ML19343D226
| ML19343D226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1981 |
| From: | Calkins G NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0436, NUREG-0436-R01-S02, NUREG-0436-S02, NUREG-436, NUREG-436-R1-S2, NUREG-436-S2, NUDOCS 8104100551 | |
| Download: ML19343D226 (28) | |
Text
.-
NUREG-0436 Revision 1 Supplement 2 Plan for Reevaluation of NRC Policy on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities
,o o g
c?e@M Q "*M R 0 3 793
-B'
- k Yg,,h?
9e U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Standards Development G. D. Calkins y= **am, c,
,.~,
~.::..
8 104100 { $ g
Available from GP0 Sales Program Division of Techtlical Information and Document Control U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Printed copy price:
$2.00 and National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 l
NUREG-0436 Revision 1 Supplement 2 Plan for Reevaluation of NRC Policy on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities l
Manuscript Completed: February 1981 Date Published: March 1981 G. D. Calkins Division of Engineering Standards Office of Standards Development U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
, ~ ~ ~,.
's....... -
NUREG-0436, Revision 1,_
Supplement.2 ABSTRACT This report supplements and updates'the information presented in NUREG-0436, Rev.
1., of the same title and dated December 1978, and Supple-ment 1, dated August 1980.
Supplement 2 repeats the new terminology for the.
decommissioning alternatives.
It updates the status and schedules for developing the information base, the draft generic environmental impact statement, and the rulemaking.
In addition,' schedules for regulatory guides to support the rules are presented.
1 NUREG-0436, Revision 1,-
Supplement 2-TABLE OF1 CONTENTS P,jitel 4
Foreword vii~
'1.0 -Introduction 1
- 2. 0 Terminology 1
2.1 Definition'of Decommissioning 1
2.2 Definitions of Decommiss'ioning Alternatives 1
3.0 Information Base 1
3.1 General 2
3.2 Reactors 2
3.3 Fuel Cycle and Non-Fuel Cycle Nuclear Facilities
.2 3.4 _ Supporting Information.
.2' 4.0 Rulemaking 3
l 4.1 State Workshops 3
4.2 Environmental-Impact Statement
-3 4.3 Policy Statement and Proposed Rules 3
5.0 Regulatory Guides 3
6.0 Schedules 5
7.0 References 17 Attachment A: Federal Register Notice of Availability of 19 Oraft Generic Environmental Impact Statement 1
i i
v
..-... -,,, ~
NUREG-0436, Revision 1, Supplement 2 FORWARD TO SUPPLEMENT 2 The information in this report, including any comments, will be placed in record for consideration by the Commission in establishing criteria and new standards for decommissioning.
Persons wishing to comment on tiis report should mail their commants to:
Decommissioning Program Manager Divisinn of Engineering Standards Office of Standards Development Washington, D.C.
20555 vii
i NUREG-0436, Revision 1, Supplement 2 1.0 Introduction i
This reevaluation plan for decommissioning was published first in March 1978 and then revised in December.1978.
The purpose of this supplement, as was the case for Supplement 1, dated August 1980, is to present some new information, summarize the status of the program and update the schedules.
- 2. 0 Terminology New terminology for decommissioning alternatives was presented in Supplement 1, and it is repeated here:
Some confusion and misunderstanding has resulted from the variation of terminology used in the decommissioning field.
For example, the words decommission, decontaminate and dismantle have been used in+.erchangeably for the decommissioning alternative consisting of the immediate removal of all radioactive material to permit unrestricted release of the property.
The word l
dismantlement has been used to describe decontamination activities that involve no actual dismantlement.
Similarly, the words safe storage, protective stor-age, lay away, mothball and temporary entombment have been used to name the alternative decommissioning consistinty of placing and maintaining property safely in storage as a precursor to final decommissioning.
In the interest of ending the confusion it appears desirable to strictly define decommissioning and the major alternatives for accomplishing it.
Furthermore the use of pseudoacronyms for the alternatives avoids words which may have several meanings.
s 2.1 Definition of Decommissioning Decommission means to remove the property safety from service and dispose of the radioactive materials.
The level of any residual radioactivity on the property must be low enough to permit unrestricted release of the property.
- 2. 2 Definitions of Decommissioning Alternatives 4
DECON means to immedately remove all radioactive material to permit 4
unrestricted release of the property.
SAFSTOR means to fix and maintain property so that risk to safety is t
acceptable for period of storage followed by decontamination and/or decay to an unrestricted level.
ENT0MB means to encase and maintain property in a strong and structually long-lived material (e.g., concrete) to assure retention until radioactivity decays to an unrestricted level.
I l
3.0 Information Base Considerable progress has been made in compiling the information base needed to support rulemaking, see Schedules for Objectives A, B, C and D.
r-,w s-g
- - -..m
-e_
-a-~,
.e n-,,-,-
,,ye..,
r,.n,e,
.,,.m.
-,,,,yy n,,v.+-,,
-.y.,m
NUREG-0436, Revision 1, Supplement 2 3.1 General (See Schedule, Objective A) 2 were completed earlier.
Now t and review of regulations A bibliography s and draft staff reports on the very important topics of financial assurance acceptable radioactive residues 't have been done.
Two of these draft reports 4
have been widely circulated within and outside NRC to accumulate preliminary comments.
Also, a contractor report on financing strategies for decommission-8 ing has been completed.
