ML20127C402
| ML20127C402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1992 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-92-249, NUDOCS 9207240257 | |
| Download: ML20127C402 (83) | |
Text
. .
a a n . . . . . u . . . . . . . . . ., . m aum i RELEASED TO THE PDR1
,(p A. :
n//c/9;- .-
i
' c_L :
- 1
, dia mials x,
> $3 9 9 9 ssesse esse &>ooodao
% ...s /
POLICY ISSUE July is, 1992 (Notation Vote) SECY-92-249 m: The Commissioners from: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations William C. Parler General Counsel Subiect: FINAL PLAN FOR THE ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY RULEMAKING PROCESS ON THE. RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR DECO!O!ISSIONING Purnose: To request Commission review and approval of the final plan for conducting the enhanced-participatory rulemaking on the radiological-criteria- for decommissioning- NRC-licensed facilities.
Summary: In its Staff Requirements Memorandum of April 15, 1992, the Commission approved the staff's preliminary plan set forth in SECY-92-045 to conduct an enhanced participatory rulemaking on establishing the radiological' criteria for the decommissioning of- NRC-licensed facilities. This paper- provides the final plan for conducting the enhanced participatory rulemaking. The basic concept envisioned in the final plan is to conduct a series- of workshops to solicit commentary from affected interests on the fundamental approaches and issues that must be addressed- in establishing the radiological criteria for decommissioning. The final plan addresses the format, schedule, and location of the workshops, the potential workshop participants, travel reimbursement for selected workshop participants, and the
^- <
l, g , g 7. draft Rulemaking Issues Paper which This will staff-
'Ofucus the workshop discussions.
Contact:
7 3.-Cameron, OGC MOTE: TO DE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 504-1642 WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE D. Cool, RES 492-3785
~~_
, - . - ~ . . . , . . _ . , . . _ , _ - . , _ _ . - . _ - _ . _ , - - - . ~ . . . . - . _ _ _ - - . - _ - - . - - - . . - - . - - - - -
.J o:
2 paper also addresses the-issues raised-in the Commission's June 16,_1992 Staff Requirements Memorandum such as the _ relationship between the enhanced participatory rulemaking and development of a . general policy on -the compatibility of Agreement State programs. A-draf t Eederal Recister Notice announcing ' the workshops is included for Commission review at-Enclosure ~A.
Backaround: On March' 11, 1992,_ the staff briefed the Commission on its plans. (SECY-92-045) for conducting an enhanced participatory rulemaking process to- establish - the radiological criteria for the decommissioning and decontamination of licensed facilities.
In its Staff Requirements Memorandum of April 15, 1992, the Commission approved the preliminary plan. The Commission also$
directed the staff to conduct periodic briefings to update . the Commission en the progress of the rulemaking efforts and to seek-Commission approval of decisions that might have major policy implications or set precedents- fer future. rulemakings or other Commission activities.- In SECY-92-191, and a subsequent June 1,-1992 briefing,'the staff discussed the status of the enhanced-participatory rulemaking and several specific issues of. concern to the Commission. In response to this briefing, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum on June 16, 1992, which identified a number of issues for the staff to address in the enhanced participatory rulemaking.
Discussion: In response to the Commission's desire to ,
provide for the_early.and comprehensive input from affected interests on important public health and safety issues, the staff proposed -1 the initiation of an = enhanced participatory rulemaking to establish the radiological criteria for the decommissioning of NRC-licensed facilities. In its April 15, 1992 Staff Requirements' Memorandum, the Commission 4
approved the staff's preliminary plan to initiate this rulemaking. The objective of the staff plan is to enhance the participation of affected interests in the rulemaking by soliciting commentary from these interests on the rulemaking issues before the staff develops the draft proposed rule. The staff
3 will then cons' der this commentary in its development of the draft proposed rule for commission review. The staff will also document how it considered these comments in arriving at its regulatory approach.
The early involvement of affected interests in the development of the draft proposed rule will be accomplished through a series of workshops. A workshop format was selected because it will provide representatives of the affected interests with an opportunity to discuss the rulemaking issues with one another and to question one another about their respective positions and concerns. Although the workshops are intended to foster a clearer understanding of the positions and concerns of the affected interests, as well as to identify, areas of agreement and disagreement, it is not the intent of the workshop process to attempt to develop a consensus agreement on the rulemaking issues.
In addition to the commentary from the-workshop participants, the workshops will be open to the public and the -public will be provided with the opportunity to comment on the rulemaking issues and the . workshop discussiorm at discrete-intervals during the workshops.
Workshop Location. Schedule, and Format. The staff intends to conduct the workshops on a regional basis. Although, there will be one national workshop in Washington D.C. 'for organizations with a national focus, the rest of the workshops will be held at various locations throughout the United States. The national workshop is not intended to be a summary of.the other workshops, and the staff-does not intend to give any greater v31ght to comments made during that workshop than to any other workshop. The. regional framework will allow the commissiot, to hear from as many knowledgeable organizations at the local- level as possible. These local. organizations will bring a unique perspective to the discussion of the rulemaking issues, and the . regional workshops will give the commission an opportunity to interact with organizations with which it has not had such an opportunity.
/
4 The existing NRC regional office framework was used-to select the workshop locations, with adjustments made to accommodate those areas with a heightened interest in-decommissioning- ,
activities, as well as to maximize-participation-in the workshops. The dates for the workshops are tentative, at this time because the exact dates and meeting locations will need to be coordinated with the facilitator provided under the commission's workshop facilitation and logistical contract.
Notification of the specific dates and meeting locations will be announced in August 1992 through -publication in the Federal Register.
and letters to individual participants. The schedule and location of the workshops is as follows --
Location Date San Francisco, CA September 29, 30, 1992 Bostou, MA ' October 20, 21, 1992 Philadelphia, PA November 10, 11, 1992 Chicago, IL December 1, 2, 1992 Dallas, TX January 5, 6, 1993 Atlanta, GA January 20, 21, 1993 Washington, D.C. February 16, 17, 1993 (National Workshop)
The staff intends, to - summarize the comments from the workshops by April 20, 1993.. We will then - begin to evaluate the comments in its development of.the draft proposed rule. We-anticipate submitting the draft proposed rule ~-
for Commission review by August 10,'1993. The-staff intends to continue'to provide periodic status reports and briefings to the commission throughout the workshop process. We will also-keep the. Agreement States fully apprised - of -
our progress.
Each workshop will be of - two days duration.
To assure. that each workshop addresses -the issues in-a consistent manner, the workshops will have a common pre-defined scope and.
agenda focused on the Rulemaking Issues-Paper
5 discussed below. However, the workshop format will be sufficiently flexible to allow for the introduction of any additional issues that the -
participants may want to raise._ At each workshop, the NRC staff _ will begin each discussion period with a brief overview of the rulemaking issues to be discussed and the remainder of the workshop will be devoted-to a discussion of the issues by the participants.
The workshop commentary will be transcribed and made available to participants and the public. Provisions for the transcription of the workshops have been made through an existing contract of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
The workshops' will be f acilitated. by a neutral '
facilitator provided under contract. to the Commission by Resolve, an affiliate of the' World Wildlife Fund / Conservation Foundation.
The contract with Resolve was initiated through an interagency agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency -(EPA) . The Commission's contract with Resolve provides for the facilitator to review the design of -
the workshops before they are c'onvened and to suggest any adjustments -to improve. the-likelihood of success. The facilitator will also provide the staff with a process evaluation after each workshop and a final evaluation of the entire workshop. process at the completion of' the workshops.. The contractor will arrange for meeting f acilities and support for all workshops, _ including providing workshop. participants with information on schedules, meeting arrangements, and-workshop materials.
( Although the final selection of a facilitator has not yet been made, the facilitator will be selected with sufficient time for the staff to provide the facilitator with a thorough overview of workshop objectives, design, and-l technical content.
P_articipants. In order to be able to have a manageable discussion among- the -workshop l
participants, the number of participants in l
each workshop must be limited. ' Based on discussions with experts on workshop facilitation, the . staff believes that -the optimum size of the workshop group is-fifteen
i I
i i
I to twenty participants. Due to differing l levels of interest in each region, the actual number of participants _in any one workshop, as well as the number of participants that represent a particular interest in any one workshop, may vary.
Invitations (Enclosure C) to attend the workshops will be extended .by the staff utilizing several selection criteria. First, to ensure that the commission has the benefit of the spectrum of viewpoints on the issues, the staff is attempting .to achieve the participation of the full range of interests that may be affected by the rulemaking. -The staff has identified eight general interests-that will be used to select specific workshop participants -- state governments, local governments, tribal governments, federals agencies, citizens groups, nuclear utilities, fuel cycle facilities, and non-fuel cycle facilities. In addition to these interests, the staff also plans to invite representatives from the contracting industry that performs decommissioning work and representatives from professional- societies, such as the Health Physics Society, the American Nuclear Society, and the American- Society of Mechanical Engineers. We anticipate that most of the participants will be representatives of organizations. However, it is also possible that there may be a few participants who, because of their expertise and influence, will participate without any organizational affiliation.
The second. selection criterion-is the ability of the participant to knowledgeably discuss the full - range of rulemaking issues._ The staff wishes to ensure that the workshops will elicit informed discussions of - options - and approaches,- and the rationale for those z
options and approaches, rather than simple statements of opinion. The. staff's identification-of potential participants has-been based on an evaluation-of such factors as the extent. of- a potential participant's experience with a- broad range ' - of radiation protection issues and types of- nuclear facilities, specific experience with the decommissioning _ issue, and the extent of a potential participant's- substantive comment
0 7
and participation on previoun Commission regulatory or licensing actions.
The third criterion emphasizes participation from organizations within the region encompassed by the workshop. As much as practicable, those organizations that primarily operate within the region, as l opposed to regional units of national organizations, will have priority in terms of participating in the corresponding regional j' workshops. Organizations with a national standing will be part of the " national" i workshop to be held in Washington, D.C. !
Wherever possible, the staff plans to arrange the participation of individual organizations
! in the workshops through. national organizations such as the organization of y
Agreement States, the Conference of Radiation [
l- Control Program Directors (CRCPD), the Nuclear l
Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and the United States Council on Energy Awareness l
I (USCEA). A summary of the-approach the staff l
has taken to identify potential participants L in each interest area is set forth below. A list of potential participants is included at Enclosure D. The staff has had preliminary discussions on. the. enhanced- participatory.
l rulemaking process with each of these groups.
The staff does not anticipate that all of these groups will choose to participate'in'.the I workshops. However, potential. workshop participants will be primarily drawn from the groups identified in Enclosure D. There will-l L
also be some flexibility to later -include l- organizations who were not originally l ..
identified in the staff survey of- potential-participants. The staff also plans to notify i various international organizations, such as the Nuclear Energy Agency's Technical Advisory
~
Group on Decontamination and Decommissioning,.
who may be interested in sending an' observer to the workshop sessions.
o State governments - The Organization of-Agreement States and the CRCPD are willing to coordinate the participation of individual- states in the regional E workshops. In addition, .the -CRCPD anticipates having a representative at the national workshop in Washington D.C.
h P 0 k hId$.
%L,,
g
!E i L;,
e 8
to provide state views on the rulemaking issues. The staff has Association, also notified the the National Governor's National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Attorneys General of the upcoming workshops.
o Local governments -
The stafI has contacted the National Association of Counties and the county associations in each state to identify potential local
} government participants. We have also reviewed the case histories of the sites Decommissioning listed in the Site Management Plan to identify interested and knowledgeable local governments.
o Tribal governments - The staff has contacted three national tribal, organizations -- Native Americans for a Clean Environment, the National Congress of American Indians, and the Council of Energy Resource Tribes -- in regard to coordinating the participation of individual tribes in the regional workshops.
o Citizens groups - The staff has contacted several citizens groups at the national level in regard to their general interest in participating in the national workshop. We have contacted the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nuclear Information Resource -
Service, Public Citizen, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the League of Women Voters, the National Audubon Society, the Union- of Concerned Scientists, and Physicians for Social-Responsibility.
In regard-to local and regional citizens groups, we-have had extensive discussions with the NRC regional personnel, state radiation protection control of ficials,-
and others, on ' potential citizen group participation at the regional _ level.
Based on these discussions, we have contacted a number of citizens groups about their potential interest in the enhanced participatory rulemaking ,
9 (Enclosure D). The response to our preliminary inquiries reveals a strong interest in the process, o Nuclear utilities - NUMARC has agiaed to coordinate the participation of utilities in the workshops.
o Fuel cycle facilities - USCEA.and-the Fuel Cycle Facilities Forum have agreed-to coordinate the participation of fuel cycle companies in the workshops. We have also contacted the National Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors (TRTR).
o Non-fuel cycle facilities - The staff has contacted a number of organizations in this category about potentials participation in the workshops,. including regional radioisotope users groups. The-USCEA Committee- on Radionuclides and-Radiopharmaceuticals is assisting us in coordinating the participation of the members of these and other non-fuel cycle entities in the workshops. Participants-will be drawn from radiopharmaceutical manufacturers, biomedical research radionuclide manufacturers, the medical profession, sealed source manufacturers, the university research community.
o Decommissioning contractors - In order to ensure that information on-decommissioning costs and methods are presented in the workshops, the staff has contacted several of the companies that perform decommissioning work in regard to workshop participation. This category includes companies represented by the Brokero- -
and- ' Processors Association, companies that perform -large scale-decommissioning work,. and- individual consultants with expertise on the costs of decommissioning, o Federal agencies -
The staff has contacted several Federal agencies about participation in the workshops. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),-
because of its expertise and responsibilities, will not only
10 participate in the workshops, but has been consulted by the NRC staff on the development of the Rulemaking Issues Paper and will be consulted in the evaluation of the workshop comments. EPA has been very supportive of the commission's enhanced . participatory rulemaking and has already provided the staff with assistance on this effort.
The staff has also had several discussions with the Department of Energy (DOE)- about the enhanced participatory rulemaking process and potential DOE participation in the workshops. DOE has indicated a ?reliminary- anterest in participating en the nat onal i workshop.
