ML20045A399
| ML20045A399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/29/1993 |
| From: | Gnugnoli G NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | Cameron F, Cool D, Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR58727, RULE-PR-20 NACNUCLE, NUDOCS 9306100197 | |
| Download: ML20045A399 (12) | |
Text
,... _ _
ak :??i: 2.0 1
h UNITED STATES b ff 7 2 ~7,)
! ) ') w/(,;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
m ETED Ap [C AoVISoRY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE T NFC
- lg
%..v[y 4
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 o,, g 93 m'l -7 P4'02 March 29, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Francis X. Cameron Office of the General Counsel gs y
g M
d Donald A. Cool
'd Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 4
Michael F. Weber Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards FROM:
Giorgio N. Gnugnoli Nuclear Waste Branch, ACNW
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OBSERVATIONS BY D. M0ELLER AT THE NRC SITE CLEANUP CRITERIA WORKSHOP Per Dr. Moeller's request, I am forwarding a copy of his summary of observations on the March 12-13, 1993 NRC Workshop on the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
I have only included his summary, since you undoubtedly received the enclosures from the meeting.
You should regard this as Dr. Moeller's point-of-view, and it does.not represent any consensus of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW).
These were not comments derived from an open ACNW meeting examining the issue of radiological criteria for decommissioning NRC-licensed facilities. He thought that these observations might be informative and useful.for future activities relating to this subject.
Should you have any questions regarding this transmittal, I can be reached at 49-29851.
/
/
[
/
Giorgjo N. Gnugnol' Senior Staff Scientist Nuclear Waste Branch, ACNW
Attachment:
As stated cc w/att:
ACNW Members G. Quittschreiber J. Larkins S. Duraiswamy R. Savio ACNW Staff S. Long
$ ()
9306100197 930329
\\
4 I
i Dade W. Moeller March 19, 1993
)
SUMMARY
COMMENTS ON NRC SITE CLEANUP CRITERI A WORKSHOP Cambridge, MA March 12 - 13, 1993 I.
Introduction The NRC has initiated an enhanced participatory rulemaking for the establishment of radiological criteria for decommissioning NRC-licensed facilities.
As part of his effort, the Agency is holding a series of Workshops to provide an opportunity for affected interests to provide comments on this effort prior to the development of the draft rule.
Although the Workshops are nominally an NRC effort, the EPA has joined in and is serving as a joint-sponsor.
The first Workshop was held in Chicago on January 27 and 28, 1993; the second was held in San Francisco on February 23 and 24, 1993; the third was scheduled to be held in Cambridge, MA, on February 12 and 13, 1993.
Due to an impending snowstorm, the second day of the Cambridge Workshop was canceled.
Although NRC and EPA staff members take an active role in the Workshops (through the. presentation of background information on this effort), the NRC has contracted with The Keystone Center, Keystone, Colorado, to serve as a facilitator (or moderato /) for the Workshops.
The staff of the Keystone Center is also responsible for summarizing each Workshop.
II.
Workshoo Participants Although the public is invited to attend and participate in the Workshops, about 20 people were invited to serve as R
" Participants" in the Cambridge Workshop.
These people are identified in Accendir A.
As will be noted, they represented citizen / environmental organizations, local governments (from Seabrook, NH. and Duxbury, MA), state j
governments (from CT, NH, and MA), the nuclear utilities, the medical community and the non-fuel cycle industry, i
cleanup contractors, professional societies (American l
Nuclear Society and the Health Physics Society), the Narrangansett Indian Tribe, and other groups such as the Institute for Science & Interdisciplinary Study and the Childhood Cancer Research Institute.
During the opening phases of the Workshop, several members of the public challenged the lack of an M.D. on the roster 1
of participants.
As a result, Dr. Donnell Boardman of the Center for Atomic Radiation Studies (who was in the
' audience) was invited to join the participants at the front table.
Later, it was pointed out that several M.D.'s had been invited to take part as participants in the meeting.
These included Dr. Tom Winters, Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Boston University.
None of the invited M.D.
participants, however, was present during the opening sessions.
(For more comment on this, see Section VI, item
- 5, below).
Each participant was invited to speak on each of the issues accompanying the proposed rulemaking.
Time was also allocated for comments ' rom members of the audience.
