ML20045G098
| ML20045G098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1993 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR33570, RULE-PR-20 PR-930618, NUDOCS 9307120085 | |
| Download: ML20045G098 (20) | |
Text
22_
$ti-(ggpfl335go)
[759d201]
w 93 la 17 P/:17 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 20 Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning of NRC-licensed Facilities: Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for Rulemaking, Notice of Intent to Prepare a GEIS and to Conduct a Scoping Process l
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
i ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact Statement l
(GEIS), to conduct a scoping process for the GEIS, and to conduct scoping meetings.
SUMMARY
- The Commission is proposing to codify radiological criteria for termination of licenses and release of land and structures after levels of residual contamination have been appropriately reduced. This proposed action would provide a clear and consistent regulatory basis for determining the extent to which radioactive materials must be removed from lands and structures before a site can be released.
This notice indicates the Comission's intent to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact Statement in conjunction with this proposed action and to conduct a scoping process that i
will include public scoping meetings.
.Y g@b GOB 5930618 20 5BFR33570 pyg
i I
i DATES: Written coments on matters covered by this notice received by August 15, 1993, will be considered-in developing the scope of the GEIS.
Coments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for coments received on j
or before this date.
Public scoping meetings will be held as follows:
[
July 21,1993 - Washington, DC, 2:30-5:30 pm and 7-10 pm.
j July 26, 1993 - San Francisco, CA, 2:30-5:30 pm and 7-10 pm.
July 27, 1993 - Oklahoma City, OK, 2:30-5:30 pm and 7-10 pm.
July 28, 1993 - Cleveland, OH, 2:30-5:30 pm and 7-10 pm.
ADDRESSES: Written coments on the matters covered by this notice and/or the Scoping Meetings should be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washingto:., DC 20555. ATIN: Docketing and Services _ Branch. Hand t
deliver coments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between
[
7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
l Scoping meetings to be held at:
Washington, DC - Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD.
San Francisco, CA - Room 1194 of the State Building, 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Oklahoma City, OK - Holiday Inn North,12001 Northeast Expressway.
Cleveland, OH - Cleveland State University, University Center Auditorium, Room 6, 212 Euclid Avenue.
i FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Meck, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-492-3737, or Frank Cardile, ll 2
1
i t
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC 20555, -Telephone:
301-492-3774.
i SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Backaround The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the statutory responsibility for protection of health and safety related to the use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material under the Atomic Energy Act.
The NRC believes that one portion of this responsibility is to assure safe and timely decommissioning of nuclear facilities which it licenses. This responsibility can be partially fulfilled by providing guidance to licensees on how to plan for and prepare their sites for decommissioning. Decommissioning, as defined in the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 30.4, 40.4, 50.2, 70.4, and 72.3, means to f
remove nuclear facilities safely from service and to reduce residual 3
radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license.
l During licensed operations, radioactive contamination may spread into various areas within the facility by the movement of water or other fluids containing the radioactive materials through or along piping, equipment, walls, floors, drains, etc.
In addition, sites surrounding buildings can i
become contaminated by the movement or placement of materials, equipment, and people into and out of the areas containing the radioactive material, although NRC's contamination control requirements tend to limit such spread of material.
3 I
i
)
l Once licensed activities have ceased, licensees are required, in existing NRC regulations, to decomission their facilities so that their l
licenses can be terminated. This requires that radioactivity in buildings, equipment, soil, groundwater, and surface water resulting from the licensed operation be reduced to acceptably low levels that allow the property to be released for unrestricted use.
Licensees must then demonstrate by a site l
radiological survey that residual contamination in all facilities and environmental media have been properly reduced or eliminated and that, except for any residual radiological contamination found to be acceptable to remain i
at the site, radioactive material has been transferred to authorized i
i recipients.
Confirmatory surveys are conducted by NRC, where appropriate, to verify that sites meet NRC radiological criteria for decomissioning.
Nuclear facilities licensed by the NRC that require decomissioning i
include those involved with the nuclear fuel cycle (e.g., activities related to the generation of electricity through nuclear power generation) and those licensed to use nuclear material for other non-fuel cycle related purposes
[
(e.g., health care, research, and manufacturing). The types of nuclear fuel cycle facilities that require decomissioning include nuclear power plants, nonpower (research and test) reactors, fuel fabrication plants, uranium hexafluoride production plants, and independent spent fuel storage installations. Some effort to reduce radioactive contamination to acceptable t
levels will generally be necessary at these facilities before they can be safely released and the licenses terminated. Non-fuel cycle facilities include universities, medical institutions, radioactive source manufacturers, and companies that use radioisotopes for industrial purposes. Over 75% of NRC's non-fuel cycle materials licensees use either sealed radioactive sources 4
i
or small amounts of short-lived radioactive materials.