Separate studies are well underway on the monitoring and on the technology and costs of terminal radiation surveys.
Preliminary results? of the latter study have been published.
3.2 Reactors (See Schedule, Objective B)
The basic report on technology, safety and costs of decommissioning a9 PWR8 was published earlier.
This has now been supplemented by an addendum which provides sensitivity information as a function of reactor size.
A similar report, containing the basic information and a sensitivity stidy, has now been completed for a BWR.to Supplements to update both'of these studies are scheduled for FY1983 and FY1984.
i1 of the Also, a preliminary study was completed on the facilitation decommissioning of light water reactors.
It is planned to make a more detailed investigation of this in FY1982 and FY1983.
Work is now underway on a study of the decommissioning of multiple reactor facilities.12 This will clarify differences in the safety and costs for stations with up to 10 reactors as compared to a single reactor in the completed studies.
Another study has been initiated on research and test reactors,13 and a report is planned on reactors that have been involved in accidents.14
- 3. 3 Fuel Cycle and Non-Fuel Cycle Nuclear Facilities (See Schedule, j
Objective C)
The study of the decommissioning of a fuel reprocessing plant 9 was 1
completed earlier.
Information appropriate to uranium tailings became avail-able in the environmental impact statement for mills.28 Reports have now been 1
18 done on uranium fuel fabrication plants ? small mixed oxide fabrication plants and low level waste burial grounds.19
)
The study of a uranium hexafluoride conversion plan is well underway.
Studies are planned on the facilitation of the decommissioning of fuel cycle facilities and on the deccamissioning of fuel cycle facilities that have been involved in accidents.
Work was completed on non-fuel cycle nuclear facilities.20 This deals with some of the more significant problems in decommissioning facilities involved in handling source and by product materials for-research, medical and industrial uses of radioactive materials.
3.4 Supporting Information (See Schedule, Objective D)
Reports were completed on the feasibility of recycling metals from decom-missioned facilities.21 22 Work has been initiated on three important research tasks which will provide information in the future to improve decommissioning 2
i N0;LCG-0436, Revision 1, Supplemont 2 activities:
(1) long lived activation products in reactor materials, (2) characterization of radionuclide contamination throughout LWR's, and (3) decontamination as a precursor to decommissioning LWR's.
4.0 Rulemaking (See Schedule, Objective E)
Maior progress has been made in the development of the general policy and rules or, decommissioning.
j 4.1 Environmental Impact Statement The draft generic environmental impact statement on decommissioning a i
DGEIS,2a published in January 1981 and issued for public comment in i
February 1981. The important elements of the DEGIS were summarized in the Federal Register as a part of the notice of availability.
This notice is
]
reproduced here as Attachment A.
I 4.2 Policy Statement and Proposed Rules (See Schedule, Objective E) r I
Collectively the studies and evaluations discussed above suggest that all l
nuclear facilities will require consideration in rulemaking revisions on decommissioning.
Current regulations cover the requirements and criteria for decommissioning in only a limited fashion.
For many types of nuclear facili-3 ties the rules are mute.
The rulemaking for decommissioning could be accomplished as.a separate
)
part of NRC's regulations.
However, the proposed action would directly affect licensing activities under Parts 30, 40, 50, 70 and 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). This implies that amendments to the separate i
parts rather than a separate new part would be less disruptive of existing I
procedures and processes.
I In the light of the complexity of this rulemaking it appears desirable to
]j issue first a policy statement covering the proposed actions, and this is schcduled for publication in August 1981.
This would then be followed by the
^
proposed amendments to the various rules in December 1981 and the effective rules in September 1982.
Actions separate from this plan are already underway in reference to 16 and low level waste decommissioning of uranium mills and mill tailings burial grounds (CFR Part 61).
5.0 Regulatory Guides (See Schedules, Objectives F and G)
A number of regulatory guides have now been planned to support the proposed amendments to the rules. Work has already been initiated on some of these.
These include separate guides for reactors and for fuel. cycle facilities on (1) format and content for decommissioning plans, (2) financial assurance plans, (3) definition of decommissioning modes and methods, (4) establishing and maintaining records and archives and (5) license termination and close out surveys.
t 3
NUREG-0436, Revision 1, Supplement 2 6.0 Schedules i
5 l
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2,,2,,,
OBJECTIVE A: DEVELOP GENERAL INFORMATION BASE FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR FACILITIES F Y '81 FY'82 F Y '83 78
'79
'80 Half Half H alf D
N O
J F M A
M J
J A
S O
N D
J F
M A M J
J A
S O
N D
J F M A M
J J
A S
1 2
1 2
1 2
- 1. PL AN FOR REEVALUATION REV.1 S.1 S.2
^
^'
NRC POLICY ON DECOMMISSIONING-NUREG 0436 m
- 2. BIBLIOGR APHY-D F
S.1 S.2 NUREG/CR 0131 1
3
^
^
- 3. REVIEW OF APPLICABLE D
F REG UL ATIONS-
^^
NU REG /CR 0671 I
0= DRAFT A= SCHEDULED F= FIN AL A =COMPLET E D S= SUPPLEMENT
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2,ir8i b
OBJECTIVE A (CONT'D): DEVELOP GENERAL INFORMATION BASE FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR FACILITIES i
FY FY FY p y.81 FY'82 FY'83
'78
'79
'80 MILESTONES D
N D
J F M AM J
J A
S 0
N D
J F M A
(4 J
J A'S 0
N D
J F
M A M J
J A
S
- 4. Fi1 ANCIAL ASSURANCE-D REV.1 REV.2
^'
^
^
- a. STAFF AN ALYSIS NUREG-0584
- b. STRATEGIES NUREG/CR 1481 0
F j
j
- c. INSURANCE REACTORS SC_.