Of the order of 100 people took part in the Workshop.
They included representatives of NUMARC, USCEA, consulting firms, nuclear utilities, public interest groups (such as the Clamshell Alliance, and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution), the Boston Globe, and others.
Ill.
Oreanization of the Workshop As may be noted from the enclosed agenda (Appendix B), the meeting was organized as follows:
e Opening presentations were made by NRC and EPA representatives on the general nature of the enhanced participatory rulemaking; this was followed by an outline of the Workshop format by representatives of the Keystone Center; and this was followed by background presentations by the NRC staff on the decommissioning process and the key features of the NRC " Issues Paper" (see Appendix C).
The NRC presentations were made by:
Francis X.
(Chip) Cameron, Donald A.
Cool, and Michael F. Weber.
Serving as the spokesman for EPA was:
Allan C. Richardson Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
A key point made by several of the initial speakers was that the objectives of the Workshop were to identify relevant issues, voids in the supporting data, and associated regulatory problems, as well as to solicit from the attendees suggestions on innovative solutions or approaches to this problem.
Emphasis was placed on the fact that seeking " consensus" was not one of the goals of the meeting.
The EPA r epres en t at ive summar i z ed cur rent rulemaking underway within that Agency relative to deccanissioning.
J l
l This includes the development of three categories of cleanup standards, namely those for the:
a.
Release of land under both restricted and unrestricted conditions; b.
Disposal of wastes resulting from site cleanup and decommissioning; and c.
Re-use of equipment, land and facilities, that have been decontaminated.
As in the past, the EPA representative pointed out that, so long as the regulations imposed by the NRC provide a level of protection comparable to that required by the EPA standards, the EPA will exempt NRC licensees from the EPA standards.
IV.
Opening Discussion and Surrestions For purposes of discussion, four possible alternative regulatory approaches were identified for expressing decommissioning criteria.
These alternatives, which could be applied separately or in combination, were:
Risk Limits -- which would specify the absolute limit that had to be met (this would include the application of the ALARA approach);
Risk Goals -- which would indicate the preferred goal, with the understanding that exceptions would be permitted on a case-by-case basis, if they can be justified; Best Effort which requires the application of the best available technology; or Return to Backrround -- which implies that all contamination added to the site or facility must be removed?
Comments and/or suggestions on this topic included:
a.
One state representative urged that both the risk limits and the associated ALARA requirements be specified in detail.
Otherwise they would be difficult to apply.
Other participants questioned the acceptability of the ALARA 1
approach, particularly if it were based on economic, versus health considerations.
b.
One of the arguments suggested in favor of risk limits was the existence of well accepted and recognized i
international guidance on dose and risk limits for members of the public, namely, the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, c.
One attendee questioned whether the best technology available today was good enough to bring radionuclide contamination down to acceptable limits?
Unless this is true, this approach would not be acceptable.
d.
Another attendee pointed out that the last alternative (Return to Background) might result in the production of tremendous quantities of radioactive waste.
e.
Others asked how regulatory agencies would determine whether the risk limits or goals had been met.
This involved discussion of techniques that would be appropriate for monitoring a site, including the required sensitivity of the associated measurements. (For more comment on this topic, see Section VI, item #13, below).
Included in the discussion were radionuclide transport and human intake models, the concept of the critical group, and whether the associated dose limits would be adequate to protect the more susceptible population groups.
One attendee suggested that the NRC might have to develop disease registries for the people living near decommissioned sites to determine whether they were suffering any ill effects.
f.
Several participants asked if the risk limits or goals would include consideration of any toxic (non-radioactive) chemical contaminants at a site.
A As part of the introductory discussion, the participants were also asked to address the following question:
What are the relative advantares and disadvantsres of developine reneric standards. as opposed to continuine to handle facility decommissionine (and settine the associated criteria) on a case-by-case approach?
Overall, it appeared that the attendees at this workshop supported the concept of generic standards.
The main supporting argument for generic standards was that it would assure that all areas of the country were provided the same degree of protection for the public health and safety.
Later, several members of the NRC staff privately pointed out that this was in contrast to the Chicago workshop, where the attendees appeared to support the case-by-case approach.