Decommissioning of these facilities should be relatively simple because there is usually little or no residual radioactive contamination to be removed and disposed of.
Several hundred NRC and Agreement State licenses are currently terminated each year. The majority of these licenses involve limited operations, produce little or no radioactive contamination, and do 1ot present complex decommissioning problems or potential risks to public health or the environment from residual contamination.
Need For Proposed Action i
Current NRC regulations do not explicitly contain radiological criteria 1
for decommissioning. At the present time, the NRC continues to use existing criteria and practices contained in several NRC guidance documents which have been in use for a number of years. This approach ensures protection of public health and safety by guiding decommissioning decisions and generally keeping potential radiological doses to a small fraction of NRC's public dose limit in 10 CFR Part 20.
However as the nuclear industry matures, it is expected that more and more of the larger nuclear facilities which have been operating for a number of years will reach the end of their useful lives and have to be decommissioned.
Because both the number and complexity of facilities that will require decommissioning are expected to increase, NRC believes it is necessary to codify radiological criteria for decommissioning.
The Commission believes that codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning in its regulations is needed because it would --
(1) Result in more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources; 5
.I N
m m
--w
-w ammw-
,wm-
_y-w,-
____,__m_
(2) Lead to more consistent and uniform regulation of decomissioning; (3) Provide a more stable basis for decommissioning planning; (4) Eliminate protracted delays in decomissioning which results as licensees wait for generic regulatory criteria before proceeding with i
decomissioning of their facilities; and (5) Provide an opportunity to reassess the basis for the residual contamination levels contained in existing guidance in light of changes in basic radiation protection standards and decomissioning experience obtained during the past 15 years.
Pending completion of the rulemaking on radiological criteria for l
decomissioning, the NRC will continue to consider existing guidance, criteria and practices to determine whether contamination at sites listed on NRC's Site Decomissioning hanagement Plan (SDMP) has been sufficiently reduced so that they may be released for unrestricted use. These criteria are listed in NRC's Action Plan to Ensure Timely Cleanup of SDMP Sites, 57 FR 13389; April 16, 1992. The criteria will be applied on a site-specific basis with emphasis on residual contamination levels that are as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).
If a licensee or responsible party has cleaned up a site, or was in the process of cleaning up a site, under an NRC-approved decomissioning plan, the NRC will not require the licensee to conduct additional cleanup in response to NRC criteria or standard established after NRC approval of the plan. An exception to this case would be in the event that additional contamination, or noncompliance with the plan, is found indicating a significant threat to public health and safety.
l 6
L a
Yi l
S
Description of Proposed Action
)
I The Commission proposes to incorporate into its regulations radiological i
criteria for decommissioning' of nuclear facilities. This proposed action would provide a clear and consistent regulatory basis for determining the extent to which radioactive contamination must be removed or reduced in lands and structures before a site can be released and the license terminated.
4 Preparation of Generic Environmental Impact Statement Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all Federal agencies must consider the effect of their actions on the environment.
Section 102(1) of NEPA requires that the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in NEPA.
It is the intent of NEPA to have Federal agencies incorporate consideration of environmental issues into their decision-making processes.
NRC regulations implementing NEPA are contained in 10 CFR Part 51. To fulfill NRC's responsibilities under NEPA, the NRC intends to prepare a generic i
environmental impact statement (GEIS) by analyzing alternative courses of l
I action and the costs and impacts associated with those alternatives.
This notice announces the NRC's intent to prepare a GEIS.
t In keeping with the requireinents of 10 CFR Part 51, the GEIS will analyze alternatives for establishing radiological sriteria for decommissioning of licensed nuclear facilities. The facilities included in t
the GEIS are those described in the " Background" section of this document.
All reasonable alternatives associated with the proposed action, including "no l
7
1 action" will be analyzed to determine the impact and costs associated with the proposed action. The GEIS will not attempt to analyze site-specific issues which may arise in the licensing process involved with the decommissioning of specific facilities, rather its principal intent is to provide a decision analysis leading to the establishment of technical requirements regarding acceptable residual radioactive contamination levels for decommissioning.
However, depending on the particular regulatory alternative that is ultimately
[
selected, portions of the GEIS analysis may be applicable to the NEPA process for a specific site. The extent to which the GEIS may be applicable to the site specific NEPA process will be described in the draft GEIS and draft rulemaking.
l The Scooina Process The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 contain requirements for s
conducting a scoping process prior to preparation of a GEIS.