D F
FUEL CYCLE 3d
- 5. RADIDACTIVE RF3iouES -
F 4
- a. STAFF AN A(YSIS N U RE G-0612 p
I
- b. METHDDOLOGY i
- 6. TERMINAL RADIATION SURVEYS-0 F
- a. MONITORING i
l D
F
- b. TECHNDLOGY AND COST
- a a
I i
D= DRAFT a= SCHEDULED i
F = FIN AL A =COMPL ETE D S= SUPPLEMENT 4
l
/
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2,,J,,1 OBJECTIVE B: DEVELOP INFORMA, TION BASE FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR REACTOR FACILITIES FY FY FY p y 81 FY '82 FY'82 78
'79 80 MILESTONES ffM I
O N
D J
F M A' M J
J A
S 0
N D
J A M J
J A
S 0
N D
J F M A M J
J A
S MlF D
A S
S
- 1. PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR 4
~
N U R E G/CR-0130
- 2. B011: 4G WATER REACTOR D
F g
-NUREG/CR 067?
M l
1
- 3. FACILITATION OF DECOM-D F
S MISS10NING OF LIGHT O
^
^
WATER REACTORS--
I.
I D
F
- 4. MULTIPLE REAC10R 3
l FACILITIES l
l D= DRAFT A= SCHEDULED F= FINAL A=CUMPLETED S= SUPPLEMENT A= ADDENDUM l
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2 = =>
OBJECTIVE B (CONT'D): DEVELOP INFORMATION BASE FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR. REAOTOR FACILITIES f'
MILESTONES FY FY FY p y.81 F Y '82 FY 3 78 n
so D
N D
J F M A
M J
J A
S 0
N D
J F
M A M J
J A
S D
N DJ F
M A M
J J
A D
F 5 ftLSLAHCH AND 3
^
TEST HL ACTORS I
D F
G. RE ACIDilSINVDtVED C
3 g
IN ACCIDENTS I
l l
}
I i
D*DHAFT a SCHEDULED F = FIN AL A CDMPLETED S* SUPPL E ME N T l
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN OBJECTIVE C: DEVELOP INFORMATION BASE FOR DECOMMISSIONING FUEL CYCLE AND NON-FUEL CYCLE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FY p y.81 F Y ~82 F Y '83 g],
88 MILESTONES g,
0 N
D J
F M A M
J J
A S
D N
D J
F M Al M J
J A
S 0
N D
J F
M A M J
J A
S 1
2 1
2 1
2 1.
FUEL REPROCESSING F
PLANT-NUREG 0278 4
- 2. SMALL MIXED OXIDE D
F FABRICATION PL ANT-4 o"
- 3. LOW LEVEL WASTE D
F BURIAL GROUND-NUREG/CR 0570
- 4. URANIUM MILL-GEIS-D F
^
DR AFT. NUREG 0511 i
FIN AL, NUREG 0706 C= DRAFT a= SCHEDULED F = F;N AL A= COMPLETED S= SUPPLEMENT
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN m=>
OBJECTIVE C (CONT'D): DEVELOP INFORMATION BASE FOR t
DECOMMISSIONING FUEL CYCLE AND i
NON-FUEL CYCLE NUCLEAR FACILITIES FY FY FY p y.81 F Y '82 FY '83
'#8
'#8
'8" MILESTON ES O
N D
J F M A
M J
J A
S 0
N O
J F
M A M J
J A
S 0 N D
J F
M A M
J J
A S
l
- 5. URANIUM FUEL
[,I F ABRICATION PL ANT f
.i 6 UF CONVERSION D
F 6
^
^
I PLANT i
- 7. NON Fult CYCLE D
'i i
N U C L E A R.'ACILITIE*.
i i
U :'
F i
- 8. F.TCILIT ATION S
^'
- 9. F ACILITIES INVOLVED D
F
^
S IN ACCIDENTS i
1
'I 0=0 RAFT A= SC H E D U L E D F = FIN AL A= COMPLETED S= SUPPLEMENT
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN i
1 OBJECTIVE D: DEVELOP SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR DECOMMISSIONING
.'78 F Y 81 FY 87 F Y '83
'19 O
i MILESTONES O
N O
J F M A
M J
J A
S 0
N D
J F M A M J
J A
S 0
N D
J F
M A M J
J A
S
- 1. F E ASIBILITY OF HECYCLE D
I e &
0F MET ALS FHOM HE ACTORS-NUllEG 0134 I
- 2. FEASIBILITY OF HECYCLE D
OF METALS FROM ENHICH.