During the San Francisco Workshop, however, representatives from the nuclear utilities, uranium fuel prodcution companies, and the medical community, adopted the same
position as the people in Cambridge, definitely supporting the development of a generic set of regulations for evaluating the adequacy of the cleanup of licensed facilities.
The reasons given were that a single rule would protect the public health and safety, while providing the consistency that facility operators need to plan for and fund site cleanup.
Other suggestions presented during the ensuing discussion included the following:
a.
While generic standards would be best, it should be recognized that it may be necessary to develop different standards for nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel cycle facilities, hospitals, research laboratories, etc.
This would permit the NRC to take into consideration the widely varying quantities and types of radionuclides handled in different facilities.
b.
Consideration might be given to developing several sets of standards, depending on how the land and/or equipment was to be used.
Incorporated into this comment was a challenge to the basic NRC definition of " decommissioning," which includes the phrase that the goal is to reduce the residual contamination to a level that permits release of the facility for unrestricted use and termination of the license.
In response, the NRC staff acknowledged that they may need to revisit (revise) their basic Decommissioning Plan which was developed in 1988.
A V.
Cross-Cuttine Issues For purposes of discussion, four cross-cutting issues were identified that can be used to compare and contrast the alternative regulatory approaches.
These are listed below with the main points or issues raised (as observed by the writer).
1.
In what ways do the alternative rerulatorY EDDroaches Drotect human health. safety and the environment?
Comments and/or suggestions presented relative to this issue included the following:
I a.
Comments presented by several participants revealed a l
lack of knowledge of the concept of the critical group and the maximally exposed individual, as well as the use of the I
concept of collective dose as a surrogate for " societal risk."
The comments also revealed a lack of understanding of the concept of committed dose and the difference in a dose limit and a risk limit.
l
b.
Consistent with item "a," there was also confusion on how the maximally exposed individual or critical group might be identified.
Attendees appeared to have difficulty with regulators hypothesizing such a person or group and basing I
their assessments on the associated dose estimates.
.s c.
The representative of the Narrangansett Indian Tribe pointed out that the eating and living habits of many Indians place them outside the limits assumed for the
" normal" (usual) hypothetical critical groups.
d.
One attendee questioned whether risk limits or goals, based on protecting human health, would be adequate to assure protection of the environment, including plants and animals (other than humans).
The Health Physics Society representative pointed out that most radiobiologists believe that contamination limits (and accompanying dose rates) low enough to protect humans will provide adequate protection for plants and other animals.
e.
Another attendee stated that the alternative.of returning a site to background offered too much flexibility, the implication being that the licensees can make the dose rates from natural background be almost anything they.want.
2.
What a-- the waste manarement imolications of each alternative rerulatory approach?
The basic questions addressed here were the quantities of radioactive waste that would be created through i
decommissioning, and whether it was better to transfer the contamination somewhere else or leave it where it is.
Key comments raised in the ensuing discussion included:
a.
One utility representative stated that his group was evaluating whether it would be economically cheaper to have their nuclear power plant site designated as a LLW disposal facility, versus cleaning up and transporting'the waste elsewhere.
Other attendees immediately pointed out.that a site that has been approved for A nuclear power plant would not necessarily be an acceptable site for a LLW disposal facility.
b.
Another attendee stated that, rather than address the question in this manner, the NRC ought to examine the basic design of nuclear power plants to ascertain whether
]
decommissioning might be expedited and/or facilitated by making certain changes in the original plants.
i
.l 3.
How do the alternative rerulatory approaches rel' ate to existine Federal, rerional, state and local rerulatory frameworks?
Comments offered during the associated discussion' included
- a.
The EPA representative stated that that Agency's standards for toxic chemicals (covered within the Superfund program) had as a goal the limitation of the lifetime risk to something in the range of 10-4 to 10-8 He stated that the same risk limits would probably be applied to radiation sources.
In essence, he stated that EPA is seeking to harmonize all of its risk limits.
I b.
Several attendees suggested that land-use restrictions might be imposed on sites that were extremely difficult to clean up.
Such restrictions might permit higher levels of contamination to be acceptable under certain conditions.
c.
One attendee suggested that applicable limits for decommissioning already exist, namely, in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20 which provides permissible concentrations for specific radionuclides in air and water.