Although the Commission's decommissioning, standards will generally not be applicable to DOE facilities,. DOE possesses substantial expertise in the decommissioning . area that will 'be a useful source of information in the national workshop. In addition, NRC standards may influence the DOE development- of standards for its facilities. The staff plans to.neet with Department of Defense (DOD) representatives to discuss their interest in participating in the workshops. The staff has also discussed the new rulemaking initiative - with the Science Panel of the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy
' Coordination (CIRRPC) and has also contacted the EPA- Federal Agency
- Roundtable, composed of federal entities with program responsibilities'in the use-of radioactive materials, to discuss the rulemaking. The staff anticipates that federal agency participation will occur in the national workshop.
o Professional-societies - The staff has-contacted the Health Physics Society, the American Nuclear Society, . and the American Society of' Mechanical Engineers in regard to their potential interest in participating in the national workshop. -
Reimbursement of travel exnenses. In SECY 045, the staf f recommended that the Commission
I l
I 11 provido nelected participants who could not otherwiso participato in the workshop, with sono asolatanco to defray travel exponoon to the workshops. Tho statf recommendation was based on the importanco of the rulemaking lonuo to be addressed and the nood toenhanced onnuro that the first use of the participatory rulomaking procono in well-nupported. The rulemaking to establish the radiological critoria for decommionioning not only addronson a fundamental public hon 1th and safety inuuo, but will also be applicable to a NRC-broad range of existing and futuro licensed facilition, located in all arons of the country. In addition, the staff believen that it is important to take ovary reasonable monsure to increase the likolihood of success for the first uso of this broad participatory-process. The availability of travel funda for potential participants who could not otherwiso participato in the workshops will help to groups and ensuro that the appropriato interosta are roprosented. Other todoral agencios hase provided similar assistanco in nogotiated rulemakings and other consultativo proconson if an organization could not otherwise have participated in the procoon and if the agency datormined that their participation was noconsary to assure an adequato representation of thattraditionally participant's interact. The Commission reimburoon stato regulatory personnel for in NRC functions, including participation workshops.
However, the statf in consitivo to the commission'a policy and budgetary concerns over providino reimbursomant for travel exponaos. In order to address those concerns, the statf proposal would incorporato the following principios-~
o reimbursoment would be confined to the workshops associated with this specific rulomaking. The letter of invitation (Enclosure C) will clearly stato that i.e., the this is a unique situation, importance of onsuring offectivo participation in this first attempt to implomont an extensive and comprohonniva participatory process; I
12 o reimbursoment would be limited to taxpenses for one person from the invited participants for the transportation and lodging connected with the workshop; o a ceiling of $50,000 would be-placed on the total amount of funds available for reimbursoment; o the maximum that any one participant could obtain for reimbursement would bo
$600.00; o reimborsement would only be availabl i for invited participants; o participants will be made aware through the letter of invitation to the workshop, that the total pool for travel reimbursement is limited and that their decision to request funds should be scrupulously considered because it may deprive other participants of necessary assistance; o a-letter of self-certification will bn required stating that the participant could not_ otherwise participate in the workshop if commisshon assistance to defray trcvel expenses were not providod; o proforence will be given to non-profit and governmental-organizations;-
o the reimbursement of travel expenses will follow the Federal Travel Regulations, including reimbursement rates; Ruin akina Inns paner. The staff - has prepared a Rulemaking Issues paper to be used as a focal point for the workshop discussions (Enclosure B). This paper, which will be distributed to participants in advance of the workshops, sets forth in neutral terms the issues that must be addressed in the-rulemaking, as well as,-background information on the nature and extent of the problem to be addressed. Draf ts of the issues paper were placed in, the Public Document Room in late April,1992, and the staff informally obtained comments from a number of: sources including-the- Agreement States, the industry and ,
13 ,
citirens groups. These comments were used in refining the paper to more clearly present the -i issues-to be considered.
In framing the issues and approaches discussed in the Rulemaking Issues Paper, the staff has attempted to anticipate the variety of views that exist on these approaches and issues.
The paper will provide assistance to - the participants as they prepare for the workshops, suggest the workshop agenda, and set the level of technical discussion that can The workshop be expected at the workshops.
discussions are intended to be used by the staff in developing the draf t. proposed rule and prior to thu workshops.no staff positions will be taken on the rulemaking approaches and issues identifled in the Rulemaking -Issues Paper. As noted earlier, to the extent that, the Rulemaking Issues Paper fails to identify a pertinent issue, this may be corrected at the workshop sessions.
The discussion of issues is divided into two parts. First are two primary. issues dealing with: 1) the objectives for developing radiological critoria; and 2) application of practicality considerations.. The objectives constitute the fundamental ap? roach to the establishment of the radiologLcal criteria, and the NRC staff has identifiedRisk four Limits, distinct possibilities including: 1) where a limiting value is selected- and criteria are established below the limit using practicality considerations; 2) Risk Goals, where a goal is selected and practicality considerations are used to. establish criteria ,
as close to the goal as practical; 3) Best-Effort, where the . technology for decontamination considered .to be the best available .is . applied; and 4) Return to Preexisting Background, where the decontamination .would continue until the radiological conditions were the sarc as existed prior to the. licensed activities.
Following the primary issues are several secondary issues that are related to the.
discussions of the primary issues, but.which I- were believed . to warrant separate
~
presentations and discussions. These include additional considerations' such as the time-l
^
14 frame for dose calculation, the individuals or groups to be protected, the use of separate criteria for specific exposure pathways such as groundwater, the treatment of radon, and the treatment of previously buried materials.
The Issues Paper includes a discussion of other actions, such as the development of' generic screening modeling, which is related to the rulemaking. The paper also includes a discussion of the possible approaches to codifying the radiological criteria. This discussion will allow workshop participants to express their views on the appropriateness and flexibility of the criteria- that may be codified by the rulemaking. Simultaneously, it will allow the participants to comment on the usefulness of potential screening-methodologies in determining compliance with-the criteria.
Per the Commission's June 16 , - 1992 Staff Requirements Memorandum, the staff will track the current EPA initiatives on levels below which regulatory attention would not be required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and factor the' risk underpinnings of these efforts. into the-workshop discussions. The Rulemaking Issuer-Paper also addresses the practical constraints on the ' selection of regulatory approaches.
This will also be a topic for discussion among the workshop participants.
Compatibility. The Commission is : currently ~
developing a general policy on Agreement State compatibility. Compatibility in regard to the specific issue of decommissioning criteria is one of the issues identified in the Rulemaking Issues Paper for discussion in the enhanced participatory rulemaking workshops'. The staff '
has identified two options for Commission consideration on whether the compatibility issue should be addressed in these workshops.
Under Option 1, the- issue of compatibility would not be included- as a topic for discussion in the enhanced participatory rulemaking workshops because of the-Commission's ongoing process to establish a general policy on compatibility. It would not be efficient to. have - two separate forums
15 focussing on the sare subject, and the ongoing process to establish the general policy on Agreement Stato compatibility would be the more appropriate forum for the discussion of all compatibility issues. The most desirable approach would be to first develop the general policy on compatibility, and then apply that to the development of the decommissioning criteria. Because the general policy on compatibility will not have been developed by.
the time the decommissioning workshops convene, this second step would be done when ~
the proposed decommissioning rule is published for public comment. At that time, parties with views on compatibility with respect to being addressed in the y the issue decommissioning rulemaking will have the opportunity to express those views. Further, eliminating discussions about compatibility during the workshops on the decommissioning criteria will allow more time to be devoted issues to the discussion of the technical and approaches.
Under option 2, the compatibility issue would be specifically identified as an issue for discussion in the decommissioning criteria workshops because it will be an important issue in the implementation of the decommissioning rule and, as such, should not be " carved out" of the. enhanced participatory rulemaking. Potential workshops participants, including state governments, industry organizations, and citizens groups have identified the compatibility issue as an important issue for discussion in the decommissioning criteria workshops. Although, the failure to place this issue on the table for discussion in the workshops would not necessarily compromise the workshop process, it may initially raise concerns over the Commission's desirs to have a thorough discussion of all the important rulemaking issues.
Moreover, any new Commission compatibility policy will provido details on the degree of Ag eement State uniformity desired for broad regulatory areas, e.g., certain terminology and technical definitions, consumer products, I
16 consideration of local conditions and needs, recordkeeping, etc., and may not initially.
include a detailed specification of . which rules warrant different levels of compatibility.. If the new compatibility
- policy is established before or during the workshop process, the workshop-discussions can be focussed on how the general compatibility criteria should apply to the decommissioning criteria rulemaking. If the workshops convene before the general compatibility policy is established, the workshop discussions-on this issue will generate more information for-the commission to consider in establishing the general compatibility policy.
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt option 1 and reserve the discussion of the issue of compatibility to the ongoing process' to establish the- general policy on compatibility, with the follow-up discussion on the application- of the general-compatibility policy to the specific issue of decommissioning criteria to be made during the public comment period. on the proposed decommissioning rule. The Rulemaking Issues Paper includes alternative -language ~ to accommodate whichever -option the Commission selects.
Resources: The estimated resources necessary for workshop--
facilitation. and logistical arrangements
($110,000) and' travel reimbursement ($50,000) cre currently 'available through' the-reprogramming of -funds in the office of Research. Transcription of the workshop proceedings will be covered under. funds .
already budgeted in the existing Atomic Safety L and Licensing Board contract for these
-services.
Schedule: A commission' decision will'be necessary by the end of' July, 1992 in order to issue- the Federa1 Reaister Notice and . the letters - of
! invitation in sufficient time for the first .
workshop, scheduled for September 29, 1992.
f
17 Recommendation: That the commission:
(1) accrove (a) the final plan for _ conducting - the workshops set forth in the Commission Paper; (b) Option 1, which does not include compatibility as an item :for discussion in_ the~ -enhanced participatory rulemaking workshops.
(c) the Federal Reaister Notice announcing the workshops (Enclosure A);
(d) the letter of invitation' (Enclosure C);
(e) the Rulemaking Issues . Paper (Enclosure B).
(2) note (a) that the appropriate Congressional Committees will be informed of this action.(Enclosure F);
(b) -that the staff is following- the legislative debate-ongoing .
associated with the -energy legislation regarding -leadership in setting _ standards. for decommissioning.- NRC _
staff continues to believe that NRC should retain the lead . role .for setting.
these standards-_ _ -through- the-participatory rulemaking. - The staff and OCA will continue to track the Congressional. deliberations -and' assess the potential impacts on'the participatory rulemaking.
1 a
18 (c) that a public announcement will be issued by the Office of Public Af f airs when the Notice is submitted to the' Office- of the Federal Register (Enclosure E).
,/
es M. lor
/ ecutive Director for Operations William'C. Parler General Counsel
Enclosures:
A. Draft Federal Register Notice $
B. Draft Rulemaking Issues Paper C. Draft invitation to participants D. List of potential' participants E. Draft Public Announcement-F. Draft Congressional letter Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB' Friday, July 31, 1992.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, July 24, 1992, with an infor-mation copy to the Office of.the Secretary. If the paper is of_such a nature that it requires additional review and commenc, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be_ apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION: .
Commissioners OGC-OCAA OIG LSS IP OCA OPA OPP REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ACRS ACNW ASLBP.
SECY ,
ENCLOSURE A: FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 Radiological criteria for decommissioning of NRC-licensed facilities; Workshops ,
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION: Notice of Workshops
SUMMARY
- The Nucinar Regulatory Commission (NRC) is preparing to initiate an enhanced participatory rulemaking on establishing the radiological criteria for the decommissioning of NRC-licensed facilities. The Commission intends to enhance the participation of affected interests in the rulemaking by soliciting commentary from these interests on the rulemaking issues before the staff develops the draft proposed rule. Towards this end, the Commission plans to conduct a series of workshops to solicit commentary from affected interests on the fundamental approaches and issues that must be addressed in establishing the radiological criteria for
. __ - - . - - . . ~ . . .- -. . -._ . - _ _ -
2 decommissioning. The workshops will be held in various locations ,
throughout the United States beginning in September, ~ 1992. The workshops will be open to the public.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATI0!! CONTACT:
Francis X. Cameron, Special Counsel for Public Liaison and Waste Management, Office of the General Counsel, Washington D.C. 20555,-
Telephone: 301-504-1642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Backaround The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the statutory responsibility for protection-of health and safetyirelated to the use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materia 11under the Atomic 1 Energy Act. . The NRC believes- that one portion of this responsibility _-is . to assure safe ,and timely deconissioning .of nuclear facilities whichcit licenses,.and.to provide guidance to licensees on how to plan for and prepare their sites- for.
decommissioning. Once licensed activities have ceased, licensees.
are required to decommission their . facilities so that- their.
~ - - - , , , -.. ., . . ,.-..,... - .-_- .-_ -- , . . , . = .-
. . - - . - . - ~ - - . , _ - _ ~ ~ -- . - - . - _ = . . . . . . - . - .
3 licenses-may be terminated. -Thic. requires that radioactivity in land, groundwater, buildings, and equipment resulting from the licenced operation be reduced to levels that allow the property to-be releared for unrestricted use. Licensees must then demonstrate that all f acilities have been properly decontaminated and that radioactive material has been transferred to authorized recipients.
Confirmatory surveys are conducted by NRC, where appropriate, to sites meet NRC radiological criteria for verify that decommissioning.
The population of nuclear fuel cycle f acilities which will require decommissioning includes nuclear power plants; non-power (research and test) reactors; fuel f abrication plants, uranium hexafluoride and independent spent fuel storage production plants, installations. In addition there are currently about 24,000 matstials licensees. About one third of these are NRC licenseos, while the remainder are licensed by Agreement States-acting under the authority of the Atomic Energy . Act, Section 274. These licensees include universities, medical institutions, radioactive source manuf acturers, and companies that use radioisotopes for ,
industrial purposes.- About 50% of NRC's 7,500 materials licensees use either sealed radioactive sources or small amounts of short -
lived radioactive materials. Decommissioning of these facilities should be relatively simple since there is usually little or no residual radioactive contamination. Of the rema.tning_50%__,.a small number (e.g. radioactive source manufacturers, radiopharmaceutical- ,
_ _ _ __l
, __ :. a.m ._ . .. .... .;. , , _ _. _ . _ . _ _ _ . , . . . . . , _ , _ . . . . . ,, __ - _;.._......_,,-._ . . . ~ . , , , , - , ,
?
i r
4 producers, and radioactive ore processors) conduct operations which could produce substantial radioactive contamination in portions of the facility. These facilities, like the fuel cycle facilities id6ntified above, uust be decontaminated before they can be safely re'16Med Oc- threstricted use.