4 MENT PLANTS - DHAFT GEIS - NUllEG 0518 tv l
- 3. LONG LIVED ACTIVATION I
Pl1000 CTS IN f1E ACT0ll MAT E HI ALS - FIESE ARCH 4
I
- 4. CH AllACT EHilATION 0f I
IIADIONUCLlDE CONT AMi-O N ATION THf100GHOUT LWH'S - FIESE AllCH
- 5. DECONTAMINATION AS A F
DECGMMISSIONING LWil'S-HESEAllCH D*DHAFT A SCHEDULED F = IIN AL A COMPLETED S SUPPLEMENT
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN moz8.
l l
OBJECTIVE E: DEVELOPMENT OF GENERAL POLICY AND RULE ON DECOMMISSIONING FY FY FY p y.81 FY'82 FY 83 78 is 80 MILESTONES O
N D
J F M A
M J
J A
S 0
N D
J F
M A M J
J A
S 0
N D
J F M A M
J J
A S
I l
- 1. EARL' NOTICE 5
I
- 2. ACilS REVIEW A
l w
1 2
1
- 3. ST ATE WORKSHOPS A
A i
- 4. PUBLIC MEE11NG I
I 3
- 5. Gels
^
^
^
WORKING PAPER DEIS(NUHEG 0586)
.i.
I C()MME N T S O
l PUBLISH FEIS O
D
- COMPL E T E D t
l S* SUPPL E ME N T i
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2==
OBJECTIVE E (CONT'D): DEVELOPMENT OF GENERAL POLICY AND RULE ON DECOMMISSIONING FY FY FY p y.81 F Y '82 FY '83 I
MILESTONES
'78
~79
'80 I
0 N
D J
F M A M
J J
A S
0 N
D J
F M A M J
J A
S 0
N D
J F M A M J
J A
S s
- 6. POLICY STATEMENT 1
2 3
WORKING PAPER
-d&&
DRAFT O
O COMMISSION REVIEW g
PUBLISH O
- 7. PROPOSED CHANGES IN R ULES I i 2
3 WORKING PAPER M
ORAFT O
COMMISSION REVIEW O
PUBLISH b
- 8. EFFECTIVE RULE O
I D=0 RAFT A= SCHEDULED F= FIN AL A= COMPLETED S= SUPPLEMENT
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2=>
OBJECTIVE F: PREPARE REGULATORY GUIDES FOR DECOMMISSIONING LIGHT WATER REACTORS (LWRS)
=
FY FY FY p y.g3 p y.gj p y.gy
'#8
'8" MILESTONES I
0 N
O J
F M A
M J
J A
S 0
N D
J F
M A
M J
J O
N D
J F
M A M 8
J A
S l
F C
O C
F
- 2. DEFINITION OF DECOMMISSION.
ING MODES AND METH00S S
O (REVIS10N OF REGUL ATORY Gul0E 1.86)
- 3. FORMAT AND CONTENT FOR C
F DECOMMISSIONING PL ANS O
^
i,
- 4. ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING RECORDS C
O AND ARCHIVES 1
- 5. LICENSE TERMIN ATION AND l
}
CLOSE 0UT SURVEYS
(
i C= ISSUED FOR COMMENT A SCHEDULED F = FIN AL ISSUE A* COMPLETED i
4 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 2 - 8i OBJECTIVE G: PREPARE REGULATORY GUIDES FOR DECOMMISSIONING FUEL CYCLE AND NON-FUEL CYCLE NUCLEAR FACILITIES I
FY FY f
p y.g y p y.82 F Y '83
'78
'79
'80 MILESTONES MlJ J
A Su N
D J
F M A M J
J A
S O N D
J F
M A M
J J
A S
0 N
D J
F M A
i I
C F
- 1. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PLAN O
.S l
- 2. OEFINITION OF DECOMMISSION.
C F
ING MODES AND METHODS O
.b
. EQUIVALENT TO REG. GUIDE 1.86)
- 3. FORMAT AND CONTENT FOR C
F DECOMMISSIONING PL ANS 1
O
- 4. ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING RECORDS AND ARCHIVES
- 5. LICENSE TERMINATION AND CLOSE OUT SURVEYS a
-s C=lSSUED FOR COMMENT A =SCH E D U L E D F= FIN AL ISSU E A= COMPLETED
NUREG-0436, Revision 1, Supplement 2 7.0 References 1.
G. J. Konzek and C. R. Sample, Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities -
An Annotated Bibliography.
NUREG/CR-0131, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 1978.*
2.
A. H. Schelling, et al., Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities - A Review and Analysis of Current Regulations.
NREG/CR-0671, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. huclear Regulatory /,ommission, August 1979.*
3.
Robert S. Wood, Draft Assuring the Availablity of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0584, Revision 1, November 1979.**
4.
Enrico E. Conti, Draft Residual Activity Limits for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0613, September 1979.**
5.
M. W. Young and R. F. Eckerman, A Methodology for Calculating Residual Radioactivity Levels Following Decommissioning, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0707, October 1980.
6.
Fincncing Strategies for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning, NUREG/CR-1481, Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc. for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 30, 1980*
7.
H. W. Dickson, et al., Progress Re) ort on Monitorinc for Compliance with Decommissioning Criteria, ORNL/HASRD-78, Oak Ridge bational Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 1980.***
8.
R. I. Smith, G. J. Konzek and W. E. Kennedy, Jr., Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0130, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1978.*
9.
R. I. Smith and L. M. Polentz, Technol ay, Safety and Costs of Decommis-sioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Addendum to NUREG/CR-0130, August 1979.*
10.
H. D. Oak, et al., Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0672, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1980.*
11.
Emmett B. Moore, Jr., Facilitation of Decommissioning of Licht Water Reactors.
NUREG/CR-0569, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for L.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 1979.*
12.
Norm G. Wittenborock, et al.
Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommis-sioning Light Water Reactors at a Multiple Reactor Station, NUREG/CR-1755, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear _ Regulatory Commission, to be published about August 1981.
