation. I do not see the removal of a cooling tower is within NRC's scope. (BO-B1/2)
Comment: However, while the stated intent of the Supplement is to consider in a comprehensive manner all aspects related to the radiological decommissioning of nuclear reactor facilities, the Supplement sometimes deviates from this intent by delving into activities and impacts related to the removal of uncontaminated structures, systems, and components such as intake structures or cooling towers. While the consideration of these impacts may be useful and helpful, their inclusion without proper caveat may tend to blur the'line of NRC jurisdiction. (CL-04/2)
Comment: And yet, I note in the document that you also include decommissioning-environmental impacts of decommissioning a nonradioactive system such as cooling towers and discharge pipes. I'd like to understand what criteria NRC will use to determine the acceptability of a licensee's plans in those areas. (BO-B/1) "
Response: The Supplement provides an environmrentalanalysis of the impacts associated with the'decommissioningprocess for nuclearpower reactors. Clearlypart of that decommissioning-processinvolves the removal and disposalof structures,systems, and components that may not be radiologicallycontaminated. 'Forcompleteness, and in'the spiritof I NEPA, the staff chose to include the dismantlement of all structures,systems, and components I necessary for power generation on the site. -AS a'result,cooling towers and the diesel generatorbuilding were included,but the site trainingcenter and visitor information center was I not. During scoping, the NRC staff met with EPA and at their urging the staff agreedto look at I November 2002 0-245 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I the impacts from activities performed to support dismantlement of nonradiologicalstructures, I systems, and components (SSCs) requiredfor the operation of the reactor. This is discussedin I Section 1.3, "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: The scope is just inadequate. (CH-C/3)
I Response: The comment can not be evaluatedbecause it does not provide specific I information. 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.
I Comment: Out-of-scope activities are identified and discussed in Section 1 and Appendix D. It I is recommended that "Interim Storage of Greater than Class C Waste" also be identified as an I out-of-scope activity, consistent with the final rule published in Federal Register Vol.66, I Number 197, dated October 11, 2001. (CL-06/2)
I Response: Section 1 and Appendix D have been revised to indicate that the interim storage of I Greater-than-Class-CWaste is an out-of-scope issue.
I Comment: Page 1-5, Section 1.3.. This section states that except for decommissioning I planning activities, the Supplement only considers activities following removal of the fuel from I the reactor. The exclusions include "impacts that result directly and immediately from the act of I permanently ceasing operations" such as the environmental impacts of ceasing thermal I discharges to receiving waters which the Supplement states "is essentially a restoration of I existing conditions." This ignores the potentially adverse effects that the thermal discharges I may have had on the ecosystem while the plant was operating; and, while the affected I ecosystem may recover from the thermal discharges, such recovery may not be the equivalent I of restoration to the originally existing conditions. Also, a species may have become I established and dependent upon the thermal discharge. (CL-16112)
I Response: As discussed in Section 1.3, impacts related to the decision to permanentlycease I operationsare outside the scope of this Supplement. Efforts to maintain an altered ecosystem I appearcontrary to the spirit of NEPA. Furthermore,the NRC has no regulatoryauthority to I require the licensee to continue operating the facility in orderto avert impacts form permanently I ceasing operations. The comment 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: It is absurd that NRC states that "decommissioning activities do not include the I maintenance, storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel, or the removal and disposal of I nonradioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to terminate the NRC license .....
NUREG-0586 Supplement I 0-246 November 2002
Appendix 0 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-20/43)
Response: The Supplement does not state that the licensee is not responsible for the above stated concerns, only that maintenance, storage, and disposalof spent fuel is not within the scope of this Supplement. The Supplement provides an environmental analysis of the impacts associatedwith the decommissioningprocess for power reactors. 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: -It is murderous that potential radiological impacts following licensing/license termination that are related to activities performed during decommissioning are not in the Supplement. This allows the licensee to slowly murder a community as the radiological criteria for license termination by NRC was woefully inadequate anyway. (CL-20/87)
Response: The radiologicalcriteriafor license termination are given in 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E, and furtheraddressedin NUREG-1496, "GenericEnvironmentalImpact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on RadiologicalCriteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities." Fora site to be releasedas unrestricted,the total effective dose equivalent.