It is indicated in 10 CFR 51.26 that whenever the NRC determines that an environmental impact i
statement will be prepared by NRC in connection with a proposed action that NRC will publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register stating that a GEIS will be prepared, and conduct an appropriate scoping process.
In addition, 10 CFR 51.26 indicates that this scoping process may include the holding of a public scoping meeting.
l In 10 CFR 51.27 requirements are indicated regarding the content of the notice of intent, in particular that it should describe the proposed action and, to the extent that sufficient information is available, also describe possible alternatives.
In addition, the notice of intent is to describe the 8
i proposed scoping process, including the role of participants, whether written comments will be accepted, and whether a public scoping meeting will be held.
In accord with 10 CFR 51.26 and 51.27, the proposed action and possible alternative approaches are discussed below. The role of participants in the scoping process for this GEIS includes the following:
(l\\
Participants may attend and provide oral discussion on the proposed action and possible alternatives at any of eight separate public scoping meetings as follows:
Washington, DC - July 21, 1993, from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and again from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. at the Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda MD.
San Francisco, California - July 26, 1993, from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and again from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. in Room 1194 of the State Building, 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - July 27,1993, from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and again from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. at the Holiday Inn North, 12001 Northeast Expressway.
Cleveland, Ohio - July 28, 1993, from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and again from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. at the Cleveland State University, University Center Auditorium, Room 6, 212 Euclid Avenue.
9
9 The NRC previously held seven workshops in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, Dallas, Atlanta, and Washington DC as part of the Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking process (see 58 FR 4363; January 14,1993).
While these workshops were not part of the scoping process, they discussed alternative regulatory approaches, and specifically discussed --
(a) The ways in which the alternative approaches protect human health, safety, and the environment; f
(b) The waste management implications of each alternative approach; and (c) The extent that costs, technical capabilities, and other implementation considerations, including nonradiological risks and costs, should be considered in evaluating the alternative approaches.
The seven workshops and related comments will be considered during the scoping process and comments need not be resubmitted for this scoping process.
(2) The Comission will also accept written comments on the proposed action and alternatives from the public, as well as from meeting participants.
Written comments should be submitted by August 15, 1993, and should be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555.
ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch.
Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
According to 10 CFR 51.29, the scoping process is to be used to address the topics which follow.
Participants may make written comments, or verbal coments at the scoping meeting, on the following (current preliminary NRC staff approaches with regard to each topic are included for information):
10
\\
1 (a) Define the proposed action to be the subiect of the GEIS.
The NRC is proposing to codify radiological criteria for decommissioning of lands and structures.
(b) Determine the scope of the GEIS and the sianificant issues to be analyzed in deoth. The NRC is proposing to analyze the costs and impacts associated with alternative regulatory approaches to establish radiological criteria for decommissioning. The following proposed outline for the GEIS reflects the current NRC staff view on the scope and major topics to be dealt with in the GE15 and in this rulemaking:
Proposed Outline: Generic Environmental Impact Statement Abstract Executive Summary Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction l.1 Background 1.2 Need for Proposed Action 1.3 Description of Proposed Action 1.4 Purpose of this GEIS 1.5 Scope of the GEIS 1.6 Approach in Preparation of the Draft GEIS 1.7 Structure of the Draft GEIS
- 2. The Current Regulatory Structure 2.1 The Decommissioning Process 2.2 The Current Regulatory Structure for Decommissioning 2.3 Existing Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning 2.4 Decommissioning Experience Under the Current Regulatory Approach 4
11 9
a 1
- 3. Description of the Affected Environment
]
3.1 Introduction j
3.2 Description of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities to be Covered in the GEIS -- includes buildings and site lands, contamination levels at shutdown, and decommissioning methodology for an estimated:
a) 112 nuclear power reactors b) 74 nonpower (research and test reactors) reactors c) 14 fuel fabrication plants d) 2 UF6 plants e) 49 uranium mill facilities (other than mill tailings disposal) f) 9 independent spent fuel storage installations 3.3 Description of Non-fuel Cycle Nuclear Facilities to be Covered in i
the GEIS -- includes buildings and site lands, contamination levels at shutdown, and decommissioning methodology. There are a total of about 7500 non-fuel cycle facilities licensed by NRC.
In addition, NRC Agreement States license about 15,000 non-fuel cycle facilities. About 75% of these facilities use sealed radioactive sources or small amounts of short-lived radioactive materials. Of the remaining 25%, a small number (e.g., radioactive source manufacturers, radiopharmaceutical producers, and radioactive ore processors) conduct operations requiring significant efforts to remove or reduce residual contamination.