13.
G. J. Konzek, et al.
Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning Reference Research and Test Reactors, Prepared by Pacific Northwest 17
NUREG-0436, Revision 1,.
Supplement 2 Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be published about November 1981.
j 14.
E. S. Smith, et al.
Techno',agy, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning j
Light Water Reactors That Have Been Involved in Accidents, NUREG/CR-j to be publised about May 1982.
E i
15.
K. J. Schneider and C. E. Jenkin3, Technology, Safety and Costs of j
Decommissioning a Reference Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant, NUREG-0278, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1977.*
n
{
- 16. - Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0705, September 1980.**
17.
H. R. Elder and D.' E. Blahnik, Technology Safety and Costs of Decommis-i f oning a Reference Uranium Full Fabrication Plant, NUREG/CR-1266, Pacific i
l N3rthwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1980.
- i 18.
C. E. Jenkins, E. S. Murphy and K. J. Schneider, Technology, Safety and l
Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Small Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant.
NUREG/CR-0129, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1979.*
19.
E. S. Murphy and G. M. Holter, Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommis-j sioning a Reference Low-Level Waste Burial Ground, NUREG/CR-0570, Pre-
{
pared by Pacific Morthwest Laboratory for_ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission, June 1980.*
i 20.
E. S. Murphy, et al., Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning Non-Fuel Cycle Nuclear Facilities, NUREG/CR-1754, Prepared by Pacific Northwest l
LaDoratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,- February 1981. *'
i j
21.
F. R. O'Donnell, et al., Potential Radiation Dose to Man from Recycle of l
Metals Reclaimed from a Decommissioned Nuclear F-wer Plant, NUREG/CR-0134, j
Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1979.*
- 22. Draft Environmental Statement Concerning Proposed Rulemaking Exemption l
from Licensing Re pirements foF Smelted Alloys Containing Residual j
Technetium-99 and Low-Enriched Uranium.. NUREG-0518, USNRC, October 1980.*
- l l
23.
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Stitement or Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory (.ommission, NUREG-0586, January 1981.**
i l
j x
Available for purchase from the NRC/GP0 Sales Program. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
l Available free upon written request to '.he Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
(
20555.
I
- Available in the NRC Public Documen'. Room for inspection and copying for a fee.
1 18 L
NUREG-0436, Revision 1, Supplement 2 AttacLven' A G
19
~_
11888 Proposed Ruie~s r* > a+'-
Vol 46. No. 27 Tuesday. February to test This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER DATEc: Comments must be received na Accordingly, the NRC is reevaluating its contans nouces to the potAc of the or before March 23.1981.
regulatory requirements concerning proposed issuance of rules and ADORESSEs: Interested persons are decommissioning policy (NUREG-0436 W'"
E"'E **
invited to submit written comments and Revision 1. December 1978 and suggestions to the Secretary of the Supplement 1. August 1980.) This draft gp m% pnor to the Ww of the fg Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory generic environmental impact statement rules.
Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555.
is part of this reevaluation since
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Attention: Docketmp and Service implementation of resultant regJations Branch. Copies of the draft statement may have a significant impact on the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and the comments may be examined in environment.
the Commission's Public Document Past Activitise Farmers Home Administration Room at 1717 H Street NW Washington, D.C. Single copies of the In support of this reevaluation, a data
.,, CFR Part 1942 draft statement (identified as NUREG-base on the technology, safety, and cost 0586) may be obtained by written of decommissioning various nuclear Servicing and Liquidation of Chattel request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory facilities by alternative methods is being Secu m Commission. Wa shington. D.C. 20555.
completed for the NRC by Battelle Corraction Attentiom Director. Division of Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL).
TechnicalInformation and Document Concurrent with these activities, a In FR Doc. 81-3450. at page 9617, in Control.
dialogue with the States, the public, and the issue of Thursday january 29.1981.
in the middle column. under the FOR FURWER LNFOResATION CONTACT:
other government agencies has been G. D. Calkins or Carl Feldman. Office of maintained for critical commentary on preamble portion designated as
" DATES" correct February 13.1981" to Standards Development. U.S. Nuclear the shaping and implementation of NRC read " March 30,1981a Regulatory Commission. Washington, decommissioning policy and it:
D C. 20555 l Phone 301-443-5910).
supportive technical information base.
suPPt.EMENT ARY INFORM ATION: Copies Based on such dialogue. NRC has
- - ~ ~ - - ' ~ ~ - - - ~ -
~~ ~~ of the subject environmentalimpact modified and amplified its policy NUCLEAR REGULATORY statement are being sent to EPA. to considerations and data base COMMISSION other interested government agencies requirements in a manner responsive to including DOE. Department of comments received. Staff papers have 10 CFR Parts 30,40,50,70 and 72 Commerce and Department of Interior been issued in two key areas of concern:
and to appropriate state and local (1) asstrance that funds will be Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear agencies. Comments from these agencies available for decommissioning. and (2)
Facilities; Notice of Availability of Draft will be available when received.
establishment of acceptable levels of Generic Environment impact A brief summary of the environmental residual radioactivity for release of Statement impact statement follows:
facilities for unrestricted use. A third AGENCY:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory At the end of a commercialnuclear area of concern is the generic Commission.
facility'+ useful 9fe, termination ofits' applicability of the data base for ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft license by the Nuclear Regulatory specific facility types. This has been addressed through expansion of the PNL Generic Environmental Impact Com.nssion (NRC) is a desired
,Jective. Such termination requires that facility reports to include sensitivity t
Statement.
the facility be decommissioned. In analyses for a variety of parameters suuuaRY: On March 13.19i8. an decommissioning radioactively potentially affecting safety and cost Advanced Notice of Proposed contaminated materials present in the considerations.