to an averagemember of the criticalgroup is 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr). The NRC staff believes that these criteriaare adequate to protectpfiblic health and safety. The comment did I not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The I comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: I also utterly oppose stating that 10 CFR 20 section E and its Environmental Impact I Statement, NUREG 1496, are not part of the scope of this Supplement. (CL-33/19)
Response: 10 CFR Part20, SubpartE,'and NUREG-1496 are not partof the scope of this Supplement.' .The 1997 license termination rule relied on the environmentalassessment containedin the "GenericEnvironmentalImpact Statement in support of Rulemaking on"'
RadiologicalCriteriafor License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities,"Finalreport, NUREG-1496, datedJuly 1997. The public had the opportunity to comment on that draft GEIS'* I and the rulemaking effort at the time that the rule was being developed. The commernt did not provide new information relevant to this Supplerneht and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: There are several issues in the Supplement which are briefly addressed and dismissed as "out-of-scope," which we insist need to be dealt with as site-specific issues for any I thorough EIS on decommissioning, with full public rights to hearings, review, oversight, and November 2002 0-247 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I disclosure maintained. These include: 1. Spent fuel storage and maintenance - The public at I each reactor site community should determine how irradiated/"spent" fuel is stored/
I dispositioned. If a centralized high-level waste repository is opened at some future date to I accommodate the irradiated fuel and high-level waste from a community's decommissioned I reactor, the communities that exist along the possible transportation paths should also be I involved in site-specific environmental impact reviews/assessments. To exclude spent fuel I storage, maintenance, transport, and disposal away from the reactor location from the scope of I this GElS/Supplement, and the opportunity for site-specific EIS reviews, is arbitrary and I capricious. 2. Low-level waste disposal at a LLW site - The concept of rubblizing and capping a I reactor site and allowing it to function as a low-level waste disposal facility without having the I appropriate permitting and licensing hearing process is a serious departure from past NRC I licensing practices, and any such "rubblizing" proposal should not be approved without a site I specific EIS review. To exclude this or any similar proposal from a site-specific EIS review, and I the scope of this GElS/Supplement, is arbitrary and capricious. (CL-47/18)
I Response: Spent fuel storage is outside the scope of the Supplement, as are transportation I and disposal of spent fuel. Both Skull Valley and Yucca Mountain were subjected to site I specific ElSs. The staff has stated in the Supplement that the disposal of slightly contaminated I rubble onsite (rubblization) would be subject to a site-specific review, as would entombment.
I Evaluationof the License Termination Plan in support of the rubblization or entombment would I allow for a request for intervention on the part of a member of the public. The comment did not I provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. The I comment did not result in a change to the Supplement.
I Comment: Nuclear facility operation results in significant offsite radiological contamination that I is ignored under the current definition. For example, one known pathway occurs over the I course of reactor operation as the direct result of fuel rod degradation giving way to pin-hole I leaks, cracks and loss of rod integrity with radioactive contamination to the reactor coolant I system. Primary and secondary coolant piping leakage results in radioactive contamination I releases being deposited and accumulated as sediment on river and lakebeds and coastal I receiving waters from deteriorated reactor coolant discharge systems. This is of particularly I more concern for utilities that operated once-through cooling systems and/or boiling water I reactor technology though not exclusively so. Some of our organizations are aware that reactor I operators, as in one case of the Big Rock Point nuclear generating station, have argued that I offsite radioactive sediment areas should not be disturbed by removaVdecontamination efforts I and are better left alone than decontaminated. The decommissioning definition does not I require the utility to analyze the scope of this offsite contamination, consider its cleanup nor I effectively regulate the enforcement of decontamination of residual radioactivity that has NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-248 November 2002
Appendix 0 migrated from the reactor site and accumulated off site in affected communities resources such as fresh water supplies. These advertent releases of radioactivity as the result of station operation need be covered within the scope and disclosure as environmental impacts within the decommissioning process.