Several hundred NRC and Agreement State licenses are terminated each year. The majority of these licenses involve- limited-operations, produce little or no. radioactive contamination, and.do not present complex decommissioning problems or potential risks to public health or the environment from restidual contamination.-
However, as the nuclear industry matures, it is expected that more end more of the larger nuclear f acilities which have been operating for a number of years will reach the end of their useful lives and be decommissioned. Thus both the number and complexity of facilities that will require decommissioning is expected to increase.
The Commission believes that there is a need to incorporate.into its regulations radiological criteria for termination.of licenses and release of land and structures for unrestricted use. The
-intent of such an action would be to provide a clear and consistent regulatory - basis for determining the extent to which lands and structures must be decontaminated before a site can be decommissioned. The commission believes that inclusion of criteria in the regulations would result in more efficient and consistent
_- -_. __ . _ . . _ _ _ - - _ _ . . .- .=. _. . _. __ . _ . _ _ _ ,
5 licensing actions related to the numerous and frequently complex site decontamination and decommissioning activities anticipated in the future. A rulemaking effort would also 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 decommissioning experience obtained during the past 15 years.
The criteria would apply to the decommissioning of power reactors, non-power reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, fuel fabrication plants, uranium hexafluoride production plants, independent spent fuel storage installations, and materials licenses. They would apply to nuclear facilities that operate through their normal lifetime, as well as to those that may be shut down prematurely.
The Enhanced Particinatory Rulemakina The. Commission-believes it is desirable to provide ~for early and comprehensive input from affected interests on important public health and safety issues, such as the development of radiological-criteria for. decommissioning. Accordingly, the Commission is initiating an enhanced participatory rulemaking to establish these criteria. The objective of the rulemaking is to enhance the participation of af fected interests in the rulemaking by soliciting .
commentary from these interests on the rulemaking-issues before the staff develops the. draft proposed rule. The staff-will consider a.- . - _
,--- y ,,w. ,---1 ,-m~. - . - - , . - ,,,,,.-a, . - , , ..<w-+ y. 3- yw -3 -
.v.,
6 this commentary in-its development of the draft proposed rule for Commission review, as well as document how it considered these-comments in arriving at its regulatory approach. The Commission believes that this will be an effective method for illuminating the decision making process en complex and controversial public health and' safety issues. This approach will ensure that the.important issues have been identified; will assist in identifying potentia'l information gaps or implementation problems; and will facilitate-the development of potential solutions to address the concerns that affected interests may have in regard to the rulemaking.
The early involvement of affected interests in the development of the draft proposed rule will be accomplished through a series of workshops. A workshop format was selected because it will provide representatives of the.affected interests with an opportunity to discuss the rulemaking issues with one another and to question one another about their' respective positions and concerns. Although the workshops are intended to foster a clearer understanding of the positions and concerns of.the affected interests, as well-as-to identify areas of_ agreement and disagreement, it is not the intent of the workshop process to attempt to develop a consensus agreement on the rulemaking issues. In addition to the' commentary from the workshop participants, the workshops will be open-to the public and
- the public' will be provided with the opportunity :to comment: on the rulemaking issues and the -workshop discussions at discrete p -intervals during the workshops.
- l i
7 l The normal process for conducting Commission rulemakings is staff development of a draft proposed rule for Commission review and approval, publication of the proposed rule for public comment, consideration of the comments by the staff, and preparation of a draft final rule for Commission approval. In the enhanced participatory rulemaking, not only will comment be solicited before the staff prepares a draft proposed rule, but ' the . mechanism for- -
soliciting these early comments will also provide an opportunity-for the affected interests and the NRC staff to discuss the issues with each other, rather than relying on the traditional one-to-one written correspondence with the staf f. Af ter Commission review and approval of-the draft proposed rule that is developed using the workshop commentary, the normal process of issuing the proposed rule for public comment, staff evaluation of comments, and preparation of a draft-final _ rule for Commission approval,-will occur.
Particicants. In order to have-a manageable discussion among the workshop participants, the number of participants in each workshop must be limited. Based on discussions with experts on workshop-facilitation, the staff- believes - that - the optimum size of the
--workshop group is fifteen to twenty.-participants. Due to differing i
l ' levels 1 of interest- in each region, the actual'- number of participants in any one workshop, as well as the number of-participants that represent a particular interest in 'any one workshop, may vary. Invitations to attend the workshops will be ,
L u
8 extended by the staff utilizing several selection criteria. First, to ensure that the. commission has the benefit of the spectrum of viewpoints on the issues, the staff is attempting to achieve the participation of the full range of interests that may be affected.
by the rulemaking. The staff has identified _eight general interests that will be used to select specific work' shop _
participants --
state governments, local governments, tribal-governments, federal agencies, citizens groups, nuclear utilities, fuel cycle facilitiec, and non-fuel cycle facilities. In addition to these interests, the staff-also plans to invite representatives from the contracting industry that performs decommissioning work and representatives from professional societies, such as _ the Health Physics Society, the American Nuclear Society, and the' American.
Society of' Mechanical Engineers. We anticipate that most of the
_ participants will be representatives of organizations. However, it is also possible that there may be a few participants who, because of their_ expertise and influence, will -participate without any -
organizational affiliation.
The second selection criterion is the ability ofl the-participant.to knowledgeably.- discuss the full range of-rulemaking issues. The staff wishes to -_ ensure that the workshops will-elicit informed-discussions of options and approaches, and the rationale for those options and approaches, rather than simple statements of opinion.
The staf f's' identification of potential participants has been based on an evaluation of such factors as the extent of. a potential participant's experience with a broad range of radiation protectiona
~
..i.. . ._. , . . _ , , - . . ,~_.,.;
9
~
issues and-types of nuclear facilities, specific experience with decommissioning issue, and- the extent of a . potential the participant's substantive comment and participation on previous.
Commission regulatory or licensing actions.
The third criterion emphasizes participation - from _ . organizations; within the region encompassed by the worksnop. As much .as practicable, those organizations that primarily operate within the region, as opposed to regional units of national organizations, will have priority in terms of participating _in-the. corresponding.
regional workshops. Organizations with a national standing will be part'of the " national" workshop to be held in Washington, D.C.
Wherever possible, the staff plans to arrange the participation of individual organizations in- the workshops -through- national organizations such as the -Organization of Agreement States, and-the J
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD). 'There will also be some flexibility to later include organizations who'
-were not originally identified -in the staff survey of potential participants. In_ order to provide the public with information on the: types of-organizations that may eventually. participate in the- -
workshops, the Commission has provided the following summary--
o- ' State governments - The_ Organization of Agreement States and the- CRCPD are willing to coordinate the participation: of
- * *w -
10 individual states in the regional workshops. The NRC staff has also notified the National Governor's Association, the National-Conference of State Legislatures,-and.the National Association of Attorneys General of the upcoming workshops.
o Local governments - The NRC staff.has contacted the National
^
Association of Counties and the' county associations in-each.
state to identify potential local government participants.-
o Tribal governments -
The NRC staff has contacted three national tribal organizations -- Native Americans for a-Clean Environment, the-National Congress of American Indians, and
- the Council of Energy Resource Tribes -- in regard' to coordinating the participation of individual tribes in the regional workshops.
o' Citizens groups - The NRC staff has contacted several citizens groups at the national level ' in r3 gard to their ' general interest in participating in the national workshop. We have contacted the Sierra Club, the' Natural ~ Resources Defense Council, the Nuclear Information . Resource Service,' Public Citizen, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the League of- .
Women Voters, the National Audubon _ Society, the Union of .
concerned- Scientists, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
- In regard to local and regional citizens groups, the NRC staf f-
- y u n gy, y y, 4 y -..
g g ya +
. = . -. .
11 has had extensive discussions with the NRC regional personnel, state radiation protection control officials, and others, on potential citizen group participation at the regional level.
Based on these discussions, we have contacted a number of citizens groups about their potential interest in the enhanced participatory rulemaking.
o Nuclear utilities - The' Nuclear Management and Resources Council will coordinate the participation of (NUMARC) utilities in the workshops.
o Fuel cycle facilities - United States -Council on Energy Awareness (USCEA) and the Fuel Cycle Facilities Forum will-coordinate the participation of fuel cycle companies in the workshops. The NRC-staff has also contacted the National Organization of Test, Research,. and Training Reactors (TRTR) .
o Non-fuel cycle facilities - The staff has contacted a number.
of organizations in this . category about potential participation in the workshops,_ including- regional radioisotope users groups.- The USCEA Committee on Radionuclides and .Radiopharmaceuticals Will coordinate the.
participation of the members'of these and other non-fuel cycle entities in'the workshops. Participants will be: drawn from radiopharmaceutical manufacturers,- biomedical research radionuclide manufacturers, the medical profession, sealed
12 source manufacturers, and the university research community.
o Decommissioning contractors -
In order to ensure that information on decommissioning costs and :aethods are presented in the workshops, the NRC staff has contacted several of the companies that perform decommissioning work in regard to This category includes companies
~
workshop participation.
represented by the Brokers and Processors -Association, companies that perform large scale decommissioning work, and consultants with expertise on the costs of decommissioning.
Federal agencies - The NRC stc.ff has contacted several Federal-
~
o agencies about participation in the workshops. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), because of its
-expertise and responsibilities, will not only participate in the workshops, but also has been consulted by the NRC staf f on the development of the Rulemaking Issues Paper and will be consulted in the evaluation of the: workshop comments. EPA has been very supportive of the Commission's enhanced participatory rulemaking and has already provided the NRC staff with assistance on this effort.. EPA will be fully involved in the workshops and in providing comments to the NRC' staff on the.rulemaking issues. It-is anticipated that the EPA will" also later use the workshop commentary in the-development of its regulatory approach for the decommissioning of federal facilities. The Commission believes that this consultative approach with EPA will' be an ef ficient way to
. - . . - . . . . ... .. . .,ia.. i . .. ,,em .i
13 utilize federal. resources in developing an effective and consistent _ federal approach to decommissioning standards.
The NRC staff has also had several discussions with the Department of_ Energy (DOE) about the enhanced-participatory-rulemaking process and potential DOE participation - 11. the workshops. DOE has indicated a preliminary interest in participating in the national workshop. Althot3h the Commission's decommissioning standards will generally not:be directly to DOE facilities, DOE possesses substantial expertise in the decommissioning area that will be a useful source of information in the national workshop. The staff _ has also discussed the new- rulemaking initiative with _ several other federal agencies and~ interagency- coordinating committees. The NRC staff anticipates that federal agency participation will occur in the national workshop.
i o Professional societies - The NRC staff has contacted _the Health Physics Society, the American Nuclear _ Society, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in regard to their potential interest in participating in the national workshop.
p -- - !
14 Eorkshon Location. Schedule, and Format.-
4 l
The Commission intends to conduct the workshops on _ a regional basis. Although, there will be one national workshop in Washington D.C. for organizations with a national focus, the rest of-the workshops will be held at various-locations throughout the_ United States. The national workshop is not intended to be a summary of-the other workshops, and-the staff does not-intend _to give any greater weight to comments made-during that workshop that to any~ .
other workshop. The regional framework will allow the Commission to hear from as many knowledgeable organizations at the local level as possible. These local organizations will bring a unique ,
perspective to the discussion of the rulemaking issues,. and - the ,
regional workshops will also give the Commission an opportunity to j
~
interact with organizations with which it has not had such an ;
opportunity.
The existing NRC regional framework was -used to select the workshop locations, with slight _ adjustments made to accommodate areas with a heightened interest in decommissioning activities, as well as to maximize participation in the workshops. The dates for the workshops are tentative at this time because the exact' dates- ,
and meeting' locations will need to be coordinated with- the facilitator provided under the commission's workshop facilitation and logistical contract. Notification of the specific dates and- 1 meeting locations will be announced through publication in the Federal Register and letters to individual participants. The
~--
a schedule andl location of the_Lworkshopstis as follows - -
Location Date-San Francisco, CA September _29, 30, 1992L Boston, MA October-20,521, 1992.
Philadelphia, PA November 10, 11, 1992 Chicago',- IL _ December 1, 2, 1992l Dallas, TX January 5, 6,11993 Atlanta, GA- January-20, 21,-1993-Washington,2 D.C. February 16,.17,_1993 r
(National. Workshop)
L Each workshop will be of twoldays duration.- To' assure _that each.
L, workshop addresses the issues Lin a consistent manner, the workshops will have'a. common pre-defined scope and . agenda - focused' on :the -
Rulemaking Issues: Paper discussed _ below. - However, the workshop L
' format-will'be sufficiently flexible to allow for the-introduction of any_ additional. issues.that the participants may want to raise.
At each workshop, the NRC staff will begin each discussion period-
' ~ ,s
o l
16 with a brief overview of the rulemaking issues to be discussed and the remainder of the workshop will be devoted to a discussion of the issues by the participants. The workshop commentary will be transcribed and made available to participants and the public.
The workshops will-be facilitated by a neutral facilitator. The facilitator will chair the workshop sessions and ensure that participants are given an opportunity to express their viewpoints, assist participants in articulating their interests, ensure that participants are given the opportunity to question each other about their respective viewpoints, and assist in keeping the discussion moving at a pace that will allow all major issue areas to be addressed.