Rulemaking was published in the facility at the end of its useful life are b' P'
- E Federal Register [43 FR 10370] which appropriately removed such that the indicated that the Commission was level of any residual radioactivity Regulatory changes are being considering amending its regulations to remaining after completion of considered for both fuel cycle and provide more specific guidance on decommissioning is low enou@ to allow nonfuel. cycle nuclear facilities.The fuel decommissioning nuclear facilities and unrestricted use of the facility and site.
cycle facilities are pressurized (PWR) that such action would require an It is the objective of NRC regulatory and boiling water (BWR) light water environmentalimpact statement.
activities in protecting public health and reactors (LWRs) for both single and Accordingly, the Commission has safety to provide to the applicant or multiple reactor sijes, fuel reprocessing prepared the Draft Generic Environment licensee appropriate regulation and plants (FRPs)(currently, use of FRPs has Impact Statement on Decommissioning guidancr for the implementation and been indefinitely deferred in the of Nuclear facilities. NUREG-0586, accomplishment of nuclear facility commercial sector). small mixed oxide dated January 198'. This notice decrsnmissioning.
(MOX) fuel fabrication plants, uranium announces the availabihty of the subject While decommissioning of most fuel fabrication plants (U. fab). uranium statement and invites advice and operating existing nuclear facilities is hexaflouride conversion plants (UF.).
comments on it. The intended effect of not imminent. it is anticipated that and away.from. reactor independent this notice is to obtain public commeats decommissioning of certain facilities spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI).
on this environmentalimpact statement may occur in the near fut ite.
Under non-fuel-cycle facilities.
A-1
Federal Reidster / Vol. 48, No. 27 / Tuesd y. F;brurry 10. 1981 / Proposed R:les Ue87 consideration is given to mafor types guidance, that appropriate procedures decommission the facility. Because of such as radiopharmaceutical or are followed in decommissionmg such the possibihty of premature closure. a industrial rad ossotope suppher that the health and safety of the public fundmg mechanism provided by the facilities, various research radiotsotope is protected. Present regulatory bcensee must be in place whsch =ouH laboratories, and rare metal ore requirements and guidance are not pay for the full cost of decommissioning processing plants where uramum and specific enough in many entical areas to at any time during facahty operation.
thorium are concentrated m the tailings.
ensure that potential problems are ne fundmg mechanisms considered his EIS addresses only those issues properly considered. nose areas reasonable for providmg the necessary involved in the activities carned out at include timelmess, financial assurance.
assurance include (singly or in the end of a nuclear facility's useful hfe planning. and residual radioactivity combmation) prepayment of funds into a which lead to unrestpcted use of a levels as discussed below:
segregated account. insurance. surety facility. It does not address the Timehness. It is the responsibility of bonds. letters of cred2t and a smking considerations involved m extendmg the the NRC in protecting public health and fund deposited into a segregated life of a nuclear facdity. If a license
- safety. to ensure that after a nuclear account. Another funding mechamsm makes an application for extending a facahty ceases operation its bcense is that has drawn considerable interest.
facility license,it would be reviewed as termmated in a timely manner. Such especially for reactors. is an internal an amendment to the existing hcens*
termmation requires decommissioning.
reserve which uses negative net salvage under appropriate existing regulations.
From the analysis of the technical data value depreciation. and which generally his is not considered to b*
base. it is clear that decommissioning is considered less expensive than other
%mmissioning and therefore is can be accomplished safely and at alternative 'undmg mechanisms.
outside the scope of this EIS-modest cost shortly after cessation of However. the problem with such a High-level wante repositones low
- facility operation and it is considered mechanism is the lack of assurance it level waste bunal grounds, and uramum reasonable that decommissioning should provides by itself, that funds wd! be mills and their associated cull radings pila an bemg covned m separate be completed at this time. Completing available for decommissioning.
rulemaking activities and are not decommissioning and releasmg the Moreover. while other fundmg included here. De first two items are facility for unrestncted use elimmates mechanisms, such as prepayment or a being considered in Title to of the Code the potential problems ofincreased sinidntr fund coupled with insurance, numbers of sites used for the may be more costly on a net present of Federal Regulations (10 CHt) Parts 60 and 81. De last item is covsted in a confinement of radioactively worth basis, their economic impact is contamiruted matenals, as well as still smallin terms of the total cost to separate EIS and subsequent rulemakmg proceedings.
potential health. safety, regubtory and the consumer or licensee. Derefore, Decommissionmg that occurs as a economic problems associated with under NRC's responsibility to protect result of premature closure due to mamtaining the site. Delay in the public health and safety by assunng that accidents may involve techmcal and completion of deco; 2issionmg would funds are available for a safe cost considerations not yet completely be pnmanly for reasons of health and decammaeoning the mternal reserve safety c miderations. since it is would be considered an adequate p et dat base or t i u iect will rec gnszed that with delay there may be fundmg mechanism only ifit were begm in fiscal year 1981 and a detailed reduction in occupational dose and supplemented by substantial additional report on decommissioning followmg a radioactive waste volume for some funding mechanisms (such as insurance postulated accident. similar to the report facihty types due to radioactive decay.