Another attendee asked whether Regulatory Guide 1.86 similarly represented an existing NRC standard on this subject.
d.
Several nuclear utility representatives emphasized the need for assurance that, once a site had been decommissioned, monitored and approved, the owner would not face the possibility that a later change in the standards might require him to return and perform additional cleanup.
i a
4.
To what extent should costs. technical capabilities, and implementation considerations. i ncludine nonradiolorical risks and costs. be considered i n selectine a rerulatory approach for the standards?
Comments presented relative to this issue included:
a.
What would be done if the best available technology (as previously stated) did not prove to be adequate to bring the contamination levels at a site down to acceptable levels?
b.
Several attendees pointed out that contamination limits, based on radionuclide concentration' limits in various media, had the advantage of avoiding the necessity of applying environmental transport and-dose models in estimating the resulting dose to humans.
c.
Another attendee questioned where assessments of costs and benefits should begin.
Does one include, for example, whether the electricity should have been generated using nuclear power?
whether the electricity should have been generated using nuclear power?
d.
Several attendees urged that the NRC consider all the contaminants (radiological and non-radiological) present on a site and assure that the decommissioned facility would be sufficiently clean to assure protection of the public health and safety and the environment.
e.
The Health Physics Society representative urged that care be taken to consider other problems to which funds for
" excessive" cleanup could be directed.
His point was the nation's resources are limited and that funds should not te expended for cleanup beyond what is necessary.
VI.
Commentary The Workshop was interesting for a variety of reasons.
Observations of the writer include:
1.
The conduct of the NRC and EPA representatives who took part in this Workshop is to be admired. Their presentations were well organized and delivered.
Several attendees spoke of the lack of credibility and honesty of the NRC staff, and the associated legitimacy of that Agency to regulate matters such as decommissioning.
Throughout it all, however, the conduct of the NRC staff was profe;sional and courteous, and they responded to each question with care and sincerity.
2.
Many segments of the public (including those who are most vocal in their criticisms of the Federal and nuclear establishments) have very little understanding of the basic fundamentals of radiation.
Many statements were made that revealed a lack of understanding of the subject matter being discussed.
This demonstrates that consideration should be riven to the presentation of a trainine session at the berinnine of each upcomine Workshop.
To help with the credibility of the NRC staff. such a session should probably be conducted by an outside person or reoup.
One of the topics that might be covered during a tutorial session would be to describe the various techniques that are available for decontaminating facilities and equipment, including a review of their effectiveness.
This might help attendees have a greater appreciation of the degree to which a site / facility that has received a "best effort" on cleanup would be decontaminated.
Commentary on research underway in this area might also be appropriate.
Another subject that needs to be explained is the concept of ALARA, which the public clearly did not understand.
Perhaps this topic could be included among those covered during the proposed tutorial session.
In particular, it should be
pointed out to the attendees that the first goal of the regulatory agency is to assure that the licensee meets the limits imposed by the regulations; having done this, the licensee is then required to evaluate the site / facility from the ALARA point of view to determine if additional cleanup is justified.
3.
A basic question that remains is whether the NRC staff needs to re-examine its definition of " decommissioning,"
particularly with respect to the requirement that such an activity result in a site and/or facility that can be released for unrestricted use.
As mentioned above, this may require that the NRC staff re-visit the Decommissioning plan that they developed in 1988.
4.
The jotnt participation of EPA in the Workshop was effective, but with caveats (see below).
To help clarify certain issues, the EPA representative should be requested to explain (or justify) his claim that EPA's risk limits for toxic chemicals can be used as an example for the control of radioactive material contamination.
Witness, for example, the concerns that ACNW members have had with the EPA regulations for toxic chemical disposal facilities which permit the abandonment of such facilities 30 years after closure.
In spite of the unanimity displayed during the Workshop, the overall impression was that the NRC and EPA is each pursuing this subject in an independent manner.
For example, one might readily question the relationship of the various rulemaking efforts (see Section III above) being pursued by the EPA and comparable ef, forts on the part of the NRC.
Also clearly in need of attention are the toxic chemical contaminants that frequently are present along with the radioactive materials at a facility or site being decontaminated.
