ML20127J914

Informs That Commission Has Agreed That Issue Should Be Added to Rulemaking Issues Paper Included in SECY-92-249 Which Would Discuss Exceptional Cases in Which Release of Site for Unrestricted Use May Not Be Practical or Feasible

ML20127J914
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/09/1992
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20127J905	List: ML20127J904 ML20127J914
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9211200038
Download: ML20127J914 (24)

Text

a %, .

1. a UNITED STATES

o

b ,

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 3g c. - t

.: hp..Ox .. /

September 9, 1992 OFFICE OF THE

-SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor Executive Director for gerations FROM: Samuel J. Chilk', Secre J h7-

SUBJECT:

ENHANCED PARTICIPATORY (PI OCESS -

The Commission (with all Commissioners. agreeing)'has agreed that an issue should be added to the Rulemaking Issues-Paper included in SECY-92-249-which would discuss exceptional cases in which it may not be practical or feasible to release a site for unrestricted use. While recognizing that " unrestricted release" is a requirenent of existing regulations, the staff should focus on the potential need to address exceptional cases where it may not be practical to release a-site for unrestricted use. For application to specific cases,-as the need may arise, the staff should identify and briefly examine a-range of.possible release-limits in combination with_a range of options such as deed restrictions, deed notices, well-drilling restrictions, well-use ,

advisories, building permits, long-term monitoring or industrial use only.

This topic should be included in the Rulemaking Issues Paper when it is published in order to be open for discussion during the i workshops. Further Commission guidance will be provided in the context of SECY-92-249.

l cc: The_ Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC 'i OIG u

3 i

9211200038 921028 ,

.PDR' 10CFR ~

PT9.7 PDR j

% a 5 La -, a ,J 2 ..a a 4

, I' .

L ENCLOSURE A: FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 9

^ -,- a . g

1 5

a 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 ootained 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, he ycoposed Crheria, u>eo,\d 66Y gly M Waninw (or ob esone, mdcria.\) miges and mi\\ %ikigs, high level' Waste.. (v,p,*i bcies, d

The Enhanc.ed Participatory Rulemakinc op \ g \c,y e,l g)ggg d $$ p 60.$ k N i ti C.5 .

The commission believes it is desirable to provide for early and comprehensive input from affected interests on important-public.

i 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 Lis 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 will' consider i-b

' 12 source manuf acturers, and the university research cormunity, o Decommissioning contractors - In order to ensure that information on decoraissioning costs and methods are presented in the workshops, the NRC staff has contacted several of the companies that perform decommissioning work in regard to workshop participation. This category includes companies by the Brokers and Processors Association, represented companies that perform large scale decommissioning work, and consultants with expartise on the costs of decommissioning.

o Federal agencies - The NRC 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 participate in the workshops, but also 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 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 ed decommissioning,

-c f federel facilitier L The Commission believes that this consultative approach with EPA vill be an efficient way to I

_ _ ._ _ _ _ . _ . ~ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . . . _ . ..m.. . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _

^

13.

utilize federal resources in developing an- ef fective and consistent federal approach to decommissioning standards.

The NRC staff has also had several discussions with the Department of Energy (DOE) about the enhanced partic'ipatory rulemaking process and potential DOE participation in ' the workshops. DOE has indicated a preliminary interest in participating in the national workshop. Although_- the Commission's decommissioning standards will generally not be m\\ch\e- facilities, DOE possesses substantial directly g to DOE expertise in the decommissioning area that will be a useful source of information in the national workshop.fThe staff has also discussed the new rulemaking initiative with several)-

agencies and interagency coordinating other federal committees. The NRC staff anticipates that federal agency ,

participation will occur in the national workshop.

o Professional societies -

The NRC - staf f 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.

1 It 46wid be, noted Nt ander-k Emedy utnital Sik bnee l

(,FMRAP), and in sme, dhec ci n u m 4 +a.n c.e 3 , .

Ackn bpm toe ma,y Ak 4itle. to a, W.4.nsee 's e Ormer licensee's [

4In O deanup and long ierm care.,_ 'meluding monHorin3_.