Rulemakina Issues Pacer. The Staff has prepared a Rulemaking _
Issues Paper to be used as a focal point for the workshop discussions. This paper, which will be distributed to participants in advance of the workshops, sets forth in neutral terms the issues that must be addressed in the rulemaking, as well as, background information on the nature and extent of the problem to be addressed. In framing the issues and approaches discussed in the Rulenaking Issues Paper, the staff has attempted to anticipate the variety of views that exist on these approaches and issues. The paper will provide assistance to the participants as they prepare for the workshops, suggest the workshop agenda, and set the level
. . . .. -- - . . . . . - - ~ - .. ..
l 17 of= technical discussion that can be expected _at the workshops.~The workshop discussions. are intended to ' be used by_ the staf f in-developing the draft proposed rule and_ prior;to the workshope'no -
staff positions will' be taken on - the rulemaking approaches f an'd issue's identified in the Rulemaking . _ Issues Paper. As noted earlier, to the. extent that the Rulemaking Issues Paper fails to identify a pertinent issue, this may be corrected at the workshop:
sessions.
The discussion of issues is divided-into two parts. trst are two primary issues dealing with:_ 1) _the objectives for developing radiological criteria; and 2) application of practicality.
considerations. The objectives constitute the fundamental' approach to the establishment of_ the _ radiological- criteria, and -the NRC staff has identified four distinct possibilities including:- 1)
Risk _ Limits, where a_ limiting value is' selected and criteria aro established below the limit using practicality considerations;/2)
Risk Goals, where a goal is . selected and practicality-considerations are used to establish criteria as close to the goal as practical; 3) -Best Effort,- -where the technology for decontamination considered to be the best.available is applied; and
~
'4) Return to Preexisting Background,-where the. decontamination would continue until the radiological conditions were the same as existed prior to'the-licensed activities.
Following the primary issues are.several secondary issues that are 2
. . - . . . . . ~ . _ _ . . __ , . , . . . . - . _- _ _ _ _ _ . . . - . . . _ .
m 4 ---A.a # 4&--3 -4C<h'J4Sp, 11 4Js 1-- 4'44=-eu s ie-4-K 2+AJ,+4,-#+# p 18 ,
related.to the discussions of the primary-issues,-.but which-were believed to warrant. separate presentations and discussions. - Those-
-include additional considerations such'as the time-frame for dose calculation, the individuals or groups to be protected, the_use of separate criteria for specific exposure pathways- such as groundwater, the treatment of _ radon', ^and 'the treatment' of-previously buried materials.
The Rulemaking Issues Paper will be -provided --to each' potential -
workshop participant. Copies will also be available from the NRC staff contact identified at the beginning of this ' Notice. In-i addition to the comments on the Rulemaking Issues Paper provided at the workshops, the Commission is also receptive to the-submittal of written comments on the rulemaking issues.
Dated at Rockville, MD this day of , 1992.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk,-
Secretary of the Commission.
= ENCLOSURE B- ,
July 14, .-l992 PROPOSED RULEMAKING TO ESTABLISH RADIOLOGICAL CPJTERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AT WORKSHOPS 1
July 14, 1992:
ENCLOSURE-B
SUMMARY
The Commission proposes to revise 10 CFR Part 20 to include radiological criteria for termination of licenses and release of land and str'uctures-for unrestricted use. The purpose of this issues paper is to-describe the <
background and issues that would be associated with a rulemaking toLestablish radiological criteria for decommissioning, and to focus discussions in a series of public workshops on rulemaking issues. The' format for each issue is arranged by first describing'_the general issue to be considered,.then ,
providing a background discussion of the issue with potentially-useful information for the workshop discussions. A list of sub-issues is _also- ,
provided.
The description of issues is divided into two parts. First are three primary issues dealing with: 1) _the ' objectives for developing radiological criteria; ' '
- 2) the application of practicality considerations; and 3) Agreement State:
standards. The objectives constitute the fundamental approach _to the establishment of'the radiological criteria, and the NRC staff has identified four distinct alternatives including: 1) Risk Limits, where a limiting.value-is selected and criteria are established below the limit using practica_lity considerations; 2) Risk Goals, where a goal is selected and practicality considerations are used to establish criteria as close to the-goal as-4 possible; 3) Best Effort, where the technology for decontamination' considered to be the best available is applied; and 4) Return to Preexisting Background, where the decontamination would continue until the radiological conditions.
. were the 'same as existed prior to the licensed activities.
Following the primary issues are several secondary issues that are related to -
~
the primary discussions, but which were believed to warrant separate presentations and discussions. These include additional considerations such as the time frame for dose calculation, the individuals or groups to be protected, the use of_ separate criteria for specific exposure pathways such as:
groundwater, the treatment of radon, and the treatment of previously buried materials.
2 4
ENCLOSURE B July '14, 1992-(
BACKGROUND 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, and to provide guidance to licensees on how to plan for and prepare their sites for decommissioning. Decommissioning, as defined by the NRC, means to remove nuclear facilities safely from service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license.
Once licensed activities have ceased, licensees are required to decommission their facilities so that their licenses can be terminated. This requires that radioactivity in land, groundwater, buildings, and equipment resulting from the licensed operation be reduced to levels that allow the property to be released for unrestricted use. Licensees must then demonstrate that all facilities have been properly decontaminated and that, except for any residual radiological contamination found to be acceptable to remain at the site, radioactive material has been transferred to authorized recipients.
Confirmatory surveys are conducted by NRC, where appropriate, to-verify that sites meet NRC radiological criteria for decommissioning.
There are currently about 24,000 licensees in the United States. About one third of these are NRC licensees, while the remainder are licensed by Agreement States acting under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, Section 274. These licensees include universities, medical institutions, radioactive source manufacturers, and companies that use radioisotopes for industrial purposes. About 50% of NRC's 7,500 materials licensees use either sealed radioactive sources or small amounts of short-lived radioactive materials.
Decommissioning of these facilities should be relatively simple since there is usually little or no residual radioactive contamination to be cleaned up and disposed of. Of the remaining 50%, a small number (e.g. radioactive source 3
I
July 14, 1992 ENCLOSURE B" manufacturers, radiopharmaceutical producers,.and radioactive ore processors) conduct operations-which could produce substantial radioactive contamination in portions 'of the facility.- The population of nuclear l fuel cycle facilities '
which will require decommissioning includes 112 nuclear power plants (at 75 ,
sites); 74 non-power (research and test) reactors; 14 fuel fabr_i cation plants, 2 uranium hexafluoride production plants,- and 9 independent-spent fuel storage installations. These facilities will have to be decontaminated before they can be safely released for unrestricted use.
The facilities listed in the NRC's Site Decommissioning Management- Plan (SDMP), discussed later in this issues paper, provide an illustration of how a facility or equipment might become contaminated through the use of radioactive material in forms which are not encapsulated to prevent the spread or-dispersal of material. Sealed sources, including items such as check sources, do not pose a contamination problem-unless the encapsulation:Is broken. When.
radioactive material in unsealed forms is used, such as in the nuclear fuel fabrication industry, in production of radiopharmaceutical medicines, or in' research the equipment used to process and handle the material- becomes contaminated by the small quantities of material that adhere- to surfaces of valves, piping, etc. If material is spilled, then the area of'the spill becomes contaminated.
Essentially _ everything which comes in contact with the radioactive material must be considered as contaminated and checked for the presence of residual radioactive material. Thus areas surrounding facilities could become contaminated by the movement of materials,Eequipment,-~and people into and out of the areas containing the radioactive material. NRC requires that-contamination control procedures be used to minimize or prevent the movement of radioactive materials into other areas. 'Nevertheless, some areas may_
become contaminated over.the course of time due to breakdowns in the control procedurds. Contamination may also be' spread by the movement of water or other fluids containing the radioactive materials through or along piping, equipment, walls, floors, sumps, drains, etc. In'some cases, this has 4
ENCLOSURE B July 14, 1992 l
resulted in significant quantities of radioactive material in the ground under or around buildings and facilities.
In addition to contamination, some licensed operations can produce radioactive materials through the process of activation. Examples'of such operations are nuclear reactors. These activated materials can also lead to the need to decontaminate or dispose of the radioactivity during decommissioning.
Several hundred NRC and Agreement State licenses are terminated each year.
The majority of these licenses involve limited operations, produce little or no radioactive contamination, and do not present complex decommissioning problems or potential risks to public health or the environment from residual contamination. 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. Thus both the number and complexity of facilities that will require decommissioning is expected to increase.
The NRC has a program underway to effect timely decommissioning of about 40 problem sites which either have not been decommissioned properly or have been engaged in the decommissioning process for an extended time. The Commission has established a Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) for effecting timely decommissioning of these problem facilities. Sites being handled under the SDMP vary in degree of radiologic hazard, cleanup complexity, and cost.
Some sites comprise hundreds of acres that require assessment fnr radiological contamination, whereas other sites have contamination known to be limited to individual buildings or discrete piles of tailings or contaminated soil.
Many sites involve active licenses, but some sites involve formerly licensed sites, or sites where the responsible party is unable or. unwilling to perform cleanup. These sites also vary in degree of completion of decommissioning'.
At some sit'es, little or no decontamination work has been done, whereas at -
other sites, decommissioning plans have been submitted or license termination is in the offing.
5 1
I
1 ENCLOSURE BL July 14,1992_
The effort to have these SDMP sites cleaned up and decomissioned has been-hampered in part because-licensees view' the absence of definitive--
decontamination criteria as an incentive to-defer decomissioning pending-
' issuance of formal NRC requirements. The General Accounting Office (GAO),
which has- been critical of the Commission's _ inability-to effect timely-decomissioning of these sites, has'recomended that NRC enhance its decommissioning efforts by reconsidering its. radiological criteria for decomissioning'.
Until new criteria are in_ place, tia Comission intends to proceed with decommissioning nuclear facilities on a-site-specific basis as the need arises using existing criteria. Since the SDMP sites _could pose unnecessary environmental and public risk or financial burden if they _are not cleaned up and decomissioned in a timely manner, the Comission's effort to effect.
timely decomissioning of these sites is proceeding in parallel-with this proposed rulemaking action. These sites will be decommissioned on a site-specific basis using existing criteria until new criteria are in place. -The:
NRC published an Action Plan to ensure timely remediation of sites listed in the SDMP in the Federal Reaister.2 It should be noted that as a matter of--
policy the NRC does not plan to require additional cleanup of sites in response to criteria. established in this rulemaking, provided that the licensee or responsible party cleaned up the site, or was in the process of.
cleaning up the site under an NRC-approved decomissioning plan at the time of promulgation.
Internationally, most efforts have been focussed upon derivation _of criteria for waste and recycle, using guidance published by the International' Atomic Energy Agency. Decommissioning criteria have generally been establishedion a case specific basis, and the NRC staff is not aware of other international-efforts similar to this' rulemaking to define radiological criteria for-
' .GA0 Report to Congress, "NRC's Decomissioning Procedures and Criteria Need to Be Strengthened", GA0/RCED-89-119, May 1989 2
57 FR 13389, April 16, 1992.
6 m , - - _ . -- . __
ENCLOSURE B l- July 14,1992 l
decommissioning. A summary of international activities is provided as Appendix A to this issues paper.
PERCEIVED NEED FOR RULEMAKING The Commission believes that there is a need to incorporate into its regulations radiological criteria for termination of licenses and release of land and structures for unrestricted use. The intent of such an action would be to provide a clear and consistent regulatory basis for determining the extent to which lands and structures must be decontaminated before a site can be decommissioned. The Commission believes that inclusion of criteria in the regulations would result in more efficient and consistent licensing actions related to the numerous and frequently complex site decontamination and decommissioning activities anticipated in the future. In addition, a rulemaking effort would also provide the public and interest groups an opportunity to reassess and comment on the basis for the residual surface contamination levels contained in' existing guidance in light of changes in 3
basic radiation protection standards and decommissioning experience obtained during the past 15 years.
Currer.t regulations do not explicitly address radiological criteria for decommissioning.' Pending NRC rulemaking on generic radiological criteria for decommissioning, the NRC continues to use its current criteria and practices.5 The NRC could continue to decommissior. on a site-specific basis 3 As codified in the May 21, 1991 revision of 10 CFR Part 20 [56 FR 23360)
' In June 1988 the Commission published a' final rule on General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (53 FR 24018, 27 June 1988). However, this rule did not specifically address radiological criteria for decommissioned sites.
5 Regulatory guidance, criteria, and practices include the fo' lowing with emphasis on contamination levels that are ALARA: " Disposal or On-site Storage of Thorium or Uranium from Past Operations" Branch Technical Position, October 23,1981, 46 FR 52061; " Termination of Byproduct, Source, and Special 7
July .'14,.1992 ENCLOSURE B i
using existing guidance. However, the Commission-believes that codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning in' the regulations would: (1)
. result in more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources;- (2) lead to_more consistent and uniform application across all types of licenses; (3) provide _ a more stable basis _ for decommissioning planning; and (4) eliminate protracted ;
delays in decommissioning which results as licensees wait for generic .l regulatory criteria before proceeding with decommissioning of their.
facilities.
The criteria would apply to the decommissioning of all types of NRC licensed facilities, including materials licensees, power reactors, non-power reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, fuel fabrication plants, uranium hexafluoride production plants, and independent spent fuel storage installations. They would apply to nuclear facilities that_ operate through their normal lifetime,-
as well as to those that may be shut down prematurely.
On July 3,1990, the Commission published in the Federal Feaf ster -its Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) Policy Statement.' This statement had been intended by the Commission as a policy _ framework for rulemakings of this type--
including radiological criteria for decommissioning. However, there was-considerable opposition to the Policy Statement, and the Commission has placed Nuclear Materials Licenses", Policy and Guidance _ Directive FC 83-23, November 4,1983; Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear-Reactors" Regulatory Guide 1.86, June 1974 ; letter to Stanford University from James R.-Miller, Chief, Standardization and Special Projects Branch, Division of Licensing,-
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Docket No. 50-141, April 21,1982;
" National Primary Drinking Water Standards," 40 CFR 141; " Radiation Dose-Guidelines for Protection Against Transuranium Elements Present in the.-
Environment as a Result of Unplanned Contamination," 42 FR 60956, November 30, 1977. Guidance is specified in terms of acceptable levels of residual contamination at decommissioned sites.