or some other surety er ungement) to prepared for the facihties in this EIS. is Delay for such reduction would require increase the level of ass urance.
expected to be issued in fiscal year 19M.
additional justification since the amount Plonnig. knns riat While the basic purpose and objectives f stich reductagn is of margmal decommissioning n '.ppropnately for decommissionmg facihties involved significance in its effect on health and accon plished requires careful planmne in accidents would be the same as for safety. For example, use of such delay Demmmissioning is affected by factors routine decommissionmg. some of the may be justified at a multiple facility involved in the design and operation of specific aspects of the technology.
site where phased decommissioning a nuclear facility, as well as the actual safety, and costs of decomnussioning may be appropriate. Even for this operations carried out dunng the active may differ. Nevertheless. in many
- tuation, decommissioning should be decomnussioning phase. Accordmgly,it instances, the specific aspects would accomplished in as short a time as is is important that the licensee have similarities between accident and reasonable. For this example. for a decommissioning plan be developed and routine decommissionings. in particular reactor at a multiple facihty site where approved prior to cammusioning of the in areas such as deco:umissionina radioacnve cobalt is the pnncipal facility. While such initial plan need not alternatives and timina. planmng and contaminant, there would be httle dose present the full details for the actual facilitation financial assurance. and reduction due to decay after a delay of decommissionmg. it should contain residual radioactivity linuts. It is not 30 years. Derefore. it is reconmended sufficzent detail on the cost of expected that maior changes in the that the maximum delay for the reactor decocumssioning and the method of conclusions of this EIS will result from in this example be 30 years. For other fundmg. Moreover. it should address the technical studies on accident f8'llities, the maximum delay what will be done to facilitate decommissioning. although there may be considered reasonable will depend on decommissioning in terms of design and some differences in specific critena.
the facility type and the contaminant operation of the facihty. While such nese items will be considered upon isotopes involved.
--% rations must include cost completion of the studies imtiated in Financio/ Assurance. Consistent with effectiveness, the emphasis should be on
- test, the regulatory objective of health and safety rather than econonuca.
decocumssioning as desenbed above. a Certain aspects of de-nmtssioning Regulatory Objecti" high degree of assurance is required facilitation (such as those that have it is the responsibdity of the NRC to from the nuclear facility licensee that impact on eeducing occupational cose ensure, through regulations and other adequate funds are available te during facdity operation) can reduce A-2
11868 Federal Register / V:1. 46. No. 27 / Tuesd:y, Febru:ry 10, 1981 / Proposed Rules operational costs. However, even those report. This value is determined to be 10 valuable industrialland that can be cspects of facilitation that are mrem /yr whole-body dose equivalent.
reused with great benefit. When questionable in terrns of reducing but could be lower for specific facilities.
properly performed, decommissioning operational costs but can have The 10 mrem /yr limit is chosen has only minor adverse impact. 'Ihese significant impact on decommissioning recognizing that it may be impractical include: an occupational dose burden h=lth and safety aspects must be and unnecessary in some cases to meet which is of marginal significance to considered. Implementation of such a 5 mrem /yr limit considered in previous health and safety and which is a small posable facilitation at the desiga and discussions with EPA. This is because of percent of such burden experienced over construction stage can be much more cost. benefit considerations and the operationallife of a facility: a cost effective than at the operational or problems in detectability, sampling.
relatively modest cost compared to the cctive decomn issioning stages, and/or exposure patterns. Discussion net present worth of the commissioning Periodic updating of the initial with EPA indicated that the to mrem /yr cost; and the irreversible commitment of decommissioning plan is required limiting value would not be consiJered a small amount of land (primarily for beccuse of changes in factors affectmg unreasonable. In all cases, a dose 'imit low-level waste) at an appropriate technology and cost. A final detailed above 1 mrem /yr would require radioactive waste burial facility.
decommissioning plan is required for justification. For a few situations, it a Furthermore. It is concluded that the review and approval by the NRC, and expected that residual hmits will be,
specific implementation of the Agreement States where applicable, outside the bounds of the 1 to 10 mrem.
considerations and recommendations prior to cessation of facility operation or yr range. For these special situations, discussed above in the areas of shortly thereaf ter. Besides the case-by-case analysis in terms of cost Cmeliness, financial assurance, and benefit effectiveness will be pla ming, and residual radioactivity technically detailed description of procedures, schedules, and work plans required to establish appropriate levels simuld be incorporated into for the decommissioning alternative limiting levels.
existing regulations.
Fo plementation a sidual which will be used, the final plan should include a descnption of the termination selected must be converted to a Regulations survey required to certify that suffident contaminated material concentr..lon or It is recommehded that specific r:dioactively contaminated materials have been removed and that the facility activity for instrument measurability.
implementation of regulatory activities Such conversion is done through the use be performed by rulemaking as can be released for unrestricted access.
Ths plan should include an estimate of of m deling and depends on what amendments to existing regulations (i.e.,
radionuclides are present and how they 10 CFR Parts,30,40,50,51,70 and 72) the cost required to accomplish the result in individual radioactivity rather than as a separate regulation decommissioning.
exposure. Realistic exposure conditions solely covering decommissioning.
ResiduolRadiooctivitylevels. An should be used in such modeling.