14 Workshoo Location, Schedule, and Format.

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 tha 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 interact with organizations with which it has net 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 I well as to maximize participation in the workshops.. The dates for i

l 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 l

l and logistical contract. Notification of the specific dates and l

meeting locations will be announced through publication in the Federal Register and letters to individual participants. The i

I

17 of technical discussion that can be expected at the workshops. The workshop discussions are intended to be used by the staff in developing the draft proposed rule and prior to the workshops no staff positions will be taken on the rulemaking approaches and issues 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 m

sessions, The discussion of issues is divided into two parts. First 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)

Vdup above_ uMch tht N,Y-5 do which is At CMobbhinent af Urnifiq- Oc 00ted-and criteria cr:0 Risk Limits,3t'here a limiting value ne_-ertablished pubut. Art belci' the kl(._it _ %_ng pract_cclity t aucub h considerati CNttria. 4ens;:+)rdeemed be set Mcw OR, anntce tA%

MtMP Ming gat.Scaliiy conddtmtions *, 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 l

July 14,'1992 ENCLOSURE B:~

a g --4 s

PROPOSED RULEMAKING TO ESTABLISH RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR DECOMMISSIONING-ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AT WORKSHOPS 1

d Wu f

July 14, 1992 ENCLOSURE B i

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 t'c decontaminate or dispose of the radioactivity during decomissioning.

Several hundred NRC and Agreement State licenses are terminated each year.

The majority of these licenses involve limited operations, produce little or no radioactive contaminktion, and do not present complex decomissioning 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 wil? reach the end of their useful lives and have to be decomissioned. Thus both the number and complexity of facilities that will require decomissioning is expected to increase.

The NRC has a program underway to effect timely decomissioning of about 40 problem sites which either have not been decomissioned properly or have been engaged in the decomissioning process for an extended time. The Comission has established a Site Decomissioning Management Plan (SDHP) for effecting timely decomissioning of these problem facilities. Sites being handled under the SDMP vary in degree of radiologic hazard, cleanup complexity, and ccst.

Some sites comprise hundreds of acres that require assessment for 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 unalle or unwilling to perform cleanup. These sites also vary in degree of comp 1 ion of decomissioning.

At some sit'es, little or no decontamination work has een done, whereas at other sites, decomissioning plans have been submitted license termination is in the offing.

(ng aro.niu.m or OW eMMe- moitdo.h s

ENCL.05URE B Guly 14, 1992 The effort to have these SDMP sites cleaned up and decommissioned has been hampered in part because licensees view the absence of definitive decontamination criteria as an incentive to defer decommissioning pending issuance of formal NRC requirements. The General Accounting Office (GAD),

which has been critical of the Comission's inability to effect timely decomissioning of these sites, has recomended that NRC enhance its decomissioning efforts by reconsidering its radiological criteria for decomissioning'.

Until new criteria are in place, the Commission intends o proceed with decomissioning nuclear facilities on a site-specif c asis as the need arises _

f049. 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 Commission'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-specific3 asis 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 Reoister.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 establ,shed in this rulemaking, provided that the licensee or responsible party cleaned up the site, or was in the process of 3 cleaning up the site under an NRC-approved decommissioning 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 established on a case specific basis, and the NRC staff is not aware of other international efforts similar to this rulemaking to define radiological criteria for i

' GAO Report to Congress, "NRC's Decommissioning Procedures and Criteria Need to Be Strengthened", GA0/RCED-89-Il9, May 1989 8

57 FR 13389, April 16, 1992.

6

i July 14,1992 ENCLOSURE B

. 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 decomissioned. The Comission 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 decomissioning activities anticipated in the future. In addition, a rulemaking effort would also provide the pub 1!: :nd Stere:t gr: p:0 an opportunity to reassess r.d ec=:n" : the basis for the residual -curf:::".

contamination levels contained in existing guidance in light of changes in 3

basic radiation protection standards and decomissioning experience obt'ained during the past 15 years.

Current regulations do not explicitly address radiological criteria for decomissioning.' Pending NRC rulemaking on generic radiological criteria for decommissioning, the NRC continues to use its current criteri; and practices.5 The NRC could continue to decomission 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 Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities (53 FR 24018, 27 June 1988). However, this rule did not specifically address radiological criteria for decomissioned sites.