The criteria would not apply to the disposition of uranium mill tailings, low-level waste burial facilities, or high level waste repositories since these have already been addressed in separate regulatory actions.
7 55 FR 27522, July 3, 1990.
i 8
l
. - = ~ . +
? July ' 14, 1992 . -ENCLOSURE:B-an indefinite moratorium on implementation of its BRC holicy.
~
It is" emphasized.that_the Commission is now addressing decommissioning because of the need to resolve the issues described in this paper. Thus, the Commission determined that it should proceed with a. fresh approach that is independent of-the BRC Policy-Statement.
Simultaneous with the NRC rulemaking activity, the Environmental Protection.
Agency is preparing guidance to Federal Agencies in_ the' areas of public exposure and decommissioning. In keeping with a recent Memorandum of-Understanding between NRC and EPA, it is the objective _of both agencies to promulgate regulations and guidance in their respective areas of jurisdiction, and to do so in a manner which. both protects .the- public health and- safety _and the environment and minimizes duplication of effort. This rulemaking and the EPA development of guidance will be carried out in accordance with these objectives.
PROPOSED COMMISSION ACTIONS The normal pattern for.NRC rulemaking is the development of a proposed rule by the NRC staff 'for Commission consideration,-publication of the proposed rule -
for public comment, consideration of. the comments- by the NRC staff, and preparation of a final rule, as appropriate, for Commission approval.: The NRC staff plans to enhance participation in this process through a series of workshops for interested parties. The workshops'are planned to elicit' informed discussions of_ options and approaches, and'the rationale for-options and approaches. While these workshops'are not d'esigned to seek " consensus"-in the sense that there is agreement (or at least a lack of' disagreement) on the-issues, _the workshops are to be conducted at a very early. stage of rulemaking to enhance participation of interested parties and the public with the l
following objectives: a) to ensure that the relevant-issues have been l identified; b) to exchange information on these issues; and c) identify l underlying concerns and areas of disagreement,- and, where possible, approaches I for resolution. It is the Commission's hope that the interactions that will 9
. -, - --. - .. = . . .- -. -
f July 14,-19924 ' ENCLOSURE B
- take place among the participants in the workshop environment will foster a clearer understanding of the positions and concerns of the. participants.
The proposed rulemaking activities, if pursued, are expected .to result in =
publication of a proposed rule and a draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The Commission intends to publish a Notice of-Intent to prepare a GEIS for this rulemaking ' effort. Separate meetings will be held with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and organizations to discuss the scope of the GEIS. However, information,--comments, and
~
suggestions from the discussion of the issues in this paper would be taken into account by the NRC in preparing the GEIS. In addition, one or more Regulatory Guides would be published to provide licensees with guidance on how. -
licensees could demonstrate compliance with the regulation.
Supporting documents-.for this rulemaking effort include a " Guidance Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination" (NUREG/CR-5849) and a Technic.1 Basis Document, " Residual Radioactive Contamination from .
Decommissioning: Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual TEDE" (NUREG/CR-5512). The Guidance Manual for Conducting Radiological 4
Surveys is intended to provide licensees with specific guidance on planning, conducting, and documenting site surveys which could be used-to demonstrate that the site has been decontaminated to a. level consistent with the Commission's criteria. The Technical Basis Document is intended to provide an acceptable method for-translating residual radioactivity levels (measurable quantities) to doses to individuals.. Generic dose rate conversion factors are
~ being developed for screening.- In addition, the technical basis is expected to include a computer model which can be used for conducting a screening scenario / pathway analyses with site-specific parameters so that site-specific dose rate conversion-factors can be calculated. The NRC anticipates that in most cases =these dose rate conversion factors could'be used to determine compliance with criteria resulting from the rulemaking action.
Work on the :upporting documents is already underway, and drafts are available for information. However, these documents are not intended to constrain the; 10
ENCLOSURE B July 14,1992 approach taken by the Commission in developing radiological criteria.
Instead, they are intended to provide a technical underpinning which would be useful irrespective of the approach or the criteria finally adopted by the Commission. These documents will be revised as necessary to conform to the final criteria.
In addition to the activities directly supporting a rulemaking action on decommissioning criteria, the NRC has a number of other related activities in progress in the general area of decommissioning. These activities include: ,
(1) rulemaking to define the timeliness of decommissioning, (2) rulemaking to require licensees to list in one location all land, buildings, and equipment involved in licensed operations, and (3) assessment of some previous disposals of wastes under 10 CFR 20.304. These activities will not be specifically considered as part of the discussions on radiological criteria for decommissioning.
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Before the Commission formally proposes to proceed with rulemaking as described above, it is prepared to consider a wide range of alternative approaches, including maintaining the status gu_q. The basic question before the Commission is, "What level or levels of risk, dose, residual radioactivity, or other decommissioning criteria, would provide acceptable protection of health and safety and the environment?" The answer to this question must be reasonable and practical to implement and to enforce for the broad range of facilities which require decommissioning.
The Commission believes that the key issues and sub-issues discussed below are at the foundation of the basic question posed above. Therefore, the Commission solicits comments and information on these issues before proceeding with a proposed rulemaking. These issues, and other relevant and substantial issues identified by interested parties, will serve as the basis of discussion at a series of workshops. Workshop participants will be expected to present 11
. .-, . . . . .. - , . . ~ .
a
- July 14,.1992 - ENCLOSURE B the rationale for their-preferences Land positions ~in the workshop setting.
-The workshop discussions-will be:used by the NRC staff in developing a.
' proposed rule or, if considered appropriate, pursuing an alternative strategy-for decommissioning.
The discussion. of issues is divided into two' parts. First are three primary issues dealing with.the objectives for developing radiological criteria, the application of practicality considerations, and Agreement State standards.
Following.these issues are several secondary issues-that are related to the primary discussions, but which were believed to warrant. separate presentations
~
and discussions. The format of discussion for each issue is_ arranged.by first' describing the general issue to be considered, then providing a background discussion of the. issue with potentially useful information for_the workshop-discussions. A list' of sub-issues is also provided to focus the discussions.. -
It is important to recognize that the Commission does.not regulate-natural background or fallout from weapons or other sources beyond its authority.
Therefore, the following decommissioning' issues are to be considered as-they apply to radioactivity that is both attributable to licensed operations and' is.above background levels.
4 m
12 M k 1- rr$-We t-4 r.- y e-r, pie g uv W te
.- ~.. - . - - . .= - .- .. . .
' July 14,7 1992" -ENCLOSURE B' 4
t PRIMARY ISSUES FOR DISCUM10N Issue I:- What objective (s) should serve as the basis for establishing-
?
radiological criteria for decommissioning? ,
Discussioni There are four fundamental kinds of objectives that could serve as the
- r. tarting point for developing radiological criteria for decommissioning (i.e.,
release for unrestricted use). They are described briefly below.
- 1. RISK LIMITS--Establishment of limits above which the ' risks to th'e oublic are deemed unaccentable. ;The objective in this-case would be to find a limit above which risks would be unacceptable, and then establish additional criteria to further reduce exposures to 'evels below.the-unacceptable to the~ extent practical. With this objective, a site could -
be released for_ unrestricted use if there were reasonable assurance or demonstration that members of toe public would -not be exposed to an unacceptable risk from radioactivity remaining at the site.
In practical terms this-objective would mean that the radioactivity; remaining at the site must be below some upper liinit ' established by the NRC as representing the' boundary of unacceptable exposure to an individual or group of individuals. Below his upper limit, exposures would be further reduced to levels which are "As low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) taking into account. Various factors of practical implementation (cost versus benefit), and socioeconomic considerations.
(See Issue 2)
- 2. RISK GOAL--Establishment of risk coals below which the risks to the -
oublic are deemed trivial. This: objective would be to find a level of public and environmental risk below which risks are considered trivial, and then require decontamination to levels which are either below the-.
13-4
4 July 14,=1992 ENCLOSURE B .
goal, or as close to those. goals at practical. Using this objective, a site would be released for-unrestricted use if the radioactivityl remaining at the site were as close as practical _ to the goals selected.
If the decontamination goals were met or exceeded, then no further consideration of decontamination would be required.-
In practical terms, residual _ radioactivity levels greater than the corresponding risk goals would be accepted provided~ they are as close as reasonably achievable to the risk goals. If the levels of radioactivity were below the levels corresponding to the goals, then no -
decontamination would be required, regardless of feasibility.
- 3. BEST EFFORT -- Best effort emohashina use of- available technoloav. ,
The objective in this case would be to establish criteria representing what is achievable using-the "best" available technology. A site would be released for unrestricted use if the only residual radioactivity remaining at the site is'that material which'cannot be removed using~the best available technology. This objective is technologically driven.
Theoretically, it:could lead to removal of all radioactivity attributable to licensed activities or to an undefined level limited by:
the -efficiency of the technology. Cost can be a factar, but~is not ,
taken into consideration on the basis of cost versus benefit balancing.
- 4. RETURN'TO BACKGROUND LEVELS. This-objective would be to remove all radioactivity attributable to licensed activities. A site-would-be released foi unrestricted use only if all radioactivity attributable'.to.
licensed activity were removed. ; In the ideal case, cost is not taken into consideration.
l The following information is provided to aid discussion and is focused first on the-Risk Limits and Risk Goals objectives and ' secondly on tha Best Effort and the Return to Background objectives:
1 14
e ENCLOSURE-B4 July 14,1992' The fundamental principle underlying all NRC regulations and activities has- -l been that radiation doses to~ members of the public from licensed activities must be reduced to levels established as limits (Risk Limits objective).a The limits pose- the. boundary of unacceptable public risk regardless of the -
cost required-to achieve'such reduction, and should be furtherl reduced to levels which are as low as-reasonably achievable (ALARA). This_ principle'is articulated in 10 CFR Part 20, and the Commission currently uses this principle as the basis for. decommissioning nuclear facilities. For example, the typical ' practice in decontaminating an area is to remove contamination through sweeping, washing,_ chemical stripping, scabbling thin layers-of concrete, etc. The area is then surveyed and the results compared to the appropriate established criteria. If the area does not meet the criteria, then further steps are taken.to reduce the level of radioactivity remaining.
Once the levels are met, then further steps are considered to lower the remaining levels, but the decision to use these steps take into account- the costs of the step and the reduction that is anticipated. This principle is also the basis for certain actions by the Environmental- Protection Agency in the area of radiation protection, and is a fundamental principle outlined in both national and international recommendations.
In its recent recommendations-on radiation protection, the. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has' introduced the concept of a
" constraint" in establishing the appropriate level of protection .for any particular source of radiation exposure such as a decommissioned facility.'
. A constraint is.a selected level,' below the dose 11mit' (the dose. limit corresponds to an acceptable risk), to provide assurance that any given individual would not receive a dose in excess of the dose limit, even-if that individual- were to be exposed to several sources simultaneously. As described -
by the ICRP, the concept of: As low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) would ' be aAlthough NRC regulations are designed to limit risk, not all limits.in the regulations were established on'the basis of risk.
'Internationali Commission on Radiation Protection, ICRP Publication 60, November 1930.
15
July 14, 1992 ~ ENCLOSURE B
. applied after the constraint was met. This approach is similar to the approach already. utilized by the NRC in establishing criteria for effluents from nuclear power plants in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I .and by the Environmental Protection Agency in the generally applicable environmental standards such as 40 CFR Part 190 and in 40 CFR Part 61, the regulations implementing the Clean Air Act. EPA's Clean Air Act regulations, however, used a much lower risk limit (3 x 10 lifetime risk of fatal cancer) than ICRP, NRC, and its own previously promulgated 40 CFR Part 190.
The Risk Goals objective was recently applied by the Environmental Protection-Agency in the selection of values for radionuclides in drinking water. In its proposal, the EPA established maximum contaminant level acals- for radionuclide levels, then established maximum contaminant levels which were greater than the goals in recognizing factors such as availability of technology, costs to remove radionuclides, numbers of individuals involved, etc."
Several national and international agencies and organizations, including the NRC, have adopted or proposed numerical risk or dose levels for-public.
exposure from activities and practices involving radioactive materials. These .
risk _ levels may provide a basis for initiating a dialogue on numerical _ levels of risk or dose which would provide an acceptable basis for establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning. In addition, EPA has. established or proposed other risk objectives that should be considered. such as EPA standards related to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the
[
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)'and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA also known as "Superfund") which may need to:be considered in establishing criteria, For example, the EPA has established health based limits for numerous chemicals under RCRA. On May 20, 1992, (57 FR 21450) the_ EPA published a proposed i rulemaking on'the identification of hazardous waste which included, as an option, the use of multiples of these health based limits in determining the "This is an extreme' application of the risk goal principle, because the risk goal was legislatively set _ equal to zero. It is recognized that these goals may not be literally achievable.
16 i
i
~. ._ _ , , ._ _ _ , . . . , , . . . . , . , , .
ENCLOSURE B LJuly14,-1992i appropriate approach to management of the waste as hazardous-or other. solid waste.-
The Commission's current radiological criteria =for decommissioning, are stated.
in terms of acceptable levels of residual contamination and external: dose rates at one meter from contaminated surfaces. These criteria have been I
conservatively estimated, considering the most highly exposed population group
- of individuals, to result in potential doses ranging between 1 and several tens of millirem per year Total Effective Oose Equivalent (TEDE/y)--(exclusive of doses from radon and its daughter products).
The Clean Air Act and proposed EPA regulations provide practical examples of
' the application of this regulatory principle. Among other things, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA Administrator to set standards for emission of air-
-pollutants based on the best, adequately demonstrated, technological system, _
taking into account the' cost of achieving emission reduction, energy requirements, and any non-air, impacts on the quality of health.and the environment. Another section of the Clean Air Act permits the EPA Administrator, based on the .same considerations as-listed above, to -set standards based on a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination of these." The-EPA uses-several implementing-concepts in promulgating Clean Air Act regulations, including maximum achievable control technology (MACT), generally available control technologies t
(GACT), and best demonstrated technology (BOT), and each of these concepts f include considerations-of cost and others listed in the Clean Air Act.12 "Public Law 101-549 (104 STAT. 2399) November 15,1990,- (Clean Air Act of 1990, Sections-Ill and 112).