NRC in its evaluation of the environmental impacts acknowledges "Levels of radionuclide emissions from facilities undergoing decommissioning decreased, because the major sources generating emissions in gaseous and liquid effluents are absent in facilities that have been shut I down." Consequently, the NRC currently only considers radiological effluent impacts as a result I of decommissioning operations while ignoring the potential need for mitigation of cumulative and persistent toxic radioactive materials deposited downstream over the decades of operation I of a reactor. (CL-48113)
Comment: This agency's definition of "decommissioning", is fundamentally flawed in limiting its scope of "property" to the site boundaries. The NRC scope needs to be broadened to I encompass the decontamination or mitigation of "property" in addition to structures, systems, and components of the nuclear power station that exist beyond the fence line that have been contaminated nonetheless, as a direct result of station operation. (CL-48/12)
Response: Routine releases from power plants do not result in offsite contaminationthat warrantsoffsite remediation. There are regulationsin place concerning the release of any I materialfrom a nuclearpower facility. The plants were licensed with the expectation that there would be routine releases to the air and water due to normal operations. The releasesare limited to ensure public health and safety. Licensees are requiredto conservativelyestimate offsite dose annually. The comments did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluated further. 1The comments did not result in a change to the Supplement.
Comment: This Supplement to the Final GElS fails to address decommissioning of nuclear facilities other than commercial reactors. It therefore fails to take into account the subject of NUREG-0586: ,the environmental impacts of decommissioning nuclear facilities-all nuclear.
facilities. (CL-52/2)
Response:, NUREG-0586 is still valid for all facilities except nuclearpower facilities.- As stated I in Section -1.1 (and unlike the 1988 GELS), this Supplement covers only reactorfacilities licensed by the NRC for commercialpower production. The comment did not provide new information relevant to this Supplement and will not be evaluatedfurther. The comment did not I result in a change to the Supplement. -
November 2002 0-249 NUREG-0586 Supplement 1
Appendix 0 I Comment: Moreover, in order to assess the full environmental impacts of each facility's I decommissioning, it is necessary to take into account its impacts in concert with the impacts of I all other nuclear facilities that contribute additive radiological and other contamination to the I biologic system. (CL-52/3)
I Response: The environmentalmonitoring program and the licensee's Offsite Dose Calculation I Manual would adequatelycharacterizethe cumulative radiologicalimpacts associatedwith I nearby facilities that are also light water reactorsor that emit or release similarradioisotopesto I those occurring in a light water reactor. 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: For purposes of this GELS, the NRC is only focusing on the environmental impact I of the actual decommissioning activities between the cessation of operations and license I termination. This approach completely and inappropriately ignores the environmental impact I associated with any radioactive material remaining following license termination. (CL-17/2)
I Response: Any potentialradiologicalimpacts following license terminationthat are relatedto I activities performed during decommissioning are not considered in this Supplement. Such I impacts are covered by the "GenericEnvironmentalImpact Statement in Support of I Rulemaking on RadiologicalCriteriafor License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear I Facilities,"NUREG-1496. 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 in this Draft says p. D-2 that the temporary storage or future permanent I disposal of spent fuel at a site other than the reactor site is not within the scope of this I Supplement. Why the hell not? It MUST BE, OTHERWISE THIS DRAFT IS EVEN MORE I MEANINGLESS. (CL-20/83)
I Response: The Commission has independently, in a separateproceeding called the 'Waste I Confidence Proceeding,"made a finding that there is "reasonableassurancethat, if necessary, I spent fuel generatedin any reactorcan be stored safely and without significant environmental I impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term I of a revised license) of that reactorat its spent fuel storagebasin, or at either onsite or offsite I independentspent fuel storage installations"(54 FR 39767). The Commission has committed I to review this finding at least every 10 years. In its most recent review, the Commission I concluded that experience and developments since 1990 were not such that a comprehensive I review of the Waste Confidence Decision was necessaryat that time (64 FR 68005).
I Accordingly, the Commission reaffirmed its finding of insignificantenvironmental impacts, cited I above. This finding is codified in the Commission'sregulationsat 10 CFR 51.23(a). The NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 0-250 November 2002