5 Regulatory guidance, criteria, and practices include the following 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 an indefinite moratorium on implementation of its BRC Policy. 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 apprsach 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 +. heir 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 thess objectives.

PROPOSED COMMISSION ACTIONS b figcted and groted by Ot, Cemdssion 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 coments by the NRC staff, ar d preparation of a final rule, as appropriate, for Commission approval.hhe NRC staff plans to enhance participation in this process through a series of workshops for interested parties. The workshops are planned to elicit infermed discussions of options and approaches, and the rationale for. options and approaches. While these workshops are not designed 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 following objectives: ~a ) to ensure that the relevant-issues have been I identified; b) to exchange information on these issues; and c) identify underlying concerns and areas of disagreement, and, where possible, approaches for resolution. It is the Commission's hope that the interactions that will

~

9 l

1

ENCLOSURE B July 14, 1992

• approach taken by the Comission 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 Comission! These documents will be revised as necessary to conform to the final criteria, in addition to the activities directly supporting a rulemaking action on decomissioning criteria, the NRC has a nt.r.oer of other rclated activities in progress in the general area of decomissioning. These activities include:

(i) rulemaking to define the timeliness of decomissioning, (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 he discussions on radiological criteria for decomissioning.

2O.302,and ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Before the Comission formally proposes to proceed with rulemaking as described ab ve, it is prepared to consider a wide range of alternative approaches, including maintaining the status E2 The basic question before the Comission is, "What level or levels of risk, dose, residual radioactivity, or other decomissioning criteria, would provide acceptable protection of health and tafety and the environment?" The answer to this question must be reasontbie and practical to implement and to enforce for the broad range of facilities which require decomissioning.

The Comission believes that the key issues and sub-issues discussed below are at the foundation of the besic question posed above. Therefore, the Comission solicits coments and information on them issues before proceeding with a proposed ruiemaking. These issues, and other relevant and substantial issues identified by interested partics, will serve as the basis of discussion at a series of w' ' kops. , . hop participants will be expected to present 11

July 14,1992 M (M. MO "" n M uch N # " ENCLO$tlRE B' -

. 4, cpsi, 41 - to cA /*

WA9 ccM *Aer cAA: to* 6e vnost wmW of pWc. 64okee 9 20) applied after the constraint was met. This approach is similar to the approach already utilized b) the HRC in establishing criteria for effluents from nuclear power plants in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 1 and by the Environmental Protection Agency in the generally applicable enviranmental standards such as 40 CFR Part 190 and in 40 CFR Part 61, the regulations implementing the clean nir Act. EPA's Clean Air Act regulations, however, u.ed a much lower risk limit (3 x 10 lifetime risk of fatal cancer) than ICRP, NR and its own previously proinulgated 40 CFR Part 190.

ClardY ar Sticle Ne seah . k basis akt) bMe) .

The Risk Goals objective was recently applied by the Environme al Protection ,

Agency in the selection of values for radionuclides in drinkir water. In its proposal, the EPA established maximum contaminant level galld'for radionuclide .

levels, then established maximum contaminant levels which were greater than the goals in recognizing factors such as availabili of technology, costs to remove radionuclides, numbers of indiv d s involyp, etc.#

r 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 r repose o r k ject at houl b ns r ch a P 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 L.iability Act (CERCLA also known es "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 rulemaking on the identification of hazardous waste which included, as an- .

option, the use of multiples of these health based limits in determining the dhis is an extreme application of the risk goal principle, because the:

l risk goal was legislatively set equal to zero, it is recognized that thepe goals may not be literally achievable. Fuc6wenore, cubien ks twMted-Oom nd clish sshin) betWten igeIS and goals .

3

July 14,1992 ENCLOSURE B appropriate approach to management of the waste as hazardous or other solid

~

waste. % IS pro psecl g roa dn hio N+ yof been 'Wplemoded N M '

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 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 Dose Equivalent (TEDE/y) (exclusive of doses from radon and its daughter products).