'2 For examples, see, Federal Reaister, Vol . 56, 64382, December 9, 1991,
" National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Perchloroethylene Emissions From Dry Cleaning Facilities,"
(Proposed Rule), -and Federal Reaister, Vol~. 55, 26953, June 29, 1990,
' " Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Volatile-Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions From the' Synthetic Organic-Chemical Manufacturing 4 Industry (SOCMI) Reactor Processes" (Proposed Rule),
r 17 i
r
}
,, - , , _ _ , _ , - - . - , - , . _ - - - , . . - ~ . _ - . -_. _ _ ~ , . _ _ ,_.
4 Auly 14,-1992: ENCLOSURE B-The Return to Background objective for clean-up of facilities has been applied particularly for-chemical- hazards which do not normally exist in nature, and -
the approach often taken is to-establish the clean-up_-objective at.zero contaminants. In situations where some type of background, or natural concentrations of chemicals already exist, such as contaminants in a groundwater aquifer, the objective is sometimes expressed in terms of non-degradation of the existing situation, meaning that no -additional materials
- should be present beyond those already existing.
l There may be some sites where the cost of meeting the selected criteria would
-be exorbitant. Consideration should be given to the ~ disposition of such sites. Such sites could be handled in a manner similar to the way the Commission deals with uranium mill tailings sites under the provisions of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, As Amended (UMTRCA).
Under the provisions of UMTRCA, mill tailings sites are partially decontaminated, stabilized, and-subject to requirements for restricted use and' long-term care and are not released for unrestricted use.
The NRC has several possible approaches to codifying radiological criteria for decommissioning. One approach .is to establish limits in terms of dose in the regulation and then provide listings of specific residual radioactivity levels fo'r different radionuclides _either as an' appendix to the regulation or. as a-Regulatory Guide. This is the approach 'of-10 CFR Part 20 for the dose limits, where the values in Appendix B of Part-20 serve as a method for demonstrating compliance with the dose limit, rather than being a limit- themselves.
Alternatively, the Commission could codify specific values for residual radioactivity for each radionuclide of. concern as part of the regulation. A Risk Goal could be codified in terms of a dose or a risk, or alternatively, as specified levels of radioactivity. - Similarly, if the chosen decommissioning objective were Best Effort, then the method of determining the appropriate technology could be codified or the technology _itself could be codified. For the Return to Natural Background objective, the method for determining background and accuracy of determinations could be the substance of the regulation or quantitative levels of radioactivity could be codified.
18
Y july'14'J1992
ENCLOSURE B iThe terms lof the:-regulation could-be important to the extent that they could affect the Comission's flexibility in applying the regulation.and also the-flexibility the licensees would have 'in demonstrating compliance. If objectives wereicodified in terms of specific measurable quantities such as
- concentrations of radioactive materials, neither the Comission nor the-licensees would have flexibility to take site specific factors into account when trying to demonstrate-compliance. However, if the objective were codified, individual licensees could conduct a site specific analyses to demonstrate to the Comission that their site would meet the objective with different residual radioactivity levels than those determined by the Commission based on a generic, conservative analysis.
Past experience has shown that changes to the regulations containing specific criteria are much more difficult to complete and require more resources than
-if the criteria are contained in.a Regulatory Guide. However, past experience has also shown that enforcement of specific, measured values is unambiguous, direct, and unencumbered by lengthy litigation.
Sub-issues:
- 1. At what numerical level would the regul_atory objective for decomissioning provide an acceptable basis for protection of the public-health and safety and the environment?
- a. If the Comission chooses- a-Risk Limit objective, should the Commission use the public dose limits in 10 CFR 20 (100 mrem /y) as the-limit on doses from residual radioactivity at decomissioned sites or establish separate constraints for decomissioning? If separate constraints are set, what should_be the basis for these constraints?
- b. If the Commission chooses a Risk Goal objective-as its basis for
- establishing criteria, on what basis should the goal be established?
Does the goal need to be feasible, or can it represent an _ ideal which may be unlikely or impossible to achieve?.
19
! July 14,L1992 i -
ENCLOSURE B'
- c. .IfLtheiCommission chooses a Best Effort objective as its basis for establishing criteria, what_ level of technological- availability should-
~
be used? How often should the applicable areas off technology be updated for this criteria? What criteria should govern the number of ~
L applications of the technology to achieve lower levels'of residual radioactivity, i.e., how would the point of diminishing returns be established? Recognizing that application of technology could result in widely varying levels of residual radioactivity, should an additional limit be placed on the level of residual: radioactivity? If_new technologies become available that are significantly more efficient' inL decontaminating a site, should these new technologies be applied to-previously decommissioned sites? If so, what criteria should require-the reopening of a site for decontamination?-
- d. If the Commission chooses the Return to Background objective as a basis for establishing criteria, how should background levels of radiation and radioactive material be established? For example,-should a single level be chosen for each naturally occurring radionuclide, or should the local level of background be used, or some other criterion?
How should the chosen approach, single or local level, be measured-and to.what accuracy?
- 2. What other alternatives should be considered as a general framework-for-establishing objectives? Should the Commission consider combinations of the fundamental objectives and if so, which combinations andion what basis?
- 3. What role should EPA initiatives play in setting objectives? For example, the1 EPA has proposed using a 10 lifetime risk of fatal cancer for members of the most highly exposed population group and-a general lifetime risk levt l on the order of 10 4 as a basis for National Emission Standards for Hazardous f,ir Pollutants." Are there other established or proposed risk
" 40 CFR Part 61, " National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Radionuclides." Final Rule and Notice of Consideration, 54 FR 51654, December 15, 1989 20 i
m.
July 14,1992 - ' ENCLOSURE B l objectives that should be considered,-such as EPA _ standards related to RCRA and CERCLA?
- 4. What consideration should be given to standards or objectives proposed or adopted by other groups (e.g. International- Atomic Energy Agency,1(IAEA))?
- 5. What-should be done in those cases where sites cannot easonably be decontaminated-to the point where they will meet the Commission's basic objective for decommissioning?
- 6. How prescriptive should the regulation on radiological criteria for decommissioning be? For example, should the-Commission codify the decommissioning objective (s) and provide details (e.g., residual radioactivity concentration, etc.) of.a method of compliance elsewhere, such as.in a Regulatory Guide, or should the regulation be more prescriptive?
Issue II. If the Commission were to adopt either the Risk I.imit objective or the Risk Goal objective in its radiological criteria for decommissioning rule, how shoJld practicality Cot,Siderations be applied?.
Discussion:
ALARA is an acronym for n low n reasonably achievabig and muns making every reasonable effort to reduce or maintain exposures to radiation as far.below.
established dose limits as is practical taking into account the state of
' technology, the economics of improvements in relation to the state of
-technology, the economics of improvement in relationship to the benefits to
-the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of nuclear-energy and licensed material in the public interest. This-covers a broad spectrum of actions and activities including cost-benefit analysis of procedures _ and proposals, availability and application of measurement technologies, and availability of disposal facilities. The same factors that have-been J
21
-July 14, 1992- _ ENCLOSURE B-_
traditionally used;in-radiation protection ( Risk: Limit objective based) are also the factors that would be used in determining _how-close practical criteria can be made to a- Risk Goal objective. Thus,-in the present context, the term ALARA can_be used to represent the cras_tical process (that is,' cost--
versus benefit evaluation process) of-reaching either the lowest acceptable risk below an Risk Limit or the lowest risk above a Risk Goal as discussed in-Issue I.
The employment of practicality considerations, including costs, availability .
of technology, etc., has been recognized as valid in a number of contexts,-
both in the-area of radiation protection and in the regulation of hazardous-chemicals and wastes. For example, in recorcendations approved by the President on Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal-Agencies for Occupational- Exposure, the concept of ALARA was specifically included."
Likewise, the EPA has acknowledged the validity of considering costs and benefits. in determining levels for regulation of chemicals in various arenas, as illustrated by the EPA response to a petition requesting revocation of-food additive regulations."
There are a variety of ways the principle of ALARA can be applied. In both the Risk Limit and Risk Goal objectives,- ALARA can be applied on a' case-by-case basis with a site-s acific analysis required for each site.
Alternatively, generic ALARA criteria could be established which would be applicable to all sites or to categories ~of sites.- This latter alternative is equivalent to combining both the Risk Limit.and the Risk- Goal. objectives.
Sub-issues:
- 1. Should the Commission require that ALARA be determined on a site -
specific basis for each site to be decommissioned? If not,.how should ALARA "52 FR 2822, January 27, 1987.
"56 FR 7750, February 25, 1991.
22
.l
- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - _. _._ _____J
l July 14, 1992 ENCLOSURE B be applied? Should the Commission establish generic ALARA criteria (i.e.,
Meeting the generic criteria would be considered ALARA for any site without need for further site specific cost versus benefit analysis.)? If generic ALARA criteria are used, should a single ALARA criterion be established for all sites, or should different ALARA criteria be established for different categories of sites or facilities. If ALARA criteria are established for different categories of sites, on what basis should the different categories be established?
- 2. Irrespective of whether ALARA is applied on a site-specific basis or generically, on what basis should the ALARA analysis rest? What level of review by the NRC staff should be required to evaluate this basis? For example, if a cost versus benefit analysis were to be used, what monetary value per averted collective dose (i.e. dollars / person-rem) should the Commission use as a basis for making the determination? How should the level of difficulty in measuring certain radionuclides in some circumstances be handled? How should the staff address societal and socioeconomic aspects of the ALARA analysis?
NOTE: IF THE COMMISSION AD0 PTS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT COMPATIBILITY NOT BE INCLUDED AS AN ISSUE FOR DISCUSSION IN THE WORKSHOPS, ISSU2 III WOULD BE DELETED AND THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE EJLEMAKING ISSUES PAPER:
The issue of compatibility has not been included as a topit. 1 discussion in the enhanced participatory rulemaking workshops because of the Commission's ongoing process to establish a general policy on compatibility. The Comission does not believe that it would be efficient to have two separate forums focussing on the same subject and believes that_-the ongoing process to establish the general policy on compatibiliti would be the more. appropriate forum to discuss all compatibility issues. In addition, parties will be afforded the opportunity to coment on compatibility. issues at the time of the publication of a proposed decomissioning rulemaking. This approach will allow parties to focus their comments upon the particular proposal, and will 23
July 14,.1992' ' ENCLOSURE B allow the workshops to focus upon the central technical issues and approaches to the radiological criteria for decomissioning.
Issue III: How should the Commission handle th'e issue of Agreement State compatibility when establishing radiological criteria for decommissioned sites?
Discussion: ,
Having uniform radiological criteria for decommissioning of nuclear. facilities throughout the United States would result in uniform levels of risk to the public and the environment from a decommissioned site regardless of where the site is located. Some believe that it would also facilitate decommissioning planning and establishment .of decommissioning funding requirements,:and eliminate any question concerning what radiological _ criteria should be used for decommissioning of nuclear power plants: located in Agreement States. This latter question arises from potential differences between the Commission's criteria for unrestricted release and independent criteria of Agreement' States. Others believe that requiring implementation of NRC developed radiological criteria for-decommissioned sites may affect the ability of state officials to effectively regulate programs within their: states in accordance with the wishes of state residents.
In addition to the strictly limited issue of. compatibility on radiological) criteria for decommissioning of- sites licensed underL the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Agreement States have additional responsibilities which could be-affected. In particular, States have responsibility for regulation of -
Naturally Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive Material _ (NARM), and criteria established for AEA material will likely be viewed as precedents for-dealing with NARM materials. Thus, for the States, the resolution of Issue III will be particularly critical.
24
July'14, 1992= ENCLOSURE B An additional responsibility of the States is the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, either as a part_ of a compact, or as an individual state.
The selection of criteria for decimmissioning has been perceived as having a nexus-to the low-level waste disposal issue because the numerical value of the criteria will influence the amounts and types of materials which must be disposed of as waste.
As currently constituted,- the Commission has 4 levels of compatibility.for regulations. The first icvel of compatibility is to require that an Agreement State adopt the NRC requirements without modification. The second level would require the Agreement State to adopt the regulation, but the State could-impose more stringent requirements if it chose to do so. The third level would no; require the Agreement State to adopt the requirement, but the State could do so at its option. Finally, the fourth level is reserved for those rules which are outside of the agreements with the States, such as requirements for power reactors. The Commission has, separate from this-rulemaking, initiated an examination of the compatibility issues.with the Agreement States. In December 1991, the Commission published notice in the Federal Reaister of this activity and solicited comments. -These comments, and the more general considerations related to compatibility, will be factored into any Commitsion decision.
Sub-issue-
- 1. Should the Commission make . radiological criteria for decommissioned sites a matter of strict Agreement State compatibility? Should the Commission allow individual' Agreement States to establish criteria different from NRC criteria for application within the state? - Should-the Commission allow individual Agreement States' to establish criteria different from NRC criteria-only if it is more stringent than the NRC criteria?
25 wusw. , ,-+.7 - e. %.-- .- + .-,e -
July 14,1992 ENCLOSURE B SECONDARY ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
-Secondary Issue A.: What additional considerations should be taken into account when establishing radiological criteria for decommissioning?
Discussion:
i In developing criteria, there is often a question of exactly who the standard is designed to protect. For example, the criteria may be established to protect a theoretical, maximally exposed individual, regardless of whether such an individual could actually exist. Alternatively, the criteria could be established on the basis of providing protection for more realistically exposed individuals, and could include consideration of a so called " critical group" which would be a small . number of individuals that are representative of that population likely to receive the greatest dose.- ' A " critical group" approach would often mean that it would be possible for.the exposure of some single individual to be greater than the average of the group, and therefore experience .a dose or risk in excess _.of the criteria.
Related to the question of the characteristics of the individual to,be protected is the question of whether protecting individuals-assures that the population, as a whole, that might be exposed is' adequately protected.