3.4 Affected Environment a) Backgt and radiation I
b) Pathways of exposure for occupancy of site buildings following unrestricted release j
12 I
i
~
c) Pathways of exposure for residence on site lands following unrestricted release 3.5 Summary 4.
Regulatory Alternatives Analyzed and Method of Approach for the Analysis 4.1 General Information on Approach and Method of Analysis of Regulatory Alternatives -- a preliminary list of alternatives 'to be considered was developed for use in discussion at the seven workshops described above. A rulemaking issues paper on these alternatives was produced to focus discussion at the workshops, and a single copy is available, free of charge, upon request to Frank Cardile, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: -301-492-3774. The alternatives listed in Section 4.2 reflect the alternatives discussed at the workshops.
4.2 Alternatives Considered -- each of the alternatives represent alternate regulatory actions directed at establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning. No consideration is being given to an alternative in which a licensee would abandon or leave a facility after operations without some remediation because this alternative was already rejected in a 1988 rulemaking which set general decommissioning requirements (53 FR 24018).
(a) Alternative 1, No Reculatory Chance -- would continue the current NRC practice of using existing NRC radiological guidance on a case-by-case basis in dealing with decommissioning of licensed i
facilities; therefore, under this alternative, NRC would not issue i
i 13 I
i amended regulations explicitly containing radiological criteria for decommissioning.
(b) Alternative 2, Risk Limit -- would establish a limit above which j
the risks to the public would be unacceptable and additional criteria to further reduce to the extent practical exposures to levels below the limit.
In practical terms, this alternative l
would mean that the radioactivity remaining at the site must be at or below the limit established by the NRC's amended regulations, and that, in addition, exposures would be further reduced below this limit to levels which are "As low As is Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) taking into account various factors of practical implementation (cost vs. benefit) and socioeconomic considerations.
The risk limit would have to be quantified in i
terms of risk or dose, and methods for determining ALARA would have to be determined; (c) Alternative 3, Risk Goal -- would establish a goal at a level of i
public risk below which the risks are considered trivial, and i
require remediation to levels which are either below the goal or as close to the goals as practical.
In practical terms, this alternative would mean that if the levels of residual radioactivity at the site were below the risk goal, the site would i
be acceptable for release for unrestricted use and no further remediation would be required even if feasible. Residual radioactivity levels remaining at the site that would pose a risk in excess of the goal would be acceptable if they were as close as l
1 reasonably achievable to the risk goal. The risk goal would have 14 i
to be quantified in terms of risk or dose, and methods for determining allowable levels above that goal would have to be determined; i
(d) Alternative 4, Best Effort -- would establish criteria representing what is achievable using the "best" available f
technology and requiring the use of this technology in i
decommissioning.
A site would be released for unrestricted use if the only residual radioactivity remaining at the site is that material which cannot be removed or measured using the best i
available technology.
(e) Alternative 5, Return to Backaround -- would establish criteria requiring removal of all radioactivity attributable to licensed activities. A site would be released for unrestricted use if all radioactivity attributable to licensed activity were removed, and f
if it were demonstrated that background levels had been achieved.
(f) Alternative 6, Restricted use of some sites -- would establish I
criteria that would allow for land use restrictions after decommissioning to ensure protection of humans and the environment i
by limiting exposure to residual radioactivity. This alternative would be a departure from the NRC's current requirement that sites be released for unrestricted use.
l 4.3 Method of Analysis of Regulatory Alternatives i
(a) Define a range of alternative regulatory actions with regard to establishing radiological criteria (see Section 4.2);
(b) Evaluate the alternative regulatory actions with respect to:
(1) the incremental impact to workers, members of the public, and 15 1
i i
the environment, both radiological and nonradiological, resulting from each alternative and (2) the costs associated with each regulatory alternative.
For the alternatives involving limits or goals, incremental impacts and costs are evaluated for a subset of residual radioactivity dose / risk levels including the range of dose values discussed during the rulemaking workshops (e.g.,
60 mrem /yr to 0.03 mrem /yr) corresponding to a range of lifetime risks of excess fatal cancer of approximately 2 in 1000 to 1 in 1,000,000.
Evaluations of impacts and costs are contained in Sections 5 through 8 below; (c) Perform a comparative evaluation of the regulatory alternatives based on the impacts and costs of each alternative from 4.4(b).