4he,15est E$d' The Clean Air Act proposed EPA regulations provide practical examples 0 the application of[eMregulatory principle Among other things, the Clean l Air Act requires the EPA Administrator to setgstandards 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 (GACT), and best demonstrated technology (BOT), and each of these concepts includeconsiderationsofcostandother[listedintheCleanAirAct.

fachte.,

bublicLaw 101-549 (104 STAT. 2399) November 15, 1990, (Clean Air Act of 1990 Sections 111 and 112),

trFor 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 jVOC) Emissions from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry s30 CHI) Reactor Processes" (Proposed Rule).

17 I

July 14, 1992 ENCLOSURE B The Return to Background objective for clean-up of facilities has been applied particularly f or chemical hazards which do not normally exist in nature, and the approach of ten taken is to establish tk 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, or re$ed eher+eds oh There may be some sites where the cost of meeting the cted criteria would be exorbitant. Consideration should be given to the disp ition of such sites. Such sites could be handled in a manner similar t the way the Commission deals with uranium mill tailings sites under the p' ovisions of the Uranium Hill 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. EfA's CURCLAhfebd

?himm also 411:45 cost b be, a considtcabn in sitt clean y i bWrNto est- is 4ythTMy e nd a Considtedien

• 4Aseveral RtRA f CleantoWcodifying underapproaches possible Mte Att CWOcal oc criteria forfa{e I)chMap rad (iolog! f dkohshonik, e a'p$roachNo' establish limits in terms of dose in the regulation and tb provide listings of specific residual radioactivity levels for 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 g.,

radioactivity for each radionuclide of concern as part of the regulation. A l Risk Goal could be codified in terms of a dose or a risk, or alternatively, as specified levels of radioactivity. 44m44ar4yt1f the chosen deramissioning objective were Best Effort, then the method of determining the appropriate technology could be codified or the technology itself could be codified. For i

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.

l L froccckwedy md \ega.\\y Orte nee' 18 in** Act und o dese is ,

(fimuily h(pwA). Lpeuwwowed co $ h$t Temon5%ted

ENCLOSURE B July 14, 2992

c. If the Commission chooses a Best Effort objective as its basis for establishing criteria, what level of technological availability should be used? How of ten should the applicable areas of technology be updated for this criteria? What criteria should govern the number of 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 significantiy more efficient in 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 estWilshing 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? Shouid the Commission consider combinations of the fundamental objectives and if so, which combinations and on what basis?

g med ab ut

3. What role ',hould EPA initiatives play in setting objectives? for example, the EPA {hn Um:d rig a 10" lifetime risk of fatal cancer for members of the most highly exposed population group and a general lifetime 4

risk level on the order of 10 as a basis for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 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

- - _. - _ _ . - = _ . - . . - _ - _

July 14, 1992 ENCLOSURE B objectives that should be considered, such as EPA standards related to RCRA and CERCLA 7 4 c h g g g 9 ejy d i m e N$k kvd5.

4. What consideration should be given to standards or objectives proposed or adopted by other groups (e.g. International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA))?

5. What should be done in those cases where sites cannot reasonably be decontaminated to the point where they ""' meet the C:rin4:r': b:;ic t

=0bjective fer-decer!::! r%g?t are, grogcMt f*r udiM us&T

6. How prescriptive should the regulation on radiological criteria for decommission 4eg 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 11. If the Commission were to adopt either the Risk Limit objective or the Risk Goal objective in its radiological criteria for decommissioning rule, how should practicality considerations be applied?

Discussion:

ALARA is an acronym for n let n reasonably achievable and means making every reasonable effort to reduce or maintain exposures to rcdiation as far below established dose limits as is practical taking into account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to the sthte 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 21

ENCLOSURE B i July 14,1992

~

l

. traditionally used in radiation protection ( Risk Limit objective based) are also the f actors 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 oractical process (that is, cost r

versus benefit enluation process) of reaching either the lowest acceptable F risk below an Risk Limit or the lowest risk above a Risk Goal as discussed in Issue I, t

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 recommendations 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." DI5 NE rdam4ln 15 W ne condM W 08-Mosec Egy At, which alleWs conddecailen 4 ALNk A trovided 04- TOI i

bethh and ca(efy are occhc4ed.

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-specific 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.  !

i 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 .

"L2 FR 2822, January 27, 1987.