~
Various positions have been advanced on this subject,'with some indicating-that. protection of each individual automatically. assures- protection of the population as a whole, and others' indicating that additional criteria might be needed to protect the population. ..The: hypothesis usually used for the.
reaulation of radiation dose is a linear relationship between dose and risk, implying .that an increment of dose,. no matter how small, and no matter when delivered, will have an equal impact; This reasoning has been used to support the position, in some cases, that an additional criterion should be applied to the collective dose from a particular facility or source. On the other hand, each decommissioned facility can only expose a limited number of people.
26 ,
/_ - _
July 14, 1992 ENCLOSURE B i
in developing criteria for decommissioning, the definition of decommissioning, i.e. to reduce radioactive materials levels to a point where the site is :
suitable for unrestricted use, becomes important. The Commission believes that the meaning of unrestricted should follow directly from the dictionary f definitions. That is, once a site has been released, an individual or group could use the property and any structures on the property in any legally acceptable way they_ wished, including-renovating the structures for other purposes, excavation or other property modifications, and removal of materials from the site for use in other locations or for other purposes. Thus, when considering the appropriate criteria for unrestricted use, the Commission currently believes that consideration would also need-to be given to the-potential for reuse, recycling, or disposal of structures or materials remaining on the site.
An additional consideration in the selection of radiological criteria is the time frame over which the criteria should be applied. There have been a i number of'different values suggested and used in various standards of the NRC and EPA, ranging from 100 years to over 10,000 years, for radionuclides with relatively short half-lives, decay negates the need for evaluations in the. !
distant future. However, for long-lived radionuclides, and particularly for chains of radionuclides where daughter products will gradually increase until equilibrium is reached (e.g., uranium and thorium), the time frame for considerations is- potentially important. Time periods are also important when :
certain pathways, such as a groundwater pathway, are considered, since the movement of radionuclides through the pathway may be very slow under certain circumstances.
1 .. 1 1 Sub-issues:
- l. Should the Commission base its considerations on a theoretical, maxime11y exposed individual, or upon some type of " critical group" approach?
l- -i i- What endpoint (s), such as-cancer fatalities or cancer incidence, genetic-1 effects, etc., should be used in establishing the radiological criteria?
l 1
27 h ,
r l - , _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . . _ , .
July 14, 1992 D! CLOSURE B
- 2. Should the Commission include consideration of an exposed population in
-addition to providing criteria for individuals? If so, how should this influence the criteria?
- 3. Should the Commission consider the potential, after release for unrestricted use, for reuse of building structures and the removal of soil from a site.in determining the appropriate criteria? If_so, how should these factors be included? Should the removal of materials lead to a different standard than if materials were to remain on the site? If so, what is the ~
rationale or basis? Should consideration be given- to consistency or linkage' with waste disposal regulations, particularly in situations where large -
quantities of material may require removal during the decommissioning process?
- 4. How far into the future should calculations be carried out when making estimates and determining the applicability of criteria? Should the Commission place a maximum value on the time frame to be considered, or should the criteria be applicable irrespective of time as which a maximum exposure could occur? For low levels of radioactivity should other changes in the environment, such as global warming and ice age cycles, geologic changes, etc., be factored into considerations of the applicability of the criteria?
Secondary issue B.: IftheobjectivetheCommissionadoptsiseithertheRisk Limit or the Risk Goal, how should the regulation be structured with respect to exposure pathways? Should the rule apply comprehensively to all major pathways (routes) of exposure to the public or should the rule have criteria to Ilmit specific exposure pattiways, such as radionuclides in groundwater?-
Discussion:
This issue arises because, over long periods of time residual radioactivity-from decommissioned sites could contaminate groundwater that would later be used for drinking or irrigation. Furthermore, groundwater could be 28
= =__
.i
_.-u_m:mu_n_u_mm.s.w__s_m.m__-m_u_ .m 3_-u__.m._m- _m__ ..a.___
ENCLOSURE B July 14, 1992 contaminated from more than one decommissioned site if another site were i nearby. The Environmental Protection Agency has established limits for '
1 radioactivity in drinking water ' and, under the authority of RCRA and CERCLA, applies these limits to most potable ground water, but there are no Federal standards for onsite groundwater contamination at decommissioned ,
facilities.
In 10 CFR Part 20, the Commission has adopted the International Commission on j Radiation Protection (ICRP) recommendations to account for doses from al1~
pathways in one term. The Commission combines the doses from external exposures, ingestion and inhalation into the term, " Total Effective Dose ,
Equivalent" (TEDE). That is, there is an internationally recognized methodology for weighing the doses and combining them into a single number, TEDE, that enables comparison of doses regardless of the pathway of exposure---
external, ingestion or inhalation.'I Conceptually, the NRC could establish an overall limit or goal for a site, and allow the contribution (dose or risk) from each pathway of exposure (e.g, air, water, direct radiation, food) to vary so long as the total remained consistent with the overall-limit or goal. Alternatively, a secondary limit or goal in addition to the overall criterion could be established to limit the extent to which a particular pathway could contribute to the total.. A third possibility is that separate. criteria could be established for each particular exposure pathway, independent from each'of the other pathways. ,
40 CFR Part 141. EPA regulations are applied-to public water systems and not individual users. For beta and/or gamma emitters the dose to the whole body or an organ is limited to 4 mrem /y, While for alpha emitters Maximum Contaminant Levels are set in terms of pCi/1 and exclude radon ~and uranium. The EPA has published a proposed revision of these regulations, expressed in terms of effective dose equivalent (see 56 FR 33050).
For example, the technical basis document translating-radioactivity in theenvironmentto-dose (PROPOSEDCOMMISSIONACTIONSsectionabove,p.9) accounts for radiation doses from major sources originating in soil, air, and water and combines the-respective pathway doses into a conversion factor for TEDE.
29
_ - _ . _ . ~ _ .
July 14, 1992 ENCLOSURE B If a separate limit or goal were chosen for groundwater, then details of the method for estimating doses or risk due to water use at future times after decommissioning would be required. One method could be to establish Generic Site Inventory levels", as a screening criterion based upon an analysis for a generic site. The reasoning would be that residual radioactivity from sites meeting these generic screening levels would not be expected to contaminate drinking water supplies in excess of EPA standards under_any reasonably foreseeable circumstances regardless of the type of facility, or size, location, or hydrogeologic- features of the site. Such an approach would also need to consider the possibility that building structures remaining onsite at the time of unrestricted release could be demolished and become part of the overall site inventory available to the groundwater. It:is noted that Generic-i Site Inventory Levels that provide a reasonable margin of safety for all sites are likely be extremely restrictive and thus impractical for some sites.
Potential impracticality could be addressed by providing licensees who ,
demonstrate that Generic Site Inventory Levels are unnecessarily restrictive for their particular site with the option of conducting a site specific analysis to project compliance with EPA drinking water standards. <
Sub-issues: ;
What consideration should be given to the potential for cumulative 1.
drinking water contamination from two or more decommissioned sites in'the same general area?
- 2. If specific exposure pathway criteria were chosen, which pathways should have specific criteria and on what basis should these criteria be established?
is A Generic Site Inventory Level would be total amount of radioactive material- from the licensed operation which could be-left at a decommissioned site without having to conduct a site specific analysis to determine whether allowing this radioactive material to remain-at the site might result in-contamination of drinking water supplies in excess of EPA standards.
30 l
u,, . ._ - _ _a. _. _,. _ _ _ . _ ._._ ;.- _ . _ _ _ .
July 14,1992_ _ ENCLOSURE B
- 3. If the Commission chooses specific criteria for groundwater or water i use, should it establish Generic Site Inventory Levels for screening residual !
radioactivity at decommissioned sites in order to provide reasonable assurance that EPA drinking water standards will not be exceeded? If so, should a .
single Generic Site Inventory Level be established for all sites, or should levels be tailored to specific class of decommissioned sites (e.g., all 1 nuclear power plant sites)? If so, on what basis should sites be categorized?--
Alternatively, should the Commission require that a site specific- assessment of drinking water contamination potential be carried out for each site or a combination of the above?
'I Secondary Issue C.: For sites where uranium, radium or thorium contamination may have resulted fron Ilcensed activities, how should exposures from radon
( WRn and M Rn) and its decay products be considered when the facility is decommissioned?
Discussion: -i F
Small quantities of uranium, radium and thorium are present- in all soil types -
throughout the United States.- These naturally occurring materials are responsible for part of the natural background radiation exposure to. members of the public, and are precursors for_ radon gas--the single greatest ,
contributor to natural-background exposures. Because radium occurs naturally in the environment, accurate determinations of doses from radon.resulting from licensed operations can be very difficult. First, radium from . licensed operations contaminating building structures _will produce _ radon within the structure.- This radon will.'be in addition to radon _ pres'ent due to-naturally - -
occurring radium within'or under the building. Radon concentrationsifrom natural sources in buildings are known to be variable, and may be subject to variations due to factors such as building ventilation, weather, etc. ,
secondly, a fraction of the radium in the soil of the site could be from licensed operations and could contribute to indoor radon levels of any:
building later constructed on the site. The correlation between soil-31 a _, . . _ . , . _ __m __ _ , . . _ . . . ,_ _,_ _ _ , _ _ . ..
i EliCLOSURE B July 14, 1992 concentrations of uranium, radium or thorium have been shown to be not well correlated with the eventual levels of radon within a building. Given the above factors, approximate estimates of the amounts of uranium and thorium and their decay products (including radium) on site as a result of licensed operations might be made by taking direct measurements at a site in conjunction with offsite measurements to establish background levels.
However, the estimation of indoor radon concentrations attributable to licensed operations for the present and future structures appears elusive."
Based on information available to the NRC, there appears to be no practical way, using current technology, to distinguish between small amounts of radon from licensed operations and that radon resulting from natural background.
This inability appears to be due to (1) the natural background levels of-radium in rocks and soils and the resulting concentrations of radon, (2) the variability of doses at a given site from naturally occurring radon,
and (3) the difficulty in correlating indoor radon levels with the concentrations of radon in the soil outside the structures.tr There are some
" Radon may also be a problem for a licensee that has never possessed materials containing uranium or thorium if they are located-in an area of .
elevated natural radon levels. In these cases an individual in the structure could receive doses in excess of the criteria for decommissioning from sources outside the original responsibility of the licensee.
"O Soil radium concentrations in the U.S. average about 1.5 pCi/g. The average indoor radon concentration is about 1.5 Pci/1 which produces an estimated dose to a resident (assuming 75% occupancy) of about 150 mrem /y.
EPA Radon Reference Manual EPA 520/1-87-20, September,1987, pp.3-5 and 7-2.-
21 The transport of radon'through the environment is subject to considerable uncertainty and variability. In the case'of indoor radon, variables such.as highly localized geology, structural features, and changing-weather, among others, combine to make accurate prediction of doses very difficult.
22 As is the case for transport of radon through the environment, there are considerable uncertainties in the modeling of the movement of radon into a structure and the concentrations of radon that will exist at any given time.
Numerous studies have shown that seemingly identical structures in similar environments can nevertheless have considerably different radon concentrations.
32 NW7 rd - MTPNt'4 .9-----e-W 1 -e6'r- dat'vy - - - - *pem*c-. eer yev 9. gg.=yy'g+- m w 3- w-9-n.#ag- eam99y 9 9 iy <q- y- --e,q m'v v ve re yw w y-yy-p yy-+,w-v-+ + - gewwg
July 14, 1992 ENCLOSURE B who believe it may be virtually impossible to demonstrate that doses from radon which result from licensed operations have been reduced to levels much below the EPA suggested action level of 4 pCi/1 for indoor radon.23 Sub-issues:
- 1. For sites where licensed activities have involved uranium, thorium, or other materials which decay to radon, are there oracticalind reliable ways to distinguish between radon and its daughter products attributable to residual.
radioactivity from licensed operations at a site and that radon attributable to natural background? Are there methods for estimating such doses with reasonable assurance using modelling techniques, direct measurements,'or some combination of the two? At what dose levels can these distinctions be made?
- 2. If there is no way of distinguishing doses from radon resulting from--
licensed operations at levels well below the 100 mrem annual limit for public doses (10CFRPart 20.1301), what alternatives-would be considered acceptable?
For example, would it be acceptable to require the licensee to demonstrate-the site had been cleaned _up to levels approaching ambient background levels measured at nearby representative sites or_ buildings? Would this alternative be acceptable even when these background levels would. result-in doses which-are a large fraction of, or even exceed 10 CFR Part 20 limits for the public (100 mrem /y)?
- 3. Should the Commission consider criteria similar to _ existing EPA:
guidelines and standards even though these doses may be higher than the public dose limits in the revised 10lCFR Part 20 (100 mrem /y)? .. Alternatively, should-the Commission require licensees to reduce doses from radon and its daughter as The level' at which' EPA suggests action' be taken to' reduce radon concentrations-in homes. See " A Citizen's Guide to Radon - What It Is and What to do About It," EPA-86-0004, Office of Air and Radiation;-U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; Centers for Disease Control,.-1986.
33 .
__ ._ _ . . _ ._ _ _ _. ___ . . . ~ _ . .. . - _. _ _
ENCLOSURE B July 14, 1992 products as far below the EPA standard as reasonably achievable? How would compliance with such a requirement be judged (see Issue II)?
- 4. How should the Commission handle radon exposures in excess of EPA guidelines in facilities.of licensees that have never possessed uranium, radium, or thorium materials?
Secondary Issue D.: How should the Commission regard materials previously buried on-site under disposal provisions in 10 CFR Part 20 in the context of decommissioning?
Discussion:
Under certain conditions, licensees may dispose of radioactive wastes by burial on their own property. Before 1981, NRC regulations _.(10 CFR 20.304) allowed disposal,- without prior approval, of limited quantities of specified nuclides under prescribed conditions. On July 28,-1981, 10 CFR 20.304~was revo' ed. However, onsite disposal can still be undertaken by ' individual-licensees under 10_ CFR 20.302, provided the disposal _is specifically approved by the NRC or an' Agreement State.