- 5. Radiological Impacts from Regulatory Alternatives 5.1 Dose Calculational Methodology 5.2 Estimate of Radiological Impacts for Alternatives 1 - 6 5.3 Uncertainties in Assessing Dose Impacts for Generic Facilities
- 6. Nonradiological Impacts from Regulatory Alternatives n
6.1 Human Health Impacts 6.2 Transportation Impacts 6.3 Impacts on Biota l
6.4 Economic Impacts 6.5 Land Use Impacts 6.6 Societal Impacts
- 7. Costs Associated with Regulatory Alternatives 7.1 General Information on Decommissioning Costs 7.2 Major costs of decommissioning l
16 s
+
.n
j i
7.3 Costs that are Sensitive to Alternate Residual Radioactivity Criteria 7.4 Cost Estimate Methodology for this GEIS j
a) General e
b) Decontamination and disposal costs c) Survey costs 7.5 Estimate of Costs Associsted with Alternatives 1-6 l
7.6 Uncertainties in Assessing Generic Costs Associated with I
Alternative Rulemakings
- 8. Comparison of Impacts and Costs for Regulatory Alternatives 1
i 8.1 Method and Rationale Used in Comparing Impacts and Costs l
8.2 Results of Comparison of Impacts and Costs
- 9. Conclusions and Preliminary Recommendation Regarding Proposed Course l
of Action (c)
Identify and eliminate from detailed study issues which are not sianificant or which are peripheral or which have been covered by prior environmental review. The NRC has not yet eliminated any nonsignificant issues. However, NRC is considering elimination of the following issues from the scope of this GEIS because they have been previously analyzed in a previous GEIS (NUREG-0586) and included in an earlier rulemaking (53 FR 24018, I
June 28, 1988):
(i) planning necessary to conduct decommissioning operations in a safe manner; (ii) assurance that sufficient funds are available to pay for decommissioning; (iii) the time period in which decommissioning should be completed; and (iv) whether facilities should not be left abandoned, but instead remediated to appropriate levels. The GEIS presently being prepared f
i 17 l
i
i i
b will assess how current issues being addressed could affect the conclusions made in NUREG-0586 and in the 1988 rulemaking.
In addition, requirements were recently proposed in a separate rulemaking regarding timeliness of decommissioning for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 licensees (58 FR 4099; January 13,1993).
This GEIS is principally intended to provide a decision analysis establishing overall residual radioactive criteria for decommissioning of structures and lands.
The GEIS does not analyze site-specific issues which may arise in the licensing process involved with the decommissioning of specific facilities. However,-depending on the particular regulatory alternative that is ultimately selected, portions of the GEIS analysis may be applicable to the NEPA process for a specific site. The extent to which the GEIS may be applicable to the site specific NEPA process will be described in the draft GEIS and draft rulemaking. Also, criteria for release of contaminated equipment, components, piping, and other similar materials, are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
(d)
Identify any EAs or GEIS which are beina or which will be orecared that are related but are not part of the scoDe of this GEIS. A draft EA on the timeliness of decommissioning has been prepared as part of a separate rulemaking on decommissioning timeliness (58 FR 4099; January 13, 1993) and will be finalized.
+
(e)
Identify other environmental review or consultation reouirements related to the proposed action. The NRC has contracted with Sanford Cohen and Associates to provide technical assistance in the preparation of the GEIS.
In addition, the NRC has contracted with Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory to provide specific technical assistance regarding decontamination technology, 18 I
9 and plans to obtain specific technical assistance regarding the capability of radiation survey instruments to practically and accurately detect radioactive contamination at levels near background. Discussions are underway with the Environmental Protection Agency involving their assuming cooperating agency status in preparation of the GEIS.
(f)
Indicate the relationshio between the timino of the orecaration of environmental analysis and the Commission's tentative olannino and decision makino schedule.
It is the NRC's intent to prepare and issue for public comment a draft GEIS in June 1994 simultaneous with publication of a proposed rule for public comment containing radiological criteria for decommissioning.
The comment period would be for 90 days.
The final rule and final GEIS are scheduled for publication in June 1995.
(g) Describe the means by which the GEIS will be orecared.
It is anticipated NRC will prepare the draft GEIS according to its regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. Specifically, in accord with 10 CFR Part 51.71, the draft GEIS will be prepared in accordance with considerations of the scoping process and will include a preliminary analysis which considers and balances the environmental and other effects of the proposed action and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental and other effects, as well as the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits of the proposed action.
)
i 19
~
In accomplishing the purpose of the scoping process, participants are invited to speak or submit written comments, as noted above, on any or all of the seven areas described above.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29, at the conclusion of the scoping process, a concise summary of the determinations and conclusions reached, including the significant issues identified, will be prepared and a copy sent to each participant in the scoping process.
1 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of June 1993.
i For the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
t I
C 1L V} Ab'-
f Eric S. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
e L
L h
20 k