Because decommissioning overlaps so important and technically difficult issue recognizing, for example, that dwelling many areas covered by present is the problem of determining acceptable ccupancy is less than full time, that self regulations, such incorporation would residual radioactivity levels required for shielding is an important exposure be more efficient. In addition, it is retrase of property for unrestricted use.
reducing factor, and that weatherin8 recommended that a policy statement be it is the responsibility of the reduces resuspension of the issued prior to rulemaking so that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) c ntaminated materials.
pnncipal thrust of these activities can be to establish such a standard but at is not scheduled to do so until1C84 Preliminary Conclusions on presented clearly and provide Discussions have been held with the Decommissioning Impacts appropriate perspective to additional 8"
EPA relative to providing preliminary Consideration of the decommissioning guidance for NRC in establishing limits data base and of the concerns for Dated at Washington. D.C., this 28th day of which are consistent with eventual EPA required regulatory activity has led to Janaury 1981.
requirements. Due to the variety of the following preliminary conclusions For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
frcility types and radionuclides for public comment in the Draft Generic G. D. Calkins, invnlved it is not feasible to ret a single EnvironmentalImpact Statement:
DemmmissioningPmgmmMonager, dose limit that would be valid under all The technical basis exists for irm ox si ame ra.4 s+es; a.s..i conditions for all facilities. It is performing decommissioning in a safe, osuLaso cops tseo4s-as necessary to assess the radiological efficient and timelv manner.
irriptet in terms of the radionuclides and Decommissioning as used here means to pathways involved and the costs and safely remove contaminant radioactive COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING benefits which result. Based on the matirial down to residuallevels COMMISSION above considerations, on discussions considered acceptable for permitting with the EPA, and on considerations unrestricted use of a facility a ad its site.
17 CFR Part 1 that the level of residual radioactivity Decommissioning has major beneficial selected must be safe and consistent impact because it allows a nuclear Prohibition of Guarantees Against with existing guidance and be facility which no longer has operational Loss measurable and cost effective, the value to be made available for AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading following results were determined:
um.stricted use. Moreover, making the Commission.
(1) A residual radioactivity level for iacility available for unrestricted use Actiow: Proposed rule.
permitting releace of a nuclear facility eliminates the potential problems of for unrestncted t se should be ALARA.
increased numbers of sites used for the
SUMMARY
- The Commodity Futures Guidance in esta >lishing such a limiting confinement of radioactively Trading Commi:sion ( ' Commission") is levelis best expr ssed in terms of a contaminated materials. as well as proposmg a regulation for public value which boun is the dose for the potential health, safety, regulatory and comment which would prohibit a futures m:jority of facilitie a discussed in this economic problems, and also releases commission merchant ("FCM") from A-3
NRC soav 335 1 RE VORT tsGuet R IAss rod er DOCJ U S nucle An REGut ATORY CCnViSSiON 7;gpgg.g436, pey, )
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET Supplement 2 4 TITLE AND SusitTLE (Ads Ver irie No. nf ararcsr sel 2 st e,.e o.re s w
Plan for Reevaluation of fiRC Policy on Decomissioning of fluclear Facilities a rec 4PitNr $ AcctmcN r.o
- 7. AUTHOR tS)
- 5. DATE REPORT COMPLE Tf D lvtAR woNTH G. D. Calkins February 1981 9 PE M C8tMcNG ORGA?dl2ATION NAVE AND M AILING ADDRE SS (tac'wde Ia Code /
DATE REPGRT ISSuf 0 l TEAR woNTH Of fice of Standards Development March 1981 U.S. fluclear Regulatory Comission s ste,,, ue.i Washington, D.C. 20555
- 8. (L e,e e b e n)
- 12. SPOfeSoRING oRGANf2 Af ton N A.VE AND M AILt'.G ADDRESS (lactuar I,a Coort p
Cffice of Standards Development U.S. fluclear Regulatory Comission
- 11. cont RacT No.
Washington, D. C. 20555
- 13. T YPE oF REPORT PE RtOO COVE RE D flactasme 0,ws/
Staff Report July 1980-February 1981 15 SUPPLEVEPiTARY NOTES 14 Ite, weef 16 ABSTR ACT 000 *ords or leul This report supplements and updates the information presented in fiUREG-0436, Rev.1, of the same title and dated December 1978 and Supplement 1 dated August 1980. Supplement 2 repeats new terminology for the decomissioning alternatives. It updates the status and schedules for developing the infomation base, the draft generic environental impact statement, and the rulemaking. In addition, schedules for regulatory guides to support the rules are presented.
- 17. KE Y WORCS AND DoCUVENT AN ALYSIS 17a MSCRiPToRS 17a tCf NTIFIE R5. OPE N ENDE D TERMS
- 18. AVAILASILITY STATEVENT 19 SE CLRITY CLASS (Tars repostl 21 No. C' P AGE S I
Unlimited Unclassified 20 $ JR T Thns port 22.PRnCE NRC FORY 33S 47 77) i
NUREG4436 Supp. 2 PLAN FOR REEVALUATION OF NRC POLICY ON DECOMMISSIONIN@(W G3NB(LLFR00 WEYGXLUVlAfb3 (M ELG Vd30
.]
)
L J
0:"
sm
- I at.
I E3 4 43 e58
- 1 8'.
s 3
5 1
ae 33 au% 23 1
&g 5k, o
..go f
e >
4 UOj 90 bEi 1 a t * *,
38 1
d
?