NRC requirements in 10 CFR 20.302 and 20.2002 allow licensees to request specific approval to dispose 'of licensed radioactive material-in a manner not otherwise authorized by the regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR-20,2002, any such request must be accompanied by specific data and analyses necessary for the staff to determine whether such disposal would.have an adverse effect on the- health and safety.of the public or the environment. The radioactive material involved in-the requests is generally very low activity waste contained in large volumes of material, such as sludge from sanitary sewers and storm drains, soils contaminated by spills and leaks, and dredged material.-
from discharge-canals and settling ponds.
L 34 l
j.
L w, , , - , .
- ,- - i-,-- . - . - . ,, -. ..a. -..
-9 ENCLOSURELB !
July' 14, 1992 4
The requirements in 10.CFR Part 20 do not explicitly limit the quantity or concentration'of the radioactive material. Past practices Iave limited ;
approvals to small concentrations of radioactive material and correspondingly low to very' low potentici doses to members of the public.and the environment.
Maximum potential doses have generally been less than a few millirem per year. .
f Sub-issues:
- 1. When preparing their sites for decommissioning, shculd licensees be required to consider radioactive ma+erials disposed of on-site in accordance with provisions of NRC or Agreement State regulations as residual radioactivity to be removed fro.n the site before decommissioning?
- 2. Should a site specific analysis of the risks, costs, and benefits will-be performed before a decision is made to exhume any material previously.
disposed of at a site?-
35 p
< i
July 14, 1992 ENCLOSURE B 8PPENDIX A INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES The NRC staff was' requested by the Commission to provide information on standards that are being used by other countries for decommissioning nuclear ,
facilities. A summary of the staff's investigation follows:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appears to hold the lead in the ,
development of a generic methodology for_ estimating the dose to an average individual in a critically exposed group using lands and structures after decommissioning. Based on the experience of NRC staff who are consultants .or ,
advisors to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the current international practice is to derive decommissioning criteria on a case-by-case ,
basis with the guidance of the IAEA Safety Series No. 89, " Principles for the Exemption of Radiation Sources and Practices from Regulatory Control" kept in mind. The IAEA guidance is risk-based and uses exposure to natural background as a reference level. It concludes that the level of trivial individual effective dose equivalent would be on the order of some 10's of pSv (a few mrem] per year, however in consideration of multiple sources-of exposure _the -
recommendation is'10 pSv (1 mrem] in a year from.each exempt practice. The IAEA's examples of practices did not include'the unrestricted use of' lands-and structures after decommissioning but did include consumer' products, waste, and recycle--reuse of materials.
During November 1990, the IAEA convened a group of consultants, including a NRC staff member, to develop a draf t Technical Report entitled, " Criteria for .
Unrestricted Release of Facilities, sites or Materials from Decommissioning."
~
That work is on hold pending the' completion of the technical basis and-7 methodology being_ developed for the publication of NUREG/CR-5512, " Residual' Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning: Technical Basis for t Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Dose." A separate IAEA consultants meeting in November 1991, included another NRC staff member and I
produced a draft document, " National Policies and Regulations for 36 r i
-wmw~~-=-, n.-,an y -y-mn--m,,,,_4-_,, [_.,,,,_,,,q _,
-July 14, 1992. ENCLOSl9E B Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities." This latter document is early in its' development and will. require further work before it is suitable for-distribution as a draft.
Internationally, the recent regulatory focus has been on waste add recycle--
reuse. The criterion is typically set at 10 pSv-[1 mrem) per year based on the IAEA Safety Series No. 89 guidance. An IAEA advisory group, including an NRC staff member, is-currently developing a draft document, " Exemption From Regulatory Control Recommended Unconditional Exempt Levels For Solid Radioactive Materials." This document is also in an early' stage of development and is not ripe for general distribution as a draft. -This work relates to decommissioning criteria to the extent that materials left on site after decommissioning, at some subsequent time, may be freely disposed or recycled or reused without restriction.
i 6
h I
37 e #- + , . ^ 4-,. ,.-..,=-wy,. ~ , e , , - 3 9
-.c-,,v' 4
DiCLOSURE C DRAFT LETTER OF INVITATION
Dear :
A few weeks-ago I wrote to you concerning the commission's intent to initiate a rulemaking to establish the radiological criteria for the decommissioning of NRC-licensed facilities. In order to enhance this rulemaking, the NRC staff plans to conduct a series of workshops during which invited participants, representing a variety of points of view, will inform the staff of their positions on the relevant issues. These workshops will be scheduled for approximately two days . and include some preliminary background presentations, opportunities for statements on the issues by participants, and opportunities for questions by the participants of one another. It is not the intention of these workshops that '
any consensus or agreements should be reached.
The commission has'recently approved the final plan for conducting the workshops and it my pleasure to formally invite you to participate in the (national / regional) workshop to be held in (location) on (date). At this time, we can only provide tentative dates for the workshops because the exact dates and meeting locations will need to be coordinated with the commission's contract to facilitate the workshops, which is not yet in place.
Notification of the specific dates and meeting locations will be -
announced in Aug9.st 1992 through publication in the Federal Register and letters to individual participants.
I have enclosed a Federal Register Notice that provides further information on the objectives and format of the workshops. I have also enclosed the Rulemaking Issues paper which will provide a focus for the discussion at - the workshops. It is extremely important that each participant come to the workshop prepared to discuss the full range of issues and approaches described in the Rulemaking Issues Paper.
The Commission has set aside a small amount of funds to defray transportation and lodging expenses for invited participants who could not otherwise participate in the workshops without . such assistance. Please note that the-Commission's decision to make funds available for this purpose is unique to the workshops associated with this particular rulemaking. - The Commission is offering to assist with travel expenses because_of the importance of ensuring effective participation. in this first attempt to implement an extensive and comprehensive participatory process.
Reimbursement will be limited to expenses for the transportation and lodging of one participant from an invitee's organization and will be provided in accordence with federal travel regulations, t
g - . . - e+- w - - 7 y- , ,-- ,- , ,.,m,- r rm,-- -n r-,-- em,--
The maximum that would be available to any participant would be
$600.00 and preference will be given to non-profit organizations in the disbursement of these travel funds. The total pool for travel reimbursement is limited and I would ask that you scrupulously consider any decision to request travel assistance because it may deprive other participants of necessary assistance. If you do need assistance with travel expenses in order to participate in the workshop, please submit a letter of self-certification stating that you could not otherwise participate in the workshop if Commission assistance is not provided, along with an estimate of the amount of funds necessary.
I hope you will give the invitation to participate in the workshop serious consideration. Please inform me by September 1, 1992 of your decision on whether to participato in the workshop. I can be reached at 301-504-1642. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide you with any further information. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely, Francis X. Cameron Special Counsel for Public Liaison and Waste Hanagement office of the General Counsel
/
ENCLOSURE D POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS STATES organization of Agreement States Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors National conference of State Legislature National Association of Attorney General National Governors Association Western Governors Association i IRIBAL GoVERRMENT Native Americans for a clean Environment National Congress of American Indians-Council of Energy Resource Tribes LOCAL GOVERNMENT National Association of Counties State Associations of Counties Cayuhoga County Board of Health Cleveland, OH Stephens County Colville, WA Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board Cortland County Health Department Cortland, NY Allegany soil and Water Conservation Agricultural Services. Center Belmont, NY Orange County, CA CITIZENS GROUPS League of Women Voters Washington, D.C.
National Audubon Society Washington, D.C.
Lone Star Sierra Club Austin, TX Floridians for Safe Energy.
Miami, FL Environmental Defense Fund Bouldur, CO Physicians for Social Responsibility Washington, D.C.
Natural Resources Defense Council Washington, D.C.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group Washington, D.C.
Public Citizen, Washington, D.C.
2 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power ,
State College, PA Nuclear Information Resource Service Washington, D.C.
Pennsylvania Sierra Club Harrisburg, PA :
Carolina Environmental Study Group Charlotte, NC ,
Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes-Hamburg, NY sierra Club Highland Heights, OH New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Brattleboro, VT Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Hentor, OH Great Lakes Energy Alliance ,
Midland, MI Clamshell Alliance Portsmouth, NH Citizens Association for Sound Energy Dallas, TX Business and Professional People for the Public Interest Chicago, IL ;
Hanford Education Action League Spokane, WA North West Environmental League Portland, OR Committee to Bridge the Gap Los Angeles, CA ,
Redwood Alliance Arcata, CA' Illinois Environmental Council Forest Park, IL
- Southwest Research and Information-Center Albequerque, NM Heart of America Northwest Seattle, WA '
Citizens Utility Board Springfield, IL Nuclear Energy Information Services Evanston,.IL Georgians against Nuclear Energy Decatur, GA Greenpeace Action i Altanta, GA .
citizens within the Ten Mile Zone Newburyport, MA Montclair Radon Task Force l
Montclair, NJ /
I v 7 7y> y'- 5 w T 4 -
- W q r v+.
i 3
Land.and Water Fund of the Rockies e Boulder, CO UTILITIES NUMARC TUEL CYCLE USCEA .
ruel cycle _racilities Forum National organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors NON FUEL CYCLE USCEA COMPANIES THAT PERFORM DECOMMISS10ftING WORK Quadrex, SEG, Chem Huclear, TLG Associates, N.2 clear Energy Services FEDERAL AGENCIES EPA !
DOD "
DOE CIRRPC EPA Federal Agency Round Table PRorESSIONAL SOCIETIES American Nuclear Society Health Physics Society .[
American Society.of Mechanical Engineers f
1 I
'sn.,
,. _. . . . . . , - - , , _ .- - - . . - . . - . , _ . - . . . , _ ,. , . . , . . , . , J ., ,
ENCLOSURE E - PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT [
6 NRC APPROVES PLANS FOR RULEMAKING ON :
RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved plans developed by its staff for an enhanced participatory rulemaking on radiological criteria for decommissioning NRC-licensed nuclear facilities.
For this rulemaking, the staff first will conduct a_ series of workshops to solicit comments from affected interests on the-fundamental approaches and issues that must be addressed in establishing the radiological critoria for decommissioning._ In addition to the participants, the workshops will be open to observation by members of the public who will be provided opportunities to comment on the rulemaking issues and the workshop discussions.
. - The workshops are-intended to foster a clearer understanding of the positions and concerns of the affected interests as_well as to identify areas of agreement and disagreement on the issues.
- However, the purpose of the workshops-is not to arrive at a' consensus agreement on the issues. . At>the conclusion of the
_ process, the NRC staff, on-the-basis of the workshop discussions
! and the public comments received, will prepare a draft proposed-rule for commission consideration.
Workshops, planned =for.the fall 1992-winter 1993 time frame,.
will be held in San _ Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago,-
Dallas and_ Atlanta,-to permit participation by as many knowledgeable organizations at the local level as possible and to permit interaction with-organizations that the.NRC'has not had y *g- '
-wy-yrpl-y T$ ww= 'gp y w e'~79i y ys-n- ir g- a *qp- =v-r-t 3-M- e -- y-y'v
- yy--- e.. w- - - -
much interaction with in the past. A final workshop also will be held in Washington, D.C., to obtain viewpoints of organizations with a national focus. The workshops will be facilitated by a neutral facilitator.
Invitations to the workshops will be extended by the staff to organizations, primarily, and possibly some individuals local representing eight general interests--state governments, governments, tribal governments, federal agencies, citizens groups, nuclear utilities, fuel cycle facilities and non-fuel cycle facilities--in addition to the contracting industry hich performs decommissioning work and professional societies.
Participants will be selected keeping in mind their experience with a broad range of radiation protection issues and types of nuclear facilities, specific experience with the decommissioning issue and the extent of previous substantive comment and participation in previous Commission regulatory actions, as well as their ability to knowledgeably discuss the full range of issues involved in the rulemaking process.
Workshop discussions will focus on two primary issues--the objectives for developing radiological criteria and the application of practicality considerations.
Four possible objectives have been developed by the staff l
for discussion--risk limits, where a limiting value is selected and criteria are established below the. limit using practicality considerations; risk goals, where a goal is selected and practicality considerations are used to establish criteria as close to the goal as possible; best effort, where the technology
)
.. -.. . _ _ .. . ..-_.- .__ . . .= . .. _ . . _ _ . _ __ __ . _ . _ _ _ . . . . . _
for decontamination considered to be the best is applied; and return to preexisting-background, where the decontamination would continue until the radiological conditions were the.same as existed prior to the licensed activities. F
- In addition to the primary issues, several secondary issues will be presented and discussed--the time frame for dose calculation; the individuals or groups to be protected; the use of separate criteria for specific exposure pathways such as groundwater; the treatment of radon; and the treatment of previously-buried materials.
9 -- +- + g = <w-+ +- +r vm ei w .. --- , , , , - , , e , , - w re-m w , --w-r
ENCLOSURE F CONGRESSIONAL LETTER Dear Enclosed is a copy of a Federal Recister Notice announcing the Commission's intent to initiate a rulemaking to establish the radiological criteria for the decommissioning of NRC-licensed facilities. In order to enhance this rulemaking, the NRC staff plans to conduct a series of workshops - during which invited participants, representing a variety of points of view, will inform the staff of their positions on the relevant -issues. - These workshops will be scheduled for approximately two days and include some preliminary background presentations, opportunities for statements on the issues by participants, and opportunities for questions by the participants of one another.
The workshops will be public, and attendees who are not invited to participate as indicated above, will be provided with ample opportunity to state their positions and questions. This arrangement has been selected in order to gain both general participation and an effective interactive process. The workshops will be transcribed by a court reporter and used by HRC staff when, subsequent to the workshops, they formulate a draft rule for consideration by the Commission. The eventual proposed rule will be subject to all of the notice and comment opportunities ordinarily provided in rulemaking procedures.
Although no draf t rule will be developed previous to the workshops, the NRC staff has produced an issues paper to_be used as a focal point for the workshop discussions. This paper, which will be distributed in advance of ;he workshops, will set forth, in
" neutral" terms, background information, and issues that should be-
- addressed in the rule.
The workshops will be f acilitated by a professional f acilitator and will be located in the NRC's regions. There will also be a-
" national" workshop in the Washington, DC area for organizations that are national in scope so that the regional workshops can be devoted to participation by regional organizations.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun e Director office of Congressional-Affairs