While the responsibilities of the NRC are clearly limited to radioactive materials, there is obviously a need also to consider any toxic chemicals that may be present.
This is one area ~ to which additional attention should be directed.
Included in this effort should be an assessment program in which the risks of the site / facility are evaluated taking into account the sum of possible risks from the combination of all toxiq (chemical and radioactive) materials that are present.
5.
Several participants challenged whether EPA and NRC were "public health" agencies.
The NRC would be wise to consider hirine an M.D.
to lend credibility to its staff.
The absence of such a person at this Workshop was all too evident.
Such a person or persons should be well qualified in the field of epidemiology and radiation biology.
No one was present at the Camoridge Workshop who could answer specific questions on the effects of radiation exposures;
it might also be helpful to have such persons refute some of the claims made by less qualified experts (although the benefit of such rebuttals is clearly open to debate).
6.
The EPA and NRC staffs mentioned several reports that would be of interest t o ACNV' members and staff.
These include:
a.
The EPA representative stated that his Agency is revising its standards for radiation dose limits to members of the public.
These are to be completed and published by the summer, 1993.
b.
The EPA representative also mentioned the several relevant rulemakings underway within that Agency (see Section III above).
c.
The NRC staff is preparing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed rulemaking.
It will be available for comment in April, 1994.
d.
The NRC staff also has a Branch Technical Position under development on how to characterize a site prior to decommissioning in order to know exactly.what is present and in what form, and what must be done to remove the contaminants to acceptable levels.
e.
Other NRC reports cited that are of interest included:
NUREG-5512 -- which provides guidance on making dose estimates on the basis of environmer tal radionuclide contamination; and NUREG-6849 (58497) a draft report that provides guidance on the conduct of surveys to determine compliance with decommissioning criteria.
7.
One of the basic observations is that certain members of the public who attended this meeting are using these Workshops as a pulpit for espousing their concerns about the harmful effects of low doses of ionizing radiation and the fact that there is "no solution" to the radioactive waste disposal problem.
Even the most ardent opponents of nuclear power, however, were careful to state that wastes resulting from medical applications of radioactive materials were exempt from their criticisms.
8.
While EPA and NRC have an MOU that provides guidance for interactions at the headquarters on matters pertaining to decommissioning and the disposal of radioactive wastes, the MOU does not extend down to the Regional level.
As a
i
)
9.
The state representatives urged that the regulations include consideration of NORM and NARM was tes since the States must consider the totality of radionuclide i
contamination.
10.
The NRC staff pointed out that the ACNW and the Agreement States will be permitted to comment on the draft decommissioning regulations prior to their implementation.
11.
The Workshop revealed few " innovative" solutions to the decommissioning problem.
One that might be considered would be for the NRC staff to permit a licensee who is decommissioning a site and/or facility to have as his/her primary objective the reduction of the total dose to a certain level regardless of whether that dose originated from exposures involving natural or artificial sources of radiation.
There are many cases that can be postulated where a licensee could reduce the dose to people living in the vicinity of a nuclear facility from natural background sources at far less cost that that required to reduce the dose from artificial radionuclide sources.
A specific example is indoor radon.
Why not permit a licensee to work with the local people and show them how to reduce their doses from natural background sources, with the licensee i
being permitted to leave a certain level of man-made residual contamination on his/her facility, so long as the reductions achieved in natural sources exceed those contributed by the man-made residual contamination?
12.
The lack of press coverage of the workshop was noticeable.
Although a representative from the Boston Globe was present, no articles on the workshop appeared in the Saturday issue of that ngwspaper.
Furthermore, there were i
no representatives from the other major Boston newspapers or j
from the newspapers from the neighboring towns.
13.
The public is clearly mistrustful of governmental 1
agencies.
This mistrust was demonstrated by a lack of faith that the licensee would survey the decontaminated site / facility and provide accurate data for public review.
Several speakers pointed out that, in general, licensing organizations (the NRC or an Agreement State) would require that such surveys be conducted by an independent group.
Nonetheless, this appeared to remain a problem.
An associated problem was the question of the degree to which a licensee is legally liable for any damage that might occur j
to a member of the public who uses a site / facility that has i
been released for public use.
Also in question was the time span over which such liability extends and the degree to which shareholders might be liable.
11
.