"56 FR 7750, February 25, 1991.

22 l

l l

L:

C, . . - - _ , , - _ . ~ .

July 14, 1992 ENCLOSURE B

-

• Coclih i In developing criteria for decommissioning, the3 definition of decomissioning, i.e. to reduce radioactive materials levels to a point where the site is ~

suitable for unrestricted use, becomes important.flhe Commission believes g Shat the meaning of unrestricted should follow directly from the dictionary)

Ldefinitions. That is[/nce 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, .... ..............

currer:tly believe: thW consideratioIhalso g 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 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.

Sub-issues-

1. Should the Commission base its considerations on a theoretical, maximally exposed individual, or upon some type of " critical group" approach?

What endpoint (s), such as cancer fatalities or cancer incidence, genetic effects, etc., should be used in establishing the radiological criteria?

27

1 ENCLOSURE B July 14, 1992 '

buis k Md5 a.qtco d M If a separate limi goal were chosen for groundwater, then details of the  ;

method for estimati ,9 doses or risk due to water use at future times after '

decommissioning wou d be required. One method could be to establish Generic Site Inventory level, as a screening criterion based upon an analysis for l

a generic site. Thegen0Mm; i: dd be that residual radioactivity from sites meeting these generic screening levels would not be expected to contamihate 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 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 l 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 standardso cOe#

Crhtrio. otedNed in Ot mle .

Sub-issues:

1. What consideration should be given tt, the. potential for cumulative 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?

sa A Generic Site Inventory Level would be total amount of radioactive

- material from the licensed operation which could be left at a decomissioned-site without having to conduct a site specific analysis to determine whether allowing this radioactive material to remain at the site might result in e contamination of drinking water supplies. h :::::: :f EPA :tc h d::.

30 MarcedaMt -

y ,, - y,#.- ,,--yy,-- .-,,y--.,-,,r,I, ,y4 ,, . . . . , ,w-_,, -.+...s_-E---'

ENCLOSURE B July 14, 1992

, .- $buld Oe., g As (e such tests k 7

. 3. If the Commission chooses specific criteri or groundwater or water use, should it establish Generic Site Inventory Levels for screening residual radioactivity at decommissioned sites?P d(to provide reasonable assurance that EPA drinking water standards will not be exceeded? IfOct.jhoulda single Generic Site Inventory Level be established for all sites, or should levels be tailored to specific class of decommissioned sites (e.g., all 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?

Secondary issue C.: for sites where uranium, radium or thorium contamination may have resulted from licensed activities, how should exposures from radon (WRn and WRn) and its decay products be considered when the fact 1ity is decommissioned?

Discussion:

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 present due to naturally occurring radium within or under the building. Radon concentrations from 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

July 14,1992 ENCLOSVRE B l

. o ,

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."

Sub-issues:

1. For sites where licensed activities have involved uranium, thorium, or other materials which decay to radon, are there oractical and 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 (10 CFR Part 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 10 CFR Part 20 (100 mrem /y)? Alternatively, should the Commission require licensees to reduce doses from radon and its daughter a 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 l What to do About It," EPA-86-0004, Office of Air and Radiation; U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services; Centers for Disease Contro1 A 4860.

33 .

(

qdde., Junt M Vet' den d 1

i

ENCLOSURE B July 14, 1992  ;

The requirements in 10 CFR Part120 do not explicitly limit the quantity or r.oncentration of the radioactive material. Past practices have limited approvals to small concentrations of radioactive material and correspondingly- '

low to very low potential doses to members of the public and the environment.

i Maximum potential doses have generally been less than a few millirem per ,

year.  !

Sub-issues:

1. When preparing their sites for decommissioning, should licensees be  ;

required to consider radioactive materials disposed of on-site in accordance

with provisions of HRC or Agreement State-regulations as residual radioactivity to be removed from the site before decommissioning?  ;

2. Should a site specific analysis of the risks, costs, and benefits $d44e I be performed before a decision is made to exhume any material previously disposed of at a site?

l f

e F

(

I F

r 13 5 i

-h e,ae'N e y v w v 4 E-+= -ga*-r->ese-

->c--- er-or - r wr g tw-u- '7** Fr g- t-